Bioenergy crops are often classified (and subsequently regulated) according to species that have been evaluated as environmentally beneficial or detrimental, but in practice, management decisions rather than species per se can determine the overall environmental impact of a bioenergy production system. Here, we review the greenhouse gas balance and 'management swing potential' of seven different bioenergy cropping systems in temperate and tropical regions. Prior land use, harvesting techniques, harvest timing, and fertilization are among the key management considerations that can swing the greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy from positive to negative or the reverse. Although the management swing potential is substantial for many cropping systems, there are some species (e.g., soybean) that have such low bioenergy yield potentials that the environmental impact is unlikely to be reversed by management. High-yielding bioenergy crops (e.g., corn, sugarcane, Miscanthus, and fast-growing tree species), however, can be managed for environmental benefits or losses, suggesting that the bioenergy sector would be better informed by incorporating management-based evaluations into classifications of bioenergy feedstocks.

The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy‐making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system‐level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short‐term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium‐ to long‐term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy.

Abstract:To quantify the climate change impacts of forestry and forest management options, we must consider the entire forestry system: the carbon dynamics of the forest, the life cycle of harvested wood products, and the substitution benefit of using biomass and wood products compared to more greenhouse gas intensive options. This paper presents modelled estimates of the greenhouse gas balance of two key native forest areas managed for production in New South Wales for a period of 200 years, and compares it to the option of managing for conservation only. These two case studies show that forests managed for production provide the greatest ongoing greenhouse gas benefits, with long-term carbon storage in products, and product substitution benefits critical to the outcome. Thus native forests could play a significant part in climate change mitigation, particularly when sustainably managed for production of wood and non-wood products including biomass for bioenergy. The potential role of production forestry in mitigating climate change, though substantial, has been largely overlooked in recent Australian climate change policy.

-Biochar has the potential to make a major contribution to the mitigation of climate change, and enhancement of plant production. However, in order for biochar to fulfill this promise, the industry and regulating bodies must take steps to manage potential environmental threats and address negative perceptions. The potential threats to the sustainability of biochar systems, at each stage of the biochar life cycle, were reviewed. We propose that a sustainability framework for biochar could be adapted from existing frameworks developed for bioenergy. Sustainable land use policies, combined with effective regulation of biochar production facilities and incentives for efficient utilization of energy, and improved knowledge of biochar impacts on ecosystem health and productivity could provide a strong framework for the development of a robust sustainable biochar industry. Sustainability certification could be introduced to provide confidence to consumers that sustainable practices have been employed along the production chain, particularly where biochar is traded internationally.Index terms: climate change, life cycle assessment, risk management, sustainable land management.A certificação de sustentabilidade do "biochar" é a resposta para os riscos ambientais?Resumo -O "biochar" tem potencial para dar uma importante contribuição para a mitigação das mudanças climáticas e para o aumento da produção vegetal. No entanto, para que o "biochar" possa atender a esta expectativa, a indústria e os organismos reguladores devem seguir alguns passos para gerenciar as potenciais ameaças ambientais e abordar as percepções negativas. As ameaças potenciais à sustentabilidade dos sistemas de "biochar", para cada estágio de seu ciclo de vida foram revisadas. Nós propomos que a estrutura da sustentabilidade para o "biochar" poderia ser adaptada de estruturas já existentes, desenvolvidas para a bioenergia. Políticas de uso sustentável da terra, combinadas com a regulação efetiva das instalações de produção do "biochar" e incentivos para a utilização eficiente de energia, além do conhecimento aperfeiçoado dos impactos do "biochar" na saúde e na produtividade do ecossistema, poderiam fornecer uma estrutura robusta para o desenvolvimento de uma indústria sustentável de "biochar". A certificação de sustentabilidade poderia ser introduzida, para proporcionar confiança aos consumidores de que práticas sustentáveis foram empregadas ao longo da cadeia de produção, particularmente onde o "biochar" é comercializado internacionalmente.Termos para indexação: mudanças climáticas, avaliação do ciclo de vida, gerenciamento de risco, gerenciamento sustentável da terra.

No abstract