Implications of Woodfuel Use for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Regional Study on Wood Energy Today and Tomorrow

CO2 Emissions - Example: Benefits of Wood Energy Development - Global Environment Policy - Summary for 16 RWEDP Countries

The implications of woodfuel use for the global environment can be evaluated by estimating the associated greenhouse gas emissions. As CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, it only (carbon-dioxide) will be considered here, leaving aside gases like methane and other carbon-hydrogens. Any emissions caused by woodfuels can be compared with emissions from alternative fuels.

Though combusting wood emits CO2 into the atmosphere, regrowth of wood captures CO2 from the atmosphere. As a first approximation it can be stated that woodfuel use is carbon neutral, i.e. there is no net emission of carbon into the environment. The approximation is supported by the evidence of two dominant mechanisms. First, most woodfuel use takes place on a sustainable basis. This applies to the use of virtually all woodfuels originating from non-forest land (e.g. agriculture land, plantations and homegardens), and to the use of most of the woodfuels from forest land. Sustainability implies carbon neutrality, because the same amount of CO2 emitted by wood combustion, is recaptured from the atmosphere by regrowth of wood. Second, leftovers from non-sustainable logging and land conversion, if not used as fuel (or for other purposes) would simply decompose by natural processes, and lead to the same amount of carbon emitted in the atmosphere if the woody material were to be combusted (though not necessarily distributed amongst CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases in the same way).

Obviously, if woodfuels were not utilised, some alternative energy source would be required and used. For most applications and in most countries, the hypothetical alternative would be a fossil fuel, i.e. coal, gas, or oil products. For few applications and in few countries, hydro and wind power could be the hypothetical alternative, whereas within the next 15 years or so the option of other renewables like solar photo-voltaics is likely to be negligible in terms of energy quantity. The effects of fossil fuel use on the global atmosphere have been well documented. Typical data for the emission of CO2 per fuel and per unit of energy are available from the LEAP Environmental Database (SEI, 1995). Furthermore, the other renewable energy sources are considered to be carbon neutral, like wood.

The implications of woodfuel use in Asia for the global environment can then be evaluated by estimating how much CO2 emission from hypothetical alternatives is avoided by woodfuel use. The most likely (or least unlikely) mix of alternative energy sources varies per country. For the purpose of the present study, LPG can be considered the alternative. This leads to a simplistic though conservative estimate, because per unit of energy coal emits about 33% more and kerosene 7% more CO2 than LPG1. The results are summarised in Table 9.1 and presented fully in Table 9.2. Switching between wood and other biomass fuels like agroresidues is ignored, because carbon neutrality applies to the other biomass fuels for the same reasons as for wood.

From Table 9.2 it is seen that in 1994 woodfuel use aggregated for the RWEDP member-countries results in avoided emission of about 277,683 kton CO2 per annum as compared to hypothetical LPG use. This equals an average of 6 percent of the current CO2 emission due to total fuel use in the same countries. By the year 2010 the figures would be 349,615 kton and 3% on average, respectively.

The economic benefit of current woodfuel use in Asia for the global environment can be appreciated by estimating the cost which would otherwise be required for avoiding or recapturing the emitted CO2 from the atmosphere. Cost estimates for the latter vary a lot, depending on conditions and technological options (like removal, storage, recapturing, avoiding, etc., of the CO2). Based on IPCC estimates (IPCC, 1997) 50 US$ per ton avoided/recaptured CO2 is a typical figure within the present range of options. Hence, it can be estimated that in 1994 about 14 billion US$ and in 2010 about 17 billion US$, for CO2-related costs are avoided by woodfuel use in RWEDP member-countries.

The above estimates allow us to evaluate the benefits of a wood energy development programme like RWEDP for the global environment. RWEDP incorporates, amongst others, various activities in wood energy conservation, e.g. the promotion of improved stoves. This is being achieved in co-operation with government institutions, NGO's and donor agencies. When conservation is achieved, the ever increasing energy demand in the region can partly be met by available woodfuels, rather than fully resorting to additional fossil fuel with their associated CO2 emissions. However, as firm data on achievements in wood energy conservation are not (yet) available, some assumptions have to be made2.

The break-even point of a programme like RWEDP in terms of costs versus benefits for the global environment can be estimated as follows. On the cost side, the Dutch Government through FAO has allocated to RWEDP a total of 15.2 million US$ over the period 1984-1999. On the benefit side, the same figure as above (50 US$/ton) for recapturing/avoiding CO2 from the atmosphere can be applied. 'Environmental break-even' can thus be calculated for RWEDP in terms of avoided CO2. This leads to the following results:

• If break-even is to be reached within, say, 10 years, a modest annual contribution from RWEDP of only 0.01% to wood energy conservation in the region would suffice. In fact, claiming such a limited impact seems to be very modest, perhaps even unrealistically small.
• If alternatively, the contribution of RWEDP to wood energy conservation in the region is assumed to be, say, 0.1% (which still seems to be modest3), the pay-back period of RWEDP would be only 11 months.

It should be noted that RWEDP has several objectives other than contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, RWEDP's activities aim to support 6 sectoral priorities, of which only one is the environment, both locally and globally.

For comparison it is noted that the Government of The Netherlands has allocated the equivalent of 375 million US$ in its national budget for 1997 in order to achieve reduction of 15,290 kton CO2 emissions into the global atmosphere in 5 years time, i.e. 3,058 kton per annum (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Protection and Fisheries, 1997). This implies that the budget allows for a cost of 123 US$/ton CO2. The programme will be implemented jointly by three Ministries (Economic Affairs, Environment, and Agriculture). It is quite likely that the same effect in terms of avoiding global CO2 emission can be achieved by the Ministry for Development Cooperation and FAO via a dedicated wood energy conservation programme in Asia with a limited budget.

9.3 Global Environmental Policy

Many general policies regarding wood energy and environment are still based on the exceptional cases, i.e. the relatively few areas where woodfuel use is not sustainable. This even leads to donor policies for promotion of fuel transition, i.e. away from woodfuel towards fossil fuels or towards expensive forms of renewable energy. However, from available evidence it must be concluded that most woodfuel use takes place on a sustainable basis. Therefore it is more beneficial if people stick to the practice of woodfuel use for their daily needs. In terms of quantity of avoided CO2 emission, the very fact of using wood energy by the majority of people is even more important than adoption of efficient wood stoves by a limited number of users. This observation may redirect priorities within wood energy conservation programmes. Rather than targeting at maximum efficiency of stoves with associated price increase of appliances, priorities should be for convenience, health and overall attractivity at affordable prices, so as to reach the maximum number of wood energy users. For areas where, indeed, woodfuel practices are not sustainable, tailor-made programmes should be designed.

As far as carbon sequestration through reforestation, afforestation and/or forest rehabilitation is an objective of present global environmental policies, it is obvious that such forest-related activities will be economically more feasible when the new or upgraded forest resource base will be available for sustainable use of wood and non-wood products. Sustainable woodfuel use qualifies as one of the prime applications in this context.

The above policy considerations are not only relevant for international agencies, but also for forest policy makers in Asia and the Pacific for an outlook to the year 2010. Further programmes and projects targeting wood energy development could be prepared and justified with a view to substantial global environmental benefits, not only for present RWEDP member-countries, but also for other countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Table 9.1: Summary for 16 RWEDP countries

Back to the top

Table of Contents