Senior Ecologist at NORDECO Finn Danielsen is lead author on a new study on biofuel published in the journal Conservation Biology. Here is the press release:

WASHINGTON DC, December 1, 2008 -- Keeping tropical rainforests intact is a better way to combat climate change than replacing them with biofuel plantations, a study in the journal Conservation Biology finds.

The study reveals that it would take at least 75 years for the carbon emissions saved through the use of biofuels to compensate for the carbon lost through forest conversion. And if the original habitat was carbon-rich peatland, the carbon balance would take more than 600 years.  On the other hand, planting biofuels on degraded Imperata grasslands instead of tropical rainforests would lead to a net removal of carbon in 10 years, the authors found. 

The study is the most comprehensive analysis of the impact of oil palm plantations in tropical forests on climate and biodiversity.  The study was undertaken by an international research team of botanists, ecologists and engineers from seven nations.

“Biofuels are a bad deal for forests, wildlife and the climate if they replace tropical rainforests,” said co-author Dr. Neil Burgess of World Wildlife Fund. “In fact, they hasten climate change by removing one of the world’s most efficient carbon storage tools – intact tropical rainforests.”

Biofuels have been touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels, one of the major contributors to global warming. One such biofuel, palm oil, covers 55 million acres, primarily in Southeast Asia, where they have directly or indirectly replaced tropical rainforests, resulting in loss of habitats for species such as rhinos and orangutans and the loss of carbon stored in trees and peatlands.

“Our analysis found that it would take 75 to 93 years to see any benefits to the climate from biofuel plantations on converted tropical forestlands,” said lead author Finn Danielsen of NORDECO in Denmark. “Until then, we will be releasing carbon into the atmosphere by cutting tropical rainforests, in addition to losing valuable plant and animal species. It’s even worse on peatlands, which contain so much carbon that it would be 600 years before we see any benefits whatsoever.”  
“Subsidies to purchase tropical biofuels are given by countries in Europe and North America supposedly to reduce their Greenhouse gas emissions from transport” said Danielsen.  “While these countries strive to meet their obligations under one international agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, they encourage others to increase their emissions as well as breach their obligations under another agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity.”

"At first glance oil palm plantations may appear rich in plants. Comparing the flora of the rain forest with that of oil palm plantations however shows the devastating effect of forest conversion on biodiversity. Major plant groups that thrive in natural rain forest, such as trees, lianas, orchids and native palms, are completely absent.  The plants that do grow abundantly in plantations are mostly common species that like sunshine. Forest plants need shady and undisturbed habitat to survive" said botanist on the work Hendrien Beukema of University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

“Conserving the existing forests is not only good for the climate as the emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced but also generates additional benefits, such as biodiversity protection” said Dr. Daniel Murdiyarso of CIFOR in Indonesia. Tropical forests contain more than half of the Earth’s terrestrial species and Southeast Asia’s forests are among the richest in species. They also store around 46 percent of the world’s living terrestrial carbon and 25 percent of total net global carbon emissions may stem from deforestation.

“It’s a huge contradiction to clear tropical rainforests to grow crops for so-called ‘environmentally friendly’ fuels,” said co-author Faizal Parish of the Global Environment Center, Malaysia. This is not only an issue in South East Asia – in Latin America forests are being cleared for soy production which is even less efficient at biofuel production compared to oil palm. “Reducing deforestation is a much more effective way for countries to reduce climate change while also meeting their obligations to protect biodiversity. Any biofuel plantations in tropical forest regions should be considered only in former forest land which has already been severely degraded to support only grassy vegetation. Care is further needed to prevent such plantations from stimulating further forest degradation in adjacent areas.

The study calls for development of common, global standards for sustainable production of  biofuels.

“Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and Climate” is published online in the journal Conservation Biology on Monday, December 1st 2008.

The paper was authored by: Finn Danielsen  (NORDECO, Denmark), Hendrien Beukema (University of Groningen, Netherlands), Neil D. Burgess (World Wildlife Fund US and University of Cambridge), Faizal Parish (Global Environment Centre, Malaysia), Carsten A. Brühl (University Koblenz-Landau, Germany), Paul F. Donald (RSPB, UK), Daniel Murdiyarso (CIFOR, Indonesia) Ben Phalan (University of Cambridge), Lucas Reijnders (University of Amsterdam, Netherlands), Matthew Struebig (Queen Mary University of London, UK), and Emily Fitzherbert (Zoological Society of London and University of East Anglia, UK).

The Danish national radio broadcasting (DR) had an interview today with Finn Danielsen regarding the study and its results.
This is a direct link to the interview (in Danish).

Photo: M. Struebig