5.5.3. Associated Impacts of Carbon Substitution Projects
Projects that use short-rotation tree plantations as woody biomass energy sources
have equivalent associated impacts to the managed plantation projects described
in Section 5.5.2. There are also a broad range of prospective
environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the production of biomass
energy from agricultural crops, such as sugarcane and corn, and oil crops such
as soybeans. The impacts of substitution projects can occur on-site (where projects
are located) or off-site (where electricity or fuel supply is offset). On-site
impacts include local environmental and socioeconomic benefits of the forestry
and energy generation components of a bioenergy project. The environmental impacts
can include reclamation of degraded lands; potential promotion of biodiversity,
provided part of the plantation area is left for natural regeneration (Carpentieri
et al., 1993); and reduction of pressure on primary forests to the extent
that fuelwood derived from such sources is replaced by other energy sources.
Rural bioenergy programs can also help local communities achieve self-reliance
and decentralize political power by giving control of resources to the local
community (Ravindranath and Hall, 1995).
Provision of small-scale bioenergy in place of wood may often directly benefit
women more than men. The foregoing options will decrease the labor and time
needed to gather wood and reduce indoor air pollution from smoke (a recognized
health hazard). The success of rural projects depends on equitable distribution
of benefits that community involvement in rural energy projects can provide
(Agarwal and Narain, 1989). On-site energy generation can increase the production
of local pollutants. Well-designed projects, however, can offset another more-polluting
local source-as in the Bio-Gen Biomass Power Generation Project in Honduras.
There, emission control technologies are used to produce fewer pollutants than
would have been emitted in the non-project case, with the continued uncontrolled
burning of sawmill and logging residues. Giampietro et al. (1997) provide
a more general discussion of the environmental impacts of biofuel production.
In conclusion, LULUCF GHG mitigation projects are neither inherently good nor
inherently bad in terms of potential environmental and socioeconomic co-benefits.
Adequately designed and implemented, projects in each major category can provide
significant socioeconomic and environmental benefits to host countries and local
communities, though projects of all types pose some risk of negative impacts.
Section 5.6 addresses how the sustainable development
contributions of these projects can be strengthened and the negative impacts