Carbon Accounting for Biofuels Technical Workshop
Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 28 May 2024
Participants in the Carbon Accounting Workshop, held in conjunction with the G20 Energy Transition Working Group meetings in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, reached consensus on the recommendations below. Please send questions or comments to Divisão de Energia Renovável (DER)-Itamaraty der@itamaraty.gov.br and events@biofutureplatform.org
=================
GHG accounting is an area of active international collaboration. Improvements in the consistency and comparability of GHG and carbon accounting methods can be furthered with G20 support for guidelines such as:
1. GHG and carbon accounting rely on Lifecycle Assessment (LCA). Input data and methodology for LCAs must be transparent, evidence-based, and verifiable.
2. For LCA or other technical-economic assessment results to be comparable, consistent system boundaries must be applied.
3. International standards exist for quantifying the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions footprint of biofuels, and for assessing biofuel sustainability. Such standards recommend the use of “best available data,”1 emphasizing that data must be representative of the system being assessed.
4. LCA methods are recognized as being robust with the notable exception of potential or induced effects such as indirect land-use change (ILUC). International collaborations are constantly improving the transparency and consistency of LCA methods including those associated with allocation, carbon removals, and carbon credits.
5. Quantitative ILUC values cannot be directly measured or scientifically verified.
6. Quantitative ILUC factors shall be avoided in GHG accounting as they have not been proven to provide consistent results across models or to support effective actions for reducing LUC emissions.
7. Action is urgently needed to unlock innovation, investment and sustainable bioenergy production using robust, credible and effective mechanisms.
8. Performance-based mechanisms should rely on verifiable metrics that are technology-neutral and feedstock-agnostic.
9. The G20 must show leadership by promoting consistent political guidance for GHG accounting and to identify and share alternatives such as the ILUC risk-based approach, or direct measurements, that are more effective and broadly applicable for global implementation.
——
1 “Best available data” are defined in ASTM International Standard E3256 (2022) Relative Sustainability as follows: publicly accessible, credible sources that can be explicitly cited for replicable analyses that strive to represent local contexts and situations. The qualities of source data used in LCA should be documented (additional guidance is available in this standard for how to systematically document data qualities).
=================
Next steps
The nine recommendations above incorporate comments that were received from participants as of 20-Sep-2024, based on iterations of the initial consensus statements distributed to all workshop participants by DER. As suggested during the Belo Horizonte workshop, participants are encouraged to share these recommendations and workshop synthesis report via their professional and social networks and sponsors.
Suggestions for next steps to continue improving GHG and carbon accounting for sustainable fuels are welcome, as the CEM Biofuture team will be preparing an Action Plan for 2025. Please send your to events@biofutureplatform.org and facilitator@biofutureplatform.org The CEM Biofuture team welcomes ideas for specific actions that would effectively promote adoption of transparent, practical, science-based standards to enable trade and investment for sustainable fuels. What can we do to better inform decision making and increase beneficial effects of Biofuture? What future processes and events should we target for interventions?
We note that one potential follow-on task is to collaborate with private sector partners to document actual supply chain carbon intensities via a draft paper for peer-reviewed journal publication.
Finally, we thank and acknowledge that the review process for the Workshop Report generated valuable additional suggestions and perspectives from participants that merit a follow-up discussion in an appropriate venue.
