As countries strive to meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions under one international agreement (Kyoto Protocol), they may not only fail to meet their obligations under another (Convention on Biological Diversity) but may actually hasten global climate change.

According to the study, reducing deforestation is likely to represent a more effective climate-change mitigation strategy than converting forest for biofuel production, and it may help nations meet their international commitments to reduce biodiversity loss.

Alternatively, planting biofuels on degraded grasslands instead of tropical rain forests would lead to a net removal of carbon from the atmosphere in 10 years. Any biofuel plantations in tropical forest regions should be considered only in former forestland which has already been severely degraded to support only grassy vegetation.

"The EU and the U.S. should only import and subsidize biofuel from guaranteed sustainable productions and only from countries which can demonstrate that their forests are sustainably managed," says Danielsen.

Tropical forests contain more than half of the Earth's terrestrial 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. There is therefore an inherent contradiction in any strategy to clear tropical forest to grow crops for so-called carbon-neutral fuels.

There are signs that part of the oil-palm industry is trying to minimize the impact its plantations have on biodiversity, but there is currently little effort to mitigate potential climate impacts.

-- Click for more news in Tech Max >>

Editor:Yang Jie