It is arguably beyond controversy that shifting to a global bio-based economy, with an increased demand for food, fuel and fibre will put more pressure on land resources. However, when it comes to measuring this pressure at the product level, as it is done in life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprinting (CF), this has been and still is subject to debate, especially regarding the modelling/estimation of indirect land use change (iLUC). In order to understand the concept of iLUC, it must be realised that there are two types of land use change (LUC) i.e. direct land use change (dLUC) and indirect land use change (iLUC). LUC as a whole can be defined as a change in the purpose for which land is used by humans. We talk about dLUC when the change takes places directly within the land that is being used, whereas we talk about iLUC when the change takes place elsewhere, as a consequence of our using the land
............
* see also the GCB Bioenergy, Letter to editor (2014)
The authors argue that iLUC can be assessed consistently with other indirect effects, while acknowledging uncertainty in models and data. They agree that relying on a single iLUC factor is poor scientific practice. They present assessment as complementary to mitigation. This 2014 paper is a point-by-point rebuttal, not a neutral review.
