As EU Member States press ahead with implementing the Renewable Energy Directive III (REDIII), they are required to apply the “cascading principle” when awarding subsidies for woody biomass for energy. The idea sounds straightforward — prioritise higher-value uses of wood before lower-value ones — but in practice, it is anything but.
As I’ve written previously, translating the cascading principle into effective regulation has proven challenging. Academic literature and real-world experience both show that attempts to impose rigid hierarchies on biomass can conflict with how markets allocate material in ways that are already efficient, responsive, and aligned with climate goals.
Part of the difficulty lies in the ambiguity of the term itself. Cascading has been variously defined as cascading-in-time, cascading-in-value, or cascading-in-function. REDIII steers toward cascading-in-value, stating that biomass should be used “according to its highest economic and environmental added value.” But “value” is subjective. It varies across sectors, countries, and can shift significantly over time.
I’ve already demonstrated the importance of considering economic factors when implementing cascading—but what of carbon emissions? How should they be factored into determining value? After all, REDIII was revised to help deliver the EU’s 55% emissions reduction target by 2030 and net zero by 2050. This question is even more pressing as the Commission’s Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) also references cascading in the context of certifying removals from Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).
So how do different wood uses compare in carbon terms? A new study by Anthesis, commissioned by Drax, provides some insight. It is a comparative lifecycle assessment (LCA) study that quantifies and compares the net carbon impact of a range of woody biomass use scenarios —including bioenergy for power, and alternatives such as pulp, paper, sustainable aviation fuel, biochar, and construction materials.
The results are compelling. Across both forest and manufacturing residues, even bioenergy for electricity generation without CCS delivers among the highest carbon benefits—often by a wide margin.
When coupled with carbon capture and storage, the performance of BECCS becomes even more striking. Power-BECCS is shown to be over five times more effective at reducing carbon emissions than the best-performing pulp or paper-based scenario. In fact, BECCS delivers carbon benefits on par with long-lived wood products used in construction, with only Oriented Strandboard performing better.
This unlocks a valuable two-sided benefit. First, BECCS delivers firm, dispatchable renewable power alongside durable negative emissions. Second, it does so using low-grade wood fibre and by-products from harvesting operations that primarily supply high-quality timber for long-lived products. By capturing value from material that would otherwise be underutilised, BECCS helps maximise the climate return of each harvest.
This has important implications for the implementation of both REDIII and the CRCF. As policymakers interpret what constitutes “value” when it comes to cascading woody biomass, they must recognise that BECCS stands apart: it delivers permanent carbon removals and firm renewable energy. As a result, while not competing with long-lived solid wood products, it delivers an equivalent carbon benefit. Any credible application of the cascading principle must reflect that and elevate BECCS in the cascade accordingly.
About the author
Andrew Georgiou
Vice-President, Global Policy, USIPA
Andrew Georgiou is Vice-President for Global Policy at the US Industrial Pellet Association (USIPA), a wood energy sector trade association representing members operating in all areas of the wood pellet export industry. With almost 15 years of experience working in politics and public policy he leads USIPA’s engagement with policymakers across Europe, the US and Asia . He sits on the Board of Bioenergy Europe and takes part in a number of working groups on a broad range of biomass policy issues affecting markets across the globe.
