Next week the European Commission will present new proposals for climate legislation. Just like in the Netherlands, biomass is now also causing heated discussion in Brussels.
In Brussels, they are not likely to be surprised by a major lobbying offensive – certainly not with new environmental regulations. Whether it concerns car manufacturers, airlines, NGOs or civil society organizations: when a new bill is introduced, they increase the pressure in Brussels.
But even seasoned officials are surprised that it is precisely this one part of the upcoming mega package of new climate laws that is being so fiercely contested: the role of biomass and the fate of European forests.
However, for those who have followed the climate discussion in the Netherlands in recent years, it is not such a big surprise. Energy generated by burning wood chips or other plant material is in principle considered 'renewable'. But the debate about how sustainable biomass really is and whether the government should encourage the construction of biomass power stations has been going on in the Netherlands for some time – and is heated.
The same discussion now also has Brussels in its grip. Next week the Commission will present proposals for amending the legislation on renewable energy, and in the run-up to this, biomass is one of the most sensitive issues. Lobbyists and activists bombard officials, diplomats and journalists with reports and letters. And large posters recently appeared around the European Parliament with photos of a destroyed forest next to the image of European Commissioner Frans Timmermans (Climate). The text: 'The EU burns forests for fuel'.
It is certain that biomass is an important part of the EU's sustainable ambitions. The share of renewable energy in the EU has slowly grown to 20 percent in recent years and more than half of this comes from biomass. Now that the targets for sustainable energy are being significantly increased, the EU must use more biomass.
Criticism of 'woody' biomass
At the same time, criticism has rapidly increased regarding 'woody' biomass: burning trees to generate energy. The CO2emissions are significant and critics argue that the growth of new trees takes too long to compensate for this.
The rapid growth of this form of energy has also led to massive logging in parts of Europe. This also increases concerns about the consequences for biodiversity. “This policy combines the worst of both worlds,” says Martin Pigeon of the forest-focused NGO Fern. “On the one hand, you use an energy source that emits the most CO2 produces, and in doing so you also destroy the forests that have to absorb carbon.”
In addition, wood is becoming an increasingly important raw material in an economy that wants to get rid of polluting materials such as plastic and steel.
This has made biomass a headache for Brussels. “We won't make it without biomass,” Timmermans recently acknowledged in an interview with news site Euractiv. At the same time, he recognized the 'biodiversity challenge' associated with biomass and the 'ecocide' that threatens forests. “I do not underestimate the challenge, but believe that biomass can play a useful role in the energy transition.”
However, the Commission wants to tighten the rules for its use. An early version of the proposals was recently leaked, in which the 'sustainability criteria' have been strengthened. For example, burning wood from primeval forests and other 'no-go areas' is no longer sustainable. And smaller combustion plants also have to adhere to stricter rules. Member States are discouraged from using high-quality wood for energy production.
Powerful lobby
Climate NGOs and activists were outraged: the measures would not be nearly enough to prevent large-scale felling and burning of forests. A manifesto to ban biomass completely already has almost 250.000 signatures.
In contrast, there is a powerful lobby from the forestry and pellet industry, which EU countries such as Sweden, Finland and Estonia support. They don't want to touch the rules. A spokesperson for pellet manufacturer Enviva emphasizes that adjustment should be made “with a scalpel, not a hammer.” “A credible and predictable policy is crucial to maintain investor confidence in financing sustainable energy.”
Officials acknowledge that things are also brewing in the European Commission. Also because there is a lot of money involved. Since biomass was classified as renewable energy in 2009, EU governments have been able to provide subsidies for it more easily. In 2018, the sector was supported with more than 10 billion euros. “It really is a tough fight, where the interests differ considerably,” says Pigeon. “The industry is divided: some suppliers of wood for other processing are concerned about the distortive subsidies.”
The Netherlands wants the to stop subsidizing woody biomass. And it seems certain that Brussels will tighten the subsidy rules. “We see that due to the subsidies, a decision in Estonia, for example, turns out differently than it should have,” Diederik Samsom, a top civil servant under Timmermans, recently acknowledged to members of Parliament. According to him, the result is that it was too lucrative to sell trees to the Netherlands, for example. The new rules will therefore prescribe “that you can no longer subsidize wood that could have been used in a better way than by setting it on fire.”
