On Tuesday, March 5, the amendment by Member Teunissen (36197-22: ban on biomass from forests for energy generation) was put to a vote in the House of Representatives and rejected. I would like to focus on a few propositions and assumptions that were added to the motion as justification.
One of the assertions is that the production of biomass from forests for electricity generation leads to large-scale deforestation. Apparently, it is assumed that biomass is 'produced'; that is, harvested efficiently. And that is not an accurate picture. My experience focuses primarily on Europe and the Netherlands. I know of no examples in Europe where trees are felled for the sake of wood chip production. As far as I can observe, wood chips are essentially a residual stream. However, trees are felled in forests to produce products for construction and other applications. During timber harvesting, the branches and tops of the trees usually remain behind in the forest. Through decomposition, these branches and tops are converted into minerals and CO₂ in a relatively short time . Forests can be rejuvenated through natural regeneration or by planting young trees. The branches can then be an obstacle to the development of young trees. If that is the case (and provided the soil permits), the branches and tops of trees can be shredded and put to beneficial use.
It is therefore not the case that trees or forests are being cut down to make wood chips. The wood chips have value, and forest owners can use them to cover part of the costs of forest regeneration. Moreover, roundwood (e.g., for construction) yields a higher return than wood chips for sustainable energy. In my observation, the assertion that biomass leads to large-scale forest destruction is incorrect. In fact, I dare to assert that the valorization of wood chips actually benefits the future of the forest. The aforementioned statement is therefore flawed on two points; firstly, the biomass is not produced with a specific purpose, but is a residual stream. And secondly, certainly in the Netherlands, it does not lead to large-scale forest destruction. Nor do I see this happening in other European countries. Nuance would have been appropriate, at the very least. However, NGOs and opponents of biomass apparently have no interest in that. Simplifying this subject into simple one-liners may not do justice to reality, but it is simple and sometimes effective.
Another proposition in the amendment is that the CO2 emitted from the chimney during combustion is not counted towards climate targets. I assume that this is indeed not the case. And it does not need to be. Although I can follow the idea that the CO2 coming out of the pipe has a negative effect on the climate (it is CO2, after all ) , this picture is neither complete nor accurate. For what happens if we were not to shred the branches and tops of harvested trees and use them to generate energy? The answer is that those branches and tree tops would be consumed by nature in a relatively short time. Insects gnaw away at some of it, and fungi and bacteria digest the rest of the wood. During the growth of a tree, CO2 is absorbed from the air and stored in the wood, and oxygen is produced. During the digestion and rotting of the wood, that same amount of oxygen is consumed again to produce CO2. That is a circular system . By shredding the branches and converting them into energy, the same thing happens, with that sensible difference: you can use the energy contained within the wood chips. So CO2 does indeed come out of the chimney, but just as much as would otherwise happen in the forest (or elsewhere). And that is why it seems justified to me that this amount is not counted towards climate targets. And with that, the proposition that bioenergy from residual streams is CO2-neutral holds true . Quite apart from the substitution effect (the use of renewable raw materials to replace fossil raw materials).
The amendment also discusses the planting of new forest. I am in favor of establishing additional new forest. However, I assume that the proponents of the amendment are referring to the planting of new forest to compensate for the forest that was destroyed for the purpose of biomass harvesting. As I have already indicated above, forest destruction for the sake of biomass harvesting is not at issue. In conventional forest management, the forest owner assumes a forest complex with trees of all different ages. Diversity abounds: deciduous and coniferous trees, young and old, thin and thick—everything exists side by side. In a forest area, CO2 is continuously sequestered in the trees. Young trees sequester less on average than middle-aged trees, and by the time they are old and thick, their absorption capacity decreases again. Tree harvesting takes place regularly after the juvenile phase. This is done by thinning the forest, whereby the so-called future trees (trees that are destined to become truly thick) are favored. During forest rejuvenation, an open space is created in the forest, allowing more light to reach the forest floor and enabling young saplings to develop.
The amendment also states that no account is taken of the difference in natural value of an adult tree compared to a newly planted tree that needs decades to grow to maturity. I understand what is meant, but here too the author of the amendment is missing the point. The natural value can be traced back to the age of the tree. It is also not the case that an adult tree has a higher natural value than a group of young trees. The added value lies in the variety and variation in the forest, i.e. the occurrence of younger trees and older trees next to each other. I suspect that the authors of the amendment are against the generation of sustainable energy with biomass, but at best some of the argumentation is flawed.
About the author
Henk Wanningen
Forestry Commission
Henk Wanningen has a forest and nature management background and works at Staatsbosbeheer on high-quality use of green raw materials from the green environment. He works closely with land management organizations and with companies that realize innovations and development, aiming to ensure that the use of these bio-raw materials through sustainable applications leads to a high climate impact. This includes timber construction, insulation materials, bio-based materials, green chemistry and renewable energy.
