Tuesday, March 5, in the 2e chamber put to the vote and rejected the amendment by member Teunissen (36197-22: ban on biomass from forests for energy generation). I would like to reflect on a few statements and assumptions that were added to the motion for reasons of motivation.
One of the statements is that production of biomass from forests for electricity generation leads to large-scale deforestation. Apparently it is assumed that biomass is 'produced'; is therefore harvested efficiently. And that is not an accurate picture. My experience focuses mainly on Europe and the Netherlands. I know of no examples in Europe where trees are cut down for the production of wood chips. As far as I can observe, wood chips are essentially a residual flow. However, trees are cut down in forests to make products for construction and other applications. During timber harvesting, the branches and tops of the trees are usually left behind in the forest. These branches and buds are converted into minerals and CO through digestion in a relatively short time2. Forests can be rejuvenated through natural storage 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 allows it), the branches and tops of trees can be shredded and put to good use.
So it is not the case that trees or forests are cut down to make wood chips. The wood chips have a value and forest owners can use them to cover part of the costs of forest rejuvenation. Round wood (e.g. for construction) yields more for sustainable energy than wood chips. The statement that biomass leads to large-scale forest destruction is, in my opinion, incorrect. In fact, I dare to say that valorizing wood chips actually benefits the future of the forest. The stated statement is therefore flawed on two points; Firstly, the biomass is not produced in a targeted manner, but is a residual flow. And secondly, it certainly does not lead to large-scale forest destruction in the Netherlands. And I don't see this happening in other European countries either. At the very least, nuance would have been appropriate. However, NGOs and opponents of biomass apparently have no interest in this. Flattening this topic into simple one liners may not do justice to reality, but it is simple and sometimes effective.
Another statement from the amendment is that the CO2 that comes out of the chimney during combustion is not counted in climate objectives. I assume this does not actually happen. And you don't have to. Although I can agree with the idea that the CO2 that comes out of the pipe has a negative effect on the climate (after all, it is CO2) this picture is neither complete nor correct. Because what would happen if we did not shred the branches and tops of trees that were harvested and used them to generate energy? The answer is that those branches and tops of trees would have been devoured by nature in a relatively short time. Insects gnaw some away and fungi and bacteria digest the rest of the wood. During the growth of a tree, CO is released2 absorbed from the air and stored in the wood and oxygen is produced. During the digestion and rotting of the wood, the same amount of oxygen is used again to produce CO2 to make of. That is a circular system. The same thing happens by shredding the branches and turning them into energy, with the sensible difference that you can use the energy contained in the wood chips. So there will indeed be CO2 from the pipe, but just as much would otherwise happen in the forest (or elsewhere). And that is why it seems right to me that this amount is not counted towards climate goals. And this means that the statement remains that bioenergy from residual flows of CO2-neutral. Not to mention the substitution effect (use of renewable raw materials to replace fossil raw materials).
The amendment also mentions the planting of new forests. I am in favor of creating new additional forests. But I assume that the authors of the amendment are referring to the creation of new forests to compensate for the forests that have been destroyed due to biomass extraction. I have already indicated above that forest destruction for the sake of biomass harvesting is not an issue. In conventional forest management, the forest owner assumes a forest complex with trees of all different ages. Diversity everywhere, deciduous trees and conifers, young and old, thin and thick, everything occurs next to each other. In a forest area, CO is continuously released2 captured in the trees. On average, young trees absorb less than middle-aged trees and by the time they are old and thick, their absorption capacity decreases again. Harvesting of trees takes place regularly after the youth phase. This is done by thinning the forest, which favors the so-called future trees (trees that really need to grow thick). With forest rejuvenation, an open space is created in the forest so that more light reaches the ground and young trees can 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.
