Writing a blog is a bit like a battle against a steadily ticking clock. As the deadline approaches, a calm state of being is disrupted by missing inspiration.
I usually start with a piece of text that ultimately doesn't make it and disappears into the refrigerator for possible later use. Which by the way never happens. Because usually something comes along just in time that moves me. This time it was Members of Parliament Teunissen and Postma who lent me a helping hand with their motion of April 18. The motion (32 813) concerns the import of woody biomass from abroad (!). The petitioners request that the government strongly discourage the import of woody biomass and not to provide new subsidies for foreign woody biomass. A motion that easily passed with 114 votes in favor. Arguments are put forward that raise questions for me. For example, Teunissen and Postma argue that the import of woody biomass leads to large-scale destruction of nature and that a majority of Dutch people would be against the import of biomass from abroad (where else?).
In my opinion, it is difficult to prove that extraction of woody biomass leads to large-scale destruction of nature. I don't know the examples. I only know situations where maintenance, regular timber harvesting and wood processing lead to residual flows. I know of no examples of large-scale destruction of nature in favor of biomass extraction. Previous research has not shown that this was the case. It therefore remains unclear to me what this statement is based on. In the Netherlands, most biomass meets sustainability requirements. From the PBE Annual Report 20221 shows that all biomass used for additional and co-firing was certified and meets sustainability requirements. This is guaranteed in the verification protocol2. Sustainability requirements are set by SDE+ or the competent authority for most other installations. This is usually guaranteed with voluntary certification, for example with a Better Biomass, FSC, PEFC or another certificate. In addition, installations that fall under the ETS are required to use woody biomass from forests only if it comes from demonstrably sustainably managed forests. These installations also fall under the REDII. This will also apply to smaller installations at a later stage. In addition, the EU Deforestation Regulation applies from 1 January 2025. This makes it impossible to market timber and timber products that come from forest conversion. The chance that forests and nature will be destroyed on a large scale is therefore further limited. To say that the use of woody biomass leads to large-scale destruction of nature is not constructive and leads to an unrealistic picture.
It does not surprise me that most people are against the import of woody biomass. However, it is not just about whether people are against something. I think it's more about the question of what needs to be done. Politics and governments are doing everything they can to limit emissions and make society and the economy more sustainable. This is not possible without measures that are difficult, painful, cost money or cause other inconveniences. It is simply easier to include people in resistance than to include them in a vision and the associated measures that are nuanced.
Discouraging the import of biomass leads to lower availability of bio raw materials in the long term. PBL recently published a report on a climate-neutral 20503 has calculated that in the future, not less, but more bio-based raw materials will be needed. In 2050 we will need a factor of 3 to 6 times more bio raw materials than we use now. If we look at the availability from the Netherlands, growth is possible but also limited. In the Netherlands we harvest less than 60% of the additional growth, so there appears to be room to increase the timber harvest. But the timber harvest in the Netherlands shows a declining trend and unfortunately timber production is not stimulated by the governments. We may be able to do something to increase the availability of woody bio-raw materials in the long term, but that will not be enough to meet future needs.
We should therefore not discourage, but rather encourage, the import of woody bio-raw materials. But only demonstrably sustainably and responsibly produced. We should not encourage resistance to imports or go along with anti-sentiment. But we must take responsibility by encouraging imports and better involving people in explaining why this is necessary.
So, I met the deadline again. But my peaceful state of being has not yet returned. I continue to be amazed at how short-sighted some can be in approaching issues and making proposals that are counterproductive to achieving climate goals. Because the clock is also ticking to achieve climate goals. There is a need for haste and by choosing what we do not want, achieving climate goals is becoming increasingly difficult.
- PBE (2023), Use of woody biomass for energy generation, Annual Report 2022, August 29, 2023, prepared by Biomass Research on behalf of Platform Bio-Economie. ↩︎
- RVO (2023), Biomass sustainability verification protocol - Demonstrating REDII sustainability for SDE and EU-ETS (RVO-023-2023/BR-DUZA), January 2023, The Hague Netherlands Enterprise Agency. ↩︎
- PBL (2024), Climate Neutral Pathway Outlook 2050, Pathways to a climate neutral society for the Netherlands in 2025, The Hague, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ↩︎
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.
