The European Parliament's Environment Committee has taken a position on several proposals of great importance to the forest industry. These are rules on land use in the forest, bioenergy and emissions trading. The Environment Committee proposes that the carbon sink in the EU should increase by about 15 percent by 2030 and that Sweden should be responsible for the largest carbon sink in the EU, in line with the Commission's proposal. The bioenergy rules in the Renewable Energy Directive are proposed to be more detailed and restrictive. The Commission's proposal that emissions trading should not include zero-emission facilities may be left behind in the Committee on the Environment.<\/p>\n
''The LULUCF goal will be difficult to achieve and even more difficult to motivate from a climate perspective. The climate benefit of the forest industry is twice as great as the emissions of the whole of Sweden. Products and energy from the forest are good for the climate and reduce our dependence on oil and gas from Russia. Nevertheless, the EU Environment Committee wants to sharply limit the use of forest bioenergy,'' says Magnus Berg, head of business policy at the Swedish Forest Industries.<\/p>\n
The Environment Committee's votes are just one step in the process. The entire European Parliament will now vote on the Environment Committee's proposal, where further changes can take place. Negotiations then continue when the positions of Parliament, the Council and the Commission are to be reconciled. After that, a final piece of legislation can be adopted.<\/p>\n
The target for the carbon sink in line with the Commission's proposal<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment proposes that the carbon sink in the EU be increased by around 15% by 2030, in accordance with the European Commission's proposal. Sweden is expected to account for the union's largest carbon sink in forests and land. In addition, the committee has decided on an extra carbon sink of 50 million tonnes of fossil carbon dioxide from so-called carbon farming, where land managers will increase the uptake and storage of coal through various agricultural and forestry methods.<\/p>\n ''The Environment Committee's decision does not recognize the entire climate benefit from the forest and the forest-based value chain. To achieve the goals, we may have to reduce extraction from the forest, which means fewer renewable products that can replace fossil alternatives. We hope for a more balanced proposal when it's time for a vote in the European Parliament. The LULUCF goals for 2030 should be based on the actual potential to increase carbon sinks, without leading to reduced access to renewable raw materials,'' says Emma Berglund, spokesperson for the EU and international forestry issues at Skogsindustrierna.<\/p>\n The Environment Committee has also decided to reject the proposal to merge emissions from the forest and land sectors with emissions from agriculture.<\/p>\n ''This is a good way to keep up the pressure to reduce emissions from agriculture. The forest should not have to compensate for continued emissions in other sectors,'' says Emma Berglund.<\/p>\n The committee wants to exclude several forest residues from the Renewables Directive In light of the war in Ukraine and an energy crisis caused by a serious dependence on fossil fuels, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is presenting a comprehensive extension of sustainability criteria and other rules for bioenergy.<\/p>\n ''Without residual products from the forest, it will be difficult to replace Russian fossil fuels in all sectors. Forest biomass must of course be sustainable and used efficiently. This can be achieved without detailed regulations on forestry or on how biomass is to be used. EU institutions should focus on developing the bioeconomy as a whole with market-based incentives and not place extra restrictions on bioenergy in addition to existing sustainability criteria,'' says M\u00e5rten Larsson, responsible for bioenergy issues at Skogsindustrierna.<\/p>\n The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment proposes that residual products from clear-cutting should not be counted as sustainable bioenergy. On the other hand, an exception is made for clear-cutting that contributes to favorable conditions in the ecosystem.<\/p>\n ''Modern clear-cutting methods have been developed with scientific methods and practical knowledge to ensure rejuvenation and growth in boreal forests. In Sweden, it is combined with formal and voluntary protection of biological diversity and ecosystems. Our forestry contributes with climate benefits that are twice as large as Sweden's total emissions, at the same time as the conditions for biodiversity are getting better,'' says M\u00e5rten Larsson.<\/p>\n Even if clear-cutting would meet the sustainability criteria, the Environment Committee proposes a broader ban on all residual products that come directly from the forest and forestry, so-called primary forest fuels. The residual products may not be counted towards the renewable targets or given state support.<\/p>\n ''This means that waste and residual products from all forestry are wasted, along with decades of climate work. Residual products are already an important source of renewable energy in parts of society where there are few other alternatives. There is no doubt, at least not at the IPCC or the EU Commission's own research institute JRC, that these residual products are an important solution for climate and energy supply,'' says M\u00e5rten Larsson.<\/p>\n Continued allocation of emission rights for production with a lot of biomass The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment wants the companies that mostly use bioenergy in their energy supply to continue to be allocated emission rights. It goes against the Commission's proposal to introduce a 95% limit for biomass, which would mean that installations exceeding the limit are no longer covered by emissions trading.<\/p>\n ''The committee has made a good decision. Reducing fossil emissions should be rewarded. Predecessors who only use biomass in their production should continue to be included in emissions trading, provided that their product is covered by a benchmark for how many emission rights can be obtained per unit produced. Biofuels should not be discriminated against compared to other technologies such as electrification and hydrogen,'' says Johan Bruce, responsible for energy issues at Skogsindustrierna.<\/p>\n The Environment Committee adheres to the principle that free allocation should be independent of the nature of the production process, which Johan Bruce welcomes. - It is important not to remove the incentives to become fossil-free by reducing the free allocation when a plant reduces emissions by changing fuel or technology. Technology-neutral benchmarks will create fair and more equal conditions and accelerate climate change in industry, Johan Bruce concludes.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The European Parliament’s Environment Committee has taken a position on several proposals of great importance to the forest industry. These are rules on land use in the forest, bioenergy and emissions trading. The Environment Committee proposes that the carbon sink … Continue reading