\u201cLimiting logging in the European Union would cost the bloc huge sums of money and the climate benefits would be practically insignificant,\u201d Professor M\u0101rita Kallio, professor of forestry economics and policy at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), admits in an interview with Audiomedia .<\/p>\n
\u201cImplementing the European Union's carbon sequestration targets and biodiversity strategy in the field of land use and forestry would lead to a massive shift in wood extraction from the European Union to other countries,\u201d writes Audiomedia .<\/p>\n
\u201cIn practice, this would mean a huge transfer of income from European countries to other regions and almost no climate benefits compared to the costs,\u201d Professor M. Kallio tells Audiomedia . According to her, the climate and biodiversity policies of the European Union\u2019s Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, if implemented, would have a huge impact on European forestry. \u201cThe targets are ambitious, but their implementation is proving to be significantly more difficult than is often indicated in political discourse. Nor has the global impact of these targets been assessed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Preliminary results of the research project in December 2024. It was already observed at that time that reducing logging in the European Union would increase logging elsewhere in the world and would be very costly for Europe. \u201cAchieving the LFA targets would increase the risk of biodiversity loss elsewhere in the world many times over,\u201d Kallio said at the time.<\/p>\n
Carbon sequestration potential in forests must be expanded<\/strong><\/p>\n As wood production in Europe declines, it is expected that processing, export earnings, investment and employment will also decline. The study predicts a significant transfer of income from the European Union to third countries as production moves. According to the study, the marginal cost of achieving emission reductions could increase to more than \u20ac700 per tonne of carbon dioxide in this scenario.<\/p>\n \u201cFor comparison, the price per tonne of carbon dioxide in the European Union\u2019s emissions trading system has been a fraction of this amount in recent years. If the same emission reduction can be achieved through other measures at significantly lower costs, questions arise about the cost-effectiveness of this policy,\u201d M\u0101rita Kallio points out in an interview with Audiomedia .<\/p>\n The European Union's LCI policy sets strict carbon sequestration targets for member states for the period 2026-2030. According to Professor M. Kallio, in practice these targets mean that carbon sequestration in forests must be rapidly increased.<\/p>\n Increasing carbon sequestration in Europe alone will not help solve climate problems<\/strong><\/p>\n The decline in logging volumes in 2030-2035 would be approximately 113-117 million cubic meters. According to Professor M. Kallio, this is not a small adjustment, but a historic reduction in total wood production. \u201cIf such a policy leads to the relocation of logging and revenues outside Europe without significant global climate benefits, it is logical to ask whether the direction is right. The responsibility for achieving the targets and any possible consequences lies with the Member States.\u201d<\/p>\n According to the study's modelling results, around two-thirds of the reduction in European logging would be offset by increased logging elsewhere in the world. This would not help the climate situation, even if the amount of carbon sequestration in European forests increased. An immediate and substantial reduction in logging in Europe is needed to achieve the targets. \u201cA significant part of the logging that would no longer take place in Europe would be \u2018relocated\u2019 to North America, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Chile and other large forest regions,\u201d emphasizes M\u0101rita Kallio. \u201cFrom a climate policy perspective, this is a major problem. If logging is simply geographically relocated, global emissions will not be significantly reduced.\u201d<\/p>\n If the use of wood decreases, it can significantly increase the use of fossil or non-renewable materials. \u201cThe climate benefit of wood does not only come from the carbon sequestered in forests, but also from the fact that wood replaces concrete, steel and fossil resources,\u201d says Professor M. Kallio in an interview.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":98777,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5204,5812],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-daily-news","category-global-trends"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n