Correspondence to: Bart Muys, KU Leuven, Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, Celestijnenlaan 200E, box 2411,

BE-3001 Leuven, bart.muys@ees.kuleuven.be

Feature

© 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 359

Sustainable wood mobilization for EU renewable energy targets Bart Muys Professor of Forest Ecology & Management, University of LeuvenLauri Hetemäki Head of Foresight & Policy Support Programme at the European Forest Institute (EFI); Professor at the School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern FinlandMarc Palahi Deputy Director at the European Forest Institute (EFI) © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

View online at Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1421Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:359–360 (2013)

The National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) of EU member countries are heavily reliant on for-est biomass. Th ere is heated debate, however, over

whether binding sustainability criteria for energy use from forest biomass are actually needed. Th is Feature highlights the fi ndings of a recent Th inkForest event in the European Parliament which discussed the feasibility and sustainability of forest biomass as a renewable energy source (RES).

Under current market and price trends, increasing mobi-lization of wood from the European forest is not evident, considering a decreasing trend in wood demand by the pulp and paper sector, which has energy wood as an important by-product. Increasing imports of energy wood can be expected. A coherent policy on sustainable forest manage-ment practice should require the same criteria for any wood product, whether from import or domestic source.

Sustainability must focus on diff erent issues. Sustained yield is currently well ensured in the EU domestic forest sector, considering the current large stocks and low har-vesting rates, but some stress tests on the control tools in each country would be useful. Sustainable forest site quality proved to be an issue and, depending on site conditions, residue harvesting needs limitations. Wood mobilization needs to be accompanied by strictly implemented biodiver-sity safeguards, while increased mobilization may also have biodiversity, fi re prevention, and climate change resilience benefi ts. Carbon neutrality seems an absolute minimum requirement for a subsidized fossil fuel alternative, but a standardized science-based approach considering the com-plex time-and-space issues related to the greenhouse gas

balance of the forest value chain is due. A strong recom-mendation of the meeting was that EU renewable energy policy should be essentially backed by energy effi ciency and product cascading policies. Under these conditions, energy from forest biomass can become a sustainable option.

More than a third of Europe’s binding RES target of 20% by 2020 will come from solid biomass for electric-ity, heating, and cooling, according to the NREAPs submitted by European member states to the European Commission (EC). Th is implies a strong emphasis on for-est biomass, which is not really surprising considering the costly investments involved in solar and wind options, and the large quantities of available biomass accumulated in European forests since World War II. But is it feasible and common sense to mobilize forest resources for this purpose? According to Th e Economist of 6 April 2013, this policy is environmental lunacy.

A Th inkForest event (www.thinkforest.efi .int) on 11 April 2013 in the European Parliament brought scientists together with members of the European Parliament, EC civil servants, forestry sector representatives, and environ-mental NGOs to refl ect on the issue, and fi nd an answer to the following questions: (1) Can EU forests supply the woody biomass needed to meet the NREAPs (the sus-tained yield question); (2) What are the long-term eff ects of intensive biomass extraction on forest productivity (the sustainable yield question); and (3) Is there a need for legally binding sustainability criteria and thresholds for forest biomass for energy (the sustainability question)?

360 © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:359–360 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

B Muys, L Hetemäki, M Palahi Feature: Sustainable wood mobilization for EU renewable energy targets

unsolved methodological issue, where the outcome is very dependent on the chosen reference system. Concerning the time reference for example, many consider that increasing the harvesting rate of European forest causes a carbon debt to be paid back by later regrowth. But it is also possible that anticipation of the increased future use of wood for bioen-ergy leads to increased tree planting and forest manage-ment, which would sequester carbon before being released by later biomass energy utilization.6

In addition to these, many attendants agreed that the European renewable energy policy needs accompanying measures to maximize cascading and effi ciency. Cascading means that the forest-wood value chain is optimized in added value, in greenhouse gas reduction, or in both. In a cascading approach, logs from the forest would seldom be directly used for bioenergy, but rather end up in long-lived products or biorefi neries for chemicals and materials, and energy use would then form the end of life. Increasing effi -ciency of energy production and consumption processes is another major factor contributing to the sustainable use of the woodfuel resource.

Energy from woody biomass is not a single entity, but hides a large variety of sources and qualities, conversion technologies, end products, and markets. As a consequence, the technological and economic effi ciencies as well as the carbon impacts will vary greatly. In summary, it seems that if accompanied by a package of measures to promote cas-cading and energy effi ciency and to ensure biodiversity safe-guards and positive carbon balance, the energy use of solid biomass from the forest sector is not lunacy but is likely to make economic and environmental sense in many cases.

References1. Forest Europe, State of Europe’s Forests 2011. Status and

trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Oslo (2011).

2. UNECE-FAO, The European forest sector outlook study II 2010-2030. UNECE and FAO, Geneva (2011).

3. Hetemäki L, Hänninen R and Moiseyev A, Markets and Market Forces for Pulp and Paper Products. In: Hansen E, Vlosky R and Panwar R (eds). Global Forest Products: Trends, Management, and Sustainability. Taylor and Francis Publishers USA, Boca Raton (in press).

4. Gobin A, Campling P, Janssen L, Desmet N, van Delden H, Hurkens J et al., Soil organic matter management across the EU – best practices, constraints and trade-offs. Final Report for the European Commission’s DG Environment (2011).

5. Verstraeten G, Baeten L, Van den Broeck T, De Frenne P, Demey A, Tack W et al., Temporal changes in forest plant communities at different site types. Applied Vegetation Science 16:237–247 (2013).

6. Sedjo R, Carbon neutrality and bioenergy. A zero-sum game? Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 11-15, Washington DC, USA (2011).

For the sustained yield question the forestry sector devel-oped sophisticated yield regulation and monitoring tools including forest management plans, certifi cation schemes, and national inventories, but their operational strength and implementation is quite unequal among regions and coun-tries. Some stress test evaluating how they would function in periods of increased mobilization seems useful. But cur-rent increment rates of European forests are 50% above the harvesting rates.1 So the challenge today is rather how to mobilize this forest biomass, which will essentially depend on trends in prices and market opportunities. In this con-text, the forest industry is going through major structural changes with important implications for the demand of woody biomass, as well as for the production of bioenergy.2 For example, the production of paper grades for communi-cation is likely to decline in the EU in the coming decades, as it did already during the last decade.3 Th is will cause the pulpwood demand in the EU to decline, possibly aggra-vated by increasing pulp imports from South America. But the pulp industry is a signifi cant producer of bioenergy as a by-product, which causes new challenges for reaching the EU RES targets with domestic wood. In general, the RES target is triggering increasing woody biomass imports for bioenergy purposes in the EU. It is clear that these imports should meet the same sustainability standards as that which comes from domestic sources.

Concerning the sustainable yield question, intensive extraction of harvest residues and tree stumps can lead to nutrient depletion in the long term, but this risk needs site-specifi c consideration.4

As to the aspect of sustainability, the issues of main con-cern are biodiversity conservation and carbon neutrality. In general, the audience agreed that sustainable practice is required, but that rules should apply to any forest use and not specifi cally to energy use. Biodiversity issues can be partially addressed by imposing no go in high diversity forests and deadwood quantity thresholds. But, on the other hand, there are indications that European forests can suff er biodiversity loss due to a lack of harvesting.5 As a consequence, increased wood mobilization might off er opportunities for biodiversity conservation, with additional benefi ts in terms of fi re prevention and climate change resilience, especially in southern regions. Concerning the carbon neutrality issue there was agreement that carbon balances for subsidized energy use of forest biomass should always be positive, when evaluated over suffi ciently large time-and-space windows, and including the land use and the product phases of the life cycle. It was recognized that calculating the carbon balance of forestry systems with a long time lapse between carbon uptake and release is an