Parliament adds forest ‘sinks’ to EU’s 2030 carbon budget

18 September 2017 | Adaptation

MEPs approved new rules accounting for the “negative emissions” from forestry as part of the EU’s 2030 climate change policy, a move welcomed by conservationists but which scientists warn risks creating incentives to burn cheap biomass.

The EU has a target to cut emissions by 40% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels), and forests are part of the plan to achieve this.

In the EU, forests currently grow more than they are harvested. As a result, they act as a net “sink” for carbon dioxide, removing more than 400 Mt CO2 from the atmosphere annually, equivalent to 10% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Zero target

The European Commission’s initial proposal for a regulation on land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) introduced a “no-debit” or zero target whereby EU countries have to offset all deforestation either by equivalent reforestation or improved forest management.

This way forests would have a neutral impact on climate change, leaving the burden of cutting emissions to other sectors – mainly industry, transport and buildings.

The Commission proposal also required EU states to account for the emissions produced from burning biofuels, which was not the case previously.

But the text adopted by the European Parliament was amended in some crucial aspects.

Carbon neutrality

The proposed LULUCF legislation, combined with biomass incentives under the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, could create perverse incentives that defeat the purpose of carbon reduction, scientists have warned.

Cheap biomass, such as imported pellets from the US, are sometimes used to generate low-carbon electricity in EU power plants. But the greenhouse gas emissions from the reduced carbon sink (in the US) are not accounted for in the EU’s draft LULUCF regulation.

Hence, EU countries may be wrongly claiming to reduce global carbon emissions through this approach. In reality, they would have merely avoided counting US emissions in their balance sheet.

William Gillett, energy policy director at the European Academies of Science Advisory Council (EASAC), pointed out that the current LULUCF regulation “misinterprets carbon neutrality”.

“In principle, the LULUCF regulation may be working, but in practice, the outcome in biomass markets is rather perverse,” he told EURACTIV.com. EASAC represents the national science academies of the 28 EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland.

“It is a challenge because of course nobody wants to count the carbon emissions twice.  On the other hand, if such profiteering from the LULUCF regulation leads to a continuation of the recent rapid growth in EU demand for imported forest biomass for power generation, then the available forest wastes and residues could be exceeded within a few years, and there is a risk that forest carbon stocks will be reduced and the 1.5°C warming target in the Paris agreement will not be achieved.”

Negative emissions

Another debate relates to the overall ambition of the LULUCF proposal. MEPs have introduced the concept of “negative emissions”, claiming that to remain within the target ot 2°C global temperature increase, forests should not only offset emissions but exceed them.

The consequences of this approach are already being felt. In a recent report, the European Environment Agency observed that Europe is one of the most forest-rich regions in the world, with more than 42% of its land covered by forests.

“However, forest land cover flows indicate an intensification of forest land use. This may lead to declining quality of forest ecosystems and needs to be balanced by conservation measures,” the EEA cautioned.

Forest management reference level

Finally, the “big fight” has been to agree on an accounting method for the LULUCF sector.

To measure performance, the EU needs a baseline against which comparing member states’ performance – something called a forest management reference level.

The Commission proposed using a historical baseline (1990-2009), obliging EU countries to count all emissions coming from changes in forest management in subsequent years. This means that if a country increased its harvesting levels, the reduction in “sink” capacity would be accounted as a net increase in emissions.

But the baseline finally adopted by MEPs (2000-2012) was the result of a compromise with countries like France, Finland and Poland, which plan to increase their forest harvesting rates. This means the emissions from increased harvests for bioenergy will not be accounted for.

Arbitrarily setting the baseline could discredit the EU’s emission accounting methods and set a dangerous precedent for other countries to set their baselines arbitrarily, scientists have warned.

Forest mitigation should be measured using a scientifically-objective approach, not allowing countries to hide the impacts of policies that increase net emissions, writes a group of environmental scientists led by Dr Joanna I House.

Increasing credits and including wetlands

To increase flexibility of compliance for member states, MEPs also raised the upper limit for forest credits that EU countries can use to offset emissions in other types of land (wetlands, for example). This limit was raised from 3,5% to 7% of the total current sink capacity of forests, something that is estimated to be equivalent to leaving almost 200 million more cars on the road.

On the upside, the parliament also made accounting for emissions from wetlands (marshes and peatland) mandatory from 2026, a move welcomed by environmentalists.

The Parliament now has the mandate to negotiate with the European Commission and Council on the final text of the LULUCF regulation.



Source: Euractiv