Brussels, EU states mismatch on bioenergy

There is a mismatch between Brussels' perception of bioenergy and the reality in EU member states, Bioenergy Europe policy director Irene di Padua says in this interview where we discuss industrial carbon management policy, the deforestation directive's impact and progress in implementing the EU's renewable energy directive.

Will the debate on the EU's 2040 climate targets touch biomass' zero rating under the EU ETS?

There has been a debate, but the zero-rating under the emissions trading system (EU ETS) is in place, provided that the biomass used is compliant with sustainability criteria set out in the renewable energy directive. The scientific community recognises the sustainability and renewable nature of bioenergy. And Europe needs sustainable bioenergy to reach its climate and energy targets.

Hasn't the mood shifted against biomass, as with biofuels 10 years ago?

There is quite a mismatch between Brussels' perception of bioenergy and the reality in member states. We see the biomass market growing and more projects coming up in different segments, whether residential or industrial woody biomass. Sectors such as energy intensive industries are now looking at biomass as a pragmatic solution to their decarbonisation needs.

Another important point to consider here is that of forest management. Forests are becoming less resilient to climate change. We need to actively manage our forests in a sustainable way to improve their resilience to pests, diseases, and wildfires.

What does the sector want in EU policy on industrial carbon management?

We would like to see a clear distinction between different CO2 sources and define land-based removals and technology-based permanent removals. The EU's strategy is heading in the right direction and should evaluate the necessary financial incentives to enhance carbon removal deployment through subsidies and funds. It should also establish a compliance market with the aim to ensure the sector's competitiveness and contribute to European climate goals. A successful industrial carbon management strategy should also look at international co-operation especially regarding cross-border transport and storage, technological transfer, and in research and innovation.

How do you see policy developing for carbon sinks and removals?

A 2040 target for carbon removal will be set. The question is what will be the contribution of technological carbon removals? We will not get to climate neutrality without removing CO2 from the atmosphere. In the future, we will need more biomass for energy and industrial decarbonisation. This requires better management to grow our forests and energy from agriculture. Sustainable forest management and agriculture can improve the carbon sink and deliver economic and social benefits, especially in rural areas.

Will the EU's deforestation regulation (EUDR) have a major impact on biomass markets?

The EUDR goals are admirable. But implementation will be key to avoid distortions. The regulation will primarily impact forest owners as feedstocks are the first to be targeted. Secondly, there is a risk of additional administrative burden, for example in demonstrating due diligence for geolocation. Thirdly, there is a risk in terms of the functioning of the EU's internal market. The regulation specifically prohibits using a mass balance system. Companies will have to provide direct traceability for feedstocks and that is a problem for products like pellets produced from sawdust residue. It is a feedstock to which no-one pays too much attention. But you still have the same geolocation requirements as for wood used in furniture. How do you audit this?

How is compliance with the 2018 renewable energy directive (RED II) going? Do you see delays affecting implementation of the latest revision (RED III), due by May 2025?

That is the question especially considering the delays on RED II. We expect, or hope, that RED III implementation will go smoother. RED II created many new systems for the sustainability of biofuels, but nothing for solid biomass. Setting up systems and certification was complicated and RED II implementation was made worse by the delays of supporting secondary technical legislations.

By Dafydd ab Iago