Following tough negotiations, the European Union’s Parliament, Commission and Council have agreed on new renewable energy requirements, contained in the so-called Renewables Directive (REDIII). By 2030, the share of renewable energy in the EU must be at least 42.5%, which is a doubling of the present level and a significant increase on the previous target of 32%. However, the directive is contentious, with a particular controversy over how much forest biomass should be burnt in district heating plants. Disagreements have centred on whether the directive will protect old-growth forests from logging. The Council of Ministers, under Sweden’s presidency, opposed limiting the burning of tree tops and branches for energy production whereas the Parliament was in favour. Embodied in the REDIII, this dispute has been resolved in favour of the Council of Ministers. Pär Holmgren, an MEP from Sweden, criticised the decision, believing it will legalise the felling of old-growth forests.
After tough negotiations, the EU’s three decision-making bodies – the Parliament, the Commission and the Council – agreed on Thursday on a series of new requirements for renewable energy in the Union in the coming years, in the so-called renewables directive REDIII.
By 2030, the share of renewable energy in the EU must be at least 42.5 percent, in principle a doubling from today’s level and a strong tightening of the previous target of 32 percent.
But the directive is also controversial. A controversial area is how much forest biomass can be burned in the district heating plants in the Union.
Photo: Kjell-Arne Larsson/TT
The EU Parliament wanted to limit the burning of tops and branches for energy production – something that the Council of Ministers under Sweden’s presidency opposed.
And the Council of Ministers won. It will continue to be considered sustainable to burn tops and branches from the forest. Individual countries can also define for themselves what constitutes an old-growth forest worthy of protection.
A number of environmental organisations – including Fern, WWF, Birdlife and Protect the Forest – directs harsh criticism at the agreed regulatory framework.
https://twitter.com/WWFEU/status/1641395164932390912
Protect the forest believes that the directive will destroy forest ecosystems, fuel the climate crisis and make it more difficult to meet the national goals for carbon sinks, i.e. sequestering carbon dioxide.
– The forests are our best friend when it comes to absorbing carbon dioxide. Today’s decision will continue to worsen the crisis for the climate and for biodiversity and actively undermine the EU’s climate ambitions, says Lina Burnelius at Protect the Forest.
The forest industries, on the other hand, welcome the agreement, which is called “good news from Brussels” in a press release.
– The starting points for the agreement are that bioenergy is sustainable and that biomass is used resource-efficiently, says Viveka Beckeman, CEO of Skogsindustriern.
Photo: Johan Nilsson/TT
Also EU parliamentarians Emma Wiesner (C) thinks the decision is positive.
– I am incredibly relieved. We have fought to change the Swedish energy and heating system to a renewable and sustainable one. Now they use residual products from the forest. This legislation risked completely erasing that sustainability work, says Emma Wiesner to DN.
Several environmental organizations believe that this will lead to unsustainable logging, among other things of old-growth forests worth protecting. You don’t share that concern?
– It is very clear in the legislation that old forests must be protected and must not be used for energy purposes. Saying we should use branches and tops will not increase the amount of felling, she says.
Martin Pigeon, campaign manager at the environmental organization Fern, disagrees.
– On the contrary, national governments are given a very large power in this matter. This settlement does not stop old-growth forests from being felled, but legalizes these fellings, he tells DN.
MEP Pär Holmgren (MP) thinks it is good that the settlement gives the industry clearer guidelines on raised ambitions for renewable energy.
– But it is worrying that the member states themselves are allowed to define what a clear-cut and old-growth forest is. In a country like Sweden, we have enormously strong lobbying from the forest industry and many politicians who believe that we have sustainable forestry, he tells DN.
Photo: Jonas Ekströmer/TT
The New Deal has also been the focus of another infected Swedish debate – the one about the reduction obligation, i.e. the mixing of renewable fuels in petrol and diesel. The government has promised a reduction of the reduction obligation to the EU’s lowest level. Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari (L) has pointed out that the minimum level is now under negotiation in the EU.
But Thursday’s agreement is not expected to have any major consequences for the reduction obligation in Sweden. The EU countries themselves can choose between two goals for the transport sector, either a 29 percent share of renewable energy by 2030 or an emission reduction of 14.5 percent compared to fossil fuels.
But those goals include renewable electricity for electric transport, including rail. There is also expected to be some double counting of electric transport.
– It cannot be compared directly with the Swedish reduction obligation, which only deals with greenhouse gas reduction from petrol and diesel, says Sara Sundberg, head of unit at the Energy Agency.
The authority has previously stated to the Alting that Sweden would meet the stricter requirements in the renewables directive even with a greatly reduced reduction obligation.
Read more:
500 researchers: “Climate-smart forestry is a scam”
Sweden was rejected in the EU regarding biofuel from the forest