Biofore-Magazine-2021

By Asa Butcher Photography Henrik Gustafsson Nicander

10

IN THE SPOT L IGHT

11

Forestry specialist Peter Holmgren shares his views of the EU forest strategy for 2030 and the differences between a fossil-based and bio-based economy. EU forest strategy creating confusion and conflict” “

How do you assess the EU’s new forest strategy? If you look at the strategy on its own, it’s a stark deviation from the principle that forest management and policy is a national competence. The strategy proposed sets out the central re quirements on forestry, so there’s nowamismatchbetweenhow forest policies are supposed to be handled in the EU. Zooming out, you see it’s part of the wider Fit for 55 climate package. If your starting point is to define climate change pol icies that relate to the forest, you’re obviously going to clash with other policy contexts. It would have been better if climate

change issues related to the forest had been under a broader forest strategy, rather than the other way around. It’s creating

confusion and conflict in the forest policy arena. So, how should we approach this strategy?

Froma forest perspective, Europe is not homogenous. You have large ecological and economic differences between the forests in Finland and those in Greece, so it’s important to continue building upon the specifics of each country’s situation. At best, the strategy could be a guidance for national policies, aswell as a link to the climate change and Fit-for-55 policies. How do the fossil-based and bio-based economies differ? We try to describe the bio-based economy as circular in the sense that products are based on biological material. Those products are eventually recycled through the atmosphere and back to the forest again. If we have an efficient value chain and good forest management, then it ensures stable and increasing carbon storage in the forest, as well as a positive climate impact when wood-based products replace fossil-based. In Sweden, the net carbon sink in the forests has been 1.8 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalents over the past 40 years, which is a lot. At the same time, we have delivered large quantities of re newable wood-based products. We’re not adding any carbon to the atmosphere and biosphere, whereas the fossil-based econ omy uses carbon from below and emits it into the atmosphere. It’s circularity versus one way. What challenges does the bioeconomy face? The challenge on the forest side is to invest in forest manage ment so as to secure long-term growth and wood supply, while also undertaking the required nature conservation measures. It’s already done in Finland and Sweden, but sometimes forests aremanaged in amore exploitative way. On the value-chain side, it’s important to efficiently use the valuable wood material. One part is to promote long-lived wood products. But even more important is to make good use of all harvested biomass. We often hear that we shouldn’t use bioenergy because it’s short lived, causes emissions and takes time to regrow. If trees grew in square shapes, without bark, and couldbe splitwithout creating sawdust, thenwewouldhave less bioenergy. The reality calls for an integrated value chain where we use different parts of the tree. Once products reach end-use, they should also become bioenergy – although we still see houses torn down and put into landfills. What calculations are needed when it comes to bio-based versus fossil products? To remove fossil emissions, we can reduce overall consumption but that can be politically difficult because people often don’t want it. We can also utilise fossil energy and materials more ef ficiently – this is, of course, very important. But we can also re place fossil-based material and energy with renewables, which is where wood-based products have great potential. To analyse the advantages of the forest bioeconomy, we must be able to quantify fossil emissions that are eliminated when wood-based materials and energy are used instead. It is prob lematic to get a complete picture, as wood-based products are divided into different sectors where it can be difficult to extract the benefits of renewable wood. For example, the construction sector reports its own emissions, but normally without specify ing reduced emissions by buildingmore in wood.

MEET PETER HOLMGREN Peter Holmgren was the Director General of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and has 30 years’ experience in international forestry and agriculture. In 2013, he launched the Global Landscapes Forum, which is now the world’s

largest conference on integrated land use.