Disheartening research results: To decrease fellings in EU will move them elsewhere and be extremely costly to EU
Reducing forest fellings in the EU will significantly increase fellings in other parts of the world, as is shown by recent university research.
- Recent university research shows that reducing forest fellings in the EU would increase fellings elsewhere, particularly in regions where forest conservation is weaker.
- This would deteriorate the global impact of the EU climate and biodiversity goals (LULUCF and biodiversity strategy).
- Forest industry production and the financial benefits from it would move out of the EU.
- The decrease of wood products and the need to replace them with more harmful materials would further erode the climate benefits.
- The research emphasizes the importance of global solutions for achieving climate and environmental goals.
With the decrease of forest fellings in the EU, fellings would be significantly increased in other parts of the world. In addition, forest industry production capacity would leak out of the EU. This will become reality if the carbon sink goals in the LULUCF are achieved.
This information is based on the preliminary results from a research project led by Maarit Kallio, Professor of Forest Policy and Economics. According to the results, two thirds of the reduction in fellings within the EU would be replaced by increased fellings elsewhere in the world. The project was funded by the Finnish Forest Foundation.
The so-called fellings leakage will significantly deteriorate the global impact of the EU’s biodiversity and climate goals.
The preliminary results of the project were presented in Helsinki in December. Professor Kallio is attached to the Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
For the purposes of the LULUCF regulation, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and carbon dioxide removals are reported.
According to the preliminary results, achieving the goals set in the LULUCF regulation and the EU biodiversity strategy would require a reduction of 132 million cubic metres in fellings in the EU member states and Norway. The comparison is made to how matters are assumed to develop up to 2035 without the EU policies.
The goal of the EU biodiversity strategy is to stop the loss of biodiversity and to turn the development in a positive direction by 2030.
The biggest leakages of fellings out of the EU would be to North America (38 percent), South America (25 percent) and China and other parts of Asia (19 percent).
The biggest leakages of fellings out of the EU would be to North America (38 percent), South America (25 percent) and China and other parts of Asia (19 percent).
At the same time, the harmful effects of fellings would be transferred out of the EU, to countries where the risk of deteriorating biodiversity is greater than in the EU.
Risk of deterioration of tropical forests
The fellings would increase in countries where, for example, the spectrum of forest species is greater, the coverage of conservation areas is smaller and the use of forests less rigorously controlled. In particular, the state of forests is under threat of deterioration in the tropics.
’Achieving the goals of the LULUCF regulation will multiply the risk of deterioration of biodiversity in other parts of the world,’ Kallio noted, speaking at the event.
Achieving the goals of the LULUCF regulation will multiply the risk of deterioration of biodiversity in other parts of the world.
According to the project results, a reduction of fellings in the EU will reduce the availability of wood products, which are a long-term storage of atmospheric carbon, thus weakening the carbon sinks in wood products.
With wood being replaced by other materials, such as concrete, emissions may increase both during the production stage and at the end of the life cycle. Likewise, some of the financial benefits from the forest sector would be transferred out of the EU. To begin with, industrial production would decrease particularly in the sawmill and board industries.
’This will cause a massive transfer of income away from the EU, while the resulting climate benefits would be almost non-existent. EU decision-makers should reconsider the position of forests in saving the climate. The cost of reaching the current goals will be unreasonable,’ Kallio said.
’EU policy tools ineffective’
Speaking at the event, Martta Fredrikson, Managing Director of the Finnish Forest Foundation, stressed the importance of assessing the global impact of the tools of the EU forest policy.
’Significant fellings leakages away from the EU show that the EU policy tools are ineffective,’ Fredrikson said.
In the research project, Kallio compared two scenarios of how the forest sector could develop. One of them assumed that the EU policy measures were implemented, while in the other their possible impact was excluded.
The project compared the policy measures and the impact of the EU biodiversity strategy and the LULUCF regulation up to 2035.
The result is rather disheartening, but it does not lessen the importance of climate and biodiversity work. On the contrary and above all, it emphasises the importance of global mechanisms.
Commenting on the results, Matleena Kniivilä, Research Manager at Natural Resources Institute Finland, said the results are in line with previous research.
’The result is rather disheartening, but it does not lessen the importance of climate and biodiversity work. On the contrary and above all, it emphasises the importance of global mechanisms,’ said Kniivilä.
The novel results from the project concern the effect of the EU biodiversity strategy. The research report, ’Potential impacts of the EU’s biodiversity strategy on the EU and global forest sector and biodiversity’, is currently under peer review.
Read more: Forbes takes note of nature management measures by Finnish forest companies
