{"id":34768,"date":"2025-04-05T20:56:03","date_gmt":"2025-04-05T18:56:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/?p=34768"},"modified":"2025-04-05T20:56:33","modified_gmt":"2025-04-05T18:56:33","slug":"the-impact-of-the-eu-biodiversity-strategy-to-2030-on-the-eu-wood-based-bioeconomy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/2025\/04\/05\/the-impact-of-the-eu-biodiversity-strategy-to-2030-on-the-eu-wood-based-bioeconomy\/","title":{"rendered":"Impact of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 on the EU wood-based bioeconomy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Study<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 analyses the potential impact of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 (EUBDS) on the EU wood-based bioeconomy. The EUBDS aims to protect 30 % of EU land by 2030, with 10 % to be strictly managed protected (including all primary and old-growth forests) and 20 % are to be managed in a \u201cclose to nature\u201d manner. While this measure is expected to have a positive impact on biodiversity, it may negatively affect the EU\u2019s wood-based bioeconomy.<\/p>\n

The study aims to analyse how different interpretations and geographical distributions of EU conservation objectives may affect future levels of woody biomass harvesting, exports of wood commodities and the spatial distribution of managed areas, taking into account wood demand in line with the SSP2-RCP1.9 scenario. The GLOBIOM-Forest model was used to simulate scenarios representing different interpretations and geographical distributions of EUBDS objectives.<\/p>\n

The main findings of the study include that EUBDS targets would have limited impact on EU mining levels<\/strong>. The EU could still increase its timber harvest by 21 % to 24 % by 2100. Even with strict protection of 30 % of land, the level of harvest in the EU could still increase by 10 %. The most likely scenario (10 %\/20 % protection in each Member State) would lead to a increased net exports, but a slight decline after 2050<\/strong>However, if protection were to also cover site productivity or the restoration of green infrastructure, EU net exports would decline already before 2050. As EU raw wood extraction declines, extraction in other biomes, particularly boreal regions, will increase, representing a so-called leakage<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The study defined and simulated six scenarios of increased protection<\/strong> compared to the baseline scenario with no change in protection (\u201cCurrent protection\u201d). These scenarios differed in the way protection was distributed across EU Member States, biogeographic regions and forest productivity within green infrastructure. A sensitivity analysis<\/strong> assuming a stricter interpretation of the protection policy, where all 30 % of forest land were strictly protected, and an analysis with a lower assumed increase in wood demand in the EU.<\/p>\n

The GLOBIOM-forest model takes into account three types of management (close to nature, multifunctional, high-intensity) and three main types of forests (primary forests, managed and secondary forests)<\/strong>, each with two tree groups (conifers\/broadleaves). The scenarios assumed that the total EU forest area would remain constant. The model also simulated demand for 26 wood products and trade between 57 global economic regions.<\/p>\n

The results showed that the \u2018EU\u2019 scenario, which collectively achieves EU-level policy targets, would double the strictly protected forest area and increase the area under \u2018close to nature\u2019 management by 1 % compared to the \u2018Current protection\u2019 scenario. The \u2018Green Infrastructure\u2019 scenario had the largest protected area. The \u2018Current protection\u2019 scenario assumes an expansion of 22 % of high-intensity management at the expense of multifunctional management due to the growing demand for wood. The increase in protected areas in the other scenarios reduces the area available for other types of management.<\/p>\n

The distribution of protected areas varied across scenarios. For example, in the \u201cEU\u201d scenario, countries with relatively low profitability of logging would protect a larger proportion of their forest area.<\/p>\n

It is assumed that in the \u201cCurrent protection\u201d scenario, EU biomass extraction volume will increase by 31 % between 2020 and 2100<\/strong>. The \u201cEU\u201d scenario would in comparison reduce harvesting by 1 % in 2030 and by 3 % by 2100. With a more even distribution of protection across biogeographic regions or countries, harvesting is expected to be reduced by 5\u20137 % by 2100. The \u201cGreen Infrastructure\u201d scenario would lead to a larger reduction (9 % by 2100) due to the larger protected area. Nevertheless, all scenarios with increased protection allow for an increase in harvesting in the EU of at least 21 %. Wood prices follow trends in harvesting volumes.<\/p>\n

At the country level, extraction is generally projected to increase by 2100, although less than in the \u201cCurrent protection\u201d scenario. In the short term (up to 2030), some countries may experience a decrease in extraction, depending on the scenario.<\/p>\n

The EU was in 2020 a net importer of raw wood and a net exporter of semi-finished wood products<\/strong>. This situation is expected to evolve depending on the protection scenario and the competitiveness of other regions. Increased protection tends to reduce net exports of semi-finished products after 2040. The EU will continue to be a net importer of wood pellets due to the growing demand for bioenergy. The protection scenarios will lead to a slight decrease in net exports (increase in imports) of wood pellets.<\/p>\n

Sensitivity analysis with 30 % strict protection<\/strong> showed a more significant decrease in extraction (10-15 % by 2100 compared to the \u201cCurrent protection\u201d scenario), but still higher extraction than today. Combined with \u201cGreen Infrastructure\u201d, the EU would become a net importer after 2040. With lower future demand for wood<\/strong> (RCP6.5 scenario), mining could be slightly reduced even under protection scenarios.<\/p>\n

The study found significant mining leakage<\/strong> outside the EU due to reduced harvesting in the EU. Up to 79 % of the reduction in raw wood harvesting in the EU would be compensated by increased harvesting in the rest of the world, mainly in boreal regions, over the next 40-50 years. The share of tropical regions could also increase later. However, this leakage is decreasing over the century due to the substitution of raw wood with wood chips from energy crops.<\/p>\n

In the discussion, the authors emphasize that the EUBDS will have greater impact on the timber industry than on the level of logging itself<\/strong>. The implementation of the EUBDS still allows for increased harvesting in the EU, with the impact depending on the spatial distribution of protection. The study highlights potential conflicts between policies aimed at mitigating climate change through biomass use and the objectives of protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services. It highlights the need to take into account the multifunctionality of forests when examining the interactions between protection and mitigation policies.<\/p>\n

The authors compare their results with other studies and discuss the differences in the estimates of the impact of the EUBDS, highlighting the importance of defining and identifying primary and old-growth forests. The study provides long-term projections and considers different ways of distributing increased protection under the EUBDS. The observed leakage from logging is comparable to the results of other studies, but the study shows that it decreases over time due to the availability of other sources of woody biomass. The authors point to a higher risk for endemic biodiversity in tropical regions, even though the volume of leakage from logging in these regions is relatively low.<\/p>\n

The study suggests that more intensive management in unprotected forests and use of wood from areas with "close to nature" management<\/strong> can contribute to mitigating the impact of increased protection on the level of logging in the EU. The work can serve as a quantitative basis for calculating compensation for economic losses from logging through payments for ecosystem services. In conclusion, the authors conclude that with different approaches to the allocation of protected areas, it is possible to achieve common EU conservation objectives without disproportionate impacts on wood demand in the EU and beyond. Spring<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

study published<\/a><\/span>\u00a0in\u00a0Global Environmental Change<\/i><\/p>\n

\n

Glossary of key terms<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Biodiversity:<\/strong> The diversity of life on Earth at all levels, from genes to species to ecosystems.<\/li>\n
  • Bioeconomy:<\/strong> An economic activity that uses biological resources from land and sea, as well as biotechnology, to produce food, materials and energy.<\/li>\n
  • EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 (EUBDS):<\/strong> A comprehensive European Union plan to protect and restore biodiversity by 2030, including targets for land protection and ecosystem restoration.<\/li>\n
  • Strict protection:<\/strong> A protection category that excludes any human activity that could disrupt natural processes, including logging.<\/li>\n
  • Forest management "closer to nature":<\/strong> An approach to forest management that seeks to mimic natural processes and minimize negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, while potentially allowing limited timber harvesting.<\/li>\n
  • GLOBIOM-Forest:<\/strong> A global spatially explicit model of the agricultural and forestry sector that simulates forest management, the timber industry, trade, and the link between timber supply and demand.<\/li>\n
  • Leakage:<\/strong> A phenomenon in which a reduction in a certain activity (e.g. logging) in one area leads to its increase in another area, thereby not achieving the original environmental objective.<\/li>\n
  • SSP (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways):<\/strong> Socioeconomic development scenarios used in modeling climate change and its impacts.<\/li>\n
  • RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways):<\/strong> Scenarios of future greenhouse gas concentrations used in climate change modeling.<\/li>\n
  • Biomass:<\/strong> Biological matter of plant or animal origin that can be used as a source of energy or to produce materials.<\/li>\n
  • Climate neutrality:<\/strong> A state where greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by their removals, resulting in no net contribution to global warming.<\/li>\n
  • Ecosystem services:<\/strong> The benefits that humans derive from ecosystems, such as clean air and water, crop pollination, and climate regulation.<\/li>\n
  • Boreal region:<\/strong> Northern areas with a predominance of coniferous forests.<\/li>\n
  • Tropics:<\/strong> Areas of the Earth located between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, with a warm and humid climate and high biodiversity.<\/li>\n
  • Moderate waist:<\/strong> A geographical zone between the subtropics and subpolar regions, with a temperate climate.<\/li>\n
  • Mean Annual Increment (MAI):<\/strong> Average annual increase in wood volume in the forest.<\/li>\n
  • Natura 2000:<\/strong> A network of protected areas in the European Union, established to ensure a favourable conservation status for the most important species and habitats.<\/li>\n<\/ul>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The study analyses the potential impact of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 (EUBDS) on the EU wood-based bioeconomy. The EUBDS aims to protect 30 % of EU land by 2030, with 10 % to be strictly managed.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-biodiverzita"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34768","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34768"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34768\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}