The EU’s new Bioeconomy Strategy has now been published, and predictably, it’s a cornucopia of support and funding programs for industries to use more biomass. Also predictably, it’s written in the European Commission’s classic alienating jargon that sounds like someone assigned ChatGPT to re-write human-generated text in the most obscure way possible.
In other words, it’s a typical EU policy document. Never mind that, however: we should focus on the Strategy’s failure to acknowledge, much less address, two key issues.
First, the BS pretends that it’s possible to replace a meaningful amount of fossil fuels with biological resources – an attitude exemplified by this image (shown at a recent EC workshop).
Here’s the reality: the second “green” globe illustrates Europe in the Middle Ages, when all needs were met by biological resources. It is massive consumption of fossil fuels that now props up our current way of life. It’s irresponsible to pretend that biomass can replace a significant amount of fossil fuel use without subjugating every square inch of the EU to intensive management (and even that would not be enough). Yet there is no mention of reducing consumption in the Bioeconomy Strategy.
In this context, also note that the most important statement from an earlier leaked draft – that “pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” – is not to be found in this final version, nor anything as strong.
Second, the BS contradicts itself. On the one hand, it envisions biomass use increasing; on the other hand, it calls (p. 14) for reducing use of primary biomass (biomass sourced directly from forests and farmlands) by relying on secondary feedstocks and circularity.
So the need for biomass is going to increase, but actual extraction of it should decrease? How does that work?
The obvious place to start would be by reducing support for biomass energy. Half the wood harvested in the EU is burned within a year of harvest. The EC’s own statistics state that biomass used for energy is second largest use (29%) after animal feed and before material use or food.
But reasonably good language from an earlier draft has been deleted or watered down. That draft proposed a policy initiative “as of 2026” to “Avoid prioritising biomass combustion over material use in EU policies and funding”. That language is gone.
It also stated “Biomass should only be used for energy where material use is not or no longer feasible, relying on available cogeneration, fermentation and biorefinery technologies.” That language has been replaced with much more subtle language about “Efficient Use of Biomass”, stating that (among other things), this means
– residual and secondary streams can be used for energy, particularly where no alternative decarbonisation solutions exist, or where it ensures energy security and energy affordability.
Advocating on the Bioeconomy Strategy to the EC has been like fighting with a decaying whale – the proposal is a gigantic, over-inflated, flubbery mess with bits breaking off everywhere. There’s so little that’s concrete about it, we simply have to wait and see what they do, not what they say. Its priorities are clear: enormous new funding streams for biomass use (it reads like it was drafted by lobbyists from big-ag, forestry and fishing). Missing is meaningful discussion of environmental limits or overconsumption.
The Strategy talks of ensuring “that any growth stays within planetary boundaries, and takes into account LULUCF goals” – as though it is just a case of continuing the good work. But current levels of biomass use are degrading the EU’s forest and land carbon sinks and the EU’s irreplaceable natural ecosystems. Increasing biomass use will only worsen the situation.
