A report casts doubt over the sustainability of a key renewable energy source

Competing priorities and unintended consequences pervade the sustainability arena and a briefing from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) suggests increasing use of biomass is a case to point.

Rising demand for biomass in the developed world could result in unsustainable land use in developing countries, threatening local agriculture, communities and food security, the report suggests.

Biomass, 87% of which comes from trees and woody plants, accounts for 77% of renewable energy, and ambitious renewable energy targets will lead to a massive increase in its use. Meeting 2020 targets in Europe will require an additional 90m tonnes of oven-dry biomass each year, according to the report.

With demand for wood set to exceed supply by up to 600% in some countries, investors are eyeing the high tree-growth rates in the tropics and sub-tropics. “Already there is evidence of foreign investors acquiring land in Africa, South America and south-east Asia to establish tree plantations for biomass,” IIED says.

Sebastien Haye of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) says the concerns raised are “totally valid” and such consequences must be considered when targets are being set by governments.

“Decision makers should pay attention to the consequences of incentives to use more and more biomass,” he says, as such incentives could result in “uncontrolled production and trade of unsustainable biomass, with dramatic consequences for local communities and ecosystems”.

There should also be “proper land-use planning” before giving concessions for plantations, Haye says. Unfortunately, legislation in the countries themselves “may not be stringent enough”. Self-regulation therefore has a role to play, and Haye believes voluntary standards, such as the RSB’s or the Forestry Stewardship Council’s, can be “useful”.

Chris Wille, head of the Rainforest Alliance’s sustainable agriculture programme, also endorses the RSB and FSC certification programmes. “Like anything else a company does, there’s a right way to do it and a poor way,” he says.

He also warns companies that guidance from governments may leave something to be desired.

“Companies can’t expect much guidance from governments that are poorly prepared,” Wille says. NGOs, he concedes, are “not all that brilliantly prepared either”, but are “catching up and can provide a lot of guidance to companies interested in fuelling with biomass by helping them pick the proper site for their project.”

With governments, NGOs and companies scaling a steep learning-curve, it is understandable that consumer awareness of the distinctions between sustainable and unsustainable renewable energy remains sketchy.

Good trees and bad trees

In fact, the question of tree plantation for biomass is itself nuanced. IIED acknowledges that tree plantations, if well managed, “could spell good news in terms of jobs, investment, climate change and conservation”. Consumers, having heard so much about the environmental dangers of deforestation, may be forgiven for not fully appreciating that there is good and bad tree-planting.

Haye says that while there is “growing awareness” in the northern hemisphere, consumer demand for certified products is not yet large enough to ensure the issues are sufficiently addressed, adding that decision makers in developed markets have to impose sustainability requirements on all imported biomass.

The EU’s Renewable Energy Directive’s requirements on land-use are “an important step in the right direction” but “should be further enforced and improved”.

The UK’s Renewable Energy Association launched its Back Biomass campaign last month. Paul Thompson, REA head of policy, says there must be “good checks and balances” to ensure the biomass market is sustainable, not least because through renewable energy incentives it is receiving public subsidy.