Tag Archives: European Parliament

Mongabay: Delay of EU Deforestation Regulation may ‘be excuse to gut law,’ activists fear

Deforestation for an oil palm plantation in Sumatra. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

In June 2023, the European Union passed a law designed to reduced deforestation and forest degradation around the world caused by the commodities the member states import: coffee, soy, cattle, cocoa, palm oil, rubber and wood, included industrial-scale wood pellets. The law was to go into effect on January 1, 2025. My story covers a surprise decision by the European Commission, which makes legislative recommendations to the European Parliament, to delay the implementation of the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) for 12 months.

Since the law was passed, a host of industries and countries, including the United States, have pushed back hard against the regulations, calling them onerous and demanding more time for implementation. The forest biomass industry, for example, wanted a 24-month delay. Forest advocates in the US and EU all decried the delay, as my story describes.

“I think the biggest threat from a delay is that it’s an excuse to gut the law by giving more time to already aggressive industry opposition,” Heather Hillaker, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in North Carolina, told me, summarizing the general concern of her international colleagues. “With climate change, every month matters when we’re trying to avoid [carbon] emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.”

Meanwhile, Austrian Christian Rakos, president of the World Bioenergy Association, wrote me in an email: “The traceability [requirement in the EUDR] is extremely difficult for sawmill byproducts which make up for more than half of U.S. pellet production. If sawdust is collected from several sawmills and then pelletized, how will you be able to tell from which forest plot pellets come? And what is the benefit of knowing if there is no deforestation in the entire fibre basket?”

Rakos and I met at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 and talked for two hours. His defense of the wood pellet industry is vigorous and, I believe, genuine. But I have seen from my own observations in North Carolina, and from the only source from within the industry to ever go public, that wood pellets are manufactured almost entirely by whole trees from native forests, not waste and residue, and that daily harvests for the 26 pellet mills in the US Southeast are effectively degrading intact forests and contributing to deforestation.

The Edenton, North Carolina, clear-cut. The biggest trees were harvested as timber, while other whole trees were chipped and trucked to an Enviva pellet mill, likely for export to Europe. Precisely how the EUDR will impact the forest biomass industry remains to be seen, though it asked the EU for a 24-month delay. Image courtesy of Bobby Amoroso.

Mongabay: Disturbing graves is latest violation attributed to East African oil pipeline

Robert Lule sits on a grave in Greater Massaka Area, Uganda. Local communities told GreenFaith that TotalEnergies has disturbed and disrespected the graves of their families and ancestors at numerous sites. Image for Mongabay by © Thomas Bart.

This story here sprung directly from renewing my contact with a trusted source whom I met in December 2015 at the United Nations climate summit in Paris. That source: the Rev. Fletcher Harper, director of GreenFaith, an international faith-based NGO. I interviewed him in October for my recent story about Pope Francis’ latest papal letter in defense of the environment and whether it would reignite climate action by faith leaders around the world. A week after the story ran, Harper asked if I would be interested to covering an investigation GreenFaith was getting prepared to release about the impact on graves and burials sites along the 895-mile long route of the proposed East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

My editor forwarded the pitch to Terna Gyuse, a Mongabay editor based in Ghana, who assigned me the story. Because of security concerns, I could not reach out to sources in Africa and Europe prior to GreenFaith’s release of “As If Nothing Is Sacred,” the nine-month investigation’s grim and detailed findings. I was able to pull together what I needed fairly quickly. Even TotalEnergies in France, which GreenFaith accuses of being heedless in disturbing more than 2,000 graves along the pipeline route, responded within hours to questions I had sent. Terna did an excellent job editing the story.

EACOP acknowledges over 2,000 graves will be affected by construction of the pipeline. Locals say many more may not be counted. “Because these graves had lasted for over sixty years and the soil buried had disappeared, the only thing which could have helped was tracing using their machine which they did not do […]. It took us one week digging holes looking for the remains,” said a respondent in Uganda’s Buliisa District. Another person, in Tanzania’s Hanang District, where more than 200 graves are recorded, said, “I have lost hope now, I think the Project shall remove the graves and take them to unknown places.”

Mongabay: As EU finalizes renewable energy plan, forest advocates condemn biomass

Wood chips piled in mounds more than 6 meters (20 feet) high cover the lot of an Enviva wood pellet plant in Ahoskie, North Carolina. Enviva claims it uses wood waste and doesn’t use large whole trees in the making of its wood pellets and that it only accepts wood from sites that will be replanted with trees — greenwashing that was discounted this week by a whistleblower who worked for Enviva and also confirmed by a Mongabay onsite investigation. Image by Justin Catanoso for Mongabay.

As I was preparing my exclusive whistleblower story, a commentary was released in the journal Nature that sought to weigh in on the late-stage negotiations in the European Union on its Renewable Energy Directive (RED) as it applied to biomass harvest and burning. The headline pretty much summed up the message: EU climate plan boosts bioenergy but sacrifices carbon storage storage and biodiversity.

I interviewed the lead author, Tim Searchinger of Princeton, sought comments from sources in The Netherlands and Germany regarding the state of the negotiations, got one German member of parliament to answer a few questions without attribution, and layered in context regarding European politics and bioenergy industry lobbying.

The result: this story that updates readers on the state of RED negotiations and the latest scientific arguments for limiting biomass harvest and burning, and eliminating billions in subsidies. A reference to my whistleblower story fit into the story as well.

Mongabay: EU votes to keep woody biomass as renewable energy, ignores climate risk

In addition to forest loss, wood pelletization uses significant energy in the transport of logs harvested in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere, in the processing of wood to make the pellets, and for transportation overseas to the EU where the pellets are burned. Image by #ODF at Visualhunt.com

This story follows up on a one I wrote last spring (2022) regarding the negotiations around possible revisions to the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which is evaluated every three years. Of peak interest has been whether members of parliament would change their view toward the continent’s use of woody biomass for heat and energy and its impact on global forests.

Biomass accounts for more than 60 percent of the EU’s renewable energy portfolio — but legions of scientists continue to argue there is nothing renewable about burning biomass, at least at it compares to zero-carbon wind and solar.

While parliamentary committees for the first time recommended changes in subsidies for woody biomass and increased protections for Europe’s forests — which provide the bulk of the EU’s pellet production — the outcome appears far different. Yes, it calls for phasing down of subsidies, estimated at $13 billion annually. It also calls for protection of natural forests, saying only lumber residue and damaged trees can be used for pellets. But forests advocates explained to me that the amendments that were approved are vague enough to not change EU woody biomass consumption — or the emissions they produce — at least for the next three years.

This view was essentially supported by a statement by US-based Enviva, the world’s largest pellet maker, that hailed the RED amendments as a victory for the bioenergy industry.

Here’s the big thing: an amendment that would declassify woody biomass as a renewable energy source, on par with wind and solar (a well-reported error that began with the 1997 Kyoto Protocol) was rejected. This, too, was cheered by the bioenergy industry.