The Paris Agreement gave us the “net zero” concept. The intentions were good, and net zero became the main goal of climate action. Many have answered this call; it must be said that there are few climate initiatives that do not mention it.

The goal of limiting temperature rise to two degrees (and the desire to limit it further to 1.5 degrees) was linked to “a balance between anthropogenic emissions and removal by sinks in the second half of this century”. In short, carbon sinks must compensate for emissions. However, the Paris Agreement contains no instructions on exactly how this should be done, nor does it account for the interaction between reducing emissions and increasing carbon sequestration. Emissions and removals are treated as separate areas in climate policy, which in reality has created gaps.

In European climate legislation, the goal of achieving net zero emissions is mainly being implemented by compensating for emissions in sectors that generate them, such as energy and transport, with sequestration in the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector. According to the Paris vision, a balance is expected to be reached by 2050.

To achieve this, the LULUCF Regulation sets a target to sequester 310 million tonnes of CO₂ annually by 2050 and beyond. Since agricultural land is a source of net emissions, this target relies almost entirely on whether European forests will continue to store carbon. In recent decades, forests have sequestered billions of tonnes of carbon, which has been a success story for which a sequel is expected.

Forests are “not following” the European Commission's scenario

The previous increase in forest-covered areas can be attributed to post-war reforestation and the afforestation (overgrowth) of former agricultural lands. Although the net reduction in CO₂ remains significant—more than 300 million tonnes per year on top of 600 million cubic metres of annual timber harvest—carbon accumulation is slowing down. Growth in mature forests is decelerating, and they are facing greater climate impacts. Forests cannot store biomass indefinitely. Several European Union member states are already predicting that LULUCF targets may not be met.

This situation has become a “hot topic” in forest-rich countries, such as Sweden and Finland. In Sweden, a parliamentary committee proposed achieving LULUCF targets in the short term by reducing timber harvesting to keep more carbon in the forests; large-scale financial incentives for landowners were proposed. Is this proposal sensible? No, it is not! We must revise the LULUCF targets, the role of forests in compensating for other emissions, and ultimately the net zero emissions system. The main focus must be on reducing emissions from fossil resources, while ensuring competitiveness, jobs, and security. Using taxpayers' money to reduce production volumes in an important climate sector is a bad idea.

Here are the reasons:

Firstly, reducing logging volumes to meet climate goals provides almost no benefit. A smaller volume of timber may increase carbon stocks locally, but internationally it will mean increased logging elsewhere. Replacing wood products with steel, plastic, or fossil resources will increase emissions, which is in stark contrast to climate goals. In the long term, less active forestry reduces forest growth and increases risks, such as the outbreak of fires. Active forestry is crucial.

Secondly, the timber value chain supports broad production and consumption, accounting for approximately 7% of European Union economic output and 18 million jobs, often in rural areas. Reducing the supply of raw materials through policy instruments will be expensive and ineffective.

Thirdly, timber is a strategic resource. In today's geopolitical situation, domestic timber and the timber industry help reduce dependence on problematic trading partners, improving Europe's security and self-sufficiency.

The LULUCF dilemma requires constructive solutions. Maintaining the Green Deal while lowering forecasts for forest carbon sequestration, for example by better valuing so-called wood solutions, could continue, albeit not entirely. It would be more appropriate to clearly separate ETS/ESR emission targets and LULUCF sequestration. This also reflects growing doubts about achieving emission targets, casting doubt on the ability of forests to compensate for emissions. This, in turn, means that the net zero emissions goal must be reconsidered.

Why not?

Instead of compensating for emissions by focusing on net zero emissions, we should focus on rapidly reducing the use of fossil resources by setting specific targets that bring this use closer to zero. Timber use could be valued as it replaces fossil resource emissions, as set out in ISO 13391. Forests could be valued for providing timber, rather than just for storing carbon. That would be logical. Courage is needed to challenge the fundamental principles of the Paris Agreement and to propose structural changes to the European Union Climate Law.
https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar566da87e