Woodfuel -what the future may hold - Sylva Foundation · WOODFUEL-WHATTHEFUTUREMAYHOLD substantial...

207

One planet living, climate change, greenenergy, halting the loss of biodiversity, rural

economic development, green space, access forall, nature’s classroom; these mega-issues steerour working lives and occupy Government. Howdo these relate to woodfuel now and how mightthey in the future? The simple answer to thesequestions is that woodfuel is now seen as acentral pillar and the saviour of UK forestry. Arewe right to put so much faith in woodfuel andwhat is the big picture for UK energy andforestry?

Setting the sceneWorldwide concern about climate change andthe need to develop energy supplies and reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has led toincreasing interest in biofuels. The under-exploitation of forests in the developed world hasprovided an additional incentive to manage theforest resource and stimulated interest in woodfor energy, heating and transport fuels.The EU has ambitious targets to increase the

share of renewables in total energy consumption,from 5% in 1997 to 12% by2010. The EU Biomass ActionPlan (CEC, 2005) assumesthat the 12% target will be metby a combination of bio-heating and bio-electricityfrom biomass and co-generation. In March 2007 theEU heads of governmentagreed a new target of 20% by2020. In Sweden 25% ofenergy needs and the majorityof heating needs are currentlyprovided by biofuels.

In the UK interest in biofuels is gatheringpace although we have been left at the startingline. In contrast to most northern Europeancountries where biomass energy contributed atleast 10% to heat generation, it provided only 1%to the UK in 2003 (Lindner et al., 2007). Withthe publication of a woodfuel strategy forEngland (Forestry Commission England, 2007),the Government has set an ambitious target toharvest an additional 2 million tonnes of woodeach year for the woodfuel market by 2020.

Wood for fuel or timber?There is unprecedented interest and hugeexpectations for the role of woodfuel in shapingthe forestry sector’s development in the 21stcentury. It seems clear that any new market thatmay stimulate the management of our existingunder-managed woods is to be welcomed.However, are we right to have such a strongfocus on burning the products from ourwoodlands?There is huge potential for increasing the use

of wood in construction. In general, energy

WOODFUEL - WHAT THE FUTUREMAY HOLD

Gabriel Hemery questions whether it is right to put all our faith in woodfuel,or whether there are better ways in which forestry can help provide energysupplies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“The transition to a low-emissions globaleconomy will open many new opportunitiesacross a wide range of industries and services.Markets for low carbon energy products arelikely to be worth at least $500bn per year by2050, and perhaps much more. Individualcompanies and countries should positionthemselves to take advantage of theseopportunities”

(Chapter 12: Stern, 2006).

02 July QJF Featuresp181-226:Apr QJF Features 16/7/07 15:45 Page 207

Hemery GE. (2007) Woodfuel - what the future may hold. Quarterly Journal of Forestry. 101:207-212.

production has less associated GHG benefit thanmaterial substitution (Greig, 2007) and moreresearch in this area should be encouraged. Onestudy indicated that an 86% reduction in GHGemissions could be achieved by maximising theuse of timber in buildings (Edinburgh Centre forCarbon Management, 2006). Productsubstitution for carbon-rich materials (e.g. brick,concrete, plastic) can make substantial carbonsavings. For example, currently in England onlyaround 10% of new buildings are built withtimber framed techniques compared to 80% inSweden or 55% in Scotland. Timber and woodproducts are carbon-lean (not quite carbonneutral) and therefore can directly and indirectlycontribute to reducing carbon emissions.If we were to concentrate on the production

of timber from existing woodlands (includingthose currently unmanaged woodlands) we couldproduce a significant volume of woodfuel as aby-product. Furthermore, the financial incentivearising from such a market would encourage

woodland managers to thin andprune their tree crops to producequality timber. A significantproportion (46%) of arboriculturalarisings arise from non-stemwood elements (i.e. branch wood,wood chips, foliage) (ForestryCommission England, 2007). It isworthwhile noting that some oldervaluable literature existsconcerning management ofwoodlands for timber and energyproduction. The recommendationsof Crockford et al., (1987),including establishment ofcooperatives, demonstrationwoodlands and research trials ringtrue today, 20 years later. Corbynet al. (1988) provide usefulinformation on estimating thebranchwood component ofbroadleaved forests.The silvicultural options

arising from any decision relatingto whether we grow trees fortimber and/or fuel are currentlyunclear (Figure 1). In addition, the

affect of climate change on forest managementneeds to be considered carefully. Evidencepoints towards the need for robust mixtures, bothin terms of genetic origin (and quality) andspecies (Broadmeadow et al., 2005). With thefocus for research and practice during the 1990sand 2000s being directed towards nativeplanting, local origin and single speciessilviculture, the sector is in danger of being outof step with the needs of 21st century forestry ifwe are to deliver ‘robust’ woodlands.In the future, second generation biofuel

technologies such as ‘Treethanol’ (Bacon, 2007)may provide new opportunities for the use ofwood products to contribute to transport fuelneeds, supplementing or even competing withthe first generation markets associated with heatand energy.

Trade in carbon and wood resourcesDependent on the future development of pricesfor energy and carbon emission credits,

208

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF FORESTRY

Figure 1.Options for selection of crops and tree species to meetdifferent objectives (adapted from Matthews and Robertson, 2005).

02 July QJF Featuresp181-226:Apr QJF Features 16/7/07 15:45 08


WOODFUEL - WHAT THE FUTURE MAY HOLD

substantial market changes could occur until2030. This could lead to the re-allocation of woodresources, especially from board manufacturersas well as the pulp and paper industries to the bio-energy sector (Lindner et al., 2007).The development of carbon markets is likely

to continue, in both the compliance (e.g. EUETS) and voluntary markets. However, theoutlook beyond 2012 (the end of the currentKyoto commitment) is difficult to predict(Carbon Trust, 2006). Some envisage that acommon standard may be introduced post-2012,providing much needed credibility in thevoluntary market. A new international climatechange agreement may also force radicalchanges to the carbon market.The implications for the UK in the marketing

and international trade of woody biomass are notyet clear. International logistics lead to highercosts and additional energy losses compared tolocal or regional utilisation (Schlamadinger etal., 2006). Marine transport is generally thoughtto have a low carbon footprint but one Scottishstudy suggests that once the road legs andassociated handling are factored in for each endof a sea transit of timber (note not woodfuel),then marine transport has only marginal benefitsover road, and is less efficient than rail (Spavenet al., 2006). This suggests that strongerdomestic strategies (at national, regional andlocal levels) would be prudent. However, withthe lower costs associated with land and labourin developing countries, their potential for exportof woody biomass is likely to increase.

Energy outlookSome believe the world is moving inextricablytowards energy deficit, although fossil energy ispredicted to remain dominant to 2030 (WorldEnergy Outlook, 2006). Conventional wisdompredicts that demand will be driven by China,India and other emerging economies wheresupplies will be heavily dependent on oil, gasand coal, with renewables making only a smallcontribution overall. However, this ‘business asusual’ outlook may overlook other mega-trends:

� Energy demand may increase less thanpredicted; market forces and Government

support for research and development mayaccelerate energy-saving technologies,leading to increased efficiency in energy use.Energy innovation may be expedited.

� Carbon-capture, hydrogen fuel cells and inthe longer-term, solar-space and fusion.“Global public energy research anddevelopment funding should double, toaround $20 billion, for the development of adiverse portfolio of technologies” (Chapter16: Stern, 2006).

� Increased political concerns about energysecurity. Reducing reliance on others is likelyto be a key priority for current consumingnations, and for emerging economies,ensuring supplies for their rapiddevelopment. Concerns may also drivedevelopment of alternative technologies.

Production of heat or energy at small scalesfrom a low-carbon source, close to where thedemand lies, makes both economic andenvironmental sense. The selling of excessenergy back to the grid makes these technologiesattractive to consumers/producers. Therefore, thegradual decentralisation of energy supplies withan increasing shift to micro-generation seems tobe continuing unabated and this suits thedevelopment of woodfuel. Pathfinders such asTV Energy (www.tvenergy.org) in southernEngland are leading the way with concepts suchas the ‘Tree Station’ and by pioneeringpartnerships and small-scale local schemes.

Resolving the energy – food – water trilogyWater shortages already plague many developingcountries, whilst under a changing climate watermanagement is likely to be increasinglyimportant in the UK and other developingcountries. The electricity generating industrymay find it increasingly difficult to acquire thewater it needs for cooling and other purposes.Electricity generation accounts for some 39% offresh water withdrawals in the United States,only slightly behind agricultural irrigation.Nuclear power stations in France went off lineduring the heat waves of 2003, when the water

209



210

drawn from rivers for cooling was too warm.Land use will play an important role in floodmanagement and must adapt to increasedsummer drought conditions.Will energy crops be developed at the

expense of food crops? The growing of large-scale mono-species is often seen as theeconomic way forward for biofuels. However, ifhigh energy prices make large-scale biomassand other energy crops financially attractive,will farmers switch out of food production? Thiswould push up the price offood, adding to the distress ofpoor people in some areas ofthe world. Many predict risingconsumption linked to risingworld population andincreasing affluence. Recentdebate in the agricultural sectorhas considered whether the UKmight have to accept moreintensive or GM farmingtechnologies to avoid foodshortages. Chief Executive of the ScottishAgricultural College recently stated that foodproduction will need to double in the next 25years, requiring more land for food productionin the UK (BBC Today Programme: 0814, 18thApril 2007).Agriculture’s role in the global economy will

be strengthened, and stretched, as it attempts toservice a vast, virtually unlimited market fortransport fuel. Tropical and subtropicalcountries that can produce sugarcane or palm oilwill be able to fully exploit their year-roundgrowing conditions, giving them a strongcomparative advantage in the world market. Theimpetus for biodiesel production with the EUarises from the European Union’s goal ofmeeting 5.75% of automotive fuel needs withbiofuels by 2010. Biofuels in Europe areexempted from the hefty taxes levied ongasoline and diesel. Both Germany and Franceare market leaders, using rapeseed as the mainfuel source.Therefore, competition for economic land

use and environmental protection are likely tocompete with strategies to convert agriculturalland to new woodfuel resources.

Woodfuel and the environmentLack of management of the UK’s woodlands iswidely recognised as a contributory factor in thedecline of woodland biodiversity. The potentialfor encouraging more woodland management inthe light of global timber market forces iscurrently taxing the UK Conservation Agencies(Lawson and Hemery, 2007). Encouragement ofwoodland management is a central pillar ofEngland’s woodfuel strategy (ForestryCommission England, 2007).

Most forest residues(branches, tops etc.) are left inthe forest and the volume ofroundwood extracted for otheruses is significantly less than itsvolume growth in Europe.Lindner et al. (2007)considered the ecologicalconstraints on greaterutilisation of forest biomass inthe EU, concluding that there isa potential to increase the

utilisation of forests for bioenergy in EU21(EU25 without Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourgand Malta) to achieve 46 Mtoe in 2010, 45 Mtoein 2020 and 59 Mtoe in 2030. However, theimplementation of environmental constraintsresulted in a 40% decrease in the energypotential compared to the estimatedtechnological potential (Lindner et al., 2007).Short rotation forestry (SRC), as opposed to

coppice (SRC), was identified in a recent reportas having no serious issues relating tobiodiversity, environment or landscape,providing that further guidance can be developedfor potential growers by the FC (LTSInternational, 2006).Any increased management activity in our

woodlands must be carefully monitored. If thewoodfuel market develops as hoped, andwoodland owners manage their woodlands moreintensively to realise the targeted additional 2Mt of woodfuel (Forestry Commission England,2007), potential negative impacts includedamage to woodland soils, inadequateregeneration due to deer, reduction of deadwoodand loss of ‘old growth’ conditions, landscapeimpacts, increased heavy vehicles on rural roads.

Can we reduceGreenhouse Gasemissions more bygrowing and usingtimber from our

forests, rather thanburning it?




Further policy levers may be required toencourage appropriate management ofwoodlands and the woodfuel industry.The EU’s 2020 - 20% target seems to be out

of reach without suffering detrimentalenvironmental impact or without disruptingexisting timber markets. Current estimates donot add up and therefore point to a futureshortage of wood resource in Europe (Lawsonand Hemery, 2007).

Challenges for UK forestry� Forestry must integrate more closely withagriculture, environmental conservation,energy, transport and social agendas (Lawsonand Hemery, 2007).

� A growing skills shortage in forestry andrelated disciplines.

� Lack of public understanding, including‘nature deficit disorder’ amongst youngpeople.

� Rebuilding the disjointed woodchain, fromresource, procurement, marketing to end-use.

� Potential shortage of woody biomass.

� Growing domestic (national, regional andlocal) markets and systems.

� Target R&D to meet new silvicultural needs(e.g. species, genetics, systems, technologies,marketing etc.).

� Bringing more woodland into bettermanagement, without detriment to theenvironment.

SummaryThe forestry sector clearly needs to quicklycapitalise on emerging opportunities. Keyamongst these is its contribution to a carbon-leansociety. The most effective role for wood in thefuture appears unclear. Greater GHG emissionsavings may be realised by utilising wood moreas a substitute to carbon-rich constructionmaterials, than by its burning. Further research in

this area would be welcome, as would promotionof wood as a construction material throughexisting projects such as ‘Wood for Good’(www.woodforgood.com) and research by BRE(www.bre.co.uk/).The EU has ambitious targets for wood

biofuel consumption in its member states butthese appear un-obtainable without significantimpacts on the environment and on availabilityof timber for conventional markets. This canonly drive up prices and more so if methanolproduction from woods becomes economicallyviable. The UK will face similar shortage ofwoody-biomass.Competition for land due to predicted food

shortages and biofuel production may make thegrowing of woodfuel through new afforestationprojects (e.g. SRC and/or SRF) unviable. Giventhe need to manage our existing woodlands, andthe public good values derived from sustainableforest management of this resource, perhaps weshould prioritise efforts towards the growing ofquality timber for a range of markets whileaiming to harvest the arising forest residues forwoodfuel. We may need to develop or revisitsilvicultural systems, species choices (native andnon-native) and woodland managementtechnologies before too long.

ReferencesBacon, D. (2007) ‘Woodstock revisited’. The

Economist. pp. 16-17.Broadmeadow, M., Ray, D. and Samuel, C.(2005) Climate change and the future forbroadleaved tree species in Britain. Forestry,78, 145-161.

Carbon Trust (2006) ‘The Carbon Trust threestage approach to developing a robustoffsetting strategy’. Carbon Trust,www.CarbonTrust.co.uk, pp. 24.

CEC (2005) ‘EU Biomass Action Plan’.Commission of the European Communities,Brussels.

Corbyn, I.N., Crockford, K.J. & Savill, P.S.(1988) The estimation of the branchwoodcomponent of broadleaved woodlands.Forestry, 61, 193-204.

Crockford, K., Corbyn, I. & Savill, P. (1987) ‘Anevaluation of the methodology for managing

211

WOODFUEL - WHAT THE FUTURE MAY HOLD



existing broadleaved and coniferouswoodlands for timber and energyproduction’. A report prepared for the EnergyTechnology Division, UK Atomic EnergyAuthority. Agreement No.E/5A/CON/1156/1166. Oxford ForestryInstitute, Oxford, pp. 223.

Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management(2006) ‘FC Scotland greenhouse gasemissions comparison - carbon benefits intimber construction’. ECCM Report 196.http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Carbonbenefitsoftimberinconstruction.pdf/$FILE/Carbonbenefitsoftimberinconstruction.pdf, pp. 26.

Forestry Commission England (2007) ‘Awoodfuel strategy for England’.h t tp : / /www.fores t ry.gov.uk/england-woodfuel, pp. 7.

Greig, S. (2007) Carbon issues in UK forestry.Quarterly Journal of Forestry, 101, 128-134.

Lawson, G. & Hemery, G. 2007 ‘World timbertrade and implementing sustainable forestmanagement in the UK’. Report to theWoodland Policy Group. pp. 86.

Lindner, M., Eggers, J., Zanchi, G., Moiseyev,A., Tröltzsch, K. & Eggers, T. (2007)‘Environmentally compatible bio-energypotential from European forests’. EuropeanEnvironment Agency, http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/database/fores t s / E E A _ B i o _ E n e r g y _ 1 0 - 0 1 -2007_low.pdf/download, pp. 54.

LTS International (2006) ‘A review of thepotential impacts of short rotation forestry’. Areport for the Forestry Commission andDefra. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/

SRFFinalreport27Feb.pdf/$FILE/SRFFinalreport27Feb.pdf, pp. 168.

Matthews, R. & Robertson, K. (2005) ‘Answersto ten frequently asked questions aboutbioenergy, carbon sinks and their role inclimate change’. IEA Bioenergy. Task 38.h t t p : / / www. i e a b i o e n e r g y - t a s k 3 8 .org/publications/faq/, pp. 8.

Schlamadinger, B., Faaij, A., Junginger, M.,Woess-Gallasch, S. & Daugherty, E. (2006)‘Options for trading bioenergy products andservices’. Tasks 38 and 40. IEA Bioenergy,h t t p : / / www. i e a b i o e n e r g y - t a s k 3 8 .org/publications/T38-40-biotrade.pdf, pp. 12.

Spaven, D., Elder, D. & McCrossan, D. (2006)‘Business opportunities for the marinetransport of timber in Scotland’. Final Report.Scottish Enterprise, http://www.forestryscotland.com/pages/download.asp?file=Marine%20Transport%20of%20Timber%20in%20Scotland%20(March%202006).pdf,pp. 80.

Stern, N. (2006) ‘Stern review: the economics ofclimate change’. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

World Energy Outlook (2006), http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/summaries2006/English.pdf


212

Gabriel Hemery* is Director of ForestryHorizons. www.ForestryHorizons.eu

*Forestry Horizons, Manor House, LittleWittenham, Oxon OX14 4RA.



Woodfuel -what the future may hold - Sylva Foundation · WOODFUEL-WHATTHEFUTUREMAYHOLD substantial...

Documents

Transcript of Woodfuel -what the future may hold - Sylva Foundation · WOODFUEL-WHATTHEFUTUREMAYHOLD substantial...