Biomass Policy Blog

COP31 has exposed a striking gap between global climate ambition and energy policy reality. A new International Energy Agency report suggests that sustainable fuels are gaining momentum — but nowhere near fast enough to meet the world’s ambitions. For biomass, the findings reveal both a political contradiction and a major economic opportunity.

A Climate Promise Meets an Uncomfortable Reality

The global energy transition has no shortage of ambitious targets. Governments have committed to expanding renewable energy, improving energy efficiency and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Yet one of the most consequential promises has received surprisingly little public attention: the ambition to quadruple global sustainable fuel consumption by 2035. Launched in October 2025 by Brazil, India, Italy and Japan, the Belém 4X Pledge on Sustainable Fuels was designed to accelerate the deployment of liquid biofuels, biogases, low-emissions hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels. By September 2026, 32 countries had endorsed the initiative, representing a substantial share of global sustainable fuel demand.

The political message was clear. Electrification alone would not be sufficient to decarbonise the global economy. Aviation, shipping, industrial production and parts of road transport would continue to require fuels, even as renewable electricity expanded. One year later, the International Energy Agency has delivered an uncomfortable assessment.

In its new COP30 Belém Sustainable Fuels Pledge tracking report, published on 10 November 2026 and presented at COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye, the IEA projects that global demand for sustainable fuels will increase by approximately one-third between 2024 and 2030 under current policies and market conditions.

That is meaningful growth. But it falls substantially short of the trajectory required to meet the 2035 ambition. According to the IEA, projected sustainable fuel demand in 2030 is around 30% below the level needed to remain on track.

The contradiction is striking: governments have endorsed a major expansion of sustainable fuels, yet existing policy frameworks are not delivering the necessary acceleration.

The world has recognised the importance of sustainable fuels. It has not yet created the market conditions required to deploy them at the promised scale.

For the biomass industry, this distinction is fundamental.

The Numbers Reveal More Than a Policy Gap

The IEA’s findings deserve attention beyond the headline.

Global sustainable liquid and gaseous fuel demand approximately doubled between 2010 and 2024, reaching almost seven exajoules. Despite that expansion, sustainable fuels still accounted for only around 1.3% of global final energy consumption in 2024. This is an important reminder of how early the transition remains outside the electricity sector. Renewable electricity has experienced extraordinary technological and commercial progress. Solar photovoltaics, wind turbines and battery storage have attracted enormous investment and increasingly benefit from established supply chains.

Sustainable fuels face a different set of challenges. They must compete with fossil fuels that benefit from extensive existing infrastructure, established international trading systems and deeply integrated industrial processes. Their production often involves more complicated feedstock logistics, higher capital costs and regulatory uncertainty.

Nevertheless, the IEA’s earlier Delivering Sustainable Fuels: Pathways to 2035 report demonstrated that a much faster expansion is technically and politically conceivable. Full implementation of existing and proposed national and international policies, combined with additional measures to overcome deployment barriers, could put sustainable fuel use on a pathway towards quadrupling by 2035.

The latest tracking report does not invalidate that potential. It reveals the difference between an accelerated policy pathway and the market trajectory expected under current conditions.

This is precisely where the debate should shift. The question is no longer whether sustainable fuels can contribute to the energy transition. It is whether governments are prepared to establish the investment conditions necessary for them to do so.

The Surprising Winner: Biomass Is Already Driving the Transition

Perhaps the most interesting finding in the IEA report concerns the technologies actually delivering growth. While hydrogen and synthetic fuels frequently dominate discussions about the future of sustainable energy, the near-term expansion is being driven overwhelmingly by bioenergy. The IEA estimates that liquid biofuels will account for nearly 70% of projected global sustainable fuel growth through 2030, with road transport providing much of the demand.

This is a remarkable finding. In political debates, biomass is sometimes portrayed as a transitional technology whose importance will decline as more advanced solutions emerge. Yet the IEA’s latest analysis suggests that established biofuel technologies are doing much of the practical work of reducing fossil-fuel dependence today.

Bioethanol, biodiesel and renewable diesel benefit from commercial production experience, existing distribution infrastructure and established regulatory frameworks. In many markets, they can be blended with conventional fuels, allowing emissions reductions without requiring the immediate replacement of entire vehicle fleets.

Biomethane offers similar advantages in gaseous energy markets. Where technically compatible and supported by appropriate regulation, it can use existing natural gas infrastructure, providing a renewable alternative for applications that remain dependent on gaseous fuels.

This does not mean hydrogen and synthetic fuels are unimportant. The IEA expects production of low-emissions hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels from operating or investment-committed projects to rise to nearly six times its 2024 level by 2030. But rapid percentage growth from a small starting point is different from delivering large volumes of energy. The emerging reality is that biomass-derived fuels are not merely waiting for the next generation of technologies.

They are already providing much of the sustainable-fuel growth on which the global transition depends.

Energy Security Is Changing the Political Equation

Climate policy is no longer the only reason governments are expanding biofuels. Energy security has become an increasingly important driver. The IEA reports that sustainable fuels are already reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels in road transport by up to 40% in certain markets. This is particularly significant for countries that depend heavily on imported oil and gas but possess substantial agricultural, forestry or organic waste resources. In 2026, several countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America increased biofuel blending requirements in response to higher fossil-fuel prices and supply pressures associated with the conflict in the Middle East.

The implications extend beyond emissions. Domestic biofuel production can reduce exposure to international oil markets, support agricultural value chains, generate rural employment and diversify national energy supplies. Brazil illustrates the strategic importance of this approach. Its long-established ethanol industry demonstrates how biofuels can become part of national energy infrastructure rather than remaining a marginal environmental initiative. India’s ethanol blending programme similarly illustrates how policy-driven demand can accelerate market development, although feedstock sustainability, water use and competing agricultural demands remain important considerations.

For many emerging economies, sustainable biomass offers something particularly valuable: an opportunity to connect energy transition policy with domestic economic development.

Solar panels and wind turbines produce renewable electricity. Biomass can additionally create markets for agricultural products, forestry by-products, organic residues and waste-management services. The economic benefits are not automatic, and poorly designed policies can create undesirable land-use incentives. Nevertheless, the potential to combine energy security, rural development and emissions reductions helps explain why biofuels are receiving renewed political attention.

Why Electrification Alone Cannot Deliver Net Zero

The broader significance of the Belém Pledge lies in a fundamental limitation of the energy transition. Electricity is an exceptionally efficient energy carrier for many applications. Electric vehicles, heat pumps and renewable power generation are essential components of decarbonisation. But not every sector can be electrified easily, economically or rapidly. Long-distance aviation requires energy-dense fuels. International shipping operates vessels with long service lives and demanding fuel-storage requirements. Industrial facilities often require high-temperature heat or carbon-containing feedstocks. Large existing fleets of combustion-engine vehicles will remain in use for years.

In these applications, sustainable fuels can complement electrification rather than compete with it. This is particularly important for policymakers who view decarbonisation primarily through the lens of electricity generation. Replacing fossil electricity is necessary, but it does not automatically eliminate fossil-fuel demand across the wider economy. Oil and gas are not used exclusively to generate electricity. They are also used as transport fuels, industrial inputs and chemical feedstocks. Consequently, a credible net-zero strategy must address both renewable electricity and sustainable molecules. Biomass occupies a distinctive position in this transition because it can provide renewable carbon as well as energy. Advanced biofuels can substitute for fossil-derived liquid fuels. Biomethane can replace fossil natural gas in suitable applications. Biomass-derived intermediates can supply chemical and industrial processes that require carbon-containing materials.

These characteristics explain why bioenergy remains relevant even in scenarios featuring extensive electrification. The future energy system will not be built around one universal technology. It will require different solutions for different applications.

The Real Bottleneck Is Investment Confidence

If sustainable fuels are strategically important, why is deployment progressing too slowly?

The answer is not simply technological immaturity. Many biofuel technologies are commercially established. Their limitations increasingly involve economics, policy design and investment risk. Producing sustainable fuels often remains more expensive than using conventional fossil fuels. Investors therefore need confidence that future demand will justify the capital expenditure required for new facilities, logistics networks and feedstock supply chains. Short-term subsidies and frequently changing blending mandates may encourage incremental production but are less effective at supporting long-lived infrastructure investments. A biofuel refinery, biomethane plant or advanced biomass conversion facility cannot be financed solely on the basis of political enthusiasm.

It requires predictable revenue. This is why the IEA emphasises clear roadmaps, reliable demand signals, robust carbon accounting, technological innovation, infrastructure development and improved access to finance. The challenge is especially acute for advanced biofuels. Conventional biofuel production benefits from established technologies and feedstock markets. Newer pathways based on lignocellulosic residues, complex waste streams or advanced conversion processes can offer additional sustainability advantages but may involve greater technical and financial risk.

Without stable policy frameworks, investors may prefer conventional energy projects or postpone decisions altogether. The result is a familiar problem in energy policy: governments announce ambitious long-term targets while leaving companies uncertain about the commercial conditions under which those targets are supposed to be achieved. For sustainable fuels, that gap is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

The Sustainability Paradox: Stronger Rules Could Unlock Faster Growth

A major expansion of biomass-derived fuels inevitably raises questions about feedstock availability, land use, biodiversity and greenhouse-gas accounting.

These concerns cannot be dismissed. Not every biomass resource is equally sustainable. Not every biofuel delivers the same lifecycle emissions savings. Expanding production without considering land-use change, agricultural competition or forest management could undermine the environmental objectives that justify policy support. But the conclusion should not be that biomass deployment must remain limited. Rather, the challenge is to distinguish sustainable supply chains from problematic ones and create incentives for continuous improvement. Agricultural residues, forestry by-products, organic wastes and other suitable feedstocks can contribute to sustainable fuel production, provided their extraction and use respect environmental limits and competing applications. Credible certification, lifecycle greenhouse-gas accounting and transparent sourcing can help establish that distinction. The European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive provides one example of an increasingly detailed regulatory approach to bioenergy sustainability. Other markets are developing their own requirements, although differences in accounting methods and certification standards can complicate international trade.

This creates a paradox. Stricter sustainability requirements may initially increase compliance costs and constrain certain feedstock sources. Yet credible and internationally compatible standards can also reduce regulatory uncertainty, improve public acceptance and make long-term investment more attractive. For the biomass sector, sustainability governance should therefore be understood not merely as a regulatory burden, but as a potential foundation for future market expansion. The objective should be to increase sustainable fuel production without weakening environmental safeguards. That requires better technology, better feedstock management and better regulation — not the abandonment of bioenergy.

A Market Opportunity Hidden Behind the Political Failure

The IEA’s findings also reveal a significant economic opportunity. Its Energy Technology Perspectives 2026 report projects that the global market value of low-emissions fuels could increase from approximately USD 215 billion in 2025 to USD 390 billion by 2035 under its Current Policies Scenario. Around 60% of the projected market growth is expected to come from relatively mature biofuel technologies, including biomethane, bioethanol and biodiesel. These figures suggest that sustainable fuels could become a major industrial market even without full achievement of the Belém Pledge.

Stronger policy implementation would potentially create additional demand. For biomass producers, fuel manufacturers, technology providers and infrastructure investors, the implications are substantial. The industry could benefit from expanding demand for certified feedstocks, improved biomass logistics, advanced conversion technologies and integrated production systems. Countries with established agricultural and forestry sectors may also gain opportunities to develop domestic processing capacity rather than exporting only raw materials.

However, market growth will not be distributed equally. Companies able to demonstrate reliable feedstock sourcing, competitive production costs and credible greenhouse-gas performance are likely to be better positioned than those dependent on uncertain subsidies or controversial raw materials. The next phase of the biomass industry may therefore be characterised by increasing differentiation between operators. Sustainability performance, technological efficiency and access to long-term demand could become decisive competitive advantages.

COP31: From Political Ambition to Market Delivery

The first anniversary of the Belém Pledge provides an opportunity to reassess the international approach to sustainable fuels. There are encouraging signs. According to the IEA, sustainable fuel demand increased by 9% over the preceding year in countries endorsing the pledge, compared with 7% elsewhere. Under current policies, demand in endorsing countries is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of nearly 7% through 2030, compared with approximately 3% in non-endorsing countries. This suggests that political commitment can be associated with faster market development, although the figures do not establish that endorsement alone caused the difference.

Nevertheless, the overall trajectory remains insufficient. The countries supporting the pledge account for almost 40% of global sustainable fuel demand. Broader international participation, stronger implementation and more effective investment frameworks will be necessary to achieve the global ambition. The policy response should therefore focus on practical delivery. Governments need to translate long-term targets into credible intermediate milestones. Fuel suppliers and industrial consumers need predictable demand frameworks. Investors need confidence that sustainability requirements and market incentives will remain sufficiently stable over the lifetime of their projects.

International cooperation will also be important. Divergent lifecycle accounting methods, inconsistent sustainability certification and incompatible fuel standards can create unnecessary barriers to trade and investment. A more coordinated approach could help sustainable fuels develop into an increasingly integrated international market while preserving environmental integrity. The Belém Pledge provides a political framework for this process. Its credibility will ultimately depend on implementation.

The Bigger Question: Is Biomass Being Undervalued?

The IEA’s latest findings challenge a persistent assumption in energy policy: that sustainable biomass is primarily a legacy renewable technology whose importance will gradually diminish. The evidence points towards a more differentiated future. Direct electrification will continue to expand and will often be the most efficient solution. But demand for sustainable liquid and gaseous fuels is also expected to grow, particularly in sectors where fossil fuels are difficult to replace.

Biomass-derived fuels are already responsible for much of that growth. Their contribution extends beyond greenhouse-gas reductions to energy security, industrial development and rural economic opportunities. This does not justify unrestricted biomass expansion. Sustainable feedstocks are finite, and competing uses must be considered. It does, however, strengthen the case for policies that recognise the specific value of biomass in applications where renewable molecules are difficult to substitute. The strategic mistake would be to judge biomass exclusively by its ability to compete with wind and solar in electricity generation. Its potentially greater long-term value lies elsewhere: in renewable fuels, renewable carbon, flexible energy supply and, where appropriate, carbon-removal technologies.

These functions will remain relevant even as the electricity system becomes increasingly renewable.

Conclusion: The World Does Not Need Another Pledge. It Needs a Sustainable Fuels Market.

The new IEA report delivers two messages.

The first is a warning. Under current policies and market conditions, sustainable fuel demand is not growing quickly enough to remain on track for the ambition of quadrupling global use by 2035.

The second is an opportunity. Sustainable fuels are already expanding, and biomass-derived technologies account for a substantial share of that progress.

The challenge is therefore not to invent an entirely new energy solution. It is to create the conditions under which existing and emerging sustainable fuel technologies can scale responsibly. That means predictable demand, credible sustainability standards, investment in infrastructure, innovation and access to finance.

For governments, the choice is increasingly clear: continue announcing ambitious targets without providing sufficient market support, or establish policies capable of turning those targets into industrial reality.

For the biomass sector, the implications are equally clear. Sustainable biomass is not a peripheral element of the energy transition. It is already contributing to the displacement of fossil fuels and could play a substantially larger role in the coming decade.

The world has promised four times more sustainable fuels. The real question is whether policymakers are prepared to build the market that makes it possible.

---

Sources and Further Reading

1. International Energy Agency (2026) — COP30 Belém Sustainable Fuels Pledge.
Tracking report published 10 November 2026. The principal source for the latest demand projections, pledge participation, policy progress and the gap to the 2035 ambition.
https://www.iea.org/reports/cop30-belem-sustainable-fuels-pledge

2. International Energy Agency (2026) — Countries Backing Belém Pledge Are Showing Faster Progress on Sustainable Fuel Growth, but More Action Needed.
IEA press release, 10 November 2026. Summarises the key findings, including the projected one-third demand increase, biofuels’ contribution and differences between participating and non-participating countries.
https://www.iea.org/news/countries-backing-belem-pledge-are-showing-faster-progress-on-sustainable-fuel-growth-but-more-action-needed

3. International Energy Agency (2025) — Delivering Sustainable Fuels: Pathways to 2035.
The analytical foundation for the Belém Pledge, examining accelerated deployment pathways, technology requirements, investment conditions and sustainability challenges.
https://www.iea.org/reports/delivering-sustainable-fuels

4. International Energy Agency (2026) — Renewables 2026: Renewable Transport.
Analysis of biofuel demand, blending policies, feedstock requirements and the potential for faster growth under stronger policy implementation.
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2026/renewable-transport

5. International Energy Agency (2026) — Energy Technology Perspectives 2026.
Market projections for low-emissions fuels and the contribution of established biofuel technologies to future market growth.
https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2026/executive-summary

6. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2026) — One Year of the Belém 4X Pledge and the Future Fuels Action Plan: From Commitment to Action.
Official COP31 event documentation outlining international priorities for sustainable fuel demand, lifecycle carbon accounting, markets and infrastructure.
https://unfccc.int/event/solution-delivery-ag-2-one-year-of-the-belem-4x-pledge-and-the-future-fuels-action-plan-from

7. International Energy Agency (2026) — Tracking COP Energy Goals.
Overview of international energy commitments and the role of sustainable fuels in global decarbonisation.
https://www.iea.org/topics/tracking-cop-energy-goals

UNGA 2026 puts the next phase of the energy transition on the agenda

This week in New York, world leaders are discussing a question that is becoming increasingly important as the energy transition matures: what comes after the rapid expansion of wind, solar and electrification?

At the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Week 2026, climate and energy have again moved to the centre of international diplomacy. The UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit includes a dedicated Energy Transition Solutions Dialogue, convened by the COP31 Presidency, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Action Team. The wider High-Level Event on Climate Action and the Just Transition on 23 September is focused on accelerating the transition, strengthening energy security and mobilising investment, while a further Solutions Dialogue on 24 September addresses Accelerating Green Industrialization.

This matters for biomass.

For much of the past decade, the political narrative surrounding the energy transition has concentrated overwhelmingly on electricity: build more wind and solar, expand grids, deploy batteries and electrify transport, heating and industry.

All of that remains essential.

But the global transition is increasingly confronting the limits of an electricity-only strategy. Aircraft need energy-dense fuels. Ships must travel thousands of kilometres. High-temperature industrial processes cannot always be electrified economically. Existing vehicle fleets and industrial infrastructure will remain in operation for decades. And many developing economies need renewable solutions that can work with infrastructure they already have.

This is where sustainable fuels, and particularly biofuels, biomethane and other forms of modern bioenergy, are gaining renewed strategic relevance.

The debate taking place around UNGA81 therefore points towards an important evolution in climate policy:

The next stage of the energy transition will not only be about producing renewable electrons. It will also be about producing sustainable molecules.

From COP30 to New York: the emergence of a sustainable-fuels agenda

The political groundwork was laid during COP30 in Belém.

One significant outcome of the COP30 Action Agenda was the Belém 4x Pledge on Sustainable Fuels. The initiative aims to provide political support and international cooperation for increasing the use of sustainable fuels at least fourfold by 2035 compared with 2024 levels, taking account of different national circumstances.

Importantly for the biomass sector, the definition is technologically broad.

It includes:

• • liquid biofuels;
• • biogases, including biomethane;
• • low-emissions hydrogen and its derivatives; and
• • e-fuels.

The initiative was endorsed by 23 countries, according to the COP30 Action Agenda report, while a broader group of companies and international organisations expressed support.

The significance is easy to underestimate. Rather than treating biofuels as a legacy technology that will gradually disappear as electrification advances, the emerging framework treats sustainable fuels as a complement to electrification.

That distinction could have major consequences for future biomass policy.

The numbers point to a potentially much larger market

The IEA’s Delivering Sustainable Fuels – Pathways to 2035 provides the analytical foundation for the fourfold ambition.

Its conclusion is striking. If fully legislated and implemented, existing and proposed national and international policies could put sustainable liquid and gaseous fuels on a pathway to nearly double their use between 2024 and 2030 and quadruple it by 2035.

That expansion would not be driven by one technology. Biofuels, biogases, hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels would all contribute. But biomass-derived fuels have an important advantage: several technologies and supply chains already operate commercially at significant scale.

The IEA’s 2026 Energy Technology Perspectives reinforces that point. It estimates that the global market for low-emissions fuels could grow from around USD 215 billion in 2025 to approximately USD 390 billion in 2035 under current-policy assumptions. Around 60% of that growth is expected to come from relatively mature biofuel technologies, including biomethane, bioethanol and biodiesel.

That changes the way biomass should be viewed. Biomass is not simply competing for a place in the future electricity mix. Its potentially larger strategic opportunity lies in sectors where electricity alone cannot easily replace fossil molecules.

Aviation may become one of biomass’s most important markets

Aviation illustrates the problem particularly well. A battery-electric passenger car can already replace a combustion-engine vehicle for many applications. A battery-electric long-haul aircraft is an entirely different proposition.

Aircraft require extremely high energy density. Consequently, aviation is likely to remain dependent on liquid fuels for a considerable period. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) therefore represents one of the clearest potential growth markets for sustainable biomass.

Advanced biofuels produced from wastes, residues, used oils, agricultural feedstocks and potentially lignocellulosic biomass can replace conventional jet fuel while using much of the existing aircraft and airport infrastructure.

The same principle applies, although with different technology options, to maritime transport. The result is a form of sectoral specialisation.

Renewable electricity can increasingly dominate applications where direct electrification is efficient.

Sustainable biomass can increasingly be directed towards applications where renewable carbon molecules have particularly high system value.

That is a much stronger long-term proposition for bioenergy than attempting to compete indiscriminately with increasingly inexpensive solar and wind electricity.

Biomethane: an underestimated part of the transition

Another important part of this story is biomethane. Biomethane can be produced from agricultural residues, manure, sewage sludge, food waste and other organic material. After upgrading, it can substitute for fossil natural gas and, depending on national infrastructure and regulation, be injected into existing gas grids.

This gives it several advantages: It can transform waste streams into energy, use existing gas infrastructure, provide storable renewable energy and reduce dependence on imported fossil gas.

The IEA has already identified growing policy support for biogas and biomethane. Its renewable-energy analysis projected biogas demand growth through 2030, with the United States and European Union among the important markets and China and India developing additional infrastructure and feedstock supply chains.

For agricultural economies, the implications extend beyond energy. Biomethane creates a potential revenue stream from materials that were previously wastes or low-value residues. Properly designed systems can also capture methane that would otherwise be released from manure or waste decomposition.

That makes bioenergy simultaneously an energy, waste-management, agricultural and climate policy instrument.

Green industrialisation gives biomass another opening

The UNGA discussions also connect energy transition with industrial policy. On 24 September, UNIDO and the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Action Team are convening a High-Level Solutions Dialogue on Accelerating Green Industrialization.

This is another area where biomass deserves more attention. Industrial decarbonisation is frequently discussed in terms of renewable electricity and green hydrogen. Both will be important. But industry also requires heat, carbon-containing feedstocks and fuels.

Sustainable biomass can provide all three. High-temperature process heat can be produced from solid biomass, biogas or biofuels. Biogenic carbon can replace fossil carbon in selected chemical and material applications. Biofuels can supply machinery and processes for which electrification is difficult. This is particularly relevant for emerging and developing economies with substantial agricultural and forestry sectors. Residues from forestry, agriculture and food processing can potentially become domestic energy resources rather than waste products.

The result is a different model of energy transition: one in which decarbonisation can support local value creation rather than simply replacing one imported energy technology with another.

Energy security strengthens the case

There is another reason sustainable fuels are returning to the policy agenda: energy security. The IEA explicitly identifies diversification of fuel supply and reduced dependence on fossil-fuel imports as potential benefits of sustainable fuels.

The geopolitical significance is substantial. Oil and gas resources are geographically concentrated. Biomass resources are distributed much more broadly. Agricultural residues exist wherever crops are produced. Forestry residues arise in countries with managed forests and forest industries. Organic waste is generated by virtually every economy.

Not every country can produce oil, but many countries can produce some form of bioenergy. This does not imply energy autarky, nor does it eliminate the value of international biomass trade. It does, however, create opportunities for countries to diversify their energy supply and convert domestic biological resources into useful energy.

For policymakers increasingly concerned simultaneously with decarbonisation, resilience and industrial competitiveness, that combination is attractive.

But four times more sustainable fuel means four times more attention to sustainability

There is an important qualification. Rapid expansion will only strengthen the political position of biomass if the additional feedstock is genuinely sustainable. A fourfold increase in sustainable-fuel consumption cannot simply mean a fourfold increase in pressure on forests, agricultural land or food systems. The IEA therefore stresses the importance of common sustainability criteria, credible carbon accounting and diversification of feedstocks.

This is where recent European biomass regulation may ultimately prove useful rather than restrictive. RED III has tightened sustainability criteria for forest biomass, strengthened greenhouse-gas requirements and introduced additional protections for biodiversity and sensitive ecosystems. These rules raise compliance costs. But they also create something the biomass industry urgently needs: a clearer distinction between sustainable bioenergy and unsustainable biomass extraction.

The future political argument should therefore not be “biomass versus no biomass.”

It should be:

Which biomass, from which feedstock, used for which application, with what lifecycle emissions?

That is a much more sophisticated question — and one that favours efficient, traceable biomass supply chains.

A hierarchy for biomass is beginning to emerge

This points towards what could become the defining principle of biomass policy in the 2030s: allocate limited sustainable biomass to the applications where it creates the greatest value.

Not every megawatt-hour of bioenergy has the same strategic importance. Where wind, solar or direct electrification provide a cheaper and more efficient solution, they will increasingly dominate. But where carbon-based fuels remain necessary, sustainable biomass becomes much more valuable.

That suggests a future hierarchy roughly centred on:

Aviation and shipping — where energy-dense sustainable fuels are difficult to replace.

Industrial heat and feedstocks — particularly where direct electrification is technically or economically challenging.

Biomethane and renewable gases — where existing gas infrastructure can be utilised and waste emissions avoided.

Flexible heat and power — where dispatchability provides system value alongside variable renewables.

BECCS — where sustainably sourced biomass can potentially combine energy production with durable carbon dioxide removal.

This is not the marginalisation of biomass. It is arguably the opposite: the transition from using biomass simply because it is renewable to using it strategically because of the specific functions it can perform.

BECCS could add an entirely new value proposition

There is one further characteristic that distinguishes biomass from most renewable technologies. Combined with carbon capture and geological storage, sustainable biomass can potentially generate negative emissions. Plants absorb atmospheric CO₂ while growing. If biomass is produced sustainably and the resulting biogenic CO₂ is captured during conversion and permanently stored, the overall process can remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. The IEA’s Net Zero pathway has long included BECCS because some residual emissions are difficult to eliminate completely. That means the long-term value of biomass could consist of two products rather than one:

energy + carbon removal.

If credible carbon-removal markets develop, this could fundamentally change biomass economics.

A biomass facility would no longer necessarily derive its value primarily from electricity, heat or fuel. Carbon removal itself could become an increasingly valuable output.

The policy challenge: scale without losing credibility

The renewed interest in sustainable fuels therefore presents policymakers with a difficult but manageable task. Scale too slowly, and aviation, shipping and industry may remain dependent on fossil fuels for longer. Scale indiscriminately, and land-use, biodiversity or lifecycle-emissions concerns could undermine the environmental rationale for bioenergy.

The solution is not to abandon biomass – It is to improve it.

That means prioritising wastes and residues, developing advanced feedstocks, enforcing credible sustainability criteria, improving conversion efficiency, investing in certification and traceability, and directing sustainable biomass towards applications where alternatives are limited.

The IEA reaches a similar conclusion from a broader technology-neutral perspective: sustainable fuels will require stronger policies, investment, infrastructure, common carbon-accounting approaches and more accessible finance if they are to achieve their potential.

The bigger picture: the energy transition is becoming more diverse

The discussions taking place during UNGA81 illustrate a broader change in global energy policy.

The first phase of the modern energy transition demonstrated that wind and solar could become large-scale and increasingly cost-competitive energy sources.

The next phase is harder. It must decarbonise aviation, shipping, industrial heat, chemicals and other sectors in which replacing fossil fuels is considerably more complicated. That changes the role of biomass. Rather than being viewed primarily as another renewable electricity source, sustainable biomass can increasingly become a source of renewable molecules, industrial heat, dispatchable energy and potentially negative emissions. The transition does not have to be a contest between electrons and molecules.

It will need both.

And if the international ambition to dramatically expand sustainable fuels becomes concrete national policy, the coming decade could prove considerably more important for modern bioenergy than the last one.

Sources and Further Reading

United Nations — Climate Summit 2026 and the UNGA81 Energy Transition Solutions Dialogue.

International Energy Agency — Delivering Sustainable Fuels: Pathways to 2035.

UNFCCC / COP30 Presidency — COP30 Action Agenda and the Belém 4x Pledge on Sustainable Fuels.

International Energy Agency — Energy Technology Perspectives 2026.

International Energy Agency — Towards Common Criteria for Sustainable Fuels.

International Energy Agency — Renewables 2024.

UNIDO — High-Level Solutions Dialogue on Accelerating Green Industrialization, UNGA81.

IRENA — Bioenergy for the Energy Transition: Ensuring Sustainability and Overcoming Barriers.

Europe’s climate debate is entering a new phase. For years, political attention focused primarily on emission reductions: renewable electricity, electrification, energy efficiency and fossil fuel substitution. That logic still dominates much of the public discussion. Yet behind the scenes, European climate policy is increasingly acknowledging a more difficult reality: emission reductions alone will not be sufficient to achieve climate neutrality.

This shift is becoming visible across multiple policy frameworks. The European Commission is advancing the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, investing in CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure, and openly discussing industrial carbon removals as part of the EU’s long-term climate architecture. The language of “negative emissions” has moved from academic reports into mainstream policy documents.

At the same time, however, Europe continues to treat biomass — the very foundation of the only scalable carbon removal technology currently available — as a political problem rather than a strategic asset.

This contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

The uncomfortable truth is that every serious pathway to climate neutrality depends not only on reducing emissions, but also on removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at large scale. The IPCC has repeatedly concluded that residual emissions from sectors such as aviation, cement, steel, chemicals and agriculture will remain even under highly ambitious decarbonization scenarios. Those emissions must ultimately be balanced through durable carbon removals.

In practice, this means that Europe needs an industrial-scale removal strategy. And today, one technology stands out above all others in terms of maturity, scalability and system integration: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, commonly referred to as BECCS.

The principle behind BECCS is straightforward. Biomass absorbs CO₂ during growth through photosynthesis. When that biomass is used for energy or industrial processing, the resulting biogenic CO₂ emissions are captured instead of released into the atmosphere and permanently stored underground. The overall result is a net removal of atmospheric carbon.

Unlike many theoretical climate technologies, BECCS does not depend on hypothetical future infrastructure. It builds on existing biomass supply chains, existing thermal conversion systems and commercially available carbon capture technologies. Europe already operates biomass CHP plants, pellet facilities, pulp and paper mills and bioenergy installations capable of serving as integration points for carbon capture systems. Geological storage infrastructure is also advancing rapidly, particularly in the North Sea region.

The challenge is therefore no longer primarily technical. It is political and regulatory.

European policy simultaneously signals that carbon removals are essential while creating uncertainty around the very biomass systems needed to deliver them. Sustainability discussions around biomass have become increasingly polarized, often collapsing fundamentally different feedstocks and applications into a single political narrative. Residues, wastes, industrial by-products and sustainably managed forestry streams are frequently debated alongside worst-case assumptions about land-use change or deforestation. The result is a regulatory atmosphere in which investors face ambiguity rather than strategic direction.

This matters because industrial capital does not flow into politically unstable frameworks.

The irony is striking. Europe is preparing large-scale carbon transport and storage networks, discussing permanent removals within climate targets, and promoting industrial decarbonization strategies — while at the same time sending mixed signals about biomass itself. Policymakers increasingly support the “storage” part of BECCS while remaining hesitant about the “bioenergy” component that makes the system function.

In reality, sustainable biomass is not merely an energy source. It is a carbon management feedstock.

That distinction changes the strategic equation entirely.

The debate around biomass has historically focused on combustion emissions at the point of use. But this perspective becomes incomplete in the context of carbon removals. Under a BECCS framework, biogenic carbon is not simply emitted — it is captured and permanently stored. Biomass therefore shifts from being part of an emissions discussion to becoming part of a removal infrastructure.

This is particularly important for Europe because many sectors cannot realistically eliminate all emissions through electrification alone. Heavy industry, process heat, aviation fuels and certain chemical processes will continue to produce residual emissions for decades. A credible net-zero strategy requires balancing mechanisms that are measurable, scalable and durable.

Nature-based removals such as afforestation and soil carbon sequestration play an important role, but they face structural limitations regarding permanence, monitoring and vulnerability to reversal through wildfire, drought or land-use changes. BECCS offers something fundamentally different: industrially verifiable negative emissions with long-term geological storage integrity.

Globally, other regions are moving more aggressively to capture this opportunity. The United States has created powerful investment incentives through the Inflation Reduction Act and the expansion of 45Q tax credits for carbon capture projects. Norway continues to position itself as a central European CO₂ storage hub. The United Kingdom is supporting CCS cluster development through long-term state-backed frameworks.

Europe risks entering a familiar pattern: strong climate ambition combined with slower industrial execution.

If the EU genuinely intends to build a carbon removal economy, it must move beyond treating biomass primarily as a sustainability controversy and begin treating it as strategic infrastructure. That does not mean abandoning rigorous sustainability standards. On the contrary, credibility is essential. But it does require differentiation between unsustainable practices and sustainable industrial biomass systems capable of delivering measurable climate value.

The future climate economy will not be built solely on electrons. It will also depend on molecules, carbon flows and negative-emission infrastructure.

This is where the current European debate often becomes disconnected from physical reality. Policymakers increasingly acknowledge the necessity of carbon removals in principle, yet parts of the political system still approach biomass with hesitation rooted in older energy debates. But BECCS is not simply another renewable power discussion. It is part of the emerging carbon management economy.

And carbon management will become one of the defining industrial sectors of the coming decades.

A serious European strategy would therefore integrate durable removals into compliance markets, provide stable long-term incentives for verified negative emissions, accelerate CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure, and establish clear sustainability classifications that distinguish residue-based and industrial biomass systems from genuinely problematic practices.

Without such clarity, Europe risks undermining one of the few scalable removal pathways available within its own industrial ecosystem.

The central paradox is now impossible to avoid:

Europe increasingly recognizes that carbon removals are necessary.
But it still treats the feedstock enabling the most scalable removal pathway as a political liability.

That contradiction cannot persist indefinitely. Eventually, European climate policy will need to decide whether biomass is primarily viewed through the lens of past political conflicts — or through the lens of future carbon management needs.

The answer may shape not only Europe’s climate trajectory, but also its industrial competitiveness in the net-zero economy.

---

Sources

European Commission Climate Policy
IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report
International Energy Agency – CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions
EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework
Net Zero Industry Act

The End of the Innovation Narrative

For years, biomass technologies have been discussed in the language of innovation – pilot plants, breakthrough processes, and future potential. Gasification was “promising.” Pyrolysis was “emerging.” Advanced fuels were “on the horizon.” That phase is over.

What we are now seeing is not a technology race, but a deployment phase. The core conversion pathways are no longer experimental. They are being built, financed, and integrated into industrial systems. The critical shift is: The risk in biomass is no longer technical. It is economic, systemic, and strategic.

The Maturity of Core Conversion Pathways

The main technological routes for biomass conversion are now well established. While incremental improvements continue, the fundamental processes are no longer in question.

Pyrolysis: From Niche to Platform

Pyrolysis has evolved from small-scale systems into industrial platforms capable of producing biochar (carbon removal), bio-oil (fuel or sequestration pathway), and syngas (energy recovery). Companies like Pyreg and Carbo Culture demonstrate that pyrolysis is no longer experimental—it is modular, scalable, and already deployed. Its real strength lies in flexibility;

energy + carbon removal + material applications in one system.

Gasification: Industrial Backbone for Fuels

Gasification has long been known, but its role is shifting toward high-value fuel production, particularly Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and Synthetic fuels via Fischer-Tropsch. This pathway is capital-intensive, but technologically mature. The challenge is no longer “can it work?” – it is: Can it compete economically under current policy frameworks?

Biogas and RNG: Quiet Scaling

Renewable natural gas (RNG) and biogas systems are often overlooked because they lack the “innovation narrative.” But they are among the most deployed biomass technologies globally.

They offer:

• Immediate emissions reductions
• Integration into existing gas infrastructure
• Strong policy support in multiple regions

This is not future tech. It is already scaling at industrial level.

The Conference Signal: From Innovation to Execution

A closer look at the conference agenda shows a clear pattern:

• Fewer discussions about “breakthrough technologies”
• More focus on:
  • Project financing
  • Commercial deployment
  • Supply chain integration
  • Policy alignment

This is a classic industry transition. When conversations shift from “what works” to “what scales,” you are no longer in an innovation phase – you are in an execution phase.

The Real Risks: No Longer Technical

If technology is no longer the primary uncertainty, what is?

1. Economic Viability

Many biomass pathways – especially SAF and advanced fuels – are:

• Capital-intensive
• Dependent on policy incentives
• Sensitive to feedstock costs

Without supportive frameworks, even mature technologies struggle to compete with fossil alternatives.

2. Feedstock Dependency

As discussed in Day 2, all technologies converge on the same constraint:

Sustainable biomass supply

Even the best technology fails without reliable feedstock access.

3. Policy and Carbon Accounting

The economics of biomass are increasingly shaped by:

• Carbon intensity scores
• Subsidies and mandates
• Carbon credit systems

For example:

• SAF viability depends heavily on regulatory frameworks
• Biochar depends on carbon credit markets such as Puro.earth

Technology does not determine value anymore – policy does.

4. System Integration

Biomass technologies do not operate in isolation. They must integrate into:

• Energy systems
• Industrial processes
• Supply chains
• Carbon markets

This creates complexity that goes beyond engineering.

The Strategic Shift: From Technology to Positioning

Because the core technologies are now understood, competitive advantage is shifting elsewhere. Winning strategies will be defined by:

• Feedstock control
• Market access (fuels, chemicals, carbon credits)
• Policy alignment
• Geographic positioning

In other words: The winners will not be those with the best technology, but those with the best system integration.

A Misleading Narrative: “We Need Better Technology”

There is still a persistent narrative that biomass needs technological breakthroughs to scale. This is increasingly misleading. The industry does not suffer from a lack of technology. It suffers from misaligned incentives, fragmented markets, and resource constraints. Waiting for “better technology” risks delaying deployment of solutions that already exist.

What This Means for Investors and Industry

For investors, this shift changes the evaluation criteria fundamentally. The key questions are no longer: Is the technology proven?

But:

• Can the project secure feedstock?
• Is it aligned with policy incentives?
• Does it generate multiple value streams?
• Can it compete under realistic market conditions?

For industry players, the implication is clear:

Stop optimizing the reactor.
Start optimizing the system.

Conclusion: The Industry Has Already Moved On

The biomass sector has quietly crossed an important threshold. It is no longer waiting for innovation. It is now dealing with deployment. This shift is easy to miss because it lacks the excitement of new technology announcements. But it is far more important. It means:

• The tools are already available
• The barriers are now structural
• The competition is moving upstream and downstream

The key question is no longer: “Which technology will win?” It is:

“Who can deploy, integrate, and scale what already works?”

---

Sources

• Biomass Conference & Expo Agenda
  https://www.biomassconference.com/ema/DisplayPage.aspx?pageId=Agenda_Biomass_Conference___Expo
• Pyreg
  https://www.pyreg.de
• Carbo Culture
  https://www.carboculture.com
• Puro.earth
  https://puro.earth
• International Energy Agency – Bioenergy
  https://www.iea.org/reports/bioenergy
• IPCC Reports
  https://www.ipcc.ch

The Wrong Problem Is Being Solved

For years, the biomass industry has framed its challenge as a technological one. Conferences, investments, and policy debates have focused on conversion pathways – gasification, pyrolysis, fermentation – under the assumption that better technology would unlock scale. That assumption is now breaking down.

Technology is no longer the bottleneck. Feedstock is.

Conversion technologies are largely ready. Facilities are being deployed. Capital is available. But all of this depends on a resource that is far more constrained than many expected: sustainable biomass. And unlike technology, feedstock cannot be scaled through engineering alone.

Demand Is Converging Faster Than Supply

The pressure on biomass is no longer coming from a single sector—it is coming from multiple directions at once. Historically, demand was driven by heat and power, and Pellet markets. Today, the demand stack looks very different:

• Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)
• Renewable diesel
• Biobased chemicals
• Carbon removal (biochar, BECCS)

Each of these sectors is backed by strong drivers:

• Regulation (e.g. aviation fuel quotas)
• Corporate net-zero commitments
• Carbon pricing and credits

The result is a structural shift:

Biomass is no longer a supporting input – it is a contested resource.

What Counts as “Sustainable Biomass”?

The theoretical availability of biomass is often overstated because it ignores sustainability constraints. In reality, usable biomass is limited by biodiversity protection, land-use restrictions, avoidance of deforestation, and lifecycle carbon accounting. This means the industry relies heavily on:

• Agricultural residues
• Forestry by-products
• Organic waste streams

But these are:

• Distributed
• Logistically complex
• Already partially utilized

Dedicated energy crops – once seen as a scaling solution – are increasingly constrained by policy and public acceptance. The gap between theoretical supply and usable supply is widening.

A Critical Voice from the Conference: Bill Strauss

This structural tension is not new – but it is now being articulated more clearly by leading analysts in the field. Bill Strauss, founder of FutureMetrics, has long emphasized that biomass markets are governed not just by availability, but by cost curves, logistics, and market structure.

FutureMetrics research consistently highlights:

• The importance of delivered cost of biomass, not just raw availability
• The role of global pellet markets as price-setting mechanisms
• The sensitivity of biomass economics to transport distance and preprocessing

Source:
https://www.futuremetrics.info

This perspective reinforces a key point: Biomass is not scarce in theory – it becomes scarce once economics and sustainability are applied. His presence at the conference is therefore highly relevant. It signals that the discussion is shifting from technological optimism to market realism.

Logistics: The Constraint Nobody Wants to Talk About

Even when biomass exists and is considered sustainable, it must still be moved, processed, and stored. And this is where the system becomes fragile. Biomass differs fundamentally from fossil fuels:

• Low energy density
• High moisture content
• Degradation over time
• High transport costs

This creates a supply chain challenge that is often underestimated. Every step – collection, preprocessing, storage, transport – adds cost and complexity. As a result long-distance transport quickly becomes uneconomical, regional supply chains dominate, and scale is limited by geography. This is why biomass does not scale like oil or gas.

The Emerging Competition: Who Gets the Biomass?

The most important implication of constrained supply is strategic competition. We are entering a phase where multiple industries are competing for the same feedstock:

• Aviation → SAF
• Chemicals → renewable carbon
• Energy → dispatchable generation
• Carbon removal → biochar, BECCS

Each sector is backed by different incentives, such as regulatory mandates, carbon pricing, and corporate commitments. This leads to a fundamental question: Which application of biomass delivers the highest value?

And more importantly: Who decides?

Carbon Markets Are Rewriting the Economics

Carbon markets are introducing a new dimension into this competition. When carbon removal is monetized, biomass gains an additional value layer. Biomass is not just energy, not just materials, but carbon permanence. Platforms like Puro.earth are already enabling this shift by certifying durable carbon removal outcomes. This creates a structural change:

Biomass is now competing across different value systems, not just industries.

A ton of biomass could:

• Produce fuel
• Become a chemical input
• Or generate carbon credits

And the most valuable pathway will depend on policy and market signals – not just technology.

Strategic Implications: Control the Feedstock

For companies, the implications are clear. The competitive advantage is shifting away from technology toward:

• Feedstock access
• Long-term supply contracts
• Vertical integration
• Geographic positioning

In practical terms: If you don’t control feedstock, you don’t control your business.

This is already visible through:

• Strategic partnerships with forestry and agriculture
• Investments in logistics infrastructure
• Long-term procurement agreements

Policy Challenge: Allocation Without Distortion

For policymakers, the challenge is even more complex. They must balance climate impact, land use, industrial competitiveness, and resource efficiency. Poorly designed incentives risk are locking biomass into low-value applications, encouraging unsustainable sourcing, and distorting markets.

Relevant framework:
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removal_en

The central policy challenge is no longer deployment – it is allocation.

Conclusion: A Constraint That Changes the Game

The biomass sector is entering a new phase. The limiting factor is no longer technology. It is not capital. It is not even demand. It is sustainable, accessible, and economically viable feedstock. This changes everything. Biomass is evolving from a renewable input into a strategic, constrained resource – one that will be allocated, contested, and optimized across industries. The key question is no longer: “How do we scale biomass technologies? It is: “How do we allocate limited biomass to maximize climate impact?” And that is not a technical question, it is an economic – and ultimately political – one.

---

Sources

• Biomass Conference & Expo Agenda
  https://www.biomassconference.com/ema/DisplayPage.aspx?pageId=Agenda_Biomass_Conference___Expo
• FutureMetrics
  https://www.futuremetrics.info
• European Commission – Carbon Removal
  https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removal_en
• Puro.earth
  https://puro.earth
• International Energy Agency – Bioenergy
  https://www.iea.org/reports/bioenergy
• IPCC Reports
  https://www.ipcc.ch

Introduction: A Quiet but Fundamental Shift

For decades, biomass has been framed as a renewable energy solution – a way to replace fossil fuels with organic material and reduce emissions in power generation and heating. That narrative is now outdated. What is emerging instead is a fundamentally different role for biomass: not as an energy substitute, but as a strategic carbon resource embedded in multiple high-value systems. This shift is not being loudly announced. It is unfolding quietly – across conference agendas, investment flows, policy frameworks, and industrial strategies.

If you look closely at the structure of today’s biomass industry, one thing becomes clear: energy is no longer the center of gravity.

From Combustion to Carbon Value Chains

Historically, biomass utilization was straightforward. Organic material was burned to produce heat and power, often supported by subsidies designed to accelerate renewable energy deployment. The value proposition was simple: replace fossil carbon with biogenic carbon. Today, this logic is being replaced by a more complex framework. Biomass is increasingly processed not for energy alone, but for molecules, carbon intensity optimization, and long-term carbon storage. Instead of being combusted, biomass is:

• Converted into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)
• Processed into renewable chemicals and materials
• Transformed into biochar for carbon removal
• Integrated into low-carbon fuel standards and carbon markets

This evolution reflects a broader transition from linear energy systems to multi-output carbon value chains, where the same feedstock can generate fuels, materials, energy, and carbon credits simultaneously.

The Conference Signal: What the Agenda Reveals

A close reading of the agenda of the Biomass Conference & Expo (https://www.biomassconference.com/ema/DisplayPage.aspx?pageId=Agenda_Biomass_Conference___Expo) reveals this shift clearly.

The dominant themes are no longer limited to traditional bioenergy topics. Instead, they cluster around:

• Advanced fuels, particularly SAF
• Feedstock logistics and supply chains
• Carbon intensity and lifecycle emissions
• Policy frameworks and market incentives
• Emerging carbon removal pathways

What is striking is not any single topic, but the interconnectedness of all of them. Sessions on feedstock are no longer just about availability – they are about strategic allocation. Discussions on fuels are inseparable from carbon accounting frameworks. Technology panels are increasingly focused on deployment and integration, not innovation alone. In other words, the agenda does not describe an energy sector. It describes a system under transformation.

The Rise of Carbon as the Primary Value Driver

One of the most important developments in this transition is the shift in how biomass is valued. Historically, its value was tied to its energy content. Today, it is increasingly tied to its carbon characteristics.

This is driven by several converging forces:

• Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) and similar mechanisms
• Corporate net-zero commitments
• Voluntary carbon markets
• Emerging compliance markets for carbon removal

Under these frameworks, the key question is no longer “How much energy does this biomass produce?” but rather:

👉 What is the carbon intensity of the pathway?
👉 How much carbon can be avoided or permanently removed?

This shift fundamentally changes investment decisions. A pathway that yields slightly less energy but significantly better carbon performance can now be economically superior. Biochar, for example, may generate less immediate energy value than combustion, but its ability to create durable carbon removal credits transforms its economic profile entirely.

Relevant frameworks and developments include:

• EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework
  https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removal_en
• Voluntary carbon markets (e.g., Puro.earth)

Integration Instead of Substitution

Another critical change is the role biomass plays within broader industrial systems. It is no longer positioned as a standalone substitute for fossil fuels, but as a flexible input into integrated value chains.

For example:

• In aviation, biomass-derived fuels are one of the few viable pathways to decarbonization, making them strategically indispensable.
• In the chemical industry, biomass offers a route to renewable carbon feedstocks that cannot be electrified.
• In agriculture, biochar integrates carbon removal with productivity gains.

This integration creates a new form of resilience. Instead of relying on a single market (e.g., electricity), biomass can flow into whichever application offers the highest value – whether economic, regulatory, or environmental.

The Implicit Tension: Competing Uses of a Finite Resource

However, this transformation also introduces a structural tension that is still underappreciated. Biomass is not unlimited. As demand grows across multiple sectors – energy, fuels, chemicals, and carbon removal – competition for sustainable feedstock is intensifying. What was once a relatively abundant and underutilized resource is becoming strategically constrained.

This has several implications:

• Prices for high-quality feedstock are likely to rise
• Supply chains will become more complex and contested
• Allocation decisions will increasingly be influenced by policy and carbon accounting frameworks

The industry is moving toward a reality where biomass is not just a renewable input, but a scarce strategic resource.

What This Means for Industry and Policy

For industry players, the shift from energy to carbon value chains requires a rethinking of strategy. Success will depend not only on technology, but on:

• Securing reliable feedstock supply
• Optimizing carbon performance
• Integrating into policy and market frameworks

For policymakers, the challenge is even more complex. Supporting biomass deployment now involves balancing:

• Climate objectives
• Land use considerations
• Industrial competitiveness
• Resource allocation across sectors

Poorly designed policies risk locking biomass into low-value uses, while well-designed frameworks can direct it toward applications with the highest climate impact.

Conclusion: A New Role for Biomass

The biomass sector is undergoing a transformation that is easy to overlook because it is not driven by a single breakthrough technology. Instead, it is the result of multiple forces converging: carbon markets, policy frameworks, industrial demand, and technological maturity. The outcome is a redefinition of biomass itself.

It is no longer just a source of renewable energy.
It is becoming a central component of carbon management systems.

This shift has profound implications – not only for how biomass is used, but for how it is valued, regulated, and contested. The question is no longer whether biomass will play a role in the energy transition.

👉 The question is: where in the emerging carbon economy it will be allocated and who will control it.

---

Sources

• Biomass Conference & Expo Agenda
  https://www.biomassconference.com/ema/DisplayPage.aspx?pageId=Agenda_Biomass_Conference___Expo
• European Commission – Carbon Removal
  https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removal_en
• Puro.earth
  https://puro.earth
• International Biochar Initiative
  https://biochar-international.org
• IPCC Reports
  https://www.ipcc.ch

Introduction: A Rediscovered Technology at the Center of Climate Strategy

Biochar is often described as an ancient technology rediscovered for modern climate challenges – but this framing understates its current significance. What began as a soil-enhancing practice in the Amazon basin, known through the fertile Terra Preta soils, is now emerging as one of the most credible and immediately deployable carbon removal solutions available today.

At its core, biochar is produced through the pyrolysis of biomass – heating organic material such as agricultural residues, forestry by-products, or organic waste under oxygen-limited conditions. Instead of allowing this biomass to decompose and release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, the process stabilizes a substantial portion of the carbon into a solid, aromatic structure. This structure is highly resistant to biological degradation and can persist in soils or materials for centuries, effectively removing carbon from the short-term carbon cycle.

What makes biochar particularly relevant in today’s climate discourse is not merely its ability to store carbon, but the fact that it does so through a process that is already technologically mature, modular, and compatible with existing biomass supply chains. Unlike many carbon removal technologies that remain capital-intensive or dependent on future infrastructure, biochar is being deployed today – at industrial scale, across multiple continents, and increasingly within formal carbon markets.

Technology and System Integration: Pyrolysis as a Platform

The underlying process of pyrolysis is well understood, yet recent innovation has transformed it from a rudimentary thermal conversion method into a sophisticated platform technology. Modern pyrolysis systems operate in controlled environments, typically between 350°C and 700°C, optimizing for carbon retention, energy recovery, and product consistency.

In addition to biochar, pyrolysis produces syngas and bio-oil. These co-products are not incidental; they are central to the economics and energy balance of the system. In many configurations, syngas is captured and reused to power the reactor itself, reducing or even eliminating external energy requirements. This creates systems that are not only carbon-negative but also energy-efficient.

A defining characteristic of contemporary biochar production is its modularity. Containerized pyrolysis units can be deployed close to biomass sources – on farms, at sawmills, or alongside municipal waste streams. This decentralized approach reduces transportation costs, minimizes emissions, and enables a distributed model of carbon removal. In contrast to centralized industrial solutions such as direct air capture, biochar systems scale horizontally, expanding through replication rather than concentration.

Equally important is the increasing sophistication of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). Advances in analytical methods allow for precise measurement of carbon content and stability, while digital platforms enable traceability across the entire lifecycle – from feedstock sourcing to final carbon storage. This transformation from “black carbon” to a measurable, certifiable carbon asset is what underpins the rapid integration of biochar into carbon markets.

Market Landscape: From Fragmentation to Emerging Structure

The biochar sector is still young, but it is evolving from a fragmented landscape of small-scale producers into a structured ecosystem with specialized roles across the value chain. Technology providers, carbon credit platforms, project developers, and end-users are beginning to align into a coherent market architecture.

Companies such as Pyreg are focusing on industrial-scale reactor systems, enabling reliable and standardized production. Others, like Carbo Culture, are pushing the boundaries of carbon permanence through high-temperature processes that maximize stability and credit value. Meanwhile, Carbonfuture is building the digital infrastructure required to track, verify, and monetize carbon removal outcomes.

On the demand side, corporate buyers are playing a decisive role. Companies with ambitious net-zero commitments are increasingly turning to durable carbon removal solutions to complement emissions reductions. Biochar has gained particular traction due to its combination of permanence, relatively low technological risk, and co-benefits.

Standards and registries are consolidating this market. Puro.earth has established one of the leading certification frameworks for biochar-based carbon removal, issuing CO₂ Removal Certificates (CORCs) that are actively traded. Organizations such as International Biochar Initiative and European Biochar Industry Consortium are contributing to the development of quality standards, sustainability criteria, and policy alignment.

This convergence of technology, verification, and market demand marks a critical transition: biochar is no longer a niche product, but an emerging asset class within the broader carbon economy.

Policy Environment: Alignment with Climate and Agricultural Agendas

Public policy is increasingly reinforcing this trajectory. In the European Union, biochar is being integrated into the evolving Carbon Removal Certification Framework, which aims to establish standardized rules for measuring and rewarding carbon removal activities. This aligns biochar with broader EU priorities, including soil health, circular economy strategies, and climate neutrality targets.

Source: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removal_en

In the United States, while biochar is not yet the primary focus of federal carbon removal incentives, it benefits indirectly from programs related to soil carbon, climate-smart agriculture, and carbon sequestration. The broader policy signal is clear: carbon removal is moving from voluntary markets toward structured regulatory support.

At the same time, voluntary carbon markets remain a key driver. Companies such as Microsoft, Shopify, and Stripe have committed significant resources to purchasing high-quality carbon removal credits. Biochar’s ability to deliver measurable and durable carbon storage makes it particularly attractive in this context, especially compared to nature-based solutions with higher uncertainty.

---

Differentiation: Why Biochar Stands Apart

To understand the strategic importance of biochar, it is necessary to compare it with other carbon removal approaches – not at the level of theory, but in terms of deployment reality.

Unlike direct air capture or conventional carbon capture and storage, biochar does not rely on complex transport and storage infrastructure. There is no need for pipelines, compression systems, or geological reservoirs. Carbon is stabilized in solid form and stored directly in soils or materials, significantly reducing both cost and operational complexity.

Equally important is the decentralized nature of biochar systems. While many carbon removal technologies require large, centralized facilities, biochar can be produced wherever biomass is available. This enables a distributed model that is inherently more resilient and adaptable, particularly in regions with abundant agricultural or forestry residues.

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of biochar, however, lies in its co-benefits. When applied to soils, biochar can improve water retention, enhance nutrient availability, and support microbial activity. These effects can lead to increased agricultural productivity and reduced dependence on synthetic fertilizers. In addition, biochar systems can contribute to waste management solutions and reduce emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.

From an energy perspective, biochar production can be energy-neutral or even energy-positive, depending on system design. This contrasts sharply with technologies such as direct air capture, which require substantial external energy inputs.

Finally, biochar benefits from relatively robust measurement and verification. Carbon content can be directly quantified, and stability can be modeled with increasing precision. This provides a level of confidence that is often lacking in other carbon removal approaches, particularly those based on biological processes.

Constraints and Realistic Limits

Despite its advantages, biochar is not without limitations. The most fundamental constraint is the availability of sustainable biomass. Biomass is a finite resource, and it is already in demand across multiple sectors, including energy, materials, and fuels. As demand for carbon removal grows, competition for feedstock is likely to intensify.

There are also legitimate concerns related to land use. If not carefully managed, increased demand for biomass could lead to indirect land-use change or conflicts with food production. Ensuring sustainability therefore requires strict sourcing criteria and transparent supply chains.

In addition, the quality of biochar is not uniform. It depends heavily on feedstock selection and process conditions, which can affect both its agronomic properties and its carbon stability. Standardization efforts are ongoing, but variability remains a challenge.

Finally, the carbon market itself is still evolving. Prices for carbon removal credits are volatile, and long-term demand is not yet guaranteed. While current trends are favorable, the economic viability of biochar projects remains partly dependent on policy support and corporate climate commitments.

Conclusion: Biochar as a Foundational Layer of the Carbon Economy

Biochar is often presented as one option among many in the portfolio of carbon removal technologies. This perspective misses a more important point. Biochar is not just another solution – it represents a fundamentally different approach to carbon management.

It combines technological maturity with immediate deployability. It integrates into existing economic systems rather than requiring entirely new infrastructure. And it delivers multiple forms of value simultaneously, from carbon sequestration to soil regeneration and waste utilization.

As climate strategies evolve from emission reduction to active carbon removal, the role of biochar is likely to expand significantly. Not because it is perfect, but because it works – today, at scale, and within the constraints of the real economy.

In this sense, biochar is no longer merely a product or a practice. It is becoming a foundational layer of climate infrastructure, bridging the gap between natural systems and industrial carbon management.

---

Sources

• European Commission – Carbon Removal
  https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removal_en
• Puro.earth
  https://puro.earth
• International Biochar Initiative
  https://biochar-international.org
• Carbonfuture
  https://www.carbonfuture.earth
• Verra
  https://verra.org
• IPCC Reports
  https://www.ipcc.ch

Europe has committed itself to climate neutrality by 2050. The target is legally anchored and politically repeated at every major summit. Yet behind the rhetoric lies a structural truth that is often softened in public debate: emission reductions alone will not deliver net zero.

The IPCC is explicit. Even in the most ambitious mitigation pathways, substantial residual emissions remain in sectors such as cement, aviation, heavy industry and agriculture. These emissions are not transitional inefficiencies – they are systemic. They must be balanced by durable carbon removals. The European Commission has acknowledged this reality in its 2040 Climate Target communication, where it outlines the growing role of industrial removals in the EU’s climate architecture.

This is where the debate becomes strategic. Carbon removal is no longer an environmental add-on. It is a structural pillar of climate neutrality.

Among the available options, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) occupies a unique position. Unlike purely nature-based approaches such as afforestation or soil carbon sequestration, BECCS combines sustainable biomass use with industrial carbon capture and permanent geological storage. The carbon absorbed during plant growth is captured at the point of combustion or processing and stored underground, creating measurable and durable negative emissions.

The distinction matters. Nature-based removals are valuable, but they are vulnerable to reversal through drought, fire or land-use change. Their permanence is probabilistic. The EU’s new Carbon Removal Certification Framework reflects this by differentiating between carbon farming and permanent removals. BECCS falls into the latter category, offering storage integrity comparable to fossil CCS – but with the added benefit of removing biogenic CO₂ from the atmosphere.

Technologically, BECCS is not speculative. It builds on existing biomass power plants, combined heat and power facilities, pulp and paper mills, and bioethanol installations. Carbon capture systems are commercially available. Geological storage in depleted gas fields and saline aquifers has been demonstrated in Europe, particularly in the North Sea region. According to the International Energy Agency, bioenergy with carbon capture could contribute significantly to global negative emissions in net-zero pathways.

The constraint is not engineering capability. It is regulatory design.

Europe currently lacks a dedicated market framework that turns verified negative emissions into predictable revenue streams. The EU Emissions Trading System does not yet systematically integrate durable removals in a way that creates stable compliance demand. Certification under the CRCF establishes credibility, but certification alone does not guarantee market liquidity. Investors face uncertainty over how removals will be recognized, priced and contracted over multi-decade horizons.

At the same time, sustainability requirements under RED III add compliance complexity without providing a clear premium for negative emissions. CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure is developing, but it is not yet scaled to support a continent-wide BECCS rollout. The policy signal is therefore ambiguous: removals are declared essential, yet the economic mechanism to scale them remains incomplete.

This hesitation carries industrial consequences. The United States has embedded strong incentives for carbon capture through 45Q tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act. Norway and the United Kingdom are advancing cluster-based models with state-backed support for storage infrastructure. If Europe does not establish comparable certainty, capital will follow clarity elsewhere. Carbon removal capacity, along with associated engineering, jobs and innovation ecosystems, will migrate.

The strategic implication is clear. BECCS is not simply a climate instrument; it is an industrial policy decision. It connects rural biomass value chains, heavy industry decarbonization and energy security. It transforms sustainable biomass from a transitional energy source into a cornerstone of permanent carbon management.

A credible European framework would integrate durable removals into the ETS or an equivalent compliance mechanism, ensuring that negative emissions generate tradable value. It would provide long-term contracts or carbon contracts for difference to stabilize prices. It would differentiate clearly between temporary and permanent removals, rewarding geological storage with higher certainty weighting. And it would accelerate the build-out of CO₂ transport and storage networks as strategic infrastructure, comparable to LNG terminals or hydrogen corridors.

Without these elements, BECCS remains technically viable but financially marginal. With them, it becomes investable at scale.

Europe cannot eliminate every residual emission within the next twenty-five years. Cement chemistry, agricultural methane and long-haul aviation impose physical limits on decarbonization speed. Net zero therefore requires a balancing mechanism that is permanent, measurable and scalable.

Carbon removal is not optional. It is embedded in every credible climate pathway.

BECCS is the only mature technology today that simultaneously produces energy, supports industrial clusters, strengthens biomass markets and delivers durable negative emissions. The question is no longer whether Europe needs it. The question is whether European policy will provide the market architecture that allows it to grow.

If climate neutrality is a structural commitment, then a dedicated BECCS market framework is not a subsidy – it is infrastructure for the net-zero economy.

---

Selected Sources

European Commission (2024). Communication on Europe’s 2040 Climate Target.
https://climate.ec.europa.eu

Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 – Carbon Removal Certification Framework.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu

IPCC (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

International Energy Agency (2023). CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions.
https://www.iea.org

EU Emissions Trading System (Directive 2003/87/EC and revisions).
https://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

The Missing Piece in the Renewable Debate

Europe’s energy transition is often framed as a binary choice between fossil fuels and variable renewables. Wind and solar dominate investment headlines — and rightly so. But as Europe moves toward deeper decarbonisation, a structural question emerges:

Who guarantees stability when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine?

Biomass — particularly in combined heat and power (CHP) systems — plays a quiet but critical role. Unlike intermittent renewables, biomass is dispatchable, storable, and grid-supportive. In a system with rising electrification and declining fossil backup capacity, these characteristics are not secondary — they are strategic.

Energy Security After 2022: A New Policy Lens

The energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reshaped Europe’s priorities. Energy security moved from background concern to central policy driver.

Under the REPowerEU Plan, the European Commission accelerated renewable deployment while simultaneously stressing domestic energy sources and diversification. Biomass, already accounting for roughly 60% of the EU’s renewable energy consumption (primarily in heat), became part of the resilience equation.

Source: European Commission – REPowerEU; Eurostat renewable energy statistics.

Unlike imported fossil fuels, sustainably managed biomass can be sourced within Europe or through diversified trade partners. It supports:

• District heating networks
• Industrial process heat
• Flexible electricity generation
• Rural economic development

In security terms, biomass is not just renewable — it is strategically controllable.

Dispatchability: The System Value of Biomass

As renewable penetration rises, system operators face three structural challenges:

1. Seasonal variability
2. Peak load events
3. Industrial heat electrification limits

Wind and solar address annual energy volumes.
Biomass addresses system balance.

Combined Heat and Power plants can:

• Operate during peak demand
• Provide frequency support
• Supply stable thermal energy to cities
• Reduce dependency on natural gas in district heating

The International Energy Agency (IEA) repeatedly highlights the need for flexible low-carbon resources to complement variable renewables. Biomass is one of the few renewable technologies capable of fulfilling that role today.

Source: IEA – Net Zero by 2050 Roadmap; IEA Bioenergy Reports.

Heat: The Overlooked Frontier

Electricity often dominates decarbonisation discussions. Yet heating accounts for roughly half of final energy consumption in Europe.

Here, biomass already plays a substantial role. In countries such as Sweden, Finland, Austria and Denmark, bioenergy is deeply integrated into district heating systems.

Replacing fossil gas in heat networks is not hypothetical — it is operational reality in several Member States.

RED III reinforces this direction by prioritising efficient biomass use (e.g., CHP over electricity-only plants).

This shift aligns biomass with:

• Urban decarbonisation
• Energy efficiency targets
• Local resource cycles

Industrial Policy: Biomass Beyond Power

Biomass is not limited to combustion. It forms the foundation of the broader bioeconomy:

• Advanced biofuels for aviation and maritime sectors
• Biochemicals and bioplastics
• Renewable gases
• BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage)

Hard-to-electrify sectors — aviation, cement, steel, chemicals — require molecular solutions. Biomass provides carbon molecules without fossil extraction.

The European Commission’s climate scenarios (Fit for 55, Long-Term Strategy) include biomass and carbon removals as integral components of the net-zero pathway.

Source: European Commission – Fit for 55 package; EU Long-Term Strategy; IPCC AR6 mitigation pathways.

BECCS: From Renewable to Carbon-Negative

Perhaps the most transformative potential of biomass lies in negative emissions.

When biomass absorbs CO₂ during growth and emissions are captured during energy conversion, the result is net carbon removal.

The UK, Sweden, and the Netherlands are actively exploring BECCS deployment.
The IEA Net Zero scenario includes bioenergy with CCS as a contributor to global carbon removals by mid-century.

If Europe aims not only to reduce emissions but to compensate for residual sectors, BECCS becomes strategically important.

Biomass thus evolves from:

Renewable energy → System stabiliser → Carbon removal instrument

Challenges — and Why Governance Matters

Biomass is politically sensitive. Concerns around forest management, biodiversity, and international pellet trade remain central to public debate.

This is precisely why RED III’s stricter sustainability criteria matter.

By introducing:

• No-go areas
• Stronger GHG accounting
• Mandatory certification
• Efficiency prioritisation

the EU is strengthening the credibility of sustainable biomass.

The future of biomass will depend less on technology and more on governance quality.

The Strategic Outlook to 2050

Looking ahead, three scenarios are possible:

1. Marginalisation — Biomass retreats due to political pressure and restrictive sourcing.
2. Status quo — Biomass remains a secondary renewable heat source.
3. Strategic integration — Biomass becomes a certified, efficiency-focused, BECCS-enabled pillar of Europe’s net-zero system.

The third scenario aligns best with energy security, industrial decarbonisation and carbon neutrality goals.

In a deeply decarbonised system, flexibility, molecules, and removals matter as much as electrons.

Biomass provides all three.

Conclusion

Biomass is no longer just part of the renewable mix — it is part of Europe’s strategic energy architecture.

As electrification accelerates and fossil backup declines, dispatchable renewables gain importance.

If governed responsibly and used efficiently, biomass will not compete with wind and solar — it will complement them.

The question is no longer whether biomass has a role.
The question is how strategically Europe chooses to use it.

---

Sources

• European Commission – REPowerEU Plan
• European Commission – Fit for 55 Package
• Directive (EU) 2023/2413 (RED III)
• IEA – Net Zero by 2050 Roadmap
• IEA Bioenergy Reports
• Eurostat – Renewable Energy Statistics
• IPCC AR6 Working Group III

1. Why RED III Matters — A Positive Step for Europe’s Energy Transition

The EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) — officially Directive (EU) 2023/2413 — is the cornerstone of Europe’s climate and energy policy to 2030 and beyond.
It raises the binding EU-wide renewables target to at least 42.5 % by 2030 (with an aspirational 45 %) and tightens sector-specific rules for transport, heating and industry.

At its core, RED III is a signal of confidence and clarity for investors and governments alike — linking renewable expansion to system efficiency, climate integrity and sustainability. It builds a stronger foundation for energy security in a rapidly electrifying Europe.

Key system-wide advantages:

• Accelerated decarbonisation: Higher targets drive renewables deployment across all sectors.
• Efficiency first: Support is tied to GHG performance and sustainability criteria — rewarding best-in-class technologies.
• Transport clarity: The directive introduces a 29 % renewable share or 14.5 % GHG intensity reduction target in transport, with caps for food-based biofuels and sub-targets for advanced biofuels.
• Stronger traceability: Mandatory certification and chain-of-custody reporting increase transparency and public trust.

Sources: European Commission (energy.ec.europa.eu), EUR-Lex, IEA Bioenergy 2024 Country Report.

2. Biomass under RED III — From “More” to “Better”

RED III fundamentally reshapes the EU’s biomass policy. It moves from volume-based growth to a quality-driven governance model that prioritises efficiency, carbon savings and forest integrity over pure expansion.

2.1 New “No-Go Areas” and Forest Criteria

• No support for biomass harvested from primary or old-growth forests, high-biodiversity woodlands, grasslands, wetlands or peatlands.
• Mandatory forest-management criteria include soil protection, regeneration capacity and biodiversity safeguards.
• Operators must demonstrate due diligence and documented sourcing compliance via audited sustainability systems.

2.2 Efficiency and Eligible Applications

• Electricity-only biomass plants (no combined heat) lose subsidy eligibility.
• Priority shifts to CHP plants, district heating, and BECCS-ready installations that maximise GHG savings per tonne of biomass.

2.3 Emission Thresholds and Scope

• Sustainability and GHG criteria are mandatory for plants ≥ 20 MW thermal input (solid biomass) and ≥ 2 MW (energy gases). Member States may apply stricter limits.

2.4 Certification and Verification

• Chain-of-custody auditing becomes stricter and continuous.
• Schemes such as the Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) and ISCC EU RED have issued bridging documents for full RED III alignment. This ensures existing certified operators can prove compliance without double auditing.

3. Policy Perspective — Why This Strengthens Biomass

When properly implemented, RED III anchors biomass as a strategic pillar of Europe’s net-zero toolkit.
It keeps biomass in the mix as a dispatchable, storable, and carbon-neutral energy source — particularly for district heating, industrial heat and negative emissions via BECCS.

The Directive effectively filters out controversial feedstocks while protecting the core of the industry: residues, by-products and sustainably managed forests.

4. Advantages and Challenges for the Biomass Sector

Advantages (when compliant and pro-sustainability)

• Higher legitimacy and investment security: EU-wide rules restore confidence among policymakers and financiers.
• Clear focus on “good feedstocks”: Residues, thinnings and processing by-products gain policy support.
• System efficiency: CHP and BECCS integration deliver real, verifiable GHG reductions.
• Transparency: Enhanced certification reduces greenwashing and creates traceable supply chains.
• Grid support: Biomass remains a flexible balancing resource for variable wind and solar generation.

Challenges and Potential Drawbacks

• Narrower feedstock base: Exclusion of no-go areas and primary forests can tighten supply and raise costs.
• Administrative load: Smaller operators face higher audit and reporting burdens.
• Legacy assets: Electricity-only plants may lose support without retrofitting to CHP or BECCS.
• Global compliance risks: Import-dependent chains must maintain robust third-party verification to avoid reputational issues.

5. Strategic Recommendations (for pro-biomass actors)

1. Optimise feedstock portfolio: Prioritise residues and low-risk forestry inputs with full regeneration evidence.
2. Enhance efficiency and BECCS readiness: Integrate heat recovery and plan for future CO₂ capture capability.
3. Go early on certification: Adopt RED III-compatible standards (SBP EU RED, ISCC EU) to secure market access.
4. Diversify inputs: Increase use of agricultural residues and organic waste streams to improve resilience.
5. Communicate transparently: Publish feedstock origins, GHG savings and biodiversity data to build public trust.

6. Conclusion

RED III does not downgrade biomass — it upgrades its credibility.
By setting clear sustainability boundaries and rewarding high-efficiency uses, the Directive paves the way for a stronger, more trusted biomass sector.

Biomass remains essential — as dispatchable renewable power, as low-carbon heat, as industrial feedstock and, in the future, as a carrier of negative emissions.
RED III marks a maturity phase for bioenergy policy: less about growth volumes, more about sustainable impact.

7. References & Further Reading

• Directive (EU) 2023/2413 (RED III) — full text and recitals: EUR-Lex
• European Commission — Biomass & Bioenergy policy overview: energy.ec.europa.eu
• IEA Bioenergy (2024 EU Country Report) — Implementation trends and market impacts
• HFW Legal Briefing (2024) — “How Is Forest Biomass Affected by RED III?”
• Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) — EU RED bridging documentation
• Control Union Insight (2025) — RED III impact on biomass certification

Biomass is more than a fuel – it’s a strategic political lever. While solar and wind attract attention, biomass sits at the nexus of climate ambition, industrial policy, and energy security. It can serve as a bridging resource in sectors that resist electrification, or as a backbone for negative emissions via BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage). Its fate, however, will be shaped not by technology alone but by policy, regulation, and supply chain integrity.

Europe: From Subsidies to Stringent Standards

With Directive (EU) 2023/2413 (RED III), the EU has recalibrated its stance. The directive phases out subsidies for forest biomass from primary or old-growth forests, imposes stricter chain-of-custody requirements, and mandates that government support schemes align with stronger sustainability and biodiversity safeguards. (EUR-Lex)

It decrees that Member States must ensure that “energy from biomass is produced in a way that minimises undue distortive effects on the biomass raw material market and adverse impacts on biodiversity, the environment and the climate.” (gov.ie)

Under RED III, new subsidies for electricity-only biomass plants (i.e. without combined heat) are banned, aligning incentives toward more efficient combined heat-power and BECCS configurations. (Energy)

To support compliance, certification schemes such as SBP (Sustainable Biomass Program) have issued bridging documents to map existing biomass standards onto RED III requirements. (Sustainable Biomass Program)

Thus, Europe is shifting from volume-based expansion toward quality-first governance. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark are going further: revisiting large-scale pellet imports from North America to ensure alignment with stricter sustainability criteria.

United Kingdom: BECCS in the Spotlight

The UK Biomass Strategy 2023 emphasizes the role of biomass in decarbonizing “hard-to-electrify” sectors (aviation, heavy industry) and scaling BECCS as a tool for negative emissions. (biodieselmagazine.com)

However, translating this into practice is proving slower than planned. The deployment of Power BECCS is unlikely before 2030, and subsidy paths are under review. (GOV.UK)

Parliamentary scrutiny has flagged that earlier government targets for BECCS in 2030 are unlikely to be met, even as BECCS remains integral to the UK’s decarbonization assumptions. (Vereinigtes Königreich Parlament)

Yet, the UK is laying infrastructure groundwork: institutions and market design for carbon removal, potential integration with emissions trading, and frameworks to attract investment in BECCS and related technologies. (LSE)

Drax, as a key actor, has asserted that all major components of a BECCS system have already been demonstrated individually, making full deployment achievable by 2030. (Drax Global)

Interestingly, Drax is also expanding beyond the UK: plans to invest up to $12.5 billion in U.S.-based biomass + CCS projects suggest a global BECCS ambition. (Reuters)

United States & Canada: Incentivizing Growth

In the U.S., the biomass sector is buttressed by fiscal instruments such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and programs like BCAP (Biomass Crop Assistance Program). Meanwhile, critics question whether current practices fully account for supply-chain emissions. (ScienceDirect)

Canada, a major pellet exporter, is caught between lucrative European demand and growing public pressure around forest conservation and indigenous land rights. As Europe tightens biomass import rules, Canada’s ability to adapt will be critical.

Asia: Expansion Meets Policy Shifts

South Korea remains one of the briskest biomass markets, heavily dependent on imports from Vietnam, Indonesia, and Canada. But in 2023, the sudden termination of subsidies caused a market freeze and major disruption. (ieabioenergy.com)

China, meanwhile, is focusing more on agricultural residues (rice husks, straw) as an embedded part of rural development and circular bioeconomy strategies, reducing dependence on wood pellets.

Outlook: Biomass as a Strategic Lever

Biomass will matter more for policy choices than for inherent physics. The road ahead hinges on three dimensions:

• Policy & incentives: whether biomass is supported as niche or as a backbone to negative emissions architectures.
• Sustainability fidelity: how tightly definitions of “sustainable biomass” are enforced—this determines investment certainty.
• Supply chain resilience: global trade, forest governance, certification integrity, and geopolitical risk will remain key friction points.

Over the next half-decade, biomass could either become institutionalized in net-zero roadmaps — or recede into contested transitional fuel status.

“Biomass may appear as a small component, but its systemic impact is enormous: from extending asset lifetimes to enabling negative emissions, it wields political power beyond its energy share.”
(adapted from UK Biomass Strategy 2023)

---

Sources

• European Commission: Biomass & bioenergy overview (Energy)
• EU Directive 2023/2413 (RED III) text and provisions (EUR-Lex)
• Implementation of bioenergy in the EU (IEA Bioenergy / country report) (ieabioenergy.com)
• ControlUnion insight on RED III impacts (controlunion.com)
• Technical consultation on RED III Article 3(3) (biomass sustainability) (gov.ie)
• HFW analysis: forest biomass and RED III (HFW)
• Drax BECCS evidence / deployment arguments (Drax Global)
• LSE: carbon removal institutional readiness (UK) (LSE)
• Chatham House: BECCS critique and scaling challenges (Chatham House)
• UK Parliamentary report: BECCS delay / oversight (Vereinigtes Königreich Parlament)
• Reuters: Drax U.S. BECCS investment (Reuters)
• ControlUnion: stricter reporting & sub-targets under RED III (controlunion.com)

Forest biomass has long been considered a cornerstone of Europe’s renewable energy mix. Yet, as the climate crisis intensifies and biodiversity concerns rise, the way Europe manages its forests for energy has become one of the most contested issues in EU energy policy.

The Bioenergy Europe Statistical Report 2024 (SR24) provides valuable insights into the scale and dynamics of forest biomass use, while new legislation under the Renewable Energy Directive III (RED III) redefines what “sustainable biomass” actually means. Together, these forces are reshaping investment, regulation, and the very legitimacy of forest-based energy in Europe.

---

The Scale of Forest Biomass in Europe

According to SR24, the EU remains the largest producer and consumer of wood pellets, with 20.6 million tonnes produced in 2023 and 22.0 million tonnes consumed. Most of this volume comes from forest-based feedstocks – residues, thinnings, and, to a smaller but controversial extent, roundwood.

• Residential heating: countries like Italy, Germany, and France rely heavily on forest biomass for household stoves and boilers.
• Industrial power generation: the Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland use large volumes of imported and domestic pellets.
• Emerging uses: combined heat and power (CHP) plants, district heating networks, and, increasingly, co-firing with BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage).

---

Policy Context: From Expansion to Restriction

The EU’s RED III (Directive (EU) 2023/2413) fundamentally shifts biomass policy:

• No subsidies for primary forest biomass: cutting support for feedstocks that pose high biodiversity risks.
• Mandatory sustainability criteria: stricter carbon accounting, ensuring that biomass delivers verifiable GHG savings.
• Chain-of-custody obligations: operators must document the origin of feedstocks along the supply chain.
• Priority for residues and wastes: encouraging the use of sawmill by-products, thinnings, and logging residues.

These rules mark a transition from a quantity-driven expansion to a quality-driven governance model.

---

Sustainability Concerns

1. Carbon accounting: Burning forest biomass releases CO₂ instantly, while regrowth takes decades. For 2030 climate targets, this time lag is problematic.
2. Biodiversity: Logging in sensitive areas undermines the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy 2030, which seeks to protect at least 30% of land.
3. Land use competition: Biomass competes with timber markets, conservation goals, and carbon sequestration needs.

SR24 shows that while residues remain the dominant source, the use of roundwood for energy persists in several Member States, raising legitimacy questions.

---

Trends & Future Outlook

• Declining EU demand: Pellet consumption fell -3.3% in 2023, reflecting tighter rules and weaker subsidies.
• Shift to residues & wastes: Only feedstocks with strong sustainability credentials will survive politically.
• Pressure on imports: North American and Baltic exports face growing scrutiny; Asian markets (Japan, Korea) are becoming alternative demand centers.
• Integration with BECCS: The EU is exploring whether forest biomass combined with carbon capture can be justified as a “negative emissions” pathway – a highly controversial prospect.

---

Policy Recommendations

For EU decision-makers, three priorities emerge:

1. Enforce strict sustainability criteria – ensure Member States fully implement RED III, with harmonized monitoring and penalties.
2. Promote residue-based supply chains – shift subsidies to agricultural and forestry residues rather than roundwood.
3. Invest in transparency – establish EU-wide biomass registries with open data on sourcing, carbon accounting, and biodiversity impacts.
4. Avoid lock-in – ensure biomass policy remains flexible to avoid dependence on contested feedstocks, while scaling truly renewable solutions like wind, solar, and green hydrogen.

---

Conclusion

Forest biomass is not disappearing from Europe’s energy landscape – but its role is being radically redefined. What once was seen as a simple renewable now faces strict sustainability filters.

The message from Brussels is clear: biomass can remain part of the net-zero pathway only if it is demonstrably sustainable, residue-based, and fully transparent. Anything less risks not just the climate targets, but public trust in the energy transition itself.

---

Sources

• Bioenergy Europe Statistical Report 2024
• Directive (EU) 2023/2413 – RED III
• EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030

Drax Power Station has become a symbol of the UK’s determination to lead the global energy transition. Once a coal giant, Drax has reinvented itself as one of the world’s largest biomass power stations, today providing around 6% of Britain’s electricity. For policymakers, investors, and communities alike, Drax is more than a power plant – it is a living example of industrial transformation.

---

From Coal to Clean Power

Drax’s journey reflects the speed and scale of the UK’s energy transition. Over the last decade, the plant has moved away from coal and embraced sustainable biomass, helping the UK achieve one of the fastest reductions in coal use among advanced economies. This shift has cut millions of tonnes of CO₂, supported the phase-out of coal by 2024, and kept the lights on during periods of low wind or solar output.

---

BECCS: Turning Biomass into Negative Emissions

The next chapter in Drax’s story is Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). By combining biomass combustion with advanced carbon capture technology, Drax aims to remove up to 8 million tonnes of CO₂ per year from the atmosphere by 2030. This would make the facility one of the world’s first large-scale carbon-negative power stations – a goal fully aligned with the UK’s legally binding net-zero targets.

---

Jobs, Communities, and Innovation

Drax is not just an energy provider; it is an economic anchor. Thousands of jobs depend on its operations, both directly at the plant and across the wider supply chain, from forestry to logistics. By pioneering BECCS, Drax also invests in skills, innovation, and industrial know-how that could become an export strength for the UK.

---

Addressing Sustainability

Critics have raised concerns about sourcing, but Drax has implemented one of the most comprehensive sustainability frameworks in the industry:

• Independent certification schemes ensure responsible forest management.
• Residue-based sourcing is prioritized, reducing pressure on primary forests.
• Full transparency through detailed supply chain reporting builds trust.

With continuous improvement and regulatory alignment, Drax is proving that large-scale biomass can be both sustainable and reliable.

---

The Bigger Picture

At a time when energy security and climate action are both pressing priorities, Drax demonstrates that legacy infrastructure can be transformed into a tool for decarbonisation. Its model – coal-to-biomass conversion, followed by BECCS – is now studied worldwide as a pathway for other countries.

---

“We have the potential to make Britain a world leader in carbon-negative energy – delivering clean power, negative emissions, and economic growth at the same time.”
(Drax Group, 2023)

---

Sources

• Drax Group – BECCS Vision
• UK Biomass Strategy 2023
• Bioenergy Europe – Sustainability Criteria

Wood pellets have become a symbol of both the promise and the controversy of biomass. They are compact, tradeable, and – under most policy regimes – counted as renewable energy. Since the early 2000s, pellets have grown into a global commodity, connecting forests in North America and Southeast Asia to power stations in Europe and Japan.

The Bioenergy Europe Statistical Report 2024 (SR24) shows a market at a turning point: global production rose in 2023 by 2.6% to 48.8 million tonnes, while consumption actually fell by 0.9% to 44.4 million tonnesSR24_Pellets_FullVersion699. For the first time in years, production and demand moved in different directions – exposing structural weaknesses.

---

Production Trends: A Shifting Geography

The EU27 remains the largest producer, with 20.6 Mt in 2023, but output dropped by -1.8%SR24_Pellets_FullVersion699. This reflects declining domestic demand as subsidies are cut and sustainability rules tighten.

By contrast, Vietnam surged ahead: production jumped +77% to ~4.6 Mt, overtaking Canada and making Vietnam the third-largest exporter worldwideSR24_Pellets_FullVersion699. Japan (51%) and South Korea (47%) absorbed almost all of these exports.

North America (U.S. and Canada) remains stable at 14.3 Mt, but with diverging dynamics: the U.S. expanded exports to Europe (9.5 Mt), while Canada lost market share (-6.6%) after sustainability concerns in British Columbia triggered NGO campaigns.

Meanwhile, Russia suffered a collapse: sanctions and market isolation cut production by ~30%, removing nearly 3 Mt from global supply.

---

Consumption Patterns: Europe Declines, Asia Rises

Europe still dominates consumption, but cracks are visible:

• EU27: 22.0 Mt (-3.3%) in 2023. The decline was sharpest in power generation, as countries like the Netherlands and Denmark cut industrial use. Heating markets (Italy, Germany, France) remained stable.
• Other Europe (UK, Switzerland, etc.): 8.1 Mt (-11.7%), largely because Drax and Lynemouth burned fewer pellets.
• Asia: the growth engine. Japan increased consumption by +32% to 6 Mt, South Korea stayed stable at ~4.7 Mt, and smaller markets (e.g., Taiwan) emerged. Together, Asia consumed 10.7 Mt – a record.
• North America: 2.2 Mt, mostly residential heating, with little growth potential.

This shift signals a profound rebalancing: Asia may soon overtake Europe as the largest pellet consumer.

---

Policy Drivers: The Silent Hand Behind the Market

Pellet markets are not driven by technology, but by policy frameworks.

1. EU RED III: With Directive (EU) 2023/2413, Brussels excluded primary forests and peatlands from subsidies and tightened carbon accounting. This shrinks demand for imported industrial pellets.
2. UK Contract for Difference (CfD) scheme: Less favorable economics in 2023 reduced burn at major power stations.
3. Japan’s Feed-in Tariff (FIT): Still guarantees a strong pellet import market, making Japan the new #2 global consumer.
4. South Korea’s REC system: Once generous, now unstable. The 2023 subsidy cut has frozen new demand growth.
5. Sanctions on Russia: Removed a major supplier, reshaping global trade flows.

---

Implications for the Energy Transition

Pellets play a paradoxical role in the energy transition:

• Dispatchable renewable power: Unlike wind and solar, pellets can deliver baseload or peak power. This is crucial for grid stability – but comes at the cost of higher emissions per MWh.
• Carbon neutrality debate: Pellets are officially counted as carbon neutral in most frameworks, but this rests on the assumption of regrowth. Critics argue that burning now and regrowing later undermines 2030 climate targets.
• Investment risks: With oversupply, declining EU demand, and reputational risks, investors must reassess whether pellet plants are stranded assets in waiting.
• Geopolitics: The rise of Vietnam shows how demand shifts can rapidly create new supply chains. But reliance on imports raises questions of energy security and sustainability certification.

For policymakers, pellets are both a bridge (supporting renewables integration) and a trap (risking lock-in of contested biomass).

---

Outlook

• Short-term (2024–2025): Oversupply will pressure prices, especially in Europe. Smaller producers may exit the market.
• Medium-term (2026–2030): Asia will consolidate as the demand center, with Japan and South Korea dictating trade flows.
• Long-term (post-2030): Only pellets from residues and wastes, certified under strict sustainability standards, will remain politically legitimate. Large-scale forest pellet imports are unlikely to survive beyond 2035.

The pellet sector thus embodies the dilemma of the energy transition: it provides immediate dispatchable power, but its political future depends on whether it can prove itself as truly sustainable – not just “renewable on paper.”

---

Sources

• Bioenergy Europe Statistical Report 2024
• EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED III)
• Biomasspolicy.com – Pellet Market Coverage

Pelleting is a key process in the production of biomass fuel, where raw materials like wood, agricultural residues, or other organic matter are compressed into small, dense pellets. This process involves grinding the raw materials into a fine powder, conditioning them with steam or moisture, and then pressing them through a die to form uniform pellets. The goal of pelleting is to create a fuel source that is easy to handle, transport, and burn efficiently, providing a consistent energy output.

In the quest for more sustainable biomass sources, palm kernel shells and other agricultural by-products are gaining attention. Palm kernel shells, a by-product of palm oil production, offer a renewable and abundant source of biomass. Utilizing such residues not only provides an alternative to traditional wood pellets but also helps reduce waste and the environmental impact of palm oil production.

In a significant policy shift, South Korea announced it will end subsidies for new biomass energy projects and state-owned coal-biomass power plants starting January 2025. This move, described by the environmental nonprofit Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC) as the largest biomass policy rollback in Asia, aims to address environmental criticisms regarding biomass fuel’s carbon footprint and deforestation impacts.

Currently, South Korea is a major importer of forest biomass, notably wood pellets, which has fueled deforestation concerns in Southeast Asia. While subsidies for domestically sourced biomass remain, the reduction in support for imports is expected to alleviate some pressure on these forests.

Previously, South Korea provided substantial renewable energy credits (RECs) for biomass power, amounting to $688 million in subsidies for just one year. The revised policy will phase out RECs for imported wood pellets and eliminate support for certain state-owned biomass plants by 2025.

While domestic biomass will still receive subsidies, critics warn of ongoing risks to local forests. The policy change is seen as a positive step but highlights the need for further action to protect global forests and address climate change concerns.

In Asia, Japan is anticipated to overtake South Korea as the largest wood pellet importer by 2030. Despite financial incentives being withdrawn for new projects, existing Japanese biomass initiatives still enjoy government support, stressing the ongoing environmental challenge posed by the biomass industry.

Forest advocates are hopeful that South Korea’s reforms can influence neighboring countries. However, the industry may seek new markets as South Korean and Japanese imports stabilize, leaving the environmental and climate issues unresolved.

Further infos.

We have seen decisions against the use of biomass in the Netherlands in the past. Now, Swedish government-owned energy group Vattenfall recently announced the cancellation of its long-standing plans to build a biomass heating plant in Diemen, near Amsterdam, Netherlands. The decision, made public on October 16, highlights growing concerns over biomass sustainability in the region.

The Netherlands has a number of biomass plants that utilize wood pellets, both for co-firing with coal and for heating purposes. The country has around 200 heat-producing biomass plants and four energy plants that co-fire with wood pellets and coal. Additionally, there are around 150 solid biomass projects dedicated to heat production.

In terms of consumption, the Netherlands uses around 3.1 million metric tons (MMT) of wood pellets annually, with domestic production being significantly lower, around 350,000 metric tons. Most of the pellets are imported, with a large portion used for co-firing in power plants.

This biomass infrastructure plays a key role in the Dutch energy transition strategy, although recent policy shifts are placing stricter sustainability standards on biomass projects.

The Vattenfall project, which had been in development for several years, was initially set to provide 120 megawatts (MW) of renewable heat to surrounding municipalities using sustainably sourced wood pellets. In June 2019, Vattenfall reached agreements with local authorities to supply heat to these communities. By September of that year, environmental permits were secured, positioning the plant for potential development.

However, in June 2020, Vattenfall announced a delay in finalizing the project due to rising debates over biomass as a sustainable energy source. The company emphasized that a clear and robust sustainability framework from the Dutch government was crucial before moving forward. With the ongoing uncertainty surrounding biomass policy and its environmental impact, Vattenfall ultimately decided to cancel the project altogether.

This development underscores the challenges that biomass faces as part of the renewable energy mix, particularly in Europe, where discussions about long-term environmental sustainability are intensifying.

Sources:

Biomass Magazine

USDA

Globalwood