By Henry Neondo, Bonn, Germany
A coalition of environmental organisations, scientists, and community advocates has raised alarm over the growing reliance on bioenergy in national climate plans, warning that large-scale biomass energy production could worsen climate change, accelerate biodiversity loss, and threaten the rights and livelihoods of local communities.
Speaking during an international press conference, Reya Mikkola, Coordinator of the Biomass Action Network, challenged the widespread perception that bioenergy is a climate-friendly alternative to fossil fuels. She argued that bioenergy, particularly energy derived from forest biomass, is not carbon neutral and should not form part of global strategies aimed at transitioning away from fossil fuels.
“Expanding bioenergy under the guise of climate action risks derailing urgently needed emissions reductions and efforts to conserve forests,” Mikkola said.
The press conference brought together researchers, civil society organizations, and frontline community representatives to discuss new findings on the role of biomass in countries’ climate commitments and the growing concerns surrounding biomass carbon accounting.
Majority of Climate Plans Mention Bioenergy
According to a new analysis presented during the event, approximately 65 percent of countries reference biomass, bioenergy, or Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in either their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) or long-term climate strategies.
The study found that while bioenergy features prominently in many climate plans, most references are vague and lack critical details on the type of biomass to be used, projected quantities, or expected environmental impacts.
Researchers noted that the inclusion rate rises to 83 percent among long-term national climate strategies, highlighting the growing role policymakers envision for biomass in future energy systems.
However, experts warned that forest bioenergy—particularly the burning of wood for electricity and heat—is already contributing significantly to forest degradation in many regions, especially in industrialized countries.
Forest Bioenergy Faces Scientific Scrutiny
Scientists participating in the discussion emphasized that burning wood can release more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than coal. While proponents argue that forests can eventually reabsorb these emissions, researchers noted that this process can take decades or even centuries—time the world cannot afford amid the escalating climate crisis.
The controversy has prompted more than 50 scientists to sign an open letter calling on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to revise international greenhouse gas accounting rules.
The scientists argue that current accounting practices create a loophole that allows countries to classify emissions from biomass combustion as carbon neutral, potentially masking the true climate impact of bioenergy projects.
Katja Garson of Stand.earth highlighted the need for more accurate emissions reporting, noting that current accounting approaches can underestimate the climate consequences of large-scale biomass use.
Massive Land Requirements Raise Concerns
The report also revealed that seven countries—including Denmark, France, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Finland—plan to dedicate an estimated 95 million hectares of land to BECCS by 2050.
Environmental experts warned that such large-scale land conversion could intensify pressure on ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and compete with food production.
The findings come as governments prepare for the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil, where discussions on forest conservation, bioeconomy development, and fossil fuel phase-out pathways are expected to feature prominently.
Campaigners cautioned that promoting forest biomass as a renewable energy source risks undermining efforts to halt deforestation and forest degradation.
Several countries, including Angola, Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, Serbia, and Uganda, have already acknowledged in their climate plans that biomass use could negatively affect forest carbon stocks and contribute to deforestation.
Serbia specifically highlighted concerns over declining forest carbon absorption linked to biomass extraction.
Indonesia Illustrates Emerging Challenges
The environmental and social consequences of growing biomass demand were illustrated through evidence presented by Forest Watch Indonesia.
The organisation reported that increasing production of wood pellets for export markets is driving forest clearance and degrading natural ecosystems across parts of Indonesia.
According to the presentation, biomass expansion has resulted in the loss of conservation areas, increased marine pollution, and mounting pressure on communities that depend on forests for food, water, and traditional livelihoods.
Indonesia has become a major supplier of biomass pellets to international markets seeking renewable energy alternatives, raising concerns about the hidden environmental costs of the trade.
Human Rights at Risk
Beyond environmental impacts, speakers highlighted the human rights implications of industrial-scale biomass production.
Researchers documented cases where communities have experienced land dispossession, reduced access to medicinal plants, declining food security, and increased competition for water resources.
Women and marginalized groups often bear a disproportionate burden, facing greater challenges in accessing natural resources and coping with environmental degradation.
Experts also pointed to the concentration of biomass manufacturing plants and combustion facilities in economically disadvantaged communities, where residents are exposed to higher levels of air pollution and associated health risks.
As climate models increasingly rely on biomass-based carbon removal technologies, speakers warned that the vast land requirements could intensify conflicts over land ownership and agricultural production.
Calls for Stronger Oversight
Participants also questioned whether existing environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes adequately address the risks associated with biomass projects.
Experts argued that many biomass companies continue to benefit from public subsidies despite concerns over environmental performance. They further criticised certification schemes that permit intensive forest harvesting practices under sustainability labels.
Community advocates emphasised that environmental assessments often fail to secure meaningful consultation and informed consent from affected populations, leading to disputes and long-term environmental damage.
The coalition is now calling on governments and international climate negotiators to reassess the role of bioenergy in climate mitigation strategies and to prioritise solutions that reduce emissions without placing additional pressure on forests, biodiversity, and vulnerable communities.
As countries update their climate commitments ahead of COP30, campaigners say the decisions made now will determine whether bioenergy becomes a genuine climate solution or a costly distraction from more effective pathways to decarbonization.