The Biomass Action Network welcomes the efforts of the COP30 Presidency in developing two important roadmaps: the one on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Energy Systems in a Just, Orderly and Equitable Manner and the other on Enhancing Efforts Towards Halting and Reversing Deforestation and Forest Degradation by 2030. The two sister roadmaps send an important signal that countries must move from commitments to implementation on already agreed goals.
During the launch, the COP30 Presidency described this phase as creating a new language for what it means to walk away from fossil fuels. Coalitions of willing countries have already shown a desire to drive this process forward, and now more countries need to begin taking the steps to implementation. As governments increasingly focus on delivering climate and biodiversity objectives in practice, choices about energy systems and forest use will become decisive. Where large-scale woody biomass is included in transition pathways, its significant climate and biodiversity implications require careful scrutiny.
Transition to what?
Much of the current discussion understandably focuses on how to end the era of fossil fuels. But an equally important question remains: what are we transitioning toward? Without asking this question, we risk replacing one destructive system with another and ending up with higher emissions, degraded forests, and the overriding of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights. This is the moment to take a proper leap, not simply exchange one flawed energy system for another.
We need to move beyond burning and away from extractivist models towards genuinely low-carbon energy systems that enhance local access to energy while respecting ecological limits. This means redirecting public finance away from harmful subsidies and towards genuinely renewable energy infrastructure, energy efficiency and reduced consumption, while safeguarding forests for what they are: irreplaceable climate and biodiversity assets. While the transition roadmap rightly prioritises electrification and renewable energy, it leaves unanswered how expanding biomass energy use can be reconciled with those objectives.
Success depends on choices
The energy transition roadmap and the forest roadmap cannot be treated as separate agendas. Forests are both among the planet’s most important carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots. However, growing demand for forest biomass, driven by energy transition and bioeconomy strategies under countries NDCs, is placing new pressures on these same ecosystems. Decisions informed by one roadmap will therefore inevitably affect the success of the other, as well as the achievement of broader climate and biodiversity goals.
The forest roadmap takes a step forward in recognizing forest degradation and its implications; however, this needs to be developed further. Forest degradation has often been overlooked in international debates despite its significant impacts on carbon stocks, biodiversity, and ecosystem integrity. The distinction matters because even clear-cuts often appear in reporting as degradation rather than deforestation when forests are replanted. Large-scale extraction of woody biomass contributes to degradation even where forests remain standing, reducing carbon storage, resilience and ecological value.
Sustainable forest management and certification provide no guarantees
The roadmap also highlights environmental safeguards, but concepts such as sustainable forest management and certification deserve far greater scrutiny. Expansion of woody biomass energy has frequently been justified through claims of sustainable forest management and certification, even where biodiversity declines, forest structures are simplified and extraction levels increase.
The problem is not merely that some safeguards fail. Rather, the dominant model of sustainable forest management often prioritises the continuous supply of timber and biomass over ecological integrity. Certification schemes are systematically influenced by industry interests, lack transparency and cannot reverse the emissions released when biomass is burned. Nor can they guarantee the protection of biodiversity, ecosystem resilience or forest carbon stocks. Sustainability labels obscure the fact that increasing biomass demand is compatible with climate and biodiversity goals.
The Biomass Reality Check
To shed light on what are too often blind spots in discussions about woody biomass energy, the Biomass Action Network is releasing the Biomass Reality Check: Eight Facts on Biomass Energy, Forests and Climate. The publication brings together key evidence on biomass emissions, forest impacts, carbon accounting, biomass demand and the limits of sustainable supply.
One of the most persistent misconceptions in climate and energy policy is the assumption that burning wood for energy is carbon neutral. In reality, whole trees are routinely burned for energy, not only residues and waste. At the same time, countries continue to rely on woody biomass and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in climate plans and net-zero pathways. Yet net-zero cannot be achieved through accounting conventions. The emissions from biomass combustion do not disappear simply because they are reported differently. At a time when the world is dangerously close to overshooting critical climate thresholds, every tonne of emissions must be accounted for honestly.
Implications for COP31
As COP31 approaches, attention is rightly focused on accelerating renewable energy deployment and electrification. These goals are essential. The COP31 Presidency’s goal of increasing electricity’s share of global final energy consumption to 35% by 2035 provides an important opportunity to accelerate a structural shift towards renewable-powered electrification. However, the transition roadmap also includes biomass-based fuels among its transition pathways and refers to measures such as co-firing coal with biomass and the use of transitional fuels.
Such approaches do not eliminate emissions from combustion. By extending reliance on fuel-based energy systems, they risk delaying the structural changes needed to reduce energy demand, expand renewable energy and accelerate electrification. At worst, they become vehicles for false solutions that encourage further expansion of biomass energy use without proper scrutiny of its climate, biodiversity and social impacts. The transition away from fossil fuels should not come at the expense of forests.
This is particularly important as COP31 also marks the start of the Second Global Stocktake (GST2), which will assess collective progress in implementing the Paris Agreement in the era of 1.5C overshooting. The roadmaps therefore mark an important effort to move from promises to implementation. Yet the language of implementation is only meaningful if it delivers real outcomes. The central unanswered question connecting both roadmaps remains how increased demand for forest biomass can be reconciled with commitments to conserve forests, halt degradation, protect biodiversity and reduce emissions. As GST2 gets underway, this question should not be overlooked: implementation must be judged by real emissions reductions and ecosystem outcomes rather than by whether one combustible fuel is substituted for another. The roadmaps offer an opportunity to chart a better course, but only if they are grounded in honest accounting, real emissions reductions and the protection of forests as ecosystems, not simply as sources of energy and raw materials.
Read more:
Bioenergy: a roadmap to forest destruction
The False Promise of e-Fuels made using Woody Biomass
Back to News