Â
Political groups in the European Parliament are on manoeuvres ahead of a key vote on the EU’s proposed Nature Restoration Law on July 12. The draft legislation is seen as key to restoring millions of hectares of degraded land across Europe, but it has already been rejected by three parliamentary committees. Our guest, Utrecht University scientist Andre Faaij, argues that the stalling of the law is a “tragedy”, as what it “wants to achieve is very important for future food production”, as well as for reforestation. Faaij addresses the many potential benefits of restoring damaged habitats, including responsible production of biofuels that could be crucial to Europe’s energy transition and its quest for energy independence.
Faaij is director of science at TNO Energy and Materials Transition, the largest research body on energy transition and industrial transformation in the Netherlands.
Asked whether the European People’s Party’s argument that the law would reduce food production by 10 percent is correct, Faaij says: “No, and I think it is kind of a tragedy. What the law wants to achieve is very important for the future of food production. The resilience of agriculture depends on having healthy soils and enough vegetation cover. Part of what this law can result in is that agricultural methods are improved and become more diverse.”
He goes on: “For example, agroforestry methods, where no monocultures are used and mixed crops are favoured, are more tolerant of weather extremes and they also increase the overall productivity of the land. It’s really a win-win.”
“If you have those methods, you bring more carbon to the soil and you have better water retention. So all of this comes with synergy and increased productivity of agriculture,” Faaij says. “So the opposite of what the EPP says is true; you would be able to produce more food on less land.”
On biomass – fuel derived from plants – the bioenergy expert states: “Biomass has been called a sleeping giant in the energy system, and that’s a nice qualification. We’ve downplayed its importance. But it could play a vital role. It holds special importance for advanced fuels like aviation and heavy road transport; that is still a bottleneck in the energy transition. Biomass could also replace mineral oil in the chemical industry to have renewable carbon in that key sector.”
Faaij argues that deploying renewables on a large scale is actually profitable for companies. “All the analyses we have reveal that many of these technologies are mature and have the perspective, on a medium term, to be fully competitive against the fossil fuel prices that we see today. Besides, oil is not cheap anymore,” Faaij asserts. “A major added benefit is that, if you use biomass converted to energy, you can capture a part of the CO2 that is released. If removing CO2 from the atmosphere and getting paid for it becomes a part of the business model of a future factory, that is economically very attractive.”
In addition to his work with TNO, Faaij has worked for the UN‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. Given his international experience, we ask him whether Europe can be a leader in the global energy transition. “Europe, as a whole, has very strong cards to play. We are an innovative continent,” he says. “We are building up the capacity to implement these technologies efficiently and on the appropriate scale. Europe has an export position, so we can bring competitive alternatives to fossil fuels to the global market. I think this is one of the most important opportunities we have to turn things into the right direction; just become more attractive than fossil fuels.”
Programme produced by Sophie Samaille, Isabelle Romero, Perrine Desplats and Feodora Douplitsky-Lunati
Â
