Forests are not following the European Commission’s script

The Paris Agreement gave us the net-zero concept. Intentions were good, and net-zero became a focal point for climate action. Many have followed the call, and few climate initiatives exist that do not refer to it.

The two-degree goal – and the 1.5-degree ambition – were linked to “a balance between anthropogenic emissions and removals by sinks in the second half of this century.” In short, sinks are expected to compensate for emissions.

However, the Paris Agreement provides no guidance on how emitters should compensate those who remove carbon. Nor does it consider the interaction between reducing emissions and enhancing sinks. Emissions and removals are treated as separate tracks in climate policy, which has led to inefficiencies.

European climate legislation applies the net-zero ambition mainly by offsetting emissions in sectors like energy and transport against removals in the land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector. By 2050, a balance is expected in line with the Paris vision.

To reach this, the LULUCF regulation sets a target to remove 310m tonnes of CO₂ annually by 2050 and beyond. As agricultural land is a net emitter, this depends almost entirely on European forests continuing to stock up carbon. Forests have removed billions of tonnes over past decades. It’s been a success story—and a sequel is now expected.

But forests are not following the commission’s script.

Past expansion stemmed from post-war reforestation and forest growth on former farmland. While net CO₂ removals remain high – above 300m tonnes per year in addition to 600m cubic metre annual wood harvest – carbon accumulation is slowing. Mature forests grow less and face more climate-related risks. Forests cannot build biomass indefinitely. Several member states now project that LULUCF targets may not be met.

This has become a hot issue in forest-rich countries like Sweden and Finland. In Sweden, a parliamentary committee suggested short-term LULUCF compliance via reduced wood harvests to keep more carbon in trees. Large-scale financial incentives to landowners were proposed. But does this make sense?

It doesn’t. We must rethink the LULUCF targets, the role of forests as offsets for other emissions, and ultimately the net-zero framework. The primary focus must be to reduce fossil emissions at pace—while also securing competitiveness, jobs and security. Using tax money to lower output from a key climate sector is then a bad idea. Here’s why.

First, reduced harvests do little for the climate. Less wood may raise carbon stock locally, but global leakage means increased harvest elsewhere. Substituting wood-based products with steel, plastics or fossil energy will increase emissions—contradicting the climate goal.

In the long run, less active forestry reduces growth and increases risks like fires. Active forest management with harvest is key to maintaining and enhancing the sink. Harvesting only two-thirds of growth is already cautious.

Second, the wood-based value chain supports vast production and consumption, underpinning an estimated 7 percent of EU economic output and 18m jobs—often in rural areas. Reducing raw material supply through policy will be costly and counterproductive.

Third, wood is a strategic resource. In today’s geopolitical landscape, domestic wood and wood-based industries help reduce dependency on problematic trade partners, improving European security and self-sufficiency.

We need constructive solutions to the LULUCF dilemma. Keeping the Green Deal while reducing forest sink expectations – e.g., by better valuing wood-based solutions – may work, though imperfectly. A clearer separation between ETS/ESR emission goals and LULUCF removals may be more appropriate. This also reflects growing doubts about meeting emissions goals, casting doubt on forests’ ability to compensate. That means rethinking net-zero.

And why not?

Instead of a compensation-driven net-zero, focus on rapid fossil reduction with near-zero goals. Wood-based solutions could be valued for displacing fossil emissions, as outlined in ISO 13391. Forests could be appreciated for providing wood—not for keeping it. That would make sense. But it takes courage to challenge a Paris pillar and propose structural change to EU Climate Law.

The motivation is obvious. We must allow Europe to grow with its forests.