Firstly, it is partially false for agriculture. Considered as an industry, which includes input
\nproducers upstream and the food processing industry downstream, agriculture represents
\naround 870 installations that are subject to allowances, i.e. 8% of the total. However, the
\nsize of these installations \u2013 plants that produce fertilisers, plant health products, starch and
\nsugar refineries, etc. \u2013 is relatively small: on average, they emit 35,000 tCO2eq per year,
\nranging from less than 2,000 tCO2eq for knacker\u2019s yards to 140,000 tCO2eq for plants that
\nproduce nitrogen-based fertilisers.<\/p>\n
Like all sectors, excluding power generation, the farming and food processing industries
\nended the period between 2008 and 2012 with a significant allowance surplus, which
\namounted to 21% of their allocation. However, the reason for this surplus is different from
\nother industries, as these industries\u2019 output level has remained stable since 2007, although
\noutput in the other industrial sectors has contracted by an average of 25%. The 7% fall in
\nemissions recorded in the farming and food-processing industries over the period between
\n2005 and 2007 actually corresponds to a genuine improvement in the carbon intensity of
\ntheir products, primarily due to the introduction of new fertiliser manufacturing processes.
\nAs is the case of the other sectors, part of the surplus is also due to a generous allocation
\nthat will not be repeated over the period between 2013 and 2020. A full report on these
\nindustries has been drawn up by Foucherot and Bellassen (2013).[[CDC Climat Research, Climate Study No. 39 \u201cOver 800 installations in the forming and food-processing
\nsectors are concerned by the EU ETS.\u201d]]\n
Secondly, it is partially false for the forestry and wood products sector. Firstly because
\nover 900 paper manufacturing plants are covered by the EU ETS, but more importantly
\nbecause the emission factor for biomass and therefore wood has been set at zero within
\nthe EU ETS. This means that the EU ETS provides a strong incentive to burn wood instead
\nof coal. This incentive is made even stronger by the fact that substituting wood for coal
\ndoes not require the burner to be adapted, at least up to the point where the amount of
\nbiomass is equal to the amount of coal.<\/p>\n
The contribution of the forestry and wood products industry to mitigating climate change
\nis therefore indirectly but tightly controlled by the EU ETS, and more generally by the
\nClimate & Energy Package. Biomass already accounts for 10% of the power generated in
\nEurope. It is central to the Member States\u2019 strategy to comply with the European directive
\nthat sets renewable energy targets, which involves a doubling of biomass consumption \u2013
\n70% of which comes from forests \u2013 to generate power. In fact, Baron et al. (2013)[[CDC Climat Research, Climate Study No. 40 \u201cForestry and climate change mitigation in European
\npolicies: priority to fuel-wood.\u201d]]\n have
\nproduced an overview of European policies that directly or indirectly affect the sector\u2019s
\ncontribution to mitigating climate change. The overview concludes that these policies are
\nconsistent in encouraging the use of biomass from forests for power generation purposes. <\/p>\n
Contrary to popular belief, the agriculture and forestry sectors are hence already involved
\nin the EU ETS, and more broadly in the Climate & Energy Package. This is due partly to
\nthe fact that the upstream and downstream areas of these industries are already covered
\nby these policies, and partly to the fact that the Climate & Energy Package creates strong
\ndemand for biomass, which is produced by both sectors. Does this mean that they ought
\nto play a more explicit role in the 2030 Climate & Energy Package? At the very least, this
\nobservation raises the question of the consistency between energy policy and agriculture
\nand forestry policies, where the Common Agricultural Policy is at the forefront.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The EU ETS\u2019 stock image shows a huge industrial plant that emits a large amount of
\ngreenhouse gas, and gives the impression of an allowance market that does not concern
\nso-called \u201cdiffuse\u201d sectors like agriculture and forestry. Like any stock image, it is broadly
\naccurate and partially false.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":31531,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1481],"tags":[1849,1950,1671,1826,1848,1651,1437,1995,1685],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31533"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31533\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/beta.next-finance.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}