JAKARTA, Indonesia — In response to increased national and global pushback regarding the environmental impact of biomass energy, the South Korean government has decided to scale back its financial support for this energy source, which has often been linked to deforestation. While many environmental advocates have welcomed this move, they have also pointed out existing gaps and a sluggish timeline for completely ending these subsidies.
The decision indicates a significant shift, as noted by Hansae Song, program lead at Solutions for Our Climate, a South Korean environmental non-profit. In an email, he remarked that the government’s resolution signifies that large-scale biomass energy should not play a role in the future of renewable energy.
Globally, biomass power—largely derived from burning wood—has seen significant growth as countries strive to transition towards greener energy. Despite its rise, numerous scientists and environmentalists flag it as a contentious issue. In South Korea, biomass currently stands as the second most significant source of renewable energy.
For over a decade, South Korea has heavily funded biomass energy through its renewable energy certificates program, injecting millions into the sector. Recently, the government allocated around $688 million to bolster power plants dependent on biomass, according to an official announcement from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.
Due to limited domestic forestry resources, South Korea’s biomass energy industry has relied heavily on importing wood pellets, mostly at lower costs from countries rich in forests. As of 2023, approximately 82% of the country’s wood pellet necessities were met through imports, making South Korea the third-largest biomass fuel importer globally, trailing only the United Kingdom and Japan. A report has indicated that biomass sourced from Indonesia has been directly associated with the destruction of natural forests.
As stated in the Ministry of Trade’s press release, the expansion of the biomass market has led to several critical issues, particularly concerning forest degradation and the carbon emissions resulting from biomass power generation.
Under the newly adjusted policy, South Korea will cease supporting any new biomass power facilities. The subsidies for six existing state-run plants utilizing both coal and biomass are set to expire this year, while the value of renewable energy certificates for three state-owned plants dedicated exclusively to biomass will decline by 2027. For private entities, financial support for biomass co-firing will gradually lessen over the next decade, and the subsidy levels for twelve dedicated biomass facilities will diminish over the next fifteen years.
However, environmentalists have expressed concerns over loopholes present in the revised framework. They note that domestically produced wood pellets and chips will retain previous levels of support, including for those used in coal co-firing, which could jeopardize South Korea’s forest resources. Additionally, currently planned power plants with approved permits are exempt from the new regulations, subject instead to the established timelines for existing plants.
The state-owned co-firing units, which will forfeit their renewable energy certificates, represent only a small fraction—10%—of South Korea’s biomass energy capacity, as Solutions for Our Climate pointed out. Furthermore, the gradual phase-out for private co-firing facilities will take more than ten years to be completed.
This delay is significant as it prolongs the operational lifespan of thermal power plants, many of which are reportedly more carbon-intensive per energy unit than coal, extending beyond the deadlines for coal phase-outs agreed upon in the Paris Agreement, as Song elaborated in his email.
While South Korean ministries, such as Trade, Industry and Energy and the Ministry of Environment, have not provided comments on this policy shift, experts anticipate that this change could influence how other countries evaluate and incorporate biomass into their energy strategies.
According to Claire Squire, a research associate at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy Center for Global Sustainability, there is a gradual yet promising improvement in the discussion surrounding biomass subsidies. She emphasized that while cutting back on subsidies won’t rectify all issues, restructured approaches could yield better outcomes.
As nations progress with their energy transitions, the demand for biomass continues to expand at an average annual rate of roughly 3% between 2010 and 2022, as per the International Energy Agency (IEA). Experts, including those from the IEA, stress the importance of ensuring that this demand is met sustainably—favoring waste and crop residues over converting forest land for bioenergy production. Deforestation has severe consequences, leading to erosion, biodiversity loss, threats to wildlife and human communities reliant on forests, and exacerbation of extreme weather events.
Numerous scientists and environmentalists have dismissed biomass as a viable energy source, asserting that burning wood-based bioenergy can emit more carbon than coal and that the reduction of forest cover significantly hampers the Earth’s capacity to absorb atmospheric carbon. Critics argue that relying on biomass co-firing delays the essential transition to cleaner energy alternatives.
