MTÜ Eesti Turbaliit
MTÜ Eesti Turbaliit ühendab Eestis turvast tootvaid, töötlevaid ja turustavaid ettevõtteid.Liidu eesmärk on olla usaldusväärne partner kõigile turbaga seotud osapooltele nii majanduse, õigusloome kui ka keskkonna valdkonnas.
ID: 074543250490-48
Lobbying Activity
Response to Report on the evaluation of the LULUCF Regulation
11 Jul 2024
The present LULUCF system is unfair and incorrect and must be significantly revised. Most importantly, the change in carbon stock is reported when sourcing raw materials, but as a rule, this does not describe the actual greenhouse gas emissions. A change in the carbon stock does not equal emissions! Reporting the carbon of the commodity (wood, peat, etc.) in supplying countries leads to a significant inequality between countries based on their geographical location and natural resources. Such reporting of emissions does not also allow the emission reduction achieved by technological development or changes in management and consumption practices to be considered, which creates inequality between sectors, companies, and different consumer groups. The present LULUCF reporting system puts forest-rich countries at a disadvantage compared to other countries. The change in the carbon stock associated with acquiring the wood remains in the supplying country regardless of how and for what purpose the wood is used. The outdated methodology does not consider the development of technology and the potential for changes in consumption practices. The supplying country has to report emissions even if CCS is installed in the case of energy wood in the importing country. The present system also favors petroleum-based products over wood-based ones. No CO2 emissions are reported if oil-based products become permanent waste and stored. Emissions must be reported when the same product is produced based on wood chemistry. It has been unequivocally proven that horticultural peat will not become 100% emission. Spent peat products are always recycled; an overwhelmingly significant part returns to the soil. This is done with the cultivated plant's root ball, composting the bio-residues of greenhouses or when collecting and composting biological household waste. One part of it turns into humus, and the other part forms new compounds with the clay minerals contained in the soil, which remain stable over time. In the long term, up to 30% of the carbon initially contained in the peat will remain in the soil. The decomposition of the rest takes up to 200 years. Therefore, peat initially increases considerably the soil's organic carbon stock. It is estimated that between 1990 and 2022, 100-120 million CO2-equivalent tons of horticultural peat have been wrongly reported. In essence, it is a carbon transfer, not an emission. The positive contribution of carbon to the long-term increase of the soil's carbon stock and its quality improvement remains unaccounted for. Added carbon when the peat is transferred to the soil in the consuming country is not reported. In reality, organic additives must also be considered a factor affecting the change in the organic carbon stock in the cropland category. Manure and biochar have been mentioned, but the list is open, and this category includes any other organic substance introduced into the soil in a considerable amount that remains there permanently, e.g., horticultural peat. Double reporting occurs when countries consuming horticultural peat start to report the change in the organic carbon stock of cropland. Along with other biochemical processes occurring in the soil, some peat slowly decomposes, and emissions occur. However, in this case, these emissions have already been reported in the supplying country as off-site emissions in the wetlands category. The consuming country cannot leave it unreported either because it is impossible to separate the share of the peat in the change of the soil carbon stock with other processes. Currently and also after 2050, the addition of carbon when peat is transferred to the soil significantly exceeds the accompanying emission, i.e. it has a positive effect. Therefore, it would be more appropriate not to report the off-site emissions of horticultural peat in its current form because, from the point of view of climate impact, it is carbon transfer, not immediate oxidation and emission.
Read full responseResponse to 2040 Climate Target Plan
22 Jun 2023
MTÜ Eesti Turbaliit tagasiside EL kliimaeesmärk 2040. aastaks kohta on lisatud pdf-failina (ETL kliimaeesmärk 2040 avalik konsultatsioon (2023.06)). Esitame avaliku konsultatsiooni raames 5 peamist ettepanekut: 1) Muuta kasvuhoonegaaside raporteerimise süsteem süsiniku bilansi muutust kajastavates valdkondades paindlikumaks nii, et oleks võimalik sõltumata bilansi muutumise ja heite vähendamise või kompenseerimise asukohariigist seda arvesse võtta. 2) Töötada välja ja juurutada metoodika, mis arvestaks bilansipõhistes õhuheitmete arvutustes tegelikult tekkivaid heitmeid, mitte üksnes bilansi muutust. 3) Võtta märgalade kategoorias arvesse looduslikud sood, kui süsiniku sidujad. Hetkel käsitletakse turbamaid üksnes heite allikana, mis ei vasta tegelikule olukorrale - valdav enamus maailma turbamaadest (~85%) on looduslikus või looduslähedases seisundis, ehk seovad süsinikku. 4) Valdkondades, kus kasvuhoonegaaside heide arvutatakse läbi bilansi muutumise (metsandus, aiandusturba tootmine jms) tuleks riigispetsiifiliste eesmärkide asemel määrata üle-Euroopalised eesmärgid. Seejuures tuleb muuta arvutusmudeleid selliselt, et heite hulgast on võimalik maha arvestada see süsiniku kogus, mis tõenditele tuginedes õhuheiteks ei saa. Süsinikubilansi muutust ja sellega kaasnevaid tegelikke õhuheitmeid tuleks vaadelda ja raporteerida eraldi. 5) Riiklike ja valdkondlike kliimaeesmärkide seadmisel tuleb senisest rohkem hinnata nende saavutamise mõju Euroopa Liidu teistele eesmärkidele. Kliimaeesmärkide seadmisel tuleb vaadata valdkondi eraldi ning hinnata kõiki ahelate osi. Näiteks on aiandusturbal oluline roll Euroopa Liidu toidujulgeoleku tagamisel, see toetab Euroopas sõltumatut toidutootmist, toiduohutust ja ka tervisliku toidu kättesaadavust.
Read full response