EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Doubts cloud launch of EU biofuels sustainability schemes

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 21 July 2011, updated 16 August 2011

The EU's approval of a first batch of seven sustainability schemes for biofuels marked a "big step" towards climate-friendly transport, Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said on 19 July. But reactions have been mixed.

Biofuels producers hailed the schemes for addressing sustainability concerns, but there was a chorus of criticism from NGOs over a perceived lack of definition, verification resources and sensitivity to land-use issues.   

The new system allows companies in Europe's €9 billion bio-diesel industry to seek a five-year green standard under the EU scheme, or comparable national ones.

Certification will then be awarded to any which produce biofuels emitting 35% less greenhouse gas than petrol, with the figure rising to 60% from 2018.

"We have to make sure that neither rainforest nor sensitive ecosystems are damaged by being farmed for the production of biofuels," Oettinger told a press conference in Brussels.

Adequate monitoring over the "whole production chain" will have to be demonstrated and biofuels grown on land with "high biodiversity value" will not be allowed, he said.

A question of definition

But environmentalists complain that the European Commission still has no definition for what "highly biodiverse grasslands" actually are.

"According to an International Food Policy Research Institute study for the European Commission, 16% of lands converted because of the biofuels policy will come from grasslands and savannah," said Nusa Urbancic, biofuels policy officer for green NGO Transport & Environment.

"If there is no definition, how can we know which kinds of grasslands should be converted?," she told EurActiv.

Biofuels producers, though, were satisfied with the new sustainability criteria.

"[It] is excellent news for the industry insofar as it provides guarantees on the environmental sustainability of biofuels," said Kåre Riis Nielsen, director of European affairs for Novozymes, a member of one of the new schemes, the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels.

"But other regulatory issues such as the impact of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) should be clarified as soon as possible," he added.

ILUC is the process whereby forests and wetlands are cleared to compensate for lands taken to grow biofuels elsewhere, so increasing CO2 emissions.

A Commission communication on ILUC has been postponed until after the summer break, but the EU executive's energy department is known to favour a more generous 'greenhouse gas threshold' for measuring the environmental contribution made by biofuels.

Oettinger insisted that Brussels was at least taking measures to ensure that biofuels were not produced on rainforest land which had been directly cleared for biofuel cultivation.

"If we fear that something is going wrong somewhere, we will write to a government and ask them to check it out with their authorities on the spot," he explained.

EU officials later confirmed that independent auditors would monitor the sustainability criteria on the ground, and they would in turn be monitored by Brussels.

Asked by EurActiv, the officials said they could give no figures for the numbers of auditors or EU staff that would be involved. But the auditors could work for several schemes, they said.

According to Robbie Blake, biofuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth, this could give rise to "conflicts of interest".

"Frequently we've come across cases where people have been hired and sometimes even paid off by the biofuel or palm oil plantations," he told EurActiv.

Court case

Last May, Friends of the Earth and several other environmental NGOs launched court action against the European Commission, claiming that it had failed in its transparency obligations by withholding information about voluntary certification schemes.  

The Commission denied this. But four leaked EU-commissioned reports, including one draft by the Joint Research Centre, questioned the environmental credentials of biofuels.

One study predicted that meeting the 2020 target could indirectly cause a one-time release of around 1,000 megatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, more than twice Germany's annual emissions.

The EU is committed to increasing the share of renewable energy in transport to 10% by 2020, including from biofuels but also others such as hydrogen and green electricity.

One EU official told EurActiv that the Commission's energy department was afraid it would not be able to meet that target.

Blake, however, was afraid that it would.

"Because of ILUC, the emissions that are released from the worst biofuel crops like rapeseed, palm oil and soy are worse for the climate than even using fossil fuels," he said.

Seven schemes

The seven certification schemes that received approval from the Commission are the following:

  • ISCC (German government-financed scheme covering all types of biofuels);
  • Bonsucro EU (Roundtable initiative for sugarcane-based biofuels; focus on Brazil);
  • RTRS EU RED (Roundtable initiative for soy-based biofuels; focus on Argentina and Brazil);
  • RSB EU RED (Roundtable initiative covering all types of biofuels);
  • 2BSvs (French industry scheme covering all types of biofuels);
  • RSBA (Industry scheme for Abengoa covering their supply chain), and;
  • Greenergy (Industry scheme for Greenergy covering sugar cane ethanol from Brazil).
Positions: 

ePure, the European renewable ethanol association, welcomed the Commission's approval of the seven schemes, saying it enabled Europe to become "a front runner in promoting sustainable biofuels".

However, it warned that "if wider issues such as global deforestation are to be addressed effectively, then the Commission must apply binding criteria to crops used for other end uses, such as the food sector and solid biomass".

"A truly level playing field is the best guarantee to avoid potential indirect land use effects – we don't need contentious ILUC science when we already have such practical solutions at our disposal," said ePure Secretary-General Rob Vierhout.

WWF, the global conservation organisaiton, welcomed the Commission's official approval of the sustainability schemes, saying it represented "an important step".

"These voluntary schemes enable biofuels producing companies to prove that they meet the sustainability requirements set by the European Commission under the Renewables Directive," said Imke Luebbeke, EU bio-energy policy officer at WWF's European Policy Office.

However, the WWF said it supports only three of the seven schemes – RTRS EU RED, Bonsucro EU and RSB EU RED – adding that "these three schemes have been developed in multi-stakeholder processes and deliver criteria for social and environmental standards, which go beyond what the EU has set as legal minimum requirements".

Next steps: 
  • As of July 2011: Only biofuels that emit at least 35% less greenhouse gases than petrol over their whole production chain will qualify to receive certification.
  • End 2011: European Commission to report on the sustainability criteria for solid and gaseous biomass.
  • From 2017: Savings to reach at least 50%.
  • From 2018: Savings to reach at least 60%.

COMMENTS

  • Whilst the issue is apparently covered here in a series of statements about Bio-Diesel rather than the generic term Bio-Fuels. When it comes to the sustainability issues part of the remit of questioning which I know was raised by a series of comments in reports by a company which has made its position very strong about the fact that true sustainability has to be gauged upon whether the product has been made from raw materials that do not impact upon the food chain and/or protection to the ecosystems that preserve forests and wild-life and the food chain. Thus using Oil Palm specifically grown in areas where the natural forests have been cut down does not meet this issue. Similarly growing Jatropha on desert borderlands can have the same effects in that such plants draw water from the underlying ground aquifer to maintain growth and this could be at the detriment of other needs. You highlight the fact that growing "high-yielding grasses" in areas of land that were "put aside" away from growing food crops (my interpretation of your wording here in this article) is a considered way forward (again my interpretation) yet we all know that farmers purposely "put aside" such areas of land (the "set aside" issue in the EU)knowing full well that the land they have so "put aside" is of better quality than used for growing food crops so that they can make a significant commercial gain in growing Bio-Fuel crops. Alas such provision is as equally detrimental to the environment for these "high-yielding grasses" do take more water than the normal and if there was a true balance of the issues this has to be addressed in total. Again I see another issue coming up in terms of sea-farming of phyto-plankton because such "photosynthesised" planktons are a source of many foods and also gas receptors used to promote a balance between the air and sea water. ie they capture carbon dioxide and nutrients as well as provide food for animals. We should think carefully about harvesting these when their use in such sensitive locations is not fully understood. However let's now consider how we should add to the issue positively. One thing is for certain any sustainability issue must be promoted and audited positively. Self-certification or the pretences around impartial audits like those of the renewable energy farce surrounding making electricity from incineration of waste - to gain ROCs (Renewable Energy Obligations Certificates) and then to have half of these used up in the manufacture of the Renewable Energy inside the plants as we see in the many "Waste to Energy, or Energy from Waste Plants" currently in working position across the EU in places as for example Amsterdam, or Allington/Kent or Sheffield/Yorkshire or as proposed in Mauritius (by the Americans) or in the PRC or in Taiwan (where they use Coal to assist in making the system of burning work) or in the industrial incineration (waste to energy/energy from waste) plants that are the down fall of the Aluminium company about which the EurActiv commented upon after the EU took the Italian Government to court over illegal subsidies) and indeed the Dublin Waste to Energy facility (at Ringsend in SE Dublin) where the plethora of subsidies needed to placate the American contractor are so massive that he will be bank-rolled by the Irish tax-payers for double-counting the production of renewable energy and heat (based upon a theoretical base-line of waste which will never be materialised under reducing waste production figures we see these days) irrespective of the fact that he will use 40% of the energy produced to make the process work - AND - he is to be bank-rolled by the Corporation of Dublin through paying twice as much for the treatment of the waste and with a "Put or Pay" treatment threshold for a quantity of waste that will never ever be reached. No what we need is a properly accountable system based upon a freely audited system that is robust. In this therefore the Director of ST1 (in Sweden) and others in Genesyst EU/UK (in Holland and the UK) and Applied Biofuels (in the EU) have said is that the source of the Raw Material is crucial here. Making the Renewable Fuels from Non-Food Crops and land that should be used to Grow Food Crops and Land that acts as a Buffer to Grow Food Crops or Protect Endangered Flora and Fauna must be the priority. So using Biomass (a generic form of Lignocellulose) derived from Wastes or from Non-Food Crops or which are grown proprietarily from specialised Phytoplankton Micro-Algae (as we see in the USA)or from Macro-Algae as we see in the Applied Biofuels programme for Israel, or as we see proposed for North Africa and the EU to sequest Carbon Dioxide wasted from industry and power stations) or as we see in the Far East are certainly quality programmes we need to see further developed and we hear are being funded in projects such as the €Billion project for Israel, or the €45 Billion programme for Morocco. These are truly sustainable because they do not impinge upon those issues, and their remits can address what happens should there be droughts elsewhere. The Sustainability issues are manifold but in essence covering them up with "proposals" and "limited acceptance" over the next "five years" is nonsense. Changing the way the subsidies are managed - in for example the redress of the Biofuels Production Premiums from Wheat. Sugar Beet, Corn etc. and transferring these to the Biomass-generated Renewable Fuels of which Biomass-Diesel and Biomass-Ethanol are the obvious is not difficult. The EU should reduce the subsidies given to the production of the Renewable Fuels from Food Crops more quickly transferring them to the Biomass-Fuels producers so that we can gain the real benefits of these across the EU and show the ROW (Rest of the World) that we mean business.
    By :
    Anonymous
    - Posted on :
    21/07/2011
  • Simple. Abandon the false god of global warming and all these get rich quick, land destroying schemes, will fail.
    By :
    harbinger
    - Posted on :
    22/07/2011
  • An interesting commentary by the last writer about the issue. 1) If the use of making Renewable Fuels is tailored to Non-Food Sources that do not impinge on the issue then the land issue is avoided. 2) If we were to grow Macro-Algae (Phyto-plankton) as the Israeli and South Americans have effected) in shallow salt lagoons on desertified areas using brackish water this would solve the issue of use of farming and food growing lands. This is the proposal we hear of being set out in places like Morocco and Namibia and Atacama. The 40,000 hectares of land in the Sahara Desert in Morocco proposed for this and the similar 50,000 hectares in Western Sahara - both of which are - close to the seas has a major advantage here in that like its counterpart in the Desertec (Solar Cell Plants) it is unusaed land and is close to the EU. 3) Perhaps the issue is that the huge unwieldy subsidies that are continuously given to the mega-rich oil companies ought to be stopped here and now. These subsidies are so massive that they effectively reduce the price of Oil at source by 25%. 4) The other part of the issue is that despite all the "new" oil finds the demand is out-stripping sources. If there is a need for balancing fuel uses and demands then providing alternative and Renewable Sources has to be logical.
    By :
    Anonymous
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2011
  • Holy sihznit, this is so cool thank you.

    By :
    Fanni
    - Posted on :
    30/09/2011
  • Great post with lots of imotprant stuff.

    By :
    Destrey
    - Posted on :
    02/10/2011
Background: 

'Indirect land-use change' means that if you take a field of grain and switch the crop to biofuel, somebody somewhere will go hungry unless those missing tonnes of grain are grown elsewhere.

Economics often dictates that the crops to make up the shortfall come from tropical zones, and so encourage farmers to carve out new land from forests.

Burning forests to clear that land can pump vast quantities of climate-warming emissions into the atmosphere, enough in theory to cancel out any of the benefits that biofuels were meant to bring.

The European Commission has run 15 studies on different biofuel crops, which on average conclude that over the next decade Europe's biofuels policies might have an indirect impact equal to 4.5 million hectares of land – an area the size of Denmark.

Some in the biofuels industry argue that the Commission's science is flawed and that the issue could be tackled by a major overhaul of agricultural strategy to improve productivity or by pressing abandoned farmland back into action. Waste products from biofuels production can also be fed to animals, they say, so reducing the pressure on land resources.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Climate & Environment News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Climate & Environment Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising