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

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Biofuels industry sent ‘three mails an hour’ in ILUC lobby offensive

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 07 May 2013

EXCLUSIVE / Biofuels companies and associations sent EU cabinet members three e-mails an hour, many containing catastrophic warnings, in the run-up to a recent European Commission proposal to account for greenhouse gas emissions that the fuel crops might indirectly cause.

As the lobby pressure reached its apex, cabinet members in at least one Commission directorate argued for kicking the proposal into the long grass, according to documents obtained by EurActiv.

The EU's draft law was tabled by the Commission in October last year and signalled the end of the EU's support for so-called first generation biofuels, which are considered the most polluting and have been blamed for displacing food crops in developing countries.

>> Read: EU calls time on first-generation biofuels

The circumstances under which the EU law was tabled are now coming to the surface following an ‘access to information’ application by EurActiv, which the European Commission partially upheld.

The Commission proposal followed “unanimous” agreement among EU experts in the bloc's Joint Research Centre (JRC) that indirect land use change (ILUC) was a significant – and crop-specific – problem, inadequately addressed under existing EU law.

ILUC is the net carbon loss thought to occur when forests and grasslands are cleared for food production that has been displaced by biofuels cultivation elsewhere.

The EU currently has a 2020 target to source 10% of Europe’s transport fuel to renewables, mostly biofuels, for reasons ranging from energy security to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But key MEPs, scientists, and Commission sources involved in the original policy-setting have questioned the target’s official narrative, and the ILUC debate has become a testing ground for the fuel’s green credentials.

When the new ILUC proposal was launched on 17 October, EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said that some biofuels currently receiving EU subsidies were “as bad as, or even worse than the fossil fuels that they replace.”

But documents seen by EurActiv show that the Commission was divided on the question a week before Hedegaard spoke, and facing intense pressure from the biofuels industry.

On 10 October, members of Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn’s cabinet, in charge of Research, Innovation and Science, called for delays to the EU’s proposal, and particularly to the idea of a 5% cap on the amount of biofuels in the EU’s 2020 transport mix. 

Quinn is responsible for the work of the EU's JRC experts, on whose advice the bloc typically bases policy.

Cabinet minutes revealed

Her cabinet was at this time “receiving three mails by the hour on this subject,” according to unofficial minutes of a cabinet coordination meeting. "Strong industry concern,” the minutes note.

Several of these lobby mails predicted that EU action would kill the biofuels industry, and one claimed that 450,000 European jobs would be lost.

On the morning of the day that Quinn’s cabinet ministers proposed delaying the proposal, a meeting took place in the Commission's Berlaymont building with representatives of the Irish-based Ethanol Europe Renewables Ltd, and the Hungarian-based Pannonia Ethanol. 

A 17-page cabinet steering brief for the meet said that the Commission would safeguard existing biofuels investments, and limit first-generation biofuels consumption levels to 5% of the total transport mix by 2020.

But by the evening, one cabinet member at the coordination meeting was quoted saying that “grandfathering [protecting past investments] of existing plants is being examined… together with a possible delay in implementation – ie. to push back the dates in the Directive.”  

“The issue of the 5% ceiling for 1st generation biofuels could be addressed at a later stage – during the discussion with the Council,” the cabinet member says.

Another participant says that s/he “regrets that [the] industry stand is coming a bit late in the process.”

“PL [Poland] has heard from industry the clear stand that ‘industry will stay in biofuels only if we (EU) do not kill the 1st generation’ [of biofuels],” another cabinet member says.

Murder with intent?

Lobby documents released by the Commission show that the industry’s stand went much further than this.

One missive from the European Biodiesel Board accused the Commission of “purposely causing the death of the whole EU biodiesel industrial sector.”

It says the ILUC proposal would result in “closing hundreds of production sites worth many billions euros of recent investments and driving to the immediate loss of 50,000 direct and 400,000 indirect employments in the EU biodiesel production chain.”

The UK’s National Farmers Union said the EU’s plan would cause “the collapse of the biodiesel market and the catastrophic breakup of an essential market for UK farmers.”

A coalition of biofuels association – including the EBB, ePURE, Fediol, Coceral and Copa-Cogeca – slammed the draft law as “a masterpiece of irresponsible policy making.”

The Commission received a paper mountain of such warnings but refused to release several documents to EurActiv, and redacted names and key passages in many others.

Final proposals

In what may be a measure of Hedegaard’s resolve, Brussels’ final proposals – while disappointing environmentalists – did impose a 5% cap on the amount of first generation biofuels in the EU’s 2020 transport mix, and ended public subsidies for them thereafter.

A 60% greenhouse gas-saving threshold was also imposed on new biofuels installations from July 2014, and credits were quadrupled for advanced biofuels to encourage their production. 

However, the biodiesel industry was saved from the demise it feared by an EU decision not to include feedstock-specific values measuring its default greenhouse gas emissions.

Biodiesel is widely-recognised as one of the worst-polluting fuel crops.

Last year, Rahmawati Retno Winarni, the director of Indonesia’s Sawit Watch [Palm Oil watch], told EurActiv that 660 land conflicts were raging over palm oil plantations in her country – which could be used to make biodiesel – and that several lives had been lost as a result.  

A report by Corrine LePage MEP currently being debated in the European Parliament would amend the EU’s draft law to add sustainability criteria reflecting this.

These would be included in amendments to the Renewable Energy Directive and Fuel Quality Directive, although they would first have to be approved by EU ministers.

In order to protect investments made because of earlier EU targets, it proposes a grandfathering clause until 2017, exempting some biofuels from the ILUC legislation, so long as their market share stands below the 2010 production level, when biofuels had a 4.27% market share. Eighty percent of that is made up of biodiesel. 

The industry campaign against the proposal, meanwhile, continues.

Next steps: 
  • 1 July 2014: New biofuels installations must meet a 60% greenhouse gas saving threshold
  • 1 Dec. 2017: Biofuels installations in operation before 1 July 2014 must meet a greenhouse gas saving threshold of 35%
  • 31 Dec. 2017: The Commission will submit a review of policy and best scientific evidence on ILUC to the European Parliament and Council
  • 1 Jan. 2018: Biofuels installations in operation before 1 July 2014 must meet a greenhouse gas saviong threshold of 50%
  • 1 Jan. 2020: Deadline for 10% of EU's transport fuels to be sourced from renewable energies.
  • 2020: European Commission will not support further subsidies to biofuels unless they can demonstrate "substantial greenhouse gas savings"
Arthur Neslen

COMMENTS

  • I am the CEO of Ethanol Europe, which you mention in your article. While your article is interesting, I believe it is fundamentally misleading. The title says that the biofuels industry sent 3 e-mails an hour, but your source says only "3 e-mails an hour". As someone involved in this whole debate, it strikes me as fairly obvious that industry has, if anything, done very little lobbying. How many of those e-mails were from NGOs, the auto industry, etc.? Please back up your reporting.

    Also, please do the same story chronicling NGO action, especially how NGOs change their story every year. First, land grabs are happening on a massive scale; next, when it's shown that Europe uses 0 land-grabbed biofuel, they move on to some other scare tactic. Can Euractiv provide some accountability?

    By :
    Eric Sievers
    - Posted on :
    07/05/2013
  • Thanks for your comment Eric. Perhaps a missing hyphen explains the incongruity you imagine. The relevant minutes quoted from say "CAB (cabinet) is receiving three mail by the hour on this subject - strong industry concern". The next bullet point "regrets that industry stand is coming a bit late in the process". There is no mention of any lobbying of cabinet members by NGOs in the minutes. That does not mean it was not taking place of course, but does suggest it was not a cause for concern.
    By :
    arthur
    - Posted on :
    07/05/2013
  • Arthur. Thanks for the clarification. I still wonder whether that means that even the majority of the e-mails were from industry. Anyway, your comment brings up the real issue- that industry was, amazingly, not part of the process. In 2008, the RED was passed obligating the Commission to decide on ILUC in 2010. In December 2010, the Commission issued a public paper stating that it would choose among four options and then explained each option. Our company and our lenders reviewed the science and all the options and decided that we were fine with each option, and specifically in reliance on that invested. Then 21 months later, the Commission, without ever discussing anything with any industry group or any company in the industry, chose a fifth option. Choosing option 5 when you tell the world there are only 4 options is not good governance (especially when the option chosen is obviously wrong- as any knowledgeable industrial investor would have pointed out- in terms of practical ability to meet its stated goals). In our case, DG Clima has always refused even to meet with us (even though we were the most active remaining biofuel developer by 2011) and DG Energy assured us in Feb 2012 (in front of our lawyers) that no adverse change to the regulatory environment would occur and so encouraged us to keep investing (in non-ILUC high GHG ethanol in the poorest parts of the EU that would be fine under any rational ILUC policy but non-viable under an arbitrary cap)

    Option 5 was chosen in 2011 (the impact assessment is from fall 2011!)- but not communicated to industry, the most obvious stakeholder, until late in 2012. That's not only bad governance, that is specifically why our lenders (who care little about biofuels one way or the other) have decided never to invest in anything controlled by Brussels again. Good luck on achieving success in any policy that requires private sector investment if banks boycott the sector due to political risk.

    By :
    Eric Sievers
    - Posted on :
    07/05/2013
  • I think it is very important to take a broader view of the biofuels issue, beyond just the EU. The biofuels industry brings with it genetically engineered monocrops, chemicals, pesticides and creates biological deserts destroying natural ecosystems and poisoning soils and waterways and needs LOTS of land.
    Once again, what is reflected here is that profits/investments are driving decisions, even if they contribute to frying or destroying our planet.
    At some point we have to take a stand realizing that without nature we do not exist and in the final analysis we cannot eat money or drink oil.
    The lobbying pressures for governments to give priority to corporate concerns over environmental or human concerns and playing the "jobs" card is getting really old. Without a healthy environment there will be no jobs.
    Unless we want to live in a corporatocracy, it is time for governments to do the right thing and, if necessary, let the high flying profit making corporations take a loss -- thereby encouraging right action toward a healthier, more stable planet, not just myopic focus on investments and quarterly bottom lines. A new decision-making baseline should be adopted globally: Does this harm the environment or human health? If the answer is yes, then back to the drawing board.
    Unless and until the EU and USA takes a stand and returns to the sanity of restoring our rapidly disappearing biodiversity and regulating the wild horses of the financial world, we will continue to encourage the multi-national biofuels "gold" rush all around the world. The negative impacts on developing countries and indigenous cultures are already huge and irreversible. We have to keep our eye on the doughnut, not the hole.
    I commend the EU cabinet for having the courage to approach this biofuels issue which is just an extension of the big oil and big ag modus operandi that is destroying our lands, soils, ecosystems, waterways and forests. Something has to change and fast.

    SEE:
    GRAIN — LAND GRABBING FOR BIOFUELS MUST STOP http://sco.lt/7LE5cv

    HOW FOREIGN "INVESTMENTS" ARE REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH, LAND AND WATER ACROSS THE GLOBE http://sco.lt/96H2yv

    GREENING THE WORLD WITH BIOFUEL PALM OIL? SUSTAINABLE? CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY? http://sco.lt/6lsDmj

    UN: WORLD LOSING BIODIVERSITY THOUSAND TIME FASTER THAN NATURAL EXTINCTION http://ow.ly/kMekK

    By :
    P Jacob
    - Posted on :
    07/05/2013
  • P. Jacobs- While your tirade may make you feel better, what are you attacking and what are you supporting?

    In Hungary, we have never had a public protest of any kind, we don't take anyone's land, we are in one of the poorest counties of the EU creating 900 jobs, we have >60% GHG savings, we don't cause any iLUC (because crop yields are- finally- increasing because there is now a local market), we don't cause any decrease in exports of foodstuffs from Hungary, we prevent imports of GMO soymeal (which is high ILUC but not regulated by the RED), we support the government's anti-GMO stance, we aren't a multinational corporation (just two families). In short, we aren't anything like what you imagine a biofuels company to be. And, indeed, most biofuels companies who supply biofuels to the EU market are similar to us.

    If you are against land grabbing, then be against land grabbing. We support you. That is no reason to be against all biofuels and certainly no reason to disadvantage poor EU communities. There is no land grabbed biofuel in the EU, and let's keep it that way. Isn't that the solution?

    Also, less biofuel means more oil. Only biofuels critics suggest that biofuels must be ideal. Isn't the goal to have something better than oil? No war has ever been fought for biofuels. No hostages ever taken at a biofuels production facility. No corrupt government ever kept in power by biofuels. Most biofuels exporters are democracies.

    How does buying more oil (which is the logical result of your comments) work towards solving any of the issues you raise? Let's stop all the extreme (unfounded) statements and have a calm exchange of information.

    By :
    Eric Sievers
    - Posted on :
    07/05/2013
  • The problem is, MOST biofuels are NOT better than oil, and they cost far more to produce: even the 'best' transport-biofuels are a ludicrously expensive way to save CO2 emissions:
    http://www.iisd.org/gsi/biofuel-subsidies/biofuels-what-cost

    Congratulations on increasing crop production in Hungary, but you could pevent more global warming by exporting that food (or using it to replace imports) than by wastefully converting it to biofuel. This is not your fault: the WTO stops EU subsidizing crop exports, whilst EU forces member states to support production of liquid biofuels.

    The net employment effect of biofuels is only positive if you ignore the extra taxation needed to pay for biofuels' subsidies/tax-breaks, which significantly depresses the rest of the economy.

    By :
    John Sedricks
    - Posted on :
    08/05/2013
  • It is not necessary at all to use any Food Crop to make Biofuels, and despite what some may say we can make them cheaper from Non-Food Based sources of Biomass (including that derived from Wastes) at a cost less than that made from Food Crops and even if there was a Zero Treatment Fee or if the Raw Materials were purchased.

    The Biofuels Industry - as is - the one that uses crops and diverted land from growing crops etc has milked the system for too long at the disadvantage of the Tax Payer.

    We can make Bio-ethanol at less than the BRaxzilians and USA and Bio-butanol for a similar amount per litre. This means that with a necessary profit margin by using such sources of Raw Materials we can sell Ethnaol and Butanol at a free-market rate which would reduce the costs at the pumps by over €urocents 60 per litre even with all taxes included.

    By :
    Paul
    - Posted on :
    13/05/2013
  • I agree with Paul, wtaching what is happening with Genesyst in the EU it is so obvious that you can make the Biofuels Etanol and Butanol cheaper with the use of biomass from non-food crops and wastes and make even better margins.
    The project i refer to is in their closing and from 300,000 tonnes of biomass to make 88 up to 100 million litres of ethanol in an investment of €102,600,000-00 at a commercial rate that offers a pay back period of 3 years confirms this.
    Also that this is being mirrored elsewhere in projects by the same company proposed for Italy (Padua) Sardinia Greece Spain and Portugal as well as the UK in Scotland Yorkshire and Northern Ireland.
    These people who claim that we need to maintain the subsidies to make etanol from crops for food neid to have secondthoughts, the EU has it right.

    By :
    Karel
    - Posted on :
    14/05/2013
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.

This is because the demand for the missing grain is typically met by the clearing of forests, grasslands and wetlands elsewhere to grow it - and the consequent depletion of the planet's carbon absorption stocks. This process is exacerbated when the forests are burned, and vast quantities of climate-warming emissions are pumped into the atmosphere.

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

Some in the biofuel 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 biofuel 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

Sponsors

Videos

Energy Supply News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Energy Supply Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising