“U-turn” on biofuels from food crops causes hot debate
The 2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) demands that by 2020, 10% of all transport fuels are to stem from renewable sources like biofuels. That helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it makes the EU less dependent on fossil fuel imports and it offers new prospects for agriculture. Unfortunately, some biofuels are worse than fossil fuels in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on land use, biodiversity, food prices and indigenous people. The EU Directive does not prevent burning down rainforests and using them for food production, while growing palm oil in the area previously occupied for food. This Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) factor was flagged as an issue by European Parliament at the time when the draft directive was discussed. Instead of incorporating these points, the adopted text merely asked the Commission to review the impact of ILUC on greenhouse gas emissions and where necessary to propose amendments. It also stressed that second generation biofuels are preferred over first generation ones. The former are made from food-crops and the latter from non-food crops, crops residues and waste, offering greater reductions in GHG emissions than first generation biofuels. As a result of the 2009 RED, a surge in the production of biofuels took place. By the end of 2011, some 5% of transport fuels consist of biofuels. Unfortunately, almost all of these are first generation and thus potentially worse than fossil fuels.
On 17 October 2012 the Commission presented a proposal that even before it was published already caused a steer when details of an earlier version leaked. The proposal proposes to limit the amount of first generation biofuels counting towards the EU target to 5%, basically putting a stop on further demand for biofuels produced from cereal and other starch rich crops, sugar and oil crops. Producers reacted angrily, as could be expected. Some even talked about claims against the Commission. It might seem justified to be angry if your product is at stake. However, as explained above, it was clear from the start that something might be done to tackle ILUC. In that sense, what some now describe as a “U-turn” could have been expected from the start. Whether this proposal as it stands today is the best way forward can be disputed, but what is certain that ILUC effects need to be taken into account where the demand for biofuels in the EU is concerned. Otherwise we are creating more problems than resolving them, notably in poor countries outside Europe. Lack of full scientific certainty on the exact amount of extra problems ILUC is causing should not stand in the way of taking such action, provided a balanced precautionary approach is followed.
Wybe Th. Douma, 19 October 2012
See also: Legal aspects of the EU biofuels policy: protection or protectionism?, in: German Yearbook International Law 2010, vol. 53, p. 371-420
A comment in Dutch about the new developments at Europa Decentraal
Live replay Promoting Biofuels, creating scarcity? , European Development Days 2012
On the 17th of October 2012, the European Commission introduced a proposal to minimise the climate impacts of biofuels production.
See also:
- The proposal: COM (2012) 595
- EUROPA- Press Release
- As we reported before, on the 15th of October 2012. The European Environmental Bureau, the BirdLife Europe and the Transport & Environment organization presented their request regarding ILUC and biofuels at the Commission.
According to some initial reactions, the proposal lacks substantial elements. Also, some say that compared to the previous leaked version, the official proposal issued on 17 October seems watered down.
Sectors
About: European Environmental Law Network
Welcome to the European Environmental Law network. Here you can find full text cases and legislation in our database. Dossiers offer a more in depth view on specific issues. ‘National pages´ provide an overview of national developments and issues and the EEL News Service informs you of updates.
Policy documents
- Subsidies to renewables cause distortion?
- Proposal to update EU ETS registry rules
- Biofuels responsible for worse air quality and crop yields?
- Doha Climate Change Conference
- ETS aviation postponed but US bill signed; general changes proposed
- “U-turn” on biofuels from food crops?
- “U-turn” on biofuels from food crops causes hot debate
- Durban: Brief note on COP17/CMP7
- US Order for Airlines regarding EU ETS
- “Anti-EU ETS” Bill enters U.S. Senate
- Durban: Outcome of the Climate Change Conference
- China has become the world's largest emitter of carbon
- EU finance ministers increase fund for climate change
- EU well on track to reach Kyoto goals
- Post-2012
- WTO and climate change
- Other flexible mechanisms (JI/CDM/IET/GIS)
- Emission trading
- National Allocation Plans
- World Bank
- Adaptation
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- General
- Environmental priorities of the Spanish Presidency
- Polish national allocation plan under the EU ETS
- EU and EIB’s joint climate finance initiatives
- Proposals regarding EU’s Emissions Trading System backed
- * U.S protest European emission fee on flights
- Economic crisis said to have left ETS “thoroughly obsolete”
- IATA discusses aviation CO2 emissions
- ENDS interviewed Connie Hedegaard, EU Climate Commissioner.
- IMO meeting without agreement on energy standards for ships
- Technologies will drop industry’ emissions
- EEA expresses doubts about Austria, Denmark and Italy
- New rules to prevent fraud in ETS
- EU and the Arctic region
- New ETS emission CAP for 2013
- Lobby between Europe and US against agreement on climate change
- Seven States have not yet complied with the EU ETS
- EU is discussing the Kyoto Protocol amendment
- CO2 target for vans
- Difficult to reach 2050 target
- ETS allowances
