Brussels, 21/03/2013 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels on Thursday 21 March, EU environment ministers had no difficulty whatsoever in recognising that it is essential to take into account the impact of indirect land use change (ILUC) on greenhouse gas emissions generated by the production of biofuels. A policy debate was held to this end on the draft ILUC directive aimed at amending two directives of the climate/energy package (Directive 2009/28/EC on renewables and Directive 1998/70/EC on the quality of petrol and diesel fuel). It came as no surprise that this showed that, other than a broad consensus on the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from first generation biofuels obtained from farm crops (such as biodiesel and bioethanol) and to encourage transition towards the development of advanced biofuels (such as cellulose, wood, straw and algae), considerable doubt was expressed by the delegations with regard to the text's ability to allow such objectives to be reached. This gave an idea of how much work has still to be done to achieve a balance in the arrangements proposed.
Only such a balance would make it possible to overcome the potential blocking minority of countries opposed to the 5% capping of the share of first generation biofuels used in the final energy consumption of transport, given that they have already massively invested in non-sustainable biofuels. Member state positions were already known as the Energy Council of 22 February had answered two questions raised on Thursday at the Environment Council (see EUROPE 10811 and 10792). The discussion allowed ministers to complete the picture.
Summarising the debate at the Environment Council, Phil Hogan, the Irish minister who chaired the session, noted general support for the objectives of the directive but also spoke of ministers who were doubtful about its impact. A number of delegations expressed concern at the 5% capping (Poland) while others advocated stricter capping (Slovenia, Belgium). Some delegations voiced concern at the double counting of emissions (the Commission suggests creating an advanced biofuel hierarchy and for bonuses to be granted for counting their emissions). Some are worried at the idea of seeing the 20% of renewables objective compromised. Some want their investments to be protected (Greece). Others, like Sweden, want a distinction to be made between biodiesel and bioethanol, while still others, like Hungary, are calling for an environmental impact assessment to be made. Certain delegations are in favour of national sustainability schemes. Hogan concluded by saying that a revised project will soon be proposed. He gave his assurance to all that the different points of view would be taken into account.
During the debate, the British minister called for the right signals to be sent for advanced technology in transport and for the production of biofuels, warning the EU against the risk of sticking to its old approach when the United States and China are tending towards technologies of the future. The United Kingdom would like to see more sophisticated capping. In its view, multiple accounting does not represent an incentive, and it would be appropriate to take into account all the scientific and economic data for a longer-term approach, rather than a short-term approach, to ILUC.
The Polish minister considered that the change must be gradual taking into account all investment already made and needs, given that it will be necessary to link production methods to supply sources, avoiding imports from countries where the impact of ILUC is not taken into account. Hungary, which does not support capping, called for an impact assessment of the draft directive on the different agricultural sectors and said it was in favour of national systems to promote biofuel sustainability, together with the principle of mutual recognition.
The Maltese minister regretted that the directive's environmental impact assessment proposed does not take into account the regional and geographical specificities of member states. In order to achieve environmental advantages, he said, a flexible method is needed allowing cooperation so that the objectives are realised by sharing the effort between member states.
The Austrian minister, who felt that the protection of existing investment until end 2020 was not long enough, asked whether an exploitable framework had been envisaged for the right investment at the right time. It is not certain that advanced biofuels will be available on the market by 2020, Slovenia felt, expressing doubts about the multiple trigger accounting mechanism and calling for incentives to be provided for in the two directives (renewables and quality of petrol and diesel fuel) and not only in the renewables directive. Greece has warned about the risk that, by 2020, it will be necessary to import advanced biofuels from third countries, with the corollary risk of an impact on prices and economic consequences.
France spoke of “collective responsibility” to remedy the ILUC effect on first generation biofuels, responsible for the 17% rise in deforestation in South East Asia and over 10% in Latin America. On this basis, it supports capping but raises questions about the level of the capping and the impact that it will have on the achievement of the objectives set out in the two directives. It also raised questions about the reality of advanced biofuel availability by the end of the decade.
The Belgian minister deplored the fact that capping is no more than 5% and that there is no distinction between biofuels with great ILUC impact and those with low ILUC impact. He said it is necessary to have a more varied encouragement for biofuels that do not come from farm crops in order to encourage electric transport. The Estonian minister, for her part, called for electric vehicles to be taken into account in the accounting methods, and was opposed to 5% capping which could bring about a rise in the price of crops.
In favour of the 5% capping for first generation biofuels in order to meet climate change imperatives, Lithuania nonetheless stressed the need to find a good balance between the legitimate concerns of companies regarding investment already agreed, and the different capacities of member states to produce second generation biofuels. Latvia called for financial and political incentives to be set in place but also for a new environmental impact assessment in order to prioritise ILUC impact. Austria felt that the protection of existing investment until end 2020 was too short a time span. The Italian minister for his part considered that data relating to emissions linked to ILUC are not reliable enough and that international data are needed but are not yet available.
Connie Hedegaard, Commissioner for Climate Action, showed some impatience. She warned that, the more one waits, the more difficult it will be to manage the problem economically. Everyone has said that it is indeed necessary for Europe to do something but one should not be content to say that and then do nothing when it comes down to it, she warned. Recalling that the proposed 5% capping was a pragmatic choice for taking the environmental problem into account and the need to ensure that companies can pursue their activities, she deplored the fact that she had not heard any alternative suggestions during the debate. “Is there a better solution”, she asked ministers. (AN/transl.jl)