Brussels, 27/07/2016 (Agence Europe) - Of all the proposals presented by the Commission on 20 July in its summer package on climate and the EU's transition to a low-carbon economy by 2030, it is the transport decarbonising strategy that, for the time being, is the least controversial (EUROPE 11601, 11598).
That said, controversy is already apparent on the new EU policy on biofuels, splitting those who feel that the Commission has not been strong enough in its support expressed for advanced biofuels and those forcefully making the case that first generation biofuels must, in future - and certainly for the period from 2021 to 2030 - have their full part to play in low-emission mobility.
Cefic (European Chemical Industry Council) points out that EU chemical companies already make lightweight composite material for vehicles to increase fuel efficiency and are also actively developing energy storage technology. “We have identified 'power to gas' and 'power to liquid' as offering huge potential towards decarbonising transport. Moving beyond first generation fuels to advanced biofuels is another step change our sector can be part of”, said Cefic Director General Marco Mensink.
The sector is looking to the European Commission to ensure it is consistent in its policymaking regarding second generation bio-based fuels. It notes that, after its initial strong push for first generation, food-based biofuels, the Commission then changed tack, which has depressed investment in the biofuels sector for the last years. “Long-term certainty will be critical in order for investment decisions to support uptake of alternative fuels.”
FEDIOL (EU Vegetable Oil and Protein Meal Industry) welcomes the Commission proposal to set obligations for fuel suppliers as a way of ensuring a certain share of renewable energy in transport, but expresses concern on the lack of perspective for crop-based biofuels after 2020.
“Conventional and advanced biofuels do not mutually exclude each other. Europe should further invest in more advanced fuel technologies in the transport sector, but this should go hand in hand with maintaining existing policies and assets on conventional biofuels”, argues FEDIOL President Henri Rieux.
UNICA (Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association), too, has expressed deep concern about the gradual phase-out of first generation biofuels recommended by the Commission. It believes that this approach discriminates against all first generation biofuels regardless of their actual greenhouse gas emission reductions, just as the indirect land-use change (ILUC) directive did last year. The ILUC directive amended the fuel quality and renewable energy directives, capping the use of agri-fuels in transport by 2020 and factoring in indirect land-use change so as to calculate greenhouse gas emissions linked to production of these first generation biofuels.
“Such a U-turn only creates legislative instability and confusion for investors and does not help the EU in achieving its ambitious climate targets”, states UNICA. It argues that, by refusing to take into consideration the concrete positive impacts of ethanol produced from sugarcane, the proposal “effectively turns a blind eye to one of the cleanest alternatives on the market today”. And it makes the case that, unlike other first-generation biofuels, sugarcane ethanol “is one of the best performers in terms of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, even when indirect land-use change is considered” and points out that, according to an International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) study, it has a “negligible” impact on food prices.
Confusion. Development NGO Oxfam regrets that the Commission had not been clearer on clamping down on biofuels that compete with food production. The Commission is sending a mixed message because, on the one hand, it says it backs the idea that competition between biofuel production and food production must be ended from 2020 but, on the other, it only proposes phasing them out and replacing them with more advanced fuels, Oxfam says. In a world facing the triple challenge of climate change, a rapidly ageing population and depletion of natural resources, harmful biofuels quite simply have no place, says Marc Olivier Herman, Oxfam expert on climate and energy policy. The Commission, he argues, has missed an opportunity to say so loud and clear. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)