Strasbourg, 04/07/2002 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament took a stance at first reading on the "biofuel" package with the adoption of the report by Pilar Ayuso Gonzalez on the use of biofuels in transport (codecision procedure) and the report by Miquel Mayol i Raynal on biofuel taxation (consultation procedure). Last November, the European Commission presented this "package" which aims to promote green fuels in Europe in order to reduce the EU's energy dependency on oil. It includes an action plan aimed at replacing, by 2020, 20% of diesel and petrol by biofuels in the road sector and a draft directive authorising Member States to reduce excise duties on pure biofuels or biofuels mixed with other fuels.
With the adoption of nearly all the amendments of the report by Ms Ayoso Gonzalez, the Parliament set itself the binding target that the minimum share of biofuels sold on the Community market should reach 2% by 31 December 2005, and 5.75% by 2010. During the discussions, Ms Ayuso Gonzalez noted that the most controversial aspect of the European Commission's proposal is the introduction of binding objectives, that "many countries are reticent to accept". With the shadow rapporteur, German Social Democrat Mechthild Rothe, Ms Ayuso Gonzalez had presented "in an act of great generosity on the part of the Parliament towards the Council, an amendment so that the objectives would be indicative". She hoped that, in turn, it might accept other amendments of the Parliament, mainly that which provides for Member States to be able "for justified reasons to postpone application of the directive by two years, just once". MEPs finally voted against the amendment as "the Council did not show any signs of good cooperation". The Commission should present a report before 31 December 2006 on the progress made concerning the use of biofuels within the Community. The Parliament considers it necessary to wait for the Commission's assessment on the comparative advantages of pure biofuels and biofuel/fuel mixtures before deciding whether to introduce, or not, the obligation of mixing fuels.
With the adoption of the report by Miquel Mayol i Raynal on the taxation of biofuels, the Parliament requests that these be totally exempt from excise duties and takes a stance in favour of abolishing the clause providing for tax reductions on biofuels to be no less than 50% of the normal excise amounts for corresponding fuels. The Parliament's aim is for tax aid to be a real incentive for consumers and industrialists to turn towards the use of fuels produced from plant products. "The additional cost of biofuels is in the order of EUR 300 per 1000 litres of conventional fuel replaced", recalls the rapporteur in his explanatory statement. At the same time, the Parliament draws attention to certain negative aspects of biofuels, which, although produced from renewable energy sources, are no less polluting than fuels from oil in terms of CO2 emissions. The intensive production of soya, sunflower and sugar beet is also a source of pollution, recalled the European Environment Bureau in a document published in May. MEPs thus approved the amendments of the rapporteur and Socialists, which stress that "the increased use of such fuel does not seem to be justified unless, as far as environmental impact is concerned, there are net advantages compared to the use of conventional fuels". They invite the Commission to present part of the study that mainly covers the surface areas that would have to be farmed, the intensification of agriculture, relations with other sustainable uses of farmland, the protection of waters, energy efficiency, the potential in terms of greenhouse gases, the combustion characteristics and the formation of particles. Furthermore, they request that, on 31 December 2007 at the latest, the Commission present a communication on the differentiated pricing of fuels that take the environmental, social and economic costs into account.
During the debates, Miquel Mayol i Raynal, who spoke in French deploring the fact that his langauge, the Catalan, is not one of the EU languages, recalled that he had unsuccessfully proposed in committee to have the term "agrifuel" used rather than biofuel. He said that, from an ecological point of view, "it is in no way obvious that the objective that the directives seek to promote, namely bio- or agrifuels that can be mixed with oil (biodiesel or bioethanol) present a real advantage." In his view, "one might wonder whether the considerations on the reduction of reenhouse gas is not a cover-up on the part of oil companies, chemical refining industries, the automobiel industry and i ndustrial agricutlure".
This is why he tabled an amendment whereby duty should only be cut to the extent necessary to match the ecological importance of products and their use, feeling it would make more sense to encourage the use of biofuel by taxis, busses and diesel locomotives. French Green Danielle Auroi warned that biofuel could be produced in a production-oriented fashion with GMOs which would lead to negative ecological impact on balance so biodiesel should be produced from pure oil or biomass should be used to create hydrogen rather than following a constant logic of adding a small percentage of fuel of agricultural origin to fossil fuels which therefore remain products that produce a great deal of pollution. Germany Social Democrat Rolf Linkohr said the directive was a breath of fresh air for agricultural policy, calling on the EU not to miss the technological impulse that could result from it.