What should the EU do?
Environmental groups are calling on the European Commission to publish a legal proposal to ensure that both EU policies only encourage those biofuels that actually reduce emissions including those caused by ILUC. In order to achieve this, the Commission should introduce ‘ILUC factors’ for different biofuel sources and review these factors periodically, revising them as necessary in order to reflect the best available scientific data.
Background
Biofuels and the Renewable Energy Directive (RED)
EU member states are required to source 10% of transport energy from renewable sources, mainly biofuels, by 2020. The RED includes ‘sustainability criteria’ that dictate the minimum CO2 savings biofuels should achieve relative to fossil fuels in order to qualify for the scheme (and receive state subsidies). These criteria account only for the emissions that occur when land is converted specifically to grow biofuel crops (direct land use change). However it does not currently contain measures to calculate the impact of indirect land use change (ILUC).
Biofuels and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) – Article 7a
This law requires fuel suppliers to reduce emissions from the production of transport fuel by 6% by 2020 - it was expected that using more biofuels would be a key way for suppliers to meet that target. The same biofuels sustainability criteria agreed for the RED apply.
What’s happening now?
Both laws state that the European Commission must investigate and propose a way of dealing with ILUC by the end of 2010. After long and difficult discussions within the various departments of the European Commission, the 'college' of European Commissioners met to discuss the issue at a meeting on Wednesday 2 May. There was reportedly broad support for addressing the problem, and DG CLIMA and DG Energy have been asked to work on a proposal for publication later this year.
What is ILUC?
The production of biofuels can indirectly cause additional deforestation and land conversion. When existing agricultural land is turned over to biofuel production, agriculture has to expand elsewhere to meet the existing (and ever-growing) demand for crops for food and feed. This expansion happens at the expense of forests, grasslands, peat lands, wetlands, and other carbon rich ecosystems. This results in substantial increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the soil and removed vegetation.
What is at stake?
EU targets for biofuels, along with generous national subsidies, have helped create an industry worth €17bn a year in Europe alone. Many of these biofuels would no longer pass criteria for GHG savings if the emissions calculation methodology accounted for ILUC. Failing to address ILUC now will mean the EU’s flagship renewables policy will end up making climate change worse and billions of Euros will be wasted. An area of additional land twice the size of Belgium will be cleared, most likely in the developing world, to grow the lost food crops[1]. Development groups such as Oxfam have warned of devastating impacts on poor communities in the developing world [2].
Is there a scientific consensus that ILUC is a real problem?
Numerous scientific and public bodies agree that ILUC is real and should be accounted for when calculating the emissions savings (or not) from biofuels. [3] The European Commission has ordered five separate studies of its own and consulted extensively with scientists who also agreed that ILUC is a problem, and separate ILUC CO2 ‘factors’ for each type of biofuel crop would be the best way of tackling the issue. The latest study for the Commission’s trade department by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) assesses the impact of various policy options for dealing with ILUC [4]. It concludes that “emissions related to land use changes driven by biofuels policies are a serious concern”. It also says that biofuels in terms of environmental benefits “may not be the best tool to achieve initial (climate) targets”.
Is the industry against including ILUC emissions?
The industry is divided. Producers of biofuels that score badly on ILUC argue the science is uncertain, while producers of those that score well have indicated that they could support the inclusion of ILUC emissions [5].
Are biofuels being unfairly targetted?
It is worth remembering that the amount of biofuel used in Europe is mandated by law and the fuels themselves are often subsidised with public money, with climate being one of the key arguments. Many things people do have an impact on the climate, eating beef is one example. But the difference is that the EU has not passed a law forcing everyone to get 10% of their calories from eating beef.
Wouldn’t it be better to ditch biofuels targets altogether?
Yes. T&E has consistently backed carbon-reduction targets for all transport fuels, such as the FQD over technology-specific volume targets such as the RED’s biofuels mandate. Getting rid of biofuels mandates, and accounting for ILUC from biofuels under the FQD, remains our preferred approach.