‘Back-room deals’ likely as EU biofuels policy enters crucial phase

Plans to introduce new EU thresholds on the use of crop-based biofuels in transport from 2021 will likely require backroom deals between European politicians later this year as a European Parliament plenary vote in mid-January isn’t expected to deliver a clear decision from lawmakers.

MEPs are expected to vote on the EU’s revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) on 17 or 18 January, just one month after the European Council of ministers pushed for higher thresholds on biofuels use than those proposed by the Commission and European Parliament.

Many MEPs and their staff won’t return to work until January 8, limiting the available time to engineer a workable compromise to just a few days.

“This means we are likely to see a very close vote or a weak position from the Parliament, which is likely to give the EU Council greater leverage in shaping the directive during trilogue discussions,” said Raffaello Garofalo of the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), a pro-biofuels lobby group.  

The European Council, which is made up of ministers from the EU’s 28 member states, on 18 December reaffirmed its proposed threshold of 7% for the use of crop-based biofuels eligible for road and rail transport by 2030.

That clashes with both the Commission’s proposal of 3.8% and the Parliament’s lead committee position to ban the eligibility of crop-based biofuels to meet renewable energy targets by 2030. 

Proponents of a complete phase-out point to public scepticism about the use of crop-based biofuels in tackling climate change.

But other MEPs, particularly from countries with large agrarian economies – such as thos in central and eastern EU states and rural France, are likely to vote in line with the interests of crop producers. This practically guarantees a tight vote, observers say.

They add that such an outcome would require rapporteurs from other committees, besides the lead environment committee (ENVI), to shape negotiations, such as the industry and energy (ITRE) and agriculture (AGRI).  

If so, dealmakers would have to try to strike a balance between the agriculture/biofuels industry on one hand and environmental concerns on the other.

EU crop-producing member states pushed hard in the 18 December EU Council meeting for weak curbs on crop-based biofuels, culminating in the proposal that the upper limit should be fixed at 7%, according to both lobby groups for and against the change.

The Council also agreed to revise the definition of food and feed crops that would exempt Europe-grown crops such as rapeseed.

“This will also mean more use of food crops for biofuels,” NGO Transport & Environment said in an 18 December briefing.

But the agreement between the EU 28 also gave leeway for individual member states to reduce this threshold to 3% - a possible sop to nations such as the Netherlands and the UK which have voiced concerns and proposed national legislation to cut crop-based fuels.

That prompted a hostile response from industry lobbies.

“This approach is highly concerning as it might lead to internal market disruption and reduced investors’ confidence,” said the EBB in a 19 December statement.

It added: “Coupled with the introduction of high artificial multipliers for the electricity sector, it would end up benefiting fossil fuels and lower transport decarbonisation ambition in the EU.”

In the last decade scores of new plants have started production of bioethanol and biodiesel to meet demand for fuel blending requirements contained in the original RED.

Owners of such plants are pushing for a strong degree of consistency in policymaking for the revised version that will apply to the 2021-2030 period.

But some MEPs and EC officials have expressed concern that crop-based biofuels are diverting farmers away from producing food and have highly damaging ‘life-cycle’ carbon footprints that in some cases are worse than fossil fuels.  

Biofuels producers contend that indirect land-use change (ILUC) analysis is deeply flawed, and are pressing for it to be discounted from decisions made by EU institutions.

Once a common position is reached in trialogue talks between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, it would require another vote in the EP plenary, which could mean that a final adoption isn’t reached until well into 2018.