Representatives this week reached a deal on how much biofuels should contribute towards the overall target of a 20% increase in renewable energy consumption. Trialogue discussions between the three EU institutions ended with a deal being struck which will see 10% of transport fuels needs being derived from renewable energy sources, rather than from biofuels alone as had originally been suggested.

Under the agreement, biofuels will have to offer a 35% carbon emission saving compared to fossil fuels when the directive comes into force in 2012, 45% by 2013, 50% by 2017 and 60% thereafter. The agreement did not include anything about two particularly contentious issues however, in a move which has angered environmentalists.

MEPs in Parliament as well as various green organisations had been determined to feature the impact of indirect land use in terms greenhouse gas emissions, alongside direct land use in the deal as they believe this would give a more accurate account of the relative cost/benefits of biofuels. An example of indirect land use change would be the destruction of rainforests in order to clear more land for crop production to meet greater demand, in this instance a crop used in biofuels production.

The EU has however finally decided that since the science surrounding emissions from indirect land use is not sufficiently advanced, it would like to see an appropriate means for quantifying such emissions put in place first, before such criteria are made legally-binding.

The European Commission has been asked to come up with proposals to limit the effects of indirect land use by 2010 instead.

Environmental NGO Transport and Environment (T&E) summarised the feeling of despondency amongst green groups when it announced ‘the EU has agreed on the conditions for a massive increase in biofuel sales in Europe but has failed to guarantee that any greenhouse gas savings will be achieved as a result. The fundamental issue of indirect land use change (ILUC) was postponed with no legally-binding guarantee of it being accounted for in the future’.

The second key issue ignored in the final agreement is on the issue of second-generation biofuels. Sub-targets had been suggested by the EU, to decide how much biofuel use should be derived from first and second-generation crop use, but no such distinction was made after the negotiations. The Parliament had called for 40% of biofuel use to be derived from second-generation biofuels, however negotiators were unable to find a consensus on the subject and so ultimately decided to omit the proposal.

Whilst there was little enthusiasm for the outcome, given the omission of these two key issues in the final draft, the decision to ensure that 10% of transport fuel needs are met by any form of renewable energy rather than just biofuels, received a more positive reaction. Claude Turmes, a Green MEP and the proposal’s draftsman in Parliament, stated ‘the 2020 target now applies to all renewable energy used in transport, so electric vehicles (generated from renewable sources), as well as trains, can be counted. Together with non-food/feed biofuels, this would account for over four-tenths of the 10% target. This means the contribution of food/feed agrofuels to the 10% target is substantially reduced’.