A French MEP has put forward a proposal to limit European biofuel production.

image expired

Biofuel production increased 500 percent between 2000 and 2011, in response to rising oil prices and government policies to support production. However, although they are undoubtedly a renewable source of energy, there is conflicting evidence on the environmental benefits the fuels provide. Some claim that, once land use change is factored in, biofuels release more emissions than the industry or government cares to admit, and that first generation biofuels may be worse than petrol, meaning claims that they are carbon neutral (that any GHGs released in their combustion are reabsorbed whilst the crops are growing) are, in fact, disingenuous.  

Opponents claim growing potential food crops, such as maize, for biofuels is leading to price rises and effectively pitting 'food against fuel', The part biofuels play in land use change has added to their notoriety. Although some growers claim certain crops can be grown on land unsuitable for premium agricultural production, others maintain that the crops' success is contributing to the conversion of more land, often forests and other carbon sinks, to agriculture, used directly other otherwise for fuel production.

MEP Corinne Lepage has proposed to reduce the market size for biofuel production in Europe. Ms Lepage, the European Parliament Environment Committee's lead rapporteur, made the recommendations in a report presented to the parliament on Wednesday. She called for a capping of first generation biofuels over concerns related to indirect land use change.

Lepage's report will set the tone for forthcoming debates on the contribution that biofuels can make to the Renewable Energy Directive targets, which currently require Member States to achieve 10 per cent renewable transport fuel by 2020.

The French MEP said her report aims to frame the discussion around the sustainability of biofuels, "so as not to repeat the mistakes that have been committed with the first generation" and ensure that any policy emerging from debates is based around providing sound environmental and economic benefits.  

Ms LePage said on Wednesday, "I propose to take emissions from indirect land use change into account in the calculation of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions attributed to biofuels, to encourage the production of those such as ethanol, which offer a significant advantage for the climate."  

She added that ignoring the problem of indirect land use change "may undermine the credibility of the European Union in the fight against climate change in the transport sector and the legitimacy of the financial support the sector, " concluding that "after 2020, it is not conceivable that the production of biofuels using agricultural land [are supported] in the absence of significant benefits for the climate."

In addition to advising that indirect land use change is factored in to decisions on biofuel policy, Ms LePage also proposed a tightening of the cap suggested by the European Commission to 4.27 per cent for biodiesel produced from oil crops.

Although the Parliament rapporteur's report will be welcomed by environmentalists, the UK's industrial farm lobby has been quick to criticise LePage and policy makers within the Commission. The NFU said in a statement on Wednesday that "International land use modelling has provided a very wide range of results, and the NFU believes that the EU Commission has chosen one modelling result, which includes some errors that skew results against biodiesel, on which to base its proposal."

NFU biofuels spokesperson Brett Askew accused Ms LePage of "Picking winners… in proposing a cap on biodiesel production, [which] fails to reflect the interdependence of these feedstocks on-farm." He added, "The decision to introduce ILUC factors to control a hypothetical conflict of food versus fuel confuses two issues of agricultural production and the original ILUC greenhouse gas savings."