On Wednesday (11th September), MEPs will vote on key measures which could affect support for first generation biofuels (those produced from arable crops). The biofuel industry has burgeoned in recent years, supported by EU policy, but production of certain fuels has been linked to increasing volatility in food prices and environmental pollution.

Following voting by the parliament's environment committee in July, the EU parliament will vote this week on whether to introduce a cap on controversial 'conventional' biofuels grown, for the most part, from edible agricultural crops. Currently, over 60 percent of the oilseed rape grown in the EU goes into biofuel production. 

A number of environment and anti-poverty NGOs have backed calls for a cap, which follow the Environment Committee's decision to include indirect land-use change (ILUC) data in its calculations of biofuel emissions. These campaigners claim that current methods used to gauge the impact of 'conventional' biofuels fail to acknowledge their effects on food production, including driving up food prices and increasing the amount of 'natural' land turned over to agriculture as a result. This land use change releases stored carbon and affects biodiversity.

As a result, some biofuels, especially vegetable-based oils such as rapeseed and palm, could work out worse for the environment than conventional fossil fuels. Supporters of the ILUC model suggest that biofuel subsidies should be reformed to support second generation biofuels, created from waste and algae, which do not suffer from the same conflicts as those manufactured from agricultural crops.  

In July, the Parliament's Environment Committee voted to limit the amount of conventional biofuel in the total amount of EU transport fuel to 5.5 percent, backing proposals set out by the European Commission.

Battle of wills between industry and environmentalists

Although Parliament rapporteurs have said there is a strong case for introducing a cap, they called for a more nuanced approach, targeting more damaging fuels, rather than introducing a blanket ban. Industry groups in the EU have opposed a cap, claiming such a measure would scupper the EU's chances of meeting commitments made under the Renewable Transport Directive.

On Monday the Renewable Energy Association, the UK renewables industry body, said agricultural biofuels are "important for jobs, economic growth and… renewable energy targets." The lobby called on MEPs to vote against a cap. REA Chief Executive Dr Nina Skorupska elaborated, "Our domestic biofuels industry supports 3,500 jobs across 200 companies and achieves average carbon savings almost double the 35% minimum required by the Government."

REA also claimed that "scaremongering" anti-biofuels campaigners have vastly overestimated the costs of biofuel subsidies, and the fuels' effect on food prices. The Association pointed to the findings of an overview released by consultancy Ecofys last week which concluded that food waste and commodity speculation play a greater role in price inflation than biofuel production.

However, NGOs including Friends of the Earth backed letters sent to MEPs ahead of Wednesday's vote, stating that the UK has not yet set out its position on a cap and encouraging them to back moves to limit the proportion of agricultural biofuels permitted in the EU to 5 percent. They added that urgent action must be taken to avoid supporting fuels which could be increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

In a joint report on Monday, Greenpeace Europe's forest and biofuels campaigners Sebastien Risso and Sini Harkki said, "It is difficult to understand why food-based biofuels should be supported as part of a policy designed to green EU transport and combat climate change, if their carbon footprint is worse or not noticeably better than conventional fuels and their production puts the world's food security in jeopardy [especially when] the solutions to slash carbon emissions from transport exist."