Today the environment committee in the European Parliament backed a proposal to improve existing EU legislation on biofuels. The objective of this reform is to maintain the goal of reducing CO2 emissions while curbing undesired effects induced by indirect land use change (ILUC), such as land use for speculation and higher food prices.
The ILUC agreement includes previsions to increase the use of advanced biofuels, and a cap on first generation biofuels as well as a review clause. The agreement also included S&D previsions on a waste hierarchy and the rejection of double counting.
However, it falls short of the S&D demands that the cap on conventional biofuels would be set at 5%, rather than 7%, and the overall impact of the review will be weaker than the S&D expected due to pressures from the Council.
S&D spokesperson on this issue, Seb Dance MEP, said:
"We would have liked to go further, but given the lack of cooperation in the Council, we felt that this was the best possible deal at the moment. It was obvious from the get-go that the Council had decided to give very little ground on this package, but to bend to the will of a strong industrial lobbying operation, to the point where trilogues were almost a charade.
"However, we have managed to introduce waste hierarchy as an element to take into account when we look into the next generation of biofuels. Indigenous land rights are also introduced, as requested by the S&D Group, and we made sure that there will be a review in five years. We have to move towards advanced biofuels with the proper regulation both for the environment and for the stability of investments and jobs.
"The S&D has pushed hard to improve the situation on this file, facing roadblocks from several sides. I am particularly saddened to see the Greens voting against this file - knowing only too well that having this achieved is better than nothing while crowing that it isn't good enough."
S&D spokesperson on climate, environment and food safety, Matthias Groote, said:
"The Council has to be held responsible for the unambitious outcome of the trilogue. Such an uncompromising stance is not helpful for future cooperation.
"Nonetheless, we had to make an unsatisfactory yet responsible decision in support of the compromise. A rejection would have either left us with an even weaker outcome from the conciliation procedure or with no new legislation at all. This would have perpetuated the existing legal uncertainty after, which would be harmful for innovative investments in biofuels."
