You are here: Home Blog E.U. Posts

E.U. Posts

The EU 2030 Strategy for Climate Change and Energy: A Missed Opportunity to Decarbonize Transport?

By Géraldine Kutas posted Jan 16, 2014
With the European Commission days away from releasing its policy proposal on so-called 2030 climate and energy targets, it’s worth taking stock of how this position will negatively impact the decarbonization of the transport sector and how once again this Commission is failing to recognize the role of sustainable biofuels, no matter their potential to reduce GHG emissions.

With the European Commission days away from releasing its policy proposal on so-called 2030 climate and energy targets, it’s worth taking stock of how this position will negatively impact the decarbonization of the transport sector and how once again this Commission is failing to recognize the role of sustainable biofuels, no matter their potential to reduce GHG emissions.

The Commission, the EU’s executive which initiates all policy proposals at the EU level, is expected to release its 2030 Climate and Energy Package on 22 January. The Package will include a Policy Communication on 2030, looking at 5-6 scenarios and accompanied by an impact assessment, 2) a Proposal on ETS structural reform (introducing the principle of flexible reserve mechanism), 3) a Proposal on shale gas (it still remains to be confirmed whether this proposal, prepared by DG Environment, will be part of the Package or issued separately later on), 4) a Communication on Industrial Policy prepared by DG Entreprise.

So, a full proposal on targets will not be put forward at this stage. The Commission is, in fact, only issuing a non-binding Communication that will effectively trial-balloon its proposal to see how it floats with Member States.

It appears, based on media reports, that the Communication will suggest a carbon  emissions reduction target of around 40% and will downgrade the target for the use of renewables to a non-binding target of perhaps 30% in 2030. It will not include any specific sub-target for the transport sector, despite the fact it is the sector that has experienced the fastest GHG emissions growth in recent years in Europe.

The reason seems to be that the Commission with the Communication only wants to trigger the debate and test the waters with the Head of States, ahead of their Summit in March before putting out a full proposal. Realistically, a proposal on targets cannot be expected earlier than 2015 and it seems fairly difficult to get all the 28 Member States to agree to common binding standards once again.

Yet, based on all the discussions and debate held in Brussels the past several months on this topic, biofuels will essentially be left out of the new 2030-targets. Therefore, even though the new mantra out of the Commission is all around advanced biofuels, the Commission somehow thinks advanced biofuel production will just happen -- and happen at meaningful scale -- without any kind of policy support that incentivize investors to risk their capital on new advanced biofuel technologies.

This is more proof of course about the lop-sided and unhealthy debate around biofuels, which has generally succeeded in painting all biofuels – even the most sustainable ones, like Brazilian sugarcane ethanol – with the same brush.

The EU currently has three climate change abatement targets: one for a 20% carbon emission reduction relative to a 1990 baseline, another for a 20% increase in energy efficiency, and one for a 20% share of renewable as a share of overall EU energy use, all by 2020. And, of course, within the 20% renewable target there is currently a 10% renewables-in-transport target, which will be met mostly by biofuels.

One can argue that the renewables-in-transport target is not only about biofuels, and electric vehicles should also contribute, but let’s be realistic: electric vehicles can be carbon intensive if they rely on coal and other fossil-fuel base load to be fueled. In addition, these vehicles are expected to account for only 2% of the passenger car fleet by 2030, according to a study carried out by E4Tech published in November 2013.

Biofuels are key in the decarbonisation of the EU transport sector – as pointed out by various recent reports.

Nevertheless, there will not be a legislative proposal on targets until 2015, and probably even when a proposal is there, it will not include any specific measures for the transport sector and biofuels will therefore be excluded.

This approach is at odds with all the efforts deployed by the Commission since October 2012 to tackle the indirect effects of biofuels. Why should we bother about the ILUC proposal if biofuels are not intended to be part of the post-2020 EU energy mix?

On top of all this, the Energy and Environment Committees in the Parliament just voted (clearly too late for this to be taken into consideration in the coming Package) on an own-initiative report asking the Commission to extend the existing strategy until 2030 with binding targets in the three areas above mentioned. This shows how much the Commission and Parliament positions are already far away one another before the formal process has even started.

How will the Commission really move forward to decarbonize transport when it’s leaving out the best option available?

How are sustainable biofuels, such as Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, which present high GHG emission savings and little to no environmental impact, to be invested in by industry at scale when there are no policy targets?

These are quite crucial questions for the future of the European climate policy to which the 2030 Package is not answering while the political scenario around the issue has never been more confused and confusing.

 More to come…may be in 2015…

Biofuels in Europe to Remain in Policy Limbo after EU Member States Reject ILUC Compromise

By Géraldine Kutas posted Dec 12, 2013
EU Member States on Thursday confirmed what many European biofuel watchers had assumed for many weeks: the issue of biofuels and their potential indirect effects (so-called Indirect Land Use Change) won’t be addressed until the next European Parliament and the next European Commission takeover in late 2014.

EU Member States on Thursday confirmed what many European biofuel watchers had assumed for many weeks: the issue of biofuels and their potential indirect effects (so-called Indirect Land Use Change) won’t be addressed until the next European Parliament and the next European Commission takeover in late 2014.

 Member States, via their Energy Ministers, failed Thursday to agree on a compromise plan that would have, among other things, put a 7% cap on the use of conventional biofuels in Europe; they also couldn’t agree on what level of incentive is necessary to stimulate the production of more advanced biofuels to help Europe decarbonize its transport system.

 The EP had already voted to slap a 6% cap on first generation biofuels earlier in the autumn; many Member States (like Hungary and Poland) today either thought a compromise 7% cap would hurt the biofuel industry and farmers. 

 Others member states (Netherlands and Belgium) rejected the compromise plan, feeling a 7% threshold wasn’t ambitious enough. They wanted more like a 5% cap and required industry to account for the assumed indirect emissions that environmentalists claim the EU biofuel mandate causes. This mix of more ambitious and less ambitious countries prevented the adoption of the Lithuanian compromise text.

 This no-decision outcome keeps everybody waiting and prolongs final investment decisions for the advanced biofuels industry. EU’s Energy head, Gunther Oettinger, complained at today’s meeting: “Postponing this issue won’t help anyone at the end of the day, certainly not market participants and consumers.”

 However, as I said previously, this could provide with a good occasion to work on a more balanced approach to the biofuels policy in Europe. The discussion on biofuels and ILUC over this last year, since the Commission published its proposal, has jeopardized biofuels policies in EU member states and undermined investments in new technologies.

 What is needed is a more nuanced approach to the issue that takes into account the real environmental credentials of the different types of biofuels, in a technology-neutral way.

 What next then? The Council will have to keep discussing the issue back at working party level and the process is delayed until a political agreement is found in the Council. At that point, probably in the second half of 2014, the Parliament would be able to start with the second reading. Positions will be again quite different and the Commission might have to draft a new proposal. 

 Let’s hope that a more shaded approach to EU biofuel policy materializes in the next round.

Countdown starts for the biofuels’ verdict in the EU

By Géraldine Kutas posted Dec 10, 2013
Ahead of the adoption of the Political Agreement on the ILUC dossier in the Energy Council on 12 December 2013, a group of NGOs put out a briefing on the biofuels policy review and on the three main issues in the debate: the cap for land-based biofuels, the weakening of the 20% RED target and the inclusion of ILUC factors for accounting purposes. A cap such as the one proposed by the Commission and defended by the NGOs is just a clumsy attempt to find a quick remedy to issues that remained unsolved in 2009, bringing no evident benefit in the long term. In fact, such a black and white approach would not take into account the good performances of well-performing conventional biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol.

Ahead of the adoption of the Political Agreement on the ILUC dossier in the Energy Council on 12 December 2013, a group of NGOs put out a briefing on the biofuels policy review and on the three main issues in the debate: the cap for land-based biofuels, the weakening of the 20% RED target and the inclusion of ILUC factors for accounting purposes.

The briefing claims that ILUC is a real and tangible problem affecting the sustainability of biofuels” and that “most land-based biofuels currently marketed in Europe offer no or limited carbon emissions savings compared to petrol and diesel”.  On this basis, the NGOs criticise the suggestions of the Lithuanian Presidency and proposes 1) to have a cap for first generation biofuels at current consumption levels (or lower) also applied to the Fuel Quality Directive, 2) to make sure that biofuels produced from waste and residues are actually sustainable and 3) to include ILUC factors for accounting purposes in both the RED and FQD.

A cap such as the one proposed by the Commission and defended by the NGOs is just a clumsy attempt to find a quick remedy to issues that remained unsolved in 2009, bringing no evident benefit in the long term. In fact, such a black and white approach would not take into account the good performances of well-performing conventional biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol. It would actually cut them off the European market and – even worse – it would not take into consideration the bad performances of some advanced biofuels. Within another 5 years the EU might risk finding itself in the exact same situation as today.

Granted, not all the biofuels considered as advanced are actually sustainable. However, NGOs should have applied the same logic the other way around to conventional biofuels. Sugarcane ethanol achieves among the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings (over 70% relative to fossil fuel alternatives, according to the default values in the EU Renewable Energy Directive, and more than 55% when estimated ILUC emissions are accounted for) of all biofuels produced at scale because of its relatively low indirect impacts and the resource efficiency of its production. Let’s not forget that Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is considered an advanced biofuels in the U.S., and especially in California. Nevertheless, there would be no market for it in Europe if the cap ever enters into force.

While the argument for the introduction of ILUC factors in both the RED and FQD could actually be understood and would take into account important differences between biofuels’ environmental performance, having a strict cap wouldn’t match with it and would penalize, in any case, well-performing conventional biofuels.

Is it not perhaps the time to keep calm and work on a more nuanced and consistent approach to biofuels, without putting any extra burdens on the industries? These, after all, have already invested on biofuels and – this needs to be reminded from time to time – might not be able to invest more in advanced biofuels as a result of the implementation of the current proposal and the absence of a regulatory framework for the medium-long term.

A more structured and effective action to resolve the imbalance between diesel and gasoline in Europe would support the EU climate change policy objectives, and incentives to introduce higher blends of bioethanol in vehicles would help moving away from the most polluting biofuels. Sugarcane ethanol is definitely a good candidate for this purpose and could help the EU reach its objective of decarbonizing the transport sector.

Sustainable Biofuels Are Still the One to Help Decarbonizing EU Transport

By Géraldine Kutas posted Nov 29, 2013
A couple of new reports released this month in Brussels carry a similar message: Sustainable biofuels, like sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil, will need to play a significant role if the decarbonization of European transport is going to happen longer term. There’s also another important message in the two studies, one by E4Tech and the other by CE Delft/TNO: the EU still has an opportunity -- especially with a new Commission and new European Parliament taking over in 2014 -- to cultivate the right policy environment in order to move industry toward producing more advanced biofuels and enabling higher blending rates of sustainably produced biofuels for gasoline and diesel.

A couple of new reports released this month in Brussels carry a similar message: Sustainable biofuels, like sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil, will need to play a significant role if the decarbonization of European transport is going to happen longer term.

There’s also another important message in the two studies, one by E4Tech and the other by CE Delft/TNO:  the EU still has an opportunity -- especially with a new Commission and new European Parliament taking over in 2014 -- to cultivate the right policy environment in order to move industry toward producing more advanced biofuels and enabling higher blending rates of sustainably produced biofuels for gasoline and diesel.

“Currently there is no 2030 policy environment for biofuels. There is also an urgent need for specifications for new biofuel blends for policy to promote high quality advanced biofuels and compatible vehicles, and a framework that addresses biofuel sustainability issues,” says E4Tech, a consultancy, which released its findings on Tuesday. E4Tech’s report was commissioned by a consortium of Daimler, Honda, Neste Oil, OMV, Shell and Volkswagen.

Through the E4Tech study, that group of automakers and fuel producers is pushing an Auto-Fuel Roadmap that recommends a series of achievable steps, based on evidence, that can be put into place in the coming years by policymakers and industry alike.

In particular, the E4Tech study lays out a timeline for a series of key actions, including an EU policy and fuel standards’ aim for the roll-out of maximum 10% ethanol, or E10, into gasoline by 2020; introducing E20 by 2025; and mandating, via policy, that all new gasoline vehicles are E20 compatible from 2018.

Such goals are already feasible with current technologies and with the direction that budding technologies are taking. The targets are also achievable in parallel with meeting critical sustainability requirements and cutting greenhouse emissions. In Brazil, the introduction of flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) ten years ago has allowed Brazilians to freely decide which fuel they want to use. FFVs can run on either petrol or pure ethanol, or any blends of the two. That freedom of choice in Brazil also comes with the benefit of benefit of reduced carbon emissions, given the high CO2 emission reductions (71% according to EU Renewable Energy and Fuel Quality Directives) that sugarcane ethanol achieves versus fossil fuel. And Europeans should have the same freedom of choice and environmental benefits, particularly in light of recent World Health Organization assessments showing that air quality remains a pressing problem in many European cities and countries.

The E4Tech study’s findings are also echoed in another report unveiled earlier this month from CE Delft/TNO, which produced its study at the request of the European Commission. “It is essential for governments and industry to decide within 1 or 2 years on the way ahead and take necessary actions covering both, the fuels and the vehicles, to ensure their effective and timely implementation,” CE Delft/TNO said in its report.

Like the E4Tech study, CE Delft/TNO says higher blending ratios are technically feasible and would move Europe toward greater decarbonization in transport, which remains one of the main sources of global carbon emissions.

To be sure, to realize the projections and recommendations of both reports -- like biofuels accounting for 15% of transport fuel in 2030 in Europe versus about 5% today, as E4Tech projects -- a lot of things need to happen. Yet it’s an important signal that some key automakers and fuel suppliers are working in parallel to move Europe closer to its climate abatement and energy supply security goals.

But will the EU play its role in providing the proper longer-term policy signals? Let’s hope that the new Commission and Parliament will size this opportunity next year.

European Parliament Committee Upholds Opposition to Quick Bargain Discussion on Biofuel Dossier

By Géraldine Kutas posted Nov 08, 2013
As an indication of how the European Union biofuels dossier remains stuck in a holding pattern, the European Parliament’s Energy Committee has canceled a planned vote on whether to give the EU’s Parliament Rapporteur a mandate to hold negotiations with EU Member States and the European Commission to come up with a grand compromise on the dossier. These inter-institution discussions are an important indication in the EU policymaking phase that signals that a conclusive policy text is likely to be around the corner. But this was not the case for the EU biofuels policy.

As an indication of how the European Union biofuels dossier remains stuck in a holding pattern, the European Parliament’s Energy Committee has canceled a planned vote on whether to give the EU’s Parliament Rapporteur  a mandate to hold negotiations (so-called “Trilogue talks”) with EU Member States and the European Commission to come up with a grand compromise on the dossier.

An Energy committee vote would have been more a formality than anything else because the Parliament’s Environment Committee already voted weeks earlier to reject giving the Rapporteur a mandate to initiate Trilogue discussions. These inter-institution discussions are an important indication in the EU policymaking phase that signals that a conclusive policy text is likely to be around the corner. But this was not the case for the EU biofuels policy.

If there is a good thing though about the protracted biofuels debate in Brussels it is that policymakers can deepen their responsibility to have a more nuanced discussion about biofuels – and move away from the black and white debate that has dominated discussions in this town. This would mean taking more clearly into account ethanol’s environmental benefits, such as high potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction for example.

Well-performing first generation biofuels, such as Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol (BSCE), should be incentivized and not categorized as an under-performing biofuel.

BSCE is an advanced biofuel in places like the U.S., in part because it does not contribute to deforestation, as it is grown mostly on degraded pasture land and produced almost entirely in the south-central part of Brazil, far away from the Amazon rainforest; and it achieves among the highest GHG emission savings (over 70% relative to fossil fuel alternatives, according to the default values in the EU Renewable Energy Directive, and more than 55% when estimated ILUC emissions are accounted for) of all biofuels produced at scale.

What next?

EU Member States could still agree to a “Common Position” as they have been deliberating in coming months. But even if that happens, the Parliament will still need to consider and debate the Member State Common Position, and there simply isn’t enough time to do this when the Parliament’s final full session (plenary) is in April, just ahead of European Parliament elections across all 28 Member States in May 22-25.

Thus, the EU biofuel policy debate is unlikely to be resolved until perhaps 2015, six years after the biofuel/ILUC policy discussion commenced in earnest in Brussels.  

UN food meeting: Let’s not forget the positive role biofuels can play in promoting development

By Géraldine Kutas posted Oct 17, 2013
The United Nations’ Committee on World Food Security (CFS) met last week in Rome and, not surprisingly, biofuels were again at the centre of a hot debate. Governments, industry, civil society and academics all represented at the meeting could agree on an overall mild conclusion which asks for further assessment, given the very controversial topic to which they were confronted.

The United Nations’ Committee on World Food Security (CFS) met last week in Rome and, not surprisingly, biofuels were again at the centre of a hot debate. Governments, industry, civil society and academics all represented at the meeting could agree on an overall mild conclusion which asks for further assessment, given the very controversial topic to which they were confronted.

In the UN’s words, the CFS recognizes that biofuels development “encompasses both opportunities and risks in economic, social and environmental aspects, depending on the context and practices” and encourages all stakeholders to help countries assess the impact of their biofuel policies. This only demonstrates that the overall dimension of biofuel production is yet to be fully captured and this gives stakeholders the opportunity to show that not all biofuels policies have negative impacts, that good examples of a fair balance between food and fuel production exist and that best practices should be incentivized. Let’s hope that this further assessment phase will help to develop a less black and white approach to biofuels.

Brazil is one of these good examples. Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol (BSCE) is classified in places like the U.S. as an advanced biofuel and the land producing ethanol also produces sugar. In fact, in the last 20 years the volume of sugarcane harvested has tripled to respond to the growing demand for ethanol and sugar, but food production hasn’t dropped at all. Over the same period, grains production has also almost tripled in Brazil. Production of BSCE only uses 0.5% of Brazil’s total area and the agro-ecological zoning regulations limit the land used for sugarcane to 7.5% of the Brazilian territory.

In conclusion, the CFS recognized the complexity of the links between biofuels and food security and the need to distinguish between short-term and long-term impacts, despite the intense reaction of Oxfam at the end of the meeting last Friday, which argued that “Unfortunately, powerful countries refused to act despite the evidence and preferred to put biofuel industry interests ahead of peoples’ right to food”.

Unfortunately, the CFS missed the opportunity to recognize the positive role that bioenergy production has played, particularly in minimizing the downward slope of agricultural investments and commodity prices. After all, investments in agriculture generate more economic growth in developing countries than investments in any other sector.  In addition, access to energy is a condition to produce food: the more sustainable the energy produced and used, the more sustainable the food production will be!

The CFS will meet again next year and according to the action points agreed, FAO will have to come up with proposals on “contingency plans to adjust policies that stimulate biofuels production and consumption when global food markets are under pressure and food supplies are endangered” as well as “provide toolkits to device and assess integrated food security and sustainable biofuels policies”. The newly elected Chair, Gerda Verburg, the Dutch Ambassador to UN agencies in Rome, said she wants to keep negotiating with all the stakeholders represented in the Committee and focusing on the outreach for the implementation of the decisions already taken.

At UNICA, we will continue our efforts to spread the word on how Brazil has emerged as a leader in providing both food and energy from its diversified and efficient agricultural sector.

For more details on the CFS conclusions, see the final report (press release) and the HLPE study (Executive Summary).

The issue was also covered by The Guardian, Oxfam, Reuters and Ethanol Producer Magazine

New Ecofys study guts "land grabbing" charges against EU biofuel policy

By Géraldine Kutas posted Oct 03, 2013
Ecofys, a well-respected Dutch consultancy, is out with a new study that effectively eviscerates the association of biofuels with “land grabbing,” that favorite charged-phrase NGOs pedal that industry is in the business of pushing locals off their land. The meaty conclusion from Ecofys: “At best, only 0.5% of all deals in the Land Matrix concern land grabs for EU biofuels.”

Ecofys, a well-respected Dutch consultancy, is out with a new study that effectively eviscerates the association of biofuels with “land grabbing,” that favorite charged-phrase NGOs pedal that industry is in the business of pushing locals off their land.

The meaty conclusion from Ecofys: “At best, only 0.5% of all deals in the Land Matrix concern land grabs for EU biofuels.”

Bear in mind, Ecofys is an environmentally minded consultancy, if you will, that does studies for the European Union, industry, and even NGOs. This particular study was commissioned by ePure, the European Ethanol Producers.

The Ecofys study says that biofuels used in the EU market basically do not come from feedstocks produced from “grabbed” lands, undermining among NGO arguments against EU biofuel policy is that biofuels “take land away” from food production and rural communities.

The study cross checked a number of entries in the Land Matrix of the International Land Coalition. Although the best informed global database on land deals, the Land Matrix “is based on reports from the media and NGOs which both often overestimate scale,” says Ecofys.

Nonetheless, the matrix had a total of 617 deals in its system, covering around 38 million hectares, as of March 2013.

This extract lays out the message Ecofys conveys with this study: “Of these 617 deals, we assessed 66 deals, which sum up to 25.8 Mha, or 67% of the total acreage in the database. This includes the 50 largest deals around the world, as well as the 5 largest deals given per sub-region in the Land Matrix. We checked these deals by collecting all possible and available information about these deals on the internet and sometimes from private investigation, by checking information with networks within the respective countries.”

What does Ecofys have to say about NGOs wild claims? “Action Aid claims that ‘it is estimated that biofuels have been involved in at least 50 million hectares being grabbed from rural communities.’ This is 28 times (!) our findings of about 1.8 Mha. The total extent of land deals that can maximally be connected to the EU biofuels policy in past and until 2020 is probably another ten times smaller.” Here is the latest report on social impact of EU biofuel policy by Action Aid.

Finally, the study argues that the voluntary schemes introduced in the framework of the so called RED (EU Renewable Energy Directive) actually helped the development of better regulation in third countries on social and economic aspects of biofuels production. A very successful example is Bonsucro, The Better Sugarcane Initiative, to which UNICA is member and which certifies -- according to EU standards -- 29 Brazilian mills, covering 6.5% of the total Brazilian sugarcane area and more than 2 billion liters of sugarcane ethanol.

The Ecofys study looks at the effect of the EU policy promoting biofuels, hence starting from 2009. It is worth to notice that from 2008, ethanol exports from Brazil to the EU considerably decreased as the graph here below shows (from 1,661.4 million liters in 2008 to 97.21 million liters in 2012); therefore there is clearly no connection between land “grabbing” and increasing demand and exports for biofuels to EU in the case of Brazil.

EU Total Ethanol Imports

For more, find the Ecofys report here. Pangea, which represents pan-African bio-energy interests, produced a short take on the report.

Looking forward to more reactions to this report.

European Parliament Vote on Biofuels: the EU continues Search for a Resolution

By Géraldine Kutas posted Sep 12, 2013

A mixed bag from Wednesday’s full European Parliament vote on biofuels and that issue of indirect land use change, ILUC, after months of debate in the parliament.

The bad news is that the EP, as expected, voted to approve a cap on first generation biofuels, although the cap was approved at 6%, not the 5% that environmentalists were foaming at the mouth for. If approved by EU Member States, the cap would effectively lower the 10% renewables-in-transport target for 2020 that the EU set a few years back; that target is expected to be achieved largely by the use of biofuels.

The better news is that some positive amendments in UNICA’s interests were adopted, such as a 7.5% sub-target for ethanol and a sub-target of 2.5% for advanced biofuels, which includes bagasse and straw. And, proposals were rejected that would have applied protectionist and discriminatory measures and made it difficult, if not impossible, for sustainable, EU-compliant biofuels produced in non-European Union nations to be legally counted toward meeting EU renewable energy and fuel quality requirements.   

Much to the environmentalists’ irritation, this whole issue now goes to the EU’s 28 Member States, who are less enthusiastic about the ILUC issue than Members of the European Parliament. Member States will try to come up with their own position on the biofuel/ILUC topic – which must then, time-consumingly, go back to the Parliament to be reviewed and debated.

What’s all this mean?? Delay, Delay, Delay. That is not ideal, but at least this situation raises the prospect of a better deal coming from Member States—or maybe no deal at all, should Member States fail to agree on a common position.

So stay tuned. A lot more to come on this from Brussels.

Some of the coverage from yesterday’s vote via Reuters, BusinessGreen, The Guardian, BBC News,  Wall Street Journal, and Euractiv.

Another Study Puts “Food vs Fuel” into Much-Needed Perspective

By Géraldine Kutas posted Sep 09, 2013
Another interesting report out last week on biofuels. This one is entitled, “Biofuels play minor role in local food prices,” and was produced by Ecofys, a Dutch consulting firm that does work regularly for the European Commission and sometimes for NGOs and the biofuels industry.

Another interesting report out last week on biofuels. This one is entitled, “Biofuels play minor role in local food prices,” and was produced by Ecofys, a Dutch consulting firm that does work regularly for the European Commission and sometimes for NGOs and the biofuels industry.

The key takeaway from the Ecofys report (found here: http://www.ecofys.com/en/news/report-biofuels-play-minor-role-in-local-food-prices/)

“The historic impact of EU biofuels demand until 2010 increased world grain prices by about 1-2% and, without any cap on  crop-based biofuel production may lead to another 1% increase through 2020.”  

Additionally: “Systemic factors, like reduced reserves, food waste, speculation, transportation issues, storage costs and problems, and hoarding play a much larger role in local food prices” than biofuels, Ecofys concluded.

Does these conclusions sound familiar? They should. Here’s a list of other studies from other reputable institutions -- including the European Commission, the European Union’s executive -- that have reached similar conclusions like what Ecofys has just churned out:

·  World Bank (Baffes and Dennis), 2013, "Long-term drivers of food prices"http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&piPK=64165421&theSitePK=469382&menuPK=64166093&entityID=000158349_20130521131725

·  The European Commission report on the implementation of the EU Renewable Energy Directive (see p.12) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_res_en.pdf

·  The Institute for International Trade Negotiations (ICONE) in Brazil http://www.iconebrasil.com.br/publication/study/details/568 

UNICA @Rio+20, be ready to commit!

By Géraldine Kutas posted Jun 19, 2012
The day we have all been waiting for has come. Over the last few months, governments have been working on a document that needs signatures of more than 130 international leaders coming to Rio from all over the world. Keeping in line with the level of ambition associated with the summit the paper is called “The Future We Want”. It is meant to commit its signatories to do their best to put the world on a more sustainable development path and ultimately a green economy.

The day we have all been waiting for has come.  

Over the last few months, governments have been working on a document that needs signatures of more than 130 international leaders coming to Rio from all over the world.

Keeping in line with the level of ambition associated with the summit the paper is called “The Future We Want”. It is meant to commit its signatories to do their best to put the world on a more sustainable development path and ultimately a green economy.

But just how much agreement governments reach should not be the only measure of success for Rio+20. At Rio, private sector and NGOs will be working in partnership across platforms to chart a path towards a more sustainable use of resources. Our commitment to each other is just as real and as binding. I’m excited that UNICA will be part of this historic moment, and we hope that what’ve learnt is a good blueprint for others.

I have previously talked on this blog about the future that UNICA wants and the urgency to take action and act responsibly.

In a world of rising energy demand, decreasing traditional energy supplies and a rapidly growing population, renewable energies are essential. And because the Brazilian experience shows that they can be an engine for economic growth there is even more good reason to hear us out. Times are tough for everyone, but if you can open up market opportunities, grow GDP and satisfy consumer demand for clean fuels, there is a solid business case. 

We’ve been preparing for Rio+20 for some time now because we see an opportunity, economic as much as environmental. We have also been actively telling our story,  and with great authority, through the "Dialogues for Sustainable Development", a UN platform for civil society participation in official discussions that has given an outstanding support to all our energy proposals. And for those of you here in Rio or those who’ll be following us from far, we plan to continue showing our commitment to a green economy and engaging with our stakeholders at a number of events this week:

On June 18th, UNICA talked about the potential of sustainable bio-energy at an event organised by the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP).

On June 19th, UNICA will give a speech at the ICTSD Trade and Sustainable Development Symposium called “Enabling Climate Mitigation, Fostering Low-Carbon Growth”.

On June 20th, UNICA will take part in the World Green Summit.

On the 21st, we will venture into the Bioeconomy debate alongside Novozymes and Electrobras.

And we will round off our busy Rio schedule on June 22nd with a presentation on the opportunities and challenges for bioenergy in Brazil at a conference organised by the CNA.

Sound busy? It’s not all.

A few days ago, we unveiled our latest contribution to understanding the potential of Brazilian sugarcane. We have launched an interactive digital tool that tells the story of our industry, provides timely information about market developments, and gives an overview of prospects and future uses of sugarcane ethanol. And it’s good fun to use it.  You can also download the app on your mobile devices and connect to our facebook page.

As you all see, much of the action in Rio+20 will not just take place at the negotiating table. We invite you to follow the debate and take part in the conversation.

We hope that this conference will mark the beginning of the future we all want.  

Our Authors

 

Géraldine Kutas, Head of International Affairs & Senior International Adviser to the President of UNICA Géraldine Kutas
Head of International Affairs & Senior International Adviser to the President

 

Leticia Phillips, Representative-North AmericaLeticia Phillips
Representative, North America

 

Sugarcane Solutions Blog

(Re)committing to the Paris Agreement? Europe needs to lead by example

As MEP Bas Eickhout’s stated, European policymakers are only credible in criticising Trump if they can themselves deliver at home. Let’s hope they return to Brussels in September with emboldened ambitions when it comes to transport emissions.

Read on

OLDER POSTS

 
Site Map
About Us Privacy Policy
News