EUobserver.com

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - As opposition to biofuels among international institutions, economists and NGOs grows, the European Union is under great pressure to develop a set of sustainability rules governing the controversial alternative fuel source, but EU member states disagree on what constitutes 'sustainable'.

In recent months, biofuels have moved from climate saviour to climate villain, as concerns have arisen that biofuels contribute to food price rises and in some cases release scarcely fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels.

EU leaders last spring agreed that the EU should increase the use of biofuels in transport fuel to ten percent by 2020, up from a planned 5.75 percent target to be achieved by 2010.

In the face of the varied criticism however, the European Commission and member states formed a working group that has developed a series of sustainability proposals.

Ambassadors from the EU countries met for the first time on Wednesday to discuss the working group proposals, the heart of which is a two-step scheme whereby biofuels would have to meet a threshold of greenhouse gas savings on what is produced by oil. This threshold would then be raised at a later date.

Officials close to the negotiations say that little agreement was reached a the initial meeting, but that diplomats were close to consensus on an initial threshold figure of 35 greenhouse gas savings on oil and the two-step approach.

Where disagreement remained was over the figure for the subsequent threshold and a date by which it would have to be met.

Regarding biofuel imports, the ongoing discussions will also investigation whether and how to monitor social and labour conditions.

Three options
There are three options on the table arising from the working group that are under consideration by EU diplomats.

The first, and most stringent, would require that countries exporting biofuels would have to be signatories to a minimum of ten out of twelve various international conventions on social and environmental standards.

The second would require that biofuel-exporting countries had passed sufficient domestic environmental legislation, particularly with regard to soil and water standards.

The third option would require some sort of reporting standards on environmental and social conditions be established, either by the country or the company involved.

A source close to the discussions told the EUobserver that in discussions on the criteria, the UK and the Netherlands have pushed for much higher greenhouse gas savings thresholds, of 50 to 55 percent, with Germany also supportive of a stricter threshold.

France however, is believed to be most strongly opposed to any upwards movement of the 35 percent figure. The source said this was because the country is very interested in developing crops for biofuels itself, but that little of what can be grown there offers a saving of over 35 percent. Spain is also believed to favour the lower threshold.

A Belgian official however said they are looking at the threshold from a different angle. As some second generation biofuels offer greenhouse gas savings on oil of 80 percent, but have yet to be fully developed, Belgium would like to see a review of the threshold every two to three years.

This would allow the possibility of adjusting the threshold to reflect the science of biofuels as it develops, and as more advanced forms of biofuels come online, the threshold can be increased as appropriate.

Frauke Thies, renewables campaigner with Greenpeace called the greenhouse gas emissions threshold of 35 percent "not enough to secure effective greenhouse gas savings and aid in the climate struggle.

"We're demanding at least 60 percent greenhouse gas savings on oil of at least 35 percent."

"What is curious is how many of the biofuel crops that can be grown in Europe hover at around or not much above a 35 percent savings. This is where this figure comes from.

"Biodiesel made from rapeseed for example has a savings on oil of 36 percent according to commission figures."

Indirect effects
Greenpeace spokesperson Mark Breddy said: "The question is: Do we adjust biofuels targets to ensure sustainability or do we adjust sustainability criteria to match our biofuels targets?"

Ms Thies is also worried that the criteria currently under discussion do not look at indirect land-use changes that result from biofuel crop cultivation.

Environmentalists say that problems arise not simply when farmers make a decision to begin growing biofuels instead of something else, but there is an 'indirect' problem when other land is used to replace what would have been grown otherwise.

In a speech to the European Policy Centre think-tank on Tuesday (6 May), agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said that the sustainability criteria proposals do factor in direct land conversion.

"We take this issue very seriously," she said.

However, she also said they do not take into account indirect land conversion fall-out "because there are no reliable studies to show that biofuel production causes indirect conversion."

EU considers tightening rules on biofuels