E-Energymarket

E-ENERGY MARKET is the international portal for products and services related to BIOENERGY.
21.12.2011 07:30 149 days ago

Call for an effective implementation of the Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) issue in the EU biofuels policy

Editorial news of E-Energy Market by: Erik

A group of companies, trade associations and NGOs have send a letter to the commission that a practical and effective solution is needed to address the ongoing debate about Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) in European biofuels policy.

The indirect land use change, also known as ILUC, relates to the unintended consequence of releasing more carbon emissions due to land-use changes around the world.

The group warns that it blocks :

·         Meeting EU renewables targets

·         Helping to deliver energy security

·         Fostering rural economic development and

·         Developing a sustainable bioenergy system that can help towards decarbonising transport in Europe and beyond. 

The companies include Royal Dutch Shell, Neste Oil and represent several billions of Euros of investment into the biofuels sector in Europe. These investments and also future investments are at risk by not adopting a practical and effective implementation of the ILUC policy.

The companies also fear the ILUC policy is counterproductive in its exclusion of certain feedstocks. The effects of banning one feedstock would lead to an increased demand of the alternative feedstock and herewith increasing the need for land.

Also any feedstock penalised by ILUC factors would have no opportunity to make further sustainability improvements.

The group claims that none one of policy options being assessed encourage producers to adopt additional practices that reduce ILUC risks, nor do they improve investor confidence for biofuel development. A combination of any of the four policy options under assessment would not only exacerbate their negative effects but also deliver no overall reduction in the carbon emissions of transport fuels.

There is a range of ILUC mitigation practices that are effective such as:

·         the use of co-products for animal feed purposes

·         crop production on degraded lands

·         improved agricultural production practices that lead to increased yields

·         other land management measures

·         negotiation of effective bilateral agreements with third countries

·         the development of certain advanced generation biofuels.

Such a market-driven approach ILUC mitigation would not require additional public funding.

The group that signed the letter to the commission consists of Coceral, Downstream Fuel Association, European Biodiesel Board, FEDIOL, Neste Oil, PANGEA (Partners for Euro-African Green Energy), Riverstone Holdings, Royal Dutch Shell , UPEI, (Union Petroliere Europeene Independante). These companies, NGO´s and trade associations believe the above mentioned areas of agricultural science and biofuel technology could make a significant contribution to the development of a more sustainable bioenergy system.


Categories : Climate Change, Indirect Land Use Change ILUC, Green house gas emissions, Human and Labor rights, Food security, Geopolitics & Energy security and Self sufficiency, Sustainability, National policies, International policies (EU, USA, UNFCCC, etc.), Policy and Legislation

Post your comments

Do you have a reaction or an opinion about the above news article? Or to the comment from somebody else? You are welcome to post it below.

 

However, comments containing personal attacks, business solicitations, advertising or showing disrespect will be deleted.

 

Displaying results 1 to 1 out of 1
 

Ian Thomson

Wednesday, 18-01-12 17:14

Applying ILUC only to biofuels is also a breach of one of the core rules of LCA modelling - using the same methodology for the baseline (fossil) as the measured (bio) fuel. This whole debate is about adding a CI (carbon intensity) number on to biofuels to account for ILUC. ILUC is part of a larger set of 'indirect effects'. BUt look at the indirect effects of petroleum use, effects that never make it into CI models for fossils. An obvious example: GHG emissions for security for the global trade in crude oil. No serious global energy expert would discount the degree to which military assest are projected globally to protest energy. Where are those emissions.
Until the indirect effects modellers can do an apple-apple comparison of biofuels-fossil fuels, ILUC has not place in CI models.

 
 

Adding an entry to the guestbook
CAPTCHA image for SPAM prevention  
Please enter your address first!
Please select your address or review and edit the information given!