[pic] | COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES |

Bruxelles, le 7.12.2005

COM(2005) 628 final

COMMUNICATION DE LA COMMISSION

Plan d’action dans le domaine de la biomasse

{SEC(2005) 1573}

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

1. INTRODUCTION 4

1.1. Le potentiel offert par la biomasse 5

1.2. Coûts et bénéfices 6

1.3. La biomasse pour le transport, l'électricité et le chauffage 7

2. LA BIOMASSE POUR LE CHAUFFAGE 7

2.1. Législation relative à l’utilisation des sources d’énergie renouvelables pour le chauffage 8

2.2. Renouveau du chauffage urbain 9

3. LA BIOMASSE POUR L’ÉLECTRICITÉ 9

4. LES BIOCARBURANTS POUR LE TRANSPORT 10

4.1. Mise en œuvre de la directive sur les biocarburants 10

4.2. Le marché des véhicules 11

4.3. Trouver un équilibre entre la production intérieure et les importations 11

4.4. Normes 12

4.5. Suppression des entraves techniques 12

4.6. Recours à l’éthanol pour réduire la demande en gazole 13

5. QUESTIONS TRANSVERSALES 13

5.1. L’offre de biomasse 13

5.2. Soutien financier de l’UE en faveur de l’énergie de biomasse 15

5.3. Aides d’État 16

6. RECHERCHE 16

7. CONCLUSIONS 17

ANNEXE 1 – Biomass action plan: summary of measures Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 2 – EU biomass production potential Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 3 – A scenario to increase biomass energy using current technologies Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 4 – Environmental impacts Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 5 – Renewable energy and the directive on the energy performance of buildings Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 6 – Biomass for electricity generation Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 7 – Transport biofuels: background Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 8 – Biofuels: progress at national level Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 9 – Implementing the biofuels directive: fuel tax exemptions and biofuel obligations Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 10 – Trade in bioethanol Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 11 – Achieving the 5.75% biofuels target: the balance between domestic production and imports Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 12 – The Commission’s perspective on biomass and biofuel research Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXE 13 – Results of consultation Error! Bookmark not defined.

COMMUNICATION DE LA COMMISSION

Plan d’action dans le domaine de la biomasse (Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

1. INTRODUCTION

L’ÉNERGIE EST UN SECTEUR CLÉ SUR LEQUEL L’EUROPE PEUT S’APPUYER POUR ATTEINDRE SES OBJECTIFS EN MATIÈRE DE CROISSANCE, D’EMPLOI ET DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE. LES PRIX ÉLEVÉS DU PÉTROLE METTENT EN PLEINE LUMIÈRE LA DÉPENDANCE CROISSANTE DE L’EUROPE VIS-À-VIS DES IMPORTATIONS D’ÉNERGIE.

L’Union doit réagir à cette situation avec détermination. La contribution essentielle de la politique énergétique dans les efforts que l’Europe doit fournir pour relever le défi de la mondialisation a été confirmée par les chefs d’État ou de gouvernement lors du sommet informel de Hampton Court en octobre 2005.

Dans cette optique, le Commission procède actuellement à un réexamen fondamental de sa politique de l’énergie. Cette question fera l’objet d’un livre vert, à paraître au printemps 2006, dont les trois principaux axes seront la compétitivité, le développement durable et la sécurité de l’approvisionnement.

Les éléments clés de cette politique sont, dans le contexte d’une croissance économique consolidée: la nécessité de réduire la demande en énergie[1]; le recours accru aux sources d’énergie renouvelables, compte tenu du potentiel de production locale et de leur disponibilité durable; la diversification des sources d’énergie et le renforcement de la coopération internationale. Ces éléments peuvent aider l’Europe à réduire sa dépendance vis-à-vis des importations d’énergie, à contribuer davantage au développement durable et à stimuler la croissance et l’emploi.

Le succès de cette politique passera par une gestion cohérente de ces objectifs, dans le respect d’un calendrier adapté. Il sera fait appel à des mécanismes impliquant les États membres, les représentants du Parlement européen et les parties prenantes[2].

Le plan d’action que la Commission présente aujourd'hui s’inscrit dans le contexte général d’une politique énergétique intégrée et cohérente et celui, en particulier, de la promotion des sources d’énergie renouvelables. Il ne s’agit que de l’une des mesures qui seront nécessaires pour atteindre les objectifs énumérés plus haut, mais c’est une mesure importante car la biomasse représente actuellement environ la moitié de l'énergie renouvelable consommée dans l'UE[3].

Dans sa communication de 2004 sur la part des sources d'énergie renouvelables dans l'Union européenne, la Commission européenne s’est engagée à élaborer un plan d’action dans le domaine de la biomasse, soulignant la nécessité d’une approche coordonnée pour une politique en la matière[4]. Le Conseil européen du printemps 2004 a indiqué dans ses conclusions qu’il était «primordial, pour des raisons liées à l'environnement et à la compétitivité» d'accroître le recours aux sources d'énergie renouvelables[5] et le Parlement européen a récemment fait remarquer «que, par rapport aux sources d'énergie traditionnelles et à certaines autres énergies renouvelables, l'exploitation de la biomasse comporte de nombreux avantages, dont un coût relativement faible, une dépendance moindre par rapport à l'évolution du climat à court terme, la promotion des structures économiques régionales et une source de revenu de remplacement pour les agriculteurs»[6].

Le présent plan d'action décrit des mesures visant à accélérer le développement de l’énergie de biomasse produite à partir de bois, de déchets et de plantes cultivées en s’appuyant sur le marché pour stimuler son utilisation et en levant les obstacles à l’expansion du marché. Ces mesures permettront à l’Europe de réduire sa dépendance vis-à-vis des combustibles fossiles, de limiter ses émissions de gaz à effet de serre et de stimuler l’activité économique dans les zones rurales. On trouvera à l’annexe 1 une liste de ces mesures.

Le présent plan d’action est une première étape, une étape de coordination. Il contient des mesures de promotion de la biomasse dans les secteurs du chauffage, de l’électricité et du transport, ainsi que des mesures transversales concernant l’approvisionnement en biomasse, le financement et la recherche sur cette source d’énergie. Le plan d’action s'accompagne d'une analyse d'impact générale. Dans un deuxième temps, des mesures individuelles seront proposées sous réserve d’une analyse d’impact spécifique conformément aux règles de la Commission.

1.1. Le potentiel offert par la biomasse

À l’heure actuelle, la biomasse satisfait 4 % des besoins en énergie de l’UE. Si l’UE exploitait pleinement son potentiel, elle parviendrait à plus que doubler sa consommation de biomasse d’ici à 2010 (celle-ci passant de 69 millions de tep[7] en 2003 à environ 185 millions de tep en 2010) – tout en respectant les bonnes pratiques agricoles, en maintenant une production écologiquement viable de la biomasse et sans altérer massivement sa production alimentaire locale[8]. L’adhésion de la Bulgarie et de la Roumanie à l’Union rendra cette source d’énergie plus abondante[9], et les importations offrent davantage de possibilités encore.

La Commission estime que les mesures prévues par le présent plan d’action entraîneraient un accroissement de l’utilisation de la biomasse, qui atteindrait environ 150 millions de tep en 2010 ou peu après[10]. Ce chiffre, qui ne correspond pas à l’exploitation intégrale du potentiel, est conforme aux objectifs indicatifs fixés pour les sources d’énergie renouvelables[11].

1.2. Coûts et bénéfices

Il ressort de plusieurs études scientifiques et économiques que cet accroissement de l'utilisation de la biomasse pourrait amener les bénéfices suivants en 2010:

- une diversification de l’approvisionnement énergétique de l’Europe, avec une croissance de 5 % de la part des sources d’énergie renouvelables et une diminution du taux de dépendance à l’égard des importations d’énergie, qui passerait de 48 à 42 % [12];

- une réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre de 209 millions de tonnes d’équivalent CO2 par an[13];

- des emplois directs pour un maximum de 250 000 à 300 000 personnes, essentiellement en zones rurales; à cet égard, les différentes études proposent des chiffres très divers[14];

- une possible pression à la baisse sur le prix du pétrole, résultant d’une baisse de la demande.

Si l’on se base sur des prix pour les combustibles fossiles inférieurs de 10 % environ à ceux qui sont pratiqués actuellement, on peut estimer à 9 milliards d’euros par an le coût directement mesurable – 6 milliards pour les biocarburants utilisés dans les transports et 3 milliards pour la biomasse utilisée pour la production d’électricité (la biomasse pour le chauffage est souvent compétitive en termes de coûts)[15]. Cela équivaut à une augmentation d’environ 1,5 centimes par litre d'essence ou de gazole et de 0,1 centime par kWh d’électricité[16].

On peut s'attendre à ce que l’extension de la domination technologique de l’UE dans ces secteurs génère également des bénéfices.

Ces bénéfices pourront vraisemblablement être obtenus sans pollution supplémentaire ou autres formes d'atteinte à l'environnement[17].

La Commission évalue actuellement la contribution potentielle des sources d’énergie renouvelables dans la répartition énergétique à l’horizon 2020. Le présent plan d’action pourrait permettre un accroissement de la contribution des sources d’énergie renouvelables d’ici 2020.

1.3. La biomasse pour le transport, l'électricité et le chauffage

Les prix du pétrole ont triplé au cours des quatre dernières années. Le transport est un secteur économique essentiel presque exclusivement alimenté par le pétrole. Les biocarburants liquides sont les seuls substituts directs du pétrole dans ce secteur, ce qui justifie le degré élevé de priorité qu’on leur accorde au niveau politique.

En outre, la croissance constante du secteur du transport n’a pas encore permis aux émissions de gaz à effet de serre de se stabiliser, en dépit des efforts non négligeables consentis par l’industrie. Le recours aux biocarburants est une méthode onéreuse de réduction des gaz à effet de serre mais, dans le secteur du transport, c’est l’une des deux seules mesures susceptibles de réduire ces émissions à grande échelle et à brève échéance - l’autre mesure étant l’accord des constructeurs automobiles sur la réduction des émissions de CO2 produites par les véhicules neufs (voir la section 4.2).

Au début de 2006, la Commission présentera une communication abordant spécifiquement la question des biocarburants.

Les biocarburants pour le transport affichent certes la plus forte intensité d’emploi et les plus grands avantages au niveau de la sécurité d’approvisionnement, mais c’est dans la production d’électricité que la biomasse offre les meilleurs gains en termes de gaz à effet de serre et dans la production de chaleur que son coût est le plus bas. L’utilisation de la biomasse devrait donc être encouragée dans les trois secteurs. Jusqu’en 2010 au moins, il n’y aura pas de forte concurrence pour l’obtention des matières premières: les biocarburants sont essentiellement produits à partir de plantes agricoles, l’électricité et le chauffage à partir de bois et de déchets.

2. LA BIOMASSE POUR LE CHAUFFAGE

LA TECHNOLOGIE QUI SOUS-TEND L’UTILISATION DE LA BIOMASSE POUR LE CHAUFFAGE DOMESTIQUE ET INDUSTRIEL EST SIMPLE ET PEU COÛTEUSE. L’UTILISATION DE LA BIOMASSE EST BIEN ANCRÉE DANS LA TRADITION ET LE CHAUFFAGE EST LE SECTEUR QUI EN CONSOMME LE PLUS. DE NOUVELLES TECHNIQUES PERMETTENT DE TRANSFORMER LE BOIS ET LES DÉCHETS PROPRES EN GRANULES NORMALISÉS QUI SONT SANS DANGER POUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET FACILES À MANIPULER.

Pourtant, c’est dans le secteur du chauffage que la part de la biomasse croît le plus lentement.

Outre une surveillance attentive de la mise en œuvre de la législation communautaire dans le domaine de la cogénération[18] (débouché important pour la biomasse), la Commission entend remédier à cette situation grâce aux mesures décrites ci-après.

2.1. Législation relative à l’utilisation des sources d’énergie renouvelables pour le chauffage

Une législation relative à l’utilisation des sources d’énergie renouvelables pour le chauffage est la pièce manquante du puzzle, puisqu’il existe des directives sur l’utilisation de ces sources pour la production d’électricité et dans le transport. La Commission s’efforcera de combler cette lacune en 2006. Elle doit pour cela se démarquer des directives antérieures, car les principales difficultés résident dans la confiance et l’attitude du marché plutôt que dans les coûts. Les options à envisager seront notamment:

- une nouvelle législation spécifique sur l’utilisation des sources d’énergie renouvelables pour le chauffage, basée sur un examen critique de la contribution potentielle:

- de mesures visant à garantir que les fournisseurs de combustibles assurent la disponibilité des combustibles issus de la biomasse;

- de la définition de critères d’efficacité pour la biomasse et les installations qu’elle servira à alimenter;

- de l’étiquetage des équipements, de façon que les consommateurs puissent acheter des dispositifs peu polluants et efficaces;

- d’autres mesures techniques;

- de l’opportunité de fixer des objectifs;

- d’accords volontaires dans l’industrie;

- une modification de la directive sur la performance énergétique des bâtiments, pour renforcer les mesures d’incitation en faveur des sources d’énergie renouvelables [19];

- une étude sur la manière dont la performance des chaudières domestiques alimentées à la biomasse pourrait être améliorée et la pollution réduite[20], en vue de définir des exigences dans le cadre de la directive «Écoconception»[21].

2.2. Renouveau du chauffage urbain

Le chauffage urbain (chauffage collectif) se prête plus facilement à l’utilisation de combustibles renouvelables et peut être alimenté avec des combustibles plus variés moyennant moins d’émissions. Il est plus aisé d’étendre l’utilisation de la biomasse dans le secteur du chauffage urbain que dans celui du chauffage individuel.

Le chauffage urbain dessert 56 millions de citoyens de l’UE, dont 61 % dans les nouveaux États membres. L’adhésion de la Bulgarie et de la Roumanie grossira ces chiffres. Le chauffage urbain a du mal à soutenir la concurrence du chauffage individuel. De nombreux systèmes auraient besoin de centrales, d’infrastructures et d’une gestion modernisées pour voir leur consommation de combustible, leur rentabilité ainsi que leur confort d’utilisation s’améliorer. Certains doivent également être convertis pour pouvoir être alimentés en biomasse. La Commission encourage les systèmes de chauffage urbain à se développer dans ce sens.

La Commission prie le Conseil d’approuver la proposition d’ajouter la fourniture de chauffage urbain à la liste des biens et services auxquels les États membres peuvent appliquer un taux de TVA réduit[22]. Par la suite, elle recommandera aux États membres d’étendre au chauffage urbain les éventuelles réductions de taux déjà appliquées au gaz naturel ou à l’électricité.

La Commission pourrait également présenter une proposition législative sur les questions fiscales touchant le chauffage urbain. Elle examinera l'opportunité de proposer d’autres mesures à cette occasion.

3. LA BIOMASSE POUR L’ÉLECTRICITÉ

On peut produire de l’électricité à partir de tous les types de biomasse en ayant recours à diverses technologies (voir annexe 6). La Commission encourage les États membres à exploiter le potentiel offert par toutes les formes rentables de production d’électricité à partir de la biomasse.

La directive relative à l'électricité produite à partir de sources d'énergie renouvelables fournit un cadre pour la production d’électricité à partir de la biomasse[23]. Les États membres se sont engagés à respecter les objectifs fixés pour la production d’électricité à partir de sources d’énergie renouvelables. Dans la plupart des cas, il semble impossible qu’ils y parviennent sans avoir davantage recours à la biomasse[24]. La mise en œuvre de la directive est, par conséquent, la clé du développement de la biomasse pour la production d’électricité. La Commission continuera de prêter une attention soutenue à cette question[25].

Dans les installations de cogénération, la biomasse peut alimenter en même temps la production de chaleur et d’électricité. La Commission encourage les États membres à exploiter le potentiel offert par toutes les formes rentables de production d’électricité à partir de la biomasse.

4. LES BIOCARBURANTS POUR LE TRANSPORT

4.1. Mise en œuvre de la directive sur les biocarburants

Comme pour la production d’électricité, ce secteur est encadré par la législation communautaire: la directive «Biocarburants»[26] fixe comme valeur de référence pour les biocarburants une part de marché de 2 % en 2005 et de 5,75 % en 2010[27].

La valeur de référence pour 2005 ne sera pas respectée. Il existe des écarts importants entre les efforts fournis par les différents États membres[28] et même si tous les États membres remplissent leurs engagements, la part des biocarburants n’atteindra que 1,4 %.

Pour mettre en œuvre la directive, de nombreux États membres ont recours aux exonérations fiscales[29]. Celles-ci sont soumises au contrôle sur les aides d’État. En application des lignes directrices relatives aux aides d'État dans le domaine de l'environnement, la Commission a adopté une attitude généralement favorable à l’égard des notifications qu’elle a reçues. Cependant, un certain nombre de problèmes pratiques sont apparus. Certains États membres ont récemment introduit des exigences concernant les biocarburants, imposant aux entreprises d’approvisionnement en carburants de placer un certain pourcentage de biocarburants sur le marché. Les deux approches sont décrites de façon plus détaillée à l’annexe 9. Les exigences concernant les biocarburants constituent, semble-t-il, une façon prometteuse de surmonter les difficultés liées aux exemptions fiscales et de s’assurer que les objectifs seront atteints moyennant un bon rapport coût-efficacité. En outre, elles permettent d’accorder plus facilement un traitement favorable aux biocarburants de deuxième génération, ce qu’encourage la Commission.

En application de la directive «Biocarburants», la Commission présentera en 2006 un rapport sur la mise en œuvre de la directive en vue de son éventuelle révision. Ce rapport abordera les questions suivantes:

- la fixation d’objectifs nationaux en ce qui concerne la part de marché des biocarburants;

- l’imposition d’exigences concernant les biocarburants;

- l’obligation, mise en œuvre à travers un système de certificats, de ne compter au titre de la réalisation des objectifs que les biocarburants produits à base de plantes dont la culture se conforme à des normes minimales de viabilité écologique[30].

Le système de certificats devrait s’appliquer de façon non discriminatoire à tous les biocarburants, qu’ils soient issus de la production nationale ou de l’importation.

4.2. Le marché des véhicules

La Commission présentera sous peu une proposition législative visant à encourager les commandes publiques de véhicules propres, et notamment de véhicules consommant des mélanges à forte teneur en biocarburants[31].

La Commission étudie actuellement dans quelle mesure l’utilisation des carburants alternatifs, en ce compris les biocarburants, pourrait compter au titre de la réalisation des objectifs de réduction du CO2 produit par les véhicules à moteur légers dans le cadre d’une revue des étapes à franchir pour atteindre l’objectif communautaire d’une moyenne des émissions de 120 g/km. La future stratégie, qui devrait être proposée en 2006, reposera sur une «approche intégrée». Cela signifie que des mesures telles que l’utilisation de biocarburants, les incitants fiscaux, l’information des consommateurs et la limitation des embouteillages seront envisagés parallèlement aux efforts fournis par les constructeurs automobiles en termes de technologie. Cette stratégie tiendra compte des stratégies d’avenir que l’industrie automobile proposera aussi en 2006.

4.3. Trouver un équilibre entre la production intérieure et les importations

Les biocarburants et les matières premières nécessaires à leur fabrication sont échangés sur les marchés mondiaux. Il n’est ni possible ni souhaitable de satisfaire les besoins de l’UE en la matière par une approche autarcique. Cependant, l’Union est, dans une certaine mesure, libre d’apprécier jusqu’à quel point il convient d’encourager la production intérieure ou les importations. L’annexe 10 décrit la situation actuelle en ce qui concerne le commerce du bioéthanol. L’annexe 11 met en balance trois méthodes pour parvenir à une part de marché de 5,75 % pour les biocarburants:

- réserver une part minimale aux importations;

- réserver une part maximale aux importations;

- opter pour une approche équilibrée.

La Commission préfère l'approche équilibrée et entend, par conséquent :

- proposer la révision de la norme EN14214 pour permettre l’utilisation d’une gamme plus étendue d’huiles végétales dans le biodiesel, dans toute la mesure réalisable sans retombées notables sur les performances du carburant;

- trouver le moyen de réviser la directive «Biocarburants» de manière à ce que seuls les biocarburants produits à base de plantes dont la culture se conforme à des normes minimales de viabilité écologique soient pris en compte dans la réalisation des objectifs fixés par la directive;

- maintenir, pour le bioéthanol d’importation, des conditions d’accès au marché qui ne soient pas moins favorables que celles prévues dans les accords commerciaux en vigueur;

- adopter une approche équilibrée dans les négociations engagées en vue d’accords de libre-échange avec des pays/régions producteurs d’éthanol: l’UE doit respecter les intérêts des producteurs locaux et de ses partenaires commerciaux dans le contexte d’une demande accrue en biocarburants;

- soutenir les pays en développement désireux de produire des biocarburants et de développer leur marché national; cet aspect revêt une importance particulière dans le contexte des réformes dans le secteur du sucre[32].

La Commission mettra ces objectifs en avant tant dans les négociations bilatérales (par exemple, avec le Mercosur) que dans les négociations multilatérales (par exemple, dans le cadre du cycle de Doha de l’OMC et du débat sur le commerce des biens environnementaux).

4.4. Normes

La directive «Qualité des carburants»[33] fixe des limites à la teneur en éthanol, en éther et en autres composés oxygénés de l’essence. Elle limite également la pression de vapeur de l’essence. La norme EN590 dispose que le gazole ne doit pas contenir plus de 5 % de biodiesel en volume (soit 4,6 % en valeur énergétique). Compte tenu de ces limitations, les possibilités d’accroître l’utilisation de biocarburants sont restreintes.

La Commission procède actuellement au réexamen de la directive «Qualité des carburants». Elle évaluera les conséquences des diverses solutions possibles aux problèmes exposés ci-dessus. La Commission s’intéresse à une panoplie de facteurs et prend en compte les coûts et les bénéfices pour les secteurs concernés; son examen portera notamment sur:

- les incidences sur la santé et l'environnement (y compris les émissions de substances polluantes et de gaz à effet de serre);

- les incidences sur la réalisation des objectifs fixés par la directive «Biocarburants» et sur le coût de cette réalisation.

4.5. Suppression des entraves techniques

Il existe un certain nombre d’entraves techniques à l’introduction des biocarburants. L’industrie avance, par exemple, l’argument que:

- l’essence mélangée à l’éthanol ne peut être transportée par oléoduc;

- il n’est pas pratique de proposer une essence de base avec une pression de vapeur réduite pouvant être directement mélangée à l’éthanol.

La Commission demandera aux industries concernées d’éclaircir la motivation technique de ces entraves et cherchera également à recueillir le point de vue d’autres parties intéressées. Elle surveillera les pratiques des industries concernées pour s’assurer qu’il n’y pas de discrimination à l’égard des biocarburants.

4.6. Recours à l’éthanol pour réduire la demande en gazole

La flotte automobile européenne reflète une préférence pour les véhicules au gazole. Pourtant, l’Europe est plus apte à produire du bioéthanol que du biodiesel, ce qui exigerait moins d’espace et offrirait une plus grande marge de réduction des coûts grâce aux économies d’échelle. Il est également possible d’accroître les importations d’éthanol provenant de pays tiers.

La Commission encouragera l’utilisation de l’éthanol pour réduire la demande en gazole; elle préconisera notamment l’utilisation de 95 % d’éthanol dans les moteurs diesels modifiés. A l'occasion du réexamen de la norme EN14214, elle proposera l'évaluation des conséquences du remplacement du méthanol par l'éthanol dans la production de biodiesel.

5. QUESTIONS TRANSVERSALES

5.1. L’OFFRE DE BIOMASSE

Les mesures décrites précédemment sont tributaires de l’existence d’une offre adéquate de biomasse. La présente section expose les mesures destinées à stimuler cette offre.

Politique agricole commune (PAC)

Depuis la réforme de la PAC en 2003, le soutien au revenu dont bénéficient les agriculteurs n’est plus lié au type de culture produite. Les agriculteurs peuvent, dès lors, répondre librement à la croissance de la demande en cultures énergétiques. Cette réforme a également introduit une «aide spécifique en faveur des cultures énergétiques»[34] et maintenu la possibilité de consacrer des terres mises en jachère obligatoire à des productions non alimentaires (y compris des cultures énergétiques). En 2006, la Commission fera rapport au Conseil de la mise en œuvre de l’aide en faveur des cultures énergétiques et présentera, le cas échéant, des propositions tenant compte des objectifs de l’Union en ce qui concerne les biocarburants.

Par le passé, seule une gamme limitée de cultures énergétiques pouvait, à travers le régime de la mise en jachère, bénéficier d’un soutien. La réforme a incité les agriculteurs à produire davantage de cultures énergétiques, et notamment des taillis à courte rotation et d’autres cultures pérennes. Il est préférable que les décisions concernant les cultures énergétiques qu'il convient de produire soient prises au niveau régional ou local. La Commission financera une campagne d'information concernant les propriétés des cultures énergétiques et les débouchés qu’elles offrent[35]. La culture d’essences forestières à croissance rapide, en particulier, appelle un changement d’approche car les agriculteurs doivent, dans ce cas, réserver leurs terres pendant plusieurs années et attendre au moins 4 ans avant la première récolte.

Sylviculture

Environ 35 % de la croissance annuelle des forêts de l’UE restent inexploités[36]. Dans de nombreux pays, il n’existe qu’un marché limité pour les résidus d’éclaircie de petite taille, qui peuvent être utilisés pour produire de la chaleur et de l’électricité. Les ressources inexploitées sont situées, pour la plupart, sur de petites propriétés privées, ce qui rend difficile leur mise en usage. Certains pays ont résolu ce problème en mettant en place des chaînes d’approvisionnement reliées à des usines existantes et en soutenant l’organisation de systèmes logistiques, d’une coopération entre les propriétaires de terrains boisés et du transport. La Commission s’attachera à faire connaître les leçons tirées de cette expérience et à soutenir des initiatives similaires dans d’autres pays.

La Commission travaille à la préparation d’un plan d'action dans le domaine de la sylviculture, qui doit être adopté en 2006 et qui abordera la question de l’utilisation du bois à des fins énergétiques.

La Commission examinera l’incidence sur les industries forestières de la consommation de bois et de résidus de bois à des fins énergétiques.

Déchets

Les déchets constituent une source d’énergie sous-exploitée. La Commission élabore actuellement une stratégie thématique sur la prévention et le recyclage des déchets et prépare une proposition de révision de la législation cadre sur les déchets. Les options suivantes sont à l’étude:

- promotion de techniques de gestion des déchets réduisant les incidences sur l'environnement de l’utilisation des déchets comme combustibles;

- approche commerciale des activités de recyclage et de valorisation;

- formulation de normes techniques de façon à ce que les matériaux valorisés soient considérés comme des biens (ce qui facilitera leur utilisation à des fins énergétiques);

- encouragement de l'investissement en faveur de techniques à haut rendement énergétique pour l'utilisation des déchets comme combustibles.

Sous-produits animaux

Les sous-produits animaux non destinés à la consommation humaine sont de plus en plus souvent valorisés à des fins énergétiques, en particulier pour produire du biogaz et du biodiesel. Les progrès technologiques et scientifiques aboutissent sans cesse à de nouveaux procédés de production. La Commission réexaminera le cadre réglementaire régissant l’autorisation de ces procédés de façon que de nouvelles sources d’énergie puissent être exploitées, sans que le niveau élevé de protection de la santé publique et animale ne soit remis en cause.

Normes

Il convient d’adopter des normes européennes pour les combustibles solides issus de la biomasse afin de faciliter les échanges, de développer les marchés et de renforcer la confiance des consommateurs. Le Comité européen de normalisation (CEN) travaille à la définition de ces normes. La Commission l’incitera à donner une grande priorité à ces travaux.

Consolidation de la chaîne d’approvisionnement

Une «bourse» européenne des granules et copeaux a été créée avec le soutien du programme «Énergie intelligente pour l’Europe» de l’UE. Mais les volumes échangés sont faibles. La Commission étudiera de quelle manière les résultats peuvent être améliorés, en vue de mettre en place un système d’échange de portée communautaire (si cela est techniquement et économiquement réalisable).

Plans d’action nationaux dans le domaine de la biomasse

Les plans d’action nationaux dans le domaine de la biomasse peuvent limiter l’incertitude des investisseurs en évaluant la disponibilité physique et économique de la biomasse sous ses différentes formes (y compris le bois et les résidus de bois, ainsi que les déchets et les plantes cultivées), en recensant les priorités quant aux types de biomasse à utiliser et à la manière de développer les ressources de biomasse, et en indiquant les mesures qui seront prises dans ce sens au niveau national. Ils peuvent également être associés à des campagnes d’information sur les avantages de la biomasse. Les régions pourraient utilement faire de même. La Commission encourage l’élaboration de plans d’action nationaux dans le domaine de la biomasse.

5.2. Soutien financier de l’UE en faveur de l’énergie de biomasse

De nombreuses régions bénéficiant de l’assistance des Fonds structurels et de cohésion recèlent un fort potentiel de croissance économique et de création ou de stabilisation d’emplois à travers la biomasse. C’est le cas en particulier des régions rurales de l’Europe centrale et orientale. La faiblesse des coûts de main-d’œuvre et l’abondance des ressources peuvent fournir à ces régions un avantage comparatif dans la production de biomasse. Soutenir le développement des sources d’énergie renouvelables et alternatives telles que la production de biomasse constitue dès lors un objectif important pour les Fonds structurels et de cohésion, comme l’a indiqué la Commission dans sa proposition d’orientations stratégiques communautaires en matière de cohésion [37]. Ces Fonds peuvent concourir au recyclage des agriculteurs, à la fourniture d’équipements aux producteurs de biomasse, à l’investissement dans des installations de production de biocombustibles et autres matériaux, et à l’adoption de la biomasse par des producteurs d’électricité et de chauffage urbain.

La Commission invite les États membres et les régions à s’assurer, dans la préparation de leurs cadres de référence stratégiques nationaux et programmes opérationnels, que les bénéfices potentiels de la biomasse ont été systématiquement pris en compte.

Les investissements dans ou aux alentours des exploitations agricoles, par exemple en faveur de la transformation de la biomasse, peuvent bénéficier d’un soutien à travers la politique de développement rural, de même que la mise en usage de la biomasse inexploitée par les propriétaires de terrains forestiers. La Commission a proposé des orientations stratégiques communautaires pour le développement rural qui mettent l’accent sur les énergies renouvelables en général et sur les chaînes d’approvisionnement en biomasse en particulier[38]. La Commission encourage les États membres à saisir ces occasions de développer et de diversifier l’économie rurale au travers de leurs programmes nationaux de développement rural. La Commission suggère la constitution d’un groupe ad hoc pour étudier les possibilités offertes par la biomasse dans le cadre de ces programmes.

5.3. Aides d’État

Le soutien officiel à la production et à l’utilisation de la biomasse doit être conforme à la politique communautaire en matière d’aides d’État. La Commission peut autoriser les aides à l’investissement et les aides au fonctionnement sur la base de l’«Encadrement communautaire des aides d'État pour la protection de l'environnement»[39]. Les règles prévues par cet encadrement tiennent compte des effets bénéfiques de l’énergie produite à partir de biomasse en comparaison de l’énergie produite à base de combustibles fossiles. Les aides à l’investissement dans des zones assistées peuvent être jugées compatibles avec le marché commun en application des «Lignes directrices concernant les aides d'État à finalité régionale»[40]. Il conviendrait d’éviter toute distorsion injustifiée de la concurrence. Voir annexe 9.

6. RECHERCHE

La proposition de la Commission pour le septième programme-cadre réserve une place de premier plan à la recherche dans le domaine de la biomasse. Elle comprend plusieurs actions dont la biomasse est l’une des composantes:

- «Utilisation de la biomasse pour la production de carburants, de l'électricité, de chauffage et de froid», l’objectif étant de mettre au point et de faire la démonstration d’un portefeuille de technologies;

- «Réseaux énergétiques intelligents», prévoyant l’intégration d’installations de biomasse dans les réseaux d’électricité et l’alimentation du réseau de gaz naturel en biogaz et gaz de synthèse;

- «Sciences du vivant et biotechnologies pour des procédés et produits non alimentaires durables», prévoyant notamment le recours aux biotechnologies pour améliorer la productivité, la viabilité écologique et la composition des matières premières de la biomasse et pour mettre au point de nouveaux bioprocédés.

Parmi les principaux domaines de travail, on peut citer:

- le développement d’une «plateforme technologique sur les biocombustibles» menée par l’industrie;

- le concept de «bioraffinage», qui consiste à tirer le maximum de toutes les parties de la plante;

- la recherche sur les biocombustibles de deuxième génération, pour laquelle on s’attend à une augmentation substantielle du financement communautaire.

La Commission étudiera le meilleur moyen de faire progresser la recherche sur l’optimisation des plantes agricoles et ligneuses cultivées à des fins énergétiques, et sur les procédés de conversion.

À travers le programme «Énergie intelligente pour l’Europe», la Commission soutiendra la diffusion de techniques dont la valeur a été démontrée par la recherche.

On trouvera à l’annexe 12 une description plus détaillée.

7. CONCLUSIONS

L’EUROPE A BESOIN DE METTRE FIN À SA DÉPENDANCE VIS-À-VIS DES COMBUSTIBLES FOSSILES. LE RECOURS À LA BIOMASSE CONSTITUE L’UNE DES PRINCIPALES SOLUTIONS POSSIBLES. DES MESURES EN FAVEUR DE LA BIOMASSE EFFICACES AU REGARD DE LEUR COÛT DOIVENT ÊTRE ARRÊTÉES AU NIVEAU EUROPÉEN AFIN DE :

- tirer un bénéfice maximal de l’innovation nationale et locale;

- offrir des perspectives claires aux grandes industries organisées à l’échelle européenne;

- répartir la charge de façon équitable.

La présente communication décrit un programme coordonné d’actions communautaires comprenant notamment des mesures visant à accroître la demande de biomasse, renforcer l’offre, supprimer les entraves techniques et développer la recherche.

Il a fallu près d’un an pour élaborer ce plan d’action. Il repose sur une vaste consultation des parties intéressées[41], dont la réaction à l’idée d’une approche communautaire énergique dans ce domaine a été largement, et parfois extrêmement, positive. La prochaine étape consiste à mettre le programme en pratique. Le livre vert sur une politique européenne cohérente de l'énergie, qui sera publié au printemps prochain, s’intéressera aux progrès réalisés et aux étapes à venir.

ANNEX 1 – Biomass action plan: summary of measures

Biomass for heating and electricity

The Commission will:

- work towards a proposal for Community legislation in 2006 to encourage the use of renewable energy, including biomass, for heating and cooling;

- examine how the directive on energy performance of buildings could be amended to increase incentives for the use of renewable energy;

- study how to improve the performance of household biomass boilers and reduce pollution, with a view to setting requirements in the framework of the eco-design directive;

- encourage district heating scheme owners to modernise them and convert them to biomass fuel;

- encourage Member States that apply a reduced VAT rate to gas and electricity to apply such a rate to district heating too;

- pay close attention to the implementation of the directive on electricity from renewable energy sources;

- encourage Member States to harness the potential of all cost-effective forms of biomass electricity generation;

- encourage Member States to take into account, in their support systems, the fact that, in combined heat and power plants, biomass can provide heat and electricity at the same time.

Transport biofuels

The Commission will:

- Bring forward a report in 2006 in view of a possible revision of the biofuels directive. This report will address the issues of:

- setting national targets for the share of biofuels;

- using biofuels obligations on fuel suppliers;

- ensuring, through certification schemes, that the biofuels used to meet the targets satisfy minimum sustainability requirements.

- Encourage Member States to give favourable treatment to second-generation biofuels in biofuels obligations.

- Bring forward a legislative proposal promoting public procurement of clean and efficient vehicles, including those using high blends of biofuels.

- Examine how biofuel use can count towards the CO2 emission reduction targets for car fleets.

- Pursue a balanced approach in ongoing free trade agreement negotiations with ethanol-producing countries/regions. The EU must respect the interests of domestic producers and EU trading partners, within the context of rising demand for biofuels.

- Propose amendments to the “biodiesel standard” to facilitate the use of a wider range of oils, including imported oils, to produce biodiesel, and allow ethanol to replace methanol in biodiesel production.

- Assess the impact of options to address the issues of limits on the content of ethanol, ether and other oxygenates in petrol; limits on the vapour content of petrol; and limits on the biodiesel content of diesel.

- Ask the relevant industries to explain the technical justification for practices that act as barriers to the introduction of biofuels and monitor the behaviour of these industries to ensure that there is no discrimination against biofuels.

- Support developing countries by helping them to produce biofuels and by maintaining market access conditions that are no less favourable than those provided by the trade agreements currently in force.

- Bring forward a communication dealing specifically with biofuels early in 2006.

Cross-cutting issues

The Commission will:

- Assess the implementation of the energy crop scheme.

- Finance a campaign to inform farmers and forest holders about the properties of energy crops and the opportunities they offer.

- Bring forward a forestry action plan in which energy use of forest material will play an important part.

- Review the impact of the energy use of wood and wood residues on forest based industries.

- Consider how the waste framework legislation could be amended to facilitate the use of clean wastes as fuel.

- Review how the animal by-products legislation could be amended in order to facilitate the authorisation and approval of alternative processes for the production of biogas and other biofuels

- Encourage the European Committee for Standardisation to speed up work on standards for the quality of biomass fuels.

- Explore how to develop a European spot market in pellets and chips.

- Encourage Member States to establish national biomass action plans.

Encourage Member States and regions to ensure that the benefits of biomass are taken into account when preparing their national reference frameworks and operational plans under the cohesion policy and the rural development policy.

Research

The Commission will:

- Continue to encourage the development of an industry-led “Biofuel technology platform”.

- Consider how best to take forward research into the optimisation of agricultural and woody crops for energy purposes, and biomass to energy conversion processes.

- Give a high priority to research into the “bio-refinery” concept, finding valuable uses for all parts of the plant.

- Give a high priority to research into second-generation biofuels, with an aim of improving their efficiency and cost-effectiveness; a substantial increase in Community funding is expected.

ANNEX 2 – EU biomass production potential

The table assesses the EU’s potential to produce biomass for energy use. These estimates are conservative because they are based on the following assumptions:

- no effect on domestic food production for domestic use;

- no increase in pressure on farmland and forest biodiversity;

- no increase in environmental pressure on soil and water resources;

- no ploughing of previously unploughed permanent grassland;

- a shift towards more environmentally friendly farming, with some areas set aside as ecological stepping stones;

- the rate of biomass extraction from forests adapted to local soil nutrient balance and erosion risks.

The first column of the table shows the quantities of EU-produced biomass used for energy purposes today. The following columns show the potential contribution in 2010, 2020 and 2030. The potential for 2010 is 2½ times the contribution today. The potential for 2020 is 3 to 3½ times the contribution today, and the potential for 2030 is 3½ to 4½ times that of today. Forests, wastes and agriculture all make a big contribution to this potential for growth. The increase from forestry comes from an increase both in fellings and in the use of residues. The increase from agriculture is driven by the reform of the common agricultural policy.

EU biomass production potential[42]

Mtoe | Biomass consumption, 2003 | Potential, 2010 | Potential, 2020 | Potential, 2030 |

Wood direct from forest (increment and residues) | 67[43] | 43 | 39-45 | 39-72 |

Organic wastes, wood industry residues, agricultural and food processing residues, manure | 100 | 100 | 102 |

Energy crops from agriculture | 2 | 43-46 | 76-94 | 102-142 |

TOTAL | 69 | 186-189 | 215-239 | 243-316 |

It should be underlined that due to lack of data, this table only covers the EU-25. It does not include the contribution of Bulgaria and Romania. These countries will be EU members by 2010, and have high biomass production potential. Nor does the table include imports. Most regions of the world have higher potential to produce biomass, relative to their energy consumption, than the EU. Potential EU consumption is therefore significantly higher than these figures would suggest.

ANNEX 3 – A scenario to increase biomass energy using current technologies

mtoe | Current (2003) | Future (2010) | Difference |

Electricity | 20 | 55 | 35 |

Heat | 48 | 75 | 27 |

Transport | 1 | 19 | 18 |

TOTAL | 69 | 149 | 80 |

This scenario is drawn from the 2004 communication “The share of renewable energy”, expanded to the EU-25. It is compatible with achievement of the Community’s targets of: a 12% overall share of renewable energy; a 21% share of renewable energy in electricity generation; and a 5.75% market share for biofuels.

The Commission believes this scenario can be achieved in the three sectors sectors – electricity, heat and transport – through the measures in this action plan – if not in 2010, the year for which these targets were set, then within a year or two of that date.

This is the scenario that serves as the basis for the impact assessment on this Communication.

ANNEX 4 – Environmental impacts

Biomass has three main environmental impacts:

- Avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions

The Commission estimates that the scenario in Annex 3, if achieved, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 209 million tonnes of CO2-eq per year.

- Environmental impact of the production of raw materials

Agriculture can have significant effects on the environment, positive and negative. In general, the level of harmful effects varies with the intensity of the agriculture. This is true whether crops are used for food or energy purposes. It can be particularly harmful to bring previously uncultivated land (permanent grassland) into agricultural use.

On the other hand, using grass cuttings from such land for biomass production can help to prevent the decline of biodiversity on species-rich grasslands due to land abandonment.

Energy crop cultivation can help to improve the overall profitability of the farm business, contributing to the maintenance of farming in areas where this may be useful from an environmental (or wider sustainable development) perspective. This is important in a number of regions to improve soil stability and prevent irreversible landslide damage. Another potential positive aspect of energy crop production is its contribution to the establishment of new crop rotation systems that are more advantageous from a wider environmental point of view (for example, alternatives to the monoculture of maize).

If energy crops are grown on agricultural land that was previously used for food production, the change in environmental pressure depends on which biomass crops are cultivated.

The plantation of tree crops to enhance soil cover on degraded land can also have a globally positive impact. However this should not take place on steppic or mountain habitats that have a high biodiversity value.

The use of wastes and residues for energy purposes often gives an environmental bonus compared with other means of disposal. For forest residues, the environmental impact depends on the local soil nutrient balance and the risk of erosion, which may require a certain amount of the residues (especially foliage) to be left on site. In some regions, however, their extraction help to reduce the risk of fire.

- Environmental impact of the use of biomass

Like fossil fuels, biomass emits pollutants. Advanced emission control equipment can virtually eliminate this, however. Such equipment is already standard in transport and, increasingly, in electricity generation. The situation is less favourable with heating, particularly home heating.

This analysis points to two priorities:

- the need to guarantee that site-specific environmental requirements are observed when producing biomass – this will be addressed in the Commission’s 2006 report on the implementation of the biofuels directive;

- improving the pollution performance of household biomass burning – this will be addressed as part of the measures proposed in this action plan to develop biomass heating.

The Commission will also take steps to improve understanding of the costs and environmental impacts of all transport fuels, including conventional biofuels.

ANNEX 5 – Renewable energy and the directive on the energy performance of buildings

The directive on the energy performance of buildings[44] requires Member States, when calculating the energy performance of buildings, to take into account the positive influence of "heating and electricity systems based on renewable energy sources". The relative importance attached to different kinds of renewable energy will be decided by the Member States in their transposition of the directive, allowing them, in principle, to attach substantial premia to the use of biomass in their calculation methods.

Moreover, for new buildings larger than 1000 square meters, Member States are required to carry out technical, environmental and economic feasibility studies on the use of decentralised energy supply systems based on renewable energy, on CHP and on district or block heating or cooling. This also gives Member States considerable leeway to promote biomass. In many Member States, biomass heating is one of the most practical and cost-effective options.

During 2006, taking into account comments received on the energy efficiency Green Paper[45], the Commission will decide how it thinks the directive should be further developed. The possibilities it will consider could include:

- amending the annex to the directive to ensure that calculation procedures allow greater weight and more active promotion to be given to biomass heating and other forms of renewable energy;

- reducing the thresholds in the directive so that many more new buildings would have to be considered for renewable energy before construction starts, and many more renovation projects would need to meet minimum efficiency requirements based on energy performance calculations that include the positive influence of renewable energy sources, including biomass;

- setting EU-wide minimum energy performance standards and criteria that could also promote the use of biomass where it is technically feasible and economically interesting.

At the same time, the Commission will examine other options for development of the directive, including inter alia the use of energy-efficient building materials.

ANNEX 6 – Biomass for electricity generation

Electricity can be generated from all types of biomass. Several reliable technologies are available. These technologies can be used to “co-fire” biomass, by mixing it with coal or natural gas, or to run freestanding power stations.

Large centralised power plants, like those used to burn straw in Denmark or forest residues in Finland, offer the best economic performance, especially if they are also used for heat (combined heat and power, CHP). Co-firing biomass with coal is another good centralised option in existing large power plants.

It is more efficient, when electricity is generated from biomass, to make use of the heat that is produced as well. Member States can support this in the design of support schemes for electricity generated from renewable energy sources, or through CHP support schemes developed in accordance with the harmonised European efficiency reference values for CHP which will come into force in February 2006 in accordance with the CHP directive[46].

Smaller decentralised plants burning solid biomass or biogas tend to cost more, but often have advantages for the environment and for rural development. The EU structural funds or its rural development programme can be used to study their optimal location in relation to biomass availability, transport infrastructure, grid connection possible and labour markets.

The Commission encourages Member States to harness the potential of all cost-effective forms of biomass electricity generation rather than focusing on one form alone.

ANNEX 7 – Transport biofuels: background

In 2001 the Commission adopted a communication on alternative fuels for road transport, identifying three fuels (biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen) that could play a big part.[47] It was accompanied by legislative proposals requiring Member States to promote biofuels and making it easier to use fuel tax exemptions to do this. These proposals were adopted, in amended form, in 2003[48].

Since the adoption of the communication the market share of biofuels has increased from 0.2% in 2000 to 0.8% in 2004. About 90% of biofuel consumption is covered by domestic raw materials, 10% by imports. Out of the EU25’s total arable land of 97 million hectares, about 1.8 million hectares were used for producing raw materials for biofuels in 2005. As expected, there has been a shift towards low blends and away from the high blends or pure biofuels that prevailed in 2001. Biodiesel’s share of total biofuel consumption has stayed at 70 to 80%.

The rise in the oil price and a growing interest in new markets for agricultural products in the light of the reform of the common agricultural policy - and the sugar regime in particular - have led to a wider appreciation of biofuels’ advantages at European level and have provoked widespread discussion in Member States.

“Second-generation” biofuels from wood and wastes are currently more expensive than first-generation biofuels from agricultural crops and have not yet been fully demonstrated on a commercial scale. Once that has been achieved, they will widen the range of raw materials that can be used and could also further improve biofuels’ environmental profile. It should be underlined, however, that first-generation biofuels already offer significant benefits and that any significant contribution from second-generation biofuels will not materialise until after 2010. Therefore, the emphasis of this action plan is on first-generation biofuels.

ANNEX 8 – Biofuels: progress at national level

Member State | Market share 2003 | National indicative target for 2005 | Targeted increase, 2003-2005 |

AT | 0.06% | 2.5% | +2.44% |

BE | 0 | 2% | +2% |

CY | 0 | 1% | +1% |

CZ | 1.12% | 3.7% (2006) | + 1.72% (assuming linear path) |

DK | 0 | 0% | +0% |

EE | 0 | 2% | +2% |

FI | 0.1% | 0.1% | +0% |

FR | 0.68% | 2% | +1.32% |

DE | 1.18% | 2% | +0.82% |

GR | 0 | 0.7% | +0.7% |

HU | 0 | 0.4-0.6% | +0.4-0.6% |

IE | 0 | 0.06% | +0.06% |

IT | 0.5% | 1% | +0,5% |

LA | 0.21% | 2% | +1.79% |

LI | 0 (assumed) | 2% | +2% |

LU | 0 (assumed) | not yet reported, assume 0 | not yet reported |

MT | 0.02% | 0.3% | +0.28% |

NL | 0.03% | 2% (2006) | +0% (promotional measures will come into force from January 2006) |

PL | 0.49% | 0.5% | +0.01% |

PT | 0 | 2% | +2% |

SK | 0.14% | 2% | +1.86% |

SI | 0 (assumed) | 0.65% | +0.65% |

ES | 0.76% | 2% | +1.24% |

SV | 1.32% | 3% | +1.68% |

UK | 0.03% | 0.3% | +0.27% |

EU25 | 0.6% | 1.4% | +0.8% |

Sources

2003 : National reports under the biofuels directive except Belgium: Eurostat (figure for 2002) and Italy: EurObserv’Er.

2005 : National reports under the biofuels directive.

National reports under the biofuels directive are available at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/res/legislation/biofuels_en.htm

ANNEX 9 – Implementing the biofuels directive: fuel tax exemptions and biofuel obligations

Member States are using two main tools to implement the Biofuels Directive: tax exemptions and biofuels obligations.

Tax exemptions

Member States make a good deal of use of fiscal policy to promote biofuels. The energy taxation directive establishes the framework for the consequent tax exemptions.

Under Article 16 of this Directive, Member States can reduce taxes on biofuels or completely exempt them from taxes, without needing the Commission’s prior approval (on fiscal grounds), as long as they respect certain strict conditions.

The tax reduction or exemption cannot exceed the amount of tax which would otherwise be payable on the volume of biofuel present in the product that is eligible for the reduction. In addition, it should be emphasised that the tax reductions or exemptions introduced by Member States must be modified in line with changes in the price of raw materials, in order to ensure that the reductions do not lead to overcompensation of the additional costs of biofuel production. The fiscal advantage (exemption or reduction) granted to a fuel of renewable origin cannot exceed the difference between this fuel and an equivalent fossil fuel.

These fiscal measures no longer need the prior, unanimous approval of other Member States. However, they remain subject to state aid control. The Commission has taken a generally favourable attitude to the notifications received. The exemptions that have received state aid approval are listed in the table.

Table - Biofuel tax exemptions that have received state aid approval

Case | Biofuels concerned | reference |

C64/2000 FR | ETBE | OJ L 94, 10.4.2003, p. 1 |

N461/01 IT | Biodiesel | OJ C 146, 19.6.2002,p. 6 |

N480/02 SE | All CO2-neutral fuels | OJ C 33, 6.2.2004, p. |

N804/01 UK | Biodiesel | OJ C 238, 3.10.2002, p. 10 |

N512/02 SE | Biofuel pilot projects | OJ C 75, 27.3.2003, p. 2 |

N685/02 DE | Bioethanol, biodiesel and vegetable oils | OJ C 86, 6.4.2004, p. 15 |

N717/02 IT | Bioethanol and ETBE | OJ C 16, 22.1.2004, p. 22 |

N407/03 UK | Bioethanol | OJ C 193, 28.4.2005, p. 17 |

NN43/04 AT | Bioethanol, biodiesel and vegetable oils | Not published yet |

N187/04 SE | Biofuel pilot projects | Not published yet |

N206/04 CZ | Biodiesel | Not published yet |

N427/04 HU | Biodiesel and ETBE | OJ C133, 31.5.2005, p. 2 |

N582/04 IT | Biodiesel (prolongation of N461/01) | Not published yet |

N599/04 IRL | Biodiesel, bioethanol and vegetable oils | OJ C 98, 22.4.2005, p. 10 |

N44/05 LT | Biodiesel, bioethanol, vegetable oils and ETBE | Not published yet |

N223/05 CZ | Biodiesel | Not published yet |

N314/05 EE | Bioethanol, biodiesel and vegetable oils | Not published yet |

All decisions not to raise objections can be found on the Commission’s website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#aides

However, the Commission is aware that the system of tax exemptions, as implemented, is giving rise to three problems:

1) The risk of unnecessarily high cost to the state and unnecessarily high payments to undertakings . Biofuels producers have different costs but, under the tax exemption system, all receive the same level of compensation. If the level of compensation is enough to bring high-cost producers into the market, there is a risk that it overcompensates lower-cost producers. The risk of overcompensation appears to be widespread, both within the Community and internationally. The services of the Commission are presently looking into several possibilities, including the limitation of detaxation to undenatured bioethanol (which is subject to the highest import duty) and/or making the rate of detaxation depend on the raw material used.

2) Insufficient investor certainty . The Energy Taxation Directive limits the duration of tax exemptions to six years. Among the schemes adopted to date, only the French scheme lasts as long as this. In general, Member States could consider taking coordinated measures to create a stable investment climate, in particular by making full use of the possibility under Community law to adopt six-year tax reliefs and to arrange for their extension well before the term has expired. However, stakeholder consultation has clarified that even this period of certainty is less than needed for some investments, particularly in second-generation biofuels but also in first-generation ethanol plants.

3) While some Member States use open aid schemes, available to all, others have opted for a quota-based approach , limiting the quantity of biofuel that will qualify for the tax exemption and setting up a process to choose the firms that will benefit from it. The Commission sees risks of non-transparency, arbitrary allocation and increased market concentration in quota-based schemes.

Biofuels obligations

At present there is increasing interest among Member States in the use of biofuel obligations , requiring fuel supply companies to incorporate a given percentage of biofuels in the fuel they place on the national market or face a penalty[49]. Obligations are in force in France and Austria and will come into force in Slovenia in 2006 and in the Czech Republic and the Netherlands in 2007. The UK and Germany have recently said that they will introduce them. Schemes vary in relation to: the point in the distribution chain where the obligation is placed; whether individual types of biofuel are distinguished; how compliance is monitored; whether they are implemented through a system of tradable certificates; and whether they coexist with fuel tax exemptions.

Obligations have a number of advantages. They place responsibility for addressing the problem of excessive oil dependence on the sector where it originates – while implying only a negligible increase in the cost of fuel. They give fuel supply companies an incentive to push down the cost of biofuels – and it follows that they are more cost-efficient. They can include a premium for second-generation biofuels. Unlike state aids, they are not subject to a time limit and so could be a good way to establish the stable framework that investors want.

Compatibility between obligations and exemptions

It is important to point out that Article 16(6) of the energy taxation directive states that if Community law requires Member States to comply with legally binding obligations requiring them to place a minimum proportion of biofuels, the option for Member States to reduce excise duties under fiscal control (that is, without needing specific authorisation from the Council under unanimity) would disappear.

ANNEX 10 – Trade in bioethanol

1. Current trade in bioethanol

There is currently no specific customs classification for bioethanol for biofuel production. This product is traded under code 22 07 which covers both denatured (CN 22 07 20) and undenatured alcohol (CN 22 07 10). Both denatured and undenatured alcohol can then be used for biofuel production. It is not possible to establish from trade data whether or not imported alcohol is used in the fuel ethanol sector in the EU.

An import duty of €19.2/hl is levied on undenatured alcohol, while an import duty of €10.2/hl applies to denatured alcohol.

Table I

Imports under code 2207 (in hl) |

Av. 1999-2001 | Av. 2002-04 | % of total (02-04) |

Undenatured alcohol | 1 167 935 | 2 383 239 | 93% |

Denatured alcohol | 279 904 | 180 988 | 7% |

Total | 1 447 839 | 2 564 226 | 100% |

Overall imports of alcohol under code 2207 averaged 2 564 226 hl over the 2002-04 period, up from 1 447 839 hl over 1999-2001. Over 93% of them came under code 22 07 10 (undenatured alcohol).

The principal trade trends are summarised in Table II:

Table II

Total imports of alcohol under code 22 07 (in hl) by type of duty |

2002 | 2003 | 2004 | Av. 2002-04 | % of total |

Reduced duty | 227 285 | 182 940 | 288 364 | 232 863 | 9% |

Duty-free | 980 693 | 2 027 632 | 1 709 282 | 1 572 536 | 61% |

MFN | 657 011 | 494 771 | 1 124 699 | 758 827 | 30% |

TOTAL | 1 864 989 | 2 705 344 | 3 122 345 | 2 564 226 | 100% |

a) average imports of bioethanol increased by 77% over 2002-2004 compared to the previous three-year period (1999-2001) when they totalled 1 447 839 hl;

b) over that period 70% of these imports were traded under preferential conditions, out of which almost 61% were duty-free, while 9% benefited from some type of duty reduction;

c) 30% of EU trade under code 22 07 takes place under MFN (most favoured nation) conditions.

With respect to the largest exporting countries:

a) over the 2002-2004 period, Pakistan was the largest duty-free exporter with an average of 501 745 hl followed, at a distance, by Guatemala with 223 782 hl;

b) Brazil is the only country capable of exporting large quantities as MFN with an average of 649 640 hl over the same period, with the second MFN exporter, the USA, on only 20 109 hl;

c) one country - Ukraine - accounts for the vast majority of imports at reduced duty with 107 711 hl over the 2002-04 period. Egypt came second with over 43 000 hl.

2. Preferential imports of bioethanol into the EU

The EU’s preferential trade basically comes under two regimes: the Generalised System of Preferences (including, among others, the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative) and the Cotonou Agreement. The main preferences accorded by each of them are summarised in Table III and described in detail in the following sections.

Table III

Import conditions under code 22 07 under EU’s main preferential agreements |

GSP normal | GSP+ | EBA | Cotonou |

Duty reduction | 15% up to 31.12.2005 | 0% as of 1.1.2006 | 100% | 100% | 100% |

Quantitative restrictions | NO | NO | NO | NO |

Beneficiaries | All GSP beneficiaries if not graduated. | Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Peru, El Salvador, Venezuela, Georgia, Sri Lanka and Mongolia | LDCs | ACPs |

2.1. GSP

The current Council Regulation (Regulation (EC) 2501/2001), in force until 31 December 2005, classifies denatured and undenatured alcohol under code 22 07 as a sensitive product, According to article 7.4 of the regulation, imports of this alcohol from all GSP beneficiary countries qualify for a 15% reduction of the MFN duty[50].

Under the special drugs regime envisaged by Council Regulation (EC) 2501/2001, which was in force from the early nineties until repealed on - 30 June 2005, exports from a number of countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Pakistan, El Salvador and Venezuela) qualified for duty-free access under code 22 07.

The new GSP Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 980/2005 of 27 June 2005], which will apply from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008, no longer envisages any tariff reduction for either denatured or undenatured alcohol under code 22 07 (still classified as a sensitive product). This Regulation put in place a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (the new GSP + incentive scheme) which has been applying on a provisional basis since 1 July 2005 and will apply on a permanent basis from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008. This new incentive arrangement grants unlimited and duty free access (suspension of Common Customs Tariff duties) to denatured or undenatured alcohol under code 2207. It includes all the countries which already benefited from the previous drugs scheme, with the exception of Pakistan which is subject to the full MFN duty.

The new incentive arrangement now also includes Georgia, Sri Lanka and Mongolia, which have not so far exported bioethanol to the EU.

Moreover, a special arrangement for least developed countries (the EBA initiative) provided for by the new GSP Regulation offers an unlimited duty-free access to denatured or undenatured alcohol under code 2207.

2.2. Cotonou Agreement

Under the Cotonou Agreement, ACP countries qualify for duty-free access for denatured and undenatured alcohol under code 22 07 with the sole exception of South Africa. According to Regulation (EC) 2501/2001, South Africa enjoys a 15% reduction in customs duties. From 1 January 2006 it will therefore have to pay full MFN duty. During the ongoing European Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations with ACP countries, the customs duties of alcohol under code 22 07 will need to be negotiated.

2.3. Other countries with preferential arrangements

Egypt currently has unlimited duty-free access to the EU under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement. Before that, it qualified for a 15% reduction under the GSP scheme.

Norway, which ranks among the top ten exporters with a total of 89 375 hl under code 22 07 in 2004, has been granted duty-free access to the EU within the framework of tariff rate quotas (TRQs) since the mid-nineties. In 2005 the TRQ will total 164 000 hl for exports under code 22 07 10 (up from 134 000 hl the previous year) and 14 340 hl under code 22 07 20, up from 3 340 hl.

3. Trade analysis

Table IV sums up trade under the various preferential arrangements.

Table IV

Imports under preferential conditions 2002 – 2004 (in hl) |

2002 | 2003 | 2004 | Av. 2002-04 | % of total trade 2002-04 |

GSP normal | 227 285 | 182 940 | 288 364 | 232 863 | 9% |

GSP + | 553 156 | 1 569 005 | 1 412 896 | 1 178 352 | 47.5% |

ACP | 291 055 | 268 784 | 154 663 | 238 167 | 9% |

EBA | 30 018 | 86 247 | 18 956 | 45 074 | 1.5% |

Others | 106 464 | 103 597 | 122 768 | 110 943 | 4% |

Total preferential | 1 207 978 | 2 210 573 | 1 997 646 | 1 805 399 | 70% |

Total MFN | 657 011 | 494 771 | 1 124 699 | 758 827 | 30% |

Grand total | 1 864 989 | 2 705 344 | 3 122 345 | 2 564 226 | 100% |

3.1. GSP

Trade data for 2001–2004 show a dramatic increase in bioethanol exports from the countries benefiting from the special drugs regime in previous years. Although these countries have benefited from the same regime since the 1990s, the unlimited duty-free access enjoyed under it at a moment of rising demand for alcohol under code 22 07 can be considered the single most important factor underlying the doubling of bioethanol exports from these countries to the EU. All major exporters under code 22 07 over the last three years benefit from such a scheme: Pakistan, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Panama.

Altogether, exports of ethanol from the GSP plus beneficiaries totalled 1 412 896 hl in 2004: practically all duty-free exports to the EU and 46% of all exports under code 22 07 to the EU over the 2002-2004 period.

Thanks to its lower production costs, Pakistan took a big lead over the other GSP beneficiaries with 1 008 656 hl in 2004 (the second largest exporter in the world) followed, at a distance, by Guatemala with over 250 000 hl.

Under the new GSP an exclusion of Pakistan from the list of countries having unlimited duty-free access to the EU market, will remove from the market one of the most aggressive and competitive producers. All old direct competitors under the GSP drugs regime will continue to enjoy duty-free access to the EU market and might be expected to fill the gap left by Pakistan as they have relatively low production costs too.

Nevertheless, at US$14.52/hl, Pakistan has production costs closer to Brazil’s which, with production costs of US$13.55/hl, manages to export substantial quantities to the EU paying the full MFN duty. Pakistan might therefore be expected to continue to be able to export significant quantities of ethanol to the EU, albeit not at the same pace as before, thus utilising the increased production capacity built over the last couple of years.

By contrast, the 15% reduction offered by the normal GSP regime opened access for approximately 9% of exports of the same product to the EU market. Unlike the obvious favourable impact of the GSP drugs regime, the impact of the 15% duty reduction is more difficult to assess. The two largest exporting countries benefiting from such a reduction are Ukraine and South Africa. In the case of Ukraine, the introduction of the 15% reduction coincided with a dramatic increase in exports over the 2002-2004 period. For South Africa, on the other hand, the last two years showed exports stable on approximately 50 000 hl, with a dramatic decrease over the 2000-2001 period. Under these conditions, it is difficult to predict the impact of removal of the 15% import duty reduction although it seems fair to say that even such a small reduction seemed to provide a competitive advantage over the countries paying full duty.

3.2. EBA

So far, exports of bioethanol from countries benefiting from the special arrangement for the least developed countries (the EBA initiative) under the GSP (EC) Regulation 980/2005 to the EU have been negligible and have primarily come from one country - the Democratic Republic of Congo - which already qualified for duty-free access as an ACP country. At the moment, the Democratic Republic of Congo is the only LDC with sizeable, though erratic, exports of alcohol to the EU under code 22 07 since 1999. In 2004 exports totalled 18 956 hl after peaking at 86 246 hl the year before.

It is fair to recognise, however, that EBA dates back to only 2001 and that some of the countries which did not have duty-free access under other earlier regimes (notably Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Nepal) might find new ways of access to the EU in the medium or longer term.

New opportunities might emerge in these countries - which generally do not produce (or are not very competitive at producing) sugar cane or any other raw material for bioethanol production from their own resources – in the form of processing molasses imported from their competitive, sugar-producing neighbours. This might be the case with Cambodia which could use raw material from Thailand, or with Bangladesh and Nepal which might process raw material from India. At the moment it is difficult to quantify future potential production from these countries but investments are known to have been made in some of them, like Bangladesh.

In this respect it is important to stress that under Council Regulation (EC) 2501/2001, imports are subject to the GSP rules of origin plus regional cumulation. The Commission is currently examining a proposal for a new regulation which would introduce the principle of determination of the preferential rules of origin based on the value-added method. Distillation should continue to be considered an operation with sufficient added value to confer origin on the finished product.

3.3. Cotonou Agreement

- On the whole, ACP exports to the EU under code 22 07 have so far been limited. Over the last couple of years they have, however, been fairly stable at 238 167 hl despite a low of 154 663 hl in 2004 (excluding South Africa: 48 728 hl) .

- Swaziland and Zimbabwe are by far the leading exporters with an average of 85 562 hl and 120 261 hl respectively over the 2002-04 period. A number of ACP countries are likely to consider bioethanol production as an alternative to sugar production as part of the restructuring resulting from the EU sugar reform. However, bioethanol production from sugar cane might remain relatively low and limited only to countries where sugar production is competitive, such as Swaziland and Zimbabwe, which have production costs close to Brazil’s and India’s and which are already exporting substantial quantities to the EU under code 22 07.

ANNEX 11 – Achieving the 5.75% biofuels target: the balance between domestic production and imports

One of the key variables in biofuel policy is the balance between domestic production and imports. Biofuels and their raw materials are traded on world markets. An autarkic approach to meeting the EU’s needs is neither possible nor desirable. But the Union still has a degree of discretion about how far to encourage domestic production and/or imports. The purpose of this annex is to set out the facts and assess the pros and cons of different options.

Tools for shifting the balance between domestic production and imports

The starting point is to understand the tools that can be used to shift the balance between domestic production and imports.

In the case of bioethanol , the main tool for shifting the balance is the duty paid. EU-produced bioethanol can be expected to cost about €900/toe by 2010 (costs are currently higher because most production plants are rather small). The cheapest imported bioethanol (from Brazil) can be bought in Europe at around €680/toe. Bioethanol imports are subject to duties ranging from zero (for imports from certain countries and/or under certain conditions) to about €376/toe (for undenatured ethanol imported at the maximum tariff). Consequently, imported bioethanol is cheaper than European if no import duty is paid, and more expensive if the maximum tariff is paid. If all tariffs on bioethanol were removed, it would be difficult for domestic producers to stay in the market.

In Germany, only fuel containing undenatured ethanol is eligible for fuel tax exemption. Even imported bioethanol needs the exemption in order to be price-competitive with petrol (currently around €457/toe[51]).

More details on trade arrangements affecting bioethanol are given in Annex 10.

Imports of biodiesel or of the vegetable oils used to make it are subject to low or zero tariffs.

Biodiesel can be made from most types of vegetable oil, notably rape oil, soya oil and palm oil.

EU rape oil competes at the world market price. Imported soya oil and palm oil are cheaper. However, biodiesel made predominantly from one or another of these oils does not comply with the “biodiesel” or “FAME” standard, EN14214 – and it needs to comply with this standard if it is to be sold for use in unadapted vehicles. Biodiesel made predominantly from rape oil does comply with the standard, even if blended with a small amount – around 25% – of one of the other oils.

The Commission believes that the limits in standard EN14214 could be adapted to allow a higher proportion of other oils – perhaps 50% – to be used in biodiesel.

Scenarios for assessment

Three theoretical models must be assessed:

1) Minimum share for imports;

2) Maximum share for imports;

3) Balanced approach.

Scenario 1: Minimum share for imports

The first point to assess is the technical feasibility of this option and, in particular, whether sufficient land is available to produce the necessary crops.

The Commission estimates that in order to meet the biofuel directive’s objective of a 5.75% share of the petrol and diesel market in 2010, 18.6 mtoe of biofuels will be needed. Most domestic biofuel production will come from three crops: sugarbeet and cereals (for bioethanol, replacing petrol) and rape (for biodiesel, replacing diesel). Average biofuel yields per hectare vary widely, depending on the characteristics of the crops, the soil and the climate. The following averages have been assumed:

Sugarbeet | 2.9 toe/ha |

Cereals | 0.9 toe/ha |

Rape | 1.1 toe/ha |

On the basis of this it can be estimated that about 17 million hectares of EU agricultural land would be needed to meet the directive’s objective entirely from domestic production.

This can be compared with total EU arable land of 97 million hectares.

In the present context where crop production per hectare is rising steadily and the reform of the sugar regime will release resources currently used for food production, this appears to be technically feasible in principle. The Union is technically capable of meeting its biofuels targets for 2010 from domestic production, although it should be noted that there are agronomic limits on the cultivation of individual crops (e.g. the frequency with which rape can be included in crop rotation cycles).

However, it should be pointed out that: existing trade arrangements and World Trade Organisation commitments do not permit the EU to close the door to imports of biofuels and biofuel raw materials; these materials are already being imported today; and there is no proposal to increase tariff protection for these goods. Therefore, the scenario of 100% domestic production is a theoretical one and would not be possible in practice.

Even interpreted as “minimum imports” rather than “no imports”, this scenario would have two disadvantages.

First, it would expose the EU food and biofuels sectors to excessive increases in the price of raw materials. By creating a new market that could be served only by domestically produced crops, the biofuels policy would drive up their prices, particularly for cereals and rape which are currently traded at world market prices.

Second, it would do nothing to encourage the production of biofuels elsewhere in the world where the creation of new biofuels industries – partly serving foreign customers like the EU, partly domestic needs – can bring benefits to developing countries. In addition, to the extent that increased consumption of biofuels is a tool to exercise downward pressure on the oil price, this is a global phenomenon – and the EU therefore has an interest in promoting biofuel production globally.

Scenario 2: Maximum share for imports

By encouraging amendment of the biodiesel standard, the EU would ensure that the maximum proportion of its biodiesel consumption is met from imports. The Commission believes that, with an appropriate amendment, imported vegetable oils would capture about 50% of the biodiesel market. However, much of the processing is likely to continue to take place in the Union.

By removing all tariffs on bioethanol, the EU would ensure that the maximum share of its bioethanol consumption is met from imports. The Commission believes that bioethanol made from agricultural crops in Europe will not be able to compete on price with bioethanol made from sugar cane from tropical countries. Therefore, the result of this policy would be that 100% of EU bioethanol consumption would be covered by imports. There would be no domestic bioethanol industry.

On the hypothesis that 56% of biofuel consumption will be biodiesel (in line with diesel’s current share of the petrol and diesel market), these steps would lead to imported biofuels (or their raw materials) taking about 70% of the EU biofuel market.

For biodiesel, this approach has merit. It would enable both EU producers and developing countries to benefit, in a balanced way, from the growth of biofuel consumption in the EU. It is an appropriate response to the limits on expansion of rape production in the EU. An EU industry would continue to exist.

But this strategy would not address the serious concerns that the present expansion of vegetable oil production – such as palm oil and soya – in developing countries could be responsible for destruction of natural habitats and deforestation and that increased demand from the EU could translate into an increased rate of deforestation. If this is true, it would be an important factor to set against the greenhouse gas emission reductions that the increased use of biofuels would deliver. If such doubts cannot be removed, public support for biofuels will be undermined. Therefore, it would be wrong to maximise the import of biofuels/raw materials for biofuels without paying attention to the environmental impact of their cultivation.

For bioethanol, this is not a good approach for the EU to follow. If the EU obtains its bioethanol from imports rather than domestic production, the cost will be about 25% lower and the global greenhouse gas benefits will be greater. However, there will be no rural development benefits for Europe. And the security of supply benefits will be less, because Europe will not have the advantage of developing a new domestic fuel source. From a practical point of view, it must be remembered that implementation of the Union’s biofuel policy depends on the efforts of Member States. If there is no prospect of domestic involvement in the production of bioethanol, it is likely that many of them will focus their efforts on biodiesel instead – eroding the market into which developing countries hope to sell. Finally, if the least developed countries are not able to compete on price on the world sugar market, there is no reason to believe that they will be able to do so on the world bioethanol market if trade is made completely free.

Environmental concerns are also raised about the cultivation of sugar cane for bioethanol. Against this, it is argued that most bioethanol comes and will continue to come from land that has been under cultivation for a long time.

Scenario 3: Balanced approach

The Commission believes that an intermediate approach would avoid the disadvantages of the first two options.

This approach should have five elements:

i) amendment of standard EN14214 to facilitate the use of a wider range of vegetable oils for biodiesel, to the extent feasible without significant ill effects on fuel performance;

ii) maintain market access conditions for imported bioethanol that are no less favourable than those provided by trade agreements currently in force[52];

iii) pursue a balanced approach in ongoing free trade agreement negotiations with ethanol-producing countries/regions. The EU must respect the interests of domestic producers and EU trading partners, within the context of rising demand for biofuels[53];

iv) address the issue of amending the biofuels directive so that only biofuels whose cultivation complies with minimum sustainability standards count towards its targets;

v) support developing countries in the production of biofuels.

The system of certificates would need to apply in a non-discriminatory way to domestically produced biofuels and imports. In particular, it would need to be non-discriminatory in relation to the requirements of the World Trade Organisation. It would need to be developed in line with other initiatives for certification of agricultural and forestry produce and could require EU support in its introduction. The potential impact on developing countries would be taken into consideration before any system of certification is introduced.

The Commission estimates that under this approach:

- price increases for agricultural crops could be kept in an acceptable range;

- a sufficient share of the market for biodiesel raw materials, a majority of the market for biodiesel production, and a majority of the market for bioethanol would remain domestic;

- least-developed countries, including those for whom the reform of the EU sugar regime is a particular challenge and whose bioethanol is not subject to tariffs, would gain a share of the EU biofuel market;

- the promotion of biofuels would not cause deforestation and habitat destruction.

Notes on the production of biofuels in developing countries

Support for developing countries in the production of biofuels is in the EU’s interest both for development policy reasons and to maximise downward pressure on the oil price. It could contribute in specific countries, as in the EU but often in more critical situations, to greater energy security and access to energy, improved foreign exchange and trade balances, economic development and employment in rural regions, and environmental benefits. To the extent that the development of biofuel consumption will exert downward pressure on the global oil price, consumption in developing countries will contribute in the same way that European consumption does. EU development policy, as well as other EU policies such as research and energy and the clean development mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, offers a number of instruments that can be used.

The positive and negative impacts of cash crops for biofuels on food production and food security have been the subject of extensive discussion. The costs and benefits depend on the site, the way the crop is produced and how it is integrated in the local production system. There is no general rule. Sugar cane has almost always been cultivated as a cash crop in developing countries, and a switch in the end-product from sugar to ethanol should not affect the food supply of the region. Some biofuel raw materials like jatropha could allow the sustainable use of low-value land and, in the process, contribute (via earnings) to an improvement in food security.

ANNEX 12 – The Commission’s perspective on biomass and biofuel research

1. Introduction

Research, technological development and demonstration have potential to support the use of biomass. The Commission intends to capitalise on this. Its proposal for the Seventh Framework Programme – Specific Programmes, adopted in September 2005, gives a high priority to biomass.

An industry-led European biofuel technology platform is under development[54]. This is intended to develop and implement a European vision and strategy for the production of biofuels, in particular for transport. Once the technology platform is established, the EC will explore the need to propose a possible joint technology initiative in this area[55].

Other technology platforms will also play an important role – for example, those dealing with “Industrial biotechnology”, “Plants for the future”, “Road transport” and “Forest-basedsectors”. Under the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme, there is a need for increased coverage of the following topics: biomass availability and logistics ; energy crops for the production of biomass[56]; and combustion, gasification and pyrolysis of biomass covering co-firing, recovered fuels and combined heat and power.

This research and development activity under the Seventh RTD Framework Programme will be complemented by non-research action in the “Intelligent Energy – Europe” programme. The main focus here is to support soft measures and to remove non-technological barriers to the widespread market deployment of already demonstrated biomass and biofuel technologies.

2. Research priorities – biomass in general

The following actions related to biomass, with their corresponding objectives, are included in the Seventh Framework Programme.

- Biomass for electricity, heating and cooling

The objective is to develop and demonstrate a portfolio of technologies for electricity, heating and cooling from biomass, including the biodegradable fraction of waste. This research aims at increasing overall conversion efficiency, achieving cost reductions, further reducing the environmental impact and optimising the technologies in different regional conditions. A broad range of research topics are considered including biomass availability and logistics; conversion technologies, such as combustion, co-firing and gasification; emission abatement; and land use.

The Commission will propose to the “Zero Emission Power Generation” technology platform that co-firing be included in its scope.

- Smart energy networks

To facilitate the transition to a more sustainable energy system, a wide-ranging R&D effort is required on the EU electricity and gas systems and networks. Research aims at effective integration of biomass installations into electricity grids and feeding biogas and synthetic natural gas into the natural gas grid.

- Life sciences and biotechnology for sustainable non-food products and processes

The objective is to strengthen the knowledge base and develop advanced technologies for terrestrial or marine biomass production for energy and industry. Biotechnology will be applied to improve the productivity, sustainability and composition of biomass raw materials and to develop new bio-processes.

The Commission also attaches high importance to the “biorefinery” concept to maximise the value derived from biomass feedstocks by making full use of their components. Biorefineries could be built up by adding further fractionation and conversion steps to current biomass processing facilities (sugar, grain, pulp mills, oil refineries, etc.) to obtain a broad range of products such as food, feed, sustainable polymers, chemicals, fuels, and heat and power. Improving the cost-efficiency of biofuels through the biorefinery concept will be an important element of the biofuel technology platform.

3. Second-generation biofuels: state of play

Producing bioethanol from cellulose delivers a gasoline substitute which is identical to bioethanol produced from sugar or cereals. Synthetic enzymes provide the key to unlock the cellulose molecules and break them down into simpler substances, which are subsequently fermented to ethanol and purified (distilled) the same way as conventional bioethanol. It is hoped that energy balances and, hence, CO2 emission reductions will be largely enhanced.

The first demonstration plant was taken in operation by Iogen (4 million litres per year in Canada) and this was followed by ETEK (150 thousand litres per year pilot plant in Sweden) which was supported by EU regional funds. A third facility is under construction by Abengoa (5 million litres per year in Spain) and this plant is supported by the Fifth Framework Programme. Enzymatic hydrolysis is expected to become competitive in the medium term due to the decreasing price of the enzymes and low cost of the raw material (such as straw or even wood); being one of the most critical parameters in the overall cost of the biofuel.

Second-generation biodiesel is chemically different from vegetable-oil-based biodiesel. Gasification of biomass (anything works, but the drier the better) produces a “synthesis gas” consisting mainly of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen. Exposing this gas to a suitable catalyst converts it into hydrocarbons (Fischer Tropsch synthesis), which will subsequently be treated to deliver a mixture of gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. Because of the high price of jet fuel, the excellent quality of the diesel fraction and the low quality of the gasoline fraction (low octane number), the process is normally optimised towards the production of jet fuel/diesel.

The different steps in the process have all been demonstrated to work commercially for Fischer Tropsch synthesis gas derived from coal or natural gas. Optimisation still remains to be done on gasification of biomass from different raw materials and gas purification to synthesis gas quality. A large-scale pilot plant (15 000 t/year) is being constructed in Freiberg (Germany) by the company Choren. In addition, Choren and Shell are in the process of developing a full-size prototype commercial plant with a capacity of 200 000 t/year which optimistically, depending on the experience with the pilot plant, could be operational in 2009/10. In parallel to the experience to be gained from this “biomass-to-liquid” (BTL) process, a number of large-scale “gas-to-liquid” projects, several in Qatar, will deliver technology experience on the second stage (Fischer Tropsch) of the process in the years ahead.

Alternatively the synthesis gas can be converted to bio-dimethylether (DME), which can also be used to replace diesel in modified diesel engines. DME, a gaseous fuel under ambient conditions, can be of particular relevance in heavy-duty applications.

The advantage of second-generation biodiesel is partly that the basic treatment of the raw material (gasification) allows virtually any organic material to be used and partly that it delivers a premium-quality diesel fuel, whether to be used in its own right or as a blending component in petroleum-based diesel. Its CO2 emission profile depends on whether the energy source for conversion is biomass only or whether an external energy source is used, and whether the biomass is a waste product (e.g. straw) or an energy crop. This also affects the cost. Here too, significant CO2 gains and energy balance improvements are hoped for.

Hybrids between first- and second-generation biofuels are also in preparation. Fortum (Finland) is planning to expand its Porvoo refinery to use vegetable oil and animal fat as a raw material in a conventional hydrogenation process. This delivers the same high-quality diesel as BTL with lower investment, but higher raw material costs (close to conventional biodiesel).

4. Research priorities - transport biofuels

The main area of research is second-generation biofuels made from various biomass resources and wastes, e.g. bioethanol, biodiesel, DME. The technical feasibility of converting cellulose material (straw/wood) and organic wastes into bioethanol and biodiesel has been demonstrated. But costs need to be brought down and technology needs to be further developed and demonstrated for commercial-scale production (over 150 000 tonnes a year). If this can be done, second-generation biofuels should offer three major advantages:

- they will secure a higher market share for biofuels by allowing the use of a wider range of raw material;

- the cultivation process (if any) could be less environmentally intensive than for ordinary agricultural crops;

- this lower intensity will be reflected in lower greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation.

Second-generation biodiesel production has a fourth advantage: the fuel is of better quality than conventional diesel[57].

The price of these fuels will depend on technical developments and the price at which the raw material can be obtained. At this stage there is no reason to assume that they will be substantially cheaper than first-generation biofuels.

The Commission plans to substantially increase its support for the development of second-generation biofuels through its research budgets.

ANNEX 13 – Results of consultation

This Communication and the impact assessment published alongside it take into account the results of extensive consultations. These began with the Commission’s analysis of the various policies affecting biomass and an extensive public consultation campaign using all possible means, such as a public questionnaire via the Internet, numerous meetings with stakeholders, and bilateral meetings with Member States that have developed national Biomass Action Plans and with biomass experts.

The main conclusion drawn from the consultations was that the Commission should push strongly on all fronts, at EU level and national level, in order to overcome the non-technical barriers facing biomass.

Several more specific conclusions can be drawn from the consultation process:

- Sufficient biomass resources are available in the Union to meet the needs for an additional 80 mtoe per year by 2010 without major effects on forest products industries and food production. Energy crops can make a significant contribution while providing a new market outlet for agriculture and contributing to rural development. Any shortfalls can be addressed by imports.

- There are competitive, reliable and efficient European technologies to convert biomass resources into energy vectors (electricity, heating or cooling and biofuels for transport). Nevertheless, RTD work on biomass (supported by appropriate national and EC funds) has to be intensified in order to meet new challenges.

- European (as well as international) solid and liquid biofuels markets are in their infancy and have to be developed further to commodity level. In order to develop them successfully, work on standards and norms has to be accelerated.

- Biomass is generally more expensive than comparable fossil fuel energy. However, in some areas (such as household heating by pellets and industrial CHP based on residues) biomass is already competitive.

- There is an urgent need to start a professionally managed campaign to inform European citizens more fully about the benefits of biomass. This information barrier, as well as the absence of more effective representation of biomass at all levels, is also due to the lack of a strong European biomass association with industrial involvement.

- The main problem that appears to be holding back the penetration of biomass on the energy markets is the lack of demand. The only way to increase demand is through appropriate policies implemented at national level.

- Biomass is the only renewable energy source that does not suffer from intermittency problems and can potentially provide energy for heat, power and transport from the same installation.

- Biomass in the form of solid, liquid or gaseous biofuels is the only renewable energy source that can directly