Comunicazione della Commissione - Piano d’azione per la biomassa {SEC(2005) 1573} /* COM/2005/0628 def. */





[pic] | COMMISSIONE DELLE COMUNITÀ EUROPEE | Bruxelles, 07.12.2005 COM(2005) 628 definitivo COMUNICAZIONE DELLA COMMISSIONE Piano d’azione per la biomassa {SEC(2005) 1573} COMUNICAZIONE DELLA COMMISSIONE Piano d’azione per la biomassa 1. INTRODUZIONE L’energia è un settore chiave che contribuirà alla realizzazione degli obiettivi europei in materia di crescita, occupazione e sviluppo sostenibile. L’elevato prezzo del petrolio ha messo in evidenza la crescente dipendenza, nel campo energetico, dell’Europa dalle importazioni. S’impone una risposta risoluta da parte dell’Unione. L’importanza capitale della politica energetica per poter far fronte alle sfide della globalizzazione è stata ribadita dai Capi di Stato e di Governo nel corso dell’incontro al vertice informale, svoltosi a Hampton Court nell’ottobre 2005. Con questo consapevolezza, la Commissione ha avviato il riesame della politica energetica finora condotta, che formerà l’oggetto di un Libro verde incentrato su tre obiettivi - concorrenzialità, sviluppo sostenibile e sicurezza degli approvvigionamenti - che sarà presentato nel 2006. Nel contesto di una più forte crescita economica, i cardini di tale politica sono: la necessità di ridurre la domanda di energia[1], un maggiore ricorso a fonti energetiche alternative (sviluppabili a livello nazionale e in modo sostenibile), la diversificazione delle fonti energetiche, nonché l’intensificazione della cooperazione internazionale. Questa strategia può servire a ridurre la dipendenza dalle importazioni di energia, a contribuire allo sviluppo sostenibile ed a stimolare la crescita e l’occupazione. Per riuscire, occorre gestire tali obiettivi in modo coerente, rispettando i tempi stabiliti. A tale fine si utilizzeranno meccanismi che coinvolgano gli Stati membri, i rappresentanti del Parlamento europeo e le parti interessate.[2] E’ in questo contesto più ampio di una politica energetica integrata e coerente, segnatamente nell’ottica della promozione delle fonti d’energia rinnovabili, che la Commissione presenta questo piano d’azione, che è solo uno degli elementi necessari per la realizzazione degli obiettivi sopra indicati, ma un elemento importante, in quanto la biomassa rappresenta attualmente circa il cinquanta per cento dell’energia rinnovabile utilizzata nell’UE.[3] Nella comunicazione del 2004 intitolata “La quota di energia rinnovabile nell’Unione europea”, la Commissione si era impegnata a presentare un piano d’azione per la biomassa, che evidenziasse la necessità di una strategia coordinata nel settore.[4] Nelle conclusioni del Consiglio di primavera del 2004, si afferma che è essenziale aumentare l'utilizzazione di fonti energetiche rinnovabili per motivi connessi all'ambiente e alla competitività[5], mentre il Parlamento europeo ha recentemente rilevato “che l’utilizzo di biomassa offre molti vantaggi rispetto alle fonti energetiche convenzionali e ad alcune altre energie rinnovabili, in particolare costi relativamente contenuti, minore dipendenza a breve termine dai cambiamenti climatici, promozione di strutture economiche regionali e possibilità di fonti alternative di reddito per gli agricoltori”[6] Il presente documento presenta alcune misure volte a intensificare lo sviluppo di energia dalla biomassa ricavata dal legno, dai rifiuti e dalle colture agricole, mediante la creazione di incentivi basati sui meccanismi di mercato e l’abbattimento delle barriere che ostacolano lo sviluppo del mercato. Grazie ad esse l’Europa potrà ridurre la sua dipendenza dai combustibili fossili e le emissioni di gas responsabili dell’effetto serra nonché stimolare l'attività economica nelle aree rurali. L’elenco di tali misure è riportato all’allegato 1. Questo piano d'azione costituisce una prima iniziativa di coordinamento. Esso definisce alcune misure atte a promuovere l'impiego della biomassa per il riscaldamento, la produzione di elettricità e per i trasporti, accompagnate da misure trasversali concernenti l’approvvigionamento, il finanziamento e la ricerca nel settore della biomassa. Il piano d’azione è corredato di una valutazione generale d'impatto. In una seconda fase, si presenteranno le proposte relative alle singole misure, subordinate a specifiche valutazioni di impatto, conformemente alle disposizioni della Commissione. 1.1. Potenziale della biomassa Nell’Unione, il 4% del fabbisogno energetico è attualmente soddisfatto dalla biomassa; se si sfruttasse l’intero potenziale di tale risorsa, di qui al 2010 tale valore potrebbe più che raddoppiare (passando dalle 69 Mtep[7] del 2003 a circa 185 Mtep nel 2010), rispettando le buone pratiche agricole, mantenendo una produzione di biomassa sostenibile sotto il profilo ambientale e senza riflessi significativi sulla produzione interna di prodotti alimentari.[8] Con l’adesione della Bulgaria e della Romania la disponibilità aumenterà[9] e grazie alle importazioni il potenziale crescerà ulteriormente. La Commissione reputa che le misure previste dal programma d'azione potrebbero indurre un aumento dell'impiego di biomassa fino a 150 Mtep entro il 2010 o nel periodo immediatamente successivo[10]. Tale livello è inferiore al potenziale totale ed è conforme agli obiettivi indicativi per l’energia da fonti rinnovabili.[11] 1.2. Costi e benefici Diversi studi scientifici ed economici mostrano che il maggiore ricorso alla biomassa potrebbe offrire i seguenti vantaggi nel 2010: - diversificazione dell’offerta energetica in Europa, con un aumento del 5% della quota delle fonti rinnovabili d’energia e una riduzione dal 48%-42% del livello dell’energia importata;[12] - riduzione delle emissioni responsabili dell’effetto serra dell’ordine di 209 milioni di tonnellate di CO2eq all’anno;[13] - occupazione diretta di 250-300 000 addetti, principalmente nelle aree rurali (al riguardo i vari studi riportano dati fortemente divergenti);[14] - eventuale pressione al ribasso sul prezzo del petrolio, risultante dalla flessione della domanda. Nell’ipotesi che i prezzi dei combustibili fossili siano inferiori del 10% rispetto al livello odierno si può stimare che i costi direttamente misurabili si aggireranno sui 9 miliardi di euro annui, di cui 6 milioni di euro per i biocarburanti nel settore dei trasporti e 3 miliardi di euro per la produzione di elettricità da biomassa (l’impiego di biomassa per il riscaldamento in molti casi è già competitivo in termini di costi) [15]. Ciò equivale ad un aumento di 1,5 centesimi al litro per la benzina o il diesel e di 0,1 centesimi al kWh per l’elettricità[16]. Altri benefici potranno derivare dal consolidamento del primato tecnologico dell’UE in tali settori. Detti benefici in linea di massima non dovrebbero comportare ulteriore inquinamento o altre forme di degrado ambientale[17]. La Commissione sta attualmente valutando il contributo che l'energia rinnovabile potrebbe dare al mix energetico entro il 2020. Il piano d'azione qui presentato potrebbe sostenere e favorire un aumento del contributo dell'energia rinnovabile di qui al 2020. 1.3. Uso della biomassa per i trasporti, l’elettricità e il riscaldamento I prezzi del petrolio sono triplicati nell’ultimo quadriennio. I trasporti rappresentano un settore economico chiave e quasi la totalità dell’energia consumata deriva dal petrolio. I biocarburanti liquidi, unici sostituti diretti del petrolio nei trasporti, hanno comprensibilmente una grande priorità politica. A ciò si aggiunga che la costante espansione del settore dei trasporti non ha ancora permesso di stabilizzare le emissioni di gas con effetto serra, nonostante i notevoli sforzi compiuti dal settore. I biocarburanti, pur essendo una soluzione costosa per la riduzione delle emissioni di gas con effetto serra, sono una delle sole due possibilità che avrebbero una ragionevole probabilità di successo su larga scala in un futuro prossimo (l’altra sarebbe un accordo delle case automobilistiche per ridurre le emissioni di CO2 delle nuove autovetture – cfr. il punto 4.2). All’inizio del 2006, la Commissione presenterà una comunicazione che tratterà specificamente dei biocarburanti. Mentre i biocarburanti per i trasporti offrono la più alta intensità di manodopera e la massima sicurezza di approvvigionamento, la biomassa utilizzata per la produzione di elettricità offre i maggiori benefici in termini di emissioni di gas con effetto serra e quella utilizzata per il riscaldamento è la più economica. Il ricorso alla biomassa andrebbe promosso in tutti e tre i settori. Almeno fino al 2010 non vi sarà una grande concorrenza per la materia prima, visto che per i biocarburanti ci si avvale principalmente dalle colture agricole, mentre la biomassa usata per la produzione di elettricità e il riscaldamento è fornita principalmente dal legno e dai rifiuti. 2. BIOMASSA PER IL RISCALDAMENTO La tecnologia per l'impiego della biomassa per il riscaldamento residenziale e industriale è semplice e poco costosa. Questo settore vanta solide tradizioni nell’impiego di biomassa ed è quello in cui è maggiormente usata. Esistono nuove tecniche per la trasformazione del legno e degli scarti del legno in pellet standardizzati, sicuri per l’ambiente e di facile utilizzo. Ciononostante, nel settore del riscaldamento la biomassa registra il più basso ritmo di crescita. Oltre a vigilare attentamente sull’attuazione della normativa comunitaria in materia di cogenerazione[18] (un importante sbocco della biomassa), la Commissione intende porre rimedio a questa situazione con le misure riportate nei punti che seguono. 2.1. Normativa in materia di energia rinnovabile per il riscaldamento E’ la tessera mancante del ‘puzzle’ normativo, che dovrebbe affiancare le direttive vigenti in materia di elettricità e trasporti. La Commissione si sforzerà di colmare questa lacuna legislativa nel 2006; la strategia prevista è diversa da quella utilizzata per le precedenti direttive, in quanto il problema principale è rappresentato dalla fiducia e dall'atteggiamento del mercato, piuttosto che dai costi. Tra gli aspetti da esaminare figurano: - una nuova normativa specifica in materia di energia rinnovabile per il riscaldamento, basata su un esame critico del potenziale contributo dei seguenti elementi: - misure volte ad assicurare che i fornitori di combustibili assicurino la disponibilità di carburanti ricavati da biomassa ; - fissazione di parametri di efficienza per la biomassa e gli impianti alimentati con biomassa; - etichettatura delle apparecchiature per consentire ai consumatori di acquistare apparecchi non inquinanti ed efficienti; - altre misure tecniche; - opportunità di fissare degli obiettivi; - accordi volontari con l’industria; - modificazione della direttiva sul rendimento energetico nell’edilizia al fine di rafforzare gli incentivi all'impiego di energia rinnovabile;[19] - elaborazione di uno studio sulle possibilità di migliorare l’efficienza delle caldaie domestiche alimentate con biomassa e di ridurre l’inquinamento[20], nella prospettiva di arrivare a fissare dei requisiti nell'ambito della direttiva sull'ecodesign.[21] 2.2. Ammodernamento del teleriscaldamento Il teleriscaldamento (riscaldamento collettivo) consente una più facile gestione dell’uso di combustibili rinnovabili e l’impiego di una più ampia gamma di combustibili che producono minori emissioni. E’ più facile espandere l'impiego di biomassa nel teleriscaldamento che nel riscaldamento individuale. Nell’UE 56 milioni cittadini, il 61% dei quali residenti nei nuovi Stati membri, fruiscono del teleriscaldamento e il loro numero è destinato ad aumentare con l’adesione della Bulgaria e della Romania. Tale forma di riscaldamento fa fatica a competere con il riscaldamento individuale. Molti dei sistemi attuali necessitano di un ammodernamento degli impianti, delle infrastrutture e della gestione, per migliorare la loro efficienza, sotto il profilo sia energetico sia economico, e per agevolarne l’uso. Taluni sistemi dovrebbero essere convertiti per poter essere alimentati con biomassa, un’evoluzione dei sistemi di teleriscaldamento incoraggiata dalla Commissione. La Commissione esorta il Consiglio ad accogliere la sua proposta di includere la fornitura di teleriscaldamento all’elenco dei beni e dei servizi per i quali gli Stati membri possono applicare un’aliquota IVA ridotta[22]. La Commissione potrebbe così raccomandare agli Stati membri di estendere al teleriscaldamento l’applicazione delle aliquote IVA ridotte vigenti per il gas naturale o l’elettricità. E’ inoltre possibile che la Commissione presenti una proposta legislativa concernente le questioni fiscali attinenti al teleriscaldamento. Essa esaminerà l'opportunità di proporre in tale contesto altre misure. 3. ELETTRICITÀ DA BIOMASSA L’ELETTRICITÀ PUÒ ESSERE prodotta con qualsiasi tipo di biomassa, con l’ausilio di diverse tecnologie (cfr. allegato 6). La Commissione incoraggia gli Stati membri a sfruttare il potenziale offerto da tutte forme di produzione di elettricità mediante biomassa economicamente efficienti. La direttiva sulla promozione dell'energia elettrica prodotta da fonti energetiche rinnovabili fissa il quadro normativo per l’elettricità da biomassa.[23]Gli Stati membri hanno sottoscritto degli obiettivi per l’elettricità generata con fonti rinnovabili. Nella maggior parte dei casi, tali obiettivi appaiono irrealizzabili se non vi sarà un maggior ricorso alla biomassa.[24] L’attuazione di questa direttiva è pertanto fondamentale per la diffusione dell'impiego di biomassa per la produzione di energia elettrica. La Commissione intende seguire da vicino gli sviluppi in questo campo.[25] Negli impianti di cogenerazione la biomassa permette di fornire contemporaneamente calore ed elettricità. La Commissione esorta gli Stati membri a tenere conto di questo duplice beneficio nei loro meccanismi di sostegno. 4. BIOCARBURANTI PER I TRASPORTI 4.1. Attuazione della direttiva sui biocarburanti Analogamente alla generazione elettrica, il settore dei biocarburanti è disciplinato dalla normativa comunitaria: la direttiva sui biocarburanti[26] fissa al 2% il valore di riferimento per la quota di mercato dei biocarburanti nel 2005 e al 5,75% nel 2010.[27] Il valore di riferimento fissato per il 2005 non sarà raggiunto. Sotto il profilo dell’impegno, si registrano forti differenze tra gli Stati membri[28] ed anche se tutti gli Stati membri raggiungessero gli obiettivi che si sono prefissati, la quota dei biocarburanti non supererà l’1,4%. Per l’attuazione alla direttiva, molti Stati membri ricorrono alle esenzioni dalla tassa sui combustibili,[29] misure che sono soggette al controllo sugli aiuti di Stato. Conformemente alla disciplina comunitaria degli aiuti di Stato per la tutela dell'ambiente, la Commissione adotta una posizione generalmente favorevole riguardo alle notifiche che le sono trasmesse. Ciononostante sono sorti diversi problemi di ordine pratico. Alcuni Stati membri hanno recentemente introdotto degli obblighi in materia di biocarburanti, esigendo dalle imprese fornitrici di carburanti di integrare una quota prestabilita di biocarburanti nei volumi commercializzati. Maggiori ragguagli circa le due strategie sono riportati all’allegato 9. L’imposizione di volumi obbligatori di biocarburanti sembra un modo promettente per superare le difficoltà legate alle esenzioni fiscali e per far sì che gli obiettivi siano conseguiti ad un costo competitivo. Con tale approccio diventa inoltre più facile concedere un trattamento favorevole ai biocarburanti di seconda generazione, cosa che la Commissione incoraggia. Conformemente a quanto stabilito dalla direttiva sui biocarburanti, nel 2006 la Commissione presenterà una relazione sull’attuazione della direttiva, nell’ottica di una sua eventuale modifica. La suddetta relazione esaminerà i seguenti aspetti: - gli obiettivi nazionali per la quota di mercato dei biocarburanti; - l’imposizione di obblighi in materia di biocarburanti; - il criterio – imposto mediante un sistema di certificazione – secondo cui, per valutare il conseguimento degli obiettivi, si prendano in considerazione solo i biocarburanti ricavati da colture conformi a norme minime in materia di sviluppo sostenibile.[30] Il regime di certificazione dovrebbe essere applicato in modo non discriminatorio ai biocarburanti sia di produzione nazionale sia importati. 4.2. Mercato dei veicoli La Commissione presenterà entro breve una proposta legislativa volta a stimolare le commesse delle amministrazioni nazionali di veicoli non inquinanti, compresi quelli che utilizzano miscele con elevato tenore di biocarburanti.[31] Nell’ambito del riesame delle modalità per la realizzazione dell’obiettivo comunitario di un livello medio di emissioni di 120 g/km, la Commissione sta studiando in che misura l’utilizzazione di carburanti alternativi, tra cui i biocarburanti, potrebbe essere presa in considerazione per conseguire gli obiettivi di riduzione delle emissioni di CO2 per i veicoli commerciali leggeri. La strategia futura, che verrà proposta nel 2006, si fonderà su un “approccio integrato” ossia, oltre all’impegno delle case automobilistiche in termini di tecnologia, si prenderanno in considerazione anche misure quali l’uso di biocarburanti, gli incentivi fiscali, l’informazione dei consumatori e le iniziative per prevenire la congestione del traffico. Tale strategia terrà conto della strategia relativa al futuro del settore automobilistico, che verrà anch’essa proposta nel 2006. 4.3. Equilibrio tra produzione nazionale e importazioni I biocarburanti e le materie prime da cui sono estratti sono oggetto di scambi sui mercati mondiali. Una politica autarchica per il soddisfacimento della domanda interna dell’UE non è né realizzabile né auspicabile. L’Unione ha tuttavia un certo potere discrezionale per stabilire in che misura incoraggiare la produzione interna o le importazioni. L’allegato 10 traccia un quadro dell’attuale situazione del commercio di bioetanolo. Nell’allegato 11 sono messe a confronto tre strategie alternative su come far arrivare la quota di mercato dei biocarburanti al 5,75%: - riservare una quota minima alle importazioni - riservare una quota massima alle importazioni - optare per una strategia equilibrata. La Commissione preferisce la strategia equilibrata e intende pertanto: - proporre che si modifichi la norma EN14214 per favorire l’impiego di una gamma più ampia di oli vegetali per la produzione di biodiesel, nella misura possibile senza che si abbiano effetti negativi di rilievo sul rendimento del carburante; - studiare le possibilità di modificare la direttiva sui biocarburanti, affinché per la valutazione del conseguimento degli obiettivi fissati si tenga conto unicamente dei biocarburanti ricavati da colture conformi a requisiti minimi di sostenibilità; - mantenere delle condizioni di accesso al mercato non meno favorevoli di quelle previste dagli accordi commerciali attualmente vigenti per il bioetanolo d’importazione; - adottare una strategia equilibrata nell’ambito dei negoziati per la conclusione di accordi di libero scambio in corso con i paesi/le regioni produttrici di etanolo; l’UE deve rispettare gli interessi dei produttori nazionali e dei partner commerciali dell'Unione, a fronte della crescente domanda di biocarburanti; - sostenere i paesi in via di sviluppo che desiderano produrre biocarburanti e sviluppare un mercato interno; questo è particolarmente importante nell’ambito delle riforme riguardanti il settore dello zucchero.[32] La Commissione sosterrà questi obiettivi nell’ambito di negoziati bilaterali (ad es. nell’ambito di Mercosur) e multilaterali (ad es. nell’ambito dei negoziati di Doha dell’Organizzasione mondiale del commercio e nella discussione sugli scambi di beni ambientali). 4.4. Norme La direttiva sulla qualità dei carburanti[33] fissa il tenore massimo di etanolo, etere e di altri ossigenati nella benzina, nonché i limiti per la tensione di vapore della benzina. La norma EN590 stabilisce che il diesel non può avere un tenore di biodiesel superiore al 5% del volume (4,6% in termini di energia). Tali limiti restringono le possibilità d’incrementare l’uso dei biocarburanti. In sede della revisione - attualmente in corso - della direttiva sulla qualità dei carburanti, la Commissione valuterà le implicazioni delle diverse soluzioni possibili per i suddetti problemi. In tale ambito, la Commissione sta soppesando una serie di fattori, tenendo conto dei costi e dei benefici per i settori interessati. In tale sede, considererà tra l’altro: - gli effetti sulla salute e sull’ambiente (comprese le emissioni di sostanze inquinanti e di gas con effetto serra); - gli effetti sul conseguimento degli obiettivi fissati dalla direttiva sui biocarburanti e sul costo da sostenere per la loro realizzazione. 4.5. Eliminazione degli ostacoli tecnici L’introduzione dei biocarburanti incontra degli ostacoli di natura tecnica. Gli operatori del settore hanno sostenuto ad esempio che: - la benzina miscelata con etanolo non può essere trasportata negli oleodotti; - non è pratico offrire una benzina di base con una minore tensione di vapore, idonea alla miscelazione diretta con etanolo. La Commissione intende interpellare gli operatori interessati, chiedendo loro di chiarire il fondamento tecnico di tali ostacoli ed intende altresì conoscere il parere di altre parti in causa. E’ sua intenzione vigilare sulla condotta degli operatori dei settori interessati, per assicurare che i biocarburanti non siano discriminati. 4.6. Ricorso all’etanolo per ridurre la domanda di diesel Il parco macchine europeo riflette una preferenza per i veicoli diesel. L’Europa ha tuttavia maggiore capacità di produrre bioetanolo che biodiesel: la produzione di bioetanolo richiede meno terreno e offre un margine maggiore di riduzione dei costi, grazie alle economie di scala. Sarebbe inoltre possibile aumentare le importazioni di etanolo dai paesi terzi. La Commissione intende incoraggiare l'uso dell'etanolo per ridurre la domanda di diesel; essa raccomanderà in particolare l’impiego del 95% di etanolo nei motori diesel modificati. Nell’ambito della revisione della norma EN14214, proporrà di valutare una modifica che permetta di sostituire il metanolo con l'etanolo nella produzione di biodiesel. 5. QUESTIONI TRASVERSALI 5.1. Offerta di biomassa Le misure descritte nei precedenti paragrafi dipendono dalla disponibilità di un’adeguata offerta di biomassa. In questo capitolo si illustrano le misure volte a stimolare tale offerta. Politica agricola comune (PAC) Con la riforma della PAC attuata nel 2003, il sostegno al reddito degli agricoltori non è più vincolato alla produzione agricola. Gli agricoltori possono quindi rispondere liberamente alla crescente domanda di colture energetiche. La riforma ha inoltre introdotto uno speciale regime di “aiuto alle colture energetiche”[34] e mantenuto la possibilità di utilizzare i terreni soggetti ad obbligo di “ritiro dalla produzione” per l’impianto di colture con finalità diverse da quelle alimentari (comprese le colture energetiche). Nel 2006 la Commissione presenterà una relazione al Consiglio sull’attuazione del regime di aiuti a favore delle colture energetiche, accompagnata se del caso da proposte che tengano conto degli obiettivi dell’Unione in materia di biocarburanti. In passato, solo una fascia limitata di colture energetiche poteva fruire degli aiuti, attraverso il regime di ritiro dalla produzione. La riforma ha offerto agli agricoltori la possibilità di impiantare più colture energetiche, comprese le colture a breve ciclo di rotazione e altre colture perenni. E’ opportune che le decisioni in merito alle colture energetiche da impiantare siano prese a livello regionale o locale. La Commissione finanzierà una campagna informativa sulle caratteristiche delle colture energetiche e sulle possibilità che queste offrono.[35] Occorre un nuovo approccio, segnatamente per quanto riguarda le essenze forestali a crescita rapida, per le quali gli agricoltori devono immobilizzare i terreni per diversi anni e attendere non meno di 4 anni prima di poter procedere alla prima ceduazione. Silvicoltura Nell’UE circa il 35% della crescita boschiva annua resta inutilizzato[36]. In molti paesi il mercato del legname di piccole dimensioni ricavato da interventi di diradamento, utilizzabile per la produzione di calore ed elettricità, è limitato. La maggior parte delle risorse inutilizzate sono situate in piccoli appezzamenti privati, difficili da mobilitare. Alcuni paesi hanno risolto questo problema creando delle filiere di approvvigionamento collegate a impianti esistenti e sostenendo l’organizzazione di sistemi logistici, la cooperazione tra i proprietari di boschi e i trasporti. La Commissione cercherà di diffondere gli insegnamenti tratti da queste esperienze e di sostenere iniziative in altri paesi. La Commissione sta preparando un piano d'azione, che dovrebbe essere approvato nel 2006, in cui verrà trattata la questione dell’uso della legna a fini energetici. Essa esaminerà l’impatto dell’uso a fini energetici del legno e degli scarti forestali sulle industrie silvicole. Rifiuti I rifiuti sono una fonte energetica il cui potenziale non è interamente sfruttato. La Commissione sta elaborando una strategia specifica per la prevenzione e il riciclaggio dei rifiuti, nonché una proposta di revisione della normativa quadro in materia di rifiuti. Tra le opzioni considerate figurano: - la promozione di tecniche di gestione dei rifiuti atte ad attenuare l’impatto ambientale dell’utilizzo dei rifiuti come combustibile; - l’adozione di un approccio commerciale per le attività di riciclaggio e di recupero; - lo sviluppo di norme tecniche che consentano di qualificare come beni i prodotti di recupero (facilitandone l’impiego a fini energetici); - l’incentivazione degli investimenti in tecnologie efficienti, sotto il profilo energetico, per l’impiego di rifiuti come combustibile. Sottoprodotti animali I sottoprodotti animali non destinati al consumo umano sono sempre più spesso recuperati a fini energetici, soprattutto per la produzione di biogas e biodiesel. Dal progresso tecnologico e scientifico scaturiscono continui nuovi sviluppi nel campo dei processi produttivi. La Commissione riesaminerà il quadro normativo per l’autorizzazione di tali processi, affinché si possano sfruttare nuove fonti d’energia, mantenendo al contempo un elevato livello di protezione della salute pubblica ed animale. Norme tecniche Occorrono norme europee per i combustibili solidi ricavati da biomassa al fine di facilitare gli scambi, sviluppare i mercati ed aumentare la fiducia dei consumatori. Il Comitato europeo di normazione (CEN) si sta adoperando in tal senso. La Commissione lo inciterà a dare la massima priorità a tali lavori. Miglioramento della filiera di approvvigionamento E’ stata creata una piazza di contrattazione europea per la negoziazione di pellet e cippato, grazie al contributo del programma comunitario “Energia intelligente per l’Europa”. I volumi negoziati non sono elevati e la Commissione studierà le possibilità di migliorare i risultati conseguiti, nella prospettiva di istituire un sistema di scambi di portata europea (se fattibile dal punto di vista tecnico ed economico). Piani d’azione nazionali per la biomassa I piani d’azione nazionali per la biomassa possono ridurre l’incertezza degli investitori, in quanto valutano la disponibilità fisica ed economica dei diversi tipi di biomassa, compresi il legno e gli scarti del legno nonché i rifiuti e le colture agricole, individuano le priorità per i vari tipi di biomassa da utilizzare e le modalità di sviluppo delle risorse di biomassa e indicano le misure che saranno prese in tal senso a livello nazionale. Tali piani possono inoltre essere associati a campagne d’informazione dei consumatori sui vantaggi della biomassa. La stessa strategia può essere utilmente adottata a livello regionale. La Commissione incoraggia lo sviluppo di piani d’azione nazionali per la biomassa. 5.2. Sostegno finanziario dell’UE all’energia da biomassa Molte regioni che fruiscono dei finanziamenti dei fondi strutturali e di coesione presentano un elevato potenziale di crescita economica e di creazione di occupazione grazie alla biomassa. Ciò vale in particolar modo per le regioni rurali dell’Europa centrale ed orientale. La presenza di manodopera a basso costo e di elevata disponibilità di risorse può offrire a tali regioni un vantaggio comparativo per la produzione di biomassa. Sostenere lo sviluppo di fonti di energia rinnovabili e alternative, quali la produzione di biomassa, è quindi un obiettivo prioritario dei fondi strutturali e di coesione, come è stato indicato nella proposta della Commissione concernente le linee guida della strategia comunitaria in materia di coesione.[37] Questi fondi possono contribuire alla riqualificazione degli agricoltori, alla fornitura di attrezzature ai produttori di biomassa, agli investimenti in impianti per la produzione di biocarburanti e in altro materiale, nonché favorire il passaggio dei produttori di elettricità e dei fornitori di teleriscaldamento all’uso della biomassa quale combustibile. La Commissione esorta gli Stati membri e le regioni ad adoperarsi, affinché - in sede di elaborazione dei quadri strategici di riferimento nazionali e dei programmi operativi – si tenga pienamente conto dei potenziali vantaggi della biomassa. Attraverso la politica di sviluppo rurale è possibile finanziare investimenti nelle aziende agricole o nelle loro vicinanze, finalizzati ad esempio alla trasformazione della biomassa, nonché misure volte a stimolare l’utilizzo della biomassa non sfruttata dai proprietari di boschi. La Commissione ha presentato una proposta di orientamenti strategici comunitari per lo sviluppo rurale che danno particolare risalto all’energia rinnovabile, in generale, e, più in particolare, alle filiere per l’approvvigionamento di biomassa.[38] La Commissione esorta gli Stati membri a sfruttare queste possibilità di sviluppo e di diversificazione dell’economia rurale attraverso i programmi nazionali di sviluppo rurale e propone l’istituzione di un apposito gruppo ad hoc con il compito di esaminare le possibilità offerte dalla biomassa nell’ambito di tali programmi. 5.3. Aiuti di Stato Il sostegno ufficiale alla produzione e all’impiego di biomassa deve essere compatibile con la politica comunitaria in materia di aiuti di Stato. La Commissione può autorizzare aiuti agli investimenti e aiuti al funzionamento sulla base della disciplina comunitaria degli aiuti di Stato per la tutela dell'ambiente.[39] Le disposizioni stabilite da tale disciplina tengono conto dei benefici effetti dell'energia da biomassa, rispetto a quella prodotta a partire da combustibili fossili. Gli aiuti a favore degli investimenti nelle aree assistite possono essere compatibili con il mercato comune in virtù degli orientamenti comunitari per gli aiuti di Stato a finalità regionale.[40] Non dovrebbero esserci indebite distorsioni della concorrenza. Si veda l’allegato 9. 6. RICERCA La proposta della Commissione relativa al settimo programma quadro annette grande importanza alla ricerca nel campo della biomassa e contempla diverse azioni connesse anche alla biomassa: - “Biomassa per i carburanti, l’elettricità, il riscaldamento e la refrigerazione”, con l’obiettivo di mettere a punto una serie di tecnologie, con azioni dimostrative ad hoc; - “Reti energetiche intelligenti”, con l’obiettivo di integrare nelle reti elettriche impianti alimentati con biomassa e di immettere biogas e gas di sintesi nella rete del gas naturale; - “Scienze della vita e biotecnologie per prodotti e processi sostenibili con finalità non alimentari”, nel cui ambito si prevede il ricorso alle biotecnologie per migliorare il rendimento, la sostenibilità e la composizione delle materie prime da biomassa e lo sviluppo di nuovi bioprocessi. Alcune delle aree di attività più importanti saranno: - lo sviluppo di una “piattaforma tecnologica consacrata ai biocarburanti” diretta dagli operatori del settore; - il concetto di “bioraffinazione”, per sfruttare al massimo tutte le parti delle piante; - la ricerca relativa ai biocarburanti di seconda generazione, per la quale si prevede un forte incremento dei finanziamenti comunitari. La Commissione studierà il modo migliore per far progredire la ricerca sull’ottimizzazione delle colture agricole e silvicole a finalità energetiche e sui processi di conversione. Attraverso il Programma energia intelligente per l’Europa, la Commissione finanzierà la divulgazione di tecniche la cui validità è stata dimostrata dalla ricerca. Informazioni più particolareggiate sono contenute nell’allegato 12. 7. CONCLUSIONE L’Europa deve porre fine alla sua dipendenza dai combustibili fossili. La biomassa è una delle principali soluzioni possibili. Occorre sviluppare a livello europeo delle misure economicamente efficienti a favore della biomassa al fine di: - trarre il massimo profitto dall'innovazione a livello nazionale e locale; - offrire chiare prospettive alle grandi industrie organizzate su scala europea; - ripartire equamente gli oneri. La presente comunicazione presenta un programma coordinato di azione a livello comunitario, comprendente delle misure volte ad incrementare la domanda di biomassa, a migliorare l’approvvigionamento, a superare gli ostacoli di natura tecnica e a sviluppare la ricerca. Il piano, la cui elaborazione ha richiesto quasi un anno, si basa sui risultati di una vasta consultazione delle parti interessate.[41] L’idea di una energica strategia comunitaria in questo settore è stata accolta in modo largamente e, spesso, estremamente positivo. Il prossimo passo sarà la realizzazione concreta del programma. Il libro verde su una politica energetica europea coerente, da lanciare nella prossima primavera, tratterà dei progressi realizzati e degli sviluppi futuri. 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 EU25. 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 EU25. 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 of 10.4.03, p.1 | N461/01 IT | Biodiesel | OJ C 146 of 19.6.02,p.6 | N480/02 SE | All CO2-neutral fuels | OJ C 33 of 6.2.2004, p.7 | N804/01 UK | Biodiesel | OJ C 238 of 3.10.02, p.10 | N512/02 SE | Biofuel pilot projects | OJ C 75 of 27.3.03, p.2 | N685/02 DE | Bioethanol, biodiesel and vegetable oils | OJ C 86 of 6.4.04, p.15 | N717/02 IT | Bioethanol and ETBE | OJ C 16 of 22.1.04, p.22 | N407/03 UK | Bioethanol | OJ C 193 of 28.4.05, 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 of 31.5.05, p.2 | N582/04 IT | Biodiesel (prolongation of N461/01) | Not published yet | N599/04 IRL | Biodiesel, bioethanol and vegetable oils | OJ C 98 of 22.4.05, 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 27.06.2005), 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 replace solid, liquid and gaseous fossil fuels, either fully or in blends of various percentages, in which case often there is no need for equipment modifications. - Biomass is the only renewable energy source that cannot be found free; it necessitates a long chain of activities such as planting, growing, harvesting, pre-treatment (storage and drying) and upgrading to a fuel and, finally, mechanical, thermochemical or biological conversion into an energy carrier (power, heat or biofuels for transport). Therefore, biofuels (with the exception of untreated municipal waste) always have an associated cost that has to be borne by the final user. - Since land availability is limited there could come a point in the future when biomass for energy will have to compete with food, materials, bio-chemicals and carbon sinks. However, this point in time is beyond 2020, and if international trade in biomass fuels becomes effective could lie beyond 2050. - Environmental concerns must also be addressed whenever biomass is grown for food, products or fuels. This has to be done by taking an overall systems approach and by comparisons with other alternatives and not in isolation.[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic] [1] Trattate nel “Libro verde sull'efficienza energetica – fare di più con meno”, recentemente pubblicato. [2] Tra questi meccanismi figurano il Forum europeo dell’energia e dei trasporti, il Forum di “Amsterdam” per l’energia sostenibile, il Forum di “Berlino” per i combustibili fossili, il Forum di “Firenze”per la regolamentazione dell’energia elettrica e il Forum di “Madrid”per la regolamentazione del gas. La Commissione ha inoltre deciso recentemente di istituire un gruppo ad alto livello per la competitività, l’energia e l’ambiente. [3] Tale valore varia dal 44%, se si usa il metodo di sostituzione, al 65% in base al metodo classico. Si rinvia alla sezione 2 della valutazione d'impatto. [4] “La quota di fonti energetiche rinnovabili nell’UE”, COM (2004) 366, punto 4.3.1. [5] Conclusioni della presidenza del Consiglio europeo di Bruxelles (25-26 marzo 2004). [6] Risoluzione sulle “Fonti energetiche rinnovabili nell'Unione”, seduta plenaria del 28 settembre 2005. [7] Milioni di tonnellate equivalenti di petrolio. [8] Agenzia europea dell’ambiente, “Briefing 2/2005 -How much biomass can Europe use without harming the environment”, cfr. allegato 2. [9] A titolo illustrativo, si pensi che in Bulgaria e Romania per ogni abitante vi sono 0,7 ettari di terreno agricolo, contro lo 0,4 nell’UE a venticinque. [10] Cfr. allegato 3 e la valutazione d’impatto. [11] Tali obiettivi sono: una quota globale del 12% per l’energia da fonti rinnovabili, del 21% per il settore dell’elettricità e del 5,75% per i biocarburanti, entro il 2010. La Commissione calcola che, con le misure previste nel piano d’azione, tali obiettivi potranno essere raggiunti, per quanto riguarda la quota globale, se non entro il 2010, per lo meno uno o due anni dopo tale data. [12] Cfr. la valutazione d’impatto, sezione 5. [13] Cfr. la valutazione d’impatto, sezione 5. [14] Tale dato ipotizza che il 70-90% della biomassa sia prodotta nell'UE. Sotto il profilo dell’occupazione diretta, nell’UE l’intensità di manodopera per i biocarburanti è da 50 a 100 volte superiore a quella per i combustibili fossili, che costituiscono la loro alternativa. L’intensità di manodopera per la produzione di elettricità dalla biomassa è da 10 a 20 volte superiore e quella del riscaldamento da biomassa è doppia. I pareri circa gli effetti indiretti sono contrastanti. Taluni rilevano effetti moltiplicatori o possibilità di esportazione che p