LT    LT  EUROPOS BENDRIJ Ų KOMISIJA 
Briuselis, 07.12.2005 
KOM(2005) 628 galutinis 
  
KOMISIJOS KOMUNIKATAS 
Biomasės naudojimo veiksm ų planas 
{SEC(2005) 1573} 
 
LT 2   LT KOMISIJOS KOMUNIKATAS 
Biomasės naudojimo veiksm ų planas 
1. ĮVADAS 
Energija yra pagrindas, kuriuo remdamasi Euro pa gali siekti augimo, užimtumo ir tvarumo 
tikslų. Didelės naftos kainos rodo vis stipr ėjančią Europos priklausomyb ę nuo importuojamos 
energijos.  
Europos S ąjunga turi ryžtingai spr ęsti šį sunkų uždavinį. 2005 met ų spalio m ėn. Hemptono 
rūmuose vykusiame neformaliame vadov ų susitikime S ąjungos valstybi ų ir vyriausybi ų 
vadovai patvirtino, kad energetikos politika yra vienas svarbiausi ų klausim ų Europai 
sprendžiant globalizacijos problemas. 
Atsižvelgdama į tai, Komisija šiuo metu iš pagrind ų peržiūri savo energetikos politik ą. 2006 
metų pavasarį šia tema bus parengta Žalioji knyga, kur ioje bus numatyti trys pagrindiniai 
tikslai: konkurencingumas, tvarumas ir tiekimo saugumas.  
Didesnio ekonomikos augimo s ąlygomis esminiai šios politikos  elementai yra šie: poreikis 
sumažinti energijos paklaus ą1; atsinaujinan čių energijos šaltini ų svarbos didinimas 
atsižvelgiant į jų gamybos S ąjungoje potencial ą ir jų tvarumą, energijos šaltini ų įvairinimas, 
tarptautinio bendradarbiavimo skatinimas. Šie elementai gali pad ėti Europai tapti mažiau 
priklausoma nuo energijos importo, didinti tvarum ą ir skatinti augim ą bei užimtum ą. 
Norint sėkmingai siekti ši ų tikslų, reikalingas nuoseklus administravimas ir tinkami 
tvarkaraščiai. Prireiks mechanizm ų, kurių pagalba į šį procesą būtų įtraukiamos valstyb ės 
narės, taip pat Europos Parlamento ir suinteresuot ųjų šalių atstovai2. 
Taigi šį veiksmų planą Komisija pateikia remdamasi platesne prasme suprantama integruota 
bei nuoseklia energetikos politika, ypa č skatinimu naudoti atsinaujinan čius energijos šaltinius. 
Jis yra tik vienas iš vis ų priemoni ų, kuriomis reik ėtų siekti aukš čiau išdėstytų tikslų, 
elementų; tačiau tai labai svarbus elementas, nes biomas ė šiuo metu sudaro maždaug pus ę ES 
naudojamos atsinaujinan čios energijos3.  
Savo 2004 met ų Komunikate d ėl atsinaujinan čios energijos dalies Europos S ąjungoje Europos 
Komisija įsipareigojo parengti biomas ės naudojimo veiksm ų planą, pabrėždama, kad 
reikalingas koordinuotas poži ūris į biomasės politiką. 4 2004 m. pavasario Vadov ų Tarybos 
susitikime buvo padaryta išvada, kad naudoti daugiau atsinaujinan čios energijos b ūtina dėl 
                                                 
1 Šis klausimas keltas neseniai parengtoje Žaliojoje knygoje „Apie energijos efektyvum ą arba kaip 
mažesnėmis sąnaudomis sutaupyti daugiau energijos“, KOM (2005) 265. 
2 Šiems mechanizmams bus priskirti Energetikos ir  transporto forumas, „A msterdamo“ tvariosios 
energijos forumas, „Berlyno“ iškastinio kuro foru mas, „Florencijos“ elektros energijos reguliavimo 
forumas ir „Madrido“ duj ų reguliavimo forumas. Be to Komisija neseniai nusprend ė įkurti aukšto lygio 
grupę, skirtą konkurencingumo, energetikos ir aplinkosaugos reikalams. 
3 44 % pagal „pakeitimo metod ą“, 65 % pagal „klasikin į metodą“ (žr. poveikio įvertinimą, 2 skirsnį). 
4 „Atsinaujinan čios energijos dalis ES“, KOM (2004) 366, 4.3.1 skirsnis. 
 
LT 3   LT „aplinkosaugos ir konkurencingumo priežas čių“5, o Europos Parlamentas neseniai pažym ėjo, 
kad „biomas ė turi daug privalum ų, palyginti su tradiciniais energijos šaltiniais ir net kai 
kuriomis kitomis atsinaujinan čios energijos r ūšimis, pirmiausia d ėl palyginti maž ų sąnaudų, 
mažesnės priklausomyb ės nuo trumpalaiki ų oro permain ų, regionini ų ekonomini ų struktūrų 
vystymosi skatinimo ir alternatyvi ų pajamų šaltinių teikimo ūkininkams“6. 
Šiame veiksm ų plane nustatomos priemon ės, turinčios paspartinti biomas ės energijos 
gamybos iš medienos, atliek ų ir žemės ūkio kultūrų, kuriant rinkos d ėsniais paremtus stimulus 
šiai energijai naudoti ir šalinant kli ūtis, neleidžian čias šiai rinkai vystytis. Taip Europa gal ės 
tapti mažiau priklausoma nuo iškastin io kuro, sumažinti šiltnamio efekt ą sukelian čių dujų 
išmetimą ir pagyvinti ekonomin ę veiklą kaimo vietov ėse. Visos priemon ės išvardijamos 1 
priede. 
Šis veiksm ų planas yra pirmasis koordinuojantis etapas. Jame nustatomos biomas ės 
naudojim ą šildymui, elektros energijos gamybai ir transportui skatinan čios priemon ės, bei 
bendrosios priemon ės, skirtos biomas ės tiekimui, finansavimui ir moksliniams tyrimams. Šis 
planas papildomas bendru poveikio vertinimu. Antrajame etape bus pasi ūlytos atskiros 
priemonės, atsižvelgiant į poveikio vertinim ą laikantis Komisijos taisykli ų. 
1.1. Biomas ės potencialas 
Šiuo metu iš biomas ės gaunama energija tenkina 4 % ES  energijos poreikio. Išnaudodama 
visą potencial ą ES galėtų iki 2010 met ų padidinti biomas ės naudojim ą daugiau negu du kartus 
(nuo 69 mtoe7 2003 metais iki maždaug 185 mtoe 2010  metais), laikydamasi geros žem ės 
ūkio praktikos, išsaugodama tvari ą biomasės gamybą ir tik nežymiai paveikdama vidaus 
maisto produkt ų gamybą8. Bulgarijai ir Rumunijai tapus valstyb ėmis narėmis atsiras daugiau 
galimybių naudoti biomas ę9, o importo teikiamos galimyb ės vis dar did ėja.  
Komisijos vertinimu, šio veiksm ų plano priemon ės galėtų padidinti biomas ės naudojim ą iki 
maždaug 150 mtoe 2010 metais arba netrukus po to10. Tai nėra visas biomas ės potencialas; tai 
tik skaičiai, atitinkantys orientacinius atsinaujinan čios energijos naudojimo tikslus11. 
1.2. Išlaidos ir nauda 
Keleto mokslini ų ir ekonomini ų tyrimų rezultatai rodo, kad šitaip padid ėjęs naudojamos 
biomasės kiekis 2010 metais gal ėtų atnešti tokios naudos:  
• vyktų Europos energijos tiekimo diversifikavimas, 5 % padid ėtų atsinaujinan čios energijos 
naudojimas, o priklausomyb ė nuo importuojamos energijos sumaž ėtų nuo 48 % iki 42 %12; 
                                                 
5 Briuselio Europos Taryba, 2004 m. kovo 25 ir 26 d., pirmininkaujan čios valstyb ės narės išvados. 
6 Rezoliucija d ėl „Atsinaujinan čios energijos dalies ES“, 2005 m. rugs ėjo 28 d. plenarinis pos ėdis. 
7 Mln. ton ų naftos atitikmuo. 
8 Europos aplinkos agent ūra, pasitarimas tema „Kiek biomas ės Europa gali naudoti nedarydama žalos 
aplinkai?“, 2005 m. vasario m ėn. žr. 2 pried ą. 
9 Pavyzdžiui, tiek Bulgarijoje, tiek Rumunijoje vienam gyventojui tenka po 0,7 h žem ės ūkio naudmen ų, 
palyginti su 0,4 h 25 valstybi ų narių ES. 
10 Žr. 3 pried ą ir poveikio vertinim ą. 
11 Šie tikslai yra: iki 2010 met ų pasiekti 12 % bendro atsinaujinan čios energijos naudojimo, 21 % 
atsinaujinan čios energijos elektros energijos sektoriuje ir 5,75 % biokuro. Komisijos vertinimu, 
veiksmų plano priemon ės padėtų šiuos tikslus pasiekti, o bendras tikslas veikiausiai gal ėtų būti 
pasiektas jei ne 2010 metais, tai vieneriais ar dvejais metais v ėliau. 
 
LT 4   LT • per metus šiltnamio efekt ą sukeliančių CO 2 ekvivalento duj ų išmetimas sumaž ėtų 209 mln. 
tonų;13 
• tiesiogiai įdarbinta b ūtų iki 250–300 t ūkst. žmoni ų, daugiausia kaimo vietov ėse (skirtingais 
tyrimais gaunami labai skirtingi skai čiai);14 
• dėl mažesnės naftos paklausos potencialiai b ūtų pristabdytas naftos kain ų augimas. 
Padarius prielaid ą, kad iškastinio kuro kainos bus maždaug 10 % žemesn ės negu dabar, 
galima sp ėti, kad tiesiogiai apskai čiuojamos išlaidos sudarys 9 mlrd. EUR per metus: 6 mlrd. 
EUR transporto biokurui ir 3 mlrd. EUR elektros gamybai iš biomas ės (šildymui naudojama 
biomasė dažnai yra ekonomiškai konkurencinga)15. Tai atitinka maždaug 1,5 cento vienam 
litrui benzino arba dyzelino ir  0,1 cento už kilovatvaland ę elektros pabrangim ą16.  
Naudos taip pat galima gau ti didinant ES technologin į pirmavim ą šiuose sektoriuose. 
Tiek naudos galima tik ėtis nesukeliant papildomos taršos ir nedarant jokios kitos žalos 
aplinkai17. 
Komisija šiuo metu vertina, koki ą vietą tarp visų kitų energijos r ūšių iki 2020 met ų galėtų 
užimti atsinaujinanti energija. Šis veiksm ų planas iki 2020 met ų galėtų padidinti naudojamos 
atsinaujinan čios energijos vaidmen į. 
1.3. Biomas ės naudojimas transportui, elektros  energijos ir šilumos gamybai 
Per pastaruosius ketverius metus naftos kain a išaugo trigubai. Transporto sektorius yra 
pagrindinis ekonomikos sektorius; beveik visa transportui skirta  energija gaunama iš naftos. 
Skystasis biokuras yra vienintelis transportui tin kamas tiesioginis naftos pakaitalas, taigi šiuo 
metu politikoje jam skiriamas didžiulis d ėmesys yra pateisinamas.  
Be to, dėl nuolatinio transporto sektoriaus augimo  kol kas nepavyksta stabilizuoti šiltnamio 
efektą sukeliančių dujų išmetimo, nepaisant nemaž ų pramonės atstovų pastangų. Biokuras yra 
brangus b ūdas šiltnamio efekt ą sukeliančių dujų išmetimui mažinti, ta čiau transporto srityje 
yra tik dvi priemon ės, iš kuri ų būtų galima tik ėtis akivaizdaus situacijos pager ėjimo 
artimiausioje ateityje. (kita priemon ė būtų automobili ų gamintoj ų susitarimas sumažinti nauj ų 
automobili ų CO 2 išmetimą (žr. 4.2 skirsn į)). 
                                                                                                                                                         
12 Žr. poveikio įvertinimą, 5 skirsnį. 
13 Žr. poveikio įvertinimą, 5 skirsnį. 
14 Šis skai čius pateikiamas darant prielaid ą, kad 70–90 % biomas ės pagaminama ES. Tiesioginis 
užimtumas biokuro gamyboje ES paprastai yra 50–100 kart ų didesnis negu iškastinio kuro gamyboje, 
biomasės elektros energijos gamyboje 10–20 kart ų didesnis negu kitose energijos gamybos srityse, o 
šildymo biomase srityje užimtumas yra didesnis du kartus. Ekspertai n ėra vieningos nuomon ės dėl 
netiesioginio poveikio. Kai kurie iš j ų nurodo koeficientus arba eksporto galimybes, kurios gali 
padvigubinti tiesioginio poveikio mast ą. Kiti teigia, kad darbo vietos bioenergetikos sektoriuje pakeis 
kitas darbo vietas, o bendras poveikis užimtumui bus lygus nuliui. (Žr. poveikio įvertinimą, 5 skirsnį.) 
15 Žr. poveikio įvertinimą, 5 skirsnį. 
16 Nafta kainuoja apie 60 JAV doleri ų už barelį arba (pagal šiandienin į valiutų keitimo kurs ą) 48 eurus už 
barelį. Kad biodyzelinas gal ėtų konkuruoti su nafta, jos kaina tur ėtų būti maždaug 75 EUR už barel į, o 
bioetanolis – maždaug 95 EUR. Jeigu iškastinio kuro kaina atspind ėtų netiesiogines išlaidas, 
ekonomiškai konkurencingomis tapt ų daugiau biomas ės formų. 
17 Žr. 4 pried ą. 
 
LT 5   LT 2006 metų pradžioje Komisija pasi ūlys special ų biokurui skirt ą komunikat ą. 
Nors biokuro naudojimas transpor tui labiausiai skatina užimtum ą, o jo tiekimas yra 
patikimiausias, ta čiau biomas ės naudojimas elektros gamybai gali duoti didžiausios naudos 
mažinant šiltnamio efekt ą sukeliančių dujų išmetimą, o jos naudojimas šilumos gamybai yra 
pigiausias. Biomas ės naudojim ą reikėtų skatinti visuose trijuose sektoriuose. Bent iki 2010 
metų didelės konkurencijos d ėl žaliavų nebus: biokuro gamybai daugiausiai naudojamos 
žemės ūkio kultūros, o elektros energijai bei š ildymui – mediena ir atliekos.  
2. BIOMAS ĖS NAUDOJIMAS  ŠILUMOS  GAMYBAI 
Biomasės naudojimo gyvenam ųjų namų ir pramoniniam šildymui technologija yra paprasta ir 
pigi. Biomas ės naudojimas čia turi tvirtas tradicijas; šiame sektoriuje jos naudojama 
daugiausiai. Įdiegtų naujų metodų pagalba mediena ir švarios atliekos gali b ūti perdirbamos į 
standartizuotas granules, kurios nekenki a aplinkai ir yra patogios naudoti.  
Nepaisant ši ų privalum ų, biomasės naudojimas šildymui did ėja lėčiausiai.  
Atidžiai kontroliuodama Bendrijos teis ės aktų dėl termofikacijos18 – svarbios biomas ės 
realizavimo rinkos – įgyvendinim ą, Komisija spr ęs šį klausimą tokiomis priemon ėmis: 
2.1. Teis ės aktai dėl atsinaujinan čios energijos naudojimo šilumos gamybai 
Jau turint direktyvas d ėl elektros energijos ir transporto, šie aktai yra tr ūkstama galvos ūkio 
dalis. Komisija ketina prad ėti šių teisės aktų rengimą 2006 metais. Tam reikia kiek kitokio 
požiūrio negu ankstesn ėse direktyvose, nes pagrindin ės problemos yra susijusios su 
pasitikėjimu rinka ir skirtingais poži ūriais, o ne išlaidomis. Nagrin ėtini elementai yra šie: 
• Nauji specifiniai teis ės aktai d ėl atsinaujinan čios energijos naudojimo šildymui, kuri ų 
pagrindą sudaro:  
- priemoni ų, užtikrinan čių, kad kuro tiek ėjai aprūpins reikiamu biomas ės kuru;  
- biomas ės ir įrenginių, kuriuose ji naudojama, veiksmingumo kriterij ų 
nustatymo;  
- įrangos ženklinimo, padedan čio žmon ėms įsigyti švari ų ir veiksming ų 
įrenginių;  
- kitų techninių priemoni ų;  
- tiksl ų nustatymo tinkamumo, ir  
- nepriverstini ų susitarim ų su pramon ės atstovais 
• kritiškas įvertinimas, atsižvelgiant į jų potenciali ą naudą. Direktyvos d ėl pastatų energinio 
naudingumo dalinis pakeitimas, siekiant paskatinti naudoti atsinaujinan čią energiją.19 
                                                 
18 Direktyva 2004/8/EB d ėl termofikacijos skatinimo, 2004 2 11. 
19 Direktyva 2002/91/EB d ėl pastatų energinio naudingumo, OL L1, 2003 1 4, žr. 5 pried ą. 
 
LT 6   LT • Mokslinis tyrimas, siekiant išsiaiškinti, kaip įmanoma gerinti buitini ų biomase k ūrenamų 
katilų eksploatavim ą ir sumažinti tarš ą20, kad būtų galima nustatyti reikalavimus pagal 
ekologinio projektavimo direktyv ą21. 
2.2. Centralizuoto šildymo atnaujinimas 
Centralizuotam (kolektyviniam) šildym ui daug lengviau naudoti atsinaujinant į kurą, deginant 
daugiau kuro r ūšių ir išmetant į orą mažiau duj ų. Plėtoti biomas ės naudojim ą centralizuotam 
šildymui yra lengviau negu individualiam šildymui. 
56 mln. ES gyventoj ų šiluma tiekiama centralizuotai; 61 % j ų gyvena naujosiose valstyb ėse 
narėse. Bulgarijai ir Rumunijai tapus valstyb ėmis narėmis, centralizuotu šildymu 
besinaudojan čių gyventoj ų dar padaug ės. Tačiau čia kelia problem ų centralizuoto šildymo 
konkuravimas su individualiu šildymu. Daugumai sistem ų reikia šiuolaikišk ų įrenginių, 
infrastrukt ūros ir valdymo, kad b ūtų galima s ėkmingiau naudoti kur ą, kad jos tapt ų 
ekonomiškesn ės ir patogesn ės naudoti. Sistemas reikia pertvarkyti, kad jose b ūtų galima kurui 
naudoti biomas ę. Komisija skatina šiuo b ūdu tobulinti centralizuoto šildymo sistemas. 
Komisija ragina Taryb ą pritarti jos pasi ūlymui įtraukti centralizuot ą šildymo tiekim ą į prekių 
ir paslaug ų, kurioms valstyb ės narės gali taikyti sumažint ą PVM tarif ą, sąrašą22. Tokiu atveju 
Komisija rekomenduot ų valstybėms narėms centralizuotam šildymui taikyti bet kuri ą 
sumažintą PVM norm ą, kuri jau taikoma gamtin ėms dujoms ar elektros energijai. 
Komisija taip pat gali pateikti pasi ūlymą dėl teisės akto, skirto centralizuoto šildymo 
mokesčių klausimams. Be to, Komisija  ketina ištirti, ar tuo pa čiu metu nereik ėtų pasiūlyti ir 
kitokių priemoni ų. 
3. ELEKTROS  ENERGIJOS  GAMYBA  IŠ BIOMAS ĖS 
Elektros energij ą galima gaminti iš vis ų rūšių biomasės, naudojant kelet ą technologij ų (žr. 6 
priedą). Komisija skatina valstybes nares naudo ti visus ekonomiškus elektros gamybos iš 
biomasės būdus. 
Direktyvoje d ėl elektros gamybos iš atsinaujinan čių energijos ištekli ų numatoma biomas ės 
naudojimo elektros gamybai sistema23. Valstyb ės narės yra įsipareigojusios siekti elektros 
gamybos iš atsinaujinan čios energijos šaltini ų tikslų. Daugelis ši ų tikslų atrodo nepasiekiami, 
jei nebus naudojama daugiau biomas ės24. Todėl direktyvos įgyvendinimas turi ypating ą 
                                                 
20 Jeigu biomas ė deginama be reikiamos prieži ūros, ji gali tapti dideliu taršos šaltiniu. Taip atsitinka 
nelegaliai deginant atliekas arba naudojant biomas ės katilus be tinkamos degimo kontrol ės ir taršos 
prevencijos. Šiuolaikiški granul ėmis kūrenami katilai ir centralizuoto šildymo katilin ės aplinką teršia 
gerokai mažiau. 
21 Direktyva 2005/32/EB, nustatanti ekologinio projektavimo reikalavim ų energiją vartojantiems 
gaminiams nustatymo sistem ą, OL L191, 2005 7 22. 
22 KOM (2003) 397, 2003 7 23. 
23 2001 m. rugs ėjo 27 d. Direktyva 2001/77/EB d ėl elektros, pagamintos iš atsinaujinan čiųjų energijos 
išteklių, skatinimo elektros energijos vidaus rinkoje, OL L283, 2001 10 27. 
24 Praeit ų metų komunikate d ėl atsinaujinan čios energijos naudojimo Komisija atkreip ė dėmesį į tai, kad 
iš trijų pagrindini ų elektros gamybai naudojam ų atsinaujinan čios energijos šaltini ų vandens energijos 
naudojimas beveik nekinta, biomas ės naudojimas did ėja pamažu, o v ėjo energijos naudojimas did ėja 
sparčiai. Direktyvos tikslai nebus pasiekti, jeigu biomas ės naudojimo augimas nepagreit ės. 
 
LT 7   LT reikšmę biomasės naudojimui elektros gamyboje. Komisija ir toliau ketina skirti tam daug 
dėmesio25. 
Mišriose šilum ą ir elektros energij ą gaminan čiose jėgainėse iš biomas ės galima tuo pa čiu 
metu gaminti šilum ą ir elektros energij ą. Komisija skatina vals tybes nares savo paramos 
sistemose atkreipti d ėmesį į šių jėgainių teikiamą dvigubą naudą. 
4. TRANSPORTUI  NAUDOJAMAS  BIOKURAS 
4.1. Biokuro direktyvos įgyvendinimas 
Kaip ir elektros gamyboje, biokuro naudojim as transportui yra nus tatytas Bendrijos teis ės 
aktu, būtent, biokuro direktyva26, kurioje nustatomos ši os rekomenduojamos vert ės: 2005 
metais biokuro naudojimas turi apimti 2 % visos rinkos, o 2010 metais – 5,75 %27. 
2005 met ų rekomenduojamos vert ės jau nepavyks pasiekti. Valstybi ų narių pastangos šiuo 
atžvilgiu labai skiriasi28. Net jeigu visos valstyb ės narės pasieks užsibr ėžtus tikslus, biokuras 
užims tik 1,4 % rinkos dalies.  
Dauguma valstybi ų narių įgyvendindamos ši ą direktyv ą remiasi atleidimu nuo kuro 
mokesčių29. Tokioms lengvatoms taikoma valstyb ės pagalbos kontrol ė. Komisija, 
atsižvelgdama į valstybės pagalbos aplinkosaugai gaires, palankiai įvertino gaut ą informacij ą. 
Tačiau kilo daug praktinio pob ūdžio sunkum ų. Dalis valstybi ų narių neseniai prad ėjo taikyti 
biokuro tiekimo prievoles, reikalaudamos, kad kur ą tiekiančios įmonės kartu su kitu rinkai 
tiekiamu kuru tiekt ų ir nustatyt ą procentin į kiekį biokuro. Išsamesn ė informacija apie šiuos 
metodus pateikiama 9 priede. Atrodo, kad biokuro tiekimo prievol ės yra perspektyvus b ūdas 
įveikti sunkumus, susijusius su atleidimu nuo mokes čių, ir užtikrinti ekonomišk ą bei tikslų 
įgyvendinim ą. Jie taip pat sudaro palankias s ąlygas naudoti antrosios kartos biokur ą; Komisija 
palaiko tok į požiūrį.  
Komisija, laikydamasi biokuro dire ktyvos, 2006 metais parengs pranešim ą apie jos 
įgyvendinim ą. Neatmetama ir direktyvos perži ūrėjimo galimyb ė. Pranešime bus aptariami 
tokie klausimai: 
• nacionaliniai tikslai d ėl biokuro užimamos vietos rinkoje;  
• biokuro tiekimo prievoli ų taikymas;  
• būtinybė pasitelkti sertifikat ų sistemą, pagal kuri ą siekiant min ėtų tikslų būtų atsižvelgiama 
tik į tokį biokurą, kurio žaliava auginama laikantis bent minimali ų tvarumo standart ų30. 
                                                 
25 Žr. atskir ą komunikat ą dėl paramos atsinaujinan čios energijos naudojimui elektros energijos gamyboje 
(KOM(2005) 627).  
26 2003 m. kovo 8 d. Direktyva 2003/30/EB d ėl skatinimo naudoti biokur ą ir kitą atsinaujinant į kurą 
transporte, OL L123, 2003 5 17. 
27 Žr. 7 pried ą. 
28 Žr. 8 pried ą. 
29 Jo taikym ą palengvina 2003 m. spalio 27 d. Direktyva 2003/96/EB, pakei čianti Bendrijos energetikos 
produktų ir elektros energijos mokes čių struktūrą, OL L283, 2003 10 31. 
30 Komisija taip pat ieškos b ūdų, kaip minimalius tvarumo standartus b ūtų galima pritaikyti ir kitiems 
energiniams tikslams naudojamai biomasei. 
 
LT 8   LT Sertifikatų sistema tur ėtų būti nešališku princi pu taikoma šalies viduje gaminamam ir 
importuojamam kurui. 
4.2. Transporto priemoni ų rinka 
Komisija netrukus pasi ūlys teisės aktą, skatinant į švarių transporto priemoni ų, varomų degalų 
mišiniais, kuriuose didel ę dalį sudaro biokuras, viešuosius pirkimus31.  
Komisija tiria, kiek alternatyvi ų degalų, įskaitant biokur ą, naudojimas gali pasitarnauti 
mažinant mažos keliamosios galios transporto priemoni ų išmetamų CO 2 dujų kiekį. Tai yra 
Komisijos tyrimo dalis, norint išsiaiškinti, kokiais b ūdais galima siekti Bendrijos tikslo 
nustatyti 120 g/km vidutin į išmetamųjų dujų kiekį. Ateities strategija, kuri tur ės būti pasiūlyta 
2006 m., bus pagr įsta „integruotu poži ūriu“. Tai reiškia, kad automobili ų gamintojai tur ės 
stengtis priemoni ų technologij ų srityje taikyti tokias pr iemones kaip biokuro naudojim ą, 
mokesčių lengvatas, informacijos vartotojams teikim ą ir kamš čių vengimą. Taikant ši ą 
strategiją bus atsižvelgiama į automobili ų pramonės ateities strategij ą, kuriai pasi ūlymas bus 
pateiktas irgi 2006 m.   
4.3. Vidaus gamybos ir importo pusiausvyra 
Biokuru ir jo žaliavomis prekiaujama pasaulio  rinkose. Tenkinant ES poreikius, autarkija 
biokuro atžvilgiu yra ne įmanoma ir nepageidautina. Ta čiau Sąjunga, skatindama vidaus 
produkcij ą arba import ą, turi tam tikr ą veiksmų laisvę. 10 priede apib ūdinama dabartin ė 
prekybos bioetanoliu situacija. 11 priede įvertinami trys b ūdai, kaip galima pasiekti 5,75 % 
biokuro rinkos dal į. Tai yra:  
- minimalios importo dalies nustatymas;  - maksimalios importo dalies nustatymas; - subalansuotas poži ūris. 
Komisija teikia pirmenyb ę subalansuotam poži ūriui. Todėl ji: 
• pasiūlys standarto EN14214 dalin į pakeitim ą, siekdama palengvinti įvairesnių augalinių 
aliejų naudojim ą biodyzelino gamybai tokiu mastu, kad nekilt ų pastebim ų kuro 
eksploatacijos tr ūkumų; 
• spręs biokuro direktyvos pakeitimo klausim ą taip, kad siekiant tos direktyvos tiksl ų būtų 
atsižvelgiama tik į biokurą, gaminam ą laikantis bent minimali ų tvarumo standart ų; 
• sieks išlaikyti ne mažiau palankia s importuojamo bioetanolio patekimo į rinką sąlygas 
negu tos, kurios šiuo metu yra nustatytos prekybos susitarimais; 
• vis dar vykstan čiose derybose d ėl laisvos prekybos susitarimo su etanol į gaminan čiomis 
šalimis ir (arba) regionais laikysis pusiausvyros principo. Did ėjant biokuro paklausai, ES 
privalo gerbti vidaus gamintoj ų ir ES prekybos partneri ų interesus; 
                                                
 
31 Viešieji pirkimai taip pat vaidina svarb ų vaidmen į skatinant kit ų biomasės formų, ypač naudojam ų 
šildymui, taikym ą. 
 
LT 9   LT • rems besivystan čias šalis, norin čias gaminti biokur ą ir vystyti savo vidaus rinkas. Tai yra 
ypatingai svarbu atsižvelgiant į cukraus sektoriaus reformas32. 
Komisija pateiks šiuos tikslus dvišal ėse derybose (pvz., su Piet ų Amerikos bendrosios rinkos 
valstybėmis) ir daugiašal ėse derybose (pvz., Pasaulio prekybos organizacijos deryb ų etape 
Dohoje ir diskusijoje d ėl prekybos ekologiškai švariomis prek ėmis).  
4.4. Standartai 
Degalų kokybės direktyva33 nustato etanoli o, eterio ir kit ų oksigenat ų kiekio benzine 
apribojimus. Ji taip pat apriboja benzino gar ų slėgį. Standarte EN590 yra nustatyta, kad 
dyzeline neturi b ūti daugiau kaip 5 % biodyzelino, skai čiuojant pagal t ūrį (4,6 % – energijos 
atžvilgiu). D ėl šių suvaržym ų sunku siekti, kad biokuro b ūtų naudojama daugiau. 
Šiuo metu Komisija persvarsto degal ų kokybės direktyv ą. Ji įvertins, kok į poveikį pasirinktos 
priemonės turėtų sprendžiant pirmiau min ėtus klausimus. Komisija  svarsto daug faktori ų, 
atsižvelgdama į susijusių sektorių sąnaudas ir jiems tenkan čią naudą. Svarstydama šias 
galimybes, Komisija, inter alia , atsižvelgs į:  
- poveik į sveikatai ir aplinkai ( įskaitant teršal ų ir šiltnamio efekt ą sukelian čių dujų 
išmetimą);  
- poveik į siekiant biokuro direktyvos tiksl ų ir išlaidas, reikalingas j ų siekiant. 
4.5. Technini ų kliūčių šalinimas 
Yra technini ų kliūčių, trukdan čių pradėti naudoti biokur ą. Pavyzdžiui, pramon ės atstovai 
teigia, kad:  
- etanolio ir benzino mišinio negalima transportuoti vamzdynais;  - nepraktiška si ūlyti benzino bazinio komponento, tinkamo tiesiogiai maišyti su 
etanoliu, kurio gar ų slėgis būtų mažesnis už įprastą. 
Komisija prašys, kad suinteresuot ų pramonės šakų atstovai pateikt ų techninį tokių kliūčių 
pagrindim ą, taip pat dom ėsis, ką apie tai mano kitos suinteresuotosios šalys. Ji steb ės 
susijusių pramonės šakų veiklą, norėdama įsitikinti, ar yra sudarytos vienodos s ąlygos 
biokurui naudoti. 
4.6. Etanolio naudojimas siekiant sumažinti dyzelino poreik į 
Dyzelinių transporto priemoni ų Europos transporto priemoni ų parke yra palyginti daug. 
Tačiau Europa turi daugiau galimybi ų gaminti ne dyzelin ą, o bioetanol į, naudodama mažiau 
žemės ir turėdama daugiau galimybi ų mažinti išlaidas d ėl masto ekonomijos. Taip pat yra 
galimybė padidinti etanolio import ą iš trečiųjų šalių. 
Komisija skatins etanolio naudojim ą, kad sumaž ėtų dyzelino poreikis, įskaitant ir 95 % 
etanolio naudojim ą modifikuotuose dyzeliniuos e varikliuose. Perži ūrėdama standart ą 
                                                
 
32 Šis aspektas bus toliau svarstomas rengiamame komunikate d ėl biokuro. 
33 1998 m. spalio 13 d. Direktyva 98/70/EB d ėl benzino ir dyzelini ų degalų (dyzelino) kokyb ės (OL L350, 
1998 12 28) su pakeitimais, padarytais 2003 m. kovo 3 d. Direktyva 2003/17/EB (OL L76, 2003 3 22). 
 
LT 10   LT EN14214, Komisija taip pat si ūlys apsvarstyti pakeitim ą, kuris leist ų biodyzelino gamyboje 
metanolį pakeisti etanoliu. 
5. BENDRIEJI  KLAUSIMAI 
5.1. Biomas ės tiekimas 
Visų pirmiau min ėtų priemoni ų taikymo s ėkmė priklauso nuo tinkamo biomas ės tiekimo. 
Šiame skirsnyje nustatomos priemon ės biomasės tiekimui skatinti.  
 
LT 11   LT Bendroji žem ės ūkio politika (BŽ ŪP) 
2003 m. BŽ ŪP reforma reiškia, kad parama ūkininkų pajamoms daugiau n ėra susijusi su tam 
tikromis auginamomis kult ūromis. Taip ūkininkams suteikiama galimyb ė laisvai prisitaikyti 
prie didėjančio energetini ų augalų poreikio. Šia reforma taip pat nustatyta speciali „pagalba už 
energetinius augalus“34 ir išlaikyta galimyb ė naudoti privalom ą „atidėtą“ žemę nemaistini ų 
augalų, įskaitant energetinius augalus, auginimu i. 2006 metais Komisija pateiks Tarybai 
pranešimą apie pagalbos energetini ų augalų auginimui įgyvendinim ą, jei reikia, kartu 
pateikdama pasi ūlymus, kuriuose bus atsižvelgiama į Sąjungos biokuro naudojimo tikslus.  
Anksčiau pasinaudoti parama pagal „atid ėtos žemės“ režimą buvo galima tik auginant ribot ą 
energetini ų augalų grupę. Po reformos ūkininkai gali auginti daugiau energetini ų augalų, 
įskaitant dažnos s ėjomainos jaunuolynus ir kitas daugiametes kult ūras. Sprendim ą, kokius 
energetinius augalus geriau  auginti, geriausia b ūtų priimti regioniniu arba vietos lygiu. 
Komisija ketina finansuoti informacin ę kampanij ą apie energetini ų augalų ypatybes ir 
galimybes, kurias teikia j ų auginimas35. Naujas poži ūris ypač svarbus veisiant spar čiai 
augančius jaunuolynus, nes ūkininkai turi užimti jiems skirt ą žemę kelerius metus, o iki 
pirmojo derliaus turi praeiti bent 4 metai.  
Miškininkyst ė 
Apie 35 % kasmet ES mišk ų tiekiamos medienos produkcijos lieka nepanaudota36. 
Daugumoje šali ų smulkių retinimo produkt ų rinka yra ribota, nors šie produktai gali b ūti 
naudojami šilumai ir elektros energ ijai gaminti. Didžioji dalis nepanaudot ų išteklių lieka 
nedidelėse privačiose valdose, tod ėl jų surinkimas yra sud ėtingas. Kai kurios šalys išsprend ė 
šią problem ą, greta esam ų įmonių įkurdamos tiekimo grandines ir remdamos logistines 
sistemas, miško savinink ų bendradarbiavim ą bei transporto organizavim ą. Komisija sieks 
skleisti ši ą vertingą patirtį ir rems panašias iniciatyvas kitose šalyse.  
Komisija šiuo metu rengia miškininkyst ės veiksmų planą, kuris bus priimtas 2006 metais; 
jame bus sprendžiamas medienos naudojimo energijos gamybai klausimas.  
Komisija įvertins energijos gaminimo iš medienos ir jos atliek ų poveikį su mišku susijusioms 
pramonės šakoms. 
Atliekos 
Atliekos yra nepakankamai naudojami energijos iš tekliai. Komisija šiuo metu rengia temin ę 
atliekų prevencijos ir perdirbimo strategij ą bei pasiūlymą dėl pagrindini ų atliekoms skirt ų 
teisės aktų peržiūrėjimo. Svarstomos šios galimos priemon ės: 
• atliekų tvarkymo metod ų, mažinan čių jų poveikį aplinkai naudojant ja s kurui, skatinimas; 
• į rinką orientuoto poži ūrio taikymas perdirbimui ir utilizavimo veiklai; 
• techninių standart ų, pagal kuriuos utilizuotos medžiagos b ūtų laikomos prek ėmis, 
rengimas. Tai leist ų lengviau panaudoti šias medžiagas energijos gamybai; 
                                                 
34 „Energetini ų augalų išmoka“, pagal kuri ą galima gauti 45 EUR priemok ą vienam h, skirta energetini ų 
augalų auginimui su nustatyta 1,5 mln. h didžiausio garantuoto ploto riba biudžete.  
35 Ši kampanija bus skirta ir miškininkystei. 
36 (Ne įtraukiami miškai saugomose vietov ėse, pvz., „Natura 2000“ vietov ėse.) 
 
LT 12   LT • investicijų į ekonomiškus metodus, kuriais b ūtų galima naudoti atliekas kurui, skatinimas. 
 
LT 13   LT Šalutiniai gyv ūninės kilmės produktai 
Netinkami vartoti žmon ėms šalutiniai gyv ūninės kilmės produktai vis pla čiau utilizuojami 
energijai, ypa č biodujoms ir biodyzelinui, gaminti. Technologin ės ir mokslin ės pažangos d ėka 
nuolat atrandami nauji gamybos procesai. Komi sija apsvarstys, kokia  sistema reikalinga 
tokiems procesams įteisinti, kad b ūtų galima diegti naujus energijos šaltinius, tuo pa čiu 
palaikant aukšt ą visuomen ės ir gyvūnų sveikatos apsaugos lyg į. 
Standartai  
Europos kietojo biomas ės kuro standartai reikalingi tam, kad palengvint ų prekybą, plėstų 
rinkas ir didint ų vartotojų pasitikėjimą. Šioje srityje dirba Europos  standartizacijos komitetas 
(CEN). Komisija paskatins j į suteikti šiam darbui ypatingos svarbos. 
Tiekimo grandini ų tobulinimas 
Prekybos granul ėmis ir drožl ėmis Europos rinka buvo sukurta pagal ES pažangios energetikos 
Europai program ą. Jos prekybos apimtis yra maža. Komisija ieškos b ūdų, kaip šiuos 
rezultatus pagerinti, siekdama sukurti vis ą ES apiman čią prekybos sistem ą (jei tai yra 
techniškai ir ekonomiškai įmanoma). 
Nacionaliniai biomas ės naudojimo veiksm ų planai 
Nacionaliniai biomas ės naudojimo veiksm ų planai gali su mažinti investuotoj ų abejones, 
įvertinus juose įvairių rūšių biomasės, įskaitant medien ą ir jos atliekas bei žem ės ūkio kultūrų 
atliekas, fizin į ir ekonomin į tinkamum ą, taip pat nusta čius, kokioms biomas ės rūšims bus 
teikiama pirmenyb ė, ir nurodžius atitinkamas skatinimo priemones, kuri ų bus imtasi 
nacionaliniu lygiu. Planus taip pat galima sieti su vartotojams skirtomis informacin ėmis 
kampanijomis apie biomas ės teikiam ą naudą. Būtų naudinga to paties imtis ir regioniniu 
lygiu. Komisija remia nacionalini ų biomasės veiksmų planų rengimą. 
5.2. ES finansin ė parama biomas ės energijos gamybai 
Daugelis region ų, gaunan čių paramą iš strukt ūrinių ir sanglaudos fond ų, turi didžiul į 
potencialą vystyti savo ekonomik ą ir kurti arba užtikrinti darbo vietas naudojant biomas ę. Tuo 
ypač pasižymi kaimiškieji centrin ės ir rytų Europos regionai. Mažos darbo s ąnaudos ir 
didžiuliai ištekliai gali suteikti šiems regionams s ąlyginį pranašum ą biomasės gamyboje. 
Todėl parama toki ų atsinaujinan čios ir alternatyvios energijos šaltini ų, kaip biomas ė, 
vystymui yra svarbus strukt ūrinių fondų ir sanglaudos fondo tikslas, kaip nustatyta Komisijos 
pasiūlyme dėl Bendrijos strategini ų sanglaudos gairi ų37. Šie fondai gali remti ūkininkų 
perkvalifikavim ą, biomas ės gamintoj ų aprūpinimą įranga, investicijas į biokuro ir kit ų 
medžiagų gamybos įrenginius, taip pat elektros gamybai skirto ir centralizuotam šildymui 
naudojamo kuro keitim ą biomase. 
Komisija ragina valstybes nares ir regionus, rengian čius nacionalinius stra teginius planus ir 
veiksmų programas, visapusiškai įvertinti potenciali ą naudą, kurią gali suteikti biomas ė. 
                                                 
37 KOM (2005) 299, 2005 7 5. 
 
LT 14   LT Ūkiuose ar šalia ūkių vykdomą veiklą, pavyzdžiui, biomas ės perdirbim ą, taip pat galima remti 
kaimo plėtros politikos priemon ėmis, kaip ir mišk ų savininkų turimos j ų iki šiol nenaudotos 
biomasės kaupim ą. Komisija pasi ūlė Bendrijai strategines kaimo pl ėtros gaires, kuriose 
pabrėžiama atsinaujinan čios energijos svarba, o biomas ės tiekimo grandin ės išskiriamos kaip 
ypatingai svarbios38. Komisija skatina valstybes nares pasinaudoti šiomis kaimo ekonomikos 
plėtros ir įvairinimo galimyb ėmis taikant nacionalines kaimo pl ėtros programas. Komisija 
siūlo sudaryti speciali ą ad hoc  grupę, kuri svarstyt ų biomasės galimybes ši ų program ų 
taikymo srityse. 
5.3. Valstyb ės pagalba 
Oficiali parama biomas ės gamybai ir naudojimui turi atitikti Bendrijos valstyb ės pagalbos 
politiką. Komisija gali patvirtinti pagalbos investicijoms ir veiklai teis ėtumą, remdamasi 
Bendrijos gair ėmis dėl valstybės pagalbos aplinkos apsaugai39. Šiose gair ėse atsižvelgiama į 
naudingą poveikį, kuriuo pasižymi iš biomas ės pagaminta energija pa lyginti su energija, 
gaminama iš iškastinio kuro. Remiamuose regionuose pagalba investicijoms gali b ūti 
derinama su bendrosios rinkos nuostatomis pagal nacionalin ės regionin ės pagalbos gaires40. 
Pernelyg dideli ų konkurencijos pažeidim ų neturėtų atsirasti. Taip pat žr. 9 pried ą. 
6. MOKSLINIAI  TYRIMAI 
Komisijos pasi ūlyme dėl Septintosios pagrind ų programos biomas ės moksliniams tyrimams 
teikiama ypatingai didel ė svarba. Ten pateikiama keletas veiksm ų, susijusių su biomas ės 
naudojimu: 
• „Biomasė kurui, elektros energijai, šil dymui ir aušinimui“, turint tiksl ą parengti ir 
pademonstruoti technologij ų paketą; 
• „Pažangieji energijos tinklai“, įskaitant biomasei pritaikyt ų įrenginių integravim ą į elektros 
energijos tinklus ir bioduj ų bei sintetini ų dujų tiekimą į gamtinių dujų tinklus; 
• „Gyvosios gamtos mokslai ir biotechnologij a tvariems (ne maisto) produktams ir 
procesams“, įskaitant biotechno logijos naudojim ą biomasės žaliavų produktyvumui, 
tvarumui bei sud ėčiai gerinti ir naujiems bi ologiniams procesams kurti. 
Tarp svarbiausi ų darbo sri čių bus: 
• Pramonės valdomos „Biokuro technologij ų platformos“ vystymas; 
• „Biologinio perdirbimo“ koncepcija, pagal kuri ą siekiama kuo efektyviau panaudoti visas 
augalų dalis; 
• Antrosios kartos biokuro moksliniai tyrimai, kuri ų finansavimui tikimasi gauti daug 
daugiau Bendrijos l ėšų. 
                                                 
38 KOM (2005) 304.  
39 OL C37, 2001 2 3, p.3. 
40 OL C 74, 1998 3 10, p. 9. 
 
LT 15   LT Komisija svarstys, kaip moksliniai tyrimai geriausiai gali pasitarnauti optimizuojant žem ės 
ūkio bei sumed ėjusių augalų naudojim ą energijos tikslams ir perdirbimo procesus. 
Vadovaudamasi Pažangios energetikos Europa i programa, Komisija rems moksliniais 
tyrimais patikrint ų metodų sklaidą. 
Daugiau informacijos pateikiama 12 priede. 
7. IŠVADA 
Europa turi mažinti savo priklausomyb ę nuo iškastinio kuro r ūšių. Biomasė yra vienas iš 
pagrindini ų pakaitalų iškastiniam kurui. Europos lygiu reikia taikyti biomas ės naudojim ą 
skatinančias ekonomiškas priemones, kad b ūtų galima: 
• maksimaliai naudotis nacionalin ėmis ir vietos naujov ėmis;  
• parodyti aiški ą ateities perspektyv ą pagrindin ėms Europos mastu valdomoms pramon ės 
šakoms;  
• sąžiningai paskirstyti prievoles.  
Šiuo komunikatu nustatoma koordinuota Bendrijos veiksm ų programa, įskaitant priemones, 
didinančias biomas ės paklaus ą, gerinančias tiekim ą, leidžian čias nugalėti technines kli ūtis ir 
plėtoti mokslinius tyrimus.  
Šio veiksm ų plano rengimas truko beveik metus. J į rengiant buvo nuolat konsultuojamasi su 
suinteresuotosiomis šalimis41. Jų požiūris į tai, kad šioje srityje Bendrija tur ėtų imtis ryžting ų 
priemonių, dažniausiai buvo teigiamas, net entuziastingas. Kitas et apas bus šios programos 
praktinis įgyvendinimas. 2006 m. pavasar į Žaliojoje knygoj e apie nuosekli ą Europos 
energijos politik ą bus kalbama apie pasiekt ą pažangą ir tolesnį vystymą. 
                                                 
41 Žr. 13 pried ą. 
 
LT 16   LT PRIEDAS 1 – Biomass action plan: summary of measures  
Biomass for heating and electricity  
The Commission will: 
• work towards a proposal for Community legi slation in 2006 to en courage the use of 
renewable energy, including bioma ss, for heating and cooling; 
• examine how the directive on energy performa nce of buildings could be amended to 
increase incentives for the use of renewable energy; 
• study how to improve the performance of hous ehold biomass boilers and reduce pollution, 
with a view to setting requi rements 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 poten tial 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 pr ovide heat and electricity at the same time. 
Transport biofuels  
The Commission will: 
• Bring forward a report in 2006 in view of a possibl e revision of the biofuels directive. This 
report will address the issues of:  
– setting national targets fo r 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 promoti ng public procurement of clean and efficient 
vehicles, including those usi ng high blends of biofuels. 
 
LT 17   LT • Examine how biofuel use can count towards the CO 2 emission reduction targets for car 
fleets. 
• Pursue a balanced approach in ongoing free trade agreement negotiations with ethanol-
producing countries/regions. The EU must resp ect the interests of domestic producers and 
EU trading partners, within the co ntext 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 issu es 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 tech nical justification for practices that act as 
barriers to the introduction of biofuels and mo nitor the behaviour of these industries to 
ensure that there is no disc rimination against biofuels. 
• Support developing countries by helping them  to produce biofuels and by maintaining 
market access conditions that are no less fa vourable than those provided by the trade 
agreements currently in force. 
• Bring forward a communication dealing sp ecifically 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 fore st 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 an d 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 amende d in order to facilitate the 
authorisation and approval of alternative processes for the production of biogas and other 
biofuels 
• Encourage the European Committee for Standard isation to speed up wo rk on standards for 
the quality of biomass fuels. 
• Explore how to develop a European s pot market in pellets and chips. 
 
LT 18   LT • 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 fo rward research into the optimis ation 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 resear ch into second-generation biofuels, with an aim of improving 
their efficiency and cost-eff ectiveness; a substa ntial increase in Community funding is 
expected. 
 
LT 19   LT PRIEDAS 2 – EU biomass production potential  
The table assesses the EU’s poten tial to produce biomass for ener gy use. These estimates are 
conservative because they are based on the following assumptions: 
• no effect on domestic food pr oduction 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 friendl y 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 quant ities of EU-produced biomass used for energy 
purposes today. The following columns show  the potential contri bution in 2010, 2020 and 
2030. The potential for 2010 is 2½ times the cont ribution 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 bi g 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)  43 39-45 39-72 
Organic wastes, 
wood industry residues, 
agricultural and 
food processing residues, manure  
 
67
43 100 100 102 
Energy crops 
from agriculture 2 43-46 76-94 102-142 
TOTAL 69 186-189 215-239 243-316 
 
                                                 
42 Sources: 2003 data from Eurostat; projections for 2010, 2020 and 2030 from European Environmental 
Agency, “How much biomass can Europe use without harming the environment”, briefing 2/2005 
43 This figure includes 59 Mtoe of wood and wood wastes; 3 Mtoe of biogas; and 5 Mtoe of municipal 
solid waste. 
 
LT 20   LT It should be underlined that due to lack of data, this table on ly covers the EU25. It does not 
include the contribution of Bulgaria and Romani a. 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 consum ption is therefore significantly higher than 
these figures would suggest. 
 
LT 21   LT PRIEDAS 3 – A scenario to increase bi omass 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 commu nication “The share of renewable energy”, 
expanded to the EU25. It is compatible with achievement of the Comm unity’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 tran sport – 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 basi s for the impact assessment on this communication. 
 
LT 22   LT PRIEDAS 4 – Environmental impacts  
Biomass has three main environmental impacts: 
- Avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions  
The Commission estimates that the scenar io in Annex 3, if achieved, would reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions by 209 million tonnes of CO 2-eq per year. 
- Environmental impact of th e 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 fr om 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 ne w crop rotation systems that are more 
advantageous from a wider environmental poin t 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 pr essure 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 ener gy purposes often gives an environmental 
bonus compared with other means of disposal . For forest residues, the environmental 
impact depends on the local soil nutrient ba lance and the risk of erosion, which may 
require a certain amount of the residues (espec ially foliage) to be left on site. In some 
regions, however, their extraction he lp to reduce the risk of fire. 
- Environmental impact of the use of biomass
 
Like fossil fuels, biomass emits pollutant s. Advanced emission control equipment 
can virtually eliminate this, however. Such e quipment is already standard in transport 
and, increasingly, in electricity generati on. The situation is less favourable with 
heating, particularly home heating. 
 
LT 23   LT This analysis points to two priorities:  
• the need to guarantee that site-specific en vironmental 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. 
 
LT 24   LT PRIEDAS 5 – Renewable energy and the di rective on the energy performance of 
buildings  
The directive on the energy performance of buildings44 requires Member States, when 
calculating the energy performance of buildings, to take into account the positive influence of 
"heating and electricity systems based on renewa ble 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, environmenta l and economic feasibil ity studies on the us e of decentralised 
energy supply systems based on renewable energ y, on CHP and on district or block heating or 
cooling. This also gives Member States consid erable leeway to promote biomass. In many 
Member States, biomass heating is one of th e most practical and cost-effective options. 
During 2006, taking into account comments recei ved on the energy efficiency Green Paper45, 
the Commission will decide how it thinks th e directive should be further developed. The 
possibilities it will c onsider could include: 
• amending the annex to the direc tive to ensure that calculat ion procedures allow greater 
weight and more active promotion to be gi ven to biomass heating and other forms of 
renewable energy; 
• reducing the thresholds in the directive so th at many more new buildings would have to be 
considered for renewable energy before c onstruction 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 tec hnically feasible and ec onomically interesting. 
At the same time, the Commission will examine other options for development of the 
directive, including inter alia  the use of energy-effici ent building materials. 
                                                 
44 Directive 2002/91 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  16 December 2002 on the energy 
performance of buildings, O.J. L1, 4/01/2003 
45 COM(2005)265 final of 22/06/2005 
 
LT 25   LT PRIEDAS 6 – Biomass for electricity generation  
Electricity can be generated fr om all types of biomass. Se veral reliable technologies are 
available. These technologies can be used to “co-fire” biomass, by mix ing it with coal or 
natural gas, or to run fr eestanding power stations.  
Large centralised power plants, like those used to  burn straw in Denmark or forest residues in 
Finland, offer the best economic performance, es pecially 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 electri city 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 en ergy sources, or through CHP support schemes 
developed in accordance with the harmonised Eu ropean efficiency reference values for CHP 
which will come into force in February 2006 in accordance with the CHP directive46.  
Smaller decentralised plants burning solid bioma ss or biogas tend to cost  more, but often have 
advantages for the environment and for rural de velopment. 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 ra ther than focusing on one form alone.
                                                 
46 Directive 2004/8 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion 
of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 
92/42/EEC, O.J. L52, 21/02/2004 
 
LT 26   LT PRIEDAS 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 part47. 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 200348. 
Since the adoption of the commun ication the market share of biofuels has increased from 
0.2% in 2000 to 0.8% in 2004. About  90% of biofuel consumpti on is covered by domestic 
raw materials, 10% by imports. Out of the EU 25’s total arable land of 97 million hectares, 
about 1.8 million hectares were used for pr oducing raw materials for biofuels in 2005. As 
expected, there has been a shift towards low ble nds 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 re gime in particular - 
have led to a wider appreciati on of biofuels’ advantages at European level and have provoked 
widespread discussion in Member States.  
“Second-generation” biofuels from wood and wast es are currently more expensive than first-
generation biofuels from agricu ltural 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’ environmenta l profile. It should be 
underlined, however, that first-ge neration biofuels already offer significant benefits and that 
any significant contribution fr om second-generation biofuels will not materialise until after 
2010. Therefore, the emphasis of this acti on plan is on first-generation biofuels. 
                                                 
47 COM (2001) 547 
48 Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion 
of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, O.J. L123, 17/05/2003, and Council 
Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of 
energy products and electricity, O.J. L283, 31/10/2003 
 
LT 27   LT PRIEDAS 8 – Biofuels: prog ress 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 directiv e except Belgium: Eurostat (figure for 2002) 
and Italy: EurObserv’Er 
2005 : National reports under th e biofuels directive.  
National reports under the biofuels  directive are available at 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/re s/legislation/biofuels_en.htm  
 
LT 28   LT PRIEDAS 9 – Implementing the biofuels dire ctive: fuel tax exemptions and biofuel 
obligations  
Member States are using two main tools to impl ement the Biofuels Directive: tax exemptions 
and biofuels obligations. 
Tax exemptions  
Member States make a good deal of use of fi scal policy to promote biofuels. The energy 
taxation directive establishes the framewor k for the consequent tax exemptions.  
Under Article 16 of this directive, Member Stat es can reduce taxes on bi ofuels or completely 
exempt them from taxes, without needing the Commission’s prior approval (on fiscal 
grounds), as long as they respec t 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 ta x reductions or exemp tions introduced by 
Member States must be modified in line with cha nges in the price of raw materials, in order to 
ensure that the reductions do not lead to overc ompensation of the addi tional costs of biofuel 
production. The fiscal advantage (exemption or reduction) granted to a fuel of renewable 
origin cannot exceed the difference between th is fuel and an equivalent fossil fuel. 
These fiscal measures no longer need the prio r, unanimous approval of  other Member States. 
However, they remain subject to state aid control. The Commission has taken a generally 
favourable attitude to th e notifications received. The exempti ons 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_ge neral/sgb/droit_com /index_en.htm#aides 
 
LT 29   LT However, the Commission is aware that the sy stem 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 diffe rent 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 pr oducers into the market , there is a risk 
that it overcompensates lo wer-cost producers. The risk of overcompensation appears 
to be widespread, both within the Community  and internationally. The services of the 
Commission are presently looki ng into several possibilities,  including the limitation 
of detaxation to undenatured bioethanol (whi ch is subject to the highest import duty) 
and/or making the rate of detaxati on 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 i nvestment climate, in particular by making 
full use of the possibility under Community la w 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 pe riod of certainty is less than needed for 
some investments, particularly in sec ond-generation biofuels but also in first-
generation ethanol plants. 
3) While some Member States use open aid sche mes, 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 c hoose the firms that will benefit from it. 
The Commission sees risks of non-transpar ency, 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 mark et or face a penalty49. Obligations are in forc e 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 ar e distinguished; how compliance is  monitored; whether they are 
implemented through a system of tradable certificates; and whethe r 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 sect or where it originates – while implying only a 
negligible increase in the cost of fuel. They give fuel supply companies an incentive to push 
                                                 
49 Obligations that take this form are compatible w ith the Fuel Quality Directive (Directive 98/70/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and 
diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (O.J. L350, 28/12/1998), as amended by Directive 2003/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 2003 (O.J. L76, 
22/03/2003)). By contrast, an obligation to incorporate a given proportion of biofue l in each litre of fuel 
sold would not be compatible with the Directive.. 
 
LT 30   LT down the cost of biofuels – and it follows that they are more cost-efficient. They can include a 
premium for second-generation biof uels. Unlike state aids, they are not subject to a time limit 
and so could be a good way to establish th e 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, w ithout needing specific authorisation from the 
Council under unanimity ) would disappear. 
 
LT 31   LT PRIEDAS 10 – Trade in bioethanol  
1. Current trade in bioethanol  
There is currently no specific customs cl assification for bioethanol for biofuel 
production. This product is traded under c ode 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 im ported alcohol is used in the fuel ethanol 
sector in the EU.  
An import duty of €19.2/hl is levied on unde natured 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 ar e 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 in creased 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 impor ts 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.  
 
LT 32   LT With respect to the largest exporting countries: 
a) over the 2002-2004 period, Pakistan was th e largest duty-free exporter with an 
average of 501 745 hl followed, at a di stance, by Guatemala with 223 782 hl;  
b) Brazil is the only country capable of exporting large quantitie s as MFN with an 
average of 649 640 hl over the same peri od, 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 co mes under two regimes: the Generalised 
System of Preferences (including, among others, the Everything But Arms (EBA) 
initiative) and the Cotonou Agreement. Th e main preferences accorded by each of 
them are summarised in Table III and descri bed in detail in the following sections.  
Table III 
Import conditions under code 22 07 u nder 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 (Regula tion (EC) 2501/2001), in force until 31 
December 2005, classifies denatured and unde natured 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 qua lify for a 15% reduction of the MFN duty50. 
Under the special drugs regime envi saged by Council Regulation (EC) 2501/2001, 
which was in force from the early ninetie s until repealed on - 30 June 2005, exports 
from a number of countries (Bolivia, Co lombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Pe ru, Pakistan, El Salvador and Venezuela) qualified 
for duty-free access under code 22 07.  
                                                 
50 Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 of 10.12.2001.  
 
LT 33   LT The new GSP Regulation (Council Re gulation (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 denature d or undenatured alcohol under code 22 07 
(still classified as a sensitive product). This Regulation put in place a special incentive arrangement for sustainable de velopment and good governance (the new 
GSP + incentive scheme) which has been applying on a provisi onal basis since 
1 July 2005 and will apply on a pe rmanent basis from 1 January 2006 to 
31 December 2008. This new incentive arrangement grants unlimited and duty free access (suspension of Common Customs Tari ff duties) to denatured or undenatured 
alcohol under code 2207. It includes all th e 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 exporte d bioethanol to the EU.  
Moreover, a special arrangement for least developed countries (the EBA initiative) 
provided for by the new GSP Regulation o ffers 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 therefor e have to pay full 
MFN duty. During the ongoing European Part nership 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-fr ee 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 expor ters with a total of 89 375 hl under 
code 22 07 in 2004, has been granted duty -free access to th e EU within the 
framework of tariff rate quotas (TRQs) si nce the mid-nineties. In 2005 the TRQ will 
total 164 000 hl for exports under code 22 07 10 (up fr om 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 va rious preferential arrangements.  
Table IV 
Imports under preferential condi tions 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% 
 
LT 34   LT 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 incr ease 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, Ni caragua 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, Pa kistan 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 Pakist an from the list of countries having 
unlimited duty-free access to the EU market, w ill 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-fr ee 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 pr oduction 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 th erefore be expected to continue to be 
able to export significant qua ntities of ethanol to the EU, albeit not at the same pace 
as before, thus utilising th e increased production capacity bui lt 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 sa me 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 Sout h 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 
 
LT 35   LT exports stable on approximately 50 000 hl, w ith a dramatic decr ease over the 2000-
2001 period. Under these conditions, it is difficu lt 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 countri es benefiting from the special arrangement 
for the least developed countri es (the EBA initiative) und er the GSP (EC) Regulation 
980/2005 to the EU have been negligible a nd have primarily come from one country 
- the Democratic Republic of Congo - whic h already qualified fo r duty-free access as 
an ACP country. At the moment, the Demo cratic 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 p eaking at 86 246 hl the year before.  
It is fair to recognise, however, that EB A dates back to only 2001 and that some of 
the countries which did not have dut y-free access under other earlier regimes 
(notably Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia, Afgha nistan 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 thei r own resources – in the fo rm of processing molasses 
imported from their competitive, sugar-produ cing 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 th ese countries but investments are known 
to have been made in so me 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 c onfer origin on the finished product.  
3.3. Cotonou Agreement 
• On the whole, ACP exports to the EU under co de 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 AC P countries are likely to 
consider bioethanol production as an altern ative 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 al ready exporting substantial quantities to the 
EU under code 22 07.  
 
LT 36   LT PRIEDAS 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 tr aded 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 domes tic production and/or imports. The purpose of 
this annex is to set out the facts and asse ss the pros and cons of different options. 
Tools for shifting the balance betw een domestic production and imports  
The starting point is to understa nd 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 ba lance 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 a nd/or under certain conditions) to about €376/toe 
(for undenatured ethanol imported at the maximu m 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 re moved, 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/toe51). 
More details on trade arrangements affec ting 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 on e 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. Bi odiesel 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 – perh aps 50% – to be used in biodiesel. 
Scenarios for assessment  
Three theoretical models must be assessed: 
                                                 
51 Assuming oil at $60/barrel and the € at $1.25. 
 
LT 37   LT 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 th e 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 biof uels will be needed. Most 
domestic biofuel production will come from three crops: sugarbee t 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 cr ops, 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 obj ective 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 steadil y and the reform of 
the sugar regime will release re sources 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, al though 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: ex isting 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 al ready being imported today; and there is no 
proposal to increase tariff pr otection for these goods. Theref ore, 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 excessi ve 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, particular ly for cereals and rape which 
are currently traded at world market prices.  
Second, it would do nothing to en courage the production of biofue ls 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 
 
LT 38   LT that increased consumption of biofuels is a tool to exercise downw ard 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 stan dard, the EU would ensure that the maximum 
proportion of its biodiesel consumption is me t from imports. The Commission believes that, 
with an appropriate amendment, imported vege table oils would capture about 50% of the 
biodiesel market. However, much of the processi ng 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. Theref ore, 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 consump tion will be biodiesel (i n 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 bala nced way, from the growth of bi ofuel 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 seriou s concerns that the present expansion of 
vegetable oil production – such as palm oil a nd 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 ag ainst 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 wr ong to maximise the import of biofuels/raw 
materials for biofuels without paying attent ion to the environmental impact of their 
cultivation. 
For bioethanol, this is not a good approach fo r 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 secur ity of supply benefits will be less, because 
Europe will not have the adva ntage of developing a new dom estic 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 Stat es. If there is no pr ospect 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. 
 
LT 39   LT Environmental concerns are also  raised about the cultivation of sugar cane for bioethanol. 
Against this, it is argued that most bioethanol comes and will co ntinue 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 facilita te the use of a wider range of vegetable 
oils for biodiesel, to the extent feasib le without significant ill effects on fuel 
performance; 
ii) Maintain market access conditions fo r imported bioethanol that are no less 
favourable than those provided by trade agreements currently in force;
52 
iii) Pursue a balanced approach in ongoi ng 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 biofue ls directive so that only biofuels whose 
cultivation complies with mini mum sustainability standards count towards its targets; 
v) Support developing countries in  the production of biofuels.  
The system of certificates woul d need to apply in a non-discri minatory 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 intr oduction. The potential impact on de veloping countries would be 
taken into consideration before any sy stem of certification is introduced. 
The Commission estimates th at 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 th e reform of the EU sugar 
regime is a particular challe nge and whose bioethanol is not subject to tariffs, would 
gain a share of the EU biofuel market; 
                                                
 
52 In particular, under the Everything But Arms, Generalised System of Preferences (+) and Cotonou 
agreements, which presently provide free access to the EU for ethanol imports. 
53 Note: existing trade agreements, notably Everyt hing But Arms (EBA), Generalised System of 
Preferences (GSP) + and Cotonou, which presently provide free access to the EU for ethanol exports, 
will maintain this level of access.. 
 
LT 40   LT - the promotion of biofuels would not cau se 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 dow nward 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 exch ange and trade balances, 
economic development and employment in rural regions, and environmental benefits. To the extent that the development of biofuel cons umption will exert dow nward pressure on the 
global oil price, consumption in developing countries will cont ribute in the same way that 
European consumption does. EU development po licy, 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 produc ed 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 ra w materials like jatropha could allow the 
sustainable use of low-value land and, in th e process, contribute (via earnings) to an 
improvement in food security.  
 
LT 41   LT PRIEDAS 12 – The Commission’s perspect ive on biomass and biofuel research  
1. Introduction 
Research, technological development and demons tration have potential to support the use of 
biomass. The Commission intends to capital ise on this. Its propos al for the Seventh 
Framework Programme – Specific Programmes,  adopted in September 2005, gives a high 
priority to biomass. 
An industry-led European biofuel technology platfo rm is under development54. This is 
intended to develop and implement a European  vision and strategy for the production of 
biofuels, in particular for transport. Once th e technology platform is established, the EC will 
explore the need to propose a possible jo int technology initiative in this area55. 
Other technology platforms will also play an impor tant role – for example, those dealing with 
“Industrial biotechnology”, “Pla nts for the future”, “Road transport” and “Forest-
basedsectors”. Under the framework of the Se venth Framework Programme, there is a need 
for increased coverage of the following topics: biomass availa bility 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 unde r the Seventh RTD Framework Programme will 
be complemented by non-research action in th e “Intelligent Energy – Europe” programme. 
The main focus here is to support soft measur es and to remove non-technological barriers to 
the widespread market deployment of already demonstrated biomass a nd biofuel technologies. 
2. Research priorities – biomass in general  
The following actions related to biomass, with  their corresponding objec tives, are included in 
the Seventh Framework Programme. 
- Biomass for electricit y, heating and cooling 
The objective is to develop and demonstrate a port folio of technologies for electricity, heating 
and cooling from biomass, including the biodegrad able fraction of waste. This research aims 
at increasing overall conversion efficiency, achieving cost reductions, further reducing the 
environmental impact and optimising the tech nologies in different regional conditions. A 
broad range of research topics are considered including bi omass availability and logistics; 
conversion technologies, such as combustion, co -firing and gasification; emission abatement; 
and land use. 
                                                 
54 Technology platforms are channels to involve industries in defining research priorities. 
55 Joint technology initiatives are a new way to create public-private partnerships at European level. They 
have their foundation in technology platforms. They may take the form of a joint undertaking. 
56 With emphasis on woody crops (short-rotation coppice, grasses and miscanthus); on new crop breeds 
and novel cropping systems optimised for non-food use; on improving the energy content of the agricultural crops used for first-generation biofuels; and on machines and techniques for planting, 
harvesting, storage, transport, pre-treatment and conversion into material that can be fed into conveyor 
systems. 
 
LT 42   LT The Commission will propose to the “Zero Emis sion Power Generation” technology platform 
that co-firing be included in its scope. 
- Smart energy networks 
To facilitate the transition to a more sustai nable energy system, a wide -ranging R&D effort is 
required on the EU electricity and gas system s and networks. Research aims at effective 
integration of biomass installations into elect ricity grids and feeding biogas and synthetic 
natural gas into the natural gas grid. 
- Life sciences and biotechnology for su stainable non-food products and processes 
The objective is to strengthen the knowledge ba se and develop advanced technologies for 
terrestrial or marine biomass production fo r energy and industry. Biotechnology will be 
applied to improve the productivity, sustainabi lity and composition of biomass raw materials 
and to develop new bio-processes. 
The Commission also attaches hi gh importance to the “biorefinery” concept to maximise the 
value derived from biomass feed stocks by making full use of th eir components. Biorefineries 
could be built up by adding further fractionation and conversion steps to current biomass processing facilities (sugar, grain, pulp mills, o il refineries, etc.) to obtain a broad range of 
products such as food, feed, sustainable polym ers, 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. S ynthetic enzymes provide the key to unlock the 
cellulose molecules and break them down into simpler substances, which are subsequently fermented to ethanol and purifie d (distilled) the same way as conventional bioethanol. It is 
hoped that energy balances and, hence, CO
2 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 thir d facility is under c onstruction by Abengoa 
(5 million litres per year in Spain) and th is plant is supported by the Fifth Framework 
Programme. Enzymatic hydrolysis is expected to become compet itive 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 parame ters in the overall co st of the biofuel. 
Second-generation biodiesel is chemically di fferent from vegetabl e-oil-based biodiesel. 
Gasification of biomass (anything works, but th e 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 fu el 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 norma lly optimised towards the production of jet 
fuel/diesel. 
 
LT 43   LT The different steps in the pro cess 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 diff erent raw materials an d gas purification to 
synthesis gas quality. A large-scale pilot plant (1 5 000 t/year) is being cons tructed in Freiberg 
(Germany) by the company Choren. In addition, Choren and Shell are in the process of 
developing a full-size prototyp e commercial plant with a ca pacity of 200 000 t/year which 
optimistically, depending on the experience with  the pilot plant, c ould be operational in 
2009/10. In parallel to the experience to be ga ined from this “biomass-to-liquid” (BTL) 
process, a number of large-sc ale “gas-to-liquid” projects, se veral 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 di esel in modified diesel engines.  DME, a gaseous fuel under ambient 
conditions, can be of particular re levance in heavy-duty applications. 
The advantage of second-generation biodiesel is  partly that the basic treatment of the raw 
material (gasification) allows virtually any orga nic 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 CO
2 emission profile depends on whether the energy 
source for conversion is biomass only or whet her an external energy source is used, and 
whether the biomass is a waste product (e.g. straw) or an ener gy crop. This also affects the 
cost. Here too, significant CO 2 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 mate rial 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 or ganic wastes into bioetha nol and biodiesel has been 
demonstrated. But costs need to be brought  down and technology needs to be further 
developed and demonstrated for commercial-sca le production (over 150 0 00 tonnes a year). If 
this can be done, second-generation biofue ls 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 diesel57.  
                                                 
57 The process can also be used to produce a (good) substitute for jet fuel or a (poor) substitute for petrol. 
 
LT 44   LT 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. 
 
LT 45   LT PRIEDAS 13 – Results of consultation  
This communication and the impact assessment published alongside it take into account the 
results of extensive consultati ons. These began with the Commi ssion’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 consul tations 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 th e Union to meet the needs for an additional 
80 mtoe per year by 2010 without major eff ects on forest products industries and food 
production. Energy crops can make a signif icant contribution wh ile providing a new 
market outlet for agriculture and contributing to  rural development. A ny shortfalls can be 
addressed by imports. 
• There are competitive, reliable and efficien t European technologies to convert biomass 
resources into energy vectors (e lectricity, 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 comm odity level. In order to develop them 
successfully, work on standards a nd norms has to be accelerated. 
• Biomass is generally more expensive than comparable fossil fuel energy. However, in 
some areas (such as household heating by pe llets and industrial CHP based on residues) 
biomass is already competitive. 
• There is an urgent need to start a profe ssionally managed campaign to inform European 
citizens more fully about the benefits of biomass. This information barrier, as well as the 
absence of more effective represen tation of biomass at all levels, is also due to the lack of a 
strong European biomass associat ion with industrial involvement. 
• The main problem that appears to be holdi ng back the penetration of biomass on the 
energy markets is the lack of demand. Th e 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 fo r heat, power and transport from the same 
installation.  
• Biomass in the form of solid, liquid or gase ous 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.  
 
LT 46   LT • Biomass is the only renewable energy source that cannot be found fr ee; 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, th ermochemical or biological 
conversion into an energy carri er (power, heat or biofuels  for transport). Therefore, 
biofuels (with the excep tion 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 co me a point in the future when biomass for 
energy will have to compete with food, ma terials, bio-chemicals and carbon sinks. 
However, this point in time is beyond 2020, a nd if international trade in biomass fuels 
becomes effective could lie beyond 2050.  
• Environmental concerns must also be addr essed 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 altern atives and not in isolation.