Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of road transport fuels and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC, as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC COM(2007) 18 final — 2007/0019 (COD)
Date: 2007-10-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: air quality, diesel fuel, environmental protection, motor fuel, motor vehicle, product quality

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/53

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive
amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and
introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of road
transport fuels and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC, as regards the specification of fuel used
by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC’

COM(2007) 18 final — 2007/0019 (COD)

(2008/C 44/15)

On 14 March 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 95 and 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 July 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Osborn.

At its 439th plenary session, held on 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October 2007), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 74 votes and 3 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

produced and marketed, provided that concerns about potential
pollution impacts are met.

1.1
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
strongly supports the Union's plans to tackle climate change by
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In the transport
sector the Committee believes that action must start at the
fundamental level of tackling the pressures that have led to a
continuous growth of traffic of all kinds over many years.

1.6
The Committee strongly supports the proposal to require
the fuel industry to monitor and report the life-cycle GHG emis-
sions from the fuels it places on the market, and that they
should be required to reduce those emissions by 1 % per annum
from 2010 to 2020. The Committee sees a strong case for this
to be operated at European level, rather than being left to the
Member States.

The Committee also believes that there is still substantial
1.2
scope for improving energy efficiency in the performance of all
kinds of transport. The Committee deplores the apparent weak-
ening of the Commission's original intentions in relation to effi-
ciency of car engines, thus relieving the pressure on the car
industry to achieve higher standards.

The Committee supports the minor changes to sulphur
1.7
content of fuels that are proposed. It suggests that the two stage
reduction of sulphur emissions proposed in the case of inland
waterways, be revised to a one stage reduction to the final
figure (10 ppm sulphur content) so as to avoid the possibility of
boat owners having to make two separate modifications to their
vessels.

The Committee endorses in principle the expansion of
1.3
biofuels in the Union. It believes however that the overall CO2
impact of biofuels needs very careful assessment, and that the
pace and balance of expansion needs to be kept under review.

2. Introduction

Specifically,

1.4
the European Commission should specify
how it expects to achieve the target for 10 % use of biofuels by
2020 bearing in mind the conditions attached to the achieve-
ment of that target by the Council, and should be prepared to
modify the approach if it appears to be less effective in carbon
reduction than has been hoped, or is having other undesirable
effects on the structure of world agriculture or on biodiversity.

The Fuel Quality Directive 98/70/EC (and subsequent
2.1
amending Directives) contains the environmental fuel quality
specifications for petrol and diesel fuels in the Community with
the main focus on limiting the sulphur content, and, for petrol,
the lead and aromatics content. It also sets a sulphur limit for
gas oil used for Non-Road Mobile Machinery.

1.5
The EESC accepts that it is nevertheless appropriate that
the fuel specification rules should be altered as proposed in the
present Directive so as to enable a new high biofuel petrol to be

Directive 1999/32/EC of the Council, amending Council
2.2
Directive 93/12/EC, establishes sulphur limits for certain liquid
fuels and specifically refers to the fuel used in inland waterway
vessels.

C 44/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

2.3
The present proposal would alter the permitted specifica-
tions so as to allow a new grade of high biofuel petroleum to be
introduced containing up to 10 % ethanol. It would also impose
some minor further tightening of the sulphur levels permitted
in fuels.

sector there is some danger of establishing the wrong order of
priorities.

3. Key EU developments

3.1
The Community has lately committed itself to achieve
Greenhouse Gas emission targets of reductions of 20 % below
1990 levels by 2020.

3.2
Inland transport currently accounts for almost 20 % of
these emissions and needs to play its part in delivering these
reductions. The Commission has tackled one aspect of GHG
emissions from transport through the adoption of a comprehen-
sive new strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new
cars and vans sold in the European Union. This will enable the
EU to reach its long-established objective of
limiting average
CO2 emissions from new cars to 120 grams per km by 2012.

3.3
On the fuels side, the EU biofuels directive (2003/30/EC)
aims to make a further contribution to reducing net CO2 emis-
sions by promoting the use in transport of fuels made from
biomass, as well as other renewable fuels. The Community
Strategy on Biofuels has been further elaborated in the Commis-
sion's Communication — An EU Strategy for Biofuels on which
the Committee has adopted an opinion on 24 October 2007.

In March 2007 the Council

3.4
set a 10 % binding
minimum target to be achieved by all Member States for the
share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel
consumption by 2020, to be introduced in a cost-efficient way.

3.5
The present Directive is intended to support that strategy.
The principal change is to permit higher levels of ethanol to be
blended in a new grade of petrol for motorists so as to allow
for the rapid expansion of biofuels mandated by the Council.

4. General comments

4.1
The European Union has rightly taken a leadership role
in the world on the issue of climate change, and has adopted
stringent targets for reduction in GHG emissions for 2012 and
2020.

The EESC fully supports the targets and the Commis-
4.2
sion's general
comprehensive
approach to establishing a
programme of action. It believes however that in the transport

In the transport sector

4.3
the Committee believes that
action must start at the fundamental level of tackling the pres-
sures that have led to a continuous growth of traffic of all kinds
over the past two centuries. The European Sustainable Develop-
ment Strategy adopted by the Council in 2006 has committed
the Union to the objective of decoupling the growth of the
economy from growth in transport. That should be the highest
priority task. The Committee once again urges the Commission
to put in hand a fundamental integrated review of how to bring
this about.

Another priority should be to require much improved
4.4
fuel efficiency from cars and other vehicles. The proposal to
establish a limit of 120 grams of CO2 emissions per kilometre is
a useful step. The Committee believes that it should be possible
to proceed further and faster on this issue, and that it would
have been better to stick to the original proposal to require
motor manufacturers to meet this target. The Committee looks
to the Commission to push harder in this direction.

4.5
As to biofuels the Committee agrees that they may have
some useful part to play. But it feels that greater account must
be taken of the environmental, social, agricultural and employ-
ment impacts involved both in Europe and across the world.
The Committee is currently working on a separate opinion on
this issue.

The growth of biofuel crops may be a useful form of
4.6
land use, provided that they do not displace other uses that are
as good or better in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. Euro-
pean agricultural practices meet high environmental standards
thanks to cross compliance, and in principle the cross compli-
ance regime may be capable of being developed into a tool for
ensuring that biocrops are grown in an optimal way from a
carbon efficiency point of view. It will however be essential to
compare and contrast
the transport and refinery processes
involved in producing biofuels and traditional fuels. The overall
CO2 impact of biofuels needs very careful assessment and may
not be positive in all cases.

4.7 More broadly a massive expansion of biofuel crops in
Europe and other parts of the world could have other major
impacts on food production, protection of forests and biodiver-
sity and other matter which also need to be carefully assessed.
This question too will be examined in detail
in a separate
opinion.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/55

4.8
In the Committee's view the optimal pathway for devel-
opment of the biomass and biofuels market requires continued
monitoring, and it will be important that measures of support
for the development of this market whether in this directive or
in other measures should allow the market to find the optimal
pathway towards the most efficient and carbon-mitigation effec-
tive solutions.

already envisaged by the Commission) and to restricting the use
of permeable elements in engine design so as to ensure that net
VOC emissions do not increase when biofuels are introduced
more extensively.

In view of these reservations about the scale and pace of
4.9
development of biofuels
the
Commission and the Union should keep the target for 10 % use
of biofuels by 2020 under review, and be prepared to modify it
if necessary.

the Committee believes

that

4.10
The Committee approaches the present Directive from
this general perspective. The Committee does not in principal
oppose amending the fuel quality Directive so as to permit the
blending of appropriate biofuels. But it thinks that great care
should be taken to ensure that blending biofuels into petrol
does not result in other adverse environmental effects such as
the release of more harmful VOCs. It is also important that the
calculations of expected impacts on net CO2 emissions should
be very carefully carried out, taking full account of a full life
cycle analysis, case by case, so as to optimise the potential for
CO2 gains.

5. Specific comments

5.1 Expansion of biofuels

that

The Committee accepts

5.1.1
expansion of
biofuels is likely to be needed. It is appropriate therefore that
the fuel specification rules should be altered as proposed in the
to be
directive so as to enable a new high biofuel petrol
produced and marketed, provided that potentially polluting side
effects are dealt with.

some

5.1.2
The Committee calls for further action on the proposal
to relax the limits on vapour pressure so as to allow higher
pressures in the new high biofuel petroleum. Higher pressures
will
lead to greater volatility of the petroleum, with greater
the petrol pump and
release of undesirable VOCs both at
through evaporation and permeation from tanks and other
parts of vehicles. This problem can be considerably mitigated by
appropriate technical measures.

5.1.3
The Committee suggests that the Commission should
examine this aspect further before implementing the Directive.
Some commentators have suggested that it might be possible to
make more use of biofuels without requiring higher pressure
levels. Alternatively the higher permitted levels
should be
coupled with further measures in regard to petrol pumps (as

5.2 Monitoring of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

The Committee strongly supports the proposal

to
5.2.1
require the fuel
industry to monitor and report the life-cycle
GHG emissions from the fuels it places on the market, and that
they should be required to reduce those emissions by 1 % per
annum from 2010 to 2020. Although the fuel
industry has
improved its own performance in terms of energy efficiency in
recent years there is still room for substantial
improvement.
There is still far too much flaring of gas at well heads. This
wastes a valuable resource and gives rise to millions of tons of
carbon emissions and other pollution. Refinery operations and
pipeline transmission and transport within the fuel sector also
vary greatly in their energy efficiency and their levels of leakage
standards
and waste; much could be done
throughout the industry to those of the best operators.

to improve

target

5.2.2
The monitoring requirement proposed on the fuel
industry is cast in such a way that the progressive introduction
of biofuels into the energy mix can count as a contribution
towards the overall
for emission reductions by the
industry. The Committee backs a strategy designed to harness
the potential benefits of biofuels for
the
market and jobs and thus secure optimum CO2 reduction
overall, but it is concerned that the current proposal may lead
fuel companies to neglect opportunities for improving energy
efficiency in their own operations in favour of over-rapid expan-
sion of biofuels.

the environment,

5.2.3
If the proposal does go forward a number of points
need to be made. It will be critically important to ensure that
the lifecycle analysis of biofuels and oil products is thoroughly
carried out and is not treated in a formulaic way. Different types
and sources of biofuels will have very different impacts on the
overall CO2 balance. Generally speaking, biofuels perform better
than fossil fuels in life cycle CO2 terms. The European Union
should take steps to foster optimum solutions.

5.2.4
If the CO2 benefits are to be properly realised each
source used must have its own analysis and assessment, since
different biofuel applications have different carbon impacts.

5.2.5
The proposal rightly endorses the use of biomass for
biofuel production or for power production. This should result
in the continued positive development of the biomass market.

C 44/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

5.2.6
The proposed directive says nothing about standards of
monitoring and how the requirements are to be monitored and
enforced. Given that most of the firms involved are operating
on a global basis, and will need to have a consistent approach
adopted to the requirements imposed on them the Committee
sees a strong case for the standards and the monitoring and
enforcement to be operated at European level, rather than being
left to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement amongst the
Member States.

5.3 Sulphur in fuels

5.3.1
The Committee supports the proposed confirmation of
the mandatory date of 2009 for achieving a maximum of
10 ppm sulphur in diesel. It also supports the proposed reduc-

tions in the maximum sulphur content of gas oils intended for
use by non-road mobile machinery and agricultural and forestry
tractors. These proposals bring the sulphur requirements into
line with those already adopted for road vehicles and will help
to ensure that sulphur and particulate pollution is further
abated.

5.3.2
In the case of inland waterways the Commission has
proposed a two stage reduction of sulphur emissions. The
Committee suggests that it might be better to consider a one
stage reduction to the final figure, so as to avoid the possibility
of boat owners having to make two separate modifications to
their vessels. It might also be appropriate to consider some
relief for historic or heritage vessels that will not readily be
capable of the necessary modifications.

Brussels, 24 October 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of

the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Compensation payments for

disadvantaged areas beyond 2010’

(2008/C 44/16)

On 16 February 2007 the plenary assembly of the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under
Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Compensation payments for disadvan-
taged areas beyond 2010.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 1 October 2007. The rapporteur was
Mr Kienle.

At its 439th plenary session, held on 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 143 votes in favour with three absten-
tions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

tant approach towards disadvantaged areas should still be to
offset the economic disadvantages suffered by farmers.

The European Economic and Social Committee believes
1.1
that areas with natural handicaps require and deserve special
attention in both the public and political arenas. This also
applies, without exception, to the ‘other disadvantaged areas
(intermediate zones)’ considered in this opinion.

1.2
The EESC regards compensation, which is funded jointly
by the EU and Member States, as an indispensable tool for
preserving the cultivated landscape and agriculture in areas
which are particularly sensitive from an economic, environ-
mental and also social point of view.

1.4
For the forthcoming European Commission discussion
about redefining eligible areas, the EESC recommends that the
EU set out a framework and alternative methods for the classifi-
cation of areas. The choice of system for classifying and estab-
lishing areas should continue to be the responsibility of Member
States and regions.

1.3
The purpose of compensation goes well beyond the
preservation of traditional forms of farming. The most impor-

1.5
The EESC points out that the granting of payments must
become more reliable over time. In the event of any changes in
eligible areas, structural discontinuities must be avoided.