Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources COM(2008) 19 final — 2008/0016 (COD)
Date: 2008-09-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU financing, EU programme, energy policy, pollution control measures, renewable energy

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/43

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable
sources’

COM(2008) 19 final — 2008/0016 (COD)

(2009/C 77/12)

On 3 March 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 175(1) and 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 July The rapporteur was
Mr Ribbe.

At its 447th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 September 2008 (meeting of 17 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 105 votes to 38 with 10 abstentions.

1. Conclusion and recommendations

The EESC welcomed the European Commission's 2007
1.1
climate protection plans, which this directive is intended to help
implement.

1.2
The Committee fully endorses the Commission's state-
ment that the proposed development of renewable energies not
only makes sense in climate policy terms but also has, or can
have, a clear positive impact on security of energy supply,
regional and local development opportunities, rural develop-
ment, export prospects, social cohesion and employment oppor-
tunities, especially as concerns small and medium-sized under-
takings as well as independent power producers.

1.3
The EESC therefore welcomes the draft directive and the
renewables target of 20 %. It sees renewable energies not only
as a contribution to climate protection but also as correct in
strategic energy-policy terms,
leading to a higher degree of
energy self-sufficiency and thus greater security of supply.

1.4
The objective of cutting CO2 by 20 % by 2020, which is
to be achieved by means of other directives (1), and the target of
20 % of final energy from renewables, which is dealt with in
this draft, are closely correlated and complement each other.
They should, however, always be considered independently of
each other, particularly as some renewable energies do not have
a clearly positive impact on the climate (see point 6 on
agrofuels).

always act in those areas where the greatest impact can be
achieved in terms of climate protection and job creation, at the
lowest cost.

1.6
The EESC wishes to make it clear that it fully supports
the expansion of renewables and that it is aware that in the
medium to long term a much higher percentage of renewables
than the 20 % envisaged for 2020 will be required if the Coun-
cil's ambitious target (a 60-80 % CO2 emissions reduction and
greater energy self-sufficiency) is to be achieved.

The EESC notes that the strategic requirement for the
1.7
partial substitution of diesel or petrol by agrofuels is one of the
least effective and most expensive climate protection measures,
and that it represents an extreme misallocation of
financial
resources. The EESC cannot understand why the most expensive
measures are to be promoted politically with the greatest inten-
sity, particularly as a huge number of environmental and social
questions,
let alone economic ones, remain completely unan-
swered (see point 6). It therefore opposes the separate 10 %
target for agrofuels.

1.8
The EU's plan to introduce sustainability criteria for agro-
fuels is welcome. However, the environmental criteria set out in
the draft do not go far enough. Moreover, social questions are
not touched on at all, and the draft directive is completely
inadequate in this respect (2).

2. Introduction

1.5
As the necessary reorganisation of our energy system will
entail heavy investment costs, the Member States need to be
allowed a high degree of flexibility to ensure that they can

(1) See point 3.5.

2.1
The directive will establish binding targets for the devel-
opment of renewable energies. The aim is a 20 % share of

(2) The EESC pointed out the need for environmental and social sustain-
ability criteria for agrofuels in its opinions on Progress in the use of
biofuels, TEN/286 — CESE 1449/2007, OJ C 44, 16.2.2008, p. 34 and
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions/Road transport, NAT/354 —
CESE 1454/2007.

C 77/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

renewable energy sources in final energy consumption in the EU
by 2020 and a 10 % binding minimum target for biofuels (3) in
transport to be achieved by each Member State (4).

— the framework for the national support systems, prevention

of distortions of competition.

2.2
The European 20 % goal is to be achieved by applying
individual national targets which are listed in part A of Annex I.
The Member States are required to draw up national action
plans setting out sectoral targets for electricity, heating/cooling
and transport/agrofuels, as well as measures for the achievement
of these goals.

2.3
The directive is based on the decisions of the spring
2007 European Council on the grounds that the use of regen-
erative energies can counter climate change. At the same time,
however, it states that ‘the renewable energy sector stands out for its
ability to (…) exploit
local and decentralised energy sources, and
stimulate world-class high-tech industries’.

2.4
The Commission states that ‘renewable energy sources are
largely indigenous, they do not rely on the future availability of conven-
tional sources of energy, and their predominantly decentralised nature
makes our economies less vulnerable to volatile energy supply’. Security
of supply is then, alongside climate protection and innovation
and economic growth, a further important argument used by
the Commission.

2.5
The Commission argues that: ‘The development of a market
for renewable energy sources and technologies also has a clear positive
impact on security of energy supply, regional and local development
cohesion
opportunities,
rural development, export prospects,
and employment opportunities,
small and
medium-sized undertakings as well as independent power producers’.

especially as

concerns

social

The directive does not only lay down the quantitative
inter alia, addresses the

2.6
targets referred to above but also,
following issues:

— how the share of energy from renewable sources (Article 5)

is to be calculated, taking account of imports,

— guarantees of origin (Articles 6-10),

— access to the electricity grid (Article 14),

2.7
The new directive replaces Directives 2001/77/EC on the
Promotion of the electricity produced from renewable energy source in
the internal electricity market, which laid down the existing target
of 21 % of total electricity consumption to come from renew-
able energy sources by 2010, and Directive 2003/30/EC on the
Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport,
under which a 5.75 % share was to be achieved by 2010.

3. General comments on the overarching and climate-

policy objectives of the directive

3.1
The European Council reiterated in 2007 ‘that absolute
emission reduction commitments are the backbone of a global carbon
market and that developed countries should continue to take the lead
by committing to collectively reducing their emissions of greenhouse
gases in the order of 30 % by 2020 compared to 1990 with a view
to collectively reducing their emissions by 60 to 80 % by 2050
compared to 1990’.

3.2
The draft directive under consideration is part of the
implementation of this decision. The EESC has welcomed the
climate decisions of the European Council and has stressed that
energy economies and efficiency must enjoy the highest priority.
There is no alternative to a massive development of renewable
energy. Not only is it a requirement for climate protection;
growing shortages of fossil resources will in themselves make it
necessary in the medium to long term. The rapid increases in
the prices of fossil energies currently being experienced will
help ensure that many renewable energies become financially
viable sooner.

The EESC is very glad that, in the explanatory memor-
3.3
andum,
the Commission does not only address the climate
aspects but also attaches high importance to the questions of
security of supply and employment. The importance of decen-
tralised energy supply structures for the regional economy and
rural areas is,
repeatedly stressed (points 2.4
and 2.5). The Committee shares this view. But it also feels it
essential to consider the individual strategies for renewables in a
more differentiated way than hitherto, taking these aspects into
account.

for example,

— environmental sustainability criteria for agrofuels and their

climate relevance (Article 15 et seq.),

(3) The draft directive uses the term ‘biofuels’.

In various opinions,
however,
the EESC has drawn attention to many environmental
problems caused by these ‘bio’ fuels. The prefix ‘bio’ suggests an envir-
onment-friendly product, and in this opinion the EESC therefore
instead uses the more neutral term ‘agrofuel’.

(4) The draft directive states that: ‘(…) it is proposed that each Member
State shall achieve at least a 10 % share of renewable energy (primarily
biofuels) in the transport sector by 2020’.

3.4
The EESC shares the Commission's view that a leading
role for Europe in the development and implementation of
renewable energies will not only be good for climate policy but
also hold out the prospect of making Europe a more competi-
tive location for business. The draft directive is a clear energy,
environmental and industrial policy signal — also a signal to
the international community in the run-up to the international
climate negotiations.

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/45

3.5
The actual arrangements for sharing the burden, i.e. the
individual national contributions to the European target of an
overall 20 % CO2 reduction, are set out in the Proposal for a
Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emis-
sions to meet the Community's greenhouse gas emission reduc-
tion commitments up to 2020 (COM(2008) 17 final) and the
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and
extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of
the Community (COM(2008) 16 final).

3.6
The EESC considers a target of 20 % renewable energy
by 2020 to be appropriate in political and strategic terms as
well as technically and economically feasible. It is a tangible sign
of the transition to a post-fossil energy policy. The Committee
also believes that the individual national goals can be achieved,
particularly as the Member States are offered flexible options
(purchase, participation in projects etc). What is clear is that
reorganisation of the energy system will not be free, nor can it
is not only
be done without structural change.
needed in plants for generating electricity from renewable
energy sources but also in energy storage technologies and capa-
cities to even out fluctuations in power generation resulting
from insufficient wind strength or solar radiation, as well as in
the development of international power lines in the EU. We will
not achieve the planned objectives by concentrating exclusively
on power generation.

Investment

3.7
Germany for example promotes power generation from
renewable energies via its electricity feed law, and the country's
proportion of green electricity is currently 15 %. The additional
costs of higher feed premiums to be borne by electricity users
amount to around EUR 3.5 bn per year. This does not, however,
the
allow for the economic benefit
prevention of
tax
revenues.

in terms of new jobs,
and additional

environmental damage

3.8
In order to keep the cost of meeting the target to a
minimum, it is provided in the directive that individual targets
can also be met by supporting measures for the development of
renewable energy in other Member States. The import of electri-
city from guaranteed renewable sources is also allowed. The
EESC considers this to be a good idea in principle. However, it
supports the calls by some Member States for this trade to be
to prevent measures to
in order
subject
promote renewable energy financed by one Member State (5)
from being used to achieve cost savings in another Member
State.

to authorisation,

4. Restriction of

flexibility in the development of

renewable energies

The EESC considers the Commission's approach of laying
4.1
down an overall target for the three sectors in which renewable

(5) Or that State's consumers.

energies will play a part (electricity, heating/cooling and trans-
port) rather than three separate targets to be correct. In this way
Member States are given the freedom to decide how they will
combine measures in the three individual sectors in such a way
that the overall national targets can be achieved.

This flexibility is, however, massively compromised, by
4.2
the fact that a separate, binding goal is to be set, applicable to
only one of these three sectors, i.e. the replacement of diesel
fuel and petrol in the transport sector.

5. The special role of agrofuels in the draft directive

5.1

The Commission assigns a special role to agrofuels.

5.2 Many studies published in recent months on the subject
of agrofuels have pointed out that biomass, unlike solar energy,
is a limited resource and will inevitably find itself in competition
with foodstuff production or the maintenance of biodiversity.
Just how massive this competition will be is at present still a
matter of debate. Before policy intervenes there is therefore a
need for a very precise strategic analysis of which form of
renewable energy can most usefully be deployed, and in which
area. This will require very precise impact assessments.

5.3
In a November 2007 recommendation on the use of
biomass for energy production, the scientific advisory council of
the German Federal Agriculture Ministry expressed the view that
in the long term solar and wind energy will play the dominant
role in renewable energies, in part because they have consider-
ably higher potential
than biomass. The council cites three
reasons for this:

a) Solar energy can use land which would not otherwise be
used for the production of biomass for foodstuffs; much
higher energy yields can be achieved for a given area than
through the use of bioenergy.

b) The worldwide shortage of arable land will mean that, as oil
prices rise, so will the price of bioenergy; as a result all agri-
cultural prices will be driven up. This will
in turn mean
raw material costs for bioenergy plants, whereas
higher
higher oil, coal and gas prices simply make solar energy
more profitable.

c) If arable land is in short supply,

large-scale expansion of
bioenergy will necessarily mean that land not previously
used for arable farming will be brought into use (ploughing
up of grassland, deforestation) or that land will be farmed
more intensively. This will cause increased CO2 and N2O
emissions, with the result that the expansion of bioenergy
production on agricultural
in the end be detri-
mental to climate protection.

land will

C 77/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

5.4 When existing natural resources are scarce, while at the
switch to new, regenerative and as far as possible decentralised
energy supply structures will require relatively heavy investment,
the principle to keep in mind must be that of concentrating
financial resources on the most efficient climate protection stra-
tegies.

5.5
At EU level, however, some of the existing forms of bioe-
nergy, which in some cases benefit from state support, such as
agrofuels (as well as the production of biogas from maize) go
hand-in-hand with very high CO2 prevention costs (6) (EUR 150
to over 300 per tonne CO2).

Other types of bioenergy, e.g. biogas production from
5.6
liquid manure
(ideally combined with heat production),
combined heat and power production from wood chips (wood
residues, short rotation farming) and the combustion of wood
chips in existing large power plants have CO2 prevention costs
of only EUR 50 per tonne CO2 (7).

The European Commission's

5.7
Joint Research Centre
concludes that in terms of GHG reduction per ha of land it is
substantially more efficient to use the biomass to generate elec-
tricity than to produce liquid agrofuels (8). The efficiency of
modern biomass burners is nearly as high as fossil fuel burners,
so in heating and electricity production, 1MJ biomass replaces
about 0.95 MJ fossil fuel. Transforming biomass into liquid fuel
for transport is typically only 30-40 % efficient in energy terms.
1 MJ biomass replaces only around 0.35-0.45MJ crude oil in
the transport sector.

A CO2 prevention figure of 3 t CO2/ha can be achieved
5.8
with the production of agrofuels, and more than 12 t CO2/ha
with the bioenergy products described (in point 4.6).

Against

5.9
this background the EESC wonders why the
Commission wishes to lay down an explicit 10 % target for
agrofuels. It points out that the Spring European Council said
that this objective should be achieved ‘cost efficiently’, and that
three conditions had to be met, namely that:

— production was sustainable,

— second-generation agrofuels were commercially available,

and

— Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and

diesel fuels was amended.

5.10 Where sustainability is concerned, there are more ques-
tions than answers (see also point 5), and second-generation
agrofuels are still not available. Thus, at least two out of the
three criteria laid down by the European Council have not been
met, which has not, however, prevented the Commission from
planning to include the 10 % target in the directive.

It justifies this, inter alia, with the arguments that the
5.11
transport sector is the economic sector showing the fastest rise
in greenhouse gas emissions and that agrofuels ‘are currently more
expensive to produce than other forms of renewable energy, which
might mean that they would hardly be developed without a specific
requirement’.

5.12

The EESC cannot endorse this line of argument:

5.12.1
It is true that greenhouse gas emissions are getting
out of control in the transport sector. But, in the EESC's view,
more stringent exhaust gas limit values and a 10 % additive for
petrol and diesel will not solve the problem, nor even compen-
sate for the environmental impact of the growth expected in the
transport sector over the next few years.

5.12.2
The EESC has pointed out on a number of occasions
that this problem should be tackled with a policy of traffic
prevention and a change in the modal split in favour of more
local public
climate-friendly modes of transport like railways,
transport and shipping.

In technological

terms the EESC believes that

5.12.3
the
future of private cars lies not with the internal combustion
engine but with electric traction powered by renewable energies.
To power a VW Golf over 10 000 km with agrodiesel would,
according to an estimate by EMPA (9), require the entire annual
crop from 2 062 m2 of arable land planted with oilseed rape.
The same energy could, on the other hand, be obtained from
the annual output of solar cells covering 37 m2, around one
sixtieth of the area.

for

The strategic requirement

5.12.4
the substitution of
diesel or petrol by agrofuels is one of the least effective and
most expensive climate protection measures, and it represents
resources. The EESC
an extreme misallocation of
cannot understand why the most expensive measures are being
promoted politically with the greatest intensity, particularly as a
huge number of environmental and social questions, let alone
economic ones, remain completely unanswered.

financial

‘Nutzung

(6) CO2 prevention costs here mean CO2 equivalents.
(7) Source:

Energiegewinnung —
Empfehlungen an die Politik’, agricultural policy advisory council of the
German Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protec-
tion, published in November 2007.

von Biomasse

zur

(8) European Commission,

in the
European Context: Facts, Uncertainties and Recommendations’,
2008,
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_biofuels_report.pdf.

Joint Research Centre,

‘Biofuels

von

(9) EMPA is a research institute for material sciences and technology. It
is part of the Swiss Technical University of Zürich (ETH). Source:
Ökobilanz
von
Energieprodukten: Ökologische
Biotreibstoffen. Schlussbericht, April 2007. Commissioned by the
Federal Offices for Energy, the Environment and Agriculture; Empa,
Department of Technology and Society, St. Gallen: R. Zah, H. Böni,
M. Gauch, R. Hischier, M. Lehmann, P. Wäger;
Download: http://www.news-service.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/messa-
ge/attachments/8514.pdf.

Bewertung

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/47

5.12.5
The Committee does not therefore agree with the
Commission's statement that ‘increased use of biofuels for transport
is one of the most effective tools’ for meeting the challenges.

6. Comments on the security of supply argument

Considering that the Commission is aiming to authorise
5.13
agrofuels if they offer at least a 35 % cut in greenhouse gas
emissions — by comparison with fuels derived from fossil oils
— the 10 % target will — assuming unchanged traffic volumes
— mean a cut in greenhouse gas emissions from motorised
transport of only 3.5 %. As transport accounts for around a
quarter of total greenhouse gas emissions, we are speaking here
of a potential 1 % cut in total emissions! This is a value which is
out of all proportion to the cost and the associated risks.

5.14
Even if agrofuels for transport were seen as a way of
usefully harnessing biomass, the accent should be on absolute
efficiency. Annex VII to the directive makes it clear, however,
that the conversion of biomass to esters or ethanol is not the
right approach. Any (industrial) molecular change is associated
with energy input and thus energy loss. It would make more
sense to use the biomass directly, without industrial/chemical
change.

The fact

5.15
that some tractor manufacturers are now
offering engines which run on pure plant oil shows that this is
technically possible.

Annex VII demonstrates that the greatest greenhouse
5.16
gas emission savings can be achieved using this technology;
pure rape seed oil offers standard greenhouse gas emission
savings of 55 %, agrodiesel from rape only 36 %, ethanol from
wheat 0 %, compared with fuels derived from fossil oil. The
EESC cannot understand why the Commission does not make it
clear that this path offers the greatest benefits, particularly as
this is the way in which decentralised energy supply structures
— and thus jobs in agriculture and rural areas — can be most
easily developed.

The EESC considers that a good strategy would be to
5.17
promote the use of pure plant oils, which can, for example, be
obtained from environment-friendly mixed cultivation, in agri-
culture itself and also, for example, in local transport and water-
borne transport (10).
In this way farmers could be directly
involved in the development of regional energy cycles and
would benefit directly from this. Under the agrofuel strategy, on
the other hand, they would become producers of the cheapest
possible raw materials for
indeed raw
materials grown in Europe were used at all.

industry,

the oil

if

(10) See also opinion TEN/211 — CESE 1502/2005, Renewable energy

sources of 15.12.2005 (rapporteur: Ms Sirkeinen), point 3.3.1.

6.1
The Commission believes that the bulk of the biomass
needed for agrofuels will be produced in regions with more
suitable climates outside the EU. Replacing imports of crude oil
with imports of biomass does not, however, mean reducing
import dependency but merely diversifying it.

It cannot seriously be the objective of a new EU energy

6.2
policy to replace one form of dependency with another.

6.3
Rather, the priority approach should be actually to place
decentralised, locally or regionally available sources at the heart
of the new renewable energy strategy. Bioenergies could and
must play a role here, but not the one envisaged by the agrofuel
strategy.

7. Employment

7.1
The Commission writes that ‘renewable energy is a close
substitute for conventional energy and is supplied through the same
infrastructure and logistic systems’. The EESC considers this state-
ment to be crucially misleading: renewable energies from decen-
tralised structures are diametrically opposed to conventional
energies, which tend to be produced in centrally organised,
large-scale plants.

An agrofuels strategy based on energy imports and diesel
7.2
and petrol additives uses the traditional, i.e. centrally organised,
structures of global oil companies. It thus cements their central
production and distribution structures, which is entirely in the
industry's interests. It creates hardly any new jobs in Europe,
however (11).

7.3
If, on the other hand, the accent is placed on the energy-
efficient use of, for example, wood chips for heat and power
production, or pure plant oils grown regionally, or the use of
biogas in vehicles or in areas without mains gas, or decentralised
solar technologies etc, new, regionally organised forms of manu-
facturing and distribution can be developed which will open up
major potential for new jobs.

7.4
In the case of solar thermal energy and the decentralised
use of photovoltaic technology (energy) consumers produce the
bulk of their energy needs themselves, which is also proof that
energy supply based on renewable energies is organised quite
differently from the existing energy supply structure.

(11) See also the study carried out by the European Commission's Joint
Research Centre, Biofuels in the European Context: Facts, Uncertain-
ties and Recommendations, 2008,
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_biofuels_report.pdf.

C 77/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

7.5
Other measures, such as greater energy-efficiency and
energy savings, could create hundreds of thousands of jobs in
small and medium-sized businesses — in the construction phase
alone. Insulation of buildings, the installation of solar and wind
energy equipment and the construction of biogas plants are
examples of this. The role of policy-making is to ensure that
this potential is actually tapped; the agrofuels strategy envisaged
by the directive is not the most efficient way.

This means that, in relation to the question of jobs too, a
7.6
very precise and much more differentiated analysis of
the
various renewable energies is urgently needed. Renewable ener-
gies can indeed promote and support regional economic struc-
tures; they can, however, also help to perpetuate large-scale,
centralised structures.

7.7
The same also applies to the countries in which biomass
for agrofuels is grown.
In a March 2008 discussion paper
the German
entitled Development-policy position on agrofuels,
federal ministry responsible for development aid comes to the
conclusion that, in terms of the economic, environmental and
social development of developing countries, a strategy of
export-orientated mass production of biomass, as a reaction to
sharply increased demand from industrialised countries, is asso-
ciated with high risks and will not create jobs, whereas biomass
for decentralised energy supply, with small farms involved in
production, gets a generally positive assessment.

8. Comments on the sustainability criteria

The Commission itself has repeatedly stressed the impor-
8.2
tance for
sustainability policy of a balance between the
economic, environmental and social pillars. And yet this total
exclusion of social issues from the criteria alone leads the EESC
to the conclusion that the draft directive does not implement a
well thought-out sustainability strategy or sustainability criteria
for agrofuels. In this respect the draft needs to be completely
revised.

8.3
The EESC considers it important in this context that,
because of indirect changes to land use, effective environmental
and social criteria be drawn up not only for agrofuels but for all
imported agricultural products, including feed.

8.4 Moreover, it is illusory to believe that, for example, rain-
forests or peat bogs can be protected against use for agrofuel
production by setting a cut-off date (in this case January 2008).
This would require a functioning land registry system as well as
a functioning administrative and monitoring system. Experience
shows that these do not exist in most emerging and developing
countries.

The EESC considers the criteria,

listed in Article 15(3)
8.5
and (4), for preserving biodiversity and preventing land with a
high carbon content from being used to be inadequate. Far
more areas than just those listed in paragraphs 3(a) to (c) are
important for the maintenance of biodiversity. The same is true
of paragraphs 4(a) and (b) in relation to carbon sinks.

8.1
The EESC is glad that the Commission also plans to
introduce sustainability criteria for the production of agrofuels.
This is a major step forward, but the Committee considers the
proposal submitted to be completely inadequate.

8.6
In Annex VII part B the Commission lists ‘estimated
typical and default values for future biofuels that are not or in
negligible quantities on the market’. The EESC believes that
values based on hard data should be used rather than estimates.

Brussels, 17 September 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS