COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Renewable energy progress report
Date: 2013-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, EU statistics, biofuel, energy consumption, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy, transport network

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 27.3.2013  
SWD(2013) 102 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Renewable energy progress report 

{COM(2013) 175 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Renewable energy progress report 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This staff working document accompanies the Report of the renewable energy progress report 
and covers the legal obligation of the Commission to report on the progress in the promotion 
and use of renewable energy, and to monitor and report on measures taken to respect the EU 
biofuel sustainability criteria and impact of the EU biofuel consumption on sustainability in 
the EU and the main third countries of supply in accordance with Articles 17, 18 and 23 of 
Directive  2009/28/EC.  The  document  draws  on  the  Member  States'  official  2011  progress 
reports1, external analysis undertaken for the Commission2 and internal Commission analysis. 

This document provides supplementary data and analysis for the progress report. It confirms 
the messages of the progress report that initial progress in developing renewable energy has 
been good or reasonable in nearly all Member States, but that the prognosis is less positive. 
Deviations from national plans increase the regulatory risk faced by investors and barriers that 
should, but have not yet been addressed through the implementation of the renewable energy 
Directive  remain  to  be  overcome.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  administrative  barriers 
regarding  planning  and  permitting  regimes  (2.1),  and  for  infrastructure  development  and 
operation  (2.2).  The  general  economic  conditions  in  the  EU  today  together  with  disruptive 
changes to support schemes for renewable energy (again, raising regulatory risk), add to the 
conclusion that further measures will be needed in nearly all Member States in order to stay 
on the trajectory and for the targets to be achieved.    

2. 

PROGRESS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT  

20 Member States in 2010 achieved or exceeded the 2010 renewable energy shares contained 
in the National Renewable Energy Action plans ("Plans").  Most of them also achieved their 
2011/2012  interim  targets3  and  unless  their  renewable  energy  shares  decrease  in  2011  and 
2012 they are on track with their trajectory towards 2020. A few countries deviated from their 
planned 2010 target, though only Malta significantly. While this is of course encouraging, it is 
important to bear in mind that these findings are based  on data from the  period 2008-2010. 
Since  then,  as  set  out  in  the  Report  mentioned  above,  the  economic  climate  has  changed 
significantly and, as a result, the overall prospects of Member States meeting their targets for 
2020 are less evident.  

1 The last of which was submitted in June 2012. 
2 Source: Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 
3 Part B of Annex I of the Directive 2009/28/EC establishes binding interim trajectory towards 2020 targets. The 
interim targets consist in a percentage deployment towards the 2020 target starting from 2005 levels: 20% has to 
be reached by 2011/2012, 30% by 20113/2014; 45% by 2015/2016, and 65% by 2017/2018  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1. Deviations from 2010 planned renewables shares 

In the electricity sector, 12 Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, 
Finland,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Romania,  Spain  and  Sweden)  exceeded 
their planned targets for renewable energy electricity in 2010, whilst the remaining 15 missed 
their targets (Figure 2). The "planned" targets for 2010 were also the indicative targets for the 
share  of  renewable  energy  in  the  electricity  mix  as  submitted  by  Member  States  under 
Directive 2001/77/EC. Thus 15 Member States failed to meet their legally agreed indicative 
2010 targets. 
Figure 2. Renewable energy electricity shares compared to 2010 plans ("target")4  

In the heating and cooling sector, 21 Member States exceeded their planned 2010 shares for  
renewable  energy  heating  and  cooling  (Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech 
Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania, 
Luxemburg,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  and  UK).  6  Member 

4 Source: Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
States  (France,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Malta,  the  Netherlands  and  Poland)  did  not  achieve  their 
planned targets for renewable energy heating and cooling (Figure 3). 
Figure 3. 2010 renewable energy heating & cooling shares against 2010 plans5  

In  the  transport  sector,  11  Member  States  (Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Italy, 
Hungary,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Sweden,  the  UK)  exceeded  their  planned 
2010 shares using more renewable energy in transport than projected. Estonia just fulfilled its 
planned  commitment  and  the  majority  -  15  Member  States  (Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus, 
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Spain, Malta, 
the Netherlands, and Romania) – were behind their planned targets (Figure 4). It is also worth 
noting  that  only  five  Member  States6  achieved  their  indicative  2010  target  of  5.75%  as 
established under Directive 2003/30/EC. 

5 Ibid. 
6 France, Germany, Poland Slovakia, Sweden. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 4. Overview of 2010 transport shares against 2010 plans7 

Such  statistical  comparisons  are  simple  and  indisputable,  however  the  collection  and 
assessment  of  national  statistical  data  is  time  consuming  so  there  is  quite  some  time  lag  in 
processing statistics – such that today, the 2010 data is the latest official data. For this reason 
the Commission has also undertaken a qualitative assessment8 of Member States' policies and 
measures  described  in  their  progress  reports  of  2011  and  made  a  comparison  with  the 
commitments  contained  in  the  national  renewable  energy  action  plans  ("Plans").  This 
assessment  indicates  that  few  Member  States  have  vigorously  implemented  their  planned 
short term measures and many have not honoured their commitments.  

In  addition,  modelling-based  analysis  was  undertaken  for  the  Commission,  considering  the 
current  and  planned  policy  initiatives  of  Member  States,  their  current  implementation  rates 
and the various barriers to renewable energy development9. This conservative analysis points 
to the possibility of an even less optimistic outlook for 2020.  

In  the  majority  of  countries,  currently  implemented  renewable  energy  policies  appear 
insufficient  to  trigger  the  required  renewable  energy  deployment,  at  least  under  such 
conservative assumption. Generally this reflects the inadequacy of both the current, existing 
measures  necessary  to  mitigate  the  non-economic  barriers  that  hinder  renewable  energy 
growth  and  support.  The  financial  crisis  also  affects  these  developments  more  than  was 
anticipated by Member States in their national renewable energy action plans; EU countries 
face  a  different  financial  risk  rating  today  and  that  has  had  a  further  negative  impact  on 
investments in renewable energy.  

7 Source: Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012  
8 The assessment is based on comparison of the policies and measures Member States reported in the national 
renewable energy action plans and in the progress report to identify measure by measure if the planned measures 
have been adopted or if existing measures planned to be revised have been revised. It was also assessed whether 
existing  measures  have  been  cancelled  or  put  on  hold  without  notice.  The  source  of  information  for  this 
assessment is the national plans (table 5) and the progress reports (table 2), complemented with expert interviews 
and  other  background  data.  The  qualitative  assessment  leads  to  the  answer  ‘yes’,  ‘no’  or  ‘partially’  for 
electricity, heating and cooling and transport policies.  
9 The Green-X model was applied to perform a detailed quantitative assessment of the future deployment of RES 
on country, sector and technology level.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
On  the  other  hand,  the  success  in  improving  energy  efficiency  and  consequently  reducing 
overall  energy  demand  growth  represents  a  more  positive  pillar  contributing  to  the 
achievement of renewable energy targets, since they are defined as renewable energy shares, 
i.e.  in  relation  to  final  energy  consumption.  Thus,  Member  States  may  end  up  with  higher 
renewable energy shares by virtue of lowering total energy consumption. Such efforts will be 
easier  for  those  with  lower  existing  shares  of  renewable  energy.  (Countries  with  high 
renewable  energy  shares  experiencing  strong  energy  growth  would  reduce  the  future 
renewable energy share and negatively affect renewable energy target achievement).  

The  quantitative  analysis  indicates  that  2012  renewable  energy  deployment  will  exceed 
planned  deployment  (the  EU  will  continue  to  be  above  its  trajectory).  However  thereafter 
growth  slows.  In  the  heating  and  cooling  sector  in  particular,  it  seems  significant 
improvements  in  the  policy  framework  are  needed10.  Specifically  according  to  technology 
deployment expectations within the heat sector, heat pumps, solar thermal collectors as well 
as  mid-  to  large-scale  geothermal  heating  systems  may  all  require  additional  initiatives  in 
order to let them play their role in meeting the 2020 targets. Geothermal energy is expected to 
have the greatest shortfall in 2012 (-32.1%) and heat pumps by 2020 (-70.9%). The electricity 
sector also shows shortfall by 2020. The technologies expecting to deviate most from planned 
deployment  paths  include  concentrated  solar  power  (-92.9%)  and  ocean  technologies 
(including  tidal  stream  and  wave  power;  -64.7%).  However  in  absolute  terms,  the  most 
important  measures  for  achieving  the  renewable  energy  targets  are  better  framework 
conditions for wind energy. In the transport sector additional initiatives are also required for 
biofuels where deviations appear highest compared to the other sectors. In practice, this may 
require an increase of the blending obligations in several countries (Table 1). 
Table 1. Expected deviation from planned EU technology deployment 2012 and 202011. 

2010  Expected 

2012 
("CPI") 

Technology  
 electricity 
Biomass (solid & liquid) 
Biogas 
Geothermal 
Hydro large-scale 
Hydro small-scale 
Photovoltaic 
Concentrated solar  
Wind onshore 
Wind offshore 
Tidal/Wave/Ocean 
 heating & cooling 
Biomass (solid & liquid) 
2.3 
Biogas 
0.6 
Geothermal 
4.2 
Heat pumps 
Solar Thermal 
1.7 
 Transport-biofuels only  13.6  15.0 
1st gen. biofuels 
13.6  15.0 

Mtoe Mtoe 
56.2  62.5 
9.6 
8.5 
2.5 
2.1 
0.5 
0.5 
26.9  26.1 
3.9 
3.8 
3.0 
1.9 
1 
0.1 
12.8  15.9 
0.5 
0.8 
0.04  0.04 
80.6  81.0 
72.2  72.2 
2.0 
0.5 
4.3 
1.5 

planned 
2012 
target 
Mtoe 
64.3 
8.7 
2.9 
0.5 
25.9 
4.1 
3.0 
0.4 
17.0 
1.6 
0.05 
70.6 
60.9 
1.9 
0.9 
5.1 
1.9 
16.2 
15.4 

2012 
deviation

Expected  2020 
(CPI+PPI) 

5.2 
0.9 

Expected 
2020 (CPI) 
Min.  Max.  Min.  Max. 
Mtoe Mtoe Mtoe  Mtoe 
% 
87.9 
77.3  77.9  87.1 
-2.8% 
14.5 
12.0  12.1  14.2 
9.9% 
5.2 
4.7 
-13.3%  4.7 
1.0 
0.8 
-6.9% 
0.8 
27 
26.8  26.9  26.8 
1.1% 
4.6 
4.7 
4.6 
-5.5% 
4.6 
7 
7 
6.8 
6.8 
0.2% 
0.7 
0.1 
-79.8%  0.1 
0.7 
18.5 
17.5  17.9  18.3 
-6.8% 
9.1 
3.7 
-49.8%  3.7 
9.1 
0.2 
0.2 
0.2 
-14.2%  0.2 
89 
14.7%  84.3  84.6  88.1 
77.9 
18.6%  74.8  75.1  77.1 
3.0 
24.0%  2.7 
1.3 
-32.1%  1.1 
3.1 
-17.2%  2.9 
3.5 
-12.2%  2.7 
20.8 
-7.8% 
18.6 
-2.6% 

2.7 
1.1 
2.9 
2.7 
18.9  20.6  19.1 
16.7  18.4  16.9 

3.0 
1.3 
3.1 
3.5 

2020 deviation 

target 
2020 

% 

Min.  Min. 
% 
-26.1% -26.1%
-16.7% -16.7%
-15.0% -15.0%
-15.5% -15.5%
-1.2% 
-1.2% 
-1.9% 
-1.9% 
-4.9% 
-4.9% 
-92.9% -92.9%
-42.4% -42.4%
-69.5% -69.5%
-64.7% -64.7%
-19.5% -19.5%
-8.3% 
-8.3% 
-38.1% -38.1%
-55.5% -55.5%
-70.9% -70.9%
-56.6% -56.6%
-34.8% -34.8%
-36.8% -36.8%

104.5 
14.4 
5.5 
0.9 
27.1 
4.7 
7.1 
1.7 
30.4 
12.0 
0.5 
104.7 
81.6 
4.4 
2.5 
9.9 
6.3 
28.9 
26.4 

10 A comparison of expected and planned deployment indicates a gap ranging from 15 to 19% for RES in heating 
and cooling.  
11 Source: Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2nd gen. biofuels 
 Total 

0.02  0.0 
150.4 158.5 

0.9 
151.2 

-100.0% 2.2 

2.2 

2.1 

4.8% 

180.4 183.1 194.2 

2.5 

2.2 
197.6  238.2 

-13.7% -13.7%
-24.3% -24.3%

CPI=current policy initiatives; PPI=planned policy initiatives 

2.1. 

Administrative barriers 

The  Renewable  energy  progress  report  also  notes  the  limited  progress  in  Member  States  in 
their  efforts  to  remove  the  administrative  barriers  to  renewable  energy  development. 
According to article 13(1) of the Directive 2009/28/EC, Member States shall ensure that the 
procedures  for  authorisation,  certification  and  licensing  procedures  for  renewables  are 
necessary  and  proportionate.  The  Directive  also  promotes  coordination  between  different 
administrative  levels  and  agencies  and  asks  for  concrete  time  limits  for  decisions.  Further, 
comprehensive  information  on  renewable  energy  must  be  made  available.  Administrative 
procedures shall be streamlined at the adequate administrative levels and requirements shall 
be objective, transparent and proportionate. The article also requires transparency as regards 
the costs of the proceedings and potentially also for special facilitations for smaller projects or 
decentralized projects. Article 22(3) then specifies a general reporting obligation and requires 
Member States to report on their plans to have a so-called “one stop shop”, thus one single 
agency  for  all  authorisation,  certification  and  licensing  procedures  (art.  22(3)  a)),  automatic 
permission in  case of no  response from the respective  authority  within  a  certain time frame 
(art.  22(3)  b))  and  measures  to  clearly  identify  geographical  sites  for  the  use  of  renewables 
and district heating and cooling.  

The Articles clearly address a large number of well-known barriers, but progress made by the 
Member  States  in  improving  their  administrative  procedures  (as  can  be  seen  from  Table  2) 
appears to be limited.  

Administrative  procedures  are  not  always  national,  often  subject  to  local  and  regional 
decisions. Important differences occur in the way how local authorities work, even within the 
same  country  (e.g.  Sweden,  Spain).  Many  Member  States  needing  improved  administrative 
measures announced such measures in their plans but have not put them into practice. Many 
Member  States  have  been  working  on  plans  for  the  deployment  of  some  technologies  as 
suggested in article 22(3)c) of the Directive, either designating areas or making clear where 
building certain plants is not possible. Few Member States combine an automatic procedure 
for financial support with the administrative application procedure.  

Generally,  the  concreteness  and  completeness  of  the  administrative  simplification  measures 
intended and reported is very low in all Member State reports: the quantity of permits required 
is  often  not  mentioned,  neither  the  number  of  authorities  involved  in  procedures.  These 
shortcomings were also apparent in Member States plans. This shows a lack of coordination 
and poor implementation of Article 13 of the Directive 2009/28/EC which explicitly asks for 
improved coordination of the administrative procedures. No Member State can be regarded as 
“advanced” in carrying out the administrate procedure reforms and few have received a “fair” 
rating. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Assessment of the administrative procedures in the Member States.12 

Member 
State 

“One Stop 
Shop”? 

One permit? 
(Nr. of 
permits?) 

Online 
application 
for 
permit? 

Max time 
limit for 
procedures? 

Automatic 
permission? 

Facilitated 
procedure 
for small-
scale? 

Identification 
of 
geographic 
sites? 

Austria 
Belgium 

Flanders 

Wallonia  

Brussels 

Bulgaria 
Czech 
Republic 
Cyprus 

Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 

Yes 
No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 
No 

Yes 

Yes 
No 
No 
No 

No (?) 
No (4) 

Partly (2) 
Partly (2) 

Partly (2) 

No (?) 
No (3) 

No (5) 

Yes 
No (2) 
No (3) 
No (3) 

No 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

No 
n.a. 

No 

n.a. 
No 
n.a. 
Partly 

Germany 

Partly 

Partly (2) 

Partly 

Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Yes 
Yes 
No 

Yes 

No 

Lithuania 

Partly 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

The 
Netherlands 
Poland 

Portugal 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No (3) 
Partly 
No (2) 

Yes 

No (8) 

No (2) 

No (2) 

Partly 

Yes 

No (4) 

No 
Partly 
No 

No 

No 

n.a. 

n.a. 

No 

Yes 

No 

Partly (2) 

Partly 

Romania 

No 

No (7) 

n.a. 

Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 

No 
No 
No 
Partly 
No 

No (3) 
No (>5) 
No (>5) 
Partly (2) 
No (3) 

No 
n.a. 
n.a. 
Partly 
n.a. 

No 
Partly (6 
mths – 1 yr) 
Yes (15 days 
- 4 mths) 
Yes (90-140 
days) 
Yes (20-450 
days) 
No 
Yes (60 days 
– 72 mths) 
Yes (2-3 
months) 
No 
No 
n.a. 
Partly (?-1 
yr) 
Partly (?-10 
months) 
Yes (n.a.) 
Yes (n.a.) 
Partly (6 – 8 
weeks) 
Yes (30-
90/180 days) 
Partly (30 - 
180 days) 
Partly (10-
30 days) 
Partly (3-5,5 
months) 
Partly (4 
weeks) 
Partly (6 
months) 
Partly (30-
65 days) 
Yes (120-
250 days + 
30 days for 
connection) 
Partly (30 
days) 
Partly (n.a.) 
No 
Yes (3 mths) 
Partly (n.a.) 
Partly (1 yr) 

No 
No 

No 

No 

No 

No 
No 

n.a. 

n.a. 
No 
n.a. 
No 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Partly 

n.a. 

Partly 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Partly 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
No 
Yes 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Yes 
No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

n.a. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 
n.a. 

Yes 

Yes 

n.a. 

Yes 
No 

Yes 

n.a. 
Yes 
Yes 
n.a. 

Yes 

n.a. 
n.a. 
Yes 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Yes 

n.a. 

Yes 

No 

Yes 
Yes 
Partly 
Yes 
Yes 

n.a. 

Yes 
n.a. 
n.a. 
Yes 
Partly 

Automatic 
entry into 
financial 
support 
scheme? 
No 
n.a. 

No 

No 

n.a. 

Yes 
n.a. 

n.a. 

Yes 
No 
n.a. 
No 

Yes 

n.a. 
No 
No 

No 

No 

No 

n.a. 

No 

No 

n.a. 

n.a. 

No 

n.a. 
n.a. 
No 
No 
No 

Overall  
assessment 

(cid:47) 
(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:47) 
(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:46) 
(cid:47) 
(cid:47) 
(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:47) 
(cid:46) 
(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:47) 
(cid:47) 
(cid:47) 
(cid:46) 
(cid:47) 

n.a.= no information, (cid:47)= needs improvement, (cid:46)= fair, ☺= advanced 

2.2. 

Electricity grid barriers 

The  Renewable  energy  progress  report  also  notes  limited  Member  State  progress  in 
addressing  the  electricity  grid  barriers.  A  comparative  analysis13  of  the  most  common 
electricity  grid  barriers  and  remedial  measures  planned  and  reported  by  Member  States  has 

12 Source: Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 
13 Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
been  undertaken.  This  has  provided  an  overview  of  the  effectiveness  of  electricity  grid 
measures and planned progress.  

Most countries are affected by a “lack of grid capacity” and “long lead times / delays”. This 
indicates an urgent need for grid extensions and shorter approval procedures. To improve the 
grid capacity, most Member States reported better, more structured approaches to increasing 
grid capacity, with network development plans and large investment programmes. To address 
the  barrier  of  long  lead  times,  most  of  the  countries  opted  for  measures  facilitating  and 
unifying the connection requirements but they also have chosen to grant specific rights for the 
producer  to  construct  a  connection  in  case  of  inertia  of  the  TSO.  One  barrier  “No 
compensation provided in case of curtailment” seems to be less present in Member States. It 
might  signal  that  there  is  already  a  vivid  promotion  of  renewable  energy-integration  in  the 
majority of countries or at least rules concerning the compensation for curtailment / renewable 
energy dispatching priority are in place.  

Comparing the barriers and measures taken to address grid barriers, it appears more has been 
done regarding grid development than on issues relating to grid costs. A first conclusion could 
be that adopting effective cost regulation measures aiming at a clear distribution and level of 
costs as well as setting incentives for investments seems to be less of a priority for Member 
States than accelerating and facilitating grid development.  

On  average,  Member  States  took  3  measures  to  deal  with  electricity  grid  barriers.  Romania 
has taken a record number of 8 measures. Since Romania was also affected by quite a number 
of  barriers  it  can  be  concluded  that  major  improvements  are  under  way  in  the  Romanian 
treatment  and  absorption  of  electricity  from  renewable  energy.  Such  efforts  will  be  closely 
monitored.  Germany  and  Lithuania  have  also  recently  been  quite  active  in  addressing 
electricity  grid  barriers.  The  analysis  also  shows  that  many  countries  had  not  addressed  or 
even  acknowledged  certain  barriers  in  their  National  Renewable  Energy  Action  plans  but 
have nevertheless adopted quite effective measures to reduce such barriers recently (e.g. "lack 
of  grid  capacity":  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Finland,  France,  Greece,  Ireland,  Spain).  This  shows 
that the development of renewable energy integration is evolving quickly and that policies are 
dynamic. 
The  implementation  of  the  EU  energy  infrastructure  package  and  the  3rd  energy  market 
liberalisation  package  (in  particular  the  creation  of  harmonised  EU  network  codes  and  grid 
framework  guidelines)  should  greatly  facilitate  the  treatment  and  resolution  of  the  grid 
barriers identified, but further efforts by Member States to fully implement Article 16 of the 
renewable energy Directive are required.  

3. 

EU BIOFUEL MARKET 

In  2010,  13.3  mega  tonnes  of  oil  equivalent  (Mtoe)  of  biofuels  were  consumed  in  the  EU, 
representing 4.5% of all fuels consumed in road transport and the bulk of the total renewable 
energy share (4.7%) in transport.  This share however fell below the original indicative target 
of  5.75%  for  2010  stipulated  in  the  previous  Directive  on  the  use  of  biofuels  and  other 
renewable  fuels  in  transport  (2003/30/EC)  (repealed  with  the  adoption  of  the  Renewable 
Energy Directive 2009/28/EC).  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Table 3. EU biofuel and all fuel consumption in transport, 2007 – 2010 (Mtoe) (Eurostat) 

Biodiesel 
Biogasoline 
Other liquid biofuels 
Total biofuels in road transport 
- Of which biofuels from waste (Article 21.2) 
- Other 
Non-road renewable electricity in transport 
Road renewable electricity in transport 
Total fossil fuels consumed in road transport 
Share of renewable energy in transport (Transport) 
planned 2010 EU share of renewable energy in transport 

2008 
6.8 
1.8 
0.9 
9.6 
0.07 
9.88 
1.17 

2010 
2009 
2007 
9.9 
9.1 
4.3 
2.8 
2.3 
1.2 
0.5 
0.5 
1.3 
13.3 
11.9 
6.7 
0.15 
0.18 
0.05 
11.42  12.83 
7.33 
1.14 
1.30 
1.24 
0.005  0.004  0.005  0.006 
301.5  295.2  287.6  285.1 
4.7% 
2.7% 
4.9% 

3.5% 

4.2% 

The share of biofuels (for indication only) is calculated by dividing the volume of biofuels in all transport, by the 
volume of all fuels in road transport (i.e. the sum of petroleum fuels and biofuels in road transport). 

Germany remained the largest consumer market in the EU for biofuels. In 2010 22% of all EU 
biofuels were consumed in Germany; other large consumers were France, United Kingdom, 
Italy  and  Spain.  In  Germany,  the  consumption  of  biofuel  decreased  in  2008,  recovered  in 
2009  and  increased  again  in  2010.  The  French  market  halted  in  2010.  Over  the  2008-2010 
period, the Latvian market experienced the strongest percentage growth (more than tenfold), 
though  its  total  market  is  still  very  small.  Significant  growth  also  occurred  in  Poland.  The 
already  low  growth  of  Danish  biofuels  consumption  seems  to  have  stopped  completely  in 
2010 and Malta and Estonia still have no significant consumption. (Table 4). 

Table 4.  EU biofuel consumption 2009-2010 (ktoe) (Eurostat). 

EU 
Germany  
France 
Spain 
Italy 
UK 
Poland 
Austria 
Sweden 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Czech Republic 
Finland 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Hungary 
Denmark 
Greece 
Ireland 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 

2009
11,908
2,697
2,454
1,073
1,180
970
663
485
361
286
373
220
195
145
163
168
169
9
78
75
52
41
4

2010
13,307
2,960
2,420
1,436
1,466
1,127
886
478
380
362
229
300
231
142
115
164
175
27
128
93
45
41
27

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Slovenia 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Estonia 
Malta 

30
4
15
0
0

45
13
15
0
0

Biodiesel  is  the  most  common  form  of  biofuels  consumed  in  the  EU,  with  75%  of 
consumption,  mostly  consumed  as  a  low  blend  of  up  to  10%  by  volume  in  conventional 
diesel. Pure biodiesel (B100) is used in several countries, most notably in Germany, but the 
market is declining as the tax advantages for B100 are gradually phased out. Also, on a small 
and declining scale, pure plant oils are still used in Germany, Austria and Ireland. In earlier 
years (2005-2008), the markets for B100 and other higher blends of biodiesel (B20, B30) and 
for pure plant oil used to be much more attractive, but vehicle manufacturers and governments 
have lost interest in this market and focused on biofuels in the mainstream diesel market. 

Biogas is used as a transport fuel in Sweden and Denmark at a considerable scale. In Sweden, 
about 100 gas stations sell biogas, in the form of compressed natural gas. 

Sweden  also  has  a  consistent  market  for  bioethanol,  E85.  This  fuel  is  sold  at  1,500  out  of 
3,000 of its filling stations. Supportive legislative framework ensures that E85 is 25% cheaper 
than  conventional  petrol;  flex-fuel  cars  get  free  parking  in  many  Swedish  towns  and  cities, 
and are exempt from the congestion charge in Stockholm. France is the second largest market 
for  E85  in  the  EU.  So  whilst  vehicles  and  the  markets  for  higher  biodiesel  blends  are 
disappearing,  more  car  makers  are  producing  flexifuel  vehicles  adapted  for  use  with  high 
blend  bioethanol.  Furthermore,  Sweden  is  the  only  Member  State  with  considerable 
significant E100 applications in public transport, in Stockholm and Örnsköldsvik. 

3.1. 

Double counting of biofuels 

In 2010, Eurostat reported that 1.4% (177 ktoe) of all EU consumed biofuels was produced 
from wastes, residues, non-food cellulosic material, and lignocellulosic material. These fuels 
count double towards the 10% transport according  to  Article 21.2 of Directive 2009/28/EC. 
(So  whereas  the  actual  share  is  only  0.06%  of  energy  use  in  transport,  these  fuels  count  as 
0.11% points (double-counting rule) of the 4.70% 2010 transport share. Whilst these official 
values are valid for target accounting purposes, they may well be an underestimation resulting 
from  different  national  definitions  of  waste  and  reporting  methods.  Non  Eurostat  data 
sources14  suggest  that  EU  biodiesel  consumption  actually  included  1276ktoe  of  recycled 
vegetable oil, which is generally considered waste oil, but has not been included in Member 
State  submissions  to  Eurostat.  This  would  imply  that  EU  consumption  of  such  biofuels  in 
2010 was nearer 9%. 

Few  countries  (Italy,  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Sweden)  have  reported  the  production  or 
consumption  of  double-counted  biofuels  for  the  period  2009-2010.  In  Sweden  the  double 
counted biofuels are largely based on biogas, in the other countries on used cooking oil, with 
smaller  amounts  derived  from  animal  fats.    Several  countries  have  facilities  for  producing 
residue-based biofuels, and the UK reported biofuels production from ‘by-products’. 
Table 5. Double counting biofuels reported by Member States.15 

14 See Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 
15 Source: 2011 Member State renewable energy progress reports/Eurostat 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member 
State 

Biodiesel 
(ktoe) 

Bioethanol 
(ktoe) 

2009  2010  2009  2010 

Denmark 

0 

0 

France 
Germany 

0 
43 

63 
86 

0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

Ireland 

16.36  22.6 

2.5 

Malta 
Netherlands 

0.76 
242 

0.63 
338 

UK 

0 

0 

0 
(138 
*) 
0 

0 
(134 
*) 
0 

Comments 

The progress report mentions that “Inbicon produces around 5 million 
litres  of  bioethanol  based  on  hay.  Much  of  this  fuel  was  exported 
between 2009 and 2010.  

in  2009  and  0 

Progress  report  mentions  consumption  of  double  counting  biofuels 
17ktoe 
in  2010.  Eurostat  does  not  report  any 
consumption. 
Biofuels that are produced and consumed in Ireland under Article 21(2) 
include  those  derived  from  used  cooking  oil  (UCO)  and  category  1 
tallow  (to  produce  biodiesel)  and  whey  (residue  from  dairy  products 
production used for bio-ethanol production). 

* The production figures for double counting ethanol are confidential. 
Therefore, the consumption numbers are shown. 
Consumption of biofuels from ‘by-products’:  
2009: 165 ktoe 
2010: 298 ktoe 

The largest contribution of double counted biofuels was seen in the Netherlands. In practice, 
this  mainly  concerned  biodiesel  made  from  used  deep-frying  oil  and  animal  fats  from 
slaughterhouses.  The  feedstock  came  from  throughout  the  EU16.  The  production  of  double 
counted “bioethanol” in the Netherlands mainly concerned biomethanol from glycerine at the 
facility  of  BioMCN.  The  production  capacity  is  200  kt/year,  but  the  actual  production  is 
confidential. This biomethanol is accepted on several Member States’ markets, sometimes in 
the form of its derivative bio-mtbe. 

Measures  for  double  counting  biofuels  were  not  implemented  in  the  UK  in  2009  or  2010, 
therefore  neither  the  UK  progress  report,  nor  Eurostat  reported  any  consumption  of  double 
counted fuels. Nevertheless, the UK Renewable Fuels Agency reported that in the 2009/2010 
obligation  year,  12%  (by  volume)  of  biofuels  originated  from  tallow  and  3%  from  used 
cooking oil. 

In  Sweden,  only  biofuels  that  are  produced  in  Sweden  from  waste,  residues,  non-food 
cellulosic  material  and  lignocellulosic  material  have  been  reported  as  being  double-counted 
biofuels,  such  as  biogas  and  ethanol  from  residues  from  sulphite  pulp  production.  Sweden 
also considers HVO (hydrogenated vegetable oil) from crude tall oil part of this category.  

3.2. 

Origin of EU biofuels   

83% of biodiesel and 80% of bioethanol consumed in the EU in 2010 were produced within 
the EU. Germany, France, Italy and Spain remained the largest biofuel producers supplying 
over 70% of the biofuels in the EU (Table 6).  

Table 6.  EU biofuel production 2009-2010 (ktoe) (Eurostat).  

Member State 

Germany 

France 

Italy 

Spain 

2009 

3,936 

2,324 

1,119 

887 

2010 

4,589 

2,259 

1,419 

1,023 

16 Member State Renewable Energy Progress Reports 2011 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Sweden 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Belgium 

Portugal 

Austria 

Czech Republic 

Finland 

United Kingdom 

Slovakia 

Hungary 

Romania 

Greece 

Lithuania 

Denmark 

Latvia 

Ireland 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Malta 

Estonia 

Luxembourg 

Slovenia 

557 

290 

429 

353 

228 

303 

195 

230 

211 

150 

154 

75 

71 

108 

78 

49 

57 

11 

6 

: 

0 

0 

6 

622 

363 

457 

378 

285 

299 

236 

314 

277 

161 

142 

46 

112 

102 

69 

48 

63 

11 

5 

1 

0 

0 

16 

European Union 

11,826 

13,298 

Current EU production capacity is not fully utilized. The years of rapid expansion of biodiesel 
industry seem to be over: from 2005 to 2009 production capacity increased by 360%, while 
the  increase  from  2009  to  2010  was  just  7%.  Already  in  2007  and  2008,  the  first  cases  of 
companies  closing  their  operation  or  declaring  insolvency  occurred  in  the  UK,  Austria,  and 
Germany.  This  development  continued  and  spread  to  the  Benelux  in  2009  and  to  Italy  in 
2010. In addition, a number of plants all over the EU temporarily stopped production. Even 
with  the  projected  increase  in  EU  biodiesel  consumption  through  mandates,  a  number  of 
plants can be expected to close their operations17.  

There  are  several  reasons  for  the  apparent  underutilisation  of  production  capacity.  Market 
(and subsidised) returns on investment seemed very attractive when decisions for construction 
were taken, and may have resulted in overcapacity. Changing legislation, however, meant a 
decrease in demand, especially for biodiesel. Increasing imports to the EU also led to lower 
use  of  the  EU  produced  biofuels,  in  particular,  low-cost  imports  of  biodiesel  from  the  U.S. 
and  Argentina  that  were  driven  by  favourable  blending  subsidies  (U.S.)  and  export  policies 
(Argentina) in those countries. Biofuel production costs were also influenced by increasing oil 
and feedstock prices and the gap between biofuel production cost and sales value at the pump 
became too big to be bridged by the incentive schemes in place.  

17 U.S. Dept of Agriculture (Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 201.1 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
As noted in the Report18, Argentina (10% of biodiesel imports), Brazil and the US (8% and 
4%  of  bioethanol  imports)  were  the  top  three  third  countries  supplying  the  EU  biofuels 
market.  In  2010  Argentina  replaced  the  U.S.  as  the  largest  biodiesel  exporter  to  the  EU 
compared to 2008 when about the same fraction of biodiesel imports came from the U.S. and 
Argentina.  In  2010,  however,  imports  of  biodiesel  from  the  U.S.  were  limited  by  EU  anti-
dumping  regulations  imposed  in  2009.  In  2010  Brazil  remained  the  largest  exporter  of 
bioethanol  to  the  EU,  although  bioethanol  imports  halved  from  15.9%  of  bioethanol  on  the 
EU  market  in  2008  to  just  8.4%  in  2010.  The  high  sugar  prices,  combined  with  adverse 
weather conditions in a major producing region, resulted in production and export decreases.  

The following tables (Table 7 and Table 8) present an overview for biodiesel and bioethanol 
feedstock of the EU consumed biofuels.   

Table  7.    Origin  of  feedstock  for  biodiesel  consumed  in  the  EU  in  2010.  Expressed  in 
volume of biodiesel (ktoe)19 

Rapeseed 

Soybean 

Palm oil 

Tallow 

RVO 

Other 

Total 

EU 

4,098 

Argentina 

Indonesia 

Brazil 

Canada 

Ukraine 

U.S. 

Malaysia 

Paraguay 

Russia 

China 

Other 

Total 

0 

0 

0 

212 

252 

7 

0 

3 

80 

0 

99 

87 

1,191 

0 

417 

44 

14 

221 

0 

185 

45 

1 

14 

5 

0 

814 

0 

0 

0 

0 

212 

0 

0 

0 

13 

Sunflower 
seed 
444 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

159 

1,182 

0 

0 

1 

13 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

22 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

67 

1 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

5,977 

1,191 

60% 

12% 

8% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

814 

419 

292 

266 

245 

212 

188 

124 

67 

126 

9,922 

4,751 

2,220 

1,043 

444 

184 

1,276 

Table  8.    Origin  of  feedstock  for  bioethanol  consumed  in  the  EU  in  2010.  Expressed  in 
volume of bioethanol (ktoe)20. 

Wheat  Maize 

Barley 

Rye 

Triticale 

581 

344 

58 

81 

20 

Sugar 
beet 
733 

Wine 

101 

0 

2 

0 
25 
0 

6 

0 

0 

8 

122 

0 
0 
0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

Sugar 
cane 
0 

234 

0 

26 
0 
20 

0 

15 

14 

Other 

Total 

33 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

1,951  79%
242 

10%

124 

26 
25 
20 

15 

15 

14 

5%

1%
1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

EU 

Brazil 

U.S. 

Peru 
Switzerland 
Bolivia 

Ukraine 

Egypt 

Guatemala 

18 Renewable energy: 2012 progress report.  
19 Source: Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 
20 Ibid. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
 
                                                 
Argentina 

Cuba 

Other 

Total 

0 

0 

10 

623 

2 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

6 

16 

0 

0 

2 

7 

6 

34 

0%

0%

1%

490 

58 

81 

20 

735 

101 

336 

35 

2,480 

The most important feedstock for biodiesel was rapeseed originating from the EU, followed 
by  Argentinean  soy  -  both  in  the  biodiesel  imported  from  Argentina  as  well  as  in  EU 
produced  biodiesel.  Indonesian  and  Malaysian  palm  oil  were  feedstock  to  the  biodiesel 
exported by those countries to the EU, but also played a role in the EU biodiesel production. 
Similarly,  soybean  from  Brazil,  US  and  Paraguay  were  converted  in  the  EU  to  biodiesel. 
Significant  rapeseed  imports  from  Canada  and  Ukraine  also  showed  up  in  EU  produced 
biodiesel.  

The origin of feedstock of EU consumed ethanol in 2010 stemmed from a broader range of 
countries,  compared  with  biodiesel  feedstock,  although  about  80%  originated  from  the  EU. 
EU produced ethanol was mainly produced from EU produced feedstock, only small shares of 
wheat and maize originate from Switzerland, Ukraine and a few other countries. 

Table 8a.  Origin of total biofuel feedstock, 2010.  

EU 
63.9% 

Argentina 
9.7% 

Indonesia 
6.6% 

Brazil 
5.3% 

U.S. 
3.0% 

Canada  Ukraine 

2.4% 

2.3% 

Malaysia 
1.7% 

Paraguay  Other 
1.3% 

1.5% 

Russia 
1.0% 

China 

0.5% 

Switzerland 
0.2% 

Peru 
0.2% 

Bolivia 
0.2% 

Peru 

0.2% 

Egypt 

0.1% 

Guatemala 
0.1% 

THE EU BIOFUELS SUSTAINABILITY SCHEME 

4. 
Since the end of 201021, all biofuels and bioliquids,  either produced in  the EU  or imported, 
that  are  counted  towards  the  renewable  energy  targets  for  transport  and  national  renewable 
energy  obligations  and  that  receive  financial  support,  must  comply  with  the  sustainability 
criteria for biofuels and bioliquids included in the Renewable Energy Directive22. Compliance 
can  be  demonstrated  following  the  provisions  of  national  law  in  the  EU  Member  States, 
through  the  use  of  EU  approved  certification  schemes  or  by  following  the  provisions  laid 
down in bi- or multilateral agreements covering the sustainability scheme for biofuels, albeit 
no  such  agreement  was  concluded  so  far.  The  Commission  is  required  in  its  biennial 
renewable  energy  progress  and  biofuel  sustainability  reports  to  assess  national  measures  in 
respect of the EU sustainability criteria, and measures taken for soil, water and air protection. 
The  Commission  is  also  required  to    assess23  the  operation  of  the  verification  system  for 
measuring  the  compliance  with  the  sustainability  criteria  (mass  balance  verification 
method)  and  the  feasibility  and  appropriateness  of  introducing  mandatory  requirements  in 
relation to air, soil or water protection. 

21  The  Renewable  Energy  Directive  had  to  be  transposed  in  the  national  law  of  all  Member  States  by  5th 
December 2010.  
22 Article 17 of Directive 2009/28/EC define the sustainability criteria that have to be fulfilled by all biofuels and  
bioliquids,  whether  or  EU  or  other  origin,  that  are  counted  towards  the  national  targets,  renewable  energy 
obligations  and  eligibility  for  financial  support.  Article  18  (1)  establishes  rules  for  verification  of  compliance 
with the sustainability criteria. 
23    The  Commission  is  required  by Article  18.2  and 18.9  of  the  RES Directive  to  assess  "the  operation  of  the 
mass balance verification method […] and the potential for allowing for other verification methods" as well as 
"the effectiveness of the system in place for the provision of information on sustainability criteria and whether 
[…] to introduce mandatory requirements in relation to air, soil or water protection". 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.1. 

Implementation of the sustainability scheme  

By the end of 2010 only six Member States (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary 
and  Malta)  had  declared  even  partial  transposition  of  the  EU  sustainability  criteria  in  their 
national law, as the Directive only came in force on 5th December 2010. In 2012 all Member 
States  had  declared  partial  or  complete  transposition  of  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive, 
including biofuel sustainability criteria. However, the Commission's analysis reveals that the 
transposition and implementation of the biofuel sustainability criteria in many Member States 
is still not complete or correct. The Commission continues to assess Member State progress in 
implementation of the renewable energy Directive and legal measures are being taken in those 
cases where the transposition is incomplete.  

An  increasing  amount  of  the  feedstock  used  to  supply  the  EU  biofuels  market  (i.e.  from 
Argentina,  Brazil,  the  US,  Indonesia  and  Malaysia)  have  demonstrated  compliance  with  the 
sustainability criteria through the use of a voluntary scheme (and so may count towards the 
target).  The three main voluntary schemes, that increased their coverage in these countries in 
2010 were RTRS (Round Table on Responsible Soy), ISCC International Sustainability and 
Carbon  Certification)  and  RSPO  (Round  Table  for  Sustainable  Palm  Oil).  However,  during 
the  period  covered  by  this  report,  none  of  these  schemes  had  been  recognised  by  the 
Commission.  The  first  schemes  were  recognised  in  2011.  Currently,  a  total  of  thirteen 
voluntary schemes have been recognised by the Commission and the share of biofuels to be 
certified by these schemes is expected to increase. Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia 
also adopted  new regulatory measures in  2009 and 2010 aiming at improved environmental 
practices in forestry, nature protection or feedstock cultivation, including for biofuels. 

4.2. 

Effectiveness of the sustainability scheme  

By  nature  the  implementation  of  Directives  in  the  Member  States  differs  with  respect  to 
various technical details. A study conducted for the Commission shows that such differences 
may  have  implications  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  system  and  the  administrative  burden  for 
economic operators. 
Overall, the report24 shows that particularly in the larger Member States representing the bulk 
of biofuel consumption the sustainability scheme for biofuels works effectively, however, it 
also shows that in some Member States there is still scope to improve the effectiveness of the 
sustainability scheme.  

The  implementation  of  the  sustainability  scheme  differs  among  Member  States  also  with 
respect to the administrative burden placed on economic operators.  

In some Member States economic operators have to report to several governmental bodies and 
have only a limed choice of options on how to demonstrate compliance with the sustainability 
criteria. Some Member States rely for instance solely on voluntary schemes without setting up 
an ex post verification system. Overall, it can be concluded that the Member States did not put 
an excessive administrative burden on the economic operators.   

The  administrative  burden,  however,  does  not  depend  only  on  procedures  applied  in  each 
Member State individually. The administrative burden may also increase if the administrative 
procedures  and  requirements  differ  significantly  between  Member  States.  Varying  reporting 
obligations  for  instance  make  it  more  difficult  or  costly  for  producers  to  operate  in  several 
Member  States  simultaneously.  It  is  therefore  recommended  that  Member  States,  like 

24  Study  on  the  operation  of  the  system  for  the  biofuels  and  bioliquids  sustainability  scheme  –  analysis  of 
Member State implementation, 2013 Task 2 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/renewables_en.htm  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
voluntary schemes, harmonise procedures wherever this would facilitate the operation of the 
internal market for biofuels or extend mutual recognition to national schemes.  

Measures  to  improve  the  effectiveness  could  for  example  include  the  application  of  are  for 
instance to apply appropriate penalties for non-compliance with procedures laid down in the 
sustainability  scheme  or  the  sustainability  criteria  themselves.  Such  penalties  should  go 
further than the excluding biofuels from counting towards the renewable energy targets and 
from  support  mechanisms.  Furthermore,  not  all  Member  States  have  yet  defined  the  
verification bodies needed to be able to conduct the audits foreseen in the framework of the 
sustainability scheme.  

4.3.  Measures in relation to air, soil or water protection 

Currently,  the  main  feedstock  used  for  the  production  of  biofuels  are  agricultural  corps. 
Potential  risks  for  soil,  air  and  water  from  feedstock  cultivation  for  biofuel  are  therefore 
similar to the risks related to other agricultural activity.  

Regarding measures for soil, water and air protection, most Member States deemed the impact 
of the production of feedstock for biofuels on water and air quality in 2010 to be low, either 
because the share of crops dedicated to biofuels is small compared to other uses or because 
feedstock for biofuel production were imported from other Member States or third countries 
and  therefore  no  domestic  land  was  used.  However,  19  Member  States  had  also  not  yet 
performed  such  impact  assessments  for  biofuel  production  in  2010.  Belgium,  Bulgaria  and 
Germany  reported  on  completed  or  on-going  studies  to  assess  the  impacts  of  their  biofuels 
policies;  five  Member  States  (Austria,  the  UK,  the  Czech  Republic,  Italy  and  Poland) 
estimated  that  negative  impacts  from  the  production  of  biofuels  on  biodiversity,  water 
resources  and  quality  would  be  prevented  by  existing  legislation  or  protection  measures, 
including national codes of practice and the EU cross compliance requirements for farmers25.  
A report26 produced for the Commission shows that production of agricultural feedstock for 
biofuel  production  might  have  an  impact  on  air  quality,  might  lead  to  increased  water 
consumption.  The  best  way  to  reduce  such  risks  is  to  promote  good  agricultural  practices. 
However,  such  good  agricultural  practices  depend  on  the  crop,  the  region,  the  prevailing 
conditions etc. Therefore, defining, applying and enforcing mandatory criteria for protection 
of  soil,  air  and  water  does  not  appear  feasible  specifically  for  biofuels  as  the  risks  are  not 
specifically  related  to  production  of  feedstock  for  biofuels  but  to  agricultural  production  in 
general.  Therefore,  such  risks  could  be  approached  in  a  much  more  efficient  way  by 
agricultural  policy.  Nonetheless,  the  sustainability  scheme  for  biofuels  contributes  to 
promotion of good agricultural practice as many of the voluntary certification schemes which 
have  been  recognised  by  the  Commission  for  demonstrating  compliance  with  the 
sustainability  criteria  require  farmers  to  apply  good  agricultural  practises.  This  provides 
further incentives to improve production methods because voluntary schemes will be able to 
use their membership of such schemes for marketing purposes.  

25  Member State biennial national renewable energy progress reports (2011) in accordance with Article 22 (1) of 
the Directive 2009/28/EC. Available on Commission's Transparency platform:  
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/2011_en.htm 
26  Study  on  the  operation  of  the  system  for  the  biofuels  and  bioliquids  sustainability  scheme  -  mandatory 
requirements  in  relation  to  air,  soil,  or  water  protection:  analysis  of  need  and  feasibility,  2013  Tasks  3&4 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/renewables_en.htm 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.4.  Mass balance system 

Typically, biofuels have a production chain with many links, from field to distribution of the 
fuel.  The  feedstock  is  often  transformed  into  an  intermediate  product  and  then  into  a  final 
product. Compliance with the sustainability criteria needs to be shown for the final product. 
The  method  by  which  a  connection  is  made  between  information  or  claims  concerning  raw 
materials or intermediate products and claims concerning final products is known as the chain 
of custody. The method laid down in the Renewable Energy Directive for the chain of custody 
is  the  mass  balance  method.  Other  options  are  'book  and  claim'  systems  and  physical 
segregation systems, also called 'track and trace' or 'identity preservation'. 

In a mass balance system physical mixing of certified and non-certified products is permitted 
but products are kept administratively segregated. The system ensures that for the volume of 
biofuels for which claims are made at the end of the supply chain, sufficient certified material 
has been added to the supply chain, taking into account relevant conversion factors.  Physical 
product  and  sustainability  information  are  coupled  when  they  are  traded  between  parties. 
There cannot be trade in sustainability information between parties without trading physical 
products between the same two parties (as is possible in a book and claim system). Each actor 
in  the  supply  chain  keeps  track  of  the  amount  of  product  with  certain  sustainability 
characteristics  it  sources  and  sells,  in  which  each  company  can  never  sell  more  certified 
products than it sourced, taking into account relevant conversion factors.  

Under the book and claim method, fuel suppliers must be able to show that a quantity of raw 
material  or  biofuel  equal  to  the  quantity  in  the  consignment  in  question,  and  having  the 
sustainability  characteristics  described  in  associated  documentation,  has  been  produced 
somewhere in the world; and that this documentation has not been and will not be associated 
with any other consignment of biofuel for the purposes of sustainability verification. 

In  physical  segregation  systems  certified  products  are  physically  segregated  from  non-
certified  products  throughout  the  supply  chain.  'Track  and  trace'  or  identity  preservation  
systems  also  provide  traceability  back  to  the  origin  of  the  product.  All  such  systems  ensure 
that consignments physically contain 100% certified material.  

Three  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive  and  the  Fuel  Quality 
Directive  the  operation  of  mass  balance  systems  is  an  established  practice.  However,  the 
detailed  implementation  of  the  system  differs  between  Member  States  and  also  between 
voluntary schemes but as long as the principle of the mass balance system is not violated this 
is  not  problematic  with  respect  to  the  integrity  of  the  system.  Still,  further  harmonisation 
would  facilitate  the  operation  of  the  biofuels  market.  This  is  why  the  Commission  has 
included recommendations for the implementation of the mass balance system in the Report 
on the practical implementation of the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme27.  

The Commission assessed alternative forms of the chain of custody in 2008.  It concluded that 
the book and claim method has the disadvantage of lower effectiveness than the mass balance 
method.    This  is  because  only  a  small  share  of  feedstock  is  used  for  the  production  of 
biofuels. It would not be difficult to find sufficient amounts of sustainably produced product 
to  meet  the  demand  for  biofuels.  Therefore,  the  certification  scheme  would  not  require 
changing  production  practises  and  thus,  would  be  ineffective.    Segregation  systems  on  the 
other hand would cause a disproportional administrative burden as traders would be required 
to separate the product streams completely. An analysis of the operation of the mass balance 

27 2010/C 160/02 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
system  which  was  conducted  for  the  Commission28  has  shown  that  that  most  market 
participants  dealing  with  the  chain  of  custody  would  prefer  to  maintain  the  mass  balance 
system. The main reasons for this assessment are to prevent confusion in the market, a lack of 
complaints  about  the  mass  balance  system,  to  avoid  high  costs  of  switching  and  the  low 
effectiveness  of  the  book  and  claim  system.  Therefore,  the  mass  balance  system  should  be 
maintained. The Commission services will continue the close dialog with Member States and 
stakeholders in order to apply best practises. 

4.5. 

Definitions of areas of high conservation value and high biodiversity value 

Article 17(3) defines areas with high biodiversity value and exempts such areas from use for 
the production of biofuels and bioliquids. The Commission is also required by Article 23 (5c) 
to  assess  whether  current  definitions  of  areas  of  high  conservation  value  and  high 
biodiversity value defined in Article 17 (3) and 17 (4) of the  renewable energy Directive are 
sufficient for biodiversity protection.  

Biodiversity is complex in nature and has multiple dimensions (i.e. ecosystem-level, species-
level,  and  genetic-level  biodiversity),  and  because  of  issues  of  ecological  scale  and 
connectivity,  and  the  mobility  and  migration  of  some  species,  it  is  difficult  to  define  terms 
such as “high conservation value” precisely and scientifically29 with an agreed approach that 
would be valid for all scales, habitats and  species. At the global scale, conservation scientists 
have  used  several  different  approaches  to  identify  areas  of  importance  for  biodiversity 
conservation,  such  as  Conservation  International’s  biodiversity  hotspots,  or  WWF’s  global 
200 ecoregions, but these are generally not considered appropriate for public policy decision 
making e.g. on the biofuel production. There is little scientific discussion on the relationship 
between  the  various  standards  and  their  varying  levels  of  protection  for  “high  biodiversity” 
lands  and  there  is  little  consensus  on  how  they  should  be  defined  and  identified.  However 
Webb  and  Coates  also  note  the  availability  of  the  UN-Energy  Bioenergy  Decision  Support 
Tool that can aid the identification of high biodiversity value areas. 

All of the ecosystems listed in Articles 17 (3) (biodiversity) and 17 (4) (high carbon stocks) 
are  prohibited  for  conversion  for  biofuel  feedstock  production  are  high  conservation  value 
areas. Since their direct conversion for biofuel feedstock production is already prohibited by 
the  renewable  energy  Directive,  the  Directive's  current  definitions  can  be  considered  as 
sufficient to prevent direct conversion of a large part of these areas to arable crops, and, on the 
basis  of  current  scientific  evidence  their  improvement  is  not  considered  appropriate  or 
feasible. However, existing tools can still be useful and when further developed provide the 
basis  for  improved  assessment.  that  might  already guide decision making and that might be 
considered in the next report when further developed. Further, the studies on indirect land use 
change carried out by the Commission show that indirect impacts on these ecosystems could 
be significant. The Commission's proposal to address indirect land use change aims to address 
these risks. 

Impacts of EU biofuel consumption 

The EU sustainability scheme, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements included in 
the Renewable Energy Directive, aims at preventing the conversion of areas of high carbon 

28  Study  on  the  operation  of  the  system  for  the  biofuels  and  bioliquids  sustainability  scheme  –  mass  balance 
report, 2013 Task 1 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/renewables_en.htm 
29 Campbell and Doswald 2009; Grantham, et al. 2010; Lourival, et al. 2009; Technical Series of the Secretariat 
of the Convention on Biological Diversity on Biofuels and Biodiversity, Webb and Coates 2012. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
stock  and  high  biodiversity  for  the  production  of  raw  materials  for  biofuels.  These 
requirements  also  require  that  biofuels  must  achieve  minimum  greenhouse  gas  emission 
saving  thresholds.  Moreover,  the  Commission  is  required  to  monitor  and  report  on  the 
impacts of the EU biofuel consumption in the EU and in the third countries supplying the EU 
market.  

4.6. 

Economic and social impacts  

4.6.1.  Land use 

It is estimated that the total land planted to produce the feedstock for 13.3 Mtoe of biofuels 
consumed in the EU in 2010 was about 5.7 Mha. of which 3.2 Mha, (57%) within the EU and 
2.4 Mha. (43%) outside the EU. Full incorporation of the value of co-products would yield a 
lower figure30 (less than 3 Mha in total). Within the EU, several countries used slightly higher 
percentage of the land used for the total crop for the EU biofuel feedstock, like France (6%), 
Germany (5%) and Poland (2%). The IFPRI estimate is of 2.4% for the EU. 

Member  State  progress  reports  provide  little  conclusive  evidence  about  the  impact  of 
increased biofuel production on the national land use patterns. Some Member States did not 
allocate  any  of  the  land  use  changes  to  biofuels  (Austria,  Denmark),  concluded  that  these 
changes were insignificant (Bulgaria, Netherlands), or even reported decreasing land use for 
biofuel crops (Estonia, Lithuania). France, Slovakia, Slovenia reported that the area occupied 
by feedstock that can be used for biofuel production increased. Romania reported significant 
expansion in land use for rapeseed between 2004 to 2009 on to previously unused agricultural 
land.  The  UK  claimed  a  small  increase  in  the  land  used  for  oilseed  rape  and  sugar  beet  as 
biofuel feedstock between 2009 and 2010; also the start of domestic ethanol production from 
wheat in UK resulted in expansion of the land used for wheat as a biofuel feedstock (2% of 
the total UK wheat crop was used for ethanol production).  
The Commission, in its proposal31 on minimising indirect land-use change (ILUC) emissions 
adopted 17 October 2012, limits the contribution that 1st generation biofuels can offer towards 
the  Renewable  Energy  Directive  transport  targets  to  5%,  which  represents  today's 
consumption levels. This limits the risk of any further ILUC impacts, and provides for strong 
incentives for advanced 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels, and in particular for those advanced 
biofuels that are not using land, which will count more towards the above-mentioned target. 
The proposal also increases the minimum greenhouse gas emissions savings threshold for new 
installations  and  suggests  that  reporting  of  ILUC  should  be  required  by  Member  States,  by 
using  the  ILUC-factors  set  out  in  Annex  to  the  proposal.  The  proposal  is  now  with  the  co-
legislators in the Parliament and the Council. 

4.6.2.  Land use rights  

Concerns  have  been  expressed  regarding  the  increase  in  global  biofuel  production  and  its 
possible negative impacts on the land use rights32. The comprehensive 2012 ILC global study 

30  Estimations  for  total  land  area  used  for  the  biofuel  production,  including  their  destination  for  the  domestic 
and/or EU market is based on production and trade data and feedstock analysis. All data from Renewable energy 
progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012. IFPRI results suggest additional cropland for biofuels 
constitutes 1.7Mha.  
31 The proposal and accompanying Impact Assessment is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/land_use_change_en.htm  
32 ILC 2012 - Land rights and the rush for land; Pisces 2011- Working brief: biofuels and sustainability: a case 
study from Tanzania, UK DIFD; Grain 2012- The great food robbery, Barcelona, Spain; ActionAid 2012 - Fuel 
for thought; UN Special rapporteur on the right to food Olivier De Schutter states that “biofuel crops often lead 
to land-grabbing”. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
about land deals which is based on the ‘Land Matrix’ database33 associated significant part of 
the  global  land  deals  with  biofuels.  ILC  suggest  that  the  rate  of  acquisitions  remained  low 
until  2005,  where  after  it  accelerated  considerably,  peaking  in  2009  and  slowing  down 
somewhat in 2010. The surge of 2009 can be related to the food price crisis and a range of 
factors that triggered new investor interest in land, including biofuels.  

Although  comprehensive,  the  Land  Matrix  database  nevertheless  contains  several  serious 
flaws34.    Many  references  given  in  the  Land  Matrix  database  do  not  correspond  to  specific 
deals.  Often,  the  areas  quoted  are  mere  stated  objectives  or  potentials,  or  large  multi-
stakeholder  government  programmes.  Many  sources  are  reports  or  articles  that  cover  large, 
multi-deal projects, countries or regions, thus very likely leading to overlap between sources 
and deals mentioned in the Land Matrix database. In many cases the quantities or references 
given do not add up to the large areas claimed to be affected by the deals. Closer scrutiny of 
the  top-5  deals  in  regions  that  have  given  rise  to  the  most  serious  concerns  about  land-use 
rights reveals that only about 30% of the acreage reported in the Land Matrix concerns actual 
deals35. 

The lead time from the moment of land acquisition to the actual production of biofuels is at 
least 3-5 years, therefore assumptions about the link between the land acquisitions occurring 
in 2010 with the possible future EU biofuel demand can only be verified within the coming 
years  if  and  when  the  biofuel  production  on  newly  acquired  land  would  occur.  At  present, 
there is insufficient information available to link biofuels-oriented projects to the demand in 
the EU market, even if projects often use the EU Renewable Energy Directive as part of their 
argumentation. Furthermore, 70% of the EU consumed biofuels are produced in the EU, U.S. 
or  Canada.  However,  it  can  be  assumed  that  some  of  the  projects  in  developing  countries, 
where  land  deals  have  caused  significant  concerns,  have  been  initiated  because  of 
expectations regarding the EU biofuels market. Monitoring of the EU biofuels consumption 
and  associated  impacts  in  the  coming  years  is  necessary  and  will  reveal  whether  this 
assumption remains valid.  

4.6.3.  Food prices  

Global  commodity  markets  experienced  two  significant  food  price  increases  in  2008  and 
2011, and the weather damaged harvests in the U.S. in 2012 raised concerns of further price 
increases for maize and soy prices. The Commission has been monitoring these developments 
closely.  

As set out in Section 3.2, around 80% of the EU consumed bioethanol in 2010 were produced 
in  the  EU  from  domestic  feedstock.  Grain  use  for  bioethanol  amounted  to  3%  of  the  total 
cereal  use  in  2010/2011  marketing  year  and  was  expected  to  remain  in  the  same  range  for 
2012/201336. Back casting scenario analysis clearly shows that EU expanding bioethanol use 
has contributed only little to the historical cereal price increases in 2008 to 2010. Due to the 
quite low use of bioethanol in EU, the price effect on global cereal market is only 1-2 % in 

33  The  Land  Matrix  is  a  database  of  large-scale  land-based  investments,  that  include  transactions  entailing  a 
transfer of rights to use, control, or own land through sale, lease, or concession, implying a conversion from land 
used  by  smallholders,  or  for  important  environmental  functions,  to  large-scale  commercial  use.  The  database 
contains  two  sets  of  data:  “reported”  (from  published  research  reports  and  media  reports  and  government 
registers) and “cross-referenced” (deals that are referenced from multiple sources and triangulated for reliability 
with  other  information  sources,  and,  in-country  partners  in  some  cases).  The  database  and  its  details  can  be 
accessed online at http://landportal.info/landmatrix 
34 See "Global land rush", 2012,  http://pubs.iied.org/17124IIED.html?k=land rush    
35 Source: Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 
36 Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development - Short Term Outlook – N°3 – June 2012 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/markets/index_en.htm 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2000-2010. This suggests that EU bioethanol use played only a very modest role in the cereal 
price increases observed in 2008 and 2010. For other food crops, including oil crops, the price 
increases simulated in 2000-2010 due to EU biofuel production were 4 %, thus the role of EU 
biodiesel  use  has  been  slightly  more  significant,  although  still  modest37.  These  figures  are 
broadly confirmed by the indirect land-use change emissions modelling conducted by IFPRI, 
where a scenario with biofuels as set out in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans for 
2020  is  compared  to  a  scenario  where  the  consumption  of  biofuels  stabilises  at  the  level  of 
2008, the results thus show the long term effect. Cereals and sugars experience price increases 
of 1% or less due to the increased use of ethanol, while the use of biodiesel leads to higher 
prices, in particular for rapeseed, which is the dominant source of biodiesel in EU.  

Table 8b.  Estimated crop and commodity price increases 
Ethanol crops 

incr. 

incr. 

Price 
2020 

Biodiesel crops  Price 
2020 

Soybeans 
Sunflower 
Rapeseed 

Palm Oil 

2.5% 
4.8% 
11% 

2.1% 

Biodiesel oils 

Palm oil 
Rapeseed oil 
Soybean oil 

Price 
increasesincr. 
2020 
4.5% 
9.2% 
7.3% 

Sunflower oil 

4.8% 

incr. 

Other commodities  Price 
2020 
0.047% 
0.22% 
0.078% 

Cattle 
Other animals 
Meat&Dairy 

incr. 

Other commodities  Price 
2020 
0.16% 
1.0% 
-0.044% 

Other Food 
Sugar 
Fishing 

incr. 

Wheat 
Maize 
Sugarcane  and 
sugar beet 

1.0% 
0.74% 
0.88% 

Other crops 

Rice 
Other crops 
Other oilseeds 
Vegetables  and 
fruits 

Price 
2020 
0.012% 
0.27% 
0.66% 
0.19% 

Source: Commission calculations based on IFPRI report. 

It is important to keep in mind when drawing conclusions from the above data that despite the 
better  understanding  and  recent  improvements  in  the  science,  the  estimates  remains 
vulnerable to the modelling framework and the assumptions made. It is also important to note 
that  the  figures  above  are  for  global  prices,  and  thus  prices  for  smaller  regions  might  be 
experiencing more significant changes.  

With the recently adopted proposal to minimise ILUC, as referred to in chapter 5.1.1 above, it 
can be expected that less pressure will be exerted on global markets, as further EU incentives 
to  increase  consumption  of  1st  generation  biofuels  beyond  today's  consumption  level  are 
reduced.  

The international markets have been influenced by many other factors such as weather, lower 
than average harvests, rising global demand for meat and other food and oil prices, to a much 
larger  extent  than  biofuel  production.  The  transmission  of  global  food  prices  to  domestic 
prices  is  not  transparent  and  differs  a  lot  between  countries,  crops  and  other  circumstances. 

37  Backcasting  scenario  analysis  with  a  world  food  system  model  has  been  used  to  quantify  the  impact  of 
demand growth for biofuel feedstock in recent years on prices and conventional demand for food and feed uses 
of crops. The outcomes of scenarios with historical biofuel production levels were compared to a simulation for 
2000 to 2010 where biofuel expansion was suppressed. The difference in results was interpreted as an estimate 
of the market impacts of historical biofuel development and policies. This approach was also used to quantify the 
impact of recent weather related factors by comparing simulation results for a model calculation with ‘smooth’ 
average  weather  (with  and  without  biofuel  expansion)  to  simulation  results  where  historical  production 
distortions due to specific historical weather events were included (FAO/IIASA Agro-ecological Zone - AEZ) 
model and the IIASA world food system (WFS) model, August 2012).  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Finally, not all local populations are impacted in a similar manner by high local food prices. 
Overall  these  elements  make  it  difficult  to  clearly  and  transparently  state  the  impacts  of 
biofuel production on local food prices and food security.  

That  said,  the  detailed  overview  of  the  main  regional  markets  of  importance  to  EU  biofuel 
production,  as  provided  by  the  report  prepared  for  the  Commission  38,does  not  suggest  any 
direct link between the biofuel production and local food price increases. Biofuel production 
did add to demand, but in many cases harvests of 2010 were improving compared to 2009, in 
some  cases  even  leading  to  surpluses  of  feedstock  on  the  market  (like  soy  in  Argentina  or 
sugar beet in the EU). In other cases, other uses/applications of the feedstock were the main 
drivers of the market and price movement (for example the sugar or palm oil market). In cases 
where production was low in 2010 (like rapeseed in EU) market reports state that the use of 
this feedstock for biofuel production was reduced, while other applications of this feedstock 
were  less  affected.  Thus  biofuel  demand  for  a  specific  feedstock  appears  more  elastic  than 
other markets' demand. 

4.6.4.  Compliance with international conventions 

The Commission is required by Article 17 (7) of the renewable energy Directive to monitor 
the impacts of the EU biofuel consumption in the EU and main third countries of supply. This 
includes for third countries and Member States that are a significant source of raw material for 
biofuel  consumed  within  the  Community,  information  on  whether  or  not  the  country  has 
ratified  and  implemented  eight  Conventions  of  the  International  Labour  Organisation39,  and 
the  Cartagena  Protocol  on  Biosafety  and  the  Convention  on  International  Trade  in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Tables 9 and 10 summarise the ratification and 
implementation record of EU Member States and main third countries.  

38 Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012. 
39  Convention  concerning  Forced  or  Compulsory  Labour  (No  29);  Convention  concerning  Freedom  of 
Association  and  Protection  of  the  Right  to  Organise  (No  87);  Convention  concerning  Application  of  the 
Principles  of  the  Right  to  Organise  and  to  Bargain  Collectively  (No  98);  Convention  concerning  Equal 
Remuneration  of  Men  and  Women  Workers  for  Work  of  Equal  Value  (No  100);  Convention  concerning 
Abolition  of  Forced  Labour  (No  105);  Convention  concerning  Discrimination  in  Respect  of  Employment  and 
Occupation  (No  111);  Convention  concerning  Minimum  Age  for  Admission  to  Employment  (No  138); 
Convention  concerning  Prohibition  and  Immediate  Action  for  the  Elimination  of  the  Worst  Forms  of  Child 
Labour (No 182). 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 9. Ratifications of international conventions by the main exporting countries (as on 
2010)40.   

ILO 182  CPB[1] 

ILO 87 
√ 

ILO 98 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 

ILO 111 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 

ILO 29 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 

√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 

Argentina 
Brazil 
Guatemala 
Paraguay 
Peru 
Indonesia 
Malaysia 
Canada 
Russia 
Ukraine 
U.S. 
EU 27 
√ 
Abbreviations: √, R= Ratified, A= Accepted, ACS = Accession, AP= Approval, S = Succession, C=Continuation. 
[1] Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 
[2] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 

√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 

ILO 105 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 

ILO 100 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 

ILO 138 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 
√ 

√ 
√ 
√ 

√ 
√ 
√ 

√ 
√ 

√ 
√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

CITES[2] 
R 
R 
R 
R 
R 
A 
A 
R 
C 
A 
R 

- 
ACS 
ACS 
R 
R 
R 
R 
- 
- 
A 
- 

(see table below) 

Table  10.  Ratification  of  biodiversity  conventions  by  the  27  EU  Member  States  (as  on 
2010)41. 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

CPB 

CITES 

  Country 

CPB 

CITES 

R 

R 

R 

ACS 

R 

R 

R 

R 

A 

R 

A 

R 

S 

R 

A 

A 

AP 

AP 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

A 

A 

R 

R 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

A 

R 

R 

A 

A 

R 

  Malta 

ACS  A 

  Netherlands 

  Portugal 

  Poland 

  Romania 

Spain 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Sweden 

  UK 

A 

A 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

A 

A 

A 

S 

R 

R 

Abbreviations: R= Ratified, A= Accepted, ACS = Accession, AP= Approval, S = Succession, C=Continuation. 

Of  the  27  EU  Member  States,  all  have  signed  the  eight  ILO  conventions.  In  terms  of  EU 
enforcements,  the  ILO  Committee  of  Experts  on  the  Application  of  Conventions  and 

40 This overview is based on the review of official information from the convention websites, US department of 
Labour and ILO SIMPOC (Statistical Information and Monitoring Programme on Child Labour) indicators.  ILO 
SIMPOC  is  a  statistical  body  that  collects  information  for  the  International  Programme  for  the  Elimination  of 
Child Labour (see http://www.ilo.org/ipec/ChildlabourstatisticsSIMPOC/lang--en/index.htm). 

Sources: 

41 
http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/alphabet.php  

website : 

CPB 

http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/parties/ 

and 

CITES 

website: 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Recommendations  (CEACR)42  notes  that  enforcement  of  the  Convention  111  Concerning 
equity should be improved in some of the new Member States (e.g. Poland). 

While  most  of  the  non  EU  countries  exporting  biofuels  to  the  EU  market  have  ratified  the 
fundamental conventions, the enforcement in these countries is lower. The US has declined to 
ratify  many  of  the  conventions,  however,  its  enforcement  of  the  same  principles  is  stronger 
than in most other countries43. Ukraine’s ratification and implementation is relatively strong 
with positive reports from ILO and a partnership with ILO in developing a strong so-called 
"Decent Work" approach. Weak implementation of the convention principles mostly occurs in 
lower  income  countries.  US  Department  of  Labour  monitoring  on  forced  labour  notes 
potential  risks  related  to  sugarcane  production  in  Brazil  and  Guatemala.  Furthermore  child 
labour and forced labour for Indonesia are mentioned, as well as forced labour in Malaysian 
oil  palm  sector  44.  However,  progressive  introduction  of  mechanized  harvesting  (e.g. 
Argentina and Brazil) is gradually reducing the incidence of child labour45.  

4.6.5.  Employment 

Biodiesel and bioethanol use in transport were estimated to provide more than 220,000 jobs in 
the EU, and global ethanol and biodiesel production supported nearly 1.4 million jobs in all 
sectors  of  the  global  economy  in  201046.    These  jobs  include  not  only  direct  biofuels 
production, but also employment in agriculture, other supplying industries, and other sectors 
such  as  retail  and  wholesale  trade  that  benefit  from  the  economic  activity  generated  by 
biofuels.  The  largest  share  of  employment  for  ethanol  occurs  in  the  U.S.  and  Brazil.  The 
subsidies provided to biofuel producers, through tax exemptions, constituted around €5bn in 
200947.  This  is  one  significant  element  of  the  whole  bio-economy  which  promises  to  be  a 
major source of future economic growth and employment. 

A distinction can be made between the more traditional uses of biomass for material use as 
the oleo-chemical industry and the emerging bio-economy sectors like the bio-plastics sector. 
In 2010 the new bio-economy sectors were still developing and therefore the interaction with 
the  biofuel  sector  not  yet  that  apparent,  while  the  impact  on  especially  the  oleo-chemical 
industry  was  significant.  However  as  the  emerging  bio-economy  sectors  grow,  the 
competition for raw materials for the different biomass uses is expected to increase. This calls 
for further development of bio-refinery concepts and 2nd generation biofuels.  

forced 

of  Experts 

and  monitors 

of  Conventions 

the  Application 

and  Recommendations, 

42  Committee 
on 
http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/Conventions/Supervision/lang--en/index.htm  
43 Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) and ILO CEACR on US Reporting 
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:2309420:NO 
44  US  Department  of  Labour.  The  Trafficking  Victims  Protection  Reauthorization  Act  (TVPRA)  provides 
information 
purpose. 
and 
labour 
http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/programs/ocft/tvpra.htm  
45 The law 11,241 of the 19th of September 2002 in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo aims for 100% mechanized 
harvesting by 2021. Higher wages, higher benefits and a regularization of the contracts are increasing the cost of 
workers. All contributes to make mechanized harvesting less costly than manual harvesting. It is expected that 
this legislation will be supported by the federal government and applied also to the other states. This is expected 
to  decrease  substantially  or  even  end  forced  and  child  labour.  (INMETRO;  UNICA;  Brazilian  Ministry  of 
Labour 2010) 
46  Contribution  of  biofuels  to  the  global  economy.  John  M.Urbanchuk,  Global  Renewable  Fuels  Association, 
Environmental Economics, May3, 2012.   
47  Figure  14  in  section  2.2.2  of  the  report  "Financing  Renewable  Energy  in  the  European  Energy  Market", 
available here: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/doc/renewables/2011_financing_renewable.pdf  

trafficking 

purpose 

this 

for 

of 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Considering  broader  economic  and  social  sustainability  and  its  effect  on  consumers,  the 
Commission is currently studying biofuels from a consumer perspective as a part of a broader 
study on the functioning of the fuels market48. 

4.7. 

Environmental impacts  

4.7.1.  GHG savings  

Member States' total estimated greenhouse gas emission savings from the use of biofuels in 
the  EU  without  land  use  change  quantification  in  2010  ranged  between  22.6  Mt  CO2  eq, 
indicating a saving of 53%49, and 25.5 Mt CO2 eq or 60% savings50, compared to the situation 
where only fossil fuel would be used. The latter figure from Member State reports indicates 
higher total greenhouse gas emission savings than  calculated emission savings based  on the 
types  of  feedstock  and  default  emission  values.  One  possible  explanation  for  the  difference 
could be rougher estimations by the Member States (e.g. using average value for biodiesel and 
bioethanol),  more  insight  in  the  specific  value  chains  (if  reported  by  producers  within  the 
Member State this might give more details on variations compared to default values) or other 
uncertainties. Note that these values are not including estimates for indirect land-use change 
emissions,  which  can  be  done  when  the  ILUC  proposal is agreed by EU legislators and are 
estimated at 48 Mt to 2020.  

4.7.2.  Biodiversity  

Based  on  the  biodiversity  sustainability  indicators  combining  land  cover  change  analysis 
between  2008  and  2010,  protected  area  coverage  information  and  the  share  of  the  biofuel 
feedstock production in the total EU biofuel consumption, it is estimated that the majority of 
EU  countries  were  at  low  risk  of  biodiversity  loss  from  the  conversion  of  land  for  the 
production  of  biofuels.    Spain  and  Poland  were  the  only  two  Member  States  considered  at 
moderate risk. Overall, EU countries, including Spain and Poland, are at much lower risk of 
biodiversity loss that non-EU countries. Among these, Brazil and the US, are estimated to be 
at higher risk, followed by Argentina, Canada, Russia, Paraguay and Ukraine (Table 11).  

Table  11.    EU  biofuel  consumption  and  biodiversity  risk  indicators  for  main  non-EU 
countries51 
Country 

Source ecosystem 

Crop 

Estimated crop area 
for EU biofuel market 
(x1000 ha) (*) 
(Source: Ecofys, 2012) 

Argentina 

Soy 

Brazil 

Canada 

Soy 
Sugar 
Rapeseed 

868 

300 
74 
207 

Savannah/shrubland, 
Grassland 
Savannah/shrubland, 
Grassland 
Grassland 

Estimated risk 
from 
conversion 
to cropland 
2008-2010 
Medium 

Estimated risk 
from 
low coverage by 
Protected Areas in 
2010 
High 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

48The study (to be published by the end of 2013) explores whether consumers are able to make informed choices, 
by  looking  into  consumer  understanding  and  the  transparency  of  information.  It  is  expected  to  generate 
recommendations  on  improving  and  harmonising  fuel  labelling  at  the  pump  across  EU  Member  States.  The 
study also tackles the issue of the availability of different fuels and retailers, and retail prices. 

49  Calculation based on disaggregated feedstock and production region data using ‘typical’ values of Annex V of 
the Renewable Energy Directive. The same calculation method was used in previous Commission's Renewable 
Energy progress reports.  
50  Calculation  based  on  total  reported  greenhouse  gas  emission  reductions  for  2010  in  2011  Member  State 
renewable energy progress reports.  
51 Source: Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Indonesia 
Malaysia 
Paraguay 

Peru 
Russia 

Ukraine 

U.S. 

Soy 
Palm 
Palm 
Soy 

Rapeseed 
Soy 
Rapeseed 
Soy 
Soy 
Maize 

32 
57 
12 
140 

N.A., less than 10 
129 
80 
263 
19 
160 
33 

Forest, wetland 
Forest, wetland 
Savannah/shrubland, 
Grassland 

Savannah/shrubland, 
Grassland 
Savannah/shrubland, 
Grassland 
Savannah/shrubland, 
grassland 

Low 
Low 
Low 

High 

Low 

High 

Low 
Medium 
High 

Low 

High 

Medium 

(*) Only biofuel feedstock crops where more than 10,000 hectares of production area can be attributed to EU biofuels imports are shown in 
this table. 

These issues mainly occur because, although the ecosystems where biofuel feedstock could be 
grown were converted to cropland only at low rates between 2008 and 2010, those ecosystems 
are  afforded  relatively  poor  protection  in  national  protected  area  systems.  In  Indonesia  and 
Malaysia the main current threat to biodiversity is conversion of forest (492,000 hectares of 
forest  and  162,000  hectares  of  wetlands  were  converted  to  cropland  in  Indonesia  between 
2008-2010, an unknown fraction of which could represent conversion to oil palm plantations), 
a  small  part  of  which  may  be  used  for  biofuels  production  destined  for  the  EU  market.  As 
demonstrated  by  the  work  carried  out  by  the  Commission,  indirect  land  use  change  from 
biofuels  can  play  a  role  in  tropical  deforestation.  In  terms  of  direct  land  use  change, 
deforestation  is  a  relatively  modest  level  of  conversion  compared  to  much  higher  levels  in 
savannah/shrubland  and  grassland  ecosystems  elsewhere  in  the  world.  Overall,  the  current 
threat  to  biodiversity  from  direct  ecosystem  conversions  comes  less  from  tropical 
deforestation  than  from  the  conversion  of  natural  savannah/shrubland  and  grassland 
ecosystems  to  cropland  and  pasture,  with  regards  to  indirect  ecosystem  conversions  both 
deforestation  and  grasslands  conversion  are  problematic..  The  most  important  drivers  are 
considered to be meeting increased local and global demand for meat, animal feedstock and 
cereal production, but any additional demand would add to the situation. 

4.7.3.  Water, soil, air impacts  

Water 

Compared  to  the  total  water  use  for  agricultural  production  globally,  water  use  associated 
with EU biofuel consumption in 2010  was  low -  less  than  0.01%  of  total agricultural water 
use. However, water consumption varies hugely between countries and regions. The highest 
risks  for  water  availability  impacts  are  located  outside  of  the  EU52.  In  terms  of  gross  cubic 
meters,  biofuel  crops  have  higher  impacts  on  reducing  natural  water  availability  (i.e.  green 
water) than impacts related to irrigation (i.e. blue water). Thus, green water impacts outside of 
the EU are of particular concern53.  

52 Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2010) The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived 
crop products, Value of Water Research Report Series No.47, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands 
53 In this analysis, “green water” refers to natural water availability from rain or soil moisture that is available in 
situ to cultivation. Green water impacts include the amount of naturally available water used by cultivated crops, 
which  is  not  available  for  other  purposes.  “Blue  water”  refers  to  water  used  through  human  intervention, 
including irrigation. Blue water impacts include the amount of irrigated water used by cultivated crops, and not 
available  for  other  purposes.  Finally,  “grey  water”  refers  to  polluted  water  resources.  Grey  water  impacts 
therefore refer to water that is polluted in the process of cultivating crops, and is not available for other purposes. 
For the purposes of this report, water availability impacts are inferred from green and blue water impacts, and 
water quality impacts are inferred from grey water impacts 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Brazilian sugarcane has the highest impacts in both the green and blue water categories, and 
has  experienced  a  larger  increase  in  impacts  than  other  countries  between  2008  and  2010. 
Two biofuel crops grown within the United States, soy and maize, also have significant green 
and blue water impacts, each of which increased between 2008 and 2010. Additional notable 
biofuel  crop  impacts  include  soybeans  from  Brazil  and  Argentina,  and  palm  oil  from 
Indonesia  and  Malaysia.  Meanwhile,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  EU  consumption  of  biofuel 
feedstock  from  some  of  these  countries  has  decreased.  For  example,  although  Brazilian 
sugarcane  has  the  highest  water  impacts  and  may  be  considered  high  risk  for  water 
availability and water quality, EU biofuel imports from Brazil have decreased between 2008 
and  2010.  Similarly,  biofuel  imports  from  Malaysia  and  Indonesia  have  also  decreased. 
Recent  legislation  and  regulatory  measures  taken  in  these  third  countries  also  indicate  their 
governments’  willingness  to  address  the  issues  related  to  water  quality,  although  additional 
legal and voluntary measures will be necessary to significantly mitigate risks54. 

Green and blue water impacts are much lower within the EU. Wheat tends to have the highest 
green  water  impacts,  especially  in  France,  Poland,  and  Spain,  although  German  and  French 
rapeseed cultivation results in some impacts. Maize in France and Spain has the highest EU 
blue water impacts, although impacts decreased between 2008 and 2010. Spanish sunflower 
cultivation also had relatively modest blue water impacts. 

Soil 

The FAO statistics indicate a global trend towards expansion and/or intensification of biofuel 
crops. The concern that biofuel market may have negative impact on soil health is based on 
the premise that increased demand for biofuel feedstock will encourage expansion of cropping 
area, shift from diversity to monoculture, and increased use of inputs. The connection appears 
logical.  There  appear  to  be  few  studies  to  establish  a  direct  link  between  biofuels  and  soil 
health as such55, however the impact of agricultural cultivation in general is well documented.  

Crops  that  currently  serve  the  EU  biofuel  market  include  wheat,  maize,  rye,  rapeseed, 
sunflower,  sugar  beet,  soybean,  sugarcane  and  oil  palm.  All  of  these  crops  also  serve  other 
market  outlets  with  biofuels  only  being  one  of  the  possible  end  uses.  Cultivation  of  these 
crops  spans  over  variable  agro-ecological  zones  across  EU  and  non-EU  countries. 
Accordingly,  the  risk  to  soil  resources  varies  with  local  soil  characteristics,  landforms, 
climatic conditions, and management practices. Based on climatic conditions of the feedstock 
producing  regions,  inherent  soil  vulnerabilities,  and  known  risk  factors  associated  with 
agriculture practices, it is possible to estimate the different soil risks (high, medium or low) 
for various biofuel producing regions. However, considering that total land area dedicated to 
the production of feedstock for the EU biofuel market in most third countries is less than 1% 
of  the  cropland  (and  for  the  main  EU  biofuel  producing  countries  between  2-6%),  the 
following  overview  cannot  be  directly  applied  to  assess  the  impacts  of  the  EU  biofuel 
consumption. 

European  soils  exhibit  a  wide  range  of  conditions,  including  low  moisture  and  nutrient 
status,  low  organic  matter,  calcareous  conditions,  impeded  drainage,  and  seasonally  excess 
water.  These  conditions  arise  partly  from  natural  factors  (rainfall,  soil  types,  landscape 
setting)  and  partly  from  management  practices.  Commission’s  report  “Towards  a  Thematic 
Strategy  for  Soil  Protection”56  identified  eight  main  threats  to  European  soils:  soil  sealing, 

54 Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012. 
55 Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability, ECOFYS et al, 2012, Appendix XIII. 
56 Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, COM(2002) 179 final 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
erosion,  loss  of  organic  matter,  decline  in  biodiversity,  contamination,  compaction,  hydro-
geological risk (floods and landslides), and salinisation. These threats apply to practically all 
soils  and  it  is  difficult  to  attribute  any  or  all  to  biofuel  feedstock.  The  2012  report  on  the 
implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy57 noted that whilst the Soil Thematic Strategy 
has  helped  raise  the  profile  of  these  issues,  there  is  still  no  systematic  monitoring  and 
protection of soil quality across Europe and called for further integration of soil protection in 
different policies.  

Argentina  produces  soybean  as  feedstock  for  biofuel  consumed  in  the  EU.  The  main  soy 
producing areas are located in the humid Pampa region, where soils and climatic conditions 
are generally favourable. Close to 80% of growers in the Pampa region have adopted no-till 
farming, which has shown promising results in terms of reducing soil erosion, conserving soil 
moisture, and improving soil fertility. The system of no-till planting has been promoted by the 
Argentinean  Association  of  Farmers  (AAPRESID),  which  has  joint  research  projects  with 
research and technological centres, universities, and agricultural extension showing benefitial 
initial  results.  However  there  still  appear  to  be  emerging  risks  of  soil  compaction,  chemical 
use and accumulation. The concerns regarding land degradation are related to intensification 
of  agriculture  (e.g.,  introduction  of  the  double  annual  cropping  wheat-soybean),  the  change 
from the rotation cattle-agriculture to continuous agriculture, and untimely tilling sometimes 
along the slopes. 

Brazil's  main  exporting  crops  are  sugarcane  and  soybean.  Brazilian  soils  are  characterized 
primarily by low nutrient holding capacity, seasonal moisture stresses and high temperatures. 
The  impact  of  biofuel  feedstock  crops  in  Brazil  relate  to  land  clearing  and  agricultural 
management  practices.  Although  there  appears  to  be  a  shift  from  traditional  to  no-till 
cultivation, which reduces erosion and improves soil quality, there is a growing trend toward 
mono-cropping in crops grown for biofuels, especially sugarcane and soybean. This reduces 
soil  fertility,  increases  crops’  vulnerability  to  pests  and  diseases,  as  well  as  other 
environmental  impacts.  Erosion  under  sugarcane  is  low  due  to  the  semi-perennial  nature  of 
this crop. Soybean, on the other hand, may impact soils through the effects of mechanization 
and use of chemicals.  

The United States produce corn and soybean as feedstock for biofuel consumed in the EU. 
Soil erosion is a major concern related to pre-planting soil preparation. In addition, there are 
areas of low organic matter,  soils of low nutrient holding capacity, acidity in coastal areas, 
areas of seasonal moisture stresses, and areas of seasonally excess moisture, however, in most 
cases,  these  limitations  are  overcome  by  management  and  investment  of  inputs.  No-till 
planting  and  conservation 
they  have  shown  considerable 
improvements in terms of reducing soil erosion and conserving soil moisture. Major soil risks 
relate  to use  of  machinery, soil  compaction,  excessive  use of chemical inputs and emerging 
pest and weed resistance. 

tillage  are  popular,  and 

Malaysia: the major soil stress is due to drainage of peat-lands, deforestation and excessive 
leaching. There are areas of high P, N, and organic retention. There is also impeded drainage 
along parts of the coastline, high organic retention, and acid sulphate condition. Soil impacts 
related to palm oil arise primarily from land conversion and replanting. Burning is a common 
practice for preparing land for replanting. Recent trends indicate move toward zero-burning, 
which  allows  plant  material  to  be  recycled.  Use  of  machinery  in  the  oil  palm  industry  is 
common due to labour shortages.  

57 The implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities, COM (2012) 046 final 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Indonesia: The major soil stress in oil palm growing areas in Indonesia is draining of peat-
lands,  excessive  leaching  due  to  highly  weathered  soils,  deforestation  and  high  rainfall. 
Additional  stresses  are  due  to  high  temperatures,  high  aluminium,  low  nutrient  holding 
capacity, and steepness of land. There is increased risk of erosion when forests are cleared to 
grow oil palm, especially during periods of planting, establishment, and replanting. Drainage 
of peat-lands results in loss of retention capacity, erosion and emission of greenhouse gases. 
Acid sulphate conditions exist along many parts of the coastline.  

Air 

The biofuel supply chain can emit air pollutants in every stage from growing feedstock (e.g., 
dust  from  clearing  land,  smoke  from  burnings,  nitrogen  from  fertilizers),  to  transporting 
feedstock  and  refined  product  (e.g.,  vehicle  emissions  and  dust  generation),  to  processing 
(e.g.,  industrial  systems  emissions),  to  use  (e.g.,  combustion).  The  types  and  impacts  of  the 
emitted  pollutants  depend  on  the  local  context,  including  activity  causing  the  emissions, 
proximity  to  population  centres,  sensitivity  of  ecosystems,  concentrations  of  the  pollutant, 
topography, and meteorology. Preliminary results in key countries supplying the EU biofuel 
market  indicate  that  generally  the  greatest  threats  to  air  quality  are  associated  with  burning 
(e.g.  burning  of  crop  residues,  sugarcane  pre-harvest,  clearing  vegetation  from  land).  High 
threats are also associated with some applications of agrochemicals, areas highly vulnerable to 
wind erosion, and gaseous emissions from processing facilities. The results of the subjective 
threat assessment show that the highest overall potential threats due to the presence of burning 
as part of their production are associated with the feedstock that is mostly grown outside the 
EU (soybean, palm oil, maize, and sugarcane). In the cultivation stage, all of the crops have 
high  or  medium  threats  associated  with  the  volatilization  of  nitrogen  compounds  from 
fertilizers, and in some countries air pollution from volatilization of other agrochemicals raise 
the threats. Air pollution from the processing stages presents a medium to high threat in all 
countries where processing occurs. 

It  is  difficult  to  establish  the  extent  to  which  existing  legislative  and  voluntary  provisions 
successfully lower the overall threat associated with a specific practice or activity, however, 
through  consideration  of  the  existing  provisions  and  the  potential  to  enforce  legislation  in 
each  country,  it  was  determined  that  in  the  EU58,  Canada,  and  Malaysia,  and  the  United 
States, the high and medium threats are likely lowered by the existing regulatory provisions. 
Each of those countries has high potential enforcement, with the exception of Malaysia, which 
has medium. However, the greatest threat from Malaysia relates to burning, which was noted 
to  have  high  enforcement  of  bans.  In  Indonesia  and  Brazil  (two  of  the  countries  with  the 
highest threats to air pollutions), some of the threats are lowered to the extent that legislation 
is  enforced  and  some  remain  the  same.  Both  countries  are  considered  to  have  ‘medium’ 
potential  enforcement  and  burnings  in  both  countries  are  not  sufficiently  addressed;  Brazil 
does have several measures to address burning but none is fully in effect or having sufficient 
coverage at this point. 

58 Within the EU, the environmental protection standards are ensured among other through the application of the 
system  of  cross-compliance  requirements  for.  As  part  of  these  requirements  there  are  Statutory  Management 
Requirements (SMRs) and a set of standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), which 
are  additional  requirements  relating  to  soil  erosion,  soil  structure,  soil  organic  matter  and  the  minimum 
maintenance of habitats but which are determined at the country level. Large scale EU biorefineries are covered 
by the requirements of the Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, to be replaced by the Industrial 
Emissions Directive as of January 2014. For smaller scale plants, there are no specific environmental regulatory 
requirements. However, air quality limit values established under the Air Quality Framework Directive have to 
be  complied  with  by  Member  States.  These  regulations  significantly  lower  the  threat  to  air  quality  from  all 
aspects of biofuel production. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Between 2008 and 2010, there has been limited change in threats to air quality from the EU 
biofuel  demand.  There  have  been  changes  in  the  biofuel  trade  (imports  from  Argentina 
increased,  while  imports  decreased  from  Brazil,  the  U.S.,  Indonesia  and  Malaysia).  New 
environmental  legislation  was  introduced  in  that  time  period,  but  its  impact  cannot  yet  be 
determined (e.g., Indonesia in 2009 introduced a significant new environmental legislation). 
The  coverage  of  voluntary  sustainability  certification  in  the  third  countries  exporting  to  the 
EU  market  is  continuing  to  increase,  however  in  2009  and  2010  only  part  of  the  feedstock 
produced  in  the  third  countries  would  be  covered  by  these  schemes  and  the  first  voluntary 
certification schemes were only approved by the European Commission in 201159.  

5. 

CONCLUSION 

This Staff Working Document reviews a range of data and analysis for the renewable energy 
progress  report.  The  data  show  that  the  EU  is  clearly  on  its  trajectory  towards  the  2020 
targets,  but  certain  Member  State  are  not  and  will  need  to  make  further  efforts.  The 
Commission's analysis suggests there are reasons for concern about future progress. Member 
States' deviations from their own national renewable energy action plans, for instance, reflect 
policy changes which reduce clarity and certainty for investors, increasing their exposure to 
regulatory risk. The deviation from the plans' expectations regarding sectoral and technology 
trends also indicate where further efforts may be needed. Finally, the modelling undertaken of 
the impact of current and planned policy measures gives an indication of the degree to which 
further measures will be needed (in nearly all Member States) to ensure that growth continues 
and targets are met.  

Reasons  for  the  concern  include  the  failure  to  address  barriers  to  the  uptake  of  renewable 
energy:  administrative  burdens  and  delays  still  cause  problems  and  raise  project  risk  for 
renewable  energy  projects;  slow  infrastructure  development,  delays  in  connection,  and  grid 
operational rules that disadvantage renewable energy producers all continue and all need to be 
addressed  by  Member  States  in  the  implementation  of  the  renewable  energy  Directive.  The 
changed  economic  climate  has  also  clearly  had  an  impact  on  the  development  of  new 
renewable  energy  projects.  One  aspect  is  the  increased  cost  of  capital  in  general.  Another 
aspect is the increase in risk resulting from Member Sates changes to support schemes. The 
Commission's  planned  guidance  on  support  schemes  and  reform  is  intended  to  ensure  that 
such support is cost effective and helps integrate renewable energy production into the energy 
market.  Regarding  the  instrument  of  tax  incentives  for  biofuels  in  particular,  it  should  be 
noted that scope for such incentives beyond 2020 depend on the adoption by the Council of a 
new legal framework for taxation of energy products on the basis of the Commission proposal 
for revision the Energy Taxation Directive 60. 

The  document  also  reviews  the  EU  biofuel  market.  The  origins,  markets,  fuel  composition 
and  sources  of  biofuels  consumed  in  the  EU  are  important  for  assessing  their  impacts  and 
sustainability. The renewable energy Directive required the assessment of certain impacts in 
particular,  and  these  have  been  assessed,  on  the  basis  of  external  and  internal  analysis.  In 
addition to requiring all biofuels in the EU to comply with strict sustainability standards, the 
EU  has  created  clear  incentives  for  using  advance  biofuels,  with  higher  greenhouse  gas 
savings  and  fewer  potential  negative  impacts.  The  document  also  examines  the  need  for 
further  mandatory  requirements  to  mitigate  potential  negative  impacts,  reviews  the 

59 The list of voluntary schemes recognised by the European Commission is available at the following webpage: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/sustainability_schemes_en.htm  
60 COM(2011) 169 final. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
effectiveness of the mass balance system and several definitions and finds that, despite risks, 
no major impacts are readily apparent and current measures are sufficient. It is necessary to 
continuously assess and monitor the impacts with a view to implementing corrective measures 
when needed. 

Together  with  the  progress  report,  this  document  presents  the  Commission's  thorough 
assessment  of  the  state  of  renewable  energy  in the  EU  today.  An  impression  is  gained  of  a 
solid initial start, but with slower than expected removal of key barriers to renewable energy 
growth.  Further  efforts  are  needed  in  terms  of  administrative  simplification  and  clarity  of 
planning  and  permitting  procedures.  And  further  efforts  are  needed  regarding  the  treatment 
and inclusion of renewable energy production within the electricity system. Addressing such 
barriers will contribute significantly to the cost effective deployment of renewable energy and 
the achievement of the EU's targets.   

EN 

33 

   EN