The Netherlands’ feedback for the public consultation regarding the draft delegated act
on the EU Taxonomy – December 18th 2020
The Netherlands attaches great value to the development of this taxonomy, as in our view it is a
vital instrument to support the greening of the financial sector and the broader economy. In the
legislative process towards the final agreement of the taxonomy regulation, the Netherlands
emphasized the importance of a science based taxonomy in line with the state of the art
developments in the market and coherence with current policies.
Overall, the Netherlands is pleased with the thorough process the Commission has followed to get
to this delegated act and the overall level of ambition in the contents of it, based on the extensive
and scientifically based work of the Technical Expert Group. In that regard, we would like to urge
the Commission to comprehensively review all responses, under the above mentioned criteria,
before adoption of the delegated act.
On a more detailed level, without trying to comment on all specific thresholds, the Netherlands
would like to highlight a couple specific of issues (below), in line with Dutch policy priorities. Most
of these have been stressed earlier in the Member States Expert Group or earlier input.

Annex I - draft delegated act on climate mitigation
Comments per sector
1. Agriculture
1. Agriculture and forestry: 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. - Farm records

The IPCC guidelines for NGHGI are quite comprehensive and complex and are not well
known by farmers. We foresee difficulties for individual agricultural holdings to use the
IPCC guidelines. As such we find it important that further guidance be provided on the
application of these IPCC guidelines, including for SMEs. The Netherlands requests the
Commission to integrate this element when drafting the delegated with regard to article 8
of the taxonomy regulation.

Suggestion to add the following sentence to the do no significant harm-criteria on 1.1, 1.2
and 1.3: “Activities do not lead to the disturbance, capture or killing of legally protected
species or the deterioration of legally protected habitats. Negative effects on other species
are minimized.”
o Without including the protection of non-legally protected species, they may
experience harm as a result of economic activities. Such harm should be
minimized.

1

3. Manufacturing
3.3 Manufacture of low carbon technologies for transport
On section 3.3 k&l, please see input provided in relation to section/activity 6.10 and 6.11.

3.9 Manufacture of hydrogen
It appears that The Netherlands’ comments and concerns provided in our response to the call for
questions and remarks prior to the MSEG-meeting of December 10th (Annex I), have not led to any
changes in the current threshold for H2 manufacturing, and the alignment with the EU Hydrogen
Strategy remains unclear.
We wish to reaffirm that according to our calculations, the current threshold of 2.256 tCO2eq/t
would exclude all forms of hydrogen production from methane from inclusion under the
EU Taxonomy. This would appear to be actually in conflict with the EU Hydrogen Strategy which
states that in the short and medium term other forms (other than renewable-based) of low-carbon
hydrogen are needed, primarily to rapidly reduce emissions from existing hydrogen
production.
We also wish to reconfirm that in the EU Hydrogen Strategy it is incorrectly stated that the well-togate emissions of hydrogen production from steam methane reforming are 9 kgCO2eq/kgH2 (p.4).
We have now received written confirmation from the IEA (see Annex II) that this is the case.
These figures from the Future of Hydrogen (2019) report refer to production emissions only, not
full life-cycle emissions. Likewise, the figures of steam reforming of methane with CCS with 90%
capture achieving 1 kgCO2eq/kgH2, and 4 kgCO2eq/kgH2 with a capture rate of 56%, both cases refer
to direct process emissions only, not well-to-gate. It would therefore be categorically incorrect
to use these misinterpreted figures as a basis for the potential emission reduction for
fossil-fuel based H2 production in the EU Taxonomy.
In the scoping paper of the 13th meeting its states (p.11) : “Blue hydrogen should in principal be
able to qualify with CCS provided that the capture of CO2 is carried out efficiently”. We would
appreciate further clarity on this statement, perhaps in the form of a worked example of
hydrogen production from methane with carbon capture and storage, in order to better understand
the assumptions (particularly direct/indirect emission, technically possible capture rate) used by the
Commission in deriving this statement.
We wish to reiterate the significance of blue hydrogen in achieving significant and rapid emission
reductions for European industry and other sectors. We would strongly endorse having a
threshold in line with that of the CertifHy low-carbon hydrogen goal of the 4.37
kgCO2/kgH2. This argumentation is further outlined in our original response.
Annexes:
1. Annex I - Comments on Technical screening criteria – 3.9 Manufacture of hydrogen
2. Annex II – Email – ‘H2 production – IEA reference in the EU Hydrogen Strategy’

Annex I - Comments on Technical screening criteria – 3.9 Manufacture of hydrogen
In the current version of the Taxonomy the Technical Screening Criteria for hydrogen production has
been adjusted significantly from that of the TEG report, being reduced from 5.8 tCO 2eq/t to 2.256
tCO2eq/t. The reason for this adjustment is stated as to bring it in line with the EU Hydrogen Strategy.
We find the correspondence with the EU Hydrogen strategy unclear, and according to our
own calculations, the current threshold of 2.256 tCO2eq/t would exclude all forms of
hydrogen production from natural gas from inclusion under the EU Taxonomy. This would
appear to be actually in conflict of the EU Hydrogen Strategy which states that in the short and
medium term other forms (other than renewable-based) of low-carbon hydrogen are needed,
primarily to rapidly reduce emissions from existing hydrogen production. Below we explain the
reasoning behind our conclusion.

2

We believe that this problem stems from the confusion that in the EU Hydrogen Strategy it is
incorrectly stated that the well-to-gate emissions of hydrogen production from steam
methane reforming are 9 kgCO2eq/kgH2 (p.4). We have confirmed with the IEA that these
figures from the 2019 Future of Hydrogen report refer to production emissions only, not full lifecycle emissions. Likewise, the figures of steam reforming of natural gas with CCS with 90% capture
achieving 1 kgCO2eq/kgH2, and 4 kgCO2eq/kgH2 with a capture rate of 56%, both cases refer to
direct process emissions only, not well-to-gate. We believe that this confusion may have caused
threshold for hydrogen production to be tightened over ambitiously. We explain further below:
The taxonomy currently assumes full life-cycle emissions of for H2 from natural gas: if 20% (80%
reduction) = 2,256 kgCO2/kgH2, then 100% equals 11,28 kgCO2/kgH2. We assume then that
emissions related to the upstream emissions of natural gas production used for making hydrogen are
= 2,28 kgCO2/kgH2 (11,28 kgCO2/kgH2 – 9 kgCO2/kgH2 (process related emissions)). If CCS
removes the maximum possible 90% of the 9 kgCO2/kgH2 (process emissions) = 0,9 kgCO2/kgH2,
the overall lifecycle emission reduction achievable with CCS is 3,18 kgCO2/kgH2. This would mean a
maximum possible threshold level of 3,18/11,28 = 72%. The 80% life-cycle threshold of 2,256
kg thus assumes a reduction rate of CCS of more than 100% of process emissions. It would
appear that the foreseen capture rates by the IEA for process emissions only, have been applied to
the total well-to-gate figures, leading to an unattainable threshold.
Furthermore we would also like to highlight the importance of facilitating cost-effective CO2
removal from hydrogen production processes. As the IEA (2019) states, there are two primary
options for CO2 removal from the most common form of H2 production, steam methane reforming.
Capture from the high-pressure synthesis gas stream can capture approximately 60% of total plant
emissions, at capture costs of around 53 USD/tCO2. This 60% reduction can achieve reductions which
are in line with the CertifHy low-carbon hydrogen goal of the 4.37 kgCO2/kgH2, based on a full wellto-gate lifecycle emission of 91 gCO2eq/MJ (10,920 kgCO2/kgH2).
To achieve 90% capture, a steam methane production facility would need to be equipped with postcombustion capture technology, to capture the CO 2 from the reformer. This entails far higher
CAPEX and OPEX, pushing the capture costs to 80 USD/tCO2. In the Netherlands we recognize the
potential to achieve cost-effective CO2 capture from fossil-based hydrogen production, supporting
projects that have abatement costs which are relatively close to the current ETS prices. These capture
projects are also important partners in the larger Porthos CCS Project, which is recognized as a
European Project of Common Interest. Having these projects excluded under the EU Taxonomy would
therefore be unfavourable.
Based on this argumentation, we would strongly endorse having a threshold in line with that
of the CertifHy low-carbon hydrogen goal of the 4.37 kgCO2/kgH2. This represents a
tightening against the TEG report, but does not prevent cost-effective CO2 reduction from existing
SMRs being excluded from the taxonomy.
For newbuild fossil-fuel based hydrogen production installations, different technologies such as autothermal reforming (ATR) or partial oxidation (POX) process could be considered, and the threshold
in the taxonomy could be adjusted downwards. We look forward to continue this discussion with
regards to the development of a common low-carbon threshold/standard for the promotion of
hydrogen production installations based on their full life-cycle GHG performance (by June 2021), as
included as action under the EU H2 Strategy.

3

Annex II – Email – ‘H2 production – IEA reference in the EU Hydrogen Strategy’

4

4. Energy
The Netherlands suggest to amend the delegated act, by removing the following sentence:
“The activity is a transitional activity as referred to in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EU)
2020/852 where it complies with the technical screening criteria specified in this Section.”
In Annex I, in the third paragraph (listed below) in all four following activities:
4.8
Electricity generation from bioenergy;
4.13
Manufacture of biogas and biofuel for transport;
4.20
Co-generation of heat/cool and power from bioenergy; and
4.24
Production of heat/coal from bioenergy.
Considerations:
The reference to article 10(2) of the taxonomy regulation makes explicit that the activity is
no part of the activities described in 10(1). However there is no clear consideration found
in the material why this should be the case.
The proposed Taxonomy Regulation (EU) 2020/852, article 10.1a contains a clear
reference to technology contributing to renewable energy. This is also the case for
sustainable bioenergy. Since the sustainability criteria as defined in the renewable energy
directive (2018/2001) (RED) are part of this regulation the contribution to 10.1a is clearly
provided. So bioenergy should not be categorized as 10(2) technology.
The first environmental target provided in the 2020/852 article 9, is emission reduction.
Since the emission reduction of at least 80% is a requirement in the Annex 1 (as
proposed), this is guaranteed for bio-energy.
The Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001) itself provides provisions to ensure the use of
best available technology, high efficiency conversion and a ban on co-firing. All this kind of
considerations are already part of article 29.11 of that directive. So compliance with the
RED as a criterion does provide insurances of efficient production of energy.
The emission reduction requirement of 80% in the Annex 1 is a high value ensuring only
biomass with high efficiency and low environmental impact are used.
The reference to 10(2) is made for all fossil processes and biomass, not for the other
renewable sources. Since biomass complying with the sustainability criteria is considered a
renewable source this distinction does not make sense. It is better to clearly split between
renewable and non-renewable sources.
There is no plausible scenario for reaching the 2030 and 2050 targets without bioenergy.
However technology development of bioenergy will be excluded from 9.1 (research
development and innovation) in case it is considered a 10(2) activity. This could have
significant impact on the future innovation that is needed for those cases where bioenergy
is still an option.

5

6. Transport
Sustainable aviation
The Netherlands asks the Commission to develop additional criteria for sustainable aviation in line
with the new Strategy for Sustainable and Smart Mobility. The current draft taxonomy only
provides for the production of biofuels for transport (4.13, of course next to general provisions on
hydrogen and electricity) and for airport infrastructure (6.17). In keeping with activity 4.13 and the
challenges of reducing aviation carbon emissions, the Netherlands strongly recommends adding
renewable fuels infrastructure to activity 6.17. Renewable fuels are widely acknowledged as the
key technology in reducing aviation and shipping and heavy-duty vehicle emissions in the short to
medium term.
For the long-term drive towards zero-emission aviation, activity 3.3 (manufacture of low carbon
technologies for transport) should include separate screening criteria for low-carbon aircraft
technologies. Special attention is warranted here for hybrid-electric drivetrains as a medium-term
technology. Hybrid-electric aircrafts do not have zero tailpipe emissions, but promise significant
CO2 efficiency gains over current generation aircraft. Chapter 6 should also be expanded with
additional activities for the operation of low-carbon aircraft for freight and passenger transport.
Here special attention is needed for both retrofitting and the uptake of renewable fuels beyond the
minimum requirements the Commission is due to propose in its ReFuelEU initiative.
Proposal for amendment of the DA regarding Biofuels/Bio-energy
Proposal is to add under ‘Substantial contribution to climate change mitigation’ in the following
sections (also in the relevant sections of Annex II):
Annex I
6.15 (Infrastructure enabling low-carbon road transport)
6.16 (Infrastructure for water transport)
6.17 (Low carbon airport infrastructure)
the following sentence to the enumeration:
(x) the infrastructure is dedicated to the provision of renewable fuels of which, in
addition to the Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001) sustainability
requirements, is demonstrated that the social conditions of the local population
and respect of rights of employees are guaranteed during production.
Considerations:

The Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001) is based on the IPCC principle that short-cycle
fuels should be classified as low carbon and seen as "0" emissions from tailpipe. Compliance
with the RED criteria should be basis for insurances of efficient production of energy for
transport. Suggesting that only infrastructure for zero-emission tailpipe vehicles can be
regarded as a climate measure does not.

No scenario for reaching the 2030 and 2050 targets without bioenergy can be found. Negation
of this scientifically proved fact could have significant impact on the future innovation that is
needed for those cases where bioenergy is still an option.

The amount of energy needed to support the infrastructure would be - by no means renewable (renewable electricity and renewable hydrogen produced from it) in time. In practice
this will mean that gas-fired power plants will have to produce substantial amounts of energy
to supply those ships and causes extra associated CO2 emissions instead of reducing them.

The additional focus on social criteria in which bio-feedstocks are used for the transition to a
climate-neutral and circular economy is an important issue to the Dutch government, as
recently described in a letter to Parliament: ‘Duurzaamheidskader biogrondstoffen’ October 16
2020.

6

6.10 – 6.11 Sea and coastal freight/passenger water transport
Also related to section 3.3 k&l.
For these sections/activities The Netherlands proposes that after 2025, not only the first point (i)
for 3.3 k&l and 6.10 and 6.11 the first point (a) will apply, but that during the revision, points ii, iii
and iv for 3.3 k&l and points b,c and d for 6.10 and 6.11 are updated and brought in line with the
developments of the requirements of GHG reduction by the EU and IMO and also will apply to the
period after 31 December 2025.
Rationale:
By doing so the sustainability definition of a sea going vessel will remain in line with the
development and the transition path in the sector.

7. Construction
7.1. Construction of new buildings and 7.2. Renovation of existing buildings. Do no
significant harm (‘DNSH’). Transition to a circular economy. P. 210 & 214

A DNSH principle that favours bio-based building materials is missing.

The use of sustainably acquired bio-based materials is central to the transition to a circular
economy in the construction/renovation sector. As such it can be helpful to include this.

Suggestion to add the following sentence: "... Enable reuse and recycling. The use of
sustainably acquired bio-based building materials are favoured over conventional building
materials, where possible."
7.2. Renovation of existing buildings. Do no significant harm (‘DNSH’). Protection and
restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. P. 215

A DNSH principle that protects residing species during renovations is missing.

When renovation takes place at the expense of residing species, such as birds,
biodiversity/ecosystems are not automatically protected or restored.

Suggestion to place “N/A” with: "Insulation of existing buildings for the purpose of climate
mitigation does not threaten the habitat of residing species. Nest sites are therefore
conserved or replaced with new nest boxes."

7

Annex II - draft delegated act on climate adaptation
General comments
The above input on the delegated act on climate mitigation articles 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 7.1, 7.2 and 10.1
is relevant for the delegated act on climate adaptation as well. To limit the length of this document,
this is not repeated here.
Flood risk management
Given the fact that rising water levels are a realistic scenario even if climate targets are met, it is
highly desirable to have an explicit entry for flood risk management / flood defences in the EU
green taxonomy. For the Dutch green bond in particular climate change adaptation is an important
component, as the Green Bond Framework defines the Delta Fund as one of the key expenditure
categories.
While some activities related to flood risk management are mentioned in the Annex of the
Delegated acts, such as:
o Restoration of Wetlands (p. 41) - projects like ‘Room for River’
o Construction and operation of water collection, treatment and supply systems (p. 161)
o Renewal of water collection, treatment and supply systems (p. 163)
o Engineering and consultancy dedicated to adaptation (p. 259)
o Research and innovation related to nature based solutions for adaptation (p. 262)
The flood risk management/ flood defences themselves still do not seem to have an explicit entry
in the Annex Delegated Act for Climate Change Adaptation, although we understand it is part of the
taxonomy. However, due to rising water levels it is essential to have flood defences improved to
ensure that the vulnerable areas are adequately protected for the expected sea rise level of 2050.
In the case of the Netherlands about 55% of the territory of the Netherlands is vulnerable either
for sea flooding or river flooding)1. We therefore urge the Commission to add a specific category
Flood Risk Managment/Flood Defences to the EU Green Taxonomy.
1.1. Growing of non-perennial crops. Substantial contribution to climate change
adaptation. P. 1.
The substantial contribution criteria for this activity in the delegated act on climate adaptation is
disproportionate (too lax) to what is under the same heading in the delegated act on climate
mitigation. The criteria for adaptation should include subdivision in drawing up a plan, a benefit
analysis, additionality, permanence. Alternatively, this should be addressed in the delegated act on
article 8 of the taxonomy regulation.

Please see https://themasites.pbl.nl/o/risico-overstromingen/ and https://www.pbl.nl/correctie-formuleringover-overstromingsrisico.
1

8