EU Environmental Sustainability Requirements and Brazilian Biofuel Exports Exigences de durabilité...

Steven Zahniser

In 2007, the European Union set theambitious goal of obtaining 10 per centof its transport sector’s energyconsumption from biofuels by 2020 asa method of reducing its emissions ofgreenhouse gases (GHGs). Biofuels arecustomarily defined in EU legislation as‘any liquid or gaseous fuel fortransport that comes from biomass’.Today, most biofuels come from cropshigh in starch or sugar (to makebioethanol) or from vegetable oils andanimal fats (to make biodiesel). But inthe future, a wide range of cellulosicmaterials (for example, crop residues,fast-growing trees and grasses, woodchips, wood waste, and municipalwaste), along with other materials suchas algae produced in vats, may becomean important ‘second generation’ ofbiofuel sources.

Since the establishment of the goal,European leaders have emphasisedthat the biofuels consumed by the EUmust be produced in anenvironmentally sustainable fashion.To this end, the European Parliamentand the Council of the EuropeanUnion adopted a directive inDecember 2008 on the promotion ofthe use of energy from renewablesources. The compromise thatassured the directive’s passage is builton middle ground between the finalproposal issued by the EuropeanCommission in January 2008 and a setof amendments reported by theEuropean Parliament’s Industry,Research, and Energy Committee(ITRE) in September 2008.

This article examines the directive’senvironmental sustainability criteria

and considers how they might applyto Brazil. Developing countries suchas Brazil with a comparativeadvantage in first-generation biofuelstook a keen interest in the directive’sformation, especially since some ofthe amendments reported by ITREmight have complicated their effortsto export first-generation biofuelsand their feedstocks to the EU. Thearticle begins with an assessment ofthe 10 per cent goal’s total energyrequirement and the amount ofarable land that would be needed forBrazil to supply a fraction of thisgoal. Next, the article compares thedirective’s actual sustainability criteriawith earlier proposals. Then, thearticle evaluates how these criteriaintersect with Brazilian land types

and potential areas for growingbiomass.

How much energy, how muchbiomass?

How large of a commitment is the 10per cent goal in terms of energy? TheInternational Energy Agency’s WorldEnergy Outlook 2008 offers detailedprojections of the world’s supply anddemand of energy through 2030. Inthe reference scenario, whichassumes that the EU’s integratedenergy and climate action plan leadsto increased use of biofuels intransport, the EU’s transport sector isprojected to consume 402 milliontonnes of oil equivalent (TOE) perannum by 2020 (Figure 1). After 2020,

EU Environmental Sustainability Requirementsand Brazilian Biofuel Exports

Exigences de durabilite environnementale de l’Union europeenneet exportations bresiliennes de biocarburantsDie EU-Anforderungen fur okologische Nachhaltigkeit undBiokraftstoffexporte aus Brasilien

Note: P = projected. A TOE is the amount of energy released by burning one tonne of crude oil. The International Energy Agency defines 1 TOE to equal 41.868 gigajoules. Source: International Energy Agency (2008).

Figure 1: Energy consumption of the EU’s transport sector. Actual andprojected 1990–2030

.

28ƒEuroChoices 9(2) No claim to original US government works

Journal compilation ª The Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists 2010

the sector’s energy consumption isprojected to taper off but still remainin the neighbourhood of 400 millionTOE. Thus, the EU would needroughly 40 million TOE from biofuelsper annum in order to meet the 10per cent goal.

Brazil is well positioned to supply alarge share of the EU’s biofuelconsumption. The country is anestablished, cost-competitive producerof sugarcane-based bioethanol andone of the world’s leading producersof soybeans, whose oil can be used tomake biodiesel. During 2004–07, thetotal net cost of Brazilian bioethanolwas comparable to the net price ofgasoline, while costs for sugarbeet-based bioethanol, rapeoil-basedbiodiesel, and wheat-based bioethanolproduced in the EU were muchhigher (OECD and FAO, 2008).

Brazil also possesses large expansesof non-agricultural land that could beconverted to the cultivation of biofuelfeedstocks. Forests and savannahsaccount for about 60 per cent ofBrazil’s surface area, and projectionsindicate that Brazil will add roughly1.8 million hectares to its agriculturalarea per annum over the next decade(Valdes, 2006). Many of Brazil’s non-agricultural lands, however, areenvironmentally significant. They playhome to a large number and diversityof plant and animal life and serve as asink for carbon dioxide, the leadingGHG produced by human activity.

To gauge the land requirements ofthe 10 per cent goal, let us make thearbitrary assumption that Brazilianbiofuels supply one-eighth of thisobjective, or about 5 million TOE per

year in 2020. How much biomass isneeded to produce 5 million TOE ofbiofuel? Based on existing feedstock-to-biofuel conversion rates, it wouldtake roughly 1.4 million hectares ofsugarcane to produce bioethanol withthe energy of 5 million TOE andabout 11.2 million hectares ofsoybeans to produce biodiesel withthe same amount of energy (Table 1).By comparison, Brazil harvestedabout 6.2 million hectares ofsugarcane and 22.9 million hectaresof soybeans in 2005.

ƒ‘‘Bei offenen

Waldern und Savannen

handelt es sich um

potenzielle Gebiete zur

Rohstofferzeugung, bei

denen die Unterschiede

zwischen der

tatsachlichen Richtlinie

und den vom

Ausschuss fur Industrie,

Forschung und Energie

vorgeschlagenen

Kriterien der

Nachhaltigkeit kritisch

waren.,,Given the projected growth of Brazil’sarable land and anticipatedimprovements in crop yields andfeedstock-to-biofuel conversion rates,an additional 5 million TOE from

Brazilian biofuels – particularly fromsugarcane-based bioethanol – seemswithin reach. An amount of thismagnitude would represent atremendous expansion in Brazilianbioethanol exports. According toBrazilian statistics, Brazilianbioethanol exports to the EU(tariff code 2207.10) reached 1.481billion litres in 2008, or about 768,000TOE.

Sustainability criteria

The EU’s new renewable energydirective contains detailedenvironmental sustainability criteriafor the biofuels that are to be takeninto account for the directive’snational targets, compliance withrenewable energy obligations, andeligibility for financial support. Thecriteria consist of three main points.

1. Greenhouse gas savings: Initially,the biofuel must reduce GHGemissions by at least 35 per cent,compared with petroleum-basedfuel. Starting in 2017, this criterionis raised to 50 per cent for existingbiofuel plants. Facilities inoperation as of January 2008would be exempt from the savingscriterion until April 2013, whilefacilities whose production beginsin 2017 or later are subject to asavings level of 60 per cent after2017.

2. Biodiversity, carbon stock, andpeatlands: With some exceptions,biofuels produced using rawmaterials grown on land with ‘highbiodiversity value’ or ‘high carbonstock’ or on peatlands do notqualify as sustainable.

Table 1: Calculation of feedstock area required to produce 5 million TOE of biofuel

Biofuel Value Unit of Measure Conversion

Bioethanol5 million TOE = 7.8125 million tonnes of bioethanol One tonne of bioethanol contains 0.64 TOE.

= 9,645 million litres of bioethanol Density of bioethanol equals 0.00081 tonnes per litre.= 1.4 million hectares of sugarcane One hectare of sugarcane yields 7,080 litres of bioethanol.

Biodiesel (B100)5 million TOE = 6.4103 million tonnes of biodiesel One tonne of biodiesel contains 0.78 TOE.

7,326 million litres of biodiesel Density of biodiesel equals 0.875 kilogrammes per litre.11.2 million hectares of soybeans One hectare of soybeans yields 654 litres of biodiesel.

Note: TOE = tonnes of oil equivalent. B100 = pure biodiesel.Source: Calculations of the author. A detailed explanation and a complete list of sources underlying the conversions are available from the authorupon request.

No claim to original US government works EuroChoices 9(2)ƒ 29


3. Non-discrimination: Thesustainability criteria apply‘irrespective of whether the rawmaterials were cultivated inside oroutside’ the EU.

The directive outlines three methodsfor determining the GHG savings of aparticular biofuel producer: (1) adefault value that is differentiated bytype of biofuel; (2) calculation of anactual savings value following amethodology defined by thedirective; and (3) calculation of anestimated value that combines actualvalues for certain steps in theproduction process and default valuesfor other steps. To qualify for thedefault value, GHG emissions fromcarbon stock changes resulting fromdirect changes in land use, annualisedover a 20-year period, must be lessthan or equal to zero. The twoalternative methods also account forthe emissions impact of direct landuse changes.

What do high biodiversity value andhigh carbon stock mean in thecontext of the directive? Three typesof land are identified as having a highbiodiversity value.

• ‘Primary forest and other woodedland, that is to say forest and otherwooded land of native species,where there are no clearly visibleindications of human activities andthe ecological processes are notsignificantly disturbed’.

• Lands designated for theprotection of nature, ‘unlessevidence is provided’ thatproducing biomass on those landsdoes not interfere with thatpurpose.

• Highly biodiverse grassland. Withinthis category, the directive furtherdistinguishes between natural andnon-natural grassland (‘grasslandthat would cease to be grassland inthe absence of human interventionand which is species rich and notdegraded’). For highly biodiversenon-natural grassland, the directiveallows for the possibility thatharvesting biomass on such landcan be demonstrated to benecessary for the grassland’spreservation.

In turn, lands with a high carbonstock are defined as follows:

• ‘Wetlands, that is to say land thatis covered with or saturated bywater permanently or for asignificant part of the year;

• Continuously forested areas, that isto say land spanning more than1 hectare with trees higher than5 metres and a canopy cover ofmore than 30 per cent, or treesable to reach these thresholdsin situ;

• Land spanning more than 1 hectarewith trees higher than 5 metres anda canopy cover of between 10 percent and 30 per cent, or trees ableto reach these thresholds in situ,unless reliable evidence is providedthat the carbon stock of the areabefore and after conversion is suchthat [the GHG savings criterion ismet]’.

The directive also devotes a separateparagraph to peatlands. Thatparagraph excludes biofuels madefrom biomass grown on peatlands,‘unless it is proven that thecultivation and harvesting of this rawmaterial does not involve drainage ofpreviously undrained soil’. Thecriteria for biodiversity, carbon stock,and peatlands all apply to the land’sstatus in January 2008.

Compromise

The directive’s sustainability criterialargely resemble those in theCommission’s final proposal. But inways that proved crucial to thedirective’s passage, the directiveincorporates some elements fromITRE’s amendments, whileamendments that might have proventoo restrictive to first-generationbiofuels were either excluded fromthe directive or substantiallymodified.

One area where ITRE was particularlyinfluential is the GHG savingscriterion. The Commission proposeda criterion of just 35 per cent,without mandating any futuretightening of this requirement. Incontrast, ITRE would have set thecriterion initially at 45 per cent andthen raised it to 60 per cent in 2015.The compromise of December 2008largely follows ITRE’s approach, albeiton a different timetable and with animportant exception for biofuel plantsin operation before 2017.

A second area where ITRE wasinfluential is the directive’s treatmentof certain lower density forests(canopy cover between 10 and 30 percent) as having a high carbon stock.The Commission’s proposal did notexplicitly consider forests with a



canopy cover in this range. However,ITRE’s amendments went so far as tosuggest that continuously forestedareas should encompass areas assmall as 0.5 hectares with a canopycover of 10 per cent or more. Thenew directive provides noopportunity to demonstrate thatbiomass production on continuouslyforested areas is sustainable, but itallows for the possibility that ‘reliableevidence’ can be provideddemonstrating that lower densityforests can be converted to biomassproduction without any net increasein carbon emissions.

Several of ITRE’s amendments wereadopted with substantialmodifications or were not adopted atall. First, ITRE would have requiredat least 40 per cent of the 10 percent goal to be achieved through theuse of either second-generationbiofuels or vehicles powered byelectricity or hydrogen obtained fromrenewable sources. Although thisrequirement was not adopted, thenew directive allows biofuels madefrom wastes, residues, non-foodcellulosic material, and ligno-cellulosic material to count twicetoward the 10 per cent goal. Second,ITRE would have applied the criteriafor biodiversity and carbon stock tothe land’s status in May 2003, ratherthan January 2008.

Third, ITRE would have explicitlyincluded all peatlands within thedirective’s definition of wetlands.Instead, the new directive contains aseparate paragraph on peatlands,which could be interpreted asmeaning that the directive’s morestringent protection of wetlandsdoes not extend to peatlands,especially not to lands whose soilswere drained before January 2008.Fourth, ITRE would have listedsavannahs and scrubland as areaswith high carbon stock, withoutany provision for demonstratingthe sustainability of biomassproduction on these lands. Thisamendment, if enacted, could havesharply limited Brazil’s opportunitiesto convert non-agricultural lands tobiomass production for the EU’sbiofuel market, as we shall seebelow.

How might the criteria apply toBrazil?

Of the two major types of biofuelproduced in Brazil, only sugarcane-

based ethanol is assigned a defaultGHG savings level in the directivethat exceeds 60 per cent, the levelthat applies to facilities that startproduction in 2017 or later. Thespecific default values are 71 per centfor sugarcane-based ethanol and 31per cent for soybean-based biodiesel.Producers of soybean-based biodieselwill thus need to use one of the twoalternative methods to demonstrate

that they meet the GHG savingscriterion, even at the initial level of 35per cent.

With respect to biodiversity and carbonstock, the directive is sufficientlydetailed that one can tentativelyidentify some lands in Brazil wherefeedstock production would qualify assustainable given current land usepatterns and other lands that wouldnot. Lands where feedstock productionwould not qualify as sustainable aresometimes referred to as ‘no-go’ areas.First, feedstock production on landsalready devoted to agriculture wouldalmost certainly qualify as sustainable,assuming that any direct changes inland use would not generate a netincrease in carbon emissions.Agricultural lands account for 297million hectares of Brazil’s surface area,or about 35 per cent of the total,according to figures published by theEmpresa Brasileira de PesquisaAgropecuária (EMBRAPA) in 2003(Table 2).

Second, the directive appears toclassify Brazil’s dense forests as no-goareas, if the directive’s definition ofcontinuously forested areas withrespect to tree height and forestcanopy corresponds to the distinctionbetween dense and open forests inEMBRAPA’s data. Together, dense

ƒ‘‘Les forets ouvertes

et les savanes sont les

zones potentielles de

culture des aliments du

betail pour lesquelles

les differences entre la

directive actuelle et les

criteres de durabilite

proposes par l’ITRE

etaient decisives.,,



forests in the categories of tropical,semi-deciduous, deciduous, andarbustive-arboreal forests account for396 million hectares (47 per cent) ofBrazil’s surface area. The directive’sdefinition of wetlands appears toexclude all of Brazil’s flooded forests,which account for another 14 millionhectares (2 per cent). EMBRAPA’sdata do not include a categoryspecifically devoted to peatlands.

A far more interesting question ishow will the criteria apply to landsthat are suitable for feedstockproduction and are viewed by somepeople as environmentally significant,but are not explicitly identified bythe directive as having a high levelof biodiversity or carbon stock. Themain types of land that fall into thiscategory are open forests (6 per centof Brazil’s surface area, when all

types of open forest plus forestconsisting largely of vines andbamboo are considered together)and savannahs and similar lands(9 per cent).

Open forests and savannahs are thepotential feedstock-growing areaswhere the differences between theactual directive and ITRE’s proposedsustainability criteria were critical.Had ITRE succeeded in broadeningthe definition of continuouslyforested areas and adding savannahsand scrubland to the list of landswith high carbon stock, it wouldhave classified an additional 9–15per cent of Brazilian territory asno-go areas. The total amountwould have depended on whichopen forests would have metITRE’s definition of continuouslyforested.

If open forests are not considered tobe continuously forested under thedirective, then feedstock productionon these lands may qualify assustainable. This statement is trueeven if the open forests in questionmeet the directive’s definition oflower density forests, since thedirective allows for the possibility that‘reliable evidence’ can be providedshowing that the conversion of theseforests meets the requirementsregarding carbon emissions resultingfrom direct land use changes. Thedirective’s criterion for highly

biodiverse grasslands may still resultin the designation of some savannahsas no-go areas. However, the directiveleaves the task of defining moreprecisely the natural grasslands to beprotected to future regulatory actionby the Commission.

Sustainability and the eye ofthe beholder

The EU’s new renewable energydirective and the amendmentsreported by ITRE reflect differentenvironmental valuations of first-generation biofuels and the placeswhere biomass can be produced. Thedirective excludes biofuels obtainedfrom feedstocks grown on wetlandsand densely forested areas, accordingto the land’s status in January 2008,but it leaves open the possibility ofconverting several other types of non-agricultural land to biomassproduction for the EU’s biofuelmarket. In contrast, ITRE’samendments proposed that second-generation biofuels and vehicles

Table 2: Land use of Brazil’s surface area

Category

Area

Hectares (millions) Per cent

Agricultural 296.7 34.8Agricultural land and permanent pastures 160.8 18.9Mosaics of agricultural land, pastures, andaltered arboreal vegetation

94.1 11.1

Mosaics of non-arboreal vegetation converted topasture and small-scale agriculture

41.8 4.9

Humid forests 367.7 43.2Dense, tropical rainforest 351.1 41.2Open, tropical forest 5.4 0.6Dense, semi-deciduous, seasonal forest 3.9 0.5Open, semi-deciduous, seasonal forest 3.8 0.5Forests with a predominance of bamboo or vines 3.4 0.4Dry forests 54.4 6.4Dense, deciduous, seasonal forest 26.4 3.1Open, deciduous, seasonal forest 24.9 2.9Dense, semi-deciduous, seasonal forest 2.2 0.3Open, semi-deciduous forest in transition 0.9 0.1Flooded forests 14.2 1.7Mangrove forest 1.0 0.1Open, hydrophilic forests with palm trees 1.6 0.2Permanently or temporarily flooded lands 11.7 1.4Transition forests 28.2 3.3Dense, arbustive-arboreal forests 12.6 1.5Open, arbustive-arboreal forests 15.7 1.8Savannas and open or flooded lands 73.2 8.6Grassy savannas 1.0 0.1Arbustive savannas 53.9 6.3Open lands 8.0 0.9Flooded lands 10.3 1.2Rocky areas and other lands, with orwithout widespread vegetation

3.5 0.4

Bodies of water, natural or artificial 11.5 1.4Urbanised areas 2.1 0.2TOTAL AREA 851.5 100.0

Source: Author’s translation of EMPRAPA-CNPM (2003).

ƒ‘‘Open forests and

savannahs are the

potential feedstock-

growing areas where

the differences between

the actual directive and

ITRE’s proposed

sustainability criteria

were critical.,,



powered by renewable sources ofelectricity or hydrogen supply at least40 per cent of the 10 per cent goal.Moreover, biofuels obtained frombiomass grown on savannahs,peatlands, and certain lower densityforests would not have qualified assustainable. Underlying ITRE’sapproach was a concern that first-generation biofuels are lesssustainable environmentally thanother potential sources of transportenergy.

Producers of first-generation biofuelswere prepared to dispute this pointand many others. In November 2008,ambassadors from Brazil and sevenother developing countriesreportedly sent the EU a letter thatcriticised several of ITRE’samendments for being inconsistent

with the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade and the Agreementon Technical Barriers to Trade(Austin, 2008). In particular, theletter called attention to theemphasis on second-generationbiofuels and the classification oflower density forests and savannahsas no-go areas. The letter warnedthat as a last resort, some countriesmight contest these restrictions atthe World Trade Organization. Thenew directive omits many of theelements identified in the letter andthus provides a framework for theconversion of some lower densityforests and savannahs to be viewedas environmentally sustainable. Fordeveloping countries such as Brazilthat have large tracts of non-agricultural lands and a

comparative advantage in first-generation biofuels that offer a highlevel of greenhouse gas savings, thedirective’s environmentalsustainability criteria present apotentially large and lucrative exportopportunity.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks two anonymousreviewers and John Davis for theircritical feedback and Pablo Fajnzylber,John Nash, Erik Dohlman, DavidKelch, Rip Landes and Mary AnneNormile for their many commentsand suggestions. Any opinionsexpressed in this article are those ofthe author and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the institutionswith which he is affiliated.

Further Reading

n Austin, A. (2008). Ambassadors dispute EU biofuel policy amendments, Biodiesel Magazine, November 12, Available at: http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2934.

n Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Monitoramento por Satélite (EMBRAPA-CNPM)(2003). Mapa da Cobertura Vegetal do Brasil: Legenda Quantificada do Brasil. Available at: http://www.cobveget.cnpm.embrapa.br/resulta/brasil/leg_br.html.

n European Commission (2008). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of theuse of energy from renewable sources. COM (2008) 19 final, January 23, Available at: eur-lex.europa.eu ⁄ LexUriServ ⁄ LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0019:EN:NOT.

n European Parliament (2008). Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. P6_TA(2008)0609, provisional edition ofadopted text, December 17. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0609+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#BKMD-3.

n European Parliament, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) (2008). Report on the proposal for a directive of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, September 26, Availableat: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/reportsCom.do?language=EN&body=ITRE.

n International Energy Agency (2008). World Energy Outlook 2008, Paris, IEA.

n Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the UnitedNations (2008). Production costs of major biofuel chains, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008–2017 website, Available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_36774715_36775671_40691187_1_1_1_1,00.html.

n União da Indústria de Cana-de-Açúcar (UNICA) (2008). Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol: Get the Facts Right and Kill the Myths.Available at: english.unica.com.br ⁄ apex ⁄ .

n Valdes, C. (2006). Brazil’s booming agricultural sector faces obstacles, Amber Waves, 4(5): 28–35, Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November06/PDF/Brazil.pdf.

n Xavier, M.R.S. (2007). The Brazilian sugarcane ethanol experience. American Competitiveness Institute, Issue Analysis, 3(February 15). Available at: cei.org ⁄ pdf ⁄ 5774.pdf.

Steven Zahniser, Agricultural Economist, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA.Email: [email protected].



summary

summaryEU EnvironmentalSustainabilityRequirements andBrazilianBiofuel Exports

This article explores the EU’sgoal to obtain 10 per cent of

its transport energy from biofuels by2020 and considers how theenvironmental sustainability criteria inthe EU’s new renewable energydirective might apply to Brazil. Inorder to count towards the goal,biofuels must achieve greenhouse gassavings as high as 60 per cent after2017. Regarding Brazil’s leadingbiofuels, the directive assigns adefault savings level of 71 per cent tosugarcane-based bioethanol and 31per cent to soybean-based biodiesel.Biofuels obtained from biomassgrown on lands of high carbon stockor high biodiversity value would notqualify as sustainable under thedirective, based on the land’s statusin January 2008. However, thedirective leaves open the possibilityof converting some savannahs andopen forests to biomass production.Amendments reported by theEuropean Parliament’s Committee onIndustry, Research and Energy (ITRE)but not incorporated within thedirective would have called onsecond-generation biofuels andvehicles powered by renewablesources of electricity or hydrogen tosupply at least 40 per cent of the 10per cent goal, and they would havetreated all of Brazil’s savannahs andmany of its open forests asunsustainable places for biomassproduction.

Exigences de durabiliteenvironnementale del’Union europeenne etexportations bresiliennesde biocarburants

Cet article examine l’objectifde l’Union européenne (UE)

de tirer des biocarburants 10 pourcent de l’énergie utilisée pour letransport d’ici 2020 et il considèrecomment les critères de durabilitéenvironnementale de la Directive surl’énergie renouvelable de l’UEpourraient s’appliquer au Brésil. Pourcontribuer à cet objectif, lesbiocarburants doivent permettre deréduire les émissions de gaz à effetde serre à hauteur d’au mois 60 pourcent après 2017. En ce qui concerneles principaux biocarburants produitspar le Brésil, la directive attribue desniveaux de réduction par défaut de71 pour cent pour le bioéthanoldérivé de la canne à sucre et 31 pourcent pour le biodiesel à base de soja.Les biocarburants obtenus à partir debiomasse provenant de terres à fortstockage de carbone ou à forte valeurde biodiversité, selon la classificationdes terres de janvier 2008, neseraient pas considérés commedurables dans le cadre de la directive.Cependant, la directive donne lapossibilité de convertir certainessavanes et forêts ouvertes en vue deproduire de la biomasse. Desamendements rapportés par laCommission de l’industrie, de larecherche et de l’énergie duParlement européen (ITRE) mais noninclus dans la directive auraientdemandé à ce que les biocarburantsde deuxième génération et lesvéhicules fonctionnant avec dessources durables d’électricité oud’hydrogène fournissent au moins 40pour cent des 10 pour cent visés. Ilsauraient aussi considéré quel’ensemble des savanes du Brésil ainsique la plupart de ses forêts ouvertesn’étaient pas des endroits durablespour la production de biomasse.

Die EU-Anforderungenfur okologischeNachhaltigkeit undBiokraftstoffexporte ausBrasilien

Dieser Beitrag untersucht dasZiel der EU, bis 2020 zehn

Prozent der Verkehrskraftstoffe durchBiokraftstoffe zu ersetzen, und wie dieKriterien der ökologischenNachhaltigkeit aus der neuen EU-Richtlinie zur Verwendung vonerneuerbaren Energienmöglicherweise auf Brasilien zutreffen.Nach 2017 müssen Biokraftstoffe eineSenkung der Treibhausgasemissionenum mindestens 60 Prozent erreichen,um als positiver Zielbeitrag angesehenzu werden. Für die wichtigstenbrasilianischen Biokraftstoffe gibt dieRichtlinie als StandardwertEinsparungen von 71 Prozent für ausZuckerrohr hergestelltes Bioethanolsowie 31 Prozent für aus Sojabohnenhergestellten Biodiesel an.Biokraftstoffe aus Biomasse, die aufBöden mit hohem Kohlenstoffgehaltoder großer Biodiversität erzeugtwurde, würden im Rahmen derRichtlinie nicht als nachhaltig gelten.Maßgeblich ist hierfür der Bodenstatusvom Januar 2008. Die Richtlinie hältjedoch die Möglichkeit offen, einigeSavannen und offene Wälder zurErzeugung von Biomasseumzuwidmen. Änderungsanträge, dievom Ausschuss für Industrie,Forschung und Energie imEuropaparlament gewünscht, jedochnicht in die Richtlinie aufgenommenwurden, hätten verlangt, dasswenigstens 40 Prozent derangestrebten zehn Prozent durchBiokraftstoffe der zweiten Generationsowie den Einsatz von erneuerbarenStromquellen oder Wasserstoff zumAntrieb von Fahrzeugen erreichtwerden. Zudem würden dann alleSavannen und viele offene Wälder inBrasilien im Hinblick auf dieErzeugung von Biomasse als nichtnachhaltig angesehen.



EU Environmental Sustainability Requirements and Brazilian Biofuel Exports Exigences de durabilité...

Documents

Transcript of EU Environmental Sustainability Requirements and Brazilian Biofuel Exports Exigences de durabilité...