The EU Renewable Energy Directive, adopted in December 2008, represents a key element of Europe’s response to climate change, setting a much-needed target for 20% of our energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. However, the negotiations on the Directive also saw a bitter fight over biofuels, a battle that has ended up with a fudge, and more questions than answers.

Let’s start with the controversial 10% target. Technically, this is not a biofuels target but a “renewable energy in transport target”. This means that it will be up to Member States to decide whether to interpret it as a biofuel target or choose alternative technologies such as electrification and the use of waste-based fuels, hoping that these technologies will become commercially available in time. Then there are the “sustainability standards” that biofuels will have to comply with. These are so vague at the moment, that there is no knowing whether we’ll end up with hardly any biofuels making it to the market, or with biofuels that directly cause the destruction of wildlife and carbon rich savannah areas, for example, being declared “sustainable”.

[Indirect land use change] is what makes the difference between considering most current biofuels a climate solution and seeing them as a major climate problem.

Many of these possible outcomes will depend on definitions and processes that have been left for the Commission to determine in the coming months and years. By far the most crucial point has been simply postponed by two years - addressing the issue of indirect land use change (known as ILUC in the ever-expanding policy jargon). ILUC is what makes the difference between considering most current biofuels a climate solution and seeing them as a major climate problem. For example, a life-cycle analysis of biodiesel made from European grown oilseed rape usually shows a modest greenhouse gas saving when compared to using fossil diesel. But diverting oilseed rape (and the land on which it is grown) previously used in food into biodiesel means that alternative vegetable oils such as soy and palm oil are being used to meet the food demand. So if even a small proportion of EU produced biodiesel ends up driving the expansion of Indonesian palm oil plantations into rainforests, or worse, into carbon rich peatlands, it will lead to such huge greenhouse gas emissions that it will negate any benefits from EU biofuels policy, potentially for centuries!

Another source of uncertainty is the complex approach to sustainability certification.

The Directive gives the Commission another two years to come up with a robust methodology to deal with this, leaving both industry and the environment in an unpleasant limbo. Another source of uncertainty is the complex approach to sustainability certification. The Commission could end up recognising private sustainability certification schemes as well as Member State public schemes. It could also sign bilateral deals with producing countries. How robust any of these would be is anyone’s guess. No one knows to what extent producers will be able to shop around for the scheme with the most loopholes, or to what extent NGOs will be able to appeal against clearly unsustainable production being given the go ahead. If this all sounds like a mess, that’s because it is.

As we see it, prudent Member States should hit the brakes and wait for the fog to clear. Rushing tax breaks and fuel mandates into law under these conditions is completely irresponsible. Before any further increase in the use of biofuels, sustainability issues must be fully addressed, ILUC above all. Meanwhile ‘no regret policies’ can be pursued, such as transport electrification and the promotion of the recovery of waste streams. The available biomass from agriculture and forestry should be allocated to where it makes most sense (usually the heating sector and sometimes combined heat and power generation), while ensuring through sound planning and strict rules that it does not lead to overexploitation of forests, the over abstraction of water or other environmental problems. Biofuels should come in only later, if they can finally be shown to bring more benefit than damage, something that is questionable for the moment. And if it turns out they can’t, the Directive includes a review clause that could allow Member States to redirect their attention toward truly climate friendly renewables.