Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

corporate-sponsored vision for agrofuels

A corporate-sponsored vision for agrofuels?What is the future vision for agrofuels? This was the topic under debate at an event organised on October 6 by the European Voice in the European Parliament with sponsorship from Shell.What is the future vision for agrofuels? This was the topic under debate at an event organised on October 6 by the European Voice in the European Parliament with sponsorship from Shell.
  • Dansk
  • Nederlands
  • English
  • Suomi
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Ελληνικά
  • Italiano
  • Bokmål
  • Polski
  • Portuguese
  • Română
  • Slovenščina
  • Español
  • Svenska
What is the future vision for agrofuels? This was the topic under debate at an event organised on October 6 by the European Voice in the European Parliament with sponsorship from Shell. Panellists from Shell, UNICA (the association of Brazilian sugar cane growers), WWF, the European Commission, EU presidency Sweden and the Parliament debated the outstanding issues of the EU agrofuel policy. Key was the significance of indirect land use change (ILUC) - when the expansion of agrofuel production in one place pushes the production of other crops (for example food) elsewhere. Paul Hodson from DG TREN came under attack from Claude Turmes MEP (Greens), for the completely intransparent way in which the Commission is dealing with the indirect land use change issue. The Commission has announced it will publish a proposal on how to deal with ILUC by March 2010. Hodson said that a meeting had taken place on the 5 October bringing together some 80 industry representatives and certificiation experts to discuss the issue. Turmes, who has done battle with Hodson many times over the 10% agrofuel target, criticised the Commission, saying: “These people like Paul [Hodson] are now in the driving seat to develop the methodology. There is no transparency and the Parliament is not even invited to these discussions.” Geraldine Kutas from UNICA - the organisation which won the 2008 EU Worst Lobby Award - said that replacing fossil fuels with “biofuels” like sugar cane ethanol was a matter of urgency. But Kutas saw no reason to rush the issue of ILUC, saying that that “There is no scientific consensus on ILUC; we need more time”. Sven-Olov Ericson from the Swedish Ministry of Enterprise admitted that Sweden was an ethanol champion: relying mainly on imported Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane. He called for a “cleaning out” of “bad biofuels" and an expansion of “good biofuels”. It is difficult to see how that can be achieved since there are currently no reliable mandatory criteria in place, and the Renewables Directive does not provide any; even aside from the unresolved issues that monoculture expansion will have indirect land use change and social impacts. Claude Turmes stressed that the pressure on land was increasing. He warned that in California, even conservative estimates of indirect land use change impact would inhibit the use of many agrofuels that now meet the directive’s criteria. He said that these estimates, with more scientific research, are bound to go up. WWF was the only NGO invited; perhaps because this organisation was the only one to support the 10% agrofuel target. It was clear to everyone that – as Imke Luebeke of WWF correctly pointed out - that social issues are “not WWF’s core issue”. Nevertheless, her colleague Jean-Philippe Denruyter told the other NGOs in 2007 that if the Commission proposal did not include any social criteria whatsoever, “… then I believe that all NGOs will oppose this kind of scheme. Including us.” There were no social criteria, but WWF still supported the agrofuel target. Both Paul Hodson and a representative from Shell, pointed to the WWF-initiated voluntary schemes, including the Better Sugar Cane Initiative, the Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels, and the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) as a way forward. These initiatives however have been criticised as greenwashing for agrofuels, and will certainly not provide a solution for one thing: indirect land use change.
What is the future vision for agrofuels? This was the topic under debate at an event organised on October 6 by the European Voice in the European Parliament with sponsorship from Shell. Panellists from Shell, UNICA (the association of Brazilian sugar cane growers), WWF, the European Commission, EU presidency Sweden and the Parliament debated the outstanding issues of the EU agrofuel policy. Key was the significance of indirect land use change (ILUC) - when the expansion of agrofuel production in one place pushes the production of other crops (for example food) elsewhere. Paul Hodson from DG TREN came under attack from Claude Turmes MEP (Greens), for the completely intransparent way in which the Commission is dealing with the indirect land use change issue. The Commission has announced it will publish a proposal on how to deal with ILUC by March 2010. Hodson said that a meeting had taken place on the 5 October bringing together some 80 industry representatives and certificiation experts to discuss the issue. Turmes, who has done battle with Hodson many times over the 10% agrofuel target, criticised the Commission, saying: “These people like Paul [Hodson] are now in the driving seat to develop the methodology. There is no transparency and the Parliament is not even invited to these discussions.” Geraldine Kutas from UNICA - the organisation which won the 2008 EU Worst Lobby Award - said that replacing fossil fuels with “biofuels” like sugar cane ethanol was a matter of urgency. But Kutas saw no reason to rush the issue of ILUC, saying that that “There is no scientific consensus on ILUC; we need more time”. Sven-Olov Ericson from the Swedish Ministry of Enterprise admitted that Sweden was an ethanol champion: relying mainly on imported Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane. He called for a “cleaning out” of “bad biofuels" and an expansion of “good biofuels”. It is difficult to see how that can be achieved since there are currently no reliable mandatory criteria in place, and the Renewables Directive does not provide any; even aside from the unresolved issues that monoculture expansion will have indirect land use change and social impacts. Claude Turmes stressed that the pressure on land was increasing. He warned that in California, even conservative estimates of indirect land use change impact would inhibit the use of many agrofuels that now meet the directive’s criteria. He said that these estimates, with more scientific research, are bound to go up. WWF was the only NGO invited; perhaps because this organisation was the only one to support the 10% agrofuel target. It was clear to everyone that – as Imke Luebeke of WWF correctly pointed out - that social issues are “not WWF’s core issue”. Nevertheless, her colleague Jean-Philippe Denruyter told the other NGOs in 2007 that if the Commission proposal did not include any social criteria whatsoever, “… then I believe that all NGOs will oppose this kind of scheme. Including us.” There were no social criteria, but WWF still supported the agrofuel target. Both Paul Hodson and a representative from Shell, pointed to the WWF-initiated voluntary schemes, including the Better Sugar Cane Initiative, the Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels, and the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) as a way forward. These initiatives however have been criticised as greenwashing for agrofuels, and will certainly not provide a solution for one thing: indirect land use change.
 

Will EFSA become more transparent, and to lobbyists or scientists? After its public consultation on its draft transparency policy, the Authority must now choose.
This must-watch film is now online. The film shows how corporations and actors within the Commission are teaming up to demolish a major piece of public health legislation.
Campaign groups today called on members of the European Parliament to back citizens' demands for improved rules to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. A letter signed by five environment, consumers and farmers groups was sent to all members of the parliament's environment committee, which will debate this controversial issue later in the week.
A few observations on the debate sparked by our open letter on the position of Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission, and on the need for proper scientific advice to EU legislators.
A crusade for big business-friendly deregulation, waged during José Manuel Barroso's Presidency of the European Commission, shows no signs of stopping. This neoliberal push to weaken or block new legislation appears likely to expand with Jean-Claude Juncker's new Commission team.
Our correspondence with Pr. Anne Glover, the current Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission (CSA), on her role in the European Commission's review of endocrine disrupting chemicals shows how the very existence of her position was used by business-friendly interests to convey key messages to the top of the European Commission's hierarchy, playing a determining role in the massive delay now inflicted to the European Commission's handling of this important public health regulation. We ask that the CSA position is not renewed in the new Juncker Commission.
Will EFSA become more transparent, and to lobbyists or scientists? After its public consultation on its draft transparency policy, the Authority must now choose.
Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) today criticised the plenary vote of MEPs to approve the Jean-Claude Juncker Commission.

Corporate Europe Forum