The European Biomass Agenda

Phil Bennion and his dog inspecting his biomass crop

It is an often-repeated Liberal Democrat mantra that one of the main justifications for the European Union is its potential for tackling environmental issues. Pollution and emissions do not respect borders so an international approach is appropriate. Practical examples of achievement are always helpful when we are out on the campaign trail trying to convince the sceptics. Regarding the great challenge of tackling climate change, the EU has proved to be the most effective driver of policies across Europe to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rather than the nation states. There are sound theoretical reasons why this should be the case. The nation states are far more likely to sign up to common measures or targets than to "go it alone", particularly where unilateral action may confer a short to medium term competitive disadvantage. Measures that require some sacrifice by the electorate can then be attributed to Brussels to spare the governing party any electoral punishment. Furthermore, the EU has competence over trade negotiations and is big enough to argue in the international arena that action for the greater global good should be taken into account. It has the capacity to influence third party nations and alliances to improve their own environmental policies. Thirdly, the EU has a large enough environmental footprint for any measures taken to make a real difference in global terms.

In recent years the EU Commission has brought forward numerous pieces of legislation to force the issue. These include Directives on biofuels, renewable energy, energy performance of buildings, landfill and a number on waste.

The Biofuels Directive allows member states to use tax breaks, investment aid and renewable obligations as policy instruments to reach the 5.75% target for transport fuels by 2010. The UK opted for the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) with a target that would clearly fail to comply with the directive. Initially a sceptic, I now believe that the RTFO can deliver, although certainly not by 2010. Most players seem to think that the buy-out price of 15p per litre will be sufficient and the major fuel companies have begun to invest in the necessary biofuel production facilities. The government has sought all party agreement on extending the RTFO to a second phase with higher targets. Germany, however, expanded production far more quickly by setting a zero duty on biofuels, rather than using obligations.

The Renewable Energy Directive seeks to raise the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources from 14% in 2000 to 21% in 2010 across the EU 27. In this case each nation state has different targets reflecting their widely differing starting points. The UK has again taken the obligations route, with electricity suppliers having to meet targets rising from 3% in 2003 to 10% in 2010 and 15% in 2015. Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are awarded to power generators using renewable sources. These can be sold to the electricity suppliers who hand them in to the authorities to match their sale of renewable electricity. A buy-out price (£30/Mwh) is paid by suppliers with insufficient ROCs. The system has been relatively successful, although there are issues regarding the use of unsustainable sources of biomass to gain ROCs. The UK has also used investment aids through DTI and DEFRA grants. Indeed, the power station under construction at Eccleshall, which I will be supplying with miscanthus, received a DTI grant through the regional development agency (AWM) and the farmers have received planting grants from DEFRA.

In December 2005 the EU produced a Biomass Action Plan (BAP) to map out future legislative and enforcement requirements to enable biomass to make a full contribution to reaching Europe's overall renewable energy targets. This was followed by the EU Strategy for Biofuels in Feb 2006. The lead Directorate for the BAP was DG Energy and Transport and as such, energy security seems to have been given a higher rank in justifying policy than climate change. However, DG Environment also took part in the drafting, along with DG Agri and DG Enterprise.

The term biofuels is generally used to describe liquid biofuels whereas the term biomass is usually used to describe solid biofuels. All are generally produced from forestry and agriculture, but some wastes may be included. The BAP deals with these under the single term of biomass. It identifies a potential to increase the share of biomass in total EU energy requirements from 4% in 2004 to 9% in 2010 without significant negative environmental side-effects or reduction in food production.

Heating is the major energy use for biomass across the EU, but growth in this sector has been disappointing. Most of the recent growth has been in the use of biomass for electricity and biofuels for transport. Heat or CHP is the means to the greatest saving in CO2 emissions through biomass. Consequently the BAP suggests amending the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, bringing forward new legislation on renewable energy in heating and funding a project to improve the performance of domestic biomass boilers. A Renewable Heat Directive would satisfy critics of the Biomass Taskforce Report commissioned by UK government, which came out with some excellent proposals, but failed to support a Renewable Heat Obligation.

The BAP concluded that current legislation on renewable electricity and biofuels should be kept under review and particularly that compliance by the nation states should be assured. Compliance with current legislation was sufficient to get half way to the 2010 target. The problem of biomass and biofuels from non-sustainable sources should have been addressed through amendments to the existing Directives by the end of 2006, but I do not think that this process is complete at the time of writing. Rain forest clearance for palm oil plantations has come under particular criticism, as not only can the oil produce biodiesel, but also the kernels are used in UK power stations as a form of "renewable" energy qualifying for ROCs. An internationally recognised assurance system is urgently required to prevent any further rain forest destruction for these purposes. Some environmentalists are already tarring all biomass with the same brush and discounting it as a useful part of the solution. The nuclear lobby have also adopted this argument as a means of discrediting biomass. The world does require an international trade in biomass, but we have to be certain that it is produced sustainably.

The BAP suggests that the most promising biomass sectors are woody biomass and ethanol and that we should concentrate our efforts in these areas. Forestry and agricultural coppice crops produce woody biomass, which can deliver the greatest levels of saving of CO2 emissions per hectare grown per year. DG Environment's evidence suggested that wood coppice grown as an agricultural crop can save 20 tonnes CO2/ha/yr, compared to only 3-4 tonnes for arable biofuel crops such as oilseed rape for biodiesel or sugar beet and wheat for bioethanol. Miscanthus grown as a multi-annual crop can achieve results almost as good as coppice and it has a number of agronomic and logistical advantages that can make it more attractive to farmers. Given the huge saving in emissions that can be delivered by solid biomass crops, why do we pursue the modest savings offered by liquid biofuels? DG Energy's fondness for bioethanol from crops is possibly a response to the reform of the sugar regime of the CAP. Personally, I doubt that the envisaged tonnage of sugar beet will materialise as farmers will simply give up growing it and the factories will close. However, the BAP is right to persist with liquid biofuels, firstly because we can't run our vehicles on wood chips and secondly because new technologies are imminent. Second generation biofuels are produced from biomass crops such as wood and straw. The biomass is broken down into constituent hydrocarbons in a biorefinery. It is likely that CO2 savings will be in the region of 10-15 t/ha/yr from this technology and a few pilot plants are already up and running. This will also reduce any potential impact on food production should higher targets be adopted for biofuels in transport in the future.

The BAP does not only address the demand side of the equation, but also sets out a programme for increasing supply of biomass. Biomass projects have been cleared as qualifying for Regional Development funding, as long as they comply with state aid regulations. An Action Plan is proposed to make better use of forestry in biomass production (an estimated 35% of annual forest growth is unutilised). The BAP proposed continued support for biomass growers under Pillar 2 of the CAP, requiring revised Rural Development Regulations for the new programme beginning this year. The Commission does not always get things right. I discovered in July 2006 that only woody biomass had been included for grant aid in the draft regulations. Miscanthus expert Dr Paul Carver of BiCal and I launched ourselves into a 2-month lobbying campaign that involved meetings with MEPs Liz Lynne, Fiona Hall and Jorgo Chatzimarkakis of Germany's FDP. It was also important to get the government onside and I raised the issue at a meeting with junior DEFRA minister David Kidney MP. I also alerted the National Farmers' Union and president Peter Kendall with vice president Paul Temple went to Brussels to press the case. The result was that an amended text was agreed and finally signed off by the Commission in October.

In summary, the EU Commision is determined that Biomass and Biofuels will play a full part in both tackling climate change and diversifying our energy supplies. The recent legislative programme and their roadmap for the future both indicate that member states will be pressed to deliver on targets. National Biomass Action Plans will now be expected to clarify how the nation states will meet their targets. Biomass cannot, of course, deliver the whole climate change agenda on its own. Energy saving measures have a greater potential to reduce emissions than renewables and biomass is only part of the renewable mix. In all of these areas we can expect the EU to continue to take a leading role. Reducing emissions across the EU as a whole is not only more effective in combating climate change, it is far more persuasive in encouraging other major emitters to reform their ways than action on a national level alone.