[pic] | EIROPAS KOPIENU KOMISIJA |

Briselē, 07.12.2005

COM(2005) 628 galīgā redakcija

KOMISIJAS PAZIŅOJUMS

Rīcības plāns par biomasas izmantošanu

{SEK(2005)1573}

KOMISIJAS PAZIŅOJUMS

Rīcības plāns par biomasas izmantošanu

1. IEVADS

Enerģētika ir svarīga nozare, kas Eiropai palīdz sasniegt tās izaugsmes, darbavietu radīšanas un ilgtspējīguma mērķus. Augstās naftas cenas ļoti labi parāda, ka Eiropa kļūst arvien vairāk atkarīga no importējamiem energoresursiem.

Eiropas Savienībai ir nopietni jārisina šī problēma. To, ka enerģētikas politikai ir centrālā loma ar globalizāciju saistīto Eiropas problēmu risināšanā, apstiprinājuši Eiropas Savienības valstu un valdību vadītāji neformālā sanāksmē Hemptonkortā 2005. gada oktobrī.

ņemot vērā iepriekšminēto, Komisija uzsākusi enerģētikas politikas nopietnu pārskatīšanu. šim tematam tiks veltīta Zaļā grāmata, ko paredzēts sagatavot 2006. gada pavasarī, un šai pārskatīšanai ir trīs mērķi – konkurētspēja, ilgtspējīgums un energoapgādes drošums.

Svarīgi šīs politikas elementi stabilākas ekonomiskās izaugsmes kontekstā ir vajadzība samazināt pieprasījumu pēc enerģijas[1] , palielināt atjaunojamās enerģijas avotu izmantošanu, ņemot vērā to, ka ir iespēja izmantot šos avotus pašu mājās un ka šādi avoti ir ilgtspējīgi, dažādot izmantojamos enerģijas avotus un uzlabot starptautisko sadarbību. šie elementi var palīdzēt Eiropai samazināt atkarību no energoresursu importa, palielināt ilgtspējīgumu un veicināt izaugsmi un darbavietu radīšanu.

Lai gūtu panākumus, nepieciešama šo mērķu konsekventa vadība, nosakot pienācīgus termiņus. šis process ietvers mehānismus, kas vajadzīgi, lai iesaistītu dalībvalstis, Eiropas Parlamenta un ieinteresēto personu pārstāvjus[2].

Komisija iesniedz rīcības plānu plašākā integrētas un konsekventas enerģētikas politikas kontekstā un jo īpaši saistībā ar atjaunojamās enerģijas avotu veicināšanu. šis plāns ir tikai viena, taču ļoti svarīga daļa no pasākumiem, kas vajadzīgi, lai sasniegtu iepriekš izklāstītos mērķus, jo biomasas izmantojums šobrīd veido aptuveni pusi no atjaunojamās enerģijas izmantojuma ES[3].

Savā 2004. gada paziņojumā par atjaunojamās enerģijas īpatsvaru Eiropas Savienībā Eiropas Komisija ir apņēmusies izstrādāt rīcības plānu par biomasas izmantošanu, uzsverot vajadzību pēc koordinētas pieejas biomasas izmantojuma veicināšanas politikai.[4] 2004. gada pavasara Eiropadome secināja, ka atjaunojamās enerģijas lielāka izmantošana ir būtiski svarīga „ar vidi un konkurētspēju saistītu iemeslu dēļ”[5], savukārt Eiropas Parlaments nesen atzīmēja, ka „biomasas izmantošanai ir daudz priekšrocību salīdzinājumā ar tradicionālajiem enerģijas avotiem, kā arī salīdzinājumā ar dažiem atjaunojamās enerģijas avotiem, jo īpaši samērā zemas izmaksas, mazāka atkarība no īstermiņa laikapstākļu izmaiņām, reģionālu ekonomikas struktūru veicināšana un papildu ienākumu avota nodrošināšana lauksaimniekiem”[6].

šajā rīcības plānā izklāstīti pasākumi, kas vajadzīgi, lai palielinātu biomasas enerģijas ieguvi no koksnes, atkritumiem un lauksaimniecības kultūrām, izveidojot tirgū balstītas iniciatīvas tās izmantošanai un novēršot šķēršļus tirgus attīstībai. Tādējādi Eiropa varētu mazināt savu atkarību no fosilā kurināmā, samazināt siltumnīcefekta gāzu emisijas un veicināt saimniecisko darbību lauku apvidos. Šie pasākumi uzskaitīti 1. pielikumā.

šis rīcības plāns ir pirmais, koordinācijas, posms. Tajā izklāstīti pasākumi, lai veicinātu biomasas izmantošanu siltumenerģijas ražošanā, elektroenerģijas ražošanā un transportā, kā arī uz visām trim nozarēm attiecināmi pasākumi, kas ietekmētu apgādi ar biomasu, finansēšanu un pētniecību. Plānam pievienots vispārējs ietekmes novērtējums. Otrajā posmā tiks izvirzīti atsevišķi pasākumi, kuriem jāveic īpašs ietekmes novērtējums atbilstīgi Komisijas noteikumiem.

1.1. Biomasas izmantošanas potenciāls

Pašlaik ES no biomasas tiek iegūti 4 % tai nepieciešamās enerģijas. Ja tā pilnībā izmantotu savas iespējas, ES līdz 2010. gadam varētu palielināt biomasas izmantošanu vairāk nekā divas reizes (no 69 mtne[7] 2003. gadā līdz aptuveni 185 mtne 2010. gadā), vienlaicīgi ievērojot labu lauksaimniecības praksi, saglabājot biomasas ilgtspējīgu ražošanu un būtiski neietekmējot vietējo pārtikas ražošanu[8]. Bulgārijas un Rumānijas pievienošanās ES uzlabos pieejamību[9], un imports joprojām piedāvā lielākas iespējas.

Saskaņā ar Komisijas viedokli šajā rīcības plānā paredzētie pasākumi varētu radīt biomasas izmantošanas pieaugumu līdz aptuveni 150 mtne 2010. gadā vai drīz pēc tam[10]. Tomēr iespējas ir vēl lielākas; tas atbilstu arī ar atjaunojamo enerģiju saistītajiem indikatīvajiem mērķiem[11].

1.2. Izmaksas un ieguvumi

No vairākiem zinātniskiem un ekonomiskiem pētījumiem izriet, ka minētais biomasas izmantošanas pieaugums varētu radīt šādus ieguvumus 2010. gadā:

- Eiropas energoresursu nodrošinājuma dažādošana, palielinot atjaunojamās enerģijas īpatsvaru par 5 % un samazinot atkarību no importētās enerģijas no 48 līdz 42 %;[12]

- siltumnīcefekta gāzu emisiju samazinājums par 29 miljoniem tonnu CO2ekv. gadā;[13]

- darba nodrošināšana līdz pat 250 000 – 300 000 cilvēku, galvenokārt lauku apvidos. Dažādos pētījumos sniegti ļoti atšķirīgi skaitļi;[14]

- iespējamā naftas cenu samazināšanās, samazinoties pieprasījumam pēc naftas.

Pieņemot, ka fosilā kurināmā cenas būs par aptuveni 10 % zemākas nekā patlaban, tieši nosakāmās izmaksas varētu būt EUR 9 miljardi gadā – EUR 6 miljardi transportā izmantojamajai biodegvielai un EUR 3 miljardi elektroenerģijas ražošanā izmantotajai biomasai (siltumenerģijas ražošanā izmantotā biomasa izmaksu ziņā bieži ir konkurētspējīga)[15]. Tas atbilst pieaugumam par aptuveni 1,5 centiem par litru benzīna vai dīzeļdegvielas vai 0,1 centam par kWh elektroenerģijas[16].

Ieguvumi sagaidāmi arī no tā, ka pieaugs ES vadošā loma ar šīm nozarēm saistītajās tehnoloģijās.

Šie ieguvumi varētu rasties, neradot papildu piesārņojumu vai cita veida kaitējumu videi[17].

Komisija izvērtē, kādā mērā atjaunojamās enerģijas jomā varētu pietuvināties 2020. gada mērķu sasniegšanai. Šis rīcības plāns varētu likt pamatus atjaunojamās enerģijas izmantošanas pieaugumam līdz 2020. gadam.

1.3. Biomasas izmantošana transportā, elektroenerģijas ražošanā un siltumenerģijas ražošanā

Pēdējo četru gadu laikā naftas cenas ir trīskāršojušās. Transports ir nozīmīga tautsaimniecības nozare, un gandrīz visa šajā nozarē izmantotā enerģija tiek iegūta no naftas. Šķidrajai biodegvielai kā vienīgajam naftas aizvietotājam transportā ir pamatoti augsta politiskā prioritāte.

Turklāt pastāvīgas izaugsmes rezultātā transporta nozarē vēl nav stabilizējušās siltumnīcefekta gāzu emisijas, neraugoties uz nozares pārstāvju ievērojamajiem centieniem; biodegviela varētu likties visai dārgs veids, kā mazināt siltumnīcefekta gāzu emisijas, bet transportā ir tikai divi veidi, kā to turpmāk varētu panākt ievērojamā apjomā (otrs ir automašīnu ražotāju vienošanās līdz 2008./ 2009. gadam samazināt jauno automašīnu vidējo CO2 emisijas līmeni, skat. 4.2. sadaļu).

2006. gada sākumā Komisija sniegs paziņojumu tieši par biodegvielu.

Ja transportā izmantotajai biodegvielai ir raksturīga augstākā darbietilpība un lielākā nodrošinājuma stabilitāte, biomasas izmantošanai elektroenerģijas ražošanā ir lielākā ietekme uz siltumnīcefekta gāzu emisijas samazinājumu, un biomasa ir lētākais siltumenerģijas ražošanā izmantojamais kurināmais. Biomasas izmantošana jāveicina visās trīs nozarēs. Vismaz līdz 2010. gadam nav gaidāma liela konkurence par izejvielām: biodegvielu galvenokārt iegūst no lauksaimniecības kultūrām, bet elektrību un siltumenerģiju – no koksnes un atkritumiem.

2. Biomasas izmantošana siltumenerģijas ražošanā

Tehnoloģija biomasas izmantošanai dzīvojamo ēku un rūpnieciskajā apkurē ir vienkārša un lēta. Biomasas izmantošanai ir dziļas tradīcijas, un šajā nozarē biomasu izmanto visvairāk. Ir pieejamas jaunas metodes, kā pārvērst koksni un tīros atkritumus granulās, kas ir videi nekaitīgas un viegli izmantojamas.

Tomēr biomasas izmantošana apkurei pieaug vislēnāk.

Rūpīgi uzraugot Kopienas tiesību aktu īstenošanu attiecībā uz koģenerāciju[18] – nozīmīgu biomasas izmantošanas jomu – Komisija veiks šādus pasākumus.

2.1. Tiesību akti par atjaunojamās enerģijas izmantošanu siltumenerģijas ražošanā

Tas ir trūkstošais posms līdzās jau esošajām direktīvām par elektroenerģiju un transportu. Komisija šos tiesību aktus izstrādās 2006. gadā. Jāizvēlas cita pieeja salīdzinājumā ar iepriekšējām direktīvām, jo galvenās problēmas saistās ar tirgus paļāvību un attieksmi, nevis izmaksām. Jāizpēta šādi elementi:

- jauni īpaši tiesību akti par atjaunojamās enerģijas izmantošanu siltumenerģijas ražošanā, kas būtu izstrādāti, pamatojoties uz šādu faktoru iespējamās ietekmes kritiskas pārbaudes rezultātiem:

- pasākumi, kas nodrošina, ka kurināmā piegādātāji padarītu pieejamus biomasas kurināmos;

- efektivitātes kritēriju noteikšana biomasai un iekārtām, kurās to paredzēts izmantot;

- iekārtu marķēšana, kas ļautu cilvēkiem iegādāties tīras un efektīvas ierīces;

- citi tehniskie pasākumi;

- mērķu noteikšanas atbilstība;

- brīvprātīgas vienošanās ar nozares pārstāvjiem.

- Grozījumi direktīvā par ēku energoefektivitāti, lai palielinātu motivāciju izmantot atjaunojamo enerģiju;[19]

- pētījums par to, kā uzlabot to mājsaimniecības apkures katlu darbību, kuros par kurināmo izmanto biomasu, un samazināt piesārņojumu[20], lai noteiktu atbilstošas prasības direktīvā par ekodizainu[21].

2.2. Komunālās apkures atjaunošana

Komunālajā apkurē (kolektīvi izmantojamā siltumapgādes sistēmā) var daudz vieglāk izmantot atjaunojamo kurināmo un sadedzināt vairāk veidu kurināmā ar zemāku emisiju līmeni. Komunālās apkures sistēmā biomasas izmantošanu veicināt ir vieglāk nekā individuālajā apkurē mājsaimniecībās.

ES 56 miljoni iedzīvotāju izmanto komunālās apkures pakalpojumus, 61 % no tiem ir jauno dalībvalstu iedzīvotāji. Bulgārijas un Rumānijas pievienošanās ES šo skaitu vēl palielinās. Komunālajā apkurē nākas saskarties ar grūtībām, konkurējot ar individuālajām apkures sistēmām. Daudzām komunālās apkures sistēmām nepieciešamas mūsdienīgas iekārtas, infrastruktūra un apsaimniekošana, lai tās kļūtu efektīvākas un ērtāk lietojamas. Šīs sistēmas jāpārveido tā, lai tajās par kurināmo varētu izmantot biomasu. Komisija mudina tieši šādi attīstīt komunālās apkures sistēmas.

Komisija aicina Padomi piekrist tās priekšlikumam par komunālās apkures pievienošanu to preču un pakalpojumu sarakstam, kurām dalībvalstis var piemērot samazinātu PVN likmi[22]. Šajā gadījumā Komisija ieteiktu dalībvalstīm piemērot komunālajai apkurei jebkādas samazinātas PVN likmes, kas jau tiek piemērotas dabasgāzei vai elektrībai.

Komisijai 2007. gadā jāiesniedz tiesību akta priekšlikums par nodokļu jautājumiem, kas ietekmē komunālo apkuri. Komisija izpētīs, vai vienlaicīgi būtu iesakāmi arī vēl citi pasākumi.

3. BIOMASAS IZMANTOŠANA elektroENERĢIJAS RAŽOŠANĀ

Elektroenerģiju var ražot no visu veidu biomasas, izmantojot dažādas tehnoloģijas (sk. 6. pielikumu). Komisija aicina dalībvalstis izmantot visas iespējas, ko piedāvā efektīvi elektroenerģijas ražošanas veidi, kuros tiek izmantota biomasa.

Direktīva par atjaunojamās enerģijas izmantošanu elektroenerģijas ražošanā nodrošina pamatu biomasas izmantošanai elektroenerģijas ražošanai[23]. Dalībvalstis apņēmušās sasniegt noteiktos mērķus attiecībā uz elektroenerģiju, kas ražota no atjaunojamajiem energoresursiem. Vairumā gadījumu šķiet neiespējami tos sasniegt, neizmantojot vairāk biomasas[24]. Tāpēc šīs direktīvas ieviešana nodrošina pamatu biomasas izmantošanai elektroenerģijas ražošanā. Komisija arī turpmāk pievērsīs tam stingru uzmanību[25].

Termoelektrocentrālēs biomasu var izmantot vienlaicīgi gan elektroenerģijas, gan siltumenerģijas ražošanā. Komisija aicina dalībvalstis ņemt vērā šādu divkārša labuma gūšanu to atbalsta sistēmās.

4. TRANSPORTĀ IZMANTOJAMĀ BIODEGVIELA

4.1. Direktīvas par biodegvielu īstenošana

Tāpat kā elektroenerģijas ražošanā, tās izmantošana ir noteikta Kopienas tiesību aktos: direktīvā par biodegvielas izmantošanu[26], kurā paredzēts palielināt biodegvielas tirgus daļu līdz 2 % 2005. gadā un līdz 5,75 % – 2010. gadā[27].

2005. gadā šis rādītājs netiks sasniegts. Šajā ziņā pastāv ievērojamas atšķirības dalībvalstu centienos[28]; ja visas dalībvalstis sasniegtu savus noteiktos mērķus, biodegvielas īpatsvars būtu tikai 1,4 %.

Lai īstenotu direktīvu, daudzas dalībvalstis izmanto nodokļu atbrīvojumus degvielai[29]. Uz tiem attiecas valsts atbalsta kontrole. Saskaņā ar pamatnostādnēm par valsts atbalstu vides jomā, Komisija ir pieņēmusi kopumā labvēlīgu nostāju par saņemtiem atbalsta paziņojumiem. Tomēr ir radusies virkne praktisku problēmu. Vairākas dalībvalstis nesen sākušas ieviest biodegvielas izmantošanā izvirzītās prasības, pieprasot degvielas piegādes uzņēmumiem nodrošināt, lai tirgū realizētajai degvielai būtu biodegvielas piejaukums noteiktā proporcijā. Sīkāka informācija par abām pieejām sniegta 9. pielikumā. Biodegvielas izmantošanas prasības šķiet daudzsološs veids, kā pārvarēt grūtības, kas saistās ar nodokļu atbrīvojumiem, un nodrošināt, ka izvirzītie mērķi tiek sasniegti ar viszemākajām izmaksām. Šīs prasības ļauj arī vieglāk piemērot labvēlīgākus nosacījumus otrās paaudzes biodegvielai, ko Komisija atbalsta un veicina.

2006. gadā Komisija sniegs ziņojumu saistībā ar direktīvas par biodegvielu īstenošanu, lai apspriestu tās iespējamu pārskatīšanu. Ziņojumā tiks izskatīti šādi jautājumi:

- valsts mērķi attiecībā uz biodegvielas daļu degvielas tirgū;

- biodegvielas prasību izmantošana;

- prasība, ka, piemērojot sertifikācijas sistēmu, tikai tā biodegviela, kuras izejvielu audzēšana atbilst obligātajiem ilgtspējīguma standartiem, tiks ņemta vērā minēto mērķu sasniegšanā[30].

Sertifikācijas sistēmā jāpiemēro vienādi nosacījumi gan vietējā ražojuma, gan importētajai biodegvielai.

4.2. Transportlīdzekļu tirgus

Komisija drīz iesniegs tiesību akta priekšlikumu, lai aicinātu valsts iepirkuma ietvaros iepirkt videi nekaitīgus transportlīdzekļus, tostarp transportlīdzekļus, kuros tiek izmantoti biodegvielas maisījumi ar augstu biodegvielas īpatsvaru[31].

Komisija apzina alternatīvas degvielas, arī biodegvielas, izmantošanas iespējas, ko var ņemt vērā attiecībā uz CO2 emisijas samazināšanas mērķiem mazjaudas transportlīdzekļiem, lai noskaidrotu, kas darāms, lai sasniegtu Kopienas noteikto vidējo emisijas rādītāju 120 g/km. Turpmākās stratēģijas pamatā, ko paredzēts ieteikt 2006. gadā, būs „integrēta pieeja”. Tas nozīmē, ka bez automašīnu ražotāju centieniem transportlīdzekļu tehnoloģijas jomā tiks izskatīti arī citi pasākumi, piemēram, biodegvielas izmantošanas veicināšana, nodokļu atvieglojumi, patērētāju informēšana un sastrēgumu novēršana. šajā stratēģijā tiks ņemta vērā stratēģija par autotransporta nozares nākotni, kas arī tiks ierosināta 2006. gadā.

4.3. Vietējās produkcijas un importa līdzsvarojums

Biodegviela un tās izejvielas tiek pārdotas pasaules tirgos. Pašapgādes pieeja ES vajadzību apmierināšanai nav nedz iespējama, nedz vēlama. Tomēr Eiropas Savienībai ir daži apsvērumi, cik lielā mērā veicināt vietējo ražošanu vai importu. 10. pielikumā aprakstīta pašreizējā situācija bioetanola tirdzniecības jomā. 11. pielikumā izvērtēti trīs veidi, kā palielināt biodegvielas tirgus daļu līdz 5,75 %:

- minimāls importa īpatsvars,

- maksimāls importa īpatsvars,

- līdzsvarota pieeja.

Komisija priekšroku dod līdzsvarotajai pieejai. Tāpēc tā:

- ieteiks standarta EN14214 grozījumus, lai veicinātu plašāku augu eļļas izmantošanu biodīzeļdegvielas ražošanā tik lielā apjomā, kas neradītu būtiski negatīvu ietekmi uz degvielas kvalitāti;

- izskatīs iespēju grozīt direktīvu par biodegvielu, lai tikai tāda biodegviela, kuras izejvielu audzēšana atbilst obligātajiem ilgtspējīguma standartiem, tiktu ņemta vērā direktīvā minēto mērķu sasniegšanā;

- uzturēs tādus tirgus piekļuves nosacījumus importētajam bioetanolam, kas nebūtu mazāk labvēlīgi par tiem nosacījumiem, kas nodrošināti saskaņā ar pašreiz spēkā esošajiem tirdzniecības līgumiem;

- izmantos līdzsvaroto pieeju notiekošajās sarunās par brīvās tirdzniecības līgumiem ar etanola ražotājvalstīm/reģioniem. ES ir jāņem vērā pašmāju ražotāju un ES tirdzniecības partneru intereses saistībā ar pieaugošo pieprasījumu pēc biodegvielas;

- atbalstīs jaunattīstības valstis, kas vēlētos ražot biodegvielu un attīstīt vietējo tirgu. Tas ir īpaši svarīgi saistībā ar reformām cukura nozarē[32].

Komisija šos uzdevumus tālāk apspriedīs divpusējās sarunās (piem., ar Mercosur) un daudzpusējās sarunās (piem., Pasaules tirdzniecības organizācijas Dohas sanāksmē un apspriedē par videi draudzīgu preču tirdzniecību).

4.4. Standarti

Direktīvā par degvielas kvalitāti[33] noteiktas etanola, ētera un citu oksidēto savienojumu satura normas. Tajā noteikti ierobežojumi benzīna tvaika spiedienam. Standartā EN590 noteikts, ka dīzeļdegviela nedrīkst saturēt vairāk nekā 5 % biodīzeļdegvielas tilpuma ziņā (4,6 % energoietilpības ziņā). Šie ierobežojumi apgrūtina biodegvielas izmantošanas mērķu sasniegšanu.

Komisija patlaban pārskata direktīvu par degvielas kvalitāti. Tā izvērtēs iepriekš minēto jautājumu iespējamo risinājumu ietekmi. Komisija analizē dažādus faktorus, ņemot vērā izdevumus un ieguvumus attiecīgajās nozarēs. Izskatot šīs iespējas, Komisija ņems vērā arī

- ietekmi uz veselību un vidi (ietverot piesārņojošo vielu emisijas un siltumnīcefekta gāzu emisijas);

- ietekmi uz direktīvā par biodegvielu noteikto mērķu sasniegšanu un šo mērķu sasniegšanas izmaksām.

4.5. Tehnisko šķēršļu novēršana

Biodegvielas ieviešanu kavē tehniski šķēršļi. Piemēram, nozares pārstāvji apgalvo, ka

- ar etanolu sajauktu benzīnu nevar transportēt pa naftas cauruļvadiem;

- nav praktiski izdevīgi piedāvāt benzīna pamatsastāvu ar samazinātu tvaika spiedienu tiešai sajaukšanai ar etanolu.

Komisija lūgs attiecīgās nozares paskaidrot šo šķēršļu tehnisko pamatojumu, kā arī lūgs citas ieinteresētās personas izteikt savu viedokli. Komisija sekos līdzi notikumiem attiecīgajās nozarēs, lai nodrošinātu, ka biodegvielai netiek piemēroti diskriminējoši nosacījumi.

4.6. Etanola izmantošana, lai samazinātu pieprasījumu pēc dīzeļdegvielas

Eiropas autoparkos priekšroka tiek dota transportlīdzekļiem ar dīzeļdzinēju. Tomēr Eiropai ir lielākas iespējas ražot bioetanolu nekā dīzeļdegvielu, izmantojot mazāk zemes un ar lielāku iespēju samazināt izmaksas apjomradītu ietaupījumu rezultātā. Turklāt ir iespējams palielināt etanola importu no trešām valstīm.

Komisija veicinās etanola izmantošanu, lai samazinātu dīzeļdegvielas izmantošanu, ietverot 95 % etanola izmantošanu modificētajos dīzeļdzinējos. Pārskatot standartu EN14214, Komisija ierosinās izvērtēt izmaiņas, kas ļautu biodīzeļdegvielas ražošanā metanolu aizvietot ar etanolu.

5. VISPĀRĒJI JAUTĀJUMI

5.1. Biomasas nodrošinājums

Iepriekš minētie pasākumi ir atkarīgi no pietiekamu biomasas krājumu pieejamības. Šajā sadaļā izklāstīti pasākumi šāda nodrošinājuma veicināšanai.

Kopējā lauksaimniecības politika (KLP)

2003. gada KLP reforma nozīmē, ka atbalsts lauksaimniekiem vairs nav saistīts ar izaudzētajiem laukaugiem. Līdz ar to lauksaimnieki var brīvi rīkoties saistībā ar pieaugošo pieprasījumu pēc enerģijas kultūrām. Ar šo reformu ieviesa arī īpašu „atbalstu enerģijas kultūrām”[34] un saglabāja iespēju obligāti izmantot atmatas zemi nepārtikas laukaugu šķirņu (ietverot enerģijas kultūras) audzēšanai. 2006. gadā Komisija sniegs Padomei ziņojumu par to, kā tiek īstenots atbalsts enerģijas kultūrām, un vajadzības gadījumā izteiks priekšlikumus saistībā ar Eiropas Savienības mērķiem biodegvielas jomā.

Agrāk šādu atbalstu varēja saņemt tikai par ierobežotu enerģijas kultūru klāstu, izmantojot atmatas shēmas. Reforma lauksaimniekiem pavēra iespējas audzēt vairāk enerģijas kultūru, ietverot jaunaudzes, kas aizņem zemi neilgu laiku, un citus daudzgadīgus laukaugus. Lēmumus par atbilstīgu enerģijas kultūru audzēšanu vislabāk var pieņemt reģionālajā vai vietējā līmenī. Komisija finansēs informācijas kampaņu par enerģijas kultūrām un to piedāvātajām iespējām[35]. Īpaši šāda attieksmes maiņa nepieciešama mežu ātraudzēm, jo šādai vajadzībai lauksaimniekiem jāierobežo zemes izmantošana uz vairākiem gadiem, turklāt līdz pirmajai ražai jāgaida vismaz 4 gadi.

Mežsaimniecība

Aptuveni 35 % no ikgadējā koksnes pieauguma ES mežos netiek izmantoti[36]. Daudzās valstīs ir tikai ļoti ierobežots tirgus mežu retināšanas dēļ iegūtajai koksnei, kas izmantojama siltuma un elektroenerģijas ražošanā. Lielākā daļa neizmantoto resursu atrodas uz mazām privātām saimniecībām, kas apgrūtina to izmantošanu. Dažas valstis šo problēmu atrisinājušas, izveidojot piegāžu ķēdes, kas savienotas ar esošajiem uzņēmumiem, un atbalstot loģistikas sistēmas, mežu īpašnieku sadarbību un transportu. Komisija mēģinās izplatīt šo pieredzi un atbalstīt līdzīgas iniciatīvas citās valstīs.

Komisija pašlaik izstrādā rīcības plānu par mežsaimniecību, kas jāpieņem 2006. gadā; tajā tiks izskatīta koksnes izmantošana enerģētikā.

Komisija izskatīs, kādu ietekmi koksnes un koksnes atlieku izmantošana enerģētikā rada uz koksnes apstrādes un pārstrādes rūpniecību.

Atkritumi

Atkritumi ir līdz šim pietiekami neizmantots energoresurss. Komisija patlaban izstrādā tematisku stratēģiju atkritumu pārstrādei un otrreizējai izmantošanai un gatavo priekšlikumu tiesību aktu pārskatīšanai atkritumu savākšanas un pārstrādes jomā. Tiek apsvērtas šādas iespējas:

- tādu atkritumu apsaimniekošanas metožu veicināšana, kas samazinātu ietekmi uz vidi, ko rada atkritumu izmantošana kurināšanā;

- tirgus pieeja atkritumu pārstrādei un otrreizējai izmantošanai;

- tehnisko standartu izstrāde, lai otrreizējās izejvielas varētu tikt uzskatītas par precēm (padarot tās vieglāk izmantojamas enerģētikā);

- ieguldījumu veicināšana zema enerģijas patēriņa metodēs, kurās par kurināmo tiek izmantoti atkritumi.

Dzīvnieku izcelsmes blakusprodukti

Dzīvnieku izcelsmes blakusprodukti nav paredzēti lietošanai pārtikā, un tos arvien vairāk izmanto enerģijas ražošanā, īpaši, biogāzes un biodīzeļdegvielas ražošanā. Pateicoties tehnoloģiju un zinātnes attīstībai, tiek radīti arvien jauni ražošanas procesi. Komisija pārskatīs šādu procesu reglamentējumu, lai varētu sākt izmantot jaunus enerģijas avotus, vienlaicīgi saglabājot augstu cilvēku un dzīvnieku veselības aizsardzības līmeni.

Standarti

Lai veicinātu tirdzniecību, attīstītu tirgus un paaugstinātu patērētāju uzticības līmeni, nepieciešami cietās biomasas kurināmā Eiropas standarti. Eiropas Standartizācijas komiteja ( CEN ) patlaban izstrādā šādus standartus. Komisija aicinās šim darbam piešķirt augstu prioritāti.

Piegādes ķēdes uzlabošana

Ar ES programmas „Saprātīga enerģija Eiropai” atbalstu uzsākta granulu un šķeldas tirdzniecība Eiropā. Apjomi ir mazi. Komisija apsvērs, kā varētu uzlabot šos rezultātus, ideālā variantā izveidojot ES līmeņa tirdzniecības sistēmu (ja tas ir tehniski un ekonomiski iespējams).

Valsts rīcības plāni par biomasas izmantošanu

Valsts rīcības plāni par biomasas izmantošanu var mazināt ieguldītāju nedrošību, novērtējot dažādu biomasas veidu, tostarp koksnes un koksnes atlieku, kā arī atkritumu un lauksaimniecības kultūru fizisko un ekonomisko pieejamību, nosakot prioritātes izmantojamajiem biomasas veidiem un biomasas resursu attīstībai un norādot pasākumus, kas tiks veikti valstī, lai veicinātu šo plānu īstenošanu. Šos plānus var izmantot arī, rīkojot patērētāju informācijas kampaņas par biomasas priekšrocībām. Reģioni var darīt to pašu. Komisija aicina izstrādāt valsts plānus par biomasas izmantošanu.

5.2. ES finansiālais atbalsts biomasas enerģijai

Daudziem reģioniem, kuriem var sniegt atbalstu no struktūrfondiem un kohēzijas fondiem, ir lielas iespējas sasniegt ekonomisko izaugsmi un radīt jaunas darbavietas vai saglabāt esošās, izmantojot biomasu. Īpaši tas attiecas uz Centrāleiropas un Austrumeiropas reģioniem. Zemās darbaspēka izmaksas un augstā resursu pieejamība var nodrošināt šiem reģioniem salīdzinošas priekšrocības biomasas ražošanā. Tāpēc atbalsts atjaunojamo un alternatīvo enerģijas avotu attīstībai, piemēram, biomasas ražošanai, ir svarīgs struktūrfondu un kohēzijas fonda mērķis, kā minēts nesenajā Komisijas priekšlikumā par Kopienas stratēģijas pamatnostādnēm kohēzijai [37]. No šiem fondiem var atbalstīt lauksaimnieku apmācību, iekārtu iegādi biomasas ražošanai, ieguldījumus biodegvielas un citu materiālu ražotnēs un kurināmā pāreju no fosilā kurināmā uz biomasu elektroenerģijas ražošanā un komunālajā apkurē.

Komisija aicina dalībvalstis un reģionus Valsts nacionālo stratēģiju dokumentu un darbības programmu izstrādē pārliecināties, vai pienācīgi ņemti vērā tie iespējamie ieguvumi, ko varētu sniegt biomasas izmantošana.

Ieguldījumi lauksaimnieku saimniecībās vai ar to saistītās darbībās, piemēram, biomasas apstrādē, var tikt atbalstīti lauku attīstības politikas ietvaros, tāpat kā mežu turētāju neizmantotās biomasas izmantošana. Komisija ierosinājusi Kopienas stratēģiskās pamatnostādnes lauku attīstībā, kuros īpaša uzmanība veltīta atjaunojamajai enerģijai kopumā un biomasas piegādes ķēdēm jo īpaši[38]. Komisija aicina dalībvalstis izmantot šīs lauku ekonomikas attīstības un dažādošanas iespējas, izmantojot savas valsts lauku attīstības programmas. Komisija ierosina izveidot īpašu darba grupu, kas apsvērtu biomasas izmantošanas iespējas, izmantojot šīs programmas.

5.3. Valsts atbalsts

Valsts atbalsts biomasas ražošanā un izmantošanā jānodrošina saskaņā ar Kopienas valsts atbalsta politiku. Komisija var apstiprināt atbalstu ieguldījumiem un saimnieciskajai darbībai, pamatojoties uz Kopienas pamatnostādnēm par valsts atbalstu vides aizsardzībā[39]. Šajās pamatnostādnēs ņemta vērā no biomasas saražotās enerģijas iespējamā labvēlīgā ietekme salīdzinājumā ar enerģiju, kas ražota, izmantojot fosilo kurināmo. Atbalstu ieguldījumiem atbalstāmajos reģionos var uzskatīt par saderīgu ar kopējo tirgu saskaņā ar pamatnostādnēm par valsts reģionālo atbalstu[40]. Ir jānovērš nepamatoti konkurences traucējumi. Skatīt arī 9. pielikumu.

6. PĒTNIECĪBA

Komisijas priekšlikumā par Septīto pamatprogrammu augsta prioritāte piešķirta ar biomasu saistītiem pētījumiem. Tajā paredzēti trīs pasākumi saistībā ar biomasas izpēti:

- „Biomasa elektroenerģijas ražošanā, apkurē un dzesēšanā”, projekta mērķis – tehnoloģiju izstrāde un demonstrēšana;

- „Viedi enerģijas tīkli”, ietverot biomasas iekārtu integrāciju elektrotīklos un biogāzes un sintētiskās gāzes ievadīšanu dabasgāzes tīklā;

- „Zinātnes par dzīvību un biotehnoloģija ilgtspējīgiem nepārtikas produktiem un procesiem”, ietverot biotehnoloģijas izmantošanu biomasas izejvielu iegūšanas apjoma, ilgtspējīguma un sastāva uzlabošanā un jaunu bioprocesu izstrādē.

Dažas no nozīmīgākajām darba jomām būs:

- attiecīgai nozarei atbilstošas „biodegvielas tehnoloģijas platformas” attīstība;

- „biorafinēšana” – no visām augu daļām maksimāli iegūstamais galaprodukts;

- otrās paaudzes biodegvielas pētījumi, kuriem paredzēts ievērojams Kopienas finansējuma pieaugums.

Komisija apsvērs, kā vislabāk veicināt pētījumus laukaugu un kokaugu optimizācijas jomā enerģētikas mērķiem un konversijas procesu izpēti.

izmantojot programmu „Saprātīga enerģija Eiropai”, Komisija atbalstīs to metožu izplatīšanu, kuru lietderība pierādījusies šajos pētījumos.

Sīkāka informācija sniegta 12. pielikumā.

7. SECINĀJUMS

Eiropai jāpārvar sava atkarība no fosilā kurināmā. Biomasas izmantošana ir viens no galvenajiem risinājumiem. Eiropas līmenī jāizstrādā izmaksu ziņā efektīvi pasākumi biomasas ražošanas un izmantošanas atbalstam, lai

- gūtu iespējami lielāku labumu no valsts un vietējām inovācijām;

- sniegtu skaidru priekšstatu par attīstības virzieniem Eiropas lielākajiem uzņēmumiem;

- taisnīgi sadalītu uzdevumus mērķu sasniegšanai.

Šajā paziņojumā izklāstīta koordinēta Kopienas darbību programma, kurā ietverti pasākumi, kuru mērķis ir palielināt pieprasījumu pēc biomasas, uzlabot tās nodrošinājumu, pārvarēt tehniskos šķēršļus un attīstīt pētniecisko darbību.

Lai izstrādātu šo rīcības plānu, bija nepieciešams gandrīz gads. Tā pamatā ir plašas apspriešanās ar ieinteresētajām personām[41]. Šo personu atzinumi par ideju saistībā ar enerģisku Kopienas rīcību šajā jomā lielākoties bija labvēlīgi, un bieži vien pat ļoti labvēlīgi. Nākamais posms ir šīs programmas īstenošana praksē. Nākamā gada pavasarī paredzētā Zaļā grāmata par konsekventu Eiropas enerģētikas politiku tiks veltīta panāktajai virzībai un turpmākiem pasākumiem.

PIELIKUMS 1 – Biomass action plan: summary of measures

Biomass for heating and electricity

The Commission will:

- work towards a proposal for Community legislation in 2006 to encourage the use of renewable energy, including biomass, for heating and cooling;

- examine how the directive on energy performance of buildings could be amended to increase incentives for the use of renewable energy;

- study how to improve the performance of household biomass boilers and reduce pollution, with a view to setting requirements in the framework of the eco-design directive;

- encourage district heating scheme owners to modernise them and convert them to biomass fuel;

- encourage Member States that apply a reduced VAT rate to gas and electricity to apply such a rate to district heating too;

- pay close attention to the implementation of the directive on electricity from renewable energy sources;

- encourage Member States to harness the potential of all cost-effective forms of biomass electricity generation;

- encourage Member States to take into account, in their support systems, the fact that, in combined heat and power plants, biomass can provide heat and electricity at the same time.

Transport biofuels

The Commission will:

- Bring forward a report in 2006 in view of a possible revision of the biofuels directive. This report will address the issues of:

- setting national targets for the share of biofuels;

- using biofuels obligations on fuel suppliers;

- ensuring, through certification schemes, that the biofuels used to meet the targets satisfy minimum sustainability requirements.

- Encourage Member States to give favourable treatment to second-generation biofuels in biofuels obligations.

- Bring forward a legislative proposal promoting public procurement of clean and efficient vehicles, including those using high blends of biofuels.

- Examine how biofuel use can count towards the CO2 emission reduction targets for car fleets.

- Pursue a balanced approach in ongoing free trade agreement negotiations with ethanol-producing countries/regions. The EU must respect the interests of domestic producers and EU trading partners, within the context of rising demand for biofuels.

- Propose amendments to the “biodiesel standard” to facilitate the use of a wider range of oils, including imported oils, to produce biodiesel, and allow ethanol to replace methanol in biodiesel production.

- Assess the impact of options to address the issues of limits on the content of ethanol, ether and other oxygenates in petrol; limits on the vapour content of petrol; and limits on the biodiesel content of diesel.

- Ask the relevant industries to explain the technical justification for practices that act as barriers to the introduction of biofuels and monitor the behaviour of these industries to ensure that there is no discrimination against biofuels.

- Support developing countries by helping them to produce biofuels and by maintaining market access conditions that are no less favourable than those provided by the trade agreements currently in force.

- Bring forward a communication dealing specifically with biofuels early in 2006.

Cross-cutting issues

The Commission will:

- Assess the implementation of the energy crop scheme.

- Finance a campaign to inform farmers and forest holders about the properties of energy crops and the opportunities they offer.

- Bring forward a forestry action plan in which energy use of forest material will play an important part.

- Review the impact of the energy use of wood and wood residues on forest based industries.

- Consider how the waste framework legislation could be amended to facilitate the use of clean wastes as fuel.

- Review how the animal by-products legislation could be amended in order to facilitate the authorisation and approval of alternative processes for the production of biogas and other biofuels

- Encourage the European Committee for Standardisation to speed up work on standards for the quality of biomass fuels.

- Explore how to develop a European spot market in pellets and chips.

- Encourage Member States to establish national biomass action plans.

Encourage Member States and regions to ensure that the benefits of biomass are taken into account when preparing their national reference frameworks and operational plans under the cohesion policy and the rural development policy.

Research

The Commission will:

- Continue to encourage the development of an industry-led “Biofuel technology platform”.

- Consider how best to take forward research into the optimisation of agricultural and woody crops for energy purposes, and biomass to energy conversion processes.

- Give a high priority to research into the “bio-refinery” concept, finding valuable uses for all parts of the plant.

- Give a high priority to research into second-generation biofuels, with an aim of improving their efficiency and cost-effectiveness; a substantial increase in Community funding is expected.

PIELIKUMS 2 – EU biomass production potential

The table assesses the EU’s potential to produce biomass for energy use. These estimates are conservative because they are based on the following assumptions:

- no effect on domestic food production for domestic use;

- no increase in pressure on farmland and forest biodiversity;

- no increase in environmental pressure on soil and water resources;

- no ploughing of previously unploughed permanent grassland;

- a shift towards more environmentally friendly farming, with some areas set aside as ecological stepping stones;

- the rate of biomass extraction from forests adapted to local soil nutrient balance and erosion risks.

The first column of the table shows the quantities of EU-produced biomass used for energy purposes today. The following columns show the potential contribution in 2010, 2020 and 2030. The potential for 2010 is 2½ times the contribution today. The potential for 2020 is 3 to 3½ times the contribution today, and the potential for 2030 is 3½ to 4½ times that of today. Forests, wastes and agriculture all make a big contribution to this potential for growth. The increase from forestry comes from an increase both in fellings and in the use of residues. The increase from agriculture is driven by the reform of the common agricultural policy.

EU biomass production potential[42]

Mtoe | Biomass consumption, 2003 | Potential, 2010 | Potential, 2020 | Potential, 2030 |

Wood direct from forest (increment and residues) | 67[43] | 43 | 39-45 | 39-72 |

Organic wastes, wood industry residues, agricultural and food processing residues, manure | 100 | 100 | 102 |

Energy crops from agriculture | 2 | 43-46 | 76-94 | 102-142 |

TOTAL | 69 | 186-189 | 215-239 | 243-316 |

It should be underlined that due to lack of data, this table only covers the EU25. It does not include the contribution of Bulgaria and Romania. These countries will be EU members by 2010, and have high biomass production potential. Nor does the table include imports. Most regions of the world have higher potential to produce biomass, relative to their energy consumption, than the EU. Potential EU consumption is therefore significantly higher than these figures would suggest.

PIELIKUMS 3 – A scenario to increase biomass energy using current technologies

mtoe | Current (2003) | Future (2010) | Difference |

Electricity | 20 | 55 | 35 |

Heat | 48 | 75 | 27 |

Transport | 1 | 19 | 18 |

TOTAL | 69 | 149 | 80 |

This scenario is drawn from the 2004 communication “The share of renewable energy”, expanded to the EU25. It is compatible with achievement of the Community’s targets of: a 12% overall share of renewable energy; a 21% share of renewable energy in electricity generation; and a 5.75% market share for biofuels.

The Commission believes this scenario can be achieved in the three sectors sectors – electricity, heat and transport – through the measures in this action plan – if not in 2010, the year for which these targets were set, then within a year or two of that date.

This is the scenario that serves as the basis for the impact assessment on this communication.

PIELIKUMS 4 – Environmental impacts

Biomass has three main environmental impacts:

- Avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions

The Commission estimates that the scenario in Annex 3, if achieved, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 209 million tonnes of CO2-eq per year.

- Environmental impact of the production of raw materials

Agriculture can have significant effects on the environment, positive and negative. In general, the level of harmful effects varies with the intensity of the agriculture. This is true whether crops are used for food or energy purposes. It can be particularly harmful to bring previously uncultivated land (permanent grassland) into agricultural use.

On the other hand, using grass cuttings from such land for biomass production can help to prevent the decline of biodiversity on species-rich grasslands due to land abandonment.

Energy crop cultivation can help to improve the overall profitability of the farm business, contributing to the maintenance of farming in areas where this may be useful from an environmental (or wider sustainable development) perspective. This is important in a number of regions to improve soil stability and prevent irreversible landslide damage. Another potential positive aspect of energy crop production is its contribution to the establishment of new crop rotation systems that are more advantageous from a wider environmental point of view (for example, alternatives to the monoculture of maize).

If energy crops are grown on agricultural land that was previously used for food production, the change in environmental pressure depends on which biomass crops are cultivated.

The plantation of tree crops to enhance soil cover on degraded land can also have a globally positive impact. However this should not take place on steppic or mountain habitats that have a high biodiversity value.

The use of wastes and residues for energy purposes often gives an environmental bonus compared with other means of disposal. For forest residues, the environmental impact depends on the local soil nutrient balance and the risk of erosion, which may require a certain amount of the residues (especially foliage) to be left on site. In some regions, however, their extraction help to reduce the risk of fire.

- Environmental impact of the use of biomass

Like fossil fuels, biomass emits pollutants. Advanced emission control equipment can virtually eliminate this, however. Such equipment is already standard in transport and, increasingly, in electricity generation. The situation is less favourable with heating, particularly home heating.

This analysis points to two priorities:

- the need to guarantee that site-specific environmental requirements are observed when producing biomass – this will be addressed in the Commission’s 2006 report on the implementation of the biofuels directive

- improving the pollution performance of household biomass burning – this will be addressed as part of the measures proposed in this action plan to develop biomass heating.

The Commission will also take steps to improve understanding of the costs and environmental impacts of all transport fuels, including conventional biofuels.

PIELIKUMS 5 – Renewable energy and the directive on the energy performance of buildings

The directive on the energy performance of buildings[44] requires Member States, when calculating the energy performance of buildings, to take into account the positive influence of "heating and electricity systems based on renewable energy sources". The relative importance attached to different kinds of renewable energy will be decided by the Member States in their transposition of the directive, allowing them, in principle, to attach substantial premia to the use of biomass in their calculation methods.

Moreover, for new buildings larger than 1000 square meters, Member States are required to carry out technical, environmental and economic feasibility studies on the use of decentralised energy supply systems based on renewable energy, on CHP and on district or block heating or cooling. This also gives Member States considerable leeway to promote biomass. In many Member States, biomass heating is one of the most practical and cost-effective options.

During 2006, taking into account comments received on the energy efficiency Green Paper[45], the Commission will decide how it thinks the directive should be further developed. The possibilities it will consider could include:

- amending the annex to the directive to ensure that calculation procedures allow greater weight and more active promotion to be given to biomass heating and other forms of renewable energy;

- reducing the thresholds in the directive so that many more new buildings would have to be considered for renewable energy before construction starts, and many more renovation projects would need to meet minimum efficiency requirements based on energy performance calculations that include the positive influence of renewable energy sources, including biomass;

- setting EU-wide minimum energy performance standards and criteria that could also promote the use of biomass where it is technically feasible and economically interesting.

At the same time, the Commission will examine other options for development of the directive, including inter alia the use of energy-efficient building materials.

PIELIKUMS 6 – Biomass for electricity generation

Electricity can be generated from all types of biomass. Several reliable technologies are available. These technologies can be used to “co-fire” biomass, by mixing it with coal or natural gas, or to run freestanding power stations.

Large centralised power plants, like those used to burn straw in Denmark or forest residues in Finland, offer the best economic performance, especially if they are also used for heat (combined heat and power, CHP). Co-firing biomass with coal is another good centralised option in existing large power plants.

It is more efficient, when electricity is generated from biomass, to make use of the heat that is produced as well. Member States can support this in the design of support schemes for electricity generated from renewable energy sources, or through CHP support schemes developed in accordance with the harmonised European efficiency reference values for CHP which will come into force in February 2006 in accordance with the CHP directive[46].

Smaller decentralised plants burning solid biomass or biogas tend to cost more, but often have advantages for the environment and for rural development. The EU structural funds or its rural development programme can be used to study their optimal location in relation to biomass availability, transport infrastructure, grid connection possible and labour markets.

The Commission encourages Member States to harness the potential of all cost-effective forms of biomass electricity generation rather than focusing on one form alone.

PIELIKUMS 7 – Transport biofuels: background

In 2001 the Commission adopted a communication on alternative fuels for road transport, identifying three fuels (biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen) that could play a big part[47]. It was accompanied by legislative proposals requiring Member States to promote biofuels and making it easier to use fuel tax exemptions to do this. These proposals were adopted, in amended form, in 2003[48].

Since the adoption of the communication the market share of biofuels has increased from 0.2% in 2000 to 0.8% in 2004. About 90% of biofuel consumption is covered by domestic raw materials, 10% by imports. Out of the EU25’s total arable land of 97 million hectares, about 1.8 million hectares were used for producing raw materials for biofuels in 2005. As expected, there has been a shift towards low blends and away from the high blends or pure biofuels that prevailed in 2001. Biodiesel’s share of total biofuel consumption has stayed at 70 to 80%.

The rise in the oil price and a growing interest in new markets for agricultural products in the light of the reform of the common agricultural policy - and the sugar regime in particular - have led to a wider appreciation of biofuels’ advantages at European level and have provoked widespread discussion in Member States.

“Second-generation” biofuels from wood and wastes are currently more expensive than first-generation biofuels from agricultural crops and have not yet been fully demonstrated on a commercial scale. Once that has been achieved, they will widen the range of raw materials that can be used and could also further improve biofuels’ environmental profile. It should be underlined, however, that first-generation biofuels already offer significant benefits and that any significant contribution from second-generation biofuels will not materialise until after 2010. Therefore, the emphasis of this action plan is on first-generation biofuels.

PIELIKUMS 8 – Biofuels: progress at national level

Member State | Market share 2003 | National indicative target for 2005 | Targeted increase, 2003-2005 |

AT | 0.06% | 2.5% | +2.44% |

BE | 0 | 2% | +2% |

CY | 0 | 1% | +1% |

CZ | 1.12% | 3.7% (2006) | + 1.72% (assuming linear path) |

DK | 0 | 0% | +0% |

EE | 0 | 2% | +2% |

FI | 0.1% | 0.1% | +0% |

FR | 0.68% | 2% | +1.32% |

DE | 1.18% | 2% | +0.82% |

GR | 0 | 0.7% | +0.7% |

HU | 0 | 0.4-0.6% | +0.4-0.6% |

IE | 0 | 0.06% | +0.06% |

IT | 0.5% | 1% | +0,5% |

LA | 0.21% | 2% | +1.79% |

LI | 0 (assumed) | 2% | +2% |

LU | 0 (assumed) | not yet reported, assume 0 | not yet reported |

MT | 0.02% | 0.3% | +0.28% |

NL | 0.03% | 2% (2006) | +0% (promotional measures will come into force from January 2006) |

PL | 0.49% | 0.5% | +0.01% |

PT | 0 | 2% | +2% |

SK | 0.14% | 2% | +1.86% |

SI | 0 (assumed) | 0.65% | +0.65% |

ES | 0.76% | 2% | +1.24% |

SV | 1.32% | 3% | +1.68% |

UK | 0.03% | 0.3% | +0.27% |

EU25 | 0.6% | 1.4% | +0.8% |

Sources

2003 : National reports under the biofuels directive except Belgium: Eurostat (figure for 2002) and Italy: EurObserv’Er

2005 : National reports under the biofuels directive.

National reports under the biofuels directive are available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/res/legislation/biofuels_en.htm

PIELIKUMS 9 – Implementing the biofuels directive: fuel tax exemptions and biofuel obligations

Member States are using two main tools to implement the Biofuels Directive: tax exemptions and biofuels obligations.

Tax exemptions

Member States make a good deal of use of fiscal policy to promote biofuels. The energy taxation directive establishes the framework for the consequent tax exemptions.

Under Article 16 of this directive, Member States can reduce taxes on biofuels or completely exempt them from taxes, without needing the Commission’s prior approval (on fiscal grounds), as long as they respect certain strict conditions.

The tax reduction or exemption cannot exceed the amount of tax which would otherwise be payable on the volume of biofuel present in the product that is eligible for the reduction. In addition, it should be emphasised that the tax reductions or exemptions introduced by Member States must be modified in line with changes in the price of raw materials, in order to ensure that the reductions do not lead to overcompensation of the additional costs of biofuel production. The fiscal advantage (exemption or reduction) granted to a fuel of renewable origin cannot exceed the difference between this fuel and an equivalent fossil fuel.

These fiscal measures no longer need the prior, unanimous approval of other Member States. However, they remain subject to state aid control. The Commission has taken a generally favourable attitude to the notifications received. The exemptions that have received state aid approval are listed in the table.

Table - Biofuel tax exemptions that have received state aid approval

Case | Biofuels concerned | reference |

C64/2000 FR | ETBE | OJ L 94 of 10.4.03, p.1 |

N461/01 IT | Biodiesel | OJ C 146 of 19.6.02,p.6 |

N480/02 SE | All CO2-neutral fuels | OJ C 33 of 6.2.2004, p.7 |

N804/01 UK | Biodiesel | OJ C 238 of 3.10.02, p.10 |

N512/02 SE | Biofuel pilot projects | OJ C 75 of 27.3.03, p.2 |

N685/02 DE | Bioethanol, biodiesel and vegetable oils | OJ C 86 of 6.4.04, p.15 |

N717/02 IT | Bioethanol and ETBE | OJ C 16 of 22.1.04, p.22 |

N407/03 UK | Bioethanol | OJ C 193 of 28.4.05, p.17 |

NN43/04 AT | Bioethanol, biodiesel and vegetable oils | Not published yet |

N187/04 SE | Biofuel pilot projects | Not published yet |

N206/04 CZ | Biodiesel | Not published yet |

N427/04 HU | Biodiesel and ETBE | OJ C133 of 31.5.05, p.2 |

N582/04 IT | Biodiesel (prolongation of N461/01) | Not published yet |

N599/04 IRL | Biodiesel, bioethanol and vegetable oils | OJ C 98 of 22.4.05, p.10 |

N44/05 LT | Biodiesel, bioethanol, vegetable oils and ETBE | Not published yet |

N223/05 CZ | Biodiesel | Not published yet |

N314/05 EE | Bioethanol, biodiesel and vegetable oils | Not published yet |

All decisions not to raise objections can be found on the Commission’s website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#aides

However, the Commission is aware that the system of tax exemptions, as implemented, is giving rise to three problems:

1) The risk of unnecessarily high cost to the state and unnecessarily high payments to undertakings . Biofuels producers have different costs but, under the tax exemption system, all receive the same level of compensation. If the level of compensation is enough to bring high-cost producers into the market, there is a risk that it overcompensates lower-cost producers. The risk of overcompensation appears to be widespread, both within the Community and internationally. The services of the Commission are presently looking into several possibilities, including the limitation of detaxation to undenatured bioethanol (which is subject to the highest import duty) and/or making the rate of detaxation depend on the raw material used.

2) Insufficient investor certainty . The Energy Taxation Directive limits the duration of tax exemptions to six years. Among the schemes adopted to date, only the French scheme lasts as long as this. In general, Member States could consider taking coordinated measures to create a stable investment climate, in particular by making full use of the possibility under Community law to adopt six-year tax reliefs and to arrange for their extension well before the term has expired. However, stakeholder consultation has clarified that even this period of certainty is less than needed for some investments, particularly in second-generation biofuels but also in first-generation ethanol plants.

3) While some Member States use open aid schemes, available to all, others have opted for a quota-based approach , limiting the quantity of biofuel that will qualify for the tax exemption and setting up a process to choose the firms that will benefit from it. The Commission sees risks of non-transparency, arbitrary allocation and increased market concentration in quota-based schemes.

Biofuels obligations

At present there is increasing interest among Member States in the use of biofuel obligations , requiring fuel supply companies to incorporate a given percentage of biofuels in the fuel they place on the national market or face a penalty[49]. Obligations are in force in France and Austria and will come into force in Slovenia in 2006 and in the Czech Republic and the Netherlands in 2007. The UK and Germany have recently said that they will introduce them. Schemes vary in relation to: the point in the distribution chain where the obligation is placed; whether individual types of biofuel are distinguished; how compliance is monitored; whether they are implemented through a system of tradable certificates; and whether they coexist with fuel tax exemptions.

Obligations have a number of advantages. They place responsibility for addressing the problem of excessive oil dependence on the sector where it originates – while implying only a negligible increase in the cost of fuel. They give fuel supply companies an incentive to push down the cost of biofuels – and it follows that they are more cost-efficient. They can include a premium for second-generation biofuels. Unlike state aids, they are not subject to a time limit and so could be a good way to establish the stable framework that investors want.

Compatibility between obligations and exemptions

It is important to point out that Article 16.6 of the energy taxation directive states that if Community law requires Member States to comply with legally binding obligations requiring them to place a minimum proportion of biofuels, the option for Member States to reduce excise duties under fiscal control (that is, without needing specific authorisation from the Council under unanimity) would disappear.

PIELIKUMS 10 – Trade in bioethanol

1. Current trade in bioethanol

There is currently no specific customs classification for bioethanol for biofuel production. This product is traded under code 22 07 which covers both denatured (CN 22 07 20) and undenatured alcohol (CN 22 07 10). Both denatured and undenatured alcohol can then be used for biofuel production. It is not possible to establish from trade data whether or not imported alcohol is used in the fuel ethanol sector in the EU.

An import duty of €19.2/hl is levied on undenatured alcohol, while an import duty of €10.2/hl applies to denatured alcohol.

Table I

Imports under code 2207 (in hl) |

Av. 1999-2001 | Av. 2002-04 | % of total (02-04) |

Undenatured alcohol | 1 167 935 | 2 383 239 | 93% |

Denatured alcohol | 279 904 | 180 988 | 7% |

Total | 1 447 839 | 2 564 226 | 100% |

Overall imports of alcohol under code 2207 averaged 2 564 226 hl over the 2002-04 period, up from 1 447 839 hl over 1999-2001. Over 93% of them came under code 22 07 10 (undenatured alcohol).

The principal trade trends are summarised in Table II:

Table II

Total imports of alcohol under code 22 07 (in hl) by type of duty |

2002 | 2003 | 2004 | Av. 2002-04 | % of total |

Reduced duty | 227 285 | 182 940 | 288 364 | 232 863 | 9% |

Duty-free | 980 693 | 2 027 632 | 1 709 282 | 1 572 536 | 61% |

MFN | 657 011 | 494 771 | 1 124 699 | 758 827 | 30% |

TOTAL | 1 864 989 | 2 705 344 | 3 122 345 | 2 564 226 | 100% |

a) average imports of bioethanol increased by 77% over 2002-2004 compared to the previous three-year period (1999-2001) when they totalled 1 447 839 hl;

b) over that period 70% of these imports were traded under preferential conditions, out of which almost 61% were duty-free, while 9% benefited from some type of duty reduction;

c) 30% of EU trade under code 22 07 takes place under MFN (most favoured nation) conditions.

With respect to the largest exporting countries:

a) over the 2002-2004 period, Pakistan was the largest duty-free exporter with an average of 501 745 hl followed, at a distance, by Guatemala with 223 782 hl;

b) Brazil is the only country capable of exporting large quantities as MFN with an average of 649 640 hl over the same period, with the second MFN exporter, the USA, on only 20 109 hl;

c) one country - Ukraine - accounts for the vast majority of imports at reduced duty with 107 711 hl over the 2002-04 period. Egypt came second with over 43 000 hl.

2. Preferential imports of bioethanol into the EU

The EU’s preferential trade basically comes under two regimes: the Generalised System of Preferences (including, among others, the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative) and the Cotonou Agreement. The main preferences accorded by each of them are summarised in Table III and described in detail in the following sections.

Table III

Import conditions under code 22 07 under EU’s main preferential agreements |

GSP normal | GSP+ | EBA | Cotonou |

Duty reduction | 15% up to 31.12.2005 | 0% as of 1.1.2006 | 100% | 100% | 100% |

Quantitative restrictions | NO | NO | NO | NO |

Beneficiaries | All GSP beneficiaries if not graduated. | Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Peru, El Salvador, Venezuela, Georgia, Sri Lanka and Mongolia | LDCs | ACPs |

2.1. GSP

The current Council Regulation (Regulation (EC) 2501/2001), in force until 31 December 2005, classifies denatured and undenatured alcohol under code 22 07 as a sensitive product, According to article 7.4 of the regulation, imports of this alcohol from all GSP beneficiary countries qualify for a 15% reduction of the MFN duty[50].

Under the special drugs regime envisaged by Council Regulation (EC) 2501/2001, which was in force from the early nineties until repealed on - 30 June 2005, exports from a number of countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Pakistan, El Salvador and Venezuela) qualified for duty-free access under code 22 07.

The new GSP Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 980/2005 of 27.06.2005), which will apply from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008, no longer envisages any tariff reduction for either denatured or undenatured alcohol under code 22 07 (still classified as a sensitive product). This Regulation put in place a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (the new GSP + incentive scheme) which has been applying on a provisional basis since 1 July 2005 and will apply on a permanent basis from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008. This new incentive arrangement grants unlimited and duty free access (suspension of Common Customs Tariff duties) to denatured or undenatured alcohol under code 2207. It includes all the countries which already benefited from the previous drugs scheme, with the exception of Pakistan which is subject to the full MFN duty.

The new incentive arrangement now also includes Georgia, Sri Lanka and Mongolia, which have not so far exported bioethanol to the EU.

Moreover, a special arrangement for least developed countries (the EBA initiative) provided for by the new GSP Regulation offers an unlimited duty-free access to denatured or undenatured alcohol under code 2207.

2.2. Cotonou Agreement

Under the Cotonou Agreement, ACP countries qualify for duty-free access for denatured and undenatured alcohol under code 22 07 with the sole exception of South Africa. According to Regulation (EC) 2501/2001, South Africa enjoys a 15% reduction in customs duties. From 1 January 2006 it will therefore have to pay full MFN duty. During the ongoing European Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations with ACP countries, the customs duties of alcohol under code 22 07 will need to be negotiated.

2.3. Other countries with preferential arrangements

Egypt currently has unlimited duty-free access to the EU under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement. Before that, it qualified for a 15% reduction under the GSP scheme.

Norway, which ranks among the top ten exporters with a total of 89 375 hl under code 22 07 in 2004, has been granted duty-free access to the EU within the framework of tariff rate quotas (TRQs) since the mid-nineties. In 2005 the TRQ will total 164 000 hl for exports under code 22 07 10 (up from 134 000 hl the previous year) and 14 340 hl under code 22 07 20, up from 3 340 hl.

3. Trade analysis

Table IV sums up trade under the various preferential arrangements.

Table IV

Imports under preferential conditions 2002 – 2004 (in hl) |

2002 | 2003 | 2004 | Av. 2002-04 | % of total trade 2002-04 |

GSP normal | 227 285 | 182 940 | 288 364 | 232 863 | 9% |

GSP + | 553 156 | 1 569 005 | 1 412 896 | 1 178 352 | 47.5% |

ACP | 291 055 | 268 784 | 154 663 | 238 167 | 9% |

EBA | 30 018 | 86 247 | 18 956 | 45 074 | 1.5% |

Others | 106 464 | 103 597 | 122 768 | 110 943 | 4% |

Total preferential | 1 207 978 | 2 210 573 | 1 997 646 | 1 805 399 | 70% |

Total MFN | 657 011 | 494 771 | 1 124 699 | 758 827 | 30% |

Grand total | 1 864 989 | 2 705 344 | 3 122 345 | 2 564 226 | 100% |

3.1. GSP

Trade data for 2001–2004 show a dramatic increase in bioethanol exports from the countries benefiting from the special drugs regime in previous years. Although these countries have benefited from the same regime since the 1990s, the unlimited duty-free access enjoyed under it at a moment of rising demand for alcohol under code 22 07 can be considered the single most important factor underlying the doubling of bioethanol exports from these countries to the EU. All major exporters under code 22 07 over the last three years benefit from such a scheme: Pakistan, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Panama.

Altogether, exports of ethanol from the GSP plus beneficiaries totalled 1 412 896 hl in 2004: practically all duty-free exports to the EU and 46% of all exports under code 22 07 to the EU over the 2002-2004 period.

Thanks to its lower production costs, Pakistan took a big lead over the other GSP beneficiaries with 1 008 656 hl in 2004 (the second largest exporter in the world) followed, at a distance, by Guatemala with over 250 000 hl.

Under the new GSP an exclusion of Pakistan from the list of countries having unlimited duty-free access to the EU market, will remove from the market one of the most aggressive and competitive producers. All old direct competitors under the GSP drugs regime will continue to enjoy duty-free access to the EU market and might be expected to fill the gap left by Pakistan as they have relatively low production costs too.

Nevertheless, at US$14.52/hl, Pakistan has production costs closer to Brazil’s which, with production costs of US$13.55/hl, manages to export substantial quantities to the EU paying the full MFN duty. Pakistan might therefore be expected to continue to be able to export significant quantities of ethanol to the EU, albeit not at the same pace as before, thus utilising the increased production capacity built over the last couple of years.

By contrast, the 15% reduction offered by the normal GSP regime opened access for approximately 9% of exports of the same product to the EU market. Unlike the obvious favourable impact of the GSP drugs regime, the impact of the 15% duty reduction is more difficult to assess. The two largest exporting countries benefiting from such a reduction are Ukraine and South Africa. In the case of Ukraine, the introduction of the 15% reduction coincided with a dramatic increase in exports over the 2002-2004 period. For South Africa, on the other hand, the last two years showed exports stable on approximately 50 000 hl, with a dramatic decrease over the 2000-2001 period. Under these conditions, it is difficult to predict the impact of removal of the 15% import duty reduction although it seems fair to say that even such a small reduction seemed to provide a competitive advantage over the countries paying full duty.

3.2. EBA

So far, exports of bioethanol from countries benefiting from the special arrangement for the least developed countries (the EBA initiative) under the GSP (EC) Regulation 980/2005 to the EU have been negligible and have primarily come from one country - the Democratic Republic of Congo - which already qualified for duty-free access as an ACP country. At the moment, the Democratic Republic of Congo is the only LDC with sizeable, though erratic, exports of alcohol to the EU under code 22 07 since 1999. In 2004 exports totalled 18 956 hl after peaking at 86 246 hl the year before.

It is fair to recognise, however, that EBA dates back to only 2001 and that some of the countries which did not have duty-free access under other earlier regimes (notably Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Nepal) might find new ways of access to the EU in the medium or longer term.

New opportunities might emerge in these countries - which generally do not produce (or are not very competitive at producing) sugar cane or any other raw material for bioethanol production from their own resources – in the form of processing molasses imported from their competitive, sugar-producing neighbours. This might be the case with Cambodia which could use raw material from Thailand, or with Bangladesh and Nepal which might process raw material from India. At the moment it is difficult to quantify future potential production from these countries but investments are known to have been made in some of them, like Bangladesh.

In this respect it is important to stress that under Council Regulation (EC) 2501/2001, imports are subject to the GSP rules of origin plus regional cumulation. The Commission is currently examining a proposal for a new regulation which would introduce the principle of determination of the preferential rules of origin based on the value-added method. Distillation should continue to be considered an operation with sufficient added value to confer origin on the finished product.

3.3. Cotonou Agreement

- On the whole, ACP exports to the EU under code 22 07 have so far been limited. Over the last couple of years they have, however, been fairly stable at 238 167 hl despite a low of 154 663 hl in 2004 (excluding South Africa: 48 728 hl) .

- Swaziland and Zimbabwe are by far the leading exporters with an average of 85 562 hl and 120 261 hl respectively over the 2002-04 period. A number of ACP countries are likely to consider bioethanol production as an alternative to sugar production as part of the restructuring resulting from the EU sugar reform. However, bioethanol production from sugar cane might remain relatively low and limited only to countries where sugar production is competitive, such as Swaziland and Zimbabwe, which have production costs close to Brazil’s and India’s and which are already exporting substantial quantities to the EU under code 22 07.

PIELIKUMS 11 – Achieving the 5.75% biofuels target: the balance between domestic production and imports

One of the key variables in biofuel policy is the balance between domestic production and imports. Biofuels and their raw materials are traded on world markets. An autarkic approach to meeting the EU’s needs is neither possible nor desirable. But the Union still has a degree of discretion about how far to encourage domestic production and/or imports. The purpose of this annex is to set out the facts and assess the pros and cons of different options.

Tools for shifting the balance between domestic production and imports

The starting point is to understand the tools that can be used to shift the balance between domestic production and imports.

In the case of bioethanol , the main tool for shifting the balance is the duty paid. EU-produced bioethanol can be expected to cost about €900/toe by 2010 (costs are currently higher because most production plants are rather small). The cheapest imported bioethanol (from Brazil) can be bought in Europe at around €680/toe. Bioethanol imports are subject to duties ranging from zero (for imports from certain countries and/or under certain conditions) to about €376/toe (for undenatured ethanol imported at the maximum tariff). Consequently, imported bioethanol is cheaper than European if no import duty is paid, and more expensive if the maximum tariff is paid. If all tariffs on bioethanol were removed, it would be difficult for domestic producers to stay in the market.

In Germany, only fuel containing undenatured ethanol is eligible for fuel tax exemption. Even imported bioethanol needs the exemption in order to be price-competitive with petrol (currently around €457/toe[51]).

More details on trade arrangements affecting bioethanol are given in Annex 10.

Imports of biodiesel or of the vegetable oils used to make it are subject to low or zero tariffs.

Biodiesel can be made from most types of vegetable oil, notably rape oil, soya oil and palm oil.

EU rape oil competes at the world market price. Imported soya oil and palm oil are cheaper. However, biodiesel made predominantly from one or another of these oils does not comply with the “biodiesel” or “FAME” standard, EN14214 – and it needs to comply with this standard if it is to be sold for use in unadapted vehicles. Biodiesel made predominantly from rape oil does comply with the standard, even if blended with a small amount – around 25% – of one of the other oils.

The Commission believes that the limits in standard EN14214 could be adapted to allow a higher proportion of other oils – perhaps 50% – to be used in biodiesel.

Scenarios for assessment

Three theoretical models must be assessed:

1) Minimum share for imports;

2) Maximum share for imports;

3) Balanced approach.

Scenario 1: Minimum share for imports

The first point to assess is the technical feasibility of this option and, in particular, whether sufficient land is available to produce the necessary crops.

The Commission estimates that in order to meet the biofuel directive’s objective of a 5.75% share of the petrol and diesel market in 2010, 18.6 mtoe of biofuels will be needed. Most domestic biofuel production will come from three crops: sugarbeet and cereals (for bioethanol, replacing petrol) and rape (for biodiesel, replacing diesel). Average biofuel yields per hectare vary widely, depending on the characteristics of the crops, the soil and the climate. The following averages have been assumed:

Sugarbeet | 2.9 toe/ha |

Cereals | 0.9 toe/ha |

Rape | 1.1 toe/ha |

On the basis of this it can be estimated that about 17 million hectares of EU agricultural land would be needed to meet the directive’s objective entirely from domestic production.

This can be compared with total EU arable land of 97 million hectares.

In the present context where crop production per hectare is rising steadily and the reform of the sugar regime will release resources currently used for food production, this appears to be technically feasible in principle. The Union is technically capable of meeting its biofuels targets for 2010 from domestic production, although it should be noted that there are agronomic limits on the cultivation of individual crops (e.g. the frequency with which rape can be included in crop rotation cycles)..

However, it should be pointed out that: existing trade arrangements and World Trade Organisation commitments do not permit the EU to close the door to imports of biofuels and biofuel raw materials; these materials are already being imported today; and there is no proposal to increase tariff protection for these goods. Therefore, the scenario of 100% domestic production is a theoretical one and would not be possible in practice.

Even interpreted as “minimum imports” rather than “no imports”, this scenario would have two disadvantages.

First, it would expose the EU food and biofuels sectors to excessive increases in the price of raw materials. By creating a new market that could be served only by domestically produced crops, the biofuels policy would drive up their prices, particularly for cereals and rape which are currently traded at world market prices.

Second, it would do nothing to encourage the production of biofuels elsewhere in the world where the creation of new biofuels industries – partly serving foreign customers like the EU, partly domestic needs – can bring benefits to developing countries. In addition, to the extent that increased consumption of biofuels is a tool to exercise downward pressure on the oil price, this is a global phenomenon – and the EU therefore has an interest in promoting biofuel production globally.

Scenario 2: Maximum share for imports

By encouraging amendment of the biodiesel standard, the EU would ensure that the maximum proportion of its biodiesel consumption is met from imports. The Commission believes that, with an appropriate amendment, imported vegetable oils would capture about 50% of the biodiesel market. However, much of the processing is likely to continue to take place in the Union.

By removing all tariffs on bioethanol, the EU would ensure that the maximum share of its bioethanol consumption is met from imports. The Commission believes that bioethanol made from agricultural crops in Europe will not be able to compete on price with bioethanol made from sugar cane from tropical countries. Therefore, the result of this policy would be that 100% of EU bioethanol consumption would be covered by imports. There would be no domestic bioethanol industry.

On the hypothesis that 56% of biofuel consumption will be biodiesel (in line with diesel’s current share of the petrol and diesel market), these steps would lead to imported biofuels (or their raw materials) taking about 70% of the EU biofuel market.

For biodiesel, this approach has merit. It would enable both EU producers and developing countries to benefit, in a balanced way, from the growth of biofuel consumption in the EU. It is an appropriate response to the limits on expansion of rape production in the EU. An EU industry would continue to exist.

But this strategy would not address the serious concerns that the present expansion of vegetable oil production – such as palm oil and soya – in developing countries could be responsible for destruction of natural habitats and deforestation and that increased demand from the EU could translate into an increased rate of deforestation. If this is true, it would be an important factor to set against the greenhouse gas emission reductions that the increased use of biofuels would deliver. If such doubts cannot be removed, public support for biofuels will be undermined. Therefore, it would be wrong to maximise the import of biofuels/raw materials for biofuels without paying attention to the environmental impact of their cultivation.

For bioethanol, this is not a good approach for the EU to follow. If the EU obtains its bioethanol from imports rather than domestic production, the cost will be about 25% lower and the global greenhouse gas benefits will be greater. However, there will be no rural development benefits for Europe. And the security of supply benefits will be less, because Europe will not have the advantage of developing a new domestic fuel source. From a practical point of view, it must be remembered that implementation of the Union’s biofuel policy depends on the efforts of Member States. If there is no prospect of domestic involvement in the production of bioethanol, it is likely that many of them will focus their efforts on biodiesel instead – eroding the market into which developing countries hope to sell. Finally, if the least developed countries are not able to compete on price on the world sugar market, there is no reason to believe that they will be able to do so on the world bioethanol market if trade is made completely free.

Environmental concerns are also raised about the cultivation of sugar cane for bioethanol. Against this, it is argued that most bioethanol comes and will continue to come from land that has been under cultivation for a long time.

Scenario 3 –Balanced approach

The Commission believes that an intermediate approach would avoid the disadvantages of the first two options.

This approach should have five elements:

i) Amendment of standard EN14214 to facilitate the use of a wider range of vegetable oils for biodiesel, to the extent feasible without significant ill effects on fuel performance;

ii) Maintain market access conditions for imported bioethanol that are no less favourable than those provided by trade agreements currently in force;[52]

iii) Pursue a balanced approach in ongoing free trade agreement negotiations with ethanol-producing countries/regions. The EU must respect the interests of domestic producers and EU trading partners, within the context of rising demand for biofuels; [53]

iv) Address the issue of amending the biofuels directive so that only biofuels whose cultivation complies with minimum sustainability standards count towards its targets;

v) Support developing countries in the production of biofuels.

The system of certificates would need to apply in a non-discriminatory way to domestically produced biofuels and imports. In particular, it would need to be non-discriminatory in relation to the requirements of the World Trade Organisation. It would need to be developed in line with other initiatives for certification of agricultural and forestry produce and could require EU support in its introduction. The potential impact on developing countries would be taken into consideration before any system of certification is introduced.

The Commission estimates that under this approach:

- price increases for agricultural crops could be kept in an acceptable range;

- a sufficient share of the market for biodiesel raw materials, a majority of the market for biodiesel production, and a majority of the market for bioethanol would remain domestic;

- least-developed countries, including those for whom the reform of the EU sugar regime is a particular challenge and whose bioethanol is not subject to tariffs, would gain a share of the EU biofuel market;

- the promotion of biofuels would not cause deforestation and habitat destruction.

Notes on the production of biofuels in developing countries

Support for developing countries in the production of biofuels is in the EU’s interest both for development policy reasons and to maximise downward pressure on the oil price. It could contribute in specific countries, as in the EU but often in more critical situations, to greater energy security and access to energy, improved foreign exchange and trade balances, economic development and employment in rural regions, and environmental benefits. To the extent that the development of biofuel consumption will exert downward pressure on the global oil price, consumption in developing countries will contribute in the same way that European consumption does. EU development policy, as well as other EU policies such as research and energy and the clean development mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, offers a number of instruments that can be used.

The positive and negative impacts of cash crops for biofuels on food production and food security have been the subject of extensive discussion. The costs and benefits depend on the site, the way the crop is produced and how it is integrated in the local production system. There is no general rule. Sugar cane has almost always been cultivated as a cash crop in developing countries, and a switch in the end-product from sugar to ethanol should not affect the food supply of the region. Some biofuel raw materials like jatropha could allow the sustainable use of low-value land and, in the process, contribute (via earnings) to an improvement in food security.

PIELIKUMS 12 – The Commission’s perspective on biomass and biofuel research

1. Introduction

Research, technological development and demonstration have potential to support the use of biomass. The Commission intends to capitalise on this. Its proposal for the Seventh Framework Programme – Specific Programmes, adopted in September 2005, gives a high priority to biomass.

An industry-led European biofuel technology platform is under development[54]. This is intended to develop and implement a European vision and strategy for the production of biofuels, in particular for transport. Once the technology platform is established, the EC will explore the need to propose a possible joint technology initiative in this area[55].

Other technology platforms will also play an important role – for example, those dealing with “Industrial biotechnology”, “Plants for the future”, “Road transport” and “Forest-basedsectors”. Under the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme, there is a need for increased coverage of the following topics: biomass availability and logistics ; energy crops for the production of biomass;[56] and combustion, gasification and pyrolysis of biomass covering co-firing, recovered fuels and combined heat and power.

This research and development activity under the Seventh RTD Framework Programme will be complemented by non-research action in the “Intelligent Energy – Europe” programme. The main focus here is to support soft measures and to remove non-technological barriers to the widespread market deployment of already demonstrated biomass and biofuel technologies.

2. Research priorities – biomass in general

The following actions related to biomass, with their corresponding objectives, are included in the Seventh Framework Programme.

- Biomass for electricity, heating and cooling

The objective is to develop and demonstrate a portfolio of technologies for electricity, heating and cooling from biomass, including the biodegradable fraction of waste. This research aims at increasing overall conversion efficiency, achieving cost reductions, further reducing the environmental impact and optimising the technologies in different regional conditions. A broad range of research topics are considered including biomass availability and logistics; conversion technologies, such as combustion, co-firing and gasification; emission abatement; and land use.

The Commission will propose to the “Zero Emission Power Generation” technology platform that co-firing be included in its scope.

- Smart energy networks

To facilitate the transition to a more sustainable energy system, a wide-ranging R&D effort is required on the EU electricity and gas systems and networks. Research aims at effective integration of biomass installations into electricity grids and feeding biogas and synthetic natural gas into the natural gas grid.

- Life sciences and biotechnology for sustainable non-food products and processes

The objective is to strengthen the knowledge base and develop advanced technologies for terrestrial or marine biomass production for energy and industry. Biotechnology will be applied to improve the productivity, sustainability and composition of biomass raw materials and to develop new bio-processes.

The Commission also attaches high importance to the “biorefinery” concept to maximise the value derived from biomass feedstocks by making full use of their components. Biorefineries could be built up by adding further fractionation and conversion steps to current biomass processing facilities (sugar, grain, pulp mills, oil refineries, etc.) to obtain a broad range of products such as food, feed, sustainable polymers, chemicals, fuels, and heat and power. Improving the cost-efficiency of biofuels through the biorefinery concept will be an important element of the biofuel technology platform.

3. Second-generation biofuels: state of play

Producing bioethanol from cellulose delivers a gasoline substitute which is identical to bioethanol produced from sugar or cereals. Synthetic enzymes provide the key to unlock the cellulose molecules and break them down into simpler substances, which are subsequently fermented to ethanol and purified (distilled) the same way as conventional bioethanol. It is hoped that energy balances and, hence, CO2 emission reductions will be largely enhanced.

The first demonstration plant was taken in operation by Iogen (4 million litres per year in Canada) and this was followed by ETEK (150 thousand litres per year pilot plant in Sweden) which was supported by EU regional funds. A third facility is under construction by Abengoa (5 million litres per year in Spain) and this plant is supported by the Fifth Framework Programme. Enzymatic hydrolysis is expected to become competitive in the medium term due to the decreasing price of the enzymes and low cost of the raw material (such as straw or even wood); being one of the most critical parameters in the overall cost of the biofuel.

Second-generation biodiesel is chemically different from vegetable-oil-based biodiesel. Gasification of biomass (anything works, but the drier the better) produces a “synthesis gas” consisting mainly of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen. Exposing this gas to a suitable catalyst converts it into hydrocarbons (Fischer Tropsch synthesis), which will subsequently be treated to deliver a mixture of gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. Because of the high price of jet fuel, the excellent quality of the diesel fraction and the low quality of the gasoline fraction (low octane number), the process is normally optimised towards the production of jet fuel/diesel.

The different steps in the process have all been demonstrated to work commercially for Fischer Tropsch synthesis gas derived from coal or natural gas. Optimisation still remains to be done on gasification of biomass from different raw materials and gas purification to synthesis gas quality. A large-scale pilot plant (15 000 t/year) is being constructed in Freiberg (Germany) by the company Choren. In addition, Choren and Shell are in the process of developing a full-size prototype commercial plant with a capacity of 200 000 t/year which optimistically, depending on the experience with the pilot plant, could be operational in 2009/10. In parallel to the experience to be gained from this “biomass-to-liquid” (BTL) process, a number of large-scale “gas-to-liquid” projects, several in Qatar, will deliver technology experience on the second stage (Fischer Tropsch) of the process in the years ahead.

Alternatively the synthesis gas can be converted to bio-dimethylether (DME), which can also be used to replace diesel in modified diesel engines. DME, a gaseous fuel under ambient conditions, can be of particular relevance in heavy-duty applications.

The advantage of second-generation biodiesel is partly that the basic treatment of the raw material (gasification) allows virtually any organic material to be used and partly that it delivers a premium-quality diesel fuel, whether to be used in its own right or as a blending component in petroleum-based diesel. Its CO2 emission profile depends on whether the energy source for conversion is biomass only or whether an external energy source is used, and whether the biomass is a waste product (e.g. straw) or an energy crop. This also affects the cost. Here too, significant CO2 gains and energy balance improvements are hoped for.

Hybrids between first- and second-generation biofuels are also in preparation. Fortum (Finland) is planning to expand its Porvoo refinery to use vegetable oil and animal fat as a raw material in a conventional hydrogenation process. This delivers the same high-quality diesel as BTL with lower investment, but higher raw material costs (close to conventional biodiesel).

4. Research priorities - transport biofuels

The main area of research is second-generation biofuels made from various biomass resources and wastes, e.g. bioethanol, biodiesel, DME. The technical feasibility of converting cellulose material (straw/wood) and organic wastes into bioethanol and biodiesel has been demonstrated. But costs need to be brought down and technology needs to be further developed and demonstrated for commercial-scale production (over 150 000 tonnes a year). If this can be done, second-generation biofuels should offer three major advantages:

- they will secure a higher market share for biofuels by allowing the use of a wider range of raw material;

- the cultivation process (if any) could be less environmentally intensive than for ordinary agricultural crops;

- this lower intensity will be reflected in lower greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation.

Second-generation biodiesel production has a fourth advantage: the fuel is of better quality than conventional diesel[57].

The price of these fuels will depend on technical developments and the price at which the raw material can be obtained. At this stage there is no reason to assume that they will be substantially cheaper than first-generation biofuels.

The Commission plans to substantially increase its support for the development of second-generation biofuels through its research budgets.

PIELIKUMS 13 – Results of consultation

This communication and the impact assessment published alongside it take into account the results of extensive consultations. These began with the Commission’s analysis of the various policies affecting biomass and an extensive public consultation campaign using all possible means, such as a public questionnaire via the Internet, numerous meetings with stakeholders, and bilateral meetings with Member States that have developed national Biomass Action Plans and with biomass experts.

The main conclusion drawn from the consultations was that the Commission should push strongly on all fronts, at EU level and national level, in order to overcome the non-technical barriers facing biomass.

Several more specific conclusions can be drawn from the consultation process:

- Sufficient biomass resources are available in the Union to meet the needs for an additional 80 mtoe per year by 2010 without major effects on forest products industries and food production. Energy crops can make a significant contribution while providing a new market outlet for agriculture and contributing to rural development. Any shortfalls can be addressed by imports.

- There are competitive, reliable and efficient European technologies to convert biomass resources into energy vectors (electricity, heating or cooling and biofuels for transport). Nevertheless, RTD work on biomass (supported by appropriate national and EC funds) has to be intensified in order to meet new challenges.

- European (as well as international) solid and liquid biofuels markets are in their infancy and have to be developed further to commodity level. In order to develop them successfully, work on standards and norms has to be accelerated.

- Biomass is generally more expensive than comparable fossil fuel energy. However, in some areas (such as household heating by pellets and industrial CHP based on residues) biomass is already competitive.

- There is an urgent need to start a professionally managed campaign to inform European citizens more fully about the benefits of biomass. This information barrier, as well as the absence of more effective representation of biomass at all levels, is also due to the lack of a strong European biomass association with industrial involvement.

- The main problem that appears to be holding back the penetration of biomass on the energy markets is the lack of demand. The only way to increase demand is through appropriate policies implemented at national level.

- Biomass is the only renewable energy source that does not suffer from intermittency problems and can potentially provide energy for heat, power and transport from the same installation.

- Biomass in the form of solid, liquid or gaseous biofuels is the only renewable energy source that can directly replace solid, liquid and gaseous fossil fuels, either fully or in blends of various percentages, in which case often there is no need for equipment modifications.

- Biomass is the only renewable energy source that cannot be found free; it necessitates a long chain of activities such as planting, growing, harvesting, pre-treatment (storage and drying) and upgrading to a fuel and, finally, mechanical, thermochemical or biological conversion into an energy carrier (power, heat or biofuels for transport). Therefore, biofuels (with the exception of untreated municipal waste) always have an associated cost that has to be borne by the final user.

- Since land availability is limited there could come a point in the future when biomass for energy will have to compete with food, materials, bio-chemicals and carbon sinks. However, this point in time is beyond 2020, and if international trade in biomass fuels becomes effective could lie beyond 2050.

- Environmental concerns must also be addressed whenever biomass is grown for food, products or fuels. This has to be done by taking an overall systems approach and by comparisons with other alternatives and not in isolation.[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]

[1] Risin[pic][pic]ts nesenaj[pic][pic] Za<[pic]aj[pic][pic] gr[pic][pic]mat[pic][pic] par energoefektivit[pic][pic]ti - K[pic][pic] ar ierobe~[pic]otiem resursiem sasniegt lab[pic][pic]ku rezult[pic][pic]tu , KOM (2005) 265

[2] Meh[pic][pic]nismi ietvers Ener#[pic]