Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08BRUSSELS940
2008-06-19 15:09:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
USEU Brussels
Cable title:  

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REMAINS DIVIDED ON

Tags:  ENRG EU EUN SENV TSPL 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO3360
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHHM RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHMA RUEHPB
RUEHPOD RUEHROV
DE RUEHBS #0940/01 1711509
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 191509Z JUN 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE
RUCNMUC/EU CANDIDATE STATES COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA
RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO
RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000940 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ENRG EU EUN SENV TSPL
SUBJECT: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REMAINS DIVIDED ON
COMMISSION'S RENEWABLES DIRECTIVE


UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000940

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ENRG EU EUN SENV TSPL
SUBJECT: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REMAINS DIVIDED ON
COMMISSION'S RENEWABLES DIRECTIVE



1. (U) Summary: This month, the Parliament's Industry (ITRE)
and Environment (ENVI) committees debated the Commission's
Renewables Directive launched in January as part of the 3rd
energy package. Though the directive covers Europe's
renewable energy goals for 2020-20% reduction of greenhouse
gases and a Europe-wide 20% share of renewables-the focus was
strongly on the biofuels aspect of the directive. In the
directive, the Commission calls for 10% of all transport
petrol and diesel fuels to be replaced by renewables. (Note:
this aspect is commonly mistaken for a requirement of 10%
biofuels in the transport sector. However, this 10% includes
electric vehicles powered from renewable electricity and
hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. End note.) Several
Parliamentarians and the Commission representative, Paul
Hodson, detailed this discrepancy in focus and expressed that
there should be more time spent looking at the rest of the
directive. End summary.


2. (U) The Parliament appears to be dividing the directive
along very clear lines between the two committees. ITRE is
expected to focus on the majority of the directive, while
ENVI will control the biofuels aspect. However, ITRE, led by
Greens MEP Claude Turmes, has taken a strong line on
biofuels, stopping short of discussing the sustainability
criteria in his formal amendments-this hasn't prevented him
however, from making comments in the press. ENVI, led by
Christian Democrats MP Anders Wijkman, has taken
responsibility for the sustainability criteria.


3. (U) During the ITRE meeting on May 28, Turmes presented
his proposed amendments to the directive. His overarching
message is that the directive is not sufficiently stringent.
He explained that the EU needs to add interim binding
objectives, every two years beginning in 2012. This will
ensure Europe is on the right track and can make corrections
if necessary. However, the directive will only go so far.
As each Member State has its own target, Turmes believes that
national measures will contribute 90% of the 2020 goals, and
the EU needs to more strongly support existing and in process
measures.


4. (SBU) On biofuels, Turmes questioned the 10% target,
explaining that there needs to be a more rational look. He

believes the target should be removed completely, adding that
it adds an incentive to the use of environment damaging
biofuels. Specifically, Europe can't make the same mistake
as the U.S. corn-based ethanol policy, which not only affects
wheat prices (no details given) but is also hostile to the
environment. Turmes placed most of his focus on the use of
certain land types, without going into the details of the
sustainability criteria. He explained that Europe should
emphasize use of degraded lands for biofuels. (Note:
Germany has a similar idea-provide bonuses and incentives for
biofuels grown on marginal or degraded lands. Therefore,
instead of only penalizing use of previously forested or
other agricultural land, send a market signal that the
development of lower quality land will provide benefits. End
note.) Specifically on agricultural land, Turmes explains
that priority should be given to food. While he concedes
that biofuels can't be the sole cause of food prices, he
believes that biofuels should be tied to agricultural yields
so that during down years, fewer biofuels are grown.


5. (U) During the debate, it became very clear that there is
no obvious consensus within ITRE for the specifics of the
directive. In particular, there was very little support for
dropping the 10% transport fuels requirement. Most MEPs
argued that by dropping the target, they would be sending a
signal to limit research toward second generation biofuels.
This discussion instead is a reaction to the newspapers and
is not grounded in scientific fact. One MEP in particular
mentioned that Turmes previously argued that high quotas for
biofuels were necessary, and it isn't clear why he is
changing his mind now. The other major themes in the debate:

-- Sustainability should be discussed in ITRE. There is no
reason why the committee shouldn't be able to discuss a
portion of the directive. Most argued that they should keep
the 10% but that it needs to be tied to stronger
sustainability criteria, including food prices, water use,
and land use.
-- Binding targets would be very helpful, but there are
legal questions as to how strict the EU can be. Several
questioned whether the EU has the legal basis to levy fines

BRUSSELS 00000940 002 OF 003


on underperforming Member States.
-- Social criteria need to be explored, including issues
such as worker conditions. Most MEPs were in favor of
including some measure of social criteria.


6. (U) In the ENVI debate, Wijkman focused almost exclusively
on the sustainability criteria. His strongest point was to
ensure the greatest GHG reductions en route to elimination of
fossil fuel use by 2050. To that end, Wijkman questioned the
two primary numbers-the 10% target by 2020 and a minimum
biofuels GHG reduction threshold of 35% over conventional
fossil fuels. He explained that he was not convinced Europe
could reach the 10% target by 2020, and therefore he
recommended a reduction to 8%. (Note: this is fairly widely
accepted by most MEPs, despite the outspoken statements of
Turmes. End note.) In order to compensate for this change
in target, Wijkman recommended that the 35% threshold be
increased to 50%. This is two-fold:

-- By increasing to 50%, the overall GHG savings for the 8%
target is improved over 35% saving and a 10% share; and
-- Using 50% sends a signal that second generation biofuels
will be supported in Europe and that work should move quickly
away from first generation fuels.


7. (U) In responding to the recent food price increases,
Wijkman explained that it is a gross exaggeration the
increases can be explained by biofuels, with the notable
exception of corn in the U.S. There are at least 7-8 reasons
for the increases globally. However, there should be a push
to move away from the use of agricultural lands. There are
large areas of land globally which should be able to support
biofuels development, and Wijkman favors production on
degraded and marginal lands or those multi-use lands which
can adapt depending on global situations. He also suggests
that there should be financial or other incentives for
avoiding deforestation. However, in response to the
Commission's proposals on "no-go" areas for biofuels
production, Wijkman expressed that he doesn't feel that
Europe can tell Brazil, Chile, and the Congo not to produce
anything. Instead, they need to work globally to enforce
sustainable practices, as it is possible to develop biofuels
sustainably in the tropics.


9. (U) During the Parliamentary debate, much as with ITRE,
ENVI is not of one voice on biofuels. The primary topics of
discussion were the 10% share/35% GHG reduction targets.
There was no consistent opinion on the concept of 10% vs. 8%,
but what was clear is that there needs to remain a strong
target. Several ideas were floated, including 8% biofuels,
plus 1% each hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and electric
vehicles. Others added in 1% minimum targets for second
generation biofuels use. Despite this, there was
overwhelming support that while the GHG reduction target
should be increased, jumping immediately to 50% likely is not
supportable. Many recommended a step-wise approach to higher
levels. MEP Dorette Corbey, in particular, suggested
starting at 35%, moving up to 50% as an intermediate step,
and then finally to 60%, achievable as the move to cellulosic
biofuels takes place. (Note: This could be an effort to more
closely match the U.S. plan in the Energy Independence and
Security Act, in which first generation biofuels have a 20%
GHG threshold, second generation are at 50% GHG reductions,
and cellulosic are at 60% GHG reductions. Corbey was very
interested when USEU EconOff described the language in the
EISA legislation. End note.) In addition to the targets,
the other key themes of the debate:

-- Most MEPs expressed that social criteria were absolutely
necessary to include. As in ITRE, ENVI called for inclusion
of tying biofuels to food prices and to labor laws. The
Commission continues to reject this idea, explaining that
food prices and labor laws are covered in other directives,
and there is no reason to call those out specifically in
biofuels. Additionally, the Commission believes that the
inclusion of social criteria would leave the EU vulnerable to
challenge in the WTO.
-- Biofuels R&D will become a crucial aspect of Europe's
ability to compete. A few mentioned that Europe lags the
U.S. in biofuels development, something which needs to change
soon. Additionally, Europe is not sufficiently focused on
new areas of biofuels, whereas for example, the U.S. military
is performing research on growing algae for biofuels.
-- The sustainability criteria absolutely need to be

BRUSSELS 00000940 003 OF 003


tightened, with many calling for the inclusion of indirect
land use changes. The Commission argued that Wijkman's
proposals for indirect land use change would lower GHG
reduction scores by 24% and that with an increase to a 50%
threshold, only two biofuels-Brazilian ethanol and animal
oils-would be able to meet the threshold.


10. (SBU) None of these proposals or amendments are
guaranteed to pass, as there is little agreement among MEPs.
This legislative process, given how contentious the details
are at this time, is likely to take at least to the end of
the year to complete. Both the ITRE and ENVI committees will
be debating the proposed amendments in July, with a possible
Plenary vote pending the outcome of the Committee
discussions. The Parliament is under a deadline to finish
this soon, as both the Commission and the French Presidency,
which begins in July, want to finish discussions by the end
of the year. This is in an attempt to avoid having to
restart the process after the Parliamentary elections in the
summer.

MURRAY
.