DTE Agrofuels Update, December 2011

New research shows ILUC emissions are ‘a serious concern’

New scientific studies, commissioned by the European Commission this year, give clear indications that agrofuels are not the magic solution that policy makers had hoped for and ‘scientific uncertainty’ is no longer a valid excuse for inaction.

The body of scientific research highlighting the dangers of agrofuels is mounting up while Europe continues to delay urgent policy changes, which affect people and the planet. The studies – including research commissioned by the European Union (EU) itself – further undermine the case for using agrofuels as a means of addressing climate change, and the existing EU policy that supports this false solution.

Two studies, conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) [1] and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) [2] this year, will provide key advice for the European Commission’s (EC) ILUC impact assessment on options to deal with ILUC, due to be released in January 2012.

Both studies aim to estimate both the overall carbon emissions from land use change due to the European Renewable Energy Directive and the emissions associated with increasing the demand for agrofuels. The studies expand on earlier investigations, commissioned by the EC in 2010, by using advanced modeling systems to consider a broader range of factors influencing ILUC. Factors include more accurate consideration of changes in soil carbon stock and emissions from peatland, competition between food and fuel and impacts of ILUC on biodiversity loss. The studies also analyse various scenarios, including trade scenarios (i.e. ‘business as usual’ Vs trade liberalisation’), various percentage blends of biofuels and various spreads of bioethanol vs biodiesel. In addition, there is a stronger focus on specific feedstock Land Use Change (LUC). 

Both models run scenarios using the bioethanol/diesel split estimated by each EU Member State in the national Renewable Energy Action Plans (thus providing a more realistic estimate) and find that biodiesel pathways are likely to be significantly more carbon intensive than ethanol pathways[3] . These findings confirm claims that the 2010 IFPRI study used an unrealistic split between ethanol and diesel in its calculations, which resulted in a significant underestimate of overall predicted emissions.

Policy advice

The IFPRI study suggests that the current agrofuel support policies may fail to deliver any net greenhouse gas benefits, stating that ‘emissions related to land use changes driven by biofuels policies are a serious concern’[4].The IFPRI study supports legislative reform to raise the direct GHG savings threshold, and poten­tially reduced the mandate but does not recommend the application of iLUC specific factors[5].

In July 2011, the results of an expert consultation regarding ‘Critical Issues in Estimating ILUC Emissions’ were published in a long awaited report by the JRC. The report states that “sustainability criteria in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) … are ineffective to avoid ILUC, and therefore additional policy measures are necessary.” [6] In contrast with the IFPRI report, experts state that an increase of the GHG threshold would have only a limited effect on ILUC reduction and the use of a factor which attributes a quantity of GHG emissions to crop‐specific agrofuels is the preferred option.  In addition, experts advise that good agricultural practices, land management C‐mitigation strategies and intensification on pasture lands should be encouraged via policy incentives. [7]

Palm Oil “ the worst biodiesel feedstock for ILUC emissions”[8]

Overall, new ILUC studies find that emissions from peatland have a significant impact on the total emissions calculations of agrofuels and that existing agrofuels policies have been based on severe underestimates of emissions resulting from palm oil production[9].

The IFPRI 2011 study finds that peat degradation accounts for 1/3 of total emissions (i.e. emissions of 55 t CO2e/ha/yr).[10] This is a large increase on the IFPRI 2010 model, which underestimated peat emissions at only 30% of total emissions. The IFPRI study suggests that even if peatland was effectively protected, it is still unlikely that biodiesel would meet a 50% net carbon reduction target[11].

Further studies by the University of Leicester (commissioned by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT))  show that emissions from degrading peatland under palm cultivation can be up to 106 t CO2/ha/yr (when applied to RED 20 yr LUC accounting) [12] – almost 50% greater than the new IFPRI study. Oil palm, which is grown largely on peat-rich soils in Malaysia and Indonesia, is one of the main suppliers of additional biodiesel demand. Without addressing impacts of biodiesel production and peatland degradation, agrofuel mandates present a significant danger to global actions to mitigate climate change.  

‘Uncertainty’ no longer and excuse for inaction: EC has a duty to act now!

The science is clear and undeniable; agrofuels are not the magic climate change solution policy makers had first hoped. Current agrofuels policies are flawed, based on naive and under-researched science and the potential impacts are dangerous to people, biodiversity and the planet. 

The EC and EU policy makers have a duty, under the precautionary principle, to pay heed to serious scientific concern and act immediately to reform the overzealous agrofuel policies of over five years ago.

2012 will be a critical year for reversing the climate crisis globally and all eyes will be on Europe to make the right decisions for real renewable energy. The EC’s impact assessment due for release in the New Year should look to immediately introduce ILUC feedstock specific factors and reduce the agrofuels mandate - backed up with a solid international plan to encourage genuine renewable energy such as wind solar and tidal, and to reduce our consumption of energy.



[1] International Food Policy Research Institute. Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies, Final Report. October 2011. David Laborde (IFPRI). Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/biofuelsreportec2011.pdf

[2] Joint Research Centre Technical Note: Estimate of GHG emissions from global land use change scenarios. October 2011. Available from: http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/scientific_publications/technical_note_eu24817.pdf

[3] International Food Policy Research Institute. Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies, Final Report. October 2011. David Laborde (IFPRI). Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/biofuelsreportec2011.pdf  and Research Centre Technical Note: Estimate of GHG emissions from global land use change scenarios. October 2011. Available from: http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/scientific_publications/technical_note_eu24817.pdf

[4]International Food Policy Research Institute. Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies, Final Report. October 2011. David Laborde (IFPRI). Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/biofuelsreportec2011.pdf

[5] As above

[6] Joint Research Centre Technical and Scientific Report:  Critical issues in estimating ILUC emissions. Outcomes of an expert consultation. 9-10 November 2010 (published July 2011). Ispra, Italy. Marelli, L., D. Mulligan and Edwards, R (JRC). Available from: http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/scientific_publications/eu_report_24816.pdf

[7]  As above

[8] The International Council on Clean Transportation. IFPRI-MIRAGE 2011 modelling of indirect land use change: Briefing on report for the European Commission Directorate General for Trade Dr. Chris Malins (ICCT). Available from: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_IFPRI-iLUC-briefing_Nov2011-1.pdf

[9] Ross Morrison. 2011. Dept Grography News, University of Leicester. New Study Suggests Biofuels are as Carbon Intensive as Petrol. Available from:http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/geography/geog-news/november-2011/new-study-suggests-eu-biofuels-are-as-carbon-intensive-as-petrol?searchterm=sue%20page%20biofuels

[10] The International Council on Clean Transportation. IFPRI-MIRAGE 2011 modelling of indirect land use change: Briefing on report for the European Commission Directorate General for Trade Dr. Chris Malins (ICCT). Available from: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_IFPRI-iLUC-briefing_Nov2011-1.pdf

[11] As above

[12]  Department of Grography News, University of Leicester. Nov 2011. New Study Suggests Biofuels are as Carbon Intensive as Petrol. Available from: http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/november/new-study-suggests-eu-biofuels-are-as-carbon-intensive-as-petrol?searchterm=palm%20oil%20biofuels