Conclusions and recommendations
1. Biofuels
can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transport.
(Paragraph 23)
2. A potentially significant
benefit of a new sustainable biofuels market in the EU, from which
developing countries could stand to benefit, could be that it
would help to create economic conditions which would assist in
securing international sustainability standards for agricultural
products more widely. (Paragraph 25)
3. As different biofuels
are produced in a number of ways from different feedstocks with
varying impacts, it is difficult to generalise the benefits or
costs of biofuels. Nevertheless, today most biofuels are produced
intensively from feedstocks in ways that could have serious environmental
consequences. (Paragraph 32)
4. The sustainability
standards applied by the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation are
unlikely to prevent environmental damage from biofuels. In the
UK aggregate environmental impacts might make it difficult for
us to meet a range of targets, including those relating to halting
biodiversity loss or improving water quality. (Paragraph 33)
5. Biofuels standards
should be changed to ensure that support is given only to those
that deliver environmental improvements over fossil fuels in terms
of not only greenhouse gas emission reductions but also wider
impacts such as fertilizer and pesticide pollution. (Paragraph
34)
6. In the absence
of such standards the Government and EU has moved too quickly
to stimulate the use of biofuels. Until they are developed the
Government should place a moratorium on policies aimed at increasing
the use of biofuels. (Paragraph 34)
7. One of the most
effective methods of monitoring land use change is the deployment
of earth observation technology. The Government should give as
much support as possible to the appropriate technologies as well
as to international co-operation on the shared use of earth observation
data. (Paragraph 48)
8. The stimulation
of biofuels production by the Government and EU is reckless in
the absence of effective mechanisms to prevent the destruction
of carbon sinks internationally. The Government must ensure that
carbon sinks are effectively protected before providing incentives
for the use of biofuels. The Government should also explore the
development of international mechanisms to enable the creation
of new carbon sinks. (Paragraph 53)
Ecosystem service assessment
9. We
welcome the recently published action plan for embedding an ecosystems
approach as it shows that Government is seeking to take better
decisions in relation to the UK's natural environment and the
protection of ecosystem services. But biofuels policy currently
fails to follow such an approach. There are significant knowledge
gaps relating to land management for sustainable bioenergy production
and for carbon sequestration. In order to align biofuels policy
to an ecosystems approach the Government must commission work
to assess:
- the potential in the UK for carbon-oriented land
management;
- how UK land managers might better be rewarded
for maintaining, improving or creating carbon sinks and other
ecosystem services; and
- the potential for UK sustainable bioenergy production.
(Paragraph 57)
Food security
10. A
large biofuel industry based on current technology is likely to
increase agricultural commodity prices and, by displacing food
production, could damage food security in developing countries.
Only when technology improves and an appropriate regulatory framework
is in place should biofuels be utilised. When these changes have
occurred barriers to free trade in bioenergy could be removed
to allow developing countries to take advantage of the market
and so that UK taxpayers can take advantage of lower prices. Even
then impacts on food security should be closely monitored. (Paragraph
63)
11. Given long-term
demographic and climate change trends that might add further to
food security problems we question whether transport biofuels
have a long-term role. (Paragraph 64)
Is current biofuels policy justified?
12. Current
UK and EU policy fails to ensure the most efficient use of bioenergy
in terms of the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the land
on which it is grown. It does not deliver good value for the taxpayer.
The Common Agricultural Policy should be adjusted to ensure that
bioenergy feedstock production no longer receives agricultural
subsidies where it fails to constitute the most effective use
of sustainable bioenergy resources. (Paragraph 67)
13. Transport biofuels
have received disproportionate attention and funding in comparison
to other policies which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions
at lower environmental risk and lower cost. The focus on biofuels
is an example of silo policy-making as the Department for Transport
has failed to ensure that the policy fits rationally with cross-Government
action on climate change. (Paragraph 78)
14. Support for biofuels
has been premature given the substantial environmental risks associated
with current technologies. Second generation biofuels might have
a role to play in reducing emissions from transport at some point
in the future. In the meantime other transport measures are required.
Indeed, these wider measures can deliver significant and cost-effective
GHG savings without the environmental risk of first generation
biofuels. They could lower UK transport emissions by 14% in 2020
from 1990 levels. (Paragraph 79)
15. In order to stimulate
the development of second generation biofuels and other low carbon
fuels we recommend that the RTFO is reformed exclusively to stimulate
the development and use of low carbon fuel technologies, rather
than to simply encourage the use of conventional biofuels. As
part of this:
- certificates should be granted on a highly differentiated
carbon-saving basis to encourage the development and use of those
technologies that deliver the most greenhouse gas emission reductions
from the start of the scheme; and
- long-term market stability must be granted to
give the confidence required to stimulate the development of effective
technologies — referential tax status should be guaranteed
at an appropriate level out to 2020. (Paragraph 80)
16. These changes,
alongside robust sustainability standards, should ensure that
support is no longer provided for the production of damaging first
generation biofuels. Even with these changes it is not clear to
us that current level of expenditure on alternative fuels is justified
in light of our assessment that the money could more effectively
reduce emissions elsewhere. Therefore we call on the Committee
on Climate Change to report at the earliest opportunity on how
more appropriately to stimulate the development and use of low-carbon
fuels, taking into account the risks presented in this report.
(Paragraph 83)
PSA 28
17. The
responsibility given to the Department for Transport to consider
transport's wider environmental impacts as part of Public Service
Agreement 28 is very welcome but current biofuels policy is at
odds with the Public Service Agreement and will jeopardise the
Government's stated aim to 'secure a healthy natural environment
for today and the future'. We call on the Department for Transport
to reassess the policy in light of the new PSA. (Paragraph 85)
Rural support
18. Increased
agricultural commodity prices and biofuel support mechanisms will
benefit the rural economy. However current agricultural support
for biofuels is inappropriate as these mechanisms do not guarantee
that bioenergy is produced sustainably. By failing to move away
from supporting conventional high input crops the EU is missing
a significant opportunity to make overall land management more
sustainable while ensuring that bioenergy potential is maximised.
(Paragraph 88)
19. Reforms of agricultural
subsidies and support mechanisms to focus only on technologies
that are the most effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions
in a sustainable fashion will benefit the rural economy and be
better value-for-money for the taxpayer. Arbitrary trade barriers
to international bioenergy markets must ultimately be removed,
although international regulatory improvements must be in place
to ensure sustainable supplies. (Paragraph 89)
Fuel security
20. In
our view first generation biofuels will not improve fuel security
in the EU. Second generation biofuels might have a role to play
in the longer-term, but road transport fuel security is only likely
to improve significantly when non-oil technologies become available.
If transport fuel security is a major concern, measures other
than biofuel use should be adopted. (Paragraph 92)
Policy coordination
21.
Biofuels policy is a clear example of failure to co-ordinate climate
change policy. (Paragraph 93)
22. A long-term climate
change policy framework should be developed to eliminate misguided
or harmful policies, such as current biofuels policy, and to ensure
that emissions are reduced in an effective and efficient manner
across the whole economy. (Paragraph 93)
23. This report demonstrates
there may be potentially damaging environmental impacts associated
with measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is vital
that the Committee on Climate Change has and exercises a remit
on sustainable development. (Paragraph 94)
| 
