Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 24 October 2013
7. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will campaign for the strengthening and tightening of the cap on bio-fuels competing for land and crops with food production; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45030/13]
Amharc ar fhreagra41. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will include binding indirect land use change factors to ensure all climate impacts of bio-fuels are taken into account; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45029/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 148 together.
The 2009 renewable energy directive sets all member states a binding target that 10% of the energy used in the transport sector must come from renewable sources by 2020. The directive also requires that all bio-fuels used to meet the 10% target must comply with certain sustainability criteria. Specifically, they must not be made from feedstocks sourced from certain categories of land and must achieve certain greenhouse gas emissions reductions. This time last year, the EU Commission proposed a set of amendments to this directive and the fuel quality directive to mitigate the potential effects of indirect land use change occurring as a result of the use of certain bio-fuels. This sent a clear message to the market that second generation bio-fuels are preferable to land-based bio-fuels. One of the amendments proposed would limit the contribution that certain crop-based bio-fuels can make towards renewable energy targets for transport in EU member states.
The EU Commission considered that the scientific models used to quantify the indirect land use change emissions were insufficiently robust to incorporate binding indirect land use change factors in the sustainability criteria which would have precluded the use of bio-fuels with high direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission also considered that such an approach would require major industrial restructuring that would not be achievable within the 2020 timeframe. Therefore, the Commission proposal is that the requirement to incorporate greenhouse gas emissions factors for indirect land-use change is confined to the member states' reporting obligations with respect to emissions. The intention of this amendment is to introduce greater transparency and highlight the relative performances of different categories of bio-fuels in terms of their ability to reduce carbon emissions.
I share the concerns being expressed that bio-fuel production and its use, unless properly regulated, could impact negatively on food production and on food prices. I also acknowledge that those bio-fuels could also lead to increases in greenhouse gas emissions, which would be contrary to one of the objectives of the renewable energy directive. At the Energy Council meeting earlier this year, I conveyed the need for member states to be cognisant in the discussion of the proposed amendments of the potentially adverse impacts of bio-fuels on land use in developing countries. In this regard, Ireland has argued for a restriction on first generation bio-fuels and for incentives to encourage the development of advanced bio-fuels that do not affect food production. Ireland’s preference is for a cap that is as low as can be realistically achieved to mitigate the potential conflict between bio-fuel use in the EU and land use in the developing world, and the potential for higher greenhouse gas emissions from certain categories of bio-fuels.
I have listened to the Minister's reply. There is a great deal of concern and alarm that Ireland has not joined the group of EU member states that are committed to the 5% cap. The group includes countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg. Twenty-seven EU Commissioners signed off on a cap of 5%. In March of this year, I had an exchange with the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, during which he said that Ireland is supporting the 5% cap. When the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, met representatives of non-governmental organisations to discuss this issue, he said they made a compelling case for not providing for a higher rate. He said he was conscious of the negative impact that a rate of more than 5% would have on some countries. It is as if the Minister of State with responsibility for trade and development is saying one thing and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is saying something else. During my exchange last March with the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, I asked him whether he had held discussions with the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte. He said he had spoken to the Minister about this matter the previous day. I do not think the Minister and the Minister of State can have been talking about bio-fuels on that occasion. The commitment to the 5% cap was born out of the Mary Robinson conference on climate justice and change, in which Ireland participated as the host country. A cap of 5%, rather than what was referred to in the Minister's reply, is being proposed at the moment as a compromise.
Either the Deputy is incorrect, or my advice and my direct knowledge is incorrect. This is the first I have heard about 27 Commissioners signing off on a 5% cap. I suggest it never happened. If it happened while I was president of the Council, nobody told me about it. Rather than agreeing to a 5% cap, some of the countries mentioned by the Deputy were quite opposed to the line I was pushing as president of the Council. It is not true that the European Parliament has approved a 5% cap. It has voted in favour of a 6% reduction. That is the cap it sought. The Lithuanian Presidency has made a compromise proposal that would involve a 7% cap, but it is being resisted. I think Ireland might support that, although we would prefer to see a lower ceiling. That is the latest position as I understand it.
The Minister of State, Deputy Costello, told me that Ireland is supporting the 5% cap. That is on the record of the Dáil. There is no doubt that Ireland is very generous with its foreign aid. We contribute 20% towards hunger eradication. What is the point of giving aid with one hand and taking it away with the other hand through our lack of commitment on the bio-fuels issue? Non-governmental organisations have been in contact with me today on this issue. I do not doubt that this matter will be followed up further. It is disappointing that one Department is saying one thing, but another Department is not joining up. The dots are not coming together in this regard.
No, I am afraid that is not the case at all. The Deputy is misinformed. After I met representatives of non-governmental organisations during the Irish Presidency, I undertook to submit their arguments into the debate in Europe. I have to inform the Deputy that when I did so, the arguments in question received a very cold reception from some states. If I thought that a blocking minority could be formed in the morning, I would support it. Far from the list the Deputy read out, there is not even a blocking minority, nor is there universal approval of the Lithuanian suggestion of a 7% ceiling.
In case I do not get to speak on this matter again, I wish to inform the House that the best and most recent advice I have from Brussels is that the indirect land use change issue, which is known in the lingo as the ILUC issue, is unlikely to proceed to finality in the lifetime of the present Commission or the present Parliament. I am particularly intrigued by the Deputy's assertion that 27 Commissioners signed off on a 5% ceiling. While I know she would not make such a statement unless she believed it to be true, I have to say it is news to me. If she has some evidence to support that statement, I would be glad to get it.
