That’s the question many of us are grappling with today.
With the aim of meeting environmental goals, the European Commission is now due to finalize the very last provisions of the sustainability criteria it established two years ago in both the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and Fuel Quality Directive. The criteria were created as a mechanism to ensure that biofuels marketed in the European Union (EU) truly help in mitigating climate change and preserving biodiversity.
But recent decisions taken by the dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) – US — Clove Cigarettes, US — Tuna II (Mexico) and US –– COOL – could jeopardize the viability of the criteria, resulting in significant consequences for trading biofuels.
Are sustainability criteria for biofuels “discriminatory” or “unrelated to product characteristics”? This issue has been widely discussed among stakeholders, including policymakers, scientists, NGOs and academics, all with competing views.
Given the importance of sustainability criteria for the EU biofuels market, we recently co-organized a workshop with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) to provide a platform for experts in Brussels to discuss the legal and technical arguments around the (in)compatibility of EU sustainability criteria. That way, we could gather opinions from all sides for a constructive dialogue in light of the recent WTO jurisprudence dealing with the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).
The two remaining provisions I mentioned earlier that are under consideration by the European Commission are highly contentious. Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) is one of the most prominent examples of where incompatibility could occur since science is currently too flawed to attribute a specific ILUC impact to specific biofuels feedstock. Another example is “highly biodiverse grassland”, which clearly targets specific regions of the world. Andrew Shoyer, chairman of Sidley Austin LLP’s international trade and dispute resolution practice, advises that land-use criteria on biodiversity and any ILUC factor would be “particularly vulnerable”. And furthermore, specifically regarding ILUC, a recent EU-commissioned study by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) concluded that many uncertainties remain surrounding the calculation of ILUC. It especially emphasized that such model cannot differentiate between direct and indirect land use emissions due to a lack of empirical evidence.
Another reason that EU sustainability standards might not be compatible with WTO rules is if they effectively discriminate between domestic and imported products based on individual production methods. Even though EU directives don’t contain a legal restriction on the imports of biofuels, in practice they can affect its marketability resulting in de facto discrimination. That means Brazilian biofuels – despite their proven outstanding environmental benefits – potentially could be limited in accessing the European market – a market which developed these rules explicitly to benefit from GHG-reducing fuels. There is a hint of paradox here.
What I know for sure is that we have more questions than answers on the table. In fact, this was also the outcome of our event. Let’s not rush into this. With all the uncertainty still to be clarified, I hope EU policymakers will take the time to carefully analyze cases affected by the TBT and the GATT agreements. The consequences could be detrimental for biofuels and many other renewable energy sources if they get this wrong. At UNICA we welcome all efforts to address climate change, and are convinced that a thoughtful decision that meets environmental objectives and is compatible with the WTO can be reached.