REPORT on sustainable agriculture and biogas: a need for review of EU legislation

7.2.2008 - (2007/2107(INI))

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
Draftsman (*):Werner Langen, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
(*) Procedure with associated committees - Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on sustainable agriculture and biogas: a need for review of EU legislation

(2007/2107(INI))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 7 December 2005 entitled 'Biomass action plan' (COM(2005)0628),

- having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 10 January 2007 entitled 'Renewable energy road map - Renewable energies in the 21st century: building a more sustainable future’ (COM(2006)0848),

- having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 26 November 1997 entitled 'Energy for the future: renewable sources of energy - White Paper for a Community strategy and action plan' (COM(1997)0599),

- having regard to Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market[1],

- having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 26 May 2004 entitled 'The share of renewable energy in the EU - Commission Report in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2001/77/EC, evaluation of the effect of legislative instruments and other Community policies on the development of the contribution of renewable energy sources in the EU and proposals for concrete actions' (COM(2004)0366),

- having regard to the Commission's 'Intelligent Energy - Europe' Programme[2] and its Communication of 8 February 2006 entitled 'an EU Strategy for Biofuels' (COM(2006)0034),

- having regard to Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport[3],

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers[4], and Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)[5],

- having regard to Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol[6],

- having regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity[7],

- having regard to its resolution of 29 September 2005 on the share of renewable energy in the EU and proposals for concrete actions[8],

- having regard to its resolution of 23 March 2006 on promotion of crops for non-food purposes[9],

- having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and Committee on Environment (A6‑0034/2008),

A. whereas the White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan on Energy for the future - renewable sources of energy (COM(1997)0599) sets the target of increasing renewable energy resources from 6% in 1995 to 12% by 2010,

B.  whereas the Commission stated in its 'Biomass Action Plan' that, to achieve this goal, the amount of energy produced from biomass would need to more than double,

C.  whereas agriculture and forestry in the European Union have substantially contributed to mitigating the effects of climate change as evidenced by the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture fell by 10% between 1990 and 2004 in the EU-15, and by 14% in the EU-25; whereas it is expected that, by 2010, emissions from European agriculture will be 16 per cent below their 1990 level,

D. whereas there is significant potential for a considerable increase in biogas production, particularly given the potential contributions from livestock-production (manure), sludge, waste, and plants unsuitable for food and feed production as preferred biogas-materials; whereas, however, account must be taken of the impact of the energy use of farm manure on soil structure and soil life,

E.  whereas so far only 50 PJ of biogas are produced on the basis of manure, energy plants, sludge and organic waste, while the potential from manure alone is 827 PJ,

F.  whereas the production of biogas and biogas-installation are unevenly distributed in Europe, further demonstrating that the potential is not used to its full extent,

G. whereas biogas can be exploited in many useful ways, including electricity production, heating, cooling, and fuelling cars, etc.,

H. whereas the use of biomass for electricity can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it is considered one of the cheapest energy sources for hearting,

I.   whereas the development of biogas installations based on energy plants has slowed considerably, due to fast rising grain prices, food supply and environmental concerns,

J.   whereas concerns in relation to the connection between bioenergy production (primarily bioethanol and biodiesel) and rising grain and food prices on the world market do not relate to biogas production using animal manure, sludge, organic waste and crop by-products unsuitable for food- and feed-production in addition to the fact that the safe processing of these materials is a necessary task in any event,

K. whereas manure in the new Member States comes mainly in the mixed form of 20% straw, or more, and there can be lengthy periods between manure production and manure removal, which is not fit for any type of fermentation,

Biogas as a vital resource

1. Recognises that biogas is a vital energy resource that contributes to sustainable economic, agricultural and rural development and environmental protection;

2. Stresses the contribution that biogas can make to reducing the European Union's energy dependence;

3.   Stresses that biogas production from manure, sludge and municipal, animal and organic waste contributes to energy diversification and can therefore increasingly not only contribute to the security, competitiveness and sustainability of energy supply but also offer farmers new income opportunities;

4.     Believes that the use of biogas especially for heat and power production could contribute significantly to the binding target of 20% renewable energy in overall European Union energy consumption by 2020;

5.      Stresses that, in the long term, renewable energy sources such as biogas and biofuels, together with solar power and wind energy, subject to further intensified research efforts, can bring about a higher degree of independence from fossil-fuel energy sources;

6.   Encourages both the European Union and the Member States to exploit the huge potential in biogas by creating a favourable environment, as well as maintaining and developing support schemes to inspire investment in, and sustenance of, biogas plants;

Environment, energy-efficiency and sustainability

7.   Emphasises that biogas from manure has numerous environmental advantages, such as the reduction of methane and CO₂-emissions, reduction of emissions of particulate matter and nitrous oxides, a far less obnoxious odour, hygienisation of slurry and better fertilizing capacity of the nitrogen in the treated manure, which means that less nitrogen is needed to achieve the same fertilising effect;

8.   Stresses that producing agrofuels from waste should not become a goal in itself; reducing waste should continue to be a priority in the environmental policy of the European Union and in that of Member States;

9.  Calls for greater use to be made of slurry as a source of biogas, since such use still has immense potential, while also encouraging the decentralisation of energy-producing biogas installations; notes that the increased use of slurry to this end can lead to a significant reduction in the release of methane in slurry storage;

10. Stresses that animal manure, municipal sewage and agro-industrial waste can contain substances (bacteria, viruses, parasites, heavy metals, harmful organic substances) that can potentially be a threat to public health or the environment; urges the Commission to ensure that adequate precautions are taken to avoid contamination and spreading of these substances and any diseases they induce;

11. States that the use of sludge and animal or organic waste will improve efficiency of biogas installations; states that hygienic problems in the use of animal waste can, in most cases, be comparatively easily controlled;

12. Calls also for the products of first-stage processing, such as potato peelings or fruit flesh, to be used as biomass for biogas installations;

13. Stresses that technical and management developments are expected in the near future which will further increase environmental and health benefits of biogas plants using manure, slurry and organic waste;

14. Believes that, for biogas installations just as for animal holdings, sustainability and a size that is adapted to the particular region are essential if the environmental benefits are to also lead to greater acceptance of animal holdings, which encounter many problems due to an increased number of complaints from neighbours and the general public;

15. Points out that biogas installation on the basis of manure, sludge or organic waste may lead to higher rates of leaching of ammonia, but states that this side effect can be contained relatively easily, and preventive measures ought to be incorporated into national laws concerning biogas installations as well as into aid grants for biogas installations;

16. Urges Member States and the Commission to ensure that biogas installations do not leak methane, as that could compromise the positive effect on global warming;

Economic viability and support schemes,

17.      Reiterates that all financial support for biogas installations ought to be based on efficiency, technical development, a positive greenhouse gas balance, the creation of added value on farm holdings and in the rural regions, and other economic and environmental advantages of installations; stresses that security of food supply to the population must not be jeopardised;

18. Notes with deep concern the increasing competition in many Member States between energy use and use in the food chain of certain agricultural products like maize; underlines the fact that such competition has led to a considerable increase in feedingstuff prices;

19. Calls on the Member States and the Commission, when putting forward future proposals on regulation of the biogas sector, to examine not only the environmental aspects but also the impact on high-quality, sustainable food production;

20. Emphasises that biogas production based on animal manure, sludge and animal and organic waste should be prioritised as the sustainability and environmental benefits of these methods are unequivocal;

21.Notes that the optimal size of a biogas plant depends on various circumstances determining the economics of scale, that should be thoroughly studied; considers that, in addition to an economic assessment and the greenhouse gas balance, it is above all necessary to assess the impact of the size of the plant on the surrounding landscape with regard to expansion of monoculture in respect of certain crops;

22.      Stresses that it would be best for biogas plant operators to combine and use all available organic matter both from an environmental and economic aspect;

23. Considers that, whilst the young and innovative biogas sector needs start-up support, such support schemes should only last until the sector has become commercially viable; calls, therefore, for a uniform support instrument to be tested in the EU, along the lines of the German Renewable Energy Act;

24. States that funding for solely plant-based biogas installations needs to be continued under careful monitoring and re-focusing on the most advanced and efficient plants or systems to ensure Europe's economic and technical advantage in the field and to explore options for the future;

25. Asks the Commission to report on how criteria on economic and environmental efficiency and sustainability can be introduced for energy crops, which would lead to this relatively new technique becoming more environmentally friendly, and which would ensure that the concerns relating to food production and supply are properly addressed,

26. Calls for greater effort to be put into researching and promoting new technologies for biogas, particularly into the exploitation of biomass (second-generation biogas) as a biofuel and improving the profitability of biogas plants, that offer the greatest environmental benefits, since it is only by means of innovative technology, such as gas recovery techniques, that the effectiveness of biogas installations can be significantly increased;

27. Stresses, in this context, the importance of green gene technology and calls on the Member States and the Commission to put more effort into researching the latest seed and plant protection technologies, to ensure that biogas production does not compete with high-quality food production and to enable the proportion of biomass per area unit to be significantly increased;

28. Reminds Member States and the Commission that further advancement of biogas is not possible without additional funding; recalls that funding needs to be provided for research and development, for the promotion of results from specific projects, for installations and for the increased support of 'green electricity' and 'green gas';

29. Recalls that those Member States that are providing extra incentives to 'green energy' by means of adequate price subsidies or through other measures are also the most successful in promoting biogas;

30. Considers that 'green gas' production should be subsidised in the same way as 'green electricity';

31. Demands that the Commission and Member States ensure that funds from European and national programmes go to the most efficient and sustainable installations, especially to installations that produce electricity and heat or to the installation of facilities and grids for upgrading and feeding biogas into the natural gas network;

32.      Stresses in this regard that the supply of electricity, heat and natural gas to networks must be non-discriminatory, and calls for biogas to be treated in the same way as natural gas to enable it to achieve its full potential once it has been introduced into the natural gas network;

33. Believes that simplification of the procedures for trade in CO2 can significantly contribute to the economic viability and sustainability of biogas plants;

34. Stresses that biogas installations may assist farmers who do not yet have enough storage capacity for manure to solve this problem in an economically viable manner;

35. Asks the Commission and the Member States to ensure, that the setting up of biogas plants as well as the authorisation of the use of use of organic waste and sludge is not impeded by unnecessarily lengthy bureaucratic procedures and regulations;

36. Draws attention to the major differences in terms of length and content that exist between national approval procedures for biogas installations, and calls on the Member States to prevent national requirements in the area of regional planning and the granting of licences and approvals from forming an unnecessary hindrance;

37. Calls for a simplified planning permission procedure to be introduced for the construction of biogas installations;

38. Calls on the Commission to establish a common positive list of products which are allowed for use in biogas installations, so as to ensure a level playing field between farmers in different Member States;

39.      Encourages farmers to co-operate in setting up and operating biogas plants;

The need for review in EU-legislation

40.  Demands that the Commission and Member States develop a coherent biogas-policy; asks the Commission to present a specific report on biogas and its promotion in Europe outlining the necessary changes in Community and national law to facilitate further expansion of the biogas sector, pointing out the most efficient ways of using European funds and programmes as well as giving best practice examples; asks also, in this regard, for an assessment to be given of the impact of the various forms of biogas production on climate, the ecology of the landscape, rural incomes and worldwide food security;

41.      Promotes the adoption of an EU-directive on biogas production that should include the following elements:

a) Specific targets for the priority use of manure, for instance in the form of the share of the livestock manure that is digested, and taking into account the agricultural conditions and the situation in the Member States,

b) Annual statistics and reports on agricultural biogas production in order to be able to follow up on the targets,

c) Measures for the construction and promotion of biogas-installations based on a national or regional impact assessment, promoting those installations that, nationally and/or regionally, are most beneficial to the environment and which are economically sustainable; measures for the dissemination and promotion of results gained from prior experiences or demonstration projects need to be included in all plans; if regional and rural development regulations do not allow funding of such measures, they must be amended,

d) EU Member States should engage in national and regional planning in order to limit legal and administrative impediments, for instance natural gas or other fossil fuels should not be preferred in areas in which it is feasible to sell heat from biogas to local heating providers,

42. Urges the Commission to present as soon as possible a proposal for a biowaste directive, which shall include quality standards; invites the Commission to explore the possibility for a joint biogas and biowaste directive;

43. Asks the Commission to present proposals for legislation on the use of residues from biogas installations; asks the Commission to ensure that only organic material that allows residues to be used without endangering the environment may be used in biogas installations; asks the Commission to consider banning growth enhancers in animal feed containing heavy metals if this should prove to be a Europe-wide problem for subsequent use of biogas residues in fields;

44. Asks the Commission to ensure that the IPPC Directive, Nitrates Directives, Sewage Sludge Directive, Water Framework Directive, Birds Directive, Habitats Directive and the Heavy Metals legislation are enforced effectively in all Member States and regions, thereby making biogas installation based on manure and sludge more attractive;

45. Demands that the Commission present as soon as possible a strategy to include biogas installations in the Kyoto-mechanism, for example through 'green certificates', special premiums or tax-credits for electricity and heat from biogas-installations or other measures; points out that this would increase the cost-efficiency of biogas installations and at the same time make efforts in the area of agriculture to combat climate change more transparent;

46. Calls for an assessment of the superfluity of the Nitrates Directive once the Groundwater Directive is fully implemented;

47. Asks the Commission to foster the feeding of biogas into natural gas networks by way of recommendations or a directive;

48. Asks the Commission to present as soon as possible its proposals for further enhancing the use of animal and agricultural crop by-products for biogas as announced in the 'Biomass action plan';

49. Demands that Member States that have not incorporated any measures or have not incorporated sufficient measures in existing national development programmes ought to include biogas in their mid-term evaluation of existing rural and regional development programmes, and propose actions for the future;

50. Calls on the Commission to ensure cooperation and coordination between the Member States, including those who currently have no biogas plants, or just a small number thereof, so they may learn about each other's best practices with biogas plants through knowledge and technology transfer;

51. Asks the Commission to present a coherent report on European biogas production and future prospects in this area, including an impact assessment, to the European Parliament by 15 December 2008 at the latest, taking into account the above-mentioned proposals and the progress made;

52. Invites the current and upcoming Presidencies to advance further discussions on how to promote sustainable biogas production; in this regard the sustainable promotion of biogas facilities should also include combined heat and power production;

53. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the national parliaments and governments of the Member States.

• [1]  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 33.
• [2]  Decision No 1230/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 adopting a multiannual programme for action in the field of energy: "Intelligent Energy — Europe" (2003 — 2006), OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 29.
• [3]  OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, p. 42.
• [4]  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1.
• [5]  OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1
• [6]  OJ L 49, 19.2.2004, p. 1.
• [7]  OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51.
• [8]  OJ C 227E, 21.9.2006, p. 599.
• [9]  OJ C 292E, 1.12.2006, p. 140.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The environmental and economic advantages of biogas

I. General characteristics of biogas production in the European Union

In this period of exploding oil prices, of increasing natural gas prices, and of considerable energy-import dependence more and more countries are setting up incentive legislations to valorise the energy potential of biogas, that resembles and can substitute natural gas (biogas contains between 55% and 65% methane).

Biogas produced in integrated agricultural plants plays and important role among the bioenergy resources and can be used as a universal energy source. After increasing methane-concentration purified biogas can be used to propel mechanical output, and through that electricity (lighting of buildings and animal husbandry sites); burning the biogas produces heat usable for heating and drying (plastic houses, greenhouses, corn, piggery heating, public facilities). Biogas can also be used for fuelling cooling machines (refrigerators), or for fuel-cells. Upgraded and pressurized biogas can be used as biofuel suitable for running road vehicles. Biogas gathered from one hectare of biomass is twice as effective as biodiesel.

Today there are some 4,242 farm-scale and around 26 centralized biogas plants in the EU, but with wide differences from one EU member state to another. Biogas production is most developed in Germany, Belgium, Austria and Denmark. In most countries farm scale biogas plants are predominant, but Denmark has the largest share of its production on centralized biogas plants. The annual biogas production from agricultural biogas plants in Europe by mid 2007 is estimated at 1.85x10⁹ m3 of biogas (containing 65% methane). The potential for biogas production based on manure in the EU is 827 PJ (Petajoule) whereas today some about 50 PJ is produced from both animal manure, energy crops and organic waste. This means that there is a potential of a 14 times increase in the animal manure only.

II. Environmental aspects

Biogas from manure does have numerous environmental advantages, like reduction of methane and CO2-emissions, reduction of emissions of particulate matter and nitrous oxides, far less obnoxious odour, hygienisation of slurry and far better fertilizing capacity of the nitrogen in the treated manure, meaning less nitrogen is needed to reach the same fertilizing effect.

Production of biogas (and thus methane) in a closed, controlled system like a biogas plant – and the subsequent utilization of the biogas as renewable energy source through combustion - has a very positive effect on the "green house emission account". Under normal circumstances there will be a considerable methane emission from storage and application of animal manure; by collecting the biogas through biogas installations, the total methane emission from agriculture will be reduced compared to a ‘no biogas plants’ scenario. By converting the methane into energy and carbon dioxide through combustion, there is a ‘reverse’ input to the green house effect account, because CO2 is by far less harmful than methane, and because the energy from the biogas combustion replaces fossil energy sources.

CO2-emissions from renewable energy sources (like combustion of straw, wood and biogas) are considered neutral, because the same amounts of CO2 which are emitted upon combustion have basically been assimilated by green plants in the first place to produce the biomass.

Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is probably the substance in biogas which is given most focus, when talking about potential hazards. Different methods can be used to reduce the concentration of H2S in the biogas; either the biogas is cleaned itself, for instance in a scrubber, or a small amount (approximately four percent) of fresh air is added to the biogas in a tank - for instance a covered, gas-tight slurry storage tank - where bacteria at the surface of the slurry take up the H2S. A further advantage of this is that the sulphur remains in the slurry for later plant nutrition.

Other substances may be present in small amounts in the biogas. Nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) may be present in concentrations up to a couple of percent (this would typically be the case if fresh air is added to the biogas for desulphurization), but these gasses are obviously not an environmental hazard. Hydrogen (H2) may also be present in small amounts, but will be eliminated during combustion. Two potentially hazardous gasses, carbon monoxide (CO) and ammonia (NH3) may also be present in trace amounts, but given a safe and controlled combustion process, CO is completely eliminated. Amount of ammonia is negligible compared to the potential for reduction of nitrogen to the environment resulting from the improved utilization of the bio fertilizer compared to untreated slurry.

So in general, if leak of biogas from the installations is prevented effectively, and if the combustion of the biogas is carried out under optimal conditions the overall effects on emissions from converting organic biomass to biogas through anaerobic digestion are absolutely positive. Not only by reducing CO2-emissions from using fossil fuel, but also by a net reduction in other emissions (methane etc.) from animal manure etc. compared to a situation without a biogas plant

III. Energy aspects and the need for EU and national support

Biogas output from animal fertilizers is rather low (40-90 m3/t (cubic meters per tons), much higher from cereals (170-220 m³/t), and even higher from food-industrial materials (primarily slaughterhouse by-products and waste (250-480 m³/t). Combining different biogas raw materials a minimum output of 120 m³/t is desirable. Animal manure processing and biogas technologies contain joint elements, therefore it is advisable to link the support for setting up biogas plants to animal manure processing, but also using other raw materials like organic waste or non-food energy crops. The co-digestion units are capable of treating different types of waste at the same time, principally liquid and solid manures mixed with diverse organic waste.

Biogas production’s profitability is negative both in the case of farm-scale biogas plants centralised plants. Revenues include value of the biogas itself in the form of heat and electricity and value of increased field effect of nitrogen in livestock manure. Larger biogas plants that receive external biomass have the possibility for additional income from fertiliser value of N, P and K, value of "gate fees", and value of CO2e reduction. In some EU member states biogas plants have the possibility to generate income from sale of Green Certificates. On the cost side the investment and operational costs are both considerable.

Profitability and competitiveness of a biogas plant is mainly determined by the selling price of the produced electricity (usually set by the state). In Hungary for example the green-electricity price is set at 0,09 EUR per kWh (kilowatt per hour) for all renewable energy sources, whereas in Germany - with the possible bonuses - it amounts to around 0,2 EUR per kWh - twice as much as in Hungary, while the electricity wholesale prices are almost the same. The selling price set by the state is therefore in many cases insufficient for the sustainability of the biogas production.

The analyses show that the value of the CO2_e could almost bring the economy of farm-scale plants in balance, and cover around half of the economic loss for the centralised plants. Removal of the transition costs for trade with CO2_e would not only benefit the profitability of the biogas production, but also the national accounts for the CO2_e production.

Nevertheless, negative profitability clearly shows that biogas production is not viable without considerable support from both European and national financial resources. Investments should be encouraged by various measures, including regional and rural development EU-funds. They key factor is, however the ‘green-electricity’ price set by the state, which should be sufficient to ensure sustainability and act as a real incentive. However, these European and national resources should be spent wisely. All financial support for biogas installations ought to be based on the efficiency, technical development and positive greenhouse-gas balance and other environmental advantages of installations.

IV. A need for a new biogas directive and review of legislation

EU as well as national legislation has to be revised in order to facilitate the setting-up and operation of biogas plants across the EU:

· First and foremost, an EU-directive on biogas production is needed, with specific targets for the agricultural biogas share within the target for renewable energy production, statistical elements, measures for construction and promotion of biogas-installations based on a national or regional impact evaluation, measures for dissemination and promotion of results gained from prior experiences, call for national and regional planning in order to restrict legal and administrative hindrances, and recommendations for the minimum level and yearly adjustment mechanism of payment for ‘green-electricity’ and 'green gas'.

· The legislation on the use of residues from biogas installations should be revised.

· A ban should be considered on using growth enhancers in animal feed containing heavy metals if this should be a European wide problem for later use of biogas residues on fields.

· The effective enforcement of the IPPC and Nitrates Directives are crucial, along with the Sewage Sludge Directive, Water Framework Directive, Birds directive, Habitats Directive and the Heavy Metals legislation.

· A strategy is needed to include biogas installations into the Kyoto-mechanism.

· EU-wide legislation is needed to ensure that biogas - upgraded to natural gas quality - can be fed into the natural gas network.

· Proposals are needed for further enhancing the use of animal by-products for biogas as announced in the 'Biomass action plan',

· Member States should include biogas in their mid-term evaluation of existing rural and regional development programmes and propose actions for the future. Rural Development strategies, including LEADER projects should contain development scenarios for biomass and biogas utilities;

· The Commission should present a coherent report on European biogas production to the European Parliament until 15 December 2008 taking into account the above mentioned proposals and the progress made;

· Efforts should be made to fund research, development and demonstration.

The draft was also discussed with independent experts and Member States administrations who have helped immensely to clarify up certain aspects of a future biogas-policy.

OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (*) (28.1.2008)

for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

on Sustainable agriculture and biogas: a need for review of EU legislation
(2007/2107(INI))

Draftsman(*): Werner Langen(*) Procedure with associated committees - Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

1.   Stresses that biogas production from manure, sludge and municipal, animal and organic waste helps towards energy diversification and can therefore increasingly not only contribute to the security, competitiveness and sustainability of energy supply but also offer farmers new income opportunities;

2.   Notes with deep concern the increasing competition in many Member States between energy use and use in the food chain of certain agricultural products such as maize; emphasises that this competition has led to a considerable increase in feedingstuff prices;

3.   Calls for biogas to be used not only in the production of electricity and heat, but that priority be given to ensuring its best possible local use - as far as technical and economic circumstances permit and provided that health protection can be ensured - so that it can be supplied directly to natural gas networks, thereby reducing the Union's dependence on imports of natural gas from non-EU countries;

4.   Stresses in this connection that the supply of electricity, heat and natural gas to networks must be non-discriminatory, and calls for biogas to be treated in the same way as natural gas so as to enable it to achieve its full potential once it has been fed into the natural gas network;

5.  Calls for greater effort to be put into researching and promoting new technologies for biogas, particularly the exploitation of biomass (second-generation biogas) as a biofuel and improving the profitability of biogas plants that offer the greatest environmental benefits, since it is only by means of innovative technology, such as gas recovery techniques, that the effectiveness of biogas installations can be significantly increased;

6.  Stresses, in this context, the importance of green gene technology and calls on the Member States and the Commission to put more effort into researching the latest seed and plant protection technologies, so as to ensure that biogas production does not compete with high-quality food production and to enable the proportion of biomass per area unit to be significantly increased;

7.  Considers that whilst the young and innovative biogas sector needs start-up support, such support schemes should only continue in effect until the sector becomes commercially viable;

8.   Calls, therefore, for a uniform support instrument to be tested in the EU, along the lines of the German Renewable Energy Act;

9.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission, when putting forward future proposals for the regulation of the biogas sector, to examine not only the environmental aspects but also the impact on high-quality, sustainable food production;

10. Calls for greater use to be made of slurry as a source of biogas, since such use still has immense potential, while also encouraging the decentralisation of energy-producing biogas installations; notes that the increased use of slurry to this end can lead to a significant reduction in the release of methane during slurry storage;

11. Calls for a simplified planning permission procedure to be introduced for the construction of biogas installations;

12. Calls also for the products of first-stage processing, such as potato peelings or fruit flesh, to be used as biomass for biogas installations;

13. Stresses that, in the long term and subject to the results of further intense research efforts, renewable energy sources such as biogas and biofuels, together with solar power and wind energy can bring about a higher degree of independence from fossil-fuels and nuclear energy.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	24.1.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	45 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Šarūnas Birutis, Jan Březina, Renato Brunetta, Philippe Busquin, Jerzy Buzek, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Dragos Florin David, Den Dover, Adam Gierek, Norbert Glante, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein, Rebecca Harms, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Mary Honeyball, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Pia Elda Locatelli, Eugenijus Maldeikis, Eluned Morgan, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Atanas Paparizov, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Anni Podimata, Miloslav Ransdorf, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Dominique Vlasto
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Neena Gill, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Pierre Pribetich, Vittorio Prodi, John Purvis, Esko Seppänen, Vladimir Urutchev
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (19.12.2007)

for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

on Sustainable agriculture and biogas: a need for review of EU legislation
(2007/2107(INI))

Draftsman: Adamos Adamou

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

1.   Believes that the use of biogas especially for heat and power production could contribute significantly to the binding target of 20% renewable energies in overall EU energy consumption by 2020;

2.   Stresses that producing agrofuels from waste should not become a goal in itself; reducing waste should continue to be a priority in the environmental policy of the European Union and in that of Member States;

3.   Stresses that animal manure, municipal sewage and agro industrial waste can contain substances, agents and organisms (bacteria, viruses, parasites, heavy metals, harmful organic substances) that can potentially be a threat to public health or the environment;

4.   Urges the Commission to ensure that adequate precautions are taken to avoid contamination and spreading of these substances, agents and organisms and any diseases they induce, recognising that the heating process reduces the viruses only to a certain extent and that most organic contaminants are barely reduced and heavy metals remain intact;

5.   Notes with deep concern an increasing competition in many Member States between energy use and use in the food chain for certain agricultural products like maize; underlines the fact that this competition, which has led to a considerable rise in feedingstuff prices, is mainly due to the lack of social and environmental criteria for agrofuel production and an overly centralised approach to biogas production;

6.   Calls on the Commission to examine, on the basis of conversion cycle comparisons of various types of biomass in biogas plants, the sustainability of these types with respect to the volume of greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on air quality, biodiversity, including natural vegetation (forests, meadowland, marshland), land management and food production;

7.  Stresses that there is no Community legislation specifically dealing with biogas; recognises that the implementation of related agro-environmental legislation, including the Nitrates directive, IPPC directive, Sewage Sludge directive, Water Framework directive, Birds directive, Habitats directive and the Heavy Metals legislation, is crucial for ensuring sustainable production of biogas;

8.   Calls on the Commission to ensure cooperation and coordination between the Member States, including those who currently have no or just a few biogas plants, so they may learn about each other's best practices with biogas plants through knowledge and technology transfer;

9.   Calls on the Commission to collect all relevant data on the production of biogas in the Member States, in order to have a clear picture of how the subject of biogas is advancing in the European Union, taking into account that this data is necessary and helpful in formulating a relevant strategy to address the issue;

10. Urges the Commission to present as soon as possible a proposal for a biowaste directive, including quality standards; considers that biogas production must be weighed up against alternative uses for waste and livestock manure;

11. Urges the Commission to present a proposal for a certification scheme for sustainable biogas; this certification scheme should be based on a well-to-wheel approach, taking into consideration all the relevant social and environmental factors;

12. Invites the current and upcoming Presidencies to advance further discussions on how to promote sustainable biogas production; in this connection the sustainable promotion of biogas facilities should also include combined heat and power production.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	19.12.2007
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	40 0 1
Members present for the final vote	Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Margrete Auken, Liam Aylward, John Bowis, Magor Imre Csibi, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Anne Ferreira, Matthias Groote, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Jens Holm, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Aldis Kušķis, Linda McAvan, Roberto Musacchio, Riitta Myller, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Vittorio Prodi, Guido Sacconi, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Thomas Ulmer, Anders Wijkman, Glenis Willmott
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Bairbre de Brún, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Miloš Koterec, Johannes Lebech, Miroslav Mikolášik, Alojz Peterle, Bart Staes, Marianne Thyssen
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	29.1.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	33 0 1
Members present for the final vote	Vincenzo Aita, Bernadette Bourzai, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giovanna Corda, Gintaras Didžiokas, Constantin Dumitriu, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Esther Herranz García, Lily Jacobs, Elisabeth Jeggle, Heinz Kindermann, Véronique Mathieu, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Neil Parish, María Isabel Salinas García, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Alyn Smith, Petya Stavreva, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Witold Tomczak, Janusz Wojciechowski, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Christa Klaß, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Catherine Neris, Maria Petre, Markus Pieper, Kyösti Virrankoski