Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

  • Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

European Commission expected to approve seven biofuels certification schemes without public scrutiny

Brussels, 18 July 2011 – The European Commission is expected to tomorrow (19/7/11) release the names of seven voluntary certification schemes approved to certify biofuels according to the ‘sustainability criteria’ set out in the Renewable Energy Directive. This follows a lawsuit filed by environmental law organisation ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE), FERN and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) against the Commission's refusal to provide access to information regarding the approval of such schemes.
This was the third time the Commission has been sued for lack of transparency on biofuels. For more information see notes to editors.
Janet Pritchard, Climate & Forests Programme Leader, ClientEarth, said: "The way that this has been handled underlines the Commission's practice of shutting out meaningful public participation in the development of its biofuels policy. These schemes are expected to play a role in ensuring compliance with the Renewable Energy Directive’s sustainability criteria, yet we still have no specific information about the substance of the applications submitted by these schemes or the standards against which they were assessed in order to be approved.
“Today's announcement still does not provide the transparency required by the Aarhus Convention, which guarantees all EU citizens and environmental organisations the right to participate in environmental decision-making and the right to information necessary for effective participation.”
One of the schemes approved is the highly controversial Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS). This scheme, an initiative of the soy industry, has been strongly criticised by environmental organisations.
Robbie Blake, Friends of the Earth Europe’s campaigner on biofuels, said: “Industry-led schemes to certify crops like soy biofuels as ‘sustainable’ or ‘responsible’ are highly controversial and are likely to mislead the public.
“The approval of weak schemes such as the Round Table on Responsible Soy makes a mockery of any attempts to make EU biofuel policy sustainable. The public will be conned and the EU will endorse the 'greenwashing' of large-scale soy monocultures damaging people and planet. This scheme will not prevent deforestation from happening in South America, fails to protect local communities, and even allows the use of genetically modified soy. Endorsing such schemes shows a real need for public scrutiny, not secrecy, around the issue of biofuels."ENDS
Contact: ClientEarth: George Leigh t. +44 (0) 203 030 5951 | m. +44 (0) 7538 418460 | e. [url=mailto:gleigh@clientearth.org]gleigh@clientearth.org[/url] | Friends of the Earth Europe: Robbie Blake, t. +32 2893 1017 | [url=mailto:robbie.blake@foeeurope.org]robbie.blake@foeeurope.org[/url] | Corporate Europe Observatory: Nina Holland t. + 31 (0) 6 302 85 042 | e. [url=mailto:nina@corporateeurope.org]nina@corporateeurope.org[/url]
Notes to editors:
• In March GMWatch, Friends of the Earth and Corporate Observatory Europe wrote a critical assessment of Roundtable on Responsible Soy, an organisation that has been approved to run one of the schemes. You can read their report here.
• The lawsuit In May environmental law organisation ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE), FERN and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) filed a lawsuit against the Commission's refusal to provide access to information in decisions relating to the sustainability of Europe's biofuels policy. This sought to annul the Commission's decision to refuse public access to information about voluntary certification schemes used to ensure compliance with EU criteria on biofuels sustainability.
The Renewable Energy Directive sets a 10 per cent target for use of renewable energy in the transport sector - expected to be met by increased production of biofuels. Increased pressure on land driven by the surge in demand for biofuels is resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions as well as threatening vulnerable communities and biodiversity. The sustainability criteria are intended to prevent the most severe environmental impacts by requiring biofuels to protect high carbon stock areas and biodiversity standards set out in the Directive - social impacts are ignored.
Voluntary certification schemes approved by the Commission are expected to play a role in monitoring compliance with the sustainability criteria set out in the Renewable Energy Directive. The EU has now approved some schemes, but the process has lacked transparency.
ClientEarth has also sued the Commission on two previous occasions in relation to its failure to provide access to key studies assessing indirect land use changes, and consequent greenhouse gas emissions, likely to result from EU biofuels policy. Decisions in these cases are still pending.

Related issues: 
 

The official EU assessment of glyphosate was based on unpublished studies owned by industry. Seven months later, the pesticide industry still fights disclosure and, so far, successfully. We obtained a copy of their arguments.

Biodiversity collapse, the future of agriculture, politics versus science, EU States and the European Commission shifting blame on each other, industry's capture of the regulatory process through data secrecy, a Commissioner caught between Juncker, EU States, lobby groups, and his own services... The glyphosate saga, coming to the end of its first phase tomorrow, has been an entry point into many broader problems. Overview.

On 15 June 2016, the Commission will finally announce the long-awaited scientific criteria for EDCs. Time to do a recap of this last season’s main episodes.

This May is dense on the EU chemicals regulation front. Crunch time for two major files: the European Commission needs to publish the identification criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals, and together with EU States must decide how, or not, renew the market approval of glyphosate, an herbicide produced and defended by Monsanto. Last week, the Professor Alan Boobis happened to be involved in both.

The official EU assessment of glyphosate was based on unpublished studies owned by industry. Seven months later, the pesticide industry still fights disclosure and, so far, successfully. We obtained a copy of their arguments.

While CEO is not taking a position on the UK referendum, many of our publications are relevant to those who will have a vote, or those who are following the debate.

Biodiversity collapse, the future of agriculture, politics versus science, EU States and the European Commission shifting blame on each other, industry's capture of the regulatory process through data secrecy, a Commissioner caught between Juncker, EU States, lobby groups, and his own services... The glyphosate saga, coming to the end of its first phase tomorrow, has been an entry point into many broader problems. Overview.

The European Commission proposal on scientific criteria defining endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is the latest dangerous outgrowth of a highly toxic debate. The chemical lobby, supported by certain Commission factions (notably DG SANTE and the Secretary-General) and some member states (UK and Germany), has put significant obstacles in the way of effective public health and environment regulation.

The corporate lobby tour