MPOC Stakes Its Position on Palm-based Renewable Energy to the EU
- The Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) has made its position on palm oil-based renewable energy, clear to the European Union.
- In a proactive move, the MPOC filed its position in a public consultation offered by the European Commission, which was supposed to consider the addition of new feedstocks:

- “Sustainable biofuels and biogases are important to increase the share of renewable energy in sectors that are difficult to decarbonise, such as the aviation and maritime sector.
- There is an approved list of sustainable biofuel feedstocks in Annex IX (Parts A and B) to this regulation. The Commission must regularly review the list and add any feedstocks to the Annex that meet the criteria set out in Article 28(6).
This delegated act updates the list in the Annex to add the feedstocks that meet the criteria.”
In its submission to the EU initiative, which closed January 02, 2023, the MPOC covered all the relevant bases in the EU’s appraisal of sustainable feedstocks for bioenergy that are palm-based.
“While the MPOC applauds the EU recognition of bioenergy towards the decarbonisation of the EU, the MPOC is appalled by the extreme discrimination displayed by the EU, against bioenergy sources derived from palm. The fight against climate change demands that all resources be used, as long as there is clear scientific evidence of their efficacy to reducing emissions for transport and energy. Evidence from palm oil producing countries have proved that palm-based bioenergy, is an efficient resource towards the decarbonisation of economies in both producer and user countries. While bioenergy from first generation sources of palm oil continues to be debated, the MPOC finds the assessment of agricultural waste and residue feedstocks to be in need of urgent review as the current assessment is deeply flawed as evidenced by these points.”
The assessment referred to by the MPOC is made up of a consortium led by E4Tech, which is supposed to advise the EU Commission on adding new feedstocks for sustainable biofuels.
The consortium’s Final Report to the EU Commission can be read here.
The problem with the consortium is that its impartiality has been called into question publicly as EURACTIV reported.
“The consortium advising the European Commission on suitable sources for the production of sustainable biofuels has come under fire for failing to disclose the criteria used to evaluate feedstocks to industry.
E4tech, Cerulogy, and Navigant are private consultancy firms with their head offices in the UK, while SCS Global Services is headquartered in the United States. Navigant is also part of US consultancy firm Guidehouse.
Critics additionally raised questions over the neutrality of the consultants tasked with producing the report, given some organisation’s links to NGOs that are openly critical of biofuels as an energy source.”
The MPOC is justified in being concerned about the quality of the assessments being provided by the consortium to the EU Commission as consultants like ICCT have displayed extreme bias against palm oil in whatever shape or form.
The presence of consultants with biased opinions against specific feedstocks calls into question the value of their advice in a matter as important as the decarbonisation of energy for Europe.
While the MPOC’s submission to the EU Commission may read as excessive, considering the fact that the public consultation was supposed to be in consideration of adding new feedstocks for the EU’s biofuels requirements, the concern of the MPOC is justified as evidenced by other opinions made after the MPOC had submitted theirs.
The thing is, palm oil wastes in Palm Oil Mill Effluence (POME) and Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB) are included in Annex IX, Part A but submissions by various stakeholders indicate that this is not cast in stone.
Points in fact, based on the submissions received by the EU Commission:
FuelsEurope: It is essential that the review of Annex IX recognises both the need for a long-term clarity on a feedstock classification and the scalability of available feedstocks Removal of Feedstocks from Annex IX Part A: In accordance with RED II Art 28.6 and Art 35, the Commission is empowered to adopt DA's to amend the list of feedstocks set out in Parts A and B of Annex IX by adding, but not removing, feedstock. As per the above, we question the legality of removing feedstocks from Part A, especially as some Member States have been supporting feedstocks which are already interpreted as in Part A (such as Intermediate crops) and moving them to Part B, where they are now capped, which would seriously undermine investment both now and in the future.
Association of the German Biofuel Industry: Remarks on specifics of the Draft Delegated Directive Following our feedback during the previous consultation period from 24 May 2020, the VDB welcomes the fact that the Commission has not included Molasses and any derivates from high iLUC feedstocks (PFADs, Oil Palm trunks and Oil Palm frond) in Annex IX.
The singling out of palm oil as a high ILUC feedstock, despite counter-arguments by palm oil producing countries, by the German Biofuel Industry should serve as a warning to the palm oil industry that the current acceptance of some palm oil wastes for bioenergy in the EU, is not secure. If pure farm wastes like palm fronds, is rejected as a source of renewable energy, what’s to guarantee that other palm agriculture wastes like POME will not suffer future exclusion?
This threat of future exclusion can be seen in the submission of Transport & Environment which called for the removal of “problematic feedstocks.”
“In the context of the undergoing negotiations on the Fit for 55 package and in particular the Renewable Energy Directive, T&E considers it necessary to modify Annex IX to remove problematic feedstocks for the production of biofuels and biogas. However, we are wary of adding new feedstocks to the Annex IX.”
There’s no prize for guessing which commodity gets targeted for removal from Annex IX on a regular basis by Transport & Environment.
The palm oil producing countries of Indonesia and Malaysia have to stay on their toes even as they renew a commitment to work together to fight the EU's discrimination against palm oil.
“While the MPOC applauds the EU recognition of bioenergy towards the decarbonisation of the EU, the MPOC is appalled by the extreme discrimination displayed by the EU, against bioenergy sources derived from palm. The fight against climate change demands that all resources be used, as long as there is clear scientific evidence of their efficacy to reducing emissions for transport and energy. Evidence from palm oil producing countries have proved that palm-based bioenergy, is an efficient resource towards the decarbonisation of economies in both producer and user countries. While bioenergy from first generation sources of palm oil continues to be debated, the MPOC finds the assessment of agricultural waste and residue feedstocks to be in need of urgent review as the current assessment is deeply flawed as evidenced by these points.”
The assessment referred to by the MPOC is made up of a consortium led by E4Tech, which is supposed to advise the EU Commission on adding new feedstocks for sustainable biofuels.
The consortium’s Final Report to the EU Commission can be read here.
The problem with the consortium is that its impartiality has been called into question publicly as EURACTIV reported.
“The consortium advising the European Commission on suitable sources for the production of sustainable biofuels has come under fire for failing to disclose the criteria used to evaluate feedstocks to industry.
E4tech, Cerulogy, and Navigant are private consultancy firms with their head offices in the UK, while SCS Global Services is headquartered in the United States. Navigant is also part of US consultancy firm Guidehouse.
Critics additionally raised questions over the neutrality of the consultants tasked with producing the report, given some organisation’s links to NGOs that are openly critical of biofuels as an energy source.”
The MPOC is justified in being concerned about the quality of the assessments being provided by the consortium to the EU Commission as consultants like ICCT have displayed extreme bias against palm oil in whatever shape or form.
The presence of consultants with biased opinions against specific feedstocks calls into question the value of their advice in a matter as important as the decarbonisation of energy for Europe.
While the MPOC’s submission to the EU Commission may read as excessive, considering the fact that the public consultation was supposed to be in consideration of adding new feedstocks for the EU’s biofuels requirements, the concern of the MPOC is justified as evidenced by other opinions made after the MPOC had submitted theirs.
The thing is, palm oil wastes in Palm Oil Mill Effluence (POME) and Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB) are included in Annex IX, Part A but submissions by various stakeholders indicate that this is not cast in stone.
Points in fact, based on the submissions received by the EU Commission:
FuelsEurope: It is essential that the review of Annex IX recognises both the need for a long-term clarity on a feedstock classification and the scalability of available feedstocks Removal of Feedstocks from Annex IX Part A: In accordance with RED II Art 28.6 and Art 35, the Commission is empowered to adopt DA's to amend the list of feedstocks set out in Parts A and B of Annex IX by adding, but not removing, feedstock. As per the above, we question the legality of removing feedstocks from Part A, especially as some Member States have been supporting feedstocks which are already interpreted as in Part A (such as Intermediate crops) and moving them to Part B, where they are now capped, which would seriously undermine investment both now and in the future.
Association of the German Biofuel Industry: Remarks on specifics of the Draft Delegated Directive Following our feedback during the previous consultation period from 24 May 2020, the VDB welcomes the fact that the Commission has not included Molasses and any derivates from high iLUC feedstocks (PFADs, Oil Palm trunks and Oil Palm frond) in Annex IX.
The singling out of palm oil as a high ILUC feedstock, despite counter-arguments by palm oil producing countries, by the German Biofuel Industry should serve as a warning to the palm oil industry that the current acceptance of some palm oil wastes for bioenergy in the EU, is not secure. If pure farm wastes like palm fronds, is rejected as a source of renewable energy, what’s to guarantee that other palm agriculture wastes like POME will not suffer future exclusion?
This threat of future exclusion can be seen in the submission of Transport & Environment which called for the removal of “problematic feedstocks.”
“In the context of the undergoing negotiations on the Fit for 55 package and in particular the Renewable Energy Directive, T&E considers it necessary to modify Annex IX to remove problematic feedstocks for the production of biofuels and biogas. However, we are wary of adding new feedstocks to the Annex IX.”
There’s no prize for guessing which commodity gets targeted for removal from Annex IX on a regular basis by Transport & Environment.
The palm oil producing countries of Indonesia and Malaysia have to stay on their toes even as they renew a commitment to work together to fight the EU's discrimination against palm oil.
|
|
Published January 08, 2023. CSPO Watch