OpenLobby.EU
Explore

APPA Biocarburantes

APPA Biocarburantes

APPA Biocarburantes brings together the main companies producing biodiesel and bioethanol in Spain, as well as other European biofuels producers involved in the Spanish market.

Lobbying Activity

Response to COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION on extending the scope of traceability of the Union database

7 Nov 2024

1.- APPA Biocarburantes regards positively the Commission's proposal to extend the scope of the UDB to the raw materials used to produce renewable fuels and recycled carbon fuels, although we deem that it should be evaluated to limit this extension, at least initially, to the raw materials with a higher risk of fraud, such as those included in Annex IX of the RED III. 2.- We also believe that both the mandatory use of the UDB by economic operators and the application of this new Regulation should be laid down eighteen (18) months after its entry into force, in order to allow the Commission to fully remedy the serious deficiencies that still exist in the UDB application, which prevent both its regular use by operators and its interaction with national databases. 3.- We support the Commission's intention to use this regulation to establish the responsibilities and rights of economic operators throughout the supply chain, as provided for in Article 1 of the draft, although we consider that, in order to achieve this aim, Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the draft would need to be amended to specify that the obligations laid down therein will apply not only to certified operators of raw materials but also to other certified operators in the supply chain for fuels and intermediate products. 4.- We do not agree with the definition of Union database manager proposed in Article 2 of the draft, as the management of the UDB should not be assigned to the unit responsible for the maintenance and further development of its IT application, but to the Commission unit responsible for the regulation of biofuels. 5.- We propose that Article 3(6) of the draft specifies that the marking of a raw material included in the pre-defined list of the UDB as clearly belonging to Part A or B of Annex IX of the RED III by the UDB manager should be without prejudice to the fact that other raw materials included in this list may be considered as belonging to Part A or B of the aforementioned Annex in a Member State in accordance with the provisions of its national legislation. 6.- We think that the maximum period of three (3) working days foreseen in article 5 of the draft, both for sellers to enter transactions data in the UDB and for buyers to accept or reject them, is unnecessarily restrictive, as it does not correspond to the usual practice of the industry and compliance with it would entail excessive administrative burdens, and we therefore propose that it be extended to 30 days. 7.- It is positive that article 5(5) of the draft includes the possibility of correcting erroneous data of a transaction entered in the UDB, but we consider that this should not be done by means of a correcting transaction, but rather by allowing the correction of the data of previously entered transactions. 8.- We view that it is not realistic to set the earliest date of the seller's or buyer's net mass balance as the maximum time limit for finalizing a transaction, as provided for in Article 5(5), in cases where, for example, the transaction takes place on the same day as the closing date of the seller's or buyer's mass balance. 9.- We deem it necessary to include in the Regulation a timeline specifying when the initial stocks registration of the different operators should begin. On the other hand, we believe that the references to biomass in Article 3(1) should be replaced by generic references to raw materials, while the reference in Article 5(1) to a national law obliging economic operators to enter transaction data in the UDB should be deleted given that it is incorrect. Finally, we propose that the two requirements set out in Article 5(10) for booking out certain consignments from the UDB should not be cumulative but alternative. These same comments are attached in a formal document version.
Read full response

Response to Import of used cooking oils

31 May 2024

APPA Biocarburantes welcomes the opportunity to make comments on this draft Regulation as regards requirements for the import of used cooking oil (UCO). The executive summary of our views, developed in more detail in the attached document, is as follows: 1.- We consider that UCO intended for the production of biofuels should be completely excluded from the animal by-products Regulation 1069/2009 (ABPR), as we think that this material does not pose health risks that justify its inclusion in such a Regulation and that the different requirements on this material already in place are enough to adequately control its value chain. 2.- Although we support the inclusion of a definition of UCO within Annex I of Regulation (EU) 142/2011, we think that this definition should include the relevant clarification that UCO within the scope of the APBR contains or consists of materials of animal origin. 3.- Additionally, we believe that to objectively define when a consignment of UCO should be regarded as containing or consisting of materials of animal origin, this new Regulation should include the obligation for the European Commission to propose and adopt an implementing act to lay down a harmonised methodology based on chemical parameters, such as the fatty acid profile and the content of cholesterol, to identify the presence of animal materials in the UCO. 4.- As far as UCO containing or consisting of components of animal origin can only be classified and imported into the EU under the code CN 1518 00 95, we consider that the code CN 3825 10 00 should be completely removed from the note on box I.27 of the model declaration, in order to avoid any confusion over the CN code that has to be used to import UCO into de EU and align the ABP Regulations with the latest consolidated Customs Regulations. Consequently, the mention to UCO in the qualification and explanation column for the CN code 3825 10 00 in the table included in Chapter 38 of the Annex of Regulation 2021/632 should also be removed. 5.- We propose that the establishments of origin of UCO in third countries should not be required to be approved or registered given, on the one hand, the serious obstacles to fulfil this requirement faced in many countries that do not regard UCO as an animal by-product and, on the other hand, that current official controls in the border control post (BCP) and during the transportation of UCO to specific approved or registered establishments already guarantee enough supervision of a material that is going to be transformed into biofuel and later combusted in an engine. 6.- We think that requiring UCO to undergo a physical separation from non-oil elements before its dispatch should be reconsidered given that the European Commission has not explained the sanitary grounds of this requirement and it implies an additional and unnecessary burden for UCO importers. 7.- We deem it necessary to include in this Regulation a new Recital reminding that, according to Article 9(5) of Regulation 2017/625, competent authorities should carry out these official controls in such a manner that the administrative burden and operational disruption for operators are kept to the minimum necessary, as we consider that this obligation has not been fully taken into account as far as UCO is concerned. 8.- We consider that the period of 24 months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation for its legal application tabled in the draft is reasonable in order to give economic operators and competent authorities sufficient time to align existing procedures with the new harmonised requirements for the import of UCO, provided that the requirement of approval or registration of establishments of origin in third countries is removed from the Regulation or, alternatively, the European Commission provides adequate and timely support for the third country authorities and UCO suppliers to fulfil it.
Read full response

Response to Implementation of updates for annual, monthly and short-term monthly energy statistics

21 Jul 2023

The comments of APPA Biocarburantes regarding the Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy statistics under public consultation are as follows: Given that the energy statistics gathered through the Regulation 1099/2008 allows to monitor the policy targets of the Directive 2018/2001 on the promotion of renewable energies (RED II / RED III), it is essential that the terms and definitions of both legislations are consistent. The article 2 of the RED II / RED III defines the following terms: (24) biomass means the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from biological origin from agriculture, including vegetal and animal substances, from forestry and related industries, including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of waste, including industrial and municipal waste of biological origin; (27) biomass fuels means gaseous and solid fuels produced from biomass; (28) biogas means gaseous fuels produced from biomass; (32) bioliquids means liquid fuel for energy purposes other than for transport, including electricity and heating and cooling, produced from biomass; (33) biofuels means liquid fuel for transport produced from biomass; The annex of the draft Regulation keeps, however, several terms that are not consistent with the definitions mentioned above such as the following: solid biofuels, liquid biofuels, gaseous biofuels and biofuels, the latter term referring to the sum of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels produced from biomass. In order to resolve these inconsistencies, we propose to introduce the following modifications in the annex of this Regulation: 1) Replace the term liquid biofuels with biofuels when referring to liquid fuel for transport. 2) Replace the term liquid biofuels with bioliquids when referring to liquid fuel for energy purposes other than for transport. 3) Replace the term liquid biofuels with biofuels and bioliquids when referring to all energy uses of the liquid fuel. 4) Replace the term solid biofuels with solid biomass fuels. 5) Replace, where appropriate, the term biofuels with biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels, biofuels and bioliquids, solid biomass fuels or biogas. 6) Replace the term solid, liquid and gaseous biofuels with biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels or biofuels, bioliquids, biogases and solid biomass fuels. 7) Adapt the wording of paragraphs 3.5.8, 3.5.8.1 and 3.5.8.3 accordingly, including a reference to the definitions mentioned above in article 2 of RED II / RED III.
Read full response

Response to Update of list of sustainable biofuel feedstocks

27 Dec 2022

We welcome the initiative of the European Commission to include new feedstocks in annex IX of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) through this Delegated Directive. We would like to make the following detailed comments on its specific content: 1.- We deem appropriate the proposal of the draft to include "fusel oils generated in alcoholic distilleries" in part A of annex IX, as well as "liquid whey permeate, damaged crops, municipal wastewater and derivatives (other than sewage sludge), brown grease, cyanobacteria, vinasse, dextrose ultrafiltration retentate and intermediate crops" into part B of this same annex. 2.- However, we do not agree with the proposal of the draft to add to part B of this annex IX a group of feedstocks "residues and wastes from bakery and confectionery, from drink production and from fruit and vegetable, starchy effluents, brewers spent grain and deoiled olive pomace" which are already included in point d) of part A of this annex IX, as the European Commission has just recognized in the annex IV of the Delegated Regulation 2022/996. Moreover, we think that the Commission's proposal regarding these feedstocks is illegal, since RED II does not entitle to move feedstocks from part A to part B or vice versa. We support that these residues and wastes are incorporated as new points to Annex IX of RED II, but this should be done in part A, not in part B. 3.- We consider that both "raw methanol from kraft pulping and non-food crops grown on severely degraded land" should be included in part B of annex IX, not in part A, given that, as indicated by the Commission consultants, the technology used for its transformation in biofuels is mature. In relation to the aforementioned non-food crops, we deem unnecessary the requirement that the seriously degraded lands on which they are grown are not suitable for food and feed crops. 4.- The incorporation of new feedstocks into part B of annex IX of RED II should be accompanied by raising the limit (1,7%) currently included in the Directive and maintaining the possibility that Member States may request the Commission to exceed this limit. Likewise, we consider that this limitation should be eventually removed once the Union database provided for in RED II is put into operation and its usefulness in eliminating or reducing the risk of fraud is verified. 5.- Finally, we agree with the precision included in the fourth recital (4) of the draft, which lays down that the suitability of a feedstock category as food or feed is a complex issue that may depend on the detailed characteristics and local circumstances, so it requires a case-by-case assessment based on indicators such as the nutritional value of each feedstock compared to other alternatives and its demand in the local food and feed chain.
Read full response

Response to Methodology to determine the share of renewables in case of co-processing

15 Jul 2022

The comments of APPA Biocarburantes regarding the Draft Regulation on the methodology to determine the share of biofuel and biogas for transport in the case of co-processing, which is currently under public consultation, are as follows: 1) We agree with the general approach of the draft Regulation since it implies a balance in terms of verification costs, accuracy of the tests and the application of a common verification method for all operators based on radiocarbon tests, which is the only one that allows measuring the physical or real content of biogenic carbon in fuels. 2) Given that the provision in paragraph 2 of article 1 about the obligation for economic operators to ensure that the share of biofuels or biogas is above the detection limit of the testing method would exclusively affect the radiocarbon (14C) testing method and this statement is already included in article 6.2 of the draft, this provision could be deleted in this article 1. 3) Paragraph 3 of article 2 about the mass balance method should be removed, as it reproduces the provisions of article 3 relating to the energy balance method. 4) The requirements on radiocarbon (14C) testing proposed in article 6 seem adequate to us with the following exceptions: - It should be specified that if the share of biofuels or biogas does not exceed the detection limit of the radiocarbon testing method, the biofuels that the final product may contain as a result of the application of any of the other methods cannot be counted. - It should be mandatory to carry out the 14C testing at least once a quarter when it is used as a verification method in order to ensure an effective and regular verification of the results obtained from the application of the remaining eligible methods. When the radiocarbon testing is used as the main method, it should be clearly stated that it has to be applied to each batch or consignment. - It would be desirable to specify the standards that describe the radiocarbon test methods, such as, for example, ASTM D6866-16, EN 16640:2017 or DIN 51637:2014-02.
Read full response

Response to Adaptation to the emissions type-approval of heavy duty vehicles to accommodate the use of pure biodiesel

28 Jun 2022

The position and comments of APPA Biocarburantes regarding the Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 582/2011 as regards the emissions type-approval of heavy-duty vehicles using pure biodiesel currently under public consultation are as follows: 1. We support the inclusion of FAME B100 which complies with the CEN standard EN 14214:2012+A2:2019 as one of the reference fuels in Regulation 582/2011 since it will favor the type-approval of heavy-duty vehicles which are compatible with the use of B100. 2. We agree with the proposal in point 1.4.1 of Annex I that the type-approval of a B100 family with a parent engine tested on FAME B100 shall be extended to all family members and biofuel blends, without further testing, as it will allow heavy-duty vehicles to be approved for all types of diesel and biodiesel blends (B20 / B30), without the need to carry out additional tests to those carried out with B100. In any case, we suggest replacing the generic reference made to “biofuels blends” in the first sentence of this point with “FAME blends”. 3. However, in the same point of Annex I, it is proposed that if the approval authority determines that the submitted application is not fully representative, biodiesel blends other than FAME B100 may be selected by the approval authority and tested. This provision seems to contradict what was foreseen in the previous sentence of that point since it would apparently mean that manufacturers that want to approve B100 engines need to carry out tests not only with B100 but also with blends of diesel and biodiesel. This should be clarified. 4. We consider that the proposed table of B100 specifications is correct, since the parameters, limits, test methods and footnotes included in it are the same as those included in table 1 of the CEN standard EN 14214:2012+A2:2019.
Read full response

Response to Greenhouse gas emissions savings methodology for recycled carbon fuels and renewable fuels of non-biological origin

16 Jun 2022

Se exponen en el documento adjunto la valoración y propuestas que realiza APPA Biocarburantes sobre el Proyecto de Reglamento presentado por la Comisión Europea para establecer, por un lado, la reducción mínima de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) exigible a los combustibles de carbono reciclado (CCR) y, por otro lado, una metodología para evaluar la reducción de las emisiones de GEI de los CCR y de los carburantes renovables de origen no biológico (CRONB).
Read full response

Response to Detailed implementing rules for the voluntary schemes recognised by the European Commission

27 Jul 2021

La comentarios que, en nombre de los productores de biodiésel y bioetanol en España, formula la asociación APPA Biocarburantes son sintéticamente los siguientes: - Art. 28: la aplicación del Reglamento debería retrasarse al menos hasta pasados seis (6) meses de su entrada en vigor, teniendo en cuenta el tardío inicio de su consulta pública, el tiempo que necesitarán los sistemas voluntarios, las entidades de certificación y los operadores para adaptar sus procesos a las novedades del Reglamento, así como el hecho de que los biocarburantes comercializados en los meses posteriores al 1 de julio de 2021 se pueden haber producido con anterioridad a dicha fecha y/o con materias primas cosechadas o generadas previamente. - Arts. 15 y 19: algunas propuestas contenidas en estos dos artículos desvirtúan completamente la propia naturaleza del sistema de balance de masa, por lo que proponemos su eliminación o modificación. Entre ellas, destaca la de que al final de cada período del balance de masa deba existir una equivalencia entre las existencias físicas del producto en el emplazamiento y los datos de sostenibilidad asociados a las mismas, una exigencia que contradeciría la esencia misma del balance de masa e introduciría una complejidad incompatible con el funcionamiento actual de muchas plantas de biocarburantes. - Anexo IV: el proyecto señala que la lista preliminar de residuos y desechos incluida en su anexo IV está basada en una versión “revisada” del anexo IX de la DER II, versión que la Comisión no ha hecho pública ni en forma de borrador. Esta forma de proceder por parte de la Comisión no es adecuada, ya que genera una importante inseguridad jurídica a todos los operadores económicos. La Comisión debería hacer pública con antelación dicha versión revisada del anexo IX de la DER II y proceder posteriormente a encajar en sus epígrafes todos y cada uno de los residuos y desechos que propone, sin agrupar los mismos en una clasificación diferente de la prevista en dicho anexo IX de la DER II y sin excluir ninguno de los actualmente previstos en este último anexo como, por ejemplo, el UCO. Por otro lado, el árbol decisorio previsto en el anexo IV del proyecto para determinar cuando una materia prima no prevista en el citado listado puede considerarse residuo o desecho infringe claramente lo dispuesto en los artículos 5 y 6 de la Directiva 2008/98/CE sobre los Residuos, así como en la guía interpretativa de la misma aprobada por la Comisión Europea, conteniendo esta última en su página 21 un árbol decisorio significativamente diferente del propuesto en el proyecto. Aunque es positivo que el Reglamento proponga armonizar los criterios que deberán utilizar los sistemas voluntarios para determinar cuándo una materia prima no incluida en el citado listado es residuo o desecho, ello debería realizarse de acuerdo con lo previsto en la Directiva de Residuos, ya que de lo contrario la nueva regulación sería contradictoria con la de residuos. Otros comentarios: - Art. 13: el umbral cuantitativo a partir del cual los puntos de origen de residuos o desechos deberían estar sujetos a una auditoría in situ tendría que ser el mismo para todos los puntos de origen, independientemente del tipo de residuo o desecho que suministren. - Art. 19.2.d): en atención a la realidad del sistema logístico de hidrocarburos en España, deberían considerarse también como parte de un mezcla los combustibles inyectados en una red de un mismo titular que no esté completamente interconectada pero en la que se realicen acreditaciones instantáneas de entradas y salidas de combustibles. - Arts. 4, 5 ó 10: los sistemas voluntarios tendrían que incluir en sus procedimientos la obligación de motivar adecuadamente sus propuestas de sanción, así como el derecho de los operadores afectados de presentar alegaciones y de poder apelar la decisión propuesta antes de su aplicación. Ver documento adjunto para más detalle sobre estos y otros comentarios.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

7 Dec 2020

Como asociación de la industria española de producción de biocarburantes, compartimos plenamente el objetivo del Proyecto de Reglamento Delegado de la Comisión Europea de precisar los requisitos concretos que, a efectos financieros o de inversión, deberá cumplir una actividad económica para considerarse que contribuye de forma sustancial a la mitigación o a la adaptación al cambio climático, y que evita causar un perjuicio significativo a otros objetivos medioambientales. Ello no obsta para expresar nuestro completo desacuerdo con algunos de los criterios técnicos que la Comisión propone exigir a la actividad de producción de biocarburantes (apartado 4.13 del anexo 1 del proyecto), así como a otras actividades conexas, como son las recogidas en los apartados 3.13, 3.16, 4.8, 4.20, 4.24 y 5.7 de este mismo anexo 1. Concretamente, la Comisión propone incluir en el apartado 4.13 de dicho anexo 1, por un lado, la condición de que los cultivos agrícolas y forrajeros (CAF) no sean utilizados en la fabricación de biocarburantes y, por otro lado, que los ahorros de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) derivados de esta actividad sean al menos del 65% en relación con el comparador fósil establecido en la Directiva (UE) 2018/2001 de energías renovables (DER II). Estas dos condiciones nos parecen incorrectas, ya que contradicen claramente lo previsto para los biocarburantes en la DER II. Por un lado, porque el artículo 26 de esta Directiva en ningún caso excluye de manera general la utilización de biocarburantes CAF a efectos del cumplimiento del objetivo de energías renovables en el transporte establecido en la propia DER II y, por otro lado, porque el artículo 29 de esta misma Directiva no exige un ahorro mínimo de GEI del 65% a todas las instalaciones de producción de biocarburantes, sino sólo a aquellas que entren en funcionamiento a partir del próximo 1 de enero de 2021. En consecuencia, no resulta correcto que la Comisión pretenda introducir mediante un acto delegado del Reglamento (UE) 2020/852 de inversiones sostenibles criterios de sostenibilidad diferentes a los previstos para los biocarburantes en la DER II, ya que ello supondría una evidente extralimitación de los poderes que le han sido delegados a la Comisión por parte del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo. Asimismo, ello iría en contra de lo que señala expresamente el considerando 18 del propio proyecto de Reglamento Delegado cuando afirma textualmente que “los criterios técnicos de selección para la producción de calefacción, refrigeración y electricidad a partir de bioenergía y para la producción de biocarburantes y biogás para el transporte deben tener en cuenta el marco integral de sostenibilidad para estos sectores establecido en la Directiva (UE) 2018/2001, que fija los requisitos de sostenibilidad agrícola, contabilidad de carbono y ahorros de emisiones de GEI”. Es por todo ello que solicitamos a la Comisión que modifique el proyecto de Reglamento con el fin de alinearlo exactamente con lo previsto en la DER II procediendo, por un lado, a eliminar la exclusión de los CAF de los apartados 4.13, 3.13, 3.16 y 5.7 del anexo 1 del proyecto y, por otro lado, a remitirse a los ahorros mínimos de emisiones de GEI fijados en dicha Directiva. Adicionalmente, consideramos que tanto la actividad de producción de biocarburantes (apartado 4.13) como las previstas en los apartados 4.8, 4.20 y 4.24 del anexo 1 del proyecto no deberían ser calificadas como de transición, sino como actividades que contribuyen de manera plena y sustancial a la mitigación del cambio climático, por lo que proponemos que se elimine completamente dicha calificación transicional de los citados apartados.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001

18 Sept 2020

1.- The need to increase from 40% to at least 55% the EU reduction target of GHG emissions in 2030 in order to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 makes it necessary to increase the renewable energy targets provided for in Directive (EU) 2018/2001 (RED II), in particular the transport target, as this latter sector is lagging behind in its decarbonisation and renewable energy penetration. 2.- The minimum target for renewable energy share in transport for 2030 set out in the RED II (14%) should be increased to at least 30%, in line with what is already foreseen by some Member States, such as Spain, in their National Integrated Energy and Climate Plans. 3.- To increase the consumption of renewable energies in transport in line with the proposed new minimum target for 2030, the following amendments in the RED II are deemed necessary: - Allow the contribution of biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels produced from food or feed crops to both the overall renewable energy target and the transport specific target to exceed the limits currently provided for in the RED II, including the maximum 7% limit. These general limits have no justification at all once food or feed crops that have had a significant expansion of their production area into land with high-carbon stock have been legally defined and their use is going to be phased out. - Remove the maximum limit of 1.7% contribution of biofuels produced from feedstocks included in part B of Annex IX of the RED II. This cap is also unjustified as it concerns waste materials with high GHG emission reductions, the use of which should be promoted, rather than be limited. - Increase the real consumption of advanced biofuels by removing the option to apply double counting (DC) to comply with both the overall renewable energy targets and the advanced biofuel specific targets set out in the RED II. DC advanced biofuels is unnecessary once the Directive itself sets out mandatory minimum targets for its consumption in all Member States. - Set out specific, distinct and mandatory targets for biofuel consumption in the aviation and maritime sectors. These would make it unnecessary to maintain the multiplication factor of 1.2 for these biofuels in the RED II. - Set out specific and mandatory targets for biofuel consumption in road freight transport. - Lay down the mandatory and generalised introduction in all Member States of petrol E10 and B10 diesel as standard basic fuel presentations as well as a timetable for the mandatory introduction of higher biofuel blends (E15 / E25 / E85 / B30 and B100). - Remove the option for non-renewable fuels such as recycled carbon fuels to contribute to renewable energy targets in transport, without prejudice to the possibility that they can be promoted in other ways. - Ensure that renewable energy targets in transport are calculated on the final energy consumption of all transport sectors, including kerosene, LPG, fuel oil and hydrogen in the denominator. 4.- Other proposals: - Remove the use of renewable electricity consumption multipliers in transport as they are neither necessary nor have any real incentive function. - Include a public and transparent methodology for the calculation of electricity used by electric vehicles, including the clarification of the additionality principle and criteria for verification and measurement of the electricity supplied.
Read full response

Response to Import of used cooking oils

23 Jul 2019

Please, find below the comments of APPA Biocarburantes –the Spanish biofuels association– regarding the proposed new EU Regulation on health requirements for the import of used cooking oil (UCO): 1) The period of two years for retaining a representative sample of each consignment of imported UCO as stated in paragraph 3 of the new section 13 is too long. Also, depending on the frequency of the imports and the amount of the consignments the number of samples could be extraordinary high. We propose to reduce the period to retain the samples to a maximum of 6/12 months, depending on the size of the consignment. 2) The by-products of the biodiesel production can be used for different purposes besides disposal, as foreseen in the Regulation 142/2011. Therefore the paragraph 4 in the new section 13 should be amended as follows: “4. The operator responsible for the plant referred to in point 1(b)(i) shall maintain for two years records to document the on-site processing of all imported consignments of used cooking oil into biodiesel or renewable fuel and the disposal and use of any materials resulting from the processing.” 3) UCO is classified under the HS code 1518 00 95, while in the model declaration also the HS code 3825 10 00 is included. We propose to eliminate this additional code so that all imports are made with a single code, which would allow a precise quantification of them. The note on box reference I.19 of the model declaration should be amended as follows: “Box reference I.19: Use the appropriate HS code: 1518 00 95.” 4) The precise name of the delivery document containing relevant information on the sustainable material that has to be issued by the supplier for each delivery of sustainable material is “sustainability declaration”. Therefore the term “proof of sustainability” should be replaced by “sustainability declaration” when referring to the traceability in the framework of the EU biofuels sustainability requirements. Also, this sustainability declaration is issued in accordance with the Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC, RED), and not with Directive 2015/1513, which only amends the RED. On the other hand, for the time when this Regulation is applicable, the RED will be repealed. Therefore the new RED for the period 2021-2030 (Directive 2018/2001) should be mentioned. Consequently, the recital (10) and the note on box reference I.17 of the model declaration should be amended as follows: “(10) In order to reduce the administrative burden, the model for the declaration to accompany a consignment of used cooking oil from the place of origin to the border inspection post of entry should, where appropriate, contain a reference to a certified sustainability declaration as required by the Voluntary Schemes approved by the European Commission for compliance with the traceability requirements outlined in Article 18 of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and article 30 of Directive 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.” “Box reference I.17: a reference to a certified sustainability declaration issued in accordance with Directive 2009/28/EC or Directive 2018/2001.” 5) The definition of “consignor” and “consignee” should be included in the regulation in order to clarify these concepts.
Read full response

Response to Stepping up EU Action against Deforestation and Forest Degradation

11 Jan 2019

Como pone de manifiesto la hoja de ruta presentada por la Comisión Europea, la UE lleva ya más de diez años analizando el problema de la deforestación a nivel global a través de diversas Comunicaciones, Estrategias y Programas. Se han puesto en marcha paralelamente estos últimos años algunas iniciativas normativas entre las que la hoja de ruta destaca el Plan de Acción FLEGT en relación con el comercio de la madera. Sin embargo, no se menciona otra medida muy relevante para luchar contra la deforestación como ha sido la inclusión en la Directiva 2009/28/CE del Parlamento y del Consejo relativa al fomento del uso de energía procedente de fuentes renovables de criterios de sostenibilidad de obligado cumplimiento para los biocarburantes y biolíquidos consumidos en la UE. Entre estos requisitos se encuentra la prohibición de utilizar materias primas procedentes de bosques con elevado valor en cuanto a biodiversidad y reservas de carbono. Llegados a este punto, creemos que la Comisión debería profundizar en esta última línea normativa y proponer sin demora la adopción de medidas legislativas concretas para aquellos sectores industriales y alimentarios que siguen sin tener que cumplir requisitos medioambientales obligatorios en materia de deforestación. En la medida en que, tal como señala la propia hoja de ruta, la expansión agrícola para el suministro de materias primas tiene un impacto creciente en la deforestación de los bosques tropicales, creemos que deberían extenderse los requisitos de sostenibilidad actualmente aplicados a los biocarburantes al resto de usos industriales, alimentarios y forrajeros que utilizan las mismas materias primas que el sector de los biocarburantes. Aplicar las mismas exigencias medioambientales a todos los usos de las materias primas permitiría atajar de raíz el problema de la deforestación y dar un trato igualitario a todos los sectores afectados. Sería una medida que, además, daría plena coherencia a la política medioambiental de la UE y de paso permitiría resolver el problema del Cambio Indirecto del Uso de la Tierra (CIUT) atribuido a los biocarburantes y biolíquidos.
Read full response