Münzer Bioindustrie GmbH
MBI
MÜNZER Bioindustrie (MBI) is with its annual production capacity of >210.000 mto one of the largest producers of sustainable biofuels in CEE and therefore a leading partner of the Central Europe´s agriculture and fossil fuel industry.
ID: 589182015860-39
Lobbying Activity
Meeting with Alexander Bernhuber (Member of the European Parliament)
13 May 2025 · Biotreibstoffe
Response to Update of list of sustainable biofuel feedstocks
2 Jan 2023
Die Münzer Bioindustrie GmbH fordert seit langem die Aufhebung der 1,7 %-Beschränkung für die Rohstoffverwendung laut Anhang IX Part B. Die Einschränkung sollte potenziellen Rückverfolgbarkeits- und Nachhaltigkeitsbedenken in den Lieferketten von Teil-B-Biokraftstoffen Rechnung tragen. Für uns ist jedoch völlig klar, dass die jüngst überarbeiteten Standards für Zertifizierungssysteme in Verbindung mit der, aus unserer Sicht sehr ehrgeizigen Unionsdatenbank für Biokraftstoffe eben diesen Bedenken nicht nur Rechnung tragen sondern die Beschränkung nicht mehr rechtfertigen. Abgesehen von der fehlerhaften Begründung macht die Aufnahme von bis zu 14 zusätzlichen Rohstoffen in Teil B von Anhang IX die 1,7 % unwirksam. Nimmt man als Referenz die Ergebnisse des Abschlussberichts, auf dem die Kommission genau diesen Revisionsentwurf basiert, die kombinierten potenziellen Mengen von den 14 für Teil B vorgeschlagenen Rohstoffen sind 937 Millionen Tonnen im Jahr 2030 und 1,172 Millionen Tonnen im Jahr 20501. Obwohl sich diese Zahlen offensichtlich auf die maximale potenzielle Verfügbarkeit beziehen, sind sie äußerst schwierig mit der 1,7-%-Begrenzung in REDIII in Einklang zu bringen, die bestenfalls 6 entspricht Millionen Tonnen Kraftstoffe, die im Straßen-, Schienen-, Luft- und Seeverkehr eingesetzt werden. Tatsächlich würde eine Begrenzung auf 1,7 % Teil B und vor allem die europäischen Investitionen in Produktionsanlagen für aus Teil B gewonnene Biokraftstoffe auf ein Niveau begrenzen, das weit über 150-mal niedriger ist als die potenzielle Verfügbarkeit für 2030, die in der Studie ermittelt wurde, die als technische Grundlage für die vorgeschlagene Überarbeitung. Die EU-Mitgesetzgeber stimmen der Tatsache zu, dass die Obergrenze von 1,7 % überflüssig ist: Die allgemeine Ausrichtung des Rates schlägt vor, die bestehende REDII-Flexibilität auf Ebene der Mitgliedstaaten beizubehalten, während der Standpunkt des Parlaments in erster Lesung vorschlägt, die Obergrenze bei jeder Überarbeitung von Anhang IX zu überarbeiten. Die Beibehaltung der Beschränkung ist nicht nur ungerechtfertigt, sondern wird angesichts der schieren Größe der potenziellen neuen Mengen, die den Anhang füllen, nur zu einer künstlichen Marktschädigung bereits bestehender Rohstoffe führen. Sie sollte daher aus dem endgültigen Text der REDIII jetzt ganz gestrichen werden, da die Möglichkeit besteht, ein parallel laufendes Gesetzgebungsverfahren durchzuführen. Andernfalls und da der Anhang alle zwei Jahre fortlaufend überarbeitet werden soll, ist es wahrscheinlich, dass beim nächsten Hinzufügen neuer Rohstoffe keine Möglichkeit besteht, die Obergrenze zu ändern.
Read full responseMeeting with Barbara Thaler (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)
29 Nov 2022 · RED
Response to Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001
21 Sept 2020
I write on behalf of MÜNZER Bioindustrie from Austria. We welcome the early revision of the REDII as an excellent opportunity to further improve certain elements of the existing regulatory framework to ensure that the EU achieves carbon neutrality by 2050. We set out here below key improvements of REDII provisions supported by the waste-based biodiesel industry:
1. Upward revision of the 14% transport obligation (Article 25(1))
The revision will increase the general 32% target of use of renewable energy in 2030 to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. Given that transport generates a quarter of the EU GHG emissions we believe that an equivalent increase of the specific 14% transport obligation for fuel suppliers should be included in the new legislation. Its level should be proportional to the eventual increase of the renewable energy target.
2. Elimination of the 1.7/3.4% soft cap on the contribution of feedstocks in Part B of Annex IX (Article 27(1)(b))
The revision of the REDII should limit fossil fuels and not sustainable biofuels. In this respect the 1.7/3.4% soft limitation to the contribution of feedstocks in part B of Annex IX should be eliminated as its rationale will be more flawed than even before by June 2021 for the following reasons:
a) It was never sound policy-making
During the REDII negotiations the limitation was effectively deleted from subsequent drafts of the deal as co-legislators understood that its rationale as an anti-fraud mechanism was deeply questionable, especially given that other measures within the REDII were better suited to address these issues. By June 2021 this argument will be even more powerful as the Commission will adopt a new pan-EU database and more stringent revised certification schemes.
b) Adoption of a Pan-EU database
In June 2021 the Commission will set up a pan-EU track and trace database for all biofuels in application of Article 28(2) of the REDII. The database will include data on the transactions made and the sustainability of fuels, including their life-cycle GHG emissions, and therefore it will greatly minimize the scope for unsound market practices without the need of an artificial limitation of sustainable biofuels.
c) Improved certification schemes
By June 2021 the European Commission will endorse newly revised certification schemes including a wide range of improvements in application of Article 30(4) and (8) of the REDII. These improvements will build upon industry-driven adjustments listing measures identifying weak spots in the biofuels value chain. The adoption of revised stricter certification schemes will further reduce opportunities for fraud, thus strengthening the case to eliminate the soft limitation to part B of Annex IX.
d) Inclusion of new feedstocks in Annex IX
Finally, also in June 2021 the Commission will approve the first amendment of Annex IX as established in Article 28(6) of the REDII. This revision will result in additional feedstocks being added to part B of Annex IX. Maintaining a limitation whose level originally referred to UCO and animal fats’ availability in a scenario in which new feedstocks are added to part B would be another manifest example of unsound policy-making.
3. Maintaining double counting as the promotion mechanism for the whole Annex IX
Double counting (DC) should be maintained as the key policy promotion mechanism guaranteeing market presence of biofuels produced from feedstocks in parts A and B of Annex IX. DC has been the most effective tool to ensure that complicated waste and residue feedstocks are collected, treated and converted into biofuels with high GHG savings. The EU industry at large cannot afford regulatory instability and its negative impact on security of investments. Discontinuing DC would halt the continuous development of different waste-based and advanced biofuel industries, leading to an increase in emissions and hampering the achievement of EU targets.
Read full responseResponse to ReFuelEU Aviation - Sustainable Aviation Fuels
21 Apr 2020
Muenzer Bioindustrie GmbH produces UCO-based biodiesel in Austria. We employ 250 and in 2019 we produced about 210.000 t of UCO-based biodiesel with GHG reductions higher than 90 %. We are proud to make an important contribution to reducing GHG emissions of EU road transport.
The Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) “ReFuelEU Aviation - Sustainable Aviation Fuels” sets out the Commission’s early thinking about a future legislative instrument to promote so called Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF). The IIA lists several measures that could be included in the draft legislation to promote SAF, including a blending mandate and prioritization measures to direct liquid road transport fuels towards aviation, among others.
Our UCO-based biodiesel (UCOME) is produced through an energy efficient production process with advantageous GHG emissions reductions compared to technologies processing UCO into aviation fuel, as established in Annex V of the Renewable Energy Directive. And, as the waste-based biodiesel production process does not destroy the fat molecule, biodiesel cannot be used as jet fuel given its cold flow properties.
Our industry characterized by medium-sized companies believes that the upcoming legislative instrument to promote SAF should exclude UCO (and animal fats) as feedstock for fuels accountable to a possible aviation target or any other similar promotion measure. In addition, prioritization measures should not target feedstocks for waste-based biodiesel production, such as UCO and animal fats, which are already successfully and efficiently used by the EU road sector.
Further reasons to exclude UCO (and animal fats) from SAF incentives:
No investments in new technologies and expansion of feedstock base
If UCO (and animal fats) is (are) included in aviation incentives, given the existing feedstock volumes and technological development, they will populate the whole new aviation segment and completely disincentivise investments in novel technologies using feedstocks such as those listed in Part A of Annex IX or others not included in the Annex yet.
Less GHG savings:
UCO- (and animal fats)-based biodiesel production is more efficient than HVO/HEFA/HEFA+ production and results in higher GHG savings than UCO- (and animal fats) based HVO, as established in Annex V of the RED II. Actually, this difference is even higher as the values in Annex V relate to HVO for road transport and not HEFA or HEFA+, being used for aviation and being even more energy intensive to produce.
Additionally, EU member states would lose waste-based biodiesel as their key tool to decarbonize existing car fleets and to reach their near term climate targets.
Economic damage:
Prioritization and indiscriminate incentivization of SAF would lead to the destruction of the medium-sized waste-based biodiesel industry, creating economic damage in the majority of Member States by preventing regional added value. In addition, UCO collectors and waste management networks possibly will be negatively affected as buyers of UCO will be reduced to a handful of HVO producers in a favorable price-setting position.
Read full response