New research from the SASHA Coalition tries to uncover the extent of the impact of different alternative fuels for shipping and aviation on people’s health and the planet.
The report, Fuelling nature: how e-fuels can mitigate biodiversity risk in EU aviation and maritime policy, follows an important development during week one at COP29, where the presidency launched the Hydrogen Declaration with the aim of catalysing a global clean hydrogen market.
The new report looks at scenarios considering the four main alternative fuels for planes and ships (e-fuels made from green hydrogen produced with renewable energy, biofuels from crops, biofuels from residue and water and biofuels from oils and fats) and finds that in all scenarios using biofuels would put greater stress on biodiversity stabilisation and recovery.
This is set to get worse over time, and by 2050, the goals of the Nature Restoration Regulation could be completely undermined.
🚨New report! 🚨
The EU must decarbonise shipping and aviation – but at what cost to biodiversity?
On #COP29 biodiversity day, our latest research shows that using biofuel production puts biodiversity at serious risk. Only #GreenHydrogen e-fuels limit damage to nature.
🧵1/4 pic.twitter.com/zsAc7YumLO
— SASHA Coalition (@sashacoalition) November 21, 2024
In contrast, prioritising e-fuels made from green hydrogen produced with renewable energy, which already have the greatest emissions reduction potential, would reduce pressure on natural habitats and land demand, and better support the EU’s long-term biodiversity strategy.
In fact, e-fuels are the only potential alternative fuels for the shipping and aviation sectors which would reduce pressure on natural habitats and land demand, and which are compatible with meeting the EU’s biodiversity targets.
Recommendations
To support the EU’s dual objectives of decarbonising the aviation and maritime sectors while preserving and enriching biodiversity, we make the following recommendations:
-
Develop RFNBOs technologies: Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin (RFNBOs) present the most compatible pathway for meeting existing biodiversity targets due to their lower pressures on land compared to bioenergy pathways. However, a significant portion of the necessary infrastructure, such as electrolysers and renewable electricity generation, is currently lacking, and the associated costs of scaling up are high. Delaying investment in RFNBO infrastructure risks increasing future costs significantly, akin to other climate mitigation challenges where delays lead to higher costs and stranded assets.
-
Reduce the overall demand in the aviation and maritime sectors: The pressures on land, sea, and biodiversity are already immense due to existing demands for agriculture, urban development, and conservation needs. As the most recent UN SDGs report highlighted, EU lifestyles are characterised by high energy consumption, and the EU’s aviation and maritime sectors are poised for continued expansion under current energy scenarios. Delaying demand reduction measures will only exacerbate constraints on land and marine ecosystems, making it costlier and more challenging to achieve climate and biodiversity goals in the future. Implementing overall demand reduction strategies, such as enhancing energy efficiency, incentivising shifts towards lower-impact travel, and reducing frequent flying, business travel, and the use of private jets, can collectively reduce energy demand and help align the EU’s biodiversity and climate goals.
-
Identify and protect marginal land of high biodiversity value: Marginal lands present both opportunities and challenges for bioenergy production. These lands, sometimes characterised as being unsuitable for productive and profitable conventional agriculture, have been promoted as an opportunity for producing bioenergy crops without reducing food production. However, these lands are often significant for biodiversity, overlapping with semi-natural habitats. Development and implementation of ecological assessments would help stakeholders to understand the biodiversity values and ecological functions of these lands before conversion. Additional strategies, such as guidelines for biodiversity-friendly mixed energy cropping, agroforestry, and adaptive management, could also help mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive outcomes.
-
Incorporate soil carbon monitoring: Soil carbon remains a blind spot in EU greenhouse gas emissions accounting policies, such as the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation. Current policies do not mandate the inclusion of soil carbon unless it is a net source of emissions, resulting in insufficient monitoring and reporting. Without proper oversight, practices like residue harvesting may continue to degrade soil carbon stocks, undermining climate mitigation efforts. The EU’s proposed soil monitoring law should strive to align with renewable energy targets by encouraging Member States to adopt forest and agricultural residue removal thresholds for key soil types. Effective monitoring and management of soil carbon is crucial since soils are the largest terrestrial carbon store, support 25% of biodiversity, and play a vital role in the sustainability of energy and food production.
-
Protect and expand habitats and other landscape features that support biodiversity in productive forestry and agricultural systems: This includes remaining patches of semi-natural habitat, fallow land, native trees, hedgerows, ponds, ditches, etc., some of which may be maintained as Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) or under other agri-environmental measures of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Such areas and features are essential for supporting biodiversity within agricultural landscapes, serving as refuges for wildlife, enhancing habitat connectivity, and providing ecosystem services such as pollination, natural pest control, and water purification.
The research shows that none of the alternative fuels available endanger the EU’s 2030 biodiversity targets, mostly due to the small amount of these fuels used or available. But looking ahead to 2050, the picture is clear – we need to invest in e-fuels now as they have the lowest long-term impact on nature and the environment. Additionally, legislation needs to be reassessed in light of the potential damage to nature, ensuring that e-fuels are prioritised in the revision.
The research was conducted by Cerulogy, commissioned by the SASHA Coalition.
