EU Certification Decision Could Upend Biofuel Industry

An earthquake of gigantic magnitude appears to be impacting traceability following the obsession by lobbyists at the EU that most of the imported UCO, POME and advanced waste oils coming from Asia is fraudulent. In order to avoid the decision to eliminate double counting (mostly supported by refiners), lobbyists have now decided to go after the organization that certifies over 90% of the traceability of feedstock material used in Europe and much outside Europe.

This system has been built in accordance with RED as ISCC is authorized to do so. The certifying bodies that ISCC uses are generally well-accepted qualified international surveyors and auditors. It has taken industry more than 10 years to build this system. Since it is global, it is not infallible.

Most of this traceability in the EU is further supported and buried in the BLE Nabisy system database which the EU has taken almost 2 years to replace with the UDB and is still unable to do so. Now the EU Commission, strictly based on reports from EBB and T&E without widespread evidence of fraud but with clear lobbyist agenda, is pushing to kill the one certification body that underlies the entire industry.

It would have been more judicious to reform double counting, but instead they are going after the spine of the industry. If the Commission does what the lobbyists want, it may kill the industry.

Context Worth Considering

The situation reveals complex political and economic motives at play. The European Biodiesel Board (EBB) represents European producers who face competition from imports. Meanwhile, T&E receives funding through pathways that trace back to EU institutions. Their shared interest in restricting imports may align with protectionist goals beyond mere environmental concerns.

While improvements to certification are always possible, dismantling the primary verification system before a viable alternative is operational risks creating massive disruption. Without ISCC certification, the biofuel supply chain could face immediate paralysis.

This raises questions about whether the proposed action is proportionate to verified evidence of fraud, or if it represents an indirect attempt to achieve market protection that couldn't be achieved through more direct means like eliminating double counting.