FEAD position to the review of RED Annexes V and VI
FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, welcomes the review of RED Annexes V and VI and thanks the Commission for the opportunity to comment. FEAD puts forward the following recommendations:
- The introduction of an equivalent negative emission credit for biowaste as to what is currently granted to manure
- Clarifying what are standard and best practices in view of defining GHG emission saving values
- Updating default values to cover more feedstocks
- Unlocking the full potential of bio-LNG
- Streamlining rules for methane emissions reduction and carbon capture by allowing the calculation of actual values to define the EME, I factor and by removing the time limitation for claiming the ECCR emission saving factor
- Simplifying the methodology for soil carbon accumulation
- Ensuring proper emissions accounting for biogas co-products
- FEAD recommends the introduction of an equivalent negative emission credit for biowaste as to what is currently granted to manure
FEAD would like to point out that the current methodology in Annex VI treats biowaste feedstock different, and to its detriment, when compared to other feedstock, such as manure. FEAD therefore strongly recommends revising this, to introduce an equivalent negative emission credit for biowaste as to what is currently granted to manure.
The RED II directive sets out a methodology for calculating the greenhouse gas emissions associated with biomethane production, covering all stages of the life cycle: feedstock sourcing, anaerobic digestion process, transport, digestate storage, and combustion. This calculation determines the carbon intensity of the produced gas, which directly affects its economic value through BPAs (Biomethane Purchase Agreements). The calculation and associated methodology remain unchanged in the RED III directive (2023).
The official emission calculation formula accounts for the emissions associated with each feedstock, weighted according to its share in the process. Under this logic, manure is treated as an unavoidable waste, to which no environmental impact is attributed up to the moment of its generation. As a result, it receives a negative emission credit of -45 gCO₂eq/MJ, known as the manure credit, due to the methane emissions avoided when it is not directly spread on fields.
By contrast, biowaste receives no equivalent credit. Yet, its recovery through anaerobic digestion helps avoid greenhouse gas emissions also if compared with other waste management treatment options.
This differentiated feedstock treatment creates regulatory and economic distortion. Indeed, gas produced from biowaste is less favourably valued, with a competitiveness loss estimated at €30/MWh compared with gas produced from agricultural effluents, despite being chemically identical. This hierarchy steers the development of biomethane towards agricultural digestion, to the detriment of municipal biowaste and generating a shortfall of treatment capacity for the latter. FEAD considers that this approach is not in line with the European ambition to accelerate the development of biogas by 2030 and is counterproductive for the implementation of the obligation to separately collect biowaste as it tends to restrict the type of outlets for this waste fraction.
- FEAD recommends clarifying what are standard and best practices in view of defining GHG emissions saving values
The annexes to the draft delegated Directive introduce a distinction between best and standard practices in view of defining GHG emissions saving values. However, the draft does not define what those best and standard practices are.
FEAD supports a harmonised understanding of best practices that improve the operation of anaerobic digestion regarding methane emissions. But the definition of those best practices must be carried out in a harmonised way through a consensus-building process with the involvement of experts. It is unclear where the best practice parameters included in the draft are derived from. If those parameters would be based on the JRC report on ‘Methane emissions in the biogas and biomethane supply chains in the EU’[1], FEAD would like to seriously question them as they do not count with the industries’ support. ‘Best practices’ must be technically and economically viable and refer to practices that have been actually tried and tested.
The current draft of revised Annex VI includes only a limited set of default values for feedstock categories, despite biogas and biomethane being produced from a wide variety of substrates. As a result, many commonly used feedstocks are not represented in the existing framework. Without harmonized default values set at the EU level, producers must rely on different and potentially inconsistent sources or carry out individual calculations, which increases compliance costs but also undermines harmonization.
Therefore, FEAD suggests introducing a broader set of default values in Annex VI, notably covering relevant feedstock categories such as intermediate crops (e.g., catch crops, cover crops etc.), industrial residues, agricultural residues (e.g., maize straw, cereal straw), additional crops under the crop silage category (e.g., silphium, rye, grass), and biomass from severely degraded lands.
FEAD welcomes the introduction of default values for the liquefaction and compression of biomethane. However, Annex VI should also allow the use of actual values, as an alternative to the default values proposed, to demonstrate better environmental performance by biomethane liquefaction projects. Furthermore, Annex VI should explicitly acknowledge that liquefaction by equivalence, carried out at interconnected EU terminals in compliance with mass balance, is eligible for the proposed default value or for the existing ISCC method, provided the underlying biomethane meets the RED sustainability and GHG criteria.
- FEAD recommends streamlining rules for methane emissions reduction and carbon capture by allowing the calculation of actual values to define the EME, I factor and by removing the time limitation for claiming the ECCR emission saving factor
FEAD welcomes the introduction of an improvement factor in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions due to a reduction in methane emissions. The valorisation of methane emissions reductions in biomethane production can incentivise best practices driven by the industry and technological progress. The draft delegated directive could be further improved by allowing for the calculation of actual values when defining the EME, I factor, as an alternative to the use of the default values proposed in the methodology.
The draft delegated directive rightly recognizes the climate benefits deriving from the application of carbon capture to biomass fuels, bioliquids and biofuels production. However, Annex VI, Part B, paragraph 15 sets an unjustified time-limit on the possibility of claiming the ECCR factor by the biogas and biomethane sectors after 31 December 2035. This represents a regulatory obstacle that negatively affects the economics of biogenic carbon capture. FEAD strongly recommends the removal of the time limitation for claiming the ‘ECCR’ emission saving factor, as it unjustifiably restricts the sector’s profitability and creates investment uncertainty.
When emission related to ECCS savings are calculated, Annex VI should ensure alignment with Regulation (EU) 2024/3012) on Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF); in particular, Annex VI should explicitly acknowledge the possibility of using CRCF certificates to demonstrate emissions savings from both geological storage and storage in products (provided the CRCF certificate is cancelled from the CRCF registry once it is used for claiming the ECCS factor).
The current methodology to account for the ESCA factor, resulting from Annex VI and Implementing Regulation (EU) 996/2022, is overly complex and, as a consequence, almost never applied by producers.
To improve usability, FEAD recommends that default values and model-measurement tools be introduced, while maintaining the option to perform actual soil carbon accumulation calculations based on direct soil measurements. This approach would significantly reduce the uncertainties related to carbon storage, which would allow the ESCA factor to be used in an operational and reliable way for producers.
Annex VI already specifies that when the biogas production process generates one or more co-products in addition to the fuel, GHG emissions should be allocated according to their respective energy content. This approach ensures that emissions are attributed correctly and avoids overstating the carbon footprint of the renewable fuel. In line with this principle, FEAD suggests that all emissions related to the processing and transport of co-products, namely digestate and bioCO₂, be kept separate from the fuel and assigned to the co-product itself.
This is particularly relevant for digestate when it is sold as an organic fertiliser. As a product with distinct economic value and market function, all emissions associated with its storage, further processing, and commercialization (including unintended methane emissions) should be fully accounted for under the digestate’s emissions and excluded from the biogas/biomethane emission balance.
The same approach should be applied to bioCO₂ sold on the market (when it is not deducted from the GHG balance of biomethane through emission saving factors). Emissions from its further processing and transport should be attributed to the bioCO₂ and not included in the emissions of the biogas or biomethane produced.
[1] UFFI, M., HURTIG, O. and SCARLAT, N., Methane emissions in the biogas and biomethane supply chains in the EU, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/7927411, JRC139485.
FEAD is the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste and resource management industry across Europe, including 21 national waste management federations and 3,000 waste management companies. Private waste management companies operate in 60% of municipal waste markets in Europe and in 75% of industrial and commercial waste. This means more than 500,000 local jobs, fuelling €5 billion of investments into the economy every year. For more information, please contact: info@fead.be