What changed

B100337/2026

P10_TA(2026)0252

European Parliament resolutionObjection onto Commissiona delegated regulation of 10 April 2026 amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 to introduce aact: trajectoryTrajectory to gradually decrease the contribution of high indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels to renewable energy targets (C(2026)02306 – 2026/2680(DEA))

PE789.919

European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2026 on Commission delegated regulation of 10 April 2026 amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 to introduce a trajectory to gradually decrease the contribution of high indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels to renewable energy targets (C(2026)02306) – 2026/2680(DEA))

– having regard to the Commission delegated regulation (C(2026)02306),

– having regard to Rule 114(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas Directive (EU) 2018/2001 establishes a binding Union-wide renewable energy target and, in order to ensure that biofuels counting towards that target deliver genuine climate benefits, introduces a framework to address the risk of indirect land-use change (ILUC), under which feedstocks may be classified as high ILUC-risk and subject to a cap on their contribution to renewable energy targets;

– having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,

A. whereas Directive (EU) 2018/2001, in order to ensure that biofuels counting towards that target deliver genuine benefits, introduces a framework to address the risk of indirect land-use change (ILUC), under which feedstocks may be classified as high ILUC-risk;

B. whereas Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 established the methodology for determining high ILUC-risk feedstocks, explicitly requiring, in Article 3 thereof, that the assessment be based on data ‘since 2008’, and setting a threshold of 10 % expansion into high-carbon stock land above which a feedstock is classified as high ILUC-risk; whereas, applying that methodology and that baseline, the Commission’s 2019 report found soybean’s share of expansion into high-carbon stock land to be 8 %, which is below the qualifying threshold, meaning soybean was not classified as high ILUC-risk;

G. whereas the updated scientific data underlying the soy classification does not account for double-cropping practices in soybean cultivation, whereby soy is grown as a second crop on land already used for a primary crop within the same calendar year; whereas this methodological gap results in an overstatement of soybean production area expansion and consequently inflates soybean’s calculated share of expansion into high-carbon stock land;

H. whereas the updated scientific data also raises concerns regarding the classification of Brazil’s Cerrado savanna as high-carbon stock land; whereas the Cerrado presents highly heterogeneous carbon stock characteristics; whereas an inaccurate classification of Cerrado land as high-carbon stock land would further inflate the measured ILUC risk attributed to soybean production;

H. whereas the ILUC risk associated with soybean cultivation is geographically concentrated in South American production; whereas soybean cultivation within the Union does not drive the deforestation or land conversion that the ILUC framework is designed to address; whereas the Commission has provided no evidence demonstrating that soybean cultivation within the Union causes ILUC; whereas, in the absence of such evidence, the classification of soybean produced in the Union as high ILUC-risk lacks a sufficient scientific basis; whereas applying a globally undifferentiated high ILUC-risk classification to soybean, irrespective of its geographic origin, is disproportionate and imposes a burden on Union producers for land-use change emissions for which they bear no responsibility;

I. whereas the ILUC risk associated with soybean cultivation is geographically concentrated in South American production; whereas soybean cultivation within the Union does not drive the deforestation or land conversion that the ILUC framework is designed to address; whereas the Commission has provided no evidence demonstrating that soybean cultivation within the Union causes ILUC; whereas, in the absence of such evidence, the classification of soybean produced in the Union as high ILUC-risk lacks a sufficient scientific basis; whereas applying a globally undifferentiated high ILUC-risk classification to soybean, irrespective of its geographic origin, is disproportionate and imposes a burden on Union producers for land-use change emissions for which they bear no responsibility;

I. whereas the Commission’s Vision for Agriculture and Food stresses the need to create a more self-sufficient Union protein system; whereas the Union produces only approximately 6 % of the soybean it consumes, making the Union heavily import-dependent; whereas the Commission’s announced EU Protein Plan and its stated objectives, together with the open strategic autonomy objectives, aim notably to expand domestic soybean cultivation in order to reduce that dependence; whereas the biofuel market constitutes a key economic driver for soybean cultivation in the Union and for the Union’s soy crushing sector; whereas the classification of soybean as high ILUC-risk removes that market incentive and directly contradicts the objectives of the EU Protein Plan and the Union’s strategic autonomy goals;

J. whereas the Commission’s Vision for Agriculture and Food stresses the need to create a more self-sufficient Union protein system; whereas the Union produces only approximately 6 % of the soybean it consumes, making the Union heavily import-dependent; whereas the Commission’s announced EU Protein Plan and its stated objectives, together with the open strategic autonomy objectives, aim notably to expand domestic soybean cultivation in order to reduce that dependence; whereas the biofuel market constitutes a key economic driver for soybean cultivation in the Union and for the Union’s soy crushing sector; whereas the classification of soybean as high ILUC-risk removes that market incentive and directly contradicts the objectives of the EU Protein Plan and the Union’s strategic autonomy goals;

J. whereas soy crushing produces both soybean meal, which constitutes the dominant product and an essential source of animal feed protein, and soybean oil, which represents only approximately 20 % of the soybean seed and is used inter alia as a biofuel feedstock; whereas the principal economic driver of soybean cultivation and processing is the demand for soybean meal for animal feed rather than the use of soybean oil in biofuels; whereas attributing the expansion dynamics of soybean cultivation primarily to soybean oil used in biofuels therefore misrepresents the economic reality of the sector and overstates the ILUC impact linked to soy biodiesel; whereas the devaluation of soybean oil through the loss of its biofuel market outlet will deteriorate crush margins and reduce the economic viability of domestic soy crushing; whereas this would force the Union to replace up to 4,8 million tonnes of domestically produced soybean meal with third-country imports, increasing protein import dependency, raising feed costs and shifting value-creating industrial activity outside the Union; whereas the estimated economic consequences for the sector amount to approximately EUR 36 million in losses for Union soy farmers, EUR 120 million for Union crushers, and up to EUR 1,3 billion for the Union biodiesel industry;

K. whereas soy crushing produces both soybean meal, which constitutes the dominant product and an essential source of animal feed protein, and soybean oil, which represents only approximately 20 % of the soybean seed and is used inter alia as a biofuel feedstock; whereas the principal economic driver of soybean cultivation and processing is the demand for soybean meal for animal feed rather than the use of soybean oil in biofuels; whereas attributing the expansion dynamics of soybean cultivation primarily to soybean oil used in biofuels therefore misrepresents the economic reality of the sector and overstates the ILUC impact linked to soy biodiesel; whereas the devaluation of soybean oil through the loss of its biofuel market outlet will deteriorate crush margins and reduce the economic viability of domestic soy crushing; whereas this would force the Union to replace up to 4,8 million tonnes of domestically produced soybean meal with third-country imports, increasing protein import dependency, raising feed costs and shifting value-creating industrial activity outside the Union; whereas the estimated economic consequences for the sector amount to approximately EUR 36 million in losses for Union soy farmers, EUR 120 million for Union crushers, and up to EUR 1,3 billion for the Union biodiesel industry;

K. whereas soybean is a nitrogen-fixing crop that reduces dependency on chemical nitrogen fertilisers and contributes positively to crop rotation and soil health; whereas discouraging EU soybean cultivation would increase the Union’s dependency on imported chemical fertilisers, contrary to the Union’s fertiliser supply chain resilience objectives, which have acquired greater urgency in the context of supply disruptions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine;

L. whereas soybean is a nitrogen-fixing crop that reduces dependency on chemical nitrogen fertilisers and contributes positively to crop rotation and soil health; whereas discouraging EU soybean cultivation would increase the Union’s dependency on imported chemical fertilisers, contrary to the Union’s fertiliser supply chain resilience objectives, which have acquired greater urgency in the context of supply disruptions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine;

L. whereas the Clean Industrial Deal calls for a competitive, decarbonised industrial economy supported by a broad and diversified range of clean fuels and feedstocks; whereas reducing the available biofuel feedstock basket by removing soybean narrows the Union’s supply base for the decarbonisation of the transport sector, increases price volatility and supply vulnerability, and is inconsistent with the technology-neutral and supply-secure approach that Union’s competitiveness objectives require;

Μ. whereas the Clean Industrial Deal calls for a competitive, decarbonised industrial economy supported by a broad and diversified range of clean fuels and feedstocks; whereas reducing the available biofuel feedstock basket by removing soybean narrows the Union’s supply base for the decarbonisation of the transport sector, increases price volatility and supply vulnerability, and is inconsistent with the technology-neutral and supply-secure approach that Union’s competitiveness objectives require;

M. whereas the Competitiveness Compass identifies the reduction of strategic dependencies and the reinforcement of Union’s industrial and processing capacity as core Union priorities; whereas the classification of soybean as high ILUC-risk increases, rather than reduces, the Union’s strategic dependencies in both the protein and the biofuel sectors;

Ν. whereas the Competitiveness Compass identifies the reduction of strategic dependencies and the reinforcement of Union’s industrial and processing capacity as core Union priorities; whereas the classification of soybean as high ILUC-risk increases, rather than reduces, the Union’s strategic dependencies in both the protein and the biofuel sectors;

1. Objects to the Commission delegated regulation;

(b) the methodology should be updated to fully account for double-cropping practices in soybean cultivation, so that the expansion of the soybean production area and the calculated share of expansion into high-carbon stock land accurately reflect real land-use change dynamics;

(c) the carbon stock classification of Brazil’s Cerrado savanna should be reviewed and revised where appropriate, in order to ensure that the ILUC-risk threshold calculation for soybean is not distorted by the misclassification of heterogeneous savanna land as high-carbon stock land;

(c) for soybean produced within the Union, or in third countries with equivalent and verified standards regarding land-use and deforestation monitoring, provision should be made for its recognition as low ILUC-risk, with the consequent exclusion from the phase-down trajectory, on the basis that such production does not drive the land-use change that the ILUC framework is intended to address;

(d) for soybean produced within the Union, or in third countries with equivalent and verified standards regarding land-use and deforestation monitoring, provision should be made for its recognition as low ILUC-risk, with the consequent exclusion from the phase-down trajectory, on the basis that such production does not drive the land-use change that the ILUC framework is intended to address.

(d) affirms that it does not object to the phase-down of palm oil-based biofuels or to the correction of deficiencies in the low ILUC-risk certification procedure, which constitute appropriate and necessary responses to the WTO Panel ruling and should be retained in any revised delegated act;

(e) affirms that it does not object to the phase-down of palm oil-based biofuels or to the correction of deficiencies in the low ILUC-risk certification procedure, which constitute appropriate and necessary responses to the WTO Panel ruling and should be retained in any revised delegated act;

4. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.