The issue of indirect land use changes (ILUC) caused by the promotion of transport biofuels has attracted considerable attention in recent years. In this paper, we reviewed the current literature on modelling work to estimate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by ILUC of biofuels. We also reviewed the development of ILUC policies in the EU. Our review of past modelling work revealed that most studies employ economic equilibrium modelling and focus on ethanol fuels, especially with maize as feedstock. It also revealed major variation in the results from the models, especially for biodiesel fuels. However, there has been some convergence of results over time, particularly for ethanol from maize, wheat and sugar cane. Our review of EU policy developments showed that the introduction of fuel-specific ILUC factors has been officially suggested by policymakers to deal with the ILUC of biofuels. The values proposed as ILUC factors in the policymaking process in the case of ethanol fuels are generally in line with the results of the latest modelling exercises, in particular for first-generation ethanol fuels from maize and sugar cane, while those for biodiesel fuels are somewhat higher. If the proposed values were introduced into EU policy, no (first-generation) biodiesel fuel would be able to comply with the EU GHG saving requirements. We identified a conflict between the demand from EU policymakers for exact, highly specific values and the capacity of the current models to supply results with that level of precision. We concluded that alternative policy approaches to ILUC factors should be further explored.

In this article we test current knowledge about policy implementation in multilevel governance systems and focus on the debated case of transport biofuels (EU Directive 2003/30/EC). We probe a set of hypotheses in a qualitative comparative analysis, offering a systematic comparison of 10 member states between 2003 and 2006. The findings show that implementation of the EU biofuels policy is a complex phenomenon where combinations of causal conditions, and not single conditions, produce the outcome. Implementation is more likely when three favourable conditions are present, when policy frames and content between EU and national levels match, when a consensual policy style is used and the most important actors are included. These findings are in agreement with previous studies. Non-implementation, on the other hand, is explained by a dichotomy between member states unable to implement because they lack capacity and those member states unwilling to implement even if they can.