The SCL schemes outlined above can be broadly categorised also according to
their commitment and requirements in four main areas: product quality and economic, environmental and social standards. They normally require transparency in
the supply chain and/or in the performance of the organisation (Bracco 2016).
Economic standards usually cover management and business issues, while environmental standards generally address biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use
of land and natural resources. Social requirements are often connected to human
rights or labor rights based on the International Labour Organization (ILO)
standards.
However, more often than not, the effective adoption and implementation of SCL
schemes face important constraints. Some of the main challenges discussed below
include (a) complexity of feedstock value chains, (b) legitimacy; (c) contradiction
between policies in exporting and importing countries and (d) enforcement.
The voluntary schemes approved by the EU are usually set by firms, industrial/
business groups, civil society (e.g. non-governmental organisations, civic participants, community actors), governmental agencies or hybrids of the above. In a way
the EU ‘delegates’ to the voluntary initiatives the responsibility to ensure compliance to sustainability criteria. However, this is often not an easy task considering that
biofuel supply chains are generally long and feedstocks originate from remote areas,
making it difficult to assess and monitor effectively.
At the same time, many SCL schemes and specific criteria face legitimacy issues.
For example, despite the strict targets on GHG emissions (see above), the EU RED
encounters legitimacy problems when attempting to impose social and environmental standards as regulatory requirements due to World Trade Organization (WTO)
regulation. Often, inside the WTO, social and environmental process standards are
considered unfair trade barriers and are not accepted by developing countries (Van
Stappen 2009; FAO 2013). For example, compliance with WTO/GATT regulation
made the European Commission to require form Germany to modify its draft biofuel
policies, which prohibited the import of palm oil and soy-based biodiesel until the
compliance with sustainability criteria was verified (Van Stappen 2009; The
Bioenergy Site News Desk 2009). However, various EU-approved voluntary
schemes, such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the Roundtable
on Responsible Soy (RTRS), the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB),
and Bonsucro, contain requirements relating to the protection and enhancement of
biodiversity, ecosystems and conservation values (Chao et al. 2012; Scarlat and
Dallemand 2011; De Man 2010). Moreover, the EU RED requires the European
Commission to report every 2 years about the impact of biofuels on social sustainability, food prices and ‘wider development issues’ inside and outside the
EU. However, the EU RED does not provide any specific social requirements to
enter the EU market, such as FPIC.
Finally, problems may arise when the recognition of customary rights or the
requirements for the production sites (e.g. avoiding feedstock from high biodiversity/carbon stock areas and peatlands) set by the EU RED or by other SCL schemes
are not recognised under the national law of the target country (or even go against it).
In this case, investors find themselves in a problematic situation, as they cannot in
144
M. Antonelli et al.
their commitment and requirements in four main areas: product quality and economic, environmental and social standards. They normally require transparency in
the supply chain and/or in the performance of the organisation (Bracco 2016).
Economic standards usually cover management and business issues, while environmental standards generally address biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use
of land and natural resources. Social requirements are often connected to human
rights or labor rights based on the International Labour Organization (ILO)
standards.
However, more often than not, the effective adoption and implementation of SCL
schemes face important constraints. Some of the main challenges discussed below
include (a) complexity of feedstock value chains, (b) legitimacy; (c) contradiction
between policies in exporting and importing countries and (d) enforcement.
The voluntary schemes approved by the EU are usually set by firms, industrial/
business groups, civil society (e.g. non-governmental organisations, civic participants, community actors), governmental agencies or hybrids of the above. In a way
the EU ‘delegates’ to the voluntary initiatives the responsibility to ensure compliance to sustainability criteria. However, this is often not an easy task considering that
biofuel supply chains are generally long and feedstocks originate from remote areas,
making it difficult to assess and monitor effectively.
At the same time, many SCL schemes and specific criteria face legitimacy issues.
For example, despite the strict targets on GHG emissions (see above), the EU RED
encounters legitimacy problems when attempting to impose social and environmental standards as regulatory requirements due to World Trade Organization (WTO)
regulation. Often, inside the WTO, social and environmental process standards are
considered unfair trade barriers and are not accepted by developing countries (Van
Stappen 2009; FAO 2013). For example, compliance with WTO/GATT regulation
made the European Commission to require form Germany to modify its draft biofuel
policies, which prohibited the import of palm oil and soy-based biodiesel until the
compliance with sustainability criteria was verified (Van Stappen 2009; The
Bioenergy Site News Desk 2009). However, various EU-approved voluntary
schemes, such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the Roundtable
on Responsible Soy (RTRS), the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB),
and Bonsucro, contain requirements relating to the protection and enhancement of
biodiversity, ecosystems and conservation values (Chao et al. 2012; Scarlat and
Dallemand 2011; De Man 2010). Moreover, the EU RED requires the European
Commission to report every 2 years about the impact of biofuels on social sustainability, food prices and ‘wider development issues’ inside and outside the
EU. However, the EU RED does not provide any specific social requirements to
enter the EU market, such as FPIC.
Finally, problems may arise when the recognition of customary rights or the
requirements for the production sites (e.g. avoiding feedstock from high biodiversity/carbon stock areas and peatlands) set by the EU RED or by other SCL schemes
are not recognised under the national law of the target country (or even go against it).
In this case, investors find themselves in a problematic situation, as they cannot in
144
M. Antonelli et al.