8.2 Linking Bioeconomy Policy Strategies to Social Impacts
181
8.2.1 Comparing Energy and Agri-Food Contexts
Brazil, India and Indonesia have experienced rapid growth in energy consumption,
particularly liquid fuels used in transportation. All three have met this demand partly
through oil product imports. However, the degrees of energy self-sufficiency—and,
therefore, vulnerability to external political and economic instability—vary significantly. India and Indonesia have a much higher dependence on oil imports (86%
and 35%, respectively, against 11% in Brazil), which has increased due to stagnant domestic oil production from dwindling reserves in those countries (EPE 2019;
Central Statistics Office 2019; National Energy Council 2019). Brazil, in contrast,
has vast untapped oil reserves and is an importer only due to limited refining infrastructure. This difference has also meant more substantial budget expenditures of the
Asian countries on imports and subsidies. India and Indonesia have, therefore, felt
a much more pressing need to promote oil replacements. Haste may thus be part of
the reason why their biofuel consumption targets initially were overly ambitious and
had to be revised down (see Table 8.1).
Despite their energy needs, the Asian countries have had comparably less room
to develop biofuels due to a more constrained agri-food context. Brazil is the world’s
largest sugar exporter, even though the ethanol industry absorbs more than half
its sugarcane production. Contrastingly, India and Indonesia have comparably tight
sugar supplies and, therefore, limited ability to produce ethanol from cane juice
on a large scale regularly. This sensitivity of supplies explains why the focus has
been on sugarcane molasses (a co-product). Otherwise, the reduction of oil imports
could come at the cost of increased sugar imports. A similar situation is observed
for biodiesel feedstocks and edible oil supplies, though Indonesia is comfortable in
Table 8.1 Biofuel consumption and targets in Brazil, India and Indonesia
Policy timeframes for
biofuel consumption in
2006
Target revisions by 2013 Consumption and targets
as of 2020
Brazil
Fluctuating 18–25%
ethanol (E18-25) blending
in place, plus E100
available; 2% biodiesel
(B2) by 2008 and B5 by
2013
B5 anticipated to 2010.
B10 foreseen for 2020
E27 blending in place, plus
E100 available; B12 in
place, B15 by 2023
India
E10 and B20 by 2012
E5 to be enforced by
June 2013
20% overall biofuels by
2017
Ethanol 5.8% blending in
place; no biodiesel use.
E10 by 2022, E20 and B5
by 2030
Indonesia E5 and B10 by 2010; E15
and B20 by 2025
E10 and B10 by 2020
E15 and B20 by 2025
remains
No ethanol use, though
the aspirational targets
remain in place;
B30 in place, B50
envisaged
181
8.2.1 Comparing Energy and Agri-Food Contexts
Brazil, India and Indonesia have experienced rapid growth in energy consumption,
particularly liquid fuels used in transportation. All three have met this demand partly
through oil product imports. However, the degrees of energy self-sufficiency—and,
therefore, vulnerability to external political and economic instability—vary significantly. India and Indonesia have a much higher dependence on oil imports (86%
and 35%, respectively, against 11% in Brazil), which has increased due to stagnant domestic oil production from dwindling reserves in those countries (EPE 2019;
Central Statistics Office 2019; National Energy Council 2019). Brazil, in contrast,
has vast untapped oil reserves and is an importer only due to limited refining infrastructure. This difference has also meant more substantial budget expenditures of the
Asian countries on imports and subsidies. India and Indonesia have, therefore, felt
a much more pressing need to promote oil replacements. Haste may thus be part of
the reason why their biofuel consumption targets initially were overly ambitious and
had to be revised down (see Table 8.1).
Despite their energy needs, the Asian countries have had comparably less room
to develop biofuels due to a more constrained agri-food context. Brazil is the world’s
largest sugar exporter, even though the ethanol industry absorbs more than half
its sugarcane production. Contrastingly, India and Indonesia have comparably tight
sugar supplies and, therefore, limited ability to produce ethanol from cane juice
on a large scale regularly. This sensitivity of supplies explains why the focus has
been on sugarcane molasses (a co-product). Otherwise, the reduction of oil imports
could come at the cost of increased sugar imports. A similar situation is observed
for biodiesel feedstocks and edible oil supplies, though Indonesia is comfortable in
Table 8.1 Biofuel consumption and targets in Brazil, India and Indonesia
Policy timeframes for
biofuel consumption in
2006
Target revisions by 2013 Consumption and targets
as of 2020
Brazil
Fluctuating 18–25%
ethanol (E18-25) blending
in place, plus E100
available; 2% biodiesel
(B2) by 2008 and B5 by
2013
B5 anticipated to 2010.
B10 foreseen for 2020
E27 blending in place, plus
E100 available; B12 in
place, B15 by 2023
India
E10 and B20 by 2012
E5 to be enforced by
June 2013
20% overall biofuels by
2017
Ethanol 5.8% blending in
place; no biodiesel use.
E10 by 2022, E20 and B5
by 2030
Indonesia E5 and B10 by 2010; E15
and B20 by 2025
E10 and B10 by 2020
E15 and B20 by 2025
remains
No ethanol use, though
the aspirational targets
remain in place;
B30 in place, B50
envisaged