114
8.5.6 Policy Implications
Considering the limitation of feedstock production and the state of ethanol production technologies, it seems reasonable to maintain the modest introduction target. In
the area of revitalization of local economies through the promotion of biofuels,
decisions on the location of cultivation and the choices of energy crop species are
crucial. For a sound material-cycle society to be realized, although secondgeneration biofuel production technologies to utilize rice straw and unutilized
woody biomass are being advanced, further development is necessary to reduce
production costs and make them commercially viable. In addition, developing efficient collection systems including small-scale waste generators is crucial. Finally,
setting appropriate sustainability criteria would be especially important in Japan as
it needs to import ethanol from overseas to meet the introduction targets.
8.6 Conclusion
Major biofuel promotion policies in the case study countries started from the mid2000s and had largely similar objectives, although with different emphases. All four
countries emphasized rural development, but Japan placed comparatively more
emphasis on the goal of reducing GHG emissions, while the other three countries
placed more emphasis on energy security. Somewhat surprisingly, several major
aspects of biofuel policies converged among the four countries, despite significant
differences in their situations. The initial biofuel targets set by Indonesia and India
were overambitious, but these countries have since backed off of these targets, while
those of Japan and China were more conservative from the early stages. Partly, this
reflected the now widespread sensitivity among governments about the potential for
biofuels to cause a food–fuel conflict. The governments of all four countries have
been very sensitive to this issue. Biofuel promotion policies in Indonesia and India
in particular tended to focus on promoting specific biofuel feedstocks, but later all
four countries recognized that overdependence on one or a few feedstocks is not
desirable. In all cases, the biofuel boom of the 2000s was supported by high oil
prices, and the subsequent oil price fall and global financial crisis severely harmed
the economic viability of biofuels. Nevertheless, governments of all four countries,
albeit to different extents, have engaged in research and testing of alternative feedstocks and second-generation biofuels. Finally, all four countries have recognized
the limitations of biofuels for energy security and placed more emphasis on their
potential to contribute to rural development.
Biofuels may have some potential to contribute to rural development, even in
developed countries such as Japan. However, the case studies in China, India, and
Indonesia showed that biofuels are not likely to be a “miracle solution” to promote
rapid rural development, and the idea of growing nonfood crops on wastelands is
too good to be true. Much “wasteland” would need significant inputs of fertilizer
M. Elder et al.
8.5.6 Policy Implications
Considering the limitation of feedstock production and the state of ethanol production technologies, it seems reasonable to maintain the modest introduction target. In
the area of revitalization of local economies through the promotion of biofuels,
decisions on the location of cultivation and the choices of energy crop species are
crucial. For a sound material-cycle society to be realized, although secondgeneration biofuel production technologies to utilize rice straw and unutilized
woody biomass are being advanced, further development is necessary to reduce
production costs and make them commercially viable. In addition, developing efficient collection systems including small-scale waste generators is crucial. Finally,
setting appropriate sustainability criteria would be especially important in Japan as
it needs to import ethanol from overseas to meet the introduction targets.
8.6 Conclusion
Major biofuel promotion policies in the case study countries started from the mid2000s and had largely similar objectives, although with different emphases. All four
countries emphasized rural development, but Japan placed comparatively more
emphasis on the goal of reducing GHG emissions, while the other three countries
placed more emphasis on energy security. Somewhat surprisingly, several major
aspects of biofuel policies converged among the four countries, despite significant
differences in their situations. The initial biofuel targets set by Indonesia and India
were overambitious, but these countries have since backed off of these targets, while
those of Japan and China were more conservative from the early stages. Partly, this
reflected the now widespread sensitivity among governments about the potential for
biofuels to cause a food–fuel conflict. The governments of all four countries have
been very sensitive to this issue. Biofuel promotion policies in Indonesia and India
in particular tended to focus on promoting specific biofuel feedstocks, but later all
four countries recognized that overdependence on one or a few feedstocks is not
desirable. In all cases, the biofuel boom of the 2000s was supported by high oil
prices, and the subsequent oil price fall and global financial crisis severely harmed
the economic viability of biofuels. Nevertheless, governments of all four countries,
albeit to different extents, have engaged in research and testing of alternative feedstocks and second-generation biofuels. Finally, all four countries have recognized
the limitations of biofuels for energy security and placed more emphasis on their
potential to contribute to rural development.
Biofuels may have some potential to contribute to rural development, even in
developed countries such as Japan. However, the case studies in China, India, and
Indonesia showed that biofuels are not likely to be a “miracle solution” to promote
rapid rural development, and the idea of growing nonfood crops on wastelands is
too good to be true. Much “wasteland” would need significant inputs of fertilizer
M. Elder et al.