242
mandates or subsidies, which may instead worsen market imbalances caused by
highly distortionary biofuel promotion policies.
Expanded trade, including through liberalization of trade restrictions, does not
necessarily enhance sustainability either. Particularly in most Asian countries, there
appears to be little room to increase land devoted to biofuel production without
deforestation or shifting from the production of food crops, so a significant increase
in production may be associated with significant risks of reduced sustainability.
Therefore, from the standpoint of biofuel-producing countries, to increase exports
significantly would risk reducing sustainability of biofuel production by stimulating
it beyond the limits of sustainability. Likewise, if the sustainability of production in
an exporting country were to decline, the sustainability of the energy use of the
importing country would also worsen rather than increase. This problem was illustrated in the debate over the EU’s blending mandate in the 2000s. At that time, it was
expected that imports from Indonesia and other places would help it to meet ambitious mandates, but as an increasing number of studies raised serious doubts about
the policy’s likely impacts on sustainability, particularly the risk of deforestation,
the EU suspended and finally canceled the policy’s implementation and shifted to a
more modest mandate combined with sustainability standards. By the same token,
trade protection for domestic biofuel producers might enhance sustainability by
restraining the scale of production to more sustainable levels.
14.6 Sustainability Standards
Various efforts have been made to develop sustainability standards and certification
systems for biofuels in order to enhance their sustainability (Dam et al. 2008). They
give producers a chance to demonstrate it on a case-by-case basis. However, by
themselves, they cannot create new land or other resources such as water. Moreover,
it is too early to assess their potential effectiveness, as they have not been extensively implemented.
At the time of writing, there were no officially recognized global or regional
biofuel sustainability standards. An international dialogue on sustainability criteria
and the development of transparent and harmonized standards and certification
schemes was held through various frameworks. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm
Oil (RSPO) and Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) are commodity-based
Table 14.8 Bioethanol and
biodiesel import tariffs
Country
Ethanol ($/L)
a
Biodiesel ($/L)
b
Australia
$0.24
na
Brazil
$0.70
na
Canada
$0.50
na
EU
$0.10
Ad valorem duty of 6.5%
Japan
$0
na
USA
$0.14
$ 0.26
a
IEA
b Swinbank (2009)
M. Elder and S. Hayashi
mandates or subsidies, which may instead worsen market imbalances caused by
highly distortionary biofuel promotion policies.
Expanded trade, including through liberalization of trade restrictions, does not
necessarily enhance sustainability either. Particularly in most Asian countries, there
appears to be little room to increase land devoted to biofuel production without
deforestation or shifting from the production of food crops, so a significant increase
in production may be associated with significant risks of reduced sustainability.
Therefore, from the standpoint of biofuel-producing countries, to increase exports
significantly would risk reducing sustainability of biofuel production by stimulating
it beyond the limits of sustainability. Likewise, if the sustainability of production in
an exporting country were to decline, the sustainability of the energy use of the
importing country would also worsen rather than increase. This problem was illustrated in the debate over the EU’s blending mandate in the 2000s. At that time, it was
expected that imports from Indonesia and other places would help it to meet ambitious mandates, but as an increasing number of studies raised serious doubts about
the policy’s likely impacts on sustainability, particularly the risk of deforestation,
the EU suspended and finally canceled the policy’s implementation and shifted to a
more modest mandate combined with sustainability standards. By the same token,
trade protection for domestic biofuel producers might enhance sustainability by
restraining the scale of production to more sustainable levels.
14.6 Sustainability Standards
Various efforts have been made to develop sustainability standards and certification
systems for biofuels in order to enhance their sustainability (Dam et al. 2008). They
give producers a chance to demonstrate it on a case-by-case basis. However, by
themselves, they cannot create new land or other resources such as water. Moreover,
it is too early to assess their potential effectiveness, as they have not been extensively implemented.
At the time of writing, there were no officially recognized global or regional
biofuel sustainability standards. An international dialogue on sustainability criteria
and the development of transparent and harmonized standards and certification
schemes was held through various frameworks. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm
Oil (RSPO) and Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) are commodity-based
Table 14.8 Bioethanol and
biodiesel import tariffs
Country
Ethanol ($/L)
a
Biodiesel ($/L)
b
Australia
$0.24
na
Brazil
$0.70
na
Canada
$0.50
na
EU
$0.10
Ad valorem duty of 6.5%
Japan
$0
na
USA
$0.14
$ 0.26
a
IEA
b Swinbank (2009)
M. Elder and S. Hayashi