244
14.7 Conclusion
Overall, current modest levels of biofuel use in Asian countries may be feasible, but
it is likely to be practically quite difficult for biofuels to account for a large share of
transport fuel use of 20% or more. Some Asian countries established blending mandates of 5–10% of transport fuel, but even these levels will be very difficult to meet
with domestic production.
It is not clear where new large-scale production can come from. Waste or agricultural residue may be potential sources, but there are various problems in accessing
them. Some new land may be available, but it is not always clear where, and even if
land can be found, it is not likely to be on a very large scale. In order to devote largescale additional land to biofuel production, it would probably be necessary to divert
food production or convert forestland. Productivity gains may help some, but many
Asian countries may still experience population increases in the coming years, and
some land and agricultural productivity increase will need to be devoted to increasing food crops and living space.
Some countries may need to meet their targets through imports, if the targets are
strictly enforced. But it is not necessarily clear where large-scale imports could
come from. The major global producers, the USA and Brazil, also reserve the bulk
of their production for domestic use, and export volumes are unstable. Brazil’s
export potential is not necessarily enough to meet every country’s blending mandate
shortfall. Most countries are not strictly enforcing their blending mandates, so a
“scramble” for imports has not occurred. But if many countries were to simultaneously enforce strict mandates, a scramble for imports could result.
Sustainability standards could be useful to discourage unsustainable production
practices. The standards would be more effective if they are mandated by governments and need a robust certification system. However, standards themselves cannot
create additional land or other resources.
Smaller-scale production based on individual local circumstances to promote
rural development or address waste problems may be more realistic. However, without scale economies, the costs will be relatively high, and the contribution to energy
security and GHG reduction will be modest. In any case, it seems better for each
country to pursue its own strategy tailored to its individual circumstances and local
conditions.
References
Al-Riffai P et al (2010) European Union and United States biofuel mandates: impacts on world
markets. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC
Dam JV et al (2008) Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification.
Biomass Bioenergy 32:749–780, IEA Bioenergy Task 40 special issue
de Fraiture C, Giordano M, Liao Y (2008) Biofuels and implications for agricultural water use:
blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy 10(Supplement 1):67–81
M. Elder and S. Hayashi
14.7 Conclusion
Overall, current modest levels of biofuel use in Asian countries may be feasible, but
it is likely to be practically quite difficult for biofuels to account for a large share of
transport fuel use of 20% or more. Some Asian countries established blending mandates of 5–10% of transport fuel, but even these levels will be very difficult to meet
with domestic production.
It is not clear where new large-scale production can come from. Waste or agricultural residue may be potential sources, but there are various problems in accessing
them. Some new land may be available, but it is not always clear where, and even if
land can be found, it is not likely to be on a very large scale. In order to devote largescale additional land to biofuel production, it would probably be necessary to divert
food production or convert forestland. Productivity gains may help some, but many
Asian countries may still experience population increases in the coming years, and
some land and agricultural productivity increase will need to be devoted to increasing food crops and living space.
Some countries may need to meet their targets through imports, if the targets are
strictly enforced. But it is not necessarily clear where large-scale imports could
come from. The major global producers, the USA and Brazil, also reserve the bulk
of their production for domestic use, and export volumes are unstable. Brazil’s
export potential is not necessarily enough to meet every country’s blending mandate
shortfall. Most countries are not strictly enforcing their blending mandates, so a
“scramble” for imports has not occurred. But if many countries were to simultaneously enforce strict mandates, a scramble for imports could result.
Sustainability standards could be useful to discourage unsustainable production
practices. The standards would be more effective if they are mandated by governments and need a robust certification system. However, standards themselves cannot
create additional land or other resources.
Smaller-scale production based on individual local circumstances to promote
rural development or address waste problems may be more realistic. However, without scale economies, the costs will be relatively high, and the contribution to energy
security and GHG reduction will be modest. In any case, it seems better for each
country to pursue its own strategy tailored to its individual circumstances and local
conditions.
References
Al-Riffai P et al (2010) European Union and United States biofuel mandates: impacts on world
markets. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC
Dam JV et al (2008) Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification.
Biomass Bioenergy 32:749–780, IEA Bioenergy Task 40 special issue
de Fraiture C, Giordano M, Liao Y (2008) Biofuels and implications for agricultural water use:
blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy 10(Supplement 1):67–81
M. Elder and S. Hayashi