Energy Systems and Technologies for the Coming Century ...

(EC, 2009b), and internationally via a tripartite document between the EU, US andBrazil (Brazil, EU and US, 2009), many doubts remained on methodologicaluncertainties for the calculation of greenhouse gas savings of biofuel usage. Largedebate arose on methodological issues of rebound effects of indirect land use change(Pimentel, 2004; Fehrenbach et al, 2008).While far from the first (or the largest) user of biofuel in transport fuel pools, the EUpush for regulating biofuel sustainability sent signals troughout the world. Theemphasis on GHG lifecycle accounting for different biofuel production pathwaysproduced a level of policy convergence in other important markets. In 2009, theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) published the RenewableFuel Standard 2 (RFS2), which introduced GHG thresholds for the classification ofbiofuels according to their emissions values (REF). At the same time, the Braziliangovernment launched the agroecological zoning initiative, maping carbon andbiodiversity aspects to identify areas which should not serve for expansion ofsugarcane fields.In an attempt to avoid increasing its dependency on foreign energy, the EU seems tohave adopted a technology-focused approach for reducing the need for subsidies on itsdomestically produced biofuels, contrary to a more short-term option of exposing thedomestic market to full international competition (via reduction in prevailing importtariffs). The CAP “health check” from 2009 removed subsidies for energy crops, butthe actual effect is limited since the ceiling for energy payments had long beenreached and most biofuels are produced from dual-usage crops such as cereals and oilseeds (which still receive payments under the normal scheme). By cross-subsidingbiofuels via community support towards cereals and other feedstocks, the marketprices of biofuels are artificially low, at the cost of taxpayers (Kutas et al, 2007). TheRES-D does not promotes flexing import duties as a policy tool for biofuels. Instead,the aim to improve competitiveness is focused on the promotion of advanced biofuels,demonstrated by the double-counting incentive on Art. 21 of the directive, biorefinaryconcepts and incentives for advanced biofuels in the EC 7 th framework program (FP7)(GAIN, 2010; Silveira et al, 2011; Maniatis, 2010).Concluding, the EU biofuel policy was never the fruit of a single law, but a number ofmultisectoral initatives. In addition to the formal directives in 2003 and 2009, theCAP, trade regime (tariffs), fuel standards, sugar subsidies, public opinion andtechnology progress all played a key role in the shaping of the European biofuelspolicy. While market growth is expected to be modest in the coming years,unanswered questions on technology development, land rights, and access toaffordable food will tell whether current targets for 2020 and beyond will be met orneed to be reviewed in light of emerging understanding of the complex interactionsbetween biofuels, socioeconomic and environmental systems.***The authors would like to thank the Swedish Energy Agency, EUBRANEX andUNCTAD for supporting this research. Additionally, our sincere appreciation goes toMr. Lorenzo Di Lucia (Lund University) for valuable comments on a previous draft.Risø International Energy Conference 2011 Proceedings Page 272