Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Sustainability Standards and Certification

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainable Development of Biofuels in Latin America and the Caribbean

Abstract

Standards have evolved as the major mode of governance for biofuels. In particular, the European Union (EU) policy approach actively employs a variety of voluntary certification standards under its meta-standard in order to safeguard sustainability of its mandated biofuel demand. Advantages and disadvantages of this novel, hybrid governance arrangement have been widely discussed. In order to fully understand the implications of this international governance arrangement, we argue that more research is required to determine the dynamics that evolve in specific contexts as to whether standards come to matter and which. In this chapter, we highlight two macro-level factors of such dynamics—markets and policy—for the geographic focus of this volume: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). The current adoption of standards reflects the production and trade patterns of the region. EU sustainability criteria are most relevant for the biodiesel exporting industry in Argentina, while the US standard for greenhouse gas (GHG) savings influences Brazilian ethanol producers. Showing a tendency to minimal compliance, the current standard adoption in Argentina points at problematic dynamics within the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) governance arrangement. Weak regulatory and policy frameworks may pose barriers to the uptake of certification standards. Especially in LAC, where biofuel production often developed from already existing flex crop industries, biofuel policy is embedded in multiple sectoral policy areas and historical agrarian structures. The EU’s 100 % captive market for certified biofuels is likely to help overcoming this barrier. However, further research is urgently needed as to whether certification in weak policy contexts has complementarity or cosmetic effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): the US state of California takes a different approach, obliging all transport fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of transport fuels by 10 % by 2020. To this end, a cap-and-trade system based on reporting has been imposed (Scarlat and Dallemand 2011). The LCFS defines its own GHG calculation methodology based on a life-cycle approach that includes both direct and indirect land use change impacts.

  2. 2.

    Advanced biofuels made from residues, nonfood cellulosic material, and lignocellulosic material are double-counted, i.e., their contribution against the 10 % target can be considered twice that made by other biofuels.

  3. 3.

    The suggested amendment is expected to pass through the legislative procedure by the end of 2013 (European Parliament 2013).

  4. 4.

    In some Member States, sustainability policies and standards were already in place when the RED was finalized (Scarlat and Dallemand 2011).

  5. 5.

    The 13 schemes are Bonsucro, Ensus, Greenergy, ISCC, NTA 8080, Abengoa RSBA, Red Cert, Red Tractor, RTRS EU RED, RSB EU RED, RSPO EU RED, 2BSvs, and SQC.

  6. 6.

    Abengoa Bioenergia and Greenergy developed certification standards applicable only for their own supply chains (the RED Bioenergy Sustainability Assurance (RBSA) and the Greenergy schemes) and are not included in this discussion.

  7. 7.

    Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Paraguay have GBEP member status, while Chile, El Salvador, and Peru are participating as observers (GBEP 2011).

  8. 8.

    Given existing rulings under the World Trade Organization (WTO; Bernstein and Hannah 2008; Ackrill and Kay 2011), it is noteworthy that sustainability criteria addressing biofuel production (and not biofuel as a product) have not been challenged. However, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia have warned the EU that they may file a complaint (Janssen and Rutz 2011).

  9. 9.

    Spain imported around 1 billion liters in 2011 (Joseph 2012a).

  10. 10.

    As the NTA 8080 scheme has not seen any entities certified in the LAC region at all so far, it has been excluded from this table.

  11. 11.

    For example, Borras et al. (2012) attribute the rapid expansion of these “flex crops” in such diverse countries as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Guatemala to “recent changes in the global food-energy regime” (p. 17).

  12. 12.

    Contrary to patterns in Brazil and elsewhere, expansion of agricultural frontiers into the Argentine Chaco was driven by agri-business directly, not by poor farmers (Tomei et al. 2010).

  13. 13.

    Research that addresses the role of smallholder producers in sustainability governance through certification schemes supports this line of argument. Assessing sustainability certification in tropical agriculture Edwards and Laurance concluded that “current certification schemes select against small-holder producers, because schemes are complex, expensive, and difficult to apply at the scale of just a few hectares” (Edwards and Laurance 2012). Lee et al. (2011) confirm this result for biofuel feedstock production in particular and point out the need to understand and integrate the specific circumstances of small-scale producers as their buy-in is critical for truly sustainable biofuel markets.

  14. 14.

    RSPO, RTRS, and Bonsucro incorporate EU RED criteria as voluntary, complementary modules which, if adapted, have to be fully complied with. RSB and ISCC integrate EU RED in their core principles and criteria, whereas the 2BSvs consists of EU RED criteria only.

  15. 15.

    At the time of writing, the RSB announced the development of a “Low Indirect Impact Biofuels” module (RSB 2013c).

  16. 16.

    Methodologies utilized to estimate GHG emissions also differ. See for example, Hennecke et al. (2012), who compare calculation methodologies accepted under the RED. There is also divergence between the RED and RFS2 (Khatiwada et al. 2012).

  17. 17.

    For more detailed discussion see German and Schoneveld (2011), Guariguata et al. (2011), Scarlat and Dallemand (2011), and van Dam et al. (2010).

  18. 18.

    In addition, the Abengoa company scheme covers EU-RED criteria only and is applicable to Abengoa’s production in Brazil. Red Cert, Red Tractor, SQC, and Ensus—though not applicable for production in the LAC region—are further examples of RED-recognized schemes that do not cover sustainability aspects beyond EU RED.

  19. 19.

    For example, in Brazil, however, energy security and autonomy as well as socioeconomic development were initial goals of deploying a ethanol industry; reducing negative climate change impacts and other environmental objectives were later on added (Guariguata et al. 2011, p. 15).

  20. 20.

    The Forest Code, Lei nº4.771, was established in 1965 and in 2012 modified by Lei nº12.651, though these modifications are disputed and may be decided upon by the Supreme Court. It limits the amount that can be cleared on any plot of land based on a legal requirement that 80 % of each plot in the Amazon must not be deforested and 35 % of native vegetation cover has to be conserved in the Cerrado. The law also regulates use of sensitive landscapes such as riversides, hilltops, and steep slopes. These are called Areas of Permanent Preservation (APP) and are not allowed for agricultural production and expansion (Hospes et al. 2012).

  21. 21.

    The Plan de Vuelo was closely aligned with other regional and global aviation biofuels initiatives that sought to facilitate production chains in adherence with RSB principles (e.g., International Air Transport Association (IATA 2012) and Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (SAFUG 2012)).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany

    Christine Moser & Tina Hildebrandt

  2. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 06511, New Haven, CT, USA

    Robert Bailis

Authors
  1. Christine Moser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tina Hildebrandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Bailis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Moser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA

    Barry D. Solomon

  2. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

    Robert Bailis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moser, C., Hildebrandt, T., Bailis, R. (2014). International Sustainability Standards and Certification. In: Solomon, B., Bailis, R. (eds) Sustainable Development of Biofuels in Latin America and the Caribbean. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9275-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation