Sustainability Issues in Biomass Feedstock Production: A Policy Perspective

  • Jody Endres


Demand for energy biomass has led nongovernmental organizations, industries with interests contrary to biofuels, and even governments to question whether bioenergy policies truly result in environmental and societal improvements befitting of their “bio,” “renewable,” and “green” labels. Environmental concerns range from potential emissions of greenhouse gas emissions from indirect land-use change, in some cases making the footprint of biofuels worse than petroleum. Environmental groups also fear that forests’ fragile ecosystems could be threatened by overharvesting that leads to water pollution and loss of biodiversity and soil productivity. In addition to environmental harms, social advocates predict that biomass production in developing countries could lead to loss of land tenure/rights, and labor and employment abuses. Laws and private standards have evolved in response to these concerns. Challenges remain, however, in implementing biofuels’ sustainability standards, such as enabling farmers to practically and economically use practice and measurement tools, reconciling divergent standards among countries, and solving the seemingly intractable “food versus fuel” dilemma. This chapter examines sustainability requirements for biomass-to-bioenergy that have arisen through the convergence of energy, environmental, agricultural, and forestry policies; examines core “sustainability” definitions in United States, European Union, Brazil, and private policies; and asks how international policy can reconcile meanings of sustainability to foster the nascent bioenergy sector.


Common Agricultural Policy Renewable Portfolio Standard Sustainability Standard Renewable Energy Directive Renewable Fuel Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    U.N. World Commission on Environment & Development (1987) Our Common Future, DurbanGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Endres J (2011) Putting the “Bio” in biomass. The American Bar Association, Natural Resources and Environment, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Searchinger TD, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J et al (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319(5867):1238–1240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costello C, Griffin WM, Landis A, Matthews H (2009) Impact of biofuel crop production on the formation of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Environ Sci Technol 43:7985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (2007) Pub. L. No. 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008) Pub. L. No. 110–246, sec. 9001, § 9011, 122 Stat. 1651, 2089–2093Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biomass Crop Assistance Program (2010) 75 Fed. Reg. 66,202, 66,240 (Oct. 27, 2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cal. Air Res. Bd. (2009) Proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard—staff report: initial statement of reasons, VII-31.
  9. 9.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012) Public release of draft quality assurance requirements. Accessed 31 Oct 2012
  10. 10.
    Emory T (2012) Fraud case show holes in exchange of fuel credits, NY Times 4 Jul 2012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    US EPA (2011) Biofuels and the environment: first triennial report to congress. Accessed Feb 2011
  12. 12.
    Holland A (2012) Ethanol, facing difficult political atmosphere, steps up lobbying activity. ethanol trends insider. Accessed 13 Sept 2012
  13. 13.
    National Chicken Council et al (2010) v. EPA, No. 10–1107, D.C. Cir. Ct. of AppGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    US EPA (2012) Notice of decision regarding requests for a waiver of the renewable fuel standard. Accessed 16 Nov 2012
  15. 15.
    API v. EPA (2013) No. 12–1139, D.C. Cir. Ct. of App. (Jan. 25, 2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Biomass Crop Assistance Program (2010) 75 Fed. Reg. at 66,238, 66,237, 27 Oct 2010Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    7 C.F.R. Sect. 1450.2(b)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    7 C.F.R. Sect. 1450.3(c)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pollans MJ (2010) Bundling public and private goods: the market for sustainable organics. NYU Law Rev 85:628–629Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brunori G, Rand S, Proost J, Barjolle D, Granberg L, Dockes A-C. Towards a conceptual framework for agricultural and rural innovation policies. Insight 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    US Department of Agriculture (USDA). National institute of food and agriculture, extension.
  22. 22.
    Ho MD (2011) Agricultural research, education, and extension: issues and background. congressional research service. Accessed 14 2011
  23. 23.
    Woodward AR (2009) Land-grant university governance: an analysis of board composition and corporate interlocks. Agric Hum Values 26:121–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Knickel K, Brunori G, Rand S, Proost J (2009) Towards a better conceptual framework for innovation processes in agriculture and rural development: from linear models to systemic approaches. J Agric Educ Exten 15:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sorensen A, Doukas J (2010) Policy approaches to energy and resource use in US agriculture. Renew Agric Food Syst 25:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    US EPA (2010) Prevention of significant deterioration and title V greenhouse gas tailoring rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 31514–31618, 3 Jun 2010Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    US EPA (2011) Deferral for CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and title V programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 43490–43508, 20 Jul 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    U.S. EPA (2011) Accounting framework for biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources.$File/Biogenic_CO2_Accounting_Framework_Report_LATEST.pdf. Accessed Sept 2011
  29. 29.
    US EPA (2010) Call for information: information on greenhouse gas emissions associated with bioenergy and other biogenic sources, 75 Fed. Reg. 41173–41177, 15 Jul 2010Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    General Services Administration (2005) Federal acquisition regulation.
  31. 31.
    US EPA (1999) Final guidance on environmentally preferable purchasing.
  32. 32.
    USDA (2012) Guidelines for designating biobased products for federal procurement, 77 Fed. Reg. 25632–25641. Accessed 1 May 2012
  33. 33.
    Cal. Air Res. Bd. Final regulation order, amendments to the regulation for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, 70.
  34. 34.
    Cal. Low carbon fuel standard sustainability workgroup.
  35. 35.
    CAT forest group/inter-agency forest working group, CAL. CLIMATE CHANGE PORTAL.
  36. 36.
    Rocky Mountain Farmers Union et al (2012) v. James N. Goldstene, et al., Nos. 12–15131, 12–15135, U.S. Ct. App. 9th CirGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cal (2009) Energy commission, final regulation language, alternative and renewable fuels and technologies program, CEC-600-2008-013-F, 2 (Apr. 2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    California Pub. Res. Code Sect. 25741(b)(1)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Offset Quality Initiative (2009) Maintaining carbon market integrity. Accessed June 2009
  40. 40.
    Cal (2011) Energy commission, lifecycle assessment of existing and emerging distributed generation technologies in California, CEC-500-2011-001, July 2011Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    North Carolina Utilities Commission (2010) Order accepting registration of renewable energy facilities, Docket No. E-7, Sub 939, 11 Oct 2010Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Title 17 Cal. Code Reg., Subchapter 10, Climate Change, Article 5, Sect. 95852.2Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force.
  44. 44.
    Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Ctr., 133 S.Ct. 1326 (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    USDA (2012) National forest system land management planning: final rule and record of decision, 77 Fed. Reg. 21162–21276. Accessed 6 Apr 2012
  46. 46.
    Nylen NG (2011) To achieve biodiversity goals, the new forest service planning rule needs effective mandates for best available science and adaptive management. Ecol Law Q 38:241, 266–269Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (2003) Pub. L. No. 108–148, 117 Stat. 1887. Accessed 3 Dec 2003
  48. 48.
    Davis J (2004) The healthy forests initiative: unhealthy policy choices in forest and fire management. Environ Law 34:1209Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    SDA, USDOE, and USDOI (2003) Memorandum of understanding on policy principles for woody biomass utilization for restoration and fuel treatments on forests, woodlands, and rangelands.
  50. 50.
    USDA (2008) Woody biomass utilization strategy. Accessed Feb 2008
  51. 51.
  52. 52.
    NACD. Woody biomass desk guide and toolkit,
  53. 53.
    Pinchot Institute (2007) National forest certification study.
  54. 54.
    Arnold & Porter LLP (2012) Interpreting The Lacey Act’s “Due Care” Standard after the Settlement of the Gibson Guitar Environmental Enforcement Case.
  55. 55.
    Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (2010) Biomass sustainability and carbon policy study.
  56. 56.
    Massachusetts Department of Energy Regulation (DOER) (2012) Renewable energy portfolio standard–class I, 225 Code of Mass. Reg. 14.02.
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
    Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) (2012) Ch. 132–MA Forest Cutting Practices Act.
  59. 59.
    European Renewable Energy Directive (RED) (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC, O.J. L140/16, 3 (5 Jun 2009)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Directive 2009/30/EC, O.J. L 140/88 (9) (23 Apr 2011)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Council Regulation 73/2009/EC O.J. L 30 (19 Jan 2009)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Goetz SJ, Brouwer F (2010) New perspectives on agri-environmental policies: a multidisciplinary and transatlantic approach. Routledge, Abingdon UKGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Juraite J, Kažukauskas A (2011) The effect of mandatory agro-environmental policy on farm environmental performance. CERE Working Paper 14:5–6.
  64. 64.
    Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), 1698/2005/EC, O.J. L. 277/1, Art. 39 (20 Sep 2005)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Council Regulation 74/2009/EC, O.J. L. 30/100 (19 Jan 2009)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bergschmidt A, Nitsch H, Osterburg B (2003) Good Farming Practice–definitions, implementation, experiences. Institute of Farm Economics and Rural Studies, Braunschweig, Germany.
  67. 67.
    Council Directive concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, 91/676/EEC, O.J. L. 375/1, Annex III (12 Dec 1991)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    European Commission, Report from the Commission, Implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, Synthesis from year 2000 Member States Reports, COM (2002) 407 final, at 17–22Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Endres J (2011) Agriculture at a crossroads: energy biomass standards and a new sustainability paradigm? Ill Law Rev 2011:503–522Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Council Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, 1782/2003/EC, O.J. L. 270/1, Art. 13 (29 Sep 2003)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    ADE (2009) Evaluation of the implementation of the farm advisory system.
  72. 72.
    Fischer G, Prieler S, van Velthuizen HT, Lensink SM, Londo M, de Wit M (2010) Biofuel production potentials in Europe: sustainable use of cultivated land and pastures, Part I: land productivity potentials. Biomass Bioenergy 24:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ingram J, Morris C (2007) The knowledge challenge within the transition towards sustainable soil management: an analysis of agricultural advisors in England. Land Use Policy 24:100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on sustainability requirements for the use of solid and gaseous biomass sources in electricity, heating and cooling, SEC(2010) 65 final (25 Feb 2011)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    European Commission (2011) Open consultation on the preparation of a report on additional sustainability measures at EU level for solid and gaseous biomass used in electricity, heating and cooling (1 Feb 2011)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    European Commission Directorate-General for Energy, Results of the public consultation on additional sustainability measures at EU level for solid and gaseous biomass used in electricity, heating and cooling (Jul 2011)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cordonnier VM (2008) Ethanol’s roots: how Brazilian legislation created the international ethanol boom. William Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 33:287Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Zoneamento Agroecológico da Cana-de-Açúcar (Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, and Sustenance, Zoning of Sugar Cane), Documentos 110 (Sep 2009). (ZAE-CANA)
  79. 79.
    Decree n. 6961 (17 Sep 2009)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Goes T et al (2011) Sugarcane in Brazil: current technologic stage and perspectives. Revista de Política Agrícola 62Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    de Gouvello C (2010) Brazil low-carbon country case study, 33. Accessed 31 May 2010
  82. 82.
    Teixeira de Andrade RM, Miccolis A (2011) Policies and institutional and legal frameworks in the expansion of Brazilian Biofuels. CIFOR Work Paper 71:15Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    CONAMA-Natl. Envt. Council Resolution no. 237, Annex I (19 Dec 1997)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lima LH, Magrini A (2010) The Brazilian Audit Tribunal’s role in improving the federal environmental licensing process. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Protocolo De Intenções Pela Responsibilidade Socioambiental Que Entre Si Celebram O Ministério Do Meio Ambiente, O Banco Nacional De Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social-BNDES, A Caixa Econômica Federal, o Banco Do Brasil S.A., O Banco Da Amazônia S.A., e o Banco Do Nordeste Do Brasil-BNB (Protocol of Intent for Socio-environmental Responsibility Between the Minister of the Environment and the National Economic and Social Development Bank (BNDES), the Federal Economic Account, the Bank of Brazil, the Bank of the Amazon, and the Bank of the Northeast (BNB)) (2008).
  86. 86.
    Brannstrom C, Rausch L, Brown JC, Marson R, De Andrade T, Miccolis A (2011) Compliance and market exclusion in Brazilian agriculture: analysis and implications for “soft” governance. Land Use Policy 29:357–366Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Protocolo de Cooperação que Celebram Entre Si, o Governo do Estado de São Paulo, A Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente, a Secretaria de Estado da Agricultura e Abastemcimento e a União da Agroindústria Canaveira de São Paulo Para a Adoçao de Açoes Destinadas a Consolidar o Desenvolimento Sustentável da Indústria da Cana-de-Açucar no Estado de São Paulo (Voluntary Agreement Between the State of São Paulo, the São Paulo State Secretary of Environment, the São Paulo State Secretary of Agriculture and Supply, and the Union of Agro-Industrial Cane Production of São Paulo) (4 Jun 2007).
  88. 88.
    Schaffel SB, La Rovere EL (2010) The quest for eco-social efficiency in biofuels production in Brazil. J Clean Prod 18:1663, 1667–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Politica Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima—PNMC (2009) Federal Law 12,187/2009 (Dec. 2009) (National Climate Change Plan)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Centner TJ (2008) Courts and the EPA interpret NPDES general permit requirements for CAFOs. Environ Law 38:1215–1238Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Endres JM, Grossman MR (2004) Air emissions from animal feeding operations: can state rules help? Penn St Environ Law Rev 13:1Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Law 11.097/05Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    European Commission. Biofuels—sustainability regimes.
  94. 94.
    Scarlat N, Dallemand J (2001) Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: a global overview. Energy Policy 39:1630–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Council for Sustainable Biomass Production.
  96. 96.
    Amer. Soybean Assoc. (2011) ASA expresses concerns about EU renewable energy directive to USDA and USTR. Accessed 9 Mar 2011
  97. 97.
    Argentina (2013) European Union and certain member states—certain measures on the importation and marketing of biodiesel and measures supporting the biodiesel industry: request for consultations by Argentina. World Trade Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Young T (2008). Biofuel producers warn EU over “unjustifiably complex” sustainability rules, businessGreen. Accessed 7 Nov 2008
  99. 99.
    Schubert R, Blasch J (2010) Sustainability standards for bioenergy—a means to reduce climate change risks? Energy Policy 38:2797–2803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Kaphengst T, Ma MS, Schlegel S (2009) At a tipping point? How the debate on biofuel standards sparks innovative ideas for the general future of standardization and certification schemes. J Clean Prod 71:S99–S101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Biggest spike ever in global warming gases: US, International Herald Tribute 2011 Nov 6Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Int’l Ctr. For Trade & Sustain. Develop., Brazil’s Call for Biofuel Liberalisation Causes Stir in Envt’l Goods Talks (10 Oct 2007).
  103. 103.
    Endres JM (2010) Clearing the air: the meta-standard approach to ensuring biofuels environmental and social sustainability. V Environ Law Rev 28:73, 108–111Google Scholar
  104. 104.
  105. 105.
    Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), About the Partnership.
  106. 106.
    Global Bioenergy Partnership (2011) Sustainability indicators for bioenergy. Accessed Dec 2011
  107. 107.
    Global Bioenergy Partnership (2010) The global bioenergy partnership common methodological framework for GHG lifecycle analysis of bioenergy, 4. Accessed 1 Oct 2010
  108. 108.
    Amer. Farm Bur. Fed. et al (2011) v. U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, No. 11–67, Middle Dist. PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Palmujoki E (2009) Global principles for sustainable biofuel production and trade. Int Environ Agreements 9:135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
  111. 111.
    Clapp J (2001/2002) ISO Environmental standards: industry’s gift to a polluted globe or the developed world’s competition-killing strategy? In: Stokke OS, Thommessen OB (eds) Yearbook of international co-operation on environmental and development p 30. Abingdon UKGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Cheshire L, Lawrence G (2005) Re-shaping the state: global/local networks of association and the governing of agricultural production. In: Higgins V, Lawrence G (eds) Agricultural governance: globalization and the new politics of regulation. Abingdon, Routedge, p 37Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Esty DC (2006) Good governance at the supranational scale: globalizing administrative law. Yale Law J 115:1490–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2012) Development programme, and environmental programme, U.N. REDD programme social and environmental principles and criteria. Accessed Mar 2012
  115. 115.
  116. 116.
  117. 117.
    New ICAO Council High-Level Group to Focus On Environmental Policy Challenges, COM 20/12.
  118. 118.
    US Department of Energy (2006) Breaking biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol, iii. Accessed June 2006
  119. 119.
    US EPA (2012) Notice of decision regarding requests for waiver of the renewable fuel standard. Accessed 16 Nov 2012
  120. 120.
    BP (2012) BP cancels plan for US cellulosic ethanol plant. Accessed 25 Oct 2012
  121. 121.
    Corn & Soybean Digest (2010) Btus from biomass–what’s next? Accessed 1 Aug 2010
  122. 122.
    Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels, Indirect Impacts of biofuel production and the RSB Standard, 15 May 2012Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Wiegmann K, Hennenberg KJ, Uwe R, Fritsche UR (2008) Degraded land and sustainable bioenergy feedstock production: issue paper 1, 2.2.
  124. 124.
    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, COM (2012) 595, at 8 (17 Oct 2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental SciencesThe University of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations