EU and U.S. Policies on Biofuels: Potential Impacts on Developing Countries

8/8/2019 EU and U.S. Policies on Biofuels: Potential Impacts on Developing Countries

1/32

EU and U.S. PoliciESon BiofUElS:

PotEntial imPactSon

dEvEloPing coUntriES

Marcos J. Jank

Graldine Kutas

Luiz Fernando do Amaral

Andr M. Nassar


2/32

2007 The German Marshall Fund o the United States. All rights reserved.

No part o this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any orm or by any means without permission

in writing rom the German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:

The German Marshall Fund o the United States

1744 R Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

T 1 202 745 3950

F 1 202 265 1662

E [email protected]

This publication can be downloaded or ree at http://www.gmus.org/publications/index.cm. Limited print

copies are also available. To request a copy, send an e-mail to [email protected].

GMF Paper Series

The GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety o transatlantic topics by sta, ellows, and partners o the

German Marshall Fund o the United States. The views expressed here are those o the author and do not neces-

sarily represent the view o GMF. Comments rom readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by

e-mail to [email protected].

About GMF

The German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grant-making institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between the United States

and Europe.

GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders

to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can

address a variety o global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number o initiatives to strengthen

democracies.

Founded in 1972 through a git rom Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF

maintains a strong presence on both sides o the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC,

GMF has six ofces in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, and Ankara.


3/32

EU and U.S. Policies on Biouels:Potential Impacts on Developing Countries1

C:

M S. Jk

P, I I N (ICONE)

A:

G K

R, G E M S P (GEM)

Lz F A

R, I I N (ICONE)

A M. N

G M, I I N (ICONE)

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B y EU U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. E U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.. EU b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

..2 P b . . . . . . . . . . . 7

..3 EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

..4 P b . . . . . . . . . . 8

.2 U S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

.2. U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

.2.2 P . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. D w . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.. Bz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2..2 Cb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2..3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2..4 S A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2..5 Mx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

T y E P, GEM M M, L R D A ICONE, y.


4/32

2..6 G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2..7 E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 D w b . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2. My. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2.2 I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 EU U.S. b x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.. EU b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3..2 U.S. b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2 Sb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2. EU b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.2 U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4 I B P U.S. EU D C . . . . 25

4. D b . . . . . . . . . 25

4.. E U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4..2 U S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2 L x . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5 C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28


5/32

U.S. and EU Policies on Biouels:

Potential Impacts on Developing Countries

y ,

by

wb

wk b y

w. b,

, b b

y Bz w

b b U

S (U.S.) E U (EU),

w y .

A b y

xy , w b

y b

w y

. O , b

x y

w

. Hw, by

k b . I ,

y

b

. O , b

k b

-, .

w y b w

b y k

b .

S y b , y,

b

w. Hw,

by j b

w y

x .

bj yz

EU U.S. b

x

b y. I y w w y - b

b k.

yz

EU U.S.

b

.

by

b .

y b b

by b

x . Fy,

b

EU U.S.

.

Introduction

Tropical andsubtropicaldevelopingcountries have areal comparative

advantage inthe productionof feedstock forbiofuels end-use,

such as canesugar and palmoil. These rawmaterials can beproduced at alower costand they are morenergy efficient

than feedstockavailable indeveloped countrie


6/32

he German Marshall Fund o the United States

Cy y y b

yb-b . B y

b

, w b

. I y, w

b b b EU

U.S., b b

b A. b

: y y,

, .

b y

b EU U.S.,

y (202),

x b w

. y 202 b b

w x y,

w

bk x w y

y b

. I , 202 by U.S. .

B b U.S.

y , w b y.

1.1 EuropeanUnion

EU y b

wb . ,

w 997, 2

wb y by 200. By

EC 2003/30 2003, EU bk

2 b

k by 2005 5.75 by y

200. bj

y; w, EU b q

y b b wyy bj

w y .

k b ,

E C , 2003,

C A

Py (CAP) w y y

- (45 /).

C z EU b

x b.

x E b. -z EU

b -

w

EU. y

,

, -

b b

j. A w b , y

b w

bw bj.

D

, E y

Fby 2007

0 b b by

y 2020.

1.1.1 EUproductionandconsumptionofbiodiesel

Uk b ky y, EU

b b. Fy 54.6

EU

45.4 . Hw,

b: b 80

EU b . I 2005,

EU j b w Gy

(52.4 ), F (5.5 ), Iy

(2.4 ). k

Biofuels State of Play in the EU

and the U.S.1

The non-

harmonization

of policies at

the EU level

has encouraged

member statesto act as free-

riders and to

elaborate their

own action plans

and instruments

independently

of the policies

carried out in the

rest of the EU.


7/32



b (xy

90 EU b ).

Sw, , y y

q.

A ,

b y qky

y b 2000

4.45 b 2005.2 x

b

k.

w

y - 780,000

2004 ,634,000 2006, 22

b .

x k y

. Cy EU

2 EOb 2006.

b 40

xy 62

b.

y

w y k

b (2,000 /).

. F w

bw

x b

EU. Bw 20022003

20062007, j by 63

.

b

q -

y w

b , , y.

Table 1: Biofuels Incorporation Rates (2005)

Total EU-25 Around 1% Iy 0.5

A 0.93 L 0.33

B 0 L 0.72

Cy 0 Lxb 0.02

Cz Rb 0.05 M 0.52

Dk* 0 N 0.02

E 0 P 0.48

F* 0 P 0

F 0.97 Sk* 0.5

Gy 3.75 S 0.35

G* 0 S 0.44

Hy 0.07 U K 0.8

I 0.05 Sw 2.23

Objective: 2%

* 2004 b 2005 w .S:E C

The surge in

rape oil prices

and the increasin

share of the oil

production used

for biodiesel

have significant

consequences

on the agri-food

industry that

uses rape oil as

raw material for

the production

of bottled oil,

margarine,

and pastry.


8/32


Figure 1: Evolution of Rape Oil Prices in the EU

(US$/ton)

(%)

Note: Rape oil prices, Dutch, fob ex-mill.

Sources: Oil world, elaboration by the authors.

02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07

% of rape oil used for biodiesel production Rape oil price

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Figure 2: EU Imports of Vegetable Oils

(1,

000

tons)

Source: Oil World

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2003 2004 2005 2006

Soybean oil Sunflower oil Rape oil Palm oil

If the EU

decides to limit

the oilseed area

dedicated to

biodiesel feedstock

to 50 percent ofthe total oilseed

area, the EU will

need to import

4.16 million tons

of vegetable oil

or biodiesel.


9/32



F b

. b w

b . Bw 2003 2006, EU

b w by 50

. P q b

, .

I (66 ) My (34 )

EU k. A

jy by

y qy b

b x

b by

3.4 bw 200 2006. Cy

5 EU .

1.1.2 Perspectivesonbiodieselproduction

andconsumption

A bj by EU

b b,3 b

4.4 b by y 202 (6.6

b ). A

b w b w 85

5 w , EU

84 ( -

b ) j

202 by E C

b b q q

b ( F 3). w

EU 86

w 50 w

2006. x

by

. Sw y x;

w, y by

3 T bj by EU 5.75 b - 200 0 2020. T 202 - bw 200 2020.

w by .R - - ,

x b 0.8

by B

H A (x

yb q).

q 202 bj w

b b

. I EU

b k

50 , EU w

4.6 b b. B EU

z y b ,

jy b /

w /.

w

y EU y.

Hw, w

b EU w b

b b b w .

I b w

b q

EU w b b. I, , y, w

x b.

1.1.3 EUproductionandconsumptionofethanol

A EU w

, b Bz

U.S. I 2006, EU by 7

2005, b y .5

b .

EU Gy (28 ), S (26 ),

F (6 ), Sw (9 ), Iy

(8 ), P (8 ).4

Cy Bz

U.S., w

4 E B F A (B), M 2, 2007.


10/32


( Bz

U.S.), y k

EU. C (w, , by,

y) j ,w by b w. S b

; 7,250

by (3,25 ). Hw,

b

b -b .

Cy y F

b, b x.

B

b , b b

z k w

EU x

b by y . O y,

w b w

CMO,5 Fby

5 C Mk Oz.

2006, b by 40

x

W Oz (WO) q

(.3 ).

A

w

6,

Bz x 230

EU 2006 (5 EU

). C w Sw

U K, F.7

1.1.4 Perspectivesonbioethanolproduction

andconsumption

y w EU bj, 6.6 ,

6 E 22070 220720 z z .

7 D by BIO (E B FA).

Figure 3: Projections of Required Oilseeds Area to Reach the 2012 Objective

(mnha)

Sources: ONIGC, European Commission, projections by the authors.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

88%

17%

22% 16%

12%

83%78%

84%Food Biodiesel Projections with no biodiesel imports


11/32



9.2 b by 202.

B y EU y

, y

w w b k EU

by 202. B b

j by E

C, b

x w, b,

.

b 2

202. I b

w, ,

b b w j

. I , w w

y 8.2 EU w

q q w b

q 50 j w x. I

, w 6. .

w b b

29. x b

. Hw, x w

by

2006 .

b 2 y

EU k w ,

y ,

EU w .

1.2 UnitedStates

U.S. w b ,

z 3.2 b (840 )

y. A

200 .8

A U.S. ,

64 .

I A 2005, P G W. B

Ey Py A.

28.4 b wb

by 202 (Rwb F S),

5 ( )

j y 202. Hw,

8 EIA. W y G , Ey IA B, DOE/EIA X059, My 2006. Ab ://www...//b/06/.. A A 5, 2007.

Table 2: Projections for EU Production of Ethanol 2012

2006 2012

E Fk E Fk

(mn liters) Share (mn tons) (mn liters) Share (mn tons)

Total 1,560 TotalFor

ethanol10,085 Total

For

ethanol

W 504 32.3% 09.3 .4 4,034 40% 35.9 .2

By 440 28.2% 53.6 . 440 4% 46. .

C 200 2.8% 44.6 0.5 ,29 3% 5.9 3.2

Ry 200 2.8% 7.8 0.5 200 2% 9. 0.5

B 88 5.6% 4.7 0.8 3,864 38% 20.7 35.2

W 28 8.2% 256 3%

S: BIO, E C, by .


12/32

he German Marshall Fund o the United States10

b , U.S.

by bj. I 2007 S

U A, P B y w q 32.5

b wb by

207, y 5 202 w .

I w 5 j

.9

1.2.1 U.S.productionandconsumptionofethanol

w

b xy

y. Bw 2002 2006,

by 23 , w

9 I y q. I w 24 ( w b y ). T by 0 b( ) q y . T, B , w b .

w by 27 y. A

, b ( )

.5 2002 3.8 2006, 20.4 b .

b U.S.

b b . F,

Rwb F S (RFS)

k . S,

k y x , U.S.

y

y. Hw,

k b

y y b .

Py, 20 y x

(F 4). C US$54

Jy 2007,0 (F 5),

x .

0 CBO- C B

Figure 4: Corn Utilization in the U.S.

(milliontons)

Source: 1990-2006: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2006-2010: projection presentedby Prof. Bruce Babcock at the WWC Biofuel seminar (Feb2007).

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Consumption Animal feed and seeds Fuel Exports


13/32


14/32


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Figure 6: U.S. Fuel Ethanol and MTBE Consumption

MTBE Ethanol

Jan-0

0

Apr-0

0

Jul-00

Oct-0

0

Jan-0

1

Apr-0

1

Jul-01

Oct-0

1

Jan-0

2

Apr-0

2

Jul-02

Oct-02

Jan-0

3

Apr-03

Jul-03

Oct-0

3

Jan-0

4

Apr-0

4

Jul-04

Oct-04

Jan-0

5

Apr-0

5

Jul-05

Oct-05

Jan-0

6

Apr-0

6

Jul-06

Oct-0

6

Jan-9

9

Apr-9

9

Jul-99

Oct-9

9

(billion

liters)

Source: Energy Information Agency (EIA), elaboration by the authors

MTBE banned in California,New York and Connecticut

Figure 7: U.S. Ethanol Imports

(millionliters)

Source: United States International Trade Commission (USITC)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600Brazil Caribbean Basin China Others

Jan-0

4

Feb-0

4

Mar-04

Apr-04

May-0

4

Jun-0

4

Jul-04

Aug-0

4

Sept-04

Oct-04

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-0

5

Feb-0

5

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-0

5

Jun-0

5

Jul-05

Aug-0

5

Sept-05

Oct-05

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Jan-0

6

Feb-0

6

Mar-06

Apr-06

May-0

6

Jun-0

6

Jul-06

Aug-0

6

Sept-06

Oct-06

Nov-0

6

Dec-0

6

2004:

920 million liters

2005:

820 million liters

2006:

2,740 million liters


15/32


Potential Impacts on Developing Countries1

1.2.2 Perspectivesonethanolproductionandconsumption

I (202),

U.S. x b

0 , , .

I w 56.6 b .

G w q

A w

b.

Pj y y

j x b 45.2 b

2009. I w

y 0 , U.S. w b b

4.7 b 202 (47

Rwb F S ),

q 07 .

7.4 . I b

w b w ,

y w . S

W y w w (.5 y) w w 5 .

b 53 b ,2 9.4 b.

Hw, x 2 b (

7.4 9.4 ) w q

5 44 .

G U.S. , w

w b y

w bj . A

q, U.S.

w bby b by y

y by x

b y-

U.S. k.3

b 3 z EU

U.S. b

w Bz.

2 Bbk, B. Pj U.S. E P A I U.S. W A, Woodrow Wilson Center seminar: Global Dynamicsof Biofuels, W, Fby 22, 2007.

3 A w U S.

Future U.S.

domestic

consumption

will probably be

determined by

currently planned

production capac

and by the expor

potential of count

benefiting from

duty-free access

to the U.S. marke


16/32


Table 3: Biofuels Overview of Brazil, the U.S. and the EU

Brazil U.S. EU

2006/07 2005/06 2005

Ethanol Ethanol Ethanol Biodiesel

P 335 97 32 20

Fk S CC, b,

, .

O ,

w,

y, ,

y .

A ( ) 6.4 3.6*C: 5,5

6*S b: 2,2

Fk

( )426 267

*C: 2539.7

*S b: 6

% k

b48% 20%

*C: .6%40%

*S b: 0.6%

Y (/) 66.2 8.4*C: 6.2 *R: 3.4

*S b: 66 *Sw: .7

B

( )7,4 8,547 902 4,458

Py

(/)6,800 3,000

*C: 3 25 *R: 999

*S b: 7 250 *Sw: 833

% b

40% 3.8% 0.60% 2%

I ( ) 2,850 250

Ex ( ) 3,028

C

(US$ /)22 40 5075 448

0% 46% 63%/39% 6.5%

N: 2005 Bz U.S., 2004 E. U.S. Bz

y 2006. U.S. y AVE (2004-2005 ) z

(54 / + 2.5%). EU y AVE (2004-2005 ) z

(9.2 /) z (0.2/).

S: ICONE GEM


17/32



C b y .

I y

b b b

k b y b y

b w

N H (b

4). By b ,

w b b b

w b b x b k

b .

A , b w b

x w

-.

b

b

.

y x.

2.1 Developingcountrieswithapotentialforethanolproduction

2.1.1 Brazil

Ey y b b

Bz , w b

970. A Bz

bw 20 25 b (

). I 2003, Fx F V (FFV) w

k. S

y b . y,

y 80 w

k . I by 202,

46 w b

FFV. Cy 40

( ).

W 7.4 b

2006, Bz w

.

335 b Bz;

jy b

k. Bz

w x.

Table 4: Energy and Environmental Balance of Feedstock for Biofuels

Ethanol Biodiesel

Energy balance*

W b : 2 Sw b: 3.2

C : .5R b: 2.7

Sy b : 3

S : 8.3 P b : 9

Environmentalbalance**

S b : 2.7 Sy b : 2.6

W : .85 R b: .79

S : 0.4 P b: .73

Sw : 0.33 W b: 0.27

N: * y wb y

** GHG q (), q CO2

S: ADEME, E C, Ww I

Biofuels Policies in

Developing Countries2

Today, Flex Fuel

Vehicles represe

more than 80

percent of all

new light vehicle

market sales

in Brazil.


18/32


I 2006, 6.45 w 3 w

, w

Bz b . S

y (S P ). x

k

b w y

(58.8 b

), , , yb (y

6.8 b ). S,

x Bz

by, b w , wx wy x

y S

P : w

M G, G M G

S, P. I Az, x

w k

k

b .

Bz b y,

w k b

. A w 2 yb w b q b 2008,

w b 5 by 203. O

bj

by jb

. x x

b y

k ( b

x) k (y

).

2.1.2 Colombia

Cb bby b S A, Bz.

b

0 b

w 500,000

b. A 5 y b b

w b q

b 2008 . F , 2002

w w x

x ( b, IVA, b).

Eq w

x x. C b

,

. A x

w b.4 I w

977.5 (2004), b by Jy 2006

b ,346.4 .5

Cb ky SA. A k y

Cb w

: (C Az)

(C P). y xy

w y ( 7 /) y

P ( y w

w ).

76

2005, w

244 .6

x Cb

y.

S y

C Vy, w

y, P C.7

y b

Cb, w

y y.8 A

C Vy.

4 Ob A, L z C-b, D bj . 88, Nb 2005, .2 22

5 M M Y E, N S:Hb, J 8 2006.

6 AGROCADENAS, E , b www.../., M 26, 2007.

7 BEAR SEARNS, L A: b b,E Mk Eqy Sy, Db 9, 2006.

8 ASOCANA, I 20052006, .7

The mainconcern regarding

sugarcaneexpansion in

Brazil is not land

availability, buthas to do withlogistics, which

explains why thecurrent expansion

is concentratedin traditional

sugarcane areas.


19/32



2.1.3 Thailand

b w

. (200406)

w ,

b MBE , b

E0, 0

b b .

(20072)

. b y (3 /y) by

20 0 y b b

w by 202.

w

x, Bz. I

2 4

, b b

.9 w

, b

x US$0.32 (B 2.75) . F

b ,

b US$45 (B ,800) w

y US$80 (B 3,200). A q,

I 2005.20

, w

y 36.9 y

(0.375 /y). A

b 2006,

y 42.6 y

(.6 /y).

A B P P w b

200 w 3. b by

202 (0 b b).2 I 2007, B5 w

b Bkk

y. By 20, w b x

y. Fy, 202, 0 b w

9 WORLD BANK, P B - , 2005. . 47.

20 UNCAD, A A B Iy T-, 2006. ..

2 PECC, P F Sy Ok 20062207: b, .23

b w. S x b by: 56 ,

4 , 29

j .22 Hw,

b y y.

, y

y w y 2.9

/y (60,000 /y). 23

2.1.4 SouthAfrica

S A W

P Rwb Ey 2003. A

0,000 GW y b

wb y by 203 b .

I 2005, B k w

y y b

. w Nb 2006.

I 4.5 b q

( ) by 203.24

b w

E8 B2 y b.25

q b w

x , z .

30 x b w bj

26 (y x

27 25

).27

j .

22 UNCAD, A A B Iy T, 2006. .9 9.

23 UNCAD, A A B Iy , 2006. .6 9.

24 D O M Ey, D B I

Sy Rb S A, Nb 2006, .9.25 S A G, A F-by Eb B Iy Rb SA, Ob 6, 2006. ..

26 UNCAD, E B Mk: Ry, D I, 2006. .9.

27 USDA-FAS, S A: B A R 2006,G R . SF602, J 8, 2006. . 3.

Thailand is the

worlds second

largest sugar

exporter after

Brazil. It has

annual surpluses

of 2 to 4 million

tons of cassava

and hundreds

of thousands of

tons of molasses

both suitable

for conversion

to ethanol.


20/32


B yb b S A w

US$65/bb.28 Hw, S

A y 4 b

b b

60 w y. B

y

, ,

5 .29

w b j

yb by

wy. S S A yb, b j

w yb , k

y yb

.30

2.1.5 Mexico

y, y b b

Mx. Hw, y q by

Secretara de Energia3 -

. (2007202)

w 42

y, y . I 202, w 5.7 b

( ) b w

j 202

0 y b w b q.

A ,

b.

28 S A G, A F-by Eb B Iy Rb SA, Ob 6, 2006. ..

29 D O M Ey, D BI Sy Rb S A,Nb 2006, .0.

30 USDA-FAS, S A: B A R 2006,G R . SF602, J 8, 2006. . 4.

3 SENER-BID-GZ (), P y Vb U B y B Mx, Mx,Nb 2006.

Cy z b Mx.32 Oy 49.2

w 2006.33 A b

y ,

y

b y. S k

, Mx

b bb by .

2.1.6 Guatemala

I 2003, Lw I D

Pj Rwb Ey w . I

b j x , VA, x

y -

x, x 0 y

.34 Cy

y y y35

2006 w 64 .36 G

8.5 2005

90,000 . k G b

C A

w y (97 /).37

2.1.7 ElSalvador

y

b . My Ey

w y w

bk wb y j. Cy

32 USDA-FAS, Mx: B A R 2006,G R . MX6503, J 26, 2006. . 6

33 RFA, Iy . Ab : ://www../y/, A 4, 2007.

34 IDB, A B G Ey A, 2006..58

35 UNCAD, E B Mk: Ry, D I, 2006. .4.

36 RFA, Iy . Ab : ://www../y/, A 4, 2007.

37 FAO-SA, b ://../.x, M 26, 2007.

South Africa

has surpluses in

corn and sugar

production that, if

used for ethanol

production, couldmeet more than

five percent of its

gasoline demand.


21/32



y b; w, b w b b by L Aby. I

w y b

b bw 80 . My

w b x

w y, w

. R w

b x x.38

I 2005, E S 4.4

y w 8 /

.39 y b CBI40

U.S. k.Hw, U.S.-C A F

A w b

y y y

-x y U.S. A x

qy 30 w 2007.4 S

qy w by 4.9 y

2020.42

2.2 Developingcountrieswithapotential

forbiodieselproduction

2.2.1 Malaysia

A N B Py w

A 2005. B5

(B5 , b

, b b

). b y y, b w

b x .

Cy My b

0 .

y 32 b ,

w y 3.3 b

38 IDB, A B G Ey A, 2006..49.

39 FAO-SA, b ://../.x, M 26, 2007.

40 Cbb B I

4 Hz S U S (200) (R )

42 M w b 55 202.

. My 200 b 2006 (

)43 x

.7 b 2007.44 My

w x ,

3.5 .45 y

y x (y Swk);

w, w

y 57

.46

2.2.2 Indonesia

A 0 b b ( /

) z I; w,

.

0 b b by 200. Cy,

P, y,

B5 w Jk (4 )

b .47

A , jy b

W Jk. x

b I w

3.3 , b -z

x.48 wbI b y w bby b

y,

by w w

b . w

x x . I j

by 2007, b

y 2008 w 3.5 b

, jy b

43 A b PECC MPOB .

44 PECC, P F Sy Ok 20062207: b, 2006, .22.

45 O W A 2006 PSD (2M2007)

46 A b MPOB FAO 2005.

47 USDA-FAS, I A S: B 2006,G R . ID600, My 26, 2006. . 4.

48 PECC, P F Sy Ok 20062207: b, 2006, .2.


22/32


.49

Cy 0 I w 200

.50

49 USDA-FAS, I B: I B k ? 2007, G R . ID7004, Jy 29, 2007. . 2.

50 PECC, P F Sy Ok 20062207: b, 2006, .2.


23/32



My b ( )

b

y ,

b b b

y b

-b . I , b

y b

b w .5

x b x

.

Hw, by

j b w y x

. I , EU

U.S. b b

y y ,

b, b by .

3.1 Tariffs

3.1.1 EUborderprotection

EU k y

by . M F N (MFN) (-z )

0.92/ (63 52 -

q). Vy q

y b

220720 (z ) w y

0.02/ (39 AVE).

S jy w

x k. E

A, Cbb, P (ACP)

, , GSP+53

5 Hw, b b.

52 AVE 20042005 .

53 Gz Sy Pplus (GSP+) b -b .

b C A A, W Bk

E k y-. I

GSP+ b,

GSP y w x

2008. I ,

. F , y

b. D

y GSP- x

E Cy w

75 GSP-

x. GSP- x y EU

GSP.

x Bz

b

x y . I

Mx S

A, w

w EU, y jy y

.

EU b k b

w. MFN y

b 6.5 b

MFN

bw 3.2 5. .

b

w , b y x

9 . O y- EU

k. D x b

EU jy

GSP . D

I My w

x bw z 3. .R, w, y x

w x A, Bz, R,

Uk

bw z 6. .

EU and U.S. Policies Restricting

Current and Potential Biofuels

Exports from Developing Countries

3

The current

national policies

enacted by the

major biofuels

consumers in

the developed

world seriously

reduce the expor

opportunities

for developing

countries.


24/32


25/32



y y. I 2004,

y .3

b. 2003 CAP by

, b

b b .

S 2005,

y y.57

R k b

,

y y b

CAP. I 2004, w

.9 b. y w

y. C

b k q

0.3/58. S b

57 T y b (20002002). I EU, b yw b b k - .

58 Ry b y.

b y

y .59

3.2.2 U.S.supportprogramsforethanol

E 2004 by JOBS A, V

E Ex x C (VEEC)

US$0.35/ x b b

. VEEC

by . I w

w , ,

y b k,

. by y

q ,

. I 2006, J C

x x

VEEC w US$ 2,220 y 2006200 , ky

w . I ,

59 K, G. EU N R D S f 2003 CAP R E. S P P:I I N (ICONE) G E M (GEM), S P, J 2006.

Table 5: Tax Exemptions on Biofuels in Selected Countries

Ethanol Biodiesel

United States (US$/) 0.35

European Union (/)

F 0.38 0.33

Gy 0.38 0.38

Iy 0.32 0.4

N 0.5 0.3

S 0.4 0.27

Sw 0.53 0.36

U K 0.33 0.33

N: S Sw x x . Iy, S Sw x

x b.

S: Rbbk (2005), Gy UFOP 2005/2006 (2006)


26/32


x 2.6 / 56.8

y . x x

x

U.S. .

A wy

b y q.

A w - wb b

k w -

. B M L

b

w

( 40 M

50 L).60

C, w k

U.S. , b

. I 2004, b

US$8.3 b, 36 -

w y y,

22 y y

20 x y

. 2002 U.S. F

b , , wb y

b w .

, ,

wb y j

y y . -

b b b j.

G 25

60 Kw, D. B A w ? G b U S, Gb Sb I-, I I Sb D, 2006.

j; 50 j. 2006 b w

23 w

y 2007.6

I EU U.S., b

b

x x, ,

w , .

3.3 Technicalnorms

E C b

w CEN S-z (EN 424) qy

b.62 EU

b 20 /00.

Syb ; ,

b EU w

bby b . b

EU y 2025 .

A . P

,63 w

b w . I ,

b y EU b . Hw, b

w .

6 F US b -, Yb, B.D. B : y , CRS C, RL 33572,U Jy 3, 2007.

62 E b : , y, y, , b, , w , , .

63 C w b .

Corn, which is themain feedstock

used in theU.S. for ethanol

production,

benefits from arange of supportmeasures. In

2004, subsidies tocorn amounted to

US$8.3 billion.


27/32



4.1 Driversthatcouldfosterbiofuelsimportsindevelopedcountries

4.1.1 EuropeanUnion

A x ,

EU w q b ,

k,

6.6 b b by 202.

, EU w

40 b

( 50 EU

b ). EU w

b b b.

I , w

b EU y .

Sb x x y y

xy . Fy,

w

w b b .

A

b b EU.

Hw, b w

b y

by EU b . R

y x by (C,

U.S.) C. B w b

A, R, Uk

( x). L

q y w b

I, My, A, Bz.

EU w b

b

b. j x

bby y. EU I

My, y Bz A

w A, Uk, R.

A , EU w b b

q q 202

bj. S, y , EU w . Hw,

. F, E C w

ACP , b S ,

EU 2006 .

P w bby b

b ,

b

b x EU

y b . S,

EU b w b b w b y

k / b

y b

b y y.

b w

by

x b EU b

. w Sw y ,

x.

y . , b, b

y y xy

; , .

4.1.2 UnitedStates

w

U.S. y y . x

US$2.2 b

y 2006200 , w y

. I , w

k

k w

y . S U.S. xxy 65

k, w

Mx w

(b Mx

y) b w .

Fy, k U.S.

Impact of Biofuels Programs in the U.S.

and the EU on Developing Countries4


28/32


w b 0 b ( S ).

U.S.

x y. I U.S.

, U.S. w bby y

y-

k. Mx,

Cb, CBI . I , w x

U.S. by 202

y

b

. Hw, , U.S. w

Bz b b

y w U.S.

k w bby b

q q k

U.S.

4.2 Limitationsontheexportpotentialof

developingcountries

F y ,

b y b

. E CBI

, Mx, Cb jy y-

U.S. k, ACP ,

, GSP+ b,

W Bk x

EU w z .

x w

k y

.

b b

. F, y

x x

/

y. S, y

b w

k

by .

I k b y y x, y

b b

y k .

Hw,

EU U.S. b

x

. Fy,

b . A ,

k y

w y

.

A b EU,

b b MFN w

b b . I , y

b x jy y-

EU k b

.

x

b b EU

b

y . R

, EU

b by . I , EU

k w

k. w b

b k . Fy, b

q x

EU. S EU

b

b . Sb

k EU w bby

b y w b y.

I y , y

y b

b x

b w

.

For many developing

countries, access to

developed countries

is not a barrier

since they benefit

from preferentialtariffs. Ethanol

produced in CBI

countries, Mexico,

and Colombia enjoys

duty-free access to

the U.S. market, and

ACP countries, least

developed countries,

GSP+ beneficiaries,

and Western Balkan

countries can export

ethanol to the EU

with a zero tariff.


29/32



M w b y x

.

Fy,

b y

y k. Hw, x

Bz, ,

S A by y

EU U.S. D ,

.

b k x

w b

y b k

.


30/32


b -b

y k

x k

x y

b k. E

y bw y k,

w ,

b . M

y-

x w

b (..x

Bz, y

U.S., );

( b

b EU, Bz,

I, My; x

);

k

(z, y ,

b , .). I , b

q x k b y .

W , x

w w

k b ,

b b -

. I , -

w z k k .

Hw, y b

y k

y x y w b

. Some y

y x EU

U.S. b ; w,

k by b. w

by ,

w

b -

w

k , -

, w

k , q b

. w

b w b

by , b

y .

Vb b

b

. w y

w

xy. I ,

x -

U.S. y

b

x b

U.S.,

b b

b (.., y)

0 , w b

w bw b

y

by P B. I y

wk w

b y.

Fy, b

EU

x b

b.

Conclusions

5

To facilitate imports

that will complement

domestic production

and that could

provide some relief

from rising pricesand budgetary

pressure, developed

countries should

consider several

options that will grant

greater access for

biofuels originating in

developing countries

and alleviate

upward pressures

on domestic

feedstock

prices, such as

tariff reduction,

implementation of

tariffs associated

with oil or feedstock

prices, and opening

of a quota based on

national consumption.


31/32


32/32

O f f i c e s

Washington, DC

1744 R Street NW

Washington, DC 20009

T1 202 745 3950f1 202 265 [email protected]

Berlin

Oranienburger Str. 13/14

10178 Berlin, Germany

T49 30 28 88 13 0

f49 30 28 88 13 10

Bratislava

Transatlantic Center or Central and Eastern Europe

Strova 3

811 02 Bratislava, Slovak Republic

T421 2 5931 1522

f421 2 5931 1405

Paris

30 rue Galile

75116 Paris, France

T33 1 47 23 47 18

f33 1 47 23 48 16

Brussels

Transatlantic Center

Rsidence Palace

Rue de la Loi 155 Wetstraat

1040 Brussels, Belgium

T32 2 238 5270

f32 2 238 5299

BelgraDe

Balkan Trust or Democracy

Dobracina 44

11000 Belgrade, Serbia

T 381 11 30 36 454

f 381 11 32 88 022

ankara

Tunus Cad. No. 15/4

Kavaklidere 06680

Ankara, Turkey

T90 312 425 6677

f 90 312 425 3399

www.gmfus.org

Documents

EU and U.S. Policies on Biofuels: Potential Impacts on Developing Countries