Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

The role of flexible biofuel policies in meeting biofuel mandates

1 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain
2 Nalanda University, Rajgir, India
3 Bocconi University-IEFE-Centre for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy, Milan, Italy

Topical Section: Bioenergy and Biofuel

The paper analyzes the role of biofuel sector in three major regions (USA, European Union and Brazil). It focuses on the links between volatility in the yields of feedstock and how these yields feed through to changes in the prices of biofuel crops under different rules for managing biofuel mandates. Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model has been calibrated for the years 2007–2012 to derive, endogenously, biofuel production in each year for all the three regions. Further, the study examines four different volatility variations of possible shocks to yields as representative of natural variations in the production of the feedstocks. It analyzes the impacts of changes in the mandated biofuel under the four variations to see what impact they would have principally on the prices of the key agricultural inputs linked to the biofuel sector. The model results indicate that current mandates have significant impact on the biofuel crops. The world biofuels production is expected to increase by 54% by year 2020. EU ethanol from grains and biodiesel are expected to grow by 85% and 49% respectively. The analysis observes high elasticity of substitution between fossil fuel and biofuels, which results in a greater demand for biofuels when yields of feedstocks rise and prices of feedstocks fall.
  Article Metrics

Keywords ethanol and biodiesel productions; biofuel mandates; elasticity of substitution; volatility of prices; waivers

Citation: Anil Markandya, Kishore Dhavala, Alessandro Palma. The role of flexible biofuel policies in meeting biofuel mandates. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(3): 530-550. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.3.530


  • 1. EIA (2015) Biofuels Production and Consumption, IEA-US Energy Information Administration database. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?pa= 000002&c=ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1urvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvnvvuvo&ct=0&tl_id=79-A&vs=INTL.79-1-AFG-TBPD.A&vo=0&v=H&start=2000&end=2016.
  • 2. von Lampe M (2008) Biofuel support policies : an economic assessment. Paris: OECD. Available from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/biofuel-support-policies-an-economic-assessment_9789264050112-en.
  • 3. European Commission (2003) Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport. Off. J. L 123. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32003L0030.
  • 4. European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. J Eur Union L 140, 47. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32009L0028.
  • 5. European Biodiesel Board (2015) EU Biodiesel Industry: Production by Country. Available from: http://www.ebb-eu.org/stats.php#.
  • 6. USDA ERS-U.S. Bioenergy Statistics. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-bioenergy-statistics/.
  • 7. Mitchell D (2008) A note on rising food prices. World Bank Washington, DC.
  • 8. Zhang W, Elaine AY, Rozelle S, et al. (2013) The impact of biofuel growth on agriculture: Why is the range of estimates so wide? Food Policy 38: 227–239.    
  • 9. Hertel TW, Tyner WE, Birur DK (2010) The global impacts of biofuel mandates. Energ J 31: 75–100.
  • 10. Taheripour F, Hertel TW, Tyner WE (2011) Implications of biofuels mandates for the global livestock industry: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Agr Econ 42: 325–342.    
  • 11. Beckman J, Jones CA, Sands R (2011) A global general equilibrium analysis of biofuel mandates and greenhouse gas emissions. Am J Agr Econ 93: 334–341.
  • 12. Britz W, Hertel TW (2011) Impacts of EU biofuels directives on global markets and EU environmental quality: An integrated PE, global CGE analysis. Agr Ecosyst Environ 142: 102–109.    
  • 13. Diffenbaugh NS, Hertel TW, Scherer M, et al. (2012) Response of corn markets to climate volatility under alternative energy futures. Nat Clim Change 2: 514.    
  • 14. Hausman C, Auffhammer M, Berck P (2012) Farm Acreage shocks and crop prices: An SVAR approach to understanding the impacts of biofuels. Environ Resour Econ 53: 117–136.    
  • 15. Roberts MJ, Schlenker W (2010) The US biofuel mandate and world food prices: an econometric analysis of the demand and supply of calories. NBER Working Paper 15921.
  • 16. Chakravorty U, Hubert M-H, Moreaux M, et al. (2012) Do biofuel mandates raise food prices. AERE Annual Meeting, Ashville, NC, USA. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Zilberman/publication/265144230_Do_Biofuel_Mandates_Raise_Food_Prices/links/5457b5db0cf26d5090ab4fa7.pdf.
  • 17. Lipsky J (2008) Commodity prices and global inflation. Remarks at the Council of Foreign Relations, New York.
  • 18. Algieri B (2014) The influence of biofuels, economic and financial factors on daily returns of commodity futures prices. Energ Policy 69: 227–247.    
  • 19. Linares P, Pérez-Arriaga IJ (2013) A sustainable framework for biofuels in Europe. Energ Policy 52: 166–169.    
  • 20. Zilberman D, Hochman G, Rajagopal D, et al. (2012) The impact of biofuels on commodity food prices: Assessment of findings. Am J Agr Econ 95: 275–281.
  • 21. Condon N, Klemick H, Wolverton A (2015) Impacts of ethanol policy on corn prices: A review and meta-analysis of recent evidence. Food Policy 51: 63–73.    
  • 22. Al-Riffai P, Dimaranan B, Laborde D (2010) Global trade and environmental impact study of the EU biofuels mandate. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC. Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/global-trade-and-environmental-impact-study-eu-biofuels-mandate.
  • 23. Hertel TW, Beckman J (2011) Commodity price volatility in the biofuel era: An examination of the linkage between energy and agricultural markets. In: The Intended and Unintended Effects of US Agricultural and Biotechnology Policies. University of Chicago Press, 189–221.
  • 24. Adusumilli N, Leidner A (2014) The US biofuel policy: review of economic and environmental implications. Ind Eng Chem Res 2: 64–70.
  • 25. Jaiswal D, De Souza AP, Larsen S, et al (2017) Brazilian sugarcane ethanol as an expandable green alternative to crude oil use. Nat Clim Change 7: nclimate3410.
  • 26. Falcone PM, Lopolito A, Sica E (2018) The networking dynamics of the Italian biofuel industry in time of crisis: Finding an effective instrument mix for fostering a sustainable energy transition. Energ Policy 112: 334–348.    
  • 27. De Gorter H, Just DR (2009) The economics of a blend mandate for biofuels. Am J Agr Econ 91: 738–750.
  • 28. Hunsberger C, Bolwig S, Corbera E, et al. (2014) Livelihood impacts of biofuel crop production: Implications for governance. Geoforum 54: 248–260.    
  • 29. Taheripour F, Hertel TW, Tyner WE, et al. (2010) Biofuels and their by-products: Global economic and environmental implications. Biomass Bioenerg 34: 278–289.    
  • 30. Taheripour F, Tyner WE (2014) Welfare assessment of the renewable fuel standard: economic efficiency, rebound effect, and policy interactions in a general equilibrium framework. In: Modeling, Dynamics, Optimization and Bioeconomics I. Springer, 613–632.
  • 31. Birur D, Hertel T, Tyner W (2008) Impact of biofuel production on world agricultural markets: a computable general equilibrium analysis. GTAP working paper. Available from: https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/4034.pdf.
  • 32. Chappuis T, Walmsley T (2011) Projections for World CGE Model Baselines. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
  • 33. OECD-FAO (2012) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012-2021. Available from: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HIGH_AGLINK_2012.
  • 34. Golub A, Hertel T, Rose S, others (2014) Global land use impacts of US ethanol: static vs. dynamic economic modeling. In: 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27–29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • 35. McDaniel CA, Balistreri EJ (2003) A review of armington trade substitution elasticities. Econ Int 2: 301–313.
  • 36. Welsch H (2008) Armington elasticities for energy policy modeling: Evidence from four European countries. Energ Econ 30: 2252–2264.    


This article has been cited by

  • 1. Pasquale Marcello Falcone, Analysing stakeholders’ perspectives towards a socio-technical change: The energy transition journey in Gela Municipality, AIMS Energy, 2018, 6, 4, 645, 10.3934/energy.2018.4.645
  • 2. Hans Mattila, Dina Kačar, Tuulia Mali, Taina Lundell, Lignocellulose bioconversion to ethanol by a fungal single-step consolidated method tested with waste substrates and co-culture experiments, AIMS Energy, 2018, 6, 5, 866, 10.3934/energy.2018.5.866

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved