Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
LCFS to California and federal laws that already apply to agriculture in order to
determine synergies and gaps, and in an effort to ensure that its sustainability
provisions are as implementable as possible for farmers [ 34 ]. It will benchmark
these results to the CSBP and RSB standards to determine also the standards' feasi-
bility for farmers and the effi cacy of third-party verifi cation at the federal level.
Third- party sustainability certifi cation also could assist obligated parties in meeting
EPA Quality Assurance Requirements.
9.3
International Standards and Harmonization
Without some level of public-level, international harmonization of sustainability
standards, international trade could come to a standstill. The stage is being set. The
American Soybean Association (ASA) formally complained to the Offi ce of the US
Trade Representative and USDA in early 2011 regarding the EU's application of its
GHG calculations to disqualify soy biodiesel as a renewable source under the RED
[ 96 ]. Argentina similarly is seeking consultation with in the WTO regarding what it
sees as arbitrary, trade-distorting GHG thresholds [ 97 ]. Developing countries warned
the EU in the early stages of RED development that if it implemented “unjustifi ably
complex” a third-party certifi cation program, they might pursue a complaint under
world trade agreements [ 98 ]. Some assert that only a binding international minimum
standard can truly ensure all market players achieve a level of sustainability [ 99 ].
The notion ignores symptoms of the world's broader failures to reach consensus on
how to address climate change, fair and equitable agricultural trade, and labor stan-
dards that protect vulnerable people against exploitation [ 100 ]. Parties to any harmo-
nization of biofuels sustainability standards would have to agree on how to account
for direct and indirect GHG emissions, and as post-Kyoto negotiations on carbon
accounting demonstrate, this is highly unlikely, even as GHG emissions dangerously
escalate even beyond previous estimates [ 101 ]. As for the “other” aspects of biofuels
sustainability, such as soil, water, and biodiversity protection, the Marrakesh agricul-
tural trade negotiations prove the diffi culties in reaching consensus. They have
yielded nothing, for example, in response to Brazil's request that biofuels be classi-
fi ed as an “environmental” good versus an agricultural good [ 102 ].
Regardless, any signatory to the World Trade Organization Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) treaty must give positive consideration to the
exporting country's technical regulations in conducting conformity assessments,
but where an international standard exists, such as the ISO standard being devel-
oped, this must be applied [ 103 ]. When the ISO process is complete for sustainabil-
ity criteria for bioenergy [ 104 ], a country will be required under the TBT to apply
ISO methodology for ILUC and food security calculations, if they are indeed
included [ 103 ].
Perhaps in a somewhat duplicative way, the G8 countries “+5” (Brazil, India,
China, Mexico, and South Africa) formed the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP)
in 2005 through The Gleneagles Plan of Action to increase the world supply of
Search WWH ::




Custom Search