ABSTRACT
The sustainability of biofuel is a matter of heavy debate since coming under fierce criticism in the mid-2000s because of problematic social and ecological effects. In this context, sustainability certification became one of the major regulatory strategies to deal with these concerns. The European Union (EU) relies on private certification schemes to safeguard the sustainability of biofuel used in the EU. Using this EU system of sustainability certification of biofuel as a case example, this chapter seeks to provide a balanced critique of the regulatory strategy of sustainability certification of biofuel in general, and of the potentials and pitfalls regarding its democratic legitimacy and its environmental and social effectiveness in particular. We find that the EU does not require anything from the private certification schemes regarding their membership structure and decision-making procedures – so-called input legitimacy – in order for them to be recognised by the EU. Consequently, most of the recognised schemes do not involve actors from civil society or affected communities at all, while the few that do mostly involve them in a rather unbalanced manner. In terms of transparency and public accountability of the schemes and their actions – so-called throughput legitimacy – the EU does require the schemes to fulfil certain standards. However, these criteria are far from satisfactory or even exhaustive and, furthermore, in practice, these imperfect provisions can always turn out to be paper tigers on the ground. Regarding the social and environmental effectiveness of the EU regulatory system of safeguarding biofuel sustainability via private certification schemes, a mixed picture appears. Apart from the fact that the EU sustainability provisions cover only environmental criteria and neglect social criteria, the effectiveness of the system is further compromised by weaknesses regarding the auditing guidelines as well as the (sometimes lacking) specification of sustainability criteria and the large room for interpretation this leaves. As a result, the implementation of the criteria differs among the schemes, which leads to a ‘race-to-the-bottom’, that is, a competition for the easiest and cheapest way of offering certification in the biofuels market. Therefore, we conclude that the current EU regulation of biofuel sustainability certification via private schemes neither safeguards sustainability effectively nor does it conform to ideals of democratic legitimacy. However, since it can be considered a form of field trial both for mandating sustainability criteria for agricultural products in general and for incorporating private certification schemes into the regulatory frameworks of the state, this trial should not be abandoned but allowed to continue and improve.
