生物质能源发展会带来中国粮食安全问题吗?——以玉米燃料乙醇为例的模型及分析框架

以燃料乙醇为代表的生物质能源的发展引起了关于能源安全与粮食安全的巨大争议。本文建立了一个以玉米燃料乙醇为例的理论模型及分析框架,分别在短期动态均衡、长期动态均衡以及有进口补充的情况下分析生物质能源的发展对中国粮食安全的可能影响,并通过玉米生产和供求的特征进一步说明燃料乙醇的发展对粮食安全影响的实际状况。研究结果表明,燃料乙醇的发展并没有给粮食安全带来实质性的影响,但长期来看不排除存在粮食安全的风险。从模型分析结果看,中国可以通过对补贴政策、替代政策、贸易政策以及技术政策的调整来解决燃料乙醇的发展给粮食安全带来的影响。     

生物燃料乙醇发展及其对近期粮食价格上涨的影响分析

本文在对已有相关研究和各主要生物燃料乙醇生产国燃料乙醇发展现状和政策进行系统综述的基础上,分析了生物燃料乙醇发展对近期全球和我国粮食价格上涨的影响.分析表明,生物能源发展是近期全球粮食价格快速上涨的重要原因之一;生物燃料乙醇发展不但提高了对能源作物的需求,而且通过密切农产品与石油两个市场的联系,使粮食价格紧随能源市场价格而波动;生物燃料乙醇将在未来得到进一步发展,其对粮食价格的影响也将是长期的:我国政府应当尽早采取措施以保障国内粮食安全.     

中国燃料乙醇政策演变

迫在眉睫的能源危机促使中国努力寻找替代方案,其中生物燃料乙醇受到最为广泛的关注,并得到迅速发展。然而,中国大多数生物燃料乙醇以玉米为原料,其迅速发展造成原材料玉米价格猛涨,以及饲料价格飚升引发猪肉价格上涨,加上国际粮价上扬的影响,对中国的粮食安全形成威胁。在能源安全与粮食安全的角力中,中央政府选择了以粮食安全为重,连续下发文件对玉米燃料乙醇紧急刹车,要求严格控制玉米燃料乙醇生产,转而开发非粮乙醇。     

国内燃料乙醇加工业现状及发展趋向

2009年以来,随着国内玉米价格的上涨,国内玉米燃料乙醇行业再次受到诟病,许多人认为玉米燃料乙醇的发展是国内玉米价格上涨的主要推手之一。     

生物燃料乙醇发展对中国粮食安全的影响分析——基于“与粮争地”的视角

生物质能源由于其清洁、无污染和可再生而受到青睐,开发利用生物质能源已成为世界能源可持续发展战略的重要组成部分,但是以燃料乙醇为代表的生物质能源的发展引起了关于粮食安全的巨大争议.本文研究表明,从未来一段时期我国农业生产和燃料乙醇产业发展趋势看,以玉米为原料生产燃料乙醇受到土地要素的约束,从而对我国的粮食安全具有一定的影响,且其对车用汽油需求的替代潜力并不大,应从挖掘内部潜力与寻找替代来源等途径解决燃料乙醇发展问题.     

进一步完善粮食直补方式的思考

粮食风险基金是中央和地方政府用于促进粮食生产稳定增长,平抑粮食市场价格,维护正常流通秩序,实施经济调控的专项基金,它主要通过利益分配,实现粮食安全和粮食市场稳定两大目标。从2004年起在全国范围内推行“粮食风险基金直补”改革,通过实施由间接补贴转向对粮食种植进行财政直接补贴,在一定程度上扩大了粮食种植面积,     

美国为什么要取消玉米乙醇补贴？

美国国会参议院近日以73票赞成、27票反对的结果通过了一项修正案,要求政府终止对玉米乙醇工业提供每年高达60亿美元的补贴。美国人对玉米乙醇的补贴由来已久。1973年,阿拉伯人对西方国家实行石油禁运,当时美国政府在主要玉米种植带开始补贴玉米乙醇。几年之后,这种补贴做法由联邦政府立法推至全国。1978年《能源税收法案》出台,该法案为抑制石油消费,鼓励乙醇消费,     

我国玉米深加工业发展遭遇瓶颈

一、燃料乙醇发展受限。占玉米消费比重不大 国内当初建立燃料乙醇定点企业的初衷是为了消化陈化粮库存,而之后国际市场石油价格的上涨,寻找替代能源的深入及美国和巴西燃料乙醇产业的发展,为全球燃料乙醇行业的发展提供了重要的指引。作为能源替代战略的重要组成部分,燃料乙醇产业的发展已成为国家能源发展战略的重要组成部分之一。     

中粮预计玉米价格下半年平稳回落

就中国商业联合会石油流通委员会日前上书称＂燃料乙醇加剧粮食紧张,希望国家取消补贴＂,中国粮油控股有限公司管理人士近日表示,燃料乙醇已得到世界公认,对国家粮食安全不构成威胁。而上半年以来部分农产品涨价主要还是供求关系所致,预计下半年会平稳回落。     

需求强劲拉动玉米价格上涨

今年以来,玉米价格稳步上涨,且涨幅较大,主要原因是玉米需求强劲拉动玉米价格上涨。一方面是工业玉米需求强劲增长。随着科技研发能力的创新,玉米生化制品和燃料乙醇、酒精加工等产品所占比重不断扩大,特别是燃料乙醇的生产。由于世界能源及汽油需求量的快速上涨,使当前用玉米转化成乙醇燃料成为市场的热点,这使工业玉米的需求量明显放大。2005年我国工业转化玉米需求达到2000～2500万吨,实际加工能力达到3000万吨以上,预计今年工业转化玉米用量将达到2500～3000万吨,增速在20%以上。     

The Welfare Economics of a Biofuel Tax Credit and the Interaction Effects with Price Contingent Farm Subsidies

A framework is developed to analyze the effects of a biofuel consumer tax exemption and the interaction effects with a price contingent farm subsidy. Ethanol prices rise above the gasoline price by the amount of the tax credit. Corn farmers gain directly while gasoline consumers only gain from any reduction in world oil prices due to the extra ethanol production. Domestic oil producers lose. Historically, the intercept of the ethanol supply curve is above the gasoline price. Hence, part of the tax credit is redundant and represents "rectangular" deadweight costs that dwarf triangular deadweight cost measures of traditional farm subsidies.     

The Economics of a Blend Mandate for Biofuels

A biofuel blend mandate may increase or decrease consumer fuel prices with endogenous oil prices, depending on relative supply elasticities. Biofuel tax credits always reduce fuel prices. Tax credits result in lower fuel prices than under a mandate for the same level of biofuel production. If tax credits are implemented alongside mandates, then tax credits subsidize fuel consumption instead of biofuels. This contradicts energy policy goals by increasing oil dependency, CO₂ emissions, and traffic congestion, while providing little benefit to either corn or ethanol producers. These social costs will be substantial with tax credits costing taxpayers $28.7 billion annually by 2022.     

Food–oil volatility spillovers and the impact of distinct biofuel policies on price uncertainties on feedstock markets

Over recent decades, the link between crude oil and agricultural markets has been reinforced following the introduction of biofuels. We use timely measures of (co)variation spillovers to analyze the role of crude oil in shaping price uncertainties of agricultural commodities, which are largely used as biofuel feedstocks. Our sectoral- and market-specific measures distinguish tranquil (1995–2005) and crisis episodes (2006–2015), as well as periods during which either consumption mandates or tax credits were enacted to spur biofuels. During the crisis period, crude oil volatility transmissions account for 16% (20%) of price uncertainties in ethanol (biodiesel) feedstock markets on average. Moreover, we find evidence of enhanced volatility transmissions under tax credit regimes compared with consumption mandates. The results from pooled regressions confirm stronger volatility transmissions by about 12% under the enactment of tax credits.     

Leveling the field for biofuels: comparing the economic and environmental impacts of biofuel and other export crops in Malawi

Biofuels often raise the specter of food insecurity, water resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emissions from land clearing. These concerns underpin the “sustainability criteria” governing access to European biofuel markets. However, it is unclear if producing biofuels in low‐income countries does exacerbate poverty and food insecurity, and moreover, whether the sustainability criteria should apply to all agricultural exports entering European markets. We develop an integrated modeling framework to simultaneously assess the economic and environmental impacts of producing biofuels in Malawi. We incorporate the effects of land use change on crop water use, and the opportunity costs of using scarce resources for biofuels instead of other crops. We find that biofuel production reduces poverty and food insecurity by raising household incomes. Irrigated outgrower schemes, rather than estate farms, lead to better economic outcomes, fewer emissions, and similar water requirements. Nevertheless, to gain access to European markets, Malawi would need to reduce emissions from ethanol plants. We find that biofuels’ economic and emissions outcomes are generally preferable to tobacco or soybeans. We conclude that the sustainability criteria encourage more sustainable biofuel production in countries like Malawi, but are perhaps overly biased against biofuels since other export crops raise similar concerns about food security and environmental impacts.     

The impact of OECD biofuels policies on developing countries

OECD countries’ biofuels policies, derived from energy and environmental legislation and activated by high oil prices, were the primary cause of not only the sudden spike in grain and oilseed prices in 2007–2008 but also of the ensuing price volatility. Even though developing countries have a comparative advantage in biofuels production, they were shut out of rich countries’ biofuel markets by trade discriminating biofuels policies. Developing countries would not have been able to take full advantage of the price spike in the short run anyway given the low supply elasticities and the long time required for biofuel production to come online, unlike for corn‐ethanol. The controversy over the right price of food is misplaced and policy makers should instead focus on improving biofuels policies, which like their counterpart agricultural policies in previous decades, have damaged the welfare of developing countries.     

Land acquisition for and local livelihood implications of biofuel development in Zimbabwe

Proponents of “green and clean” fuel argue that land acquisitions for biofuel development could result in significant economic benefits, such as job creation, local development, fuel and energy security, and minimal negative impacts on the environment. With a dominant focus on these purported benefits, comparatively little attention has been given to the processes and impacts of land acquisitions on the local people whose livelihoods depend on land-based activities. Using a case study of bio-ethanol development in Chisumbanje, Zimbabwe, this paper assesses the processes and local livelihood implications of land acquisitions for biofuel development and considers who is likely to bear the costs. Our findings show that local communities felt they were not consulted in the land acquisition process and despite the promises of local livelihood enhancement from biofuel development, displaced households (farmers) perceived that the costs incurred from biofuel development were more than the benefits received.     

Land use and economic effects of alternative biofuel policies in Brazil and the United States

Being the two largest ethanol producers in the world, biofuel policies in Brazil and the United States affect both their domestic markets and the global food and biofuel economy. In this article we develop a price endogenous mathematical programming model to simulate and analyze the impacts of biofuel mandates and trade distortions on land use, agricultural commodity and transportation fuel markets, and global environment. We find that an 80% increase in total biofuel production from its 103 billion liter baseline level to the mandated 183 billion liter level in 2022 can be achieved with less than 2% increase in total cropland use in both countries. In the United States, this would occur with cellulosic biofuels meeting nearly half of the biofuels consumed and produced largely on cropland pasture and corn ethanol meeting the rest of the mandate and resulting in a 2% increase in corn price. In Brazil, the expansion in sugarcane production would be achieved by reducing land under pasture and a marginal increase in intensification of livestock production. In the aggregate, biofuel policies increase economic surplus in both countries by 1% and redistribute the benefits from agricultural consumers to agricultural producers and the fuel sector. Finally, we also find that full implementation of the mandates in North America, China, and the European Union would reduce the global life‐cycle global greenhouse gas emissions by about 5%.     

Competition for land in the global bioeconomy

The global land use implications of biofuel expansion have received considerable attention in the literature over the past decade. Model‐based estimates of the emissions from cropland expansion have been used to assess the environmental impacts of biofuel policies. And integrated assessment models have estimated the potential for biofuels to contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement over the coming century. All of these studies feature, explicitly or implicitly, competition between biofuel feed stocks and other land uses. However, the economic mechanisms governing this competition, as well as the contribution of biofuels to global land use change, have not received the close scrutiny that they deserve. The purpose of this article is to offer a deeper look at these factors. We begin with a comparative static analysis which assesses the impact of exogenously specified forecasts of biofuel expansion over the period: 2006–2035. Global land use change is decomposed according to the three key margins of economic response: extensive supply, intensive supply, and demand. Under the International Energy Agency's “New Policies” scenario, biofuels account for nearly one‐fifth of global land use change over the 2006–2035 period. The article also offers a comparative dynamic analysis which determines the optimal path for first and second generation biofuels over the course of the entire 21st century. In the absence of GHG regulation, the welfare‐maximizing path for global land use, in the face of 3% annual growth in oil prices, allocates 225 Mha to biofuel feed stocks by 2100, with the associated biofuels accounting for about 30% of global liquid fuel consumption. This area expansion is somewhat diminished by expected climate change impacts on agriculture, while it is significantly increased by an aggressive GHG emissions target and by advances in conversion efficiency of second generation biofuels.     

The Impact of an EU–US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement on Biofuel and Feedstock Markets

We assess the impact of a potential TTIP bilateral free trade agreement on the EU and US bio‐economies (feedstock, biofuels, by‐products, and related competing crops) and major trade partners in these markets. The analysis develops a multi‐market model that incorporates bilateral trade flows (US to EU, EU to US, and similarly with third countries) and is calibrated to the OECD‐FAO baseline for 2013–2022 to account for recent policy decisions. The major policy reforms from a TTIP involve tariff and TRQ liberalisation and their direct contractionary impact on US sugar supply, EU biofuel production, and indirect negative effect on US high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) production. EU sugar and isoglucose production expand along with US ethanol and biodiesel and oilseed crushing. EU sugar would flow to the US, US biofuels and vegetable oil to the EU. We further quantify non‐tariff measures (NTM) affecting these trade flows between the EU and the US. EU oilseed production contracts, and EU crushing expands with improving crushing margins following reduced NTM frictions. Our analysis reveals limited net welfare gains with most net benefits reaped by Brazil and not the two trading partners of the TTIP.     

Competitive Storage,Biofuels and the Corn Price

The use of corn as an ethanol feedstock has been stimulated by US biofuels policy. This has changed both the position and the slope of the corn demand curve and increased the pass-through from crude oil to corn prices. The principal constraints on ethanol consumption and production have been regulation (the biofuels mandate), capacity constraints in ethanol refining and the blend wall, which puts a ceiling on the ethanol content of gasoline. The incidence of these constraints has varied over time. We model these impacts within the competitive storage model using structural break regression analysis. Our analysis shows that the pass-through has varied over time in relation to the share of ethanol in total US corn use. Our analysis provides robust empirical evidence of an increase in the pass-through from crude oil to corn prices over the period from the start of the century to a high level over 2004–2008 when corn use in ethanol was growing very fast. This enhanced sensitivity was driven by competition for corn as an ethanol feedstock with stock demand exerting strong upward pressure on the corn price.