The purpose of this paper is to examine, in a largely non-technical way, key issues and challenges associated with the use of biodiversity offsets in New Zealand. After describing the state of New Zealand biodiversity (as far as it is known), the existing legal and policy framework is briefly summarised. This is followed by a discussion on notable issues that have been identified to date.A number of ‘best practice’ guidance documents are surveyed, and alternative governance models discussed. Whether there is effective monitoring and enforcement of approved offset arrangements is also considered, drawing on recent research.Finally, future developments are examined, including the prospects of national policy guidance and statutory reform.
{"title":"Biodiversity Offsets in New Zealand: Challenges, Opportunities, Options","authors":"V. Rive","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2830341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2830341","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to examine, in a largely non-technical way, key issues and challenges associated with the use of biodiversity offsets in New Zealand. After describing the state of New Zealand biodiversity (as far as it is known), the existing legal and policy framework is briefly summarised. This is followed by a discussion on notable issues that have been identified to date.A number of ‘best practice’ guidance documents are surveyed, and alternative governance models discussed. Whether there is effective monitoring and enforcement of approved offset arrangements is also considered, drawing on recent research.Finally, future developments are examined, including the prospects of national policy guidance and statutory reform.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124805424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ocean acidification, the changing chemistry of the oceans as they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is likely to transform many aspects of the global marine environment by mid century, with severe impacts expected for calcifying organisms. This chapter examines how ocean acidification is currently addressed in international law, and what the future may hold in store for the regulation of one of the most pressing threats to the marine environment. It is seen that ocean acidification is currently not directly addressed by any treaty regime, and is indirectly regulated by an uncoordinated assortment of environmental treaties and soft law instruments. The precautionary principle, and the desirability of setting clear sustainability goals for the oceans, suggests the need for the international community to set a single upper limit for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to match both climate change and ocean acidification mitigation goals, as both environmental problems are symptoms of the same underlying cause – human interference with the global carbon cycle.
{"title":"Ocean Acidification","authors":"T. Stephens","doi":"10.18772/22015119186.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18772/22015119186.34","url":null,"abstract":"Ocean acidification, the changing chemistry of the oceans as they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is likely to transform many aspects of the global marine environment by mid century, with severe impacts expected for calcifying organisms. This chapter examines how ocean acidification is currently addressed in international law, and what the future may hold in store for the regulation of one of the most pressing threats to the marine environment. It is seen that ocean acidification is currently not directly addressed by any treaty regime, and is indirectly regulated by an uncoordinated assortment of environmental treaties and soft law instruments. The precautionary principle, and the desirability of setting clear sustainability goals for the oceans, suggests the need for the international community to set a single upper limit for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to match both climate change and ocean acidification mitigation goals, as both environmental problems are symptoms of the same underlying cause – human interference with the global carbon cycle.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125115159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Senate Bill 3 emerged from the Texas Legislature in 2007 as an attempt to create certainty over how the state deals with allocating water to environmental flows. Senate Bill 3 created a process in the Water Code requiring regional stakeholder groups (referred to as Basin and Bay Area Stakeholder Committees or BBASCs) to develop consensus-based environmental flow standards and strategies to meet the environmental flow standards specific to the rivers and bay systems in a particular region. The concept of “environmental flows” describes the flows of water necessary to protect the ecological health of rivers and of the bays and estuaries that are the ultimate recipients of these flows. The consensus of the scientific community is that for environmental flow standards to be adequate to support a sound ecological environment in a stream system, they must include minimum subsistence flows, varying levels of base flows, high flow pulses, and overbank pulses that vary throughout the year. Environmental flow standards establish requirements that govern when a water right holder may remove water from a stream or a river (instream flow requirements), thus protecting that water for instream and bay or estuary environmental needs. The Water Code directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), after considering the stakeholder committees’ recommendations, to adopt environmental flow standards “adequate to support a sound ecological environment, to the maximum extent reasonable considering other public interests and other relevant factors.” This paper summarizes the environmental flow standard and strategy recommendations made by the six stakeholder committees that submitted reports to the TCEQ and compares these to the standards the TCEQ ultimately adopted. The adopted standards only apply to permits seeking a new appropriation of water or to an amendment to an existing water right that increases the amount of water authorized to be stored, taken, or diverted.
{"title":"Implementing SB 3: Adopting Environmental Flows in Texas","authors":"Vanessa Puig-Williams","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2335022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2335022","url":null,"abstract":"Senate Bill 3 emerged from the Texas Legislature in 2007 as an attempt to create certainty over how the state deals with allocating water to environmental flows. Senate Bill 3 created a process in the Water Code requiring regional stakeholder groups (referred to as Basin and Bay Area Stakeholder Committees or BBASCs) to develop consensus-based environmental flow standards and strategies to meet the environmental flow standards specific to the rivers and bay systems in a particular region. The concept of “environmental flows” describes the flows of water necessary to protect the ecological health of rivers and of the bays and estuaries that are the ultimate recipients of these flows. The consensus of the scientific community is that for environmental flow standards to be adequate to support a sound ecological environment in a stream system, they must include minimum subsistence flows, varying levels of base flows, high flow pulses, and overbank pulses that vary throughout the year. Environmental flow standards establish requirements that govern when a water right holder may remove water from a stream or a river (instream flow requirements), thus protecting that water for instream and bay or estuary environmental needs. The Water Code directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), after considering the stakeholder committees’ recommendations, to adopt environmental flow standards “adequate to support a sound ecological environment, to the maximum extent reasonable considering other public interests and other relevant factors.” This paper summarizes the environmental flow standard and strategy recommendations made by the six stakeholder committees that submitted reports to the TCEQ and compares these to the standards the TCEQ ultimately adopted. The adopted standards only apply to permits seeking a new appropriation of water or to an amendment to an existing water right that increases the amount of water authorized to be stored, taken, or diverted.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115837856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An increasing number of countries have been supporting the extensive production and use of biofuels hoping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ensure energy security and help the rural poor. While the validity of such policy goals is largely shared, many critics doubt that biofuels are the solution and rather question the environmental, social and overall developmental impacts of biofuel expansion and related government support to the sector. This paper examines the role of each of the above three policy goals in driving the biofuel industry and analyses the developmental impact of biofuels especially on weak economies. It also critically addresses some recent developments and measures taken to ensure the social and environmental sustainability of biofuels. The main conclusion of the paper is that under the status quo many developing countries reap limited benefits from the biofuel industry for various reasons, including their limited role confined to the first stage of the value chain in biofuel production, and the dominance of large-scale plantations in biofuel feedstock cultivation. However, as production patterns and means vary, so does the impact that biofuels have on individual developing countries. Therefore, the paper concludes with a number of recommendations for measures that developing countries can take in order to maximise the benefits of biofuels.
{"title":"Biofuels and Development: Questioning Environmental and Social Sustainability from a Developing Country Perspective","authors":"F. Mulleta","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2295324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2295324","url":null,"abstract":"An increasing number of countries have been supporting the extensive production and use of biofuels hoping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ensure energy security and help the rural poor. While the validity of such policy goals is largely shared, many critics doubt that biofuels are the solution and rather question the environmental, social and overall developmental impacts of biofuel expansion and related government support to the sector. This paper examines the role of each of the above three policy goals in driving the biofuel industry and analyses the developmental impact of biofuels especially on weak economies. It also critically addresses some recent developments and measures taken to ensure the social and environmental sustainability of biofuels. The main conclusion of the paper is that under the status quo many developing countries reap limited benefits from the biofuel industry for various reasons, including their limited role confined to the first stage of the value chain in biofuel production, and the dominance of large-scale plantations in biofuel feedstock cultivation. However, as production patterns and means vary, so does the impact that biofuels have on individual developing countries. Therefore, the paper concludes with a number of recommendations for measures that developing countries can take in order to maximise the benefits of biofuels.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114834348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thus far in the October 2012 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear two cases presenting takings law issues. This brief report focuses on the first of these two cases, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, which was decided in December 2012. The question presented in Arkansas Game was whether government actions that temporarily result in flooding can amount to takings of private property that trigger the right to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
{"title":"Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States (Dec. 4, 2012): Rejecting Bright-Line Rule, U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Temporary Government-Caused Flooding May Be a Compensable Taking, at Least in Some Circumstances","authors":"A. Varcoe","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2189590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2189590","url":null,"abstract":"Thus far in the October 2012 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear two cases presenting takings law issues. This brief report focuses on the first of these two cases, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, which was decided in December 2012. The question presented in Arkansas Game was whether government actions that temporarily result in flooding can amount to takings of private property that trigger the right to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130442253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I. Ogundari, A. Famurewa, Ruth Ibilola Olaopa, J. Akarakiri, W. Siyanbola
Nigeria’s biofuel policy calls for 10% bioethanol and 20% biodiesel substitution in domestic petrol and diesel consumptions of 35 million and 12 million litres per day respectively. Although the policy was approved in 2005, after six years, a vibrant biofuels industry has not taken off in the country. In this paper, using strategic analysis approach, we determined the key technological impediments to biofuel industry development in Nigeria to be inadequate knowledge on feedstock and landmass requirements, the “food vs fuel” debate, fuel subsidy implications, indifference and low market confidence by investors, limited S&T human capability, poor funding, weak institutional framework and poor infrastructure provision. We have established that Nigeria’s total biofuel production at highest demand by 2020 (11.64 Million Tons) would require 51.8 Million Tons of feedstock comprising 48.44 Million Tons of cassava for bioethanol and 3.36 Million Tons of Jatropha curcas for biodiesel. This production demand would require 57.5 Thousand Sq. Km of land. This is less than 8% and 20% of the arable land (726 Thousand Sq. Km) or cultivated land (340 Thousand Sq. Km) in Nigeria respectively. Hence the food vs fuel fears were deemed unnecessary. We argue that the N1.2 trillion (US$8 billion) fuel subsidy claimed by the Federal Government of Nigeria in 2011 be converted as seed capital for the take-off of the biofuels industry in the country.
{"title":"Technological Analysis of Sustainable Biofuels Development in Nigeria","authors":"I. Ogundari, A. Famurewa, Ruth Ibilola Olaopa, J. Akarakiri, W. Siyanbola","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2181731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2181731","url":null,"abstract":"Nigeria’s biofuel policy calls for 10% bioethanol and 20% biodiesel substitution in domestic petrol and diesel consumptions of 35 million and 12 million litres per day respectively. Although the policy was approved in 2005, after six years, a vibrant biofuels industry has not taken off in the country. In this paper, using strategic analysis approach, we determined the key technological impediments to biofuel industry development in Nigeria to be inadequate knowledge on feedstock and landmass requirements, the “food vs fuel” debate, fuel subsidy implications, indifference and low market confidence by investors, limited S&T human capability, poor funding, weak institutional framework and poor infrastructure provision. We have established that Nigeria’s total biofuel production at highest demand by 2020 (11.64 Million Tons) would require 51.8 Million Tons of feedstock comprising 48.44 Million Tons of cassava for bioethanol and 3.36 Million Tons of Jatropha curcas for biodiesel. This production demand would require 57.5 Thousand Sq. Km of land. This is less than 8% and 20% of the arable land (726 Thousand Sq. Km) or cultivated land (340 Thousand Sq. Km) in Nigeria respectively. Hence the food vs fuel fears were deemed unnecessary. We argue that the N1.2 trillion (US$8 billion) fuel subsidy claimed by the Federal Government of Nigeria in 2011 be converted as seed capital for the take-off of the biofuels industry in the country.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129092041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reviews the international law aimed at controlling traditional air pollution as well as the efforts to address climate change. It covers transboundary air pollution litigation and the treaties dealing with conventional and toxic air pollutants. It discusses the Montreal Protocol and the continuing efforts to protect stratospheric ozone. It covers the control greenhouse gas emissions based on the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent meetings of the parties. Finally, it discusses the international efforts to control black carbon. It concludes with an evaluation of these international efforts and recommendations for future negotiations.
{"title":"The Control of Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases Using International Law","authors":"A. Reitze","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2172112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2172112","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the international law aimed at controlling traditional air pollution as well as the efforts to address climate change. It covers transboundary air pollution litigation and the treaties dealing with conventional and toxic air pollutants. It discusses the Montreal Protocol and the continuing efforts to protect stratospheric ozone. It covers the control greenhouse gas emissions based on the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent meetings of the parties. Finally, it discusses the international efforts to control black carbon. It concludes with an evaluation of these international efforts and recommendations for future negotiations.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128513612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the first global and comprehensive agreement providing for regulatory liability and a definition of damage to biological diversity. By voluntarily assuming a binding obligation to provide for prompt, adequate and effective response measures in the event of damage caused by the transboundary movement of living modified organisms, states expressly accept the responsibility that comes with their consent to the import of living modified organisms. The paper analyzes the evolution of liability mechanisms in international law that culminated in the adoption of the Supplementary Protocol.
{"title":"The Legal Significance of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol: The Result of a Paradigm Evolution","authors":"R. Lefeber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2151282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2151282","url":null,"abstract":"The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the first global and comprehensive agreement providing for regulatory liability and a definition of damage to biological diversity. By voluntarily assuming a binding obligation to provide for prompt, adequate and effective response measures in the event of damage caused by the transboundary movement of living modified organisms, states expressly accept the responsibility that comes with their consent to the import of living modified organisms. The paper analyzes the evolution of liability mechanisms in international law that culminated in the adoption of the Supplementary Protocol.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125907818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines Alberta's Wildlife Act and the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) to assess the legal protection of endangered species in Alberta. Most of the discussion related to provisions contained in SARA, as there is comparatively less to discuss under the Wildlife Act. The fact that legal protection for endangered species in Alberta consists primarily of federal statutory rules is unfortunate, as wildlife and its habitat are by and large property of the provincial Crown, and it is a general principle of constitutional law that the federal government cannot in substance legislate over provincial property under the guise of a regulatory scheme. The legal protections in SARA are, thus, for the most part restricted to species found on federal lands and to species that fall under federal legislative powers. This article demonstrates that the Alberta government has chosen to govern species at risk almost entirely by policy and discretionary power. The limited application of federal protections to provincial lands and the absence of meaningful protection in the Wildlife Act leads the authors to conclude that, despite a perception of legal protection for endangered species, such protection does not exist in Alberta.
{"title":"The Basics of Species at Risk Legislation in Alberta","authors":"Shaun Fluker, Jocelyn Stacey","doi":"10.29173/ALR269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR269","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines Alberta's Wildlife Act and the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) to assess the legal protection of endangered species in Alberta. Most of the discussion related to provisions contained in SARA, as there is comparatively less to discuss under the Wildlife Act. The fact that legal protection for endangered species in Alberta consists primarily of federal statutory rules is unfortunate, as wildlife and its habitat are by and large property of the provincial Crown, and it is a general principle of constitutional law that the federal government cannot in substance legislate over provincial property under the guise of a regulatory scheme. The legal protections in SARA are, thus, for the most part restricted to species found on federal lands and to species that fall under federal legislative powers. This article demonstrates that the Alberta government has chosen to govern species at risk almost entirely by policy and discretionary power. The limited application of federal protections to provincial lands and the absence of meaningful protection in the Wildlife Act leads the authors to conclude that, despite a perception of legal protection for endangered species, such protection does not exist in Alberta.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132855735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The U.S. Congress established the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, which mandates a certain volume of biofuel consumption from 2006-2022, in an effort to enhance U.S. energy security, reduce transportation-related GHG emissions, and stimulate rural economic development. In this Paper, we assess the RFS from the viewpoint of industrial policy and provide the first empirical study addressing whether the RFS is an effective policy instrument to incentivize the development of the nascent biofuels industry. Our analysis focuses on data associated with the first-generation bioethanol industry and suggests that the RFS contributes to increasing economies of scale and improving the competition level among existing firms. More specifically, our empirical analysis suggests that: (1) the RFS has a positive significant effect on the capacity of first-generation bioethanol plants; and (2) the RFS positively affects the survival rate of first-generation bioethanol plants.
{"title":"Mandatory Demand as a Policy Instrument: The Case of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Biofuel Program","authors":"J. Kesan, Timothy A. Slating, Hsiao-shan Yang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2083698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2083698","url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. Congress established the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, which mandates a certain volume of biofuel consumption from 2006-2022, in an effort to enhance U.S. energy security, reduce transportation-related GHG emissions, and stimulate rural economic development. In this Paper, we assess the RFS from the viewpoint of industrial policy and provide the first empirical study addressing whether the RFS is an effective policy instrument to incentivize the development of the nascent biofuels industry. Our analysis focuses on data associated with the first-generation bioethanol industry and suggests that the RFS contributes to increasing economies of scale and improving the competition level among existing firms. More specifically, our empirical analysis suggests that: (1) the RFS has a positive significant effect on the capacity of first-generation bioethanol plants; and (2) the RFS positively affects the survival rate of first-generation bioethanol plants.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130861070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：