This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Aim of study: This study evaluates, through the input-output (I-O) methodology, the economic and social impacts (Gross Value Added –GVA– and job creation) of the national biodiesel industry on the Spanish economy in the recent past (between 2005 and 2018). These impacts are also simulated for different scenarios, for an average year following a trend from the past, based on different hypotheses on biodiesel production, trade balance and national production of raw materials. The aim is to guide decision-makers in the planning and design of regulations with implications in the domains of energy, economy and employment. Area of study: Spain. Material and methods: I-O methodology. Main results: The contribution of the biodiesel sector to GVA and job creation in Spain was very high during the construction phase of the biodiesel industry. However, this has been very limited during the operational phase, mainly due to imports of biodiesel and raw mate-rial, from Indonesia and Argentina. The economic and social impacts of this industry would be greater if higher amounts of domestic raw materials were used. Research highlights: The results justify public support for the operation of existing biodiesel plants in Spain in order to increase gross domestic product and employment, including the further implementation of specific measures to encourage domestic production. Policy measures to increase the use of national raw materials could include promoting rapeseed as an ideal cereal rotation in Spain and establishing contracting systems that guarantee farmers' profitability.
In the European Union (EU), the consumption of bio-diesel has been fostered in recent years mainly because of its environmental benefits over petrodiesel, focusing mainly on reducing CO2 emissions. The use of biofuels made from biomass provides a renewable alternative to fossil fuels in the EU's transport sector in the framework of the European Green Deal. However, renewable energies must not only be environmentally friendly in order to be sustainable, but also economically and socially beneficial (Heijungs, 2014). The pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, has limited industrial production and business worldwide, affected markets and influenced the drop in oil prices. The exceptional circumstances arising from COVID-19 mean that action by governments must be taken quickly and in the very short term to revive the economy.
The Renewable Energy Directive sets rules for the EU to achieve its 10% of the transport fuel of every EU country from renewable sources such as biofuels through national renewable energy action plans. Along these years, the pro-duction, consumption imports and exports of biofuels inthe EU, as well as in Spain, have undergone strong growth in line with the legislative framework. Fig. S1 [suppl.] shows the Spanish biodiesel consumption, production, imports, and exports. In Spain, several policies have been regulating the biofuel targets. The first compulsory target for biofuels in Spain was passed by Law 12/2007 (BOE, 2007) and Order ITC/2877/2008 (BOE, 2008), which es-tablished a 3.4% target of final consumption of energy in the transport sector for 2009 and 5.83% for 2010. Royal Decree (RD) 1738/2010 (BOE, 2010) approved targets of 5.9%, 6.0% and 6.1% for years 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. These targets were subsequently elevated to 6.2%, 6.5% and 6.5% (6.0%, 7.0% and 7.0% of bio-fuels in diesel) for the same years by RD 459/2011 (BOE, 2011), measured all these percentages in energy content. Compliance with these targets led to a quick increase of the consumption of biofuels and other renewable fuels commercialized for transport purposes Fig. S1 [suppl.]. Imports incoming from Argentina and Indonesia (APPA, 2013) led to an alarming decline of the biodiesel domestic production in Spain (Espejo Marín et al., 2016) and in Eu-rope in general (EBB, 2012). Therefore, in 2012 the Euro-pean Biodiesel Board (EBB) complained about dumping. The European Commission started investigations (OJEU, 2012) and imposed anti-dumping duties for five years sin-ce 2013 (OJEU, 2013a,b). This policy caused decrease of imports in 2013 and 2014 (Fig. S1 [suppl.]) and a slight recuperation of the biodiesel industry in 2013.
In July 2013, Law 11/2013 (BOE, 2013) set lower targets (4.1% in 2013 and subsequent years) causing a sharp decline of domestic consumption. But Order IET/822/2012 (BOE, 2012) by which biodiesel must be produced in specific plants favoured biodiesel production (Fig. S1 [suppl.]). Resolution of BOE (2014) required hy-drocarbon sector operators to purchase 4.8 million tons of biodiesel from 37 plants in the EU, 23 of which were located in Spain (listed in the Resolution). In BOE (2015), RD 1085/2015 adopted new targets of 4.3%, 5%, 6%, 7% and 8.5% (in energy content) for years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 which led to increased consumption (Fig. S1 [suppl.]). In September 2017, the anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of biodiesel from Argentina were significantly reduced by OJEU (2007) and as a re-sult, imports from Argentina started to increase rapidly. However, the Spanish biodiesel production also increased because of exports (Fig. S1). RED II (OJEU, 2018) esta-blished a 14% target for energy from renewable sources in transportation by 2030, with a maximum of 7% of fi-nal consumption of energy when they are produced from food and feed crops. In Spain, almost 100% of biodiesel consumed in recent years has been produced from food and feed crops feedstocks, also called first generation bio-fuels. Although RED II set a share of final consumption of advanced biofuels in the transport sector of at least 0.2 % in 2022, at least 1% in 2025 and at least 3.5% in 2030, a significant contribution is not anticipated by next deca-de given the small number of announced projects that are currently moving into construction (IEA, 2018). Therefo-re, first generation biodiesel will continue being the main European solution to reduce emissions from transport and dependence on imported oil.
By 2020, in Spain, RD 1085/2015 (BOE, 2015) also set a cap of 7% for first generation biofuels, while RD 235/2018 (BOE, 2018) set an indicative target of 0.1% for advanced biofuels. Moreover, the proportion of raw materials used to produce biodiesel is likely to change. Under OJEU (2018), palm oil was qualified as high indi-rect land use change 'high ILUC-risk', so public support will be more demanding for this feedstock. The Spanish raw material used to produce the biodiesel that is consu-med in Spain represented only 0.34% in 2018. The lar-gest proportion of the raw material used to produce bio-diesel consumed in Spain came in 2018 from Indonesia (35.69%), Argentina (23.74%), Malaysia (18.53%) and Brazil (8.06%) (CNMC, 2019a). Palm oil is imported mainly from Indonesia and Malaysia, while soybean oil is mainly imported from Argentina and Brazil. Elimina-ting direct EU demand for palm oil as a biofuel feedstock could lead to substitute it for soy oil or rape oil. Whereas soy is not suitable for cultivation in Spain, the agro-clima-tic conditions are suitable for rapeseed. However, the area of rapeseed has been very reduced in Spain in comparison with other EU countries, due to the massive poisoning in 1981 when rapeseed oil was mixed with industrial oil for human consumption causing more than 30,000 people to be affected. On 11 February 2019, after a new complaint by EBB, the Commission imposed a definitive counter-vailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Ar-gentina (OJEU, 2019c). In response, Argentine exporters offered a minimum import price (MIP) applicable to all Argentine biodiesel imports to the EU. After accepting the agreement, OJEU (2019b) exempted from the coun-tervailing duty eight Argentinean companies, which could export around 1.2 million tonnes of biodiesel duty-free to the EU every year.
Certainly, the promotion of the use of biofuels in the EU has been highly criticized because of its environ-mental, social or economic externalities, such us causing deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia (Malins, 2019; T&E, 2019), putting millions of people at risk of hunger (De Schutter, 2012, 2014) or reducing EU producers’ profitability and leading to several bankruptcies because of dumped imports from Argentine and Indonesia (EBB, 2012). However, given the large number of goals which policies in general pursue, interactions are inevitable, so trade-offs and synergies between different goals in the triple dimension (economic, social and environmental) should be taken into consideration by policy makers in any sector (Scherer et al., 2018). The environmental im-pacts of Spanish biodiesel were assessed previously by the authors (Fernández-Tirado et al., 2013, 2016, 2017) as part of a PhD thesis that aims to analyse the sustainabi-lity of biodiesel in Spain. Apart from these, economic and social impacts must be assessed to analyse sustainability.
In the literature, the I-O methodology has been widely used to analyse the economic impact and job creation in different sectors and at different levels (regional, state, etc.). In the biofuels sector, this methodology has been frequently employed to estimate the economic impact that can result from the use of different types of biofuels in different states or counties in the U.S. (Hodur et al., 2006; Leistritz & Hodur, 2008; Perez-Verdin et al., 2008; Low & Isserman, 2009; Bailey et al., 2011; Dilekli & Duchin, 2016; Zhang et al., 2016; Coon et al., 2017). The biofuel economic impact assessment through the I-O methodo-logy has been less frequent outside the U.S. However, this method has been often used to quantify the economic and job creation effect of the introduction of biofuels at different scales (Thomassin & Baker, 2000; Kulišić et al., 2007; Neuwahl et al., 2008; Mukhopadhyay & Thomas-sin, 2011; Silalertruksa et al., 2012; Malik et al., 2014; Duscha et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2015; Markandya et al., 2016; Sievers & Schaffer, 2016; Okkonen & Lehtonen, 2017; EurObserv’ER, 2017; Veiga et al., 2018; Brinkman et al., 2018; Loizou et al., 2019; Lechón et al., 2019).
In Spain, de la Rua (2009) developed an integrated tool ‘Life Cycle Assessment I-O’ to quantify the eco-nomic activity and job creation from the production of bioethanol in Spain; IDAE (2011a) estimated the con-tribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the different technologies for renewable energy supplies, including biofuels, from 2006 to 2020; the Spanish as-sociation of renewable energy companies (APPA) publi-shes annually an inform about the impacts of renewable energies in Spain, covering the contribution of every sector to the GDP and number of jobs. CIEMAT (Cen-tre for Energy, Environment and Technology Research) have also used I-O methodology very often to calculate the creation of direct and indirect employment and the impact on the economy arising from Spanish renewa-ble energy projects other than biodiesel. For example, Sáez et al. (1998) discussed, among other consequences, the direct and indirect job creation of a 20 MW power plant fueled by biomass from Cynara cardunculus, in southern Spain; Linares et al. (1996) analysed, beside the job creation, the effects of this plant in GDP; Vare-la et al. (1999) discussed, among other consequences, the macroeconomic effects and employment generation arising from a biomass plant fuelled by Cynara cardun-culus and forest residues; Caldés et al. (2009) estimated the increase in the demand for goods and services as well as in employment, meeting the stated objectives of ther-mal power in the PER (Renewable Energy Plan); Santa-maría & Azqueta (2015) made a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in order to assess the adequacy of public support policies of biofuels, covering the impact on the labour market and on the GDP; and finally, de la Rúa & Lechón (2016) presented a socioeconomic study of the produc-tion of pellets from Miscanthus. Moreover, a literature review of socioeconomic implications of bioenergy can be found at de la Rúa & Lechón (2018).
Although I-O models have been used to assist poli-tical decision making for several decades (Okkonen & Lehtonen, 2017), there is an absence of previous work on the macroeconomic impact of policies affecting biodiesel consumption and production in Spain through different scenarios, which justifies the performance of this inves-tigation.
In this context and given the potential impacts that the implementation of energy policies can have in the Spanish biodiesel industry and, consequently, in the Spanish eco-nomy and employment, and in its sustainability, analysing various scenarios can help decision makers to optimize development policies of the biodiesel industry. Moreover, evaluating the impacts that this industry had already cau-sed in Spain is also necessary. To this aim, this study as-sesses the effects of the biodiesel industry in Spain, in the past and the future under different conditions, on econo-mic and social terms, focusing on job creation and gross value added (GVA).
Two metrics were used to estimate the economic and social impacts of the biodiesel industry in Spain: GVA and job creation. GVA is a metric of economic produc-tivity that measures the contribution to GDP and covers all value added (such as income from labour or capital, land rent and taxes minus subsidies). Job creation is a so-cio-economic metric that measures the increase in emplo-yment driven by a specific industry. The 2010 and 2015 symmetric I-O tables of the Spanish economy (SIOT) from INE (2018) were used to quantify macroeconomic impacts with both GVA and jobs indicators, using the I-O model (Leontief, 1984).
An I-O table can be expressed as follows in the Leon-tief model:
X = (I–Ad)-1 · D = B · D (1)
where X is the vector of total production, I is the identity matrix, Ad is the square matrix of domestic technical coe-fficients, D is the vector of domestic demand and B is the accounting multiplier matrix (equivalent to the Leontief inverse matrix). Therefore, the increase in domestic pro-duction resulting from an increase in domestic demand can be expressed as:
ΔX = (I–Ad)-1 · ΔD = B · ΔD (2)
Types of economic impacts
Direct and indirect impacts
To estimate the impacts on GVA and employment an additional vector that indicates the amount of employment and the added value generated by each activity sector per monetary unit of production has to be included in Eq. (2).
Moreover, the effects on the economy caused by pro-ducts that were necessary to meet the demands of manda-tory targets were considered ‘direct impacts’, while the effects caused by the interactions with other sectors were considered ‘indirect impacts’. Therefore, impacts on em-ployment and GVA are divided into direct and indirect impacts. The symbol ˆ indicates that the vector was diago-nalized. In this way, the direct impact on GVA is:
while the indirect impact on GVA is:
where the added value multiplier, LGVA, indicates how many euros are generated in the economy for each euro spent initially, as a consequence of the economic activity of the related sectors.
In the same way, job creation was divided into direct and indirect job creation, with direct job creation:
and indirect job creation:
where the employment multiplier, Ljobs, is the vector of the employment coefficients, containing the base-year emplo-yment in each sector per unit of additional final demand in the different branches of the SIOT. In this analysis, unlike LGVA, for its calculation, physical labour input coefficients are used instead of monetary input coefficients. Ejobs repre-sents the number of full-time equivalent jobs (direct and indirect) in Spain resulting from the increase in biodie-sel production, and ΔX the increase in production in each branch in Spain, resulting from the increase in biodiesel production.
Impacts during the construction and during the operation phases
1. Impacts during the construction. The impacts that oc-cur during the implementation and construction phases of the biofuel industry are temporary economic impacts. The 2010 SIOT was used to quantify these economic impacts from 2005 to 2012 with both indicators, GVA and em-ployment. Most biodiesel plants were built between 2005 and 2012. Given the biodiesel overcapacity (Table 1), new production plants are not foreseeable (IDAE, 2011b). Therefore, higher blending mandates would not cause new temporary impacts.
2. Impacts during the operation phasea) Impacts during the operation phase from 2005 to2018. These impacts were calculated from 2005, when the biodiesel plants began operating in Spain, to 2018, the last year in which data could be collected. The im-pacts during the operation phase from 2005 to 2018, were evaluated with two SIOT: 2010 SIOT for impacts from 2005 to 2012, and 2015 SIOT from 2013 to 2018. In order to calculate the increase in production, ΔX, de-rived from a certain increase in demand for biodiesel, ΔD, during the operation phase, the biodiesel industry must be disaggregated from the activity of the chemical industry (branch ‘11 Chemical industry’) in the SIOT, to a new branch, called branch ‘65 Biodiesel’. Therefore, an ‘expanded’ SIOT of the Spanish economy (ESIOT) of 65×65, an ‘expanded’ domestic Leontief inverse ma-trix of 65×65, and an ‘expanded’ demand vector of 65×1 were used. The disaggregation of the biodiesel sector was carried out using various sources. Most of the data were taken from IDAE (2005) and IDAE (2011b), which break down the intermediate consumption of an avera-ge-sized biodiesel plant of 50,000 tonnes. Other costs such as crude oil, electricity or water were taken from more current sources and are detailed later in section ‘Domestic demand from the operation phase’. All prices were deflated to the base years of the tables (2010 or 2015) with data from The World Bank (2019). Then, the-se costs calculated in euros per ton were multiplied by the annual production of biodiesel, according to CNMC data (2019a) to calculate the ESIOT data.b) Impacts during the operation phase for an average year following a trend from the past.Different scenarios were simulated based on different hypotheses on biodiesel production, trade balance (ex-port-imports) and on national raw material production. Since biofuels in general do not become cost competiti-ve with conventional fuels without institutional support, limited growth in the use of biodiesel for transport was foreseen in all scenarios.Firstly, it was necessary to estimate fuel consumption for an average year following a trend from the past. In all scenarios, the consumption of biofuels in Spain was dri-ven by mandate. We assumed a minimum target for bio-fuels (OB) 8.5% (energy basis) according to BOE (2015). In all scenarios, a cap of 7% (energy basis) was assumed for first-generation biofuels over total motor fuels. Thus, the demand for biofuels forecast was 3,067,506 tons of oil equivalent (toe).Since 2016, Spanish blenders prefer to meet the man-dates with biodiesel or hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), which does not count towards the 7% blending limit for labelling purposes (BOE, 2015), but it is eligible for man-date compliance at the expense of bioethanol use (USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2017). Taking this into ac-count, the same percentages of demand for bioethanol (10.3%), biodiesel (73.3%) and HVO (17.7%) over total biofuels was considered as in 2018 for all scenarios. On the other hand, the hypothesis on the trade balance were established taking into account two regulations: i) under OJEU (2019a), palm oil was qualified as 'high ILUC-risk', so public support will be more demanding for this raw ma-terial, which could lead to its replacement by soybean or rapeseed oil; ii) duty free imports of biodiesel from Argen-tina were limited to 1.2 million tons (OJEU, 2019b) and the countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina increased from 25.0% to 33.4% (OJEU, 2019c), which would help stimulate the national biodiesel industry.Table 2 summarizes the main hypothesis related to bio-diesel production, rapeseed oil production and biodiesel trade balance in each scenario. The reference scenario, scenario 0 (S0), was a baseline for the analysis. S0, assu-mes a 7% cap (energy basis) on first generation biofuels. A national production which equals the domestic demand for biodiesel, that is, 1,817,945 toe of biodiesel was si-mulated. The same volume of Spanish rape oil as in 2018 would be used to produce Spanish biodiesel. The cost of feedstock was a major component of overall costs. The forecast rape oil price in all scenarios was 756 €/t accor-ding to EC (2018).Scenario 1 (S1) was an optimistic scenario for bio-diesel production plants. In this scenario, 100% of the Spanish plants production capacity was used, that is, 4,357,591 toe (Table 2), and most of the production would be destined for export. Also, the same volume of Spani-sh rape oil as in 2018 would be used to produce Spanish biodiesel.Scenario 2 (S2) was an optimistic scenario for bio-diesel production plants and for Spanish feedstock pro-ducers. In this scenario, also 100% of the production ca-pacity of Spanish plants was used, that is, 4,357,591 toe (Table 2) and also most of the production would be des-tined for export. Moreover, the amount of Spanish rape oil would increase to replace imports of vegetable oils. In S2, about 225,000 tons of rapeseed would be harvested to produce 89,286 tons of rape oil in Spain as raw material for Spanish biodiesel. This was the maximum amount of rapeseed produced in Spain in the harvests of recent years (MAPAMA, 2017).Scenario 3 (S3) was a pessimistic scenario for bio-diesel production plants. In this scenario, the domestic demand for biodiesel, this is, 1,817,945 toe of biodiesel would be satisfied mainly by imports. Exports, would drop to 2012 levels (Fig. S1 [suppl.]), i.e. 178,902 toe. While production to supply domestic demand would reach 757,467 toe, the rest of domestic demand, i.e., 1,060,478 toe would be satisfied by biodiesel imports. Moreover, the same volume of Spanish rape oil as in 2018 would be used to produce Spanish biodiesel.Domestic biodiesel demandTo calculate the increase in production, ΔX, derived from a certain increase in biodiesel demand, ΔD, it was necessary to define the vector of domestic demand for biodiesel. In this analysis, two types of domestic demand were distinguished: domestic demand from the construc-tion and from the operation phases. Domestic demand from the construction phase. Domestic demand from the implementation and construction phase of the biofuel industry generates temporary economic im-pacts. The temporary costs of the investment made by the biodiesel industry over the years were calculated using the 2010 SIOT and data from Table 1 and Table 3. Ta-ble 1 indicates the new construction biodiesel industry in Spain over the years. Table 3 represents the investment cost (temporary domestic demand) for plants averaging 50,000 t.Domestic demand from the operation phase. The domes-tic demand during the operation of the biofuel industry generates permanent economic impacts. The data on the operating costs of biodiesel from Table 4 were used to calculate these impacts. The operating costs of the bio-diesel industry were introduced as intermediate inputs in the 65×65 ESIOT. In order to calculate the impacts from the operation phase, a 65×1 vector which includes just the domestic demand for biodiesel (ΔD) 65×1, was used according to Eq. (2). Some basic adjustments were made, such as the conversion of units or currencies. A plant with a vegetable oil pre-treatment unit was used as a model. This plant allows the use of almost any type of crude oil (soy, rapeseed, palm, etc.). Crude oil represented the main cost, followed by chemical products and salaries.The percentage of Spanish raw material used to produ-ce biodiesel has increased over the years. Data on the pro-duction of industrial crops destined for the Spanish bio-diesel industry from 2005 to 2010 were estimated by the area that received the aid for energy crops (FEGA, 2010) established in OJEU (2003), in force until the 2009/2010 campaign, and the average yields of energy crops, obtai-ned from the historical series of the statistic yearbooks of MAPAMA (2017). Likewise, data on the production of industrial crops destined for the Spanish biodiesel in-dustry from 2011 to 2018 were obtained from the statistic yearbooks of MAPAMA (2017). All prices were deflated to the base years of the tables with data from The World Bank (2019).According to Fernández-Tirado et al. (2016), 2.52 tons of seed are needed to produce 1 ton of crude rapeseed oil, while according to CIEMAT (2006), 2.39 tons of seed are needed to produce 1 ton of crude sunflower oil. During the transesterification process, 1.023 tons of vegetable oil are needed to produce 1 ton of biodiesel. Biodiesel plants tend to be located close to large harbours in Spain, as sea transport is the main mean of transporting oil. The prices of soybean oil, which is usually transported from the har-bour of Rosario by handysize tankers, i.e. with a capaci-ty of around 25,000 tons, were indicated as free on board (FOB). Spanish tankers were considered for the analysis. Insurance was estimated at 0.1428% of maritime transport cost (Ursea, 2017). Conversely, the price of palm oil was the CIF price. Rapeseed oil does not need maritime trans-port, as Spanish rapeseed oil was considered. Although Spanish biodiesel factories usually receive the oil and store it in their own storage tanks, the use of facilities of logistics operators is also frequent. In addition, the logistics opera-tors store the finished biodiesel from the plants. A storage time of one month has been assumed, as times longer than two months may cause problems (Burin, 2012).While in the plants near the refineries the transport of biodiesel is carried out by means of a direct pipe connec-tion, in the more distant plants it is carried out by means of tanker trucks. In 2015, 2.1% of fuels were transported in tanker trucks and the rest in pipelines (CLH, 2016). Depreciation of equipment and facilities has not been considered in Table 4, as they had previously been in-cluded in the implementation and construction phase of the industry.In addition, data were collected from different Spanish biodiesel companies in order to estimate the number of direct jobs during the operation phase (Fig. S1 [suppl.]), necessary to calculate the job creation. An average ratio of 22 employees per 100,000 t of biodiesel produced was estimated.Impacts during the construction phase
Table 5 shows impacts during the construction phase of the biodiesel industry on GVA. The total contribution to GVA derived from the investments made by the biodie-sel industry in Spain during the construction phase from 2005 to 2012 was 2,694 million constant euros (2010 pri-ces), the indirect impact occurred in 2009, the year in which a large number of biodiesel industries were under construction.
Table 6 shows the temporary economic impacts on job creation. The year 2009 stands out in the same way, when more than 23,000 people were employed full time (directly and indirectly) thanks to the implementation of biodiesel industry.
Impacts during the operation phase: from 2005 to 2018
Table 7 shows impacts on GVA that occur during the operational phase of the biodiesel industry. The total con-tribution to GVA derived from the operation phase of the biodiesel industry in Spain from 2005 to 2018 was 738.49 million constant euros (2015 prices), with the direct im-pact slightly higher than the indirect one.
Finally, the jobs generated by biodiesel produc-tion in Spain were estimated. Table 8 shows the jobs generated in each year from 2005 to 2018 during the operation phase.
Impacts during the operation phase: scenarios simulation
Table 9 shows the impacts on GVA of the operation phase in the simulated scenarios. The contribution to GVA of the biodiesel sector in Spain ranged from 71.87 in S3 to 357.02 million euros in S2. Higher figures were found in scenarios in which biodiesel production increased. Howe-ver, another influential factor was the amount of domestic raw material used. Thus, the contribution to GVA per toe was higher in S2 (91.7 €/toe), as the amount of national rapeseed oil was higher in that scenario, while the contri-bution was equal to 83.1 €/toe in S0, 81.9 €/toe in S1 and 86.8 €/toe in S3.
Table 10 shows the impacts on the jobs of the ope-ration phase in the simulated scenarios. New produc-tion plants in Spain are not foreseeable (IDAE, 2011b), so only impacts during plant operation and maintenance were considered. The number of jobs ranged from 793 in S3 to 3,942 in S2.
In developing countries, efficiently using scarce re-sources by considering the economic and social costs of current policies is extremely important in formulating the appropriate policies to ensure food security and economic development. With this purpose, the present study empi-rically examined the competitiveness and determinants of the TE of sheep breeding under the current policies at the farm level in the provinces of Niğde and Aksaray in Tur-key. Furthermore, it was aimed to investigate the associa-tion between these two measurements in order to enable the comprehension of how this information can contribute to explaining sustainability.
Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that sheep rearing farmers were technically far from the efficient frontier. However, without changing the level of input, sheep farms could increase their income by up to 50% by taking into account the factors that caused in-efficiency in sheep breeding. The major determinants that decreased efficiency were current subsidies for sheep bre-eding, herd size and the excessive utilization of family labour, while the factors that increased the efficiency were sheep race, access to extension services, grazing period and location. In recent studies, an association between higher subsidy dependency and lower TE of farms has been revealed (Latruffe, 2010; Manevska-Tasevska et al., 2013). The adverse effect of subsidies on TE can be ex-plained by the fact that farmers perceived these supports as an insurance and/or an income aid. Substantive sub-sidy payments cause farmers to focus on other activi-ties, which may also negatively influence farm produc-tivity (Kumbhakar & Lien, 2010; Manevska-Tasevska et al., 2013).
Contrary to expectations, it was found that there was an inverse relationship between the efficiency and herd size of a farm. The probable reason for this result regar-ding smaller-size farms can be explained by the possi-bility of providing a smaller amount of feed at a better quality to animals as well as better looking after animals’ health. On the other hand, increasing herd size could be considered as a challenge to improve herd quality rather than a source of inefficiency. This finding was in line with various other studies in the literature (Javed et al., 2011; Gelan & Muriithi, 2015).
The other factor that negatively affected TE was the overuse of family labour. This result can be explained by the extensive use of family labour in small-scale farming due to the nature of such farming systems. This finding was in line with the results of other studies conducted in Turkey (Alemdar et al., 2010; Parlakay et al., 2017).
Sheep race within a herd had an important impact on farm productivity. The farmers in the region mainly pre-ferred the Akkaraman race. This can be related to the fact that farmers were satisfied with the productivity of the Akkaraman race under hard agro-ecologic conditions, as this race of sheep are able to benefit from the poor pastu-res of the region.
Furthermore, the farmers’ access to extension services also had an increasing effect on TE. This result was ex-pected, as agricultural extension plays a very important role on transforming new technology and knowledge into agricultural productivity. This finding was in line with the findings of Li & Li (2011) and Lampach et al. (2018).
Grazing duration was another factor that positively affected TE. The pasture were high in nutritional value as they include a wide variety of forage. The pastures also have an economic value as they reduce feed costs. Roughages and pastures, in particular, have an important place in meeting the nutritional needs of sheep. However, the short grazing period in the pasture and the low nutri-tional value due to vegetation prevent the desired yield from the animals.
Sheep breeding in Aksaray tended to be relatively more efficient than in Niğde. This result was also in line with the findings of the PAM analysis of the study. Howe-ver, both provinces, in parallel with the country’s development in sheep breeding, had recently lost their lea-ding position in sheep production even though they had a long tradition of sheep rearing and potential for small ruminant rearing.
As a result of the PAM analysis, it was determined that sheep breeding was subsidized and protected by the go-vernment. However, this implied that the market was at a higher degree of imperfection to ensure sustainability of this activity. In addition, in all research areas, social profits had negative values, which showed that sheep breeding cannot survive without distortion policies. According to the positive net transfers, resources were transferred into sheep breeding from other sectors of the economy. The positive divergences between private and social revenue indicated that due to distortions and market failures, the value of live sheep in the domestic market was higher than world prices. Similarly, the domestic fac-tor transfer was calculated as negative. This implied that the opportunities of non-tradable factors were higher than their market prices. As a result of the PAM table, it can be said that the farmers made a profit from sheep rearing with the existing policies.
Moreover, the differences between the private and so-cial costs of tradable inputs showed that domestic produ-cers were supported by cheaper input price levels compa-red to world prices. According to the NPCI, there was an income transfer from society to farmers, as the costs of tradable inputs had been reduced by the distortions of po-licies, i.e., the inputs were subsidised and protected by im-port tariffs. The average domestic prices for these inputs were only 64% of the world prices in the study area.
To capture the influence of government policies on sheep breeding by considering both input and output mar-kets together, the EPC was calculated. As a result, it was found that there was a net incentive of 97% for sheep rea-ring farmers in the study area. However, while this net transfer from society acted as an incentive for farmers to stay in farm activities, it constituted a net cost to the go-vernment that, through tariffs and subsidies on imported feeds, sustained its domestic price and reflected on an in-crease of the cost to citizens in general, through the gene-ration of negative health and environmental externalities. It should be noted that this value was only 30% for the efficient farms.
In addition to the protection level of farm activities, the DRC, PCR and SCB coefficients showed the competitive-ness level of sheep breeding. A value higher than 1 for the DRC implied that current government policies on sheep self-sufficiency caused significant allocative inefficien-cy and inefficient use of scarce resources. On the other hand, if farms used their resources efficiently, this value decreased to 0.88, implying that the efficient farms had a comparative advantage.
The PCR values, which were <1 for both provinces, showed that farmers enjoyed positive profits and werelikely to be motivated to stay in sheep breeding. This va-lue was the lowest in Aksaray at 0.56 meaning that only 56% of the value added was absorbed by the remuneration of the factors of production. The remaining 44% represen-ted the extra-profits gained by the farmers. However, this coefficient for the efficient farms was calculated as the hi-ghest extra-profits by up to 51%. Conversely, the result of the SCB coefficients in these areas were >1, indicating that these values were consistent with the DRC results. The other farms, excluding the efficient farms, were not competitive in sheep breeding.
In conclusion, the policies implemented could only just ensure the survival of this sector and not ensure to increase the competitiveness on both national and inter-national levels. The results indicated that if the farms worked under efficient conditions, the region could have a comparative advantage in sheep breeding. Therefore, the implementation of structural supports in the long term, which may enhance the efficiency of farms, have substantial importance in ensuring the sustainability and competitiveness of the sector. With this regard, the ma-jor obstacle in the improvement of the small ruminant sector in Turkey as well as the region is the utilization of pastures. As pastures have not been protected nor been improved for years, roughage production has declined and livestock producers have turned to compound feeds to compensate (FAS, 2018). Furthermore, sheepherding no longer appeals to young people, which causes increa-ses in migration from rural to urban areas in order to achieve higher life standards. For this reason, practices that encourage intensive small ruminant farming by pro-viding sufficient income should be the objectives of agri-cultural policies. As a result of increase in the importan-ce of small-scale farms around the world, policymakers should focus on the inclusion of small-scale sheep bree-ders into the market. Moreover, to increase productivity, researches related to genetic improvement and innova-tion should be continued and the results should be intro-duced to farmers through extension services. The main limitation of this study was that owing to time and fi-nancial constraints, the study area was restricted to only two provinces. Thus, further research is needed to make cross-region comparisons covering the whole country.
Comparison with other studies
From our results, it has been demonstrated that the impacts of the biodiesel industry during the construction phase, were much greater than the economic impacts of the operation phase in both impact metrics (economic and social) in Spain. The biodiesel sector contributed 2,694 million constant € (at 2010 prices) to GVA during the construction phase, from 2005 to 2012. By contrast, the total contribution to GVA derived from the operation pha-se from 2005 to 2018 was 695.68 million constant € (at 2015 prices). The economic impacts during the operation phase have been very limited due to the fact that many Spanish biodiesel plants had to close down due to low profitability. The highest cost from the biodiesel production is for the crude oil, that comes from oil crops. Oil crops compete for resources (land, fertilizers, water, etc) with other crops (energy, food or feed crops) that could be more profitable. Nevertheless, the impacts associa-ted with the operational phase of the biodiesel industry have grown since 2012, reaching 127.57 M€ in GVA in 2018, representing an increase of 439% over 2012. The scenarios simulation showed that the impact on GVA could reach 357.02 M€, in the most optimistic scenario if plants worked at full capacity with the highest percenta-ge of domestic raw materials used for its production. The same thing happened with the impacts during the cons-truction phase on employment. The year 2009 stood out in the same way, when more than 23,000 people worked full time thanks to the implementation of the biodiesel in-dustry. However, in the operational phase the biodiesel industry generated a maximum of 1,332 jobs per year in 2018. Likewise, the most optimistic scenario for job crea-tion estimates that 3,942 jobs would be created.
The IDAE (2011a) carried out a study on the economic impacts of the biofuels industry during the period 2005-2009. In addition, the APPA (2009a, 2010, 2011, 2012a) carries out an annual study on the macroeconomic impact of renewable energies in Spain. However, none of them dis-tinguished between impacts during the construction phase and impacts during the operation phase. In addition, they calculated the joint contribution to GDP of the biofuels in-dustry (biodiesel and bioethanol together). In contrast, our study analyses the contribution of the biodiesel industry exclusively. In any case, the results of the different studies were included in Tables 11, 12 and 13 for comparison.
The results were quite similar in the three studies in 2005 and 2006, taking into account that our study only shows the impacts on GVA caused by the biodiesel sector, while the other studies show those caused by biodiesel and bioethanol. However, the results were very diffe-rent for other years. While our figures were proportional to new construction plants (Table 1), the other studies showed results independent of these data. This was espe-cially evident in 2009, when many biodiesel plants were built. In addition, by aggregating the results from 2005 to 2012, our study shows greater impacts on GDP than the study of APPA (2012a), even if they are only caused by the biodiesel sector and bioethanol sector is not included.
As for the impacts on GVA from 2013 to 2017 (Table 12), the results from APPA (2018) differed significantly from ours. No biodiesel plant was built during this pe-riod, so the economic impacts were caused exclusively by the operation phase of the biodiesel industry. Therefore, the results should be proportional to biodiesel production (Fig. S1 [suppl.]). For this reason, we consider their re-sults to be very optimistic, their figures being six times higher than ours.
In addition, APPA (2010) had very different results on the impacts on employment (Table 13). Although its analysis did not differentiate between jobs during the construction or the operation phase, we also consider its data very optimistic. It recognised that about 75% of the 48 biodiesel plants remained paralyzed due to imports in 2010, and that most of the remaining plants operated well below capacity. However, this argument contrasts with its results, as 5,172 jobs were still created based on its results. These figures can be explained by accepting that the temporary impacts due to the construction of biodiesel plants in 2009 were distributed among other years. Howe-ver, it contrasts that although in our study there is a ratio between the number of jobs and the GVA, which ranges from 19 to 21, over all years, in its study the ratio varies from 8 to 51.
IDAE-ISTAS (2011) also calculated the number of di-rect and indirect jobs in Spain in 2009 from renewable energy sources, and its data also vary significantly from APPA (2010). It estimated that 964 direct jobs and 988 indirect jobs were generated by the biofuels sector in 2009. This study considered 439,000 toe of new construc-tion plants and 1,058,000 toe of accumulated power in 2009, unlike our study which considered 1,803,148 toe and 3,632,489 toe, respectively. In addition, IDAE-ISTAS (2011) simply considered percentages of 65% and 35% to divide the employment between temporary (associa-ted with manufacturing and installation) and permanent (associated with plant operation and maintenance). Thus, its results showed that 337 operators worked in 2009 in biofuel plants (biodiesel and bioethanol). According to CNE (2010), 947,275 toe of biofuels were produced in Spain in 2009, creating 36 direct jobs per 100,000 toe of biofuels. On the contrary, our results show that 125 direct jobs (Table 6) were created in the biodiesel sector during the operation phase. The ratio of the number of employees per 100,000 toe, which equals 22, was calculated using data from Fig. S1 [suppl.]. Furthermore, in our study, the percentage of employment during the construction phase (Table 4) is much higher than the employment during the operation phase (Table 6), varying in the 2005-2012 pe-riod from 1% in 2005 to 78% in 2010.
Our simulated scenarios were also compared with the results from these studies for the year 2020. IDAE
(2011a) estimated a contribution of the biofuels sector to the Spanish GDP of 149.9 €/toe for the year 2020. Thus, the total contribution of the biofuels sector in Spain to meet the binding targets for 2020 in the transport sector would amount to 524 M€ (at constant 2010 prices). The-se results vary significantly from ours. However, IDAE (2011a) did not explain some factors, such as the amount of domestic raw material used or the biodiesel trade ba-lance which could modify the results.
In addition, IDAE-ISTAS (2011) foreseen 1,164 jobs in the operation and maintenance of Spanish biofuel plants (biodiesel and bioethanol) in 2020. Their results are more similar to ours in the most pessimistic scenario for Spanish plants (S3). They also estimated 348 jobs for the manufacture and installation of new plants while we do not foresee any job, since new production plants are not foreseeable as previously indicated.
Without any doubt, biodiesel market will go on depen-ding on policies, mainly on mandated demand, which has been hugely changing in recent years in Spain, so consi-derable uncertainty regarding the projections of produc-tion, consumption, imports and exports will exist. In any case, biodiesel production generates positive economic and social impacts on the economic system and, to a grea-ter extent, the more domestic raw materials used for its production. In recent years, the Spanish biodiesel sector has been working well below capacity, so it has had a li-mited impact. The results obtained justify the adoption of public measures to increase the production of existing biodiesel plants in Spain aimed at increasing gross do-mestic product and employment. Some measures could be aimed at increasing national market share, such us Order IET/822/2012 (BOE, 2012), which had major impacts in the Spanish economy. In addition, anti-dumping duties have been also important in limiting imports and encoura-ging domestic production. Other measures could be aimed at increasing domestic raw material. Although rapeseed is an ideal rotation for cereal and rape oil an excellent raw material for biodiesel, the area of rapeseed in Spain has been very small compared to other EU countries. A poli-cy measure to increase the use of domestic raw material (rapeseed oil) could be to conduct outreach campaigns to dispel the myth that oilseed rape is a dangerous crop, an image due to massive intoxication in the country in the past by fraudulent mixing with industrial oil, so that farmers can grow it in rotation with cereals. Another me-asure could be the establishment of contracting systems that ensure farmer's profitability. In addition, many of the plants that use a higher percentage of domestic raw ma-terial are located in economically depressed rural areas, while those that use a higher percentage of imported raw material tend to be closer to the coast. These measures could therefore also offer new opportunities to diversify incomes and employment in rural areas, as it outlined the EU strategy for the promotion of biofuels. However, the application of the I-O model to regional studies would be required to calculate this impact. Moreover, it is ne-cessary to take into consideration the limitations of the model. Although the proposed model allows the examina-tion of some counterfactuals, i.e., hypothetical scenarios with attributes which vary from a baseline scenario, there might be multiple scenarios that have not been considered in this study. Other limitations include the stability of the technical coefficients, the fact that no economies of scale are contemplated and the opportunity cost of diverting the feedstock used to produce biodiesel to other purposes, or of diverting the land to other crops.
Finally, an analysis of global sustainability of biodiesel which includes not only the economic and social dimen-sions but also the environmental dimension of sustainable development is needed to guide decision makers to pro-mote sustainable biodiesel in Spain. Hence, it is essential to find out whether different biodiesel alternatives are ge-nerating benefits or disadvantages, such as the creation of jobs or increasing CO2 emissions. Trade-offs between different goals in the triple dimension (economic, social and environmental) should be taken into consideration by policy makers in any sector and will be evaluated in future research.
APPA, 2009a. Estudio del impacto macroeconómico de las energías renovables en España, 2009. Asociación de Empresas de Energías Renovables, Madrid.APPA, 2009b. La mitad de las treinta y seis plantas de biodiésel en España se encuentran actualmente paradas, mientras que casi todas las restantes funcionan al ralentí. https://www.appa.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/20090331-Nota-informativa-APPA-Biocarburantes-Balance-biocarburantes-2008-Espana-_31-marzo-2009_.pdf [28 Apr 2020].APPA, 2010. Estudio del impacto macroeconómico de las energías renovables en España 2010. Asociación de Empresas de Energías Renovables, Madrid.APPA, 2011. Estudio del impacto macroeconómico de las energías renovables en España 2011. Asociación de Empresas de Energías Renovables, Madrid.APPA, 2012a. Estudio del impacto macroeconómico de las energías renovables en España 2012. Asociación de Empresas de Energías Renovables, Madrid.APPA, 2012b. Las importaciones desleales de biodiésel coparon el 89% del mercado en el último trimestre de 2011, agravando la situación terminal del sector en España. https://appa.es/wp-content/uploads/descargas/2012/Balance_Biocarburantes_2011_Marzo_2012.pdf APPA, 2013. Las importaciones desleales copan ya el 76% del mercado del biodiésel, agravando la agonía del sector. https://appa.es/wp-content/uploads/descargas/2012/Balance_Biocarburantes_2011_Marzo_2012.pdf [28 Apr 2020].APPA, 2018. Estudio del impacto macroeconómico de las energías renovables en España 2017. Asociación de Empresas de Energías Renovables, Madrid.Bailey C, Dyer JF, Teeter L, 2011. Assessing the rural development potential of lignocellulosic biofuels in Alabama. Biomass Bioenerg 35 (4): 1408-1417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.033BCR, 2018. Aumenta 15% en tres años el flete marítimo granelero a China. Bolsa de Comercio de Rosario (BCR), Argentina. Informativo Semanal 1886, 30 Nov 2018.BOE, 2007. Ley 12/2007, de 2 de julio, por la que se modifica la Ley 34/1998, de 7 de octubre, del Sector de Hidrocarburos, con el fin de adaptarla a lo dispuesto en la Directiva 2003/55/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 26 de junio de 2003, sobre normas comunes para el mercado interior del gas natural. BOE 158, de 3 de julio de 2007, pp. 28567-28594.BOE, 2008. Orden ITC/2877/2008 de 9 de octubre, por la que se establece un mecanismo de fomento del uso de biocarburantes y otros combustibles renovables con fines de transporte. BOE 248, de 14/10/2008.BOE, 2010. RD 1738/2010, de 23 de diciembre, por el que se fijan objetivos obligatorios de biocarburantes para los años 2011, 2012 y 2013. BOE 312, de 24 de diciembre de 2010, pp 106633-106635.BOE, 2011. RD 459/2011 de 1 de abril, por el que se fijan los objetivos obligatorios de biocarburantes para los años 2011, 2012 y 2013. BOE 79, de 2 de abril de 2011, pp 34312-34314.BOE, 2012. Orden IET/822/2012 de 20 de abril, por la que se regula la asignación de cantidades de producción de biodiésel para el cómputo del cumplimiento de los objetivos obligatorios de biocarburantes. Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo. BOE 96, de 21 de abril de 2012, pp 30992-30999. BOE-A-2012-5339.BOE, 2013. Ley 11/2013, de 26 de julio, de medidas de apoyo al emprendedor y de estímulo del crecimiento y de la creación de empleo. BOE 179 de 27/07/2013.BOE, 2014. Resolución de 24 de enero de 2014, de la Secretaría de Estado de Energía, por la que se publica la lista definitiva de las plantas o unidades de producción de biodiésel con cantidad asignada para el cómputo de los objetivos obligatorios de biocarburantes. Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo. BOE 30, de 4 de febrero de 2014, pp 8419-8426. BOE-A-2014-1173.BOE, 2015. RD 1085/2015, de 4 de diciembre, de fomento de los biocarburantes. Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo. BOE 291 de 05/12/2015.BOE, 2018. RD 235/2018, de 27 de abril, por el que se establecen métodos de cálculo y requisitos de información en relación con la intensidad de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero de los combustibles y la energía en el transporte; se modifica el RD 1597/2011, de 4 de noviembre, por el que se regulan los criterios de sostenibilidad de los biocarburantes y biolíquidos, el Sistema Nacional de Verificación de la Sostenibilidad y el doble valor de algunos biocarburantes a efectos de su cómputo; y se establece un objetivo indicativo de venta o consumo de biocarburantes avanzados. BOE 105, 1 mayo 2018, pp: 46929-46964. Ministerio de Energía, Turismo y Agenda Digital.Brinkman MLJ, da Cunha MP, Heijnen S, Wicke B, Guilhoto JJM, Walter A, et al., 2018. Interregional assessment of socio-economic effects of sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil. Renew Sust Energ Rev 88: 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.014Burin M, 2012. Biomasa. Programa Industrias de Servicios y Ambiente (PISyA). E-Renova. Blog de los actores de las energías renovables en la Argentina. https://www.inti.gob.ar/e-renova/erBI/er37.php# [12 Apr 2018].Caldés N, Varela M, Santamaría M, Sáez R, 2009. Economic impact of solar thermal electricity deployment in Spain. Energ Policy 37 (5): 1628-1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.022CIEMAT, 2006. Análisis del ciclo de vida de combustibles alternativos para el transporte. Fase II. Análisis de ciclo de vida comparativo de biodiésel y diésel. Energía y cambio climático. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, Spain.CLH, 2016. Informe anual del grupo CLH 2015. https://www.clh.es/docs2/Informe%20Anual_15_Sp.pdf [28 Apr 2020].CLH, 2019. Consignación. Precios. Recepción en CLH por tubería. https://www.clh.es/section.cfm?id=2&side=134&lang=sp&mapa=2&edit=43 [28 Apr 2020].CNE, 2010. Informe anual sobre el uso de biocarburantes correspondiente al ejercicio 2009. Comisión Nacional de Energía, Spain.CNMC, 2019a. Estadística de biocarburantes. Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, Spain. https://www.cnmc.es/estadistica/estadistica-de-biocarburantes [9 Jan 2020].CNMC, 2019b. Logística de productos petrolíferos. CLH, Huelva. https://hidrocarburos.cnmc.es/hidrocarburos/detalle.htm?idTanqueInstalacion=179 [28 Apr 2020].CNMC, 2019c. Logística de productos petrolíferos. DECAL, Huelva. https://hidrocarburos.cnmc.es/hidrocarburos/detalle.htm?idTanqueInstalacion=183 [28 Apr 2020].Coon RC, Hodur NM, Bangsund DA, 2017. Economic impact of North Dakota's ethanol industry in fiscal year 2015. Agribus Appl Econ Report No. 775.De la Rua Lope C, 2009. Desarrollo de la herramienta integrada "Análisis de Ciclo de Vida- Input Output" para España y aplicación a tecnologías energéticas avanzadas. Tesis Doctoral. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.De la Rúa C, Lechón Y, 2016. An integrated multi-regional input-output (MRIO) analysis of miscanthus biomass production in France: Socio-economic and climate change consequences. Biomass Bioenerg 94: 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.08.003De la Rúa C, Lechón Y, 2018. Socioeconomic pillar. Methodology and case study; Chapter 6. Sustainability of Bioenergy. In: The role of bioenergy in the emerging bioeconomy: resources, technologies, sustainability and policy. Academic Press.De Schutter O, 2012. Agrofuels and the right to food - Q&A from the special rapporteur. http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20121016_agrofuels_qa2.pdf [9 Jan 2020].De Schutter O, 2014. Report of the special rapporteur on the right to food. Final report: The transformative potential of the right to food. United Nations. Human Rights Council. A/HRC/25/57. Geneva : UN, 24 Jan. 28 pp. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/766914?ln=en [9 Jan 2020].Dilekli N, Duchin F, 2016. Prospects for cellulosic biofuel production in the Northeastern United States: A scenario analysis. J Ind Ecol 20 (1): 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12291Duscha V, Ragwitz M, Breitschopf B, Schade W, Walz R, Pfaff M, et al., 2014. Employment and growth effects of sustainable energies in the European Union: Support activities for RES modelling post 2020. Final Report to Contract no. ENER/C1/428-2012.EBB, 2012. European biodiesel industry reacts against dumped imports from Argentina and Indonesia. European Biodiesel Board. Press release. http://www.ebb-eu.org/EBBpressreleases/Notice%20of%20Initiation%20August2012.pdf [10 Dec 2019].EC, 2018. EU Agricultural outlook for markets and income, 2018-2030. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels.Espejo Marín C, Millán Piñero D, García-Marín R, 2016. Contribución al estudio del sector de los biocarburantes en España. Scripta Nova. 40 p. https://doi.org/10.1344/sn2016.20.17199EurObserv'ER, 2017. The state of renewable energies in Europe. Paris Edition. www.eurobserv-er.org/category/all-annual-overview-barometers/ [28 Apr 2020].Eurostat, 2019. Electricity prices for non-household consumers [nrg_pc_205].FEGA, 2010. Superficie de ayuda a los cultivos energéticos. Capítulo 5 del título IV del R(CE) 1782/2003. Fondo Español de Garantía Agraria. https://www.fega.es [28 Apr 2020].Fernández-Tirado F, Parra-López C, Calatrava-Requena J, 2013. A methodological proposal for life cycle inventory of fertilization in energy crops: The case of Argentinean soybean and Spanish rapeseed. Biomass Bioenerg 58: 104-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.022Fernández-Tirado F, Parra-López C, Romero-Gámez M, 2016. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel in Spain: Comparing the environmental sustainability of Spanish production versus Argentinean imports. Energ Sustain Dev 33: 36-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.04.005Fernández-Tirado F, Parra-López C, Romero-Gámez M, 2017. Evaluating the environmental sustainability of energy crops: A life cycle assessment of Spanish rapeseed and Argentinean soybean cultivation. Span J Agric Res 15 (1): e0107. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2017151-9287Heijungs R, 2014. Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Ass 19 (3): 473-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0662-5Hodur N, Larry Leistritz F, Hertsgaard T, 2006. Contribution of the North Dakota agricultural products utilization commission programs to the North Dakota economy. AAE 06006. North Dakota State Univ, Dept Agribus Appl Econ, Statist Ser Rep.IDAE, 2005. Plan de energías renovables en España (PER) 2005-2010. Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía, Madrid. 345 pp.IDAE, 2011a. Impacto económico de las energías renovables en el sistema productivo español. Estudio Técnico PER 2011-2020. Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía, Madrid.IDAE, 2011b. Plan de energías renovables (PER) 2011-2020. Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía, Madrid.IDAE-ISTAS, 2011. Empleo asociado al impulso de las energías renovables. Estudio Técnico PER 2011-2020. Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDAE) e Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, Ambiente y Salud (ISTAS), Madrid. 139 p.IEA, 2018. Renewables 2018. Analysis and forecasts to 2023. International Energy AgencyMarket Report Series. 211 pp.Indexmundi, 2019. Commodity prices. https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/ [28 Apr 2020].INE, 2018. Tabla input-output 2015. Contabilidad nacional anual de España. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Madrid.INE, 2020. Indicadores sobre el agua. Serie 2000-2016. Indicadores económicos por comunidades y ciudades autónomas. Unidades: euros/m3. http://www.ine.es/jaxi/Datos.htm?path=/t26/p069/p03/serie/l0/&file=01003.px [28 Apr 2020].Kulišić B, Loizou E, Rozakis S, Šegon V, 2007. Impacts of biodiesel production on Croatian economy. Energ Policy 35 (12): 6036-6045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.08.025Lechón Y, de la Rúa C, Rodríguez I, Caldés N, 2019. Socioeconomic implications of biofuels deployment through an Input-Output approach. A case study in Uruguay. Renew Sust Energ Rev 104: 178-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.029Leistritz FL, Hodur NM, 2008. Biofuels: a major rural economic development opportunity. Biofuel Bioprod Bioref-Biofpr 2 (6): 501-504. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.104Leontief W, 1984. Análisis económico input-output. Biblioteca de economía. Ediciones Orbis, S.A. Barcelona.Linares P, Leal J, Sáez RM, 1996. Assessment of the externalities of biomass energy for electricity production. Informes técnicos CIEMAT.Loizou E, Jurga P, Rozakis S, Faber A, 2019. Assessing the potentials of bioeconomy sectors in Poland employing input-output modeling. Sustainability 11 (3): 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030594Low SA, Isserman AM, 2009. Ethanol and the local economy: Industry trends, location factors, economic impacts, and risks. Econ Dev Quart 23 (1): 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242408329485Malik A, Lenzen M, Ely, RN, Dietzenbacher E, 2014. Simulating the impact of new industries on the economy: The case of biorefining in Australia. Ecol Econ 107: 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.022Malins C, 2019. Risk management. Identifying high and low ILUC-risk biofuels under the recast renewable energy directive. Cerulogy. http://www.cerulogy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Cerulogy_Risk-Management_Jan2019.pdf [10 Jan 2020].MAPAMA, 2017. Anuario de estadística 2016. Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, Madrid.Markandya A, Arto I, Gonzalez-Eguino M, Roman MV, 2016. Towards a green energy economy? Tracking the employment effects of low-carbon technologies in the European Union. Appl Energ 179: 1342-1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.122Mukhopadhyay K, Thomassin PJ, 2011. Macroeconomic effects of the ethanol biofuel sector in Canada. Biomass Bioenerg 35 (7): 2822-2838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.03.021Neuwahl F, Loschel A, Mongelli I, Delgado L, 2008. Employment impacts of EU biofuels policy: Combining bottom-up technology information and sectoral market simulations in an input-output framework. Ecol Econ 68 (1-2): 447-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.018OJEU, 2003. Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001. Official Journal L 270 , 21/10/2003, p. 0001-0069.OJEU, 2012. Procedures relating to the imprementation of the common commercial policy. Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (2012/C 260/04). Official Journal of the European Union 29.8.2012. C 260/8.OJEU, 2013a. Council Imprementing regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia. Official Journal of the European Union 26.11.2013. L 315/2.OJEU, 2013b. Commission Regulation (EU) No 490/2013 of 27 May imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia. Official Journal of the European Union 28.5.2013. L 141/6.OJEU, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December on the promotion of the use of energy. OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82-209. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/ojOJEU, 2019a. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13.3.2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect landuse change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels. OJ L 133, 21.5.2019, p. 1-7. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2019/807/ojOJEU, 2019b. Commission implementing Decision (EU) 2019/245 of 11 February accepting undertaking offers following the imposition of definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina. C/2019/877. OJ L 40, 12.2.2019, p. 71-77.OJEU, 2019c. Commission implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/244 of 11 February 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina. 12.2.2019. Official Journal of the European Union. L 40/1.Okkonen L, Lehtonen O, 2017. Local, regional and national level of the socioeconomic impacts of a bio-oil production system - A case in Lieksa, Finland. Renew Sust Energ Rev 71: 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.003Perez-Verdin G, Grebner D, Munn I, Sun C, Grado S, 2008. Economic impacts of woody biomass utilization for bioenergy in Mississippi. For Prod J 58 (11): 75-83.Sáez RM, Linares P, Leal J, 1998. Assessment of the externalities of biomass energy, and a comparison of its full costs with coal. Biomass Bioenerg 14 (5-6): 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00016-6Santamaría M, Azqueta D, 2015. Promoting biofuels use in Spain: A cost-benefit analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50: 1415-1424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.192Scherer L, Behrens P, de Koning A, Heijungs R, Sprecher B, Tukker A, 2018. Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals. Environ Sci Policy 90: 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.002Sievers L, Schaffer A, 2016. The impacts of the German biofuel quota on sectoral domestic production and imports of the German economy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 63: 497-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.058Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH, Hünecke K, Fritsche UR, 2012. Biofuels and employment effects: Implications for socio-economic development in Thailand. Biomass Bioenerg 46: 409-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.07.019T&E, 2019. High & low ILUC risk biofuels. Policy recommendations for the EU delegated act. European Federation for Transport and Environment. https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2019_01_High_low_ILUC_TE_briefing_final.pdf [10 Jan 2020].The World Bank, 2019. GDP deflator: linked series. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.ZS.AD?locations=ES&view=chart [28 Apr 2020].Thomassin PJ, Baker L, 2000. Macroeconomic impact of establishing a large-scale fuel ethanol plant on the Canadian economy. Can J Agr Econ 48: 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2000.tb00266.xUrsea, 2017. Metodología para la determinación e los precios de paridad de importación de productos derivados del petroleo. Unidad reguladora de servicios de energía y agua. Montevideo, 37 pp.USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2017. Spain's biodiesel and renewable diesel overview. Global Agricultural Information Network Report SP1723.Varela M, Lechón Y, Sáez R, 1999. Environmental and socioeconomic aspects in the strategic analysis of a biomass power plant integration. Biomass Bioenerg 17 (5): 405-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00058-6Veiga JPS, Malik A, Lenzen M, Ferreira Filho JBdS, Romanelli TL, 2018. Triple-bottom-line assessment of São Paulo state's sugarcane production based on a Brazilian multi-regional input-output matrix. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82: 666-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.075Yang Y, Zhang B, Cheng J, Pu S, 2015. Socio-economic impacts of algae-derived biodiesel industrial development in China: An input-output analysis. Algal Res-Biomass Biofuel Bioprod 9: 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2015.02.010Zhang Y, Goldberg M, Tan E, Meyer PA, 2016. Estimation of economic impacts of cellulosic biofuel production: a comparative analysis of three biofuel pathways. Biofuel Bioprod Bior 10 (3): 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1637
*