Environmental Implications of Biofuel
Production
Abdulkareem Musa Alabi
Cairo University
Faculty of Life Sciences
Feb., 2013
alabhandsome@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Biofuels are receiving growing negative attention. Direct and/or indirect
land-use changes that result from their cultivation can cause emissions due to
carbon losses in soils and biomass and could negate any eventual greenhouse
gas (GHG) reduction benefit. This study evaluates the implications of land-use
change emission on the climate-change mitigation potential of different biofuel
production systems. Much of this recent land use change is occurring in
developing countries where large agro-ecologically suitable tracts of land may
be accessed at lower economic and opportunity cost. This is leading to the
gradual penetration of commercial crops that provide suitable biofuel
feedstocks (e.g., sugarcane, soybean, oil palm, jatropha) into rural communities
and forested landscapes throughout many areas of the world. While biofuel
feedstocks are expanding through large industrial-scale plantations and
smallholder production alike, the expansion of industrial-scale production
systems has been countered by a critical response by civil society actors
concerned about the implications for rural livelihoods, customary land rights,
and the environmental effects of biofuel feedstock cultivation. To date,
however, limited data exist to demonstrate the conditions under which widely
anticipated economic and climate change mitigation benefits accrue in practice,
and the implications of these developments for forests, local livelihoods, and
the climate change mitigation potential of biofuels. In such a situation, debates
are easily polarized into those for and against biofuels. This special issue seeks
to nuance this debate by shedding light on the local social and environmental
impacts accruing to date from the expansion of biofuel feedstock cultivation.
INTRODUCTION
Increased concern on climate change, rising costs of fossil fuels and
progressive depletion of fossil fuels base have created great challenges to the
world. In response to the three challenges the production and use of biofuels is
rising as countries try to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels while curbing
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). The global energy supply is
predominantly based on fossil fuels like petroleum, natural gas and coal. The
imported petroleum products are consumed in all sectors of the economy,
including transport, industry, household, mining and agriculture. The use of
petroleum products in diverse sectors of the economy is linked to the emission
of pollutants such as lead (Pb), Sulphur dioxide (SO2), and Carbon dioxide
(CO2), which in turn raise environmental concerns. In addition, the unpredicted
rising price of fossil fuels at the world market has created not only political and
social problems but also insecurity and uncertainty in all sectors that entirely
depend on them. In view of this, production and use of biofuels is considered to
be the best option to address these challenges. While the production of biofuels
is rapidly increasing in developing countries, mostly because of the
establishment of large-scale biofuels feedstock plantations, it is likely to impact
food security and socio-economic aspects. In this respect Drukkerij and
Bennekon (2007) argue that large-scale production of biofuels will have
complex effects on economic development, with both positive and negative
social outcomes in rural areas. Furthermore, the likely potentials like job
creation, improved energy security and risks associated with production of
biofuels such as food insecurity, particularly in developing countries, have been
explored in several studies (Dufey, 2006; Ejigu, 2008; CFC, 2007; FAO, 2007).
At present, much of the development of biofuel feedstocks in developing
countries is arising from the expectations that, there will be greater possibilities
for exporting high-value commodities (bioethanol and biodiesel), make use of
productive large areas of uncultivated land, create technical solutions to energy
problems, reduce import bills from fossil fuels, create jobs and expand
livelihood opportunities (Ejigu, 2008).
-
-
In contract, other studies view it differently and argue that the shift to
production of biofuels will not be a solution to any of the current global crises,
but rather may contribute to other crises such as food insecurity, displacement
of communities, degradation of natural resources such as land, forestry, water
and biodiversity (Oxfam, 2008). These problems have already been
experienced in other countries like Ghana, Benin, Ethiopia and Senegal. In
Ghana for example, it is reported that a corporation illegally seized 38,000
hectares of land for production of biofuels, a situation that created social
tension within community members. Similarly, in Ethiopia 10,000 hectares of
land were cleared, out of which 86 percent of land was part of elephant haven
(UNCTAD XII, 2008). All these incidences have various implications on the
socio-economy, food security and natural resources. While this is happening in
other countries, in Egypt it is not clear to what extent biofuels have impacted
food security, socio-economy and the environment to the localities where they
are grown.
Despite the ongoing disagreements, production and use of biofuels is on the
increase. The rapid increase in the demand for both land and food crops for
biofuels feedstocks has turned the issue of food security into the debate of the
day. In recent years, food prices have hiked, indicating some degrees of food
shortage and placing poor people in either an untenable situation or accessing
food of low nutrition value. According to the World Bank (2008), the food
crisis has already pushed over 100 million people into poverty. Several other
authors have registered a similar concern of production of biofuels contributing
in one way or another to the current global food crisis due to the conversion of
food crops to biofuels feedstocks (IEA, 2007; UNEP, 2007; Dufey, 2007). The
anticipated threat of production of biofuels to food security may be disastrous if
proper measures are not put in place. The effects of food shortage on women
and children are severe during famine as they are the most vulnerable groups in
rural communities. In addition, the potential loss of both biodiversity and agrobiodiversity as a result of production of biofuels presents risks to food
producing communities, thereby posing a serious threat to rural livelihoods and
sustainability of food security (UNEP, 2007).
In light of the above, given the socio-economic and environmental
implications associated with production of biofuels in other countries and the
paucity of the similar information on the same in Egypt that is still at infancy
stage of production of biofuels, this study is timely designed to explore the
impact of production of biofuels, gives an overview of production of biofuels
in the country and its implication on food security, socio-economy and the
environment.
-
-
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
It is reported that a number of attempts to assess the implications of
worldwide bioenergy production in recent years. Reilly and Paltsev (2007)
estimated the energy production potential from the development of cellulosic
biomass technologies. Their approach however, did not account explicitly for
competition among different land uses, and followed a standard approach for
accounting of inputs in a CGE framework where the quantity of land service
available annually is represented by the total rental value of land. The approach
followed economic convention of aggregating land of different productivities
based on rental value and data on annual returns to land. While a start, the
approach does not provide a direct connection to physical quantity of land use
in hectares, or the capability to make use of agro-engineering data on regional
production potential. In particular, Reilly and Paltsev (2007) assumed the same
land productivity in biomass production across all regions in terms of land
input in rental value units. Msangi et al. (2007) explored scenarios of biomass
expansion using the IFPRI Impact model. Although all the details in the
representation of demand and supply of different agriculture products are
included, their Impact model is a partial equilibrium approach that does not
represent other energy markets.
Moving from a single land input to multiple land classes requires a
modeling approach to represent the ability to shift land from one use to another.
Several studies have represented competition among different use categories.
These include Adams et al. (1996), Darwin (1995,( Ianchovichina et al. (2001),
Ahammad and Mi (2005) and Golub et al. (2006). These studies have used a
Constant Elasticity of Transformation (CET) function to represent the
allocation of land among different uses. A land supply elasticity of each type is
implied by the elasticity of substitution and implicitly reflects some underlying
variation in suitability of each land type for different uses and the cost to or
willingness of owners to switch land to another use. The CET approach can be
useful for short term analysis where there are data on the apparent elasticity of
substitution. However, a well-known property of CET and closely related
Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) functions is that they are share
preserving. This feature assures that radical changes in land use does not occur,
making short term projections more ―realistic‖. However, for longer term
analysis where demand for some uses could expand substantially the CET
approach may unrealistically limits land use change. One of the major interest
is changes of land use—from natural forest or grassland cover to, for example,
cropland and for this purpose an alternative to the CET approach is to explicitly
include a cost to transform land from one type to another. The CET approach
-
-
also does not explicitly account for conversion costs, nor does it address the
value of the stock of timber on virgin forest land that substitutes for forest
harvest on managed forest land. The advantages include the ability to track
land area consistently in a general equilibrium framework and explicitly
represent conversion costs and to account for the harvest of timber on virgin
forest land.
OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEACH
The main objective of this study is to examine the impact of Biofuel
production on socio-economic welfare, environmental impact and food
security.
Specific objectives
This may be summarized in the following:
a)
To understand the anticipated impact of production of biofuel on
the environment.
b)
To gain a deeper understanding of the anticipated socio-economic
and food security of biofuel production.
c)
Advantages and disadvantages of biofuel production
d)
To suggest a policy recommendations regarding the production of
biofuel to protect the livelihoods of smallholder farmers.
MATHERIALS AND METHODS
Design closed ecosystem
Why closed ecosystem?
To study the impact of biofuel production on plants, animals and microbial
ecosystem with different conditions and to know about biological systems,
nutrient cycles and how emission of biofuel affect different organisms.
Experimental background
Closed ecological systems have been over looked as research tools for
some time. Research began in the field in the early 1960‘s and has evolved
from small glass bottles to the Biosphere II project and the Closed Ecological
Life Support System (CELSS) project funded by NASA [Straight et. al. 1994].
The two latter projects were extremely costly, which may be one reason that
-
-
research is not pursued in this area. The data that have been gathered from
these experiments, however, are extremely useful and continue to be used to
develop new methods of researching CES. One application of this data is
thought to be sustaining organisms in space for long periods of time. By
developing a system that is self-regenerating, astronauts would be able to spend
longer periods of time in space while utilizing a more efficient source of
oxygen. This research is also important on a species level. By looking at
invertebrates, for example, in a small CES, information can be gathered on
tolerance to differing levels of nutrients, light or oxygen, all of which help to
describe the limits of the species. By knowing when a specific species may be
killed by a pollutant, one may be able to extrapolate the health of an ecosystem
based on the condition of these species. Data gathered from CES research
could be utilized in many different ways, from understanding what upsets
balances in lakes to create algal blooms to allowing long-term space flight an
option to combat bacterial blooms that may disturb oxygen and other balances
vital to the survival of the vehicle occupants. In a seminar for closed ecological
systems in 1982, it was found that CES ―promise to become a significant
resource for the resolution of global ecology problems which have thus far
been experimentally inaccessible…‖ [NASA 1982] due to the reasons stated
previously. For this closed ecological systems in this study, we looked at what
environmental factors that may affect the ability of a system to sustain itself for
greater than 30 days. Fig (1): Life support system (LSS) Design Process.
This is a multi-tiered system, since it must first provide a closed life
support system for the person that operates it, and then it must make the
components required to export life support systems to other environments.
-
-
System requirements
Fig (1): Life support system (LSS) Design Process
Several factors that must be managed
a. Atmosphere: The system manages the atmosphere, including controlling
the gas components, temperature, humidity, pressure and circulation.
b. Water: The water system is managed, providing water for consumption
by the systems living components, hygiene and cleaning water.
c. Food: The food production and any storage of food for all the systems
living components are also manage.
d. Waste: Waste was be managed by removed
Controlled environmental life support systems
All systems designed for space life support will rely on biology – for
controlling temperature, pumping air and water, processing food, etc. Such life
support systems, only partially bioregenerative, use physiochemical means of
-
-
handling wastes and producing required food, air, and water. Hence, for short
duration missions and early phases of developing space life support systems
when CELSS (Control Ecological Life Support System)-type systems are used,
CELSS provide the desired range of temperatures, humidity, carbon dioxide,
pH, nutrient solution (most CELSS systems have used hydroponics as the plant
growing technology), and a high intensity of artificial lights for maximal crop
performance. However, a portion of the necessary life support materials may be
provided by stored supplies and/or physiochemical methods of recycling or
cleanup (e.g., lithium hydroxide canisters for CO2 removal, catalytic oxidizers
for trace gas metabolism, or vapor compression distillers and membrane
technology for water revitalization) rather than using only biological methods
for their uptake and regeneration.
Closed ecological systems for life support
A life support system that approaches complete internal sustainability
and which is biologically-based is termed a closed ecological system, meaning
that it is essentially materially closed, energetically and informationally open,
and recycling its major elements and nutrients. Both the CELSS and Closed
Ecological Systems have generally included just a few species of plants and/or
algae as their biological component. The light needed for photosynthesis is
supplied by artificial lights or by sunlight, direct or delivered through light
pipes. A heat sink on the outside receives surplus heat from the system.
Usually, it is safer to house the energy-generating unit outside the sealed life
support zone. This will also lessen the amount of air-scrubbing that is required
if the energy production method produces pollutants. But, while the definition
of a closed ecological life support system does not require energy production
within its sealed boundary, it is certainly true that lessening energetic
requirements and the accomplishment of energy generation in space via solar
arrays, nuclear energy, use of extra-terrestrial energy resources, etc.) are
important considerations in reducing logistical dependence on resupply from
Earth.
To accomplish these objectives, the Advanced Life Support Project will
conduct a focused Research and Technology Development (R&TD) effort to
advance technology readiness of regenerative life support and thermal control
components, validate regenerative life support technologies integration through
long-term testing with humans, and identify terrestrial applications for life
support technologies, as designated lead center, has delegated the authority and
overall Advanced Life Support Project management responsibility to the
Engineering Directorate, Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD). CTSD
also is responsible for the development of biological and physicochemical
subsystem/component (Technical Research Levels 3 6) technologies and flight
experiments; the integration of physicochemical/biological systems
technologies, including systems-level testing with humans; and the lead for
systems modeling and analysis activities.
-
-
Project technical summary of advanced life support system
a. Provide effective environmental monitoring to permit hazardous
conditions (e.g., fire, buildup of toxic contaminants).
b. Provide thermal control with the use of expendable heat sinks and
without imposing a hazard to the people.
c. Minimize involvement of the people in life support system operation.
d. Provide for in situ maintenance.
e. Minimize the impact of life support on planetary environments.
1. Materials
Build closed ecosystem terrarium
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Container with tight-fitting lid
Water
Eco-friendly soap
Gravel
Activated charcoal
Soil
Maize plants (provided by Pro. Nabil Hegazy, Professor of
Microbiology fac. Agr. Cairo University)
Mice
Biodiesel and bioethanol samples
3. Methods
1. Plastic containers were used to build an ecosystem terrarium, and
containers were washed with eco-friendly soap and water to ensure that
there is no residue or growth inside it.
2. 1 inch of gravel was laid on the bottom of the containers.
3. A light layer of activated charcoal on top of the gravel to help the
terrarium drain and recycle water effectively
4. Add a layer of soil on top of the activated charcoal (soil from our
college).
5. Plants were place to the terrarium. Plants spaced at least 3 inches apart
in the terrarium and planted deep within the soil and charcoal layer
6. Add water to the terrarium. Pour water into the terrarium until a 1/2 inch
is visible on the bottom of the containers. The presence of the gravel and
-
-
activated charcoal create a type of groundwater source, or aquifer, which
will supply the plants with needed moisture and provide proper drainage
to keep the terrarium from becoming waterlogged
7. Maintain the ecosystem terrarium as needed. Many terrariums do not
need to be attended more than once a month. At this time, they should
be watered and any dead plant or animal material should be removed.
System components
Components include plant and micro algae systems, with results from
their use in various experimental research (BIOS 1, 2 and 3), microbial
systems, with results from several research efforts like Fig (2) the Micro
Ecological Life Support System Alternative (MELLISA), and aquatic systems,
with results from research models like the Closed Equilibrated Biological
Aquatic System (CEBAS) and the Controlled Aquatic Ecological Life Support
System. Gas exchange is the first crucial component of the system. Humans
can only survive about 4 to 5 minutes without air, and only about 3 days
without water. The primary component for gas exchange would be algae. Algal
systems are the smallest of plant systems (microalgae), single celled,
containing almost no inert or dead biomass, performing their tasks based on
photosynthesis, requiring light and CO2 that it can get from the air to start the
process. They don‘t have much to add in terms of food (some nutritional value,
but no aesthetic value), but they can be an important part of both gas exchange
and water recycling.
-
-
Fig (2). Diagram layout of MELiSSA Loop (Microecological Life Support System Alternative)
European Space Agency (http://www.estec.esa.nl/ecls/melissa/newmelissaloop.html).
Microbial systems can be used for both liquid and solid waste recycling,
and they provide mineral and elemental exchange in plant growth mediums,
whether soil or hydroponic. Some microorganisms remove organic
contaminants from human liquid waste, providing additional filtering of water
for plants. They also perform other tasks, like nitrogen fixing in soil or
hydroponic solutions, and consumption/conversion of inedible biomass.
Microbial systems are the largest bio system on earth, playing a major role in
the ecology, and a crucial role in our CEBLSS. Fig (3a): Plastic containers with
soil, Biodiesel and Bioethanol and Fig (3b): shown how mice were kept in closed
ecosystem
Finally, the people besides being the defining organism for the system,
the life it is designed to support; they are also a critical component of the
system. People both consume and provide liquids, gasses and solids within the
system. They are the other half of the food and gas exchange cycle, and most
importantly they are the intelligent control elements for the system.
- 1-
Fig (3a): Plastic containers with soil, Biodiesel and Bioethanol samples used during this study
Fig (3b): 4 mice inside each package, the control treatment and the other contained 3 mice together
with burned biodiesel sample
-
-
Maize leaves determination
Find out leaf pigments
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cut each set of leaves into several pieces
Place them in a glass beaker or small drinking glass,
Add just enough rubbing alcohol to cover them.
Cover the containers with foil or plastic wrap to keep the alcohol
from evaporating into the air.
5. Put the containers in a dish of hot tap water for about 30 minutes,
6. Until the alcohol turns green as the pigments from the leaves are
absorbed into it.
7. The total pigments were measured calorimetrically using 600nm
TIMETABLE
Table (1): Activities
Activity June
1
2
3
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Getting
Information
and Oil
Extraction
Oil
Viscosity
Biodiesel
&
Bioethanol
production
Design of
Closed
Ecosystem
4
Determinations
of biofuel on
each ecosystem
(plants,
Animals and
Microbial )
Leaf
pigments
test,
microscopic
examinations
and mice
dissection
5
Analysis
the results
and
discussion
-
-
Results and Discussion
1. Environmental impacts
Burning biofuels has a mixed, though generally positive, impact on air
pollution. Compared to gasoline, ethanol emits less carbon monoxide, nitrous
oxides and sulfur dioxide. Added to gasoline, ethanol also decreases particulate
matter emissions and reduces ground-level ozone by lowering volatile organic
compound and hydrocarbon emissions. Biodiesel yields higher nitrous oxide
emissions than petroleum diesel (2% higher for B20 blend, and 10% higher for
B100), but particulate matter emissions are much lower (12% less for B20, and
48% less for B100).
Biofuels require a higher amount of energy input per BTU than fossil fuels.
Corn in particular requires large amounts of energy to grow, transport and to
convert into ethanol. Furthermore, the energy content of biofuels tends to be
lower than that of petroleum fuels. The energy content per gallon of biodiesel is
approximately 11% lower than that of petroleum diesel5 while the energy
content of ethanol is about two-thirds that of gasoline, which means that
biofuels get fewer miles-per-gallon.
Fig (4): Leaf pigments shown different in normal leaf, biodiesel leaf and bioethanol
Biofuels hold a number of promising prospects; they also present serious
environmental challenges on land (soils), water resources and biodiversity. The
impacts on these resources are mainly due to agricultural production and the
effects are set to be even more if agriculture is intensified.
Investment in biofuel crops needs to account for the environmental
impacts on soils, water resources, climate change and the ecosystem. It entails
-
-
the exploration of three principal environmental resources: land, natural
vegetation and water. As for most agricultural commodities, biofuels
feedstocks also grow well in areas endowed with regular rainfall, fertile soils
with easy accessibility to water sources. These factors are also essential for
human settlement. Therefore, shifting to biofuels is associated with land use
changes and hence more environmental impacts.
1. Impact on land
The introduction of production of biofuels in both large and small scales is
associated with changes in land use systems; thus, one of the most telling
impacts of biofuels is the change in land use that might take place. The
growing use of agricultural commodities for production of biofuels coupled
with the establishment of large scale production of biofuel feedstocks is likely
to contribute to the increasing pressure on land for various uses. Land as a
resource is the most important single item here when it comes to environmental
impact assessment because it is the custodian of all the other natural resources.
Table (2): the life span of the experimental mice
Date
22/11
23/11
24/11
25/11
26/11
27/11
28/11
29/11
Bioethanol (3mice)
Biodiseal (3mice)
Control (4mice)
2. Impact on mice
During this study, it was found that due to biodiesel and bioethanol
treatment with mice Acute liver failure (ALF) developed, the rapid
development of hepatocellular dysfunction, specifically coagulopathy and
mental status changes (encephalopathy) in a patient without known prior liver
disease". The diagnosis of acute liver failure is based on physical exam,
laboratory findings, patient history, and past medical history to establish mental
status changes, coagulopathy, rapidity of onset, and absence of known prior
liver disease respectively.
-
-
Fig (5a): Control (Normal environment)
Fig (5b): Biodiesel (under biodiesel burning)
Fig (5c): Bioethanol (under bioethanol burning)
Shown normal liver of healthy mice while fig (5b) shown liver necrosis cause
by biodiesel and bioethanol burning.
Fig (5a).
i.
Signs and symptoms: Cerebral edema and encephalopathy
In ALF, cerebral oedema leads to hepatic encephalopathy, coma, brain
herniation and eventually death. Detection of encephalopathy is central to the
diagnosis of ALF. It may vary from subtle deficit in higher brain function (e.g.
mood, concentration in grade I) to deep coma (grade IV). Patients presenting as
acute and hyperacute liver failure are at greater risk of developing cerebral
oedema and grade IV encephalopathy. The pathogenesis remains unclear but is
-
-
likely to be a consequence of several phenomena. There is a buildup of toxic
substances like ammonia,mercaptan, endogenous benzodiazepines and
serotonin/tryptophan in the brain. This affectsneurotransmitter level and
neuroreceptor activation. Autoregulation of cerebral blood flow is impaired and
is associated with anaerobic glycolysis and oxidative stress. Neuronal cell
astrocytes are susceptible to these changes and they swell up, resulting in
increased intracranial pressure. Inflammatory mediators also play important
role.
3. Impact on biodiversity
There is a growing concern over land because of the competing alternative
uses such as forest reserves, agriculture and settlements. The global demand for
biofuels has already created big pressure on land demand for biofuel
plantations. These plantations are expanding into areas rich in biodiversity or
which have certain vegetations of particular importance in the ecosystem.
According to the UNEP (2007), large-scale production of biofuels may replace
high productivity agricultural areas with biodiversity poor monocultures.
Clearing of natural vegetation or plant communities for large-scale
monocropping and the replacement of local crops with sugarcane or jatropha
crops for biofuels, might lead to simplification of agro-biodiversity. According
to FAO (2007), such a simplification would cause a reduction in levels of agrobiodiversity. Reduced biodiversity in this case affects directly or indirectly the
availability of food, fodder, fibber, fuels and biomedicines obtained from
diversity of animals (domestic and wild), plants including crops, forests and
forest products and fisheries.
Fig (6): Land clearing in Mavuji village
-
-
4. Impact on water resources
With regard to water resources, it's obvious that many investors are
requesting for prime lands with natural vegetation. This will bring in negative
impacts to the environment partly from the massive clearance of natural forests
and absorption of water resources. Establishing biofuel crops in such areas is
expected to create pressure on the availability and accessibility of water
resources. Consequently, this will impact food security negatively due to the
competing use of water resources for food crop production and production of
biofuels.
Large scale production of biofuels and processing will increase withdrawal
of large volumes of water from both surface and underground water resources.
It is projected that most biofuel plantations will require irrigation particularly
sugarcane which is a heavy feeder crop. Likewise, although jatropha is claimed
to grow on marginal lands with little rainfall requirements, it is expected that in
future their use will increase when biofuel activities have intensified, leading to
problems of underground water pollution. Thus, land productivity is threatened
to be impaired in future as a result of polluted water resources.
Fig (7): impact of biofuels on water
5. Impact on food security
Raising production of biofuels with the
accompanying incentives will result into a worse
situation as far as food security is concerned since
vital food crops will be diverted to biofuels. As a
result, rural communities will not have the financial
ability to meet the resulting increased prices of
foodstuffs. According to Nyberg and Ramsey
(2007) the establishment of energy crop plantations
and the impact of the increasing demand for liquid
biofuels on food prices might affect at least two key dimensions of food
security – availability and accessibility. Availability is likely to be limited due
to reduced supply of food crops and competition for production resources such
as land, labour and water, between food and energy crops (Doornbusch and
Steenblik, 2007). On the other hand, accessibility entails purchasing power,
which is likely to be limited especially for rural and urban communities who
rely on net importation of food. The impact is expected to be severe for poor
women who are the majority, and who stay home to take care of their
households. In view of the above, there have been several debates on the
impact of production of biofuels on food security.
-
-
There are those who believe that sustainable production of biofuels is
possible without having any negative impact on food security, and that it all
depends on how the whole operation is managed. According to von Braun and
Pachauri (2006), production of biofuels can create a demand for energy crops
such as sugarcane, soybeans, rapeseeds, and palm oil that are grown by rural
farmers and stimulate rural economic growth. In addition, farmers can increase
their incomes by growing energy crops such as Jatropha curcas on degraded or
marginal land not suitable for food crop production.
On the other hand, sceptics argue that production of biofuels will threaten
food supplies for the poor and it is likely to draw the world into a ‗food versus
fuel crisis‘ (Doornbusch and Steenblik, 2007). The argument is based on the
fact that any diversion of land from food or feed production to production of
energy biomass will influence food prices from the start, as both compete for
the same inputs such as fertilizers, water, labour and land. While supporters of
biofuels claim that non-food feedstocks such as jatropha are only grown on
marginal land, in reality this has not been the case.
Throughout the study it became apparent that food prices have been
increasing while productivity of agricultural products particularly that of food
crops has been decreasing. Several reasons were advanced to account for the
low productivity in the area, such as drought, existence of destructive wild
animals (elephants and baboons) and disengagement of the youth from
agricultural activities.
6. Social impact of biofuel production
As said earlier, it is claimed that the introduction of biofuel investment in
different areas of the country is expected to improve livelihoods of the people
in the areas where these investments have been established and in the country
at large. Investment in biofuel production might also have some social
implications.
It was noted that that small-scale investors of biofuel production offer
greater opportunities for employment generation and poverty alleviation than
large-scale investors who are involved in production and processing of
biofuels. This is due to the fact that large scale firms have limited employment
capacity; and as the firms mature they tend to adopt sophisticated production
technologies to reduce cost of production. Consequently, they retrench
employees as a strategy to increase production efficiency and attain a
competitive edge. By so doing they fail to create new jobs like small and
medium enterprises, which have long production chains and are able to create
employment at each point of the production chain.
-
-
On the other hand, small scale systems have been assisting small scale farmers
especially women to engage in biofuel production and to process the outputs
into various products in order to add value and improve their income and
livelihoods.
7. Employment created by companies
Among the drivers of production of biofuels is to create new
employment opportunities in rural areas, thus leading to increases in income
generation and rural development. The potential of biofuels industry in
employment creation is quite notable in other countries already engaged in the
production process. In Brazil for instance, biofuels employ about one million
workers of which women make 14 percent of the total employees (Balsadi,
1998). Similarly, in China the liquid biofuel programme is projected to employ
more than nine million in the next few years (Bhojvaid, 2006; Moreira, 2005).
While biofuel production is expected to generate more jobs, it is clear
that the created jobs will not compensate for the loss of land as explained
earlier. In addition, job opportunities will provide salaries/wages, health
benefits and social security to too few individuals who will secure permanent
employment since most jobs are not only unskilled but also are seasonal.
Hence, as the industry becomes more efficient due to agro-mechanization of
farm operations, there will also be decreasing labour demands.
It is also expected that the employment opportunities will attract
migrants from one area to another looking for jobs in the biofuel companies.
The host communities will have the advantage of earning money from house
rent and other services rendered to the immigrants. It is anticipated that the
mixing of people as a result of labour migration will have some influence of the
culture of both immigrants and host communities. The outcome might be a
‗hybrid culture‘ probably to the detriment of original local values.
8. Market Applications
Biofuels can be used in a variety of applications, including motor fuels, fuel
additives and home heating fuel. In the U.S., ethanol is typically mixed with
gasoline in a 10/90% mixture. Most traditional engines can use up to a 15%
ethanol blend. Ethanol gives fuel a higher octane, resulting in more efficient
burning of the gasoline. Biodiesel can be used in any concentration with
petroleum based diesel fuel in existing diesel engines with little or no
modification; however, higher concentrations of biodiesel can cause engine
problems in cold weather. B20 (20% biodiesel) is the most common blend.
Biodiesel has better lubricity than current low-sulfur petroleum diesel.
However, the performance of biodiesel, particularly biodiesel derived from
waste oil, is worse than petroleum diesel in cold weather conditions.
U.S. ethanol production grew from 175 million gallons (mg) in 1980 to
4,855 million gallons in 2006.2 In addition; the U.S. imported 653.3 mg of
ethanol in 2006, primarily from Brazil. Domestic production capacity is
-
-
currently 7,229.4 mg per year (mgy) and an additional 6,216.9 mgy under
construction. Global production of ethanol was 13,489 mg in 2006, with 69%
of the world supply coming from Brazil and the United States.
U.S. biodiesel production was 450 mg in 2007, with production capacity of
1850 million gallons. This is projected to be 650 mg in 2008, with aproduction
capacity of 3300 mgy.3 Global production of biodiesel was 9 million tons
(approximately 2.4 billion gallons) in 2007, projected to grow to 11.1 million
tons in 2008.
9. Life-cycle Analysis of Emissions
If biofuels require large amounts of fossil fuel energy and nitrogen fertilizer
to produce, they may not result in a large reduction in overall, life-cycle
emissions of greenhouse gases. Calculating the greenhouse gas emissions
associated with biofuels is complex. Because crops and other organic fuels
sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, sustainable
cultivation of biofuels has been said to have relatively low life-cycle emissions.
However, the net emissions are influenced by two factors: 1) the energy and
fertilizer required to cultivate and process biofuels, which can be quite high;
and 2) emissions caused by converting forestlands and grasslands to biofuel
cultivation. Analyses that take into account only the first factor have found that
using biofuel nets overall reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. For example,
soybean biodiesel was found to produce 41% less greenhouse gas emissions
than diesel fuel, while corn grain ethanol produced 12% less greenhouse gas
emissions than gasoline.6
Studies that have attempted to incorporate indirect land use impacts,
however, have cast further doubt on the ability of biofuels to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions when compared to fossil fuels. This is particularly
true as the scale of biofuels production increases and displaces large areas of
land devoted to crop and meat production. Land displacement will either lead
to new forest and grassland being cleared for crops, or increased cultivation of
marginal agricultural lands that would otherwise have been allowed to revert
back to forest. Globally, we may receive a much greater climate benefit by
reforesting croplands and protecting forests than by cultivating biofuels.
The projected impacts of land use conversion are not merely hypothetical.
The European Union issued a directive in 2003 that established consumption
targets for a minimum percentage of biofuels in EU transportation fuels (2% by
2005, 5.75% by 2010, and, 10% by 2020). While much of the biofuel was
produced within Europe, the diversion of local vegetable oil to biofuels led to
increased importation of vegetable oil for cooking uses. This increased demand
for imported cooking oil and a perceived future demand for biofuels led to
large scale draining of forested wetlands in Indonesia for palm plantations.
- 1-
CONCLUSION
The global policy goals that have driven production of biofuels in the
world can be used to explain the current shift to biofuel production. Primarily,
many countries have been motivated by the concerns over an unprecedented
increase in price of fossil fuel and hence the need to reduce import bills, save
foreign currency equal to the value of imports substituted, mitigate the problem
of climate change through reduction of greenhouse gases, create employment,
markets for agricultural energy crops and diversify rural economy. The
government is therefore doing all it can to promote biofuel investment.
With regard to the mode of production, we identifies two dominant
modes of production, i.e. large scale plantations and smallholder farmers or
contract farmers who supply their feedstocks to developers at a low price which
does not improve their livelihood a lot. A similar trend is expected as the
biofuel industry expands. It was noted that large scale plantations were
expanding into areas rich in biodiversity and fertile lands, and this creates
pressure on food security and also leads to significant loss of biodiversity.
Another registered concern is that large scale plantations may not address our
national objectives of biofuel production since most of them are foreign
companies motivated by self-interest and profit gains. If we need to achieve the
objectives there is a need to promote and support local small-scale farmers to
produce biofuel feedstocks and process such feedstocks to add value so that
they can fetch good price. The focus should be on selection of biofuel
feedstocks suited to marginal lands (i.e. jatropha), which will not compete
directly with food crops. By supporting local small-scale farmers there are
several advantages, as follows:
a. Reduces land conflicts which may arise because smallholder farmers
will grow such crops on their own land.
b. Avoids direct competition between jatropha as a biofuel foodstock and
food crops because the former is a non edible oil seed and grows well
on marginal land that is not suitable for food crops.
c. Ensures energy security, because it is more likely for local companies to
produce biofuels for local consumption than foreign companies which
are export oriented.
d. Enhances foreign currency saving equivalent to the amount of import of
the fossil fuels foregone as a result of using biofuels.
e. Creates sustainable employment at all stages from production,
processing and selling of jatropha. It will also increase the income of
the rural poor and help them to get out of poverty.
However, by promoting small-scale farmers, it does not mean there should
be no largescale investment in the biofuels industry. Since this is a new
technology, the government should encourage a limited number of foreign
-
-
large-scale industries that will be used as role models where small-scale
farmers can learn and apply production techniques in their firms. But the focus
should be to encourage a hybrid mode of production whenever large-scale
firms are to be established, to involve contractual farmers who will be able to
sell their feedstock.
REFERENCES:
Actionaid. Research Report, (December 2009): Implication of biofuels
production on food security in Tanzania.
Adams, D. M., R. J. Alig, J. M. Callaway, and B. A. McCarl, (1996): The
Forest and Agriculture Sector Optimization Model (FASOM): Model
Structure and Policy Applications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service Report PNW-RP-495.
Ahammad, H. and R. Mi, (2005): Land Use Change Modeling in GTEM:
Accounting for Forest Sinks. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and
Resource Economics. Paper presented at EMF22: Climate Change
Control Scenarios, Stanford University, California, 25-27 May 2005.
Angelo Gurgel, John M. Reilly and Sergey Paltse (March 2008); Potential
Land Use Implications of a Global Biofuels Industry.
Banse, M., Meilj van H., Tabeau, A. and Woltjer, G. (2007). Impact of
Biofuel Policies on Policies on World Agricultural and Food
MARKETS. Paper submitted to the GTAP CONFERENCE 2007,
Produce, University Indiana.
Barashishwa, J. K (2007). An Assessment of Factors Contributing to
Household Food Security in Tanzania: A Case Study of Mvomero
Village, Kilombero District. A Special Project Submitted in Partial
Fulfilment for the Requirements of the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Agricultural Education and Extension, Sokoine University of
Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Bhojvaid, P. P. (2006). Biofuels: Towards a greener and secure energy future.
New Delhi.
-
-
Biofuels and the Environment: the First Triennial Report to Congress
(External
Review
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=217443)
Draft
Biodiesel 2020: A Global Market Survey:
http://www.emerging-markets.com/biodiesel/default.asp
Byers, R. J. and H. T. Odum. (1993). Ecological Microcosms. SpringerVerlag.
CFC, (2007). Biofuels: Strategic Commodity dependent Developing Countries.
Prepared for the Common Fund for Commodities by Annie Duffey,
Sonja Vermeulen, Bill Vorley. International Institute for Environment
and Development, London, UK.
Dufey, A. (2006). Biofuels production, trade and sustainable development:
Emerging issues. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED)
Ejigu, M. (2008). Toward energy and livelihoods security in Africa:
Smallholder production and processing of bioenergy as a strategy.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), (2006): International Energy
Outlook 2006, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington DC. Energy Information Administration (EIA),
2007:
Gasoline
and
Diesel
Fuel
Prices
–
History.
(http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp#)
EQUILIBRATED BIOLOGICAL AQUATIC SYSTEM (C.E.B.A.S.), Acta
Astronautica Vol. 50, No. 12, pp. 775–785, 2002
EPA420-P-02-001, October 2002.
Environment Northeast: Biofuels and Their Environmental Implications
FAO (2007). Proceedings of the first FAO technical consultation on bioenergy
and food security. 16-18 April 2007. Food and Agriculture of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy.
Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and D. Tiffany (2006):
-
-
Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel
and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences.
www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_iti3006103
IEA (Undated) Biofuels for transport: An international perspective.
Implications of Biodiesel-Induced Land-Use Changes for CO2 Emissions:
Case Studies in Tropical America, Africa, and Southeast Asia
Fargione J, Hill J., Tilman D., Polasky S., and Hawethorne P. (2008): Land
clearing
and
the
biofuel
carbon
debt.
Science
.
(10.1126/science.1152747).
Mark Nelson, Nickolay S. Pechurkin, John P. Allen, Lydia A Somova, and
Josef I. Gitelson (2010): Closed Ecological Systems, Space Life
Support and Biospherics . Handbook of Environmental Engineering
Volume 10, 2010, pp 517-565
McLachlan, J. (1973). p. 42-45 in Stein, J.R. (ed.) Handbook of Phycological
Methods.
NASA (1982). Workshop on Closed System Ecology. Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. 82-64.July 15th, 1982.
Nelson M, Allen J, Alling A, Dempster WF, Silverstone S (2003) Earth
applications of closed ecological systems: relevance to the development
of sustainability in our global biosphere. Adv Space Res 31(7):1649–
1656
O'Grady JG (2005). "Acute liver failure". Postgraduate Medical Journal 81
(953): 148–54. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2004.026005. PMC 1743234. PMID
15749789.
Oxfam (2008). Inconvenient Truth: How biofuel policies are deepening
poverty and accelerating climate change. Oxfam Briefing Paper, Oxfam
International.
Radich, A. (2004): Biodiesel performance, costs and use.
EIA. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/
Righelato R. and Spracklen D.V. (2007): Carbon mitigation by biofuels or
by saving and restoring forests? Science 317: p. 902
Searchinger T., Heimlich R., Houghton R.A., Dong F., Elobeid A., Fabiosa
J., Tokgoz S., Hawes D. and Yu T.. (7 February 2008). Use of U.S.
croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions
from land use change. Science. (10.1126/science.1151861)
-
-
UNCTAD (2008). Biofuels development in Africa: Supporting Rural
Development or strengthening corporate control. Workshop of civil
society Forum, April 19 2008.
UNEP (2007). Global environment outlook 4. United Nations Environment
Programme.
VOLKER BLUEM and FRANK PARIS (2001): NOVEL AQUATIC
MODULES FOR BIOREGENERATIVE LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS
BASED ON THE CLOSED. Acta Astronautica Volume: 48, Issue: 512, Pages: 287-297.
-
-