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. - -