,––––
The European Union’s Framework Contract Commission 2011
Lot 1 - Contract N° 2012/299193
Assessing the impact of biofuels
production on developing countries
from the point of view of Policy
Coherence for Development
Final report
February 2013
This project is funded by
A project implemented by
The European Union
AETS
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
European Commission
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing
countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development
Contract N° 2012/299193
FWC COM 2011 - Lot 1 – Studies and Technical Assistance in all
Sectors
Final report
February 2013
Team composition:
Demba Diop
Maria Blanco
Alessandro Flammini
Michel Schlaifer
Magdalena Anna Kropiwnicka
Martin Mautner Markhof
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of AETS and can in no way be taken
to reflect the views of the European Union
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________________ 1
INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________________ 7
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND_______________________________________________________________ 9
2.1 OUTLINES OF THE OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE PROJECT _________________________ 9
2.2 DESK STUDY PHASE _________________________________________________________________ 9
2.3 FIELD VISIT ______________________________________________________________________ 10
SECTION 3: THE GLOBAL CONTEXT OF BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ___________________________________________________________ 11
3.1 BIOENERGY FEEDSTOCK PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND CONVERSION INTO BIOFUELS ______________
3.1.1 Characterisation of the feedstocks ______________________________________
3.1.2 Bioenergy feedstock production practices ______________________________
3.1.3 Biofuel production methods ____________________________________________
3.1.4 Biofuels blending _______________________________________________________
3.2 BIOFUEL POLICIES WORLDWIDE ______________________________________________________
3.3 CURRENT TRENDS AND STATISTICAL REVIEWS OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ___
11
11
13
15
18
20
23
SECTION 4: EVALUATION OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PRODUCTION OF BIOFUELS
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ________________________________________________________ 26
4.1 TRADE PATTERNS OF BIOFUELS _______________________________________________________
4.1.1 Trade flows for biofuels and related feedstocks: recent trends and
projections ____________________________________________________________
4.1.2 Regional trade arrangements and South-South cooperation______________
4.1.3 Biofuels and food prices on an international, regional and local level _____
4.1.4 Typology of the investors and business strategies behind biofuel
investments ____________________________________________________________
4.2 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC GAINS FROM BIOFUELS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ALONG THE VALUE
CHAIN _________________________________________________________________________
4.3 STATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIAL SECTOR_____________________
4.3.1 State of the development of the biofuel industry and scenarios ___________
4.3.2 The potential and the reality for a biofuels industry in Africa _______________
4.4 IMPACTS OF BIOFUELS PRODUCTION AT LOCAL LEVEL ______________________________________
4.4.1 Potential impacts at household levels and on small-scale farmers _________
4.4.2 Economics of plantation scale and small holder approaches _____________
4.4.3 Job creation ___________________________________________________________
4.4.4 Tax and investment environment ________________________________________
4.5. IMPACTS ON LAND TENURE SYSTEMS __________________________________________________
4.5.1 Land Tenure Systems and Governance Challenges ______________________
4.5.2 Large scale land acquisitions and land pressures _________________________
4.6 ENERGY ACCESS AND SUPPLY SECURITY ________________________________________________
26
26
29
29
34
38
39
39
45
47
47
51
53
58
59
59
61
67
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PRODUCTION OF BIOFUELS IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES ________________________________________________________________________ 72
5.1 LAND DEGRADATION, DESERTIFICATION AND FERTILITY _____________________________________
5.1.1 Biofuels and land degradation __________________________________________
5.1.2 Impact of monoculture plantations _____________________________________
5.1.3 Clearance of forest and use of new land for biofuels production __________
5.1.4 Using degraded land for biofuels production ____________________________
AETS Consortium – February 2013
72
72
75
76
77
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
5.2 WATER USE, WATER ACCESS AND VIRTUAL WATER AND WATER FOOTPRINT ______________________
5.2.1 Introduction ___________________________________________________________
5.2.2 Impacts of large irrigation scheme ______________________________________
5.2.3 Quantitative aspects and water footprint: production and processing_____
5.2.3 Water pollution by intensive use of agrochemicals _______________________
5.2.4 Water re-uses __________________________________________________________
5.2.5 Management by watershed and water rights ____________________________
5.3 RESOURCES DEPLETION ____________________________________________________________
5.4 GENETIC RESOURCES, INVASIVE SPECIES AND BIODIVERSITY _________________________________
5.5 GHG EMISSIONS AND INDIRECT LAND USE CHANGES (ILUC) ______________________________
5.5.1 Direct and indirect land use change ____________________________________
5.5.2 Biofuels production and CO2 emissions __________________________________
77
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
86
88
SECTION 6: SOCIAL IMPACTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS RELATED TO THE
PRODUCTION BIOFUELS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES __________________________________ 90
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
LAND AND FOOD RIGHTS ___________________________________________________________
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY __________________________________________________
GENDER AND BIOFUELS ____________________________________________________________
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ___________________________________
90
95
96
98
SECTION 7: OUTLINE OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY _______________________________________ 103
7.1 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ___________________________________________________
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS _________________________________________________________
7.2.1 Land issues ___________________________________________________________
7.2.2 Environmental issues___________________________________________________
7.2.3 Transparency _________________________________________________________
7.2.4 Business models for a biofuel value chain _______________________________
7.2.5 Social and human rights issues _________________________________________
7.2.6 Role of local governments _____________________________________________
7.2.7 Role of EU and international institutions _________________________________
7.2.8 Specific recommendations to EU institutions ____________________________
7.2.9 Issues to be tackled by the Private sector _______________________________
7.3 CONCLUDING NOTES _________________________________________________________
103
107
107
108
109
109
110
110
111
112
113
115
BIBLIOGRAPHY________________________________________________________________________ 117
ANNEX 1: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF KEY SOURCES EXAMINED ___________________________
ANNEX 2: HIGHLIGHTS - AFRICA BIOENERGY POLICY FRAMEWORK ____________________
ANNEX 3: EXISTING CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CERTIFICATION SCHEMES _______
ANNEX 4: SENEGAL FIELD VISIT 3RD TO 14TH DECEMBER 2012, DEMBA DIOP AND MARIA BLANCO ____
ANNEX 5: TANZANIA FIELD VISIT 2ND TO 15TH DECEMBER 2012, MAGDALENA KROPIWNICKA AND
MICHEL SCHLAIFER ______________________________________________________________
AETS Consortium – February 2013
122
125
131
137
150
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
List of Tables
Table 1: Good environmental practices applicable to bioenergy feedstock production ........ 14
Table 2: Overview on different biofuels’ blending characteristics .................................................. 19
Table 3: Land use efficiency of different biofuel production pathways and expected yield
improvements............................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 4: Biofuel policies in major producing countries and regions ................................................ 21
Table 5: Biofuel policies in selected African countries ....................................................................... 22
Table 6: Transport fuel use in major biofuel producing countries..................................................... 41
Table 7: Major sugarcane producers in Africa .................................................................................... 44
Table 8: Current and planned fuel ethanol production in four African countries ........................ 44
Table 9: Land availability for rain-fed sugarcane cultivation in selected African countries ...... 46
Table 10: Number of workers per activity ............................................................................................. 55
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conversion route for sugar and starch feedstocks to ethanol ........................................ 16
Figure 2: Conversion route for oilseeds and animal fats to biodiesel .............................................. 16
Figure 3: Development status of common ‘Second generation’ biofuels and associated
conversion technology............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 4: Global ethanol production and projections to 2021 ......................................................... 23
Figure 5: Global biodiesel production and projections to 2021 ....................................................... 24
Figure 6: Ethanol production and trends in Africa .............................................................................. 24
Figure 7: Biodiesel production and trends in Africa ............................................................................ 25
Figure 8: EU ethanol imports (globally and originating from Africa)................................................ 26
Figure 9: EU biodiesel imports (globally and originating from Africa) ............................................. 27
Figure 10: Previsions for the development of the global biofuel markets ...................................... 27
Figure 11: Global biofuel output expansion since 2001 ..................................................................... 40
Figure 12: Trends in biofuels use in world regions. Biofuel use will increase in all regions, and
biofuel demand is strongest in OECD countries - only until 2020 ..................................................... 41
Figure 13: Projected costs of biofuels from different production pathways and petroleum
gasoline ....................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 14: Most targeted countries according to size of total reported acquisitions .................. 63
Figure 15: Key socio-economic and institutional indicators of target countries ........................... 63
Figure 16: Share of Projects by Commodity and Production Status of Capital ............................ 64
Figure 17: Large Scale Land Acquisitions by Category of Production ........................................... 65
Figure 18: Large scale land acquisitions by category of production, number of projects and
size ................................................................................................................................................................ 66
Figure 19: Typologies of biofuel projects in ACP countries ................................................................ 67
Figure 20: Biofuels production and GHG emissions ............................................................................. 89
Figure 21: Former user land ...................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 22: Land owners ............................................................................................................................. 93
Figure 23: Involvement of communities in large scale land transfers.............................................. 94
Figure 24: Number of projects over 200,000 ha with reported evictions ........................................ 94
Figure 25: Proportion of women among the total number of title/holders .................................... 96
AETS Consortium – February 2013
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
List of Boxes
Box 1: Bioenergy and Biofuels ................................................................................................................. 10
Box 2: Modern bioenergy and modern energy services ................................................................... 12
Box 3: Good practices in bioenergy feedstock production ............................................................. 13
Box 4: Exposure of a Cambodian community to shocks of the volatile cassava market ........... 33
Box 5: Business strategies .......................................................................................................................... 35
Box 6: Using the available capacity and advantages to develop biofuels .................................. 37
Box 7: Policy and biofuel value chain, an example in India ............................................................. 39
Box 8: Expectations in Brazil and Argentina ......................................................................................... 45
Box 9: Swaziland sugar protocol ............................................................................................................. 52
Box 10: Biofuel and job creation in Senegal......................................................................................... 56
Box 11: Examples of wages in biofuel project in Ghana, Sierra Leone and Tanzania ................. 57
Box 12: Land degradation ....................................................................................................................... 73
Box 13: Oil palm cultivation ..................................................................................................................... 73
Box 14: Good environmental practices in bioenergy feedstock production ............................... 74
Box 15: Some case studies on biofuels and deforestation ................................................................ 76
Box 16: Expected impacts on water resources due to climate change........................................ 77
Box 17: Water footprint of some biofuel feedstock ............................................................................ 79
Box 18: Water and energy nexus ............................................................................................................ 80
Box 19: Pollution from factories ............................................................................................................... 81
Box 20: Virtual water exchanges ............................................................................................................ 82
Box 21: Right to Food and Right to Land .............................................................................................. 90
Box 22: Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests within
the Context of National Food Security .................................................................................................. 91
Box 23: Human Rights and Impact Assessments. What questions should impact assessments
ask? .............................................................................................................................................................. 94
Box 24: Different types of technology transfer ..................................................................................... 99
Box 25: Situation in Senegal ...................................................................................................................101
AETS Consortium – February 2013
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Acronyms
AAPB
African Association for the Promotion of Biofuels
ABC
Brazilian Cooperation Agency
ACP
African, Caribbean and Pacific countries
AEZs
Agro-ecological areas
AMAD
Agricultural Market Access Database
API
American Petroleum Institute
ASEAN
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BEET
Bio-energy Evaluation Tool
BEFSCI
FAO’s Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators project
BIO-DME
Biomethanol Biodimethyl-ether
BP
British Petroleum
BTL
Biomass-to-liquids
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity
CCHP
Combined Cooling Heat and Power
CGE
Computable General Equilibrium
CIFOR
Centre for International Forestry Research
CO2e
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility
DDGS
Dried Distiller’s Grains with Soluble
DRC
Democratic Republic of the Congo
DUATs
Direito de Uso e Aproveitamento de Terra
EBA
Everything-But-Arms Initiative (EU)
EC
European Commission
ECOWAP
West Africa Regional Agricultural Policy
ECOWAS
Economic Community of West African States
ECREEE
Regional Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
EIA
Environment Impact Assessment
EIB
European Investment Bank
EPA
Economic Partnership Agreements
ESG
Environmental, Social and corporate Governance
ETBE
Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, an octane improving additive to gasoline
EU
European Union
FAEE
Fatty Acid Ethyl Ester, biodiesel from esterification of fatty acids with ethanol
FAMAE
Fatty Acid Methyl Ester, biodiesel from esterification of fatty acids with
methanol
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FNR
Agency for Renewable Resources
FQD
Fuel Quality Directive
AETS Consortium – February 2013
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
G20
The Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors from 20
major economies
GBEP
Global Bioenergy Partnership
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
GIZ
German Society for International Cooperation
GM
Genetically Modified
GOS
Government of Swaziland
GSP
Generalised System of Preferences
GTAP
Global Trade Analysis Project
HCV
High Conservation-Value
HLPE FSN
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
HVO
Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil
IATP
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
IBEP
International Bioenergy Platform
IBI
International Bioenergy Initiative
IBRD
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
IBSA
India, Brazil, South Africa
ICTSD
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
IEA
International Energy Agency
IEEP
Institute for European Environmental Policy
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFC
International Finance Corporation
IFES
Integrated Food-Energy Systems
IFPRI
International Food Policy Research Institute
IIASA
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
IIEE
Indonesian Institute for Energy Economics
IISD
International Institute for Sustainable Development
ILUC
Indirect Land Use Change
IMF
International Monetary Fund
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
IPNM
Integrated Plant Nutrient Management
IRENA
International Renewable Energy Agency
ISRA
Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles
LCA
Life Cycle Assessment
LUC
Land Use Change
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals
MFN
Most Favoured Nation
Mha
Million hectares
Mt
Million tonnes
AETS Consortium – February 2013
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
MTBE
Methyl tertiary butyl ether
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
NR
Natural Resources
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PCD
Policy Coherence for Development
PRI
Principles for Responsible Investment
R&D
Research & Development
REC
Regional Economic Community
RED
Renewable Energy Directive
RME
Rapeseed methyl ester
SEA
Strategic Environment Assessment
SME
Small and Medium Enterprise
SQC
Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops
SRR2F
Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
SSA
Sub-Saharan Africa
SVO
Straight Vegetable Oil
TOR
Terms of reference
TPES
Total Primary Energy Supply
UN
The United Nations Organizations and its related Agencies
UNCTAD
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNU-IAS
United Nations University - Institute of Advanced Studies
US
United States
USA
United States of America
USD
US Dollars
WHO
World Health Organisation
WTO
World Trade Organisation
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
AETS Consortium – February 2013
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the framework of the Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), this report,
commissioned by the European Commission, presents an analysis of the impacts of the EU
biofuel policies on developing countries with the aim of strengthening its knowledge on the
consequences of an increased biofuels demand in developing countries. In accordance with
the European Commission, during the inception phase the scope of the study has been
defined mainly on liquid biofuels with a specific focus on African countries.
After a review of more than 150 reports from various sources and origins (international
organisations, governmental institutions, academia, private sector and NGO), the main
findings of the desk review phase were confronted with the observations drawn from two field
visits (Tanzania and Senegal in December 2012) and a seminar in Brussels (February 2013).
The ranges of impacts that were investigated included economic impacts (food prices, land
tenure systems, investor’s strategies and business models), environmental impacts (land
degradation, deforestation, water resources management, biodiversity, GHG emission and
land use changes) and social impacts (land and food rights, gender and technology
transfer). In the following paragraphs, the report highlights the identified challenges,
opportunities, synergies and trade-offs of biofuels' production and development objectives in
developing countries, on the basis of different domestic contexts and production methods.
It is generally accepted that bioenergy has the potential of either increasing or reducing
food security (especially for smallholder farmers) depending on the policy behind its
development and the characteristics of the local agricultural sector. The effects of biofuels
development on national food security can be significantly different for a net exporter or a
net importer of food and agricultural commodities.
The general trend is that food is becoming more expensive and biofuels production is - with or
without EU blending requirements - becoming more prevalent. Besides biofuels, other factors
are driving up food prices. Stronger demand for food crops in conjunction with slow growth in
agricultural productivity, low stocks and high fossil fuel prices has resulted in upward pressure
on prices. In relation to the 2010/11 food crisis in the Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region for
example, low and declining productivity of agriculture, coupled with exceptionally
unfavourable weather conditions and rising international oil prices, seem to be more
prominent drivers behind rising food prices than the current biofuel production level. Even if
not the major driver food prices, an increase in biofuels production in the future will further
exacerbate the pressure on food prices.
Energy markets are a significant driver in the overall trend of large scale land acquisition. A
clear link can be established between the EU bioenergy policy and the strong interest of
European companies to acquire agricultural land in developing countries, especially in
Africa. This also entails that the development of conventional biofuel production has an
impact on access to natural resources, such as land and water and often leads to an
increase in land concentration to the detriment of smallholder farming practices.
Most land acquisitions are linked with free access to water sources and sometime exclusive
control over the water resources, when the increasing scarcity of water must be recognized.
Besides the high water requirements for the cultivation and processing, the supposed free
AETS Consortium – February 2013
1
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
water use by biofuel investors leads to inappropriate water footprint (inefficiency, waste and
pollution). The uses of water to produce energy and the uses of energy in water supply and
sanitation (called water and energy nexus) are not sufficiently taken into consideration by the
policy makers.
There are many different systems of land tenure. Their complexity, especially in Africa, lies with
the existence of so called “legal pluralism” where customary tenure and customary justice
systems exist alongside formal state tenure and national justice systems.
The implementation of recent land laws, where present in ACP countries, is quite slow and
often relies upon the provision of technical assistance by NGOs and donor financing.
Registration and demarcation of community land titles has been slow in Africa. Local people
often lack knowledge of the formal legal system or how to seek redress in the event of
contested rights. Many countries do not have legal or procedural mechanisms in place to
protect local rights and take account of local interests, livelihoods and welfare amidst
increasing conflicts due to increasing land pressures and large scale land acquisition.
An increasing body of new studies have emerged covering the phenomenon of large scale
land acquisition; all point towards one commonly recognised problem: a lack of
transparency and availability or reliable data. Recent wide ranging studies undertaken by
the World Bank, and most recently by the Land Matrix Project, begin with introductory
remarks on the remarkable difficulties in obtaining reliable data from target country registries
as well as from investors. Data on large scale land acquisition is most difficult to obtain on the
actual implantation status of the announced contracts in terms of production being carried
out, previous land users and land use, the displacement of food production and land
evictions.
The evidence from a number of international studies points out that most large-scale land
investment is taking place in countries with weak land tenure governance structures and very
high foreign investment protection and incentives. According to the Land Matrix, Africa is the
most targeted region and investors are targeting countries that are poorly integrated into the
world economy with more than half of the deals over 200,000 ha taking place in countries
with high prevalence of hunger.
While it is difficult to precisely determine the final use of crops grown as part of deals in large
scale land acquisition, the growth of investors’ interests in “flex crops” and crops destined for
“multiple uses” i.e. either biofuels or food (sugarcane, soy, palm oil) in terms of area covered
in hectares points out that the potential of using crops for biofuel production is an important
consideration in investment strategies.
The right to adequate food is closely related to access to land and it implies protecting
existing rights of the most vulnerable groups to access land, water, grazing or fishing grounds,
or forests, all of which may be productive resources essential for a decent livelihood. The right
to adequate food is recognised under International Human Rights Law and States have a
responsibility to protect the right to adequate food, whereas investors have a responsibility to
respect existing legitimate land use rights. The recent adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines on
Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests within the Context of
National Food Security connects existing best practices and obligations in international
environmental and human rights law.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
2
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
In terms of Europe’s own approach, the new EU Food Security Policy Framework, adopted in
2010, has recognised the Right to Food and has a focus on creating an enabling environment
for the smallholder sector as the single most effective instrument for increasing food security in
developing countries. The EU has also committed to focus on access to food by
implementing the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realisation of the Right to
Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security (COM(2010)127 final).
The principal critique relative to agricultural investment in developing countries (including
biofuels) deals with the concerns and relevance of treatment of “unused” or “marginal”
lands. In most cases, land is already being used or claimed – yet existing land uses and claims
go unrecognised because land users are marginalised from formal land rights and access to
the law and institutions. The limits of the bio-physical survey approach in combination with illdefined and often unregistered land use rights lead to many conflicts within local
communities (i.e. between smallholders and pastoralists) and between local communities
and governments when it hastily allocates land to foreign or domestic investors. Pastoralists
and herders tend to be most vulnerable in such processes.
The threat of dispossession or eviction from land due to a government’s failure to offer
adequate protection of customary land rights and assure appropriate consultation based on
the principle of free, prior and informed consent is very real. Concerns relating to the
occurrence of human rights violations, such as evictions or displacement of local food
production, have led the office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights to
issue a news release in October 2012 with recommendations for biofuel impact assessments.
There are several instruments that aim to encourage corporate social responsibility among
companies. In terms of relevance to conventional biofuel production, the most relevant ones
can be found within commodity specific instruments, as well as general CSR instruments.
Compliance with such instruments or commodity certification schemes is voluntary and they
usually lack remedy mechanisms.
There is still relatively little research that is specifically dedicated to addressing the gender
impacts of production of biofuels in developing countries. Gender is one of the sharpest and
most visible forms of differentiation when it comes to access to natural resources as well as
ensuring an equal voice for women in decision making. Research has found that changes in
land tenure systems and the related changes in land use have often resulted in weakening
women’s land entitlements, particularly where women are poor and their access to land is
dependent on male relatives, as is the case in most customary land systems in Africa. Neither
large nor small scale farming has been demonstrated to be necessarily better for women, but
this is probably due to a lack of such comparative analysis. The very few positive cases found
to increase women’s income have tended to focus on Jatropha, used as a sharecropping
secondary income generation scheme and which did not result in land tenure changes or
competition with food crops.
The main environmental impacts of feedstock production for biofuel are caused by intensive
farming systems, cultivating crops with high input levels, which are both natural (land, soil,
water, native vegetation) and agrochemical. Large scale systems used for food crops
production may be efficient but not always sustainable: this situation applies also for crops
planted for energy. There is still a need to document the relationship between typologies of
biofuel projects and their socio-economic and environmental impacts in ACP countries.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
3
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The recognised norms and standards for sustainable agronomy include the requirements for
comprehensive studies of the site conditions where the crop will be grown such as pedology,
water availability, soil cover and landscape. Based on these analyses, the type of crop and
the most adequate mode of cultivation should be defined. From the review, it is clear that
many decisions for bioenergy crop plantations are driven by criteria based on short-term
returns, while sustainability issues play a second role.
National and international legislation usually require an Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) or Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) to be conducted before any
implementation works begin. Even if some examples demonstrate the interest and the
positive effects of an EIA undertaken under a business-as-usual approach, in the majority of
cases reviewed, the EIA is considered as an administrative burden. A Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) for biofuels development would constitute an important step to undertake,
even if examples of this were not identified during the study.
Land use planning is generally not undertaken at an adequate scale (local, regional and
national), especially in developing countries. A comprehensive inventory of the land
characteristics including the environmental and socio-economic specificities can facilitate a
mapping of the opportunities for crop plantation and feedstocks for biofuel development.
Climate change perspectives including adaptation and mitigation action plans at the
local/regional levels to strengthen a given territory’s resilience would guide such a process.
National bioenergy strategies should be developed together with land use planning, taking
into consideration the real land potential for bioenergy production, its environmental, social
and economic impacts, and encouraging sustainable practices.
A key factor in the analysis of the impacts of biofuels development is the type of production
system: large-scale plantations; small-scale liquid biofuel farms (contract farming); small-scale
local energy farms for local energy power needs; hybrid model (a mix of plantation and outgrower). There is no “best” scheme because the conditions must be considered on a caseby-case basis. According to the Tanzanian experiences analysed during the field study,
inclusive business models that involve smallholder farmers as active partners appear to be
more attuned than those based on large-scale plantations.
Solutions for sustainable agronomy and cultivation models exist and they can be applied
successfully to bioenergy crop production at farm and community level. Examples of good
practices worldwide demonstrate their potential benefits for soil quality, water availability and
quality, agrobiodiversity, climate change mitigation, productivity, income generation and
required inputs. There is a need for increased support, awareness raising, training and
dissemination efforts targeting the capacity of the national authorities to monitor projects
and for farmers and companies to adopt best practices.
Good examples exist targeting both biofuel production for export and stationery energy
generation for increasing local energy access. These projects offer a way to hedge the risks
of biofuels’ investment, while contributing to local development not only through creation of
jobs but also through provision of benefits in terms of environment (e.g. reducing
deforestation, land degradation, GHG emissions), economy (e.g. giving the opportunity to
develop new businesses or adopt production practices that would be impossible without
modern and cheap forms of energy) and society (e.g. reducing indoor air pollution as well as
time spent for collecting wood). However, these projects add complexity to the initial project
AETS Consortium – February 2013
4
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
set up. Energy access is fundamental for developing new businesses, increasing food security
and incomes from agriculture through improved agro-processing and food storage.
For example, energy crop plantations can be coupled with electricity or CHP plant for
generating energy from the crop residues (e.g. after oil extraction, sugarcane or grain
processing) both with large biofuel processing plants or small applications. Alternatively,
residues can be used to produce biogas for household purposes providing a clean source of
fuel for cooking and space heating.
However, it should be noted that ACP countries, and Sub-Saharan Africa in particular, are
dominated by smallholder farmers possessing 2 hectares or less, who represent 80% of all
farms and produce up to 90% of the total agricultural output. These smallholder farmers are
those who usually lack modern energy services and could benefit the most from modern
bioenergy.
Unfortunately the idea of biofuels as a means to increase the national energy security, for
example through the adoption of Integrated Food-Energy Systems (IFES), is still limited as most
foreign investors generally target biofuel production for export and treat the domestic market
as a secondary target.
The size of the bioenergy project (in terms of area, capital invested, jobs created) alone does
not tell much about its ability to contribute to access to energy. The targeted bioenergy
market (or the end-users), the nature and the kind of contract arrangements between
farmers and the project initiator (i.e. small scale projects for local energy access, commercial
farmers producing biofuels for own consumption, outgrower farming schemes, large
plantations employing farmers directly) are more relevant for an appraisal of the direct
contribution towards energy access and security increase.
Jatropha emerges as a significant driver for some large-scale land acquisitions in the world.
According to the Land Matrix Database, a large majority of the “non-food” projects (73 %)
are exclusively dedicated to Jatropha production with most of them located in Africa,
particularly in East African countries (Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania). EU private
investors are major actors involved in large scale land acquisitions aimed at the production of
Jatropha. Recent emerging data suggests that a number of large scale Jatropha investments
in Africa (with negative consequences for local people) are of a speculative nature. At the
same time, evidence is gained about the low Jatropha performance, with yields much lower
expected. It seems that viable projects are those that do not target just the international
biofuel market, but also local uses of Jatropha (e.g. for heat generation from residues or soap
making). This would also apply to other energy crops though.
One key conclusion of this study is that a policy focused on fulfilling an internal biofuel
blending target through certified biofuels alone cannot expect to develop a sustainable
bioenergy industry automatically, especially in poor developing countries, unless these policy
measures are backed with international support to strengthen the bioenergy policy
frameworks.. This includes supporting policy development in countries with weak policy
framework, or helping to enforce them, especially on land tenure and Natural Resource (NR)
management issues; it also includes providing training, sharing good (environmental and
socio-economic) agricultural practices, and facilitating technology transfer at the same time.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
5
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
In term of Policy Coherence for Development, most of findings presented in this report are
insufficiently taken into consideration to review existing policies and shaping new orientations
for sustainable development of biofuels.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
6
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Introduction
In the last decade, bioenergy and notably liquid biofuels have emerged as a suitable,
renewable alternative to co-exist with fossil fuels as their quality constituents match
petroleum-based products while less polluting (at combustion) and, if managed correctly,
can contribute to rural development and economic growth. In this regard, the European
Union (EU) Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC sets a 10% target by 2020 which is
expected to be met through (i) 8.5% of first generation biofuels (mostly based on food/feed
crops and vegetable oils) (ii) 1% of second generation biofuels and (iii) 1% of renewable
electricity1.
Currently, strong developments in the biofuels sector can be observed due to relatively low
oil prices and increased concerns about their impacts as it goes along with a marked and
continuous increase of food price with relatively high volatility and pressure on agricultural
land - especially in developing countries. The extent to which EU biofuels policies might have
contributed to rising food prices, reduced availability, pressure on agricultural land and other
adverse effects has not been fully measured.
Under the framework of the Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), the European
Commission aims to conduct a more in-depth analysis to assess the impacts of EU policies on
developing countries. Regarding the bioenergy sector in particular, the European
Commission wants to strengthen its knowledge on the consequences of an increased
demand in biofuels in developing countries.
The present study aims to identify and -where possible- to fill the persistent gaps in the analysis
and readily available information with regard to the impact of increased biofuels demand in
developing countries. The findings of the desk review have been checked thanks to two field
visits in Senegal and Tanzania, two countries with quite different strategies regarding biofuel
support policies. The results of the study highlight the identified challenges, opportunities,
synergies and trade-offs of biofuels' production and development objectives in developing
countries, on the basis of different domestic contexts and production methods.
However important the issue of impacts of biofuels production is, it is important to view the
discussion in a larger context. Currently, biofuels occupy less than 1% of total agricultural land.
Even from the 30 Mha used today, a considerable amount of by-products are produced,
such as cattle-feed, bioelectricity and heat (IEA Bioenergy 2012). According to International
Energy Agency (IEA) scenarios, 100 Mha are required in 2050 for biofuels, equivalent to 2% of
total agricultural land. This does not appear to be substantial in absolute terms, but
nevertheless represents a three-fold increase in land-use, if biofuel production is multiplied by
ten in the next forty years. All this is further constrained by the challenges linked to the
expansion of crop production for food by 60% by 2050 (according to FAO figures), based on
growth of world population to 9 billion in 2050. This will require around 60 Mha of additional
arable land, in addition to considerable yield increases2 (FAO 2011).
To date, there is virtually no trade in biofuel products and feedstock from Africa to the EU.
Also, there is little scientific evidence linking the rising food prices in Africa to the EU biofuel
policies. Many reports point out a cocktail of drivers for high food prices, such as increasing
food demand due to an increasing world population, the change in dietary patterns, the
new trends in finantial markets and the high climate variability (i.e. repeated droughts and
flooding).
The massive land acquisition by Western companies and third states in African countries with
weak land tenure systems and practices raise concerns that need to be addressed together
Following a recent European Commission proposal – the first generation biofuels will be capped at 5%, see press
release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1112_en.htm?locale=en
2 Yield increases can increase output per area by 20-50% by 2030 for many crops according to Chum et al. (2011)
and most improvement potential lays in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where
advanced practices are not yet fully deployed and adapted
1
AETS Consortium – February 2013
7
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
with the environmental and social impact of land use change and change of land
ownership. Developing countries should be empowered to act consequently in order to
safeguard their own food security and environmental sustainability.
The set-up of this report is as follows:
Section 2 (Background) presents the study scope, objectives and methodologies.
Section 3 extensively reviews the global context of biofuel production (feedstock production
practices and conversion practices; biofuels policies worldwide) and Section 4 presents the
economic impacts of the production of biofuels in developing countries by discussing: the
trade patterns, the consequences of resources depletion, the impact on macro and micro
levels, land tenure systems, food security, energy access and supply security.
Section 5 gathers information and analysis on the environmental impact of biofuel production
in developing countries and provides a set of recommendations on good practices to be
enforced. Issues such as land degradation, water use, biodiversity and natural resources and
GHG emissions are discussed.
Section 6 provides an overview of the social and human rights concerns related to the
development of biofuels in developing countries. The section covers the issues of land and
food rights, corporate social responsibility and gender.
The last section outlines the findings of the study and provides a set of recommendations to
different actors in order to address the sustainability of biofuels production in developing
countries.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
8
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Section 2: Background
2.1 Outlines of the objectives and expected results of the project
The project aims to increase knowledge about the impact of biofuels development from the
point of view of PCD as defined in Art.208.1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union. According to the Terms of Reference (ToR), PCD has, since 2005, become a
permanent and significant pillar of the EU effort to enhance the impact of external assistance
and to better weight the direct and indirect effects of EU non-development policies in its
partner countries. The ToR mention that, although the PCD work started before then, both in
the OECD and in the EU, the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the legal basis for PCD work; the
TFEU's Article 208 now requires that the Union takes account of the objectives of development
cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.
The drivers for strengthening EU action on PCD do not only lie in the effectiveness of aid or the
potential gains both from eliminating the cost of incoherence and from harvesting the added
value of synergies, but also, as the world’s largest donor, in its own accountability and
credibility both inside and outside the EU.
Under the PDC perspective, the project seeks to (i) Illustrate the existing correlation between
biofuels production in developing countries and several direct and indirect impacts; (ii)
distinguish (as far as possible) and attribute impacts to EU policy and actors and to other nonEU’s actors and policies; and (iii) differentiate the impacts related to biofuels production for
transport (and for export) compared to other drivers.
The following specific results are expected:
•
Identification of the knowledge gaps on the links between biofuel linked investments
and sustainable development in developing countries (economic, environment,
social);
•
Assessment of the relevant positive and negative impacts of biofuel ventures on
development, which are categorised, prioritised and identified by stakeholders;
•
Identification and substantiation of “common” opportunities (synergies), risks and
challenges related to bioenergy production, including a trade flow analysis, a
typology by country context and production specificities;
•
Conclusions and recommendations – based on the analysis and differentiated by
levels and actors (public/private; international/European/national/local etc.) – and if
possible - also linked to the upcoming EU and international agendas.
2.2 Desk study phase
This report deals with the desk phase review that consisted of:
•
A review of the institutional literature, academic literature and complementary reports
– classification by type and origin of the literature; the EC would like to specifically
identify the gaps in the literature review and map the main arguments and issues
tackled (also by origin). There was a great need to expand and update the list of
documents and sort through the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
publications on bioenergy for instance3;
•
Analysis and synthesis;
•
Highlighting convergences and divergences;
3
See the critical review of the literature in the annex 1
AETS Consortium – February 2013
9
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
Identification of the relevant gaps, discrepancies and controversial opinions as they
appear in the literature review, taking into account the human rights based as well as
other approaches;
•
Presentation of the analysis regarding the regulatory systems and policy frameworks in
developing countries, their vulnerability, biofuel related and/or general investment
climate, the comparison between biofuels production for domestic consumption
versus production for export including the type of crops and products.
2.3 Field visit
The desk review phase was followed by two field visits to Senegal and Tanzania respectively
to identify the conditions and facts that will consolidate, validate or disprove the key findings
of the desk review.
The final report integrates the findings of the field report, the desk review report and the
comment and suggestions of the workshop held on 08th January 2013.
Box 1: Bioenergy and Biofuels
In this report, the term bioenergy refers to energy produced from biomass and biofuels refers to solid,
liquid and gaseous fuels produced from the processing of biomass (organic matter derived from plants
or animals). Biofuels include fuels and bioadditives such as bioethanol, biodiesel, biobutanol,
biomethanol, bioETBE (ethyl tert-butyl ether), bioMTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether), biogasoline, and
combustible oils produced by plants; gaseous biofuels such as biogas or syngas; and solid biofuels such
as charcoal and bio-char.
The most important biofuels today are ethanol (made mainly from sugar and cereal crops via
fermentation) and biodiesel (made mainly from vegetable oils via transesterification).
We distinguish two categories of biofuels:
Conventional (first generation) biofuels are fuels derived from sugars or starch via fermentation or from
vegetable oils through transesterification. They include biofuels produced from feedstock which can
also be used for food and feed, such as sugar, starch and vegetable oils. These biofuels include sugarand starch-based ethanol, and vegetable-oil-based biodiesel. Typical feedstocks used in these
processes include sugarcane and sugar beet, starch-bearing grains such as maize and wheat, and oil
crops such as rape (canola), soybean and oil palm. First generation biofuels are produced on a
commercial scale.
Advanced (second generation4) biofuels are fuels and additives that do not belong to the category
above and are produced through advanced technologies. They include biofuels produced from
feedstocks that do not compete directly with food and feed crops, such as waste and agricultural
residues (i.e. wheat straw, used cooking oils, municipal waste), non-food crops (i.e. miscanthus and short
rotation coppice) and algae. Most advanced biofuel technologies are still under research and
development (R&D), pilot or demonstration phases.
4
Some authors also include 3rd and 4th generation biofuels under this category (see paragraph 3.1.3)
AETS Consortium – February 2013
10
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Section 3: The global context of biofuels development and
implications for developing countries
Biofuels have a potential to contribute to a wide range of policy objectives: improving energy
security by reducing dependence on fossil fuels, mitigating GHG emissions by substituting
fossil fuels in the transportation sector, increasing rural employment and incomes. Motivated
by the potential benefits of biofuels, many countries, both developed and developing, have
adopted policies to support biofuel production.
3.1
Bioenergy feedstock production practices and conversion
into biofuels
3.1.1
Characterisation of the feedstocks
Broadly speaking, it is possible to identify three main categories of bioenergy resources: i)
residues and wastes ii) natural vegetation and iii) energy crops. The last category includes
both food and non-food crops as well as specific production practices that can be adopted
producing different impacts on the environment and yields.
Residues and wastes
‘Primary residues’ can be defined as residues produced on agricultural fields or in forests and
include branches and twigs from logging, cereals straw from harvesting and dung from
livestock operations. ‘Secondary residues’ are residues resulting from the processing of wood
or food and include sawdust/bark from wood processing and rice husks from rice milling.
Waste that can be used as a feedstock for bioenergy include waste streams derived from the
food processing industry, the organic fraction of municipal waste and waste paper. Primary
energy from municipal and industrial waste accounted to 1623 GJ in 2009 according to IEA
statistics (this can be compared with 78 GJ for liquid biofuels). Residues and waste are used
mainly for heat and power and are usually consumed locally. This makes it particularly difficult
to cover residues in official statistics, especially in developing countries.
Natural vegetation
Natural vegetation as bioenergy feedstock mainly refers to trees and shrubs in forests and
non-forests. Today the use of natural vegetation for bioenergy is severely limited by
environmental sustainability constraints.
The use of natural vegetation for modern bioenergy (see box below) is negligible if compared
with total energy supply; however, the use of natural vegetation for traditional bioenergy is
usually not recorded in official statistics and difficult to estimate. The potential of bioenergy
use from sustainable harvest levels of natural vegetation is controversial and vary from zero
dozen MJ. This bioenergy feedstock is usually not traded, and used by local poor
communities to meet their basic energy needs.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
11
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Box 2: Modern bioenergy and modern energy services
The term ‘Modern bioenergy’ is often used to describe energy, for example when we need to quantify it
or use the term in an abstract sense, which delivers modern bioenergy services. There is sometimes
confusion about what is modern and what is not, and how to distinguish traditional use of bioenergy.
The dinstintion can be made on the basis of the energy service delivered and this approach has also
been adopted by the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP 2011). In this sense, modern bioenergy
services are defined as modern energy services relying on biomass as their primary energy source. They
include electricity delivered to the final user through a grid from biomass power plants; district heating;
district cooling; improved cookstoves (including such stoves used for heating) at the household and
business level; stand-alone or grid-connected generation systems for household or businesses; domestic
and industrial biomass heating systems; domestic and industrial biomass cooling systems, biomasspowered machinery for agricultural activities or businesses; biofuel-powered tractors and other vehicles,
grinding and milling machinery. Modern bioenergy services do not include for example biomass used
for cooking or heating purposes in open stoves or fires with no chimney or hood or any other energy
systems that release flue gases indoors or release high concentrations of air pollutants, irrespective of
the feedstock or biofuel employed.
Energy crops
Energy crops can be distinguished into conventional energy crops (i.e. sugary, starchy
feedstocks, oilseeds or animal fats) and lignocellulosic energy crops. Conventional energy
crops are also normally used to produce food for humans and feed for animals and include
corn, wheat, barley, sugar beet, sugarcane, rapeseed, sunflower and soybeans, but also
non-edible crops such as Jatropha. These energy crops are the main feedstock used for
producing liquid biofuels for transport and their use has been controversial over the last few
years because of the direct or indirect effects that they could have on food security.
Conventional energy crops are traded internationally and their market is hardly
distinguishable from the food market.
Lignocellulosic energy crops refer to plants that can provide biomass rich in cellulose,
lignocellulose and lignin that can be used as a feedstock for bioenergy. They include
mischantus, switchgrass, poplar, willow, and eucalyptus. Lignocellulosic feedstocks are
generally not supposed to compete directly with food crops and their cultivation requires
lower management and inputs; therefore, this biomass can be sourced significantly cheaper
than conventional energy crops. Another important advantage compared with conventional
annual crops is their higher tolerance to variable soil and climate conditions and the
possibility of producing the biomass throughout the whole year.
The main barrier still remains the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into liquid biofuels and
their exploitation for this purpose is therefore restricted to a limited number of pilot plants and
a few commercial plants (with uncertain economic viability). Today their use is chiefly limited
to heat and power applications via thermochemical conversion processes (mainly
combustion, but also other conversion options are possible. See section 3.1.3) and their use is
rapidly increasing worldwide. More than 10% of total biomass consumption is for power
generation, leading to around 70 GW of electricity, mainly derived from solid biomass in the
US, EU, Brazil and China (REN21, GSR2012 -preliminary data). Liquid biofuels produced from
lignocellulosic feedstocks are generally referred to as ‘second generation’ biofuels.
Lignocellulosic feedstock for biofuels are normally sourced and consumed locally, while
woody biomass is internationally traded.
Bioenergy currently provides around 38 EJ of final energy per year, 28 EJ/yr by traditional
biomass used inefficiently for heating and cooking, 8 EJ/yr of commercial heat and power
and around 2 EJ/yr by liquid transport fuels (IEA 2012). This is comparable with REN21 statistics,
which provide a share of 1.6% of TPES for traditional bioenergy and 0.001% of TPES for
transport biofuels.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
12
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
3.1.2
Bioenergy feedstock production practices
The environmental, economic and social sustainability of bioenergy depends on a number of
factors, including how biomass is sourced. Over recent years, various studies have focused on
the potential contribution of different types of biomass to the world’s future energy supplies,
leading to a variety of results.
Production practices that can be implemented for growing bioenergy feedstock are the
same that can be implemented to optimize production in the agro-forestry sector. Good
practices in biomass production can improve both the sustainability and efficiency of land
and water use as well as the efficiency of external inputs, leading to positive environmental
and socio-economic effects, including a reduction in competition with food production.
Good practices can also minimise impacts of bioenergy feedstock production on the
ecosystem, which is essential to provide a wide range of goods and services for poor rural
communities. According to the FAO, these feedstock production practices can be grouped
into i) agricultural management approaches, ii) integrated, sustainable agricultural and
forestry management systems, and iii) field-level agricultural and forestry practices such as no
or minimum tillage, integrated pest management, integrated plant nutrient management
that can be implemented on the ground by farmers.
Box 3: Good practices in bioenergy feedstock production
Good practices in feedstock production for bioenergy are similar to those associated with food crop
production as far as environmental effects are concerned (sustainable agriculture management).
These practices comprise a number of sustainable agriculture principles that can be implemented
through the field-level practices, illustrated e.g. in FAO 2012. They include effects on soil quality, water
availability and quality, biodiversity, agrobiodiversity, climate change mitigation, productivity/income
and availability of inputs that can have natural spill-over effects in the agricultural and food sector.
At the same time, these approaches present some challenges that limit their adoption, including in
terms of input and labour requirements, land tenure, access to finance, awareness, education,
research and development and policies and institutions (FAO 2012).
However, good practices in bioenergy can also have a positive impact on socio-economic
dimensions (that go beyond those of food crops) such as:
• Access to land;
• Employment, wages and labour conditions;
• Income generation and inclusion of smallholders;
• Local food security;
• Community development;
• Energy security and local access to energy;
• Gender equity.
These good socio-economic practices include (but are not limited to) the extensive public
consultation and mapping of customary land rights undertaken by Addax Bioenergy in Sierra Leone,
the retraining of sugarcane cutters coordinated by UNICA in Brazil, the promotion of intercropping of
Pigeon Peas (stalk used as fuel) with the local staple food maize promoted by GIZ in Malawi, the
creation of a technology centre and business incubator associated with the Markala Sugar Project in
Mali, the a biogas project in the Casamance region and a rural electrification pilot project in the
Fatick region developed by NOVIS in Senegal. The German-funded FAO BEFSCI project addressed all
these socio-economic good practices in detail (see www.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befsci).
Impacts of bioenergy production associated with some socio-economic dimensions will be discussed
in more detail in sections 4 and 6 of this report.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
13
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
As far as agricultural production is concerned, these practices present some challenges that
limit their adoption and important trade-offs exist especially in terms of achievable yields in
the short-term. The main barriers to their adoption relate to input and labour requirements,
access to finance for initial capital cost that translates into revenues in the medium or longterm, as well as awareness and education.
Table 1 summarises the main potential benefits associated with different good practices that
can be adopted in bioenergy feedstock production.
Table 1: Good environmental practices applicable to bioenergy feedstock production
MAIN POTENTIAL DIRECT BENEFITS
ENVIRONMENT
Climate
Water availability
Soil Quality
Biodiversity Agrobiodiversity Change
and quality
mitigation
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
Productivity / Availability Access
Income
of inputs
to energy
Sustainable agricultural m anaging approaches
Conservation Agriculture
The Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Crop Production
intensification, Agro-ecology and Eco-agriculture
Organic Agriculture
Sustainable Integrated Agricultural and Forestry
Managem ent System s
Agroforestry
Integrated Food Energy Systems
Multiple Cropping Systems and Crop Rotation
Sustainable Field Level Agricultural and forestry
Practices
Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn
community Based Forest Management
Conservation and Sustainable use of Plant Genetic
Resources and Seeds
Forest Buffer Zone
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM)
No or Minimum Tillage
Pollinistation Management
Precision Agriculture
Rainw ater Harvesting and Management
Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands
Soil Cover
Sustainable Forest Harvest
sustainable Irriation
Wild Biodiversity
Source: FAO 2012
Multiple cropping and crop rotation allows the cultivation of more than one crop, enabling
the farmers to spread market risks, and spread required labour and input more evenly during
the year. Crop diversity can also mitigate the economic risks linked to adverse weather.
At the same time, farmers may reduce their reliance on chemical pesticides and nutrient
inputs as most pests and diseases are plant specific and the extended cultivation of host
plants allows for an increasing resistance of pests and pathogens. With crop rotation, the
interruption in the cultivation of the host plant, by growing non-host plants, leads to the
eradication of pests and pathogens in the soil.
On the other hand, it could be difficult for farmers to adopt new crops, depending on the
existing conditions, such as labour availability and skills, available equipment, field types and
agreements in place. Furthermore, despite the benefits to soil fertility, some crops may be less
profitable than others in a certain region. Rotation may reduce the yearly production of the
main cash crop, which may result in less profit in the short-term. However, the profitability of
rotation systems tends to be higher than that of mono-cropping systems in the medium term,
thanks to higher yields, more climate and market resilience and lower production costs.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
14
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
For example, the intercropping of cassava increases efficiency as the crop does not
efficiently use light, water and nutrients during its early growth stages, and legumes offer a
suitable short-duration second crop as they also improve soil fertility through nitrogen fixation
(as well as by providing fodder for livestock).
The intercropping practice adopted by dairy farmers in Thailand (FAO 2012) shows that,
although cassava yields tend to decrease in the short term with intercropping, the land use
efficiency and overall farm income tends to increase with the introduction of the second
crop, especially when edible seeds are used for food and crop residues are used as fodder.
In a case study in the Mahasarakham province, land use efficiency was on average 72-76
per cent higher under cassava-cowpea intercropping than under cassava monoculture.
3.1.3
Biofuel production methods
Biofuels are mainly consumed in conventional internal combustion engines as a substitute of
fossil fuels. Typically, they are commercialised in the form of ethanol (as a substitute for
gasoline) or biodiesel (as a substitute for fossil diesel) or biogas (as a substitute for natural gas).
Furthermore, biofuels can be distinguished into ‘first’ and ‘second’ generation biofuels if
produced from conventional feedstocks through anaerobic fermentation5, distillation,
dehydration, esterification or other conventional methods; or lignocellulosic feedstocks
through advanced enzymatic hydrolysis6, BTL processes or other advanced processes
respectively7.
‘First generation’ biofuels
The production of ‘First generation’ biofuels, produced mainly from crops also grown for food
and feed purposes, has continued to increase significantly over recent years.
Ethanol is produced from sugar-containing crops or grains. Currently, ethanol substitutes 2-3%
of total gasoline fuel supplies in spark ignition engines8. Ethanol is currently the largest biofuel
produced globally and around four fifths are produced from corn and sugarcane, although it
can also be produced from a wide range of energy crops.
The biological conversion routes for ethanol are well established and based on the extraction
of sucrose and starch and their subsequent fermentation. From the fermentation onwards,
both routes for sugar or starch feedstocks are basically the same. The overall efficiency and
viability can be improved, adding value to by-products e.g. generating additional energy
(heat and/or electricity) or finding other valuable uses.
The fermentation step is very similar to that used in beer and wine-making
Special enzymes free the sugar molecules from cellulose using steam heating or other pre-treatments. Then the
process is similar to sugar fermentation of first generation biofuels
7 Some authors also make reference to ‘third generation’ biofuels for those fuels produced from algae, and ‘fourth
generation’ biofuels for those fuels produced from direct hydrolysis (for bio-hydrogen production) or advanced biochemistry. However there is no clear agreement on these definitions
8 Although research is going for its application in compression ignition engines
5
6
AETS Consortium – February 2013
15
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Figure 1: Conversion route for sugar and starch feedstocks to ethanol
Enzymes
Starch
feedstocks
Pretreatment
/ crushing
Hydrolysis
Yeast
Animal
feed
Fermentation
Sugar
feedstock
Separation /
distillation
Co-products
Pretreatment
ETHANOL
By-products for heat/power or
animal feed
Biodiesel is produced from vegetable oils or animal fats after conversion into a range of fatty
acid methyl or ethyl esters (esterification). Biodiesel provides around 0.2% of total diesel supply
and is used mainly in Europe (5.1 % on an energy basis according to OECD-FAO 2012). It is
also possible to use raw vegetable oil directly (blended or not) in compression ignition
engines, but the low quality of the fuel makes it unsuitable for its use in the general transport
sector. One oil-yielding plant that has received particular attention over the last few years is
Jatropha, as this plant cannot be used for food and can be cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions.
The conversion of vegetable oils into biodiesel is relatively simple and well established both at
small and large scale level. It is important to note that biodiesel production is less sensitive to
processing scale than ethanol. However, even if the basic esterification process at normal
pressure and temperature can be easily reproduced, numerous unwanted reactions and
chemical substances can develop during the reaction and contaminate the fuel. This can be
a problem in regions such as Europe where the quality standards for biodiesel are very
stringent (see EN 14214 on fuel quality, involving 30 different criteria and thresholds), in order
to be used as a reliable fuel in modern car engines.
Figure 2: Conversion route for oilseeds and animal fats to biodiesel
Methanol Recycling
Catalyst Recycling
Methanol
Glycerine
Catalyst
Distillation
Oil seeds or
animal fats
Seeds
preparation
Chemical or
mechanical extraction
of oil/fat
Trans-esterification
Separation
Distillation
Proteic meal
for feed
BIODIESEL
Possible improvements to this process relate to biodiesel yields (which can ideally reach 99%)
but sometimes the cost of reaching very high yields is not justified by the additional
production. Maximum biodiesel yields and the cost of the feedstock are the main factors
determining economic viability.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
16
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Biogas or landfill gas is produced by anaerobic fermentation of organic waste including
animal manure. The gas can be scrubbed and upgraded to a high quality methane-rich fuel
with characteristics similar to natural gas. This high-quality fuel can be compressed and used
in spark ignition engines (or in turbines for power). However, the cleaning of the gas, normally
required for gas storage, entails extra costs for removing hydrogen sulphides and CO2 that
should be duly considered. The use of bio-methane remains limited though in the world (little
of the over 250 PJ/year produced in the EU in 200 facilities is used for transport), with the
exception of countries like Germany that are steadily spreading its use.
The anaerobic fermentation of wet organic waste and animal manure, food processing
residues or sewage effluents is a well-established technology, both for small scale (e.g. in
China and Vietnam) and large scale applications (e.g. in Germany, Italy and Denmark).
Biogas can be an important source of bioenergy, although modest if compared to other
sources. Furthermore, it does not have relevance for international trade and an impact on
developing countries.
Lignocellulosic, advanced or ‘Second generation’ biofuels
Liquid biofuels can also be produced from lignocellulosic feedstocks through the so-called
‘second generation’ technologies. These biofuels are expected to be superior to
conventional biofuels in terms of GHG emissions, land use requirements and competition with
food crops, natural resource requirements and the security ensured by the wide availability of
lignocellulosic material at no (or even negative) costs. Despite all these positive aspects, the
global production of lignocellulosic biofuels is still negligible due to the high conversion costs if
compared with conventional biofuels that cannot be justified in economic terms.
The recent draft consultation paper on Biofuels and Food Security of the High Level Panel of
Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security confirmed
the improbability of being able to count on second generation biofuels within the current
decade; it also confirmed that the scale and logistics required to make these technologies
was inappropriate for most developing countries today (HLPE 2013).
Several plants are at an early commercial stage and are mainly located in the United States
and in Europe; they make use of locally sourced agricultural residues or energy crops such as
grass. The basic conversion technologies are not new and their full commercial development
has been long awaited. The first European commercial plant for the production of transport
ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstock (rice husks and giant cane) is located in Italy and is
expected to become operational at the beginning of 2013.
Significant R&D development is required for low-cost solutions for the production and
management of the enzymes or catalysts required for the process.
These processes can be grouped into biochemical or thermochemical processes and can
make use of non-food crops, agricultural residues and woody biomass. Therefore, more
biomass can be produced from the same amount of agricultural or non-agricultural land9.
Total combustible renewables and waste consumption in 2009 is estimated at around 52 EJ;
the vast majority of this being solid and lignocellulosic biomass.
The technical potential of second generation biofuels is highly uncertain. IRENA estimated
that the biofuel potential for Africa would be around 50 billion litres, more than half of current
total global biofuel production10 (IRENA 2011).
A major barrier for the exploitation of lignocellulosic biomass is related to the development of
the supply chain, as dedicated biomass harvesting, storage and pre-processing systems need
to be developed for the new bioenergy feedstock. In addition, its integration into existing
infrastructure and handling systems is not an easy task and may require a long time.
However, if residues or sustainable harvest of woody biomass (woody fallows) are the feedstock of choice, it can be
expected that more productive land will be needed in comparison
10 Considering a 10 million hectare potential for Africa as a whole and an average yield of 5 t biofuels per hectare
9
AETS Consortium – February 2013
17
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Biochemical conversion routes use enzymes and micro-organisms to carry out a structured
deconstruction of lignocellulose into base polymers (cellulose and hemicellulose) and then
into monomeric sugars. These sugars are then fermented into ethanol with a process similar to
that of conventional ethanol. The difficulty is in breaking the strong bonds of lingo-cellulosic
biomass, which requires pre-treatment so that the conversion can take place. Biotechnology
advancements applied to enzymes and micro-organisms can provide sufficient activity for
the commercial exploitation of these feedstocks.
Thermochemical conversion routes include gasification, pyrolysis or hydrothermal treatment
to produce syngas (a gas rich in hydrogen and methane) to be further processed into liquid
biofuels (or to be used directly as gas, after cleaning and upgrading) or bio-oils to be further
upgraded to transport fuels quality. The syngas obtained can be further processed into
biodiesel (through Fischer-Tropsch conversion) or into ethanol or bio-methanol.
Biochemical and thermochemical routes can be basically adapted to a large degree on the
basis of the characteristics of the bioenergy feedstock available and the final form of
bioenergy to be obtained (this choice is normally dictated by the market). Biofuels that can
be obtained include cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, but also bio-methanol (methanol produced
from biomass and/or the biodegradable fraction of waste), bioETBE (ethyl-tertio-butyl-ether
produced from bioethanol11; and bioMTBE (methyl-tertio-butyl-ether produced on the basis of
biomethanol12), bio-coal and syngas.
Figure 3 summarises the different statuses of development (from basic R&D to commercial
exploitation) of main liquid biofuels produced from lignocellulosic biomass.
Figure 3: Development status of common ‘Second generation’ biofuels and associated
conversion technology
Source: IEA 2011
3.1.4 Biofuels blending
In Europe, less than 30% of transport fuel is gasoline; therefore, the use of ethanol remains
relatively limited. Hence, it is mainly biodiesel that should be looked at when examining the
impacts of imports of biofuels to the EU and impacts of EU renewable energy policy on third
11
12
The percentage by volume of bio-ETBE that is calculated as biofuel is 47%
The percentage by volume of bio-MTBE that is calculated as biofuel is 36%
AETS Consortium – February 2013
18
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
countries. The ability of different biofuels to be blended with conventional fuels and of
making use of the existing fuel infrastructure should be considered when establishing blending
targets in order to offer a reliable estimate of how much biofuel could be used in the shortmedium term. Table 2 provides an overview of different first and second generation biofuels’
blending characteristics.
Table 2: Overview on different biofuels’ blending characteristics
Blending characteristics
Biofuel
Sugar-based ethanol
E10-E15 (E25 in Brazil) in conv entional gasoline v ehicles; E85E100 in FFV or ethanol v ehicles
Starch-based ethanol
same as abov e
Cellulosic-ethanol
same as abov e
Conv entional biodiesel (FAME)
Hydrotreated v egetable Oil (HVP)
BtL-diesel
Algae oil based biodiesel / bio-jet fuel
Biogas
up to B20 in conv entional diesel engines
fully compatible with existing v ehicle and distribution
infrastructure
same as abov e
after hydrotreating: fully compatible with exxisting v ehicle
and distribution infrastructure
after hydrotreating: fully compatible with exxisting v ehicle
and distribution infrastructure
Bio-SG
same as abov e
Bio-butanol
use in gasoline v ehicles in blends up to 85%
Dimethylether
compatible with LPG infrastructure
Methanol
10%-20% blends in gasoline; blend up to 85% in FFVs
Sugar-based diesel/jet-fuel
fully compatible with existing v ehicle and distribution
infrastructure
Source: IEA 2011
For a clear understanding of the issue, it is also important to put different biofuel pathways in
relation with their land use efficiency. This is summarised in Table 3 along with expected yield
improvements.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
19
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Table 3: Land use efficiency of different biofuel production pathways and expected yield
improvements
Biofuel type
Current (nominal)
yields (litres/ha)
Expected
improvement
Conventional ethanol - sugar beet
4000
Low
Conventional ethanol – corn
2600
Low
Beet pulp (0.25)
4900
Medium
Bagasse (0.25)
3100
High
Lignin (0.4)
1700
Medium
Presscake (0.6)
Conventional ethanol – cane
Cellulosic ethanol – Short Rotation
Coppice13
Conventional biodiesel – Rapeseed
Main
co-product
biofuel)
(Kg/L
Conventional biodiesel – Soybean
700
Medium
Soybean meal (0.8)
Conventional biodiesel – Oil palm
3600
Medium
Empty fruit bunches (0.25)
BtL14 – Short Rotation Coppice
3100
High
Low temperature heat; pure
CO2
Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil
2000
High
Same as for conventional
biodiesel feedstocks
Biomethane from anaerobic fermentation –
Corn
4000
Medium
Organic fertilizer
Syngas – Short Rotation Coppice
3600
Medium
Pure CO2 (0.6 L)
Source: Adapted from IEA 2011
Even if lignocellulosic biofuels can bear a promise in the medium term, their
commercialisation is still negligible and can only happen with strong economic support. The
construction and operation of a ‘second generation’ biofuel plant requires skills and an
availability of input that can be hardly found in developing countries. Furthermore, one of the
big advantages of these biofuels is that they can rely on the wide availability of local
biomass. In light of this, lignocellulosic biofuels are discussed only marginally in this paper.
3.2
Biofuel policies worldwide
In recent years, many countries have adopted policies to promote biofuel production and
consumption. Biofuel policies are motivated by one or more of the following objectives: to
reduce energy dependence on imported fossil fuels (energy security), to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in the transport sector (climate change mitigation), and to create demand for
surplus agricultural crops (rural development).
Four broad groups of biofuel policy measures can be distinguished: (1) budgetary support,
such as direct support to biomass supply and fuel tax exemptions for biofuel producers; (2)
consumption targets (nonbinding) or mandates (binding), which set a minimum market share
for biofuels in total transport fuel; (3) trade measures, in particular import tariffs; and (4)
measures to stimulate productivity and efficiency improvements at various points in the
supply and marketing chain (Blanco et al. 2010).
In 2009, the European Union adopted the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which sets a
target of 10% of renewable energy in total transport fuel consumption by 2020. Both the RED
and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) also establish environmental sustainability criteria that
biofuels consumed in the EU have to comply with. In the EU, the RED provides the general
framework while the implementation mechanisms (blending mandates, tax exemptions, and
production incentives) are decided at the Member State (MS) level.
13
14
Assuming average yield of 15 t/ ha for woody crops
Biomass-to-Liquid technologies, such as Fischer-Tropsch conversion
AETS Consortium – February 2013
20
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
In the US, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program established the first renewable fuel
volume mandate in 2005, setting a minimum volume of biofuels to be used in the national
transportation fuel supply. In 2007, the expanded RFS required the annual use of 9 billion
gallons of biofuels in 2008 and expanded the mandate to 36 billion gallons annually in 2022,
of which no more than 15 billion gallons can be ethanol from corn starch, and no less than 16
billion must be from cellulosic biofuels.
Whereas some countries have established blending mandates (i.e. Brazil, the EU, and the US),
others have set targets on biofuel consumption (i.e. Australia, China, India, Indonesia, and
Malaysia). In addition to biofuel targets or mandates, some countries (the EU, the US, and
Brazil) also provide production incentives (subsidies or tax credits) and tariffs for biofuels. The
following table summarises biofuels policies in major producing countries and regions.
Table 4: Biofuel policies in major producing countries and regions
Country
Current
production
Mandate or target
Production incentives
Trade policy
United
States
49.2 Bnl ethanol
3.7 Bnl biodiesel
Mandate: 36 billion gallons
of biofuels by 2022, of
which no more of 15 billion
gallons come from
conventional sources and
no less of 16 billion gallons
come from cellulosic
ethanol.
Tax credit of
US$0.45/gallon ($0.12/litre)
for ethanol blenders and
US$1.00/gallon ($0.26/litre)
for biodiesel blenders from
agricultural feedstocks.
Ethanol tariff of US$.54/
gallon ($0.143/litre) plus ad
valorem duty of 2.5 %.
Ad valorem duty of 1.9 %
on biodiesel.
European
Union
7.2 Bnl ethanol
10.9 Bnl biodiesel
Mandate: minimum of 10%
of transport fuel from
renewable fuels by 2020.
Member States can apply
tax reductions on biofuels
as well as provide
production incentives.
Specific tariff of €0.192/litre
of under-natured ethanol
and €0.102/litre of
denatured ethanol.
Ad valorem duty of 6.5 %
on biodiesel.
Brazil
22.7 Bnl ethanol
(sugar cane)
2.5 Bnl biodiesel
(soya)
Blending mandate for
ethanol of 20–25%.
Biodiesel use mandate set
at 5% (B5) since 2010
(proposal to increase to
up to 10% by 2020.
Tax incentives on fuel
ethanol and biodiesel.
Tax incentives on flex-fuel
vehicles.
Ad valorem duty of 20% on
ethanol imported from
outside the Mercosur area
(temporarily in the list of
exceptions).
Ad valorem duty of 14% for
biodiesel.
India
1.08 Bnl of
ethanol
(molasses).
0.24 Bnl of
biodiesel
(Jatropha).
Indicative 20% target for
blending for both ethanol
and biodiesel by 2017.
Minimum price
mechanisms for feedstocks
Tax incentives for ethanol
or biodiesel.
Ad valorem duty of 28.6%
both on ethanol and
biodiesel.
China
2.3 Bnl ethanol
[corn and
wheat].
0.6 Bnl biodiesel
[waste and
residues].
E10 for 2020 (12.7 Bnl
ethanol) Target of 2.3 Bnl
biodiesel consumption in
2020
Target of 15 percent of
fuel consumption to be
nonfossil fuel by 2020
Production subsidies on
ethanol and biodiesel.
Ad valorem duty of 5% on
denatured ethanol (30%
until 2009) and 40% on
undenatured ethanol.
Thailand
0.5 Bnl ethanol
[sugar cane, ]
0.7 Bnl biodiesel
[palm oil]
Ethanol: E20 mandatory
since 2008.
Biodiesel: B2 mandatory
since 2008 and B5 since
2012.
Tax exemption for ethanol.
Investments subsidies for
ethanol plants.
Soft loans for biodiesel.
No export duties on
processed palm oil or
biodiesel.
Source: Compilation from several sources, including Mitchel 2011, Blanco et al. 2010, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN) biofuels reports, various countries and years.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
21
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Interest in biofuels in ACP countries is expanding. Climate change mitigation and energy
security (i.e. reduced dependency on increasingly expensive oil imports) are frequent
rationales behind biofuel policies; however, developing countries also emphasise the
potential of biofuel production to stimulate rural development and generate employment
opportunities. Furthermore, biofuels produced in tropical regions from sugar cane and
vegetable oils have a considerable cost advantage over those derived from agricultural
crops in temperate zones (FAO 2007).
Although many African countries have developed national biofuel policies and strategies, as
illustrated in the following table, the regulatory process from strategy and policy formulation
to effective implementation and enforcement is very slow.
Table 5: Biofuel policies in selected African countries
Country
Angola
Botswana
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Malawi
Mali
Mozambique
Nigeria
Senegal
South Africa
Strategy
Biofuels Policy 2010
Energy Policy 2009
Biofuels Strategy (2007)
National Bioenergy
Policy (2005)
National Biofuels Policy
(2011)
Malawi Energy
Regulatory Authority
2009
National Biofuel
Development Strategy
(2009)
National Biofuel Policy
and Strategy (2009)
Biofuels Policy and
Incentives (2007)
National Bioenergy
Strategy (2007)
Biofuels Industrial
Strategy
Policy instruments
Investment incentives
Primary Feedstocks
Sugarcane
Blending target
Sugarcane, Jatropha
Jatropha
Pilot E10 blend
Sugarcane, cassava,
sweet sorghum,
Jatropha
Sugarcane, Jatropha
Blending mandate
Subsidies and tax
exemptions
Research and pilot
studies
Biofuel targets
Fiscal incentives
E10 ethanol blend
B20 biodiesel blend
Production and
investment incentives
Jatropha
Sugarcane, Jatropha,
sorghum
Cassava, sorghum,
sugarcane, Jatropha
Sugarcane, Jatropha
Jatropha
Tanzania
Zambia
National Energy Policy
Source: Compilation from several sources, including Mitchel 2011, Blanco et al. 2010 UNECA (2011).
According to UNECA (2012), by the end of 2010, about 40 African countries have
implemented or are preparing biofuel policies. Policy development shows several gaps: i)
although national policies have been formulated, concomitant regulatory frameworks are
lacking, and ii) capacities for land suitability analysis and processing (biodiesel and ethanol)
are inadequate.
The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) was adopted in Lusaka, Zambia, in
2001. NEPAD's objective is to enhance Africa's growth, development and participation in the
global economy. In February 2010, NEPAD was integrated into the structures and processes of
the African Union (AU), with the establishment of the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating
Agency (NPCA) as an implementing body of the AU to replace the NEPAD Secretariat.
The Africa Bioenergy Policy Framework and Guidelines provide principles and guidelines for
RECs and African Union member states to guide policies and regulations that promote a
viable sustainable bioenergy sector. It integrates previous efforts by NEPAD, UN and different
Regional Economic Communities (REC) on bioenergy. For reasons of policy coherence and
AETS Consortium – February 2013
22
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
harmonisation at regional and continental level, the African Union initiated a comprehensive
consultative process to define an Africa Bioenergy Framework that fosters the development
of modern and sustainable bioenergy sector in Africa. The Africa Bioenergy Policy Framework
and Guidelines were adopted by the CEMA (Conference of Energy Ministers of Africa) in
November 2012 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
3.3
Current trends and statistical reviews of biofuel production
in developing countries
Mainly driven by policy support and high crude oil prices, the production and use of both
ethanol and biodiesel has increased significantly in recent years. Global production of
biofuels has been growing steadily over the last decade from 16 billion litres in 2000 to more
than 100 billion litres in 2011. Today, biofuels provide around 3% of total road transport fuel
globally (on an energy basis) and considerably higher shares are achieved in certain
countries. Brazil, for example, met about 23% of its road transport fuel demand in 2009 with
biofuels (IEA 2012).
Figures 4 and 5 depict global production data in main producing regions. According to the
OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook (OECD-FAO 2012), global ethanol and biodiesel production
are projected to continue to expand over the next ten years but at a slower pace than in the
past. Driven by policy mandates and renewable energy goals around the world, global
ethanol and biodiesel productions are projected to reach respectively some 180 Bnl and 42
Bnl by 2021.
Figure 4: Global ethanol production and projections to 2021
Bnl
200
180
Others
160
140
India
120
China
100
Argentina
80
Brazil
60
US
40
EU
20
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0
Source: Based on data from OECD-FAO (2012)
The main ethanol producing countries are the United States, Brazil and the European Union.
Today some 50% of Brazilian sugar cane, and about 40% of the United States’ corn
production are used as feedstock for biofuel production (OECD-FAO 2012). Production and
use in the United States and the European Union are mainly driven by the policies in place,
while in Brazil the growing use of ethanol is linked to the development of the flex-fuel vehicle
industry. As shown in Figure 4, global ethanol production is projected to almost double over
the next 10 years.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
23
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Figure 5: Global biodiesel production and projections to 2021
Bnl
45
40
35
Others
30
Mal_Ind
India
25
Argentina
20
Brazil
15
US
10
EU
5
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0
Source: Based on data from OECD-FAO (2012)
With 46% of global production, the EU is the main producer of biodiesel, followed by the
United States, Argentina, Malaysia and Indonesia. Currently some 65% of EU vegetable oil is
used for biodiesel production. Global production is projected to reach 42 Bnl in 2021 (from 24
Bln in 2011) and the EU is expected to remain the main biodiesel producer (OECD-FAO 2012).
As pointed out by several authors (e.g. Lamers 2011), assessing the exact amounts of biofuel
production in developing countries is particularly challenging. Aiming at achieving energy
security and increasing added value, several developing countries have implemented
biofuel policies in recent years. In most cases however, biofuel production is far below
expected levels. Some of the reasons for the slow development of the biofuel industry in
these countries are due to limited resources and high feedstock prices, which promote the
exports of biofuel feedstocks instead of biofuels. According to the OECD-FAO (2012), except
for Brazil and Argentina, biofuel production and use in developing countries are expected to
remain below targets.
Focusing in particular on African countries, figures 6 and 7 show data on biofuel production
as well as future trends.
Figure 6: Ethanol production and trends in Africa
Mnl
3500
3000
Other Sub-Saharan Africa
2500
2000
1500
North Africa
Tanzania
Nigeria
Ethiopie
1000
South Africa
500
0
Source: Based on data from OECD-FAO (2012)
Ethanol production in Africa reached 1.6 Bnl in 2011, representing less than 1.6% of global
production. The main producing countries are South Africa, Ethiopia and Nigeria.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
24
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Figure 7: Biodiesel production and trends in Africa
Mnl
450
400
350
Others
300
Ghana
250
Tanzania
200
150
100
Mozambique
South Africa
50
0
Source: Based on data from OECD-FAO (2012)
Biodiesel production in Africa is also very small and was around 0.3 Bnl in 2011; this is, less than
1.1%. Biodiesel production is concentrated in a handful of countries: South Africa,
Mozambique, Tanzania and Ghana.
Figures 6 and 7 also show future trends. Projections for biofuel production in many developing
countries are quite uncertain following little or no production increases in recent years. The
production of fuel from new feedstocks, such as Jatropha or cassava, is still often in plans for
large scale projects and being currently implemented on a small scale (OECD-FAO 2012).
AETS Consortium – February 2013
25
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Section 4: Evaluation of the economic impacts of the
production of biofuels in developing countries
4.1
4.1.1
Trade patterns of biofuels
Trade flows for biofuels and related feedstocks: recent trends and
projections
Statistical data on trade in biofuels is very scarce. Tracing biofuel flows is not straithforward
because there are no specific codes identifying biofuels in international trade nomenclature.
Both ethanol and biodiesel are classified under the HS-6 categories as defined by the UN15.
Nevertheless, these codes refer to the product regardless of the final use and, therefore, it is
not possible to get a close picture of biofuel trade volumes. Ethanol is classified as an
agricultural product under HS code 2207, which covers un-denatured (HS 220710) and
denatured alcohol (HS 220720). Biodiesel is an industrial product, classified under ‘other
chemical products, including biodiesel’ (HS 382490). Even though a new code for biodiesel
was introduced in 2008 (FAMAE), other forms of biodiesel could still enter under other tariff
classifications.
EU ethanol imports nearly reached 0.5 Mt in 2011. Brazil is the main exporter of ethanol to the
EU, while imports from Brazil are decreasing in other countries, such as Guatemala, Egypt,
Pakistan and Bolivia who are increasing their exports. In 2011, 18% of EU ethanol imports came
from Africa (Eurostat). Egypt, Sudan and South Africa are the main exporters of ethanol into
the EU. Developing countries under preferential trade agreements can export ethanol to the
EU without paying any tariffs. Two preferential trade schemes apply:
•
The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), for Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Peru, El Salvador, Venezuela, Georgia, Sri
Lanka, Mongolia, Moldova, and under the EBA initiative for the Least Developed
Countries;
•
The Cotonou Agreement, for the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries
excluding South Africa.
Figure 8: EU ethanol imports (globally and originating from Africa)
Extra EU imports (kt)
Imports from Africa (kt)
100
1200
90
1000
80
70
800
60
600
50
40
400
30
200
0
2002
20
10
2003
2004
Brazil
2005
Guatemala
2006
2007
Egypt
2008
Pakistan
2009
2010
USA
Peru
Sudan
Russia
Turkey
South_Korea
South Africa
Bolivia
Costa_Rica
Norway
Others
2011
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Egypt
Sudan
South Africa
Swaziland
Mauritius
Morocco
Ethiopia
Others
2009
2010
2011
Zimbabwe
Source: Based on data from EUROSTAT
15
See: http://comtrade.un.org/db/
AETS Consortium – February 2013
26
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
With a global consumption share of around 56% in 2011, the EU is a major biodiesel consumer,
but a minor consumer of ethanol, globally. EU biodiesel imports went above 2.5 Mt in 2011,
representing nearly 90% of total biodiesel trade. At present, Argentina, Indonesia and
Malaysia are the major biodiesel exporters to the EU. Imports from African countries are not
significant. EUROSTAT has not reported on any imports originating from African countries in the
last years (only small volumes from South Africa and Morocco before 2008 were reported).
Figure 9: EU biodiesel imports (globally and originating from Africa)
Extra EU imports (kt)
Imports from Africa (kt)
3000
30
2500
25
2000
20
1500
15
1000
10
500
0
2002
5
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Argentina
Indonesia
Norway
India
South_Korea
Malaysia
Canada
USA
China
Switzerland
Brazil
Turkey
2011
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
South Africa
Others
2006
2007
Morocco
2008
Algeria
2009
2010
2011
Others
Source: Based on data from EUROSTAT
Global biofuel trade is projected to increase strongly to reach 7% of global production, from
4% of global production currently (OECD-FAO 2012).
Figure 10: Previsions for the development of the global biofuel markets
World Ethanol Production
Worl Ethanol Trade
World Biodiesel Production
200
45
180
40
160
35
140
World Biodiesel Trade
30
120
25
100
20
80
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
0
2007
5
0
2006
10
20
2005
40
2005
15
60
Source: Based on data from OECD-FAO (2012)
Biofuel mandates in the United States and the EU are blamed to have impacts on markets for
agricultural commodities (Mitchell 2008). Since biofuel feedstock competes for land with
other food/feed uses, impacts on global land use could also be significant. The link between
biofuels and food prices has been widely recognized. However, estimates on the contribution
of biofuels to recent rises in food prices are very variable (FAO 2009, UNCTAC 2012).
Recent investigations based on the FAPRI model (Fabiosa et al., 2010) estimate the impact of
various scenarios of biofuel expansion in the United States on prices and land use. In this
AETS Consortium – February 2013
27
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
partial equilibrium model, yields are assumed as constant and most of the production
changes occur through land allocation changes, overstating the land and price effects.
There is no explicit modelling of land markets. Despite these rigidities, global land expansion
and agricultural price effects are surprisingly moderate, partly because supply adjustments
are substantial via stock adjustment, flexibility in existing land use and a world market
response to higher prices.
Rosegrant et al. (2008) uses the IMPACT model to analyse several biofuel scenarios. The
IMPACT model incorporates land area and yield responses to prices. Rosegrant suggests that
biofuel demand contributed about 30% of the food price increases during the period
covering the early 2000s until 2007. The latter figure refers to the effect on the weighted
average grain prices, with the largest effect on corn prices (39%) but lesser effects on rice
and wheat prices (21% and 22%, respectively).
General equilibrium analyses provide a more encompassing assessment of the implications of
biofuels development, because linkages across economic sectors are explicit in the model.
The main disadvantage of these analyses is the aggregation of crops in a few sectors.
Keeney and Hertel (2009) propose a model incorporating land, yield, and trade responses to
the biofuel expansion. Aggregate land supply is fixed but land can move across uses
according to relative returns. The yield response to prices is a much-needed addition. Keeney
and Hertel make the yield response explicit. It depends on the substitution between land,
labour, capital, and other factors. Keeney and Hertel assume that United States imports of
ethanol from Brazil increase proportionally to the total U.S. ethanol demand, irrespective of
price levels, a questionable assumption as explained later in the modelling section and with
important consequences for land allocation.
Birur et al. (2008) use the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) database developed by Lee et
al. (2005, 2008) to analyse the impact of biofuel production on global agricultural markets.
The latter authors decompose land into 18 agro-ecological zones (AEZs). Birur et al. consider
three biofuels: ethanol from grains, ethanol from sugar crops, and biodiesel from vegetable
oils. They treat the two ethanol productions as imperfect substitutes. The crops considered are
coarse grains, oilseeds, sugarcane and other grains.
Banse et al. (2008a) use a modified GTAP-E model to analyse the impact of the EU biofuel
directive on agricultural markets.
Hertel et al. (2010) conduct an ex-ante analysis of future biofuel mandates in the United
States and the EU, focusing on the impacts on third countries. They use a CGE model (GTAP)
that incorporates by-products, particularly DDGS (distillers dried grains with soluble), the main
by-product of maize-based ethanol which is used as animal feed. The results for 2015 show a
decrease in EU exports and an increase in imports, particularly for oilseeds. Impacts on global
land use include an increase in oilseed areas in Africa as well as a rise in sugarcane areas in
Brazil.
Timilsina et al. (2012) use a dynamic CGE model to simulate biofuels mandates and targets
for both developed and developing countries. Their model presents more detailed
representation of land-use change than the existing studies and differentiates between
ethanol and biodiesel, further classifying ethanol into three categories by type of feedstock
(i.e., corn ethanol, sugar ethanol, and other grains ethanol). This study only accounts for first
generation biofuels. They analyse the impacts of implementing the announced targets of
biofuel usage by 2020. Changes in world agricultural prices vary from 2.3% (wheat) to 9.7%
(sugarcane).
There is a strong agreement between the studies in the direction of the changes. The output
of cereals, sugar crops and oilseeds increases and so do prices. However, the magnitudes of
these effects differ between the studies reported above, mainly because the modelling
approach (partial or general), model specification and representation of biofuel by-products.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
28
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
4.1.2
Regional trade arrangements and South-South cooperation
EU biodiesel trade regimes have continuously evolved in recent years to reflect changes in
product definition. Until 2007, biodiesel was traded as ‘other chemicals’. From 2008, a new
code for fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters (FAMAE) was created. In 2009, with the establishment of
the anti-dumping and countervailing duties against United States biodiesel imports, five
additional biodiesel categories were created. In 2010, the tariff lines were revised again.
Preferential access is given for developing countries under the Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP) and bilateral or multilateral agreements such as the Cotonou Agreement
(for ACP countries), the Everything-But-Arms Initiative (for least developed countries) or the
Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).
In the case of ethanol, fuel ethanol is traded under the classification of denatured and under
natured ethanol. Tariffs were set via Regulation 2204/99 and have been applied since 2000.
Due to the various end-uses (industrial, pharmaceutical, and beverage) it remains difficult to
identify the final use of the imported ethanol. Preferential access is given to developing
countries under the GSP and the EPA.
Therefore, most African developing countries benefit from preferential access to the EU
markets for ethanol and biodiesel. Recent initiatives on South-South and triangular
cooperation are playing an increasing role in the development of a biofuel industry in Africa.
Brazil is one of the leading countries in South-South cooperation projects on biofuels and has
signed a number of regional cooperation agreements which usually include technology and
knowledge transfer, research and development, trade and investments.
A number of South–South cooperation projects on biofuels are currently under development
in Africa. In the framework of the IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) Dialogue Forum, South
Africa has established an important cooperation agreement with Brazil to cooperate in first
and second generation biofuels. In the case of Mozambique, important initiatives have been
undertaken in the framework of the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries with the
signature of cooperation projects and investments by Brazil and Portugal. In Western Africa,
the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is also promoting cooperation on
biofuels and has recently established the Regional Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency (ECREEE). A number of countries have signed agreements on South–South
cooperation with Brazil, as in the case of Senegal, for developing small-scale biofuel
production.
Japan has been very active in triangular cooperation initiatives, implementing bilateral and
triangular projects with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Furthermore, the
Japan International Cooperation Agency has recently signed an agreement with the
Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC) to implement projects in Mozambique. The EU and Brazil
signed an agreement to promote the implementation of triangular cooperation projects
between the EU, Brazil and interested developing countries.
4.1.3 Biofuels and food prices on an international, regional and local
level
Even if exports of biofuels from Africa are negligible in terms of trade flows, the production of
biofuels for national, African and international markets outside the EU is affecting global food
prices. This chapter tries to gather the opinions on the impact of biofuel production for
transport compared to other driver factors, especially the increased global demand for food
and feed. This point is very controversial, depending on the sources.
Biofuel markets and food price volatility
Volatility refers to variations in economic variables – especially variations in agricultural prices
over time. The variations in prices become problematic when they are large and cannot be
AETS Consortium – February 2013
29
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
anticipated and, as a result, create a level of uncertainty which increases risks for producers,
traders, consumers and governments16.
Schmitz (2012) writes that the high volatility over the last five years for agricultural commodity
prices is not an exception if one looks over a long period of time. Therefore, there is no
increased upward trend for volatility and on the other hand, he does not see any reduced
risk of volatility in the future. However, the price level for agricultural raw products will
continue to grow and will be 20 – 40 % higher in the next decade, compared to the last
decade17.
According to FAO (2011), stronger demand for food crops and animal products in
conjunction with slow growth in agricultural productivity and low stocks results in upward
pressure on prices18. Furthermore, agricultural commodity prices are becoming increasingly
correlated with oil prices. Oil prices affect agricultural input prices directly and indirectly
(through the price of fuel and fertiliser, for example). In addition, depending on the relative
prices of agricultural crops and oil, biofuel production may become profitable (without
government support) in some OECD countries19. If the trend towards high and rising oil prices
persists, this could make biofuels competitive with fossil fuels and encourage their expansion
even if biofuel policies are phased out20.
Financial investment in commodities may also have contributed to an increasing correlation
between oil and non-oil commodity prices because of the significant share of such
investment that tracks indexes containing a basket of different commodities. High and
volatile oil prices (if that is what is expected) could therefore contribute to higher and more
volatile agricultural prices, through higher input costs, higher demand for the commodities
used in the production of biofuels (sugar, maize, vegetable oils), through competition for land
with commodities that are not used directly for the production of fuel, and possibly through
financial investments in commodity baskets21.
The financial market is blamed for the high volatile agricultural commodity prices, but
eventually there was not enough attention given by all governments to stocks. The level of
international stocks in agricultural commodities is a major decisive factor on the extent to
which markets can deal with, for instance, weather related supply shortfalls. In other words,
stock levels affect the availability of supplies and therefore can have a major impact on
prices especially in the short run. Stock levels can be affected by one-off events such as a
particularly bad harvest but also by persistent demand growth that exceeds the growth of
crop production. Another important factor is strategic decisions by countries to build up or
reduce stocks. A frequently voiced concern is that information on international stock levels is
poor and non-transparent, implying uncertainty about stock that may have repercussions for
price expectations. Indeed, falling stock levels have been suggested by many as an
important influence for recent price spikes (FAO et al, 2011). Purchasers are naturally alarmed
if stock levels are seen to be low and will tend to bid up prices to ensure they can satisfy their
market. Partly as a response to these concerns, the report prepared for the 2011 G20 meeting
of agricultural minsters by several international organisations (FAO et al, 2011) calls for an
Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) to improve information on stocks22.
The EU – but also the US - biofuels policies make the consumption of biofuels obligatory; if
petrol stations are enforced to sell just blended fuel then a certain biofuels percentage has to
be added regardless of the price of biofuel. In a free market the price is established by
FAO Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets - Policy Responses, 2011; p 5
SCHMITZ, Michael Justus-Liebig-University Giessen: Reasons for the level and the volatility of agricultural commodity
process on international markets (summary), 2012. This study was written for the Union zur Förderung von Oel- und
Proteinpflanzen e.V. (Ufop; Union to support the oil- and protein-crops) and the Verband der Deutschen
Biokraftstoffindustrie e.V. (VDB; Association of the German Biofuels Industry)
18 FAO Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets - Policy Responses, 2011; p 11
19 FAO Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets - Policy Responses, 2011; p 10
20Kretschmer, B, Bowyer, C and Buckwell, A (2012) EU Biofuel Use and Agricultural Commodity Prices: A Review of the
Evidence Base. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP): London; 2012; p 25
21 FAO Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets - Policy Responses, 2011; p 10
22 Kretschmer, B, Bowyer, C and Buckwell, A (2012) EU Biofuel Use and Agricultural Commodity Prices: A Review of the
Evidence Base. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP): London; 2012; p 28 ff
16
17
AETS Consortium – February 2013
30
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
balancing demand and supply; if prices rise, then the demand should reduce. However, if
the demand is enforced, then there is no need to reduce prices. Prices might go down if too
many suppliers enter the market.
Oxfam (September 2012) reports that the severe drought in the United States during the
summer of 2012 has reduced the amount of corn and soy expected to be harvested and
caused a sudden rise in prices. Oxfam argues that the EU and the United States biofuel
mandates create a constant demand for soy and corn. As a result, soy and corn prices have
risen sharply and famers have turned to other commodities - including wheat - to feed
livestock. This increased demand came on top of forecasts of poor wheat harvests in Russia
and the Black Sea region in 2012, sending wheat prices soaring, which affected the price of
everyday essentials such as bread.
According to the World Bank, biofuel production costs will be volatile, as 80 % of ethanol and
90 % of biodiesel costs are variable costs 23 and many papers and experts agree that biofuels
and food prices will remain volatile – and generally prices will be higher than in the past
decades.
Biofuels and rising food prices
In terms of the relationships between biofuel mandates and the rise in global food prices a lot
of authoritative reports have been written, including the widely mentioned study by IFPRI as
well as the most authoritative report written by 10 inter-governmental organisations including
the World Bank, WTO and the FAO for the G20 which concludes “projections encompass a
broad range of possible effects but all suggest that biofuel production will exert considerable
upward pressure on prices in the future” 24. This is also confirmed by other authors such as
Flammini (2008). The evidence of the contribution of biofuel policies to rising and increasingly
volatile food prices on international markets is compelling and led these 10 international
organisations, including World Trade Organization, to recommend in 2011, that G20
governments (including the EU) should abolish biofuel mandates and subsidies.
The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE FSN), called on by the UN
to investigate causes of food price volatility concluded in 2011: “After some initial debate,
hardly anybody today contests the fact that biofuel production was a major factor in the
recent food price increases” (…) “Indeed limiting the use of food to produce biofuel is the first
objective to be perused to curb demand. Mandated incorporation of biofuel in liquid fuel
and financial support should be abandoned (HLPE FSN 2011 p. 40)25.
However, the extent to which biofuels contribute to rising food prices is highly debated. More
and more authors suggest that growing population, incomes and demand for food have had
a more important impact on food prices than biofuels production26.
Assuming that biofuels have some limited impact on agricultural commodity prices on the
world market, even then, inland market prices in developing countries will not necessarily
react in the same way as world markets and there is no causally determined relation to
hunger and poverty in developing countries27.
In this sense, in relation to the 2010/11 food crisis in the SSA region, low and declining
productivity of agriculture, coupled with exceptionally unfavourable weather conditions and
rising international oil prices, seems to be more prominent drivers behind rising food prices
(PANGEA 2012).
Donald Mitchell, Lead Economist Africa, The World Bank, Dar es Salam 2009
See FAO et all 2011
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Volatility/Interagency_Report_to_the_G20_on_Food_Price_Volatility.pdf
25 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE-price-volatility-and-food-security-reportJuly-2011.pdf
26 http://www.globalaginvesting.com/news/NewsListDetail?contentid=1400
27 SCHMITZ, Michael Justus-Liebig-University Giessen: Reasons for the level and the volatility of agricultural commodity
process on international markets (summary), 2012
23
24
AETS Consortium – February 2013
31
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Some local food staples (maize, millet and sorghum) are mainly produced and consumed
locally and, in general, local markets for such crop appear quite isolated from the global
markets as a recent analysis from PANGEA (2012) highlights.
This is due to the low integration of these markets with global commodities markets, as a result
of the lack of access to “real time” information but also of the poor state of infrastructures,
key to understanding the very limited extent to which these crops are traded and exported
(lack of proper storage and preservation of the agricultural produce, including facilities for
chilling, freezing, drying, transport, etc. instrumental to extend the markets, Practical Action
2012).
This is particularly evident when analysing the low correlation between prices of some African
staple crops (wheat, rice and millet) and their prices on global markets over the last ten
years. Price increases in poor African countries were generally, significantly lower than the
relative rises in global food prices.
Food access and affordability
Bioenergy has the potential of either increasing or reducing food availability for smallholders
depending on the policy behind its development and its impacts28. On the one hand, the
development of modern bioenergy technology and application can provide some positive
answers as in the case of dissemination of domestic and institutional biogas units (such as
biogas for services and businesses such as hospitals, schools, farms etc.) that convert
agricultural and human residues to meet both the energy needs (cooking and heating) and
provide powerful natural fertilisers (affluent of the bio-digesters) to increase yields. SNV (2011)
reports that the large-scale domestic biogas programmes currently under implementation in
Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Senegal and Rwanda with the support of
the Netherlands Government will increase agricultural output by 25% at least for small
growers. Such results help to increase food production and availability. Sustainable liquid
biofuels production enables a motorisation of traditional farming, or the feeding of
multifunctional platforms currently disseminated mainly in Burkina Faso, Mali and Senegal by
the UNDP, and which contributes to increased food security and overall availability in the
Sahel.
Food access and affordability is directly related to food prices. Food is becoming more
expensive, and biofuels production is - with and without EU blending requirements becoming more prevalent. Studies on the correlation of these two trends found that the
effect of biofuels production upon food costs varies across crops and locations; and that
certain types of biofuels production do not compete with food production for water or land,
such as second generation biofuels feedstocks grown on non-agricultural land resulting in a
lower impact on commodity prices.
The effects of biofuels development on national food security can be significantly different for
a net exporter or a net importer of food and agricultural commodities. As a reference, in 2010
an average of 10.46% of food merchandised in the SSA region was imported, ranging from
4.71% in Zambia to 31.10% in the Gambia (World Bank 2012). Developing countries that rely
on importing basic food stuffs from the international market become vulnerable. The food
crisis of 2008 was at the origin of food riots across several African countries that rely heavily on
food imports, including Burkina Faso, Senegal, Cameroon and Egypt.
A recent World Bank study (June 2012) confirms that the current biofuel promotion targets set
by 40 countries within the context of presently commercially available technologies that
compete for raw materials used in food production put pressure on food supply and food
prices with pronounced implications for global poverty in terms of income distribution. The
study analysed effects of large scale expansion in biofuels using global computable general
equilibrium and a global income distribution dynamics model implying that it will result in
higher food prices which will be more pronounced in developing then in developed
countries. In terms of the effects on the GDP per capita, countries with already advanced
28
D Diop, Draft Pan African Biofuels Policy Framework and Guidelines, October 2012
AETS Consortium – February 2013
32
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
biofuel production will experience an increase whereas countries which have ambitious
targets but low level of current production will experience a decline. “Countries such as India,
Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North African regions, Russia and China would bear the
highest losses in their per capita GDP.” The study notes the potential positive effects of higher
wages of unskilled rural labour in terms of reduction of migration out of agriculture. However,
in terms of poverty increases due to the large scale expansion of biofuels, it notes an increase
in poverty whether measured at 1.25$ PPP per day or 2.50$ PPP in South Asia (India) and SubSaharan Africa. The study concludes that the increase in food prices especially in developing
countries is of major concern and that “from the perspective of global poverty the
development of a biofuel technology that uses less food crops is critical” (Coraraton and
Timilsina 2012).
On the other hand, when food crops are diverted to biofuel production, there may be a
direct impact on food availability. Change of land use implies that land used to growing
traditional food crops is converted to large-scale sugar cane and Jatropha plantations; there
is a risk of reducing local food availability.
The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food argues that a drop in local or regional food
production has a far more pronounced impact than international commodity prices on local
retail prices, especially in regions that are relatively isolated from international markets, such
as sub-Saharan Africa. For example, the expansion of sugarcane and Jatropha production
for biofuels in Mozambique has resulted in the subsequent displacement of cultivation of food
for household use as well as bananas for sale on regional markets. Hence, people were
forced to buy food on the market while at the same time reduced supply pushed up local
prices (Oxfam 2012 p 14).
While it is clear that small-holder farmers can improve their incomes through diversification
and the access of the biofuel market, as an alternative to the food market, there could be
important drawbacks, linked to the different patterns of interaction of biofuel expansion
policies with food markets depending on the commodity and locality in question. A bad
example is reported in the box below.
Box 4: Exposure of a Cambodian community to shocks of the volatile cassava market
The growing demand for cassava as biofuel feedstock in Thailand and China has incentivised
farmers in Banteay Meanchay, Cambodia29, to move from traditional agricultural patterns to
the cultivation of cassava. Prior to 2006, only 4 of 32 households in the two surveyed villages
reported having any cassava under cultivation; however, by 2009, only two of them did not
cultivate cassava. Clearing forests and adopting a new crop type demanded considerable
investment; therefore, 17 out of 32 surveyed households borrowed money for this purpose.
In late 2008, cassava prices crashed as world agricultural commodity prices plunged, and the
Thai/Cambodian border closed due to on-going border tensions. Cassava growers from
Banteay Meanchay lost their market, which has had severe consequences for their
livelihoods and food security. By the time of the cassava price crash, many farmers only
cultivated this crop and no food. Therefore, their options of buying food and repaying debts
were thus limited to selling a portion of land, selling livestock or for the (already) landless, to
migrate in search of wage labour (wages for unskilled labour are below the subsistence
level).
29 Hought, J., Birch-Thomsen, T., Petersen, J., de Neergaard, A., & Oelofse, M., 2012). Biofuels, land use change and
smallholder livelihoods: A case study from Banteay Chhmar, Cambodia
AETS Consortium – February 2013
33
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
4.1.4
Typology of the investors and business strategies behind biofuel
investments
Generally, the primary concern of an investor is to minimise risk while maximising return, as
opposed to a speculator, who is willing to accept a higher level of risk in the hopes of
collecting higher-than-average profits30.
In the biofuels sector, there are the following types of investors:
•
•
•
Institutional investors: these are local and international investment promotion bodies
such as sovereign funds, other government funds aimed to unlock investments in the
biofuels sectors, multilateral funds such as the African Development Bank,
International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the European Investment Bank (EIB).
These institutions are likely to provide soft loans and attractive packages to mitigate
the risks of the equity providers. Institutional investors focus less on short-term return but
on sustainability and overall long-term economic and financial gains. A success case
presented in many reports is the ADDAX ethanol (from sugar cane) project that is
supported by a large group of development banks;
Private equity funds. For instance the ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development
has established the FABER/ABREF funds since 2008 (http://faber-abref.org/). Some EU
pension funds, such as the Dutch railway pension fund have invested in biofuels in
Africa (Mali Biocarburant). To date, very little biofuels projects have been supported
by the traditional private equity investors and local banking institutions. There is a need
to educate or raise awareness on the opportunities of sustainable biofuel projects;
Traditional agribusiness and energy companies. These companies constitute the bulk
of the investors: CSS (Senegal), Diligent and Sunbiofuels (Tanzania).
There are also other ways of differentiating among investors:
a) Local or foreign investors;
b) Active (driving an investment project/strategic investor) or passive (benefiting
financially from a project without having much influence on it/financial investor)
investors;
c) Private (individuals or group of people, companies) or public (governments, state
funds) investors.
The differentiation between local and foreign investors might be important for political
discussions but does not influence investment projects, as both are following the same goals,
to maximise the return. Private as well as public investors could invest actively in investment
projects as strategic investors who push for value-adding over a longer time period or
participate more passively, focusing on high returns without much intervention; the latter type
of investor is usually called a financial investor.
In case of active or passive investments one could distinguish between the active investor
who supplies firms with capital and the passive or strategic investor who brings in know-how,
technology, management skills, marketing techniques, intellectual property, clientele, a vision
and a sense of direction.
In case public investments by governments are not primarily profit driven, these investments
have to be profitable in the long term in order to become sustainable. Besides achieving a
return on the investment, public goals could be employment generation and others (see
below).
Government investments could be indirect investments to improve the business environment
such as building channels and drainage systems or also infrastructure, such as paved roads to
conversion plants. Tax havens or exemption of biofuels from mineral oil taxation31 could also
be considered as form of indirect government’s investment. Also in the European Union
biofuels are often completely or at least partially exempted from mineral oil taxation; in
30
http://www.investorwords.com/2630/investor.html
Peters J., Thielmann S.: Promoting biofuels - Implications for developing countries; 08; p 1539
31 ELSEVIER
AETS Consortium – February 2013
34
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Austria for example, the biofuels component is completely exempted and in Germany it was
the same; however, this is now changing towards partial taxation.
Biofuels business strategies are often long-term strategies as plants for feedstock crops
(Jatropha, palm, eucalyptus and others) need several years before enabling a first
commercial harvest (Jatropha = 4 years, palm = 40 months after seed planting in the
nursery32, eucalyptus = 7 years) and also have a long life cycle of more than 20 years if the
investor want to make full use out of the plantation33. This means that the risk is also higher –
this makes Jatropha not a very suitable crop for small-holders as main crop for income
generation.
The chosen crops require preparation for planting and a few years to reach their maximum
annual yields. The planning and construction of large conversion plants requires a period of
several years before becoming operational.
Box 5: Business strategies
Business strategies behind biofuels investments could focus on:
Production of an exportable product to market outside the country
Diversification of agribusinesses; e.g. large soya farms invest in a biodiesel plant; sugar
companies diversify into bioethanol
Reduction on energy imports by building up own production and local distribution
(and also eventually having fodder e.g. cakes as a by-product); consequently, there
is an improved trade balance
Reduction of national fuel wood consumption and the widespread practice of
charcoal burning34
Poverty reduction35 also through encouraging foreign direct investment
Combination of all (e.g. Brazil).
When biofuel projects are driven by foreign direct investment, then the business climate of
the potential countries where investment should take place is crucial. As the World Bank has
noted, there are many developing countries that have “suitable land available” that is either
not cultivated or produces yields that are well below its potential36. The issue is about
attracting investors for biofuel feedstock production or for cultivation of other commodities.
Business and investment environments in the developing countries
Through public action, developing country governments could encourage substantial
improvements in business and investment. “Improve the investment climate!” is the dominant
policy advice in addition to informal relationships that should be replaced with governance
through formal rules. Above all, this means the legal protection of property rights and the
legal enforceability of contracts37.
In 2011, many countries therefore continued to liberalise and promote foreign investment in
various industries to stimulate growth. At the same time, new regulatory and restrictive
measures continued to be introduced. They became manifest primarily in the adjustment of
entry policies for foreign investors (in e.g. agriculture, pharmaceuticals), in extractive
32 Oil
Palm Immature; p 2
Sugarcane, sugar beet, wheat, maize and others could be used in the same year when planted
34Aubry S., "(Bio)fuelling injustice? Europe's responsibility to counter climate change without provoking land grabbing
and compounding food insecurity in Africa", The EuropAfrica 2011 Monitoring Report on EU Policy Coherence for
Food Security, FIAN, 2011; p 45
35Amezaga, J. M., G. von Maltitz and S. Boyes (Editors, “Assessing the Sustainability of Bioenergy Projects in
Developing Countries: A framework for policy evaluation”, Newcastle University, 2010; p 16
36
Significant discrepacies exist in estimates of agricultural land availability, as it will be shown in section 4.4.
37 Moore M. and Schmitz H., Institute of Development Studies: Idealism, Realism and the Investment Climate in
Developing Countries; 2008
33
AETS Consortium – February 2013
35
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
industries, including nationalisation and divestment requirements and in a more critical
approach towards outward FDI38.
However, in the poorest developing countries, businesses frequently operate in investment
climates that undermine their incentive to invest and grow. Businesses seek to maximise the
risk adjusted rate of return to investment after taxes. The literature highlights seven investment
climate constraints that affect the rate of private investment and the survival and growth of
firms:
38
•
Macro level stability: macro instability (economic, social and political) deters
investment by making future rewards more uncertain or undermining the value of
assets. Studies show that the greater the level of instability, the lower the rate of
private investment and growth. Instability also increases the risk of firms going
bankrupt, suffering slower growth or contracting if political conflict ensues. Fiscal and
monetary policies that reduce inflation, polices that help to establish a competitive
exchange rate, and political and social stability are needed to sustain high rates of
investment and growth;
•
Good Governance: crime and corruption remain a substantial risk for attracting
required investments to create jobs and growth. Greater transparency and
accountability, the simplification of administrative procedures and merit‐based
human resource management in public administration makes it possible to curb
corruption;
•
Business regulation and licensing: whereas firms need to be regulated and licensed, if
the costs they incur in complying with regulation are unnecessarily high, business entry
and firm growth will be lower. The literature points to faster growth when countries
improve their rank in the World Bank’s Doing Business Index, especially if they move
from being one of the worst performers to being amongst the best. There is some
evidence also of poor licensing and regulation leading to low entry rates of new firms
and lower productivity and the growth of established firms. However, by itself, better
business regulation may not result in faster economic growth;
•
Institutions and the legal system: there is strong cross-country evidence in the literature
that weak institutions, particularly for the protection of property rights, and an
ineffective judiciary that is unable to enforce contracts, reduce investment and
growth. This is supported by firm level evidence which shows that secure property
rights and better contract enforcement enable firms to grow: they increase their
incentives to invest in the longer term, feel secure in trying out new suppliers and enter
into more complex contracts. Better systems of registering property, improved security
of land tenure and reforms that reduce the cost of contract enforcement, such as
promoting alternative dispute resolution, are policies that support better institutions
and legal systems;
•
Taxation: excessively high rates of tax exact a high cost in terms of lower private
investment and growth. They reduce the incentive to invest because the after tax
returns to investors are lower. In addition, the cost of compliance with the
administration of taxes can be high. The literature shows that lower rates of tax can
increase investment and growth. Higher rates of tax can decrease business entry and
the growth of established firms, with the medium sized firms hit hardest, as the small
can trade informally, and the large avoid taxes. As well as reducing tax rates, policies
that broaden the tax base, simplify the tax structure, improve administration and give
greater autonomy to tax agencies help to reduce this constraint;
•
Financial constraints: firms need to be able to access external finance to invest more.
Moreover, the higher the cost of capital, the lower the expected rate of return to the
UNCTAD: World Investment Report 2012; p VII
AETS Consortium – February 2013
36
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
entrepreneur. There is a robust body of literature that shows that financial deepening,
measured by the ratio of private credit to GDP, results in higher rates of growth and
faster growth in the incomes of the poor, especially in the poorer countries with less
well developed financial sectors. Studies show that firms able to access external
finance are more likely to survive, invest and grow than those denied access;
•
Infrastructure: access to infrastructure (roads, electricity and communication) allows
firms to become more productive, reduce transaction and transportation costs (roads,
railways) and expand their businesses by reaching markets further afield. There is
ample evidence to show that greater investment in infrastructure leads to faster
growth. Studies also point to higher levels of investment, greater productivity and
faster growth of firms that have better access to infrastructure, especially in the poorer
countries where infrastructure is less developed. Greater investment in infrastructure,
public and private and higher expenditure on maintenance are needed to reduce
this constraint39.
Besides these seven arguments, there might be another which is worthwhile mentioning.
•
Reputation: besides objective indicators, there is also a certain image that developing
countries produce individually. An example might be Paraguay which does not
attract so much international investment (investment from outside Latin America) as
Argentina, Uruguay or Chile even if important indicators show a much better
investment climate.
Box 6: Using the available capacity and advantages to develop biofuels
For developing economies, where project finance for capital intensive industries is a major
barrier to investment, it makes practical sense to develop the biofuels sector using the
backbone of already existing industries. This goes a long way to reducing the overall
investment costs of a project.
A typical example is found in first generation biofuels - the establishment of annexed ethanol
distilleries on existing sugar mills. An autonomous distillery would cost significantly more as
there is still need to invest in a sugar processing plant40.
Developing countries usually want to create jobs, attract foreign money because of limited
local financing opportunities, assist in the establishment of prosperous companies which will
also later pay taxes; concurrently, the developing countries want to retain certain controls
over land resources for example. This requires an operable balance between the investors
and the investment seeking developing countries to create a win-win situation.
The role of oil companies
When it comes to the future of renewable energy, oil companies claim to be the biggest
investors in the race to create green fuels. During the last decade, the industry argues to
have invested USD 71 billion on zero and low emission and renewable energy technologies.
However, the American Petroleum Institute (API) reports that that only USD 9 billion of the USD
71 billion was spent on renewable energy whilst the rest was attributed to greening up the
fossil fuel business41.
Therefore, it may be argued that the oil companies are aware of the positive image of
renewable energy but as their business models are built on fossil fuels, it does not seem to
change their business strategy but rather absorb substantial funds to green-wash fossil fuels.
SINHA S. et FIESTAS I., Nathan Associates. Inc.: Literature review on the constraints to investment in developing
countries Department for International Development - Final REPORT, February 2011; p 2 ff
40 UNEP: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing Countries: A GEF
Targeted Research Project, 2012; p 115
41 http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/big-oils-big-in-biofuels#p1
39
AETS Consortium – February 2013
37
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
For example, British Petroleum (BP) changed its logo to a sunflower in 2000 and its slogan to
“Beyond Petroleum”. It started promoting “thinking outside the barrel”. However, this did not
mean in any way that the company was abandoning oil and gas - quite the opposite: it
denoted “exploring, developing and producing more fossil fuel resources to meet growing
demand”42.
When looking at many of the failed biofuel investment projects, it becomes obvious that the
calculation was often not done properly and that investors were frequently undercapitalised;
this is accompanied by the long start-up phase until initial revenues could be expected.
Many projects simply run out of money like Ethanol Africa in South Africa or biofuel
companies that have been legally sanctioned by a court for deliberately misleading the
public, such as Greenleaf Global PLC (London) who had a Jatropha project running in Togo.
There have also been problems stemming from cases of investors and adventurers collecting
money on the free market without being entitled to do so; this is equally considered as
another means of misleading the public.
4.2
Potential economic gains from biofuels in developing
countries along the value chain
The development of biofuels, worldwide, offers both opportunities and challenges for
developing countries. For non-oil producing countries, biofuel production has the potential to
provide at least a partial substitute for costly oil imports. Biofuels also have the potential to
provide an additional source of agricultural income and the development of a biofuel
industry could contribute to improve local infrastructures and rural development. High crop
prices may be beneficial for rural poor who will receive a better price and offer new export
opportunities but this may also be met by a corresponding challenge for food security,
notably for poor, urban populations.
High agricultural commodity prices may provide longer-term potential opportunities for
agriculture and rural development. Raising agricultural supply in the medium and longer-term
will require new investment support to producers in the form of better access to technologies
and better production techniques (FAO 2009). Technical and institutional constraints
prevalent in developing countries, such as rural financial services constraints, may hamper
efforts to boost agricultural supply.
While in the short-term biofuels could have negative impacts on food security, in the longterm, the development of a sustainable biofuel industry could promote access in rural areas
to cheaper and safer energy supplies, supporting economic growth and long-term
improvements in food security (FAO 2009).
In the determination of biofuel economic impacts, the entire value chain comprising the
production of feedstocks, their processing, blending, distribution and marketing will have to
be taken into account. The extent to which the value chain is developed and the challenges
for its development are the main questions addressed. In Africa, it is frequently observed that
the value chain is only developed up to the production level. In Senegal, for example, while
Jatropha production is encouraged, the rest of the value chain is undeveloped with no
stable market for seeds.
Furthermore, rising biofuel feedstock prices provide strong incentives for exports, undermining
the development of a domestic biofuel industry. The viability of the biofuel sector will depend
on developments in oil prices as well as international biofuel policies. In Africa, there is a need
to implement policy measures to motivate the private sector to invest in the value chain,
ranging from producers to consumers of bioenergy (farmers, processors, traders and
consumers).
42
Balamir S.: Fueling green capitalism: Big Oil and greenwashing; May 2011.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
38
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Box 7: Policy and biofuel value chain, an example in India
A recent study in India (Altenburg et al. 2009) also shows that biodiesel production offers
promising opportunities to create additional sources of income for rural populations, but
effects differ, depending on the way in which biodiesel value chains are organised.
Value chains can be grouped into three different categories:
• Government-centred cultivation;
• Farmer-centred cultivation;
• Corporate-centred cultivation.
The study distinguishes between these categories on the basis of the two questions: Who
owns the land on which oil-bearing trees are cultivated and who bears the risks of cultivation,
as these two questions are highly relevant for the developmental impacts of biodiesel
production.
The study concludes that whether or not positive effects materialise depends to a large
extent on policies. Policies can design subsidies in ways that stimulate or inhibit the economic
sustainability of plantations; they can promote a functioning free market or monopolies and
they can increase or reduce participation by local villagers and thereby increase or reduce
the risk of displacement.
4.3
State of the development of the agriculture and industrial
sector
4.3.1
State of the development of the biofuel industry and scenarios
Bioethanol and biodiesel are the most common liquid biofuels used in transport worldwide.
Other biofuels are also in use, such as ETBE43, pure vegetable oil, hydrogenated vegetable oil
(HVO) and biomethane, although with a more limited market penetration.
Rapeseed is the main raw material for biodiesel production in the EU, soya bean in the US
and Brazil and palm oil in Malaysia and Indonesia. The biodiesel productivity per land area
from different oil seed crops in the EU amounts to 0.8 to 1.2 toe biodiesel/ha, while oil palm
yields about 3.8–4.0 toe biodiesel/ha. Bioethanol is produced from a wide variety of
feedstock, but is mainly produced from sugarcane (Brazil), wheat and sugar beet (EU) and
maize (US). The ethanol productivity per land area in the EU is 1.0–1.5 toe ethanol/ha for
cereals as feedstock and 3-4 toe ethanol/ha for sugar beet, while ethanol productivity from
US maize and Brazilian sugar cane is about 1.5 and 3.5 toe /ha respectively (JRC 2011).
The low-cost and efficient sugarcane ethanol production of Brazil is not easily replicated in
Africa and other developing countries suitable for sugarcane due to higher costs of land
labour, machinery and conversion facilities. However a big expansion of biofuel production is
expected in all regions, especially in Eastern Asia; furthermore, the potential of cane-toethanol expansion is high, more than ethanol from sugar beet, corn, cereals, sorghum and
cassava. Biofuel demand is expected to increase significantly in OECD countries until 2020,
while by 2050, according to the IEA, non-OECD countries are expected to account for 70% of
total biofuel consumption. This expansion in demand can only be met with appropriate trade
to supply biomass feedstock and fuels to regions with a strong demand.
Coarse grains are projected to remain the dominating ethanol feedstock, but the relative
share of grain used for ethanol is projected to decrease over the next decade. Sugarcane
ethanol on the contrary is projected to increase over the same period (from 23% to 28%
according to OECD-FAO projections). Ethanol produced from wheat and molasses is
expected to decrease, while cellulosic ethanol will increase. OECD-FAO projections also
indicate that around 16% of global vegetable oils will be used for biodiesel in 2021, while
second generation biodiesel is expected to increase slightly, mainly in the EU.
43
Ethyl-tertiary-butyl-ether
AETS Consortium – February 2013
39
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Biodiesel accounts today for just 27.5% of global biofuel output; nevertheless, over the last
year, it accounted for all of the growth in global biofuel output (BP 2012). Recent expansion
of biofuel production has been registered in North and South America (with bioenergy
feedstock mainly produced within the region) and, to a lesser extent, in Europe and Eurasia
(see figure 11).
Figure 11: Global biofuel output expansion since 2001
Source: BP 2012
Biodiesel production has sharply increased in several countries and world regions, such as
Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines; the contribution from the EU
countries has mainly derived from palm oil and soybean.
Growing biofuel demand in the US, the EU and Japan has led to considerable flows of
Brazilian ethanol to these markets, as well as vegetable oils and biodiesel from the US, Latin
America (mainly Argentina, Brazil) and South East Asia (IEA 2011). Around 3 Mt of bioethanol
(or around 4% of global production44) and 3 Mt of biodiesel45 were traded globally in 2010 (in
addition to approximately 4 Mt of wood pellets) (Junginger et al., 2009), with China being the
main producer and consumer of ethanol in the developing world (OECD-FAO 2012).
With a global production share of about 50% in 2011, the US is currently the largest ethanol
producer and the development of the US biofuel market necessarily implies important effects
on global markets46. The US mandate for biodiesel defined in the RFS2 is extended from 3.8
billion to 4.8 billion litres to be used by 2012; this will determine the initial growth of biodiesel in
the US (biodiesel from tallow or other animal fats will be an important component).
This share is expected to increase to 7% by 2021 mainly due to trade intensification between Brazil and the US
(OECD-FAO 2012)
45 Given the expected price ratio over the next decade, biodiesel trade is expected to increase only slightly, with
Argentina remaining the main exporter
46 It should also be noted that the US produces ethanol mainly from corn and, at the same time, is a global price
setter of corn
44
AETS Consortium – February 2013
40
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Table 6: Transport fuel use in major biofuel producing countries
Source: OECD-FAO 2012
There are different scenarios envisaged over the forthcoming decades and, depending on
policy drivers for main biofuel consumer regions (mainly the US and EU) different implications
for developing countries can be drawn. Two policy scenarios have been identified in an
UNCTAD study (UNCTAD 2009): the first one aimed at increasing regional energy security
(giving priority to domestic produced biofuels), and a second one pursuing the expansion of
biofuels as a means to maximise environmental benefits and GHG mitigation. While both
scenarios offered opportunities for developing countries, the first one highlighted more limited
opportunities for exports than a policy strategy based on pursuing environmental benefits.
Figure 12: Trends in biofuels use in world regions. Biofuel use will increase in all regions, and
biofuel demand is strongest in OECD countries - only until 2020
Source: IEA 2012
AETS Consortium – February 2013
41
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Important R&D in algal oil (mainly to be refined into biodiesel through esterification, although
not exclusively) is taking place in the EU and the US. However, this option still seems to be at
an early phase with major technology bottlenecks (mainly in the cultivation and algae
separation phase) that render this pathway unviable at present - especially for large-scale
production - leading to negative energy balances47. Small-scale algae facilities for the
production of bioenergy (e.g. biogas, syngas, biocoal) and other valuable co-products seem
to be the only viable option in the short-term (Van Iersel et al. 2010).
Biofuel production from promising feedstocks such as Jatropha or cassava are currently still
on a project or small-scale level, far below the envisaged production levels (OECD-FAO
2012). Jatropha biodiesel production globally is very modest when compared to other
biofuels such as rapeseed/soybean biodiesel and sugarcane/corn ethanol. A report (Dimpl
et al. 2011) reviewed projects around the world that have been using vegetable oil for smallscale electricity generation. The review highlights the difficulty in transforming Jatropha from
local, small-scale produce into a major global export commodity. One of the most significant
issues highlighted was the unreliability of supply (in terms of quantity and quality of oilseeds) to
allow penetration into global export markets for biofuels. Problems relating to quality control
and supply flow are therefore key factors that need to be addressed before Jatropha can
become a major export item (UNU-IAS 20112). In the African context Jatropha production is
expected to remain relatively modest in the short or medium-term.
On a smaller-scale, a market analysis of 15 case studies in 12 countries in Latin America, Africa
and Asia (FAO, 2009) confirmed that biomass arising from on-farm residues, with sustainable
management of soil fertility can be used to produce useful heat, power and biofuels for local
use48, contribute to rural livelihoods, reduce imported fossil fuel dependence and offer new
opportunities for rural communities without impacting on local food supply security. The
uptake potential of biofuels is also closely linked to their envisaged cost decrease.
Concerning the conversion technology industry, modern combustion, gasification and
pyrolysis thermo-chemical conversion technologies are largely mature, although
improvements in performance and conversion efficiencies are continually being sought. This
is also the case for bio-chemical conversion processes such as anaerobic digestion and lignocellulosic enzymatic hydrolysis. The analysis results from demonstration and commercial plants
highlight that costs are wide ranging and site-specific but, on the basis of current costs and
projected efficiency improvements, it is possible to draw-up scenarios about future costs of
different production pathways (see figure 13).
Figure 13: Projected costs of biofuels from different production pathways and petroleum
gasoline
Lge = liter of gasoline equivalent
Source: IEA 2011
Interest in using aquatic plants, macro-algae and micro-algae as feedstocks for liquid biofuels production has
developed recently, mainly because of their theoretic very high yields, the possibility of using and capturing CO2
directly and the possibility of using non-arable land for their growth. Harvesting of aquatic plants can help reduce
excessive eutrophication levels in lakes and coastal waters. Algae-based bio-refinery systems and algae production
combined with intensive fish or shrimp culture in integrated aquaculture systems can offer a viable option
48Examples include electricity generation from Jatropha oil-fuelled engines; charcoal briquette production;
afforestation; ethanol production and stoves; wood-fired dryers; biogas from sisal fibre production residues
47
AETS Consortium – February 2013
42
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Biofuels development and global agricultural land
Currently biofuels occupy less than 1% of total agricultural land (total agricultural land
includes 1.5 billion hectares of arable land, and 3.5 billion hectares of meadows and pasture).
Even from the 30 Mha used today, a considerable amount of co-products are produced,
such as cattle-feed, bioelectricity and heat (IEA Bioenergy 2012). According to International
Energy Agency (IEA) scenarios, 100 Mha are required in 2050 for biofuels, equivalent to 2% of
total agricultural land. It doesn’t seem to be a lot in absolute terms, but this means a threefold
increase in land use, if biofuel production grows 10times in the next 40 years. All this is further
constrained by the challenges to expand crop production for food by 60% to 2050
(according to FAO projections), based on growth of world population to 9 billion in 2050. This
will require around 60 Mha of additional arable land, in addition to considerable yield
increases49 (FAO 2011).
Biofuels development in developing countries
Over the last few years, a number of developing countries have implemented ambitious
biofuel targets and mandates, aimed at improving their national energy supply security
and/or increasing the domestic value added of fuels. Several countries, including Kenya,
Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia, plan to expand domestic biofuel production in the
coming years.
In 2011, the whole African continent produced less than 29,000 tons of biofuels, constituting
0.01% of the total global supply (BP 2012); furthermore, the production and consumption of
biofuels mostly coincide geographically (PANGEA 2012). In Africa for example, ethanol is
almost entirely produced from molasses (the residue from sugarcane processing into sugar)
and is readily available at the same sugar factory.
Given the comparably low crop yields achieved today, a considerable potential to increase
grain production exists. This could free up land for sustainable biofuel production without
compromising food security. There may be potential to use currently unused land, but it is
difficult to identify what is actually “unused land”50. Reliable field data is lacking on current
land use through smallholders and rural communities (IEA 2011). Biomass and biofuel trade
from ACP countries has been growing, driven by increasing and volatile oil prices, minimum
renewable thresholds in power generation and by fuel blending targets (Junginger et al.,
2010); however, it is significantly lower than trade from other developing countries in absolute
terms.
Large parts of ACP countries are suitable for sugarcane cultivation, which is still very modest
(5.4 of global production in Africa – see table 7) if compared to India or Brazil, in spite of the
relatively high yields achievable. Today, only small quantities of ethanol are shipped from
some African countries to the EU due to preferential access to the EU market, but in general,
African biofuels are not (yet) competitive on the global market (Aidenvironment 2008).
Yield increases can augment output per area by 20-50% by 2030 for many crops according to Chum et al. (2011)
and most improvement potential lays in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where
advanced practices are not yet fully deployed and adapted
50 Complex land tenure structures and lack of infrastructure in rural areas are additional challenges for the expansion
of biofuel production in many African countries
49
AETS Consortium – February 2013
43
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Table 7: Major sugarcane producers in Africa
South Africa
Area
Production
% of global
Yield
(1000 ha)
(1000 t)
production
(t/ha)
267
16 016
0,95
60,0
67
7 527
0,45
112,0
Kenya
69
5 710
0,34
83,1
Swaziland
52
5 000
0,30
96,2
Mauritius
59
4 366
0,26
74,4
Zambia
39
4 050
0,24
105,2
Zimbabwe
39
3 100
0,18
79,5
31,6
Sudan (former)
Madagascar
95
3 000
0,18
Mozambique
215
2 800
0,17
13,0
Tanzania
23
2 750
0,16
119,6
Malawi
23
2 500
0,15
108,7
Ethiopia
19
2 400
0,14
126,9
Uganda
40
2 400
0,14
60,0
DRC Congo
40
1 827
0,11
45,7
Côte d'Iv oire
22
1 650
0,10
75,0
Middle Africa
232
5 012
0,30
21,6
Western Africa
157
5 764
0,34
36,6
Southern Africa
319
21 016
1,50
65,9
Northern Africa
212
23 868
1,42
112,6
Eastern Africa
657
35 415
2,10
53,9
Africa, Total
1 577
91 075
5,40
57,8
India
4 200
277 750
16,48
66,1
Brazil
9 081
719 157
42,67
79,2
World
23 815
1 685 445
10,8
Source: FAO 2010
Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia have national sugarcane yields of over 100 t/ha, and market
regions such as the SADC or Mauritius are net sugar exporters, with a long history of
sugarcane (and ethanol) production. However, despite several trials to blend ethanol for the
local transport sector, the ethanol produced in the region is normally used in the industry or
exported as more economically rewarding. Exceptions are countries like Malawi which have
been blending ethanol with gasoline (E10-15) since 1982 (UNU-IAS 2012). In addition to
Malawi, countries such as Burkina Faso, South Africa and Zimbabwe have a long tradition of
biofuel production (starting in 1920 in South Africa, and in the 1970-80s in the other countries);
however, it has never really reached a large scale. The reasons behind this limited
development can be rooted in the lack of appropriate policy frameworks, in the relative
value of ethanol in different markets (PANGEA 2012).
Table 8: Current and planned fuel ethanol production in four African countries
Status
Distillery capacity (M/yr)
Existing
30
south Africa
Planned (maiez-based)
155
Zambia
Planned (maiez-based)
37
Existing
40
Malawi
Szimbabwe
Source: UNU-IAS 2012, adapted from Batidzirai and Johnson 2012
AETS Consortium – February 2013
44
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Rising biofuel feedstock prices also provide strong incentives for the export of agricultural
products and this hampers the development of a domestic biofuel industry significantly.
Further limited available resources limit governments’ abilities to implement policies
supporting domestic production and the use of biofuels through financial incentives.
Subsequently, the blending mandates and targets in several developing countries remain
low. It is very likely that in the medium-term, except for Brazil and Argentina, biofuel use in
“developing countries” will remain significantly below the targets/mandates and an exportoriented biofuel industry will not develop anywhere (OECD-FAO 2012).
Box 8: Expectations in Brazil and Argentina
Brazil is, and is supposed to remain in the near future, the second largest producer of ethanol.
According to OECD-FAO projections, it is expected to represent 28% of total ethanol
production in 2021. A very important characteristic of the Brazilian biofuel industry if
compared with others is that it is very flexible, as it can quickly switch from producing sugar to
producing ethanol, on the basis of market drivers. This is possible not only because of a
flexible industry from the production side, but also at the adoption of the flex-fuel technology,
that allows domestic vehicles to run unconditionally with any blend of ethanol and gasoline.
In Latin America a special mention is reserved for Argentina that, despite a modest biodiesel
blending target of 7%, is expected to become the largest biodiesel producer in the
developing world, thanks to generous tax incentives available for exports. The EU is a primary
target for Argentinean vegetable oil. According to OECD-FAO projections, Argentina is
expected to reach a production of 4.2 billion litres in 2021, which can be compared with
Brazilian production - expected to reach 3.2 billion litres by the same year.
4.3.2
The potential and the reality for a biofuels industry in Africa
It has been calculated that at least 6 million ha of land would be readily available in six
African countries (Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) for
sugarcane (Watson 2011), which can be compared with around 9 million ha used in Brazil
today for sugarcane cultivation. In order to reach this figure, from all agricultural land, the
following were excluded: i) all categories of protected areas, closed canopy forests,
wetlands, ii) all areas under food and/or cash crop production, iii) areas unsuitable because
of climate, terrain and soil constraints.
On this basis, due to high sugarcane yields in countries like Zambia, it seems possible to meet
existing blending mandates (E5 in this case) with relatively low amounts of land (3000 ha in
the case of Zambia). High costs of transport fuel in some countries make it easier to meet
existing targets/mandates with biofuels (UNU-IAS 2012).
It should be clarified that this and other similar studies are attempts to give an idea of
“suitable” and “theoretically” available land. Our experience as well as findings from the field
missions confirm that the process of full land registration and demarcation as well as land
rights are very weak; therefore, estimates about land “available” for biofuels cannot be
validated in countries with a weak land tenure regime and allocation process. A lot of
support to local governments is needed in order to ensure transparent information on this
issue51.
51
For example GBEP indicator 9 on Allocation and tenure of land for new bioenergy production provides useful
information that can be applied to the development of a national bioenergy sector, i.e. Percentage of land – total
and by land-use type – used for new bioenergy production where:
•
A legal instrument or domestic authority establishes title and procedures for change of title; and
•
The current domestic legal system and/or socially accepted practices provide due process and the
established procedures are followed for determining legal titles.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
45
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Table 9: Land availability for rain-fed sugarcane cultivation in selected African countries
Country land area
Potentially suitable
Protected areas
Slopes > 16%
Available and suitables
% of counrty land area potentially suitable
% of country land area available and suitable for sugarcane
% of country land area is arableb
% of arable land available and suitable for sugarcane
a
b
Angola
124 670
1 626
1 395
1 389
1 127
1,30
0,90
2,40
37,70
Malaw i
6 408
742
595
580
206
7,89
2,19
25,30
8,70
Mozam bique
78 409
4 906
4 602
4 530
2 338
6,26
2,98
3,70
80,10
Tanzaniaa
87 869
1 694
1 223
1 217
467
1,93
0,53
4,70
11,30
Zam bia
74 339
3 546
2 433
2 427
1 178
4,77
1,58
7,10
22,30
Zim babw e
38 667
2 935
1 860
1 855
620
7,59
1,60
7,00
22,90
Excluding Zanzibar and Pemba
Ravichandran (1999)
Source: Watson 2011
However the “potential” has to be confronted with “reality”, i.e. the current very low baseline
of the agricultural sector in several developing countries and the challenges it faces, which
impede it from reaching its full potential.
This is partly linked to a lack of appropriate policy frameworks, for environmental reasons and
in the different and relative value of ethanol in different markets as aforementioned;
however, it is not only limited to these factors. For example, in Zimbabwe, where a heavy
drought in 1992 forced the country to give up production for the next two years, ethanol was
then worth more in the alcohol industry than as a transport fuel; this was also due to the
availability of cheap and abundant oil (IIED 2007).
More structural characteristics of the agricultural sector should be taken into account too in
order to justify such a difference between the potential and the reality: these structural limits
are associated with very low yields, underuse of land, and an extremely vulnerable
agricultural sector. Three quarters of existing farmland is heavily depleted as continuous
farming has not been offset by an appropriate replenishment of nutrients. Furthermore, the
use of fertilisers in the region is extremely low (3% of global fertiliser consumption; 7 kg/Ha
versus over 150 kg/Ha in Asia): market failures on the demand side – poor price incentives,
lack of financial resources or information about fertilisers – hence an inability of the producers
to reach economies of scale are among the reasons identified (PANGEA 2012). Fertilisers in
Sub-Saharan Africa are the most expensive in the world (FAO 2012) and the use of irrigation
systems is still limited. Likewise, the most advanced good environmental practices in farming
and farming techniques often do not reach rural areas (PANGEA 2012). As a result, land
productivity is low and stagnant, as is highlighted by the fact that increases in production
throughout the last 50 years have closely followed, and sometimes even gone below the rate
of an increase in inputs (PANGEA 2012, IFPRI 2011a).
The bulk of investments in the biofuels sector in developing countries is however made by
foreign investors, which reflects the region’s fundamental lack of local finance that hampers
the development of its agricultural sector. Yet, investments in biofuels can have positive spillover effects in the agriculture and food production sector. However, these positive results can
be achieved only through support to these countries in strengthening the policy framework for
bioenergy (both for framework development and policy enforcement) and also providing
them with training, sharing best practices and facilitating technology transfer at the same
time.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
46
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
4.4
Impacts of biofuels production at local level
4.4.1
Potential impacts at household levels and on small-scale farmers
The recent surge in biofuel investments and production volumes is driven by the promise of
multiple social, economic, ecological benefits and geopolitical advantages which have
brought key producer and consumer countries alike to establish policies to incentivise the
industry. While industry stakeholders and some analysts continue to declare the social and
ecological benefits of biofuels, an increasing number of reports from civil society and
research organizations have begun to question these benefits. It is noteworthy that the
benefits and costs tend to vary across commodities, business models, and landscapes,
making findings from industrial-scale bioethanol production in Brazil, for example, different
from the impacts associated with oil palm in Indonesia or Jatropha cultivation in sub-Saharan
Africa, each of which is expanding through both smallholder and industrial-scale production
models52.
Such differences are often obscured in the controversial discussions that have characterised
this emerging industry. There are key arguments made for and against biofuel expansion, with
a focus on the local social and environmental impacts especially for small-scale farmers’
households.
Positive impacts include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Job as an employee of biofuels project either in the processing plant or in the field;
Income due to producing and selling feedstock;
Job in a related service industry (e.g. tractor repair shop);
Additional sales opportunities for farm products to the employees of the biofuel
conversion plant;
Large agribusiness investments that might be accompanied by improved social
infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools and water wells;
Better road or railway infrastructure if new infrastructure is established to facilitate
biofuels transport;
Better access to agro-input supplies, such as seeds, machinery, agro-chemicals and
even agro-financing;
Technology and knowledge transfer and training53;
Achievement of energy security and stimulation of rural economic development
through employment and smallholder market integration54.
Negative impacts include:
•
•
•
Risk for smallholders to lose their land due to unclear land tenure systems and the
increased interest in agriculture production;
Increased food insecurity;
Acquisition of large agricultural areas often causes changes in land property relations
favouring the (re)concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the dominant
classes, especially landed groups, capitalists, corporate entities, state bureaucrats and
village chiefs; such changes are happening and have given rise to the dispossession
and displacement of smallholders, indigenous peoples and the poor in general55;
52 GERMAN L. et al: The Social and Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Feedstock Cultivation. Evidence from Multi-Site
Research in the Forest Frontier; E&S; 2011
53
For example stakeholders of the TAHA, the Tanzania Horticultural Association, have been provided with technical
training and support – for their crops, quality production, market access and also business skills; facilitation with
setting up a reliable market for their produce from the outset; and being assisted with start-up costs, whether directly
or through negotiations within the value chain, so that they do not need cash up front when they lack capital.
54 GERMAN L. et al: The Social and Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Feedstock Cultivation. Evidence from Multi-Site
Research in the Forest Frontier; E&S; 2011
55 RAHMATO D. (Forum for Social Studies): LAND TO INVESTORS: Large-Scale Land Transfers in Ethiopia; 2011; p 4
AETS Consortium – February 2013
47
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
•
•
•
•
•
In large-scale agricultural projects involving contract farming in Sub-Saharan Africa
“women are generally not involved in contracting with agro-industrial firms and are
disadvantaged in contract schemes”56;
Increased vulnerability of farmers without any more land and unsecure and often
seasonal employments;
Destructuration of the local communities and traditional balances of power;
Depletion of water resources due to production and processing of biofuels;
Pollution from overuse of agro-chemicals for feedstock production and chemicals for
the conversion process;
Failed biofuel investment projects have negative impacts on farmers; often farmers lose
their land during the preparation of the investment, the landscape is no longer
available for local agriculture and pastoralism; finally – due to the failure of the project
– no potential benefits occur, such as jobs, revenues or infrastructure. Unfortunately, the
list of failed projects is long: Greenleaf Global Plc, one of Africa's largest Jatropha
plantation companies with 2,700 ha in Togo, collapsed after 201157; Sun Biofuels (T) Ltd,
Kisarawe, Tanzania; Bioshape, initiated by a Dutch investor failed with its envisaged
31,000 hectares Jatropha project in the southern district of Kilwa, Tanzania; SEKAB, a
Swedish company involved in sugarcane production for bioethanol in Tanzania)58.
In a recent study (Bergius 2012)59 the impact of large-scale agro-investments for biofuel
production on rural households was analysed in Tanzania. The study examined the case of
Sun Biofuels, which collapsed in the meantime60 and addressed the following issues:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Land acquisition and power;
Compensation: an insufficient practice;
Impact on land access: de-diversification and water grabbing;
Employment: producing poverty and vulnerability.
Land acquisition and power
After a relatively cumbersome land acquisition process, Sun Biofuels was one of few biofuel
companies having finalised the process of obtaining the derivative title to the targeted land.
As most land in Tanzania is under the jurisdiction of approximately 12 000 villages, agricultural
investment-related land deals targeting these land areas require community consultations.
Although land legislation in Tanzania is perceived as one of the most progressive in Africa due
to this requirement, the community consultation process is often seen as unsatisfactory, while
also being embedded in asymmetric power relations. This was a case of a wealthy investor
and the uneducated smallholders who do not know their rights.
Bergius (2012) mentions that at no point villagers were informed about the potential risks of
giving away their land and indirectly blamed Sun Biofuels for not having informed the farmers
correctly. The government has to do its homework by setting investment or land acquisition
guidelines and by informing smallholders accordingly. Only if both stakeholder groups are
well informed, a win-win deal can be concluded. However, a community consultation
process itself does not yet guarantee that the interests of rural communities are secure.
Monitoring of practices and respect of the agreements are key elements.
DALEY E. (Mokoro Ltd) and MI-YOUNG PARK C. (FAO): The Gender and Equity Implications of Land- Related
Investments on Land Access and Labour and Income-Generating Opportunities - A Case Study of Selected
Agricultural Investments in Northern Tanzania; 2012; p 5
57 http://wn.com/greenleaf_global_Jatropha_plantation_march_2011/bbc
58 for more information see also Land Deals Politics Initiative (LDPI): Land Grabbing and Political Transformation in
Tanzania; 2012; www.cornell-landproject.org/download/ landgrab2012papers/ nelson.pdf
59 Bergius M.: Large Scale Agro Investments for Biofuel Production in Tanzania – Impact on Rural Households; 2012; p
60 Sun Biofuels shuts down in Tanzania; October 31, 2011: In Tanzania, Sun Biofuels has shut down its biodiesel project
south of Dar es Salaam city after financing did not come through. Earlier this month, droughts forced huge layoffs for
the project, but this week nearly 600 workers were given notices of termination. Although the company indicated to
the workers that the project may reopen, officials refused to comment on the situation of financing.
www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/10/31/sun-biofuels-shuts-down-in-tanzania/
56
AETS Consortium – February 2013
48
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Compensation: an insufficient practice
Tanzania’s Village Land Act states that no village land shall be transferred to general land
until the issue of compensation has been agreed upon by all the involved parties. This section
is thought to provide some safeguards against the expropriation of village land. However,
identifying the multiple interests and uses of land is a difficult process, as rights to land are
often held “through diverse blends of individual to collective rights”. The compensation is
intended to cover all investments made in relation to the land and the loss of future profits,
while the value of the land itself is not accounted for. A key issue which emerges is who
should be entitled to receive compensation and how much. Most of the land acquired by
Sun Biofuels in Tanzania was village land set aside for common use. In cases where investors
acquire common village land, compensation is to be paid directly to the village council but
also direct payments to land owners have been made. At the end, the compensation was
too little for the affected rural community. The reason was that the compensation calculation
was poorly executed - under the pressure of time. There have been many other mistakes too,
such as including local graveyard areas into the foreseen plantation sites and more.
However, the question again arises as to what governments have done to guide and protect
their citizens. There are numerous books and studies about how to address compensation; an
example is the FAO Land Tenure Studies about “Compulsory acquisition of land and
compensation” (2009). Two major things can be highlighted:
1. “Land compensation (must) reflect the profit potential of the land to be acquired. So
government – eventually through extension services - must inform their farmers about
the potential of agricultural land in certain parts of the country. If the land will be
rented for a long time by the investor, then there is another level of compensation to
be paid in comparison with a permanent acquisition;
2. The other crucial point is that developing country governments have to analyse –
upfront - if correctly compensated farmers could start another equivalent income
generation activity in the area (or eventually also somewhere else in the country). If
this is not the case, then even the highest compensation packages are not enough as
farmers can end up spending the received money until this comes to an end. If there
is no other (and better) income generating opportunities, then land should not be sold
at all.
Impact on land access: de-diversification and water rights
One of the main reasons for Tanzania’s attractiveness to foreign investors is based on the
perceived abundance of underutilised and suitable land for large-scale biofuel production.
However, there are discrepancies in estimates of the actual area considered to be available
for investments. The concept of land availability thus requires critical analysis as even where
land is currently underused and seems abundant, it is still likely to be claimed by somebody
party. As witnessed above, “underused” land is often the collective asset of rural
communities. Conflicts over land are thus likely to occur when the state seeks to expropriate
village land for investment in the name of “kilimo kwanza” and “public interest”. Most of the
land targeted for biofuel production is comes under the Land Act’s definition of
“unoccupied”, but as the case of Sun Biofuels in Kisarawe reveals, it was certainly not unused.
After the arrival of Sun Biofuels in the area, households reported that losing access to the
common village land negatively affected their household economies and led to a
subsequent de-diversification of income sources. Households were affected in both direct
and in-direct ways. Directly, as losing access to land (including bushes and forests) also
means losing income from the sale of charcoal, firewood, building materials and food such
as game, meat and wild fruits. These products were also important resources for domestic
use. To substitute land inaccessibility, households are now required to buy the products or
travel to more distant areas to collect them, if possible. As the resources are now found a
relatively long distance from the village, households without opportunities to buy the products
spend a significant amount of time collecting the products.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
49
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Increased time for transport had a subsequent negative impact on farm productivity as less
time is spent doing agricultural activities, which implies that a smaller share of the agricultural
production is available for sale, thus lowering household income. Losing land access affected
households indirectly as the some forest products now have to be transported from more
distantly located areas leading to an upward pressure on prices.
The most urgent concern stressed by all households interviewed was the water situation,
which deteriorated after the arrival of Sun Biofuels. The Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) undertaken by Sun Biofuels actually recommended that due to the area’s limited water
resources, the plantation should not cover any key water sources to be used by the local
community; however, the recommendation was not followed.
Due to greater absorption potential with regards to increased distances and a relatively
diversified household economy, high income households are not as heavily affected by
reduced land access. In addition to agriculture many of these households have small food
vendors or shops where they sell basic food items. With lower local agricultural productivity,
and increased traffic through the area following the investments, some of these households
experienced positive linkage effects as they tend to sell more from their business. A similar
trend was also witnessed regarding the sale of agricultural products among those households
with farms located close to and accessible from the road running through the village.
Employment: producing poverty and vulnerability
A central feature of the win-win discourse is rural development and the diversification of rural
economies through the creation of employment opportunities which in the long rung run is
believed to be “bringing welfare to what is often disadvantaged people” (Sun Biofuels, 2009).
When Sun Biofuels acquired land from the 11 villages, one of the promises given to the
villagers was to create new employment and income opportunities. Great expectations were
held among the villagers who envisioned a better quality of life and brighter futures.
While operating, the company had approximately 750 people employed at the plantation. It
was the prospect of securing a safer and more reliable income which attracted many
villagers to work at the plantation. Moreover, as a consequence of the impacts created by
land inaccessibility, some households were forced to find additional sources of income. The
majority of these were just casual labourers doing regular plantation work, with no pension or
medical aid and no possibilities of unionisation. In most cases found during this research,
employment negatively affected household economies, or at best, did not have any affect
at all due to low wages. In most households where one or more household members went to
work at the plantation, their own agricultural activity was either reduced or completely
stopped leading to a subsequent decrease in productivity and income.
Thus one household member stated that: “Work at the plantation is just a waste of time. It did
not improve our situation anything. It is better to keep on with farming. Income from farming is
safer than the income from the plantation”.
Wages at the plantation did not offset a loss of income from agriculture and forest activities.
While household income decreased, expenditures on food and other products they no
longer produced themselves, increased. This left households worse off economically.
Furthermore, previous employees reported that most of their salaries were used at the
plantation site to meet their own needs in terms of food and water, leaving little money to
bring home.
The arrival of Sun Biofuels in Kisarawe had a completely different impact than what was
stipulated within the win-win discourse. Instead of increased welfare, the experience suggests
increased vulnerability and poverty; a local government official in Kisarawe has claimed that
every day the families of plantation workers were becoming poorer.
World Bank statistics comparing the income from small-scale farming to plantation wage
labour show that a sugar cane producer in Zambia can earn six times more on one hectare
smallholding than what he could earn as wage labour. For maize producers in Cameroon the
five hectare farm income to wage labour ratio is close to ten. This illustrates that if the point is
AETS Consortium – February 2013
50
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
to “bring” welfare to poor people, the evidence points firmly away from large-scale
plantations and towards stimulating smallholder agriculture. The households in Kisarawe have
not only lost access to land areas important to their livelihoods, but now also their
employment; that refers to the short statement above that failed investment projects seem to
be the most disastrous ones.
This study (Bergius, 2012) does not indicate if in this area there live landless people; most likely
the picture would look much better if landless people get employed in plantations than if
farmers give up their farming activities to become plantation workers. The situation is well
summarised by the World Bank’s Managing Director, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala who said: "These
large land acquisitions can come at a high cost. The veils of secrecy that often surrounds
these land deals must be lifted so poor people don’t ultimately pay the heavy price of losing
their land".
Regarding the positive economic impacts of investment in agricultural production by
transnational companies, a FAO paper61 about FDI in African agriculture divides the
microeconomic level in the host country into ‘Pull’ and ‘Push’ factors:
•
•
Pull factors lead to the involvement of semi commercial farmers into the business of
transnational corporations, which in turn contributes to the creation of employment
opportunities and improved access to finance and markets for smallholder farmers;
Push factors include technology transfer, training and knowledge sharing along with the
enforcement of production standards.
4.4.2
Economics of plantation scale and small holder approaches
Economies of scale are saying that bigger farms are more profitable as the overhead costs
(indirect expenses) are distributed on more hectares, animals, tons of sugar (units). Even if
negative aspects of ‘getting bigger’ have been more frequently discussed in recent years, it
is clear that biofuel conversion plants are more profitable when feedstock is grown on nearby
large-scale plantations; this remains true at least to a certain level which is always far above
the size of smallholder farms (2 ha on average).
The production of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil is maybe the most efficient example
worldwide; however, sugarcane yields are higher in Mozambique due to the more suitable
climate62; ethanol based on maize in the USA costs twice as much and wheat, sorghum and
sugar beet in Europe four times as much as sugar cane63. Consequently, sugarcane is the
most suitable plant for bioethanol production. The smallest biofuels conversion plants require
feedstock from around 15,000 hectares annually while for soybeans, the planted area must
cover at least 30,000 ha.
Bioethanol projects have very often a set-up that foresees a big part of the raw material
production by the company itself. Usually these fields are located around the mills and they
provide the best returns by maximum yields and minimum costs. Therefore the most profitable
feedstock comes from within the land managed by the conversion plant. This is good for the
profitability of the company but also to make sure that sufficient raw material/feedstock is
available.
Large-scale farming is cost efficient and when situated near to the conversion plants, grants
cheap transport costs. Sugar mills/biofuel conversion plants encourage smallholders to
provide additional sugarcane or other relevant feedstock partly to enable access to
additional feedstock and partly because of political pressure.
61A-C.Gerlach
and P. Liu, "Resource-seeking Foreign Direct Investment in African Agriculture: a review of country case
studies", FAO Commodity and Trade Policy Research Working Paper No. 31FAO (September 2010); p 10 f
62 UNEP: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing Countries: A GEF
Targeted Research Project, 2012; p 43
63 Zuurbier J; van der Vooren J.: Sugarcane Ethanol, Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2008; p 11
AETS Consortium – February 2013
51
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Smallholders come in to provide additional raw feedstock; for example the out-growers
produce sugarcane and their only input is labour, whereas almost all other inputs such as
seeds, fertilisers and chemicals are provided by the central processing mill64. Out-growers
usually deliver it to a central processing unit – in most cases on less suitable land and at higher
transport costs - as the smallholders land is more remote. In the literature, this dual approach
is referred to as a hybrid.
Sugar companies are usually owned by shareholders and they have a strategic interest to
add value; financial investors who buy a stake with the aim of selling this on for a better price
soon after are not typical. There are also other set-ups such as in Swaziland where there are
also two sugar mills which belong to the King or to a holding which is relatively close to the
King.
Box 9: Swaziland sugar protocol
Governments assisted by the European Union under the Sugar Protocol have been trying to
let smallholders participate in the profitable sugar business (regardless if used for sugar or
bioethanol and push sugar mills to accept additional raw material) for several years.
For example, the Government of Swaziland (GOS) has identified the development of
smallholder agriculture from subsistence farming to commercialisation and intensification
farming as the main element in its policy is to alleviate poverty. As the GOS cannot influence
sugar prices, it intends to assist smallholders to manage their investment and working capital
costs in order to ensure that their farms are competitive. Furthermore, it provides irrigation
channels and other infrastructure but the business is not overly attractive for smallholders
because they cannot achieve the same level of yields as sugar estates with their
corresponding large-scale farming technologies. In addition, the smallholders are also
confronted with higher transportation costs. Therefore, perspectives for smallholders are not
promising when it comes to sugarcane or more precisely to the extension of sugarcane
plantations.
The attempts to establish local Farmers’ Associations for smallholders have not been very
promising, as these associations lack agricultural equipment due to insufficient financing. In
addition, there is not enough workforce demand if each smallholder brings around 2 ha of
land and himself as worker into the association. Table 5 shows that in Brazil, 100 ha sugarcane
plantations required 10 workers and in the Swaziland case, there would be 50 per 100 ha (50
smallholders x 2 ha).
Another issue is that sugarcane requires aircraft spraying and in cases where the fields
surround farm buildings, such spraying may simply not be feasible. Often, certain chemicals
are applied to sugarcane in commercial fields to accelerate ripening and improve sugar
content on a fresh weight basis, as well as on the profitability of sugar production65.
Furthermore, it also has to be taken into consideration that smallholders try to produce a
broad range of products out of their small acreages, including food for household
consumption. For example, if a family owns five hectares they diversify the production and
even if they would grow exclusively sugarcane than they could not compete with the estate
plantations.
The situation might be different when it comes to less perishable products such as Jatropha,
corn, soybeans, sorghum, wheat and others. The seeds that form the input for biofuel
production can be stored for considerable periods after harvesting, enabling systemised
collection over longer periods and cancelling the need for immediate shipment to the
64
UNEP: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing Countries: A GEF
Targeted Research Project, 2012; p 42
65 Morgan T.E.: Effects of ripeners on early season sugar production in sugar cane; Master Thesis, James Cook
University; 2003; p II
AETS Consortium – February 2013
52
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
conversion plant66. Typically, these plants grow just one crop out of several which a typical
smallholder family grows. Assuming that a smallholder has between 5 and 10 ha he will grow
a mix of biofuel feedstocks and crop plants but never focusing exclusively on “biofuelsplants”. Therefore the small holder might grow some Jatropha as a cash crop in addition to
maize, which would be sold in the case of a surplus67.
Processing technology is another aspect worthy of consideration. Oilseeds, for instance,
could be processed by smallholders using a mechanical method - a press that squeezes the
oil out. Mechanical extraction of the oil is accomplished by exerting sufficient force on the
confined seed. Under these conditions, the pressure is high enough to rupture the cells and
force oil from the seed to ‘escape’. Extraction is accomplished by compressing the material
in a container that has small perforations, either round or slotted, that allow the liquid
component to leave. This operation may be done in either a batch process or a continuous
process68. Applying small-scale technology consequently does not require large scale
farming for biofuel crops any longer and reduces the necessary minimum plantation size to a
few hectares.
For small scale farmers’ products such as Jatropha, maize and soybeans could be regarded
as side products which increase the diversity of product ranges and therefore minimise
failures which might be caused by weather or crop diseases. From another perspective, one
could say that the damage would be very limited for smallholders, if such a biofuels project
fails.
Economic benefits also depend on the type of production system used:
•
•
•
Monoculture cropping;
Organized small producers;
Monoculture with out-grower schemes69.
Monoculture cropping is possible for all crops under consideration and may be necessary for
sugarcane and oil palm. These are voluminous crops, which therefore have to be produced
near a crushing unit or an ethanol plant. These plants require large inputs in order to achieve
sufficient economies of scale. Monocultures generally have lower labour input than smallscale farming. The labour input is provided by employees who receive a fixed salary per day
or, more often, get paid according to their harvest. Monoculture farming is often associated
with poor labour conditions, particularly if it concerns low-skilled migrant workers.
Small producers can be organised to produce biofuels crops on a large scale. They can form
cooperatives or their individual supply can be organised by a biofuels producer. The latter
are often referred to as out-grower schemes. The out-grower schemes have high failure rates
due to poor mechanisation and a lack of economies of scale. Small farmers can incorporate
biofuel crop production within their regular production as a cash crop. Depending on the
nature of the deal between the farmer (or cooperative) and the client, this can represent the
equivalence of a day labour on a plantation. Often, the client would supply farmers with
seeds, fertilisers and agronomic advice, as farmers cannot make these investments
themselves. After harvesting, they are often supposed to pay back those investments made
by their clients. Examples of this type of production system are common for certain crops in
Africa and most notably include cocoa and cotton; they prove that it is not automatically
beneficial for farmers, as it may create strong farmer dependence on their clients.
4.4.3
Job creation
The efforts undertaken by governments to attract foreign investments are often explained by
the intention to create jobs. In 2008, an enthusiastic FAO study70 mentioned that the
66
Wetlands International: Biofuels in Africa. An assessment of risks and benefits for African wetlands; May 2008; p 22
Ecoagriculture Policy Focus: Evaluating Biofuel Opportunities from a Landscape Perspective; 2008; p 2
68 http://www.extension.org/pages/26911/mechanical-extraction-processing-technology-for-biodiesel
69 Wetlands International: Biofuels in Africa. An assessment of risks and benefits for African wetlands; May 2008; p 37
70 FAO: The state of food and agriculture in Asia and Pacific Region; 2008; p 29
67
AETS Consortium – February 2013
53
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
production of biofuels will generate employment at both farm and factory levels, and this
increase in employment will help to improve food security if it is targeted at the poor.
However, alternative uses of the land and capital necessary for biofuel production would
have generated employment as well and this alternative employment needs to be
considered in assessing the impact of biofuel production on employment and food security.
In other words, a critical issue in measuring the impact of biofuels production on employment
and food security is the relative labour intensity of biofuel production. Much of the
employment that is likely to come with increased biofuel production, at least in developing
countries, will be because of potentially increased labour use at the farm level to grow the
feedstock. It is therefore crucial to understand the labour requirements of biofuel feedstocks
per unit of area-time (e.g. per hectare per year) compared to the labour requirements of
alternative land uses. If the land was previously unused, then clearly the planting of biofuel
feedstock will create new employment. However, if the biofuel feedstock is less labourintensive than the crops planted previously, then biofuel production will reduce net
employment at the farm level. The ultimate outcome will vary depending on what crop is
used as feedstock and what crops were grown previously. In addition, any increased
employment in feedstock production will likely be biased toward unskilled labour.
In terms of fuel production from feedstock, small-scale bio-energy production seems likely to
generate more employment for the poor than large-scale bio-energy production, which will
probably be more capital intensive and less labour intensive. Indeed, current bioethanol and
biodiesel factories in Brazil and the USA require huge investments of capital, often in the
range of USD 100 to 200 million. Furthermore, the labour employed in these factories may
favour relatively skilled workers (who are usually food secure).
Although small-scale bio-energy production may be better at creating employment, it is
important to consider the ability of small-scale bio-energy production to compete with largescale bio-energy production. Smaller plants may in general not be very competitive, and if
they are not, then any increased employment is likely to be short-lived. However, if the bioenergy production is used to enhance access to energy in small villages with poor
infrastructure, then competition with large-scale factories is probably not an important issue.
Employment created at such small-scale processing plants is likely to have a positive impact
on food security at the local level and be more sustainable in the long term.
Job creation in agriculture
If smallholders start producing feedstock for biofuels on a small scale, they usually make use
of their own land. If the workload becomes heavier, more family members have to work, but
smallholders do not usually employ other persons. Hence, in such cases, one could speak
about the creation of additional income, but not about additional job creation.
With regards to large-scale biofuels projects, investors have to prepare the land and hire staff
to work on it. For example, sugarcane estates need field managers and advisors (usually
employees) and seasonal workers for harvesting and other work. Such seasonal workers are
often paid by the task. In other words, large scale biofuel plantations also create agricultural
jobs.
An important consideration relates to the use of land prior to the commencement of largescale biofuel farming activity. In case the area used for biofuel production was abandoned
or not in use, each of the biofuel jobs created could be considered as an additional job. In
cases where the land has been used by smallholders for the production of other agricultural
products, such as vegetables, conversion to biofuel production may lead to a loss of sources
of income for potentially few new jobs.
Type of feedstock and agricultural mechanisation
The production of crops for biofuels will lead to the creation of rural employment. The
magnitude of this effect depends largely on two factors:
•
The type of feedstocks grown;
AETS Consortium – February 2013
54
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
Agricultural mechanisation.
Although labour productivity is much higher in Brazil, the table below gives a sense of
required labour input. In general, biofuels have a lower labour input than food crops. As is the
case with corn in the US and sugarcane in Brazil, production is highly mechanised. Figures for
Africa would probably look slightly different. Jatropha is more comparable to castor beans, a
related species of oil producing seeds, but its harvest is difficult to mechanise.
Table 10: Number of workers per activity
Activity in Brazil Number of jobs
per 100 ha
Cattle for meat
0.24
16
Orange
Eucalyptus
1
Castor Bean
24
Soy
2
Potato
29
Maize
8
Manioc
38
Sugarcane
10
Coffee
49
Bean
11
Rice
16
Tomato
245
Source: Wetlands International: Biofuels in Africa. An assessment of risks and benefits for African
wetlands; 2008; p 37
As shown in the table above, livestock and forests provide the fewest jobs, even if the African
livestock sector with pastoralism is not as efficient as the Brazilian model. Besides the loss of
traditional jobs, there is an additional loss of grazing areas.
The employment benefits depend strongly on the degree of mechanisation of biofuel crops
in terms of cultivation and harvesting. A high degree of mechanization leads to low labour
inputs. The biofuels crops differ in terms of mechanization potential. Maize, sugarcane and
sweet sorghum are crops that are produced in a highly mechanized way outside Africa. This
is not yet common in Africa and in many places not very likely, first, because labour input is
still cheap in Africa and, second, because mechanization requires the availability of qualified
labour. In addition, the maintenance of machinery is a challenge in most of Africa as there is
a lack of spare parts and service agents.
Oil palm production can never be fully mechanised. The harvest of fresh fruit bunches
requires precision work because the fruits do not ripen together and therefore require weekly
picking and make the harvest labour intensive and difficult to mechanise. The palms are
harvested every 10 to 15 days. Given this high frequency, mechanization has never been
either technically or economically viable. The cutter, equipped with the necessary
implement, inspects the bunches to see which are ripe, cuts them and takes them away,
along with any fallen fruits.
The mechanization rate of cassava production is also likely to remain limited. Although it is
imaginable that planting and harvesting of Jatropha (by machines similar to grape
harvesters) can be mechanised, this will only happen in the long-term. As this crop has only
been cultivated commercially for a few years, almost no mechanical equipment has yet
AETS Consortium – February 2013
55
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
been developed. Its development would require serious investments; one option would be to
increase the synchronicity of flowering and ripening of the seeds71.
The potential for job creation is directly related to the type of feedstock. In agriculture, most
jobs are created if labour intensive raw materials are grown, such as Jatropha72. Large scale
farming of sugarcane tends to create fewer jobs as the level of mechanization increases.
Direct employment is generated in the agricultural sector by cultivation, harvesting and
processing of the biofuel feedstock; not just the jobs created in the production of feedstock
but also including the jobs in the industry. For example:
•
•
•
•
Sugarcane in Brazil and Mozambique = 0.11 – 0.27 jobs/ha/yr;
Palm in Malaysia and Indonesia = 0.30 – 0.38 jobs/ha/yr;
Jatropha in Indonesia = 0.11- 0.28 jobs/ha/yr;
Cassava in Thailand and Mozambique = 0.11 – 0.37 jobs/ha/yr.73
Job creation in conversion plants and further indirect employment
Besides the newly created jobs in the agricultural sector, there are more jobs created in the
conversion process from feedstock to biofuels as this process generally takes place close to
where the feedstock is produced. Direct jobs in biofuel production are usually created
through processing activities (land preparation for the factory, building and running of the
factory, etc.). Furthermore, indirect jobs are generated within the economy as a result of
expenditure related to above mentioned direct jobs.
According to Vogelbusch, an average bioethanol plant employs around 300 persons74.
Additionally, there are around 50 % indirect employment opportunities in the linked service
industry75.
Box 10: Biofuel and job creation in Senegal
The authors learned from their field trips to Senegal that no statistics have been made
available; however, according to observations in Senegal, very few jobs have been created
by biofuel investments. There might be a few thousand farmers involved in small plantations
but not as their main commercial activities. In total, there have been less than 100 Industrial
jobs created in the Ethanol plant and the newly established Jatropha oil processing plant.
From 2007 to 2010, nine biofuel projects were registered at the APIX (Agence de Promotion
des Investissements et des Exportations). In theory, these projects would have created 10 271
jobs all together (9 697 of them seasonal jobs). In practice, most of these projects have been
discontinued. It seems that big projects encountered more difficulties and currentrly just one
or two small-scale project are still active.
Other papers state that indirect job creation could be much higher; for instance, the Markala
Sugar Project in Mali is expected to create 5 000 direct jobs and 20 000 indirect jobs76.
However, projects frequently look different several years down the line in comparison with the
initial business. Ethanol is only a by-product of the Markala project that mainly targets sugar
production.
Possible adverse effects
IFAD / FAO: Jatropha - A Smallholder Bioenergy Crop; 2010; p 56
The harvesting of Jatropha is not mechanized mainly because its fruits reach maturation at different times
73 UNEP: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing Countries: A GEF
Targeted Research Project, 2012; p 96
74 Interview Vogelbusch GmbH, Dr. Torsten Schulze, CEO, 22 October 2012
75 see also UNEP: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuel Production in Developing
Countries: A GEF Targeted Research Project, 2012: p 95
76A-C.Gerlach and P. Liu, "Resource-seeking Foreign Direct Investment in African Agriculture: a review of country case
studies", FAO Commodity and Trade Policy Research Working Paper No. 31FAO (September 2010); p 9
71
72
AETS Consortium – February 2013
56
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Generating more jobs in cultivation, harvesting and processing is an integral aim of
sustainable agricultural development and crucial for poverty alleviation. Employment
creation, in particular in rural areas, is often presented as an expected advantage of
international investment in agriculture, regardless of whether this concerns biofuels or other
agricultural activities. Nevertheless, even if it is feasible to create jobs, there might be
disadvantages affecting indigenous peoples.
While governments try to attract investments in the agricultural sector and hope that the
primary benefit is increased employment opportunities for rural people, some cases show that
there might be negative aspects when indigenous people are displaced. Displaced people
often lose their fertile fields and hence their primary source of income. These former
smallholders might become low-paid seasonal workers and have difficulties earning their
living during the off-season. Sometimes, farmers are only compensated by a certain share of
output for leasing their fertile land, but fail to find new jobs.
Therefore, the main arguments for officially granting tax incentives (and even providing land
for free to investors) often fail. It should also be noted that the investment code in Senegal
aims at fostering investment in key economic sectors and the same advantages apply for
foreign and domestic investments.
Wages
Income earning opportunities are created by biofuel projects if farmers supply biofuel
feedstocks or if smaller or larger businessmen provide services; these can range from
machinery services, to consulting and restaurants. Wages are paid by biofuel conversion
plants if people are employed.
Salaries in the conversion plants depend on the required qualifications. Whereas one might
find agricultural engineers with US university degrees and consequently good salaries in the
Swazi sugar industry, the majority of unskilled workers are poorly paid.
Box 11: Examples of wages in biofuel project in Ghana, Sierra Leone and Tanzania
It is hard to provide detailed data as only companies that pay above minimum wages
publish their average salaries. For example, Solar Harvest SA, a Norwegian company,
operates in poor regions in Ghana where people earn between USD 30 and USD 50 a month,
below both the country's official minimum wage and the World Bank-defined poverty line of
USD 2 a day. The company claims that they do not only pay workers 70% higher than the
country's minimum wage, but also provide nearly year-round employment, including during
the dry season when employment and income are scarce77. The daily minimum wages were
USD 3.11 in 2010 and USD 4.48 in 201278; a 70% increase would result in USD 7.62 per day in
2012.
Addax Bioenergy, a Geneva-based company, manages a biofuels project based on
sugarcane in Sierra Leone. An independent evaluation report done by Sierra Leone Network
on the Right to Food (SiLNoRF) in August 2012 and SiLNoRF confirmed that salaries are higher
than the minimum wage in Sierra Leone which is USD € 4.64 (=SLL 25,000). In addition, Addax
workers have written work contracts79.
Furthermore, other international agro-companies such as MOUNT MERU FLOWERS LTD in
Tanzania pay at least around 30 – 50 % above the minimum salary. Generally, they do not
piece work but extra hours according to legislation (similar like in Europe); workers can get a
http://www.iptel.com/index.php?txt=employment-opportunities
http://www.africapay.org/ghana/home/salary/minimum-wages/minimum-wage-timeline
79Annual Monitoring Report on the Operations of Addax Bioenergy By Sierra Leone Network on the Right to Food
(SiLNoRF) For the Period June 2011 – June 2012; Aug 12; p 3
77
78
AETS Consortium – February 2013
57
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
bonus which will not exceed 20 % of their wages. As the company is working according to
FairTrade standards more social benefits are granted – as required by FairTrade80.
The official minimum wages in Tanzania are TZS 70,000, equivalent to Euro 35 per month.
MOUNT MERU FLOWERS LTD has an agreement with the labour union to pay TZS 73.000 per
months plus additional allowances so that unskilled worker get TZS 95,000 – 100,000 per month
plus medical treatment, working clothes, food at the farm etcetera; taking this into account,
expenditures for workers reach almost 100 % above the minimum salary. Managers with their
own responsibilities are earning between TZS 800,000 and TZS 4,000,000, equivalent to Euro 2
000 per month. The company declares that it is very difficult to find an experienced and
reliable work force, especially for the management81.
Many investors when asking for subsidies, tax havens and other gratifications are willing to
give big promises to host governments; at the same time, experienced investors do not sign
binding obligations; an excellent example was the privatisation process of the former
German Democratic Republic (DDR) where many enterprises were transferred to the buyer
who promised the most jobs instead of selling them at the highest price. Equally, Sun Biofuels
in Tanzania presented populist promises of benefits through employment generation and the
construction of water wells, roads, schools and health clinics which never materialized82 at
the end. Too often, governments want to spread good news and then “foreseen”
employment figures and other benefits for the country are circulated; when looking at these
promises; often they have not been achieved.
Finally, the new jobs created by an investment project may not always be sustainable. In
some cases, it was observed that projects are labour-intensive during the initial phase but
become increasingly mechanised later on, thus reducing future labour requirements.83 In
Eastern Europe many people have been involved in land purchasing contracts, in restoring
and building new premises such as silos and in cleaning and preparing the fields. When the
set-up was done, just a few highly specialised tractor drivers remain employed. The situation is
not so different in developing countries.
4.4.4
Tax and investment environment
Worldwide, farmers are often exempt from paying taxes. The soya export tax in Argentina is
one of the exceptions from this rule. Investments should at least, in the long run, bring tax
revenues so that the host country benefits directly (and not just indirectly) from the
investment. Since biofuels are a rather new business sector, many governments from
developing countries are investing or encourage investments in biofuel production via special
tax incentives, duty exemptions, freedom of international capital flows, subsidies for biomass
and biofuel production or by providing relevant infrastructure.
Financial incentives could be provided in the form of tax credits. Governments can use tax
credits in order to promote investments in, and production of, renewable energy, including
biofuels, especially during the initial stages of development of the related industry. Even
though these instruments, unlike direct payments, do not require financial disbursements by
the government, nonetheless there are opportunity costs associated with them, in the form of
foregone tax revenues84.
80 Correspondence with Mr. Herwig Tretter, Director of MOUNT MERU FLOWERS LTD, P.O.Box 285 Arusha, TANZANIA; 4th
January 2013
81
Correspondence with Mr. Herwig Tretter, Director of MOUNT MERU FLOWERS LTD, P.O.Box 285 Arusha, TANZANIA; 4th
January 2013
82
Bergius M.: Large Scale Agro Investments for Biofuel Production in Tanzania Impact on Rural Households; 2012; p23
83A-C.Gerlach and P. Liu, "Resource-seeking Foreign Direct Investment in African Agriculture: a review of country case
studies", FAO Commodity and Trade Policy Research Working Paper No. 31 FAO (September 2010); p 10 f
84 FAO BEFCI Policy Instruments to Promote Good Practices in Bioenergy 12, p 6
AETS Consortium – February 2013
58
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Tax incentives are tax credits which are used among others to foster social sustainability
objectives, such as the inclusion of smallholder farmers in biofuels supply chains. Under Brazil’s
Social Fuel Seal, for instance, biodiesel producers are granted tax credits, as well as
preferential access to credit, if they purchase a minimum share of feedstock from smallholder
farmers, which vary depending on the regions of origin. In order to be eligible for the tax
credit, biodiesel producers will also enter into legally binding agreements with smallholder
farmers setting specific income levels and guaranteeing technical assistance and training.
In Tanzania, the government provides an exemption of paying taxes for the first years so that
investors just have to pay taxes on wages and value-added taxes; the spent added value
taxes will be reimbursed around one year later. The main obstacle is the import tax (25%)
which is a burden for all kinds of investments85.
One exception could be on land tax. Land rent in Mozambique is assumed to be 22.05
$/ha/yr. Depending on the type of land (bare land, agricultural etc.) this price can vary. F for
example, agricultural land that is leased from the government only has a tax fee of around
0.5 $/ha/yr. (MZM 15/ha/yr.). Having the total investment volume in mind, this land tax is
negligible86.
Investors take advantage of tax havens and all other forms of financial incentives which are
often granted during the first years and most likely they will calculate the sales price of their
biofuels produced in developing countries in such a way as to ensure that no taxes will be
paid in developing countries.
4.5. Impacts on Land Tenure Systems
4.5.1 Land Tenure Systems and Governance Challenges
There is a general agreement among academics and international organisations of an
increasingly growing pressure on natural resources, especially land, due to projected
scarcities of food, water and energy as well as due to climate change related shocks. It is
within this context of increased land pressure and land degradation that we need to assess
the importance of land security in developing countries against competing interests,
including the production of biofuels on agricultural lands.
Land tenure is the way land is held or owned by individuals or groups. A number of individuals
can hold different tenure claims and rights to the same land. These claims may be formal,
informal, customary or religious and can include leasehold, freehold, user rights and private
ownership. The definition of land tenure rights mostly depends on national legislation and the
degree of recognition of customary or informal user rights which in turn are governed by
social conventions and multiple other factors. “Land tenure security is a degree of
confidence that land users will not be arbitrarily deprived of the bundle of rights they have
over particular lands. Tenure security is the reasonable guarantee of on-going duration of
land rights, supported by the certainty that one’s rights will be recognized by others and
protected by legal and social remedies when challenged” (Knight, 2010)87.
The core of the complexity of land tenure systems in developing countries, especially in
Africa, lies with existence of the so-called “legal pluralism” where customary tenure and
customary justice systems exist alongside formal state tenure and national justice systems. In
addition, the history of colonisation has put pressure on newly formed states to address
grievances regarding land concentration and/or the need for formal recognition of
customary land use. As a result, many developing countries in Latin America and Africa tried
to address land tenure problems through land reforms and a wave of new land legislation,
85 Correspondence with Mr. Herwig Tretter, Director of MOUNT MERU FLOWERS LTD, P.O.Box 285 Arusha, TANZANIA; 4th
January 2013
86 UNEP: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing Countries: A GEF
Targeted Research Project, 2012; p 43
87 See R. Knight, Statutory recognition of customary land rights in Africa. An investigation into best practices for
lawmaking and implementation FAO (2010) p. 3
AETS Consortium – February 2013
59
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
with varying degrees of success. While an analysis of land tenure reforms is beyond the scope
of this study, it is important to mention a growing trend towards statutory recognition of
customary land rights, especially in Africa but also in some countries of South-East Asia. As
Knight points out, it is critical to distinguish and understand that “customary” does not mean
“communal”. “Custom is the system under which land is held, and communal is the way in
which some of this land is used”88. “Customary domains are territories over which the
community possesses jurisdiction and often root title (...). Within the domain, a range of tenure
arrangements typically apply. These include estates owned by individuals or families, and
estates owned by special interest groups in the community (such as) ritual societies or
women’s groups”89.
The evolving concept of land tenure places a stronger focus on security of use rather than
outright ownership and a number of countries such as Indonesia, Benin, Ghana, Mali,
Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Uganda or Mexico, among others, have taken steps to
explicitly strengthen protection and recognition of customary rights in national legislation.
Most of the relevant laws further recognize that the community’s relationship with land also
extends to land based resources used in common, such as pastures, forests, and water. For
example, the Tanzanian 1999 Village Land Act establishes local land management structures
through certificates of village land which in turn allows the issuance of certificates of
customary rights of ownership to individual landholders within the village. Similarly, land
legislation in Mozambique (1995 Land Policy, 1997 Land Law and 1998 Regulations and
Technical Annexes) provide voluntary mechanisms for the registration of customary rights and
the issuance of land certificates (direito de uso e aproveitamento de terra, or DUATs) in the
name of the community (ODI, DIE, ECDPM 2012 and Deininger et al 2011). Nonetheless, the
implementation of these laws proves challenging as it is dependent on investment in the
creation of strong, transparent and participatory governance systems that record and
register such rights. In fact, in the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, the implementation of these
innovative yet often very complex laws is extremely slow and more often than not relies on
the need for technical assistance by NGO’s and donor financing90. Deininger points out in the
World Bank study “(...) more than decade after passage of the Tanzanian’s Land Acts, only
753, or 7 per cent of the country’s 10, 397 registered villages have received a certificate of
village land. Even where such certificates were issued pastoralist rights continue to be
neglected. In Mozambique, only some 12% of the 70 million ha estimated to be controlled by
communities have been mapped, almost all with technical assistance from NGOs and donor
financing.”
Cotula concludes in the study undertaken for FAO, IFAD and IIEE: “although on paper some
countries have progressive laws and procedures that seek to increase local voice and
benefit, big gaps between theory and practice, between statute books and reality on the
ground result in major costs being internalised by local people – but also in difficulties for
investor companies. (…) Many countries do not have in place legal or procedural
mechanisms to protect local rights and take account of local interests, livelihoods and
welfare”91.
Ibid. page 24.
Ibid. Knight citing Alden Willy on p. 24
90 For analysis of the challenges faced by Tanzania in implementation of its land law reform please see R.S. Pedersen
“Tanzania’s Land Law Reform: The Implementation Challenge.” DIIS Working Paper 2010:37. Pedersen argues that
“With few exceptions, implementation has been project-driven, largely controlled by donors and implanting
agencies. At the same time the responsible ministry retains some control through its know-how, which is shared with
other stakeholders in bits and pieces only. The paper concludes that more resources, more commitment and freer
flow
of
information
is
required
if
reform
objectives
are
to
be
achieved.”
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2010/WP2010-37.rhp.web.pdf. The challenges in implementation of the
new Land Law in Mozambique and Botswana are further discussed by Knight (FAO 2010). The work of International
Land Coalition and many NGOs in Sub Saharan Africa on implementation and raising of local awareness about
existing laws is further evidence to the key role played by non-governmental actors in offering technical assistance to
communities in order to be able to claim their rights. See for example, http://letstalklandtanzania.com and
www.landportal.info
91 See Cotula et al. “Land grab or development opportunity: Agricultural investment and land deals in Africa” FAO,
IFAD and IIED (July 2011): 7
88
89
AETS Consortium – February 2013
60
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The reality of either incomplete land law reforms, under-funded or under-staffed government
bodies responsible for land demarcation and registration as well as serious challenges faced
with record keeping, transparency and functioning of the justice systems is the background
against which many ACP countries after years of neglect of agricultural investment
throughout 1990s, have become a target of the new wave of land investments and the
phenomenon of large scale land acquisitions.
4.5.2 Large scale land acquisitions and land pressures
Last years have witnessed growing investor interest in land and agriculture, with pressure from
both foreign and domestic investors, although the two are often linked (HLPE FSN)92. The
dramatic rise of large scale land acquisitions (and resulting control of water resources) over
the past few years, due to the sheer scale of the phenomenon, has led to a production of
many authoritative papers by a range of international organisations such as the World Bank,
IMF, IFAD and FAO, as well as by the academic community and institutes (i.e. IIED,
International Land Coalition) and international non-governmental organisations (ActionAid,
FIAN, Oxfam, Oakland Institute). GRAIN has been one of the first non-governmental
organisations to begin regular tracking of the media reports around the world announcing
large-scale land acquisitions and resulting land conflicts or evictions93. There are differences
between authors in terms of approach, from those calling for an immediate moratorium to
“land grabs” in developing countries until appropriate governance systems are in place (civil
society and NGOs) to those seeking to channel the new interest in agricultural investment so
that it can assure developmental benefits (World Bank and FAO). This can be added to
academia which is seeking to have a clearer picture on the scale and type of contractual
deals involved; it should be noted that one commonly recognised problem exists: that of
transparency and reliable data availability. Even though much more data increasingly
emerges from wide ranging studies done by the World Bank94 and most recently by the Land
Matrix Project95, virtually all of such attempts at qualifying the types of large scale land
acquisitions begin with long introductory remarks on the remarkable difficulties in obtaining
reliable data from target country registries as well as from investors. In fact, the World Bank
and IMF as well as the Land Matrix utilize information from press articles which then they try to
cross-reference with other academic research material or country level data when available.
The Land Matrix Database seeks to systemise available data by qualifying it with “reliable”
and “reported” but states that information on the factual implementation status of
announced and verified contracts is often limited. The High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition (HLPE FSN) that has been asked by the Committee on World Food
Security in 2011 to produce a report on “Land tenure and international investments in
agriculture” also pointed out that “data is poor in part because of secrecy from both
investors and host governments over the scale of allocations and the terms on which land is
acquired96”. The authors of this paper during the field mission in Tanzania have also
encountered the same problem with regards to the access to updated information on the
operational status of large-scale biofuel ventures in the country. For example, by December
2012 the Tanzanian Investment Centre (TIC), a one stop foreign investment facilitation
institution, has had 10 registered biofuel companies. At the same time, officials at TIC have
not been able to give any information as to which of the companies are still operational
given that some of the listed companies were well known to have ceased their operations,
HLPE FSN “Land tenure and international investments in agriculture: A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on
Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security” HLPE CFS (July 2011).
93 See: http://farmlandgrab.org/ Deininger et al states that “GRAIN deserves credit for having recognized that,
without information, it will be impossible to either understand the phenomenon of land acquisitions of to take action
to improve outcomes. To provide such data, GRAIN launched an open blog for global surveillance of large scale
land acquisitions.”
94 See See: K. Deininger, D. Byerlee et al “Rising Global Interest in Farmland. Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable
Benefits?” The World Bank (2011), p. 15
95 The Land Matrix Partnership is made of ILC, CIRAD, The GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies and GIZ
(The Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit): http://landportal.info/landmatrix
96 Land tenure and international investments in agriculture: A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, HLPE CFS (July 2011)
92
AETS Consortium – February 2013
61
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
while at least one other sugar cane venture that was visited by the consultants, has not been
listed with TIC97.
In conclusion, the findings of the studies are still based on the limits of available data and may
not grasp the true scale of the global ‘land rush’ in developing countries or may be limited by
geographic considerations i.e. by not taking into consideration the extent of large-scale land
investment in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (ex-Soviet
Republics).
There is a general agreement that the current wave of interest in large-scale land leases and
purchases abroad picked up during the 2007-2008 commodity and food price crisis creating
renewed interest in agricultural lands by investors, including sovereign wealth and private
equity funds, agricultural producers and key players from the food and agri-business industry.
The studies undertaken for the IMF98, World Bank and the HLPE FSN report99 agree that
speculation has played (is playing) some role i.e. “since the financial crisis of 2007-8, caused
in large part by speculation in a range of financial instruments, there has been concern that
international investment in land has become just another strand in the portfolios of financial
institutions” (HLPE FSN 2011). Nonetheless, in part due to lack of transparent data, it is difficult
to say how much international investment in land can be classed as speculative. Even faced
with evidence that suggests that only 20 per cent of investments that have been announced
are actually being followed through with agricultural production on the ground (Deininger et
al. 2011), the HLPE FSN concludes that this can also be due to other reasons then speculation.
Reasons other than speculation include: “consultation of affected people may increase
project costs or delay implementation (Cotula 2011), absence of bilateral investment treaties
to secure investors assets and the right to repatriate profits (…), long delays on the part of the
state in transferring the land and releasing grant funding”, credit restrictions and failure to
carry out investments as detailed in the land contract, or long time lapse between land
acquisition and drafting or carrying out of the business plans among other factors (HLPE FSN
2011)100. Nonetheless, the data from the Land Matrix confirms that despite some evidence
that the global land rush has lost some of its initial pace, it is likely due to continue into long
term because of the trends that are driving it. “Among the main drivers, we find population
growth, growing consumption and market demand for food, biofuels, raw materials and
timber and carbon sequestration, all of which drive speculation on long-term price rises for
land and agricultural products”(Land Matrix)101.
The evidence from the studies carried out so far points out that most large-scale land
investment is taking place in countries with weak land tenure governance structures and that
the expansion of crops suitable for 1st generation biofuels is also a significant driver for such
large-scale land investments.
The study undertaken by Arzeki et al for the IMF is surprised by the extent to which weak land
governance has made countries more attractive for large scale land investors, contrary to
the expectation of secure land governance being a reasonable driver for long-term large
scale investment. “The effect of land governance is striking. Instead of land acquisition
projects being contingent on good land governance and the associated strong protection
of rights, we find that weak land governance makes a country more attractive for landrelated investment. Furthermore, the effect is quantitatively important: a one standard
deviation deterioration in land governance index (equivalent to the difference between
Angola and Brazil) would be predicted to increase the number of investment project by 33%
even with other factors held constant (such as land abundance which would be associated
with weaker land governance)” (Arzeki et al 2011)102. These findings are further validated by
the Land Matrix Project, the widest study so far performed on large scale land acquisitions.
See Annex 5 related to Tanzanian Field Visit
R. Arezki, K. Deiniger, H. Selod. “What drives the global land rush?” IMF Working Paper WP/11/251 (2011)
99 Ibid. HLPE CFS (July 2011)
100 Ibid.
101 “Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South: Analytical Report based on the Land Matrix
Database.” April 2012. http://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdf
102 R. Arezki, K. Deiniger, H. Selod. “What drives the global land rush?” IMF Working Paper WP/11/251 (2011)
97
98
AETS Consortium – February 2013
62
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Figure 14: Most targeted countries according to size of total reported acquisitions
Source: Land Matrix database
Figure 15: Key socio-economic and institutional indicators of target countries
Source: Land Matrix database
AETS Consortium – February 2013
63
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Figures 14 and 15 from the Land Matrix study demonstrate that despite many differences
between countries targeted for large-scale land investments, it is possible to identify some key
characteristics. Investors target poorest countries with least developed economies and
agricultural economies. 66% of the deals are attributed to countries with a high prevalence of
hunger. Data on governance suggests that investor protection is an important factor, while at
the same time, investors are targeting poorer countries with weak land tenure security.
“Investors are interested in countries
countries that combine a strong general institutional framework
that protects their investment and allows them to smoothly operate their business, with low
land tenure security that gives them easy and possibly cheap access to land”103. In addition,
it allows the Land Matrix to conclude that investors are targeting countries that are among
the poorest, are poorly integrated into the world economy and tend to have high incidences
of hunger. The emerging data from both the World Bank as well as from the Land Matrix,
points out that energy crops (or crops suitable for the development of 1st generation biofuels)
are a significant driver in the overall trend of large scale land acquisitions or “land grabs”. In
turn, this means that the development of 1st generation biofuel production has a great impact
on access to natural resources such as land and water and hence leads to an increase in
land concentration in a number of developing countries.
According to the World Bank analysis, with a median project size of 40,000 ha, a quarter of all
projects involve more than 200,000 ha and only a quarter involve less than 10,000 ha. Of the
405 projects with commodity data, 37 per cent focus on food crops, 21 per cent on industrial
or cash crops, and 21 per cent on biofuels, with the remainder distributed among
conservation and game reserves, livestock, and plantation forestry (See Figure 16). Out of
these projects, most have still not yet acquired land or fail to use the land they acquired as
intended although no clear pattern across commodities is evident for projects that have
started implementation. In sum however, “a larger share of food crops relative to industrial or
cash crops and a focus on investments for biofuels are evident in Sub-Saharan Africa and
Latin America and the Caribbean”104.
Figure 16: Share of Projects by Commodity and Production Status of Capital
Source: Deininger et al 2011105
“Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South: Analytical Report based on the Land Matrix
Database.” (April 2012):p.26 See: http://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdf
104 See Deininger et al 2011 p. 51-53
105 See Deininger et al 2011 p. 53
103
AETS Consortium – February 2013
64
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
These findings were further strengthened by the Land Matrix project, which records
transactions that entail a transfer of rights to use, control or own land though sale, lease or
concession that cover 200 hectares (ha) or larger and that have been concluded since the
year 2000. The Land Matrix contains reports of 1217 agricultural land deals, amounting to 83.2
million ha of land in developing countries. Land Matrix admits that while it is difficult to
determine precisely the final use of crops grown as part of large scale land acquisitions, or
whether they will be for food or biofuels, the growth of investors’ interest in “flex crops” and
crops destined for “multiple uses” in terms of area covered in hectares points out that the
potential of using crops for biofuel production is an important consideration in investment
strategies. The Land Matrix uses four categories of production: food crops, non-food crops,
flex crops and multiple uses. “Food crops are crops that do not have a likely non-food usage,
while “non-food crops” do not have a likely food use. “Flex crops” are those that are
commonly used as both food and for biofuel production. The main ones are soybean,
sugarcane and oil palm. Depending on different factors (world price, opportunity of
commercialisation) the investor can choose whether to sell the product on the food or on the
biofuel market”106. Figure 17, from the Land Matrix Database, shows the relative importance
of the different types of production in terms of their shares of the number of deals as well as
the total surface area affected.
Figure 17: Large Scale Land Acquisitions by Category of Production
Source: Land Matrix Database
While the Land Matrix advocates caution with regards to the interpretation of the results, the
study concludes that “the fact that large-scale land acquisitions for flex crop production
account for a larger surface than the other types of production indicates the important role
played by these crops, as well as a research bias towards flex crops in general and biofuel
production in particular. The importance of non-food crops (i.e. Jatropha) shows that the
development of particular market, such as biofuels and other traditional “high value crops”
(i.e. rubber) attracts investors“107.
“Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South: Analytical Report based on the Land Matrix
Database.” (April 2012):p.27 See: http://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdf
107
Ibid. page 28
106
AETS Consortium – February 2013
65
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Figure 18: Large scale land acquisitions by category of production,
production, number of projects and
size
Source: Land Matrix Database
The data on importance of flex crops is further evidenced by the study done by the Centre
for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) on development trends and investment patterns in
the production of biofuels in a range of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. CFIOR’s data points out that crops used for production of biofuels now cover
extensive areas worldwide, ranging from an estimated 1 million ha for Jatropha (a new crop,
some 40% of it in India) to much
much larger surface areas for oil palm (15 million ha, with 86% of
production from Indonesia and Malaysia), soybean (97 million ha worldwide, with Brazil as
leading producer accounting for 26% of production), and sugar cane (24 million ha in all, with
32% of output from Brazil) (Van Gelder et al., 2011)108. This is further compounded by the Land
Matrix study breakdown of deals for non-food crops, confirming that Jatropha is an important
driver for large-scale land acquisitions in the world. A large majority of the “non-food”
projects (73 %) are exclusively dedicated to Jatropha production with most of them located
in Africa, particularly in East African countries (Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania). Private
companies registered in United Kingdom and the Netherlands
Netherlands were among major actors
involved in Jatropha production in Africa109.
Recent data began to emerge by the end of 2012 regarding the failure of large-scale
land investments aimed for the production of Jatropha, as evidenced in Tanzania. While the
production of Jatropha for export markets has not taken shape, consolidation and
concentration of land (and water rights) has already occurred through a plantation model in
a few cases (i.e. EU-based companies such as Sun Biofuels, Bioshape, Prokon) and
information on the future use of the land under these projects is not yet available though
most likely it will be sold off to new investors through the
the Tanzanian Investment Centre. It is
possible to induce that given the role of the EU companies in these deals, the promise of the
exports for the EU markets has been among the key drivers for investment in large-scale
Jatropha plantations, although this type of investment has been highly speculative in nature
and often lacked proper agronomic, financial feasibility or thorough
thorough environmental and
social impact assessment studies and monitoring110.
108 Van Gelder et al. 2011 as cited in Van Vlerken et al. 2012 background
background study for European Report for Development
2012 “Investors in Land: Perspectives on Investors engaged in Transnational Land Acquisitions in Developing
Countries.” See: http://erd-report.eu/erd/report_2011/documents/dev-11-001-11researchpapers_vlerken-walwesten.pdf
109 See Page 30 in http://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdf
110 See annex 5 related to Tanzanian Field Visit
AETS Consortium – February 2013
66
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
4.6
Energy access and supply security
Typologies of bioenergy feedstock production operations
Depending on the driver for feedstock production and the scale of production, four distinct
production typologies can be identified in ACP countries.
Figure 19: Typologies of biofuel projects in ACP countries
Project scale
To fulfi ll national
Local use at
mandates or fore xport village/farm level
Market/primary end users
1-10 ha
100-1000 ha
Type 1
Type 2
Small-scale biofuel
projects for rural
electrification
Commercial farmers
producing biofuel for
own consumption
Type 3
Type 4
Outgrower schemes for
commercial plantations
Large-scale
commercial
plantations
Source: adapted from UNU-IAS 201
Type 2 and 4 are typical of large-scale plantations of several hundreds of hectares (100s–
1,000s ha), typically owned by foreign corporations or funded through foreign direct
investments. The energy crops are used either for own fuel consumption or for commercial
purposes. Owners of large plantations buy or rent large areas exclusively for feedstock
production for several years, which can change or displace previous land uses.
In Africa, the experience of large-scale plantations intended for export is noted for example
in Mozambique (Ecomoz, ESV, Sun Biofuels, D1 Oils), Zambia (D1 Oils), Tanzania (D1 Oils, Sun
Biofuels), Madagascar (GEM Biofuel Plantations) and other parts of Africa (UNU-IAS 2012).
Type 1 and 3 projects are normally owned by smallholders and their size can vary from a few
hectares to tens of hectares. The produce is consumed locally (small-scale energy access
projects) or sold to the market as a cash crop. These projects are normally promoted by
environmental NGOs and financed through development and multilateral agencies as a way
to foster rural development. They are aimed at improving local livelihoods deriving from the
local production and consumption of renewable energy carriers that can either allow
mechanisation (allocating productive time to more rewarding activities) or in enhanced local
incomes. In relation to this, it should be considered that agriculture in ACP countries and SubSaharan Africa in particular is dominated by smallholder farmers, i.e. possessing 2 hectares or
less, who represent 80% of all farms and produce up to 90% of the total agricultural output
(IFAD 2011).
Examples in ACP countries include rural electrification projects in Mali, Mozambique and
Uganda using straight vegetable oil (SVO) or the production of transport biodiesel from
sunflower in South Africa (FAO, 2009) or FACT Foundation project in Mozambique that offered
AETS Consortium – February 2013
67
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
assistance to farmers to grow Jatropha in hedgerows for soap-making and pure plant oil
which could be used for local power generation (de Jongh and Nielsen, 2011; UNU-IAS 2012).
Type 3 projects entail feedstock production for commercial purposes using out-grower
schemes. These projects include the examples of Addax in Sierra Leone and Marli
Investment’s Jatropha plantations in Zambia. The latter contracted farmers to allocate to half
of their 10 ha landholdings to Jatropha. Marli provided initial inputs and was supposed to
provide finance until the Jatropha plants started seeding. In return, the farmers were
contracted to grow Jatropha and harvest the seeds, which they were then contractually
obliged to sell to Marli (UNU-IAS 2012). A similar approach has been successfully adopted by
Mali Biocarburants in Mali, with the support of IFAD111.
It is fundamental to distinguish between the different roles of biofuels and bioenergy at large
in the broad market system in order to establish the impact on livelihoods, including on
access to energy. The FAO, for example, distinguished the role of bioenergy as follows
(adapted from FAO 2009):
•
•
•
Bioenergy as the main output of the chain – This is the case for biofuels initiatives
established to serve household cooking, mobility and electrical applications. Energy
demand is relatively constant in that people cannot do without energy and must find
it somewhere to serve their basic needs. In this respect it forms a stable demand with
growth potential in response to better, cheaper and more convenient sources, while
in some markets the environmental impact of the fuel is also a relevant criterion;
Bioenergy as a productive input to another chain – In this case the bioenergy chain is
reliant for its end market on the other productive chain and the bioenergy market
chain is governed by the requirements and success of that chain;
Bioenergy as a by-product of another chain - In these cases the likely extent of the
bioenergy market chain is also limited by the size of the main market chain which
governs the amount of residue by-products available.
All these roles can involve small and large scale biofuel projects as well as modern bioenergy
used as energy end-use in rural communities making a direct contribution to rural energy
access and livelihoods. Improved access to modern energy is a pre-requisite for sustainable
development (Practical Action 2012) as it allows new business and therefore the creation of
new jobs and incomes.
Biofuel effects on energy security and access
The impact of biofuel production and use on energy security can be manifested on different
scales (e.g. household, community or national level)112. The majority of large-scale and
several smallholder-centred biofuel projects in ACP are aimed at meeting national or
international blending targets (Types 3 and 4). In this way, little fuel benefits are returned to
the local communities where the feedstock is grown.
The idea of biofuels as a means to increasing the national energy security of ACP countries is
limited, as most foreign investors generally target biofuel (or biofuel feedstock) production for
export while the domestic market usually remains only a secondary target. In some countries
this is because biofuel hardly competes with locally available fossil fuel sources, which are
sometimes cheaper than in Western countries and are less subjected to heavy taxation and
quality requirements in comparison with the EU. Sometimes fossil fuels are heavily subsidised,
hampering the development of other energy sources. In other countries, biofuels can be
Mali Biocarburants is also the first biodiesel company in Africa, which works sustainably with more than 8,000
smallholders who also hold company shares and which was mentioned as a positive example by the UN Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, at the UN General Assembly despite his traditional negative
stance on biofuels (Mali Biocarburants S.A. 2012)
112
It is still unclear how to define energy access at the household and community level. A group of international
organizations (including UNIDO, FAO, UNDP, led by Practical Action) recently developed the Total Energy Access
Index (see Practical Action 2012, now being refined for community level in the 2013 forthcoming edition) as a
practical way to measure access at the household, business and community level.
111
AETS Consortium – February 2013
68
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
competitive in certain areas, however the inability to develop the market and the lack of
technological and financial capacities doesn’t allow their development.
Brazil is one of the few countries where biofuel use (sugarcane ethanol) has significantly
boosted national energy security113. The Brazilian blending mandate is the highest in the
world, but its fulfilment has also been possible thanks to the parallel development of an
industry for ethanol utilization, such as flex-fuel cars. This has in turn increased the share of
renewable energy produced by bagasse (a by-product of sugarcane ethanol production)
used as heat and power in sugar mills and fed into the national electricity grid. As for biofuels
as a way to improve EU’s energy security, it is still uncertain whether, and to what extent, the
EU's energy independence might be improved by its biofuel policies, particularly when
reliance on imported feedstocks is taken into account (Blanco et al. 2010).
ACP countries are very well endowed in terms of natural resources and sun irradiation to
replicate the Brazilian experience but, at present, only Mauritius island (around 1/5 of total
electricity is generated from bagasse) and Malawi have been significantly exploiting the
potential of sugarcane for electricity generation. In Mauritius, however, sugarcane is
becoming less attractive as wages for sugarcane workers must be very low (in comparison
with the tourism and service sectors) in order to make sugarcane bioenergy competitive for
local use or for export to international markets.
For local consumption, in order for vegetable oils to be competitive with crude oil, the price
of oilseeds, and therefore of the labour, must be low. This however translates into low prices
received by farmers for their products. This is a constraint for the viability of biofuels as a way
to increase national energy security of ACP countries. Exceptions exist such as in the landlocked Zambia where biofuel has proved to be more competitive in rural areas (UNU-IAS
2012).
At the same time, biofuel projects can contribute significantly to local and household energy
security in remote areas. Small-scale biofuel projects (Type 1) in particular can bring an
important benefit in this context where traditional energy sources are particularly costly, not
only in terms of market price but also in terms of amount of time needed for collecting energy
source. Time saved here is another opportunity cost. These projects can encompass the use
of biofuel or SVO for generating electricity or be used in multi-platform applications such as
electricity generators, mills and water pumps. The viability of Jatropha SVO for electrification
has been debated in several forums and it is now a common understanding, as also
confirmed by Bouffaron et al. 2011, that these projects have a high degree of sensitivity to
several parameters, especially seed yields, oil prices, geographical locations and labour
costs, that usually put Jatropha SVO-based electrification projects on the threshold of
economic competitiveness. Small-scale biofuel projects are seen as more suitable and
compatible with sub-Saharan Africa context because they are able to provide more
opportunities for local farmers (CIFOR 2011). Examples of this application can be found in Mali
(Folkecentre project) and Tanzania (TaTEDO)114. It is well recognized that access to modern
energy services can have important benefits on development (Practical Action, 2012) and
contribute to the achievement of the MDGs. Many investments in the sector come also from
European companies, such as Novozymes, working with CleanStar Mozambique, developing
a sustainable biofuel supply chain that would also increase local energy access through
electricity co-generation and clean fuels for stoves, or Scania, who is working on the
introduction of ethanol-powered buses in South Africa.
Mapping the biofuels market
Linking small-scale producers from developing countries into more formal markets to sell their
goods can be difficult115 (IIED 2012). The same is true for enabling low-income consumers to
17% of total final energy consumption was met by sugarcane ethanol or bagasse in 2009 (Source: National Energy
Balance 2009 – EPE). This was a result of blending mandates (E18-25) and long lasting government support
114 See Project N. 195 985: Up scaling access to modern energy (Tanzania) in the report “Evaluation of EC funded
Biofuel Projects in ACP Countries”, EC, forthcoming
115 IIED 2012 Sustainable energy for all? Linking poor communities to modern energy services
113
AETS Consortium – February 2013
69
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
buy innovative sustainable goods and services, such as biofuels or biofuel-based household
appliances. Small-scale bioenergy projects, even those with a commercial orientation
towards a wider market in the longer run, focus on providing improved energy services in the
producer regions. FAO mapped the market and analysed livelihood benefits that flow from
the use of the improved energy within the local communities in 15 case studies in developing
countries. The study highlighted livelihood benefits through improved energy services in
households, communal spaces, public buildings, services and enterprises concluding that
direct uses contribute to an improved quality of life and are important for building human
and social capital. This is particularly evident when enterprises for productive uses have the
added benefit of developing new financial capital within communities which supports ability
to pay tariffs for the energy services which in turn support the viability of the small-scale
bioenergy initiatives (FAO 2009). In this way, virtuous circles of development are shown to
develop within communities enabling access to the energy services needed for
development without money flowing out of the community for fossil fuels (or impoverishing
local natural resources). The cases covered focused on local markets first, which appeared
more stable in general and less open to distortion by foreign governments and firms. A
strategy oriented at the development of small-scale bioenergy production with a local
energy access component appeared to develop more cyclic and evenly distributed benefits
to livelihoods than projects with export orientation116.
However, a removal of subsidies on kerosene in Ethiopia drove an increase in unimproved
fuelwood use in the country (FAO 2009). In general, bioenergy investments driven by energy
security drivers have fallen by the wayside when fossil fuel prices dropped, with the notable
exception in Brazil which persevered in bioethanol development with government’s support.
Biofuels effects beyond national energy security
Small-scale bioenergy projects seem to have wider benefits in the form of human, social,
natural and physical capital gains, which are not seen by communities or priced in fossil fuels.
In this respect a strong argument is made in several initiatives for partial insulation of the
market chain and this has been done at local level through co-operatives, social structures or
local by-laws. This has especially been the case in emerging technology sectors to enable
community biofuel projects protected from the relatively unstable fossil fuels markets (in any
case only partially accessible in poor rural communities) (FAO 2009).
Successful rural electrification bioenergy projects in ACP countries include KAKUTE in Tanzania
and MFC Mali Garalo. In addition, in Tanzania, TaTEDO works with village smallholder farmers
to produce transport biofuels and is implementing electrification projects using SVO as energy
source with an approach similar to the MFC Mali project (E. N. Sawe - TaTEDO, presentation
at Biofuels Conference, Dar Es Salaam, September 2008).
The use of liquid biofuels is more easily justified in economic terms for (off-grid) electricity
generation or for mechanical power, rather than for space heating and cooking at the
household level. For these latter applications less valuable fuels may be preferred (e.g.
charcoal or sustainable firewood). Biofuels could also be used directly for lighting, and in this
case ethanol fuel is preferable to vegetable oil as it is cleaner and less viscous.
Ethanol cooking stoves also hold the promise of providing clean fuel to improving modern
energy services in developing countries in certain areas with scarce resources or endangered
natural ecosystems. Examples exist in Malawi (Millennium Gelfuel Initiative) and in Ethiopia
(Project Gaia) but the cheaper price of fossil kerosene made this solution unattractive for
local population (Dioha et al. 2012)117. Cultural habits and lack of proper communication
116 Market mapping for bioenergy was also addressed by Practical Action in the context of its work on agricultural
market chains, showing market actors (implementers, including supply chain partners and contractors), the enabling
environment (including socio-cultural factors) and the supporting services. This approach proved effective in the
analysis of bioenergy markets in the context of the PISCES energy access programme, and has been adapted for
broader analysis of energy delivery models in the book Delivering Energy for Development (Bellanca et al.,
forthcoming) (IIED, 2012)
117 In general an energy end use is a very reliable demand and the only instance in which a consumer will switch is if
another source i) becomes available at a competitive price, and ii) is considered as good value in terms of utility for
AETS Consortium – February 2013
70
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
contributed to the failure of the use of ethanol gel for cooking. In Mozambique, the CleanStar
launched a project a year ago to introduce a new cooking model for households in the
country to substitute charcoal for cooking (which produces smoke that carries major risks for
human health) with ethanol. The company has designed a low-cost ethanol stove. The
ethanol is produced from cassava grown by out-grower farmers. Over the last year, they
have sold 3000 stoves and plan to sell thousands more in 2013. This project seems to be
successful so far but it is still at an early stage118.
By-products of biofuel production, oil extraction or other farming activities119 can also be used
for additional electricity generation, using the biogas resulting from their fermentation.
However, several examples of unsuccessful bioenergy projects to increase energy access
can be found in the literature. GIZ reports for example a plan for 25 rural communities to
produce Jatropha on 250 ha that as of 2011 did not manage to generate any electricity and
a similar destiny was reserved for the GIZ ‘Sustainable Biomass Electrification’ project aimed
at providing electricity to 3000 people by using locally produced vegetable oils (GIZ, 2011).
The establishing of a reliable supply chain for the biofuel feedstock able to ensure the quality
of the biofuel over a long time are usually the main impediments for successful energy access
projects.
Electricity generation from bagasse is a viable option to improve national energy security in
southern African countries. It has been estimated that, depending on conversion
technologies, the potential for electricity generation in the region from bagasse burning can
be as high as 600 GWh. This suggests an excellent potential to expand bagasse cogeneration
plants, particularly in South Africa, Mauritius, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe (UNU-IAS 2012).
The production of liquid biofuels has the potential to improve income for producers and netsellers of agricultural commodities. However, these tend to be larger and richer producers
and price risks from such production often fall on the most vulnerable consumers.
Production to date has been heavily dependent on policy intervention and care must be
taken to coordinate energy and food security objectives. While caution should be exercised
in using food products for the production of energy, the use of some agricultural outputs, such
as crop residues, forestry residues, biogas, woody biomass and dedicated energy crops in a
multi-cropping system broaden the options for producers to stabilise farm income. The
production of renewable energy may also help mitigate the negative effects of volatility in
fossil fuel markets.
the extra money. There is a continuum between the most basic wood energy burnt in a three stone fire to the most
flexible, clean to use and convenient source of energy i.e. electricity, at the top. Barriers to switching to steps up the
ladder, such as charcoal, biogas or liquid biofuels, usually involve also important capital costs for appliances that
should be carefully considered
118 It must be mentioned that this project is a 20 million dollar investment, heavily relying on communication and
stakeholder involvement. It is backed by major investors such as the Soros Fund, the Danish Industrialization Fund for
Developing Countries and Novozymes
119 A farmer can take innovative approaches to energy production and distribution for example by turning pig
manure into biofuel. An example from Cuba of a farmer putting biogas resulting from pig manure fermentation into
recycled bags and sharing it with his neighbours is available at http://www.trust.org/alertnet/multimedia/video-andaudio/detail.dot?mediaInode=09e64c1b-5397-4cc9-a9a0-d624d32d599c
AETS Consortium – February 2013
71
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Section 5: Environmental impacts of the production of
biofuels in developing countries
For developing countries, the development of bioenergy presents both opportunities and
challenges for economic development and the environment. Like any crop and plantation,
the environmental impacts of planting feedstock for biofuels will depend on the bioclimatic
conditions of the site used, on the biofuel crop characteristics and the agriculture practices
applied, including socio-economic factors, the scale of production and the previous use of
the land.
It is recognised by all agronomists that fundamental rules (such as equilibrium and positive
synergies between soil - plant – air) must be respected to get a sustainable model generating
positive benefits from an economic, social and environmental point of views. Some of the
environmental issues associated with crop production for biofuels have already been
observed for other commercial agricultural production systems. They are indistinguishable
from those of increased agricultural production in general. Therefore, it is necessary to
guarantee a transition from food and agriculture systems that deplete natural resources (soil,
water, land, air) to sustainable practices that reduce the direct and indirect use of fossil
120
energy and pollution . During the field study in Tanzania, it appeared very clearly that
impacts on land and water are associated with unsustainable intensive cultivation of largescale feedstocks for biofuels, as well as in high intensive farming systems.
Environmental impacts are part of the impact assessment guidelines used by the European
121
Commission (EC) to prepare policy proposals . Inter alia, items to be analysed include
biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes; water quality and resources; soil quality and
resources and land use. These criteria are reviewed regarding the impacts of biofuels on
developing countries.
5.1
Land degradation, desertification and fertility
5.1.1 Biofuels and land degradation
In 2004, an estimated 14 million hectares worldwide were being used to produce biofuels.
Most first-generation feedstocks (maize, sugarcane, rapeseed and palm oil) cannot be
distinguished by end-use at the crop production stage. Evidence remains limited on the
impacts specifically associated with intensified biofuel production. Most of the problems are
similar to those already associated with agriculture production for food122. The necessary
agricultural growth is directly threatened by the depletion of the resources that have
sustained it. Soil is one of the fundamental resources. Physical (loss of land, loss of soil
structure) and chemical erosion (loss of fertility) represent key concerns. Land degradation is
defined as the diminution of the productive potential of the land, its farming system and its
economic value123. Researchers from IFPRI124 mention that land degradation and
desertification were often used interchangeably, whereas desertification refers to land
degradation in arid and semiarid zones.
Price volatility and food security, Committee on World Food Security High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security
and Nutrition, 2011
121 Impact assessment guidelines, European Commission, 2009
122 The State of Food and Agriculture, Biofuels : prospects, risks and opportunities, FAO, 2008
123 FAO, 2002
124 The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought, IFPRI, 2011
120
AETS Consortium – February 2013
72
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Box 12: Land degradation
Recognised causes of land degradation include overgrazing of rangelands, over-cultivation
of crop lands, mechanical tillage, waterlogging and salinization of irrigated agricultural land,
deforestation, pollution and industrial causes.
The main crops currently used as feedstock in liquid biofuel production require high quality
agricultural land and major inputs in terms of fertilisers, pesticides and water to generate
economically viable yields. The adverse impacts of bioenergy crops on soils depend critically
on farming techniques used. Soil cover is a key for soil conservation. For example, wheat,
rapeseed and corn require significant tillage which could increase the erosion because of
the loss of soil cover. Inappropriate cultivation practices can reduce soil organic matter and
increase soil erosion by removing permanent soil cover. Any form of mechanical tillage
causes the loss of soil structure and soil organic matter, leads to soil compaction, decrease in
infiltration and drainage, loss of soil biodiversity and soil health125. The removal of plant
residues can reduce soil nutrient. Intensive production systems using a high level of
agrochemicals inputs must be carefully assessed from a sustainability point of view. Largescale biomass production can cause soil compaction of heavy equipment is used for
harvesting. Intensive production of energy crop, such as short-rotation coppice, energy grass
and intensive production of feedstock requires use of agrochemical inputs on a regular basis
to reach the expected yields.
Box 13: Oil palm cultivation
For example, oil palm, traditionally used in a sustainable way in Africa for centuries, can
cause huge negative impacts when planted in monoculture. Several scientific works
corroborate the main findings: the development of oil palm with linkages to biofuel in
Indonesia has caused deforestation, removed the original land cover and eroded soil,
particularly in riparian areas where increased water flows during raining season caused
abrasion. Other negative impacts mentioned air and water pollution as well as flooding126.
The energetic use of wastes and agricultural residues has been considered to provide double
benefit of waste management and energy provision. Second-generation of biofuels, when
technologies become available, may make use of residues. The positive point is that no
direct additional land-use would be required. But it is uncertain what fraction of residues
could be sustainably removed from forests and fields. Agricultural and forest residues provide
protection again erosion, contribute to soil biodiversity and maintain soil carbon content.
They contain nutrients and contribute to the soil fertility. Using these residues for bioenergy
production will require an adequate management of the soil fertility and its physical quality.
Potential solutions
Good environmental practices can improve the efficiency and sustainability for bioenergy
production, minimizing the impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. The FAO’s Bioenergy and
Food Security Criteria and Indicator (BEFSCI) Project has compiled these recognised practices
into three groups: agricultural management approaches, integrated sustainable agricultural
and forestry management systems and field-level agricultural and forestry practices127. The
document describes the key features of each practice and the potential benefits for
example regarding soil quality, water availability, biodiversity and climate change mitigation.
Good Environmental Practices in Bioenergy Feedstock Production, FAO, 2012
See for example Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for biofuel
production in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 17(1):25, 2012
127 ibid., FAO, 2012
125
126
AETS Consortium – February 2013
73
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Examples of implementation in bioenergy feedstock production coming from different
regions of the world are provided.
Box 14: Good environmental practices in bioenergy feedstock production
The main sustainable agricultural management approaches include conservation agriculture,
ecosystem approach and organic agriculture. Sustainable integrated management systems
refer to agroforestry, integrated food-energy systems (IFES) and multiple cropping systems.
The sustainable field-level practices are specific to agriculture (such as alternative to slashand burn, integrated pest management – IPM or integrated plant nutrient management IPNM) and to forestry (community-based forest management, forest buffer zone, and
sustainable forest harvest).
Considering woody biomass for energy, a potential benefit can be the prevention from soil
erosion due to afforestation, the physical soil stabilisation by their roots and leaf litter, the
reduction of water runoff and sediment loss. Trees and bioenergy crops can help fixing
nitrogen improving soil organic matter, soil structure as well as water and nutrient-holding
capacity. Planted as shelterbelts and in agroforestry systems, they can reduce also wind
erosion. The adequate management system must be by rotational harvesting, as clearcutting will produce a large increase in water erosion, especially on mountainous slopes128.
Jatropha, like other bioenergy crops (willow or grasses), has the potential to grow in marginal
land with little rainfall requirements and can help revive certain areas. However, it is important
to distinguish between plantation for land rehabilitation (long-term dimension) and an
objective for production: when Jatropha is able to cover marginal land does not mean that
the production will be high enough for biofuel production. Experiences from Tanzania are a
good example where investors will seek to grow Jatropha on fertile land, applying irrigation129.
Sustainability frameworks
Due to the rapid growth of biofuel production and consumption, many actors (governments,
multilateral institutions, industry groups, NGOs) have created sustainability frameworks. With
the exception of the EU RED, these frameworks are voluntary certification schemes in which
certified operators agree to a set of principles and guidelines, or frameworks to guide and
inform policy-making about sustainable bioenergy development (e.g. the GBEP set of
indicators). A comparative study undertaken by CIFOR130 illustrates the advantages and
shows the limits to the application of these frameworks. They all mention criteria regarding soil
management and soil protection. The report advocates a common definition of criteria and
indicators, regarding land degradation, they include: reduced use of agrochemicals;
maintenance of soil quality and fertility; sustainable resource use (land use efficiency,
secondary resource use efficiency); soil quality (avoidance of erosion, maintenance of soil
organic carbon). Based on this common set, standards would remain flexible depending on
the geographical situation, the crops used and the local bioclimatic conditions. Some
authors argue that as the impacts of land expansion for fuel and food crops are virtually
indistinguishable from each other, equal or uniform standards should be applied for all
agricultural commodities traded internationally.
Impact of EU bioenergy policy on developing countries, European Parliament, 2011
Implication of biofuels production on food security in Tanzania, ActionAid Tanzania, 2010
130 A review on environmental issues in the context of biofuel sustainability frameworks, CIFOR, 2011; the frameworks
analysed are the European Union Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED), Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB),
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Round Table on Responsible Soy Association (RTRS), Better Sugarcane
Initiative (BSI) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
128
129
AETS Consortium – February 2013
74
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
5.1.2 Impact of monoculture plantations
Large biofuel plantations are grown usually under monoculture cropping systems. Over time,
continuous intensive monoculture cropping systems may lead to pest and pathogen buildup, declining soil fertility, loss of biodiversity and ultimately, land and natural resource
degradation.
Before the introduction of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, farmers used to maintain
nitrogen supply in the soil for crop uptake by cultivating nitrogen fixing crops and pests were
often controlled biologically by changing or diversifying the crops cultivated on the farm. This
was generally achieved through the application of multiple cropping systems and crop
rotation (FAO 2012).
Soil is fundamental to crop production and without soil, no food could be produced on a
large scale, nor would livestock be fed. As it is finite and fragile, it is important to maintain soil
quality through good farming practices (see section 3.1.2) for example ensuring that
biological diversity in the landscape is maintained or improved. Many soil and crop
management systems used for large-scale bioenergy feedstock plantations are
unsustainable131.
A number of farming practices aim at limiting the damages of monoculture. These include:
Multiple cropping, Sequential cropping, Intercropping and Crop rotation. A full discussion
about the benefits and drawbacks of each of these practices applicable to bioenergy
feedstock production can be found in (FAO 2012).
In general, monoculture cropping puts more pressure on soil as each crop has its specific
nutritional needs and extended cultivation on the same plot of land may lead to depletion of
nutrients from the soil, leading to reduction in yields in the medium term, which then needs to
be integrated by (chemical) fertilisers. This is a catch-22 situation. Rotating and diversifying
energy crops on the other hand would give the soil time to recover, especially if nitrogenfixing plants are used.
In biofuel projects, the potential for the reduction in natural capital is in general greater as
with any agricultural activity; however, the small-scale biofuel cases addressed in FAO 2009
did not highlight that this was taking place and that instead, benefits of natural resource
management were not achieved. In the case of Kenya Afforestation for example, the energy
crop growth served to increase forest cover by 200 hectares while trees are leguminous fixing
nitrogen and improving soils compared with when the areas were bare or covered by
thickets. In this case, as well as in Jatropha cases, using indigenous trees served to avoid
upsetting ecological imbalances while the micro-climate is improved by forests and a new
carbon sink is created.
If crop selections are suited to marginal non-forested lands and are used on these or
intercropped with other food crops to avoid conflict with existing natural capital or food
production, no relevant negative impacts are registered.
Additionally organic fertilisers produced as by-products of oilseed pressing can be
reintroduced to the soil which increases fertility and soil health (and also reduces polluting
run-off into rivers).
Alternating energy crops, such as maize, wheat, barley and millet also conserves soil due to
their different root systems, which extract nutrients at different layers in the soil.
Crop rotation and diversification increases aggregate soil stability, thus reducing the
tendency of the soil to crust, improving soil pores but also the rate of water infiltration,
increasing water and nutrient availability for plant uptake.
An interesting case study is summarized in FAO, 2008, “From subsistence farming to sugar-cane monoculture:
impacts on agrobiodiversity, local knowledge and food security”, describing the changes prompted by the “Komati
Downstream Development Project” in local farming systems (e.g. their reduced diversity) and assessing their socioeconomic impacts on rural livelihoods, with particular emphasis on food security and the loss of local knowledge
131
AETS Consortium – February 2013
75
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
5.1.3
Clearance of forest and use of new land for biofuels production
132
Investigators from CIFOR make clear that the relationship between biofuel production and
deforestation is very complex and difficult to quantify: no global deforestation data and
global biofuel feedstock plantation data are available of sufficient resolution. Estimates can
be made for particular areas, based on case studies.
Box 15: Some case studies on biofuels and deforestation
Biodiesel from oil palm may have been responsible for up to 2.8% and 6.5% of direct
deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Biodiesel from soybean in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso may have been responsible for
up to 5.9% of the direct annual deforestation over the last few years.
The direct deforestation resulting from sugar-based ethanol in Brazil and Colombia appears to
be negligible.
The impacts of biofuels on deforestation depend on the particular feedstock used. In Latin
America, sugarcane is generally expanding on lands cleared for agriculture a long time ago
and is unlikely to cause direct deforestation; it may nevertheless cause indirect land use
change by displacing crops or livestock into forests or grasslands. This can create potential
133
conflict over land use as a result of feedstock production . Soya is in general a pioneer crop,
frequently produced on the agricultural frontier in forestlands, cleared for this purpose or in
areas cleared for pasture and beef production. In Malaysia and Indonesia, oil palm
plantations are often found in rainforest areas specially cleared for this purpose, or in areas
that had been cleared earlier for rubber or coconut production. It seems that oil palm’s
expansion is driven by global demand for edible oil more than by biofuels. Elsewhere in the
world, increases in agricultural production were achieved through the intensification of land
use and fertiliser applications. In Sub-Saharan Africa, its production increased not by
increasing yields per hectare, but mainly by expanding the areas under cultivation at the
134
expense of forests and grasslands . In sub-Saharan Africa, dry secondary forests have often
been affected by the establishment of Jatropha’s ; expansion plans for Jatropha plantations
are very important and a significant portion of the land acquired for that purpose are
located within or surrounding closed forests.
Industrial-scale business models are directly associated with deforestation. Even if the
proportion of deforestation attributable to biofuels sector may be less for oil palm and
soybean because the multipurpose natures of these crops, all data coincide to indicate that
biofuel feedstock expansion at the expense of forests ranged from 13 to 99%, the highest
rates are observed for oil palm in Indonesia. Direct and indirect land-use changes are also
observed under smallholder feedstock cultivation, caused by the displacement of permanent
cropland, fallow and mature forest. It is the cases assessed by CIFOR for Jatropha plantation
135
in Zambia and in Ghana .
A global analysis of deforestation due to biofuel development, CIFOR, 2011
Bioenergy development, Issues and impacts on poverty and natural resource management, World Bank, 2010
134 Sustainable bioenergy development in UEMOA Member-Countries, 2008
135 Local social and environmental impacts of biofuels: global comparative assessment and implications for
governance. Ecology and Society 16(4): 29, 2011
132
133
AETS Consortium – February 2013
76
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
5.1.4
Using degraded land for biofuels production
Growing any crop on marginal land with lower levels of water and nutrient inputs will result in
lower yields. Jatropha and sweet sorghum are no exception. High Jatropha yields necessary
for competitive transport fuel production require favourable growing conditions for
plantation, including sufficient nutrient and water availability. Another scheme could be a
small-scale biofuel on degraded land, as experimented in Mali where 1000 ha Jatropha
planted provide oil for a local power plant. In Senegal, ISRA recommends intercropping with
136
4 meters distance and the association with Jatropha is possible only the first 2 years .
Another option that is gaining ground recently is the possibility of producing biofuels from
contaminated land that cannot be used for other purposes. For example it is possible to use
radioactive land to produce biodiesel.
Even if the so called “marginal” lands cannot support marketable production of crops, they
may supply, in particular for poorer households, food, feed, medical plants, building material,
or fuel to local people, not to mention sociocultural dimensions. Rural poor are largely
dependent on natural resources for their food security. Often, nomadic pastoralists depend
on these lands to maintain their activities. Furthermore, some of these areas may harbour high
levels of biodiversity and constitutes biological corridors. Hence, producing bioenergy on
137
marginal and degraded lands is not always the most sustainable solution .
5.2
Water use, water access and virtual water and water
footprint
5.2.1 Introduction
The world population is now 7 billion and will reach 9 billion in 2050. This will require an
adapted management of water to accompany this strong growth. In such a context, water
should be carefully allocated in the best possible way taking into account socio-economic
situations of the countries and their regions. Often the poorest countries with high population
growth are the most vulnerable in terms of water stress. It is particularly the case for some subSaharan African countries and Asian regions. In addition to that, the Intergovernmental Panel
138
on Climate Change (IPCC) put in evidence that fresh water resources are vulnerable and
would strongly be impacted by climate change.
Box 16: Expected impacts on water resources due to climate change
Significant changes have been observed in large-scale hydrological cycle and decrease in
natural water storage.
Precipitations would probably increase in high latitudes and some tropical regions. However,
these precipitations would decrease in some sub-tropical latitude regions.
It would be registered decreases on annual river runoff and water availability over some dry
regions also in mid-latitudes and dry countries.
In parts of the world, probable risks of flooding and drought present high degree of
occurrence.
By the 2050, the lands subject to increasing water stress are expected to be significant.
That will also generate changes in water quality and quantity and render water access and
utilisation more complex.
Impacts des investissements agricoles italiens dans les biocarburants au Sénégal, 2012
ibid., FAO, 2008; ibid., World Bank, 2010; Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing biofuels,
UNDP, 2009
138 Climate change and water, IPCC, 2008
136
137
AETS Consortium – February 2013
77
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The situation to water management will accentuate priorities that will indisputably impose
revised policies in related sectors of the economy. Such a situation has to be considered for
both the energy and food sectors, including their interlinkages and competitive uses of the
same natural resources. The growing demand of biomass for the bio-chemical industry further
adds complexity to the picture. This concerns are calling for the need to address all these
issues simultaneously in a so-called “Nexus” perspective (see box 17). The part allocated for
biofuel production in the energy mix has to be carefully analysed and almost always on a
case by case basis, based on water scarcity. It is necessary to systematically take into
account climate change trends that will exacerbate existing situations.
Water resources for agriculture are becoming increasingly scarce in many countries as a
result of increased competition with domestic or industrial uses. The increased production of
agricultural feedstocks has raised concerns related to the competition for water resources in
water scarce regions and the impacts on water quality where water pollution is a concern
(OECD-FAO 2011). Overall impacts on water resources from cultivation of agricultural
feedstocks to produce biofuels can be difficult to trace.
Biofuels accounted for about 100 km3 (1%) of all water transpired by crops worldwide, and
about 44 km3 (2%) of all irrigation water withdrawals (De Fraiture et al. 2007). Many of the
crops currently used for biofuel production – such as sugarcane, oil palm and maize – have
relatively high water requirements and, therefore, are mainly cultivated in high-rainfall areas
rely on irrigation. Rapeseed in Europe, for example, requires no irrigation. In Brazil, 76% of
sugarcane production is under rainfed conditions. In the United States, 70 % of maize
production is rainfed, with only about 3% of national irrigation water withdrawals devoted to
biofuel crops (Hoogeveen et al. 2009).
The amount of water needed to produce each unit of energy from lignocellulosic biofuel
feedstocks is three to seven times lower than the water required producing ethanol from
maize, rapeseed, etc. Second generation feedstocks, such as woody biomass, can capture
a greater share of annual rainfall, compared to annually sown crops, in areas where much of
the rainfall occurs outside the normal crop growing season, and also help reduce soil erosion
and bring flood control benefits. While second generation feedstocks offer the potential for
reducing irrigation water demand, it is not necessarily a clear outcome, as this may depend
on the feedstocks grown, location of production and the reference first generation
feedstocks (OECD-FAO 2011).
While investors may be keen to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable water
management in their chains of custody, at present, many retailers that import palm oil
products into Europe have postponed the adoption of specific standards. The recent SEI
report “Competing Water Claims in Biofuel Feedstock Operations in Central Kalimantan”
indicate that such retailers do not see these standards as sufficiently robust from a scientific
perspective, or adequately supported by the relevant governing bodies and stakeholder
forums, leaving their companies potentially vulnerable to criticism. With regards to public
regulation, many producer countries in the South are well known to be struggling with
inadequately resourced, decentralised governmental agencies (SEI 2012).
Although all biofuels consume water, it is mostly liquids which have a significant impact on
the resource, quantitatively and qualitatively. Solid and gaseous biofuels are consuming less
water and therefore liquids biofuels are more specially analysed.
5.2.2
Impacts of large irrigation scheme
The growing demand for water resources to meet the demand and use of biofuels will
become a limiting factor for their production in many parts of the world. Globally, 70% of
139
fresh water is devoted to agriculture including feedstocks dedicated to produce biofuels.
Water conflicts will intensify in many areas highlighted by expected effects of climate change
139
All references confirm this data
AETS Consortium – February 2013
78
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
in terms of declines of rainfalls, for example, in North Africa and in some sub-Saharan African
countries that are already living levels quite low.
Many agricultural products require huge flows of good quality water to get economic
rentable yields. Crops cultivated for bioenergy are in the same situation. Such conditions are
frequently founded in tropical and other favoured regions with abundant and regular
rainfalls: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) notes that many current biofuel crops
140
are well suited for tropical areas . Having recourse significantly to irrigation can be very
costly and not always physically or economically possible. The real economic cost of
irrigation, including the externalities, are not always internalised in cost of production.
141
Foreign investment projects studied by FAO in Egypt, Ghana, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco,
Uganda, Senegal and Sudan are commonly located within fertile areas with most potential
for irrigation. As a consequence, limited water remains available for local farmers.
5.2.3 Quantitative aspects and water footprint: production and
processing
Water is already intensely developed and physically scarce in a number of emerging
economies, and also in parts of Eastern and Southern Africa. Many low-income countries
have enough water to meet their needs, but it is economically scarce because there is
insufficient financial, human and technical capacity to provide and sustain the infrastructure
142
to enable access . The concept of water security in a country refers to its ability to have
143
access to drink water. UNESCO
considers that “water security involves protection of
vulnerable water systems, protection against water related hazards such as floods and
droughts, sustainable developments of water resources and safeguarding access to water
and services”. Food security is totally linked with water security.
It is difficult to ascertain the amount of water consumed by specific crop for biofuel
production. One reason is that production is growing rapidly and statistics available from
most recent years are outdated. On the other hand, the producers decide last minutes to sell
their products based on spot prices without considering the future uses (food or biofuel). The
worldwide consumption of water for agriculture (without possibility to distinguish food
products and bioenergy feedstocks) is estimated to represent 70% of total water when the
consumption for domestic uses represents 10%.
144
Globally, the water footprint of biofuels is large compared to other forms of energy: some
biofuels are very water-intensive, and the average water footprint of biomass is 70 times
bigger than that of oil. However, the water footprint of biofuels (e.g. from ethanol) also varies
widely across countries and contexts, which underlines the need to monitor the effects of
biofuel production on water and land use. Specific consumptions of water for the production
of feedstock vary considerably from one product to another. In addition the statistics and
results on the same product present wide limits.
Box 17: Water footprint of some biofuel feedstock
The water footprint of bioethanol from sugar cane or maize (100 to 150 m3/GJ, equivalent to
2 500 litters of water for one litter of biofuel) appears quite advantageous compared to
sorghum (400 m3/GJ, equivalent to 10 000 litters of water for one litter of biofuel).
Regarding the cultivation of feedstocks for biodiesel, soybean and rapeseed show to be the
most interesting with a water footprint of 400m3/GJ.
COP – CBD, The potential impacts of biofuels on biodiversity, 2008
FAO, Resource-seeking foreign direct investment for African agriculture, 2010
142 European Report on Development: Confronting scarcity: Managing water, energy and land for inclusive and
sustainable growth, 2012
143 Cited in The bioenergy and water nexus, UNEP, 2010
144 ibid., ERD, 2012
140
141
AETS Consortium – February 2013
79
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Regarding Jatropha, several works conducted by the University of Twente from The
Netherlands (2008 to 2011) indicate that to reach its economic profitability, it is necessary to
irrigate it. Under these conditions, its water footprint became consequently quite higher than
one could expected (238 m3/GJ, equivalent to 6 000 litres of water for one litre of biofuel).
The volumes of water used in plants processing feedstocks for biofuels are not very significant
compared to the production of raw materials. For example, the water consumed per litre of
ethanol produced is estimated from 2.5 to 30 litres (large range, depending of products and
processes) which are used for:
•
Preliminary washing of raw products;
•
The process itself (hydrolysis and fermentation;
•
Cooling water (distillation).
Innovative processes have been developed in recent years, such as cooling water (500 to
700 litres consumed), totally restored and more and more recycled to reduce the
145
consumption of fresh water . In the most modern factories, water consumption can reach
less than 5 litres per litre of bioethanol produced.
Box 18: Water and energy nexus
The water and energy nexus illustrates the growing consideration of the links between their
respective cycles. The uses of water for energy include the production of biofuels; the
extraction and processing of petroleum and gas products; the individuals and collective
heating; the manufacture of equipment for all energy production modes; and many other
activities related to the energy domain. The main uses of energy for water services are the
operations for potable water: pumping, transport, treatment, and distribution; the operations
for wastewater collection and treatment; the desalination of seawater in countries with
limited water resources; and the manufacture of equipment for all other water operations.
146
Decisions-makers
are not always conscious of the close links between energy and water
implications when launching major projects, including the production of biofuels.
5.2.3
Water pollution by intensive use of agrochemicals
Pollution on crop production
It is not possible to accurately classify the damage to the environment and particularly to
water and soils from feedstocks cultivated for biofuel as the effects depends on many factors
such as climate and location, soil type, farm size, types of feedstock, mode of operation and
practices, irrigated or rained.
The fertilisation of the soils consists in an important addition of nutrients (mainly nitrogen and
phosphorus). When wrongly used, these products degrade the quality of groundwater and
surface waters. This also generates significant additional costs in the treatment of freshwater.
An excess of these products causes especially eutrophication of rivers, natural water storages
and even marine environment: the production of algae and other aquatic species is
accelerated with an overall reduction of the biodiversity. Large coastal areas and estuaries
are dramatically affected, called “dead zones”.
Another disadvantage appears with the pesticides that are used to fighting pests. Some
products have been banned in Europe, the United Sates and developed countries. This has
led to the development of more efficient and normally less aggressive products. The
homologation processes for phytosanitary products are severe. At the same time, stocks of
145
146
Impacts sur l'eau du développement des biocarburants à l'horizon 2030, IFP Energies Nouvelles, 2009
ibid., UNEP, 2010
AETS Consortium – February 2013
80
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
“old” products banned in developed countries have been transferred and are used in
developing countries.
FAO has intensively worked on these concerns and makes available tools for disseminating
issues, limitations and good practices. Good environmental practices, including water
management and availability are extensively summarised, specifically for bioenergy
147
feedstock production . Simultaneously, scientific researches in many countries are enabled
to better target the nature and the quantities as well as the application modalities of these
products. The awareness raising and training of farmers must be intensified for all crops,
including feedstock for biofuels.
148
A report from the Stockholm Environment Institute illustrates the current situation in the oil
palm sector in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Local communities have severe grievances
about impacts of oil palm plantations on water resources. Plantations affect both water
quantity and quality, by polluting drinking water and drying community wells: turbid, murky
water caused by land clearance, erosion and run-off; toxins released into water bodies via
spray of pesticides on plantations; decline in fish stocks and aquatic wild plants; palm-oil mill
effluent and other palm-oil waste released into rivers and streams; and drying of community
land adjacent to plantations, where traditional rice was produced. The provincial
environmental agency reports that the government is only able to investigate less than 1% of
the complaints. Legally required, river basin management is not yet implemented. District and
provincial agencies struggle to apply basic environmental protection schemes, such as
riparian zones around water bodies.
Box 19: Pollution from factories
At the industrial production level, the problems encountered are related to chemical and
biological pollution as well as thermal degradation. In the production of ethanol
manufactured for spark ignition engines and oil products for diesel engines water is fully used
for washing. The “vinasse” is produced from alcohol plants. In certain cases, it can be used
as fertilizer after preliminary treatment, in well-definite and appropriated conditions of
application. The experience of the Brazilian sugarcane bioethanol is very developed in this
149
matter . The advantage of using vinasse include increased pH and cation exchange
capacity, improved soil structure, increased water retention and development of soil’s micro
flora and micro fauna.
For mitigating the thermal pollution it is necessary to adopt industrial processes having high
degree of recirculation. For organic and chemical pollutants adapted treatments must be
applied such as clarification, sedimentation, mechanical recompression and when possible
re-use could be done, leading to an interesting optimisation of the resource.
Regarding the water directly used in industrial processes, it is not possible to present a simple
typology of effluents densities and their quantitative levels. However, the corresponding
volumes are relatively low compared to the production of feedstock.
5.2.4 Water re-uses
Water re-use after reclamation is an option for extending water resources increasing the
sources and constituting an alternative of supply that could substitute important bulks of
freshwater. Such practice is particularly interesting for water uses that do not require high
quality standards. Adapted treatments will make it reusable by meeting quality criteria
required by the plants or uses to be irrigated. This will also allow a reduction in reducing
infrastructure needs and particularly storage if this resource is used near its production.
ibid., FAO, 2012
The oil palm sector: community grievances and water governance in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, SEI, 2012
149 Sugarcane ethanol, contributions to climate change mitigation and the environment, Wageningen, 2008
147
148
AETS Consortium – February 2013
81
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Water re-use is particularly interesting in areas of limited resources or hydric stress and globally
facilitate an increase in supply possibilities. A lot of countries and regions in the world rely on
water re-use such as: United States, Spain, Israel, Australia, Singapore, Argentina, Tunisia,
Japan and other Asian countries. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has issued guidelines
and recommendations for water re-use and some experiences have negatively impacted
these practices: for example, domestic or industrial wastewaters have irrigated crops with
bacteriologic problems as well as poisonous components. However, biofuel as non-food
product can take advantages of such situation with the needed preliminary treatments
150
adapted to the feedstocks .
5.2.5 Management by watershed and water rights
The management of water resources is more efficient when it is done at the watershed level.
This principle was adopted by the EU Water Directive (2000/60/EC, 23 October 2000). This
institutional organisation has facilitated knowledge acquisition of water statuses in terms of
quantity and quality and introduced management plans for the use of water resources.
Several countries outside Europe have adopted similar water management principles of. In
South Africa, for example, the State determines user rights and water allocations. It promotes
efficient, sustainable and beneficial use of water while maintaining privileged accesses to the
most disadvantaged. In this context, quotas have been allocated to crops based on
physically and economically accessible criteria. The South Africa mechanism is highly
oriented towards socio-economic situations with public authorities fully involved.
However, this approach does not exist always in sensitive water countries and trade-offs
between uses are not always made by considering socio-economic parameters as well as
the interest of their inhabitants. Trade-offs must be made at the basin or sub-basin levels,
which become complicated and complex with different countries where resources (rivers,
groundwater, and coastal areas) are commonly shared. It is therefore necessary to set up
strong institutional organisations that can manage resources at a large scale and prevent
conflicts.
151
The investors on large-scale land acquisition are acquiring land as well as water rights .
Depending of the orientations of the markets, they speculate for food or biofuel production.
Usually, they directly extract the quantity of water required for the feedstock cultivation
without payment. Therefore, the cost of water represents a small part of total production cost
of the whole process. In fact, the “real economic costs” of water resources (rain-fed,
groundwater, surface waters) are not included in the total costs of production. This “free” use
of the resource means that solution for more water efficiency and optimisation will probably
not increase without regulations and adequate willingness.
Box 20: Virtual water exchanges
All industrial and food products imported by European countries and by other developed
regions have required quantities of water in their production and eventual processing. This is
particularly true for biofuel productions that ‘export’ large amounts of water to Europe,
152
mentioned as ’virtual water’. It is difficult to quantify the amount of “virtual water” given the
variety of products manufactured in developing countries and due to the fact that no
reliable data are available.
Water re-use, Issues, technologies, and applications, Metcalf & Eddy, 2007
Transnational land deals for agriculture in the global south, analytical report based on the Land Matrix Database,
2012; A thirst for distant lands, IISD, 2009
152 ibid., ERD, 2012; ibid, UNEP, 2010
150
151
AETS Consortium – February 2013
82
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
5.3 Resources depletion
The growing demand for agricultural biofuel feedstocks (e.g. cereals and oilseeds) has raised
concerns about the pressure this may have on natural resources, particularly water. As the
cultivation of feedstocks for biofuels production is no different than the same crops destined
for food, fibre or feed purposes, their environmental consequences should be similar.
Nevertheless, they are of particular concern with respect to biofuels because of the rapid
expansion of biofuel feedstock production and its potential impacts on land use and
production intensification.
Even if it is recognised that we live with limited resources, the cost of natural resource
depletion due to biofuel production has not been widely studied and there is little analysis
available.
Increased agricultural production will be met through improved land productivity or through
expansion of cultivated area. Both factors influence soil degradation. On the one hand,
improved technology and yield increases allow for increasing production without land
expansion but environmental impacts of intensification might be non-negligible. On the other
hand, the expansion of agricultural production may require cultivation on marginal land
and/or conversion of land not currently in crop production, such as grassland or forest land,
placing additional pressure on the natural resource base.
Over the past five decades, most of the increase in global agricultural commodity
production (around 80 per cent) has resulted from yield increases (FAO 2003, Hazell and
Wood 2008). The rate of growth in feedstock demand for biofuels over the past few years far
exceeds historic rates of growth in demand for agricultural commodities and in crop yields.
This suggests that land-use change – and the associated environmental impacts – may
become a more important issue.
Of the world’s 13.5 billion hectares of total land surface area, about 8.3 billion hectares are
currently in grassland or forest and 1.6 billion hectares in cropland (Fischer 2008). Much of the
land in forests, wetlands or other uses provides valuable environmental services, including
carbon sequestration, water filtration and biodiversity preservation; thus, the expansion of
crop production in these areas could be detrimental to the environment. Estimates of the
amount of land potentially available for expanded crop production lie between 250 and 800
million hectares, most of which is found in tropical Latin America or in Africa (Fischer 2008).
In 2004, an estimated 14 million hectares, worldwide, were being used to produce biofuels,
representing about 1 per cent of global cropland (IEA 2006). Today, some 65% of EU
vegetable oil, 50% of Brazilian sugarcane and about 40% of US maize production are used as
feedstock for biofuel production (OECD-FAO 2012).
While area expansion for biofuel feedstock production is likely to play a significant role in
satisfying increased demand for biofuels over the next few years, the intensification of land
use will most likely also be important. Historically, improved technologies and management
practices have led to crop yield increases in Asia and Latin America and to a much lower
extent in sub-Saharan Africa.
Despite significant gains in crop yields at the global level and in most regions, actual yields
are still below their potential in most regions, suggesting that considerable scope remains for
increased production on existing cropland. While there are a number of studies assessing the
impacts of increased biofuel demand on land-use, little empirical evidence is yet available
on expected effects on yields.
Both land-use change and intensification of agricultural production on existing croplands can
have significant adverse impacts on soils, but these impacts depend critically on farming
techniques. Inappropriate cultivation practices can reduce soil organic matter and increase
soil erosion by removing permanent soil cover. The removal of plant residues can reduce soil
nutrient contents and increase greenhouse gas emissions through losses of soil carbon (FAO).
Fresco (2007) points out that increased demand for biofuels could divert agricultural residues
AETS Consortium – February 2013
83
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
to the production of biofuels, with potentially detrimental effects on soil quality, especially on
soil organic matter.
5.4
Genetic resources, invasive species and biodiversity
Potential impacts
The expansion of monoculture of crop production for biofuels in large areas could be
detrimental to the wild biodiversity. Plantations in tropical countries are more likely to affect
high conservation-value forests (HCV), which is critical for biodiversity. When area under crop
production is expanded, loss of habitat may occur and agricultural biodiversity can decrease
as it leads to reduced use of traditional varieties. The establishment of large-scale plantations
for biofuel is based on a narrow pool of genetic material and would cause, at a local level, a
reduction in the variety of plants and animals. This would make farming systems less stable,
robust and sustainable, reducing the resilience of rural livelihoods to both biophysical and
socioeconomic shocks, such as pathogen infestations, adverse weather conditions and
fluctuations in the price of cash crops. At the same time, the extensive knowledge and the
traditional skills of small farmers in the management, selection and storage of local crops
153
might be reduced . Loss of natural habitats through land conversion for biofuel feedstock
production has been reported by investigation studies.
In Brazil, for example, land-use changes caused by increased biofuel demand endanger
154
155
areas rich in bird species diversity . Specific investigations on the impact of the spread of
oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia explored the biodiversity decrease: species richness of
birds, lizards and mammals was always lower in oil-palm plantation than in forest and flora
was impoverished compared with natural forest. In Sumatra, iconic species such as the
Orang-utan (Genus Pongo), the Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigirs sumatrae) and the clouded
leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) were absent from oil palm sites. In Malaysian oil palm plantations,
most bees’ species, which are important forest pollinators, were lacking. Trees, lianas,
epiphytic orchids and indigenous palms were absent from oil palm plantations.
There are some risks for African wetlands to be converted into biofuel production. Sugarcane
requires large amounts of water and is therefore often grown in wetlands, palm oil expansion
threatens native forests and peatlands (in Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and
Ivory Coast). Other biofuels crops (cassava, sweet sorghum, maize) grow on drier soils but to
reach the expected yields to be commercially attractive, irrigation may be required. The
reduced wetland area caused by biofuel crop cultivation can lead to biodiversity loss and
ecosystem damage. Reports from Tanzania (the Wami Basin), Uganda and Kenya (the Tana
River Delta) illustrate how wetlands are under the threat of large-scale sugarcane
156
expansion .
Another major pathway in the loss of biodiversity is induced by the intensification on
croplands, generating crop genetic uniformity. Low levels of genetic diversity in crops used as
feedstocks increase the susceptibility to pests and diseases. Genetically modified (GM) tree
species and crops are often grown in large-scale plantations. The impacts of growing GMs on
the environment have been controversially discussed for many years, partly due to the lack
of long-term studies and the different perception of risks in growing them without a higher
level of certainty. Among the major concerns are unexpected mutations of genetically
engineered plants and trees that can spread across large areas, establish themselves in
native forests and open lands, and/or cross-fertilise with native trees and other corps that
157
might lead to unknown consequences to other organisms . NGOs mention that there is a
153 Making sustainable biofuels work for smallholders farmers and rural households, FAO, 2009; ibid, FAO, 2008; COP –
CBD, The potential impacts of biofuels on biodiversity, 2008
154 Green gold or green wash: environmental consequences of biofuels in the developing world, Conference paper,
Review of Agricultural Economics (Boston) 2008 Vol. 30 No. 3 pp. 517-529, cited in ibid, FAO, 2008
155 Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and Climate, Conservation Biology, 2008
156 Biofuels in Africa, Wetlands International, 2008
157 ibid., European Parliament, 2011; ibid, FAO, 2008
AETS Consortium – February 2013
84
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
real fear that contamination with GM may happen with the cassava plantation realized in
158
Nigeria with the direct investment of Shell Petroleum Development Company .
In the literature, some authors mentioned biofuel crops as invasive species where they are
planted: Jatropha, nypa palm, oil palm, pongamia and sorghum are cited. However, this
does not appear to be identified as a main concern regarding the other impacts reviewed in
the literature.
Potential solutions
Biofuel sustainability frameworks include criteria related to areas with significant biodiversity. A
159
good overview is presented in the recent previously cited CIFOR publication . All
frameworks emphasize the conservation of native ecosystems and natural habitats and they
prohibit the conversion of HCV areas for biofuel feedstock production. The EU RED
sustainability framework requires that land with high biodiversity value or high carbon stock
(wetlands, peatlands and forested areas) is not used for biofuels and bioenergy production.
The RTRS plans to develop national-level biodiversity maps. Some frameworks (BSI, RTRS, RSPO,
and RSB) refer to international conventions such as the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar
Convention), Convention on Biological Diversity, the Rotterdam Convention on pesticides
and industrial chemicals and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. With
the exception of the EU RED and the FSC, all the frameworks give due consideration to
ecological connectivity, which is an integral part of land use planning for conservation
purposes.
The means to sustainably implement biofuel feedstock production is not consensual. Hence,
the effectiveness of the existing sustainability frameworks remains unfinished.
International and national rules require that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is
realized at the early stage of the project before its implementation. This is the rule for largescale bioenergy plantations. The experiences reviewed demonstrate that when the EIA is
efficiently conducted, real mitigations help to reverse the possible negative impacts on
biodiversity. For example, in the case of the Addax Bioenergy Project in Sierra Leone, the
160
independent Report
underlines that the ecological importance of rivers, streams,
woodlands, village trees and wetlands was recognised as well as “ecological corridors”
linking natural habitats, to facilitate the continued movement of animals between them. The
Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA) included a very detailed
mapping of habitats, determining “no-go” areas where plantation could not be allowed.
Woodlands important for local uses and source of income for the local people were checked
before any clearance for sugarcane cultivation.
Other situations show that most EIA are shrouded in mystery. For example, a study conducted
161
in Ghana, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia adds examples where one can ask about
the credentials of the officially accredited experts able to conduct an EIA. It is also legitimate
to have doubts about the independency of the experts. One company’s EIA falsely referred
to mature coastal forest stands (part of the 21 global biodiversity hotspots) as degraded
forest. Finally, rigorous monitoring of investments and applications of the law (sanctions for
offenders) are absent. In Tanzania, the national Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels
Development require investors to submit Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA)
to the National Environment Management Council (NEMC). However, SEKAB Tanzania, a
subsidiary of a Swedish company, has been accused of tampering with its Environmental and
Agrofuels threat looms in Africa, in Third World Resurgence, May 2009
ibid., CIFOR, 2011
160 2011 Annual Independent Public Environmental & Social Monitoring Report, 2012
161 Contemporary processes of large-scale land acquisition by investors: case studies from sub-Saharan Africa, CIFOR,
2011
158
159
AETS Consortium – February 2013
85
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Social Impact Assessment process for the planned 20 000 plus sugar cane plantation and outgrowers project in Bagamoyo162.
Globally, there is a need for a more strategic vision regarding global development of the
biofuels sector in the national context of sustainable development. A Strategic Environmental
Analysis (SEA) would be necessary to give a cross-cutting analysis oriented to a systematic
decision support process for the biofuels sector (policy, plan and programme: PPP). A SEA is
an evidence-based instrument, aiming to add scientific rigour to PPP making by using suitable
assessment methods and techniques. This would allow the country to design, develop and
implement a real, scientifically-based policy for the development of biofuels163.
5.5
GHG emissions and Indirect Land Use Changes (ILUC)
5.5.1 Direct and indirect land use change
Global interest for biofuel has been driven by their potential in reducing dependence on fossil
fuels, increasing farm revenues, and generating less environmental damage through lower
GHG emissions compared to non-renewable fuel sources. The scientific studies agree to
mention that biofuels vary widely in their GHG balances when compared with fossil fuel
(petrol). It will depend on feedstock production methods, conversion technologies and use.
In assessing GHG emissions, the data emanating from land-use change (LUC) are crucial to
get a complete and accurate picture. LUC occur when feedstocks for biofuels are cultivated
in forested lands or in wetlands. The crops implementation release the carbon fixed in the
164
native vegetation. Many scientific models are used to estimate GHG emissions . The
parameters and the criteria varied a lot, trying to include several prospective scenarios. The
main common conclusions remark that emission related to land use changes driven by
biofuel polices are a serious concern. Thus, the LUC effect reduces the environmental gains of
the European biofuel policy: the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) established the
environmental sustainability criteria that biofuels consumed in the EU have to comply with, a
minimum rate of direct GHG emission savings as well as restrictions on the types of land that
may be converted to production of biofuel crops. The Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) also
defined targets for GHG reduction from fuels consumed in the EU. Scepticism about the
positive impacts of biofuels increased.
In addition, scientific and on-the-field analyses demonstrated that ILUC have to be
incorporated into the analysis of the biofuels GHG balances. The European Commission
recognised that estimations and modelling must be made to assess the impacts of biofuel on
165
LUC and ILUC and to eventually adjust the legislation on biofuels . ILUC happens when
crops or land that would have otherwise been used for producing food or animal feed are
used for growing biofuels and existing agricultural production geographically shifts to new
land areas created by converting natural areas. Thus, the natural forests and grasslands in a
specific region may be converted to croplands as a result of biofuel production being
initiated in a different region. ILUC could lead to both changes in land use and changes in
land management practices (for example, farmers responding to increasing prices by
162 Havenevik, K. et al., 2011 dedicated entire paper to documenting the changes introduced to the ESIA report
submitted by SEKAB T including deleting such key phrases such as “there is great confusion as to what the “project
area» actually entails and deletion of base line studies indicators. The case has also been mentioned by some
interviewed parties i.e. Haki Ardhi, researchers
163 During meeting at Ministry of Energy and Mines (Tanzania, 14th December 2012), it was mentioned that a SEA for
biofuels development in Tanzania is in draft
164 See for example Global trade and environmental impact study of the EU biofuels mandate, IFPRI, 2010; Estimate of
GHG emissions from global land use scenarios, JRC, 2011; Emission balance of first- and second-generation biofuels,
CIFOR, 2011; and Assessing the land use change consequences of European biofuel policies, IFPRI, 2011
165 COM(2010) 811 final, Report from the Commission on indirect land-use change related to biofuels and bioliquids;
Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of
the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel
fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources,
SWD(2012) 343 final
AETS Consortium – February 2013
86
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
applying more fertilisers) which may have important consequences in terms of additional
GHG emissions. These indirect emissions resulting from biofuel production should be
considered in calculating the GHG implications of adopting biofuels.
Preliminary findings in the literature on ILUC indicate that it seems to be significant for many
feedstocks and it may grow in the future due to quick expansion of biofuel feedstock on
large scale. At this stage, it is not possible to get a global vision of the GHG emissions linked to
the bioenergy development including indirect effects, as this would ideally require a
complete global accounting system for direct land use change. Specific investigations based
on modelling and estimates are currently made. The main limitations associated with
accounting ILUC are (adapted from Ecofys 2011):
•
Displacement effects act across national border. Commodities such as palm oil, soy oil
and sugarcane are traded on a global scale. Therefore, displacement effects act
across borders. Achieving effective national land-use planning in some producing
countries cannot guarantee against indirect effects. If, for example, Indonesia were to
prevent further deforestation through effective land-use planning, sourcing increasing
amounts of palm oil from Indonesia for the energy sector may still cause indirect landuse change in other producing countries such as Malaysia.
•
Displacement effects act across substituting crops. This is caused by the fact that
different crops can substitute each other to some extent. For example, if the EU diverts
more rapeseed oil production from food to feed then it is likely to increase its imports
of vegetable oils. This could be rapeseed oil but could also be a different vegetable
oil as different vegetable oils are to some degree substituting products.
•
Competition for land connects also non-substituting crops. Another reason why
displacement effects act across crops is that different (non-substituting) crops can
compete for the same agricultural land. An example of this occurred in 2008 when
high maize prices led farmers in the US to plant more maize and less soy which
triggered soy expansion in other world regions.
166
FAO discuss if biofuels help mitigate climate change. When considering ILUC, while maize
produced for ethanol can generate greenhouse gas savings of about 1.8 tonnes of carbon
dioxide per hectare per year and switch-grass can generate savings of 8.6 tonnes per
hectare per year, the conversion of grassland to produce those crops can release 300 tonnes
per hectare, and conversion of forest land can release 600 to1 000 tonnes per hectare.
According to researchers cited by FAO, the conversion of rainforests, peatlands, savannahs
or grasslands to produce ethanol and biodiesel in Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia or the United
States of America releases at least 17 times as much carbon dioxide as those biofuels saved
annually by replacing fossil fuels.
Case studies conducted locally provide some initial elements. CIFOR published a study on the
167
GHG emissions of alternative biofuel production , where ILUC are not considered. It presents
the large diversity of results, taking in consideration first and second-generation biofuels in
different countries: biodiesel from palm oil in Indonesia; biodiesel from Jatropha in South
Africa and Mexico; bioethanol from sugarcane in South Africa, Mexico and Indonesia;
bioethanol from wood in South Africa and Mexico; and Fischer–Tropsch diesel from wood in
South Africa and Mexico.
168
Another investigation conducted on biofuel plantations on forested lands in Southeast Asia
assessed changes in carbon stock with changing land use and compared this with the
amount of fossil-fuel carbon emission avoided through its replacement by biofuel carbon. The
results suggest it would take between 75 and 93 years for the carbon emissions saved through
use of biofuel to compensate for the carbon lost through initial forest conversion, depending
on how the forest was cleared. If the original habitat was peatland, the carbon balance
would take more than 600 years.
ibid., FAO, 2008
ibid., CIFOR, 2011
168 ibid., Conservation Biology, 2008
166
167
AETS Consortium – February 2013
87
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
According to IPCC data169, the carbon stocked in tropical African forests is nearly to 150
tonne per hectare. The development of large-scale oil palm plantations in or near forested
areas would cause high levels of GHG emissions.
ILUC may increase the pressure on natural areas as illustrated by the case of small-scale
farmers growing Jatropha intercropped with maize (as a main association, other crops
encountered include groundnut, beans, sweet potato and soybean) in Zambia170. The
assessment shows that they have opened new plots in mature forests or fallow for two
reasons: to establish new Jatropha plantations; or to cultivate displaced food crops because
of Jatropha introduced into permanent croplands.
The extent to which biofuels policy contribute to LUC in developing countries is highly
uncertain. Many other factors also drive LUC in these countries, such as local policy
framework, increasing food demand or third party policies. Therefore, isolating the effect of
the EU biofuels policy remains challenging.
While acknowledging that LUC effects should be taken into account, it should be noted that
introducing LUC considerations into biofuel policies lead to several non-trivial questions: (1)
Why LUC measurements are not introduced for other policies that may have even larger LUC
effects (such as agricultural and trade policies)?, and (2) will the sustainability criteria be
effective given that they are not adopted globally but only in some countries?
5.5.2
Biofuels production and CO2 emissions
The GHG emissions associated with the LCA of different biofuels vary a lot depending on the
feedstocks used and the conversion technologies applied. Recent estimates indicate that
most biofuels can reduce GHG emissions compared to gasoline/diesel but only if they are
produced in an efficient way. For example, case studies conducted in Argentina, Kenya and
Nigeria (FAO 2004) in a scenario of multiple cropping systems and crop rotations, showed
that the effects of these practices on carbon sequestration are remarkable. Since bioenergy
development is often pursuit as a way to mitigate climate change, the importance of
cultivation practices should not be neglected. On average, conventional monoculture
systems did not store carbon; rather, carbon emissions ranging from 0.01 to 0.3 tonnes/ha/yr.
were recorded. In the case of crop rotation, instead, a consistent tendency towards carbon
sequestration was noted. The values relative to carbon storage ranged between 0.1 and 0.9
t/ha/yr., much higher than traditional monoculture.
High uncertainty remains on the impact of land-use changes on GHG balances, as this is
difficult to assess, especially when it implies indirect land use change, varies a lot with the
geographical location and the agro-forestry cultivation practice used for growing the
biomass.
In some cases, GHG reduction of more than 100% compared to gasoline/diesel use are
achieved through the use of co-products (e.g. bagasse, the residue from sugarcane ethanol
production, is burned to produce electricity that is fed into the electricity grid and thus
replaces electricity from fossil sources). The IEA compared a number of GHG emission LCAs to
come up with the diagram below, showing percentage emission reductions of different
biofuel production pathways, with the associated ranges.
Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, IPCC, 2006
The local social and environmental impacts of smallholder-based biofuel investments in Zambia, Ecology and
Society 16(4): 12, 2011
169
170
AETS Consortium – February 2013
88
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Figure 20: Biofuels production and GHG emissions
Source: IEA, 2012
Sugarcane ethanol can produce significant net GHG savings. By contrast, ethanol produced
from cereals can be negative under some circumstances (even excluding land-use change)
compared to gasoline. The wide ranges are mainly due to different methodologies used for
assessing emissions of nitrogen dioxide from fertilisers and the assumptions concerning the use
of by-products resulting from the conversion phase. For example considering just Europe, the
results for biodiesel from rapeseed would improve considerably using IPCC reference values
for nitrogen release.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
89
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Section 6: Social impacts and human rights concerns
related to the production biofuels in developing countries
6.1
Land and food rights
The close relationship between food security and the need to safeguard access of
vulnerable populations to resources such as land and water is being increasingly recognized
by the international community, especially the United Nations Special Rapporteurs. Access to
land is closely related to the right to adequate food and it means protecting existing rights of
the most vulnerable groups to access land, water, grazing or fishing grounds, or forests, all of
which may be productive resources essential for a decent livelihood. “Access to land and
security of tenure are essential to ensure the enjoyment of not only the right to food, but also
other human rights, including the right to work (for example for landless peasants) and the
right to housing. This fact has led the former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate
housing to conclude that the Human Rights Councils should “ensure the recognition in
international human rights law of land as a human right”171. The Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food has made similar case on the inter-relationship of the rights of land users with
the right to food in his report to the General Assembly in 2010172.
Box 21: Right to Food and Right to Land
The right to adequate food has been recognised under article 25 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights.
The Right to Food requires that each individual, alone or in a community with others, has
physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.
States may be under an obligation to provide food where “an individual or group is unable,
for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their
disposal.” Primarily, however, the right to food requires that States refrain from taking
measures that may deprive individuals of access to productive resources on which they
depend when they produce food for themselves(the obligation to respect), that they protect
such access from encroachment by other private parties (the obligation to protect) and that
they seek to strengthen people’s access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure
their livelihoods, including food security (the obligation to fulfil).
In terms of the relationship with land rights, it means protecting existing access to land, water,
grazing of fishing grounds, or forests, all of which may be productive resources essential for a
decent livelihood.
In terms of Europe’s own approach, the new EU Food Security Policy Framework, adopted in
2010, has recognised the Right to Food and has a focus on creating an enabling environment
for the smallholder sector as the single most effective instrument for increasing food security in
developing countries. The EU has also committed to focusing on access to food by
implementing the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realisation of the Right to
Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security173 (COM(2010)127 final)174. In
addition, the EU has played an active role in assuring finalization of the recent negotiations
De Schutter, Olivier Special Rapporteur, The right to food, United Nations General Assembly. A/65/281 (August
2010): p 3
172 Ibid.
173 http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/y9825e/y9825e00.htm
174 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0127:FIN:EN:PDF
171
AETS Consortium – February 2013
90
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
and final adoption in May 2012 of the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of
Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests within the Context of National Food Security175.
Box 22: Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests within
the Context of National Food Security
The recent adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land,
Fisheries and Forests within the Context of National Food Security by the newly reformed Committee on
World Food Security has been unique in grounding of land tenure and natural resources management
issues in the human rights based approach which stems from the need to bridge the overlaps between
the environmental and human rights law. While these Guidelines are not legally binding in the sense that
they are not replacing any existing international laws or treaties, they carry a normative legal force by
providing a framework or benchmark for existing policies and for formulation of new policies and laws
related to management of natural resources. The Guidelines re-emphasise existing international
obligations of States, particularly in relation to human rights, as they apply to safeguarding the rights of
people to access land, fisheries and forests. The adoption of these Voluntary Guidelines has coincided
with the recognition of the necessity to increase both political and financial investment in providing for
improved governance of land tenure in developing countries given the current increasing pressures on
natural resources as well as the phenomena of the large scale land acquisitions.
The Guidelines recognise that securing land rights is a precondition for sustainable development and
food security. They also identify investment in smallholder farmers and by smallholder farmers as
preferable to large scale land acquisitions. The Voluntary Guidelines stipulate that states define what
constitutes a large scale land transaction and that the state is responsible to provide safeguards and
protections against negative impacts of large scale land transactions. Such safeguards can include
introduction of ceilings or limits on permissible land transactions and regulation how large transfers of
land above a certain scale must be approved. The state can regulate transactions of tenure rights
above certain scale by assuring prior independent assessment or the need for parliamentary approval.
The Guidelines also request increased transparency of transactions and that states monitor impacts of
all types of large scale land transactions. They also demand that proper impact assessment and
consultations should take place before any type of large scale land transaction is finalized. Such
assessments should be impartial and based on consultations with all potentially affected by such
investments. In terms of private actors and investors, the Guidelines remind that they all have the
responsibility to respect existing legitimate land use rights.
The principal critique relative to agricultural investment in developing countries (including
biofuels) deals with the concerns and relevance of treatment of ‘unused’ or ‘marginal’ lands
(High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, IEED, Oxfam, ActionAid, Land
Matrix Database). In 2011, the World Bank quoted research concluding that 445 million
hectares of unused land with agricultural potential was available, land which was nonforested, non-protected and populated with less than 25 persons/km (or 20
hectares/household). At the same time, the same study admitted that little of the land
classified as “unused” may be free of existing claims (Deininger et al, 2011). Another World
Bank study also admitted that although in many countries land may be abundant, it is not
necessarily idle, and it may provide incomes to many people for subsistence farming and
other livelihood activities, by providing areas for hunting and gathering, cutting building
materials and fuel wood, and grazing livestock (Mitchell 2011). In many cases land is already
being used or claimed – yet existing land uses and claims go unrecognised because land
users are marginalised from formal land rights and access to the law and institutions.
The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, Cotula and Oxfam criticize
studies on land suitability as being largely based on statistics that date back to the 1990’s and
satellite imagery which underestimates the land areas used by shifting cultivation and
pastoralism or factor in land degradation. “Even where land is available, water may be a
major constraint, as proximity to water use may prove to be a source of conflict.” Land that
may not be currently cultivated is often under customary claim from local groups. As HLPE
175
http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-home/cfs-land-tenure/en/
AETS Consortium – February 2013
91
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
FSN concludes “It is often asserted that there is much “available” land in Africa and Latin
America. This suggests abundant unused land. However, there is rarely any valuable land that
is neither already being used in some way, nor providing an important environmental
service”176. “Thus, when Mozambique allocated 30 000 ha in Gaza province for the ProCana
sugar cane ethanol plantation, when the Cambodian government allocated 20 000 ha for
sugar cane plantation in Kampong Speu, and when the Philippine government allocated
one million ha of land to San Miguel-Kuok company partnership, the assumption was that the
lands were vacant, marginal, idle and available. Subsequent studies showed that this was
not the case: these spaces were inhabited, and productively used by communities”177.
The limits of bio-physical survey approach in combination with ill-defined and often
unregistered land use rights lead to many conflicts within local communities (i.e. between
smallholders and pastoralists) and between local communities and governments when it
hastily allocates land to foreign or domestic investors. Pastoralists and herders tend to be most
vulnerable in such processes, for example in Kenya and in Tanzania178. The implementation
and demarcation of national land law reforms and registration of land use has been very
slow and is still incomplete in many of the countries that have become the target for large
scale land investments.
In addition, the emerging data on large-scale land investments as well as general
preferences of investors suggest that demand focuses on high value lands with proximity to
markets, infrastructure and irrigation potential. The same is true with regard to large scale
biofuels investments preference for fertile land that can assure higher yields. Investors are
rarely interested in “marginal land” even if such land may be registered by the target state as
“under-utilized”. The Land Matrix Database179 shows that only 82 cases out of over 1200
reported land deals over 200,000 ha have information
information on former land use. Out of them, most
of the land has been previously predominantly used by smallholders for cultivation. The
second most important formal land use is communal and only a fraction affect land that was
forests or under conservation180.
Figure 21: Former user land
Source: Land Matrix Database
Land tenure and international investments in agriculture: A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, HLPE CFS (July 2011): p 26.
177 Ibid.
178 See De Shutter, Olivier as well as the Report from the Field Visit to Tanzania annexed to this report
179 See 4.5
180 Note of caution is advised in interpretation of the data and graphs provided by Land Matrix Database. It is difficult
to estimate how many of the large scale land transactions over 200,000 ha are actually being used for biofuels
production due to lack of precise data availability on final implementation
implementation status of the deals, both announced and
carried out. Yet, the data proves that significant percentage of large scale deals will end up under cultivation of
crops suitable for conventional biofuels
176
AETS Consortium – February 2013
92
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
It is important to acknowledge that land users are not necessarily the same as land owners
with state being usually the owner of land which is the case in many ACP countries. Investors
receive land either from government, through some state agency created for such purpose,
or from private companies and individuals. In some cases, many of the actual land users lack
properly defined land rights as is the case of pastoralist in much of Eastern Africa.
Figure 22: Land owners
Source: Land Matrix Database
While states are required to assure proper consultation in case of transfers of land use rights,
data on consultations is generally very difficult to obtain and depends on a case of each
project. Generally, consultation processes or their absence has been a subject of criticism
around large scale land investments in Africa. Consultations are often a one-off event rather
than an on-going interaction through the project cycle, with little differentiation among
communities due to class, economic status or gender181. Most importantly, most of the
consultations take place within the context of great asymmetry of access to information,
knowledge and power between the parties.
The principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent is virtually absent from within African
national legislation although protection of the rights to land for specific groups such as
indigenous and women is clearly stated in the African Charter on Human and People-s
Rights182. The issue of pastoralist or nomadic communities and lack of protection of their land
rights and livelihoods calls for special attention as they are most vulnerable in large scale land
acquisition processes.
The threat of dispossession or eviction from land due to government’s failure to offer adequate
protection of customary land rights and assure appropriate consultation based on the
principle of free, prior and informed consent is very real. According to the Land Matrix
Database, out of 86 large scale land deals above 200,000 ha only in 29 cases the community
was somehow involved, however the consultation process was often describes as limited.
Cotula et al. Contexts and Procedures for Farmland Acquisitions in Africa: What outcomes for local people?
Development 2011.54(1):40-48
182 Ibid and authors knowledge
181
AETS Consortium – February 2013
93
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Figure 23: Involvement of communities in large scale land transfers
Source: Land Matrix Database
Information on the displacement of communities is extremely scarce due to sensitivity of the
issue. Some NGOs such as FIAN and GRAIN report many cases in different
different countries but there
is not a one single global database which records how many people are displaced due to
large scale land acquisitions and even data by Land Matrix out of 1217 has only 40 cases with
information on displacements.
Figure 24: Number of projects over 200,000 ha with reported evictions
Source: Land Matrix Database
Concerns relative to the occurrence of human rights violations such as evictions or
displacement of local food production, led the office of the United Nations High
Commissioner on Human Rights to issue a news release in October 2012183 with
recommendations for biofuel impact assessments. Accordingly, the development of national
biofuel production guidelines should be integrated with national strategies
strategies for food security
and evaluated on case by case basis due to variety of
of production models and uses. States
have a responsibility under current human rights law to ensure and prioritise local food
security and the ability of groups affected by such investments
investments to not lose access to
productive resources such as land and water.
Box 23: Human Rights and Impact Assessments. What questions should impact assessments
ask?184
Who are the current users of this land, and are their rights fully
fully respected in the process of development
of agrofuels?
What is the current state of local food insecurity and how dependent is the community/region/country
on food imports, particularly for staple foods?
Shall the expansion of energy crops increase dependence
dependence on imports, and potentially worsen local
food insecurity?
http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20121016_agrofuels_qa.pdf
Recommendations from Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Food
183
184
AETS Consortium – February 2013
94
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Can the local resources in question (land, water) be better used to service local food needs?
What modes of agriculture will be favored in the production of agrofuels and what will the impacts be
for local smallholders?
Can smallholders benefit from the expansion of energy crops and can opportunities be found to
increase the incomes of smallholders and their position in local value chains?
What is the state of local energy provision, and will the energy yielded be used for local electrification?
Who are the current users of this land, and are their rights fully respected in the process of development
of agrofuels?
6.2
Corporate Social Responsibility
There are several instruments that aim to encourage corporate social responsibility among
companies. In terms of relevance to conventional biofuel production, the most relevant ones
can be found within commodity specific instruments as well as general CSR instruments.
Compliance with such instruments or commodity certification schemes is voluntary and they
usually lack remedy mechanisms. Only some are specific in terms of employment rights and
conditions.
Commodity specific instruments
•
•
Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil;
Roundtable on Responsible Soy.
General CSR instruments
•
•
•
•
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises;
Global Reporting Initiative;
Global Compact;
Equator Principles.
These guidelines cover standards on labour rights, human rights, the environment, consumer
protection and corruption. The scope of the OECD Guidelines, therefore, does not translate
to companies operating in ACP countries. The Global Reporting Initiative aims to improve
companies’ transparency which is of relevance given the issue of corruption in the land
sector as well as a lack of transparency in large-scale land acquisitions aimed for the
production of biofuel feedstocks. The Global Compact is a United Nations initiative launched
in 2000 seeking to align business operations worldwide with ten universally accepted
principles in four core areas: human rights, labour rights, environment and anticorruption.
While it is a voluntary instrument, it possesses some strength in ability to attract also companies
outside of the OECD, for example in China. At the same time, the Global Compact lacks a
complaints or conflict resolution mechanism when a company is alleged to have violated its
principles. Compliance is simply based on annual reports sent to the Secretariat of Global
Compact185.
Due to a lack of research linking the production of conventional biofuels from diverse
feedstock in ACP countries with corporate social responsibility instruments, it is difficult to
assess their influence on working conditions in the biofuel sector.
It is important, however, to remember that rights of agricultural workers are protected at a
very minimum under the International Labour Organization’s core conventions. In terms of
land rights, the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries
and Forests in the Context of National Food Security stipulate that corporate actors have a
responsibility to respect existing legitimate rights of land users.
Heri S. et al. International instruments influencing the rights of people facing investments in agricultural land,
International Land Coalition, CIRAD, SOMO, World Trade Institute and Oxfam Novib January 2011
185
AETS Consortium – February 2013
95
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
6.3 Gender and biofuels
There is still relatively little research that is specifically dedicated to addressing gender
impacts of production of biofuels in developing countries although more studies are slowly
emerging. The most relevant studies up to mid-2012 have been done by FAO, IFPRI,
International Land Coalition and ActionAid. Other studies often treat gender in its subsections
with sporadic references to single case studies, if at all.
Gender remains as one of the sharpest and most visible forms of
of differentiation when it comes
to access to natural resources as well as in assuring women’s equal
equal voice in decision making.
Women in many of the developing countries produce up to 80%of food for household
consumption but at the same time globally, on average, control less than 2 per cent of
land186.
Figure 25: Proportion of women among the total number of title/holders
Source: SRR2F and FAO Gender and Land Rights Database
Research has found that changes in land tenure systems and the related changes in land use
have often resulted in weakening women’s land entitlements, particularly where women are
poor and their access to land is dependent on male relatives, as is the case in most
customary land systems in Africa187. According to the HLPE study citing Daley: “Women are
vulnerable to exploitation through land investments in four ways. First, women face systematic
discrimination when it comes to their access, ownership and control of land as well as
protection of their land rights. Second, women face discrimination in socio-cultural and
political relations, especially when it comes to influencing and making
making decisions. Third, they
are particularly vulnerable to change that reduces their incomes, because these are
generally already lower then men’s. Fourth, they are physically vulnerable to male force”188.
The 2008 FAO study on gender and liquid biofuels has noted
noted the particular importance of
marginal land to women. “The conversion of these lands to plantations for biofuels
production might therefore cause the partial or total displacement of women’s agricultural
activities towards increasingly marginal lands, with
with negative repercussions for women’s ability
to meet household obligations, including traditional food provision and food security.
Furthermore, if land traditionally used by women switches to energy crop plantations, the
roles men and women play in decision-making concerning household agricultural activities
FAO
Women
and
Population
Division,
Women
and
Sustainable
Food
Security
http://www.fao.org/sd/fsdirect/fbdirect/FSP001.htm and Kachingwe, Nancy From Under Their Feet, A think piece on
gender dimensions of land grab in Africa. ActionAid 2012
187 Ibid. Kachingwe, Nancy
188 HLPE FSN, Daley.E. Gendered impacts of commercial pressures on land, International Land Coalition 2011
186
AETS Consortium – February 2013
96
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
may be altered. In particular, women’s ability to participate in land-use decision-making may
be reduced as the amount of land they control will decline” (Rossi and Lambrou 2008)189. In
addition, the loss of biodiversity that may result from large scale acquisitions can have
particular impact on women by limiting availability of edible wild plants, water and firewood.
The resilience of rural livelihoods might be further reduced by the decline of traditional local
knowledge linked to the loss of agro-biodiversity. If biofuels production competes, either
directly or indirectly, for water and firewood supplies, it could make such resources less readily
available for household use hence force women to travel longer distances and reducing
their time available to participate in decision making processes or other income generating
activities (Rossi and Lambrou)190. Pollution of water sources by intensive production of liquid
biofuels will also have the effect of pushing women to travel longer distances in search of
water hence reducing their time available for other household activities or income
generation projects.
According to the HLPE, neither large nor small scale farming has been demonstrated to be
necessarily better for women, although that may be due to the fact that there has been little
comparative analysis. Some studies suggest that expansion of biofuels may relate to women’s
improved access to wage employment at plantations and hence ability to control their own
income. At the same time, there are specific health implications related to women’s work on
plantations. For example, in Malaysia, women who make up half the plantation workforce
are often recruited to spray chemicals on crops without proper training or safety
equipment191. In addition, most of the employment created on plantations is often geared
towards male employees. In cases where women and households lose land they have
cultivated for household food production or sale on the market and no subsequent labour
opportunities are created, it is difficult to speak of positive gender impacts of large-scale
plantations. The newly emerging data from East Africa regarding the failure of some largescale biofuel plantations (i.e. Sun Biofuels, Bio Shape and Prokon in Tanzania) prove that
women are left worse off in such cases while it can be assumed they had often limited voice
in the consultation or negotiation process for giving up the land, if and where such
consultations have occurred.
Large-scale agricultural production based on contract farming has also received its fair share
of criticism, with one recent review of the literature on such schemes in Sub-Saharan Africa
concluding that “women are generally not involved in contracting with agro-industrial firms
and are disadvantaged in contract schemes”192.
It is important, however, to note that there are few cases with reported positive impact in
improving women’s income from biofuel crops such as Jatropha when such does not result in
changes in land tenure structure and does not compete with local food production. One
such example is of Diligent in Arusha, Tanzania which buys Jatropha seeds from farmers who
plant it and sell it through sharecropping schemes. Diligent’s business model is based on a
unique system of collecting Jatropha seeds from farmers who already have Jatropha hedges
on their land. Diligent actively discouraged farmers from planting Jatropha on their land as a
main crop, except at the edges of fields as hedges and fences to mark boundaries and keep
livestock off their food crops. The company did this because it did not want to be involved in
the “land grabbing” debate and while being a private company its initial operations were
also funded by charitable foundations in Netherlands. The documented case study points
out, however, that women’s income generated from additional Jatropha harvesting is low
and supplementary to the main farming activities193. In addition, recent information obtained
during the research for this report points out to the possibility of Diligent ceasing its operations
in Tanzania unless new investors can be located194. Another case which attributes positive
A. Rossi and Y. Lambrou “Gender and equity issues in liquid biofuel production.” FAO (2008)
Ibid.
191 See Daley. E, International Land Coalition. 2011
192 Daley E and Mi Young Park C. The Gender and Equity Implications of Land-Related Investments on Land Access
and Labour and Income-Generating Opportunities, A Case Study of Selected Agricultural Investments in Northern
Tanzania, FAO. 2012
193 Ibid.
194 Information obtained during the field visit and from communication with the managers of Diligent in Netherlands
189
190
AETS Consortium – February 2013
97
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
additional income generation possibilities for women is of Mali Biocarburant. However, there is
almost no substantive detail on the gender implications of biofuels investments as such, either
in Tanzania or in Mali.
Much has been written about the health benefits for women resulting from replacing
charcoal stoves with locally manufactured cooking stove fuelled by plant oils. While smallscale projects on distribution of stoves powered by local biofuels have had a generally good
reception among women in Philippines and few other projects in Africa, there still tend to be
small scale in terms of their reach. Systematic research is scarce and badly needed. At the
same time, the rises and volatility of prices of cooking oil due to increased demand for
vegetable oils can also often translate into an increasing burden for women by increasing
costs for provision of food for the family.
In conclusion, due to a lack of systematic gender analysis of diverse applications of
conventional biofuels, it is impossible to state whether the effects are negative or positive as
this depends on case scenarios. At the same time, those few projects and applications that
list benefits for women have decided from the onset on the need to take gender issues into
account and have chosen to focus on domestic energy markets.
6.4
Technology transfer and capacity development
Technology transfer and capacity development are by-products of investment activities in
developing countries. Setting up a biofuels project requires know-how regarding the
processing technology but also agricultural knowledge to produce the feedstock.
Technology transfer is considered as very important because it should bring developmental
benefits of foreign investment. The key issue is the extent to which benefits from foreign
biofuels and other investments spill over into the domestic sector in a synergistic and catalytic
relationship including existing smallholder production systems and other value chain actors
such as input suppliers. The prerequisite for a fruitful relationship is a domestic agricultural
sector with absorptive capacity. Benefits should arise from capital inflows, technology transfer
leading to innovation and productivity increase, upgrading domestic production, quality
improvement, employment creation, backward and forward linkages and multiplier effects
through local sourcing of labour and other inputs and processing of outputs. However, these
benefits will not flow if investment results in the creation of an enclave of advanced
agriculture in a dualistic system with traditional smallholder agriculture195. The necessary
conditions for positive spill-over benefits may often not be present in which case policy
interventions in capacity building are needed to create them.
Whether or not the introduction of new technologies will have a positive effect on local
women and men is a subject of debate. The FAO (2009) warns that local populations will not
benefit if technology transfer occurs in a system where advanced agriculture and smallholder
agriculture continue to exist side by side with limited spill over from one domain to the other.
Cotula (2010) points out that investors often put limitations on the use of technology and
related knowledge, particularly when it comes to application outside of the project. It is also
conceivable that labour-saving technologies might make production so much more efficient
that the producer can expand production a lot and, for example, sell on the international
market - without an increased demand for local labour196.
195FAO
Foreign investment in developing country agriculture - issues, policy implications and international response
68th FAO Committee on Commodity Problems, (June 2010); p 5
196 J. Behrman, R. Meinzen-Dick and A. R. Quisumbing, The Gender Implications of Large-Scale Land Deals, IFPRI
Policy Brief 17 (April 2011); p 14
AETS Consortium – February 2013
98
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Box 24: Different types of technology transfer
•
•
•
•
Technology to design, construct and operate a biofuels conversion plant.
Agricultural technology for farming (large and small scale) and producing biofuels
feedstock.
Technology and know-how to deal with local and international markets including
building up the necessary infrastructure (rural roads, silos, harbours).
Technology to measure the results; for example Paraguay has an obligatory
blending with biofuels but does not control this regulation so that consequently the
biofuels blending regulation exists on the paper only.
The disparities between and within developing countries in benefiting from technology
transfer suggest that the relationship between technology transfer and the accumulation of
domestic technological capacity is far from straightforward. In other words, more technology
transfer does not necessarily lead to more technological and economic development.
First generation biofuels are made from sugars, starch and vegetable oils found in arable
crops, which can be easily extracted using conventional technology. In comparison, second
generation biofuels are made from lingo-cellulosic biomass or woody crops, agricultural
residues or waste, which makes it harder to extract the required fuel; this could be done by
the biochemical approach in which enzymes and other micro-organisms are used to convert
cellulose and hemi-cellulose components of the feedstock to sugars prior to their
fermentation to produce ethanol or the thermo-chemical approach.
The 1st generation biofuels technology is long off-patents197 and therefore the intellectual
property rights do not play an important role any longer and do not hamper technology
transfer. The 2nd generation biofuels are much more complex and even if the technology is
not so difficult to understand, the application is very expensive in respect to the investment as
well as concerning the running cost (enzymes). The intellectual property rights for the 2nd
generation biofuels play an important role with many registered patents.
Given the status of the technology and investment requirements to establish processing
plants, it is according to UNEP198 unlikely that second generation biofuels production can be
achieved in developing countries in the coming decade!
However, the potential development of second generation biofuels in developing countries
could be approached via the biofuel feedstock production. Investment in feedstock
production could offer an option for developing countries to profit from the growing biomass
market for second-generation biofuels production outside their borders, provided that longdistance transport infrastructure is suitably developed.
During the transition to second generation biofuel commercialisation in developing countries,
cooperative R&D could stimulate technology transfer and generate important experience.
Skills development and adaptation of technology especially the local fabrication of part of
the facilities, training of personnel on requisite techniques for equipment operation and
maintenance and the emergence of private sector participation are important prerequisites
for commercialisation of second generation biofuel technologies.
To start promoting biofuels feedstock production for 2nd generation biofuels it needs like for
the 1st generation stable and predictable political conditions and targets, within the
developing countries as well as from EU side which is a potential buyer of the bio-energy.
Within the international technology transfer, there is a distinction between horizontal and
vertical transfers. Horizontal technology transfer consists of the movement of an established
technology from one operational environment to another (for instance from one company to
197Advanced
biofuels and developing countries: intellectual property scenarios and policy implications, p 64;
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/ditcbcc20091_en_Juma_Bell_chapter.pdf
198 UNEP: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing Countries: A
GEF Targeted Research Project, 2012; p 114
AETS Consortium – February 2013
99
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
another or from one country like Brazil to another one like Mozambique). Vertical technology
transfer, in contrast, refers to the transmission of new technologies from their generation
during research and development activities in science and technology organisations, for
instance, to application in the industrial and agricultural sectors. The 2nd generation biofuels
could be a good example for vertical transfer but due to several reasons it is not taking place
in Africa199.
One reason is the fact that the 2nd generation technology is much more complicated. Only
multinational companies as well as wealthy countries such as Japan, USA, Canada and
Europe are doing research in this field. Currently, there are no commercially successful 2nd
generation biofuels plants as even large-scale models in the United States depend on heavy
subsidies. As evidence from field trips to Senegal and Tanzania have shown, 2nd generation
biofuels are not discussed at all as already the production of 1st generation is quite small.
In 2010 the OECD mentioned in a report that developing countries are not able to actively
engage in the development of second-generation biofuels technologies mostly because
intellectual property rights are becoming a major barrier. Initiatives for cooperation on
technology development should, therefore, be increased to enable developing countries to
build capacity and profit from the new technology when it reaches a commercial stage200.
Notwithstanding, there is transfer taking place as seen in an 83 000 hectares Brazilian biofuels
investment project in Mozambique. Besides this rather limited technology transfer in the
processing sector, at least in the sense of valuable input for developing countries, the
situation is better when it comes to agricultural technology transfer.
The relevant agricultural knowledge related to biofuels crop production might or might not
be available in the country, depending if the feedstock is already grown locally for other
purposes. However, existing know-how can be improved and up-dated and resulting in
improvements in agricultural production technology. In case that the investor will grow the
feedstock, more training to the staff will be provided than if the investor is just purchasing the
raw material local farmers are growing individually.
Large potentials for increased yields of food and non-food biomass seem to exist in subSaharan Africa, where development is hampered by insufficient investments in infrastructure,
production capacities, education and training201.
Capacity development is a fundamental aspect of technology transfer. In the late 1970s, the
discussion was on the costs of technology transfer, and on whether the choice of
technologies was appropriate to the local conditions in developing countries. Little attention
was given in this analysis to the absorptive capacities and domestic technological learning of
those who acquired foreign technologies in other words, to the processes involved in
assimilating imported technologies and putting them to work efficiently. The underlying
assumption seemed to be that once a technology was acquired, its absorption and
implementation took place almost effortlessly.
However, nowadays, opinion is that the acquisition and absorption of foreign technologies
and their further development, are complex processes that demand significant efforts from
the acquirers; therefore, capacity development is a key issue in making use of new
technologies.
For biofuel investment projects, one could distinguish between processing and management
know-how that is required to run a biofuels company on the one hand and agricultural
production skills on the other hand. In case that the crop for biofuel production is largely
provided by the biofuels company, all the capacity building efforts and training originate
from the private sector.
199 see also http://waccglobal.org/en/20062-communicating-with-angels-being-digital-being-human/585--What-istechnology-transfer.html
200 OECD / IEA: Sustainable Production of Second-Generation Biofuels; 2010; p 40
201 67. S. Bringezu, H. Schütz, et al, “Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels”, United
Nations Environment Programme (October 2009); p 73
AETS Consortium – February 2013
100
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The role of the involved governments becomes crucial if out-growers are involved to provide
part of the feedstock which is usually done on a piece rate. In order to help farmers maximise
their revenues government could assist by providing relevant training to smallholders.
Agricultural extension services should be offered to small-scale liquid biofuels feedstock
producers, in order to disseminate best practices, facilitate farmer-to-farmer participatory
learning, and encourage and address farmers’ requests for technical advice; access to these
extension services should be ensured for both male and female producers202. "Currently none
of the African countries achieves even a quarter of its potential productivity. Rather than just
focussing only on an expansion of uncultivated land, it is important that investors and
governments support improvements in technology, infrastructure, and institutions that can
improve productivity on existing farmland," says Klaus Deininger, lead economist in the World
Bank’s Development Research Department.
Box 25: Situation in Senegal
The field mission to Senegal also showed that agricultural research activities are part of the
technology transfer; for example IRD (France) is cooperating with the Senegalese Institute for
Agricultural Research (ISRA) for the in-vitro production of Jatropha plants and actual
production capacity reaches 500 000 plants every 2 months. ISRA ensures the production of
the Jatropha plants, mainly done in nurseries. Thanks to a scientific collaboration agreement
between ISRA and CULTESA (Centre for Biotechnological Research, Tenerife, Spain), a
laboratory for in vitro cultivation has been created to enhance the multiplication activity of
Jatropha seeds.
Another important issue for smallholders and extension services is the introduction of drip
irrigation techniques in Jatropha cultivation in Senegal, region of Thiès, unfortunately so far
with results below expectations. Furthermore, the overall planned 320 000 ha of planted
Jatropha by 2012 (Government policy and target) could not be achieved; only 15 000 ha of
Jatropha have been planted out so far.
For example, one of the drivers of Brazil’s success in biofuels through its “Proálcool”
programme (1975) which was mainly triggered by energy security considerations and making
use of the existing sugar-cane production infrastructure was its strong foundation in research,
education and training, providing a knowledge platform that was able to develop
technology and absorb, adapt and improve upon transferred technologies. Creating the
domestic capacity to understand, utilize and replicate existing biofuels technologies requires
a broader system of innovation that can facilitate knowledge and technical flows among
different stakeholders203.
The EU supports within the “ACP Science and Technology Programme” capacity building in
biofuel technology to create sustainable, non-food bio-oil supply chains. The programme
focuses on linking the relevant science and technology academics, professionals, decisionmakers and support scheme managers from South Africa, Namibia, Ghana, Italy and the UK
in a series of inter-regional and intra-regional workshops. The programme is addressing the
lack of necessary technical skills, limited knowledge of renewable biofuels or of combined
cooling heat and power (CCHP), insufficient investment in agronomic, genetic, technical,
and ecological research and innovation areas, and insufficient investment in necessary
capital equipment or in supporting new businesses. As most biofuels are made out of food
plants, which are not eligible for this support programme, the “ACP Science and Technology
Programme” focuses on commercially less important plants like Jatropha, salicornia and
56. A. Rossi and Y. Lambrou, "Making Sustainable Biofuels Work for Smallholders Farmers and Rural Households:
Issues and Perspectives", FAO, (2009), p 20
203 Jurna C.: Advanced biofuels and developing countries: intellectual property scenarios and policy implications;
2009; p 80
202
AETS Consortium – February 2013
101
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
microalgae204. However, a process is started by this programme to transfer know-how and to
make use of it by locally adopted innovations based on these transfers.
Generally, capacities should be built slowly but continuously in order to avoid bottlenecks
when the new technologies become technically available and economically feasible. To
ensure technology access and transfer, co-operation on RD&D between industrialised and
developing countries as well as among developing countries should be enhanced.205 Of
course that is rather the domain of the public sector and the NGOs.
Training and capacity development regarding biofuels technology should not only focus on
plant production but also on managerial and technical know-how in operating and
constructing processing plants. Project counterparts receive vocational training in
construction work and project implementation; consequently their experience is invaluable
for the local market development and is a prerequisite for the successful replication of the
projects.
204http://www.acp-st.eu/content/capacity-building-south-africa-namibia-and-ghana-create-sustainable-non-foodbio-oil-supply205Eisentraut A., Sustainable Production of Second Generation Biofuels: Potential and perspectives in major
economies and developing countries, International Energy Agency, 2010; p 11
AETS Consortium – February 2013
102
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Section 7: Outline of the results of the study
7.1
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
Lack of information on the biofuel trade flows between the EU and the ACP countries
1. According to official statistics (OECD-FAO, EUROSTAT) there is little trade of biofuel
products from ACP countries and especially from Africa to the European Union, and
export of feedstocks for biofuel purposes appears to be limited. The African production of
biofuel products and feedstocks is still rather small in comparison to other regions and
absorbed almost entirely by local use. A number of planned large scale investment
projects has been recently abandoned partly due to their speculative nature (Jatropha
mainly).
2. The exact production of biofuels in developing countries is not sufficiently documented
and statistical data on biofuels trade is scarce. A lack of homogeneity in product
classification as well as lack of information on their final use (food, energy, or else) make it
difficult to assess the trade flows for biofuels and biofuels’ feedstocks. Value chain analysis
of biofuels has been insufficiently developed for ACP countries so far. Most studies on
biofuels focus at feedstock production neglecting the analysis of processing and
marketing.
3. If a chain of custody is absent, it is not possible to reliably differentiate feedstocks entering
the EU for food or biofuel purposes (as opposed to what is done for wood with the EU
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade agreements). In this case it is necessary
to rely on historical trends of import/exports leading to significant uncertainties in the
estimates of food crops used for energy.
Rising food prices and potential links with biofuel policies
4. Worldwide, food commodity prices are rising and, with or without EU blending policy,
biofuel production and use in the world is growing. The contribution of biofuels to rising
food prices is highly debated. Some opinions mentioned that biofuels have a strong
influence on food prices. Other analyses demonstrate that other drivers are more
fundamental.
5. Many authors and institutions have linked the EU biofuel policy to the rising food prices.
However, more and more authors blame the global food demand, stock levels (too low),
trade policies, strong correlation between food and petroleum products prices. Rising
standards of living and changes in food consumption patterns (diets) in emerging
countries can also be a strong factor.
Although there seems to be a consensus that some effect on food prices exists, the
research team could not find statistical or other quantitative evidence to determine
exactly the extent to which the EU biofuel policies have contributed to rising food
prices, especially in Africa. No direct effects of EU biofuel policies on food prices have
been observed locally in the country studies, but this may be due to regulated prices
and state intervention (e.g. Senegal). In any case, the contribution of the EU biofuel
policy to rising food prices in ACP countries is not yet measured and this leaves room
to diverse opinions and statements.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
103
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
6. In Africa, an increasing demand for food crops in conjunction with much slower growth in
agricultural productivity, low level of stocks and dependence on food imports in many
countries can be identified as main drivers that drove food prices up. However, as
markets are becoming more globalised, the impact of biofuels and biofuel feedstocks as
a global commodity is becoming more pronounced. This means that there is a general
trend where food is becoming more expensive, and biofuels production is - with or
without EU blending requirements - becoming more prevalent.
Large scale land acquisitions in Africa and biofuel policies
7. The EU biofuel policy has been identified by many to be among the key drivers behind
the recent wave of large scale land acquisitions in developing countries, as many
companies (both EU and not EU based) have taken into consideration the EU demand for
biofuels in their land investment strategies. It should be noted that, as of today, there are
also many other factors present which seem to have an even greater impact on
attracting large scale land investment. These include, but are not limited to: the national
foreign investment strategy, policies aimed at modernization and investment in the
agricultural sector, foreign investment in extractives industries (mining), speculative
investment in land and water resources via new financial instruments. It is, however,
equally important to note that the impacts of large scale land acquisition have often
already taken place, whether or not they lead to the intended production of biofuel
feedstock.
8. Lack of transparency with regard to large-scale land acquisition on the side of both
private investors and target countries’ governments is a fundamental challenge to good
governance and ensuring better policy coherence. Due to a lack of precise data, the
true scale of the phenomena of large scale land acquisitions and resulting control of
water rights in developing countries is likely to be under-estimated and insufficiently
addressed.
Access and control of water resources as an emerging factor
9. Several reported land acquisitions by local elites as well as by foreign companies are
linked with securing access to water sources and sometime exclusive control of the
resources. This has been documented, for example, in the Italian “SenEthanol project” in
Fanaye (North Senegal) where access to the Senegal River and some of its tributaries
would have been denied to local inhabitants and traditional pastoralists, if not for the
protests of the civil society that forced the government to cancel this land deal. In
addition, it is important to note that most of the large scale sugar cane plantations (for
food or fuel or both) are characterised by high levels of water pollution as drained water
is often discharged to the river without pre-treatment.
10. Most crops used for biofuel production have high water requirements. The water footprint
of biofuels varies widely across contexts, as presented in Box 16 of the report. The
supposed “free” water use by biofuel investors does not encourage and makes difficult to
implement more water efficiency and optimization. The uses of water to produce energy
and the uses of energy in water supply and sanitation (water-energy nexus) are not
sufficiently taken into consideration by the policy makers.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
104
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
11. Large areas of fertile watered land (Tanzania, Mozambique, ) and irrigable lands (Mali,
Senegal, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc..) are becoming increasingly targeted by investment funds
(i.e. Middle East) , some EU pension funds and by other emerging nations resulting in
granting them access and control to portions of the Nile, Zambezi, Niger and Senegal
rivers. This represents a real threat to the capacity of the African countries to determine
their own agricultural policies in the near future as through the growing risk of loss of
control over their land and water resources.
Overall environmental issues
12. Impacts on land, water and natural resources mostly reported for biofuel production are
mainly associated with cultivation of energy crops with input intensive farming systems.
Sustainable management for land and water-use, external inputs, impacts on ecosystems
and efficiency remains a big challenge and more progress needs to be achieved on
these if we are to talk of sustainable energy.
13. Direct and indirect land use changes must be taken into consideration to get a real
assessment of the biofuels production impacts. Good practices that minimize indirect
land use change risks exist and should be promoted.
14. Environmental impacts depend on bioclimatic conditions, crop characteristics and
farming system. Evidence of impacts specifically associated with intensified biofuel
production remains limited as most of the problems are similar to those already identified
with agricultural production in general (not specific to biofuels). Expansion of monoculture
feedstock plantation for biofuels is detrimental to biodiversity and causes loss of natural
habitats. It is very challenging to successfully conduct the change from a conventional
food and agriculture model to sustainable practices.
Role of the private sector: Business model, investment profile, job creation and social
corporate responsibilities
15. In some of the reported cases both the involved private sector actors and the local
investment promotion agencies have not undertaken the basic agronomic assessment
and profitability analyses before the decision for investment in biofuels feedstock
production was taken. Negligent approach to Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment studies has been reported, for example in Tanzania. Lack of local capacity
and transparent systems to enforce and monitor the preparation of ESIA (ESIA) seems to
be one of the main causes.
16. Inclusive business models that involve smallholder farmers as active partners appear to be
more viable from a social and economic point of view than those based on large-scale
land acquisitions. Many large scale biofuels project in Africa failed or are being
abandoned. Instruments such as contract farming arrangements, out-grower schemes,
joint ventures and/or more innovative models of benefit-sharing should be explored as
viable alternatives.
17. There is a wide gap in studies on corporate social responsibility (CSR) instruments vis-à-vis
biofuel investments in ACP countries. A study addressing corporate social responsibility
beyond existing mechanisms, evidencing its influence on working conditions and
AETS Consortium – February 2013
105
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
environmental impacts in the biofuel sector and ways to enhance existing mechanisms
with increased accountability and remedy mechanisms is very much needed. New
thinking with regard to CSR in agricultural investment is needed.
18. Enhancing agricultural yields in the medium-long term requires investments in the form of
better access to technologies. Promoting better production techniques and fostering
rural financial services is crucial. In the longer term, the development of a sustainable
biofuel industry could promote access in rural areas to cheaper and safer energy supplies
and hence support economic growth and long-term improvements in food security.
However it should be considered that biofuels business strategies must be based on longterm strategies, as plants may need several years before providing a first commercial
harvest.
19. Jobs creation due to biofuels development is controversial. The potential “new” jobs
created could be significant, the production for biofuel industry can create new income
and therefore contribute to prevent rural exodus as well as contribute to poverty
reduction in rural areas. At the same time, the jobs actually created are often seasonal
and characterized by poor working conditions in plantations and factories. The only
exception, where there is real additional income created for farmers, seems to be in the
schemes where Jatropha seeds are bought from farmers (often women) who produce
these in addition to but not replacing the main food crops. Finally, there is a big gap
between the jobs planned and promised by the investors and the jobs actually created.
20. Projects for biofuel development use different business model (from large-scale
plantations to smallholders’ projects). The main challenge relies in the capacity to
implement a real sustainable model, as the risks and uncertainties on conditions, yields
and final profitability remain high.
Energy security
21. Where energy access (in particular for remote rural areas) is low and where deforestation
for firewood and charcoal is high, biofuels locally produced for local use could become
an alternative with positive environmental and social impacts.
Emerging local civil society demand for more transparency
22. Farmers associations and civil society organizations are asking for more transparency and
"fair" land deals. This mobilization can be very effective. In a country like Senegal, they
have been able to mobilize the population to gain back their rights to access to land and
water resources. They have been able to develop legal capacity to tackle "unfair" or
"irregular" local and national government decisions and are pushing strongly for a land
reform. The same phenomenon can also be observed in other countries.
Gender impacts
23. There is relatively little research dedicated to gender impacts of large-scale biofuels
production in developing countries. Changes in land tenure systems and land use, and
therefore in access to water and other natural resources, often results in negative impacts
on women’s land entitlements as well as in time spent for household-related activities,
particularly in African countries. In addition, there is little evidence so far of assumed
benefits in terms of employment opportunities generated for women in large scale
AETS Consortium – February 2013
106
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
plantations as in reality male labour seems to be preferred while conditions on plantations
may carry additional health risks.
Expectations versus reality, debunking the myths
24. While Jatropha constitutes a key “non-food crop” for large scale land investment,
recently emerging data regarding failures of large scale Jatropha plantations, especially
in Eastern Africa, calls for further need of research of the crop potential. The expected
yields are not being met. The Jatropha plant needs much more inputs that the “plant it
and forget it miracle crop” model that was promoted and lay behind many of the
investment projects.
25. A key finding of this study relates to the risks associated with the claims and perception of
"unused land" availability in developing countries. The general idea depicting ACP
countries and especially Africa as an untapped reservoir of “land availability for
expansion agriculture and biofuels production” fade away when confronted with the
reality of limited demarcation level of land, incomplete land reforms and land use
registration and general lack of participatory land use planning prior to assigning land for
biofuels production on local level. Protection of the land users who are often not the land
owners (i.e. government) is mostly inadequate in land acquisition processes and leaves
much room for abuses and human right violations. A case by case study of each country,
region and locality is advised against claims of massive land availability for any particular
biofuel feedstock.
26. Most African countries have not formulated a national bioenergy policy. It is only in
December 2012 that the African Union adopted a policy document (Pan African
Bioenergy Policy and Guidelines) that should serve as a basis for individual countries and
RECs to further develop and implement policies on the ground. The Pan African policy
document recommends some ideas on sustainable land use planning such as mapping
out the potential and assuring national consultation for demarcating land for biofuels.
7.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS (GLOBAL)
7.2.1 Land issues
1. Both EU and developing countries national policies promoting foreign direct investment in
agricultural land should be carefully scrutinized vis-à-vis their social and environmental
impacts and through the introduction of necessary safeguards. For example, a list of
possible safeguards has been provided in the recently internationally approved Voluntary
Guidelines on Responsible Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National
Food Security. Other international initiatives seeking to discipline land investments, such as
the currently elaborated Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments under the
Committee on World Food Security, should also be supported.
2. The concept of idle or/and marginal land can be deceiving. Any global, regional or
national studies citing specific amount of “idle land” or “unused land” available for
cultivation of one or another biofuel feedstock must be treated with great caution.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
107
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Research as well as field visits have demonstrated that in most cases such land is usually
already being used or claimed, although such uses and claims may be unrecognized
because land users are marginalized from formal land rights, often due to incomplete
land demarcation and land reform processes. In addition, such land often provides
important livelihood support as well as environmental and cultural services. A case by
case study of each country, region and locality is advised against claims of massive land
availability for any particular biofuel feedstock.
3. Land tenure reforms, the demarcation of land with participatory land use planning
techniques, legal recognition of customary land rights and promotion/integration of
smallholder farming in developing countries must be supported politically and financially.
This includes training and technical assistance for promoting the use of territorial land
planning techniques at local level.
4. Work of NGOs and civil society engaged in monitoring and asking for more transparency
of agricultural land investments and investments in biofuels as well as in support to land
demarcation processes should be encouraged at international, national and country
levels.
5. The potential for biofuels development in the country must be assessed on a case by
case basis with a mapping of suitable areas per crop, thorough understanding of crop’s
soil and water requirements, reliable data on yields and real cost-benefit analysis
including social-economic impact assessments before projects are endorsed and land
attributed, in order to prevent negative impacts linked to failed investments.
6. Assessment of land suitability potential for agriculture and land-use planning are key
points to be strengthened in order to orient possible biofuel development, integrating
land tenure issues and avoiding land concentration.
7.
There is a need for greater and increased gender analysis at all levels of policy and
research regarding biofuels production. There is a need for further research on gender
impacts of biofuels both on global level as well as through case studies on national level.
In addition, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment studies should include
gendered differentiated data. Reporting on prior land use patterns, also in term of
gender, should be enhanced in biofuel projects, where possible.
7.2.2 Environmental issues
8. Enhancement of good environmental practices in feedstocks for biofuel production must
be largely diffused and used to limit natural resource depletion and mitigate potential
negative socio-economic and environmental impacts.
9. Access to water for local communities must be guaranteed and conditions to deliver
access to water resources to the companies aiming to produce feedstock for biofuel
must be carefully considered. The use of water resources must be strategically
(geopolitical analyse), environmentally, economically and financially evaluated so as to
estimate the current situation and value and forecast future developments. Promote
solutions for water efficiency and optimisation.
10. It is urgent to recognize the increasing scarcity of water and to address the Water-EnergyFood Nexus in an integrated manner. The role of public sector (at international, national
and sub-national levels) is vital and the role of the private sector and other non-state
actors is also crucial. Public-sector coordination and facilitation is needed to formulate
AETS Consortium – February 2013
108
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
and implement a coherent vision and policies to face the water scarcity and potential
threats to food supply, in particular linked to biofuel development. Orientations presented
in the 2011/2012 European Report on Development, to manage water, energy and land
for inclusive and sustainable growth, must be widely disseminated and implemented by
public and private bodies, from local to national and international levels.
11. Land Use Change, including Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC), must be assessed and
integrated when analysing the potential impact of GHG emission reduction from biofuels
development. A number of good practices and tools that could support governments
and operators exist that could also mitigate indirect land use change. While the EU is
leading on this subject, the current proposal that envisage an end of subsidies for cropbased biofuels could send the wrong signal to the developing world. Indeed it is over
simplistic to assume that food crops always compete with food leading to ILUC, while
non-food crops never do it.
12. The study shows that developing countries have difficulties with the implementation and
enforcement of EIA/ESIAs. Capacity building, training, global framework for EIA/ESIA and
SEA related to biofuel production would help to ease the decision support process for the
biofuels sector. Capacity building should be further supported at global level, by making
methodologies, tools and data more easily available through international organisations
(such as the OECD or FAO) and further supported by development cooperation projects.
7.2.3 Transparency
13. There is a need to improve the information on world trade flows for biofuels and (where
possible) biofuel feedstocks, for instance by adopting a common nomenclature at the
international level. Guidance towards the establishment of a global chain of custody is
urgently needed. Aspects related to transparency of operations should be duly
considered in all biofuel certification schemes and related policies.
14. Increase political will and support at global lfor assuring transparency in land and water
acquisition processes and the fair undertaking of Social and Environmental Impact
Assessments prior to project implementation.
15. Good examples from other transparency initiatives, such as the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative, should be further studied and analysed with the view of setting up
similar systems for improvement of data availability and private sector accountability on
investment in agricultural lands and water resources.
16. Policies promoting foreign direct investment in agricultural lands in ACP countries should
systematically require/support independent monitoring of Environmental and Social
Impact Assessments, transparent registration of large-scale land and water deals with
access to data by all.
7.2.4 Business models for a biofuel value chain
17. A value chain analysis of biofuels must be conducted prior to promoting new investments,
including production, transformation, commercialization and use of biofuels by the
private sector and the specialised government institutions. The technologies used for
biofuel production should also be assessed in this context – more research in this area and
relative cost and benefits of different technologies would be useful.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
109
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
18. Knowledge on agronomy and sustainable farming systems regarding biofuel feedstocks
production and their use in developing countries must be improved and largely
disseminated. Their adoption must be supported with appropriate policies and
mechanisms at farmer’s and company’s level. Specific attention must be paid to nonfood crops like Jatropha.
19. Sustainability approaches must be promoted in all type of projects i.e. large-scale
commercial plantations, small-scale biofuel projects, out-grower schemes. The typology
of biofuel projects presented in this report (see figure 19) could facilitate the initial
appraisal of investments.
7.2.5 Social and human rights issues
20. National biofuel policies should be coherent with the existing poverty eradication and
food security strategies at country and regional levels to ensure sustainable social and
economic impacts.
21. Any investments resulting in land tenure changes must be accompanied by thorough
consultation based on the internationally recognized principle of free, prior and informed
consent that involved all the stakeholders at the local level, including women and
marginalized social groups. While evictions should be avoided at all costs, in cases of
evictions, detailed plans for resettlement and compensations to be paid by the investor
must be agreed in advance with parties affected and their implementation should be
independently monitored.
22. There is a gender difference in the impacts of projects that affect access to resources
such as land and water.. To be able to take these gender impacts sufficiently into
account, there is a need for improved gender analysis at all levels of impacts of biofuel
policies. Effects of any land tenure changes should be analysed from the perspective of
proper valorisation of land for women and marginalized social groups. Promises of
employment generation through biofuel projects should take gender considerations into
account. Environmental and Social Impact Assessments should (where possible) include
gendered differentiated data, including on prior land use patterns.
23. The potential need for introduction of accountability and remedy mechanisms into
existing international corporate social responsibility mechanisms and schemes should be
further studied and analysed.
24. Compliance with the existing developed codes of conduct and certification schemes
should be promoted and developing countries should be supported to enforce their
adoption and enabling instruments should be developed to lower the related costs for
the farmers.
25. Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights should be
promoted including corporate social responsibility and increase transparency of
corporations in terms of financial as well as non-financial disclosure. The recent EU and US
initiatives to promote better country-by-country financial reporting by companies should
also be promoted.
7.2.6 Role of local governments
26. National governments must play a leading role in preventing and removing negative
effects of biofuel development through increasing transparency, ensuring coherence of
national bioenergy strategies and agricultural investment strategies with development
AETS Consortium – February 2013
110
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
objectives and national development strategies and prioritization of food security of their
populations.
27. Local governments and RECs are advised to initiate and formulate explicit rules, policies
and legislation and the promotion of production, investment and trade in bioenergy
products. The key functions of national governments in this area are:
• Policy making: Develop a sustainable bioenergy policy coherent with national energy
strategy, as an integral part of the national development and food security strategy
with adequate legal provisions for the production, distribution, use and trade in
bioenergy; Develop and implement a global land-use planning strategy.
• Regulatory: Set stringent environmental standards, promote transparent investment
policies; Create safeguards for protection and promotion of smallholder farming as
biofuels development should never be at the expense of population (displacement)
or food production.
• Developing capacity: Strategically choose best adapted feedstock and technology
options, and conclude economically, socially and environmentally acceptable deals.
In addition, create forums and mobilise various government departments, the private
sector, civil society and the academic community; ensure beneficial outcomes for
smallholder farmers; and promote information exchange and best practice.
• Inter-ministerial coordination and more coherence in developing countries policies:
Involve all ministries that may be linked with the promotion, production and trade of
bioenergy to strengthen complementarities and promote coherence;
• Enforcement: Enhance enforcement legislation and monitoring of agricultural
investments.
7.2.7 Role of EU and international institutions
28. The EU has the responsibility to regularly evaluate and eventually review its biofuel policy
and its impacts in other parts of the world, while taking into account that indirect
negative impact can occur even before any production actually occurs and before or
even in the absence of significant imports of biofuels to the EU.
29. Specific studies devising strategies for bridging any existing gaps and inconsistencies
between the EU Food Security Policy Framework and EU Renewable Energy Directive visà-vis potential for promotion of large scale export-oriented biofuel plantations in
detriment to the promotion of local food production should be conducted.
30. The EU and other international institutions can exert their influence (as donors and key
political actors at the international level) for the achievement of the following objectives:
• Good environmental practices in feedstock for biofuel production must be largely
disseminated and used; there is a need to develop an institutional setting able to
prevent unsustainable practices and stimulate good environmental and socioeconomic performance;
• Support more research to better understand the environmental links between biofuel
production and resource depletion: i.e. deforestation, water consumption, land
degradation;
• For biofuel development projects supported by public funding, high level of
transparency and full respect of EIA/ESIA state-of-the-art must be mandatory and
monitored;
• The role and contribution of biofuels to increase energy access and energy security
improving the national energy mix should be considered, looking for coherence and
AETS Consortium – February 2013
111
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
harmonization of policies (Power System Masterplan/Biomass Strategy Policy/National
Liquid Biofuels Policy); The EU and other international institutions should support such
projects;
• While acknowledging that LUC effects should be taken into account, the extent to
which EU biofuel policies contribute to LUC and ILUC in developing countries is
uncertain and difficult to quantify. Therefore, it seems more effective to focus on the
potential synergies between food and fuel production, such as improved valorisation
of agricultural residues and biomass production in degraded areas. There is a need to
develop an institutional setting able to prevent unsustainable practices and
incentivize good environmental and socio-economic practices such as the
deployment of Integrated Food and Energy Systems (IFES) or the adoption of those
technologies able to reduce residues to a minimum.
7.2.8 Specific recommendations to EU institutions
31. The European Commission
• Ensure representation of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) perspective and
presence of development experts in discussions on formulation and review of energy
policies;
• Consider expansion of the sustainability criteria to include social criteria, food security,
access to natural resources such as land and water and principle of free, prior and
informed consent for communities affected by land transaction for biofuels;
• Identify and address any existing gaps and inconsistencies between the EU Food
Security Policy Framework and EU Renewable Energy Directive;
• Assist developing countries through development aid, research and capacity building
and joint pressure on more transparency and accountability of the private sector
private to ensure that development of biofuels is coherence with their development
strategies and the needs of their populations;
• Make sure that above developed PCD aspects and concerns are sufficiently taken
into account of the impact assessments for policies affecting and/or triggering
biofuels production and in general agricultural investments in developing countries,
especially in areas such as trade, agriculture or energy.
• The EU should support developing countries in addressing the water-energy-land
nexus through its development cooperation programmes, by supporting inclusive and
sustainable business models and promoting appropriate governance. Mechanisms to
strengthen information exchange may ensure that policy-formulation processes
include properly the water and energy nexus, as a strong commitment for PCD
promotion. The specific recommendations expressed in the 2011/2012 European
Report on Development need to be considered for implementation in future
development projects.
• A series of international initiatives to discipline land investments (principle for
Responsible Agricultural Investments, Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Tenure of
Land, Fisheries and Forests) are currently being further elaborated and implemented.
Proper financial and political support should be given to assure that they are
implemented at country level and supported by the private sector. They could
become a central piece of a longer term approach on sustainability criteria for
various commodities, including biofuels.
32. Role of DEVCO
AETS Consortium – February 2013
112
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
• Engage actively in exchanges with the other DGs (e.g. ENERGY, AGRI,
ENVIRONEMENT, TRADE, RESEARCH) on the further researching and integration of the
underlined recommendations into the policies and projects aimed at biofuels
development and trade;
• Define and communicate a detailed and well-argued position regarding biofuels
development and its development impacts, from DEVCO point of view, including
options and tools for corrective actions where necessary.
• Define and communicate a detailed and well-argued position regarding biofuel
grants projects financing in developing countries, including the development of a set
of minimum criteria for sustainability.
33. The European External Action Service
• The EEAS should work in close cooperation in DEVCO to make sure that Policy
Coherence for Development is mainstreamed in the work of EU delegations. EC
delegations should include PCD issues in their dialogue with local actors including
private sector and civil society in order to gather information on impacts of non-aid EU
policies;
• The EU delegations should be instructed to play an active role in gathering relevant
information and feedback on PCD issues such as biofuels production or large scale
land acquisitions from developing countries and actively encouraged to signal any
incoherencies with regard to PCD from the country level perspective. This feedback
could in turn feed into the European Commission's efforts to promote more PCD in
policy-making at EU level.
34. EU member states
• Address through policy measures any impacts identified in the biennial monitoring
reports on social sustainability implications of the Renewable Energy Directive.
• In their role as donors, support the EU efforts to ensure more coherence for
development and – among other things - take into account findings on impacts of
biofuels production in developing countries to inform their decisions on supporting
and/or financing projects related to biofuels production or access to sustainable forms
of energy in developing countries.
7.2.9 Issues to be tackled by the Private sector
The role of agribusiness investors
Based on our analysis and interviews, private sector actors play an important role in
determining the development impacts of biofuels production in developing countries, by
their investment practices, the quality of their impact analysis and business plans and in
general through their corporate behaviour within international and national regulatory
environments and in their interaction with local stakeholders.
On top of the requirements such as Directive 2009/28/EC the private sector might consider
the following recommendations to enable successful biofuel projects:
• UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: These principles include also the
right to adequate food .These guidelines should be taken serious and all issues related
to these and other voluntarily guidelines and principles should be communicated.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
113
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The private sector could and should increase
the transparency and adherence to CSR in developing countries reflecting the formal
and informal ways in which business makes a contribution to improving the
governance, social, ethical, labour and environmental conditions of the developing
countries in which they operate, while remaining sensitive to prevailing religious,
historical and cultural contexts. Such an approach would integrate the investment
project deeper in the local society and enable a better mutual understanding.
Furthermore, the companies would be able to communicate to their clients on their
contributions to sustainable development.
• Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA): The private sector should apply
very closely the ESIA methodology, not only for satisfying administrative requests but
also as a commitment with sustainable land and water management. Such a
behavior would help to bypass upcoming conflicts resulting in unclear or poorly
defined owner- and user rights.
• Investments based on sound agricultural know-how: Agricultural know-how could be
improved by cooperation from the project start onwards with international
organisations like FAO and Pan-African and other national research institutes. Three
groups should benefit from this know-how transfer: the investor to do a sustainable
project, the local staff who will work on the biofuel feedstock production and the local
authorities to understand well from the beginning of a project if it has the potential to
become sustainable.
• Financial know-how: Financial know-how and sound business plans are the other main
drivers to make a project successful. The business plan must respect the state-of-theart rules, i.e. long-term vision, analysis of alternatives, cash-flow.
• Social infrastructure: Social investments, when designed in a participatory way with
the local beneficiaries, such as school, ambulance, dwells, rural roads and others
productive infrastructures, help improve investors’ position and acceptance by the
population and should be encouraged.
• Job creation: When possible, social labour should be used instead of machineries;
specially if it is cheaper. However investors could create jobs easier if employment
rules are not too tough but more important if the investment climate is good for
foreign companies.
The potential role of NGOs
• Advocacy and lobbying for adequate land-use planning (where available for biofuel
development) and biofuel contribution to the national / rural energy strategy
• education
• training in agricultural issues related to biofuel feedstock production but also to local
fruit and vegetables, livestock and other agricultural production for self-consumption
or the local market,
• capacity building and training for government staff to understand better the way ESIA
are done, what has to be the content of these analyses and how to enforce their
findings later on;
• health care issues from basic hygiene, to vaccination programmes up to fighting
malaria and AIDS,
• nature conservation, for example managing and monitoring the above mentioned
natural reserves and others;
• setting up business incubators or certain artisan clusters
AETS Consortium – February 2013
114
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
monitoring of CSR implementation by biofuel projects especially regarding improved
governance, social, ethical, labour and environmental conditions
7.3 CONCLUDING NOTES
As the pressure on natural habitat and resources is increasing due to the global expansion
and intensification of agriculture, driven by population growth and change in diets, the need
to meet the rising global demand for liquid fuels for transport is further exacerbating the
situation.
Sustainable bioenergy has the potential to improve performance of the agricultural sector,
enhancing its economy, including improvement of the livelihoods of poor farmers in
developing countries, while preserving the environment.
Sustainable cultivation models exist in the food crop and timber producing sectors, and they
can be applied successfully to bioenergy crops at project level when consistent with national
energy and poverty eradication strategies. Examples of good practices demonstrate their
potential benefits for soil quality, water availability, agrobiodiversity, climate change
mitigation, productivity and income generation. There is an urgent need for awareness
raising, training and dissemination efforts targeting the capacity of the national authorities to
monitor projects and the capacity of practitioners (farmers) to adopt these good practices.
It is generally accepted that bioenergy has the potential of either increasing or reducing
food security depending on the policies in place and the characteristics of the local
agricultural sector. The effects of biofuels development on national food security can differ
significantly depending whether the country is a net exporter or a net importer of food and
agricultural commodities.
One of the challenges for the bioenergy sector lies in the need for the establishment of policy
frameworks that are embedded in the overall poverty eradication and sustainable
development policies so as to ensure that the poor can be among its key beneficiaries.
Impacts of biofuel production on ecosystems can be very important and a shared global
concern, while socio-economic impacts are even more relevant for developing countries.
Impacts on land tenure, gender and access to resources (e.g. water) are of special concern
in ACP countries. The need to ensure sound development of bioenergy sector is even more
complicated by the fact that many ACP countries lack enforced biofuel policy frameworks,
and are characterized by weak governance.
A relatively recent phenomenon of large-scale land (and related water resources)
acquisitions has been registered in developing countries. While due to a lack of precise data
and transparency on these types of transactions it is difficult to assess precisely the extent of
the role of biofuels and biofuel promotion policies in Developed countries, it can be safely
assumed that biofuel markets have been an important driver for such investments. It is
important to note that large scale acquisitions of land are taking place in countries where
registration and demarcation of community land titles has been slow and is still incomplete.
Local people often lack knowledge of the formal legal system or how to seek redress in the
event of contested rights. Many countries do not have in place legal or procedural
AETS Consortium – February 2013
115
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
mechanisms to protect local rights and take account of local interests, livelihoods and
welfare in event of increasing land conflicts due to increasing land pressures and large scale
land acquisitions.
Remarkable difficulties exist in obtaining reliable data from target country registries as well as
from investors and the issue of transparency in large scale land acquisitions, including
acquisitions which were aimed for production of biofuels, needs further research and scrutiny
and monitoring.
The failure of bioenergy investments (recently emerging data on a wave of failed large scale
investments in Jatropha in East Africa) can have severe negative consequences on local
livelihoods, especially in the cases where employment and income generation has been
promised in exchange for land and where such promises have never materialised. The reason
behind the failure of these investments is often due to their speculative nature (aimed mainly
at land and water acquisition as such) or in overly optimistic expectations about achievable
yields from new plantations. The latter can be given either from the extrapolation of pilot
project data to large-scale production (often the complexity of large-scale projects is
underestimated) or from the assumption that some energy crops could prosper on marginal
land. The experience tells us that however, that all agricultural activities target primarily
productive agricultural land and that there is no miraculous plant: all plants have lower
performance if grown on marginal or degraded land.
Furthermore, a big question emerges in relation to the identification of “marginal land” that
has been presumably identified in some studies as suitable for cultivation of certain bioenergy
feedstock. What is sometimes called “marginal land” appears to be fundamental in
sustaining the livelihoods of local communities and/or providing a variety of environmental
and cultural services leading to significant secondary impacts.
One key conclusion of this study is that a policy focused on fulfilling an internal biofuel
blending target through certified biofuels alone cannot expect to develop a sustainable
bioenergy industry automatically, especially in poor developing countries, unless these policy
measures are backed with international support to strengthen the bioenergy policy
frameworks in close synergy with sustainable development and food security policies in
biofuel producing countries. This translates into the need for supporting policy development in
countries with a weak policy framework, building upon the (positive and negative)
experiences while enforcing existing policies especially in relation to land tenure, economic
and social policies as well as management of natural resources.
This necessarily implies the provision of training, sharing good (environmental and socioeconomic) agricultural practices and facilitating the transfer of adequate technologies and
methodologies.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
116
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
ActionAid Tanzania (2009): Implication of biofuels production on food security in Tanzania
2.
Aidenvironment, 2008, Biofuels in Africa: An assessment of risks and benefits for African wetlands
3.
Al-Riffai P., Dimaranan B., Laborde, D. (2010). Global trade and environmental impact study of the EU biofuels
mandate. Report for the European Commission, DG TRADE, ATLASS Consortium
4.
Anseeuw, W. (2012): Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South. Analytical Report based on
the Land Matrix Database
5.
Anseeuw, W. (2012): Land Rights and the Rush for Land: Findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land
Research Project
6.
Arezeki, R., K. Deiniger, H. Selod. (2011) What drives the global land rush?, IMF Working Paper WP/11/251
7.
Arndt C., Benfica R., Maximiano N., Nucifora A.M.D., Thurlow J.T. (2008). Higher fuel and food prices: impacts
and responses for Mozambique. Agricultural Economics 39 (1), 497–511
8.
Banse M., Van Meijl H., Tabeau A., Woltjer G. (2008). Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricultural markets?
European Review of Agricultural Economics, 35 (2): 117–141. doi:10.1093/erae/jbn023
9.
Behrman J., Meinzen-Dick R. and A. R. Quisumbing, (April 2011); “The Gender Implications of Large-Scale Land
Deals”, IFPRI Policy Brief 17
10. Birur D., Hertel T., Tyner W. (2008). Impact of biofuel production on world agricultural markets: a computable
general equilibrium analysis. GTAP Working Paper # 53. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue
University. https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/4034.pdf
11. Blanco M., Burrell A., Gay H., Henseler M., Kavallari A., M'Barek R., Pérez I., Tonini A. (2010). Impacts of the EU
biofuel target on agricultural markets and land use: a comparative modelling assessment. JRC Reference
Reports, EUR 24449. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, doi:10.2791/45105
12. Bouffaron P., Castagno F., Herold S., (2011), Straight vegetable oil from Jatropha curcas L. for rural
electrification in Mali – A techno-economic assessment
13. BP (June 2012), Statistical Review of World Energy
14. Chemnitz C., Hoeffler H., 2011, Adapting African agriculture to climate change
15. Chum H., Faaij A., Moreira J., Berndes G., Dhamija P., Dong H., Gabrielle B., 2011, Bioenergy. (In: IPCC Special
Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation)
16. CIFOR (2011): A global analysis of deforestation due to biofuel development
17. CIFOR: (2011): A review on environmental issues in the context of biofuel sustainability frameworks
18. CIFOR (2011): Assessing opportunities and constraints for biofuel development in sub-Saharan Africa
19. CIFOR (2011): Contemporary processes of large-scale land acquisition by investors: case studies from subSaharan Africa
20. CIFOR (2011): Emission balance of first- and second-generation biofuels
21. CIFOR (2011): Social sustainability of EU-approved voluntary schemes for biofuels. Implications for rural
livelihoods
22. CONCORD (2011): Spotlight on EU Policy Coherence for Development, A Lisbon Treaty provision, a Human rights
obligation
23. COP – CBD (2008), The potential impacts of biofuels on biodiversity
24. Cotula, Lorenzo (March 2011). “Land Deals in Africa. What is in the contracts?” IIED
25. de Gorter H., Just D.R. (2010). The Social Costs and Benefits of Biofuels: The Intersection of Environmental, Energy
and Agricultural Policy.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(1): 4-32
26. de Jongh J., Nielsen F., 2011, Lessons Learned: Jatropha for local development
27. Deininger K. , Byerlee D. et al (2011), “Rising Global Interest in Farmland. Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable
Benefits?” The World Bank
AETS Consortium – February 2013
117
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
28. Daley. E. and Mi young Park. C. (2012). “The Gender and Equity Implications of Land-Related Investments on
Land Access and Labour and Income-Generating Opportunities. A Case Study of Selected Agricultural
Investments in Northern Tanzania.” FAO
29. De Schutter, Olivier (August 2010). Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. “The right to food.” United Nations
General Assembly. A/65/281
30. Dioha I.J., Ikeme C.H., Tijjani N., Dioha E.C., 2012, Comparative Studies of Ethanol and Kerosene Fuels and Cook
Stoves Performance
31. Driver, Paul & Bisset, Ron (2011): Environmental & Social Performance of the Addax Bioenergy Project in Sierra
Leone, Annual Independent Public Environmental & Social Monitoring Report, 2012
32. Ecofys (2011). Indirect effects of biofuel production - Overview prepared for GBEP.
33. Edwards R., Mulligan D., Marelli L. (2010). Indirect Land Use Change from Increased Biofuels Demand:
Comparison of Models and Results for Marginal Biofuels Production from Different Feedstocks. JRC Scientific and
Technical Reports, EUR 24485. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, doi: 10.2788/54137
34. EuropAfrica (2011) “(BIO)fuelling injustice? Europe’s responsibility to counter climate change without provoking
land grabbing and compounding food security in Africa. The EuropAfrica 2011 Monitoring Report on EU Policy
Coherence for Food Security
35. European Commission (2012): Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, Accompanying the
document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion
of the use of energy from renewable sources, SWD(2012) 343 final
36. European Commission(2012): Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, Accompanying the
document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion
of the use of energy from renewable sources, SWD(2012) 343 final
37. European Commission: Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the
impact assessment on indirect land-use change related to biofuels and bioliquids, Accompanying the
document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion
of the use of energy from renewable sources, SWD(2012) 344 final
38. European Commission: COM(2010) 811 final, Report from the Commission on indirect land-use change related
to biofuels and bioliquids
39. European Commission (2009): Impact assessment guidelines
40. European Parliament: Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on
the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing
Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with EEA relevance)
41. European Parliament (2011): Impact of EU bioenergy policy on developing countries
42. European Report on Development (2012): The 2011/2012 ERD. Confronting scarcity: Managing water, energy
and land for inclusive and sustainable growth
43. Fabiosa, J., Beghin, J., Dong, J.F., Elobeid, A., Tokgoz, S., Yu, T.-H., 2010. Land allocation effects of the global
ethanol surge. Predictions from the international FAPRI model. Land Economics 86(4): 687–706
44. FAO (2012): Good Environmental Practices in Bioenergy Feedstock Production, Making bioenergy work for
climate and food security
45. FAOb, (2012), Fertilizers subsidies in Sub-Saharan Africa
46. FAO, (2011), Energy-Smart Food for People and Climate
47. FAO, (2010), Jatropha: A Smallholder Bioenergy Crop
48. FAO (2010): Resource-seeking foreign direct investment in African agriculture. A review of country case studies
49. FAO (2009): Making sustainable biofuels work for smallholders farmers and rural households
50. FAO, (2009), Small-scale bioenergy initiatives: Brief description and preliminary lessons on livelihood impacts
from case studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa
51. FAO (2008): The State of Food and Agriculture, Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities
52. FAO: (2008)Climate change adaptation and mitigation: challenges and opportunities for food security
AETS Consortium – February 2013
118
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
53. FAO, (2008), From subsistence farming to sugar-cane monoculture: impacts on agrobiodiversity, local
knowledge and food security
54. FAO, (2004), Carbon sequestration in dryland soils
55. Finn D (et al.) (2008) Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and Climate,
Conservation Biology
56. Flammini, (2008), Biofuels and the underlying causes of high food prices
57. Gardner, B. (2007). Fuel ethanol subsidies and farm price support. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial
Organization 5 (2) (article 4)
58. GBEP (2011). The Global Bioenergy Partnership Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy.
59. Gerdiens Prins Anne (et al) (2011.): Global Environmental Perspectives on Scarcity on the Water-Energy-Land
Nexus (European Report on Development – ERD)
60. German, (et al.) (Dec 2011):The local social and environmental impacts of smallholder-based biofuel
investments in Zambia. Ecology and Society 16(4)
61. German, (et al.) (2011): Local social and environmental impacts of biofuels: global comparative assessment
and implications for governance. Ecology and Society 16(4): 29, 2011
62. GEXSI (2008): Global market study on Jatropha, final report
63. GIZ, (2011), Small-scale Electricity Generation from Biomass
64. Greenpeace (2012) “La dernière frontière de l’huile de palme
65. Heri S. et al. (January 2011)International instruments influencing the rights of people facing investments in
agricultural land. International Land Coalition. CIRAD. SOMO. World Trade Institute and Oxfam Novib
66. Hertel, T.W.; Golub, A.A.; Jones, A.D.; O’Hare, M.; Plevin, R.J.; Kammen, D.M. (2010). Global Land Use and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of US Maize Ethanol: Estimating Market- Mediated Responses. Bioscience 60:
223–231. doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.8
67. Hertel T., Tyner W., Birur, D. (2010). The Global Impacts of Biofuels Mandates. The Energy Journal 31(1):75-100
68. HLPE, (2013), Zero-draft of the report on Biofuels and Food Security of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security
69. HLPE: (2011) “Price volatility and food security”, Committee on World Food Security. Report by the High Level
Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
70. HLPE (2011) “Land tenure and international investments in agriculture” Committee on World Food Security.
Report by High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
71. Hoogeveen J., Faurès J.M., Van de Giessen N. (2009). Increased Biofuel Production in the Coming Decade; To
What Extent will it Affect Global Freshwater Resources? Irrigation and Drainage, 58: S148-S160
72. Hought, J., Birch-Thomsen, T., Petersen, J., de Neergaard, A., & Oelofse, M., (2012), Biofuels, land use change
and smallholder livelihoods: A case study from Banteay Chhmar, Cambodia
73. Hultman Nathan E. (et al.) (2012) :Biofuels investments in Tanzania: policy options for sustainable models, The
Journal of Environment & Development
74. IATP (2007): Biofuels and water global challenges
75. IEA (2012) Technology Roadmap – Bioenergy for Heat and Power
76. IEA (2011), Technology Roadmap – Biofuels for Transport
77. IEA Bioenergy (2012). Summary and Conclusions from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo67 Workshop
78. IEA Bioenergy (2009), From 1st to 2nd generation biofuel technologies
79. IEEP (2012): EU biofuel use and agricultural commodity prices, a review of the evidence base
80. IFAD (2011), Sub-Saharan Africa: The state of smallholders in agriculture
81. IFP Energies Nouvelles (2009): Impacts sur l'eau du développement des biocarburants à l'horizon 2030
82. IFPRIa, (2011) : Agricultural Productivity and Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa
83. IFPRI (2011): Assessing the land use change consequences of European biofuel policies
AETS Consortium – February 2013
119
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
84. IFPRI (2011) The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought
85. IFPRI (2010): Global trade and environmental impact study of the EU biofuels mandate
86. IIED (2007), Biofuels trade and sustainable development: An analysis of South African bioethanol – Working
document
87. IISD (2009): A thirst for distant lands: foreign investment in agricultural land and water
88. IPAR (2012): Impacts des investissements agricoles italiens dans les biocarburants au Sénégal
89. IPCC (2008): Climate change and water
90. IPCC (2006): Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories
91. IRENA (2011) Scenarios and Strategies for Africa
92. JRC (2011): Estimate of GHG emissions from global land use scenarios
93. JRC (2011) Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)
94. Junginger, M., van Dam J., Zarrilli S., Ali Mohamed F., Marchal D., Faaij A., (2011), Opportunities and barriers for
international bioenergy trade
95. Kachingwe, Nancy (2012) “From Under Their Feet. A think piece on gender dimensions of land grab in Africa.”
ActionAid
96. Knight R. (2010): “Statutory recognition of customary land rights in Africa. An investigation into best practices for
lawmaking and implementation.” FAO
97. Kretschmer B., Bowyer C., Buckwell A. (2012). EU Biofuel Use and Agricultural Commodity Prices: A Review of the
Evidence Base. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP): London
98. Laborde, D. (2011). Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies: Final Report.
Study for the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission International, IFPRI (October 2011)
99. Lamers P., Hamelinck C., Junginger M., Faaij A. (2011). International bioenergy trade – a review of past
developments in the liquid biofuels market. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15:2655-2676
100. Mali Biocarburants S.A., (2012), http://www.malibiocarburant.com/malibio/2011/11/mali-biocarburant-a-etecite-devant-l%e2%80%99assemblee-generale-des-nations-unies-par-monsieur-olivier-de-schutter-le-rapporteurspecial-de-l%e2%80%99onu-sur-le-droit-a-l%e2%80%99alimentation/ (accessed in January 2013)
101. Metcalf & Eddy (2007): Water re-use. Issues, technologies, and applications
102. Nelson, G.C., and R.D. Robertson: Green gold or green wash (2008): environmental consequences of biofuels in
the developing world. Review of Agricultural Economics (Boston) Vol. 30 No. 3
103. Nnimmo, B (May 2009): Agrofuels threat looms in Africa, in Third World Resurgence,
104. Obidzinski, K (et al.) (2012): Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for
biofuel production in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 17(1):25
105. OECD/FAO (2012). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012-2021, OECD
Publishing and FAO. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2012-en
106. OECD/FAO
(2011). OECD-FAO
Agricultural
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2011-en
Outlook
2011-2020.
OECD
Publishing
and
FAO.
107. OECD (2008). Biofuel Support Policies: An Economic Assessment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Paris
108. Overmars K.P., Stehfest E., Ros J.P.M., Prins A.G. (2011). Indirect land use change emissions related to EU biofuel
consumption: an analysis based on historical data. Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 248–257
109. OXFAM (September 2012): “The hunger grains”
110. PANGEA (2012). Who’s fooling whom? – The real drivers behind the 2010/11 food crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa
111. Plevin R.J., O’Hare M., Jones A.D., Torn M.S., Gibbs H.K. (2010), Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels: indirect
land use changes are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environmental Science
and Technology, 44, 8015–8021
112. Practical Action, (2012), Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2012
AETS Consortium – February 2013
120
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
113. REN21 (2009). Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. (Accessed June
2009). http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf
114. Rosegrant M.W., Zhu T., Msangi S., Sulser T. (2008). Global scenarios for biofuels: Impacts and implications.
Review of Agricultural Economics, 30(3): 495–505
115. Schoneveld, G (et al.) (2010) Towards sustainable biofuel development: assessing the local impacts of largescale foreign land acquisitions in Ghana
116. SCOPE (2009): Biofuels, environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use, Proceedings of
the International biofuels project rapid assessment
117. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T-H. (2008). Use of
US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319:
1238–1240
118. Smeets E., (2008), Possibilities and limitations for sustainable bioenergy production systems
119. Stockholm Environment Institute (2012): The oil palm sector: community grievances and water governance in
Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, Policy Brief,
120. Taheripour F., Hertel T.W., Tyner W. E., Beckman J.F., Birur, D.K. (2010). Biofuels and their by-products: Global
economic
and
environmental
10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.10.017
implications,
Biomass
and
Bioenergy,
34(3):
278-289,
doi:
121. Timilsina G.R., Beghin J.C., van der Mensbrugghe D., Mevel S. (2010). The Impacts of Biofuel Targets on Land-Use
Change and Food Supply: A Global CGE Assessment. Agricultural Economics 43: 315-332
122. Tiominar, B: Plantations and Poverty (April 2011). Notes from a village deep in oil palm territory, English version
translation & editing: Carolyn Marr
123. UEMOA (2008): Sustainable bioenergy development in UEMOA Member-Countries
124. UNCTAD, (2009), The biofuels market: Current situation and alternative scenarios
125. UNCTAD (2007): Prospects for a biofuels industry in Guatemala, Main findings and results of the mission
undertaken by the UNCTAD Biofuels Initiative
126. UNEP (2012): Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing
Countries: A GEF Targeted Research Project
127. UNEP (2010): The bioenergy and water nexus
128. UNEP (2009): Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing biofuels
129. UNU-IAS, 2012, Biofuels in Africa – Impacts on ecosystem services, biodiversity and human well-being
130. Van Iersel S., Flammini A., 2010, Algae-based biofuels: applications and co-products
131. Visser, P (et al.) (2007):Etude sur le développement de la filière Ethanol / Gel fuel comme énergie de caisson
dans l’espace UEMOA
132. Watson H.K., (2011), Potential to expand sustainable bioenergy from sugarcane in southern Africa
133. Wetlands International (2008): Biofuels in Africa, An assessment of risks and benefits for African wetlands
134. World Bank and IMF, (2012), Global Monitoring Report 2012: Food prices, nutrition, and the Millennium
Development Goals
135. World Bank (2010): bioenergy development. Issues and impacts for poverty and natural resource management
136. Zuubier, P (et al.): Sugarcane ethanol, contributions to climate change mitigation and the environment
AETS Consortium – February 2013
121
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
ANNEX 1: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF KEY SOURCES EXAMINED
An extensive literature review has been undertaken for the preparation of this report. A
critical review of the sources analyzed allows us to draw some conclusions on the different
positions of NGOs, international organizations, UN organizations, the public sector, private
actors and civil society, about the development cost and benefits of biofuel production.
Bioenergy is largely used, especially in developing countries, and the potential for its further
development is enormous. This is a matter of fact, but its potential contribution in a
sustainable way to the world energy system is highly debated.
International organizations such as the IEA, IRENA and IEA-Bioenergy trust in the huge
opportunities that can be brought in the near future by technological development, assisted
by a significant increase of fossil fuels prices and the value of carbon credits in the future. This
would tremendously incentivize bioenergy and biofuels production and consumption around
the world, especially in developing countries. The faith in breakthrough technologies that will
make possible to push down the cost of bioenergy and take out more energy from the same
amount of biomass is shared by a number of wealth countries including the US and Western
European countries. A big question mark associated with this view is related to the
contribution that could come from advanced biofuel technologies (that can make use of
lignocellulosic biomass and wastage) as, so far, these technologies did not manage to meet
the expectations and countries around the world are revising their targets associated with
advanced/lignocellulosic biofuels.
OECD and FAO can be considered reliable public sources of data with regard to the current
market situation and future scenarios in industrial countries and their models (the AGLINKCOSIMO) are among the most complete available today.
UN organizations appear overall more cautious about the sustainable bioenergy potential.
Within the UN system, authoritative organizations such as FAO and UNEP have adopted a
rather neutral approach to biofuels, stressing that several bad and good examples exist
around the world. Although bioenergy has a tremendous sustainable potential, and can also
have positive spill-over effects in other sectors (such as in the agricultural sector for food),
according to them it is important to put in place safety measures first to reduce the
degradation of the natural resources and to protect the most vulnerable segments of the
population (including their food security) before bioenergy investments take place. This is
strictly linked with land tenure issues. A number of “lower risk” bioenergy options have been
identified by UNEP and FAO after several years of research. Other organizations such as
UNIDO and UNECE have developed also a (partial) view on bioenergy sustainability, the first
more focused on technology transfer for energy access, and the second more focused on
trade of solid biomass. UNCTAD started working on the trade and development implications
of the biofuels sector as well in 2005 with an impartial approach, highlighting how the physical
market has a limited impact on world prices, but their work remained scattered over the last
few years. UNDP and GEF seem to have adopted a more cautious approach on biofuels,
prioritizing other kinds of renewable energy interventions, and limiting their bioenergy
experience mainly to biogas. Also some work from the UN University was used for this report,
but this should be used with care, as a rather simple analysis of biofuel potential for Africa
transpire, neglecting several potential socio-economic impacts.
The importance of looking at biofuels with a holistic approach, considering all impacts on
environmental, social and economic aspects and prioritizing cascade uses of biomass seem
to be a shared concern among international organizations, but few actually proceed with
this multidimensional analysis.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
122
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The European Commission's Joint Research Center research also seems to be characterized
by an impartial and evidence-based assessment of the sustainable bioenergy resource base
(more than IEA and IRENA).
The IISD has launched the GSI, a very informative initiative on energy subsidies that aims to
highlight how these subsidies (including mandates and all market distortive interventions),
including fossil fuel and biofuel subsidies, alter the state of play of global markets. Their
information is always complete and quite impartial.
CIFOR can be considered an impartial information broker especially for information related to
forests and the use of solid biomass for bioenergy. The CIFOR’s team implemented
investigation works worldwide, on the impacts (environmental, social and economics) of
biofuel production.
The SEI is also worth to be mentioned as they developed a long history of science-based
analysis about impacts of bioenergy on natural resources such as water.
Government sources are usually driven by political drivers, rather than an evidence and
research based approach and have to be approached with caution, although they can be
very useful in specific precise areas. It is interesting to monitor debates within the Global
Bioenergy Partnership, a high level governmental forum dealing with sustainable bioenergy
development, composed by those governments interested in bioenergy. Also within this
forum there was consensus that environmental, social and economic aspects are equally
important pillars of bioenergy sustainability.
The work of GIZ, for example, is focused on development opportunities for the poorest that
could derive from bioenergy. GIZ did a lot of very well recognized work on bioenergy for
energy access, often in collaboration with other key NGOs. For example the work done with
Practical Action aimed at measuring energy access and security is worth mentioning.
Practical Action also worked extensively on biofuels and bioenergy for sustainable
development, for example through the PISCES project that brought evidence-based and
field research to the international scene (recently on Jatropha).
Positions of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) can vary as they comprise multitude of
organizations operating at different levels, scales and with different thematic or geographic
focus. Several issues compete as the main concern in the biofuels debate among NGOs. In
general, international development focused NGOs, due to their pro poor advocacy, have
focused on collecting data on negative implications of biofuels and on warnings on their
potential negative impacts. Non-governmental coalitions have been particularly active in
collecting data on large scale large acquisitions (i.e. GRAIN) which has subsequently
provided the only existing global database on the phenomena used subsequently by the
Land Matrix Project as well as by World Bank as basis for their analysis of the phenomena. At
the same time, there is also a plethora of environmental and bioenergy focused NGOs which
seek to implement and test local level applications of bioenergy (i.e. TATEDO in Tanzania).
Other NGOs, including ActionAid and Oxfam, have developed a position against growth of
liquid biofuels on land that in their opinion could be used for food crops and against
promotion of liquid biofuels through subsidies. WWF doesn’t necessarily share this opinion, as
according to them, the use of biofuels cannot be good or bad a priori.
It is worth adding that IIED, a non for profit institution, has become the global reference point
regarding socio-economic impacts of bioenergy, for example on land tenure and contract
arrangements regarding FDI in agriculture and biofuels.
Pangea is an interesting relatively new association. It comprises mainly private companies
active on bioenergy and biofuels at various level of the supply chain. It is aimed at promoting
sustainable African bioenergy investments, and an enabling environment. Their work aims at
AETS Consortium – February 2013
123
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
highlighting how biofuels can provide important energy services to African communities. It
was not possible to have a good insight about the reliability of the information provided by
this association, but their work is highly relevant as it would help to bring additional evidence
about good examples implemented by the private sector to build upon.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
124
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
ANNEX 2: HIGHLIGHTS - AFRICA BIOENERGY POLICY FRAMEWORK
The Africa Bioenergy Policy Framework and Guidelines provide principles and guidelines for
RECs and African Union member states to guide policies and regulations that promote a
viable sustainable bioenergy sector. It integrates previous efforts by NEPAD, UN and different
RECs on bioenergy. For reasons of policy coherence and harmonisation at regional and
continental level, the African Union initiated a comprehensive consultative process to define
an Africa Bioenergy Framework that fosters the development of modern and sustainable
bioenergy sector in Africa. Africa Bioenergy Policy Framework and Guidelines was adopted
by the CEMA (Conference of Energy Minister of Africa) in November 2012 in Addis Ababa
(Ethiopia).
Objectives of the Pan African policy framework
The adoption of a common policy framework was urgently needed to create a sustainable
bioenergy sector, as changes in land use and crop production affect directly the availability
and price of food, especially for the rural poor. The food versus energy problem is also an
issue in terms of land tenure system prompting the need to strengthen the rights of indigenous
populations and smallholders against the increasing interest of the local elite, foreign
countries and multinational firms. The social and environmental consequences such as the
loss of access to key ressources, depletion of biodiversity, water, soil fertility and landscape
have not yet been fully assessed. Overall, Africa is yet to benefit from the booming bioenergy
market.
Against this background, a Policy Framework should enable the adoption of sustainable
regulations and guidelines to enhance food security, rural development, poverty alleviation,
land rights and tenure, environmental protection, social equity and wellbeing, cultural
heritage and macro-economic impacts.
With reference to the above, and for reasons of policy coherence and harmonisation at
regional and continental level, the AU initiated a comprehensive consultative process to
define an Africa Bioenergy Framework that would foster the development of modern and
sustainable bioenergy sector in Africa.
Justifications for a Pan African Approach
Bioenergy production, trade and use transcend national boundaries because of its
socioeconomic and environmental implications. Bioenergy policies become ineffective when
they are not broadly supported and coherent at regional level. The lack of similar measures in
one country or region can annihilate efforts taken in another. As a result of the absence of
proper and coordinated regulatory frameworks, short-term gains are often sought in place of
long term sustainability goals. RECs can take lead in harmonising policies that facilitate the
development of a viable modern bioenergy sector.
An inclusive African bioenergy framework is also justified on the grounds that bioenergy has a
great potential to contribute to African cross-border energy trade. A harmonised approach
can lead to the development of shared and agreed-upon standards, codes, behaviours, etc.
for a common bioenergy market. Africa needs to modernise its bioenergy sector due to a
number of reasons, including:
• The predominance of (traditional) biomass accounts for the bulk of energy consumption
for households, as well as an important share of the total final energy consumption. It is
characterised by low efficiency along the entire value chain and substantial gains can
therefore be realised by modernising existing technologies and behaviours.
•
Bioenergy has gained importance as a modern source of energy particularly for transport.
As a result, there is a need for a more coherent policy, as well as the development of
necessary regulations to mitigate negative effects of bioenergy production.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
125
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
The global trend is to develop and strengthen institutions in order to manage the impacts
of bioenergy on food production, poverty and the environment. Institutions to manage
bioenergy developments either do not exist or are not strong in Africa.
•
In spite of many national programmes in Africa, achievements are still far and few. There
is a need to develop complementary national sustainable bioenergy policies and
strategies, as well as regulatory frameworks based on Africa’s collective vision, which is
consistent with NEPAD, the MDGs and global conventions.
Following guiding principles to make the bioenergy sector promotion more coherent with
other sectoral and global processes are proposed by the Africa Union:
• Embedding bioenergy development within poverty reduction policies and strategies, as
well as within the ambit of the MDGs.
•
Integrating bioenergy into energy mix strategies and national development strategies
that improve energy access, particularly rural electrification.
•
Integrating policies, measures and actions (for example, standards) with regional
initiatives so as to achieve economies of scale, as well as preventing that good measures
in one country be compromised by the lack of similar supporting policies in surrounding
countries.
•
Develop structured cooperation with industrialised countries to benefit from knowledge,
available research and technology transfer, and facilitate South-South collaboration.
•
Adapt sustainability criteria, MRC process (measurement, reporting and validation) and
certification methodologies adopted elsewhere or as proposed at the international level.
The formulation process of a sustainable bioenergy policy framework
The formulation of a sustainable bioenergy policy framework requires the consideration of a
number of issues, including (i) economic, social, environmental, political and cultural
dynamics; (ii) civil society organisations and institutional coordination; (iii) sub-regional and
global cooperation on energy trade and investment; and (iv) development finance,
stakeholders participation as well as technical issues such as sound methodologies, R&D and
availability of reliable data. The process of ensuring that there is a strong political
commitment and capacity to enforce regulatory measures is also important. Key policy
options to be considered include:
• A well-articulated bioenergy policy has huge multiplier effects and cross-sectoral impacts
that positively influence agricultural and industrial growth, and trade development.
Therefore, a national bioenergy policy cannot, and should not, stand alone but be
integrated into national energy development, industrialisation, agriculture and transport
sector strategies – as well as link bioenergy development to national macroeconomic
development strategies.
•
Regulations that promote the satisfaction of “own needs first”, and make export possible
only in case of excess can be encouraged as it is highly preferable that Africa do not
provide only feedstock for exports, but also address the need of its own population and
industry.
•
It is essential that the bioenergy and food production should be made mutually
supportive. A “nexus” approach is recommended as water, energy and food availability
are interconnected; actions in one sector may either help or harm the other sectors.
•
Africa should be strategic in selecting its bioenergy feedstock options. Feedstock that
enrich soils and do not require substantial water needs to grow can be promoted.
Developing second-generation biofuels such as ligno-cellulosic and algae-based
feedstock should be given attention.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
126
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
The development of bioenergy projects that encourage the participation of the local
communities and empowering rural inhabitants, especially women should be promoted
•
Governments and RECs should take lead in promoting bioenergy by setting up regulatory
frameworks at regional levels. This is necessary to assess major impacts such as land-use
change, biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions, water, soil fertility, etc. This type of
impact assessment implies a regional approach, as the ecosystems encompass and have
cross-border impacts.
•
A framework should include comprehensive bioenergy legislation such as (i) product
labelling and control, (ii) certification schemes, and (iii) fiscal policy and taxation.
Bioenergy governance
The following guidelines are proposed for the African bioenergy governance.
(i) National and local governments must play a leadership role in initiating and formulating
policies and legislation, and the promotion of production, investment and trade in
bioenergy products. The key functions of government are:
Policy making: Develop a sustainable bioenergy policy as an integral part of the
national development strategy with adequate legal provisions for the production,
distribution, use and trade in bioenergy.
Regulatory: Set environmental standards, create attractive investment climate and
provide supportive monetary, fiscal and pricing policies.
Developing capacity and convening: Strategically choose best feedstock and
technology options, and conclude economically, socially and environmentally
acceptable deals. In addition, create forums and mobilise various government
departments, the private sector, civil society, and the academic community to rally
behind the bioenergy agenda.
Inter-ministerial coordination: Involve all ministries that may be linked with the
promotion, production and trade of bioenergy to strengthen complementarities and
avoid rivalries.
Monitoring and enforcement of the regulations and laws.
(ii)
The private sector is ultimately the engine of bioenergy development, but requires
enabling policies presented above.
(iii) Civil Society Organisations serve as watchdogs for government and business actions, and
advocate for bioenergy at the national and community levels. The active participation
of the civil society in the promotion and capacity building of bioenergy is certainly
crucial to promote sustainable development of bioenergy.
Instruments for implementing bioenergy policies
Regulation and enforcement
A robust legal and institutional framework is necessary to scale up the sustainable use of
bioenergy as a key component of the energy strategies. The main purpose of regulations is to
reduce fossil fuel dependence, promote growth and the rural livelihoods without affecting
food security.
Bioenergy targets and timetables
Guidelines should be enacted by the RECs and set targets on the share and mandatory use
of sustainable and certified bioenergy in the household, transport, industry and power
sectors. However, laws should be passed to protect land considered essential for food
production, or for the biodiversity.
Guidelines and standards
AETS Consortium – February 2013
127
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The International Sustainability and Carbon Certification System developed the first
internationally recognised certification system for biomass. More recently, the work of
FAO/GBEP can serve as model.
Awareness
In most African countries, resources, such as agro-processing residues and urban waste, are
not recognised as sources of energy, but rather burned in open fields as a way to avoid
disposal costs. The small amount of bioenergy that is mobilised or available at household level
is wasted through inefficient consumption devices such as the traditional kilns and
inadequate behaviour.
Mechanism for engaging stakeholders
•
Strengthen the capacity of private sector to source, integrate, install, operate, maintain
and service bioenergy systems, as well as provide business training and incubation
support.
•
Train policymakers on policies and programmes for accelerating adoption of bioenergy
by small landholders and encourage them in cooperation with other sectors (food and
trade) promoting better coherence across governments and policies.
•
Train the finance and banking sectors (senior management/loan officers) on the
risks/rewards of financing bioenergy projects, through pilot projects and programmes that
minimise initial investment risks.
•
Provide training and technical assistance on standards for bioenergy development,
drawing on international efforts in this area.
•
Provide training to governments and the private sector on the official and voluntary
carbon markets.
•
Conduct communications and outreach on bioenergy benefits/challenges, consumer
awareness campaigns.
Removal of financial barriers
•
Engage local financial institutions and micro-credit agencies on bioenergy, and conduct
banker training workshops to increase awareness of bioenergy risks/rewards by
investment officers and managers.
•
Establish risk mitigation facilities to spur local financing for bioenergy projects, particularly
at the small-scale level.
•
Foster development of “bankable” project portfolios in bioenergy; offer assistance to
entrepreneurs in areas such as R&D, seed capital funding, pre-feasibility and feasibility
assistance, reimbursable grants, etc.
•
Explore opportunities for diaspora finance and innovative financial schemes such as the
carbon finance at the national/regional levels.
•
Engage the private sector in project identification and development and understand its
issues/requirements with respect to financing projects in developing countries.
Policy incentives that contribute to unlock the potentials
•
Provide pragmatic instruments to promote rural development, gender equity, and
sustainable agriculture.
•
Establish of national/regional targets and timetables for bioenergy including small farmers.
•
Develop and implement regulatory frameworks to accelerate bioenergy development.
•
Link bioenergy to agricultural and industrial priorities.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
128
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
Establish lead organisations in each national government to coordinate bioenergy activities across the interested ministries (e.g., agriculture, energy, rural development,
environment, etc.).
•
Establish guiding principles for bioenergy-based land use development.
•
Foster a regional market for sustainable bioenergy, to include cross-border trade.
•
Engage the private sector in policy/regulatory development, including producer
organizations, SMEs, cooperatives, etc.
•
Monitor and evaluate the impacts and performance of bioenergy activities at the
national and regional levels.
Developing monitoring systems
Monitoring systems should be able to detect measure and register all relevant changes and
provide updated information to policymakers and other stakeholders. The agricultural and
forestry services, as well as the electricity sector institutions will be called upon to provide
updated information. In addition, ministries or authorities can regularly contract expert
opinions or studies to provide and review data, and this can be done by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gathering and analysing statistics data that are directly fed into the national energy
statistics or the existing Energy Information Systems in several countries.
Measuring and analysing the impacts of national bioenergy policies (achievement of targets, budget control and impact assessment).
Assessing achievements of government targets.
Analysing sustainability of land use, GHG emissions, biodiversity and other socioeconomic
effects.
Development of certification scheme to guarantee sustainability and traceability.
Tracking system for capturing transfers of ownerships and cancellations.
Recording legal cases (frauds, penalties, etc.).
Relevant data to be monitored
The monitoring of the following data can be of great importance for the purpose of ensuring
that the criteria are applied and that corrective measures can be taken timorously:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increased access to energy and impact for the poor
Land prices,
Food prices,
Property relations (land tenure),
The availability of food,
Relocation of food production and cattle breeding,
Deforestation,
Change in the type of vegetation.
Implementation strategies
Africa is home to substantial bioenergy resources and potentials, though the resources are
mostly under developed (agri-processing and household wastes) or poorly used (inefficient
energy conversion process and poor cooking devices). There is urgent need to formulate
policies that can mobilise resources and stakeholders to make a proper use of the resources
to the benefit of humans and the ecosystems. The following recommendations at country
level are proposed:
(i) Assess national biomass resources through the:
• Adoption of coherent biomass assessment approach;
• Application of sustainability criteria; and
• Consideration of cross-country effects;
(ii) Formulate national bioenergy strategies and biomass action plans considering:
AETS Consortium – February 2013
129
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
•
•
•
Integration of the national bioenergy strategy into the country overall development
strategy;
Setting of targets and priorities;
Status and quality of national biomass action plans (BAPs); and
Attractiveness and consistency of national policy frameworks and support schemes
for bioenergy promotion;
(iii) Implement national bioenergy policies taking into consideration:
• Policy impact on actual market and industry development; foods, gender,
environment, biodiversity
• Cost-effectiveness of bioenergy strategy and support schemes;
• Efficiency of administrative procedures;
• Information and integration of stakeholders; and
• Quality standards and qualification of key actors;
(iv) Monitor national bioenergy markets and policies by applying:
• Effective approach to market monitoring;
• Effective approach to policy performance measurement; and
• Effective approach to sustainability guarantee with a proper reward and penalty
system.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
130
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
ANNEX 3: EXISTING CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITIES AND
CERTIFICATION SCHEMES
It is important that biofuels shall be produced in an environmentally responsible way, under
safe working conditions through training and education, without violating human rights,
labour rights or land rights and so on. Therefore it is useful to have these sustainability schemes
in place; however the rules should be easy to apply and companies should be easily
controllable without too much paper work and costs involved; in other words these schemes
must be pragmatic and the certification process should not become a questionable big
business like partly happened in the forestry sector already.
Biofuels - sustainability schemes
In order to receive government support or count towards mandatory national renewable
energy targets, biofuels used in the EU (whether locally produced or imported) have to
comply with sustainability criteria. These criteria aim at preventing the conversion of areas of
high biodiversity and high carbon stock for the production of raw materials for biofuels. The
entire biofuels' production and supply chain has to be sustainable. To this end, the
sustainability of biofuels needs to be checked by Member States or through voluntary
schemes which have been approved by the EC.
As the EC does not run these schemes itself, it opened up the opportunity for private
companies and for institutions to play this part. Since July 2011, the EC has recognised the
below mentioned 12 voluntary schemes that apply directly in 27 EU Member States; the
sustainability schemes include the Assessment report and the Commission Implementing
Decision.
1) ISCC a German (government financed) scheme covering all types of biofuels; ISCC is a
global initiative developed in a multi-stakeholder approach with a large number of
companies from the entire supply chain. Furthermore research organizations, NGOs like
WWF and industry associations from different countries are involved. ISCC is governed
by an association with currently 55 members. ISCC is covering all types of biomass and
biofuels and has a global scope. The scheme has received recognition for all criteria of
the Renewable Energy Directive. The development of the scheme has been supported
by the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection via the
Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR).
2) Bonsucro EU, a roundtable initiative for sugarcane based biofuels, focuses on Brazil;
Bonsucro EU is a special version of the Bonsucro scheme, specifically designed to meet
the mandatory requirements of the Renewable Energy Directive. Bonsucro is a
roundtable initiative, which has a large number of companies from the different parts of
the supply chain involved. Furthermore, the "World Wide Fund For Nature" (WWF) is a
member. Bonsucro EU is a standard for sugarcane based ethanol with a strong focus on
Brazilian sugarcane production. The scheme has received recognition for all criteria of
the Renewable Energy Directive, except for the provision on highly biodiverse
grasslands.
3) RTRS EU RED, a roundtable initiative for soy based biofuels, focuses on Argentina and
Brazil; RTRS EU RED is a special version of the RTRS scheme, specifically designed to meet
the requirements of the Renewable Energy Directive. RTRS is a roundtable initiative,
which has a large number of companies from the different parts of the supply chain
involved. Furthermore, a number of representatives from the civil society, including
environmental NGO's are its members. Among these members are: "Conservation
International", "The Nature Conservancy" and "World Wide Fund For Nature" (WWF). RTRS
EU RED is a standard for soy based diesel with a strong focus on Argentinean and
Brazilian soy production. The scheme has received recognition for all criteria of the
Renewable Energy Directive.
4) RSB EU RED, a roundtable initiative covering all types of biofuels; RSB EU RED is a special
version of the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels scheme, specifically designed to
meet the mandatory requirements of the Renewable Energy Directive. RSB is a
AETS Consortium – February 2013
131
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
roundtable initiative, which has a large number of companies from the different parts of
the supply chain involved. Furthermore, it has members from the civil society including
environmental NGO's. Among these members are: "Conservation International", "The
International Union for Conservation of Nature", (IUCN), "United Nations Foundation",
"Wetlands International" and "World Wide Fund For Nature" (WWF). RSB EU RED is
covering all types of biofuels and has a global scope. The scheme has received
recognition for all criteria of the Renewable Energy Directive.
2BSvs, a French industry scheme covering all types of biofuels; 2BSvs is a French
initiative, developed by a consortium of different companies led by Bureau Veritas.
2BSvs is covering all types of biofuels and has a global scope. The scheme has received
recognition for all criteria of the Renewable Energy Directive, except for the provision
on highly biodiverse grasslands.
RSBA, an industry scheme for Abengoa covering their supply chain); RBSA is an industry
initiative, developed by Abengoa. RBSA is covering ethanol and has a global scope. It
is characterised by a mandatory requirement to calculate actual greenhouse gas
values as supposed to also allow default values, with a view to drive better greenhouse
gas performance in the supply chain. The scheme has received recognition for all
criteria of the Renewable Energy Directive.
Greenergy, an industry scheme for Greenergy covering sugar cane ethanol from Brazil.
The standard is an industry initiative, developed by Greenergy. The standard is applied
to sugarcane based ethanol produced in Brazil. The scheme has received recognition
for all criteria of the Renewable Energy Directive, except for the provision on highly
biodiverse grasslands.
Ensus voluntary scheme under RED for Ensus bioethanol production
Red Tractor, a Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme
SQC, a Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops (SQC) scheme
Red Cert
NTA 8080
All 12 certification schemes meet the EU requirements; however they differ and for example
ISCC covers also social sustainability principles. ISCC takes the following 6 principles into
consideration:
1) Biomass shall not be produced on land with high biodiversity value (HCV) or high
carbon stock (according to Article 17(3), (4) and (5) of the Directive 2009/28/EC. HCV
areas shall be protected.
2) Biomass shall be produced in an environmentally responsible way. This includes the
protection of soil, water and air and the application of Good Agricultural Practices.
3) Safe working conditions through training and education, use of protective clothing and
proper and timely assistance in the event of accidents.
4) Biomass production shall not violate human rights, labour rights or land rights. It shall
promote responsible labour conditions and workers' health, safety and welfare and
shall be based on responsible community relations.
5) Biomass production shall take place in compliance with all applicable regional and
national laws and shall follow relevant international treaties.
6) Good management practices206.
Besides the 12 recognised certification schemes there are other initiatives like the Roundtable
on Sustainable Palm Oil (www.rspo.org), the Roundtable on Sustainable Soy, as well as the
Better Sugarcane Initiative (www.bettersugarcane.org). These initiatives also tend to improve
environmental and social standards of producers within the industry, often through creating
voluntary codes of good practice.207
Among the international institutions, the following are worth mentioning:
www.iscc-system.org/en/
OECD, Doornbosch R., Steenblik R.: Round Table on Sustainable Development. BIOFUELS: IS THE CURE WORSE THAN
THE DISEASE? Paris, 11-12 September 2007, p 39
206
207
AETS Consortium – February 2013
132
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
IFC Performance Standard on Social and Environmental Sustainability. The standard deals
with
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts
Labour and Working Conditions
Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention
Community Health, Safety, and Security
Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement; this chapter follows the typical World
Bank approach that nobody should be worse off after the project then before the
project; the objectives are: a) to avoid, and when avoidance is not possible, minimize
displacement by exploring alternative project designs; b) to avoid forced eviction; c)
to anticipate and avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize adverse social
and economic impacts from land acquisition or restrictions on land use by (i)
providing compensation for loss of assets at replacement cost and (ii) ensuring that
resettlement activities are implemented with appropriate disclosure of information,
consultation, and the informed participation of those affected; d) to improve, or
restore, the livelihoods and standards of living of displaced persons and e) to improve
living conditions among physically displaced persons through the provision of
adequate housing with security of tenure5 at resettlement sites.
f) Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources
g) Indigenous Peoples
h) Cultural Heritage.
But there are some more guidelines and principles and most likely the number will still
increase.
Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and
Forests in the Context of National Food Security
Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and
Resources
a) Respecting land and resource rights. Existing rights to land and associated natural
resources are recognized and respected.
b) Ensuring food security. Investments do not jeopardize food security but strengthen it.
c) Ensuring transparency, good governance, and a proper enabling environment.
Processes for acquiring land and other resources and then making associated
investments are transparent and monitored, ensuring the accountability of all
stakeholders within a proper legal, regulatory, and business environment.
d) Consultation and participation. All those materially affected are consulted, and the
agreements from consultations are recorded and enforced.
e) Responsible agro-investing. Investors ensure that projects respect the rule of law, reflect
industry best practice, are economically viable, and result in durable shared value.
f) Social sustainability. Investments generate desirable social and distributional impacts
and do not increase vulnerability.
g) Environmental sustainability. Environmental impacts of a project are quantified and
measures are taken to encourage sustainable resource use while minimizing and
mitigating the risk and magnitude of negative impacts208.
The Principles for Responsible Investment
PRI - Principles for Responsible Investment is an investor initiative in partnership with UNEP
Finance Initiative and the UN Global Compact. The signatory institutional investors have a
duty to act in the best long-term interests of the beneficiaries. In this fiduciary role, investors
believe that environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) issues can affect the
208 K. Deininger, D. Byerlee et al “Rising Global Interest in Farmland. Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits?”,
The World Bank (2011), p XXVII & FAO: Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights,
Livelihoods and Resources; 2010; p 2
AETS Consortium – February 2013
133
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
performance of investment portfolios (to varying degrees across companies, sectors, regions,
asset classes and through time). Responsible investors also recognise that applying these
Principles may better align investors with broader objectives of society. Therefore, where
consistent with these fiduciary responsibilities, they commit to the following:
a) Responsible investors will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decisionmaking processes.
b) Responsible investors will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our
ownership policies and practices.
c) Responsible investors will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in
which we invest.
d) Responsible investors will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles
within the investment industry.
e) Responsible investors will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing
the Principles.
f) Responsible investors will report on their activities and progress towards implementing
the Principles209.
The principles remain sometimes unclear, for example when defining the “beneficiaries” as
beneficiaries could be the shareholder of a biofuel company or the local population;
furthermore there are “no legal or regulatory sanctions associated with the Principles”
(Principles of Responsible Investments by UNEP Finance Initiative).
Additional responsibilities of the private sector on a voluntarily basis
All certification schemes approved by the EU tend to overlook production processes and
trade flows and despite good intentions there is always room for fraud; however in principle
the EU schemes like ISCC cover all topics and can lead to positive outcomes if taken
seriously.
Beside the EU certification scheme it is very essential to follow IFC requirements too as most
international investors try to have IFC on board to safeguard their investments in the sense
that such an investment is more under international observation and less vulnerable by local
policy changes. The IFC has its own standard and investors have to follow it throughout the
life of an investment by IFC.
Gender is just mentioned in the way the women’s role in the management and use of these
natural resources should be specially considered.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is considered by some experts as acting against social
responsibility by not disallowing certification and labelling schemes for sustainable products;
the discussion between free trade and social responsibility started already in November 2008
when eight countries – Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Malawi, Mozambique, Sierra Leone,
Indonesia and Malaysia – have written to the EU to protest at WTO against the "unjustifiably
complex" sustainability rules! They argued that environmental criteria 'relating to land-use
change will impinge disproportionately on developing countries'.
The magazine BusinessGreen continued that these 8 countries have been afraid that the EU
intends to ban the purchase of biofuels from energy crop plantations that are believed to
harm the environment and lead to food shortages by displacing land used for food crops
and contributing to rainforest deforestation. – This might be one of the reasons why some
parties argue that the sustainability criteria are too strict whereas others say they are too
interpretable.
Land tenure is a very relevant topic as most biofuel investments are linked to farming and,
therefore, require cooperation with farmers or more often rental or purchase agreements.
http://www.unpri.org/principles/ - RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT IN FARMLAND: A CASE STUDY COMP ENDIUM
(OCTOBER 2012)
209
AETS Consortium – February 2013
134
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
It is interesting to note that the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development (BMZ) writes in an actual strategy paper from 2012: “More important than the
behaviour of investors is the role of the countries where rental or purchase agreements are
signed. The governments of these countries have to undertake responsibility to prevent
irresponsible land grabbing; these governments should rather guide investments in their
country in a way that enables win-win-situations.(...) Especially countries with weak institutions,
poor governance and widespread corruption are affected. If a poor land tenure policy is
caused by weak institutions but not by the political will of the government, then development
cooperation could assist significantly (...) for example by land registration.”
Furthermore the ministry recommends respecting existing but also traditional rights and rights
recognized by customs and joint land and water rights. This might be of importance to
developing countries which often have no land registration and a lot of land in joint use;
when just pursuing the “official” rights, investors might get confronted rapidly with traditional
ways of living and doing business in Africa or other countries on other continents.
To make land tenure issues even more complicated there are two opposite opinions: a) land
registration helps smallholders to register and therefore to protect their property and b) land
registration can just be done with proper documents and without these papers (property title,
cadastral map, special user rights etcetera) – for example because of traditional hand-over
from father to son - the informally existing property rights will get definitely lost.
However it is in the investors own interest to cooperate with the local population in all
questions such as job creation, social institutions like schools and hospitals, resettlement and
all kind of land tenure as a respectful attitude towards the local population and to avoid
conflicts such as land occupation, road blockade and strikes.
Another key aspect is speculation which is often used together with land grabbing. By
definition speculation in agricultural land means that land is purchased without any further
activities to increase the value of the purchased land; i.e. no soil preparation, no planting, no
grazing etcetera. Land speculation should be made less attractive and a simple solution
would be to collect taxes on land which is not in use. Speculators who invest in agricultural
land without further activities – because they just wait for windfall-profits when selling it again would have to pay a tax on fallow land.
Investments in agricultural land mean that the investor purchases (or rents) agricultural land
and that the investor set activities to increase the value of this land; this could be to start a
biofuel feedstock production or just setting up pastures to raise cattles.
However large agricultural land acquisition in developing countries - regardless if speculative
or not - will not cease just because biofuels will not be supported that heavily by the EU any
longer.
While land deals give rise to concerns they also provide opportunities. Investors may
introduce new technologies and skills, expedite the development of contextualised
production systems with higher productivity, and spark innovation. Innovative business models
can offer different approaches to raising agricultural production. Industry codes for
responsible investment are welcome, but they are not sufficient to ensure compliance.
Transparency and appropriate governance remain key.
Land use change is always taking place if land will be converted from food crop production
to biofuels cultivation. One could say that there is no place on earth which is not cultivated
by men if these places could be used for pastoralism or agriculture. Also here it is at least
partly the responsibility of the investor to find solutions which are acceptable for all
stakeholders; and to say it with a slogan: Good policy does not displace food farming; on the
contrary it strongly supports peasants’ food production.
Transparency might be a keyword for investments in developing countries. The more
transparent and open all negotiations are, the better the result will be for all stakeholders.
Transparency should not be limited to talks, also environmental impact analyses and other
documents should be published to establish trust. Another keyword might be collaboration;
AETS Consortium – February 2013
135
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
the World Bank recognizes that large-scale agricultural investment poses significant
challenges that can be addressed successfully only if stakeholders collaborate effectively.
The responsibility of the private sector is defined very broadly. One might say that responsible
private investors should follow the guidelines and principles and also respect laws even if they
are not properly enforced.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
136
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
ANNEX 4: Senegal Field Visit 3rd to 14th December 2012, Demba
Diop and Maria Blanco
Acronymes
AAPB
ANER
ANIDA
APIX
ASER
BAD
BAME
CICODEV
CNCR
CR
CoR
CSA
CSS
ECOWAS
FPTF
GOANA
ISRA
LOASP
LPDSE
NEPAD
PAM
PERACOD
PNUD
PROGEDE
REVA
ROPPA
SENELEC
SOCAS
SODEFITEX
SOPREEF
UEMOA
Association Africaine pour la Promotion des Biocarburants
Agence Nationale pour les Energies Renouvelables
Agence Nationale d’Insertion et de Développement Agricole
Agence de Promotion des Investissements et des Exportations
Agence Sénégalaise d’Electrification Rurale
Banque Africaine de Développement
Bureau d'Analyses Macro-Economiques
The Alliance for Consumer Citizenship/Alliance Citoyenneté et Consommateurs
Conseil National de Concertation et de Coopération des Ruraux
Communauté Rural
Conseil Rural
Commissariat à la Sécurité Alimentaire
Compagnie Sucrière de Sénégal (Senegalese Sugar Company)
Economic Community of West African States
Fédération des Producteurs de Tabanani du département de Foundiougne
Grande Offensive Agricole pour la Nourriture et l’Abondance (Great Push Forward
for Agriculture, Food and Abundance)
Institute Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (Senegalese Agricultural Research
Institute)
Loi d’orientation agro-sylvo-pastorale (Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock Act)
Lettre de Politique et de Développement du Secteur de l’Energie
New Partnership for Africa's Development (African Union (AU))
Programme Alimentaire Mondial (WFP)
Projet d’électrification rurale et d’accès aux combustibles domestiques
Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement
Programme de Gestion Durable et Participative des Energies Traditionnelles et de
Substitution/Sustainable and Participatory Energy Management Programme
Retour Vers l’Agriculture (Return to Agriculture)
Réseau des organisations paysannes et de producteurs de l’Afrique de l’Ouest
Société Nacional d’Electricité
Société de conserves alimentaires du Sénégal (Canned Food Company of
Senegal)
Société de Développement des Fibres Textiles (Textile Fiber Development
Company)
Société pour la Promotion de l’Accès à l’Energie et à l’Eau dans le Département de
Foundiougne
Union Économique et Monétaire Ouest Africain (Economic and Monetary Union of
West Africa)
AETS Consortium – February 2013
137
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
1. Country Overview
1.1. Country profile
With 196,722 sq km of land (of which 4,192 sq km of water bodies), Senegal borders the North Atlantic
Ocean between Guinea Bissau and Mauritania. Senegal has a population of roughly 13 million (July
2010), with about half of the population living below the poverty line.
The climate is dominated by a dry tropical climate with a rainy season (May to November).
The country’s principal natural resources are fish, phosphates, and iron ore. Just over 12% of the land
2
is arable and 1,200 km are irrigated, with 0.24% of land devoted to permanent crops. Its total
3
renewable water resources are 39.4 km (1987).
Agriculture products include peanuts, millet, maize, sorghum, rice, cotton, tomatoes, green vegetables,
cattle, poultry, pigs, and a sizeable fish industry. Major exports include fish, groundnuts (peanuts),
petroleum products, phosphates, and cotton; imports include food and beverages, capital goods, and
fuels.
Key environmental challenges
desertification, and overfishing.
include
poaching,
deforestation,
overgrazing,
soil
erosion,
Senegal was beset by an energy crisis that caused widespread blackouts between 2006 and 2011.
1.2. Senegal Economy
210
The World Bank
reports that the Senegal’s economy is slowly recovering from the economic
slowdown of the past few years, with real GDP growth estimated to have grown to four per cent on
average in 2010 and 2011. Driven by momentum in secondary and tertiary sectors, the Senegalese
economy pursued its expansion in 2011, but at a slower pace than initially expected due to poor
electricity supply, higher food and fuel prices, and a poor rainy season. A gradual recovery in the
construction sector, fuelled by greater road infrastructure spending, and momentum in the cement
sector supported growth in the secondary sector while dynamism in the telecommunication, transport,
and financial sectors supported the growth in tertiary sector. Inflation rose in early 2011, reflecting
increasing international food and petroleum prices, but this trend reversed in the second half of the
year. Year-on-year inflation has returned to below three per cent.
1.3. Agricultural policy
The agricultural policy in Senegal relies mainly on the Guidance Law for Agriculture, Forestry and
Livestock (LOASP), adopted in 2004. This Guidance Law defines the strategy for the development of
210
Senegal Country report highlights
AETS Consortium – February 2013
138
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
the agricultural sector and the reduction of poverty for a twenty year period. Among its specific
objectives, we distinguish: definition of a legal status for farm exploitations as well as for land assets
security and water control, diversification of production, fostering of agricultural exports, promotion of
private investment in agriculture and rural areas, capacity-building in rural areas.
Recent programs to boost agricultural production include the Plan REVA (Return to Agriculture, 2006)
and the GOANA (Great Agricultural Offensive for Food and Abundance, 2008).
Agricultural area amounts 3.8 Mha (20% of total area) but only 12% of the total area is cultivated (2.5
Mha). With just 5 per cent of its land under irrigation, Senegalese agriculture is mainly rainfed and
seasonal.
Whereas only 12% of the land area is cultivated, the agricultural sector employed about 75% of the
workforce in 2008. Land tenure is determined by both legal and customary systems. Smallholder
production predominates and farmers usually combine cash crops (groundnuts and cotton) and
subsistence crops (millet, sorghum, maize, and rice).
Senegal remains a net food importer. It is the second importer of rice in Africa (after Nigeria) and
rarely meets self-sufficiency on millet and sorghum (the country’s staple crops). The main export crops
are groundnuts and cotton. Groundnut production uses about 40% of the cultivated land and occupies
around one million farmers. Recent trends show a decrease in groundnut and cotton production and
an increase in the production of fruits and vegetables (green beans, melons, cherry potato and
mango). In recent years, export oriented large-scale horticulture projects are being undertaken, mainly
in the coastal zone and along the Senegal River valley.
Main livestock sectors are cattle, and sheep and goats and poultry. Despite significant livestock
population, Senegal remains a net importer of meat, especially sheep. Poultry production has
increased significantly in recent years and this subsector has great potential for further growth.
1.4. Energy policy
The energy policy is outlined in three “policy letters” (LPDSE, Lettre de Politique et de Développement
du Secteur de l’Energie), adopted in 1997, 2003 and 2008.
The main objectives of the LPDSE 2008 are: secure energy supplies to households and industries;
improve the access to energy services and reduce the vulnerability of the country from external
factors. The new energy strategy is centred on diversification of energy sources and involves the
development and use of renewable energies such as solar, wind, biofuel and hydroelectricity.
The energy sector relies heavily on oil imports to meet Senegal’s energy needs. In recent years, oil
price increases as well as rising energy demand have increased this dependence. For instance, the
fuel bill rose from 185 billion CFA francs in 2000 to 384 billion CFA francs in 2006 and to 623 billion
CFA francs in 2008 (Dia et al, 2009).
2. Bioenergy Policies, Programs and main feedstocks
2.1. The Biofuels National Program
Since 2006, Senegal has adopted a national biofuels strategy that is largely centred on the
development of Jatropha for biodiesel and sugarcane for ethanol.
Within the plan REVA, the Special Biofuels Program aims at achieving biodiesel self-sufficiency,
creating jobs and reducing poverty. Jatropha has been chosen for biofuel production because it is a
non-food crop well suited to the Sahelian environment. Moreover, pure Jatropha oil can be directly
used as fuel.
The objective of the Jatropha program is to attain 1.19 billion litres of crude Jatropha oil in 2012,
equivalent to 1.134 billion litres of refined oil, which can be used as biodiesel for vehicles as well as to
generate power.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
139
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The program foresees that each rural community allocates 1,000 ha of land to Jatropha plantation,
giving a total of 321,000 ha. Yield is estimated at 10 tonnes of grains per hectare (plant maturity).
2.2. Overview of the institutional actors
On a government level, there has been quite some instability with regards to the biofuels sector. It was
first allocated to the ministry of agriculture in 2006, then a ministry of Biofuel was erected in (2007) for
a few month before the responsibility returned to the Ministry of agriculture again (2008). In 2010, the
Ministry of Renewable Energy was created with a department in charge of biofuels and nowadays it is
the Ministry of Energy who is in charge since the 2012 election. The Ministry of energy is creating an
Agency for Renewable Energy that will centralize all renewable energies activities including biofuels.
Direction des biocarburants
This department will be merged within the Renewable Energy Agency of Senegal (ANER) and is
charge of the developing the liquid biofuels policies of Senegal.
The department crafted a liquid biofuel (biocarburant) orientation law signed by the Government on the
15 December 2010. The law is based on the needs to reduce the country dependence on imported
petroleum coal products. Because of its potential for rural and agricultural development, job creation
and environmental impacts, the government of Senegal has elaborated an ambitious liquid biofuels
programme that promotes mainly Jatropha and sugar cane.
Several applications decrees are envisaged to both stimulate and regulate the development of
biofuels: food security, water use issue, land use, environmental and social protection.
The tax incentives include 5 years grace for production that target local market and exoneration from
import duties. Expert oriented project are only allowed if 50% of the aimed production will be used
locally.
To date, none of the application decrees have been adopted and implemented.
Institut Sénégalais de Recherche Agricole (ISRA)
ISRA is one the main pillar of the Senegalese policy on Jatropha development, assuring the
coordination of the National Biofuel Program. The Government objective is to enable the production of
1.19 billion litres of biodiesel (321.000 ha) by 2012 in order to reduce the dependency on imported oil
resources.
The policy in based on the implication of the small scale farmers across the country. Each of the 321
rural districts of the country has been given the mandate to plant at least 1000 hectares. Within this
national plan, ISRA (www.isra.sn) ensures the production of the Jatropha plants, mainly done in
nurseries, targeting a total capacity of 1 billion plants and 1 million cuttings. Thanks to a scientific
collaboration agreement between ISRA and CULTESA (Centre for Biotechnological Research,
Tenerife, Spain), a laboratory for in vitro cultivation has been created to enhance the multiplication
activity of Jatropha seeds. This laboratory receives financial support from the Spanish cooperation
(Tenerife, Spain).
After the multiplication process, the plants are distributed to the producers.
Agence de Promotion des Investissements et des Exportations (APIX)
The APIX (National agency for the promotion of investment and exports) aims at promoting Senegal
as an investment destination. The APIX facilitates both national and foreign investment by (i) providing
economic, business-related and technological information on a permanent basis, (ii) supporting
investors throughout the investment chain, (iii) supporting investors for the formalities of registration
and for obtaining the various administrative authorizations.
Nine biofuel projects have been registered at the APIX between 2007 and 2010. Job creation from
these projects was estimated at about 10000 jobs (most of them seasonal) and Jatropha plantations
AETS Consortium – February 2013
140
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
were estimated to attain 90000 ha. Whereas no official information is available about the current
situation of these projects, only two of them are confirmed to be operational.
The PROGEDE
The PROGEDE (government Agency) stands for the Sustainable and Participatory Energy
Management project and is funded by the World Bank (IDA $5.2 million), the Dutch Government
(DGIS $8.8 million) and the Global Environmental Fund (GEF $4.7 million).
Since 2003, the PROGEDE has worked with the population of the Region of Tambacounda to plant 60
km of Jatropha cursas together with a nursery of 200 hectares. The phase II of the project aims to
develop a 10 hectares Jatropha plantation in each of the 506 villages that are linked to the PROGEDE
biofuels program. In total there are an additional 5000 hectares of planted Jatropha in the region since
211
2007 .
3. Biofuels development: the current situation
3.1. Biofuel sectors
Biodiesel from Jatropha
The Special Biofuels Program started in 2006 is being implemented by the Department of biofuel of
the Ministry of Energy and Mining (currently under restructuration). The Senegalese Institute for
Agricultural Research is in charge of developing planting materials and its wide distribution to growers.
The original set of objectives was to plant 321,000 ha of Jatropha bushes by 2012, providing 1,000 ha
per rural community. This program would yield 3.2 million tonnes of seeds by 2012, netting 1.2 billion
gallons of straight Jatropha oil, or 1.1 billion litres of refined oil that could be used as biodiesel.
Senegal expected that Jatropha would contribute to a significant reduction in oil imports and make the
country a net producer of energy.
By December 2012, less than 15.000 hectares of Jatropha have been planted according to the
Ministry of Energy (Direction des Biocarburants) meaning that the assigned targets and expected
outcomes of the Senegalese biodiesel policy have not been met and that the government has not
been successful in its attempt of convincing farmers to integrate massively Jatropha plants in their
farming system.
However, ISRA has now reached a consistent plant production capacity of 500 000 plants every 2
months in their nursery facility. The distribution of these plants to farmers is free of charge and may
change the situation in the near future by generating more feedstock to the local industry of for export.
ISRA recognize that most of the plants go to the local elite (religious leaders and politicians) as small
farmers do not have the means to organize the transport of plants. Most small farmers are even not
aware about the possibility of free planting materials.
Local production of Jatropha seeds is still quite low. The harvested seeds are traditionally used for
soap making. Most of the Jatropha plantations are concentrated in the so called groundnuts belt
stretching across the region of Kaolack, Diourbel and Fatick. In the Factick region, a Jatropha growers
association is reported with over 90 hectares of plantations
In term of processing facilities, the company NEO SA, created by investors from Monaco (France), is
currently building a 12.000 tones Jatropha oil facility extensible to 165.000 tonnes in the future.
Another small processing facility co owned by the farmers’ association of Sokone is reported. The
Sokone farmers’ association planted about 90 hectares of land. They sell their Jatropha seeds
production at an agreed upon price of 100 FCFA (Euro 15 cents) per kg to the processing unit.
It is reported that one of the cement factory (SOCOCIM) use Jatropha seeds to feed its kilns. No
information was obtained about the quantities or the areal the planted with Jatropha bushes. The
perception is that SOCOCIM is using Jatropha more for public relation and marketing purpose than a
real strategy to switch to sustainable energy.
211
A Niane, acting coordinator of PROGEDE, December 2012
AETS Consortium – February 2013
141
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Little is known about the actual Jatropha coverage, yields, effective production and trade in Senegal.
The involved private sector actors are reluctant to provide information on their production and sales.
No meaningful information could be obtained from the Sokone processing plant or from the newly
established NEO Factory in Gossas.
Ethanol from molasses residues
Meanwhile, ethanol production has been underway at the Senegalese Sugar Company (CSS) since
2008. The company produces approximately 35,000 tons of molasses that has been considered as
waste for more than 2 decennia (the molasses, residues of the sugar processing, used to be dumped
3
in artificial lake). Nowadays, the molasses is transformed into 2,500 m of industrial ethanol and
3
10,000 tons (12,500 m ) of anhydrous ethanol than can be used as biofuel.
Other valorisation of agricultural waste
The oil seeds company (formally SANACOS now SUNEOR since its privatization) has been employing
groundnut shells in cogeneration with a production estimated at 341 kilotons. Nonetheless, energy
generation from groundnut shells remains limited in comparison to the large volume of groundnut
production available within the country.
The biogas industry is also growing, although modestly. Currently a project seeking to produce heat
and electricity from the Dakar Abattoir is under construction (SOGAS). The Dakar municipality is
equally implementing biogas projects to valorise their waste water collection plants.
3.2. Land issues
Tenure systems
The one issue that seems to unite all the Senegalese public and private actors is the unclear land
tenure system and the need to reform it. Indeed 4 categories of land co-exist in confuse manners in
Senegal:
1. Urban zones (zones urbaines). These are land managed by communal entities such as city
councils
2. Rural land (zones de terroir) are used for farming, animal husbandry, cultural rites and managed
by the rural communities. In this category of customary tradition, the rights for access and use are
transmited from generation to generation. The rural council can allocate the rights of use to an
individual, a group or a private entity. The rural council can also claim back the allocated land if it
is not used or if the use is diverted from its original purpose.
3. Pioneer land (zones pionières) are zones with low population density and therefore under the
control of the central government.
4. Reserves (zones classées) are protected land such as animal sanctuaries and under the control of
the central government.
Increasing land disputes
The FAO (2012) reports that 20% of the legal cases in the Dakar courts are currently related to land
dispute issues. This trend is likely to continue.
The co-existence of these several land tenure systems causes many problems of coherence, and
constitutes a permanent source of disputes and misuses. Several cases are reported where
Government allocated land to private users by obliging the local council to sign under pressure of
being dismissed using the so called ’special delegation’ administrative procedure (Sangalkam in 2008,
Mbane in 2008). The special delegations are legal procedures that the Government can use to remove
elected persons from office when they commit a fault.
Le Conseil National de Concertation des Ruraux (CNRA) reported that about 400.000 hectares of land
have been allocated to the local elite (politician, religious guides and businessmen) since 2006 for
agricultural projects often through irregular practices. Because of the incoherent land tenure systems,
the rush of the local elite for land since 2006 and the heavy pressure they put on the rural councils,
some rural communities have ended up attributing formally (on paper) more land than they actually
dispose of their territory (Mbane in the North of Senegal for instance).
AETS Consortium – February 2013
142
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Strong mobilisation of the NGOS and rural farmers
There is very strong mobilisation in rural Senegal against the allocation of land to private companies
and against liquid biofuels in general. NGOs under the leadership of the CNCR, ENDA Pronat and
many others actors have documented most of the cases of land attribution and have helped mobilize
the population to stand up for their rights.
The most famous case remains Fanaye rural community where the (above mentioned) irregular
allocation of 20.000 hectares of land to an Italian company (Senhuile / SenEthanol) instead of the 300
hectare announced during the public hearing has led to the death of 2 protesters during the riots.
Following this, the Government has decided to displace the project in the natural reserve of Ngith, in
turn threatening many years of biodiversity conservation efforts. Ngith, on the shores of the Lac de
Guiers is currently one the richest bird sanctuary and biodiversity areas of West Africa.
4. Biofuel Best Practices in Senegal
4.1. Waste to energy project of the sugar cane company
The case of the CSS (Compagnie Sucrière Sénégalaise) is worth mentioning as it has turned
environmental constraints to a viable energy solution. Since more than 40 years, the company
cultivates about 10 to 15 000 hectares of sugar cane in the Senegal Rivers Valley with one of the
highest yields in the world (150 tons per hectare of canes). The sugar cane is processed into sugar
and the residual molasses used to be dumped in large reservoirs creating artificial lakes and
widespread pollution.
In 2006, the Government of Senegal decided to commission a study aimed at the valorisation of the
212
molasses into cooking fuel (gel fuel). According to this study , the production of gel fuel would be too
costly as compared to the price of traditional fuel. On the contrary, the production of bio-ethanol would
be economically feasible. Against this background, the CSS invested 4.6 billion FCA in ethanol plant
that provides medical alcohol to Senegal and ethanol for the export market.
The project allowed for eliminating the environmental problem of waste (molasses) disposal and the
production of ethanol which can either be blended in the fuel market of Senegal or sold to provide the
needed foreign currency. This is a possible good practice to follow.
4.2.
Certified Jatropha project
ANOC (African National Oil Corporation), created in 2008, is one of the few foreign venture still active
in the Jatropha sector. This firm operates in the Gossas and Kaffrine regions. ANOC invested in the
production and transformation of Jatropha nuts. Production of Jatropha is done directly by the firm
(currently 350 ha are planted of Jatropha and 2000 ha are expected to be put in production in the near
future) and contracted with small farmers. Transformation has just started in the 3 processing units the
enterprise has, producing SVO (straight vegetable oil) and biodiesel.
Expected biodiesel production from ANOC plantations
2013
2104
2015
2016
0.1
million 0.6
million 1.5
million 2.5
litres
litres
litres
litres
million
2017
3.5
litres
million
2018
5.0
litres
million
ANOC foresees to progressively increase direct production of biodiesel to reach 5 million litres in
2018. Aside from direct production, ANOC process Jatropha nuts from local farmers. Part of the
production will be sold locally and the rest will be exported.
ANOC is registered at the Ministry of Environment and an environmental impact assessment of the
project has been carried out.
Furthermore, ANOC highlights in interviews that they are the first biofuels producer certified as “GHG
savings” in Africa. The Certificate guarantees that the firm complies with the requirements of the RED
and the certification system ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification) approved by
the European Commission.
212
More information available at http://www.css.sn/
AETS Consortium – February 2013
143
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
According to its General Director, the success of this venture is mainly due to the involvement of the
local population. The insecure institutional setting remains a main risk.
5.
Summary of findings and gaps
Slow progress of the biofuels institutional framework
•
A biofuel law exist since December 2010 and aims to promote sustainable development of
biofuels to reduce the dependency of the country on imported fuels and foster rural and
agricultural development while integrating measure for food security, social and environmental
protection. However, the application decrees of the law are not implemented, rendering the law
very ineffective. Some activities encouraging the signature of the application decrees are needed.
As a result, the biofuels value chain is not operational, creating uncertainties for early biofuel
producers. In particular, it remains unclear if biofuel exports will be allowed and to which extent.
Reform of the land tenure system is urgent
•
Land tenure reform is demanded by many of the parties involved in the agricultural and biofuels
chain, from government officials to producers and NGOs. However, the collected views on
possible solutions are so divergent that finding a consensus will be a difficult task. While some
argue that land should be privatized and given to the one that can invest in it, many are radically
opposed to this option without really providing viable solutions and options of their own. This
maintains the current status quo which is characterised by irregularities and neverending disputes.
•
Land demarcation and land-use planning, a critical factor for promoting agricultural investment,
agribusiness and biofuels production, has not been implemented in Senegal yet. The government
may choose to directly allocate land to local or foreign producers under current land tenure
conditions, guaranteeing them long-term control. Such an approach has been considered in
several countries, although it remains to be tested for a conclusive assessment. Regardless,
strengthening of land ownership in ways that protect smallholder and industrial producers needs to
be included in the policy setting according (Sana Faty, Director of biocarburant, Dec 2012).
•
In terms of policy and practice, Senegalese NGOs demand that the government define precise
procedures and criteria for land allocation for biofuel production. Procedures should involve the
consideration of pre-existent—formal or customary—land rights, and incorporate a range of steps
likely to mitigate the risks of negative impacts on local groups. These steps could include prior
local information, consultation, mediation, fair compensation, and appeal possibilities.
Isolation of biofuel impacts not easy
•
The extent to which the massive allocation of agricultural land is strictly related to bioenergy is
unknown. According to CNCR, large-scale land acquisitions affect more than 700,000 ha, of which
more than 100,000 ha are directly linked to Jatropha projects. How much land is used for biofuels
production cannot be answered at this stage as plantations are not registered and there are no
monitoring and evaluation activities in Senegal. However, it can safely be assumed that many
projects still exist only as plans – also due to the "virtual" nature of some of the land allocations.
•
Food insecurity linked to food prices (rice and maize), production variability and non-integrated
markets. No direct link with biofuels development is observed or reported by stakeholders on the
ground. However, this is not conclusive, as the Senegalese government subdidises food prices.
The importance of the susbsidies is not known.
Land suitability and environmental impacts
AETS Consortium – February 2013
144
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
There has not been – at any stage- a real inventory of the Senegalese agricultural land and its
suitability for biofuel production. The encountered NGOs expressed a need to map out the
different soil characteristics and their suitability for biofuel feedstock. Current productions of
Jatropha are not supported with studies to predict the expected yields and impacts on soil, water
and biodiversity.
•
Senegal is dry Sahel country where water resources are scarce. A national consultation about the
allocation of water for growing crops should be defined including the quantities of water that could
be reserved for biofuels once the food crops are met. This is likely to be the second most
controversial issue after and linked to land allocation.
•
The liquid biofuels law implies that an environmental and social impact study and mitigation plan
should be submitted to and accepted by the Ministry of Environment before a license can be given
to an operator and any production take place. In reality very few of the on-going projects in
Senegal has received an approval from the Ministry of Environment. The unfortunate usual
practice is to first develop production capacity and seek for the license and environmental and
social clearance afterwards.
Jatropha knowledge gaps
•
On the planned 321.000 hectares of Jatropha by 2012, less than 15.000 ha have currently been
planted. Exact figures are missing as Jatropha area is not yet reported by the DAPS.
•
Actual production is not known. (Jatropha only becomes productive after 5-7 years after planting).
Jatropha yields are not yet measured in situ but seem to be far from potential (more research is
needed) and expectations.
•
Jatropha is a new production and then a lot of uncertainties exist about input requirements and
management practices. A common misconception was to expect maximum yields afeter 3-4 years,
where the plant apparently only reaches production age at 5-7 years.
•
The encountered NGOs expressed a need to map out the different soil characteristics and their
suitability for biofuel feedstock. Current production of Jatropha is not supported by studies or
reasearch analyzing the expected results and impacts on soil, water and biodiversity.
Concluding remarks on biofuels development
•
The objectives of the National Biofuel Program are still far from being attained. Jatropha had been
presented to farmers as a “miracle crop” and, therefore, farmers’ expectations have not been met.
•
The instability of the institutional framework (unclear land rights, changing legal environment,
irregular practices in land allocation) makes business too risky both for small farmers and for agroindustrial investors.
•
The Biofuels Law requires an environmental and social impact study before a license can be given
and production take place. In practice, only one of the ongoing projects in Senegal has been
approved by the Ministry of Environment.
•
Small-scale and inclusive business models have been more successful than large-scale land
acquisitions.
6.
SWOT analysis
Strengths
•
Development of a new value chain (Jatropha)
•
Potential to reduce dependence from imported energy
AETS Consortium – February 2013
145
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
•
Diversification of energy sources
•
Additional (off-grid) energy source in rural areas
•
Economic use of available resources (land, labour)
•
Additional source of income in rural areas
•
Economic use of agricultural residues
Weaknesses
•
Poor knowledge of Jatropha production requirements
•
Poor knowledge on the economic viability of Jatropha production
•
Lack of market for Jatropha seeds, the Jatropha value chain is not operational
•
Unstable land tenure system
Opportunities
•
High oil prices enhance competitiveness of biofuels
•
National energy policy supports biofuel production and use
Threats
•
Uncertainty about the economic, social and environmental sustainability of biofuel projects
•
Lack of clear land tenure system
•
Insecure institutional framework
Bibliography
Dia D., Fall C.S., Ndour A., Sakho-Jimbira M.S. (2009). Le Sénégal face à la crise énergétique
mondiale : Enjeux de l’émergence de la filière des biocarburants. ISRA- Bureau d'Analyses MacroEconomiques.
Faye I.M., Benkahla A., Touré O., Seck S.M., Ba C.O. (2011). Les acquisitions de terres à grande
échelle au Sénégal : description d’un nouveau phénomène. Initiative Prospective Agricole et
Rurale, 45 pages.
FAO (2012). Trends and impacts of foreign investment in developing country agriculture, evidence
from case studies, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Annex 1. Itinerary
Date
04.12.12
04.12.12
04.12.12
05.12.12
Meetings
Ministère Energie et Mines
Direction biocarburant
Mr Sany Faty, director
Mr Birame Faye
Mr Kader Diop
Madame Oumou Ba
Delegation de l’UE au Sénégal
Boubacar
Draba,
Chargé
programme
Section
Infrastructures
ENDA Pronat
Mariam Sow
NL embassy in Dakar
Miriam Otto, second Sectary
AETS Consortium – February 2013
Addresses
221 77 5601164
[email protected]
Subjects
Biofuels national policies
Land tenures systems
Tel: 00 221 33 8891100
[email protected]
Areas of EU cooperation
with Senegal
00 221 33 889 34 39
[email protected]
[email protected]
00221338490360
Land issues
Food security
Environmental
issues
related to the allocation of a
natural reserves (NGIT) for
146
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
05.12.12
ENDA Energy
Abdou NDOUR
00 221 33 822 24 96
[email protected]
06.12.12
ISRA
Yacine Badiane Ndour, Maitre
de Recherche
Conseil
National
de
concertation et de coopération
des ruraux (CNCR)
Mr El Hadj Thierno Cisse
Mr, Yoro Idrissa Thioye,
Spanish Embassy in Dakar
Guillermo Franco,
Pilar Latre
Ministère de l’environnement
Idy Niang
ENDA Energy
Secou Sarr, Coordinator
FAO Regional office
Mr Patrick David,
Papa Boubacar Soumare
World food Programme
Kokou Amouzou
Ministère Energie et Mines
(Direction
biocarburants)Mr
Sany Faty, director
Mr Birame Faye
Mr Kader Diop
Communaute Rural de Raneri
Souleymane sow, President
00221338326298
[email protected]
Ministère Energie et Mines,
Mr
Boubacar
Mbodj,
Conseiller
énergie
renouvelables
ActionAid International
Fatou Ngom
Zakaria Sambakhe
Ministère de l'Agriculture et de
l'Équipement rural, DAPS
Somé Baldé
00221338234320
[email protected]
06.12.12
07.12.12
07.12.12
07.12.12
10.12.12
10.12.12
10.12.12
10.12.12
11.12.12
11.12.12
11.12.12
11.12.12
11.12.12
12.12.12
12.12.12
12.12.12
00221338277463
[email protected]
(221) 33 889 23 61
[email protected]
Foreign
investment
agriculture and energy
00221338210725
[email protected]
00
221
33
822
24
[email protected]
00 221 33889 16 26
[email protected]
Environmental requirement
for biofuels
Mapping ot the production
areas
Relation
between
food
security and biofuels
00221 33 859 75 50
[email protected]
221 77 5601164
[email protected]
Relation
between
food
security and biofuels
Biofuels national policies
+221775499245
[email protected]
Explained how land is
distributed
by
rural
communities
The restructuration process
of the ministry of energy and
the place of biofuels
[email protected]
Balde_some@yahoo. fr
Commissariat à la Sécurité
Alimentaire (CSA)
Mouhamadou Ndiaye
CICODEV Afrique
Amadou C. Kanoute
Agence
Nationale
des
Energies Renvouvelable
Djiby Ndiaye
APIX
Adama N. Gueye
[email protected]
Fédération des Producteurs
(221) 77 159 12 14
AETS Consortium – February 2013
biofuels production
Studies carried out by ENDA
to map out the production
potential
and
the
appropriateness
of
the
zones
Jatropha
planting
and
plantation, status of the
research in Senegal;
Land issues
[email protected]
00221338898420
[email protected]
00221338490587
[email protected]
in
Land issues
Food security
Biofuels investments
Agricultural production
Land use
Food security
Evolution of agricultural
prices
Land issues
Biofuels investments
The restructuration process
of the ministry of energy and
the place of biofuels
Promotion
of
foreign
investment in Senegal, no
special case for biofuels
Investment in biofuels
147
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
12.12.12
13.12.12
13.12.12
13.12.12
14.12.12
14.12.12
14.12.12
de Tabanani du département
de Foundiougne (FPTF)
Abdoulaye Faye
SAEB - Société Africaine
d’Exploitation
de
Biocarburants
Daniel Vidal
Office of the President of the
Republic of Senegal
Prof Arona C. N. Diouf,
Special advisor o Agriculture,
Energie and environment
Agence Espagnole pour la
Coopération Internationale au
Développement (AECID)
Mercedes Navarro
African National Oil Company
(ANOC)
Alessando Milani
Bureau d'Analyses MacroEconomiques (ISRA-BAME)
Cheickh S. Fall
Amy Faye
Djiby Dia
Association africaine pour la
promotion des biocarburants
(AAPB)
Serigne Amar
Travelling back
AETS Consortium – February 2013
Jatropha supply chain
[email protected]
Investment in biofuels
Jatropha supply chain
00221338808080
[email protected]
The need to develop
appropriates
application
decree
to
render
the
Senegalese
biofuel
law
effective
Foreign
investment
in
biofuels
[email protected]
[email protected]
Foreign
biofuels
investment
[email protected]
Biofuels sector
Production costs
Land issues
[email protected]
Investments in biofuels
in
148
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Annex 2. List of biofuel projects agreed by the APIX
Raison sociale
Produits et services
Site de production
SENIT AGRO BUSINESS SARL
Biocarburant à base d'huiles Communauté rurale de Boulel
végétales: huile de Jatropha et de
ricin
CARBIOL SENEGAL SARL
Biodiésel conditionné dans cuves Saly Portudal - Département de
et citernes des camions des Mbour
sociétés spécialisés dans le
transport d'hydrocarbures
SENERGIE SA
Huile végétale; biodiésel; biogaz; Communautés rurales de Gandé et
bio fertilisants
Syer - Arrondissement de Keur
Momar Sarr
GTA ENVIRONNEMENT SA
Biogaz en vue de
d'énergie électrique
PLANTATION VERTE SARL
Biomasse comme combustibles Lewa
Ndoumboulene
dans la production d'énergie Communauté rurale de Mbane mondiale
(production
et Dpt de Dagana
transformation de Jatropha et
autres biocombustibles)
ITAL SENEGAL SARL
Graines de Jatropha; biocarburant Salguir / Diagnoum - Podor
conditionné dans cuves et citernes
des
camions
de
transport
d'hydrocarbures
production CTT de Mbao / CET de Sindia
JTF (JATROPHA TECHNOLOGIC Jatropha curcas et huile; plantes Neteboulou
FARM SENEGAL) SARL
oléagineuses;
biocarburant
et
biodiesel
SOPREEF SARL (SOCIETE POUR Huile de Jatropha
LA PROMOTION DE L'ACCES A
L'ENERGIE ET A L'EAU DANS LE
DEPARTEMENT
DE
FOUNDIOUGNE)
AFRICAN
NATIONAL
CORPORATION SARL
Sokone
/
Foundiougne
Département
de
OIL Graines de Jatropha; biocarburant Communauté rurale de Ourour (conditionné dans des cuves et Arrondissement de Ouadiour citernes des camions de transport Département de Gossas
d'hydrocarbures)
SBE SENEGAL SARL
Graines de Jatropha curcas et Région de Thiès - Département de
Huile Végétale Biocombustible
Tivaouane - Communauté rurale de
Mérina
TOTOIL SARL
Biofuel: huile de Jatropha
GIE BIOECO
Biogaz à partir du traitement des SOGAS,Route de Khor,Sor,Saint
déchets agricoles, agro-industriels Louis
et ménagers
BBE
SA
ENERGIE)
(BERTOLA
BIO Jatropha;
fertilisants
huile
SOPREEF SARL (SOCIETE POUR Huile de Jatropha
LA PROMOTION DE L'ACCES A
L'ENERGIE ET A L'EAU DANS LE
DEPARTEMENT
DE
FOUNDIOUGNE)
AETS Consortium – February 2013
de
Communauté rurale de Tankon
Jatropha; Communauté
Mbadakhoun
Sokone
/
Foundiougne
rurale
de
Département
de
149
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
ANNEX 5: Tanzania Field Visit 2nd to 15th December 2012,
Magdalena Kropiwnicka and Michel Schlaifer
Acronyms
CCRO
EC
EDF
ESIA
ESMP
EU
GDP
GIS
GNI
GoT
GPS
MDG
MEM
MLHHS
NEMC
ODI
PAP
PPP
REA
SAGCOT
SEA
SIDA
TABEF
TANESCO
TIC
ToR
Tsh
WB
Certificates of Customary Right of Occupancy
European Commission
European Development Fund
Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
Environmental and Social Management Plan
European Union
Gross Domestic Product
Geographic Information System
Gross National Income
Government of Tanzania
Global Positioning System
Millennium Development Goal
Ministry of Energy and Minerals
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlement
National Environment Management Council
Overseas Development Institute
Project Affected Population
Policy, Plan and Programme
Rural Energy Agency of Tanzania
Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania
Strategic Environmental Analysis
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Tanzanian Biofuels Forum
Tanzania Electric Supply Company
Tanzanian Investment Centre
Terms of Reference
Tanzanian Shilling
World Bank
AETS Consortium – February 2013
150
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
1. Quick Country Overview
Global situation
Legislative and administrative capital:
Dodoma. Commercial capital and de facto seat of most
governmental ministries: Dar Es
Salaam.
With population of more than 46
213
million , 75% of Tanzanians
are living in rural areas.
Although Tanzania averaged 67% gross domestic product
(GDP) growth in the last
decade, it remains one of the
world's poorest countries in the
world with many people still
living below the poverty line of
214
US$1.25/day
and
gross
national income (GNI) per capita
215
income about US$ 540
Tanzania ranks 152 on the
216
Human Development Index
and 38.8% of Tanzanian
population are classified as
undernourished (people not
consuming enough calories)
according to FAO State of Food
217
Insecurity 2012 Report .
1.1 Relations EC - Tanzania
The European Commission is
supporting the Tanzania government’s poverty reduction strategy called MKUKUTA and
participates with other donors in the Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania. The main focus of
previous EC development programmes has been to assist the government’s poverty reduction
strategy, mostly through budget support in primary education, roads, water, legal and judicial reform
218
and health .
The new EC development cycle (2008–13) allocates €555 million to Tanzania (part of the 10th
European Development Fund). Most of this (€305 million, more than half of the funding) is provided as
general budget support to the country’s poverty reduction programme. A further €139 million is
directed at sector budget support in the road sector and €55.5 million has been reserved for trade
and regional integration, particularly in the East African Community Customs Union and the
Southern African Development Community. The EU is negotiating a new Economic Partnership
Agreement with Tanzania, a comprehensive trade agreement that includes trade alongside
development cooperation. An additional €51.5 million are provided for projects on water and
sanitation under the MDG initiative. Furthermore, another €50 million aim to support projects in
energy, environment and strengthening the civil society – good governance and
democratisation.
213
http://data.worldbank.org/country/tanzania
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-584_en.htm
215
http://data.worldbank.org/country/tanzania
216
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/TZA.htm
217
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e.pdf
218
http://eeas.europa.eu/tanzania/index_en.htm
214
AETS Consortium – February 2013
151
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The European Union is a long standing partner in the Agriculture and Food Security sector in
Tanzania helping to improve food security and agricultural productivity in order to lift farmers out
of poverty. Trade and Agriculture Support Programme (€55 million in total) is promoting easier access
to local and international markets, better competitiveness of agricultural products through the
improvement of standards (cotton, horticulture, fisheries, coffee and tea) as well as applied research
for the development of new varieties (coffee, tea); support to the Sugar Sector (Sugar Accompanying
Measures, €12.5 million over the period 2007-2013). EU is also supporting SAGCOT (Southern
Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania), an Initiative launched by Tanzania to stimulate sustainable
commercial agricultural development in southern Tanzania through improved rural infrastructure and
219
new types of finance . Tanzania has benefited from the Food Facility launched in 2009 to respond to
the 2007/2008 food crisis with €32 million (€20 million as general budget support and some €12
million allocated to projects implemented by Non-Governmental Organisations).
1.2 Agriculture
Tanzania’s economy relies heavily on agriculture; it contributes significantly to the production of food
and raw materials for industries, employment generation and foreign exchange earnings, accounting
for over a quarter of GDP, providing 80% of the labour force and 85% of exports (FAO 2012b). In
2009, agriculture contributed about 27% to the GDP, second after the services sector. The female
proportion of the total agricultural labour force is 79.7% reaching 91.7 in rural areas; female headed
households make up 25% of total households nationally and 24% of households in rural areas (FAO,
2012b). Agriculture plays a key role in food security, economic growth and poverty reduction.
Given the economic significance of the sector, investment (both public and private) in this sector is
seen as fundamental for economic growth. Since the mid-1980s, the Tanzanian economy has
undergone a gradual transformation that redefined the role of government and private sector. Today,
most of the production, processing and marketing functions have been assigned to the private sector.
In its Vision 2025, the government aims to achieve an agricultural sector that is modern, commercial,
highly productive and profitable, and which utilizes natural resources in an overall sustainable manner
(FAO 2012a).
Agriculture is dominated by smallholders cultivating an average of 0.5 to 2 hectare, with low levels of
productivity and insufficient access to credit and input. Large-scale farms (sometimes with foreignowners) are mainly focused on tea, sugar and coffee productions. Other non-traditional commodities
that have recently attracted investments include seaweed, maize, poultry, mushrooms, vegetables, cut
flowers, beef, fruits, sesame and honey. Some foreign investors were interested by biofuels (Jatropha,
oil palm and sugarcane, see point 2.). Regarding food production, maize is the main food crop
alongside sorghum, millet, rice, wheat, beans, bananas and potatoes; coffee is the main cash crop
alongside sisal, cashew, cotton, tobacco, tea, cloves, flowers and oil seeds.
1.3 Energy
Over the last two years, the Tanzanian economy has increasingly experienced power interruptions that
disrupted the pace of economic growth and development. In 2011, the country faced a 40% reduction
in the national power supply largely due to droughts and reduced water level which affected
220
hydropower generation. The national energy company, TANESCO , is relying mostly on hydro and
thermal power. Hydro contributes the largest share of TANESCO’s power generation: 73% of total
power generated from October 2009 up to September 2010. Gas and thermal contributed the
remaining amount. The company is facing financial difficulties in securing bank loans as well as
221
challenges in its own governance structure . In addition, large scale gas discoveries on the coast
have led Tanzania to begin development of a gas pipeline to Dar Es Salaam backed by financing
222
through non-concessional loan from the Import-Export Bank of China .
Tanzania remains dependent on imports of petroleum of which it consumes about 30,040 bbl./day
(2009, estimation). Tanzania imports oil at a cost of an estimated US$ 1.3-1.6 billion per year,
223
accounting for up to 25% of total foreign exchange earnings .
219
The EU support to SAGCOT was reconfirmed at the May 2012 G8 Summit in Camp David, which launched a new initiative
called the 'New Alliance to improve food security and nutrition'
220
http://www.tanesco.co.tz
221
http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=43662
222
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-14/tanzania-s-china-funded-gas-pipeline-to-be-started-this-year-1-.html
223
http://www.indexmundi.com/tanzania/oil_imports.html
AETS Consortium – February 2013
152
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
The national energy mix is largely dominated by biomass (90%), mainly firewood and charcoal when
renewable energy remains very small (solar, wind, geothermal). The Ministry of Energy and Minerals
(MEM) elaborated in 2011 a “Power System Masterplan 2011 to 2033” detailing the priorities to be
224
developed (coal, natural gas, renewable bioenergy). It is reviewed on a regular basis .
Consumption of charcoal is extremely high as it is the main energy source for Tanzania’s urban
population. In Dar Es Salaam alone it is estimated at much more than 20,000 tonnes per annum (Sulle
and Nelson 2009). As a result of limited cash flow and weak purchasing power, poorer households buy
charcoal frequently and in small quantities at a high unit price. The perceived low cost of charcoal and
its easy availability are the main reasons why it is largely used. The structure of the charcoal chain is
complex, comprising many actors with varying interests and stakes. Trade is conducted by formal as
well as informal actors. A reduced number of people consider charcoal production to be their main
economic activity. The majority produce charcoal occasionally, particularly in time of financial stress.
The value of charcoal business is conservatively estimated at about
us$ 650 million per year (WB 2009).
According to official data mentioned by the Rural Energy Agency of
Tanzania (REA) about 18% of Tanzanian population has access to
225
electricity although this figure is quite different in rural areas . Very
few people have access to energy in rural areas (estimated at 1% to
5% in 2010; the Government target is to increase the electrification in
rural areas to 16% by 2015).
In the energy sector, €8 million were allocated by the EU to electrification (under the 10th EDF). The
objective is to further increase access to electricity by households, businesses and public services
while also promoting Tanzania's renewable energy potential. Tanzania has also been identified as
one of the pilot countries of the Sustainable Energy For All Initiative launched by the UN SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-Moon in mid-2011 with a view to ensure universal access to modern energy services
doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency and doubling the share of renewable energy in
226
the global energy mix. The EU is at the forefront in leading this Initiative .
Projects focused entirely or partially on biofuels are supported in Tanzania by the EU Energy Facility
227
228
and are mainly focused on Jatropha seeds transformation for biodiesel . For example, TaTEDO is
implementing the EU supported project aimed to improve access to energy services in remote areas
through the promotion of Multifunctional Platform (energy generation by diesel and biodiesel from
Jatropha seeds, machines for agriculture products, local grid).
2. General situation regarding biofuel development and institutional
framework
Tanzania has experienced massive interest in its agricultural land in the period of 2006-2008,
including interest in acquisition of land for large scale biofuel ventures. Official government figures
from 2009 indicated that about 20 companies have requested land for commercial biofuel production.
Total request of land has been far greater than actually allocated with some research pointing out to 4
million hectares of land having been requested at some point particularly for Jatropha, sugar cane and
palm oil. According to Sulle and Nelson (2009), out of 640,000 ha allocated only 100,000 have been
granted formal rights of occupancy. Today, the Tanzanian Investment Centre (TIC), a one stop foreign
229
investment facilitation institution, has 10 registered biofuel companies (see Annex 2) . At the same
time, officials at TIC have not been able to give precise data as to which of the companies registered
are still operational given that some of the listed companies are well known to have ceased their
operations (i.e. Prokon Renewable Energy Solutions and Systems LTD and Bio Shape (T) Ltd). In
addition, one of the companies with plans for large scale sugar cane plantation and ethanol production
in Bagamoyo i.e. Agro EcoEnergy Tanzania Limited, is not currently listed with TIC. Lack of access
224
Interview at the MEM, December 2012
http://www.rea.go.tz/
226
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-584_en.htm
227
Meeting in Brussels with Alessandro Bianciardi (DEVCO C5), 28th November 2012; comments from Evaluation Team of
some Energy Facility Projects using Biofuels, January 2013
228
TaTEDO is a Sustainable Modern Energy Social Enterprise Organization with more than 20 years’ experience, actively
involved in sustainable energy development projects, programs and businesses in rural areas, see
http://www.tatedo.org/index.php
229
Data obtained from Senior Statistician at TIC during the meeting at TIC office.
225
AETS Consortium – February 2013
153
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
to precise information, updated data bases, monitoring and transparency with regard to large
scale land investments in biofuels continues to be one of the key governance challenges in
Tanzania.
Initial boom and interest in biofuel investments has been accompanied by a policy vacuum which
promoted the government to place a moratorium on new projects in 2008 until development of biofuel
230
guidelines. The Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Development in Tanzania
have
been developed in 2010 and have been consulted with civil society through TABEF (Tanzanian
Biofuels Forum). The Guidelines must be accompanied by a Policy (to define National Directives) and
a Biofuel Act (Enforcement) in order to achieve legislative force. The Biofuel Policy is currently in its
231
draft stages
and receiving inputs from various stakeholders including civil society. The national
Biofuel Policy is expected to be ready for the Parliamentary approval by June 2013 while the Biofuels
Act is expected to be ready by the end of 2013. In parallel, the country is also developing a Biomass
Policy Strategy with the support of the EC (EU Partnership Facility). The institutional framework is still
under definition and, at the moment, it remains difficult to assess what is the current applicable
policy regarding development of liquid biofuels. For example, it is still unknown what would be the
position regarding the tax regime for biofuels. Harmonization of the policies with regard to general
energy development and role expected for biomass / biofuels into the national energy mix
represents a strong challenge in achieving coherence and synergy.
The Guidelines establish the Biofuels One Stop Centre within the Tanzanian Investment Centre (TIC)
and among other things require investors to submit Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
(ESIA) to the National Environment Management Council (NEMC) and feasibility study reports to
Biofuels One Stop Centre. Despite theserequirements, sustainable practices are not always
respected. For example, interlocutors mentioned to the Consultants the use of pesticides in feedstocks
232
for biofuels and exposition of the workers without health protection . In many cases, the cost benefit
analysis and the profitability study of the investment seem to have been too quick, even if TIC
233
approved the project .
In accordance with the Investment Act, TIC continues to facilitate investor’s access to land and
provision of fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to potential investors. Neither the Guidelines nor the draft
Policy mention issue of water use nor set specific ceilings on the time period for land leases or scale
of investment although such proposals are often discussed in the Tanzanian media and are being
234
increasingly advocated after recent failure of a number of large scale investments . The problem
with the Guidelines process stems from the fact that biofuel development was primarily
conceived as an energy issue and was not sufficiently connected with agricultural, land, water
and food security aspects.
Besides the ESIA already mentioned in the Biofuel Guidelines, there is a need for a more strategic
vision regarding global development of the biofuels sector in the national context of sustainable
development. A Strategic Environmental Analysis (SEA) would be necessary to give a cross-cutting
analysis oriented to a systematic decision support process for the biofuels sector (policy, plan and
programme: PPP). SEA is an evidence-based instrument, aiming to add scientific rigour to PPP
making by using suitable assessment methods and techniques. This would allow the country to
235
design, develop and implement a real, scientifically-based policy for the development of biofuels .
There is a lot of potential for sustainable development of biofuels in Tanzania. Nevertheless, a
detailed mapping of the potential has not been achieved. Currently there has been
experimentation with first generation biofuels even if there is no consolidated idea of the levels of
national production. Some second generation projects are at their first stages i.e. seaweed farming in
236
Zanzibar . The Ministry of Agriculture is currently preparing ToRs for national agricultural zoning
237
aiming, among others, to identify the areas suitable for biofuel production . For the moment, it
238
considers that biofuel development should be studied and evaluated on “case by case” basis .
230
United Republic of Tanzania, November 2010
United Republic of Tanzania, September 2012
232
ActionAid Tanzania mentioned this in the case of Sun Biofuels plantations
233
Comments from several interlocutors met i.e. NGO and Academia
234
See for example “Investors to Acquire Limited Land”, Tanzania Daily News, 28th November 2012
235
During meeting at MEM (14th December 2012), it was mentioned that a SEA for biofuels development in Tanzania is in draft
but it has not been possible to analysed it
236
A project supported by Sweden, involving small farmers, interview at the EU Delegation, December 2012
237
Interview at the Ministry of Agriculture, December 2012
238
Permanent Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, December 2012
231
AETS Consortium – February 2013
154
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
239
Regarding Jatropha, a Tanzanian NGO
is conducting a partial mapping of potential areas in the
Lake Victoria and North-central zones of Tanzania (regions considered are Arusha, Manyara,
Kilimanjaro, Singida, and Tanga).
Awareness campaigns and training sessions have been organised by the Ministry of Agriculture
focused on farmers and civil society and educational materials have been prepared for use during
these fora. No monitoring of these actions has been conducted, so it is difficult to estimate their
impacts.
3.
Land Security and Land Conflicts
Tanzania is considered to have one of the most complex and extremely comprehensive land acts
stemming from the land reform began in 1999 and in effect since 2001. The 1999 Land Act and Village
Land Act provide the overall framework for land rights.
Land is divided into four main categories: Village Land (includes land within the village areas of
Tanzania’s 11,000 villages); Reserved Land (land set aside for special purposes such as national
parks, forest reserves, game parks, land for public use and highways); General Land (includes urban
areas, land earlier allocated to the Tanzanian government or land held by Tanzanian Investment
Centre) and Hazardous land (refers to areas the development of which is likely to pose a danger for
life or environment i.e. mangrove swamps, shoreline, corridor within sixty meters of a river bank). All
land is owned by the government (i.e. President) but rights over land can belong to citizens i.e.
Granted Right of Occupancy and Customary Right of Occupancy. Certificates of Customary Right
of Occupancy (CCROs) are issued in rural areas by village councils after proper demarcation
process. Villages which hold CCRO can then begin a process of setting up Village Land Plans. In fact,
village land use plans include the idea of setting aside some of the village land for potential agricultural
investments. Village land is under the managerial authority of the Village Councils which are
answerable for land management decisions to the Village Assembly. General land is any land which is
not reserved or village land but may somewhat confusingly include village land which is called
“unoccupied or unused”. General land is under the authority of the Commissioner of Lands in the
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlement (MLHHS). The Villages which give up their land to
investors usually get their land transferred to General Land category and hence lose their land rights
even in case of a failure of investment (i.e. BioShape or Sun Biofuels).
The implementation process of the land reform and issuing of the CCRO has been extremely
240
slow till now and driven mostly by donors and NGOs, including local NGO’s . According to
interviewed land rights organizations, currently about 10 per cent of the country’s 10,397 villages have
received a certificate of village land and out of these only a small percentage has completed Village
Land Use Plans. The Village Land Use Plans are prepared by the National Land Use Commission
and show the zoning in different uses of village land and according to the Commission “are the only
ways to meet requirements for villagers scientifically and find extra land for the biofuels production”
(Havnevik et all. 2012). The FAO report on Foreign Investment in Agriculture (2012b) mentioned that
MLHHS and the Prime Minister’s office responsible for land administration have an employment gap of
about 75 per cent of requisite technical staff although there is a large pool of technical land
administration university graduates in the country. At the same time, there is an increasing interest in
registering single farms over the course of past few years. Recent experiences driven by farmers’
organisations and mobilization of well-trained students (in survey, GPS, GIS, mapping) demonstrate
that the pace of issuing the CCRO’s is increasing.
Tanzania is also experiencing increasing conflicts over land and water between commercial
(including crops for biofuels production) and subsistence farmers as well as between pastoralist
communities and other farming population. The situation of pastoralist’s groups calls for special
attention as due to undefined land rights in combination with their nomadic life style this group has
become particularly vulnerable to limited livelihood options due to increasing land pressures and
climate change (i.e. increasing draughts). In addition, most nomadic tribes in Africa and in Tanzania
239
KAKUTE, supported by Partners for Development, a US based NGO working with United States Department of Agriculture’s
grant
240
See www.hakiardhi.org
AETS Consortium – February 2013
155
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
are not necessarily identified as “indigenous groups” and hence lack resulting legal protection in
241
international and national law with regard to “land rights” .
The Land Act explicitly aims to create a land administration framework which will facilitate
making land available for private investors. TIC plays a key role in identifying land that is available
for investment and is organized into so called “land bank” to which investors may apply. Much of the
land identified is usually General Land but in many cases can also be land found in Village Land which
is then subsequently transferred to General Land category by a Presidential decree. The process is
long and tends to be slow: formal approval is needed from TIC (financial viability), the Ministry of
Agriculture (agricultural viability), the MLHHS (land registration) and Ministry of Environment (ESIA).
Coordination and communication among governmental agencies is poor. However, several foreign
and European investors in large scale biofuels production in Tanzania seem to have been able to
proceed and secure land access without sound feasibility studies (economic profitability, agronomy
and environmental aspects).
There is a perceived lack of agreement with regard to the issue of “land availability” in the
country. The main reason of such situation relies in the fact that the so-called “empty land” is in fact
used by local communities, even if such use is often deemed as not sufficiently “productive”. TIC
claims that Tanzania has plenty of “available and unused land” for investment. Ministry of Agriculture
prioritizes production of food crops enhancing food security through the “Kilimo Kwanza”, i.e. through
the green revolution approach. Civil society and researchers counteract claims of land availability
stating that most of land has customary claims and even unoccupied land provides important
livelihood support for seasonal livestock grazing (of key importance also to pastoralist communities),
extraction of forests products and of other important livelihood uses (i.e. burial grounds, watersheds).
For example, in the case of Agro EcoEnergy Bagamoyo project, the government has identified an
abandoned ranch land of over 20,000 ha as available for investment. This land has already been
classified as General Land but it hosts more than 1300 people who have settled there over the years
and cultivate various plots such as cassava, cashew and rice. In addition, the land is used for grazing
and access to water by pastoralist communities which have immigrated from another part of the
country currently struck by a draught. Hence, although this is General Land and population lacks
formal land titles, it is subject to loss of livelihood support while the amount of compensation and
resettlement projects are still not clear despite its outlines within the Agro EcoEnergy’s Environmental
242
and Social Impact Assessment submitted to the African Development Bank . In another case, the
failed Jatropha project of Sun Biofuels in Kisarawe district has left so far unresolved the issue of
243
community’s access to their burial grounds .
Most interestingly, the Agro EcoEnergy project in Bagamoyo is set to become a pioneer in testing
244
future “Land for Equity” scheme, a new legislation under elaboration at the MLHHS . As an
245
alternative to “compensation” amount often determined by the investor, “Land for Equity” foresees a
percentage of company shares for the Central Government, the District Council and the Village
Community. The details of “Land for Equity” scheme are still under definition and the issue of
repartition of shares over the course of different time period between different levels of government,
the tax regime to be applied, the representativeness of the communities and the consideration of the
Project Affected Population (PAP) currently begin to create intense debates. During the consultancy
246
mission in Tanzania a scoping study was being conducted to advise the MLHHS and gather various
views on its potential implementation. A thorough and complete understanding of the concept and
regulations that will apply by all stakeholders would be absolutely necessary before its implementation.
241
For example see special treatment of indigenous people’s land rights in the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Tenure of
Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
ADB, undated
243
The case of Sun Biofuels failed project has been well documented by the international press and NGOs and well known by
majority of interviewed parties. See for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/30/africa-poor-westbiofuel-betrayal
244
According to the Environmental and Social Assessment of the Bagamoyo Sugar Project submitted by Agro Ecoenergy
Tanzania in MoU with the Government of Tanzania, the land for the project will be given to the company in kind as capital for
acquisition of shares in the project. Further details are not provided. See: http://www.afdb.org/en/documents/environmentalsocial-assessments/
245
There is a legal requirement that villagers must be compensated fairly by the government when Village Land is transferred to
General Land. In practice, investors themselves tend to pay compensation directly to the villagers, creating substantial
differences in opinion and confusion over the amount of compensation and target beneficiaries.
246
MLHHS has contracted consultants from Overseas Development Institute, LANDESA and national university. Their
assessment was not yet available as it was in the state of research by December 2012
242
AETS Consortium – February 2013
156
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
In cases where villagers have voluntarily given up their land for transfer to General Land for the
purpose of making it available to investors, they have often had little awareness of the size of the land
being given up and that such transfer of land is perpetual and cannot be reversed. For example, in the
case of failed large scale biofuel projects by Sun Biofuel in Kisarawe district as well as by BioShape in
Kilwa District, the villagers most probably will not be able to gain back their land, althought his is not
finally used by the investor, because it has – through the deal - become General Land and is now
administered by TIC or and will probably be taken over by another investor.
In case of Tanzania, even though the legal frameworl exists - many large scale projects still took place
in the absence of proper prior consultation with the affected communities (asymmetries of information
between parties) and with a general preference by investors for land that is fertile and well located to
good irrigation and infrastructure.
4. Field visit to biofuels production (Bagamoyo, Arusha – Moshi)
Due to time constrains available for the field visits, the team has split to make two field visits in parallel
to the Bagamoyo area (sugar cane) and to Arusha – Moshi region (Jatropha). The Mission did not
have enough time to analyse developments relative to palm oil which are mostly located in the
247
Western part of the country .
Bagamoyo
Sugar cane development seems to hold promises as Tanzania is still importing large quantities of
sugar and has had experiences of successful development of large scale irrigated plantations linking
with smallholders under contract farming arrangements in Kilombero Valley. Companies such as
Mtibwa Sugar, Kilombero Sugar and Kagara Sugar are anticipating that they will soon produce surplus
sugar to be used for ethanol production to run factory machinery and vehicles, although the status of
the current ethanol production could not be verified during the time of the field visit.
A number of large sugarcane plantations were in the planning and development stages, most notably
in coastal areas such as Rifiji and Bagamoyo by a Swedish company SEKAB through its subsidiary
SEKAB Bioenergy Tanzania LTD (hereinafter SEKAB T). SEKAB T has lost its financing from Swedish
municipalities and SIDA due to fears arising from the potential conflicts with food production due to,
among other issues, the sheer scale of the land sought for investment in the coastal areas of RifijiKilwa (initial proposal for 500,000 ha). In this heated case, many state that SEKAB T was ill advised
about the size and location of their planned sugar cane cultivations, but not about the activity itself. In
addition, SEKAB T has been accused of tempering with its Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment process for the planned 20,000 plus sugar cane plantation and out-growers project in
248
Bagamoyo .
247
Just to mention that the country is not self-sufficient in edible palm oil. Experiences reported from Kigoma (FELISA) and
Morogoro were stopped
248
Havenevik, K. et al., 2011 dedicated entire paper to documenting the changes introduced to the ESIA report submitted by
SEKAB T including deleting such key phrases such as “there is great confusion as to what the “project area» actually entails
and deletion of base line studies indicators. The case has also been mentioned by some interviewed parties i.e. Haki Ardhi,
researchers.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
157
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Currently, a new company that has taken over SEKAB’s Bagamoyo project called Agro EcoEnergy
Tanzania Limited is proceeding with its imminent development of a
sugarcane plantation in a joint venture with the Government of
Tanzania (GoT) to produce sugar for domestic consumption,
249
molasses for power generation and bioethanol , including an out250
growers project . The project is located in the coastal region of
Bagamoyo District, approximately 20km northwest of Bagamoyo
251
Town. The land
is provided as capital in kind by the GoT in the
framework of the future “Land for Equity”. The project company will
lease 21,255 ha of the abandoned ranch while the majority of the
coastal strip of the former ranch will remain under the control of the
GoT. A further 2,000 ha of land in an adjacent village will also be used by the project. Out of the total
area, 7,800 ha will initially be used to cultivate sugar cane and the remaining part of the land will be
reserved for biodiversity protection, reforestation aimed at sustainable charcoal production and areas
252
for pastoralism . “The processing plant will produce hydrous and anhydrous ethanol from c-molasses
available. (…) The plant will also be designed to allow for the use of more than its own generated
molasses as a feedstock for ethanol production. Molasses may be available from other sugar
producers in Tanzania at a competitive price adding more value to the
253
molasses then current usages” . Irrigation for the sugar cane
cultivation will be provided from the Wami River bordering Sadani
National Park, which is also supplying water to Bagamoyo and as far
down as northern sections of Dar Es Salaam’s suburbs. The project
has obtained water extraction permits and also plans to build both
dams and dykes (in event of flooding) as well as water tanks (in event
of draught). Water from the river will be used both for irrigation as well
as for the running of several factory processes. The clearing of the
land for the project is scheduled to commence by January 2013.
At the time of the mission in December 2013, the consultant had a chance to visit the 200 ha
demonstration farm with sugar cane nursery and water irrigation system. The nursery farm has
successfully tested high yield sugar cane varieties mainly from Mauritius, South Africa and Reunion
Island as to obtain most suitable sugar variety. The demonstration farm is also employing state of the
art drip-irrigation system (Israeli firm) but the project itself with use a variety of irrigation methods.
Agro EcoEnergy is running a training program for out-growers component of the project helping
farmers set up private companies and training them in improved farming practices of food crops. In
opinion of the interviewed trainers, the farmers will soon be planting sugarcane seeing profit
opportunity in availability of a steady market. While according to schedule the out-growers component
is to begin by 2017, it may be operational very soon. The consultant has also met with NGOs
(ActionAid local office in Bagamoyo and Hanaan Environmental) and visited Project Affected
Populations (PAPs) in Razaba community as well as members of the
Barabaig pastoralists. Agro EcoEnergy is providing them with basic
literacy training and/or poultry rearing. While the land to be transformed
into the plantation is classified as abandoned ranch, a number of
people have seasonal or permanent small plots of food cultivations. In
case of Razaba community they expressed anger and confusion with
regard to relocation plans and complains with regard to inability to plan
for future cultivations.
Some also expressed potential positive
outcomes with regard to training in literacy being offered. The
pastoralist community utilizing grazing land is particularly large due to
draught events and the plans foreseen for the pastoralists take into account only a very limited number
of families being able to remain and use small portion of land for grazing and access to dams.
249
According to the Demonstration Farm Manager and staff of Agro EcoEnergy
The project incorporates a comprehensive Community Development Programme to build up production capacity of the outgrowers over a four year period from when the local process industry is in place
251
previously used as a cattle ranch but operations ceased during 1994
252
Company mentions that 17 families will be able to remain on the land while being introduced to “modern cattle grazing
techniques”
253
For detailed description of the project please see ESIA: http://www.afdb.org/en/documents/environmental-socialassessments/
250
AETS Consortium – February 2013
158
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
In conclusion, it is difficult to assess overall developmental benefits of the Bagamoyo project at this
stage of its implementation. There seems to still be critical confusion among parties interviewed with
regard to the actual “project area” with some reporting that the project will be stretching in some areas
1km into the Sadani National Park. The issue of water use, water rights and any water use payments
254
remains insufficiently detailed , for example regarding the effect of water flow changes on the
mangrove areas, local biodiversity or relationship between large scale irrigation and malaria. General
impact on rich biodiversity of the area and waste management should also be closely monitored. One
visited community reported lack of knowledge about the planned phases and relocation plans. As the
land for project is classified as “General Land”, PAPs do not formally qualify for compensation but
according to international standards must be provided with suitable relocation options. In the
meantime, some positive effects may be expected: the pioneering implementation of “land for equity”
can bring potential benefits to the communities depending on its administration and how much would
remain with the communities and PAPs; provision of power generation to the communities could also
offer tremendous developmental benefit; and opportunities for access to the domestic sugar market
could generate increased incomes.
Arusha - Moshi
At the time of the field visit, there seemed to be a general sense among most interviewed parties
that large scale Jatropha based investments have mostly failed due to several reasons
including economic slowdown, difficulties in obtaining credit, bad planning without
consideration of basic agronomic principles and feasibility studies, knowledge of the plant
qualities, type of investment (clearly speculation farming). As of 2012, a number of the most
prominent biofuel investment companies i.e. Sun Biofuels, BioShape, Prokon have either suspended,
abandoned or sold off to third parties that may or not revive the original projects.
Considering use of Jatropha, the common opinion expressed by the persons interviewed is that the
vegetal material needs to be domesticated in order to get more regularity in the yields and a better oil
content. In case of small scale Jatropha use, the Mission could visit 2 experiences:
•
•
TaTEDO, a national NGO involved in sustainable energy development projects and
programmes in rural areas, also hosting and affiliated to several local and international
sustainable energy development partners and networks;
Diligent, a Dutch private company, developing a business model for existing Jatropha
seeds collection for biofuels processing and out-growers scheme.
TaTEDO experiences
TaTEDO is promoting Multifunctional Platform (EU funded) for
energy generation and uses in rural remote areas. The “kit”
provided includes a generator, a local grid, a press machine for
Jatropha seeds and machines for agriculture products
transformation (mill). The generator can use diesel and biodiesel
as well. The total amount of the equipment reaches 35 million
Tanzanian Shilling (Tsh). TaTEDO’s project subsides 80% and the
villager’s group pays 20%, through a 3-years credit. The farmers
own the machines and are responsible for the maintenance. At the moment, 8 Multifunctional Platform
are in operation when the project aims to implement it in 50 villages.
In the case of Mjimwina village (in Hai District, Moshi), the installation is supplying electricity to 38
houses and an extension is planned to reach 50 houses. TaTEDO
sold the equipment to a villager’s group, for a total amount of 35
million Tanzanian Shilling (Tsh) through a 3-years credit. Users pay
according to category defined into 2 groups:
•
•
254
Shop, bar: 1 000 Tsh per day;
Houses: 600 Tsh per day (for light, radio, mobile
phone).
See the ESIA for full description of planned water use
AETS Consortium – February 2013
159
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
This Masaï village has been recently created as people have been displaced from West Kilimanjaro
Region (National Park). They began to sow Jatropha seeds provided by TaTEDO. As Jatropha oil
production has not start yet, the villagers buy diesel from another village. The engine operates 6 hours
per day, under the responsibility of an operator contracted and employed by the villager’s group. He
has been trained by TaTEDO on technical issues while the group has been trained in management
and financial administration.
An alternative to diesel, while Jatropha will grow in the community, would be to buy Jatropha nuts from
other neighbouring villages instead of buying diesel.
Diligent
Due to global economic situation, the company stopped its
activity at the end of August 2012. Considering the potential
market, the current General Manager is looking for new
investors. Diligent activities do not impact on land tenure as
it is not looking for land. Its activity creates a market
opportunity for existing Jatropha seeds: Diligent paid 300
Tsh per kg, 250 to the farmer and 50 to the collector. The
company is advising farmer’s organisation as a leverage
point for local sustainability and for development.
A large number of farmers are already familiar with Jatropha traditionally planted as fence between
food producting plots. According to a partial appraisal in 2 districts mentioned by the General
Manager, raw material exists (it was estimated to 10 million kg). Expansion of Jatropha plantation
255
(always in hedge) is foreseen in conservation agriculture systems . The collection and transport of
the material remain a specific issue to face. Diligent made agreements with several partners to extend
access to farmers’ resources and mobilise the seeds at a low price. The farmers have no access to
256
the market for biofuels from Jatropha . Diligent has performed quality test of the biofuel produced
and it is currently developing a partnership with research centres. On the other side of the value chain,
Diligent has identified interested customers for its produce from several sectors:
•
•
•
257
Safari companies (for vehicles, safari camp generators, cooking);
258
Public institutions (schools, hospital) ;
Alternative substitute to charcoal (after oil extraction, the seed cake can be pressed to
make briquettes with high calorific power).
Jatropha’s genetic material must be analysed and the plant must be “domesticated” as there is a wide
diversity of plants, with large difference in oil rate contents, vegetal characteristics and soil / water
requirements. To develop industrial model regularity obtained by development of good genotype is
needed. Diligent is developing investigation with a Belgium research Centre on Jatropha. More
investigation matters include use of sunflower and / or maize residues and potential of the croton
259
nuts .
5. Summary of identified gaps
Global gaps
Most of the main gaps identified during the desk review have been well-illustrated by the current
situation reported by the interlocutors met in Tanzania.
•
Even if the biofuel fever in Tanzania in 2008 could be impacted by the EU biofuel policy
(initially European companies were clearly hoping to export biofuels to Europe), today the
causality between EU biofuel policies and impacts in Tanzania is not very direct as many other
drivers affect the strategy and development of biofuels in the country (i.e. national foreign
255
As in the “cotton belt” close to the Lake Victoria
A traditional use for Jatropha is local soap
257
There is 250 safari companies in Arusha, the 2 biggest have 300 cars each… Cooperation with Tanzania National Park
(TANAPA) administration is already considered
258
The Regional Commissioner of Kilimanjaro declared that public institutions may not use more firewood or charcoal,
unfortunately without promoting any alternative
259
Croton trees are planted as a windbreak in Kenya and Uganda
256
AETS Consortium – February 2013
160
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
investment strategy, national debate on food security, national energy strategy, foreign
investment to modernize agriculture sector); the persisting biofuel production seems to have
reoriented mainly to local market.
•
Currently no exports of biofuels are reported from Tanzania into the EU. However, lack of
reliable data (on land availability, on biofuels production in the country, on current investors
and status of their operation) does not make it possible to better analyse the current trade
260
situation. Neverthless, level of exports is expected to be low, as according to ACT ,
international standards, mandatory for export markets, are very difficult to reach in Tanzania;
•
Impacts on land and water are associated with intensive cultivation of large-scale feedstocks
for biofuels, as well as in high intensive farming system;
•
Fundamental analyses (agronomic assessment and profitability) have not always been
thorough and fully respected when applying for investments in biofuels cultivation, despite
national priorities as defined in the Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Development
(i.e. ESIA, financial feasibility). Dubious approach to environmental and social assessments
(for example in the case of SEKAB T) has been reported;
•
According to the Tanzanian experiences, inclusive business models that involve smallholder
farmers as active partners appear to be more sensible than those based on large-scale land
acquisitions; they may consider contract farming arrangements, out-grower schemes, joint
ventures and/or more innovative models as the forthcoming “Land for Equity” still under
development;
•
In the positive cases of TaTEDO and Diligent (to a certain extend), biofuel development
designed in a sustainable way increase local access to energy, improve remote rural areas
livelihoods, contribute to rural development and to added-value to agricultural products and
not lead to an increase in deforestation;
•
Transfer of technology has not been documented in the projects visited nor specifically
mentioned by the interlocutors.
Specific gaps on biofuels development and institutional framework
260
•
In Tanzania, a number of large scale biofuel investments have recently been abandoned,
sold or ceased their operations i.e. Sun Biofuels, Bioshape, SEKAB (replaced by Agro
EcoEnergy), PROKON; many promises (creation of new jobs, infrastructure, training and
transfer of technology) were not fulfilled as expected leading to scepticism in farmer’s
expectations from biofuels. Many of these companies have been European and it can be
perceived that they began their operations with the view to export biofuels for the EU
markets;
•
The reasons for failure seem to be linked to several drivers, including poor initial analysis
(speculation farming without consideration of basic agronomic principles and properly
carried feasibility studies), difficulties in obtaining legitimate land access, conflict with local
communities over land and water related resources, insufficient investors solidity, overly
short term vision and insufficient consideration of the most adequate business model;
•
There is a domestic market for biofuels: rural energy supply, tourism operators, public
institutions and industries;
•
The potential for biofuels development in the country must be further studied and strongly
documented in order to build a comprehensive strategy based on scientific knowledge
(mapping of suitable areas per crop, thorough understanding of crop’s soil and water
requirements, reliable data on yields and real cost-benefit analysis including socialeconomic impact assessments);
•
Diligent experiences, as well as evaluation of projects supported by the Energy Facility,
highlight that Jatropha is still in an early stage of development as a biofuel producing plant
suited to small and large scale. Ambitious expectations on yields and growth have not
Agricultural Council of Tanzania, December 2012
AETS Consortium – February 2013
161
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
been achieved and it is recommended that Jatropha’s agronomy and yield characteristics
must be better developed;
•
There is no updated, national database on operation status of registered biofuel
companies by TIC, neither by other public body;
•
Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuel have been developed in a participatory way.
They consider the realization of an ESIA and an economic feasibility study but the
mitigation plan (Environmental and Social Management Plan - ESMP) is not detailed
enough nor is it respected. The legislative force of the Guidelines will depend on the
National Liquid Biofuel Policy (currently in draft, expected to be discussed in the
Parliament in Spring 2013) and on the Biofuels Act (foreseen by the end of 2013);
•
Coherence and harmonization of policies in Tanzania (Power System Masterplan /
Biomass Strategy Policy / National Liquid Biofuels Policy) are necessary to better define
the national energy mix and the role of each type/source of energy;
•
Lack of a coherent/coordinated approach between governmental bodies with regard to
land availability issue in the country vis-à-vis foreign investment and development
priorities is highly detrimental and can lead to negative impacts (food security/ energy;
economic and social development in rural areas / modernization of the agricultural sector;
domestic market / exports; raw material / final transformed products);
•
Main environmental concern is on natural resources management (deforestation for
firewood and charcoal where biofuels could become a positive alternative) as well as
water rights and water payments in the case of feedstocks for biofuel;
•
A national-wide SEA would help to develop an in-depth analysis of the environmental
impacts of biofuels development in the country.
Specific gaps on biofuels development and land issues
261
•
As Tanzania has still not completed full demarcation and national level surveys of
customary land use in accordance with its land reform, conflicts between local
populations, investors and government at different levels can be expected: “the house is
261
not in order yet ”;
•
Increased attention and resources should be made available for the finalization of the
process of issuing of CCRO’s and Village Land Use Plans;
•
Land security for village communities should be guaranteed, even in the case where
villagers lease land to foreign investors, subject to prior informed consent based on full ,
reliable and complete information, and including appropriate safeguards (in particular in
the case of failure of investments);
•
Access to water rights is becoming more and more acute, deals already concluded have
ignored local community’s water use rights: an increasing number of tension and conflict
situation is reported and are likely to grow in importance;
•
The preparation of the “Land for Equity” proposal should be closely monitored in order to
analyse how benefits and shares will be distributed between central government, district
level and local communities. In addition, the concept also needs more scrutiny if it is to be
transformed into legislation.
HakiArdhi Executive Director, December 2012
AETS Consortium – February 2013
162
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Bibliography
Academia
GEXSI (2008). Global market study on Jatropha. Final report, Chapter 4.2 Africa.
Havenevik, K., Haaland H. and Abdallah J (2011). Biofuel, land and environmental issues – the case
of SEKAB’s biofuel plans in Tanzania. In cooperation between Nordic Africa Institute, The University
of Agder, Norway and Sokoine University of Agricultural Sciences, Tanzania.
Nathan E. Hultman, Emmanuel B. Sulle, Christopher W. Ramig and Seth Sykora-Bodie (2012).
Biofuels Investment in Tanzania: Policy Options for Sustainable Business Models. The Journal of
Environment Development published online 7 May 2012.
Pedersen, Rasmus Hundsbaek (2010). Tanzania’s Land Law Reform: the Implementation Challenge.
Danish Institute for International Studies Working Paper 2010:37.
Sulle, Emmanuel and Nelson, Fred (2012). Biofuel investment and Community Land Tenure in
Tanzania, The Case of Bioshape, Kilwa District. Tanzania Natural Resource Forum and Maliasili
Initiatives.
Sulle, Emmanuel and Nelson, Fred (2009). Biofuels, land access and rural livelihoods in Tanzania.
International Institute for Environment and Development and Tanzanian Natural Resource Forum.
International Institutions
ADB (no date). Bagamoyo Sugar Project. Executive Summary of the Environmental and Social
Assessment.
ADB (no date). Bagamoyo Sugar Project. Executive Summary of the Resettlement Action Plan.
Arias Pedro, Hallam David, Suffyan Koroma and Pascal Liu (FAO 2012 a). Trends and Impacts of
Foreign Investment in Developing Countries Agriculture. Evidence from Case Studies. FAO.
Arndt Channing, Pauw Karl and Thurlow James (2010). Biofuels and Economic Development in
Tanzania. IFPRI.
CIFOR (2011). A global analysis of deforestation due to biofuel development, Chapter 1.10 “Biofuel
development in Tanzania”, p 81 – 84.
Daley, Elizabeth and Mi-Young Park, Clara ( FAO 2012b). The Gender and Equity Implications of
Land-Related Investments on Land Access and Labour and Income Generating Opportunities. A
Case Study of Selected Agricultural Investments in Northern Tanzania. FAO.
Eijck Janske van (2008). Case study: The Smallholder Model of Biofuel Production in Tanzania. GTZ
and ProBEC.
FAO (2008). The State of Food and Agriculture, Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities, Box 14
“Biofuels crops and the land issue in the United Republic of Tanzania” p 84.
FAO – BEFSCI (no date). Diligent.
UNI-IAS (no date). Biofuels in Africa. Impacts on Ecosystems Services, Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing.
World Bank (2010). Bioenergy development. Issues and impacts for poverty and natural resource
management, Box 2.4 “Charcoal Production in Tanzania” p 66.
United Republic of Tanzania
Ministry of Energy and Minerals (2010). Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Development in
Tanzania.
Ministry of Energy and Minerals (2012). First Draft. National Liquid Biofuels Policy.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
163
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Non-governmental Organizations
ActionAid Tanzania (2009). Implications of Biofuel Production on Food Security in Tanzania.
Practical Action Consulting (2012). Jatropha: the broom of poverty; myth or reality? A critical analysis
of the Zimbabwean Jatropha programme in Mutoko district.
TABEF (2012). Gaps and Recommendations of the first draft National Liquid Biofuels Policy.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
164
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Itinerary
Date
Activities
02 - 03.12.12
Europe - Tanzania
04.12.12
Organization of the mission
Meetings with Action Aid (land issues)
05.12.12
Meetings with the EU Delegation (energy), Researcher (land issues, biofuels and
environmental impacts) and Agro EcoEnergy Tanzania (private company for
biofuels production)
06.12.12
Meetings at the Agricultural Council of Tanzania (agriculture sector and biofuels),
team experts for “Land Equity”, Tanzania Federation of Cooperatives (farmer’s
organisation)
07.12.12
Meetings with Oxfam (land and biofuels), HakiArdhi (land rights and resources),
TaTEDO (energy, renewables)
08.12.12
Synthesis
Literature revision
09.12.12
-
10.12.12
Meetings with Ministry of Agriculture (food security, biofuels, national strategy),
ANSAF, TIC, researcher
11.12.12
Travel to Bagamoyo
Meetings with the Agro EcoEnergy
project (responsible for out-growers
component)
12.12.12
Visit to the Demonstration Farm (Agro
EcoEnergy project)
13.12.12
Visit to Razaba community and
pastoralist communities (Agro
EcoEnergy project)
Travel to Arusha
Meetings with TNRF
Travel to Moshi, meetings with TaTEDO
and visit the Multifunctional Platform in
Mjimwima village (Hai District)
Meetings with
researcher
Diligent,
contact
with
Return to Dar Es Salaam
Return to Dar Es Salaam
14.12.12
Debriefing at the EU Delegation.
Meetings with the Ministry of Energy & Minerals
14 – 15.12.12
Tanzania - Europe
During its stay in Dar Es Salaam, the mission tried to meet with the Ministry of Land and Human
Settlements, the National Environment Management Council (NEMC), UNDP, UNEP FAO, the
Universities (Sokoine University of Agriculture – SUA and Faculty of Forestry and Nature
Conservation), but it has not been possible to confirm appointments.
AETS Consortium – February 2013
165
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Annex 2: List of Biofuels Companies Registered by TIC
BIOFUEL COMPANIES REGISTERED by TIC
Project
Location
Activities
Jobs
Enviro-Fuel Technologies T
DSM
P. O. Box 42355, DSM
Bio-fuel
29
Africa Biofuel & Emission
Reduction (T) Ltd.
P.O. Box 14317, Kagera
Biharamulo
Area
Kagera
Prokon Renewable Energy
Solutions and Systems Ltd
Value in Mln USD
Foreign Local
Total
3,000
1,938
4,938
Bio-Fuel
Product
60,000
4500 15
hectares of plantations
6,52
21,52
Rukwa
To establish and operate
facilities
for
producing
Jatropha
54
based bio fuels/ 11,008 litres
of oil p.a.
1,845
4,307
6,152
TM Plantations Ltd.
P. O. Box 772, Kigoma
Kigoma
Oil Palm Plantation
35
70
-
70
Sivas Africa Ltd.
P. O. Box 15398, DSM
DSM
Agriculture Bio Diesel
185
7 314
0
7 314
Bio Shape (T) Ltd
Box 20787 Lindi
Lindi
Jatropha Plantation
1000 10,883
0
10,883
Mtongani Paharmacy Ltd
Box 25476 Dsm
Kagera Kakindo Sugarcane Farm
171
0
3,539
3,539
Tanga Forests Ltd
Box 171 Tanga
Tanga Pangani
Tree Plantation
253
6,8
0
6,8
Africa Green Oils Ltd
Box 34463 Dsm
Coast Rufiji
Palms for Edible oil
1000 21,615
41,461 63,076
Arkadia Ltd
Box 5468 Tanga
Tanga - Mkinga
Jatropha Plantation
1000 2,412
0
AETS Consortium – February 2013
2,412
166
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Annex 3: Persons met
Institutions
Name
Position
Contact
National institutions
Ministry
of
Agriculture, food and
cooperative
Ministry of Energy &
Minerals
Tanzania Investment
Centre
Agricultural Council of
Tanzania
Tanzania Federation
of Cooperatives
Mr. Mohamed SAIDI
Permanent Secretary
Mrs. Ada MWASHA
Acting Assistant for Crop
promotion Section
Mrs.
MFUNGALE
Crop promotion Section
[email protected]
Edward
Leonard
ISHENGOMA
Acting
Assistant
Commissioner –New &
Renewable Energy
[email protected]
Paul KIWELE
Coordinator
Project
[email protected]
Tibenda NJOKI
Senior Statistician
[email protected]
Saidi S. SAIDI
Networking Officer
[email protected]
Communication Officer
[email protected]
Laetitia WILLIAM
Policy Officer
[email protected]
Willigis O. MBOGORO
Executive Secretary
Agnes
NAMUSHISA
S.
Director
of
Development
Ahadiel
MMBUGHU
E.
Esther
Cleophas
RWECHUNGURA
C.
[email protected]
Biofuels
Coop.
[email protected]
Research & Management
Officer
International institution
Delegation of the
European Union to
Tanzania and the
Eastern
Africa
Community
Baptiste BOBILLIER
Programme officer Energy
[email protected]
Private sector
Agro
EcoEnergy
Tanzania
Diligent
Per CARSTEDT
Executive Chairman
[email protected]
Anders BERGFORS
Managing Director
[email protected]
Mike OGG
Responsible for the Outgrowers component
[email protected]
Ian Sherry
Andre FAYD’HERBE
Manager
Demonstration
Bagamoyo
Jan GEVAERT
General Manager
of
Farm
[email protected]
NGO and Civil Society
Actionaid
International
Scholastica HAULE
Policy Director
[email protected]
Bernard Paul BAHA
Land
[email protected]
AETS Consortium – February 2013
Accountability
167
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for
Development – Final Report
Programme Manager
Tanzania
Stephen CHIMALO
Director
District Office
Oxfam
Marc WEGERIF
Economic
Justice
Campaign Manager
[email protected]
Haki Ardhi
Yefred MYENZI
Executive Director
[email protected]
Estomih N. SAWE
Executive Director
[email protected]
Gisela NGOO
Expert in rural energy,
environment and gender
+255 022 2700438
Thomas MUKUNDA
Moshi Office Officer
+255 713 496 207
Dora URIHO
Moshi Office
+255 767 000 722
Agricultural Non State
Actors Forum
Audax RUKONGE
Executive Secretary
[email protected]
Tanzania
Natural
Resources Forum
Geoffrey MWANJELA
Head of Programmes
[email protected]
Hanan Environmental
Magreth MAINA
Training Officer
TaTEDO
Bagamoyo
[email protected]
Researchers
Prosper NGOWI
Mzumbe University
Economics & Business
[email protected]
Emmanuel SULLE
Independent
Biofuels in Tanzania
[email protected]
Fred NELSON
Independent
Biofuels in Tanzania
[email protected]
Local communities
Bagamoyo
Moshi
Villagers from the Razaba Community
Pastoralist communities
Villagers in Mjimwina, TaTEDO Multifunctional Platform
AETS Consortium – February 2013
168