PUTTING SOCIAL ASPECTS ON THE SCALE
From 1st to 2nd generation biofuels
Barbara Esteves Ribeiro, MA Institute of Science and Technology Studies
University of Salamanca (Spain)
Shares of world oil consumption
61,40%
Transport Non-energy use Industry Other
IEA (2010)
Biofuels technology adoption
Engine technology and fueling structure Biofuels can be blended with gasoline or diesel
“Democratic” technology While not all countries have oil, many can produce biofuels
1st generation 2nd generation (lignocellulosic)
Starch and sugar crops Maize Wheat Sugarcane Sugar beet
80% of liquid biofuels
U.S. + Brazil = 90% total production
Lignocellulosic feedstock Agriculture and forest
residues Municipal solid wastes Short-rotation forests and
prairie grasses
Technologies in pilot or demonstration stage
Bioethanol
Social aspects of bioethanol production
Core social criteria
Land use aspects
Water security
Food security
Rural development
Economic aspects
Social acceptance
Public participation
1. Land use aspects
1. Emergence of monocultures for large-scale production of feedstocks
2. Spatial reorganisation of land use types
Photo by Djof
1. Land use aspects
Agribusiness objectives vs. rural communities objectives
Social access to the land
Displacement of rural workers to urban areas
1st-Generation lignocellulosic
Crop expansion towards land dedicated to other
activities
Crop expansion towards land
dedicated to other activities
Use of agriculture and forest residues, municipal waste as
feedstocks
1. Land use aspects
2. Water security
1. Water requirements for each type of feedstock
2. Local climate conditions
3. Water availability for irrigation
4. Conversion technologies
5. Effluent generation
0
12500
25000
37500
50000
U.S. Brazil China South Africa India Uganda0
375000
750000
1125000
1500000
m3/inhab 1000 inhab
Data: FAO/AQUASTAT, 2008 Total population Rural population Water resources per capita
1st-generation lignocellulosic
Plants need water to grow
Maize and sugarcane are water efficient
Crop grown on ‘marginal’ land,
with low irrigation
Plants need water to grow
Woody crops from existing forests should perform
better
Woody crops grown with degraded
water irrigation on ‘marginal’ land
Feedstock grown on ‘marginal land’,
without irrigation
2. Water security
3. Food security
Current 1st-generation bioethanol could not substitute half of our gasoline use even if all cropland in the world were used to feedstock cultivation.
Although in debatable levels, increasing in the production of 1st-generation bioethanol could interfere with food prices.
3. Food security
The ‘marginal’ land concept
Low potential for food production No carbon sinks Low levels of biodiversity Not dependent on irrigation But, what about… Indigenous communities or poor minorities Cultural value of those land to some groups
1st-generation lignocellulosic
Energy crops can compete
with food
Maize and sugarcane are water efficient
Crops could compete with food if
expansion is towards land dedicated to
other activities
Perennial grasses as potential option if grown in marginal
lands
Woody crops grown with degraded water
irrigation on ‘marginal’ land
Municipal solid waste as feedstock
3. Food security
4. Rural development
Changes in rural labour force patterns
Changes in communities density
Economic risks to small farmers
Negative impacts mostly concentrated on poorer countries from Asia, Africa and Latin-America (essentially rural)
1st-generation lignocellulosic
Biofuel power plants cause
changes in labour patterns
Feedstock plantations cause
changes in community density
Energy crops involve financial
risks to small farmers
Poor countries suffer from major
social impacts
Biofuel power plants cause changes in labour patterns
Feedstock plantations cause
changes in community density
Energy crops involve financial risks to
small farmers
Poor countries suffer from major social
impacts
Residues and waste used as feedstock
could generate new jobs and attract investments??
4. Rural development
5. Economic aspects
Feedstock market price depend on crop-yield fluctuations
Bioethanol should be able to compete with gasoline prices
The whole supply-chain interferes with bioethanol prices
1st-generation lignocellulosic
Technology is fully deployed
Its production is often
subsidized
Compete with fossil fuel
prices
Bioengineering to increase crop
productivity
Technology is in R&D stage + pilot
facilities
Conversion process is very expensive
Conversion of lignocellulose by-
products into value added chemicals
Bioengineering to increase crop productivity
5. Economic aspects
6. Social acceptance of bioethanol
Very few studies
Little attention to differences between 1st-generation and lignocellulosic bioethanol
Lack of depth with respect to the arguments behind the opinion
6. Social acceptance of bioethanol
Savvanidou et al. (2010) North-Eastern Greece Potential area for feedstock cultivation No distinction between bioethanol and biodiesel
Delshad et al. (2010) Mid-Western U.S. Important bioethanol producer region Distinguished between 1st-generation and lignocellulosic
Skipper et al. (2009) U.S. and Belgium, simultaneously Food versus fuel controversy 1st-generation bioethanol and biodiesel
6. Social acceptance of bioethanol
The group that was most supportive of
biofuels was the one that showed less knowledge about
biofuels
People think that energy saving is
preferable over new energy sources
adoption
Lignocellulosic bioethanol is preferred
cause it’s made from non-edible crops
Social impacts are not discussed
7. Public participation
A lot of literature available surrounding overall energy aspects Renewable energy sources Energy policy (USDOE, Performance and Innovation Unit of
UK, Danish parliament…)
Consensus conferences, citizens panels, participatory workshops, public hearings, mediation
Why participatory assessments
Foster democratic exercise
Social learning (knowledge input)
Social acceptability of the technology in the future
Conclusions
Social impacts of bioethanol production are closely related to environmental consequences
Lignocellulosic bioethanol production from residues or waste could present minimised negative social consequences compared with 1st-generation bioethanol
The use of marginal lands can entail less negative social impacts than the use of other cropland or those dedicated to livestock activities
Conclusions
A more socially sustainable option…
? Residues and waste only
Low-contaminant and efficient conversion
process
Low costs throughout the supply-chain
High availability
Affordable technology available to
poorer regions
Priority issues to be addressed
More empirical data is needed, especially from rural regions of poorer countries
Scientific and public consensus surrounding the ‘marginal’ land concept should precede evaluation of potential areas
Consequences of climate change over agriculture should be considered and best investigated through modelling
Priority should be given to integrated assessments that include participatory methods
References
Ajanovic, Amela (2010), "Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices?", Energy (In Press).
Baines, James, Wayne McClintock, Nick Taylor, and Brigid Buckenham (2003), "Using local knowledge", in Henk A. Becker and Frank Vanclay (eds.), The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 26-41.
Buchholz, Thomas, Valerie A. Luzadis, and Timothy A. Volk (2009), "Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey", Journal of Cleaner Production 17:S86-S98.
Bustamante, Mercedes, Jerry Melillo, David J. Connor, Yvan Hardy, Eric Lambin, Hermann Lotze-Campen, N. H. Ravindranath, Timothy Searchinger, Jeff Tschirley, and Helen Watson (2009), "What are the Final Land Limits?", in R. W. Howarth and S. Bringezu (eds.), Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Ithaca: Cornell University, 271-291.
Byrt, Caitlin S., Christopher P.L. Grof, and Robert T. Furbank (2011), "C4 Plants as Biofuel Feedstocks: Optimising Biomass Production and Feedstock Quality from a Lignocellulosic Perspective", Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 53 (2):120-135.
Campbell, J. Elliot, David B. Lobell, Robert C. Genova, and Christopher B. Field (2008), "The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands", Environmental Science & Technology (42):5791-5794.
Carrera, D.G., and A. Mack (2010), "Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts", Energy Policy 38:1030-1039.
Cotula, Lorenzo, Nat Dyer, and Sonja Vermeulen (2008), "Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor people's access to land", in: FAO and IIED.
References
Delshad, Ashlie B., Leigh Raymond, Vanessa Sawicki, and Duane T. Wegener (2010), "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels", Energy Policy 38 (2010):3414-3425.
Escobar, José C., Electo S. Lora, Osvaldo J. Venturini, Edgar E. Yáñez, Edgar F. Castillo, and Oscar Almaza (2009), "Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13:1275-1287.
Field, Christopher B., J. Elliot Campbell, and David B. Lobell (2007), "Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource", Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23 (2):65-72.
Fraiture, Charlotte de, Mark Giordano, and Yongsong Liao (2007), "Biofuels and implications for agricultural water use: blue impacts of green energy", Water Policy 10:67-81.
Gopalakrishnan, G., M.C. Negri, M. Wang, M. Wu, S.W. Snyder, and L. Lafreniere (2009), "Biofuels, land and water: A systems approach to sustainability", Environmental Science & Technology 43:6094-6100.
Gunkel, Günter, Jan Kosmol, Maria Sobral, Hendryk Rohn, Suzana Montenegro, and Joana Aureliano (2007), "Sugar Cane Industry as a Source of Water Pollution - Case Study on the Situation in Ipojuca River, Pernambuco, Brazil", Water, Air and Soil Pollution 180:261-269.
International Energy Agency (2010). Key world energy statistics. Paris: IEA. Kaylen, Michael, Donald L. Van Dyne, Youn-Sang Choi, and Melvin Blase (2000), "Economic feasibility of
producing ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks", Bioresource Technology 72:19-32. Kim, Hyungtae, Seungdo Kim, and Bruce E. Dale (2009), "Biofuels, Land Use Change and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Some Unexplored Variables", Environmental Science & Technology 43:961-967. Kym, Seebohm (1997), "Guiding Principles for the Practice of Social Assessment in the Australian Water
Industry", Impact Assessment 15:233-251.
References
Phalan, Ben (2009), "The social and environmental impacts of biofuels in Asia: An overview", Applied Energy 86:S21-S29.
Quintanilla Fisac, M. A. (2005), Tecnología: un enfoque filosófico y otros ensayos de filosofía de la tecnología. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Rajagopal, D., S.E. Sexton, D. Roland-Holst, and D. Zilberman (2007), "Challenge of biofuel: filling the tank without emptying the stomach?", Environmental Research Letters 2:1-9.
Savvanidou, Electra, Efthimios Zervas, and Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis (2010), "Public acceptance of biofuels", Energy Policy 38:3482-3488.
Skipper, D., L. Van de Velde, M. Popp, G. Vickery, G. Van Huylenbroeck, and W. Verbeke (2009), "Consumers' perceptions regarding tradeoffs between food and fuel expenditures: A case study of U.S. and Belgian fuel users", Biomass & Bioenergy 33:973-987.
Slade, Raphael, Ausilio Bauen, and Nilay Shah (2009), "The commercial performance of cellulosic ethanol supply-chains in Europe", Biotechnology for Biofuels 2:3.
Solomon, Barry D., Justin R. Barnes, and Kathleen E. Halvorsen (2007), "Grain and cellulosic ethanol: History, economic and energy policy", Biomass & Bioenergy 31:416-425.
van der Horst, Dan, and Saskia Vermeylen (2010), "Spatial scale and social impacts of biofuel production", Biomass & Bioenergy In press.
van Wey, L. (2009), "Social and distributional impacts of biofuel production", in R. W. Howarth and S. Bringezu (ed.), Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Ithaca: Cornell University, 205-214.
