Organic Agriculture (OA) and Biofuels in Developing Countries

II.1 OA in Developing Countries

The interest in OA is growing worldwide, including in developing countries, where it has been driven by disillusion with the sustainability of conventional high external input agriculture. The so-called Green Revolution may have increased yields over the past forty years, but these increases have slowed down or even been reversed in recent years due to decreasing soil fertility, degradation of water resources, and the build up of pest populations and resistance to pesticides (Rundgren, 2006). Furthermore, recorded damages to human health and the environment from conventional agriculture are also causing concern. All this has given rise to an interest in OA in developing countries; an interest that parallels that in developed countries, but is driven by somewhat different factors—more notably as a way of obtaining sustainable increases in production.

According to a survey by International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), SöL (Siftung Ökologie und Landbau) and Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau [Research Institute for Organic Agriculture] (FIBL) in 2006, approximately 31 million hectares (ha.) of farmland are under organic management worldwide. A gain of around five million ha. since 2005 (Willer and Yussefi, 2007).¹ While the relative amount remains very small compared to conventional agriculture (CA)—about 0.6 percent of the world's 13 billion ha. of agricultural land, the rate of growth is high, at 11 percent per annum from 1998 to 2005, and 17 percent in the year 2005 to 2006 (European Commission [EC], 2005).

As a percentage of land area, the amount classified as certified organic² is highest in Europe at about 3.6 percent; ranging from as much as 11.6 percent in Austria to 0.7 percent in Ireland³ (Willer and Yuseffi, 2006). Among the developing regions, we have seen the greatest growth in Africa and Asia, where the organic area has increased seven-fold over the period 2001-2003. Nevertheless the absolute numbers there are also small. In 2004 Asia had about 888,000 ha. under organic farming, representing only 0.07 percent of agricultural land and a mere 3.7 percent of the world's organically farmed land.⁴ In 2005 Asia's share of the organic area increased dramatically to 13 percent (Willer and Yussefi, 2006), largely because of the inclusion of forestland where organic non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are collected.

Three Asian countries—East Timor, Republic of Korea and Bangladesh—now have 2 percent or more of their agricultural land converted to organic agriculture. In Azerbaijan, People's Republic of China (PRC) and Sri Lanka, the share of OA in total agricultural land was between 0.4 and 0.5 percent. While Philippines, India, Pakistan and Vietnam had approximately 0.1 percent certified organic land in 2005. Data on the amount of land that is devoted to OA in Cambodia is not available on the same basis as above. For the Lao PDR, the amount classified as organic in the IFOAM database is merely 35 ha., but this must be seen a very low estimate of the land on which some OA is being practiced. Indeed there is considerable interest in both countries and a number of active programs in place. In the Lao PDR, agricultural planning in support of the National Economic Plan in 2006 explicitly aimed to develop OA in all upland areas. In Cambodia, OA export is highlighted in the National Export Strategy. These are discussed in sections III and IV respectively.

Most of the organic products from Asian countries are exported and the total sales amounted to approximately US$800 million in 2006, representing a doubling within only 5 years. Furthermore, the potential for further growth is there. The global market reached US$33 billion (estimated retail sales) in 2005 (Sahota, 2007), which was an increase of 43 percent from 2002. There is a growing undersupply of many organic products, from dairy and meat, to vegetables, fruits and beverages.

Japan remains the largest organic market in Asia, but domestic markets for organic products are growing in other Asian countries, including PRC, Thailand, Republic of Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia (Wright and McCrea, 2007). Supermarkets in cities such as Jakarta and Singapore have allocated space for organic products, and consumer awareness keeps rising. At present, many domestic markets in Asian countries are mainly supplied by imports and, given the right support, there is a potential for more local organic production. At the same time, the demand for organic products in North America and Europe is growing fast, and the larger organic markets in Germany and the United Kingdom (UK) have experienced exceptionally high growth since 2004. In Europe, the sale of organic products is now widespread through supermarkets and growing at rates of up to 14 percent per annum. At present over 6 percent of vegetable sales in Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden are organic products.⁵

Recent case-studies in India, PRC and Latin America indicate that the introduction of organic methods is often beneficial to small, resource poor farmers, and that the conversion to market oriented and certified organic agriculture can contribute to poverty alleviation and is well warranted (IFAD, 2002; Giovannuci, 2005). This also goes for other developing countries as well (Parrott et al, 2006; Pretty et al, 2006; Report from the Export Promotion of Organic Production from Africa [EPOPA] program in Africa (EPOPA, 2002⁶). Yields of OA are often higher— especially in marginal areas—and depending on market conditions, certified organic products can receive a price premium. Knowledge of how large a part this higher price actually benefits smallholders is, however, limited. While concluding that OA can help raise the productivity of low-input agricultural systems in developing Asia, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ([ESCAP] 2002, p. vii.) notes that very few studies have analysed the socio-economic impacts:

“In many countries, resource-poor farmers practicing organic farming have not yet been the focus of government attention. At the same time, there seems to be a strong indication that the proliferation of OA could be a viable strategy to improve livelihoods in Asia's rural areas. In addition, propoor organic agricultural policies appear to have the potential to improve local food security, particularly in marginal land areas. Comparative studies are however almost non-existent. This is a true shortcoming, and thus organic farming and its socioeconomic impacts in rural areas are not well understood.”

Besides the price premium and the improved market links, other advantages such as improvement of soil fertility; enhancement or preservation of biodiversity; and improved health from the absence of chemical pesticides are widely reported from organic farming projects (Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; Halberg et al., 2006; Setboonsarng, 2006). The wider environmental benefits of OA, however, were subject to some controversy (Trewavas, 2001) in the late 1990s. Since then several studies have been carried out in Europe, comparing emissions of environmentally harmful substances, including greenhouse gases (GHGs), across a range of products produced under OA and CA. The method is based on a “cradle to grave” approach, which looks at all impacts, including those in the production of inputs that go into the different forms of agriculture (also referred to as Life Cycle Analysis [LCA]). These studies reveal that, in developed countries at least, OA outperforms CA with respect to its impacts on flora and faunal diversity; soil conservation; water leaching rates; and pesticide pollution to water (Sotlze et al, 2000, DEFRA, 2003).

The picture is less clear with respect to overall energy use per unit of output. In most cases OA uses less energy, but higher figures are found for potatoes and poultry meat (Williams et al., 2006; Federal Ministry for Food Agriculture and Forestry [Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (BML)], 2000). In terms of GHG emissions, the BML study also found lower emissions per unit of output for OA.

All these studies look only at the farm gate impacts. Other studies have also looked at energy use and GHG emissions, including transport to the consumer, and here the use of airfreight is of particular concern. Thus OA produce, imported by air from a developing country, may have much higher emissions per unit weight than a conventionally produced local alternative transported a shorter distance by road. For example, Kenyan beans produced for the UK market use about 1-2MJ/Kg at the farm gate, which is a little less energy use than in European production of the same commodity. But the packaging and shipping by air use 58MJ/Kg, which makes airfreight much less environmentally attractive (Jones, 2006).

This comparison, however, is subject to important qualifications. First, shipping by sea makes the comparison generally still favorable to OA, even with long distance transport. The same Kenyan beans would use only 2MJ/Kg for sea transport to the UK, and it appears that with new technologies this may be feasible without compromising the freshness of the product. Second, domestic production may not be available for some products, or only available under intensive greenhouse conditions, which would require lots of energy and make the comparison again favorable to the imported OA product—even with air transport. Third, these additional emissions may be part of the quota of the exporting country, which, if it is a developing country, will have some headroom to increase GHG emissions and still be well below those of the importing country. Thus freighting by air may be justified in some conditions, although it is likely that future developments in OA trade may have to respond to the call for lower emissions and impacts during transportation.⁷

Another issue raised by critics of OA, is that a significant shift in that direction from CA would result in the world not being able to feed itself, since yields on OA are sometimes lower than those on CA. This is, however, a misplaced concern, primarily because yields for OA are not lower in developing countries (although they can be in developed ones). A careful study by Badgley et al. (2007) shows that OA methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population and potentially even a larger one without an increase in the agricultural land base.

The other global concern is whether there is enough organic fertilizer available that meets phytosanitary standards for such a massive shift in production. Again, the same study shows that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer in use. These results need confirmation, but they point to the fact that OA is not an impossibility on a global scale. Since it is unlikely we will ever have full conversion to OA, the current trends towards more organic production, OA should be sustainable for a long time to come.

In developing countries there are other, secondary, benefits from OA. The diversification of smallholder farms into growing a variety of crops, multipurpose trees combined with livestock enterprises and/or fish culture is shown to enhance the overall yield stability (so-called resilience) and therefore the food security of organic farmers. Thus, there are reasons to believe that smallholders and resource poor farmers may improve their asset building and livelihood through participation in certified organic production schemes. Moreover, organic agriculture (in principle) will enhance and preserve biodiversity and soil fertility, while reducing negative impacts on environment and health, compared to chemically based farming methods. As stated by Giovannuci (2005, p. 42),

Equally compelling on the macro scale is that organic agriculture can provide several public benefits that by most calculations should make it a very relevant multi-purpose tool for many Asian policymakers for whom health, food security, and improved incomes area at the top of their priority list.

Therefore, organic farming may contribute positively to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) such as eradication of poverty and hunger, improved health, and ensured environmental sustainability (United Nations [UN], 2005). Moreover, for this purpose it may not be necessary to have full certification of the products. One cannot, however, expect a simple “yes/no” relationship between organic agriculture and MDGs; the relation will depend on the context. More knowledge is needed regarding the actual benefits for smallholder farmers and the environment of certified OA, including the necessary socio-economic conditions, organizational context, and market access.

II.2 Biofuels in Developing Countries

There has been a significant growth in the use of biofuels (interpreted here to mean bioethanol and biodiesel—the two of which account for 90 percent of biofuel usage) as sources of energy to replace fossil fuels generally and petroleum products in particular. Worldwide production of bioethanol, which can be blended with gasoline, has increased from about 18 billion liters a year in 2000, to nearly 37 billion liters in 2005. Meanwhile, that of biodiesel has increased from less than one billion liters in 2000 to nearly four billion liters in 2005. The growth in demand is strongly motivated by the need to reduce dependence on imported oil, as well as a desire to reduce the GHG emissions from transport. The amounts of biofuels however, still make only a small impression on the transport demands for gasoline and diesel, which amounted to more than 1,200 billion liters worldwide in 2005.

So far, the major production sources of biofuels have been in the United States (US), Europe, Brazil and PRC. For ethanol: Brazil and the US account for around 45 percent each; the PRC for about 6 percent (2 billion liters); and the European Union (EU) for 4 percent. For biodiesel, the main production is in the EU, which accounts for almost all of it. Sources for bioethanol are grains or seeds (e.g. maize, cassava, wheat, potato), sugar crops (sugar beets and sugar cane) and lignocellulose biomass (which include a range of forestry products such as short rotation coppices and energy grasses); while sources for biodiesel are oilseeds such as rapeseed, soybean, sunflower, jatropha and palm oil. Production of biofuels in Asia (outside of the PRC) is still relatively small, and the region is therefore a minor player when it comes to determining trends in world markets. Thailand, for example, had a production capacity in 2005 of 273 million liters of ethanol (from sugarcane and cassava). The other countries in the Mekong region are at an early stage in the development of the industry. It is important to note however, that the governments harbor strong ambitions to expand production. Thailand, for example, has a target for 2008 of 3.8 billion liters for ethanol. Even with expanding worldwide production, such a level of production will make the country a major player in this market. The Lao PDR and Cambodia are beginning to look at biofuels, and there is believed to be considerable potential relative to the size of the countries' energy sectors. The potential for these countries is discussed in Section III.

While governments in many countries are actively promoting biofuels, there are several concerns about them. The cases for and against biofuels relate to their economic, social, and environmental implications.

II.2.1 Economic and Social Issues for Biofuels

Arguments in favor

On economic grounds the arguments for more biofuel use are: (i) they can be a competitive source relative to gasoline and diesel, (ii) they can generate employment and growth in the economy by replacing imports with domestic production and (iii) they provide energy security by reducing dependence on imported fuels from politically unstable parts of the world. The competitiveness case depends critically on the world price of oil and on the taxation regimes for oil products relative to biofuels. Ignoring the tax dimension and looking at costs of production alone, an EU (2006) study indicates that costs of biodiesel are around US$900/ton of oil equivalent (toe), and those for ethanol are around US$816-1080.⁸ The lower figure for ethanol is based on the cost/insurance/freight (c.i.f.) included import price of ethanol (reflecting the lowest world production costs), while the higher figure is that of production within the EU. At the same time, costs of conventional diesel are US$395 with an oil price of US$28/barrel, and US$939 with an oil price of US$90/barrel. For gasoline the corresponding figures are US$373 (low oil price) and US$917 (high oil price). From this it is clear that even at the high oil price of US$90, some subsidy may be needed to allow the market to adopt the biofuel. Table 1 [ PDF 50.7KB | 1 page ] below indicates the size of the subsidy required for the European market. That does not mean, of course, that the subsidy need be given in the EU. It could be provided by the exporter—although such a policy may run into difficulties with the World Trade Organization (WTO).

We should also note that there are significant expectations with regards to improvements in biofuel production efficiency. As Hausmann notes: “there is a lot of venture capital money being poured into finding more efficient ways of extracting energy from biomass. New technologies will be able to extract energy from cellulose, allowing the use of pastures such as switch grass.”⁹

Such subsidies may be justified on the grounds of other economic objectives as well as the environmental and social benefits. The other economic objectives of job creation, growth and energy security are difficult to quantify, but nevertheless can be very real. Employment and growth effects are more likely in those developing countries where there is an agricultural sector inefficiency that can be exploited to increase production of biofuels, and where the environmental and economic consequences of shifting production to biofuels from other crops (discussed below) are not serious (Lanzini, 2007; UN, 2007). The case most cited is Brazil, the largest producer of ethanol, where there has been significant job creation in the sugar cane sector, which created 700,000 direct jobs and 3.5 million indirect jobs in 2004. The sector is one of the most efficient in creating jobs per unit of investment.

In any event, subsidies on biofuels in developed countries are already present and take many forms, including indirect ones such as mandating a minimum use of biofuels in mixture with gasoline or diesel.¹⁰ The actual cost of support per liter of ethanol ranges from US$0.29- US$0.36 in the US, to around $1 in the EU. Actual support for biodiesel varies from between US$0.2 per liter in Canada, to $1 in Switzerland.¹¹ This support is likely to continue and will create an opportunity for exporters from developing countries as long as the subsidies are not only on domestic production. The extent to which these markets will be open for exports of biofuels from developing countries is still under discussion.

While the full potential for biofuels in most developing countries depends very much on the developed markets being open to them, there are also important local opportunities for biofuels, based partly on replacing imported oil, and partly on using locally produced biofuels for rural purposes, such as pumping, agricultural machinery etc. Policies that encourage local farmers to expand production of oil seeds, such as jatropha, can yield local economic and social benefits, and developing countries are showing considerable interest in this source of biofuel. For example, India is now developing a major program to cultivate 8,000 ha. of wasteland that will produce 9 million liters of biodiesel a year, with major economic benefits going to small farmers and significant general environmental benefits being generated (Braun and Pachauri, 2006).

Arguments Against

The major economic concerns about the expansion of biofuels are at the global level. Some argue that switching land to this use will reduce the amount available for food production. Either that or it will cause loss of protected land or forest land (Avery, 2006). Indeed a number of reports point to the clearance of rainforests in Indonesia to plant palm oil for biodiesel production. The data in support of a “land problem” are fragmented and sometimes anecdotal (e.g. the grain needed to fill a tank of a sport-utility vehicle (SUV) would feed one person for one year, or meeting electricity demands in 2052 from crops would require 80 percent of the earth's surface to be under energy crops). Some data indicates that, based on current yields, it is impossible to meet some of the biofuel targets. For example, one calculation showed that if the 20 percent target for biofuels in Europe were to be met by planting rapeseed (one of the most productive oil crops in Europe) all over the continent, it would use up most of the available cropland and have a major impact on global food supply (EU, 2006).

While these views are commonly asserted, they do not go unchallenged. Hausmann, for example, claims that there are 95 countries that have between them 700 million ha. of good quality land not being cultivated. This could yield something of the order of 500 million to 1 billion barrels of biofuels – in the same range as oil production today.¹² In this regard one has to ask why this land is not already being used if it is such good quality land. It is likely that there are difficulties, which Hausmann is perhaps ignoring.

Whatever view one takes on the potential for biofuels, the studies to date suggests the need to be more careful about how future energy demands are to be met from this energy source, and at what pace and to what extent such fuels can meet our energy demands. For example, meeting biofuel targets from one crop inside a major fuel consuming area is not the way to go. Other more efficient sources must be exploited and international trade in fuels expanded. One must allow for and expect increases in efficiency in crop production, ¹³ (reflecting past trends), as well as in the technologies that will allow a wider range of feedstocks for biofuel production (especially second generation cellulosic ethanol). The extent to which these can change the potential for biofuels, and the comparative advantage of different countries in producing them, is not known. It is therefore desirable to be cautious in setting medium to long-term goals for biofuels.

Other arguments against biofuels are based on their social consequences. One of these arises from the shift in power amongst producers of energy and food crops. The production of biofuels is more cost efficient on a large-scale, which has resulted in a concentration of ownership of ethanol plants in Brazil and the US. This in turn can put pressures on small farmers, dealing with large companies who have market power.

A second set of social consequences is related to the fact that the growth in demand for feedstocks is fuelling increases in the prices of food, which has a negative impact on the welfare of all except the farmers who grow the food. Estimates by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) indicate that the rapid increase in biofuel production will push global maize prices up by 20 percent by 2010, and 41 percent by 2020. The prices of oilseeds, including soybeans, rapeseeds and sunflower seeds are projected to rise by 26 percent by 2010, and 76 percent by 2020. In sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America, where cassava is a staple, its price is expected to increase by 33 percent by 2010, and 135 percent by 2020.¹⁴

An increase in the price of feedstocks is a double edged sword. It benefits the farmers who grow the crops, but hurts the consumers. The benefits to the growers may be concentrated in the larger producers, and it will need a policy instrument to ensure that smaller farmers also benefit. As for the impacts on the consumers, a World Bank study estimates that caloric consumption among the world's poor declines by about half of one percent whenever the average prices of all major staples increase by one percent. If staples such as maize, wheat, potato, cassava and sugar increase in price because of the demand for biofuel production, other staples such as rice will also be affected (Runge, 2007).

Given these possible impacts, care must be taken not to switch production to biofuels at such a rate that the price effects become significant. Proper models of agricultural markets, linked to household expenditure surveys, must be used to analyze such movements carefully at the global and local levels. Where large movements are expected in international prices, governments need to provide social protection to those who are most hurt by the shifts. At the same time, those responsible for the shift to biofuels in the developed world should also be aware of the impacts they are having on the poor in developing countries, and adapt their policies accordingly.

Environmental Issues for Biofuels

On the environmental side, biofuels are promoted as a way of reducing GHGs when they replace fossil fuels. In fact, the extent to which they have this benefit depends on the efficiency with which the raw fuel is converted into one that can be used as a replacement for gasoline or diesel, in addition to several other factors, such as the extent of use of fertilizer in growing the crops. Since these factors vary considerably, the net gains in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent also vary a great deal. A review of different studies shows the following reductions in GHGs when there is biofuel substitution (European Commission [EC], 2006):

• Bioethanol from sugar crops: Minus 11% to Plus 75%
• Bioethanol from grain: Minus 6% to Plus 75%
• Biodiesel from rapeseed: Plus 16% to Plus 74%

In the last year or so, Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) have also been carried out for some feedstocks commonly grown in developing countries (other than sugar cane). In agreement with previous LCA reviewers, Larson (2006) found a wide range of values for GHG emissions, depending on whether:

1. Land had to be cleared for the crop.
2. Indirect emissions had been accounted for (NOx, CO and non-methane organic compounds impact on ozone levels, which directly affects climate).
3. GHG emissions of N2O, which evolve from fertilizer application, have been account for.
4. Account had been taken of the extent of soil carbon build-up associated with growing biomass (e.g. if previously heavily tilled land is converted to an energy crop with lower tillage requirements, the soil carbon impacts are increased).

In view of all these factors, a strong plea has been made for standardization in the estimation of emissions from different biofuels and some work is ongoing in the UK.¹⁵

Apart from sugar cane, the other crop predominantly grown in developing countries that has been analyzed in detail is palm oil. Using the LCA methodology, McCormack (2007) found biodiesel from palm to generate 0.018 Kg CO_2eq /MJ if there was no land conversion involved, and 0.143 Kg CO_2eq /MJ if there was. By contrast conventional low sulfur fuel generates 0.091 Kg CO_2eq /MJ—more than palm oil without land clearance, but less than palm oil with land clearance. On the other hand, palm oil (even without land clearance) is more carbon intensive than rapeseed, which is the commonest source of biodiesel in Europe and which generates 0.041 Kg CO_2eq /MJ.

From the studies that have been conducted, one can therefore conclude that biofuels can generate some carbon saving, but that this is not guaranteed. The savings are greater if:

1. The process of conversion uses the biofuel itself, or another renewable energy source instead of fossil fuel energy.
2. As well as biofuel, by-products such as glycerin (from biodiesel production), lignin (from bioethanol production) and animal feed (from both processes), are produced. Studies differ in the way they attribute the GHGs from the production processes between the biofuel and by-products. The more GHGs are allocated to the byproducts the greater the savings that can be attributed to the biofuel.
3. The biofuel is used close to where it is produced; as its transport causes significant GHG emissions (biofuels cannot be piped).

Given the fact that GHGs are generated in processing the biofuels, and that the costs of production of biofuels are high anyway, the resulting costs per ton of CO2 equivalent reduced by switching to biofuels is high—at around €40 to €100 (US$48-US$120) per ton of COM₂ avoided.¹⁶ Since there are many options for reducing GHGs at a lower cost,¹⁷ these figures have the important implication that as a GHG-reducing measure, a switch to biofuels is unlikely to be economic, at least in the short run. There must be benefits such as energy security, savings on foreign exchange by reducing imports, employment generation etc. to justify adopting biofuels as part of an economically efficient solution.

The other environmental impacts of the switch arise from the effects of: (i) feedstock cultivation and (ii) reduced emissions of pollutants harmful to health.

Biofuel Feedstock Cultivation and its Environmental Impacts

The cultivation of feedstock has raised a number of concerns. As growing crops for biofuels becomes financially attractive, more land is taken into production, resulting in deforestation, erosion and unsustainable use of marginal land. In Brazil, for example, agricultural expansion is proceeding rapidly and causing deforestation in the Amazon Basin. Although that is not where sugar, which is the source of their bioethanol, is grown, one could argue that sugar cultivation is increasing the demand for agricultural land. Indeed, one of the products grown in the Amazon Basin (soybean) could be potentially used for biodiesel production. In South East Asia large tracts of forestland are being cleared to plant oil palms destined for conversion to biodiesel (Runge, 2007).

In Europe, studies of the environmental effects of biofuels note the following negative effects of feedstock cultivation: (i) loss of biodiversity as more set aside land is brought into production, (ii) increased demand for water as fast growing species are brought into production, (iii) increased use of pesticides; to the extent that farmers take less care to keep use to a strict minimum if residue testing is not carried out as it is for food crops, (iv) increased application of fertilizer causing runoff and associated problems of non-point pollution. On the positive side they note: (i) energy crops can allow a greater choice of crops to be grown with, for example, a possible shift of land under sugar beet production to land for cereals, which carry less risk of erosion and less input of chemicals, (ii) in certain regions energy crops may contribute to maintaining agricultural land in production, which may help prevent floods and landslides.

The most serious problems arising from feedstock cultivation is undoubtedly clearance of forest in developing countries. Where it happens, this is a serious repercussion of a switch to biofuels, and indeed such deforestation would negate many of the possible benefits from the switch away from fossil fuels. The main way to avoid such shifts is to implement “biofuel certification” (as for sustainable forest certification); so that developed countries only source such fuels from locations where sustainable agricultural practices have been followed.

Today, there are no green labels specifically tailored to biofuels and assessment of their whole value chain, as the only type of certificate that exists is a guarantee of a certain percentage of biofuel content in gasoline or diesel (EU: Sustainable biofuels program; White Paper 2006). However, there are plenty of activities going on in the context of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of biofuel. We can mention, for instance, the completed EU-study by the Joint Research Center (http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/wtw.html) as well as the ongoing Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SOFE) project (http://www.esu-services.ch/bioenergy.htm).

Local Air and Water Pollution Impacts of a Switch to Biofuels

In terms of local air pollution and related effects, the picture is a mixed one, though generally favoring biofuels. Table 2 [ PDF 52.1KB | 1 page ] summarizes the findings of studies carried out by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). It reports changes in emissions for a 85 percent ethanol blend, a 20 and 50 percent biodiesel blend, and a second generation biodiesel technology (the Fisher-Tropsch process) that comprises gasification of biomass feedstocks, cleaning and conditioning of the produced synthesis gas, and subsequent synthesis to liquid (or gaseous) biofuels. They show reductions in CO and PM in all cases, reductions in sulfates, VOCs and NOx with bioethanol and biodiesel, and lower NOx emissions with bioethanol but higher emissions with biodiesel.

The authors also warn that particular difficulty could arise with respect to emissions of volatile organic compounds from ethanol blends in countries where there are no limits on vapor pressure.

Finally, we should note other studies that have shown that biodiesel and ethanol blends have significant impacts in terms of acidification and eutrophication of water (Lanzini, 2007).

Actual experience of a shift to ethanol is provided by data from Brazil, where around 20 percent of gasoline has been replaced by ethanol. Over the same period, ambient lead concentrations in the Sao Paolo Metropolitan Region has dropped from 1.4 g/M³ in 1978 to less than 0.1 g/M³ in 1991. In addition, carbon monoxide emissions fell from over 50 g/km to less than 5.8 g/km in 1995 (EU, 2006).

In summary, one can conclude that, based on most evidence, biofuels are beneficial in terms of CO and PM and ambient lead (where it has not been phased out in gasoline by law). On the other hand, acidification and eutrophication effects are greater and the outcomes in terms of other pollutants are not clear.

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 257.7KB| 46 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [1] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. Chumroen Benchavitvilai
   (posted 16 May 2009 / 05:44:46 PM)
   
   In fact all the LDC government must realize that the cost of Biofuel is /will be much more expensive than the mineral fossil fuel at any time.
   If the LDC like Lao,Cambodia and Myanmar wants to promote the Biofuel utilization as the national agenda .The policy makers in all countries must be able to find the satifatory answers to the following questions.
   
   (1) Do the people in the poorest countries of LDC really need to pay for the expensive / high cost of Biofuel as teh real cost is w/o governemtn interention ?
   
   (2) Will the governments of the LDC provide subsidies for Biofuel to keep the Biofuel not to be too much more expensive that the mineral fossil fuel ?
   The subsidies are both in term of production subsidies for lower production cost and consumer subsidies by waiving all related taxes eg energy tax, exile taxes VAT ,Energy fund etc.
   
   (3) It is doubtfully that the governments in all LDC are able to effort to provide any sbsidies for Biofuel .
   Normally the income from the energy usages is one of the main stream for revenue.
   All government in LDC are haing the deficit budget forever.
   Althrogh they may want to promote Biofuel and cover all the subsidies.
   It is impossible to survive.
   
   LDC countries should be the exporter of the Biofuel not teh teh end user of the Biofuel.