SendBioenergy [1] is the subject of increasing attention around the world and represents a controversial issue since it might offer new opportunities for sustainable development [2], but on the other hand it carries also significant risks. The rise of commodities prices, the negative impact on food security and climate change represent different challenges to be overcome before the full potentials of bioenergy can be realized.
Biofuels are being described as a solution for "clean energy", in fact the prefix "bio" suggests that they are natural, renewable and safe, in opposition to the toxic and unsustainable fossil fuels. More specifically, "first-generation " biofuels are derived from food-crops and the most important among them are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is produced predominantly from sugar cane and maize and, to a far lesser degree, from wheat sugar beet and cassava. Biodiesel mostly uses rapeseed but also palm oil, soybean oil and jatropha.
Sugar from Brazil and maize from the United States of America comprise around 80% of global ethanol production. China, the European Union and India are other significant ethanol producers. In energy terms, ethanol accounts for almost 90% of the current total biofuels use. Biodiesel, mostly produced and used in Europe, provides the remaining share [3].
"Second-generation" biofuels are derived from the residual non-food parts of the current crops, such as stems, leaves and husks that are left behind once the food crop has been extracted, as well as from other crops that are not used for food purposes, such as switch grass, and also from industry waste.
Recently, high oil prices have led to increased interest in biofuels; however because of their lower price and more advanced state of development, those derived from food crops are drawing the greatest attention. Furthermore, second-generation technologies which aim to produce economically competitive liquid biofuels that can be used for transport are still under developed. Moreover, how the study of WorldWatch Institute anticipated [4], the technology for commercially competitive conversion of cellulose to liquid biofuels will be available within ten to fifteen years.
The driving forces behind bioenergy development include not only its ability to compete with petroleum prices, but also its potential capacity to reduce global green house gas emissions and to enhance farmers’ income. Therefore, biofuels may have potential benefits such as diversification of agriculture output and domestic energy supply, development of infrastructures and job creation in rural areas, generation of new revenues from the use of wood and agriculture residues and from carbon credits [5].
However, the scale and nature of bioenergy production system have to be taken into consideration when employment generation and consequently poverty reduction are analyzed. The harvesting as Jatropha curcas is labour intensive and can generate jobs and income for rural people [6]. On the other hand, the harvesting of bioenergy crops such as sugar care do not use much labour and provide relatively few job opportunities for farmers. So there are different aspects which determine whether the expansion of biofuels has a net positive or a net negative impact on livelihood. For instance, in Indonesia the establishment of large palm oil plantations has been associated with alleged land grabbing and human rights abuses [7].
All these aspects clearly show how energy and agriculture markets are closely linked, as agriculture both consume and produce energy. For this reason the growing demand for biofuels inevitably affect the life of poor farmers who depend on rural development for their subsistence. Ethanol and biodiesel expansion threaten to divert the world’s grain supply from food to fuel, therefore the precise impacts of bioenergy on food security requires further illuminations.
Availability, access, stability and utilization are the four dimensions of food security [8] and further expansion of biofuels may affect each of these aspects.
- Availability of food can be threatened to the extent that land, water and other productive resources are diverted from food production to biofuels production. In fact demand for corn-based ethanol takes production away from the food system and is causing dramatic famines. It is necessary that modern biofuels system be well designed to augment local food production and to use marginal lands that do not provide subsistence functions for the most vulnerable. So far, the increasing involvement of large-scale conglomerates in the bioenergy business has led to fears of displacement and marginalization of local communities, indigenous peoples and smallholders. Agrofuels plantations in Brazil [9] and Southeast Asia [10] are being created on the territories of Indigenous People who have traditionally lived in and protected these ecosystems [11]. Indigenous People and local subsistence farmers are being forced to give up their land, way of life, and food self sufficiency to grow fuel crops for export. Given to the amount of land that would be required to expand biofuel production to maintain the global economy, the threat of worsening hunger and land right abuses is grave.
- Access to food, especially by low-income consumers, is mainly being compromised by rises in food prices [12]. Growing demand for bioenergy is likely to lead to more frequent fluctuations and a general increase in commodity prices. Poor people are impacted by biofuels as consumers in food and energy markets, producers of agricultural commodities in small businesses, and workers in labor markets. Net buyers of food, which represent the majority of poor people, would respond to high food prices with reduced consumption and changed patterns of demand, leading to calorie and nutrition deficiencies. A study of the effects in an East Asian setting suggests that a 50% increase in the price of food, holding income constant, will lead to the decline of iron intake by 30%. As a result, the prevalence of micronutrient deficiency among women and children will increase by 25% [13].
- Since the concepts of stability and utilization of food refer respectively to the possibility for a population, household or individual to have access to adequate food at all times, and to people’s ability to utilize and absorb nutrients, bioenergy expansion may also affect them through its dangerous collateral effects: soaring food prices, water and land degradation, conflict over natural resources.
All these four dimensions of food security have to compete also with climate change which, in theory, should be mitigate by biofuels production. Availability and stability of food are affected by extreme weather events such as intense tropical cyclones, heat waves, severe downpours, droughts and floods which compromise food production and create serious problems for those regions that grow cereals and suddenly lose areas of farmland. Access to food may be penalized since price rises caused by natural disasters may put food out of reach of vulnerable people. Finally, climate change threatens the use of food for many rural communities. Changes in temperature, moisture and atmospheric gases are now creating favorable conditions for animal and plant pests and diseases, making food less safe. With climate change the populations of insects, like mosquitoes, midges, ticks and fleas may expand their geographical range and expose plants, animals and humans to diseases to which they have no natural immunity [14].
Ironically, agriculture is not only victim of climate change, it is also a source of greenhouse gases. Crop production and livestock release greenhouse gases into the air and are responsible for the major part of the emissions of methane (from cattle and wetlands, especially rice paddies) and nitrous oxide (from fertilizer use) [15]. Furthermore, deforestation and soil degradation which are two devastating effects of unsustainable farming practices, emit large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
The primary motive behind promoting and supporting the development of bioenergy is climate change mitigation. But can biofuels really deliver? Bioenergy crops can reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions by removing carbon dioxide from the air as they grow and storing it in crop roots and soil as organic carbon; by producing coproducts like protein for animal feed, and by displacement of fossil fuels. However, biofuel crops have distinctive greenhouse gas balances, which may also be negative depending on the production methods and the location [16]. Soybeans and especially corn are two crops that contribute to soil erosion and water pollution and require large amount of fertilizer, pesticides and fuel to grow, harvest and dry. Furthermore, corporate plans for expanding biofuel production involve the creation of large-scale mono-cropping plantations which threaten some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on the Earth [17].
Taking all these factors into account, it is clear that also the international community faces difficulties in coping with the complex relationships between the environment and bioenergy. In fact on the one hand, current biofuels policies and practices run the risk of undermining food security while degrading ecosystems through deforestation, agrochemical pollution, the introduction of invasive species and the use of genetically modified feedstock. On the other hand, well-planned and managed "second generation" biofuels production can conceivably contribute to a more sustainable energy future, providing opportunities for landscape management and climate change adaptation.
The conversion of foodstuffs like maize, sugar, soy and palm oil into biofuels was one of the most controversial issues at the June 3-5 2008 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) High Level Conference on "World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy" [18]. During the Summit biofuel giants, the United States and Brazil, pitted against countries who fear the harmful effects of bioenergy and under their pressures, the final declaration avoided negative language on this issue. The text only states that biofuels present "challenges and opportunities" and calls for an "international dialogue" on the matter. Even if the declaration has an important symbolic value since agrofuels are now becoming part of the international agenda and States may not act unilaterally in this domain, it clearly shows how bioenergy and climate change have been eclipsed by market-oriented agricultural policies and political rivalries.
This last aspect was well shown by the conduct of Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela, the three Member States of FAO that did not adopt the declaration. Argentina emphasized its solidarity with the millions of people who suffer from hunger, but refused to support the text since it stated “the need to minimize the use of restrictive measures that could increase volatility of international prices”. Cuba pointed out that the rich and the powerful States continue to block true solutions to world hunger and condemned the lack of an objective analysis of its causes, listing amongst these: agricultural subsidies; monopolies on agriculture; and models of production and consumption in the North. Venezuela expressed regret that an opportunity was lost to combat the structural problems of hunger and emphasized that the reference made inside the declaration on the necessity of "implementing an aid for trade package" as "a valuable complement to the Doha Development Agenda to build and improve the trading capacity of the developing countries” could be a blackmail weapon used by donors versus receiver countries.
During the Conference the right to food [19] was mentioned on various occasions, including by the Indigenous Environmental Network, Switzerland, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Oliver De Schutter.
In particular, De Schutter highlighted that there is mounting scientific evidence that the use of energy to produce agrofuels, the use of water, the use of arable land is destructive to the environment, represents a threat to food security and feeds into speculation on the market. With a more tempered language, De Schutter’s message was broadly the same of his predecessor, Jean Ziegler [20], who caused a storm when in 2007 he said using arable land to make fuels was a "crime against humanity” [21].
In the context of the Conference, the remarkable lack of focus on the development of "second-generation" biofuels seemed the most surprising aspect, not only because "first-generation" biofuels compete with food crops, but also because they may contribute to climate change which, in the long term, proves to be a more important threat to food security than all other threats combined.
The divisive international debate on bioenergy clearly shows that no energy source is without drawbacks and for this reason it is fundamental to ensure that we do not add new environmental and social problems while trying to solve old ones.
