biomass food and sustainability tcm43-38549

8/4/2019 Biomass Food and Sustainability Tcm43-38549

1/53

Biomass, food & sustainability:I h il ?

Loui O. F coUniversity of AmsterdamMember of the Supervisory Board of Rabobank Nederland

with Daan Dijk and Wouter de Ridder, Rabobank

Updated versIOn, aUtUmn 2007


2/53


3/53

Biomass, ood & sustainability:

Is there a dilemma?

Lou O. F co

Universiteit van AmsterdamMember o the Supervisory Board o Rabobank Nederland

With Daan Dijk and Wouter de Ridder, Rabobank

Updated versiOn, aUtUmn 2007


4/53

Contents

3

t gy, g cul u b o- gy 5

Fu u b o- gy u 12

B o- gy u b l y: 18o h foo fo fu l

i h l ? 38

to co clu

e o 47


5/53

4 B o , foo u b l y:

B o , foo u b l y:i h l ?1

i J u y 2007, hou of o -

o ch h ough m x co C y o h c of h

z flou u fo o ll . m y

b l h h gh c w c u

by a c fo h ol

wh ch h u h u h c of

z o wh ch m x c fo

h b c foo . s l ly, co u

i ly w o k o o g

h c g c of h ly

4


6/53

Is there a dilemma? 5

T he tortilla crisis is one example o the many recentconcerns about the impact o biomass production on

ood production, the stability o ood and eed prices andthe availability o ood or the poor. Other concerns include thepossible adverse e ects on nature and biodiversity and the netenergy savings and CO 2 emission reductions that can be realised

with bio-energy 2 compared to conventional, ossil energy.Combined with high subsidies paid or making transport bio uelscompetitive, consumer con dence as to whether bio-energy isthe right thing to do is declining. Moreover, governments now

ace divergent pressures rom environmental groups, some o

them hailing bio-energy as a solution to climate issues, otherdenouncing it as a uture cause o inequality and hunger.

But are these concerns justi ed? Is the tortilla crisis the directe ect o US policy on transport bio uels? Will bio-energy improveenergy security and mitigate CO 2 emissions, or will it simply lead

to new problems in other areas, such as ood security, biodiversityand even air pollution?

t gy, g cul u b o- gy

A ter tens o thousands o years o daily struggle or ood, itis breathtaking that a armer today can cultivate hundreds o hectares single-handedly to produce su cient ood to eedthousands o amilies on the other side o the planet. In spite o


7/53


a three old increase in world population since the Second WorldWar, the astest increase ever in human history, available caloriesper capita have grown by nearly 25%. This truly remarkable eatis the combined result o academic research, government policyand private investment. It shows that agricultural research hasbeen one o the most rewarding economic sectors, with rates o

return o 40-78%3. We can draw an important lesson rom this:human capacity to innovate is great and allows us to be con dentthat collectively we are capable o innovation and rapid change.

In the same period, since the Second World War, global energy

consumption has increased more than six old to the currentlevel o 470 EJ4. Population growth and rising wel are were themain drivers. In the same period, per capita energy demand hasmore than doubled rom 28 GJ to 68 GJ, with averages or theUS standing at more than six times those o China. With 3.6%growth, 2004 had the astest energy demand growth rate since

1978, despite record oil prices. Global primary energy demand isexpected to grow more than 50% to 700 EJ in 2030 5. The demand

or liquid transport uels and electricity is increasing especiallyrapidly. By 2030 China and India together will account or 30%to 40% o global energy demand, i.e. about 16% o oil demand(now 10%); 5% o natural gas demand (2% now) and 48% o coaldemand.

The strong growth in energy demand in the past and the


8/53


expected continuation o this growth has caused manyconcerns. Emissions rom ossil uels are widely believed tobe one o the main contributors to climate change; growingdependency on politically less stable regions to supply the worldmarkets with su cient oil has uelled energy security concerns. The geopolitical situation in the Near East and the Gazprom

con rontation in 2006 and subsequent incidents where energysupply was manipulated or political purposes, have added tothe growing concerns about the security o energy supply. Evenrumours about energy supply disruptions can cause energyprices to spike virtually overnight. The world economy is very

vulnerable when it comes to physical supply o ossil energy andenergy price hikes; moreover, these risks cannot be hedged.

The concerns about energy security and, more recently, climatechange, have resulted in various e orts around the globe toaddress both the supply side and the demand side o the energy

system and to set up worldwide climate policy rameworks. A keyturning point in that respect was the United Nations Con erenceon Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, in1992, which led to the adoption o Agenda 21. This agenda,rea rmed in 2002 at the Johannesburg Summit on SustainableDevelopment, provided an overarching agenda or sustainabledevelopment, linking the worldwide development challengeswith the challenges in the areas o energy, environment andconservation o natural resources.


9/53


The development agenda was urther rein orced byadoption o the Millennium Declaration and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), at the Millennium Summit in 2000in New York. These MDGs aim to eradicate extreme poverty,but do not include energy-related goals or explicit re erencesto agricultural production targets.

There is general agreement that there is a huge potentialor reducing energy demand through energy e ciency

improvements in all main sectors such as residential buildings,transport and industry 6. Oil use could be used twice as

e ciently by end-use energy e ciency improvements7

. Still,energy e ciency improvements have thus ar been unable tocurb the rising demand or energy and are unlikely to do soin the uture. Supply side options include renewable energy,such as wind and solar power, as well as controversial orms o energy, such as nuclear energy and exploitation o tar sands.

These supply options invariably gain more attention in policystrategies, RD&D support and investments than options orincreasing energy e ciency.

Despite worldwide attention or renewable energy, its sharein total energy demand is, on average, still low. In 2004 it wasapproximately 13% (62 EJ) 8 o global primary energy supply.However, the vast majority thereo was biomass and waste 9 (49 EJ), much o which (10% out o 13%) is traditional biomass,


10/53


e.g. direct combustion o wood in developing countries. Itshould be noted that the data on traditional bio-energy useis particularly unreliable. In any case, modern bio-energy,re erring to the conversion o primary biomass into secondaryenergy orms such as heat, power or transportation uels (seeBox 1), accounts or only a small part (approximately 2%, or 8

EJ) o global energy consumption. Some countries have beenable to reach considerably higher shares o renewables inthe energy mix, o ten as the combined result o governmentpolicy and avourable conditions to explore hydropower,wind energy or geothermal power. In Brazil, or instance,

hydropower accounts or about 35% o the nations energydemand 10.

Although the share o the renewable energy market is small,the sector has experienced enormous growth in recent years.Due to rising prices or ossil uels (especially oil, but also

natural gas and to a lesser extent coal) the competitiveness o renewables has improved considerably over time. In addition,the development o CO 2 markets (emission trading), as wellas ongoing learning and subsequent cost reductions orrenewable energy systems have strengthened the economicdrivers or increasing production, use, and trade o renewableenergy. Total installed capacity or wind energy increased romless than 5 GW worldwide in 1990 to nearly 73 GW in 2006.In the same period the installed capacity o solar power grew


11/53


rom 0.2 GW to over 8 GW11

. Renewable energy now representsa serious and o ten pre erred option in national energy policies.

Among the various orms o renewable energy, liquidtransport bio uels have seen the strongest growth in recentyears. Transport bio uels stand out because at present they

represent the only scalable renewable alternative to ossiluels or transportation and are welcomed by the automotive

industry because little adaptation is needed to the distributionin rastructure. Transport bio uels come in two orms: biodieseland ethanol 12. Biodiesel, mainly used in the EU, is made o

vegetable oils, such as rapeseed, soybeans and palm oil, or romanimal ats and waste oils.

Ethanol, primarily used in the US and Brazil, is made o starch,sugar and cereals, amongst other eedstock (see Box 1). In 2006,worldwide biodiesel production reached 7.2 million tonnes, or

0.28 EJ. Ethanol production, destined or uel use, reached 40billion litres, or 0.67 EJ13.


12/53


Box 1Bio-energy conversion routesConversion routes or producing energy rom biomass are plenti ul,all with di erent e ciencies. Figure 1 illustrates the main conversionroutes currently used or under development or production o heat,power and transport uels. Key conversion technologies or productiono power and heat are combustion and gasi cation o solid biomass,and digestion o organic material or the production o biogas. Liquidbio uels are also used or heat and power production in reciprocating

engines. The main technologies available or developed to producetransportation uels are ermentation o sugar and starch crops toproduce ethanol, gasi cation o solid biomass to produce syngas andsynthetic uels (like methanol and high quality diesel) and extractiono vegetal oils rom oilseed crops, which can be esteri ed to producebiodiesel. The various technological options and routes are in di erentstages o deployment and development 14.

Figure 1 Main conversion options or biomass to secondary energy carriers

Combustion

Steam

Steamturbine

Gasturbine,combined

cycle, engine

Methanol/ hydrocarbons/

hydrogensysthesis

Upgrading Gasengine

Distillation Esterication

Gas

Fuel cell

Heat Electricity Fuels

Diesel Ethanol Bio-diesel

Gas Oil Charcoal Biogas

Gasication

Thermochemical conversion Biochemical conversion

PyrolysisLiquefaction

HTUDigestion Fermentation Extraction

(oilseeds)

Source: Adapted rom World Energy Assessment, 2000 15.


13/53


Fu u b o- gy u

As the world population is expected to continue to grow,reaching just over 8 billion in 2030 (compared to more than 6billion now), and the level o energy consumption per capita toincrease by a actor 1.2 on average worldwide, energy demand

is likely to increase by over 50% 16. This will urther challengeenergy security and climate change concerns. In an e ort tocurb the energy trends, ambitious targets or renewable energyhave been set by many administrations, many o them aimingat renewable energy shares o 20% or higher. It is uncertain i ,

and how, these targets are to be met: will it be bio-energy, ormore speci cally transport bio uels, or will it be another ormo renewable energy (wind, solar)? As there is no silver bullet,governments are cautious about picking a particular technologyand adopt broad strategies to stimulate development o alternative energy orms, allowing markets to decide on the

basis o costs, convenience and other criteria.

Figure 2 World primary energy supply (total, biomass and waste and transport)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1990 2004 2030

EJ

Biomass and waste

Transport(data refers to consumption)

Source: adapted from IEA, 2006(see footnote 16).

Total primary supply


14/53


In the 2006 World Energy Outlook o the International EnergyAgency (IEA) it is estimated that modern and traditional bio-energy use could reach 69 EJ per year by 2030 ( rom 49 EJ in2004), corresponding with an average annual growth rate o about 1.3% to 1.4%. As overall energy demand grows (see Figure2), the share o bio-energy in total energy supply remains stable

towards 2030, while the share o modern bio-energy grows( rom about 2% in 2004 to 3% in 2030). Transport accounts or a

airly small part o total bio-energy use, but is by ar the astestgrowing. Growth rates or transport bio uels are expected toreach on average 12% towards 2015 and 7% therea ter towards

2030, reaching nearly 4 EJ in 2030. These expectations refectthat bio-energy in the transport sector is well positioned to o era cost e ective alternative to ossil uels in the medium to longterm. Based on current installed capacity and announcementsmade by the sector it is estimated that biodiesel capacity couldincrease more than our old, and ethanol capacity more than

two old by 201217.

In an alternative policy scenario by the IEA, assuming thatgovernments around the world implement their plans 18 tocounter oil dependency and climate change, bio-energy couldreach as much as 11% o global supply by 2030 (4% modernbio-energy) as a result o higher growth rates o the bio-energysector and less growth in overall energy demand. The alternativepolicy scenario assumes stronger energy conservation policies


15/53


and measures resulting in a 10% lower energy demand by 2030.Such scenarios refect a major shi t in thinking.

Whatever scenario materialises, bio-energy is expected to play asubstantial role in the energy mix in 2030, providing around 70EJ per year compared to 49 EJ in 2004; or modern bio-energy,

expectations range rom 15 to 18 EJ compared to 8 EJ in 2004. This requires substantial amounts o biomass.

Agricultural production is expected to double by 2030 tomeet rising demands or ood, eed, shi ting dietary patterns

(more dairy products and meat), and rising bio-energyneeds. Production increases can be realised through yieldimprovements worldwide, even without expanding arableland. While the agricultural technologies to achieve therequired yield improvements already exist, their application isan important challenge and should by no means be taken or

granted everywhere, especially not in A rica and in ecologicallydisadvantaged regions.

The extent to which bio-energy related demand or biomasswill add to the total demand or agricultural products dependson many variables, amongst which the type o biomass suitable

or bio-energy and the e ciency with which a particular typeo biomass can be converted into energy as well as on actorsinherent to overall agricultural demand such as shi ting dietary


16/53


patterns (demand or animal proteins) and trade actors such assubsidies.

With respect to transport bio uel conversion technologies it isessential to di erentiate between the so-called rst and secondgeneration technologies. First generation technologies, already

used on a large scale worldwide include the conversion o sugar cane and wheat into ethanol through ermentation o sugars and starches, and the conversion o vegetable oils suchas palm oil and rapeseed through transesteri cation in to bio-diesel. Second generation technologies, not yet commercially

viable, include the conversion o cellulosic inputs such asstraw, stover and woody material into ethanol or biodiesel. These technologies are believed to reach higher conversione ciencies than rst generation technology and, even moreimportantly, bring into play other sources o biomass, suchas by-products o agricultural production. As such, second

generation conversion requires less biomass, and biomass thatdoes not necessarily compete with ood and eed crops.

Promising new technologies are under development orimproving the conversion ratio o biomass to energy, or

or developing biomass resources that do not a ect theagricultural sector. One o the most interesting scienti c areastoday is the biological engineering o E. coli and other bacteriato erment the breakdown products o cellulosic products 19.


17/53


Lignins, hemi-cellulose and cellulose together orm the mostabundant biological material on earth.

In terms o other non-plant species, there are indicationsthat algae and ungi may present promising and non-landbased options that would also be ar less demanding in terms

o phosphate, potentially the main limiting actor on land. The French research institute or exploitation o the sea hascompared oil yields o various algae species. They report 23tonnes o oil per hectare realised in a project in the Loire regionin France. This is signi cantly more than the 6 to 8 tonnes per

hectare commonly achieved with palm oil, one o the moste cient perennials. In addition to oil (50% o the weight), algaeproduce valuable other products 20. Despite these promisingdevelopments it remains to be seen when these will becomeeconomically viable.

Whether or not new technologies become viable, globaldemand or bio-energy will continue to grow. As a result,concerns are being expressed that bio-energy could have ahuge impact on agricultural markets and consequently on

ood prices. In addition, some are also questioning the rationaleor bio-energy, and even more so o transport bio uels, on

the grounds that the energy e ciency o converting solarradiation into useable orms o energy by plants is about oneorder o magnitude lower than in the case o e.g. photovoltaic


18/53


solar energy schemes21

. Although this is true, the positiono competing energy options in the market will always bedetermined on the basis o cost and convenience. So ar bio-energy seems well positioned to o er a cost e ective alternativein several end-use markets under speci c conditions. Theimpact o the bio-energy sector on nature and biodiversity is

yet another target o criticism despite its contribution to climatemitigation. Past intensi cation o agriculture has led to highenvironmental and social costs, and so the ear exists that withrising agricultural demand, the environmental and social costscould rise as well.


19/53


B o- gy u b l y:o h foo fo fu l

There are many impacts o bio-energy and related concernsabout those impacts. The best way to take these seriously is tocare ully review the existing evidence on biomass production

and bio-energy use and to put it in a wider agricultural, energy,environmental and economic perspective.

The ood, eed and uel dilemma

The rst concern to address in more detail relates to the e ects

o rising bio-energy demand on ood prices, which could a ectin particular the poor and the least developed countries thathave to buy ood on the international market. This dilemma iso ten re erred to as the ood or uel dilemma, but probablymore aptly named ood, eed and uel, as the main energy crops maize, soybean are also eed crops. A major displacement

o ood and eed by energy crops is not expected as armerscan potentially switch on an annual basis (with the exceptiono perennials) between ood, eed and energy crops. Thedilemma is there ore about the competition between ood,

eed and energy crops and its impact on ood prices. The e ectso such competition are di cult to determine, as there aremany di erent actors that may play a role. The complexity indetermining the e ects o bio-energy demand on ood and

eed prices can be illustrated or transport bio uels.


20/53


The share o maize dedicated or bio uel production in totalmaize production reached approximately 7% on averageworldwide in 2006. For sugar cane this gure reached 17%,

or oilseed 6% and palm oil it was just over 3%. Bio uels thusrepresent a signi cant share in total demand or various crops.Feedstock use or bio uels has grown most substantially since

the late 1990s, as illustrated or maize in the US in Figure 3. Thisrising demand has contributed to the price rise o maize inthe US. However, so have other actors; e.g. in the same periodmaize production in the US did not ollow market demand, andin act even declined since 2004, as a result o poor harvests and

declining subsidies. This obviously contributed to the upwardtrend in maize prices in the US.

Figure 3 Trend in maize production and maize demand or ethanol in the US (le t)and absolute demand in 1990 and 2006 (right).

Source: Statistics rom the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAOSTAT) and own analysis.

600 350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

500

400

300

200

100

01990 1995 2000 2005 20061990

I n d e x

( 1 9 9 0

= 1

0 0 )

X

M i l l i o n t o n n e s

Total maizeproduction

Total maizeproduction

Maize usedfor ethanol

Maize usedfor ethanol


21/53


Even be ore the transport bio uel sector became signi cant,average world prices o coarse grains, cereals and vegetable oilswere volatile, as illustrated in Figure 4. The reasons or this arechanging oil prices and stock reserves, fuctuations in harvests,speculation and changing demand or eedstocks due to changesin consumption patterns. It was when ood and eed prices

were at historically low levels, at the turn o the century, that thebio uel sector started to grow rapidly. This led those opposingbio-energy to draw (erroneous) conclusions rom the correlationbetween a rapidly growing bio uel sector and increasing

eedstock prices. This is not to say that there is no causal relation

between rising demand ( or bio uels) and prices. It is argued herethat the market response to the new entrant (bio uel) might beo temporary nature as the agricultural market can and likely willadapt, as it has be ore. Short-term price volatility has always beenthere and there is no reason to assume that it will cease to exist.

Figure 4 Trends in past and uture prices o coarse grains, vegetable oilsand raw sugar

Source: OECD-FAO, 200722

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

I n

d e x

( 1 9 9 0

= 1

0 0 )

Coarse grains

Vegetable oilsRaw suger


22/53


It is worth considering whether bio-energy will have a structurale ect on agricultural commodity prices. It is still too early todraw nal conclusions with respect to structural price e ectso bio-energy demand. History shows that when demand

or commodities goes up, so does supply. The uncertaintyis embedded in the worldwide capacity to o set additional

demand by productivity increases and changes in demand. Therecent decision by the EU to reduce allowing o agriculturalland is a case in point. With the advent o second generationtransport bio uels and other high-tech orms o bio-energy(e.g. algae) as well as by-products o ood and eed production,

such as stalks and stubbles, bio-energy applications couldbe enlarged, thus reducing the demand or eedstock thatcompetes with ood demand.

Despite uncertainties in uture developments, most expertsassume that the price o agricultural commodities will decrease

slowly over time because e ciency improvements are expectedto be greater than the increasing demand or ood, eed andenergy crops 23. In the much longer term, towards 2050 andbeyond, when population has reached over 9 billion people andincome levels and associated energy and ood needs have risensubstantially, the question arises whether bio-energy can still beproduced in quantities su cient enough to cover a signi cantshare o the energy needs without endangering ood supply.However, by that time, higher yields, more e cient technologies


23/53


and other eedstocks are likely to become available, as well asother renewables.

It is worth noting that higher commodity prices, and bio-energy in itsel , could also be an opportunity, not least or poorcountries. A rica, or instance, has huge potential or agricultural

production. The A rican economy, in which agriculture stillplays a key role, could bene t rom higher production revenues,allowing greater cash fows and hence greater investments inthe rural sector. This opportunity does not speci cally arise rombiomass production destined or bio-energy use, but in principle

arises rom all agricultural commodities24

. Caution is needed,however. While in developed countries competition betweenood, eed and bio-energy crops can easily be prevented by

strong government policy, government intervention in poorcountries could be more di cult, because there may be a lack o capacity, resources, or willingness to ensure that certain crops

are available at reasonable prices or domestic consumption,and the investment climate may not be conducive.

Balancing the equation: land use and nature

One important element in the ood, eed and uel equationis land use or agriculture and its e ects on nature. Producingmore and more rom an equal amount o agricultural landrequires yields to rise, which has been the very success ulstrategy in the developed countries, while in developing


24/53


countries production increase has mainly resulted rom areaexpansion. Concerns about the destruction o tropical orests

or palm oil or cattle are increasing as the price o nature is hardto quanti y and nature is seldom protected by any other means,such as en orceable conservation measures. This could haveserious e ects on biodiversity and perhaps also climate.

Currently, transport bio uel production accounts or just 1%o the worlds available arable land, according to the IEA. This

gure could rise to 2.53.8% by 2030 25. Obviously, the landclaim o bio uel eedstock production is only part o all biomass

being produced or bio-energy (especially given the large roleo traditional biomass which is expected to reduce sharply onthis time scale), so the overall land claim could be higher. Thechallenge here is to acilitate this additional land claim withoutexpansion o total agricultural area. There is no reason to assumethat or bio-energy crops this challenge is any di erent rom

the challenge posed by rising demand or other agriculturalcommodities. In that case, bio-energy crops compete orspace with ood and eed crops, as discussed earlier. I naturalecosystems with high biodiversity values were destroyed or thesole purpose o energy production, either directly or indirectly,this would all into the same realm as the destruction o rain

orests or cattle grazing and other (agricultural) purposes, andshould be strongly discouraged.


25/53


From an ecological point o view, no land use in the humid tropicsis more destructive than low yielding annual crops. Plantationsare a much better alternative even i biodiversity impacts are stillconsiderable. In other words, the greatest potential to sa eguardbiodiversity lies in good agricultural practice and new croppingand livestock systems in order to intensi y agriculture on the

most productive lands and reduce the pressures on naturalecosystems. This is especially relevant in the vast but currentlyrather unproductive rural areas in the developing world, in orderto avoid urther nature and habitat loss due to expansion o agricultural land.

But how can agricultural productivity per hectare be raised? Theonly real option or improving yields is a process o sustainableintensi cation, with due regard to the lessons learnt romirrational and poor use o agrochemicals and water in the past.Sustainable intensi cation is de ned as an increase in the

e ciency o the use o land, water and chemicals ( ertilisers andpesticides), using modern husbandry techniques to tend newgenotypes o crops and animals, while avoiding environmentaldegradation. This boils down to what has been called a secondor doubly Green Revolution, boosting land, water and labourproductivity and enabling greater diversi cation o diets andincome generation in rural areas.

The extent to which crop yields can be raised is considerable, in


26/53


particular in poor countries. To cite just one example: averagecassava yields in Nigeria are less than 10 tonnes wet weight perhectare (t/ha), compared to 50 t/ha at the best arms in Nigeriaand 100 t/ha at the best arms in Brazil. Other examples areshown in Figure 5.

An uncertain actor is presented by climate change inducedweather changes, which may infuence biomass productionboth in a positive and negative way. The latest report o theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Working Group II)indicates that crop productivity will increase slightly at mid- to

high latitudes with a temperature increase o 13 C, whereas atlower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical regions,crop productivity is expected to decrease, even with smalltemperature increases (12 C) 26. The causes or decreasing yieldsinclude recurrent droughts, late onset o the rainy season, andhigher night temperatures. Increased CO 2 rates and above all the

expansion o climate belts towards higher latitudes, have positivee ects on overall production.

Figure 5 Examples o the potential o crop yield improvements

Source: adapted romSanders, J., 200727.

0 50 100 150

Wheat (France)

Sorghum (Kenya)

Cassave (Nigeria)

Sugar cane (Brazil)

Rapeseed (Belgium)

Soybeans (US)

Palm oil (Malaysia)

Tonnes per hectare

LowAverage

Beste practice

(archieved bygood farmingpractices)


27/53


Another way to relieve the pressure on bio-energy related landneeds is to improve e ciencies through choice o eedstock.When, or example, second generation transport bio uelsbecome economically viable and technically per ected,cellulosic eedstocks such as grasses and ast growing trees suchas willow or eucalyptus can be used as eedstock. This eedstock

does not require ertile land and can be grown on degradedand waste lands, o which vast amounts are available, althoughwater and phosphorus may become limiting actors in someareas. This eedstock can be supplemented by other types o organic waste. It is estimated that the annual 1.3 billion tonnes

o bio-waste in the US could be su cient to replace 40% to 50%o conventional transport uels used 28.

Even without second generation technologies, promisingdevelopments are emerging. One is the possibility to use energycrops that can rotate with annual ood crops, such as ood crops

(cereals, legumes) and non- ood crops (cotton, sunfower) toincrease the bene ts o additional investment in bio uel crops(e.g. ertiliser and preparation).

Another possibility is the use o species adapted to marginalconditions 29, or to apply improved husbandry methodsin grazing systems, now o ten one o the lowest yieldingagricultural systems in the world. This would allow the reeingup o degraded land to grow crops like Jatropha, a plant that


28/53


can grow under harsh conditions on soils that are unsuitable ormost ood or eed crops. Innovative concepts, such as the use o algae and single cell protein, may lead to substantial e ciencyincreases in protein production and land requirements.Although not yet economically viable, besides intercroppingschemes, these techniques would allow biomass production

or bio-energy without threatening ood security. The challengewill be to reduce production costs, and, or Jatropha and thelike, to minimise water needs whilst guaranteeing su cientproduction. Today, many o these species are o ten very lowin yield and major breeding e orts are still needed to increase

their productivity under harsh conditions. Land shortage, inother words, is unlikely to be the major long term actor in thebiomass or ood and uel debate.

Energy e iciency

Another major concern relates to the e ciency o bio-energy,

o ten expressed as net energy balance. This is the ratio betweenthe energy embodied in a unit o bio-energy divided by the

ossil energy required to produce that same unit. When higherthan one, it is e cient, at least rom an energy point o view, touse bio-energy instead o conventional energy.

Determining the net energy balance o bio-energy is adi cult and challenging task. It requires a li e-cycle approachaccounting or all energy needs throughout the entire


29/53


production process. In the case o biomass used or electricitygeneration such an approach includes e.g. the energy needs orthe production, harvesting and transportation o the biomassto the electricity plant. These energy needs should then becompared with the energy needed to explore, process andtransport coal, gas or oil. In the case o transport bio uels the

calculation becomes even more complex, as the energy neededto convert biomass into uels, and to re ne crude oil intotransport uels, is also to be accounted or. For each crop usedand conversion technology applied, the net energy balance willbe di erent. Net energy balances also greatly depend on the

de nition o system boundaries, i.e. on the decisions with respectto what is and is not considered to be energy use associated withthe production. For example: are the energy needs or ertiliserproduction, plant construction and machine manu acturing takeninto account, or not?

This explains why there is much debate about the net energybalance o bio-energy and thus about avoided CO 2 emissions;one o the reasons or making use o bio-energy. The discussiono ten ocuses on transport bio uels, where emission reductionsare much lower than some would contend, depending oncrops used, soil type, agricultural practice and actual processingconditions. The theoretical maximum amount o avoided CO 2 emissions rom substituted mineral oil is about 3.3 ton CO 2 pertonne oil equivalent (toe). This is based on the amount o CO 2


30/53


released upon burning o mineral oil (2.9 tonnes CO 2 per toe)with an additional 10% to 15% to account or ossil energy usein exploration, re ning, transport and distribution 30. Accordingto Reijnders and Huijbregts 31 the li e cycle emissions o SouthAsian palm oil correspond to 2.8 to 19.7 tonnes CO 2 per tono palm oil. The higher gure corresponds to plantations on

cleared natural orest on peaty soils, implying net emissions o CH4 (methane, a strong greenhouse gas). Given the act that thecalori c value o palm oil (40 GJ/tonne) is comparable to that o mineral oil (41.8 GJ/tonne), the lower gure would suggest thatemission reductions by palm oil based biodiesel are zero at best.

Other studies suggest that palm oil based biodiesel requires 9times less energy to produce than it delivers; sugar cane basedethanol approximately 8 times less 32.

All in all, the energy content o most common transport bio uelsexceeds the energy required to produce them 33. However,

exactly how much energy can be saved should be determinedon a case-by-case basis. In particular, the e ciency o theagricultural production phase is crucial, and depends on thetype o crop used, ertiliser use, agricultural practice, amongother things (see Box 2).


31/53


Box 2Improving the efciency o converting crops to energy

The e ciency o converting a crop into some orm o energy dependson many variables. Disentangling these helps to identi y how the overalle ciency o using biomass or energy purposes can be improved. The totalenergy yield, in GJ/ha that can be derived rom one hectare o biomasscould be calculated by means o the ollowing ormula:

E= Ya* i Wi*(1Mi)*[Si*Ci + i,j Bi,j * CBi,j]

Ya is the total agricultural yield in tonnes per hectare (the resh, or wet,weight o the harvest). Usually, a harvested crop comprises several cropsections (i). The main section is denoted with i=1, and re ers to e.g. thekernel o maize or tuber in sugar beet. The other section(s), denoted byi=2, i=3, re er to e.g. leaves and stems. Theoretically, roots or underground

biomass should be included as well, although they are rarely used orbiomass. W i indicates the weight raction o each crop section in Y a. In sugarcane (stalks) or sugar beet (tuber) W 1 approaches 100%. In case o palmoil, W1 re ers to the weight o the ruits and W2 to the weight o the emptybunches.

As Ya re ers to the wet weight o the harvest, the moisture raction (M i) mustbe subtracted. Only part o the dried crop section is suitable or a particular

conversion process, which is denoted by S i or conversion process C i. In thecase o sugar cane, S1 re ers to the weight raction o sugar in the cane andC1 to the e ciency (in GJ/tonne) o ethanol production rom cane sugar.In the case o palm oil, the oil raction is S1 and the process e ciency (GJ/ tonne) o making biodiesel through transesteri cation is given by C 1.

The by-product ractions o each crop section are denoted by (B i, j). The mainby-product is denoted by j=1. Some by-products can be converted intoenergy. For example, sugar cane processing provides two by-products: thebiomass residue baggase (B 1,1) and molasse, which is the residue rom whichit is too di cult to extract sugar (B 1,2). The ormer can be used or energy


32/53


generation (CB 1,1), whereas the latter can be used or ethanol production,albeit with a much lower e ciency compared with sugar (CB 1,2).

The weight ractions are crop speci c and relatively invariant, althoughresearch is ongoing to obtain a higher W 1 compared to the other ractions.

The moisture raction is variable, depending on crop and climate speci cities.E ciency improvements can be obtained by breeding varieties containingless moisture, or by applying energy e cient drying. E ciencies can be

urther improved by increasing the raction o the suitable material in a crop,i.e. getting S i as close to 100% as possible, e.g. by breeding maize varietiesthat are high in starch. E ciency improvements in the conversion process,or development o new technologies or converting by-products, are urtheroptions to increase overall energy yield. When cellulosic ethanol production

becomes economically viable this would allow an e cient conversion o e.g.crop section 2 (stems and leaves) o maize to be used or ethanol production(C2).

Figure 6 Pathways to convert crops into energy.

Source: Rabobank, 2007.

C1 (GJ/ton)

Ya(ton/ha)

Fraction cropsection 1fraction

W1

Fraction cropsection 2

W2

Dry fraction1-M1

Moist

Moist

Dry fraction1-M2

SuitablefractionS1

SuitablefractionS2

CB2,1 (GJ/ton)

C2 (GJ/ton)

By-product 1 (B1,1)

By-product 2 (B1,1)

By-product 1(B2,1)

E n e r g y

( G J )

C r o p

( H a

) CB1,2 (GJ/ton)

CB1,1 (GJ/ton)


33/53


Other environmental impacts: nutrients, water and soil The production o bio-energy crops not only impactsagricultural commodity prices, land use and net energybalances, but also water use, soil quality and nutrient availability.Nutrient de ciencies should not be overestimated as they canbe remedied by e cient ertiliser use. Increased e cicency in

production and use o ertilisers, will also increase the e ciencyo agricultural production (and thus biomass) in energy terms,even i there may be constraints in developing countries withpoor soil ertility.

Water scarcities, in contrast, can be a serious matter. Wateravailability, mostly locally and regionally speci c, can constitutea great barrier in semi-arid and arid areas to agriculture ingeneral and hence to biomass production as well. Adequateagricultural (water) management techniques exist in many casesand e orts are already ongoing to promote higher e ciencies

through speci c temporal and spatial applications (water theplant when the ruit is developing, not be ore) and using e.g.drip irrigation (water the plant root, not the soil) and so-calledde cit irrigation. Dramatic improvements in recycling run o and percolated water can be achieved, so that the only waterconsumption is in evaporation rom the soil and transpiration

rom the plant (evapotranspiration). In some cases biomasscrops can contribute to improved water management andretention unctions, especially in re orestation schemes. The


34/53


use o untreated waste water available in developing countriesto grow bio-energy crops is a new alternative that would becheaper and sa er than cleaning the water or using it to growcrops or human consumption; the rst experiments in Egypt inthis regard have been encouraging.

Apart rom water concerns related to the production o thecrop, its processing may also be a source o concern. Thewaste products resulting rom the harvesting and processingo palm ruits into oil, or example, may cause severe pollutionespecially i the residue is discarded into the sur ace waters. The

residue itsel is o course a source o biomass as well as o plantnutrients, i properly used.

The impact o bio-energy eedstock production on the soil is, just as it is or any other orm o arable arming, a unction o thetype o crop or tree and the agro-ecological environment and

practices. Much depends on how long the crop covers the soiland how much the soil lies allow and is exposed to erosion.Annual crops, such as soybean, canola or wheat, are generallyless avourable than perennial crops such as oil palm, or semi-perennials such as sugar cane, cassava, bananas, or grasses.Once they are established tree crops do not require ploughing,provide better ground cover in terms o time and space, lesssoil disturbance and erosion, better carbon xation and havesome positive e ects on hydrology. So the balance seems to be


35/53


in avour o perennials and tree crops. What is speci c or bio-energy is that it creates a market or agricultural residues. Whenthese residues are used or bio-energy purposes rather than orreplenishing the soil, this could have an e ect on soil quality,especially soil organic matter.

Soil impacts are not simply a matter o crop and use o agricultural residues. I prime orest is cut in order to plant oilpalm, the environmental costs may be very high and o tencan be unacceptable. This is exacerbated i orest clearing iscombined with widespread burning leading to loss o soil

organic matter, changes in top soil chemistry, carbon emissionsand loss o biodiversity. I orests growing on swamp lands arecut and the land drained, the result may be disastrous becauseo the substantial methane emissions caused by drainage. The cutting o orests should be strongly discouraged, notonly because o the loss o orest biodiversity and sequestered

carbon, but also because o the widespread disruption o theecosystem caused by heavy machinery and the decrease inbiomass.

Competitiveness and subsidies

Finally, there is a need to address some o the concerns relatedto the assumed competitiveness, or lack o it, and the subsidiesto the bio-energy sector.


36/53


At present, competitive per ormance o bio-energy comparedto ossil energy is possible, as mature, e cient, and reliabletechnology is already available to turn biomass into power.Competitive power generation rom biomass can be mostly

ound in co-generation plants using (cheap) agriculturalresidues to co- re power plants, such as Brazilian mills using

bagasse (the le t-over o sugar-cane based ethanol production)to power the mills or to sell electricity surpluses to the net. The availability o low-cost eedstock or agricultural residues iscrucial or the pro tability o biomass-based power generation.

Transport bio uels are in general not competitive with ossiltransport uels, with the Brazilian sugar cane based ethanol as anotable exception. Generally, the economics o rst generationtransport bio uels rom e.g. cereals and sugar beet in temperateclimate zones are poor and unlikely to reach competitiveprice levels even in the longer term. There ore, the sector is

largely subsidised, through excise duty exemptions, supportto transport bio uel production processes and agriculturalsubsidies, etc. In view o concerns about the ood, eed and

uel dilemma, the net energy balance and other environmentalimpacts, the appropriateness o these subsidies must bequestioned.

With rising oil prices the competitiveness o bio-energy couldimprove. However, it can be argued that barring the e ects


37/53


o major subsidies and other imper ections, the interactiono the bio-energy market with the conventional energymarket creates both a foor and a ceiling price mechanism oragricultural commodities which can be used as eedstock orbio-energy production 34. Obviously, when total costs o bio-energy production rom a particular agricultural eedstock are

lower than the prevailing oil price, demand or this eedstock or conversion into bio-energy will increase and the price

will go up. Inversely, i the price o the bio-energy alternativeexceeds the oil price, demand or the underlying commodity

or energy will all and prices will decline. The price range or

agricultural commodities thus created also depends on theunderlying cost dynamics o the various bio-energy alternativesas well as on CO2 prices as the latter can augment the relativecompetitiveness o transport bio uels vis--vis ossil energyalternatives. Additionally, bio-energy also has to competeagainst other renewable energy options such as solar and wind

power.

When second generation transport bio uels become availableon a large scale, costs could decline substantially, o eringmuch better perspectives and competitive uel prices in thelonger term (between 2010 and 2020). Partly, this is becauseo the inherently lower eedstock prices and versatility o producing lignocellulosic biomass under varying circumstances.Furthermore, the advanced gasi cation and hydrolysis


38/53


technologies under development have the potential or e cientand competitive production o uels, sometimes combinedwith co-production o electricity. Comprehensive research anddevelopment strategies or such technologies are requiredin order to ocus not only on development o technologiesbut also on the long-term deployment and (re-)building the

in rastructure and markets required. Development o secondgeneration technology is important, because there are ew i any long term unsubsidised economic perspectives or the useo ood crop derived transport bio uels in the temperate climateregions o the world, and only very speci c ones in tropical

countries (sugar cane and palm oil)35

.


39/53


i h l ?

Bio-energy has the potential to be produced in a sustainablemanner, that is to say providing a net energy gain, havinghigher environmental bene ts compared to ossil uels, beingcompetitive economically and available in large quantities

without endangering ood supply. The applicability andsoundness o bio-energy depends on what energy eedstock is used, how and where it is grown and how it is processed. Initsel , bio-energy should not present a dilemma with regard tosa eguarding ood production or the environment. In act, it may

help to diversi y agricultural and orestry activities and attractinvestments in agricultural production. However, it is dangerousto generalise.

Bio-energy projects are to be judged on a case-by-case basis

Bio-energy projects should be judged on a case-by-case basis

taking into account the various sustainability implications asdiscussed. Above all, bio-energy must be part o a broaderenergy diversi cation and development policy which includesnot only supply side options but also energy demand savingsand incentive rameworks. Given the huge di erences betweenthe various biomass sources and conversion technologies it is o crucial importance that the right priorities are set, nationally andinternationally, in supporting bio-energy options. In this respectit is regrettable that the current US and EU bio-energy support


40/53


schemes do not di erentiate between net energy balance andthe environmental impact o the various bio-energy alternatives.Providing government support to promote bio-energy with othermotives than widening the energy options will undoubtedlycreate negative externalities and skewed competition curves.

Risks and opportunities

Bio-energy could also give an impetus to the development o more rational and productive orms o agriculture, especiallyin developing countries and in marginal areas, by generatingadditional income in the arming industry and help nations to

save on their energy bills. As such, bio-energy could provideopportunities or rural development. In addition, more productiveagriculture would ree up land or ood and energy crops. Apolicy that integrates bio-energy arming and ood and eed

arming can potentially solve both local ood shortages andincrease the income o the worlds poorest people. This will only

work i governments and donors develop coherent policiesincluding bio-energy as part o a broader approach to energyand rural development. This is all the more urgent given thatthe bio-energy sector will, according to IEA projections, absorb15% (USD 2.4 trillion) o total global energy sector investmentsuntil 2030. The new popularity o bio-energy in investmentand development circles should not lead to isolated projectsbene ting a ew, to the detriment o long term sustainable ruraldevelopment.


41/53


The crucial importance o agricultural e iciencyYield increases are o crucial importance in whether or not bio-energy will be a viable opportunity. Rational modernisationo ood and livestock production is a precondition or theintroduction o biomass production or bio-energy, and shallneed to be demonstrated or di erent agro-ecosystems around

the globe. This should demonstrate how biomass can t intooverall sustainable rural development. There is a clear i notyet articulated need or an international clearing house o bestpractices with an associated technology trans er programme.A programme or bio-energy could bene t greatly i it were

integrated with o cial development assistance (ODA). ODAin agriculture and rural development has dropped morethan 50% in the last twenty years 36. This is particularly strikingwhen considering the importance agricultural yields or thepossibilities o supplying the world with su cient ood, eedand agri-based uel.

The importance o technological breakthroughs

The condition that no new land is taken into production, tosa eguard biodiversity, implies that the short term attractionlies in the use o (semi) perennials such as oil palm, sugar caneand cassava or bio-energy eedstock. The greater promise isheld by the massive uses o municipal and orest waste streams(pellets and other solid biomass). In the longer term, as secondgeneration technologies come on stream, cellulosic resources


42/53


become the promising eedstock, which can potentially begrown on unused land. And perhaps the uture will also seecombinations o land and ocean based biomass productionsystems, urther diminishing the pressure on agricultural land.

Emerging sustainability criteria and consumer concerns

The international policy arena is still slow to ensure that the bio-energy sector develops in a sustainable manner. This may havean adverse e ect on public support or bio-energy as a whole. Itseems that this is already happening, given the many instanceso concerns by NGOs and citizens. Ever better in ormed

and more critical consumers, in developed and developingcountries, are becoming aware that their purchase decisionscan make a di erence in reducing environmental impacts orpreventing social injustice. Massive energy crop plantationsmay meet with public aversion, even though the environmentalproblems o monocultures pertain to all monocultures and are

not speci c to bio-energy.

It is important that environmental problems due to land usechange, processing and monoculture are avoided, as they canbe. In order to appease ears about a ood and uel dilemma,the development o bio-energy may require the developmentand broad international acceptance o appropriate sustainabilitycriteria and certi cation schemes 37. We are already seeingseveral European countries moving in that direction. Producers


43/53


o biomass would, however, be well advised to document theenvironmental impact o their production processes in order tocomply with sustainability criteria. It is not unlikely that biomasstraceability will become an issue, both at national level andpossibly also under the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

In act, bio-energy could emerge as an important area o debatein the context o WTO. Recent evidence rom the WTO suggeststhat environmental concerns could play a greater role in uturetrade and thus may also a ect bio-energy 38. It is not unthinkablethat countries may re use market access or bio-energy products

on the basis o environmental, or more broadly, sustainabilitycriteria. This would put pressure on the international policycommunity to develop internationally agreed criteria andmonitoring systems as soon as possible, in order to prevent a jungle o di erent criteria systems rom emerging.


44/53


to co clu

We are now witnessing tight markets in some commoditiesand regions due to a variety o reasons, such as bad harvests,low stocks and speculation. In the short term price volatility insome regions and or some commodities could persist. Being a

nascent sector, the rapidly growing bio-energy sector will add tothis volatility and may even su er rom it.

In the medium term one may expect that markets andgovernments will adjust and respond to the new reality.

We already see the signals: the EU has decided to give uptemporarily the set-aside obligation to boost wheat productioninstead o giving premium or allow land which was recently envogue. Eventually armers will also choose more e cient cropsor breed better crops, and apply various technologies to boostproduction, as this could raise their revenues. There is still a large

potential or productivity increases.

In the longer term competitive second generation and othertechnologies will become available, which could bring intoplay non- ood cellulosic eedstocks and high-yield cultivationo algae. This will permanently change the ood and ueldiscussion. On the demand side one may expect highere ciencies and in the longer term a system-change away romengines as we know now, to hybrid or all electric cars.


45/53


Considering this perspective, the key challenges or the nextdecades can be summarised simply as the provision, in asustainable manner, o ood, income and energy to a growingworld population. Formulated in this manner, this is nothingnew and has been the ocus o our collective attention in thelatter hal o the 20th century. However, the recent emphasis on

energy does point to a new balance in our e orts. In a worldwhere ossil uels can no longer be taken or granted or reasonso climate change and geopolitics, the relationship between

ood and energy takes on a new dimension. This is not only thecase because energy is an important cost actor in agri- ood

chains, but above all because several renewable orms o energyare directly linked to agricultural land.

The uture o bio-energy, whatever shape it takes, is closelylinked to that o agriculture and ood, and in the uture o agriculture, bio-energy is likely to play an increasing role.

Moreover, bio-energy could potentially reconcile the prioritieso the richer part o the world (security o energy supply andaddressing climate change) with those o the poor (access toenergy, income generation and opening up new markets).

Governments aiming at a signi cant role or bio-energy in thenear uture, must ormulate realistic targets based on correctproduction levels and conversion rates. Thus ar, policy choicesin this area have obviously not been driven by economic


46/53


e ciency but by strategic and geopolitical considerations suchas increased energy sel reliance. The US and EU have nowput in place import quota or import levies which impede reeinternational trade o bio uels. Under such conditions the risk o price induced competition between ood and uel increases..

It is worth noting that the opportunities or biomass toreplace conventional oils go beyond the domain o bio-energy. Petrochemicals could also be replaced by chemicalsbased on biomass eedstocks. Besides providing an e cientalternative to petrochemicals such biobased chemicals are also

biodegradable. In this way they contribute to diminishing oilneeds as well as to reducing non-reusable waste streams. Bio-chemicals are already a reality and as its market share grows, thedemand or biomass also increases.

Above all, the challenge lies in diminishing ine cient land-use

to acilitate the growing demand or ood, eed, uel and otheruse o biomass e.g. as eedstock or the chemical industry.Although agricultural development is one o the success storieso the modern world, extensive parts o the world have thus arbene ted too little rom this progress. Poverty o ten leads tolow agricultural output and environmental damage. Beyond aplea or more ODA, particularly aimed at boosting agriculturaloutput in the least developed regions, the need or a truepartnership between the public and the private sectors to


47/53


innovate the rural sector needs to be underlined. Poverty can betackled, as we know rom many success stories o communitiesli ting themselves out o poverty through a combination o investment, modern and ecological sound technology andgovernment policy. This remains the true challenge o ourworld, and, under the right conditions, bio-energy can be a key

actor in this.


48/53


e o1 This booklet is an updated version o the extended published text

o the Duisenberg lecture given by Louise O. Fresco on September17, 2006, in Singapore. With hindsight, the subject o bio uels andthe dilemmas surrounding its use turned out to be very timely, asa wealth o new data and points o view and even controversieshave emerged in the course o the last twelve months. I am grate ulthere ore to the Rabobank or making a second, extended editionpossible. I grate ully acknowledge the inputs rom Rabobank sta and in particular the 2006 and 2007 reports, respectively entitledFinancing and the Emerging Bio-energy markets, the Rabobank view and Agri-based Alternative Energy: Risks and Opportunities orthe Farming Industry Developed Nations and Emerging Markets.Unless otherwise re erred to, data is quoted rom these Rabobank

reports. Errors o act and judgment are, o course, entirely mine. Iam especially most thank ul to Daan Dijk or his relentless assistancein reviewing and collecting data and the many discussions we havehad, and to Wouter de Ridder who joined us with data, insight andeditorial advice, as well as to Andr Faaij or providing additionalre erences.

2 I ollow FAO de initions. Bio-energy: energy rom bio- uels. Bio- uel:uel produced directly or indirectly rom biomass such as uel wood,

charcoal, bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, biogas, or bio-hydrogen. Biomass:material o biological origin (excluding material embedded ingeological ormations and trans ormed to ossil), such as energycrops, agricultural and orestry wastes and by-products, manureor microbial biomass. Bio-energy includes all wood energy andall agro-energy resources. Wood energy resources are uel wood,charcoal, orestry residues, black liquor and any other energyderived rom trees. Agro-energy resources are energy crops, i.e.

plants grown or energy such as sugar cane, sugar beet, sweetsorghum, maize, palm oil, seed rape and other oilseeds and variousgrasses. Other agro-energy resources are agricultural and livestock by-products such as straw, leaves, stalks, husks, shells, manure,droppings and other ood and agricultural processing and slaughter


49/53


by-products. Source: FAO, 2004, Uni ied Bioenergy Terminology(UBET), Rome.

3 Lele, U., 2003, Partnering to promote technology trans ers. WorldBank Operations Evaluation Department (OED), Washington.

4 BP statistical review: data series 1965-2005 based on commerciallytraded uels only hence excluding renewables and nuclear. Thiscan be used as a good proxy or energy demand growth over thisperiod. The Worldwatch Institute has synthesised time series ( or

ossil uels only) based on United Nations, US Department o Energyand International Energy Agency data that goes back to 1950. This data leads to a multiple o 5.2 over the period 19502004. Byin erence (assuming 6% growth between 1945 and 1950), energydemand over the entire 60 year post-war period has thus increasedby a actor o 6.6.

5 International Energy Agency (IEA), 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, Paris.

6 On the basis o best available technology a 24 old energyreduction has been reported or the transport sector, whereas inindustrial processes a 1.52 old reduction is on average achievable. The sector with the largest, low cost, energy savings potential isthe residential and commercial building sector. Especially heatingand cooling demand can be greatly reduced. A number o zeroenergy buildings have been built and more are currently underconstruction. Obviously, the impact on global primary energy

demand depends crucially on the speed o replacement o theexisting capital stock. Sources: Blok, K., E. de Visser, 2005, Eco ysreport ECS05066 commissioned by the Netherlands EnvironmentalAssessment Agency.

7 Lovins, A, et al., 2004, Winning the Oil end Game, Rocky MountainsInstitute, US.

8 IEA, 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, Paris: Table 2.1, p 66.9 The IEA, rom which this data is derived, combines biomass and

waste, which re ers to solid biomass and animal products, gas andliquids derived rom biomass and the renewable part o municipalwaste. Source: IEA, 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, Paris.

10 Energy In ormation Administration (EIA), 2004, International Energy


50/53


Annual 2004. O icial Energy Statistics rom the US government,Washington.

11 Data rom New Energy Finance.12 Experiments are also under way with bio uels as an alternative to

kerosene in air transportation.13 Rabobank, 2007, Agri-based Alternative Energy: Risks and

Opportunities or the Farming Industry Developed Nations andEmerging Markets, Utrecht.

14A. Faaij

,personal communication

, 2007.15 UNDP, UN-DESA and World Energy Council , 2000, World Energy

Assessment: energy and the challenge o sustainability. JosGoldemberg (editor), New York.

16 These are the assumptions used in the re erence scenario o the IEA.Source: IEA, 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, Paris.

17 Rabobank, 2007, Agri-based Alternative Energy: Risks andOpportunities or the Farming Industry Developed Nations and

Emerging Markets, Utrecht.18 The Alternative Policy Scenario analyses how the global energy

market could evolve i countries were to adopt all o the policiesthey are currently considering related to energy security andenergy-related CO 2 emissions. The aim is to understand how arthese policies could take us in dealing with these challenges andat what cost. Source: IEA, 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, Paris: p.161 and details on p 165-169.

19 For an overview see also Schubert, C., 2006, Can bio uels inallytake center stage?, Nature Biotechnology 24: 777784. One o theproblems seems to be that celluloses yield pentoses rather thanhexoses (or glucose) which result rom starch.

20 Cadoret, J.P., 2007, Utilisation de microalgues pour la production deBiocarburants, Elments de prospective. IFREMER, French researchinsitute or exploitation o the sea, Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex.

21 Reijnders, L. and M.A.J, Huijbregts, 2006, Li e cycle greenhouse gasemissions, ossil uel demand and solar energy conversion e ciency inEuropean bioethanol production or automotive purposes, Journal o Cleaner Production, 15(18): 1806-1812.

22 Organisation or Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)


51/53


and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2007, AgriculturalOutlook 20072016, Paris.

23 OECD-FAO, 2007, Agricultural Outlook 20072016, Paris/Rome.24 See also Rabobank, 2007, Agri-based Alternative Energy: Risks and

Opportunities or the Farming Industry Developed Nations andEmerging Markets, Utrecht.

25 IEA, 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, Paris: p. 385.26 IPCC, 2007, Summary or Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007:

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution o Working GroupII to the Fourth Assessment Report o the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutiko , P.J. van der Lindenand C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

27 Sanders, J., 2007, Wageningen University (personal communication).28 Holmgren, J., 2007, Speaking at the Next Generation Bio uels

Markets in Amterdam, 45 October.29 Bio-saline agriculture or instance, may bring into play large areas

o saline waste land. The Organisation or Agriculture in SalineEnvironments is developing pilot projects in the Colorado deltain Mexico with active involvement o local communities. Source:http://www.oase oundation.eu/

30 Calculated on the basis o statistics rom EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov).

31 Reijnders, L. and M.A.J. Huijbregts, Palm oil and the emission o carbon-based greenhouse gases, orthcoming in the Journal o

Cleaner Production, article in press, corrected proo .32 For a recent review o overall li e cycle e iciencies see: Hill, J. et al,

2007, Environmental, economic and energetic costs and bene its o biodiesel and ethanol bio uels, PNAS 103(30); and Von Blotnitz, H.and Mary Ann Curran, 2007, A review o assessments conducted onbio-ethanol as a transportation uel rom a net energy, greenhousegas, and environmental li e-cycle perspective, Journal o CleanerProduction 15(7): 607-619; and Reijnders, L. and M.A.J. Huijbregts,2007, Li e cycle greenhouse gas emissions, ossil uel demandand solar energy conversion e iciency in European bioethanolproduction or automotive purposes, Journal o Cleaner Production,15(18): 1806-1812.

33 Fossil energy balances: cellulosic ethanol: 2-36 (theoretical).


52/53


Biodiesel rom palm oil: ~9; rom waste vegetable oils: 56; romsoybeans: ~3; rom rapeseed: ~2.5; rom sun lower: 3; rom castor:~2.5. Ethanol rom sugar cane: ~8, rom wheat: ~2; rom sugarbeets: ~2; rom maize: ~1.5; rom sweet sorghum: ~1. Source:Worldwatch Institute, 2006, Bio uels rom Transport: Global Potentialand Implication or Energy and Agriculture, Washington, p. 162.

34 Schmidhuber, J., 2007, Impact o an increased biomass use onagricultural prices, markets and ood security, in the proceedings

o the seminar Food, Fuel or Forest? Opportunities, threats andknowledge gaps o eedstock production or bio-energy, AntonHaverkort et. al. (ed.), Wageningen University.

35 Hamelinck, C. and A. Faaij, 2006, Outlook or advanced bio uels.Energy Policy 34(17): 32683283.

36 Worldwide assistance to agriculture decreased continuously rommore than USD 5 billion at its peak level in 1988 to USD 3 billion in2005 (in current prices). Source: OECD, 2007, Statistics Portal (http://

www.oecd.org/statsportal/).37 Certi ication could mean that, in order to quali y as a bio uel or to

meet the iscal speci ication or bio uels, there would need to be aminimum carbon saving. Practically, that may mean that all bio uelssold in the world will need to be carbon-certi ied in uture. It isessential that the private sector ollows suit and organises itsel ina coalition o the willing, committed to truly sustainable bio uelsproduction and trade.

38 With respect to compatibility o such certi ication schemes withWTO rules on technical barriers to trade it should be noted thatdecision o the appellate body o the WTO give grounds to expectthat environmental regulators can re use imports o goods basedon in ormation on how they were produced. See e.g. Howes, R. The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case: A New LegalBaseline or the Trade and Environment Debate, Columbia Journalo Environmental Law, 272(2002): 489-519.


53/53


biomass food and sustainability tcm43-38549

Documents