socio-economic analysis of bioenergy systems: a focus on employment

FAO Forestry Department

Wood Energy Programme

Socio-economic analysis of bioenergy systems:

a focus on employment

Elizabeth M. Remedio

Department of Economics

University of San Carlos

Cebu City, Philippines

and

Julije U. Domac

Hrvoje Požar Energy Institute

Zagreb, Croatia

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

December 2003

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BIOENERGY SYSTEMS: A FOCUS ON EMPLOYMENT

ii

Foreword

Energy is both an engine of development and a source of many of the economic and environmental problems we face today. Clean and affordable energy services are not only essential for a sustainable society but also for poverty alleviation.

When the energy sources are also locally available, as in the case of fuelwood and charcoal, they can additionally provide a host of other development benefits, such as mobilization of investment, generation of jobs, improvement of urban and rural public health, and the development of local self-reliance. Most of these benefits are retained locally at the village-level and help to reduce poverty, in sharp contrast to fossil fuels and most other renewable energy options.

As wood energy is the dominant form of energy for about half of the world’s population and woodfuels are the major forest product in many countries, there is a need to know more about the socioeconomic dimensions of bioenergy systems, especially now that the topics of international commitments to cut carbon emissions and the reduction of poverty are very high on the international agenda. Actions derived from these commitments will encourage, among other things, the use of better and environmentally appropriate fuels in the years to come. Of these, wood energy initiatives (and also bioenergy) are the main topics for development. They will generate new technical, social, political, economic, financial and environmental challenges and opportunities, of which employment generation and income-creation are the most relevant issues, especially for the poorest areas of the world.

Various regions of the world have documented experiences on employment generation and income-creation for both traditional and modern uses of wood energy. The experiences have mostly been site-specific and situation-specific. Nevertheless, many questions have not yet received enough attention and detailed analysis. These include: how many jobs can be generated by the different unit processes of the woodfuel cycle? What level of investment is needed for the generation of one job by a bioenergy project?

This paper reviews information from many relevant publications and case studies and describes the main results and findings regarding the direct and indirect socio-economic impacts of wood energy (and bioenergy) systems. In addressing these issues, it provides an important complement to other reports produced under the FAO Wood Energy Programme. Of note in the area of socio-economic issues is a recent report which addresses economic issues relating to bioenergy – Economic Analysis of Wood Energy Systems (FAO. 2002). From a macroeconomic perspective, this present study shows that bioenergy contributes to: a) import substitution with direct and indirect economic effects at national, regional and local level; b) economic growth through business expansion; and c) mobilizing investments for rural areas.

From a microeconomic perspective, the study confirms once more that the manpower required for the production of biofuel resources is about 5 times higher than that needed for the production of fossil fuels. It, however, also shows that the task of reviewing and assessing bioenergy issues is complex, challenging, and time consuming, and that we are not yet able to make good generalizations on which wood energy planning and policy exercises can be based.

, One conclusion, however, is consistent and clear: among conventional and renewable energy forms, bioenergy has a great potential in job creation.

Wulf Killmann

Director Forest Products and Economics Division Forestry Department FAO


iii


iv

Executive Summary

Approximately 10% of the world’s primary energy is made up of biofuels used in developing countries. In developing countries it is used very inefficiently and in very polluting ways, exposing hundreds of millions of women and children to indoor air pollution from cooking and heating. One option to improve the situation of these people is to provide them with access to cleaner fuels for cooking, and electricity for water pumping, and to increase incomes through enhanced employment opportunities.

In 1999, “traditional” bioenergy’s share in total primary energy supply in the world was 9.4%, while the share of “modern” biomass amounted to 1.7% (the term “traditional bioenergy” is applied to the use of fuelwood and charcoal by households; and “modern bioenergy” refers to the use of bioenergy fuels by the industrial and commercial sectors). At the same time, the average annual increase in installed capacity over the past five years was around 3% per year. This reflects the importance of bioenergy use both as a traditional fuel (cooking and heating) and as a modern energy source.

“Modern” biomass systems are clean, efficient and safe. Application of such systems can also facilitate changes in biomass-based employment in developing countries. It is obviously very different working as a wood-energy producer in a poor developing country compared to, for example, Europe or the USA. Employment in the biomass sector can be of low-wage/training/capacity. The fact that more people are needed per energy unit is not necessarily a positive aspect. Many biomass energy workers in developing countries would like to have other opportunities of employment to move up the economic ladder. A comparison of wages in both developing and developed countries indicates that in developed countries the wood-energy worker earns the equivalent of many other technically jobs, while in developing countries the wood-energy worker earns well below an average wage and is at the lowest economic level. The goal is therefore to modernize bioenergy systems in developing countries, perhaps losing some jobs but raising the general economic level.

There are many promising examples of modern biomass in developed countries, and also some in developing countries. One of the latter is the ethanol programme in Brazil, partly described in this study. The programme has the desirable general characteristics of sustainability: the raw material is renewable and locally produced, thus reducing transport costs and foreign exchange spending on oil imports. Ethanol is superior to leaded gasoline from an environmental perspective and the production of sugar cane-derived ethanol provides rural development benefits through the creation of local incomes and new jobs. For instance, the Brazilian “alconafta” programme has created approx 700 000 new direct jobs in rural areas.

Bioenergy contributes to all important elements of country or regional development: economic growth through business expansion (earnings) and employment; import substitution (direct and indirect economic effects on GDP and trade balance); security of energy supply; and diversification. Other benefits include support of traditional industries, rural diversification, rural depopulation mitigation, community empowerment, etc.

The review of the role of employment in the bioenergy sector reveals that there are ambiguities in terminologies and operational definitions (e.g. full time employment vs. part time employment; direct employment vs. indirect employment). Employment in the bioenergy sector would be better understood if fundamental assumptions are clarified. These could concern elements in the system (process flows), type of system (conversion process use), units of measurement (energy units), scale (number of households or people involved), and total employment created per energy unit, per area of land or per GDP measures. Employment creation is distinct and different for example, for traditional and modern bioenergy systems. It differs in such areas as skilled and unskilled labour, direct and indirect labour, formal and informal sectors, and direct and indirect impact.

Despite the uncertainties and the lack of precise definitions mentioned, it is clear that bioenergy can significantly contribute to employment at local, regional and national levels.


v

The exact numbers vary and depend on the methodology used and input data constraints. Some examples, such as the case studies for Brazil, showed the job potentials in tree plantation for charcoal/steel production and the sugar cane/bioethanol industry. Similar findings also come from studies done for the Netherlands, Ireland, Nicaragua, the European Union, and some Asian countries. The results of all these studies provided support for the view that bioenergy provides considerable employment opportunities., This is not, however, true for all countries at all times and there are certain conditions to be met and distinctions to be made before a country may draw conclusions on whether or not bioenergy may be successful.

The extreme complexity of bioenergy, the many different technologies involved and a number of different, associated aspects (socio-economics, greenhouse gas mitigation potential, environment, etc.) make this a complex subject. This report is an analysis of the economic aspects of bioenergy systems, with a focus on the bioenergy employment-creation function (Chapter 3) and employment potential in the bioenergy sector (Chapter 4). It provides an introduction to the basic elements and processes of bioenergy systems (Chapter 1), and an overview of the whole macroeconomic dimension of biomass utilization (Chapter 2). The report also analyses the whole socio-economic framework of bioenergy systems and what the indicators of socio-economic sustainability are (Chapter 5).

The term “bioenergy sector” is used throughout this paper as a concept and a collective phrase to denote all types of bioenergy-related1 activities encompassing production, consumption and distribution by people and institutions regardless of geographical coverage. It considers bioenergy as a “sector” in a similar way to that of the energy sector, the household sector, the public sector or the business sector. Regional differences, country-specific conditions, and even site-specific variations characterize the biomass resources where the fuels are transformed either in a traditional manner or using more modern technology.

This paper is primarily a descriptive research and review of literature on employment within the bioenergy sector. Due to the limited information available, the paper has not been able to provide absolute quantification on the multiplier effects of local and/or national income of any particular country or region. The paper therefore seeks to stimulate a more in-depth discussion on data gaps, potentials, opportunities and challenges. An encouraging trend is that in many countries, policy makers are beginning to perceive the potential economic benefits of commercial biomass, such as employment/earnings, regional economic gain, contribution to security of the energy supply, etc. This represents a significant policy shift from the old view in which biomass was viewed as a non-commercial rural source, or “poor man’s fuel”.

1 In line with the Unified Bioenergy Terminology, bioenergy is the energy from biofuels. It covers all energy forms

derived from organic fuels that are used for energy production. It comprises all purposely grown energy crops,

multi-purpose plantations and by-products (residues, wastes). By-products include solid, liquid and gaseous

organic by-products derived from human activities. Wood is presently the most widely used form of bioenergy.


vi

Table of Contents

Foreword i

Executive Summary iv

Table of Contents vi

Acknowledgements vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS VIII

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BIOENERGY AND ITS ROLE IN WORLD ENERGY SUPPLY 1

1.2 BIOMASS CONVERSION PROCESSES AND BASIC ELEMENTS OF A BIOENERGY SYSTEM 2

REFERENCES 5

2 MACROECONOMIC DIMENSION OF BIOENERGY SYSTEMS 7

REFERENCES 12

3 BIOENERGY AND ITS EMPLOYMENT-CREATION FUNCTION 15

3.1 EMPLOYMENT IN THE BIOENERGY SECTOR: ISSUES IN DEFINITIONS 15

3.2 A REVIEW OF BIOENERGY SECTOR EMPLOYMENT 17

3.3 BIOENERGY’S IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT 21

REFERENCES 25

4 EMPLOYMENT POTENTIAL IN THE BIOENERGY SECTOR 27

4.1 BIOENERGY’S IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT 27

4.2 WILL AN INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLES LEAD TO MORE JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH? 28

REFERENCES 30

5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK FOR BIOENERGY 31

REFERENCES 35

6 CONCLUSIONS 37

LIST OF TABLES 41

LIST OF FIGURES 42

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING 43

Selected web sites 45


vii

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible through the Programme of Cooperation between the Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy and the University of San

Carlos (USC), Cebu City, Philippines. The FAO Visiting Experts Programme for Research and

Academic Institutions enabled me to be seconded from USC to FAO for a period of one year

from February 2000 to February 2001.

This paper is the product of consultative and collaborative efforts among many individuals

and institutions concerned with the role of forestry, agriculture and energy around the

critical issue of global climate change and the Kyoto Protocol commitments. While biofuels

and bioenergy are complex subjects, contemporary outlook has provided a new way of

understanding the phenomenon vis-à-vis global energy patterns and the prospects of

renewables in an environmentally-aware era.

The main themes were developed in close coordination with my supervisor, Dr. Miguel Angel

Trossero of the FAO Forestry Department, Forest Products and Economics Division. Other

valuable contributions have been made by Gustavo Best, Wulf Killmann, Olman Serrano,

Conrado Heruela, Auke Koopmans, Bart Van Campen, Suzuko Tanaka, Oliver Oliveros, Tina

Etherington, Rudi Drigo, Sandra Rivero and Jeremy Broadhead of FAO Headquarters, Rome.

Important insights were likewise provided by Julije Domac, Keith Richards and Bo Hektor of

IEA Bioenergy Task 29; Sivan Kartha of the Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston; John

Soussan of the University of Leeds; Terrence Bensel of Allegheny College, Pennsylvania and

Ramon Echevarria of the University of San Carlos, Cebu.

With the fervent belief that “employment-creation” in the bioenergy sector is a sound reality

for sustainable energy development, especially among the poor, any errors or omissions in

this paper are my responsibility.

Elizabeth M. Remedio

University of San Carlos

Cebu City, Philippines

Many countries and international organizations are working in isolation to develop policy

mechanisms to encourage the greater uptake of bioenergy projects. As a result of the

diverse options already legislated for by some governments, a number of successes and

failures have resulted. This paper is a result of successful collaboration between FAO and

IEA Bioenergy, and a joint effort in promoting bioenergy as a renewable and successful

source of energy.

As technical editor of this paper, I am grateful to Dr Trossero for the opportunity for this

exciting and motivating work, Dr Remedio for our successful cooperation and all colleagues

and friends from a growing “bioenergy community” for fruitful years of joint efforts within

the framework of IEA Bioenergy Task 29.

Julije U. Domac

Hrvoje Požar Energy Institute

Zagreb, Croatia


viii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ALTENER Alternative Energy Renewables

BIOSEM Biomass Socioeconomic Multiplier

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CH4 Methane

CHP Combined Heat and Power

DCs Developed Countries

DgCs Developing Countries

EC European Community

EJ Exo Joule = 1018 Joules

ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme

ETW Energy for Tomorrow’s World

EU European Union

EUFORES European Forum for Renewable Energy Sources

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

FTEs Full Time Equivalents (employment)

FW Fuelwood

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GJ Giga Joule = 109 Joule

GWH Giga Watt hour

Hhs Households

IEA International Energy Agency

I/O Input/Output Tables

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MWe Mega Watt Electrical

NO2 Nitrous oxide

OECD Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development

ODA Official Development Aid

ODT Oven drey (metric) ton

PJ Peta Joule = 1015 Joules

PV Photovoltaics

RD&D Research, Development and Demonstration

RE Renewable Energy

SAFIRE Strategic Assessment Framework for Rational Use of Energy

SRC Short Rotation Crops

UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNISE UNDP Initiative for Sustainable Energy

WB World Bank

WEC World Energy Council

WMO World Meteorological Organization


1

1 Introduction

1.1 Bioenergy and its role in world energy supply

The World Energy Council (WEC) Statement 2000 predicts that “modern biomass will

replace traditional biomass in rural areas around the world. By 2020, traditional biomass will

decline to about 20 percent of total energy demand in developing countries [1]”. Estimating

the potential contribution of biomass to world energy supplies is a risky business, depending

as it does on assumptions made concerning price, socio-political influences and technical

developments. The situation is further complicated by the different definitions used by

various authors. Some include a contribution from wastes of various types, others do not.

The scenarios used vary, but most studies forecast a significant role for bioenergy in future

world energy supply (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 Role of biomass in future world energy supply according to various scenarios [2]

Scenario Year 2025 (EJ) Year 2050 (EJ)

Shell (1996) 85 220 IPCC (1996) 72 280 Greenpeace (1993) 114 181 Johansson et al. (1993) 145 206 WEC (1993) 59 157 Dessus et al. 135 - Lashof and Tirpak (1991) 130 215

Traditionally, bioenergy is used for cooking and heating. Today, the use of biomass as an

energy source in industrial and developing countries could not be more contrasting. In the

EU and the USA, bioenergy is used increasingly in industrial applications, with the highest

rates being in Sweden (16%) and Finland (19%), whilst in the poorest developing countries

biomass represents over 90% of energy use, mostly in its traditional and highly inefficient

form. In developing countries it is also a particularly important source of income during the

off-harvest season, though many of the practices currently used by these countries are

unsustainable due to a wide range of factors. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that

the use of bioenergy is gradually changing towards better utilization, greater efficiency and

wider diversification of applications. For example, recent evidence shows that bioenergy is

used by both low and high income groups in many parts of the world and that modern use

of biofuels is complementary to that of traditional fuels in many cases [3].

Certainly, the potential for generating employment opportunities in modern bioenergy

applications in developing countries is a topic worthy of serious study. It is imperative to

understand the implications and impacts of these claims specifically from the socio-

economic point of view, as this touches on fundamental aspects of the ways in which people

live, including gender, health, environment, poverty and rural development issues. In

developed countries, particularly within the EU, bioenergy (together with the other

renewable energy technologies) is being promoted due to its potential contribution to

energy security and environmental benefits (both local and global). Moreover, there is the

realisation that deployment of bioenergy has the potential for job creation, improved

industrial competitiveness, regional development and the development of a strong export

industry.


2

Table 1.2 Total woodfuel consumption in 1995 [4]

Region Total woodfuel demand (PJ)

Woodfuel share of all energy (%)

Woodfuel share of all wood use

(%)

Developing countries total 17,633 15 80

Developed countries total 5,368 2 31

World 23,000 7 59

Bioenergy’s share in total world energy consumption may be relatively low compared to

conventional sources, but this is not always the case on a regional basis, as shown in the

following table which indicates the importance in Asia and Africa (see table 1.3).

Table 1.3 Distribution of wood energy consumption by region (1995) [5]

Region

%

Asia 43.6

Africa 21.1

North America 11.8

Latin America and the Caribbean 11.7

Europe 8.5

Former USSR 1.9

Oceania (developed) 1.2

Oceania (developing) 0.3

Among the many socio-economic aspects of bioenergy, the employment function is the one least discussed in detail, although it is often cited as a major benefit of bioenergy. This paper extensively reviews the employment creation attributes of bioenergy based on “modern” biomass use systems.

1.2 Biomass conversion processes and basic elements of a bioenergy system

Biomass can be transformed into both heat and electricity simultaneously or separately, into transport fuels and even into petrochemical substitutes. The use of biomass for energy can be grouped into four broad categories [6]:

1. Woodfuels: all types of biofuels originating directly or indirectly from woody biomass. These include: (a) fuelwood/firewood, woodfuel where the original composition of the wood is preserved; (b) charcoal, solid residue derived from carbonization, distillation, pyrolysis and torrefaction of fuelwood; and (c) other fuels such as black liquor, alkaline spent liquor obtained from digesters in the production of sulphate or soda pulp during the process of paper production, in which the energy content mainly originates from the content of lignin removed from the wood during the pulping process.

2. Agrofuels: biofuels obtained as a product of energy crops and/or agricultural by-products such as rice husks, cereal straw, bagasses, animal waste etc.

3. Municipal waste: biomass by-products produced by the urban population. These are of two types: solid municipal by-products, and gas/liquid municipal by-products produced in cities and villages. Solid municipal biofuels: comprises by-products produced by the residential, commercial, industrial, public and tertiary sectors that are collected by local authorities for disposal in a central location, where they are generally incinerated (combusted directly) to produce heat and/or power.


3

Hospital waste is also included in this category; Gas/liquid municipal biofuels: comprises biofuels derived principally from the anaerobic fermentation (biogas) of solid and liquid municipal wastes which may be land-fill gas or sewage sludge gas.

Biomass is an energy carrier which needs to be converted into a form that is convenient for transport and use. The conversion techniques extend from simple combustion processes, such as charcoal production in earth mounds, to modern, highly efficient processes, such as biodiesel2 refineries or IGCC3 power plants.

When biomass is combusted, the solar energy stored in it is simply transformed into thermal energy. However, between resource locations and final consumption points, biomass is usually converted and processed at several stages, and a number of conversion methods exist to change biomass into useful forms of energy as shown in very simplified form in Table 1.4. The important point to note is that the owner of a biomass resource can work in partnership with a project developer to convert that resource into useful bioenergy products in order to maximise the return of the investment. If the resource is a waste product, avoiding any treatment or disposal costs can lead to additional benefits, or a “win/win” opportunity [7].

Table 1.4 Methods for converting different biomass sources into useful energy

(end products)

Biomass Resources

Collection Conversion End Products

Conventional forestry Short rotation

forestry Agricultural residues

Oil-bearing plants

Municipal solid waste

Harvesting/handling and collection techniques

Biochemical

Thermochemical

Physical/chemical processes

Transportation fuels

Heat Electric power

Co-generation Solid fuels

Apart from different technological stages, biomass, especially wood, also often has rather complicated and complex distribution channels from production sites to end-users. Therefore, it is useful to introduce the term “wood energy system”, which refers to all the (steps and/or) unit processes and operations involved for the production, preparation, transportation, marketing, trade and conversion of wood fuels into energy. Such systems can differ from country to country, from area to area and from situation to situation (Figure 1.1). Similarly, this can also be applied to charcoal systems, which operate in the same way (Figure 1.2).

2 Biodiesel is engine fuel produced from rapeseed oil or other vegetable oils through the process of methanol esterification and has similar properties to the standard diesel produced from oil.

3 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.


4

INFORMAL SUPPLIES FORMAL SUPPLIES PRIVATE SUPPLIES

Figure 1.1 Unit operations of a typical wood energy system [8]

As mentioned previously, conversion into useful energy services and products can be undertaken using a wide range of technological methods. Biomass projects can vary in scale from simple combustion in domestic open fires to municipality owned bio-fermentation processes for the treatment of organic waste materials or fully commercial complex thermo-chemical reactors in the form of 100 MWe combined heat and power.

New and improved bioenergy conversion methods, such as gasification, pyrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis of ligno-cellulose, are being further developed to help solve some of the problems relating to environmental impacts. The aim is to encourage sustainable production of biomass together with the uptake of efficient conversion techniques, ranging from domestic wood stoves with low smoke emission to large power plants with flue gas emission controls to minimize particles and any potential harmful gas release.

Recent commercial developments in biomass cogeneration, such as co-firing in coal-fired boilers, biomass fuelled integrated gasification combined-cycle (BIGCC) units for the forest industry, and bio-ethanol from hydrolysis of ligno-cellulosic material, all show good technical and socio-economic potential, with co-firing having the lowest costs and technical risk. In all cases, the capital investment costs continue to decrease with project experience.

WOODFUEL RESOURCE BASE Public forests, forest plantations, common land, farm

land, orchards, scrap/waste

Gatherers

Forest Organizations

Producer/ wood cutter

Agent

Assembler

Transporter Wholesalers

Retailers

END USERS Households, home industries, services

Industrial activities, others


5

Figure 1.2 Unit operations of a charcoal production system [9]

1.3 References

[1] World Energy Council (WEC) Statement. 2000 (p. 77).

[2] Hall, D. O. and W. E. Rosillo-Calle. 1998. The role of bioenergy in developing countries. Proceedings 10th European conference Biomass for Energy and Industry, Würzburg, 8-11 June 1998, 45-49.

[3] FAO. 1997. Regional Study on Wood Energy Today and Tomorrow in Asia; FAO Field Document No. 50. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bangkok. Thailand.

[4] FAOSTAT, UN Energy Yearbook. 1997. Wood energy today for tomorrow (FAO, 1997c and FAO, 1997d) as cited in FAO/WEC 1998 Wood Energy Situation and Trends. World Energy Council Congress, Houston, USA. Contribution by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Forest Products Division, Rome, Italy.

[5] FAO/WEC. 1999. The Challenge of Rural Energy Poverty in Developing Countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

[6] FAO. March 2001. A Unified Wood Energy Terminology - UWET. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

[7] Sims, R. E. H. 2002. The Brilliance of Bioenergy. James & James, London.

[8] FAO. 1996. Forests, Fuels and the Future Wood Energy for Sustainable Development.

[9] FAO. 1983. Simple technologies for charcoal making. Forestry Paper No. 41

� road construction � water supply � cutting underbrush � felling with axes � crosscutting w/axes � primary extraction w/mules � loading trailers � secondary transport w/tractors/trailers discharging trailer

� Loading kilns � Carbonization � Unloading kilns to stockpile

� Loading trucks –[direct road transport to user] � Transport to rail � Unloading at rail � Loading on rail � Rail transport to user


6


7

2 Macroeconomic Dimension of Bioenergy Systems

Employment has always played a major role in economic theory as one of the cornerstones of macroeconomics. Moreover, employment is not only an economics term; it is also a vital fact of life and a precondition for the existence of each individual in our modern world. This report clearly shows the significant contribution of bioenergy to local, regional and national employment.

From a macroeconomic perspective, there are three different engines that can be applied to drive local economic development: (1) economic growth through business expansion (earnings) or employment; (2) import substitution; and (3) efficiency improvement.

For energy importing countries, biofuel use implies important local economic and employment multipliers. In general terms, biomass is better for national and local economies because the fossil fuel and utility alternatives are very capital intensive by comparison. The example of Michigan State (USA) provides an insight (Table 2.1). The first three columns are in thousand dollar units and the last two are in numbers of jobs. If there is a $1 million 'disturbance' in any sector, meaning either adding or subtracting $1 million, then this data indicates the number of jobs created or lost, and the amounts that would be spent on component products that are manufactured in Michigan, on capital formation, and on fuel. Notice where the four major fossil fuel sectors fall: at the bottom of the rankings of Michigan intensity. Even though Michigan is home to a substantial oil and natural gas industry, producing roughly 1/3 of the state's needs, spending in these sectors produces much less economic multiplier effect compared to almost any other part of the state economy. The same four sectors produce jobs at rates only 1/3 to 1/2 as fast as the average of these sectors [1].

Figure 2.1 shows the effect of increasing output from a given sector by $1 million. The data for bioenergy cogeneration is an interpolated estimate, based on appropriate sectors of Michigan's economy such as motors and generators, heating equipment, steam engines and turbines, and so forth. In these charts, “Imports” and “Michigan” refer to inputs of manufactured products. Most of the fuel would also be imported. It is very easy to see the major differences in capital, labor, and fuel intensity among the various sectors. In spite of the shortcomings of the input/output model, it is quite clear that bioenergy cogeneration is more labor intensive, and uses a lot more Michigan manufactured parts.


8

Table 2.1 Michigan Economy Input-Output Effects of a $1 Million Output Disturbance in Selected Sectors (Ranked by Michigan Product Intensity) [1]

Economic Sector or Industry Group Michigan ($x1,000)

Capital ($x1,000)

Fuel ($x1,000)

Direct jobs

Total jobs

Plumbing, heating, a/c contractors 347 124 24 5.3 16.3 Electrical Contractors 347 124 24 5.1 16.1 Internal Combustion Engines NEC 309 135 11 6.0 16.0

Heavy Construction 301 102 4 21.5 38.5 Household refrigerators, freezers 261 122 15 7.4 16.5 Heating equipment (not electric) 232 153 12 12.3 21.5

Lighting fixtures & equipment 225 171 13 9.8 19.3 Engineering & architecture services 224 209 10 21.8 32.6 Electric household items & fans 214 240 10 7.2 15.5 Hardware Nec 203 171 16 9.4 18.2 Boiler shops 200 176 14 9.7 18.4 Electrical equipment 199 57 18 13.9 24.2 Motors & generators 191 157 13 12.1 22.2 Power transmission equipment 185 192 17 11.7 21.6 Steam engines & turbines 179 203 13 9.8 18.4 Electric lamps 175 304 17 8.4 16.5 Wholesale trade 167 334 25 12.6 21.2 Industrial controls 162 162 10 9.8 19.2 Retail trade (not food & drink) 135 289 37 34.2 41.5 Petroleum refining 96 102 666 1.3 8.3 Crude petroleum & natural gas 95 629 118 3.5 7.7 Electric Utilities 73 398 317 3.7 11.4 Gas Utilities 35 211 640 2.7 11.5 Average 199 205 86 10.3 19.6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Electric Utilities Oil & Gas Production Biomass Cogeneration

Michigan

Import

Labor

Capital

Fuel

Figure 2.1 Input-Output Data for the Michigan Economy: Comparison of Three Different

Energy Related Sectors [1]


9

The increased use of bioenergy, which shows both a broad geographical distribution and diversity of feedstock, could secure long-term access to energy supplies at relatively constant costs for the foreseeable future.

According to some authors, one of the main obstacles to the expansion and acceptance of bioenergy into world energy markets is that the markets do not acknowledge the real costs and risks connected with the usage of fossil and nuclear fuels. The costs of maintaining channels to fossil fuel sources by military means should also to be taken into consideration.

The security of energy supply, together with import/export balance, is obviously one of the most important macroeconomic and strategic issues for any country. The growing import dependence ratio in the European Union (estimated at 70% before 2030, 90 % for oil), influenced several Directives intended to facilitate development of the biofuels market in Europe [2,3].

A recent EU Green Paper “Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply” emphasises the importance of energy independence and the possible role of bioenergy and other renewable energy sources in overcoming increasing external dependence. Among other solutions and proposed actions, the paper proposes to adapt the existing fiscal framework for renewable energy. This should enable renewables to benefit from preferential conditions in order to be competitive with other energy sources. Other recognised mechanisms include compensation funds, tax incentives, fixed prices, aid for R&D, priority rights to access electricity networks, development and operating subsidies, contributions from other sources which are now profitable, etc [4].

On the European market, economic “disruptions” caused by the erratic fluctuations in the price of energy products have occurred several times. The tripling of the price of crude oil in 1999 and its effect on the price of natural gas had a significant impact on the energy bill and the Member States’ economies. The increase in the price of crude oil led to a net transfer from the European Union of an additional €22.7 billion between January and May 2000. The spectacular rise in oil prices since 1999, combined with the collapse of the Euro, has already increased the Union’s inflation rate by one percentage point. Economic growth seems to be feeling the effects, but growth in GDP remains around 3%. The current situation is leading to a drop in growth rate: 0.3% in 2000 and 0.5% in 2001 [4]. Loss of confidence among market operators and consumers would aggravate the situation. Current events show that increases in fuel prices can also cause serious social disruption. The strike in autumn 2000 by those particularly affected by the rise in oil prices, notably truck drivers, is an example of this.4

The importance of energy independency is so high that the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, together with the relevant Government offices, has established a so called “energy diplomacy” working group to secure a stable supply of energy (energy security) for Japan. Among others, the priorities of energy diplomacy are:

• promoting diversification of sources of energy supply and diversification of energy supply; and

• promoting energy saving, efficient use of energy and development and use of alternative energy.

Their activities within this framework thus include promoting international cooperation concerning energy saving and the efficient use of energy, development and use of alternative energy sources through multilateral consultations (international organizations such as the IEA) and bilateral consultations (Japan-Russia, Japan-China, Japan-India, Japan-Iran and Japan-Australia), and promoting the diffusion of renewable energy to developing countries. For example, as a follow-up to the Kyushu-Okinawa G8 Summit, the G8 Renewable Energy Task Force has been examining ways of promoting the diffusion of renewable energy in developing counties [5].

4 Note: These comments were prepared before the recent substantial economic changes such as the decline in the US dollar, and improved prospects for a number of countries.


10

Brazil’s ethanol program (PNA) was launched in 1975 when the unit costs of ethanol fuels were substantially higher than those of petrol. This situation continued until the second oil crisis in 1979/80, when the average price per barrel of ethanol in Brazil became very economical. Currently, the International Sugar Organization expects ethanol production in Brazil to continue to rise from 11.5 billion in 2001 [6]. Although it is not possible to fully address all the macroeconomic issues involved, it is interesting to note the items which were taken into account in the macroeconomic assessment of such a complex bioenergy project:

• C.i.f5 value of the substitution of ethanol for imports of fuels and petrochemicals; • C.i.f value of imported production inputs; • Cost of imported capital (and/or equipment and technology whenever the case) for

ethanol production as well as for investments in changing the oil-refining structure due to increased ethanol supply;

• Loss of export revenues from sugar (or manioc starch, or molasses, if these are used as raw material) in situations where (a) sugar exports can be increased, and (b) f.o.b6 export revenue per ton of sugar cane is higher than the c.i.f import cost of petrol (in amounts equivalent to the output of ethanol per ton of sugar cane) but where a captive domestic market for ethanol restricts higher exports of sugar;

• F.o.b value of ethanol export; • Loss of ethanol export revenue in situations where world prices of ethanol become

higher than those of petrol, and where a captive domestic market for ethanol, such as that of hydrous-ethanol cars, does not allow a reverted substitution of petrol for ethanol;

• F.o.b value of petrol exports, if any, made possible by the substitution of ethanol for petrol;

• C.i.f. import costs of the exportable surplus of petrol (or of its crude oil equivalent), which is debited against the credited revenue from petrol exports (assuming these can only be possible as a result of surplus with direct or indirect implications for oil imports);

• Foreign exchange losses derived from higher imports or lower exports of food crops, which are caused by the substitution of ethanol raw material for these crops.

In almost all developing countries, biomass provides many of the essential ingredients of life:, food, fuel, shelter, fodder, fibre and income. As a renewable resource, biomass should, in theory, be able to meet all the requirements of its numerous competing uses for as long as the balance between photosynthesis, resources extraction, biodegradation and resources regeneration can be maintained or, better still, maintained with a positive balance of resources. However, unfortunately this has not been the situation over the past few decades and developing countries are faced with a crisis of sustainability, which is predicated on the growing gap between fuelwood consumption and regeneration (Figure 2.2.).

5 C.i.f = cost, insurance, freight

6 F.o.b = free on board


11

Figure 2.2 The crisis of sustainability in Developing Countries [7]

Among other various renewable energy resources and technologies, bioenergy is perhaps the most promising for the developing countries as its mobilization can provide large employment generation schemes, and can be directly linked to ecosystem conservation and even rehabilitation. Furthermore, investments in biomass energy can be an effective tool to combat desertification, can have a significant impact on global climate change, and can become a valuable tool in promoting gender equity within the associated natural resources management activities.

While the potential for biomass energy in the developing world is excellent, its current situation and position are rather precarious. While electricity and other modern fuels have made significant impacts on the urban and peri-urban areas in Latin America, Asia and some parts of Africa, more than one third of the world’s population still depends on low-electricity traditional biomass fuels, mainly fuelwood and charcoal. With the exception of South Africa, traditional biomass fuels account for more than 70% of total primary energy consumption in sub-Saharan Africa [8]. These fuels are used by the large low-income majorities mainly for cooking, which is very inefficient.

All around the world, bioenergy in developing countries can stimulate diversification of agricultural and forestry activities through the establishment of energy plantations with trees and crops. However, one of the main concerns is the availability of land. This issue is particularly important in developing countries, where food security deserves the highest priority. The analysis of land availability is not simple or easy: there are many political, technical, economic, environmental and social implications that must be properly understood for bioenergy systems to be integrated into agriculture and energy strategies. However, many studies conducted so far show that there are significant opportunities and prospects for such activities (Table 2.2).


12

Table 2.2 Projection of the technical energy potential from purpose-grown biomass in the developing world by 2050 [9]

Region Population in 2050 (billions)

Total land with crop potential (ha x

106)

Cultivated land in 2050 (ha x 106)

Additional cultivated land required in 2050 (ha x 106)

Available area for biomass production in 2050 (ha x 106)

Maximum additional amount of energy from biomass7

(EJ/yr)

Latin America Central America & the Caribbean

0.286 87 37 15 35 11

South America 0.524 865 153 82 630 189 Africa Eastern Central Northern Southern Western

0.698 0.284 0.317 0.106 0.639

251 383 104 44 196

63 43 4 16 90

68 52 14 12 96

120 288 50 16 10

China8 - - - - - 2

Rest of Asia Western South-Central Eastern South-East

0.387 2.521 1.722 0.812

42 200 175 148

37 205 131 82

10 21 8 38

-5 -26 36 28

0 0 11 8

Total 8.296 2495 897 416 1280 396 Total biomass energy potential 441 EJ/yr

Finally, it should also be noted that locally available and renewable energy options decrease dependence on imported oil and can play a vital role in ensuring national and local energy security in cases of future oil crisis or war.

2.1 References

[1] Stanton, T. 1995. Biomass Energy: It's not just for breakfast anymore. http://www.michiganbioenergy.org/publications/

[2] EC. 2000. Proposal for a “Directive” of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. COM (2000) 279. http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.html

[3] EC. 2001. Proposal for a “Directive” of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of biofuels for transport. COM (2001) 547 – 2 http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.html

[4] DG TREN. 2002. EC Green Paper: ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply’. http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lpi_lv_en1.html

[5] Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2002. www.mofa.go.jp/policy/energy/diplomacy.html

[6] International Sugar Organization. 2002. http://www.sugaronline.com/iso/

[7] Wereko-Brobby, C. Y. at al. 1996. Biomass Conversion and Technology. UNESCO energy engineering series, UNESCO.

7 Assumed 15 odt/ha.yr average yield and 20 GJ/odt is the typical biomass lower heat value

8 Projected values and not maximum estimates


13

[8] Utria, B. E. and Lallement, D. 2000. The World Bank Group: Biomass Energy for Development. Proceedings First World Conference on Biomass for Energy and Industry, Sevilla, 5-9 June 2000, 15-16.

[9] Sims, R. E. H. 2002. The Brilliance of Bioenergy. James & James, London.


14


15

3 Bioenergy and its Employment-creation Function

3.1 Employment in the bioenergy sector: issues in definitions

What does the term “employment” mean? From the bioenergy sector perspective, how is the concept of “employment” typically addressed?

ILO (International Labour Organization) (2000) refers to the “employed” as comprising all persons above a specified age who during a specified brief period, either one week or one day, were in “paid employment” (at work or with a job but not at work), and/or “self-employment” (at work or with an enterprise but not at work) categories [1].

Faaj (1997) views employment in a biomass fuel cycle as two-fold (electricity production from biomass in the Netherlands): Direct employment and Indirect employment. Direct employment results from the construction and operation of power plants and fuel production. This refers to the total labour necessary for crop production, for the construction, operation and maintenance of the conversion plant and for transporting biomass. Indirect employment means jobs generated within the economy as a result of expenditure related to said fuel cycles. Input-output analysis is used to derive indirect employment estimates from multiplier impacts [2].

The European Commission (EC) ALTENER Programme (1999) classifies employment in terms of seasonal differences so that employment effects can be measured with more precision. Employment is categorized according to time periods and is referred to as Full Time Equivalents9 (FTEs). FTEs include full time, part time and seasonal workers as defined by their specific tasks, duration of work and wage modes [3].

The RIOT model (as used in Eufores 2000) suggests the concept of net impacts, i.e. taking account of employment displaced in conventional energy technologies. The study mentions direct, indirect and subsidy impacts. Direct impacts are defined as effects within the energy industry (for renewable and conventional power and heat technologies) or in the agriculture industry (for renewable fuel technologies). Indirect effects are impacts elsewhere in the economy induced by changes in the purchasing activities of renewable and conventional energy technologies. Subsidy impacts arise when Government or price subsidies artificially support renewable energy technology. As a result, consumers have less to spend elsewhere in the economy. The final outcome is thus expressed as the ratio of net additional employment per unit of capacity for different renewable technologies, in this case, bioenergy [4].

In many other documents employment in the bioenergy sector has a broad connotation. Woodfuel production and consumption is a source of informal sector10 income, and provides employment for millions in many developing countries. It contributes to rural development, helps alleviate poverty and reduces rural-urban migration.

Hektor (2000) describes “job creation” as a term found in political vocabulary. On the other hand, “income formation” and “employment” are words economists and planners use, but are not clearly distinguishable from each other. Hektor further emphasized two

9 FTE means Full time employment equivalent. In EC – ALTENER – SAFIRE definition, employment effects are

measured in FTE. The number of FTE working in the economy is calculated from adding full time workers to part time and seasonal workers weighing the latter two according to how many hours a year they work. The definition of a full time worker is usually someone that works more than 30 hours a week all year round.

10 Informal sector also known as underground economy, refers to unregulated, unregistered, untaxed activities

benefitting local economies particularly with their local goods and services needs coming from indigenous sources at very low prices. Many big cities in the world i.e. Mexico, Manila, have huge informal sectors accounting for 40-50 percent of total economic urban activities.


16

methodologies to measure employment and earnings: a direct method (when data is available), and indirect method (when data is not sufficient) [5]. Beyond terminologies, according to Hektor:

…The main issue is: will bioenergy opportunities provide earnings that are high enough to make it worthwhile to mobilize local resources for implementation? ...Moreover, the work is generally not performed under wage contracts, but by self-employed farmers/forest owners and local contractors. Thus, their interest

is to get adequate returns or “earnings” irrespective of the source (working hours, use of machines, sales of biofuel, etc.).

Van den Broek (2000) takes a holistic view in his approach towards the concept of employment creation in bioenergy. Microeconomic and macroeconomic analyses were comprehensively devised. He conducted a three-country comparative biomass electricity study for Nicaragua, Ireland and the Netherlands. In these studies, he assesses the costs (detailed comparative analysis of biofuels vs. fossil fuels as alternative options), macroeconomic and environmental impacts of the systems. The Nicaragua study focused on four variables needed to assess the macroeconomic impacts of the two types of electricity generation: cost of imports needed, creation of employment, contribution to the GDP and cost of the product [6].

In evaluating employment creation, Van den Broek utilized Input/Output (I/O) tables where monetary flows among various productive sectors of the economy were assessed to derive direct and indirect impacts. Due to data limitations, an extended I/O table analysis was designed. Three types of labour were identified: high, medium and low income.

High income labour refers to management functions, low income denotes labour “without specific education”, e.g. land workers, and medium income labour is the collective group in-between high and low, normally referring to job-related education. I/O outcome of calculations along these guidelines was linked to the creation of employment. The value of one unit of employment is equal from Year 1 to Year 24; hence a discount rate of 0% is used in performing I/O analysis.

More sophisticated approaches in attempting to measure employment and multiplier impacts of bioenergy systems are currently being developed and empirically tested by IEA Bioenergy Task 2911 member countries. After completing an overview of the existing tools for socio-economic modelling of different bioenergy systems, as well as data needs for selected regions in each of the participating countries, the activities were targeted to prepare a 'toolbox' of existing models and methods for using in participating countries and for application to selected study communities [7].

Through the Task’s activities, it became very clear that the technique likely to yield the best match was highly dependent on the state of development of bioenergy/renewables in that region. For example, in Croatia or England there are very few if any reference plants for the study, so some very basic modelling is needed in order to facilitate project building (addressing both the technical and political requirements). By contrast, in Sweden and Austria there are numerous examples of projects which are ready for enhanced consideration. Therefore, it is unlikely that one single model can be used for all countries. Basically, the models reviewed to date are seen as most appropriate for ‘top-down’ assessments, but emphasis should also be given to management/business type approaches with an appreciation/summary made of the differences.

11 The Task on Socio-Economic Aspects of Bioenergy Systems (“Task 29”; duration 1 Jan 2000 – 31 Dec 2002) is

an international collaboration within the IEA Implementing Agreement on Bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy is an international collaborative agreement, set up under the umbrella of the OECD by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Work in IEA Bioenergy is directed by the Executive Committee and carried out through a series of Tasks, each having a defined work programme, budget and time frame. The aim of Task 29 is to identify and quantify the socio-economic and environmental impacts of bioenergy production systems. In particular, the Task is seeking to investigate the effects of bioenergy generation (both feedstock production and energy conversion) on the surrounding economic (financial, local industry creation, infrastructure development, regional value added, etc.), social (employment, education, health, etc.), and environmental climate.


17

A report setting out the possibilities for using such approaches either alongside more conventional methods employed for case study areas or using hybridised methods is seen as an important contribution to the Task’s activities and was presented in May 2001 [8,9]. This study proposes that employment in the bioenergy sector should be categorized according to time periods and referred to as Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). FTEs include full time, part time and seasonal workers as defined by their specific tasks, duration of work and wage modes. Additionally, three different forms of employment should be recognised:

• Direct employment results from operation and construction of plants and fuel production. This refers to the total labour necessary for crop production, for the construction, operation and maintenance of conversion plants, for transporting biomass, etc;

• Indirect employment is FTEs generated within the economy as a result of expenditures related to said biomass cycles;

• Induced employment is caused by the spending of additional wages and profits from both biomass production and bioenergy plant activities.

3.2 A review of bioenergy sector employment

Within the international community there is considerable interest in the socio-economic implications of society moving towards the more widespread use of renewable energy resources. Such change is seen to be very necessary but is often poorly communicated to the people and communities who need to accept such changes. There are pockets of activity across the world looking at various approaches to understanding this fundamental matter. Typically, socio-economic implications are measured in terms of economic indices, such as employment and monetary gains, but in effect the analysis relates to a number of aspects which include social, cultural, institutional and environmental issues. The problem lies in the fact that these latter elements are not always tractable to quantitative analysis and, therefore, have been precluded from the majority of impact assessments in the past, even though they may be very significant at the local level. The volume of literature concerning bioenergy technology is huge. However, this is not the case when it comes to topics like employment, socio-economics of bioenergy and related issues. There is a lack of critically formulated and substantively analyzed information.

Table 3.1 Estimated employment figures among various countries (various source document; not in full-time equivalents)

Name of country Estimated employment figures

Description and nature of employment

Source

Pakistan 600,000 Wholesalers and retailers in the WF trade. Many are involved in production, conversion and transport. About three-quarters are full time, the rest part time. the ratio of traders to gatherers is 1:5

1998 RWEDP paper by Tara Bhattarai

India 3 to 4 million The woodfuel trade is the largest source of employment in the energy sector

1998 RWEDP paper by Tara Bhattarai

Philippines 700,000 hhs (production)

140,000 hhs (trade)

Biomass energy production and trade

1992 UNDP/WB ESMAP Energy for the Household Sector Study

Brazil 700,000 (800,000) 200,000 (120,000)

Ethanol industry alone (ethanol industry) Charcoal industry (charcoal production)

1992 Carpentieri et. al. (1998 Hall & Calle) 1992 Carpentieri et. al. (1998 Hall & Calle)

Kenya and Cameroon

30,000 Charcoal production only UNDP 1996

Ivory Coast 90.000 Charcoal production only UNDP 1996


18

Table 3.1 lists estimated figures of bioenergy sector employment in various countries. The figures are approximations of employment in the production and distribution of bioenergy resources. These are extremely aggregated figures that do not usually include information about seasonality, nature of work (full time or part time), period and duration of work, and other work associated elements.

Hektor (2000), has provided a more detailed account of job creation, earnings and employment in bioenergy projects (see Tables 3.2 and 3.3). 12 Three types of systemsare compared:

1. intensive production on marginal lands;

2. woodfuel production with intensive inter-cropping; and

3. large-scale woodfuel production on previously forested lands.

The information is a collation of results from studies done in several Latin American and Southeast Asian countries with particular mention of the Philippines Master Plan for the Dendro Thermal Power Programme. Total employment per unit of energy in person-years was derived for the activities of establishment, weeding, harvesting, chipping and administration.

Wood growing activities in intensive production had the highest labour intensive outcomes since many jobs were generated when manual harvesting was used. Intercropping systems showed lower values mainly because only wood production jobs were calculated. The figures would have been higher if crop production and wood production were added together.

As a comparison, the mechanized (third) system provided fewer jobs than small-scale farm operations but, interestingly, three times as many jobs per energy unit if compared to mechanized systems in Northern Europe such as those in Sweden and Finland.

In this example, employment was a positive after-effect. However, it was in the use of manual systems where earnings in the local community were highest. This was the case as most of the production process was carried out using local manual labour and other related activities whereby the revenue stayed within the local economy. However, in mechanized systems, only a fraction of the earnings remained within the local economy, as the sums were paid to “outside suppliers”.

Table 3.2 Bioenergy employment ( from selected studies) [5]

(Man years/PJ) Intensive production, farmers

Intensive inter-cropping

Large scale “energy forestry”

Establishment 112 71 34 Weeding 338 196 59 Harvesting 248 251 85 Transport 70 71 51 Chipping 13 13 13 Administration 19 19 11 Total 799 620 252

12 In this illustration, employment is a positive effect given that the main assumptions are: wood energy had to be competitive; price of wood competitive with local fuels available; farmers/forest workers income must be on an acceptable level; and wood-based energy must be competitive with other energy generating systems. No subsidies assumed.


19

Table 3.3 Bioenergy earnings (from various studies) [5]

Earnings ($ per PJ) Intensive production, farmers

Intensive inter-cropping

Large scale “energy forestry”

Establishment 82 305 54 870 17 147

Weeding 205 761 126 886 27 435

Harvesting 257 202 257 202 37 723

Transport 68 587 68 587 20 576

Chipping 13 717 13 717 13 717

Administration 68 587 68 587 34 294

Total 696 159 589 849 150 892

Another synthesis that considers multiplier effects (indirect and induced) is offered in Table 3.4. In the previous examples, employment and earnings were constant. In the real world, woodfuel production produces other activities (indirect/induced) that further translate into more earnings and more opportunities.

In 1997-98, a European Union (EU) sponsored study known as the Biomass Socio-economic Multiplier (BIOSEM) project was carried out in several European countries. The projects included in the study varied enough in size and type to make some general comparisons and conclusions possible. The main points noted included: 1) large projects tended to have a lesser impact on employment and earnings as opposed to small projects, possibly due to diseconomies of scale; 2) multiplier effects appear to be slightly lower than what is found in the general literature and may be caused by the methodology used; 3) detailed calculations were extremely difficult to perform due to the variable quality of data and the complexities of the variables to be considered.

Another observation made was that the projects based on agricultural crops generated far more earnings and employment. The key reason for this was the fact that the projects were subsidized under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and performed on set-aside land13. Clearly the number of jobs and net earnings are influenced by the type of organization and the production methods used. Therefore, the complexities make it difficult for simple, standard methods to be applied for the general appraisal of employment and earnings. Furthermore, the lack of relevant data is a factor that hinders detailed analyses, especially when applying sophisticated tools such as multiplier impacts. All told, it seems more realistic and reasonable to develop and apply case-specific models based on whatever data is available with a focus on relevant issues rather than developing a common or standard methodology.

13 Policy instrument operating within the European agricultural context providing aid to farmers who plant

perennial crops in lands compulsorily or voluntarily destined to be set aside from other forms of agricultural land use.


20

Table 3.4 Employment and earnings per PJ of annual fuel consumption among selected European projects [5]

MWth

Direct jobs

Indirect jobs

Induced Jobs

Total jobs

Labour earning (‘000 €)

Other earning (‘000 €)

Multi-plier

Country

SRC, gasifier 2 51 11 36 98 1 116 1 114 1.25 UK

Miscantus, heat

0.13 321 0 214 534 7 054 4 142 1.21 Belgium

Forest residues, CHP

40 52 33 30 115 1 566 227 1.30 France

Triticale, proc. Heat

2 134 60 28 222 3 858 -473 1.33 Germany

Artichoke, heat

1 269 19 93 380 1 745 -478 1.50 Greece

SRC, gasifier 5 36 21 23 80 1 010 400 1.29 Ireland

Ind. Residues, CHP

17 41 11 13 65 974 -263 1.46 Italy

Waste etc. CHP

5 13 2 27 42 240 2 450 1.18 NL

Logg. Residues, heat

10 52 2 21 76 724 1 028 1.26 Sweden

Further information on employment, earnings and job creation figures within the bioenergy sector may be gleaned from the examples found in tables 3.5 and 3.6, in which some experiences in Northeast Brazil are illustrated. This study of biomass electricity provides a detailed analysis of the manpower requirements for both the tree plantation and sugarcane biomass energy sectors. The study of bio-ethanol employment potential showed that this industry has already created around 700,000 jobs.

Table 3.5 Job potential in tree plantation for the electricity production industry in Northeast Brazil [10]

Tree plantation for electricity production job potential

Current requirement 2.7 jobs/km2

Potential requirements to supply additional electricity demand for the Years 2000-2015

32,454 jobs are needed

% of ultimate potential total 9%

One of the most important findings from this study is the comparison of the investment cost per job created. For the biomass energy industries envisaged below, this is between US$15,000 and US$100,000 per job, with costs in the ethanol agro-industry between US$12,000 and US$22,000. Such job creation costs compare with the average employment costs in industrial projects in the Northeast of Brazil of US$40,000 per job created; in the petro-chemical industry of about US$800,000 per job; and for hydro power of over US$10 million per job. Lower job creation costs are one of the most significant benefits of bioenergy [10].


21

Table 3.6 Job potentials in the bioethanol and sugarcane industries in Northeast Brazil[11]

Sugarcane for bioenergy employment potential

Sugarcane industry only (w/o sugarcane residues)

Sugarcane and energy production (w/sugarcane residues processing)

19.8 jobs/km2 (in-season work) 19.6 jobs/km2 (in-season work)

2.7 jobs/km2 (off-season work) 23.7 jobs/km2 (off-season work)

36,000 people are employed permanently 326,000 people will be employed permanently

272,600 seasonal estimate of theoretical total number of permanent jobs

55,800 seasonal employment

3.3 Bioenergy’s impact on employment

Biomass production provides direct, indirect and induced employment with the socio-economic impacts varying according to the scale of the operation. A landowner with a wood-fired heating system for his home and farm buildings will probably harvest his fuel supply from his own woodlot using his own labour. There are no wages involved. The same landowner may also benefit from the sale of wood or from renting his equipment for production. Similarly, short-rotation crops may replace certain crops on unused land. In many countries, the concept of agro-forestry is becoming more widespread, with wood products considered as another crop in addition to grain, vegetables or forage crops.

The local employment and earnings created by increased production of wood fuels can vary considerably with varying conditions, e.g. wage levels, price paid for the wood fuels produced, availability of underutilised resources, and productivity. When conditions change, the employment and earning effects will also change. For example, when prices decrease and productivity increases, the relative earnings and employment will fall. Within the limits set by the revenue from sale of wood fuels, the number of jobs and the net earnings can be influenced by the choice of production methods and organisation. In some cases, manual methods and mechanised systems may lead to similar production costs, but to considerably different results for jobs and earnings. These varying conditions make it difficult to apply simple standard methods for the general appraisal of employment and earnings from bioenergy projects. Lack of relevant data is another factor that makes detailed analyses difficult. This is especially true in cases when more sophisticated theories are applied, for example those including induced effects and multiplier effects.

The impact on biomass-based employment is primarily in rural areas, and this is often an important policy consideration where rural employment and arresting rural depopulation are public policy goals. In the developed world, there remains a strong cultural tradition for the place of woodfuel biomass in energy supply. However, as the efficiencies of scale increase or as integrated harvesting systems are used, fewer people tend to be employed per volume of fuelwood harvested.

Studies performed in the Netherlands show that electricity production from biomass and from coal involves numerous (potential) external effects, such as possible indirect external socio-economic and environmental impacts of the fuel cycles. Table 3.7 enumerates indirect socio-economic effects and the possible evaluation methods that can be used to monitor and analyse them. Tables 3.8 and 3.9 illustrate direct and indirect labour impacts.


22

Table 3.7 Overview of potential external effects (indirect socio-economic effects only) of biomass fuel cycles, methods for evaluating these effects and selection of the evaluation approach [2].

Indirect socio- Economic effects

Methods and characteristics Selected for this study

Direct and indirect economic effects on GDP

1) Calculation of multiplier effect by means of I/O tables of the national economy and determining the effects of expenditures related to the fuel cycle. 2) Advanced dynamic economic models.

Analysis of multiplier effects by means of I/O tables. Applying dynamic models would require extensive and highly detailed data.

Direct and indirect employment effects

Analysis of direct employment by means of labour requirements of the fuel cycle. Indirect effects can be estimated by taking multiplier effects in the national economy into account (I/O tables).

Analysis of multiplier effects by means of I/O tables, evaluation of employment by means of unemployment subsidies saved.

Energy security and diversification

The economic effects of energy supply disruptions and price fluctuations and sometimes also the costs of military operations can provide a basis for evaluation.

No evaluation in this study. Evaluation is doubtful, as well as the allocation of the costs to a specific fuel cycle.

Occupational risks and risks of increased traffic

Assessment of safety risks related to the fuel cycle (loss of life, injuries). Economic evaluation is strongly influenced by the selected figure for the value of human life.

No evaluation in this study; occupational hazards may be considered as ‘non-externality’ due to compensation in wages.

Table 3.8 Direct employment of biofuel systems and coal fuel cycles [2]

Job equivalents/year

Activity Biomass fuel cycle (30MWe) Coal (conversion:600MWe)

Construction Fuel production Logistics Conversion

14 42 4 19

276 NA NA 108

Total Man year per MWe installed Man year per GWh

79

2.6 0.37

384

0.64 0.107

Table 3.9 Overview of direct and indirect employment generated by the biofuel systems and coal fuel cycles [2]

Employment generated

Biomass fuel cycle Coal (conversion)

Discount rate

Direct employment

Indirect employment

Total Direct employment

Indirect employment

Totals

Man year/year

0% 3% 10%

79 79 79

34 24 14

113 103 93

384 384 384

327 281 224

711 665 608

Man year/GWh

0% 3% 10%

0.37 0.37 0.37

0.16 0.12 0.07

0.53 0.49 0.44

0.11 0.11 0.11

0.09 0.08 0.07

0.20 0.19 0.17

Grassi (1996) noted that in the bioenergy sector, manpower is needed for the production and pre-treatment of biomass resources and for conversion into biofuels. He concluded that:

1) manpower required for the production of biomass resources is about 5 times higher than that needed for the production of fossil fuels;

2) the level of direct jobs needed for the operation of bioelectricity systems is about four times higher than that required for the operation of fossil fuel power plants; and

3) bioelectricity production requires far more direct jobs (15 times) than the production of nuclear electricity.


23

The three-country comparative study performed by Van den Broek (2000) [7] showed that in Nicaragua electricity systems generated from fuel oil created 15 man-years of employment per MW/yr of electricity produced compared to 50 man-years of employment for that from eucalyptus [14]. Such an increase was interesting in the low-income jobs for eucalyptus production. Overall, “the average year-round figure for biomass is more than twice as high as the fuel oil figures”. From a policy point of view, Nicaragua provides the best example of why bioenergy is a relevant option for electricity generation. Compared to Ireland and the Netherlands, Nicaragua has a higher unemployment rate, and lower income level (Table 3.10). The I/O analysis was easier to perform in the case of the Netherlands because of up-to-date and less aggregated data.

Table 3.10. Relevant country profiles [12]

Economic/energy data Dimension Nicaragua Ireland Netherlands

Total GDP 109$ 2 69 389

GDP growth 1997-98 %/yr 6 9 3 GDP per capita (PPPs) 1,000$/person 2 18 22 Unemployment % 13 8 4 Total energy use EJ/yr 0.2 0.5 3.1 Energy use per capita GJ/person/yr 39 140 197

In developed countries, the issue of the large amount of subsidies and support provided for conventional energy, which has prevented biomass derived fuels from playing a more substantial role in the global energy supply, was also identified by some authors [13]. The amount of money spent by developed countries of the IEA on research and development from 1988 to 1990 was US$73 billion for nuclear energy, US$12 billion for coal, US$11 billion for all renewables and US$1 billion for bioenergy [14].

The prediction was that future bioenergy activity within the EU may offer the opportunity to create about 800,000 jobs in the heating, bio-electricity, gasoline reformulation and desalinated sea-water markets. However, constraints pertaining to significant investment

costs, the high cost of education, and the availability of commercial technology all have to be overcome first.

The overwhelming concern is the high investment cost for the supplier and high initial cost for the user. In financing for sustainable energy, the UNDP Initiative for Sustainable Energy (UNISE) cited past lessons:

Barriers have to be faced: institutional, technical, and financial. The initial cost, which is higher than conventional means and out of reach for most users in the low/middle income bracket... for villagers living in poverty, modern

energy services are unaffordable, it also competes with other survival needs, such as health and sanitation from limited household resources. Unless the energy system can be used to alleviate poverty...availability of accessible

financing is the key to overcoming initial cost.

Experiences have been few and mostly anticipatory on the part of the village suppliers. A World Bank Finance and Private Sector Development document (2000) on “Meeting the challenge for rural energy and development” produced these observations:

Despite the progress made in encouraging private investment in the electricity industry since 1990, private companies have shown little interest in extending electricity supplies to rural areas. They have instead preferred to concentrate

on more lucrative contracts to generate electricity and to supply industrial and urban customers.

There is one obstacle in particular that discourages companies from providing supplies to rural areas: high start-up costs. Extending an electricity grid to a

remote village can be very expensive, especially if only a few households are to


24

be connected... the cost of electricity can reach US$0.70 per kWh, seven times the typical cost in an urban area.

Distributed generation tends to be environmentally friendly, flexible and efficient, and can be more cost-effective than traditional, centralized generation, especially in cases where network costs and losses are taken into account and/or where power lines will soon need upgrading to carry increased loads. Several studies of small-scale electricity and heat generation systems comparing different technologies have been performed. For example, an overview study of gasification technologies for a small-scale biomass cogeneration plant showed that, when integrated with steam turbines, an efficiency of 10-15% was obtained for capacities of 1-4 MWe with investment costs of US$ 5500 (2900/kWe) respectively. For fixed-bed gasifiers integrated with a gas engine in the range 100 kWe to 2 MWe the system efficiency was 32-40% and investment costs were US$ 5200 (2300/kWe). However, there are many successful examples with lower investment costs in developing countries. [15]

In Croatia, promoting the potential of bioenergy also had a number of barriers. These included high costs and risks together with lack of political support and behavioural changes of industries and buyers (Table 3.11).

Seen from a more global perspective, WEC Statement 2000 stresses these realities:

The need to reduce the political risk of key energy project investments is a need... These risks ... investment more expensive in a poor country than in a rich country...The modalities of a global co-insurance scheme dedicated to covering the political risk of new commercial energy projects in developing

countries... should be examined by all governments and banking communities. Such a scheme should be funded by DCs and DgCs and implemented by WB in association with other international developmental lending agencies.


25

Table 3.11 Barriers and solutions for commercial deployment of bioenergy technologies in Croatia as identified in the BIOEN Programme [16]

Barrier Solutions

Technical: Perceived and/or real high capital cost and/or technical risk

Market confidence in bioenergy technologies Easy to use financial system design tools Improved performance and costs of bioenergy technologies Growth in renewable technology and product industries

Non-technical: Lack of political support

Creditable knowledge base to generate: • Political will • Pro-bioenergy mindset

Incorrect pricing signals for conventional energy

Inclusion of externality costs in energy pricing Removal of (cross) subsidies for energy supply

Long-term process of changing the behaviour, lack of knowledge and/or interest of industry and buyers

Market stimulation through credible and long-term support Industry involvement in bioenergy activities Education of: • Students • Utility personnel • Suppliers • Buyers • Lawmakers • Planners • Local community Effective marketing of • Improved products • Success stories

Lack of capital and know-how Financial support from the national and local communities budget, from the funds of the parties involved in the BIOEN program, from the funds of the European Union intended for countries in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as other funds from the development-oriented agencies of the UN, EU and bilateral co-operation Technical support from developed countries

3.4 References

[1] International Labour Organization. 2000. http://www.ilo.org

[2] Faaj, A.P.C. 1997. Energy from Biomass and Waste. University of Utrecht, the Netherlands.

[3] http://www.europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg17/altener.htm

[4] http://www.eufores.org

[5] Hektor, Bo. 2000. Forest fuels-rural employment and earnings. Department of Forest Management and Products, SLU, SE-750 07, Sweden.

[6] Van den Broek R. 2000. Sustainability of biomass electricity systems: An assessment of costs, macroeconomic and environmental impacts in Nicaragua, Ireland and the Netherlands. Eburon, Deft.

[7] Van den Broek R. FAO 2000. Heat and power from eucalyptus and bagasse in

Nicaragua. Results of environmental, macro- and micro-economic evaluation. Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.

[8] Domac, J., Madlener, R., Richards, K. 2000. Socio-Economic Aspects of Bioenergy Sistems. A New International Research Cooperation within IEA Bioenergy. 1st World Conference on Biomass for Energy and Industry, Sevilla: 155-159.


26

[9] Domac, J., Richards, K. 2002. Final Results from IEA Bioenergy Task 29: Socio-Economic Aspects of Bioenergy Systems, 12th European Conference on Biomass for Energy and Climate Protection, Amsterdam: pp. 1200-1204.

[10] Hektor, B. 2001. Socio-economic management models for the bioenergy sector. IEA Bioenergy Task 29 International Workshop, Alberta, Canada: pp. 77-81.

[11] Carpentieri A.E., Larson E.D., Woods J. 1993. Future Biomass-based electricity supply in Brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy 4(3): 149-179 cited in FAO Environment and Energy Paper No. 13, “Bioenergy for development: Technical and environmental dimensions”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 1994.

[12] Goldemberg J., Monaco L.C., Macedo I.C. 1992. The Brazilian fuel-alcohol Program, in eds., Johansson B.J., Kelly H., Reddy A.K.N., Williams R.H., Renewables for fuels and electricity, Island Press, Washington DC, pp.841-864, as cited in 1994 FAO Environment and Energy Paper 13 pp. 42-43, Rome, Italy.

[13] Hubbard, H. M. 1991. The real cost of energy. Scientific American 264: pp. 18-23.

[14] OECD. 1991. Energy policies of IEA countries 1990 review, OECD, Paris: p. 221.

[15] FAO. 2002. Economic Analysis of Wood Energy Systems. FAO-Wood Energy Programme. Rome, Italy.

[16] Domac, J., Jelavic, B. 2000. Bioenergy in Croatia - State of the Art and Future Prospectives. World Renewable Energy Congress VI, Brighton: pp. 1262-1268.


27

4 Employment Potential in the Bioenergy Sector

4.1 Bioenergy’s impact on employment

What can the bioenergy sector offer in terms of employment generation? What level of investment is needed? Global scenarios differ. Most developing countries continue to use bioenergy in the traditional way. As this trend remains, unprecedented population growth puts more pressure on existing resources. Developed countries, on the other hand, continue to invest in Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) to further advancement in bioenergy technology. International commitments to cut carbon emissions will push frontiers and encourage the use of better and environmentally friendly fuels in the years to come. Global climate change coupled with the realities of social, political, economic and environmental factors will provide many challenges and opportunities.

In 1992, a UNDP/WB Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP) mission was carried out in various regions to provide a wider perspective and understanding of bioenergy and its impact on employment. In developing countries the dependence on biofuels was comparatively higher than in other places in the world. Estimates of the local employment potential from the production and distribution of different fuels drawn from studies done in developing countries show interesting results. Of the various household fuels, biomass production and trade provide the greatest employment per standard unit of energy consumed, and petroleum fuels have the least employment effect (Table 4.1) [1].

The methodology used in producing the estimate is as follows. For fuelwood, rough figures based on a major household survey and fuelwood producers studies were obtained. Household surveys (especially urban household surveys) provided the total commercial demand for fuelwood from households. From the partial result, an estimate for non-household use, such as from bakeries, potters, etc., was calculated. Results from wood-cutters surveys indicating average production and proportion of household income generated were then considered.

From these figures, total consumption was divided by average production to get an estimate of the number of cutters. This figure was then divided by percent of income in order to obtain full time equivalents and an estimate of the proportion of total rural income obtained from selling wood. All the data analysed concerned cash income. No attempt was made to estimate or to give shadow prices to non-cash rural income [2].

In the same study, the Philippines was among the countries where a national review was conducted. The results indicated that the growing, collecting and marketing of biomass fuels are handled by the informal sector and are labour intensive. The studies found that fuelwood/crop residues and charcoal are extremely important sources of employment and income for many rural households. An estimated 700,000 households (over 10 percent of the rural households) are involved in commercial biomass gathering and/or production.

In Europe, policy makers recognize that there are added economic benefits from renewables (in this case bioenergy), especially in terms of the potential for employment creation and the development of a strong export industry. The renewable energy industry is one of Europe’s fastest growing sectors, and is encouraged by Member States as a locally available and environmentally friendly source of energy.


28

Table 4.1 Estimated local employment potential of different household fuels per standard unit of consumed energy [1]

Fuel Type Amount of fuel per TJ

Employment per TJ energy in man

days14

Kerosene15 29 kl 10

LPG 22 m3 10-20

Coal16 43 tons 20-40

Electricity17 228 MWh 80-110

Fuelwood18 62 tons 100-170

Charcoal 33 tons 200-350

Although bioenergy-based employment has an impact primarily in the rural areas of developing countries, it is also important in cities and in developed countries, as demonstrated in Stockholm, Sweden, and other European cities. The examples of urban biomass utilization in Stockholm include:

• The Hässelby Power Plant, the first city co-generation plant, connected to one of Stockholm’s district heating networks and operating three 100 MW boilers. The fuel, mainly wood-pellets, is delivered by ship to large automatic storage points at the quay;

• The Bromma Biogas Plant produces about 10 000 tons of sewage sludge (dry matter) from the city’s waste waters. Since the 1970’s, the matter has been treated anaerobicaly producing biogas for internal heating at the plant, but from 2001, an upgraded plant separates methane in order to produce a vehicle fuel of natural gas quality. Together with a planned biogas plant at another of Stockholm’s waste water treatment plants, it will produce gas for 3000 cars.

4.2 Will an investment in renewables lead to more jobs and economic growth?

A study was carried out in 1998-99 to evaluate and quantify the employment and economic benefits of renewable energy in the EU. The study, funded by the European Commission through the ALTENER Programme, was initiated by the European Forum for Renewable Energy Sources (EUFORES) and carried out by a consortium of organizations led by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd [3].

The study took a two-stage approach in calculating the effects of bioenergy on employment: using the SAFIRE (Strategic Assessment Framework for Rational Use of Energy) model, energy predictions were made for the short, medium and long-term. The results were:

SHORT TERM (to 2005): renewables will still need investment support (subsidies);

MEDIUM TERM (to 2010): carbon or energy taxes will be implemented; and

14 Employment covers growing, extraction, production, transmission, maintenance, distribution & sales, including

reading meters. It excludes employment generated outside the country for fuels that are imported in semi-finished state.

15 This assumes that crude oil (for refining), kerosene and LPG are imported.

16 This varies according to capital intensity of the mine, the seam thickness, the energy value of the coal and the

distance from the demand centres.

17 This varies according to production methods, ranging from hydro to traditional oil/coal fired units and the

efficiency of electricity generation, transmission and distribution.

18 This depends on the productivity of the site, the efficiency of the producers and the distance from the markets.


29

LONG TERM (to 2020): there will be convergence of renewable energy prices with conventional energy prices.

Will an investment in renewables lead to more jobs and economic growth? This was the single question that challenged the commissioned study. The study provided a complete analysis of employment impacts from renewable energy (most importantly bioenergy) taking into account jobs created both directly and indirectly as more renewable plants are manufactured, installed and operated. It also considered jobs displaced in conventional (fossil or nuclear) energy plants, or jobs lost because of subsidies provided to renewables that could otherwise fund employment in other sectors of the economy (Tables 4.3 and 4.4).

Table 4.2 Predicted capacity and output of bioenergy technology up to 2020 for the European Union [3]

Capacity GW 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Biofuel liquid GW eq. 0.15 0.75 3.88 7.68 11.23 13.42

Biofuel anaerobic 8.12 10.19 16.08 21.58 24.66 26.77

Biofuel combustion 170.09 181.58 204.27 221.28 232.97 236.33

Biofuel gasification 1.64 1.86 3.92 5.38 6.15 6.36

Total 180.00 194.38 228.15 255.92 275.01 282.88

Output TWh

Biofuel liquid 1.21 5.93 30.00 58.40 85.53 102.14

Biogas 19.43 30.01 57.15 82.94 97.32 106.92

Biofuel combustion 367.51 412.76 496.33 562.90 611.22 630.61

Biofuel gasification 6.56 8.14 20.95 30.20 35.03 36.37

Total 394.71 456.84 604.43 734.44 829.10 876.04

Table 4.3 Impact on employment (new net jobs FTE employment relative to base

in 1995) in renewable technologies for the European Union [3]

2005 2010 2020

Solar thermal heat 4,590 7,390 14,311

PV 479 -1,769 10,231

Solar thermal electric 593 649 621

Wind onshore 8,690 20,822 35,211

Wind offshore 530 -7,968 -6,584

Small hydro -11,391 -995 7,977

Bioenergy 449,928 642,683 838,780

TOTAL 453,418 660,812 900,546

Key points obtained from the conclusions are:

a) the study predicted that the use of renewable energy technologies will more than double by 2020 (Table 4.2). This increase19 will lead to the creation of about 900,000 jobs by 2020 and approximately 500,000 jobs will be created in the agricultural industry to provide the primary biomass fuels; and

b) job gains are greatest from biomass technologies, both in the biomass energy industry and in fuel supply (Table 4.3).

By 2020, biomass use for power, heat or biofuels is predicted by SAFIRE to have the potential to create 323,000 jobs, together with a further 515,000 jobs through the provision of fuel as energy crops, forestry or agricultural wastes (Table 4.4). Interestingly, the

19 The study clearly cited the fact that renewable energy is more labour intensive than conventional energy

technologies in delivering the same amount of energy.


30

analysis assumed that expansion of biological fuel sources occurs without displacing employment in conventional agriculture and forestry20.

Table 4.4 Impact on employment in bioenergy technology for the European Union

(new net jobs FTE employment relative to base in 1995) [3]

2005 2010 2020

Biofuel anaerobic 37,223 70,168 120,285

Biofuel combustion 15,640 27,582 37,271

Biofuel gasification 78,524 96,026 117,151

Liquid biofuels 10,900 32,369 48,709

Energy crops 33,527 56,472 79,223

Forest residues 133,291 139,421 147,170

Agricultural waste 140,823 220,645 288,971

Total 449,928 642,683 838,780

4.3 References

[1] UNDP/WB ESMAP. 1992. Philippines: Defining an Energy Strategy for the Household Sector. Results of a Joint Study by ESMAP and the Philippines Office of Energy Affairs. Vol I: Main Report.

[2] Personal email communication. October 16, 2000 with Dr. John Soussan, consultant during the Mission.

[3] ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd/Directorate General for Energy, European Commission. 1999. The impact of renewables on employment and economic growth. Available on the Internet: www.euforest.org/FinalRep.pdf

20 The rationale for this, according to the report, is that there is still widespread overproduction of many

agricultural products due to price subsidies from consumers and export subsidies from the CAP even though significant areas of land are being set-aside. The political reality of how an increase in energy crop production can be brought about within the framework of CAP and international agreements has not been considered within the commissioned research.


31

5 Socio-economic Framework for Bioenergy Biomass utilisation, bioenergy technologies, their market share and research interests in these issues vary considerably from country to country. Nevertheless, in most countries, the socio-economic benefits of bioenergy use can clearly be identified as a significant driving force in increasing the share of bioenergy in the total energy supply. In most countries, regional employment created and economic gains are probably the two most important issues regarding biomass use for energy production.

Socio-economic impact studies are commonly used to evaluate the local, regional and/or national implications of implementing particular development decisions. Typically, these implications are measured in terms of economic indices, such as employment and monetary gains, but in effect the analysis relates to a number of aspects, which include social, cultural and environmental issues. The problem lies in the fact that these latter elements are not always amenable to quantitative analysis and, therefore, have been precluded from the majority of impact assessments in the past, even though they may be very significant at the local level. In reality, local socio-economic impacts are diverse and will differ according to such factors as the nature of the technology, local economic structures, social profiles and production processes. A summary of some of the benefits associated with local bioenergy production is listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Benefits associated with local bioenergy production [1]

Dimension Benefit

Social Aspects • Increased Standard of Living – Environment – Health – Education

• Social Cohesion and Stability – Migration effects (mitigating rural depopulation) – Regional development – Rural diversification

Macro Level

• Security of Supply/Risk Diversification • Regional Growth • Reduced Regional Trade Balance • Export Potential

Supply Side

• Increased Productivity • Enhanced Competitiveness • Labour and Population Mobility (induced effects) • Improved Infrastructure

Demand Side

• Employment • Income and Wealth Creation • Induced Investment • Support of Related Industries

In a chapter on socio-economic issues in a UNDP Bioenergy Primer, “Modernized biomass energy for sustainable development” [2] “Selected indicators of socio-economic sustainability”, are suggested. Four categories have been identified with their corresponding impacts and quantitative indicators (Table 5.2).


32

Table 5.2 UNDP selected indicators of socio-economic sustainability within the context of industrial bioenergy for sustainable development [2]

Category Impact Quantitative indicators

Basic needs Improved access to basic services

Number of families with access to energy services (cooking fuel, pumped water, electric lighting, milling etc.), quality, reliability, accessibility, cost.

Income generating opportunities

Creation or displacement of jobs, livelihoods

Volume of industry and small-scale enterprise promoted, jobs/$ invested, jobs/ha used, salaries, seasonality, accessibility to local labourers, local recycling of revenue (through wages, local expenditures, taxes), development of markets for local farm and non-farm products.

Gender Impacts on labour, power, access to resources

Relative access to outputs of bioenergy projects, decision-making responsibility both within and outside of bioenergy projects, changes to former division of labour, access to resources relating to bioenergy activities.

Land use competition and land tenure

Changing patterns of land ownership, altered access to common land resources, merging local and macroeconomic competition with other land uses

Recent ownership patterns and trends (e.g. consolidation or distribution of landholdings, privatization, common enclosures, transferral of land rights/free rights), price effects on alternate products, simultaneous land uses (e.g. multipur-pose crop production of other outputs such as traditional biofuel, fodder, food, artisanal products, etc.).

Socio-economic aspects of bioenergy broadly include the issues of people and institutions that interact and interplay within the sector. Bioenergy, especially wood energy, is and will remain an important source of energy for many developing countries, as well as for some developed countries. For example, in many South and Southeast Asian economies some 20 to 80 percent of the energy demand is met by wood. Furthermore, evidence shows that the use of woodfuels continues to increase, although the rate is not as fast as that for fossil-based fuels.

Most woodfuels do not originate from natural forests but from agricultural and other types of land use. In areas where biomass fuel markets exist, its production, distribution, trade and consumption patterns reflect a flow that has proven its efficiency over time. However, in some other areas where markets do not exist, woodfuels (for example) have not yet been commoditized and monetized. In both cases, the entire process operates within an informal sector system, unrecorded, unregulated and with mostly distorted prices.

In many ways, the social implications arising from local bioenergy investment represents the ‘woolly’ end of impact studies. Nevertheless, they can be broken down into two categories: those relating to an increased standard of living and those that contribute to increased social cohesion and stability.

In economic terms, the “standard of living” refers to a household’s consumption level, or its level of monetary income. However, other factors contribute to a person’s standard of living but have no immediate economic value. These include such factors as education, employment opportunities, the surrounding environment and healthcare, and these should be given equal consideration.

Moreover, the introduction of a net employment and income-generating source, such as bioenergy production, could help to stem adverse social and cohesion trends (e.g. high levels of unemployment, rural depopulation, etc.). It is evident that rural areas in some countries are suffering from significant levels of outward migration, which mitigates against population stability. Consequently, given bioenergy’s propensity for rural locations, the deployment of bioenergy plants may have positive effects upon rural labour markets by, firstly, introducing direct employment and, secondly, supporting related industries and the employment therein (e.g., the farming community and local/regional renewable energy technology providers, installers and service providers). Finally, it is often possible to achieve significant and sustained development of local initiatives given genuine local involvement of key stakeholders.


33

Way of life

In 16 Asian countries21, the total value of woodfuels amounts to approximately US$30 billion per annum overall. It is interesting to note that not only are woodfuels being used in poor and rural households, but many studies have shown that in many towns and urban areas, woodfuels are widely used either as main, substitute or supplement fuel by low and middle income groups.

Environmental considerations

While biomass is a traditional fuel, modern technologies are currently being increasingly applied to biomass fuels development. Many industrialized countries are deliberately increasing bioenergy use for environmental and socio-economic reasons. Sustainable re-growth of biomass resources captures the CO2 back from the atmosphere. The net effect on the global atmosphere is zero, unlike that of fossil fuels. In countries where policies are supportive of biomass use, e.g. Sweden, Finland and Austria, biomass contribution to total energy use ranges from 15 to 20 percent as opposed to only three or four percent in other countries.

Gender implications

Seen from a wider perspective, energy (and hence bioenergy) itself may not be a basic human need, but it is critical to the alleviation of hunger. There are also gender implications in bioenergy. The burden of energy poverty is borne by women and children. They spend long hours and cover long distances collecting biomass. They forego other valuable activities such as farming, education, recreation and rest. Household time allocation, rural energy, health, nutrition and gender are a web of complex inter-related issues that merit serious attention in formulating development strategies.

From the standpoint of “work” vis-à-vis gender or women, a number of interesting observations have been mentioned in recent studies [3]. For instance, distinctions have been noted between urban/rural woodfuel (destination of biofuels) flow systems and home consumption/trade (purpose of collecting biofuels) and the gender implications in each case. Furthermore, gender sensitive peculiarities included heavy vs. light work, safe vs. risky working conditions, domestic vs. traded biofuels activities and other gender specific roles.

In the case of who defines what is “heavy” or what is “light” work, group discussions with communities (in studies conducted by FAO RWEDP) pointed to the fact that any woodfuel-related tasks performed exclusively by men are considered “heavy”, as opposed to those performed by women, which are considered “light”. These include tree climbing, tree felling, cross-cutting large tree trunks and long distance transporting using conveyances such as lorries, tractors, bullock carts and hand carts. Although head-loading is a “heavy” task, it is classified as “light” as it is done exclusively by women, who find it a manageable activity to do alone. Inasmuch as low priority is given to work associated with domestic and/or subsistence well being, fuelwood gathering for home consumption is considered a “light” task. Even if women walk long distances with head-loads for hours, it is still generally said to be “light”. “Heaviness” therefore has nothing to do with the weight of the load, but the strength of the gender performing the task.

Tree felling, tree climbing and cross-cutting of trees are considered risky and dangerous tasks. Hence, it is not safe for women to participate in them. Interestingly, the general observation was that whenever trading (or cash) was involved, the safety of women was a concern. Ironically, inhaling smoke while cooking and/or carrying heavy head-loads for long hours over long distances are not generally considered risky and dangerous to health.

It was noted that any fuelwood-related activities (collection, transporting and others) that have anything to do with trading or distributing the biomass for cash in some kind of a market usually do not involve women. Men dominate the labour scene. Women seem not to

21 Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Maldives, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan,

Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.


34

exist in this kind of world dominated by men. On the other hand, domestic use of fuelwood and the whole process starting from production, collection, up to consuming, is dominated by women and their children.

Health impacts

Health problems arising from open fires or from poorly designed bioenergy plants which produce high levels of specific emissions can be overcome by proper installation of clean burning combustors that meet modern emission standards. In fact, modern biomass use systems usually result in local health benefits, whether as a result of better wood stove designs for people living in rural areas, as a consequence of avoiding the emission of sulphur dioxide or particles when biomass replaces coal in a modern power plant, or, even more so, as a result of reduced pollution by using biofuels for those living in the centre of big cities such as Stockholm, Tokyo, Paris, and Barcelona .

On November 22 2002, the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association (MGSA) presented the American Lung Association of Minnesota (ALAM) with the Domestic Marketing Certificate of Appreciation. MSGA and ALAM have worked together to promote the clean air benefits of biodiesel. In France, more than 30 communities using biofuels in public transport have joined together to form a network, the Club des Villes Diester. Some petroleum companies, car manufacturers and national non-profit-making bodies have supported this action and joined the network. To demonstrate their will to contribute to the protection of the environment, these communities elaborated several aims: to provide an information network, promote biodiesel and deal with the government and local policies to improve environmental conditions. Participating communities (cities) include Bordeaux, Lyon, Paris and Strasbourg.

However, according to a recent wood energy consultation workshop in Asia, most cooking stoves used are poor in terms of combustion technology [4]. Emissions coming from so-called improved cooking stoves are responsible for indoor pollution. In the past, common thought was that air pollution occurs in outdoor urban locations in industrialized countries where fossil fuels are the principal source of emission. Today, indoor air pollution associated with biomass burning in rural areas of developing countries is recognized as being a widespread problem [5]. Studies in Nepal, India, Papua New Guinea and Kenya suggest that domestic fires for cooking and heating can cause significant pollution in the home environment from gaseous substances and suspended particles.

The pollutants found in biomass smoke are respirable suspended particles, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, formaldehyde, and hundreds of other simple and complex organic compounds, including polyaromatic hydrocarbons. On the other hand, several studies have suggested that domestic smoke pollution is responsible for chronic lung disease in adults, acute respiratory infection, adverse pregnancy outcomes (i.e. stillbirth, neonatal death, low birth weight), interstitial lung disease, tuberculosis, eye problems (cataract and blindness), asthma and cardiovascular diseases. Other health hazards in the woodfuel cycle in developing countries can be divided into the following categories:

• Fuel gathering: trauma, reduced infant/child care, bites from snakes etc., allergic reactions, fungus infections;

• Transportation: backache, severe fatigue, over time: damaged reproductive organs (prolapsed uterus);

• Processing: trauma, cuts, abrasions.


35

5.1 References

[1] Madlener, R., Myles, H. 2000. Modelling socio-economic aspects of bioenergy systems – a survey prepared for IEA Bioenergy Task 29. www.iea-bioenergy-task29.hr.

[2] Kartha, Sivan and Eric D. Larson. 2000. Bioenergy Primer: Modernised Biomass Energy for Sustainable Development. United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA.

[3] FAO RWEDP. 1999. Gender aspects of woodfuel flows in Sri Lanka: A case study in Kandy District. Field document No. 55. Bangkok.

[4] FAO/RWEDP. 2000. Wood Energy, Climate and Health International Expert Consultation Proceedings, Bangkok.

[5] Pandey, M.R. et. al. 2000. FAO RWEDP Field Document No. 58, Bangkok.

[6] http://www.undp.org/seed/eap/


36


37

6 Conclusions Bioenergy continues to provide a significant amount of global consumer energy. Modern biomass is developing rapidly. Many new and improved bioenergy technologies are coming onto the market and, in some cases, are successfully competing with fossil fuels, even without government incentives.

Bioenergy in its traditional forms is still the main source of energy in many developing countries, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Bioenergy has often been associated with environmental and health hazards, but these attributes are not inherent to bioenergy but are the consequence of factors such as underdevelopment, cultural factors and poverty. In fact, modern biomass use systems usually result in local health benefits, whether as a result of better wood stove design for people living in rural areas, as a consequence of avoiding the emission of sulphur dioxide or particles when biomass replaces coal in modern power plants, or, even more so, as a result of reduced pollution by those living in urban centres using biofuels.

In order for bioenergy to have a long-term expanded role, it must be produced and used sustainably to demonstrate clearly its environmental and social benefits relative to fossil fuels. Modern biomass energy systems are at a relatively early stage, with most of the R&D focussing on the development of fuel supplies and conversion methods which minimise environmental impacts. Over the next decade, as the carbon dioxide mitigation benefits of biomass become better understood, there is likely to be a significant increase in the total installed capacity of biomass-fuelled plants. Increases in the cost of disposal of wastes and residues, driven by growing environmental concerns, will drive the need to find alternative options. Waste-to-energy projects not only avoid the cost of disposal but provide useful and valuable outputs in the form of heat and electricity.

An encouraging trend is that in many countries policy makers are beginning to perceive the potential economic benefits of commercial biomass, e.g. employment/earnings, regional economic gain, contribution to the security of energy supplies, etc. This represents a significant policy shift with regard to the old view in which biomass was viewed as a non-commercial rural source, or “poor man’s fuel”.

Application of industrial bioenergy systems can facilitate changes in biomass-based employment in developing countries. It is obviously very different working as a wood-energy producer in a poor developing country compared to Europe or the USA. Many workers in biofuel production and use in developing countries would like to have other opportunities of employment to move up the economic ladder.

A comparison of the wages in both developing and developed countries shows that in developed countries, the wood-energy worker earns the equivalent of many other technically qualified jobs and can have a moderate lifestyle. In developing countries, the wood-energy worker will probably earn well below the average wage, being left at the lowest economic levels. Therefore, this study highlights the benefits of modernizing bioenergy systems in developing countries, possibly losing some jobs, but raising the economic level.

This report clearly shows the significant contribution of bioenergy, as a labour intensive technology, to local, regional and national employment. In particular, this report shows the following:

1. The task of reviewing and assessing the employment function of bioenergy is complex and challenging. Bioenergy as a renewable energy covers a wide range of subjects that include different biomass sources (forests, agriculture, industrial residues, communal waste, urban biomass, etc.), various conversion systems (combustion, gasification, etc.), a wide range of processes (engines, turbines, fuel cells) and many other cultural, organizational, institutional and political aspects.


38

2. Employment is a function of bioenergy. The quantity and quality of “employment” depends (but not solely) on the following:

• stage or stages in the overall bioenergy system cycle (i.e. production, conversion, end use);

• conversion process and stage of conversion process (e.g. tree plantation for electricity production);

• which setting is being referred to (developing country/traditional/informal vs. developed country/modernized/subsidized or formalized);

• whether it is labour-intensive or mechanized.

3. In every respect, there is a huge difference between developing and developed countries in the understanding and interpretation of bioenergy as a sector, but one conclusion is common: bioenergy has the greatest potential in job creation among renewables.

In developing countries, bioenergy is a source of fuel for subsistence. It is also a source of income, particularly during off-harvest seasons. Many of the current practices, however, are unsustainable for a number of reasons. It is suggested that modernizing traditional bioenergy may turn it into a more sustainable venture. It is therefore imperative to understand the implications of these claims specifically from the socio-economic point of view, as this touches on the way of life, gender, health, environment, poverty and rural development. Among renewables, bioenergy is the most promising for developing countries, as its mobilization can provide large employment generation, can be linked to ecosystem conservation, and even rehabilitation. Furthermore, investments in biomass energy can be an effective tool to combat desertification, can have a significant impact on global climate change, and can become a valuable tool in promoting gender equality within natural resource management activities.

In developed countries, particularly in the EU, bioenergy (together with other renewable energy technologies) is being promoted due to its potential contribution to energy security and environmental appropriateness. Moreover, there is the realization that the deployment of bioenergy has the potential for job creation, improved industrial competitiveness, regional development and the development of a strong export industry. Experiences among EU member countries in terms of employment generation should be disseminated not only within the energy group but also to a wider audience, highlighting lessons learned, techniques derived and experiences acquired.

4. Since the concept of employment in bioenergy covers a broad range of subjects, it is essential to develop precise definitions, agree on standard units and elaborate a standard methodology to measure and quantify bioenergy-based employment more accurately. There are descriptions and extrapolations from past and present experiences, but they remain vague. Units of measurement such as man-years and man-hours per energy unit (PJ, GWh, etc.) still need to be incorporated in the analysis in order to be consistent and comparable with other energy sources. The formal connotation of the term “employment” (i.e. the existence of a contract with specified wage rates and other work-related conditions), scale of enterprise and sociology framework are also important issues to be developed for any analyses which require public involvement. Other points of relevance include:

• distinction between direct employment and indirect employment;

• classification of types of employment created (skilled and unskilled);

• difference between informal employment (traditional) and formal employment (modern);


39

• elaboration between direct, indirect and subsidy impacts;

• “heavy” and “light” work; health implications; age and gender implications.

5. This study proposes that employment in the bioenergy sector should be categorized according to time periods and referred to as Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). FTEs include full time, part time and seasonal workers as defined by their specific tasks, duration of work and wage modes. Additionally, three different forms of employment should be recognised:

• direct employment results from the construction and operation of plants and fuel production. This refers to total labour necessary for crop production, for the construction, operation and maintenance of conversion plants, for transporting biomass, etc;

• indirect employment is FTEs generated within the economy as a result of expenditure related to said bioenergy systems;

• induced employment is caused by the spending of additional wages and profits from both biofuel production and bioenergy plant activities.

6. While recognising the uncertainties and lack of precise definitions mentioned above, it is clear that bioenergy can significantly contribute to

employment at local, regional and national level. In available studies the exact numbers vary and depend on methodology used and input data constraints. Studies conducted in the EU, the USA and numerous developing countries (as presented in this report) confirm this conclusion.

7. Bioenergy is the most labour-intensive technology and has the highest employment-creation potential among renewables. The level at which it can contribute depends on local demographic and economic conditions. Other points noted on employment include:

• the use of manual systems resulted in the local economy retaining the greatest share of earnings, with the use of mechanized systems giving the local economy only a fraction of the earnings, due to most of the revenue going to “outside suppliers”;

• large projects tended to have a lesser impact on employment than small projects;

• projects based on agricultural crops generated more earnings and employment. In the EU, largely due to projects being subsidized and performed on set-aside land;

• investment cost per job created in the bioenergy sector is lower than the average employment costs of industrial projects, the petro-chemical industry and hydro-power;

• electricity production from bioenergy involves numerous potential external effects such as indirect socio-economic and external environmental impacts of the fuel cycles;

• the level of direct jobs needed for the operation of bioelectricity systems is about four times higher than that required for the operation of a fossil fuel power plant;

• bioelectricity production requires several times more direct jobs than the production of electricity using conventional energy sources, and with lower investment cost per job generated.


40

8. From a macroeconomic perspective, bioenergy contributes to all important elements of country development:

• economic growth through business expansion (earnings) or employment;

• import substitution (direct and indirect economic effects on GDP);

• efficiency improvement;

• security of energy supply and diversification.


41

List of tables

Table 1.1 Role of biomass in future world energy supply according to various scenarios

Table 1.2 Total woodfuel consumption in 1995

Table 1.3 Distribution of wood energy consumption by regions (1995)

Table 1.4 Methods for converting different biomass sources into useful energy (end products)

Table 2.1 Michigan Economy Input-Output Effects of a $1 Million Output Disturbance in Selected Sectors (Ranked by Michigan Product Intensity)

Table 2.2 Projection of the technical energy potential from purpose-grown biomass in the developing world by 2050

Table 3.1 Estimated employment figures among various countries

Table 3.2 Bioenergy employment

Table 3.3 Bioenergy earnings

Table 3.4 Employment and earnings per PJ of annual fuel consumption among selected European projects

Table 3.5 Job potentials in tree plantation for the electricity production industry in Northeast Brazil

Table 3.6 Job potentials in the bioethanol and sugarcane industries in Northeast Brazil

Table 3.7 Overview of potential external effects (indirect socio-economic effects only) of biomass fuel cycles, methods for evaluating these effects and selection of the evaluation approach

Table 3.8 Direct employment of biofuel and coal fuel cycles

Table 3.9 Overview of direct and indirect employment generated by the biofuel and coal fuel cycles

Table 3.10 Relevant country profiles

Table 3.11 Barriers and solutions for commercial deployment of bioenergy technologies in Croatia as identified in the BIOEN Programme

Table 4.1 Estimated local employment potential of different household fuels per standard unit of consumed energy

Table 4.2 Predicted capacity and output of bioenergy technology up to 2020 for the European Union

Table 4.3 Impact on employment (new net jobs FTE employment relative to base in 1995) in renewable technologies for the European Union

Table 4.4 Impact on employment in bioenergy technology for the European Union (new net jobs FTE employment relative to base in 1995)

Table 5.1 Benefits associated with local bioenergy production

Table 5.2 UNDP selected indicators of socioeconomic sustainability within the context of modernized biomass energy for sustainable development


42

List of figures

Figure 1.1 Unit operations of a typical wood energy system

Figure 1.2 Unit operations of a charcoal production system

Figure 2.1 Input-Output Data for the Michigan Economy: Comparison of Three Different Energy Related Sectors

Figure 2.2 The crisis of sustainability in Developing Countries


43

Further Reading ALTENER Programme of the Directorate General for Energy of the European Commission. 1999. The Impact of renewables on employment and economic growth. In http://www.eufores.org/FinalRep.pdf.

Arrow, Kenneth. 1996. What does the present owe the future: An economic and ethical perspective on climate change. Grace A. Tanner Lecture in Human Values XVII. Grace A. Tanner Center for Human Values, Utah, USA.

Bauen, A. 2000. Sustainable heat and electricity supply from gasification based biomass fuel cycles. The case of Sweden and the UK. In: Proceedings of World Renewable Energy Congress VI, Elsevier, London, pp 1381-1384.

Collier Paul and D. Dollar. 2000. “Can the world cut poverty in half?” How policy reform and effective aid can meet international development goals. Policy research working paper 2403. Washington DC, The World Bank Development Research Group.

El Bassam, N. 1998. Energy Plant Species. James & James Ltd. London.

FAO. 1980. Power and Heat Plants. Portfolio of small-scale forest industries for developing countries. EKONO, Helsinki, Finland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO. 2002. Economic Analysis of Wood Energy Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2000. The Energy and agriculture nexus. Environment and Natural Resources Service Sustainable Development Department. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO Forest Products Division. 1997. Wood Energy Today and Tomorrow. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO Forest Products Division. 2000. Unified Bioenergy Terminology draft copy (unpublished Working Paper). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO-RWEDP. 1998. Images of wood and biomass energy in industries in Thailand. Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia GCP/RAS/154/NET. Field Document No. 52. Bangkok.

FAO/WEC. 1999. The Challenge of Rural Energy Poverty in Developing Countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Grassi, G. 1996. Potential Impact of Bioenergy Activity on Employment. Biomass for energy and the environment. Proceedings of the 9th European Bioenergy Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark. Chartier, P. et al., eds.Volume 1, Pergamon Press, Elsevier Science Limited.

Hall, D. and F.R. Calle. 1998. A New strategy for the FAO wood energy programme: The way ahead after Kyoto. Unpublished report to the Forest Products Division-Wood Energy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

International Energy Agency. 1995. World Energy Outlook. France.

Kartha, Sivan. 2001. Electronic mail remarks to E.M. Remedio, January 12, 2001. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Obasi, G.O.P. 2000. Climate change – Expectation or reality. Renewable energy: The energy for the 21st century, Part I. Oxford, UK, Elsevier Science Ltd.

Papell, D.H., C.J. Murray, H. Ghiblawi. 2000. The Structure of Unemployment. The Review of Economics and Statistics Vol. LXXXII, Number 2, May 2000. MIT Press for Harvard University.


44

Polita, Paola and E.M. Remedio (ed.). 2000. Institutional and legal aspects regulating wood energy activities in European countries. Working Paper/FOPW/2000/1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Italy.

UNDP. 2000. Sustainable Energy Strategies: Materials for Decision-Makers. UNDP Initiative for Sustainable Energy. United Nations Development Programme. New York.

Woods J. and D.O. Hall. 1994. Bioenergy and Development: Technical and environmental dimensions. FAO Environment and Energy Paper 13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

World Bank. 1998/99. The slow evolution of knowledge about climate change. World Development Report.

World Bank. 1998/99. World Development Report: Knowledge for Development. Oxford University Press.

World Bank. 2000. Meeting the challenge for rural energy and development.

World Energy Council. 1995. Energy, environment and climate: Economic Instruments. London, UK, World Energy Council and International Chamber of Commerce.

World Energy Council. 1995. Rural energy in developing countries. London, UK. September.


45

Selected web sites

http://www.iea-bioenergy-task29.hr

http://www.eufores.org/FinalRep.PDF

http://www.fao.org

http://www.rwedp.org

http://www.energidalen

http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/esmap/

http://www.undp

http://www.wec

http://www.ieabioenergy.com

http://www.undp.org/seed/eap

http://www.europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg17/altener.htm

http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/

http://www.sugaronline.com/iso/

http://www.nrel.gov/

socio-economic analysis of bioenergy systems: a focus on employment

Documents