BIO- FUELS - An article submitted by Dr. J Ovasdi

BIO-FUELS - UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES
Dr. Alka Awasthi
Deputy Director CECOEDECON
JAIPUR
Email dralkaawasthi@yahoo.com

Background
Bio-fuels are solid, liquid or gaseous fuels derived from plant or animal matter as against fossil fuels that are derived from long-dead biological material. The word ‘bio-fuel’ literally means ‘fuel from life.’ The use of prefix ‘bio’ seems to confer an environmentally friendly value to the product. But this is a misconception because the bio-fuels are actually being produced only from cultivated plants (and are therefore agro-fuels) and the process is certainly not environmentally friendly.Bio-fuels seem attractive as a solution to both climate change and fossil fuel scarcity. Since plants fix carbon dioxide a major greenhouse gas, growing more bio-fuel producing plants can theoretically lower atmospheric carbon dioxide. Other advantages of bio-fuels lie in a broader geographic spread of energy supplies, reduced dependence on fossil fuels and most importantly reduced dependence on foreign oil produced in geo-political hotspots. Energy security is a pressing concern with governments because of the large amount of resources spent on buying oil, the balance of payments problem, and the impact of rising oil prices on the price of other commodities. Given the large tracts of wastelands (supposedly un-productive), and the unemployment situation, there seems to be enough justification to go ahead with bio-fuel cultivation on a large scale.Inspired by these objectives governments and businesses are racing to produce bio-fuels. The scale of resources diverted to bio-fuels is immense involving huge subsidies to bio-fuel cultivation and diversion of large amounts of water and land from other competing uses. At this moment it is worthwhile to pause and take stock of the situation to ponder a few important issues – will bio-fuels actually provide the perceived benefits; what are the environmental and human costs of switching to bio-fuels?Claims of mitigating climate change
Much of the original attraction of bio-fuels lay in their perceived carbon neutrality. As crops grow, they fix carbon from the atmosphere. When they are burned as bio-fuels this carbon is simply released back producing no net effect on atmospheric carbon. Actual life cycle analysis (LCA) have shown that bio-fuels do lead to net GHG emission, but the net GHG emissions are less than when fossil fuels are used. Latest research disputes even this claim of comparative carbon savings from bio-fuel use. Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen and colleagues have shown that decomposition of nitrogen based fertilizers used in bio-fuel cultivation actually increase GHG emissions and worsen global warming.There are also carbon emissions from bringing new land into cultivation – as we burn or let rot trees, grasses and other vegetation, as we plough up soil, we allow carbon previously fixed in soil and vegetation to enter the atmosphere. The increasing demand for bio-fuels will lead to clearing up of new land including forests and other wild areas. Cultivation of bio-fuels in these cleared up areas will first lead to increase in GHG emissions and then decline in emissions as plants grow and begin to fix atmospheric carbon. The time required to fix an equal amount of GHG previously released by the clearing up process is understood as ‘payback’ time. Fargione et al (2008) have estimated that when grasslands are cleared up for corn-based ethanol in US they will continue to be net emitters of GHGs for 93 years, i.e. the payback time would be 93 years!In order to avoid catastrophic climate change, global emissions must fall within the next ten to fifteen years. Therefore, bringing more land under cultivation of bio-fuels is clearly not a viable option. But the targets set by countries world over for bio-fuel production will lead to more land clearing as well as emission of GHGs for at least fifty more years! Cost of abatement
If the mitigation of climate change is the main objective of bio-fuel promotion, it is important to examine whether bio-fuels represent a cost effective means of achieving GHG reductions. Work by the International Institute of Sustainable Development, Geneva, has found that the cost of abating a tonne of CO2 equivalent through bio-fuels in EU is €575 - €800 for sugar-beet ethanol and over E600 for rapeseed bio-diesel. When compared with the current typical costs of CO2 abatement of €50 - €100, using bio-fuels seems to be a pretty expensive way to reduce GHGs.Are bio-fuels the most effective options?
At present the debate on bio-fuels is focused mostly on producing energy for transport. Biomass can be used far more efficiently in static applications such as heat and power generation than in the transport sector. Billions of dollars are going in to support bio-fuel production, but these bio-fuels account for less than 3% of the overall transport fuel demand. Is this expenditure justified in consumption of nearly half of the world’s food crops? Even the US can meet only 16% of its oil demand by diverting all the corn produced in the country to bio-fuel production. If all the concern is about availability of transport fuel there are far more cost effective options such as promotion of more efficient driving methods and better enforcements of speed limits.Bio-fuels for whom?
Bio-fuels provide significant prospects for meeting rural energy demands. There are large numbers of villages that are still off the grid and use ingenious means to derive energy from locally available biomass. If the land and water resources of rural areas are to be used for bio-fuel cultivation, then the first right to energy produced from these sources should be of the local people. This bio-energy can be used to produce electricity, husking and grinding machines, oilseed presses, and electric induction motors. This will allow communities to use Jatropha oil as a fuel for agricultural processing and electricity generation that in turn can be used to provide lighting, charge batteries, power communication equipment and even pumping water. The benefits of this can be particularly beneficial for women who will be able to reduce time spent on unpaid activities such as collecting water or milling grain. It makes more sense to help 2 billion people to produce their own electricity and other energy needs than in keeping 800 million cars and trucks on the road. But at present the bio-fuel market is geared towards export and the resources of the poor are being used to provide energy for the rich with private cars. All incentives are only serving business interests who will be able to make deeper inroads into land and other resources that hitherto belonged to the people.Can we meet bio-fuel targets?
There is just not enough land and water to meet the bio-fuel targets that the world has set itself. To ensure food security for all, world food production needs to be increased by 100% but arable land available for expansion is only about 10 to 20% of the demand. Water is under even greater pressure than land. Agriculture accounts for about 80% of the global water demand. At present nearly 500 million people live in countries chronically short of water. For food security the agricultural production has to be doubled by 2050. Further global warming is expected to lead to a decline of 16% in world agricultural GDP. In this scenario is it justified to divert land and water resources to production of fuel instead of food?What is the impact on achievement of Millennium Development Goal 1?
Even before bio-fuels the achievement of MDG1 (reducing extreme poverty and hunger) was considered difficult. Over the last three years food prices have risen by more than 80% and increasing bio-fuel demand is believed to contribute to about 30% of this price increase. The European Commission suggest that higher food prices are good for the rural poor as it also reflects increase in prices of agricultural products and therefore greater earnings for farmers. But the flaw in this assumption is that even farmers are net food consumers and the increase in food prices may push them into poverty and hunger. A World Bank analysis estimates that recent price rise has led to an increase in poverty of 105 million people worldwide. Therefore, bio-fuels may have already pushed over 31 million people into poverty. It has been estimated that the European Commission’s bio-fuel targets will lead to an extra 50-100 million hungry people by 2020.Absence of policies, guidelines and safeguards
It is surprising how Jatropha and other bio-fuel crops are being promoted at a large scale throughout the country when there are so many unanswered questions about their economic viability and socio-environmental impacts. Although a national bio-diesel policy was promised by early 2008, the draft text has not yet been made available for public comment. There is a flurry of government incentives for bio-diesel promotion but there are no clear guidelines on rural credit. Using this gap in national level policy, the states are moving ahead with their own incentives to attract foreign investment. There are several publications that describe harmful effects of Jatropha such as dermatitis, cancers, seeds are poisonous when eaten, and inhaled vapors can be toxic. These plants are even known to have allelopathic effects, i.e., they produce chemicals that retard growth of other crops. The Cramer’s Committee (2007) has formulated sustainability criteria for supporting bio-fuel projects. Some international banks use the sustainability criteria to check out the following important features about the proposed projects before sanctioning them:• Net CO2 emission (GHG balance)• No competition with local food and energy needs• Biodiversity conservation• Impact on local economy (prosperity)• Working conditions, human rights, living conditions• Environment protectionIn India the banks do not even consider the potentially harmful effects of bio-fuels. Given the lack of effective environmental regulation and formulation of sustainability criteria for bio-fuel promotion, such wide-scale promotion of bio-fuel plantations could spell disaster for the environment and the society.The rush to promote bio-fuels
Pursuing the aims of tackling climate change as well as rising petrol import bills, the Indian government is using all possible state machinery to promote bio-fuels. The Planning Commission has proposed that 20% blending of petrol should be achieved by 2020. The Biodiesel Association of India is lobbying for more land to grow agro-fuels, rise in guaranteed price for purchase, and tax exemptions. FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) has made recommendations to the Agriculture Ministry for a 10 year tax holiday on corporate Jatropha cultivation. It has also called on the government to use the NREG (National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme) to make villagers plant Jatropha. National agencies such as Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Department of Biotechnology (DBT), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oils Development Board (NOVOD) etc. have already made considerable progress by bringing out a wastelands atlas of the country to identify lands for bio-fuel cultivation, development and identification of high yielding varieties.In Andhra Pradesh the district water agencies have been told to give priority to irrigation for Jatropha cultivation. Governments in Punjab, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh are offering subsidies on drip irrigation for Jatropha plantations. There are many instances of arm-twisting of Sarpanches not to resist allocation of land for bio-fuels. Similar government support to traditional crops can assure local food security and raised standard of living in the rural areas, but all these incentives and tax holidays for bio-fuel cultivation will only produce energy and earnings for the rich leading to even greater disparities in income in the country.Can small holders deliver?
The focus of the world’s bio-fuel business is on involving the small holders, community organizations and landless with the objective of improving their standard of living. The small farmers have no resources and technological know-how. At present the agronomics of Jatropha is not well understood. It is claimed that the plant is drought resistant, but experience shows that it cannot produce commercially viable output under water scarcity conditions. In semi-arid areas hot winds are seen to desiccate the plants. Irrigation is essential in the first year of growth, but farmers are being misled that water is not needed. In arid and semi-arid areas bio-fuel farming can divert precious water from more legitimate needs such as drinking water. It is still not understood how these plants will respond to intercropping. Many private companies are contacting the farmers and selling seedlings but fail to provide extension support so that many farmers have actuallylost on earnings from their fields for 2 to 3 years. Commercial bio-fuel plantations need both irrigation and fertilizers that add to input costs. There is a general understanding that the Jatropha plant is a hardy plant, but under monoculture conditions many viral and insect infestations are seen, indicating that huge amounts of pesticides will be needed. Also of concern is the small holders’ capacity (lack of) to meet certification needs for the international market. Small holders do not have the capacity to cushion the risks of fluctuating market demand and prices. If they are expected to grow bio-fuels, there has to be some market interference; will international trade agreements permit this? The European Commission is proposing sustainability criteria from 2010 onwards, but refuses to include human and labor rights within these criteria. Even the WTO will not deal with human and labor rights because the so-called social standards are illegal under WTO law. With private businesses entering the bio-fuel trade, we should be worried that labor rights are not sacrificed to private profits.Putting wastelands to use – the Rajasthan case
The Indian Government has identified 400,000 ha of wastelands for Jatropha farming. Following suite, the Rajasthan Bio-fuel Authority has identified about 40995 ha of wasteland and plantation of Jatropha has already begun in 11 districts. The catch is that the ‘wastelands’ are defined as degraded village pasturelands, degraded forests and other unused land. These lands are called wastelands because they provide no revenue to the government, otherwise these land are of immense importance to the local communities. Wastelands are productive sources for the marginalized – the extremely poor, landless and herders. Their importance lies in their value as source for wild foods, fuel wood and fodder for livestock. The CPRs can contribute up to a quarter of household incomes for the poor households and these are the people most dependent on these common resources. These people are also unorganized and lack the strength to protest.Effects on food security
Use of food plants for bio-fuel production has already been seen to contribute to increase food prices the world over. Together with the expected climate change induced fall in global crop productivity, land diversion to bio-fuels will make it impossible to feed the increasing human population. Apart from this promotion of large scale monocultures in biodiversity rich areas could wipe out local agro-diversity. The decimation of local climatically adapted cultivars will erode the genetic diversity that forms the basis of evolution, adaptation and crop improvement. As a result there will be less hope of increasing the productivity of existing crops to achieve food security.Bio-fuel production targets and human rights
Driven by the need to fulfill targets, government departments have taken over the land of tribals for Jatropha plantations. Tribals and small farmers are afraid that entering into contracts will bar them from growing food plants for their own use. Private agencies actually discourage crop diversification and intercropping. All this is happening in the most food insecure regions of central India inhabited by tribals in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh. At risk are people whose rights to land are not documented, or are poorly protected by traditional rights. These people lack a voice in the decision making forums and can be easily shoved into landlessness and hunger.In Malaysia in the Sarawak forested mountain region 40% of the forests have been cut down to plant oil palm – a bio-fuel crop. The rivers and water sources have been rendered unfit for drinking due to large amounts of chemicals used on the plantations. People can no longer grow their food crops once the plantations come up. People who resist land take over are tortured and jailed. Even common lands are taken over by commercial bio-fuel plantations. Customary law grants rights over these lands to tribals but the government itself has sold these lands to companies. With so many concerns about the economic viability, social and environmental impacts, and unregulated expansion of the bio-fuels sector, it is indeed imperative to take stock of the situation and weigh the pros and cons. Does the benefit of blending transport fuel justify the take over of millions of hectares of land, destruction of biodiversity and food security, rise in food prices and violation of human rights?