Cautions to further biofuels development

Due to the increasing criticism against current biofuels production, there are suggestions to move towards using dedicated energy crops, 2^nd generation biofuels and even algae. However, many these biofuels are still in experimental phases, and there is yet no convincing proof that they are more beneficial in terms of energy, environmental and even social impacts. Strong safeguards are a way to spur technological innovation and ensure that new technologies develop towards sustainability. The specific issues related to these biofuels are discussed below.

This term refers to crops that are grown especially for bioenergy, which is inedible so that they would not complete with food production. Common examples are Jatropha, Miscanthus and short-rotation coppice. These crops, if managed properly, could be sustainable since they also grow on poor soil and require little input. However, the sustainability of these crops is questionable if it is to be produced in a large scale.

Jatropha is a tropical shrub that produces seeds containing up to 40% oil, which could then be made into biodiesel. Due to the toxicity of its leaves, Jatropha is not browsed by animals and is traditionally used in protecting hedges around arable land and housing. It is also said to be drought- and pests-resistant and therefore promoted to be an ideal feedstock for biodiesel production, with major investments in India. However, yield for the seed is highly variable and is shown to be directly correlated with soil fertility and water availability (Rajagopal, 2007). This makes the claim of Jatropha as a ‘wonder plant’ for large scale biofuel production highly questionable. An extensive evaluation by Plant Research International (PRI) attacked such claims, saying that though Jatropha can provide environmental and economic benefits in a modest scale, any ‘claims of low nutrient requirements, low water use, low labour inputs, the non-existence of competition with food production, and tolerance to pests and diseases are definitely not true in combination with high oil yield production’ (i.e. large-scale industrialised production) (Jongschaap et al., 2007).

An example of blinded biofuel rush

The promises of biofuels from dedicated energy crops (as with all other crops) need to be carefully assessed. The danger of blind push for one energy crop can be illustrated in Burma’s Jatropha campaign. In December 2005, Burma’s Senior General Than Shwe ordered the start of a nation-wide project to plant 3.2 million hectare of Jatropha for biodiesel production within three years (Ethnic Community Development Forum, 2008). Each of Burma’s states and divisions, regardless of size, are expected to plant at least 200 000 hectare. In Karenni State, every man, woman and child will have to plant 2 400 trees in order to meet the quotas. Teachers, school children, farmers, nurses and civil servants have been directed to spend working hours planting Jatropha along roadsides, at schools, hospitals, offices, home gardens, and on farmland formerly producing rice.

The push of this campaign by the military officials has resulted in forced labour, confiscation of farmlands, threats to food security, loss of income and livelihoods for Burma’s people. Adding to this, due to the lack of knowledge and proper field surveys, many Jatropha were planted in unsuitable sites and have resulted in high crop failure, with only 25-50% survival rates in some states. The improper processing of the Jatropha oil leads to engines failures and damages, making local people reluctant to use the processed fuel. Also, there is no proper market or infrastructure to sell harvested fruits or processed biodiesel, causing a lost of income for farmers and investors.

This extreme example of planting Jatropha in Burma exposed the danger of implementing a massive biofuel project without cautious planning and research. To implement any biofuels development project, particularly those involved smallholders, one needs to consider the suitability of the crop to the site, as well as the socio-economical aspect of the project to local communities.

Also due to the debate of ‘fuel verse food’, second-generation biofuels using lingocellulosic materials like wood and straw or other farm residues are being promoted and developed with great enthusiasm. However, the large-scale cultivation of woody feedstock, usually short-rotation tree plantations, brings about similar environmental and social impacts as conventional biofuels. Until now, most second-generation biofuels are inefficient, require more energy input then it deliver, and the cost is still very high. Furthermore, a recent life-cycle assessment by a team of Swiss researchers Jungbluth et al. (2008) analysed 9 Biomass-to-liquid (BtL) fuels, the results suggest that only one of them have an environmental impact and GHG emission lower than that of fossil fuel. More data will be needed about the conversion processes to access the real environment impacts of second-generation biofuels.

There are also concerns about the use of genetically modified species as feedstock, for example genetically engineered (GE) poplars with low lignin content for easy ethanol production, due to the fact that their ecological impact on native forest and wildlife is largely unknown  (Smolk et al., 2008). On the other hand, the use of perennial shrub/grass such as switchgrass and Miscanthus spp. as feedstocks risks biodiversity loss and economic damages, since many of these are known invasive alien species, especially if planted in non-native region (GISP, 2008).

Due to the ‘weedy’ properties of some second-generation biofuel feedstocks, they do not require too much water or soil nutrients; this lead to the suggestion of cultivating these plants on marginal or degraded land, hence avoiding the problem of competition with food production. However, the Science Council from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) have warned that ‘the widely held assumption that marginal, abandoned and degraded lands can and will be used for massive production of biofuels are too optimistic – from a technical, economic and social perspective’. Since marginal lands are usually sensitive to degradation, any inappropriate agricultural practice could cause serious soil erosion, which would only lead to further decrease of land productivity.

It is estimated that 630 million rural poor are living on marginal agricultural land in developing regions (CGIAR, 1997), and these marginal land are important to the livelihoods of traditional communities. In India, a majority of ‘wastelands’ identified for the production of Jatropha are common property resources (CPR). A village collectively owns such resources and membership in the group confers an individual the right to access the resource. CPRs supply a wide variety of commodities like food, fuel wood, fodder, timber, thatching mater for home roofing, etc. CPRs contribute 12-25% of the poor household income, and are accessed more by the poor than by the rich (Rajagopal, 2007). If large-scale planting of Jatropha occurs on CPRs, the rural poor would loose valuable grazing land for livestocks, as well as shortage of fuel wood and building materials.

In some cases, small-scale development of biofuel production may be beneficial and sustainable on degraded land. For such development to be successful, a careful and integrated assessment of the crop, scale, environmental characteristics and socio-economical system in the region will be needed in a case-by-case way.