The Social and Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Feedstock

Download The Social and Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Feedstock

Post on 16-Jan-2017

216 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>Copyright 2011 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.German, L., G. C. Schoneveld, and P. Pacheco 2011. The social and environmental impacts of biofuelfeedstock cultivation: evidence from multi-site research in the forest frontier. Ecology and Society 16(3):24.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04309-160324</p><p>Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Local, Social, and Environmental Impacts of BiofuelsThe Social and Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Feedstock Cultivation:Evidence from Multi-Site Research in the Forest Frontier</p><p>Laura German 1, George C. Schoneveld 1, and Pablo Pacheco 1</p><p>ABSTRACT. Preoccupation with global energy supplies and climate change in the global North, and adesire to improve the balance of trade and capture value in the emerging carbon market by developingcountries, together place biofuels firmly on the map of global land use change. Much of this recent landuse change is occurring in developing countries where large agro-ecologically suitable tracts of land maybe accessed at lower economic and opportunity cost. This is leading to the gradual penetration of commercialcrops that provide suitable biofuel feedstocks (e.g., sugarcane, soybean, oil palm, jatropha) into ruralcommunities and forested landscapes throughout many areas of the global South. Expansion of biofuelfeedstock cultivation in developing countries is widely embraced by producer country governments as ameans to achieve energy security and stimulate rural economic development through employment andsmallholder market integration. It is also expected that foreign and domestic investments in biofuel feedstockcultivation will lead to positive economic spillovers from knowledge transfer and investor contributionsto social and physical infrastructure. While biofuel feedstocks are expanding through large industrial-scaleplantations and smallholder production alike, the expansion of industrial-scale production systems has beencountered by a critical response by civil society actors concerned about the implications for rural livelihoods,customary land rights, and the environmental effects of biofuel feedstock cultivation. To date, however,limited data exist to demonstrate the conditions under which widely anticipated economic and climatechange mitigation benefits accrue in practice, and the implications of these developments for forests, locallivelihoods, and the climate change mitigation potential of biofuels. In such a situation, debates are easilypolarized into those for and against biofuels. This special issue seeks to nuance this debate by sheddinglight on the local social and environmental impacts accruing to date from the expansion of biofuel feedstockcultivation through in-depth case studies in 6 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Findings providea more nuanced picture of costs and benefits, and point to a host of risks that need to be proactively managedto leverage the potential of the industry as an engine of national social and economic development.</p><p>Key Words: Africa; biofuels; environmental impacts; forest frontier; Latin America; social impacts;Southeast Asia </p><p>THE LOCAL, SOCIAL, ANDENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OFBIOFUELS: NARRATIVES AND COUNTER-NARRATIVES</p><p>The recent surge in biofuel investments andproduction volumes is driven by the promise ofmultiple social, economic, ecological, andgeopolitical benefits which have driven keyproducer and consumer countries alike to establishpolicies to incentivize the industry (Timilsina andShrestha 2010). While industry stakeholders andsome analysts continue to declare the social and</p><p>ecological benefits of biofuels (Goldemberg et al.2008, Goldemberg and Guardabassi 2009), anincreasing number of reports from civil society andresearch organizations has begun to question thesebenefits (Civil Society Biofuels Forum 2010, ForestPeoples Programme and Sawit Watch 2010, Friendsof the Earth 2010, Plevin et al. 2010). It isnoteworthy that the benefits and costs tend to varyacross commodities, business models, andlandscapes, making findings from industrial-scalebioethanol production in Brazil, for example,different from the impacts associated with oil palmin Indonesia or Jatropha cultivation in sub-Saharan</p><p>1Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)</p><p>http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04309-160324http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/viewissue.php?sf=68mailto:L.GERMAN@cgiar.orgmailto:G.Schoneveld@cgiar.orgmailto:p.pacheco@cgiar.org</p></li><li><p>Ecology and Society 16(3): 24http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss3/art24/</p><p>Africa, each of which is expanding through bothsmallholder and industrial-scale production models.Such differences are often obscured in the polemicsthat have characterized this emerging industry. Wewill review the key arguments made for and againstbiofuel feedstock expansion, with a focus on thelocal social and environmental impacts that are thecore theme of this special issue.</p><p>Ecological benefits and costs</p><p>One of the primary justifications for a shift tobiofuels as an alternative energy source has to dowith the climatic benefits that are anticipated tooccur from the substitution of fossil fuels, whosecombustion results in large net CO2 emissions, tofuels whose combustion releases gases sequesteredthrough cultivation and which are thereforeconsidered greenhouse gas (GHG) neutral (Macedo2005, Peters and Thielmann 2008). This promise ofgreener energy for transport has led to the inclusionof biofuels in alternative energy targets in manyindustrialized countries, notably the USA and theEU, and a growing number of developing countries,notably Brazil (Ministrio da Agricultura, Pecuriae Abastecimento 2006, Amatayakul and Berndes2007, US Congress 2007, Petroworld 2008, EU2009). Recent publications quantifying the climateeffects of biofuel feedstock cultivation suggest,however, that these benefits cannot be assumed dueto the potentially significant GHG emissionsassociated with land use change, fossil fuel usagein cropping and processing, and marketing(Reijnders and Huijbregts 2008). Some studiessuggest that the emissions associated with direct andindirect land use change alone may negate estimatedclimatic benefits, particularly when biofuelsdisplace carbon-rich ecosystems and displace foodproduction (Searchinger et al. 2008, Romijn 2009,Lapola et al. 2010, Plevin et al. 2010). Yet the netclimate impacts of oil palm cultivation even oncarbon-rich peatlands continue to be disputed byindustry (World Growth undated). Within scientificand policy circles, it is increasingly recognized thatadequate accounting of the climatic effects ofbiofuels must consider the full life cycle of thebioenergy production, distribution, and consumptionchain, as well as direct and indirect land use changesassociated with biofuel feedstock cultivation (Penaet al. 2010, Fritsche et al. 2011). While theuncertainties associated with indirect land usechanges pose very real challenges to themeasurement of these effects, they are anticipated</p><p>to be significant and should not be left out of lifecycle calculations (Plevin et al. 2010).</p><p>While the environmental debate centers largelyaround climate change issues, other environmentaleffects of biofuels are also the subject of debate.Many claim that the ability to cultivate biofuelfeedstocks such as oil palm and jatropha on marginalland can lead to the reclamation of degraded lands,making these areas productive again and therebyavoiding forest conversion (Borras et al. 2010,Villela 2009, cited by Teixeira de Andrade andMiccolis 2010, Wilkinson and Herrera undated).Despite lack of comprehensive data, in the early1990s it was estimated that approximately 500million hectares of degraded land were available forcultivation in the world, 100 million hectares ofwhich were located in Latin America, 100 millionhectares in Asia, and 300 million hectares in Africa(Field et al. 2007). In Indonesia alone, 27 millionhectares of degraded and unproductiveforestlands have been identified for palm oilplantations (Cotula et al. 2008). However, manyrecent reports dispute whether investors can beinduced to target such lands, suggesting that manyare more inclined to convert forested lands for therents they may receive from the same, or activelyseek productive farmland for profit maximization(Casson 1999, Gaia Foundation et al. 2008, Borraset al. 2010). In Indonesia, for instance, timber,plywood, and pulp and paper companies haveobtained permission to clear millions of hectares offorest under the guise of oil palm plantationestablishment. While some of these companiesutilized timber revenues to finance the developmentof oil palm estates (Manurung 2002, cited by WorldBank 2010), much of this deforestation occurredwithout ever resulting in any plantation investmentsor rural livelihood benefits (Casson 1999, Holmes2002, Sandker 2007, Valentino 2011).</p><p>Some analysts have attempted to quantify the effectsof biofuel feedstock expansion on forests. Koh andWilcove (2008) suggest that between 1990 and2005, an estimated 55% to 59% of oil palmexpansion in Malaysia and at least 56% of that inIndonesia occurred at the expense of natural forestcover. It is not surprising that the few biodiversityimpact studies done on oil palm in this region pointto significant reductions in species richness and inthe prevalence of species of high conservation valuerelative to both primary and disturbed forests(Fitzherbert et al. 2008, Danielsen et al. 2008). Inthe Brazilian Amazon, only a small portion of total</p><p>http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss3/art24/</p></li><li><p>Ecology and Society 16(3): 24http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss3/art24/</p><p>deforestation is linked to cropland expansion, sinceabout 70% is related to the expansion of cattleranching (Margulis 2004). In the state of MatoGrosso, 17% of total deforestation during the2001-2004 period was attributed to croplandexpansion, notably for soy (Morton et al. 2006). Insouthern Brazil, the direct impacts of sugarcaneexpansion on forestlands are limited sinceexpansion was found to occur largely on previouslyconverted and actively used areas (cropland,pasture) (Meloni Nassar et al. 2008). Incorporationof indirect effects would undoubtedly increase theseeffects. A simulation study conducted by Lapola etal. (2010) estimated that for Brazil to meet its 2020biodiesel consumption target, an additional 10.8million ha of land would be required for soycultivation. While some of this expansion isexpected to be directly at the expense of forest, it isprojected that the most profound impact on forestswill occur through displaced cattle ranching,illustrating the potential significance of indirect landuse change. While evidence from Africa is limitedand largely anecdotal, some studies documentcommercial operators targeting forested landscapesfor plantation development (ABN 2007, Gordon-Maclean et al. 2009, Nhantumbo and Salomao 2010,Mortimer 2011, Valentino 2011).</p><p>Social and economic benefits and costs</p><p>The debate over the local social and economicimpacts of biofuels is also contentious, and focuseson a few key issues: the ability of biofuels to serveas a stimulus to rural economies, effects on landaccess and control, and food security. Any look atthe arguments for and against biofuels must beexplicit about the business model for biofuelfeedstock cultivation under consideration sincesocioeconomic benefits are likely to be stronglyshaped by the mode of production. Industrial-scaleplantations, smallholders growing independentlyfor market, and diverse arrangements under whichcompanies contract smallholders to producefeedstock on their behalf, will each have their ownunique set of impacts, despite the inherent diversitywithin each.</p><p>Biofuels as a stimulus to rural economies</p><p>Rural economic benefits are a key rationale behindthe expansion targets and biofuel policies andincentives established by producer countrygovernments around the world (Energy Sector</p><p>Management Assistance Program 2005, EnergyCommission of Ghana 2006, Timnas BBN 2006,Ministry of Energy and Water Development ofZambia 2008, Republic of Mozambique 2009,Andrade and Miccolis 2010, World Bank 2010), anda number of multi-purpose feedstocks havehistorically been used as engines of rural economicdevelopment (Potter and Lee 1998, Government ofBrazil 2005). Under the right conditions, forexample, oil palm can yield positive socioeconomicbenefits to rural communities through employment,infrastructure improvements, increases in landvalue, and income from smallholder cultivation(World Bank 2010). Soybean production hasbrought significant income to land owners andproduced important economic multipliers in thedownstream food industry (Goldsmith and Hirsch2006), although anecdotal evidence suggests thatbenefits are concentrated in larger landholdings.</p><p>One of the primary benefits purported to come withlarge-scale plantations is formal employment(Peters and Thielmann 2008). In the few cases inwhich employment figures are cited, benefits arehighly variable. The oil palm industry in Indonesiaand Malaysia employs anywhere from 0.08 to 0.5people per ha, with higher employment ratesassociated with smallholder-based production,followed by operations of lesser scale andsophistication (World Bank 2010). Companiesexhibit a bias toward workers with backgrounds insedentary agriculture in their hiring practices, andin the process deprive indigenous communities ofpotential benefits (Colchester 2010, World Bank2010). Although in Brazil sugarcane and ethanolproduction have generated significant directemployment, the number of workers employed insugarcane production has decreased by 62 percentas a result of mechanization (Ortiz and Rodrigues2006, Dufey 2008). Similar trends characterize thesoy sector, in which mechanized cultivationgenerates on average only 0.05 to 0.06 jobs per ha(Bickel and Dros 2003), although this takes placein areas of relatively low population density whereoff-farm income helps to bolster rural livelihoods.In addition to the limited labor intensity of somefeedstocks, plantation employment tends to beunskilled and highly insecure as a result oftemporary employment; benefits to povertyalleviation are, therefore, often limited (Macedo2005; Marti 2008, World Bank 2010).</p><p>Although the net local economic benefits fromplantation agriculture remain a topic of debate,</p><p>http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss3/art24/</p></li><li><p>Ecology and Society 16(3): 24http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss3/art24/</p><p>evidence from independent, smallholder-basedfeedstock production is relatively promising. Insome cases, feedstocks such as oil palm haveprovided greater net returns to land and labor thansmallholders are able to obtain from other cash crops(Feintrenie et al. 2010, Rist et al. 2010, World Bank2010). However, such benefits depend on theprofitability of the crop relative to other options andon market access. Rist et al. (2010) found thatsmallholder cooperatives are essential to therealization of such benefits when operating in theinterests of membe...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >