Socio-environmental impacts of biofuel production: practice (CIFOR, 2010)

The scientific reports that I have read, unlike the popular media, actually present largely positive results of biofuels. The report I have chosen to examine first is by CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research), as this should be an example of a more objective, science-based work, primarily interested in the people and the environment rather than the industry. They are a ‘nonprofit, global facility dedicated to advancing human wellbeing, environmental conservation and equity’ (CIFOR, 2010), so we can probably trust them.

Social:

In countries in Latin America, such as Mexico, the plan for Jatropha cultivation on degraded or abandoned lands largely materialised, meaning that no negative effects of smallholder displacement was found. However, in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Ghana and Zambia, negative impacts of industry integration into communities that are not traditionally skilled to deal with it have been observed. I would like to link this to what I have said in my previous post, which is that this is more of a political problem of industry and privatization integration into traditionally communally-managed areas. I have been studying such effects for a university assignment and similar outcomes have been observed in such circumstances, but I have concluded that these outcomes can be prevented under well-regulated government management instead of community management. Here, notice the important verbal phrase ‘well-regulated’, meaning that it should also be inclusive of all parties, which involves the community too. The lack of this inclusion has also led to problems, such as areas in Sub-Saharan Africa where the state was overpowering and exclusive of the community, which limited the potential for a positive outcome. A similar problem was also found in countries such as Malaysia, where 77% of people felt that they were not included in the decision of privatization of their public lands. Similarly, in Indonesia, many people in the Papua area were not satisfied with this change and 92% did not receive compensation due to local corruption, which meant that compensation paid by biofuel companies went to the chiefs instead, not reaching the community. Thus I conclude that the negative effect of people displacement is more of a political problem rather than a one caused specifically by biofuels.

The anticipated employment benefits on the other hand, materialised with much greater success. For example, in Brazil, biofuels resulted in relatively high permanent wages of US$ 20 per day. Similarly, in Mexico, Jatropha cultivation meant a doubling in the minimum wage there and the provision of a more constant wage than the cultivation of food crops. This was also generally found in the Sub-Saharan African countries, such as Ghana. In Asian countries such as Malaysia, 77% of the people surveyed felt that the introduction of biofuels had meant employment, housing and access to social services benefits. There were some cases of dissatisfaction observed in Indonesia, where the promised benefits were not provided to the community due to corruption and poor management, but once again, I would suggest this is a political problem which can be eliminated.

As well as the general trend of a greater wage certainty and income increase, biofuels also meant greater smallholder involvement in many cases. For example, in Brazil, the ‘Social Fuel Seal’ where the government gave incentives to companies to invest in small farms, meaning that the smallholders also received funding to develop. However, this still meant some social segregation, as the poorest and the smallest farms were still not of interest to the investors who are interested in profit maximization. This does not mean that this problem could not be solved by giving greater incentives to invest in those smallest farms, though, for example.

The most significant negative impacts of biofuels were found to be the food security threat and the changes to the traditional lifestyles that biofuels often brought. For example, food crop displacement was found in some areas, such as Zambia, where 39% of respondents said that some crops were displaced. However, I would argue that the negative impact of this is limited, as most of the farmers were found to have displaced their crops to more fertile lands. Unfortunately, the report does not say whether this shift to more fertile areas meant a destruction of natural ecosystems, so I can only evaluate the significance of this change to a limited extent. Nonetheless, this does not mean that this threat will not become more significant in the future under the increased impact of climate change and food demand rise.

The negative impact of biofuels on the maintenance of traditional lifestyles has been more visible. For example, in the areas studied in Malaysia, the land was converted to oil palm plantations, preventing people from exercising their traditional forest-based activities such as hunting. The move away from food cultivation has also meant an increase in the amount of food that has to be purchased, thus potentially increasing poverty and food insecurity. Similar effects were observed in some areas in countries such as Ghana. This is probably the most significant negative social consequence, which can not necessarily be resolved as readily as the others. However, I would still suggest that this impact will lessen in the future as these countries develop and become less reliant of forest activities and agricultural production for their food and income.

To end this discussion, CIFOR (2010) has also suggested some concrete management strategies that may prevent these negative impacts to an extent, which are related to what I have already concluded. 1) It must be ensured that no industrial scale biofuel expansion takes place on mature forestland 2) Inform the consumer of what the activities of the companies include exactly and their impact on the communities in the producer countries 3) Ensure technological efficiency so that an adequate yield of oil is derived from the biomass to increase the benefit from biofuels.

In conclusion, the impacts of biofuels are a complex issue, dependent on multiple political factors and not on biofuels alone. To halt the present and prevent the future negative socio-economic and environmental consequences of biofuels, good management is needed. When this condition is met, positive socio-economic and environmental outcomes are generally seen, although due to the complexity of meeting this condition, this is easier said than done in practice and negative impacts are still seen at the moment. 

Environmental:

It is concluded that the overall GHG effect of biofuels is highly uncertain, with the current conversion of peatlands for biofuel cultivation being of the greatest concern, as this has been estimated to produce a staggering carbon debt of 1300 mg CO2 per ha of peatland converted. This is expected to require 423-692 years of ‘payback time’, indicating the unsustainability of such an activity. The expansion of industrial-scale plantations has been found to be proportionately related to deforestation, with the most severe effects being observed in areas such as the West Kalimantan area in Indonesia, where 94% of the 5266 ha of oil palm plantations emerged on peat swamps. This defeats the aim of GHG emissions reduction, due to the significant GHG losses that occur from peatland drainage required for the plantations (Page et al., 2010). However, in other areas this effect was a lot less significant; for example crops such as soya were responsible for 16-20% of deforestation in the Mato Grosso region of Brazil, but only1.5-6.4% of this has been attributed to biofuels. Nonetheless, even if biofuels are responsible for a relatively small area of forest destruction, this activity is still highly unsustainable per unit area, requiring a ‘payback time’ of nearly 350 years in the Mato Grosso case. Additionally, industrial-scale biofuel expansion has sometimes meant indirect deforestation, though the extent of this has not been quantified; for example, Malaysia was found to all be deforested with the exception of some forest reserves, producing extra GHG emissions, destroying wildlife and displacing local agriculture into other natural ecosystems. This was all attributed mainly to the industrial-scale expansion of feedstock plantations, which means that while biofuels do not play the central role here, such expansion is likely to have a negative environmental impact and should therefore be prevented to avoid this. I would also relate this to poor management, as it was evident that such unsustainable expansion would defeating of the potential environmental benefit expected from biofuel and should thus have not been carried out. Similarly, Jatropha cultivation by smallholders was also often found to be unsustainable, where natural habitats were found to be converted due to a lack of careful management, as such practices go against the theory of cultivation on abandoned and degraded lands only.

Other case-specific negative effects of biofuels were also observed, such as water pollution and air pollution in the sites examined in Malaysia and Indonesia. Soil erosion into waterways was also observed in some areas due to the natural habitat destruction and the drainage of peatlands. However, as I mentioned before, this can probably be reduced if such habitats are not converted to biofuel cultivation in the first place under good management, as this is unsustainable in all respects.