Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

Studies on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of bioenergy chains based on dedicated crops in temperate climates show that biodiesel scenarios are generally less impacting than other possible energy chains, both in 1st generation and in 2nd generation biofuel settings. Considering the cropping techniques described for large scale farming in the previous chapters, a comparison of the environmental impacts of oil crops \u201cfrom cradle to farm gate\u201d was performed using the LCA methodology. More to this, a family farming scenario leaving manpower impact apart was calculated for comparisons with large scale farming systems. The phases and methods of LCA are described; a \u201ccradle to farm gate\u201d approach was adopted in the impact assessment of the oil crops. Results were standardized, i.e. reported in kg of equivalent reference substance, and normalized, i.e. weighted on the average level of emissions of one world inhabitant. Results are displayed both on both a surface (hectare) and energy (GJ) basis. The category most affected by agricultural processes is eco-toxicity of marine waters, although the primary cause of this emission is P fertilizer manufacture, which is upstream cropping. On a surface basis, the most impacting scenario was sunflower, in all considered categories, and in general both annual crops (sunflower and soybean) showed similar results. On an energy basis, the most impacting scenario was still sunflower under all impact categories, but the remaining scenarios show significant differences in comparison with the analysis on hectare basis: soybean showed emissions levels 40 to 60% lower than sunflower, although only one third of the emission per ha was allocated to oil production, the rest being spent for protein. Perennial crops showed high benefits respect to annual ones also on energy basis. A last topic addressed in this chapter is indirect land use change (ILUC). To convert land use change into consequent GHG emissions, a conversion factor must be applied. The level of GHG emissions associated with land use change will vary depending on previous land use; therefore, there is a wide range of possible conversion factors. GHG emissions are not the only impact of ILUC. Biodiversity is also adversely affected by land conversion in the form of ecosystem degradation and habitat loss. Biodiversity and ecosystems\u2013and the services they provide are closely connected to each other and to the climate system. Biodiversity is crucial for both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. However, the substitution of many food crops (e.g., cereals) with energy crops often requiring less fertilizers and pesticides, determines a net benefit in terms of biodiversity. Another way of limiting ILUC consequences would be shifting to second generation biofuels, which are now on the eve of diffusion in advanced countries

Introduction into Food vs. Fuel Discussion and possible Solution Strategies

\u201cFood vs. fuel\u201d summarizes the growing debate concerning the risk of shifting farmland or food crops to biofuel production, decreasing the food supply on a global scale. The international discussion has brought to different positions, each having some good and valid points. Research efforts are currently being deployed in the production of second generation biofuels from non-food crops, crop residues and wastes, which could better harmonize farming for food and for fuel. Moreover, electricity could be generated in situ, being beneficial for rural areas in developing countries. The debate reached a global scale during the 2007\u20132008 world food price crisis. The settlement of food prices despite a growing use of farmland for biofuel production (more than twice larger surfaces) is consistent with several studies showing that biofuel production can significantly be increased without raising agricultural land use. 75%. Food commodity prices were relatively stable after reaching lows in 2000 and 2001. Therefore, rapid food price increases occurring in 2007/2008 were considered unusual. Beyond discussions on food/fuel competition, other important factors, influencing food prices, must be taken into account. As a whole, it may be concluded that developing economies increase their demand of both energy and food, amplifying the market price volatility of food commodities, whose production cannot be regulated in short-term periods

Social Aspects

The economic advantages of producing biofuels for the community are maximized through local investment, ownership and the creation of jobs, all of which keep profits within the community. Other important social issues, such as off-grid electricity and fuel for grain processing, can bring a wide range of welfare benefits to remote rural areas. Among biofuel scenarios, biodiesel and vegetable oil seem to be preferable concerning social issues, with respect to bioethanol. For instance, the Brazilian agro-energy plan 2006-2011 addresses specific issues of social improvement in association with biodiesel development. In Africa, some studies referring to the situation of Mozambique showed that the development of biofuel production can lead to significant welfare benefits. However, considerable risks associated with biofuel crops are worth mentioning. Social risks comprise effects of land use changes, particularly if indigenous people are expropriated and pressure is put on scarce natural resources such as water and good quality soil. Food insecurity is an issue receiving more and more attention. Furthermore, food prices can rise, putting more pressure on poorer communities in urban areas. It may be concluded that in the mid to long term the biofuels may lead to significant social benefits, especially in developing countries. However, the expansion of this sector must be strictly ruled by adequate policy: primarily to control the share of food vs. fuel in the allocation of cropland; secondly, to avoid unbalances in income distribution; thirdly, to insure that land ownership and rights are respected and that welfare and security of local communities are held as key issue of any initiative. Several case studies are presented, to better elucidate the concepts: among the favourable cases, a community project in Mozambique (ADPP Project, Bilibiza), the transformation of local Jatropha into electricity in Mali (Practical Action Consulting, 2009), biofuels and gender issues in India (Banda et al., 2009). Among the unfavourable cases, labour and human rights in Brazil (Amnesty International Report, 2008), elephants under threat in Ethiopia (FoE, 2010) and planting Jatropha in India (FoE, 2009)