Handbook Energizing: Manual sobre Biocombustíveis e agricultura familiar nos países em desenvolvimento

ANNA GREVÉ LORENZO BARBANTI SIMONE FAZIO

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cooperation that counts This project is funded by the European Union.

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of GVC and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

PàTRON EdITORE BOLOGNA 2011

Copyright © 2011 by Pàtron editore - Quarto Inferiore - Bologna All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or published in any form or in any way, electronically, mechanically, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without prior written permission from the publisher.

First edition, september 2011

FSC certified gloss coated paper from mixed sources, containing 50% recycled raw material and 50% FSC virgin fibre.

PÀTRON Editore - via Badini, 12 Quarto Inferiore, 40057 Granarolo dell’Emilia (BO) Tel. 051.767 003 Fax 051.768 252 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.patroneditore.com A complete catalogue is available on our website. It is possible to perform searches by author, title, subject matter and series. For each volume a short summary is available as well as the front cover and a brief description for new publications. Layout: DoppioClickArt - San Lazzaro di Savena (Bo) Printed for Pàtron editore by: Litografia Zucchini, Bologna

Content

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pag. 11 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 13 Symbols and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 15 PART I - General IntroductIon to BIofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Bioethanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Biofuels - state of the art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 General Characterisation and Applications of Plant Oils and Biodiesel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Plant Oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART II - oIl crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Oil Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Botanical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Crop Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Cropping Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Other Palm Species for Oil Production . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Macaúba or Macaw Palm (Acrocomia aculeata (Jacq.) Lodd. ex Mart.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Coconut Palm (Cocos nucifera L.) . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Jatropha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Botanical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Crop Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Cropping Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

» » » » » »

17 19 21 21 22 22

» » » »

27 27 29 33

» » » » » » »

35 37 37 38 40 40 41

» » » » » »

42 45 48 48 50 50

8

Content

3.4 Castorbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pag. 52 3.4.1 Botanical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 53 3.4.2 Crop Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 55 3.4.3 Cropping Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 56 3.5 Sunflower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 58 3.5.1 Botanical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 59 3.5.2 Crop Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 60 3.5.3 Cropping Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 61 3.6 Soybean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 64 3.6.1 Botanical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 65 3.6.2 Crop Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 66 3.6.3 Cropping Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 67 3.7 Oilseed rape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 69 3.7.1 Botanical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 69 3.7.2 Crop Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 71 3.7.3 Cropping Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 72 4 Identification of Suitable Plants for Oil Production in dependence on Climate and Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 75 4.1 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 75 4.2 Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 77 5 Optimization of Crop Farming in dependence on the Local Preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 83 5.1 Oil Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 83 5.2 Coconut palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 87 5.3 Jatropha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 94 5.4 Castorbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 98 5.5 Sunflower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 102 5.6 Soybean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 105 6 General Logistic Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 109 6.1 Characteristic and Critical Issues of Biodiesel Supply Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 109 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 113 PART III - process technoloGy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Technology of Plant Oil Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Oil Seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Pulp Fats and Oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Crude Plant Oil Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Technology of Biodiesel Production from Plant Oils . . . . . 8.1 Raw Materials for Biodiesel Production . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1 Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.2 Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

» » » » » » » » »

115 117 117 119 122 127 127 127 129

Content

9

8.2 Production Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pag. 130 8.3 General description of a Biodiesel Process . . . . . . . . » 131 9 Adherence of Standards for Engine Applications . . . . . . . . » 135 9.1 European Biodiesel Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 135 9.2 US Biodiesel Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 141 9.3 Other Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 143 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 145 PART IV - socIal, envIronmental and economIc aspects . . . . 10 Current Biofuels Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Policy Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Biofuels in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Main barriers for the market penetration and international trade of bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Social Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.1 The dO’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.2 The dON’T’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Socioeconomic aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 Guard rail for securing access to sufficient food . . . . . 12.1.1 Access to food for all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.2 Land need depends on nutrition style and land productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.3 Guard rail for securing access to modern energy services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.4 Guard rail for avoiding health risks through energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.5 Additional socioeconomic sustainability requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Impacts of Large Scale Expansion of Biofuels on Global Poverty and Income distribution . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 Biofuels: Trade-offs in welfare and food security. . . . 12.3.1 Maximizing welfare gains in biofuel production models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.2 Policy implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Introduction into Food vs. Fuel discussion and possible Solution Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 The Food vs. Fuel Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Other Factors Influencing Food Market Prices . . . . . . 13.3 Food and Fuel Sustainable Production . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels . . . . . . . .

» » » »

147 149 150 152

» » » » » » » »

154 157 160 160 163 167 168 168

» 168 » 169 » 169 » 169 » 171 » 173 » 175 » 178 » » » » »

181 181 183 185 187

10

Content

14.1 Methodology for the Assessment of Environmental Impacts deriving from the Cultivation of Oil Crops for Energy Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pag. 187 14.2 “Cradle to Farm Gate” Environmental Impact Assessment of Oil Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 191 14.3 direct and Indirect Land-Use Change from Biofuels . . » 201 15 Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 205 Ethical Framework: Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 205 15.1 Moral values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 206 15.1.1 Human rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 206 15.1.2 Solidarity and the common good . . . . . . . . . . » 208 15.1.3 Sustainability, stewardship and intergenerational justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 209 15.1.4 A note on precautionary approaches . . . . . . . . » 210 15.2 Ethical biofuels: six Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 211 16 Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies . . . . . . » 219 16.1 Bioenergy: Policy Coherence and Integration . . . . . . » 219 16.2 Bioenergy: Opportunities and Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 220 16.2.1 Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 220 16.2.2 Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 222 16.3 Risk governance guidelines for bioenergy policies. . . » 225 16.3.1 Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 225 16.3.2 Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 229 16.4 development of a decision support tool for the assessment of biofuels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 231 17 Certification Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 235 17.1 Overview of Ongoing Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 235 17.1.1 National and supra-national policies . . . . . . . . » 236 17.1.2 International Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 239 17.1.3 Companies, NGO and Independent Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 241 17.1.4 Meta-standard approach: sustainability standards for feedstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 241 17.2 A broad diversity of methodologies and approaches . . » 243 17.3 Examples of Certification Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 244 18 Economic Aspects: Assessment of Cropping Costs and Net Incomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 247 18.1 Methodology for Cropping Cost Assessment . . . . . . . » 247 18.2 Costs and Net Incomes in Large Scale and Family Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 248 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » 255

Preface

Energy is the driving force on our planet. But the world is growing at two different speeds. Wealthy countries consume more than 50% of the world’s total energy whereas the poorest countries consume only 4% of it: 1.6 billion people do not have access to electricity and more than 2 billion depend on biomass stoves for heating and cooking. Energizing Development project is co-funded by the European Commission and it is a sensibilisation campaign at international level promoting new opportunities to reduce this huge energy gap. Energizing development deals with two global challenges: - Fight against poverty and Millennium development Goals formulated by United Nation in 2000. Access to renewable and sustainable energy is fundamental for poverty reduction, improved health, gender equality and sustainable management of natural resources. Ensure to every person the same right of living a decent, safe and healthy life. Reduce poverty. Achieve sustainable development. - Climate Change and Kyoto process. Energy use is predicted to increase rapidly in many parts of the developing world, where use of energy has been very low until now. In order to meet sustainability goals, in particular the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, it is therefore essential to find ways of reducing emissions and use green energy. The Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries is a key tool developed within Energizing development project, representing a main asset for the general public and the specific stake holders living in developing countries around the world. The Handbook covers a vast array of topics, focusing on oils and bio-diesel produced from crop plants growing in tropical and warm areas. In the first part, a general description of plant characteristics, cycle and cropping technique is given for annual and perennial oil crops. The technology in the process of oil extraction, storage and eventual transformation into biodiesel is the second

12

Preface

main area of the Handbook, with particular emphasis in the advantages and disadvantages in oils and biofuel use, and in the adherence to international standards. The third part of the Handbook covers the social, economic and environmental issues: the food vs. fuel controversy is addressed, and solution strategies are discussed. At last, the environmental drawbacks determined by biofuels are analysed through a Life Cycle Assessment approach, in order to indicate the least environmental impacting options. June 9, 2011

Stefania Piccinelli GVC Italy

List of Contributors

Stefania Piccinelli

GVC (Civil Voluntary Group) Bologna, Italy

Lorenzo Barbanti

Research Group on industrial Crops (GRiCI) department of Agro-environmental Science and Technology (diSTA) University of Bologna, Italy

Simone Fazio

Research Group on industrial Crops (GRiCI) department of Agro-environmental Science and Technology (diSTA) University of Bologna, Italy

Anna Grevé

Business Unit Biofuels Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology UMSICHT Oberhausen, Germany

Eliza Teodorescu

ALMA-RO Bucharest, Romania

Ioana Ciuta

TERRA Mileniul III Bucharest, Romania

dan Craioveanu

Transylvania Eco Club Cluj-Napoca, Romania

João José Fernandes OIKOS Queijas, Portugal José Luís Monteiro

OIKOS Queijas, Portugal

Symbols and Abbreviations

Lowercase Letters m mass Capital Letters R organic rest (in a molecule) Abbreviations AOE aqueous oil extraction B100 pure biodiesel BX blend of fossil diesel and biodiesel with a share of X% biodiesel BtL Biomass to Liquid CF carbon footprint CFPP cold filter plugging point ClFC-11 chloro-fluoro-carbons 11 CN cetane number CP cloud point dALY disability adjusted life years dHA docosahexaenoic acid EEA European Environment Agency EPA eicosapentaenoic acid ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether FA fatty acid FAEE fatty acid ethyl ester FAME fatty acid methyl ester FFA free fatty acids FFB fresh fruit bunches FId flame ionisation detector FQd Fuel Quality directive GAME gas assisted mechanical expression GC gas chromatography, -ical

16

Symbols and Abbreviations

GHG GWP HSGC HT HVO IBA ICP IEA ILUC ISCC IV K2O LCA LCI LCIA MSTFA N OECd OLd P2O5 PAF PdF PME PP PPO PUFA RBd REd RME SCE SME TG TPP UFO UV

greenhouse gas global warming potential head space gas chromatography hydrotreating hydrogenated/hydrotreated vegetable oil indole-3-butyric acid inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectroscopy International Energy Agency indirect land use change International Sustainability and Carbon Certification iodine value potassium oxide (“potash”) life cycle assessment life cycle inventory life cycle impact assessment N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide nitrogen Organisation for the Economic Co-operation and development ozone layer depletion phosphorus oxide potentially affected fraction potentially disappeared fraction palm methyl ester pour point pure plant oil polyunsaturated fatty acids refined, bleached, deodorised Renewable Energy directive oilseed rape methyl ester supercritical carbon dioxide extraction method soybean methyl ester triglyceride three-phase partitioning extraction method used frying oils ultra-violet

PART I General Introduction to Biofuels

1 Introduction

There are unequivocal signs that climate change is a serious threat facing the planet (Ragauskas et al., 2006). The rise of carbon dioxide emissions by about 80% between 1970 and 2004 was primarily due to fossil fuel use (IPCC, 2007), and, to a lesser extent, to land-use change (Kucharik et al., 2001). As a result, the global temperature pattern over time resembles a thin hockey stick (Mann et al., 1998), in which we presently are at the highest record. Even worse, a sharper rise is foreseen in the coming decades (IPCC, 2007). On this point, two things should be taken into account: (i) the energy sector is by far the most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions (Olivier et al., 1999); (ii) energy demand is projected to grow by 55% between 2005 and 2030, at an average annual rate of 1.8% (IEA, 2007). It appears, therefore, that tackling climate change with replacing traditional energy sources is an imperative task, as also testified by the general international agreement on emission reduction (aka Kyoto Protocol). More to that, during the G8 Japan summit in 2008 the world leaders endorsed halving global greenhouse gases emissions by 2050. dedicated crops are seen as one of the most interesting short-term option to replace fossil fuels. Millions of hectares of energy crops are expected to be cultivated around the world in the next decades. Nonetheless, diverting agricultural lands to energy crops is a current subject of heated discussion, mainly because of two reasons. The first one is the never-ending dilemma of the possible threats to food security. despite studies arguing that a relevant surface could be made available for energy crops in 2050 without significant consequences on food prices (Smeets et al., 2007, and references therein), the world food demand combined with increased land competition is still a subject of serious concern for many governments (FAO, 2008).

Lorenzo Barbanti and Simone Fazio, University of Bologna, Italy Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany

20

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

The second reason is more intrinsic to these crops: despite the fact that literature is rich in energy crops, some aspects such as their environmental impacts, the economic sustainability and the site-specific adaptability are still debated, requiring deeper insights and better understanding. In modern society, energy and especially the individual mobility is an important factor of economic and private life. About 90% of the commercially produced energy is from fossil resources such as oil, coal and gas. Facing dwindling oil reserves, rising oil prices and the fact that most of the energy supply in the world comes from geo-politically volatile economies, biofuels edge closer to the spotlight. In order to enhance energy security, many countries, including the USA, have been emphasizing production and use of renewable energy sources such as biofuels, which is an emerging industry in the current economic context on a global scale (IEA, 2007). Today, energy from biomass represents 10-12% of total world energy consumption, primarily in developing countries for domestic heating and cooking. Biofuels still cover less than 1% of total fuel requirement. Brazil and USA are the world-leading producers and consumers of bioethanol, representing more than 85% of the total world market, while the EU is the main market and producer for biodiesel (75% of the world consumption) (IEA, 2007). In the world, different strategic targets are driving political choices of the major biofuel producers/consumers. For instance, in fast developing countries such as China and India, the first objective is to increase the primary energy supply reducing or slightly increasing the import, while the major goal for USA and EU is the internal market protection with respect to both energy supply and possible benefits for agriculture. Other countries such as Brazil, Malaysia, and Indonesia conceive biofuels as an export good. The environmental benefits, which were scarcely considered until the last few years except by the EU and some other countries, are now gaining importance in the world community. Though international trade in biofuels is still at an early stage, USA imports from Brazil grew significantly since 2004. Brazil heavily invested in ethanol production during the energy crisis of the 1970’s and now has one of the world’s most advanced production and distribution systems. As Valdes (2007) reports, Brazil aims at replacing 10% of gasoline consumed worldwide by 2012, which means that the country would have to export 20% of its current production. It is interesting to note the potential for trade in biofuels among the major producing countries. The EU is also targeting a 10% share of biofuels in the transport sector by 2020. Global biofuel use is expected to increase twofold by 2015 and Brazil will remain the world’s top exporter; the U.S. is expected to perform the largest increase in biofuel use per country, raising its current consumption by more

Introduction

21

than 30%, according to data from the “Global Biofuels Outlook: 2009-2015” report (Hart Consulting, 2008). In Europe, France and Germany already are established producers. The report predicts other countries to significantly begin to contribute to the world’s biofuel production by 2015: Argentina, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. 1.1 Biofuels The term “biofuel” covers a wide range of fuels derived from organic biomass including solid biomass, liquid fuels and various biogases. Biofuels are gaining increased public and scientific attention, raised by factors such as oil price, the increased demand for energy security, and concern over greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. The existing mobility concepts as well as the infrastructure for distribution and transport are based on liquid fuels. due to their high energy density they are one of the best storage media for energy. The most important liquid biofuels are bioethanol and biodiesel (FAME - Fatty Acid Methyl Ester) which are produced and as well as used world wide in reasonable amounts. Bioethanol from sugar or starch and biodiesel from vegetable oils or animal fats are considered to be 1st generation biofuels. Representatives of the following generations as for example hydrogenated vegetable oils (HVO), synthetic fuels (BtL - Biomass to Liquid) and bioethanol and biodiesel from 2nd generation feedstocks such as cellulose or hemi-cellulose and Jatropha or algae are assumed to be superior to 1st generation biofuels. High investment costs, technical problems as well as high end consumer costs cast it into doubt whether these fuels will be available in the foreseeable future. 1.1.1  Bioethanol Bioethanol is currently produced from sugar- or starch-containing feedstocks such as wheat, maize, sugar beets, sugar cane or molasses, by means of enzymatic digestion, fermentation of the sugars, distillation and drying. Using advanced pulping technologies, cellulose-based biomass (e.g., wood), could be a future feedstock for ethanol production. due to the risk of engine-corrosion water-free (absolute) alcohol is required for fuel applications. Unfortunately, ethanol and water form an azeotropic mixture which makes the dehydration of ethanol a highly energy demanding process. Pure ethanol is used as gasoline substitute, whereas the ethanol derivative ethyl-tert-butyl-ether (ETBE) is used as octane- and emission-improver.

22

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Bioethanol is widely used in the USA and in Brazil. For the production of bioethanol, the USA, China, France, Germany, Russia, and Canada mainly use sugar beet, maize and other cereals, whereas Brazil and India use sugarcane, which is a more energy efficient crop, as a whole (IEA, 2007). Focusing on agronomic issues, maize seems to be less favourable for bioethanol or biofuels in general, because it requires high cropping inputs (fertilizers, pesticides and water), in contrast with one of the basic principles of biofuels: the environmental sustainability. 1.1.2  Biodiesel  Biodiesel is produced by the transesterification of vegetable oils, animal fats or used frying oils (UFO). during this catalytic reaction the high viscosity of plant oils is reduced by converting the oils with a monovalent alcohol (mostly methanol) to the respective alkyl ester and glycerol. depending on the starting material these esters are called oilseed rape oil methyl ester (RME), soybean oil methyl ester (SME) or palm oil methyl ester (PME). It is also possible to use ethanol instead of methanol to produce fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEE), but this technology is far more complex and therefore not as widely spread. Biodiesel is the most common biofuel in Europe and can be used as a full diesel substitute (B100) or as blending component to fossil diesel (BX). due to its fatty acid composition and availability, oilseed rape oil is the most suitable feedstock for biodiesel production in Europe, whereas the US-market is mainly based on soybean oil. In south-east Asia and because of high production volumes and low prices compared to oilseed rape and soybean oil, the importance of palm oil as energy crop increases. The agronomic and environmental aspects of oil crops will be addressed in the following chapters. Anyway, it may be noted that oil crops are generally less impacting than ethanol crops per unit of cropped surface, whereas they are more impacting per unit energy produced. In both cases, the exploitation of co-products is indispensable to increase the economic and environmental sustainability of any crop. 1.1.3  Biofuels - state of the art Beside biodiesel and bioethanol, there are several other biofuels (see chap. 1.1) under development, but only few of them passed the step of market launch and their availability is still limited. The most advanced technologies so far are the production of BtL-fuels by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and HVO by hydrotreating of vegetable oils.

Introduction

23

Figure  1.1  - Process flowsheet for the Choren Carbo-V ® Process to produce BtL-fuels (Choren, 2011).

Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL) While for biodiesel and bioethanol production only parts of a plant, i.e. oil, sugar, starch or cellulose are used so far, BtL production claims to use the whole plant. Suitable feedstocks are e.g. lignocellulose-based biomass as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Miscanthus or biomass sorghum but also residual material from biodiesel or bioethanol production. The BtL-process consists of two main steps (fig. 1.1): gasification and catalytic synthesis. The biomass is gasified by pyrolysis to chemically decompose the organic material and produce a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (syngas). In the following step, syngas is polimerised into diesel-range liquid hydrocarbons by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (Kerdoncuff, 2008; FNR, 2007). The main drawback of this process is the high energy demand for drying moist biomass, and the gasification step. So far, BtL-fuels are not available on the market. Hydrotreated vegetable oils (HVO) Vegetable oils which are transformed to hydrocarbons by a catalytic reaction with hydrogen are referred to as hydrotreated vegetable oils (HVO). during hydrotreating (fig. 1.2), all alkenes and hydroxyl groups are decarboxylated and hydrogenated; the fatty acid chains of the triglycerides are converted into the corresponding alkane, while the glycerol backbone into propane (no glycerol side-stream as in biodiesel production). decarboxylation shortens the hydrocarbon chains and hydrogenation ensures odd chain length n-alkenes. Hence, HVO is not an oxygenated fuel as conventional biodiesel, but chemically identical to fossil diesel. N-alkanes show high cetane numbers (see chap. 9), which makes them interesting as fuel as well as combustion improvers.

24

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 1.2 - Schematic flowsheet of an HVO-process.

However, its comparatively high melting point is disadvantageous for low-temperature applications. To overcome this problem, a subsequent isomerisation can be done. HVO can either be produced by co-processing in hydrotreating (HT) units of refineries, or in stand-alone units with additional isomerisation (Reaney, 2005). Hydrogenation technology is very sensitive to feedstock impurities such as phosphorus or alkaline earth metals; therefore only refined oils can be used. The most advanced stand-alone technology is provided by NesteOil, Finland, which mostly processes refined palm oil (Oja, 2008).

Figure  1.3  - NExBTL plant (left), NExBTL sample (right) HVO-process (Rouhiainen, 2007).

Introduction

25

Figure  1.4  - H-BIO process and first produced sample (Petrobras, 2010).

An example for a HVO production by co-processing is the H-BIO process of Petrobras, Brazil. In the H-BIO process (fig. 1.4), vegetable oil is blended to mineral diesel fractions after the FCC (fluid catalytic cracker) in a conventional refing process and is hydroconverted in hydrotreating units (HdT), which are mainly used for the reduction of sulphur in fossil diesel and quality improvement in petroleum refineries. From 100 litre of soybean oil, 96 litre of diesel fuel and 2.2 nm3 of propane are produced by decarboxylation or hydrodeoxygenation in the HBIO process. due to the hydrogenation of C=C double-bonds during HT, the relative ratio of saturated to unsaturated components rises in the H-BIO vs. the FAME technology, while N and especially S decrease (Petrobras, 2010).

2 General Characterisation and Applications of Plant Oils and Biodiesel

Vegetable oils or their derived product, biodiesel, are potential fuels for diesel engines, representing an alternative to fossil fuel. The suitability of the various oils and the respective biodiesels to be used in diesel engines depends on oil characteristics which deserve a specific discussion. 2.1 Plant Oils More than 200 plant species are grown for oil production worldwide (www.hort.purdue.edu, 2009; FAO, 1992); several crops are either used for the extraction of essential oils (aromatic and medicinal uses), or for the production of technical oils (e.g., lubricants). The remaining crops are used for edible oil/fat and, more recently, for biodiesel production. Also the short chain use of pure plant oil (PPO) for power generation in small steady-state engines or in agricultural tractors seems to be a promising option, especially in rural areas far from transesterification and electricity plants. The most promising crops, suitable for “short chain fuel oil” or biodiesel production are represented by seed/fruit crops, both herbaceous (annual) and tree (perennial) crops. Among herbaceous crops, the most suitable ones concerning both yield and oil characteristics are sunflower, oilseed rape and soybean (in this species oil represents a co-product with respect to protein cake). Among tree crops the most cultivated one for energy purposes is the oil palm, which is also the top yielding. Jatropha is another promising crop, especially for warm, relatively dry regions of the world. Other palm trees, such as the coconut or minor species (e.g., macaúba (Acrocomia aculeata)), are grown for oil production in several regions in the Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany Lorenzo Barbanti and Simone Fazio, University of Bologna, Italy

28

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

world. The interest in the exploitation of native species, potentially better fit to local conditions, is rising in several countries. Several oil crops can be grown in a given area. A first decisive factor is the choice among annual and perennial crops: the former can be introduced in a traditional crop rotation with food species; the latter can avoid annual tillage but stiffen farm rotation. Another key issue for energy crops are the physical and chemical properties of the pure plant oil, depending on the intended use. In table 2.1, oil yield potential and fuel characteristics of oils from different herbaceous and tree oil crops are listed. It appears as the oil output per unit surface greatly varies among crops. However, it should be considered that such data come from different cropping areas; that oil sometimes is a co-product (e.g. soybean); at last, that the cost per litre of oil produced varies according to many factors, beside oil yield per ha. Table 2.1  - Oil yield potential per hectare, and characteristics of oils for biofuels purposes (Knothe et al., 1997).

Oil crop

Oil yield L/ha

Avg. Melting pt °C

Iodine value g/100 g

Calorific value MJ/kg

Cetane number

Oil palm Coconut palm Jatropha Sunflower Castorbean Soybean Oilseed rape Cotton seed

5950 2689 1892 952 1413 446 1190 325

9 22 –5 7.2 –13 –4 –4 2

51 9 102 130 85 132 112 107

37.6 40.5 37.5 39.6 39.5 39.6 39.7 39.5

42 – 23 37 – 38 38 42

Apart from the general requirements for renewable diesel substitutes (see also chap. 2.2), there are also climate-related parameters to be considered, as for example the melting point. The melting point indicates the temperature at which a solid material forms the first liquid droplets; this is especially important for processing or application of plant oils as biofuels. directly related to the melting point is the iodine value (IV), which is a measure for the amount of carbon double bonds present in the respective oil or fat, indicating the degree of saturation. The IV is a titration method and defined as the amount of iodine in g consumed by 100 g of a triglyceride sample - the higher the iodine value the higher the degree of unsaturation. In general, mono- or polyunsaturated fatty acids have a lower melting point than the corresponding saturated fatty acid (e.g. oleic acid C18:1c 13 °C and stearic acid C18:0 69.6 °C). due

General Characterisation and Applications of Plant Oils and Biodiesel

29

to the relatively low iodine values resulting in high melting points of coconut and palm oil, these feedstocks are not favourable for the use as short chain fuels in temperate to cold regions, but might be well suited in tropical regions. Another important parameter which is crucial for the application of pure plant oil in engines is the kinematic viscosity. The kinematic viscosity of a fluid is a measure of its resistance to shear or tensile stress and the reciprocal value of the fluidity. In engines, high fuel viscosities might result in poor atomisation of the fuel, often causing deposits and coking in the injectors, combustion chamber and valves. For diesel fuels, viscosities between 2.5 and 4.0 mm2/s (at 40 °C) are required; all listed pure plant oils show viscosities far above the maximum limit. These high viscosities are one of the main reasons for the conversion of vegetable oils into the respective fatty acid methyl esters. The heating value or calorific value of a substance, usually a fuel or food (see food energy), is the amount of heat released during the combustion of a specified amount of it. The calorific value is a characteristic for each substance and is measured in units of energy per unit mass (kJ/kg). The calorific value of plant oils is lower than that of fossil-based diesel fuels (42-46 MJ/kg) as plant oils as well as biodiesel are oxygenated fuels (oxygen is bound in the fuel’s molecule). The cetane number (CN) describes the combustion quality of a diesel fuel. It is a measure of the ignitability or more exactly the ignition delay corresponding to the time period between start of injection and start of combustion. Cetane ignites easily under compression; therefore it is assigned a CN of 100 whereas all other hydrocarbons are indexed in comparison to cetane. Fuels with high CN have a better ignitability than those with low CN. According to the European diesel fuel standard EN 590, a minimum cetane number of 51 is required for diesel engine applications. Technical Applications of Plant Oils Plant fats and oils are predominantly used in food or feed applications. Beside that, fats and oils are used as fuel (see above) and as renewable feedstock for the production of cosmetics, lubricants or other biofuels. It can also be used for small-scale energy generation or as feedstock for soap production. 2.2 Biodiesel Fossil diesel fuel is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons with 9 to 20 carbon atoms (see example fig. 2.1) and a defined boiling range between 170°C and 360°C. The specific composition of diesel fuels depends on the production method; in general, diesel fuel is obtained from petroleum.

30

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 2.1 - Hydrocarbon chain (undecane C11).

Biodiesel is a renewable fuel derived from vegetable oils which can be added at low ratio to most diesel fuels without substantially changing the fuel properties, as it shows comparable qualities as the crude oil based diesel fuel. due to very high viscosities and poor cold flow properties, the use of pure plant oil in diesel engines is only suitable to a limited extent. The main reactants in the biodiesel production process are triglycerides (vegetable oils) and aliphatic alcohols with short chain lengths, e.g. methanol or ethanol. during the transesterification reaction (fig. 2.2), triglycerides react with methanol to fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) and the trivalent alcohol glycerol (fig. 2.3). By this reaction, the properties of the plant oils are modified and especially the viscosity is reduced. In case of oilseed rape oil the viscosity of the derived ester is about tenfold lower (table 2.2). In table 2.2 a comparison of physical properties of oilseed rape oil, oilseed rape methyl ester (RME) and fossil diesel fuel is shown. Biodiesel is chemically different from fossil diesel fuels, which leads to a number of special physical characteristics compared to the crude oil based fuel. It shows a higher viscosity, density, initial and final boiling point, cold-filter plugging point, and flash point (see table 2.2 and chap. 9). All these properties are related to the high average molecular weight of biodiesel compared to conventional diesel. The lower calorific value compared to fossil diesel results in increased fuel consumption when using plant oil or biodiesel as diesel substitute.

Figure 2.2 - Transesterification reaction.

General Characterisation and Applications of Plant Oils and Biodiesel

31

Figure 2.3 - Sample of biodiesel (upper phase) and glycerol (bottom phase).

Pure plant oil and biodiesel show a significant higher flash point than fossil based diesel which is advantageous for handling the fuel especially in applications requiring high safety standards. The sulphur content of the biofuels is far lower than of standard diesel, which is another advantage as sulphur is supposed to have a negative effect on health and environment. Table 2.2 - Properties of different fuels (Bockisch, 1998; Mittelbach, 2004).

Property Mean molecular weight (g/mol) Calorific value (MJ/kg) Density at 15 °C (kg/m3) Kinematic viscosity at 40 °C (mm2/s) Flash point (°C) Sulphur content (%)

Fossil diesel

Oilseed rape oil

RME

230 42-46 835 2.7 50-77 ~0.14

883 36.7-37.7 910-920 37 317-324 0.009-0.012

296 37.02-37.20 860-900 4.4 111-175 0.002-0.006

Technical Applications of Biodiesel Biodiesel is used predominantly for transportation purposes (in pure form or as blending component in conventional fossil diesel). Beside that, it can be used as a heating fuel for domestic or commercial boilers as well as for power generation (e.g. in co-generation power plants).

Literature

Bockisch M., 1998. Fats and Oils Handbook, AOCS Press, United States of America. Choren, 2011: Der Carbo-V® Prozess, http://www.choren.com/carbo-v/ technologie/ (last consulted: 08.06.2011). Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V. (FNR), 2007. Biokraftstoffe: Pflanzen Rohstoffe Produkte. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 1992. Minor oil crops. FAO agricultural services bulletin no. 94, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2008. Bioenergy, food security and sustainability towards an international framework. FAO Report HLC/08/INF/3, p. 16. Hart Consulting, Global energy outlook: 2009-2015, 2008. Hart energy publishing, Houston - USA. Rouhiainen J., 2007: A new era in biodiesel, High Technology Finland, 2007. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2007. World energy outlook 2007. In: Executive Summary. IEA, Paris, France, p. 18. IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kerdoncuff P., 2008. Modellierung und Bewertung von Prozessketten zur Herstellung von Biokraftstoffen der zweiten Generation. Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe. Knothe G., Dunn R.O. and Bagby M.O., 1997. Biodiesel: The use of vegetable oils and their derivatives as alternative diesel fuels. Fuels and chemicals from biomass. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Kucharik C.J., Brye K.R., Norman J.M., Foley J.A., Gower S.T., Bundy L.G., 2001. Measurements and modeling of carbon and nitrogen cycling in agroecosystems of southern Wisconsin: potential for SOC sequestration during the next 50 years. Ecosystems 4, 237-258.

34

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Mann M.E., Bradley R.S., Hughes M.K., 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392, 779-787. Mittelbach M. et al., 2004. Biodiesel - The Comprehensive Handbook, Graz, Österreich. Oja S., 2008. NExBTL - Next Generation Renewable diesel. Symposium, New Biofuels. Berlin, May 6-7, 2008. Olivier J.G.J., Bouwman A.F., Berdowski J.J.M., Veldt C., Bloos J.P.J., Visschedijk A.J.H., van der Maas C.W.M., Zandveld P.Y.J., 1999. Sectoral emission inventories of greenhouse gases for 1990 on a per country basis as well as on 1° ×1° grid. Environmental Science Policy 2, 241-263. Petrobras, 2010. http://www.petrobras.com.br/tecnologia/ing/hbio.asp (last consulted on 16.12.10). Ragauskas A.J., Williams C.K., davison B.H., Britovsek G., Cairney J., Eckert C.A., Frederick W.J. Jr, Hallett J.P., Leak d.J., Liotta C.L., Mielenz J.R., Murphy R., Templer R., Tschaplinski T., 2006. The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311, 484-489. Smeets E., Faaij A., Lewandowski I., Turkenburg W., 2007. A bottomup assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and Combustion 1, 56-106. Valdes C. 2007. Ethanol demand driving the Expansion of Brazil’s Sugar Industry. Sweet and Sweeteners Outlook 249.

PART II Oil Crops

3 Oil Crops

The choice of the oil crops in a project of agro-energy development is a crucial part of the work. The choice is based on the species’ characteristics, as well as on plant interactions with the environment (soil and climate), on the local preconditions at the site of cropping and on logistic aspects of the production chain. The intrinsic characteristics of the oil crops which can potentially be grown in a given area are the main factor for the choice of the best suited species for that area. Sometimes, a few species (2-3) may be envisaged as the best combination in an area, to level off reciprocal advantages and disadvantages. 3.1 Oil Palm The oil palms (Elaeis spp.) comprise two species of the Arecaceae family. They have been grown in commercial plantations for the production of edible oil since a long time; more recently, they are being dedicated to biodiesel production. The African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) is native to Western Africa, while the American oil palm (Elaeis oleifera (Kunth) Cortés) is native to tropical Central and South America (Lotschert and Beese, 1999). The African oil palm features higher yields per hectare, thus is the most diffused species at present both for food and biofuel productions. It was domesticated in its native range, probably in present Nigeria, and moved throughout tropical Africa by shifting agriculture at least 4,000-5,000 years ago. The African oil palm was introduced to the Americas by European explorers and traders in the late 1500’s, but the first large-scale plantations were established in Sumatra and Malaysia in the early 1900’s (FAO, 2002).

Lorenzo Barbanti and Simone Fazio, University of Bologna, Italy

38

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 3.1 - Oil palm plantation.

3.1.1  Botanical Description Oil palms can reach a height of 20-25 m in natural environments, but rarely more than 8-10 m in cultivated fields. Leaf bases are normally lignified and are visible for many years in the stem after leaf fall. Leaves are up to 6 m long, with 200-300 leaflets, each of them about 0.8-1 m long and 3-5 cm wide, with entire margins. Leaflets are distributed in 2/3 of the leaf, while the remaining part is covered by thorns. The root system has the shape of a rhizome that grows horizontally from the stem to a 4-5 m length (20-30 cm deep); some secondary roots originate from the primary roots, growing to a depth of 1.5-2 m. Oil palms are monoecious, producing separate male and female inflorescences in leaf axils of the same plant. In both sexes, the inflorescence is a compound spadix with 100-200 branches. Each flower presents 3 petals and 3 sepals, whose colour varies from yellow to orange. Fruits are drupes, typical of a lot of species in the Arecaceae family. The mesocarp and endocarp thickness is variable, with dura phenotypes having thick endocarps and thin mesocarp, and tenera types the opposite. The exocarp (shell) color is green during fruit growth, shifting to orange or brown at maturity (in “virescens” and “nigrescens” types, respectively). Fruit length ranges from 2-5 cm; fruits have an ovoid shape. The mesocarp (pulp or “meat”) is fibrous and fatty, and the seed is white, encased in a brown endocarp; palm oil derives from the mesocarp while palm kernel oil from the seed. The female infructescence contains 200-300 fruits attaining maturity about 3-5 months after pollination; each infructescence can weigh up to 40 kg (duke, 1983).

Oil Crops

Figure 3.2 - Oil palm anatomy.

39

40

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

3.1.2  Crop Cycle The palm oil cycle starts with a long establishment phase, without any fruit yield for a few years (3-5): even in the case of transplanted plants, the young palms produce only male flowers for several months, then only female flowers for another long period. The time required to reach maturity, when plants start to produce both female and male flowers, varies depending on climate and soil conditions, as well as on crop variety. In order to avoid an interruption in oil production for a few years, especially in small scale plantations, the new palm plants are transplanted in the inter-rows of older palms when the these latter are still producing. After a few years, the old trees are eliminated through herbicide treatment or directly cut. As an alternative to this, when palms are planted in new fields they are often intercropped with annual food crops in the first unproductive years. Flowering normally occurs during the period of maximum rainfalls; fruits reach commercial maturity (i.e. the maximum oil content) after 80120 days from the end of flowering. A modern palm plantation can yield more than 20 t/ha of fruits, which means almost 5 t of palm oil, plus additional kernel oil (around 60% of palm oil yield) (duke, 1983), although this latter is not always recovered. 3.1.3  Cropping Technique Propagation Oil palms are seed-propagated, as agamic multiplication (e.g., cutting) is not possible. In natural conditions the germination is extremely long and inhomogeneous (ranging from a few months to several years), so the common use for modern nurseries is to carry out germination in greenhouses with heated seed beds. The entire fruits, harvested at physiological maturity (i.e., about one month after commercial maturity), are placed in soil boxes under heating and continuous moistening. In these conditions the germination is quicker and more homogeneous, being normally completed within 3 months (FAO 2002; MdA 2007). After germination, the plants are transplanted into plastic containers and maintained in the greenhouse for another 4-5 months, until the emergence of the first bifurcate leaf (the first leaves are single flapped). Then, the plants are transplanted to an open-air nursery, where they will remain for another 16-18 months, until the production of 14-15 green leaves. At this point the plants are ready for final transplantation to the field (FAO, 2002).

Oil Crops

41

Tillage and Establishment Prior to planting, soil tillage should be carried out at a depth of at least 40 cm, in order to ensure a good expansion of the primary roots. In some cases, when soil conditions do not allow for more, only a single hole per plant, 60 x 60 cm wide and quite deep (up to 80 cm, if the soil permits), is dug, as this is enough for transplanting. The field should be drained by inter-row ditches about 50-70 cm deep. Optimal plant density is 100-150 palms per hectare, with triangular patterns about 8-10 m apart (FAO, 2002). Productive Years When the plantation starts to produce fruits, it needs to be fertilized. Phosphoric fertilizers should be applied if the natural soil availability is low, which is quite common in tropical and sub-tropical soils: they are often rich in total phosphorous (P), but not in available P, given the high aluminium fixation occurring in such soils. The P nutrient requirement, conventionally expressed in the oxidized form (P2O5) is about 3 kg per ton of fresh fruit bunches (FFB); the nitrogen (N) and potassium (conventionally, K2O) requirements are about 3.5 and 12 kg per ton of FFB, respectively (FAO, 2002; MdA, 2007). Nitrogen and potassium fertilizer should be applied every year after the peak of the rainy season. Fertilizer should be spread in a range of 2 m around the stem of each plant, and incorporated through a shallow tillage. Soil should be constantly tilled (4-6 times per year) in order to avoid weeds and fungal disease spreading. dead and older leaves should regularly be cut in order to avoid fungal diseases and to ease harvesting. The need for pesticide treatments is extremely variable in different regions of the world; plant protection programmes should be decided in specific cases, depending on the virulence of parasites of fruits and wood (FAO, 2002; MdA, 2007). Harvest Fruit bunches are harvested using chisels or hooked knives attached to long poles (fig. 3.3). Each tree must be visited every 10-15 days as bunches ripen throughout the year. The maturation is scalar also within a bunch, so the commercial ripeness of a single bunch is considered to be achieved when the first fruits are easy to detach from the rachis (FAO, 2002). 3.2 Other Palm Species for Oil Production Beside the common oil palm there are two other palm species which already are being tested as feedstocks for biodiesel production and could expand in the near future: macaúba and the coconut palm.

42

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 3.3 - Harvesting poles for oil palm.

3.2.1  Macaúba  or  Macaw  Palm  (Acrocomia  aculeata  (Jacq.)  Lodd.  ex Mart.) At a first glance, macaúba resembles the queen palm. However, upon closer inspection there are several differences that distinguish them. The macaw palm has a more robust look, denser canopy, and a trunk that is slightly swollen above the mid-point. However, the most obvious trait is the presence of sharp black spines that encircle the trunk (fig. 3.5). Spines are most dense on younger plants; very old palms have mostly smooth trunks as spines wear away over time. Like oil palm, macaúba is comprised in the Arecaceae family. The plant grows to a 15-20 m height; the trunk, up to 50 cm in diameter, is characterized by several slender, black, sharp 10 cm long spines. The leaves are pinnate, 3-4 m long, with several slender, 50-100 cm long leaflets. Petioles are also covered with spines. The flowers are small, produced on a large branched inflorescence 1.5 m long. The fruit is a yellowish-green drupe

Oil Crops

43

Figure 3.4 - Macaúba (Acrocomia aculeata).

Figure 3.5 - Black spines in macaúba trunk.

2.5-5 cm in diameter, containing a single, dark brown, nut-like seed, which is very tough to break (http://www.floridata.com/, 2009). The inside is a dry white filling that has a vaguely sweet taste when eaten. Some weeks

44

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

after fruit harvest, the macaúba pulp oil presents a high content of free fatty acids (over 35%), which is unfavourable for the biodiesel process. Macaúba is widespread throughout Central and Latin America, often on poor soils. Its remarkable tolerance to drought makes it a suitable species for oil production in regions that are too dry for the African oil palm and coconut palm; the fruit yield can exceed 6 t/ha (Wandeck and Justo, 1982). This palm can also grow in poor, salty, sandy or rocky soils, although the best growth takes place in fertile, well-drained soils. It requires full sun outdoors, as well as well lit greenhouses for nursery. The macaw palm has an advantage over the queen palm in that it can more easily tolerate dry soils. Seeds germinate in 4-6 months and should be scarified to improve germination. Wet-warm conditions with temperatures above 24°C are required. The crop technique is similar to that of oil palm, but macaúba is not yet diffused because of difficulties in overcoming seed dormancy and slow early growth. Rapid hydrolysis of the mesocarp oil and difficulty in separating oil from the fibrous and mucilaginous pulp are among the other problems that still have to be overcome (FAO, 1986; Arkcoll, 1988). The residue from the extraction, the “macaúba-pie” can be used as organic fertilizer or as feed for cattle, goats and sheep. In the short term, it may be envisaged that the fruits of native, sparsely growing macaúba trees will be exploited to produce biodiesel. To avoid the rapid depletion of this energy source, practices for a sustainable use are being devised: detailed inventory of the plants available in a given area; plans for conservation and use of the available genetic resources; zoning of the allowed activities; setting of standards for land use; etc. There are also researches on production systems, where the macaúba will be grown in regular plantations at fixed distances. An advantage of plantations is that food crops (beans, corn) can be inter-cropped during the starting phase of macaúba. In four years the plants reach a height of 7-10 meters and are normally producing fruits; from that time onwards, grass may be planted between the rows as cattle forage (http://www.embrapa. com, 2010). Macaúba should not be used as the sole raw material for feeding a biodiesel plant, since fruit harvest lasts for only four months. For the biodiesel plant to operate throughout the year, other sources will be needed, namely oilseeds such as soybean, sunflower, cotton, etc. Macaúba is best used as a boundary tree on large properties. Small groves are particularly attractive. It can also be used as a street tree and in urban plantings, where its slow growth and drought resistance would represent an advantage with respect to other palm trees.

Oil Crops

45

In its native regions Acrocomia aculeata is an extremely useful plant. The starchy pith, which makes up the inner core of the trunk, is used for cattle food in the dry season. The starch is extracted and is often fermented into an alcoholic drink. The fibrous leaves are used to make rope and twine. As an alternative to oil extraction, fruits may also be boiled, to be consumed as food. 3.2.2  Coconut Palm (Cocos nucifera L.) The coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) is an important member of the family Arecaceae (palm family). It is the only known species in the genus Cocos (http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/, 2010), and is a large palm, growing up to 30 m high, with pinnate leaves 4-6 m long, and single leaflets 60-90 cm long; old leaves break away cleanly, leaving a smooth trunk. The term coconut may refer to the whole coconut palm, the seed, or the fruit, which is not a botanical nut (duke, 1983). The coconut palm is grown throughout the tropics for decoration, as well as for food and industrial uses; virtually every part of the coconut palm can be exploited in some way.

Figure 3.6 - Coconut palm plantation.

46

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

The flowers of the coconut palm are polygamo-monoecious, with both male and female flowers in the same inflorescence. Flowering continuously occurs. Coconut palms are believed to be largely cross-pollinated, although some dwarf varieties are self-pollinating. The pulp (meat) of the coconut is the edible endosperm, located on the inner surface of the shell. Inside the endosperm layer, coconuts contain an edible clear liquid that is sweet, salty, or both. Coconut oil can be extracted from both kernel and pulp of mature nuts harvested from this palm. Throughout the tropical region it has provided the primary source of fat in the diets of millions of people for generations. It has various applications in food, medicine, industry, and more recently for biofuel production. Coconut oil is very temperature-stable, therefore it makes an excellent cooking and frying oil. It has a smoke point of about 180°C. Because of its stability, it is slow to oxidize and thus resistant to rancidity, lasting up to two years due to a high saturated fat content (high IV) (Fife, 2005). Coconut trees are very hard to establish in dry climates, and cannot grow there without frequent irrigation; in dry conditions, the new leaves do not unfold well, while older leaves may wither; fruits also tend to be shed. Plants are normally propagated by transplant of seedlings originating from fully mature fruits. Seeds are selected from high-yielding stock with desirable traits. After fully mature nuts are picked, instead of being allowed to fall, they are shake-tested to listen for water within: underripe, spoiled, excessively dry and insect- or disease-damaged nuts are discarded. Nuts are planted right away in nursery or stored in a cool, dry, ventilated shed until they can be planted. Seeds planted in nursery facilitate visual selection of the best specimens for field transplant, as only half will produce a high-yielding palm. Also, watering and insect control is much easier to manage in a nursery. Soil should be sandy or sandy-loamy, devoid of waterlogging, but close to a source of water, and in full light. Nuts planted horizontally produce better seedlings than those planted vertically. The germinating eye is placed uppermost in a shallow furrow (about 15 cm deep), and soil is mounded up around, but leaving the eye exposed. All late germinating and slow growing individuals are discarded. Robust plants, showing normal to rapid growth, straight stems, broad, comparatively short dark-green leaves with prominent veins, spreading outward and not straight upward, and those free of disease symptoms, are selected for the transplant. The best spacing depends upon soil fertility: usually 9-10 m on the square is used, planting 70-150 trees/ha (duke, 1983).

Oil Crops

47

Planting holes 1 m wide, quite deep should be dug 1-3 months before seedlings are transplanted. Usually 7-8 month-old seedlings are used as transplants. In some cases, plants up to 5 years old are used, as they are more resistant to termite damage. If older plants are used, care must be taken not to damage roots, as they are slow to recover. To ease establishment, it is desirable to carry out the transplant in the rainy season. In areas with only one rainy season per year, it is simpler to plant nuts in nursery in one rainy season, and to transplant them a year later (duke, 1983). Normally, the cheapest fertilizers available in a given area are used. A general recommendation, with suitable local modifications, consists of 250-300 g N, 250-450 g P2O5, and 300-650 g K2O per palm (duke, 1983). The coconut palm is damaged by the larvae of many Lepidoptera species (butterflies and moths), which feed on it, including some Batrachedra species: B. arenosella; B. atriloqua and B. mathesoni (which exclusively feeds on Cocos nucifera), and B. nuciferae. The fruit may also be damaged by eriophyid coconut mites (Eriophyes guerreronis). This mite infests coconut plantations, and may be devastating: it can destroy up to 90% of the coconut production. The immature nuts are infested and felled by larvae dwelling in the portion covered by the perianth of the immature nuts; if they survive, they are deformed. Spraying with wettable sulphur 0.4% or with neem-based pesticides can give some relief, but it is cumbersome and labour intensive (Agriculture handbook, 1960). Trees begin to produce fruits within 5-6 years on good soils, more likely within 7-9 years, and reach full bearing ability in 12-13 years. The time needed from female flowering to fruit maturity is approximately 12 months, two thirds of which from fruit setting to maturity. Coconuts are usually picked by climbers, or cut by knives attached to end of long bamboo poles, which is cheaper and also more efficient. In some areas nuts are allowed to fall naturally, and collected regularly. Good desiccated coconut should be white in colour, crisp, with a fresh nutty flavour, and should contain less than 20% moisture and about 70% oil. The free fatty acid content of extracted oil is below 0.1% (http://sistemasdeproducao.cnptia.embrapa.br/, 2010). The average yield of coconuts is 3-5 tons per ha. Under good climatic conditions, a fully productive palm produces 12-16 bunches of coconuts per year, each bunch with 8-10 nuts, or 60-100 nuts/tree. Efficient pressing of 100 kg of desiccated fruit will approximately yield 62.5 kg of coconut oil and 35 kg coconut cake containing about 7-10% oil. Oil yields of 9001,350 kg/ha have been reported in several studies (Pryde and doty, 1976; Telek and Martin, 1981).

48

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

3.3 Jatropha Jatropha curcas L. is a species of the Euphorbiaceae family, which is native to the American tropics, most likely Mexico and Central America. It is grown in tropical and subtropical regions around the world, becoming naturalized in some areas, particularly in South-eastern Asia. Common names include Barbados nut, purging nut, physic nut, or JCL (abbreviation of Jatropha curcas Linnaeus) (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009).

Figure 3.7 - Jatropha plantation.

3.3.1  Botanical Description Jatropha is a semi-evergreen shrub or small tree, reaching a maximum height of 6 m. It is tolerant to a high degree of aridity; therefore it can be grown even close to the desert, although it needs an adequate water availability to achieve an economic yield. The plant is poisonous, since it contains curcin, a toxin from the same family (toxalbumins) that can be found in castor bean. The seeds contain 27-40% of non-edible oil, that can be extracted to be directly used or further processed as biodiesel feedstock. So far this crop has mainly been planted to form living fences in order to protect traditional crops from wild animals (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop. fao.org/ 2009; duke, 1983).

Oil Crops

49

Figure 3.8 - Branch, leaf and fruits of Jatropha curcas.

Jatropha is a perennial, monoecious plant with glabrous, ascending, stout branches. In the seed-reproduced plant the root system is formed by 5 principal roots; in the agamic-propagated plant the central root is not present. The root system can grow up to a 3 m depth. Leaves are alternate, palmate, petiolate, and stipulate; petiole length ranges from 2-20 cm; leaf blades have 3-5 lobes, 12-18 x 11-16 cm; lobes are acute or shortly acuminate at the apex, with entire or undulating margins (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ 2010). The inflorescence is formed at the end of branches; it is a complex cyme, possessing one main inflorescence and co-florescences with paracladia. The plant is monoecious and flowers are unisexual, occasionally hermaphroditic. The male flower consists of 10 stamens arranged in two distinct whorls of five each in a single column in the androecium, in close proximity to each other. The female flower has sepals up to 18 mm long, persistent 3-locular, ellipsoid ovary, 1.5-2 mm in diameter, bifid style (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ 2010).

50

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

The fruit is an ellipsoid capsule 2.5-3 cm long, 2-3 cm in diameter, of yellow colour turning black at maturity. Seeds are black, 2-4 per fruit, ellipsoid to triangular-convex, 1.5-2 x 1-1.1 cm in size. A commercial plantation can yield up to 4-5 ton of seeds per ha, with an average oil content of 35%; specific researches have shown that under irrigation or high rainfalls the annual seed yield can attain a peak of 12 tons per ha (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/ 2010). 3.3.2  Crop Cycle Jatropha curcas is usually propagated by seed, although the vegetative propagation is also possible. Multiplication through seed (sexual reproduction) leads to a lot of genetic variation in terms of growth, biomass, seed yield and oil content. However, clonal techniques can help to overcome these problems which now hinder a mass propagation of this oil crop. Vegetative propagation has been achieved by stem cuttings, grafting, and budding as well as by air layering. According to specific trials, cuttings should preferably be taken from juvenile plants and treated with 200 µg/l of IBA (indole-3-butyric acid, a rooting hormone), to ensure a good level of rooting in stem cuttings. These vegetative methods have potential for commercial propagation of Jatropha (duke, 1983). The transplanting should be carried out in the period of maximum rainfalls during the year; 3 months later, the first flowering occurs; in the subsequent years, 1 or 2 flowerings occur per year, depending on climate conditions. Flowering, as well as fruit maturation, is scalar and can last over one month. After 3-4 months fruits are visible and in 60-80 days they will reach commercial maturity (http://www.agroils.com, 2010). data on potential crop lifespan under intensive cropping system (i.e. with fruit harvesting) are not available so far, but the duration of fieldboundary plants, without specific fertilization and irrigation, was shown to exceed 15 years (http://www.jatrophacurcasplantations.com, 2010). 3.3.3  Cropping Technique Propagation and Establishment Even if Jatropha can directly be sown in the field, the best results are generally achieved by transplanting young plants raised in nurseries (fig. 3.9). In case of vegetative propagation, plant cuttings should be rooting in greenhouses or in some other protected environment.

Oil Crops

51

Figure 3.9 - Nursery of Jatropha curcas.

The soil tillage should be accurate and deep: holes up to 50-80 cm deep are required. The optimal density seems to be around 2,000 plants per hectare, planted with square patterns about 2-2.5 m apart (Alfonso-Bártoli, 2008). Productive Years Two to three years after transplanting, Jatropha reaches the top fruit yield. Fertilizers may be saved in some cases, but a recent study by Jongschaap et al. (2007) showed that the nutrient uptake per ton of seed is significant, although very variable: 15-35 kg N, 1-7 kg P2O5 and 15-30 kg K2O. Therefore, a yield of 4-5 tons per ha requires up to 140, 18 and 120 kg/ha of N, P2O5 and K2O, respectively (FACT, 2010). The plants need to produce side shoots for maximum sprouting and maximum flower and seed output. Pruning is considered an important practice in cultivation of Jatropha, both at the beginning to shape the plant (topping of main stem and lateral shoots) and subsequently, to renew the young productive branches carrying flower buds. The optimal shape is that of a plant with 8 – 12 branches bearing fruits. In order to ease harvest, it is suggested to keep the tree less than 2 meter high (FACT, 2010). Pests and fungal attacks are extremely variable depending on climate conditions and growing areas; normally the damage is not so serious as to justify a pesticide treatment. Only in a few cases relevant damages have

52

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

been observed to be caused by two insects (Scutellera nobilis and Pempelia morosalis), although recent reports from Mozambique (Luisa Santos, 2010) claim that many other insect species seriously attack Jatropha, requiring insecticide sprayings (FACT, 2010). Weed control is very important, therefore mechanical or chemical weeding should be carried out up to 4 times per year, in order to avoid the competition of weeds, especially for water (FACT, 2010). Harvest Manual harvesting is still the most diffused technique so far, even though the labour cost for this operation is one of the most impacting in the economic balance of this crop. Harvest machines for almond and vineyards have been tested with good results also in Jatropha plantations, although mechanical harvest tends to depress the oil output, as fruit ripening is scalar and with manual harvest only mature fruits will be picked up (FACT, 2010). 3.4 Castorbean Castorbean, Ricinus communis L., also known as castor oil plant, is a species of the spurge family, Euphorbiaceae, such as Jatropha curcas.

Figure 3.10 - Castorbean plantation.

Oil Crops

53

It belongs to a monotypic genus, Ricinus, and subtribe, Ricininae. The evolution of castorbean and its relation to other species is currently being studied (Maroy, 2007). Its fruit (castor bean), despite its name, is not a true bean. The species is indigenous to the South-eastern Mediterranean Basin, Eastern Africa, and India, but is widespread throughout tropical regions (and widely grown elsewhere as an ornamental plant) (Maroy, 2007). 3.4.1  Botanical Description Castorbean is the source of castor oil, which has a wide variety of uses. The seeds contain between 40% and 60% of oil which is rich in unsaturated fatty acids (mainly ricinoleic acid) and ricin, a toxin which is also present in lower concentrations throughout the plant. Although monotypic, castorbean may greatly vary in growth habit and appearance. The variability has been aggravated by breeders who have selected a range of cultivars for leaf and flower colours, as well as for oil production. The plant consists of several stems or branches, each terminated by a spike. It is a fast-growing, suckering perennial shrub which can reach the size of a small tree (2-5 m high) (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009). The glossy leaves are 15-45 cm long; they are long-stalked, alternate and palmate (5-12 deep lobes with coarsely toothed segments). In some varieties they start off dark red, purple or bronze when young, gradually shifting to a dark green, sometimes with a reddish tinge, as they mature. The leaves of some varieties are green practically from the start, whereas in some others a pigment masks the green colour of all the chlorophyllbearing parts, leaves, stems and young fruit, so that they remain a remarkable purple-to-reddish-brown throughout plant life. Specimens with dark leaves can be found growing next to those with green leaves; it is speculated that there is only a single gene controlling the production of the pigment in some varieties (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009). Flowers are borne in terminal panicle-like inflorescences (spikes) of green or reddish monoecious flowers without petals. The mature spike is 15-30 cm long. The male flowers are yellow-green with prominent stamens and are carried in ovoid spikes up to 15 cm long; the female flowers have prominent red stigmas (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009). In some varieties, female flowers are on the upper part of the spike and male flowers on the lower part. Other varieties have male and female

54

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 3.11 - Anatomy of Ricinus communis.

flowers interspersed on the spike. Varieties with spikes of only female flowers enabled the production of hybrid seed. Male flowers drop off the spike after pollination. The lower spikes on the plant mature first, followed by the upper spikes. The fruit is a green (to purple-reddish) capsule containing large, oval, bean-like, highly poisonous seeds with variable brownish mottling (fig. 3.15) (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009).

Oil Crops

55

Figure 3.12 - Castorbean seeds.

3.4.2  Crop Cycle In the tropics, castorbean is perennial, whereas it cannot survive winter temperatures in temperate regions, where it is grown as an annual crop, requiring a growing season of 140 to 180 days. Germination is slow. Seedlings will emerge 10 to 21 days after planting at a minimum temperature of around 18°C. Seeds require high temperatures to reach maturity, although long period with temperatures above 37°C determine failures in seed setting and consequent abortion. Castorbean should not be planted in areas prone to erosion (Oplinger et al., 1990). Castorbean grows well in various soil types; it has a fairly good resistance to salinity, whereas excess moisture should be avoided, especially at the beginning of the cycle. The nutrient requirement is not particularly high: a seed production of 100 kg involves the uptake of 7, 2.5 and 7 kg of N, P2O5 and K2O, respectively.

56

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

3.4.3  Cropping Technique Seedbed Preparation and Sowing Seeds should be assorted to remove inert material (e.g., crop residues), seeds with attached hulls, and damaged seeds. They should also be treated with a fungicide before planting. This is particularly important in areas with the risk of low spring temperatures and high soil moisture immediately after planting (Oplinger et al., 1990). Castorbean seeds are poisonous for animals and humans. In addition, inhaling dust from the seeds may cause allergic reactions in some individuals. Seed treatment should be performed carefully to minimise dust and to avoid contamination of food and livestock feed (duke, 1983). Soil tillage is usually performed through mouldboard or disk ploughing. At seeding time, it is important to ensure a moist soil at the planting depth of 3-6 cm. Castorbean seed should be planted about the same time as maize. Of course, in tropical areas where castorbean is a perennial plant, the crop establishment occurs once for several years (Oplinger et al. 1990). Good stands of castorbean require fairly heavy planting rates, as seed germination is usually rather low. Seeding at 12 to 18 kg/ha will give a good stand, depending on the seed size and the height of the variety. Inter-row width should be 75-100 cm; on-the-row spacing between plants should be 20-30 cm, in order to achieve a density of about 5 plants/ m2. Because of differences in germination rates and plant size, growers should calculate rates based on the seed lot. The weight of a thousand seeds greatly varies around an average of 250 g (Oplinger et al., 1990; duke, 1983). Since castorbean seeds are oily and easily broken, they can clog machinery and cause irregular spacing. If not planted by hand, most air seeders suitable for maize should perform well also for castor. Mechanical seeders using metering plates will require plates with proper cell size for castor seed. It is always important to check the seeding unit to ensure that excessive bean cracking or crushing is not occurring during planting (Oplinger et al., 1990; duke, 1983). Other Cropping Operations The most important aspect of soil fertility is to ensure the right nitrogen supply. The amount of nitrogen to be applied varies depending on general soil fertility, which may be summarized by the soil organic matter content; 60 to 120 kg of N/ha represents a normal range. A split application (pre-plant or pre-shooting plus side-dress) may be benefi-

Oil Crops

57

cial at the higher application rates or on light-textured soils (Brigham, 1993). In general, castorbean requires the same amount of nutrients as other low-demanding field crops: approximately 25 kg P2O5 and 50 kg K2O should be applied per ha. If soil tests are below the optimum threshold, 8 kg P2O5 and 30 kg K2O should be added to the previous rates. However, castorbean does not generally respond to phosphorus, and excess soil phosphorus levels can actually decrease yields (Oplinger et al., 1990; duke, 1983). The slow emergence and early growth of castorbean means that the plant is not a strong competitor against weeds. Rotary hoeing during the first few weeks after planting, followed by inter-row cultivation should provide an acceptable control. Since the main lateral roots of the plant are near the soil surface, inter-row tillage should be shallow. At present, herbicides are not registered for controlling weeds in castorbean (Oplinger et al., 1990; duke, 1983). Resistance to various diseases differs among castorbean varieties. during periods of heavy rains or dews, capsule molds, Alternaria leaf spot and bacterial leaf spot may occur. Alternaria leaf spot is more sever in nitrogen-starved plants. Other diseases may occur, particularly in wet seasons. To help in the prevention of disease problems, good rotation programmes and seed treatments with a fungicide prior to planting are recommended (Oplinger et al., 1990; duke, 1983). Though leaf- and stem-feeding insects usually do not cause serious damage to castorbean, cutworms and wireworms may reduce plant stand. Several other pests (stink bugs, corn earworms, webworms, caterpillars, grasshoppers, thrips, spider mites, leaf miners, Lygus bugs and the European corn borer) are sometimes reported to attack the plants (Brigham, 1993). Harvest The castorbean crop is ready for harvest when all the capsules are dry and the leaves have fallen from the plants. In warm climates, the plant tends to keep its leaves; in order to ease harvest, a chemical defoliant may be applied 10 to 15 days ahead of the desired harvest date. However, defoliants tend to reduce yields. A delay in harvest after the crop is ready may result in losses from capsule shattering, causing the seeds to pop out of open fruits (duke, 1983). Yields of 2-2.5 t/ha of dry seed are recorded in annual crops in favourable conditions. Seed oil content is about 50%, the rest being protein (20%), starch, fibre, minerals. The harvest can be performed with a modified combined harvester, or with some maize harvesters. Since the beans are very prone to cracking

58

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

and splitting during harvest, adjustment of the combine cylinder speed and cylinder-concave clearance is very important. Usually, a low cylinder speed and wide cylinder-concave clearance is recommended (Oplinger et al., 1990; duke, 1983). Weeds may also create problems during harvest, as they may clog machinery or pile in front of the harvester and cause shattering of the castorbeans. If harvesting is done by hand on perennial plants, pruning should be performed immediately after, in order to anticipate the next cropping cycle. In the annual crop, the stalks remaining after harvest should be mechanically chopped prior to being incorporated into the soil. The stalks will rapidly decompose and furnish nutrients and organic matter to the soil (Oplinger et al., 1990; duke, 1983). 3.5 Sunflower The Latin name for sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) comes from the Greek words helios, sun, and anthos, flower; the second element of the Latin binomial for sunflower, annuus, means yearly. The sunflower is native to South America; it is believed that many ancient cultures used the sunflower for its therapeutic properties and in culinary practice. The Aztec and the Inca believed that the sunflower represented the sun; the plant was accordingly worshipped (Putnam et al. 1990).

Figure 3.13 - Sunflower field.

Oil Crops

59

3.5.1  Botanical Description The sunflower is an annual herbaceous species, with a rough, hairy stem 1-4 m tall; broad, coarsely toothed, rough leaves, 7-30 cm long. Cropped sunflowers most commonly grow up to heights between 1.5 and 2.5 m. What is usually called the flower actually is an inflorescence (formally a composite flower) of several florets (small flowers) crowded together. The outer florets are the sterile ray florets that can be of yellow, orange, or

Figure 3.14 - Sunflower anatomy.

60

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

other colour. The inner florets (inside the circular head) are called disc florets, which mature into seeds. The florets within the sunflower head are arranged in a spiral pattern. Typically, each floret is oriented towards the next by approximately the same angle. Sunflowers in the bud stage exhibit heliotropism. At sunrise, their heads are turned towards the east. Over the course of the day, they follow the sun from east to west, while at night they return to an eastward orientation. This motion is performed by motor cells in the pulvinus, a flexible segment of the stem just below the bud. As the bud stage ends, the stem stiffens and the plant gets in the blooming stage (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009). 3.5.2  Crop Cycle Sunflower is seed-propagated; the sowing date changes according to the cropping area. This crop is grown in many warm to semi-arid regions of the world from Argentina to Canada and from Central Africa to the former Soviet Union. It grows in the warm season, but is quite tolerant to low temperatures (-5 °C at the cotyledon stage). Sunflower seeds will start to germinate at 4°C, but temperatures of about 10 °C are required for a good, rapid emergence (Putnam et al., 1990). Therefore, sunflower is fit for Mediterranean-like climates, where it can be sown at the very beginning of the growing season, in order to carry out most of its cycle before the peak of the summer drought. In warm, moist soil and under abundant sunshine, sunflower speeds up growth, shaping a sturdy, upright stem lined with sandpaper-textured leaves. depending on sunflower genotype and environmental conditions, the plant reaches its top height between six and twelve weeks from emergence. At that time, the tip of sunflower stem forms a large, star-like flower bud, surrounded by many small leaves. The bud opens to reveal the ray petals, usually a shade of yellow, which then enlarge and fold outward to reveal the disc floret (diameter 20-40 cm). Attracting bees, the disc is pollinated. After the flower is pollinated, the colourful ray petals wither and drop down, leaving just a broad seed head turned downwards and resembling a large shower head (Putnam et al., 1990; duke, 1983). After insect pollination, the ovaries in each floret begin to swell and mature into achenes (small, dry fruits). They become firm, pale brown to dark grey, with stripes of contrasting colours on the seed coats. As the big seed head ripens and dries, the individual seeds tend to drop to the ground, if they are not harvested in time. In natural environments, fallen seeds

Oil Crops

61

remain dormant through the autumn and winter, awaiting the right conditions next spring to germinate. Achenes contain 40-50% oil in dry weight. After oil pressing, the residual meal is rich in protein (about 30%), therefore has a high value as animal feed. Since pressing cannot recover all the seed oil, the meal should be consumed quite in a short time, or it will soon deteriorate (Putnam et al. 1990; duke, 1983). The whole cycle from seeding to harvest in temperate areas lasts for an average 150 days. Sunflower will grow in a wide range of soil types from sandy to clayey. The nutrient demand of a sunflower crop is not so large as those of maize, wheat or potato: N, P2O5 and K2O uptakes of a high-yielding crop (3.5 t/ha) equal 160, 60 and 400 kg/ha, respectively. At harvest, sunflower residues (stem and leaves) retain a large share of nutrients (especially K), being returned to the soil with residue incorporation (duke, 1983). Moreover, the plant possesses a pivoting root exploring the subsoil in the pursuit of water and nutrients. 3.5.3  Cropping Technique Seedbed Preparation and Sowing Many different tillage systems can actually be applied for sunflower production. Conventional systems of seedbed preparation consist of ploughing to incorporate residues and organic fertilizers, followed by secondary tillage interventions. This system increases the availability and improves the distribution of potassium and nitrogen. It also contributes to increase seedbed temperatures, in turn speeding emergence. However, the risk of erosion and the cost of the whole operation system lead to an increased interest into reduced or zero tillage systems: they include minimum and ridge tillage, and sod-seeding. Ridge tillage, i.e. planting the seed in the upper part of ridges shaped out from the soil surface, results in enhanced seedling emergence, but also plant lodging (duke, 1983). Sunflower can be sown at a wide range of dates, as most cultivars are earlier in maturity than the length of the potential growing season of many temperate areas. In tropical areas sunflower has been planted at any month of the year, achieving a satisfactory yield. Outside the tropics, highest yields and oil percentages are obtained by planting early in the season: the early spring sowing of the gramineous grasslands in a given area may be chosen as a reference time to start sunflower sowing. In the temperate to cold areas this often means April, whereas in the temperate to warm areas this means March (Putnam et al., 1990). In Mediterranean areas sunflower sowing may be anticipated up to February.

62

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

A planting depth of 2-4 cm allows sunflower seeds to reach available moisture and produces satisfactory stands. deeper plantings have resulted in reduced stands and yields. If crusting or packing of the soil is expected, a shallow planting depth is recommended (Putnam et al. 1990). Sunflower row spacing is most often determined by the available machinery: the crop is typically seeded at a large inter-row distance (70-75 cm), but sometimes a narrower inter-row is possible (around 50 cm). Seed spacing on the row must consequently be adjusted, in order to attain a plant density ranging about 4-6 plants/m2 (lower densities in unfertile environments), given a seed emergence of 60-70%. The thousand seeds weight, (for this crop, actually, thousand achenes weight) is about 50-70 g, but commercial seed is more often sold in doses of 70,000 or 75,000 seeds (the number needed for one hectare). Sunflower stands have the ability to produce the same yield over a wide range of plant densities: the plants adjust head diameter, seed number per plant and individual seed weight to lower or higher populations (Putnam et al., 1990). Other Cropping Operations Research has showed sunflower responses to N, P and K. Nitrogen is usually the most common yield-limiting factor. However, N supply tends to reduce seed oil content and enhances plant vigour and leaf area, exposing the crop to the risk of lodging. Yield increases up to N rates which seldom pass 100 kg/ha. A nitrogen dose ranging between 90 and 120 kg N/ ha after non-leguminous crops is advisable in many cases. On high organic matter soils, amounts should be lowered. Nitrogen can be supplied from mineral as well as non-mineral sources (manures, compost, leguminous pre-crop, etc.) (Putnam et al., 1990; duke, 1983). As for P and K, the former nutrient more frequently determines yields increases in experiments carried out in Europe and North America especially in early sowing, despite a lower uptake. Recommendations for P and K should be based on soil tests and on the yield goal of the specific field. Suggested rates for soils very poor in P and K are in the range of 50-90 kg of P2O5/ha and 75-150 kg of K2O/ha, also depending on soil yield potential. These recommendations decrease as soil P and K status improves, eventually reducing to no P and K supply in rich soils (Putnam et al., 1990; duke, 1983). Sunflower is not particularly sensitive to soil pH. The crop is commercially grown on soils ranging from a pH of 5.7 to over 8 with an optimum in the range of 6.0 to 7.2. Sunflower yields are affected but rarely impaired by weeds which compete for moisture, nutrients and light. In fact, sunflower is a strong competitor especially for light, but does not cover the ground early enough

Oil Crops

63

to prevent weed establishment. Therefore, early season weed control is essential for good yields. Annual weeds are the primary focus of weed control research. Perennial weeds can also cause problems but are usually not specific to sunflower. Successful weed control should include a combination of chemical (herbicides) and mechanical methods (harrowing, inter-row hoeing). Several herbicides are registered for weed control in sunflower. Information on chemical weed control in sunflowers is available at most farm extension services (Putnam et al., 1990; duke, 1983), according to the herbicides registered in each specific country. The most serious diseases of sunflower are caused by fungi. The major diseases include rust (Puccinia helianthi), downy mildew (Plasmopara halstedii), Verticillium wilt, Sclerotinia stalk and head rot, Phomopsis black stem and leaf spot. The severity of these diseases on total crop yield varies according to ecological characteristics of each area. Resistance to rust, downy mildew, and Verticillium wilt has been incorporated into improved sunflower germplasm (Putnam et al., 1990; duke, 1983). Bees are beneficial to sunflower yield as they carry pollen from plant to plant resulting in cross pollination. Some sunflower varieties will not produce top yields unless pollinators are present. All varieties will produce some sterile seed, but varieties differ in their degree of dependence on insect pollinators (Putnam et al., 1990; duke, 1983). Insect pests quite rarely are potential yield-reducing factors in sunflower production. However, wireworms (Agriotes spp.) may represent a serious threat in the establishment phase, especially if seedling emergence is delayed because of low temperatures, seed crusting, etc.. Adults of insect pests of other crops (such as corn rootworm beetle and blister beetle) can be found as pollen feeders on sunflower heads, but usually cause little injury. (Putnam et al., 1990; duke, 1983). More to this, birds may cause yield losses as they feed on the ripening seed, especially if sunflower is grown on small surfaces. Harvest Sunflower seed is physiologically ripe long before it is dry enough for machine harvesting (combined harvesters - fig. 3.12). Seed maturity approximately occurs when the backs of the heads are yellow, but the fleshy sunflower head takes a long time to dry. Seeds should have a moisture not exceeding 9% for long term storage and below 12% for temporary storage; in warm weather seed deterioration (rancidity) is likely after a few days with moisture contents above 10%. Yields of 3-4 t/ha of seed at standard humidity (9%) are attained under conditions of favourable soil fertility and moisture during the cycle. More often, yields about 2 t/ha are recorded in Mediterranean environments, with an average seed oil content of 45%.

64

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 3.15 - Combined harvester with sunflower header.

Specific sunflower headers for combined harvesters are available, which are useful to decrease seed losses as the crop is directly combineharvested in a single pass. This equipment usually includes 22 to 75 cm wide metal pans for catching falling seed and a modified reel (Putnam et al., 1990; duke, 1983). 3.6 Soybean The soybean (US) or soya bean (UK) (Glycine max (L.) Merryl) is a leguminous species native to East Asia. The plant is classified as an oilseed rather than a pulse. It is an annual plant that has been used in China for 5,000 years primarily to enrich soil nitrogen as part of crop rotation (Riaz, 2006). The soybean seed is normally processed into a vegetable oil (soy oil) for food uses, and in a fat-free (defatted) soybean meal which is a primary, low-cost, source of protein for animal nutrition and most pre-packed

Oil Crops

65

Figure 3.16 - Soybean field.

meals. The main producers of soybean are the United States (32%), Brazil (28%), Argentina (21%), China (7%) and India (4%) (FAOSTAT, 2009). 3.6.1  Botanical Description Soybean varies in growth and habit: genotypes at indeterminate growth are suited for temperate areas, whereas genotypes at determinate growth, i.e. those whose stem is topped by a flower bud, must be used in warm to tropical areas. The height of the plant varies from 20 cm up to 2 m, with 1-1.5 m the most frequent height. The pods, stems, and leaves are covered with fine brown or gray hairs. The leaves are trifoliate, normally having 3 leaflets per leaf; the leaflets are 6-15 cm long and 2-7 cm wide. The leaves fall before the seeds are mature. The inconspicuous, self-fertile flowers are borne in the axil of the leaf and are white, pink or purple. The fruit is a hairy pod that grows in clusters of 3-5. Each pod is 3-8 cm long and usually contains 2-4 (rarely more) seeds of 5-11 mm in diameter. The seed mainly contains protein (40%) and oil (20%) on a dry weight basis, the rest being starch, some fibre and minerals (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009). Soybean occurs in various sizes, and in many seed coat colours, with yellow, green and pale flesh as the most common. The hull of the mature bean is hard, water resistant, and protects the cotyledons and germ from damage (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009). Soybean can produce at least twice as much protein per hectare than many other major vegetable or grain crops, or 5 to 10 times as much as land set aside for grazing animals for milk, and up to 15 times as much as meat production (http://www.nsrl.uiuc.edu).

66

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 3.17 - Soybean anatomy.

3.6.2  Crop Cycle Soybean is a short-day plant, i.e. start flowering when the daylight hours begin to decrease. However, cultivars for intermediate latitudes are photoperiod-indifferent. Successful growth requires warm weather: optimum conditions are temperatures of 20 to 30 °C, whereas temperatures below 20 °C and over 40 °C significantly delay growth. In temperate areas, crop cycle spans over an average 150 days after spring (April, May) sowing. double cropping of soybean is also possible with suitable (early)

Oil Crops

67

varieties; this means that soybean is sown at the beginning of summer (June, early July) just after a winter crop (barley, wheat, vegetables, etc.) is harvested: sod-seeding is often adopted to save time. Soybean cycle will last for an approximate 90-110 days until early autumn (October). doublecropped soybean has less and shorter internodes, therefore plant height is reduced with respect to the single crop. The crop can grow in a wide range of soils; best are moist alluvial soils having a good organic matter content. Soybean, like most legumes performs nitrogen fixation by establishing a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria Bradyrhizobium japonicum (syn. Rhizobium japonicum; Jordan, 1982). However, these bacteria are not naturally present in the soil; therefore, an inoculum with a commercial strain of the bacteria must be mixed with the seed before planting. Modern cultivars generally reach a height of 1 m or more, and take 120-150 days from sowing to harvest, according to environmental conditions and genotype lateness (Koivisto, 2001). Soybean nutrient uptake for a high yielding crop (4 t/ha) is about 280, 85 and 140 kg/ha of N, P2O5 and K2O, respectively. 3.6.3  Cropping Technique Seedbed Preparation and Sowing As with most annual plants, soybean is only multiplied through seed. The seed comes from the previous crop, as the species is predominantly self-pollinating. Seed may be planted in tilled (ploughed, disked or cultivated) land by a tractor carrying a seeder which deposits the seed about 3 cm deep in rows that are 45-75 cm apart, depending on the farm machinery (Koivisto, 2001). A density of 25-35 plants per m2 is desired, depending on soil fertility and expected moisture during the cycle. Seed quality is generally good enough as to ensure a 70-80% of emergence; the seed spacing on the row may accordingly been calculated, as well as the seed need per hectare, considering a thousand-seed weight of 150-250 g. Other Cropping Operations Nitrogen nutrition should be assured by seed inoculum; only in case of failure, topdress mineral fertilizer must be applied at rates of 80-120 kg of N/ha. P and K should be adjusted according to soil nutrient status (Koivisto, 2001). Since the species is not highly demanding, an average of 50 kg of P2O5/ha and 75 kg of K2O/ha may be recommended in soils of intermediate P and K status. Irrigation is an important aspect of soybean growing. Flowering and seed setting occur in the peak of the warm season; therefore, assuring an

68

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

adequate moisture represents a crucial issue. Soybean is less sensitive to drought than maize, the cereal having the same cycle, often grown on the same soils in the rotation. However, irrigation is often beneficial to soybean production, as it allows a better yield steadiness among years. In the case of double-cropped soybean, irrigation is a key tool which must be deployed since sowing, in order to ensure an adequate vegetative growth of the plant, as the premise for a well-developed reproductive structure. Soybean is not a strong competitor under weed pressure. Therefore, weed management must be carefully planned and carried out. Mechanical weeding, i.e. pre-sowing harrowing, early post-emergence spring-tine harrowing and later inter-row hoeing, is strongly recommended but is generally not enough to control weeds. Hopefully, many selective herbicides are registered for the crop, enabling a good control of both dicotyledonous (weeds) and graminaceous (grasses) flora. More to this, soybean genetically modified varieties are largely grown worldwide, having a resistance to total herbicides (e.g., roundup-ready or RR soybean). However, selective herbicides are not always affordable in family farming systems, as well as geneticallymodified crops, which are further opposed for social and political reasons. Hand weeding to complete mechanical weeding is the very labour-intensive task that remains to be carried out where no herbicide can be used. Soybean may be attacked by pests either at the beginning of its cycle (wireworms and other seed-preying insects), or during the reproductive phase (caterpillars and spider mites feeding on leaves; sting bugs attacking seed pods). As a whole, seed prowlers are more to be feared in early sowings in cold soils, whereas summer pests are more common in luscious crops in wet environments. Fungal diseases are equally impacting, especially in humid environments: the most common ones are downy mildew (Peronospora manshurica), which seldom determines strong damage; Phytophtora spp., causal agent of damping-off in wet soils; stem cancer (Diaporthe phaseolorum) and stem rotting (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum). Less impacting are bacteria and virus attacks, such as Pseudomonas glycinea, Xanthomonas phaseoli and virus mosaic virus. In the case of diseases, only a good crop rotation may prevent virulent attacks. In the case of pests, insecticide sprayings are justified only in case of significant yield loss expected. Harvest The beans are ready to be harvested in late summer - autumn, or after 4-5 months after sowing. Large combined harvesters with large small grain headers are driven over the fields of ripe soybeans, separating the beans from their pods and stems into a holding tank in the back of the machine

Oil Crops

69

(duke, 1983). Seed yields at a standard moisture (14%) approximately attains 2/5 of maize grain yields in the same soils and with an equivalent crop intensity (tillage, fertilization, irrigation). Therefore, in areas where maize passes 10 t/ha of dry grain as in many dedicated “corn belts”, soybean should achieve 4 t/ha. As maize, soybean is intrinsically unsuited for poor environments, where other annual oilseed crops (sunflower, oilseed rape) are better suited. despite much lower oil content than sunflower and oilseed rape (20% vs. 40-50%), oil output per unit surface may be quite close, thanks to soybean higher grain yield potential. 3.7 Oilseed rape Oilseed rape (Brassica napus L. var. oleifera d.C.), also known as seedrape, rape or canola, is a bright yellow flowering member of the family Brassicaceae (mustard or cabbage family). The name derives from the Latin word for turnip, rapum or rapa, and is first recorded in English at the end of the 14th century. Older writers usually distinguished the turnip and rape by the adjectives round and long (-rooted), respectively (http://uscanola.com/, 2010)

Figure 3.18 - Oilseed rape field.

3.7.1  Botanical Description Oilseed rape is annual, in some cases even biennial, 30-150 cm tall, glabrous or sparsely hirsute at the base, often glaucous, and with or with-

70

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

out a fleshy taproot. The stem is erect, branched in the upper part. Basal and lower cauline leaves are long and petiolate; with petioles up to 15 cm. Leaf blade is 5-25 × 2-7 cm, ovate, oblong, or lanceolate in outline; pinnately lobed or lyrate, sometimes undivided; terminal lobes are ovate, dentate, repand, or entire. Lateral lobes are in number of 1-6 on each side of mid vein; they are much smaller than the terminal one, entire, repand, or dentate, sometimes absent. Petals are bright or pale yellow, 1-1.6 cm × 6-9 mm, broadly ovate, with rounded apex; claw 5-9 mm. The fruit is a linear

Figure 3.19 - Oilseed rape anatomy.

Oil Crops

71

silique, 5-9.5 cm × 3.5-5 mm, with a sub-cylindrical or slightly squared section, sessile, divaricate or ascending; the valvular segment is 4-8.5 cm long, with 12-30 seeds per locule. At maturity seeds get dark brown or blackish; they are globose, 1.5-2.5 mm in diameter and contain about 4045% of oil (dry weight basis) and 20-25% of protein, plus fibre, starch, etc. (FAO ecocrop: http://ecocrop.fao.org/, 2009). 3.7.2  Crop Cycle Oilseed rape is typical of temperate-cold climate; in Central Europe and in the U.S. it is normally sown in the early autumn or in the early spring. The crop cycle ends in June or July, depending on seeding time, climatic conditions and variety lateness. Varieties are either suited for autumn or spring seeding: the former need a period of winter cold in order to shift to reproductive growth, whereas the latter can flower also without it (Oplinger et al., 1989) and are, generally, earlier in cycle and less resistant to winter cold. Its growth is characterized by six principal growth stages (0-5). Much of the management of this crop is related to the length of time and plant characteristics within each of these stages. Stage 0 is pre-emergence. The germinating seedling may take 7 to 14 days to emerge. during this time it is susceptible to many soil borne pathogens. Therefore, in Canada (spring seeding) seed fungicides are often used. The speed of emergence depends on soil temperature, moisture, seed - soil contact, and depth of planting (duke, 1983). Stage 1 is the seedling stage where cotyledons emerge at the soil surface. At this stage, the seedling is still vulnerable to many soil fungi, and to flea beetle infestation. Both adversities are detrimental to stand establishment (http://www.canolacouncil.org/, 2010). Stage 2 is the rosette stage characterized by an increasing leaf area. Spring oilseed rape will remain in this vegetative stage for a few weeks. Winter oilseed rape also stays in this stage for several weeks, until growth is resumed at the beginning of spring. At the end of Stage 2, the crop approaches its maximum leaf area and becomes a much better competitor with respect to weeds (http://www.canolacouncil.org/, 2010). Increasing day length and rising temperatures initiate bolting and the beginning of Stage 3, the bud stage. At this time the plant gets into stem elongation and branching, reaches its maximum height and leaf area, as well as 30 to 60% of its total dry biomass. Large foliage is required to provide adequate amounts of carbohydrates during flowering and pod fill (http://www.canolacouncil.org/, 2010).

72

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Flowering begins in Stage 4 and continues from bottom to top and from stem to branches for 14 to 21 days (http://www.canolacouncil.org/, 2010). Ripening, or Stage 5, begins when the petals fall from the last formed flower on the main stem. Pod filling is complete 35 to 45 days after the beginning of flowering, and the seeds contain about 40% moisture at this point. The crop is considered ripe and ready for swathing when 30 to 40% of the seed from pods on the main stem have turned to maturity colour. Spring varieties of B. napus mature 74 to 140 days after seeding ((http:// www.canolacouncil.org/, 2010); winter varieties take 240 to 270 days. Oilseed rape nutrient uptake for a high yielding crop (4 t/ha) is about 240, 90 and 310 kg/ha of N, P2O5 and K2O, respectively. More to this, the species has a high requirement of sulphur (200 kg of SO3/ha for a grain yield of 4 t/ha), which is typical of the Brassicaceae family. 3.7.3  Cropping Technique Seedbed Preparation and Sowing Stand establishment is very important for oilseed rape to reinforce early competitiveness against weeds. Seeding into a smooth, firm seedbed helps to maintain a uniform seeding depth and even emergence. Seedbed preparation is usually done with an accurate, repeated shallow harrowing (10-15 cm) of a formerly-tilled (ploughed; cultivatoed soil (duke, 1983). Sod-seeding is advisable, provided that a few residue is present on soil surface, impairing soil contact of the small seed. Oilseed rape can be seeded in either autumn or the spring depending on the type of variety. Autumn seeding needs to be timed in order to achieve about 6 true leaves and good root reserves before a killing frost. Spring planting should begin as early as soil is dry enough to permit it. Like spring small grains, spring oilseed rape generally yields best with early planting. In temperate regions of the Northern hemisphere, autumn seeding generally performs higher yields than spring seeding (duke, 1983). The crop is usually seeded with the small seed outfit of a wheat seeder to a shallow depth (1-2.5 cm). Rows are generally spaced 15-20 cm apart. Seeding is also possible at a larger inter-row distance (40-50 cm) with air seeders that ensure a better seed deposition into the soil, resulting in a more regular plant stand, and allow inter-row hoeing. Some researches showed higher yields with a very narrow row spacing (8 cm): basically, the taller the plants, the wider the spacing without affecting the yield potential. Oilseed rape should be seeded at 5-6 kg ha if planted and 8-9 kg/ka if broadcasted, depending on seed size and soil texture. The thousand seeds weight is an approximate 4-6 g (duke, 1983).

Oil Crops

73

Other Cropping Operations The long cycle generally covering the cold season involves that oilseed rape be fertilized at the beginning (P, K) and during vegetation (N, S), also depending on soil P and K status. Average rates of 50 and 75 kg/ha of P2O5 and K2O may be recommended in soils of intermediate P and k status. Nitrogen must be more carefully dealt, as it influences yield, but also plant vigour and the intrinsic risk of lodging. In average environmental conditions (soil fertility, moisture), 100-140 kg of N/ha should be applied to a high-yielding winter crop. Since oilseed rape is sensitive to direct seed contact with fertilizer, applications at sowing should be banded at least 5 cm to the side of the seed, or broadcast in pre-sowing (P and K) and in topdress (N; one or two split applications). Sulphur is another important nutrient, which may be supplied through organic amendments (e.g., manure) or mineral fertilizers containing it (duke, 1983). The best weed control practices are repeated soil tillage, establishment of a good stand, and weed control in previous crops. Some chemical herbicides are available to help in the early weed control, although cruciferous weeds (wild radish, wild mustard, pennycress and shepherd’s purse) are nearly impossible to control in the crop (Oplinger et al., 1989). White mold (Sclerotinia stem rot) can be a serious disease after flowering in seasons with cool, moist growing conditions. Sudden wilting and premature dying of individual plants are usually the first noticeable symptoms. Since white mold is a problem in several other crops, its occurrence in oilseed rape must be carefully monitored. Planting oilseed rape should be avoided following such crops as soybeans and dry edible beans or sunflower (Oplinger et al., 1989). A long rotation (at least 3-4 years between oilseed rap crops) is also recommended to prevent the outburst of other fungal diseases (Plasmodiophora brassicae, Phoma lingam). Among pests, serious problems may be caused by the flea beetle, a shiny black beetle about 10 to 15 mm long which attacks oilseed rape especially during emergence. Hot, sunny weather promotes feeding damage. Most growers control flea beetles with a granular insecticide mixed with the seed, but other seed-applied formulations and post-emergence insecticides are also available. Flea beetle is a minor problem with winter oilseed rape types (Oplinger et al., 1989). Meligethes aeneus is a another beetle attacking flowers and immature pods, sometimes causing a certain damage. Harvest Timely harvest of oilseed rape is crucial to prevent shattering and subsequent yield loss. As soon as pods begin to yellow, the crop needs to be checked on a 3 to 4 day schedule. Harvest maturity can only be deter-

74

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

mined by observing the colour of the seed. In well-standing oilseed rape, 30 to 40% of the seed on the main stem needs to be brownish-red, prior to swathing. This corresponds to about 30-35% seed moisture. Oilseed rape has a tendency to lodge, particularly with over-fertilization of susceptible varieties. In severely lodged crops, swathing should be done when 40 to 50% of the seed in exposed pods has turned the right colour (duke, 1983). Shattering can account for significant crop losses, therefore harvesting must not be delayed. The two-pass harvest is the best way of harvesting, in order to limit such losses. In the first pass, oilseed rape should be cut high on the stem and lightly pushed into the stubble with a windrower to prevent blowing. Then, the crop is threshed by a combined harvester when the seed moisture has decreased to near 10%. direct combining (single-pass harvest), in case with the use of a desiccant, is possible in well standing oilseed rape, but determining application time is difficult and field losses are higher. Oilseed rape that is to be stored for six months or more must be further dried to 9% moisture (duke, 1983).

4 Identification of Suitable Plants for Oil Production in Dependence on Climate and Soil

4.1 Climate Climate is a combination of elements (solar radiation, air temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind and precipitation) and factors (relative distribution of lands, seas and lakes, sea currents, mountain chains, elevation and exposure, soil and vegetation characteristics, human influence). The type of climate in a given area determines which plant species may be grown. Climatic classifications are, therefore, very important, as they allow to predict with an acceptable approximation which crops can be introduced to a new region. The Köppen Climate Classification System (figure 4.1) is most widely used for classifying the world’s climates. Its categories are based on the annual and monthly averages of temperature and precipitation. The Köppen system comprises five major climatic types; each type is indicated by a capital letter (Peel et al., 2007). A - Tropical Climates: all months have average temperatures above 18° Celsius. B - dry Climates, with deficient precipitation during most of the year. C - Warm temperate climates, with mild winters (Subtropical, Mediterranean climate). d - Cold temperate climates, with cold winters (Continental, Subartic climate). E - Polar Climates, with extremely cold winters and summers.

Simone Fazio and Lorenzo Barbanti, University of Bologna, Italy

76

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Except for polar regions and for regions in the “arid” dry climate (deserts), several cropping systems are worldwide diffused in all climatic conditions. The major oil crops described in Chapter 3 require specific conditions to be successfully grown. In general, the tree oil crops are palms that need warm environment such as tropical and subtropical zones, while the grain oil crops are more diffused in temperate to continental areas (White et al. 2001). The potential distribution of these oil crops according to climatic condition is indicated in table 4.1. It must be pointed out that the allocation is based on the “state of the art” of their genetic adaptation. In the future, genetic breeding might produce genotypes with a wider adaptation, thus expanding their range beyond the present borders. Actually, some species are already growing under climatic conditions outside their natural range. For instance, several palms or sunflower plants are cultivated up to cold-temperate regions for ornamental purposes; they do not produce a commercial yield, anyway. On the other hand, some species of the Brassica genus, the same of the oilseed rape, can be grown also in Mediterranean or subtropical regions (e.g., B. carinata, B. juncea).

Figure 4.1 - Distribution of climatic areas in the world according to the Köppen classification.

Identification of Suitable Plants for Oil Production in Dependence on Climate and Soil

77

Table 4.1 - Oil crops growing in different climatic regions.

Climatic regions

Sub-regions

Crops

Polar Tropical

All All

None Oil palm, coconut palm, sunflower, soybean, castor bean, Jatropha, macaúba.

Dry

Semiarid Arid

Jatropha None

Warm temperate

Mediterranean Subtropical

Marine

Sunflower, soybean, castor bean. Oil palm, coconut palm, sunflower, soybean, castor bean, Jatropha, macaúba. Sunflower, soybean, oilseed rape.

Continental (warm summer) Continental (cold summer) Sub artic

Oilseed rape, soybean, sunflower. Oilseed rape, suflower. None

Cold temperate

4.2 Soil Soil quality influences the growth of oil crops to a lesser degree than climate. However, soil fertility and soil characteristics significantly affect their yield. Figure 4.2 summarizes the world’s soil regions, according to the USdA (U.S. department of Agriculture) soil taxonomy system. As a general rule, soil type is related to the climate of the area where it has evolved (http://soils.usda.gov/, 2010). A short review of soil types may help to better focus their characteristics. Alfisols are formed in semiarid to humid areas, typically under a hardwood forest cover. They have a clay-enriched subsoil and a relatively high native fertility. Because of their productivity and abundance, Alfisols represent one of the most important soil orders for food and fibre production. Almost all oil crops can be grown on such soils. In Australia and Africa, they are generally very deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus. In monsoonal tropical regions, Alfisols have a tendency to acidify when heavily cultivated, especially when nitrogen fertilizers are used. Andisols (Andosols in FAO classification), typically are very fertile soils, except in cases where phosphorus is easily fixed, as it sometimes occurs in the tropics. They can usually support intensive cropping, also for oil trees and herbaceous crops. Most Andisols occur around the so called “Pacific Ring of Fire”, with the largest areas found in central Chile, Ecua-

78

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 4.2 - Soil map of the world, according to the USDA soil taxonomy.

dor, Colombia, Mexico; in the Pacific Northwest, in the USA, Japan, Java and New Zealand’s North Island. Other areas occur in the Great Rift Valley, Italy, Iceland and Hawaii islands. Aridisols (or desert soils) form in an arid or semi-arid climate. Aridisols dominate the deserts and xeric shrublands, which occupy about one third of the Earth’s land surface. Aridisols have a very low content of organic matter, reflecting the scarcity of vegetable production, in both natural and cultivated lands. Limited leaching in Aridisols often results in one or more subsurface soil horizons in which suspended or dissolved minerals have been deposited: silicate clays, sodium, calcium carbonate, gypsum or soluble salts. These subsoil horizons can also be cemented by carbonates, gypsum or silica. Accumulation of salts on the surface can result in salinization. Entisols are defined as soils that do not show any profile development other than an A horizon. An A horizon in Pedology is an eluvial horizon, meaning one from which original components have mainly leached below, during soil evolution. Most such soils are basically unaltered from their parent material, and have no diagnostic horizon. Entisols are the second most abundant soil order, occupying ~16% of the global ice-free land area. They can be found almost all around the world; they are generally uncultivated and covered by natural vegetation, or without vegetable cover (desert areas). In some cases they are very fertile, such as in the Nile Valley in Egypt, or in the Yellow River Valley in China.

Identification of Suitable Plants for Oil Production in Dependence on Climate and Soil

79

Gelisols are soils of very cold climates which are defined as containing permafrost within two meters from the soil surface. Because soil organic matter accumulates in the upper layer, most Gelisols are black or dark brown. A shallow mineral layer lies beneath. despite the influence of glaciation in most areas where Gelisols occur, they are not highly fertile from a chemical point of view, because nutrients, especially calcium and potassium, are very easily leached in the profile above the permafrost. Gelisols are found primarily in Siberia, Alaska and Canada. Smaller areas are found in the Andes (mainly near the intersection between Chile, Bolivia and Argentina), Tibet, Northern Scandinavia and the ice-free parts of Greenland and Antarctica. Histosols are soils primarily consisting of organic materials. These materials include muck, mucky peat, or peat. Typically, Histosols have a very low bulk density and are poorly drained, because the organic matter holds large amounts of water. Most are acid and many are very deficient in N, which is washed away in the constantly moist soil. Histosols evolve whenever organic matter forms at a more rapid rate than it is destroyed. Thus, histosols are ecologically very important, along with the Gelisols, as they store large amounts of organic carbon. Histosols are generally very difficult to cultivate because of the poor drainage and the frequently low chemical fertility. However, Histosols can often be very productive when drained, such as in the case of peatlands in Pacific islands, where a lot of oil palms is grown. Histosols can also be used for other oil crops, if carefully managed. However, when drained there is a great risk of wind erosion, which adds to the fact that soil respiration, enhanced by aerobic conditions and N fertilization, can release up to 8 times more N2O than other cultivated areas, meaning a very high impact on climate change. Inceptisols quickly form through alteration of parent material. They are older than Entisols and have no accumulation of clay, Fe, Al or organic matter. Soils of this order are wherever in the world, from the equator to the arctic regions, as the combined effect of several different environmental conditions, climates and substrates. In sloping areas, they are subjected to erosion, especially under intensive cultivation, but in flat zones they can be very fertile and cultivated with both tree and herbaceous crops. Mollisols form in semi-arid to semi-humid areas, typically under a grassland cover. They are most commonly found at intermediate latitudes, namely in North America, in South America (Argentinian Pampas and Brazil), in Asia (Mongolia and the Russian steppes). Their parent material is typically rich in bases, calcareous and includes limestone, loess, or wind-blown sand. Mollisols have a deep, nutrient-enriched soil, typically 60-80 cm deep from the surface. They are also rich in organic matter. The high fertility of this surface horizon derives from the long-term addition of organic materials derived from plant roots. It also results in a soft, granular soil structure, which is op-

80

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

timal for most crops. Thanks to their fertility, Mollisols are also used for intensive agriculture: they are especially indicated for arable cropping systems. Oxisols are best known for their occurrence in tropical rain forest, 1525 degrees North and South of the equator. The main processes of soil formation in oxisols are weathering of the parent material, humification of the organic sources and a disturbance of soil profile (pedo-turbation) brought about by animals. They are defined as soils containing no more than 10 percent weathering minerals at any depth, and a low cation exchange capacity. Oxisols are always a red or yellowish colour, due to the high concentration of iron and aluminium oxides and hydroxides. Scientists originally thought that the heavy vegetation of tropical rain forests would provide rich nutrients, but, as rainfall passes through the litter on the forest floor, it is acidified and transports the minerals leaching from the upper soil layers. Plants are, therefore, forced to get their nutrition from decaying litter as oxisols are quite infertile, due to the lack of organic matter and the almost complete absence of soluble minerals, after leaching in the wet and humid climate. Present-day Oxisols are found almost exclusively in tropical areas of South America and Africa. Fossil Oxisols extended to areas that now have quite cool climates, in North America and Europe. It is believed that Oxisols became vegetated later than Ultisols or Alfisols, probably because vegetation took a longer time to adapt to the infertility of Oxisols. Nevertheless, Oxisols are often used for tropical crops such as coconut and oil palm. Many oxisols can be cultivated over a wide range of moisture conditions. On this account, Oxisols are intensively being exploited for agriculture in some regions where there is enough capital to support modern agricultural practices (including regular additions of lime and fertilizer). A recent example of exploitation by modern methods involves the growing of soybeans in Brazil. Spodosol (also known as Podsols) are the typical soils of coniferous, or Boreal forests. These soils are found in areas that are wet and cold (for example in Northern Ontario or Russia) and also in warm areas such as Florida, where sandy soils have fluctuating water tables. Most Spodosols are poor soils for agriculture, although well-drained loamy sub-types can be very productive for crops if lime and fertilizer are supplied. The main process in the formation of Spodosols is podzolisation, a complex process in which organic material and soluble minerals (commonly iron and aluminium) are leached from the upper (A) to a lower (B) soil horizon. This occurs when severe leaching leaves the upper horizon virtually depleted of all soil constituents except quartz grains. Spodosols are in general acid, thus not very appropriate for cropping. However, in EU and USA they are normally cropped with rotational species, using corrective amendments. Ultisols are defined as mineral soils which contain no calcareous material anywhere within the soil, and have less than 10% leaching minerals in

Identification of Suitable Plants for Oil Production in Dependence on Climate and Soil

81

the top layer. Ultisols are typically quite acid, sometimes having a pH < 5. The red and yellow colours result from the accumulation of iron oxide (rust) which is highly insoluble in water. Major nutrients, such as calcium, phosphorus and potassium, are typically deficient in Ultisols. Therefore, they cannot generally be used for cropping without the aid of lime and other fertilizers such as the phosphoric ones. However, they can be cultivated over a relatively wide range of moisture conditions. Ultisols are the dominant soils in the Southern U.S., Southeastern China and Asia, and some other subtropical and tropical areas. Vertisols are soils with a high content of expansive clay that forms deep cracks in the dry season or in the dry years. Vertisols typically form from highly basic rocks such as basalt in climates that are seasonally humid or subjected to variable droughts and floods. Vertisols are found between 50° N and 45° S of the equator. Major areas where vertisols are dominant are Eastern Australia, India, and parts of Southern Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Chad, and the lower Paraná River in South America. The natural vegetation of vertisols is grassland, savannah, or grassy woodland. Vertisol clayey texture and unstable behaviour hamper the growth of many tree species, both natural and cultivated ones. Vertisols are generally used for grazing cattle or sheep. However, when irrigation is available, herbaceous grain crops can be grown. Rainfed farming is very difficult because Vertisols can be tilled only under a very narrow range of moisture conditions, since they are very hard when dry and very sticky when wet. Taxonomy types provide a basic classification of soil characteristics and farming potentials. More specific indicators of soil fertility should be adopted, before the establishment of a tree plantation or a rotational herbaceous cropping system. Soil pH and texture are easily-available indicators, as their optimal ranges are known for the majority of crop species. In table 4.2, oil crops requirements in terms of soil pH and texture are reported (see references in chapter 3 for each crop). Table 4.2 - Soil pH and texture optimal ranges for oil crops.

Crop Oil palm Jatropha Coconut palm Sunflower Castor bean Soybean Oilseed rape

pH

Texture

3.0-7.0 4.5-8.0 6.0-8.0 5.7-8.0 4.5-8.3 6.0-7.5 5.5-8.3

Clayey to sandy Clayey to sandy and rocky Silty to sandy and peaty Clayey to sandy Clayey-loam to sandy-loam Loam to sandy Clayey to sandy-loam

5 Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

The oil crops described in Chapter 3 can adapt to varying local conditions. However, there are major differences between cropping in large, mechanised farms and in small, labour-intensive farms (family farms). depending on this and on the geographic area, different options may be taken into account in crop planning and in specific phases of cropping. The following survey shows the critical issues of the previously-described oil crops and provides solution strategies, as well as the options for the two farming system mentioned above and for two world areas: South America, namely Brazil, and Africa. Reference to local sources is specifically indicated at the beginning of each crop. No sufficient material has been found for oilseed rape in the above areas, as to permit a crop survey. 5.1 Oil Palm References: http://www.informativorural.com.br/, http://www.fertilizer.org/, 2010; http://www.embrapa.br/, 2010; http://www.fao.org/, 2010; Hoyt, 2008. Cropping phases and critical issues

Large scale farming Family farming

NURSERY Germination of seeds is very difficult under natural condition, thus seedlings with 3/4 leaves must be bought from public institutions or breeding nurseries and placed in establishing nurseries before being transplanted to the final field. The soil should be fairly rich and well prepared. If a forest site or a pre-cultivated land is cleaned for the nursery, all residues should be burned and ashes spread over the plot. Simone Fazio and Lorenzo Barbanti, University of Bologna, Italy

84

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Soil tillage at least 40 cm deep. To improve the soil structure before the nursery establishment, a green-manure crop (Crotalaria spp., Centrosema spp. or other legumes) may be grown and incorporated into the soil (ploughing). P and K fertilization applied at tillage (rates to be defined locally). N fertilization applied after planting (50-100 g N/seedling). The nursery beds should 2-3 metres wide, with a plant setting of 70x80 cm (i.e., about 2 plants/m2). Irrigation is daily needed, at least 5-10 L per plant to be distributed in the early morning or late evening. PLANTING IN THE FIELD At the beginning of the rainy season one year before planting, a green manure crop should be grown, to be incorporated into the soil. One month before the new rainy season, lines should be traced across the field slope (row spacing 7.5 – 8 m). Then, single holes (at about 9 m distance on the row) or single-row deep ploughing must be carried out. At the beginning of the rainy season, vigorous plants must be transplanted from the nursery to the field, cutting dry leaves and the tip of excessively long leaves. The other plants remain in the nursery, to replace dead plants in the field. The transplant must be accomplished in 24 hours, in order to avoid damage to the young plants. Young plant should be lifted from the nursery soil with a cylindrical plant settler, which must also be used to dig holes in the field for the transplant. In areas where animals often feed on young plants, they should be surrounded by wire netting for about 2 years. In a diameter of about 60-70 cm around young plants, a surface mulching with straw about 20 cm thick is recommended. A few days before the transplant, fertilizer should be applied (about 50-100 g N, 200 g P2O5 and 200-400 g K2O per palm, depending on soil fertility), better if spread and covered under the mulch.

Large scale farming Family farming

Ploughing by tractor pulling.

Manual tillage (also single holes for seedling).

Manual transplanting. Automatic dripping pipes.

Manual transplanting. Manual waterings.

Single row ploughing by tractor, 40-65 cm deep. Manual.

Manual hole digging (60x 60, up to 80 cm deep); soil mixing in holes. Manual.

Manual.

Manual.

Manual (localized), Manual tractors and trailers (localized). to carry fertilizer bags.

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

85

Large scale farming Family farming

during the 1st year, all weeds must be removed at Hoeing or least for 2 m around young plants, by mechanical cultivating, and/ or chemical weeding 5 or 6 times/year. or herbicide treatment. ANNUAL CROPPING OPERATIONS Pruning. Plants must be pruned every year, by Manual or with cutting all dry leaves with well sharpened tools in electric- or chainorder to avoid palm damage. saw. Leaves must be cut as close as possible to the stem, to avoid parasite establishment in the axils of the cut-off leaves. Fertilization. Annual fertilizing must be done Manual spreading before the end of the rainy season, by spreading at least in first nutrients in a range of 2 meters around each plant 3 years; in in the first 3 years; then nutrients may also be adult plants broadcasted. fertilizer may Avg. nutrient requirement for Brazil (Pará State) be broadcasted (g/plant/y N-P2O5-K2O) avg. yield 17 t/ha/y FFB: by mechanical spreader. 1st year:100-260-300 After fertilizer 2nd year: 120-370-600 distribution, a 3rd year:135-450-900 light cultivation is Adult plants:450-270-900 Avg. nutrient requirement for Central Africa (g/ recommended. plant/y N-P2O5-K2O) avg. yield 10 t/ha/y fresh fruit bunches (FFB) in adult plants : 1st year:70-150-100 2nd year: 100-200-120 3rd year:120-400-480 Adult plants:380-150-410 Plant protection against pests and diseases vary Chemical in dependence of growing area. treatments with In Brazil pest attacks on palm oil are represented sprayer, and/or by defoliating caterpillars (Brassolis sophorae, biological control. Opsiphanes invirae), the stem borer (Eupalamides dedalus) and the root borer (Sagalassos validates). Besides, there are other pests that are considered less important, but may cause considerable damage to the crop (Aspidiotus destructor and Spaethiella triis). The main strategies to control pests are the following: a) breeding of cultivars with genetic resistances; b) biological control by parasitoids, predators and pathogens; c) chemical control with insecticides. In Brazil, there are officially registered products for use in the oil palm.

Manual hoeing or weeding.

Manual with saw and shears.

Manual spreading, 2 to 3 meters around the plant, followed by manual hoeing.

Manual pesticide spreading (localized); biological control if possible.

86

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

The main diseases that attack the oil palm are: Fatal Yellowing (AF in the Spanish - Portuguese initials) (causal agent still uncertain); the Red Ring (Rhadinaphelencus cocophilus); Fusarium (Fusarium oxysporum ssp. elaeidis) and the bacterial rotting called Marchitez sorpresa (Phytomonas spp.). Since these diseases may only be partially controlled with preventive deployment of tolerant varieties, preventive counter-measures include: to avoid planting in areas prone to their development; careful crop management (avoid plant injuries); adequate spacing to prevent the proliferation of their causal agents. For Central Africa protection against Rhinoceros, Augosome and Strategus beetle can be done by spreading in the axils of the leaves a mixture of sawdust and BHC (Benzene HexaChloride). Against Palm weevil (Rhynchophora) growers must be very careful not to damage the trees, as insects may lay their eggs in the wounds of the oil palm. Oil palms may also be attacked by rats: in case of virulent attacks, poisoned maize grain should be placed near plants. Major fungal diseases are anthracnose, spear rot and bunch failure. The first disease mainly occurs in the nursery and can be controlled by spraying mancozeb or captan at the rate of 200 g/100 litres of water. Spear rot symptoms are small lesions at the distal portions of the young leaf tips: rotting extends downwards. Cutting and burning of all the affected organs/plants may be adopted to prevent further spreading of the disease. Bunch failure starts with sparse or no fruit set followed by complete drying or rotting of the affected bunches. The infestation can be avoided by assisted pollination as well as by adopting prophylactic measures like removal of infected bunches and dry male inflorescences.

Large scale farming Family farming

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

HARVEST Harvesting implies much time and care, because only those fruit clusters which are cut at the right moment yield a lot of good-quality oil. A cluster is ripe for harvesting when the fruits begin to turn red, and when 5 or 6 fruits drop to the ground. Ripening is scalar during the year, thus several harvest times will be necessary. Yields up to two tons per man per day are recorded. different tools will be used when the palm grows in height: in oil palms 4 to 7 years old, the bunches are cut with a chisel. In oil palms 7 to 12 years old, a machete is used for cutting, If the clusters are too high up, harvesters must climb the trunk for about 1 m. In oil palms older than 12 years, bunches are cut by a long-armed sickle.

87

Large scale farming Family farming

Manual, with tractors and trailers carrying the crop.

Manual.

5.2 Coconut palm References: http://www.fertilizer.org/, 2010; http://www.embrapa.br/, 2010; http://www.fao.org/, 2010; Hoyt, 2008. Cropping phases and critical issues

NURSERY Seeds coming from mother palms (hybrid or not) having regular bearing habit and yield, age 20 years or more, with at least 30 fully opened leaves, bearing nuts of medium size weighing no less than 600 g, must be chosen for propagation. Mature nuts must be collected and stored for 60 days under a sand layer, before nursery establishment, in order to avoid seed drying. Up to five layers of nuts can be arranged one over the other. Nursery sites should be well drained with light textured soil and adequate but not excessive shade. In open areas, shade should be provided during summer.

Large scale farming Family farming

88

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Beds of 1.5 m width with 75 cm space between beds should be used. Before planting, a green manure of a leguminous crop should be grown to provide enough N in soil for seedling development. during tillage phosphorus fertilizer must be applied (80 kg P2O5 per ha).The nursery must be established at the beginning of the rainy season, at a spacing of 30 x 30 cm with four or five rows per bed. Nuts must be placed 25-30 cm deep and covered with soil so that only the top portion of husk is visible. The nuts may be planted horizontally with the widest of the segments at the top or vertically with stalk-end up. If the soil is sandy, mulching must be provided immediately after the cessation of rainfalls. Nursery irrigation must be provided every other day during dry months, at rates of 3-6 L per seedling. The nursery beds must be kept weed-free by periodic weeding. If termites are noticed, soil must be removed in the affected area up to a depth of about 15 cm and soil and nuts must be treated with carbaryl or chlorpyrifos, repeatedly if attack persists. Periodically the plants should be spread with 1% Bordeaux mixture or any other copper fungicide to prevent fungal infection. PLANTING IN THE FIELD Planting in sites with deep (no less than 1.5 m), well drained soil. Avoided shallow soils with underlying hard rock, low-lying areas subjected to water logging and heavy clayey soils. The size of pits for planting would depend upon soil types and water table. In loamy soils with low water table, pit size of 0.75 x 0.75 x 1 m is recommended. In sandy soils, pit depth may be reduced to 0.75 m. In large scale mechanized farming, single row deep ploughing is recommended (50-70 cm depth). Plant spacing with triangular or square patterns ranges from 7.5 to 9 m apart, attaining a final density of 120-200 plants/ha. Rows should be aligned in the north-south direction.

Large scale farming Family farming

Ploughing by tractor pulling.

Manual harrowing.

Automatic micro- Manual irrigation. watering. Manual.

Manual.

Single row ploughing by tractor, 50-70 cm deep.

Manual hole digging (75 x 75 cm, up to 1 m deep) and soil mixing within the holes.

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

89

Large scale farming Family farming

Planting the seedlings just before rainy season. For the first two years from planting, irrigation with 45 litres of water per seedling, once in 4 days during dry months is recommended. Also adequate shade to the transplanted seedlings should be provided. Transplanting new seedlings into the inter-row of old coconut or oil palm groves nearing the end of their economic lifespan, would be ideal. In general, palms in the age group of 8-25 years are not suitable for inter- and mixed cropping. Conversely, cereals and tapioca are recommended as intercrops in young coconut plantation up to 3-4 years. Under conditions of wider spacing, i.e. beyond 8 m, intercropping is possible irrespective of palm age. ANNUAL CROPPING OPERATIONS Pruning and weeding: in the case of intercropping, every 45-60 days older leaves must be removed, using an harvesting pole; 20-25 leaves should remain in the tree. Without intercropping, old dry leaves are removed only during harvest operations. If no intercrops are grown, chemical, mechanical or manual weeding must be carried out every 2 months. Fertilization: Annual fertilizing must be done before the end of the rainy season, by spreading nutrients in a range of 1,8-2,5 meters around each plant . Avg. nutrient requirement for Brazil (Pará State) (g/plant/y N-P2O5-K2O) : 1st year:450-100-200; 2nd year: 450-150-500; 3rd year:450-200-600 Adult plants:180-90-850 Avg. nutrient requirement for Central Africa (g/ plant/y N-P2O5-K2O): 1st year:100-40-120; 2nd year: 120-80-240; 3rd year:130-120-360 Adult plants:130-100-750

Manual leaf pruning by harvesting pole Chemical weeding or interrow hoeing.

Manual leaf pruning by harvesting pole Manual hoeing.

Manual spreading After fertilizer distribution, a cultivation is recommended.

Manual spreading After fertilizer distribution, a manual hoeing or mulching is recommended.

90

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Plant protection against pests and diseases: Brazil Fungal diseases. Lasiodiplodia theobromae: drying of the leaflets, the bunch is unsupported and falls before reaching maturity. Phyllachora torrendiella and Sphaerodothis acrocomiae: small black spots, which occur by all green areas of the tree. Bacterial diseases: Phytomonas ssp.: leaves getting yellow and with the progression of the disease becoming reddish-brown; inflorescences becoming necrotic and dry, originating a premature fruit drop. Chemical control of insect vector with monocrotophos is recommended every three months. Nematodes. Bursaphelenchus cocophilus: yellowing of basal leaves, becoming necrotic and breaking at the base of the stem. In a cross section of the stem, a brown or red ring appears. Control measures primarily consist in: cutting and burning of infected leaves, or entire plants; frequent weeding in order to eliminate other hosts of diseases; disinfecting tools used for cutting; planting legumes to allow nitrogen fixation; biocontrol with antagonistic fungi Acremonium alternatum, A. persicinum, A. cavaraeanum, Dycima pulvinata and Septofusidium elegantulum. Insect pests. Rhynchophorus palmaru: the larvae dig several galleries and destroy the terminal bud; the coconut tree becomes sensitive to attacks by this pest from the third year after planting. Rhinostomus barbirostris: presence of sawdust or small formations of hardened resin at the inlet hole of the larva that form several galleries inside the stem. Homalinotus coriaceus: the gallery opened by the larva in flower stalk hampers the flow of sap, causing abortion of female flowers. Amerrhinus ynca: larva enters in the leaf rachis and form longitudinal galleries that cause yellowing, weakening and breakdown of attacked leaves. Daedalus eupalamide forms galleries in the crown of leaves, resulting in loss of leaves, scars on the stem and plant death. Brasso-

Large scale farming Family farming

Manual removing and burning of affected plants; chemical treatments with sprayers, or in large cultivated areas by aerial spraying; biological control.

Manual removing and burning of affected plants; chemical sprayings during harvest and/or from the ground; biological control.

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

lis sophorae causes defoliation; attacked plants suffer from stunted growth and reduced leaf area, reflected by the premature dropping of fruits and production delays. Coraliomela brunnea: it mainly damages young plants causing central perforations on the leaflets, resulting in development delays. Hyalospila ptychis: the larvae grow in the newly opened inflorescences, damaging the flower female bracts, drilling new fruits and penetrating them. Control measures: the coconut trees uprooted must be burned; injury to healthy plants during cultivation and harvest must be avoided; accidental wounds must be brushed with insecticide. The use of bait plants infected with spores of the fungus Beauveria bassiana is an alternative control system. Aspidiotus destructor: it causes chlorosis followed by partial or total drying of the leaflets starting from older leaves, causing a reduction in leaf area and abortion of female flowers, and consequently in the yield of the plantation. Cerataphis lataniae: In young coconut trees, it causes delay in plant development, while in adult plants causes abortion of female flowers and fruit drop; in both cases, the occurrence of sooty mold on the attacked plants was observed. Strategus Aloeus: the adult pierces the girth of young trees; severe infestations occur in recently deforested areas. Control measures: plants broken by the wind must be eradicated and burned; more generally, all wood residues should be removed and destroyed; larvae, pupae and adult insects found in dead plants must be collected and destroyed; concentrated solution of contact insecticide must be injected at the inlet and exit of larvae in both plants and soil; in case of severe infestation, also the crown should be sprayed with contact or systemic insecticides; pruning of infested leaf, followed by burning is recommended. Good control results were obtained with: biocontrol by microhymenoptera preying on eggs of some pests; Beauveria bassiana and

91

Large scale farming Family farming

92

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Metarhizium anisopliae parasitizing nymphs, and Bacillus thuringiensis parasitizing Lepidoptera adults; cleaning of plant canopy and soil around the plant; collecting and destroying all immature fruits lying on the ground. Central Africa Fungal diseases. Ganoderma lucidum and Ganoderma spp.: a basal stem rot appears. For the control it is recommended to dig out and burn the bole and the affected part of the stem. Trichoderma harzianum and Trichoderma viride were found to be antagonistic to G. lucidum. Cerastomella paradoxa and Thielaviopsis spp: presence of bleeding patches on the stem. Reddish brown liquid oozes from longitudinal cracks in the stem. Marasmiellus cocophilus: in seedlings, premature death of the oldest two or three leaves. Control measures to take primarily place at seed-nut harvesting before nursery establishment. Seed-nuts taken directly from the tree, must be trimmed at the top and on three sides to expose about 75 per cent of the internal layers and then dipped in 250 mg/kg antimucin for fifteen minutes. Phytophtora spp.: the infection generally starts around the floral parts, with presence of irregular lesions spreading from the surface of the nut to the endosperm and the nut stalk. Control measures: Fertilizer irrigation as well as manuring seem to increase diseases severity, whereas irrigation combined with Bordeaux mixture or systemic fungicides considerably reduces these diseases; improving drainage and wider plant spacing seem to reduce the disease virulence; dead palms should be cut down and burned as soon as possible; it is also recommended to disinfect tools used on diseased palms; if possible, varieties having genetic resistances to some diseases should be planted. Insect pests. Sexava spp.: larvae can cause extremely serious outbreaks resulting in almost total defoliation, after which the insects may attack inflorescences and fruits. Control measures: treatment with a chlorpyriphos solution on

Large scale farming Family farming

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

93

Large scale farming Family farming

the basic part of the stem will prevent some of the population from climbing the tree. It is also possible to spray the crown with a solution of diazinon or phosphamidon. due to the height of the tree, such treatments are difficult. Therefore, stem injections or root absorption with monocrotophos solutions may be preferred. defoliant Lepidoptera (several species) cause leaf loss; they can be biologically controlled by Bacillus thuringiensis, or chemical controlled by trichlorfon, carbaryl or deltamethrine. HARVEST The maximum oil content is reached when the Manual reaping, nuts are 12 months old, but there is no appreciable climbing or with difference in the yield of coir fibre between 10 to poles. 12-month-old nuts. dwarf varieties which sprout in 45-60 days should be harvested every month; other varieties, which sprouts in 100-150 days, may be harvested at 3-month intervals. Mechanization is barely possible for practical as well as financial reasons. Many coconut palm varieties drop their nuts to the ground when they are mature and turned brown. Reaping the nuts can be a good solution if it can be done at short intervals. However, this method also has some disadvantages such as facilitating theft, which is often a very serious problem, especially in densely populated areas. Another disadvantage would be the tendency to leave the nuts in the field too long, risking the start of germination because of humidity, Thirdly, leaving fallen nuts in the field would facilitate the attack of such ravagers as rats and other rodents. To avoid these problems, skilled climb harvesters are needed. In some countries, trees are climbed without any accessories; in others, ankle-rings, waist-rings or hand ropes are used to provide the climber with more support. The number of palms that can be climbed per day also varies substantially from place to place, according to the height of the palms and the ability of the climbers. Normally, 2,500 nuts per climber per day are easily attainable in 7-10 m high trees with

Manual reaping, climbing or with poles.

94

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Large scale farming Family farming

one harvesting every 3 months. 400-800 nuts per day in a grove with trees of 15-20 m high. When whole bunches are cut, some nuts may detach and roll away, but most remain attached to the bunch, facilitating collection and stacking. In Mozambique, strings of the husk are generally cut loose with a knife, one end of the string remaining attached to the husk; with these strings the nuts are bound together in groups of five, facilitating counting and transport to the vehicle. Usually, the climber will also remove dry leaves and spathes or any other dry matter. Harvesting nuts, especially whole bunches, with the use of long poles with a sickle-shaped knife at the tip may be the best solution, although limited to a certain height of trees. The higher the tree, the lower the difference between harvesting with poles and by climbing. The poles are usually made from bamboo. At last, monkeys are used for harvesting in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, although it is not as easy and cheap as it may appear. Monkeys (Macaca nemestrina) need to be very well trained. Their daily capacity can be considerable. Up to 1,000 nuts per morning have been recorded. However, their maintenance may be rather expensive, otherwise it might be expected that monkeys would be used more often.

5.3 Jatropha References: http://www.fertilizer.org/, 2010; http://www.embrapa.br/, 2010; http://www.fao.org/, 2010; Hoyt, 2008; Cropping phases and critical issues

NURSERY Propagation by seeds. Selected seeds must be used for sowing. Large seeds (> 17 mm) should be chosen. They should be freshly harvested or have been stored under appropriate temperature and humidity for a maximum period of three

Large scale farming Family farming

Almost all nursery operations are manual; only irrigation can be automatic.

Almost all nursery operations are manual.

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

95

Large scale farming Family farming

months, free of mechanical damage, insects, etc. Seeds can be directly planted in the field, but a nursery is normally set up either to grow seedlings to be transplanted into the field, or to supply plantlets to replace dead plants or not germinated seeds in the field. Normally the nursery is established by planting seeds in shaded areas, in polymeric bags, filled with soil and fertilizer (about 2, 3 and 2 grams of N, P2O5 and K2O, respectively), regularly irrigated. Propagation by cuttings. Commercially it is not appropriate to plant by cutting in large areas: in fact, it allows a faster development and sooner seed production, but plant stability is threatened by the lack of a primary root. Propagation material can be obtained by plant pruning, by branches > 1 m long, removing all the foliage and young (green) parts, positioning them vertically, in a sunny dry sand container for 3 days. The best time for this operation is in the dry season, because in the wet season high soil humidity may promote the onset of diseases and cause decay. After 3 days the cutting must be moved to a nursery where they will be planted 15-20 cm deep. The soil must be kept quite dry at least in the surface. Plantlets can be transplanted when 2 or 3 new leaves are visible. PLANTING IN THE FIELD The transplanting from nursery will occur at the beginning of the rainy season, as the direct sowing. One month before the beginning of the rainy season, the field should be prepared, by single row ploughing at a 40 cm depth (row spacing 2 – 3 x 2,5 m). As an alternative, single holes (30 cm diameter x 40 cm depth) can be dug out. In case of direct seeding in the field, the rows/holes must be tilled again with harrows or by manual hoeing for a good seedbed preparation. In case of permanent intercropping, the plants should be planted in rows at a larger distance depending on the space needed for the inter crop;

Manual.

Manual.

Single row ploughing by tractor, 40 cm deep, followed by harrowing or hoeing in case of direct seeding in field.

Manual hole digging (30 cm x 40 cm deep) and soil mixing in the holes. In case of direct seeding, manual hoeing in the top of each hole.

96

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Large scale farming Family farming

usually about 4 meters. The distance between Jatropha plants within a row is 2.5 to 3 meters. In case of direct seeding, about 5 and 4 g per Manual (placed). plant of P2O5 and K2O fertilizers should be added to the soil; at the end of germination about 5 g of N per plant should be applied. ANNUAL CROPPING OPERATIONS Weeding: At regular intervals weeds should be pulled and incorporated into the ground to provide organic material to the topsoil. The frequency of weeding depends on weed growth. In most cases the amount of labour determines the area that can be kept weed-free. In the case of large-scale plantations with partly mechanized cultivation, around 2 to 4 ha/person could be sufficiently freed from weeds. In case of small-scale cultivation this is closer to 1 ha/person. Pruning: Jatropha flowers form only at the end of branches. Pruning leads to more branches, therefore to a higher potential for fruit production. Another important reason to prune is to keep the plants at a manageable size. With good pruning Jatropha plants should have strong lateral branches that can bear the weight of the fruits. It is important to prune only under dry conditions and best when the plants have shed their leaves. All cut material can be left as soil mulch. The first pruning is needed after 3-6 months, when plants have well developed. Cutting the main stem is done at a height of 30-45 cm above ground. Fertilizing: Avg. nutrient requirement for Brazil (kg/ha/y NP2O5-K2O) 1st year:20-40-20 2nd year and subsequent: 40-20-40 Avg. nutrient requirement for Central Africa (kg/ ha/y N-P2O5-K2O): 1st year: 20-10-30 2nd year: 35-10-50 3rd year and subsequent:70-20-100

Inter-row mechanical hoeing.

Manual (placed).

Manual hoeing or weeding.

Manual (chainsaw Manual. for big branches).

Application by Manual fertilizer spreader. spreading.

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

97

Large scale farming Family farming

Plant protection against pests and diseases: Treatments with The important pests vary with regions. tractor mounted Central and South America: insect pests. Fruit sprayers. feeding true bugs, Pachycoris klugii and Leptoglossus zonatus which cause fruit decay, fall, abortion and malformation of seeds. Fungal diseases. Above described Colletotrichum spp. and Ascomycota spp., causing white spots on leaves becoming necrotic, represent majour fungal diseases for Jatropha in South America. Control measures generally valid for all growing environments: Chemical pesticides are successfully used against major pests in Jatropha. Chlorpyrifos and cyphenothrin are active against flea beetle, whereas collar rot can be controlled with 0.2% Copper Oxy Chloride (COC) or 1% Bordeaux mixture drenching. Insects can be controlled with a mixture of vitex, neem, aloe, Calatropis latex or dimetoate. Preventive measures are taken by disinfecting tools used for cutting and pruning with alcohol or chlorine, uprooting and burning diseased plants. It is important to minimize damage to the Jatropha plants, in order to reduce the risk of microorganism proliferation, using wider spacing (e.g., 3 x 3 m), or row planting at least 4 m apart, as well as intercropping. Jatropha presscake has pesticidal properties and can be used to protect recently established plants which have intrinsically low levels of toxins. Africa: insect pests. Flea beetle (Aphthona spp.) eats the leaves; its larvae penetrate the roots, sometimes resulting in 100% mortality. Fungal diseases. Anthracnose (Colletotrichum spp.) causes leaf necrosis; severe infestation can significantly reduce yield. HARVEST Manual picking of Jatropha seeds, performed 4-6 Mechanical by times per year, appears to be the best harvesting tree shakers or method to ensure the harvesting of well ripened bunch strippers. seeds.

Manual sprayings.

Manual picking.

98

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Large scale farming Family farming

Picking rates reported in a number of studies ranges from 30 to over 60 kg of dry seed per worker per day. Low figures might be measured in areas of field hedges or low yield plantations, where seed density might be low and picking is difficult because of plant height. Using tree shakers, a mechanical grip system is applied to the stem which is shaken so that all ripe fruits fall down; to prevent the fruit from bruising and rotting on the ground, a net is usually spread under plants before shaking. Using strippers the branches are raked and all fruit are stripped off the branches; this can represent a problem with respect to the ripening of the Jatropha fruits, which is scalar.

5.4 Castorbean Under tropical conditions as a perennial crop. References: http://www. fertilizer.org/, 2010; http://www.embrapa.br/, 2010; http://www.fao.org/, 2010; Hoyt, 2008. Cropping phases and critical issues

PLANTING Growing castorbean in areas unsuitable for the crop may determine a serious degradation for the soil, since this plant is modestly able to protect it: in fact, it is grown at a low population density, has a low canopy and its cropping requires efficient control of weeds from planting until 60 days after emergence. These features expose the soil to erosion agents such as rain, sunlight and wind. Thus soils susceptible to erosion should be avoided in castorbean cropping. Plant spacing ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 m between rows, and from 0.2 to 0.6 m between plants; in general a wider spacing is chosen for the perennial crop, especially in non-mechanized farming, where the expected density is around 13,000 - 15,000 plants/ ha. The planting season is related to the incidence of pests, diseases, weeds and substrate utilization.

Large scale farming Family farming

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

Ecological factors, in particular moisture, heat and light may influence the emergence and productivity of crops. The optimal time for seeding normally is at the beginning of the rainy season. However, in equatorial regions with high humidity, planting castorbean during the rainy season may become infeasible due to pests and it would be recommended to plant it in the dry season. The planting of castor beans can be done manually or mechanically, depending on availability of implements and economic conditions of the producer. The manual planting is more common for cultivars with medium and large sizes and in the consortium planting system. This method is to sow two or three seeds in holes previously opened, depending on seed germination and vigour. This takes 5 to 15 kg/ ha of seed. Seedlings are subsequently thinned. The mechanical planting, by precision seeder is recommended for growing small or mediumsized seed, whose spacing on row is small. CROPPING OPERATIONS Pruning: After each cropping season, pruning is recommended, in order to prepare plants for the following season. The goals of pruning are to maintain the size and to stimulate the emission of lateral branches, promoting a greater horizontal growth to shade the soil and improve natural suppression of weeds. For small-sized varieties in intensive cropping, pruning consists in mechanical cutting of canopy at 30 cm from the soil surface. For varieties of larger size in wider plant spacings, pruning can be both manual, by topping plants and cutting side branches 50 cm high, or mechanical. Weeding: inter-row hoeing or cultivating is recommended; in case of severe weed infestation, a chemical herbicide may be sprayed. Fertilizing: Castorbean is a high nutrient-demanding species, with a high concentration in seed oil and protein, which leads to a relevant demand for essential nutrients, especially N-PK, calcium and magnesium.

99

Large scale farming Family farming

Ploughing 30-35 cm deep, sowing by precision seeder.

Manual holes digging, 15-25 cm deep, and manual seeding.

Mechanical canopy cutting 30 cm high.

Manual pruning.

Inter row cultivating; herbicide spraying. Fertilizer spreader.

Manual hoeing or weeding Manual placement.

100

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Avg. nutrient requirement for Brazil (kg/ha/y NP2O5-K2O) State of São Paulo 60 - 24 - 18 State of Bahia 60 - 60 - 45 State of Pernambuco 45 - 40 - 30 Avg. nutrient requirement for central Africa (kg/ ha/y N-P2O5-K2O) 90-80-40 Plant protection against pests and diseases: Brazil: Fungal diseases. Amphobotrys ricini: small patches of bluish colour, especially on inflorescences and bunches; new flowers or fruits acquire dark shades and, when touched, release large quantities of spores. The pathogen also affects oil content and seed quality. Fusarium oxysporum and F. ricini: loss of turgidity, irregular areas of yellow leaf surface, which become necrotic, and may lead to leaf fall. Seed treatment before sowing with specific fungicide is recommended. Macrophomina phaseolina: leaf yellowing and wilting, looking externally like the wilt caused by Fusarium spp., with partial or total necrosis of the root. Low soil moisture and high temperature are the conditions enhancing disease development. Lasiodplodia theobromae: tissue necrosis, which progresses to rotting, wilting and death of the stem and/or branches. On the surface of affected tissue pycnidia of the fungus can be found. Cercospora ricinella: leaf spots of rounded shape with clear centre and brown edges. Specific systemic fungicides are available for this disease. Alternaria ricini: brown leaf lesions, irregularly shaped, occasionally forming concentric rings that may coalesce as the disease progresses, and in severe cases cause plant defoliation. Affected fruits become dark brown, with necrosis of the pedicel and damping-off. Bacterial diseases. Xanthomonas campestris var. ricini: small spots on leaves, initially greenish-brown becoming dark; the leaf lesions may coalesce, causing extensive areas of necrosis in leaf, resulting in premature defoliation of the plant.

Large scale farming Family farming

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

101

Large scale farming Family farming

Control measures include: choice of cultivars Treatments with with high levels of genetic resistance, elimina- tractor mounted tion of affected plant and crop residues from sprayers. field, adequate fertilizing, avoiding plant damages during the growing season, spraying contact fungicides specially in humid climate conditions. Insect pests. Nezara viridula: it feeds on plant sap in leaves, stems and fruits, causing yield reductions. Agrotis ipsilon: it cuts the seedling near the soil surface to feed. A larva can destroy many plants, especially during the 1st year. Spodoptera spp. larvae feed on the leaves of the castorbean and can cause total defoliation. Homoptera spp. and Cicadellidae: adults suck sap from the leaves causing necrotic or chlorotic spots and leaf drying. Tetranychus urticae: almost invisible, its presence is indicated by webs and droppings, causing inter-nerval yellowing and bronzing, eventually causing leaf drop. Methods of pest control: Pest attacks in castorbean rarely cause damages that significantly limit productivity and does not, therefore, justify the application of control measures. However, if necessary, registered chemical pesticide for castorbean include sulphur compounds, pyrethroids, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, carbamates and organo-chlorines. Africa: Fungal diseases. Sclerotinia spp. and Alternaria spp.: brown and rusty leaf lesions, occasionally forming concentric rings. Virulent attacks can cause total defoliation; affected fruits become dark brown and abort. Verticillium dahliae and V. theobromae: causing leaves to curl and discolour. It may cause death in some plants, and in case of virulent attacks can damage several plants, circularly expanding in the field. Melanopsichium ricini: it causes rusty spots on leaves; intense attacks can significantly reduce yield. Control measures: use of seeds produced in healthy fields; avoiding crop rotation with leguminous species; planting tolerant varieties; applying copper fungicides; avoiding excessive nitrogen fertilization; removing and burning dead plants.

Manual sprayings.

102

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Large scale farming Family farming

Insect pests. Nezara viridula, Helopetis spp. and Calidea spp.: they feed on plant sap in leaves, stems and fruits, causing yield reduction. Dichocrocis punctiferalis and Cryptophelbia laucotreta: fruit-and-capsule boring larvae causing yield reduction. Achaea spp.: plant defoliating larvae; attacks during first year can lead to plant death. Xyleutes capensis: larvae bore into branches or trunk causing their deaths. Control measures: chemical treatment with pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, and carbamates; biocontrol with Bacillus thuringiensis or Beauveria spp., avoiding crop rotations with species that host the same pests. HARVEST In non-mechanized cropping systems shattering Combined cultivars are preferred, as opposed to the non- harvesting. dehiscent dwarf strains developed for developed countries. In manual harvesting, the spikes are cut or broken off, the capsules stripped off into a wagon or sled, or into containers strapped on the workers’ shoulders. For mechanical harvesting, cultivars are recommended featuring short size (often hybrids), indehiscence and having only one or a few spikes. Some companies manufacture kits for upgrading corn harvesters for castorbean. The mowing bar must be kept more than 30 cm high under perennial cultivation systems, so that, after mechanical harvesting, pruning can be avoided.

Manual picking.

5.5 Sunflower References: http://www.fertilizer.org/, 2010; http://www.embrapa.br/, 2010; http://www.fao.org/, 2010; Hoyt, 2008. Cropping phases and critical issues

Large scale farming Family farming

LANTING Normal tillage involve ploughing carried out Ploughing (40 with mouldboard or disk plough, or double cm), or double P layer tillage (shallow ploughing + sub-soiling), layer tillage

Manual or oxen-pulled tillage.

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

followed by harrowing. As an alternative, minimum tillage (chiselling) or no tillage + sod seeding can be adopted. Given the low plant density, precision seeders are normally used. In non-mechanized agricultural systems, also manual direct sowing and small manual drill are used. In this cases, soil tillage is provided by manual spading or with small ploughs pulled by oxen. Row spacing varies from 50 to 75 cm, plant spacing on the row ranges around 30 cm. The final plant density should be 4-6 plants per m2. Seeding depth is about 3-4 cm. Before sowing, weed control with a total herbicide or by manual weeding should be carried out. CROPPING OPERATIONS Weeding: inter-row hoeing or cultivating is recommended; in case a strong weed infestation is expected, chemical herbicides may be applied soon after sowing (pre-emergence spraying). Fertilizing: sunflower requires a good level of available K to reach good yields. Avg. nutrient requirement for Brazil 40-60 kg/ha of N, 40-80 kg/ha of P2O5 and 40-80 kg/ha of K2O. Nitrogen splitting is recommended: 30% at sowing and the remainder within 30 days after plant emergence, especially in soils with sandy texture. Avg. nutrient requirement for central Africa 25-35 kg/ha of N, 25-40 kg/ha P2O5 and 25-45 kg/ha K2O. Nitrogen distribution should be split as indicated for Brazil. Plant protection against pests and diseases: Brazil: insect pests. Kitty (Diabrotica speciosa) that feeds on leaves and flower causing yield loss; the black caterpillar (Chlosyne lacinia saundersii) larvae that destroy leaves; bugs (Nezara viridula and Piezodorus guildinii) that feed on plant sap in leaves and stems, causing yield reduction. Other insects usually occur in low populations and only occasionally become harmful. In this group, we can mention the beetle chapter (Cyclocephala melanocephala), ants (Atta spp.), and the screw worm (Agrostis ipsilon).

103

Large scale farming Family farming

(20 + 20 cm), or Manual direct minimum tillage, seeding or or direct seeding. manual seeder. Precision seeder.

Herbicide sprayer.

Manual weeding.

Inter row cultivating.

Manual hoeing or weeding.

Fertilizer spreader.

Manual spreading.

Inter row cultivating; treatments carried out by tractormounted sprayer.

Manual interrow tillage; treatments carried out with manual sprayer.

104

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

When a severe attack occurs in the first weeks after emergence, a chemical control should be carried out; usually, a single insecticide application is sufficient. In advanced stages, damage is minimized by the large amount of foliage produced by the sunflower crop, and there is no need to control pests. More to this, pesticide application during the blooming stage should be avoided, in order to prevent damages to pollinating insects. Fungal diseases. Alternaria helianthi leaf spot affects leaves, stem and chapter with rusty spots; white rot, caused by the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, causes stem rotting of the plant. In specific cases, some other diseases such as rust (Puccinia helianthi), base stem rotting (Sclerotium rolfsii), the black (Phoma oleracea) and the gray spot of the stem (Phomopsis helianthi) and gray mold (Botrytis cinerea), can also cause significant damage. Control measures: planting genetically resistant varieties when available; sowing sunflower in deep soils with good drainage, favourable texture and pH; wider plant spacing, as dense crops form a very favourable microclimate for the outburst of fungal diseases. Adopting a 4-year or longer crop rotation and avoiding rotations with oilseed rape, peas, soybean, tobacco, tomato, beans and potatoes; keeping the crop free of weeds, which can be alternative hosts of pathogens. Africa: Fungal diseases. beyond Botrytis cynerea, Puccinia helianthi, Alternaria spp. and Sclerotinia spp. described in the above paragraph, in African regions some other diseases may affect sunflower: Rhizopus stolonifer can cause head rotting, and can be controlled with seed treatment before sowing; Phialophora spp. causes leaf yellowing during the flowering period and can lead to flower sterility; Plasmopara spp. and Uredo albugo cause yellow spots in leaves, that become necrotic in a few days. In severe infections, spots can coalesce and lead to significant leaf losses, reflecting in reduced yield; Gibberella fujikuroi

Large scale farming Family farming

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

105

Large scale farming Family farming

primarily attacks seeds during maturation, and leads to grey or white mould formation on seeds. Macrophomina spp. causes basal stem rot, leading to plant death. Control measures are the same described in the above paragraph; in addition, local treatment with sulphur or copper compounds may be carried out, especially under non-mechanized farming systems, in case of severe infections. HARVEST Harvesting can start when seed humidity is be- Combined low 15%, although at such moisture rapid seed harvesting. drying is required for long term seed storage. At that stage, the leaves are completely dry and the stem and head coloration is brown to dark brown. Combined harvesters adapted for sunflower are used in large scale farming. In rural areas of developing countries, manual harvesting is still practiced, cutting heads with a knife or shears. Heads are then collected and stored before threshing, that is carried out with semi-manual machinery.

Manual harvesting and semi-manual threshing.

5.6 Soybean References: http://www.fertilizer.org/, 2010; http://www.embrapa.br/, 2010; http://www.fao.org/, 2010; Hoyt, 2008. Cropping phases and critical issues

PLANTING Normal tillage involves ploughing made with mouldboard or disk ploughs, or double layer tillage (shallow ploughing + sub-soiling), followed by harrowing. Good results can also be obtained by mimimum tillage (chiselling), ridge and zone tillage, and no tillage + sod seeding. For sowing, precision seeders are preferred, although normal seeders may also be used. In non-mechanized agricultural systems, also manual direct sowing and small manual seeders

Large scale farming Family farming

Ploughing (40 cm), or double layer tillage (20 + 20 cm), or minimum tillage, or no tillage. Precision seeders.

Manual tillage or oxen-pulled tillage, manual direct seeding or manual seeders.

106

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Large scale farming Family farming

are used. In this cases soil tillage is carried out by manual spading or with small ploughs pulled by oxen. Row spacing varies from 45 to 75 cm; plant spacing on the row is 4-6 cm. The final plant density should be about 30 plants per m2. seeding depth: 3-5 cm, depending on temperature. Before sowing, weed control with a total herbi- Herbicide cide or by manual weeding is generally necessary. spraying. CROPPING OPERATIONS Weeding: inter-row hoeing or manual hoeing/ weed pulling is recommended. Fertilizing: Soybean in normal soil conditions does not need N as symbiotic rhizobium provides atmospheric N fixation. Only in the case of failure of root nodulation and stunted growth, 80120 kg/ha of N should be side dressed to soybean. Avg. nutrient requirement for Brazil 70-90 kg/ ha P2O5 and 50-70 kg/ha K2O. Avg. nutrient requirement for central Africa 40-50 kg/ha P2O5 and 20-25 kg/ha K2O. Plant protection against pests and diseases: Brazil: Several Fungal and bacterial diseases are reported to attack soybean in Brazilian areas, causing damage to leaves (Cercospora kikuchii and C. sojina, Phakopsora spp., Alternaria spp., Ascochita sojae, Myrotecium rodorium, Peronospora spp., Septoria glycinis, Phyllosticta sojicola, Corynespora cassiicola and Microsphaera diffusa); to pods and stems (Colletotrichum dematium, Diaporthe phaseolorum, Phomopsis spp., Cercospora spp., Fusarium spp., Nematospora coryli and Sclertotinia sclerotiorum); to roots (Macrophomina phaseolina, Phialophora gragata, Phytophtora spp., Cylindrocladium clavatum, Sclerotium rolfsii, Rhizoctonia spp., Fusarium spp, Rosellinia spp. and Corynespora cassiicola). In addition, also nematodes are reported to damage the crop (Meloidogyne spp. and Heterodera spp.). Control measures: widening the crop rotation and avoiding rotation with other legumes; seeding early the whole crop surface; wider plant spac-

Manual weeding.

Inter row hoeing. Manual hoeing or weed pulling. Fertilizer Manual spreader. spreading.

Manual interInter row row tillage; cultivating; treatments carried treatments

Optimization of Crop Farming in Dependence on the Local Preconditions

Cropping phases and critical issues

107

Large scale farming Family farming

ing; planting resistant cultivars; correct weed out by field management in order to destroy pest-hosting sprayer. weeds; soil management with the incorporation of crop residues; balanced fertilization; chemical control in case of severe infestation with registered products. Seed treatment with fungicides is unadvisable, since it is harmful to rhizobium. Among insect pests, some are considered epidemic in Brazil (Anticarsia grammatalis, attacking leaves, and Euschistus heros, Piezodorus guildinii and Nezara viridula attacking seeds and pods), but also other pest species can cause serious damage to the crop in case of virulent attacks, such as Stemechus subsignatus, Scaptocoris castanea, Atarsocoris brachiariae and Phillophaga cuyabana, attacking stems and roots. Chemical insecticides registered for the control of soybean pests are available in Brazil, but chemical treatments should be done only beyond the acceptable damage level, also defined by single states. Africa: Fungal diseases. Phakopsora pachyrhizi, is one of the most important foliar diseases exhibiting rusty lesions with small raised pustules occurring on the lower surface of the leaves, leading to yield losses up to 80%. Cercospora sojina symptoms appear as brown, circular to irregular spots with narrow reddish brown margins on the leaf surfaces Control measures: planting resistant varieties; good and deep seedbed preparation; seeds treatment with fungicides; long crop rotations avoiding succession with legumes. Bacterial diseases. Xanthomonas axonopodis shows irregular leaf spots with raised lightcolored pustules on the lower surface. Phytophthora sojae causes seedling blight, root and stem rot and can kill plants at all stages of growth. Infection generally occurs in fields with poor drainage. Soybean is also susceptible to several viruses causing severe yield reductions, transmitted by aphids, beetles and whiteflies. Most of the virus infections result in foliar symptoms such as mosaic and mottling,

carried out with manual sprayer.

108

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases and critical issues

Large scale farming Family farming

thickening/brittling of older leaves, puckering, leaf distortion, severe reduction in leaf size, and stunting of plants. Mixed infections with more than one virus are common under field conditions (Cowpea mild mottle virus, Bean pod mottle virus, Alfalfa mosaic virus, Cucumber mosaic virus, Southern bean mosaic virus and different viruses belonging to the genus Begomovirus). Control measures: growing virus-resistant varieties, avoiding seeds obtained from mosaic-affected plants, uprooting and destruction of affected plants, good weed management, applying foliar insecticides to reduce the insect vector activity during pre-flowering stage. Several different insects occur in soybean fields but few are normally of any economic importance, and the harmful species are usually not abundant enough to justify control measures. In the vegetative stage, the crop is very tolerant of caterpillars but very susceptible to Bemisia argentifolii attack. From flowering onwards, soybean becomes attractive to several pod-sucking bugs that can seriously reduce seed quality. Most insect pests can be controlled with a single spray of cypermethrin + dimethoate. HARVEST Soybean matures within 4–5 months after plant- Combined ing and requires timely harvesting to prevent harvesting. excessive yield losses. At maturity, the pod is straw coloured. It is recommended that soybean be harvested when seeds reach 14-18% of humidity, or when about 85% of the pods have turned brown for a non-shattering variety but 80% for shattering varieties. Mechanical harvesting is done by combined harvester. In non-mechanized areas harvesting can be done with a cutlass, a hoe, or sickles. Manual threshing is only recommended for small-scale production: it involves piling soybean plants on tarpaulin or putting dry soybean pods in sacks and beating them with a stick.

Manual harvesting and manual threshing.

6 General Logistic Aspects

6.1 Characteristic and Critical Issues of Biodiesel Supply Chain A system is a collection of different elements that together produce results not obtainable by the elements alone. The elements or parts can include people, hardware, software, facilities, policies and documents; that is, all things required to produce system-level results. The results include system qualities, properties, characteristics, functions, behaviour and performance. The value added by the system as a whole, beyond that contributed independently by its single parts, is primarily created by the relationship among the parts; that is, how they are interconnected (Mayer and Rechtin, 2000). In this study, the system is a biodiesel- or a vegetable oil-based supply chain for energy purposes, variable under different technology level and raw material used. In figure 6.1 an example of a biodiesel supply chain at the industrial scale level is outlined. Red boxes represent the steps involving logistic issues. The transport cost can deeply affect the economic sustainability of the whole biodiesel chain, especially in the first transport step between farm and oil extraction plant. Some studies (Guo and Hanaky, 2010; JRC-Concawe, 2007; dukulis et al., 2008) suggest a transport distance ranging between 50 and 300 km from farm to extraction plant. However, due to their high energy density, seeds or fruits of oil crops, can be transported over longer distances than other raw materials (e.g., ligno-cellulosic biomass) for the production of biofuels. After oil extraction, the transport cost and its convenience is similar to that of conventional diesel.

Simone Fazio and Lorenzo Barbanti, University of Bologna, Italy

110

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 6.1 - Example of an industrial-scale biodiesel supply chain.

Another important aspect to consider is the storage stability of the oil after extraction and before transesterification. Indeed, storing oils and fats over a long term can lead to rancidity, especially in warm areas of the world. Oxygen is eight times more soluble in fats than in water; the oxidation resulting from this exposure is the primary cause of rancidity. The more polyunsaturated a fat is, the faster it will go rancid. Exposure to oxygen, light and heat are the greatest factors to rancidity, thus vegetable oil should be stored in sealed tanks preferably not directly exposed to the sun. Oil shelf life can also be extended by adding antioxidants such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) or tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) (0,1 to 0,5%), which also ensure a longer durability of biodiesel after esterification (Knothe et al., 2005; Mittelbach et al., 2004). In figure 6.2 an example of a small scale energy supply system deriving from vegetable oils is shown. Red boxes represent the logistic steps. Also in this case the major logistic problems are represented by transport costs and oil storability. However, oil conservation is normally a key issue in this kind of scenario, while transport cost is of minor concern, because this type of supply chain is normally carried out in small coopera-

General Logistic Aspects

111

Figure 6.2 - Example of a small scale energy supply chain based on vegetable oils.

tives or groups of farmers with a small supplying area and a close distance. In this case the problems in oil conservation arise from the fact that the oil is not transformed and needs to be stored until the final utilization, adopting the same precautions suggested for biodiesel chain systems. It must be pointed out that the shelf life of oils for biodiesel or energy purposes is different from that of the same oils for food chains. In fact, while for human consumption it is recommended to avoid oil storage (if not added with antioxidants) for more than 20-30 days after the can has been opened, for energy purposes it can normally be stored from 1 to 6 months, depending on temperature and fatty acid composition, without significant differences in energy conversion (Knothe et al., 2005). As a general rule, the higher the free fatty acid content, the lower the durability of an oil.

Literature

Alfonso-Bártoli J.A., 2008. Physic nut (Jatropha curcas) Handbook. La Lima, Cortès, Honduras. Agriculture Handbook 165, 1960. Index of plant diseases in the United States. USGPO. Washington. Arkcoll d.B., 1988. Lauric oil resources. Economic botany. 42 p. 195-205. Brigham R.d., 1993. Castor: Return of an old crop. In: New crops. Wiley, New York (USA). duke J.A., 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops, unpublished. Available online on Purdue university’s website (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ duke_energy/). dukulis I., Birzeitis G., Kanaska d., 2009. Optimization models for biofuel logistic systems engineering for rural development, 29. FACT foundation, 2010. The jatropha handbook: From cultivation to application. FACT Foundation, Eindhoven (NL). Fife B., 2005. Coconut Cures. Piccadilly Books, Ltd.. pp. 184-185. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 1986. Food and fruit bearing forest species. No. 3: Examples from Latin America. Forestry Paper 44/3. F.A.O. Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002. Bioenergy, food security and sustainability towards an international framework. FAO Report HLC/08/INF/3, p. 16. Guo R. and Hanaki K., 2010. Potential and life cycle assessment of biodiesel production in China, Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Volume 2-3. Hoyt E., 2008. Mozambique biofuels assessment. Econergy International Corporation, Washington dC (USA). JRC-Concawe, 2007. Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context. http://www.ies.jrc.ec.europa. eu/wtw.html. Knothe G., Van Gerpen J. and Krahl J., 2005. The Biodiesel Handbook, AOCS Press, Champaign, IL.

114

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Koivisto J., 2001. Glycine max. Published In FAO’s grassland species profiles. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/gbase/default.htm. Lotschert W. and Beese G., 1999. Collins guide to tropical plants. Harpercollins Pub Ltd. UK. Maier M. and Rechtin E. The Art of Systems Architecting, Second Edition. CRC Press, 2000. Maroyi A., 2007. Ricinus communis L. Record from Protabase. van der Vossen, H.A.M. & Mkamilo, PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa), Wageningen, Netherlands. MdA Ministério do desenvolvimento Agrário, 2007. Viabilidade de extração óleo de dendê no estado do pará. Proceeding of the congress “Projeto Biodiesel”, Viçosa (MG), Brazil. Mittelbach M. and Remschmidt C., 2004. Biodiesel - The Comprehensive Handbook, publ. by M. Mittelbach, Graz, Austria. Oplinger E.S., Hardman L.L., Gritton E.T., doll J.d. and Kelling K.A., 1989. Canola. In Alternative Field Crops Manual. University of Minnesota (USA). Oplinger E.S., Oelke E.A., Kaminski A.R., Combs S.M., doll J.d. and Schuler R.T., 1990. Castor Oil Plant. In Alternative Field Crops Manual. University of Minnesota (USA). Peel M.C., Finlayson, B.L. and McMahon T.A., 2009. Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification. Hydrology Earth System Science 11. Pryde E.H. and doty H.O., Jr. 1981. World fats and oils situation. p. 3-14. In: Pryde, E.H., Princen, L.H., and Mukherjee, K.d. New sources of fats and oils. AOCS Monograph 9. American Oil Chemists’ Society. Champaign, IL. Putnam d.H., Oplinger E.S., Hicks d.R., durgan B.R., Noetzel d.M., Meronuck R.A., doll J.d. and. Schulte E.E. Riaz M.N., 2006. Soy applications in food. CRC Press (USA). Telek L. and Martin F.W., 1981. Okra seed: a potential source for oil and protein in the humid lowland tropics. p. 37-53. In: Pryde, E.H., Princen, L.H., and Mukherjee, K.d. (eds.), New sources of fats and oils. AOCS Monograph 9. American Oil Chemists’ Society. Champaign, IL Wandeck F.A. and Justo P.G., 1982. Macauba, fonte energetica e insumo industrial. Proceeding of the conference Vida Industrial. Sao Paulo, Brazil, p 33-37. White d.H., Lubulwab G.A., Menzc K., Zuod H., Winte W. and Slingenberghf J., 2001. Agro-climatic classification systems for estimating the global distribution of livestock numbers and commodities. Environment International, 27.

PART III Process Technology

7 Technology of Plant Oil Production

The production of oil from plant organs depends on the type and stability of the raw material. In general, there are two main groups of fats and oils: oil seeds and pulp fats and oils. Oil seeds can be stored for long time without significant decomposition, whereas pulp fats should be timely processed after harvest, which often means that they should be processed close to cropping area. Within these two groups it can be further differentiated depending on the characteristic fatty acid composition or the aggregate state. Substances which are solid at ambient conditions are referred to as fats whereas substances which are liquid at ambient conditions are classified as oils. 7.1 Oil Seeds Oil seeds (e. g. sunflower or jatropha seeds) can be stored and transported without significant decomposition for a long time; therefore, oil production is mostly done close to where the oil is supposed to be used.

Figure 7.1 - Examples of seed oils: sunflower (left), jatropha (right). Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany

118

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Oil production from oilseeds consists of four main steps: 1. Cleaning and preconditioning of the seeds 2. Oil production by pressing and/or extraction 3. Oil treatment/refining (see chap. 7.3) 4. Press cake treatment depending on seed quality, impurities such as weed, sand, stones and metal particles are removed by different sieving steps, magnetic and a final air separation during cleaning. The cleaned seeds (if necessary, also dehulled) are treated with steam (conditioning) for enzyme inactivation (e.g., lipases) and cell disruption. In a first pressing step (precompression), the oil content in the seeds (the remaining press cake) is reduced to 15-25%. The pressed crude oil is the filtered to remove solid particles (e. g. fibres, hulls). The remaining oil can be extracted from the press cake in counter-current extractors using for example hexane as solvent. To reduce the amount of solvent required, it is separated from the miscella (oil-solvent mixture) by vacuum-distillation to solvent contents below 0.1%. After filtration the pressed and the extracted crude oil is mixed and can be further processed during refining (see chap. 7.3). The residual solvent and toxic components in the press cake are removed by steam-treatment and drying (desolventation). In general, the press cake contains high amounts of proteins and is used as animal feed (Bockisch, 1993). In table 7.1 other more sophisticated and complex processes for oil production are shown. In figure 7.2 different examples of oil presses are shown, such as extrusion press, filter press or expeller press. Table 7.1 - Oil production (Sharma et al., 2002; Nazir et al., 2009; Willems, 2007).

Method Aqueous oil extraction (AOE) Three-phase partitioning extraction method (TPP)

Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction method (SCE) Gas Assisted Mechanical Expression (GAME)

Ground seeds are dwelled in e.g. distilled water. Extracted oil forms an oil phase and can be separated. Hulled seeds and distilled water form a suspension. After addition of ammonium sulphate and an organic solvent, three phases are formed: an upper organic (oily) phase, a bottom aqueous phase and an interfacial precipitate layer. The oil phase can be separated by centrifugation. Similar to the extraction with hexane, but using scCO2 as solvent. High solvent demand and only batch process possible. Combination of mechanical pressing and sc-solvent extraction.

Technology of Plant Oil Production

119

Figure 7.2 - Examples of different types of oil press (http://www.oilpressmachine.com/6YL95-oilpress.html, http://www.harburg-freudenberger.com/images/cm/produkte/screw_ shaft.jpg, http://v7.cache4.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/ original/16616546.jpg).

7.2 Pulp Fats and Oils Pulp fats and oils are less important than oil seeds; the most common pulp fat for biofuel production is palm oil. The fat or oil is well dispersed in the highly water containing tissue of the fruit. Any mechanical stress which might destroy the cellular structure of the fruit or even aging leads to enzymatic decomposition. due to that, crude pulp fats are less stable compared to oil seeds and have to be processed close to the cultivation area.

120

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

seed impurities and waste

cleaning

shels and bruised grain additions

seedpeeling crushing / ribbing conditioning precompression (Expeller) press cake

pressed crude oil

riffle / flake

filtering

extraction

drying miscela (oil / hexane)

extraction cake Hexane separation drying

hexane

hexane separation extracted crude oil

pressed crude oil

cooling

refining

meal

vegetable oil

Figure 7.3 - Oil production from seed oils (Bockisch, 1993).

Figure 7.4 - Examples of pulp fats and oils: palm (left), olive (right).

Technology of Plant Oil Production

palm fruit

sterilization of the whole berry

deberrying beating machine

Stems, deberried remains of the fruit fuel material

boiling with stirring

press cake (fiber content, nuts)

pressing

fraying out Pneumatic separation Must ( ˜ 1/3 oil) nuts

fiber material

seperation of impurities

clarifying, washing

clarifying, washing

(fruit) waster water

drying

crude palm oil

Figure 7.5 - Examples technology of oil production - pulp fats and oils (Bockisch, 1993).

121

122

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Traditional production techniques consist of six main steps: 1. Fermentation of the fruits 2. Separation of shell, pulp and kernel 3. Sterilisation 4. Crushing 5. Oil production by pressing 6. Oil purification For fermentation, the fruit bunches are stored for three to four days. Afterwards, pulp and kernel are separated and sterilised by boiling in large vessels to inactivate enzymes and microbiological growth. The next step is a crushing step. Oil production is done by means of a screw press. The upper foamy part of the resulting water-oil-mixture is decanted and boiled to clarify the oil. The oil yield of this traditional way of production amounts to 40-65% of the total oil content. Industrial palm oil production is also decentralised and comparable to the traditional way, except that most steps are mechanised. Sterilisation is done in autoclaves with a capacity of about 20 t at temperatures of 130-135°C; the whole process step takes about two hours. After sterilisation, shell, pulp and kernel can be separated in large rotating cages with internals. The mixture of pulp and kernels is then pressed in an expeller press. The resulting liquid contains about one third of oil which is separated by centrifuges; the rest is water and impurities. The crude oil can then be further purified during refining (see chap. 7.3) (Bockisch, 1993). 7.3 Crude Plant Oil Refining After pressing and/or extraction, the crude oil is refined. Full refining consists of degumming and neutralisation to separate mucilage and free Crude plant oil water, phosporic acid caustic soda Activated bleaching clay steam

degumming neutralization bleaching deodorization fully refined oil

Figure 7.6 - Crude plant oil refining (Kaltschmitt, 2001).

Mucilages (phosphor, compounds) Soapstock (free fatty acids, dyestuffs, heavy metals) loaded bleaching clay (chlorophylls, carotenes) Exhaust vapour (volatile oxidation products, tocopherols)

Technology of Plant Oil Production

123

fatty acids, as well as of bleaching and deodorisation to remove undesired colour or flavour and odorous substances. An oil treated in such way is also referred to as RBd (refined, bleached, deodorised) oil. Once refined, oils are only degummed and neutralised. Degumming Phospholipids, protein- and carbohydrate-containing components as well as mucilages reduce the storage stability of fats and promote hydrolytic and oxidative fat decomposition. during degumming, phospholipids and other polar lipids (gums) are removed from the crude oil.

Figure 7.7 - Schematic representation of phosphoacylglycerols (1-hydrophilic head, 2-hydrophobic tail (Wikipedia, 2011).

There are two different types of phospholipids, those which can be hydrated (e.g. lecithin) and those which are not hydratable. The former can be removed by a hot water treatment (about 90°C for 1-2 minutes) whereby the phosphatides loose their lipophilic character, become insoluble in oil and precipitate (water-degumming). Proteins, carbohydrates and the remaining phospholipids which cannot be hydratised are separated by acid-degumming with citric or phosphoric acid. Further degumming processes are TOP-degumming (total degumming) or degumming with ethanolamine (Baileys, 2005; Cleenewerck, 2006).

124

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Neutralisation Enzymatic and microbiological processes in the seeds or in the fruit during ripening or after harvesting, as well as hydrolysis and autoxidation lead to lypolysis, resulting in the formation of free fatty acids. The free fatty acid content is a crucial factor for further application of the oil as it might lead to undesired soap formation during the biodiesel process (fig. 7.8).

Figure 7.8 - Soaps of free fatty acids formed during biodiesel production.

Typically, crude plant oils contain about 1-3% free fatty acids (FFA); especially tropical oils as for example palm oil may contain up to over 20% FFA. In general, refined oils show acidity below 0.1%. Free fatty acids and phenols (e.g. gossypol and aflatoxin) are removed during neutralisation. The most common method is the chemical neutralisation with alkaline lye forming water and soap (see equation below). R-COOH + NaOH → R-COONa + H2O The reaction is irreversible and takes place at atmospheric pressure and about 60-85°C. Especially for highly acidic fats and oils, distillative deacidification is an economically and environmentally feasible alternative to chemical neutralisation (Baileys, 2005; Bockisch, 1993). Bleaching Oils and fats are bleached to remove undesired colouring. Some of these colour additives are prooxidative and, as well as autoxidation products, contribute to the decomposition of the oil. For the bleaching procedure, the oil is mixed with a surface active material (e.g. aluminium silicates or activated carbon) adsorbing the undesired components. Adsorbents and

Technology of Plant Oil Production

125

Figure 7.9 - Standard reference method (SRM)/Lovibond scale (Wikipedia, 2011).

adsorbed particles are filtered out afterwards; the bleaching effects are normally controlled by determining light extinction at certain wavelengths or by comparing to a defined colour scale as for example the Lovibond scale or the standard reference method (SRM) (fig. 7.9), which was originally used in the brewery industry (Baileys, 2005; Bockisch, 1993). Deodorisation The last step to fully refined oil is the deodorisation to remove undesired odoriferous substances (hydrocarbons, aldehydes, ketones, lactones or free fatty acids), which are either characteristic for the respective oils or are formed during storage and transportation by lipid oxidation. Most commonly, steam distillation is used at conditions of 190-210°C, 0.510 mbar and about 20-360 minutes. Unfortunately, also nutritionally valuable substances as certain vitamins (A, d, E) and some fatty acids essential to human diet (EPA, dHA) are separated during this process. Recent steam-stripping technologies aim at minimising polymerisation, transisomerisation and the loss of valuable components (Baileys, 2005; Bockisch, 1993).

126

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Table 7.2 shows the removal of undesired minor components by multistage vegetable oil refining using the example of oilseed rape oil. Table 7.2 - Variation of oilseed rape oil ingredients during refining (Baileys, 2005).

Component

Unit

Degree of refining crude degummed neutralised

FFA carotinoids chlorophyll tocopherols poly FA phosphorus sulphur copper iron carbonilics peroxide value

% 0.88 mg/kg 40 mg/kg 19 mg/kg 617 % 0.39 mg/kg 130 mg/kg 20 mg/kg 0.24 mg/kg 2.9 mg/kg 76 mmol O2/kg 5.6

– 30 18 585 0.39 45 15 0.11 1.6 262 2.0

0.07 28 13 493 0.36 3.5 7.2 0.06 1.2 80 3.8

bleached deodorised 0.07 0.5 0 440 0.36 2.0 6.2 0.02 0.2 104 2.8

0.06 0.3 0 411 0.49 2.0 1.1 0.01 0.03 80 0.8

during refining of rapeseed oil, the removal of each undesired trace components is connected to a certain refining step. Free fatty acid and carbonilic content are reduced during neutralisation from, in this case, 0.88% and 262 mg/kg in the crude oil to 0.07% and 80 mg/kg in the neutralised oil. Carotinoids, chlorophyll and tocopherols are continuously reduced during all refining steps with a focus on the neutralisation. Unfortunately, the amount of polymerised fatty acids (poly FA) increases during deodorisation. during refining the phosphorus content decreases from 130 mg/ kg to 2.0 mg/kg; the major part is removed during degumming and neutralisation. Sulphur, copper and iron are continuously separated during all refining steps.

8 Technology of Biodiesel Production from Plant Oils

8.1 Raw Materials for Biodiesel Production Most biodiesel is currently produced from vegetable oils as canola, sunflower and soybean, as well as from palm oil in South-East Asia. Jatropha is also considered as a potential source for biodiesel production, especially in tropical regions. Methanol is most commonly used for biodiesel production. Beside methanol, ethanol can alternatively be used; in this case the reaction product will be fatty acid ethyl ester (FAEE). 8.1.1  Oil All natural fats and oils consist of a mixture of triglycerides (TG). Triglyceride is a collective name for the triester of glycerol, where all hydroxyl groups are connected to fatty acid chains via ester-bonds. Fatty acids are in most cases unbranched, aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which can vary in length and in number, position and configuration of their C=C double bonds (fig. 8.1 and fig. 8.2).

Figure 8.1 - Fatty acids: palmitic acid (top) and oleic acid (bottom).

Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany

128

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 8.2 - Schematic structure of a triglyceride molecule.

Most naturally-occurring fatty acids are even numbered and appear in the cis-configuration and their chain length varies between 4 and 24 carbon atoms. The number of double bonds can reach six. Fatty acids of marine origin have the largest number of double bonds. TG differ in their fatty acids which can either be saturated, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated. Saturated fatty acids are those with no double bonds. They contain the maximum number of hydrogen atoms connected to the hydrocarbon chain. Fatty acids with one or more double bonds are called mono- or polyunsaturated. The chemical and physical properties of fats and oils are significantly determined by their fatty acid profile. High amounts of saturated fatty acids cause high melting points and high viscosities. Further constituents of fats and oils, which also affect their properties (Bockisch, 1998), are decomposition products as mono- and diglycerides and free fatty acids, as well as trace components as phospholipids, tocopherols or sterols. For the use of biodiesel as fuel, good combustion and cold flow properties as well as high oxidation stability are required. Considering the respective chemical and physical properties of different fatty acid profiles, it is obvious that not all types of plant oils are equally suitable for the production of biodiesel. Whereas long-chained saturated methyl esters show good cetane numbers but high pour points, unsaturated esters have more favourable cold flow properties but low cetane numbers. Concerning cold flow properties palm, soybean and coconut oil methyl esters are inferior to rapeseed oil methyl esters. due to the high content of polyunsaturated fatty acids (55-65% (m/m), the oxidation stability of soybean-derived esters is lower than the one of RME (Roempp, 2009; FNR, 2009).

Technology of Biodiesel Production from Plant Oils

129

8.1.2  Alcohol Alcohols are hydroxyl derivatives of aliphatic or alicyclic hydrocarbons and are classified as mono-, di-, tri- or polyvalent alcohols, depending on the number of hydroxyl groups. The production of fatty acid alkyl esters requires a monovalent alcohol. For biodiesel production, mostly methanol is used resulting in fatty acid methyl esters. Less common is the use of ethanol to produce ethyl esters which would be, in case of bioethanol, complete “green” fuels. So far, ethyl esters are predominately used in human and animal nutrition.

Figure 8.3 - Molecular structure of methanol (left) and ethanol (right).

Methanol Methanol or methyl alcohol (CH3OH) is a monovalent alcohol and a colourless, flammable and toxic liquid with low viscosity. It is completely miscible with water but only to a low extent with fats and oils. The boiling point and the vapour pressure are 64.5°C and 128 mbar at standard conditions. during combustion of methanol, carbon dioxide and steam are formed. The production of methanol is done by catalytic hydrogenation of carbon mono- or dioxide. Methanol is highly toxic for the human metabolism and may cause blindness or death. It is used in chemical synthesis, as solvent or extraction agent and in an increasing amount for biodiesel production (Fiedler, 2000). Ethanol Ethanol or ethyl alcohol (C2H5OH) is a colourless, low viscous and flammable liquid with a boiling point of 78.4 °C. It is less harmful to health than methanol and therefore classified as non-toxic. Ethanol and water form an azeotropic mixture; absolute alcohol can be obtained from azeotropic distillation or extraction. Beside the ethylene based synthesis, large amounts of ethanol are produced by fermentation of biogenous materials

130

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

such as sugar beet, sugar cane, corn or straw. The obtained bioethanol is either directly used as gasoline substitute or in chemical synthesis (Kosaric, 2001). 8.2 Production Processes Biodiesel as an alternative to fossil fuels is produced by the transesterification of oils of biological origin. The reaction is mostly catalysed by a base catalyst such as sodium or potassium hydroxide. Other possible catalysts are acids, as for example sulfonic or sulforic acids. In this process, the high viscosity of vegetable oil is reduced by converting the oils with methanol to methyl esters and glycerol (fig. 8.4), in order to make them compatible with common engines and fuel systems.

Figure 8.4 - Simplified mass balance of biodiesel production.

The catalysed reaction of vegetable oil to biodiesel has been known for about 100 years. The overall reaction consists of three successive and reversible reactions with di- and monoglycerides as intermediate products. By varying different reaction parameters such as type and amount of catalyst, type and amount of alcohol, reaction temperature, water content, reaction time or free fatty acid content, the reaction and the biodiesel yield can be influenced (Freedman, 1984; Schuchard, 1998; Turner, 2005). Base Catalysed Processes Most technical processes employ potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide as catalytic agents. The oil is mixed with methanol in presence of a catalyst. Typically, in a first reaction stage a partial conversion to methyl ester and glycerol is achieved. After removal of the glycerol phase, an almost complete conversion is reached in a second reaction stage. The alkaline transesterification reaction is very sensitive to water in the reaction system. Small amounts of water in the oil, alcohol or catalyst

Technology of Biodiesel Production from Plant Oils

131

may already lead to yield losses due to an irreversible reaction (saponification), which competes with the transesterification. In the saponification, free fatty acids (FFA) are neutralised under formation of soaps, consisting of the salts of FFA and the alkaline catalyst. The presence of soaps leads to an increase of the viscosity of the reaction mixture and complicates the separation of the product phases (biodiesel and glycerol), due to their emulsifying effect. The effectiveness of the alkaline transesterification highly depends on the quality of the raw materials. It is recommended to keep the reaction mixture water-free and to use fats and oils with low free fatty acid contents (< 0.5%). depending on the reaction temperature and the type of alcohol, conversions of up to 98% can be reached by alkaline processes (Freedman, 1984; Schuchard, 1998; Sykes, 1988). Production processes using alkaline transesterification are for example the Lurgi-process (Lurgi GmbH) and the Cd-process (Archer daniels Midland Company). Acid Catalysed Processes Instead of alkaline catalysts strong acidic substances as for example sulfonic or sulforic acid can be used. Compared to the alkaline transesterification, the acidic reaction is significantly slower; it takes more than three hours for complete conversion. Acid catalysed processes are less sensitive to high free fatty acid contents which make them interesting for the conversion of feedstocks with high acidity or the esterification of free fatty acids. Other Processes The efficiency of the transesterification reaction using conventional base catalysts is highly depending on the feedstock quality. To overcome these drawbacks several other catalyst systems as for example quaternary ammonium salts were tested. Quaternary ammonium salts form organic basic solutions of comparable strength as anorganic bases and show a high catalytic activity and selectivity in transesterification reactions (Peter, 2002; Peter, 2007; Schaaf, 2008; Schuchard, 1998; Grevé, 2009). Beside different catalysts also various process types are tested as for example high temperature and high pressure reactions, enzymatic processes or supercritical processes. 8.3 General Description of a Biodiesel Process A general and very simplified flow scheme for biodiesel production is given in figure 8.5. The process consists of the following four main steps:

132

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

1. 2. 3. 4.

mixture of starting materials reaction distillation/washing phase separation

Figure 8.5 - Simplified flow scheme of biodiesel production.

Oil, methanol and catalyst are mixed and fed into a reactor. Normally, the amount of methanol exceeds the stoichiometric need for the reaction in order to shift the reaction equilibrium towards the product side. If only the stoichiometric methanol need is added, the maximum ester content is limited to about 80% (m/m). The reaction temperature is generally set to a value close to the boiling point of methanol, which is about 65°C. The reaction time depends on the applied catalyst system and on the desired degree of conversion. After the reaction, the remaining methanol is separated either by a washing step or by distillation. In case of the washing step, a phase consisting of methanol, glycerol and water is formed, which can be separated by distillation. In case of a distillation, the recovered methanol can directly be fed back into the reaction system. Figure 8.6 shows a schematic flowsheet a commercially used biodiesel production technology by LURGI (Lurgi, 2009). The process mainly consists of two mixer-settler reactor systems (Reactor 1 and 2), a distillation column for methanol recovery, a wash column for biodiesel purification and a water evaporation unit for glycerine water.

Technology of Biodiesel Production from Plant Oils

133

Oil, methanol and catalyst are pumped into reactor 1. The reaction between oil and methanol takes place in the mixing part of the reactor (left side), whereas in the settling part the reaction products FAME and glycerol are separated by sedimentation. due to its higher density glycerol will accumulate on the bottom of the reactor where it can be withdrawn. The upper light phase (mainly consisting of FAME and not converted oil) is transported to the second reactor where the remaining oil is converted to FAME. After the reaction the biodiesel phase is purified in a washing column. By washing with water the remaining methanol and glycerol are separated from the biodiesel.

Figure 8.6 - Biodiesel process by LURGI (Lurgi, 2009).

The collected glycerol from reactor 1 and 2 and the glycerol and methanol containing washing water are mixed; methanol is recovered by distillation and can be used for the next reaction. The bottom product from the methanol recovery, mainly glycerol and water (glycerol water), is processed to crude glycerol by evaporating the water.

9 Adherence of Standards for Engine Applications1

Worldwide, there are only two major standards regulating the biodiesel quality: the European standard EN 14214 and the US standard ASTM d6571. Most other standards are mainly mixtures of these two, maybe containing some different parameters depending on the local pre-conditions. 9.1 European Biodiesel Standard In Europe, the term biodiesel is only allowed for such fuels which fulfil the European biodiesel standard (Automotive fuels. Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) for diesel engines. Requirements and test methods - EN 14214), in which all relevant properties and requirements including the respective test methods are described (see table 9.1). All mentioned requirements apply to pure biodiesel (B100) as well as to biodiesel as blending component with fossil diesel. The blending itself is regulated by the European diesel fuel standard EN 590. Table 9.1 - Requirements and test methods (EN 14214).

Limits Parameter

Unit

min.

max.

Fatty acid methyl ester content Density at 15 °C

% (m/m) kg/m³

96.5 860

900

Viscosity at 40 °C Flash point

mm²/s °C

3.50 120

5.00 –

1

Testing method EN 14103 EN ISO 3675 EN ISO 12185 EN ISO 3104 EN ISO 2719 EN ISO 3679

The description of the different parameters is mainly taken from Mittelbach et al., 2004.

Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany

136

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Limits Parameter Sulphur content Carbon residue (of 10% distillation residue) Cetane number Ash content Water content Total contamination Effect on copper corrosion (3h at 50 °C) Oxidation stability

Unit

Testing method

min.

max.

mg/kg

–

10.0

EN ISO 20846 EN ISO 20884

% (m/m)

–

0.30

EN ISO 10370

51.0 – – –

0.02 500 24

EN ISO 5165 ISO 3987 EN ISO 12937 EN 12662

% (m/m) mg/kg mg/kg corrosion degree hours

1 6.0

EN ISO 2160 –

Acid value Iodine value Content of linolenic acid methyl ester Content of fatty acid methyl esters with ≥ 4 Double bonds Methanol content Monoglyceride content Diglyceride content Triglyceride content Free glycerol

mg KOH/g g Iod/100 g % (m/m) % (m/m)

0.50 120 12.0 1

% (m/m) % (m/m) % (m/m) % (m/m) % (m/m)

0.20 0.80 0.20 0.20 0.020

Total glycerol Alkaline metal content (Na+K)

% (m/m) mg/kg

0.25 5.0

Alkaline earth metal content (Ca+Mg) Phosphorus content

mg/kg mg/kg

5.0 10.0

EN 15751 EN 14112 EN 14104 EN 14111 EN 14103 EN 15779 EN 14110 EN 14105 EN 14105 EN 14105 EN 14105 EN 14106 EN 14105 EN 14108 EN 14109 EN 14538 EN 14538 EN 14107

Fatty Acid Methyl Ester Content For the ester content, a minimum value of 96.5% (m/m) is defined to prevent illegal admixture of other substances (e.g. fossil diesel). The reference method is a gas chromatographical method using a flame ionisation detector (GC-FId). The quantification of the ester content is determined by means of an internal calibration with methyl heptadecanoate. The method is valid for methyl esters with fatty acid chains ranging from 14 to 24 carbon atoms. This might be problematic for feedstocks rich in other fatty acids (e.g. for coconut and palm kernel oils), as the contribution of short-

Adherence of Standards for Engine Applications

137

chain fatty acids (C8-C12) is not considered. Animal fat derived methyl esters naturally contain a certain amount of the internal standard methyl heptadecanoate, which also leads to misdetermination. Density As mentioned in chapter 2.2, biodiesel shows a higher density than fossil diesel fuels, which influences the heating value and fuel consumption, as fuels injection is volumetrically determined. Either a glass hydrometer or an oscillating U-tube can be used for the determination of the specific density. The density of biodiesel is highly depending on the purity and the fatty acid profile of the feedstock. Low-density contaminants (e.g. methanol), as well as long-chain fatty acids and decreasing numbers of double bonds decrease the density of biodiesel. Viscosity One of the main reasons for converting plant oils into biodiesel for engine applications is their high kinematic viscosity, which might lead to serious engine problems (gradual coking of injector tips). The application of higher viscous fuels at low engine temperatures results in higher injection pressures and volumes. As a consequence, fuel injection and ignition is premature, leading to increased NOx emissions. Although the viscosities are highly reduced by the transesterification step, they remain slightly higher than those of fossil diesel fuels; especially pronounced at lower temperatures. Fuel viscosities are generally determined by a glass capillary viscosimeter. Flash Point The flash point of a volatile liquid is a measure for its flammability and indicates the lowest temperature at which it might evaporate and form an ignitable mixture with air. This parameter is important for assessing hazard during storage and transportation. The limit for biodiesel (> 120 °C) is about twice as high as for fossil diesel (> 55 °C). This is an important advance for biodiesel, especially for applications requiring high safety standards (e.g. underground mining). Sulphur Content Sulphur is supposed to have a negative effect on human health and environment, therefore the content is limited to 10 mg/kg for biodiesel as well as for fossil diesel. Biodiesel is nearly sulphur-free when produced from fresh vegetable oil, whereas used plant oils may contain significant amounts of sulphur. In this case, proper refining methods for the feedstock are required. The standard analytical method is either a UV-flu-

138

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

orescence spectrometry or a wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Carbon Residue The carbon residue is a measure for the tendency of a fuel sample to form deposits on the injector and inside the combustion chamber and is very important for biodiesel. It represents the remaining amount of carbonaceous matter after evaporation and pyrolysis of a fuel sample under defined conditions. The carbon residue is correlated to other limited components in biodiesels, such as glycerides and FFA, as well as to processintrinsic parameters as soap content and remaining catalyst. Cetane Number As described in chapter 2.1, the cetane number is a measure for the ignition delay of a fuel compared to cetane. Beside the reduction of the kinematic viscosity, the increase of the cetane number is the most important effect caused by transesterification. High cetane numbers correspond to only short delays between fuel injection and ignition. Many biodiesel fuels (from different feedstocks) show higher CN than fossil derived diesel, which is an advantage in terms of engine performance and gaseous and particulate exhaust emissions. According to the respective standards, a minimum CN of 55 is required for biodiesel as well as for fossil diesel. The recommended determination procedure involves a comparison of the ignition performance of a fuel sample with a reference sample (with know CN) in a standardised engine test. Ash Content The ash content is a measure for the amount of inorganic residues (e.g. abrasive solids, metal soaps, catalyst residue) after combustion and is determined by the addition of sulphuric acid to form sulphates. High ash contents lead to increased engine deposits; therefore the content is limited to 0.02% (m/m). Water Content The water content in biodiesel is limited to 500 mg/kg and can be determined by Karl-Fischer titration. Water is not a problem in fossil diesel fuels, due to their non-polarity, whereas it is a crucial parameter for the more polar and hygroscopic fatty acid methyl esters. High water contents might lead to hydrolytic reactions (converting FAME into FFA), support biological growth in the storage tank system and cause corrosion in the injection system as well as in the engine itself.

Adherence of Standards for Engine Applications

139

Total Contamination Total contamination is limited to 24 mg/kg in both biodiesel and fossil diesel. It is defined as the sum of insoluble material remaining after filtration over a defined filter (0.8 μm). This parameter turned out to be an important measure for biodiesel quality. Biodiesel with a high contamination shows the tendency to be responsible for blockings in fuel filters and injection pumps. Copper Corrosion To evaluate the risk of corrosion of engine parts and storage tank, the corrosion class of the fuel is determined by copper strip test. Free fatty acids in biodiesel might cause corrosion; therefore the copper corrosion parameter is directly related to the acid value. For both fossil diesel and biodiesel corrosion class 1 is required according to the respective standard. Oxidation Stability The influence of air (oxygen) on fuel aging is defined as oxidation stability. Fuel aging is connected to the formation of volatile acids from oxidation processes, which might cause corrosion in the injection system. Biodiesel is more sensitive to oxidative degradation than fossil diesel, due to the natural origin of the latter. Especially, biodiesel with a high content of polyunsaturated methyl ester is at risk for oxidative decomposition. Methyl esters derived from vegetable oils containing high quantities of natural antioxidant (e.g. tocopherols) are less sensitive to aging. The European standard requires a minimum induction period of six hours at 120 °C at a constant air stream, corresponding to the required time passing before the above mentioned acids are detected. Oxidation stability is determined by the “Rancimat” test. According to the diesel and FAME standards, the use of oxidation stabilisers for FAME as blend components is strongly recommended and sometimes even mandatory. Acid Value The acid value is a measure for the amount of free fatty acids in a fuel sample which also mirrors the degree of fuel aging by water-induced hydrolytic cleavage during storage. It is expressed in the amount (mg) of potassium hydroxide (KOH) required to neutralize 1 g of fatty acid methyl esters and determined by titration with ethanolic potassium hydroxide, using phenolphthalein as indicator. The FFA content depends on the feedstock, on its degree of refining and also on the transesterification process itself.

140

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Iodine Value The degree of unsaturation is displayed by the iodine value (see also chap. 2.1); it is expressed as the amount (g) of iodine reacting with 100 g of the fuel sample. High iodine values increase the risk of polymerisation and decrease the oxidation stability, leading to engine deposits and the formation of degradation products. According to the standard, a maximum value of 120 is allowed. Linolenic Acid Methyl Ester Content and Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid (PUFA) Methyl Ester Content Linolenic acid methyl esters are determined by the same method as the overall ester content whereas the PUFA content is analysed with another GC-FId method. The amount is limited to 12% (m/m) and 1% (m/m), respectively. Highly unsaturated compounds such as linolenic acid methyl esters and PUFA methyl esters significantly decrease the oxidation stability (see also Iodine value). Methanol Content After transesterification, the residual methanol is removed by distillation or washing steps to values equal or below 0.20% (m/m), as required by the standard. Biodiesel with methanol contents exceeding that value shows a lower flash point; this poses safety risks during storage and transportation of biodiesel. To determine the methanol content in biodiesel, a headspace gas chromatographical method is applied using a flame ionisation detector (HSGC-FId). Mono-, Di-, Triglyceride, Free Glycerol and Total Glycerol Content This parameter regulates the amount of partial glycerides and glycerol in the final product. Mono- and diglycerides are formed as intermediate products during transesterification and are successively reduced with reaction progress, whereas the amount of glycerol constantly increases. The concentration of these components depends on the production process and the product separation. Mono-, di- and triglycerides are limited to 0.80% (m/m), 0.20% (m/m) and 0.20% (m/m), respectively. Total glycerol is the sum of free glycerol and glycerol bound in form of mono-, di- and triglycerides. To determine partial glyceride and free glycerol content, the fuel sample is silylated by adding N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (MSTFA), analysed by GC-FId and quantified by comparing to internal standards (1,2,4-butanetriol and tricaprine). Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metal Content Alkali metal ions in biodiesel result from catalyst residues, whereas alkaline earth metals are mainly introduced during the washing process,



Adherence of Standards for Engine Applications

141

due to the use of hard water. Both values can be correlated to ash content and carbon residue and are limited to 5 mg/kg, as they are either associated with the formation of ash in engines (sodium and potassium) or injection pump sticking (calcium and magnesium). Both ion contents can be analysed by inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP). Phosphorus Content The phospholipid content in the feedstock is decisive for the phosphorus content in the derived biodiesel. Due to its emulsifying effect, which hinders the phase separation after the reaction, the amount of phosphorus is limited to 10 mg/kg. Degumming ahead of transesteri fication as well as the transesterification itself significantly reduce the phosphorus content. The determination of phosphorus is done by ICP. Climatic Requirements – Cold Flow Properties Beside regionally independent parameters, there are the climate-related parameters such as pour point (PP), cloud point (CP) and cold filter plugging point (CFPP). Only the latter, CFPP, is regulated by the EN 14214. The pour point is the lowest temperature at which a liquid is still pourable. It is an indicator if a given product is still pumpable at a certain temperature. The temperature at which dissolved solid components (e.g. waxes) are not soluble anymore and precipitate, giving the fuel a cloudy appearance, is called cloud point. Cold filter plugging point describes the cold temperature behaviour of diesel fuels (fossil diesel and biodiesel) and defines the limit value for filterability; it represents the temperature at which a given volume of fuel fails to pass a standardised filter in a certain time. It is especially important in arctic regions or during winter time and is defined differently depending on region and season between -44°C and 0°C. 9.2  US Biodiesel Standard The US standard ASTM D 6571 (Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels) specification covers biodiesel (B100) Grades S15 and S500 for use as a blend component with middle distillate fuels. Table 9.2 shows the detailed requirements for biodiesel defined in the US biodiesel standard. Some of the recommended test methods are those of the European biodiesel standard.

142

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Table 9.2 - Detailed Requirements for Biodiesel (B100) (all sulphur levels).

Parameter Ca+Mg (combined) Flash point Alcohol control: 1. methanol content 2. Flash point Water and sediment Kinematic viscosity at 40°C Sulphated ash Sulphur Copper strip corrosion Cetane number Cloud point Carbon residue Acid number Cold soak filtration Free glycerol Total glycerol Phosphorus content Distillation temperature, atmospheric equivalent temperature 90% recovered Na+K (combined) Oxidation stability

Unit μg/g °C % (m/m) °C % (V/V) mm2/s % (m/m) % (m/m)

°C % (m/m) mg KOH/g s % (m/m) % (m/m) % (m/m) °C μg/g h

Limits min.

max. 5

EN 14538 D 93

0.2

EN 14110 D 93 D 2709 D 445 D 874 D 5453

93

130 0.050 6.0 0.020 0.0015 (S15) 0.05 (S500) No. 3 47 Report 0.050 0.50 360 0.020 0.240 0.001 360 1.9

5 3

Testing method

D 130 D 613 D 2500 D 4530 D 664 D 6584 D 6584 D 4951 D 1160 EN 14538 EN 14112

A minimum limit for ester or the partial glyceride content is not defined in the US biodiesel standard. These parameters are indirectly covered by the limits for free and total glycerol. The difference between total and free glycerol represents the amount of bound glycerol which is an indirect measure for the partial glyceride content. Assuming partial glycerides and esters sum up to 100%, the ester content can be calculated. The methanol content can either be directly determined or indirectly assessed by measuring the flash point. The cloud point is included but only has to be reported as no limit is defined. The value for carbon residue is lower than the value defined in the EN 14214 as the determination is done in the original, undistilled sample. The ASTM d 6571 defines a value for cold soak filterability to determine the fuel filter blocking potential of biodiesel (B100). It is a measure for the time in seconds it takes for a cooled biodiesel sample to pass a standardised filter.

Adherence of Standards for Engine Applications

143

9.3 Other Specifications The Brazilian biodiesel standard combines the European and the US standard with some own test methods. Table 9.3 shows the recommended testing methods for Biodiesel in Brazil.

Table 9.3 - Specification of Biodiesel (ANP, 2008).

Limits Parameter

Unit

min.

max.

Density at 20 °C

kg/m³

850

900

Viscosity at 40 °C Water content Total contamination Flash point Fatty acid methyl ester content Carbon residue Ash content Sulphur content

mm²/s mg/kg mg/kg °C % (m/m)

3.0 – – 100 –

6.0 500 24 – 96.5

% (m/m) % (m/m) mg/kg

– – –

0.050 0.02 50

Alkaline metal content (Na+K)

mg/kg

5.0

Alkaline earth metal content (CA+Mg) Phosphorus content Effect on copper corrosion (3h at 50 °C) Cetane number

mg/kg

5.0

Point of cold filter plugging Acid value Free glycerol

°C

Total glycerol Monoglyceride content

Testing method ABNT NBR ASMT D 7148 14065 10441

1298 4052 445 6304

14598 15342

93

6294

4530 874 5453

EN/ISO 3678 12185 3104 12937 12662 3679 14103

3987 20846 20884 14108 14109 14538

15553 15554 15555 15556 15553 15556 15553 14359

4951 130

14107 2160 5165

19

14747

613 6890 6371

mg KOH/g % (m/m)

0.50 0.020

14448 15341

664 6584

% (m/m) % (m/m)

0.25 report only

15344 15342 15344

6584 6584

14104 14105 14106 14105 14105

mg/kg corrosion degree

–

10.0 1

report only –

14538

116

144

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Limits Parameter

Unit

Diglyceride content

% (m/m)

Triglyceride content

% (m/m)

Methanol content Iodine value

% (m/m) g Iod/100 g

Oxidation stability

hours

min.

max.

6.0

report only report only 0.20 report only –

Testing method ABNT NBR ASMT D 15342 15344 15342 15344 15343

EN/ISO

6584

14105

6584

14105 14110 14111 14112

Literature

ANP, 2008. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis, Resolução ANP N°7, 19.03.2008-20.03.2008. ASTM d., 6751. Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle distilate Fuels, ASTM International, United States, 2008. Bockisch M., 1993. Handbuch der Fette und Öle, Nahrungsfette und -öle, Eugen Ulmer GmbH & Co., Stuttgart. Bockisch M., 1998. Fats and Oils Handbook, AOCS Press, United States of America. Cleenewerck B. and dijkstra A.J., 2006. The Total degumming Process – Theory and Industrial Application in Refining and Hydrogenation. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 94(8), 317-322. dIN EN 590. Kraftstoffe für Fahrzeuge - dieselkraftstoff - Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren, deutsche Fassung, Beuth Verlag, 2004. dIN EN 14214. Kraftstoffe für Fahrzeuge - Fettsäure-Methylester (FAME) für dieselmotoren - Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren, deutsche Fassung, Beuth Verlag, 2009. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V. (FNR), 2009. Biokraftstoffe: Eine vergleichende Analyse. Fiedler E. et al., 2000. Methanol, Ulmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley VCH Verlag, Weinheim, [Online Posting date: June 15, 2000]. Freedman B. et al., 1984. Variables Affecting the Yields of Fatty Esters from Transesterified Vegetable Oils, JAOCS 61(10), 1638-1643. Grevé A., 2009. Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur Herstellung von Fettsäurealkylestern einwertiger Alkohole unter Verwendung spezieller organischer Basen, Bochum, Univ., diss. Kaltschmitt M. und Hartmann H. (Hrsg.), 2001. Energie aus Biomasse -Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.

146

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Kosaric N. et al., 2001. Ethanol, Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley VCH Verlag, Weinheim [Online Posting date: June 15, 2001]. Lurgi, 2009. Broschüre zum Thema Biodiesel, Lurgi GmbH, Frankfurt. [Stand: Oktober 2009]. Mittelbach M. et al., 2004. Biodiesel - The Comprehensive Handbook, Graz, Österreich. Oil screw press, 2010. Henan double Elephants Machinery Co., Ltd. China. http://www.oilpressmachine.com/6YL-95-oil-press.html (14.12.10). Peter S. et al., 2002. Alcoholysis of tiacylglycerols by heterogeneous catalysis, Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 104, 324-330. Peter S. et al., 2007. Methanolysis of triglycerides by organic basic catalysts, Eur. J. LipidSci. Technol. 109, 11-16. Nazir N. et al., 2009. Extraction, transesterification and process control in biodiesel production from Jatropha curcas. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 111, 1185-1200. Roempp, 2009. Enzyklopädie zur Chemie, Online Version, Georg Thieme Verlag KG, Stuttgart. Schaaf T., 2008. Herstellung von Biodiesel mit neuartigen flüssigen Katalysatoren, Bochum, Univ., diss. Schuchardt U. et al., 1998. Transesterification of Vegetable Oils: a Review, J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 9(1), 199-210. Sharma A. et al., 2002. Three phase partitioning for extraction of oil from soybean. Bioresource Technology 85, 327-329. Sykes P., 1988. Reaktionsmechanismen der Organischen Chemie: Eine Einführung, 9., überarb. Aufl., Wiley VCH Verlag, Weinheim. Turner T.L., 2005. Modelling and Simulation of Reaction Kinetics for Biodiesel Production, Master Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Wikipedia, 2011. Phospholipide (last consulted: 08.06.2011). Wikipedia, 2011. Beer Measurement (last consulted: 08.06.2011). Willems P., 2007. Gas assisted mechanical expression of oilseeds. University of Twente, Netherlands.

PART IV Social, Environmental and Economic Aspects

10 Current Biofuels Policy

Motivated by the factors described above, numerous countries have set goals for the replacement of gasoline by bioethanol, and diesel by biodiesel. Table 10.1 summarises the goals by world region. Table 10.1 - Worldwide Policy Goals for Biofuels (ECLAC, 2008).

Country/Reg. North America USA

Canada Europe EU Asia Japan

China India

Bioethanol

Biodiesel

Renewable Fuels Standard and Alternative Fuels Standard: 28 billion liters of renewable fuels in 2012; 132 billion liters of renewable fuels and alternative in 2017 (15% of projected use of gasoline by 2017) 5% in 2010 2% of renewable content in diesel oil in 2012 5.75% by 2010, 8% by 2015 and 10% by 2020 for biofuels replacing diesel oil and gasoline for transportation (energy-based calculation) Replacing 500,000 m3 of gasoline for transportation per year by 2010 (1.8 million liters/yr of etanol in the short term, 6 million m3 of etanol produced locally by 2030, representing 10% of current demand for gasolina) 15% of consumption for transp. by 2020 5% by 2012, 10% by 2017

João José Fernandes and José Luís Monteiro, OIKOS, Portugal Eliza Teodorescu, ALMA-RO, Romania Ioana Ciuta, TERRA Mileniul III, Romania Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany Lorenzo Barbanti and Simone Fazio, University of Bologna, Italy

150

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Country/Reg. Oceania Australia LAC Argentina Bolivia Brazil Colombia Paraguay Peru

Bioethanol

Biodiesel

350 million liters of biodiesel+bioethanol by 2010 5% of final product by 2010

5% of final product by 2010 2.5% as of 2007, until reaching 20% in 2015 22% as of 2001 2% by 2008, 5% as of 2013 and 20% by 2020 10% as of 2006, by region 5% as of 2008 18% minim. 1% in 2007, 3% in 2008, 5% in 2009 7.8% as of 2006 and gradually, 5% as of 2008 and gradually, by by region region

10.1 Policy Instruments Typical examples of support policies are shown in Table 4. For instance, liquid biofuels policies include the (former) Brazilian Próalcool programme, regulations in the form of mandates in many EU countries and the USA fiscal incentives such as tax exemptions, production tax credits and accelerated depreciation. The majority of successful policies for heat from biomass in recent decades have focused on more centralized applications for heat or CHP in district heating and industry. For these sectors, a combination of direct support schemes with indirect incentives has been successful in several countries, such as Sweden. Both quota systems and FITs have been implemented in support of bioenergy electricity generation, though FITs have gradually become the more popular incentive. The effectiveness and efficiency of FITs and quota systems for promoting RE generation (including for bioenergy) has been thoroughly debated. Next to FITs or quotas, almost all countries that have successfully stimulated bioenergy development have applied additional public finance relating to investment support and soft loans along with fiscal measures. Additionally, grid access for renewable power is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Priority grid access for renewable sources is applied in most countries where bioenergy technologies have been successfully deployed (IPCC-SRREN, 2011).

Current Biofuels Policy

151

Table 10.2 - Key policy instruments in selected countries* (IPCC-SRREN, 2011).

T, (E3) (E3) T, E E, T, H E3, T E3

E, T4 T(BD) (T) E, (T) E4, T4 E3, H3, T 3

E ,T E, H, T (E, H, T) E3, T3 E3, T T, T4, E4 E4 E3, H3, T E3, T

H E, H, T

(T) E, H, T E, H, T T

E, H, T E, T E, H, T

E, H (E)

E, H, T E E E

E E E

E E E

Tariffs

E, H E

Sustainability Criteria

E, T E, H, T

T T E (E) (E), T T E, H, T H T

Compulsory grid connection

Direct Incentives2

Feed-in Tariffs

E, T

Grants

Brazil China India Mexico South Africa Canada France Germany Italy Japan Russia UK USA EU

Voluntary Targets1

Country

Binding Targets/Mandates1

Policy Instruments

removed n/a n/a Eth n/a Eth as EU below (E, H, T) as EU below as EU below Eth, B-D n/a T as EU below Eth (T) Eth, B-D

* where E = electricity, H = heat, T = transport, Eth = ethanol and BD = biodiesel (modified after GBEP, 2008; updated with data from the REN21 global interactive map (see footnote 35); reproduced with permission from GBEP). Notes: 1 blending or market penetration; 2 fiscal incentives: tax reductions; public finance: loan support/guarantees; 3 target applies to all RE sources; 4 target is set at a sub-national leve.

Support policies (see Table 10.2) have strongly contributed in past decades to the growth of bioenergy for electricity, heat and transport fuels. However, several reports also point out the costs and risks associated with support policies for biofuels. According to the WEO (IEA, 2010b), the annual global government support for biofuels in 2009, 2008 and 2007 was USd2009 20 billion, 17.5 billion and 14 billion, respectively, with corresponding EU spending of USd2009 7.9 billion, 8.0 billion and 6.3 billion and corresponding US spending of USd2009 8.1 billion, 6.6 billion and 4.9 billion. The US spending was driven by energy security and fossil fuel import reduction goals. Concerns about food prices, GHG emissions

152

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

and environmental impacts have also led to many countries rethinking biofuels blending targets. For example, Germany revised its blending target for 2009 downward from 6.25 to 5.25%. Addressing these concerns led also to the incorporation of environmental and social sustainability criteria for biofuels in the EU Renewable Energy directive. Although seemingly effective in supporting domestic farmers, the effectiveness of biofuel policies in reaching the climate change and secure energy supply objectives is coming under increasing scrutiny. It has been argued that these policies have been costly and have tended to introduce new distortions to already severely distorted and protected agricultural markets–at both domestic and global levels. This has not tended to favour an efficient international production pattern for biofuels and their feedstocks (FAO, 2008; Bringezu et al., 2009). An overall biomass strategy would have to consider all types of use of food and non-food biomass (Bringezu et al., 2009). The main drivers behind government support for the sector have been concerns over climate change and energy security as well as the desire to support the agricultural sector through increased demand for agricultural products (FAO, 2008). According to the REN21 global interactive map a total of 69 countries had one or several biomass support policies in place in 2009-(IPCC-SRREN, 2011, p. 62). 10.2 Biofuels in the European Union In 2008, the European Environment Agency’s Scientific Committee released an opinion on the environmental impacts of biofuel use in Europe. The document made the biofuels-related debate a mainstream one. The EEA has estimated the amount of available arable land for bioenergy production without harming the environment in the EU (EEA Report No 7/2006). In the view of the EEA Scientific Committee the land required to meet the 10 % target exceeds this available land area even if a considerable contribution of second generation fuels is assumed. The consequences of the intensification of biofuel production are thus increasing pressures on soil, water and biodiversity. In April 2009, the EU legislation adopted the Renewable Energy directive (REd), requiring Member States to use renewable energy sources to meet 10% of their transport needs by 2020 (REd, 2009). This target will be met in large part through increased use of biofuels, which are considered a renewable source under EU law. Under the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) submitted to date, biofuels will by 2020 have a share of 9.5% in surface transport energy. First-generation biofuels will have a share of approximately 90% – in other words, comprising 8-9%

Current Biofuels Policy

153

of overall transport needs (COd, 2008). At the same time, the EU legislation adopted amendments to the Fuel Quality directive (FQd) requiring a 6% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fuels consumed in the EU by 2020 (FQd, 2009). The objectives of reducing GHG emissions are best achieved by a GHG-reduction target for transport fuels as contained in the FQd, not a 10% target for renewables or biofuels in the transport sector as contained in the REd. Setting a GHG-reduction target for transport fuels is a better approach to decarbonising the sector as it allows fuel suppliers a wide range of reduction options – reducing improving refineries, using lessdirty crude oils, employing low-carbon alternative fuels and electricity, to name a few – and hence offers the best potential for significant carbon cuts. The approach taken in REd, on the other hand, simply requires Member States to achieve a predetermined volume of renewable energy or biofuels in the transport with no requirement to reduce overall GHG emissions in the sector. The EU should therefore abandon the 10% target and move towards the FQd-based approach to transport fuels. The target set in the FQd will only be achieved, however, if it is properly implemented and its monitoring and enforcement are based on realistic carbon accounting. Furthermore efforts to increase efficiency and reduce transport demand are needed to reduce the climate impact of the transport sector-(FQd, 2009; REd, 2009). However, there is a risk that part of the additional demand for biofuels will be met through an increase in the amount of land devoted to agriculture worldwide. This could lead to emissions associated with the conversion of land (indirect land use change, ILUC). Estimating the greenhouse gas impact due to indirect land use change requires projecting impacts in the future, which is inherently uncertain, since future developments will not necessarily follow trends of the past. The estimated impact can only be established through modeling. In this context the European Commission recognizes that a number of deficiencies and uncertainties which could significantly impact on the results remain to be addressed (EC, 2006). Therefore, the European Commission was required to review the impact of indirect land use change on greenhouse gas emissions and propose legislative action for minimizing that impact if appropriate. The report was due in december 2010, when the Commission published a short version of the document. In response to it, in February 2011, the directorate-General for Internal Policies of the European Parliament released a study on “Indirect land use change and biofuels” (dG IPOL, 2011), that aims to evaluate the studies commissioned by different directorate Generals, draw conclusions on the level of the ILUC factor and assess possible cumulative ef-

154

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

fects of the biofuels target as projected in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans developed by Member States. The study concludes that “Assuming current bioenergy and land use policy in the EU to remain unchanged until 2020, the order of magnitude of possible ILUC-related GHG emissions could nearly negate GHG savings from fossil fuels substituted by biofuels from dedicated energy crops. On the other hand, a scenario assuming stricter EU (and Member State) policies on land use and bioenergy support could achieve significant net GHG emission reductions, but at higher costs.” 10.3 Main barriers for the market penetration and international trade of bioenergy Major risks and barriers to deployment are found all along the bioenergy value chain and concern all final energy products (bioheat, biopower, and biofuel for transport). On the supply side, there are challenges related to securing quantity, quality and price of biomass feedstock, irrespective of the origin of the feedstock (energy crops, wastes or residues). There are also technology challenges related to the varied physical properties and chemical composition of the biomass feedstock and challenges associated with the poor economics of current power and biofuel technologies at small scales. On the demand side, the main challenges are the stability and supportiveness of policy frameworks and investors confidence in the sector and its technologies, in particular to overcome financing challenges associated with demonstrating the reliable operation of new technologies at commercial scale. In the power and heat sectors, competition with other RE sources may also be an issue. Public acceptance and public perception are also critical factors in gaining support for energy crop production and bioenergy facilities. Specifically for the bioenergy trade, Junginger et al. (2010) identified a number of (potential) barriers. Tariffs. As of January 2007, import tariffs apply in many countries, especially for ethanol and biodiesel. Tariffs (expressed in local currency and year) are applied on bioethanol imports by both the EU (€ 0.192 per litre) and the USA (USd 0.1427 per litre and an additional 2.5% ad valorem subsidy). In general, the most-favoured nation tariffs range from roughly 6 to 50% on an ad valorem equivalent basis in the OECd, and up to 186% in the case of India. Biodiesel used to be subject to lower import tariffs than bioethanol, ranging from 0% in Switzerland to 6.5% in the EU and the USA. However, in July 2009, the European Commission confirmed a five-year temporary imposition of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rights

Current Biofuels Policy

155

on American biodiesel imports, with fees standing between € 213 and 409 per tonne (local currency and year). These trade tariffs were a reaction to the so-called ‘splash-and-dash’ practice, in which biodiesel blended with a ‘splash’ of fossil diesel was eligible for a USd 1 per gallon subsidy (equivalent to USd 300/t) in 2008-2009. Technical standards describe in detail the physical and chemical properties of fuels. Regulations pertaining to the technical characteristics of liquid transport fuels (including biofuels) exist in all countries. These have been established in large part to ensure the safety of the fuels and to protect consumers from buying fuels that could damage their vehicles’ engines. Regulations include maximum percentages of biofuels that can be blended with petroleum fuels and regulations pertaining to the technical characteristics of the biofuels themselves. In the case of biodiesel, the latter may depend on the vegetable oils used for the production, and thus regulations might be used to favour biodiesel from domestic feedstocks over biodiesel from imported feedstocks. Technical barriers for the bioethanol trade also exist. For example, the different demands for maximum water content have negative impacts on trade. However, in practice, most market actors have indicated that they see technical standards as an opportunity enabling international trade rather than as a barrier (Junginger et al., 2010). Sustainability criteria and biomass and biofuels certification have been developed in increasing numbers in recent years as voluntary or mandatory systems; such criteria, so far, do not apply to conventional fossil fuels. Three major concerns in relation to the international bioenergy trade are: 1) Criteria, especially those related to environmental and social issues, could be too stringent or inappropriate to local environmental and technological conditions in producing developing countries (van dam et al., 2010). The fear of many developing countries is that if the selected criteria are too strict or are based on the prevailing conditions in the countries setting up the certification schemes, only producers from those countries may be able to meet the criteria, and thus these criteria may act as trade barriers. As the criteria are extremely diverse, ranging from purely commercial aims to rainforest protection, there is a danger that a compromise could result in overly detailed rules that lead to compliance difficulties, or, on the other hand, in standards so general that they become meaningless. Implementing binding requirements is also limited by World Trade Organization rules. 2) With current developments by the European Commission, different European governments, several private sector initiatives, and initiatives of round tables and NGO, there is a risk that in the short term a multitude of different and partially incompatible systems will arise, creating trade barriers (van dam et al., 2010). If they are not developed globally or with clear

156

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

rules for mutual recognition, such a multitude of systems could potentially become a major barrier for international bioenergy trade instead of promoting the use of sustainable biofuels production. A lack of transparency in the development of some methodologies, for example, in the EU legislation, is an issue. Also, the eventual existence of different demands for proving compliance with the criteria for locally produced biomass sources and imported ones is a potential barrier. Finally, lack of international systems may cause market distortions. Production of ‘uncertified’ biofuel feedstocks will continue and enter other markets in countries with lower standards or for non-biofuel applications that may not have the same standards. The existence of a ‘two-tier’ system would result in failure to achieve the safeguards envisaged (particularly for LUC and socioeconomic impacts). 3) Finally, note that to ensure that biomass commodities are being produced in a sustainable manner, some chain of custody (CoC) method must be used to track biomass and biofuels from production to end use. Generally, the three types of CoC methods are segregation (also known as trackand-trace), book-and-claim and mass-balance. While this is not necessarily a major barrier, it may cause additional cost and administrative burdens. Logistics are a pivotal part of the system and essential to set up biomass fuel supply chains for large-scale biomass systems. Various studies have shown that long-distance international transport by ship is feasible in terms of energy use and transportation costs, but availability of suitable vessels and meteorological conditions (e.g., winter in Scandinavia and Russia) need to be considered. One logistical barrier is a general lack of technically mature technologies to densify biomass at low cost to facilitate transport, although technologies are being developed. Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures may be faced by feedstocks for liquid biofuels or technical regulations applied at borders. SPS measures mainly affect feedstocks that, because of their biological origin, can carry pests or pathogens. One of the most common SPS measures is a limit on pesticide residues. Meeting pesticide residue limits is usually not difficult but on occasion has led to the rejection of imported shipments of crop products, especially from developing countries (Steenblik, 2007).

11 Social Aspects

Biofuels, namely vegetable oils and biodiesel, have rapidly grown worldwide due to the numerous environmental and economic advantages they have over petroleum. It should be noted that when the environmental, economic and social impacts of producing one litre of biodiesel versus fossil diesel are calculated, it appears that not all biofuels are equal. The economic advantages for the community are maximized through local investment, ownership and the creation of jobs, all of which keep profits within the community. The community-based model, with the end product used locally, results in ultimate energy security. Smaller biodiesel- or vegetable oil-based plants are much more flexible in the amounts produced and feedstocks used than large plants (www.biodiesel.com, 2009). Most unskilled employment will be involved in the cultivation and harvesting of oil plants as biofuel feedstocks; therefore, there is the opportunity to generate income for rural workers and smallholders, depending on local needs. For example, institutional actions that encourage a small scale configuration over large estate farming may provide direct welfare benefits to smallholders (Ewing and Msangi, 2009). 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 (Ewing and Msangi, 2009). Among biofuel scenarios, biodiesel and vegetable oil seem to be preferable concerning social issues, with respect to bioethanol (Hall et al., 2009). For instance, the Brazilian National Program for Biodiesel Production and Use calculated that in Brazil the area required to meet a 2%

Dan Craioveanu, Transylvania Eco Club, Romania Eliza Teodorescu, ALMA-RO, Romania Ioana Ciuta, TERRA Mileniul III, Romania Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany Lorenzo Barbanti and Simone Fazio, University of Bologna, Italy

158

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

biodiesel addition to fossil diesel is estimated at 1.5 million hectares, equivalent to 1% of the 150 million hectares available for agriculture. This figure does not include the regions occupied by pastures and forests (http://www.biodiesel.gov.br/, 2010). The biodiesel production chain, i.e. the cultivation of oil crops and the industrial production of biodiesel, has great potential for generating employment, thus promoting social inclusion, especially considering the large potential of family farms. In Northeastern Brazil (poor, semi-arid region), social inclusion is even more pressing. To get an overview of the creation of new jobs, it should be noted that the addition of 2% biodiesel to fossil diesel can provide employment to over 200,000 families (http://www.biodiesel.gov.br/, 2010). In the semi-arid zones of Brazil, for example, the annual net income of a family from the cultivation of castorbean on five hectares with an average production of 700 to 1,200 kg of seed per hectare can vary between R$ 2,500 and 3,500. Furthermore, the area can be intercropped with food crops such as beans and maize (http://www.biodiesel.gov.br/, 2010). To further stimulate this process, the Federal Government launched the Social Fuel Seal, a set of specific measures to encourage the inclusion of agriculture in this important production chain (http://www.mda.gov.br, 2010). Biodiesel producing industries also will be entitled to receive a tax bonus, but must pay pre-set prices for the purchase of raw materials, offering economic security to family farmers. Farmers also have the possibility to participate as partners or shareholders of the industries of oil extraction and biodiesel production, either directly, or through associations or cooperatives. Moreover, farmers also have access to credit lines of the National Program to Support Family Agriculture (PRONAF), through banks that operate on that program, as well as access to technical assistance directly provided by the biodiesel companies (http://www.biodiesel.gov.br/, 2010). Based on recent legislation, in the coming crop seasons farmers wishing to take part in the biodiesel production chain will have an additional credit line of PRONAF available for growing oilseeds in second cropping (after rotational food crops). Thus, the producer will have an opportunity to generate more income (http://www.biodiesel.gov.br/, 2010). The Brazilian agro-energy plan 2006-2011 addresses specific issues of social improvement in association with biodiesel development: • To create the conditions for the development of the country hinterlands and regions through an expansion of energy-oriented agriculture and by adding value to the production chain. • To create opportunities for increasing the number of jobs within the scope of action of agribusiness. • To enable the broadening of income opportunities and its equitable distribution among stakeholders.

Social Aspects

159

• To enable individual farmers and cooperatives or associations, in addition to land reform settlements, to generate their own electric power, particularly in the remotest regions of the country. • To generate technologies that help farmers, agro-industries and remote communities to achieve sustainable energy self-sufficiency. The policy instruments (incentives, training, etc.) must be locally improved in order to avoid the creation of large mono-cropping areas, and to foster the inclusion of family farmers in the social context (GucciardiGarcez and de Souza-Vianna, 2009). In Africa, some studies referring to the situation of Mozambique showed that the development of biofuel production can lead to significant welfare benefits. For instance, Arndt et al. (2008) found that the growth of biodiesel and ethanol production can lead to the creation of new employment opportunities in the period 2010-2015: 130,000 to 415,000 new workers, depending on the developing scenarios, that means 3 to 9% of the total employment of the country. In turn, this can reduce the amount of population living on poverty (-3 to -6%, depending on the developing scenarios). Mulder and Tember (2008) demonstrated that the electrification of rural areas in Mozambique could lead to significant economic and social benefits, such as increased job opportunities, reduction of food costs, educational opportunities for children, etc. The study is based on scenarios where the energy supply is derived from the national grid, with relatively high costs. Compared to it, the power generation from biomass and vegetable oils is in some cases more profitable (Batidzirai et al., 2006). However, considerable risks associated with biofuel crops are worth mentioning. Social risks comprise effects of land use changes, particularly if indigenous people are expropriated without proper compensation and resettlement schemes, 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. While availability of food on an international level will not be threatened, local shortages can arise. Furthermore, food prices can rise, generating more income for farmers, and putting more pressure on poorer communities in urban areas. This risk is mainly for large scale production for export. Production for a national/local market gives more independence and stability. (UN Environment Program, 2007). 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, in order to satisfy specific needs of each country/region; secondly, to avoid unbalances in income distribution; thirdly, to insure that land ownership

160

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

and rights are respected and that welfare and security of local communities are held as key issue of any initiative. To this aim, the projects directly and equitably involving farmers and workers are a must. 11.1 Case Studies The following case studies are meant to illustrate both the positive and negative effects of using biofuels to address problems such as access to energy and jobs, increasing income and dealing with gender issues in developing countries. Good governance, human rights and sustainable development principles proper application can turn biofuel-related initiatives into success or failure. 11.1.1  The DO’s Community Project in Mozambique (ADPP Project, Bilibiza) AdPP is a national association under the law of private associations in Mozambique and is a member of the International Movement Humana People to People. AdPP built up a centre for education and training purposes in

Figure 11.1 - Jatropha oil pressing (Bilibiza, Mozambique).

Social Aspects

161

Figure 11.2 - Electricity generation using crude jatropha oil (Bilibiza, Mozambique).

the North of Mozambique. The local team introduces sustainable agricultural methods to the farmers, assists to increase crop production and helps farmers to improve and diversify their crops. Moreover, AdPP wants to ensure food security and to reduce malnutrition in this area. The farmers around Bilibiza use Jatropha as living fences to protect their fields from animals and sell the seeds to AdPP. At the centre the Jatropha oil is extracted and after filtration sold back to the farmers (either cash or countertrade) for the use in oil lamps or the production of soaps. The oil is also used for electricity generation in a steady-state engine to power the oil mills and the centre (fig. 11.2). Turning Local Jatropha to Electricity (Practical Action Consulting, 2009) In Mali, the energy component of the Garalo project has been largely funded by a grant from AMAdER- a para-statal company in charge of rural electrification- and an international non-governmental organisation, the FACT foundation. The Garalo project gave priority to biofuel development and more specifically to Jatropha, mainly because this is a model in which village natural resources (land and Jatropha) are processed and used locally, contributing thus to energy security and increasing the added value for local communities.

162

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

The Jatropha supply chain is being developed by two main institutions: The Garalo Jatropha Producers‘ Cooperative (CPP) and the power company ACCESS. Jatropha farmers are at the heart of the business model supplying biofuel to the hybrid power plant. The CPP deals at “commune” level with all issues regarding Jatropha seeds, production and sale of pure vegetable oil as well the residues (oil cake) as a fertilizer. In order to operate efficiently in all the villages, farmers, with the support of Local Authorities, have set up Jatropha producers village committees (CVPP) to deal with the key activities at the village level for instance seeds collection and transport to the cooperative. Out of a forecast of 10,000 ha of Jatropha, 600 ha, involving 326 rural families are already under cultivation. Many plantations are on land previously allocated to cotton. The private power company ACCESS is responsible for generation and electricity sales. ACCESS has a capacity of 300 kW with a distribution network of approximately 13 km with the prospect for an extension of 3 additional kilometres. Currently 247 households are connected to the micro grid having paid $30 contribution to the connection costs. As for electricity consumption, there are two broad tariffs categories. To encourage ownership of the Jatropha production system by the rural communities, the social and business model was developed with strong involvement of the local authorities. For instance given the competition regarding Jatropha seeds, local authorities have prohibited their sales outside the commune to secure a sustainable supply for the hybrid power plant. Biofuels and Gender Issues (Banda et al., 2009) In India, community groups in isolated villages are collecting local seeds from the nearby forest and using oil from the seeds to make biodiesel in a small pedal-powered processor. The biodiesel is used to run water pumps, an electricity generator, and a tiller. Women have participated in the seed collection and the planning and development of the micro-energy systems, but additional efforts are needed to strengthen women’s involvement in decision-making regarding management of the systems and development of new enterprises using the energy that is now available. In Uganda, a pilot project installed four multifunctional platforms, two of which were used to test the potential for growing and using biodiesel. The purpose of the project was to evaluate implementation models prior to wider replication across the country. Women participated in all activities, and were invited to voice their views on the appropriateness of the project. At the implementation stage, women were able to participate in training programs for project beneficiaries, and learned to operate and manage the MFPs. They also took part in growing sunflower seeds for the production of biodiesel.

Social Aspects

163

In Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, projects enlisted small farmers to grow Jatropha commercially to supply a biodiesel production plant. The Sri Lanka project is a relatively small-scale pilot project involving 21 farm families, and is designed to mix commercial fuel crop production with local energy applications. There is no specific gender focus, but there is a great deal of participation by women: women are the main suppliers of seeds for the biodiesel processing centre, and are participating in the training and decision-making on growing Jatropha. The locally produced biodiesel is expected to also expand their access to energy for lighting and water pumping, and possibly also for cooking and income generation. 11.1.2  The DON’T’s Labour and Human Rights in Brazil (Amnesty International Report, 2008) In March 2007, attorneys working for the state Ministry for Labour rescued 288 workers from forced labour at six sugarcane plantations in São Paulo State. In the same month, 409 workers, 150 of whom were Indigenous, were rescued from the ethanol distillery Centro Oeste Iguatemi, in Mato Grosso do Sul. In November inspection teams found a further 831 Indigenous cutters lodged in overcrowded, insanitary and substandard accommodations on a plantation in Brasil, also in Mato Grosso do Sul. Over a thousand people working in conditions analogous to slavery were released from a sugar plantation owned by ethanol producer Pagrisa in Ulianópolis, Pará State in June. Following the raid, a senate commission accused the inspectors of exaggerating the workers’ poor conditions. As a result, the work of the inspection team was briefly suspended by the Ministry for Labour for fear that the allegations would undermine the credibility of the inspection team’s work. Inspections resumed in October. The government took some steps to improve labour conditions in the sugar sector. In São Paulo State, which accounts for over 60 per cent of Brazil’s cane production, the State Prosecutor on Labour was proactive in initiating inspections and prosecutions. At the federal level, the government promised to introduce a social and environmental accreditation scheme aimed at improving working conditions and reducing the environmental impact. Elephants under Threat in Ethiopia (FoE, 2010) The Babile Elephant Sanctuary in Ethiopia is home to one of the most important African elephant populations in the Horn of Africa. The African elephant is an endangered species. Black-maned lions (the national symbol of Ethiopia), leopards, baboons and black and white colobus monkey

164

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

are also found in the Sanctuary and the area is recognised as a “Globally Important Bird Area”. There are thought to be more than 300 elephants living in the Sanctuary, ranging over a vast area. In recent years, the growing local population has encroached on the Sanctuary seeking out new farmland. The Ethiopian Government sees improved energy supplies as crucial to the country’s development and is a keen supporter of biofuels both as a source of fuel and as a source of export revenue. It has published a biofuel strategy, which earmarks 700,000 ha of land for sugar cane cultivation and 23 million ha of land are suitable for jatropha and castor bean plantations100. In March 2007 a new “farmer” arrived in the Babile Sanctuary. The German agrofuel producer Flora Eco-power had been granted access to 10,000 ha of land to grow castor beans. Almost all of the land fell within the Sanctuary boundaries and included feeding grounds used by the elephants. The wildlife authorities were not aware that this land had been given to the company. Flora Ecopower started clearing the land using tractors and work continued for three days before the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority intervened. After discussions Flora Ecopower said they would not expand further into the Sanctuary. An environmental impact assessment carried out after work had started showed that castor bean plantation infringed the elephants’ habitat. It also highlighted that the plantation had reduced the amount of grazing land available to local farmers, creating a risk that they were now likely to graze their animals inside the Sanctuary. Following the intervention of the Government, extra land also used by the elephants has been given to the Sanctuary as compensation. Planting Jatropha in India (FoE, 2009) The state of Chhattisgarh has embraced jatropha with plans for one million hectares state-wide by 2012. In 2006, the former Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam Azad declared on a visit that the state was at the forefront of biodiesel production from jatropha and the state government responded by welcoming him to the “land of jatropha”. Chhattisgarh is traditionally a rice-growing area where 45 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. Some 40 per cent of the state is forest and more than 44 per cent of the people depend on forests for their livelihoods. This enthusiasm for jatropha from the state government was not supported by everyone. Social leaders and people’s groups responded to the President’s visit by sending an open letter, entitled: “The Rice Bowl or Land of Jatropha: the patriotic people of Chhattisgarh would decide”.

Social Aspects

165

The letter raised concerns that some of the poorest people in Chhattisgarh – the tribal adivasis and the lower caste dalits – would be forced from the lands which they had farmed and relied on, under common property rights. The task of implementing Chhattisgarh’s jatropha plans has primarily fallen to the forest department and the forest development coorporation which are responsible for planting on land officially classified as “forest”. In Chhattisgarh this includes areas which are recognised as community land (CPR). The UK company d1 Oils, which has a joint venture with Indian company Williamson Magor, is also growing jatropha in the state, with farmers under contract. Jatropha saplings have been planted across a number of villages in the state, resulting in a number of complaints about loss of land. In the village of Bhumia, 25 acres of forest-department owned grazing land was planted with jatropha saplings but these were trampled by cattle, according to the village chief. The land was replanted and a fence erected, using subsidised labour from the National Rural Employment development Scheme. In June 2007, the village assembly (panchayat) in Hansda village planted jatropha on 40 acres farmed by 20 dalit families from the village. The dalit families claimed that a herd of cattle was let loose on their existing crops and then jatropha saplings were planted. “They used bulldozers to destroy our crops and the land”, said Ajit Ekka, whose family depends on the two and a half acres of agricultural land for food. Ajit is a social activist and mobilized the dalit families to uproot the saplings. They filed complaints with the district Collector, Chief Minister and Governor of the State, who ordered an immediate enquiry. As a result of the resistance, two cases have been filed against the 20 families – one by the forest department for uprooting the jatropha saplings and the other for encroaching on government lands. The families paid fines ranging between Rs500 to 1500 and the case for uprooting was then withdrawn. The other case is ongoing, with the court requiring evidence of their land rights from the (higher caste) village assembly before the land can be restored to the dalit families. The dalit families believe this written agreement is unlikely to be granted. The Tribal Welfare Society has recorded accounts of tribal villagers being beaten and arrested when they have tried to prevent jatropha from being planted.” Incidents of such forcible planting of jatropha by the forest department have happened in at least five districts of Kawardha, Bilaspur, Korba, Kanker and Rajnandgaon,” said Pravin Patel of Tribal Welfare Society.

12 Socioeconomic Aspects1

In recent years, several major challenges to the modern world and its way of life have become a focus of public interest. By the end of the 20th century, governments and policy makers around the world faced three key issues: • (renewed) worries about energy security; • an interest in economic development, both in the developed world and developing countries, including the creation or sustaining of jobs in agriculture; and • the need to mitigate climate change and achieve lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Fuels made from locally grown renewable sources were proposed as a contribution to addressing all three of these challenges, as well as providing a potentially cheap alternative to expensive fossil fuels. Moreover, they were also seen as a way of addressing some additional, important concerns at the time, including those over lead in fuel and losses of agricultural jobs and farming subsidies. From the point of view of many involved, biofuels looked like an extremely attractive option, and thus the decade 1995–2005 saw several new supportive policies for biofuels in the European Union (EU) and the US, as well as in many other countries around the world. These policies established markets for biofuels and acted as incentives to industry to invest in biofuels development and production. As a consequence, biofuels became available on a small but significant commercial scale, and this has remained the case.

This section is largely a reproduction from on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Report on Biofuels: ethical issues (NCB, April 2011, chapter 1, pp. 9-20). 1

João José Fernandes and José Luís Monteiro, OIKOS, Portugal

168

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

12.1 Guard rail for securing access to sufficient food 12.1.1  Access to food for all The expansion of bioenergy use can have an adverse effect on food production and – particularly in low-income developing countries that are net importers of food (Low-Income Food-deficit Countries, LIFdCs) – on food security, because land, water resources and agricultural resources (such as machinery, fertilizers, seed, feed, fuel) are withdrawn from food production and used instead to grow energy crops. Securing the word food supply must take precedence over all other uses of those areas of the world’s land surface that are suitable for farming. While bioenergy can be substituted by other sources of fuel, there is no substitute for food. According to the FAO definition, food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2008b). WBGU therefore proposes here as a guard rail that access to sufficient food should be secured for all people. A necessary but not a sufficient requirement for this is that enough food is produced to meet the calorie needs of all people. For operationalization of the guard rail it can thus be deduced that the amount of agricultural land available globally must at least be sufficient to enable all people to receive food with an average calorie content of 2700 kcal per person per day (equivalent to approximately 11.3 MJ per person per day). According to FAO figures (FAO, 2003b) global food production currently amounts to approximately 2800 kcal per person per day. On a global scale, therefore, enough food energy is currently produced, so that hunger and malnutrition are primarily problems of access and/or distribution. 12.1.2  Land need depends on nutrition style and land productivity Factors that are important for the extent of the potential for providing the world’s population with sufficient and nutritious food are people’s nutrition habits and the productivity of the land. The nutrition potential of existing agricultural land depends to a large extent on the way in which the crop is used. For example, the majority of the maize harvest in North America and Europe is fed to animals. This means that the maize provides food for people only via the production of meat and milk. In the course of this ‘refinement’ a large proportion of the food calories originally present in the maize is lost. Around one third of the world’s grain yield is currently

Socioeconomics Aspects

169

used as animal feed. Overall, global food production must be increased by 50 per cent by 2030 and by around 80 per cent by 2050. 12.1.3  Guard rail for securing access to modern energy services Securing elementary energy services must involve access to modern forms of energy. WBGU proposes the following guard rail: access to modern energy for all people should be ensured. In particular, this must entail ensuring access to electricity and replacing the use of biomass that is harmful to health with modern fuels. In the medium term WBGU considers the minimum quantity of final energy for basic individual needs to be 700–1000 kWh per capita per year. 12.1.4  Guard rail for avoiding health risks through energy use The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN Social Covenant) defines health as a fundamental human right (Art. 12). The right to a reasonable standard of living (Art. 11) is also defined as such a right; this includes access to energy for purposes such as cooking and heating. In many countries and regions these two rights do not match, because energy that is ‘clean’ or adapted to the form of use is not available. The forms of energy used in these areas can cause significant harm to human health. In particular, the burning of fossil fuels and biomass produces gases and particles that cause air pollution, and this harbours major risks to health. To assist formulation of guard rails in the form of non-tolerable limits to health impacts associated with the production and use of energy, the concept of disability Adjusted Life Years (dALYs) can be used. dALYs are a measure of the impact on health expressed in reduced life expectancy. They are made up of life years that are lived with health impairments or disease and life years that are lost through premature death (Murray and López, 1996). In large parts of the world urban air pollution and indoor air pollution already account for less than 0.5 per cent of regional dALYs. As a guard rail WBGU proposes that the proportion of regional dALYs attributable to these two risk factors should be reduced to below 0.5 per cent for all WHO regions and sub-regions. 12.1.5  Additional socioeconomic sustainability requirements In producing and using bioenergy, a number of socioeconomic factors need to be taken into account if the requirements for sustainable develop-

170

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

ment are to be met. WBGU therefore explores measures by which these factors may be addressed. Socioeconomic sustainability criteria are relevant in the context of bioenergy in both industrialized and developing countries. However, there are three reasons for paying particular attention to developing countries. Firstly, the problems associated with traditional biomass use in developing countries are widespread and a major obstacle to development; traditional biomass use in industrialized countries, on the other hand, does not represent a significant problem. Secondly, the same applies to access to energy and to sufficient food. Thirdly, the agricultural sector in developing countries, in contrast to that in most industrialized countries, plays a key role in economic and social development. In low-income countries around 20 per cent of GdP is generated in the agricultural sector; in high-income countries the figure is only 2 per cent (World Bank, 2008c). In industrialized countries only a small percentage of the workforce is employed in the agricultural sector; in some developing countries proportions over 40 per cent or even over 60 per cent are found (World Bank, 2008c). To this must be added the major significance of the agricultural sector in developing countries in overcoming extreme income poverty: some 700 million people, or three-quarters of all those who live on less than US$ 1 per day, are rural dwellers in developing countries (World Bank, 2004). Local working conditions, viewed from the perspective of social sustainability, are an important aspect of the production of biomass for use as energy. For example, conditions are not sustainable if pesticides are used in large quantities and the health of plantation workers and local residents suffers as a result. In addition, at least the most basic core standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO) should be observed (safety, prohibition of exploitative child labour, prohibition of slave labour, elementary employee rights, etc.). Another clear criterion of non-sustainability of bioenergy cultivation is if smallholders or indigenous groups are deprived of their livelihood by being displaced to make way for plantations. Economic aspects of sustainability are also particularly important for poorer countries. Many developing countries hope that bioenergy will bring development opportunities – perhaps by tackling rural poverty directly, by reducing dependence on imports of fossil fuels or by increasing energy supply security. They also perceive opportunities in relation to the export of modern energy, which can further a country’s economic development. The extent to which such hopes are fulfilled does not depend solely on whether cultivation is ecologically sustainable: national and local political and socioeconomic conditions are also key factors. Another crucial issue is whether an expansion of the bioenergy sector is economically sustainable in the sense of being able to continue operations in the

Socioeconomics Aspects

171

long term even without subsidies; if ongoing subsidy of the sector is required, funds will no longer be available for projects of greater social and economic promise. 12.2 Impacts of Large Scale Expansion of Biofuels on Global Poverty and Income Distribution2 The index of average prices of oil increased to all-time high at 250 in August 2008 from less than 50 in 1995 (Figure 12.1). Thus, the search for alternative sources of energy such as biofuels intensified. But recent emphasis on biofuels has triggered worldwide concern because of its effects on global food prices and supply. during this period of high oil prices, the index of average international prices of food rose dramatically from 75 percent in 2000 to 180 August of 2008 (Figure 12.1). There are few studies that analysed the economic impact of biofuel production using global economic models. Birur, Hertel, Tyner (2008) analysed the effect of biofuel production on world agricultural markets, and found strong substitution effects towards biofuels when crude oil prices increase. This increases the demand for feedstock, and results in higher acreage towards corn in the United States, oilseeds in the European Union, and sugarcane in Brazil. Furthermore, higher demand for feedstock reduces land area for paddy and wheat production.

Figure 12.1 - Food and Oil PricesSource: Cororaton-et al., 2010, based on data from IMF.

2

This section is largely adapted from from Cororaton-et. al., 2010.

172

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

In another paper, Hertel et al. (2008) analysed the global impact of biofuel mandates in the United States and European Union. They find that if higher biofuel mandates are implemented, the effects on global land-use towards higher acreage for biofuel feedstock production are considerable. Similar conclusion was arrived at in Keeney and Hertel (2008) on biofuel policies in the United States. de Gorter and Just (2010) applied a partial equilibrium analysis to study the cost and benefit of alternative biofuel policies in the United States. They generated several interesting insights; key of which indicates that ethanol policies in the United States have significant effect on corn prices which increases the inefficiency of farm subsidies, and vice versa. They have also found that trade policies in the United States that discourage international trade such as tariffs and production subsidies reduce the benefits of biofuel mandate. Runge and Senaur (2007) have indicated that ethanol policies have adverse impact on food prices and therefore on poverty especially in developing countries. Several studies that examined issues on biofuels have argued that ethanol policies have not generally passed the cost-benefit test (Taylor and Van doren, 2007; Hahn and Cecot, 2009). However, using a country level Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) applied to Mozambique, the results of Arndt et al. (2008) indicate favourable effects on growth and income distribution of large scale investments in biofuels. The welfare and distributional effects are larger if the production of sugar cane is through contract growers than large plantations because contract growers employ unskilled labour. Also, contract growers are small farm-holders which benefit from higher land rent due to increased sugar cane production. But large scale investment on biofuels reduces traditional exports, and shifts resources such as land and labour towards sugar cane production. Factor prices improve because of competition for factor inputs; but there is higher pressure on food prices and food imports. Furthermore, large scale investment on biofuels increases the inflow of foreign exchange into Mozambique which creates pressure on the real exchange rate to appreciate and which generates negative macroeconomic effects. The positive farm income effects in Arndt et al. (2008) were also found in another CGE analysis of expansion biofuels by Hertel (2009) where developing countries with significant agricultural self-employed poverty population benefit from higher factor returns following increased production of biofuels. Gohin (2008) and Banse et al. (2008) also found significant increase in factor incomes from higher share of biofuels in the total energy mix in Europe. Thus, there is strong evidence that expansion of biofuels divert raw materials from food production to biofuel production, but there are also

Socioeconomics Aspects

173

positive effects on farm income. There are limited studies that analysed the effects of biofuel policies on food supply, food prices, factor prices, but there are no studies that examine the implications of these policies on global poverty and income distribution. Cororaton et al. (2010) analysed the distributional and poverty effects of large scale expansion in biofuels. The paper utilizes simulation results of two World Bank models: a global computable general equilibrium model and a global income distribution and poverty model. The results from the general equilibrium model indicate that large scale expansion of biofuels leads to higher world prices of sugar, corn, oilseeds, wheat, and other grains, which translate to higher food prices. The increase in food inflation is higher in developing countries than in developed countries. The impact on real per capita GdP is mixed. Real per capita GdP improves in Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, and some developed countries. But there is notable decline in real per capita GdP in India, SubSaharan Africa, Middle East and North African regions, Russia, and China. Expansion of biofuels leads to higher wages of unskilled rural labour relative to wages of the other labour types which are skilled urban, skilled rural, and unskilled urban. This is true in developing countries. There is small change in the relative wage of unskilled rural labour in developed countries. These positive wage effects on unskilled rural labour lead to movement of unskilled urban labour towards rural and agriculture. This is because production of feedstock in developing countries is relatively intensive in the use of unskilled rural labour. Large scale expansion of biofuels leads to a slight increase in poverty. The increase largely comes from South Asia (India) and Sub-Saharan Africa. Significant number of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa shows higher poverty with large scale expansion of biofuels. The effects on income inequality are very small, but overall, there is a slight increase in the GINI coefficient. There is also a slight increase in the GINI coefficient in Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asian. In the rest of the regions, the GINI coefficient declines. 12.3 Biofuels: Trade-offs in welfare and food security3 In the current environment of high food and energy prices, many countries are concerned about the share of their import bill that goes towards both food and energy and are in the process of weighing their policy options (Ewing and Msangi, 2009): 3

This section is entirely based on Ewing and Msangi, 2009.

174

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

If they choose biofuels as a way of off-setting their bill for energy imports, and as a way to gain some degree of energy independence, they must also be cognizant that might enter into the constraint on available land and cause, in turn, an increased demand for food imports (or food aid) – which might decrease the benefits of a domestic biofuels program. If, on the other hand, costly imports of fossil-based energy is supplemented with cheaper imports of biofuels from other exporting countries, then this could be a strategy that reduces the import bill while not affecting the food balance. If traditional biomass represents a large share of the energy consumption of households within the country, then a bioenergy development strategy that is aimed at replacing the use of traditional biomass with cleaner and less time-consuming sources of energy might be a good strategy to pursue. Using cross-country data on energy and food security, Ewing and Msangi (2009) illustrated the high degree of correlation that exists between food insecurity and a heavier dependence upon biomass for meeting household energy needs, as is shown in Figure 12.2. 45 DR Congo

Eritrea

40 Ethiopia

35 Angola

Zambia Cambodia

Global Hunger Index

30

Bangladesh India

Tanzania

Mozambique

Sudan Haiti

Nepal

25 Pakistan

Kenya Togo

Senegal

20 Mongolia

Namibia Philippines

0

Dominican Republic El Salvador Peru MalaysiaColombia Morocco South Africa Ecuador Albania Brazil Serbia and Montenegro Jamaica Egypt Macedonia Estonia Bosnia and Herzegovina Latvia Cuba Tunisia Lithuania Uruguay Argentina

0

Croatia Belarus

0.1

0.2

Chile

0.3

Myanmar

Ghana Nicaragua

Indonesia Georgia

Thailand Panama Bolivia

5

Cote d’Ivoire Vietnam

Benin Guatemala Sri Lanka Honduras

15

10

Zimbabwe

Cameroun Nigeria

Botswana

Gabon

PR China

Romania

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Share of biomass in total residential and transportation energy consuption, fossil-and biomass-based sources

Figure 12.2 - Energy demand and food security, non-OCED-, non-petroleum exporting countries. (http://www.ifpri.org/media/200610GHI/GHIData.xls quoted from Ewing and Msangi, 2009).

Socioeconomics Aspects

175

Based on the data, there is a positive correlation between hunger and biomass use, which suggests that poorer people tend to have lower levels of nutrition and rely on more biomass-intensive forms of energy (which also tend to be more time-consuming to obtain and lower in quality). This warrants careful consideration, on the part of policy makers, when planning national priorities for sectoral investments in energy and agriculture, and the role that the biofuel sector can play in development. Countries with high reliance on biomass for energy and high incidence of hunger, such as Tanzania and Mozambique, should seek to maximize welfare either through making investing in energy technologies that might have spillovers into food production or by designing investments in agriculture and energy such that they expand employment opportunities for the poor and food insecure, and lead (indirectly) to lower dependencies on biomass for energy. On the other hand, if policy design cannot ensure that biofuel production does not compete with agricultural resources used for food production or might draw resources away from other important export revenue-generating activities, then perhaps domestic biofuel production capacity should not be developed. In such a case, imports of biofuels could be substituted for domestic production, if the balance of payments allows this. Alternatively, the development of non-edible energy crops that are grown and processed locally for meeting village energy needs as well as generating household income, may be most appropriate for these countries – from both a food and energy security perspective. As shown in Figure 12.2, there are a number of transitioning economy countries that are relatively food secure, and have a higher demand for fossil-based fuels. Countries in this category include Brazil, Malaysia, Peru, Argentina, and Thailand – which are all export-oriented and have relatively large areas of land available. A number of these countries are currently expanding biofuel production in order to meet both domestic and international demand. The development of large-scale biofuel industries, from a socio-economic welfare perspective, may bring benefits in the form of lower transportation fuel costs (and lower fossil-fuel imports), and increased wage employment in the biofuel sector (and in those sectors closely connected to it. 12.3.1  Maximizing welfare gains in biofuel production models The supply chain for crop-based biofuels for the transportation sector can be divided into feedstock production, conversion, pre- and postprocessing, and transport (Woods, 2006). Most unskilled employment will be in the growing and harvesting of biofuel feedstocks, therefore, there

176

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

may be opportunities to generate income for rural laborers and smallholders, depending on local needs. For example, institutional arrangements that favour an outgrower configuration over estate farming may provide direct welfare benefits to smallholders. In India, a large-scale public–private partnership has been launched to promote the profitable participation of smallholders in the cultivation of sweet sorghum feedstocks for ethanol production. A private business partner is providing the farmers with sweet sorghum seeds and feedstock supply contracts to local processing facilities in order to create a village-based supply chain model. In Mozambique, biofuel production scenarios that favor outgrower schemes over plantation estates are shown to generate more employment for unskilled labor (Arndt et al., 2008). In addition, there is evidence that food crop yields increase after engaging in outgrower programs due to technology spillovers when inputs and extension services are supplied (Glover, 1994). In a generalequilibrium framework, biofuel production schemes that result in technology spillovers enhance economic growth and poverty reduction benefits in Mozambique (Arndt et al., 2008). Many of the GTAP-based, general-equilibrium policy models that look at the impact of biofuels expansion, also cite the increases in land rental values (e.g., Hertel et al., 2008), which may translate into increases in income for some producers within the sectors, but not necessarily for all. The increase in prices and output of key feedstock crops will increase the value of output within the sector and lead, in turn, to higher wages for agricultural laborers as well as to increases in the wages within the agricultural processing sector. These benefits might even spillover to other related industries as well, given that the expansion in the production of biofuels will require increased use of post-harvest processing, storage and distribution facilities and operations. This is supported by data from the Brazilian sugarcane sector, which indicates that wages are higher in sugarcane harvesting than for other crops, while skilled wages at ethanol refineries are also higher than in other comparable industries (Smeets et al., 2008). The degree to which these increases in agricultural income translates into improvements in income and welfare in the rest of the economy depends, of course, on the extent to which agriculture is a contributor towards GdP, and how much of the labour force is employed in agriculture and related sectors. Even within poorer developing countries which have a higher share of agriculture in the overall GdP, the gains might still be limited if the labour markets in agriculture are relatively under-utilized, due to the fact that a high share of agriculture is carried out by smallholders who employ their own family as labourers, and where biofuel production might be concentrated on a few, large-scale plantation schemes that utilize only a fraction of the labour force actually working in agriculture. This

Socioeconomics Aspects

177

kind of situation would apply to much of Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia – and represents a challenge in how to design biofuel production schemes that can generate more widespread benefits for smallholders and rural populations. One opportunity for wider welfare benefits may be through the use of small-scale biofuel production models that convert feedstocks locally. Like those large-scale models, small-scale biofuel production will generate employment and income opportunities in the growing and processing of feedstocks; however, since schemes are introduced to satisfy a range of community needs, the benefits of the technology can be felt locally. Examples of small-scale production models found in the literature demonstrate a wider range of welfare gains, including new sources of energy and electricity, and the development of enterprises related to co-products, such as soap and organic fertilizer. Energy crops can be converted into fuels to satisfy a number of rural applications including electrification, small machinery power, irrigation pumping, and food processing. In addition, bioenergy development for clean-burning cooking fuel, such as ethanolbased gelfuels, can provide significant time savings for women and children by reducing the need to search for and collect fuelwood. In addition, the use of clean-burning ethanol has positive health impacts, reducing the level of indoor air pollution and related illness. despite these potential benefits, there are considerable barriers to small-scale bioenergy development in rural areas. At the local level, the technical know-how related to feedstocks and conversion, capital availability for start-up costs, lack of private sector capacity and support, market development, and secure land tenure are often cited as limitations to small-scale agricultural development. In addition, a common critique of jatropha-focused biofuel production is that of its rather low yield if it is grown on marginal lands without irrigation, and the disadvantage that entails in terms of cost competitiveness with fossil-based fuels. It must also be borne in mind that most industrial processes require economies of scale and high levels of extraction efficiency, if they are to remain economically competitive, which raises the question of whether small-scale jatropha can survive in the long-term without subsidies in the form of producer credits or protective tariffs on competing products. despite these challenges small-scale biofuel production projects have been launched across Africa and Asia that are providing examples and generating knowledge of the possibilities and constraints surrounding sector development. These projects, although often donor-supported, are generating best-practices and are helping to understand the possibilities of village-scale energy technologies. One of the biggest challenges for the wider success of village-scale energy will be designing projects that can

178

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

remain economically viable in the absence of project support. As a result, the possibility for establishing a financing mechanism to support clean and renewable energy sources that enhancing the ultimate long-run economic sustainability of a more decentralized energy sector is an attractive prospect that requires further research. 12.3.2  Policy implications Strong government support for small producers will be necessary in order to ensure that biofuel production in developing nations is sustainable and brings welfare benefits to rural areas – otherwise, purely commercial interests will always tend towards larger-scale schemes that provide the best return on private investment. The public sector needs to set the legal, fiscal, and institutional framework for biofuel production in order to maximize the complementarities between public and private stakeholders (Woods, 2006). Public–private partnerships can help to ensure that supply chains generate income and employment for small producers and labourers. Specifically, the private sector can play a critical role in technology transfer and related capacity building, especially if they create the kind of technology spillovers that could improve the productivity of smallholder agriculture (Arndt et al., 2008). Yet, developing country governments will most likely need assistance in promoting sustainable biofuel development, and in formulating a clear country-level strategy for renewable energy, that encompasses biofuels as well as other options (wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, etc.). As a result, private investors in partnership with local community groups and development assistance agencies will likely be necessary to provide financing for pilot projects. But it must be recognized that in order for any biofuels production systems to go beyond the pilotlevel, and become viable in the long-term, there must be a demonstrated return on investment (even if subsidized) and a way of ensuring consistent levels of production and availability of necessary feedstocks. This is why the design and conception phase is so critical to ensuring the success and proper functioning of a national biofuels sector for any country. In general, biofuels development should be treated as a part of wider sustainable development agenda, which has the achievement of important goals such as the MdGs in mind. While it is not possible for any single policy to encompass everything that is of importance in the broad agenda laid out in the MdGs, a good national strategy can still seek to maximize the complementarities that might exist between them – especially for those relating to gender equity and poverty alleviation. It should also be borne in mind that the growth in productivity of staple crops has a strong poverty-

Socioeconomics Aspects

179

reducing impact in many developing countries – especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (diao et al., 2007) – that should, ideally, be reinforced by biofuel programs and complementary investments in the agricultural sector. Policy formulation should be flexible so as to take some of the uncertainties that might exist, such as the long-term development of alternative feedstock energy crop sources and conversion technologies, such as those which might be used for cellulosic and other second-generation biofuels. With regard to the first-generation of biofuels, some of the consequences to food security and the environment are already known to us, and should be taken into account when advising countries as to whether they should try and exploit the current technologies in order to meet their renewable energy goals – or to wait for the second-generation technologies, before trying to scale up to the national level.

13 Introduction into Food vs. Fuel Discussion and possible Solution Strategies

13.1 The Food vs. Fuel Controversy “Food vs. fuel” 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 (Grundwald, 2008; Wilson, 2008; Ayre, 2007; Kingsbury, 2007; Pimentel et al., 1988). More to this, the relevance of the problem is still debated, and a vast uncertainty remains about what should be done about it. The present chapter offers a short review of the recent scientific papers and institutional reports dealing with the topic, in order to better understand the facts underpinning the issue. The focus is on biofuel crops as a whole, meaning both oil crops and ethanol ones. As a matter of fact, biofuel production has increased in recent years. Some commodities like cereals, sugar cane or vegetable oil can be used either as food, feed or as raw material to make biofuels. 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 (Ajanovic, 2010). In contrast to these apparent benefits, the parallel increase in the demand for biofuels and in oil prices since 2003, and the desire to reduce oil dependency and GHG emissions, have raised a growing fear for the poten-

Lorenzo Barbanti and Simone Fazio, University of Bologna, Italy Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany Dan Craioveanu, Transylvania Eco Club, Romania Eliza Teodorescu, ALMA-RO, Romania Ioana Ciuta, TERRA Mileniul III, Romania

182

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

tial destruction of natural habitats being converted into farmland. The debate reached a global scale during the 2007–2008 world food price crisis, although afterwards global food prices decreased to pre-crisis levels, only to reach a new peak in January 2011. The settlement of food prices despite a growing use of farmland for biofuel production (more than twice larger surfaces; FAOSTAT, 2009) is consistent with several studies showing that biofuel production can significantly be increased without raising agricultural land use (Escobar et al., 2008; Kee-Lam et al., 2008; Ferreira-Simões, 2007; Runge and Senauer, 2007). For instance, Brazil has been rated to have the world’s first sustainable biofuels economy (Rother, 2006; Jay and Hendrix, 2007), and its government claims that the Brazilian sugar cane based ethanol industry has not contributed to the 2008 food crisis (duailibi, 2008). This thesis is supported by a World Bank policy research paper (Mitchell, 2008) concluding that “large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices”, whereas “Brazil’s sugar-based ethanol did not push food prices appreciably higher”. In contrast to this, a 2010 study still by the World Bank concluded that their previous study may have overestimated the contribution of biofuel production to the price peaks, as “the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ”financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.” (Baffes and Haniotis, 2010). An independent study by the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development (OECd) also found that the impact of biofuels on food prices was over-estimated by several international studies (OECd, 2008a). Again, a study from Ajanovic (2010) concluded that “Within the period 2000-2009 the increase or better the volatility of feedstock prices has not been only the consequence of continuously increasing biofuels production. Yet, by far the largest part of these volatilities was caused by other impact parameters such as oil price and speculation”. From 1974 to 2005, real food prices (adjusted for inflation) decreased by 75%. Food commodity prices were relatively stable after reaching lows in 2000 and 2001 (Mitchell, 2008). Therefore, rapid food price increases occurring in 2007/2008 were considered unusual (OECd, 2008a). Between January 2005 and June 2008, maize prices almost tripled, wheat increased 127 percent, and rice rose 170 percent. The increase in grain prices was followed by increases in fat and oil prices in mid-2006. On the other hand, the mentioned study found that sugar cane production had increased rapidly enough, as to mitigate sugar price increases except for 2005 and early 2006. The OECd (2008a) paper concludes that biofuels produced from grains, in combination with other related factors, are responsible for

Introduction into Food vs. Fuel Discussion and possible Solution Strategies

183

70 - 75 percent of the food price rise in the latest years, whereas ethanol produced from sugar cane has not significantly contributed to this increase. In contrast to this study another OECd assessment published in e same year (OECd, 2008b) found that “the impact of current biofuel policies on world crop prices, largely through increased demand for cereals and vegetable oils, is significant but should not be overestimated. Current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years”. 13.2 Other Factors Influencing Food Market Prices Beyond discussions on food/fuel competition, other important factors, influencing food prices, must be taken into account. For instance, in 2007/2008 also fuel prices rose, despite a larger availability of biofuels and of renewable energy sources with respect to previous years. Since energy costs are relevant in fertilizer production, farming and food distribution, it can be concluded that a fraction of the food price increase was due to the fuel market, regardless of bioenergy trends. Oil price increased since 2003 and resulted in increased demand for biofuels, because of the derived cost-opportunity: for instance, transforming vegetable oil into biodiesel is not very difficult or expensive, so there is a profitable shift opportunity for biofuel if vegetable oil is much cheaper than oil-derived diesel; the same can be said for cereal or sugar production vs. gasoline-replacing ethanol. As a consequence, all food prices are linked to crude oil prices. A World Bank study concluded that oil prices and a devaluation of dollar explain 25-30% of the total price rise between January 2002 and June 2008 (Mitchell, 2008). However, considering the period of the oil crisis in the early ‘70s, when world markets registered the triplication of maize and wheat prices, even if there was no global bioenergy usage (IEA – www.iea. org -, 2009; FAOSTAT, 2009), the relationship between oil and food prices appears more impacting than the influence of biofuel market. The global rise in fuel demand, influencing the demand/supply ratio and consequently prices, is mainly related to the significant increases in the import of developing countries (primarily China and India), and is scarcely related to biofuel or bioenergy market, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) (www.iea.org/, 2009). On this issue, Ciaian and Kancs in a recent study (2009) concluded that “energy prices do affect prices for agricultural commodities and the interdependencies between the energy and food markets are increasing over time. Whereas we did not find any cointe-

184

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

gration relationships in the first period (1994–1998), in the second period (1999–2003) we found that out of nine agricultural commodity prices only corn and soybeans are cointegrated with crude oil prices. However, the cointegration is weaker (less present) than theoretically predicted, which indirectly indicates that the indirect input channel of price transmission is small and statistically insignificant. In the third period (2004–2008) we found that the prices for all nine agricultural commodities are cointegrated with crude oil prices”. On the other hand, China and other developing countries increased cereal import and meat consumption (involving higher consumption of grains) in the last few years, modifying the world market prices of the major commodities (Lane, 2008; Schmitz and Kavallari, 2008). 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. Furthermore, some anomalies were found in the correlation between the price of some commodities and their use as feedstock for bioenergy production. One such anomaly in the latest years is the decrease of the world price of sugar, as reported above, despite the fact that sugar is the principal feedstock for ethanol production and that the ethanol market for energy purposes is thriving (http://futures.tradingcharts.com/, 2009). The liberalization of world trade and the progressive elimination of market protection policies, associated to a decrease of cereal world stocks, contribute to the instability of food prices: in their above-cited study, Schmitz and Kavallari (2008) observed that “full liberalization of the agricultural markets would lead to an increase of the prices for agricultural raw materials by 5.5% in average and for food by about 1.3% again in average. The drop of the stocks of important agricultural commodities, which is observed over the recent years and has in-between reached historical low levels, has certainly contributed to the crisis”The relationship between oil and food prices is additionally strengthened by the demand for biofuels. As mentioned above, the profitable shift opportunity for biofuel if vegetable oil is much cheaper than oil-derived diesel increases the demand for raw materials. This puts more pressure on shifting agricultural land to non-food uses and increases the risk of food scarcity. Under the context of peak oil theories and energy demand models, oil prices are predicted to increase considerably, as seen in the graph below: Additionally, energy needs are projected to increase in future years and new regulations for GHG emissions reductions in specific sectors (such as aviation) drive industries towards a higher use of biofuels. Caution is needed regarding the future prospects of biofuel production, since competition between energy crops and food crops may become more

Introduction into Food vs. Fuel Discussion and possible Solution Strategies

185

Figure 13.1 - Crude oil prices projection (EIA, 2010).

intense. A study published by IFAd states: “it is calculated that feeding a global population of just over 9 billion in 2050 will require a 70% increase in global food production, while ensuring food security for all will demand that issues of access and affordability are also addressed” (IFAd, 2011). Most of this increase is required from developing countries, whose populations are growing faster, but who are already highly dependent on both food and oil imports. It should be noted that it is particularly poor countries that are sought for investments in industrial biofuel production, since land seems to be abundant and extremely cheap. Poor economies are interested in increasing national income particularly through export, and this is why land allocation for biofuel production areas is increasing rapidly. Still, several studies developed by international organizations and the United Nations reveal that theoretical land availability may be misleading. “While there is a perception that land is abundant in certain countries, these claims need to be treated with caution. In many cases land is already being used or claimed – yet existing land uses and claims go unrecognized because land users are marginalized from formal land rights and access to the law and institutions. And even in countries where some land is available, largescale land allocations may still result in displacement as demand focuses on higher value lands (e.g., those with greater irrigation potential or proximity to markets)” (Cotula et al., 2009). 13.3 Food and Fuel Sustainable Production Several studies have addressed possible solution to minimize the impact of biofuel production on food commodity market prices. First of all, the cultivation of non-food bioenergy dedicated crops, and particularly lignocellulosic plants, that can thrive on marginal land where

186

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

many trees and crops would hardly grow, can significantly reduce the impact of bioenergy feedstock on food commodity prices. A study from Tirado et al. (2010) stated that “poor farmers might be able to grow energy crops on degraded or marginal land not suitable for food production. Further investment is needed in developing technologies to convert cellulose to energy, which could provide smallholders with a market for crop residues. Biofuel production is labour-intensive, offering new job opportunities. Organizing groups of smallholders through contract farming schemes to grow and market biomass may well be more pro-poor than plantation production. Technologies, institutional arrangements and bioenergy crop choice are important to determining impacts on poverty and the environment”. Again on this issue, Srinivasan (2009) concluded that “given that the pricing of the finished product itself is less flexible, it is possible to optimize the pricing structure for fuel feedstock to ensure that there is just enough of an incentive for the farmers to grow fuel crops on marginal lands – with relatively lower levels of inputs – while creating the right disincentive against encroaching either on food crop land or onto forests”. Biofuels can also be produced from the waste byproducts of agriculture or used vegetable oils; the integration of byproducts with dedicated crops can lead to an environmentally sustainable fuel supply, and reduce waste disposal costs (Zohu et al., 2008). Ajanovic, in a recent study (2010) concluded that “2nd generation biofuels also have higher energy yield with modest use of agro-chemicals and higher GHG reduction potential. Therefore, the question whether a forced biofuels production will increase food prices will then be obsolete”. Finally, it should be remembered that under a deregulated global market, changes on international trade balance may occur in short time, and this may produce a high volatility of market prices, which does not mean a price rising over a long period, but just a price uncertainty over a shortto mid-term. This is due to the fact that globalization induces a long-term adaptation in the supply under a shifting demand level. However, if commodity stocks continue to be reduced, severe consequences, even in the short term, may affect poor populations, depending on international supply for nutritional subsistence.

14 Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

14.1 Methodology for the Assessment of Environmental Impacts Deriving from the Cultivation of Oil Crops for Energy Purposes Studies on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of bioenergy chains based on dedicated crops in temperate climates (Fazio, 2010) show that biodiesel scenarios are generally less impacting than other possible energy chains, both in 1st generation (oil-based biodiesel vs. ethanol via fermentation) and in 2nd generation (BtL diesel vs. ethanol via hydrolysis and direct combustion) biofuel settings (fig. 14.1). On the other hand, the same studies point out that both in biodiesel and in BtL diesel, upstream processes (e.g., infrastructure building, machinery production, fertilizer manufacture) and subsequent agricultural phases represent the largest source of environmental pollution in the whole production chain (ranging from 70 to over 95%). Thus, the choice of the species and the cropping techniques are essential to minimize the environmental effects of the whole production system. Considering the cropping techniques described for large scale farming in Chapter 5, a comparison of the environmental impacts of oil crops “from cradle to farm gate” was performed using the LCA methodology (International Organization Standardization, 1997). The software SimaPro 7.0 (PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, NL) was adopted to model and analyze the different scenarios. Family farming scenarios were not considered in this analysis, as cropping technique can significantly vary in different farms, and manpower environmental impact is not clearly quantifiable. However,

Simone Fazio and Lorenzo Barbanti, University of Bologna, Italy Dan Craioveanu, Transylvania Eco Club, Romania Eliza Teodorescu, ALMA-RO, Romania Ioana Ciuta, TERRA Mileniul III, Romania

188

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure  14.1  - “Cradle to grave” greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels (kg of CO2 equivalents GJ-1) of different bioenergy chains from herbaceous crops. Scenarios are identified as follows: OR=oilseed rape, Su=sunflower, Wh=wheat, Ma=Maize, FS=Fibre Sorghum (annual lignocellulosic crop), GR=Giant Reed (perennial lignocellulosic crop). BioD=biodiesel from vegetable oils, BioETOH=ethanol from fermentable sugars/starch, BTLD=2nd generation biodiesel; ETOH1=2nd generation ethanol from thermo-chemical hydrolysis; ETOH2=2nd generation ethanol from enzymatic hydrolysis; EL=Combustion for power generation.

a family farming scenario leaving manpower impact apart was calculated for comparisons with large scale farming systems. According to the standard procedures (ISO 14040-43), the analysis was conventionally divided into four steps: (i) goal and scope definition; (ii) inventory (LCI); (iii) impact assessment (LCIA); (iv) interpretation. In the first phase, the system under study was defined (Fig. 14.2). The above mentioned crops were compared on the base of two functional units: hectare and energy. The first unit allows to compare products on an area basis, even if they have different end uses, i.e. food for the conventional system and energy for perennial crops. The second unit allows to compare energy crops only, but the results can be used in a “cradle to grave” impact assessment. Impacts of oil crops were therefore weighted on their energy yields. In the LCI phase, input and output data were collected and analysed. In the LCIA phase, the emissions into air, soil and water, as well as raw materials and energy consumptions, were standardized and translated into environmental effects. CML2 baseline 2000 (Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, NL) was chosen as impact assessment method.

Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

189

Figure 14.2 - Flow sheet of the assessed processes in the first step (goal and scope definition) of an LCA between energy crops. Crops were reciprocally compared on energy yield basis (black double arrow), and on hectare basis (grey double arrow). The first vertical flow sheet (left) shows the typical cropping chain of an annual crop, the other (right) is typical of perennial crops, where the establishment impact is spread over the plant lifespan. Grey boxes refer to annual cropping operations.

The final interpretation phase was aimed at identifying weak points and possible improvements of the processes. Impact categories were calculated as following:

( )

ICi = ∑ E j × CFi,j j

ICi is a generic impact category; Ej, the release of emission or consumption of resource j per functional unit; CFi,j, the characterization factor for emission j that contributes to category i (Udo de Haes et al., 1999). Characterization factors are specific for each impact category, and are used to translate potential effects of each substance into an equivalent amount of the reference substance for the indicated category. For instance, in global warming potential (GWP), CO2 equals to 1 (reference substance), while methane to 21; in acidification, SO2 equals to 1 (reference substance), while ammonia to 1.88. According to the characterization factors methodology (Heijungs et al., 1992), the impacts were grouped into nine major categories: – Abiotic (resources) depletion (A-d); antimony (Sb) is the reference substance. – Global warming power (GWP); each gas has an own GWPi calculated as the ratio of the greeenhouse effect that would result from the emis-

190

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

sions of one kilogram of the gas i to that resulting from the emission of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). – Ozone layer depletion (OLd) accounts for the change in the equilibrium state of the stratospheric ozone layer due to the emission of a specific substance. In practice, OLd is obtained by multiplying the amount of emitted substance by a specific conversion coefficient expressing the emission in ClFC-11 (chloro-fluoro-carbons 11) equivalents. – Toxicity (t), which was further divided into terrestrial (T-t), fresh water (FW-t), marine water (MW-t) and human (H-t) toxicity, and expressed as equivalents of 1,4 dichlorobenzene. – Acidification of rainfalls (Ac), that depends on H+ ions emission per kg of substance. It is conventionally expressed as SO2 equivalents. – Eutrophication (Eu), which was calculated as PO43− equivalents. The above mentioned method represents a mid-point impact assessment, meaning an assessment that accounts the potential emission affecting an environmental impact, but not the potential effect on the final target. Thus, aggregating and weighting the impact indicators across categories according to the Ecoindicator 99 methodology (PRé consultants, 2001), which measures the potential effect on human health, ecosystem quality and resource depletion, results can be grouped into a final score (Ecopoint). This method can considerably simplify the inventory analysis while improving the interpretation. Ecopoints account for one thousandth of the annual environmental load (considering all human activities) per average European inhabitant (PRé Consultants, 2001). It should be pointed out that Ecopoints are units of environmental penalty, so the higher Ecopoint score a process is rated, the more environmentally impacting it is. The damage to human health due to the exposure to a substance was expressed as disability adjusted life years (dALY; Murray, 1994): dALY=YLL+YLd, where YLL are the years of life lost calculated by multiplying the number of deaths by the standard life expectancy at the age of death; YLd accounts for the years lost due to disability, which are calculated as follows: YLd=Y*L*dW where Y is the number of accident cases, L, the average duration until remission or death, and dW, the disability weight set by the World Bank (Anand and Hanson, 1997). To each form of disability, a severity score was assigned on a scale between 0 and 1, where 0 is equal to death (Anand and Hanson, 1997). The impact on ecosystem quality was expressed as the potentially disappeared fraction (PdF) of species per square meter per year, which was assumed equal to 10% of potentially affected species living under toxic stress in that environment (PAF). Finally, resource depletion was expressed as surplus energy for the future extraction of a specific raw material (Guinée and Heijungs, 1995). This indicator takes into account the same data of the A-d category, but

Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

191

shows the energy consumption for the extraction of the abiotic resources instead of the substance equivalents. The widespread dataset Ecoinvent 1.1 (Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventory, Zurich) used for this study was found sometime too generic for specific agricultural problems, as it generally lacks details on agricultural practices. Therefore, Ecoinvent 1.1. was integrated with data collected by literature used in Chapters 3 and 5. Each impact was expressed as annual equivalent, that is, the annual impact plus a quota accounting for the establishment impact spread over the crop lifespan for perennial crops. The annual equivalent impact of the annual crops corresponds to the total impact of the whole crop cycle. In contrast to other crops, soybean’s primary production is protein, not oil. Therefore, the total impact per hectare must be allocated between protein and oil, representing an approximate 40% and 20% of the grain weight, respectively. Given the ration between the two fractions, 33% of the calculated input was allocated to oil, the rest being ascribed to protein for feed uses. A 5% nitrogen leaching of applied N was assumed as a default value, as the software used for environmental assessments cannot evaluate a real nitrogen loss, which depends on climate conditions, fertilizer application time, soil type, distance to rivers/sea, etc. All the scenarios referred to arable lands, thus nitrous oxide (N2O) emission from the soil was considered similar to the reference system (cultivated land). However, it should be noted that the conversion of natural areas to arable land, especially in tropical conditions, can lead to a higher N2O emission: up to 7 times higher with respect to previously existing arable lands (IPCC, 2006), which means up to 0.1 kg of N2O, in turn corresponding to almost 30 kg of CO2 equivalents per kg of applied N. As a result, the potential greenhouse effect (GWP) of the considered scenarios would increase fourfold with respect to the present assessment. 14.2 “Cradle to Farm Gate” Environmental Impact Assessment of Oil Crops Figure 14.3 and 14.4 express the standardized (i.e. reported in kg of equivalent reference substance) values of emission in different impact categories on surface (hectare) and on energy (GJ) basis, respectively. The category most affected by agricultural processes is eco-toxicity of marine waters (MW-t). However, the primary cause of this emission is not directly linked with cropping processes: indeed analyzing the life cycle inventory, it appears that the phase generating the largest impact is the production chain

192

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 14.3 - Standardized emission levels in kg of reference substance per ha, for each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

of the phosphoric fertilizers. More in detail, the air emission of almost 0.2 grams of hydrogen fluoride (conversion factor to 1,4 dichlorobenzene equivalents = 40,660) per kg of phosphoric fertilizer is responsible of more than 98% of the total pollution affecting marine water. It must be pointed out that an high level of emission is not directly related to an high impact in marine aquatic ecosystems. Normalized results (i.e. the emissions due to the considered scenarios weighted on the average level of emissions of one world inhabitant considering all human activities), reported in figures 14.5 and 14.6 essentially reflect the trends of standardized values of emission, on both hectare and energy basis. However, the gap between marine eco-toxicity and other indicators (fig. 14.5, 14.6) is more than 10 times lower than showed in standardized

Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

193

Figure  14.4  - Standardized emission levels of oil produced in kg of reference substance per GJ, for each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

Figure 14.5 - Normalized emission levels per ha in world inhabitants equivalent, for each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

194

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 14.6 - Normalized emission levels per GJ of oil produced in world inhabitants equivalent, for each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

results (fig. 14.3, 14.4); this is due to the high level of pollution determined by the average European inhabitant. It is worth noting that the low level of pollution due to cropping operations for all other indicator means a lower environmental impact of agriculture compared to other human activities. The characterization (i.e. the emissions of different scenarios weighed as a percentage of the most impacting scenario) showed different results on surface and energy basis. On a surface basis (figure 14.7), the most impacting scenario was sunflower, in all considered categories, and in general both annual crops (sunflower and soybean) showed similar results, the main difference between them probably imputable to the sunflower nitrogen requirement. All perennial crops showed significant environmental benefits with respect to annual ones (from 24 to 80% less load than sunflower), mostly due to the lack of tillage after the establishment year and the subsequent spreading of its input over the entire crop lifespan. Jatropha was clearly the lowest impacting crop in all considered categories, reflecting the generally lower input requirement for this crop.

Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

195

Figure 14.7 - Characterization of emission levels per ha as percentage of the most impacting scenario, in each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

On an energy basis (fig. 14.8), the most impacting scenario was still sunflower under all impact categories. However, the remaining scenarios show significant differences in comparison with the analysis on hectare basis. Soybean in fact shows emissions levels 40 to 60% lower than sunflower, although it must be pointed out that in this case 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: in comparison with sunflower, all perennial oil crops scored emission levels 72 to 90% lower. The ranking among perennial crops was quite different compared to the hectare-based analysis, as it was more affected by the yield level than by the inputs per unit surface. Indeed, oil palm, that gives the highest oil yield, was the least impacting crop in all categories, and Jatropha showed emission levels slightly higher than oil palm and coconut palm, in spite of a lower impact per ha. Single score analysis (figures 14.9 and 14.10), performed with the Ecoindicator 99 methodology, reflected the characterization analysis on hectare basis, where perennial crops showed clearly lower impact than annual ones, as well as on energy basis, where the high yielding crops performed better than low performing ones. It must be remembered that Ecopoints are a negative score representing an environmental load.

196

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 14.8 - Characterization of emission levels per GJ of oil produced, as percentage of the most impacting scenario, in each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

Figure 14.9 - Single score impacts (hectare basis) in Ecopoints measuring damages on human health, ecosystem quality and resource depletion. 1 Ecopoint = one thousandth of the annual environmental load per average European inhabitant.

Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

197

Figure 14.10 - Single scored impacts (GJ basis) in Ecopoints measuring damages on human health, ecosystem quality and resource depletion. 1 Ecopoint = one thousandth of the annual environmental load per average European inhabitant.

However, the low impact on ecosystem quality should be remarked, in spite of the high emission levels affecting marine eco-toxicity. This result confirms the scarce relationship between amount of emitted pollutants and consequent environmental effect. On the other hand, the relatively high impact on resource depletion in the single score analysis is in contrast with the low abiotic depletion found in the LCIA: this is due to the different evaluating system adopted in the two methods (substance equivalents in CML2 and energy spent for extraction in Ecoindicator 99). A sensitivity analysis was also performed in order to assess the influence of single sub-processes of each scenario, and no significant difference in the share of cropping operations over the total impacts was found among perennial crops and among annual ones. As an example, the analysis is carried out on a perennial (oil palm) and on an annual crop (sunflower), in order to indicate the most impacting steps in the cropping chain (fig. 14.11). The results in the annual study case indicate high levels of impact due to fertilization and tillage/sowing operations; the latter is even more impacting than fertilization on human toxicity, because of the high direct (i.e. at farm) fuel consumption. In the perennial study case, since establishment operations are spread over plant lifespan, the most impacting step is clearly represented by fertilization under all impact categories. Obviously, family farming systems (see Chapter 5 for cropping technique details), reducing mechanical cropping operations and fertilization inputs (due to lower expected yield), lead to lower environmental impacts,

198

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 14.11 - Share of emissions of different cropping steps for palm oil and sunflower, as percentage of the total emission per ha in each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

thus the impact per ha is clearly lower if compared with large scale farming systems (fig. 14.12). However, the impact per energy unit is not proportionally lower as that on hectare basis, because of the lower expected yield (fig. 14.13). In some impact categories (those mainly related to fertilization, such as Eutrophication and marine water eco-toxicity), the impact per unit energy results even higher in family farming than in large scale farming. As concerning the two inputs (soil tillage and fertilization) most affecting impact levels, some scenarios were compared in order to evaluate potential environmental benefits due to the reduction of agronomic inputs in soil management and plant nutrition. Sunflower “standard” scenario (i.e. large scale farming) was compared with another large scale scenar-

Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

199

Figure 14.12 - Characterization of emission levels per ha, for oil palm and sunflower cultivated in large scale farming systems versus family farming, as percentage of the most impacting scenario, in each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

Figure 14.13 - Characterization of emission levels per GJ, for oil palm and sunflower cultivated in large scale farming systems versus family farming, as percentage of the most impacting scenario, in each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

200

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 14.14 - Comparison of different input levels in sunflower in three farming systems: large scale farming with conventional tillage (standard scenario), with. minimum tillage, and organic family farming (no mechanization and chemical pesticides, and organic fertilizers replacing mineral ones). Characterization of emission levels per ha as percentage of the most impacting scenario, in each category. A-d = Abiotic depletion, GWP = Global Warming Potential, OLD = Ozone Layer Depletion, H-t = Human toxicity, FW-t = Fresh Water toxicity, MW-t = Marine Water toxicity, T-t = Terrestrial toxicity, Ac = Acidification, Eu = Eutrophication.

io at reduced input (minimum tillage), and with organic family farming (without mechanization, chemical pesticides and with organic fertilizers replacing mineral ones). The results (fig. 14.14) show that the largest environmental benefit was obtained with organic family farming (65 to 90% less than the reference scenario, depending on specific categories). Also a partial reduction of mechanization (minimum tillage) could significantly reduce the impact, but to a much lesser extent (15 to 25% depending on categories). Other crops (soybean and perennial crops) showed minor impact reductions with minimum tillage compared to conventional tillage in large scale farming (5 to 15%, depending on categories). On the other hand, the reduction in the emission due to substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic manure was substantially similar to that found in sunflower: in fact, environmental impact decreased 25 to 75% in organic family farming compared to large scale conventional farming). In conclusion, perennial oil crops show better performers than annual crops, at least in terms of environmental benefits. Among them, Jatropha represents the least impacting oil crop considering the inputs per hectare, while oil palm and coconut palm yield the least impacting energy unit.

Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

201

Tillage and chemical fertilization prove to be the highest-impacting inputs in agricultural chains; thus, to minimize environmental impact, minimum or no tillage techniques should be adopted whenever possible, especially in annual crops. Likewise, mineral fertilizers should be substituted by organic ones (manure, compost, slurries, etc.), sometimes deriving from by-products of oil extraction (e.g., the residual cakes). 14.3 Direct and Indirect Land-Use Change from Biofuels Regardless of the nature of the targets adopted at various levels (EU, US, etc), it is crucial that the emissions from all different fuels are properly accounted, including emissions from indirect land-use change (ILUC). The EU legislation admits that its biofuel policies have land-use implications. When public policies increase biofuel consumption, additional demand for agricultural commodities is created, which impacts on land conversion around the world, resulting in significant GHG emissions. With such a policy comes the responsibility to ensure that climate targets are achieved. Some biofuel policies (EU, but also those of some developing countries such as Mozambique) include safeguards―in the form of “sustainability criteria”–that are supposed to prevent conversion of forests and other natural areas for the purpose of producing biofuels directly on the converted land. This occurrence is called direct land-use change and it should be prevented through robust implementation of these criteria in producing countries. But even if safeguards against direct land use change were proven effective, the pressure on land arising from the 10% target in the EU would still be driving land conversion indirectly. Biofuel production would take place on existing agricultural croplands, rather than on newly deforested or converted natural areas, with those agricultural croplands lost to biofuel production moving into forests and other natural areas. This occurrence is called indirect land-use change. Existing policies do not discourage this practice, increasing the risk of deforestation and biodiversity loss. In addition to these climate consequences, ILUC holds implications for other values, namely biodiversity, ecosystem services, human rights, and sustainable development. Numerous scientific publications and researches from the European Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC 2008, 2010), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2008), the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA, 2008) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP, 2009), to name a few, indicate that GHG emissions caused by ILUC are substantial and will most likely outweigh any savings

202

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

from biofuel usage (T&E, 2010). Indeed, the Commission’s own studies underscore that ILUC emissions cannot be ignored lest EU biofuel policies become a net contributor to climate change.

Indirect Land Use Change and Biofuels Estimates for emissions associated with ILUC mostly take into account the on-off release of GHGs associated with the change of land use. As such, they do not take into account the additional sources of GHG emissions listed below, that would be associated with expanded and more intensified cultivation of crops: - there is no allowance made for any sequestration foreseen in the longer term by removal of a previous land cover, which might be significant in the case of young forest converted into arable land; - estimates for ILUC often do not take into account that much land brought into arable use will likely be less suited to cultivation than the existing area and therefore give lower yields for a given level of inputs, hence emissions from cultivation may be higher than the average; and - all the ILUC models assume, in addition to land use change, a certain proportion of intensification of existing agricultural production, which in turn is anticipated to lead to higher GHG emissions per ton of crop harvested. This would, for example, be associated with use of nitrogen rich fertilizers or loss of soil organic matter during ongoing cultivation. GHG emissions associated with land use change are the consequence of a loss of carbon from soil and pre-existing biomass. They represent an on-off ‘hit’ of emissions associated with that change of land status. 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. (Bowyer, 2010) 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–and 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. Often considered “nice to have,” biodiversity is actually essential for our continued existence on this planet. Without biodiversity many of the ecosystems and their services will collapse. Ecosystem-based adaptation has been highlighted as a win-win strategy because it “can be cost-effective and generate social, economic and cultural co-benefits and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity” (SCBd, 2009). If ecosystems have been degraded or lost because of increased pressure from biofuel policies, their assistance in adaptation is also lost.

Environmental Impact of Oil Crops and Biofuels

203

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 (Lankoski and Ollikainen, 2011). Furthermore, increased demand for biofuels also has social impacts. The latest OECd-FAO Agricultural Outlook concludes that food prices could rise by 40% by 2019, partly because of the increasing demand for biofuels. In 2019, 16% of the global production of vegetable oils would be used for biofuels, which is described as a conservative estimate (OECd, 2010). With the demand for food also on the rise, conflicts over forests, land boundaries, and land-use will be heating up. And indeed tensions are already rising: the World Bank recently warned that EU and US biofuel policies have already resulted in land-grabbing. Investors around the world have begun a land rush in African and other developing regions of the world, exploiting areas that had been previously used for food. In this context, it is important to underscore an inconvenient, but not unsurprising, dilemma: modelling studies carried out for the Commission predict that increased biofuel demand leads to either substantial land-use change or substantial food-price increases. Economic theory shows that increased demand can be met either by increased supply, which leads to ILUC, or by higher prices. Commission analysis systematically ignores the fact that food price increases leading to lower consumption, which most models show, will not have an even effect but will hit hardest the most vulnerable and food insecure populations. One approach to meet the need for increased supply is to increase productivity–meaning that demand can be met by growing more on the same land–or the use of degraded or marginal land. This could limit both ILUC and food price increases. Possible increases in GHG emissions associated with agricultural improvements are also included, although the largest source of crop yield increase per unit land used is the breeding of new varieties at no extra environmental load. Another way of limiting ILUC consequences would be shifting to second generation biofuels, which are now on the eve of diffusion in advanced countries: it is calculated that the pay back time to compensate for the higher emissions due to ILUC would reduce from 22-27 years of 1st generation biofuels to 0-2 years of 2nd generation ones (Havlík et al., 2010).

15 Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework1

«Some take the position that – biofuels are bad because they believe they compete with food production and (to some extent) allow our transportdriven lifestyles to continue. Our view has been that the scale of the challenges we face, from climate change to food security and energy security, requires us to consider all possible approaches to their resolution, one of these being the use of biofuels for transport» (NCB, 2011, p.1).

Ethical Framework: Overview A number of overlapping moral values form the basis of an ethical framework that can inform society‘s approach towards biofuels. These are: rights and global justice; solidarity and the common good; and stewardship, sustainability and intergenerational equity. From these values we derive six Ethical Principles which can be used to evaluate biofuels development and guide policy making. These Principles are as follows: i. Biofuels development should not be at the expense of people‘s essential rights (including access to sufficient food and water, health rights, work rights and land entitlements). ii. Biofuels should be environmentally sustainable. iii. Biofuels should contribute to a net reduction of total greenhouse gas emissions and not exacerbate global climate change. iv. Biofuels should develop in accordance with trade principles that are fair and recognise the rights of people to just reward (including labour rights and intellectual property rights). v. Costs and benefits of biofuels should be distributed in an equitable way.

1 This section is entirely based on Nuffield Council on Bioethics (April 2011), Biofuels: ethical issues.

João José Fernandes and José Luís Monteiro, OIKOS, Portugal

206

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

We then consider whether there may in some cases be a duty to develop biofuels. To address this we propose a sixth Principle: vi. If the first five Principles are respected and if biofuels can play a crucial role in mitigating dangerous climate change then, depending on additional key considerations, there is a duty to develop such biofuels. These additional key considerations are: absolute cost; alternative energy sources; opportunity costs; the existing degree of uncertainty; irreversibility; degree of participation; and the overarching notion of proportionate governance. We believe that these Ethical Principles should guide any policy making in the field of biofuels – and indeed, they should be applied to comparable other technologies. As for their application, we urge policy makers and other stakeholders to use the Ethical Principles as a benchmark when evaluating technology and policy development and to make sure that serious consideration has been given to relevant aspects before proceeding. Any such decisions will be difficult under given circumstances of uncertainty, and should be made in a procedurally fair way – one that is transparent and includes all relevant stakeholders. There are also considerations of feasibility. A comprehensive ethical appraisal of biofuels technologies and policies needs to consider the ethical framework in the light of what is practical. Box 15.1 - Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework. Source: Adapted from NCB, 2011, Box 4.1, p. 64.

15.1 Moral values To address the international impact of biofuels production and the uncertainty surrounding their attendant benefits and burdens, the ethical framework developed by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB, 2011) starts by identifying some relevant moral values. These provide the framework and moral vocabulary from which we develop six Principles. 15.1.1  Human rights When considering the moral standards against which to test biofuels, some will appeal to a set of human rights, derived from the dignity and moral status of human beings. These are, for example, reflected in the Universal declaration of Human Rights (UdHR, 1948) and in the European Convention on Human Rights2. There are a number of different considThe European Convention on Human Rights sets out a number of rights, for example those to: freedom from slavery; life and liberty; protection of property; privacy; and freedom from discrimination. UdHR also includes the right to work and to health (including access to food). 2

Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework



207

erations which provide support for human rights. First, there are powerful ‘deontological’ or principled arguments for human rights. These appeal to the Kantian ideal that people should treat all others with respect and never merely as means to an end, and they argue that a morality of human rights is needed to show proper respect for people’s moral status and dignity (Kamm, 2007). In addition to this, there are also powerful ‘teleological’ or consequential arguments for human rights. These focus on the way that rights protect vital interests. From a teleological perspective, human rights provide the necessary basis for each person to attain a decent standard of living (Buchanan, 2004). We take international human rights as establishing a moral minimum below which the treatment of people should not fall (Shue, 1996). This holds particularly for those human rights which are essential conditions for at least a decent opportunity for human flourishing. These can be seen as ‘negative rights’,3 (Hohfeld, 1919) which oblige others to refrain from acting in ways that arbitrarily threaten their life, impose serious threats to their health and well-being, or undermine their ability to subsist (Pogge, 2008). Human rights thus lead to constraints4 (Nozick, 1974) which may not be crossed and which apply universally. This is particularly relevant to Principle 1 as described below. Human rights are universally enjoyed by all human beings, no matter the state or nation to which they belong. Thus, they can be seen as capturing one universal, albeit minimal, element of the concept of global justice. They transcend state borders and must be respected equally everywhere in the world. Biofuels clearly have international implications in that many companies developing them will be using land, water and labour in one country (and not necessarily their own country) that will produce fuel to be used elsewhere. At a minimum, states have a duty to respect human rights, requiring that they design regulatory frameworks to ensure that the development of biofuels does not violate human rights, giving equal weight to the human rights of citizens and non-citizens. Where tensions arise, the duty on states is to give maximum effect to the range of rights at issue, taking into account the nature and extent of the impact on people’s rights and lives. No claim should disproportionately affect the human rights of another. In political philosophy, positive rights are often defined as those rights which permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights are those which permit or oblige inaction. Likewise, the notion of positive and negative rights may be applied to either liberty rights or claim rights, either permitting one to act or refrain from acting, or obliging others to act or refrain from acting. 4 The term ‘side constraint’ has been coined by Robert Nozick (Nozick, 1974). Nozick asserts that the side-constraint view forbids the violation of moral constraints in the pursuit of a goal. 3

208

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

It can be argued, therefore, that biofuels production breaches basic human rights when it endangers local food security or displaces local populations from the land they depend on for their daily subsistence. Similarly, biofuels production may become a human rights issue when it threatens our environmental security through the destruction or degradation of ecosystems and natural resources which are critical to the health and subsistence of people (Hayward, 2005). It should be noted that, in keeping with the idea of overlapping consensus, invoking human rights to support our Ethical Principles does not mean that we adopt an exclusively human rights-based approach to the evaluation of biofuels technology, or, as some have done, to the whole field of bioethics (Ashcroft, 2008). Mainly through their legal dimension, human rights serve very well to specify some minimum moral conditions which must be met and which are set out under Principle 1, and inform Principle 2. Indeed, the legal framework offers means and tools for dealing with potential conflicts with human rights conditions. However, in many cases, these conditions are also supported by other moral values. 15.1.2  Solidarity and the common good Human rights are only one of several approaches that seek to protect individuals, particularly those who are vulnerable, or address issues of fairness. Others might be framed in terms of one’s own moral duty, or in terms of more extensive duties and responsibilities owed to every person in modern societies that go beyond global protection of minimum human rights. Values such as solidarity focus more on the importance of protecting individuals as members of groups or populations. Solidarity often leads to similar prescriptions to those that flow from a commitment to rights, but it differs importantly in that it seeks to go beyond a language of ‘entitlements’ and emphasises a shared commitment to the good of all. In the context of biofuels, the value of solidarity directs ethical attention to the most vulnerable people within societies, reminding us that we have a ‘shared humanity’, a ‘shared life’ and that those who are most vulnerable should be given special attention. For biofuels development, the value of solidarity thus requires countries or companies to ensure just reward, that benefits are shared fairly and that burdens are not laid upon the most vulnerable in society. If a particular form of biofuel could only be developed at (say) the expense of vulnerable people in developing countries then, however much it might contribute to energy needs in other countries, it should not be developed. Like human rights, solidarity thus also underpins the development of moral limits to the implementation of biofuels.

Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework

209

It is widely recognised across societies and cultures that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industry and from land and forest degradation are having dangerously negative effects on the environment. If there is an emerging worldwide consensus on this then it might be possible to get agreement on minimum common social goods, encompassing food security, energy security and environmental security. These factors, along with the ecosystem services that support human well-being can be seen as the minimum common social goods necessary for human life and flourishing. The value of the common good encourages both scientists and politicians to strive for effective measures, which might include biofuels, to protect these assets across societies and generations. This provides another justification to draw several Ethical Principles that we will present below. A common good perspective also underlines the urgency of the debate about biofuels. Although there are justifiable criticisms of some of the consequences of biofuels and fears about the possible consequences of new ones, the status quo involving ever increasing use of fossil fuels also does not accord with a common good perspective. doing nothing amounts to doing something extremely damaging and finding other ways of securing essential energy needs might be required to realise the common good. 15.1.3  Sustainability, stewardship and intergenerational justice Stewardship and sustainability generate obligations to those elements of the natural world that are not of immediate material benefit to people, particularly where the interests of future generations are involved. Sustainability implies the requirement to sustain some entity or value over time. Considering what it is that should be sustained, our focus here is primarily on environmental sustainability, calling for ―the sustaining into the future of some aspect of the natural environment (dobson, 1998). Protection of the natural world and environmental security are vital for human life, which depends on the preservation of many benefits (ecosystem services) provided by the environment (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005). A key issue inherent in the value of sustainability is a commitment to intergenerational justice and the obligations of each generation to those that follow them. A sustainable approach to biofuels development thus requires that we do not deplete the world’s natural resources without regard to the legitimate interests of future generations. The concept of environmental sustainability thus leads to the idea of stewardship. Sustainability requires us to act as stewards of the natural world, with legitimate rights to use it but also with obligations to leave it in a fit state for future genera-

210

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

tions. There is thus some overlap with claims that humans – including future generations – have rights to environmental sustainability and security, and with the obligation to protect the common good. In the context, we take stewardship to mean that governments and other stakeholders have an obligation to ensure that the natural world and its resources are sufficiently protected, both for current and for future generations. Standards of sustainability are a way to make sure such stewardship is exercised properly, because they aim to protect important ecosystem resources. We therefore conclude that stewardship can be seen as embodying the obligation to ensure that sustainability standards are adhered to. In addition to our stewardship responsibilities in the present, we need to ask what obligations current generations owe to future generations with respect to any beneficial or harmful effects of biofuels. 15.1.4  A note on precautionary approaches Risks and benefits of biofuels are often discussed in terms of ‘the precautionary principle’ or ‘a precautionary approach’5. The idea of carefully evaluating risks and benefits case-by-case and taking account of the relative costs of consequences flowing from particular developments – which could be described as a comparative or moderate version of the precautionary approach – underlies the proposed methodology by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB). However, their framework goes considerably beyond any blanket approach to precaution, suggesting a set of firm Ethical Principles to give more direction to policy makers and other stakeholders regarding what to do in situations of ex ante uncertainty than would many of the precautionary approaches alone. Whereas some precautionary approaches do little beyond stressing the need for careful analysis of the attendant risks and benefits, the Principles provide concrete guidance about standards to be supported and actions to be avoided. In sum, the Ethical Principles proposed by the NCB, replace the formal and therefore unspecific criteria of many precautionary approaches with substantive and firm guidance on which lines not to cross. In this way, they are consonant with some recent, well-developed precautionary approaches. For instructive discussions of different interpretations of the precautionary principle, see for example: Weiner (2007), Precaution, in The Oxford handbook of international environmental law, Bodansky, Brunnée, Hey (Editors) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 597-612; Gardiner (2006), A core precautionary principle Journal of Political Philosophy 14: 33-60; Manson (2002), Formulating the precautionary principle Environmental Ethics 24: 263-74. 5

Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework

211

15.2 Ethical biofuels: six Principles Common theme emerges from the discussion of the moral values as laid out above: they all emphasise that there are certain moral ‘red lines’ which should not be crossed by biofuels production. To apply this to biofuels production, the recent report issued by the NCB (NCB, 2011) developed six practical Principles. The first five Principles can be used for the practical implementation of biofuels development, while the sixth provides a guideline for future developments. It should be noted that the Ethical Principles are presented in a strong and aspirational way, as an ethical ideal. Policy makers are urged to use them in order to make sure that all important ethical considerations have been given their due in the decision-making process. There might be cases in which trying to satisfy one Principle might compromise one or more other Principles. For example, furthering equitable development through promoting biofuels on a local scale in developing countries (Principle 5) could potentially come into conflict with the need to protect the environment (Principle 2), because such local production might encroach on land with high biodiversity. In such cases, it is essential that appropriate policies and regulations are developed in order to ensure that a particular technology which might have been developed specifically to avoid violating a particular Ethical Principle does not come at the cost of compromising other ones. Moreover, decision makers need to ensure that requirements of procedural justice are adhered to, i.e. that relevant stakeholders are included in the decision-making process and that decisions are made in a transparent and accountable fashion and are based on reasons which are deemed to be rational and acceptable by all parties involved. The NCB recommends that policy makers and other stakeholders should use the Ethical Principles as a benchmark when evaluating biofuels technology and policy development and always making sure that serious consideration has been given to relevant aspects before proceeding. The proposed principles are briefly described below. Principle 1: Human rights Biofuels development should not be at the expense of people’s essential rights (including access to sufficient food and water, health rights, work rights and land entitlements) Access to a reasonable standard of living, with sufficient nutritious food and enough fresh drinking water, is widely recognised as one of the basic human rights (UdHR, 1948). Based on the values of solidarity and the common good, it follows that there is a particular obligation to ensure ac-

212

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

cess to sufficient nutrition for vulnerable populations, in particular those in developing countries. Even if biofuels production does not contribute to food shortages in the countries where it is used, some steps in the production process may take place in developing countries and may endanger food security there, for example by replacing food crops that would have otherwise been consumed by a local population. Water pollution can occur in biofuels production and some may also need large quantities of water. In order not to violate basic human rights, and in accordance with the requirements of protecting the vulnerable, biofuels production steps should be carefully evaluated for existing or potential future impacts on food security, access to water and water quality. The same holds for the import of biofuels. A similar argument can be made regarding people’s health, which is essential to an adequate standard of living. This has been recognised as an important human right and can also be endorsed from the perspective of a common good. Solidarity again encourages particular attention to vulnerable populations. It follows that biofuels production should not negatively affect people’s health, either through unacceptable working conditions (including inappropriately long hours, or dangerous or unsafe/unhealthy working conditions) in agriculture or processing facilities, or by polluting local land, air and water. Finally, both respecting land entitlements and protecting against arbitrary, forceful removal from land (UdHR, 1948, art 7) – even where a formal title does not exist – have been recognised as a basic human right, and involuntary removal from land when a land title exists is an infringement of this right. Nor is it acceptable to buy land from people who lack proper information about the value of their land. This is relevant to biofuels production, which is expected to take place increasingly in developing countries. A right to access to land for subsistence can be defended from a variety of different viewpoints. Both solidarity and a human rights perspective justify safeguards against populations losing the land they have lived on without adequate compensation. People have strong economic, cultural and historic ties to their land and these must be respected through just cooperation between energy companies and legitimate land holders. It is therefore wrong for members of other countries to deal with anyone other than the legitimate owners of the land and the natural resource employed in the production of biofuels6. 6 The suggestion here is in part prompted by: United Nations (2009) Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, available at: http://www.kimberleyprocess.com/documents/basic_core_ documents_en.html (concerning the conditions for just acquisition of diamonds). See also Thomas Pogge’s discussion of the “resource privilege” in: Pogge (2008), World poverty and human rights: cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Polity), pp. 118-121; and Leif Wenar’s discussion in:Wenar (2008), Property rights and the resource curse Philosophy & Public Affairs 36: 2–32.

Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework

213

Principle 2: Environmental sustainability Biofuels should be environmentally sustainable There is a case for the sustainable use of natural resources, and countries have an obligation to act as stewards in order to make sure that minimum sustainability standards are adhered to. Moreover, current generations have a responsibility to ensure that their successors have access to resources for a sufficient standard of living. This means that future generations should inherit a world with enough food and water and clean air as well as intact important ecosystem services. It follows that biofuels production should adhere to sustainability criteria governing the careful use of water, land, and other natural resources. Biofuels should not compromise environmental sustainability, cause further declines amongst the world’s biodiversity and threatened species, or further degrade important natural ecosystems, such as tropical forests. Beyond adhering to sustainability standards, it is perhaps unrealistic to require that biofuels production does not lead to any harm to environmental sustainability. In other words we should not demand perfection, but we should require that biofuels do better – or significantly better – than fossil fuels with respect to environmental protection, and that they respect sustainability standards. Principle 3: Climate change Biofuels should contribute to a net reduction of total greenhouse gas emissions and not exacerbate global climate change All the moral values developed above underpin the need to alleviate climate change: – the human rights and global justice perspective, because climate change threatens the livelihood, subsistence, health and well-being of populations, in particular in the developing world7; – solidarity and the common good, because as a global phenomenon with potentially disastrous consequences for the whole world, climate For an account of how climate change jeopardises human rights to life, health, food and water, see: Caney S. (2009), Climate change, human rights and moral thresholds, in Human rights and climate change, Humphreys (Editor) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 69-90. See also: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2009) Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the relationship between climate change and human rights (A/HRC/10/61), available at: http:// daccess-ddsny. 7

214

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

change affects the interests of all of humankind, and there is a particular obligation to protect vulnerable populations from its negative effects; and – sustainability and stewardship, because climate change endangers many of the world’s natural resources and may threaten life on the planet for future generations. The case for climate change mitigation within this framework is strong, and this carries over to the evaluation of biofuels. There is a ‘negative’ requirement not to harm people through climate change effects by consuming energy via the introduction of biofuels. Hence, a biofuels technology is only acceptable if it does not exacerbate climate change, for example as determined by GHG emissions. The common good perspective, moreover, calls for more demanding results: biofuels should lead to net GHG emissions savings. Principle 4: Just reward Biofuels should develop in accordance with trade principles that are fair and recognise the rights of people to just reward (including labour rights and intellectual property rights) An important aspect of biofuels is the reward that accrues to people in their production. In considering the permissibility of biofuels, it is necessary to establish that those involved with the production of biofuels are not denied a just reward. This is relevant in two areas: just compensation for work; and, particularly for the new approaches, intellectual property rights (IPRs). Article 23.3 of the UdHR requires that everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration, ensuring an existence worthy of human dignity. The values of solidarity and common good imply that contributing towards knowledge about biofuels production can be seen as contributing to the common good of striving for climate change mitigation and energy security. If we are to find ways to lower GHG emissions while securing energy demands, we will need to advance our knowledge about suitable technologies to eventually replace those based on fossil fuels. Solidarity demands that such knowledge be shared in order to support the most vulnerable. On the other hand, companies will not be able to make the very large investments needed to convert knowledge into practical benefits unless they can be assured of a reasonable period of exclusivity in which to reap sufficient rewards. It has been argued that the disclosure of knowledge and the availability of a new product is the way this knowledge is shared and provides the benefit to society. In order to give full effect to Principle 4, it is important to recognise that while the existence of IPRs can provide a reward for innovation, it is the exercise of IPRs that can ensure the knowledge is shared and thus fully meet the requirements of Principle 4.

Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework

215

As another dimension, those who promote the production of biofuels are under a responsibility to exercise due care when encouraging the economically vulnerable to convert land and natural resources for use in biofuels production. In particular, it is important not to encourage extensive changes in developing countries, only to decide shortly thereafter not to purchase such biofuels, for example because of abrupt changes in policy in the developed world. Principle 5: Equitable costs and benefits Costs and benefits of biofuels should be distributed in an equitable way The potential benefits associated with future biofuels may, however, go far beyond just reward for the work and knowledge involved in the production of biofuels (Principle 4). There may be other more general benefits that can potentially be shared with a wider range of people. The values of solidarity and the common good call for the protection of the vulnerable, and a commitment to distributive justice similarly calls for the fair distribution of such benefits. If biofuels do yield benefits either to i) energy security, ii) enabling people to meet their responsibilities to mitigate climate change, iii) increased economic development/revenue/jobs, or iv) other benefits, then what is a fair way to share these benefits? Bringing in the concept of global justice, how should the benefits be distributed among members of developed countries and developing countries? We propose the following two rules: – (Rule 1) Symmetry between benefits and harms: benefits should be allocated to people in proportion to the extent to which the generation of biofuels has adversely affected their interests or exposed them to risk, such as through pollution, higher food prices (where clearly attributable) or changes in landscapes and livelihoods. – (Rule 2) Benefit sharing to further Millennium development Goals: the Member States of the United Nations have pledged to meet eight Millennium development Goals. Where biofuels provide a sustainable form of transport fuel and where they bring opportunities for development then – in light of the ideas of the common good and global justice – there is a case for incentivising the production of biofuels so that the production process shares the benefits in ways that further these goals. These rules are helpful in considering what benefits and burdens might arise, and how they should be distributed. Beyond Principles 1-5: is there a duty to develop biofuels? An ethical evaluation of any technology tends to focus on harms that the technology brings or might bring to populations or natural resources,

216

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

and whether some of these harms make it unjustifiable to pursue the technology (first “do no harm”). This is reflected in the Ethical Principles of this framework, of which the first three are the strongest. A biofuels technology or policy tested against Principles 1-5 could come out somewhere within a wide range. It could clearly violate one or several Principles, and thus should not be pursued. It could also violate one or several Principles, but in ways that could be amended and managed through policy. Finally, a biofuels policy or technology could satisfy all Principles. In the latter cases, a biofuels policy or technology is morally permissible. But might there be a duty to develop biofuels? Principle 6: Duty? If the first five Principles are respected and if biofuels can play a crucial role in mitigating dangerous climate change then, depending on additional key considerations, there is a duty to develop such biofuels Once the first ‘do no harm’ step of the ethical evaluation has been undertaken and safeguards have been developed, it is important to consider whether there may be a duty to promote any biofuels. The benefits of biofuels production – and the need to meet certain pressing moral objectives, most notably averting dangerous climate change – may be such that it becomes a responsibility to consider the development of a technology in order to reap its benefits. The main expected benefits of biofuels production have been described in earlier chapters, and they relate to the three main drivers: i) climate change mitigation; ii) energy security; and iii) economic, rural and/or agricultural development. In light of climate change’s potentially catastrophic effects on the enjoyment of individual human rights and its violation of the ideals of the common good, there is an ethical imperative to prevent dangerous climate change. Where a biofuels technology can help realise the pressing need to mitigate dangerous climate change then it may be that there is a duty to promote such biofuels. Firstly, Ethical Principles 1-5 should be met. Secondly, whether there is such a duty depends on a number of additional key considerations. These are: a) the absolute cost consideration: is the cost of developing biofuels too great? Even where a biofuels technology brings benefits and enables humans to meet pressing ethical objectives, this does not lead to a duty to

Biofuels: Towards an Ethical Framework

217

develop such biofuels (and for state investment in it) if the costs (which might be direct financial costs or opportunity costs) incurred are out of all proportion to the benefits generated. Such costs could entail greater harms, outweighing the benefits of biofuels. This thought does not preclude considerable financial investment, but it does insist that this can be justified only if the resulting benefits are proportionate to the cost. b) the alternative energy sources consideration: are there other energy technologies which can also help realise the goal of mitigating climate change and which do so more effectively (e.g. they involve greater reductions in GHG emissions for a similar or lower cost)? There are other potential energy sources for road transport (e.g. the production of hydrogen or electricity from low carbon technologies such as geothermal, solar photovoltaic, hydroelectric, tidal, wind, etc.). There are also possibilities for increasing energy efficiency of existing energy sources for transport. decisions about biofuels have to be taken in the light of these other options (and their merits and demerits) and what would be the best policy mix. This could effectively mean that biofuels may not be simply an alternative to other ways of achieving low carbon transport, but that they may be deployed as part of a portfolio in many countries which could also include other vectors such as electricity, hydrogen, etc. c) the opportunity cost consideration: might the resources used in biofuels production (such as biomass) be required in order to realise some more pressing ethical imperative, such as, for example, bioenergy to meet other fundamental needs in a climate-protecting way? Biomass may be used for heating and cooking and these needs must also be borne in mind when considering whether to develop biofuels production. d) the uncertainty consideration: it is important to recognise that there is likely to be great uncertainty about the technologies and any future developments, for example regarding full life cycle assessment outcomes, costs of scaling up, and social impacts. This suggests that, rather than relying on a single snapshot of the potential of technologies, their likely costs, alternative uses of biomass and alternative energy sources, it is important to review and monitor each of these factors on a continuing basis. e) the irreversibility consideration: it is also important to be aware of the possibility, and dangers, of setting in process irreversible policy decisions. There is, thus, a need to guard against implementing an irreversible set of commitments that involve a sub-optimal use of biomass and/or alternative energy sources. Again, this implies a need for continuing monitoring of decisions and policies. f) the participation consideration: while assessing whether and how these conditions apply, a commitment to procedural justice demands sufficient inclusion of relevant voices in agenda setting and policy forma-

218

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

tion. For example, those directly affected by biofuels production should be heard regarding their concerns about local impacts and potential negative side effects. g) the overarching “proportionate governance” consideration: the ‘one size fits all’ approaches to policy are not successful in complex areas. Instead, policy needs to be symmetrical and proportionate to the risks and benefits to individuals and society, allowing for different applications depending on the context. Where biofuels honour the first five Principles, and where they enable society to realise its overarching duty to mitigate dangerous climate change in ways that meet the additional considerations, there is, to that extent, a duty to develop the production of biofuels. However, this raises the question of who then would bear the duty to develop biofuels. In line with the commitment to human rights and to the ideals of solidarity and the common good, we can affirm that the burden should not be borne by the least advantaged and most vulnerable, but should instead be borne according to ability to pay. Those with the greatest ability to pay should bear the lion’s share of the burden. Second, and in addition to this, those who have used up a greater share of fossil fuels have a responsibility to act so that others – current and future – have alternative energy sources (including possibly biofuels) available to them. In short, the polluter should pay.8 Ascertaining when Principle 6 applies will require a case-by-case examination in the light of a number of practical and scientific considerations. Such a judgment is inherently complex as it must also consider issues surrounding the scale of production that is appropriate, the need to spend resources effectively and carefully, and the fact that there are both alternative ways to generate energy and alternative uses of a particular feedstock which might be more advantageous than its use as a biofuels feedstock.

This could be limited, as has been done with climate change policy, to the years following 1990, in order to avoid complex issues around retrospective compensation for past pollution. 8

16 Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies1

16.1 Bioenergy: Policy Coherence and Integration The challenge for bioenergy is to be a competitive substitute, in terms of availability, efficiency, sustainability and price, for oil (mainly for liquid fuel for transport), and coal and gas (for heat and power generation), while being sustainable on the environmental, social, economic and climate dimensions. As emphasized by the International Risk Governance Council, based in Geneva (IRGC, 2008), the development of sustainable bioenergy policies requires the resolution of important trade-offs between: Energy vs. food; Land used for energy vs. for food, forestry, wilderness and other ecosystem services, industrial or residential uses, and leisure; Energy security and supply vs. climate change mitigation; Short-term vs. long-term; and Competing interests at the global, national and local levels. Bioenergy is at the intersection of many policies and a broad range of political, economic, environmental and social interests. It raises questions concerning the environment, agricultural production, technological capabilities, energy needs, climate change, rural development, international trade and poverty alleviation, among many others. Therefore, bioenergy policies need to be carefully coordinated with these other policies and, particularly, with those for agriculture, transport, environment, energy, population, land-use planning, economic development, trade and fiscal policy. Bioenergy policies should also be aligned 1 This section is adapted from the International Risk Governance Council policy brief, published in 2008. See reference IRGC, 2008.

João José Fernandes and José Luís Monteiro, OIKOS, Portugal

220

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

(policy coherence) with the goals of rural development as well as those of sustainable development. Bioenergy policies need integration of global, regional, national and local levels. Most of the current discussions and policy decisions on bioenergy focus on biofuels for transportation and are focused on single countries (e.g. Brazil, the US) or regions (e.g. the EU). However, sub-national (local) situations require that national policies be developed on a bottomup basis, to account for the variety of different local contexts. National policies need flexibility in their local implementation. On the other hand, many of the associated risks have global implications and therefore can only be approached from a global perspective, requiring international cooperation, particularly in assuring the sustainability of international trade, if bioenergy is to play a role in achieving the global goals of sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Bioenergy policies need to result from a multi-stakeholder approach. Intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the World Trade Organization (WTO), the EU, national and regional governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGO), must all be part of a multi-stakeholder collaboration leading to the development of sustainable bioenergy policies, regulations and standards. 16.2 Bioenergy: Opportunities and Risks 16.2.1  Opportunities  There is no doubt that, under the appropriate conditions, bioenergy can contribute to important global needs such as enhancing energy security, reducing GHG emissions, and, particularly in developing countries, promoting sustainable rural development. In particular, biofuels can help compensate for the oil price increase, avoiding many economic and social problems that unaffordable oil prices would generate. However, bioenergy is just one way to meet these needs and it has value to society only if the benefits it provides exceed its costs, including the opportunity cost of its development, in the long term. Bioenergy production provides numerous opportunities, such as: Improved energy security Local production and use of bioenergy reduces the level of dependence on conventional energy imports and thereby increases the diversity and security of energy supply. One reason for the increase in the production of

Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies

221

biofuels in Brazil and the US is that it is a substitute for imported oil. This can help reduce demand for – and the price of – crude oil, and enhance energy self-sufficiency. Biofuels are one of a number of possible substitutes for conventional crude oil, and it is likely that their environmental impact will be less than other plausible alternatives, such as coal to liquids, tar sands, oil shale, and coal-based hydrogen. Rural economic, energy and development opportunities Bioenergy offers opportunities for growth of the agricultural and forestry sectors. developing bioenergy may lead to increased demand for locally-grown feedstocks (both agricultural and forestry), which would increase utilisation of agricultural land, promote investment in forestry and agriculture and create jobs. Increased demand would have a positive effect on forestry and agriculture by adding value to traditional crops and giving farmers the choice to grow crops for food or fuel markets and to sell surpluses or crops that do not meet the requirements for food or timber markets. These opportunities may be greatest in developing countries, where other potential benefits include off-grid electrification in rural areas and health benefits (for example, from improved indoor air quality through the use of cleaner fuels and efficient stoves), thereby reducing poverty. Much depends on the way that biofuels are developed and, specifically, on who are expected to be the major beneficiaries. Biofuels can help the rural poor, but only if they are specifically designed and managed to do so. Environmental improvement GHG emissions from the transport, electricity and heating sectors can be reduced by replacing some fossil fuels with bioenergy. The use of more efficient and modern bioenergy sources could also reduce pressure on forests in developing countries. International trade Sugar cane is by far the most productive of the energy/biomass crops. Australia, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico and Thailand are amongst countries seeking to expand their exports, and Brazil is negotiating with these countries to improve production through using industrial biotechnology in growing and producing ethanol. Economically and environmentally beneficial use of waste organic matter Waste biomass, including MSW, which would otherwise require costly disposal or treatment, can be efficiently used to produce bioenergy and other by-products. For example, in Sweden, organic waste from households, res-

222

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

taurants, grocery shops, sewage, wastewater treatment plants and agriculture is being used to produce biogas for heating, cooking and electricity. Technological advancement The development of bioenergy is a catalyst for research and development of technological innovation, which may spread to a range of broader applications. 16.2.2  Risks Many of the risks associated with bioenergy are interlinked and vary in scale, probability and impact, depending on the location, technology and scale of bioenergy operation. Environmental and Climate Risks Biodiversity and Ecossystem Services Feedstocks for liquid fuels are, currently, generally grown as intensive monocultures (as is the case for many important food crops). The conversion of extensive agricultural systems and natural habitats such as grasslands and tropical forests into intensive monocultures is one of the major threats to biodiversity. Many non-native feedstocks are also potentially invasive and may have negative impacts on ecosystems if they escape cultivation (GISP, 2007). With biodiversity a major factor in adapting to climate change, the risks to biodiversity introduced by the development of bioenergy production become crucial. Ecosystem services such as soil regeneration, carbon sequestration, natural chemical cycles, pollination and protection against flood may be affected. Water quantity and quality Many row crops require significant levels of agrochemicals and, in some regions, irrigation, which can pollute and deplete water resources. Pollution from excess agricultural fertilisers may damage areas far beyond the zone of cultivation, for example through marine eutrophication. Large amounts of water are also required in processing bioethanol and biodiesel. Soil erosion and degradation Monocultures, especially of arable crops requiring annual tillage, are typically associated with high rates of soil erosion. Some crops, such as maize, also deplete soil nutrients more rapidly than others (for example

Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies

223

soybeans, sugar cane or sweet sorghum) and require energy-intensive fertilisers to maintain year-on-year yields. Direct and indirect impacts of land-use change (D+ILUC): “displacement effects” The increased cultivation of certain crops as biofuel feedstocks can displace other food crops and increase global prices of these crops. This may result in the clearing of wilderness land, forest and grassland elsewhere (lands which would normally act as a carbon store or sink) in order to grow these displaced and increasingly profitable crops. Such land-use changes can result in significant GHG emissions that are not being included in conventional Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and render uncertain the net carbon benefit of bioenergy use. Greenhouse gas emissions GHG savings of the various potential biofuels depend very much on which crops are grown, how they are converted and how the fuel is used. Air pollution The sugar cane industry, especially in developing countries, routinely carries out pre-harvest burning of cane fields to prepare the crop for handcutting. Bioethanol production is increasing the land area devoted to sugar cane. The burning causes air pollution, which has been linked to increased incidence of respiratory illnesses. Genetically modified hybridisation May raise concerns related to cross-pollination, hybridisation, and other potential impacts on biodiversity such as pest resistance and disruption of ecological food chains. Social Risks Food Security The diversion of edible crops from food markets to bioenergy production has already resulted in increased competition for agricultural land and led to concerns about impacts on food prices. If not properly managed globally, additional expansion of the use of agricultural crops for bioenergy could further worsen global food security, which is already at risk due to population and consumption growth requiring more food and more energy. Land rights and displacement Poorly-managed expansion of bioenergy production may undermine traditional sustainable agricultural and land-use practices and can lead to

224

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

adverse societal impacts. If bioenergy crops become more valuable, industrialisation of production and land consolidation may favour large landowners and displace small farmers. Employment Initial employment opportunities may be short term and superseded by mechanised production and processing. On the other hand, modern bioenergy, as currently generated, is more labour-intensive than any other form of energy. In both cases, scale is important. Industrial-scale bioenergy production raises health and safety concerns related to workplace air quality, particle emissions and increased transport requirements. Public Perception The increasing public concern regarding the sustainability and environmental impact of current biofuel production and use may lead to an adverse perception of bioenergy in general. Currently, public opinion of bioenergy and biofuels in particular is polarized between those supporting it and those who criticise its potentially negative effects. Economic Risks Rising Prices Competition between different land-uses, bioenergy feedstocks and food products, agricultural wastes, wood fibre and other products in the forestry sector is driving many other prices upwards. With feedstock cost representing a significant proportion of the overall cost of first-generation biofuel production, it is even arguable that further large increases in feedstock costs could undermine the market attractiveness of biofuels. Cost-effectiveness Subsidizing biofuels and bioenergy with the aim of reducing GHG emissions is a less effective and more costly way of achieving this goal than many other more cost-effective solutions, such as improving energy efficiency and conservation or encouraging more effective renewable energy options where feasible. Market Distortions Subsidies have been instrumental in driving the development and growth of the biofuel industry, particularly in industrialised countries. For example, almost all countries started off exempting biofuels from fuelexcise taxes. These subsidies have been allocated at almost all parts of the

Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies

225

value chain, from subsidies to growers and refiners to reductions in fuel duties. Mandates and production-linked subsidies create lock-ins to technologies and uses, impose costs on taxpayers and are difficult to reverse once established, because their withdrawal may impose politically unattractive losses on biofuel producers. Trade Distortions International trade is being distorted through country-specific subsidies, as in the US or the EU. Trade barriers both protect inefficient biofuel industries and prevent developing countries from exploiting their comparative advantage in producing biomass (Steenblik, 2007). Risks related to policy and regulatory frameworks Regulatory frameworks have yet to be adopted, especially at the international level, to provide sufficient certainty for capital investment planning. The profusion of proposed regulatory frameworks and labelling schemes may, ironically, obstruct rather than enhance the likelihood of any single option being adopted globally. Opportunity Cost Inadequate accounting of the opportunity cost of developing bioenergy is a general risk that can apply to any of the risks discussed above. Bioenergy should only be developed where it is the best option for using the resource in terms of biomass produced, land needed to produce the biomass, and waste diverted from other uses. 16.3 Risk governance guidelines for bioenergy policies The main elements of risk governance proposed by the IRGC for bioenergy policies are relate to the Risk Assessment (“analysis first”) and Risk Management (dealing with trade-offs, consultation and participation). 16.3.1  Risk Assessment Assessing domestic energy needs and demand Each country should carefully assess its own energy needs. This can be done using suitable scenarios that account for the long-term evolution of energy demand (taking account of economic development, demographic evolution, improvements in energy efficiency and conservation, etc.) as well as of how supply will evolve. This national energy needs assessment should then be extended by deliberately assessing the role bioenergy could

226

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

play in the context of other sources of energy (and of energy efficiency and conservation). Assessing domestic capacity for bioenergy production determining land availability and potential use of waste. Each country should assess: (i) Its own capacity to use land to grow bioenergy feedstock, considering the alternative needs for the same land area for food production and other uses; (ii) which of its marginal land areas2, such as degraded areas, can be used and how much of such land exists; and (iii) how much domestic, industrial and agricultural waste can be used in bioenergy feedstock production. Determining domestic technology capacity It is essential to assess the country ability to deploy modern bioenergy technologies domestically. does the country have a structured research and development programme to speed up the development and implementation of second-generation technologies that are efficient and economically attractive? If none of the previous conditions are met, can the country purchase or license the technologies from other countries? Fostering research and development and technology transfer To realise the benefits of, in particular, future second-generation bioenergy technologies, research and development should be a high priority of governments, especially in industrialised countries that have the technical and institutional capacity to support their development. If the resources for such research and development are not available, or in cases where suitable technology exists elsewhere, arrangements with countries, industries or international organisations can provide access to current and future optimum technologies through technology transfers, with associated intellectual property rights. Technology transfer agreements could allow developing countries or countries with little tradition or experience in modern bioenergy to benefit from second-generation and transitional technologies, for example through mechanisms such as the Clean development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol or the Global Environment Facility. 2 The term “marginal land” refers to land that is degraded, abandoned or under-utilised. Such land could be beneficially used to grow feedstocks for bioenergy production, as such use avoids displacing food crops from established farmland and (in principle) minimizes the impacts of land-use change. However, marginal land may have unknown value in terms of biodiversity and CO2 sequestration potential. Many marginal areas are also “commons”, which provide subsistence benefits to some of the poorest groups of society. Its usefulness for growing bioenergy feedstocks is also perhaps open to question, given that marginal land is likely to be poor in nutrients, lack water or be for some other reason unlikely to achieve high yields.

Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies

227

Mobilising capital investment Government policies played a key role in influencing this investment. Resource allocation must be optimised in consideration of current as well as future capacity and needs. Industrialised countries should be able to provide for capital investment in new technologies, primarily by the private sector (with the appropriate government incentives and regulatory framework). In developing countries, the need will be primarily for public funding in the construction of the infrastructures, notably rural electrification, which will be based on renewable sources of energy. Consulting stakeholders Policymakers, regulators and risk assessors need to work together to ensure that risks and benefits are objectively and scientifically assessed. These assessments should precede the finalising of policies and regulatory measures. Only with such factual data can the appropriate decisions regarding trade-offs be made through meaningful, participatory and informed processes that ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the considerations behind the final decisions. Policymakers should also consult with industry, since business will be a major investor and agent for policy implementation. In order to make effective policies that businesses will support, governments should consult with businesses in the design of energy, development and climate policies. In turn, industry should understand the political framing and the societal perceptions that will influence policy and the market’s acceptance of bioenergy products. Civil society must be fully informed about the risks and opportunities of bioenergy, based on objective, credible and real examples and experiences. Civil society needs to understand the bioenergy agenda from various perspectives, so that it can effectively play its role in safeguarding society’s collective interests by helping to ensure that, by making informed choices as consumers, the social benefits of bioenergy are maximised and the risks minimised. International organisations are likely to benefit from a participatory approach which gives concerned NGO full access to the process in order that certification schemes and standards can gain the widest possible support. Doing case-specific life-cycle assessments of bioenergy production Countries with sufficient resources should conduct comprehensive LCA of current and potential biofuel production chains. Ideally, LCA should include a sensitivity analysis (a systematic procedure for estimating the effects of the chosen methods and data on the study’s outcome), and a probabilistic analysis, as a way to incorporate uncertainty into the analysis.

228

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Assessments must be done on a case-by-case basis, to account for the many potential sources of biomass, the various other potential sources of energy (electricity, heat and transport fuel), and the specific hydrological, soil and climate conditions. They should also include the environmental impact of transport within the production and distribution processes, particularly if the biomass or bioenergy product is exported. Countries that do not have the resources to conduct LCA can still adhere to other guidelines related to inputs and outputs of bioenergy production, for example by giving priority to determining the area of available marginal land. Choice of technology A key challenge for bioenergy production is to avoid locking in current technologies and so ensure the ability to take advantage of new technologies when they become commercially available while, at the same time, ensuring that the current technologies can provide tangible energy and environmental benefits. The choice of a suitable technology is strongly influenced by the existing infrastructures at the time of its introduction, as well as by knowledge of anticipated future technologies. As a result, governments, business and other stakeholders should pursue bioenergy technologies that interconnect with existing infrastructures. doing so will help to reduce costs, improve speed of deployment and, where available, support transitional technologies that will ease the shift to more efficient technology options in the future. Another key influence on technology choice is economic, as adequate return on investment is required for business to be able to finance the research, development, installation and operation of new technologies. Choice of energy crops and agronomic processes Assess the environmental impacts of each kind of crop – on soil quality, soil erosion, water use, need for fertilisers and agrochemicals, and water pollution from chemical runoff, as well as their invasive tendencies. Local factors such as soil type and rainfall patterns must also be considered. Agricultural row crops, such as maize, are annuals, which require cultivation and fertiliser every year. Although the problems of annual tillage are the same whether these crops are grown for fuel or food, production of biofuel may exacerbate them through more intensive or extensive monoculture. In contrast, some second-generation biomass feedstocks, such as short-rotation coppice and perennial grasses, may stabilise and protect the soil from erosion by providing a continuous soil cover and, in turn, reduce water and nutrient runoff.

Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies

229

Water Management Guidelines for integrated land- and water-resource management are important tools for risk assessment and for alleviating sustainability concerns regarding water use. Analyses of long-term evaporation (green water) and catchment flow (blue water) are important to enabling the appropriate choice of location, feedstock and cultivation method for bioenergy. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) Once a bioenergy feedstock crop and its bioenergy products have been chosen and a water management plan and other specificities of a proposal have been developed, the proposal should be subject to an EIA. An EIA can be defined as “the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made” (IAIA, 1999). Determining the appropriate scale At a local scale, biomass is produced and transformed locally and the energy is consumed locally, with the priority being to meet local needs. This would include, for example, developing small biogas production facilities at community level. At a regional or national scale, domestic producers contribute to a regional/national market. At a global scale, international trade structures the market for importing countries (those with limited domestic capacity) and exporting (those with excess domestic production capacity). Assessing the timing issue Many issues related to timing need to be assessed, such as the linkage of policy decisions both to scientific developments (such as the availability of second-generation bioenergy) and to commercial issues (such as the turnover rate of car fleets and the development of refuelling networks or bioenergy plant infrastructure). 16.3.2  Risk Management Establishing proper land-use policies Globally, it is desirable to reduce the land area occupied by agriculture and to expand protected areas and lands managed for other benefits. The use of marginal land for bioenergy may in some cases be beneficial but this land may currently provide other benefits, so its use will still involve tradeoffs. Land-use policies need to be able to balance all competing demands

230

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

including food, fibre, fuel, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem management and GHG emission reduction. These uses are not mutually exclusive, and much research and development is being devoted to ensure mutually supportive land-uses (e.g. intercropping, organic and wildlife-friendly farming/eco-agriculture, ecosystem management and rehabilitation). Agreeing upon and implementing sustainability criteria and certification schemes For bioenergy, the adoption of meta-standards may speed up the introduction of sustainable bioenergy and may be appropriate where the bioenergy feedstock is already subject to sustainability criteria. For example, using Forest Stewardship Council (FSC, 2007) certified wood for wood pellets or wood chips, or Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certified palm oil for biodiesel, means that new standards and criteria may not need to be developed. When the use of a new feedstock for bioenergy is likely to greatly increase the demand for that feedstock, new criteria – such as principles appropriate for GHG emissions or which provide protection for particularly vulnerable groups such as women and indigenous peoples – may need to be developed. The key challenge here will be to develop methods that ensure successful traceability – Ex. RSB – Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. Setting up performance standards and mandates The establishment of biofuel mandates has proved a popular policy tool in recent times, with regulators mandating that biofuel makes up a certain percentage of petrol sold (for example, the US Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 2008) or a certain proportion of the energy mix (for example, the proposed EU directive on Energy from Renewable Sources, January 2008). Both aim to promote the market penetration of biofuels. However, governments must be careful not to set sustainability criteria or performance standards in conjunction with inflexible mandates that cannot then be met by industry. Choosing appropriate economic instruments Carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes are used by various countries to support reductions in GHG emissions. They focus on the outcome rather than the process, making them relevant regulatory instruments for dealing with bioenergy. For example, if policymakers pursue a carbon tax on road transport fuel, then the level of tax should reflect the life-cycle GHG performance of the fuel and fuel components (including biofuels), with lower life-cycle GHG emissions corresponding to lower tax rates.

Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies

231

However, these measures only encourage low carbon emissions and do not ensure that other bioenergy goals are met. Thus, carbon taxes or capand-trade schemes are best used in conjunction with more specific sustainability criteria relating to ecosystem impacts, biodiversity, water, etc. Negotiating trade agreements To be efficient, the bulk of the world’s feedstock and biofuel production should occur in developing countries with sufficient land to devote to biomass production, a favourable climate to grow feedstocks, and low-cost farm labour. While some poor countries are tempted to trade raw material before processing, they should assess whether it is really in their interest to trade agricultural production that may be needed domestically to meet the food and energy needs of their own population. Each country should assess how much biomass (raw material) and bioenergy (final product) would be available to buy or sell through cooperation with neighbouring countries in order to optimise the energy and GHG balances of bioenergy along with the benefits of equitable trade. Protectionism, including tariff and nontariff barriers to trade, such as quotas, standards and technical regulations, is still an obstacle to bioenergy trade. Ensuring that only sustainably produced bioenergy is traded will require the development and implementation of international standards for the broadest possible range of sustainability criteria. These global standards may be in the form of: (i) Product quality standards for specific products; (ii) Performance standards that are not technology - or fuel-specific, but include minimum standards to be tradable; or (iii) Certification schemes coupled with land-use agreements. Under current WTO rules, obligatory biomass certification could at best, and under certain conditions, guarantee GHG savings (including carbon sinks), biodiversity protection and protection of the local environment (e.g. soil, water and chemicals). It could not include criteria related to avoiding competition with food products or to social criteria. Voluntary biomass certification could apply stricter criteria and include social dimensions. 16.4 Development of a decision support tool for the assessment of biofuels3 Issues concerning land availability, biomass production and supply, biomass conversion, biofuel distribution and final use combined with specific policy frameworks in various countries make it clear that there is 3

This sub-section is adapted from Perimenis et al., 2011.

232

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 16.1 - Overview of biomass conversion pathway (Perimenis et al., 2011).

a large number of information relevant to the assessment of production pathways (Figure 16.1). Therefore, a management system to assist in the efficient handling of this information is required. decision support tools are introduced as a means to deal with these issues. decision support tools (dST) are introduced to assist in the assessment of demanding projects, in terms of information handling and analysis. In principal, they are computational systems with the purpose of helping decision makers by analysing information and identifying solutions. Their goal is to link strictly computational attributes of a management information system to the judgment ability of the decision maker (Shim et al., 2002). Based on that, dSTs contribute to: (i) the analysis of the decision environment by identifying actors, risks, constraints, consequences, etc.; (ii) the structure of the decision making procedure by setting goals and developing ways to achieve them; and (iii) the cooperation between involved parties by consolidating differences in opinions (Roy, 2005). A dST consists of three fundamental characteristics: a database that can store and manage internal and external information, algorithms necessary for the analysis and an interface for communication with the user. The decision making process is, as presented in Figure 16.2, an iterative process and includes various stages. A dST aims to assist some parts of this process, by analysing the problem, evaluating the performance of alternatives based on criteria and expressing the priorities of the decision makers (Shim et al., 2002).

Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies

233

Figure  16.2  - The decision making process (adapted from Shim et al., 2002 Quoted from Perimenis et al., 2011).

Based on a number of defined criteria, the goal of a decision maker is to identify an alternative solution that optimises all the criteria. However, in complex projects like biofuel assessment it is impossible to optimise all criteria at the same time; therefore, a compromise solution is needed. This is how a multi-criteria problem is defined and multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is an essential part of decision support systems. For more than one actor, which, in complex projects, is most likely the case we can refer to group decision support systems (GdSS). In such environments, the task is more demanding in terms of procedural issues and more complex in terms of consequences of the decision. This complexity stems also from the fact that individual and possibly conflicting opinions should be brought together into a common ground (Chun et al., 1998). decision support tools have been implemented in various sectors of regional and national decision making issues, like energy planning, waste management, water resources, and environmental protection. Examples of implementation exist also for the bioenergy sector in particular (Vickman et al., 2004; Ayoub et al., 2007; Elghali et al., 2007; Muys et al., 2003; Mitchell, 2000; Arumugam et al., 2008). A general Framework of a decision support tool for biofuels separated into two stages: (i)the pre-decision/analysis stage and (ii) the decision stage (Georgopoulou et al., 1998) can be represented by the figure 16.3 (for further details, see Perimenis et al., 2011).

234

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 16.3 - Framework of a decision support tool for biofuels (Perimenis et al., 2011).

17 Certification Systems

17.1 Overview of Ongoing Initiatives Figure 17.1, taken from van dam et al (2010a), shows the number of biomass and bioenergy certification initiatives and existing standards. For further details, see the background document, with detailed information on each initiative or standard (van dam, 2010b). A Compilation of Sustainability Initiatives, with focus on bioenergy and food security, was also carried out by Ismail and Rossi (2010), on behalf of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO).

Figure 17.1 - Overview of amount of initiatives and certification systems included in review on biomass and bioenergy certification (*substantially more systems exist) (van Dam et al., 2010a).

João José Fernandes and José Luís Monteiro, OIKOS, Portugal Anna Grevé, Fraunhofer UMSICHT, Germany

236

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Figure 17.2 - Key characteristics of initiatives and systems on biomass and bioenergy certification included in overview-(van Dam et al., 2010a).

Figure 17.2 shows the key characteristics of the initiatives specifically aimed at the development of sustainability principles for biomass and bioenergy. Main initiatives included originate from the European region, followed by the North American region. The relatively large share of initiatives aimed at biomass and bioenergy for heat and power (compared to liquid biofuels) can be partly explained by the inclusion of various green electricity labels that have included sustainability criteria (though limited and largely specified to resource demands) for biomass. 17.1.1  National and supra-national policies Many countries around the world have recently adopted policies that require, or strongly encourage, increases in the production and use of bioenergy – and in specific biofuels – over the next 5–10 years. Europe The European Commission (EC) has set mandatory targets for an overall share of 20% renewable energy and a 10% share of renewable energy in transport in the EU’s consumption in 2020, translated into individual targets for Member States (MS). Environmental criteria on GHG emission reductions, biodiversity conservation and good environmental management practices are developed and laid down in the Renewable Energy directive (EC-REd) to guarantee the sustainability of biofuels and other bioliquids. Biofuels and other bioliquids that do not meet those criteria are not taken into account for the mandatory targets. It is expected that the sustainability

Certification Systems

237

criteria for biofuels and other bioliquids will go in implementation from 2011 onwards. Various individual European MS are introducing sustainability standards on a national level. Individual MS are obliged to follow, where applicable, the European legislation. In the Netherlands, the developed sustainability criteria for biomass and bioenergy – the so-called ‘Cramer Criteria’ (Cramer et al., 2007) – are translated into a national standard: NTA 8080. Its successor, NTA 8081, will include the European guidelines. Its criteria will be linked to the subsidies for electricity companies in 2010. The ‘Corbey’ Commission (CBd), established in 2009, advises the government on sustainability issues of biomass and bioenergy. Recent recommendations include an advice on the implementation of the EC-REd reporting obligation, how to deal with ILUC and including sustainability criteria for solid biomass on European level. In the United Kingdom, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) requires suppliers of fossil fuels to ensure that a specified percentage of the road fuels they supply in the UK are made up of renewable fuels. As well as obliging fuel suppliers to meet targets for the volumes of biofuels supplied (3.5% in 2010/11 of biofuel use by volume), the RTFO requires companies to submit reports on the carbon emission savings and sustainability of the biofuels. The reporting standard is based on a ‘metastandard’ approach under which existing voluntary agro-environment and social accountability standards have been benchmarked against the RTFO Meta-Standard. Transport fuel suppliers are allowed to report, at least initially, that they do not have information on the sustainability or otherwise of their biofuel. In Germany, the Biomass Sustainability Ordinance for the Electricity Sector is designed to grant feed-in-tariffs for electricity production from liquid biomass on the basis of the EC-REd directive requirements. It entered into force in 2009. The Biomass Sustainability Ordinance for Biofuels is designed along the same lines. It will implement the EC-REd directive requirements covering raw materials cultivated inside or outside the territory of the Community which are used for energy from biofuels and other bioliquids. North America In the USA, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) – included in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) – provides provisions on the promotion of biofuels (especially cellulosic biofuels). EISA mandates minimum GHG reductions from renewable fuels, discourages use of food and feed crops as feedstock, permits use of cultivated land and discourages (indirect) land-use changes.

238

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

On a state level, both Massachusetts and California have developed legislation to ensure a certain sustainability level of biofuels. In 2009, Massachusetts has announced that waste-based biofuels are the only ones guaranteed to meet the state’s renewable fuel standards. For other fuels, the state would not be making a decision until the EPA and California Air Resources Board agree on ways to analyse the GHG reductions (including ILUC) from such fuels. In California, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a performance standard that is based on the total amount of carbon emitted per unit of fuel energy. In Canada, a CEM Working Group on Renewable Fuels has a sustainability subgroup that has drafted Guiding Principles for sustainable biofuels produced in Canada. Beginning of 2010, a stakeholder consultation is in process. Furthermore, Canadian provinces are reviewing their sustainable forest management requirements to see if they are adequate to allow for increased removal of forest biomass for energy. Only one province (New Brunswick) has forest management guidelines for biomass removals for energy. South America In Brazil, the Social Fuel Seal forms part of the National Biodiesel program. It gives biodiesel producers incentives to source their raw materials from smallholders and family farmers. Tax breaks are determined by a set of criteria. One of them is the requirement that the biodiesel producer has to source raw materials from smallholders and family farmers. The Social Fuel Seal Program is joined (so far) by seven major Biodiesel producers. They are cooperating with more than 20,000 rural families registered in the standard and cover in total 1.5 million hectares. Africa The biofuels policy in South Africa is formulated, considering impacts of the sector on employment, food security and the ecosystem. The focus of the Biofuels Industrial Strategy is on the promotion of farming in areas that were previously neglected by the Apartheid system and areas of the country that did not have market access for their products. The strategy recommends sugar cane and sugar beet for bioethanol production and soybeans, canola and sunflower as feedstock for biodiesel. The biofuels policy framework of the Mozambican government focuses mainly on social-economic sustainability criteria, but environmental criteria are to be developed. The criteria listed so far in the Biofuels Policy include e.g. avoiding the use of basic food crops and income generation. The biofuels policy states that the government will select agro-ecological areas which are the only areas permitted for energy crop production. However, it is not stated what type of criteria will be applied.

Certification Systems

239

Asia The Chinese government has said that biofuels should not jeopardize food production. Current policies imply to discourage food crops in biofuels production but continue to provide production subsidies for ethanol from corn, wheat, and other crops (USAId, 2009). The central government in Indonesia has established laws and regulations guiding biofuels expansion, including a ban on further forest destruction. Indonesia’s Agricultural Ministry announced, however, in 2009 that it would lift the moratorium on palm oil plantations on peat lands. Indonesia considers Jatropha and coconut oil in its next phase of expansion in order to avoid competition with crude palm oil (USAId, 2009). The Japanese Government has established a voluntary label, called the ‘Biomass Mark’, that can be obtained when a commodity originates totally or partly from biomass (JORA, 2006; SKM, 2008). This is, however, not coupled to any sustainability requirement. Australia-New Zealand The New Zealand government has announced the introduction of a Biofuels Sales Obligation as part of a broader policy agenda. From 2008 onwards, companies importing petrol or diesel into New Zealand will be required to sell biofuels as a proportion of the energy content of their total annual sales. There is a provision in the Biofuel Bill to implement mandatory sustainability standards for biofuels (SKM, 2008). 17.1.2  International Organisations Various international organizations are developing sustainability principles for biomass and bioenergy. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) intends to develop a standard specifically designed for the sustainability of bioenergy (ISO, 2009). Within Europe, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has established a Technical Committee (CEN TC 383) on ‘Sustainably produced biomass for energy applications’ to promote the standardization in the field of sustainable produced biomass (Costenoble, 2008). The Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) was launched in 2006 and focuses in three strategic areas: Sustainable development, Climate Change, Food and Energy Security. Partners of GBEP are both national and international organizations. GBOP provides a forum to develop policy frameworks to suggest rules and tools enabling the promotion of sustainable biomass and bioenergy development; facilitate investments

240

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

in bioenergy; foster R&d and commercial bioenergy activities-(GBEP, 2010). The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB), currently in the Version 2.0, is an international initiative coordinated by the Energy Center at EPFL in Lausanne that brings together farmers, companies, non-governmental organizations, experts, governments, and inter-governmental agencies concerned with ensuring the sustainability of biofuels production and processing. Participation in the RSB is open to any organization working in a field relevant to biofuels sustainability (EPFL, 2011). The RSB has developed a third-party certification system for biofuels sustainability standards, encompassing environmental, social and economic principles and criteria through an open, transparent, and multi-stakeholder process. The RSB is since 2009 a full member of ISEAL Alliance1. In december 2010, the RSB submitted for recognition by the European Commission an adapted set of standards for compliance with Renewable Energy directive, which defines the land-use and GHG criteria for biofuels entering the EU market (EPFL, 2011). The Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Initiative (SECCI) and the Structured and Corporate Finance department (SCF) of the InterAmerican development Bank (IdB) have created the IdB Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard based on the sustainability criteria of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). The primary objective of the Scorecard is to encourage higher levels of sustainability in biofuels projects by providing a tool to think through the range of complex issues associated with biofuels. Since the scientific debate around these issues continues to evolve, the Scorecard should be seen as a work-in-progress and will continue to be updated and revised as needed. Comments can be submitted at the end of filling out the Scorecard (IAdB, 2011). Although not specifically developed for bioenergy, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has developed a general reporting framework on sustainability that includes indicator protocols on environmental and socio-economic issues, developed through a consensus-seeking, multi-stakeholder process. Participants are drawn from global business, civil society, labour, academic and professional institutions. The cornerstone of the Framework is the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. The third version of the Guidelines – known as the G3 Guidelines - was published in 2006 (GRI, 2011).

The ISEAL Alliance is the global association for social and environmental standards. Working with established and emerging voluntary standard systems ISEAL develops guidance and helps strengthen the effectiveness and impact of these standards. 1

Certification Systems

241

17.1.3  Companies, NGO and Independent Associations In recent years, companies and company associations have taken the initiative to develop (business-to-business) standards to guarantee the sustainability of bioenergy for fuel, heat and electricity. The same applies to the NGO community, especially in Europe and North America. For further details, see van dam (2010a, pp. 2449-2450). 17.1.4  Meta-standard approach: sustainability standards for feedstock Biomass can be produced in agriculture or in forestry (plantations) as dedicated product or as residue. different certification systems already exist for the forestry and agricultural sector to ensure environmental benign or sustainable production methods that provide safer or healthier products to the consumer (Lewandowski and Faaij, 2006). Various initiatives to guarantee the sustainability of bioenergy (e.g. UK-RTFO, NTA 8080) make use of a meta-standard approach. The rationale behind this approach for sustainably managed natural resources is given by the variety of already-existing standards, covering sustainable agriculture, forestry and social conditions. Such a meta-standard serves as benchmark standard. Instead of requiring producers to get certification for the meta-standard directly, compliance with the meta-standard is achieved through existing standards. These need to proof that they sufficiently guarantee that (most of) the principles and criteria of the meta-standard are complied with. A consequence of using a meta-standard approach is that national and regional policies rely partly on voluntary certification standards for agriculture and forestry to meet project-scale sustainability initiatives (Kaphengst, 2009). Forestry standards The most known forestry standards to be applied on a project level are the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Program for Endorsement of Forestry Certifications (PEFC). FSC is an international, stakeholder owned system for promoting responsible management of the world’s forests. FSC certificates exist for Chain of Custody (CoC), forest management and controlled wood. Over the past 13 years, over 90 million hectares in more than 70 countries have been FSC certified (FSC, 2006). PEFC is a global umbrella organization for the assessment of and mutual recognition of national forest certification schemes developed in a multi-stakeholder process. PEFC includes 35 independent national forest certification systems (PEFC, 2011).

242

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Related to the forestry standards mentioned above, are the so called climate standards. As example, the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCBS) defines rules for LULUCF/biosequestration projects that specifically focus on maximizing biodiversity and social benefits. CCBS focuses on various project types. Examples are reforestation, agro-forestry plantations and enrichment planting. Agricultural Standards: Commodity Roundtable Initiatives Various agricultural standards exist that were primarily developed for health and safety or for the development of sustainable farming practices (e.g. organic farming and fair trade labeling; for further details, see van dam, 2010a, p. 2451). In recent years, various Roundtable initiatives have been established with the vision to make commodity chains more sustainable. Several of these commodities (e.g. sugar cane, palm oil, and soybean) can also be used as feedstock for the production of first generation biofuels. Commodity roundtables are multi-stakeholder initiatives with the objective to make the commodity value chain more sustainable. Examples are the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) or the Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI). Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was formed in 2004 with the objective promoting the growth and use of sustainable oil palm products through credible global standards and engagement of stakeholders. The seat of the association is in Zurich, Switzerland, while the secretariat is currently based in Kuala Lumpur with a satellite office in Jakarta. RSPO is a not-for-profi-t association that unites stakeholders from seven sectors of the palm oil industry - oil palm producers, palm oil processors or traders, consumer goods manufacturers, retailers, banks and investors, environmental or nature conservation NGOs and social or developmental NGOs - to develop and implement global standards for sustainable palm oil (RSPO, 2011). The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) is a global platform composed of soy value chain stakeholders with the common objective of promoting the responsible soy production through collaboration, dialogue and consensus finding among the involved sectors in order to foster an economic, social and environmental sustainability. As a result of the effort of producers, industry and civil society actors involved in the soy value chain, the RTRS Standard - Version 1.0 was developed (RTRS, 2010). The Better Sugarcane Initiative published the third version of the so called “Bonsucro” standard on March 2011 (BSI, 2011). The Bonsucro Standard is the first ever metric based Standard which measures the impact of the sustainable production of sugar cane.

Certification Systems

243

Sustainability standards for social conditions Various standards are developed to safeguard social conditions. ISO has established a Working Group in 2005 to develop an International Standard providing guidelines for social responsibility. The guidance standard was published in 2010 as ‘ISO 26000’ and is voluntary to use. The ISO 26000 provides guidance for all types of organization, regardless of their size or location, on: Concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility; Background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility; Principles and practices relating to social responsibility; Core subjects and issues of social responsibility; Integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behaviour throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence; Identifying and engaging with stakeholders; Communicating commitments, performance and other information related to social responsibility (ISO, 2010). The Standard on Social Accountability International SA8000 is an auditable certification standard for improving working conditions, based on international workplace norms of ILO conventions, the Universal declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (SAI, 2008). The Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) Base code is another standard specifically developed to safeguard labour conditions. The governing board is represented by companies (e.g. Body Shop, Chiquita Brands), trade union organizations and NGOs. The code is based on national law and internationally agreed ILO labour standards. Corporate, trade union and NGO members play equal parts in shaping ETI‘s policy and strategy and participating in our projects and working groups (ETI, 2010). 17.2 A broad diversity of methodologies and approaches The excellent overview carried out by van dam et al. (2010a), shows that a great diversification between initiatives in methodologies and default values for calculating the GHG balance and carbon sinks continue to exist. These methodological differences are also visible in approaches to safeguard biodiversity conservation. Examples are the ambiguous interpretations of biodiversity-rich areas or the various approaches to map these areas in a region. Initiatives follow opposite approaches on how biodiversity should be protected: Excluding biodiversity-rich areas from an area, promoting biodiversity in an area or a combination of both. The overview shows that limited attention is given so far on the quantification of possible impacts of bioenergy production on biodiversity. Standard’s indicators for soil and water conservation focus mainly on the local (‘micro’) level and their system boundary is the production unit.

244

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Small changes in water use on a micro-level may, however, result into cumulative impacts on a meso or macrolevel. Activities outside the production unit may, vice versa, also affect water resources within the system boundary. This interaction between factors and impacts on micro and meso-level is currently hardly addressed. The ILO labour standards form a sound basis for a harmonized use of socio-economic principles on the well-being of employees. Measuring the social well-being of a community – as food security – is more complicated due to the variety of direct and indirect factors influencing social wellbeing in and outside the standard’s system boundary. The role of bioenergy production on ILUC is still very uncertain. Current initiatives have rarely captured impacts from ILUC in their standards. Available approaches include measures to avoid (direct) negative LUC impacts – mainly on GHG emissions and biodiversity – combined with promoting business models that demonstrate low risks of indirect effects. Measures focused on other impacts from ILUC, as food security or social well-being, are hardly included. The overview also shows the limitation of these measurements when they are applied for bioenergy production alone. As food and feed crops do not face limitations in land use conversions, existing food areas can be easily diverted to bioenergy and new production to replace the lost food crops can still permissibly move into newly, unconverted land. A distinction between direct and indirect land use changes and between crops used for food, feed or energy (meaning fuel, heat and power) therefore no longer holds. In spite of current limitations, the overview shows that certification has the potential to influence direct, local impacts related to environmental and social effects of direct bioenergy production with principles and criteria governing the particular lands and production processes used. This can be done – with the right monitoring and verification measures – against limited costs. For further information and an in-depth analysis of the standards comparison against several indicators (GHG emissions, d+ILUC, biodiversity, soil and water conservation, food security and social well-being), please see the excellent paper of van dam et al. (2010a, pp.2452-2468). 17.3 Examples of Certification Systems Carbon Footprint A Carbon Footprint (CF) shows the overall amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (e.g. methane, dinitrogen monoxide) which are associated with a product or service, along its entire supply and production chain.

Certification Systems

245

Figure 17.3 - Workflow for creating a carbon footprint (Öko-Institut, 2009).

Figure 17.3 shows the different steps which are required to calculate the carbon footprint for a certain product or service. The carbon footprint consists of two parts: • Primary footprint caused by direct CO2 emissions (fossil fuel burning, energy consumption, transportation). • Secondary footprint caused by indirect CO2 emissions (associated to manufacturing or breakdown). The sum of those two displays the carbon footprint and has units of tons or CO2 equivalents (EPLCA, 2007). Biomass Certification ISCC The International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) system has been approved by the German Authority BLE as the first certification System for sustainable biomass and biofuels according to the German Biokraftstoff-Nachhaltigkeitsverordnung (Biokraft-NachV). Until today, the international markets for agricultural products and bioenergy have not come up with a label for food, liquid biomass or biofuel from sustainable production. The ISCC system allows a differentiation of sustainable products from non-sustainable ones, including the greenhouse gas emissions at the different stages of the value chain.

246

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

This standard for sustainable production comprises six principles (see below) with their respective criteria, aiming at the prevention of ecological shortcomings, the guarantee of adequate working conditions and the protection of health of the employees on farms. The criteria are defined as “major musts” and “minor musts”. For a successful audit, all major musts and 80% of the minor musts have to be fulfilled. • Biomass shall not be produced on land with high biodiversity value or high carbon stock and not from peat land. • Biomass shall be produced in an environmentally responsible way, including the protection of soil, water and air and the application of Good Agricultural Practices. • Safe working conditions through training and education, use of protective clothing and proper and timely assistance in the event of accidents. • Biomass production shall not violate human rights, labour rights or land rights. It shall promote responsible labour conditions and workers’ health, safety and welfare and shall be based on responsible community relations. • Biomass production shall take place in compliance with all applicable regional and national laws and shall follow relevant international treaties. • Good management practices shall be implemented. National or regional initiatives may adapt these international standards to the local requirements (ISCC 201, 2010).

18 Economic Aspects: Assessment of Cropping Costs and Net Incomes

18.1 Methodology for Cropping Cost Assessment Cropping costs were assessed according to the crop techniques described in the specific scenarios of Chapter 5, concerning large-scale and family farming in South America and Africa. Estimation of costs was primarily derived from Embrapa (http://embrapa.br/, 2010) agroeconomic section, FAOSTAT website (2009) and Mozambique Biofuels Assessment (Hoyt, 2008). Each entry accounts for manpower cost (even if family labour), raw materials and machinery costs (e.g., fertilization cost includes fertilizer, tractor plus fertilizer spreader cost per hour or man-days required per ha, fuel consumption, etc.), and fixed costs for administration and maintenance. For perennial crops, the establishment costs (nursery and planting) are divided by the economic lifespan of each crop, and calculated as annual equivalent cost. The economic lifespan was considered 25 years for oil palm, 30 years for coconut palm and Jatropha, and 15 years for perennial castorbean (see chap. 2, 3 and 5). The issue of capital interest is a delicate one, requiring a split approach in the calculations. Firstly, passive interests on establishment costs were not considered in the calculations of annual equivalent costs. Then, an additional indicator including initial capital interests was calculated, based on to two alternative options: a 10% interest rate for large scale farming, as a medium-risk investment rate for international investors, versus the 2007-2010 average rate on long term loans for family farming. The latter choice corresponds to a 43% rate in Brazil; 17% in Mozambique.

Simone Fazio and Lorenzo Barbanti, University of Bologna, Italy

248

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

As regards this specific point, it should be pointed out that in this study all costs were considered in interest calculations, but in case of family farming the cost due to manpower should be subtracted from the total costs, as it does not represent a real expenditure. Thus, as in family farming manpower represents a significant fraction of costs, the interest dues in annual equivalent costs of perennial crops may considerably be reduced. In such case, only a fraction of fixed costs is added to the variable cropping costs. All reported values are in € (Euros) equivalents per hectare and per year. According to the average international currency conversions of September 2010, exchange rates of 2.3 and 47 to the Euro were applied for the Real $ (Brazilian currency; R$) and the Metical (Mozambican currency; MZN), respectively. Under family farming scenarios, the total of cropping operations was considered to be performed by hand, animal traction, or with semi-manual machinery. However, especially for annual crops, some operations such as soil tillage or harvesting may be expected to be performed by machines; this significantly reduces annual costs, especially in the Brazilian conditions where manpower costs 18 times more than in Mozambique. 18.2 Costs and Net Incomes in Large Scale and Family Farming According to the above-described methodology, the annual costs to grow the six oil crops in large scale and family farming systems in Brazil and Mozambique are reported in tables 18.1 to 18.6. They vary from a few hundreds Euros per hectare for some crops under family farming in Mozambique, to more than one thousand Euros, still in family farming, in Brazil. There is no clear relationship between cropping costs and net income, as the yield (grain or fruits) expected from each crop and the respective market prices widely vary in the two Countries (table 18.7). In Brazil, the two annual crops (sunflower and soybean) and perennial castorbean appear to outperform the rest of perennial species (oil palm, coconut palm and Jatropha), under large scale farming. Under family farming, net income is often negative in Brazil, if the cost of manpower is accounted for; this is particularly true in the case of the two annual species, which are intrinsically unsuited for a labour-intensive cropping. In contrast to Brazil, family farming in Mozambique exhibits more consistent, positive net incomes; the limited influence of manpower cost is clearly perceived.

Economic Aspects: Assessment of Cropping Costs and net Incomes

249

Table 18.1 - Oil palm cropping costs.

Cropping phases

Large scale farming

Family farming

Brazil

Brazil

Mozambique

NURSERY Seedlings Seedbed preparation Fertilization Irrigation Total (not including passive interests) Annual equivalent cost

198 30 35 150 413 16,4

198 70 35 150 453 17,9

170 16 24 100 310 12,4

PLANTING IN THE FIELD Hole digging / ploughing Transplanting Mulching Fertilization Weeding Total (not including passive interests) Annual equivalent cost

28 22 16 25 15 106 3,4

55 22 16 30 21 144 4,1

10 7 5 25 7 54 2,2

ANNUAL CROPPING OPERATIONS Pruning (during harvest) Fertilization Plant protection Total

15 558 15 588

15 585 23 623

5 319 7 331

HARVEST Total

144,3

144,3

28

FIXED COSTS ANNUAL EQUIVALENT COST €/ha Ann. Eq. Cost including interests €/ha

45 796,8 832,8

45 834,3 1071,9

25 398,6 448,6

Table 18.2 - Coconut palm cropping costs.

Cropping phases NURSERY Seedlings Seedbed preparation Fertilization Irrigation Total (not including passive interests) Annual equivalent cost

Large scale farming

Family farming

Brazil

Brazil

Mozambique

327 32 26 150 535 17,8

327 75 26 150 578 19,2

280 18 22 100 420 14

250

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Cropping phases

Large scale farming

Family farming

Brazil

Brazil

Mozambique

PLANTING IN THE FIELD Hole digging / ploughing Transplanting Fertilization Weeding Total (not including passive interests) Annual equivalent cost

28 22 35 15 100 4,0

60 22 40 21 143 4,9

11 7 30 7 55 2,2

ANNUAL CROPPING OPERATIONS Pruning (during harvest) Fertilization/irrigation Plant protection Weeding Total

14 569 75 15 473

14 602 95 21 532

5 449 22 7 383

HARVEST Total

44,3

44,3

7

FIXED COSTS ANNUAL EQUIVALENT COST €/ha Ann. Eq. Cost including interests €/ha

45 784,2 828,7

45 843,5 1124,7

25 531,2 592,9

Table 18.3 - Jatropha cropping costs.

Cropping phases

Large scale farming

Family farming

Brazil

Brazil

Mozambique

NURSERY Seeds Seedbed (bags) preparation Fertilization Irrigation Total (not including passive interests) Annual equivalent cost

150 55 25 130 360 12

150 55 25 130 360 12

130 15 18 90 263 8,8

PLANTING IN THE FIELD Hole digging / ploughing Transplanting Fertilization Weeding Total (not including passive interests) Annual equivalent cost

45 42 20 15 102 3,3

75 42 25 35 177 5,9

20 12 20 10 62 2,1

Economic Aspects: Assessment of Cropping Costs and net Incomes

Cropping phases

Large scale farming

251

Family farming

Brazil

Brazil

Mozambique

ANNUAL CROPPING OPERATIONS Pruning Fertilization Plant protection Total

145 45 10 200

145 50 10 205

25 78 7 110

HARVEST Total

220

220

26

45 480,3 512,6

45 487,9 697,1

25 171,9 214,1

FIXED COSTS ANNUAL EQUIVALENT COST €/ha Ann. Eq. Cost including interests €/ha

Table 18.4 - Castorbean cropping costs (under tropical conditions as a perennial crop).

Cropping phases PLANTING Seeds Ploughing/tillage/seeding Fertilization Weeding Total (not including passive intersts) Annual equivalent cost ANNUAL CROPPING OPERATIONS Pruning (mechanical in large scale farming) Fertilization Plant protection Total HARVEST Total FIXED COSTS ANNUAL EQUIVALENT COST €/ha Ann. Eq. Cost including interests €/ha

Large scale farming

Family farming

Brazil

Brazil

Mozambique

52 25 70 13 160 10,6

52 25 85 33 195 13

45 12 60 8 125 8,3

35 67 50 152

120 75 60 255

24 62 42 128

10

28

7

45 217,6 227,2

45 341 413,1

25 168,3 183,3

252

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Table 18.5 - Sunflower cropping costs.

Cropping phases

Large scale farming

Family farming

Brazil

Brazil

Mozambique

PLANTING Seeds Ploughing/tillage/seeding Total

12 100 112

12 425 437

2 28 30

CROPPING OPERATIONS Weeding Fertilization Plant protection Total

10 141 65 186

110 161 70 341

10 36 11 57

HARVEST Total

35

400

22

FIXED COSTS ANNUAL COST €/ha

45 333

45 1178

25 134

Table 18.6 - Soybean cropping costs.

Cropping phases

Large scale farming

Family farming

Brazil

Brazil

Mozambique

PLANTING Seeds Ploughing/tillage/seeding Total

32 100 132

32 580 612

3 28 31

CROPPING OPERATIONS Weeding Fertilization Plant protection Total

10 110 230 350

35 125 245 405

5 16 21 42

HARVEST Total

34

295

13

FIXED COSTS ANNUAL COST €/ha

45 561

45 1357

25 111

253

Economic Aspects: Assessment of Cropping Costs and net Incomes

Table 18.7 - Net incomes of the six oil crops.

Oil Palm Coconut Jatropha Castorbean Sunflower Soybean Yield large scale farming 18 4,5 4 Brazil (t/ha) Production costs large 796 784 480 scale farming Brazil (€/ha) Yield family farming Brazil 14 4 3 (t/ha) Production costs family 834 843 488 farming Brazil (€/ha) Market price Brazil (€/t)* 55 220 156 Net income large scale 194 206 144 farming Brazil (€/ha) Net income family –64 (–10) 37 (107) –20 (–4) farming Brazil (€/ha)** Yield family farming 12 3,5 2,5 Mozambique (t/ha) Production costs family 398 531 172 farm. Mozambique (€/ha) Market price 40 170 140 Mozambique (€/t) * Net income family farm. 82 (90) 98 (110) 178 (185) Mozambique (€/ha)**

2

2

3

217

333

561

1,8

1,5

2,5

341

1178

1357

280

300

350

343

267

489

163 (290)

–728 (120) –482 (320)

1,5

1

1,5

168

134

111

250

250

240

207 (213)

116 (130) 249 (265)

* prices were derived from FAOSTAT and are referred to 2007-2008, except for Jatropha (http://www. pinhaomanso.com.br), and sunflower (http://oktiva.institutoagropolos.org.br) in Brazil, and for Oil palm and Jatropha in Mozambique (Hoyt, 2008). ** negative values were sometimes found; however, it should be pointed out that the labour cost was considered also under family farming scenarios, although in this case it does not represent a real expenditure. In brackets, the approximate income not considering labour costs is shown.

Literature

Ajanovic A., 2010. Biofuels versus food production: does biofuels production increase food prices?. Energy, 1-7. Amnesty International Report, 2008. State of the World’s Human Rights. Anand S. and Hanson K., 1997. disability-adjusted life years: a critical review. Journal of Health Economy. 16. Arndt C., Benfica R., Tarp F., Thurlow J. and Uaiene R., 2008. Biofuels, Poverty, and Growth: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Mozambique. University of Copenhagen. Arumugam S., Zinovyev S., Foransiero P., Miertus S., Muller-Langer F., Kaltschmitt M.,Vogel A.,Thraen d., 2008. BIO-FUELS: Technology Status and Future Trends, Technology Assessment and decision Support Tools, ICS-UNIdO, Trieste, August 2008. Ayoub N. et al., 2007. Two levels decision system for efficient planning and implementation of bioenergy production. Energy Conversion & Management 48, 709-723. Ayre M., 2007. Will biofuel leave the poor hungry? BBC News. 2007-10-03. Baffes J. and Haniotis T., 2010. Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective. World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper 5371. Banda K., Karlsson G., 2009. “Examining the Potential of Biofuels for Rural development and Empowerment of Women”, ENERGIA - International Union for Conservation of Nature. Banse M., van Meijl H., Tabeau A. and Woltjer G., 2008. “Will EU Biofuel Policies Affect Global Agricultural Markets?” European Review of Agricultural Economics. 35 (2): 117-141. Batidzirai B., Faaij A. and Smeets E., 2006. Biomass and bioenergy supply from Mozambique. Energy for Sustainable development, 1. Biokraft-NachV. Verordnung über Anforderungen an eine nachhaltige Herstellung von Biokraftstoffen (Biokraftstoff-Nachhaltigkeitsverordnung - Biokraft-Nach V).

256

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

BIOPACT. An in-depth look at Brazil’s Social Fuel Seal, 23 March 2007. Available at: http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/03/in-depthlook-at-brazils-social-fuel.html; 2007. Birur d., Hertel T. and Tyner W., 2008. “Impact of Biofuel Production on World Agricultural Markets: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis”. GTAP Working Paper No. 53. Borrell B. Massachusetts pushes waste-based biofuels, holds off on corn, algae, and switchgrass. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican. com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=massachusetts-pusheswaste-basedbi-2009-08-20; 2009. Bowyer C., 2010. Anticipated Indirect Land Use Change Associated with Expanded Use of Biofuels and Bioliquids in the EU - An Analysis of the National Renewable Energy Action Plans”, Institute for European Environmental Policy, November 2010, www.ieep.eu. Bringezu S., Schuetz H., O Brien M., Kauppi L., Howarth R. and McNeely J. (2009). Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, France. Available at: http://www.ren21.net/map/. BSI (2011), Bonsucro EU Production Standard, third version (March, 2011). Available at : http://www.bonsucro.com/assets/Bonsucro_Production_Standard_March_2011_3.pdf (Last consult, July 2011). Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit decision published on 22.10.2008 and available at www.bmu.de/pressearchiv/16_legislaturperiode/pm/42433.php. CdB. First recommendations CdB. Available at: http://www.corbey.nl/ index.-asp?page_id=139; 2009. Chun K. et al., 1998. Examining the conflicting results of GdSS research. Information and Management 33, 313-325. Ciaian P. and Kancs A., 2010. Interdependencies in the energy-bioenergyfood price systems: A cointegration analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, in press. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards (Second Edition - december 2008), Available at: http://www.climate-standards.org/standards/ using.html (Last consult: July, 2011). COd, 2008. 2008/0016. Conselho de Ministros da República de Moçambique. Publicação oficial da república de Moçambique, Política e Estratégia de Biocobustíveis; 2009. Cororaton C.B., Timilsina G., Mevel S., 2010. Impacts of large scale expansion of biofuels on global poverty and income distribution. IATRC Public Trade Policy Research and Analysis Symposium, Global Warming in World Agriculture: Mitigation, Adaptation, Trade and

Literature

257

Food Security, Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart,Germany, June2729, 2010. Costenoble O. Presentation on ‘Towards European Sustainability Criteria for Biomass?’ from a NEN perspective. In: NEN Informatiebijeenkomst duurzaamheidscriteria voor biomassa. delft, the Netherlands; 2008. Cotula L., Vermeulen S., Leonard R. and Keeley J., 2009. Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa, London/Rome: IIEd/FAO/IFAd. Cramer J., Wissema E., de Bruijne M. et al. Testing framework for sustainable biomass. Final report from the project group ‘‘Sustainable production of biomass’’. Project group ‘‘Sustainable production of biomass’’: The Hague, the Netherlands; 2007. 72 p. de Gorter H. and d. Just, 2010. “The Social Costs and Benefits of Biofuels: The Intersection of Environmental. Energy and Agricultural Policy”. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 32 (1): 4-32. dG IPOL, 2011. “Indirect Land Use Change and Biofuels”, directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, Environment, Public Health and Food Security. diao X.S., Hazell P.B.R., Resnick d., Thurlow J., 2007. The role of agriculture in development: implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. Research Report 153. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, dC. duailibi J., 2008. Ele é o falso vilão (in Portuguese). Veja Magazine. 200804-27. EC, 2006. “Biofuels and other renewable energy in the transport sector” and European Commissions communication on biofuels and ILUC at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/ renewables/biofuels/biofuels_en.htm (last consulted 09.06.2011). EIA, 2010. US Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo. Elghali L. et al., 2007. developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy 35, 6075-6083. EPA. EPA Lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable fuels. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-10-006, February 2010. Environmental Protection Agency: USA; 2010. EPLCA, 2007. European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment - European Commission - Joint Research Centre. Escobar J.C, Lora E.S., Venturini O.J., Yanez E.E., Castillo E.F. and Almazan O., 2009. Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13. Esterhuizen d. Biofuels annual republic of South Africa. Available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/General%20Report_Pretoria_South%20Africa%20-20Republic%20of_528-2009.pdf; 2009.

258

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

ETI (2010). Ethical Trade Base Initiative available at: http://www.ethicaltrade.org/resources/key-eti-resources/eti-base-code (Last consult: July, 2011). Ewing M. and Msangi S., 2009. Biofuels production in developing countries: assessing tradeoffs in welfare and food security, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 12, Issue 4, Special Issue: Food Security and Environmental Change, Food Security and Environmental Change: Linking Science, development and Policy for Adaptation, June 2009, Pages 520-528. FAO, 2008. The State of Food and Agriculture 2008 - Biofuels: Prospects, Risks, and Opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 138 pp. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2008b. Crop Prospects and Food Situation. FAO website, http//www.fao.org/ docrep/010/ai465e/ai465e01.htm (viewed 02. July 2008. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2003b Compendium of Agricultural-Environmental Indicators 1989-91 to 2000. FAO Statistics Analysis Service, Statistics division, Rome. FAO, 2008. The State of Food and Agriculture, Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities, Chapter 6, Section Food-security impacts at the national level, p.74. Fazio S., 2010. Analisi ambientale della coltivazione di biomasse a scopo energetico con metodologia Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (in Italian). PHd thesis, June 2010, University of Bologna, Italy. Ferreira-Simões A.J., 2007. Biofuels will help fight hunger. The New York Times, 2007-08-06. FoE, 2009. Losing the plot. The threats to community land and the rural poor through the spread of the biofuel jatropha in India, Friends of the Earth Europe, december 2009. FoE, 2010. Africa: up for grabs. The scale and impact of land grabbing for agrofuels”, Friends of the Earth Africa and Friends of the Earth Europe, June 2010. FQd, 2009. directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending Council directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing directive 93/12/EEC (hereinafter “FQd” for Fuel Quality directive). FSC, 2007. Forest Stewardship Council. Available at: http://www.fsc.org. FSC. FSC International Standard. FSC principles and criteria for Forest Stewardship FSC-STd-01-001 (version 4-0) EN. Bonn, Germany: Forest Stewardship Council A.C.; 1996.

Literature

259

GBEP. The Global Bioenergy Partnership, leaflet. Available at: http:// www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gbep/docs/GBEP_ standard_material/Leaflet_printfileFeb10_LIBRE_LO.pdf; 2010 (Last consult, July 2011). Georgopoulou E. et al., 1998. design and implementation of a group dSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 486-500. Glover d., Contract farming and commercialization of agriculture in developing countries. In: J. Von Braun and E.T. Kennedy, Editors, Agricultural Commercialization, Economic development, and Nutrition, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md (1994). Gohin A., 2008. “Impacts of European Biofuel Policy on the Farm Sector: A General Equilibrium Assessment”. Review of Agricultural Economics. 30 (4):623-641. GRI website: http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatIsGRI/ (Last consult: July, 2011). Grundwald M., 2008. The Clean Energy Scam. Time Magazine. 2008-0327. Gucciardi Garcez C.A. and de Souza Vianna J.N., 2009. Brazilian Biodiesel Policy: Social and environmental considerations of sustainability. Energy, 34. Guinée J. and Heijungs R., 1995. A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product Life-Cycle Assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 14. Hahn R., and Cecot C., 2009. “The Benefits and Costs of Ethanol: An Evaluation of the Government‟s Analysis”. Journal of Regulatory Economics. 35 (3): 275-295. Hall J., Matos S., Severino L. and Beltrao N., 2009. Brazilian biofuels and social exclusion: established and concentrated ethanol versus emerging and dispersed biodiesel. Journal of cleaner production, 17. Havlík P., Schneider U.A., Schmid E., Böttcher H., Fritz S., Skalský R., Aoki K., de Cara S., Kindermann G., Kraxner F., Leduc S., McCallum I., Mosnier A., Sauer T. and Obersteiner M., 2010. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. EnergyPolicy, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.030. Heijungs R., Guinee J.B., Huppes G., Lankreijer R.M., Udo de Haes H.A., Wegener Sleeswijk A., Ansems A.M.M., Eggels P.G., duin R.V. and Goede H.P., 1992. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. CML, Leiden. Hertel T., 2009. “Analyzing the Poverty Impacts of Biofuel Mandates”. Transition to a Bioeconomy: Global Trade and Policy Issues Conference, Washington dC.

260

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Hertel T., Tyner W. and Birur d., 2008. “Biofuels for All? Understanding the Global Impacts of Multinational Mandates”. GTAP Working Paper No. 51. Hoyt E., 2008. Mozambique biofuels assessment. Econergy International Corporation, Washington dC (USA). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/biokraft-nachv/gesamt. pdf (03.01.2011). http://www.sa-intl.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/2008StdEnglishFinal. pdf (Last consult: July 2011). IAdB, available at: http://www.iadb.org/biofuelsscorecard/index.cfm? language=English (Last consult, July 2011). International Association for Impact Assessment, 1999. Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice. Available at: http://www. iaia.org/modx/assets/files/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf. International Organization Standardization (ISO 14040-43), 1997. Life cycle assessment-principles and framework. ISO 14040-43. IPCC, 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, International Panel on Climate Change. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. IRGC, 2008. Risk Governance Guidelines for Bioenergy Policies. International Risk Governance Council Policy Brief, Geneva, 2008. ISCC 201, 2010. Systemgrundlagen für die Zertifizierung von nachhaltiger Biomasse und Bioenergie.http://www.isccsystem.org/e865/e890/e1491/ e1493/ISCC201Systemgrundlagen_ger.pdf (last consulted on 03.01.2011). Ismail M. and Rossi A., 2010. A Compilation of Bioenergy Sustainability Initiatives. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). Available at: http://www.fao.org/bioenergy/20541-0390d6c15d5169f0d973e6a80887919ae.pdf (Last consult: June 2011). ISO, 2011. discovering ISO 26000, Brochure available at: http://www.iso. org/iso/discovering_iso_26000.pdf (Las consult: July 2011). ISO. ISO/PC ‘‘Sustainability criteria for bioenergy’’ Berlin Meeting, 08/09 June 2009, Recommendations from the preliminary meeting. In: Preliminary Meeting, 08/09 June 2009. Berlin, Germany; 2009. Jay I. and Hendricks B., 2007. Apollo‘s Fire, Island Press, Washington, d.C. Chapter 6. Homegrown Energy. JORA. Poster presentation on ‘‘Outline of Biomass Mark’’. Third Biomass-Asia workshop. Tokyo, Japan; 2006. Jumbe C.B.L., Msiska F.B.M. and Madjera M. Biofuels development in sub-Saharan Africa: are the policies conductive? Energy Policy 2009;37(11):4980-6. Junginger M., Faaij A., van dam J., Zarrilli S., Mohammed A. and Marchal d., 2010. Opportunities and Barriers for International Bioenergy

Literature

261

Trade and Strategies to Overcome Them. IEA Bioenergy Task 40, 17 pp. Available at: www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/t40opportunitiesandbarriersforbioenergytradefi.pdf. Kaphengst T., Ma M.S. and Schleger S. At a tipping point? How the debate on biofuel standards sparks innovative ideas for the general future of standardization and certification schemes. Journal of Cleaner Production 2009; 17(1):S99-101. Kee-Lam M., Tat Tan K., Teong Lee K. and Mohamed A.R., 2009. Malaysian palm oil: Surviving the food versus fuel dispute for a sustainable future. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13. Kingsbury K., 2007. After the Oil Crisis, a Food Crisis?. Time Magazine. 2007-11-16. Lane J., 2008. Meat vs Fuel: Grain use in the U.S. and China, 1995-2008. Biofuel digest. April 2008. Lankoski J. and Ollikainen M., 2011. Biofuel policies and the environment: do climate benefits warrant increased production from biofuel feedstocks? Ecological Economics, 70, 676-687. Lewandowski I. and Faaij A. Steps towards the development of a certification system for sustainable bio-energy trade. Biomass and Bioenergy 2006; 30(2):83-104. Martikainen A., von Bothmer P. Country report Germany of different criteria for sustainability and certification of biomass and solid, liquid and gaseous biofuels, WP 4.3. Solutions for biomass fuel market barriers and raw material availability-IEE/07/777/SI2.499477. EUBIONET IIII. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe: Gülzow, Germany; 2009. Mitchell d., 2008. A note on Rising Food Crisis, The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4682. Mitchell C.P., 2000. development of decision support systems for bioenergy applications. Biomass and Bioenergy 18, 265-278. Mulder P. and Tembe J., 2008. Rural electrification in an imperfect world: A case study from Mozambique. Energy policy, 36. Murray C.J.L., 1994. Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. World Health Organization. Bulletin 72. Muys B. et al. An integrated decision support tool for the prediction of efficiency, environmental impact and total social cost of forestry projects in the frame- work of the Kyoto Protocol, Working Paper Series No. 2003-6, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, April 2003. NEN. Sustainability criteria for biomass for energy purposes NTA 8080: 200_EN. delft, the Netherlands: Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut EN; 2009. OECd, 2008a . Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies. OECd directorate for Trade and Agriculture 2008-07-16.

262

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

OECd, 2008b. Biofuel policies in OECd countries costly and ineffective, says report. OECd directorate for Trade and Agriculture 2008-07-16. OECd, 2010. Biofuel production 2010-19. http://www.agri-outlook.org/ document/9/0,3343, en_36774715_36775671_45438665_1_1_1_1,0 0.html. Öko-Institut, 2009. Empfehlung zur Weiterentwicklung der Methodik des Product Carbon Footprint. PEFC Standards Overview. http://www.pefc.org/standards/overview (Last consult: July 2011). Perimenis A., Walimwipi H., Zinoviev S., Muller-Langer F., Miertus S., 2011. development of a decision support tool for the assessment of biofuels, Energy Policy, Volume 39, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 17821793. Pimentel d., Warneke A.F., Teel W.S., Schwab K.A., Simcox N.J., Ebert d.M., Baenisch K.d. and Aaron M.R., 1988. Food versus biomass fuel: socioeconomic and environmental impacts in the US, Brazil, India, and Kenya. College of agriculture and life sciences. Cornell university, New York. Practical Action Consulting, 2009. Small-Scale Bioenergy Initiatives: Brief description and preliminary lessons on livelihood impacts from case studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Prepared for PISCES and FAO by Practical Action Consulting, January 2009. PRé Consultants b.v., 2001. The Eco-Indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment -Methodology Report and Annex, 3rd ed., Amersfoort, NL. REd, 2009. directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2001 on the promotion on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (hereinafter “REd” for Renewable Energy directive). RFA. Carbon and sustainability reporting within the renewable transport fuel obligation, technical guidance Part 1, version 2.0. East Sussex: Renewable Fuels Agency; 2009. Rother L., 2006. With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil Is Satisfying Its Fuel Needs. The New York Times. 2006-04-10. Roy, Bernard, 2005. Paradigms and challenges. In: Figueira, J. (Ed.), Multiple Criteria decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer Science (Chapter 1). RSB Standard. Version 2. (2011). Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. Available at: http://rsb.epfl.ch/. RSB website, available at: http://rsb.epfl.ch/page-24898.html (Last consult, July 2011).

Literature

263

RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Available at: http://www. rspo.org. RTFO. About the RTFO and RTFO targets. Available at: http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/aboutthertfo/rtfotargets.cfm; 2009. RTRS Standard - Version 1.0, 2010, available at http://www.responsiblesoy.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=2 90&Itemid=19&lang=en (Last consult: July 2011). Runge C. and Senauer B., 2007. “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor”. Foreign Affairs. 86 (3): 41-53. SCBd, 2009. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological diversity. 2009. Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Montreal, Technical Series No. 41, 126 pages. http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-41-en.pdf. Schmitz P.M. and Kavallari A. Crop plants versus energy plants on the international food crisis. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, 17. Shim J.P. et al., 2002. Past, present and future of decision support technology, decision Support Systems 33, pp. 111-126. SKM. Consumer information on biofuel sustainability. Sinclair Knight Merz commissioned by Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority: Wellington, New Zealand; 2008. Smeets E., Junginger M., Faaij A., Walter A., dolzan P. and Turkenburg W., The sustainability of Brazilian ethanol-an assessment of the possibilities of certified production, Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (8) (2008), pp. 781-813 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.01.005. Sperling d., Yeh S. Low carbon fuel standards. Issues in Science and Technology, p. 57-66; 2009. Srinivasan S., 2009. The food v. fuel debate: A nuanced view of incentive structures. Renewable energy, 34. Steenblik R., 2007. Subsidies: The distorted Economics of Biofuels. discussion Paper No. 2007-3, International Transport Forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development, Geneva, Switzerland, 66 pp. T&E Briefing, 2010. For a complete list of studies saying that ILUC should be accounted, see the T&E Briefing: The Science of Biofuels and Indirect land use change (September 2010)., http://transportenvironment. org/Publications. Taylor J. and Van doren P., 2007. “The Ethanol Boondoggle”. The Milken Institute Review, First Quarter. The SA8000 Standard 2008, is available at: The website of the FSC initiative is available at: http://www.fsc.org (last consult: July 2011).

264

Handbook on Biofuels and Family Agriculture in Developing Countries

Tirado M.C., Cohen M.J., Aberman N., Meerman J. and Thompson B., 2010. Addressing the challenges of climate change and biofuel production for food and nutrition security Food Research International, 43. Udo de Haes H.A., Jolliet O., Finnveden G., Hauschild M., KrewittW., Müller-Wenk R., 1999. Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of LCA 4. United Nations Environment Program, 2007. Empowering rural communities by planting energy”, Background paper of the Roundtable on bioenergy enterprise in developing regions, March 2007. USAId. Biofuels in Asia: an analysis of sustainability options. United States Agency for International development Asia; 2009. van dam J. Background document from the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University; 2010a. Available at: http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/overviewcertificationsystemsfinalapril2010.pdf (Last consult: June 2011). van dam J., Junginger M. and Faaij A.P.C., 2010b. From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), pp. 2445-2472. Vickman P. et al., 2004. Evaluating greenhouse gas balances and mitigation costs of bioenergy systems - a review of methodologies, Mid-Sweden University, June 2004. Wilson M., 2008. The Biofuel Smear Campaign. Farm Futures. 2008-02-08. Woods J., 2006. Science and technology options for harnessing bioenergy’s potential, Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and Challenges, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, dC (2006) Focus 14. World Bank, 2004. World development Report 2004. Making Services Work for People. World Bank, Washington, dC. World Bank, 2008c. World development Report 2008. Agriculture for development. World Bank, Washington, dC. Zhou X., Xiao B., Ochieng R.M. and Yang J., 2008. Utilization of carbonnegative biofuels from low- input high-diversity grassland in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 14.