UN report weighs up pros and cons of biofuels
Many regard biofuels as the panacea for our energy shortages, environmental and world poverty crises. But a new report from United Nations suggests that, if badly planned, these new energy sources can cause just as many problems as they solve. Modern bioenergy technologies that produce heat, electricity, and transport fuels are advancing rapidly, with much recent interest focusing on liquid biofuels, in particular ethanol and biodiesel. Global production of these biofuels has doubled in the last five years and will likely double again in the next four. Many countries around the world, from Argentina and Malaysia to India and Zambia, have enacted new pro-bioenergy polices in recent years. The EU's energy policy prescribes that at least 10% of all fuel must come from biofuels by 2020. It is no surprise that global interest in bioenergy has grown rapidly in recent years, writes Mats Karlsson, Chair of UN-Energy which drafted the report 'Sustainable Bioenergy: A Framework for Decision Makers'. 'What could be more appealing than home-grown energy, essentially by sun-and-water fuelled photosynthesis, with new jobs and development opportunities to be tapped?' Indeed, the development of bioenergy industries, including biofuels, could provide clean energy services to millions of people who currently lack them, suggests the report. For example, cooking using traditional sources of bioenergy such as wood has caused many health and safety problems for people living in the developing world, particularly women, which has in turn locked them into a cycle of poverty. Access to more modern energy sources could help to reduce these problems, lifting large populations out of poverty. New bioenergy industries could also bring about significant job-creation potential and generate income, particularly in rural areas in some of the poorest regions of the world, since the vast majority of bioenergy employment occurs in farming, transportation and processing. But with such prosperity comes other problems, warns the report. First, the demand for land to grow bioenergy crops could put pressure on other uses, namely food crops, resulting in a likely increase in the prices of basic foods, such as cereals. Similarly, since biofuel feedstock production also requires significant water supplies, it could also make water less readily available for household use, thus threatening the health and food security of large populations. Second, given that biofuels in particular are produced and processed on a large scale, the authors fear that a transition towards these fuels could drive the world's poorest farmers off their land and into deeper poverty. The report also points to the impact that biofuel production could have on the environment. Depending on the feedstock choice and what it is replacing, good farming methods, such as intercropping and crop rotation, can achieve neutral and even positive impacts on the surrounding environment, it says. But crops grown for energy purposes generally tend to use large-scale mono-cropping, which the report warns could lead to significant biodiversity loss, soil erosion and nutrient leaching. Cases in point are India, Sri Lanka and Thailand, where biofuel crops have already led to large-scale deforestation. Even varied and more sustainable crops grown for energy purposes could have negative environmental impacts if they replace wild forests and grasslands, argues the report. Other potential impacts include eutrophication of water, acidification of soils and surface water, and even ozone depletion. The report concludes by suggesting a framework for decision-makers to encourage the sustainable production and use of biofuels and other sources of bioenergy in order to pass on maximum benefits to the poor and the environment. In the area of research and development, it calls on governments to fund activities of public good, including basic research with no immediate commercial applications, and the identification of bioenergy needs and areas for policy research.