GLOBAL FORUM ON FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITIONCONTRIBUTIONS TO DISCUSSION No. 60

(LAST UPDATE: 8 NOVEMBER 2010)

MEASURING THE IMPACTS OF BIOENERGY PRODUCTION ON FOOD SECURITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. GENERAL INFORMATION.......................................................................................................2

II. INTRODUCTION OF THE TOPIC............................................................................................2

III. LIST OF CONTRIBUTIONS.................................................................................................4

Contribution by Stefan Bringezu from Wuppertal Institut, Germany.........................................4

Contribution by Marcus V.A. Finco from University of Hohenheim, Germany..........................4

Contribution by Peter Wobst from FAO, Italy............................................................................5

Contribution by Andrea Rossi from FAO, Italy..........................................................................6

Contribution by K V Peter, Kerala Agricultural University, India [SE india]...............................7

Contribution by Ignatius Onimawo from Ambrose Alli University, Nigeria................................7

Contribution by Irini Maltsoglou from FAO, Italy.......................................................................8

Contribution by JS Heslop-Harrison from the University of Leicester, UK................................9

Contribution by Helga Vierich-Drever from Canada..................................................................9

Contribution by Bhubaneswor Dhakal from New Zealand......................................................10

Contribution by Peter Steele from FAO, Cambodia................................................................11

Contribution by Democracy Icawalo from the Philippines.......................................................12

Contribution by Matt Johnston University of Minnesota, USA................................................13

Contribution by Orlando Vega Charpentier, IICA, Costa Rica................................................14

Contribution by Radha Gopalan from Rishi Valley School, India [SE India]...........................14

Contribution by Helga Vierich-Drever from Canada................................................................15

Contribution by K V Peter, Kerala Agricultural University, India [SE India].............................17

Contribution by SN Das, Ministry of Agriculture, India [SE India]...........................................17

Contribution by Kodjo Dokodjo, Division des Statistiques Agricoles (DSID), Togo................17

Final remarks by Andrea Rossi, topic raiser...........................................................................18

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Duration: from 04.10.2010 to 01.11.2010

Number of Contributions: 20

II. INTRODUCTION OF THE TOPIC

Dear Forum Members,

I am the Technical Officer of the Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators (BEFSCI) Project within the Climate, Energy and Tenure Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN.BEFSCI is currently developing a set of detailed criteria, indicators, good practices and policy options on sustainable bioenergy production that safeguards and, if possible, fosters food security, in order to:

1. inform the development of national frameworks aimed at preventing the risk of negative impacts (and increasing the opportunities) of bioenergy development on food security; and

2. help developing countries monitor and respond to the impacts of bioenergy production on food security and its various dimensions and sub-dimensions.

Through this work, BEFSCI is currently informing and feeding into on-going discussions and work on food security-related principles, criteria and indicators under other bioenergy initiatives, such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) and the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP).

BEFSCI has developed a preliminary set of indicators that countries can use to monitor the impacts of modern bioenergy production on food security. Among these, the “core” ones are1:

1. Changes in production of stocks of and trade in main staple crops (see appendix I).

2. Change in domestic use of main staple crops for: food; feed; and fuel (see appendix I).

3. Changes in inflation-adjusted (“real”) prices of main staple crops due to bioenergy production and resulting net welfare impacts on poor households (see appendix II).

4. Changes in agrobiodiversity due to bioenergy production and resulting impacts on household dietary diversity (see appendix III).

The three appendixes provide an overview of these indicators, which we would like to discuss with you. In particular, we would like to focus the discussion around the following questions:

1. In your opinion, do these indicators capture the main impacts that bioenergy production can have on food security? Do they seem sufficiently robust and

1 Bioenergy production may also affect food security through impacts on a number of other environmental and socio-economic dimensions (for which we are developing indicators), including: water availability and quality; productive capacity of land; agrobiodiversity; access to land; both farm and non-farm income (both waged and non-waged); access to energy; and others.

2

practical to you? Please provide a separate answer for each indicator. Would you have alternative or additional “core” indicators to suggest?

2. With regard to indicator # 3, do you believe that quantitative assessments (methodological approaches b and c) are necessary only if the qualitative assessment (methodological approach a) shows that there is a high risk of competition between bioenergy feedstock production and the production of main staple crops for food?

3. Based on your experience in your country or in other countries, which challenges do you foresee in measuring these indicators over time, particularly in terms of data requirements, complexity of the methodological approach/es, technical competencies required, and costs involved? In case these challenges cannot be overcome, which proxies would you recommend? Please provide a separate answer for each indicator.

Your feedback on these questions would be really appreciated. A second discussion (with a focus on food security indicators for certification) will be organized by the BEFSCI project later this year.

Thank you in advance for your time and inputs, which will be incorporated into a revised version of the indicators.

The BEFSCI team will keep you informed about the progress of the indicators formulation process and we will also keep you posted on the other related activities and outcomes of the project.

In the meantime, we are looking forward to a fruitful discussion with you.

Best regards,

Andrea RossiNatural Resources Management Officer (Bioenergy)Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators (BEFSCI) ProjectFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)www.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befsci

3

III. LIST OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Contribution by Stefan Bringezu from Wuppertal   Institut, Germany

Dear FSN Forum,

Thanks for your initiative. Regarding indicators it seems essential to measure Global Land Use (GLU) for total consumption of agricultural (and forestry) goods of a country in order to detect changes of global land use induced by consumption of food and non-food biomass. A description of the Global Land Use Accounting can be found in chapter 2 of the publication: Sustainable Resource Management Global Trends, Visions and Policies (Contributing Editors: Stefan Bringezu and Raimund Bleischwitz, Wuppertal Institute, Germanybook, September 2009).

An example of application for Germany is in the attached paper: http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/Global_implications_biomass_use_in_Germany_2009.pdf. We are currently preparing a paper for JIE to explain the concept and provide data for the EU and Switzerland.The method also allows to detect shifts in land use requirements between food and non-food (materials, energy) biomass. Data can be related to average per capita land use worldwide, currently and under future scenarios. It clearly shows how much land is used within the country and in other regions. The EU is a net importer of land and will increase its foreign land use under BAU (Business as Usual, Ed.) conditions.

Best regardsStefan Bringezu

Wuppertal Institut fuer Klima, Umwelt, Energie GmbHGermany

Contribution by Marcus V.A. Finco from University of Hohenheim, Germany

Dear colleagues,

Please, below you find the link of a paper of mine (published on Elsevier) that deals exactly with this topic. The title of the paper is "Bioenergy and sustainable development: the dilemma of food security and climate change in the Brazilian savannah" (http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/Bioenergy_and_Sustainable_development_Brazil.pdf)

I expect some reactions from your side and feel free to request more information.

Many regards

Marcus Finco (Uni Hohenheim, Germany).

Marcus V.A. FincoInstitute of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of HohenheimStuttgart, Germany

4

Contribution by Peter Wobst from FAO, Italy

Dear Andrea,

I had a quick look at the proposed indicators and believe that there is a missing link between production on the one hand and household income and nutrition/diets on the other hand, which is employment. I think to remember that initially there were some (sub-)indicators related to employment, which have not been considered in the final set of indicators.

In general, but related to the above, I think there is too much focus on quantities (production, stocks, imports/exports, shares) and related prices, instead of focusing on structural change elements like the change in land use that you consider in indicator #4, but that would also include changes in the workforce, including for example aspects of employment creation/diversion, self-employment/entrepreneurship, agricultural/non-agricultural employment, rural-urban migration, and agricultural workers as well as qualitative aspects of employment such as rights at work, social protection and social dialogue. The latter also touches upon institutional aspects that include the organization of smallholders and agricultural workers in farmers’ organizations/associations or trade unions.

A more people-centered approach through the acknowledgement that employment is an individual concept within a household context would also provide scope to consider gender aspects and create indicators (on employment, income generation and nutrition) that are sex-disaggregated.

The logical link between production and nutrition/diets in my view is production – employment – income (purchasing power) – demand/consumption – nutrition/diets. It is hard to establish a link between increased production and household welfare (food security, nutrition, etc.) if the employment aspect is neglected. Households are endowed with productive resources (including labour) and the distribution value added labour (as well as profits) is determined by the participation of household members in the respective production processes. Consequently, the tracking of individuals and their engagement in the production process is crucial. Otherwise, one might observe two effects (increased production and increased household income) that may occur simultaneously in time, but may not necessarily have direct causal relationship.

Concerning the methodology of indicator #3, I have added some comments in italics after the respective subsections below. I strongly believe that the third part of the methodology, i.e. c) Comparison between situations with/without bioenergy development, is absolutely necessary.

Please let me know if anything is unclear or you would like to discuss this further.

Kind regards,

Peter

Extracts from Appendix II: Description of indicator # 3: “Change in inflation-adjusted (“real”) prices of main staple crops due to bioenergy production and resulting net welfare impacts on poor households”

Methodological approach

Various options exist to assess the influence of bioenergy production on the prices of main staple crops, including:

5

a) Qualitative assessment: This approach aims to provide a qualitative assessment on the extent to which bioenergy feedstock production competes with the production of staple crops for food, thus affecting their availability and price.

If main staple crops are used as bioenergy feedstocks and the required additional production of these crops is obtained through the use of additional land, through increased yields, or through a mix of the two, bioenergy production should not directly compete with food production. If non-staple crops are used as bioenergy feedstocks and these crops expand into lands that are suitable for main staple crops, there may be direct competition between bioenergy production and food production, especially if land is scarce.

In both cases, bioenergy production may lead to an increase in the demand for agricultural inputs (such as water and fertilizers) and thus to an increase in their costs and a reduction of their affordability for food production. The extent of this “indirect” competition between bioenergy production and food production will depend on the relative scarcity of these inputs.

<<It is not clear how qualitative assessments would be used and suffice “to assess the influence of bioenergy production on the prices of main staple crops”.>>

b) Forward looking/projections: these projections rely on partial equilibrium models. These are scientifically solid methodologies which have been used for a long time. For instance the yearly OECD-FAO Outlook Report provides a 10-year forecast of demand, supply, trade and prices for international and national agricultural commodity markets. The Outlook is produced with a partial equilibrium model called AGLINK-COSIMO and both allow one to conduct policy and market analysis of agricultural markets, including biofuels. AGLINK-COSIMO can isolate the impact of growing biofuel demand on individual commodity prices. Like in any partial equilibrium model, there are several possible results because several assumptions need to be made. But this drawback can be mitigated if one country always uses the same model and assumptions, as this allows for the monitoring of the situation and tracking changes on a comparable basis over time.

<<Since the aim is to measure/assess the potential pos./neg. effects of biofuels development and hence the trade-offs b/w biofuels feedstock production and staple food production the matter seems particularly non-partial. Hence, PE approaches are not suitable to analyze the trade-offs, interlinkages and potential developments in the respective sectors. The kind of sector development in question is inherently dynamic including changes in behavior and possibly regime switches that cannot be captured by PE approaches. On the contrary, projections of trends are of rather linear nature relying on available time series data for the last decades, which is likely not to feature the biofuels production structure that is subject of the analysis.>>

c) Comparison between situations with/without bioenergy development: In addition to the above, more context specific economic analysis/econometrics analysis can be applied. It is important to stress that all assumptions made in the models need to be clearly listed to ensure that the implications of the assumptions on the results are clearly understood. Obviously the approach is based on sound scientific considerations. Results will be comparable and changes can be tracked when the same model and assumptions are used over time.

<<Needs to be done>>

Contribution by Andrea Rossi from FAO, Italy

Dear experts,

Thank you very much for your interesting and constructive comments and inputs.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that the four “core” indicators that were chosen for this discussion are part of a much broader set of indicators which deal with several other environmental and socio-economic effects of bioenergy production of relevance to food security.

6

Both the issues that were rightly mentioned by Stefan and Peter - i.e. land use and income/employment - are extremely important in the context of bioenergy production and are key drivers of food security. Each of them is captured through a specific indicator in the broader set. Other indicators that were not included in this discussion (due to space constraints) deal, among other things, with the impacts (both negative and positive) of bioenergy production on: biodiversity; soil quality; water availability and quality; access to land; access to energy; etc.

Peter, thank you also for your detailed comments on the three different methodologies that were proposed for the measurement of the first part of indicator # 3. I am currently reviewing and discussing them with come colleagues. We will get back to you shortly.

Thank you again for taking the time to contribute to this discussion. I am looking forward to receiving further comments and inputs from you and from other experts.

Kind regards,Andrea.

Andrea RossiNatural Resources Management Officer (Bioenergy)

Contribution by K V Peter, Kerala Agricultural University, India [SE india]

The issue is hunger, poverty and inaccessibility to food grains by more than one billion people. Energy from food grains for development through industrialization is fought with dehumanization. Gandhiji said "Poor sees God in bread". Policy makers in ivory towers and in National Capitals cannot understand the feeling of poor. Poverty breeds contempt to human values. There are alternate bioresources to foodgrains to produce bioenergy. What about solid wastes? What about ceiling on energy use in cities and towns? Save energy wherever possible. What about much researched energy plantations in uncultivable lands? What about aquatic and marine bioresources yet untouched? What about the most powerful source-deeper earth, planets and sun?

K V Peter

Contribution by Ignatius Onimawo from Ambrose Alli University, Nigeria

Dear Colleagues,

I must confess that the whole discussion on bioenergy is a little worrisome. I speak from the background of enormous poverty and malnutrition in many African countries south of the Sahara. I foresee a situation where farmers may abandon food crop production and begin to grow jatropha plants for bioenergy because of the immediate financial benefits. We know the implications of this on the overall food production and malnutrition. When you combine this with the fact that developed countries are already using maize and wheat for bioenergy you can imagine the multipier effects on the state of malnutrition in developing countries. Once the farmers know that they can get higher prices for bioenergy crops no one can stop them. I am just thinking.

Prof Ignatius Onimawo

7

Contribution by Irini Maltsoglou from FAO, Italy

Dear Collegues,

Thank you for an interesting set of comments.

I would like to start with the comment from Prof. Onimawo which encompasses the deep concern regarding bioenergy development and domestic bioenergy development in African countries. On this matter I would like to direct the reader to the Tanzania BEFS report http://www.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befs/tanzania/en/ and the report http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1544e/i1544e00.htm

The essence of the analysis presented in BEFS and in the Tanzania report lies in striking a balance between the benefits and risks that bioenergy developments can offer. Food comes first but can bioenergy offer an opportunity to spur much needed economic growth and agriculture sector growth? Below an excerpt from the BEFS analysis:

Initially bioenery developers rushed into bioenergy but generally in the absence of a wider understanding of the full costs, benefits and impacts of bioenergy. The question now faced by governments is whether the investments brought in by bioenergy can be channelled to ensure that bioenergy developments are viable and sustainable and that ultimately they become a vehicle for much needed agriculture growth, food production enhancement, rural development and poverty reduction. The BEFS analysis demonstrates that the impacts of bioenergy, and more specifically biofuels, on food prices, economic growth, energy security, deforestation, land use and climate change vary by feedstock, by the method and location of production, and centrally hinge on the management of the sector. The main endeavour throughout the analysis in BEFS is to identify a management system that is food secure, smallholder inclusive and vulnerability safeguarding in order to ensure that countries reap the benefits of bioenergy developments but manage and are aware of the risks involved.

With reference to Peter Wobst’s comments in italics:

1. Qualitative assessment

By qualitative assessment we intend an initial analytical assessment of the potential implications of using, for example, a food crop for ethanol production. Mainly this rests on simple supply and demand graphs illustrating mainly that if demand increases and supply does not respond, prices will increase. One of the main issues this illustrates is that supply response is needed to ensure that prices do not increase sharply. This would entail investment in agriculture or land expansion. The reader can find more on this at page 217 of the Tanzania report.

2. Partial equilibrium

Listed are the pros and cons of using a partial equilibrium analysis versus a general equilibrium analysis and I will not debate this. Generally, it is important to be clear about the assumptions and limitations of the analysis used and it might simply be limited to what is available to the user. A number of partial equilibrium analyses are run on a yearly basis and can be used to get an understanding of the agriculture outlook in the countries. Other institutions run computable general equilibrium (CGE) analysis. National CGEs are more complicated to implement but offer a greater level of detail on the implications of the development of a domestic bioenergy sector.

Best regards

Irini

8

Contribution by JS Heslop-Harrison from the University of Leicester, UK

As well as requiring land, fertilizer and crop protection, growing biofuels for liquid fuels can require an additional level of infrastructure to transport and process the plants. Like Professor Onimawo, I can appreciate the argument too that biofuel field crops can compete with food crops. However, where do fuel-wood and biomass production systems fit? These can have immense value both to the people growing them and the environment. Deep-rooting, and perennial biomass crops at field margins retain moisture, reduce fast run off and erosion from wind and water, and reduce transpiration in shielded crops. Their harvest provides local fuels for cooking, water and space heating. (But use does require some sort of stove or hearth both to use the heat efficiently and ensure complete combustion for the health of the people using the fire.) However, exploitation of trees and shrubs has lead to removal over vast areas. How should this be reversed and their value emphasized both for fuel and environmental reasons?

JS (Pat) Heslop-Harrison

Contribution by Helga Vierich-Drever from Canada

Thank you for this information on the new forum.  I have run across some recent papers on the subject of biofuels that are a bit disturbing.  Here they are: 

Food vs. fuel: Growing grain for food is more energy efficient

Ethanol production could jeopardize soil productivity

Soil fertility key to African green revolution - SciDev.Net

Moreover, the cultivation of biofuels on marginal land is a distinct threat not only to our overall ecosystem, but also to the remaining soils in these already degraded environments.  This is a major problem in Africa, where land that has been abandoned or fallowed by local communities due to fertility declines is apparently being targeting for biofuel production, often by corporations who are actually purchasing such land from local governments.

FORA.tv - Dr. Deborah Brautigam: The Real Story of China in Africa

Soil degradation issues 'swept aside', say experts - SciDev.Net

Chinese soil experts warn of massive threat to food security - SciDev.Net

The communities which lived on or previously used these marginal areas might need to return to them and make better use of them through permaculture at some point in the near future as the international global commodity market winds down due to the rise in oil prices that is now foreseen in the near future.  This is already beginning to happen in the industrial nations.  See An Alternative to UnemploymentTHE BACKLANDER PROJECT | THE BACKLANDER PROJECT  and  Boomers Take Up the Plow and Open Small Farms | | AlterNet.

All of these concerns bring me to wonder if biofuels might not be detrimental in the long run, even if in the short run they might seem attractive options in terms of increasing employment and GNP for poorer African countries.

Regards,

Helga

9

Contribution by Bhubaneswor Dhakal from New Zealand

Hello Andrea Rossi In the context of growing demands for both food and bioenergy, it is a good initiation to develop robust indicators for monitoring/ assessing impacts of bioenergy on food security in developing countries.  I am answering your questions based on my research knowledge, and substantial experiences and reflections of monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment work in forestry sector in Nepal.  Q1. In your opinion, do these indicators capture the main impacts that bioenergy production can have on food security? Do they seem sufficiently robust and practical to you?

Production of main staple crops (both nationally and regionally/locally);Changes in stocks of main staple crops;Exports and imports of main staple crops; andShares of main staple crops used for food, feed and fuel.

The above information (as listed in Appendix 1) is not enough to assess the impacts.  In developing countries land resource contribute in food security from different ways. The land use in bioenergy production can reduce opportunity to produce inputs for food products. If farmers, for example, produce rice, millet or maize, the byproducts would be used to feed animals that provide manure for farm fertilization and farm power for ploughing. Byproducts of some of the crops can be stored to feed livestock in critical feed shortage seasons. If the farmers do not manage the feed for the season they cannot sustain their livestock business. Livestock do not eat byproducts of some bioenergy such as jatropha. In developing countries some bioenergy crops (e.g. jatropha) can compete with pasture supply for livestock from community lands where farmer do not grow staple crops. Milk is another sort of food security and source of balance nutrition for poor farmers. The food security contributed by livestock products cannot be measured by stocks and exports of staple crops. These are very simple examples. Therefore, crop production and export/import parameters alone are not enough indicators.  The prices and incomes indicators are also not adequate in the context of developing countries. In gender analysis terms the indicators do not disaggregate the income groups and farming cultures.

Prices of main staple crops; andHousehold income and expenditure by crop.

The price can capture the effect in medium and high income groups who produce for commercial purpose. It may not capture the impact on poor households. Many farmers produce for their own consumption and the products cannot be valued by prices. In addition many poor people cope food shortage by various means: reduction for consumption, starvation, use of wild foods and migration. The direct household income and expenditure by crop is also not enough to capture effect. The land use change can make indirect effect on household income. The land use can affect on feed availability animal holding and its income. The change of land use system can affect income and food security of other households in community. I had done this type of study in forestry which is going to be published in Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35(1).  The title of the paper is “ Forests for food security and livelihood sustainability: Policy problems and opportunities for small farmers in Nepal”  Regarding the indicator to measure relationship between bioenergy with agrobiodiversity the information listed in the appendix II is much more inadequate in developing countries.

Maps of current and past uses of the land; andHousehold dietary diversity.

10

When I studied drivers of changes of ecosystem diversity in mountain agricultural landscapes I found very complex relationships of agrobiodiversity with various drivers. The agrobiodiversity have different dimension that are not possible to assess from the indicators that you listed. It is not possible to describe them here.  

2. With regard to indicator # 3, do you believe that quantitative assessments (methodological approaches b and c) are necessary only if the qualitative assessment (methodological approach a) shows that there is a high risk of competition between bioenergy feedstock production and the production of mainstaple crops for food?

Impacts can be measure simple and advance qualitative methods. Experts use advance methods when simple method cannot measure the effect sufficiently or clearly. Otherwise you should have special interest to use them. It is not a matter of risk. Some time qualitative measures can be more powerful than advance quantitative method. For example, intra household impacts (e.g. across gender and age groups) can be better explained by qualitative method. It is not possible to capture the intra household effects in the parameters of partial/general equilibrium model.  

3. Based on your experience in your country or in other countries, which challenges do you foresee in measuring these indicators over time, particularly in terms of data requirements, complexity of the methodological approach/es, technical competencies required, and costs involved? In case these challenges cannot be overcome, which proxies would you recommend? Please provide a separate answer for each indicator.

I studies on impact assessment methods particularly of public forest policy changes. Most of previous studies looked at direct impacts as you proposed. In developing countries some resources can be complementary to other resources to make livelihoods or achieve food security. The studies ignored complementary relationships and indirect effects on household economies. Studies based on conventional method ignore farmers’ behaviours or products that are consumed in special conditions. It is important to capture the resources and opportunities while studying impacts in developing countries. To include the relationship it needs more information and understanding of the conditions. The methodological problem for robust impact assessment is more common in forestry sector. The practice was not driven by the problem of cost but it was matter of understanding about problems by researchers. I studied on the forestry problem in Nepal and demonstrated a robust methodology to address the missing issues. The paper also has been accepted for publication in a journal.  In conclusion, these indicators are not enough to assess impacts of bioenergy crops on food security. It is well known that the relationship of land resources for food security vary with communities. If you develop tools targeting “one size fit for all” then the tool should have room to modify according to condition Probably you need to do more exercises. Unfortunately some of the critical problems may not be available in literatures. The solution is to consult with people who have field based knowledge about farming systems and livelihoods ways in developing countries.

Thank you.Bhubaneswor Dhakal

Contribution by Peter Steele from FAO, Cambodia

Colleagues,

BioEnergy, Messages & People

11

Good discussion, if less supported than I would originally have thought; but is this because the focus may be difficult to grasp from the isolated classrooms, fields or homes of many people living at the sharp end of this kind of industrial venture. Then too, it focused on ‘indicators’ (although contributions have been more general). Like many others, I have followed the debate, but not made a contribution. Seeing the deadline looming a few lines of support may assist. Consider:Language. The language of the bioenergy industry as featured in the debate is sometimes difficult to grasp, and may be harder for non-international language speakers. Compare, for example, the messages from Professor Onimawo and those in response from Irini Maltsoglou. Messages need to be reasonably easy-to-understand at grassroots level.Markets. No matter the safeguards that may be provided by those responsible for ‘moderation’ in approach to use of land and other natural resources, entrepreneurs of all kinds and scale will take advantage of buoyant markets that exist for products that can be grown, manufactured and/or sold. Bioenergy/fuels are no exception. A hand-wringing approach to short-term exploitation (without concern for the longer-term issues) has little value – whether for biofuels or more traditional crops. Consider the use of water for production of khatt in Yemen; the way in which the quazi-virgin native forests in SE Asia are being shifted into industrial crops (such as rubber, oil-palm and others); the coffee plantations established in Ethiopia during the 1980s on land containing remnants of the ancient East African tropical rainforests (and which - <20 years later – are largely defunct). And so on. If there are markets for biofuels and these are promoted by the host government, then the biodiesel and ethanol fuels will be produced to exploit them. Supplies and demand of transport fuels (and other sources of energy generally) will remain fluid and complex well into the next period; the skill of planners and others responsible for national (and international) industries and national territory will be one of keeping abreast of change – hedging opportunities and spreading risk. Bioenergy from non-food resources. Easy to headline, but more difficult to promote when existing food-based industries are taking priority for fuels and energy production; and if not the actual product (the grain that would normally be eaten/processed into food), but also the land/resources redirected into biofuels. How can you encourage people to produce for lower value markets? Why should they? One easy to feature opportunity focuses upon residues, byproducts and similar that do not typically enter the human food chain. Sure, many of these products can be channeled through ruminants as maintenance feed, for example, but others can be used with minimum effort for heat production. Sometimes the materials have an opportunity cost; they have already been collected and delivered on site - rice husk, for example, or timber wastes from saw milling. City garbage utilization is another industrial sector from which agro-energy industries can gain experience, information and benefit.

Reading back over this contribution, my language is also challenging; my apologizes to those of you living in Swahili, Yoruba or Khmer.

Peter SteeleFAOPhnom Penh

Contribution by Democracy Icawalo from the Philippines

Dear FSN Moderator

I have read the FSN article on Measuring the Impact of Bio-Energy on Food Supply and I would like to make a suggestion to use bamboo as the source of bio-oil and bio-coal as this is the best raw material for these earth-friendly products.

To know more, please open my presentation on the topic "Help Save the World with Bamboo".

Hope this could contribute positively.

12

Regards,Democracy Icawalo

Contribution by Matt Johnston University of Minnesota, USA

Dear BEFSCI team,

Please find below my initial feedback on this topic.

I think most bioenergy projects in developing countries are promoted with two assumptions regarding food security:

1) Don’t hurt food security (i.e. access and availability).2) Help agricultural development (i.e. access and stability).

The indicators described here are pretty thorough from the standpoint of #1 – measuring the immediate impacts of bioenergy projects on food availability and access.  However, the bioenergy community also highly touts the developmental benefits of biofuel projects (#2) as well… road construction, access to new markets, market stability, better distribution of inputs, etc… Whether these “on paper” benefits of bioenergy development turn out to be true or not is the real question.  Is agriculture becoming more sustainable/profitable as a livelihood?  Have local/regional agricultural markets become more stable since the introduction of bioenergy projects?  Are developmental benefits being concentrated with a small segment of the local population or are they widespread? Etc…

The full benefits (or lack thereof) of development projects can takes years to fully realize so I understand this second point is extremely difficult to capture from a quantitative perspective (although I did see that household incomes will be measured as part of indicator #3).   However, even if it is only included through the use of household or government surveys, initial impressions from people on the ground would still be quite useful I think.  Without some sort of verification, I think these “on paper” developmental benefits of biofuels will continue to be promoted and assumed to be true… possibly the long-term detriment of food security.  On this short of notice I don’t have any new indicators to propose off hand, but I would be happy to work with the group to figure out ways to better capture the impacts of #2 above. 

DATA SOURCESFrom my understanding of Appendix I, it looks like FAOSTAT data will be the primary data used to determine changes in production of staple crops and supplemented by consultations with local/national experts. 

I’m not sure if it would be useful in this context, but I think the M3 cropland datasets might also be helpful for your purposes as we have in some ways already performed a first-level attempt at local/national consultation across the globe!  My colleagues basically went around the world and gathered the best available sub-national agricultural census data, reconciled it with FAOSTAT, and then spataialized it using global agricultural maps.  The result is global spatialized maps of agricultural statistics showing both area and yield the 175 crops tracked by the FAO.  Unfortunately, while most OECD and large ag export countries have extremely robust results (spatialized county/district-level stats), many of the most food insecure countries also have the lowest quality source data.  However, even at its worst, the M3 datasets default to spatialized FAOSTAT data. Right now the M3 datasets are only available for the year 2000 (averaged results from 1997 to 2003 to smooth fluctuations from weather/markets/etc…), but there is already an effort underway to provide 2005 results as well as 5 year time steps going back to the 1960s. 

I’m not sure if the larger, five year time steps will be useful in determining the immediate impacts of bioenergy projects on food security (#1).  However, they may be useful in determining spatial

13

trends (not possible with FAOSTAT) in area and yield for long-term verification of the benefits promised by #2.  This is just a quick description, but if you would like to know more about the M3 datasets and how they might be useful to the project I would be happy to explain them.  I have a presentation on the M3 datasets that I can walk through in about 20 minutes if it would be of interest…

Thanks again, I hope this feedback has been of use!

Matt

Contribution by Orlando Vega Charpentier, IICA, Costa Rica

Please find enclosed a study report issued by IICA (Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture) on “Latin America and the Caribbean: political and institutional mapping and analysis of competition between food and bioenergy production” (available in Spanish and in English). The purpose of this study was to assess the production of biofuels and the possible implications on food production and food security in Latin America and the Caribbean.

“América Latina y el Caribe: Mapeo político-institucional y análisis de la competencia entre producción de alimentos y bioenergía” http://www.iica.int/Esp/organizacion/LTGC/agroenergia/Documentos%20Agroenerga%20y%20Biocombustibles/B1683.pdf

“Study on Regional Evidence Generation and Policy and Institutional Mapping on Food and Bioenergy: Latin America and Caribbean-LAC”http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/IICA_2010_Engl.pdf

Atentamente,

Orlando Vega CharpentierLínea de acción de apoyo a la utilización de fuentes de energías nuevas y renovablesPrograma de Innovación para la Productividad y CompetitividadInstituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura

Contribution by Radha Gopalan from Rishi Valley School, India [SE India]

Dear all,

One of the most significant issues associated with bioenergy production is land use. Typically when non-agricultural land, common lands termed 'wastelands' are utilised to grow biofuels such as jatropha, pongamia etc., it could serve as an additional source of income for small and marginal farmers. However, when common lands which can be used as pastoral / grazing lands by pastoralists or when they can be put to agricultural use is taken away for biofuel cultivation, which is often the case, there is a serious issue of food security compromise.

It would be useful to include an indicator that can measure and /or monitor conversion or diversion of land use from agricultural/grazing land to biofuel cultivation. In the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh (from what I know) this has significantly impacted food security. Government's need to meet targets of land brought under biofuel cultivation has led to this problem.

Radha GopalanRishi Valley School

14

MadanapalleAndhra Pradesh

Contribution by Helga Vierich-Drever from Canada

This note of caution about the use of "marginal" land is very timely.  There are a lot of misunderstandings possible about the value of marginal lands to local communities.  First of all, there is the issue of what marginal really means.  In a slash and burn horticultural system the length of time land is left fallow after a few years of cropping varies from 10 to 30 years... and during the period of fallowing, the land will look very marginal indeed for the first few years. It will appear degraded and scrubby. It will be used for grazing livestock in many cases. Then, as the succession communities develop, the land will go through a stage of young pioneering forest, more mature versions of these trees interspersed with young specimens of species characteristic of the climax community, and finally the stager where these species constitute the majority of the forest, while the pioneering species constitute an aging and decaying lower layer, often overshadowed to death by the vigorous growth of the younger climax species.  

The forest succession will often be interrupted and cleared or partly cleared off for cultivation by the local community long before the climax community is fully established. 

During this period of fallowing, it might be easy for someone not familiar with the land use patterns to mistake the fallow land for "marginal" land that has been "abandoned" permanently, or to have it mistaken for unused bits of wilderness that is not needed or much used by the local community.  In an intact system of long-fallow slash and burn, the amount of land within a village territory that is fallow and in varying stages of secondary growth back to forest, will be between 60 and 85%.  This means that, from pictures taken from aeroplanes or satellite, or from maps of land use from any one point in time, there will be a very false impression that most of the land in the area is not needed to support the population.  This impression is very incorrect, but is perhaps understandable if the observers are viewing land use from a cultural perspective formed in more intensive agricultural systems.  

Such intensive farming systems of course require a steady augmentation of fertility - either through the cultivation of a green manure which is ploughed under, or applications of manure or compost, or from chemical fertilizers.  In long fallow systems, this is not the case.  Fertility is restored to the soil by the biotic community that exists during the various stages of natural succession.  The longer the wait to clear the area again, the higher will be the soil fertility.  Of course, in areas of rising population density people may not be able to hold off as long as they did in the past.  The relationship between population density and length of their fallow period can be calculated very easily based on the relationship between caloric return per unit of land and the population density.   As population rises, the fallowing period becomes shorter,  fertility falls, and the amount of land that must be cultivate to achieve an adequate level of food production, which in turn removes more land from fallowing, which has the predictable result of eventually extinction of the fallowing system in favour of the much more intensive system involving far more work and often coinciding with the adoption of draft animals and animal traction equipment, both to deal with the weed invasion that inevitably followed over-cultivation, as well as to transport and distribute manure and other inputs. 

In much of the world, long fallow systems have long ago been abandoned due to population density issues.  The change in land tenure of course changes in tune with this.  In the long fallow system, people tend not to have individual or family ownership of "private" property.  Rather, it is more efficient for there to be communal tenure and individual usufruct rights that coincide with the period of time any one piece of land is in use - the land reverting to community ownership or "the commons" during the long fallow cycle.  

Once land begins to be used more intensively, however, the usufruct rights extend through many generations, hence particular fields begin to be inherited within a family, and eventually this becomes transformed into a system where land is considered to be owned by the family or even

15

by the individual who is the head of the household or lineage that has been working hard on the land.  A transformation of land tenure systems is occurring right now in communities all over Africa and South and Central America, as well as in a few regions of Asia where horticultural systems based on long fallow still exist - or existed until recently.  

In areas of low population density, therefore, where long fallow and slash and burn is still the predominant pattern of subsistence farming, the local community is extremely vulnerable to having their "marginal" or apparently "unused" land sold out from under them by governments unaware of the true long term dynamics keeping these communities fed.  

I think most of the people on this forum can probably imagine the eventual consequences of this kind of thing for local populations, and potential for resentment and hostility between these and the new "owners" of the fallowed reserve land that the villagers would have been counting on for their grazing animals, their wild plant and animal food supplements, and medicinal herbs; as well of course for their future crop lands.  

Furthermore, in the cases where land is truly become marginal or degraded beyond the hope of natural regeneration through fallowing, it does not follow that such land is "up for grabs" to be taken out of the control of local communities.  I did extensive fieldwork in six communities in West Africa and Souther Africa and NEVER found any land that was not claimed as traditional territory by some community.  Even areas of sand desert are still within the named territories of one or another community.  Any land that has been "set aside" for national parks so far anywhere has undoubtedly been taken away from a local community.  Even jungle lands that appear uninhabited in places like the Congo or the Amazon, are not.  Land use may be very extensive, as in hunting and gathering, or very low intensity, as in slash and burn horticulture, but it is a mistake to assume that no local population is unaffected by the creation of parks, logging concessions, mining operations, or the granting of land to "settlers" whose aim is of a more intensive kind, whether this be modern farming or ranching.  

The apparent financial bonanza currently tempting many African (as well as other) states, from selling or leasing large tracts of "marginal" land to outsiders - especially various corporations whose goal is investment in biofuels, may in the long run, be disastrous for local communities, both in terms of self-sufficiency and in terms of their long term survival.  The state that allowed foreign agency to operate commercial enterprises of any kind within its borders tends to become hostage to the interests of the outsider, since no such agency would be interested in such investments without the prospect of fairly substantial profits from it, and a government can easily become dependent on the taxes and other user fees they gain by these arrangements. The objections of local communities may well result in the national government coming down on the side of the foreign investor AGAINST the local community, with rather horrible results in terms of injustice and oppression and loss of life being an all too likely result, mostly bourn by those with the least financial and military support. 

I can expand on this with examples, but I think most of my colleagues here on this forum can readily think of many such examples that are just as chilling as any of mine, if not more stark.  

Finally, there is the startling fact that even badly degraded land can in fact be salvaged and returned to productivity.  Systems of erosion control, terracing, and use of tree planting to restore the water table such as permaculture, have had dramatic results.  So before such land is taken out of the local communities reserves, it might be more just to give these people the opportunity to learn to use some of these methods.   I will be happy to discuss these alternatives but, again, I am certain that many of you on this forum can come up with many examples probably more dramatic than any of my own.

Regards, Helga

16

Contribution by K V Peter , Kerala Agricultural University, India [SE India]

The Planning Commission of India has listed 12 plants for possible use as sources for production of renewable green energy. Recently, I heard a presentation of Administrator Coconut Board Philippines at the just concluded International Conference on Coconut at CPCRI Kasargod. It was shared that there is a law in Philippines to use coconut oil at least to the extent of 5 percent. There is over and excess domestic production of coconut oil in Philippines. The bill for petroleum import is going up resulting in escalation in prices of food commodities and hence the law to use coconut oil. The use of Coconut oil for energy may not be a feasible proposition in Sri Lanka and India where there is scarcity of edible oil. Solid and liquid waste and weed plants both aquatic and terrestrial can be used for energy production if available technologies are scaled up. In a food deficient country like India, land, water and labour diversion for green energy is not feasible and economical.

KV Peter

Contribution by SN Das , Ministry of Agriculture, India [SE India]

Land use is an issue which needs to be governed by State Planning Department. Land use planning should be based on Land Capability at first place and states must ensure proper crop planning based on requirement of food grains, fodder, fuel, timber etc. that will provide multiple options to the farming community for livelihood security. Scientific data base should be used for Jatropha and other bio-fuel plantation to safeguard the food security issue.

SN Das

Contribution by Kodjo Dokodjo, Division des Statistiques Agricoles (DSID) , Togo

Dear All,

Please find my contribution to this FSN Forum discussion.

Answers to the questions

Question 1:

- I think the first indicator: Changes in production, stocks and trade of main staple crops can perfectly capture the main impacts that bioenergy production can have on food security. However, it takes into account the three pillars of the concept of Food Security I mean food availability, food accessibility and food quality; and it seems practical and easier to measure.

- The second indicator: Changes in domestic use of main staple crops for food, feed and fuel deals with the third pillar of food security (food quality). This indicator can also perfectly capture impacts that bioenergy production can have on food security. However, it will let know of food shortage and food deficiency. This indicator is also practical and easy to measure.

- The third and the fourth indicators are also important, practical and easy to measure so as the first one.

Question 2:

- No, I think this indicator must be always measured even if the qualitative assessment shows that there is a low risk of competition between bioenergy feedstock production and the production of the main staple crops for food. This third indicator is very important and it must be measured every time. This will avoid every price crisis in the future.

17

Question 3:

- In my work experience, the first indicator is fluently measured, and for every agricultural statistician, the variables to measure this indicator are well known. Nonetheless, the complexity of the methodological approaches requires technical competence and recurrent cost. In this field, African countries are making great efforts to make available data to measure these indicators

- As for the second indicator, the major problem will not too much rely on the methodological approaches but rather on the declaration of the householders in terms of reliability of their responses to the questions

- The third indicator has the same characteristics as the first one (I will say the same thing).

Best regardsKodjo DokodjoChef, Division des Statistiques Agricoles (DSID)Lomé Togo

Final remarks by Andrea Rossi, topic raiser

Dear experts,

I would like to thank you (also on behalf of the BEFSCI Project Coordinator) for taking the time to contribute to this complex discussion.

The interesting and constructive inputs you provided, combined with the outcomes of the multistakeholder consultations we are holding and the results of the pilot-testing activities that we recently initiated, will be incorporated into a revised version of the indicators.

Please visit the BEFSCI web-site (http://www.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befsci/en/) regularly to keep track of progress in the indicators development process.

As already mentioned, a second FSN Forum discussion (with a focus on food security indicators for certification) will be organized by the BEFSCI project later this year.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Andrea RossiNatural Resources Management Officer (Bioenergy)Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators (BEFSCI) ProjectFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)Viale delle Terme di Caracalla00153 Rome - Italywww.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befsci

18