List of Abbreviations - Mark- och vattenteknik - KTH

Sustainable use of Biofuels
Academic collection of assignment papers
Editor
Jan-Erik Gustafsson
Associate Professor
Department of Land & Water Resources
KTH
Stockholm, Sweden
Cover photo:
EESI students visiting Eskilstuna Sewage Treatment plant, Stockholm 2009, J-E Gustafsson
TRITA-LWR. REPORT 3021
ISSN 1650-8610
ISRN KTH/LWR/REPORT 3021-SE
ISBN 978-91-7415-321-7

Contents
Foreword…………………………………………………………………………………………...1
International trade of biofuels and investment context in South America: Issues and challenges
Dilbahar Ahmed, Laila El Krekshi, Veranika Nagapetan………………………………………....3
Implementation of EU’s Directives relevant to biofuels use in the transportation
Issa Al-Wer, Panagiotis Papageorgiou..........................................................................................23
High-tech vs. low-tech biofuels production: Diverging paths or a common road to sustainable
development A case study of Sweden and Mali
Shahrina Afrin, Craig Donovan, James Loewenstein ……………………………………………35
Techno-economic and environmental management with implementation of biogas energy as
alternative energy source for the future in developed and developing world
Sajjad Rana, Zhuang Xiwen, Michal Zywna ……………………………………………………51
Comparison of the potentials for the biofuel production in Bangladesh, Ukraine and Sweden
Tawid Md Amanullah, Shirin B U Khodeza, Sofiia Miliutenko………………………………….63
Feasibility and development of biofuels in comparison with natural gas
Seyed Emad Dehkordi, Md Al Mamunul Haque, Lei Wang……………………………………...75
“MSW-to-biofuel: Technical explanations of this process and analysis of its sustainability”
Ting Liu, Jean-Charles Manceau………………………………………………………………..89
Potential of biogas derived from landfill
Sergios Lagogiannis, Zhao Wang, Berhane Grum Woldegiorgis………………………………..99
Biofuels: Can it be an alternative income option alleviating poverty
Wilmar Tobon Restrepo, Himanshu Sanghani, Uz Atiq Zaman………………………………...109
Setting up Sustainable Jatropha Oil Production System: A Local-Community based approach in
India
Tahmina Ahsan, Michelle Pietsch, Kedar Uttam……………………………………………….127
Biofuel production and poverty reduction: A case of rural Ghana
Matthew Biniyam Kursah, Mohammad Shaheen Sarker………………………………………..141
Course syllabus………………………………………………………………………………….151
Course schedule…………………………………………………………………………………152
Excursion programme …………………………………………………………………………..153
Student list………………………………………………………………………………………155

Foreword
Since 1993, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) runs the international Master of Science
programme Environmental Engineering and Sustainable Infrastructure (EESI)-
www.lwr.kth.se/eesi . It is a multidisciplinary two years programme consisting of applied
engineering and planning/management courses. Due to the so called Bologna process, the
programme was extended with a third semester from September 2008.
This report is the output of the EESI Project course, which was carried through by 29
international students during the autumn semester 2008. As the general theme for the project,
Sustainable Use of Biofuels was chosen. It fulfils the requirements of an integrated project. The
students can apply the acquired knowledge and skills gained from the two semesters of the first
year. The chosen theme has of late become a large societal and global concern. Within this
general theme the students groups freely chose their specific projects. Further details on the
course lay out has been provided in the appendix.
Thus, the report consists of the 11 student groups’ final project papers. As a course works report,
it does not imply that individual students and teachers necessarily agree with that analysis and
proposals put forward. It is inevitable that a compilation of papers like this to some degree
reflects different writing styles. Due to the limited time available to edit the report, I wish to
make a reservation for any misunderstandings, which might exist in the student groups’ final
papers.
I am very grateful for the student groups’ contribution to the report, which I believe gives a rather
comprehensive understanding of the on-going international discussion on how to cope with the
emerging energy and food crisis.
A special thanks to all the external lecturers, who complemented the project work by their expert
knowledge.
My gratitude to the excursion hosts during the Northern Lake Mälaren excursion, who diligently
explained and demonstrated practical examples of Swedish experiences in bioenergy and biofuel
uses to the students.
Last but not the least, I wish to thank my co-teacher Lina Suleiman, whose effective inputs and
ideas were helpful in organizing and implementing the EESI project course; and my student
Kedar Uttam for his assistance in compiling the report.
Jan-Erik Gustafsson
Associate professor
- 1-

International trade of biofuels and investment context in
South America: Issues and challenges
by
Dilbahar Ahmed
Laila El Krekshi
Veranika Nagapetan
Introduction
The current international trade in biofuels is quite small in comparison with fossil fuels trade such as
petroleum and natural gas. However, it is expected that the biofuel production will double in the coming
decade as industrialized and developing countries are increasingly introducing policies to increase the
proportion of biofuels within their energy portfolio. Although the first biofuel production started in the
early 70s in Brazil with the launch of PROALCOOL program, it is only the past five years that biofuels is
given an important global consideration as an alternative to fossil fuels. Furthermore, it is argued that the
greatest appeal lies in their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and can help countries to meet
their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and climate change mitigation. From an economic point of
view, the high oil prices make biofuels from the most efficient producer countries competitive.
Other driving forces behind biofuel market development are:
• Promote greater energy security
• Currency savings through a reduced oil bill
• Rural development
• Poverty reduction (Dufey, 2007)
Biofuels can offer significant opportunities to pursue environment and development goals on global and
domestic levels. There are both synergies and trade offs. Trade may drive biofuels growth, however at
present, their current trade regimes are not fit for maximizing benefits nor minimizing risks from the
sector. The many issues involved and the lack of knowledge to tackle many of them make consensus
challenging. Furthermore, the different political and business interests on biofuels, add to the complexity
of the policy context.
The purpose of this report is to contribute to the discussions on the growing biofuel market in the context
of multilateral trade and investment.
In order to understand the dynamics of the biofuel market, the report looks at the main international trade
policies that frame the biofuel industry, and whether these policies contribute to the sustainable
- 3-

development of the biofuel potential. Furthermore it focuses on the biofuel trade, corporate interests and
investment relations between two key regions of current biofuel market – EU and Latin America.
Methodology
Official EU, WTO documents, and reports from NGOs and trade observatory organizations and
newspapers were used for the report.
Limitations
The aim of the project was to obtain an overview of current biofuel market situation, thus the following
topics were not covered:
• Food security
• Technical standards
• Detailed study of the agreements and the linkages
• Different policies within EU
Multilateral trade
International trade will play a key role in determining the final outcomes of biofuels. A key concern is the
existence of trade barriers- tariffs and non tariff barriers. Distortions in agriculture and energy trade
regimes, the number of standards and the lack of a clear biofuel classification in the multilateral trade
regime, suggest that there may be risks that biofuels will not contribute to sustainable development of all
trading partners (FAO Newsroom, 2008).
Trade barriers
Tariffs
There is currently no specific customs classification for biofuels. According to Dufey bioethanol is traded
under the code 22 07 covering denaturated (HS 22 07 20) and undenaturated alcohol (HS 22 07 10), which
can both be used for the production of biofuel (Dufey, 2006). Biodiesel produced from FAME (fatty acid
methyl ester) is traded under the HS code 3824 9099. The classification of these products does not allow
the identification of whether or not FAME and the imported alcohol are used for biofuel production.
Nevertheless, there is already evidence that countries are using tariffs as common practice to protect their
domestic agricultural and biofuel markets from foreign competition.
Table 1. Biofuel tariffs.
Duties/Countries EU US Canada Australia
Import duties on
bioethanol
Extra duties
Biodiesel under HS
code 3824 9099
duties
$0.10/lt $0.14/lt $ 0.06/lt $ 0.23/lt
$ 5.1%* $6,5/%
$ 54cents/gallon
* tariff on biodiesel from US. Source: Dufey, 2006.
- 4-

Furthermore bioethanol imported from Brazil is taxed at 30 per cent. Other import tariffs on biofuel input
products such as feedstocks, oils and molasses are also substantial.
Tariffs still do vary since both EU and US have preferential trade agreements and generalized system of
preferences (GSP) that grant preferential market access to certain countries.
Tariff escalation
In the WTO rules, tariff escalation happens if a country wants to protect its processing or manufacturing
industry, it can set low tariffs on imported materials used by the industry (cutting the industry’s costs) and
set higher tariffs on finished products to protect the goods produced by the industry. When importing
countries escalate their tariffs in this way, they make it more difficult for countries producing raw
materials to process and manufacture value — added products for export. Tariff escalation exists in both
developed and developing countries (WTO (3)). In biofuel trade, tariff escalation has been commonly
used, favoring production of crops over the value added forms of biofuels. For instance EU applies a 3.8
per cent tariff on imports of crude palm oil and 9.0 per cent and 10.9 per cent on imports of refined palm
oil from Indonesia. In the case of bioethanol, EU has recently moved its second largest exporter, Pakistan
from the General System of Preferences (GSP) apparently due to domestic producers’ pressure. A 15 per
cent import duty has been levied on industrial alcohol and bioethanol from Pakistan, which favors the
export of raw molasses over the value added products such as ethanol. As a result, distilleries in Pakistan
are closing because of the uncertain market conditions (Dufey, 2006).
Quotas
A number of industrialized countries have established complex import quota systems to regulate
the biofuels trade. For instance, US Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) which allows countries to
export bioethanol into US duty free to up to 7% of total US bioethanol production. EU regulates
the feedstock trade such as sugar imports through a complex system of duty free tariff quotas that
favours imports from the Cotonou Agreement (ACP) countries and India (Dufey, 2006).
Subsidies
Domestic support in form of subsidies is common. Almost every producing country notably the
industrialized countries have some kind of domestic support for biofuel production. The following table
shows US subsidies in different sectors in comparison with ethanol.
Table 2. The US subsidies comparison
Oil and gas
Coal
Nuclear energy
Ethanol
Other renewable energy
$ 39 billion
$ 8 billion
$9 billion
$ 6 billion
$ 6 billion
Source: Dufey (2006)
Although the direct subsidies is relatively small in comparison with subsidies for oil and gas, it is still
quite high as proportion of the biofuel market value, and they compound the distortions created by the
subsidies given to agriculture. Previous cases have proven the negative effects of agricultural subsidies on
developing countries’ competitiveness, but also the export dumping has affected developing countries’
food security, rural livelihood and agriculture.
- 5-

According to Dufey (2006), policy goals associated with biofuel production implies that countries have
strong measures to protect their local production. The way countries may justify themselves is that these
policies help support the development of the industry in the early stages, considering that the production
costs of biofuels are higher in relation to conventional fuels, and their positive externalities. The key issue
in this case is to investigate which of these policy measures implemented by certain countries affecting
biofuels trade is trade distorting and whether they are in line with the multilateral trading system. In fact
WTO deals with these kinds of issues and has rules on domestic support for industrial and agricultural
goods, which will be explained later.
Technical and Sustainability Standards
Technical standards
The existence of a number of technical regulations in different countries can seriously affect and restrict
biofuels trade especially for producer countries. Producers wishing to enter different markets will have to
comply with different standards. As a consequence the extra costs for the producers become much higher.
The trade can be further impeded if existing biofuel in certain markets cannot be sold and different fuel
must be developed to be in compliance with the importers’ standards.
Development of technical standards for biofuel use and its compliance are in the continuous process both
at regional and international levels. It mainly is focused on biofuel quality and blending proportions.
Sustainability standards
There are several initiatives being developed aiming to address the environmental and social practice in
biofuel production. Considerable work has already gone into developing various voluntary standards.
Some are led by NGOs i.e., WWF which is also working with the European Commission, others are led
by governments such as the UK, the Netherlands, and some are private – public actors such as the
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels.
At EU level the development of sustainability standards is still ongoing.
Currently under “sustainable production” by EU meant that:
• It reduces GHG emissions comparing to the equivalent quantity of fossil fuels (at least on 35%,
methodology does not include indirect land use change GHG emissions)
• It does not jeopardize “high biodiversity” and high carbon stock areas (Johnson et al, 2008).
These criteria are in compliance with current WTO-rules, whereas social and economic issues could not
be addressed by EU in a mandatory way. Although, according to WTO regulations, these issues could be
covered in voluntary certification under free competition conditions (BTG, 2008).
There are several such voluntary schemes that have been developed recently: Basel Criteria (Switzerland),
Cramer criteria (Holland), the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Great Britain), Roundtable on
Sustainable Biofuels (RSB), Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS), Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI).
Except for the Basel Criteria, all these schemes are still under construction and it will take time for them
to become implemented, but none of them have operational standards to guarantee compliance with their
respective standards as all schemes are voluntary and there are no sanctions if company fails meeting
them. To great extent this is caused restrictions by WTO and current unclearness in decision on
sustainability standards. Certain EU members have suspended the implementation of sustainability
schemes. They are waiting what would be accepted by EU, while EU in present situation can only assist in
promotion of voluntary certification (FOE, 2008).
At present under WTO agreements there are no provisions to link trade and social and labor issues.
However, some initiatives are taking place, for instance, ISO (the International Organization for
- 6-

Standardization has been working on developing standard 26000 with guidelines on social responsibility
(BTG, 2008).
Implementation of sustainability certification is associated with some risks:
• Even though raising of management standards worldwide is good for the industry, enhancing
competitiveness, exporting countries could hardly implement these standards and they can be
considered market entry barriers.
• Complex procedures and high costs of these schemes might have the negative effect on small
producers in developing countries and the situation for non-sustainable producers and workers
might deteriorate
• Other agricultural production could be displaced to marginal areas.
• Supply might shift to countries that do not require sustainable production (Murphy, 2008).
Although it is important to ensure compliance with environmental and social standards on biofuels, these
standards should be complimented with strong regulations. With a large guaranteed market at stake, the
firms dominating the biofuel feedstock processing and trading, and other strong energy companies, are
also seeking to control the policy debate and set rules that will favour them. Therefore it will take
enormous political effort to ensure that there is a proper framework that will not overlook the local, small
scale producers.
WTO
There is no separate framework of rules governing trade in biofuels. The WTO governs the international
trading of goods through GATT, which governs oil trade but it is still not clear how biofuels are defined.
WTO treats ethanol as an agricultural product subject to Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Biodiesel is
considered an industrial product and is therefore subject to the agreement on subsidies and countervailing
measures (agricultural versus non agricultural goods). According to Worldwatch Institute (2007) the
international legal framework governing the flows of agricultural commodities, alcohols and alternative
energies will be the key to the future of biofuel trade. The WTO’s Doha Round trade talks is important in
particular the ongoing negotiations covering the liberalization of agricultural trade and environmental
goods and services (EGS) as certain countries want to include biofuels in the list of environmental goods
to push the trade liberalization.
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
The core principles governing GATT and the WTO agreements are National Treatment (NT) and Most
Favoured Nation (MFN). These founding principles constitute the crucial WTO discipline of nondiscrimination
1 and reciprocity 2 .
The MFN principle means that countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. If a
special treatment is granted to the goods and services of one country, such as a lower customs duty rate,
they must be given to all WTO members (WTO (2)).
1 Nondiscrimination, or equal treatment, means that if one GATT member offers a benefit or a tariff
concession to another GATT member, for example, a reduction in its import tariff for bicycles, it must
offer the same tariff reduction to all GATT members. Thus, nondiscrimination extends the benefits of a
reciprocal tariff reduction beyond the two parties that initially negotiated it to all GATT members
2 Reciprocity refers to the practice that occurs in GATT negotiating rounds, whereby one country offers to
reduce a barrier to trade and a second country “reciprocates” by offering to reduce one of its own trade
barriers (Crowley, 2003)
- 7-

NT means that a member should treat local and foreign products and services equally. National treatment
only applies once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market.
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
If biofuels are considered as industrial goods, their trade will be governed by GATT and domestic support
from the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) (Dufey, 2006).
The SCM addresses two separate but closely related topics: multilateral disciplines regulating the
provision of subsidies, and the use of countervailing measures to offset injury caused by subsidized
imports. In other words it monitors the use of subsidies in order to reduce or eliminate their trade
distorting effect. The Agreement contains a definition of subsidy. Three elements must be satisfied in
order for a subsidy to exist: (i) a financial contribution, (ii) by a government or any public body within the
territory of a Member (iii) which confers a benefit (WTO (4)).
There are three categories of subsidy: prohibited, actionable and non actionable. Prohibited subsidy
consists of two practices:
• Export subsidies - this type is widely used in biofuel trade.
• Local content subsidies - consists of subsidies contingent, upon the use of domestic over imported
goods. As a result it reduces expected market access benefits for foreign suppliers, and therefore it is
considered trade distorting.
There are several programs in place of this nature and it is expected that more is to come with expansion
of the biofuel industry. For example, plant-based biodiesel is considered an industrial product under WTO
rules and therefore falls under the agreement on (SCM). US department of Agriculture has established a
subsidy for refiners to use only soya oil as a feedstock for biodiesel. As a result firms negatively affected
by the subsidy, such as petroleum producers or competing input producers could argue that the subsidy is
distorting under WTO rules.
Non actionable subsidies and actionable subsidies are non trade distorting and trade distorting subsidies
respectively. According to Dufey (2006), almost all subsidies in the biofuel industry would fulfill the
conditions necessary to be considered an actionable subsidy under of the SCM agreement. A subsidy that
exceeds 5 percent of a product’s value and is administered that way, is trade distorting. Subsidies in
ethanol and biodiesel are higher than the 5 percent of the product value, and in the case of US biodiesel it
reaches 100 percent of the selling price.
Agreement on agriculture (AoA)
If biomass based fuels are considered agricultural products in WTO, then they would be governed by
Agreement on Agriculture. AoA is an agreement that was launched to benefit farmers from more trade,
greater access to markets and higher prices. The outcome was a disappointment, as although there was
more trade in agricultural products higher and fairer prices for farmers did not happen. This was due to the
widespread agricultural dumping - the selling of products at below their cost of production (Murphy et al,
2005) — by global agribusiness companies based in the United States and European Union. According to
Murphy only three members of WTO spend more than 80 percent of the subsidies targeted by the WTO’s
agricultural trade rules: EU, US and Japan. The heavy subsidies and dumping have strongly hit farmers in
poor countries, who are often pushed off the farm by dumped agricultural commodities. How to sort out
the trade and investment implications of policies and programmes that support agriculture in industrialized
countries is an ongoing debate and is also a factor in debates on biofuels. The limited and unhelpful role of
existing trade rules should be kept in mind, since the production of biofuels depends on agriculture.
The AoA consists of three areas. These three pillars remain central to the debate on further reform of
agricultural trade policies in the ongoing Doha Round negotiations:
- 8-

• Market access — the new rule is” tariffs only”. This means that measures other than tariffs (e.g
quantitative restrictions, variable import levies) are no longer legitimate, except in extreme situations.
• Domestic support — subsidies and other programs, including those that raise or guarantee farm gate
prices and farmers’ incomes
• Export subsidies and other methods used to make exports artificially competitive (WTO (1)).
The subsidies are divided into three categories or boxes:
Green box: subsidies that are considered non trade distorting and not subject to annual limits
Amber box: Subsidies are trade distorting and that governments have agreed to reduce but not eliminate
Blue box: subsidies that can be increased with limit, as long as payments are linked to production limiting
programs.
Since ethanol is classified as an agricultural good, it gives more flexibility to governments to protect their
local producers through high tariffs and other restrictions. The Agriculture Agreement has been criticized
as it has a greater degree of tolerance for subsidies allowed. This makes biofuel subsidies more difficult to
challenge than under SCM. Although dumping is prohibited, the rules make it complicated for smaller,
poorer countries to establish grounds for anti-dumping duties because of the requirements to demonstrate
harm to the sector involved.
Agreement on Technical Barriers (TBT)
The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) tries to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and
certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles.
Technical regulations and standards are important, but they vary from country to country. Having too
many different standards makes life difficult for producers and exporters. Technical regulations are
governed by the main body of TBT, The agreement also sets out a code of good practice for both
governments and non-governmental or industry bodies to prepare, adopt and apply voluntary standards.
Over 200 standards-setting bodies apply the code. But standards administered by the private sector and
other non governmental organizations fall outside the scope of the WTO rules
Doha negotiations on environmental goods
In 2001 at the WTO Ministerial in Doha, members agreed to push the negotiations for trade liberalization
of environmental goods and services. Biofuels derived from sustainable agricultural practices are
considered to have many qualities that qualify as environmental goods (EGS) (Dufey, 2006). Many
countries suggested that renewable energy technologies should be included due to their environmental and
economical benefits. Nevertheless negotiations on environmental goods have made little progress as
members could not agree on the approach to push trade liberalization. Industrialized countries favor a list
approach which developing countries are against as they believe it is biased towards industrialized
countries’ goods. One alternative that is seriously being considered is the environmental project approach
put forward by India, which suggests tariff cuts or elimination on environmental goods and services used
in specific project and for the duration of that particular project. Nevertheless, this approach has been
criticized for being too bureaucratic and difficult to implement, and that it would only benefit
multinational companies’ access to markets.
A strong argument against including biofuels and related technologies in a list of environmental goods
relates to the production and processing of the biofuel feedstocks, which is often energy intensive and
polluting. However it is difficult for WTO members to object as the process and production methods are
not allowed to be factored into the treatment of the products (Murphy, 2008).
- 9-

Special differential treatment (SDT)
The original concept behind SDT was that developing countries needed more time to adjust to free trade,
can be exempted from implementing certain multilaterally agreed rules, or are provided with technical
assistance. Nonetheless, many developing countries believe that the existing flexibility in the Agreement
on Agriculture does not go far enough with SDT. It is argued the disciplines applied to developing
countries ironically are often stricter than those applied to developed countries, such as the example with
domestic subsidies. Because few developing countries offer domestic subsidies to their farmers, they are
limited by the Agreement to de minimis amounts of trade-distorting support in the future. Developed
countries, on the other hand, under the terms of the Agreement can provide their farmers with tradedistorting
support well beyond de minimis levels (TCD, 2005).
There is a considerable gap between countries already exporting biofuels and those are at the initial stage
of reduction. Many developing countries and LDCs fall under the group of countries that may have the
feedstock but are behind in terms of technology development. The trading system should recognize the
differences and the challenges that these countries’ may face and should allow sufficient policy space for
coherent domestic policy mechanism to allow the development of biofuel industry in the poorer countries.
But it is also important for the countries in need to self declare eligibility for SDT, and distinguish
between developing countries since they are no longer a homogenous group.
EU – South America Biofuel Trade
Looking at the biofuel trade, one can see that the highest demand for biofuels is concentrated in
industrialized regions, which consume large amounts of energy (USA, EU and Japan) whereas the largest
potentials for producing these fuels are found in tropical countries of South America, sub-Saharan Africa,
East Asia and Eastern Europe. This part will provide an overview of biofuel trade between South America
and EU, two significant biofuel trade drivers, by explaining each region’s objectives, commitments,
challenges and the current situation of the trade between them.
South America
• High competitiveness of biofuels production
Low labor and land costs, high yields, high energy performance of the product and cost efficiency due to
historical development of the industry in certain countries of the region are what make South America one
the most attractive markets for biofuel production.
• High potential
In terms of overall biomass production. South America has one of the largest potential surplus cropland,
which could provide 87-279 EJ of bioenergy per year. Moreover, it contains 23 per cent of the world
potential growing land for sugar cane.
• Governmental commitments to biofuel industry development
A number of countries from the region have been setting up national strategies to favor the industry
development during several decades. The results of these policies are that Brazil became the main
producer of the cheapest ethanol on the market, while Argentina became the biggest exporter of biodiesel
in the region and the world’s second largest producer of soybeans (production of 18 per cent of the global
total) (FOEI, 2008). Other countries in the region are following now Brazilian example, for instance
governments of Paraguay and Bolivia have recently accepted new biofuel programs (Worldwatch
Institute, 2007).
• Environmental Impacts
Rapid development of biofuel industry has caused significant environmental impacts. For instance,
sugarcane production is a causing deforestation, loss of biodiversity, air and water pollution, erosion and
soil degradation not to mention high use of water resources and pesticides. Moreover, it causes
- 10-

displacement of cattle farmers and consequently indirect deforestation, as well as draughts and climate
change (FOE, 2008).
• Socio-economic impacts
Regarding main socio-economic impacts, land conflicts, human health risk, bad working conditions, rural
unemployment (due to mechanization and monocultures promotion) and underdevelopment should be
mentioned as well as cases of modern slave labour (nearly 35,000 cases between 1995 and 2005) (FOE,
2008).
European Union
• High energy dependency
Currently, EU imports roughly 50 per cent of the energy resources it consumes. To 2030 the energy
import dependence is expected to rise to 70 per cent (EC, 2002).
• Commitment to use of biofuels
In 2003 EU addressed to all its members with a Directive to set national targets for the use of biofuel in
transport sector of 2 per cent by 2005 and 5.75 per cent by 2010 (EC, 2003).
In 2007 EU set a long-term strategy with a mandatory target of 20 per cent for renewable energy's share of
energy consumption in EU by 2020 with a mandatory minimum target of 10 per cent for biofuels (EC,
2007).
• Focus on Balanced Approach
Since 2005 EU has chosen a strategy to follow a balanced approach between domestic production and
imports (EC, 2005). The plan indicates the need to apply the minimum sustainability standards in a non
discriminatory way to domestic and imported biofuel products
• Commitment to cooperation with developing countries
According to EU strategy on biofuels, its objective is to promote a globally positive use of the
environment, and heightening cooperation with developing countries in the sustainable production of
biofuels to assist their sustainable growth (EC, 2006). EU expressed the need to maintain current
preferential market access for developing countries in relation to biofuel trade.
Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements
EU is involved in several bilateral, regional trade agreements that directly or indirectly regulate the
biofuels trade. The most important are:
• Mercosur (General information in the Appendix 1)
• The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)
• The Cotonou Agreement (ACP)
• “Everything But Arms” (EBA)
Mercosur
Trade in goods between EU and Mercosur—the Common Market of the South made up of Argentina,
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and more recently joined by Venezuela has risen considerably in recent years,
with the total value of trade flows between the two blocks rising from EUR 19 billion in 1990 to EUR
47,2 billion in 2000, an increase of almost 148 per cent or an average annual growth of 15 per cent.
Mercosur is an important trading partner for EU. It represents 2.3 per cent of EU imports and 2.5 per cent
of EU exports of goods, 1.7% of imports and 2.2 per cent of exports of services and is recipient of 7.2 per
cent of total accumulated stock of FDI (EC and Mercosur Desk, 2002).
- 11-

EU-Mercosur’s economic and political development has been slow, with difficulties arising from Brazil’s
dominance, internal disputes and tariff issues within what is intended to be a customs union. Nevertheless
EU is currently negotiating a trade agreement with Mercosur, which will be relevant as ethanol and
bioethanol are Brazil’s main interests and are in this case very important components of the negotiations.
Another product that is likely to be covered is soya, as Argentina and Brazil are two of the main producers
in the world and EU is the main global importer.
The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)
The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), a formal system of exemption from the more general rules
of the WTO, specifically, from the Most Favored Nation principle (MFN), which provides preferential
duty-free entry for developing countries for classified ethanol (2207) in addition to a special incentive
arrangement for sustainable development and good governance.
The Cotonou Agreement (ACP)
The Cotonou Agreement (ACP), system which regulates development cooperation between EU and the
African, Caribbean and Pacific states. It gives duty free access for denaturated and undenaturated alcohol
under code 2207. These countries enjoy 15 per cent tariff reduction.
“Everything But Arms” (EBA)
“Everything But Arms” (EBA), initiative of preferential access to EU market for Least Developed
Countries (LDCs), it grants duty free access to EU for all products except for arms and ammunition.
Current Situation
At present, EU has high tariffs on Brazilian ethanol and changes should be part of World Trade
Organization negotiations (International Herald Tribune, 2008). However, negotiations on an
unprecedented free trade agreement between EU and Mercosur took place.
EU’s offer to Mercosur includes a quota of 1 million tonnes of fuel ethanol, which is two times bigger
than current EU fuel ethanol market. This quota was offered based on EU’s expected bioethanol market by
2010 if all member states do comply with EU biofuel targets.
These negotiations have been stalled, however they could resume anytime. Certain EU countries such as
France, Spain and Sweden, were concerned that third countries’ free access to EU market is unfair and is
harming their industry’s competitiveness (Worldwatch Institute, 2007).
Despite the high flexibility in policy setting obtained by member states (EC,2003a) the biofuel production
in EU became heavily subsidized with tax rates up to 45% in some states (Doornbosch et al, 2007), and
even then it is not able to compete with the production from South America. As a result, a balanced
approach was recommended by granting a quota in the form of a percentage of EU market growth.
Reducing the import duty for Mercosur region would also penalize all the smaller GSP/ACP countries
which currently enjoy duty free access to EU Market. Most of them will never be able to compete with the
world’s biggest producer (UEPA, 2008) whereas according to EU program documents, it is important to
develop cooperation to insure that Least Developed Countries can gain access to larger markets rather than
only the major producers such as Brazil (Johnson, 2008). However, recent sugar reform if approved in the
end of this year will anyway put Brazil in favorable conditions (BBC News, 2005).
Stagnation of the negotiations is also related to environmental and socio-economic problems caused by
biofuel expansion in Latin America, which has been criticized by EU. At Lima summit 2008 with Brazil
participating, EU officials expressed concern that ethanol producers violated local environmental and
labor laws. In response, Brazilian government is taking steps to require ethanol companies to get new
environmental and industrial standards certificates (Keeney et al, 2008).
- 12-

However, market mechanisms and certification schemes proposed by EU are named as ways of
legitimizing the damage from biofuels (FOE, 2008). Many Latin American civil society organizations are
critical towards the intentions behind these schemes as none of them has seriously taken into consideration
affected communities. Furthermore, most of the certification schemes are dominated by large corporations
involved in the commodity trade, e.g. the Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI) is made up of companies such
as Coca Cola, Tate & Lyle and Cargill, but do not represent sugarcane growers or workers from Latin
American countries (FOE, 2008).
Despite of that, some local initiative have been launched as well in respond to social and environmental
movements, involving family farmers in supplying local and regional markets, e.g. the Brazilian program
“Social Fuel Stamp”. But these types of restrictions have turned away some investors resulting in
producing raw vegetable oil in Brazil and processing it outside, causing tariff escalation and not giving
possibilities for employment nor local opportunities, and is thus a return to “colonial” times (Cowman,
2007).
Investment context
This part of the report looks into the general investment climate in the Latin American region. No other
region has embraced the ideas of biofuel potentials to reduce poverty, generate revenues, and increase
agricultural production as much as Latin America. A number of countries in the region have started to
expand their agricultural production and develop the necessary infrastructure to access and supply the
foreign markets such as EU, US. Furthermore, this section will look into the role and influence of
companies and investors over national biofuel policies in the region.
Investment rules are considered an extremely controversial topic and have come up repeatedly in trade
negotiations. The majority of developing countries members of WTO have rejected the inclusion of
investment as a topic for a new agreement as part of the Doha round, except for EU and some other
countries. Instead there is a working group in WTO that monitors the implementation of Trade and
investment measures agreement (TRIMS). This agreement requires members to follow the GATT
principle on national treatment. The liberalization of investment is an extension of a deregulated market
which multinationals are looking for as it allows free movement of capital, staff and technology and
market presence in developing countries and in the same time provide a base in Europe to take advantage
of the privileges in European Community.
There are three motivations for foreign investors to decide investing in developing countries’ biofuels
sector:
• Natural resource availability: the existence of favorable climate conditions in addition to generous
fiscal incentives.
• The size of the host market: the implementation of ambitious voluntary or mandatory national
target for biofuels creates an assuring long term market for biofuels.
• Favorable market access conditions in key markets: foreign investors also allocate resources for
biofuels development in countries that enjoy preferential agreements such the agreements with EU
or US and developing countries.
According to a recent report from Friends of the Earth (FOEI, 2008), governments in Latin America are
establishing policies that are extremely attractive to the agrofuel business, ranging from provision of
subsidies, tax exemptions, research budgets, land rights, permits and infrastructure quotas for blending
ethanol and biodiesel in transport fuels. Instead of developing people friendly sustainable farming to
supply food for their own population, governments pursue the traditional cash crop model using
intensively farmed monocultures. The activities in LA are causing environmental and social problems. At
the same time, big producers, traders and investors are increasing their profits through expanding sales of
- 13-

commodities, agricultural inputs and financial gains from land speculation. National companies and
entrepreneurs are the ones mainly benefiting, but international companies are becoming strongly involved
such as Cargill, Bunge, Dreyfus, Beyer, BASF, Syngenta, Botnia and Monsanto. The rapid increase of
production for export will bring in more foreign investors, multinational agribusinesses and international
investors such as Soros, and previous World Bank president Wolfensohn. Multilateral development banks
are also involved financing the biofuel expansion such as the IADB (FOEI, 2008).
Furthermore the link between the agrofuel business and politics is getting stronger, including former
politicians setting up their own soy, palm and sugarcane companies. This is the result of the extremely pro
agrofuel government policies that promote the expansion but in some cases it is also the result of conflicts
of interest, corruption and government closing its eyes to the illegal activities of landowners and
producers.
Agrofuels and investment in Brazil
Brazil plays a central role in the new geopolitics of agrofuel. In the last 30 years, it has developed the
lowest production costs for fuel derived from sugarcane, and was the world’s biggest ethanol producer
until 2005. Ethanol production has increased with the introduction of dual fuel vehicles, in addition to the
targets set for biodiesel use.
Brazil has developed its technological expertise in agrofuel production but the country is facing serous
social and environmental issues questioning the sustainability of their production and the little progress
that has been made to address these issues.
The National Agroenergy Plan
Brazil’s national agroenergy plan (MAPA, 2005) sets a strategic development path for the agrofuel sector
designed to make the country a world leader in energy crops. It prioritizes ethanol from sugarcane,
biodiesel from vegetable oils and animal fats, energy forests, biogas and waste and residue use (see table 2
in Appendix). The government continues to promote the “agro climatic zoning” which indicates the best
locations for sugarcane cultivation as well as providing partial guarantees on infrastructure development,
mainly trough investment by the state energy company Petrobras and some R$ 2 billion of credit from the
National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES). The program to Strengthen Family
Farming (PRONAF) also provides credits to production from family farms. Biofuels produced by small
farmers can be certified as “social fuel” and is auctioned separately. The liquid agrofuels, ethanol and
biodiesel are high priority due to the growing national and international demands and the industry is
attracting foreign investing and a number of multinationals.
International investors in Brazil
Initially ethanol was developed with the government support, but it has now shifted to private sector.
According to FOE a research in 2007 showed that most investment (R$ 17 billion) comes from Brazil,
mainly groups with experience in the sector. 5 % comes from international investment groups, and it is
growing. Four of the ten biggest ethanol companies in Brazil benefit from foreign capital (Cosan, Bonfim,
LDC Bioenergia and Guarani). Appendix 2 shows the key investors involved in the biofuel sector in
Brazil.
Sugarcane relies heavily on herbicide and pesticide use, boosting profits for the biocide industry. The
biggest companies involved in Brazil are the Anglo-Swiss multinational Syngenta and German companies
Bayer and BASF.
EMBRAPA (the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) is working with international companies,
including BASF and Monsanto, and has shown interest in research on genetically modified sugarcane with
the National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio)
Multilateral banks are playing an important role in agrofuel expansion across the Tropics. The Inter
American Development Bank (IADB) investments are forecast to reach US$ 3 billion. The bank is
- 14-

funding market analysis and feasibility studies for agrofuel development in the Latin America region. It is
involved in four projects in Brazil, designed to contribute to the goal of tripling ethanol production by
2020.
European banks such as Barclays, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas and HSBC are heavily funding
projects in Brazil and elsewhere in the region. These banks have been strongly criticized for
investing in projects that have negative impacts on the environment and human rights. It is
important to note that these banks are members of the Equator principles (Balch, 2008), a UN
backed ethical framework for the project finance industry.
Conclusion
There are a number of international trade policies that have implications on biofuel trade. However the
current situation with trade regimes is not fit for maximizing benefits nor minimizing risks from the
sector.
First of all, there is no clear definition of biofuels under WTO. Different feedstocks for biofuel production
fall under different agreements, which causes confusion. At present dominating feedstocks are agricultural
commodities whose markets are heavily distorted. Previous cases have proven the negative effects of
heavy agricultural subsidies on developing countries’ competitiveness, but also food security, rural
livelihood and agriculture. The situation is unlikely to change and since the production of biofuels
depends on agriculture, the limited role of existing trade rules should be kept in mind.
Secondly, emerging environmental and socio-economic problems associated with biofuel production raise
the issue of sustainability standards. At present there is no framework under WTO that can ensure
sustainability of biofuel production. Mandatory standards are not allowed as they are considered as
threats to free market condition and though voluntary certification systems are not prohibited, they are not
properly implemented. Although it is important to ensure compliance with environmental and social
standards on biofuels, these standards should be complimented with strong regulations. Therefore it will
take enormous political effort to ensure that there is a proper framework that will not overlook the local
conditions in the developing countries, such as the case between EU and Latin America.
In terms of investment in Latin America, governments are establishing policies which are extremely
attractive to the agrofuel business that leads to a rapid expansion of the biofuels in the region.
The case in Brazil shows that there are a number of stakeholders involved from corporates, politicians,
national and foreign banks who are heavily funding biofuel projects and trying to play an influential role
in the development of favorable biofuel market framework, even though they have been criticized for
investing in projects that have negative impacts on the environment and human rights.
Considering the unfair foundation in international trade, the emerging biofuel trade is unlikely to become
sustainable unless the disparities between countries in overall development and in growth of biofuel
industry are considered in policy support on the national and international level in order to not overlook
the opportunities for developing countries.
- 15-

List of Abbreviations
ACP - Cotonou Agreement
AoA - Agreement on Agriculture
BNDES - National Bank for Economic and Social Development
BSI - Better Sugarcane Initiative
BTG - Biomass Technology Group
CBI - Caribbean Basin Initiative
CTNBio - National Biosafety Technical Commission
EBA - Everything But Arms
EC - European Commission
EGS - Environmental Goods and Services
EMBRAPA - the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
EU – EUropean Union
FAME - Fatty Acid Methyl Ester
FDI - Foreign direct investment
FOE – Friends of the Earth
GATT- General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GHG - Green House Gas
GSP - Generalized System of Preferences
IADB - Inter American Development Bank
IATP - Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
IIED - International Institute for Environment and Development
ISO - the International Organization for Standardization
MFN - Most Favored Nation
NT - National Treatment
PRONAF - Program to Strengthen Family Farming
RSB - Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
RTRS - Roundtable on Responsible Soy
SCM - Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
SDT - Special Differential Treatment
TBT - Agreement on Technical Barriers
TRIMS -Trade and investment measures agreement
WTO – World Trade Organization
References consulted
Balch, O. (2008) Latin America: Biofuels – Banks fuelling argument. Ethical Corporation, 15 Jul 08. Online at
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.aspContentID=6008&ContTypeID=50, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
BBC News (2005) EU sugar reform splits exporters. Online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4121554.stm,
[Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 June, 2005; accessed: 01-12-2008]
BTG (2008) Sustainability Criteria & Certification Systems for Biomass Production. Final Report. Project No. 1386,
BTG, Netherlands. Online at http://www.globalbioenergy.org, [accessed: 30-11-2008]
Cowman, T. (2007) Brazil's Restrictive Laws on Biodiesel Are Turning Investors to Europe. Online at
http://www.brazzil.com/articles/178-april-2007/9866.html, [accessed: 29-10-2008]
Crowley, MA. (2003) An introduction to the WTO and GATT. 4Q/2003, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago. Online at http://chicagofed.org/publications/economicperspectives/2003/4qeppart4.pdf, [accessed:
01-12-2008]
- 16-

Doornbosch, R. and Steenblik, R (2007). Biofuels: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease Round Table on Sustainable
Development SG/SD/RT(2007)3, Paris, OECD. Online at www.oecd.org, [accessed: 30-11-2008]
Dufey, A (2006) Biofuels Production, Trade and Sustainable Development: Emerging Issues, IIED, London. Online
at www.iied.org, [accessed: 20-11-2008]
Dufey, A (2007) International Trade in Biofuels: Good for Development Any Good for Environment IIED
Briefing Papers, Published: Jan 2007 – IIED, London. Online at www.iied.org, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
EC (2002) Energy: Let Us Overcome Our Dependence Online at
http://iter.rma.ac.be/Stufftodownload/Texts/EnergyDependenceEC.pdf, [accessed: 29-11-2008]
EC (2003) Directive 2003/30/EC, 8 May 2003 on the Promotion of the Use of Biofuels or Other Renewable Fuels for
Transport, O.J. L123, 17/05/2003, Brussels, EC.
EC (2003a) DIRECTIVE 2003/96/EC on Restructuring the Community Framework for the Taxation of Energy
Products and Electricity, O.J. L283, 31.10.2003, Brussels, EC
EC (2005) Biomass action plan {SEC(2005) 1573} COM(2005) 628 final, 7.12.2005, Brussels, EC.
EC (2006) An EU Strategy for Biofuels, O.J. C67, 18/03/2006, Brussels, EC
EC (2007) Renewable Energy Road Map. Renewable energies in the 21st century: building a more sustainable
future", [COM(2006) 848 final]. Online at http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l27065.htm, [accessed: 29-11-2008]
EC and Mercosur Desk (2002) Mercosur-European Community, Regional Strategy Paper 2002-2006, CSP Mercosur
10/09/2002. Online at http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/mercosur/rsp/02_06_en.pdf, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
FAO Newsroom (2008) Reviewing biofuel policies and subsidies. Online at
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000928/, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
FOE (2008) Sustainability as a Smokescreen: The Inadequacy of Certifying Fuels and Feeds. Brussels, FOE. Online
at www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/, [accessed: 30-11-2008]
FOEI (2008) Fuelling destruction in Latin America: the real price of the drive for agrofuels, Issue 113. Online at
www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/fuellingdestruction.html, [accessed: 16-10-2008]
House of Commons, the (2007) Trade with Brazil and Mercosur, 7 th Report of Session 2006–07, vol.1, London, The
House of Commons. Online at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/trade_and_industry.cfm,
[accessed: 01-12-2008]
Keeney, D. and Nanninga C. (2008) Biofuel and global biodiversity, Minneapolis, IATP. Online at www.iatp.org,
[accessed: 29-10-2008]
Murphy, S. (2008) Multilateral Trade and Investment Context for Biofuels: Issues and Challenges. Minneapolis,
IATP. Online at www.iatp.org , [accessed: 29-10-2008]
International Herald Tribune (2008) EU and Latin America discuss tackling climate change ahead of global CO2
pact. The Associated Press, 4/03/2008. Online at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/04/europe/EU-FIN-EU-
Latin-America-Biofuels.php, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
Johnson, FX., Roman, M. (2008) Biofuels Sustainability Criteria, Relevant issues to the proposed Directive on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources COM (2008) 30 final Consolidated study (IP/A/
ENVI/IC/2008-051). SEI, Stockholm
- 17-

Murphy, S., Lilliston, B. & Lake, MB (2005) WTO Agreement on Agriculture: A Decade of Dumping, IATP, USA.
Online at http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfmrefid=48532, [accessed: 30-11-2008]
Swedish Cooperative Centre, SCC (2008) Fuel for Development, Facts from SCC, Nr 6, June 2008 Stockholm,
Rapidax, ISBN: 978-91-975940-5-9
TCD (2005) The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Online at
http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/policycoherence/index.php/iiis/wto_agriculture_rules/uruguay_round_agreement_on_agricultu
re, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
UEPA (2008). The issues of the agricultural alcohol industry. Online at http://www.uepa.be/issues.php [accessed:
01-12-2008]
Worldwatch Institute (2007) Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture
and Energy in the 21 st century. London, Sterling, VA, ISBN 978-1-84407-422-8
WTO (1) Understanding the WTO: The Agreements Agriculture: fairer markets for farmers. Online at
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm3_e.htm, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
WTO (2) Understanding the WTO: Basics Principles of the Trading System. Online at
http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
WTO (3) Understanding the WTO: Developing Countries. Online at
http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/whatis_e/tif_e/dev4_e.htm, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
WTO (4) Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Overview Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(“SCM Agreement”). Online at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/scm_e/subs_e.htm, [accessed: 01-12-2008]
- 18-

Appendix A
Mercosur is the southern common market, occasionally referred to as the common market of the southern
cone. The ultimate goal was an EU-style common market and customs union between them and a common
tariff on goods imports from outside the block. Mercosur also represents the 4th largest economic group in
the world after EU, NAFTA and Japan and has a total GDP of US$ 1,100 billion and a population of 210
million (EC and Mercosur Desk, 2002).
Mercosur Main Focusing Areas
• A regional common market and a full macro-economic co-ordination.
• A harmonization of social policies.
• Joint political initiatives.
• Military co-operation and regional guarantees for the preservation of democracy and
respect of human rights.
Key data for Mercosur countries, 2005 (House of Commons, 2007)
Country
GDP
(US$ billions)
Goods trade
Population
(millions)
Area
(km2)
(%GDP)
Argentina 183,3 38.7 2 780 400 37.5
Brazil 794,1 186,4 8 514 880 24.7
Paraguay 8.2 6.2 406,750 53.7
Uruguay 16.8 3.5 176,220 40.8
Venezuela 138,9 26.6 912,050 58.4
Mercosur total 1,141,2 261,4 12 790 300 43.0 (*)
Brazil as % 69.6% 71.3 66.6% - -
Source: World Bank World Development Indicators 2006 database & TWB5L (Mercosur exports)
Notes: * average for Mercosur countries; - not applicable
- 19-

Appendix B
Investments in Brazil’s Sugar-Alcohol Sector
Sectors
Investors
National investors • Luiz Fernando Furlan and Roberto Rodrigues, ex-ministers
• Gustavo Franco and Armínio Fraga, ex-presidents, Central Bank
• Juan Quirós, ex-president of APEX- Association for the Promotion Exports
• Henri Phillipe Reichstul, ex-president of Petrobras and head of a US$ 2 billion
ethanol investment fund
• Jorge Paulo Lemann, of AmBev, second richest man in Brazil
• Naji Nahas, speculator, buying land in the state of Piauí
• Daniel Dantas, Opportunity banker, with a project to export ethanol from 100
thousand hectares in southern Pará
• Emerson Fittipaldi, partner of Copersucar
• Alexandre Grendene and Jonas Barcellos, Brazilians, former owner of Brazilian
Free Shops together in a R$ 200 million project to produce ethanol in SP
International
investment funds
and Consortiums
Sugar-alcohol and
trading companies
participating
in international
alcohol trade
• George Soros, partner in Adecoagro
• Vinod Khosla, partner in Brazil Renewable Energy Company (Brenco)
• James Wolfensohn, former head of the WorldBank, foreign partner in Brenco,
which plans to invest UD$ 2 billion alcohol production in Brazil
• Kidd & Company: controlling share in the Coopernavi mill. Also part of Infinity
Bio-Energy alongside others, such as the American financial management
company Merrill Lynch and the international investment funds Stark and Och-Zitt
Management
• Infinity Bio-Energy: owns 4 mills in the country
• Louis Dreyfus controls the Luciânia (MG), Cresciumal and São Carlos (SP) mills,
and has a 6.3% stake in 4 of the mills in the Tavares de Melo Tereos (PE) group,
47.5% in the Franco Brazilian Sugar (FBA) and 100% in Açucar Guarani
• Cargill bought control of Vale do Sapucaí Central Energy (Cevasa)
• Bunge invested in buying the Vale do Rosário mill, third biggest alcohol and
sugar manufacturer in the country
• Pacific Ethanol: Partners include billionaire Bill Gates, and the German company
NordZucker SudZucker, active in the
• European sugar sector, and BHL, an Indian company which owns mills in India,
and which hired KPMG consulting firm to coordinate its Brazilian expansion
Source: Brazilian Press, adapted from FOE, 2007.
- 20-

Appendix C
US
Canada
Examples of Policies for Biofuel Market
Target /mandate Production support Consumption support Special vehicle
and other
requirements
2005 Energy Billincrease
in ethanol
use from 4 billion
gallons in 2006 to 7.5
billion gallons by
2012
3,5% ethanol in
transport fuel by
2010
EU Directive 2003/30/EC
set consumption
target in the transport
fuel mix: 2% by
2005, 5,75% by 2010
Brazil Ethanol: 1975
Proalcool
Mandate of E20 –E25
Biodiesel:
2002 Probiodiesel
Mandate of a B2 by
2007, BB5 by 2013
and B20 by 2020
Volumetric ethanol
excise tax credit
(VEETC):
a $ 0.51/gallon to
gasoline refiners.
Small producers get $
0.10/ gallon tax credit
for the first 15,000
gallons Grant and loan
programmes Imports
protection: $ 0.54/
gallon secondary duty
to the normal tariff to
imports based on
cheaper biomass and
more efficient
technology. A tax
credit of $ 1/gallon of
biodiesel blended with
petrodiesiel
Some provinces
exempt ethanol from
road taxes
Credit to cover60%
sugar storage costs
Tax exemptions on
vehicles using ethanol
of FFV
Lower taxes on
biofuels
India 5% in the near future Subsidies for inputs
Tax credits and loans
Peru Bioethanol B7.8
mandatory since 2006
in main cities and
2010 at the country
level
Tax credits
Fuel exemptions
Federal and states
incentives to acquire
FFV
Mandate to use ethanol
on government vehicles
Loan assistance
Exemption from
$0.07/lt excise tax
Directive 2003/96/EC
grant partial or total
exemption
Credit to cover 60%
sugar storage costs.
Tax exemptions on
vehicles using ethanol
of FFV. Lower taxes on
biofuels.
Mandate to be used on
government vehicles
Fuel tax exemptions
Guranteed prices
All cars built
after 1980s
will operate on
E10
FFV on sale
The 2005
Energy Bill
will remove
the oxygenate
requirement
All cars
operate on E10
after 80s
FFV on sale
Mandate to use
on
governmnent
vehicles
Government
support
$140 million
(117million
euros) in
federal taxes
for the
Highway Trust
Fund 1978 -
2004.
Cost of $ 375
million (311
million euros)
of the 2006 –
2012 tax
incentives set
by the 2005
energy bill for
biofuels. 2004
excise
exemption of $
1.7 billion (1.4
billion euro)
62.5 million
euros in fuel
excise
exemption plus
others in
capital grants
8.7 billion euro
revenue
foregone from
1976
Source: Dufey, 2006.
- 21-

Implementation of EU’s Directives relevant to biofuels
use in the transportation
by
Issa Al-Wer
Panagiotis Papageorgiou
Aim
The aim of this report was to investigate the current and prospective adoption of biofuels within the
European Union’s borders, as a result of the increased environmental concern for the transportation
sector’s significant emissions from fossil fuel use. The tasks that were thoroughly investigated within our
assignment’s framework were multiple. Those were investigation measures concerning the reduction of
GHG emissions from the transport sector in correlation with biofuels use and at the same time an
introduction of the advanced technologies used in the car manufacturing sector. Moreover an overview
took part regarding the ability of EU’s land to produce adequate feedstock for biofuels production,
relevant calculations and policies evaluation. Furthermore, a research of the still studied advanced
technologies and opportunities that these next generation biofuels offer as well as the possible
enhancement of biofuels share in the EU’s market through those methods are listed.
Introduction
It is generally acknowledged that the transportation sector contributes significantly to the harmful Green
House Gases emissions in a global scale. Especially within the EU’s boarders it is counted that transports
in 2006 were responsible for over a quarter (28%) of the total sum of CO 2 emissions – Figure 1 –. As a
result and with respect to the increased environmental concern, relevant measures and actions ought to be
exposed in order to reduce the negative effects of the transportation sector’s emissions. Those measures
mostly are translated to the respective EU’s Directives which gradually aim to replace fossil fuels with
biofuels.
The relevant Directives have already set targets, without discrimination for all the EU’s members.
However, the implementation of the EU’s Directives regarding the penetration of biofuels in the fuel
market is accompanied by significant concerns. Those concerns have to do with several and heterogeneous
problems located individually in the EU members and reflected in their respective national policies.
- 23-

Obviously the 27 countries that compose the EU organization have quite different characteristics
regarding their agriculture land limitations, their technological level, their shares in the total
emission sum and their prospective expectations from biofuels in general. Hence, there are
several issues to be studied concerning the ability of EU members to support their decision for
the biofuels use as a sustainable fuel for future wider use and further expansion. Those issues are
the main concerns addressed in this assignment and are presented and discussed in the following
analysis chapters.
Figure 1: Overview of CO 2 emissions in the EU from 1990 to 2006
Source: CO 2 emissions from transport in the EU27, 2008
Technical Measures
According to the adopted Directive 2003/30/EU each country is responsible to promote the use of biofuels
for the transport sector in specific percentage of the total fuel consumption within a limited time schedule.
Precisely, each EU member ought to have introduced in the domestic fuel market, biofuels at 2% before
2005 end. Moreover, the prospective obligations have been set to the penetration of biofuels at 5.75%
before the end of 2010. Interestingly those measures have been taken in order to contribute to the ultimate
goal of 20% substitution of the conventional fuels by alternative fuels in the road transport sector by the
year 2020, according to the "Commission’s Green Paper" (Directive 2003/30/EU Chapter 17).
As a result, to date, biofuels are enforced to be introduced to the market gradually as blends with the
ordinary fossil fuels used. Nonetheless, the goal is to increase the percentage of the use of biofuels in
blends or even to use biofuels as a straight fuel for the transportation purposes. Several intensive efforts
have been performed from technological point of view in order to adjust the needs of fossil fuel based
machinery and engines with biofuels. Nowadays, in most cases biofuels are considered compatible with
the already used engines and even some modifications needed are thought to be of minor importance.
Parallel to the expansion of biofuels use within the EU and the expected encouraging results from its use,
the relevant committees have set additional technical measures for further reduction of the harmful
emitted gases deriving from the transportation sector. Especially within the automotive industry an
integrated approach ought to be fulfilled, in order to adopt a broadly accepted strategy for the emissions
- 24-

eduction and at the same time to mobilize the several stakeholders involved as vehicle manufacturers,
fuel suppliers, customers and relevant authorities. (A competitive automotive regulatory system for the
21st century, 2006) The most important additional measures have to do with improvements in vehicle
technology and fuel efficiency 3 . As it is presented in figure 2, within the EU’s car fleet it has been
Figure 2: EU 15 average car fleet CO2 emissions from EU (ACEA), Japanese (JAMA) and
Korean (KAMA) car manufacturers associations
Source: Results of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from
passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles, 2007
observed a substantial decrease in the average CO 2 emissions from 186 g CO 2 per km in 1995 to 163 g
CO 2 per km in 2004 and with prospective goal to achieve 140 g CO 2 per km in 2008/9 and finally 120 g
CO 2 per km in 2012. (Results of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from
passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles, 2007). These improvements obviously have to do with the
latest advanced technologies used as well as the relevant strategy of customer awareness. Moreover, it
must be stated that there have been applied several taxation measures in order to reward the customers
who select to buy an "environmental friendly car" and on the other hand to charge some additional
"environmental fees" to the consumers who select a fuel consuming car which is obviously a CO 2
intensive emitter source.
Furthermore we must refer to the several propositions within EU for compulsory use of biofuels in the
public transportation means, in the heavy vehicles and in the taxi and state fleets. Additionally, from
technical point of view, we could state that there is an approach for taking part an intensive effort to
increase the number of available infrastructures for biofuels treatment and distribution within the EU’s
1
3
Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards for the reduction of pollutant emissions from light vehicles
Source: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28186.htm
- 25-

orders. These new constructed plants 4 are usually encouraged and financed from state governments in
cooperation with the respective EU’s authorities.
Finally, since biofuels are found to be more expensive than fossil fuels to date, several technical and
research programs are funded and encouraged in order to achieve the best possible techniques for the
respective efficiency of first and second generation biofuels.
Feedstock production
The second main question that our assignment aims to investigate is the ability of EU’s land to provide
sufficient feedstock for biofuels production in order to cover its own needs for alternative fuels in the
transportation sector. Obviously this question is rather broad and quite difficult to answer, since the many
different crops that are found on agriculture land of the EU member countries, result in quite different
types of feedstock and ultimately too different characteristics. In any case, our aim is to provide
information about the previous and current situation and evaluate the adopted measures in order to
presume the prospective conditions regarding biofuels production.
In order to continue our research’s given query, we must state that an obvious drawback for the EU’s
economy and energy safety is related to the direct dependency on the imported fossil fuels. Relevant data
shown that a decrease of fossil fuels imports together with an increase of biomass use would profit EU’s
economy with 6 billion € just in the transportation sector in 2010 (Biomass action plan, 2005).
According to EUROSTAT’s databases, the total energy production in the EU during 2005 required 890
million tons of oil equivalent (toe). The energy dependency can be clearly observed since 52% of the
energy sources were imported. Interestingly among the EU’s member only Denmark seems to have
positive balance between imports and exports. On the other hand, countries as Spain, Italy, Portugal,
Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta have more than 80% negative dependency ratios regarding the energy
sources supplies. This negative balance mainly occurs due to the imports of crude oil products and natural
gas. Notably, the majority of the crude oil imports intend to cover energy demands in the transportation
sector.
Since EU aims to encourage the use of biofuels within the transportation sector, the relevant authorities
elaborate several plans regarding the potential use of biomass as raw material for biofuels production in
EU. The basic axes that these plans were based on were: the need of disengagement from the energy
dependence derived from the petroleum products imports, the stimulation of growth and production in
rural areas and finally the increase of renewable energy sources for obvious environmental benefits. For
instance several scientific studies have shown that gradual increase of biomass use, replacing fossil fuels
could decrease the emitted gases up to 209 mtoe CO 2 in annual basis (Biomass action plan, 2005).
According to the relevant information, nowadays biomass accounts around 68% of the total energy
sources for renewable energy in EU – Appendix B –. The main advantages that biomass offers are
connected with the low cost, the contribution to the renewable sources expansion as well as the benefits
those offer for the farmers and their respective economic growth. Given information shown that in 2005,
biomass contributed with 80 MtOE to the total energy production (Maximizing the environmental benefits
of Europe's bioenergy potential, 2008). This fact means that definitely much less amount of energy than
80 MtOE was aimed to be converted to biofuels, since a big fraction of this biomass is allocated for heat
or electricity production. Hence, with respect to these data, it is obvious that at the time, the produced
biomass within the EU’s boarders cannot supply significantly the increasing needs for biofuels in the
4 According to 2005 data 75-80 biodiesel plants were estimated to operate within EU-27
- 26-

transportation sector. However, according to optimistic theories, the potential capability of biomass can be
increased even up to 185 MtOE by 2010, which indicates that there are further possibilities of biofuels
expansion.
Particularly and concerning just biofuels for transports, we could calculate that the amount of energy
needed to cover the 2010 target for 5.75% biofuels use in EU is 18.6 MtOE. If we assume that the sources
would be sugar beet and cereals for ethanol production and rapeseed for biodiesel production, which can
crop 2.9 tOE/ha (sugar beet), 0.9 tOE/ha (cereals) and 1.1 tOE/ha (rapeseed) then the estimated land
needed is about 17 million hectares. According to current EUROSTAT’s data, the total arable land in EU
is 97 million hectares 5 and only the 1.8 million hectares are used in order to produce feedstock for
biofuels production which could approximately be estimated to 4.4MtOE. As a result we can claim that
EU at the moment can not support biofuels production from its own capabilities, since approximately
only 25% of the needed biofuels feedstock can derive from domestic production and the rest must be
imported from developing countries.
At this point we must refer to the leading countries in biofuels production for the transportation sector.
Regarding ethanol, the main producers are Spain, France, Poland and Sweden 6 while for biodiesel as main
producers are counted Germany, France and Italy. More information concerning each EU’s member
relations with biofuels are listed in table A1 and figure B1, in appendixes A and B respectively.
However, since the biofuel issue involves a multidisciplinary approach, the EU’s relevant authorities
ought to take into account several other concerns. For instance the reinforcement of biofuels domestic
production would possibly cause an increase in food prices. On the other hand, an approach which would
encourage developing countries to support EU’s decisions for the coverage of its energy needs through
biofuels imports, would pose strong threats for the land use, the biodiversity loss and the water balance of
the respective export countries.
As a result, EU’s strategy aims to a balanced approach between domestic production and imports. Further
reasons to support this strategy are definitely the cost of biofuels production in the several developing
countries in contrast with domestic production. For instance EU-produced ethanol is estimated to cost
approximately €900/tOE by 2010 whereas the imported Brazilian ethanol will cost €680/tOE (Biomass
action plan, 2005). In this case, we have to refer to the taxation fluctuations and exemptions which are still
studied in order to offer equal opportunities for biofuels producers within the EU’s boarders. Furthermore,
an interesting approach for the biofuels insertion into the market is related to the respective petroleum
products prices. According to relational theories, ethanol can be competitive when oil price reaches 90-
95€ per barrel while biodiesel can be competitive when oil price reaches 60-75€ per barrel (An EU
Strategy for Biofuels, 2006).
Finally we must refer to the countries that could potential be the main contributors in this strategy of
biofuels expansion within the EU boarders. Several scenarios have been studied by the respective
authorities in respect to the different agricultural, environmental and economic parameters. The results
about the potential ability of EU country members to support biofuels policy are quite controversial and
impossible to be presented in the frame of this assignment. However, the held opinion is that countries as
Spain, France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Lithuania and Poland offer significant advantages for
further biofuels expansion. The main reasons are related to their land potential, the agricultural systems,
the population and its density and financial variables (How much bioenergy can Europe produce without
harming the environment, 2006).
5 In 2005 Bulgaria and Romania were not counted as EU’s members. As a result new available data regarding their
notably arable land would have helped us to provide more precise information.
6 Moreover Sweden is the leading ethanol consumer with 80% imports from Brasil
- 27-

Advanced technologies
The broad range of no-fossil energy sources have developed due to the expansion and growth of energy
markets, in addition to environmental policies enacted over the past decade.
Competition for land is an issue especially when some of the crops such as maize, oil palm and soybean
that are currently cultivated for food are redirected towards the production of biofuels. So far, on a global
scale most biofuels planted for the purpose of ethanol production have not been feasible or being a good
competitor to petroleum in a free market, nor sustainable . These reasons vary a lot, especially in the
presence of other big issues; demand on land for food production and scarcity of fresh water sources for
agriculture is critical in many regions of the world.
In this section we in general focus on future technologies that have been tested and being modified for
biofuels used in transportation, i.e. Biodiesel and Ethanol. The search and development of these
technologies might contribute to mitigate the economic scarcity of agricultural land within the EU. Some
of these technologies are using genetically modified crops, cellulosic breakdown and algae cultivation for
oil productions. The key issue regarding the demand of new technologies is the increased demand and
exploring additional resources to cover the transportation section. Another need is to maximize production
and use areas for production.
Genetically modified crops
It is done by altering the DNA by conventional breeding. Required genes, that hold favored qualities, can
be moved from one organism to the other. Genetic modification has been used to increase a crop's
resistivity to pests, tolerate pesticides, droughts, and tolerate higher saline levels and to maximize
production.
There are many issues related in using genetically modified crops; one is the issue of biodiversity,
followed by consumer safety issues. Just like in any other monoculture agricultural system, there are many
concerns about biodiversity and pest control. Genetically modified crops increase this risk by being
tolerant to more pests, insects and microorganisms causing many species to migrate or die due to not
enough food leading to decreased biodiversity.
Regarding liquid biofuels production i.e. ethanol and biodiesel, genetic modification is being used to
maximize production by making the feedstocks more tolerant to pests and increase cellulose and starch
contents. Since the feedstocks are not going to be digested by humans or animals the worries of health
issues are eliminated. The net result is increased yield per hectare. Nowadays, the most common modified
crops are soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil.
Second generation biofuels: Cellulosic Biomass
Ethanol production derives from any feedstock containing significant amounts of cellulose which is found
in the hard parts of every plant. The cellulose is then converted into sugar, or other materials that can be
converted into sugar such as starch or cellulose from residual non-food parts of crops. These non-food
parts such as stems, leaves and husks or any woody or fibrous biomass, are the useful sugars locked in by
lignin and cellulose. Second generation biofuels use biomass to liquid technology, including cellulosic
biofuels from non food crops. This process has a higher energy yield per hectare, because the entire crop
is the feedstock, which the ethanol/biodiesel is derived from. Another advantage is that fast growing
perennial crops like woody crops and tall grasses can grow on degraded or none agriculturally suitable
lands, which can also, can be used in reclaiming lands and protecting topsoil.
- 28-

Cellulose can be manufactured either by thermo-chemical conversion or biochemical conversion. Thermo
chemical, in which the process requires extra large amounts of heat for drying the feedstocks before
conversion processing, requires high temperature in pyrolysis. This process is favored for energy
production in power plants. The following step is hydrolysis of the cellulose with acids, these results in
fuel that can be used more efficiently in the transportation sector. Another method is the biochemical
conversion which requires less energy in the process, but it needs more inputs for pretreatment.
Biochemical conversion technologies involve three basic steps: (1) converting biomass to sugar or other
fermentation feedstock (using dilute acid pretreatment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis); (2) fermenting
these biomass intermediates using biocatalysts (microorganisms including yeast and bacteria); and (3)
processing the fermentation product to yield fuel-grade ethanol and other fuels, chemicals, heat and/or
electricity. (NREL, 2008)
Third generation biofuels example: "Algae Fuel"
This process is used for making biodiesel, another biofuel that is used for transportation. Biodiesel can be
directly used in any diesel engine. Other ways of biodiesel production requires vegetable oil processing
which is required in vast quantities for processing. Biodiesel derived from algae generates greater yield
per hectare (up to 30 times greater energy yield than the second best source; the Chinese Tallow) and
lower production costs (NREL, 1998). The US department of Energy claims ‘‘using algae to produce
biodiesel may be the only viable method by which to produce enough automotive fuel to replace current
world diesel usage’’ (NREL, 1998).
In pilot plans, algaes are cultivated either in open ponds or in photo-bioreactors. In both methods, the
water quality effect on production is negligible, but the pH must be controlled and CO 2 must be supplied
to maximize production. Basically the photobioreacor is a tube, where the favored aquatic system is inside
it. Note that these methods can be done on marginal lands, where waste and saline water can be used.
Cultivating micro-algae with high lipid content such as diatom and cyanobacteria for oil production have
many advantages in comparison with production from plants feedstock. These can be summarized as no
competitive in fuel production compared with food production, cheap feedstock (algae) and utilizing
waste such as nutrients and CO 2 for production. This method is still under research but some pilot plans
are established in the US and New Zealand and further research have discovered other aquatic
microorganisms.
Just like any other method, this system holds limitations. The algae strain used must be a fast to grow, not
hard to harvest and must contain high lipid content. Due to the variety of requirements of cultivating algal
strains, it is hard to use a universal photobioreactor, different reactors from different materials holding
different properties are chosen for different strains. In open systems, the control of temperature, pH and
invasion from viral infections and predator bacteria are critical for a commercially possible production.
Most these can be controlled in closed systems.
Discussion - Conclusion
As it has been referred in the previous sections, several intensive efforts are taking part in order to increase
the share of biofuels within the EU-27 by adopting different oriented measures. Regarding the basic topic
examined in this paper, the transport sector, we could state that it is different than other energy sectors. It
is dynamic, remote and definitely the infrastructure and car compatibilities are based on liquid fuels.
Moreover, the continuous increase of EU’s car fleet set further questions about the amount of the carbon
and the rest harmful gases emitted and the additional energy sources needed for its coverage.
- 29-

To sum up the measures and developments in the biofuels adoption direction, we must primary refer to the
technical improvements that ought to be implemented for the massive but at the same time smooth
introduction of biofuels in the transportation sector. Moreover, from EU’s point of view, specific weight
has been placed in the enhancement of the engines and fuels efficiency for the reduction of GHG
emissions parallel with the biofuels expansion. Furthermore, favourable measures and policies as taxation
exemptions are still discussed by the relevant authorities and looking forward to be implemented with
respect to the boost of useful feedstock production for efficient conversion to biofuels. Finally, new
generation feedstocks and advanced techniques are still in research in order to obtain the best possible
outcome from the profitable conversion of cellulosic biomass and even more advanced types of feedstock
in Europe.
As a result, we could claim that biofuels are emerging gradually in the market for various concerns. Most
importantly is finding an energy source that is not finite, which decreases green house gases (GHGs)
caused from fossil fuel consumption. The amount of energy consumed is enormous, so all possible options
are being developed in order to substitute petroleum. To be realistic EU took an initiative of introducing
biofuels in the market for its multiple benefits mentioned earlier in this paper.
However, remarkable obstacles still are observed during these processes. The most important drawback
until today has to do with the non-conformity of the targets set by the Commission, comparing with the
respective capability of EU-27 land to produce sufficient feedstock for biofuels production. Coherently,
this fact creates skepticism regarding the availability of agricultural land, the threats for biodiversity, the
depletion of fresh water resources, the balance between food and energy crops, cost concerns and overall
the sustainable development of the project called biofuels. In order to reduce those concerns, EU has
adopted a balanced approach regarding the domestic feedstock production and the external sources –
imports –. This policy aims to give opportunities to developing countries to gain significant benefits
regarding their financial and social development while at the same time those will contribute to the
ultimate EU’s target.
As a final statement we could mention that those kind of radical changes – in this case from fossil fuels to
biofuels –, even if their implementation rate is gradual, consist of several complex parameters. Obviously,
not all of them – for example the EU’s energy security issue - are part of this course. However, what can
be certainly said is that a multidisciplinary approach is essential while examining such significant and
manifold tasks, but in any case the orientation must be pointing to sustainable future solutions.
References consulted
[1] Biofuels for Transportation, Global potential and implications for sustainable energy and agriculture, Worldwatch
Institute, Earthscan, 2007
[2] Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport, House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Ninth Report
of Session 2005–06, Volume I, August 2006, London
Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/981/981-i.pdf
[3] A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century Commission's position on the CARS 21
High Level Group Final Report, A contribution to the EU's Growth and Jobs Strategy, Commission of the European
communities
Source: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l24278.htm
[4] CO2 emissions from transport in the EU27, An analysis of 2006 data submitted to the UNFCCC, European
Federation for transport and environment, August 2008
Source: http://www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid:464
[5] CARS 21, A Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st century
- 30-

Final Report, European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2006
Source: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/automotive/index_en.htm
[6] Communication from the Commission to the council and the European Parliament,
Results of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from Passenger cars and lightcommercial
vehicles, Brussels 2007
Sources: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/pagesbackground/pollutant_emission/index.htm
[7] Directive 2003/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use
of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, Official Journal of the European Union, 2003
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/legislation/doc/biofuels/en_final.pdf
[8] Biofuels in the European Union, A vision for 2030 and beyond. Biofuels Research Advisory Council, 2006
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/biofuels_vision_2030_en.pdf
[9] Overview and analysis of National reports on the EU biofuels directive Prospects and barriers for 2005, E.P.
Deurwaarder, May 2005
Source: http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2005/c05042.pdf
[10] Biofuels Progress Report, Report on the progress made in the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels in the
Member States of the European Union, Communication from the Commission, Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels 2007
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/07_biofuels_progress_report_en.pdf
[11] Biomass action plan, Communication from the Commission, Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels 2005
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/biomass_action_plan/doc/2005_12_07_comm_biomass_action_plan_en.pdf
[12] An EU Strategy for Biofuels, Communication from the Commission, Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels 2006
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/biomass/biofuel/com2006_34_en.pdf
[13] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/energy
Source: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-CD-07-001-11/EN/KS-CD-07-001-11-EN.PDF
[14] EU Energy and Transport in figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2007/2008
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/doc/2007/2007_pocketbook_all_en.pdf
[15] Maximizing the environmental benefits of Europe's bioenergy potential, EEA Technical report, European
Environmental Agency, Copenhagen 2008
Source: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2008_10/en/Bioenergy_Potential.pdf
[16] How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment
European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen 2006
Source: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_7/en/eea_report_7_2006.pdf
[17] Hughen, A. Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, Oxford
University Press, 2000
[18] Chris Somerville, "Development of Cellulosic Biofuels". U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
[19] Biochemical conversion technologies – projects. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado
Source: http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/proj_biochemical_conversion.html
[20] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Biodiesel from Algae A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy
Aquatic Species Program. July 1998
- 31-

Appendix A
Table A1: Biofuels shares, national indicative targets and production in EU-27
Member
Countries
Biofuels
Market Share
2003
National
indicative target
for 2005 (%)
Total Biofuels
Production 2005
(ktoe)
Austria 0,06% 2,50% 57 0,60%
Share of biofuels in
total final consumption
in transports 2005 (%)
Belgium 0% 2% 589 Not available
Bulgaria Not available Not available Not available Not available
Cuprys 0% 1% Not available Not available
Czech Republic 1,12% 3,7% (2006) 113 Not available
Denmark 0% 0% 64 Not available
Esthonia Not available Not available Not available 0,80%
Finland 0,10% 0,10% Not available Not available
France 0,68% 2% 488 1%
Germany 1,18% 2% 2185 3,90%
Greece 0% 0,70% Not available Not available
Hungary 0% 0,4‐0,6% 5 0,10%
Ireland 0% 0,06% 1 Not available
Italy 0,50% 1% 162 0,40%
Latvia 0,21 2% 2 0,20%
Lithuania 0% 2% 11 0,30%
Luxembourg 0% 0% 1 0%
Malta 0,02% 0 Not available Not available
Holland 0,03% 0,30% 53 Not available
Poland 0,49% 0,50% 118 0,60%
Portugal 0% 2% 0 0%
Romania Not available Not available Not available Not available
Slovakia 0,14 2% 36 0,70%
Slovenia 0% 0,65% Not available Not available
Spain 0,76% 2% 259 Not available
Sweden 1,32% 3% 316 2,90%
United kingdom 0,6 0,30% 58 0,20%
Sources: Biomass action plan, 2005 & EU Energy and Transport in figures. Statistical Pocketbook
2007/2008
- 32-

Appendix B
Figure B1: Share of energy consumption by fuel type in 2005, EU-27
Source: Maximizing the environmental benefits of Europe's bioenergy potential, 2008
- 33-

High-tech vs. low-tech biofuels production: Diverging
paths or a common road to sustainable development
A case study of Sweden and Mali
by
Shahrina Afrin
Craig Donovan
James Loewenstein
Introduction
Meeting our future energy needs is becoming a critical issue globally. Biofuels are destined to play a large
role in meeting our future energy challenges from the local to the global scale and from the high-tech to
the rudimentary. From Sweden to Mali, new fuel sources are being developed from the earth and sun. Yet,
these two countries represent the apparent divergent paths of biofuel. One is high-tech, economically and
environmentally motivated and relies on the advanced industry of the global North. While the other is
distinctly low-tech, intended to provide basic energy sources to help alleviate poverty and is a product of
hard work locally and NGO organization in the global South.
It is our aim that this comparison set the stage for a discussion on the nature of future biofuels
development. This is particularly important with regards to the appropriateness, scale and sustainability at
both the local and global levels. Who benefits and how can each nation utilize the opportunities presented
by biofuels in order to meet their specific needs and avoid the threats associated with a poor policy
framework
The objectives of this paper are firstly, to make a comparative case study of biofuels production between
two countries representing the contrast between the industrialised North and the developing South.
Secondly, to analysis if these two paths of high-tech verses low-tech biofuel production are divergent or
convergent Thirdly, to discuss the results under the framework of potential future biofuel trajectories. In
attempting to achieve these objectives, a number of research questions have been considered;
• How is the expansion of biofuel production being facilitated in both developing and developed
countries
• What impacts, both positive and negative, will the paths of high-tech and low-tech production
have on building sustainable communities
• What is the level of appropriateness for future development for Sweden and Mali
- 35-

A review has been undertaken of the relevant literature, with a case study of two countries representing
the context of the contrasting paths of high-tech verses low-tech biofuel production. The initial focus of
this study was centred on the idea of local production. However, as the research progressed, a greater and
what we consider more pressing, debate surfaced; the differing trajectories based on technological
resources and the associated sustainability goals of the North and South.
Theoretical Framework
Today’s debate regarding the future direction of biofuels is vast in scope and many opinions exist on
which direction is most appropriate. The focus of this paper will be on two theoretical ideologies.
Whether, local production for local use or export orientated markets will prevail and the scale and
technology of production within the context of North/South biofuel development. The use of biofuels are
not new, but were in fact first used in our earliest cars. Both Ford and Mercedes utilized them in their
early engines. However, these lost favour to oil during the early to mid 20th century and did not reappear
in earnest until the 1970s. Biofuels began to be redeveloped as a means of substituting fossil fuels for
locally produced fuels to meet domestic energy needs in the wake of the mid to late 1970s oil crisis. As
fuel prices shocked many national economies and highlighted the gross lack of domestic and secure
alternatives, a renewed interest in biofuel technology emerged. (Worldwatch Institute, 2007).
Currently, the biofuels industry is limited to a relatively small handful of nations and is considered to be
utilizing first generation technology. Namely, ethanol from cropland, including wheat, sugar, cassava, and
corn and biodiesel from vegetable oils, primarily rapeseed and palm. Though other feedstocks are
emerging as challengers, these include jatropha nuts for biodiesel and cellulosic biomass such as Salix and
Eucalyptus for ethanol production. (Ibid) Many believe new biomass crops hold the future of biofuels,
along with new techniques, technological transfers from other industries and increased efficiencies
associated with increased experience. Second generation biofuels will be focused on two distinct target
users; the industrial North with its high-tech capacity and the South with its abundance of land and labour.
These will be the fundamental differences that set the direction of the industry and the future biofuels
market. (Worldwatch Institute, 2007; Swedish Cooperative Centre, 2008).
These imbalances and regional advantages, and disadvantages, will facilitate international trade in biofuels
and may provide a “leapfrogging opportunity” for developing nations (World Watch Institute, 2007,
p.115). While Mathews (2007) argues extensively that, a Biopact between the OECD countries (the
North) and developing countries of the South, will provide a sustainable source of fuel to the North.
While at the same time biodiversity and environmental protection guidelines coupled with the North’s
technology, logistics and capital will ensure sustainable development in the global South.
Second generation processing from cellulosic biomass and increased government support for biofuel
programs is driving the current renewed interest in the North. (Worldwatch Institute, 2007). As are,
concerns with greenhouse gas emissions and their climate impacts, rising energy prices and the
implication for energy and economic security. While geopolitical manoeuvring and rural poverty
alleviation will be the driving forces in the global South (Fraiture et al, 2008; Granda et al, 2007; Johnson
& Roman, 2008; Worldwatch Institute, 2007).
According to Mathews (2007), this second generation technology utilizing the biochemical breakdown of
lignocelluloses and the Fischer-Tropsch process in conjunction with fast growing fibrous biomass could
provide 4/5ths of OECD fuel consumption. Yet, full-scale usage is still many years off in the North and
even further for the developing nations of the South. At the same time the current profitability of
Brazilian ethanol (currently the most economical for export) could collapse as carbohydrates and oil crops
give way to these second generation, locally utilized cellulosic technologies in the North (Sawyer, 2008).
- 36-

While the industrial North is developing high tech, centrally processed and regionally harvested 2nd
generation crops and biorefineries, the South is beginning to consider its strategic advantages as well. It is
estimated that sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America possess 2 billion hectares of potentially arable
land. A large portion of this land receives a high amount of solar energy per square meter and is ideal for
high efficiency oil crops such as palm, jatropha, and sugarcane for ethanol production. Efficient crops (per
hectare), large arable landmasses, cheap labour and low cost first generation refineries of the South
challenges the cheap cellulosic biomass and high-tech biorefineries of the North. (Mathews, 2007).
This leads to the issues of scale and market orientation. Is a large scale or a local scale better and will
future markets be export or locally/domestically orientated The answer is may be both biofuel needs are
varied from region to region, as are the means available. This divergence of needs between the North and
South can be highlighted through examples focusing on the very different philosophies and advantages of
the North and South.
Case Study: Sweden
Sweden is the fifth largest of the European countries, with over half of its land area covered by forest. As
such, the forests have been a significant primary energy source and this places Sweden in a favourable
position to produce biofuels. (Energimyndigheten, 2007a; Energimyndigheten, 2007b). As the
industrialisation process began in the mid 19 th century, 90 percent of Sweden’s population of 3.5 million
lived in rural areas; this is in stark contrast to today’s figure of approximately 15 percent of the 9 million
people (Hagström, 2006). Biomass use for energy remained fairly constant until the cheap oil of the postsecond
world war era began to dominate. The oil crisis of 1973 sparked renewed interest in biofuels and a
sharp increase in biomass for energy production, particularly in the rapidly expanding district heating
sector. (Energimyndigheten, 2007a). Sweden now has the ambitious goal of being fossil fuel free by 2020
(Worldwatch Institute, 2007). However, due to supply constraints of renewables in Sweden, Hillman and
Sandén (2008) conclude that it is unlikely that local production will substitute petrol and diesel on a large
scale.
Today, Sweden mainly uses biomass for heat and electricity production, with a small percentage of energy
crops being converted into ethanol (Hagström, 2006). Biofuels amounted to almost 19 percent of total
energy supplied in Sweden in 2006 (Energimyndigheten, 2007a). This energy supply from biofuels is
expected to continue to expand as bioenergy plays a significant role in the government’s goal to break oil
dependency by 2020 (Olsson, 2006).
In the transport sector, oil products still dominate with a 95 percent share of the market.
(Energimyndigheten, 2007a). Sweden did meet the EU target directive of 2% biofuels use in the transport
sector at the end of 2005, with the 2010 target following the EU directive of 5.75% (Hillman and Sandén,
2008). Sweden also appears to be on track to meet this target; biofuels in the transport sector increased 1
percent between 2006 and 2007, from 3.5 to 4.5 percent (Johansson, 2008).
- 37-

Figure 1: Proportion of biofuels in the road-transport sector in 2007. (Johansson, 2008)
The Swedish, Commission on Oil Independence (2006, p4) considers that in addition to energy efficiency
in transportation, biofuels from forestry and energy crops must largely replace petrol and diesel in the
future and thereby contributing to greater energy security. “Government should contribute to large-scale
production of new, domestic biofuels from forest and fields”. However, they argue further, that at today’s
consumption levels, biofuels would not be sufficient to power all vehicles; therefore efficiency is a key
consideration. A sustainable transport system will not be achieved by biofuels alone and must come with a
shift toward a transport-efficient society, where optimised public and goods transport play a vital role
(Johansson, 2008).
Åhman (2007) notes that the rapid expansion of biomass use for combined heat and power (CHP) plants
has been facilitated by support schemes such as the green electricity certificates. Over 70 percent of the
green certificates issued for renewable energy in 2006 were for biofuel-fired plants. Although bio-energy
plants are far fewer in number than the wind and hydroelectric power sectors, the total output is often
greater. Of the total amount of certified bioenergy produced in Sweden in 2006, less than 1 percent came
from energy crops, while over 80 percent was from the forestry sector. (Energimyndigheten, 2007b). Yet,
the potential quantity of biomass available for energy production in the heating sector is not sufficient to
replace both electricity and fossil fuels for both industry and dwellings (Hagström, 2006). Åhman (2007)
argues further, that a rapid expansion of energy crops will have a significant effect on the farming
community, yet will have a small impact on reducing the use of fossil-fuels. Therefore, other sectors will
need to solve the problem of oil dependence. Furthermore, rapid growth could have negative impacts at
the local and regional level due to large-scale industrial production methods, such as monoculture
plantations. Multifunction biomass systems, of the type implemented in the city of Enköping, utilize waste
treatment water and sludge as fertiliser for Salix crops. This could lead to greater sustainability through
integration of recycling and agriculture (Berndes et al, 2008). However, Åhman (2007) argues that
agricultural waste streams used for the production of biogas are profitable but limited in scale due to the
availability of waste. High commodity prices are affecting the profitability of both ethanol and biodiesel
production in Sweden, with many projects being put on hold due to the high cost of the feedstock. (GAIN,
2008). Ethanol from Swedish wheat costs twice as much to produce as ethanol imported from Brazil and
only remains competitive due to import tariffs. Imports of ethanol from Brazil, amount to 75 percent of the
- 38-

ethanol used in the transport sector in Sweden. (Åhman, 2007). There is an increasing driving force behind
imported ethanol from large-scale production, particularly Brazilian ethanol. In February 2008, Sweden
won its application with the EU to have ethanol destined for fuel blending remain classified as a chemical
rather than an agricultural product. Had a negative decision been returned, a 30 percent increase in the
import tariffs would have occurred under EU agriculture protection policy. This would have significantly
affected the cost-effectiveness of imported ethanol and impacted negatively on flexi-fuel car owners.
(Eriksson, 2008). This policy line, to reduce or even remove ethanol tariffs, has strong support, for
instance; the Environment Advisory Council of Sweden proposes that ethanol tariffs be abolished
completely (Miljövårdsberedningens, 2007). Yet on the other hand, this will have a major negative impact
on the competitiveness of locally produced ethanol and may in fact signal the end of Swedish ethanol
production (GAIN, 2007). The Swedish company SEKAB imports almost 90 percent of all ethanol for the
E85 and ED95 (heavy vehicle ethanol) blends. SEKAB has been working together with Brazilian
producers to develop a framework of criteria that covers the whole life cycle of ethanol production form
Brazilian sugarcane and claims to be, “the first in the world to supply verified sustainable ethanol…
quality assured from environmental, climate and social perspectives.” This is considered a major step
toward an international standard for sustainable ethanol. (SEKAB, 2008, p1).
The creation of niche markets has played an important role in the recent increase in flexi-fuel vehicles
(FFVs). This has been facilitated with policies such as tax exemptions, congestion fee exclusion and free
parking and has helped offset emissions in the transport sector despite an increase in traffic volumes
(Ulmanen et al, 2008 and Miljövårdsberedningens, 2007). Though these policies alone will not stimulate a
large market shift to biofuels. Other policies include, biofuel mandates for filling stations over a certain
size and the requirement that 75% of all government vehicles be eco-friendly from 2006. (Hillman and
Sandén, 2008). The Environment Advisory Council of Sweden state that, policy instruments need to create
a self-reinforcing process of market growth. However, they must be carefully constructed to ensure
incentives drive technology on a path capable of surviving without subsidies in the long-term.
(Miljövårdsberedningens, 2007). Policy must also be implemented with consideration to the dynamic
nature of technology, in order to avoid dead ends in the system (Hillman and Sandén, 2008). There is also
a risk of being locked into technology path dependence if investment favours certain technologies. Policy
instruments need to be technology neutral, though consideration must be given to sophisticated new
technologies (such as cellulosic techniques) not yet commercially viable, to ensure they receive
appropriate development funding. (Miljövårdsberedningen, 2007). In Sweden, the linking of
entrepreneurial efforts and government policies has resulted in cumulative causation that has facilitated
the adoption of biofuels for transportation (Hillman et al, 2008). Being a country of “technology
optimists”, high-tech processing plays an important role in the development of biofuels (Commission on
Oil Independence, 2006, p5). This is illustrated by the US Ambassador’s selection of “Sweden’s 30 hottest
clean-tech companies” presented to US venture capitalists in April 2007. Of these thirty green companies,
53 percent (16 of 30) were involved in biofuel production (refer to Appendix 1 for a listing of the
companies). (Salo, 2007, p1).
A number of key stakeholders play a significant part in driving biofuel technology development in
Sweden; Chemrec, specialises in black liquor gasification technology that helps transform pulp and paper
mills into biorefineries (Chemrec, 2008); SEKAB, Swedish Ethanolkemi AB, imports the vast majority of
ethanol into Sweden (SEKAB, 2008); Ageratec, designs and builds total solutions for biodiesel
production, with 11 plants in operation in Sweden and 68 plants worldwide. (Ageratec, 2008). SEKAB is
driving the expansion of large-scale imports of ethanol in Sweden. The company plans to begin ethanol
production in Tanzania and Mozambique based on sugarcane, initially starting with 20 000 hectares, the
goal is to expand to 400 000 hectares. There is some criticism toward these plans, as local farmers will be
forced off their land. SEKAB acknowledge that there will be local impacts, however, have the goal to
contribute positively to development in these areas. (Swedish Cooperative Centre, 2008).
- 39-

Case Study: Mali
Mali is among the poorest countries in the world with a highly unequal income distribution. The country is
land-locked, with 65 percent of the land area being desert or semi-desert and has few opportunities for
export (FACT, 2006). The population is approximately 12 million people and the national territory
extends over 1 241 000 km2. The rural population are directly dependent on their environment (herding,
farming or fishing) for their livelihood and 99 percent lack energy services. Mali has no fossil energy
resources, thus, much of Mali’s hard earned foreign currency is lost to fossil fuel imports. There is heavy
dependence on imported petroleum products, which represent approximately 8 percent of the national
energy, weighing heavily on the foreign exchange and trade balance of the country (75 million USD in
1998 and more than 100 million USD in 2000) (MFC, 2002a). Therefore, creating a sound economic basis
is the only way rural people can escape from poverty. In order for this to happen, energy is needed.
Energy can increase productivity, add value to the agricultural produce and increase income (FACT,
2006).
The opportunity in Mali is the diverse crops available to produce bioenergy. The crops are Cassava,
Maize, Sorghum, Jatropha and Sugarcane (KIT, 2007). The common liquid biofuels in Mali are jatropha
oil and ethanol. The first experience in Mali with ethanol dates back to 1989, when an unsuccessful
attempt was made by a sugar production company to run a diesel engine with a 6 percent blend of ethanol
(MFC, 2007). Currently the Jatropha Curcas plant, or the physical nut, is the main focus as a raw material
for Malian biofuel (KIT, 2007). Jatropha seeds contain about 35% of non-edible oil. The production of
seeds is about 0.8 kg per meter of hedge per year, with an oil yield of 0,171. (Henning, 1998). Cultivating
and processing the nuts does not have any negative impact either on the regular food crops or the
environment. Neither, is it ‘rainforest fuel’, the nickname given to fuel from crops cultivated by chopping
down rainforest, thus it helps to maintain the biodiversity. This biofuel comes mainly from yields that are
harvested from the kilometres of unused land stretching along the roadside, rather than from farming plots,
which would compete with food crops (Fig. 9.1) (KIT, 2007).
The Jatropha System is an integrated rural development approach, using local production, local processing
and local consumption (Mali Biocarburant, 2008). By planting jatropha hedges to protect gardens and
fields against roaming animals and erosion, the oil from the seeds can be used to enhance four main
aspects of rural development; promotion of women by local soap production; poverty reduction by
protecting crops and selling seeds, oil and soap; erosion control by planting hedges and energy supply for
the household and stationary generators in the rural area, (Henning, 2006).
At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, African governments reaffirmed their commitment
under the Dakar Declaration to ban leaded gasoline by the end of 2005. To meet this challenge, a holistic
regional strategy is called for - one that can simultaneously benefit the environment, the economy, and
human well-being. For a number of African countries, ethanol blending may be the most sustainable and
attractive option, by virtue of its economic advantages and its potential to serve as a catalyst for rural
development (Hodes, 2003). Under this process the cultivation of oil plants was facilitated. In Mali, a
number of organizations give support to small-scale projects geared towards small farmers integrating
their activities with existing agricultural systems.
Producing biofuel that not only supplements farmers’ income and contributes to poverty alleviation, but
that will also be used locally without taking a toll on the environment; this is the idea behind a new project
of Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) in West Africa: Mali Biocarburant SA. At present 1013 farmers are
organized into five cooperatives and in conjunction with the local union, are the stakeholders of Mali
Biocarburant, (Mali Biocarburant, 2008). This production company processes the jatropha nuts and
transforms them into oil for fuel, which it then distributes locally. The fuel is suitable for generators and
cars. The company is financed by the government of the Netherlands (through sponsorship via the PSOM
programme). Partners in Mali consist of a farmers’ association called Local Cooperative Society of the
- 40-

Jatropha Curcas Producers (ULSPP) and a private company called Interagro, which purchases the fuel and
then distributes it. The objective is that Mali Biocarburant SA will help to create a market for jatropha nuts
so that they can be used as the raw material for biofuel. It was in this context during the 1970s and 1980s
that KIT, together with its local partners, encouraged the farmers to plant jatropha in the hedgerows of
their fields and on eroded land (KIT, 2007).
In 1987 within the Special Energy Programme of GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) Jatropha
activities commenced and continued in different organizational forms until 1997. The Malian partner of
the GTZ project was Division Machinisme Agricole (DMA) and CNESOLER (Malian National Centre for
Solar & Renewable Energy). During the GTZ projects, basic studies were carried out on the density of
jatropha hedges in different regions of the country, on the yield of the hedges, on the oil yield of the
expellers and the ram presses, on the economy of soap production and the use of jatropha oil as a diesel
substitute. Also, studies were undertaken on the value of the jatropha presscake as an organic fertiliser. At
the end of the GTZ projects in 1997, jatropha was estimated at around 10 000 km of jatropha hedges,
representing a potential of about 2000 tons of jatropha oil (Henning, 2007).
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, UNIDO and United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) started a large-scale project to disseminate Multifunctional Energy Platforms (MFP)
in the rural areas of Mali. This was designed to power various tools, such as a cereal mill, a husker, oil
press, alternator, battery charger, welding, carpentry equipment, among other items (MFC, 2007). The
UNIDO program tested 4 MFPs on jatropha oil, and the UNDP tested a number of their MFP with
jatropha oil. A total of 450 units are planned, with 15 percent or about 70 units, intended to be fuelled with
jatropha oil. This programme will be extended to Senegal, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana (Henning,
2007).
Other jatropha initiatives include, the arrangement by the Government of Mali for UNDP funding for a
CNESOLER’s Women and Renewable Energy (FENR) project to install 3 jatropha fuelled MFPs and the
National programme for the valorisation of jatropha as a source of energy (PNVEP) - a 5-year, 1 million
US$ project. Particularly, the PNVEP should lay a strong foundation for an integrated biofuels
production capability in the country. Under this programme, a village of 3 000 inhabitants was electrified
with 60 kVA power plant and a mini-grid (MFC, 2007). Furthermore, Danish International Development
Assistance (DANIDA) funded a project for the development and commercialisation of jatropha in order to
involve the private sector. Many research activities will be undertaken in the frame of this 3-year project.
This includes, installation of an industrial unit for jatropha oil production and elaboration of a National
Biofuel Strategy. The project is implemented by the CNESOLER, MFC (Mali-Folkecenter), Institute
d’Economie Rural (IER) and Institut Polytechnique Rural (IPR). (Henning, 2007).
Mali Folkecenter (MFC), a NGO in Bamako, began jatropha activities in 2000, taking on those previously
carried out by GTZ between 1987 and 1997. They receive its financial support from the Siemenpuu
Foundation in Finland (Henning, 2007) and signed a 5-year protocol-agreement with the government of
Mali through the Ministry for Mines, Energy and Water in October 2000 (MFC, 2007). The Municipality
of Garalo is an example of a new paradigm of energy for sustainable development. The electricity in
Garalo was generated from both palm and jatropha oil in what has become the largest straight vegetable
oil rural electrification project in Africa. The 100 kW generator - one of three at the powerhouse with a
total capacity of 300 KW - feeds electricity into over 178 homes, providing light, refrigeration and
security to over 4,700 people. The project is funded partly by AMADER (Malian Agency for the
Development of Household Energy & Rural Electrification) (Rivard and Burrell, 2008). The aim is to
transform the local economy within 15 years through clean electricity production. Electricity will be a
catalyst for local small-medium enterprises and industrial SME/SMI development and provide job
opportunities for the 10 000 people of the village (MFC, 2007).
- 41-

To produce local press, funded by UNEP SEAF (Sustainable Energy Advisory Facility), a barrier removal
project has lunched with CNESOLER including press production in Mali and adoption of plantation
approach. Five rural energy services centres were established a with 7 kW generator each running on
jatropha oil. These centres provide rural communities with agricultural services, battery charging, public
lighting, etc. MFC initiated the conversion of Toyota pickups to run on jatropha oil with the technical
support of Elsbett GmbH, a German company. This project aims to show the possibility of using Jatropha
in the transport sector (MFC, 2007) A jatropha cooperative composed of 30 villages of farmers interested
in growing the plant was formed in the commune of Garalo. These local farmers planted close to 450
hectares ready for the rainy season of 2007. Most have sown their seeds alongside crops of beans, sesame,
peanuts and cotton. For the cooperative members, the plant produces three sources of revenue. Firstly,
they sell the seeds to their cooperative. Secondly, they will receive part of the benefits when the pressed
oil is sold to the processing companies. Thirdly, the press cake, a residue from the oil pressing process, is
sold as fertilizer. The local production, local use and local benefits allow the electricity consumers and
members of the cooperatives to find additional income and perhaps embark in new revenue generating
activities (Rivard and Burrell, 2008).
The key economic factor of jatropha oil production is the amount of seeds harvested within 1 hour, which
directly influences the production costs of jatropha oil. Doubling of the harvest (6 kg instead of 3 kg)
reduces the production costs from 0.28 to 0.16 USD, which is almost half of the cost (57 percent). If the
costs of the expeller are doubled, from 1,500 USD to 3,000 USD, the production costs of the jatropha oil
stay at 0.28. The sale of the oil cake (after oil extraction) is not an economic option, because the minerals
are needed as organic fertilizer, otherwise mineral fertilizer would have to be purchased (Henning, 2007).
Gender issues are also an important consideration in biofuel production. In Mali the jatropha hedges
belong to the men, who are the landowners. The women can collect the seeds to make soap at a
subsistence level but the earnings by selling them is to be handed over the men. This naturally discourages
women and they only produce soap in small quantities for their own family, rather than use the potential
of seeds from the family hedges. Since 1997, the situation has improved somewhat in favour of the
women, as some have been granted plots to grow jatropha by the village chief. This donation of the plot to
the women group was renounced twice after the women planted more than 1000 seedlings. The women
lost interest to try and reclaim it a third time. The Mali
Folkecenter reported that, recently the situation has changed
and the land was given back to women groups again to grow
Jatropha (Hennings, 2006). The NGO Environment Africa
involves the children and the teachers from local schools in
the planting project and use the project as a teaching lesson
for the children to raise awareness of the environment and to
take ownership of the trees. Jatropha plantations can play an
important role in carbon sequestration. The existing largescale
project in Egypt and the planned large-scale jatropha
projects in South Africa and Ghana are calculated with initial
finance by the trade of Emission Certificates (Hennings,
2006).
Technology transfer is an important issue for biofuel energy
in South. The technological development department of Mali
has played an important role in many projects over recent
years, but particular achievements include technology
transfer North-South & South-South. North-South
technology transfer was effected in the conversion of
MFC's Toyota pick-up to run on jatropha oil instead of
diesel, with support from the Danish Folkecenter & Elsbett
- 42-
Fig: 2 The original Nepali press
(left and the Malian protype
(right.) (MFC, 2002b).

Technology GMBH. (MFC, 2002). The construction of a Nepalese jatropha oil press in Mali was South-
South transfer, removing a significant barrier to wide scale adoption of jatropha oil technology in Mali
(Fig: 4.1). This was implemented in the frame of the Sustainable Energy Advisory Facility (a UNEP
initiative), in cooperation with CNESOLER (the National Centre for solar & Renewable Energies, part of
the Ministry of Energy) (MFC, 2002b).
Biodiesel produced from jatropha in Mali costs 34% less per litre than traditional diesel or gasoline, so
producers of the fuel will have a large market. If jatropha feedstock is used, the fuel will cost
approximately US $ 0, 40 per litre excluding tax. (Greenfueltech, 2007). Besides, the jatropha project
must deliver a lot more than just extra income for male and female small-scale farmers. It is also generates
job opportunities, green energy, fewer losses through foreign exchange and knowledge about business
ventures to combat poverty. As it is financed by external partners, aspects of corporate social
responsibility also play a role (KIT, 2007).
Discussion
While Mali and Sweden are in early stages of their paths of biofuel development, both have great
opportunities and risks ahead of them. As these two development paths mature and evolve, so too will the
associated risks and opportunities. We expect that at this early stage, interaction will remain limited while
policy, research and development, market creation occurs and the North and South begin to form
partnerships. At this early stage there is a risk that unsustainable and North-dominated industrial farming
will harm the long-term potential of biofuels in the South and the North alike. The problem of market
creation and sustainable and socially just policies must be overcome for biofuels to mutually benefit both
hemispheres.
Mali and its southern counterparts will most likely focus on poverty reduction and economic development
opportunities; while Sweden and its northern OECD partners will probably be more concerned with
energy security and future economic stability. This early development is, and will probably continue to be,
driven by these two respective groups. Southern nations are presumed to be in need of planning, policy
and logistics support provided by NGO’s, to help them move into long-term sustainable energy
development. At the same time the OECD nations of the North will most likely be driven by the energy
and high-tech engineering industries they have at their disposal, in order to facilitate biofuels development
in the North.
Many, including the Worldwatch Institute (2007), Mathews (2007), SEKAB (2008) and ourselves, think
that these two paths will converge or cross paths in the intermediate stage of development. At this interim
stage, perhaps between 2015-2030, opportunities and risks from the expected international North-South
trade may be at their greatest. Northern and advanced southern (BRIC) nations are expected to have
established bioreactors, refineries, and biofuel farms through several southern nations by this point. Along
with this will hopefully come influxes of capital, technology, and organizational experience previously
unavailable to many southern agrarian nations. This may provide many nations with an opportunity to
reduce poverty and vastly increase employment and incomes. While at the same time improve North-
South relations and secure the North’s expected energy demand as fossil fuel prices presumably climb
well beyond the more economical southern biofuel producers.
Yet, at the same time, there is the very real risk that second generation cellulose technology could kill any
North-South partnerships economic advantages. According to Mathews (2007), it is expected that this
technology will not only reduce cellulose biomass prices in the North, but also be capable of providing 80
percent of the North’s fuel demand. This event is either a great risk or a windfall opportunity for the
South. There is the possibility that as the northern nations bring large numbers of second-generation
bioreactors and combined heat and power (CHP) plants online, the interest and need for southern ethanol
- 43-

and vegetable oil will collapse. The North may retreat to their home markets and abandon partnerships in
the global South. However, at the same time this would reduce northern demand for southern biofuels by
80%, freeing up vast energy resources for local use in the developing world. If these facilities,
technologies, and know-how have been effectively transferred during this intermediate stage; then it may
spawn huge development within the developing nations. For instance, SEKAB’s first generation facilities
in Tanzania are predicted to become obsolete by northern standards, if the second-generation facilities are
built in Sweden. However, this does not necessarily mean that they cannot be economical for local use.
As these two development paths diverge beyond the intermediate term the opportunity to fully utilize the
experience, capital, fuel, and technology for development will potentially be at its highest for the South.
While the North will have been able to wean itself off fossil fuels as it developed second-generation
facilities in the North during the intermediate stage.
These two development paths have always been at odds with one another. Biofuel partnerships may
provide an opportunity for both to gain and grow sustainably together from each other’s strengths in the
near future. This is of course provided the groundwork is done now to prevent future risks to partnerships
at this important crossroad of energy development. We see policy as the key facilitator in shaping the
future biofuels market based on North-South partnerships. However, with the uncertainty presented by
technological advances, policy must remain dynamic in order to avoid being locked into dead ends.
Conclusion
Biofuels will play a significant role in the future energy security of all nations. The case studies of Mali
and Sweden highlight the differing paths of high-tech verses low-tech production. Biofuel production for
the global North is driven by high energy demand and technology focused industry. Biorefineries and
CHP plants are currently seeing rapid expansion in Sweden, Large-scale imports of ethanol are also
required to meet the growing consumer demand for alternative fuels for transportation. This growth in
biofuels is due largely to a supportive policy framework at the national level. In contrast, Mali has seen
the expansion of jatropha as the main feedstock for biofuels based on integrated farming techniques and
simple production methods. With the vast majority of the rural population lacking energy services, the
driver of biofuel production is rural poverty alleviation and energy security at the local level. This has
been facilitated by strong NGO support on the ground, rather than by a strong policy framework. These
two apparently divergent paths are likely to cross sometime in the next decade if biopacts can be
successfully created between the North and South. The high-tech industry and capital of the North
combined with the abundance of land and labour in the South, provides the main bargaining tools for
creating North-South partnerships. However, if second generation technology becomes proven, the
northern countries may be able to provide enough biofuel production from national resources. Here the
paths may begin to diverge again, as the North retreat to their home markets and the South, having
benefited from technology transfer, are left with a large capacity to fulfill local energy needs. A strong and
dynamic policy framework, both at the national and international level, will be the key facilitator to the
future sustainability of biofuels.
- 44-

References consulted
Ageratec, 2008. Company information. Online at http://www.ageratec.com/index.asppage=70&lang=EN (accessed
on 24th November 2008).
Berndes, G., P. Börjesson, M. Ostwald and M. Palm, 2008. Multifunctional biomass production systems – an
overview with presentation of specific applications in India and Sweden. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining,
vol.2, pp16-25 (2008). DOI: 10.1002/bbb.
Chemrec, 2008. Company. Online at http://www.chemrec.se/Company.aspx (accessed on 24th November 2008).
Commission on Oil Independence, 2006. Making Sweden an OIL-FREE Society. Report by the Commission on Oil
Independence, Prime Minister's Office, Government Offices of Sweden. Online at
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/06/70/96/7f04f437.pdf (accessed on 20th November 2008).
Energimydigheten, 2007a. Energiläget i siffror/Energy in Sweden: Facts and figures. Swedish Energy Agency:
Eskiltuna, Sweden.
Energimydigheten, 2007b. The electricity certificate system, 2007. Swedish Energy Agency: Eskiltuna, Sweden.
Eriksson, J., 2008. EU support for Swedish line on ethanol. Press release, 04 February 2008,
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Government Offices of Sweden. Online at
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10021/a/97347 (accessed on 21st November 2008).
FACT, 2006. Fuel from Agriculture in Communal Technology. Online at
http://www.factfuels.org/en/FACT_Projects/Mali (accessed on 22nd November 2008).
Fraiture, C. de, M. Giordano, Y. Liao, 2008. Biofuels and implications for agriculture water use: blue impacts of
green energy. Water Policy, Vol.10, Supp.1, pp67-81. DOI: 10.2166/wp.2008.054.
GAIN, 2007. Sweden Plans to Abolish Ethanol Duty. Global Agriculture Information Network. GAIN Report
Number: SW7014. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Online at
http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200709/146292426.pdf (accessed on 21st November 2008).
GAIN, 2008. Sweden Biofuels Annual 2008. Global Agriculture Information Network. GAIN Report Number:
SW8006. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Online at
http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200807/146295116.pdf (accessed on 21st November 2008).
Granda, C., L. Zhu and M. Holtzapple, 2007. Sustainable Liquid Biofuels and Their Environmental Impact.
Environmental Progress, Vol.26, No.3, pp233-250. DOI: 10.1002/ep.10209.
Greenfueltech, 2007. Jatropha Business Proposition: A unique business proposition to exploit the opportunity.
Greenfueltech Ltd. Fuel for Future. Online at http://www.greenfueltech.net/business_opportunity.htm (accessed
on 1 st December 2008).
Hagström, P., 2006. Biomass Potential for Heat, Electricity and Vehicle Fuel in Sweden. Volume I. Doctoral Thesis,
Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Bioenergy, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Henning, R. K., 2007. Identification, selection and multiplication of high yielding Jatropha curcas L. plants and
economic key points for a viable Jatropha oil production. The Jatropha System. Online at http://www.jatropha.de
(accessed on 21st November 2008).
Henning, R. K., 2006. Jatropha Curcas in L. Africa – an Evaluation. Global Facilitation Unit for Under Utilized
Species, Germany. Online at http://www.factfuels.org/en/FACT_Projects/Mali (accessed on 21st November
2008).
- 45-

Henning, R. K., 1998. Use of Jatropha Curcas L. (JCL): A household perspective and its contribution to rural
employment creation: Experiences of the Jatropha Project in Mali, West Africa, 1987 to 1997. Presentation at
the "Regional Workshop on the Potential of Jatropha Curcas in Rural Development & Environmental
Protection", Harare, Zimbabwe, May 1998. http://www.jatropha.de/harare98.htm (accessed on 1st December
2008).
Hillman, K., and B. Sandén, 2008. Exploring technology paths: the development of alternative transport fuels in
Sweden 2007-2020. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol.75 (2008), pp1279-1302. DOI:
10.1016/j.techfore.2008.01.003.
Hillman, K., R. Suurs, M. Hekkert and B. Sandén, 2008. Cumulative causation in biofuels development: a critical
comparison of the Netherlands and Sweden. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, vol.20, no.5,
September 2008, pp593-612. DOI: 10.1080/09537320802292826.
Hodes, G. and Williams, A., 2003. A Strategy to Phase-Out Lead in African Gasoline. Renewable Energy for
Development, Stockholm Environment Institute – News Letter of the Energy Programme, V-16, ISSN 1101-
8267.
Johansson, H., 2008. Largest decrease ever in the fuel consumption of new cars, yet emissions are increasing. Report
by the Environment Section, Society and Traffic, Swedish Road Administration.
Johnson, F., and M. Roman, 2008. Biofuels Sustainability Criteria: Relevant issues to the proposed Directive on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Report by the Policy Department, Economic and
Scientific Policy, European Parliament. IP/A/ENVI/ST/2008-10&11, PE 404.905.
KIT, 2007. Sustainable bio fuel in Mali. Koninklijk instituut voor de Tropen, Royal Tropical Institute. Online at
http://www.kit.nl/smartsite.shtmlid=13279 (accessed on 21st November 2008).
Mali Biocarburant, 2008.The movie 1: Trees for Travel Carbon Credit Movie. Online at
http://www.malibiocarburant.com/index.phpactie=MO (accessed on 22nd November 2008).
Mathews, J.A., 2007. Biofuels: What a Biopact between the North and South could achieve. Energy policy vol. 35
(2007) pg. 3550-3570, Elsevier Ltd 2007
Meyer von Bermen, A., Uttryck AB and Janerud, A., 2008. Fuel for Development: Facts from SCC (2008), Nr. 6,
June 2008. Swedish Cooperation Centre
MFC, 2002a. Profile. Mali Folkcenter. Online at http://www.malifolkecenter.org/ (accessed on 26th November
2008).
MFC, 2002b. Technological Development. Mali Folkcenter. Online at http://www.malifolkecenter.org/ (accessed on
30th November 2008).
MFC, 2007. Biofuels in Mali. UNIDO Biofuels Workshop, Accra, Ghana, Dec 2007. Mali-Folkecenter. Online at
http://www.ics.trieste.it/Portal/ActivityDocument.aspxid=5120 (accessed on 26th November 2008).
Miljövårdsberedningens, 2007. Vetenskapligt underlag för klimatpolitiken: Rapport från Vetenskapliga rådet för
klimatfrågor. Miljövårdsberedningens (The Environmental Advisory Council, Sweden) rapport 2007:03.
Rivard, B. and Burrell, T., 2008. Jatropha fuelled rural electrification in Mali - the dream becomes reality in the
Garalo Bagani Yelen project. MFC Nayetaa Newsletter, No. 5, January 2008. Online at
http://www.malifolkecenter.org/newsletter/newsletter05_english.html (accessed on 21stNovember 2008).
Salo, M., 2007. Sveriges 30 hetaste cleantechbolag: Ambassadör Woods Lista. MiljöActuellt
http://miljoaktuellt.idg.se/2.1845/1.104833 (accessed on 21st November 2008).
- 46-

Sawyer, D., 2008. Climate change, biofuels and eco-social impacts in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (2008), Vol.363, pp.1747–1752.
DOI:10.1098/rstb.2007.0030.
SEKAB, 2008. The world’s first verified sustainable ethanol comes to Sweden. Press Release, 26 May 2008. Online
at http://www.sustainableethanolinitiative.com/Eng/Standardsidor/Filer/080526%20-
%20The%20worlds%20first%2026%205.pdf (accessed on 24th November 2008).
Swedish Cooperative Centre, 2008. Fuel for development Facts from SCC, Nr 6, June 2008.
Ulmanen, J., Geert P.J. and Raven R., 2008. Biofuel developments in Sweden and the Netherlands. Protection and
socio-technical change in a long-term perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2008) (Article
in press). DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2008.10.001.
Worldwatch Institute, 2007. Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Energy and
Agriculture. London: Earthscan.
Åhman, M. 2007, Sweden looks at bioenergy from agriculture: Review of a new government report on the future for
bioenergy. Renewable Energy for Development, December 2007, Vol. 20, No. 2. Stockholm Environment
Institute – Newsletter of the Climate and Energy Programme.
- 47-

Appendix I
The listing of Sweden’s current hottest clean-tech companies.
Här är Sveriges just nu hetaste cleantechföretag (på Woods lista).
1.1.1.1.1 Biofuel Focus
Bioprocess Control Sweden AB Lund, Sweden Biogas production optimizer
Yes
Chematur Engineering AB Karlskoga, Sweden Bioethanol production technology Yes
ChromoGenics Sweden AB Uppsala, Sweden Smart windows
No
Climatewell AB Hägersten, Sweden Solar cooling system
No
Compower AB Lund, Sweden Energy efficient boilers
Yes
Ecoil AB Kungsör, Sweden 2nd generation biofuel technology
Yes
Econova AB Waste to energy solutions
Yes
Effpower AB Hisings Backa, Sweden Bipolar batteries for hybrid electric vehicles No
Electric Line AB Uppsala, Sweden Electric vehicle propulsion system
No
Första Närvärmeverket AB Solna, Sweden Sustainable energy solutions
No
Karlskoga Biofuels AB Karlskoga, Sweden Effective biogas production method
Yes
Lignoboost AB Stockholm, Sweden Lignin-to-biofuel technology
Yes
Läckeby Water Group Lund, Sweden Cleantech technologies
Yes
Morphic Technologies AB Karlskoga, Sweden Renewable electricity production systems No
Neova AB Jönköping, Sweden Biofuel plant technology
Yes
Opcon AB Energy efficiency systems
No
Parans Daylight AB Göteborg, Sweden Fiber optic solar lightning
No
Reac Fuel AB Lund, Sweden High efficiency biofuel technology
Yes
Scandinavian Biogas Fuels AB Uppsala, Sweden Cost-effective biogas production method Yes
Seabased AB Uppsala, Sweden Waver power solutions
No
Seec AB Sollentuna, Sweden Energy storage systems
No
Sekab Örnsköldsvik, Sweden Bioethanol, cellulosic ethanol
Yes
SkyCab AB Stockholm, Sweden Personalized Rapid Transit Systems
No
Solibro AB Uppsala, Sweden CIGS solar cells
No
Stridsberg Powertrain Ab Bandhagen, Sweden Hybrid systems for vehicles
No
Swedish Biofuels AB Stockholm, Sweden 2nd generation biofuels
Yes
Swedish Vertical Wind AB Uppsala, Sweden Vertical axis wind turbines
No
Talloil AB Stockholm, Sweden Bioenergy production solutions
Yes
TranSiC AB Kista Science City, Sweden Bipolar power transistors
Yes
ÖFAB Lidköping, Sweden Bioenergy consultant
Yes
2.1.1. Total number of companies with a biofuels focus 16 of 30
1.1.1.2 Percentage 53%
- 48-

Appendix II
(Henning, 2006)
Fig. 3: Jatropha curcas originates from Central America
- 49-

Techno-economic and environmental management with
implementation of biogas energy as alternative energy
source for the future in developed and developing world
by
Sajjad Rana
Zhuang Xiwen
Michal Zywna
Aim of the study
This study aimed to search a techno-economical and environment friendly solution for a sustainable
society with alternative energy resources for developed and developing countries. Our study will help to
find economic and sustainable environment fuel technology for longer use. At the same time it will
highlight efficiency of ordinary fuel and alternative fuels commercially known as “Biofuels”. One part of
report comprises issues related to new technologies available for producing biofuels and how they are
common in rest of world except biofuels adopted countries like Brazil, USA and in Europe.
Backgrounds in alternative energy resources promotion-biofuels
Transport is inextricably linked to our economical and social well being, , while also transportation is
contributing to one-fifth of the global warming. According to the China’s ministry of Public Security, the
total number of motor vehicles in China in 2007 was 159.8 million which is roughly 10% increase
compared with 2006 (GCC, 2008). Consumer attitude is one of reason to raise the rate of vehicles. This
growth rate of vehicles acts as a driving factor for rapid increase in price of oil and it simply affirms that
demand growth has far exceeded supply expansions. (Dargay , 2007). It can be clearly understood by the
graph developed by Duncan below, Figure 1. Nearly in a century the record oil prices foster the civilized
world to find different alternatives and it made the future of biofuels—prepared from plant and animal
materials. In short the supply and demand are not coherent with each other and that has become a reason
of biofuels interventions in energy supply.
Biofuels as alternative energy source
In Figure 2 the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows the competitive list of different energies
available for future. Only hydro- and bio-energy are those which show significant values and can
contribute to the future energy resources. Biofuels have been proven market leader as an alternative
energy source that ensures reliability in continuous supply with emission reduction and prosperity for
farmers. Biofuels can be categorized into two components; ethanol and biodiesel. The first can be
produced from starch and sugar crops. Biodiesel is a renewable fuel manufactured from any biologically
based oil, used to give spark to any diesel engine.
- 51-

Fig 1. World, OPEC, and Non-OPEC Oil Production
Source: (Duncan, 2000a)
Fig 2. Cost-competitiveness of selected renewable power technologies, before credit for carbon savings
Source: (Contribution Of Renewable To Energy Security, IEA,2006f)
Identification of effective technical solutions for production of biofuels
In this context we will explain different available techniques for biofuels generation and there out comes
so far. At the same time we will discuss their available level of popularity in respect of economics and
environmental effects
- 52-

Conventional Techniques
Production of biofuels not only depends on modern technologies, but at the same time on easily and
excessively availability of raw materials at cheap rates. The two main components of liquid biofuels can
be categorized further into carbohydrate and lipids derived fuels. The part of carbohydrate dealing with
production of ethanol from sugar cane and sugar stalks involve fermentation. In case of starch crops such
as corn, wheat, and cassava they need extra saccharification steps with extra energy to produce before
fermentation can start and ultimately add cost to production. Later invention of continuous fermentation
has made biofuels more cost effective and a more speedy process. In both cases of raw materials CO 2 is
released during fermentation which cut down the price by adding cost after selling to beverages industry,
but in case of the batch process it can escape into air, which may cause global warming issue.
Lipid derived biofuels can be categorized into components, one vegetable oil and second biodiesel. The
former produced from oil seed crops like (rapeseed, sunflower) and animal fats involve cutting of seeds
into flakes, which later after expelling the oil that can be sold out. In its manufacturing intensive energy is
required for crushing. Vegetable oil is not blendable as it creates problems at low temperature. Biodiesel
can be produced from cheap methyl alcohol with simple transesterification with glycerine as by product,
which can be sold out to make the process more economically beneficial. It not only gives 88-95% energy
like ordinary fuel, which is quite high as compare to ethanol, but at the same time like the octane value the
cetane value can improve with a blendable approach.
Modern Techniques
The present scenario predicts some drastic change with respect to food security and biodiversity.
The production of ethanol from sugarcane, starch and corn or biodiesel from vegetable oils has some
limitation and potential regarding land availability and less advance technologies. In light of these there is
a need of time to strengthen the ideas for production of energy from biomass, which also knows as second
generation biofuels raw materials. These second generation materials are cellulosic biomass and it mainly
includes wood and tall grasses.
While selecting the feedstock in the light of economic, environment and sustainability perspectives sugar
cane gives more reliability and greater yield per hectare as compared to starches (corn, wheat, cassava)
and on other side soyabeen/rapeseed gives low yield per hectare as compare to palm tree oil. Biofuel
feedstocks grown in temperate and tropical climates will develop with the passage of time as new
technologies invented for next generation feedstock processing will be researched. (WWI, 2007). From
table 1 we can see a comparison of energy yielding of biofuels, and there maturities in the commercial
sector.
Producing biodiesel from second generation fuel crops are somewhat different from conventional
techniques. Beforehand transesterification process was used to produce biodiesel from vegetable oils. In
this new process biomass is converted into biodiesel first with
- 53-

Table 1. Biofuels with their maturity in real life
Fuel Source Benefits Maturity
Grain/Sugar
Ethanol
Corn, starch, sorghum
and sugarcane
Biodiesel
Green Diesel
and Gasoline
Cellulosic
Ethanol
Vegetable oils, fats,
and greases
Oils and fats, blended
with crude oil
Grasses, wood, chips,
and agricultural
residues
Produces a high-octane
fuel for gasoline blends
Made from a widely
available renewable
resource
Reduces emissions
Increases diesel fuel
Lubricity
Offer a superior
feedstock for refineries
low-sulfur fuels
Produces a high-octane
fuel for gasoline blends
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 24 th Sep, 2008
Commercially proven
fuel technology
Commercially proven
fuel technology
Commercial trials
under way in Europe
and Brazil for fuel
Commercially getting
interest in USA and EU
gasification and then further transformation of the gas into liquid. Using this process, wood, straw or other
biomass sources can be turned into a syngas before being converted into a liquid fuel by means of the
“Fischer-Tropsch Process” (biomass-to-liquids or BTL). In this case energy can be used to run the
required plant and for further transportation use as well. That is not like biodiesel production from
vegetable oils (Richard D. R. Steenblik, 2007). The most significant potential in way of biodiesel
production is its higher cost of production compared with ethanol. The hope is that a breakthrough in
advanced technology in this scenario will help to adopt second generation raw materials choices for low
cost fuel (IEA, 2006a).
Currently the conventional technologies are better in price as compared to the one used in processing for
second generation biomasses. But the availability of such crops and land is also significant potential for
future prospect. Whether land will be available for energy crops and if available, will be enough to feed
human at the same time is a controversial issue. All these opinions might come to end with new ideas of
second and third generation energy from wastes, wood chips, and grass and forests wastes and algae.
Third Generation Energy Feed Algae
There are more than 100,000 known strains of microalgae in the world. The search for the best one for
biofuel production is still under way. The Shell company leading facility for research has come to some
valuable stunning results. Now there are some strain that yields at least 15 times more vegetable oil per
hectare than crop commonly used for biofuels such as palm seeds and soya beans. This publicity has
thrown light on algae as a potential source for biodiesel generation, which will not compete with food
family crops, in contrast to today’s conventional biofuels. Certainly this invention can give some relief to
food security, because these waterborne algae hold much promise for mature biofuels generation. These
miniscule marine plants need four major resources, which are water (saline or fresh), the energy of the sun,
nutrients and carbon dioxide to produce vegetable oil through photosynthesis. The excellent growth result
for algae when it can grow in a single day three or four times, which makes it a more comprehensive
alternative among biofuels. One of the major benefits is that it can produce in a year more than any other
crop, and the harvesting period is not limited like other choices. This advantage makes it more important
- 54-

than common harvestable crops. Moreover, installations to grow algae can be located in areas unsuitable
for agriculture, even deserts and barren lands. (Shell World, 2008)
Evaluation of efficiency of biofuels produced from different methods with
traditional fuels (gasoline and diesel)
Usually the efficiency of biofuels production is measured by the input including the costs and energy
required, and output indicated by the market price of the biofuels. Techno-economic analyses are
performed to produce potential economic viable for any research process. The feasibility of any project
can be determined by evaluating the costs of a running process in comparison with running technology.
Energy Required Producing Fuels
Some experts believe that more fossil fuels are required to produce ethanol than it provides as a biofuel. A
study of US Department of Energy (DOE) and General Motors corporation concluded that approximately
7400J of fossil fuel energy is required to produce approximately 10700J of energy from ethanol. The net
energy balance is positive so less fossil fuel is utilized if gasoline is replaced with ethanol.
Fossil fuel consumption can be further reduced if ethanol is produced from cellullosic material. 95% of
energy necessary in this process comes from biomass and only 5% from conventional fuel. However, the
process has lower efficiency than production of ethanol from grains so the net energetic result is the same
as for corn ethanol. Fuel to petroleum ratio of gasoline, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol is presented on
Figure 3 (NREL, “From biomass to biofuel”).
Fig 3: Energy required producing fuels and fuel-to-petroleum ratio.
Factors Affecting Bio Ethanol Costs
The cost of ethanol production depends on three factors: feedstock, transport and processing. Feedstock is
a predominating factor and for ethanol it is between 50% and 70% while for biodiesel it can be up to 80%
of the total fuel price. The price of biofuel is dependent on climatic conditions. The yields are higher for
more tropical regions. Labor and land cost is usually also cheaper in warmer climate. The cost of ethanol
in Brazil is twice lower than in Europe. This may be the chance for less developed countries. However,
- 55-

due to economic restrictions, only 10% of produced ethanol is passed across international borders (WWI,
2007). The cost of ethanol as a function of feedstock is shown on Figure 4. While the cost of the enzymes
and biomass conversion has been reduced in the last decade, the cost of feedback is seems to be constant.
Fig 4. Cost ranges for ethanol and gasoline production, 2006
Source: Fulton et al (2004); Gardner (2006); US DOE and EIA (2006) and EIA (2006a)
Comparison of Ethanol and Gasoline Prices
Taking into account the difference in energetic potential between ethanol and gasoline, the price of
ethanol produced in Brazil from sugar cane is competitive with gasoline when the price for crude oil barrel
exceeds 35USD. Ethanol produced in US from corn is competitive when crude oil barrel is worthy
45USD. Biodiesel and ethanol produced in EU are competitive with fossil fuel when the prices for oil
barrel ar 90USD and 75USD-100USD respectively. In Germany biodiesel is cheaper even by 0.24USD/l
than conventional diesel due to the tax on fossil fuel which is 0.59USD/l. In USA ethanol has often been
cheaper than the gasoline thanks to tax subsidies for ethanol (WWI, 2007).
Measure to Reduce Price of Ethanol
Constant development of biofuel production has led to significant reduction of biofuel price. During last
decades the price of ethanol in Brazil has dropped three times, while in US by over a half. However, cost
of feedback still remains the main limitation in biofuel production. A factor that can reduce the price of
ethanol is a constant increase of farming yields. Even developed countries such as Germany and U.S. have
reached a constant 1-2% annual growth of crops in the last decades. But the greatest hope in reduction of
biofuels price lies in the conversion of cellulosic feedstock into biofuel. The most promising seems to be
development of an enzyme which would accelerate to break down cellulose into glucose. The US
Department of Energy has funded research to develop such inexpensive enzymes. It is expected that
cellulosic conversion facilities will be in future integrated with current infrastructure of biofuel
production. Another way to reduce price of ethanol is a sell of processing co-products such as glycerine.
Obstacle which still needs improvement is harvesting and collection of grown biomass feedstock. Some
biomass is burned by the farmers, in poor countries the biomass is collected manually. Such solution is not
efficient but sometimes it is the only source of money for local society (WWI, 2007).
- 56-

Adoptability of Biomass Energy within a Specific Region In Accord With
Environment And Economic Benefit
Adoptability of biomass energy for specific regions should be implemented after taking into account
environment and socio-economic effects in priority coupled with the potential productivity of energy
resource base. In this way the development of biomass energy will be maintained sustainably, bringing the
benefits to local or regional population or communities involved economically and ecologically. Currently
both developed and developing countries have implemented the plan or program to promote biomass
energy.
To assess the economic and environmental effect, sometimes the fuel cycles can be divided into fuel
production, conversion and clean-up stages. In general, the whole process costs are made up of
investment, labor, fuel and operation and maintenance costs as well as environmental effects (H. M.
Groscurth et al, 2000). When considering the benefits of the use of bioenergy, except the obvious
advantage of mitigations on the GHG, the employment effects cannot be neglected. Besides, the concept
of “external costs” concerning the use of biomass energy has been put forward to taken into account. The
external costs are defined as those costs paid by uninvolved third parties, not by the user (H. M. Groscurth
et al, 2000), and sometimes it refers to the environmental costs, human health effects and so on.
Scenario of European Union (EU)
In the European Union, the biomass is considered to have the highest potential as the renewable energy
source because of the significant environmental advantages and positive economic reasons. With the need
of mitigation of greenhouse gases to meet the requirement of Kyoto Protocol and adequate forest
resources which can be used as energy crops, the research and deployment concerning biomass energy use
have been implemented sufficiently in some countries, including Sweden, German, Austria, Finland and
so on, in the way of biomass-to-electricity, biomass-to-transport service fuel and biomass-to-heat etc.
During the process, it is vital to deal with the problem of land use change and improvement of conversion
technology. It is expected that the demand for biofuels in EU countries will increase drastically as shown
in Figure 5. (Biopact, 2007):
Fig 5. Development of biofuel demand and the incorporation rate until 2020 in the EU.
- 57-

Scenario of USA
In the USA, the increasing fossil fuel price, like crude oil, has lead to the emphasized use of biofuels by
the governments especially in the field of transportation. Although currently the biomass energy use only
comprises a very small fraction of total energy consumption, the trend is increasing these years. The main
use of biomass energy can be seen in Figure 6. Ethanol production has increased from about 1.5bg/y in
1999 to 6.4bg/y in 2007 (S. Kent Hoekman, 2009). Within the process of implementation of these
renewable sources, many steps concerning the environmental and economic effects are considered, such as
feedstock production, feedstock logistics, biofuels production, biofuels distribution and end use (S. Kent
Hoekman, 2009). Despite there are some adverse environmental effects brought about by the biomass
energy use, mainly driven by the particularly mitigations on greenhouse gases, concern on energy stability
and not obvious but positive economic effects to the society, it can be expected that the USA biomass
energy industry will undergo rapid growth and transformation.
Figure 6. Annual USA energy consumption in 2005. Source: DOE Renewable Energy Annual 2005 (July
2007)
Scenario of developing countries
While in developing countries, except the production of ethanol from Brazil due to some natural
advantages, the production costs of biofuels are much higher than those of conventional fuels (Jorg and
Sascha , 2008). In these areas, the majority of biomass energy has been utilized as the primary cooking
fuel mainly in rural areas, which can be seen from the Table 2 (Johan Rockstrom, 2008). However, the
government of developing countries including China, India, and Latin America etc still spend large costs
and take some policy measures to develop the use of biofuels on transport. For example, tax benefits,
blending quotas, and use in trying cities are carried out for the promotion and assessment of biofuels
utility.
Table 2: People in developing countries using biomass as primary cooking fuel, 2004
- 58-

Through the adoption of these biomass energy, despite there are some drawbacks such as potential
environmental degradation, conflicts over land use and food production security associated with the
plantation and use of biomass energy, the environmental and economic benefits are obviously expected,
outweighing the risks. It will bring new job opportunities, alleviate poverty mainly caused by severe
financial burden of dependence on oil, and mitigate the GHG emissions. For the Sub-Saharan Africa
countries especially, because of the low density of population and advantages of geographic conditions,
the large potential production of biomass energy can be exported to other regions, resulting in the increase
of farmer’s income. Currently a number of biomass energy crops ranging from food crops such as
sugarcane, sorghum, and cassava to non food crops such as jatropha have been promoted across Sub-
Saharan Africa (Mangoyana, 2008).
International trade for the sustainable development of bioenergy
It is widely shared the view that the climate within tropical and sub-tropical countries, from South
America, African and Southeast Asian, is beneficial to the growth of biomass crops, leading to the high
potential productivity of bioenergy. Because of the disadvantages including insufficient research and
development funding, lack of subsidies and comparatively lagging manufacture technology, however, the
productivity of bioenergy cannot meet the needs globally. On the other side, developed countries in
European Union and North America can compensate these drawbacks. Based on comparatively lower
production costs and greatest demand for biofuels, the international trade concerning the biomass energy
is expected to grow in the years to come. Based on the analysis of current market, the estimation of the
demand and supply potential in biofuel can be illustrated in Figure 7. (Johnson and Roman, 2008).
Among the main kinds of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel are the main products within international trade
nowadays. However, the biomass energy market at present is inclined to domestic consumption mainly
due to energy security reason, and the conditions existing are not mature to establish a sustainable
competitive market. It is found that only one tenth of global biofuel production is currently internationally
traded and the largest exporter for ethanol is Brazil (ICTSD, 2006). Many problems and challenges have
been encountered during the process of promoting the improvement of biofuel trade market. For example,
the issue concerning food security, environmental sustainability and social justice has been put forward. In
addition, when establishing the trade rules for the biofuel market, some corresponding challenges
including tariff barriers and subsidies also need to be overcome. During international negotiations, the
ethanol is classified as an agricultural product, while the biodiesel is grouped into the industrial goods
(ICTSD, 2008). It is also reminded that the establishment of standards and certification mechanisms is
important for the production and trade.
Besides, the collaboration during the production and the trade market is equally important. The promotion
collaboration on biofuel between the world’s two top ethanol producers-Brazil and USA has been set up
(ICTSD, 2008). If the trade achieve fair and equitable, it could promote the sustainable development of
bioenergy and bring global and regional benefits.
- 59-

Fig 7. Estimated biofuel supply and demand for various world regions
Conclusion
Based on the trend of increasing oil price and comparison with other renewable energy sources, biofuels
would be promoted for sustainable development. The demand of alternative fuel open many options
related to efficient and economic solutions among the biofuels family.
There are plenty of raw materials available for biofuels generation including conventional and new
generation crops. The conventional raw material like starch, corn and sugar cane are very famous for
production for biofuels. Although available technologies for such raw material are very much common
and have advancement but these belongs to the food chain and it will not solve the problem of oil
dependency, but will open new challenge of food security for world.
Another available technique which we discussed is new generation crops for production of efficient
biofuels in response to the food security threat. Although such biomasses are easy to produce and doesn’t
leave any effect on food chain but lack of technologies and skilled personal make it more complicated to
adopt and ultimately it shoot the biofuels cost. So these methods cannot be very common unless new
modern techniques and research carried out to cut down it cost at the end of day.
The future use of algae might make biofuel family more flexible, contributing to the elimination of threat
to food security and cost somehow, because it can be grown in barren lands with ordinary water and sun
light. Only more time is needed to develop modern technologies to process such a raw material, which is a
comprehensive alternative for ordinary food crops.
Due to the environment and economic benefits including security of energy supply, mitigations of GHG
(greenhouse gas), diversity of the biofuels feedstock for production, improvements on the technologies to
reduce the cost etc, nowadays the use of biofuel is fostering attention in both developed and developing
countries. The international market trade concerning the biomass energy has also been initialized and
- 60-

promoted, despite some temporally difficulties existed. It is expected that both the demand and supply of
biomass energy will increase in coming future.
The promotion of biofuels is a primary choice already in some of the developed countries and the reason
is that governments have taken initiative to subsidize it. It is needed more time to promote it in rest of the
world, especially in developing countries by the introduction of favorable government policies for
farmers and consumers. There is also a need to research modern technologies for new generation crops
and encourage the public and industry to make use of biofuels.
References consulted
- Dargay J., Gately D., Sommer M. (2007) Vehicle Ownership and Income Growth Worldwide: 1960-2030,
- Duncan Richard C: “The peak of world oil production and the road to the olduvai gorge” (2000),
- Groscurth H. M. et al: Total costs and benefits of biomass in selected regions of the European Union. Energy, 25
(2000) 1081-1095.
- Hoekman, S. Kent: Biofuels in the U.S.-Challenges and Opportunities. Renewable Energy, 34 (2009) 14–22.
- ICTSD, Brazil: US to Collaborate on Biofuels. Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 12 (2008).
http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/30184/
-ICTSD, A Trade Strategy for Sustainable Bioenergy. News and Analysis, 10 (2006).
- IEA, Energy Technologies Perspectives, OECD publication, Paris, 2006a
- Impact assessment of EU’s 2020 biofuels target on agricultural markets, 2007.
http://biopact.com/2007/08/impact-assessment-of-eus-2020-biofuels.html
- Johnson F. X. and Roman M.:,.Biuofuels sustainable criteria. Economic and Scientific Policy.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2008, 10 & 11.
- Mangoyana, R.B.: Bioenergy for sustainable development: An African context, J. Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, 2008.01.002.
- National Renewable Energy Laboratory,”From biomass to biofuel”, http://www.nrel.gov accessed in 29/11/2008
- Peters J. and Thielmann S: Promoting biofuels: Implications for developing countries. Energy Policy, 36 (2008)
1538-1544
- Rockstrom J: Bioenergy and Sustainable Development. The Immoral Biofuel, KSLA, 23 rd October 2008.
- Shell World : “Harvesting energy from algae”, 15 February 2008;
- Steenblik, Richard D. R. “Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease OECD publication, Paris, 2007
WWI, (2007) Biofuels For Transportation Global Potential And Implications For Sustainable Agriculture And
Energy,
- Ölz S., Sims R.,N. Kirchner N: Contribution Of Renewable To Energy Security, IEA, 2006f
- http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridges/11667/
- http://dieoff.org/page224.htm accessed on 29/11/08
- http://www.nrel.gov accessed on 29/11/08
- 61-

Comparison of the potentials for the biofuel production in
Bangladesh, Ukraine and Sweden
by
Tawid Md Amanullah
Shirin B U Khodeza
Sofiia Miliutenko
Introduction
The spiralling costs of oil and gas are compelling the leadership of Sweden, Ukraine and Bangladesh to
pay closer attention to the development of biofuel. Establishing sustainable bioenergy systems promotes
regional development and results in multiple benefits across environmental, social, and economic spheres.
However, the sustainable development of bioenergy systems requires supportive policies and incentives.
Bangladesh seeks different opportunities for the development of alternative energy resources, as the
country spends around $2 billion for import oil which is almost 15% of the total budget. Bangladesh is an
agriculture based country, where 75% of the total land is rural area. 22% of national income comes from
agriculture and 60-70% of people are involved in agriculture directly or indirectly. In Bangladesh, other
than sugarcane, bio-fuel can be produced from the crops that can be grown in areas not suitable for
traditional food crops e.g. jatropha (verenda), pongamia (caron) can grow under conditions of low fertility
and rainfall.
Ukraine has a unique chance to become a leading European biofuels producer. On one hand, this country
is secured with only 10-12% of own energy resources and on the other hand, it has a huge bioenergy
feedstock potential. Nowadays Ukraine has a solid economic background for biofuels production and
distribution: spare land for growing grain and oil plants, scientific and human resources potential,
increasing internal demand for liquid biofuels, and enormous export opportunities.
Biofuels play an increasingly important role in the Swedish energy system. They now contribute almost a
fifth of the overall energy supply, and their expanded use is a cornerstone in the government's plan for a
sustainable energy system. Sweden has, with its large forest industry and rich farmlands, a large supply of
residual biomass-products that can be processed into bio-fuels. The main factors for the success of biofuel
development in Sweden are the political and financial support. The experiences from Sweden demonstrate
the considerable potential of bioenergy to contribute to energy supply. There are opportunities for sharing
know-how and exporting technologies from Sweden to both industrialised countries and developing
countries that can exploit their potential of bioenergy.
- 63-

In this paper, we study and compare the opportunities of Bangladesh, Ukraine and Sweden for the largeor
small-scale biofuel production. We discuss how Ukraine and Bangladesh can develop or improve their
biofuel production and which lessons can be learned from Sweden.
Methods
• Approach: descriptive, explorative and normative.
• Method: analysing the literature front and internet sources.
• Techniques: IMRAD.
Results
Current situation of the biofuel production and consumption
Bangladesh. Bangladesh entered into biomass energy technology in 1972 through the bio-gas
demonstration plant at Bangladesh Agriculture University. Bangladesh has more than 85,000 villages &
80 per cent people live in rural areas. Most of them are poor and the infrastructure of the rural area is not
well-developed. The traditional cooking system in the rural areas is mainly based on such biofuels as rice
husk, jute stick, wood, cow dung, straw, dry leaves etc. Rural people consider this renewable energy as the
alternate power source because the regular power line is absent. Nowadays the impact of climate change is
another reason to increase the production of biofuel. The overpopulation leads to lots of motorised
vehicles and most of vehicles are running with petrol and diesel which are not environmentally friendly.
These vehicles emit CFC, which is one of the causes for the climate change. Nowadays lots of motorised
vehicles use also natural gas, but its stock will be finished within 60 to 80 years.
Ukraine. The biofuel production is not yet well-developed in Ukraine. Nowadays the country uses only 0,
83% of its potential (Bioenergy, 2008). However the biofuel production in Ukraine is considered to be
competitive in comparison with the European production. Nowadays biodiesel is offered on 1.900
Ukrainian petrol stations. There are no exact data about biodiesel production in Ukraine yet. But it was
estimated that in 2006 the small biofuel plants produced about 20.000 tons of biodiesel, which was mainly
used for agricultural purposes. Most of the agricultural enterprises perform many experiments in order to
find out the feasibility of biofuel production for their own purposes. In April 2008 there was opened the
first specialized biofuel station in Ukraine, which also became the first of its kind in Eastern Europe
((Epravda, 2008). The Ukrainian energy and fuels industry has estimated that it can produce 46 million
tons of biobased fuels by the year 2010. The nation´s current production capacity is estimated to be around
640 million tons but due to lack of government support and the public lean towards fossil fuels, very little
is being done (Zhelyezna. 2008).
Sweden. As opposed to most countries in Europe Sweden has a large domestic supply of biofuels.
Bioenergy plays an important and increasing role in Sweden. The share of bioenergy has increased from
about 10% of the supplied energy during the 1980s to 17% in 2004. The major sectors using biomass were
residential housing, mainly houses without a connection to district heating and CHP in industry and
district heating networks. Most of the bioenergy is produced domestically, with a major contribution being
biomass from the forest industry.
Sweden imports the majority of the biofuel. In 2006 the total amount of biodiesel production in Sweden
was 15 million litres, while it imported 50 million litres (primarily from Germany and Denmark). Sweden
produced 57 million litres of ethanol in 2006, and imported- 328 million litres (primarily from Brazil, but
also from EU, Pakistan, China, Guatemala, Costa Rica etc.) (SCC, 2008). The number of fuel-flexible cars
(powered by both ethanol and petrol) in Sweden currently exceeds 70,000. More than 600 ethanol
operated buses are providing service in Sweden.
- 64-

The biofuel energy potentials
Bangladesh. Since Bangladesh is an agriculture-based country its existing resources for biomass
production mainly come from the rural areas. And at the household level, the country is the good example
of the biomass production mainly for cooking purposes in the rural area. The main biofuel energy
potentials in Bangladesh are:
Residues from agricultural activities:
Bangladesh has a great advantage of sun and wind which are helpful for the production of different types
of crops for biofuel. As for example, 61% of biomass energy comes from crop residues like jute sticks,
rice straw, rice hulls, sugarcane refuse, and other waste products, 24% from animal dung, and the
remainder from firewood, twigs, and leaves. The firewood mainly comes from the village trees.
Rice is the main food for Bangladesh and 76% of total agricultural land is used for the rice production &
supplies 95% of food for the nation. The main biomass by-products which are generated from rice are rice
straw, rice husk and rice bran.
From the figure 1, it is seen that the contribution of rice husk is high (83.04%) for traditional energy
supply. But this rice husk is mainly used as the fuel at the tea stalls, small retailers and poor households. It
is also used for the road construction work (for example, it is burnt for bitumen melting) and parboiling of
rice. People use husk briquette in some urban areas directly for cooking (Ahiduzzaman, 2007).
Fig 1: Estimated traditional energy supplied in the financial year 2003-2004 in Bangladesh
Source: BBS 2004 and own calculation and plotting
Fig 2: Trends of rice husk energy production during last decade in Bangladesh
Source: IRRI, 2005
- 65-

Figure 2 shows that the use of rice husk has increased from 1991 (76.3) to 2003 (109.5) and a little bit
decreased in 2004 (106.1) because of low production of rice. The growth of rice husk production is
calculated as 2.57% which is higher than the overall growth of traditional fuel (1.73%) (Ahiduzzaman,
2007).
Energy crops planted on marginal land:
Bio-fuel can also be produced from some other crops that can be easily grown in those areas which are not
suitable for traditional food crops like jatropha (verenda), pongamia (caron); these can grow under
conditions of low fertility and rainfall. The north-western region with low fertility could be put into biofuel
crop production commercially which may convert the affected region into an important economic
zone (Baten, 2008).
Household waste:
Using waste as raw material for the biogas production in Bangladesh will first of all decrease the
environmental pollution and secondly will decrease the pressure on traditional energy sources. Dhaka is a
mega city and it has lots of municipal waste. The collected waste is stored in open places near residential
areas. This waste spreads diseases all over the area. So using waste as a source of energy may solve many
health problems.
Ukraine. It is estimated that Ukraine holds 34% of the European potential cultivated area and 23% of
European potential pasture area that may be used for biofuel production (see Fig.3).
Fig 3: The land availability of biofuel production in Europe. Source: Prieler, 2007
The main bioenergy potentials in Ukraine are as following (see Fig.4):
Residues from agricultural activities:
Ukraine is a big producer of cereals (mainly, wheat). And there is a lot of straw left behind the combines.
Some of the straw is used for animal husbandry, but the major part of the straw is left on the fields, where
it gets burnt or cultivated into the soil (Sandrup, 2008). Approximately 3 million tons of straw is simply
burnt on the Ukrainian fields annually (Gun´ko, 2008). According to the calculations made by Sandrup
(2008), the gross economic energy of 1 million ton of straw would be about 50 million USD. So the main
challenge is to produce briquettes out of straw. And it is understandable that at the moment farmers cannot
afford buying the briquette machine, the price of which varies from 15.000 Euro to 65.000 Euro (on the
Swedish market).
Another potential for the biofuel production in Ukraine is the use of by-products from sugar productionmolasses.
Sugar production from the sugar beet is one of the leading branches of agro-industrial complex
in the country. Bioethanol production will make it possible to load production capacities of Ukrainian
- 66-

distilleries, only 40% of which are currently used. This will consequently lead to an increase of demand
for molasses that is used as feedstock. In this regard, Ukraine has significant potential that has recently
not been used (RBA, 2008).
Residues from the forest industry:
The wood briquettes in Ukraine are mainly utilized for heating of cottages which are now massively built
in suburbs. The situation with wood pellets is quite different. Some small firms have already begun to
produce the wood pellets for using as the filler for dry closets but not for heating. It must be taken into
account that wood pellet ovens and fireplaces are not widely presented in Ukraine. The introduction of
wood pellet boilers in this country would stimulate the domestic market of fuel pellets. One can forecast
that in the future only big enterprises will be involved in wood industry both in Ukraine and Europe.
Nevertheless nowadays Ukrainian wood pellets are exported to Europe and many enterprises are thinking
over the wood pellets production in the future (Ushakov, 2008).
Energy crops planted on agricultural land:
Potential arable lands for growing energetic plants have a square near 3 million hectares (10% of total).
According to the estimations, the bio mass potential in Ukraine amounts to 7 million tons of oil
(equivalent) and its use will allow the country to save approximately 5-7 percent of its energy resources
(Ecoclub, 2008). The main crop used in Ukraine nowadays is rape (canola) crop. Ukraine is planning to
intensify rape-sowing by creating regional zones of intensive rape-growing over an area of 50,000 to
70,000 hectares. By 2010, the rape crop acreage is expected to increase by 10 percent of the total arable
land and reach annual rape crop yields of about 7.5 million tons, 75 percent of which are to be processed
into bio-fuel.
Despite the attractive terms of bio-fuel production, the rapeseed cultivation business remains a capitalintensive
enterprise, requiring considerable start-up capital and constant investments. Additionally, today,
Ukraine lacks a modern rapeseed selection base; therefore, local companies need to deal with hybrids
imported from the European Union, which turns out quite expensive (Davydov, 2008).
Household waste:
Nowadays Ukraine investigates the possibility of methane removal from the landfills. As Ukrainians
usually don´t sort waste, all landfills have many organic substances. This can be a good resource for the
methane collection (Gun´ko, 2008)
Fig 4: The proportion of bioenergy potentials in Ukraine. Source: Dubrovin, 2008
- 67-

Sweden. Sweden has many bioenergy potentials. The main of them are as following:
Residues from the forest industry (such as sawdust, black liquor, chips, briquettes, pellets, branches, wood
powder etc.). Forest industry is a major user and supplier of biofuels. Today wood fuels are well
established in the Swedish energy system. Many researchers estimate that wood fuels can contribute to
twice more energy than today. Thus there is a large wood fuel potential that is not being exploited and that
could even become larger in the future in step with technical developments (Svebio, 2004).
Energy crops on agricultural land:
Salix (fast growing species of willow); straw fuels (Reed canary grass); grain (oats, wheat, barley and rye
wheat); ley crops (such as leguminous plants and grass); oil crops (like rapeseed).
Household waste:
Waste stands for about 11 percent of used fuels in Swedish district heating.
In the transport sector, municipal efforts to reduce local emissions imply carrying out a modal transfer
away from private car towards public transport and at the same time limiting the emissions produced by
urban public transport and captive fleets of vehicles. Several municipalities have started to investigate the
possible energy uses as motor fuel of biogas, a renewable energy source produced from household refuse.
Statistical analysis of the results showed that the number of sub-samples could be decreased with only a
moderate increase in the confidence interval. This means that future waste composition analyses could be
made more efficient and thereby less expensive. The analysis of the waste delivered to the Lidköping
incineration plant (Central Sweden) showed that 66.4% of the household waste was composed of biofuels
and 21.3% of non-renewable combustibles, of which 40.3% were recyclables. The heat value for the
biofuels was 18.0-19.7 MJ kg-1 dry mass (DM) and for the fossil fuels 28.2-33.9 MJ kg-1 DM. The
industrial waste consisted of 35.9% biofuels, 62.0% fossil fuels, 1.6% non-combustible and 0.5%
hazardous waste. The heat value was 19.5 MJ kg-1 DM for the biofuels and 31.4 MJ kg-1 DM for the
fossil fuels (Petersen, 2005).
The existing Government policies and level of support and promotion of biofuel production
Bangladesh. The advancement of the development of renewable energy sources in Bangladesh was
observed in terms of policy intervention and institutional settings. Since renewable forms of energy emit
far smaller amounts of greenhouse gas compared with fossil fuels, their use should mitigate climate
change impacts while contributing to the provision of energy services. It is proved that significant efforts
can be made towards the advancement of renewable energy in Bangladesh. A number of barriers remain to
the advancement of renewable energy resources, especially in terms of policy arrangements, institutional
settings, financing mechanisms and technologies. Resources, cooperation and learning are required in
order to overcome such barriers and to foster the development of necessary policy measures.
Implementation of the clean development mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol, and replication
and adaptation of effective strategies from other settings are possible avenues for this. (Uddin, 2006)
But at the moment there are no existing Government policies and level of support and promotion of
biofuel production in Bangladesh. Biofuel production shall follow all applicable laws of the country in
which it occurs, and shall endeavour to follow all international treaties relevant to the biofuel production
in that country. Of late, numerous institutions and think-tanks have published reports concerning bio-fuels.
Evidently, the bio-fuel issue engages several policy domains such as agriculture, energy, environment, and
trade, which have to be integrated to face upcoming challenges (Baten, 2008)
Ukraine. In 2006 Ukraine came up with a program for bio-Diesel fuel production covering the period up
to the year 2010. The Ukrainian state is firmly set on a course to expand the production and utilization of
- 68-

io-Diesel as in April 2007 the production of bio-fuel was proclaimed as Ukraine’s strategic objective
(Davydov, 2008).
However, one of the main barriers for the biofuel development in Ukraine is the strong lobby of oil
companies. They don´t want to be substituted by the biofuel industry. Another barrier for the massive
biofuel production in Ukraine is the state monopoly of the alcohol production. It is allowed to produce and
sell bioethanol to the only one state monopolist (¨Ukrspyrt¨).
In order to solve this problem, the parliament is planning to simplify the procedure of ethanol production
by implementation of the special law, which may allow producing bioethanol to any other licensed
company. This law will also make it easier for the entrepreneurs to get land for building the biofuel
factories. But, on the other hand, the law will put limitations on the cultivation of oil-seeds. The planting
of rape-seed or soya, for example, will be allowed only to those companies which can transform it into
biofuel and later supply it to Ukraine. This measure was aimed to bring more environmental, economical
and social benefits inside the country itself (Ecoclub, 2008).
Sweden. Policies in place to reduce greenhouse gases and fulfil the country's commitment to the Kyoto
Protocol are the main market driver for a continued increase in the use of biomass in Sweden. On the other
hand Sweden energy policy includes commitments to phase out its nuclear generation capacity. Sweden
has a policy objective to replace electric domestic heating with combined heat and power or district
heating systems, especially making use of biomass for fuel (EC, 2003). Sweden bears a considerable
amount of responsibility concerning this issue, not least when considering that it imports the majority of
biofuels consumed in the country (SCC, 2008).
Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy by 2020. In Sweden, 21% of total heat consumption is
provided by biomass and biofuel. A comprehensive policy mix with tradable green certificates as the key
mechanism was developed in Sweden. The main policy tools for the promotion of biofuel production in
Sweden are:
• Green taxes such as the carbon dioxide tax that promotes biofuels in an indirect way.
• The promotion of eco-cars. Biofuel cars are 20% cheaper to insure and are exempt from the
Stockholm congestion charge, while both personal and fleet users pay less tax. And also in March
2007, the Environment Ministry announced a rebate of 10,000 Swedish Kronar (1,080 Euro) for
those who buy an eco-car.
• Implementation of bioethanol programme (EREC, 2008).
Discussion
The main environmental, economic and social impacts of the biofuel production in
Bangladesh, Ukraine and Sweden
The impacts of biofuel production can be both negative and positive. And each country can either benefit
from it or be damaged depending on the scale of biofuel production and the level of its performance in
terms of sustainability.
Since Sweden has already developed a good system and basis for the biofuel production, this country has
much to gain from redirecting its energy system towards more biofuels. By creating new and lasting jobs
society obtains revenue through payroll taxes from employers and employees. At the same time, the costs
of unemployment would decrease. Theoretically, society could gain up to SEK 65 million annually for
each new TWh provided by bioenergy. If Sweden uses more bioenergy in the appropriate way the
- 69-

Swedish energy system will become more environmentally sustainable and the effects of eutrophication
and acidification can be alleviated (Svebio, 2004).
In terms of positive environmental impacts the biofuel production in Bangladesh, Ukraine, and Sweden
would contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases and, consequently, mitigation of global warming.
Moreover, the biofuel production in both developing and developed countries could have many positive
economic impacts, such as:
• Create the employment opportunities:
For example, Dhaka (the capital of Bangladesh) generates a huge amount of waste including
household waste. Using this waste for biofuel production can create the employment opportunity
not only for those who work with the production but also for those who collect the waste from
door to door & from the other source and maintain the work.
• Help to decrease the import of oil which also saves the foreign exchange:
• As mentioned above the natural gas is limited & oil price is increasing in the world market now.
Bangladesh spends around $2 billion for import oil which is almost 15 per cent of the total budget.
And about 80-90 per cent of energy resources in Ukraine are exported. Thanks to the bio-fuel
production, it would be possible to save half of the foreign currency from avoided oil and gas
import.
• Increase the national income (for example, by taxation on production plant)
• Reduce the consumption of natural gas
• Improve the infrastructure not only for urban but also for rural areas etc.
There may be also observed many social advantages of the biofuel production. The main of them are as
following:
• It creates the employment opportunities for women. Involving women in the biofuel production
will create social security & self dependency and give them social and family status.
• Improve education both for men & women (which will improve the social awareness).
• It helps poor people to improve their living standard.
But on the other hand it would be premature to talk about the full-scale industrial production of biofuel in
Ukraine, Bangladesh and Sweden. Thus, bio fuel is derived from vegetable material and its quantity is
limited by the growing needs of the food industry (and by the total acreage of arable land). Additionally,
some scientists argue that the use of biofuel provides no guarantee of lower discharges of toxic and
“greenhouse” gases into the atmosphere. As was established recently by a group of specialists from
Edinburgh University, biofuel produces from 50 to 70 percent more greenhouse gases, leading to the
planet’s atmospheric heating than the conventional fuel (Davydov, 2008). Experts from the UN
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) , have concluded in their extensive
report called “Cure Worse than the Disease” that subsidies into bio fuel production are costing the world
economy too high a price (Doornbosch, 2007).
Moreover, another important factor should be taken into account: rape growing (which supposed to be one
of the largest bioenergy potentials in Ukraine) expends irrevocably the fertility of agricultural lands.
Assessments by OECD experts have indicated that subsidizing biofuel production has resulted in a steady
expansion of arable lands at the expense of forests, which previously served as natural neutralizers of
carbon dioxide. Moreover, to grow rapes, farmers increasingly resort to toxic fertilizers and pesticides
with their production unavoidably linked to harmful emissions. The researchers show that the transfer to
biofuel may negatively affect the soil condition and result in wide-scale wastage of natural resources
(Davydov, 2008). So the development of biofuel production should be done carefully with regard to the
local conditions. The needs of the local communities and environment should be met in the first turn.
- 70-

Conclusion
Future feasibility of the biofuel development and lessons to be learned
The example of the sustainable way of biofuel production in Sweden can be very helpful for the further
development of biofuel production in Bangladesh and Ukraine. However the bioenergy development in
Bangladesh, Ukraine and Sweden depends on many factors. The importance that society attaches to
environmental issues and how this is transformed into political incentives will affect the role of bioenergy
in the energy system. Apart from the national goals, the international frameworks should also interact, for
example EU policies in the areas of the environment, energy, transports, climate and agriculture.
Bioenergy development also depends on future developments of other sources of energy.
Ukraine is planning to cooperate with Sweden in terms of biofuel production. The country has a stake in
using Swedish technologies for the production of bioethanol, as well as in active participation in the
creation of a European biofuel market. As Ukraine has a great bioenergy potential but no action is done,
the country needs to educate and train its local people in terms of biofuel production. Ukrainians need to
understand the economic, social and environmental benefits from the development of bioenergy.
Nowadays Ukraine is mostly used as a supplier of raw material for the biofuel production in Europe. So it
is very important that Ukrainian people start producing and consuming biofuel themselves; and only then
the country could really feel the positive impacts.
Since Bangladesh is an overpopulated & low land country, it is argued that this country has a low potential
for the large scale biofuel production. However, the small-scale production for the local needs can create
lots of positive environmental, social and economic benefits for the society.
Table 1: SWOT analysis of the biofuel production in Bangladesh, Ukraine and Sweden
Strength
Bangladesh Ukraine Sweden
- agriculture-based country;
production
-spare land for growing grain and
oil plants,
- scientific and human resources
potential,
-big biomass output potential;
-certain governmental support;
-strong political incentives;
-huge biomass potentials;
-developed technology
- low salary for manual labour;
- large amounts of municipal waste that can be used for biofuel;
Weaknesses
-weak governmental support (no
national policy);
-lack of spare land for
cultivation;
-overpopulation;
-low potential for large-scale
production of biofuel;
-low level of education
- the strong lobby of oil
companies;
- the state monopoly of the
alcohol production;
-corruption
-consumes more biofuel
than produces
- 71-

Bangladesh Ukraine Sweden
-need for many investments;
-lack of the modern technological base;
-lack of awareness for sustainable environment;
-usually passive attitude and no high competence level;
-no overall alternative energy strategy
Opportunities
Threats
- promotion of gender equality
(improve the social status for
women)
-possible large-scale production
-employment opportunities;
-decreasing the dependence on oil, natural gas and coal;
-increase of the national income;
- environmental sustainability;
-technological development and improvement of infrastructure;
-save foreign exchange
-threatened food production;
-negative effect on agriculture;
- possible land degradation;
-change in biodiversity;
-possible unsustainable manner of natural resources management;
- conflicts over landuse;
- possible social exploitation
-environmental
sustainability;
decreasing the dependence
on oil;
-improvement of
technology
-possible negative
environmental and social
effects on the countries
where the biofuel is
imported from
Source: Own
In near future, the alternative source of energy will be very much essential to face the future needs of
Bangladesh. In order to develop the effective system of biofuel production in Bangladesh, the country
should take the lessons from Sweden such as:
• develop its agriculture and the infrastructure of road & rural area, since raw materials for biofuel
production mainly depend on agriculture & the labor force mainly comes from rural areas;
• provide governmental policy for biofuel production & consumption. Government should pay the
subsidy for influencing people to use & produce biofuel;
• gain technology knowledge & give training for improving the skills;
• Swedish road transport system which widely uses biofuel may be the example for Bangladesh to
maintain the future transport condition and decrease GHGs in order to achieve environmental
sustainability.
The analysis of the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of biofuel production in Ukraine,
Bangladesh and Sweden is provided in the table below (see Table 1).
- 72-

References consulted
• Admin (2008), Time to move to green energy, The Daily Star, online at http://www.blogs.com.bd/2008/10/timeto-move-to-green-energy/
(accessed on 2008-10-25).
• Ahiduzzaman (2007), Rice Husk Energy Technologies in Bangladesh, online at http://cigrejournal.tamu.edu/submissions/volume9/Invited%20Overview%20Ahiduzzaman%20Final%20draft%2031Jan2
007.pdf (accessed on 2008-10-25).
• Baten A. 2008. In praise of bio-fuel. Online at:
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.phpnid=35898,%20http://www.bioenergywiki.net/index.php/RSB_Principles
_and_Criteria (accessed on: 2008-11-08)
• Bioenergy. 2008. Biofuels. Ukraine – 2008. Online at: http://www.biofuelsukraine.com/en/press.html (accessed
on: 2008-10-20)
• Davydov I. 2008. Ukraine Betting on Rapeseed Oil. Online at: http://en.ng.ru/energy/2008-04-08/7_ukraine.html
(accessed on: 2008-10-22).
• Dubrovin Valeriy. 2008. CURRENT RESEARCH ON BIOMASS & BIOFUEL IN UKRAINE & FUTURE
PROSPECTS. National Agricultural University of Ukraine. Online at:
http://www.czystaenergia.pl/pdf/farma2008_6.pdf (accessed on 2008-11-30).
• EC. 2003. EU Best Practice in RES: Biomass Power in Sweden. Online at: http://www.opetchp.net/download/wp6/EUBestPracticeBiomassinSweden.pdf
(accessed on: 2008-11-10).
• Epravda. 2008. The first biofuel petrol station in Eastern Europe. Online at:
http://www.epravda.com.ua/news/481654e910cd2/view_print/ (accessed on: 2008-10-29)
• EREC (2008), Renewable Energy Policy Review, Sweden, online at
http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_docs/Projcet_Documents/RES2020/SWEDEN_RES_Policy_Review_April
_2008.pdf (accessed on 2008-11-08).
• Gun´ko O. 2008. Bioenergy can help to save 20 m 3 of natural gas. Online at: http://en.ng.ru/energy/2008-04-
08/7_ukraine.html (accessed on: 22-10-2008).
• IRRI. 2005. Online at: http://www.irri.org/science/ricestat/pdfs/WRS2005-Table01.pdf (accessed on 2008-10-
22).
• McCormick, K. (2005) Sustainable Bioenergy Systems: Experiences from Sweden. Proceedings of the Asia
Pacific Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production, 10 to 12 October 2005, Melbourne, Australia.
Online at: http://www.bioenergynoe.org/docs/Sustainable%20Bioenergy%20Systems%20experiences%20from%20Sweden.pdf
(accessed on:
2008-11-10).
• Petersen, S. 2005. Quality control of waste to incineration - : waste composition analysis in Lidköping, Sweden.
Online at: http://cat.inist.fr/aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17335889 (accessed on: 2008-12-03).
• Prieler S., Fischer G. et al. 2007. Europe biomass resources for transportation biofuels. Online at:
http://www.ieo.pl/downloads/26102007/Sylvia%20Prieler.pdf (accessed on 2008-11-08).
• RBA (Russian Biofuels Association. 2008. Ukraine: molasses market. Online at:
http://www.biofuels.ru/bioethanol/news/ukraine_molasses_market/ (accessed on: 2008-11-30).
• Sandrup Alarik. 2008. Feasibility study April 15-18 2008 regarding production and use of bioenergy in Donbass
Region, Ukraine. The Swedish Cooperative Center.
• SCC. 2008. Fuel for development Swedish Cooperative Center. Nr 6.
• SEKAB, BioFuel in Sweden, online at http://www.sekab.com/default.aspid=1844&refid=1958&l3=1949
(accessed on 2008-11-08).
• Svebio. 2004. Fact sheets on bioenergy in Sweden. Online at: http://www.svebio.se/p=774&m=614 (accessed
on: 2008-11-10).
• Telenius. 2006. Bioenergy in Sweden. IEA Bioenergy News Vol 18 #2. Online at:
http://www.ieabioenergy.com/MediaItem.aspxid=5400 (accessed on: 2008-10-22).
• Uddin S. 2006. Advancement of renewables in Bangladesh and Thailand: Policy intervention and institutional
settings. Online at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118571652/abstractCRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
(accessed on: 2008-11-03).
• Ushakov A. 2008. Ukrainian market of alternative fuel resources. Online at:
http://www.timberbuysell.com/community/DisplayNews.aspid=3064 (accessed on 2008-12-01).
• Zhelyezna. 2008. Forest Encyclopedia Network. Ukraine. Online at: http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p1199
(accessed on 2008-12-01).
- 73-

Feasibility and development of biofuels in comparison
with natural gas
by
Seyed Emad Dehkordi
Md Al Mamunul Haque
Lei Wang
Introduction
There are controversies regarding the production and use of biofuel from different point of view. But
whatever the concepts, the countries in different parts of the world want to use and produce biofuel to
fulfill their respective energy demand. The reasons why people want to use biofuel as a sustainable energy
in their day to day life can be assessed by observing the prospects in this field. The world´s energy supply
is limited in some way and biofuel can act as potential renewable energy sources for the upcoming
century.
One of the most important biofuel is biogas, which typically refers to a gas produced by the anaerobic
digestion or fermentation of organic matter including manure, sewage sludge, municipal solid waste,
biodegradable waste or any other biodegradable feedstock, under anaerobic condition. Biogas which can
be utilized as a vehicle fuel or for generating electricity is comprised primarily of methane and carbon
dioxide. It can also be burned directly for cooking, heating, lighting, process heat and absorption
refrigeration.
We would like to assess the advantage and disadvantage of the biofuel and natural gas. The latter is often
described as the cleanest fossil fuel, producing less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than either coal or
oil, especially the amount of the carbon dioxide or other green gases they released and cost.
Bio-fuel, its positive and negative sides
Why people want more biofuel
In many ways, human being is responsible for the global warming. Global worming affects all of the
nations. In order to get rid of this circle, we have to adapt new technologies and policies to avoid the
consequences. The sustainable biofuel use can help us to achieve the goal until the pace of their
implementation being accelerated.
- 75-

The biomass like forestry, agricultural biomass and waste coming from different sources farm crops,
animal and forestry wastes, wood processing by-products and municipal waste and sewage are working as
source of biofuel production. All countries have some forms of biomass in their resource portfolio.
Biofuel can be used in all sorts of transport system. For example, recently in 24th Feb. 2008, virgin
airlines in London introduced commercial flights using biofuel [25] . It is worth to mention that the
indicated electricity generation potentials shall be seen as maximum achievable in the electricity sector
which would be reduced largely in the case that ambition is placed also on using biomass for heating and
as transport fuel. It also produces fewer polluting emissions than the traditional fuels.
The supplies of it can be renewed indefinitely, and because feedstock materials can be grown domestically
at any time. Use of it can help to boost the economy while lessening this country’s dependence on foreign
petroleum products.
Over and above energy security, the main interest of biofuels as opposed to petroleum products lies in the
reduction of CO 2 emissions, and consequently air pollution. While burning gasoline is a net CO 2 emission,
burning bio-ethanol results in emitting CO 2 which was previously captured by the plants.
With conventional diesel fuels, the inherent energy content of the fuel, measured typically in BTUs per
gallon, is the largest factor in the fuel economy, torque, and horsepower delivered by the fuel. The energy
content of conventional diesel can vary up to 15% from supplier to supplier or from summer to winter.
This variability in conventional diesel is due to changes in its composition, and these changes are
determined by the refining and blending practices. Bio-diesel has higher energy content than traditional
diesel fuel, with blend values somewhere in between [ 26] .
The emerging biofuels boom may act as a lever for rural development, insofar as it may create many
opportunities for work in the production and processing of biomass for biofuels, as well as in related
technical and transport services. Thus, we can afford a new cycle of rural development.
Major drawbacks of biofuels
As we are thinking that the vast amount of biofuel production from crops will increase the food crises in
global as well as regional basis. The biggest drawback with biofuels is the deforestation that it directly and
indirectly causes. How much deforestation takes place is hard to measure, but if new demand emerges
such as from biofuels more land has to be found from somewhere.
The primary limitation of biofuel is that it still takes energy to distillation and process, say, corn from its
normal form into what that can put into a regular car, and have it run without damaging the engine. There
requires enough energy to provide distillation facilities as well as to make enough biofuel for the whole
nations.
The other limitation is that, even though when burned, most biofuels kick out less carbon monoxide, and
other poisons, they still produce lots of regular carbon dioxide, which, research suggests, contributes to
global warming.
Feasibility of biogas and natural gas
We have chosen biogas as a case due to its easily compatibility with current systems, and its sustainability
since it does not conflict with food demands, biodiversity and other environmental factors. Biogas is
mainly consisted of methane which is a strong green house gas. If the biogas from waste deposits is not
being collected properly and used, it will emit into the atmosphere and amplify green house effect. Since it
can be produced from wastes, it may be helpful in waste management practices as well.
Besides having shortcomings and limitations of biogas and its production capacity that is not sufficient to
meet the increasing demands, we need to think about other clean fuels available. Natural gas is one of
these alternatives and is pretty similar to biogas with less toxic components and higher amounts of
resource.
- 76-

Biogas as a biofuel
Description of biogas
Biogas is an important kind of biofuel which is produced by the anaerobic digestion or fermentation of
organic matter including manure, sewage sludge, municipal solid waste, biodegradable waste or any other
biodegradable feedstock, under anaerobic condition. Biogas is comprised primarily of methane and carbon
dioxide.
Biogas containing methane is a valuable by-product of anaerobic digestion which can be utilized in the
production of renewable energy. Biogas can be used as a vehicle fuel or for generating electricity. It can
also be burned directly for cooking, heating, lighting, process heat and absorption refrigeration.
In comparison to natural gas, produced biogas usually contains larger amount of CO , H O, H S and NH 2 2 2 3
beside the energy rich CH (60-65%). The composition of the raw biogas is strongly dependent of the feed
4
and the design of the anaerobic digester. The different applications of biogas often requires a certain
“quality” on the gas, therefore purification and cleaning steps can be necessary. Technically feasible, but
in many cases economically way to expensive, the biogas resulting from anaerobic digestion is not
converted or transported as a useful energy source. Instead it’s oxidized to mainly CO and H O through a
2 2
flare, without energy recovery. This is in order to prevent emission of very greenhouse effect promoting
CH . [20]
4
Improvements in the anaerobic digestion
Fig 1: biogas production process
The digestion efficiency and its stability can vary significantly depending upon the mode of operation,
waste type, digestion temperature, digestion design, and other factors like- biogas potential of feedstock,
inoculums, nature of substrate, pH, loading rate, hydraulic retention time (HRT), C:N ratio, volatile fatty
acids (VFA), etc. Careful control of the digestion temperature, pH, and loading rates is crucial to obtaining
efficient breakdown of the material, and disturbances to a digest can lead to process failure. Ensuring that
the quality of input materials to the digesters is maintained and that the process effectively monitored is
essential for ensuring that a digester's performance is reliable.
Improvements in the energy conversion
At the stage of the energy conversion, the technology we have chosen and the purification of the biogas
will have a big effect on the efficiency. But, every situation is different, how to choose the technology for
different purification of the biogas and the ways to get rid of the annoying gas in the biogas effectively
need to be studied more and deserve much more experiments.
- 77-

Generation of heat and electricity
“Digesters can be heated by hot water from boilers burning biogas or by heat recovery from engines
burning biogas for power generation”. [21] For small and medium sized anaerobic digesters large
investments for cleaning and purifying the gas might not be rentable and the gas can directly be
combusted. Other methods to generate power through combustion are steam turbines and gas turbines.
These manners to produce electricity can be combined with heat recovery, and we’ve got what we call
combined heat and power production. Storage of raw biogas is technically easy to realize, for example in a
flexible, low pressure plastic tank. Energy conversion efficiencies for the different techniques, as typical
values: only power generation: 20-40%, only heat: 80-90%, CHP: till 90% (20-35% el and 55% heat). [22]
The gas production and the required internal energy won’t correspond at every moment, and this requires
either storage capacity of biogas or supplementary, other fuel driven engines. In case of direct biogas use
for power production the engine has a reduced life time due to pollutants and vapour content in the biogas,
especially H S is a corrosive agent. In case of running a gas turbine, water needs to be removed partially
2
or complete from the biogas, CO sometimes don’t need to be removed, but sometimes needs a complete
2
removal, and H S needs to be treated partially or completely. [20]
2
Utilization as car fuel
A well known example in Stockholm of the application of biogas as vehicle fuel is the fleet of biogas
busses of the public transport company SL. Their stated motivation that fore are: (fuel) price,
independence from fuel production countries (petrol is rare and comes mainly from political difficult
regions), environmental improvements and political reason (probably idol function).
Figure 2: fuel share in SL traffic
The water, CO and H S need to be “completely” removed from the biogas. Further a compression to
2 2
round 200 bars is required for adequate transportation.
For removing H2S, three scrubbing methods are commonly used: [23]
• Dry oxidation process – adding air in the biogas to oxidize the hydrogen
sulphide to elementary sulphur
• Adsorption using iron oxides
• Liquid phase oxidation process: physical absorption by solvents (NaOH), or chemical absorption and
forming or precipitates (FeCl 3 )
To get rid of CO 2 a lot of methods can be used: [23]
• Physical absorption – using water at high pressures
• Chemical absorption – using mono-ethanol amines (MEA) or alkaline solutions
- 78-

• Adsorption on solid surfaces – using silica, alumina, activated carbon, etc.
• Membrane separation
• Cryogenic separation
• Chemical conversion method
A very simplified scheme of the chemical scrubbing process is given in Figure 3:
The potential for using biogas
Fig 3: Standard process of a chemical scrubbing, where MEA is
the absorbing liquid [24]
For the economical side, for a normal wastewater treatment plant, by selling the gas as natural gas with a
market price of 11 Euros/ Gigajoule, the revenue gets to 2.86 million Euros per year. The income of gas
selling of 2.86 million Euro each year for 20 years (=lifetime of the anaerobic digester) is 57.2 million
Euro.
For the environmental side, for example, the substitution of natural gas by anaerobic produced methane
from Hendriksdal, Sweden (a normal waste treatment plant) would prevent 15 kilo tones of CO2/year. In
developing countries, using this biogas appropriately will prevent releasing the CO2 and CH4, which
causes huge greenhouse effect.
For the social side, by using biogas appropriately, people will get to know that they can help themselves to
create a better life, and a better environment using the modern technology. It will help the humans know
that science and human’s ability are reliable
Limitations
One shortcoming of the biogas is that the gas contains some toxic gases, especially the H 2 S, the gas is
harmful to the environment and dangerous to human beings. Another disadvantage is the odour of the
biogas which makes the people who work for the biogas plant uncomfortable. Besides these, the efficiency
of the biogas should be improved. The anaerobic digestion can surely still be subject to technical
improvement and gives reason for more studies, so as to increase the produced amount of useful CH 4 . The
technology are stilling in the development, it deserved more concerns.
- 79-

Natural gas as an alternative
What is natural gas
Natural gas is a gaseous fossil fuel consisting primarily of methane. Before using natural gas as fuel it
undergoes refining to remove almost all materials other than methane.
The major problem with natural gas is in transportation and storage because of its low density. Natural gas
pipelines are economical, but are impractical across oceans. In order to overcome the problem it can be
transported and used as LNG (liquefied natural gas) and CNG (compressed natural gas). These may have a
higher cost, requiring additional facilities. [1]
15 nations are accounting for 84% of the world-wide production while Russia, Iran and Qatar are holding
more than 50%. Access to natural gas has become a significant factor in
international economics and politics. Therefore control over the pipelines
is a major strategic factor.
Natural gas has thousands of uses and industry depends on it. Natural gas
is also an essential raw material for many common products.
Approximately 22 percent of the energy consumption of the U.S. comes
from natural gas (Figure 4) and slightly more than half of the homes in
the U.S. use it as their main heating fuel. [3]
Natural gas is often described as the cleanest fossil fuel, producing less
carbon dioxide per joule all other fossil fuels. However, in absolute terms
it does contribute substantially to global emissions, and this contribution
[1]
is projected to grow.
Fig 4: Energy sources in US
Energy content
Combustion of one cubic meter yields 38 MJ (10.6 kWh) with octane number of 120-130. Natural gas has
the highest energy/carbon ratio of any fossil fuel, and thus produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy.
[4, 10]
CNG's volumetric energy density is estimated to be 42% of LNG's and 25% of diesel's.
Gasoline contains about 34.8 MJ/L or about 9.67 kWh/L with octane number of 120-130. [5] The energy
balance for sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil is 1:8 compared to corn which only returns about 1.34
units of fuel energy for each unit of energy expended. [6] Ethanol produces 23.5 MJ/L with an octane
number 129. [7]
Prices
Absolute and relative prices of fuels are varying much in different places and times. Some residents of
Utah in US are happily filling up on CNG at $0.79 per gallon, US lowest price for CNG which is
“practically free.” California has one of highest prices in US—more like $2-2.50 per GGE (gasoline
gallon equivalent). Southern California Gas estimated CNG cost about 40 percent less than gasoline as of
2005. Home refueling is about $.075 a gge and remains the best value for CNG pricing (Nov. 2008).
However due to competition between diverse uses of natural gas it is not very competitive in some places.
[3, 17, 18]
Emissions
Natural gas itself is a greenhouse gas far more
potent that carbon dioxide. Methane emissions
occur in all sectors of the natural gas industry,
from drilling and production, through processing
and transmission, to distribution. It is not of
large concern due to the small amounts in which
this occurs, and is oxidizes producing carbon
dioxide and water. However natural gas
- 80-
Fig 5: Top 5 methane emitting countries [11]

systems are ranked as 2 nd source of methane emissions in US after landfill which can be used for biogas
production. [12] In some cases the CO 2 pumped out with the natural gas is released directly into the
atmosphere. This amount of CO 2 is not counted with the release of the CO 2 when natural gas is burned. [11]
In absolute terms natural gas contributes significantly to global emissions, and it is likely to grow.
According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2004 natural gas produced about 5,300 Mt/yr of CO 2
emissions, while coal and oil produced 10,600 and 10,200 respectively. [1]
The main products of the combustion of natural gas are carbon dioxide and water vapor, the same
compounds we exhale when we breathe. Combustion of natural releases very small amounts of sulfur
dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ), virtually no ash or particulate matter, and lower levels of carbon
dioxide (CO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and other reactive hydrocarbons. [8]
Fig 6: Beijing air on a day after rain (left) and a sunny but smoggy day (right)
Smog and poor air quality is a pressing environmental problem,
particularly for large metropolitan cities. The use of natural gas does
not contribute significantly to smog formation. The main sources of
nitrogen oxides are electric utilities, motor vehicles, and industrial
plants. Increased natural gas use in the electric generation sector, a
shift to cleaner natural gas vehicles, or increased industrial natural gas
use, could all serve to combat smog production, especially in urban
centers where it is needed the most. (Figure 6)
The transportation sector is one of the greatest contributors to air
pollution. According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), about
half of all air pollution and more than 80 percent of air pollution in
cities are produced by cars and trucks in the US. Natural gas can be
used in the transportation sector to cut down these high levels of
pollution. According to the EPA vehicles operating on compressed
natural gas have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90 to 97
percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent.
Nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by 35 to 60 percent, and other
non-methane hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by as much as 50
Fig 7: Different uses of
Natural gas
to 75 percent. In addition there are fewer toxic and carcinogenic emissions from natural gas vehicles, and
virtually no particulate emissions. [9]
Natural gas in transportation and future perspective
Compressed natural gas is a cleaner fuel comparing with other automobile fuels. A natural gas vehicle or
NGV is an alternative fuel vehicle that uses compressed natural gas (CNG) or, less commonly, liquefied
natural gas (LNG). Currently only 0.1% of natural gas is being used as vehicle fuel and there is high
potential for development in this sector. (Figure 7). Worldwide, between 2001 and 2008 the NGV
- 81-

population increased to over 7 million vehicles, an astonishing
annual growth rate of 26%. As of 2005, the countries with the
largest number of natural gas vehicles were Argentina, Brazil,
Pakistan, Italy, Iran, and the United States. Argentina has
some 1.69 million (15% of total) NGV's and there are 1.56
million (5% of the total) retrofitted vehicles in Brazil by 2008.
In 2006 the Brazilian subsidiary of FIAT introduced the Fiat
Siena Tetra fuel, a four-fuel car. This automobile can run on
CNG); E100; E20-E25 (Brazil's mandatory gasoline); and pure
gasoline. The Civic GX is powered by CNG and EPA has
called it the “world’s cleanest internal-combustion vehicle”
with 90% cleaner emissions than the average gasolinepowered
car on the road in 2004. The American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) awarded the Civic the green ribbon as the greenest vehicle of
Fig 8: CNG taxi cabs
[19]
2008 for the fifth consecutive year.
NGVs are an important part of the solution to the major global challenges. Specifically:
• They improve energy choice flexibility
• They improve security of energy supply
• They improve world economic stability (dampen oil price fluctuations)
• They improve balance of payments
• They can use renewable energy (bio-methane)
• They reduce greenhouse gases by 25%
• They reduces harmful vehicle emissions [15]
Dedicated natural gas vehicles are designed to run on natural gas only, while dual-fuel or bi-fuel vehicles
can also run on gasoline or diesel. Dual-fuel vehicles allow users to take advantage of the wide-spread
availability of gasoline or diesel but use a cleaner, more economical alternative when natural gas is
available but it requires two separate fueling systems, which take up passenger/cargo space. The energy
efficiency is generally equal to that of gasoline engines, but lower compared with modern diesel engines.
Existing gasoline-powered vehicles may be converted to allow the use of CNG. Gasoline/petrol vehicles
converted to run on natural gas suffer because of the low compression ratio of their engines, resulting in a
cropping of delivered power while running on natural gas (10%-15%). Despite its advantages, the use of
natural gas vehicles faces several limitations, including fuel storage and infrastructure available for
delivery and distribution at gasoline fueling stations. Natural gas must be stored in cylinders usually
located in the vehicle's trunk, reducing the space available for other uses. However NGVs can be refueled
anywhere from existing natural gas lines. This makes home refueling stations possible. A company called
[10, 16]
FuelMaker has pioneered such a system called Phill Home Refueling Appliance (known as "Phill").
- 82-

Natural gas advantages and disadvantages [13]
Advantages
Disadvantages
60-90% less smog-producing pollutants Limited vehicle availability
30-40% less greenhouse gas emissions Less readily available than gasoline & diesel
Less expensive than gasoline
Fewer miles on a tank of fuel
Ethanol advantages and disadvantages [14]
Advantages
No noticeable difference in vehicle performance
when E85 is used.
Domestically produced, reducing use of imported
petroleum
Lower emissions of air pollutants
Added vehicle cost is very small
Disadvantages
Can only be used in flex-fuel vehicles
Lower energy content, resulting in 20-30% fewer
miles per gallon
Limited availability
Currently expensive to produce
Today's forecasts show that at a conservative growth rate of 18% per year, there will be 65 million NGVs
by 2020, representing 9% of the world's vehicle population, reducing oil demand by 7 million barrels per
day. By 2020 NGVs will represent a 400 billion cubic meter per year market equal to 16% of today's total
world gas demand. In order to achieve the objective:
• Governments must implement and support long term NGV (and bio-methane) strategies
• Vehicle manufacturers should increase production of NGVs and develop new models
• Increasing availability of economic, safe and environmentally friendly conversions
• Developing the CNG refueling infrastructure
• The natural gas industry needs to develop strategies to advance the use of NGVs
Industry associations are critical to the success of NGVs rapid growth. IANGV (International Association
for Natural Gas Vehicles) is the "umbrella" association which works with Regional and National
associations to achieve the objective through:
• Government lobbying and policy assistance
• Providing industry information to members and stakeholders
• Standards development, harmonization, and dissemination
• Organizing industry conferences, including our own conference held every two years
• Collecting relevant statistical data
• Facilitating technical information exchange
• Marketing and industry awareness activities [15]
How to overcome shortcomings
Biofuel production from different sources
In this regard, we can think about different alternatives. For example, biodiesel is a fuel derived from the
trans-esterification of fats and oils [27][28][29][32][30][31] . This fuel has similar properties to that of diesel
produced from crude oil and can be used directly to run existing diesel engines or as a mixture with crude
oil diesel. The main advantages of using biodiesel is that it is biodegradable, can be used without
modifying existing engines, and produces less harmful gas emissions such as sulfur oxide [29][32][30] . So, we
may focus on this issue and may work on it.
Most of the oleaginous microorganisms like microalgae, bacillus, fungi and yeast etc are available for
biodiesel production. Biodiesel production using microbial lipids, which is named as single cell oils
(SCO), has attracted great attention in the whole world. Developing high lipid content microorganisms
or engineered strains for biodiesel production would be becoming a potential and promising way in the
- 83-

future [33] . The manipulation and regulation of microbial lipid biosyntheses open a possibility to
demonstrate the potential in its industrial application in biodiesel production. Regulating the scientific way
of oil accumulation in microorganism and approach of making microbial diesel economically competitive
with petro-diesel are important in this regard. Biodiesel from algae are emerging as very important
renewable energy source. It has tremendous potential for next-generation green energy as ‘Algae
Biodiesel’.Switchgrass can be easily integrated into existing farming operations because conventional
equipment for seeding, crop management and harvesting can be used [34][35] . Technology can also be used
to turn more traditional energy crops such as switch grass into fuel as well.
According to Sachs, 2007 [36] , there are at least five ways to reduce the competition for scarce agricultural
land between biofuels and food crops:
• Concentrating the production of biomass for biofuels on waste and deforested land, with prime
agricultural land being left for food crops [37] .
• Promoting integrated food-energy systems (integration of biofuels production with dairy cattle,
crop association and crop rotation, agro-forestry systems) which result in higher global yields per
hectare and release pastures for crop production [38] .
• Shifting, as quickly as possible, to second-generation cellulosic biofuels, produced from nonedible
parts of food crops, forest residues, wild grasses, tree crops, animal fat and all types of
green residues.
• Promoting further increases in yields per hectare of both food and biofuel crops; resorting to
agro-ecological practices predicated on the concept of "evergreen revolution [39] and seeking
knowledge and labour-intensive, yet land, water and capital-saving production functions
accessible to small farmers, and characterized by low-fossil-energy inputs.
• Supporting research aimed at identifying new oil-producing plants; improving the productivity
of the biofuel crops already in use; and expanding the spectrum of biofuels.
Discovering and improving biofuel conversion and refinery technologies
We have to focus on efficient conversion and refinery technologies. For example, corn ethanol biorefinery,
the challenges and opportunities in future cellulosic ethanol and integrated lingo-cellulosic biorefinery
producing liquid fuels and other co-products etc [40] . In addition, we can develop bio-refineries
process bio-resources such as agriculture or forest biomass to produce energy and a wide variety of
precursor chemicals and bio-based materials, similar to the modern petroleum refineries.
Policy implication in global and regional scale
Government has to build up different policy models to develop in this field of biofuel production in local
scale. Sometimes, strong government support for small producers will be necessary in order to ensure that
biofuel production in developing nations. Government should also monitor the process whether it is
sustainable and brings welfare benefits to rural areas or not. Because, 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 [41] .
Private sector can play a critical role in technology transfer and related capacity building, especially if
they create the kind of technology spill-over that could improve the productivity of smallholder
agriculture [42] . Better decision support tools are also needed to determine what the medium to long-term
impacts might be of large-scale adoption of biofuels production within a country, and to better target those
who might be vulnerable and in need of protection. Other benefits and costs especially with regard to the
environment and poverty can also be made known. Although, production and use of bio-ethanol provides
opportunities and risks and is subject to a lot of debate and reports; Bio-ethanol is a major step towards
meeting increasing needs with limited resources - if done the right way.
- 84-

Since plants take CO2 out of the air and burning those releases CO2 that is taken out of the air by the next
crop of fuel plants, biofuels are CO2 neutral. It is just recycling of CO2. Certainly there would be some
competition for farmland between food crops and fuel crops, but genetic engineering could develop plants
which would thrive on marginal land, where food crops would not grow well. Moreover, energy security
issues of the poor, oil importing nations are taken care of well.
Conclusion
Tackling climate change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an impossible
problem. But we have to think creatively. When the challenge is hard, we believe there is a way.
However, people can come to the same conclusion by different paths. But the most important
thing is that we agree on the solution. Extreme care must be exercised to ensure that this
transformation to biofuels from the traditional one will be sustainable and affordable, with
minimal adverse environmental consequences. From the observation described above, it can be
concluded that the biofuel has large potential to work as substitute of fossil fuels. And these can
be enacted if the policies are introduced to work in right direction.
References consulted
[1] Natural gas [2008-11-09]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
[2] List of countries by natural gas proven reserves [2008-11-23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves
[3] Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas -- A Fossil Fuel [2008-11-09]
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/naturalgas.html
[4] Compressed natural gas [2008-11-25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas
[5] Gasoline [2008-11-27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
[6] Ethanol fuel [2008-11-27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
[7] Ethanol [2008-11-27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
[8] NaturalGas.org, Natural Gas and the Environment [2008-11-09]
http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp
[9] NaturalGas.org, Natural Gas - From Wellhead to Burner Tip [2008-11-09]
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/naturalgas.asp10
[10] Natural gas vehicle [2008-11-25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle
[11] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Major Methane Emission Sources and Opportunities to
Reduce Methane Emissions [2008-11-23]
http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/basic-information/index.html#sources
[12] US EPA, Methane: Sources and Emissions [2008-11-30]
http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html
- 85-

[13] Fueleconomy.gov, Natural Gas [2008-11-24]
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bifueltech.shtml
[14] Fueleconomy.gov, Ethanol [2008-11-24]
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml
[15] IANGV (International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles), 65 Million NGVs by 2020 - IANGV
Projection [2008-11-25]
http://www.ngvglobal.com/en/association-news/65-million-ngvs-by-2020-iangv-projection-01923.html
[16] Phill by FuelMaker, Fuel Your Car At Home [2008-11-25]
http://www.myphill.com/
[17] Gas 2.0, Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country [2008-11-26]
http://gas2.org/2008/04/29/natural-gas-cars-cng-fuel-almost-free-in-some-parts-of-the-country/
[18] CNG Prices.com, CNG Stations and Prices for the US, Canada and Europe [2008-11-26]
http://www.cngprices.com/
[19] Gas 2.0, The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) [2008-11-
26]
http://gas2.org/2008/05/05/the-cleanest-cars-on-earth-honda-civic-gx-and-other-natural-gas-vehicles-ngvs/
[20] Handout “Energy Recovery from Anaerobic Reactors”, from course AE2301 at KTH, 2008
[21] Tsagarakis, K.P. (2006) Technical and economic evaluation of the biogas utilization for energy production
at Iraklio Municipality. Greece Energy Conversion and Management.
[22] Tassou, A., (1988) Energy Conservation and Resource Utilisation in Waste-Water Treatment Plants. The
University of West London, Department of Mechanical Engineering. pp 113-124.
[23] Petrov, M., (2007), “BIOFUELS lecture high resolution” ppt presentation, Study course RET-1, MJ2411.
Department of Energy Technology, KTH. 44 p.
[24] Sharma, N. & Pellizzi, G., Anaerobic biotechnology and developing countries, Energy Convers. Mgmt Vol.
32 No. 5. pp 471-489.
[25] The star, 2008. Virgin makes biofuel flights (available online). [2008-11-10]
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/306444
[26] US department of energy, 2006. Biodiesel handling and use guidelines. DOE/GO-102006-2358, Third
Edition, September 2006.
[27] Ma, F., Hanna, M.A., 1999. Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresource Technology 70 (1), 1–15.
[28] Srivastava, A., Prasad, R., 2000. Triglycerides-based diesel fuels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 4 (2), 111–133.
[29] Knothe, G., Van Gerpen, J.H., Krahl, J., 2005. The biodiesel handbook. AOCS Press, Champaign, IL.
[30] Van Gerpen, J., 2005. Biodiesel processing and production. Fuel Processing Technology 86 (10), 1097–
1107.
[31] Mittelbach, M., Remschmidt, C., 2006. Biodiesel: the comprehensive handbook. M. Mittelbach, Austria.
- 86-

[32] Pahl, G., 2005. Biodiesel: growing a new energy economy. Chelsea Green Publishers, White River
Junction, VT.
[33] Meng, X., Yang, J., Xu, X., Zhang, L., Nie, Q., Xian, M., 2008. Biodiesel production from oleaginous
microorganisms. Renewable Energy 34 (2009), pp 1–5.
[34] Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J.M.O., Lindvall, E., Christou, M., 2003. The development and current status of
perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 25 (4), 335–361.
[35] Vogel, K.P., Brejda, J.J., Walters, D.T., Buxton, D.R., 2002. Switchgrass biomass production in the
midwest USA: harvest and nitrogen management. Agron. J. 94 (3), 413–420.
[36] Sachs, I., 2007. The biofuel controversy. United nations conference on trade and development.
UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2007/12
[37] Fortune, 2007. Bright prospects for a poisonous plant. About 100,000 hectares of jatropha are under
cultivation in India.
[38] Sachs, I., and Silk, D., 1990. Food and Energy Strategies for Sustainable Development, United Nations
University Press, Tokyo 1990, and also the work carried out on the subject by EMBRAPA Florestas
(Colombo, Paraná).
[39] Swaminathan, M. S., 2008. Evergren Revolution. This term was coined by the leading Indian agronomist
M. S. Swaminathan. French agronomists use the term "doubly green revolution" to signify that both yields
per hectare and respect for environment must go hand in hand.
[40] Huanga, H., Ramaswamya, S., Tschirner, U. W., and Ramaraob, B. V., 2008. A review of separation
technologies in current and future biorefineries. Separation and Purification Technology 62, pp 1–21.
[41] Woods, J., 2006. Science and technology options for harnessing bioenergy’s potential. In: Bioenergy and
Agriculture: Promises and Challenges. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC,
Focus 14.
[42] Arndt, C., Benfica, R., Tarp, F., Thurlow, J.Uaiene, R., 2008. Biofuels, poverty, and growth: a computable
general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. Discussion Paper. International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington, DC.
- 87-

“MSW‐to‐biofuel: Technical explanations of this
process and analysis of its sustainability”
by
Ting Liu
Jean-Charles Manceau
Introduction
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 2007, 54% of the municipal solid wastes
(MSW) were discarded while 33.4% were recovered and 12.6% were burnt to recuperate heat. Organic
materials are the main components of the total waste stream and also of the wastes discarded to landfill.
Fifty to sixty percent is constituted by cellulosic material (Cleantech Biofuels) and thus can be converted
into energy with new technologies without being deposed in landfill. To give an idea, New York City’s
MSW fill currently one hectare of landfills in less than ten days (Worldwatch Institute, 2007).
In the meantime, the will to find new sources of fuels to compete with and replace a part of the fossil fuels
has never been stronger. Reducing green house gases emissions and fighting against climate change need
the set up of new strategies and the development of new technologies in every domain and especially in
transport. There is thus here a big potential which can be a tool to solve two main issues: the reduction of
landfill and the decrease of fossil fuel dependancy. That is why MSW are considered as a next generation
feedstock for biofuel production. At present, MSW-to-Biofuel conversion has received considerable
attention from many companies, research agencies and universities to develop or commercialize this new
technology. And some commercial-scale plants converting MSW into biofuels (ethanol) are being built. It
is quite a new way to deal with those issues but a very promising one.
Supply of feedstocks
According to the EPA, a lot of different materials can be found in MSW before recycling, see figure 1.
The first step of the conversion of MSW into biofuels will be to deal with the heterogeneity of the wastes.
So the aim of the pre-treatment will be to sort, clean and then convert the cellulosic material into a
homogeneous feedstock. According to the location of the collection of the garbage, the wastes types will
be different. The content of a household’s garbage will be different from school, hospital, or business
building ones. Adapted and suitable technologies have to be used in order to pre-treat the waste flow and
then to feed the conversion devices.
Most of the plants which are currently being built are using already sorted MSW. They are using the
ultimate residues which would have otherwise been landfilled. It is the wastes remaining after the
recycling and the composting (Enerkem). It is important to mention that not all the organic material
- 89-

Fig 1. Total MSW generation in the US (After EPA, 2007)
can be used in the composting (dairy products or meat cannot for instance). That is why it remains a large
proportion of organic matter (almost the half of it according to EPA (2007)) in the ultimate residues.
Because they are using already sorted MSW, these plants do not need any device or technology for the
sorting and are sometimes situated in the waste handling plants neighborhood.
Some new technologies are nevertheless being developed in order to do this collection and this sorting
more efficiently and in order to integrate it in the whole MSW-to-biofuel conversion process.
For instance, a new licensed technology is proposed by CleanTech Biofuels, a company specialized in
converting waste into fuel. The Pressurized Steam Classification (PSC) technology uses a combination of
steam, pressure and agitation to sort and to clean the different fractions of MSW. It is important to
mention that this process removes the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the garbage and eliminates
the pollution to make the waste safer and cleaner. The different steps are explained below in the figure 2.
Along this process, recyclables and cellulosic biomass are separated and the rest is sent to the landfill.
Fig 2. Pressurized steam classification process (After CleanTech Biofuels).
- 90-

As a result more than 80% of the total inputs are recovered, either sold (recyclables) or used further in the
biofuel production process (cellulosic biomass) (CleanTech Biofuels). It means that less than 20% of the
MSW are lanfilled; furthermore, these remainders are sterilized and generally inert. The cellulosic
biomass output is, at the end of the cleaning and sorting process, a homogeneous material with a 50%
moisture content called “Process Engineered Fuel” (PEF) (CleanTech Biofuels).
Conversion technology
It exists two main ways and thus two main technologies in order to convert the MSW into biofuel
(Williams 2007): the thermo-chemical and the biochemical routes.
Then, several processes exist for each technology. Among the thermo-chemical conversion processes,
combustion, gasification and pyrolysis can be used. And biochemical conversion process includes aerobic
conversion (composting), anaerobic decomposition or digestion and anaerobic fermentation.
Thermo-chemical conversion
During the conventional thermo-chemical conversion, synthetic gas (syngas) is first produced (which
happens under the condition of 475 o C and without O 2 ) and then, in a second phase, a liquid bio-oil is
obtained.
Several processes can be used in order to transform MSW into biofuel. The most important ones are
explained below:
Process 1 – Gasification + Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis: MSW-to- diesel
Fig 3. Gasification/F-T synthesis
This process (figure 3) for biofuel production is the most mature one at present. However, most of the
plants using this technique exploit wood and agricultural residues as feedstocks depending on the location
of the plants. Concerning MSW, the process works but is still being developed. Gas cleaning, the catalyst,
the feedstock preparation and handling and the costs are the primary issues which are being and still have
to be investigated.
Process 2 – Gasification + Catalyst based process: MSW-to-Ethanol
It is also a thermo-chemical conversion of the syngas. After gasifying the biomass, the obtained gas passes
through a catalyst in a fixed bed reactor (catalytic synthesis process), similar to the production process for
methanol (Lane, Oct 2007). Alcohol-synthesis technology is already adopted by Fulcrum Bioenergy
Company in Nevada, US where a plant will be opened in late 2009 or early 2010 (see case studies part).
Process 3 – Pyrolysis + Catalyst based process: MSW-to-diesel
Feedstock is first chopped and grounded to become homogenous and then fed into a series of pyrolysis
reactors. A catalyst is then used to convert the resulting synthesis gas to fuel oil (Christiansen, 2008).
- 91-

Catalyst plays a quite important role in the process efficiency. This process is still under study and the
company that is developing it (Cello Energy) did not give a lot of information about it yet. Apparently it
would take a bit less than 25 minutes to convert garbage into fuel oil with an efficiency of almost 100%,
would require zero water, and would emit very little pollutants in the air (Christiansen, 2008).
Biochemical conversion: MSW-to-Ethanol
The only liquid biofuel produced at near-term through biochemical paths is ethanol. It consists in
converting the cellulose into sugars through a hydrolysis. This step is currently most of the time done with
the help of special enzymes (e.g. cellulase); several technologies relative to this hydrolysis exist. Then, the
sugars are fermented into ethanol thanks to other organisms (enzymes) or/and catalysts. This whole
biochemical process always needs a pre-treatment which can be done with steam or acid in order to break
down the biomass into cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin (Worldwatch Institute, 2007). The figure 4 is
an explicative diagram of the process between cellulose and ethanol:
Fig 4. Biochemical technologies to convert waste into ethanol.
As mentioned above, several processes (especially hydrolysis) exist among the biochemical path. Two
promising and on-developing ones are explained below:
Process 1 – DACH + Fermentation
One company, Brelsford Process, has developed a new hydrolysis process (converting the recovered
cellulosic feedstock into C5 and C6 sugars that are fermentable into ethanol). Called Dilute-Acid
Cellulose Hydrolysis (DACH), it uses oil (at low-pressure and high temperature) instead of high
temperature steam, which consumes more energy. This technology can reduce the total capital and
operating costs to roughly 30% compared to the other conventional acid hydrolysis processes (Green car
congress, April 2008).
Process 2 – HFTA + Fermentation
HFTA is an efficient hydrolysis method that uses dilute nitric acid as a catalyst to form and to recover
sugars from hemicellulose and cellulose into C5 and C6 sugars. The produced sugars are, as mentioned
above, fermented to obtain ethanol (IPIRA, UC Berkeley). Nitric acid is, here, cost effective compared
with expensive enzymes which are usually used for sugar formation. The capital cost is also significantly
lower because the residence time of hydrolysis is reduced from several hours with enzymes to a few
minutes in each reactor with HFTA.
- 92-

Fig 5. The cellulose-conversion reactor that is used in the HFTA cellulose-conversion technology for
CleanTech (After Sims, 2008).
Case studies
No commercial-scale plants exist, but a lot of projects are currently being built. This part will describe
the functioning of two main practical examples which are currently under construction.
Fulcrum bioenergy project
The first one will be located in the City of McCarran, Storey County, Nevada, United States and is the
first of all the projects set up by Fulcrum Bioenergy company. This plant will open in late 2009 or early
2010 and will process annually 90,000 tons of wastes to produce around 40 millions liters of ethanol per
year (Fulcrum Bioenergy, 2008).
Fig 6. Steps in the functioning of Sierra biofuels (After Fulcrum Bioenergy)
- 93-

The process can be divided in six main steps. First of all, the MSW are collected in a warehouse (1)
waiting to be transmitted to the gasifier (2). Inside this gasifier, the wastes are transformed into synthetic
gas (syngas). During this step, the heat produced is recovered in a steam generator (3) in order to be used
in the next steps of the process. Then, the syngas goes through alcohol synthesis reactors (4) where it is
transformed into ethanol through a catalyst. Then, the ethanol is separated and purified (5) before being
stored (6).
GreenField Ethanol & Enerkem project
A second facility will be built in Edmonton, Alberta in Canada by two companies GreenField Ethanol (an
ethanol producer) and Enerkem (a biofuel technologies company). The beginning of the construction is
planned in early 2009. It will produce initially 36 millions liters per year. It will use the residues obtained
after the waste treatment (recycling and composting) which would have otherwise been disposed
(Enerkem, 2008) and will be built near existing waste handling facilities. The process (see figure below)
which is used and has been developed by Enerkem is made of four main steps: first, the feedstock are pretreated;
it is dried, sorted and torn. Then, it feeds a gasifier where a synthetic gas is produced; the
gasification process is based on bubbling fluidized bed technology. This synthetic gas is later cleaned and
conditioned before being transformed in chemicals or fuel. This transformation uses a sequential catalytic
conversion process adapted to each final product (Enerkem, 2008). For instance, ethanol is produced
through a catalytic synthesis and synthetic diesel is produced through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
Fig 7. Enerkem technology process (After Enerkem)
Discussion
SWOT analysis
Before discussing properly, it seems interesting to do a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats) analysis of both the thermo-chemical and biochemical conversion processes. These technologies
are promising one’s, but it is not applied at an industrial scale yet. The case studies presented above are
currently being built but they are not functioning. It means that all the impacts are not well referenced or
known. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize the main advantages of these technologies, but also the
main problems which are likely to occur when converting MSW into biofuels.
- 94-

Table 1. SWOT analysis of technology comparison.
Thermo-chemical
Biochemical
Strengths • Feedstock of MSW is easier to store for long time
• Reduce GHG emission
• Cheaper when petroleum fuels expensive
• Wider variety of feedstocks
• No need of high temperature and pressure
• All the organic portion of suitable • less capital‐intensive facilities
feedstocks can be converted
• economical on smaller scale
• Provide marketable co‐products
• Faster conversion rates under higher
temperatures
Weaknesses • More expensive and less energetically efficient than the first‐generation conversion
technologies
• Higher expense of collecting and pre‐treatment of MSW for biofuels than for
treatment/disposal
• More complex in garbage collection (classification)
• Refining and transport of biofuels have environmental costs
• Catalyst is not practically efficient • Lower reaction rates
• High cost of reactor and piping
operating at elevated temperature
• Cannot convert lignin fraction of feedstocks
yet.
• Requires waste‐water treatment and • High‐cost and inefficiency of enzymes
residues handling (landfill services) • Energy for ethanol production and cellulose
• Ash can foul of equipment at high hydrolysis
temperature
• Contamination of the byproduct with resultant
• Only large‐scale can be economic sulfur emissions when using hydrolysis acids.
Opportunities • Big amount supply of MSW with negative price
• Reducing the amount of waste disposed in landfills
• In medium term, can provide a growing share of the global fuel supply
• Release oil‐dependence in transport sector
• Release the debate food vs. energy
• Require no additional land acreage
• Avoid impact caused by planting for biofuel i.e. biodiversity loss, soil degradation, water
scarcity, habitat sustainability
• Lower the price of fuel for transport sectors
• Reduce air pollution, acid deposition and associated health problems by using biofuels
(technology
improvem
ent)
• A proprietary catalyst used by Cello
Energy takes approximately 22 to 25
minutes to convert garbage into fuel
oil using a continuous process with an
efficiency of nearly 100%, requires
zero water, very little in the way of air
emissions
• Low cost of acid hydrolysis compared with
enzymes
• Significantly lower capital costs with a few
minutes residence time in each reactor
compared to the several hours required with
enzymes
• Part of rapidly developing biotechnology sector
Threats • New energy market development
• Oil supply and price fluctuation
• Government support: loan guarantee, market
• Public acceptance (plants location)
• Other competitive usage of MSW i.e. for electricity and heat
• Uncertainty about the features of mature conversion technology only after it is developed
and commercialized
• Uncertainty of how much energy supply can be obtained from MSW
• Lower fuels prices may cause more private cars and more emission in total
- 95-

Advantages
As mentioned in the introduction, transforming MSW into biofuels can contribute to solve two
environmental key-issues: decrease the fossil fuel dependency, and decrease the amount of waste
landfilled. It means that if the wastes are managed and treated in a sustainable way, this technology can be
a tool to fight against oil shortage and climate change. Moreover, some studies demonstrated that ethanol
from MSW leads to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 65% relatively to gasoline, and by 58%
relatively to corn ethanol and even that the life cycle of total energy use per vehicle mile traveled is lower
than for corn or conventional cellulosic ethanol (Kalogo et al., 2006). The amount of MSW per capita is
more or less stabilizing; but considering the increase of the global population, it will be difficult to contain
all the discarded wastes if nothing is done to decrease it. Diminishing the amount of garbage sent to
landfills is also a way to decrease the pollution of soil and water caused by dumpsites. The feedstocks
used in order to produce biofuel are, in this case, wastes. It means that householders are paying for these
treatments and thus that these feedstocks have a negative cost. Furthermore, biofuels are often criticized
when speaking about the food vs. fuel debate. In this case, no fields and no crops which could have been
used for food purposes are concerned. Finally it is a way to use the energy in materials that would have
been otherwise disposed. From a socio-economical point of view, it is an opening of new and promising
market. The will of a sustainable development of the society is quite strong today and this activity will
surely have a good reputation; since MSW is a universal source, this business can create jobs in a lot of
regions.
Let’s give an example (from the Worldwatch Institute, 2007) to show how profitable can be the
transformation of wastes into biofuels. Considering an American city like Dallas with 1 million people, it
produces 1800 tons of MSW per day, i.e. 1300 tons of organic wastes per day (in view of the average
production of waste of an American). With this amount of wastes, it will be possible to produce 570000
liters of ethanol which corresponds to 210 millions of liters of ethanol per year (if we take into account the
estimated yield of Sierra Biofuel plants in Nevada mentioned in the case study part). This amount of fuel
can meet the needs of 81000 people in the U.S, 504000 people in France and 3.6 million people in China
for instance.
Problems
As mentioned above, the cost of the feedstocks is negative. However, the facilities are relatively costly
because it is just the beginning. All the municipalities cannot afford this kind of infrastructure and
technologies. Moreover, some specific collection centers may contain hazardous wastes (coming from
polluting industries for instance); if the wastes are contaminated, it requires better technologies and then
higher costs in order to decontaminate them.
Using wastes will lead to a decrease in the amount of available wastes; moreover, the processing plants
will require a continuous and quite large waste flow. It means that, to maintain the capacity, other wastes
coming from further locations will be required. The costs (environmental and economical) will be higher
and the efficiency and the sustainability of such facilities might be questioned (Shaine et al. 1996).
Furthermore, concerning energy efficiency, it is true that it is better to save energy by transforming MSW
into biofuels than just disposing them. However if one takes into account the recovery of landfill gas for
power generation, it would lead to higher reduction in GHG (Kalogo et al., 2006).
Finally, would such facilities be accepted by the public When it comes with treating wastes, it is often a
problem to convince the municipalities to have this kind of infrastructure in their neighborhood.
Conclusion
Nowadays, there are a lot of concerns in order to make more sustainable the development for all. Every
step, the production of one good, its consumption, its use and finally its discharge into the waste flow,
have to be improved. During the whole cycle and among all these steps, the amount of fossil fuel used and
the management of the MSW are two of the main issues that have to be handled rapidly. In this paper,
- 96-

some ways to produce biofuel from sorted MSW are presented. Certainly, they are not completely
developed yet; the techniques need some improvements and no commercial-scale facilities are built yet.
But the studies done are very promising and the fact that it could use negative-cost feedstocks and produce
ethanol or biodiesel makes these techniques very attractive. This whole process can be a tool to meet both
the needs of the management of MSW and the needs of alternatives to fossil fuels. That is why some
companies started building such facilities. Two plants are presented in this paper. However, like every
actions that are in line with a better protection of our environment, the whole process of converting MSW
into biofuels can be done in a right or in a wrong way. This study hence described what could be the
drawbacks and the weaknesses of this conversion. All the aspects have to be taken into account, and
according to the progress in the technologies used in the process in the future, a comparison with other
solutions using wastes in order to produce energy has to be done before deciding the best alternative for
handling MSW. Finally, the interesting and essential question is: considering all the aspects of the waste
disposal and fossil fuel dependency issues, will biofuel-making be the most sustainable way to use MSW
in the future
References consulted
• Cleantech biofuels company homepage, available at
• Christiansen R.C., Alabama partners to study MSW-to-diesel conversion. Biodiesel magazine, 2008, available at
o
• Enerkem Company homepage, available at
• Fulcrum Bioenergy company homepage, available at
• Green car congress, CleanTech Biofuels and Green Tech America Enter Joint Research Agreement for Waste-to-
Ethanol Project, April 2008, available at
• IPIRA, UC Berkeley. HFTA: Efficient and Cost Effective Biomass Technology for Clean Energy. Available at
• Kalogo Y., Habibi S., MacLean H.L., and Josh S.V., abstract of ‘Environmental Implications of Municipal Solid
Waste-Derived Ethanol’, Environ. Sci. Technol.,41, 2007, pp. 35 -41, viewed the 5/11/2008 at
• Lane J., Syntec Biofuel acquisition finalized; pioneer of thermo-chemical process for cellulosic ethanol. October
25, 2007, available at:
•
• Shaine, Rymes M., Hammond E., abstract of ‘Future potential for MSW energy development’ Biomass and
Bioenergy, Vol. 10, No. 2-3., 1996, pp. 111-124, available
athttp://www.citeulike.org/group/2192/article/1130374
• Sims B., CleanTech Biofuels, Merrick team in MSW-to-ethanol project, Biomass Magazine, June 2008, available
at
• United States Environmental Protection Agency homepage, available at
• United States Environmental Protection Agency - Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Municipal Solid Waste
Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2007, November 2008, viewed
at
• Williams R. B., 2007. Biofuels from Municipal Solid Waste: Background discussion paper. Biofuels from
Municipal Solid Wastes Forum, 28 March 2007
• Worldwatch Institute, 2007. Biofuels for transport: global potential and implications for sustainable energy and
agriculture. Earthscan. ISBN 1844074226.
- 97-

Potential of biogas derived from landfill
by
Sergios Lagogiannis
Zhao Wang
Berhane Grum Woldegiorgis
Introduction
Landfilling
A landfill is known as a site for solid waste disposal by burial. Several problems concerning health, safety,
sustainability and material recovery encountered with old open dump operation are accelerating the
progress for modern sanitary landfill operation. Thus, the landfill to date is being conducted more than a
dump site dealing with the solid waste. Technical measures are designed in the control programs which
are associated with leachate and gas production to make this waste treatment method much more
sufficient.
Landfill gas
During the landfill life time, landfill gas, resulting from decomposition of organic materials, is comprised
of nitrogen, hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide and trace elements. Its production starts after the
decomposition and gradually increases for a period that depends on the organic content of the waste,
moisture, pH, local weather and the characteristics of the landfill. Landfill gas production does not start as
soon as the landfill site is established; instead the methane gas can be generated several months to a year
or two years after the deposition as a result of sophisticated biological reactions within the solid waste
(Waste Management). Precisely, the principal chemical reactions manipulating in the anaerobic
decompositions take place in three stages, and the methane gas is formed in the third stage by
methanogenic bacteria which can be illustrated as the following chemical formulas.
CH
6 12O6 → 2CHOH 2 5
+ 2CO2
CH3COOH → CH4+
CO
CO2+ 4H2 → CH4+
2H2O
Landfill gas is currently used for many different applications. The explosive property of methane in the
landfill gas provides opportunities for energy recovery in the way of converting to heat or electricity.
Even, it is possible to make use of this biogas as an internal combustion engine fuel or fuel cells, and this
technology has already been verified in small scale in some regions worldwide.
Environmental debate with landfill gas
However, releasing the landfill gas causes negative environmental effects: The main portion in the landfill
gas is methane which has an explosive property, and this will be dangerous, when the gas is escaping
from the landfill and mixed with oxygen. As well, being a green house gas, methane gas production is
- 99-

contributing more to the global warming than the effect caused by carbon dioxide. In addition, the volatile
organic compounds (VOC) in the landfill gas can result in the formation of photochemical smog.
Motive for landfill gas utilization
According to the environmental problems associated with landfill gas, effective control programs should
be taken either in the way of landfill gas extraction and monitoring or as a part of the resource recovery
process to convert the methane into other energy. Apart from above, discussion and research on the
alternative solution to the energy consumption are becoming comprehensive since the conventional energy
crisis was realized early in the 1970s. As well, the green house gas (GHG) reduction from fossil fuels
seems a motive to promote this progress. Compared to the limited amount of fossil fuels in the coming
years, biogas can be used as sustainable fuels as long as the biological reaction is working within the
municipal waste landfill.
The practicability of landfill gas and its potentials
The anaerobic condition dominates in the life time of the landfill, and the landfill gas is generated by the
spontaneous microorganism mechanisms which make the utilization of landfill gas encouraged from the
cost-benefit analysis point of view. Biogas generation should be practically applied with Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) landfill operation due to the landfill gas is produced from biodegradable organic contents
which count 50 to 70 percent of the total mass of the municipal solid waste. But, some other sources like
industrial waste sites or toxic and hazardous waste deposits may be not proper to be taken for a landfill gas
generation study.
Theoretical studies and experiments give us estimation on methane gas generation rate from the completed
anaerobic biodegradation of MSW, which is conservatively accounted as 50Nm 3 of methane per tone of
contained MSW landfill (Nikolas J, 2006). Therefore, when the global land filling is estimated as 1.5
billon tones per year, then the methane gas generation rate is 75 billion Nm 3 per year, in which less than
10% of this potential has been used today.
Landfill gas purification
The methane gas and carbon dioxide are two products at the end of the primary anaerobic decomposition,
along with the two gases, some minor amount of water and trace element will form the landfill gas. In
fact, we are interested in the valuable part of methane gas, so some separation technologies are necessary
before the utilization. For instance, landfill gas could cause damage to the collection systems or even to
the final utilization facilities due to the corrosion. In this case, relative high contents of hydrogen sulphide
and aliphatic chlorohydrocarbon can be detected in the landfill gas (Dernbach, 1987). And they are
possible to be converted to HCl. So purification is quite necessary to remove these trace elements before
utilization. Some removal technologies such as active carbon adsorption, membrane technology could be
effective.
Landfill Gas Management
Each landfill gas management system ought to be site specific. They offer a more integrated system which
embodies monitoring of the gas, determination of its yield and the collecting methods. Monitoring starts at
an early age and continues for many years even after the closure of the landfill. As a general rule,
underground monitoring is used to identify migration while surface monitoring is done to detect the
presence of gas escapes. The assessment of biogas generation is vital, especially when the goal is to
exploit the gas economically. Technical methods for collecting biogas are flexible and may be established
at different stages in the landfill project's life.
- 100-

Landfill Gas Monitoring
Regular monitoring is essential as it provides information on the development of the landfill gas migration
trends. Gas may move in any direction within the site. Lateral gas movement will be encouraged by the
technique of waste compaction in thin layers that are covered with low permeability materials (HMSO,
1990), which is the most common practice. It also gives data on the composition of the landfill gas and the
rates of production, which are essential.
Last but not least monitoring is done to avoid risks and hazards from gas mitigation outside the site.
Despite the linear covers and any other means of insulating the landfill, gas will eventually migrate into
environment. It will move preferably through debris of rock whose grain size, shape and packing are such
as to make them the most permeable (IWM, 1990). Consequently, monitoring outside the site of the
landfill should not be neglected. Surveys should be held for at least a 250m radius round the landfill. Once
the monitoring locations are decided after a thorough desk study the measurements can start. Depending
on the scope of the program and the site characteristics they can be at the surface, at swallow depths using
probes or in the deeper regime using boreholes (IWM, 1990).
Determine Gas Yield
As mentioned before, landfill gas is not generated immediately after the setting of a landfill. The
production of significant quantities of methane may take from 2 months to more than a year (HMSO,
1990). Its peak is observed within about three years of waste deposition and then declines for a period of
up to fifty years. There is a distinction between the theoretical yield which is the one calculated and the
concrete yield, namely the one measured. The yield should be estimated with both methods.
The more accurate method for estimating the theoretical yield over a year’s period is the “First order
decay model”, which is proposed by the U.S. EPA and is as follows:
LFG = 2 L0R (e -kc - e -kt )
Where:
LFG = Total amount of landfill gas generated in current year (cf)
L 0 = Total methane generation potential of the waste (cf/lb)
R = Average annual waste acceptance rate during active life (Ib)
k = Rate of methane generation (1/year)
t = Time since landfill opened (years)
c = Time since landfill closure (years)
The present method can produce accurate results, if the terms L 0 and k are known. However, the values for
them are thought to vary widely, and are difficult to estimate accurately for a particular landfill (EPA,
1996). Some default values given, different from different institutions, are for L 0 100 m³/tone and for k
0.05/year.
The most trusted method for obtaining results is the pumping tests. These tests are made through wells as
described in the monitoring chapter above. As the generation rates may vary across the landfill it is
important that the samples are taken from representative positions. This method provides the benefit that
the samples can be tasted both quantitative and qualitative. Information obtained from a pump test is
essential since it is used in the design of the processing and energy recovery system, as well as in
obtaining project financing (EPA, 1996).
- 101-

Technical methods for collecting biogas from landfill
The amount of landfill gas collected is not determined only by the amount produced but is in function, as
well, with the collection efficiency. The efficiency is determined primarily by the collection system and
collecting operation. It is also governed by characteristics of the site for example the permeability of
waste. It varies usually between 75-90% for landfills operated for energy recovery (EPA, 1996). Therefore
the theoretical estimations, described above, for gas yield must be corrected. Even the results of the
pumping tests method may have to be corrected for collection efficiency, since these results may not
provide an indication of gas flows across the landfill (Kraemer, 1995).
The designing of gas collection systems, crucial for effective gas extraction and their configurations are of
two types; vertical wells and horizontal trenches, but they can also be used in tandem. The construction of
the collecting system can be done during landfilling or after it has stopped. The former has the advantage
of allowing gas to be collected prior to completion of the final phase of the site, and as a result provides
greater flexibility in the control of gas at an earlier stage in the development of the site (EA, 2002). On the
other hand, in retro-fitting, more care is needed as problems can arise like generation of point source
emissions or damaging on the containment systems. As a rule the system of constructing during landfilling
is implemented unless the decision to exploit the landfill gas is taken, for some reasons, too late.
Vertical wells are by far more common (EPA, 1996) and can be installed during the landfills’ expansion
or after it has ceased operation. They are usually constructed by perforated pipe work, which is
surrounded by inert material to avoid coagulation from waste. The dimensions of the wells depend on the
amount of gas generated and the depth of the landfill. While there are no absolute rules for defining the
spacing of gas wells, the spacing should be typically no greater than 40 m (EA, 2002). Careful
consideration must be given to the location of the wells especially when these are formed during the
operation stage, as it should not bother positioning and compaction of the waste in these areas.
Horizontal trenches are set before the filling of a waste mass cell and develop along with the landfill.
Collection wells are normally formed by the incorporation of perforated pipework, surrounded by a
natural stone or crush aggregate with a low calcareous content. Specifications vary, however, the materials
and products should be suitable for the application in which they are to be used (ETSU, 1993). They get
connected to the new parts as the new cells are built. In both configuration systems there are valves and
sampling points, which should be easily accessible (HMSO, 1990). Monitoring the well pumping is of
high importance, to ensure that over-pumping does not occur. Should this happen it would draw excess air
into the system and could result in system failures.
The concept applied in the collecting process is extraction by pumping gas out of the landfill with the use
of a sub-atmospheric pressure within the field. Since the aim is to economically exploit the gas, passive
venting is not suitable. In general, vacuum is applied at one end of a pipe in a collection well or trench to
withdraw landfill gas from surrounding waste within the effective radius of influence of the collector
(GSC, 2003). This is normally achieved by the incorporation of compressors or boosters capable of
overcoming the total pressure loss from the gas wells to generate a pressure differential (EA, 2002). Once
the gas is collected, it passes on to the next stage of treatment and upgrading.
- 102-

Fig 5: Vertical wells construction in top and vertical view. (GeoSyntec Consultants, 2003)
Upgrading Biogas to Natural Gas Quality
Upgrading Landfill Biogas for Vehicle Use
The use of landfill gas for fuel vehicle is an important option nowadays because the use of fossil fuels or
natural gases for fuel is becoming costly and is causing adverse impacts to the global climate, with the
release of stringent green house gases. However, the usable component of the gas, methane, is found
mixed with other impurities mainly carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia. Some trace elements
such as hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, saturated and halogenated carbohydrates and siloxanes are
sometimes found mixed with the gas. If these impurities are not removed, they may cause corrosion,
deposition and wear of vehicle equipment (Wellinger, 2005). Therefore, the purification of the gas before
it is ready for use as vehicle fuel is mandatory. For example, in Sweden a biogas for vehicle use, the
methane content should be greater than 95% and not more than 23 mg/nm3 H 2 S (Persson et 2006). The
principal reasons behind the cleaning of gas are to fulfill the requirement of vehicles, increase the heating
value of the gas and for standardization purposes. The gas to be used as fuel for vehicle, it is a quality
requirement that at least carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and water should be removed (Persson et al,
- 103-

2006). Some of the commercially available technologies for biogas upgrading to vehicle quality are
described below.
Table 1: Gas quality removal requirements for utilization (Persson et al, 2006)
Application H 2 S CO 2 H 2 O
Gas Heater

addition, water and hydrocarbons, which are common in landfill gas, are also removed by this process.
However, it needs quite significant energy to recover the organic solvents from hydrogen sulfide.
The main limitation of water scrubber technology is the risk that could result from the emission of
hydrogen sulfide. After several years of operation of a plant, the accumulation of sulphur and packing of
organic contaminants in the column also causes fouling and plugging of pipework. Therefore, it is
recommended that hydrogen sulfide is removed before the water adsorption process and the absorption
column should be designed with automated washing equipment (Persson et al, 2006).
Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA)
This involves the separation of carbon dioxide from methane by adsorption of carbon dioxide on activated
carbon or molecular sieves at different pressure levels. To enhance the selectivity of adsorption, the mesh
is made with different sizes. The adsorbing material is recovered at reduced pressure and subsequent
application of a light vacuum. In this process, dry gas is needed. Thus, water vapor which exists mixed
with methane gas is condensed in a cooler. The adsorption material adsorbs hydrogen sulfide irreversibly
and it is poisoned with it. To avoid this problem, hydrogen sulfide is pre-separated in a tank fitted with
activated carbon before the dry gas is fed into the bottom of the adsorption vessel. Adding air to gas
stream prolongs the life time of a sulfide removal unit but traces oxygen added will cause quality problem
in the final biogas produced.
In the pressurized vessel carbon dioxide is adsorbed at the top of the biogas rich in methane will be
produced. Usually, there are linked vessels to produce continuous operation and reduce energy demand for
gas compression. Saturated vessels are regenerated by stepwise reduction of the existing pressure to
atmospheric pressure. During the regeneration step, some methane is released and it is recycled back into
the gas inlet. Finally, the vessel is evacuated with vacuum pump. In the exhaust, a gas rich in carbon
dioxide is produced. This gas either released to the atmosphere or burned in a flux burner designed for low
calorie gases.
Membrane Separation
The biogas upgrading is carried on the basic principle that the constituents of the biogas gases have
different permeability through a membrane. In this separation processes, it could be made gas phases in
both sides of the membrane or gas-liquid phase, in which a liquid like amine with high selectivity absorbs
the diffusing carbon dioxide. This does not apply pressure and it is usually at lower pressure,
approximately atmospheric pressure. The biogas is compressed and dried before it is ready for membrane
separation.
Fig 7: Schematic diagram biogas upgrading with carbon molecular sieves. (IEA Bioenergy, Task 24)
- 105-

The driving force for the separation to take place is due to the fact that the gases in the biogas have
different molecular sizes and hence have different permeability. In addition, the pressure difference on the
two sides of the membrane and the temperature of the gas also fastens separation. In this set up, carbon
dioxide and hydrogen sulfide diffuse into the permeate side while methane is retained back. To increase
the efficiency of separation, large size of membrane is used or several membranes are installed in series.
Finally, hydrogen sulfide is further separated before use of the upgraded gas. In spite of some problems
with loss of methane in the separation process (Persson, 2006), it is energy efficient because this process
does not need any recovery of materials, is easy to handle and gives large reduction of costs as compared
to conventional gas upgrading processes.
Cryogenic Separation
This technique is mainly used for the separation of carbon dioxide. Methane has naturally a lower boiling
point than carbon dioxide. Then, it is possible that methane can be separated from a biogas as liquid by
cooling the gas mixture at elevated pressure. This is advantageous to landfill gas because upon
condensation of methane nitrogen with lower boiling point is separated with methane. However, hydrogen
sulfide has to be pre-separated to avoid the problem of freezing. This separation process is accompanied
by an expansion step after cooling. The cooling and expansion causes the carbon dioxide to condensate.
The carbon dioxide removed in liquid is also further cooled to recover condensate methane. It is stated
that this technology is at pilot plant level in Europe and can be beneficial especially to landfill gas
upgrading due to the fact nitrogen is co-separated with carbon dioxide (Persson, 2006).
Cost of Upgrading
The total cost of upgrading biogas to vehicle fuel quality consists of the cost of investment, operational
cost of a plant and maintenances of the equipment. The amount of investment of a plant for full treatment
quality increases with the capacity of the plant while investment per unit of installed capacity decreases
for larger plants. Cost of upgrading (Figure 4 A) and investment (Figure 4B) are shown below for Sweden
for plant investments as investigated by the Swedish Gas Center (Jönsson, 200)
Fig 4A: upgrading cost for biogas to 97% Methane
Fig 4B: Investment costs for upgrading costs
- 106-

Sustainability and Environmental Impacts
It is a common trend that industrialized countries are using landfill gas recovery technologies for energy
recovery, environment and safety reasons (Persson et al, 2006). The collection of biogas from landfills and
its use as vehicle fuel is sustainable as long as organic waste is produced and sent to landfills. The use of
landfill gas from a disposed waste adds an economical advantage to the society. In addition, since the
waste is a renewable resource, the recovery of methane gas from it and using as a fuel will ease the shift
from dependency on the non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum.
Researches indicate that there is a significant green house gas emission reduction by the use of an
upgraded biogas. Upgraded biogas gives almost the same emissions values as that of high quality of
natural gas. Case studies in Switzerland in 1998 with different method of environmental ratings confirm
natural gas a 75 % over all advantage over diesel and a 50 % advantage over petrol. In the same way,
human toxicity gave a 70 % lower value; the ozone potential was reduced by 60 to 80 %, acid formation
by more than 50% (Wellinger, 2005). However, there is some increase in methane gas emissions in gas
fuel engines and some losses in the gas upgrading technologies.
Conclusion
This paper looks into the role of landfills as sources of gas suitable for fuel, the landfill gas management
techniques and the established and commercially available upgrading processes. In addition current
practice promotes waste recycling, for example plastic and glass, increasing the percentage of organic
waste in the landfills and consequently the amount of gas generated. Therefore the potential for the use of
landfill gas as a fuel is increasing. But even more what is the main advantage of this technique is that we
are using a product from waste as an energy resource; that is a way to add value in the society. Other
advantages like fewer emissions over other fuels, or the instable and high prices of petroleum products
should add to his pros. Hence this study concludes that, it is a process that should be more promoted in the
present and near future.
References consulted
-Charles R. and Leander J. 1995. “Waste Management and Resource Recovery”. CRC Press
-Debra R. and Timothy G. 1998. “Landfill Bioreactor Design and Operation”. CRC Press.
-EA, 2002. Environmental Agency. “Guidance on the Management of Landfill Gas”, Draft for consultation. Nov 02
-EPA, 1996. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. “Turning a
Liability into an Asset: A Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project Development Handbook”. September 1996.
-GSCl, 2003. GeoSyntec Consultants, Columbia MD “Challenges of Designing a Landfill Gas System for a Landfill
over Compressible Soils”.
-H.Dernbach. 1987. “Purification steps for landfill gas utilization in cogeneration module” Resource and
conservation, 14 (1987)273-282.
-HMSO, 1990. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution. Waste Management Paper No 27, “The Control of Landfill
Gas; A technical memorandum on the monitoring and control of landfill gas”. Third impression, 1990. London.
ISBN 0 11 752175 2
-IWM, 1990. Institute of Waste Management. “Monitoring of Landfill Gas”. June 1990. ISBN 0 902944 18 5
-IEA Bioenergy. Biogas Upgrading and Utilization. Task 24, Energy from biological conversion of organic waste.
Accessed on November 15, 2008 http://www.iea-biogas.net/Dokumente/Biogas%20upgrading.pdf
-Jönsson O., 2004. Swedish Gas Centre, 205 09 Malmoe, Sweden.
Accessed on November 10, 2008
http://www.biogasmax.eu/media/biogas_upgrading_and_use_2004__
062944200_1011_24042007.pdf
-Nicolas J. Themiles etc al. 2006. “Methane generation in landfills”. Renewable energy,32 (2007) 1243-1257.
-Persson M., Jönsson O., & Wellinger A., 2006. Biogas Upgrading to Vehicle Fuel Standards and Grid Injections.
IEA Bioenergy. Accessed on November 15, 2008 http://www.iea-biogas.net/Dokumente/upgrading_report_final.pdf
-Wellinger A., 2005. Energy from Biogas and Landfill gas. IEA Bioenergy Task 37, Technical report ExCo56,
Dublin, Ireland.
- 107-

Biofuels: Can it be an alternative income option
alleviating poverty
by
Wilmar Tobon Restrepo
Himanshu Sanghani
Uz Atiq Zaman
Introduction
Biofuel has gained momentum after 1970s oil crisis; enlisting Brazil as the highest sharer of ethanol
exports dealing in large-scale production of biofuel opens up direct and indirect job opportunities and
possible rural development. It is a blessing for the current energy crisis from the fossil fuels. World Watch
has identified in its survey that currently, biofuels provides around 9% of the total global energy demand
and around 1% of transport fuels from crops grown on approximately 1% of all arable land. The
international transport sector is the main driver behind biofuel production.
Despite its benefits and other positive impacts on the general mass the perception of rural & agriculture
development through biofuel production has not been properly investigated as it is related with
agricultural activities mainly. Controversial land deals to safe-guard the developed nation’s food security
can put the small scale farmers out of the picture. Organizations like FAO argues that there are threats and
opportunities with liquid biofuels programs while Oxfam discusses displacement of vulnerable
communities as one of the side effects of biofuels, especially those one whose land rights are not well
protected. And countries like Brazil showing successful experiences with large scale projects is leading
the race in biofuel production could in turn monopolize the culture.
We are trying to identify many of those answers within the different biofuels programs that are carried out
in developing countries. Taking India as case-study we aim to untangle the differences on empirical ideas
of biofuels productions/programs and to see if biofuels produced locally can actually aid poor keeping
them as main target.
Aim & Objectives
The aim of the project is to contribute the knowledge in the field of global poverty reduction by assessing
the potentiality of biofuels to promote economical activities for the rural poor people.
- 109-

Objectives of the project are to study;
• The current biofuel production trends
• The relation of biofuel and poverty
• The current agricultural practices for biofuel production
• The national policies influencing biofuel production and agriculture to reduce poverty
• Whether specific energy crop can help alleviate poverty in developing countries (India case-study)
Methodology
Sufficient time was given to develop the theoretical framework in consultation with team members, which
later was transformed into the structure of the report. The project findings and analysis are a desktop study
based on group meetings and discussi ons and evaluated the knowledge further. Several literatures were
also used as reference to support our analysis, findings and recommendations. To realize the aim we
followed a case-study pattern and took India as our subject.
Limitations
Depending on the organizations the findings/results of several documents were conflicting giving
impaired accuracy of the data. Further, consultations were not carried out so unclear over the reactions of
the experts on the burning issues The study was carried out based on pre-mature biofuel policies and
practices, therefore it is not a fully developed example or case to analyze the poverty alleviation matter
with biofuel We have delimited our study on the grounds of global food security, energy crisis, trade and
other investments, environmental impacts due to production of biofuels.
Theoretical Framework
Fig 8: Theoretical Framework
- 110-

Context
Biofuel production globally
Histor y of Biofuels
Biofue l as a sustainable option for energy source has resumed focus since 1970s carrying an unbinding
hist ory in energy sector. The 1970s and 1990s oil crisis (Worldwatch, 2006), high market prices and
environmental impacts has made biofuel production exceptional in last few decades (Escobar, J.C., et al.,
2008). Currently, biofuels provides around 9% of the total global energy demand (Worldwatch, 2006) and
around 1% of transport fuels from crops grown on approximately 1% of all arable land - 14 million
hectares and projection to increase at a rate of 7% per year to meet 4% of road-transport fuel demand by
biofuels by 2030 (IEA, 2006). Theoretically, fermentation of sugar from crops, animal fat or vegetable oil
has been used for ethanol production (1 st generation biofuel) and additionally Fischer-Tropsch process,
which is also known as Biomass-To-Liquids (BTL), converts the cellulose from sugar-cane bagasse,
Jatropha, woodchips, leaves, agricultural or forest residue, sweet sorghum stalk etc for the production of
2 nd generation biofuel (Worldwatch, 2006). Biomass can only contribute a small portion of the total
global energy demand, which will be around 150EJ by 2050 (Azar, C. 2008 and Appendix I, diagram 1)
but 1000EJ (Worldwatch, 2006) can be achieved if significant focus on high yield agronomy, efficient
technology is acknowledged.
Biofuel production vs. consumption
(a)
(b)
Fig 9a: Global (a) Ethanol (b) Biodiesel production Source: FO Licht 2006
(a)
(b)
Fig 2b: (a) Global Exporter (b) Global Importers in Ethanol in 2005 Source: FO Licht 2006
- 111-

Currently the world produces 32.2 billion liters of biofuels, Brazil and the US being the leaders in ethanol
production shares 89% of the ethanol production against 11% by rest of the world (Worldwatch, 2006). As
from the chart above Brazil dominates the export of biofuels with a volume of 48% traded and the US
importing 18% of the volume traded (FO Licht, 2006). Brazil marks its double supply from the global
need for biofuel. This might put some pressure on land in Brazil and rise in food prices due to its
production from several feed stocks. The diagram also shows that, USA, Netherlands and Germany are the
net importing countries among both exporter and importer increasing global biofuel production and trade
(Appendix I diagram II).
Current agricultural practices for Biofuel
Traditional agricultural system is directly related with biofuel production as most biofuel is derived from
crops. The crop production, climatic conditions or crop harvesting in a year varies from region to region in
the world giving different agricultural practices. This agricultural practice also varies on land ownership
pattern and by land reform policies. However, the so-called "market-based land reform” has changed the
fate in South Africa, Brazil, Colombia and Guatemala eventually creating more problem rather than
finding more solutions (MST 2002) as they neglected landless farmers. Comparative study of the ethanol
production from different feedstock shows that sugar cane and sugar beet, palm and Jatropha and Sweet
Sorghum have the higher productivity (liter/hectare) of biofuels (Worldwatch, 2006). Thus this different
type of feedstock might change the practice of agriculture, farming land etc; as Jatropha and sweet
Sorghum can be grown on dry arid land. This can tremendously influence the root level farmer to choose
the feedstock according to their limitations and correct their productivity tables to augment their family
incomes, but this should be done under right guidance to choosing the feedstock
Fig 3: Biofuel Productivity from different feedstock Source: Fulton et. al
- 112-

Poverty and Poverty alleviation programmes
Background
The World Bank has defined extreme poverty as ‘living less than $1 a day’, which means unable to afford
the most basic necessities to ensure survival. Lack of knowledge and good skills in a group was widely
given as a main cause of poverty (FAO, 1995). A billion people of the 21st century are unable to read a
book or sign their names and less than 1% of expenditure what the world spends every year on weapons
should be assigned to put every child into school by the year 2000 (GI, 2008) which we haven’t achieved.
Economically, the poor are deprived of income, resources, and opportunities. Markets and jobs are often
difficult to access, because of low capabilities and geographical and social exclusion. Since one of the
central characteristics of the poor is that they are significantly rural, and the agro-rural sector is the
predominant provider of employment for the rural poor, agricultural productivity growth is likely to have
a significant impact on poverty. As per (World Bank 1998) estimate in 1987 the figure was 1.184 billion
which got reduced to 1.174 billion people in 1998 shows a weak decline. But this depends on the poverty
rates which ultimately depend on the actual number of poor. A significant decline in China and East Asia
is observed while stagnancy in Latin America and Africa. According to estimates made by IFAD the
percentage of the rural poor is close to 75 per cent of all the world’s poor. While most of these rural poor
(around 68 per cent) live in South and East Asia, sub Saharan Africa is inhabited by 24 per cent of the
world’s rural poor. Consequently, agriculture being the largest part of the rural economy in most
developing countries can have lead role to play in pro-poor growth.
Poverty reduction programmes and the outcome
Leaders of all countries, including the G-8, agreed on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce
poverty by 2015 (G8, 2000). MDG’s policies to eradicate poverty by 2015 gave the platform for
international partnership and alliances. UNDP’s anti-poverty plans for developing countries help and coordinate
national activities and build support, but success of poverty reduction depends on proper linking
poverty to national policies, linking countries international policies to poverty and good governance
(UNDP, 2000). However, high food prices can threaten these poverty plans worldwide.
”…the recent increases in the price of food have had a direct and adverse effect on the poor. Poor people
who do not produce their own food are the most severely hurt because a larger proportion of their
expenditure is allocated to food. Higher food prices limit their ability to obtain not only food but also
other essential goods and services, including education and health care. Higher food prices may push 100
million people deeper into poverty” (UN, 2008).
Since the net food crop importing countries of the world is four times higher than the exporter country
(FAO, 2007) so influence of price would be significant.
Biofuel production and poverty alleviation
With such worldly demography on poverty, can biofuel be a solution for poverty alleviation In many
national policies and agro-based development plans biofuel has been considered as a tool for rural
development now (Biofuel policy for India, 2008). In terms of adapting challenges on-farm, economies of
scale especially in ethanol production are likely to favor large-scale production
of Biofuels. However, It is
difficult to generalize about the impacts of biofuels on poor people because of different feedstock and
production systems; varying downstream (transportation) costs; existing (non-energy crop) production and
processing patterns and patterns of land holding (Peskett, L. et. al. 2007). With these criteria in mind a
case-study on India, whose economy is agro based, is observed to actually reveal whether biofuels can
help in poverty reduction.
- 113-

Influence of Biofuel in agro based economy
Global agriculture productivity patterns
The global agricultural production examined doubling of agriculture productivity according to the diagram
provided (Appendix I, diagram III), with initial increase of productivity in agriculture sector a 40% rise in
active farmers in 2000 underpinned the conditions for producers, particularly when they did not receive
any incentives to expand production (Employment Strategy papers, 2004). Further more, inspite of the
increased petroleum prices raising the prices of fertilizers and other inputs, expansion and productivity
carved its path for even quadrupling (FAO, 2008). However, the output remained unchanged for
developed countries between 1990 and 2006, but gained momentum after 2006 leaving least developed
countries with a downward graph (FAO, 2008).
Based on FAO’s report (2008) the production of agricultural goods is monitoring developing economies.
Dogmatic on their position of traditional exporters, some countries will not bulge while some like Ukraine
and Kazakhstan will increase their wheat production; similar trend can be seen in Latin America region
with other commodity markets. But what could be the factors that are affecting such enormous growth;
labour could be one good factor determining the productivity. Also land components, fertilizers and
tractor use signifies a lot in production of grains thus changing the patterns of the productivity
(Employment Strategy papers, 2004)
Estimations carried out by FAO shows that global average yields for wheat and coarse grains should
increase by around one percent between 2006 and 2015. This increase in yield, which is linked with
technology, will observe sustained productivity and competition within the international market until 2015
where a slow decline is likely to take place. Experiences from Asia-Pacific region showed remarkable
progress where technology has played an important role in the increase of production, e.g. in rice, maize,
pulses, sugarcane, oil crops, rubber and horticultural crops (FAO, 2008) (Appendix I, diagram 4).
Biofuel policies and Large Scale bio-energy producers to reduce poverty
There are general views on modern bio-energy, representing a new source for demand on agricultural
commodities, which can be translated in the long term opportunities for agricultural and rural development
(FAO, 2008). Cynical or supporter of this complex issue holds the main argument whether growing
energy crops will lead to new market opportunities for farmers. There is no doubt that there will be rise in
food prices, but we sure don’t have all the hints on the role of biofuels in rural development, as Diouf
(2008) argues that:
“The future of biofuels and the role they will play for agriculture and food security remain uncertain.
There are many concerns and challenges to be overcome if biofuels are to contribute positively to an
improved environment as well as to agricultural and rural development”
(Jacques Diouf, 2008, FAO, The state of food and agriculture, p. viii)
As high international prices prompting major intervention policies by many countries, FAO sees an
opportunity within primary sector in these countries to refresh their agriculture sector. However, based on
investments in infrastructure, institutions and technology, promoting access to productive resources
particularly by smallholders and marginalized groups such as women and minorities, agriculture can truly
serve as an engine of growth and poverty reduction (FAO, 2008). It is important to understand that the
main force behind governmental policies towards biofuel programs have to do primary with climate
change and energy security and secondly with the desire to support the farm sector through increased
demand for agricultural products. Some of those policies that pretend to improve the benefits of biofuels
for small farmers would require:
- 114-

• Investment in biodiesel which is more pro-poor than ethanol production, due to some characteristic like
lower transportation, low technology requirements, not in need of economies of scale and is already a
smallholder activity. Another requirement is policies pro small farmers; example quotas for procurement
of feedstock from family farms.
• Biofuels production can be complementary to other types of agricultural production; Food security,
complementary enterprises, and create linkages and multipliers. (Peskett, et al., 2007)
The monitoring of small scale and large scale models expresses different threats and opportunities; for e. g.
large scale production enterprise in Brazil stimulates service development in rural communities into direct
employment if improved infrastructure is deployed. The sector has created around 2200 direct jobs (1600
agric; 600 production) and 660 indirect jobs within the service and support sector (Clancy, 2007). On the
other hand large-scale energy production has dark side to health and poorly paid work. According to the
MST, the movement of landless peasants in Brazil addressed zero sum game when the LS model
weakened the ground for the creation of new jobs and worse biofuels cultivation drove out the small
farmers (Meyer von Bremen, 2008). Another side effect of LS biofuels production is the displacing of
vulnerable communities, especially those ones that their land rights are not well protected. It is well know
that access to land is a fundamental precondition in realizing the potential role of agriculture and biofuel
production in reducing poverty and balancing the agriculture economy (Oxfam, 2008).
It is important to be aware of the threats and opportunities with liquid biofuel programmes, especially
those programmes that are focusing on other types of agriculture. Where it can add value to the products
of small farmers, but at the same time if regulatory policies are not present, the programs can also lead to a
concentration of ownership, excluding the poorest farmers and driving them deeper into poverty. Some of
the policies can be framed within the cooperative sector, by environmental certification and so on (FAO,
2008b).
Change in livelihoods with Biofuels
The International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) sees energy crops, to produce sustainable
biofuels by family farmers, as a good opportunity to achieve profitability and to revive rural communities.
According to FAO involving smallholder farmers within the production of biofuels is crucial for equity
and employment. Hayman (2002) argues that many energy crop projects have succeeded when small
farmers are involved in the production process due to the flexibility of the group (FAO, 2008). ‘The fact
that small farmers joining together is considered to be essential if they are able to match even one large
scale production crop, or get the opportunity to become a part owner in the refinery process, thus gaining
some of the real profits’ (Meyer von Bremen, 2008). According to the IFA, sustainable development of
biofuels programs depends on policy frameworks, especially if biofuels are produced from local resources,
can create employment and wealth, the importance of the role of the government with the policy
development especially to benefit small farmers is very critical (FAO, 2008). But the Swedish
Cooperative Centre in their report “Fuel for development” argues that farmers’ level of knowledge on
energy crops is poor and that needs crucial advisory services, seed and research to subsidies and market
development. The center also argues that it is very important to have organization of the cooperative
sector (Meyer von Bremen, 2008).
Biofuel influencing supplementary enterprises
According to the FAO’s 2008 report on the State of Food and Agriculture, biofuels will play a modest role
within the energy sector. Much bigger will be the impacts on agriculture and food security. At the same
time estimation from the World Bank shows that biofuels are responsible for the increase of food prices,
which has increase around 83% within the last three years and suggest as well that biofuels have
endangered the livelihoods of nearly 100 million people (World Bank, 2008). If this proves to be correct
- 115-

then will farmers adopt different enterprise e.g. sericulture to sustain their livelihood and do we see failure
of biofuel strategies and development
Another focus area would be does different enterprise will help in boosting biofuel if it is failing and how
long Of course this is the limitation of this study, but it will be worth gleaming onto the idea. As the price
of foodstuffs increase due to a number of factors such as the oil price, harvest quality and economic
development, demand for energy, the situation will reduce surplus production and risk of price dumping
on the markets of the third world. This effect will benefit the small farmer and boost their economies not
just for energy crops, but for other crops as well (Oxfam, 2008).
Case-Study: India
Problem Analysis
The reflection of estimated poverty line over actual poor rams the journalistic articles on the subtle issue
of poverty in India. Estimated all-India poverty of 28.7 per cent in rural areas, 25.9 per cent in urban areas
and 27.9 per cent overall describes significant advancement in this area (Himanshu, 2007). But India still
struggles for basic requirements. Current monthly amount of INR 359 (USD 7$) does not fulfills nutrition,
health care, access to water, access to shelter and sanitation, costs of energy, clothing requirement, right to
education, access to all-weather roads and public transport and miscellaneous expenditure that requires
INR 840 (USD 17$) per month by a family (Guruswamy and Abraham, 2006). How does government
plan to replenish the gap in the expenditure Nationwide progress depends on the involvement
organizations willing to make a change. The investments done to improve identified loose areas are
minimal both from government’s as well as private sector’s sack, especially in rural areas. 75 per cent of
poverty of the total originates from crisis in Indian agriculture, a huge gap between rural and urban India
due to underdeveloped agriculture (Himanshu, 2007). As more funds flow in service sector a good chunk
of investment is diverted thus neglecting the agriculture sector. Poverty reduction programme will fail if
there is no sufficient improvement in agriculture productivity. Yet 30 per cent of India’s GDP is
contributed by agriculture. The current problem is that most rural poor own small pieces of land that
prevent them from transitioning to high-value agriculture. There is an inverse relationship between the
poverty rate and the size of land holdings (Meenakshi and Ray 2007). The legal and family dispute often
fragments even the 2.0 ha of land, thus giving less opportunity for productivity.
Agriculture productivity patterns and Legislations
Rising food demand and increase in world population cannot expect increasing the cultivated acreage, but
probable improvement in farm productivity can exfoliate this fact. It is utmost important to know the
agriculture productivity to understand how poverty is related. The growth of the agricultural productivity
depends on the land conditions, water resources, soil deterioration, in addition to an improvement of
agricultural technology. The agricultural productivity in India has declined while the service sector is
booming affecting the poor of the nation. In spite of India having ample scope to increase its yields of
several major crops substantially the practices and technical know-how is not enhancing the productivity.
Traditional agriculture is patterned on a single annual crop and a single harvest, i.e., only one planting
season in a year. With predetermined harvesting system and less use of high yield seeds will deceive
productivity although the average yield of food grains has gone up to two tons per hectare, and in some
cases, even up to three tons per hectare, after the Green Revolution (Robert et. al. 1999). But in recent
years there is fall back in productivity, leading to less sale of the crops and income in the family. Thus, the
role of agriculture R&D can critically enhance the productivity by shifting its resource and input based
growth to knowledge and science based applications. Similarly, in marginal and disadvantaged areas
where it is difficult to expand irrigation, technological advancements complemented with institutional and
policy support can improve productivity but it has not picked its momentum.
- 116-

The growth of the agricultural productivity also depends on various environmental factors and space
distribution of the crop production. Moreover, monitoring of the farming area in cultivating stage is
effective, because the amount of harvest is insufficient, effective use of right fertilizers can enhance the
productivity. From a global perspective, increasing the productivity of agriculture, given the fixity of land,
is necessary for both poverty reduction and the development of the non-agricultural sector. Productivity
also depends on the land holdings, most Indian farmers they hold small lands which makes it difficult for
high yields due to legal and family disputes.
Besides physical amenities affecting the productivity legislations have been identified to pose significant
threat in India (Rural 21, 2008). Land reform legislation usually refers to redistribution of land from the
rich to the poor consisting of four main categories: tenancy reform, guarantees security of tenure and
fair crop shares for tenants; abolition of intermediaries, brings the cultivator of the land in direct
contact with the government; land ceiling, which imposed an upper limit on landholdings and aimed to
redistribute surplus land to the landless; and land consolidation, unifying small bits of land into a single
holding to boost viability and productivity. Although efficiency can be achieved by breaking up large farm
land into smaller land farm (which is contradictory with land consolidation) and converting sharecropping
land to owner cultivated plots but productivity solely depends on types of land reforms and variations
across states. Land ceiling could be the sword on decreasing productivity as purpose of land produce
changes when it is fragmented without understanding the land conditions thus leading to deterioration.
Policy inadequacy and indirect unintended negative consequences have affected productivity significantly.
More focus should be given to tenancy reforms to have positive effects. Thus methods in productivity
increase could be the way to reiterate green revolution of 1960 and a fair chance for energy crops for
biofuels, rather inflating food prices would not have to happen if right energy crops are chosen.
Policies influencing Biofuels & Agriculture in India
On September 12 th 2008 the Indian government announced a new national biofuel policy: By 2017 it will
aim to meet 20% of India’s diesel demand with fuel derived from plants rather than fossils (Ritu Jain,
2008). It means setting aside 14M hectares of land for the growth of energy crops i.e. Jatropha in this case,
a key biofuel raw material. This is to make the biofuel production four-fold from the current 5% blending
thus to be less dependent on fossil-fuel. However, it has already met quite some resistance due to rise in
food prices, but policy promotes crops to be cultivated only on waste lands leading corn and soy biofuel
plantations coming up in parts of the country unsuitable for tropical biofuel crops affecting productivity.
Another objective would be if the policy promotes agriculture development Most agricultural land are
leased land from industries, while some uses land allocated by government. This will further agitate the
Food vs. Fuel debate, increasing food production will in turn depend upon Indian Railways’ ability to
transport more fertilizer and insecticide to farmers, more crops to processing plants, and to distribute more
foodstuffs, fruits and vegetables to markets (Biofuel Digest, 2008).
However, the policy promotes plantation on waste and degraded land, which will be discussed in
consultation with Gram Panchayat through Gram Sabha and intermediate and District Panchayats. The
policy also envisages supporting cultivation by way of fixing Minimum Support Price (MSP) at which a
biofuel dealer can sell the fuel to the consumer. It also aims the necessary plantations for providing
employment under NREGP (National Rural Employment Guarantee Plan).The policy supports production
of sugarcane for biofuels. It also encourages the sale of biofuel in indigenous markets and prohibits
exports (Ritu Jain, 2008). However, will biofuel production actually boosts agriculture and change
livelihoods of rural areas
- 117-

Family farm
For the understanding of the Family farm it is an important criterion to incorporate biofuel into the Indian
agricultural sector. With a family working together on a farm to earn a meager living supplemented by off
farm labour, puts the average net income of a small farm at about $700 US per year (Hemme, 2003).
Search area would be will Biofuel add an extra income to a family To fulfill 10,600 calories per day
needed by a family of two adults, an adolescent and two children pulses and leafy green vegetables has
made the recommended diet more feasible (Srikantia, 1984) which, incidentally, making owning of
animals economically viable (Sahai, 2006). But educational opportunities are lacking and diminishing
with age in rural areas (Social Context, 2004). Thus, families are surviving but without the prospect of
achieving stability. The transition from subsistence to cash crop production saw widespread farmers’
suicides since the 1990s. During the past decade India saw arable land shrinking and urban expansion
gobbling thousands of acres leading to mass suicide of more than 25,000 Indian farmers. Large-scale
industrial agribusiness not shining, and farmers with little hope of finding employment elsewhere, a
sustainable way should be found out for them to earn a decent living. But faced with the demands of a
more centralized market, Indian farmers have been expected to grow crops with the technology and a
mindset of a developed nation on small plots of land less than 1 ha to 2 ha (Chandra, 2006). Also, the
cropping systems and seed-saving practices developed over generations by Indian farmers are not
compatible with the large-scale, chemical-based production models touted by Western companies which
sometimes rely on seed that cannot be saved for the next season. To keep biodiversity and sustaining their
own autonomy will make small farming viable economically, so also to adopt technologies with which
they today are unfamiliar. Besides crop variety farmers should also stand by the drought dilemma forcing
them to settle somewhere else. Farming of crops resistant to drought could be an imperative solution then
(Drought in India, 2007).
Does biofuel production boosts rural development and farming techniques
As biofuel policy promotes usage of wastelands and degraded land, the Jatropha Carcus plant takes the
lead in supporting biofuel as it can be grown on any marginal land resistant to drought. Giving much
higher yield in oil over other energy crops and as advantageous as sugarcane crop, Jatropha is being
favoured for the production of biofuel. Nearly 30 million ha of wasteland are available for Jatropha
cultivation as told by former President of India APJ Abdul Kalam (ISIS, 2007). Several states in India are
already on the track for Jatropha cultivation and the Ministry of Rural Development estimates that there
would be nearly 60 000 ha of Jatropha cultivation. Another crop in line to burn for fuel is sweet Sorghum.
Biofuel is at the moment in limelight for massive diversion of essential food crops into its production, but
it needs not be, if the right kind of crops for production are known. Sweet Sorghum could be ideal energy
crop for biofuel production. It serves both purposes of fuel as well as food, only the stalk of the crop is
used while grains are reserved for food or livestock feed. It is highly advantageous for small hold farmers
to increase their income by 20% then any other alternative crop (IPS, 2008). Since a less demanding
edible commodity it will not alter food security. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics (ICRISAT) developed the first commercial ethanol plant running on Sorghum with other 800
farmers in India. Using less resources than sugarcane to produce one unit of ethanol and grown on
already-farmed dry lands that are low in carbon storage capacity, the issue of clearing rainforest, of great
concern for oil palm and sugarcane, does not apply. In India, ethanol from sweet sorghum is processed for
$0.29 per liter, so it readily competes with sugarcane-based ethanol, which costs $0.33 per liter (Sorghum
cultivation, 2007). Technically speaking there would not be any food insecurity but there will some
pressure on the land. About 2,500 plants can be planted in a hectare, and seed yields range from 0.75 to
2.0 t ha -1 (Maheshwari and Raik, 2007). Through hybridization, ICRISAT scientists have developed a
variety of sorghum that can be planted year-round rather than only during the crop season (Eureka, 2007).
Hybridization has also increased yields. In the rainy season of 2006 in India, an especially productive
sorghum hybrid had cane yields of 57.8 t ha -1 & grain yields of 5.08 tha -1 , up from the mean yields of 35.0
- 118-

t ha -1 & 4.6 t ha -1 (Reddy, 2007). With such great yields a definite distillery for ethanol production would
give number of jobs revitalizing impoverish rural areas within secure land ownership. With no pressure on
the main farm land for cultivation and less of irrigation water the farmers would be in double benefit of
earning from main-crop farming as well from energy crop farming. The introduction of distilleries and
other technical know-how will improve the infrastructure of a particular village/region. The rise in
earnings of that area can earn them involvement of government in a fruitful way. With biofuel as a
subsidiary there will be increase in the main crop productivity thus poor public expenditure on agriculture
will be enhanced including its investments and research. It will regulate the agricultural trade keeping an
eye on the price risks. It will strengthen the institutions and the natural resource management alongwith
delivery of basic services. The description above shows a promising ambience that if these two energy
crops are realized for biofuel production, without jeopardizing the food security, farmers can augment
their incomes.
Can Jatropha help the poor
Government seems to be ready to invest INR 20,000 /Acre (410 $/acre) but estimated cost is INR 25,000
/Hectare (Lele, 2008) see table 1.0. Vast differences in gallons per acre of Jatropha oil can double the
return sale for farmers if, under irrigation. The yield is doubled from 375 gallons per hectare to 750
gallons but on the other hand it will be worrisome for those who depend on irrigation to cultivate their
regular crash crop (Lele, 2008). The 5000ha of Jatropha planted in four states of India (Andhra Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu) yielded 375T of seeds giving production of 5 tons per hectare of
seeds with sudden rise from 0.4 tons/hectare after 3 yrs (GFU, GTZ, 2004). The government sells the
saplings to the farmers at subsidy rate of INR 2-4/Kg giving them freedom to sell the seeds to the higher
bidder but this will not be the case if there is private investor and farming is done under contract. The
private investor will always want the seeds to be returned to him and thus diminishing the margin of profit
for the farmers. In either case of government or private investor farming under contract will diminish the
profit margins of farmers. The seeds are sold between INR 7/Kg – INR 10/Kg seeds while fruits are sold
at INR 4/Kg – INR 5/Kg this may vary from region to region and sometimes can even reach to INR 15/kg
(Lele, 2008). The yield of 5kg seeds per plant from 3250 plants per ha can earn up to 16-16.5 t/ha or a
maximum of INR 162,500 /year based on INR 10/Kg for seeds. So to get INR 162,500 /year/ha initially
there will be some slack time of 2yrs for the return but in subsequent years the return rate could be 1.5
times based on the harvesting i.e. investors can earn INR 243,750 in a year which brings them to earn INR
20,000/month (430USD) (GFU, GTZ, 2004) which is a comfortable amount for a farmer. However, it is
not clear, whether investment made into Jatropha planting does pay off from this income. Biofuel can act
as a secondary source of income but alleviating poverty to the extent expected will only be seen from the
pattern of productivity and harvesting systems.
- 119-

Table 1: Employment generation and costs in Jatropha plantation, source: www.svlele.com
Employment in
Cost (Rs.)
person days
S.No Item
Year Year
Ist IInd Ist IInd
1 Site preparation i.e. cleaning and levelling of field - 10 Man Days 600 10
2 Alignment and staking, 5 Man Days 300
3
Digging of pits (2500 Nos) of 30 Cm 3 size @ 30 pits per Man Day, 50
Man Days
3,000 50
4
Cost of Manure (including transport) 2 Kg. per pits during 1st year (2
MT) 1 Kg. per pit during second year onwards @ Rs. 400/MT
2,000 20
5
Cost of fertilizer @ Rs. 6 per kg (50 gm. Per plant during 1st year and
25 gm from 2nd year onward and 2 Man Days for each application.
870 495 2 1
6
Mixing of Manure, insecticides fertilizers and refilling of pits @100
pits per Man Day 25 Man Days
1,500 25
7
Cost of plants (including carriage) 2500 Nos. during first year and 500
10,000 2,000
Nos. of plants during second year for replanting @ Rs. 4 per plant.
100 20
8
Planting and replanting cost 100 plants per Man Day.- 25 Man Days
and 5 Man Days, respectively
1,500 300 25 5
9
Irrigation - 3 irrigation during 1st and one irrigation during 2nd year @
1,500 500
Rs. 500/- per irrigation.
5 2
10 Weeding and soil working 10 Man Days. x 2 times for 2 years 1,200 1,200 20 20
11 Plant protection measure 300 1
Sub total 22,770 4,495 263 48
Contingency (approx. 10% of the above) 2,230 505
Grand Total 25,000 5,000 263 48
Discussion
High market prices and environmental impacts from fossil fuels have put biofuel on track. High yield
agronomy and efficient technology is emphasized. From the findings Brazil & USA shares nearly 89% of
ethanol production with their high yield and improved technology and exporting nearly 48% but this could
result in monopoly of the trade. The import business might not help the farmers of the least developed
countries, where the government in LDCs is diverting the money flow in buying the fuel rather than
utilizing it for development of agriculture and local biofuels production. Ensuring energy and food
security of both developing & developed nations seems to be the next face of international development
and here we will witness how the world leaders will play their political game. How will be the fair-share
of the available resources specially land and water resources; knowing that land and water has been and
are an extremely sensitive source nowadays. With rising food prices and poverty at bottle neck biofuel is
taking the swing to put the poverty really behind, but it is really difficult to judge based on feedstock &
production systems whether rural areas will be able to meet the demand of nation and world to put
themselves in the shoes of rich. From the report findings also suggests that several LDCs are either
affected environmentally or economically, when the agricultural productivity is experiencing a downward
graph while biofuel is in demand the farmers earnings are jeopardized. The debate of improving
technology in agriculture is on the other hand showing an optimistic way of uplifting farmers giving a
possibility that improving technology can precipitate biofuels in the minds and lands of least developed
countries. For such an awakening large scale production is required, which will open job opportunities.
- 120-

But looking at Brazil’s landless peasants movement if proper leadership is not identified small scale
farmers will be left out affecting them negatively. Thus biofuels improving the livelihoods
of local
farmers actually depend on the efficient technology right from harvesting till production.
The technology improvement also focuses on climate change and energy security
and also to support the
farm sector but this should be focused more by the government when promot ing biofuels. This
brings in
the rig ht and correct policies to support biofuels to alleviate the problems related with production and
poverty. Policies that ensure land tenancy for small farmers and regulate the use of land from big land
owners are essential for sustainable development, especially if poverty programs are to be successful as it
is stated by several international organizations. From this perspective Meyer Von Bremen discusses that
farmers can benefit themselves if they join hands together for the large scale productions. A cooperative
farmi ng is required to ensure the ownership in the refinery to earn the profits a nd see a place in the
economic race. But looking at the case-study of India if current 7USD does not fulfills the mandates of
safe h ealth MDG’s extereme poverty level definition is inappropriate keeping aside th e 75% poverty
arising from agriculture sector. Further legislations in India are making a backward run in productivity by
fragmenting the land and not concentrating the conditions of land affecting the produc tion of biofu
el. The
new policy for biofuel in India is striving hard but we cannot comment on its profile now as it was
launched in September 2008 and undergoing amendments, but it is seen as a sword to kill the povert y. It
mentions development of wasteland which is a good sign overall for land resolution.
Governmental
authority or NGOs can take the role in providing high-tech hybrid crops to the farmer for higher
production. The policy also involves local institutions thus a chance of cooperation movement. The
strength of biofuels, as we will put it, is when a farmer can earn INR 20,000 per month from selling their
see ds and increasing their margin of profit. This is a comfortable amount from an alternative source of
income proving biofuel can actually support poor. Once can imagine the job openings, monthly earnings,
ownership and alternative income in several other developing countries if biofuel is produced locally.
Thus
from India’s case-study to promote biofuel production legislations and policies should go hand in
hand with cooperating services and technological advancement, but which is not the case worldwide
driving poor backward in this rat race.
Conclusion & Recommendations
Biofuels can aid to poverty alleviation but when the large-scale production is considered without proper
guidance and national policies there would be several controversial land deals leaving the small scale
farmers landless. If the situation continues to remain, on the longer run this will move the small-scale
farmers into deeper poverty. Thus based on right selection of feedstock and proper national and regulatory
policy promoting biofuels programme will be only beneficiary for them. The right direction with effective
technology and tools for developing biofuels considering grass root farmers can also aid in upliftment. We
recommend from discussion and conclusion following;
• Proper national policies or scale of biofuels production should be planned based on the regional
and long run benefits considering cooperative farming and the local people involved.
• Strong focus on ensuring the land tenancies of small farmers, which will in fact ensures their
social & financial stability.
• Technical guidance, information availability of improved variety of Jatropha and sweet Sorghum
plants, introduction of high yield hybrid energy crops, marketing facility emphasizing benefits for
the poor, adequate training for acquiring skills for Jatropha cultivation should be identified
• Jatropha can be considered as an alternative income source on the long term basis which needs to
be complemented with supplementary enterprise.
• Farmers should be given freedom to sell the seeds to the higher bidder increasing their margin of
profits and actually proving that biofuel production can alleviate poverty.
- 121-

References consulted
Ahead. Eds. Kakoli Ghosh and Paul C. Jepson. 2006. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 18
Sept. 2007 on: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0802e/a0802e.pdf accessed on 2008.11.02
Chandra, Subash, D.K. Singh, and A.K. Singh. “Intensive Agriculture and Precision Farming for Poverty Alleviation
in India.” Presented at the 18th World Congress of Soil Science, 15 July 2006, Philadelphia. 18 Sept. 2007 on:
http://crops.confex.com/crops/wc2006/techprogram/P19079.HTM accessed on 2008.10.25
Clancy, J.2007. ODI: biofuels, energy and poverty. On:
http://www.rrbconference.com/bestanden/downloads/132.pdf. accessed on 2008.11.01
Drought in India: Challenges and Initiatives.” Poorest Areas Civil Society. 17 Sept. 2007 on :
http://www.empowerpoor.com/downloads/drought1.pdf accessed on 2008.11.07
Escobar, J.C., et al., Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2008),
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.08.014.United Nations (2008), The Millennium Development Goals Report, New York,
2008
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/The%20Millennium%20Development%20Goals%20Report%202008.pdf
accessed on 2008.11.12
Eureka its ethanol! SATrends Issue 79. International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid tropics. June 2007,
13 Sept. 2007 on: http://www.icrisat.org/satrends/june2007.htm accessed on 2008.11.24
FAO (1995), Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Corporate Document Repository, Poverty
Perceptions Among Rural Herders and Sum Inhabitants of Chuluut Sum, Arkhangai Aimag, Mongolia, 1995,
X5997/E, FAO (2007), on: http://www.ifpri.org/media/20071204AGM/AGMfindings.asp accessed on 2008.11.27
FAO, 2008. The State Of Food And Agriculture. Rome. On: http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0100e/i0100e00.htm.
accessed on 2008.11.04
FO Licht. World Ethanol & Biofuels Report 2006; various issues.
Azar, C. (2008). Biomassfor energy, Presentation to the Conference “The immoral biofuel” Royal Swedish
Academy for Agriculture and Forestry Stockholm, 23 October 2008
G8 (2000), Global Poverty Report, Okinawa Summit July 2000, on:
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/extme/G8_poverty2000.pdf accessed on 2008.11.14
Global Issues (2008), Poverty Facts and Stats, on: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty accessed on
2008.11.15
Hemme, Torsten, Otto Garcia, and Amit Saha. “India—Household, whole farm, and dairy enterprise level.” IFCN
Dairy. April 2003. 18 Sept 2007 on: http://www.ifcndairy.org/specialstudies/2003/2003-04.pdf accessed on
2008.11.24
Himanshu, Recent Trends in Poverty and Inequality: Some preliminary Results, Economic and Political Weekly,
Februar y 10, 2007.
Institute
of Science in Society press release October 2007, UK http://www.i-sis.org.uk/JatrophaBiodieselIndia.php
accesse d on 2008.11.17
Joelle Brink, 2008, Biofuel Digest – India’s new biofuel policy on:
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/09/23/special-biofuels-digest-report-on-indias-new-biofuels-policy/
accessed on 2008.10.21
- 122-

Maheshwari, Prof. R.C., and Dr. S.N. Naik. “Jatropha Curcas [sic.] (Ratan Jyot) and Karanja as a Renewable
Source of Biofuel.” Amity University. Centre for Rural Development and Technology, Indian Institute of
Technology. 29 Sept. 2007 http://www.amity.edu/asnrsd/R.C.Maheswari.ppt accessed on 2008.11.30
Meenakshi, J V., and Ranjan Ray, comps. Impact of Household Size and Family Composition. Vers. 2. July 2000.
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies. 7 Aug. 2007
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/asarc/meenakshi.pdf accessed on 2008.10.10
Maitreesh Ghatak and Sanchari Roy, 2007, Land reform and agricultural productivity in India: a review of evidence,
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol 23, Number 2, http://www.rural21.com/uploads/media/rural_eng_36-
37_05.pdf accessed on 2008.11.04
Meyer von Bremen, A. (2008). Fuel for development. Swedish Cooperative Centre. On:
https://bilda.kth.se/courseId/4114/courseDocsAndFiles.donodeTreeToggleFolder=11592411.
2008.11.01
accessed on
Mohan Guruswamy and Ronald Joseph Abraham, Redefining Poverty, Economic and Political Weekly, June 24-06,
MST (2002), Market-Based Land Reform Policy, http://www.mstbrazil.org/statement041702.html accessed on
2008.11.25
Oxfam. 2008. Another Inconvenient Truth, Oxfam Briefing Paper. On:URL http://www.oxfam.org/files/bp114-
inconvenient-truth-biofuels-0806.pdf accessed on 2008.11.03
Peskett, L., et. al., (2007). Overseas Development Institute, Natural Resource Perspectives: Biofuels, Agriculture and
Poverty Reduction, June 2007. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/specialist/natural-resource-perspectives/107-
biofuels-agriculture-poverty-reduction.pdf accessed on 2008.11.18
Reddy, Belum V.S., S. Ramesh, S.T. Borikar and K. Hussain Sahib. “ICRISAT—Indian NARS partnership
sorghum improvement research: Strategies and impacts.” Current Science 92.7 10 April 2007. Indian Academy of
Sciences. 20 Sept. 2007 http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr102007/909.pdf accessed on 2008.11.24
Ritu S. Jain, 2008, Renewable Energy World, e-Newsletter,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/storyid=53982 accessed on 2008.11.10
Robert E. Evenson, Carl E. Pray, and Mark W. Rosegrant, Agricultural Research and Productivity Growth in India,
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C. 1999. Research Report 109.
h ttp://www.ifpri.org/pubs/ABSTRACT/ABSTR109.HTM accessed on 2008.11.01
Sahai, Suman. “Assessing the Socio-economic Impact of GE Crops.” Genetically Modified Organisms in Crop
Production and Their Effects on the Environment: Methodologies for Monitoring and the Way
Sorghum cultivation can provide ethanol and food, say scientists. India PRwire. 15 Mar. 2007. 20 Sept. 2007
http://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070315/21200.htm accessed on 2008.11.20
Srikantia, S.G. “Interaction between nutrition and agriculture in India.” Interfaces between agriculture, nutrition,
and food science. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1984. United Nations University. 18 Sept. 2007
h ttp://www.unu.edu/Unupress/unupbooks/80478e/80478E10.htm accessed on 2008.11.24
The Social Context of Elementary Education in Rural India.” Azim Premji Foundation. Oct. 2004. 15 Sept. 2007
h ttp://www.azimpremjifoundation.org/downloads/TheSocialContextofElementaryEductaioninRuralIndia.pdf
accessed on 2008.11.07
UNDP (2000), United Nations Development Programme, Executive Summary of Poverty Report 2000,
h ttp://www.lcgbangladesh.org/PovertyIssues/reports/UNDP-2000-Poverty%20Report-Executive%20Summary.pdf
accessed on 2008.11.15
- 123-

World Bank, 2008. Rising Food and Fuel Prices: Addressing the Risk to the Future Generations. ON:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMEXT/Resources/Food-fuel.pdfresourceurlname=Food-Fuel.pdf.
Accessed on 2008.11.01
Worldwatch (2006). Biofuels for Transport: Global potential and implications for sustainable energy and agriculture,
Earthscan publication, UK.IEA (2006). International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006: Fact Sheet-
Biofuels, https://www.oilmarketreport.org/textbase/papers/2006/fs_biofuels.p df, accessed on 2008.11.07
Appendix 1
Diagram 1: Global Energy supply EJ/Year source: Azar. C. 2008
Diagram 2: Flow of Ethanol worldwide source: UNCTAD 2006a
- 124-

Diagram 3: Agriculture production indices total and per capita
Diagram 4: Biofuel yields for different feedstocks and countries
- 125-

Setting up Sustainable Jatropha Oil Production
System: A Local-Community based approach in India
by
Tahmina Ahsan
Michelle Pietsch
Kedar Uttam
Introduction
General Problem
The population of India is more than 1 billion and about two-third live in rural areas (Rural Poverty Portal,
2008). Over the years there has been an increase in the number of rural communities migrating to cities to
overcome the chronic poverty.
Specific Problem
There is a crucial need for creating rural livelihood support so as to reduce massive migration of rural
communities to urban areas. The lack of easy accessibility to fuel and increasing cost of fuel for cooking,
lighting, heating are among the causes that have curbed better livelihood in rural areas of India (Indg,
2008).
Research Questions
• Why is there a necessity of setting up community based Jatropha oil production systems in India
and why do such systems have to be targeted towards the local village market
• How can such Jatropha oil production system be made sustainable
• What are the strategies for setting up local level institutions in order to manage these systems
• What are the various issues and challenges
Limitations and Delimitations
The study is limited in the sense that we have carried out only desk-top study on the identified issues. Due
to time and budget constraints, there was no scope for field visits. However, we carried out telephonic
(and email) interviews with experts dealing with the implementation of community based projects in
India. The study has not dealt with government level policy analysis or incorporated any policy level
recommendations. The study has been restricted to sustainability issues at grassroots level and has not
considered the technological aspects of setting up Jatropha oil production system
- 127-

Aims and Objectives
T he aim of this study is to make a contribution towards the knowledge on developing effective proposals
for empowering rural areas using community based biofuel enterprises.
The objectives involve:
• To assess local fuel needs and the necessity of targeting production systems towards the local
village market
• To devise strategies for establishing sustainable community based Jatropha oil production system
• To understand how local level institutions need to be set up for managing these systems as well to
aid rural empowerment
• To identify various challenges associated with the development of these systems
Theoretical Framework
The study has been conducted based on reports from agencies such as United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Worldwatch Institute, ECDO (University of Amsterdam) and policy
guidelines for biodiesel production developed by Government of Orissa. We have analyzed the
contributions made by the Indian Biofuel Awareness Centre in terms of cost estimations and feasibility
study.
Methodology
The study is based on explanatory method and has involved review of ‘reports on biofuels’ developed by
various international development agencies. A cost benefit analysis (using cost estimations prepared by
Government of Orissa and Indian Biofuel Awareness Centre) was made to deduce an appropriate budget
for establishing a community based Jatropha oil production system. Apart from this, we have inquired
development experts (through interviews) on critical issues that they have considered while implementing
such projects in developing nations
Rural fuel needs and local market
A visit to a rural community in India would reveal two interesting aspects. Firstly, communities’ selfreliance
and creativity in using available energy resources to meet their everyday needs. The second is the
remarkable number of those leading an “off-grid” life (not dependent on grid power) (Lindsay, 2008).
While these capacities of the rural communities have to be greatly appreciated, overlooking these issues
may not be an ideal option. As per the available statistics, for more than 86 per cent of Indian population,
the basic energy requirements are not met by the state (Lindsay, 2008). 80 percent of rural India faces
difficulties in obtaining sufficient cooking fuel (Sampat, 1995).
Throughout rural India, one can find people using kerosene for lighting (kerosene lamps) and biomass for
cooking. And since there is a long way to go in terms of providing grid electricity to rural India,
developing alternative sources of liquid fuels for lighting and cooking is highly imperative. A majority of
households in rural India today use biomass cook stoves, which are very inefficient and smoky with about
10-15 per cent cooking efficiency (Rajavanshi, 2003).
60% of India’s rural population still live in primitive conditions and use 180 million tonnes of biomass
every year for cooking (through traditional stoves), which has been reported to cause serious health
hazards to rural women. Therefore the easy availability of clean and cheap fuel for lighting and cooking
can greatly influence the quality of life of the rural population in India (Rajavanshi, 2006). As a tool for
rural development, production and promotion of Jatropha oil can play an important role in generating
income and increasing the overall quality of life for rural communities. One of the most critical uses for
Jatropha oil is in cooking. If not biomass and traditional stoves, the rural communities need to go for
kerosene as a cooking fuel, the price of which is again a challenge against poverty. The availability of
Jatropha Oil in this context becomes a viable alternative to kerosene (Divyasangam, 2008)
- 128-

From our study, we found that although India has big plans for biodiesel and the government has been
encouraging farmers to cultivate Jatropha, most of these government initiatives have been targeted
towards sufficing the fuel needs of the transport sector (such as Indian Railways). However, there have
been a few Non- Profit organizations or NGOs (such as Winrock International India in Chattisgarh State
of Indi a) that have initiated community based biofuel production units in the rural sector so as to meet the
rural fuel needs. While such NGOs have been implementing small scale biofuel projects with the aid of
international funds, there is a need to formulate strategies so as to enable governing local bodies (called
Village Panchayat in India) and community based organizations (CBOs) in the villages to implement
small scale projects at the village level using the minimal government funds that they receive. A low
inve stment cost system would also make a low risk system (Rademakers and Greco, 2005) .
A biofuel system that is locally oriented-in which farmers produce fuel for their own use- is more likely to
ensure benefits to a rural community. In these situations, farmers may risk bad seasons and poor harvest;
but, by adding value to their own products and using these goods locally, they are also less vulnerable to
external exploitation and disruptive market fluctuations (Worldwatch Institute, 2006).
As per Satish Lele, development expert (personal communication, 23 Nov. 08), for an Indian village, it is
always advisable to initially start with a mere Jatropha oil production system since it is simple and
involves minimum cost. This indicates that the village panchayats should, at the initial stage, avoid trans-
esterification process (converts oil to biodiesel) and go only for the production of Jatropha oil.
For instance, if the communities in the village plant Jatropha on 10 acres of fallow land, they can get at
least 2 tons of Jatropha seeds (500 litres of Jatropha oil) after 1 year, 5 tons of Jatropha seeds (1,250 litres
of Jatropha oil) after 2 years and 10 tons of Jatropha seeds (2,500 litres of Jatropha oil) every year after 3
years. While Jatropha oil, expelled from seeds and filtered through filter press, can replace Kerosene in
both cooking and lighting (lamp) applications, oil alone can also be used in smaller low RPM Engines
(Lele, 2008).
Alongside, there is a need to strengthen the local market for Jatropha products by establishing “effective
supply chains for product delivery, servicing and financing” (DESA, 2007). In the subsequent section, we
discuss a cooperative model for the management of Jatropha Oil production system. The same cooperative
model can be used for establishing local market for Jatropha products. As Koradi (2008) states that basic
supplies (such as water, energy) can very well be secured by cooperative societies. He further mentions
that the marketing of goods can be organized through cooperative societies for the mutual benefit of those
involved. A local marketing mechanism has been discussed in the subsequent section on ‘cooperative
model’.
Sustainability criteria for Jatropha
Sustainability issues related to the production of Jatropha oil has there dimensions:
environmental/ecological issues, social issues and economical issues (TERI, 2008). Environmental, social
and economic sustainability of Jatropha oil depend on the scale of production. Based on the
criteria proposed by TERI (2008) for the development of bio-fuel in the Indian context, we have analyzed
certain issues relevant to the sustainability of small-scale local production of Jatropha oil and deduced
specific strategies to overcome these issues.
- 129-

Environmental and Ecological Issues
Land use pattern
Though Jatropha can grow on degraded land and
marginal land, it needs good quality soil to
produce profitable yields (Asselbergs et al.2006).
On the other hand, large-scale production of
Jatropha can cause the fuel versus food debate by
using the best land for the production of Jatropha
(DESA, 2007).
Loss of biodiversity
The biggest ecological problem of intensified
production of Jatropha is the loss of genetic and
biological diversity (Asselbergs et al., 2006).
Water usage
Jatropha cultivation in arid and semi-arid areas
requires one irrigation per month during summer
months and will be required during the initial 2-3
years (TERI, 2008). Rising level of shortage of
water and projections for further reduction will
prove to be a major limiting factor in Jatropha
production (KnowGenix,2008)
Application of fertilizers
Use of fertilizers to increase the quality of soil can
cause damage to biodiversity or ecological
systems (Asselbergs et al., 2006).
Monoculture plantations
Monoculture-plantations can cause damage to
biodiversity or ecological systems It can pollute
the soil and increase susceptibility to pests, plant
diseases and extreme weather events (Asselbergs
et al.2006)
Social Issues
Strategies
Designated government department/ agencies/
local governing bodies in villages/ panchayats
must identify land suitable for profitable
production of Jatropha. Land for cultivation of
Jatropha must be allocated by the government as
per prevailing Acts of the Revenue Departments on
a regional level
The local governing bodies/ village panchayats
need to address the dominant concerns related to
loss of biodiversity along with the farmers
The village panchayats along with relevant
scientific departments of the government need to
work on a plan that would focus on water
harvesting and efficient irrigation techniques.
Farmer training programs on such techniques need
to be facilitated by the village panchayats.
In the production of Jatropha oil, the processing of
seeds results in an excellent fertilizer that can be
returned to the soil to improve its nutrient content.
Mixed cropping may decrease soil erosion and
increase nutrient levels. Alley cropping reduces
erosion, mitigates problems of monocultures and
increases biodiversity. Residue conservation
decreases nutrient loss erosion (Asselbergs et
al.2006).
Strategies
Land tenure
Unused community land, common grazing land,
forest land is sometimes illegally used by rural
communities for cultivation (Asselbergs et al.,
2006).
Land tenure problems must be clarified, especially
with regard to public lands. Also village panchayat
should ensure that “public lands are not simply
sold to the highest bidder” (Asselbergs et al.,
2006).
Negative health Impacts
There may be health impacts related to Jatropha There would be a need for a mass-awareness
cultivation as Jatropha seed is highly toxic (TERI, amongst the rural population in Jatropha growing
2008) areas as well as amongst the end-users of Jatropha
oil (TERI, 2008).
- 130-

Exploitation of workers
Labourers are often exploited by big farmers &
have to work for low wages under hazardous
conditions, with no long-term security (Asselbergs
et al., 2006).
Food security
Large-scale production can put pressure on food
supplies, especially if agricultural potential and
productive land is used to grow energy crops
instead of food crops (Worldwatch Institute,
2006).
Economic issues
Investment costs and long gestation period
Jatropha crop has a three-year gestation period
before the first significant harvest and cost-benefit
analysis of Jatropha production shows that a
farmer has to spend about $560 in the first three
years, without any accruals (Singh and Kalha,
2006).
Competition with larger plantations
Competition from larger plantations can drive
smaller farmers out of business, or push them to
marginal lands (Asselbergs et al., 2006).
High expectations on fruit yields
When actual yields fail to match the high
expectations on fruit yields and economic returns,
farmers may want to abandon the crop (Asselbergs
et al., 2006)
Sustainability standards and certification schemes
for fair treatment and good working conditions for
workers can ensure that Jatropha is produced in a
responsible manner (Worldwatch Institute, 2006).
The Village Panchayats need to ensure the
compliance of such standards
This is not relevant as we are dealing with small
scale production. However, the panchayats should
use its powers to regulate the excessive plantation
of Jatropha in their villages. Also communities and
panchayat need to arrive at a consensus to maintain
limits in Jatropha Plantation
Strategies
Subsidies would be required for establishing
plantations so that farmers do not have to wait
during the gestation period of three years to get
financial returns. Long-term microcredit facilities,
which are accessible and have moderate interest
rates, can be established (Asselbergs et al., 2006).
The Village Panchayat needs to facilitate the
farmers with such schemes. Also mixed cropping
would reduce dependence on Jatropha and provide
financial stability during the gestation periods.
Smallholder farmers will be able to compete if
they are supported by large organizations such as
farmer cooperatives (discussed in the subsequent
section), village panchayats. Long-term
stakeholder commitment to production of Jatropha
oil is critical. The cooperative also needs to
promote quality standards.
Long-term stakeholder commitment, access to
microcredit facility and subsidy might prevent
farmers from abandoning the crop if they feel
insecure of financial benefits. Cooperatives can
provide security, infrastructure (Asselbergs et al.,
2006) and increased solidarity.
- 131-

Local Level institutions
Co-operative model
“Cooperatives have emerged in times of hardship. They are a product of “difficult” life and work
situations” (Koradi, 2008). In India, where the government has been trying to establish both biodiesel and
ethanol blending facilities in place in certain states, it intends to replicate the success of the country’s
National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). The NDDB model involves the formation of farmer
cooperatives that span a cluster of villages, where each farmer sells his or her oilseeds through the
cooperative in exchange for greater organization of financial capitals, manure, planting materials and other
inputs. Cooperatives allow small sized producers to share more in the economic gains of the biofuel
industry and to negotiate on a more equal footing (Worldwatch Institute, 2006).
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Overseen by Village Governing Body (Panchayat) Presidents
Self Help Group
(SHG) Federation
SHG Federation
SHG Federation
SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG SHG
Farmers Farmers Farmers Farmers Farmers Farmers
A village
Fig 1: Cooperative society model.
Based on this model and with the feedback received during our consultation with development experts, we
deduce a cooperative model for implementing a sustainable Jatropha oil production system. In this
model, a cooperative society is formed involving presidents of the local governing bodies /Village
Panchayats as its overseers. Therefore the cooperative society is collaboration between several villages.
Initially, these village panchayats need to engage themselves in forming Self Help Groups (SHGs) in their
own villages. Each SHG would comprise of nearly 10 farmers as its members and would have one of them
as its leader. Each village would consist of an SHG federation, which is an association of the leaders of all
the SHGs in that village.
- 132-

The functions of the cooperative society would involve
• Collection of Jatropha seeds from Self Help Group (SHG) Federations belonging to several
villages
• Extraction of oil from Jatropha seeds and management of Jatropha oil production unit
• Marketing of oil and other Jatropha products in its own centre as well as employing dealers in
every village for marketing. The dealership would preferably be given to few members of the
SHGs
• Channelling inputs such as finance, planting materials, water requirements (TERI, 2008)
The functions of the SHG federation would involve:
• Collection of Jatropha seeds from their SHGs
• Transportation of Jatropha seeds to the cooperative society
The functions of SHG leader
• Participation in SHG federation activities
• Linking SHG members (farmers) with the SHGs federation and the cooperative society.
• Keeping members informed about the seed collection dates at the federation
• Maintenance of accounts in the SHG.
• Ensuring that the members of the group get appropriate money for the seeds they sell.
Our interviews with development experts also helped us to propose the following mechanisms for
maintaining this system
Any farmer who wishes to be a part of this system needs to be a member of an SHG. The SHG federation
would collect the buyback money from the cooperative and distribute it to the farmers who have sold their
Jatropha seeds. The federation would collect certain minimal amount of money from farmers so as to
cover the transportation costs of the seeds to the cooperative. Due to economies of scale, this wouldn’t be
a burden on the farmers.
The SHG leadership shall rotate every year so that all members get the opportunity of becoming a leader.
This would greatly help in capacity building and empowerment of the farmers.
• The cooperative society needs to train farmers, SHG leaders on various skills such as plantation,
sustainable farming practices, account keeping and SHG administration.
• The cooperative society would build up linkages with relevant scientific departments of the
government (such as Agricultural department), banks, revenue department and other relevant
government agencies.
• The cooperative society needs to promote Jatropha products among communities, encourage
entrepreneurs for local marketing and dealership and also work on the dissemination of Jatropha
oil cooking stoves (discussed in the recommendation).
Jatropha nurseries need to be established at every village and one of the SHGs in the village could
maintain it. It would also be an income generating source for the SHG. The establishment of such an oil
production system should be considered as the pilot phase of the project. Once the returns are obtained
and the system starts making profits (after 5 years), the cooperative can think of installing
transesterifcation unit for conversion of oil to biodiesel and step into the scale up phase; wherein again a
model of this kind would ensure that all the gains remain within the village economy.
The advantage of the cooperative model is that the benefits get distributed amongst a large number of
small farmers (TERI, 2008).
- 133-

Table 1: Stakeholder List
Stakeholder
Local communities (farmers)
Lo cal governing body/Village Panchayat
Role
Jatropha planters and consumers of Jatropha oil
(Chief beneficiaries)
Coordinators of the system
Distric t Administration
Facilitates the cooperative society with government
funds
Banks
Provide loans to the cooperative society and can
train communities on account management
Scientific departments of the government Provides technical support and helps in training,
(Ex: Local Agriculture Department)
capacity building activities
Revenue department
Provides clarification on land holdings
Economic Model
Based on the guidelines developed by Government of Orissa (2007) for submission of proposals to
implement Jatropha projects, we derived an economic model to implement a Jatropha Oil Production unit
with a capacity of expelling 1 MT of oil per day. The economic model covers Jatropha plantation in an
area of 100 hectares.
Activities involved
in the Model
A
Plantation of
Jatropha in 100
hectares of land
B
Establishment of
seed procurement
and expelling
centre with a
capacity of 1MT
of oil per day
C
Expelling oil from
375 MT of seed
D
Establishment of
sub-centre
Fig 2: Activities in the economic model.
As illustrated in the figure above, the model comprises of the following set-up and activities:
• A: Plantation of Jatropha;
• B: Establishment of seed procurement and expelling centre;
• C: Expelling oil;
• D: Establishment of sub-centre.
The seed production in plantation varies between 2.5 MT/hectare/year to 5 MT/hectare/year from third
year onwards (Lele, 2008). An average of 3.75 MT of seed per hectare would give a total yield of 375
MT. The costs for activity A has been calculated based on the estimative made by Lele (2008). A detailed
list of elements and costs for plantation of Jatropha has been included in Appendix
A Cost of plantation of Jatropha in 100 hectares Rs.1952000 or US $41094.7
The Seed procurement centre has the required infrastructure to store the seeds, expel oil, store oil and to
process and store the residual seedcakes. The costs mentioned below for components B and D have been
- 134-

interpolated based on the guidelines developed by Government of Orissa (2007). While in this guideline,
the budget for 5MT oil production per day has been pr ovided; our economic model estimates the
c orresponding budget for an oil expeller having a capacity of 1 MT of oil per day. A detailed list of
components and costs for seed procurement and expelling centre has been included in Appendix 2.
B Total establishment cost of seed procurement and expelling centre Rs. 547000 or US $ 11515.79
The Government of Orissa (2007) estimates the cost of expelling oil from one kg of Jatropha seed to be
Rs. 1 (0.02US $).A detailed cost estimation of expelling oil and establishment cost of sub-centre is given
in Appendix 3 and 4 respectively.
C Total cost of expelling oil Rs. 375000 or US $ 7894.74
D Total establishment cost of sub-centre Rs. 43000 or US $ 905.26
Therefore, this economic model would involve total cost given in table2.
Table 2: Total cost of the model
Set up and activities (A+B+C+D)
Plantation of Jatropha in 100 hectares of land
Cost (Rs.)
1952000
Cost (US $) 1 US $=Rs.
47.5
41094.74
Establishment of seed procurement and expelling
11094.74
centre 527000
Cost of expelling oil from 375 MT of seed 375000
7894.74
Establishment of sub-centre 43000 905.26
Total costs 2897000 60989.47
The funding pattern is given in table 3(Government of Orissa, 2007):
Table 3: Pattern of financial assistance
Financial assistance Percentage (on total cost) Amount (Rs.) Amount (US $) 1 US $=Rs.
47.5
Subsidy 30% 869100 18296.84
Bank loan 50% 1448500 30494.74
Beneficiary 20% 579400 12197.89
As 1 tonne of seed can produce 250 litres of oil (Lele, 2008), 375 MT of seeds can generate (250x375)
93750 litres of oil per annum, table 4.
Table 4: Returns from sale of Jatropha oil
Quantity Selling Selling Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales
of price/litre price/litre from 4 th from from from from from
Jatropha (Rs.) (US $) year
4 th year 5 th year 5 th year 6 th year 6 th year
oil
1 US (Rs.) (US $.) (Rs.) (US $.) (Rs.) (US $.)
produced
(litres/yr)
$=Rs.
47.5
93750 15 0.32 1406250 29605. 2812500 59211 4218750 88816
The above analysis indicates that this economic model will incur profits after five years.
- 135-

Challenges
The following main challenges will have to be encountered during the implementation of the system:
• Despite well meaning efforts to encourage small scale biofuel production in many countries,
larger scale owners and corporations will probably still dominate the future biofuel industry, since
the large scale production of Jatropha relies on intensive cash crop production and mechanized
harvesting and production chains (Worldwatch Institute, 2006). The challenge here would be to
convince the small scale farmers somehow, not letting them lose hopes on small scale production.
• Storing and processing Jatropha oil. Since the oil is highly acidic it has the tendency to degrade
quickly if not handled properly through the supply chain. The degradation of the oil will reduce its
commercial value considerably and increase the cost of processing it (Divyasangam, 2007).
• Jatropha has been proven to grow abundantly in the wild, but has never been properly
domesticated. (Divyasangam, 2007).
• Initially, the investment costs associated with Jatropha plantations may be a problem (Asselbergs
et al., 2006)
• High political risk, uncertainty about tax regime, insecure legal framework (Renner, 2007) and
lack of cooperation by government departments.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion
While women and children in rural India walk long distances in search of fuel wood for cooking and
heating (DESA, 2007), their livelihoods can greatly be enhanced by providing them cooking, heating and
lighting fuel at feasible prices and with easy accessibility. Jatropha oil can play a very important role in
meeting such cooking and lighting fuel needs. What is more important here is to create a decentralized
community based system that together with meeting the local fuel needs ensures that village economy is
benefited. Further a cooperative model to manage such a system is ideal as it can ensure that the local
communities accrue maximum benefits. Various economic, environmental and social issues need to be
handled effectively while setting up a sustainable Jatropha oil production system. There is also a need for
an economic model that ensures viability of the system. Once the returns are obtained and the system
begins to make profits, the stakeholders need to think of scaling it up to the production of biodiesel.
Recommendation
Efforts need to be made by the cooperative society to disseminate cooking stoves with higher efficiencies.
For example, the Bosch and Siemens Home Appliances Group has introduced protos plant oil stove
technology, which has 45 to 55% efficiency and the company is now taking steps to establish local
manufacturing capacity with partners in developing countries (BSH, 2008). The cooperative society needs
to establish linkages with such companies and identify local entrepreneurs for local manufacture and
dissemination of these stoves. It should also arrange subsidies for communities to procure these stoves.
The cooperative society, as a Community Based Organization, could apply for Grants such as Small
Grants of the Global Environment
Facility. International financial institutions such as the Global
Environmen t Facility (GEF) are eager to invest in biofuel projects able to simultaneously address poverty
reduction, climate change and sustainable growth. GEF provides small grants to meet
some of the
objectives in its climate change focal area, which will also help to promote biofuels (Worldwatch Institute,
2006). The cooperative society can seek the support of relevant scientific government departments while
preparing standard proposals to avail such international grants.
Farmer s need to adopt mixed cropping system as i t will not on ly provide more financi al stability, but will
also help decrease erosion, reduce nutrient depletion rates and increase biodiversity (Asselbergs et al.,
2006). Good long-term easily accessible micro credit facilities with moderate interest rates for small
farmers need to be facilitated by the cooperative (Asselbergs et al., 2006). There should be sharing of
- 136-

knowledge with farmers to counter unsustainable agriculture practices (Asselbergs et al., 2006). Farmers
also need to be informed that Jatropha has a gestation period of 3 years so that they don’t have great
expectations of obtaining good harvest during the first 2 years. Alongside the cooperative needs to
mobilize the government to enact policies to develop the necessary infrastructure for production and
distribution. They should share their experiences with relevant scientific departments of the government
and thus be involved in “research that is essential to develop the necessary infrastructure at considerably
lower costs” (Worldwatch Institute, 2006).
References consulted
Asselbergs, B., Bokhorst, J., Harms, R., Hermert, J., Noort, L., Velden, C., Vervuurt, R., Wijnen, L., Zon, L.
2006.Size does matter: The possibilities of cultivating Jatropha curcas for biofuel production in Cambodia.Retrieved
29 September, 2008, from www.cms.uva.nl/ecdo/object.cfm/objectid=43D03A60-3D54-4A07-
BA52B1AF6845F3D0/download=true
BSH. 2008. Protos Generation II. Retrieved 11 November, 2008, from http://www.bsh group.com/index.php109906
DESA-United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2007. Small-Scale Production and Use of Liquid
Biofuels in Sub-Saharan Africa: Perspectives for Sustainable Development. Retrieved 1 October, 2008, from
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/documents/csd15_bp2.pdf
Divyasangam. 2008. Crude Jatropha Oil for Engines, Power Generation & Other Key Applications.Retrieved 10
November, 2008, from http://www.futureenergyevents.com/jatropha/2008/08/20/crude-jatropha-oil-for-enginespower-generation-other-key-applications/
Government of Orissa. Science and Technology Department.2007.Policy Guidelines for Rising of Energy
Plantationsand Bio-diesel Production. Retrieved 26 October, 2008, from
http://orissagov.nic.in/sciencetechnology/Biodiesel_Policy.pdf
INDG. 2008. Rural energy a must for livelihood improvement. Retrieved 28 October, 2008, from
http://www.indg.in/rural-energy
KnowGenix. 2008. Best Practices for Long-term Jatropha Development. Retrieved 10 November, 2008, from
http://www.knowgenix.com/release/Jatropha_PP2_July_08.pdf
Koradi , R. 2008. Cooperatives – A Model for the Future. Retrieved 28 October, 2008, from
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.phpid=649
Lele, S.2008.Indian Biofuels Awareness Centre. Retrieved 30 September, 2008, from
http://www.svlele.com/index.htm
Lindsay.2008.Bad Side of Biofuel. Retrieved 28 October, 2008, from http://www.off-grid.net/2008/09/08/bad-sideof-bio-fuel
Greco, G and Rademakers, L.2005. The Jatropha Energy system: An Integrated Approach to Decentralized and
Sustainable Energy Production at the Village Level. Retrieved 30 September, 2008, from
http://www.isf.lilik.it/files/jatropha/jes.pdf
Rajavanshi, A. 2003. Tap local resources: To meet rural India’s fuel needs. Retrieved 28 October, 2008, from
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.aspfoldername=20031031&filename=news&sec_id=18&sid=35
Rajavanshi, A. 2006. Ethanol fuel for rural households. Retrieved 30 October, 2008, from
http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/ruralethanol.pdf
Renner, A.2007. Learning Network: Key points of GEXSI’s biofuel work program. Retrieved 17 November, 2008,
from http://www.jatropha-platform.org/documents/Jatropha-Learning-Network_INFO-04Oct07.pdf
- 137-

Rural Poverty Portal, 2008. Rural poverty in India. Retrieved 30 October, 2008, from
http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/web/guest/country/home/tags/india
Sampat, P.1995. India's Low-tech Energy Success. Retrieved 3 November, 2008, from
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so191/SouthAsReadings/IndiaEnergySuccess.html
Singh, M and Kalha, G.2006. Village Empowered: Rural Bio-Energy Production as a Bundled CDM Project.
Retrieved 14 November, 2008, from http://www.eco-web.com/editorial/06034.html
TERI. 2008. Liquid Biofuels for Transportation: India country study on potential and implications for sustainable
agriculture and energy. Retrieved 14 Novemebr, 2008, from http://www.labbiokraftstoffe.de/downloads/PDF/fachinformationen/biofuels-for-transportation-in-india.pdf
Worldwatch Institute.2006. Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Energy and
Agriculture. London: Earthscan
Appendix
Costs of Jatropha plantation
A Cost of plantation of Jatropha
S.N Cost per unit Cost (Rs.) Cost (US $) 1 US $=Rs.
o
47.5
1 Site preparation 500 10.53
2 Digging of pits 1650 34.74
3 Cost of fertilizer and manure 1370 28.84
Mixing of fertilizer and manure and refilling of
31.58
4 pits 1500
5 Cost of sapling 10000 21.05
6 Cost of planting and replanting 1500 31.58
7 Cost of irrigation 1500 31.58
8 Weeding and soil working 1200 25.26
9 Plant protection measure 300 6.32
Total cost of Jatropha per hectare 19520 410.95
A Cost of plantation of Jatropha in 100 hectares 1952000 41094.7
Establishment cost of seed procurement and expelling centre
B Establishment cost of seed procurement and expelling centre
S.No Component Cost (Rs.) Cost (US $)1 US $=Rs. 47.5
1 Cost of building 100000 2105.26
2 Cleaner and grader 5000 105.26
3 Decorticator/dehuller 5000 105.26
4 Drier 5000 105.26
- 138-

5 Depulper 5000 105.26
6 Oil expeller (1MT per day capacity) 100000
2105.26
40 HP motor
12000
252.63
Starter/main switch
Installation
2000
6000
42.11
126.32
Conveyor/Elevator
Electric line from main feeder up to
22000
10000
463.16
210.53
centre
7 Stitching machine 6000 126.32
8 2 storage tank for oil 6000 126.32
9 Filter press 15000 315.79
10 Weighing machine 12000 252.63
11 Moisture meter 8000 168.42
12 Gunny bags for oil cake 8000 168.42
13 Drying floor 100000 2105.26
14 DG set 100000 2105.26
15 Furniture and stationary 20000 421.05
B
Total establishment cost of seed
procurement and expelling centre
547000 11515.79
Cost of expelling oil
C Cost of expelling oil
Quantit Cost per unit Cost (Rs.) Cost ( US $) 1 US $=Rs.
y
47.5
375 MT
1 Rs. Per kg
375000
7894.74
C Total cost of expelling oil 375000 7894.74
Establishment cost of sub-centre
D Establishment cost of sub-centre
S.No Component Cost (Rs.) Cost (US $) 1 US $=Rs.
47.5
1 Office and store 35000 736.84
2 Miscellaneous such as furniture
8000 168.42
,stationery
D Total establishment cost of sub-centre 43000 905.26
- 139-

Biofuel production and poverty reduction:
A case of rural Ghana
by
Matthew Biniyam Kursah
Mohammad Shaheen Sarker
Introduction
Background: Ghana
The Republic of Ghana, which has a population size of 22 million people, is located on the West Coast of
Africa (see Fig.1) and has been hailed as an example of positive development in Africa. This country,
which is full of ethnic diversity, has been relatively stable in recent years, both politically and
economically. The domestic economy in Ghana continues to revolve around subsistence agriculture,
which accounts for 34% of GDP and employs 60% of the work force, mainly small landholders (Caminiti
et al, 2007). In addition, Ghana has a number of advanced industries, which include: textiles, steel (using
scrap), and oil refining. The current president John Kufour has pursued an economic policy of growth
acceleration, poverty reduction, and private investment promotion.
Ghana
Fig.1 Map of Africa showing the location of Ghana.
- 141-

Problem Statement
The use of bio-fuels has become increasingly important over the last few years as a potential substitute to
the decreasing stock of fossil fuels (Nikolaos, 2004). As a result, arguments have been made that energy
crops provide a solution to the twin problems of poverty reduction and climate change, by providing fuels
with low greenhouse gas emissions whilst enabling rural job creation and food security, reducing oil
imports and improving domestic and regional energy production capacity. But elsewhere there is
scepticism, with concerns that bio-fuels will derail rural social and economic life. The linkages between
bio-fuels production and poverty reduction, for exa mple through agricultural growth are therefore
uncertain. This project work tries to explore into these linkages between biofuel production and poverty
reduction in rural Ghana.
Project Focus/aim
The aim of our project is to identify the implication of biofuel production on poverty alleviation in rural
Ghana.
Specific objectives are to;
‣ Identify the potentials of biofuel production in Ghana
‣ To explore the main challenges of biofuel production towards rural poverty reduction
‣ Provide feasible recommendations based on the findings
Research Questions
‣ Are there any possibilities of eradicating rural poverty through the production of biofuel in
Ghana
‣ What are the likely implications of increased biofuels production on competition for land and food
prices
Methodology
The source of data for this paper is mainly secondary, from internet searches and publications.
Personal analysis and comparison from previous research work would be made use of. In areas where
there is no data found for specific case for, we used inference methods by inferring from data from other
countries or regions. In our view, likely effects of biofuel have global dimensions, hence the inference
method.
Literature Review
In the last few decades, a lot of sweeping claims have been made about the role of biofuels in
development and poverty reduction (Worldwatch Institute, 2007). These claims include;
• that energy crops are beginning a green revolution in Brazil,
• biofuels provides solution to the twin problems of poverty and climate change,
• countries in the tropics (mostly less developed) have comparative advantage in biofuels
production which can play a role in job creation and food security, de Keyser and Hongo (2005)
and Peskett et al, 2007).
Peskett et al (2007) and Worldwatch Institute (2007) raised scepticism concerning biofuel production and
state that it is difficult to generalise about the impacts of biofuels due to its differing effects of: different
feedstocks/production systems; varying downstream (transportation) costs; existing (non-biofuel) crop
production and processing patterns; and patterns of land holding. Peskett et al (2007) asked, will biofuels
expansion impede or improve poor people’s access to land under different biofuels scenarios Worldwatch
Institute (2007) further raised contradictory results that biofuel production poses. Sugar for example,
biofuel yields can be very high; reducing the pressure on land, but the economies of scale sought by
producers and subsequent land concentration may reduce access by the poor to land. This is likely to be
the case also with palm oil.
- 142-

According to Peskett et al (2007) the potentials of biofuels are large, whether through employment, wider
growth multipliers and energy price effects. But it is also fragile: it will be reduced where feedstock
production tends to be large scale, or causes pressure on land access, and its success can be undermined by
many of the same policy, regulatory or investment shortcomings that impede agriculture. Clancy (2007)
drew links between possible environmental threats caused by biofuels and poverty reduction. New plants
and estates can result in reduced biodiversity which can put women especially at a disadvantage because
of a loss of natural ingredients used for a range of other products. The writer pointed out that biofuels can
increase income generation, but is not the complete answer to rural employment problems. Slater (2007)
emphasised that understanding the relationships between biofuels and poverty is hazardous because it is
hard to make generalisations across countries; different feedstocks have different effects; existing
infrastructure can influence the success of biofuels initiatives; and patterns of land holding are different
both between and within countries. According to her, high importance of economies of scale in biofuel
production can tend to favour larger producers and land concentration.
Results and Discussion
Background of energy situation in Ghana
Ghana i s heavily depended on wood fuels and imported petroleum products. The major energy use in
Ghana is wood fuels (63%), petroleum product (30%) and electricity (7%). The main consumer of
petroleum products is in transport sector (78%), while household and agricultural purpose is 8% and 5.4 %
respectively (Duku, 2007). Average expenditure on crude oil imports (2000-2004) was estimated at
US$ 563.18 million/year. This is a great burden on Ghana’s balance of trade. Over 2,500 solar PV systems
have been installed in individual homes, schools and clinics for lighting, water pumping and vaccine
refrigeration. The wind regime in Ghana is promising particularly along the coast. More than 90% of
biomass energy (wood fuels) comes from natural forest and 10% from wood waste. Biomass in the form
of wood fuel accounts for 60% of the total annual energy consumption of the country. About 88% of all
households rely on fuel wood and charcoal (Asser, C., 2007).
Potential of biofuel production in Ghana
Ghana has the potential for biofuels production and requires a drive from the government, public and
private sector initiatives to support economic production and utilisation of biofuel as fossil fuel additives.
The country is eagerly investing in biofuels with the help of Brazil, the world’s leading biofuel producing
country. During the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD XII) meeting in
April, 2008, Brazilian President signed an agreement with the Ghana government to grow sugarcane for
bio-ethanol in Ghana (Dogbevi, 2008). During the signing ceremony Brazilian President said, "in Ghana
we are developing a project that will result in growing 27,000 hectares (of sugarcane) for the production
of 150 million litres of ethanol per year that are destined for the Swedish market’’. Cheaper labour,
availability of “un-used” lands and a favourable tropical climate gives Ghana great potentials to produce
biofue l, relatively with comparative advantage. The large tract of floodplain lands along Lake Volta (the
world largest artificial lake) in Ghana is also a potential place to grow sugarcane for producing ethanol.
Biofuel production towards poverty reduction in rural Ghana
This paper analysed some of the variables of poverty in rural Ghana in relation to biofuel production.
These variables are land access, social effects, gender and the use of child labour, energy security,
increases in food prices, employment, foodstuff production, access to market and trade barriers. These
factors are discussed below.
Biofuels production and land access and ownership
According to the proponents, biofuel yields can be very high; reducing the pressure on land. However,
Table 1 shows that majority of the biofuel production in Ghana is owned by private and foreign investors
in larger quantities, instead of the small scale which could be beneficial to peasant farmers. This has given
- 143-

a higher tendency of land grabbing away from indigenous people by private and foreign investors. Bukari
Nyari investigated this issue in Ghana found that a Norwegian biofuel company took advantage of
Africa’s traditional system of communal land ownership and current climate and economic pressure to
claim and deforest large tracts of land in Kusawgu, Northern Ghana with the intention of creating the
largest jatropha (see Appendix 1a) plantation in the world. “Bypassing official development authorisation
and using methods that hark back to the darkest days of colonialism, this investor claimed legal ownership
of these lands by deceiving an illiterate chief to sign away 38,000 hectares with his thumb print” (Nyari,
2008). The people of Kusawgu soon realised the failed promises of better employment opportunities and
income and successfully fought to send the investors packing, but not before 2,600 hectares of land had
been deforested. Many have now lost their incomes from the forest and face a bleak future. The question
now is “does biofuel production allow indigenous land control”
Table 1: Cultivation of Jatropha in Ghana
Institution Land under cultivation (hectares) Funding
BI Ghana Ltd 700 Private Investment
NEW Energy 6 Donor Funding
Gbimsi Women Group 4 UNIFEM/UNDP-GEF
Anglogold Ashanti 20 Corporate fund
Valley View University 4 University Fund
Total 734
Source: AU/Brazil/UNDP Biofuel
Biofuels production, gender issues and the use of child labour
In Ghana, GRATIS (Ghana Regional Appropriate Technology Industrial Service) has promoted the
production and use of jatropha oil to produce biodiesel in the West Mamprusi District. Women’s groups
have been encouraged to establish and manage jatropha crops, harvest and process the seeds, and produce
biodiesel, which they use for powering shea butter processing machines (see Appendix 2), grinding corn,
and for use in household lanterns. This is an advantage of biofuel fuel production in reducing rural
poverty. However, women are likely to be disproportionately affected by large-scale biofuel production in
region (Ghana) where women are the ones primarily responsible for collecting fuel and water for
household needs, growing food for their families, and gathering fodder, medicinal plants and wild food
from the land. The benefits to women are summarised as;
• local sources of sustainable energy for economic and social development,
• relief from burdens of fuel collection,
• more time for families, earning income, education etc.
There are however worrying aspects such as;
• in many parts of Ghana, women have limited legal rights – including owning and controlling land,
• women generally have less access to credit and finances for enterprise development,
• agricultural extension services may not reach or benefit women farmers,
• crops traditionally grown by women may be taken over by men when they are commercialised
(Karlsson, 2008).
The growing global demand for liquid biofuels, combined with increased land requirements, could put
pressure on so-called “marginal” lands, which provide key subsistence functions to the rural poor and are
frequently farmed by women. The conversion of these lands to plantations for biofuels production might
cause the partial or total displacement of women’s agricultural activities towards increasingly marginal
lands with negative consequences for women’s ability to provide food. It is also likely, as it is in Ghana
cocoa sector, that many children would be used in farming biofuel crops destined for developed countries.
This will worsen the already bad image of the use of child labour in rural Ghana in cash-crop production.
- 144-

As a consequence, many children from rural areas would drop-out from school to farm biofuel crops,
leading to a cycle of rural poverty.
Biofuel and energy security
The production of biofuels is thought to improve energy security since no one country or few will have
concentration power of fuel production. This is thought to mean decentralising fuel production sources.
According to the proponents of this view, there will be less or no fuel imports for Ghana, and this will
reduce financial burdens, hence move revenue to pursue its vision 2020 rural poverty reduction strategies.
We do not intend to question whether reduction in imports will automatically translate into finances to
reduce rural poverty. However, we intend to question the basis for such arguments in favour of biofuel.
Though, no data or research results have been found for Ghana, we will use data from other area to justify
that biofuel is not an automatic way for Ghana or any countries to achieve energy security. Oxfam (2008)
have found that consumption of oil is so huge that for biofuels to be a significant alternative requires
massive amounts of agricultural production. Oxfam further argued that if the entire corn harvest of the
USA was diverted to ethanol, it would only be able to replace about one gallon in every six sold in the
USA.
If the entire world supply of carbohydrates (starch and sugar crops) w as converted to ethanol, this would
only be able to replace at most 40 per cent of global petrol consumption. Moreover, the costs of using
biofuels to improve fuel security are prohibitively expensive. The European Commission’s own research
body has estimated that the EU’s proposed 10 percent biofuel target will cost about $90bn from now until
2020, and will offer enhanced fuel security worth only $12bn (Oxfam, 2008). This statistics raise doubt if
a developing country like Ghana with lower technological strength can achieve energy security in an area
where the USA with higher technological-know-how cannot. It further raise doubts since the current
biofuel production in Ghana are not oriented for the local market, but for export to developed countries
like Sweden (stated above). Also, Oxfam (2008) showed that biofuels could exacerbate climate change
since it could be an excuse for inaction to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Biofuel and food prices
Government actions to promote biofuels inevitably favour certain interest groups over others. A shift to
biofuels will stimulate rural economic development as growers experience an increased demand (and
likely a higher price) for their crops. There are many unanswered question floating in the minds of policy
mak ers . These questions include but not limited to; should large-scale agricultural interests be the
beneficiaries of such policies, or should incentives favour small landowners Should they support growers
of c orn , soy, sugarcane or switchgrass Or should policy-makers strive to establish no preference for one
fuel ove r another, and let the markets decide On the other hand, rapidly expanding biofuel plantations for
international trade raises serious human rights and food security issues. A United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler (UN Doc, A/62/289), reported a growing concerns about
food shortages affecting the world’s poorest people and increasing competition over land, forests, and
natu ral resources, and possible evictions of small peasant farmers and indigenous communities. Oxfam
(2008) calculates and found that the rich countries' biofuel policies have dragged millions people in
countries like Ghana into poverty, as land once used to grow valuable food resources is now cultivated for
biofuels
(see Fig 2). “Biofuel polices are actually helping to accelerate climate change and deepen poverty
and hunger. The world is in the grip of a food crisis with prices of various staples sky-rocketing. In Ghana,
prices have more than doubled since the crisis. It is now an established fact that the production of biofuel
is a major contributor to the current worsening food prices in Ghana, as well as global food crisis. The use
of productive agriculture lands for the production of crops for ethanol has been identified (see Table 2) as
a factor that is pushing food prices up to 75% (Dogbevi, 2008). Other factors identified for the crisis
include growing populations, shortfall in production, high demand for animal feed and consumption
patterns. Climate change and rainfall patterns were also blamed (see Table 2).
- 145-

Table 2: Reasons identified for increase in food prices
Ranking Reason
1 Biofuel Production
2 Growing population
3 Shortfall in production
4 High demand for animal feed
5 Consumption pattern
6 Climate change
7 Rainfall Pattern
8 Growing middle class
Source: Dogbevi (2008)
Fig.2: This is how biofuel bring hunger
The Guardian newspaper in London has published a leaked World Bank report authored by Don Mitchell,
which says biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated
(Dogbevi, 2008). Early in May 2008, the UN’s top adviser on food security, Olivier de Schutter made a
scathing criticism against the investments that are being made in biofuels production. In an interview with
the BBC, he described the investment in biofuel as “irresponsible” and a “crime against humanity.” He
went ahead to call for an immediate freeze of the policy and asked for restrain on investors whose
speculation he says is driving food prices higher.
Ghana, a developing country, which has about 70% of its population in the rural areas involved in
agriculture, ironically imports over 40% of its food needs. Ghana’s case falls within this category where
more than US$400 million is currently spent annually on the importation of rice alone, when the crop
could be cultivated in almost all the regions of the country. Ghanaian food crop farmers need support in
the forms of investments in inputs, fertilizer, training and access to markets. These could potentially boost
agriculture in the country and contribute to job creation and economic growth, and not investment in
biofuel production to fuel the cars in the western world. Ghana, under pressure from the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have removed subsidies on agricultural inputs while unbridled
trade liberalisation have opened the valves widely for foreign products to enter these Ghana to the
detriment of local production which cannot compete evenly with these cheaper and yet sometimes
questionable “quality” imported products. It is this trade inequality that needs to be addressed in order to
boost farmers income in Ghana (and other less developed countries) and not adding another exportoriented
crop like energy crops (Gustafsson & Koku, 2007). The production of cocoa (export-oriented
cash crop) have not done much to relieved rural Ghana from poverty driven-status, so biofuel production
is most likely to fall in the same status quo.
Bio fuels production and employment
According to World Bank report (cited by Oxfam, 2008), biofuel industries require 100 times more
workers than the fossil fuel industry. For example, Brazil ethanol industry employs more than half a
million of workers. In Ghana GRATIS has promoted the production and use of jatropha oil to produce
biodiesel in the West Mamprusi District. This created many jobs for women’s groups as they have been
encouraged to establish and manage jatropha crops, harvest and process the seeds (Karlsson, 2008). The
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2007) also found that a larger-scale jatropha
cultivation project has started under the biodiesel project of Anuanom Industrial Projects Ltd in Ghana.
Anuanom has set up a pilot plantation of 100 ha that also serves to grow seeds. The pilot plantation
delivers to participating farmers who have begun producing oil for local use and for sale. The final aim is
to generate electricity for the local energy markets. In accordance with the integrated approach of the
Jatropha System, it is envisaged to simultaneously substitute diesel fuel, provide access to energy services,
create jobs, and reduce poverty in local communities. However, many have argued that there is no new
- 146-

jobs created as biofuel cultivation have driven many small farmers out of farming. This gives rise to a
zero-sum-game (Swedish Corporate Centre, 2008). The Movement of Landless Peasants of Brazil (MST)
has similarl y raised this concern in Brazil. According to the National Policy Group (2005) 52% of
Ghanaians are self-employed in agriculture, 34.3% worked in the informal economy, and only 13.7%
worked in fo rmal public or private employment of the labour force aged 15 to 64 years. The question that
remains una nswered is “how can the benefits of biofuel production reach 34.3% of Ghanaians in the
informal sec tor – many of whom are from the rural areas.
Biofuels and Foodstuff production
Many arguments around the energy crops are that it will open up new markets for farmers, increase
foodstuff price and eventually enrich the pockets of farmers. This means an opportunity to finance health
care, education and to feed themselves and their families. Ghanaian agriculture is the backbone of the
economy, accounting for 40% of the GDP and employing 60-70% of the labour force where rural poverty
is more than 40%. Many farmers are barely able to grow enough food due to degraded or infertile soil and
limited use of improved crop varieties. The average Ghanaian spends 60% of his or her income on food
and this raises a great concern about how much land should be reserved for food production and how
much can be allowed for biofuel production. Thus, access of land is very important in reducing the
poverty. But the big companies or rich and powerful investors rush to buy or unethically appropriate
fertile lands, potentially displacing vulnerable communities whose rights to the land are poorly protected
(Oxfam, 2008).
Moreover they found that, a trend is now emerging among governments and companies to target
‘marginal’, ‘idle’, or ‘degraded’ lands. The idea being that these areas are unsuitable for food production
and poor in biodiversity. But there is no accepted definition of marginal land. The government, for
example, has identified several hectares of “wastelands” for jatropha – an oilseed-yielding tree that can
grow in relatively dry conditions. However, these lands, largely classified as Common Property Resources
(CPRs), are integral to the livelihood strategies of the poor people who use them for food, fuel, and
building materials. Jacques Diouf of Food Agricultural Organisation predicted that the price of foodstuff
will increase by 20-30% during the next decade due to the growing use of biofuels. To him “the reality is
that people are dying already" and he is worried that the world food situation is very serious and there is a
risk of spreading unrest in developing countries like Ghana where larger part of individual income is spent
on food. Biofuel will undoubtedly leads to hunger and poverty as ‘’it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre
car tank with ethanol” (Press watch, 2008). This is enough to feed about two children in rural Ghana for a
year.
Biofuel production, Market and Trade barriers
Local production of biofuel can reduce the dependency on fossil fuel, which had to be imported from
other country, thus saving foreign currency. In other words, biofuel can stabilise the economic condition
and terms of trade of the Ghana. However, the already existing international trade imbalances will prevent
poor and rural farmers from benefiting from the production of biofuel crops. The Ghana Trade Livelihood
Coalition (GTLC) have maintained that, agricultural subsidies as well as high tariff and nontariff barriers
limits the potential for Ghana to produce and trade. The coalition recommends the removal of institutional
barriers in order to promote favourable pricing regime. In Ghana, highest incident of poverty occurs in the
agricultural sector because of cheap price of “dumping” products from developed countries into the
Ghanaian market. It is in doubt if any higher price for energy crops will get into the hands of rural
farmers. In the case of Ghana cocoa production (cash-crop oriented for export), Oxfam (2008) found that
it does not benefit the rural cocoa farmers despite the increases in world market price of cocoa-products.
- 147-

Conclusion
The production of biofuels might boost the rural economy which is likely to bring more enthusiasm in
rural lives in Ghana. Considering that oil priced at $70 per barrel has had a disproportionate impact on the
Ghana’ economy, which imports almost all of it fuel demands; the question of trying to achieve greater
energy independence one day through the development of biofuels is seen as the remedy to offset the
import deficits. Instead of importing petroleum from other countries, Ghana could use its own resources to
power development and enhance the economy. This will allow Ghana to save foreign exchange by lowing
energy imports and allow her to put more of its resources into health, education and other services for the
rural and neediest citizens. It can also be concluded that biofuels will create new markets for agricultural
products and stimulate rural development because biofuels are generated from crops with enormous
potentials for farmers.
However, there is an opportunity cost in producing biofuels in Ghana. This has the capacity to worsen
rural poverty and polarise the already gender inequality. The focus on biofuels takes attention and funding
away from a much more effective approach to the energy challenge, which is, reducing consumption. If
policy makers and the public are convinced that biofuels are the solution, they will see less need to invest
in technology and to change behaviours to reduce energy use. Rapid increases in the large-scale
production of liquid biofuels in developing countries such as Ghana could exacerbate the marginalisation
of women in rural areas, threatening their livelihoods. To sum up, the paper comes to a conclusion that
today's biofuel policies are not solving the climate or fuel crises, but are instead contributing to food
insecurity and inflation, hitting the poor people hardest. We also conclude that seeking for the right
benefits of biofuel production multinational companies and private investors, who are the main
beneficiaries of the biofuel production process will be a misplaced policy judgement. Rather, policy
makers should listen to the grassroots organisation such as Oxfam, who are close to ordinary people for
answers concerning biofuel production.
Recommendations
If Ghana decides to continue with the development in feedstocks production, biofuels may offer some
genuine development opportunities. However, the potential economic, social, and environmental costs are
severe. This paper recommends as Oxfam (2008) has done, that Ghana (and any developing countries in
such position) should move with caution and give priority to poor people in rural areas when developing
their bioenergy strategies. The government of Ghana should prioritise energy projects that provide clean
renewable energy sources to poor men and women in rural areas – these are unlikely to be ethanol or
biodiesel projects. The government should also consider the costs as well as the benefits involved in
biofuel strategies: the financial costs of support, the opportunity costs of alternative agriculture and
poverty reduction strategies, and social and environmental costs.
The government should also encourage and enhance the small farmers to form cooperatives. With this
they can be able to form even one large scale production farm or get opportunity to become part owner of
that farm. This will also keep them in business since they cannot be easily outplayed by larger
multinational actors in the market. Measures should be taken to ensure that women and female-headed
households have the same opportunity as men to engage in and benefit from the sustainable production of
liquid biofuels. For companies and investors producing or yet to start operation in Ghana need to ensure
that no biofuel project takes place without the free, prior and informed consent of local communities. Not
all, it needs to provide smallholders in the production chain sufficient freedom of choice in their farming
decisions to ensure food security for them and their families. For the developed countries, the
governments should also dismantle subsidies and tax exemptions for biofuels and reduce import tariffs.
Last but not the least, the governments of developed countries should also remove the power imbalances
in international trade, as that is the surest way to reduce rural poverty.
- 148-

References consulted
• Asser, C., (2007), Workshop on Biofuels: Technologies for a Sustainable Development in Africa
www.ics.trieste.it/Portal/ActivityDocument.aspxid=5110 (20/11/2008)
• Caminiti, M, M. Cassal, M. OhEigeartaigh, Y. Zeru (2007). Feasibility study of biofuel production in Ghana:
Assessing Competitiveness and Structure of the Industry's Value Chain, Elliott School of International Affairs:
George Washington University.
• De Keyser & Hongo (2005),
• Dogbevi ,K.E.(2008) Ghana goes biofuel despite evidence of effects on food prices
http://www.ghananewstoday.com/news_readmore.phpid=1723(20/11/2008)
• Duku, M.H., (2007), Workshop on Biofuels: Technologies for a Sustainable Development in Africa
www.ics.trieste.it/Portal/ActivityDocument.aspxid=5119 (20/11/2008)
• Clancy Joy (2007), Biofuels, agriculture and poverty reduction
http://www.odi.org.uk/events/biofuels_07/index.html (06/10/08)
• Gustafsson J-E & Koku J.E (2007), Achieving the MDG’s in Ghana: Rhetorics or Reality In Tiezzi et al (eds);
Ecosystem and Sustainable Development, VI WIT Press, Southampton, 2007, pp331-349.
• Karlsson, G., (2008), Engaging Women in Small-Scale Production of Biofuels for Rural Energy
www.energia.org/pubs/papers/2008_karlsson_sei-wirec_pres-sum.pdf (20/11/2008)
• National Policy Group (2005), Working out of poverty in Ghana www.ilo.org/public/english (20/11/2008).
• Nikolaos Roubanis (2004).Energy statistics working group meeting, Eurostat,
www.iea.org/textbase/work/2004/eswg/17_Liquid%20Biofuels.pdf (06/10/08)
• Nyari Bukari (2008), Biofuel land grabbing in Northern Ghana, Regional Advisory and Information Network
Systems (RAINS), Accra
• Oxfam (2008), Another Inconvenient Truth, Oxfam Briefing Paper, June 2008
• Peskett, L., et. al., (2007). Overseas Development Institute, Natural Resource Perspectives: Biofuels, Agriculture
and Poverty Reduction, June 2007. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/specialist/natural-resource-perspectives/107-
biofuels-agriculture-poverty-reduction.pdf accessed on 2008.11.18
• Press watch (2008), The rush to biofuel is causing global hunger, www.acttravelwise.org/news/1051
(29/11/2008)
• Slater R.,(2007), Biofue ls, agriculture and poverty reduction www.odi.org.uk/events/biofuels_07/index.html
(06/10/08)
• Roelf, W., (2008) Norwegian biofuels firm to start commercial jatropha production in Ghana in 2009
http://africanagriculture.blogspot.com/search/label/Ghana (29/11/2008)
• Swedish Corporate Centre (2008), Fuel for Development, Rapidax 2008:ISBN 978-91-975940-5-9
Worldwatch Institute (2006), Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable
Agriculture and Energy in the 21 st Century, Earthscan: London
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2007), Small-Scale Production and Use of Liquid
Biofuels in Sub-Saharan Africa: Perspectives for Sustainable Development www.un.org/esa/ (20/11/2008)
• Ziegler Jean; (UN Doc, A/62/289)
Appendix 1 Appendix 2
a. Jatropha Plant b. A Sarcasm of Biofuel
Bioenergy process in rural
Ghana.
Source: www.gratis-ghana.com
- 149-

AE2001 Project Environmental Engineering 15,0 hp
AG2145 Project Sustainable Infrastructure 15,0 hp
2009-02-12
Objective
The objective of the courses is to apply acquired knowledge in a problem-based project.
Course content
Students in these two courses work jointly in interdisciplinary teams on a problem-based project.
The students with a technical/natural science background will register on AE2001, and contribute
with expertise from this background. The students with a planning/social science background will
register on AG 2145, and contribute with expertise from this background.
Each of the teams:
• Identifies a specific task which contributes to the overall project
• Collect relevant information that is needed to analyse the identified problems and possible
solutions
• Prepares a solution of the problems that were identified
Parallell with the project seminars with invited lecturers will be offered on specific themes
related to the project. A 3 days excursion will be arranged in order to illustrate the Swedish
experience of problem identification and solution of the chosen problem.
Each student shall in the first period prepare an individual assignment related to the chosen focus.
At the end of the second period each team should hand in a jointly written team report. In
addition each student should make a brief individual assessment of the team report.
Course lay out
Project work in teams, 36 h supporting lectures, 3 days excursion
Recommended prerequisites
See study handbook
Literature
- Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainbale Agriculture and
Energy in the 21 st century. Worldwatch Institute, ISBN 978-1-84407-422-8, $95.
-A limited amount of joint project document will be handed out throughout the course
-e-mail articles
Examination
Individual assignment (PRO1; 4,0 cr)
Team report (PRO2; 8,0 cr)
Excursion (EXC1; 3,0 cr, only Pass or Fail)
Examinators
Jan-Erik Gustafsson (AE2001) & Göran Cars (AG2145)
- 151-

EESI Project courses AE2001 and AG2145
Final version December 2008
Day Time Room Contents
Wed 10/9 15- 17.30 L52 Project introduction
Jan-Erik Gustafsson, Lina Suleiman
Wed 17/9 13-16 L21 Bioenergy in Sweden 1900 – 2005;
Views on methods for evaluation of energy systems..
Prof em Per-Olov Nilsson, SLU
Wed 24/9 15-17 K1 Contested governance: social struggles, citizenship and
substantive democratization of water management”.
Prof. José Esteban Castro, University of Newcastle
Mon 29/9 13-16 L44 EU:s biofuel strategy
EU-parlamentarian Anders Wijkman
Wed 8/10 13-16 Q26 Biofuels, sustainable development and climate change.
The perspective of developing countries.
Francis Johnson, Stockholm Environment Institute
Delivering team workplan
Thu16 /10 - - North Mälaren Excursion
Sat 18/10
See separate Excursion program
Tue 21/10 13-15 D33 Thesis work information
Peter Brooking
Wed 29/10 13-16 V33 Environmental, labour and land ownership impacts of
biofuel production
Lennart Kjörling, journalist
Wed 5/11 13-16 V32 Follow up of the excursion 16-18 October
Delivering of first assignment
Wed 12/11 13-16 V01 The immoral biofuel – summary of lecturers at _Kungl
Skogs- och Lantbruksakademin
Jan-Erik Gustafsson
Delivering of team project detailed synopsis
Wed 19/11 13-16 V33 Fuel for development –A contribution to poverty
reduction
Camilla Lundberg Ney, Swedish Cooperative Center
Wed 26/11 13-16 V32 Bioethanol as a part of a sustainable transport solution
Anders Fredriksson, SEKAB Biofuels & Chemicals
Wed 3/12 13-16 V11 The Green Motorist Society
Mattias Goldmann, Swedish Association of Green
Motorists (www.gronabilister.se)
Delivering of final project report
Wed 10/12 10-12 Q22, Team project presentations
13-16 V12
Wed 17/12 13.00 - Delivering of brief assessment
- 152-

EESI-project 2008-10-15
Final program
Environmental Engineering an d Sustainable Infrastructure (EESI) Excursion Program
16 October to 18 October
Date Time Visits
Thu
16/10
08.15 Bus leaves KTH at 08.30 sharp
10.00.-11.30 Ecological solutions to wastewater treatment, Enköping
Host: Wendelin Muller-Wille, Vice chairman Enköping Municipality
12.30
14.00-16.00
17.00
Fri 08.30
17/10
09.15-11.40
13.00-16.00
17.00
Sat 08.30
18/10
09.30 –13.00
ca 13.45
Check in at Ibis Hotel, Västerås
Lunch at own expense
Visit to the Växtkraft-Biogas production site, Västerås.
An example of closed circulation project to provide bio-fuels and manure for
agriculture.
Host: Per- Erik Persson, Torbjörn Strömberg, & Carl- Magnus Pettersson,
VafabMiljo
Back to Ibis Hotel
Bus leaves Ibis Hotel for Eskilstuna
Swedish Energy Agency (STEM).
Host: Pia Norrman
-Introduction to STEM, general presentation and policies within climate,
Kenneth Möllersten
-Biofuels
and the conflict with fuel-food, Gustav Krantz
-Green ce rtificates and its role for Swedish energy, Gustav Ebenå
Lunch at own expense
Eskilstuna Energy Power Plant and the Ekeby Wetland Park and Sewage
Plant
Host : Pernilla Norwald, Ulf Björklund, Leif Linde, and colleagues
from
Eskils tuna Energi och Miljö AB (Energy and Environment AB)
Back to Ibis Hotel
Bus leaves Ibis Hotel
Visit to Hallstahammar – industrial & cultural development and
environmental conservation of this industrious town along the Kolbäck
River.
Host: Kanalbolaget, Hans Pettersson
Richard Grun, Hallstahammar Municipality
and colleagues
Göran Algroth, Mälarenergi AB
Lunch at Westerqvarn
- 153-

15.00 Bus leave for Stockholm
Approx 17.00
Back to KTH
Jan-Erik Gustafsson
janerik@kth.se
08 790 7359
073 6645701
Patricia Phumpiu
patricia@kth.se
08 790 7967
Useful web-pages:
www.enkoping.se
www.vasteras.se
www.eskilstuna.se
www.hallstahammar.se
www.stem.se
w ww.biofuelstp.
eu
www.vafabmiljo.se
www.vattenavlopp.info
www.vasteras.se/malarensvattenvardsforbund
- 154-

Qualified students for the EESI AE2001 and AG2145 project courses
A utumn 2008
Environmental Engineering - AE2001 Sustainable Infrastructure - AG2145
Name
& Country
Alwer Issa
Jordan
Dehkordi Seyed Emad
Iran
Haque Md Al Mamunal
Bangladesh
Kursah Matthew Biniyam
Ghana
Lagogiannis Sergios
Greece
Liu Ting (f)
China
Manceau Jean.Pierre
France
Papageorgiou Panagiotis
Greece
Rana Sajad
Pakistan
Wang Lei (f)
China
Wang Zhao
Chaina
Woldegiorgis Berhane
Ethiopia
Zhuang Xinwen (f)
China
Zywna Michal
Poland
Name
& Country
Afrin Shahrina (f)
Bangaldesh
Ahmed Dilbahar
Bangladesh
Ahsan Tahmina (f)
Bangladesh
Amanullah Md Tawid
Bangladesh
Donovan Craig
Sweden/New Zealand
El Krekshi Laila (f)
Finland/Libya
Loewenstein James
USA
Miliutenko Sofiia (f)
Ukraine
Khodeza B U Shirin (f)
Bangladesh
Nagapetan Veranika (f)
Belarus
Restrepo Wilmar
Colombia
Sanghani H Kiritkumar
India
Santa R P Michelle (f)
Brazil
Sarker Mohammad Shaheen,
Bangladesh
Uttam Kedar
India
Zaman Atiq Uz
Bangldesh
- 155-