This report by the European Environment Agency, published in January2008, confirms that there is a large potential for bioenergy production from agricultural biomass in Europe. However, the increasing demand for biofuels raises concerns about additional pressure on Europe’s environment and farmland biodiversity. The report analyses the 'environmentally compatible' potential of biomass production in 25 EU Member States and warns that Europe's biodiversity, waters and soils could be threatened unless significant protective measures are put in place.

Read the report here.

Added: 25.01.08

A European drive to run vehicles on biofuels instead of petrol and diesel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to be reviewed after concerns about its environmental impact.

Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, said a European target to boost biofuel production risked causing more damage than Brussels realised. But he insisted that biofuels still had benefits, and their impact on food supplies and biodiversity could be limited by the introduction of strict sustainability standards.

Europe has pledged that biofuels, such as bio-ethanol and bio-diesel, will make up 10% of transport fuel by 2020; Britain has a separate target of 5% biofuels in petrol and diesel by 2010. In a separate report, the Royal Society yesterday said the UK government needed to rethink its biofuels policy. The society warned that the renewable transport fuel obligation, which calls for 5% biofuel use within two years, would not necessarily reduce carbon emissions.

To read the Royal Society report see here.

In issue 11 of the journal Energy Policy, there’s a very helpful (and not too technical) overview of international biofuels policy and the possible implications both for the environment and for developing nations. The details and abstract are as follows

Charles MB, Ryan R, Ryan N, Oloruntobaa R. (2007). Public policy and biofuels: The way forward? Energy Policy 35 5737–5746

The use of biofuels has been given much attention by governments around the world, especially in increasingly energy-hungry OECD nations. Proponents have argued that they offer various advantages over hydrocarbon-based fuels, especially with respect to reducing dependence on OPEC-controlled oil, minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and ensuring financial and lifestyle continuity to farmers and agriculturally dependent communities. This paper adds to the continuing technical debate by addressing the issue from a holistic public policy perspective. In particular, it looks at the proposed benefits of biofuels, yet also addresses the implications of increased demand on the global and regional environment, in addition to the economic welfare of developing nations. Furthermore, it posits that short-term reliance on biofuels vis-à-vis other alternative energy sources may potentially inhibit the development and maturation of longer-term technologies that have greater potential to correct the harmful effects of fossil-fuel dependence. In light of this, the manifold policy instruments currently employed or proposed by governments in developed nations to promote biofuels emerge as questionable.

In October 2007, The Department for Transport published a short position paper on biofuels, arguing that there is a role for them providing they are produced sustainably.

This report published by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) emphasises many of the downsides of biofuels. These include:

• Land use conflicts between growing crops for fuel and crops for food
• Environmental damage particularly in tropical areas (where biofuels can most readily be grown)
• Poor CO2 and other credentials for many biofuels when compared with fossil fuels
• Little potential for reducing oil dependence and improving national fuel security.
• Lack of cost effectiveness

The report says that even in the 'best-case scenario', biofuels will only be able to achieve a 3% reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050, thus failing to reduce petroleum fuel consumption. It also points out that higher oil prices will have the effect of increasing biofuel production costs while simultaneously making fossil fuel alternatives such as tar sands and coal-to-liquids increasingly competitive.

The report arges that second-generation technologies hold promise but depend on technological breakthroughs. It recommends that priority should be given to research into second-generation biofuels — not only their technologies, but also the assumptions regarding the cost and long-term availability of feedstocks. Domestic policy efforts should be redirected from (subsidy) instruments aimed at the deployment of biofuels in general back to the R&D and demonstration phase of advanced biofuel technologies.

An article in the journal Science (August 2007) argues that the the EU target of ensuring 10% of petrol and diesel comes from renewable sources by 2020 is not an effective way to curb carbon emissions.

The authors suggest that reforestation and habitat protection is a better option: forests could absorb up to nine times more CO2 than the production of biofuels could achieve on the same area of land. However the growth in biofuels production is leading to more deforestation. The authors of the article are Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust and Dominick Spracklen at the University of Leeds.

You can read the BBC's coverage of the article here or for the World Land Trust press release see here.

When the extra N2O emission from biofuel production is calculated in “CO2-equivalent” global warming terms, and compared with the quasi-cooling effect of “saving” emissions of 15 fossil fuel derived CO2, the outcome is that the production of commonly used biofuels, such as biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn (maize), can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings. Crops with less N demand, such as grasses and woody coppice species have more favourable climate impacts. This analysis only considers the conversion of biomass to 20 biofuel. It does not take into account the use of fossil fuel on the farms and for fertilizer and pesticide production, but it also neglects the production of useful co-products. Both factors partially compensate each other. This needs to be analyzed in a full life cycle assessment.

View the paper (for free) online here where you'll also find an interactive discussion board. The full reference for the paper is: P. J. Crutzen, A. R. Mosier, K. A. Smith, and W. Winiwarter (2007) N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 7, 11191–11205, 2007

An FCRN summary is available here.

Click on the PDF icon to read the consultation document itself. To read the Department for Transport press release click here.

To read the press release see here.

A study by Iowa State University’s Center for Agriculture and Rural Development has been published. Emerging Biofuels: Outlook of Effects on US Grain, Oilseed, and Livestock Markets argues that greater US ethanol production will mean more competition for land and grain, and will subsequently cause long-run crop price increases. It says that the expanding US ethanol market has already driven US retail food prices up by $14 billion over the last year.

An FCRN summary is available here.

It recommends that the production of crops that require high fossil energy inputs (such as conventional fertilizer) and valuable (farm) land, and that have relatively low energy yields per hectare, should be avoided. The report also observes that even “sustainably"- produced energy crops could have negative impacts if they replaced primary forests, since deforestation leads to large releases of carbon from the soil and forest biomass which will negate the benefits of biofuels themselves.

It also notes that while the market for biofuels brings with it employment opportunities, food security could be threatened if land, water and other resources are diverted from food production. Food access could also be compromised by higher basic food prices resulting from increased bioenergy feedstock demand.

Click here to read the press release. You can also see the Guardian's coverage of the report here.

Note that the researchers did not set out to assess the economic or environmental impact of this chain, but rather to investigate the developing supply chain relations and identify how these could be improved in order to help the business partners produce in the most efficient way possible.

However, the substantial rise in the use of biomass from agriculture, forestry and waste for producing energy might put additional pressure on farmland and forest biodiversity as well as on soil and water resources. It may also counteract other current and potential future environmental policies and objectives, such as waste minimisation or environmentally-oriented farming.

An FCRN summary of the article is available here.

The focus of the papers spans both the developed and the developing world. See Hazell P and Pachauri RK (eds.) (2006). Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and Challenges, IFPRI, 2020 Focus No. 14.

The section on biomass feedstock potential shows that there is a clear link with food issues; sources of biomass include animal wastes, manures and slurries, energy crops and municipal solid waste (which will include a food element). Click here for a summary of this section.

Click here for a brief FCRN summary of this report.