Analysis of Socio-Economic Indicators on Different Bioenergy Case Studies

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Socio-economic indicators are not fully developed and operational while this is an important aspect of sustainability. Seven case studies were analyzed within the Global-Bio-Pact project covering seven countries and five feedstock types. The 100 indicators that are identified are analyzed and evaluated to derive valuable lessons and recommendations. From this analysis it becomes clear that it is essential to look at impacts on different levels: national, regional, and local. This is because, e.g., impacts on a local level are not always reflected in macroeconomic indicators and vice versa. Background indicators, e.g., GDP in a region or the level of unemployment, do not necessarily link directly to bioenergy impacts but can provide a snapshot of the setting in which bioenergy projects operate. This can identify potential important areas of concern (with negative or positive impacts) beforehand. There is a trade-off between accuracy of the data and practicability. This can vary per country and per feedstock depending on data availability. More (accurate) data collection is required on all levels (national, regional, and local). Furthermore, more methodologies, based on quantitative data, have to be developed to gain better insight in socio-economic impacts on the long term.

Keywords

Socio-economic indicators Employment Food security Land rights Working conditions Gender issues 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all members of the Global-Bio-Pact consortium, especially Martijn Vis who contributed to the analysis of these indicators.

References

  1. Arndt, C., Benfica, R., Tarp, F., Thurlow, J., & Uaiene, R. (2009). Biofuels, poverty, and growth: A computable general equilibrium analysis of mozambique. Environment and Development Economics, 15, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burrel, T., Ouattara, O., Sokona, M., & Togola, I. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of Jatropha production and its conversion routes in Mali. Bamako: Mali-Folkecenter Nyetaa.Google Scholar
  3. Cárdenas, A., & Fallot, A. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of the sugar cane-to-ethanol production chain in Costa Rica. Turrialba: CATIE.Google Scholar
  4. Diaz-Chavez, R. A. (2010). Assessing biofuels: Aiming for sustainable development or complying with the market? Energy Policy, 39, 5763–5769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FAOSTAT. (2012). FAO statistical database. Accessed 10-12-2012 at http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E
  6. GBEP. (2011). Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy. Global Bioenergy Partnership. 223 pages, available from: http://www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gbep/docs/Indicators/The_GBEP_Sustainability_Indicators_for_Bioenergy_FINAL.pdf
  7. Gerber Machado, P., & Walter, A. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of the sugar cane chain in Brazil. Campinas: UNICAMP.Google Scholar
  8. Herreras Martinez, S., Van Eijck, J., Pereira da Cunha, M., Walter, A., Guilhoto, J. J. M., & Faaij, A. (2013). Analysis of socio-economic impacts of sustainable sugar cane-ethanol production by means of inter-regional input-output analysis: Demonstrated for Northeast Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 28, pp. 290–316.Google Scholar
  9. Janssen, R., & Rutz, D. (2011). Sustainability of biofuels in Latin America: Risks and opportunities. Energy Policy, 39, 5717–5725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lamers, P., Hamelinck, C., Junginger, M., & Faaij, A. (2011). International bioenergy trade-A review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 2655–2676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewandowski, I., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2006). Steps towards the development of a certification system for sustainable bio-energy trade. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NEN. (2011). Netherlands Technical Agreement NTA8080. Nederlands Normalisatie-institute.Google Scholar
  13. RSB. (2010). RSB Principles and Criteria 05/11/2010 Version 2.0. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). Available from http://rsb.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/rsb2/files/Biofuels/Version%202/PCs%20V2/10-11-12%20RSB%20PCs%20Version%202.pdf
  14. Sawe, E. N., Shuma, J., & Pesambili, L. C. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of the Jatropha chain in Tanzania. Dar-es-Salaam: TATEDO.Google Scholar
  15. Sbarra, R., & Hilbert, J. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of the Soy chain in Argentina. Buenos Aires: INTA.Google Scholar
  16. Sleen, P. v., Vis, M., Abban-Mensah, I., & Bottriel, K. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of lignocellulosic biomass in Canada. Enschede: BTG, Proforest.Google Scholar
  17. Smeets, E., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Walter, A., Dolzan, P., & Turkenburg, W. (2008). The sustainability of Brazilian ethanol-An assessment of the possibilities of certified production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32, 781–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Dam, J., & Junginger, M. (2011). Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire. Energy Policy, 39, 4051–4066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Dam, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Jürgens, I., Best, G., & Fritsche, U. (2008). Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32, 749–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Dam, J., Junginger, M., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2010). From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 2445–2472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van der Hilst, F., Verstegen, J. A., Karssenberg, D., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2011). Spatiotemporal land use modelling to assess land availability for energy crops—illustrated for Mozambique. GCB Bioenergy.Google Scholar
  22. Van Eijck, J., Romijn, H., Smeets, E., Bailis, R., Rooijakkers, M., Hooijkaas, N., Verweij, P., & Faaij, A. (in press). Comparative analysis of key socio-economic and environmental impacts of smallholder and plantation based jatropha biofuel production systems in Tanzania. Biomass and Bioenergy.Google Scholar
  23. van Eijck, J., Smeets, E., & Faaij, A. (2012). The economic performance of jatropha, cassava and Eucalyptus production systems for energy in an East African smallholder setting. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 828–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vissers, P., Paz, A., & Hanekamp, E. (2011). How to select a biomass certification scheme. Utrecht: Partners for Innovation BV, Agency NL.Google Scholar
  25. Wicke, B., Smeets, E., Watson, H., & Faaij, A. (2011). The current bioenergy production potential of semi-arid and arid regions in sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 2773–2786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Woods, J., & Diaz-Chavez, R. (2007). The environmental certification of biofuels. London: Joint Transport Research Centre, OECD, International Transport Forum, Imperial College.Google Scholar
  27. Wright, A. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of the palm oil chain in Indonesia. Jakarta: Green Light Biofuels.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Copernicus Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations