At times, energy has been overlooked in the development debate, but recently it has again been receiving greater attention. Some people talk about “energy poverty” and point out that better access to energy by “energy-starved” people can significantly contribute to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Energy access can reduce extreme poverty (MDG 1) by enabling new income-generating activities, and reduce time spent on collecting firewood. Electricity makes it possible to study more (MDG2), watch TV and use mobile phones.

Studies have shown that girls, in particular, take advantage of the extra study hours (MDG 3). Access to energy can reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, and help combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases (by, for example, providing clean water). Replacing firewood with biogas or electricity reduces respiratory diseases (MDGs 4, 5 and 6). And, better access to energy can improve environmental sustainability by reducing deforestation (MDG 7).

The link between energy and climate change is now widely recognised, but increased access to energy does not have to result in climate change. For a start, energy use does not have to be as wasteful as it has often been in industrial agriculture. Instead of treating energy as a consumable item, purchased from outside, we need to think in terms of energy flows, as we do with nutrients and water in agriculture. How can we reduce energy waste? How can we increase energy efficiency? How can we re-use energy?

While conventional agricultural production systems rely heavily on fossil fuels, both for machinery and for the production of fertilizers, the majority of small-scale farms use a minimum of fossil-based inputs. The benefits of such an approach are many and include a minimal environmental impact, less money spent and increased resilience to fluctuations in fossil fuel prices.

Aiming at universal access?

The burning of wood, dung and crop residues accounts for one third of the energy used in developing countries. Households, however, find it increasingly difficult to find wood or dung, so it is important to focus on other energy sources. Some alternative energy solutions such as biogas, micro-hydro dams and wind power have matured and are spreading fast. Modern solutions like photovoltaic (PV) solar panels have dropped significantly in price over the last few years and are becoming competitive with other sources of energy.

However, many of these technologies require heavy investments upfront. Many poor people who could benefit from these alternative forms of energy are not in a position, for example, to adopt PV solar panels – which can easily cost up to US$ 500 for one household. Even with less costly options, like the micro-hydropower systems seen in Nepal, the upfront costs are too high for communities to shoulder by themselves.

At the same time, many countries have laws in place to protect national electricity suppliers by outlawing private micro-grids. At present the current level of investment in “soft” energy provision is only one-fifth of that required to provide access to electricity for all by 2030. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast that by 2030 there will still be 1.2 billion people without access to electricity unless policies change significantly.

Many people are afraid of what universal access to electricity would mean in terms of global warming. However, the provision of universal access to electricity by 2030 would only increase global demand for fossil fuels by 0.8% and increase CO2 emissions by 0.7%. This is due to a combination of the low energy requirements among people who are currently off-grid and the expectations that many will be served by electricity generated from alternative energy sources.

Looking for alternatives

The majority of the poorer regions of the world are net importers of fossil fuel. At the same time they have abundant resources of untapped alternative energy. A lack of skills and capital, subsidies on fossil fuels and a lack of supportive policies have prevented significant development of alternative energy technologies in many countries. The major exceptions are Brazil, China and India.

After decades of dedicated government support for research and development Brazil is one of the global leaders in bio-fuel production. The latter two countries are both leaders in decentralised renewable energy provision from wind, small hydro units, biogas, and solar water heating. Most other governments have taken little initiative in developing sources of alternative energy.

Biodiesel and plant oils can act as substitutes for diesel and ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. They can power existing vehicles. This is unlike other alternative fuels, such as electricity or hydrogen, which involve replacing existing vehicles with new ones. Even in rich countries, the adaptations required are prohibitively expensive. When fossil fuel prices went through the roof it seemed very attractive to get farmers to produce bio-fuels which would only require upstream investment to relatively simple processing facilities. It was a dream of a quick and easy switch to a fossil fuel free future, but was not rooted in reality.

The latest bio-fuel hype started around 2005 and saw many governments, together with NGOs and private investors, jump into large projects without doing the necessary homework. In particular, the production of Jatropha curcas was promoted in places where it cannot grow well and farmers were encouraged to produce in places where no markets existed. Information about the right agronomic practices was rarely provided, and nobody paid attention to the importance of creating valuable by-products from the press cake. Unsurprisingly, the yields have been poor and the resulting backlash has been just as large as the hype a few years ago. Today the bio-fuel sector is facing a tough time, both economically and politically.

Examples from different countries show that, as with all sources of energy, it is important to look at the social and economic consequences of every option, the environmental impacts of energy use, and take into account the entire process of distribution. Large-scale hydroelectricity plants, or the large scale production of bio-fuels, may have enormous social, economic and political costs such as displacing people living in an area. The “sustainability” of bio-fuels depends on the energy that is required to produce biofuel crops (for example, whether agrochemicals are used) and on what type of land the crops are grown: if it replaces carbon-rich land, such as natural forests, or other (food) crops, questions need to be asked about the net benefits.

Small-scale solutions

Fossil fuels have played a large role in agriculture, powering generators, pumps and vehicles, the production of artificial fertilizers and allowing supply chains to grow progressively longer. However, several alternative energy sources have emerged which are technically and economically viable and are currently being adopted at a large scale. Each technology has its advantages and disadvantages.

For instance, wind power is cheap but intermittent, i.e. it only works when the wind blows. Small hydroelectric power stations can produce energy on demand but are too expensive for most communities. Bio-gas produces slurry that is a good fertilizer but is difficult to handle and transport. Photovoltaics are durable but can only power light loads. Bio-fuels can directly substitute fossil fuel, but can compete with other crops for labour and land. Solar water-heaters are relatively cheap but prone to clogging if dirty water is used.

Despite the great benefits offered by alternative energy sources, a focus on increasing access to energy can overlook the importance of the techniques and equipment used by many family farmers – and the real energy demand of agriculture. All over the world, farmers are experimenting with the many low-tech energy saving and energy providing technologies that are already available.

Many examples have been documented in this magazine over the years. The kind of energy source used depends largely on availability and price, but also on tradition and personal preferences. Most importantly we should look not so much at the demand for energy, but more at the efficiency of its use. These examples show that small-scale farmers can not only achieve high yields: they are also more efficient than intensive farmers in terms of their energy use.

Text: Flemming Nielsen

Based in the Netherlands, Flemming Nielsen works as an independent researcher at Banana Hill. E-mail: fnielsen@ bananahill.net

References

OECD/IEA, 2011. Energy for all: Financing access for the poor. UNDP, 2009. Expanding energy access in developing countries: The role of mechanical power.

UNDP, 2011. Decentralized energy access and the Millennium Development Goals: An analysis of the development benefits of micro-hydropower in rural Nepal

The Worldwatch Institute 2005: Energy for Development: The potential role of renewable energy in meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

The post The energy dilemma appeared first on Ileia.

Since then, the cultivation of crops for bio-fuels, such as jatropha, has been a hot topic in the international development debate. Are bio-fuels an opportunity for small-scale farming?

Opponents of the development of a bio-fuel sector make us believe that cultivation of fuel crops is radically different from agriculture as we know it. But why? Farmers don’t really mind if their cash crop is cassava, tobacco, soy, coffee or jatropha. If jatropha pays better than coffee, the farmer will shift to jatropha. Should farmers only grow crops for food? Should we also ban cotton?
A major part of the food crops produced today is not consumed by humans. More than 40% of world grain production is fed to animals, and this is increasing rapidly with the growth in meat consumption. The resources allocated to bio-fuels are small in comparison.

Many studies, such as FAO’s 2009 report, “Small-scale bioenergy initiatives”, have concluded that bio-fuel production can be beneficial to small-scale farmers. It is true that bio-fuels have contributed to increasing food prices, which is particularly problematic for the many people who are dependent on cheap food. But food prices have been low primarily because developed countries have subsidised their farms for decades. This has made farming in developing countries a miserable way to earn a living, which has prompted young rural people to move out to the city – where they end up in slums. Higher prices for agricultural products are good for farmers in the long term, and bio-fuels remain an interesting option for breaking this negative spiral.

While agro-corporations grab land for bio-fuel production, this is a separate problem that emerges because there is now an agricultural commodity that fetches a reasonable price, and therefore attracts entrepreneurs and investors. If we ban bio-fuels to reduce land-grabbing then the logical consequence is that we ban any crop that is attractive to entrepreneurs, and condemn farmers to eternal poverty.
Obviously this is absurd: landgrabbing is a political and juridical problem that needs to be dealt with outside the discussion about bio-fuels.
Small-scale farmers should have the option to choose bio-fuels to develop their farming. Let them decide for themselves what makes sense to them.

Text: Flemming Nielsen
Flemming Nielsen can be reached at fnielsen[at]bananahill.net

Flemming Nielsen has been developing options for smallscale farming in Africa for two decades, and now works for the FACT Foundation.

As part of the word “biofuels”, the prefix “bio” has a false positive connotation, implying a solution to the depletion of fossil fuels and to climate change.
As we are talking about oil from agricultural crops, I prefer the word “agro-fuel” – and then their positive image disappears.

Agro-fuel corporations present Africa as a sick continent that has vast “marginal” lands waiting to be put to use. For example, industry claims that jatropha does well on degraded lands, such as those found in Swaziland, where a company, D1 Oils plc, told farmers that jatropha does not need water to bring income. It did not take too long for them to find out the bitter truth: that they not only need expensive chemicals, but also to divert water from their food crops.

In Ghana I recently spoke to farmers who feared a land use change from food cropping to agro-fuels production. And it’s the industry who determines prices. African governments and local chiefs now hand over land to corporations, which turn it into large-scale fuel production fields for the export market. This is land where local people used to graze their animals or grow locally adapted crops.

Farmers and pastoralists now risk becoming refugees in their own regions. In the process, GM giants are lining up with oil companies and contaminating our cassava and potato fields. The former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, classified agrofuels as a “crime against humanity”. Ironically, the contribution of agrofuels to the world’s energy supply is marginal: the entire 2005 soy and maize harvest in the United States could have only replaced 12% of the country’s fossil fuel demands.

Who really benefits from allotting poor people’s land to the production of fuels for cars? The answer is clear. History has proven time and again that such “innovations” benefit corporations, while communities are left hungry and impoverished. I do not dispute the use of agro-fuels for their use within a community, as happens in Mali, where communities grow jatropha in hedges to meet domestic energy needs. But, all in all, the earth is too small to cultivate agro-fuels on a large scale. Our governments should scrape all agro-fuels targets and enforce international moratoriums on exports. Agro-fuels are a false solution that threaten the livelihoods of millions of poor people.

Text: Mariann Bassey
Mariann Bassey can be reached at
mariann[at]eraction.org

Mariann Bassey is the food and agriculture co-ordinator for Environmental Rights Action / Friends of the Earth Nigeria.

The post Two views: Can family farmers benefit from bio-fuels? appeared first on Ileia.