Bioenergy and Food Security


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Tanzania No policy in place Guidelines approved in December 2009 Government has tasked a bioenergy policy group to work on the biofuel policy Peru Biofuels policy in place: mandate for bioethanol and biodiesel (implementation) Thailand Biofuels policy in place with stepping up production targets, some already in place (effectiveness for improving livelihoods through better understanding the impacts) Biofuels policy in place with stepping up production targets, some already in place
  • Not about endorsing biofuels but about finding a sustainable pathway for biofuel development, where sustainable means that it drives econ growth, leads to poverty reduction. no negative impact on food security, no negative impact on the environment
  • Tanzania very competitive
  • How the work in Tanzania helps support livelihoods What did the analysis shows: opportunity but needs institutional support
  • Bioenergy and Food Security

    1. 2. Bioenergy and Food Security <ul><li>The Bioenergy and Food Security project in FAO </li></ul><ul><li>Objective: </li></ul><ul><li>To explore the extent to which bioenergy developments provide a feasible vehicle for agricultural and rural development and thus contribute to poverty reduction and food security (safeguarding and enhancing) </li></ul><ul><li>Four main avenues to support policy: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Analysis and knowledge development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Capacity building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3. Institutional building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4. South-south co-operation </li></ul></ul>
    2. 3. BEFS countries, the policy spectrum and support Thailand Tanzania Peru Currently no policy in place, agriculture sector plays a key role <ul><ul><li>Biofuel policy in place, mandate for bioethanol and biodiesel (implementation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Biofuel policy in place with stepping up production targets </li></ul></ul>BEFS Analytical Framework Informing policy Building capacity BEFS Evidence
    3. 4. The BEFS Analytical Framework <ul><li>Four core dimensions of the BEFS Analytical Framework ( BEFS AF ) </li></ul><ul><li>1. Diagnostic analysis </li></ul><ul><li>- Agricultural outlook </li></ul><ul><li>2. Natural resource analysis </li></ul><ul><li>- Land assessment </li></ul><ul><li>- Water resource management </li></ul><ul><li>- Woody biomass and residues </li></ul><ul><li>3. Techno-economic and environmental analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Biofuel production costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Greenhouse gas emissions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>4. Socio-economic analysis </li></ul><ul><li>- Economy-wide impacts </li></ul><ul><li> - Household food security </li></ul>
    4. 5. BEFS’ core message ... how to manage the industry to deliver maximum benefits with fewest risks for the most vulnerable groups of the population Ex ante - being aware of all the issues, minimising risks Ex post - having mechanisms to monitor and deal with problems ...Per se biofuels is neither good nor bad What matters is the management of the sector...
    5. 6. BEFS in Practice: Cassava in Tanzania Land suitability assessment for cassava excluding environmental and land use constraints
    6. 7. Cassava production scenarios A B C
    7. 8. Ethanol competitiveness in Tanzania Literature Cost (USD/l) Scheme Fresh cassava from outgrowers 0.42 Thailand and Vietnam – 0.34 to 0.40 Dried cassava from outgrowers 0.47 Brazil - 0.45 - 0.47, China and India 0.60 - 0.65 Dried cassava from estate (60%) and outgrowers (40%) 0.37
    8. 9. Impact on growth and poverty Aligning with country policy goals Scenarios Feedstock production Feedstock yield level Land expansion (% land displaced) Cassava 1 (low tech) Small scale Low (10 mt/ha) Yes (50%) Cassava 2 (high tech) Small scale High (20 mt/ha) No
    9. 10. Food security and short term vulnerability <ul><li>In the short run, which are the vulnerable groups? </li></ul><ul><li>Food security staples: Maize and Cassava </li></ul><ul><li>Household typologies </li></ul>Source: FAOSTAT Source: Ministry of Trade, Calculations by the authors 1959 Total Calories per capita 88.5 Subtotal share for selected items 1.4 Millet 15 1.5 Plantains 14 1.7 Pulses, Other 13 1.8 Bovine Meat 12 2.2 Milk – Excluding Butter 11 2.7 Beverages, Fermented 10 2.9 Beans 9 3.0 Palm Oil 8 3.3 Sugar (Raw Equivalent) 7 3.3 Sweet Potatoes 6 4.0 Sorghum 5 4.0 Wheat 4 7.9 Rice (Milled Equivalent) 3 15.2 Cassava 2 33.4 Maize 1 Calorie Share Commodity Ranking
    10. 11. Conclusions on cassava <ul><li>One potential biofuel production option to include smallholders (others also to be part of the production mix) </li></ul><ul><li>Heavily reliant on EU market and current tariffs, at least in the short to medium term, due to limited domestic demand </li></ul><ul><li>Agronomy needs further investigation </li></ul><ul><li>Agroindustry set up to be integrated into domestic development plans </li></ul>
    11. 12. THANK YOU! <ul><li>Contacts: </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Website: </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Tanzania report: http :// / docrep /012/i1544e/i1544e00. htm </li></ul>