It is absolutely essential to eliminate any advert policies or legal framework in the world market posted by Oil giants that could affect bf production adversely. Oil companies can set a syndicated price (lowering price) alluring customers to depend on petroleum. Another important issue to stabilize the bf market is introduction of international standards and/or certification schemes. Legislations, mandates, policies i.e. blending mandates, government purchasing policies, and support of bio fuel-compatible infrastructure and technologies have been most successful in creating a consistent bf market. But other policies, loan guarantees, tax incentives for consumers and manufacturers, and direct industry subsidies, should be phased out to make bf production a self-sustained commodity as in Brazil and Germany. The necessity of certification in case of mass production of bio-fuel has become imperative with the growth of the industry. Some existing schemes are International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Rainforest Alliance’s Standard for Sustainable Agriculture in Latin America; organic certification and labeling schemes, Forest Stewardship Council’s international forest certification system; UK environmental assurance programme linked to the country’s renewable fuels obligation; and the newly established Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. In case of selecting schemes the following issues should be concerned 1. Select the most appropriate standards or certification approach possible: Laws or regulations, voluntary certification schemes, or criteria to qualify for subsidies or incentive programmes, 2. Achieve consensus among diverse stakeholders about basic underlying principles: consultation and participation in the process to make the system credible in the marketplace, 3. Design and adopt specific quantifiable criteria for sustainability indicators: The legislations should be flexible enough to be adapted to the particular requirements of a region, 4. Ensure that compliance with the criteria is enforceable in practice, without generating high additional costs: Issues of cost and who pays are critical to the success of a certification programme, 5. Avoid leakage effects: when crop production activities are expanded, leakage could occur disturbing natural habitats, increasing CO2 emissions from soil or other environmental impacts, and 6. Establish a system for monitoring and reporting : System for measuring and reporting on energy efficiency and on the carbon and energy balances of the resulting fuels

1. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF
MASSIVE BIO FUEL
PRODUCTION ON FOOD
PRICE INDEX
YASIN KABIR

2. Overview
Segment 1
Introduction
Aim
RQs
Methodology
Limitations
Segment 2 (Global perspective)
Impact -in a global context
Urban-poor in LIFDC
Gender perspective
Segment 3m (Local perspective)
Affects on USA local market
Brazil‟s role
Segment 4
Discussion
Conclusion

3. Introduction
• Bio fuel (bf) is liquid, solid, or gaseous fuels derived from renewable biological
sources. (i.e ethanol). Crops are currently used i.e. sugar cane (Brazil), corn,
maize (USA) to produce ethanol
• Recent rise in energy prices-tensions in OPEC, uncertainties in future
availability and access to non-renewable resources have made bf a major issue
in many countries‟ policy.
• As food grains is being converted for the production of bf ,it triggered rise in
food price index worldwide
Aim
 The aim of the study was to assess the impacts of mass scale bio-fuel crop
production on food price indices (global perspective), information was also
collected regarding the case of Brazil and USA in a local context.
RQs
 What are the possible Impacts of using food crops as bio-fuel on food-grain
price index?
 Case study on the aforementioned issue (food grain price) in USA and Brazil.
 How to reduce the impact on food grain price index of bf? Is there any ways
to convert the bf„curse‟ to a „blessing‟ ?
Methodology
 Economical impacts ,case studies was assessed based on literature review
(articles, internet sources).Recommendations were made from author‟s own
analysis
Segment 1
Introduction
Aim
RQs
Methodology
Limitations
Segment 2
Impact-in a global context
Urban-poor in LIFDC
Gender perspective
Segment 3
Affects on USA local market
Brazil’s role
Segment 4
Discussion
Conclusion

4. Limitations
Economical impacts were concerned, in terms
of monetary value (price/unit over a period of
time).
Affect of inflation, local country taxation,
Federal Reserve‟s impacts, money laundering,
international political effects, economical and
financial terminologies, jargons or tools were
not considered in this paper.
On the context of case studies, due to the
scope, time and resource constraints, we
conducted only a desktop study rather than a
field study. The local commodity price shift was
studied based on general knowledge and all
financial hedging effects will be ignored.
Segment 1
Introduction
Aim
RQs
Methodology
Limitations
Segment 2
Impact-in a global context
Urban-poor in LIFDC
Gender perspective
Segment 3
Affects on USA local market
Brazil’s role
Segment 4
Discussion
Conclusion

5. Segment 1
Introduction
Aim
RQs
Methodology
Limitations
Segment 2
Impact-in a global context
Urban-poor in LIFDC
Gender perspective
Segment 3
Affects on USA local market
Brazil’s role
Segment 4
Discussion
Conclusion
Gender Perspective
Source: Soaring food prices: facts, perspectives, impacts and actions required, high-level conference on world food
security: the challenges of Climate change and bio energy, FAO, Rome, 3 - 5 June 2008
Fig: GenderBias in Poverty and Welfare Effects of Staple Food Price Increases
From figure 1
The FHH are with very few
exceptions are economically
weaker than that of male headed
households and the resultant is
with the food price hike they are
more susceptible to the negative
effect as they spend more on
food than the male counter parts
The table also indicates that
Ghana and Viet Nam holds a
share of more than 20% of the
entire family structure as FHH
Also seen from the table that,
except from Guatemala , in all
the countries FHH are more
susceptible to welfare losses
than the MHH

6. Segment 1
Introduction
Aim
RQs
Methodology
Limitations
Segment 2
Impact-in a global context
Urban-poor in LIFDC
Gender perspective
Segment 3
Affects on USA local market
Brazil’s role
Segment 4
Discussion
Conclusion
Affects on USA local market
Source: Baier S, Clements M.et al March, 2009, Bio-fuel Impacton Crop and Food prices:Using an Interactive Spreadsheet
Figure: Corn , Livestock Poultry and Egg Prices 1998/99-2006/7
Figure: Corn prices and US ethanol Production,Jan.2005- May 2008
Corn Price 1.8$
Ethanol production 9,000,000 of barrels
Corn Price 5.5$
Ethanol production 18,000,000
of barrels

7. Brazil’s Role
 WB claimed in July 2008
”Brazil's sugar-based ethanol did not push food prices”
This WB report concluded that, though Brazil has been
used sugar cane a large scale to produce ethanol, it has not
raised worldwide sugar price.. The same year, OECD also
published an economic assessment report and agreed on
the same issue with WB
 Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva blamed strongly to the US and
European subsidies as well as gave a restriction of using
maize as biofuel crop. The Brazilian President declared in
different ocassions that they are not responsible for world
higher food prices
 A study, "the effects on bio fuels on grain prices" has been
published by Brazilian research unit of Fundação Getúlio
Vargas. The study asserted that huge ethanol production
need lots of sugar cane cultivation land. But Brazilian sugar
cane production has no contribution to the average grain
prices
Segment 1
Introduction
Aim
RQs
Methodology
Limitations
Segment 2
Impact-in a global context
Urban-poor in LIFDC
Gender perspective
Segment 3
Affects on USA local market
Brazil’s role
Segment 4
Discussion
Conclusion

8. Limits of biofules
 First generation
◦ Most critizised
◦ Emits CO2 in the production stage
◦ Competes with food production
 Second generation
◦ Expensive and complex process
◦ Less fertile soil
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion

9. Limits of biofules
 Thrid generation
◦ All pros and cons not assessed
 Life cycle assessment
 New biofules are expensive
 Difficult for developing countries
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion

10. Major producers
 Brazil,USA, the member state of European Union
and several other countries are dominating the
production of biofuel.
 Most of bio fuels were supported by government
incentives
 More than 200 support proceeds were involved
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion

11. Food price inflation
 Bio fuel production pushed up maize price
 “…the impact of current biofuel policies on world crop prices, largely
through increased demand for cereals and vegetable oils, is significant but
should not be overestimated.” (OECD)
 Current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase
average wheat prices
 Higher corn price lead to higher price in animal source foods.
 The 2007-2008 world food crises are partly blamed on increased demand
of biofuels
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion

12.  Enhance energy security
 Environmental Impact
 Benefits to smallholders
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion

13. Impacts on developing countries
 Poor people more susceptible to the price hike
 Aid agencies
 Burning forests
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion

14. Proposed actions
 Freeze on first generation biofuels
production
 Non food crops for biofuel
 Biofuel from food byproducts and co
products
 Reduce farmland reserves and set asides
 Sustainable production of biofuel
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion

15. Potential benefits
 Brazil: the world‟s first sustainable biofuel
economy.
 According to FAO: biofuel can make
small farmers offers of potential profit
and recommended small credit programs
to help the industry grow.
 Local producers stand a better chance to
capture local market share
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion

16. Conclusion
 First generation biofules land-demanding
 Second generation expensive and emits
CO2
 Third generation expensive
 Developing countries suffer from higher
food prices because of first generation
biofuel but can not afford production of
newer biofules
 What are
biofules?
 What is
biomass?
 First generation
biofules
 Second
generation
biofules
 Third
generation
biofules
 Limits of
biofules
 Major
producers
 Food price
inflation
 Potentional
risks of biofules
 Impact on
developing
countries
 Proposed
actions
 Potential
benefits
 Conclusion