GlobalScenariosforBiofuels:ImpactsandImplications

SiwaMsangi,TimothySulser,MarkRosegrant,RowenaValmonteSantosandClaudiaRingler InternationalFoodPolicyResearchInstitute (IFPRI) Abstract Inrecentyears,bioenergyhasdrawnattentionasasustainableenergysourcethatmayhelpcope withrisingenergyprices,butalsomaybeprovideincometopoorfarmersandruralcommunities around the globe. Rising fuel prices, growing energy demand, concerns over global warming from GHG emissions and increased openness to renewable energy resources, domestic energy security, and the push for expansion into new markets for crops in the face of world trade outlooksareallfactorsdrivinginterestinexpandingbioenergyuse.Despitekeeninterestinthis sector,therearecurrentlyfewplayersinthisfield:In2005,BrazilandtheUnitedStatestogether accountedfor99percentofglobalethanolproduction,whereasGermanyandFranceaccounted for 69 percent of global biodiesel production. However, developing countries with tropical climates may have a comparative advantage in growing energyrich biomass and second generation technologies could enable expansion of the range of feedstock used from the traditionalsugarcane,maize,andrapeseedtograssesandtreesthatcanthriveinlessfertileand more droughtprone regions. Potentially adverse impacts from a rapid bioenergy expansion include upward pressure on international food prices, making staple crops less affordable for poorconsumerspotentially significantadverse impactson both land(soilqualityand fertility) andwaterresourcesandonbiodiversityandecosystems,ingeneral. Giventhenumerousandhighlevelofuncertaintiesregardingfuturebiofuelsupply,demand,and technologies, the paper examines three alternative scenarios: a conventional scenario, which focuses on rapid global growth in biofuel production under conventional conversion technologiesasecondgenerationscenario,whichincorporatesasofteningofdemandonfood crops due to 2nd generation, lignocellulosic technologies coming online and a second generationplusscenario,whichaddscropproductivityimprovementstothesecondgeneration scenario, which essentially further reduce potentially adverse impacts from expansion of biofuels. Resultsfromtheanalysisshowapotentialfoodandwaterversusfueltradeoffifinnovationsand technology investments in crop productivity are slow, and if reliance is placed solely on conventional feedstock conversion technologies to meet future blending requirements of fossil fuels with biofuels. This situation changes considerably with increased investments in biofuel conversion and crop productivity improvements. To mitigate potentially adverse impacts from aggressive increases in biofuel production therefore requires a renewed focus of crop breeding forproductivityimprovementinwheat,maizeandevensugarcrops.Whilesomecropsmaybe morefavorablefromtheperspectiveofprofitability,theymayencounterbindingenvironmental constraints, in particular water, for example, for sugarcane in India, and wheat or maize in NorthernChina. And evenwherewater mightbeavailable,othernaturalresourceconstraints, suchaslandavailabilitycanconstrainexpansion,suchasin SouthernChina. Impacts of global biofuel development and growth on rural poor can be both positive and negative.Biofuelcropsdonotnecessarilycrowdoutfoodcrops,atleastnotunderthealternative scenarios examined here. Instead there is room for complementarities and synergy and rural agriculturaldevelopmentandsocioeconomicgrowthcangohandinhandwithenhancementof bioenergyproductioncapacity.

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Wecangetfuelfromfruit,fromthatshrubbytheroadside,orfromapples,weeds,sawdust almostanything!Thereisfuelineverybitofvegetablematterthatcanbefermented.Thereis enoughalcoholinoneyearsyieldofahectareofpotatoestodrivethemachinerynecessaryto cultivatethefieldforahundredyears.Anditremainsforsomeonetofindouthowthisfuelcan beproducedcommerciallybetterfuelatacheaperpricethanweknownow. ~HenryFord,1925

1. Introduction

Risingworldfuel prices,thegrowingdemandforenergy,andconcernsaboutglobal warmingare the key factors driving renewed interest in renewable energy sources and in bioenergy, in particular. Henry Fords seemingly prescient outlook is thus becoming much more relevant 80 years on. Within a global context, fossil fuel consumption still dominates the world energy market(Figure1).However,theuncertaintyinfuturesupply,potentiallyunsustainablepatterns of energy consumption, and the costs of expanding proven reserves of fossil fuels have lead many energy analysts and managers around the world to seek alternatives from other, more renewable resources, such as bioenergy. The steadily increasing trend of gasoline prices over time (Figure 2) strengthens the rationale for seeking cheaper supply alternatives. Biofuels alreadyconstitutethemajorsourceofenergyforoverhalfof theworldspopulation,accounting for more than 90% of the energy consumption in poor developing countries (FAO 2005a). Besides alleviating the reliance of energydriven economies on limited fossil fuel sources, bioenergy has continued to receive increasing attention from those concerned with promoting agricultural and environmental sustainability through the reduction of carbon emissions, an importantcomponentofclimatechangemitigation.Bioenergyisalsoconsideredbysometobea potentially significantcontributor towardstheeconomicdevelopmentof ruralareas,andameans of reducing poverty through the creation of employment and incomes linking biofuel development directlyor indirectlywith multiple MillenniumDevelopmentGoals(FAO2005b Kammen2006). Thus,bioenergyisseen,moreandmore,asapromisingandlargelyuntapped renewableenergyresource,anditspotentialenvironmentalandeconomicbenefitsarebecoming moreapparentastechnologicalimprovementscontinuetoemerge.

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Large amount of biomass from forest and agricultural activities such as branches, tree tops, straw, corn stover and bagasse from sugarcane can be utilized as feedstock for bioenergy. Likewise, bioethanol and biodieselcan be produced from sugar, grain, and otheroil crops. In parts of the world, animal dung is processed as fuel while effluents are digested to produce biogas(IEA Bioenergy 2005).Table1showstypicaltypesof biofuel generatedtogetherwiththe energyservicestheysupplyusinganumberofbiomassresources.

Thedevelopmentof commercial bioenergyproductiondatesbacktotheuseofmaizeforethanol, andhasseenconsistentgrowthinafewcountries.EthanolisproducedfrommaizeintheUnited States,India,andChina,forexample.Moreover,inBrazil50%of allsugarcaneproducedoutof 357.5 million tons in 20032004 was devoted to ethanol (Szwarc 2004). Globally, bioethanol productionisconcentratedintwocountries,BrazilandtheUnitedStates(Table2).

Biodiesel production, on the other hand, is geographically concentrated in the EU with Germany and France leading production (Table 3). The production processes used to manufacturebiodieselfromitsfeedstocksourcesdiffersfromthatusedforbioethanol,asitrelies on transesterification of oils, whereas bioethanol production relies on the hydrolysis of the constituent grains and sugars of plants into ethanol, under conventional technologies (Worldwatch2006).

Despite the apparent success of bioenergy production in these countries, other countries have been reluctant totake a more aggressive approach towards bioenergydevelopment, due to the existence of institutional, financial or political constraints. Several factors could contribute towardsthishesitancytoadoptthesetechnologies,includinga)alackofunderstanding,among policymakers, of the potential benefits b) the neglect of biofuel within the national political, economic, and social agendas, thereby preventing its integration into energy statistics and national energy planning c) the prevailing regulatory, institutional and legal restrictions that discourage the development of biomass energy d) the inattention of forestry and agricultural agenciestowardsthedevelopment,managementanduseofbiomassenergyresourcesande)the lackofpolicyattentionpaidtothe introductionanddistributionof modern,efficientandclean bioenergyproductionsystem (FAO2003). 3

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Some policymakers have also voiced concerns that aggressive growth in bioenergy production couldcrowdouttheproductionoffoodcropsinsomedevelopingcountriesthattrytoadoptit, inordertosubstitutefortheimportofexpensivefossilfuels(GrahamHarrison2005).

Inthispaper,weinvestigatetheinteractionofbiofueldemandwiththedemandandproduction of food and feed crops, to examine potential impacts on food prices and food security. The analysis does not only focus on the United States, Brazil and China which account for the globalshareofenergydemandincrease,buttakesonaglobalapproachtofuturebioenergyuses. Theanalysisfocusesonbiofueluseinthetransportationsector.

2. Scenarioanalysis

Overthenextseveraldecades,themostcertainincreaseindemandforbiofuelsisgoingtofocus ondisplacing liquid fuels fortransport,mostly inthe formof ethanolwhichcurrently supplies over 95% of the biofuels for transportation (Fultonet al. 2004). At present,the most efficient productionofethanolisbasedondedicatedenergycrops,suchassugarcaneandmaize.Atthe sametime,thesededicatedethanolcropswilllikelyhavethegreatestimpactonfoodsupplyand demandsystems.Thisisparticularlytrueiftheproductionoccursonprimeagriculturallandsas islikelygiventheneedtoreducetransportationcostsofboththefeedstocksandfuelproductsto andfromlarger,centralizedethanolproductionfacilities.

TheprojecteddemandfortransportationfuelisshowninFigure3,whereweseeveryhighand rapidlyincreasingdemandforcountrieslikeChina.Theseestimatesarebasedonprojectionsof energydemandobtainedfromtheenergyoutlooksgivenbytheInternationalEnergyAssociation (2004)aswellasoutlooksgivenintheagriculturalbaselineprojectionsofUSDA(2006).

On the basis of these projected demands, we estimate fossilbased fuel displacement (with biofuels), inordertoobtainprojectionsof biofuelsused fortransportationuses(Figure4).The expectedrateof blendingordisplacementof fossilbased fuelswith biofuels wasobtained(for major biofuelproducing countries) from projections by the International Energy Association (IEA) Bioenergy Task 40 group, for Brazil to 2010 and 2015, and by the targets for biofuel 4

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

production currently being considered in China (Liu 2006). We also use the USDAs Agricultural Baselineprojections for fuelalcohol use from maize intheUSA(USDA2006) in ourmodelquantification.Forthosecountrieswithnopublisheddataonfuturefueldisplacement, we assumed a rate of displacement that corresponds to 10 percent displacement by 2010, 15 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020. This constitutes a fairly aggressive rate of biofuel production growth, but allows us to seethe upper bound impacts that would occur if biofuel adoptionweretobeundertakeninearnest,inresponsetoglobalenergypricetrends.Nogrowth in biodiesel production was assumed outside of the European Union, since those countries currentlydominateglobalproduction(Table3),anddosowiththehelpofagricultural support policiesthatwouldbehardforotheremergingproducerstofollowsuitandadoptinalikewise fashion. In order to examine the potential impact of biofuel production growth on countrylevel and domesticagriculturalmarkets,weuseapartialequilibriummodelingframeworkthatcancapture the interactions between agricultural commodity supply and demand, as well as trade, at the global level. In doing so, we are able to simulate the resulting growth in demand for the agriculturalcropfeedstocksthatbiofuelproductionrelieson,whilealsotrackingthedemandfor foodandfeedforthosesameagriculturalcrops. The modelused forthisanalysis istheInternationalModel forPolicy Analysisof Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT), which has been used by the International Food Policy ResearchInstitute(IFPRI)forprojectingglobalfoodsupply,fooddemandandfoodsecurityto 2020 and beyond (Rosegrant et al. 2001). The model contains three categories of commodity demandfood,feedandotherusedemand.Theotherusedemandcategoryisexpandedinthis study to reflect the utilization of a particular commodity as biofuel feedstock. The utilization levelisdeterminedbytheprojectedlevelofbiofuelproductionfortheparticularcommodityin question. By converting the target levels of ethanol production into the necessary tonnage of maize,sugarcaneorothercropfeedstock,wecanshiftthelevelsofotherdemandappropriately to reflect the increased utilization of these commodities as biofuel feedstock. The conversion ratesusedare400litersofethanolforeverytonofmaize,and80litersofethanolforeveryton ofsugarcane.Theseratesareinlinewithavarietyofsources,includingBullock(2002),Durante andMiltenberg(2004),Fultonetal.(2004),GiampietroandUlgiati(2005),Moriera(2000),and Walteretal.(2006). 5

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Drawingonprojectionsforbiofueldemandfortherelevantcountriesandregions,weconstruct threealternativescenarios:

1. Conventional scenario (aggressive biofuel growth with no crop productivity change). Thisscenarioassumesveryrapidgrowthindemandforbioethanol acrossallregionsand forbiodieselinEurope,togetherwithcontinuedhighoilprices,andrapidbreakthroughs in biofuel technology to support expansion of supply to meet the growth in energy demand but holding projected productivity increases for yields at baseline projection levels. The aggressive biofuel scenario contains the biofuel demand projections described previously, and shown in Figure 4. For bioethanol we consider maize, sugarcane, sugarbeet, and wheat as feedstock crops, whereas we consider oilseed crops andsoybeanforbiodiesel.
nd 2. 2 Generation scenario (or cellulosic biofuel scenario). In this scenario, second

generationcellulosicconversiontechnologiescomeonlineforlargescaleproductionby 2015.Inthiscase,weholdthevolumeofbiofuelfeedstockdemandconstantstartingin 2015,inordertorepresenttherelaxation inthedemand for foodbased feedstockcrops created by the rise of the new technologies that convert nonfood grasses and forest products.Cropproductivitychangesfollowbaselineprojections.
nd 3. 2 Generation Plus scenario (aggressive biofuel growth scenario with productivity

change and cellulosic conversion). This scenario considers, in addition to second generation technologies, the effect of crop technology investment response that would result in increased productivity over time, in order to better support the expansion of feedstocksupply inresponseto biofuel demand growth.Productivity improvementsare in line with other projections studies relating the benefits of increased agricultural investmentpolicieswithagriculturalproductivitygrowth(see,forexample,Rosegrantet al. 2005 SEARCA/IFPRI/CRESCENT 2003). The boost that is given to crop productivitygrowthunderthisscenario,fortheexampleofwheatandmaize,isshownin Figure5.

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

On the basis of these scenarios, we solve the model such that the commodity demands are modified toreflect the feedstock requirements forthe projected bioenergy production levels in these countries after 2005. The resulting longrun market equilibria are compared to baseline modelprojections(withoutbiofuels),andarereportedinthenextsectionof thepaper,alongwith impactson calorieavailabilityandchildhoodmalnutritionlevels.

3. DiscussionofResultsandPolicyImplications

Thefirst,conventional,aggressivebiofuelgrowthscenarioshowsdramaticincreasesinworld pricesforfeedstockcropsby 2020(Figure6).Thehighestpriceimpactsareseenforoilcrops,as well as for sugar crops, followed by staple crops.Partof this differential is due tothe relative thicknessofmarkets:marketsforstaplegrainsarelargerinvolumeandgeographicscale.The relativeproductivityofirrigatedandrainfedgrainsandsugarcrops,comparedtomostlyrainfed oilseed crops, also contributes to the relative price increases seen in Figure 6. While such a scenariowouldleadtolargeprofitsforbioenergyproducers,whoatleastinEuropealready enjoy high subsidies, food consumers would be adversely harmed. To counteract adverse impactsonbiofuelcompanies,subsidiescouldbemovedfromfarmerstoindustries. Thesekind ofsupportsforbiofuelproducersalreadyexistformanycountries(e.g.withintheEU),andcould beintheformoftaxconcessionsatthepumporproducercredits. Thehighpriceincreasesfor oilseedcropssuggestthattherelativelylowyieldingoilcropswillhavetomakeupfairlyhigh shares of total production in order to meet the oildisplacement trends embedded in the aggressivebioenergygrowthscenario.
nd By contrast, the second or 2 Generation scenario, which simulates the impact of cellulosic

technologies,showsaconsiderablesofteningofupwardpricepressures,especiallyforoilcrops, andunderliesthepotentialimportanceofsuchtechnicalinnovationsattheindustrylevel.Wedo not introduce improvements in conversion efficiency for noncellulosic processes, as these technologies have been inuse forsometime,andshow littleroom for improvement,basedon studiescitedintheliterature(Worldwatch2006).

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Thethirdscenario,finally,illustratestheimportanceof acroptechnologyinnovationresponseat thefarmproductionlevelresultingfromaggressivedemandforfeedstockfromtraditionalfood crops.Theresultisafurtherdeclineinfoodprices. Thisthirdscenario,inparticular,showshow investments within both the biofuel industry and the agricultural sector can be combined to producemorefavorableoutcomes,whichcanpartiallymitigateadverseconsumerlevelimpacts.

Results for calorie availability and child malnutrition levels for the alternative scenarios are showninFigures7and8. Onaverage,daily calorieavailabilityindevelopingcountriesdeclines by194kilocaloriesperpersonundertheconventional scenario comparedtothe baseline. The dropincalorieavailabilityisstrongestinSubSaharanAfrica,at275kilocaloriesperpersonper day,or11percentcomparedtothebaselineoutcome.Thislevelofdeclineissubstantialgiven
nd nd thelowbaselinelevelsinthatregion.Declinesunderthe2 Generationand2 GenerationPlus

scenariosaremuchsmaller,at148and136kilocaloriespercapitaperday. Underthebaseline, thenumberofmalnourishedchildrenindevelopingcountriesdeclinesfrom163millionchildren in1997to127millionchildren by2020,withthe largestdeclinesexpected forSouthandEast Asia. Under the conventional scenario with aggressive demand for biofuel feedstock from traditional food and sugar crops,the number of malnourished children increases by 11 million children,withthe largestabsolute increase inSubSaharan Africa, followed bySouthAsia.In percentageterms,ontheotherhand,theincreaseislargestinLatinAmerica(Figure8).Impacts areconsiderablysmallerfortheothertwoscenarios.

Amongthethreescenariosexamined,thisscenarioseemstopresentthemostplausibleoutcomes ofallthreescenarios,asneithernationalgovernmentsnorfuelproducerswouldwanttoengage in a largescale expansion of production without the necessary investments being in place to ensurereliablesupplyoffeedstockmaterialatreasonablecost,bothforproducersaswellasfor consumersoffoodandfeedcommodities. Whilewehavenotmodeledthemechanismsbywhichfeedstocksmightbesubstitutedinandout of biofuel production, according to their competitiveness with longterm fossilfuel prices and eachother,wehaveshownanillustrativesetofresults(forafixedmenuofinputs)whichargue strongly for preparatory investments in both the agricultural sector, as well as within the fuel industryitself. 8

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

4. SummaryandConclusions

Inouranalysis,theresultsshowafoodversusfuelandimplicitwaterforfoodversuswater forfueltradeoffincaseswhereinnovationsandtechnologyinvestmentsarelargelyabsentand where policies aimed at efficiency enhancement within the sector are not undertaken. Such a bleak picture is already considerably changed when biofuel and crop production technology advancements are taken into account. While there is some uncertainty as to the timing of eventual largescale use of cellulosic conversion technologies for biofuel production, the potentialbenefitstodevelopingcountryemployment,andsoilandwaterconservationarewell recognizedintheliterature,andmakeastrongcaseforfurtherresearchinthatarea.

The simulations presented here suggest that the cost of biofuels could be considerably higher thantheprojectedpriceofoilsotherewouldneedtobecompellingnonpricefactorsforuptake attheaggressivelevelsassumed,particularlyinthefirstscenario.Indeed,theremightbefactors favoring the decision to adopt biofuel production that might not be captured within a strict quantitativecomparisonofbiofuelversusfossilfuelcosts,includingconcernsofnationalenergy security or positive externalities to the environment. However, for developing economies to participate beneficially in the growth of renewable bioenergy production, and to also maintain adequatelevelsoffoodsecurity,acomplementarysetof aggressiveinvestmentswillberequired. Suchinvestmentscouldbringaboutbenefitsforconsumersofbothfoodandenergy,whilealso contributingtothebroadergrowthoftheireconomiesandimprovedlivelihoods.

Whilethispaperdoesnotdirectlyaddresswaterrelatedimplicationsofincreasedbioenergycrop production,thereisnodoubtthatwhilesomecropsmaybemorefavorablefromtheperspective of profitability, they will encounter binding environmental constraints, in particular water, for example,forsugarcaneinIndia,andwheatormaizeinNorthernChina.Andevenwherewater might be available, other natural resource constraints, such as land availability can constrain expansion,suchasinSouthernChina. BothconstraintswillbebindinginSubSaharanAfrica, unlessthesecropsaredevelopedtogetherwithaggressiveirrigationinvestment,andlargescale soilfertilityimprovements,includingincreasedlevelsoffertilizerapplications.

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

5. References

Bullock, GE. 2002. Ethanol from sugarcane. Sugar Research Institute. http://www.zeachem.com/pubs/Ethanol%20from%20Sugarcane.pdf Durante, D. and M. Miltenberger. 2004. Issue Brief: Net Energy Balance of Ethanol Production, Publication of Ethanol Across America

http://www.ethanolacrossamerica.net/04CFDC003_IssueBrief.pdf FAO 2005a. Bioenergy. Sustainable Development Department, FAO, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_en2/en2_050402_en.htm,accessedonApril11,2006 FAO 2005b. Bioenergy and the Millennium Development Goals. Forestry Department, FAO, Rome,Italy.http://www.fao.org/forestry/energy,accessedonApril11,2006 FAO 2003. FAO and Bioenergy. Forestry Department, FAO, Rome, Italy, http://www.fao.org/forestry/energy,accessedonApril11,2006 Licht,F.O.2005.WorldEthanolandBiofuelsReport.vol3.,TunbridgeWells,UnitedKingdom. Fulton,L.,T.Howes,andJ.Hardy.2004.BiofuelsforTransport:AnInternationalPerspective. InternationalEnergyAgency,Paris. Giampietro,M.andS.Ulgiati.2005.Integratedassessmentof large scale biofuelproduction. CriticalReviewsinPlantSciences24:365384. GrahamHarrison,Emma.2005.FoodSecurityWorriesCouldLimitChinaBiofuels.PlanetArk
th (Sept. 26 , 2005). http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32656/story.htm th accessedonJune12 2006.

IEABioenergy2005. Benefitsof bioenergy. http://www.ieabioenergy.comaccessedon May2, 2006 International Energy Agency (IEA) 2004. World Energy Outlook 2004. OECD/IEA, Paris, France. Kammen, D. M. 2006. Bioenergy in developing countries: Experiences and prospects. In Bioenergy and agriculture: Promises and challenges, eds. P. Hazell and R.K. Pachauri. Washington,D.C.:IFPRI.
th Liu, Y. 2006. China to Boost Bioenergy through Financial Incentives. China Watch (June 13

2006).WorldwatchInstitute,Washington,DC.
th http://www.worldwatch.org/node/44. accessedonJune12 2006.

10

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Moreira, J.R. 2000. Sugarcane for energy recent results and progress in Brazil. Energy for SustainableDevelopmentIV(3):4354 Rosegrant, M.W., C. Ringler, T. Benson, X. Diao, D. Resnick, J. Thurlow, M. Torero, and D. Orden. 2005. Agriculture and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, D.C.:WorldBank[ReportNo.32729GLB]. Rosegrant, M.W., X. Cai and S.A. Cline. 2002. World water and food to 2025: dealing with scarcity. Joint publication of IFPRI, Washington DC, USA and International Water ManagementInstitute(IWMI),SriLanka Rosegrant, M. W., M. Paisner, S. Meijer, and J. Witcover. 2001. Global Food Projections to 2020:EmergingTrendsandAlternativeFutures.WashingtonD.C.,InternationalFoodPolicy ResearchInstitute. SEARCA/IFPRI/CRESCENT.2003.PropoorAgriculturalandRuralDevelopmentinIndonesia. PublicPolicies,Investment,andGovernance.Laguna,Philippines:SEARCA. Szwarc,A.2004.UseofbiofuelsinBrazil.ApowerpointpresentationgivenduringInSession WorkshoponMitigation,BuenosAires,Argentina,December9,2004. United States Department of Agriculture Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee (USDA). 2006. USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections to 2015. Baseline Report OCE 20061.OfficeoftheChiefEconomist,WorldAgricultural OutlookBoard,U.S.Department ofAgriculture:Washington,DC. Walter, A., P. Dolzan, and E. Piacente. 2006. Biomass Energy and Bioenergy Trade: Historic Developments in Brazil and Current Opportunities. Country Report: Brazil Task 40 Sustainable Bioenergy Trade, Securing Supply and Demand (Final Version). Brazilia, InternationalEnergyAgency,Paris. Worldwatch Institute. 2006. Biofuels for Transportation: Global Potential and Implications for
st SustainableAgricultureandEnergyinthe21 Century.ExtendedSummaryofReportforthe

German Federal Ministry of Food Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV). Washington,DC.

11

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Figure1:Shareofdifferentenergyformsinglobaltotalprimaryenergy supplyat10,345mtoe(milliontonsofoilequivalent),2002.
Gas 21% Nuclear 7%

Hydro 2%

Oil 35%

Renewables 14%

Biomassandwaste 11%

Otherrenewables 1% Coal 23%

Source:IEA2004

Figure2:Gasolinepricesfrom19601996.

Source:MoreiraandGoldenberg1999

12

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Figure3:ProjectedTransportationDemandforGasoline (millionsoftonsoilequivalentMTOE)
450 400 million tons oil equivalent 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2005 Source:Authorcalculations. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 China India Brazil USA EU

Figure4:SimulatedTotal(Bioethanol+Biodiesel)BiofuelProductionforTransport (millionsoftonsoilequivalent)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2005
Source:Authorcalculations.

million tons oil equivalent

China India Brazil USA EU

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

13

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Figure5:YieldEnhancementsoverBaselineforPlusScenario
9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Maize LAC SSA S Asia SE Asia Wheat E Asia World

Source:IMPACTsimulations(October2006). Figure6:ChangesinGlobalCommodityPricesfromBaselineAcrossScenariosin2020 76 80
% difference from baseline 70 60 50 41 40 30 30 20 10 0 Conventional 2nd Generation Sugarcane 2nd Generation Plus Wheat 29 21 23 16 45 49 43 43 66

Maize Oilseeds Source:IMPACTsimulations(October2006).

14

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Figure7:CalorieAvailabilityPerCapitaPerDayAcrossScenarios,2020
2020Base 20202ndGeneration 4000 3500
kilocalorieavailability/ percapperday

2020Conventional 20202ndGenerationPlus

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 SAsia SEAsia EAsia SSA LAC WANA

Source:IMPACTsimulations(October2006).

Figure8:ChangesinChildhoodMalnutrition,1997andProjectionsto2020, AlternativeScenarios
SAsia 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1997 2020Base SEAsia EAsia SSA WANA LAC

millionchildren

Source:IMPACTsimulations(October2006). 15

2020 Convent.

20202nd Gen

20202nd Gen+

BiofuelsandGlobalFoodBalance

Msangietal.

Table1. Typesofbiomassresourcesandbiofuel produced.

BiomassResources Agricultureandforestryresidues Energycrops:biomass,sugar,oil Biomassprocessingwastes Municipalwaste Biofuel produced Woodpellets,briquettes,biodiesel Char/charcoal,fuelgas,biooil bioethanol Biogas,bioethanol,solvents Refusederivedfuel,biogas Energyservices Heat,electricity,transport Heat,electricity,transport Transport Heat,electricity

Source:Adaptedfrom IEABioenergy2005 Table2: GlobalProductionofBioEthanol

Country/Region Brazil UnitedStates China EuropeanUnion India Canada Colombia Thailand Australia WorldTotal EthanolProduction (millionliters) 16,500 16,230 2,000 950 300 250 150 60 60 36,500 ShareofTotalEthanol Production(percent) 45.2 44.5 5.5 2.6 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 100.0

Source:F.O.Licht(2005) Table3:GlobalProductionofBioDiesel
Country/Region Germany France Italy,Austria,Denmark,United Kingdom,CzechRepublic,Poland, Spain,Sweden EuropeTotal UnitedStates Other WorldTotal BiodieselProduction(millionliters) 1,921 511 9 227 3,121 290 114 3,524 ShareofTotalEthanolProduction (percent) 54.5 14.5 0.1 6.4 88.6 8.2 3.2 100.0

Source:F.O.Licht(2005)

16