Bioenergy production and sustainable development: science base for policymaking remains limited

Abstract

The possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well-studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories - environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production.

Keywords: agriculture; bioenergy; food security; forestry; mitigation; sustainable development.

Figure 1

Regional distribution of the analysed impacts, reported as fraction of impacts within each category of all impacts analysed in each region. Percentage numbers after the region's name indicate the share of this region in the total of impacts considered and determine the size of the circle. Percentage numbers in the pies indicate the share of impacts each category contributes to the total number of impacts reported in the respective region. For all regions, the most reported social impact is food security; all other social impacts follow far behind. The outline map is from http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2009-11-05-10853/World-outline-map.png.

Figure 2

Impacts tree regarding food security. The blue arrows show the geographical distribution of the impacts on food security per regions as considered in the studies. In this case, there were no studies considering food security in Oceania. The first line indicates the number of positive (marked in green), negative (marked in red) or neutral impacts (marked in black). When the article did not specify the qualification of the impact, we considered it as nonavailable (n/a, marked in grey). From the second line downwards, we present how these impacts were identified, either using measurements, models or a combination (mixed). When the method was not clear in the article, we defined it as nonavailable (n/a). Impact trees for all other impacts considered in this systematic review are included in the supplementary information.

Figure 3

Geographical distribution of studies differentiating between studies considering or not considering context conditions. Solid colours indicate the number of studies with fully or partially matching context conditions. Transparent colours indicate the number of studies where context conditions were either not mentioned or do not correspond to the impact categories.

Figure 4

Impacts of bioenergy on food security related to the context conditions considered in this review. Y axis refers to number of articles, and X axis refers to context conditions following the numbering below. Dark grey shows the impacts attributed to dedicated agricultural crops, and hell grey indicates impacts attributed to any other biomass resource. Numbers in axis x numbering: (1) general conditions described. Institutional conditions: (2) the majority of households have access to energy; (3) land tenure clarified; (4) landscape management plan exists; (5) landscape policies exist and are enforced; (6) participation mechanisms are in place; (7) mechanisms for sectorial coordination are in place; (8) existing and enforced labour rights legislation; social conditions: (9) existing deficit in food access and/or supply; (10) existing social conflicts; (11) population growth is expected; (12) awareness about indigenous knowledge; (13) existing social networks/stakeholder organizations; (14) high average human capacity and skills; (15) low average human capacity skills; (16) equity mechanisms are in place; (17) social inequity reported as existing before bioenergy production; natural conditions: (18) land is available for people living in the area; (19) water for agriculture/forestry is available for people living in the area; (20) drinking water is available to people living in the area; (21) land (use) competition previous any intervention is reported in the article; (22) air quality is reported as good; (23) high biodiversity index. Economic conditions: (24) availability of capital; (25) existing crediting mechanisms; (26) sharing mechanisms of economic benefits in place; conditions related to technology and infrastructure: (27) traditional technologies; (28) modern (industrial) technologies; (29) combination of modern and industrial technologies; (30) technology is available to major local stakeholders; (31) mechanisms for technology development and/or transfer given.