ABSTRACT

Bioenergy is often the main source of energy in many developing countries. It currently represents about 14%
of the world's energy supply (e.g.55EJ) and potentially as much as 450EJ by mid 21 st Century. Changes in the
energy supply matrix present many opportunities and challenges for bioenergy production and use. A major
challenge is to provide people with what they want e.g. clean, cheap and efficient energy such as electricity, in
an environmentally acceptable manner.
Bioenergy and rural development are intrinsically intertwined. By providing energy at local level, bioenergy can
make a significant contribution to social and economic development in rural areas. Farmers have demonstrated
that they can produce far more food (and energy) if they are given the opportunity. To achieve that, they need
clear market incentives, availability of capital, energy, skills, credit, etc. The increased use of bioenergy will
also bring many environmental benefits. However, bioenergy should not be regarded as the panacea for solving
agricultural and energy problems in the rural areas, but as an activity that can play a significant role in
improving agricultural productivity, energy supply, the environment and sustainability.
Keywords: biomass energy, rural development, food production, sustainability, CO2 abatement.

1. SUMMARY
Bioenergy production and use is an important agricultural activity, particularly in many rural areas of
developing countries (DLG), in addition of being often the largest source of energy. Currently biomass energy
provides about 55EJ (equivalent to 25 million of barrels oil/day), or about 14% of the world's energy. In DLG as
a whole bioenergy represents about 34% of the total energy, both in its traditional and modern forms, but in
some countries it provides over 90% of total energy consumption. Modern bioenergy applications are
increasing, particularly in industrial countries where in some cases it provides about 20% of the primary
energy. Much of this energy originates from various types of agricultural and forest residues, although in the
future various types of dedicated forestry/energy crops plantations are expected to provide a much larger
proportion.
A major challenge facing the production and utilization of bioenergy will be to modernise to be able to provide
the sort of energy people want e.g. electricity, heating, liquid biofuels, etc, in an environmental acceptable
manner. The foreseeing increase in biomass energy could have important repercussions for rural development
e.g. by creating many new commercial opportunities, employment, etc. The availability of modern biomass
energy carriers will stimulate social and economic development while at the same time making a significant
positive contribution to the environment and sustainability.
2. OVERVIEW OF BIOMASS ENERGY
Biomass was the main source of energy until the early 20th century. It was only during the past few decades,
the so-called "oil era" when biomass energy was relegated and largely ignored by policy makers and energy
planners alike. Current trends indicate that the amount of bioenergy use remains stable in DLG (or even
growing due to population growth), and a real increase in industrial uses particularly in the industrial countries
e.g. EU and USA, mainly for environmental rather than purely energy reasons.
Biomass currently supplies about a third of the DLG' energy - varying from about 90% in countries like Nepal,
Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, to 45% in India and 28% in China; examples in industrial countries are about
14% in Austria, 20% in Finland and 18% in Sweden. On a global basis, biomass contributes about 14% of the
world's energy (55EJ or 25 M boe), offsetting 1.1 PgC of net CO2 emissions annually). The crucial questions are
whether the two billion or more people who are now dependent on biomass for energy will actually decrease in
numbers in the next century and what are the continuing consequences to development and environment
(local and global) from this dependence if energy efficiency is not increased significantly(1).
Bioresources are potentially the world's largest and sustainable source of fuel and chemicals- a renewable
resource comprising 220 billion oven dry tonnes (about 4,500 EJ) of annual primary production. The energy
content of biomass on the earth's surface is the equivalent to about 36 x 10 21 J. (2). However, the average
coefficient of utilization of the incident photosynthesis active radiation by the entire flora of the earth is only
about 0.27%.
Since the early 1990s the increasing interest in biomass for energy has been manifested in most energy
scenarios showing biomass as a potentially major source of energy in the 21 st century. Hoogwijk et al (3) have
analyzed 17 of such scenarios which they classified into two categories: i) Research Focus (RF) and ii) Demand
Driven (DD). The estimated potential of the RF varies from 67 EJ and 450 EJ for the period 2025-2050, and
that of the DD from 28 EJ and 220 EJ during the same period. As share of the total final energy demand this
lies between 7 and 27%. Residues are currently the main sources of bioenergy and this will continue to be the
case in the short to medium term. In the long term, dedicated crops will play much greater role. This expected
increase of biomass energy could have a significant impact for agriculture and rural development.
2.1 TRADITIONAL APPLICATIONS OF BIOENERGY.
Currently the main use of bioenergy in DLG is in its traditional forms. This is where the main problem lies
because of the low combustion efficiency. Energy efficiency varies considerably e.g. from about 2% to 20%,
compared to 65 to 80% (or even 90%) in industrial countries. Secondly, is the enormous waste of resources as
a result of this low efficiency, and also the potentially serious environmental problems. These problems will
have to be tackled head on from environmental, energy, sustainability and economic perspectives. Thus, the
clear message is that bioenergy production and use must be modernised. Thirdly, is the inability of traditional
bioenergy to provide the type of energy that most people want e.g. clean, cheap and efficient energy such as
electricity, ethanol fuel, etc.
2.2 Modern applications of bioenergy.

Thus for biomass energy to have a future, it must be able to provide people with things they wants e.g.
lighting, electricity, etc. In addition, there are enormous pressures on resource utilization, environment, etc, for
better use of scarce resources which can only be best met by more efficient combustion technologies. Modern
applications simply mean clean, convenient, efficient, reliable, economically, environmentally and sustainable
sound applications. There exist already many mature technologies that can meet such criteria, which are not
necessarily more expensive that fossil fuels if all costs are internalised.
A clear indication is the growing modern applications of biomass energy in the EU and USA. The EU has
recently unveiled its proposals for renewable energy (RE). The draw law aims to double the proportion of RE
from 6% to 12% of the primary energy supply by increasing the share of RE generated electricity from 14% to
22% by 2010. This new law represents a turning point. See Tables 1 & 2. (4).

For example, Austria had at the end of 1997, 359 biomass plants with an output of 483 MWe and currently
nearly 0.6 million homes are heated by biomass energy. A program of research has permitted increase
combustion efficiencies from 60% to almost 90% in the past decade alone.
In 1986 the Danish government embarked in a program of RE aiming at providing 35% of the country's
primary energy by 2030. Today the country has 150 heating plants operating on woody biomass with about
450 MWe; there are about 80,000 wood-based and straw-based boilers in the country, plus a further 200 MWe
of CHP. Denmark is a world's leader in large-scale biogas technology. It has 20 large centralized plants which in
1998 treated nearly 1.4 M tonnes of waste and produced over 50 M m3 of biogas, equivalent to 1166 TJ. Waste
disposal is a major aim of biogas production in Denmark (5).
In 1998 Finland's energy consumption was 31 Mtoe of which about 25% was RE, mostly biomass. Finland's
1999 Action Plan for RE foresees an increased of at least 50% by 2010. Spain's new energy plan foresees a
tenfold increased in the energy generated from biomass from the current 1,139 GWh to 13949 GWh by 2012.

In the USA about 4% of the primary energy comes from biomass; there are about 7000 MWe of biomass-based
installed capacity, and 12% of the fuel market is supplied by ethanol from corn. These are just a few examples.
2.3 UTILIZATION OF RESIDUES.
Residues are a large and under-exploited potential energy resource, and represent many opportunities for
better utilization, and thus deserves particular attention. However, there are a number of important factors
which need to be addressed when considering the use of residues for energy. Firstly, there are many other
alternative uses e.g. animal feed, erosion control, use as animal bedding; use as fertilisers (dung), etc.
Secondly, there is the problem of agreeing on a common methodology for determining what is and what is not
a recoverable residue e.g. estimates often vary by a factor of five. This is due, among other things, to variation
in the amount of residue assumed necessary for maintaining soil organic, soil erosion control, efficiency in
harvesting, losses, non- energy uses, etc.
2.3.1 AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES.
For the reasons explained above, it is necessary to remain cautious when dealing with agricultural residues,
despite the many attempts carried out to estimate their energy potential. For example, Smil (6) has calculated
that in the mid 1990s the amount of crop residues was between 3.5 to 4 Gt annually, with an energy content
representing 65 EJ, or 1.5 Gt oil equivalent. On the other hand, Hall et al (7) estimated that using the world's
major crops only (e.g. wheat, rice, maize, barley, and sugarcane), a 25% residue recovery rate could generate
38 EJ and offset between 350 to 460 Tg C/yr. There is no doubt that a large part of the residues are wasted,
handled inappropriately, causing undesirable effects from an environmental, ecological and food production
viewpoint. For example, Andreae (8) has estimated that over 2 Gt of agricultural residues are burned annually
world-wide, while Smil (6) estimates are between 1.0 and 1.4 Gt, producing 1.1 and 1.7 Gt/yr of CO 2. Paustian
et al, (9) have estimated that crops residues could offset 220 to 320 Tg C based on assumptions for energy
conversion and degree of substitution for fossil carbon.
2.3.2 FORESTRY RESIDUES.
Forestry residues obtained from sound forest management do not deplete the resource base, on the contrary, it
can enhance and increase future productivity of forests. One of the difficulties is to estimate, with some degree
of accuracy, the potential of residues that can be available for energy use on a national or regional basis,
without more data on total standing biomass, plantation density, thinning and pruning practices, current use of
residues, MAI, etc. Recoverable residues from forests have been estimated to have an energy potential of
about 35 EJ/yr (10). A considerable advantage of these residues is that large part are generated by the pulp
and paper and saw mill industries and thus could be readily available. Currently, a large proportion of such
residues is used to generate energy in these industries, but there is no question that the potential is much
greater.
2.3.3. LIVESTOCK RESIDUES.
The potential of energy from dung alone has been estimated at about 20 EJ worldwide (10). However, the
variations are so large that figures are often meaningless. These variations can be attributed to a lack of a
common methodology which is the consequence of variations in livestock type, location, feeding conditions,
etc. In addition, it is questionable whether animal manure should be used as an energy source on a large scale,
except in specific circumstances. This is because: i) its greater potential value for non-energy purposes e.g. it
use as fertiliser may bring greater benefits to the farmer, ii) it is a poor fuel and people tend to shift to other
better quality biofuels whenever possible, iii) the use of manure may be more acceptable when there are other
environmental benefits e.g. the production of biogas in Denmark, because there are large surpluses of manure
which, if applied in large quantities to the soil, represent a danger for agriculture and the environment, iv)
environmental and health hazards which are much higher than other biofuels.
2.4 ENERGY CROPS.
It is difficult to predict at this stage what will be the future role of specifically grown biomass for energy
purposes. This is, in many ways, a new concept for the farmer which has got to be fully accepted if large scale
energy crops are to form an integral part of farming practices. Hall et al (7) estimated that as much 267 EJ/yr
could be produced from biomass plantations alone
Currently there are in the world over 100 Mha of plantations. During the past decade over 40 Mha have been
planted in developing countries, two-thirds in community woodlots, farms and small holdings, to provide
industrial wood, environmental protection and energy. In the USA some 50,000 ha of agricultural land has been
converted to woody plantations and in Sweden about 18,000 ha of willows for energy purposes. But little
experience still exists with large-scale energy plantations. Exemptions are eucalyptus for charcoal production
and ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil and with willows for heat and power generation in Sweden which, in any
case, tend to follow traditional agricultural and forestry practices. (1)
The growing concern with the potential negative effects of large scale dedicated energy forestry/crops
plantations has led to a considerable amount of effort to address these concerns which has resulted in the
development of some "good practice guidelines" for the production and use of biomass for energy e.g. Austria,
Sweden, UK and USA. These guidelines recognize the central importance of site-specific factors, and the
breadth of social and environmental issues which should be taken into consideration.
3. BIOMASS ENERGY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT.
The role of agriculture in energy production is lost in history. From early hunter-gathering to annual
agriculture, plant products provided human food, fuel, fodder, building material, etc. The diverse use of
biomass utilization is well represented in the so-called six Fs: "food, fuel, feed, feedstock, fibre, and fertiliser".
Biomass was the main source of energy up to the early 20th century. Biomass energy has played and continues
to play a major role in rural development. Indeed, in many rural areas of DLG bioenergy constitutes almost the
sole source of energy. This role has gone, until recently, largely unrecognised in many parts of the world by
politicians and energy planners alike.

Thus, what could be the implications of an enhanced role of bioenergy in the future for rural development, if
current energy scenarios projections are correct?. The world is facing a future in which no single energy source
is going to have a monopoly of supply, and in which energy efficiency and renewable energies should play a
major role. The availability of modern biomass energy carriers could have major implications for modernising
agriculture in many DLG which could be reflected in a sustainable increase in food production and economic
growth and social development. Already the modernisation of bioenergy e.g. cogeneration of electricity from
sugarcane bagasse in Brazil and India, production of biogas in Denmark, and improved stoves and biogas in
China, is producing very positive effects.
Living conditions in rural areas are greatly affected by the amount and quality of available energy, which is
currently a major limitation in many DLG. Increased energy use can be of any benefit only if it provides
essential services e.g. cooking, lighting, heating, water pumping, transport, industrial uses, etc. Considering
that about 2.5 billion people live in rural areas, this is a problem that cannot be ignored.
Bioenergy could play a significant role in a flexible and sustainable system where the supply of food, energy,
feed, etc, is integrated. For example, in China there are over 3.4 million households using integrated
technology to produce biogas, digested sludge, fertilizer and effluent utilization. A "bioenergy village concept"
is based in the idea that bioenergy (in its modern forms) should be available to provide all the essential needs
of its population e.g. sustainable production of food, animal feed, energy, etc. It must be highly integrated to
minimize waste, and to allow the application of the best techniques, practices and locally available skills.
However, the "bioenergy village concept" cannot be the panacea to solve the food-energy problem, but it may
be able to make a significant contribution to rural development. Modern and advance processing of feed, food,
and energy together with marketing and distribution systems, need to be adopted to preserve the whole
dynamic structure. Maximizing economic growth is not the best way for social development if it does not
trickled down to the most needy.
Adequate food supplies and reasonable quality of life require energy both in commercial and non-commercial
forms; in DLG the latter is the most important, particularly in rural areas. The economy of many developing
countries relies on agriculture where most of the work is often done using primitive tools and working practices
that have seen little change for decades. Food can be produced in primitive ways with very little or no fossil
fuel energy, e.g. using slash-and-burn agriculture. For example, FAO statistics show that human effort provides
over 70% of the energy required for crop production in many poor countries. However, population,
environmental, economic and social pressures makes this option unrealistic for the future. These agricultural
practices, as with traditional bioenergy, need to be modernised.
3.1 BIOENERGY AND EMPLOYMENT
Employment opportunities have long been recognised as being a major advantage of biomass energy because
of the many multiplying effects which help to generate more economic activity and help strengthen the local
economy, particularly in rural areas. Bioenergy is a significant source of employment and income generation for
many poor people in developing countries, particularly for the landless and jobless who otherwise would have
few or no means of livelihood. Evidence seems to indicate that bioenergy is very often closely and intricately
interwoven with local economic and employment conditions, and hence with local, regional and even national
prosperity and growth. This has also major implications for the agricultural sector of many countries.
Agriculture and forestry, together with bioenergy related activities, are the most intensive and largest source of
employment according to FAO. A rough estimate of employment in the forestry sector suggests that annually
about 60 million man/years are employed in the forestry sector globally i.e. 48 million in DLG and 12 million in
industrial countries. Some 20-25 million man/years annually are calculated to depend just on fuelwood
collection and charcoal production in developing countries (11).
For example, in the Philippines in 1992 it was estimated that some 830,000 households (530,00 gatherers,
158,000 charcoal makers and sellers, 40,000 rural traders, and 100,000 urban traders) were involved in the
woodfuel trade, from gathering to retailing, covering 10% of all rural households and about 40% of their cash
income. (12). In Brazil, the sugarcane ethanol-based industry employs about 800,000 people and the
production and use of charcoal production generated about 120,000 direct jobs in 1996. Another important
factor is the cost of employment creation, which is quite cheap in comparison to other industrial activities. For
example, in Brazil to create a job in the sugarcane-ethanol industry in the mid 1990s required an investment of
about US$ 11,000, compared to US$220,000 in the oil sector, US$91,000 in the automobile
industry, US$419,400 in the metallurgical industry, $12,980 in the agricultural sectors, $11,180 in livestock,
and $7,260 in afforestation activities. (13). Much of this work represents a secondary activity of farmers. In
the future agro-energy employment could be even a larger source of employment.
The World Bank (14) conducted a study that confirm the central role of bioenergy in generating employment.
(See Table 3). However, these estimates apply only to large-scale operations, and for the small rural producer,
the amount of employment generated could be ten times higher.

In the industrial countries bioenergy is also an important source of employment e.g. Scrase (15) found that in
the EU the labour required to produce biomass fuels is approximately 4 to 10 times much greater than that
needed for fossil fuels, and total direct employment (including power generation) is 3 to 4 times greater than
for fossil fuel systems. Compared with nuclear energy, biomass for electricity requires approximately 15 times
as much labour. These figures only consider direct employment, while many indirect jobs would be created or
destroyed by a change in the energy mix.
However, estimation of the employment impacts of bioenergy is a complex issue because the many
uncertainties involved. There are two major issues that need to be addressed: i) intensity of employment e.g.
could such labour intensive activity hamper economic development?. It is clear that this has major implications
and that more studies are needed to establish more clearly this relationship; ii) quality of employment. Most of
the jobs generated by traditional bioenergy (as is the case with many other agricultural and rural activities) are
unskilled and of poor quality. The same cannot be said of modern bioenergy applications which involves highly
qualified jobs.
3.2 THE FOOD VERSUS FUEL ARGUMENT
This has always been a controversial topic because of the many misconceptions surrounding land availability,
particularly at a time of rapid population growth. To better understand this issue it is necessary to understand
the intertwined nature of food and energy production. There is plenty of land available but the issues are
complex from political, socio-economic, cultural, and managerial points of view.
Land availability is perceived as a constraint to large scale production of biomass but only from a perspective of
current agricultural practices which often comprises mismanagement, waste, unsustainable practices, etc.
Many studies have shown that land availability is not the main problem, but many other issues unrelated to the
earth's carrying capacity. For example, FAO (11), after studying the potential cropland resources in over 90
developing countries concluded that as a whole, the DLG will only be using 40% of their potential cropland in
2025, although there are wide regional variations.
Large areas of surplus agricultural land in USA and EU could also become significant biomass producing areas.
In the USA, farmers are paid not to farm about 10% of their land, and over 30 Mha of cropland were set aside
to reduce production or conserve land; a further 43Mha of croplands have high erosion rates and a further
43Mha have a wetness problems, which could be eased with a shift to various perennial energy crops. In the
EU, up to 15% of arable farmland can be "set-aside" although the percentage has varied over the last 5 years
(16). But in these countries there is a lot of capital, skills, etc, and low population growth, which is not the case
in DLG.
Thirty five years ago about half the population (one billion people) of DLG were undernourished - today it is
under 20% (about 800 million people). During this period cereal yields, total cereal production and total food
production in developing countries more than doubled while the population grew by 75%. As a result average
daily calorie supply increased by a quarter from under 2,000 calories per person per day in the early 1960s to
almost 2,500 calories in the mid 1980s, of which 1500 calories was provided by cereals. This trend has
continued into the mid 1990s so that the last 30 year period has seen a world wide 19% per capita increase in
food for direct human consumption with a 32% increase for developing countries as a whole. Today only 10%
of the world population lives in countries with a very low per capita food supplies (under 2200 calories) down
from 56% in 1969-1971 (17).
However, these gains have been very unequal e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa countries appear no better and often
worse off today than 20 years ago; India has increased its food grain production four fold from 50 to 200 Mt,
while population has increased three fold from 330 to one billion.

It is understandable that there should great deal of concern when land is suggested to be converted to energy
purposes while there are so many people undernourished around the world. Food production is a complex
socio-economic, political, and cultural issue that goes beyond the earth's carrying capacity to produce food. If
farmers are given the opportunity e.g. capital, economic incentives, land tenure rights, abundant energy
supply, they will be able to produce more food that it has been the is case so far.
Thus it is important that all these complex issues are recognised as part of solving the problem e.g. some
failures of the Green Revolution, mismanagement of resources, the role of women in food supply, the role of
staple food in developing countries, the food-energy nexus, etc. For example, an aspect of agriculture which is
often ignored is that 60-80% of the staple food production in DLG is produced to a large extent by women.
Unfortunately, in the past the role of women in local food production has not received much recognition so that
their inputs were not targeted by yield-enhancing techniques.
By the year 2030 as many as 8 billion people may be on the planet. Can all of them be adequately fed?. The
answer may be not if present practices do not change considerably. To feed a growing population satisfactorily
we need more than increased agricultural production, it is about political changes that prioritise agricultural
R&D, about changing people attitudes, improving the quality of life of many, and providing incentives and
motivation. It is also a precondition to have abundant and accessible sources of energy if this is to be achieved.
And this is where bioenergy could play a major role.
These represent major changes, but they are possible as illustrated by the Cuban case. The break up of the
Soviet Bloc in 1989 plunged Cuba into the worst economic crisis of its history. Its agriculture was highly
dependent on imported pesticides, fertilisers, and farming equipment, and without these inputs, domestic
production, led to an estimated 30 percent reduction in calorie intake in the early 1990s.
Cuba was faced with a dual challenge of doubling food production with half the previous inputs, but responded
to the crisis with a national call to increase food production by restructuring agriculture. This transformation
was based on conversion from a conventional, large scale, high input, mono-crop agricultural system to a
smaller scale, organic and semi-organic farming system. It focussed on utilising local low cost and
environmentally safe inputs, and relocating production closer to consumers in order to cut down on
transportation costs. Urban agriculture has been a key part of this effort. By 1994 urban residents joined a
planned government strategy to create over 8,000 ha and 2,500 city farms in Havana alone. The success of
these gardens has significantly contributed to the easing of Cuba's food crisis, and in 1998 an estimated
541,000 tons of food were produced in Havana alone for local consumption, and some neighbourhoods are
producing as much as 30% of their own subsistence needs. Food quality has also improved as citizens now
have access to a greater variety of fresh fruits and vegetables. The opening of farmers markets and the
legalisation of direct sales from farmers to consumers greatly increased production incentives for urbanites.
(18).
Cuba is not the only case. Urban agriculture has a role to play in many parts of the world e.g. it is estimated
that 800 m people worldwide harvest 15% of the world's food supply by growing vegetables and livestock in
cities. Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, produces two-thirds of its poultry and
almost 50% of its vegetables. Many other experiments are being tried e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Peru, etc.
3.4. POLICY APPROACHES TO AGRICULTURE AND ENERGY.
Agricultural development has been very unequal around the world, which is expected given the differing level
of development, resource endowment, climatic conditions, policies, etc. In many developing countries a major
reason has been lack of political support to farmers for infrastructure, markets, R&D, extension, etc, despite
the fact that agriculture is often the main source of livelihood for the majority of the population. Agriculture has
been considered by many governments as a secondary activity for far too long; industrialisation was a higher
priority despite the fact that agriculture has been the main source of income and employment. A number of
important policy changes have been taken place in the past decade that mark an important shift e.g. an
enhanced role for market forces and less government interference, more consultation with the farming
community, greater political recognition that traditional farming knowledge has a role to play, that
modernisation of agriculture needs good technical skills, the role of women in food production, etc. There is
also greater recognition of the potential role of bioenergy in socio-economic development and in food
production e.g. bioenergy can be a large (be it secondary) source of employment and income for many farmers
in remote rural areas.
Changes in the energy sector are leading to a new paradigm with major implications for agriculture and energy.
Up to the late 1980s, the cold war played a major role in determining our energy thinking. With the end of the
cold war various major trends began to emerge: i) privatisation and decentralisation of the energy sector e.g.
energy production and delivery increasingly passing to the private sector which is gradually replacing state
monopolies; ii) greater awareness of the environmental impacts of energy production and use, and a greater
willingness to address such problems e.g. climate change and environmental sustainability. The concern with
energy availability has been replaced by the concern as how to provide energy without endangering the
environment and the stability of the global climate; and iii) greater global co-operation to alleviate the most
pressing needs and problems e.g. poverty, equity, and affordable energy(1).
It is evident that the world is presently undergoing important changes which are leading to a new political and
economic order, affecting the way we produce and use energy. This decentralised model could bring increasing
opportunities for many individuals involved in bioenergy. These developments provide valuable new insights to
prepare new strategies and policies for the coming century for biomass energy.
Energy is central to this new paradigm and a challenge to the aim of sustainability. The new scenario requires
that social and environmental costs and benefits of energy production, delivery and use to be included in
decision making along with market and investment factors e.g. that all costs are internalised.
Scientific and technical advances, no doubt, will have to play a major role but in the end it is possible that the
most difficult obstacle may have more to do with economics, sociology and politics. The energy consumption

patterns and monitoring of their impacts in an integrated framework needs to be studied in detail so that policy
makers can use them to frame energy and environmental policies. Much of this information is not yet available.
3.5. BIODIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS
Agricultural development and the preservation of biodiversity are often perceived as an obstacle to
modernisation. Often such conflicts do not exist and, on the contrary, it can be very beneficial. As Thrupp (19)
puts it "evidence shows that integrating biodiversity and agriculture is beneficial for food production, ecosystem
health, and for economically and ecologically sustainable growth". However, the conservation of biodiversity
has a cost and thus it is difficult to convince farmers and decision-makers to spend money on any proposed
measure if we are not capable of quantitatively expressing the values of biodiversity in such a way that they
can be compared, which currently is not possible.
The developing countries modernisation drive should not necessarily be at the expense of the environment,
sustainability and biodiversity. They should try to find sound alternatives and combine modernisation with local
solutions while learning from the mistakes of intensive agricultural practices in both the industrial and DLG.
Bioenergy production, as function of agriculture, can be optimised so as to reduce to the minimum the impact
on the biodiversity function; it can also, in areas of high density of population, enhance the employment
function.
The role of agriculture in food and energy production needs to be re-evaluated. Population growth and
environmental pressures require a new paradigm to ensure sustainability. Global agricultural practices vary
enormously ranging from very high inputs (energy intensive, machinery, capital, chemical fertilisers, etc) in the
industrial countries, to almost primitive forms in many rural areas of DLG. These differences must be
recognised.
4. BIOMASS ENERGY, AGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Human civilisation, as we know it, would be impossible without considerable additional use of energy beyond
the work capacity of humans. Current agricultural production would have been impossible without this
additional energy e.g. machinery, fertiliser, water pumping, plowing, etc. all of which require modern use of
energy. This additional energy is driving our modern society. It is important to bear in mind the potential of
biomass, particularly in its modern forms, to provide multiple local, regional and global benefits, in addition to
sustainable energy. It is a long term entrepreneurial opportunity for improved land management based on
optimal productivity using minimum inputs of resources while producing environmental and social benefits.
Of the various strategies put forward for CO2 abatement the use of biomass energy as a direct substitute for
fossil fuels offers the greater potential. This strategy can be achieved in various ways: i) by increasing the land
area dedicated to bioenergy production either from existing or abandoned agricultural land; ii) better use of
agro-forestry residues; iii) increased efficiency of biomass-based conversion processes, and iv) integrated foodenergy production.
The experience with energy crops is still very limited and most of what it is known owes more to traditional
agricultural techniques that anything else. Nonetheless the use of dedicated energy forestry/crops is increasing
rapidly e.g. Brazil's ethanol from sugarcane program and charcoal from plantations, USA's ethanol from maize,
and Sweden's willow plantations. Some studies have indicated that the potential for replacing fossil fuel by
energy crops in the tropics alone can be as high as 150 to 510 Tg (150-510 Mt) C/yr; in the temperate zones C
offsets could potentially reached 80 to 490 Tg C/yr. Agroforestry systems, where trees are grown in managed
combinations with food or feed, could offset 10 to 50 Tg C/yr and between 50 to 200 Tg C/yr in tropical
regions. (20; 9).
Estimating biomass energy potential and its implications for agriculture is rather complicated because of the
many variables involved ranging over crop productivity, land availability, harvesting and transportation,
conversion efficiencies, fuel substitution factors, etc. Paustian et al (9) have tried to estimate the primary
energy that could be substituted over the next few decades as a result of agricultural biomass production.
Overall, they estimated that energy forestry/crops and crop residues have the potential to substitute for 0.5 to
1.6 Pg fossil fuel C/yr, or about 8-27% of the current global consumption of fossil fuels. Bauen & Karltschmitt
(21) have estimated that biomass energy has a potential to avoid between 17 and 36% of the current fossil
energy consumption and between 12 and 44% of the CO2 of 1998.
There are significant opportunities for mitigating CO2 in agriculture through changes in the use and
management of agriculture with the potential of converting agriculture into a net C sink, which has not been
fully explored, and merit particular attention. These fall into two broad categories: i) changes in terrestrial C
stocks, primarily C stored in vegetation and soils; e.g. decreases in these stocks results in a net flux of
CO2 while increasing the standing stocks of organic C in soils and biomass removes CO 2 from the atmosphere;
ii) reduction of fossil fuel consumption either or energy of other industrial uses. Agriculture consumes fossil fuel
energy in various ways e.g. production and use of machinery, crop drying, transportation, manufacture of
fertilisers, etc. Thus a reduction/improvement in these activities will lead to various mitigation opportunities.
Historically, agriculture has been a major source of anthropogenic GHG, at least until the 1920s . In the 1990s
agriculture was responsible for about 20% of total anthropogenic CO 2, about 1.6 GtC, mainly caused by rapid
land changes such as deforestation in the tropics. The current stock of C contained in the world vegetation is
estimated at 550-700 Pg while soil organic C (to 1 m depth) amounts to 1400-1600 Pg. The estimated current
C stock in cultivated land is 168 Pg C, excluding 54 Pg C of historical losses. The global potential for C
sequestration in agricultural soils over the next 50-100 years has been estimated to be in the order of 20-30
Pg C. (9).
Climate change and the potential implications for agriculture, and hence for bioenergy, poses many questions
but there are still very few answers. Simply not enough is known to make meaningful predictions. The
intricacies of land availability, food and fuel competition are being addressed more seriously, and it is now more
widely accepted that land availability is not at the core of the problem but agricultural mismanagement, waste,
land tenure, policy interference, etc, are more crucial problems. The potential role of bioenergy is being

addressed more seriously since the early 1990s when important changes began to take place e.g.
environmental pressures, privatisation of the energy sector, concern with sustainability.
Farmers have demonstrated their capacity for change and innovation if they see clear opportunities. With
proper support (e.g. availability of modern energy, extension services, infrastructure, financial, etc) farmers
will be able to produce far more food and energy, provided that the necessary changes are put in place.
Weather this is a realistic assumption for DLG is another matter. It is important to remember that production of
food and energy in agriculture is mutually interrelated and complementary. Bioenergy programmes which
couple with agroforestry and integrated farming can improve food production by making energy and income
available, where it is needed, in a more environmentally and sustainable manner.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH HAZARDS
The environmental benefits of biomass energy are widely known and hence would not be discussed in this
paper, instead we will discuss briefly health hazards. It is now well known that traditional uses of biomass
energy in DLG households can have two major negative health impacts: i) acute respiratory infections (ARI),
particularly in children, and ii) chronic obstructive lung disease (COLD) in adults. However, these are more a
direct consequence of complex socio-cultural factors and underdevelopment than the nature of the fuel
themselves These factors have not, perhaps, received as much attention as they should have in the past, which
can only be addressed in the longer term. In the shorter term, there two main technical steps which could
reduce the health effects significantly: i) improve combustion and energy efficiency of cooking stoves; ii)
substitution of fuel e.g. dung for wood, or kerosene, and the introduction of solar cookers. Other factors
include changing cooking practices, improve housing e.g. increase ventilation, installing chimneys, windows,
etc. (see e.g. 14).
6. CONCLUSIONS
Biomass energy provides about 14% of the world's energy (55EJ) and potentially as much as 450EJ by mid
21stcentury, an 8-fold increase. The implications are potentially very large, in particular for rural areas. A major
challenge is to modernise to provide what people want e.g. clean, cheap and convenient energy such as
electricity, and ethanol fuel, in an environmentally sound manner. The implications for rural development could
be far reaching if bioenergy can supply a significant proportion of this modern energy requirements. Many
commercial possibilities could be created with many social and economic benefits. In addition, there is a
considerable potential for improving the environment.
However, bioenergy production is a complex issue that depends of many and varying factors. Bioenergy should
not be regarded as the panacea for solving agricultural and energy problems in the rural areas, but as an
activity that can play a significant role in improving agricultural productivity, energy supply, the environment
and sustainability. Its final contribution will depend on a combination of social, economic, environmental,
energy and technological factors. The potential role in bioenergy production should receive greater recognition,
together with the need for positive political encouragement, and socio-cultural adaptations.
Solar power in rural india
In Central India, far from the grid of power lines, telephone poles and power transformers an electrical experiment has been
taking place. For the last year, the village of Meerwada has been learning to live with solar energy. Located some 90 minutes
from the nearest city by way of a rocky 44 dirt road, this small town sits on the cutting edge of a modern-day industrial
revolution.
In December 2011, sixty-three homes surrounding Meerwadas community center were connected to a small solar-panel
microgrid that was established by the California-based company SunEdison. The pilot program (later officially named The
Eradication of Darkness Plan), selected Meerwada to determine whether small rural villages, such as those found in Indias
Guna District, could actually benefit from solar energy. Equally important says Dawn Brister, who serves as SunEdisons senior
manager of marketing communications, was whether the residents would be comfortable with this new change, and what they
personally would want to see from the project.
(The) mistake we feel a lot of companies have made when they are trying to take electricity in (to communities) is they dont
take into account how the residents are going to receive it.
So we wanted to make sure that the villagers were receptive to it and understood what it could do for them.
After hearing what the villagers thought of the idea, the engineers then developed a plan that would address the needs of the
citizens. The community members were consulted throughout the process to ensure the project would meet their needs. For
example, the community center received lighting in and outside the building to allow for comfortable settings for meetings; the
privately owned water pump was converted to electrical power from diesel, and a system was set up for other community
members to pay for use of the well (rather than walking two miles a day for water); and outside lighting was implemented in
areas to allow residents to walk lighted paths and to safely manage livestock after dark.
For much of India, access to electrical power is nothing new. The experience of turning on a lamp to read or cook by at night
can be taken for granted as part of 21st century technology.
Solar energy microgrids in Central India
But for some 400 million people in India, electrical power does not exist and has never existed in their homes. Living by the light
of day has been a way of life for 28 other villages near Meerwada, where their physical distance from conventional power lines
has kept the communities reliant on diesel generators and kerosene lamps.
Meerwadas success in converting to solar power may change that, says Brister.
The solar makes perfect sense because of the solar radiance and the meteorological conditions not to mention that they dont
have the grid infrastructure that we have to add to traditional power sources. The answer, she said, was what was

called distributed generation which generates and distributes electricity based on a microgrid, such as the solar power system
centralized in Meerwada.
(A) lot of the people who are without electricity right now are never going to be touched by grid because of the sheer expense
and engineering effort that would be required to bring traditional transmission lines out to them, Brister explains.
The Solar India project
SunEdison has been working to implement solar energy in India since 2010, when the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan
Singh, announced the governments Solar India project with the bold target of 20,000 MW by 2022, with 3,000 MW by 2017.
Recent studies have shown that economic viability in small communities can be tied directly to the quality of ones living
conditions. Improved access to electricity, water and sanitation can have a large impact on residents earning capacity, which in
turn can play a role in the economic health of a community. It is for this reason that organizations like Water.org and other
nonprofits see improved infrastructure and access to water and electricity as essential components in combating poverty in
developing nations.
And its why SunEdison believes that equipping 29 small communities in Central India with sustainable electricity options will
have an impact on Indias own economic wellbeing. Improving the living conditions in small rural communities, Brister says,
goes hand in hand with improving Indias economic potential as a nation.
For India to be a good business opportunity, it needs to continue to grow economically. Their economy needs to expand, and
for their economy to expand, that needs to include all the people in the country. It cant be just the cities. So (SunEdison has)
always seen it as a hand-in-hand effort, Brister says. We want to improve peoples quality of life, but we also want to improve
their ability to have economic opportunity that is not available to them right now.
Solar powers potential in rural India
For many of SunEdisons staff however, bringing solar power to Meerwadas 400 residents was a more personal endeavor.
The people who oversaw the project, says Brister, could tell you a lot about our technical innovation capability, a lot about our
go-to-market strategy, a lot about our product set and our differentiation in the market, but if you ask them why they come to
work every day, its about helping people get electricity.
Almost everyone on the executive staff has, at some point, been in contact with the people of Meerwada and have seen
firsthand what unfettered joy it brings to their life to just be able to turn a light bulb on, she says, in a village and a geographic
area far away from the grid that powers Indias largest cities.
And that, Brister points out, is solar energys greatest asset.