Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Food vs fuel copy

•
•
Yasin Kabir
Yasin Kabir

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 of 16
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF MASSIVE BIO FUEL PRODUCTION ON FOOD PRICE INDEX YASIN KABIR
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
 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
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
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
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
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

More Related Content

Food vs fuel copy

  • 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