TBP01x 6.6 Sustainability in a global context
Welcome back!
Glad you can join us again for this last unit of week 6. In this unit we will have a look at the
wider societal impacts of technology for biobased products and the development of the
biobased economy.
In the previous units we have seen that technology can be improved for better economic
performance and lower environmental impacts. And that new technology can also have an
impact on social development. An obvious example is the sugar cane practice.
The traditional manual harvest of sugar cane was done by burning. To protect the manual
workers to the razor sharp leaves, mechanical harvesting was introduced in Brazil.
This led to a loss of manual jobs, but created higher paid jobs in machine operating, led to
much reduced environmental impacts and enables greater use of second generation
technology for the leaves and straw. Because with burning, more than 50% of the available
biomass energy is lost. In turn second generation use of sugar cane leaves requires also
more precise agricultural management. For soil maintenance it is important to establish how
much material should be left in the field and what can be taken out.
Field workers therefore need further education, which usually coincides with income
increases and farmers can get more return of their produce.
So technological development leads to environmental and economic improvements and can
lead to better worker safety and income positions.
With the tools for impact analysis we now have much better ideas of impacts, and
opportunities to reduce them.
At the same time the example of sugar cane also shows that there are many broader or
indirect impacts on society as a whole. These are not always seen as positive by all and
provoke sometimes a lot of debate.
In this unit we will present some of the issues of such debates and give you food for
thought!
The first issue we like to introduce is right at the core of technology for biobased products.
Should we use biomass for all our bulk products such as bioenergy and biofuels? We have
seen that the replacement from fossil to biobased production can improve environmental
impact and reduce climate change effects.
This is a global challenge. However, it also raises questions. On feedstock availability; and
whether this does not compete with food production and so threatens food security. As an
example, here you see some newspaper headlines on the development of biofuels. You all
probably have come across such headlines in the newspaper.
The tone and message may change day by day and certainly will have its influence on
business development.
This debate is known as the issue of food versus fuel.
In 2013 of the 7.2 billion people, still 842 million were undernourished of which 20 30% live
in urban areas and 70 80% in rural areas.
The FAO has pointed to four dimensions in food security: availability, access, utilization and
stability& ..
The underlying issue of the food fuel debate focusses on availability,  do we have enough
land available for the production of crops for food and for biomass for other purposes than
food? So that it does not increase food insecurity? Recent studies have mapped the
availability of agricultural land.
And predicted the need for food (and land) for the growing world population. According to
the FAO a total of 4,5 Billion hectare of the global land is suitable for agriculture. The
expected need for growing food and feed demands is about 130 219 Mha, taking dietary
changes and climate change effects into account.
If we exclude land already in use for agriculture (1,3 Bha), forests and protected land (1,8
Bha) there is 1,4 Bha available for expansion of food and non food use agriculture. This
additional land is strongly concentrated in Latin America and Sub Sahara Africa.
On top of this there is also a considerable amount, circa 600 Mha, of presently non arable
land available. This could be used for specifically developed crops for bioenergy and other
products, making use of 2G technology and biorefineries.
If done well, this may improve the soil quality of those degraded lands.
As you can see, especially in Africa, the land availability coincides with areas where hunger
still exists and also where there is still traditional use of biomass for energy and cooking. This
traditional use is not very sustainable and causing health problems through smoke. New
technology, including biobased production of energy, fuels and products could help
improve environmental impacts and health.
Thurrow and Kilman have pointed out that food insecurity is caused mainly by poverty and
lack of access to food. As shown here by Lee Lynd, several positive impacts can be achieved
using new technology to improve energy security through bioenergy of locally available
biomass. Energy security is seen as a precondition for economic development.
It could also increase the production of higher added value products. So it seems that
globally there is enough land available, also in areas of food insecurity and that the novel
technology can bring health and economic benefits.Therefore we can conclude that we need
to strive for development that does not only avoids less availability, but at the same time
improves income and access. This means that we need to look at ways how we can further
implement sustainable agricultural practices. This would particularly help food security in
rural areas.
For urban areas food prices have a direct impact on food security. Some argue that
utilisation of biomass for other purposes than food may impact food prices. However, so far,
not much evidence is found for that argument. Food prices relate to prices of fossil fuels and
fertiliser and seem to relate to civil conflict.
Several authors therefore now analyse the options for using modern technology for
bioenergy production and other products which have positive impacts on food security,
and on social development, and how this should be managed. They argue for the further
development of 2G technology, for more efficient use of biomass for both food, feed and
other purposes.
In our designs we have seen that the use of genetic modification could improve the overall
performance. GM crops could improve the yield per hectare, reduce the environmental
impact and economic costs (for example through insect resistance, so that less or more
environmentally friendly herbicides can be used). GM microorganisms can be used in the
fermentation process to improve conversion efficiency and avoid by products.
However, objections are raised by non governmental organisations for example of fear of
safety, especially if GM is used in crops for food production. They also point out that large
introduction of GM crops lead to monocultures which can harm biodiversity. The position of
multinationals developing the crops is also debated. Because the intellectual property is
owned by those companies they have a lot of power. The benefits may therefore not evenly
be distributed. Also the possible mis use for example of micro organisms in war fare is an
issue. And some find it unacceptable that genetic modification changes the blueprint of life.
This leads to fear opposition, such as from Greenpeace. It can hamper development and can
influence regulations. For example in Europe the use of GM crops is very restricted. As well
as the use of waste biomass from fermentation. So such opposition can both induce safe and
just implementation but can also hamper the development and deployment of beneficial
novel technology.
However, after years of research the risks seem to be limited and the use of GMOs in
containment for fermentation is now generally accepted. Also more and more farmers see
the benefits of increased yields and other traits and have introduced GM crops, also in poor
regions in developing countries. Here you can see how GM crops perform better than non
GM crops for yield, pesticide quantity and cost, and farmer income from a meta analysis by
Klümper and Qaim of 2014.
Finally, I would like to raise the issue of sustainability itself. It is good to realise that
sustainability means different things for different people. In the original meaning it is both
horizontal, spatial moral responsibility in terms of geographical just distribution in the
present and vertical, temporal, responsibility in terms of not compromising the needs of
future generations. For most people however, it is a concept that may relate to durability, or
be associated with biodegradation, yet others refer to  environmentally friendly or issues
such as  fair trade . We have seen that some of these aspects are quantifiably measurable
and can be components of general standards, while others are merely  principles or general
concepts.
It is important to realise this and all the other arguments in favour or against, when you wish
to understand or contribute to communication on sustainable development. All aspects
must be taken into account to make a sustainable design. Leaving out aspects or unjustified
focus on some aspects may lead to inefficient designs!
Furthermore, decision making is not only based on the choice of perceived relevant facts,
but also on moral principles or values and on intuitions or gut feelings. The data on
sustainability are important elements in such decision processes, not only for business cases,
but also for policy decisions on regulations and incentives which effect innovation in
biobased production; for investors and of course for opinion forming by the general public.
Overall we have seen that technology for biobased production provides many opportunities
to improve economic, environmental and social dimensions. It requires well integrated
designs which build on economic, environmental and social evaluation. And with such
designs we can work on better futures!
Thank you for joining this unit!