• Energy Research
• Closed Access close
• 15. Life on land close
• University of London close

/ The Itapiranga Sustainable Logging Plan provides an example of how Brazil's licensing system functions for logging companies in the state of Amazonas. Two questions need to be dealt with: "How sustainable can logging in the Amazon be?" and "What and how effective are existing legal mechanisms to deal with logging projects?" The environmental impact assessment (EIA) and environmental impact statement (EIS, known as the RIMA in Brazil), present relatively detailed accounts of biodiversity and the need to adopt conservation strategies to protect it. However, social and health impacts are only superficially addressed. The economic sustainability of the operation over multiple cycles is not demonstrated. The multidisciplinary teams responsible for the EIA and EIS (RIMA) reports are hired by the project proponent, an arrangement inherently carrying the risk of biasing the result. Logging reduces biodiversity, releases greenhouse gases and inflicts social and health costs. These impacts reduce the ability of Amazonian forests to provide environmental services and to supply food and livelihood security to local populations. The reports inflate positive effects such as employment: the estimated number of jobs was cut by more than half in a revision made after the EIA and EIS (RIMA) had been approved. Not only do the reports need to be more realistic in assessing both positive and negative consequences of proposed projects, but better means are needed to ensure that promised mitigatory measures are enforced in practice. Many of the lessons that can be drawn from the Itapiranga Plan are not unique to logging projects and apply to licensing of development activites generally in Brazil and elsewhere.

/ The Itapiranga Sustainable Logging Plan provides an example of how Brazil's licensing system functions for logging companies in the state of Amazonas. Two questions need to be dealt with: "How sustainable can logging in the Amazon be?" and "What and how effective are existing legal mechanisms to deal with logging projects?" The environmental impact assessment (EIA) and environmental impact statement (EIS, known as the RIMA in Brazil), present relatively detailed accounts of biodiversity and the need to adopt conservation strategies to protect it. However, social and health impacts are only superficially addressed. The economic sustainability of the operation over multiple cycles is not demonstrated. The multidisciplinary teams responsible for the EIA and EIS (RIMA) reports are hired by the project proponent, an arrangement inherently carrying the risk of biasing the result. Logging reduces biodiversity, releases greenhouse gases and inflicts social and health costs. These impacts reduce the ability of Amazonian forests to provide environmental services and to supply food and livelihood security to local populations. The reports inflate positive effects such as employment: the estimated number of jobs was cut by more than half in a revision made after the EIA and EIS (RIMA) had been approved. Not only do the reports need to be more realistic in assessing both positive and negative consequences of proposed projects, but better means are needed to ensure that promised mitigatory measures are enforced in practice. Many of the lessons that can be drawn from the Itapiranga Plan are not unique to logging projects and apply to licensing of development activites generally in Brazil and elsewhere.

Abstract Mechanisation of sugarcane harvesting is growing rapidly in Southern Brazil where nearly 80% of Brazil’s crop is cultivated. Currently a maximum of 20% of the cane is mechanically harvested and the proportion is expected to rise to about 50% by 2005. However, most of the cane is burned prior to harvesting and less than 2% is harvested green. Issues such as topography, crop cultivation and management methods, labour costs, machine performance, environmental legislation and markets for sugarcane residues will influence the increase in mechanical harvesting of burned or green cane. This paper discusses the prospects for green cane harvesting technology, with emphasis on Southern Brazil, and compares harvesting technologies which are being commercialised today. The paper also addresses the recovery of cane residues (dry and green tops and leaves) and comments on their possible use and commercialisation, particularly for electricity generation.

Abstract Mechanisation of sugarcane harvesting is growing rapidly in Southern Brazil where nearly 80% of Brazil’s crop is cultivated. Currently a maximum of 20% of the cane is mechanically harvested and the proportion is expected to rise to about 50% by 2005. However, most of the cane is burned prior to harvesting and less than 2% is harvested green. Issues such as topography, crop cultivation and management methods, labour costs, machine performance, environmental legislation and markets for sugarcane residues will influence the increase in mechanical harvesting of burned or green cane. This paper discusses the prospects for green cane harvesting technology, with emphasis on Southern Brazil, and compares harvesting technologies which are being commercialised today. The paper also addresses the recovery of cane residues (dry and green tops and leaves) and comments on their possible use and commercialisation, particularly for electricity generation.

Abstract Biomass is the world's fourth largest energy source and the first in developing countries representing 14% and 35%, respectively, of primary energy. The provision and use of biomass energy is a complex issue; it is an integral part of the problems associated with sustainability of all types of vegetation which in turn is a key to ensuring stable socioeconomic development. The financial costs of producing biomass are also very complex since they depend upon many different factors and tend to be quite site specific, eg agricultural and forestry costs, type of feedstock and its productivity, equipment requirements, etc. The last two decades have witnessed numerous proclamations of failure and success of biomass schemes. There is no short cut to trying to understand the factors required for success except by extensive investigation. We consider the socioeconomic and technological implications of four case studies where we have had long-term direct experience of evaluation at the local, national and international levels. These case studies are: ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil and Zimbabwe; community biogas in an Indian village; and, land rehabilitation for fuel and fodder in Baringo, Kenya.

Abstract Biomass is the world's fourth largest energy source and the first in developing countries representing 14% and 35%, respectively, of primary energy. The provision and use of biomass energy is a complex issue; it is an integral part of the problems associated with sustainability of all types of vegetation which in turn is a key to ensuring stable socioeconomic development. The financial costs of producing biomass are also very complex since they depend upon many different factors and tend to be quite site specific, eg agricultural and forestry costs, type of feedstock and its productivity, equipment requirements, etc. The last two decades have witnessed numerous proclamations of failure and success of biomass schemes. There is no short cut to trying to understand the factors required for success except by extensive investigation. We consider the socioeconomic and technological implications of four case studies where we have had long-term direct experience of evaluation at the local, national and international levels. These case studies are: ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil and Zimbabwe; community biogas in an Indian village; and, land rehabilitation for fuel and fodder in Baringo, Kenya.

Abstract Terrestrial above-ground biomass production and utilisation in Sierra Leone was analysed for the years 1984/5 to 1990/1. The total production of biomass energy was estimated at an annual average of 131 PJ (39% from agriculture, 51% from forestry and 10% from livestock). Of the 117 PJ produced from agricultural and forestry operations, 37 PJ was harvested as firewood and burnt (10.9 GJ or 0.72 t wood per capita per year, supplying 80% of the country’s energy), 12 PJ was harvested for food, 66 PJ was unutilised crop and forestry residues, 3 PJ was harvested crop residues for use directly as fuel, and 2 PJ was harvested and used for industrial purposes and not for fuel. Livestock produced wastes with an energy content of 13 PJ of which only 0.1 PJ was collected and used for fuel. Thus 54 PJ (41%) of the 131 PJ of biomass energy produced annually was actually utilised while 49 PJ remained as unused agricultural residues and dung, and a further 27 PJ was unused forestry residues. The total amount of biomass (fuelwood, residues and dung) used directly to provide energy, mostly in households, was estimated at 40 PJ (11.8 GJ per capita per year or 0.79 t fuelwood equivalent). Direct biomass energy utilisation in agroindustry (0.4 PJ) was negligible in comparison. Two assessments of Sierra Leone’s biomass standing stock and MAI (mean annual increment) were examined in order to assess the sustainability of various biomass use scenarios. Large differences were found between the MAI of the two assessments, making it difficult to predict sustainability of biomass production and use. The estimation of total standing stock varied between 227 and 366 Mt and the estimation of MAI varied between 15 and 70 Mt. Analysis of the availability and use of the biomass resource is crucial if biomass energy is to be used on a sustainable basis. A software package has been developed and is available to draft biomass flow charts but further work is needed to incorporate social and economic costs.

Abstract Terrestrial above-ground biomass production and utilisation in Sierra Leone was analysed for the years 1984/5 to 1990/1. The total production of biomass energy was estimated at an annual average of 131 PJ (39% from agriculture, 51% from forestry and 10% from livestock). Of the 117 PJ produced from agricultural and forestry operations, 37 PJ was harvested as firewood and burnt (10.9 GJ or 0.72 t wood per capita per year, supplying 80% of the country’s energy), 12 PJ was harvested for food, 66 PJ was unutilised crop and forestry residues, 3 PJ was harvested crop residues for use directly as fuel, and 2 PJ was harvested and used for industrial purposes and not for fuel. Livestock produced wastes with an energy content of 13 PJ of which only 0.1 PJ was collected and used for fuel. Thus 54 PJ (41%) of the 131 PJ of biomass energy produced annually was actually utilised while 49 PJ remained as unused agricultural residues and dung, and a further 27 PJ was unused forestry residues. The total amount of biomass (fuelwood, residues and dung) used directly to provide energy, mostly in households, was estimated at 40 PJ (11.8 GJ per capita per year or 0.79 t fuelwood equivalent). Direct biomass energy utilisation in agroindustry (0.4 PJ) was negligible in comparison. Two assessments of Sierra Leone’s biomass standing stock and MAI (mean annual increment) were examined in order to assess the sustainability of various biomass use scenarios. Large differences were found between the MAI of the two assessments, making it difficult to predict sustainability of biomass production and use. The estimation of total standing stock varied between 227 and 366 Mt and the estimation of MAI varied between 15 and 70 Mt. Analysis of the availability and use of the biomass resource is crucial if biomass energy is to be used on a sustainable basis. A software package has been developed and is available to draft biomass flow charts but further work is needed to incorporate social and economic costs.

Abstract China, like many other countries, is promoting the development of liquid biofuel, including bioethanol and biodiesel. The Chinese government has set biofuel development targets for the coming decade and sanctioned a series of supportive policies. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of current liquid biofuel development in China, related government policies, and the potential opportunities and challenges for its future expansion. Our assessment is based on two rounds of in-depth fieldwork and a thorough literature review. The assessment shows that the prevailing concern on food security has pushed China to move from cereal-based to non-cereal-based biofuel production. Emphasis has also been put on utilizing new marginal land for feedstock production. Our assessment indicates that the targets of China's biofuel development are cautious and feasible, but on the other hand there are still severe challenges for the sustainability of such development. A better understanding of China's experience in striking a balance between energy security, food security and environmental protection would inform the debates across country boundaries and contribute to the efforts for global sustainability.