2.5 Environmental and social impacts
Table 2.12 | Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of bioenergy: example areas of concern with selected impact categories (synthesized from the literature review by van Dam et al., 2010).
| Example areas of concern |
Examples of impact categories |
| Global, regional, off-site environmental effects |
GHGs; albedo; acidifi cation; eutrophication; water availability and quality; regional air quality |
| Local/onsite environmental effects |
Soil quality; local air quality; water availability and quality; biodiversity and habitat loss |
| Technology |
Hazards; emissions; congestion; safety; genetically modifi ed organisms/plants |
| Human rights and working conditions |
Freedom of association; access to social security; job creation and average wages; freedom from discrimination; no child labour and minimum age of workers; freedom of labour (no forced labour); rights of indigenous people; acknowledgment of gender issues |
| Health and safety |
Impacts on workers and users; safety conditions at work Food security Replacement of staple crops; safeguarding local food security |
| Food Security |
Replacement of staple crops; safeguarding local food security |
| Land and property rights |
Acknowledgment of customary and legal rights of land owners; proof of ownership; compensation systems available; agreements by consent Participation and well-being of local communities |
| Participation and well-being of local communities |
Cultural and religious values; contribution to local economy and activities; compensation for use of traditional knowledge; support to local education; local procurement of services and inputs; special measures to target vulnerable groups |
[...]
2.5.7 Socioeconomic aspects
[...]
2.5.7.1 Socioeconomic impact studies and sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems
[...]
Several sustainability frameworks and certification systems have been proposed to better document and integrate the socioeconomic impacts of bioenergy systems, particularly at the project level (Bauen et al., 2009b; WBGU, 2009; van Dam et al., 2010; see also Section 2.4). Specifi cally, criteria and indicators related to the development of liquid biofuels have been proposed for these issues: human rights, including gender issues; working and wage conditions, including health and safety issues; local food security; rural and social development, with special regard to poverty reduction; and land rights (Table 2.12). So far, while rural and local development are included, specifi c economic criteria for the cost-effectiveness of the projects, level of subsidies and other fi nancial aspects have not been included in the sustainability frameworks. Most of the frameworks are still under development. The progress of certification systems was reviewed by van Dam et al. (2008, 2010). The FAO’s Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators project has compiled bioenergy sustainability initiatives (see also Sections 2.4.5.1 and 2.4.5.2).
2.5.7.2 Socioeconomic impacts of small-scale systems
The inefficient use of biomass in traditional devices such as open fires has significant socioeconomic impacts including drudgery for getting the fuel, the cost of satisfying cooking needs, and significant health impacts from the very high levels of indoor air pollution, especially for women and children (Masera and Navia, 1997; Pimentel et al., 2001; Biran et al., 2004; Bruce et al., 2006; Romieu et al., 2009). Indoor air pollutants include respirable particles, CO, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, benzene, formaldehyde, 1, 3-butadiene, and polyaromatic compounds such as benzo(a)pyrene (Smith et al., 2000). Wood smoke exposure can increase respiratory symptoms and problems (Thorn et al., 2001; Mishra et al., 2004; Schei et al., 2004; Boman et al., 2006). Exposures of household members have been measured to be many times higher than World Health Organization guidelines and national standards (Smith et al., 2000; Bruce et al., 2006) (see also Sections 9.3.4.3 and 9.4.4). More than 200 studies over the past two decades have assessed levels of indoor air pollutants in households using solid fuels. The burden from related diseases was estimated at 1.6 million excess deaths per year, including 900,000 children under five, and a loss of 38.6 million DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Year) per year (Smith and Haigler, 2008). This burden is similar in magnitude to the burden of disease from malaria and tuberculosis (Ezzati et al., 2002)
Properly designed and implemented ICS projects, based on the new generation of biomass stoves, have led to signifi cant health improvements (von Schirnding et al., 2001; Ezzati et al., 2004). ICS health benefi ts include a 70 to 90% reduction in indoor air pollution, a 50% reduction in human exposure, and reductions in respiratory and other illnesses (Armendáriz et al., 2008; Romieu et al., 2009). Substantial health benefi ts can accrue even with modest reductions in exposure to indoor air pollutants. For example, in Guatemala, a 50% reduction in exposure has been shown to produce a 40% improvement in childhood pneumonia cases. In India, the health benefits from the dissemination of advanced ICS have been estimated to be potentially equivalent to eliminating nearly half the entire cancer burden in 2020. These health benefi ts include 240,000 averted premature deaths from acute lower respiratory infections in children younger than five years and more than 1.8 million averted premature adult deaths from ischemic heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Bruce et al., 2006; Wilkinson et al., 2009). Figure 2.14 shows the cost effectiveness of treatment options for the eight major risk factors that account for 40% of the global disease burden (Glass, 2006). ICS are among the most cost-effective options in terms of the cost per avoided DALY. Overall, ICS and other small-scale biomass systems represent a very cost-effective intervention with benefi ts to cost ratios of 5.6:1, 20:1 and 13:1 found in Malawi, Uganda and Mexico, respectively (Frapolli et al., 2010).
Increased use of ICS frees up time for women to engage in incomegenerating activities. Reduced fuel collection times and savings in cooking time can also translate into increased time for education of rural children, especially girls (Karekezi and Majoro, 2002). ICS use fosters improvements in local living conditions, kitchens and homes, and quality of life (Masera et al., 2000). The manufacture and dissemination of ICS also represents an important source of income and employment for thousands of local small businesses around the world (Masera et al., 2005). Similar impacts were found for small-scale biogas plants, which have the added benefits of providing lighting for individual households and villages and increasing the quality of life. More efficient technologies than currently employed in small-scale industries (such as improved brick and charcoal kilns) are available that increase work productivity, quality of products and overall working conditions (FAO, 2006, 2010b).
