Here is a comment from Pankaj Ballabh working in Vidhya Bhawan Insitute Udaipur.
Viren
I really do not understand what TERI has achieved and proved- of course Jathropa grows on wastelands! TERI could have driven around in Jhadol, Kotra indeed any part of Rural Udaipur and seen it for themselves and avoided research. There are several problems with the “bio-diesel” hype. The standard (in sense of that most practitioners are aware of it) problem of course is that most bio-diesel (including Jathropha) is net negative on energy. Also the recent articles on net would indicate that the productivity numbers being talked about are for irrigated and fertile soils, and yields in “wastelands’ (is there any wastelands in India in any case) are less than half (it will of course be nice if the TERI shares data on soil fertility, irrigation and corresponding yield).
I also saw the bio-diesel plant at Indian Institute of Petroleum at Dehradun- unfortunately it did not look as simple as heat and add one ingredient. It seemed a complex process and is indeed akin to a formal refinery. This is of course if you intend to produce something that is Euro IV compatible and fit for modern diesels- anything would go in a village pump-set.
I personally also find the idea of genetic modification on a plant that propagates by seed and by vegetative means, scattered all over rural areas, fairly scary. Are there any details of the safeguards that TERI is adopting and their audit and oversight processes?
Best Regards
Pankaj
From: Viren Lobo [mailto:vlobo62@...] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:31 AM To: Juned Khan; Dr Jagdish K Purohit; jagdeesh menon; Seva Mandir; SevaMandir-NRD; fes BHL; FES UDR; Fes Pratapgarh; Anand; Prayas; Jawahar Singh; ramesh nandwana; Prayatna Samiti; JJVS; hvvs@...; samarthak Samiti; Astha; Astha Bhanwar Singh; Mangi Lal Gujjar; Shalini Bhutani; kanchikohli@...; Dr Leena Gupta; Giriraj Kishore Kumawat; Pankaj Oudhia; Pankaj Ballabh GM; msr@...; knd51@...; K N Joshi; purnendu kavoori Subject:India's Big Plans for Biodiesel
Sent by Dr Jagdishk Kumar Purohit , FYI and comments
Viren
India's Big Plans for Biodiesel
Researchers are developing new methods for cultivating a plant called jatropha.
By Michael Fitzgerald December 27, 2006
Biodiesel could be an important renewable substitute for fossil fuels. And, in certain parts of the world, governments and some corporations consider the jatropha plant, common in hot climates, one of the most promising sources of biodiesel. The plant can grow in wastelands, and it yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean, and more than ten times that of corn. But the commercial-scale cultivation of jatropha, which has not previously been grown as a crop, raises several significant challenges.
This year, the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), an Indian research group, launched a 10-year, $9.4 million project to research issues involved in taking jatropha from seed to filling station. One challenge is growing the plant in poor soil.
The first crops of jatropha, planted in what was wasteland, have now flowered, says Alok Adholeya, director of TERI's Biotechnology and Management of Bioresources division. "It proves that we can do this," he says. He and other researchers at TERI spent five years testing different mycorrhiza microorganisms, symbiotic fungi that improve the ability of many plants to grow in poor soil. Adholeya's team found that the most effective was a fungus in the glomus species (he is not currently disclosing the exact fungus), which improves jatropha yields by 15 percent.
The TERI project is working in rural Andra Pradesh, a state in southeast India, collaborating with local financial institutions to develop loan guarantees to fund seed purchases; it's also collaborating with insurers to back the farmers against potential losses. In addition, it had to educate the farmers on how to cultivate the plant.
So far, the project has signed up 5,000 farmers representing 1,000 hectares of land. The goal is to have 8,000 hectares under cultivation by March 2008, and Adholeya says that the success of the first crops has drawn interest from many more farmers. By the end of 2008, TERI plans to have a production facility producing biodiesel from jatropha. Eventually, it aims to produce 90 million liters of biodiesel annually.
Adholeya is also working on genetically modifying jatropha to improve its yields. He leads a team of 20 microbiologists, molecular biologists, and field breeders who are looking for the genes in jatropha that cause it to fruit so that they can enhance the percentage of oil in the seed. He expects that it will take 18 months to isolate the genes and begin working to enhance them. The researchers plan to use a technique called molecular-assisted breeding, in which they identify a gene of interest, select particular genotypes, and breed them. Adholeya expects that by 2012, modified jatropha plants will be in cultivation.
He says that the Indian government, taking note of a report by TERI, is considering a national initiative around developing jatropha crops as a major source of fuel. That report calls for India to plant 400,000 hectares of jatropha in 22 of India's 28 states.
India is not alone in its interest in jatropha. Indonesia's government is promoting jatropha cultivation, as are several governments in Africa. Jatropha is attractive because of several desirable properties: it can grow in poor soil and survive drought; it's a perennial with an economic life of about 35 to 40 years; and it only needs two to three years to develop into a cash crop.
Jatropha seeds, when crushed, produce large quantities of an oil that can easily be converted to biodiesel that performs at levels close to that of conventional diesel oil. In fact, a hectare of jatropha produces 1,892 liters of fuel, which is better than rapeseed and far better than soybean or corn, according to data gathered by the Global Petroleum Club, an energy networking organization funded by the private-equity firm Forrest Equity Management.
"Jatropha is a one-stage conversion [to biodiesel]," says Adholeya, explaining that converting the plant oil to an oil that can be burned as fuel requires only one stage of heating and mixing with methanol. The resulting fuel, he says, "is a very good quality diesel that can be used in any transport vehicle."
* It is good news for pesticide companies and bad news for nature
lover. Pest and pest control mean application of pesticides in
millions of Hectares. Be ready for new disaster.
* Scientists from Jhansi including Dr. Chitra, also member of this
group have reported these pest many years back. But planners ignored it.
* Since few years we are regularly reporting pest infestation from
Chhattisgarh. But it was also ignored.
Pankaj Oudhia
======================
Pest control on bio-fuel crops needed
ASHOK B SHARMA
Posted online: Monday , February 25, 2008 at 2227 hrs IST
New Delhi, Feb 24 The Hyderabad-based Central Research Institute for
Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) has said that plantation of different tree
borne oilseeds in wastelands under different agro-climatic conditions
can be taken up for production of bio-fuels. But pests control needs
adequate attention.
CRIDA has conducted on-farm experimentation in three districts in
Andhra Pradesh, namely Anantapur, Mahabubnagar and Nalgonda alongwith
the state government’s rainshadow area development department. In
general, the experiments showed the survival of Jatropha was about 95%
after two years of planting and that of Pongamia was around 98% after
a year of planting.
“Experiments on pruning of Jatropha plants in different districts have
shown good response to the treatment at a height of 45 cm and 60 cm
from ground level by reflecting in increased number of branches (10-15
per plant) and also vigorous growth”, said GR Rao of CRIDA.
However, with a view to develop good plant growth, the inflorescene
should be removed during the first year. It was observed that the
pruning had reflected in more pest problems as pruned plants had more
vigor and also because of pruning injuries, he said
CRIDA suggested that legume intercropping should be taken up in the
three-year gestation period of Jatropha plantation with a view to
provide immediate income to the farmer and improving soil fertility.
It experimented with such intercropping of pigeonpea, blackgram and
horsegram in 2006. The spacing should, however, be at least 3m between
rows of Jatropha while that for Pongamia at least 5x4m. Still wider
spacing of 6x4m or 6x6m is preferred for Pongamia to get good growth.
According to CRIDA study major pests were, however, observed on
bio-fuel plants namely Semilooper (Archaea janata), red hairy
caterpillar (Amsacta albistriga), leaf webber (Pempelia morosalis),
stem girdler, grass hoppers, Defoliater, leaf and inflorescence webber
(Pempelia morosalis), spotted bugs (Scutellera nobilis/Chrysocoris
purpureus), scale insects (Megapulvinaria maxima), leaf miner, leaf
blight and leaf galls (Eriophyes cherian).
CRIDA initiated on-station trials with Jatropha way back in 1992 and
on Pongamia since 2003. It identified 218 Jatropha species and over
197 Pongamia species in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and
collected and screened germplasm on the basis of oil content in the
seed and thereafter short-listed 42 Jatropha accessions and 23
Pongamia accessions for evaluation.
“The screened accessions of Jatropha and Pongamia are being evaluated
in progeny trials. Germplasm of these two species were exchanged with
network partners, representing all state governments for multi
locational trials,”...
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Pest-control-on-bio-fuel-crops-needed/27672\
9/
African Future, 20 February - Uproar is slowly spreading among African civil society organisations and scientists, fearing that the biofuel revolution will bring more food insecurity, higher food prices and
hunger to the continent. A petition calling for a "moratorium on new agrofuel developments in Africa" has so far been signed by over 30 NGOs all over the continent.
Biofuels have already revolutionised agriculture in the US, Brazil and
parts of Asia, and if EU energy commitments are lived up to, soon will do so in Europe. Now, foreign investors are queuing at African government offices to realise giant biofuel projects on this fertile continent, promising a new "green revolution", greater independence
from the oil market and even fuel export possibilities.
And they are successful. So successful that the petitioners fear a quick negative impact on African food security, which is already endangered by rising world market prices for basic foods. "Investors
are rushing to privatise our land for their plantations, while our governments willingly allocate millions of hectares from the 70% of Africa’s land that is still communally owned," the petition warns. "Jatropha" is being pushed as one of the new miracle crops for African
small farmers to produce fuel, and the impact is already being felt around the continent.
In Tanzania, thousands of farmers growing rice and maize are already being evicted from fertile areas of land with good access to water,
for biofuel sugar cane and jatropha plantations on newly privatised land. Villages are being cleared, but families have been given minimal compensation or opportunities for their loss of land, community and way of life, according to the petitioners.
Millions of hectares in Ethiopia have been identified as suitable for biofuel production, and many foreign companies have already been allocated land from farmland, forests and wilderness areas. Even protected areas are not safe from the spread of biofuels. One European
investor has been granted 13,000 hectares of land in Oromia state; 87% of which is the Babile Elephant Sanctuary, a home to rare and endangered elephants.
In Zambia, jatropha cultivation is booming without privatisation.
Foreign investors are using contracts with a large number out-growers that last up to 30 years. The petitioners fear that the out-growers have been tricked: "These contracts serve to transfer control over production from the farmer to the company, through a system of loans,
numerous extra charges and service payments, and prices determined by the company. Under such a system of dependence, farmers are likely to increase their indebtedness to the company, until they may be obliged to hand over their land altogether."
In West Africa, jatropha is already being grown in Togo, Ghana, Senegal, Mali, Côte d’Ivoire and Niger. Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade has placed fuel crops at the heart of an agriculture renewal programme in his country. In Ghana one company is planning to plant
one million hectares of jatropha with support of the government, while in Benin another company has obtained permission to plant a quarter of a million hectares of biofuel crops. Farmers in Benin and in many other countries in the region have, on the average, no more than 1
hectare to grow there products and the biofuels are expected to make a serious dent into their food production.
The petitioners therefore hold that the biofuel revolution is "geared to replace millions of hectares of local agricultural systems, and the
rural communities working in them, with large plantations. It is oriented to substitute biodiversity-based indigenous cropping, grazing and pasture farming systems by monocultures and genetically engineered agrofuel crops." In agreement with several new scientific analyses,
they hold that "the current push for agrofuels exacerbate, rather than solve, the problem of climate change."
"Among Africa’s many challenges, food security is one of the most serious. A full car tank of ethanol uses the same amount of grain that
can feed a child for a year. We do not understand how our governments can willingly take our food, land and water to meet the fuel luxuries of the wealthy in the North, when we already face problems of food security and environmental destruction at home," the petition reads.
The call for a moratorium on new biofuel developments in Africa is in line with warnings from the main UN agencies involved in agriculture and food aid, WFP and FAO, registering that the increased acreage used
for biofuels is already contributing to higher food prices and may lead to more hunger in the world. Indeed, already in October last year, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, in his annual report called for a world-wide 5-year moratorium on
building biofuel manufacturing plants that use food stocks.
African NGOs call for moratorium on biofuels
African Future, 20 February - Uproar is slowly spreading among African
civil society organisations and scientists, fearing that the biofuel
revolution will bring more food insecurity, higher food prices and
hunger to the continent. A petition calling for a "moratorium on new
agrofuel developments in Africa" has so far been signed by over 30
NGOs all over the continent.
Biofuels have already revolutionised agriculture in the US, Brazil and
parts of Asia, and if EU energy commitments are lived up to, soon will
do so in Europe. Now, foreign investors are queuing at African
government offices to realise giant biofuel projects on this fertile
continent, promising a new "green revolution", greater independence
from the oil market and even fuel export possibilities.
And they are successful. So successful that the petitioners fear a
quick negative impact on African food security, which is already
endangered by rising world market prices for basic foods. "Investors
are rushing to privatise our land for their plantations, while our
governments willingly allocate millions of hectares from the 70% of
Africa’s land that is still communally owned," the petition warns.
"Jatropha" is being pushed as one of the new miracle crops for African
small farmers to produce fuel, and the impact is already being felt
around the continent.
In Tanzania, thousands of farmers growing rice and maize are already
being evicted from fertile areas of land with good access to water,
for biofuel sugar cane and jatropha plantations on newly privatised
land. Villages are being cleared, but families have been given minimal
compensation or opportunities for their loss of land, community and
way of life, according to the petitioners.
Millions of hectares in Ethiopia have been identified as suitable for
biofuel production, and many foreign companies have already been
allocated land from farmland, forests and wilderness areas. Even
protected areas are not safe from the spread of biofuels. One European
investor has been granted 13,000 hectares of land in Oromia state; 87%
of which is the Babile Elephant Sanctuary, a home to rare and
endangered elephants.
In Zambia, jatropha cultivation is booming without privatisation.
Foreign investors are using contracts with a large number out-growers
that last up to 30 years. The petitioners fear that the out-growers
have been tricked: "These contracts serve to transfer control over
production from the farmer to the company, through a system of loans,
numerous extra charges and service payments, and prices determined by
the company. Under such a system of dependence, farmers are likely to
increase their indebtedness to the company, until they may be obliged
to hand over their land altogether."
In West Africa, jatropha is already being grown in Togo, Ghana,
Senegal, Mali, Côte d’Ivoire and Niger. Senegal's President Abdoulaye
Wade has placed fuel crops at the heart of an agriculture renewal
programme in his country. In Ghana one company is planning to plant
one million hectares of jatropha with support of the government, while
in Benin another company has obtained permission to plant a quarter of
a million hectares of biofuel crops. Farmers in Benin and in many
other countries in the region have, on the average, no more than 1
hectare to grow there products and the biofuels are expected to make a
serious dent into their food production.
The petitioners therefore hold that the biofuel revolution is "geared
to replace millions of hectares of local agricultural systems, and the
rural communities working in them, with large plantations. It is
oriented to substitute biodiversity-based indigenous cropping, grazing
and pasture farming systems by monocultures and genetically engineered
agrofuel crops." In agreement with several new scientific analyses,
they hold that "the current push for agrofuels exacerbate, rather than
solve, the problem of climate change."
"Among Africa’s many challenges, food security is one of the most
serious. A full car tank of ethanol uses the same amount of grain that
can feed a child for a year. We do not understand how our governments
can willingly take our food, land and water to meet the fuel luxuries
of the wealthy in the North, when we already face problems of food
security and environmental destruction at home," the petition reads.
The call for a moratorium on new biofuel developments in Africa is in
line with warnings from the main UN agencies involved in agriculture
and food aid, WFP and FAO, registering that the increased acreage used
for biofuels is already contributing to higher food prices and may
lead to more hunger in the world. Indeed, already in October last
year, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler,
in his annual report called for a world-wide 5-year moratorium on
building biofuel manufacturing plants that use food stocks.
By Rainer Chr. Hennig
http://www.afrol.com/articles/28075
Two studies have shown that changes in land use to produce crop-based biofuels can actually result in more greenhouse-gas emissions than burning fossil fuels.
The studies, both published in Science last week (8 February), estimate the impact of converting forests and grasslands into cropland for the production of biofuels.
Both conclude that the resulting carbon emissions, released through decomposition or burning of biomass, create a 'carbon debt' that takes decades or even centuries to be paid back through biofuel usage.
This finding undermines previous claims that substituting fossil fuels with biofuels should offset greenhouse-gas emissions because biofuels sequester carbon while they grow.
According to Timothy Searchinger, researcher at Princeton University and the lead author of one of the studies, previous assessments did not include the carbon storage and sequestration sacrificed when diverting land from its existing use.
Searchinger and colleagues looked at the use of US cropland to produce corn-based ethanol and calculated it would take 167 years to repay carbon emissions resulting from land-use change, and that in 30 years greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol could be nearly double those from gasoline.
"Biofuels in the US and Europe are increasing the price of crops, which naturally results in more efforts to clear land. In that way, farmers make more money," he says.
Much of this land clearing will occur in Brazil, China and India, the authors write.
In the other study, by the Nature Conservancy and University of Minnesota, researchers estimate carbon debts and pay back years for different cases of conversion from native vegetation.
They found soybean biodiesel produced on converted Amazonian rainforest would take around 320 years to gain a 'carbon benefit' over petroleum diesel. For biodiesel and sugarcane-based ethanol produced on Brazilian cerrado — tropical savannah — the estimations are 37 and 17 years, respectively.
Improving the productivity of agricultural land, creating biofuels from waste biomass and municipal waste, or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural land, are all ways to avoid the need for a change in land use, the authors suggest.
The results of the studies do not surprise Roberto Schaeffer, researcher at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. "Nobody thought deforestation for biofuel production would be a good solution," he told SciDev.Net.
"Biofuels are only effective in specific situations, as in the case of Brazilian ethanol. It is possible to increase production without devastating forests."
Apart from used chip fat, there is no such thing as a sustainable
biofuel
Even capitalists now admit the oil crisis is real. But their
solutions border on lunacy as they avoid the obvious answer
George Monbiot
Tuesday February 12 2008
The Guardian
Now they might start sitting up. They wouldn't listen to the environmentalists
or even the geologists. Can governments ignore the capitalists? A report
published last week by Citibank, and so far unremarked on by the media,
proposes "genuine difficulties" in increasing the production of crude
oil, "particularly after 2012". Though 175 big drilling projects will
start in the next four years, "the fear remains that most of this supply
will be offset by high levels of decline". The oil industry has scoffed at
the notion that oil supplies might peak, but "recent evidence of failed
production growth would tend to shift the burden of proof on to the
producers", as they have been unable to respond to the massive rise in
prices. "Total global liquid hydrocarbon production has essentially
flatlined since mid 2005 at just north of 85m barrels per day."
The issue is complicated, as ever, by the refusal of the Opec cartel to raise
production. What has changed, Citibank says, is that the non-Opec countries can
no longer answer the price signal. Does this mean that oil production in these
nations has already peaked? If so, what do our governments intend to do?
Nine months ago, I asked the British government to send me its assessments of
global oil supply. The results astonished me: there weren't any. Instead it
relied exclusively on one external source: a book published by the
International Energy Agency. The omission became stranger still when I read
this book and discovered that it was a crude polemic, dismissing those who
questioned future oil supplies as "doomsayers" without providing
robust evidence to support its conclusions. Though the members of Opec have a
powerful interest in exaggerating their reserves in order to boost their
quotas, the IEA relied on their own assessments of future supply.
Last week I tried again, and I received the same response: "The government
agrees with IEA analysis that global oil (and gas) reserves are sufficient to
sustain economic growth for the foreseeable future." Perhaps it hasn't
noticed that the IEA is now backtracking. The Financial Times says the agency
"has admitted that it has been paying insufficient attention to supply
bottlenecks as evidence mounts that oil is being discovered more slowly than
once expected ... natural decline rates for discovered fields are a closely
guarded secret in the oil industry, and the IEA is concerned that the data it
currently holds is not accurate." What if the data turns out to be wrong?
What if Opec's stated reserves are a pack of lies? What contingency plans has
the government made? Answer comes there none.
The European commission, by contrast, does have a plan, and it's a disaster. It
recognises that "the oil dependence of the transport sector ... is one of
the most serious problems of insecurity in energy supply that the EU
faces". Partly in order to diversify fuel supplies, partly to cut
greenhouse gas emissions, it has ordered the member states to ensure that by
2020 10% of the petroleum our cars burn must be replaced with biofuels. This
won't solve peak oil, but it might at least put it into perspective by causing
an even bigger problem.
To be fair to the commission, it has now acknowledged that biofuels are not a
green panacea. Its draft directive rules that they shouldn't be produced by
destroying primary forest, ancient grasslands or wetlands, as this could cause
a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Nor should any biodiverse ecosystem
be damaged to grow biofuels.
It sounds good, but there are three problems. If biofuels can't be produced in
virgin habitats, they must be confined to existing agricultural land, which
means that every time we fill up the car we snatch food from people's mouths.
This, in turn, raises the price of food, which encourages farmers to destroy
pristine habitats - primary forests, ancient grasslands, wetlands and the rest
- in order to grow it. We can congratulate ourselves on remaining morally pure,
but the impacts are the same. There is no way out of this: on a finite planet
with tight food supplies, you either compete with the hungry or clear new land.
The third problem is that the commission's methodology has just been blown
apart by two new papers. Published in Science magazine, they calculate the
total carbon costs of biofuel production. When land clearance (caused either
directly or by the displacement of food crops) is taken into account, all the
major biofuels cause a massive increase in emissions.
Even the most productive source - sugar cane grown in the scrubby savannahs of
central Brazil
- creates a carbon debt which takes 17 years to repay. As the major carbon
reductions must be made now, the net effect of this crop is to exacerbate
climate change. The worst source - palm oil displacing tropical rainforest
growing in peat - invokes a carbon debt of some 840 years. Even when you
produce ethanol from maize grown on "rested" arable land (which in
the EU is called set-aside and in the United States is called
conservation reserve), it takes 48 years to repay the carbon debt. The facts
have changed. Will the policy follow?
Many people believe there's a way of avoiding these problems: by making
biofuels not from the crops themselves but from crop wastes - if transport fuel
can be manufactured from straw or grass or wood chips, there are no
implications for land use, and no danger of spreading hunger. Until recently I
believed this myself.
Unfortunately most agricultural "waste" is nothing of the kind. It is
the organic material that maintains the soil's structure, nutrients and store
of carbon. A paper commissioned by the US government proposes that, to
help meet its biofuel targets, 75% of annual crop residues should be harvested.
According to a letter published in Science last year, removing crop residues
can increase the rate of soil erosion a hundredfold. Our addiction to the car,
in other words, could lead to peak soil as well as peak oil.
Removing crop wastes means replacing the nutrients they contain with
fertiliser, which causes further greenhouse gas emissions. A recent paper by
the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide (a
greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than CO2) from nitrogen fertilisers wipe
out all the carbon savings biofuels produce, even before you take the changes
in land use into account.
Growing special second-generation crops, such as trees or switchgrass, doesn't
solve the problem either: like other energy crops, they displace both food
production and carbon emissions. Growing switchgrass, one of the new papers in
Science shows, creates a carbon debt of 52 years. Some people propose making
second-generation fuels from grass harvested in natural meadows or from
municipal waste, but it's hard enough to produce them from single feedstocks;
far harder to manufacture them from a mixture. Apart from used chip fat, there
is no such thing as a sustainable biofuel.
All these convoluted solutions are designed to avoid a simpler one: reducing
the consumption of transport fuel. But that requires the use of a different
commodity. Global supplies of political courage appear, unfortunately, to have
peaked some time ago.
Thats why your Biodiesel Tree is not performing well.
by
Pankaj Oudhia
Abstract
Karanj (Pongamia) tree is present in India since time immemorial.
Since generations it is giving returns to farmers. Now it is under
promotion as biodiesel tree. Farmers have many questions specially
about it assured market. Through this research article author has
tried to answer these questions with example.
http://ecoport.org/ep?SearchType=earticleView&earticleId=3118&page=-2
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) has published two new opinion papers today.
A cut above: building the market for fair trade timber Duncan Maqueen Summary: Unlike coffee and cotton, timber has yet to become a fair trade commodity. But now its time has come. Rights over forest resources are increasingly ceded to small-scale community forest enterprises (CFEs), as large-scale industrial logging is now largely discredited in the sustainable development context. The fair trade emphasis on just pricing for poorer producers is exactly what CFEs need as incentive to invest in sustainable forest management — and secure environmental and poverty reduction benefits at one stroke. With fair trade timber, CFEs could boost their entrepreneurial capacity using democratic business models with in-built social and environmental responsibility. The Fair Trade Labelling Organizations International and Forest Stewardship Council are exploring the ways and means through a new partnership, but more is needed. Consumers must be made aware of why paying higher prices is key to creating CFE incentives for sustainable forest management and poverty reduction. Time and money are needed for consumer education and installing fair trade timber in producer country forest policies, market segregation and procurement policies at all levels.
Biofuels: making tough choices Sonja Vermeulen, Annie Dufey and Bill Vorley
Summary: The jury is still out on biofuels. But one thing at least is certain: serious trade-offs are involved in the production and use of these biomass-derived alternatives to fossil fuels. This has not been lost on the European Union. The year kicked off with an announcement from the EU environment commissioner that it may be better for the EU to miss its target of reaching 10 per cent biofuel content in road fuels by 2020 than to compromise the environment and human wellbeing. The ‘decision tree’ outlined here can guide the interdependent processes of deliberation and analysis needed for making tough choices in national biofuels development.
IIED is a company limited by a guarantee and incorporated in England. Reg. No 2188452. Registered office: 3 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0DD, UK. VAT Reg. No. GB 440 4948 50. Charity No. 800066
www.iied.org
___________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
Second generation bio-fuels can address food & energy security, says
experts
ASHOK B SHARMA
Posted online: Monday , February 11, 2008 at 0011 hrs IST
New Delhi, Feb 11 Experts are of the view that the second generation
bio-fuels extracted from micro-algae and other microbial sources,
lingo-cellulosic biomass, rice straw and bio-ethers can be a better
option for addressing both food and energy security and environmental
concerns than largescale plantation of bio-fuel crops like Jatropha
and Pongamia.
Vijayanand S Moholkar of the Guwahati-based Indian Institute of
Technology said, “Pre-liminary experiments show tremendous potential
for micro-algae derived oil feedstock for economic synthesis of
bio-diesel. Proper cultivation of micro-algae can produce 10 times
more oil than Jatropha in the same piece of land. Jatropha and Karanja
yield not more than 1 to 1.5 tonne of oil per hectare of cultivation
â€"a major limitation, which adversely affects the bio-diesel Economy.”
Moholkar was in Delhi last week to participate in the 5th
International Bio-fuels Conference organised by Winrock
International-India. He said largescale production of micro-algae can
be done in raceway ponds (closed loop recirculation channels) and
photobioreactors. The prices of micro-algal oil and crude fossil oil
must differ by two orders of magnitude, so as to make microalgal
bio-diesel a cost-effective alternative, he said.
K Subramaniam from the biotechnology department of
Sathyamangalam-based Bannari Amman Institute of Technology favoured
biochemical conversion of rice straw and other biomass into
bio-ethanol. He said that the bio-ethanol production from cheaply
available rice straw by separate enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation
can be economically viable.
According to Mritunjay Kumar Shukla of the Dehradun-based Indian
Institute of Petroleum bio-ethers, particularly Dimethyl ether (DME),
Diethyl ether (DEE) and methylal seem to be promising among all the
bio-fuels due to their oxygenated molecular structure, better
combustion characteristics, superior well-to-wheel efficiency, low GHG
emissions and higher production efficiency.
The director-general of International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), William D Dar said that his institute has
found out the way for production bio-ethanol without comprising food
security. The stalks of the varieties of sweet sorghum developed by
the institute can produce bio-ethanol and increase livelihood options
for farmers in dryland areas.
However, Winrock claims that it has successfully launched rural
electrification programme in village Ranidehra in Chhattisgarh by use
of Jatropha oil.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Second-generation-biofuels-can-address-food\
-&-energy-security-says-experts/271495/
Though, personally, I am in favor of bio-fuels for environmental reasons, I wish to make clear that I am not in favor of Jatropha plantation.
In the same connection, I have following points to raise:
1. The government has established a National Bio-fuel Mission (NBM) earlier. The main focus of NMB is to develop Jatropha and Karanj as Bio-fuel sources. Government is spending more than 1400 crore rupees under NBM. Before taking any steps towards designing National bio-fuel policy, GoI first should declare / release a report of broad achievements of the work done under the NBM and by NOVOD Board. This report should be made public, widely distributed and must include the following:
a. Status of development of Jatropha and Karanj varieties suitable for different agro-climatic zones (with oil
and yield content)
b. List of pest and diseases observed on Jatropha in various agro-climatic zones and the control measures for the same.
c. Minimum two plots each (with at least 500 tress per plot) for each of the shortlisted varieties, maintained for 6 years minimum (as maximum fruiting is obtained sixth year onward)
d. Expediture details for each of the plots
e. Guiding modules for cultivation practices
Jatropha is expected to have economic life of 30 years. So before going for large scale plantation that will occupy the land for almost 40 years ( a long term investment), the government / agriculture universities should maintain a 'demonstration and trial plot' for at least 6 years. (This is just not possible as the work under NBM started actively only in 2004). The government should not go ahead with larger scale plantation, unless there is methodical experience of all aspects of plantation.
My guess is that, if government is honest about the report, many myths about Jatropha such as low water requirement, low maintenance, free from pests and diseases etc etc will be uncovered.
2. Clear cut norms for purchase rate of oil seeds: In the race of corporates for Biofuel, there is big danger that the Jatropha farmers (irrespective of big or small or marginalized) being reduced to suppliers and dependent on the whims of oil-seed purchasers. To avoid this, the
purchase price of seeds should be linked with international oil market (after all, besides reducing CO2 emissions, we also aim to reduce the oil imports).
3. I agree with Nikit that the bio-fuel consumption should mainly happen at mainly at local village level. However, to happen this, the biofuel production should be decentralized. Therefore, instead of large scale biodiesel production plants, provision should be made to promote small to medium scale trans-esterification plants (I should state that I haven't studied the industrial side of bio-diesel production)
4. The farmers undertaking Jatropha or Karanj plantation should get a share of benefits of Carbon Credit and there should be a transparent mechanism established to ensure this. (I do not want to go into whether Carbon Trading is right or wrong, my point is the corporate sector should not get all the economic benefits of
carbon trading)
5. Last, but not least. Today, huge stocks of ethanol are lying with the producers. The reason is, the government is not ready to purchase it at the the price demanded by the producers. Tomorrow, if same thing happens with bio-diesel, the biggest sufferer will not be the big corporate houses, but those who planted Jatropha (the seeds are poisonous, not a single part of the plant is edible, cattle's don't graze). Therefore, there should be a minimum purchase price for the oil seeds meant for bio-diesel.
There are many other issues related with livelihoods and marginal farmers and wasteland development. But I will restrict myself here (if the government comes up with the demanded report, then many of these will be answered automatically)
Though there is potential in Jatropha, the bio-fuel policy should be carefully designed. Where ever possible, emphahsis should be on indigenous plants and avoidance of mono-culture.
jatropha@... wrote:
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the jatropha group.
File : /satheesh letter.htm Uploaded by : pankajoudhia <pankajoudhia@gmail.com> Description : Letter from DDS
************************************************************************************ "Dying is an art"- Sylvia Plath in Lady
Lazarus ************************************************************************************
Dear Group Members,
Today Raipur based Daily Chhattisgarh published many articles
related to Jatropha failure in Indian state Chhattisgarh. Jatropha
plantation in this Indian state is under promotion as ideal project
throughout the world but these articles show the ground level
situations. Please visit this link. Articles are in Hindi.
http://www.dailychhattisgarh.com/today/Page%206.pdf
regards
Pankaj Oudhia
http://www.pankajoudhia.com
I came across an email from Mr. p v satheesh of Deccan Development Society saying that Government of India is working on National Biofuel Policy. You can submit your opinions to Ministry of New and Renewable Energy stating you demands.
Please find attached the letter received from Mr.Sateesh
Chandrashekhar
Pankaj Oudhia <pankajoudhia@...> wrote:
Dear Group Members, By ignoring the indigenous species present in Indian villages having potential to generate electricity, some organizations are
trying to introduce foreign plant in village system for this purpose. It means if you are hungry then ignore food in storage and go to hotel for it. Unfortunately some organizations believe that food from hotel is an innovative approach. I have written my reaction on use of Jatropha to produce electricity in Indian village, in Hindi. Please visit this link for this article.
************************************************************************************ "Dying is an art"- Sylvia Plath in Lady Lazarus ************************************************************************************
Dear Group Members,
By ignoring the indigenous species present in Indian villages
having potential to generate electricity, some organizations are
trying to introduce foreign plant in village system for this purpose.
It means if you are hungry then ignore food in storage and go to hotel
for it. Unfortunately some organizations believe that food from hotel
is an innovative approach. I have written my reaction on use of
Jatropha to produce electricity in Indian village, in Hindi. Please
visit this link for this article.
http://kisanokeliye.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_08.html
regards
Pankaj Oudhia
http://www.pankajoudhia.com
Sunday, January 20, 2008
KMP doubts advantages of Jatropha
THE Kilusang magbubukid ng Pilipas (KMP) in Southern Mindanao
expressed doubts about the advantages brought by Jathropa planting as
well as the Biofuels act that is currently being debated upon.
Sun.Star Network Online's coverage of the Sinulog 2008 Festival
"Foreign-funded Jathropa plantations are encroaching on agricultural
lands and it only adds to the existing laws and policies that cause
food deprivation among the poor Filipinos like the 70 percent farmers
and farm workers in the country," Celso Pojas, KMP-SMR spokesperson
said in their e-mailed statement.
He said KMP received reports from their members that 300,000 hectares
of land in Compostela Valley alone are targeted for Jathropa planting.
According to Pojas, Jathropa investment is one of the agri-business
investments so defined in the development framework of the Arroyo
government, which is causing the economy a great loss, and less food
on the table for the poor and landless.
Pojas said they agree with the statement of Noble Peace Prize winner
Dr. Martmut Michel and UP professor Teodoro Mendoza who categorically
said that biofuel production is counter-productive to food production.
"Production of biofuel over what the Filipino people primarily need
reflects the unbalanced, unplanned, anti-people and pro-capitalist
development scheme of the Arroyo government," Pojas said.
"This shows clearly why the Macapagal-Arroyo government has no real
intention to distribute lands for the poor farmers and indigenous
peoples. It wants to maintain ownership of vast tracks of lands up for
grabs by foreign multinational companies in cahoots with the local
landed elites," Pojas said. (Press release)
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/dav/2008/01/20/news/kmp.doubts.advantages.of.ja\
tropha.html
Useful Biofuel Species or Detrimental Weeds?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The majority of plants promoted as biofuels in Australia are also
weedy species that definitely should not be cultivated, according to an
extensive 2007 assessment published by the (Australian) Invasive Species
Council (ISC).
THE WEEDY TRUTH ABOUT BIOFUELS, by T. Low and C. Booth, assesses
the risks posed by 18 plant species being touted as promising biofuel
sources and climate change solutions. Seven of the 18 species are
currently banned as noxious weeds in various parts of Australia.
Two other promoted species, _Spartina_ spp. and _Arundo donax_
(giant reed), are included in the World Conservation Union's "List of
100 of the World's Worst Invasive Species." Still, _A. donax_ is
currently being trialed as a biofuel crop in Australia despite the
problems it causes as a "worst" weed worldwide.
Report senior author T. Low notes the gamble of "trying to solve
one environmental problem by creating another." Mr. Low points out that
many of the candidate biofuel plants "have no proven value as biofuel
crops but bad reputations as weeds." In fact, many candidate biofuel
species exhibit characteristics likely to exacerbate their weediness
such as hardiness, drought tolerance, pest resistance, and a high level
of competitiveness.
Yet, the weed risk of many species seen as biofuel sources appears
to be ignored by policy makers, according to the Council which believes
that any plant proposed as a source of biofuel should be thoroughly
investigated and assessed for its weedy characteristics, potential for
damage, and environ- mental impact. Taking a precautionary approach is
deemed necessary and prudent.
The threat posed by many biofuel species is all the more ironic as
Australia has ample experience with disasters following "blind
enthusiasm for new industries and a blithe disregard for the
consequences of introducing new species into the landscape," the ISC
document warns.
ISC has developed a recommended list of nine key policy reforms to
address the issue, all essentially built on a risk assessment base. The
Council's report, seen as an important step toward eliminating ignorance
of the problem, can be freely downloaded from the website
http://www.invasives.org.au/home.html.
Rethink biofuel, says Nobel laureate
By TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:28:00 01/14/2008
MANILA, Philippines -- A Nobel laureate has cautioned the government
against rushing into biofuel development because there’s little energy
to be gained from it.
Dr. Hartmut Michel, the 1998 Nobel Prize winner for chemistry, who was
in Manila last week for a talk, said investing in biofuel development
was “counterproductive.”
“When you calculate how much of the sun’s energy is stored in the
plants, it’s below one percent,” he said at a forum at the Philippine
International Convention Center in Pasay City on Wednesday.
“When you convert into biofuel, you add fertilizer, and then harvest
the plants. There’s not real energy gained in biofuel,” said Michel,
59, whose prize-winning research with two other chemists dealt with
the process of photosynthesis.
Biofuel is made from alternative sources, such as crops, plant fiber,
trees, poultry litter, animal waste and the biodegradable component of
solid waste.
Biofuels include bioethanol, biodiesel and fuels from biomass.
Bioethanol is a light alcohol produced by fermenting starch or sugar
from sugarcane, corn, cassava or nipa. Biodiesel is fuel extracted
from plant oils like jatropha, palm, soy, rapeseed and coconut.
Biofuels Act
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law the Biofuels Act in
January last year, which mandates a minimum 1-percent biodiesel blend
and 5-percent bioethanol blend in all diesel and gasoline fuels.
The government is implementing an alternative fuels program to reduce
the country’s dependence on imported oil, and provide cheaper, more
environment-friendly alternatives to fossil fuels.
It is encouraging the massive cultivation of jatropha, a shrub that
produces golf-ball-size fruit that contain oil.
Land Bank of the Philippines has signed an agreement to provide
Philippine National Oil Co.-Alternative Fuels Corp. with P5 billion to
finance the jatropha development program.
The corporation is looking at some 1.2 million hectares as its main
hub for jatropha production in Mindanao.
Burning forests
Michel further pointed out that producing biofuel would sometimes
entail clearing a forest, a process that destroys biodiversity and
emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
“When you burn the forest, you produce too much carbon dioxide, which
you can’t save in the next several hundred years,” he said at the
Nobel Forum on Wednesday, where he and three other Nobel awardees were
the guests.
Burning destroys many natural compounds in forests, according to the
scientist. He said these natural compounds could be remedy for new
kinds of cancer.
“We should not put money in biofuel development. It’s
counterproductive,” he said.
Top climate victim
Michel said the Philippines is vulnerable to a rise in sea level and
stronger storms as an offshoot of global warming.
“The Philippines has every reason to do everything to reduce the use
of fossil energy,” he said.
The Philippines, which was battered by storms in 1996 that killed more
than 1,000 people, and suffered losses worth billions of dollars, was
named by the environment group Germanwatch as the world’s top climate
victim that year.
Tap wind power
Michel suggested that the government tap renewable energy sources to
generate power.
“The islands are rich in wind power. You should invest in wind to
generate electricity,” he said.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in
Chemistry jointly to Michel, Dr. Johann Deisenhofer and Dr. Robert
Huber for the determination of the three-dimensional structure of a
photosynthetic reaction center.
They were the first “to succeed in unraveling the full details of how
a membrane-bound protein is built up, revealing the structure of the
molecule, atom by atom,” the academy said.
Taiwanese Yuan T. Lee, one of the three 1986 Nobel Prize winners in
Chemistry, said biofuel production might not be the “right solution”
for countries with small land areas.
“It’s important to realize that in Europe, like Taiwan, biofuel may
not make sense. If we use land to develop biofuel, it’s not the right
solution,” he said at the open forum.
“In the long run, biofuel will not be the solution,” he said.
Others fear that using arable land for biofuels can cause food shortages.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080114-112152/Rethi\
nk-biofuel-says-Nobel-laureate
Dear Friends, Have a look at the following press release.
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Monday, January 07, 2008
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
SHRI MURLI DEORA HOLDS DISCUSSIONS WITH MAHARASHTRA CM FOR SMOOTHENING IMPLEMENTATION OF ETHANOL BLENDED PETROL PROGRAMME
CM AGREES TO REMOVE EXPORT DUTY ON ETHANOL TO FACILITATE UTILIZATION OF EXCESS ETHANOL PRODUCTION OF MAHARASHTRA IN OTHER STATES
SHRI DEORA REITERATES NEED FOR RATIONALIZATION – REDUCTION OF OCTROI DUTY ON CRUDE OIL PROCURED BY MUMBAI REFINERIES
17:38 IST
Shri Murli Deora, the Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas held
extensive talks with Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh, Chief Minister of
Maharashtra for ensuring successful implementation of the National
Programme for supply of Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) which has been
implemented in several States and Union Territories of the Country. In
a meeting held at Mumbai today, Shri Deora requested the Chief Minister
to completely remove the export duty on ethanol so that excess
production in Maharashtra could be supplied to other States which will
ultimately benefit sugarcane farmers of Maharashtra. Later, briefing
media persons, Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh stated that his government will
withdraw the export fee of Rs.1500 per kilo litre (Rs.1.5 per litre),
presently being imposed on ethanol supplies to other States.
The Petroleum Minister stressed that the EBP Programme at 5% blending
of ethanol with petrol was launched commencing 1st November, 2006
through out the country (except North eastern States, Jammu &
Kashmir, Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Lakshadweep Islands). This
programme is aimed at contributing to energy security through use of
alternative fuel sources and also help sugarcane farmers to earn
additional income. This initiative is environment friendly as oxygenate
nature of ethanol ensures greater petrol combustion leading to lesser
emission of pollutants.
So far, EBP is being supplied in 11 States and 3 Union Territories
covering about 70% of the identified States. Out of total requirement
of 180 crore litres ethanol for 3 years, Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs)
have already contracted a quantity of 140 crore litres. They have so
far procured 19.35 crore litres under the programme as on 31st
December, 2007.
The programme in few States like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh,
Kerala could not be implemented for various reasons. In case of Kerala,
OMCs have finalized tenders but the State excise department is required
to issue necessary import permits. The Government of West Bengal is
required to issue notification permitting import of ethanol and
indicating taxes/levies applicable. Government of Tamil Nadu has
stopped ethanol supplies due to reported shortage, while in Orissa
& Chhattisgarh procurement could not be finalized due to high
duties/levies. There are certain procedural impediments which have
affected the free movement of ethanol across States. These are in the
nature of multiple clearances to be obtained for issue of permits for
export of ethanol from one State to another.
For ensuring successful implementation of EBP programme, the Minister
of Petroleum & Natural Gas Shri Murli Deora has held regional level
meetings with representatives of various States to sort out these
issues. A meeting was held in Srinagar on 16th June, 2007 covering the
hill states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
Another meeting was convened in Kochi on 23rd June, 2007 to discuss and
resolve issues pertaining to southern States of Kerala, Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu. The matter has also been taken up with Chief Ministers of
concerned States from time to time. Recently, Prime Minister has also
written to the Chief Ministers.
Shri Murli Deora also reiterated his earlier demand for rationalization
octroi levied by Brihan -Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on crude
oil procured by Mumbai refineries of BPCL & HPCL. This levy has
been putting additional burden on these two OMCs, who are already
facing heavy under recoveries in their effort to insulate consumers
against high volatility in global crude oil prices. In addition they
expressed satisfaction on the progress made by Mahanagar Gas Limited
(MGL) in expanding compressed natural gas (CNG) & piped natural gas
(PNG) infrastructure/ supplies in Mumbai and surrounding areas. Shri
Deora assured the Chief Minister that increasing CNG & PNG supplies
in Mumbai in particular & other cities of Maharashtra in general is
high on Government. priority and project implementation for the purpose
would be accelerated. The number of households connected to PNG
supplies has reached 3.32 lakhs while the number CNG vehicles has now
increased to 1.83 lakhs. There are at present 127 CNG stations in the
city of Mumbai & adjoining areas of Thane & Mira Road. MGL has
a CNG infrastructure network of 222 km. steel pipelines and 2180 km.
polyethylene pipelines.
Afforestation success story, only on paper
OUR CORRESPONDENT
NC Hills
A jatropha plantation
Jan. 8: North Cachar Hills is an afforestation success story waiting
to be emulated by the rest of the state, albeit only on paper.
In reality, it is acres and acres of dry grassland, with none of the
forest cover that the afforestation project reports mention.
The hill district has an area of 1,890 square km, of which at least 80
per cent is covered by forest, including three reserve forests.
Another 393,276 hectares is non-agricultural barren land.
According to a source in Dispur, between 2003 and 2007, the district
forest department received Rs 3.25 crore as central assistance, Rs
6.06 crore from Dispur against state plan and Rs 45 lakh as special
assistance for jatropha plantations.
“The fund under the state plan includes salary of the staff and money
for other routine departmental work. However, the central assistance
was only for plantation. The department had a target of planting 22.5
lakh seedlings of jatropha. They reported that 10 nurseries were
built. But we do not know what has happened to the seedlings,” he said.
Another report of the department said that 1,200 hectares have been
brought under bamboo cultivation.
None of these, however, are visible.“If they have established 10
jatropha nurseries and carried out plantation in 1,200 hectares of
land, where have all these gone?” asked Rathindra Langthasa, a
villager in East Maibong’s Hajong basti.
“We have heard that they (the forest department official) spent Rs 46
lakh under Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojna to turn our Hajong lake as a
tourist spot. A look at the lake will tell you the sad story of
corruption,” Langthasa said.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080109/jsp/northeast/story_8755737.jsp
Dear Group Members,
Well known journalist of Chhattisgarh Shri Rajesh Agrawal
published this news in his blog. For details please visit at
http://cgreports.blogspot.com/2008/01/16.html
Pankaj Oudhia
Note: forwarded message attached.
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Can biofuels help save our planet from a climate catastrophe? Farmers and fuel companies certainly seem to think so, but fresh doubts have arisen about the wisdom of jumping wholesale onto the biofuels bandwagon.
The misgivings come as delegates from around the world gather in Bali, Indonesia, this week, to begin work on a tougher climate agreement to succeed the Kyoto protocol.
About 12 million hectares, or around 1 per cent of the world's fields, are currently
devoted to growing biofuels. Sugar cane and maize, for example, are turned into bioethanol, a substitute for gasoline, while rapeseed and palm oil are made into biodiesel. That figure will grow because oil is so costly, and because biofuels supposedly emit fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels.
But a slew of new studies question the logic behind expanding biofuel production. For a start, there may not be enough land to grow the crops ...
There is no longer any serious doubt that health officials are covering up a big story, trying to side step a growing swell of evidence that threatens the very foundation of medical science and practice. It is obvious that the medical profession cannot afford to have the public ever find out the truth about vaccination
for there is simply just too much at stake for them. - Dr Mark Sircus, MD.
5, 50, 500, 5000 - Store N number of mails in your inbox. Click here.
Bio-fuelling the world’s hunger
K. P. Prabhakaran Nair
It would be naïve to think that jatropha will mitigate India’s soaring
oil bills. Jatropha is not a small-scale farmer’s crop. It will be
economically viable only on a large scale. India does not have much
wasteland. Where it exists, the investments in infrastructure, in
terms of easy transport and other machinery installation to make the
unit economically viable, will be enormous The wastelands along
railway tracks cannot be used, because they are in long,
non-contiguous strips.
People and planners in New Delhi talk about several things without
truly understanding the practical difficulties. The important
by-product in jatropha oil extraction is glycerine. Where in India do
we have the necessary infrastructure to use glycerine production on
such a huge scale? Also, one must remember that the maximum oil
extracted from jatropha seeds will not exceed 35 per cent.
The net result in large-scale jatropha cultivation is that India will
lose a lot of fertile land to jatropha cultivation where the monetary
returns could be better, but grain producing lands will slowly stop
being arable.
The mandarins in New Delhi seem lost for a clear-cut answer to this
grave and vexing question. Ultimately India’s food security will be
threatened. The ambitious (at least on paper) National Food Security
Mission of the UPA government will be severely dented by such
ill-thought out projects. It is the foreign companies that will gain
by getting into jatropha cultivation, like the UK-based D1 Oils, and
make a lot of money at the cost of the country’s food security.
More complete article please visit
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/01/04/stories/2008010450970900.htm
From Pastapur discussion list:
Dear friends
The publication - seedling , agrofuels special issue - Hindi
translation by INSAF is avaialble at www.insafindia.org
Kindly inform if the said publication cannot be downloaded in the web.
Printed copies are also available,
contact us at
INSAF, National Secretariat
A-124/6, 1st floor
Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi - 16
telefax - 011-26517814
email - insaf@... ,
Note: forwarded message attached.
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
If Soy Is Expensive, Why Does Goldman Say Nevermind? (Update2)
By Saijel Kishan
Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Selling soybeans at their highest prices in
three decades and corn while it flirts with the 1996 peak is a money-
losing trade, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank
AG.
Corn at $4.55 a bushel is ``cheap,'' Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank
says. Goldman Sachs in New York expects soybeans to rise 29 percent
in 2008, the best investment in commodities. Investors who followed
the banks' advice and bought raw materials last year profited as the
Standard & Poor's GSCI Index advanced 33 percent, beating the 3.5
percent gain in the S&P 500 Index and the 9.1 percent return from
U.S. Treasuries, according to data compiled by Merrill Lynch & Co.
Rising wealth from Shanghai to Sao Paulo is leading to better diets
and straining corn and soybean supplies just as record energy prices
boost sales of biofuels. Even after rising 17 percent in 2007, corn
costs about $2 a bushel after adjusting for inflation, compared with
a $7.80 high in 1974.
``We are in the early stages of a rally that could last 20 years'' in
agriculture, said Christopher Wyke, product manager at London-based
Schroders Plc, which manages $3.5 billion in commodities and is
buying more corn and soybean contracts while reducing energy
holdings. ``Prices are historically cheap.''
Not since the Soviet Union harvest failures of the 1970s have food
prices risen so quickly. European Central Bank President Jean-Claude
Trichet said Dec. 19 that the region faced a ``more protracted''
period of elevated inflation than expected because of food and oil
prices.
Falling Inventories
World soybean inventories will plunge 23 percent in the 2007-2008
marketing season to 47.3 million tons from a record 61.1 million the
previous year, the U.S. Agriculture Department estimates.
Soybean consumers face a ``large deficit'' in supplies because of
increasing sales to China and production of biofuels, according to
Goldman Sachs, the world's biggest securities firm.
``There are still good investment opportunities in the oilseed,''
Goldman analysts led by Jeffrey Currie said in a Dec. 11 report.
Goldman predicts soybeans will reach $14.50 a bushel. Investors who
buy $10 million of November contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade
would earn $2.9 million should the forecast prove accurate. A hedge
fund that borrowed money to increase the bet using margin could turn
that $10 million into about $59 million.
Corn Versus Wheat
Soybeans for March delivery jumped as much as 31.25 cents, or 2.6
percent, to $12.455 a bushel today on the Chicago Board of Trade and
were at $12.40 as of 8:51 a.m. local time.
The bank forecast December 2008 corn prices will increase 12 percent
to $5.30 a bushel from $4.735 now. Goldman recommended buying corn
and selling wheat in a ``spread'' trade to exploit changes in the
relative value of the crops.
Corn for March delivery climbed as much as 6.5 cents, or 1.4 percent,
to $4.62 a bushel today in Chicago, the highest since June 1996.
Rallies in agricultural markets historically last about two years,
boosting prices by 135 percent, according to Michael Lewis, the
London-based global head of commodities research at Deutsche Bank.
Prices may climb as much as 250 percent during three to four years in
this cycle, he said. The rally in agriculture markets started in the
fourth quarter of 2006.
Farmers are planting more acres to take advantage of the price rise,
which could damp gains. The U.S. national corn yield has more than
doubled to 153 bushels an acre in 2007 from 71.9 in 1974, while the
soybean average has jumped 74 percent to 41.3 bushels from 23.7 in
1974, government statistics show.
`Battle for Land'
Droughts from Ukraine to Australia have cut crop yields, sending
prices for wheat to a record in December and soybeans to a 34-year
high. Corn rose to $4.62 a bushel in Chicago trading today, the
highest since 1996. Farmers are planting more wheat at the expense of
corn, soybeans and cotton.
Wheat farmers worldwide may increase plantings by 4 percent, the
London-based International Grains Council said in November. In the
U.S., the world's largest wheat exporter, growers will sow 64 million
acres (26 million hectares) in the year ending May 31, up 6 percent,
the Agriculture Department said in October.
``We'll continue to see a battle for land between the grains,'' said
Matthew Sena, an analyst at New York-based Castlestone Management
LLC, which oversees $800 million. ``The run-up in wheat prices will
prevent a dramatic supply response for soybeans and corn.''
Biofuels Demand
Castlestone invests about $100 million in commodities, and Sena said
the fund has been adding to its corn and soybean holdings while
cutting investments in wheat.
Demand for biofuels, made from corn, oilseeds and sugar, is growing
as countries seek to cut their dependence on fossil fuels after oil
rose to a record $99.29 a barrel in November. Demand is straining the
availability of farmland as well as water supplies.
``The severity of these factors means that there's a better chance of
this being the longest and biggest agricultural rally ever,'' said
Colin Waugh, portfolio manager at New York-based Galtere
International Fund, which manages $1.3 billion in commodities and
related investments.
The biggest winners from the U.S. energy bill signed by President
George W. Bush on Dec. 20 may be companies including Archer Daniels
Midland Co. of Decatur, Illinois, and Sacramento- based Pacific
Ethanol Inc. The legislation requires biofuels production to increase
to 36 billion gallons in 2022 from 7.5 billion in 2012.
Population Growth
U.S. ethanol prices at $2.2157 a gallon on average are 11 percent
cheaper than New York wholesale gasoline futures at $2.4908 a gallon.
Crop prices ``will show a tendency to go up, and the reason is the
growing world population, changing food patterns and limited
availability of land,'' said Martin Richenhagen, chief executive
officer of Agco Corp., the second-largest U.S. maker of tractors and
combines after Deere & Co. ``This is good news for the farmer.''
Higher food prices may cause faster inflation. U.S. consumer prices
increased 0.8 percent in November, the most in more than two years.
Inflation in the 13-nation euro region accelerated to 3.1 percent in
November, the fastest since 2001, according to Eurostat. Japan's core
consumer prices rose at the fastest pace in more than nine years in
November.
Tortilla Prices
Developing nations will feel the greatest pain. The cost of corn
tortillas in Mexico, where shortages in 2006 boosted inflation, may
rise 13 percent this year, according to Gruma SAB, the world's
largest maker of corn flour. Food prices in China, the fastest-
growing economy, increased 18.2 percent in November.
The rise in crop prices is creating the ``risk of social unrest,''
said Roland Jansen, whose $129 million Mother Earth Resources fund in
Liechtenstein gained 28 percent in 2006, more than double the returns
of commodity indexes. ``We've already seen it happen, like in Mexico.
China will probably release stocks to pacify the population. There's
a real danger of unrest there.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Saijel Kishan in London at skishan@bloomberg.net
The following article appeared first in Counterpunch, without first paragraph (Web Note), but prefaced "Greenwashing Energy Crops". http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/28355 From: , Organic Consumers Association Published December 30, 2007 12:13 PM
Biofuels, the Biggest Scam GoingStraight to the Source Web Note: Jim Goodman is an organic farmer from Wisconsin and a Policy Board member of the Organic Consumers AssociationWhere is agriculture headed? Can we feed a growing population and meet the demand for biofuels in the Industrialized North? Supporters of biofuel agriculture, (grain and chemical companies, Wall St. investors, politicians and most University researchers) avoid mentioning the cost of inputs, the fossil fuels, the environmental damage, the physical toll on animals and humans, and the growing problem of hunger that will accompany the switch from food to energy crop production. They want us to believe the switch to energy crops will be so easy and so practical.Iowa Senator Charles Grassley tells us that "BioFuels" will give agriculture new importance as a producer of energy as well as food and fiber. It will be a win, win, win, situation, good for America's energy independence, economic prosperity and for the environment.Will bioenergy production save American agriculture, end our dependence on oil, save the environment and keep food on everyones table? Perhaps not. Biofuels are not the "cash cow" farmers were promised. As an energy source they are less efficient and no "greener" than oil. Growing them will cause food prices to rise and as a result, the poor will be at an even greater risk of hunger. Rain forests will be destroyed and become cropland, peasants around the world will continue to loose their land, their food sovereignty, all to feed the worlds appetite for fuel.
Can biofuels replace a significant amount of fossil fuel? Perhaps not. If, in 2006, we had dedicated the entire US corn crop to ethanol production we would have replaced only 12% of the gasoline we used. If we had planted every acre of cropland in the nation to corn we would have replaced only 80% of the gasoline we used. If the U.S. Energy Information Administration is correct in its estimates, and by 2030 the US is capable of producing 700,000 barrels of ethanol per day, we will have succeeded in offsetting roughly 6 percent of our transportation fuel needs.Is ethanol really a renewable fuel? Perhaps not. An article in Science magazine in 2006 showed that, based on the work of researchers at UC Berkeley, only 5 to 26% of the energy in ethanol is "renewable". The fossil fuel needed to grow and process the ethanol actually negated the majority of its energy value.Are biofuels really better for the environment? Perhaps not. Data from the University of Edinburgh shows that biofuels produce high levels of nitrous oxide a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than CO2. In total they can produce 70% more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels.Will we be able to produce significant levels of energy crops without impacting world food supplies and prices? Perhaps not. Biofuel production could push food prices up as much as 20-40% according to The International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.The production of biofuels depends on billions of dollars in government subsidies in the form of loan guarantees for the construction of biofuel plants, tax exemptions on biofuels and direct payments to farmers. A 2006 study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development showed an annual subsidy cost of $1.05-$1.38 per gallon of ethanol produced, a total of $7billion. How much are we willing to spend and for what?Biofuels are a greenwash scam, a feel good solution for the end of cheap oil. When one considers the industrial agricultural system that is necessary for their production, biofuels are anything but sustainable. Costly inputs of fuel, fertilizer and biotech seed will challenge the profitability of Northern farmers while peasant farmers will continue to be evicted to make room for monocultures of corn, soy, sugarcane and oil palms. Food prices will climb, hunger and poverty will increase and we will be no closer to energy independence or truly renewable fuels.Now that the President and Congress have, through the Farm and Energy Bills, locked us into large scale production of energy crops and the belief we can continue to live our lives as usual with no pain, what do we do? We need energy solutions that will work; tough vehicle fuel standards, new public transportation systems, real renewable fuels like solar and wind and mandated commitments to conservation and recycling, now, not a 2030 "pie in the sky".So, when we drive to the supermarket and complain about the high prices, then proceed to load up our flex-fuel SUV, will we think about the 50% of the worlds population that lives on less than $2 a day? Will we even consider that when we bought into the biofuel scam we also took away their food sovereignty and may have handed them a death sentence?Jim Goodman is a dairy farmer from Wonewoc ,Wisconsin.
__________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463! http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
05 January 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Clay Ogg, Silver Spring, Maryland, US
While cutting down rainforests to grow palm oil for biofuels may constitute "madness" (1 December 2007, p 50), burning other vegetable oils is no more sane, nor less damaging to Indonesia's rainforests. Indonesia is expected to increase its palm oil production by more than half over the next 10 years. This is driven, in part, by China, which used to buy rapeseed oil from Europe for food and for industrial uses, but is switching to Indonesian palm oil because Europe's cars and trucks now burn the rapeseed oil as a biofuel. Subsidy for biofuel producers in the European Union is increasing its local use, and the story is similar in the US.
The greatest barrier to finding incentive schemes that discourage deforestation in Indonesia and in other tropical countries is the rising demand and prices for the commodities (especially palm oil, rapeseed oil and soybean oil) that such subsidies encourage.
Competition between growing fuel and food is manageable if countries like Indonesia and Brazil expand food production to replace food that is no longer available from Europe and the US - which means taking more land into agriculture. But food will become scarce and expensive if world leaders attempt to expand biofuel production and save the forests at the same time.
Food prices and land rents are the main determinants of the cost of protecting forests from agriculture. Before the biofuel boom, programmes to protect rainforests would have offered an extraordinary opportunity for farmers in Europe and the US, because crop-land expansion in the tropics endlessly undermines the prices of agricultural goods.
Perhaps it is not too late to recognise that protecting rainforest and savannah offers a more rational and lasting solution to farmers' commodity price worries than subsidising biofuels does.
From issue 2637 of New Scientist magazine, 05 January 2008, page 16-17
2. CPO prices to remain firm this year
Key excerpt: "Where does palm oil come in the picture? As more rapeseed oil, soyoil and corn are diverted to bio energy, palm oil would be needed to make up for their shortfall in food and other sectors.
DBS Vickers Securities said the move by the European Union to scrap a 20-year ruling that required farmers to leave 10% of their land fallow to encourage wheat planting in 2008 may provide some downside to wheat prices and prompt farmers to switch back to rapeseed. This could lead to negative implications on palm oil prices."
02-01-2008: CPO prices to remain firm this year by Lim Shie-Lynn Email us your feedback at fd@...
KUALA LUMPUR: Crude palm oil (CPO) prices will continue to remain firm and drive the growth of the plantation industry this year amid high crude oil prices and tight supply of cheaper energy sources, analysts say.
Research houses generally are “overweight” on the plantation sector, with most of them anticipating oilseeds to sustain their price strength for at least the next 12 months, before a possible supply increase.
A notable exception is Aseambankers Equity Research, which has “neutral” stance on the plantation sector.
It said the sector’s upcycle has lasted three years and a slowdown in the global economy precipitated by the US subprime issue could trigger a reversal of the CPO price trend. CPO prices will average at RM2,500 a tonne in 2008, according to its forecast.
CPO futures rose to a historic high of RM3,097 per tonne on Dec 27, spurred by the spike in crude oil prices to US$97 a barrel mark on geopolitical concerns following Pakistan’s former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.
DBS Vickers Securities equity research analyst Ben Santoso said prices of vegetable oils and crude oil only have a correlation amidst a supply shortage and were expected to decouple otherwise.
“CPO and crude oil will not have a strong correlation for ever, as vegetable oil will be mainly used for food and that will have a bigger influence on the (CPO) prices,” he told The Edge Financial Daily.
DBS Vickers is maintaining an upward bias on CPO for 2008, with an average price of RM2,700 to RM3,000.
“In terms of price movements for CPO, we will see prices going down in the second half of 2008 as palm oil yields in October and November had rebounded with a vengeance, rising by 6.5% month-on-month (m-o-m) to 1.56 million tonnes and 16.2% m-o-m to 1.81 million respectively,” he said.
Analysts who were bullish about the sector said crude oil prices are likely to escalate, adding that higher oil prices would enhance the economic viability of biofuels and boost demand for edible oils. It is also expected to help support higher feedstock prices, prompting more governments to announce favourable biofuel initiatives.
Citing government mandates in Brazil and Italy on 2% biodiesel blend beginning Jan 1, 2008, for example, Aseambankers said demand for edible oils in biodiesel production was set to increase.
It added that increased usage of corn for ethanol production in the US, driven by high oil price, would also indirectly flow through to palm oil prices, as it would encourage farmers to plant more corn than soybean.
According to Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) recent statistics, CPO yields increased unexpectedly in November, boosting the country’s inventory levels. Exports in November however were down by 5.7% m-o-m at 1.23 million tonnes, due to seasonally lower demand from China.
Despite the spike in November, Malaysia’s palm oil output would be lower than the earlier forecast of 16.2 million tonnes for 2007. It was likely to drop to around 15.7 million tonnes, as an estimated 500,000 tonnes were lost to the floods in Johor, said Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister Peter Chin recently.
Although heavy rains inundated large tracts of oil palm plantations, OSK Investment Research remained upbeat on the outlook for the plantation sector, saying the impact was less severe compared to the previous floods.
Challenges and risks Whilst it is touted as more friendly to the environment, biofuel continues to face obstacles in places like Europe, where the food versus fuel debate has been raging. Many countries in Europe are alarmed at the rate of conversion of farmlands from food crops to biofuel crops.
Where does palm oil come in the picture? As more rapeseed oil, soyoil and corn are diverted to bio energy, palm oil would be needed to make up for their shortfall in food and other sectors.
DBS Vickers Securities said the move by the European Union to scrap a 20-year ruling that required farmers to leave 10% of their land fallow to encourage wheat planting in 2008 may provide some downside to wheat prices and prompt farmers to switch back to rapeseed. This could lead to negative implications on palm oil prices.
Stock picks In spite of the industry’s volatility, the plantation sector remains attractive to investors. Plantation giants like Sime Darby Bhd, IOI Corporation Bhd, Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd are among the top picks among fund managers and brokers.
CMS Dresdner Asset Management Sdn Bhd chief investment officer Scott Lim Kok Seng said: “Valuations for the sector are not cheap anymore. From a structural trend, valuations will follow CPO prices and will remain high.”
He added that investors were also keen to invest in second-tier plantation stocks such as United Plantations Bhd, Tradewinds Bhd and Asiatic Development Bhd based on their cheaper valuations.
“As long as the sector remains buoyant, you will see rotational interest from the investors from big cap to middle cap when they diversify or adjust their portfolios,” he said.
A planter’s view “We are cautiously bullish about plantations in 2008 as palm oil supply is still tight while demand is increasing,” Tradewinds Plantations Bhd acting chief executive officer Chan Seng Fatt said.
Chan is confident the high CPO prices are sustainable this year. He said Tradewinds Plantations would continue to develop its 30,000ha landbank and “will focus more aggressively on the oil palm plantations.”
“We want to bring in higher yields and we will be looking at improving field management next year,” he said.
Chan said high CPO prices would boost the company’s earnings, but its production cost was also likely to increase to RM900 a tonne with the anticipated hike in fertiliser prices.
Tradewinds Plantations is the country’s seventh largest plantation land owner with 126,985ha.
Category : World BRASILIA, Brazil, Jan. 2 All diesel fuel sold in Brazil's 35,000 fuel stations will contain 2 percent biodiesel under new government mandates that went into effect Tuesday.Preliminary data from the National Petroleum Agency suggest the Social Fuel Program is benefiting tens of thousands of Brazil's poorest farmers, according to Brazil Magazine. Additional data from the NPA suggest the country will be able to save about $410 million a year on imported diesel. The B2 biodiesel blend will not affect the price of the fuel for the consumer, who will pay the same for a liter at the pump.According to Nelson Hubner, the minister of mines and energy, biofuel won't increase costs for fuel marketing companies either. More than 380 million liters of biodiesel was commercialized to prepare for the switch.Copyright 2008 by UPI
Offline 
Send Email
[85kB]
