Global Food Security ()

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Global Food Security

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gfs

The status of bioenergy development in developing countries

Irini Maltsoglou n, Tatsuji Koizumi, Erika Felix
Climate Change, Energy and Tenure Division, Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 16 November 2012
Accepted 29 April 2013

Following a period of increasing oil prices, bioenergy received a wake of renewed attention by
policymakers as an alternative renewable energy strategy due to the potential for improving country
level energy security, for increasing overall access to energy, stimulating rural development and for
curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, concerns about the viability of this strategy and
potential conicts with food demand soon dampened the enthusiasm and raised a number of questions
concerning environmental and social sustainability and, more specically, food security. In reality
though, with the exception of the US, Brazil and some European countries, production of modern
bioenergy and more specically liquid biofuels around the world is still limited, especially in the case of
Africa where the sector is still in its infancy. The paper gives a detailed overview of production in the
African, Asian and Latin American regions illustrating how the three regions of the developing world are
working toward bioenergy development, the strategies and policies, and the main hurdles being
encountered.
& 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords:
Bioenergy
Biofuel
Development
Developing countries
Biofuel policy status
Renewable energy

1. Introduction
Following a period of increasing oil prices, bioenergy received a
wake of renewed attention by policymakers as an alternative
renewable energy strategy due to the potential for improving
country level energy security, for increasing overall access to
energy, stimulating rural development and for curbing greenhouse
gas emissions. Nevertheless, concerns about the viability of this
strategy and potential conicts with food demand soon dampened
the enthusiasm and raised a number of questions concerning
environmental and social sustainability and, more specically,
food security (FAO, 2008; Maltsoglou et al., 2011; Headey and
Fan, 2008).
Historically, agriculture has been recognized as being an engine
for economic growth that can have a strong impact on poverty and
hunger reduction (Pingali, 2006; FAO, 2010a; Christiaensen et al.,
2011). Bioenergy1 could be an option for stimulating agricultural
sector growth and thus poverty reduction if smallholders are
involved (Thurlow, 2010). But increasing agricultural productivity
in developing countries is not always straightforward given the
many constraints faced such as low levels of human capital,
imperfect nancial markets and inadequate legal systems
(Pingali et al, 2008; FAO, 2010b).

Correspondence to: FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
Tel.: +39 06 570 53639.
E-mail address: irini.maltsoglou@fao.org (I. Maltsoglou).
1
Bioenergy is not solely biofuels but covers a much broader spectrum of
biomass based energy (REN 21).

Thus, in order to ensure sustainable bioenergy development

that is competitve and smallholder inclusive and that food security
constraints are fully understood and managed, evidence-based
decision making and policy formulation is required (FAO 2010a). In
addition, due to the complexity and cross disciplinarity of bioenergy issues, coordination across disciplines and ministries is
essential (UN Energy, 2010; FAO, 2012a). In fact, as illustrated in
the subsequent sections, countries are struggling to meet feedstock demand, production is not always economically viable and
smallholder involvement is not necessarily ensured and coordinated with large scale production, an essential element to ensure
poverty reduction.
Although recognizing the broad scope of energy options
bioenergy can cover, this article mostly focuses on liquid biofuels
(bioethanol and biodiesel) as recent country efforts have been
mostly tied to liquid biofuels for transport. Thus, the main
objective of this paper is to outline how the three main regions
of the developing world are working toward biofuel development,
including discussion of strategies, policies, and the main hurdles
being encountered. The paper proceeds with three regional sections outlining bioenergy development in Africa, Asia and Latin
America, followed by some concluding remarks.

2. Biofuels development in Africa

Although hotly debated in the media, bioenergy development
in Africa is very much in its infancy (Lerner et al. 2010; Kgathi
et al., 2012). While the region has some potential, production has

2211-9124/$ - see front matter & 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.04.002

iPlease cite this article as: Maltsoglou, I., et al., The status of bioenergy development in developing countries, Global Food Security
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.04.002

I. Maltsoglou et al. / Global Food Security ()

not really started because of lack of capacity, infrastructure,

investment and food security concerns (FAO, 2010c).
In recent years, in the wake of surging oil prices, a large
number of investors have ventured into Africa looking for opportunities for natural resource exploitation (ADB, 2012). Some of the
investment was tied to biofuel development (International Land
Coalition (ILC), 2013; Cotula, 2011), especially the production of
biodiesel from jatropha (Kant and Wu, 2011). This crop has been
touted by many as a wonder crop as it was claimed it did not
conict with food production and could grow in arid areas (Hasan,
2007; Kant and Wu, 2011).
Nonetheless, the expectations for jatropha performance soon
dampened (Mubonderi, 2012; Kant and Wu, 2011). Jatropha, as is
the case for any other crops, needs inputs and fertile land to
achieve economically viable yield levels (Brittaine and Lutaladio,
2008; Kant and Wu, 2011; Openshaw, 2000) and could therefore
compete with food production (Dawe, 2010). There are a number
of additional constraints, for example limited knowledge of this
crop for commercial scale production (Brittaine and Lutaladio,
2008). Investors in Africa have not been successful and experts
have concluded that further R&D is required for this crop before it
can become viable at a larger scale (Kant and Wu, 2011; Brittaine
and Lutaladio, 2008; Mubonderi, 2012). Jatropha could still be an
option for small local scale energy production, especially in cases
where other energy alternatives are far too costly (IFAD, 2008;
Brittaine and Lutaladio, 2008; Openshaw, 2000).
Very few countries in the region have been able to establish a
clear policy to guide bioenergy investment. Some countries have set
up dedicated cross ministerial taskforces but few countries have
delivered a nal policy, and some have fallen back on the publication of interim guidelines for biofuel production or investment. The
objectives of the guidelines have been to achieve benets such as
energy security, technology transfer, greater employment and
income, and foreign exchange savings, while targeting sustainable
investment. To some extent the slow progress may be driven by
food security concerns, but it is important to stress that most
African countries are price takers on world markets. Therefore
domestic bioenergy development could potentially have little
impact on food prices, especially on the main food staple which is
corn in this region (FAO, 2010b; Dawe and Maltsoglou, 2009).
A key aspect that has not generally been addressed in the policy
formulation process, is to analyze all bioenergy options more
broadly, as opposed to limiting the options to liquid biofuels for
transport (FAO, 2012a). In the case of biofuels for transport, Africa
has generally very little domestic absorption capacity (World Bank,
2012). Overall, few people drive cars, so compared to potential
biodiesel and bioethanol production, a minimal amount would be
for internal consumption. Thus, if Africa were to venture into
producing large volumes of biofuels for the transport sector, this
would be largely for the export market, at least initially (FAO, 2010c).
This would then make biofuels comparable to any other export or
cash crop (Thurlow, 2010). In order to promote reduction of poverty
and food insecurity, the key will be to ensure smallholder involvement and investment of the prots and rents into agricultural
development (Maltsoglou et al., 2011; Thurlow, 2010).
Following the global economic crisis and the jatropha asco, it
seems to us that interest from investors has waned (see also Kant and
Wu, 2011). Currently, countries are still investigating realistic options
for the sector's development but few policies are in place and most
development is still at the single project or pilot project level. The rest
of this section will look at developments within sub-Saharan Africa.2
2
In the northern strip of Africa interest is very low. Countries in this area are
relatively wealthy compared to most of the rest of the continent, some have fossil
fuel resources and in the context of renewable energy are mostly focusing on other
sources such as solar and wind power.

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are investigating bioenergy

options at both regional and national levels. At the regional level,
countries are rst striving to develop strategies as umbrellas under
which to operate. At the country level, countries will then dene
which crops and what level of production can be achieved.
For example, countries belonging to the Southern African
Development Community (SADC)3 adopted the Framework for
Sustainable Biofuels in December 2009 (SADC, 2009, 2008) which
acts as the umbrella policy framework for countries within the
community and calls for country level bioenergy roadmap development. All bioenergy production currently planned is biofuels for
transport.
Malawi has been producing bioethanol from sugarcane molasses
since the 1980s. There is no mandatory blending in the country but
traditionally bioethanol has been blended in a ratio between 10% and
20%. Following the introduction of unleaded petrol, the current
blending ratio is 10%. Lerner et al. (2010) report production up to
18 million L per season per annum in 2008.4 Bioenergy sector development has been struggling due to the lack of specic production
targets, feedstock sources, and nancing mechanisms, while distribution mechanisms are not in place (Pisces, 2011; Renewable Energy
and Energy Efciency Partnership (REEEP), 2012a; Licht, 2012a,
2012b).
In Swaziland, the national Biofuels Strategy and Action Plan is
pending nalization and therefore biofuel investments are currently on hold, with the exception of bioethanol production from
sugarcane molasses. Lerner et al. (2010) report a current producing
capacity of 26 million L to be boosted to 32 million L per annum. In
addition to sugarcane, Swaziland is considering sweet sorghum
and cassava for bioethanol production. Biodiesel could be produced from sunower, safower and jatropha but production from
jatropha is on hold until further R&D and expert knowledge is
available with respect to this crop (REEEP, 2012b; Licht, 2012a,
2012b).
Malawi and Swaziland are cited as the two main current
producers in the region (Table 1, Licht, 2012a, 2012b).
Mozambique is one of the most advanced countries within the
SADC community in terms of biofuel policy development although
no biofuel production was in place as of 2011 (Lerner et al., 2010).
In 2011 the country approved blending mandates of 20% for
bioethanol and 3% for biodiesel to commence in 2012. The
proposed feedstocks are sugarcane (molasses) for bioethanol,
and jatropha, soya and mafurra seeds for biodiesel (Lerner et al.,
2010; REEEP, 2012d).
South Africa has traditionally been an energy exporter, but in
recent years demand has started to outstrip supply and alternative
energy sources are needed, especially as the country meets most
of its energy demand from coal (REEEP, 2012e). In 2007, South
Africa developed the Biofuels Industrial Strategy of the Republic of
South Africa (Government of South Africa, 2007). The strategy
proposes adoption of a ve year pilot program to achieve a 2%
penetration level (previously the target was 4.5%) of biofuels in the
national liquid fuel supply, equivalent to 400 million L per annum.
The proposed crops are sugarcane and sugar beet for bioethanol,
and sunower for biodiesel. Maize is excluded on the basis of food
security concerns, while jatropha is excluded due to the need for
further research (Government of South Africa, 2007).

3
The SADC community includes Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar (membership currently suspended), Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia,
and Zimbabwe.
4
Different sources provide different estimates of production. Lerner et al
(2010) state that Malawi produces up to 18 million L of bioethanol per season
(MayDecember) while Licht (2012a, 2012b) reports annual production of 10 mln L
in 2011. Exact data on biofuel production in Africa are generally problematic.

iPlease cite this article as: Maltsoglou, I., et al., The status of bioenergy development in developing countries, Global Food Security
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.04.002

I. Maltsoglou et al. / Global Food Security ()

Table 1
Biofuel production in Africa.
Source: these are 2011 gures compiled from Licht (2012a, 2012b).
Country

Malawi

Bioethanol

Current main Annual

feedstock
production
(million L)

10

Sugarcane
(molasses)
Sugarcane

Swaziland 10
Other
145
Africa

Table 2
Biofuel production and feedstock in Asia (2011).
Source: these are 2011 gures compiled from Licht (2012a, 2012b)

Biodiesel

Annual
production
(million L)

Country
Current
main
feedstock

Bioethanol

Biodiesel

Annual
production
(million L)

Current main
feedstock

Annual
production
(million L)

Current
main
feedstock

2100

Corn, wheat
cassava
Molasses
Molasses and
cassava

159

Used
cooking oil
Palm oil
Palm oil

China

Indonesia 10
Thailand 510

1364
591

Note: 1. - means unknown.

2. Biodiesel production is converted from ton to liter (0.88kg/L).

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)5

region is investigating the development of a regional bioenergy
strategy (ECREEE, 2012). The regional policy aims to improve
energy access with the overall goal to provide universal access to
modern energy services by 2030, sets targets for other forms of
renewable energy and targets an increase in the share of bioethanol and biodiesel in transport fuels to 5% in 2020 and 10% in 2030
(ECREEE, 2012).
Finally, Ethiopia heavily relies on traditional biomass sources
for over 90% of current energy supply in the country (REEEP,
2012c). As part of the energy development strategy, in 2008,
Ethiopia started producing bioethanol from sugar for the transport
sector to meet a 5% blending target in the Addis Ababa region
(Biofuel Digest, 2011; REEEP, 2012c). The blending target will be
increased to 10%, and under the current expansion plan the target
is to produce 180 million L of bioethanol per year over the next
ve years (Biofuel Digest, 2011).

In line with global efforts, the governments of Asian countries

are promoting biofuel programs to address energy security and
environmental problems as well as to increase farm income. This
section covers Asian biofuel programs, with a focus on the People's
Republic of China, Indonesia, and Thailand as the main biofuel
producing countries (Table 2).
China and Indonesia are the largest countries in the region for
bioethanol and biodiesel production, respectively. In 2011, China
produced 2100 million L of bioethanol and is the third largest
world bioethanol producer, following the U.S. and Brazil (Licht,
2012b). Indonesian production of biodiesel reached 1364 million L
in 2011; it is the second largest biodiesel exporter following
Germany (Licht, 2012a). In general, energy security is the main
reason to promote biofuel programs in Asian countries but there
are also additional reasons such as the stabilization of palm oil
price in Indonesia, and creating an alternative market for domestic
agricultural products in Thailand (Koizumi and Ohga, 2007).
Biofuel programs in the region rely on a variety of feedstocks
including corn, wheat, cassava, molasses and palm oil (Table 1).
The main feedstocks are corn in China, cassava in Thailand and
palm oil in Indonesia. A number of biofuel programs offer nancial
incentives including subsidy and tax exemptions for biofuel
production and utilization. On the other hand, the government
of Indonesia subsidizes gasoline and diesel retail prices, but
provides no subsidies for biofuel utilization. This effective taxation
is the major obstacle to domestic utilization of biofuel in

Indonesia. Securing feedstock is the main obstacle to promote

biofuel production (and consumption) in China and Thailand
(Koizumi and Ohga, 2007; Koizumi, 2013).
Bioethanol is mainly used for the domestic market in China.
With Chinese oil imports rising rapidly as a result of motorization,
the Chinese government expanded its bioethanol program from
2002 to 2008. In June 2002, the Chinese government started to
mandate the use of bioethanol blended gasoline in ve cities of
Heilongjiang and Henan. In October 2004, the government introduced the compulsory use of a 10% bioethanol blend gasoline
(E10) in all areas of Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Henan, and Anhui.
When the central government started to expand the corn-based
bioethanol program, corn stocks were abundant. But Chinese corn
ending stocks decreased dramatically from 124 million tons in
19992000 to 37 million tons in 200607. The government tried
to manage the decrease in these stocks, but a tight supplydemand
balance meant that the domestic corn price increased 30% from
February 2005 to September 2006.6 Corn consumption for bioethanol was competing with corn consumption for feed, food, and other
industries (Koizumi, 2013). Consequently, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) began to regulate corn-based
bioethanol expansion in 2006. This regulation allowed the current
bioethanol production level, but limited further expansion of cornbased bioethanol production. This regulation also applies to wheatbased bioethanol production.
Instead of expanding corn-based bioethanol production, the
Chinese central government hopes to diversify into different
feedstocks, especially cassava. In 2011, 2.3% of domestic corn was
used for bioethanol, 0.9% of domestic wheat was used for bioethanol, and 8.4% of domestic cassava was used for bioethanol (raw
data for the calculation come from USDA Foreign Agricultural
Service (USDA-FAS) (2012a, 2012c), FAO (2012c). Currently, ve
bioethanol production plants in China have operating licenses
from the central government. Since 2008, all of these plants have
beneted from a exible subsidy program (USDA-FAS, 2011a). In
addition, value-added tax (17%) for these plants has been removed
(Wang, 2011), and import tariffs on key biofuel feedstock were
reduced as a way to encourage the import of feedstock from
neighboring countries.
China is also developing bioethanol production from sweet
sorghum, sweet potato, and sugarcane. However, these efforts
remain in the pilot scale stage at present. It is difcult to expand
bioethanol production from these sources, because feedstock is
difcult to procure. The NDRC provided a medium to long-term
plan for renewable energy in 2007, including expansion of
bioethanol production from non-food grade sources (imported

5
The ECOWAS community comprises Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d'Ivoire,
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra
Leone and Togo.

6
Calculated from data in Institute of Agricultural Economics, Chinese Academy
of Agricultural Science (2007.10).

3. Biofuels development in Asia

iPlease cite this article as: Maltsoglou, I., et al., The status of bioenergy development in developing countries, Global Food Security
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.04.002

I. Maltsoglou et al. / Global Food Security ()

feedstock is considered as non-food). The plan indicates that

bioethanol from non-food grade sources would be 10 million tons
in 2020. It is uncertain whether China can meet this goal.
Indonesia is the world's largest palm oil producer and exporter.
The government of Indonesia has promoted palm oil based
biodiesel production since 2006 and has plans to expand biodiesel
and bioethanol production as set out in the 20162025 energy
roadmap. The domestic production targets outlined in the roadmap are 10.2 billion L of biodiesel and 6.3 billion L of bioethanol by
201625 (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2007).
Palm oil is the main feedstock for biodiesel production and 2.8%
of domestic palm oil was used for biodiesel production in 2011.7
Biodiesel production in Indonesia increased from 56.8 million L in
2006 to 1364 million L in 2011 (Licht, 2012a).
The government of Indonesia currently subsidizes gasoline and
diesel retail prices causing domestic fossil fuel retail prices to be
much lower than the international parity price levels. However,
the government does not offer any subsidies for biofuel utilization.8 This price discrepancy is the main obstacle to promoting
biofuel utilization in the domestic market as biofuels result in
being much more expensive on the domestic market. Due to this,
most production is for exports, which have increased from
33.0 million L in 2006 to 1136 million L in 2011 (Licht, 2012a). As
a result, the government is currently struggling to meet the
domestic production targets as set in the 20162025 roadmap
(Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2007).
The government of Thailand promoted its biofuel program in
response to the surge in the price of oil in the mid-2000s. In
addition, Thailand wanted to create an alternative market for
domestic agricultural products through the promotion of biofuel
production. The government recently developed a new 10-year
Alternative Energy Development Plan (20122021) to replace its
15-year plan (20082022), which had fallen short of achieving its
short-term targets, particularly in bioethanol consumption. The
substance of the new policy is largely the same as its predecessor.
The new plan was approved by the cabinet in 2011 (USDA-FAS,
2012b). The plan has a 10-year bioethanol production target of
1358 million L/annum by 2012 and 3285 million L/annum by 2021.
The plan targets domestic bioethanol use and revised the biodiesel
consumption target to 2179 million L/annum by 2021 (USDA-FAS,
2012b). Incentives to encourage production and marketing include
reducing the excise tax on bioethanol blends9 and investment
concessions for the construction of new plants. In 2011, 3.5% of
domestic cassava production was used for biodiesel and 0.7% of
domestic sugarcane production was used for bioethanol (raw data
for the calculation come from USDA-FAS (2012b, 2012c) and FAO
(2012c). Securing feedstock for bioethanol remains one of the
main obstacles to expand biofuel production in Thailand, and the
government is currently struggling to meet its targets.

4. Biofuels development in Latin America

Today, a number of Latin American countries10 have established
legal blending mandates to promote the production and use of
bioethanol and biodiesel with the aim to address environmental
issues, improve energy security, and promote rural development
and employment generation as well as explore options for export
7

Raw data for this calculation was extracted from USDA-FAS (2011b, 2012c).
The price of biodiesel was 11,771 Indonesia Rupiah (IDR)/L in 2007. However,
the diesel retail price was 4300 IDR/L in September 2007 (Koizumi, 2009).
9
13.5 Baht/L is applied for E85 (85% bioethanol blended gasoline) and 1.3 Baht/
L is applied for E20 (20% bioethanol blended gasoline) (Agricultural & Livestock
Industries Cooperation (ALIC), 2011).
10
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.
8

markets (Jull et al., 2007). Current biofuel production in the LAC

region is estimated to be around 22,055 million L of bioethanol
and 5797 million L of biodiesel11 (Licht, 2012a, 2012b). Other than
Brazil, the key biofuel producing countries in the region are
Argentina, Colombia, Peru and Paraguay (Table 3). (Note that
biofuel production in Brazil is discussed in a separate paper in
this special issue).
Blending targets for bioethanol vary widely and can range from
as low as 2% to as high as 20%. Ratios for biodiesel are more
uniform and are typically 2%, 5% or 7%. Colombia has a 10% blending bioethanol requirement and a 10% biodiesel blending in effect
(Mitsubishi Research Institute, 2010; United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), 2012b). Argentina has a 5% legal blending
mandate for bioethanol and biodiesel (Camara de Energias Renovables (CADER), 2010; USDA, 2012a). Peru requires gasoline to be
blended with 7.8% bioethanol and diesel is blended with 5%
biodiesel (USDA, 2012d). Some countries have established laws
promoting biofuel without specifying blending mandates.
The main objective of biofuel policies is generally to rst supply
domestic biofuel consumption, with any excess exported. Colombia is not importing or exporting biofuel and unlikely to export
until domestic mandates are met (USDA, 2012b). Argentina as a
top oilseed producer developed the biodiesel sector prior to the
establishment of a domestic mandate and began exporting biodiesel early on (CADER, 2010; Morgera et al., 2009). Today,
production of biodiesel signicantly exceeds the national demand
and a signicant portion of it continues to be exported about 60%
of its production continues to be exported (Marn and Prez, 2011).
Peru exported about 185 million L of bioethanol to the Netherlands before the national blending mandate became effective
(USDA, 2012d), but relies on imports of biodiesel to meet national
demand (FAO, 2012b).
Financial incentives are being used to enhance the production
of biofuels. Incentives include granting tax exemptions for crops
dedicated to biofuel production or to the industry to stimulate the
building of production capacity. For example, in Colombia palm oil
growers have access to credits from state-owned banks with low
interest rates and favorable conditions. In addition, areas where
biofuel factories are built are declared permanent customs zones,
with a reduction in income tax from 35% to 15% (Mitsubishi
Research Institute, 2010). Another common incentive is exempting
biofuels from the taxes applied to fossil fuels. Argentina, Colombia,
Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay waived the value-added tax and other
fees typically charged to petroleum fuels. Different taxation regimens are also applied to promote either import or export markets.
Colombia has an import duty for biofuels of 10% but it can vary
under different regional trade agreements (CADER, 2010). Peru has
put in place anti dumping and countervailing duties to 100%
biodiesel or any blends greater than 50% entering from the U.S.
(USDA, 2012d).
General challenges to meet the mandates include mismatch of
biofuel processing capacities with feedstock production and/or
insufcient domestic availability of raw material supply. In terms
of bioethanol, Argentina has been able to achieve a 2%3%
blending target versus the intended 5% blending and in Colombia,
blending has reached only 9% due to insufcient installed bioethanol processing capacity (CADER, 2010; USDA, 2011a, 2012b and
Mitsubishi Research Institute, 2010). In the case of biodiesel,
Argentina has successfully met its initial 5% blending rate, has
further increased it to 7%, and it is likely to be increased to 10%
shortly (USDA, 2012a). In Colombia, however, installed capacity for

11
This is the equivalent conversion of total of 8101 million tonnes of biodiesel
for South and North America and 77,797 cubic meters of bioethanol for both South
and North America as reported by (Licht, 2012a, 2012b).

iPlease cite this article as: Maltsoglou, I., et al., The status of bioenergy development in developing countries, Global Food Security
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.04.002

I. Maltsoglou et al. / Global Food Security ()

Table 3
Main biofuel producing countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Sources: these are 2011 gures compiled from Licht (2012a, 2012b), Argentina Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Censo (2012) and Biodiesel from USDA (2011a, 2011b, 2012a,
2012b, 2012c, 2012d).
Country

Bioethanol

Biodiesel

Annual production (million L) Current main feedstock Annual Production (million L) Current main feedstock
Brazil
Colombia
Argentina
Peru
Paraguay

21,020
337351
170200
90135
130

Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
81% Sugarcane
19% Corn

2727
295537
2758
36
1

Largely soybean and castor, sunower, cotton, jatropha and tallow.

Palm oil
Soybean
Soybeana and palm oil
Tallow and vegetable oil

Imported soybean biodiesel.

biodiesel processing has been inadequate to reach the 7% blending

target throughout the entire country (USDA, 2012b). In the case of
Peru, domestic production of feedstock is not sufcient to meet its
biodiesel mandate. In this case about 190 million L of biodiesel are
being imported, mainly from Argentina (USDA, 2012a). The
bioethanol industry in Paraguay is growing slowly as one of the
main constraints is the limited area planted to sugarcane; thus
grains are increasingly likely to be used for feedstock supply
(USDA, 2012c).
Sugarcane is overwhelmingly the main raw material for biethanol production in the region (CADER, 2010; USDA, 2012b; Mitsubishi
Research Institute, 2010). The main biodiesel raw materials are
soybean and palm oil. Most countries are using or plan to use
locally produced raw materials for biofuels. There are a number of
countries that are able to generate enough raw materials for biofuel
without affecting other local uses. For example, Colombia ranks
among the top world producers of sugarcane and oil palm, and
production is more than double the national demand. Thus, a share
of the exportable surplus is used to produce biofuels to meet the
national blending mandate. It is estimated that biofuel production
has replaced so far only 25% of sugar exports and 30% of palm oil
exports (USDA, 2011b). In the case of Argentina, about 20%25% of
soybean production is used to produce biodiesel, with 40% going to
the domestic market while the rest is exported (USDA, 2011a). The
domestic mandate began in 2010 and as of now it is hard to
determine the impact on overall exports of soybean commodities.
Some gures indicate that internal biodiesel consumption represents only 8% of the total production of vegetable and soy oil
commodities (Marn and Prez, 2011). Peru exported about 51 million L of bioethanol from sugarcane in 2011 (USDA, 2012d). The
sugarcane for this bioethanol production has come primarily from
the establishment of new cultivation areas and has not affected
sugar exports (FAO, 2010d).
An important potential constraint for biofuel expansion in Latin
America is the ongoing discussion on criteria for sustainable production, energy balances and greenhouse gas (GHG) savings of biofuels in
Europe. These criteria could become a barrier discriminating against
certain supplier countries. Argentina in particular is already engaged
in discussions relating to soy-biodiesel, which under the European
Union Sustainability Rules Standards does not meet the necessary
GHG reduction qualications (CADER, 2010).

5. Summary and conclusions

Currently there is minimal production of biofuels in Africa and
very few policies are in place. A signicant number of countries had
proposed to solve the food versus fuel competition by promoting
jatropha as the source of feedstock, but jatropha production has yet
to prove viable and competitive at the industrial scale. Malawi and

Swaziland are reported to be the main producers of liquid biofuels,

more specically bioethanol, in the region.
The governments of Asian countries are promoting biofuel
programs that rely on a variety of raw materials but securing
raw material for bioethanol is one of the main obstacles to expand
biofuel production in China and Thailand, the main bioethanol
producers in the region. In Indonesia, the prices of diesel and
gasoline are currently subsidized while biofuel production receives
no subsidies, which remains the main obstacle to promoting
biofuel utilization in domestic markets.
Latin American countries have mostly set up blending mandates as part of for their national policies to promote the development of their biofuel industry. Meeting the blending mandates
has been challenging. General challenges include mismatch of
biofuel processing capacities to feedstock supply and/or insufcient domestic availability of raw material supply. There are
several emerging issues that Latin American countries are facing
in their quest to develop biofuels, including ongoing discussions
on criteria for sustainable production that could negatively affect
supplier countries.
In conclusion, in order to ensure that bioenergy can be developed sustainably, bioenergy policy should be based on a clear
understanding of the country context, food security context and
sustainable bioenergy potential (FAO, 2012a, 2008).

References
Agricultural & Livestock Industries Cooperation (ALIC), 2011. Bioethanol Markets in
Thailand. Available at: http://www.alic.go.jp/joho-s/joho07_000311.html.
(Japanese).
Argentina Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Censo, 2012. Estadsticas de Biocombustibles, Ministerio de Economa y Finanzas, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Available
at: http://www.indec.gov.ar/nuevaweb/cuadros/12/biocombustibles_02_12.pdf.
ADB, 2012. African Economic Outlook 2012. Joint publication of the African
Development Bank, Development Centre of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, United Nations Development Programme and
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
Biofuel Digest, 2011. Ethiopia to Increase Ethanol Capacity, Raises Mandate From 5 to
10 Percent. Available at: http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/01/19/
ethiopia-to-increase-ethanol-capacity-raises-mandate-from-5-to-10-percent/.
Brittaine, R., Lutaladio, N., 2008. Jatropha: a smallholder bioenergy cropthe
potential for pro-poor development. In: Integrated Crop Management, vol. 8,
FAO and IFAD, Rome, Italy.
Camara de Energias Renovables (CADER), 2010. State of the Argentine Biofuel
Industry, Buenos Aries, Argentina. Available at: www.ascension-publishing.
com/BIZ/HD37.pdf.
Christiaensen, L., Demery, L., Kuhl, J., 2011. The (evolving) role of agriculture in
poverty reduction: an empirical perspective. Journal of Development Economics
96 (2), 239254.
Cotula, L., 2011. The Outlook on Farmland Acquisitions, Policy Brief, International
Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
Dawe, D., 2010. Background Note on the Bioenergy and Food Security Linkages in
Bioenergy and Food Security: The BEFS Analytical Framework, Environmental
and Natural Resources Management Working Paper 16, FAO, Rome.
Dawe, D., Maltsoglou, I., 2009. Analyzing the Impact of Food Price Increases:
Assumptions about Marketing Margins can be Crucial, ESA Working Paper,
09-02, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy.

iPlease cite this article as: Maltsoglou, I., et al., The status of bioenergy development in developing countries, Global Food Security
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.04.002

I. Maltsoglou et al. / Global Food Security ()

ECREEE, 2012. ECREEE Validation Workshop on Renewable Energy and Energy

Efciency Policies and Scenarios for West Africa. Dakar, Senegal.
FAO, 2008. Biofuels: Prospects, risks and opportunities, State of Food and Agriculture report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2010a. How to Feed the World by 2050. Issue Brief, Background Document for
the High Level Expert Forum, 1316 October 2009, FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2010b. The Bioenergy and Food Security Analytical Framework, Environment
and Natural Resources Management Working Paper, 16, FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2010c. Bioenergy and Food Security: The BEFS Analysis for Tanzania, Environment and Natural Resources Management Working Paper, 35, FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2010d. The Bioenergy and Food Security Assessment for Peru: Supporting the
Policy Machinery in Peru. Environment and Natural Resources Management
Working Paper, 40, FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2012a. FAO Support Package to Decision-Making for Sustainable Bioenergy,
http://www.fao.org/energy/36660-012e617eb30b219271090150b2b02d36.pdf.
FAO, 2012b. Estado de la Bioenergia en Peru. Santiao, Chile. Available from: http://
www.rlc.fao.org/es/publicaciones/bioenergia-en-peru-iii/.
FAO, 2012c. FAO Statistics at http://faostat.fao.org/, Rome, Italy.
Licht, F.O., 2012a. FO Licht's World Ethanol and Biofuels Report, vol. 10, no. 14, F.O. Licht.
Licht, F.O., 2012b. FO Licht's World Ethanol and Biofuels Report, vol. 10, No. 16, F.O. Licht.
Government of South Africa, 2007. Biofuels Industrial Strategy of the Republic of
South Africa, Department of Minerals and Energy. Available at: http://www.
info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=77830.
Hasan, H., 2007. Alternative Agro-fuels: Jatropha cultivation in Mali & India,
Oakland, CA. Food First, Institute for Food and Development Policy.
Headey, D., Fan, S., 2008. Anatomy of a crisis: the causes and consequences of
surging food prices. Agricultural Economics 39 (s1), 375391.
IFAD, 2008. International Consultation on Pro-Poor Jatropha Development, IFAD,
Rome.
International Land Coalition (ILC), 2013. Commercial Pressures on Land: Increasing
Commercial Pressures on Land in the Face of Poverty Reduction: Threat or
Opportunity? http://www.landcoalition.org/cpl.
Jull, C., Carmona Redondo, P., Mosoti, V., Vapnek, J., 2007. Recent Trends in the Law
and Policy of Bioenergy Production, Promotion and Use. Legislative Study No.
95, FAO, Rome, Italy. Also available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1452e/
a1452e00.htm.
Kant, P., Wu, S., 2011. The extraordinary collapse of jatropha as a global biofuel.
Environmental Science and Technology 45 (17), 71147115.
Kgathi, D.L., Mfundisi, K.B., Mmopelwa, G., Mosepele, K., 2012. Potential impacts of
biofuel development on food security in Botswana: a contribution to energy
policy. Energy Policy 43, 7079.
Koizumi, T., Ohga, K., 2007. Biofuels policies in asian countries: impacts of the
expanded biofuels programs on world agricultural markets. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 5. (Special issue: explorations in biofules
economics, policy and history; Article 8).
Koizumi, T., 2009. Biofuel and World Food Markets. Nourin Toukei Kyokai, ISBN
9784541036674, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 130132; pp.134136 (in Japanese).
Koizumi, T., 2013. Biofuel and food security in China and Japan. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 21 (2013), 102109.
Lerner, et al, 2010. SADC Biofuel State of Play: An Assessment of the Biofuel Sector
Development in the Southern African Development Community. Commissioned by the SADC Biofuel Taskforce and Funded by the German Technical
Cooperation (GTZ).
Maltsoglou, I., Thurlow, J., Berndes, G, Faures, J., 2011. The Bioenergy, Food and
Water Nexus: Developing Country Perspectives, In: Proceedings of Bonn2011
Water Food Energy Nexus Conference, Background Paper for the Bioenergy
Water and Food Hot Topic Session, Bonn, Germany Available at: http://www.
water-energy-food.org/en/conference/programme/show__19/the_bioenergy_
food_and_water_nexus.html.
Marn, A., Prez, C.G., 2011. Complejo Oleaginoso. Series Produccin Regional por
Complejos Productivos. Ministerio de Economa. Direccin de Informacin y
Anlisis Regional Sectorial.
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2007. Blue Print of Biofuel Development.
Republic of Indonesia, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.
Mitsubishi Research Institute, 2010. Sustainable Energy and Biofuel Strategies for
Colombia. Commissioned by the Inter American Development Bank and Colombia Ministry of Mines and Energy. Bogota, Colombia. Available at: http://www.
minminas.gov.co/minminas/downloads/archivosEventos/6776.pdf.
Morgera, E., Kulovesi, K., Gobena A., 2009. Case Studies on Bioenergy Policy and
Law: Options for Sustainably. FAO Legislative Study 102. FAO, Rome ,Italy. Also
available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1285e/ i1285e00.htm.

Mubonderi, J., 2012. Jatropha: The Broom of Poverty; Myth or Reality? A Critical
Analysis of the Zimbabwean Jatropha Programme in Mutoko District. Prepared
for PISCES by Practical Action Consulting.
Openshaw, K., 2000. A review of Jatropha curcas: an oil plant of unfullled promise.
Biomass and Bioenergy 19 (1), 115.
Pingali, P., 2006. Agriculture Growth and Economic Development: A View Through
the Globalization Lens. In: Presidential Address to the 26th International
Conference of Agriculture Economists, Gold Coast, Australia, August 2006.
Pingali, P., Raney, T., Weibe, K., 2008. Biofuels and food security: missing the point.
Review of Agricultural Economics 30, 3.
PISCES, 2011. Laws and Policies Enabling the Production of Biofuels in Malawi,
Working Brief, N04 May 2011.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency Partnership (REEEP), 2012a. REEGLE
Malawi Country Prole. Available at: http://www.reegle.info/countries/mala
wi-energy-prole/MW.
REEEP, 2012b. REEGLE Swaziland Country Prole. Available at: http://www.reegle.
info/countries/swaziland-energy-prole/SZ.
REEEP, 2012c. REEGLE Ethiopia Country Prole. Available at: http://www.reegle.
info/countries/ethiopia-energy-prole/ET.
REEEP, 2012d. REEGLE Mozambique Country Prole. Available at: http://www.
reegle.info/countries/mozambique-energy-prole/MZ.
REEEP, 2012e. REEGLE South Africa Country Prole. Available at: http://www.
reegle.info/countries/south-africa-energy-prole/ZA.
Thurlow, J., 2010. Economy Wide Effects of Bioenergy Development in Bioenergy
and Food Security: The BEFS Analysis for Tanzania, Environment and Natural
Resources Management Working Paper, 35, FAO, Rome, Italy.
SADC, 2009. Framework for Sustainable Biofuels. Available at: http://www.probec.
org/leuploads/04142010091932_SADC_Framework_for_Sustainable_Bio
fuels.pdf.
SADC, 2008. Protocol on Energy. Available at: http://www.sadc.int/index/browse/
page/147.
UN Energy, 2010. A Decision Support Tool for Sustainable Bioenergy, Prepared by
FAO and UNEP for UN Energy.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2011a. Argentina Biofuel Annual
Report. Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN). Available at: Biofuels
Annual_Buenos Aires_Argentina_7-6-2012.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2011b. Colombian Biofuels Annual
Report. Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN). Available at: http://
gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Bogota_
Colombia_6-30-2011.pdf.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2012a. Argentina Biofuel Annual
Report . Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN). Available at: Biofuels
Annual_Buenos Aires_Argentina_7-6-2012.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2012b. Colombian Biofuels Use
Close to reaching E10 and B10 Levels. Global Agriculture Information Network
(GAIN). Available at: Biofuels Annual_Bogota_Colombia_6-22-2012.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2012c. Paraguay Biofuel Annual
Report . Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN). Available at: http://
gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Buenos%
20Aires_Paraguay_6-27-2012.pdf.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2012d. Peru Biofuel Annual
Report. Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN). Available at: Biofuels
Annual_Lima_Peru_6-27-2012.
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS), 2011a. China-People Republic of
Biofuels Annual, 2011 Annual Report. Available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/
Recent%20GAIN%20 Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Beijing_China%20-%20Peo
ples%20Republic%20of_7-21-2011.pdf.
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS), 2011b. Indonesia Biofuels Annual
2011. Available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Bio
fuels%20Annual_Jakarta_Indonesia_8-19-2011.pdf.
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS), 2012a. China-People Republic of
Biofuels Report. Available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Pub
lications/Biofuels%20
Annual_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%
20of_7-9-2012.pdf.
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS), 2012b. Thailand Biofuel Annual
2012. Available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/
Biofuels%20Annual_Bangkok_Thailand_6-29-2012.pdf.
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS), 2012c. PS&D. Available at: http://
www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx.
Wang, Q.A., 2011. Time for commercializing non-food biofuels in China. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (1), 621629.
World Bank, 2012. Motor Vehicles (per 1000 people). http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/IS.VEH.NVEH.P3/countries?display=map.

iPlease cite this article as: Maltsoglou, I., et al., The status of bioenergy development in developing countries, Global Food Security
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.04.002