4.7 Article

The distribution of food security impacts of biofuels, a Ghana case study

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 141, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105695

关键词

Food security; Biofuel mandate; Developing country; Nutrition; Household; CGEmodel

资金

  1. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (ELI) [FES0905]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The demand for biofuels is expected to increase significantly in the coming years. However, there are major concerns on the impact of increased biofuel production on food security. As biofuel affects food security in various ways, it is important to assess the impacts on the four pillars of food security, availability, access, utilisation and stability. The objective of this study is to ex-ante quantify impacts of biofuel production on the four pillars of food security for urban and rural households in a developing country. We illustrate this for Ghana, which proposed a 10% biodiesel and 15% ethanol mandate for 2030 and which faces food security issues. We used the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model MAGNET in combination with a household and a nutrition module to quantify 13 food security indicators. The results show that the largest food security effects of the biofuel mandate are negative impacts on food prices and import dependency. However, the projected food security impacts of the biofuel mandate in 2030 are relatively small compared to the projected food security effects of economic development in Ghana towards 2030. Our approach enables ex-ante quantification of the effects of biofuel on the four pillars of food security and the differentiation of the effects between urban and rural households. Although improvements can be made, the approach means a big step forward compared to the stateof-the-art knowledge on food security impacts of biofuel production and it could contribute to identify options to minimise negative and optimise positive food security effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据