(Stop) burning for biogas. Enabling positive sustainability trade-offs with business models for biogas from rice straw

Abstract

Rice is the main agricultural crop in the Philippines and central to the country's food security. One main challenge of rice farming is the management of the straw after harvest. With limited uses, the rice straw is currently burned or in some cases incorporated with significant environmental impacts. However, it can be an important feedstock for sustainable bioenergy and support energy access in the Philippines. The research was conducted around a 1,000 m 3 biogas pilot plant in Laguna province, Philippines. The aim of this research was to develop business models and assess their potential for improving energy access, agricultural practices, and empowering local rice-growing communities. Four business models were developed, reflecting energy supply and demand approaches. This was informed by interviews with stakeholders, including farmers, agricultural entrepreneurs, local authorities, and policymakers in the case study location. A multi-criteria assessment was conducted to evaluate synergies and trade-offs between different aspects of the business models. While all business models provided positive environmental, economic, and in particular social sustainability impacts, the farming community showed the most support for approaches that provide wider livelihood benefits beyond renewable energy access, such as diversification of agricultural activities and income generation. This demonstrated that bioenergy has the potential to create a virtuous circle of benefits for local communities in support of sustainable development. To achieve this, it is essential to take a holistic and multi-level approach to the different sustainability criteria to maximise benefits and mitigate negative impacts of bioenergy systems beyond energy technology.

Sustainable bioenergy solutions to enable development in low- and middle-income countries beyond technology and energy access

“…Bioenergy has an important role in decarbonising the energy and transport sector. In addition to replacing fossil fuels, in off-grid contexts, bioenergy has the added potential for improving energy access using local biomass feedstock as Azasi et al [6] Garcia-Freites et al [10], Röder et al [15] and Welfle et al [19] showed in their SI articles. Garcia-Freites et al [10], Ordoñez-Frías et al [13] and Röder et al [15] also demonstrated how the use of residues can provide a valid waste management option as residues are often burned or disposed of in unmanaged manners, causing negative environmental and health impacts.…”

“…In addition to replacing fossil fuels, in off-grid contexts, bioenergy has the added potential for improving energy access using local biomass feedstock as Azasi et al [6] Garcia-Freites et al [10], Röder et al [15] and Welfle et al [19] showed in their SI articles. Garcia-Freites et al [10], Ordoñez-Frías et al [13] and Röder et al [15] also demonstrated how the use of residues can provide a valid waste management option as residues are often burned or disposed of in unmanaged manners, causing negative environmental and health impacts. In any of these cases, it is important to understand the environmental implications of bioenergy use to identify possible emission impacts and being able to mitigate emission risks or enable environmental benefits.…”

“…Demand relates to more than just sufficient energy provision; energy is used not for its own sake but as part of the valued social, economic and environmental practices. The SI article by Röder et al [15] analysed how bioenergy systems that are co-designed by the end-users and address broader livelihood benefits beyond energy access are more likely to be sustainable than applications that have a narrow focus on energy supply. Tomei, et al [17] showed with their SI article that bioenergy related industry not necessarily enable municipal and human development, especially if transparent mechanisms targeting at human development and monitoring positive and negative impact are limited or lacking.…”

“…However, policy frameworks in many countries currently do not support the competitiveness of modern bioenergy applications. The SI articles by Brinkman, et al [7], Hughes, et al [11], Röder et al [15], Tomei, et al…”

“…However, experiences and research have also shown that there are many challenges and unevenly-distributed barriers to enable the mobilisation of biomass resources [24,25]. The SI article by Röder et al [15] addressed some of these barriers of biomass mobilisation, such as cost and time of collection, lacking infrastructures, quality of biomass and timing of availability and demand, if biomass is generated in smallholder and often dispersed settings. This SI article also showed the relevance of stakeholder participation and need for suitable business models that support biomass sourcing and collection to overcome such barriers and utilise biomass resources.…”