Bioenergy or Hydropower –

Implication for Water and Food

Gauthier PitoisInternational Food Policy Research

Institute

“Water in the Anthropocene” GWSP Conference

May 2013, Bonn, Germany

Motivation

Growing energy demands of wealthier, more urban populations

Demand can be met from HP, biofuels, or other traditional and nontraditional energy sources—all energy development requires some water; and some energy sources need a lot

In addition, agriculture is increasingly energy-intensive (including about 40% of food produced from groundwater) and biofuel development competes with food for land and water

Climate change is a further complication on the water-energy picture

The result is increasing competition for water across sectors under growing uncertainty

Growing water intensity of energy production

Source: World Energy Outlook, 2012

HP is not considered to withdraw or consume water, but this energy sourcehas a multitude of water impacts

Price Linkage (Food – Biofuel)

Source: D.K. Albino, C. Freidman and Y. Bar-Yam, Global Security and the RFS. NECSI Report 2013-04-01

Map of storage

Total and per Capita Storage

RUSCAN

BRACH

MUSA

INDZW

EEG

YVEN

GHA

TURM

EX IRQ

KAZTH

AAUS

PRYARG

MOZ

SPP0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

5

10

15

20

25

Storage (bcm) Per-Cap. Ratio (bcm/cap)

Source: GWSP Digital Water Atlas (2008). Map 81: GRanD Database (V1.0)

Note: Storage currently increasing in Asia, SSA and some LAC.

Hydropower Generation (20% of total energy generation)

China

Brazil

Canad

a

United

Sta

tes

Russia

Nor

way

India

Japan

Venez

uela

Swed

en

Fran

ce

Parag

uay

Turk

eyItal

y

Spain

Colom

bia

Austria

Mex

ico

Switze

rlan

d

Argen

tina

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Capacity (mil. kW) Generation (bil. kWh)

Source: U.S. EIA, 2013

Linkage Storage-Hydropower Capacity

Sources: GWSP Digital Water Atlas (2008). Map 81: GRanD Database (V1.0) U.S. EIA, 2013

Scenarios linking water with energy and food

1) Business as usual (BAU) versus Bioeconomy scenario: economic growth driven by the development of renewable biological resources and biotechnologies to produce sustainable products, employment and income

-> Increase in agricultural R&D / crop productivity growth; Impact of faster technological change - commercial scale second generation biofuels start 5 years earlier--reducing demand for first generation feedstocks; increased WUE across irrigation, HHs & industry); lower fertilizer input2) BAU versus increased storage & irrigation, gradual change out to 2050: 50% more storage; 25% more storage + 12.5% more irrigation; 50% more storage + 25% more irrigation

IMPACT – Partial Equilibrium Agricultural Sector Model

S.1-- Percent Change in World Prices of Cereals between 2010 and 2050, BAU

Rice Wheat Maize Other Grains

Millet Sorghum0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

ent C

hang

e

Source: IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2012 Simulations

S.1 --Irrigation water supply reliability under BAU and Bioeconomy in 2000, 2030, 2050

Region 20002030 2050

BAU BIO BAU BIO

East Asia & Pacific 0.754 0.631 0.714 0.554 0.675

Eastern Europe & Central Asia 0.668 0.617 0.666 0.515 0.655

Latin America & Caribbean 0.911 0.933 0.954 0.936 0.973

Middle East & North Africa 0.986 0.975 0.978 0.972 0.975

South Asia 0.706 0.622 0.679 0.517 0.645

Sub-Saharan Africa 0.825 0.747 0.785 0.715 0.780

North America 0.978 0.984 0.990 0.987 1.000

NAFTA 0.983 0.988 0.993 0.991 1.000

Europe Developed 0.974 0.997 0.999 0.994 0.996

Developed 0.958 0.961 0.972 0.956 0.982

Developing 0.749 0.670 0.728 0.592 0.705World 0.766 0.692 0.747 0.619 0.726

IWSR - ratio of annual irrigation water supply to demand.Source: IFPRI IMPACT projections (2012).

Source: IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2012 Simulations

Rice Wheat Maize Other Grains

Millet Sorghum-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Perc

ent C

hang

e

S.1--Percent Change in World Prices of Cereals between BAU and Bioeoconomy

Scenario, 2050

Percent Change in World Market Prices Under Increase in Irrigation (+12.5%) and Storage

(+25%)

Source : IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2013 simulations

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Rice Wheat Maize Soybean Cotton

Percent Change in World Market Prices Under Incr. Irrigation (+25%) and Storage (+50%) by

2050

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Rice Wheat Maize Soybean Cotton

Source : IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2013 simulations

Conclusions

Bioeconomy scenario—conserving energy and water in agriculture (here reduced fertilizer input; and water use efficiency improvements) can be achieved through agricultural R&D and knowledge-intensive agriculture

Increase in storage alone has limited impacts on global food prices; but storage development together with irrigation expansion significantly reduces global food prices

Additional benefits from storage through energy generation and reduction of price volatility

Policy Recommendations Rise in real prices of natural resources

increases importance of market-based approaches for managing environmental services (water pricing, water markets, PES)

Increased and better-managed investment in hydropower development

Modernize crop water productivity breeding programs in developing countries through provision of genomics, high throughput gene-sequencing, bio-informatics and computer tools.

Future Additions to Models

IMPACT− Integrate storage and hydropower infrastructure scenarios− Account for energy use in groundwater pumping for

irrigation− Account for water shortages affecting the energy sector

(during dry years) in terms of power output reduction− Refine energy consumption associated with water demand− Assess the impact of storage to manage variability

Energy sector model− Analyze trade-offs across the energy—food divide using a

water lens