Elsevier

Biomass and Bioenergy

Volume 151, August 2021, 106158
Biomass and Bioenergy

Socioenvironmental impacts of biogas production in a cooperative agroenergy condominium

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106158Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Agroenergy condominiums may enhance socioenvironmental performance of small farms.

  • Waste management is improved and GHG emissions are mitigated by biogas production.

  • Firewood and LPG consumption is reduced in farms with agroenergy condominiums.

  • Specialized training programs are highly required in agroenergy condominiums.

  • Ambitec-Agroenergy is a valuable tool to asses agroenergy condominiums.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the impacts of biogas production implemented by family farmers organized in a cooperative agroenergy condominium. Evidences of changes in socioenvironmental performance were obtained through field observations and queries to the farmers. Observed ‘change coefficients’ were inserted into multicriteria indicators, weighted by their spatial scale of occurrence in the rural establishments, and impact indices were calculated for a set of seven characterization aspects (technological efficiency, environmental quality, productive process, employment, income, health, and management, and administration), integrated in 23 criteria and 123 indicators. The resulting impact indices of the implementation of the cooperative agroenergy condominium pointed out to positive performances in most of the criteria, with occasional transitory negative indices in specific indicators, related to farmers' particular contexts. Statistically significant positive results were obtained for seven of the ten Ecological impact criteria, as follows (i) use of agricultural inputs and resources; (ii) energy consumption; (iii) self-generation, utilization, reuse, and autonomy in the agricultural area; (iv) energy security; (v) emissions to the atmosphere; (vi) soil quality, and (vii) water quality. In the Socioenvironmental impacts dimension, statistically significant positive results were found for the following criteria: (i) productivity; (ii) productive integration in the concept of biorefinery/Ecopark; (iii) training; (iv) qualification and availability of work; (v) income generation; (vi) waste disposal, and (vii) institutional relationship. The agroenergy condominium contributed to reducing environmental impacts, promoting productive efficiency and improving income generation in the cooperating family farms.

Introduction

Agroenergy condominiums are collective business arrangements instituted to bring economies of scale and enabling energy production in small and medium-sized rural organizations. Such arrangements have been created in Southern Brazil as experimental endeavors, to promote the harnessing of energy from animal wastes, through the production of biogas.

Many variations exist in concept and terminology used to classify biogas production plants [1]. Collective biogas production arrangements are common, e.g., in Germany, encouraged by government subsidies called ‘feed-in tariff system’ [2]; and especially in Denmark, where implementation of these collective plants were pioneered in the early 1980s [3]. The Danish collective arrangements were also driven by government incentives, technological innovations, and economies of scale in relation to individual plants. Typically, for their organizational structuring, cooperatives were created containing from just five up to 100 rural producers [3], and today these so-called centralized plants account for most of the biogas produced in that country [4].

According to the World Bioenergy Association [5], world biogas production showed an average growth rate of 11.2% from 2000 to 2014, the year in which a volume of 58.7 billion normal cubic meters was reached (Nm³), with the leadership of the European Union (49%), China (25.6%), the United States (14.4%), Thailand (2.2) and India (1.4%). In Brazil, despite the exceptionally large supplies of biomass [[6], [7]], the effective participation of biogas in the energy matrix remains far below the energetic potential. Biomass represents 27% of the Brazilian energy matrix (294 Mtpe), with a predominance of sugarcane (18%, of which 11% is electricity and 7% ethanol), firewood and charcoal (8.7%), and in smaller scale, residual biomass for biogas production (0.0001%) [8]. Fortunately, a recent survey by the International Center for Renewable Energies [9] showed that Brazilian production has grown by remarkable 26.9% yearly between 2010 and 2019, from 0.168 to 1.345 billion Nm3.

A series of public and private actions focused on energy production within the scope of Brazilian agribusiness has been underway, aiming at harnessing the energetic potential of organic agricultural residues, especially animal wastes, for production of biogas in rural family farms. This is because family farming constitutes 77.4% (3.9 million) of agricultural establishments, occupies 23% (80.9 million ha) of the agricultural area, is responsible for 67% (10.1 million people) of occupations in rural areas, 23% of the total value of Brazilian agricultural production (R$ 107 billion), and owns the majority of the poultry (80%), swine (81%) and cattle (76%) in the country [10].

The Southern state of Paraná is one of the main Brazilian producers of animal protein, with the municipality of Marechal Cândido Rondon centering the macro-region with the largest flock of poultry, and the second largest herd of pigs in the country. Besides its high potential for production of biogas from animal wastes, with consequent reduction in GHG emissions, the municipality is located on the margins of Itaipu Hydroelectric Plant reservoir, and has the great challenge of reducing water eutrophication risks.

Nonetheless, there is still some limitations of scale of producing biogas in the context of small rural family farms. In general, small-scale production presents vulnerabilities due to the lack of technical assistance and inadequate handling of biodigesters and usage of biogas, which can result in methane leakage and negative environmental impacts [11]. Such difficulties could well be mitigated by increasing production scale and technological innovations implemented in cooperative agroenergy condominiums.

In the last decade, changes were made in the regulatory framework aimed at both the mitigation of environmental impacts of animal production and the use of waste for the production of biogas and biomethane [12]. In addition, the National Electric Energy Agency regulated the distributed generation of electric energy by associations and cooperatives through the National Interconnected System[[13], [14]].

Once these opportunities and challenges are recognized, field-implemented agroenergy projects must be thoroughly analyzed, aiming at providing information about their environmental, economic, and social impacts [15,16]. Among the wide diversity of existing methods for such socioenvironmental impact studies, each presenting advantages and limitations, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) are used for various production processes, including biogas [[17], [18], [19]].

However, despite existing adaptations to consider technical vulnerabilities and social concerns [20,21], the insertion of economic and social dimensions into the LCA structure is still at an early stage [22]. In addition to LCA, approaches are available to analyze the economic viability of biomass energy harnessing projects [23,24], but the results are strictly monetary, lacking sufficient social and environmental relevance.

On the other hand, multi-criteria models have been shown to be suitable for assessing the impacts of projects related to the recovery of energy from wastes, by considering the wide diversity of environmental, social, and economic aspects involved [25,26]. Multi-criteria analysis can be appropriately structured, as to respond with flexibility towards the variety of contexts represented by individual family farms within an agroenergy condominium, while also intelligible regarding the social, environmental, and technical complexities of agroenergy production, distribution, and impacts [27]. Also, multi-criteria models are easily adaptable for both the prior (ex-ante) and posterior (ex-post) assessments of technological processes implementation [28], thus contributing towards the planning and decision-making stages of innovation management.

The objective of this research was to assess the socioenvironmental impacts of biogas production by family farmers organized in a cooperative agroenergy condominium, based on the application of a specially designed system of multi-criteria indicators [29], as to critically analyze the organizational and technological challenges of bioenergy production, as well as to propose recommendations for managerial improvements.

Section snippets

Agroenergy condominium

The ‘Agroenergy Condominium for Family Agriculture Ajuricaba’, henceforth named Condominium Ajuricaba (Fig. 1), is located in the municipality of Marechal Cândido Rondon, in Paraná State, Southern Brazil. According to Köppen's classification, the region climate is humid subtropical (Cfa), with 20.1 °C average annual temperature and 1600 to 1800 mm average annual rainfall [30].

Conceived as a pilot project for small-scale biogas production, the agroenergy condominium was initially designed on a

Ecological impacts dimension

In the dimension related to ecological impacts, favorable results were observed for four criteria of the Technology efficiency aspect: (i) use of agricultural inputs and resources; (ii) energy consumption; (iii) self-generation, utilization, reuse and autonomy in the agricultural area and (iv) energy security. Significant results were also obtained for three criteria grouped in the Environmental quality aspect: (v) emissions to the atmosphere; (vi) soil quality, and (vii) water quality (Fig. 4).

Ecological impacts dimension

The objective of this research was to analyze a cooperative model of biogas production implemented as a pilot project to use residual biomass. In addition to improving the disposal of wastes, these alternative business models should be developed with a view to both mitigating the environmental impacts of agricultural wastes, constituting an important strategy to improve access to renewable energy and organic fertilizer in rural family properties. Family farmers can become not only consumers,

Conclusion

Although the implementation of the agroenergy condominium significantly improved the socioenvironmental performances of the cooperating rural establishments, some recommendations for managerial improvements are necessary to the replication of the pilot project. In addition to positive results of replacing LPG, the biogas must be used to produce electricity by net-metering or commercialization in the National Interconnected System. The agroenergy condominiums might be independent energy

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Bruno Henrique Crespo Porto: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft. João Paulo Guimarães Soares: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Geraldo Stachetti Rodrigues: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Ana Maria Resende Junqueira: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Armando de Azevedo Caldeira-Pires: Conceptualization, Supervision. Daiana Gotardo Martinez:

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

To the family farmers from Condominium Ajuricaba, the International Center for Renewable Energies (CIBiogás), Embrapa Suínos e Aves, Embrapa Meio Ambiente, the Graduate Degree Program in Agribusiness of the University of Brasília (PROPAGA/UnB) and the Development Coordination to Renewable Energies from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA).

References (73)

  • M. Cinelli et al.

    Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment

    Ecol. Indicat.

    (2014)
  • J. Pope et al.

    Reconceptualising sustainability assessment

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2017)
  • A.K.N. Reddy

    Lessons from the Pura community biogas project

    En. Sust. Dev.

    (2004)
  • S.F. Mayerle et al.

    Designing optimal supply chains for anaerobic bio-digestion/energy generation complexes with distributed small farm feedstock sourcing

    Renew. Energy

    (2016)
  • N.P.E. Karlsson et al.

    Success factors for agricultural biogas production in Sweden: a case study of business model innovation

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • H. Insam et al.

    Manure-based biogas fermentation residues - friend or foe of soil fertility?

    Soil Biol. Biochem.

    (2015)
  • N. Scarlat et al.

    Biogas: developments and perspectives in europe

    Renew. Energy

    (2018)
  • C.H. Coimbra-Araújo et al.

    Brazilian case study for biogas energy: production of electric power, heat and automotive energy in condominiums of agroenergy

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2014)
  • L. Skovsgaard et al.

    Recent trends in biogas value chains explained using cooperative game theory

    Energy Econ.

    (2018)
  • L. Skovsgaard et al.

    Economies of scale in biogas production and the significance of flexible regulation

    Energy Pol.

    (2017)
  • E.M.M. Esteves et al.

    Life cycle assessment of manure biogas production: a review

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2019)
  • B.K. Sovacool et al.

    Exploring propositions about perceptions of energy security: an international survey

    Environ. Sci. Pol.

    (2012)
  • E. Cherubini et al.

    Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • B. Amon et al.

    Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (2006)
  • J.A. Alburquerque et al.

    Assessment of the fertiliser potential of digestates from farm and agroindustrial residues

    Biomass Bioenergy

    (2012)
  • S. Bachmann et al.

    Phosphorus availability and soil microbial activity in a 3 year field experiment amended with digested dairy slurry

    Biomass Bioenergy

    (2014)
  • A. Kunz et al.

    Advanced swine manure treatment and utilization in Brazil

    Bio Technol.

    (2009)
  • A. Chini et al.

    Evaluation of deammonification reactor performance and microrganisms community during treatment of digestate from swine sludge CSTR biodigester

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2019)
  • X. Yang et al.

    Effects of the German Renewable Energy Sources Act and environmental, social and economic factors on biogas plant adoption and agricultural land use change

    Energy. Sustain. Soc.

    (2021)
  • A.K.P. Meyer et al.

    Future European biogas: animal manure, straw and grass potentials for a sustainable European biogas production

    Biomass Bioenergy

    (2018)
  • M. Garfí et al.

    Evaluating environmental benefits of low-cost biogas digesters in small-scale farms in Colombia: a life cycle assessment

    Bio Technol.

    (2019)
  • S. Huttunen et al.

    Combining biogas LCA reviews with stakeholder interviews to analyse life cycle impacts at a practical level

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • R. Lybæk et al.

    Governing innovation for sustainable development in the Danish biogas sector - a historical overview and analysis of innovation

    Sustain. Dev.

    (2013)
  • WBA

    World Bioenergy Association

    WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics 2017

    (2017)
  • EPE

    Empresa de Pesquisa Energética

    Balanço Energético Nacional 2020 (Relatório Síntese)

    (2020)
  • CI-BIOGÁS

    Centro Internacional de Energias Renováveis

    Nota Técnica: N° 02/2020 – Panorama do biogás no Brasil em 2019

    (2020)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Present address: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Cocoa Research and Innovation Center, Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 22, CEP: 45.600-970, Ilhéus, BA, Brazil.

    View full text