Key messages and implications from Chapter 3

That biofuel projects can have both negative and positive social impacts has been established based on the substantive findings from the Indian case study presented here, as well the examples provided earlier in Chapters 1 and 2. The major stakeholders in Indian biofuel feedstock production and their respective expectations have been recorded; social impacts (positive and negative) across five social variables for three different approaches have been ranked and mapped; and their potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts have been identified. Through the assessment and analysis of specific social variables it has been found that change of land use to biofuel feedstock production has potential social risks, particularly in terms of the ‘community resources’ variable, independent of approach, scale, and choice of land type. For the other four variables there is significant scope for improvement for each of the investigated models. The farmer-centred production model has recorded the highest ‘social

75

score’ as it adopts an inclusive approach and, to an extent, attempts to align the mandate of the facilitating agency with the needs of local farmers. The government-centred model excludes local communities from any decision-making processes and so registers the lowest score, whilst the corporate-centred model has an intermediate score as it does engage with local farmers, but retains a higher degree of control over the production chain. Essentially, the level of participation and inclusion of local communities in the planning, decision-making and implementation of bioenergy projects in India has a direct bearing on the type of social impacts that can be predicted. These outcomes contribute towards answering thesis objective [B]: analysing the contribution of specific production models to meeting social criteria (page 18). The approach to assessing social impacts of bioenergy feedstock production models presented in this Chapter, following the learning from the Indian case study, helps in understanding the wider context within which specific bioenergy projects have been formulated. This procedure was developed using existing models of feedstock production, though it is intended to be an a priori approach to identify social impacts in the planning phases, and thus contributes to thesis objective [A]. The approach set out in this Chapter provides policy makers and implementing agencies with a relatively easy-to-use and low resource-intensive tool that could be effectively used for identifying potential social risks and provide an opportunity to (re-) strategise accordingly. The identified positive social impacts are indicators against which the intervention can be monitored from a social impact perspective during both its implementation and post- implementation phases. On the other hand, the negative social impacts need to be discussed and addressed so that they are either eliminated if at all possible, or minimised by formulating and adopting alternative strategies. As with the positive impacts, the outcomes of these alternative approaches could also be indicators for future monitoring. For this approach to be effective in the Indian context it would need to be incorporated into planning procedures at either national or state level. This is because the market for biofuel feedstock is likely to be internal (i.e., not produced for export) due to high, politically driven demand, and therefore international market-based mechanisms such as certification (see section 2.1.1(a), page 22) would not be able to ensure sustainability.

To ameliorate the identified negative social consequences and design improved scenarios it is vital to engage more extensively with stakeholders to define alternative approaches, assess the anticipated impacts of implementing them, determine the additional costs that would be incurred, and finally define realistic potential strategies for each. This is a complex exercise and would need to be undertaken in a fully consultative manner that includes all relevant

76

stakeholders. For this, multi-stakeholder consultations (MSC) would need to be organised. All stakeholders – from policy makers to the targeted populations – should be adequately represented at this consultation for it to be effective. Facilitating MSC requires a specific skill set and experience in order to balance out differential power dynamics between the stakeholders and to ensure that each stakeholder group has an equal voice in the entire process. This is an extremely challenging but nonetheless necessary task. The approach to understanding stakeholder dynamics in bioenergy projects as presented in Chapter 4 is intended to assist this process.

In conclusion, it is important to acknowledge that there is not one ideal solution to this complex set of interactions between social, economic and environmental concerns that cut across interests at the local level to those at the national and global levels. There are tools such as the one presented here that facilitate the design of socially beneficial initiatives; nevertheless, getting the balance between these three key parameters of sustainability absolutely right is a major challenge. There are almost certainly going to be trade-offs involved. The crucial question is whether, for a particular area and a particular set of stakeholders, these trade-offs are mutually acceptable. Managing trade-offs requires the participation of stakeholders in the planning process. Getting stakeholder roles, requirements and risks (their dynamics) taken into consideration before project design and implementation takes places is the intention of the approach in Chapters 4 and 5, and a major driver of the research behind this thesis as a whole. The structured approach proposed in Chapter 4 contributes to the development of the SIA methodology and results from India presented above. During the SIA fieldwork and analysis it became apparent from the results that enabling stakeholders to get their dynamics understood before planning takes place, and ensuring they are adequately represented in the process, would be a major contribution to a successful outcome. However, how to achieve this in practise was found to be a daunting and poorly defined task. Using the excellent stakeholder relationships provided by Re-Impact and the opportunity to spend additional time in the case study locations, I worked towards designing an approach to follow SIA which would improve this aspect of sustainability planning.

77

Chapter 4.

Stakeholder Dynamics in Bioenergy Feedstock Production; the case of

Jatropha curcas L. for Biodiesel in Chhattisgarh State, India

Building on the methodology for assessing the social effects of bioenergy projects presented in Chapter 3, here an additional approach to understanding stakeholder dynamics in bioenergy projects is proposed, contributing towards objective [A] “methodological development” (page 18). The approach is designed to facilitate the multi-stakeholder consultation (MSC) required for SIA and therefore, indirectly, contribute to successful sustainability planning as discussed in Chapter 2. The case of Jatropha curcas L. based biofuels production in India is taken as a case study. Using the methodology in this case addresses thesis objective [B] as the understanding of socio-economic aspects and stakeholder dynamics in feedstock production models in this case study is improved. The research behind this Chapter was personally designed and driven, with practical support from Re-Impact colleagues at Winrock International India. Their contribution was to facilitate initial stakeholder meetings. The approach and analysis was entirely my own, but verified by co-authors once completed. This has been submitted to, and revised according to constructive referee comments from, the journal Biomass and Bioenergy.

Firstly some background on socio-economic issues and sustainability in bioenergy production is given, followed by a discussion contextualising the need for and compatibility of my approach with SIA. The approach is then introduced and its application in the Indian State of Chhattisgarh reported. The planning and undertaking of stakeholder interactions in Chhattisgarh, including the initial contact with stakeholders, is documented and techniques presented for analysing the results. Consideration is given to the social impacts that the different models of Jatropha seed production analysed are having or are likely to have locally through a typology of different production models. The final stage of the approach is social mapping, which sets out the stakeholder roles, requirements and risks (dynamics) through identification of their decision- making power and risk in a representative range of models. Following the analysis of the results in this case, the usefulness of the approach towards planning for sustainability is reviewed.