Many assessments of the ability of biofuels to displace carbon-intensive fossil fuels do not take into account the effects of land-use change when the cultivation of the biomass replaces the cultivation of other crops that are then grown else­where on land with high carbon stocks, such as in cleared rainforest areas. More importantly, when the demand for the original crop remains the same, the transfer of cropland from edible to non-edible crops will only result in a displacement of carbon from one location to the other. This outcome, as Eisentraut (2010, p. 9) points out, “can also have a severe impact on biodiversity if valuable ecosystems are destroyed to grow the replaced crops”.

With a growing demand for biofuels, areas of natural vegetation, with huge amounts of embedded carbon, both in living tissue and in the soil below, could increasingly be cleared to make way for crops destined to be used in biofuel pro­duction. In fact, available land will be the most significant consideration limiting global penetration of biofuels (Larson 2008). Land-use efficiency is therefore a crucial consideration in selecting the type of feedstock to be cultivated. In most cases, the conversion of areas of native vegetation to biomass plantations would bring about the establishment of vast monocultures that would not sustain dis­placed fauna, particularly given that organisms other than those destined for cul­tivation would be controlled, and indeed destroyed in most cases. These processes could potentially hasten the demise of indigenous species in the area where non­native species have been planted for biomass cultivation (Eisentraut 2010). For example, following the invasive behaviour of Jatropha in Australia, the South African government banned Jatropha cultivation (Gasparatos et al. 2012). Other African nations, however, have not imposed any restriction on this crop, probably on account of its potential to boost economic growth (Arndt et al. 2010). It is well recognized that terrestrial biodiversity is contingent upon the continued existence of requisite amounts of unspoilt land. In more or less untouched environments, a wide variety of life is able to exist. A prime example of the threat posed by mono­cultures is provided by the orangutan, whose existence is being threatened by the growing global demand (particularly in Europe) for palm kernel oil (PPK), an edi­ble oil used for biodiesel production, among a wide variety of commercial uses. Aside from having their natural habitat destroyed, farmers in Southeast Asia also kill these animals because they eat the young shoots of oil palm trees (Brown and Jacobson 2005).

Some authors, such as Moreira and Goldemberg (1999), have argued that bioethanol, and presumably biodiesel by extension, is more effective from a CO2 mitigation and abatement perspective than the preservation of primeval forests. As Charles et al. (2007) have pointed out, this logic is highly mono-dimensional, since widespread deforestation would lead to the loss of innumerable species, many not yet described in the scientific literature, and which could have signifi­cant benefits to humanity. Although increased biofuel use could assist with reduc­ing GHG emissions, this clearly should not compromise the planet’s biodiversity, the preservation of which should be of paramount importance from an ecological perspective. The good news is that second-generation lignocellulosic production processes should be able to cope more effectively with (1) mixed-source timber sourced from forest plantations or (2) residue such as bark and sawdust from timber milling operations that process a variety of species (Stephen et al. 2011). These plantations, though not perfect from a biodiversity perspective, at least offer a more varied environment for other life. Keeney and Nanninga (2008, p. 3) con­tend that a mix of perennial grasses and shrubs, with typically large root systems, is a better choice than a monoculture of biofuel crops, as they “stabilize the soils, sequester carbon, regulate water run-off, attract wildlife and support biodiversity”.

Deforestation for the purposes of making more arable land available for bio­mass cultivation could also result in localized climate change, aside from the release of significant amounts of embedded carbon as a result of burn-offs and grubbing up the soil (Rees et al. 2005). Throughout the world, tropical rainfor­ests have been cleared extensively to make land available for biomass cultiva­tion. In particular, deforestation has been linked to decreasing local rainfall levels (Pimental et al. 2002; Schneider et al. 2000). This could also impact, by way of extension, on the suitability of the area for biomass cultivation, or at least the growing of certain types of crops, thereby doubling the negative effects of the land-use change (Charles et al. 2009). Indeed, these factors, as Firbank (2005) has argued, will make it extremely difficult to plan for future land usage.

Another potential impact of land-use change is erosion. If native vegetation is replaced by annual crops, such as those used for first-generation biofuels, a lack of cover as the plants grow can result in significant soil loss as a result of wind or water erosion, or potentially both (Lubowski et al. 2006). In some cases, this lack of cover enhances the potential of run-off contributing to flooding, with disastrous effect on local communities downstream. Furthermore, the very preparation of the soil itself before planting can expose it to erosion (Huggins and Reganold 2008). It is fortunate that the optimum biomass for second-generation processes, which will hopefully supplant a good deal of first-generation production, are perennial species. Such plants provide greater cover, protection against wind and water ero­sion, and increase the soil’s water-retention capacity (Eisentraut 2010). Their use also has the positive effect of increasing the carbon stock of the soil through the presence of roots and humus (Eisentraut 2010), though the release of existing soil carbon for the planting of these biofuel crops should not be discounted.

In effect, demand for biofuel in the developed world could result in developed nations exporting local environmental degradation to the developing world, more so since these areas may be subject to less stringent environmental management and ecological governance. One needs to bear in mind that roughly 40 % of biofu­els are already being produced in emerging and developing economies (Eisentraut 2010), with that percentage likely to increase markedly. Effective environmental management is probably not regarded as a luxury that some nations can afford, however irrational that logic may be from a long-term sustainability perspective. This environmental degradation could also lead to opportunity costs resulting from a loss of potential eco-tourism income. It follows that, if developing countries focus more on biomass export than biofuel production per se, it is important that the feedstocks exported be as energy dense as possible so as to maximize effi­ciency in light of the potentially negative effects signalled above, more so since the long-distance transport of biomass also has a considerable environmental impact (Eisentraut 2010).