ABSTRACT

Title of Dissertation: SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
POLICY INTERVENTIONS IN THE
FOOD-ENERGY-WATER NEXUS

Ipsita Kumar
Doctor of Philosophy, 2022

Dissertation Directed by: Professor Laixiang Sun
Department of Geographical Sciences

The food-energy-water (FEW) nexus is considered essential for human survival and critical

for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, pressures on each component

of the nexus are growing as a result of population and economic growth. The FEW nexus can

also be affected by competition for limited land, climate change, and demand and supply changes.

Although government policies targeting one of the components of the nexus will directly affect

the others, they are still not accounting for the interconnectedness of all three.

The dissertation, through three essays seeks to understand how government policies would

affect the FEW nexus, focusing on Thailand or Brazil. The first essay assesses challenges with

crop residue burning in Thailand. Additionally, the essay highlights policies implemented that

target residue burning or its use and the potential solutions through crop residue use. The

second essay examines specific policies on crop residue burning and renewable energy (RE)

production to understand their impacts on sustainability. An extended input-output model is



run to using policy scenarios for the future to gauge its impacts on total output, gross value

added, employment, labor income, key input use, land use, water use and CO2 emissions on

Thailand and Northeast Thailand. The final essay explores food and energy security given water

supply limitations as water availability greatly impacts availability of food and energy. It uses a

region in São Paulo, Brazil, where RE policies and other interventions have helped make ethanol

production and use cost effective. A model is developed to maximize profits while optimally

allocating water to food, energy and municipal water. The study looks at a normal rainfall year,

and also runs a future demand change scenario. The dissertation concludes by detailing the

challenges that exist, future potential for the FEW nexus policies, limitations and uncertainties.

The dissertation establishes that given the interlinked nature of the FEW nexus, policies

need to be implemented to account for all three components. The first essay shows that over

time, an increasing number of policies in Thailand target crop residue burning through controlling

burning or its use in RE production. Although these policies have been implemented, there are

still shortcomings in the policy targets for biomass use, and in the large water use by the sector,

as highlighted in essay 1 and 2. Essay 2 also demonstrates social, economic and environmental

benefits of using crop residue for RE through employment generated, labor income increases, and

CO2 emission reduction in Thailand and Northeast Thailand. We also see increasing competition

for land for energy, with sugarcane potentially overtaking rice in Northeast Thailand. In essay

3, we see that while Brazil has implemented sound policies on RE, there are water security

challenges, and competition between food, energy and municipal water supply. We see that the

current infrastructure cannot satisfy future demand, leading to competing demands and equity

challenges. Finally, in the conclusion, the research highlights uncertainties about future demand,

water supply, technology, price, etc. along with potential policies.



SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF POLICY INTERVENTIONS
IN THE FOOD-ENERGY-WATER NEXUS

by

Ipsita Kumar

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

2022

Advisory Committee:
Professor. Laixiang Sun, Chair/Advisor
Professor. Kuishuang Feng, Co-Chair/Co-Advisor
Dr. Varaprasad Bandaru
Professor. Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm
Professor. Nathan Hultman



© Copyright by
Ipsita Kumar

2022



Dedication

To my late mother, Sangeeta Prasad, and my father Manoj Kumar.

ii



Acknowledgments

I would firstly like to thank my late mother Sangeeta Prasad and father Manoj Kumar for

always supporting in me, and believing in me, even when imposter syndrome got the best of

me. Thank you papa for supporting me even through the late night tears, health issues and all

the drama the PhD brought forth. I would also like to thank my brother Aditya Kumar who

would calm me down through all the frustrations. Shivangi for being the calm before, during

and after the storm. I would also like to thank the rest of my family, Rajesh Prasad Shrivastav

(Bada mama), Rashmi Shrivastav (Badi Mami), Jayant Kumar (Bade Papa), Rakesh Prasad

Shrivastav (Chota Mama), Rumi Shrivastav (Choti Mami), Santosh Kumar (Chacha), Chetna

Sinha (Chachi), Rohini Shrivastav Verma (Cotton), Shashank Verma (J), Shilpi Shrivastav, Shreya

Shrivastav (Cibbi), Pratik Singh Thakuri, Shrinkhala Shrivastav (Shalu), Abhishek Muley (Bala),

Shraddhan Shrivastav (Rohan) and Kelli Kimura.

I want to thank my adopted DC parents Mohini Malhotra and Tilman Ehrbeck for all their

love and support (including but not limited to food, drinks, therapy, accountability, and overall

taking care of me). My adopted DC family Lany, Pedro and John – COVID/PhD was made

so much fun with all the food we cooked and/or fed. My other DC people Tyler, Tove, Noel,

Shantana, Roman, Nick.

My companions in the field, I would like to thank Becky and Allison who were always

around. My work wives Kaihui, and Xiangjie who would be there for help even in the middle

iii



of the night. The HDGC team Baobao, Yuhao, Guangxiao. My other PhD friends Aolin, Luna,

Mofeng and Xinyuan.

I would also like to thank more family (in no particular order) Meenu mausi and Rick,

Kumud nani and Rabindra nana, Manju nani and SK nana, Udaya aunty and Harsha uncle,

Shivani, Shaan, Manish mama and Faiza mami, Vinnie mausi and Bob mausa, Shanu mama and

Shailaja mami, Bob mama and Sumi mami. My friends Chirag, Maya, Mayanka, Vasu, Arpita,

Laureline, Lisa, Margo, Priyank, Anja, Cody, Kaicker, Hib, Alex, Aleks, Nidhi, Josh, Federico,

and so many more that I am currently forgetting (Sorry!!!).

I would also like to thank all the Instagram PhD meme accounts for helping me laugh

through my tears.

Laixiang, thanks for encouraging my ideas, supporting me when I was down, and always

smiling (and helping me smile) at the hardest times. Kuishuang, thanks for your support, even if

it was 2 am or the weekend. Finally, I would like to thank my committee, Varaprasad Bandaru,

Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm and Nathan Hultman.

iv



Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

Table of Contents v

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

List of Abbreviations x

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2.1 Case for Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Case for Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3 Objectives, Essay Questions and Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter 2: Limiting rice and sugarcane residue burning in Thailand: Current status,
challenges and strategies 12

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Current status and dynamics of rice and sugarcane residue burning in Thailand . . 14
2.3 Impacts of crop residue burning on the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 Existing programs and policies and their implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4.1 Cane and Sugar Act of 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.2 Renewable Energy Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.5 Direct efforts to reduce residue burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.6 Challenges to control residue burning in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7 Potential strategies and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.7.1 Renewable energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.7.2 Green harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.7.3 Other uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 3: Adoption of biomass for electricity generation in Thailand: Implications for
energy security, employment, environment, and land use change 33

v



3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2 Material and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.2.1 Extended Input Output Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2.2 Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.3 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.1 Social and Economic Impacts for Thailand and Northeast Thailand . . . 44
3.3.2 Environmental Impacts for Thailand and Northeast Thailand . . . . . . . 52

3.4 Discussion: Potential and critical future supply changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Chapter 4: Multi-reservoir, multi-demand water optimization model through maximization
of profits and social equity: A case for Sao Paulo, Brazill 63

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.2.1 Profit Maximization Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2.2 Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.3.1 Current status of water use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.3.2 Future status of water use and delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Chapter 5: Conclusion 82
5.1 Summary of Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

5.1.1 Essay 1 (Chapter 2): Limiting rice and sugarcane residue burning in
Thailand: Current status, challenges and strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

5.1.2 Essay 2: Adoption of biomass for electricity generation in Thailand:
Implications for energy security, employment, environment, and land use
change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5.1.3 Essay 3 (Chapter 4): Multi-reservoir, multi-demand water optimization
model through maximization of profits and social equity: A case for São
Paulo, Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.2 Future Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.3 Challenges with Uncertainty in the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.4 Where do we go from here? Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Appendix A: Appendix for Chapter 3 93
A.1 Methodology for Fleggs’ Location Quotient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
A.2 Supplementary Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Appendix B: Appendix for Chapter 4 99

Bibliography 105

vi



List of Tables

2.1 Fraction of crop residue burned by region in Thailand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Emissions of air pollutants (Kilotonne/Year) from different crops in Thailand. . . 17
2.3 Environmental and Economic Potential for Second Generation Biodiesel and

Bioethanol in 3 Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.1 Scenario setting for the model for paddy and sugarcane for electricity production 43
3.2 Scenario setting for the model for paddy and sugarcane for electricity production 50

B.1 Data name, units and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

vii



List of Figures

1.1 The Food-Energy-Water Nexus, interactions, competition and drivers of change . 2

2.1 Biomass burned (million tonnes) from 1961-2017 in Thailand from rice and
sugarcane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2 Energy Generated and Potential in GWh from 2009-2017 in Thailand. . . . . . . 21

3.1 Changes in total output of the economy driven by demand changes (direct, indirect
and induced) for 3 scenarios from the 2014 baseline in Thailand (left) and Northeast
Thailand (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.2 Changes in the total output of the electricity sector (direct, indirect and induced)
for 3 scenarios from the 2014 baseline in Thailand (left) and Northeast Thailand
(right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.3 Increases from 2014 in total input from the key sectors (direct, indirect and
induced) for 3 scenarios in Thailand (listed from the largest increase to the smallest). 51

3.4 Increases from 2014 in total input from the key sectors (direct, indirect and
induced) for 3 scenarios in Northeast Thailand (listed from the largest increase to
the smallest) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.5 Increase from 2014 in water use in electricity generation (direct, indirect and
induced) for the 3 scenarios in Thailand and Northeast Thailand in million dollars,
and in thousand m3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.6 Value Added of Land input scenarios for sugarcane increase in 2014, 2022 and
2036 for Thailand (upper) and Northeast Thailand (lower) and the Value added
per hectare (USD/Ha) for the different crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.1 Municipal and Reservoir Connections for the study region of São Paulo State . . 71
4.2 Rice water supply for 2017 demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.3 Cane water supply for 2017 demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.4 Municipal water supply for 2017 demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.5 Rice water supply for 2040 demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.6 Municipal water supply for 2040 demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A.1 (a) Share of electricity (%) by type in Thailand (1986-2020) (b) Total electricity
consumed (GWh) in Thailand by type (1986-2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

A.2 Emissions reduction for 2014 and three scenarios as a result of biomass use in
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

viii



A.3 Area harvested and producer price of rice and sugarcane in Thailand from 1991
to 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

B.1 Monthly Average price of rice and sugarcane (USD Per 50 kg) . . . . . . . . . . 103
B.2 Energy water supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

ix



List of Abbreviations

AEDP Alternative Energy Development Plan
AOI Agricultural Orientation Index
ASEAN Agreement by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CILQ Cross-Industry Location Quotient
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CRR Crop Residue Ratio
DEDE Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency
DGG Distributed-Green-Generation
ENCON Energy Conservation
EPPO Energy Policy and Planning Office
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FEW Food-Energy-Water
FFV Flex Fuel Vehicles
FLQ Fleggs Location Quotient
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GRP Gross Regional Product
GTAP Global Trade Analysis Project
GVA Gross Value Added
GWh Gigawatt Hour
IO Input-Output
MT Metric Tons
MW Megawatt
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
ONWR Office of National Water Resources
OCSB Office of the Cane and Sugar Board
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PM Particulate Mater
PROALCOOL Brazilian Alcohol Program

(Programa Nacional do Álcool)
RE Renewable Energy
SABESP State Water and Sanitation Autonomous Utility

(Saneamento Básico Do Estado De São Paulo)

x



SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SLQ Simple Location Quotient
SMA Sao Paulo State Secretary of Environment

(Secretaria de Infraestrutura e Meio Ambiente)
SPP Small Power Producers
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
TE Total Employment

xi



Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

In 2012, global leaders and other stakeholders met at The United Nations Conference on

Sustainable Development - more commonly known as the Rio+20 - to bring forth the idea of

the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Following the conference, a working group of the

United Nations member states was set up, with the objective of producing a set of universal goals

that meet the urgent environmental, political and economic challenges facing our world [1]. In

2015, these SDGs, which included 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 unique indicators were adopted,

to achieve by 2030. These SDGs provided a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people

and the planet, now and into the future [2].

While the SDGs have various goals, targets and indicators, there are interactions and

overlaps between them. It is therefore significant to incorporate nexus approaches to achieve

the individual and overall goals. The food-energy-water (FEW) is one such nexus, which directly

targets the SDGs of zero hunger (Goal 2), clean water and sanitation (Goal 6), affordable and

clean energy (Goal 7), decent work and economic growth (Goal 8), responsible consumption and

production (Goal 12), and climate action (Goal 13). The food-energy-water (FEW) interactions

highlight the interdependence of resources required by society, the economy and the environment.

As population and economies grow, so does the demand for food, energy and water, as does

1



Figure 1.1: The Food-Energy-Water Nexus, interactions, competition and drivers of change

the competition for limited resources. Changing production and consumption patterns of food

and energy can directly and/or indirectly affect land use, water use, greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions, employment, etc, as seen in Figure 1.1. Although agriculture is the largest consumer

of freshwater in the world [3], there is increasing competition for the resource from other sectors,

for example, energy generation. According to the World Water Development Report, nearly all

major agricultural systems (18 of 22) globally will face medium to very high water stress by

2050 [3]. The report also states that the industry and energy sector water demand will grow 24%

by 2050 (from 18% in 2010). At the same time, climate change will affect the availability, quality

and quantity of water. Therefore, strategies need to be implemented to better manage and adapt

to these changes, while also incorporating the FEW nexus.

As mentioned, the FEW nexus is the backbone to achieving many of the SDGs. Although

currently, 800 million people face hunger, by 2050, global food production would have to increase

2



by 50% to feed the projected 9 billion plus people [4]. This becomes a water security challenge

as well, given its high reliance of water. Global water use has been increasing at the rate of 1%

per year for the past 100 years, and is expected to rise significantly in the future [5]. Currently,

approximately 3.6 billion people, or nearly half the worlds population live in potentially water-

scarce areas at least one month per year, and this population could increase to 4.8–5.7 billion

by 2050. Additionally, 90% of the global power generation is considered water intensive and

by 2035, water withdrawals for energy production could increase by 20% and consumption by

85% [6]. There are also external challenges as there is limited land, leading to competition

between food and energy production as countries begin to use biomass for energy generation,

and climate change affecting water, food and energy production.

Given these challenges, governments are moving towards a more sustainable future, by

implementing policies, which help reduce energy imports, increase renewable energy use, and

develop further infrastructure to improve efficiency, etc. To achieve these goals, there needs to

be a better understanding of the trade-offs that exist in the FEW nexus, socio-economic impacts

of these trade-offs, and how to better manage water given competition between the many sectors,

and the changing supply, demand. Policy interventions also need to align with the interests of

food, energy and water security by countries.

Government policies targeting one pillar of the FEW nexus will directly affect all three.

Although many countries globally face challenges with the FEW nexus, the research in this

dissertation will focus on Thailand and Brazil. With regard to the current trajectories, Thailand

implemented renewable energy policies at a large scale in 2015 [7], whereas Brazil began its’

ethanol production in 1975 [8] and can be a learning experience for many low and middle income

countries. While they are at the forefront of renewable energy production and consumption, these

3



two countries face many challenges with renewable energy production from biofuels. These

challenges are not just pertinent to the success of the SDGs, but with the COVID pandemic,

supply disruptions, inflation and the war in Ukraine, they also become critical for the economic

success of a country and for its’ energy security.

1.2 Case Studies

1.2.1 Case for Thailand

Thailand faces challenges with the food-energy-water nexus. According to the World

Resources Institute [9], 10.3% of the population in Thailand is at risk of hunger, and 69.2%

(or 78 million tonnes) crops produced in Thailand experience medium to high drought risk.

Additionally, to meet the growing demand for electricity, Thailand has increased its imports

of electricity since 2009 [10]. In Thailand, there has been an increase in the total amount of

electricity import, as well as the share of import in the electricity mix over time. This reliance

on electricity imports makes Thailand vulnerable from an energy security perspective, given the

challenges above. There is also an expectation that reliance on imports will continue to rise. Coal

import are expected to rise from 18,287 GWh in 2015 to 54,365 GWh in 2036, or an annual

average growth rate of 5.3% [11]. The same study shows that the share of hydropower import in

the total power supply will rise from 7% in 2014 to 15-20% in 2036.

While import and overall demand for electricity increases, there is also a growing production

of crops, in particular, rice and sugarcane. The production of rice paddy increased from 17.2

million tonnes in 1990 to 32.2 million tonnes in 2018. At the same time, sugarcane production

increased from 33.6 million tonnes in 1990 to 104.4 million tonnes in 2018 [12]. Given the

4



increase in production of crop, there is also a large production of crop residue in the country

from these two crops leading to a great potential for use in electricity generation in the country.

Crop residues have traditionally been burned in Thailand, with rice and sugarcane accounting

for 83% of the total burning [4]. Crop residue burning does not just have severe environmental,

socio-economic and health impacts, it is also an inefficient use of a resource. Reduction in crop

residue burning would additionally reduce emissions into the atmosphere. Currently, in Thailand,

paddy husk and sugarcane bagasse account for 71% of the country’s electricity production from

biomass [13], and although this number is high, it is a very small percentage of its potential.

In 2017, the total paddy husk and industrial sugarcane bagasse for electricity generation as a

percentage of the total energy potential from these two crops were 7.44% and 14.75% respectively

[13]. However, this is significantly higher than 0.51% and 0.82% for paddy husk and sugarcane

bagasse respectively in 2009 [13].

Given the increased reliance on import of electricity, the large potential for electricity from

crop residue, the negative effects of crop residue burning, and the potential rise in future import

of electricity, the Government of Thailand implemented two major policies. The aim is to achieve

energy security, a more sustainable energy system and improves infrastructure and technology in

the country. One policy targets crop residue burning, while the other targets crop residue use. The

first policy, implemented by the Ministry of Industry, targets industrial sugarcane residue burning

by ending burned sugarcane use in sugar production, and therefore, sugarcane burning by 2022

[14]. The second policy, implemented by the Department of Alternative Energy Development

and Efficiency (DEDE), Ministry of Energy titled the Alternative Energy Development Plan

(AEDP), seeks to achieve 20% electricity from renewable resources, and in particular, 5570

MW from biomass by 2036 [14]. These interventions however, do not have just effects to the

5



economy and society directly. With increasing production in the electricity sector, other sectors

who supply to them have to increase capacity throughout the supply chain. This is also reflected

in employment and income from labor in particular, as purchasing power of people increases.

Further, Thailand also faces water stress for these crops. An estimated 3.6 million hectares (of

11.6 million hectares) of irrigated rice, and 0.2 million hectares (of 1.05 million hectares) of

irrigated sugarcane is growing under high and extremely high water stress conditions. The study

also shows that by 2030, all of rice and sugarcane farming, which relies on rainfall, will have

high to extremely high water stress [9].

It is also important to look at the Northeast of Thailand given the importance of agriculture

and renewable energy in the region. The Northeast region of Thailand produces 37% of paddy,

44.7% of sugarcane and 47% of electricity from biomass in the country [15–17] making it an

important region to study.

Within Thailand, it is important to understand what the challenges with crop residue burning

are, what policies exist to curtail that burning, the potential of the crop residue use through

best practices around the world. It is also important to understand the impacts of renewable

energy policies and policies targeting crop burning in the future to the economy, society and the

environment. This would help us understand the challenges and potential for achieving the SDGs

in the future. Given the importance of the production of agriculture and renewable energy in the

Northeast region of Thailand, it would be important to look into the how national level policies

will impact the region as well.

6



1.2.2 Case for Brazil

Moving away from Thailand into Brazil, renewable energy in Brazil accounted for 45% of

the total energy supply in 2019, of which, 70% came from biomass [18]. They are also a major

exporter of bioethanol to Europe, United States and Japan [19] and the second largest producer

and the third largest consumer of bioethanol globally [20]. The success of biomass use and

production in Brazil has been achieved through government interventions, and its mechanized

production process in a bid to ensure energy security. The Brazilian Alcohol Program (Programa

Nacional do Álcool PROALCOOL) began in 1975 to reduce its reliance on oil imports, which

was a result of the oil embargo in the Middle East. Grad [21] cited that Brazil’s production

is mechanized from the level of farming to energy production. Although Brazil has a long

growing season, and an abundance of fertile land, it is not the sole reason for its success [8].

The Government of Brazil provided low interest loans to expand mills and distilleries along

with guaranteeing prices. They also invested in research and innovation through public-private

partnerships, and invested in new technologies. They also incentivized purchases of Flex Fuel

Vehicles (FFVs) to increase sales of ethanol-only vehicles by reducing taxes during purchases and

annual licensing fees. All this led to a reduction in the production cost of ethanol from sugarcane

by 70% from 1975 to 2010. Therefore, Brazil was able to reduce costs through research and

development (yield increases), economies of scale (distillation plants), and the effects of learning

by doing induced by the demand [8]. Although Brazil is far ahead of other middle income

countries, they face other challenges. For example, the state of São Paulo, the largest producer

of ethanol in the country [22] faced a major drought from 2013-15 [23] and another in 2021 [24]

which was the worst dry spell in the country as a whole in 91 years [25] leading to reduction in

7



yield for crops [26].

The most recent drought of 2021 affected many parts of Brazil, with reports of people in the

Northeast of Brazil relying on trucks for water supply for their basic needs of drinking, cooking

and hygiene and farm production significantly falling or completely ruined [27]. In Rio Branco,

the capital of the Amazonian state Acre, the mayor declared an emergency due to shortage of

potable water. To avoid complete shortage of water, the Rio Branco municipal government sent

out tanker trucks (5000 liters) of water twice a week, serving 12 rural communities on the capital’s

outskirts [28]. The drought also led to the country losing hydropower outputs equal to the energy

consumed by the city of Rio de Janeiro in five months [29]. Hydropower is the largest source of

energy in Brazil and could lead to major challenges for the future energy security in the country.

Between March and May, dry weather in South-Central Brazil led to many major reservoirs

reaching 20% capacity, prices of soybean increasing by 67% from June 2020 to May 2021 and

electricity costs increasing by 130% [30]. During the year 2021, the Cantareira reservoir system,

that provides water to 8.8 million people along with agriculture and hydropower, was at maximum

capacity on a single day at 53% and a minimum of 36% [31]. This is critical as it not just provides

to industry, but also drinking water to a large part of the population of the city of São Paulo.

Although Brazil can be seen as a prime example of government intervention and policies

that have worked well in terms of increasing renewable energy production and consumption. It

is however, critical to understand how to optimally allocate water while ensuring production,

profits, and drinking water supply.

8



1.3 Objectives, Essay Questions and Research Design

The overall objective is to understand how policies implemented by countries affect social,

economic and environmental issues within the country or a region within a nation. This is

done by first understanding what challenges exist and the policies currently in place (Essay

1), and then understanding what the consequences of renewable energy policies on society,

economy and the environment (Essay 2) and finally understanding how to ensure food and energy

security given increasing droughts and water security challenges even if good renewable energy

policies and plans exist (Essay 3). The motivation of the dissertation is to develop models which

are transparent, replicable in other nations, and can be less computational demanding so as to

facilitate conversations with stakeholders. The study will put forth three essays targeting one

challenge within the FEW nexus. The dissertation research takes different approaches to answer

missing gaps in understanding how policies can affect the FEW nexus. The challenges for

Thailand and Brazil, while critical to the FEW nexus, also delves into challenges of land use,

climate change and energy security. The thesis comprises of 3 essays:

Essay 1 (Chapter 2): Limiting rice and sugarcane residue burning in Thailand: Current

status, challenges and strategies

Crop residue burning is a major challenges in Thailand, especially for rice and sugarcane. It

has implications to the FEW nexus, as well as sustainability as a whole, which has impacts on

health, environment and society. It is also a wasted resource, which has economic potential in

many industries. The first essay is reviewing existing literature and assess the available data to

(1) understand current status of residue burning and practices in Thailand, and their impacts on

environment; (2) discuss existing government policies in Thailand and regions within Thailand

9



and their impact; and (3) discuss sustainable residue management practices, along with some

examples from other countries, and required strategies to implement them.

Essay 2 (Chapter 3): Adoption of biomass for electricity generation in Thailand: Implications

for energy security, employment, environment, and land use change

As we understand that crop residue burning is a challenge in Thailand, and the Government of

Thailand is implementing renewable energy policies, it is important to understand the consequences

of these policies. To understand the social, economic and environmental consequences of changes

in crop residue use for energy generation in Thailand, this paper estimates changes to total output,

gross value added, employment, key input use, and land and water use, as a result of policy

changes and resulting changing demand over time using the extended input-output (IO) model.

Adoption of biomass for electricity generation through the two policies implemented by the

Government of Thailand, will serve as scenarios for the study. The study compares these policies

for the country, and the Northeast region of Thailand. National level policies can have different

impacts on a region as compared to the country as a whole, and it is important to highlight

the difference in these impacts. This is particularly notable for Northeast Thailand, given its

importance for agriculture and energy generation for the country and therefore, an important

region to study.

Input-output models, and in particular, extended IO will help us understand the direct,

indirect and induced effects of renewable energy and crop burning policies on the economy,

society and the environment. The study also discusses challenges that the policies my face which

may not be captured by the model.

Essay 3 (Chapter 4): Multi-reservoir, multi-demand water optimization model through

maximization of profits and social equity: A case for São Paulo, Brazil

10



Although Brazil has been successful in being the prime example of how government policies can

successfully increase production, consumption and export of biomass for electricity generation,

droughts can greatly affect the yield, and overall production of crops. It is therefore important to

optimally allocate water to ensure maximum profits but also a minimum allocation to drinking

water supply. The study looks at 4 reservoirs targeting 22 municipalities in São Paulo state,

including the city of São Paulo. The region is selected as the state is the largest producer

of ethanol in the country. The study assesses how to optimally allocate water to the different

municipalities and sectors given the inflow into reservoirs. The study also delves into the challenges

between food and energy given the limited availability of water and land in the area. It also

looks at social equity through minimum allocation of municipal water supply. While the study

is conducted for São Paulo, the model is easily replicable for other regions in Brazil, as well as

globally.

Finally, Chapter 5 of the thesis summarizes and concludes all three essays, including the

key findings and the future direction of the research.

11



Chapter 2: Limiting rice and sugarcane residue burning in Thailand: Current

status, challenges and strategies

2.1 Introduction

Increasing population and economic growth have driven up demand for food around the

world. This has led to an increase in agricultural production, and therefore crop residue generation.

However, proper management of crop residues is yet to be addressed in many countries. Traditionally,

crop residues have been burned in many parts of the world, contributing to approximately 10%

of the total annual emissions globally from the agricultural sector [32]. The major regional

contributor has been Asia, which accounted for nearly 50% of the total biomass burned, of which,

rice and sugarcane burning holds the largest share [4].

Crop residue burning has many negative impacts, affecting air quality, and emitting a

range of pollutants (e.g. PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2) into the atmosphere [33–35]. The air

pollutants released into the atmosphere has many other harmful effects, including poor visibility

and/or haze [36], deterioration of human health [37], soil quality [38] and local and global

climate change [35, 39]. It therefore also hinders the overall achievement of the Sustainable

Development Goals. Due to its negative impacts on environment and society, crop residue

burning has received large attention at the global, national and local levels, and sustainable

12



residue management practices have been promoted. Further, some examples include phasing

out of manual harvesting in Brazil [40] to control residue burning, inclusion of sustainable

agricultural practices in the Sustainable Development Goals, and Transboundary Haze Pollution

Agreement by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Some of the management

practices alternative to residue burning include 1) recycling residue in the soil through incorporation,

surface retention and mulching to improve the soil physical, chemical and biological properties

[41]; 2) using for livestock feed [42]; 3) bioenergy production [43]; and 4) cooking and lighting

source in rural areas [44].

Thailand faces similar problems with crop residue burning as other developing countries.

It is the 6th and 4th largest producer of rice and sugarcane, respectively, in the world [45]. It

ranks 14th in emissions (CO2 equivalent) from agriculture in the world with a total of 70795.6

gigagrams of emissions in 2014 [46] and ranks 10th in the world for total biomass burned with

a total of 6.8 million tonnes of biomass burned from maize, rice and sugarcane and wheat in

2016 [4]. However, majority of the residue burning comes from rice and sugarcane. A total of

5.6 million tonnes or 83% of the total residue burned comes from these two crops. Therefore,

residue management in rice and sugarcane farming is a critical challenge for Thailand. In 2019,

an estimated 32,000 people died prematurely attributed to to PM2.5 [47] which is largely due to

crop residue burning.

Considering the impacts of residue burning and its severity in Thailand, the objectives of

this paper are to review existing literature and assess the available data to 1) understand current

status of residue burning and practices, and their impacts on environment; 2) discuss existing

government policies and their impact; and 3) discuss sustainable residue management practices,

along with some examples from other countries, and required strategies to implement them.

13



2.2 Current status and dynamics of rice and sugarcane residue burning in Thailand

Residue burning in rice and sugarcane contributes approximately 83% of total residue

burned in Thailand. Rice tops in total residue burned with an average, 4.8 million tonnes (70% of

the total) of residue burned annually followed by sugarcane with on average 1.1 million tonnes

(13% of the total) [4]. Although the percentage of total harvested area subjected to burning in

rice (45%) [48] is less than that of sugarcane percent residue burned harvested area (77%) [49],

total harvested area and residue to product ratio are significantly higher in rice resulting higher

amount of residue burned. For instance, total harvested area in rice was about 10.6 million ha in

2016 which is 7.6 times higher than that of sugarcane (1.4 million ha) [45]. Further, the residue to

product ratio (RPR) for rice straws (1.2) and husk (0.3) is higher than the ratio for sugarcane tops

and leaves (0.2) [50]. Recent trends suggested that although total rice biomass burned is higher,

since 2012, there has been a declining trend in total rice residue burned area while biomass burned

area in sugarcane is increasing. This could be primarily attributed to changes in harvesting areas

of rice and sugarcane with change in market conditions and government priorities for agriculture,

as seen in Figure 2.1.

Regionally, the Central and Northeastern region has the highest fraction of rice residue

burned, while the North has the highest fraction of sugarcane residue burned (Table 2.1). These

coincide with the production of rice but not for sugarcane. The Northeast and Central region are

the largest producers of rice, and for sugarcane, the Northeast region is the largest producer of

sugarcane.

Residue burning practices vary for rice and sugarcane depending on management practices.

For rice, residue burning is more widespread under irrigated paddy cultivation. [52] showed that

14



Figure 2.1: Biomass burned (million tonnes) from 1961-2017 in Thailand from rice and
sugarcane.

Source: [4]

Rice Sugarcane
Fraction (%)

Central 53.99 54.07
North 17.1 81.7

Northeast 57.91 53.61
South 7.9 –

Table 2.1: Fraction of crop residue burned by region in Thailand.

Data Source: [51]

15



2.69 million ha of irrigated paddy fields and 1.21 million ha of rain-fed paddy fields were subject

to open burning. This area accounted for 70% of irrigated rice field area and 18% of rain-fed rice

field area of Thailand. Further, post-harvesting burning is typical in rice whereas pre-harvesting

residue burning is common in sugarcane. A survey conducted in Pathumthani, an intensive rice

burning area in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region showed that 90% of the rice paddies in the high

harvesting season (November-December) were burned after crop was harvested. The study also

showed the intensive burning period of rice straw in Pathumthani lasted from November to April

[53]. In another study, 82% of the total burned area in sugarcane was found to be resulted from

pre-harvesting burning where fire was used to burn residue before cutting sugarcane to facilitate

manual cane harvesting, and remaining 18% residue burned was result of post-harvesting burning

to protect ratoon crop or to prepare the soil for the next crop [49].

2.3 Impacts of crop residue burning on the environment

Various studies were conducted to understand the impacts of open field burning on air

quality and visibility in Thailand [49, 54, 55]. Phairung et. al., [54] reported that rice and

sugarcane account for 64% of PM10, 60% of PM2.5, 86% of NOx and 84% of SO2 emissions

from all agricultural crops and forest fires in Thailand. The air pollutants emitted from residue

burning in rice were reported by different studies while there was a single study reported for

sugarcane, as seen in Table 2.2. These studies showed that the PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in

rice peaked in 2008, later emissions were shown to decline slightly. While we see in Figure

2.1, since 2012, biomass burning has reduced, some of the changes over time for all emissions

could be attributed to different crop residue ratio and emission factors used in the calculation of

16



emissions by the studies. For example, the emission factor ranges from 1177 g/kg by [56] to 1460

g/kg by [57]. Similar pattern was found in the greenhouse gases showing decline after 2008.

YEAR PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO2 CO Source
Rice 2002-06 30.9 108 –– –– 12.21 290 1

2008 120 350 –– –– 14.87 1670 2
2010 80 70 –– –– 10.3 787 3
2014 88.5 80.8 54.6 7.6 –– –– 4
2018 43 38 –– –– 5.3 422 5

Sugarcane 2014 54.2 39.5 19.3 4.6 –– –– 4

Table 2.2: Emissions of air pollutants (Kilotonne/Year) from different crops in Thailand.

Source Note: (1) [57]; (2) [48]; (3) [58]; (4) [54]; (5) [56]

A study in Lampang Province of Northern Thailand where approximately 5000 tonnes of

rice is burned showed that the ultra-fine, fine and coarse particles were 12.6, 2.1 and 3.6 times

higher respectively than during non-burning period [59]. These particles, known as Polycyclic

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) increases the risk of developing lung cancer, especially high

molecular mass PAHs, which are observed during rice burning. A study by Kanabkaew et. al. [60]

showed that rice straw burning was the largest contributor to the total emissions, with an average

of 80% of emissions from crop residue burning. The primary reason for these large numbers

are because rice has a higher crop production, and higher residue to crop ratio compared to

other crops. According to Thongboonchoo et. al. [61], rice is the major source of CO2 and

PM2.5 emissions, accounting for 87% and 93% of the total emissions in the country. Sornpoon

et. al. [49] reported detrimental effects of sugarcane burning on soil carbon stocks. This study

showed that the areas which had 5 years of no burning had 15% higher soil total carbon stock at

0-30 cm depth compared with carbon stocks in areas with burning.

Although there has been extensive research conducted in understanding the amount of

emissions generated by residue burning, their effects on health risks in Thailand are not well

17



understood. The need for quantitative information on health risks with residue burning was

emphasized by [62]. Similarly, Vichit-Vadakan and Vajanapoom [63] pointed out that epidemiological

studies have been limited with some reports of respiratory illnesses after episodic events. Given

the severity of residue burning in Thailand, it is critical that there are comprehensive studies to

assess the impact of individual pollutants released from burning on human health risks.

2.4 Existing programs and policies and their implications

There are various existing programs and policies targeting regulation of rice and sugarcane

production, market stabilization, and promoting renewable energy, which considerably impact

crop residue management. Some of these programs and policies and their implications are

described below.

2.4.1 Cane and Sugar Act of 1984

The Office of the Cane and Sugar Board (OCSB), a government body under the jurisdiction

of the Ministry of Industry of Thailand initiated the Sugar Cane and Granulated Sugar Act on

July 27th, 1984 [64], which regulates Thai sugar sector and rules sugar policy. Under section

56, a revenue-sharing scheme was introduced. Under this scheme, farmers earn 70 percent

of the revenue from domestic and export sales of sugar and molasses, while mills receive the

remaining 30 percent. This scheme did not consider any other sugarcane by-products such as

bagasse and crop residue, which restricts growth of energy production market to some extent.

Inclusion of crop residues in this scheme will encourage farmers to sell the residue for energy

purpose and control residue burning. Considering the air pollution concerns, Thai government

18



has been working with OCSB to make amendments to existing cane and sugar act to include a

larger range of products which may foster sustainable management of sugarcane residues.

2.4.2 Renewable Energy Policies

Thai government has been promoting renewable energy since 1990’s and has implemented

some policies mandating renewable energy production targets. Thailand’s Energy Conservation

(ENCON) Fund was established by the 1992 Energy Conservation Promotion Act and was launched

in 1994 [65]. The program sought to achieve a wider utilization of renewable energy in order to

reduce the negative impacts on the environment. This fund led to financing of 15 biomass projects

in Thailand, with a total investment of $70 million from 1995-2004 [66]. Following ENCON,

the framework of national energy strategy, which included renewable energy development was

approved in principle by a cabinet resolution in 2003. The Ministry of Energy set targets for

share of renewable energy from 0.5% in 2002 to 8% by 2011 [66].

The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, through a small power solicitation plan,

adopted the small power producers (SPP) program. The SPP is a multinational sector program,

which accounts for about 15% of the country’s total installed generating capacity. Fuel from

biomass is included in these SPPs [67]. Of these SPPs (10-90 MW), 16 fully or partially use

rice husk as fuel with an installed capacity of 140 MW. Another 9 are registered under the very

small power plants (under 10MW), with a production capacity of 50 MW. However, rice straw

hasn’t been used for energy production yet due to unclear logistics, and cost of the resource for

large-scale production [68].

As a continuation of the earlier initiatives, Thailand government implemented Alternative

19



Energy Development Plan (AEDP) in 2012. Through the AEDP, Thailand hopes to achieve 5570

MW of power from biomass by 2036 [7] which was then increased to 5790 MW by 2037 [69].

To achieve this goal, various strategies have been implemented [70] including 1) Promoting the

installation of Distributed-Green-Generation (DGG); 2) Supporting financial support to increase

the efficiency of biomass power plants; 3) Supporting financial incentives to expand the transmission

and distribution systems; 4) Conducting knowledge campaigns to educate youth on biomass

management and networking in areas where biomass production systems can be installed; and

5) Research and development on biomass pellet for production, consumption and standards. An

initiative that has been critical to the success of the AEDP was a feed-in premium or “adder”

policy, which was later, superseded by a Feed-in Tariff Policy, implemented by Energy Policy

and Planning Office (EPPO), Ministry of Energy, Thailand. The policies have been providing

subsidies to biomass energy over time for all sized power plants, and in particular, to rice husk

and sugarcane bagasse [71, 72].

These policies helped in using crop residues for alternative energy instead of burning to

some extent but not to the total potential. A collection of data from the Department of Alternative

Energy Development and Efficiency, Ministry of Energy [13], showed that currently, a small

fraction of paddy husk and sugarcane bagasse has been used for electricity generation relative

to the total potential usage of husk and bagasse, as seen in Figure 2.2. Further, currently, paddy

straw and sugarcane top and trasher is yet to be used for energy generation. The current usage of

solid biomass for energy is at 9,283 ktoe which is only 42% of the total potential (i.e. 22,100

ktoe) [73]. Of the total bioenergy target, 5570 ktoe (i.e 64,779 GWh) amount of electricity is

expected to be generated [7]. However, total generated amount as of 2017 is approximately 2495

ktoe (i.e. 29,021 GWh) [74], which is less than half of the target. A study by Heo and Choi [75]

20



Figure 2.2: Energy Generated and Potential in GWh from 2009-2017 in Thailand.

Source: [13]

used 3 scenarios to assess future potential of biofuels in Thailand. The three scenarios were

based on 22%, 44% and 66% residue extraction rates respectively. The results from the study are

seen in Table 3.1, which show that there is large economic and environmental benefits from all

scenarios.

2.5 Direct efforts to reduce residue burning

There are various ongoing efforts at regional and national scale to control the crop residue

burning in Thailand. The Thailand government-initiated Pollution Management Plan 2012-2016

in 2012. This Plan provided guidelines to control open burning of agricultural residues, and

to promote alternative sustainable approaches to manage agricultural residues [56]. Further,

21



Ta
bl

e
2.

3:
E

nv
ir

on
m

en
ta

la
nd

E
co

no
m

ic
Po

te
nt

ia
lf

or
Se

co
nd

G
en

er
at

io
n

B
io

di
es

el
an

d
B

io
et

ha
no

li
n

3
Sc

en
ar

io
s.

N
at

io
na

l
G

as
ol

in
e

C
on

su
m

pt
io

n
Po

te
nt

ia
lly

O
ff

se
t

N
at

io
na

l
D

ie
se

l
C

on
su

m
pt

io
n

Po
te

nt
ia

lly
O

ff
se

t

C
O

2

D
ec

re
as

e
in

th
e

G
as

ol
in

e
Se

ct
or

C
O

2

D
ec

re
as

e
in

th
e

D
ie

se
l

Se
ct

or

Pr
ofi

t
G

ai
ns

fo
r

B
io

et
ha

no
l

Se
ct

or

Pr
ofi

t
G

ai
ns

fr
om

B
io

di
es

el
Se

ct
or

%
%

M
eg

a
To

n
M

eg
a

To
n

M
ill

io
n

U
SD

M
ill

io
n

U
SD

Sc
en

ar
io

1
7.

2
-

19
.6

4.
1

-
10

.9
1.

3–
3.

5
1.

4–
3.

8
27

–7
4

30
–8

1
Sc

en
ar

io
2

15
.8

-
43

.2
9.

0
-

23
.9

2.
8–

7.
7

3.
2–

8.
4

60
–1

63
67

–1
78

Sc
en

ar
io

3
23

.7
-

64
.8

13
.4

-
35

.8
4.

2–
11

.6
4.

7–
12

.6
90

–2
44

10
0–

26
7

So
ur

ce
:[

75
]

22



as part of this plan, the government started various subsidy programs to encourage the use of

soil equipment and farming technologies to reduce the air pollution in the country [56]. The

Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act B.E. 2550 was established in 2007 to have a principal

legal mechanism for disaster risk management practices in Thailand. The efforts under this

act were shown to improve the air quality in the nine provinces of Northern Thailand affected

severely with residue burning. For instance, the number of days with particulate matter exceeding

standard value was reduced from 61 days to 38 days in the affected provinces, and also noticed a

significant reduction in the number of hotspots of air pollution in Northern Thailand. Note that in

this case, the cause of air pollution includes forest fires as well [76]. Provincial governments also

have launched various initiatives to address the residue burning problem. For example, Chiang

Rai Provincial Government imposed 60 day bans on burning from February 17 to April 16 and

also have set high fines for violating this regulation [77]. The violations are reported through

reporting from the village headman and members of public [78].

The most recent initiative to reduce burning came after the severe smog in 2019. The

Ministry of Industry, Government of Thailand proposed a plan beginning the 2019-2020 sugarcane

crop period that enforces sugar mills to limit purchase of burning sugarcane to 30% of the total

cane purchased in 2019-2020 period and drop it to 20% in the 2020-21 crop year [14]. To achieve

this, millers and farmers have sought support from the Government of Thailand, as the burnt

cane prices will also be dropped by the disincentives provided. The government will provide

low interest soft loans to farmers to buy cane harvesters, and some loans to sugar millers to

purchase machinery [79]. Burning sugarcane reduces the quality of the cane, and well below the

requirement of many companies [80]. This led to the Office of Cane and Sugar Board (OCSB)

to work with stakeholders from the industry to implement a 3-stage strategy. The three stages

23



include the targeting of sugarcane factories to use fresh cane (minimum of 60% fresh cane)

rather than burnt cane; incentives to farmers to provide fresh cane, and demarkating burning-

free zones, and a long-term plan of no burning of sugarcane by 2022 by reducing burnt cane

by 10% a year [80]. During the same time, a national crisis was declared by the Government

of Thailand, and led to the Pollution Control Department to come up with plans to address the

problem, which included tacking the problem when pollution levels reached ”unsafe” levels, and

better management and tackling the pollution at source [47]

Thailand is part of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) and signed the

Transboundary Haze Pollution Agreement [81] and ratified it in 2013. An alternate agreement

built on Transboundary Haze Pollution Agreement was the ASEAN Zero Burning Policy [82],

which provides guidelines to each nation to reduce any land and forest fires at a regional and

national level.

2.6 Challenges to control residue burning in Thailand

Although there are different policies and programs to control residue burning and promote

sustainable residue management practices, there are various challenges to implement policies and

adopt controlling strategies developed under various programs. Some hurdles include farmer’s

unwillingness, cost of farm machinery, labor cost and shortage, and farmer’s lack of awareness

on the implications of burning. Cheewaphongphan et. al. [73] conducted a study to understand

farmer’s willingness to sell residue rather than burning. This study showed that 82.3% of the

farmers in the country expressed willingness to bale and sell the rice residue. However, there

was significant variation by region. In the Northern and Central region, 96.7% and 86.4%

24



farmers responded positively, respectively, while farmers in Northeast and Southern (60.2%

and 60%) showed relatively less willingness, respectively. Some farmers concerned that farm

machinery operated for harvesting and baling may likely damage the field and compact the soil

making tillage difficult while some others are not interested due to the high cost of machinery.

Another study by Kanokkanjana et. al. [83] cited that lack of enough straw balers is a problem,

even though selling residue is profitable for farmers. This study reported that managing and

transporting large volumes of straw (even when compressed) is highly challenging because the

volume of straw is still too high without dealing with issues of illegal overloading of trucks.

In another study by Adeleke et. al., [77], farmers were interviewed in the Chiang Rai

province located in northern Thailand. This study revealed that the farmers were well aware

of the health effects of burning but were not very familiar with environmental consequences.

As mentioned before, Chiang Rai Provincial Government imposes a 60 day bans on burning.

However, some farmers still practices burning citing that it would be difficult to plant in time if

residue is not burnt. [77] suggested that shortage of time and cost of harvesting were the primary

reasons for large scale burning in the region. Similar findings were reported by Pasukphun et.

al. [84].

With regard to sugarcane burning, labor costs and shortages were cited as the primary

reason for not adopting alternative residue management practices [85].A study interviewed approximately

400 farm workers involved in The Coca-Cola Company’s (TCCC) sugarcane supply chain in

Thailand. These interviews suggested that there has been a considerable difference in the payments

given for harvesting burned cane and fresh cane. The wages (1.2 baht/bundle) and transportation

(2.2 bahts/bundle) payments for green cane harvesting are higher than that of burned cane (1.0

and 2.0 bahts/bundle wage and transportation payment, respectively). Although the wages and

25



transportation payments are higher for green cane, workers often prefer working with burnt

cane because harvesting burned cane requires less amount of time and net earnings per day is

significantly higher compared to daily amount earned for fresh cane harvesting [86]. Therefore,

farmers, particularly marginal farmers, often find difficulty to have labor to harvest fresh cane

which lead them to practice residue burning. Another study by Silalertruksa et. al., [87] identified

that to break even, the area required for mechanical use for farming would need to be above 0.8

ha to reduce any idle time for machinery, and to reduce costs. Therefore, a way to reduce cost of

mechanization would require small scale growers and millers to combine their planted area and

to prepare land together.

The study by Heo and Choi [75] also pointed that there is currently little being done to

develop commercial second generation biofuel technology in Thailand. This is a challenge as

crop and residue production is rising in Thailand.

A study by Nikam et. al., [47] that interviewed key stakeholders working towards air quality

improvement, studied barriers to proper enforcement. A key barrier to change is the conflict

between economy and environment. This leads to a severe lack of political will to properly

tackle the issue of air pollution. For example, they cited that the the Ministry of Industry is

more focused on financial returns for industrial investors and is heavily lobbied by investors who

don’t see a substantial return on investment on clean technologies. Some other barriers specific

to agriculture and air quality the study cited was 1. Insufficient air quality monitoring (including

up to date databases), 2. Lack of public awareness regarding health impacts of haze and open

burning (including lack of government support, knowledge sharing, etc), 3. Slow progress to

increase energy efficiency; and 4. Inadequate and inefficiently implemented policies (including

lack of harmonization of laws targeting biomass burning)

26



2.7 Potential strategies and recommendations

There are some potential strategies which could complement existing plans and policies

targeting controlling residue burning and promoting alternative residue management practices.

Some of these strategies were successfully implemented in other countries.

2.7.1 Renewable energy

The Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP) has paved the way for use of crop

residue use for energy generation. Although the AEDP has set targets, with the Cane and Sugar

Act of 1984 yet to identify sugarcane by-products and the use of sugarcane for energy production

in the compensation for lower prices of sugarcane. The government also directed the sugar mills

to stop purchasing burnt cane, but it did not target rice production, which generates larger residue

per unit of rice produced. Therefore, policies could be developed to better target residue use for

renewable energy.

According to Chaiprasert et. al. [88], and as identified in the previous sections, there have

been incentives put in place to support and promote biogas technology through government

subsidies, soft loans, tax incentives, etc. in the Alternative Energy Development Plan. This

has a potential to increase the use of residue in the country. However, an analysis of policies

for ethanol by Chaya et. al., [89] showed that while the AEDP has done well in identifying a

strategy for the production of feedstock and finding areas suitable for production, it has to some

extent addressed the management of feedstock, including efficient use, but not looked at the

promotion of technology for production and use of ethanol, and the improvement of infrastructure

for production and use of ethanol. As mentioned before, and stated by the authors, there is a

27



hindrance to ethanol production due to the Sugacane Act of 1984. Since it targets the process of

sugar production, ethanol, and other residue use has been left out of the Act. For incentivization

of use of crop and residue for energy production, the Act would require an addition of use for

energy production.

Examples from other countries demonstrate that there are both economic and other benefits

of using residue for energy production. While cost is a critical issue faced in Thailand, as

mentioned above, studies in Brazil showed that the co-benefits of energy generation from sugarcane

outweighed the costs associated with high pressure boilers and of connecting production facilities

to the national grid [90].

In 2009, Brazil produced 18.2% energy from sugarcane, and 13.9% from biomass [91].

Renewable energy in Brazil accounted for 45% of the total energy supply in 2019, of which, 70%

came from biomass [18]. They are also a major exporter of bioethanol to Europe, United States

and Japan [19], and the second largest producer and the third largest consumer of bioethanol

globally [20]. The success of Brazil has been both, government interventions, and its mechanized

production process. The Brazilian Alcohol Program (PROALCOOL) began in 1975 to reduce

its reliance on oil imports, which was a result of the oil embargo in the Middle East. Grad

[21] explains that Brazil’s production, which is mechanized from the farm level to the energy

production level. Meyer [8] stated while Brazil has a long growing season, and an abundance

of fertile land, that is not the sole reason for its success. They provided low interest loans to

expand mills and distilleries along with guaranteeing prices. They also invested in research and

innovation through public-private partnerships, and invested in new technologies. They also

incentivized purchases of Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) to increase sales of ethanol-only vehicles

by reducing taxes during purchases and annual licensing fees. All this led to a reduction in

28



the production cost of ethanol from sugarcane by 70% from 1975 to 2010. Therefore, Brazil

was able to reduce costs through research and development (yield increases), economies of scale

(distillation plants), and the effects of learning by doing induced by the demand [8].

While the AEDP has put forth strategies to promote the development of renewable energy,

they do not include an emphasis on yield improvement or increases, or cutting costs down. The

AEDP can greatly benefit from learning from Brazil in achieving their goals. Aside from the

above success, to achieve its target, a clear policy and legal framework for land tenure and use,

improvements in the pricing mechanism with long term purchase guarantees, a fair regulatory

framework between farmers and energy producers, and an overall improvement in supply chain

is recommended for the production of bioenergy [92]. Further, looking at energy from a big

picture perspective, or a sectoral perspective, by including and empowering stakeholders is an

important way to ensure energy security from residue [93]. This big picture takes away the

burning of residue from solely the perspective of agriculture and energy to the economy, society,

education, and policy. To achieve this, an organized network would need to be achieved, where

Bhuvaneshwari [93] uses the case of municipal solid waste, where the municipality establishes a

mechanism to manage to waste.

2.7.2 Green harvesting

A significant alternative to burning has been green harvesting, where the residues are left

in the soil, which has shown benefits like balancing the nutrient flow in the soil [94], increase in

organic carbon and total soil nitrogen in the top 5-15 cm of soil [95]. This has shown benefits in

some other countries like Brazil, where currently both, burning of residue, and green harvesting

29



is being practiced [96]. Sugarcane burning in Brazil led to an increase in air pollutant dispersion,

posing health risks, especially among children and the elderly [97]. In the State of São Paulo,

which has 4.1 of the 7.5 million hectares of land for sugarcane (Ella, 2012), shifting to green

harvesting from the burning has a potential to save 310.7 kg CO2 equivalent/ha/year in the state

of Sao Paulo alone [96]. Similarly, studies in Brazil show that mulching is able to return large

amounts of carbon back into the soil, which is usually lost when residues are burned [98, 99].

To achieve some of these practices, government legislation and incentives as well as private

participation have played a significant role in the mechanization of harvesting. For example,

in São Paulo, in 2007, the Sao Paulo State Secretary of Environment (SMA), the Sugarcane

Industry Union, and the supplier associations signed the “Green Ethanol” Protocol. The idea of

the protocol was to promote sustainable practices for the production of sugarcane in Sao Paulo

State [100]. This protocol not just works to reduce crop burning, but efficient in the production of

sugarcane by reducing water use, to recover riparian forests, reduce air pollution and to conserve

the native vegetation of the state.

Thailand needs to look into similar approaches for green harvesting, through mechanization

of harvesting, improvements in irrigation, etc. This could be achieved through financial and other

incentives to leave some of the residue in the soil to encourage improvement in the soil nutrient.

2.7.3 Other uses

While the above use of residue for energy production and in improving soil nutrition are

closely aligned with the policies and realities of Thailand, there are others ways residue could

be used. A study by Bhuvaneshwari [93] looks at other uses of residue to improve soil quality,

30



which include composting, and production of biochar. These are seen to significantly improve

soil quality, by improving microbial population, native microflora and fauna, nutrient retention,

etc. Biochar, according to the authors, can also be used for purposes other than improving soil

quality, for example, for water treatment, in the construction industry, food industry, cosmetic

industry, metallurgy, treatment of waste water along with other chemical applications.

Some other notable examples come from India, where majority of the rice and is used for

cattle feed and roof thatching, and wheat straw is used for cattle feed, domestic fuel, paperboard

making and oil extraction [42]. Cattle feed is an important aspect of crop residue use, as India has

been the largest producer of milk in India since the mid-1990s [101]. Livestock also contributed

29.7% of the value of output from agriculture and allied sector to GDP [102]. For the production

of milk, the availability of feed for livestock is critical. While Thailand is using some rice for

feed, it is at less than 1% use [103], a lot more can be used for feed.

2.8 Conclusion

As crop production increases, so dos the production of residue. The traditional management

of residue has been to burn it. Thailand is the 6th largest producer of rice paddy and 4th largest

of sugarcane in the world. These two crops contribute to 83% of the total residue burned in

the country. This burning has major impacts on the environment. Rice and sugarcane burning

account for 64% of the PM10, 60% of PM2.5, 86% of NOx and 84% of SO2 emissions from

all agricultural crops and forest fires in Thailand. While there is a lot of potential for energy

production from residues, very little is being used. One reason could be a result of the Sugarcane

Act of 1984, which did not target the use of sugarcane or sugarcane residue for use in anything

31



other than for the production of sugar. This disincentivizes farmers to gather the residue. At

the same time, The Government of Thailand has implemented policies for the use of residue for

renewable energy production since the 1990s. The most recent policy is the Alternative Energy

Development Policy of 2012, which has set targets for the use of biomass for energy production.

The recent air pollution problem also led the government to implement strict guidelines for

purchase of burned cane by sugar mills, with a plan to have zero burnt cane use by 2022.

Although there are policies in place, there are many challenges. Small farmers are unable to

afford machinery to roll and bale residue or hire labor. There is also lack of awareness of the

impacts of residue burning, and farmers in general find it inconvenient to handle the residue.

To reduce crop residue burning, sustainable residue management needs to be considered. These

practices include using residue for renewable energy. While AEDP is being implemented, the

government need to promote new technologies and improve the infrastructure. Another practise

is green harvesting, where residue is left in the soil to improve the soil nutrient flow, soil nitrogen

and organic carbon. In each of these cases, Thailand can also learn from policies and practices

implemented in other developing countries who deal with similar challenges with the use of crop

residue.

32



Chapter 3: Adoption of biomass for electricity generation in Thailand: Implications

for energy security, employment, environment, and land use change

3.1 Introduction

As population and economies grow, the demand for limited resources increase, including

food, energy and water. In particular, changing production patterns for food and energy could

affect changes to land use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. This transition

leads to economic, social and environmental challenges through re-balancing the supply and

demand in the economy. There is an additional trade-off with the production of food and energy

given the limited land available, and other inputs used like water, labor, capital, etc. under

environmental constraints. These trade-offs are exacerbated through policy interventions, which

target production of energy. Thailand is currently facing such challenges from the perspective of

the food-energy-water nexus.

To meet the growing electricity demand, Thailand has increased imports of electricity since

2009, from 2,451.4 GWh (or 1.65% of the total domestic electricity use) in 2009, to 29,550.57

GWh (14.3% of the total domestic electricity use) in 2020 (Figure B1) [10]. This increasing

reliance on electricity imports makes the country vulnerable to to energy security challenges in

the future. It is expected that the reliance on energy imports will continue to rise, especially coal

33



import, which is projected to increase from 18,287 GWh in 2015, to 54,365 GWh in 2036, or an

annual average growth rate of 5.3% per year [11]. This leads the country not just to be vulnerable

to energy security but burning of coal would increase emissions in the country.

Looking into the food security, a report of the World Resources Institute showed that 10.3%

of the population of Thailand is at risk of hunger, and 69.2% (or 78 million tonnes) of crops

produced in the country experience medium to high drought risk [9] with agriculture accounting

for 75% of the water demand [104]. Additionally, prevalence of severe food insecurity in the total

population (as a 3-year average) has gone up from 4.2% in 2014-16 to 8.5% in 2018-2020 [105].

During the time period 2014 to 2019, cereal production also went down from 54.54 million tonnes

to 47.45 million tonnes [12]. With land moving from food production to energy generation, there

is a posed challenge for food security as well. From 1990 to 2019, while rice production has

increase from 17.2 to 28.4 million tonnes, sugarcane production increased from 33.6 to 131

million tonnes [12]. As crop production increases, the production of residue also increases. Crop

residue are traditionally burned, with rice and sugarcane accounting for 87.21% of the burning in

2019 [12]. Crop residue burning does not only have severe environmental and health impacts, but

also wastes biomass resources that can lead to income and employment generation. An effective

utilization of crop residues as biomass resources could reduce the impact of the competition

between land for food or energy. In 2017, the total paddy husk and industrial sugarcane bagasse

for electricity generation as a percentage of the total energy potential from these two crops were

merely 7.44% and 14.75% respectively [74]. This shows the large untapped potential of biomass

which could together address environmental concerns, energy security, and generate revenues for

farmers and energy producers. Given that agriculture continues to be the basis of the livelihood

of the majority of Thailand’s population, the use of more crop residue for electricity generation

34



could positively affect the economy, environment and society.

Although Thailand has been implementing many renewable energy policies since 1990,

the recent increases in electricity imports and added food security problems signal the coming

challenges to achieving the SDGs of zero hunger (Goal 2), clean water and sanitation (Goal 6),

affordable and clean energy (Goal 7), decent work and economic growth, responsible consumption

and production (Goal 12), and climate action (Goal 13). Additionally, national level policies

can have differing impacts on the regional level. It is therefore important to see the impacts

of some policies on the sustainability, through impacts on income, employment, emissions,

etc. Most recently, the Government of Thailand has implemented two major policies. One

policy targets crop residue burning, while the other targets crop residue use. The first policy,

implemented by the Ministry of Industry, targets industrial sugarcane residue burning by ending

burned sugarcane use in sugar production, and overall sugarcane burning by 2022 [14]. The

second policy, implemented by the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency

(DEDE), Ministry of Energy titled the Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP), seeks to

achieve 20% electricity from renewable resources, in particular, 5,570 MW from biomass by

2036 [7]. The additional goal of the AEDP is to achieve energy security by reducing the country’s

reliance on imports, reducing costs so as to improve socio-economic conditions of its citizens, and

to reduce the impacts of energy production and use on the environment and community. However,

studies have not been conducted to look at the impacts of these policies on the achievement of

the SDGs, and the local impacts it may cause in the different regions in the country. Input-output

models, which quantifies the inflows and outflows of goods and services, help us understand

social, economic and environmental impacts on the food-energy-water interactions [106, 107].

Few studies have looked at the impacts of policies in the interaction [108–110]. Some input-

35



output models have been conducted for water use in Thailand [104, 111], and other input-output

studies in Thailand [112,113] but not for the food-energy-water interactions. Extending the input-

output method helps understand the direct, indirect and induced effects of a change in policy to

the use of intermediate inputs, capital, employment, and water. These studies are fewer for the

Extended Input-Output method [106, 114–116] and have not been conducted in Thailand.

To understand the social, economic and environmental consequences of changes in crop

residue use for energy generation in Thailand, this paper estimates changes to total output, gross

value added, employment, key input use, and land and water use, as a result of policy changes

and resulting changing demand over time using the extended input-output model. Adoption of

biomass for electricity generation through the two policies implemented by the Government of

Thailand as mentioned above, will serve as scenarios for the study. The study compares these

policies for the country, and the Northeast region of Thailand. National level policies can have

different impacts on a region as compared to the country as a whole, and it is important to

highlight the difference in these impacts. This is particularly notable for Northeast Thailand,

as it produces 37% of paddy, 44.7% of sugarcane and 47% of electricity from biomass in the

country [15–17] making it an important region to study.

3.2 Material and Methods

3.2.1 Extended Input Output Model

The conventional Input-Output (IO) model, developed by Leontief, looks at a country as a

huge accounting system, through the inflow and outflow of goods and services across economic

sectors in an economy, along with the interrelations between them [117]. The basic equation of

36



the IO model is

Xi =
n∑

j=1

Xij + Yi =
n∑

j=1

aijXj + Yi (3.1)

In the above equation, Xi is the total output produced in sector i, Xij is the output of sector

i used in the production of sector j, Yi is the final demand from sector i, aij is the quantity of

input from sectors i required to produce one unit of sector j’s output. Equation 1 in matrix form

would be the following

X = (I − A)−1Y (3.2)

Where X is the column vector of total output, Y is a column vector of final demand. A is a matrix

of all aij and (I − A)−1 is referred to as the Leontief inverse matrix (L).

Equation 2 shows the direct and indirect effects of the flow of goods and services in the

economy, shown through the Type 1 multiplier. Multipliers are used to estimate the effects of an

exogenous changes on the total output in the economy or on income, capital employment, etc.

These total effects can be seen as direct, indirect, or induced changes [118]. The induced effects

show that while an increase in total output or demand can lead to an increase in demand for inputs

from other sectors, an increase in labor income and employment can induce increases in demand

and production in the economy. For this study, direct, indirect and induced effects are looked

into. The Type 2 multipliers includes the increase of demand induced by increase in income,

employment, etc., seen in a closed input-output model includes all three effects. An expanded Ā

matrix is used to include these effects, which is a matrix that includes A, an added (bottom) row

of Gross Value Added, or labor income per unit of sectoral output and an added (last) column of

consumption share per sector. The expanded Ā matrix will then give the results, as seen in the

37



equation below

L̄ = (I − Ā)−1Y =

L̄11 L̄12

L̄21 L̄22

 (3.3)

In this case, when calculating the direct, indirect and induced effects of the n production

sectors in the study, L̄11 is used. Additionally, L̄22 is considered zero.

Once the total output is calculated using Eq. (2), the study looks at the effects on changes to

energy use from different sources on Gross Value Added (GVA), labor income, and employment.

The equations for direct and indirect effects for GVA, labor and employment are given below

GV A = GV (I − A)−1Y (3.4)

V ALab = VLab(I − A)−1Y (3.5)

EM = E(I − A)−1Y (3.6)

In the above equations GV, VLab and E are diagonal matrices which includes the share of

Gross Value Added and labor income in the output of each economic sector, and total employment

per unit of sectoral output, respectively. Similarly, to assess the direct, indirect and induced

effects of gross value added ( ¯GV A), labor income ( ¯V ALab) and employment ( ¯EM ) using the

closed model are given below

¯GV A = GV (I − L̄11)
−1Y (3.7)

38



¯V ALab = VLab(I − L̄11)
−1Y (3.8)

¯EM = E(I − L̄11)
−1Y (3.9)

As we look at the different scenarios, changes to demand leads to direct, indirect and

induced changes to total output, demand for inputs from other sectors, employment, labor income

and GVA. Therefore, for the scenario analysis, a demand-based analysis is run, where a change in

demand for electricity from paddy husk, sugarcane bagasse and other sources of electricity, or a

∆Y leads to changes in total output (∆X), gross value added (∆GV A), Labor income (∆V ALab)

and total employment (∆EMS). Equations (2), (4-9) would therefore show the changes in

different scenarios to the left hand side as a result of ∆Y . These results are run for both, the

national level and the Northeast region of Thailand.

In order to capture both the direct and indirect environmental impacts, the matrix of environmental

impact coefficient K (by environmental category, sector and by region) are muliplied with the

Leonteif matrix L and changes in final demand vector ∆Y , as oresented in Equation (10)

∆T = K(I − A)−1∆Y (3.10)

Here ∆T is a matrix representing changes in different environmental-impact indicators as

driven by ∆Y . In matrix K, each element ke
j , represents direct impact on the environmental

category e caused by per unit of economic output of sector j. The environmental coefficients

are assumed to be fixed within the study period. The environmental categories included in the

39



research are water (kw), arable land (kl), and CO2 emissions (ke).

To run the above equations for Northeast Thailand, the data needs to be disaggregated

to the regional level. For this, the Fleggs Location Quotient (FLQ) model is used. Location

quotient methods are considered the most cost-saving method to downscale the model, which

used sectoral outputs at both, the national and regional level to calculate the local IO Model

[119, 120]. Technical details of the FLQ method are presented in the Supplementary Materials.

Following the FLQ method, to properly balance the IO model for Northeast Thailand, the study

minimizes the sum of squares of the percentage difference (Euclidian distance) between the

cell figure in the unknown balanced regional table and the corresponding figure in the known

unbalanced regional table (subject to the sectoral balance conditions) to get the final local IO

table (Equation A1 - A9) [121,122]. The above steps for the extended IO model are implemented

for Northeast Thailand. Once the local IO table is created using FLQ, equations (1-9) are run for

the region to understand the regional effects, and to compare it with the national level effects.

To calculate the environmental impacts, the study looks at the impacts of the policies on

water use, land use, and CO2 emissions. Impacts on water use is calculated using the changes to

final demand leading to changes to the ∆Xi with i as the water use sector in million dollars. To

calculate the impacts on land use, the 2014 values are taken and scenarios are built to understand

the effects of shifts from rice to sugarcane as a result of the policy. We assume that no land

is being shifted from other use to agriculture and we calculate the changes to land use if 30%

and 50% land is shifted from rice to sugarcane production, with the rest coming from other

agricultural crops. To calculate the effects of CO2, the emissions from 2014 represent the baseline

emissions, which increases with the increase in total electricity demand over time, based on the

three scenarios. The reduction in emissions represent the shift from other sources of electricity

40



to the use of rice and sugarcane for electricity consumption. The proposed model is run for

the baseline year 2014 and 3 policy scenarios as presented in Section 2.2 below. The modeling

analysis in these scenarios give us insight into the value of policy on labor income, employment,

the supply chain, water use, land use, etc. Jointly with the three scenarios, the model is run

for Thailand and the Northeast region of Thailand. One of the policy scenarios, as explained in

section 2.2 will also be considered the optimal, or best-case scenario. However, with the model,

the technology represented by the A Matrix in Equation (2) is assumed to be the same, and is

considered a limitation to the model.

3.2.2 Scenarios

As mentioned above, the study looks into three scenarios, which address two policies

implemented by the Government of Thailand, with specific targets and timelines. The three

scenarios are: (i) Scenario 1: Policy for the reduction of sugarcane burning by 2022, (ii) Scenario

2: Alternative Energy Development Policy (AEDP) with a 2036 target, and (iii) Scenario 3:

increasing the AEDP targets of 2036 by 50% for biomass electricity. The choice for the 2

years i.e., 2022 and 2036 are based on the target years for the policies. These policies are

based on changes to crop residue burning, and use of it in energy generation as the future

demand for electricity consumption increases. It is therefore important to see how the demand

increases and subsequent policies on crop residue burning and use could trigger changes to total

output, gross value added, employment, key input use, and land use. The demand for electricity,

according to the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Ministry of

Energy will increase from 174,467 million units in 2014 to 326,119 million units in 2036 [7] or

41



an annual growth rate of 2.88%. This increase in demand leads to increasing targets for electricity

production from paddy husk and sugarcane bagasse as a percentage of the electricity mix in the

country. For the first scenario, the zero burning policy implemented by the Ministry of Industry

targets the purchase of burned sugarcane by sugar mills. The policy developed seeks to force

sugar mills to reduce the share of burned cane in their total sugarcane purchase and eventually

reducing it to less than 5% by 2022 [14]. To achieve this, the policy also provides cheap loans

for farming cooperatives and community enterprises to purchase cane cutting machinery, as the

cost of such machinery is high, and without which, it is highly labor intensive [123]. In 2014,

the energy potential from industrial sugarcane bagasse was 5,021.9 ktoe, of which, we assume

40% is used for electricity generation. Over time, there is also an annual projected growth rate

of 1.16% for sugarcane [124]. Considering both, we expect 12.16% electricity coming from

sugarcane bagasse in 2022. As this policy does not target rice paddy burning, we assume the

same percentage from 2014 being used for electricity generation. We also call this the best-case

scenario as we are assuming a high use of the total energy potential for industrial sugarcane

bagasse. The second scenario looks into the Alternative Energy Development Plan which seeks

to have 20% electricity from renewable sources, of which, 5,570 MW coming from biomass and

a projection of 27,789 ktoe of electricity demand in 2036 [7]. Here we assume the electricity

coming from sugarcane bagasse and paddy husk increase in accordance with the percentage from

biomass, and the total projected electricity demand increase or 1.61% and 5.09% from paddy

husk and sugarcane bagasse respectively [125]. In the third scenario, we assume an increase of

50% of biomass electricity targets of the AEDP, or 8,355 MW coming from biomass, which is

an increase to 2.42% and 7.64% from paddy husk and sugarcane bagasse. Additionally, as the

Thailand Government implemented a 20% burned cane requirement for the country as a result

42



Table 3.1: Scenario setting for the model for paddy and sugarcane for electricity production

Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Policy Zero Burning

Policy for
sugarcane

Alternative
Energy
Development
Policy (AEDP)

Increasing
AEDP targets
by 5%

Name 2014 No Burn (Best
Case)

AEDP AEDP1.5

Target Year 2022 2036 2036
Paddy husk in
electricity

1.33% 1.33% 1.62% 2.43%

Sugarcane
bagasse in
electricity

4.19% 12.16% 5.1% 7.65%

of the policy implementation of Scenario 1, we assume that the percentage of burned cane is

below that in the production of electricity [126]. This assumption is based on the use of industrial

sugarcane bagasse in the production of electricity. These scenario will help us understand the

potential of biomass electricity. The summary of the three scenarios can be seen in Table 3.1

below.

3.2.3 Data

The input-output model data from 2014 is obtained from the Global Trade Analysis Project

(GTAP) v10 database, which includes 65 sectors, including electricity generation [127]. The

electricity sector for the study are split into three sectors, electricity from paddy husk, electricity

from sugarcane bagasse, and other sources of electricity, based on the demand increases and

percentage from each of the three sources, as provided in the previous sections. Through data

obtained from the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Government

of Thailand, 1.33% and 4.19% of total electricity came from paddy husk and sugarcane bagasse

43



respectively in 2014 [125]. As a result of changing demand, we do not change aij for the different

scenarios, as we have assumed technology remains the same. The empirical analysis of the

economic effects used publicly available data from various sources. The national level data used

employment information [128], household income per capita [129], and population data [67].

The downscaling of the model for Northeast Thailand required local Gross Regional Product

(GRP) [130], paddy production and land area for paddy and cane [15], sugarcane production

(OCSB, 2015), employment [128], household income per capita [131], population data [132],

and biomass electricity production [17]. For the case of Northeast Thailand, the GTAP database

from 65 sectors are consolidated to 10 sectors given the GRP data for Northeast Thailand. This

consolidation keeps electricity from paddy husk, electricity from sugarcane bagasse, and other

sources of electricity as three separate sectors. The data sources for the 2036 demand scenarios

come from the AEDP policy scenarios which provides the projected demand for electricity and

subsequent aims of biomass production as a percentage of the electricity demand [7]. These two

data helps us provide the future demand projections of electricity from paddy husk, sugarcane

bagasse and other sources of electricity.

3.3 Results

3.3.1 Social and Economic Impacts for Thailand and Northeast Thailand

The demand driven solutions run for Thailand and Northeast Thailand help us understand

how changes to the final demand over the baseline and scenarios would affect the changes to

the total economy, as well as for each source of electricity. Demand changes to the electricity

sector would lead to changes in total output from all sectors, by driving the demand for inputs, as

44



well as the total output of the individual electricity sectors. Figure 3.1 shows the changes to total

output in the entire economy as a result of the changes in final demand under three scenarios.

The images show that the induced effects in the country are 2.8, 6.42 and 6.43 times higher than

in in the Northeast Thailand under scenario 1-3 respectively. As demand increase and technology

remains the same for the two 2036 scenarios, the total output increase remains the same for AEDP

and AEDP1.5.

Figure 3.1: Changes in total output of the economy driven by demand changes (direct, indirect
and induced) for 3 scenarios from the 2014 baseline in Thailand (left) and Northeast Thailand
(right)

We also see a difference in increases to the total output in the three electricity sectors. We

see in figure 3.2 that for Thailand, increase in the total output of the electricity sector triggered

by the use of sugarcane bagasse for electricity generation is the highest in the best-case scenario

in 2022. The best-case scenario, as mentioned above, uses 40% of the total electricity potential

from industrial sugarcane bagasse, accounting for 12.16% of the total electricity. This leads to

sugarcane bagasse accounting for 43% of the increased output for the electricity sector. The best-

case scenario highlights the large potential of electricity from biomass, and how an increasing

45



reliance on electricity from biomass improves its goals of energy security and the attainment of

the SDGs. The AEDP and AEDP1.5 scenarios leads to an increase in electricity from paddy

husk and sugarcane bagasse, but it is leaving out a large potential of crop residue to generate

electricity. The production of electricity also induces approximately $35 million of electricity

output value in the AEDP and AEDP1.5 scenario. For the case of Northeast Thailand, which

accounts for large shares of paddy, cane and electricity from biomass, we see very different

results. The Gross Regional Product of electricity in the Northeast Thailand accounts for 6.8% of

the region’s GDP, and while the share of rice , sugarcane and biomass electricity production (37%,

44.7% and 47% respectively) is higher percentage of the national figures. income and demand

for electricity in the region are closer to the share of the regions GDP. The total output for the

three electricity sectors shows that the increase in the use of sugarcane residue is highest for the

AEDP1.5 scenario. At both, the national and regional level, AEDP falls short of using the high

potential of biomass for electricity generation, although relative to the no burn scenario, AEDP

with 50% target increase, Northeast does better. Given the goal of achieving energy security,

they fall behind It is worth highlighting that the percentage of households in debt in the Northeast

Thailand (56.5%) is noticeably higher than the country average (47.2%). Therefore, both AEDP

and AEDP1.5 could be more incentive compatible for making additional sources of income in the

Northeast region [15], where the production levels of cane and rice are significantly higher than

the other regions, resulting in an additional benefit to the agricultural households in the region.

The study also addresses how changes to the final demand over the scenarios would change

employment, gross value added (GVA) and labor income, as seen in table 3.2. Employment

generation through the implementation of these policies shows much smaller impact in Northeast

Thailand than in Thailand. For electricity from the cane sector, the best case scenario shows

46



Figure 3.2: Changes in the total output of the electricity sector (direct, indirect and induced) for
3 scenarios from the 2014 baseline in Thailand (left) and Northeast Thailand (right)

that employment doubles in Thailand, and for the AEDP1.5 scenario, there is a 30% increase

in employment in Northeast Thailand. Agricultural sector currently employs 30% of total labor

force, but contributes to 10% of the GDP, but 40% of farming households live below the national

poverty line, and 42% do not own land [133]. Given that majority of crop residue is burned,

selling crop residue can be an additional revenue and employment source for the farming community.

Gross value added for Thailand, which includes land income, capital, tax, and labor income,

shows most significant increases for electricity from sugarcane in the case of the best-case scenario.

For Northeast Thailand, the highest increases are seen in AEDP and AEDP 1.5, with a 30%

increase in GVA in the AEDP1.5 scenario. The labor income increases for other electricity

production for AEPD and AEDP1.5 are 857 and $791 million for Thailand, respectively looking

at all direct, indirect and induced effects. Labor income increases resulting from changes to

electricity production will lead to higher purchasing power, and therefore, inducing demand for

other products in the economy. For Northeast Thailand, labor income from sugarcane bagasse

47



increases by $8, $12, and $18 million under the best-case, AEDP, and AEDP1.5 scenarios,

respectively . Given the prevalence of poverty, an increase in employment and labor income for

the region would positively impact the Northeast economy. In addition, employment increases

show significant social benefits of crop residue use though most powerplants in Thailand are very

small power plants with a capacity of less than 10 MW [134]. To improve energy security through

crop residue use, these powerplant capacities and numbers would need to increase significantly.

Through research and development, and infrastructure growth, employment would increase, along

with income and output from other the electricity sector. The social, environmental and economic

benefits of that growth will be significant in Thailand, and could help achieve the SDGs.

With increases in demand, there are also increases in inputs used for the production of

the electricity. As