Energy Transition Is Not Neutral

The Potential and Risks of Bioindustry for Farmers

Whenever an energy crisis hits, oil prices rise and production costs follow. The people who absorb the full shock are not only industries, but also smallholder farmers with no safety net and no protection against sudden change. The energy transition is not only a technological issue; it also has social and economic consequences. This is especially true for people living in poverty in the agricultural sector. The transition therefore needs policies designed around fairness and equitable access to resources and markets.

Poverty Is Structural, Not Accidental

Data from Thailand's National Statistical Office (NSO) shows that poverty has a structural character, particularly in agriculture. People in the agricultural sector account for as much as 30% of the country's poor population, and poverty is distributed unevenly across provinces. Provinces with high poverty rates are often found along the country's margins, including the three southern border provinces, Ubon Ratchathani, and provinces in the North.

When Poor Areas Overlap with Areas of Bioeconomic Potential

Looking at the opportunities created by the energy transition and bioeconomy development reveals significant potential to create jobs and raise incomes for poor households in agriculture. This is especially the case in areas with strong biological potential, such as energy-crop cultivation, biomass production, and agricultural processing. These activities can increase the value of agricultural products and open access to new markets. The Northeast and North have particularly strong bioeconomic potential. If designed well, this is an opportunity for bioindustry to genuinely change people's lives.

The Challenge

The technological challenge is becoming smaller. What remains is a challenge of resources and society. One clear example is the shift from rice cultivation to an energy crop such as sugarcane, which requires significantly more water in areas where recurring drought is an annual reality. When change is not designed for local conditions, it transfers risk to farmers who are already poor.

Policy Recommendations

1. Energy policy must be developed together with social policy. Energy reform should not come first, followed by attempts to repair its social impacts later.
2. Smallholder farmers must enter value chains on fair terms. They should not be limited to selling cheap raw materials to biomass factories; they should participate in the value chain and receive a reasonable share of its returns.

Conclusion

Bringing a social perspective into Bioindustry development can make the transition more just (a Just Transition), more resilient to climate change, and genuinely capable of reducing poverty.

Sources

• Provincial poverty-rate data, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC)
• Areas suitable for crop cultivation, 2013–2017, Department of Land Development
• Recurring-drought risk areas, 2014–2019, Department of Land Development
• Crop-level water-use data, Royal Irrigation Department, Khon Kaen University, and Kasetsart University