By Dr Phetkeo Poumanyvong, Energy and Agriculture Economist: ASEAN stands at a pivotal moment. Energy demand in the region is expected to nearly double by 2050, even as countries remain deeply reliant on imported fossil fuels whose price volatility threatens economic stability and whose emissions are already intensifying climate risks in Southeast Asia. Policymakers are therefore confronted with a dual challenge: ensuring affordable, reliable energy while accelerating decarbonisation. These goals are often viewed as competing, yet they must now be pursued together.

Bioenergy sits at the intersection of these imperatives. Derived from biomass - organic material from plants, animals, and agricultural or forestry residues - bioenergy can be transformed into solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels for electricity generation, heating, cooking, or transport. It is ASEAN's most abundant renewable energy resource, intimately linked with the region's agricultural and forestry systems. When developed responsibly, bioenergy can strengthen energy security, create rural jobs, reduce waste, and cut emissions. But when pursued without safeguards, it can strain land and water resources, distort food markets, and deliver limited climate benefits.

The key is not to champion or reject bioenergy wholesale but to govern it wisely.

The Promise: Energy Security, Rural Development, and Waste Reduction

For many ASEAN countries, the strongest rationale for bioenergy is energy security. Unlike fossil fuels, which expose countries to geopolitical shocks and price fluctuations, biomass is indigenous and geographically dispersed. It can provide firm, dispatchable energy - an advantage over intermittent renewables such as wind or solar - making it especially valuable for islands, remote communities, and countries with underdeveloped grid systems.

Bioenergy is also a catalyst for rural development. Farmers across ASEAN generate vast quantities of residues - rice straw, sugarcane trash, palm residues, maize stover - that are often burned or left unused. Harnessing these residues as feedstock creates new income streams, reduces open burning, and supports more inclusive local economic growth. ERIA's collaborative research shows that rice, sugarcane, maize, and oil palm residues constitute the region's largest untapped biomass resources, yet millions of tonnes continue to be openly burned each year, contributing to haze, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil degradation.

Several ASEAN economies have already translated these resources into sizeable industries.

• Indonesia operates a B30 biodiesel mandate and is scaling up to B35, absorbing substantial volumes of palm oil and strengthening domestic value chains.
• Malaysia has expanded its biodiesel programme, with B10 standard for road transport and B20 rolled out in selected regions.
• Thailand relies on sugarcane and cassava for ethanol blending.
• The Philippines sources ethanol primarily from sugarcane and molasses under its biofuels mandate.

These programmes demonstrate how bioenergy can reinforce agricultural supply chains, support farmers, and reduce dependence on imported fuels.

From a climate perspective, bioenergy can deliver significant emissions reductions when feedstocks are sustainably sourced and supply chains are well managed. ERIA and partners' bioenergy analyses under AZEC (the Asia Zero Emission Community) show that biomass co-firing, upgraded biogas, and biochar offer substantial lifecycle emissions savings compared with coal, diesel, or natural gas.

The Limits: Land, Water, Logistics, and Sustainability Gaps

Bioenergy, however, is not a limitless solution. Overestimating its potential risks overreliance - and eventually policy failure.

The first constraint is land availability. Large-scale energy crops compete with food and feed production and can pressure forests and ecosystems. ERIA's Water-Energy-Food Nexus collaborative work underscores how land and water resources are already stretched by rising food demand and climate change.

Logistics represent the second major challenge. Biomass is bulky, scattered, and seasonal. Transport and collection costs often exceed 50% of total supply-chain costs. In several ERIA collaborative case studies, transportation distance alone accounts for more than 60% of logistics costs, rendering many feedstocks uncompetitive without organised collection hubs or short-haul transport solutions.

A third limit is sustainability assurance. Some ASEAN countries have strong certification schemes, but others lack the necessary monitoring and verification frameworks. Without transparent and harmonised standards, it is difficult to validate emissions benefits or develop cross-border bioenergy trade.

Fourth, technology maturity varies. While biodiesel is well established in Indonesia and ethanol in Thailand, other countries face high production costs, limited demand, or technology gaps. Advanced biofuels - including sustainable aviation fuel or cellulosic ethanol - remain at early pilot stages across the region.

Finally, bioenergy competitiveness fluctuates with fossil fuel prices. When oil prices fall, biofuels become less attractive without subsidies, discouraging investment and undermining long-term planning.

The Way Forward: Smart, Realistic, and Regionally Aligned Policies

Bioenergy's future in ASEAN will depend less on enthusiasm than on policy discipline - rigorous, transparent, and realistic approaches grounded in evidence and local conditions.

First, prioritise agricultural and organic residues over dedicated energy crops.
Using waste streams minimises land-use conflict and provides the greatest sustainability benefits. ERIA's collaborative research identifies rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, palm kernel shells, rubberwood residues, and livestock waste as the most scalable feedstocks.

Second, strengthen sustainability governance.
ASEAN should move toward regionally harmonised sustainability standards, lifecycle emissions accounting, and verification systems. This fosters market trust and reduces the risks of greenwashing.

Third, invest in enabling infrastructure.
Efficient collection systems, storage facilities, biomass hubs, and rural logistics networks are essential to reducing costs and improving bankability.

Fourth, promote innovation and diversification.
Biochar for soil enhancement, biodiesel and ethanol for transport, biomass co-firing for power generation, and hybrid systems that combine bioenergy with solar or battery storage all offer viable pathways. The studies conducted in AZEC country partners highlight biomass co-firing as a near-term, practical transition option if feedstock supply chains can be reliably secured.

Fifth, expand regional cooperation.
Some ASEAN countries have feedstock surpluses, others have technological strengths. Cross-border collaboration through relevant ASEAN bodies and ERIA's Asia Zero Emission Center can accelerate technology transfer, mobilise resources, and develop regional markets.

A Balanced Path Forward

Bioenergy alone will not replace fossil fuels, nor will it become ASEAN's primary decarbonisation pillar. But it does not need to. Its strength lies in complementing other renewable energy sources, reducing waste, strengthening rural economies, and providing dispatchable power that stabilises the grid as more intermittent renewables come online.

The task now is clear: scale up what works, fix what does not, and avoid repeating past mistakes. With smart policymaking, transparent governance, and sustained investment, bioenergy can contribute meaningfully to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy future for ASEAN - one that safeguards both environmental integrity and food security.

Bioenergy should neither be idealised nor dismissed. It should be understood, governed, and used wisely. Its promise is real - but so are its limits. The region's responsibility is to navigate both with ambition and pragmatism.

This opinion piece was written by Dr Phetkeo Poumanyvong, Energy and Agriculture Economist, ERIA and has been published inThe Manila Times.Click here to subscribe to the monthly newsletter.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.