Memoranda submitted by Helena Paul
Econexus has been working with a number of networks
on biofuels since early 2006. Our main focus is on what we prefer
to call agrofuels: dedicated crops, usually planted in large monocultures.
We are extremely glad you are looking into the
issues around biofuels because we are extremely concerned about
the way targets have been set before accurate information has
been gathered about the impacts and the supposed benefits.
I enclose a copy of a report we have prepared
AGROFUELS: TOWARDS A REALITY CHECK IN NINE KEY AREAS. A summary
can be found at: http://www.econexus.info/pdf/Agrofuels_ExecSum.html
and the full report at: http://www.econexus.info/pdf/Agrofuels.pdf.
I also enclose a report about agrofuels in Africa, prepared by
the Africa Biodiversity Network. This can be found at: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/ABN_Agro.pdf
I am sending these materials by email and apologise for the fact
that I cannot send them in word format.
You will find answers to many of your questions in
these documents.
I would like to emphasise that careful study
suggests that certification cannot be made to work. The UK seeks
metastandards based on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Round Table
on Responsible Soy (RTRS). We were involved in the founding of
the FSC and have participated in meetings about the RTRS. There
are serious criticisms about the effectiveness of all three initiatives
and about participation by people on the ground who are most directly
affected.
The emphasis on liquid fuels rather than on
solid biomass: we have been assured by sources in the EU that
the car industry, especially that of Germany, sought to avoid
fuel efficiency measures by lobbying for liquid biofuels. EU documents
on the subject of biofuels reiterate the argument that solid biomass
for heat is a more effective use of organic material than turning
it into liquid fuel, yet policy-makers have persisted in emphasising
liquid fuels.
You will find a good deal of material relevant
to question 7 in both reports. It is clear that large amounts
of raw material for biofuel would have to be produced in the global
south, where labour and land are cheaper. Our conclusion is that
you should indeed be concerned about large monopolies forming
in the biofuel sector. Biofuels offer an unprecedented opportunity
for new alliances between the petroleum industry, the genetic
engineering industry, and agri-business, plus the paper industry
and what one can loosely call the sugar industry. See the sections
on GM and on second generation in the Agrofuels report. Impacts
on small farmers who produce food for themselves and the community
are clear: see the chapter on Tanzania in the Africa report.
One of the most unpleasant aspects of the biofuel
rush in the global south is its resemblance to another wave of
colonial domination. Many countries really need local energy projects
to provide lighting and cooking fuel. Local farmers would benefit
from small-scale projects under local control, eg: jatropha production
with intercropping, and income would be ploughed back into the
countries themselves. However, in Tanzania for example, farmers
are being displaced for foreign biofuel projects which are being
granted the best land with good water resources, so marginalising
local food production to drier regions in a country already suffering
from high levels of malnutrition. Governments are tempted by the
promise of foreign currency for biofuel exports and encouraged
in that direction by the international finance institutions.
We would suggest that in both Europe and the
global south there is a clear tension between policies for smaller-scale
decentralised projects controlled by the community and large-scale
centralised projects that build upon existing models, eg: the
fossil oil industry. Policy decisions should be clear and the
need for new energy models must be embraced, with a clear realisation
that vested interests will be pulling in the opposite direction.
Biofuels have an unprecedented capacity to provoke
climate change. This is because soya and palm oil in particular
pose a threat to the last intact tropical forest regions. Industrial
machinery for clearing forest and farming enables massive clearance
at high speed and replacement with monocultures. Clearance of
these forests releases massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere
but they are also vital for climate and rainfall worldwide. The
problems are not simply about carbon! Biological diversity is
vital to climate issues but this has not been sufficiently studied.
So-called second and third generation biofuels:
we are promised future biofuels that will not compete with food,
etc. However, even their proponents agree they will not be available
(even supposing they work) for a decade. We must not allow uncertain
promises to draw us into biofuels now on the assumption that problems
will be solved in a decade. We do not have so long. The companies
promoting this message have their own clear interests in it.
I would like to close by referring you to a
recent article which demonstrates how little we know about the
greenhouse gas balance of biofuels and how that balance could
in many cases be far from favourable:
N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates
global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels by P J Crutzen,
A R Mosier, K A Smith, and W Winiwarter
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.html
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf
They say: " . . . the production of commonly
used biofuels such as biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from
corn (maize), can contribute as much or more to global warming
by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings."
26 September 2007
| 
