Memorandum submitted by Biofuelwatch)
1. What are the possible positive and negative
social, environmental and economic consequences of biofuels? How
might trade-offs between climate benefits and environmental and
social impacts be made? Is there a need to develop a new biofuel
strategy for the UK or EU, to balance the environmental, social,
economic and climate impacts of biofuels?
Biofuelwatch (http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/aboutus.php)
campaigns against the use of bioenergy from unsustainable sources,
i.e biofuels linked to accelerated climate change, deforestation,
biodiversity losses, human rights abuses, water & soil degradation,
loss of food sovereignty and food security. There are many negative
social, environmental and economic consequences of biofuels of
which we will go into greater detail within our submission. All
of these are covered in the following reports: "Agrofuels—Towards
a reality check in nine key areas" (http://tinyurl.com/233x7n),
"Stop the agrofuel craze!", Special Seedling edition
on Agrofuels by GRAIN (http://tinyurl.com/2hkkzp ) and "Agrofuels
in Africa—The impacts on land, food and forests" by
the African Biodiversity Network (tinyurl.com/yoljmv).
All of our serious concerns relate to agrofuels,
largely those produced from large-scale monocultures. Biofuels
from true waste, such as biogas from sewage or manure, or the
use of waste vegetable oil from transport can provide a sustainable,
albeit limited, source of energy. At the same time, we are very
concerned that organic matter which is essential for maintaining
the health of soils, for biodiversity, and for allowing water-absorption
by soil is widely being classed as "agricultural" or
"forestry waste". There is evidence that this is already
aggravating the impact of drought and crop losses in Hungary.
(tinyurl.com/2acb4q). We therefore define agrofuels as:
Agrofuels are biofuels made from crops and trees
grown specifically for that purpose on a large-scale, as well
as biofuels from agricultural and forest residues that should
be returned to the natural cycle because they play an important
role in maintaining soil fertility and bio-diversity.
Regarding the term, Agrofuels, it is useful
to refer to this description from the Landless Movement of Brazil
(MST): "We can't call this a `bio-fuels program'. We certainly
can't call it a `bio-diesel program'. Such phrases use the prefix
`bio-' to subtly imply that the energy in question comes from
`life' in general. This is illegitimate and manipulative. We need
to find a term in every language that describes the situation
more accurately, a term like agro-fuel. This term refers specifically
to energy created from plant products grown through agriculture."
At present, there is no evidence that the large-scale
use of agrofuels can help to mitigate climate change. Quite the
contrary: There is substantial evidence that agrofuel production
is already causing an acceleration of climate change, for two
reasons:
Firstly, most agrofuels, including the most common
types grown in the EU (rapeseed biodiesel, wheat ethanol, maize
ethanol and biogas, biodiesel from sunflower oil) are produced
from monocultures with the use of fossil-fuel derived fertilisers
and pesticides, and with the use of nitrate fertilisers. The Stern
Review finds that, globally, the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse
gases from agriculture (not including land-use change) account
for about 14% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the loss of soil organic carbon
and, of course, from land-use change need to be added to this.
Agriculture is the main source of anthropogenic nitrous oxide
emissions, linked to the use of nitrate fertilisers and also to
legume monocultures (biological nitrate fixation). A recent study
by Paul Crutzen et al (http://tinyurl.com/ywbft6) suggests that,
if the full direct and indirect effects of nitrate fertilisers
are considered, common agrofuels such as rapeseed biodiesel and
corn ethanol are worse (up to 1.7 and 1.5 times respectively)
for the climate than fossil fuel diesel or petrol.
Secondly, agrofuel expansion worldwide is leading
to significant land-use change, as more natural land, semi-natural
land and biodiverse, low-intensity farmland is converted to agrofuel
monocultures. A recent paper by Renton Righelato and Dominick
Spracklen, published in Science (tinyurl.com/36eqb5), warns that:
Clearance results in the rapid oxidation of carbon stores in the
vegetation and soil, creating a large up-front emissions cost
that would, in all cases examined here, outweigh the avoided emissions."
Large-scale land conversion for agrofuel feedstocks for export
is happening in many parts of the global South, including in South-east
Asia and South America, where rainforests, natural grasslands
and mixed farming systems are being converted to agrofuel plantations.
Within the EU, there is concern that the planned abolition of
set-asides, as demanded by the biofuel industry, will lead to
further soil carbon losses, as well as increasing nitrous oxide
emissions through the greater use of nitrate fertilisers. For
a further discussion of climate impacts, see below.
Given the strong evidence for large-scale agrofuel
monocultures having a negative impact on the climate, on soil
and water, on biodiversity and on local communities, we believe
that the question of a "trade-off" does not arise.
We believe that there needs to be detailed independent
research into the full-system impact of biofuel production, taking
account of all direct and indirect impacts, and that there also
needs to be full consultation with the people and communities
in the global South who are most directly affected by agrofuel
expansion before there can be any credible biofuel strategy for
the UK or the EU.
This is why we support a moratorium on EU incentives
for agrofuels and agroenergy from large-scale monocultures and
would ask that you consider the report compiled by Biofuelwatch,
entitled; HOW MEANINGFUL ARE "GREENHOUSE GAS STANDARDS"
FOR BIOFUELS IN A GLOBAL MARKET?, which forms part of the submittal
after the references.
2. Should biofuels be regulated to minimise
the negative environmental and social impacts, and in what way?
How might regulation fit in with international trade agreements
and rules? Should there be regulation of the entire carbon cycle
of biofuels?
The answer to the first question would be yes,
if the answer to the last question was also yes which should not
be a question as surely this has to be the only true way forward,
then the case has already been made above (1,2,3) which shows
that there is no place for large scale biofuel mono-cultures either
to mitigate climate change, or on the other environmental grounds
(water resource & quality, soil quality, biodiversity) or
social grounds (human rights abuses, workers conditions, pesticide
poisoning, food sovereignty and food security).
The RTFO consultation that closed on 17 May
of this year continually refers to the fact that regulation on
grounds of sustainability is not permitted by WTO rules:
43. As of today, however, there is no internationally
agreed definition of a "sustainable biofuel", nor is
there any internationally agreed methodology for calculating the
precise greenhouse gas savings from biofuels. If, ahead of international
standards being developed, the UK Government were to refuse to
allow certain biofuels to qualify for the RTFO on sustainability
or carbon saving grounds, this may be successfully challenged
as a barrier to trade, threatening the continuation of the RTFO.
45. Ahead of this, the Government intends
to do everything possible to encourage the use of only the most
sustainable biofuels with the lowest carbon intensity, in a way
which is compatible with international trade rules.
82. It might also be possible to specify
that, from a given date, only those biofuels meeting certain minimum
environmental and social standards should qualify for credits
under the RTFO. This may depend to some extent on how quickly
standards can be agreed in this area. Work is already under way
on this in bodies such as the international Round Table on Sustainable
Palm Oil production. The European Commission is also planning
to develop a certification scheme. It should be noted, however,
that until similar standards and practices are developed in other
sectors, there will be an ongoing risk that "sustainable"
feedstocks are diverted to use as transport fuels, with "unsustainable"
feedstocks being used in other sectors (such as food production).
Thus, increased demand for "sustainable" biofuel feedstocks
might still lead to deforestation and other adverse environmental
effects.
Environmental groups
There are numerous environmental groups who are
concerned with both measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and to ensure the sustainability of any biomass used to produce
transport fuels. These groups have been engaged with policy development
through the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP)1. A number
of environmental groups have argued that the Government should
only support renewable fuels which meet certain minimum environmental
standards, but WTO rules currently mean that such a requirement
would be subject to challenge.
At the Renewable Energy Association, Bioenergy
2007 Conference there was a very interesting session on transport
fuels, chaired by Malcolm Fredrick from Department for Transport.
Jessica Chalmers from the Low CVP made the following points:
— "There is currently not an international
agreed methodology for greenhouse gas emissions savings."
— "The information flow from producers
is not transparent and the verification procedure has to be robust
and credible."
— "WTO rules are complex. There
is no case law evidence and we're going to have to try it and
see."
— " . . . following the Cramer
Report, the Netherlands would have instigated mandatory sustainability
requirements, but dropped plans, because of the WTO."
3. How successful are existing international
structures, such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, at
ensuring that imports of biofuels can be obtained from sustainable
sources? To what extent is it currently possible to identify the
provenance and production standards of imported biofuels?
There is an important difference to be made
between voluntary certification initiatives, such as the Forestry
Stewardship Council (FSC), that depend on conscious consumers
choosing to pay more for a certified product; and mandatory certification,
which is based on setting legally enforced environmental and social
standards. Existing initiatives like FSC, RSPO and RTRS (no criteria
yet) have generated substantial criticism from civil society in
producer countries, or have suffered from failing participation.
The FSC case gives an example of the lack of
effectiveness of such schemes in the global South. FSC is a lot
less effective in the South than in North America and Europe.
Of all commercial forest area, 58% is certified (by FSC and all
other labels together) in Europe, against 2% for Asia and Latin
America, and 1% for Africa. This is very important as European
agrofuels are increasingly being sourced from timber products—take
recent developing agreements between Brazil and Nordic countries
for wood pulp biodiesel.4 A voluntary standard applying to only
2% of forestry offers no credible protection of crucial ecological
resources.
The level of credibility failure is evidenced
by the recent Norwegian government declaration, following a ruling
by the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, recently declared: "The
government wants to stop all trade with unsustainably or illegally
logged tropical forest products. Today there is no international
or national certification that can guarantee in a reliable manner
that imported wood is legally and sustainably logged"
The RSPO is not a certification standard and
verification procedures have not been agreed. There is no reason
to believe it will work, and there is no evidence that the existence
of the RSPO has led to an improvement in standards in the industry.
There is a serious flaw with the RSPO—carbon emissions from
peat drainage are ignored by the RSPO and it therefore does nothing
to protect the climate, or encourage sustainability.
We refer you the recent report by Milieudefensie,
Lembaga Gemawan and Kontak Rakyat Borneo which looks at the legal,
environmental and social practices of the Wilmar Group in Sambas
District, Indonesia5.
The Wilmar Group are one of the largest palm
oil companies worldwide and a supplier of bioenergy feedstock.
The report reveals that company reporting about their practices
bears little resemblance to the reality on the ground, and that,
contrary to the company's declarations, illegal land acquisition,
burning of land (associated with massive greenhouse gas emissions)
and deforestation for new plantations are common procedures. We
cannot see how the proposed RTFC verification scheme would do
anything to prevent such open abuse of the system, particularly
where imports from outside Europe are concerned.
The Basel criteria for soy suffer similar lack
of credibility and are widely opposed of civil society groups.
The RSPO, RTRS or the Better Sugarcane Initiative
do not certify any produce, and none of those stakeholder forums
have adopted verification standards. We cannot see how a scheme
can be adopted as a benchmark when it has not even been fully
agreed and set up. The RTFO credibility is undermined by the proposal
that mere membership, together with auditing against principles
and criteria should qualify. Membership does not imply adherence
to the priniciples and criteria, and no process for independent
auditing exists.
The communities in the global South who will
be directly affected by the RTFO have not been consulted. Many
of those communities and civil society organisations, however,
have spoken out very strongly against some of the standards proposed
as benchmark standards for the RTFO. The RSPO, for example, has
been rejected by the leading NGOs of Papua New Guinea, whilst
the RTRS (Basel Criteria) has been strongly opposed by many civil
society organisations in South America, who do not agree with
the concepts of voluntary sustainability certification of a monoculture
industry which is linked not just to deforestation and biodiversity
losses, but also to the dispossession of tens of thousands of
small farmers, the poisoning of communities, water and soil with
pesticides, to soil erosion, water over-extraction, and the loss
of food sovereignty, leading to widespread malnutrition in countries
such as Argentina and Brazil. Only one organisation which represented
small farmers ever joined the RTRS, and they left the Organising
Committee in summer 2005, feeling that they could not influence
the process.
Under environmental standards, it is stated
that conversion of high carbon soils, including peatlands, would
not be acceptable. However, this is not one of the principles
and criteria of the RSPO. If the RSPO is accepted as a benchmark
standard, then biofuels such as palm oil biodiesel from Indonesian
and Malaysian peatlands can still be classed as "sustainable",
in contradiction of the standards.
4. At what stage is biofuel technology? Is
there enough support for the development of biofuel technology?
A UN report found that the climate change benefits of solid biomass
fuels outweigh those of liquid biofuels. Are current policies
promoting the development and deployment of a range of biofuel
technologies? How successful have EU strategies and Directives
been in stimulating biofuel usage? Will the 2010 biofuel target
be reached? How effective are the Government's fiscal arrangements
for biofuels?
This is a mute point, regarding there being
enough support for biofuel technology. This question can only
be answered after an immediate moratorium on EU incentives for
agrofuels and agroenergy from large-scale monocultures including
tree plantations and a moratorium on EU imports of such agrofuels.
This includes the immediate suspension of all targets, incentives
such as tax breaks and subsidies which benefit agrofuels from
large-scale monocultures, including financing through carbon trading
mechanisms, international development aid or loans from international
finance organisations such as the World Bank. This call also responds
to the growing number of calls from the global south against agrofuel
monocultures, which EU targets are helping to promote. 180 worldwide
organisations have called for a moratorium, which is needed to
establish the macro impacts of the global market place. Many of
these organisations represent the workers of the plantations,
the landless, the indigenous communities and subsistence farmers
in the global South, who are being adversely affected by EU and
UK biofuel policy.6
A similar statement was made in January of this
year by 250 global organisations and key individuals, who called
on the European Parliament, European Commission and European Union
for an end to targets for biofuels in Europe.7
A moratorium, is now required, because the fledgling
biofuel technology has been implemented with a complete bypass
of a pre-implantation public policy debate. The issues that are
now emerging about agrofuels are those that should have been considered
in public debate and policy setting, upstream of any implementation
phase. Instead, events have by-passed this stage, and the issues
that should have been discussed upstream are now being discussed
belatedly in the downstream phase. The above referenced data on
the adverse environmental and social aspects of the unregulated
biofuels market we feel convincingly demonstrates that a moratorium
is now essential to allow scientists and politicians to gain a
greater understanding of the true impacts on the social, human
rights, land rights, ecological, climate impact, biodiversity
and food security.
We would agree with the UN report that found
that the climate change benefits of solid biomass fuels outweigh
those of liquid biofuels. In fact it is more efficient to use
biomass for heat, then CHP, then electricity generation, and finally
transport. This descending efficiency hierarchy would suggest
that if the aim of government biofuel policy is indeed to mitigate
climate change, then land should not be used to grow feedstock's
for vehicles as this is quite clearly the least efficient use
of the planets land. The UN Millennium Assessment Report warns
of catastrophic impact on all ecosystems of increasing agriculture.8
A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences9 using data from the UNs FAO on agricultural production
in 161 countries to show that nearly a quarter of the energy processed
by land plants is either harvested by humans or lost due to our
activities. In south Asia, where oil palm plantations are expanding
rapidly to satisfy the EU biofuel directive 63% of plant production
is used or destroyed by humans.
The researchers9 said their analysis shows it
will not be possible to produce significant quantities of fuel
this way without taking more energy away from natural ecosystems
achieve this level of bioenergy use would almost double the present
biomass harvest and generate substantial additional pressure on
ecosystems,".
Question 4 goes on to ask about the development,
deployment and how successful have EU strategies and Directives
been in stimulating biofuel usage. Given that biofuels are the
least efficient use of biomass a more pertinent question, would
and should be has the EU and national government developed, deployed
and stimulated truly renewable energy technologies and a modal
shift to a sustainable and integrated transport system. In both
cases each sector of our economy would have to be tackled so that
not only is efficiency increased, but demand is actually reduced.
All biomass in the heat and electricity sectors
would have to be judged on a greenhouse gas emission life cycle
against, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal and solar—in particular
concentrated solar power. All of these technologies could and
should utilise high voltage DC networks to enable the most optimum
geographical positioning and economies of scale of infra-structure.
In the transport sector, carbon emissions from
the vehicle fleet can be reduced by higher efficiencies and lower
carbon emissions; changes in driving practises' eg, regular servicing;
car sharing; lower speeds; congestion charging; road charging;
taxation of engine capacity; fuel tax escalator. This would be
combined with greater investment in public transport and cycle
paths. Most long distance freight should be transferred to the
railways and canals.
The global percentage total for biofuels is
1% and the UK is presently at 0.6% of the RTFO target. So the
question: "Will the 2010 biofuel target be reached?"
should really be what will be the affects on the climate, biodiversity,
human rights, water quality and food security if the target of
5% is reached, since all of these issues are already areas of
concern at between a tenth and a fifth of this total. Certainly
it looks like Europe's bird, insect and mammal life, will be a
casualty in the quest to achieve the 2010 target, if the EU set-asides
are converted to biofuel production, as looks increasingly likely.
Europe's common farmland birds have declined
by nearly 50% since 1980, as a result of intensive agriculture,
including the grey partridge, corn bunting, turtle dove, lapwing,
whinchat, tree sparrow, skylark and linnet10 45% of Europe's butterflies
are at risk of extinction and a recent study found 80% declines
in bee diversity and 70% declines in the diversity of wild flowers
dependent on pollination on hundreds of sites in the UK and Netherlands11.
As the authors of the study warned, the future of pollination
and of much of our food supplies may be at risk as pollinators
are driven into extinction.
Set-asides were initially introduced for market
reasons, but large numbers of our birds, insects and some mammals
have come to depend on them for their survival12. The EU have
just commissioned a study about the environmental benefits of
set-asides and a longer-term review was supposed to look at ways
of protecting our wildlife with more targeted farming policies.
In the meantime, however, plans to scrap all set-asides for the
next two seasons have been announced. Millions of birds could
be left without food and nesting sites next spring, and there
will be little hope of Europe meeting its commitment of halting
biodiversity losses by 2010.
5. The EU Strategy for Biofuels claims that
biofuels "are a direct substitute for fossil fuels in transport
and can readily be integrated into fuel supply systems".
What proportion of UK domestic transport and energy generation
could be fuelled by UK-produced biofuels? Is it possible for biofuels
to entirely replace oil for transport purposes? Is there a role
for public procurement or public transport? Will biofuels improve
fuel security? How secure are biofuel crops from unexpected events
such as drought or disease?
The evidence now shows that biofuels are not
"a direct substitute for fossil fuels in transport and can
readily be integrated into fuel supply systems".
The recent paper entitled:
"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
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 7, 11191-11205,
2007
Abstract Discussion Paper (PDF, 382 KB) Interactive
Discussion
brings the default values used in the RTFO consultation
on carbon and sustainability reporting under the renewable transport
fuel obligation into complete doubt. In particular, the details
of:
— the Oilseed rape to biodiesel (pp.136-142),
"Default fuel chain" on page 137, and the "N fertilizer"
figures on page 140 in the "Default value tables", and
— the Corn to ethanol (pp.133-135),
"Default fuel chain" on page 132, and the "N2O
emissions from soils" and "N fertilizer" figures
on page 136 in the "Default value tables".
The report was highlighted in the Times13:
. . . that rapeseed and maize biofuels are calculated
to produce up to 70% and 50% more greenhouse gases respectively
than fossil fuels from new calculations of the emissions of nitrous
oxide. Scientists, including Nobel prize winner Paul Crutzen,
have found that the use of fertilizers in biofuel production released
twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research
team found that 3-5% of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted
and emitted. See also:14
This paper brings the carbon balance issues
around biofuels into further doubt. It is clear also that rape
seed oil which accounts for about 80% of the biofuel production
in Europe and was previously thought to be less damaging than
Palm Oil, can also accelerate climate change as Palm Oil does,
and is well documented as doing from associated deforestation
and peat destructionion.15
As regards: "What proportion of UK domestic
transport and energy generation could be fuelled by UK-produced
biofuels?"
The Guardian16 article calculated that: road
transport in the United Kingdom consumes 37.6 million tonnes of
petroleum products a year.17 Based on the most productive oil
crop grown in this country—rape seed, the average yield
is between 3 and 3.5 tonnes per hectare.18 One tonne of rapeseed
produces 415 kilos of biodiesel.19 Therefore, every hectare of
arable land could provide 1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. These
figures do not take into account the latest paper from Crutzen
et al, highlighted above, which explained that rapeseed and maize
biofuels are calculated to produce up to 70% and 50% more greenhouse
gases respectively than fossil fuels from new calculations of
the emissions of nitrous oxide.
In order to operate the existing UK road transport
would need 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m in the United Kingdom.20
In order to satisfy existing demand, the UK requirement, would
exceed four and half times the UKs arable land. Or to answer the
question, if none of our land that is used for food and animal
feed production was converted to biofuel production (and not taking
into account the Crutzen figures) approximately 20% of transport
could be met. This would obviously not be allowed to happen as
our food security and sovereignty would be non-existent. Already
the macro affects of displacing UK rapeseed production from food
to biofuels has led to an increased importation of palm oil from
Indonesia to account of this displacement practise.
"Is it possible for biofuels to entirely
replace oil for transport purposes?"
No. There is simply not enough land on the planet
to feed 6.5 billion people, and 800,000 motor vehicles. In 2006,
world cereal reserves fell to their lowest level in more than
two decades, and FAO has reported a disturbing food supply situation,
with demand surpassing supply both in grains and oilseeds, and
has called for closer monitoring of the world food situation.
Forecasts for the 2006-07 marketing year confirm
a tight supply situation for coarse grains and oilseeds, where
production may not be sufficient to satisfy global demand, thus
necessitating a sizeable reduction in stocks.21 In six of the
last seven years, humans worldwide consumed more grains and oilseeds
than were produced.22
The EU is already the world's largest importer
of food, and its massive imports of animal feedstuffs (75% of
its proteins needs for feed are imported) are the main reason
for the existence of its animal and cereal surpluses.23 In 2005
the EU imported half of its total oilseed requirements, while
in 2006 the FAO reported that, "after two years of exceptional
expansion, imports are expected to continue growing strongly because
domestic oilseed production is not sufficient to satisfy both,
demand for food uses and for biofuel production."24
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
predicts that rain-dependent agriculture could be cut in half
by 2020 as a result of climate change.25
In a presentation at the Renewable Energy Association
Bioenergy 2007 a slide showed that the University of Leeds has
predicted there will be 2,000 million cars on the road and according
to the US Energy Information Administration, energy demand will
have increased by 50%. The number of cars will have doubled to
two billion and the number of people on the planet increased by
two billion when rain fed agriculture could have already halved.
"Is there a role for public procurement or
public transport?"
Yes. Other than short journeys that most people
can undertake by walking or cycling (a quarter of all car journeys
are less than two miles26) mass public transport can replace the
private motor vehicle. In fact this is necessary if the county
is to meet reduction targets of 90% by 2030, which are necessary
and urgent. This move would be to the use of coaches as developed
by Alan Storkey27, which does not involve the use of biofuels.
Please note that National Express (coach service operator), have
decided not to use biofuels based upon environmental concerns
over carbon savings, based on advice from the University of Surrey.28
The cost of motoring has fallen whereas bus
and coach fares have risen by 66% in real terms since 1975, and
train fares by 70%—the cost of owning and running a car
fell in the same period by 11%.26
"Will biofuels improve fuel security?"
This question is presumably asked in light of
the present situation in the Middle East and Latin America. The
answer must be no, as demand will far out way the amount of fuel
that can be grown in the UK for biofuels. The Department for Transport
predicts traffic to grow by 26% between 2000 and 201029, whereas
UK targets are 5% by 2010 and these will actually increase greenhouse
gas emissions, due to the macro effects of global distribution
of feedstock's.
Reduction in demand will improve fuel security,
as will efficiency measures and one simple example: The RTFO report
says: "Renewable fuels are one of the few options identified
in the transport sector that can achieve cost-effective carbon
savings." Throughout the report we are told that the RTFO
would be the equivalent, in carbon terms, of taking a million
cars off the road. That is 4% of our cars. In 2005 a review from
defra30,31 reducing carbon emissions, showed that enforcement
of the 70 mph speed limit would save 890,000 tonnes of carbon
a year or 9/10 of the RTFO. This measure is described as "politically
difficult", as is car-sharing and road user charging. The
same (restricted) report states that changing speed limits would
save 1.7 million tonnes of carbon and car sharing between 0-0.5
million tonnes. This amounts to removing 1.7 million cars from
our roads or between 70 and 75% more savings than the RTFO (if
the figure of one million was correct).
"How secure are biofuel crops from unexpected
events such as drought or disease?"
Biofuel crops are no more secure from unexpected
events such as drought or disease, or for that matter floods all
of which affected so many of our arable crops this summer.32,33,34
6. What impact would an expansion of UK production
of biofuels have on the ability of the UK to produce its own food?
How might this impact on greenhouse gas emissions from international
trade patterns? What impact might the expansion of biofuels have
on international food security and prices?
We hope to have shown above, that the two are
mutually exclusive and incompatible. Due to the nature of the
free market this will have an adverse effect on greenhouse gas
emissions.
"What impact might the expansion of biofuels
have on international food security and prices?"
In the case of soya, for example, an FAO June
2006 report (presumably not considering recent increase in targets)
estimates that the main producing countries (USA, Brazil and Argentina)
would need to triple production in order to supply the agrofuel
market and that "a near doubling of the area under cultivation
would probably be required, even assuming future yields matched
the highest yield encountered currently in rain fed cultivation
under high input technology in the USA."35 Taking into account
that the USA already uses all the suitable land for soya, and
that demand for ethanol and rising prices in cereals are expected
to cause an increase in land devoted to grains in this country
at the expense of soya, it seems that the only available "surplus"
is to come from southern producers. The expansion in soya cultivation
for export in Brazil and in Argentina has already taken a tremendous
toll in these countries. Not only has it spurred deforestation
and destroyed valuable ecosystems, driving indigenous peoples
and small farmers from their territories, it has also displaced
small farmers and local production oriented towards meeting domestic
food needs. As Grupo de Reflexión Rural comments: "The
export model exemplified by soya seriously threatens food sovereignty
in Argentina . . . In recent years, soya has replaced the production
of food staples, which are now being imported."36
The rapid expansion of oil palm plantations
in Indonesia, Malaysia and other developing countries, encouraged
by expectations of a huge agrofuel market, is also having devastating
impacts not only on the environment but also on local farming
economies and food sovereignty. In addition to the expansion of
agricultural land, rising agrofuel demand is to be met by an increase
in crop yields, with increased inputs in order to maximize production.
According to the European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association:
"Over the next ten years . . . nutrient use for oilseeds
will increase by 35% and even by 49% for oilseed rape. This is
due to an increase in biodiesel production."37 On the other
hand, the rapid development of agrofuel markets is encouraging
investment in farming operations by the agrofuel industry, already
prospecting developing countries for suitable land for energy
crops.
Small farmers in these countries will not be
able to compete with large-scale, export oriented, intensive productions
managed by industry. Many are forced—sometimes through the
use of violence—to abandon farming and migrate to cities,
adding to the significant fraction of world population already
living in precarious situations in urban peripheries, extremely
vulnerable to rising food prices. The escalating demand for agrofuels
will encourage small farmers to plant energy crops rather than
crops cultivated to meet family needs and/or supply local markets.
This will increase dependency on purchased inputs and on distant
markets that communities are unable to control, and threaten local
subsistence and food security. In addition to significant environmental,
social and economic damage, intensification of agriculture and
the displacement of small farmers is bound to entail a dramatic
loss of local crop varieties and associated knowledge, further
undermining local agricultural sustainability and food sovereignty.
7. How might farm viability in both developed
and developing countries change with an expansion of biofuels?
What implications are there for poverty in developing countries?
Should we be concerned about large monopolies forming in the biofuel
sector?
Regarding implications on poverty in developing
countries, they are myriad and they are already being exhibited:38,39,40,41,42
"To benefit local communities, agrofuel
production would need to be part of a diverse farming system.
But development is focused on large centralized monocultures for
economies of scale and a consistent product. The impact of monocultures
such as sugar cane in Brazil, is a clear example of the lack of
benefit for the poor and marginalized. This is reinforced by experiences
from other countries, including Paraguay and Argentina, Ecuador
and Indonesia and South Africa, where communities have reacted
to government agrofuel strategies. In Europe, the EC has claimed
that agrofuels can provide opportunities for farmers as well as
creating jobs and rural regeneration. However EU sources are highly
contradictory, especially regarding the number of jobs that will
actually be created, not simply replaced or displaced."
Human rights violations have already resulted
from soya, sugarcane and palm monocultures in Latin America and
Asia, and these are likely to intensify through the production
of agrofuels. Impacts on health arise from deforestation and pesticide
spraying. Another major issue involves historical and intense
land conflicts, due to monoculture expansion. Production of agrofuel
crops may involve violent evictions and murders. Examples are
given here from Colombia and Paraguay.43,44,45,46
"Should we be concerned about large monopolies
forming in the biofuel sector?"
Yes. Isn't the monopolies and mergers commission
concerned about large monopolies in any market? Quite clearly
the present large companies make life for the plantation workers
extremely unpleasant, which is putting it rather delicately. Powerful
players are already forming allegiances in the biofuel market.
Eg BP and D1 with jatropha in India nad South Africa; BP and British
Sugar; Tesco—Cargyle—Greenergy; Northeast Biofuels47—including
Monsanto, who are seeking to overcome British public concerns
about GM food, by introducing GM biofuel feedstock.
There is a very large and powerful lobby forming
that includes: Fossil fuel companies, biofuels suppliers and refineries,
food manufacturers, farmers, GM & car manufacturers. In Germany
the car lobby backed by Ms Merkel is said48 to have successfully
stopped the EC introducing tougher regulations on reducing cars
carbon emissions by lobbying for higher EU biofuel targets.
REFERENCES
1. "Agrofuels—Towards a reality check
in nine key areas" http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_reality_check.pdf
2. "Stop the agrofuel craze!" GRAIN http://tinyurl.com/2hkkzp
3. "Agrofuels in Africa—The impacts on land, food
and forests." http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/ABN_Agro.pdf
4. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/10/europe/EU-GEN-Finland-Brazil-Silva.php
5. http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/Wilmar_Palm_Oil_Environmental_Social_Impact.pdf
6. Moratorium Call http://www.econexus.info/biofuels.html#org
7. Open Letter http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2007Jan31-openletterbiofuels.pdf
8. (Overview of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005,
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/About.aspx
9. http://www.scenta.co.uk/Engineering/1700681/humans-use-or-abuse-quarter-of-all-energy-from-plants.htm
10. tinyurl.com/2ezulh
11. tinyurl.com/yojh9w
12. tinyurl.com/3yrw6y and tinyurl.com/2mu2a4
13. Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece
14. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp
15. http://www.wetlands.org/publication.aspx?ID=51a80e5f-4479-4200-9be0-66f1aa9f9ca9
Page, S E, F Siegert, J O Rieley, V Boehm Hans-Dieter, A Jaya,
and S Limin. 2002. The amount of carbon released from peat and
forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420: 61. 65
16. Guardian, http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
17. Department for Transport, 2004. Petroleum Consumption:
by Transport Mode and Fuel Type. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_031767.pdf
18, 19. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
Crops for Energy Branch, 7 November 2004. Pers comm.
20. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2004.
Agriculture in the UK 2003. http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2003/chapter3.pdf
21. FAO. Food Outlook. Global Market Analysis. N 2. December
2006. www.fao.org/docrep/009/j8126e/j8126e14.htm
22. D Qualman, Biodiesel and ethanol can't fuel this civilization.
Union Farmer Monthly. Vol. 57 Issue 1. Jan 2007. www.nfu.ca/ufq/newsletter/uf_january_2007.pdf
23. FAO Sumario de estadísticas agrícolas y
alimentarias mundiales 2005Coordination Paysanne Européenne.
For a legitimate, sustainable and supportive Common Agricultural
Policy. November 2003. www.corporateeurope.org/docs/AgrofuelsRealityCheck.pdf
24. EUCAR/JRC/CONCAWE. Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive
fuels and powertrains in the European context. European Commission
Research Centre. December/2005. FAO. Food Outlook Reference3.
www.corporateeurope.org/docs/AgrofuelsRealityCheck.pdf
25. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/29/food.g2
26. Department for Transport, Transport statistics Great Britain,
2005, October 2005, pg 121
http://www.dft.gov.uk.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transtats_609987.pdf
27. "A Motorway-based National Coach System", 2005,
Alan Storkey www.bepj.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/2007/03/motorway-based-coach-system.pdf
28. http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=15265
29. Department for Transport, The Future of Transport: Modelling
and Analysis, 2005, pg 10
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/downloads/dft_about_036814.pdf
30. "Government sets out challenge for greener Britain",
Guardian, 14 November 2005
www.politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1641967,00.html
31. "Speed limit crackdown to cut emissions' Guurdian,
14 November 2005
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/14/travelandtransport.carbonemissions
32. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42836/story.htm
33. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42814/newsDate/27-
34. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42816/newsDate/27-
35. FAO. World agriculture: towards 2030/2050. Interim report.
www.fao.org/es/esd/AT2050web.pdf
36. L Joensen & S Semino. Argentina: A Case Study on the
Impact of Genetically Engineered Soya". Report published
by Grupo de Reflexión
Rural (Argentina) and the GAIA Foundation (UK), October 2004.
www.corporateeurope.org/docs/AgrofuelsRealityCheck.pdf
37. Owing to the development of energy crops, the overall
use of nitrogen fertilizer in the European Union is forecast to
increase by 2,5% in coming years after a decade of decline. S
Shamsie. Despite general decrease of fertilizer consumption in
the EU, nitrogen fertilizer consumption will increase modestly,
says EFMA's 10-year forecast. EFMA press release December 2006.
European Fertilizer manufacturers Association. Forecast of food,
farming and fertilizer use in the European Union 2005-15.
www.cfi.ca/files/press_releases/CFI_Biofuels_Discussion_Paper_Feb07.pdf
38. Agribusiness and biofuels—an explosive mixture.
The impacts of monoculture expansion on bioenergy production in
Brazil, Energy Working Group of the Brazilian Forum of NGOs and
Social Movements for the Environment and Development (FBOMS),
2006
www.boell-latinoamerica.org/download_pt/Agronegocio_e_biocombustiveis_EN_folder.pdf
39. The Development Model for Soy in Paraguay- Irresponsible,
Unsustainable and Anti-Democratic, Asuncion, August 2006,
http://www.wervel.be/content/view/663/310/
40. Rural communities express dismay—"land grabs"
fuelled by Biofuels Strategy, March 2007, signed by 29 South African
organisations.
www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/files/pressrelease2007-06-27.pdf
41. Ethical Sugar, Social and Communitary impacts on biofuels
markets; the ethanol case, presentation on World Biofuels Market,
6 March 2007,
www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/news.php?id=644Brussels
42. Ghosts on our Own Land: Indonesian Oil Palm Smallholders
and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, by Forest Peoples
Programme and SawitWatch
www.forestpeoples.org/documents/prv_sector/bases/oil_palm.shtml,
43. "Oil Palm and Other Commercial Tree Plantations,
Monocropping: Impacts on Indigenous Peoples' Land Tenure and Resource
Management Systems and Livelihoods", Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
and Parshuram Tamang, report to the United Nations Permanent Forum
on Indigenous Issues, May 2007, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/6session—crp6.doc.
Also the statement to the press: http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=14672
Gasparri et al. "Deforestación en la zona de transición
entre Yungas y Chaco en la provincia de Salta. Región Parque
Chaqueño, período 1984-2001". November 2003.
República Argentina, Ministerio de Salud, Secretaría
de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, Dirección de Bosques,
http://www2.medioambiente.gov.ar/documentos/bosques/publicaciones/deforestacion_ACRB_chaco.pdf
44. Paraquat Kills! There is no antidote for it! Don't lift
the ban on Paraquat! Pesticides Action Network Asia and the Pacific/2007
http://www.panap.net/48.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=50&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=13&cHash=1c9fa533a0
45. Malaysian government lifts ban on paraquat: Pesticide
Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20061012.dv.html
22) En Europa, en Brasil y en Colombia Cuestionamientos a biocombustibles
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=48176
46. El fujo del aceite de Palma Colombia-Belgica/Europa acercamiento
desde una
media/archivos/flujoPalma/informe_es.pdf
http://www.hrev.org/hrev/media/archivos/flujoPalma/informe_es.pdf
47. http://www.northeastbiofuels.com/whoarewe/whoarewe_home.htm
48. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/62bf7762-b0d0-11db-8a62-0000779e2340.html
|
