Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Biofuels: Would the CSD Choose Inertia (Again)?

Biofuels (or agrofuels) continue to be a contentious topic at the CSD. While CSD14/15 preferred to stay quiet and avoided any meaningful discussion on the sustainability of biofuels in the context of combating climate change, the issue of biofuels has once again turned up in the CSD halls – this time in the context of agriculture and rural development. Unlike in the energy cycle, however, the CSD cannot afford to choose inertia this time. The current food crisis and the realization that the current situation could be a consequence of the global rush to produce biofuels puts this alternative energy source and purported engine for rural development into serious question.

By: Neth Dano, TWN and J.Hoffmeister, ANPED

Arguments for and against biofuels are coming from all directions. On one side, global leaders are claiming that “Biofuels aren't the villain that threaten food security”, as stated by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in a recent FAO meeting. On the other hand, experts and analysts from all corners of the globe, including the World Bank’s President Robert Zoellick, claim that biofuels are fueling the food crisis. On April 11th, Mr. Zoellick said that "Biofuels is no doubt a significant contributor (to the food crisis)." He added that "It is clearly the case that programs in Europe and the United States that have increased biofuel production have contributed to the added demand for food."

As the environmental, social, and economic sustainability of biofuels spark such global debate, the responsibility of the CSD becomes obvious. It is no doubt part of the CSD’s mandate to take stock of the sustainability question surrounding biofuels. While skeptics say that such technological fixes can never be sustainable, the least that governments can do is to agree on necessary actions to ensure the environmental, economic and social sustainability of biofuels.

What can the CSD do?

There is no escaping for the CSD to take on the issue of biofuels. Because at the heart of the debate lies the sustainability question, it cannot be referred to another UN body. Because the JPOI does not address biofuels, as it was not yet an issue in 2002, it cannot be followed up with the matrix approach and “type 2” partnerships. Because it is an urgent global issue, it cannot wait for future generations to find the answers.

There is no doubt that the CSD has to tackle the biofuels issue head-on within the framework of sustainable development. Solutions, however, should not stop at debating on the issues and leaving them for the next year, with the hope that they will die down. The issues around biofuels will not fade away as long as there are poor families going to bed with hungry stomachs while an SUV in the US guzzles up fuel in the pump. Technology will not fix a problem that has structural roots. This problem will not go away in the next CSD, thus it has to be addressed now. Non-action on this issue is another good reason for the CSD to vanish in oblivion.

The least that the CSD can do at this point is to create a high level ad hoc working group comprised of governments and relevant experts to explore sustainability criteria for biofuel production— a high level group that takes stock of the debate and provides CSD17 with the necessary information to reach meaningful guidelines to the biofuels and sustainability contention.

Rhetoric and ambiguous statements will no longer do at this time of global crisis, and the question of biofuels at the CSD has already met its quota. If CSD14/15 failed to deliver with its conventional approach, the time has come to try something different at CSD16/17. As Albert Einstein once said, “you cannot solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that has created the problem”. In a closer analysis, creating a high-level ad hoc working group can hardly be called a new approach. In the past, the CSD has put together technical panels or ad hoc groups to explore complex issues. The highly contentious nature of biofuels requires such guidance for delegates to arrive at informed decisions and help the world achieve the vision set in Rio.

On the one hand, the urgency of the current situation and the challenge for the UN to immediately address this problem facing the world community actually cast shadows on how fast such a body can deliver. Rioting caused by rumbling stomachs will not stop while ad hoc bodies debate and write down their recommendations. Reports, no matter how good, cannot feed hungry mouths. What the world needs is ACTION from the CSD, as the only UN body mandated to see to it that the vision of sustainable development becomes a reality. In a sustainable world, no one dies from hunger just so someone can drive an SUV. That world will remain an impossible dream unless CSD acts and does its work NOW.