Thursday, May 8, 2008

Biofuels Bonanza

Why are We Not Discussing
Decreasing Fuel Consumption?

Sustainability criteria for biofuels are a most welcome initiative. But will they be enough to control the situation?

By: Neth Dano, Third World Network

The initiative of the government of the Netherlands to establish criteria for sustainable production of biomass/biofuels is indeed commendable. No other developed country has exerted so much effort to ensure that national and regional targets on biofuels used to ensure energy security and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will be met based on clear criteria for sustainable. Beyond its own national borders and the EU, tiny Netherlands is even advocating for international consensus on adopting sustainability criteria in biofuels production. That definitely deserves a standing ovation in a world where rich countries chose to play a blind eye to the food riots in poor countries while their cars and lorries fill up their tanks with biofuels. Bravo!

Criteria do not set caps

But, can adoption of criteria really make biofuels/biomass sustainable? Will sustainability criteria make all our concerns on food competition, land and water pressures, forest degradation, and displacement of indigenous communities vanish in the air? Will sustainability criteria promote rural development, alleviate poverty, generate rural livelihoods and close the gap between the rich and poor in rural areas?

Proponents of sustainability criteria for biofuels production seem to believe so. Most of them believe it in good faith.

Despite the assurances that sustainability criteria are not meant to promote the further expansion of biofuels production, putting such systems in place is expected to send positive signals to the market. The standards that will be set by such criteria will attract investments for its guaranteed market, thus will result in expansion of production areas. After all, sustainability criteria do not set caps.

Detracting responsibility

There is also a gnawing concern that putting so much emphasis on the sustainable production of biofuels detracts from the responsibility of developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through more drastic measures at home such as promoting energy efficiency, upscaling renewable energy, and the institutionalization of sustainable production and consumption patterns. The EU assures that this is not the case since they have a comprehensive program towards long-term energy security and targets for greenhouse gas emissions. Fine. But while the EU targets to produce 80 percent of the biofuels/biomass that it will use within its territory by 2020 based on sustainability criteria, the 12 years between now and that target date would involve the production of the bulk of the EU’s biofuels consumption in developing countries, who contribute the least to global warming, but its biggest victim.

Measurement and monitoring

While there may be overflowing good faith and sincerity in pushing for the adoption of sustainability criteria in biofuels production, the tool itself (setting criteria) has inherent limitations and can only measure so much. From a practical point of view, it will be a challenge to define sustainability criteria for impacts that are not very obvious such as impacts on relations to the land and social equity – even within the plantation level. Long-term impacts on the environment may even be hard to capture in short-term monitoring exercises. This is made more difficult if the companies producing biofuels will be expected to monitor themselves, as suggested by the Netherlands.

Time to turn the thinking around

Some parties lament that the biofuels debate has become so emotional that detractors cannot accept reason. But, who says emotions and reasons cannot go together? Can anyone afford not to be emotional when the world is already feeling the impacts of energy security programs of rich countries on the scarce food basket of the poor? The food crisis that the planet is going through right now should serve as a wake up call for humanity to rethink the development path that we are taking. As food riots break out in poor countries while politicians in rich countries set ambitious targets on the share of corn ethanol in their energy mix, there is clearly something wrong with what we are doing. When bureaucrats insist that adopting sustainability criteria will stop the riots and will bring back the era of cheap food, and call it a crime to be emotional when one questions their notion, there seems to be something wrong with our current thinking.

Rather than striving for increased biofuels production - no matter how "sustainable" - shouldn’t we instead work towards decreasing fuel consumption? Rather than worrying about the wrath of angry voters lining up for expensive petrol, shouldn’t we be more afraid of the collective rumbling of hungry stomachs?

At this time of crisis, it does pay to think upside down. Perhaps that’s what this world needs to attain the vision of sustainable development.