Thursday, May 8, 2008

The Bottom Line of Biofuels

The unsustainable biofuels policies of the North forget to address energy-poverty and land-issues in the South.

By: Saar Van Hauwermeiren, Oxfam-Wereldwinkels Belgium for VODO/ANPED

The biofuels policies of the industrialised countries are justified as measures to tackle climate change and at the same time guarantee their fuel security. The European Commission has proposed that by 2020, all member states must meet at least 10% of their transport energy needs through biofuels as part of their obligations under the Renewable Energy Sources Directive. Also in the US, the Renewable Fuel Standard sets the targets for the supply of ethanol by 2022.

The needs of the poor in developing countries however, such as relieving energy-poverty and food-insecurity, land rights, fair contracts and good labour conditions are not adressed in those policies. The FAO notes that 1.6 billion people lack access to electricity and 2.4 billion still use traditional biomass in an unhealthy, inefficient and environementally insustainable way. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and IMF have both warned that increasing biofuel demand is responsible for up to 30% of food price rises.

Facing the enormous challenges of population growth, changing dietary patterns in emerging economies, declining cereal yields and global warming – world agricultural GDP is expected to decrease by 16% as a direct result of global warming - it is unbelievable that Northern countries persist in their biofuel-targets for their transportsector. While promoting the use of biofuels in this context without considering its sustainability impacts the North is increasing its ecological and social debt to the South. And the future doesn’t look very promising: the IEA predicts that total biofuel consumption will increase tenfold between 2004 and 2030.

One of the neglected negative side effects of the Northern biofuel policies is the pressure that companies put on vulnerable communities to by-up their land, in many cases communities whose rights to the land are not protected. Indigenous people and women are the most vulnerable. The UN has identified that 60 million indigenous people are at risk of displacement by the biofuels expansion. In Indonesia alone, more than 400 cases are reported of land conflicts.

Because of the food crisis and the many critics of biofuels as responsible for biodiversity loss, a new idea of policy makers and investors is now to focus on “marginal” or “degraded” lands. These areas are unsuitable for commercial food production and poor in biodiversity. Maybe a solution? No. What is “marginal” for some is valuable for others. The problem is that there is no accepted definition of marginal land. Often these lands are common property and are fundamental for the livelihoods of the rural poor. They use them for food, materials and food. Cases in Indonesia and Tanzania show that many communities are not enough informed on the consequences of giving their land away for energy crops. They hope biofuels investments could create job opportunities, they don’t even know whether they have the right to any compensation. And they don’t take into account the often bad labour conditions on plantations.

Therefore no biofuel investment should take place without the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the communities. This standard for consultation with local communities regarding the development of their land and the setting of compensation is a fundamental social criteria that has to be respected. No decision should be taken without consultation of communities with complete transparency on all relevant aspects of the proposed project.

Another missing point concerning land in the actual biofuel policies is the impact on sustainable development of indirect land use change. Ethanol production for example stimulates American farmers to switch out of soy and into corn, but South American soy farmers respond to higher prices by bringing new, rainforested land into production.

Northern countries should in the first place focus on sustainable consumption patterns and can choose out of a list of alternatives to deal with their climate and energy problems, which externalise less negative social and environmental effects on the South. They could fro example invest in sustainable transport,: car efficiency standards, increasing support for public transport, car sharing schemes, congestion charging, etc.

Finally, the chairman's summary on the CSD15 should not be forgotten during CSD16/17. It states that actions have to be taken to strengthen initiatives to create and foster international cooperation on bioenergy including biofuels, with a view to ensure that bioenergy is produced and used sustainably, taking into account an adequate balance between food security and bioenergy production, as well as the sustainable use of natural resources, according to national circumstances.