Some common environmentalist objections to biofuels - BioPact reacts

On the eve of the EU's Energy Council, when the Union's biofuels strategy will be discussed once again, it may be useful to list some common objections to the drive towards green transport fuels. Obviously the BioPact disagrees with some of those, but an open debate is crucial. The European Federation for Transport and Environment lists the following objections, to which we quickly add our comments (we have done so earlier):

1) The displacement of land-uses that are important to biodiversity. The most immediate risk is losing agricultural ‘set-aside’ land. European farmers are required to set aside some of their land and put it out of production. While not an environmental measure, set-aside has had huge benefits to wildlife and has become a critical part of the European farmed landscape, acting as a refuge for farmland biodiversity.

BioPact: this is indeed a strong argument, but irrelevant to the pact, since we focus on biofuels imports from developing countries. There land is plenty and underutilized.

2) The harmful impact of energy crop ‘monocultures’ (concentrated growth of a single crop over wide areas), excluding the plants and animals which would otherwise contribute to the ecosystem, making fields ecological semi-deserts. Intensifying the production of energy crops, including new types like miscanthus (elephant grass), also increases use of fertilisers, energy and pesticides, which further damage the environment and contribute to climate change. Biofuel growth can aggravate existing threats to bio-diversity.

BioPact: the biodiversity argument must be weighed off against the opportunity for development in the third world. Agriculture cannot do without fertilizers and in the developing world it makes sense to introduce them much more. Today's developing world agriculture is often environmentally destructive (slash and burn), and is based on land extension, instead of on intensification. It may be more environmentally friendly to introduce modern farming techniques to the third world, than to let destructive farming practises flourish. Introducing the biofuels opportunity in the third world may be a leverage with which to modernise agriculture in the South.

3) Losing natural habitats of global importance for wildlife and carbon storage, such as the Indonesian rainforest and the Brazilian Cerrado, through importing biofuel feedstocks. Cultivating vast plantations of palm oil, sugarcane and soy may also cause soil erosion, harm water quality and bring social problems, such as displacing native people and small farmers.

BioPact: in fact, many studies suggest that the palm oil industry thrives on smallholders who put their land to use and who make a good living out of it. One cannot expect a small land owner not to use his fields for the most commercially interesting crop, or to sell his land to multinationals.
The BioPact strives towards enhancing local farmers' ownership in biofuel production. We explicitly reject a push towards monopolisation by large agro-industrial multinationals, and we take this threat seriously.

4) The solution is to ensure that o­nly the right kind of biofuels, those produced sustainably which genuinely offer major greenhouse gas benefits, are eligible for public support and count towards public targets, such as the EU target of replacing 5.75% of transport fuels with biofuels by 2010. A mandatory certification system for biofuels must ensure minimum production standards are met and confirm eligibility for public support.

BioPact: if this implies that the opportunity for poor farmers to lift themselves out of poverty is blocked, then we reject any certification scheme. The EU already keeps millions of farmers in poverty with its agricultural subsidies. Now biofuels and bioenergy production offer a chance for those farmers. If the EU once again puts its own criteria over the lives of millions, then we firmly object.

However, the BioPact supports attempts to create a social certification system. We think social sustainability must be included in the debate.

5) Biofuels are o­nly o­ne of many technologies which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Their role is restricted by limited available land and competing land uses. Biofuel development must therefore be part of a broader energy policy focusing o­n energy saving and efficiency.

BioPact: this speaks for itself.

6) Biofuels are often termed ‘carbon neutral’ as they generally come from organic material that is then re-grown. In fact, production causes substantial GHG emissions, mainly from making and using fertilisers and from fossil fuels use in processing. Using biofuels may even cause more emissions than conventional fuel. Savings can be increased through good crop management and minimising fossil fuel use in processing and fuel transport.

BioPact: this argument is false. Many bioenergy and biofuel production processes can be entirely green: transport of feedstock can be biofuel based and processing can be biofuel based (as is the case in Brazil, where sugar mills produce excess electricity from waste biomass, which is fed to the grid).

7) Biofuels are not an unlimited resource. We need land to grow biomass for fuel, and our fuel demands are so vast that even small targets require major land-use changes. This has a major impact o­n bio-diversity and the environment. A Commission-sponsored study1 found that meeting the EU’s target of replacing 5.75% of fossil fuels with biofuels would consume 14-27% of EU agricultural land. To meet the biodiesel target, 192% of 2005 EU oilseed production would be needed, or 14% of the forecast world production in 2012. This target cannot alone be met by domestically-produced biofuels. The EU will need major imports of biofuel and biofuel feedstocks to supplement domestically-produced crops.

BioPact: this is exactly the opportunity which the BioPact has spotted: biofuel production promises to lift millions of poor farmers in the tropics out of poverty.

We hope that the EU does not again deny those farmers an opportunity that may better their lives.