Biofuels from food: no more, please

A few years ago, a group of socially engaged students decided to explore the potential of biofuels to contribute to sustainable development in the countries of the South, and to investigate whether they could lead to new agricultural opportunities for farmers there. Biopact had a vision: in a world of ever increasing oil prices and the need to address climate change, developing countries with lots of land resources and in search of new agricultural markets would enjoy their comparative advantages and produce fuels from energy crops for their own and for international markets. Given their abundant natural resources and the lack of these in energy hungry economies, a relationship connecting efficient producers in the South to wealthy consumers in the North would have been an interesting option. Such a 'win-win' could have brought rural development in places where it is much needed, and perhaps a form of global social and environmental justice.

Reason and reform
When we launched this small idea of a rational 'pact' we were aware of the fact that it calls for thorough reform of many current practises, so that poorer farmers in the developing world can compete: (1) a reduction of farm and biofuel subsidies in the wealthy countries (EU, US); (2) trade reform and the abandonment of biofuel import tariffs in these same countries (Doha, but as the G20 sees it; recognizing biofuels as 'environmental goods' under the WTO regime); a commitment by industrialised nations to assist developing countries in tapping their abundant resources in an environmentally and socially acceptable way.

The concept furthermore called for courageous investments from Europe and other industrialised nations in the South, which could have taken the form of targeted development assistance: investments in science and agricultural research capacities; biofuel technology transfers; investments in transport infrastructures, in improved marketing and in market access; supporting efforts to promote good governance and putting pressure on local governments to make work of land reform and rural development; a strengthening of the cooperative movement and of other communal modes of production.

Even though many organisations have signalled that they basically agree with the organisation of such a pact and with the reforms that are needed to make it work, very few concrete steps towards it have actually been taken.

The wrong path
Meanwhile, biofuels have boomed in places where their production makes least sense and where they contribute least to development: namely in the countries that can easily cope with food price increases and fuel price highs, that is, the wealthy West. American and European farmers have become rich, but risk ruining both the food and energy security of hundreds of millions of the world's poor. The rush into outright destructive palm oil production for biodiesel has been completely irresponsible as well - rainforests are being razed resulting in unacceptably high amounts of carbon emissions and the destruction of countless species that will never appear on this planet again once they're gone.

But the continuous food price increases resulting from the wholesale conversion of millions of tonnes of the most basic foodstuffs on which we all depend - wheat, maize, vegetable oils, sugar - into fuels for the wealthy urban classes of this world, are the single most important factor that makes the current mode of production of biofuels totally unethical. The trend of multinationals 'capturing' cheap land, cheap labor, and cheap governments in developing countries is nothing less of a new form of commodity driven colonialism.

In short, the gap between, on the one hand, our ideal of a rational North-South pact based on biofuels that contribute to sustainable development and result in social benefits for those who need it most, and, on the other hand, the actual situation, which represents the complete opposite, has become too great.

Scaling down
Therefor Biopact can no longer support nor report in a neutral way on biofuel ventures that still produce fuel from food. Not for as long as newer generations of biofuel technologies don't become available on a larger scale and completely push food based production out of the market; and not for as long as the most basic steps needed for a 'biopact' haven't been realised (unambiguous trade reform, farm policy reform in the wealthy countries, and so on), so that rural populations in less developed countries for once get a chance to guard themselves against the vagaries of global commodity markets and instead can benefit from these markets.

For the time being, we will only support the small scale, local use of biofuels for communities that decide for themselves - in full sovereignty and independence - that it makes sense to do so, for them and for whichever reason (improved farm incomes, greater mobility or energy security at the household, local or regional level). We think of a community of farmers in Ghana (picture) who decided to produce biodiesel from their palm oil for themselves, because local diesel fuel is more expensive but extensively used in the most basic of operations: irrigating fields, pumping drinking water, powering electricity generators, transporting farm goods to market. We think of Practical Action's project in Peru, which helps poor riverine communities out of their isolation with biodiesel they make themselves and which they use in their boats, to transport people and goods to nearby markets. We think of the many initiatives involving household biofuels, such as gelfuels for cooking or biogas for heating, cooking and lighting. Think of ICRISAT's 'pro-poor' biofuels initiative based on opening new markets for farmers in drylands. Such initiatives - and there are many of those but they don't make the headlines easily - can have genuine social, economic and environmental benefits for vulnerable communities.

What we think worth supporting too, are national efforts developed by governments in dialogue with civil society, to develop biofuel programs that are explicitly aimed at achieving social justice and rural development. We think of Brazil's 'Social Fuel' scheme, which offers poor farmers an opportunity to produce oil crops on land where not much else grows, and under strictly regulated conditions, as part of cooperatives, taking into account the recognition of land titles, with guaranteed prices for the feedstock and guided by expert assistance allowing them to acquire farming skills they can apply in other contexts - a long list of preconditions makes this a genuinely social program. We think of Nepal's national biogas project, which succeeds in reducing the unsustainable consumption of primitive biomass, and which offers an inexpensive, clean and practical alternative form of household energy that directly benefits thousands of people and the immediate environment in which they live.

However, the large-scale production of food based biofuels grown in unsustainable monocultures for 'export' and for 'the global market' - that anonymous, abstract, at times dangerously perverse system - does not make sense.

Biofuels may well have a 'theoretical' and 'technical' potential that puts them on a par with fossil oil over the long term - and much to the dismay of some, we have continuously referred to this 'potential' - but the sheer number of conditions that must be met to actually utilize these resources in a socially acceptable and genuinely environmentally sane way, is simply too large and can't be implemented rapidly enough.

Moratorium
For all these reasons, Biopact joins those who call for a real moratorium on (1) biofuels made from food crops, (2) biofuels that are obtained from destructive (plantation) practises such as palm oil in South East Asia or soybean in Brazil, (3) biofuels of which it cannot be demonstrated that they do not contribute in an indirect way to such destructive pressures on the environment and on biodiversity (these would include some sugarcane plantations in Brazil), (4) biofuels based on practises that result in the displacement of people from their lands or in the weakening of their livelihoods and local environment, (5) or that contribute to any kind of social or economic developments leading in any indirect way to such negative social and environmental consequences on communties that already have it difficult enough to defend their interests.

Social and environmental biofuels criteria developed by Europe are a minimum minimorum, but even this will not suffice to avoid these risks or to curb the current trends. Such criteria will be used as tools for an easy greenwash by companies who know very well that (non)adherence to the rules will never be monitored let alone sanctioned thoroughly enough. If we take palm oil made by companies adhering to the criteria developed by the 'Sustainable Roundtable on Palm Oil' as an example for such rules, we can only fear the worst.

Back burner
In conclusion, from now on Biopact will only report on small scale bioenergy and biofuel initiatives, will scrutinize and criticize the many developments that drive food and energy insecurity in developing countries (and even in highly developed countries, because even there many less well-off people are finding it difficult to cope with rising food prices), will no longer legitimise 'temporary negative effects' of biofuels by thinking that somehow, miraculously, they will disappear in a larger, future context. Biopact will continue to track technological and scientific developments in the sector, debates about subsidies and trade reform, investments in physical, economic and social infrastructures related to biofuels in developing countries and other conditions that need to be met in order for us to begin to take the chances for such a future pact seriously.

We don't think we have been wrong in promoting the idea we stand for. Naive, yes, perhaps. But at least we think we can say we have presented a voice in-between two common and dangerous positions: one that represents a business-as-usual case, held by those who consider biofuels to be just another commodity ready to make the powerful even more powerful; and another one that focuses blindly on negatives only while ignoring that bioenergy and biofuels could offer genuine chances for 'sustainble development'. We think our exercise has been 'fertile' and has 'fermented' quite a fruitful debate. We have presented our view to some key decision makers - amongst them the EU - and have published it, so nobody can say that the proposition was never expressed. But now it is time to scale down, in order to power up a more realistic future.

Biopact Team