http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/12/31/biofuels-digests-2012-best-project-thermochemical-award-kior-columbus-mississippi/
Enrico Partiti is a doctoral fellow at the University of Amsterdam specialising in social and environmental standardisation.
As anticipated by a draft leaked in September, the Commission
proposal for the amendment of the Renewable Energy Directive aims to
address the adverse effects on food prices and in particular land-use
change resulting from the EU support to the biofuel industry, by
encouraging the transition from first-generation, or ‘conventional’,
biofuels - produced from food-crops such as wheat, sugar and rapeseed -
to second-generation biofuels.
The latter, also known as ‘advanced biofuels’, are obtained from
non-food sources such as biomass, algae and municipal solid waste, and
deliver higher greenhouse gas savings when the full production circle is
considered.
The proposal tackles in particular one of the several controversial
issues related to first-generation biofuels, the so-called indirect land
use change (ILUC). The employment of food-crops for biofuel production
rather than human consumption results in a restrain on the supply side
that requires that new and previously uncultivated land is put to use.
This can cause substantial carbon emissions and loss of biodiversity.
When the Commission published its proposal for minimising the
environmental impact of biofuel production by including also emissions
resulting from ILUC in the calculation of greenhouse gas savings of
biofuels, heated reactions ensued from producers and environmentalists
alike.
Producers vocally complained against the introduction of a 5% cap of
first-generation biofuels towards the attainment of the EU’s 10% target
for renewable energy in transportation and the withdrawal of
subsidisation for conventional biofuels: two measures that could
potentially halt the development of the conventional biofuel industry.
Environmentalists deplored the missed opportunities to scrap the EU
biofuel mandate altogether. Only this action, in their view, would limit
the surge in food prices and the global rush for cultivable land, also
known as land-grabbing, fueled by the European support of the biofuel
industry.
ILUC, as also explained in the impact assessment document
accompanying the Commission’s proposal, is a phenomenon that cannot be
observed nor measured precisely.
In addition, the application of the precautionary principle was
unavoidable considering the conflicting scientific evidence concerning
the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from ILUC, and the
solutions put forward by the Commission seem to implement it
effectively.
It is however regrettable that the Commission has failed to extend
the application of the same precautionary approach to wider
environmental and social concerns relating to the negative social and
environmental consequences of extensive biofuel plantations,
particularly in Africa, where they could even result in massive
expropriations and human rights violations, including the human right to
food, according to the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Right
to Food Olivier De Schutter.
A wealth of report and studies from NGOs and international
organisations such as IIED-FAO, the World Bank and Oxfam, has shown that
foreign investors are taking control of vast portions of land for
biofuel production and export in their home countries, stripping local
peoples of their land, which is oftentimes the only source of
livelihood. Social tensions are aggravated, biodiversity is lost, and
food prices are pushed up. None of these factors, unfortunately, is
considered in the Commission proposal when assessing biofuels
sustainability.
Since also public perception of first-generation biofuels is shifting
and consumers are increasingly aware of their negative consequences,
producers of conventional biofuels are now under pressure both from the
regulatory and the market side.
Influencing the legislative process and attempting to maintain
subsidisation of first generation biofuels, while responding at the same
time to consumers demands for sustainability, has become a pressing
need for the industry. As the Commission is of the view that after 2020
only biofuels which lead to substantial greenhouse gas savings will be
eligible for subsidisation, producers do not have many options other
than to walk the extra mile and strive to eliminate, or at least reduce
drastically, all adverse environmental, and possibly also social,
externalities arising from biofuel production.
They could do so by deciding to voluntarily comply with more
stringent requirements addressing effectively social and broader
environmental issues. As a starting point could be to set stricter
common sectoral rules that level the playing field.
Subsequently producers could even employ market-based instruments
such as labelling schemes and certifications already recognised by the
Commission. In this way, biofuels addressing broader environmental and
societal concerns could be readily identified by consumers and business
operators, and could benefit from a competitive advantage on the
marketplace.
For instance, out-grower systems could be established in the vicinity
of the fuel-crops plantation in order to provide the affected
population with sufficient food-crops for their consumption and thus
mitigating the impact on food prices. Intensive monoculture could be
discouraged to prevent loss of biodiversity, or reforestation zones
could be established to counterbalance greenhouse gas emissions.
The biofuel market, to a large extent created and managed by EU
regulators, represents a textbook example supporting the case for
sectorial voluntary regulation, where it is in producers’ interest to
act voluntarily and set new and more stringent rules to avoid even
stricter ones, a de facto ban on conventional biofuels in this case.
Producers have therefore the option to address the issues left aside
by the Commission and eliminate the adverse consequences of their
products. Otherwise, the transition to second generation biofuels would
really be ineluctable, also because it appears feasible from an economic
perspective.
In either case, the possible elimination of food-based biofuels would
most certainly be welcomed by the almost one billion people that
suffer from hunger every day. To them, it makes a little difference
whether the solution comes from the Commission or from biofuel
producers.
