Recently (3-5 June 2008) FAO hosted the High-Level Conference on World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy in its headquarters in Rome.
During the summit Olivier De Schutter, an independent UN expert on the right to food, called the United States and the European Union to abandon policies promoting biofuel consumption (US plans to channel 25% of US maize in ethanol by 2022 and the European Union is aiming at 10% substitution of transport fuel by 2020) (Robin Pomeroy and Alister Doyle, Reuters). The UN mainly wanted to urge the US and other nations to consider phasing out subsidies for food-based biofuels (Colum Lynch, Washington Post), because these are distorting the food market and as such enhancing current food crisis. This is without mentioning the effects on deforestation, biodiversity, water, …
The US Agriculture Secretary Ed Shafer played down biofuels’ role in soaring food prices. He says they contribute only around 3% of the sharp food price rise while campaign groups claim 30% (Robin Pomeroy, Reuters) and Michell (World Bank) concluded that 65 % of the rise in prices is due to biofuels and factors related to their rapid increase in demand for feedstocks (as given in the conference information material: Soaring food prices: facts, perspectives, impacts and actions required). Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defended Brazil’s booming ethanol industry: “We must clear away smokescreens raised by powerful lobbies who try to blame ethanol production for the recent inflation in food prices. It offends me to see fingers pointed against clean energy from biofuels, fingers soiled with oil and coal.” (Robin Pomeroy, Reuters).
Other voices recommended the World Leaders to agree on ways to make biofuels socially and environmentally acceptable before public opinion turns against them for good (Robin Pomeroy, Reuters).
In the final conference declaration, under pressure of Washington (Robin Pomeroy and Alister Doyle, Reuters), negative language on biofuels is avoided. The declaration sees “challenges and opportunities” and calls for “in-depth studies on the three sustainability pillars” and “result-oriented international dialogue on biofuels in the context of food security and sustainable development needs”.
The declaration could have been more concrete, but on the other hand this declaration puts the discussed issues on the international agenda which might be the correct first step towards a code of conduct.
It is very difficult to take a position in this complex discussion. In rural situations biofuels might even be able to increase people’s food security. Although the global food market is already heavily distorted, I also feel that subsidies for land use based biofuels should be stopped. In the end I would say that we have to take all objections (environmental, social and economic) at heart, not give up on biofuels and try to agree on a common foundation (like a set of principles) for further development (This sounds like a quite trivial stand). So…, I don’t come much further than the declaration myself.
So…, I don’t come much further than the declaration myself.
Well, seems you’ve come further than me. I’ve recently had a post about biofuels and ended up being called a crank, it has collected 119 comments by now. Though what I was actually concerned with are exactly the smokescreens – not necessarily only in the biofuel area. Wouldn’t one have thought such a discussion should have been lead before biofuel was widely subsidized and spread globally? And why don’t we have a political system that is able to sensibly deal with a topic of this complexity? This lacking power on the political side is what I am afraid eventually leaves the power in the hand of influential lobbies.
Sabine, thanks for the link. Your post hosted quite some discussion indeed (and, as you mention, not all biofuel and food crisis related) (I didn’t go through all of it). I would like to stay to the biofuels – food crisis issue in this.
I believe states have been acting mainly unilaterally in this domain (bilateral or within an international
not globalframework at best) (If decisions were based on science, bad or good politics, electorate and/or money based lobbies, a healthy mix… I don’t know, and as such rather don’t take a position in this). This might answer your questions (partly). The result of the collection of decisions on biofuels is now claimed to cause global problems (food crisis).We also have to see that there are many other factors currently playing on the food markets: rising global consumption, rising fossil fuel prices, skimpy harvests in Australia, … and on top of that rapid increasing land use for biofuel production. Could this have been foreseen?
I have the feeling (please, correct me if I’m wrong) that your questions actually call for the same thing as what the summit declaration is calling for: an international/global dialogue for creating a sustainability (social, economic and environmental) framework within which (state political) decisions could be empowered and/or limited.
Ow, editing mistake…
…(bilateral or within an international
not globalframework at best)…should have been
…(bilateral or within an international – not global – framework at best)…
But, now I know how to strikethrough.
Maybe nobody even thought about food back in the
agesyears when biofuels were considered the solution to our energy problem.I would not be surprised if a lot of lobbying is going on in the foreground, midfield, background, behind the carpet or whereever, because after all, it’s fuel that makes the economy go around.
Counterpart for the petrol lobby: the Food-related industries launch
new ‘Food Before Fuel’ lobbying campaign.