Dear Friends and Colleagues,
The Environment Commissioner for the European Union has admitted that the harmful impacts of biofuel production on the environment, food security and poor communities, may be greater than the EU had expected. But new EU laws coming out next week that will aim to ensure that biofuels imports will be sustainable, were strongly criticised for failing to protect the climate, biodiversity and livelihoods of vulnerable communities.
Commissioner Stavros Dimas said that he believed it would be better for the EU to miss its target of 10% biofuel in petrol and diesel, than to risk damaging the environment for the sake of meeting the targets. Commissioner Dimas’ comments highlight the paradox that biofuels are promoted as a solution to climate change, while environmentalists and communities around the world are outraged that biofuel production is leading to increased deforestation and food insecurity.
Even the Royal Society in the UK added its concerns in a report that emphasised that the production of some biofuels will have greater carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels, and are likely to exacerbate climate change.
These comments come a week before the EU is to announce its draft laws which it hopes will ensure that only “sustainable biofuels” will be imported into the EU as part of their biofuel target. However, NGOs have fiercely criticised the EU’s belief that biofuels can be produced sustainably on such an enormous scale. They say that the draft laws are weak for failing to protect important ecosystems, food security and communities’ livelihoods. The proposed laws also do nothing to prevent the “macro-effects” of deforestation caused by food production making way for biofuels, and moving into forested areas.
The EU is increasingly turning to Africa to produce and export biofuel to help meet the 10% targets. As the amount of grain needed to produce enough biofuel for one car tank would be enough feed a child for a year, the quantities of crops needed to meet this target will be enormous. For a continent that already struggles with hunger, the rush to produce biofuels appears to be madness.
Best wishes,
Teresa
***********************************
1. EU Rethinks Biofuel Guidelines Article from BBC. Date: 14 January 2008 Roger Harrabin http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7186380.stm
2. EU Reviews Biofuel Target as Environmental Doubts Grow Article from the Guardian. Date: 15 January 2008 David Adam and Alok Jha
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/15/biofuels.carbonemissions
3. Europe May Ban Imports of Some Biofuel Crops Article from New York Times. Date: 14 January 2008 James Kanter http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/business/14cnd-biofuels.html?hp
4. Commissioners Warn over Agrofuels; FOEE Calls for Moratorium on Proposed Target Press Release from Friends of the Earth Europe. Date: 14 January 2008
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Jan14_Commissioners_warn
_agrofuels.html
5. Government Needs to Drive Biofuels in Right Direction Warns Royal Society Press Release from Royal Society. Date: 14 January 2008 http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28632
************************************
1. EU Rethinks Biofuel Guidelines
Article from BBC. Date: 14 January 2008 Roger Harrabin http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7186380.stm
Europe’s environment chief has admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems raised by its policy to get 10% of Europe’s road fuels from plants. Recent reports have warned of rising food prices and rainforest destruction from increased biofuel production.
The EU has promised new guidelines to ensure that its target is not damaging. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said it would be better to miss the target than achieve it by harming the poor or damaging the environment.
Clampdown promised
A couple of years ago biofuels looked like the perfect get-out-of-jail free card for car manufacturers under pressure to cut carbon emissions. Instead of just revolutionising car design they could reduce transport pollution overall if drivers used more fuel from plants which would have soaked up CO2 while they were growing.
The EU leapt at the idea – and set their biofuels targets. Since then reports have warned that some biofuels barely cut emissions at all – and others can lead to rainforest destruction, drive up food prices, or prompt rich firms to drive poor people off their land to convert it to fuel crops.
“We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were. So we have to move very carefully,” Mr Dimas told the BBC.
“We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels.”
He said the EU would introduce a certification scheme for biofuels and promised a clampdown on biodiesel from palm oil which is leading to forest destruction in Indonesia.
Some analysts doubt that “sustainable” palm oil exists because any palm oil used for fuel simply swells the demand for the product oil on the global market which is mainly governed by food firms.
US expansion
Mr Dimas said it was vital for the EU’s rules to prevent the loss of biodiversity which he described as the other great problem for the planet, along with climate change.
On Monday, the Royal Society, the UK’s academy of science, is publishing a major review of biofuels. It is expected to call on the EU to make sure its guidelines guarantee that all biofuels in Europe genuinely save carbon emissions.
In the US the government has just passed a new energy bill mandating a major increase in fuel from corn, which is deemed by some analysts to be useless in combating rising carbon dioxide emissions. The bill also foresees a huge expansion in fuel from woody plants but the technology for this is not yet proven
*****************************
2. EU Reviews Biofuel Target as Environmental Doubts Grow
Article from the Guardian. Date: 15 January 2008 David Adam and Alok Jha http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/15/biofuels.carbonemissions
A European drive to run vehicles on biofuels instead of petrol and diesel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to be reviewed after concerns about its environmental impact.
Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, said a European target to boost biofuel production risked causing more damage than Brussels realised. But he insisted that biofuels still had benefits, and their impact on food supplies and biodiversity could be limited by the introduction of strict sustainability standards.
Europe has pledged that biofuels, such as bio-ethanol and bio-diesel, will make up 10% of transport fuel by 2020; Britain has a separate target of 5% biofuels in petrol and diesel by 2010.
Supporters argue that biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because the plants they are made from absorb carbon dioxide from the air. But a number of studies have raised doubts about the green credentials of many of the leading candidates, such as palm oil and ethanol made from corn. Critics say biofuels compete for land with staple food crops, and vast areas of rainforest are cleared to grow them.
Dimas told the BBC: “We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were.” He said the EU would “move carefully” on the issue. “We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels.”
If sustainability could not be achieved, he said, the EU target would not be met.
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: “Government targets mean that soon motorists will be forced to pump these fuels into their tanks, with no way of knowing where they’re coming from. We need to be sure that when we fill up we are not trashing the world’s rainforests. A better, quicker solution would be to make our cars far more fuel-efficient.”
In a separate report, the Royal Society yesterday said the UK government needed to rethink its biofuels policy. The society warned that the renewable transport fuel obligation, which calls for 5% biofuel use within two years, would not necessarily reduce carbon emissions.
The report comes a few weeks after an article in the journal Science, by Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, concluded that biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and soy could have a greater environmental impact than burning fossil fuels.
************************
3. Europe May Ban Imports of Some Biofuel Crops
Article from New York Times. Date: 14 January 2008 James Kanter http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/business/14cnd-biofuels.html?hp
PARIS – In a sign of shifting attitudes toward biofuels, officials of the European Union are proposing to ban imports of certain fuel crops whose production could do more harm than good in fighting climate change, according to a draft law seen Monday.
The proposals, to be unveiled next week, are aimed at enhancing the environmental credentials of biofuels like biodiesel or ethanol to counter concerns that European drivers are playing a role in destroying wetlands, forests and grasslands in areas like Southeast Asia or Latin America each time they fill up their tanks.
In its draft, the European Union requires that biofuels from crops grown on some kinds of land covered in forest, wetlands and grasslands as of January 2008 should be banned for use in the 27-nation bloc. The commission also would require that biofuels used in Europe should deliver “a minimum level of greenhouse gas savings.”
The text, which could change before European commissioners meet on Jan. 23 to adopt a final version, also emphasizes that areas like rain forests and lands with high levels of biodiversity should not be converted to growing biofuels.
At the same time, the European Union does not want to abandon biofuels because they could still help decrease Europe’s dependency on imported oil by providing alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel.
“The problem is that we have no alternative to oil at the moment, and 90 percent of our transport in Europe depends on oil, making us extremely vulnerable to foreign supplies,” said Ferran Tarradellas Espuny, the spokesman for the European Union’s energy commissioner, Andris Piebalgs.
Europe is drafting its rules on biofuels amid rising prices for gasoline and diesel and growing worries about climate change across the world. In recent years, a number of countries have started growing and using fuels produced from plants or agricultural waste.
In the United States, ethanol produced from corn has boomed, as has ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil. In Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States, vegetable oils have been converted into a type of diesel fuel by a simple chemical procedure.
In principle, these biofuels promise not only to displace imported oil but also to lower the amount of greenhouse gases being dumped into the atmosphere. The crops absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as they grow, and the fuels made from them re-emit that same gas when they are burned a few months later.
But fuel crops also hold the potential for considerable environmental harm. Not only is native vegetation, including tropical rain forest, being chopped down in some cases to plant the crops, but the crops also are often grown using fossil fuels like diesel for tractors – and they demand nitrogen fertilizer made largely with natural gas. Moreover, turning the crops into fuels can demand huge amounts of water.
Experts say certain types of fuels, particularly those made from agricultural wastes, still hold potential to improve the environment. But it is only now becoming clear that to achieve that goal, governments will have to set and enforce standards for how the fuels are produced.
With its new proposal, Europe appears to be moving ahead of the rest of the world in that task. In part, that is because biofuels are the main weapon foreseen by the European Union to lower emissions from the transportation sector, which has the fastest growing levels of greenhouse gases among all sectors of its economy.
The increasingly negative image of biofuels has left officials pulled in separate directions – on the one hand trying to clean up the European market for biofuels that cause environmental damage, while on the other hand seeking to rehabilitate biofuels to meet Europe’s ambitious greenhouse gas emissions targets.
The draft rules by the European Union would probably have the biggest effect on growers of palm oil in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, according to Matt Drinkwater, a biofuels analyst with New Energy Finance in London.
“Some proposed developments in Southeast Asia will almost certainly be blocked by these provisions,” he said, explaining that the rules would make it much harder to plant on recently cleared land or export fuels to Europe that emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases produced during the process of manufacturing biodiesel from palm oil.
Growers of crops to produce ethanol – a substitute for gasoline that is more commonly used in the United States than in Europe – also could be affected because the proposed European Union rules include provisions on preserving grasslands, Mr. Drinkwater said. Crops for ethanol are grown widely in parts of South America, including Brazil.
An organization representing major growers of crops for biofuels in Malaysia said the European Union should be cautious before imposing new rules. It said that farmers in the region were adopting more sustainable practices, and warned that restrictions on imports could raise trade tensions.
“The Malaysian government is very concerned about the E.U. scheme for sustainability of biofuels,” said Zainuddin Hassan, the manager in Europe for the Malaysian Palm Oil Council in Brussels. The measures “should not be a trade barrier to the palm oil industry and it should comply with the W.T.O. rules as well,” he said, referring to the World Trade Organization.
Verifying that only environmentally sound biofuels are being imported into Europe would be left to individual countries. But the draft law calls for penalties for violating the rules, like exclusion from tax breaks, to be uniform across the region.
The draft law also says biofuels should be physically tracked “so that biofuels fulfilling the sustainability criteria can be identified and rewarded with a premium in the market.”
The measures are part of a plan for Europe to set a binding target that 10 percent of the transportation fuels consumed by 2020 would come from renewable sources. Most of these are expected to be biofuels.
Espuny, the spokesman for the European Union’s energy commissioner, said European countries that used even more than 10 percent of biofuels in their transportation fuels mix could use their progress to help them to reach other important targets. Those include an overall binding target of a 20 percent share of renewable sources in energy consumption by 2020.
Currently, most of the crops for biofuels used in Europe consist of rapeseed for biodiesel grown in parts of Europe, according to Mr. Drinkwater, the analyst at New Energy Finance. Other crops for biodiesel include palm oil from Southeast Asia and soy from Latin America. Europe also imports some ethanol from Brazil made from sugar cane, and produces some ethanol domestically using wheat and sugar beat, he said.
A flurry of studies has discredited some of the claims made by biofuels producers, including that the fuels help substantially to reduce greenhouse gases by producing fuels from crops that absorb carbon dioxide as they grow.
The growing demands for biofuels mean that millions of acres of land will need to be opened up to meet the global demand for palm oil, according to Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth.
Already, the draining and deforesting of peatlands in Southeast Asia mainly to make way for palm plantations accounts for up to 8 percent of global annual carbon dioxide emissions, Mr. Bebb said.
In Indonesia, where more than 44 million acres of forest have already been cleared for palm oil developments, wildlife like the orangutan and the Sumatran tiger are under threat, and indigenous people mainly dependent on forests and natural resources have been dispossessed, he said.
The latest broadside against biofuels came Monday from the Royal Society, a national science academy in Britain. It said government requirements to use a certain percentage of biofuels were not sufficient. Instead, the society said, there should be specific targets for emissions reductions.
“The greenhouse gas savings of each depends on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used,” said John Pickett, head of biological chemistry at Rothamsted Research, a research center in Britain, who helped write to report for the Royal Society. “So, indiscriminately increasing the amount of biofuels we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions.”
Last week, scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute warned that biofuel production could result in environmental destruction, pollution and damage to human health.
The Smithsonian cited a Swiss study showing that fuels made from American corn, Brazilian soy and Malaysian palm oil may even cause more damage over all than fossil fuels. The best alternatives, according to the Swiss study, include biofuels from residual products, like recycled cooking oil and ethanol from grass or wood.
Even so, the Smithsonian scientists said biofuels could still have a promising future.
“Different biofuels vary enormously in how eco-friendly they are,” said William Laurance, a staff scientist at the institute. “We need to be smart and promote the right biofuels.”
***********************************
4. Commissioners Warn over Agrofuels; FOEE Calls for Moratorium on Proposed Target
Press Release from Friends of the Earth Europe. Date: 14 January 2008 http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Jan14_Commissioners_warn_agrofuels.html
Brussels, 14 January, 2008 – Friends of the Earth Europe has called on the European Commission to introduce a moratorium on plans to expand agrofuel use as two Commissioners go public with their concerns over the impact production will have on both people and the environment.
Environment Commissioner Dimas interviewed today by the BBC said that the environmental and social problems caused by agrofuels (also known as biofuels), “are bigger than we thought they were”, and said that the EU has, “to move very carefully”. (1) His comments follow a media interview given by Development Commissioner Michel three days ago agreeing for the first time that there should be a moratorium on new targets. (2)
Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: “Public warnings from Commissioners Michel and Dimas should be a wake-up call to the rest of the European Commission. The EU’s proposed new law to regulate agrofuels will be a disaster for the environment and will heavily impact on the world’s poor. An urgent moratorium on setting new targets is the only sensible way forward.
“Using crops to produce fuel is a false solution to climate change – the real solutions lie in forcing car companies to produce cleaner cars, improving public transport and making our towns and cities more energy efficient.”
Last week, 17 environment and development organisations wrote to the European Commission calling for the EU’s proposed target for biofuels to be dropped unless comprehensive safeguards are introduced to protect people and the environment. The groups state that current drafts of a new law due to be announced later this month will not guarantee the sustainable production of biofuels, a key condition set by EU Heads of State last year. (3)
In a joint letter to Energy Commissioner Piebalgs, the groups (4) raise concerns that the draft law (5):
Leaves important ecosystems unprotected: the current proposal does not provide protection for areas such as savannas (e.g. the Cerrado in Brazil) that may be threatened by expanding agriculture to meet the EU’s biofuel target. These areas also store huge amounts of carbon which would be released into the atmosphere if destroyed.
Side-lines negative impacts: Large scale biofuel production can cause knock-on impacts such as increasing food and feed prices and increasing water use. In addition, it can displace other agriculture activities into socially or environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. rainforests). The draft text does not provide any meaningful plan to deal with these issues, proposing instead to simply monitor the situation using bi-annual reports from Member States.
Ignores social standards: The draft text does not provide any criteria to protect people, particularly in developing countries, from the negative impacts of biofuel production. The scramble to supply European markets is already causing frequent land disputes, forced evictions, human rights abuses, increased poverty and poor working conditions in developing countries.
In addition the current version prevents Member States from introducing stronger conditions at a national level. It includes only limited criteria for transport fuels but no criteria for the same fuels used elsewhere such as in power stations.
The letter from the groups concludes, “We believe that if proper safeguards cannot be put in place the EU’s mandatory biofuel target must be suspended.”
***
For more information, please contact:
Adrian Bebb, Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +49 160 949011 (German mobile)
Francesca Gater, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe: Tel: +32 2542 6105 and +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile)
***
NOTES:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7186380.stm
2. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40762
3. The European Council in March 2007 agreed to a 10 per cent binding minimum target for the share of biofuels in transport by 2020. Council attached strict conditions to this target, notably, “subject to production being sustainable, second-generation biofuels becoming commercially available and the Fuel Quality Directive being amended accordingly to allow for adequate levels of blending”.
4. The letter can be downloaded from www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels and is signed by Friends of the Earth Europe, Birdlife International, European Environment Bureau, Greenpeace, Oxfam International, Wetlands International, Transport and Environment, Brot für die Welt, CAFOD, Tearfund, Corporate European Observatory, Rettet den Regenwald, Africa-Europe Faith & Justice Network, Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Quercus, Pro REGENWALD and Misereor.
5. Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (see http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/documents/Draft_RE_Directive.pdf)
Francesca Gater Communications Officer Friends of the Earth Europe Rue Blanche 15 B-1050 Bruxelles Belgium Tel: +32 2 542 6105 Mob: +32 48 5993 0515 Fax: +32 2 537 5596 francesca.gater@foeeurope.org
www.foeeurope.org
For the people, for the planet, for the future
***************************************
5. Government Needs to Drive Biofuels in Right Direction Warns Royal Society
Press Release from Royal Society. Date: 14 January 2008 http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28632
Biofuels risk failing to deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from transport and could even be environmentally damaging unless the Government puts the right policies in place warns a new Royal Society (1) report today (Monday 14 January 2008).
The report “Sustainable Biofuels: prospects and challenges” cautions that the UK’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), which comes into force in April 2008, does not necessarily encourage the use of the types of biofuels with the best greenhouse gas savings. This is because, although the Obligation requires fuel suppliers to ensure that five per cent of all UK fuels sold are from a renewable source by 2010 (2), it does not contain a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The RTFO is the UK’s implementation of the EU Biofuels Directive, which also fails to include a greenhouse gas target. As a result, the Directive will do more for economic development and energy security than combating climate change.
Professor John Pickett, who chaired the Royal Society biofuels study (3), said: “Biofuels could play an important role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions from transport both here and globally. Cars, lorries and domestic air travel are responsible for a massive 25 per cent of all the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and this figure is growing faster than for any other sector.
“The Government must ensure that the RTFO promotes fuels with the lowest emissions by, for example, setting a greenhouse gas reduction target. This will help encourage the improvement of existing fuels and accelerate the development of new ones. Without a target we risk missing important opportunities to stimulate exciting innovations that will help us cut our spiraling transport emissions.”
The report also recommends that the RTFO be extended for 20 years in order to stimulate the kind of long term investment necessary to foster a strong UK biofuels industry. It warns that without the right support, including of the research and development community, there is a risk that we will miss out on developing the biofuels that could bring greater benefits and that we could become ‘locked in’ to using inefficient biofuels.
John Pickett said: “In designing policies and incentives to encourage investment in and the use of biofuels it is important to remember that one biofuel is not the same as another. The greenhouse gas savings of each depends on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used. So, indiscriminately increasing the amount of biofuels we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions.”
The report calls for biofuels to be assessed and certified for the greenhouse gas savings they will deliver, as well as their positive and negative social and environmental impacts.
John Pickett said: “The UK is leading the way internationally by developing carbon and sustainability reporting for biofuels as part of the RTFO. This information is crucial so we can identify and promote the fuels produced in a way that is good for people and the environment. We have a particular responsibility to do so since the UK will have to rely on crops grown elsewhere in the world to meet demand.
“We must not create new environmental or social problems in our efforts to deal with climate change. Indeed, while the RTFO is a reasonable start, unless certification is applied to the production of all biofuels and is a system used by all countries we will merely displace rather than remedy the potentially negative effects of these fuels.”
The report says that biofuels are not the ‘silver bullet’ for meeting the rising demand for transport while tackling emissions. Delivering a sustainable transport system will require combining biofuels with other developments including the improved design of vehicles and engines, increased use of public transport and better urban and rural planning to encourage, for example, walking and the use of bicycles.
NOTES FOR EDITORS
1. The Royal Society is an independent academy promoting the natural and applied sciences. Founded in 1660, the Society has three roles, as the UK academy of science, as a learned Society, and as a funding agency. It responds to individual demand with selection by merit, not by field. As we prepare for our 350th anniversary in 2010, we are working to achieve five strategic priorities, to:
* Invest in future scientific leaders and in innovation
* Influence policymaking with the best scientific advice
* Invigorate science and mathematics education
* Increase access to the best science internationally
* Inspire an interest in the joy, wonder and excitement of scientific discovery
2. Targets refer to the amount of conventional fossil fuels that biofuels could replace. The UK’s RTFO target is that five per cent of fuels, by volume, sold in the UK should come from biofuels by 2010. In contrast, the EU Biofuels Directive’s target, that 5.75 per cent of fuels sold in the EU should be biofuels by 2010, is energy based. As some biofuels deliver less energy per litre than fossil fuels, this means that to meet the EU Target, a greater volume of biofuels (compared to fossil fuels) will be required to deliver the same amount of energy.
3. The members of the working group for the Royal Society Sustainable biofuels study are: Professor John Pickett, Rothamsted Research (chair)
Professor Dennis Anderson; Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London
Professor Dianna Bowles; Centre for Novel Agricultural Products, University of York
Professor Tony Bridgwater; Bioenergy Research Group, Aston University
Professor Paul Jarvis; Atmospheric and Environmental Science, University of Edinburgh
Dr Nigel Mortimer; North Energy Associates
Professor Martyn Poliakoff; School of Chemistry, University of Nottingham
Dr Jeremy Woods; Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London
For further information, or for a copy of the report, contact:
Sue Windebank/Laura Dibb
Press and Public Relations
The Royal Society, London
Tel: 020 7451 2514/2250
Out of hours: 07931 423323