The
Gaia Foundation, UK
Press Release for immediate release
from Nairobi UNFCCC COP-12 talks
13th November 2006
NGOs warn Africa on the dangers of biofuels
and genetic engineering in the fight against Climate Change
A number of NGOs have written
an Open letter (attached below) to the African nation delegates urging
them to call for rejection of large-scale Biofuels or Genetic Modification
(GM) technology as possible ways to achieve fast growth or more efficient
fuel conversion under the Clean Development Mechansism (CDM). They
point out that dependence on Biofuels and GM technology may in fact
exacerbate the problems of climate change, environmental degradation,
social inequality and poverty, particularly in Africa.
Key points are:
· Large scale biofuels development can put pressure of food
crop stocks, threatening food security and opening commodity markets
up to increased speculation.
· Biofuels are often inefficient at saving energy or carbon
emissions.
· Biofuels developments threaten forests and peatlands.
· GM biofuel crops are being developed and yet African countries
have not yet developed the necessary biosafety policies to regulate
and monitor GM in food or fuel crops. Cross pollination and contamination
of existing agriculture is under threat.
Teresa Anderson of the Gaia Foundation
says “Africans risk multiple disasters in adopting GM technology.
They may lose their rights to save their seed if they adopt patented
GM crops. Consumers in Japan and Europe who have rejected GM are likely
reject imports from Africa for fear of contamination. Planting GM
trees may threaten the future of forests as the genes that affect
the ability of trees to stand upright or resist insects could unpredictably
cross-pollinate with native forests. Biodiversity would also be affected”.
Andrew Boswell of the Large Scale
Biofuels Action Group said “In the light of the precautionary
decision on GM Trees made at UN CBD COP-8 in April 2006, we urge the
African nations to stay resolutely cautious about adopting these technologies
that are not in their control, nor likely to be in their best interests”.
Contacts:
Teresa Anderson, Gaia Foundation, E: teresa@gaianet.org, M: +254-720955038
(in Nairobi)
Andrew Boswell, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, E: andrew.boswell@yahoo.co.uk,
M: +254-720833788 (in Nairobi)
NGOs supporting letter:
The Gaia Foundation, UK (Teresa Anderson, teresa@gaianet.org)
Global Forest Coalition, Paraguay (Simone Lovera)
Global Justice Ecology Project, US (Anne Petermann and Orin Langelle)
Tropical Forest Group, Uganda (John Begumana)
Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, UK (Andrew Boswell, andrew.boswell@yahoo.co.uk)
World Rainforest Movement, Uruguay (Ana Filippini)
Open letter to African COP-12
delegates from a number of NGOs 13th November 2006
Dear Delegate
A warning for Africa at
COP-12: Biofuels, Genetic Engineering and Climate Change
The issue of Biofuels is gaining
increasing currency at the UNFCCC COP-12, and in talk of environment
and development solutions for Africa. Genetic Engineering (GE) or
Genetic Modification (GM) technology may also be promoted in the form
of GM crops and GM trees, by those who see the technology as helping
to achieve fast growth or more efficient fuel conversion.
A number of NGOs would like to
urge caution, and point out some of the many flaws with these arguments,
and urge UNFCCC delegations and national policy makers not to embrace
unsustainable large-scale biofuel plantations and potentially risky
GM technology. Dependence on Biofuels and GM technology may in fact
exacerbate the problems of climate change, environmental degradation,
social inequality and poverty, particularly in Africa.
DID YOU KNOW:
Large-Scale Biofuels Threat
to Food Security
· Using important agricultural land and water to grow biofuels
instead of food for domestic consumption will have a detrimental effect
on food security in Africa.
· The amount of grain required for one tank of bioethanol in
a 4x4 SUV would feed one person for a year (1).
· In 2006, an increase in the use of grain worldwide for conversion
to biofuels led to a 60% increase in global grain prices and speculator
interest in what had previously been a stably priced commodity. (2)
· While African countries may yet explore the possibilities
of small-scale farming of biofuel crops for local household and domestic
grid energy use, the consequences of growing fuel for export to the
wealthy developing countries instead of food for Africans could be
severe.
Energy Inefficient
· Some studies from the US found that the amount of fossil
fuel energy required to produce and process biofuel crops such as
soya and maize (fertilizer, farm machinery, processing and transport)
is almost as much as the amount of energy contained in the fuel produced.
(3)
· Biofuels therefore give us very little carbon saving and
low energy saving.
Deforestation and Destruction
of Peatlands
· Soya grown in the Brazilian Amazon is driving deforestation.
· The forested regions of Indonesia and Malaysia are being
cut down for Palm Oil plantations.
· Wetlands Intenational have shown that destruction of SE Asian
peatlands for Palm Oil plantations, which cover 0.2% of the global
land surface, is responsible for 8% of the global CO2 emissions. (4)
· The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) currently allows for
peatland areas that have been burned and cleared to create biofuel
plantations to be eligible for CDM funding.
· On Kalangala Islands in Uganda, large areas of tropical forest
are being converted into BIDICO palm oil plantations, which will be
used to produce biodiesel. BIDICO are currently lobbying government
to be able to further expand their plantations into other forested
areas.
Genetically Engineered
Biofuel Crops?
· The Genetic Engineering industry is keen to use acceptance
of biofuels as a strategy to speed up GM acceptance in Africa, and
the industry is working on a number of GM biofuel crops.
· Currently South Africa is the only African country that grows
GM crops commercially, as the rest of Africa has been wary of integrating
a potentially dangerous technology into the core of food security
policy.
· Most African countries have yet to develop biosafety policies
on GM crops, and are cautious of the difficulties in regulating and
monitoring this novel food system, which could easily cross-pollinate
and contaminate conventional agriculture.
· If the UNFCCC were to endorse GE as a technology, this would
reverse years of hard-fought resistance by African governments and
citizens to prevent GM contamination of agriculture.
The Dangers of GM Crops:
· GM crops are patented by the corporations that sell them,
making seed saving illegal.
· Monsanto corporation (which owns 95% of global GM crops)
has successfully sued farmers for patent infringement when their crops
were cross-pollinated by neighbouring GM farms. (5)
· In Africa, 80% of small farmers save their seed. Food security
and livelihoods in rural areas are likely to be negatively affected
with the advent of patented GM seed.
· GM crops can easily cross-pollinate with local varieties
and wild relatives, which means that genes from other species may
accidentally and irreversibly contaminate the food chain and environment.
Local varieties will be lost, and scientists do not know what the
impact of these GM genes will be on ecological systems.
· GM crops have barely been tested for human or environmental
safety, in spite of the large possibility of new toxins or allergens
created through the insertion of new genes. The few animal tests that
have been carried out have raised cause for concern. (6,7)
· Consumers in Europe and Japan have rejected GM crops for
food and agriculture. Due to the risk of contamination, these countries
may reject imports from countries that are growing GM crops.
· If GM crops are developed for biofuel use, new genes will
be inserted for the plant to create chemicals that are not intended
for human consumption. The likelihood of these biofuel crops contaminating
conventional crops is, however, very high and over a hundred cases
of contamination have been officially registered around the world.
(8)
· If second generation ligno-cellulosic technology is commercially
developed, the processing will be GM-intense involving specially produced
enzymes to break down cellulosic material– the effects of accidental
or intentional release of such materials into the environment is also
unknown.
GM Trees
· Genetically Engineered trees, with traits for insect resistance,
fast growth, increased cellulose or reduced lignin are not yet grown
commercially anywhere. However, GM tree plantations have been promoted
by the US as carbon sinks, which may be grown in Africa.
· Tree pollen can travel for hundreds of miles and could cross-pollinate
with non-GM trees, potentially spreading the genes for low lignin
(which helps trees to stand up) or insect resistance.
· Trees have such a long growth cycle that we have little or
no idea of what the impact on their ecologies will be.
· Trees provide the planet’s most important ecosystems
for keeping climate in the balance. It seems insanity to use this
untested technology as a so-called “solution” when there
is a large chance that it could harm global forest systems and create
even more long-term chaos.
· GM tree plantations are likely to have the same effect as
many exotic tree plantations and carbon sinks in Africa, which have
only replaced current forested areas and reduced biodiversity, drained
water tables, and prevented local people from accessing the trees
traditionally important to their livelihoods and cultures
Precautionary Decision
on GM Trees at UN CBD COP-8 2006
· The social and ecological threat from GM trees was acknowledged
at the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) in April 2006, urged a
precautionary approach.
· The decision states in part: “The Conference of the
Parties, recognizing the uncertainties related to the potential environmental
and socio-economic impacts, including long-term and trans-boundary
impacts, of genetically modified trees on global forest biological
diversity, as well as on the livelihoods of indigenous and local communities,
and given the absence of reliable data and of capacity in some countries
to undertake risk assessments and to evaluate those potential impacts…
recommends parties to take a precautionary approach when addressing
the issue of genetically modified trees.”
We therefore urge delegates to
oppose large-scale biofuel plantations and Genetic Engineering technology
at the UNFCCC COP-12 negotiations, particularly as part of the CDM
and technology transfer initiatives. While there may be a role for
small-scale and local biodiesel production for domestic consumption
(e.g. Jatropha), where it does not displace food crops, forest or
indigenous people, the inherent damage caused by large-scale plantations
must be considered. Furthermore, under no circumstances should GM
technology be endorsed at the UNFCCC.
Sincerely
The Gaia Foundation, UK (Teresa
Anderson, teresa@gaianet.org)
Global Forest Coalition, Paraguay (Simone Lovera)
Global Justice Ecology Project, US (Anne Petermann and Orin Langelle)
Tropical Forest Group, Uganda (John Begumana)
Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, UK (Andrew Boswell, andrew.boswell@yahoo.co.uk)
World Rainforest Movement, Uruguay (Ana Filippini)
(1) Lester Brown, Earth Policy
Institute, “Starving the people to feed the cars,” 10
September 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801596.html?sub=AR
(2) “Speculators buy up drought-hit wheat crops to earn their
daily bread.” http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1933832,00.html
(3) Robert Rapier, “E85: Spinning Our Wheels”, R-Squared,
May 2006 – http://tinyurl.com/yclt89
(4) http://www.wetlands.org/
(5) Center for Food Safety report “Monsanto vs Farmers”,
June 2005
(6) New Scientist “GM pea causes allergic damage in mice”
21 November 2005 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347
(7) “Genetically Modified Soy Affects Posterity: Results of
Russian Scientists' Studies” Regnum News Agency, Russia. 12
October 2005 http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html
(8) http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/
