OUR VIEWPOINT
-
Biofuels: A serious threat masked in green
Replacing
fossil fuels by biofuels (produced from plant biomass) may seem
a step along the right path to avoid worsening climate change.
However plans for their production and use not only leave this
problem unsolved but make many others worse.
The
biofuels to be adopted are biodiesel (obtained from oilseeds)
and ethanol (obtained from fermentation of plant cellulose). Among
the many possible crops for this purpose are soybeans, corn, colza,
groundnuts, sunflower seeds, oil palms, sugarcane, poplar and
eucalyptus trees.
Because
the major consumers in the North do not seriously consider reducing
their disproportionate consumption of fuels and because in most
cases they do not have sufficient arable land to supply themselves
with raw material to produce their own biofuels, their governments
and companies are planning to promote, basically in the countries
of the South, crops to produce biodiesel and ethanol.
It
is important to note that in the forest areas of the South, this
policy will not imply any change related to oil or gas exploitation,
which will only be stepped up as fossil fuels will continue to
be the main component of the energy matrix in the countries of
the North. However, the biofuel business will add new impacts
to those already existing in the forests.
As
proof of the above it is enough to mention soybean and oil palm
which appear as the main candidates for large scale biodiesel
production. The former has become the main cause of deforestation
in the Brazilian Amazon and in Paraguay, even before it started
to be produced for energy purposes. The latter is also the main
cause of deforestation in Indonesia and is having an impact on
the forests of many other countries in Africa, Asia and Latin
America.
Furthermore,
technologies are already being developed to convert timber into
ethanol (with the use of genetically modified organisms) and thus
the biofuel industry will promote an even greater expansion of
fast growing monoculture tree plantations both in forest areas
– increasing deforestation – and in grasslands.
Both
deforestation and the change in grassland use imply releasing
the carbon they store. To this are added the emissions from
growing, processing and transporting the biofuel itself, mostly
done on the basis of oil and other elements releasing greenhouse
effect gases: the manufacture of machinery used, the fuel used
for its operation, the production and use of chemical fertilizers
and agrochemicals, the trucks and ships transporting it to its
destination, etc. That is to say, the net carbon balance in areas
given up to the production of biofuels may even be negative, thus
increasing the concentration of greenhouse effect gases in the
atmosphere which is precisely what this change intended to avoid.
Summing
up, the use of biofuels in addition to not solving the problem
of climate change also implies an adverse effect on equally serious
problems.
In
fact, dozens or hundreds of millions of hectares of fertile land
will be concentrated in the hands of large trans-national corporations
and will produce fuel instead of food – in a world where hunger
and malnutrition are already serious problems in themselves.
During
this same process they will evict millions of farmers and peasant
smallholders who will mostly migrate to shanty towns around the
large cities. The forests will no longer ensure sustenance to
millions of people who depended on them and will be replaced by
soybean, oil palm or other energy crops. Water will be polluted
(from the use of agrochemicals) or disappear (due to the plantation
of fast-growing trees), local fauna will be seriously affected
by the enormous green deserts that will no longer provide them
with food, the native flora will be eliminated and replaced by
vast monoculture plantations and many local species will be contaminated
by the genetically modified crops used in such monoculture plantations,
while the soil will be degraded by these plantations and the use
of agrochemicals.
It
would seem evident that this is not a good solution, either for
the people or for the environment. However, it is an excellent
business opportunity for large companies operating on a national
level and in particular for large tansnational corporations. Among
them are those associated with the production and marketing of
agricultural products for export, biotechnology and chemical industries
(that are able to increase their sales of transgenic material
and agricultural inputs) the automobile industry (that can continue
growing under a “green” mantle), the new companies arising from
the biofuel wave and the oil companies that are becoming involved
in this new and lucrative business.
For
this reason, so many governments, aid bodies, bilateral agencies,
multilateral agencies and international experts are involved in
the promotion of this absurd solution: in order to serve the interests
of these powerful economic groups who dictate global policies
in their own favour.
Finally,
it should be noted that biofuels in themselves are not a problem.
More, within a social and environmentally sound approach they
may serve to satisfy part of the energy needs of our countries
and, in particular, of local communities. The central problem
is the model that they intend to implement, characterized by large
scale, monoculture plantations, massive use of external inputs
and transgenic crops, mechanization and export to feed the North’s
disproportionate energy consumption.
It
is therefore essential to face this new threat hanging over the
peoples and the ecosystems of the South and incorporate the issue
of biofuels into the struggle for the defence of forests and biodiversity,
against the advance of monoculture and transgenic crops, for food
sovereignty and for the peoples’ right to decide their own fate.
index
BIOFUELS:
A 360º ROTATION
-
The energy crisis and a bad solution
In
1972, a study conducted by the Massachussetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), on growing consumer trends alerted
politicians and scientists all over the world. The research titled
“The limits of growth” was prepared by an international group
of scientists, researchers and industrialists – later to
be know as the Club of Rome – and became a classic for the analysis
of the relationship between production and environment.
Throughout
the seventies and most of the eighties, various theories and studies
endeavoured to analyze the problem of the limitations imposed
by nature on the development model. In 1990, forceful neo-liberal
waves wiped out a considerable part of those efforts and the idea
of unlimited growth based on technological progress overwhelmingly
prevailed in political and academic circles all over the world.
However
now in the twenty-first century it would seem that the energy
issue is emerging as yet another reminder of those old announcements
which affirmed that in life everything has a limit.
Energy
sources and uses
Energy
sources are divided into renewable and non-renewable sources.
Solar energy, wind energy, geothermic energy (harnessing the heat
inside the Earth), plant biomass and hydraulic energy (from water)
are virtually inextinguishable sources of energy, some because
of the enormous amount of energy they contain and others because
they can be regenerated by natural means. Non-renewable
energies, once totally consumed cannot be replaced in the short
or medium term, for instance as in the case of fossil fuels (formed
during millions of years by action of heat inside the earth and
the pressure of rocks and soil on the remains of dead plants and
animals) and nuclear fuels.
With
industrialization coal appeared on the scene and later on (at
the end of the nineteenth century), oil and gas. Most of the world
energy consumption is based on one of these non-renewable sources:
oil, natural gas and coal, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Today, 80 per cent of the oil consumed in the world comes from
wells discovered during the seventies and are now reaching their
ceiling for daily extraction. The consumption of oil rose from
2,753 million barrels in 1973 to 3,767 million barrels in 2004.
The daily extraction of oil amounts to some 75 million barrels
and a 2 per cent annual growth is expected over the next few years.
By 2020 some 100 million barrels a day will be needed. This
in turn gives rise to the urgent need for new prospecting and
discovering of reserves as the present ones can no longer increase
their extractive capacity.
There
are major differences in the use of energy between rich and poor
countries. Although consumption of fossil energy in third world
countries has risen at a faster rate, their participation in world
consumption has dropped. According to the International Energy
Agency, by 2025, 82 per cent of the population of the planet will
be consuming 45 per cent of the energy, while in the industrialized
countries, 14 per cent of the population will be consuming 43
per cent (the remaining amount corresponds to the so-called transition
economies).
The
percentage of energy consumed in the United States is some 25%
of world consumption for 4.6 per cent of the world population,
while in India consumption is 3.1 per cent for 16.6 per cent of
the world population. In other words, a US citizen consumes
an average of fifty times more that an inhabitant of India.
Disproportionate
use of fossil fuels has fed unsustainable economic growth. From
the time “The limits of growth” was published and today, increase
in energy consumption – and the need to increase supply – was
sustained with the argument of economic growth to overcome the
poverty of the vast masses of the population. Since then we have
undergone an escalation of continuous growth – except for a few
years – where increased energy consumption has not been accompanied
by the same measure of improvement in people’s living conditions.
Furthermore,
the vision mechanically associating growth of trade
and consumption of energy with “development” overlooks several
key problems, among them the fact that energy imports increase
a country’s dependence; energy exports have a strong impact on
the balance of payments but also make the producing country extremely
vulnerable to changes in importing economies; the use, exploitation
and transformation of energy always have environmental impacts
left unaccounted in the balance of payments.
Climate
change as a result of excessive fossil fuel use
The
United Nations has warned that we are going through the largest
process of extinction of life on the planet since the disappearance
of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Climate change causing the
abrupt increase in the mean temperature of the earth’s surface
has been identified as one of the main causes of this process.
Additionally, climate change is directly related to an accelerated
increase in carbon dioxide emissions together with other greenhouse
effect gases as a consequence of the current development models
– production and consumption – encouraging an excessive use of
fossil fuels and unsound land uses (see WRM bulletin No.
76).
The
international community’s response to the threat of climate change
has been given through the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, adopted in May 1992. Its declared objective
is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
resulting from human activities at a level that will not involve
risks for the climate system. In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol
established obligations for reduction, basically affecting industrialized
countries which, so far, do not appear to be willing to change
their energy consumption model.
As
a response to commitments to reduce carbon emissions, the European
Union and the United States are seeking “solutions” that do not
imply taking on the cost of radically changing their unsustainable
production, trade and consumption patterns based on squandering
energy. The way of life of a small sector of the planet
is threatening the whole of humanity with a planetary crisis.
Within
this context, biofuels enter into the scene
Biofuels
are any fuel that derives from biomass — recently living organisms
or their metabolic byproducts. Thus it could be oils from plants,
manure from cows, wood from trees and so on. We will focus --in
this bulletin-- on biofuels that are derived from crops
and include biomass that is burnt directly; biodiesel obtained
from oil seeds and ethanol produced from the fermentation of sugars
found in plants.
Vegetable
oil can be used as fuel either pure or blended with gasoline.
It can also be converted to biodiesel through a process using
alcohol and a strong alkali to make a more volatile blend based
on oil from a variety of plants.
The
European Union and the United States have adopted policies promoting
rapid biofuel expansion. This has led to the creation of an enormous
market in the tropical countries of the South which are converting
millions of hectares to bio-energy monocultures to feed European
and US automobiles. All this is done without stopping to
study the impacts of this expansion on the planet. Effects on
the forests of Latin America and Asia and on their people are
already being felt.
Facing
the present energy crisis or the climate change crisis - the other
side of the same coin-, the politicians and technocrats have shown
no willingness to adopt strong measures to solve them. In
this great vacuum and paralysis largely supported by major corporate
interests, false and dangerous solutions are being promoted that
urgently need to be submitted to public scrutiny and debate, such
as the growing enthusiasm over biofuels which merely worsen existing
socio-economic, technical and environmental problems.
Article
based on: “Energía en Sudamérica: una interconexión que no integra”,
Gerardo Honty, Ceuta, Nueva Sociedad 204,
http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3369_1.pdf; “Biocombustibles
Renovables y sustentables”, Gerardo Honty, Peripecias Nº 18,
www.peripecias.com; “¿Es posible el desarrollo sostenible?”,
Guillermo Villegas Arenas, Mario Hernán López Becerra , Universidad
de Caldas,
http://lunazul.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php?option=com_content&task=
view&id=180&Itemid=180); “Which energy?”, 2006, ISS,
Energy Report, Mae-Wan Ho, Peter Bunyard, Peter Saunders, Elizabeth
Bravo, Rhea Gala; “Biofuels: Renewable Energy or Environmental
Disaster in the Making?”, Almuth Ernsting, Biofuelwatch,
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/background.php
index
-
Large-scale biofuels: Good for the power,
bad for the people and the climate
The
modalities of biofuel consumption and production are already causing
a negative impact on food security, rural livelihoods, forests
and other ecosystems, and these negative impacts are expected
to accumulate rapidly. Large-scale, export-oriented production
of biofuel requires large-scale monocultures of trees, sugarcane,
corn, oil palm, soy and other crops. These monocultures already
form the number one cause of rural depopulation and deforestation
worldwide.
Furthermore,
the claim that biodiesel is 'carbon neutral' is disputed since
it doesn't take into account how, for example, oil palm plantations
are developed. Realistic estimates show that making biofuels from
energy crops requires more fossil fuel energy than they yield,
and they do not substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions
when all the inputs are accounted for. Also, rainforests, swamp
and peat forests, which are important carbon sinks, are being
cleared in order to establish oil palm plantations.
However,
the European Union is promoting the use of biofuels as an energy
source for transport. The EU has set itself a target of increasing
the use of biofuels in energy consumption to 5.75% by 2010. The
European Commission is now pressing member states to fulfil their
commitments under the 2003 Biofuels Directive. The agriculture
council of 20 Feb 2006 held a first policy debate on the biofuels
strategy and the EU's biomass action plan. The advantage for these
countries is that biofuels like bioethanol and biodiesel have
lower prices than oil. Another plus for European farmers is that
domestic production of biofuels could offer new income and employment
opportunities after the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy.
In
Europe, biodiesel is used in Germany, France and Austria in varying
concentrations. In Germany, there are more than 1,000 filling
stations providing biodiesel. The first German 'biorefinery' is
to be built in Emden, with financing from a Dutch syndicate. The
plant is intended to turn 430,000 tonnes of palm oil, probably
from Indonesia, into more than 400 million litres of biodiesel.
Demand
for crude palm oil to generate electricity has increased 400,000
tonnes this year in the Netherlands, of which 250,000 tonnes will
be imported. The electricity company, BIOX bv, is reportedly planning
to build four new generators using palm oil. The company intends
to sell this palm oil-based electricity to several EU countries.
In
the United States, biofuels are welcomed as a way to help reduce
the country’s dependence on oil produced abroad. Biofuels combine
patriotism with economic self-interest: farmers love it because
biodiesel and ethanol are brewed from agricultural commodities,
helping drive up farm-gate prices; and Republican
senators love it because federal tax subsidies keep their voting
farmers happy.
On
quite an opposite stand, in Southern countries, the production
of biofuel crops is already having great environmental and social
impacts which will become worse in case the North-driven push
for new energy sources gain ground. An alliance of human rights
and environmental NGOs are campaigning against European countries'
use of fuel made from palm oil at the expense of forest ecosystems.
In an April statement entitled 'No to Deforestation Diesel!',
over thirty German, Austrian and Swiss groups warn that a palm
oil-fuelled biodiesel boom would repeat the pattern of forest
destruction caused by the rapid growth of Indonesia's pulp and
paper industry.
The
groups argue that a fundamentally different approach to energy
consumption is required, rather than merely replacing oil with
biofuels. This entails promoting of public transport over private
car and air traffic, more energy conservation measures and more
energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind power. The
groups are calling for strict criteria to be applied to the use
of biofuel raw materials including: no conversion of primary forests
for plantations; no burning to clear forests for plantations;
no human rights violations or police or military operations; no
certification of palm oil plantations, as a monoculture based
on palm oil cannot be cultivated in an ecologically sustainable
way and generally leads to problems rather than any enduring benefits
for local people; yes to the promotion of organic farming without
the use of artificial fertilizers or agricultural toxins; yes
to a promotion of agricultural smallholdings in the cultivating
countries. The statement also calls for customary rights and land
rights to be respected and full compliance with ratified international
agreements relating to indigenous peoples, biodiversity, workers'
rights, etc in countries cultivating biofuel crops.
Furthermore,
more NGOs, Indigenous Peoples Organizations and farmer’s movements
called upon the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change COP 12 held in Nairobi on 6 - 17 November 2006 to
immediately suspend all subsidies and other forms of inequitable
support for the import and export of biofuels.
They
claimed: “There is nothing green or sustainable to imported biofuel.
Instead of destroying the lands and livelihoods of local communities
and Indigenous Peoples in the South through yet another form of
colonialism, we call upon Northern countries to recognize their
responsibility for destroying the planet’s climate system, to
reduce their energy consumption to sustainable levels, to pay
the climate debt they have created by failing to do so until now
and to dramatically increase investment in solar energy and sustainable
wind energy”.
Article
based on: “Biodiesel and the expansion of plantations”, Down to
Earth, Newsletter No. 69, May 2006, E-mail: dte@gn.apc.org;
http://dte.gn.apc.org; Resistance
Number 60, Oilwatch Network Bulletin, April 2006, E-mail: info@oilwatch.org,
http://www.oilwatch.org/doc/boletin/bole60en.pdf;
“Biofuels: A Disaster in the Making”, alert to the Conference
of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change,
http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/CCC/Nairobi/Disaster_Making.html
index
-
Who does the biofuel business benefit?
There
are some 800 million automobiles in the world, consuming over
50 percent of the energy produced in the world, making individual
vehicles the prime cause of the greenhouse effect. Although
there is consensus that climate change is a fact, there is no
serious intention of changing the life-style causing it and instead,
technological solutions are being sought to enable the companies
benefiting from this model to maintain their profits.
In
this context, over the past years biofuels have started to be
promoted as an alternative to global warming.
European
countries - in their eagerness to comply with their obligations
within the Kyoto Protocol - are determined to switch their energy
systems based on fossil fuels to biofuels, but their production
is insufficient to cover their needs. Although the United States
has enough farmland, the consumption of energy is so high that
they will also have to depend on imports to cover their demand.
Where
will these biofuels come from? Well, from regions such as Latin
America, Asia and Africa. In many countries, farmlands or natural
ecosystems will be used for the production of crops used to produce
biofuels.
Biofuels
will compound problems caused by soya bean, oil palm and sugar
cane monocultures because of world voracity for energy and still
not resolve fundamental ecological and social problems.
The
Brazilian Minister Dilma Rousseff (Civil House) stated that biofuels
express “a marriage between agro-business and the oil industry.”
In this marriage the biotechnology industry must also be included.
Perhaps
the most paradigmatic example is the new association set up by
the BP oil company and the DuPont biotechnology company. Together
they are going to develop, produce and put on the market a new
generation of biofuels to increase global fuel demand for renewable
transport. The two companies have been working since 2003
and will be introducing on the British market a new product: biobutanol
as a bio-component of gasoline.
The
companies are benefiting from DuPont’s biotechnology capacity
and BP’s experience and know-how in fuel production. They
hope to become world leaders in the development of advanced biofuels
which, according to their estimates, could involve as much as
20 percent as blends in transport in some key markets.
The
biotechnology industry has found an opportunity to increase its
business through biofuels, mainly because they will enable it
to remain on the market for a long time, in spite of opposition
by consumers all over the world who have rejected transgenic crops
as sources of food.
The
incorporation of transgenic crops in the preparation of biofuels
will help the biotechnology industry to improve its image which
had resoundingly deteriorated over the past years. After many
promises made by this industry that it could never have fulfilled,
today it is offering to develop new transgenic varieties better
adapted to the production of energy.
The
RR soya bean will be the main raw material used in the production
of biodiesel in the Southern Cone and possibly in other countries
of the region. The RR soya bean already covers vast areas in Argentina,
Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil.
The
use of transgenic soya beans in the production of biodiesel was
presented by President Lula as a way out of the polemics on the
use of transgenic soya beans in Brazil. He said that instead of
people eating transgenic soya beans they will be used to make
biodiesel because cars will not reject it.
Monsanto
is the company that will most benefit from this business as it
collects royalties from the sale of its patented transgenic seeds
and the product of its harvests (in this case, biodiesel) already
the case of soya oil made from RR soya beans, and other companies
such as Cargill, Bunge, ADM, which will market biodiesel.
Furthermore,
no doubt a large part of the maize used in the distillation of
ethanol in the United States comes from transgenic crops. Each
litre of ethanol that is sold increases the income of biotechnology
companies holding the patents for transgenic maize seeds. These
companies include Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dupont.
Another
oil-seed used in making biofuels is colza. The European Union’s
Confederation of Food and Beverage Industries has requested the
European Commission to authorize imports of new varieties of genetically
modified colza for the biodiesel industry.
Additionally,
they are starting to test new transgenic varieties specifically
designed for the production of biofuels. Syngenta has developed
transgenic 3272 maize that expresses the alpha amylase enzyme
mixed with conventional maize in the process of elaborating ethanol
from maize. The alpha amilasa enzyme has been identified as triggering
important food allergies. If the genes synthesizing it manage
to infiltrate the food chain we will be facing a protein with
unthought-of effects on human physiology.
US
food companies are opposed to the introduction into the environment
of transgenic crops that are not intended for food because they
fear possible genetic contamination of their products with these
genes.
Another
sector benefiting from biofuels is the oil industry. Oil companies,
and above all, European oil companies, have decided to enter the
business of “environmentally friendly” products to satisfy their
consumer needs and to adapt to the new goals of the European Commission
regarding renewable energies. Some of the companies having best
diversified their business are Total, BP and Shell.
The
French company Total obeys the policies of that country strongly
promoting renewable energies. France is the second largest producer
of biodiesel and ethanol in Europe (it has 4,500 service stations
in that country) and has a considerable market in Spain and Italy,
where it has 1,740 and 1,400 service stations respectively. It
is currently planning to open up new plants in Africa and South
America.
The
case of BP and Shell is different as neither Holland nor England
is engaged in promoting biofuels but they have service stations
in countries where consumers demand them. For example, BP has
2,700 service stations in Germany (the largest producer of biodiesel
in Europe). Shell has 2,200 service stations in Germany and 1,000
in France.
Royal
Dutch Shell intends to develop a second generation of biofuels
and has been experimenting with the refining of bio-ethanol from
lignin and pulp in cooperation with the Canadian company, Iongen.
Another of Shell’s strategic partners is the Choren Industries
(Germany), with whom it has been working on the production of
diesel from forestry biomass.
Among
the US companies, Chevron has set up a business unit in advanced
technologies to take advantage of the opportunity to produce and
distribute ethanol and biodiesel in the United States. This unit
is located in Galveston (Texas) with a production capacity of
100 million gallons per year of biodiesel. Chevron processes 300
million gallons of ethanol per year in the United States.
In
Latin America, in spite of its considerable oil reserves Venezuela
is preparing to join Brazil and Argentina in the development of
fuels originating from plants as an energy alternative. The search
for technologies to produce alternative fuels, among them biodiesel,
is also included in an agreement recently signed by Venezuela
and 13 other Caribbean countries to set up Petrocaribe. Most of
the fuels containing pure alcohol or mixtures in Brazil are produced
by Petrobras refineries, the State company.
The
Spanish company, Repsol that already produces biodiesel in Spain,
will invest 30 million dollars in a first biodiesel plant in Argentina,
that it will start building in 2007. During a first stage,
production capacity will be 120,000 cubic metres per year mixed
with gas oil in a proportion of 5 percent.
Finally
we have the automobile industry. This industry is responsible
for the greatest consumption of fossil fuels and for the greenhouse
effect on a world level, but it is also adapting to the new wave
of biofuels.
Already
in Brazil all the major international automobile companies have
adapted themselves to making vehicles that run on alcohol. Half
the vehicles sold in Brazil in 2004 were designed to use pure
alcohol or alcohol in mixtures.
In
other parts of the world, these companies have entered into partnerships,
joint ventures and joint projects with various companies to improve
their image, achieve technological transformation and continue
doing business for a long time yet. For example, there is
the announcement made by the Germany company, Volkswagen AG to
extend the guarantee to automobiles using biodiesel (B5) added
to the fuel. This announcement is part of a joint initiative lasting
2 years with the trans-national food company, Archer Daniels Midland
Company (ADM), after the two companies had assessed this biofuel
for a year.
For
its part, the Japanese company, Toyota announced a strategic cooperation
with BP for the production of ethanol from pulp waste in Canada.
This
is the route that other companies have also followed. They are
not concerned about the future of the planet, but must adapt themselves
to the new demands made by their consumers and by international
obligations that some countries have acquired with the Kyoto Protocol.
The
use of biofuels is being promoted all around the world and various
countries have launched national biofuel programme, making laws
favouring this sector, and consultative councils have been set
up on the subject, etc. The justifications given, among others,
are that the proliferation of energy crops such as sugar cane,
oil palm, soya beans and other crops may become an important factor
in rural development and that the substitution of fossil fuels
by biofuels will contribute to lessen global warming.
However,
the biofuel business will help to position the biotechnology industry,
to recycle the oil and automobile industry and to expand the profits
of industries marketing biofuels.
This
does not imply that all that has been said is applied to the use
of vegetable oils, cane bagasse or other agricultural or forest
waste to supply the energy needs of small local communities. The
problem we are now facing is one of scale. We refer to the problems
that arise when we have to satisfy the demands of consumers who
want to continue enjoying their standard of living based on squandering,
but who also want to have a clear conscience when they put into
the tank of their vehicle 5.75% of biofuel that may come from
the Amazon forest of Brazil or from Paraguayan lands from which
the peasant population has been violently displaced or from their
own farmlands.
Unless
we can change the development model and initiate a transition
towards a post-oil society, where the energy consumption patterns
are changed, biofuels cannot be a solution to curb climate change.
With
this in mind, we must continue to work towards a society that
promotes and respects everybody’s food and energy sovereignty.
By
Elizabeth Bravo, Acción Ecológica, e-mail: ebravo@rallt.org,
http://www.accionecologica.org/webae/index.php
index
-
The pulp industry and the biofuels boom
In
July 2006, Pulp and Paper International reported on a conference
called World Bioenergy 2006. The conference took place in Sweden,
where biofuels provide 25 per cent of Sweden’s energy and the
majority of its heating. “Pulp mills with combined heat and power
plants sending excess energy to district heating systems are an
established part of the country’s infrastructure and a useful
source of extra income for its pulp mills,” notes Pulp and Paper
International.
Several
pulp companies are working on converting pulp mills in the North
into biorefineries. In Quebec, Tembec sells 17 million litres
of ethanol a year from its Temiscaming dissolving pulp mill. Domsjö
Fabriker recently spent about US$35 million to convert its dissolving
pulp mill at Örnskoldvik in Sweden into a biorefinery. Two years
ago, Etek opened a 10,000 tonnes a year pilot plant in Örnskoldvik
to produce ethanol from wood residues. Next year, the company
plans to start work on three more plants which will produce a
total of four million litres of ethanol a year.
In
2008, a pilot plant at the Växjö Värnamo Gasification Centre in
Sweden will start producing syngas (a mixture of carbon monoxide
and hydrogen) from fermented wood chips. A commercially viable
fuel is likely within five to ten years. Meanwhile, Royal Dutch
Shell, the world’s top marketer of biofuels as well as one of
the biggest oil companies in the world, is working on a process
to produce ethanol from wood chips.
In
Norway, Norske Skog and energy company Hydro have set up a joint
venture to look at the feasibility of producing biodiesel from
wood. They hope to build a biodiesel plant in southeast Norway
by 2012. In France, a consortium including Genencor International,
Tembec and the University of Bordeaux’s Pine Institute is working
on a three-year study to develop ethanol from paper pulp.
The
demand for biofuels in Europe is likely to continue increasing.
The European Biofuels Directive rules that 5.75 per cent of transport
fuel in Europe should come from biofuel by 2010. The figure could
increase to 20 per cent by 2020. A biomass action plan at EU level
aims to increase the share of bioenergies to 8 per cent by 2010.
While
the pulp industry is happy to produce biofuels such as ethanol
from wood it is less happy when the wood is used directly, as
wood pellets for heating, for example. In a May 2006 position
paper on biofuels, the Confederation of European Paper Industries
(CEPI) complains that “the European Renewable Energy Policy puts
too much focus on the use of wood as biomass.”
CEPI
is complaining because the growth in the use of wood pellets as
biofuel has led to an increase in wood prices. The increased demand
for wood will lead to increased logging. Sweden already imports
wood pellets from Canada. Biofuel proponents are pushing for an
increase in the annual allowable cut in Sweden. They are also
suggesting removing parts of the tree which are usually left behind
to rot - stumpwood and branches. Urban Bergsten, professor of
silviculture at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
argues that forest policy in Sweden should be reformed to favour
increased biofuel production and to increase growth rates through
the use of faster growing species. More water sucking monocultures,
in other words.
Erik
Ling of Sveaskog, the state-run Swedish forest company, suggested
at the Bioenergy conference in Jönköping that production over
80 per cent of Sweden’s forestland should be increased. The remaining
20 per cent could be converted to “environmental reserves”. Ling
told the Bioenergy conference that increased growth can be achieved
by improved planting and seeding, maintenance of forest ditches,
and increased use of nitrogenous fertiliser. Ling presumably didn’t
point out that increased use of nitrogenous fertiliser will lead
to more nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide has 310
times the global warming power of carbon dioxide.
The
pulp and paper industry in Europe is “the largest industrial sector
using biomass as fuel”, according to the Confederation of European
Paper Industries. Much of this is because pulp mills burn waste
products from the pulping process. But the pulp and paper industry
remains a large consumer of electricity. CEPI is part of an alliance
with other high energy consumers such as the steel industry and
the cement industry which lobbies for cheaper energy prices. One
of the reasons that the industry is moving to the South is because
electricity prices are cheaper there. Converting pulp mills to
biorefineries will also be energy intensive.
Whether
pulp mills are used to produce pulp or biofuels, the globalised
structure of the industry will remain, as will the fact that it
is cheaper to grow the raw material for pulp in massive industrial
tree plantations in Brazil than it is in Sweden. According to
Stora Enso’s figures, trees can grow more than ten times as fast
in Brazil as in Sweden. The price at the mill gate in Brazil of
a cubic metre of wood is less than half the price it is in Sweden.
Pulp production per tonne in Brazil is one-third as cheap as in
Sweden. The same globalised commodity rules will apply for biofuel
production. Converting pulp mills in the North to biorefineries
will drive the expansion of industrial tree plantations in the
South.
By
Chris Lang, e-mail: http://chrislang.org,
www.chrislang.blogspot.com
index
-
Adding problems: GE poplar, cellulose and
biofuel
The
US Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental
Research (DOE) is
funding a $1.4 million, three-year study by Purdue faculty members
to determine ways to alter lignin and test whether the genetic
changes affect the quality of plants used to produce biofuels.
A hybrid poplar tree is the basis for the research that is part
of the DOE's goal to replace 30 percent of the fossil fuel used
annually in the United States for transportation with biofuels
by 2030.
The
researchers want to genetically modify the hybrid poplar so that
lignin will not impede the release of cellulose for degradation
into fermentable sugars, which then can be converted to ethanol.
Currently about 25 percent of the material in plants is the complex
molecule lignin, which in its present form could be burned to
supply energy for ethanol production, but cannot be transformed
into the alternative fuel.
Altering
lignin's composition or minimizing the amount present in a cell
wall could improve access of enzymes. With easier access, the
researchers expect enzymes would be able to more efficiently convert
cellulose to sugars. To advance production of non-fossil fuels,
the Purdue researchers are using genetic tools to modify the poplar
and then study how the alterations changed the plants' cell walls.
Eventually, the expectation is to create trees suitable for high-yield
ethanol production.
The
usual reductionist approach of GE researches sees the tree but
not the wood –rather, the plantation. The “solution” proposed
can be foretold: huge extensions of identical GE trees, which
will have the already predictable impacts on the soil, water,
biodiversity, plus the unpredictable effects of a tech-fix challenged
as non-scientifically sound. Not only the underlying global crisis
of the climate rooted in the unsustainable energy consumption
remains unsolved, but also these kind of “solutions” will place
another threat to humanity.
Article
based on information from: “GM tree could be used for cellulosic
ethanol”, August 24, 2006, Mongabay.com,
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0824-purdue2.html
index
BIOFUELS
ON THE GROUND
The cases described further on illustrate
the way in which, once again, the large-scale monoculture model,
this time for the production of biofuels, usurps the indigenous
peoples and local communities’ territorial rights,
violates their human rights, compromises food sovereignty,
and causes deforestation and destruction.
-
Brazil: Energy sovereignty
vs. food sovereignty
In
Brazil, production through agriculture of a new energy model is
present every day in the mass media and increasingly the development
of this field is gaining social endorsement and economic justification.
Rapidly, the use of land to produce food is sharing its space
with the fuel production. This change in social perception is
very evident in the repeated news features showing farmers and
landowners as the new “oil field” owners.
Within
the world panorama substituting oil by a “renewable” energy, Brazil
appears as a world leader in agro-energy because of its tropical
climate, its vast arable lands, availability of water resources
and regional facilities. Furthermore, the advantageous position
of Brazil in this world leadership is further strengthened by
the creation in 2005 of a national agro-energy programme and an
ambitious private investment fund for the sector, planned and
presided by the Minister of Agriculture of President Lula’s first
government, Roberto Rodrigues. This fund will endeavour
to attract some 200 million dollars within the country, added
to international investment (for example a Dutch bank that appears
to have the leadership in funds for this type of project) aimed
at shareholding in agro-business agro-energy projects and also
in purchasing land, private research funding, project feasibility
orientation and submission of proposals to the government, thus
acting as a lobby agent. These two factors, a public programme
and a private fund are concrete examples of how the country is
preparing for this great and historic opportunity announcing the
biofuel era.
Regarding
the convictions of those guiding the plans in this new era, Décio
Gazzoni, an agronomy engineer with over 30 years work as a researcher
for EMBRAPA (the public agriculture research and development company)
and in charge of the preparation of the national agro-energy programme,
recently declared that “we must be pragmatic and allow reforestation
of the Amazon with African palm trees” (“Dinheiro Rural”, year
III, no. 25, November 2006), which will enable production of biodiesel.
Because, according to him “if we do not find an economic option,
we will continue to log forests.” The only problem in this vision
would be the environmental groups and legislation, which only
permits reforestation to be done using native species.
This
“pragmatism” in the new frontier for the expansion of agro-business
defended by the technician who prepared the national agro-energy
programme is the same as that supported by various projects for
the plantation of eucalyptus, planned and financed in synergy
with mining and steelworks for the production of coal, particularly
as the energy input for the pig iron industry, one of the most
important items on the Brazilian export balance.
An
example of the way the world views Brazil as the great agro-energy
frontier is the international conference on bio-fuels to be held
from 11 to 13 December in the city of Londrina, Parana State,
where specialists from various countries will get to know and
discuss the advantages of bio-diesel, ethanol and thus be able
to better assess which alternative is more profitable.
In
the case of Brazil, the amount of public and private investment
and the contracts involved in the construction of bio-fuel processing
and refining plants is being consolidated on a medium and long
term basis. In addition to the productive facilities, an important
energy geo-policy and appropriation of natural resources exists
leading to greater pressure on the agricultural frontier areas,
increasing the value of land and thus having a direct impact on
the agrarian reform. The promotion of biofuels is strengthening
land occupation with the expansion of monoculture sugar cane plantations
for the production of alcohol, in addition to economically diversifying
soybean use which, in relation to other oilseeds used in making
biodiesel, is the most advantageous because it already has consolidated
productive chains (credits, inputs, warehouses, transportation,
etc.) and because its by-product oilcake, is used for as food
for livestock breeding.
The
devastating effects of soybean cultivation in Brazil, Argentina
and Paraguay are well known, in addition to the chain of violation
of human rights, deforestation and environmental destruction arising
from soybean cultivation. For its part, since it was started during
the first Colonial economic cycle, monoculture sugar cane plantation
unequivocally repeats a model exploiting nature and labour.
Bearing
this in mind, it is important to make a critical assessment of
the endorsement of agro-energy as the new ‘renewable’ source of
energy also serving to ‘renew’ the ideological rhetoric of agro-business
and its land occupation strategies and to strengthen the rural
development model based on industrial monoculture agro-exports,
controlled by major capital holders and trans-national companies,
whose ecological and social impacts are presently the hub of environmental
struggles and peasant movements in Latin America.
It
is important to remember that land concentration in Brazil is
still one of the greatest in the world, that “hunger” is essentially
a political question and that the implementation of a comprehensive
agrarian reform is still a structural challenge to democracy in
the country. But most important, the story of the struggle for
land in Brazil generated a peasant movement acknowledged all over
the world, the MST (“Movimento dos sem terra” – the Movement of
the Landless), which in turn is part of the Via Campesina, the
international peasant coordination. Via Campesina and the MST
in Brazil and other rural movements in various other countries
are all linked by their common defence of food sovereignty:
“Food
sovereignty is the right of all peoples to define their own agricultural
policies and regarding food, to protect and regulate national
agricultural production and the domestic market in order to attain
sustainable development goals, to decide how far they want to
be self-sufficient, to prevent their markets from being flooded
with surplus products from other countries that dump them on the
international market, and to give preference to local fisherfolk
regarding control of the use of and rights over aquatic resources.
Food sovereignty does not reject international trade but rather
defends the option of formulating those trade policies and practices
that best serve the right of the population to avail itself of
safe, nutritious and ecologically sustainable methods and foodstuffs.
Food sovereignty is the right of all peoples, their nations or
unions of States to define their agricultural and food policies,
without dumping involving third-party countries.” (VIA CAMPESINA,
introduction to the DECLARATION ON FOOD SOVEREIGNTY, 1996).
The
defence of food sovereignty as a political policy would therefore
be the peoples’ right to produce their own foodstuffs in accordance
with the conditions of their territories and their food culture.
In the twenty-first century, questions such as agrarian reform
and peasants’ rights continue to be central in responding to serious
environmental and social issues (such as rural exodus and migrations)
arising from the expansion of urban and industrial society affecting
humanity as a whole and not only the rural population.
Before
hastily taking up the task of producing the fuel that the world
needs, at a pace imposed on by this model of industrial production
and consumption and capital accumulation, it is crucial we think
of what we want and what we are planting for the future. Are we
in fact breaking away from our Colonial mould of dependency or
are we merely updating the terms of exploitation and repeating
ancient equations of submission? How far are the biofuel production
plans going to serve the needs of the Brazilian people? Or what
will be produced to subsidize with energy the rationale of the
export monoculture? In this framework and before it is too late,
a critical examination should be made of the discourse promoting
energy sovereignty to find out how far this sovereignty will be
achieved at the expense of mortgaging the premise of food sovereignty.
By
Camila Moreno, research worker CPDA (postgraduate in Development,
Agriculture and Society) / Rural Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro, member of Terra de Direitos, Brazil.
index
-
Cameroon: Oil palm plantations fostered
by new biofuel market harm local livelihoods
In Cameroon, like
in other African countries such as Ivory Coast or Ghana, the production
of oil palm is distributed in 3 sectors: an agro-industrial sector,
a village sector controlled by agro-industries, and a small-scale
traditional sector.
Table 1. Area
and production of oil palm plantations in Cameroon in 2002.
|
|
Surface (ha) |
Raw production
of oil palm (tons) |
|
Agro-industrial
plantations |
60,000 |
105,000 |
|
“Supervised”
village plantations |
14,000 |
|
Small-scale
traditional plantations |
24,000 |
35,000 |
Source:
Monfort (2005).
Even though Indonesia
and Malaysia hold a strong leadership position in the oil palm
global market, the agro-industrial sector in Cameroon can rely
on several advantages.
In the first place,
the industrial plantation of oil palms has largely benefited from
governmental programmes and from international capital. The intensive
culture of oil palm – a plant traditionally used by local populations
– begins under the German colonization and is further developed
by the French and the British with the creation of the Cameroon
Development Corporation (CDC) and of Pamol Plantations.
In 1963, the government
starts a first large programme aimed at developing the plantation
of oil palms, notably with the creation of SOCAPALM in the Kribi
region. In 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture launched an ‘oil
palm project’ within the framework of new “voluntarist” policies
aimed at “modernizing the agriculture”, with the help of France
and the international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank).
This programme is seen as a “national priority” and promotes an
increase of production and productivity in order to cover national
needs (in deficit) and to improve international competitiveness.
The objective is to produce at least 250,000
tons by 2010. This aim relies on the privatisation of large state-owned
exploitations (CDC, Palmol and SOCAPALM) and on the increase of
the plantation area of at least 5,000
ha per year.
Secondly, the oil
palm agro-industry will benefit from the predicted boom of biofuel,
a new market in which the French group Bolloré, for a long time
present in Cameroon, is expected to play a key role.
In Cameroon, the
culture of oil palm and its industrial transformation is carried
out by 5 large societies, 3 of which are being owned by Bolloré:
SOCAPALM, SAFACAM and the Ferme suisse. The investment strategy
of this group is based on the possibility to expand the plantations
and on the productivity gains made possible at the level of production
and transformation.
Created in 1822,
the company of the Bolloré family has today a yearly turn over
of more than 5 billions of euros. The Bolloré Empire has specially
grown in Africa, where it controls more than 70 firms in 35 countries,
particularly in the transport, energy, and other highly profitable
sectors such as wood exploitation and cash crops (like oil palm
and hevea). It is well-known that the group, in order to expand
its influence, did not hesitate to work hands in hands with dubious
dictators such as Sassou Nguesso. What is more, Bolloré has largely
benefited from the large privatisation campaigns imposed by structural
adjustment programmes.
In Cameroon, Bolloré’s
nickname is “the last emperor”. The group is present in the petroleum
industry (Chad–Cameroon pipeline), in sea transport for exportation
and in the wood business. The group also controls about 40,000
ha of oil palm plantations, particularly through the Belgian company
Socfinal. The latter, which flourished thanks to the Belgian colonization
in Africa, exploits 31,000
ha of oil palms in Cameroon (SOCAPALM and the Ferme suisse), as
well as other oil palm plantations in Indonesia and elsewhere
in Africa, totalising an area of more than 140,000
ha.
SOCAPALM is the largest
oil palm plantation in Cameroon and its expansion is on the way,
at the cost of neighbouring forests traditionally used by local
populations. SOCAPALM is at the root of important land conflicts
involving Bagyeli, Bulu and Fang populations whose land has been
confiscated without compensation. Their traditional ways of life
have become impossible and at the same time they cannot benefit
from an insertion into the market economy.
In effect, SOCAPALM
hires workers from other regions of Cameroon and accommodate them
in camps located in the plantation. The neighbouring villagers,
on the other hand, only rarely get jobs. Jobs are often temporary,
without labour contracts, without health and accident insurances,
and the wages are extremely low: an unskilled worker earns a little
more than one euro a day (the workday starts at 6am and lasts
sometimes until 6pm). What is more, the arrival of non-native
workers poses several problems, for instance with respect to the
increasing pressure on local bush meat.
The agrochemicals
used by SOCAPALM and the rejections of its treatment factory massively
pollute the neighbouring streams. Cases of sicknesses within the
village population have been reported.
An important number
of guards prevent the villagers from using the resources of the
plantation. This situation led, on January 7, 2003, to a severe
clash between guards and villagers (during which arms and legs
were cut by machete). As a reprisal, the police forces came to
help the plantation guards and swept off many villagers and kept
them in jail without trials during 14 days.
Given that oil palm
plantations benefit from a large national and international support,
this type of agro-industry will keep on spreading, in parallel
with a worsening of the mentioned social and ecological impacts.
Moreover, the new market of biofuel will certainly represent a
powerful motor for the cultivation of oil palm. It is expected
that the Bolloré group will not stay inactive in the great race
for the “substitution of petroleum”. The group has already several
advantages in his hands. Bolloré is already present in the energy
and plantation sectors and can benefit from solid foundations
in Africa based on the collusion of political and economic interests.
Also, eager to green its image, the group has already invested
in projects of “alternative” energy, for instance with its “BlueCar”
electrical prototype.
By Julien-François Gerber,
e-mail: This article is
based on the author’s field observation and on the following publications:
M.A., Monfort 2005, "Filières oléagineuses africaines",
Notes et études économiques, n°23, p. 55-85; Agir ICI & Survie,
2000, "Le silence de la forêt: réseaux, mafias et filière
bois au Cameroun", Dossiers Noirs n°14, and "Bolloré:
monopoles, services compris. Tentacules africaines", Dossiers
Noirs n°15, Paris, L’Harmattan.
index
-
Colombia: Biodiesel from oil palm
The
Western world, and in particular the countries
of the North, gave in to addiction to fossil
fuels. This path has led to something that today nobody can doubt:
climate change. Many solutions have been put forth to face it,
but most of them let humanity’s race towards suicide continue
as vigorously as before.
Biofuel
mega-projects are some of the proposals to solve the problem.
However, have those who submitted them as an alternative measured
the consequences their creation could have on important ecosystems,
peoples and culture? In the first place, this article delimits
the steps taken to open up the field to these projects, focussing
in particular on the implications of planting African palms, from
which one of the biofuels to be produced is derived.
Biofuel
has its own story. Briefly, during the 1973 energy crisis, Brazil
reconverted part of its sugar industry to produce ethanol and
became the leading exporter. Today, Colombia wants to follow this
example and become a producing power, particularly of bio-ethanol
and biodiesel.
In
2001, Law 693 was issued, linked to Law 939 of 2004, opening up
the way for biofuel production. Law 693 stipulates that Colombian
gasoline must contain 10 percent ethanol by 2009 and in a period
of between 15 and 20 years, it should gradually reach a proportion
of 25 percent. Whereas law 939 of 2004, fosters the production
and marketing of biodiesel for diesel motors, at a percentage
of 5%.
Since
the end of 2005, the production from the sugar cane industry in
Cauca, Providencia, Manuelita and Mayagüez (all located in the
Department of the Cauca Valley, in the West
of the country), in addition to the industry in Risaralda, has
been close on one million litres daily of bio-ethanol, aimed at
satisfying the demand of the west of the country and the Bogotá
Savannah. The talk is now of assembling 27 other plants scattered
over 17 departments of the country, to extend the blend of 10%
with gasoline throughout the whole Colombian territory. According
to the forecasts of the National Fuel Federation, by 2010 internal
consumption could double simply by rising the percentage of blend
to 15%. By then, Colombia will have the capacity to export
a figure close on 2,300,000 litres per day of ethanol.
A
similar legislation to that referred to above is being prepared
for biodiesel, derived from African palm trees. This plant
already has a derivate used for food, which is the one most commonly
known today: palm oil, with a production of 600 thousand tons.
But in fact, it is biodiesel that is of interest to us in this
article.
Before
going into figures, it is important to say that the major beneficiaries
from bio-ethanol legislation – and now from legislation being
prepared for biodiesel – are precisely the sugar cane agro-industrialists
from the Cauca Valley whose industries were mentioned on discussing
ethanol, and in the case of biodiesel, it is the palm agro-industrialists
who will benefit.
The
consumption of diesel oil in the country for automotive transport
is growing at a faster rate than that of gasoline, exceeding the
national oil company Ecopetrol’s refining capacity, so the country
imports 5% of the domestic consumption of diesel oil. Thus an
opportunity has arisen for African palm agro-industrialists who
have year by year, increased the area under cultivation.
In
Colombia the expansion of these plantations has shown a sustained
growth. In the mid-sixties 18 thousand hectares were under production.
By 2003, there were over 188 thousand hectares and presently,
approximately 300 thousand have been planted. Furthermore, seven
plants are being assembled in different palm regions of the country,
at an approximate cost of 100 million dollars. According
to the Colombian palm trade union, Fedepalma, since 2001 Colombia
is the main producer of palm oil in America and fourth largest
producer on a world level, after Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria.
Out of the total oil production, 35% is exported.
<
