|
Climate change
A primary concern is the potential for agrofuels to accelerate climate
change, rather than combat it. Production involves considerable
emission of greenhouse gases from soils, carbon sink destruction and
fossil fuel inputs and is already causing significant deforestation and
destruction of biodiversity. The clearance of Indonesia’s peat forests
to plant oil palm plantations has caused massive outputs of CO2. Once
forest removal reaches a certain ‘tipping point’, a process of self
destruction may begin, particularly in the Amazon. Because so much
remains unknown, a precautionary approach to developing agrofuels is
necessary.
The GM industry, having encountered widespread resistance to GM crops
for food, has plans to gain acceptance for them as agrofuel crops.
These crops would need to be planted as large-scale monocultures in
order to be competitive. Yet, monocultures of GM crops (mainly soya and
maize) as animal feed have had negative impacts, e.g.: in Argentina and
Paraguay. Since animal feed and agrofuels can often be produced from
the same biomass this could stimulate further expansion of GM crops. In
addition, the GM industry is looking at ways to engineer crops so they
can be made to break down more easily into fuel.
Second generation agrofuels
Industry promises future technologies that will yield cheap abundant
agrofuels from all plant material and plant waste. GM technologies are
being promoted to streamline processes and reduce costs. Research is
being carried out into GM microbes that could improve breakdown and
fermentation processes and methods to streamline cellulose and reduce
lignin or even change its nature. Synthetic biology is a new approach
that involves using genetic information to build completely new
organisms with unknown impacts.
Agrofuels and biodiversity
Precious little biodiversity remains in Europe and many species are
endangered. Extensive, low input farming is the most favourable system
for wildlife. However, agrofuel production increases the pressure to
convert such regions into intensive production of agrofuels, with crops
such as oilseed rape and beet which are particularly unfavourable to
wildlife. If setaside land were brought into agrofuel production, the
impacts on biodiversity would be severe, as would impacts on water reserves through increased irrigation. In the global South,
critical ecosystems are destroyed to plant crops used for agrofuels.
Examples include sugarcane and soya in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia,
and Brazil. At the same time countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia,
Cameroon, Colombia and Ecuador are experiencing accelerating
biodiversity loss due to oil palm plantations, often preceded by
logging. In India and Africa the planting of jatropha trees for
agrodiesel will threaten remaining forests.
Promoters of agrofuel expansion claim that yields must be increased by
using more fertiliser and irrigation. Irrigation depletes lakes, rivers
and aquifers while fertilisers cause an increased burden of nitrates in
soil and water, with impacts such as eutrophication – a major threat to
fish stocks. Herbicide tolerant GE crops facilitate the use of aerial
spraying of herbicides with serious effects on biodiversity and
small-scale farming. Indirect impacts of biofuels are already becoming
apparent as US farmers switch from soya cultivation to corn for
ethanol. This provides an incentive for extending soya cultivation in
Latin America, where the soya boom had been faltering.
As with other intensive crops, biofuel production displaces other
activities to new areas, whether smallscale agriculture or large-scale
cattle ranching. Certification of agrofuels is likely to have a similar
impact, displacing uncertified production to more marginal areas where it may do more damage. Agrofuels could bring about increased
pressure for the release of GE trees. The impacts on forest
biodiversity are extremely difficult to predict precisely because of
the complexity and longevity of trees. Ironically, this may mean
pressure to experiment with GE trees in situ with all the risks of
contamination that implies.
Agrofuels and food security
Agriculture already faces huge challenges. Food production could
experience serious competition from energy crops. World food reserves
are falling while the demand for grains and oilseeds has outstripped
supply for the last seven years. Prices have risen sharply. In the case
of maize, this is due to increasing amounts of US corn being used for
ethanol rather than food. As ever, it is the poor and marginalized who
suffer the worst impacts. The EU and the US are setting targets for
agrofuel use in transport, but will not be able to produce the
feedstock themselves.
Producing soya for animal feed is already causing serious problems in
Latin America, while oil palm plantations have proved extremely
destructive in both Latin America and Asia. Now these countries are
gearing up to respond to the demand for agrofuels, further increasing
the pressure on food production.
‘Manufacturers of inputs such as agrotoxic chemicals (i.e. fertilizers
and pesticides) expect an increased demand as a result of the attempt
to increase yields. Small farmers will find it hard to compete with big
producers. Some will turn from food to energy crop production and
others will leave their land. This will result in a loss of local
knowledge and local varieties, which in turn will
diminish agricultural biodiversity.’
Agrofuels and jobs
A number of sources are asserting that agrofuels can regenerate rural
economies and provide jobs. However, this depends on who controls
development. To benefit local communities, agrofuel production would
need to be part of a diverse farming system. But development is focused
on large centralized monocultures for economies of scale and a
consistent product. The impact of monocultures such as sugar cane in
Brazil, is a clear example of the lack of benefit for the poor and
marginalized. This is reinforced by experiences from other countries,
including Paraguay and Argentina, Ecuador and Indonesia and South
Africa, where communities have reacted to government agrofuel
strategies. In Europe, the EC has claimed that agrofuels can provide
opportunities for farmers as well as creating jobs and rural
regeneration. However EU sources are highly contradictory, especially
regarding the number of jobs that will actually be created, not simply
replaced or displaced.’
Human rights violations have already resulted from soya, sugarcane and
palm monocultures in Latin America and Asia, and these are likely to
intensify through the production of agrofuels. Impacts on health arise
from deforestation and pesticide spraying. Another major issue involves
historical and intense land conflicts, due to monoculture expansion.
Production of agrofuel crops may involve violent evictions and murders.
Examples are given here from Colombia and Paraguay.
Rapid changes in land use, ecology and demography are leading to
increased incidences of infectious diseases. Deforestation is
increasingly recognised as playing a major role in bringing people and
diseases into close contact. The impact of pesticides on health is
illustrated by two examples: Paraquat in Asia and glyphosate in Latin
America, both of which cause serious health
impacts.
Certification
Concern about the possible negative impact of agrofuels has led to
demands for sustainability certification. There are a number of
different initiatives, some of which have already joined forces. The EU
itself, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK are all developing
initiatives. Industry is also developing standards. Some advocate
mandatory certification, others voluntary. There are many issues to be
addressed in devising credible systems. One of the major problems is
that certification does not prevent expansion of production. Another
issue relates to monitoring and compliance. None of those currently
being developed have included Southern stakeholder groups affected by
monoculture expansion for agrofuels from the outset. The WTO is often
cited as a legal barrier to certification systems.
Resistance to monocultures, including agrofuel production, is
spreading. Groups in Africa, Asia and Latin America are mobilising and
demanding to be heard. Examples range from land occupations, through
court cases, to national and regional campaigns. Coalitions are
building against particular crops. A number of networks have produced
statements of their positions directed at the EU and the UN. They
insist that small farmers, local communities, the poor and the
marginalised will continue to be the ones to suffer.
|
2010 Carbon Trade Watch
