The trigger for this animosity has been three supposedly direct effects of the biofuels industry on society and the environment: rising food prices, the lack of greenhouse gas effectiveness of biofuels production, and deforestation due to displacement of agriculture into other areas.

So what if the Commission and the Council of Europe finally follow this anti-biofuel hype and suspend the target? Would the effects mentioned above magically disappear?

The answer is no and the reason is very simple: suspending the EU target does not mean suspending the whole biofuels industry. Europe will turn its back to the source of the problem. Biofuels production will continue, and even worse, it will continue unchecked. So the Commission deserves some credit for maintaining its view.

Sustainable biofuels are part of the solution for a cleaner transport energy source. However, the law of ‘unintended consequences’ seems inevitable. The only way to avoid as much of these negative effects as possible is through sustainability criteria.

Let’s analyse each of the so-called biofuels effects.

Rising food prices are undeniable. But, is it really a consequence of biofuels production? Probably but only partly, and not as much as the media and NGOs argue. Rising food demand in developing countries (something to celebrate by the way) and food shortages due to unpredictable weather seem more logical reasons.

However, we are still missing another crucial fact of the food prices equation: record high oil prices. An expert in oil & power in the City of London told me there is no doubt oil prices have much more effect on food prices than biofuels production. This view was reinforced when top oil producing countries, during a conference in Rome this week, blamed biofuels for the current food crisis.

Deforestation is a reality, although nothing new to blame biofuels for. With the existence of sustainability criteria for biofuels, large forested developing countries would have an opportunity to develop a sustainable business model that balances biofuels production on already degraded land. It would introduce incentives for forest carbon management through avoiding deforestation and encouraging reforestation (hopefully included in a post-Kyoto agreement).

President Lula from Brazil has stressed his view on biofuels several times, seeing it as “an opportunity for social and economic development in many countries like Brazil, as well as a cleaner and more climate-friendly fuel alternative for the rest of the world.”

Finally, carbon footprint cost-effectiveness could be addressed by using more efficient biofuels production methods. A minimal footprint reduction should be set (around 35%) now. Moreover, the US and Europe should stop unsustainable production within their own borders, thus dealing with allegations of protectionism.

So the 10% target should be maintained, and global (at least European to start with), realistic, clear and strong sustainability criteria should be set as soon as possible.  This needs the commitment of all stakeholders, from governments of both producer countries and importer ones.

The example has already been set with the cooperation agreement between Brazil and the Netherlands regarding ethanol. Brazil, as many other producer countries, is keen to follow criteria that will assure a sustainable business while increasing its exports to Europe and other markets.

Let’s built upon that.

Christian Hudtwalcker

Editor GreenPrices News Desk