Evidence suggest that the interactions
between the biofuel economy
and forests, food production,
and the rights of the rural poor
are decidedly complex and
should not be overgeneralized
and oversimplified. Rather than
dismissing biofuels outright,
more attention should be placed
on developing appropriate
mechanisms for leveraging the
sector’s developmental potential,
while mitigating its potential
costs.
THE CONTEXT OF FIRST-
GENERATION BIO-FUEL
DEVELOPMENT
In response to changing global
conditions, several countries
established consumption and
production targets for biofuels
as part of a wider shift toward
greater incorporation of
renewable energy sources into
the energy mix and the
promotion of a low-carbon
economy. Large markets such as
those in the European Union,
United States, and Brazil currently
mandate biofuel blends.
To ensure that blended biofuels
meet environmental objectives in
the European Union and the
United States, they must meet
strict sustainability criteria.
However, critics contend that
these measures are inadequate
to protect against the full range
of potentially adverse effects of
such policies. For example, by
stimulating demand for so-called
flex-crops (e.g. crops that can be
used for multiple purposes,
including food), it is argued that
this can divert food crops for
energy consumption, threatening
food self-sufficiency and price
stability.
Additionally, many argue that
when indirect land use changes
(iLUC) are accounted for, many
biofuels will not meet the
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
targets, which typically only
consider direct land use changes.
As a response to this criticism,
the European Union in 2013
imposed new measures,
including a limit on the amount
of food-based biofuels that can
be used and additional criteria
pertaining to GHG emitted from
iLUC.
Moreover, many countries are
also starting to question the
economic viability of biofuels, as
low oil prices often require
substantial subsidies to ensure
that biofuel producers do not
target more profitable food
markets instead, amid a vigorous
expansion of demand in the food
markets.
BIOFUELS ONLY ADD TO EXISTING
PRESSURES ON FORESTS
These concerns, though, should
be seen in perspective. Although
total biofuel production grew
more than tenfold between 2000
and 2010, only 9 percent of
vegetable oils produced globally
are used to make biofuels.
In many countries, ethanol is
produced largely from leftover
molasses and not from cane
juice, which is usually reserved
for sugar production. Therefore,
the relationship between
biofuels and undesirable types of
land-use changes such as
deforestation is often not direct
and not in proportion to
pressures from other end-
markets. The latter are driven
strongly by demand for their
food uses and increasing meat
consumption in emerging
economies such as India and
China.
Considering, therefore, the
limited use of key crops for
biofuel production, the debate
about the impacts is largely in
the realm of projection.
Moreover, although important
analytical efforts have been
undertaken so far, estimating
iLUC effects on forest conversion
is difficult to establish in practice
and still requires substantial
methodological refinement.
Additionally, research suggests
that GHG emissions generated
from land conversion for biofuel
feedstocks may take decades or
even centuries to reverse.