Two aspects have been exaggerated. This is whey the international conference on biofuels that took place on 5 July in Brussels proved timely. The two theses (one presenting biofuel production as if it were a turning point in world energy history, the other, exclusively highlighting its dangers) were pitted against each other. Finding a balance is possible.
Mr Lula da Silva's infectious enthusiasm. The most eloquent advocate of the thesis in favour of biofuels has been the president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, through his speech made at the conference and in a right to reply column in the press. Da Silva considers biofuels as a historic possibility that will help to create a “prosperous, united and fair world”. These products can “fight deprivation in the world” while avoiding “damaging secondary effects on the environment”. Da Silva waxed lyrical in his depiction of the future: “Look at the world! All countries, including the smallest and poorest, possess the technology and knowledge to dig a little 30 cm hole” and develop an energy producing plant inside it. This is a revolution that will help democratise access to energy and replace the 20 gas and oil producing countries with around a hundred poor countries, notably Africa and Latin America, which will become exporters to rich countries: “those who never had a chance in the 20th century should be given a chance, these people should not be denied a chance in the 21st century”. Brazil is in the forefront of biofuel production and is prepared to share its experience with countries that want to participate in the “biomass revolution”.
European Commission's conditions. European participants have not contested the benefits or contribution that biofuels could bring (and what they are already bringing to Brazil and other countries) in the fight against air pollution and energy security. The president of the Commission, however, José Manuel Barroso, and the different commissioners who spoke, also alluded to the dangers and downsides. Emmanuel Hagry's report of the conference, published in EUROPE 9462 is informative. Ms Ferrero-Waldner underscored several demands: this alternative energy category should not be detrimental to food safety (through excessive competition with agricultural food products); it should not provoke negative effects on the environment or exert pressure on water resources, forests, soil protection or biodiversity. Badly managed biofuel production (forecasts are predicting that it will quadruple in the next few years) could increase greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. Andris Piebalgs demanded that “sustainability standards” be applied to biofuels produced in the EU as well as imported biofuels (while ensuring that no artificial trade barriers are created). The European Commission is currently preparing these standards. Claude Mandil, the director of the International Energy Agency, warned against too high expectations. In his opinion, biofuels will account for a maximum of 10 and 20% of global fuel consumption. It is therefore no miracle solution.
An outmoded critique? Lula da Silva brushed aside these reservations and criticism, describing them as being stuck in the past. He affirmed (notably in the text published by “Le Soir”) that: a) Brazil accompanied biofuel production programmes with parallel action to protect biodiversity. It is also developing a certification project that guarantees Brazilian biofuels respect environmental and social criteria; b) food security is not threatened because biofuel production only occupies 2% of land cultivated in his country and has helped in the recovery of grazing areas that suffered damage and where agricultural potential is low or non-existent; c) the extension of sugar cane can also be carried out in regions away from the Amazon whose soil and climate are unsuitable to this kind of crop. Deforestation rates in the Amazon have been reduced by 50% over the last three years; d) the ethanol industry has been directly responsible for creating a million and a half jobs in Brazil, and the bio-diesel programme already employs (although it is only in its initial phase) more than 250,000, especially small farmers in arid zones, by helping make production stable and therefore reduce migration and its consequences: mushrooming of cities, urban marginalisation, pressure on virgin forests; e) Brazil is preparing the next generation of biofuels, which can be extracted from all organic waste everywhere in the world.
The Brazilian president therefore reaffirmed the extraordinary effects the current energy revolution could, in his opinion, have on humanity and the planet. These are not mere dreams, the first results are out: Brazil has reduced fossil fuels by 40% and since 2003 has cut carbon gas emissions by 130 million tonnes. Certification will guarantee that the whole biofuel chain of production will respect tough environmental and social criteria. This production can be located in the context of an integrated protection strategy based on sustainable development.
An attractive prospect? Not everything Mr Lula da Silva says should be taken as read. What he is describing is a political vision. There are no grounds for claiming that new energies made available to poor countries will, as a consequence, have a massive impact on the world. Availability is not a sufficient criterion. We are well aware that oil rich countries are not all in the avant-guard of economic development, social justice or democracy. Freedom, respect for minorities, maintaining agricultural activity, environmental protection and, above all, the fight against corruption are much more important to a people's progress than the discovery of oil. The impact of discovering oil in African countries has contributed to environmental degradation; in some South American countries the situation is similar; threats against Kurdistan are linked to oil and so is the tragedy in Sudan, to a certain extent. The radical transformation of the world through biofuels is an attractive prospect, but remains a gamble. Brazil itself is far from having accomplished everything its president described or announced.
Disasters are not inevitable. Although Lula da Silva exaggerated one aspect, I have to ask myself if some ecologists are exaggerating the other aspect with their warnings of biofuel-provoked global disasters. Unmitigated deforestation in South America and in vast tracts of Asia, destruction of the Amazonian basin, famine and other food catastrophes are not inevitable. Once again, warnings from ecologists, their political representatives (such as the Greens at the European Parliament) and their organisations, like Greenpeace, are useful, indeed crucial. They are right to denounce the abuse observed in South East Asia and the sometimes frenzied extension of palm oil plantations, as well as modes of sugar cane production in some parts of the Amazon. Their warnings allow for a response to this excess to be made, and they have certainly contributed to Brazil's shift towards a wise and sensible policy. But talking about the greatest “ecological rip-off” of all time and describing these attempts at producing renewable energy as “bio-lies” is over the top and mistaken. Attention should be paid to not becoming, out of excessive zealousness, proponents who are actually far removed from ecological concerns.
To what am I referring? To the following claim, for example, by Jacques Rassart, the adviser to the region of Wallonia (Belgium): “studies cast doubt on the environmental efficiency of biofuels, which are often funded by the oil lobbies”. It is important to know for whom one could end up becoming the unwitting spokesperson. That said, it is obvious that vigilance from Greenpeace and other similar organisations, as well as monitoring by the European Parliament's Greens, provides some sort of guarantee.
Don't forget European farmers. Another aspect should also be underlined: the right of EU farmers to take part in new outlets and which, in some cases, are already a going concern. The positions referred to above by European commissioners appear quite clear: “sustainability standards” that the Commission is preparing for biofuels will apply to the EU's production, as they do for other imported products. This presupposed the development of European production.
Only Commissioner Peter Mandelson gave the impression of thinking about the businessmen rather than European farmers by affirming that we should not help European biofuel production if we are able to import cheaper and cleaner biofuels. Why would imported biofuels be a priori cleaner than those produced in the EU? Pekka Pesononen, the secretary general for European farmers and cooperatives (COPA-COGECA) responded by highlighting the fact that EU biofuel production is governed by environmental sustainability standards that are among some of the strictest in the world. He also said that promoting greater energy autonomy figured in the EU's priority objectives. Obviously it should not close the door to imports but neither should it immediately rule out participation from European farmers. It is essential that biofuels consumed in Europe comply to Community standards whether they are European or imported. The Director of the International Energy Agency admitted that there was a possibility of subsidies for some kinds of production. José Manuel Barroso said that the EU had a potential that would allow it to meet its demand by itself, but that it would remain open to biofuel imports on the condition that “they meet Community standards”.
International rules would be welcome and would help to strike a happy balance between the enthusiasm expressed by Mr Lula da Silva and the warnings made by the ecologists.
(F.R.)