Thanks Shubhranshu Choudhary ji for forwarding this useful information.
Moderator.
THE BIOFUEL MYTHS: NEED FOR A REALITY CHECK
The term “biofuels” suggests renewable abundance: clean, green,
sustainable assurance about technology and progress. This pure image
allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the United Nations and
even the International Panel on Climate Change to present fuels made
from corn, sugar cane, soy and other crops as the next step in a
smooth transition from peak oil to a yet-to-be-defined renewable fuel
economy.
But in reality, biofuel draws its power from cornucopian myths and
directs attention away from economic interests that would benefit from
the transition, while avoiding discussion of the growing North-South
food and energy imbalance.
They obscure the political-economic relationships between land,
people, resources and food, and fail to help us understand the
profound consequences of the industrial transformation of our food and
fuel systems. “Agro-fuels” better describes the industrial interests
behind the transformation.
Industrialized nations started the biofuels boom by demanding
ambitious renewable-fuel targets. These targets far exceed the
agricultural capacities of the industrial North. Europe would need to
plant 70% of its farmland with fuel crops. The entire corn and soy
harvest of the US would need to be processed as ethanol and biodiesel.
Converting most arable land to fuel crops would destroy the food
systems of the North, so the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries are looking to the South to meet demand.
The rapid capitalization and concentration of power within the
biofuels industry is extreme. Over the past three years, venture
capital investment in biofuels has increased by 800%. Private
investment is swamping public research institutions.
Behind the scenes, under the noses of most national antitrust laws,
giant oil, grain, auto and genetic engineering corporations are
forming partnerships, and they are consolidating the research,
production, processing and distribution chains of food and fuel
systems under one industrial roof.
Biofuel champions assure us that because fuel crops are renewable,
they are environment-friendly, can reduce global warming and will
foster rural development. But the tremendous market power of biofuel
corporations, coupled with the poor political will of governments to
regulate their activities, make this unlikely. We need a public
enquiry into the myths:
Because photosynthesis performed by fuel crops removes greenhouse
gases from the atmosphere and can reduce fossil fuel consumption, we
are told they are green. But when the full life cycle of biofuels is
considered, from land clearing to consumption, the moderate emission
savings are outweighed by far greater emissions from deforestation,
burning, peat drainage, cultivation and soil-carbon losses. Every
tonne of palm oil generates 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions"10
times more than petroleum. Tropical forests cleared for sugar cane
ethanol emit 50% more greenhouse gases than the production and use of
the same amount of petrol.
Proponents of biofuels argue that fuel crops planted on
ecologically-degraded lands will improve rather than destroy the
environment. Perhaps the government of Brazil had this in mind when it
reclassified some 200 million hectares of dry-tropical forests,
grassland and marshes as degraded and apt for cultivation.
In reality, these are the biodiverse ecosystems of the Atlantic
Forest, the Cerrado and the Pantanal, occupied by indigenous people,
subsistence farmers and extensive cattle ranches. The introduction of
agro-fuel plantations will push these communities to the agricultural
frontier of the Amazon where the devastating patterns of deforestation
are well known.
In the tropics, 100 hectares dedicated to family farming generates 35
jobs. Oil-palm and sugar cane provide 10 jobs, eucalyptus two, and
soybeans a scant half job per 100 hectares, all poorly paid. Until
recently, biofuels supplied primarily local and sub-regional markets.
Now big industry is moving in, centralizing operations and creating
huge economies of scale.
Biofuels producers will be dependent on a cabal of companies for their
seed, inputs, services, processing and sale. They are not likely to
receive many benefits. Small holders will be forced out of the market
and off the land. Hundreds of thousands have already been displaced by
the soybean plantations in the “Republic of Soy”, a 50 million hectare
area in southern Brazil, northern Argentina, Paraguay and eastern Bolivia.
Hunger results not from scarcity, but poverty. The world’s poorest
already spend 50-80% of household income on food. They suffer when
high fuel prices push up food prices. Now, because food and fuel crops
compete for land and resources, both increase the price of land and
water. The International Food Policy Research Institute has estimated
that the price of basic staples will increase 20-33% by 2010 and
26-135% by 2020. Caloric consumption declines as price rises by a
ratio of 1:2.
Limits must be placed on the biofuels industry. The North cannot shift
the burden of overconsumption to the South because the tropics have
more sunlight, rain and arable land. If biofuels are to be forest- and
food-friendly, the industry need to be regulated, and not piecemeal.
Strong, enforceable standards based on limiting land planted for
biofuels are urgently needed, as are antitrust laws powerful enough to
prevent the corporate concentration of market power in the industry.
Sustainable benefits to the countryside will only accrue if biofuels
are a complement to plans for sustainable rural development, not the
centrepiece.
A global moratorium on the expansion of biofuels is needed to develop
regulatory structures and foster conservation and development
alternatives to the transition. We need the time to make a better
transition to food and fuel sovereignty.
International Herald Tribune
http://www.livemint.com/2007/07/11213247/THE-BIOFUEL-MYTHS-NEED-FOR-A.html?atype\
=tp
I was part of this Radio program. The interviewer visited Raipur by
saying that she is coming only to meet me. During interview I was
forced to support Jatropha any how. Same interview was taken many
times in name of clear recording. Later I found that all this was on
invitation of the state Jatropha authorities. I was kept in this
program to 'balance' it. I have also not heard this program but
summary in internet is sufficient to say that they have presented one
sided story. I invited them to visit Magarload region where 13
children were sick by eating Jatropha. But they refused to visit and
meet the children.
After this incidence I decided to keep distance with the reporters
eager to make one sided story rather 'sponsored story'.
regards
Pankaj Oudhia
--- In jatropha@..., Felix Padel <felixorisa@...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends
>
> Below is a digest of biofuel news, with one item about
> jatropha in India and my response.
>
> Unfortunately I missed the BBC Radio4 programme, but
> the glimpse of what it was saying is terrifying. As
> someone following endless movements in India where
> cultivators are trying to hold on to the land they
> live on sustainably, and knowing how ruthlessly people
> are being evicted in other countries, I can guarantee
> that most of this 11 million hectares of "wasteland"
> is either land cultivated by farmers or wildland
> necessary for wildlife.
>
> Felix Padel
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
> Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone
who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
>
Biofuels not the ideal solution
AS THE world seeks alternatives to fossil fuels (petrol, oil, diesel),
the focus is gradually shifting to biofuels, believed to be efficient
and friendly to the environment.
However, the biofuel industry, without strict regulation, can be as
catastrophic as the fossil fuel industry is in Africa.
Production of biofuels like ethanol on a small scale can contribute
to local energy sufficiency. That changes as millions of acres
worldwide are converted to corn, Jatropha, palm oil and soy among
other crops. In fact, we could be making climate change even worse,
driving more species into extinction, and, at the same time,
threatening food production in developing countries.
Biofuels may exacerbate the problems of social inequality and poverty,
particularly in Africa. Using potential agricultural land and water to
grow biofuels instead of food for domestic consumption will have a
detrimental effect on food security in the continent that is already
struggling to feed its more than 800 million inhabitants.
Though poor countries in Africa could benefit from using biofuel
efficiently without destroying the ecosystem, a global biofuel
regulatory system should be put in place first. Such a system would
protect vulnerable communities in the developing countries from the
predatory and profit-driven multinational companies that are likely to
pursue new business opportunities in the biofuel industry.
Grace Akumu
Executive director,
Climate Network Africa, Nairobi
http://www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/current/Opinion/opinion1607076.htm
Dear friends
Below is a digest of biofuel news, with one item about
jatropha in India and my response.
Unfortunately I missed the BBC Radio4 programme, but
the glimpse of what it was saying is terrifying. As
someone following endless movements in India where
cultivators are trying to hold on to the land they
live on sustainably, and knowing how ruthlessly people
are being evicted in other countries, I can guarantee
that most of this 11 million hectares of "wasteland"
is either land cultivated by farmers or wildland
necessary for wildlife.
Felix Padel
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
Source: Copyright 2007, Independent (UK)
Date: July 11, 2007
Byline: Daniel Howden
Original URL
Conservationists in Uganda are fighting a last-ditch battle to stop
the destruction of a forest reserve by a sugar corporation friendly
with the government.
The Mabira Forest Reserve, on the north shore of Lake Victoria, is
home to 300 bird species as well as rare primates, and plays a vital
role in the country's eco-system, storing carbon and regulating
rainfall. The Mehta sugar corporation wants the reserve carved up so
they can expand sugar cane plantations for biofuel production.
Yoweri Museveni, the Ugandan President, is attempting to push through
legislation that would strip the forest of its protected status. This
would flout a deal signed with the World Bank in 2001 under which the
government received 180m to construct a hydroelectric dam on the Nile
in return for guaranteeing the forest's protection.
Mr Museveni said last week that handing the forest over for cane
cultivation would create jobs and enable the sugar industry to compete
in the region. He told a local newspaper that his government would not
"be deterred by people who don't see where the future of Africa lies".
However, opposition MPs led by Beatrice Anywar have pointed out that
the plan makes no economic sense. Sugar yields in Uganda are among the
lowest in Africa, while the destruction will hurt the tourism
industry, which is among the country's biggest foreign currency
earners, and destroy the best source of food and income for the people
of the Buganda Kingdom, which surrounds the reserve.
"Mabira is a biodiversity heaven and conserving it is a much better
option than growing sugar cane," said Achilles Byaruhanga, executive
director of Nature Uganda. "If a quarter of Mabira is chopped down,
the effect on the forest will be far reaching, reducing the range of
species, causing encroachment, erosion and siltation. There will be
less water in our rivers, less rain, less carbon stored and fewer
tourists."
In a report submitted last year to the environment ministry by the
Mehta group, it was claimed that the area it wants is heavily degraded
and of little environmental value. This was disputed by the National
Forest Authority but the government responded by sacking the entire board.
The 75,000-acre Mabira forms the eastern part of the Guinea Congo
Forest in central Africa. The RSPB's Africa officer, Dr Chris Magin,
said: "Slicing up Mabira would be an environmental disaster and makes
no economic sense at all."
The forest is only 20 miles from the capital, Kampala, and is home to
a new 500,000 eco-lodge. It could become one of the country's main
tourist sites.
The plans have faced enormous public opposition in Uganda, with at
least three people killed in April after police broke up a
demonstration against the destruction of the forest. The Mehta family,
among the richest in the country, have close ties to the Museveni
government and were among many Ugandan Asians who were tempted back to
the country after the fall of Idi Amin. The Mabira plans have stirred
up racial tensions, with protesters attacking a Hindu temple in Kampala.
Forests covered 40 per cent of Uganda in the 1970s. Recent studies
indicate that has been reduced to 20 per cent and in the past 15 years
rates of deforestation have accelerated above 2.2 per cent.
The conversion of an increasing proportion of the world's food crops
into bio-fuel is pushing up agricultural commodity prices and spurring
new sugar cane plantations throughout Africa. Andrew Mitchell, founder
of the Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of rainforest scientists
and NGOs, said the Uganda give-away could be part of a worrying new
trend. "Ripping up rainforests for biofuels sets a dangerous precedent
that will release far more carbon into the atmosphere than it saves.
Uganda faces difficult choices but it is in danger of leading its
people down a blind alley."
Economists and Environmentalists are concerned the consequences of a
headlong rush into so-called "green fuels" could be to increase
greenhouse gases and push up food prices, effectively starving the
world's poor.
A report by Care International warned the deforestation risked
starting drought and flood cycles and a reduction in the health and
volume of Lake Victoria.
JAKARTA - Palm oil companies are burning peat forests to clear
land for plantations in Indonesia's Riau province, despite
government pledges to end forest fires, environment group
Greenpeace said on Thursday.
Forest fires are an annual menace for Indonesia and the country's
neighbours, who have grown deeply frustrated at the apparent lack
of success in curbing the dry-season blazes and vast smoke
clouds, or haze, that smothers the region.
Apart from the health risks to millions of people and damage to
the environment, the smoke also releases large amounts of carbon
dioxide, fuelling global warming.
The government has pledged to cut the number of fires by half. A
2004 law prohibits plantation companies from using fires, or any
other means that cause environmental damage, to clear or
cultivate land.
Blazes have started flaring again since the end of June with the
start of the dry season. Satellite images collected by the
Forestry Ministry showed 124 "hot spots" in Riau on Sumatra
island last week, more than other provinces in the country.
Riau is just across the Strait of Malacca from Singapore and
Malaysia.
"The endless cycle of forest fires and forest destruction in
Indonesia must now be seen as a global phenomenon because our
country contributes a lot to climate change," Greenpeace Forest
campaigner Hapsoro said in a statement.
"Beyond the frequent lip service and rhetoric coming from
officials whenever these fires flare up, the government must take
bolder measures to prevent the problem from taking place," he
said.
"The government must strictly enforce laws against violators
including oil palm companies and plantations which deliberately
start these fires as part of their land-clearing operations."
Heavy rain and water bombings extinguished most of the latest
fires during the weekend but the threat was far from over,
Hapsoro said.
The group showed a video from a trip to the area, showing swathes
of burnt peat forests with tiny patches still on fire.
Indonesia has a total forest area of more than 225 million acres
(91 million hectares), or about 10 percent of the world's
remaining tropical forest, according to Rainforestweb.org, a
portal on rainforests (www.rainforestweb.org).
But the tropical Southeast Asian country -- whose forests are a
treasure trove of plant and animal species including the
endangered orangutans -- has already lost an estimated 72 percent
of its original frontier forest.
The country is now the world's second-largest palm oil producer
and has about 5 million hectares planted with oil palm. The
government aims to develop an additional 2-3 million hectares by
2010.
The palm oil industry says it abides by government rules.
"The government has classified areas and has rules and we obey
them. It is not what people from outside think that we just come,
clear land and burn," Derom Bangun, executive chairman of the
Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association, told Reuters in an
earlier interview.
A World Bank and British government sponsored report placed
Indonesia as the third largest greenhouse gas emitter, releasing
two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year because of
deforestation and forest fires.
Indonesia has about 20 million hectares of peat forests and peat
swamps. When drained or burnt, they release large amounts of
carbon dioxide in the air.
Margaret Kinnaird of the Wildlife Conservation Society in New
York and her colleagues began studying the tropical rainforest of
the Bukit Barisan Selatan national park in 1997. That year, a
severe El Nio - a warming of the eastern Pacific Ocean -
brought intense drought and fires to the region.
By studying the year-by-year recovery of these plots - some of
which had also been burned in an earlier El Nio in 1982 -
Kinnaird and her colleagues developed a model describing how the
forest regenerates. This shows that if El Nios matching the
1997 event occur twice a decade, the prospects are dim: a 46 per
cent loss of forest cover over the next century, Kinnaird told
the Society for Conservation Biology's meeting in Port Elizabeth,
South Africa, last week.
Unfortunately, El Nios seem to be getting more frequent and
severe, so this is plausible. Protecting the forests is possible,
says Kinnaird. "But you've got to have good fire management.
Indonesia doesn't have that."
From issue 2612 of New Scientist magazine, 14 July 2007, page 19
Indonesia's peat swamps are worth $39 billion in carbon credits
per year, according to rough calculations by Bloomberg.
Drainage and destruction of carbon-rich peat swamps releases up
to 2 billion tons of carbon per year in Indonesia, according to
estimates by Wetlands International, a Dutch NGO. The emissions
make Indonesia the third largest producer of greenhouse gases
despite having the world's twenty second largest economy.
Analysts say reducing these emissions could help slow global
warming while paying significant dividends for Indonesia. At the
going rate of 14.59 euros per ton of carbon offset, eliminating
these emissions would be worth 29 billion euros ($39 billion), or
more than the $30.1 billion value of the global emissions-credit
trade in 2006.
While the tally is significant, there is presently no way for
Indonesia to capitalize on this compensation. Environmentalists
say that establishing such a mechanism could help reduce
deforestation, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and improve rural
livelihoods in some of world's poorest regions.
<http://photos.mongabay.com/07/trop_defor_bar-600.jpg> Tropical
deforestation rates from 2000-2005, ranked in descending order by
the highest amount of average annual forest loss for 25 countries
based on data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). Image by Rhett A. Butler, click to enlarge
"This value highlights the potential of this market, however no
international incentive system exists to encourage countries to
sustain and restore these threatened carbon stocks. Cuts in
carbon emissions made by avoiding peat soil degradation are not
covered by the UN-controlled Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),
for example. In fact, no official carbon trade agreements include
the emissions that are avoided when the carbon locked in soils
is kept intact," said Wetlands International in a statement
calling for "a global finance mechanism to trigger large-scale
restoration and management of wetlands".
"The benefits would be carbon storage, poverty reduction and
biodiversity conservation," Wetlands continued. "A dedicated
wetlands carbon fund could allow investing companies to
compensate for their emissions and could result in trade. The
funds generated would be used to sustain the carbon stocks in
tropical peatswamps and would also help sustain local livelihoods
and conserve a massive biodiversity treasure."
Wetlands estimates that peatlands in Southeast Asia store at
least 42 billion metric tons of soil carbon or peat carbon, which
if exposed to oxygen in air or burned, would potentially create
155 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to
Bloomberg. Total global carbon dioxide emissions from fuel
combustion were 26.6 billion tons in 2004, according to the
International Energy Agency. Emissions from deforestation are
thought to account for about a fifth of total carbon dioxide
emissions.
Fire near Soberania National Park, Panama. March, 2007. (Credit:
Christian Ziegler, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute)
The survey is published in the July issue of Ecological
Applications, reported by lead author S. Joseph Wright, staff
scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; Arturo
Sanchez-Azofeifa and Carlos Portillo-Quintero from the University
of Alberta; and Diane Davies from the University of Maryland.
"Satellite data on fire frequency provides a measure of park
effectiveness across countries," Wright said. "It is strikingly
clear from our study that poverty and corruption limit the
effectiveness of parks set up to protect tropical forests."
The survey indicates that parks were most effective at reducing
fire incidence in Costa Rica, Jamaica, Malaysia and Taiwan;
whereas parks failed to prevent fires in Cambodia, Guatemala and
Sierra Leone.
"Current integration of state-of-the-art remote sensing databases
with Geographic Information Systems is allowing us to better
evaluate the effectiveness of conservation efforts in tropical
environments," Sanchez-Azofeifa said.
While nearly all tropical countries have established parks to
protect rainforests, not all have the political and economic
means to enforce park boundaries and prevent illegal extraction
of park resources.
To better distinguish functional parks from "paper" parks and to
characterize the relationship between social factors and park
protection worldwide, the team created an index comparing fire
frequency inside and outside of 823 tropical and subtropical
parks.
Low fire frequency within parks was chosen as an indicator of
park effectiveness because the background level of fire in
tropical moist forests is low, so the presence of fire often
indicates that humans are engaged in timber extraction, clearing
land for agriculture or other land-use conversion.
The frequency was based on fire detection data from NASA's
satellite-based Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
(MODIS). "The MODIS fire products enable us to monitor global
fires and see how fire regimes are changing," said Chris Justice
of the NASA MODIS fire team. He noted that information from the
NASA Fire Information for Resource Management Information System
Project provides a prototype to provide future long-term fire
information from space tailored to the needs of resource
managers.
Wright added that satellite data has limitations. "The satellite
data must be carefully screened. Perhaps the clearest examples of
this system's limitations were a park in Costa Rica and two parks
in Indonesia where active volcanoes triggered the MODIS fire
detection algorithm," he said.
With fire frequency data in hand, researchers developed a set of
social and economic indicators reflecting the level of poverty
and corruption in each country. The Corruption Protection Index
was provided by Transparency International; other information
came from United Nations files and the CIA-World Fact Book.
As part of this publication, fire frequency data from 3,964
tropical reserves will be posted online. The authors hope that
other investigators more familiar with reserves in particular
countries or regions will use these data to better understand the
causes of fires in parks and their management implications.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.
1. Plants DO require irrigation - contrary to some industry
spokespeople in this country
2. There is no processing plant yet in India, so all their crop is
shipped to Middlesborough (UK) for trans-esterfication processing!
3. One of the people interviewed was clear that although India has
lots
of 'waste' land suitable for jatropha, in his view this would not be
sufficient to allow final biodiesel product to be exported. India has
enough demand to use all their crop.
4. One plant scientist cautioned that Jatropha is not a consistent
cropper - ie high variability in yields - a result of mixed and
unknown
parentage of the seed stock being used for planting.
5. One farmer interviewed had used his life savings and added a bank
loan to switch from food to jatropha and had harvested just 5 worth
of
beans in a year. (The proponent of the industry with him on the
interview effectively accused him of failing to irrigate the crops
properly)
6. Lots of the wasteland in India is now uncultivated because of lack
of labour - people have moved to urban areas to better paid jobs. No
mention of how mechanised any Jatropha agriculture could be.
Availability of labour may slow the development of the industry.
Conclusion - it may be the best of the available alternative crops
for
oil, but it doesn't seem to be ready yet for delivering large
amounts,
and India itself unlikely to help EU meet the 10% by 2010 target for
biofuels.
DECLARATION FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES POTENCIALLY AFFECTED BY AGROFUELS
The organizations present at the International Agro Fuel and Food
Sovereignty Meeting, held in Quito from the 27th to the 29th of June 2007,
want to express our concern over the political agrarian proposals made by
the current government, that prioritizes the use of territory for the
production of monoculture crops to generate fuel.
The mass expansion of energy crops constitutes a threat to our traditional
agricultural way of living. It means the taking over of the land we use to
produce our food crops and foods consumed by the rest of Ecuadorians. It
also means the disappearance of the last remaining tropical forests, those
that apart from being important for the conservation of life, is the place
where we develop our culture and guarantee our survival as peoples.
Rural development based on agro fuels, will benefit those of the agro
industry represented by the big sugar engineers, the palm grower sector who
are responsible for the mass deforestation of the forests in Esmeraldas and
the Amazon region, and by companies such as PRONACA, representative of
Monsanto transnational, who would introduce corn seeds for the production of
ethanol.
Agro fuels could provide a doorway for the entry of transgenic crops with
all the impacts that this entails. It is important to highlight that until
now and due to civil pressure, Ecuador is a country free of transgenic
crops.
With their economic power, the agro industry businessmen would establish
relationships of dependency with local farmers, indigenous groups and
afro-descendants that live in the areas that have been chosen for the
development of fuel crops. We would lose our food sovereignty, and become
company workers. This threatens our traditional way of life.
With the aim of generating fuel crops our best lands would be used as well
as our water and labour, which will mean that we will stop producing food
crops that we need for self consumption and we will instead feed the
vehicles of the rich. On the other hand our sources of water will be
contaminated by the use of agro toxins, which will affect our health and
quality of life.
The current government has in front of it two alternatives: that of backing
a model of diversification and sustainable production, that will guarantee
food sovereignty, and the continuity of our traditional ways of life as
indigenous groups, afro-descendents and local farmers and the conservation
of biodiversity or that of backing the agro industry.
We hope that the governments decision be one in favour of the people.
ANY FORM OF ENERGY PRODUCTION MAKES SENSE IF IT IS NOT AT THE SERVICE OF
THE POPULATION THAT HAVE GUARANTEED THE CONTINUETY OF LIFE IN THIS COUNTRY
Quito, 29th of June 2007
Note: This declaration was read to the Minister of Energy of Ecuador
By DAN CHAPMAN <mailto:dchapman@ajc.com>
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/03/07
Range Fuels Inc. a dot-com billionaire's bet that pine trees can be
turned into fuel has received key environmental and construction
permits from Georgia for a proposed $225 million cellulosic ethanol
plant in Treutlen County.
Monday's announcement lends credence to the Colorado-based company's
contention that it will be the first in the United States to
manufacture the commercially unproven energy.
Range Fuels, started by Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla,
plans to break ground on its 100-million-gallon-a-year factory in
Soperton this summer.
"This is an innovative new technology, and we believe we will be the
first in the United States, and possibly the world, to build a
profitable plant," said Mitch Mandich, the company's CEO. "We believe
the [technology] will be and is feasible."
Rising oil prices and growing disenchantment with ethanol from corn
have fueled the nation's push into the derivation of energy from pine
trees, switchgrass, corn stover, hog waste, garbage, kudzu and more.
President Bush proposes the usage of 35 billion gallons of alternative
fuels by 2017, a nearly sevenfold increase.
Nationwide 121 ethanol bio-refineries are operating, and 75 are under
construction, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. Virtually
all, though, use corn, which critics claim is neither energy-efficient
nor cost-effective, to produce ethanol. These plants, if built, would
produce 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol a year, the trade group
estimates, far below what Bush and others deem necessary.
In February, the Department of Energy said that six cellulosic ethanol
plants were eligible for $385 million in construction and production
grants. Range Fuels is in line for $76 million.
"Corn ethanol is the least desirable form of ethanol in production
now," said Jay Hakes, who ran the federal Energy Information
Administration from 1993 to 2000.
"To get real benefits of both oil independence and reduction of
greenhouse gases, we need to move as quickly as possible to cellulosic
ethanol," said Hakes, now director of the Jimmy Carter Library and
Museum. "That's why these plants are good news."
For rural Georgia, in particular. With 24 million forested acres, most
in economically hard-hit areas, Georgia has embraced Range Fuels with
tax abatements, cheap land and grants that could top $10 million.
Forestry officials estimate the state's trees can produce up to 2
billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol a year.
Range Fuels will primarily use wood chips in Soperton to produce
ethanol and methanol, another fuel. Mandich says a tractor-trailer
load of Georgia pine chips has been shipped to Colorado for testing.
The company is also researching ways to make commercially feasible
ethanol from olive pits, switchgrass, old tires and two dozen other
raw materials.
Its proprietary technology eliminates enzymes, an expensive ingredient
in cellulosic ethanol production, in favor of a "thermo-chemical
conversion process," according to the company. Range Fuels plans to
house its ethanol maker in a modular contraption that could be
transported to where the trees grow or the hogs go.
"If they're right that their [technology] is commercially viable, then
it moves the ball forward a lot faster than most people in the energy
industry thought it was moving," Hakes said. "It's encouraging that
investors want to invest in it. All of us are hoping that it's
successful."
Mandich wouldn't disclose his private company's fund-raising efforts
other than to say "we will continue to be active in the financial
markets through the rest of the year."
***
Eva Hernandez, Organizing Director
Dogwood Alliance, POB 7645, Asheville, NC 28802
t. 828.251.2525 x 13, c. 404.717.3328
From "GRAIN - Shalini Bhutani" <shalini@...>
Hello,
GRAIN has just launched a special issue of its Seedling magazine,
focused on the growing stampede to adopt bio fuels, or as GRAIN
calls them, agrofuels.
This special issue of Seedling is available since the end of June
both online and soon afterwards in printed format. We are therefore
making a special effort with this issue of Seedling to distribute
widely, both the printed copies and the electronic version.
If would like to receive extra copies of the printed magazine
Seedling for further distribution amongst your circle, within
workshops or even amongst others subscriber lists, please do email
at seedling@... with details of your name, address, telephone
number and number of copies. Ideally, we would need to know how many
copies of Seedling you would like to receive ASAP.
Seedling magazine is also available on our website as from 27th June
2007. The URL for this Seedling http://www.grain.org/go/agrofuels or
http://www.grain.org/go/biofuels, where all articles will be
available in PDF and HTML format. To receive notification of when
Seedling is available please do sign up to our New from GRAIN email
list at: http://www.grain.org/go/subnfg, and then please do forward
the email to all your relevant contacts.
For further information about this special issue of Seedling on
agrofuels, please feel free to mail at seedling@...
Many thanks,
for all at GRAIN
Shalini Bhutani
Regional Programme Officer, Asia
GRAIN
shalini@...http://www.grain.org
Seedling GRAIN's quarterly magazine - view our articles online
(http://www.grain.org/seedling/)
"No to the agrofuels craze!" Read the Seedling issue focused on
agrofuels (biofuels): www.grain.org/go/agrofuels
Item 4 here on Columbia. Items 1-3 on the huge &
dangerous boost being given to biofuels in Europe and
US, without comrehension of the effects in developing
countries.
Felix
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-eyes-imports-quench-biofuels-thirst/article-165289
EU eyes imports to quench biofuels thirst[fr][de] Published: Thursday 5 July 2007 | Updated: Friday 6 July 2007
Europe must open its doors to imports of biofuels from developing countries in order to reduce its oil dependency and cut carbon emissions, said EU leaders at a high-level conference in Brussels attended by Brazilian President Luis Inacio 'Lula' da Silva.
Related: LinksDossier: Biofuels for transport
News: Groups unite to halt EU biofuels rush
Analysis: Biofuels: Turning petroleum addicts into alcoholics?
Background: Other related news
EU, Brazil join in strategic partnership
Boeing 'really excited' about biofuels
Commission seeks advice on biofuels amid growing scepticism
Wood, food or biofuels?
Bush's State of the Union: no energy U-turn
As part of Europes strategy for reducing oil dependency and fighting climate change, EU leaders committed, at the March 2007 European Council, to a binding minimum target for each member state to achieve at least 10% of their transport fuel consumption from biofuels.
Transport is responsible for around one third of all carbon dioxide emissions in the EU with road vehicles relying almost entirely on oil as a primary energy source.
The EU sees biofuels considered to be carbon neutral as the only viable green alternative to oil. However, a number of doubts have been raised about the benefits of biofuels, with studies showing that some biofuels actually generate more greenhouse gases than conventional fuels if one includes the total emissions from agriculture, transport and processing involved in their production.
Furthermore, many are worried that an increase in biofuels production will lead to biodiversity loss and food shortages, especially in developing countries, considering the vast tracts of land that would be required to replace petrol to any significant degree.
Issues: Europe will fail to meet its objective to increase the share of biofuels to 10% of overall transport fuel consumption without a major rise in imports from countries like Brazil, warned EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson at an international conference organised by the Commission on 5 July.
The conference was attended by Brazilian President Lula Da Silva and followed hard on the heels of the first ever EU-Brazil summit, held one day before (EurActiv 5/07/07).
"Europe should be open to accepting that we will import a large part of our biofuel resources," said Mandelson, adding: "We should certainly not contemplate favouring EU production of biofuels with a weak carbon performance if we can import cheaper, cleaner, biofuels. Resource nationalism doesn't serve us particularly well in other areas of energy policy - biofuels are no different."
Currently, biofuel such as ethanol are classified as agricultural goods and enjoy relatively high tariff protection in Europe in order to support the development of the biofuel market and protect European farmers against foreign competition.
However, since there is not enough European land available to produce sufficient amounts of fuel and feed, the EU will have to further open up its doors to imports from third countries, said a number of EU Commissioners speaking at the conference. In the Commission's view, this can be achieved either by means of a multilateral agreement, at the World Trade Organisation, or through bilateral deals, such as the new strategic partnership launched with Brazil on 4 July.
Commission President Jos Manuel Barroso and Brazilian President Lula Da Silva underlined that further market opening in Europe would also benefit developing countries currently the main producers of biofuel crops, such as sugar cane and corn.
However, the move could face opposition from some EU members such as France, which are strongly resisting calls from developing countries and the US, to slash EU farm tariffs in order to achieve a deal in global trade talks at the WTO.
Positions: Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said he was confident that developing countries would eventually gain from expanding their biofuels production: "Many developing countries have spare agricultural capacity and a genuine comparative advantage in production. They also have the climate and land profile that suits energy-rich biofuels," he told the conference.
But he also stressed that the development of such a market "must be tempered by environmental reality."
"Europeans won't pay a premium for biofuels if the ethanol in their car is produced unsustainably by systematically burning fields after harvests or if it comes at the expense of rainforests. We can't allow the switch to biofuels to become an environmentally unsustainable stampede in the developing world."
Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said: "We could if we had to fulfil our 10% target for 2020 entirely through domestically produced biofuels notably, by using 'set-aside' agricultural land and by reducing the rate at which arable land is being abandoned in the EU. However, even if this approach is technically possible, it is not the one that we want to follow. We think that this purely domestic sourcing of biofuels is neither likely given current trade rules, and the increased trade liberalisation we hope to see in future nor desirable."
He concluded: "We need to ensure that our biofuel standards create no unnecessary obstacles."
Commission President Jos Manuel Barroso said that the new biofuels market "should not only serve the interests of the car-owning rich, but also the interests of the world's poorer nations", adding: "It is true that as the price of staple foods increases, there is a potential impact on food security for the world's poor. But this should be offset by the benefits of improving terms of agricultural trade, which provide developing countries with an opportunity to produce more."
Swedish Minister for Trade Sten Tolgfors commented that Brazilian ethanol was still met with tariffs of up to 55% while the tariff on petrol is as low as 5%. "Why is Europe making ethanol so much more expensive than petrol?" he asked, calling for a full elimination of tariffs on biofuels.
Brazilian President Lula Da Silva pointed out that, in his country, more than six million jobs have been created thanks to the development of a strong biofuels market. Furthermore, he underlined that: "This is not a choice between food and energy," adding that, in Brazil, "the planting of sugar cane did not force out or reduce the production of food." Instead, he said, the increase in sugar cane production has been accompanied by an increase in income. "We can repeat these results in many poor and developing countries" he said.
However, he stressed that, in order for the development of biofuels to become viable for many developing countries, rich countries would first have to put an end to their agricultural subsidies and reduce tariffs. "You must give a chance to those who didnt have a chance in the 20th century," he concluded amid thunders of applause.
European farm leaders however rejected the idea that the EU should open itself to imports of cheap biofuels on the basis of environmental considerations. "Mandelson must get his facts right on biofuels," said EU farm lobby Copa-Cogeca Secretary General Pekka Pesonen, accusing the Commissioner of closing his eyes to economic realities in developing countries.
"The international cost advantage of, for example, Brazilian production is based firmly on cheap land, won by destruction of rainforests and pristine savannahs, and exploitation of workers even to the point of using slave labour," he stressed, adding: "Mandelson must understand that biofuels policy is also about promoting EU energy independence. No one says that the EU should seal itself from imports. But rejecting out of hand, as Mandelson does, the contribution European farmers can make to meeting the EUs energy needs in a sustainable way, is something to be expected from a Brazilian minister for exports for example, not the EUs Trade Commissioner", the Secretary General concluded.
Green NGO Friends of the Earth Europe said that the EUs commitment to replace 10% of its transport fuel market with biofuels by 2020 was "dangerous" for biodiversity in developing countries and demanded it to be dropped. Citing Indonesia, the worlds largest producer of palm oil a product used to make biofuels as an example, Rully Syumanda, Forest Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Indonesia said: "Europe's growing demand for palm oil is leading to environmental and social devastation here in Indonesia."
Latest & next steps:
5-6 July 2007: International Conference on Biofuels
Links EU official documents
Commission (press release): European Commission gathers key international players to discuss sustainable development of biofuels (3 July 2007)
Commission (press release): The European Union deepens energy relations with Brazil (5 July 2007)
Commission (speech): Barroso: Keynote speech on Biofuels - International Biofuels Conference (5 July 2007)
Commission (speech): Mandelson: The biofuel challenge (5 July 2007)
Commission (speech): Piebalgs: Biofuels the green alternative for transport (5 July 2007)
Commission (speech): Ferrero-Waldner: Opening Speech International Conference on Biofuels (5 July 2007)
EU Actors positions
Copa-Cogeca: Mandelson must get his facts right on biofuels, says COPA-COGECA | FR (5 July 2007)
Friends of the Earth Europe: World's biggest palm oil trader shamed (3 July 2007)
WWF: Contribution to the European Commission Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Biofuels Directive (22 June 2007)
Transnational Institute: Agrofuels - Towards a reality check in nine key areas
Press articles
EurActiv.sk: E zvauje otvorenie trhu s biopalivami
Associated Press: Biofuels Could Reduce Poverty Gap
Bloomberg: EU Warns Brazil on Environmental Impact of Biofuels
Reuters: EU seeks biofuel imports, environment standards too
Le Monde: Le prsident brsilien promeut les agrocarburants en Europe
Les Affaires: Le biocarburant pour lutter contre les ingalits
Reuters Germany: Brasilien rckt in Kreis engster EU-Handelspartner auf
AP: Biokraftstoff als Chance fr Entwicklungslnder
News
Decrease font size
Increase font size
E-mail to a friend
Systran rough translation
Print this article
RSS
InterActivTools
Del.icio.us
Digg It
Technorati
Letters To The Editor Biofuels = pressure on biodiversity - Willy De Backer, 3E Intelligence
Banning GM food 'a step towards totalitarian state'
more...
Send a Letter To The Editor
Ad('11-3750237-282007&block=1');
Read the One World Column ... mainstreaming ... Peace, Environment, Human Rights, Sustainability, Anti-war voices in the UK Eastern Region www.oneworldcolumn.org
Longer, faster hi-tech trains are planned to end delays and overcrowding
Juliette Jowit, transport editor
Sunday July 8, 2007
The Observer
A 30-year plan to transform rail travel with longer trains that can run closer together using biofuels and even hydrogen power will be set out by the government this month. Ministers are to give more details of a new fleet of inter-city trains, raising the prospect of Britain getting trains similar to the high-speed Velaro recently unveiled in Spain. They will also announce for the first time a 'new generation' train to replace much of Britain's remaining diesel and electric stock. Research will also be unveiled into trams that can run on commuter rail routes and on roads through city centres. Article continues
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
To increase capacity on crowded routes, the white paper is likely to say the latest hi-tech European signalling system will be fitted within a decade so that trains can run closer together. Thousands more carriages are to be ordered so that trains can be made longer. Double-decker trains are thought to be considered too expensive because of the need to increase the height of tunnels and bridges. Other improvements could give passengers general wi-fi access to the internet and provide on-board information about other transport links, while CCTV cameras which can detect suspect packages and 'abnormal behaviour' are being considered, as are anti-viral surfaces to reduce the risk of epidemics such as bird flu spreading. Scanners to detect weapons and explosives could also be installed at major stations. On the tracks, more modern monitoring and repair equipment should allow faults to be detected more quickly and repaired without closing neighbouring lines, creating what
officials call a '24/7 railway' - and raising hopes of ending widespread shutdowns and the misery of replacement bus services at weekends. The improvements will come at a price: officials warn that seats could have to be removed from busy trains so they can carry more standing passengers, and fares could rise further on popular routes to encourage travel outside the rush hour. The white paper is also expected to suggest that savings could be made by further cutting back maintenance on the least used rural lines. Network Rail has asked for nearly 21bn for day-to-day running costs and another 7bn-8bn for enhancements from 2009 to 2014. However, the white paper is not expected to give a definite go-ahead to three of Britain's biggest rail projects: a new Crossrail route across London, which is the subject of a separate government bill, and new passenger and freight lines from London to Scotland. The wide-ranging plans will be welcomed by passengers and campaigners
who have been complaining about over-crowding and continuing delays caused by infrastructure failures. However, they are likely to be met with caution after previous promises since Labour came to power 10 years ago and previous strategies from Network Rail's predecessor, Railtrack and the government's now disbanded Strategic Rail Authority. There is also likely to be concern about whether the government will put in enough subsidy to pay for the promises and anger if fares continue to rise, particularly before the improvements are introduced. 'People have heard a lot of this before,' said Stephen Joseph, director of the lobby group Transport 2000. 'Because this is coming from government, and the Treasury has had to sign it off, there's a level of commitment that probably wasn't there in the past, but there's still a large level of uncertainty. Passengers will believe this when they see the new trains running down the tracks.' There will also be keen interest in how
far ministers will commit to a new north-south high-speed line. In a draft of the technical strategy, which forms part of the white paper, it is tabled as a possibility between 2020 and 2030. However, rail leaders are hopeful the advice of the government's transport adviser, Rod Eddington, to rule out the new line will not be taken. 'All the hints have been that it's going to be left open,' said Paul Martin, director-general of the Railway Forum industry group. 'I'd be surprised if they slammed the door altogether.' A DfT spokesman said: 'The technical strategy has been produced in close collaboration with the rail industry and brings together many projects already in development. It will inform and guide decisions taken as part of the work on the longer-term strategy, but is separate to it. It will be published in due course.'
Read the One World Column ... mainstreaming ... Peace, Environment, Human Rights, Sustainability, Anti-war voices in the UK Eastern Region www.oneworldcolumn.org
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=10142
Cellulosic ethanol - Clean but worth unproven The big benefit cellulosic ethanol has is that virtually any plant material could be turned into 'green gold', a low-emission fuel for the transportation sector Saturday, June 30, 2007
By Stephen Leahy
Article Tools Print
Email
Discuss
With biofuels being blamed for rising food prices and offering limited environmental benefits, diverse luminaries like former U.S. vice-president Al Gore and Microsofts Bill Gates are throwing their considerable support behind cellulosic ethanol, a second generation biofuel.
The big benefit cellulosic ethanol has is that virtually any plant material -- left-over corn stalks, sawdust, wood chips, native perennials grown on marginal lands -- could be turned into 'green gold', a low-emission fuel for the transportation sector.
"Cellulosic ethanol would reduce carbon emissions 88 percent over gasoline," says Bruce Dale, a chemical engineer at the Biomass Conversion Research Laboratory at Michigan State University.
Dale recently published a life cycle analysis comparing various fuels on a carbon emissions per kilometre basis in the prestigious journal Science.
"Any form of ethanol is greatly superior to gasoline in this respect," Dale told IPS.
And he calculates that cellulosic could supply all of the U.S.'s gargantuan appetite 200+billion U.S. gallons -- for liquid fuel without pushing up food prices because it will use non-food crops grown on marginal lands.
But, he cautions, the cellulosic green-gold revolution will have to proceed carefully to avoid mistakes such as palm oil biodiesel production in south-east Asia that has been labelled as 'deforestation diesel' by environmental activists.
European subsidies for biodiesel prompted an enormous boom in planting palm oil trees in Indonesia and Malaysia in the past few years. Forests were clear-cut and peat swamps drained to plant hundreds of thousands of hectares. Cutting the forests and draining the swamps emitted far more carbon than could ever be saved from using biodiesel, a number of recent analyses show.
"Biofuels for transport is the wrong approach entirely," says Andrew Boswell of Biofuelwatch, a British environmental NGO.
Vast monocultures of oil palm, soya, sugar cane and maize for biofuels results in massive losses of biodiversity and rural livelihoods, serious impacts on water, soil, and food security, Boswell told IPS.
Biofuelwatch and more than 150 civil society organisations have called on the European Union to abandon their targets for biofuel use.
A May 2007 UN Energy report concurred stating that biofuels are more effective when used for heat and power rather than in transport. Boswell does not see cellulosic as much of an improvement as a fuel for transport.
Converting biomass into fuel means less biomass for soil which is crucial to maintaining soil fertility. Growing crops and cellulosic processing plants also require huge amounts of water. There are also biosafety issues since the cellulosic process uses genetically engineered enzymes and genetically engineered crops as feedstocks, he said.
"Investments in energy-efficiency, plug in hybrid cars and more transit would be cheaper and more effective," said Boswell.
"Cellulosic ethanol is just the next big money-maker for the agro-chemical and biotech corporations," he said.
While large companies like Dow Chemical, Monsanto as well as Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell among many others are certainly involved, not a single cellulosic plant has gone into production yet despite 50 years of research.
"It's much more difficult and complex to get ethanol from cellulose," says John Ferrell, co-director of the National Biomass Coordination Office within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
A corn kernel is mostly starch and water, which is easy to breakdown into a sugar and start the fermentation process that produces ethanol, Ferrell said in an interview.
Cellulose is the structural part of a plant -- what holds a plant up -- and it contains much more than starch and water, lignin for example. Genetically engineered bacteria that produce special enzymes can break down some of the materials but not all of it, so there are several steps in the process, longer fermentation times and more energy inputs.
"It's a more costly process, while corn-ethanol production is a proven and profitable technology," says Ferrell.
The world's first and only pre-commercial cellulosic demonstration facility has been in operation for several years in Ottawa, Canada. Funded in large part by the Canadian government and Royal Dutch Shell, the Iogen Energy Corp. facility uses wheat, oat and barley straw to make a 100,000 litres of ethanol a year.
Iogen has been hard at this for close to 25 years and are about to build a full-scale production facility in Iowa, thanks to 80 million dollars from the DOE as part of a special 385 million dollar U.S. government programme to kick-start the nascent industry.
The goal of this largesse is have four to six small but commercial-scale cellulosic plants up and running by 2010, says Ferrell, Iogen among them.
As oil prices stay high, banks and other investors are eager to finance corn ethanol facilities but will steer clear of cellulosic until it proves itself, hence the need for government subsidies, he says.
"It's hard to grasp the current state of the technology because it's in the hands of private companies," says Elizabeth Marshall, an economist at the World Resources Institute who studies the industry.
"There are a lot of smoke and mirrors in the industry with everyone scrambling to get money," Marshall said in an interview.
As a result, companies like Iogen are secretive and decline IPS requests for interviews.
And technical challenges remain, she says. The special-enzyme producing bacteria are fussy about what they eat and most operations require a specialised, uniform feedstock such as wheat straw and nothing else.
"However, if it works the energy balance for cellulosic is much better than grain ethanol which uses a lot of energy just to grow crops like corn as feedstocks," Marshall concludes.
Corn prices are at record highs in the U.S. due to the growing demand for ethanol. According to FAOs latest Food Outlook report, global food import bills are increasing, partly due to soaring demand for biofuels.
Whether celluolosic feedstocks will compete with food crops for land and water depends on how the industry evolves. Marshall is investigating the various implications of a possible future with a major cellulosic industry.
Where and how are the high volumes of biomass going to be grown? How will they be transported and stored? How much biomass can be removed without negative impacts on the soil? How will the industry affect food prices?
A holistic examination of the industry is needed to make sure it brings the promised environmental benefits and minimise the impacts on food prices, she says.
"Protective legislation will be needed to guarantee those benefits and impacts," she adds.
(This article is the first of a three-part series by the author on cellulosic ethanol and the impact of subsidies.)
Source: IPS News
Read the One World Column ... mainstreaming ... Peace, Environment, Human Rights, Sustainability, Anti-war voices in the UK Eastern Region www.oneworldcolumn.org
CHOC, Colombia, Jun 23 (IPS/IFEJ) - Indigenous and black communities
of Colombia's north-western department of Choc are trying to recover
their lands and food sources, lost to the decades-long civil war that
has taken its toll on this area of vast biological diversity.
Alirio Mosquera, legal representative of the community councils that
unite the 3,000 inhabitants of the Cacarica River basin on the Bajo
Atrato (lower Atrato River), is working to combine community
production projects with the peaceful resistance to the Colombian
internal conflict that has lasted a half-century.
"The people need their land returned in order to recover their
traditional practices," Mosquera said in an interview.
He was elected May 20 after a long struggle as logistical coordinator
for the return of more than 700 families displaced in 1997 by violence
by the army and right-wing paramilitary groups, which ended in land
being seized or illegally purchased by agribusiness and forestry
companies.
Known as "Operation Genesis", it left more than 4,000 people displaced
and at least 85 people dead or disappeared, according to the National
Movement of Victims of State Crimes.
"All the community councils are allies of the proposals of our
organisation CAVIDA (Communities of Self-Determination, Life and
Dignity of the Cacarica) because we have always defended the right to
land," says Mosquera.
"The land is the core of our life. When one loses it, gives it up, one
is left as a dayworker or as a slave," he adds.
In this humid, forested zone, surrounded by marshes and swamps, live
blacks and indigenous peoples, with constitutional rights to
collective lands and to overseeing their management.
Afro-Colombians constitute 85 percent of the Choc population.
Cacarica is part of the Special Management Area of the Darin
Mountains, which separate Colombia from Panama. It is located in the
buffer zone of Los Katos National Nature Park, home to numerous
endemic species and whose land is rich in minerals.
The violent displacement and illegal occupation of lands were
denounced in the biodiversity hearing held by the non-governmental
Permanent People's Tribunal, Colombia Chapter, on Feb. 26-27.
The tribunal held sessions in humanitarian zones established beginning
in 1999 -- when the displaced peoples decided to return to their
territory of 103,000 hectares -- where the families live and try to
protect themselves from armed attacks.
Among the conclusions of the hearings, the active participation of
paramilitaries in the negotiations and the concession of
non-collective lands to returnees were mentioned.
For the members of the community councils of the Cacarica, Jiguamiand
and Curvarad river basins, food self-sufficiency and land recovery
are a form of civil resistance.
"We won't allow people with weapons or multinational companies in our
territory. We aren't neutral because we are victims of the conflict,"
Bernardo Vivas, founding member of CAVIDA and of the humanitarian
zones, said in one of the meetings with international organisations
that took part in the Tribunal session.
In addition to the food shortage, the granting of land for large-scale
cultivation of monoculture crops like banana and African palm is
complicating CAVIDA's goals.
Agriculture Minister Andrs Felipe Arias recognised in an Executive
branch session on the Colombian Pacific, held in Cali on Jun. 3, that
there are 17,000 hectares with titles in the Urab area of Choc
department (of which Cacarica is a part) that pose problems, "given
that they are lands claimed by individuals as private."
Arias acknowledged that there was corruption in the purchase of those
lands, and that it was denounced at the time by the inhabitants.
According to the community members, the government has failed to take
action towards recuperating the seized lands, which they estimate to
be 22,000 hectares -- about 25 percent of the collective territory.
A report by the government's Institute of Rural Development from March
2005 said that "a group of investors associated with the companies
Urapalma, Palmas de Curvarad, Pamad, Palmas SA, Palmura, Asibicon,
La Tukeka, Selva Hmeda and Inversiones Fregni Ochoa carried out a
massive buying and selling of lands of different persons" and behind
the back of the community, "with the purpose of establishing
commercial fields of palm oil and extensive livestock projects."
The study also underscored that in the Curvarad and Jiguamiand river
basins there were 3,834 hectares planted with palm oil, destined for
production of biodiesel.
"The negotiations with the business executives did not occur with
equal rights. And they were illegal, because our territory is
inalienable and non-embargable," says Marcos Velsquez, of Nuevo
Espacio, one of the humanitarian zones.
The communities hope that, through the partial demobilisation of
paramilitaries promoted by the government, their lands will be
returned to them as part of the reparations as victims of the illegal
armed groups.
But it won't be that easy -- the commercially farmed lands are already
in progress.
In a statement issued Jun. 7, the Inter-Ecclesial Commission of
Justice and Peace denounced the CI Multifruit company for continuing
to expand banana cultivation for export, through the U.S. firm Del Monte.
The local population subsists on their own maize and rice, travelling
from the communal humanitarian zones to the plots that belonged to
them before they were displaced, and returning at the end of the day,
sometimes facing military harassment.
In the CAVIDA community zones they are trying out production of
medicinal plants and fruits, but they still lack the capacity to grow
crops that assure them a decent livelihood.
"They cut a lot of wood here, although it's small scale," says
Mosquera, worried about the forests, source of sustenance for the
local inhabitants.
As the legal representative and leader of the river basin's residents,
he hopes to develop crops of manioc and maize, among others, and to
set up a woodworking project that would use wood from the sustainable
management of local lumber.
(*This story is part of a series of features on sustainable
development by IPS - Inter Press Service, and IFEJ - the International
Federation of Environmental Journalists.)
Green fuel threatens a ‘biodiversity heaven’
From The Times
July 9, 2007
Rob Crilly in Nairobi
Almost a third of Uganda’s bird life could lose its habitat in a
protected
forest if the Government goes ahead with plans to allow sugar cane
growers
to tear down trees and cultivate plantations for biofuel production.
Mabira Forest is home to several endangered species including Nahan’s
francolin, a partridge-like bird found in pairs in the darkest,
densest,
dampest parts of the tropical jungle. Nine primate species,
including the
recently discovered grey-cheeked mangabey, would also lose their
habitat.
Conservationists believe that dozens more species of international
significance, including plants with medicinal properties, may live
in the
75,000-acre (30,000ha) reserve only 20 miles (30km) from Kampala, the
capital.
Chris Magin, the RSPB international officer for Africa,
said: “Slicing up
Mabira would be an environmental disaster and makes no economic
sense at
all. Sugar production in Uganda is hugely inefficient and has to be
heavily
subsidised to be competitive.”
The reserve forms part of the Guinea Congo Forest in Central Africa,
one of
the most important wild-life habitats in the region, with at least
300
species of birds. Mabira is supposed to be protected in return for
£180
million of World Bank funding for construction of the controversial
Bujagali
hydroelectric dam on the River Nile close to Lake Victoria.
Last year President Museveni ordered a study into whether to allow
the Mehta
Group, which has close ties to his Government, to use about a
quarter of the
forest for sugar. The plans provoked widespread hostility. First the
Government dismissed its entire National Forestry Authority after
members
unanimously opposed the clearance. Then in April a demonstration
organised
by environmentalists spiralled into racial violence directed against
Mehta,
who are of Ugandan-Indian origins. Protesters attacked a Hindu
temple in
Kampala and Asian bystanders were stoned. Three people died before
police
restored order by firing live rounds.
The protests prompted ministers to announce a review of the decision
but
conservationists believe that President Museveni will forge ahead
with the
plan once international attention has waned after the Commonwealth
heads of
government meeting in Kampala in November.
Destruction of even a quarter of the forest would have a devastating
effect
on soil erosion, rivers and the local economy, according to a survey
conducted by environmentalists at NatureUganda. They point out that
eco-tourism is the second-largest foreign exchange earner in Uganda,
with 62
per cent of income coming from visits to the unique landscape of
Mabira.
Achilles Byaruhanga, the executive director of the organisation,
said:
“Mabira is a biodiversity heaven and conserving it is a much better
option
than growing sugar cane.”
Target fixed at 53 rd NDC meet led by Man Mohan Singh and key ministers and all chief ministers of states was increase in food-grains production by mere 20 MT in XI five year plan.- what actually came out was not even a Dead Mice.
On third page of the strategy document 2.2 A particular area of concern is foodgrains, whose production during 10th plan was less than during 9th plan. Per capita annual production of cereals has declined from 192 kg in 1991/1995 to only 174 kg in 2004/2007 and of pulses from 15 kg to 12 kg. This means that per capita foodgrains production is now at 1970s levels.
>>> Even 174 kg per capita food intake includes grains considered fit for Animal Feed in developed countries though MS Swaminathan has now coined the term Nutritious Grains. World average food intake is 300 kg per capita but developed country standards are in the region of 500 kg per capita.
National Horticultural Board data shows growth slowing from 5.5% per annum during the 1990s to 2.5% during 2000-01 to 2005-06, while National Accounts place 2000-06 growth at only 1.2% per annum.
4.21 Available demand projections suggest that foodgrains demand, including
for uses other than for direct human consumption, will grow at 2 to 2.5% per
annum during 11th plan, traditional
cash crops such as oilseeds, fibres and
sugarcane at 3 to 4% per annum and livestock and horticulture at 4 to 6% per
annum.
4.22Although food-grains are projected to have the lowest rate of demand growth, continuation of present stagnation in output would mean imports in excess of 20 million tonnes by the end of 11th plan.
>>> Since oilseed production has declined sharply in last 15 years figures of that were not quoted and from para 4.21 we can easily conclude GOI had no intention to improve farm productivity. GOI is already envisaging imports of 20 million tones of food in five years. A very shameful situation when over
50% of Indian population is severely undernourished.
4.5 Irrigation accounts for by far the largest part of total investment in the
agricultural sector. Overall public investment on irrigation (Centre and States
together) during
10th plan was Rs.96,720 crores, resulting in addition of 8.8
million hectares potential. With this, 42 million hectares of potential have been
created under Major & Medium irrigation at end of 10th plan out of an ultimate
potential of 58.5 million hectares, and corresponding figures for minor irrigation
are 60.4 and 81.4 million hectares respectively.
4.6 The 11th Plan envisages creation of an additional potential of 16
million
hectares at an estimated required outlay of about Rs.2,10,000 crores. Since
irrigation is a State subject, most of this (about Rs 172,000 crore) has been earmarked for financing by States, and an analysis of States own preliminary 11th Plan allocations shows that this might actually be exceeded.
4.11 During the 10th Plan, around 22 million hectares of degraded land were
reportedly treated under these various schemes at a cost of Rs 8810 crs. Unlike
irrigation, this implies higher area covered at lower cost than original 10th plan
targets. Moreover a recent assessment of watershed development projects
suggests
4.12 For the 11th plan, both the NDC and XIth Plan Working Groups have
recommended accelerating the pace of watershed development to cover about
38 mha. -- With the higher unit costs envisaged, and including soil conservation measures, this would require a minimum investment of Rs 36,000cr on Natural Resources Management (NRM) during the 11th plan.
>>> In chapter 4 clippings you can see in two plans 10th and 11th the new irrigation capacity to be created is 25 million hectares and recovery of waste land shall be 60 million hectares which together is 16 times net cultivable of Punjab yet India shall be importing 20 million tones of food-grains by the end of XI five year plan. India shall be investing Rs. 2,46,000 crores in 11th five years plan on irrigation alone against Rs. 105,530 crores in 10th plan. But expectations of food production increase are marginal.
(1) Launch a Food Security
Mission covering wheat, rice and pulses as a central scheme aimed at producing over the next four years an additional 8 million tonnes of wheat, 10 million tonnes of rice and 2 million tonnes of pulses over the base year (triennium ending 2006-07).
>>> Even raising food production by 20 MT is taken by our Incompetent government at par with Apollo Mission and termed Food Security Mission With Commissions To Import 20 MT Of Food-grains.
What a mission piloted by all chief ministers and Man Mohan Singh and his cabinet colleagues?
Gujarat & Tamil Nadu are the two aggressive states in promoting agriculture but as given in table 1 achieved agricultural growth rate over 1995 to 2005 period of 0.48% and 1.36% that have Narindra Modi and M.S. Swaminathan as PILOTS of
their agriculture missions. All the capital expenditure was wasted.
Figures for farming alone are much worse when Animal Husbandry, Poultry, Horticulture & Fish farming etc are excluded from agriculture.
Gujarat Irrigation &
Floods Outlay;
In the budget 2007-08 Gujarat had planned to invest Rs.4754 crores on irrigation and floods alone out of Rs. 15,506 crores annual budget.
Gujarat plan outlay for 2002-07 was Rs.8810 crores while actual expenditure year wise was Rs.1476 crores (2002-03), Rs.1811 crores (2003-04), Rs. 2344 crores (2004-05), Rs.2983 crores (2005-06) and Rs. 3887 crores (2006-07). Figures for last two financial years are for revised outlay and approved outlay.
So the actual outlay on irrigation and flood control was Rs.12,507 crores against Rs. 8810 planned and current year outlay on irrigation and floods is more than three times of 2002-03 outlay at Rs.4754 crores.
Gramrajya to Ramrajya.
India lives in its villages. Our intention is of a planned development, so that the object of Gramrajya to Ramrajya is fulfilled and so, out of the amount of
Rs.15,506 crore of Annual Plan, a Lion's share of Rs.11,000 crore is intended to flow to rural areas.
Narindra Modi is only Chief Minister in India who could divert 70%
of the budget for rural population but when advised by VB Patel like dubious people people of Gujarat get only floods. Most of the investment goes waste when it induces intensified floods, destruction of crops.
But the day Madhya Pradesh decides to fully utilize its 18 maf share in Narmada River Waters the large Narmada water network shall become the greatest embarrassment to Gujarat.
Common problem of India is the continued rule of mediocre that Admits they have always failed and regularly pronounce through documents they are unfit and well past retirement age.
My harsh comments are meant to make them think of retiring gracefully then people demanding their dismissal.
Let me tell you Punjab alone can contribute 10 MT of additional food production in four years provided it gets enough water for irrigation.
Strategy paper Mischievously Overlooked Role Of Commission Agents that supply spurious seeds, charge 100% to 500% margin between farmers and consumers for farm produce.
Winrock International had a huge jamboree organised in Delhi and brought many farmers growing biofuel plants to the event. I wish some persons in the group had written to media organisations who gave huge coverage to the event!
Felix Padel <felixorisa@...> wrote:
Dear Friends
Biofuel plantations are bringing in extremely fast yet another nexus of corporate power, that is destroying many of the last forests & indigenous cultures in many countries of Africa, Asia
& South America. Here is some latest news on the issue. The UNEP Director, Steiner says "The cost benefit analysis is not yet clear - we can't be sure the costs outweigh the benefits" - but by the time it is clear to everyone it will be too late: literally 100s of 1,000s of indigenous & other small scale farmers are having their lives and environments destroyed now.
__________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Date: 5 Jul 2007 10:13:30 -0000 From: biofuelwatch@yahoogroups.com To: biofuelwatch@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuelwatch] Digest Number 376
UN Official Says Biofuels Raise Food Supply Risk ----------------------------------------------------------
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
CUBA: July 5, 2007
HAVANA - The head of the UN Environment Program said on Wednesday Cuban leader Fidel Castro and others are justified in raising concern about the potential for ethanol production to threaten food supplies for the poor.
But UNEP director Achim Steiner said the jury is still out on whether risks outweigh the benefits when using food crops to produce ethanol as an alternative fuel.
Castro, who has taken to writing articles since he was sidelined from power last year by intestinal surgery, has attacked US plans to increase biofuels output
using crops such as corn, saying this will increase food prices and global hunger.
"What President Castro points to is something the UN Food and Agriculture Organization has also raised recently: That there is significant potential and risk for competition between food production and production for a global biofuels market," Steiner told Reuters during a environmental meeting in Havana.
"We have to be aware that there are risks, and for some countries those risks may not be worth taking," he said.
Steiner said it is too early to do a cost-benefit analysis on the use of ethanol, which environmentalists say will help slow global warming.
While current technology simply turns crops, such as sugar or corn, into ethanol, new biofuels products on the horizon use enzymes to turn crop residue or agricultural waste into fuel, he said.
The UNEP is studying the efficiency of biofuels while focusing on the
development of international standards that would minimize social and environmental risks.
But Steiner added: "As long as the world is not able to agree on the norms and standards that should guide the development of a global biofuels market, the risks are going to be much higher."
AP EU Wants Sustainable Biofuels Wednesday July 4, 6:00 pm ET By Aoife White, AP Business Writer EU Trade Chief: Europe Must Act to Stop Biofuel Boom Tearing Down Rainforests
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Europe must act to prevent a biofuel boom tearing down rainforests to produce the low-emission fuel rich nations want for their cars, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson will say in a speech on Thursday.
EU
nations have vowed to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with biofuel made from energy crops by 2020 in an effort to wean itself off imported oil and cut down on carbon dioxide emissions.
But Mandelson said the EU could not allow the switch to biofuels to become "an environmentally unsustainable stampede in the developing world."
"Europeans won't pay a premium for biofuels if the ethanol in their car is produced unsustainably by systematically burning fields after harvests," he said. "Or if it comes at the expense of rainforests."
His prepared remarks come from a speech he will give Thursday at an EU biofuels conference in Brussels.
The EU wanted to set sustainability standards to encourage producers to use more durable production methods, he said -- rules that would apply to both importers and European producers.
He said Europe and others should help developing countries to reach these goals
because their decisions had a huge impact on poorer nations, mentioning protests in Mexico City over tortilla corn flour prices just days after the U.S. called for more biofuel output -- made from the same maize.
A United Nations report warned Wednesday that high commodity prices blamed on increasing demand for biofuels could last throughout the decade as more maize, wheat, rape seed and sugar is turned into fuel.
Mandelson said that Europe had to accept that it will need to import a large part of the biofuel it needs and it should put environmental considerations first -- even if that means favoring low-emission Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane and maize over carbon-heavy French oilseed crops.
"We should certainly not contemplate favoring EU production of biofuels with a weak carbon performance if we can import cheaper, cleaner biofuels," he said. "Resource nationalism doesn't serve us particularly
well."
Oilseed crops grown in Europe currently receive large government subsidies that often make them cheaper for consumers than tariff-laden Brazilian ethanol that releases far less carbon dioxide when burnt.
"All biofuels are not equal," Mandelson said. "We must commit to meeting our targets through the use of those biofuels that are most effective in relative terms in reducing global carbon impact."
He said the EU had to encourage more research into "second generation" biofuels that would make it easier to produce ethanol by fermenting crop stalks and usually thrown away -- a method that could massively increase biofuel output in Europe and the rest of the world.
According to the U.N. outlook, annual maize-based ethanol output in the United States is expected to double between 2006 and 2016. In the European Union the amount of oilseeds, mainly rape seed, used for biofuels is set to grow from just over
10 million tons to 21 million tons over the same period.
Biofuels to buoy farm prices in next decade: OECD/FAO By Sybille de La Hamaide Wed Jul 4, 9:41 AM ET
PARIS (Reuters) - The rapid growth of the world's biofuel industry is likely to keep farm commodity prices at high levels in the next decade as it will boost demand for grains, oilseeds and sugar, a major study said on Wednesday.
The study, co-written by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), said biofuels would have a major impact on the agriculture sector between 2007 to 2016.
"Bioenergies have become a key factor in the functioning of agriculture markets," Loek Boonekamp, a senior OECD
official, told reporters after the release of the study.
"In the medium term we believe that they could lead to prices on international markets rising quite considerably, at higher levels than what we had predicted in former outlooks and above the average of the last 10 years," he added.
Boonekamp said that farm prices, mainly grains, would likely rise by 20 to 50 percent over the next decade.
He added that although the long-term development of the biofuel sector remained unclear, farm prices would remain high in the coming years even without a sharp rise in biofuel demand because of the recent drop in output in many parts of the world.
Biofuels have become a major issue on global commodities markets over the last years as they are increasingly put forward as politically, environmentally and economically friendly alternatives to fossil fuels.
Made of grain, oilseeds and sugar, the "green" fuels are
expected to lower dependence on fossil fuels, cut carbon dioxide emissions -- one of the main causes for climate change -- and raise farm revenues.
The extra biofuel demand, combined with low stocks worldwide due to poor harvests last year and fears of possible damage to the upcoming crops have sent global grain and oilseed prices rocketing to historic highs over the last months.
US, EU DEMAND TO SOAR
In its 2007-2016 agriculture outlook, the OECD-FAO did not expect the rise to reverse soon.
"In a context of generally lower global stocks in recent years, this additional demand (to make biofuels) is expected to underpin prices and lead to price levels for field crops that are on average higher than in past projections," the study said.
It added that grain prices were expected to stay higher than in the past 10 years, which would also have an indirect effect on prices for livestock products
due to higher feed stocks.
Ethanol production in the United States, predominantly based on domestic maize (corn), was expected to grow by almost 50 percent in 2007 and, as growth rates decline thereafter, to double by 2016, the study said.
"In consequence, maize use for fuel production, which has doubled from 2003, would increase from some 55 million tonnes, or one-fifth of maize production in 2006, to 110 million tonnes or 32 percent at the end of the projection period," it said.
In the European Union, where biofuel production so far is largely dominated by rapeseed-based biodiesel, ethanol output was expected to rise in the next decade, adding pressure on the wheat and maize markets.
"Use of wheat in particular is set to increase twelvefold and to reach some 18 million tonnes by 2016. Growth in the use of oilseeds (largely rapeseed) and maize is less dramatic, but would still reach 21 million tonnes and 5.2
million by 2016."
However, the study predicted that the share of biofuels in total transport fuel consumption would not exceed 3.3 percent in energy terms, well below the 5.75 percent target fixed by the European Commission.
The report put Brazil as one of the fastest growing biofuel producer and said its ethanol output would reach some 44 billion liters in the next decade, or 145 percent more than in 2006.
The OECD-FAO also said Chinese ethanol production, mainly made from maize, at 3.8 billion liters by 2016, up from 1.5 billion in 2006. Maize use for fuel ethanol should therefore exceed nine million tonnes by 2016, from 3.5 million last year.
Last Updated: Wednesday, 4 July 2007, 16:49 GMT 17:49 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Biofuels 'to push farm
prices up'
Demand for green fuels has been driving recent farm price rises
The rapidly growing biofuel market will keep farm commodity prices high over the next decade, a key study has said.
According to the report, co-written by the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD), biofuels will have a major impact on the farming sector.
Even without demand for the "green" fuel, recent falls in output - thanks to drought and low stocks - will keep prices high, the report added.
The study predicts prices will rise by between 20% and 50% by 2016.
"Growing use of cereals, sugar, oilseeds and vegetable oils to satisfy the needs of a rapidly increasing biofuel industry is one of the main drivers in the outlook," said the report, which was co-written by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
Biofuels - made from grains, sugar and oilseeds - are gaining popularity as countries look to reduce their
dependence on fossil fuels, cut carbon emissions and push farm revenues higher.
Growth market
According to the report ethanol production in the US, which mainly uses domestic corn, is expected to jump by 50% in 2007 - and to double by 2016.
Meanwhile in Brazil - currently the world's fastest growing ethanol producer - biofuel output is set to hit 44bn litres over the next 10 years, 145% more than in 2006.
"Bioenergies have become a key factor in the functioning of agriculture markets," Loek Boonekamp, a senior OECD official.
"In the medium term we believe that they could lead to prices on international markets rising quite considerably, at higher levels than what we had predicted in former outlooks and above the average of the last 10 years."
Looking ahead, the OECD And FAO expect prices to remain near the record highs they have hit in recent months.
As well as biofuel demand, other
temporary factors which led to low harvests last year, as well as fears of poor harvests in the future, are expected to underpin prices at their current levels.
The rise in farm prices could contribute to rising inflationary pressures worldwide, along with increases in the price of commodities like oil.
Story Published: Jul 3, 2007 at 6:05 PM PDT By Jodi Unruh
Governor Ted Kulongoski kicked off "Energy Independence Month" on Tuesday by signing a new biofuel bill into law. Lawmakers are touting the bill as one of the most ambitious in the nation when it comes to renewable energy production.
Governor Kulongoski says this day marks a victory for those working on sustainable energy policies in our state. Lawmakers failed to pass a similar
bill during the 2005 legislative session. But politicians this session showed strong bi-partisan support for House bill 22-10.
The governor elected to sign the new bill into law at the Sequential Biofuels Station just southeast of Eugene. He says the station represents what lawmakers have fought for and achieved.
The Biofuels Fill is designed to encourage renewable energy production and consumption in Oregon. Some of the new changes include renewable fuel standard requirements, such as a 10% blend of ethanol to gasoline.
The governor says this new bill will do for the fuel sector what Senate Bill 838 will do for the electricity sector. That bill requires the state's largest utilities to meet 25% of their electric load with new renewable energy sources by 2025. "which together comprise the most significant environmental legislative policy in Oregon in more than 30 years," declared the
Governor.
Meanwhile, Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy said, "We share with you the belief that this ship can benefit our economy, provide good jobs, and reduce carbon emissions."
The new law also establishes tax credits for Oregon agriculture and forestry producers, and encourages use of biofuels in state fleet vehicles. And it give consumers a tax credit who fuel their vehicles with renewable energy blends of gasoline.
__________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/
On the 15th of April I wrote to the Norwegian government regarding the negative consequences of biofuel.
They responded today (4th of July) as follows (translated):
>Referring to your email dated 15th of April 2007 regarding biofuel >and CO2 pollution. We are aware of
the area of problems related to net >climate impact from biofuels. We thank you for your letter and will >take your motion with us in our further work. > >Anne H. Johannessen >Senior advicer > >Section for airpollution, consumption and transport >Environmental department >Postboks 8013 Dep. >0030 Oslo
In my letter I attached a link of George Monbiots article 'a lethal solution' (dated 2007.03.27) and Biofuelwatches Opel Letter regarding biofuels (2007Jan31-openletterbiofuels.pdf).
Large Alliance of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Calls for Ban on Genetically Modified Trees for Biofuels
Paris, France--Over 50 Indigenous Peoples Organizations and Non- Governmental Organizations involved in meetings surrounding the Convention on Biological Diversity, presented an open letter today recommending a ban on Genetically Modified
trees on the basis of their potential impacts on forest biological diversity. They expressed their concern that the current biofuels boom and the rush for so-called second generation biofuels will lead to dangerous experiments with these trees. The document was presented to delegates attending the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA). SBSTTA is a subsidiary body of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and advises the CBD on scientific and technical issues.
The letter, which was circulated by World Rainforest Movement, Global Justice Ecology Project and Global Forest Coalition, insisted on compliance by all countries with the precautionary approach in regard to GM trees, as agreed upon at the CBD's 8th Conference of the Parties last year in Curitiba, Brazil.
Trees are being engineered with unnatural traits such as the ability to
kill insects, or have reduced lignin. Lignin is the substance in a tree that makes it strong and protects it from disease, fungus, wind and other environmental stresses. The escape of these traits into forests via seed or pollen threatens to contaminate forests with these traits, which could disrupt forest ecosystems, damage biodiversity and wildlife, as well as potentially harming the health of nearby communities. Trees can spread seeds and pollen for hundreds of kilometers. Ironically, though GE trees threaten to worsen global warming by damaging the ability of natural forests to store carbon, companies propose to develop GE tree plantations as a source for biofuels.
World Rainforest Movement's Ana Filippini said, "Countries are dangerously ignoring the precautionary approach as research in GM trees is currently being carried out in at least the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China,
Finland, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States."
"Last week in the U.S., APHIS (the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service), a subsidiary body of the US Department of Agriculture, approved a request by GM tree corporation ArborGen to allow their field trial of genetically modified eucalyptus trees in Alabama to flower and produce seeds," Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project stated. "Similar permission is being sought for GM tree test plots in Brazil," she added.
"With the current rush for agrofuels, companies and governments are looking to GM trees as potential source for future supplies of cellulosic ethanol", concluded Simone Lovera of Global Forest Coalition. "This will have a devastating impact on forests and forest-dependent peoples all over the world."
According to the Biotechnology and GMOs Information Website http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/FR/07/06/01, this month in France, the same country this SBSTTA is being held, the company INRA, will begin a study of transgenic poplar trees for bioethanol production. The five year GM tree experiment will be located at the nursery of the Breeding Experimental Unit on the ground of the INRA-Orleans Centre located in Saint Cyr en Val, in France.
(Complete sign-on open letter with group signatories follows)
Open letter to SBSTTA on the issue of GM trees
The undersigned participants of SBSTTA or of meetings leading up to SBSTTA wish to share their concerns about the issue of genetically modified trees within the process of the Convention of Biological Diversity. As you know, the last Conference of the Parties passed Decision VIII/19, which recognized "the uncertainties
related to the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, including long- term and transboundary impacts, of genetically modified trees on global forest biological diversity, as well as on the livelihoods of indigenous and local communities, and given the absence of reliable data and of capacity in some countries to undertake risk assessments and to evaluate those potential impacts".
Among other things, it recommended Parties "to take a precautionary approach when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees".
The above recommendation seems to have been basically ignored by a number of countries, where either official research centers or private companies continue carrying out work on genetic modification of trees and are even planning to carry out field trials, such as the current case of the company ArborGen, which is seeking permission for field trials of flowering eucalyptus trees in the
US.
Research in genetic modification of trees is currently being carried out -disregarding the COP's decision- in at least the following countries Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.
Given that the COP8 Decision gave SBSTTA the task of assessing "the potential environmental, cultural, and socio-economic impacts of genetically modified trees on the conservation and sustainable use of forest biological diversity, and to report to the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties"; and given that the rush to produce biofuels is being used to promote the rapid commercial development of genetically modified trees, we appeal to SBSTTA to:
- insist on compliance by all countries with the precautionary principle as agreed upon at COP8 - recommend a ban on GM trees on the basis of their potential
impacts on forest biological diversity
Global Justice Ecology Project World Rainforest Movement Global Forest Coalition Sobrevivencia/FOE Paraguay STOP GE Trees Campaign, North America NOAH-Friends of the Earth Netherlands Africa-Europe F & J Network Friends of the Earth Europe Friends of the Earth Malaysia CENSAT-Aguaviva FOE Colombia Indigenous Information Network, Kenya Nordre Folkcenter for Renewable Energy, Denmark Friends of the Siberian Forests, Russia CELCOR/FOE Papua New Guinea Pro REGENWALD, Germany Robin Wood, Germany Friends of the Earth-England, Wales and Northern Ireland Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia Comision Intereclesiastica de Justicia y Paz, Colombia Consejo Comunitario de la Cuenca del Currarado Ole Siosiomaga Society Incorporated (OLSSI) Samoa Fundacin para la Promocion del Conocimiento Indigena, Panama ICTI-Tanibar, Indonesia PIPEC, Pacific Indigenous
Peoples Environment Coalition, New Zealand FERN International Alliance of the Indigneous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests Corporate Europe Observatory Greenpeace International Ecologica Movement BIOM, Kyrgyzatan CORE - Centre for Organization Research & Education, Northeast Region India EQUATIONS Ecological Society of the Philippines Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa Forest Peoples Programme, UK MST - Brazil's Landless Workers' Movement Viola, Russia Ecoropa, Germany ETC Group Asociacin Indgena Ambiental Umwelt-und Projehtwerkstatt, Germany Global Environment Centre, Malaysia Washington Biotechnology Action Council, U.S. BUKO Campaign against Biopiracy, Germany The Gaia Foundation, UK HATOFF Foundation, Ghana Tebteba Foundation, Philippines Nature Tropicale, Benin (West Africa) Jeunes Volontairs pour l'Environnement, Togo Biofuelwatch, UK Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples
Forum NABU - Nature and Conservation Union, Germany BUND - Friends of the Earth Germany Indigenous Network on Economics and Trade, Canada
Paris, 3 July 2007. For immediate release. The rush for 'biofuel'is already causing serious damage, according to a new report by 11 civil society organisations from around the world.
"Agrofuels - towards a reality check in nine key areas" sets out considerable evidence that the spread of what are more accurately called
'agrofuels' - liquid fuels produced from biomass grown in large-scale monocultures, mostly in the global south - is compromising biodiversity and fuelling human rights violations.
The report finds that agrofuels threaten to greatly accelerate climate change through the destruction of ecosystems and carbon sinks on which we depend for a stable climate. The rush to agrofuels encourages intensive, industrial agriculture at the expense of sustainable food production.
"Monoculture plantations have been doing serious damage around the world for decades, but agrofuels represent a further intensification of the process, endangering what remains of global forest cover and climate. They also threaten the food sovereignty, cultural, human and land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. The destructive impact of these agrofuels is already severe, while the pros and cons are being debated and certification
initiatives are being devised. It is likely that by the time any real analysis has been completed, further irreversible damage will have been done to biodiversity and the climate" says Helena Paul of Econexus.
"Claims are being made that biofuels will mitigate climate change, yet the reality is very different. The rapid expansion of agrofuel monocultures is speeding up the destruction of peatlands, tropical forests and other ecosystems, leading to massive greenhouse gas emissions. In a worst case scenario, further deforestation for agrofuels could push the Amazon forest into rapid die-back, releasing up to 120 billion tonnes of carbon and disrupting rainfall patterns over much of the northern hemisphere" says Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch.
The authors highlight how agrofuels are being used as a new promotional vehicle for GM technologies, in particular through the development of 'second generation' crops.
Agrofuel expansion also threatens to displace indigenous peoples from their lands.
"The whole agrofuel process is going far too fast, pushed by corporations and governments before any controls are in place. Massive investment in infrastructure is already taking place around the world that will set us on a path from which it will be difficult to escape." says Oscar Reyes of the Transnational Institute.
A call for a moratorium on EU incentives for agrofuels, EU imports of agrofuels and EU agroenergy monocultures was launched in Brussels last week by the same 11 organisations. It has already attracted the support of over 100 organisations worldwide.
Agrofuels - towards a reality check in nine key areas is co- published by: EcoNexus, Biofuelwatch, Carbon Trade Watch (Transnational Institute), Corporate Europe Observatory, Ecologistas en Accin, Ecoropa, Grupo de Reflexin Rural, Munlochy Vigil, NOAH (Friends
of the Earth Denmark), Rettet Den Regenwald, Watch Indonesia
Notes: 1. The call for an immediate moratorium on EU incentives for agrofuels, EU imports of agrofuels and EU agroenergy monocultures can be found at: http://www.econexus.info/biofuels.html
2. The term 'agrofuels' is preferred to 'biofuels'. As Via Campesina, amongst others, has pointed out, the prefix 'bio' is used "to subtly imply that the energy in question comes from 'life' in general. This is illegitimate and manipulative. We need to find a term in every language that describes the situation more accurately, a term like agrofuel. This term refers specifically to energy created from plant products
grown through agriculture."
Dear Friends
Biofuel plantations are bringing in extremely fast yet
another nexus of corporate power, that is destroying
many of the last forests & indigenous cultures in many
countries of Africa, Asia & South America. Here is
some latest news on the issue. The UNEP Director,
Steiner says "The cost benefit analysis is not yet
clear - we can't be sure the costs outweigh the
benefits" - but by the time it is clear to everyone it
will be too late: literally 100s of 1,000s of
indigenous & other small scale farmers are having
their lives and environments destroyed now.
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the
Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
UN Official Says Biofuels Raise Food Supply Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
CUBA: July 5, 2007
HAVANA - The head of the UN Environment Program said on Wednesday Cuban
leader Fidel Castro and others are justified in raising concern about the
potential for ethanol production to threaten food supplies for the poor.
But UNEP director Achim Steiner said the jury is still out on whether risks
outweigh the benefits when using food crops to produce ethanol as an
alternative fuel.
Castro, who has taken to writing articles since he was sidelined from power
last year by intestinal surgery, has attacked US plans to increase biofuels
output using crops such as corn, saying this will increase food prices and
global hunger.
"What President Castro points to is something the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization has also raised recently: That there is significant potential
and risk for competition between food production and production for a global
biofuels market," Steiner told Reuters during a environmental meeting in
Havana.
"We have to be aware that there are risks, and for some countries those
risks may not be worth taking," he said.
Steiner said it is too early to do a cost-benefit analysis on the use of
ethanol, which environmentalists say will help slow global warming.
While current technology simply turns crops, such as sugar or corn, into
ethanol, new biofuels products on the horizon use enzymes to turn crop
residue or agricultural waste into fuel, he said.
The UNEP is studying the efficiency of biofuels while focusing on the
development of international standards that would minimize social and
environmental risks.
But Steiner added: "As long as the world is not able to agree on the norms
and standards that should guide the development of a global biofuels market,
the risks are going to be much higher."
AP
EU Wants Sustainable Biofuels
Wednesday July 4, 6:00 pm ET
By Aoife White, AP Business Writer
EU Trade Chief: Europe Must Act to Stop Biofuel Boom Tearing Down
Rainforests
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Europe must act to prevent a biofuel boom tearing
down rainforests to produce the low-emission fuel rich nations want for
their cars, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson will say in a speech on
Thursday.
EU nations have vowed to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with biofuel
made from energy crops by 2020 in an effort to wean itself off imported oil
and cut down on carbon dioxide emissions.
But Mandelson said the EU could not allow the switch to biofuels to become
"an environmentally unsustainable stampede in the developing world."
"Europeans won't pay a premium for biofuels if the ethanol in their car is
produced unsustainably by systematically burning fields after harvests," he
said. "Or if it comes at the expense of rainforests."
His prepared remarks come from a speech he will give Thursday at an EU
biofuels conference in Brussels.
The EU wanted to set sustainability standards to encourage producers to use
more durable production methods, he said -- rules that would apply to both
importers and European producers.
He said Europe and others should help developing countries to reach these
goals because their decisions had a huge impact on poorer nations,
mentioning protests in Mexico City over tortilla corn flour prices just days
after the U.S. called for more biofuel output -- made from the same maize.
A United Nations report warned Wednesday that high commodity prices blamed
on increasing demand for biofuels could last throughout the decade as more
maize, wheat, rape seed and sugar is turned into fuel.
Mandelson said that Europe had to accept that it will need to import a large
part of the biofuel it needs and it should put environmental considerations
first -- even if that means favoring low-emission Brazilian ethanol made
from sugar cane and maize over carbon-heavy French oilseed crops.
"We should certainly not contemplate favoring EU production of biofuels with
a weak carbon performance if we can import cheaper, cleaner biofuels," he
said. "Resource nationalism doesn't serve us particularly well."
Oilseed crops grown in Europe currently receive large government subsidies
that often make them cheaper for consumers than tariff-laden Brazilian
ethanol that releases far less carbon dioxide when burnt.
"All biofuels are not equal," Mandelson said. "We must commit to meeting our
targets through the use of those biofuels that are most effective in
relative terms in reducing global carbon impact."
He said the EU had to encourage more research into "second generation"
biofuels that would make it easier to produce ethanol by fermenting crop
stalks and usually thrown away -- a method that could massively increase
biofuel output in Europe and the rest of the world.
According to the U.N. outlook, annual maize-based ethanol output in the
United States is expected to double between 2006 and 2016. In the European
Union the amount of oilseeds, mainly rape seed, used for biofuels is set to
grow from just over 10 million tons to 21 million tons over the same period.
Biofuels to buoy farm prices in next decade: OECD/FAO By Sybille de La
Hamaide
Wed Jul 4, 9:41 AM ET
PARIS (Reuters) - The rapid growth of the world's biofuel industry is likely
to keep farm commodity prices at high levels in the next decade as it will
boost demand for grains, oilseeds and sugar, a major study said on
Wednesday.
The study, co-written by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) and the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), said biofuels would have a major impact on the agriculture sector
between 2007 to 2016.
"Bioenergies have become a key factor in the functioning of agriculture
markets," Loek Boonekamp, a senior OECD official, told reporters after the
release of the study.
"In the medium term we believe that they could lead to prices on
international markets rising quite considerably, at higher levels than what
we had predicted in former outlooks and above the average of the last 10
years," he added.
Boonekamp said that farm prices, mainly grains, would likely rise by 20 to
50 percent over the next decade.
He added that although the long-term development of the biofuel sector
remained unclear, farm prices would remain high in the coming years even
without a sharp rise in biofuel demand because of the recent drop in output
in many parts of the world.
Biofuels have become a major issue on global commodities markets over the
last years as they are increasingly put forward as politically,
environmentally and economically friendly alternatives to fossil fuels.
Made of grain, oilseeds and sugar, the "green" fuels are expected to lower
dependence on fossil fuels, cut carbon dioxide emissions -- one of the main
causes for climate change -- and raise farm revenues.
The extra biofuel demand, combined with low stocks worldwide due to poor
harvests last year and fears of possible damage to the upcoming crops have
sent global grain and oilseed prices rocketing to historic highs over the
last months.
US, EU DEMAND TO SOAR
In its 2007-2016 agriculture outlook, the OECD-FAO did not expect the rise
to reverse soon.
"In a context of generally lower global stocks in recent years, this
additional demand (to make biofuels) is expected to underpin prices and lead
to price levels for field crops that are on average higher than in past
projections," the study said.
It added that grain prices were expected to stay higher than in the past 10
years, which would also have an indirect effect on prices for livestock
products due to higher feed stocks.
Ethanol production in the United States, predominantly based on domestic
maize (corn), was expected to grow by almost 50 percent in 2007 and, as
growth rates decline thereafter, to double by 2016, the study said.
"In consequence, maize use for fuel production, which has doubled from 2003,
would increase from some 55 million tonnes, or one-fifth of maize production
in 2006, to 110 million tonnes or 32 percent at the end of the projection
period," it said.
In the European Union, where biofuel production so far is largely dominated
by rapeseed-based biodiesel, ethanol output was expected to rise in the next
decade, adding pressure on the wheat and maize markets.
"Use of wheat in particular is set to increase twelvefold and to reach some
18 million tonnes by 2016. Growth in the use of oilseeds (largely rapeseed)
and maize is less dramatic, but would still reach 21 million tonnes and 5.2
million by 2016."
However, the study predicted that the share of biofuels in total transport
fuel consumption would not exceed 3.3 percent in energy terms, well below
the 5.75 percent target fixed by the European Commission.
The report put Brazil as one of the fastest growing biofuel producer and
said its ethanol output would reach some 44 billion liters in the next
decade, or 145 percent more than in 2006.
The OECD-FAO also said Chinese ethanol production, mainly made from maize,
at 3.8 billion liters by 2016, up from 1.5 billion in 2006. Maize use for
fuel ethanol should therefore exceed nine million tonnes by 2016, from 3.5
million last year.
Last Updated: Wednesday, 4 July 2007, 16:49 GMT 17:49 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Biofuels 'to push farm prices up'
Demand for green fuels has been driving recent farm price rises
The rapidly growing biofuel market will keep farm commodity prices high over
the next decade, a key study has said.
According to the report, co-written by the Organisation for Economic
Development (OECD), biofuels will have a major impact on the farming sector.
Even without demand for the "green" fuel, recent falls in output - thanks to
drought and low stocks - will keep prices high, the report added.
The study predicts prices will rise by between 20% and 50% by 2016.
"Growing use of cereals, sugar, oilseeds and vegetable oils to satisfy the
needs of a rapidly increasing biofuel industry is one of the main drivers in
the outlook," said the report, which was co-written by the UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
Biofuels - made from grains, sugar and oilseeds - are gaining popularity as
countries look to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, cut carbon
emissions and push farm revenues higher.
Growth market
According to the report ethanol production in the US, which mainly uses
domestic corn, is expected to jump by 50% in 2007 - and to double by 2016.
Meanwhile in Brazil - currently the world's fastest growing ethanol producer
- biofuel output is set to hit 44bn litres over the next 10 years, 145% more
than in 2006.
"Bioenergies have become a key factor in the functioning of agriculture
markets," Loek Boonekamp, a senior OECD official.
"In the medium term we believe that they could lead to prices on
international markets rising quite considerably, at higher levels than what
we had predicted in former outlooks and above the average of the last 10
years."
Looking ahead, the OECD And FAO expect prices to remain near the record
highs they have hit in recent months.
As well as biofuel demand, other temporary factors which led to low harvests
last year, as well as fears of poor harvests in the future, are expected to
underpin prices at their current levels.
The rise in farm prices could contribute to rising inflationary pressures
worldwide, along with increases in the price of commodities like oil.
Story Published: Jul 3, 2007 at 6:05 PM PDT
By Jodi Unruh
Governor Ted Kulongoski kicked off "Energy Independence Month" on Tuesday by
signing a new biofuel bill into law. Lawmakers are touting the bill as one
of the most ambitious in the nation when it comes to renewable energy
production.
Governor Kulongoski says this day marks a victory for those working on
sustainable energy policies in our state. Lawmakers failed to pass a similar
bill during the 2005 legislative session. But politicians this session
showed strong bi-partisan support for House bill 22-10.
The governor elected to sign the new bill into law at the Sequential
Biofuels Station just southeast of Eugene. He says the station represents
what lawmakers have fought for and achieved.
The Biofuels Fill is designed to encourage renewable energy production and
consumption in Oregon. Some of the new changes include renewable fuel
standard requirements, such as a 10% blend of ethanol to gasoline.
The governor says this new bill will do for the fuel sector what Senate Bill
838 will do for the electricity sector. That bill requires the state's
largest utilities to meet 25% of their electric load with new renewable
energy sources by 2025. "which together comprise the most significant
environmental legislative policy in Oregon in more than 30 years," declared
the Governor.
Meanwhile, Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy said, "We share with you the belief
that this ship can benefit our economy, provide good jobs, and reduce carbon
emissions."
The new law also establishes tax credits for Oregon agriculture and forestry
producers, and encourages use of biofuels in state fleet vehicles. And it
give consumers a tax credit who fuel their vehicles with renewable energy
blends of gasoline.
__________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/
On the 15th of April I wrote to the Norwegian government regarding the
negative consequences of biofuel.
They responded today (4th of July) as follows (translated):
>Referring to your email dated 15th of April 2007 regarding biofuel
>and CO2 pollution. We are aware of the area of problems related to net
>climate impact from biofuels. We thank you for your letter and will
>take your motion with us in our further work.
>
>Anne H. Johannessen
>Senior advicer
>
>Section for airpollution, consumption and transport
>Environmental department
>Postboks 8013 Dep.
>0030 Oslo
In my letter I attached a link of George Monbiots article 'a lethal
solution' (dated 2007.03.27) and Biofuelwatches Opel Letter regarding
biofuels (2007Jan31-openletterbiofuels.pdf).
Large Alliance of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Calls for Ban on
Genetically Modified Trees for Biofuels
Paris, France--Over 50 Indigenous Peoples Organizations and Non-
Governmental Organizations involved in meetings surrounding the
Convention on Biological Diversity, presented an open letter today
recommending a ban on Genetically Modified trees on the basis of
their potential impacts on forest biological diversity. They
expressed their concern that the current biofuels boom and the rush
for so-called second generation biofuels will lead to dangerous
experiments with these trees. The document was presented to
delegates attending the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice (SBSTTA). SBSTTA is a subsidiary body of the
Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, and advises the CBD on scientific and technical issues.
The letter, which was circulated by World Rainforest Movement,
Global Justice Ecology Project and Global Forest Coalition, insisted
on compliance by all countries with the precautionary approach in
regard to GM trees, as agreed upon at the CBD's 8th Conference of
the Parties last year in Curitiba, Brazil.
Trees are being engineered with unnatural traits such as the ability
to kill insects, or have reduced lignin. Lignin is the substance in
a tree that makes it strong and protects it from disease, fungus,
wind and other environmental stresses. The escape of these traits
into forests via seed or pollen threatens to contaminate forests
with these traits, which could disrupt forest ecosystems, damage
biodiversity and wildlife, as well as potentially harming the health
of nearby communities. Trees can spread seeds and pollen for
hundreds of kilometers. Ironically, though GE trees threaten to
worsen global warming by damaging the ability of natural forests to
store carbon, companies propose to develop GE tree plantations as a
source for biofuels.
World Rainforest Movement's Ana Filippini said, "Countries are
dangerously ignoring the precautionary approach as research in GM
trees is currently being carried out in at least the following
countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, France,
Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
and United States."
"Last week in the U.S., APHIS (the Animal Plant Health Inspection
Service), a subsidiary body of the US Department of Agriculture,
approved a request by GM tree corporation ArborGen to allow their
field trial of genetically modified eucalyptus trees in Alabama to
flower and produce seeds," Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology
Project stated. "Similar permission is being sought for GM tree
test plots in Brazil," she added.
"With the current rush for agrofuels, companies and governments are
looking to GM trees as potential source for future supplies of
cellulosic ethanol", concluded Simone Lovera of Global Forest
Coalition. "This will have a devastating impact on forests and
forest-dependent peoples all over the world."
According to the Biotechnology and GMOs Information Website http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/gmp_report.aspx?CurNot=B/FR/07/06/01, this
month in France, the same country this
SBSTTA is being held, the company INRA, will begin a study of
transgenic poplar trees for bioethanol production. The five year GM
tree experiment will be located at the nursery of the Breeding
Experimental Unit on the ground of the INRA-Orleans Centre located
in Saint Cyr en Val, in France.
(Complete sign-on open letter with group signatories follows)
Open letter to SBSTTA on the issue of GM trees
The undersigned participants of SBSTTA or of meetings leading up to
SBSTTA wish to share their concerns about the issue of genetically
modified trees within the process of the Convention of Biological
Diversity. As you know, the last Conference of the Parties passed
Decision VIII/19, which recognized "the uncertainties related to the
potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, including long-
term and transboundary impacts, of genetically modified trees on
global forest biological diversity, as well as on the livelihoods of
indigenous and local communities, and given the absence of reliable
data and of capacity in some countries to undertake risk assessments
and to evaluate those potential impacts".
Among other things, it recommended Parties "to take a precautionary
approach when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees".
The above recommendation seems to have been basically ignored by a
number of countries, where either official research centers or
private companies continue carrying out work on genetic modification
of trees and are even planning to carry out field trials, such as
the current case of the company ArborGen, which is seeking
permission for field trials of flowering eucalyptus trees in the US.
Research in genetic modification of trees is currently being carried
out -disregarding the COP's decision- in at least the following
countries Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, France,
Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
and United States.
Given that the COP8 Decision gave SBSTTA the task of assessing "the
potential environmental, cultural, and socio-economic impacts of
genetically modified trees on the conservation and sustainable use
of forest biological diversity, and to report to the ninth meeting
of the Conference of the Parties"; and given that the rush to
produce biofuels is being used to promote the rapid commercial
development of genetically modified trees, we appeal to SBSTTA to:
- insist on compliance by all countries with the
precautionary principle as agreed upon at COP8
- recommend a ban on GM trees on the basis of their potential
impacts on forest biological diversity
Global Justice Ecology Project
World Rainforest Movement
Global Forest Coalition
Sobrevivencia/FOE Paraguay
STOP GE Trees Campaign, North America
NOAH-Friends of the Earth Netherlands
Africa-Europe F & J Network
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Malaysia
CENSAT-Aguaviva FOE Colombia
Indigenous Information Network, Kenya
Nordre Folkcenter for Renewable Energy, Denmark
Friends of the Siberian Forests, Russia
CELCOR/FOE Papua New Guinea
Pro REGENWALD, Germany
Robin Wood, Germany
Friends of the Earth-England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia
Comision Intereclesiastica de Justicia y Paz, Colombia
Consejo Comunitario de la Cuenca del Currarado
Ole Siosiomaga Society Incorporated (OLSSI) Samoa
Fundacin para la Promocion del Conocimiento Indigena, Panama
ICTI-Tanibar, Indonesia
PIPEC, Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment Coalition, New Zealand
FERN
International Alliance of the Indigneous and
Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests
Corporate Europe Observatory
Greenpeace International
Ecologica Movement BIOM, Kyrgyzatan
CORE - Centre for Organization Research & Education, Northeast
Region India
EQUATIONS
Ecological Society of the Philippines
Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa
Forest Peoples Programme, UK
MST - Brazil's Landless Workers' Movement
Viola, Russia
Ecoropa, Germany
ETC Group
Asociacin Indgena Ambiental
Umwelt-und Projehtwerkstatt, Germany
Global Environment Centre, Malaysia
Washington Biotechnology Action Council, U.S.
BUKO Campaign against Biopiracy, Germany
The Gaia Foundation, UK
HATOFF Foundation, Ghana
Tebteba Foundation, Philippines
Nature Tropicale, Benin (West Africa)
Jeunes Volontairs pour l'Environnement, Togo
Biofuelwatch, UK
Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples Forum
NABU - Nature and Conservation Union, Germany
BUND - Friends of the Earth Germany
Indigenous Network on Economics and Trade, Canada
Paris, 3 July 2007. For immediate release. The rush for 'biofuel'is
already causing serious damage, according to a new report by 11
civil society organisations from around the world.
"Agrofuels - towards a reality check in nine key areas" sets out
considerable evidence that the spread of what are more accurately
called 'agrofuels' - liquid fuels produced from biomass grown in
large-scale monocultures, mostly in the global south - is
compromising biodiversity and fuelling human rights violations.
The report finds that agrofuels threaten to greatly accelerate
climate change through the destruction of ecosystems and carbon
sinks on which we depend for a stable climate. The rush to agrofuels
encourages intensive, industrial agriculture at the expense of
sustainable food production.
"Monoculture plantations have been doing serious damage around the
world for decades, but agrofuels represent a further intensification
of the process, endangering what remains of global forest cover and
climate. They also threaten the food sovereignty, cultural, human
and land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. The
destructive impact of these agrofuels is already severe, while the
pros and cons are being debated and certification initiatives are
being devised. It is likely that by the time any real analysis has
been completed, further irreversible damage will have been done to
biodiversity and the climate" says Helena Paul of Econexus.
"Claims are being made that biofuels will mitigate climate change,
yet the reality is very different. The rapid expansion of agrofuel
monocultures is speeding up the destruction of peatlands, tropical
forests and other ecosystems, leading to massive greenhouse gas
emissions. In a worst case scenario, further deforestation for
agrofuels could push the Amazon forest into rapid die-back,
releasing up to 120 billion tonnes of carbon and disrupting rainfall
patterns over much of the northern hemisphere" says Almuth Ernsting
of Biofuelwatch.
The authors highlight how agrofuels are being used as a new
promotional vehicle for GM technologies, in particular through the
development of 'second generation' crops. Agrofuel expansion also
threatens to displace indigenous peoples from their lands.
"The whole agrofuel process is going far too fast, pushed by
corporations and governments before any controls are in place.
Massive investment in infrastructure is already taking place around
the world that will set us on a path from which it will be difficult
to escape." says Oscar Reyes of the Transnational Institute.
A call for a moratorium on EU incentives for agrofuels, EU imports
of agrofuels and EU agroenergy monocultures was launched in Brussels
last week by the same 11 organisations. It has already attracted the
support of over 100 organisations worldwide.
Agrofuels - towards a reality check in nine key areas is co-
published by: EcoNexus, Biofuelwatch, Carbon Trade Watch
(Transnational Institute), Corporate Europe Observatory, Ecologistas
en Accin, Ecoropa, Grupo de Reflexin Rural, Munlochy Vigil, NOAH
(Friends of the Earth Denmark), Rettet Den Regenwald, Watch Indonesia
Notes:
1. The call for an immediate moratorium on EU incentives for
agrofuels, EU imports of agrofuels and EU agroenergy monocultures
can be found at: http://www.econexus.info/biofuels.html
2. The term 'agrofuels' is preferred to 'biofuels'. As Via
Campesina, amongst others, has pointed out, the prefix 'bio' is
used "to subtly imply that the energy in question comes from 'life'
in general. This is illegitimate and manipulative. We need to find a
term in every language that describes the situation more accurately,
a term like agrofuel. This term refers specifically to energy
created from plant products grown through agriculture."
Note discrepancy between the 2 items on Lula here.
On the one hand he is promising wealth from biofuels,
claiming they are reducing deforestation [opposite of
the truth], and promoting 2nd generation bio-fuels [a
whole new generation of GM involving "floppy trees"
etc whose effects on the wider environment are
completely unknown], on the other he is blocking a
proper UN study and his promotion of biofuels within
Brazil is driving thousands off their land.....
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the
tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
Government Experts at UN Body Expresses Strong Concern About Biofuel
Impacts on Biodiversity
Contact: Simone Lovera, Global Forest Coalition (English,
Spanish, French, Dutch) +31 (0)62.245.7495
Orin Langelle, Global Justice Ecology Project/Global Forest
Coalition (English) +33 (0)66 929.4560
Paris, France--An overwhelming majority of governments, including
Norway, Sweden, Germany and Indonesia expressed serious concerns
about the risks of large-scale production of biofuels to forests,
ecosystems, indigenous peoples and local communities at a meeting of
a UN scientific advisory body on biodiversity in Paris this week
[1]. Several governments called for a precautionary approach to
biofuels.
A large number of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Organizations from
around the world present at this meeting also expressed their
concerns and called for a profound scientific assessment of the
risks of biofuels and a moratorium on all forms of financial support
to biofuels pending the outcomes of this assessment, based on the
precautionary principle.
"The island where I live, Marajo island in the Amazon delta, is
expected to drown in the coming 30 years due to global warming, but
the Brazilian government is only pushing false solutions", says Edna
Maria da Costa e Silva of the Cooperativa Ecologica das Mulheres
Extractivistas do Marajo. "My government [Brazil] claims they
support development, but they do not support my community in
producing sustainable bio-oils for local consumption, they only
support large-scale agrofuel production for urban consumers." she
added.
At the Paris meeting, Brazil blocked the consensus of countries to
develop a process to begin to address the negative impacts of
biofuels, which are already being felt in numerous locations around
the world. At the same time, Brazil's President Lula is touring
Europe to promote biofuels as a green solution to climate change.
"There is a clear strategy of the Brazilian government to block any
consideration of the social and environmental impacts of agrofuels,
as this may interfere with their commercial interests", adds Mateus
Trevisan of MST, the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement. Trevisan
continued, "They are only promoting large monocultures and
defending the interests of sugar cane companies and biotechnology
corporations like Syngenta, which has representatives on Brazil's
delegation here. This strategy is not going to benefit the Brazilian
people."
A UN report released a few weeks ago [2] warned that large-scale
production of biofuels is already having devastating impacts on
Indigenous Peoples, whose lands are being targeted for oil palm
expansion and the expansion of other monocultures, triggered by the
commodity boom caused by steeply rising demands for biofuels.
Use of large scale tree monoculture plantations, including
genetically modified trees, are planned for second generation
biofuel production.
"We came here seeking a solution for the problems that agrofuels are
already costing our communities," said Marcial Arias from Kuna Yala
(Panama), adding "now we are leaving frustrated seeing how the
governments not only are not addressing our concerns they are
promoting even more of these destructive agrofuels projects on our
land."
Joint Release by Global Forest Coalition, EcoNexus, Global Justice
Ecology Project, World Rainforest Movement, MST-Brazil's Landless
Worker Movement, Timberwatch Coalition, BUND/Friends of the Earth
Germany, NABU/BirdLife Germany, Sobrevivencia /Friends of the Earth
Paraguay, STOP GE Campaign North America
#######
Note to editors:
[1] The Twelfth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technological and Technical Advice (SBSTTA) to the Un Convention on
Biological Diversity took place in Paris, France, July 2-6, 2007.
[2] The report of the Special rapporteur of the UN Permanent Forum
on Indigenous Issues "Oil palm and Othr Commercial Tree Plantations,
Monocropping andf the Impacts on Indigenous peoples' Land Tenure and
Resource Management Systems and Livelihoods", http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/6session.crp6
Apols if have missed but, there seems to be a lot on TV re endangered
animals but have seen no mention of people being shoved off their land
in Paraguay or what is going to happen to food prices and people's
stomachs across Latin America if the current mad rush to buy land
currently used to grow food, is not stopped.
Have I missed it or is British TV censoring itself?
EU joins call for global biofuel market with strict regulations
David Gow in Brussels
Friday July 6, 2007
The Guardian
The Brazilian president and EU leaders yesterday joined forces to
urge the creation of an international market in sustainable biofuels
that would force producers to meet strict environmental, labour and
social standards.
President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva told an EU-sponsored
international conference that second-generation biofuels would help
reduce the gap between rich and poor nations by enabling more than
100 countries to become producers, compared with the 20 which
currently produce energy for the world's 200 states.
He said his country's use of biofuels had reduced its dependence on
fossil fuels by 40% and created 6 million jobs while cutting
deforestration by a half.
"I am convinced we can repeat these results in many poor and
developing countries in Africa, Central America and the Caribbean,"
he said.
In return, the European commission president, Jos Manuel Barroso,
and the EU trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, agreed that Europe
would have to slash its tariffs - now 70% - on Brazilian exports of
bio-ethanol. The EU has set itself a binding target of 10% of all
vehicle fuel to come from biofuels by 2020, but admits that much of
this will be met by imports.
There are fears the headlong rush to develop biofuels will generate
more global warming than the carbon they erase.
Mr Barroso called for a convergence of technical standards in an
international market, which would have to be underpinned by a
rigorous sustainability mechanism.
The EU now gets 1.8% of its vehicle fuel from biofuels, including
ethanol, but Mr Mandelson warned that imports had to be sustainable.
"Europeans won't pay a premium for biofuels if the ethanol in their
car is produced unsustainably by systematically burning fields after
harvests, or if it comes at the expense of rainforests. We can't
allow the switch to biofuels to become an environmentally
unsustainable stampede in the developing world."
SOARING BIOFUEL DEMAND DRIVING UP AGRICULTURAL PRICES, SAYS UN-BACKED REPORT
New York, Jul 5 2007 4:00PM
Increased demand for biofuels is leading to changes in agricultural markets that could drive up global prices for many farm products, according to a new United Nations-backed report.
The Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016, published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (<"http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000620/index.html">FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), blames the recent hikes in farm commodity prices on factors such as droughts in wheat-growing regions and low stocks.
Biofuels are currently made from such materials as sugar cane, palm oil and maize and, given they can substitute for fossil fuels, hold the potential to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The growing use of these materials is underpinning crop prices and, indirectly through higher animal feed costs, the prices for livestock products, stated FAO.
The report notes that most biofuel policies are new and it is not clear which measures are most effective in achieving the mix of objectives such as lower fossil fuel dependence or less greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the report, annual maize-based ethanol output is expected to double between 2006 and 2016 in the United States, and in Brazil, annual ethanol production is projected to reach some 44 billion litres by 2016 from around 21 billion today.
In the European Union the amount of oilseeds used for biofuels is set to grow from just over 10 million tons to 21 million tons over the same period.
The report pointed out that higher commodity prices are a particular concern for States classified as net food importing countries, as well as the urban poor.
Trade patterns are also changing, the report noted. Production and consumption of agricultural products will generally grow faster in the developing countries than in the developed economies - especially for beef, pork, butter, skim milk powder and sugar.
Trade in beef, pork and whole milk powder is expected to grow by more than 50 per cent over the next 10 years, coarse grains trade by 13 per cent and wheat by 17 per cent. Trade in vegetable oils is projected to increase by nearly 70 per cent.
2007-07-05 00:00:00.000
Read the One World Column ... mainstreaming ... Peace, Environment, Human Rights, Sustainability, Anti-war voices in the UK Eastern Region www.oneworldcolumn.org
'Philip New, head of BP Biofuels, added: "As jatropha can be grown
on
land of lesser agricultural value with lower irrigation requirements
than many plants, it is an excellent biodiesel feedstock."
[Comments: It seems that the Head is not having practical and ground
level information about Jatropha. In India when Jatropha planted in
said land having lesser agricultural value and lower irrigation 70-
80 percent mortality was observed. The remaining plants failed to
produce even one tenth of projected yield. It is statement to fool
common people not much aware of bare facts associated with Jatropha.
I openly invite the Head to visit India and see the ground level
situation before making such non-scientific statement.
We have to keep in mind that wastelands are not dead lands as
projected by the Jatropha promoters. It is wasteland for human
population not for Mother Nature. Wasteland is having its own
diversity and it gives immense contribution to natural ecosystem.
In India grasses grown in wasteland are used as fodder. Thousands of
wasteland herbs are used to treat diseases. I have lsited over 550
species of Lateritic wasteland herbs used in modern diseases like
cancer. When you plant monoculture of Jatropha in such land from
where you will get the fodder and medicinal herbs?
On one side we are talking loudly about Global warming and on second
hand openly allowing monoculture of infamous invasive species
Jatropha?]
--- In jatropha@..., Felix Padel <felixorisa@...>
wrote:
>
> Note: forwarded message attached.
>
>
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________
> Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos
new Car Finder tool.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
>
Note: forwarded message attached.
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder
tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
Marianne Barriaux
Friday June 29, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
BP has set up a venture with biodiesel firm D1 Oils to increase
planting of jatropha, an oilseed tree that produces an inedible
vegetable oil used to make biofuel.
This is the second such deal that BP has signed within days. On
Tuesday, it joined forces with Associated British Foods to build a
200m biofuels plant in Hull.
BP will put in an initial 31.75m, while D1 will incorporate its
planting business and the trees it has planted to date. The venture
requires 80m in funding over five years, and the rest of the money
will be put in on a 50-50 basis.
News of the link came as Grain, a charity that promotes the
sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity, warned
that the stampede into biofuels was "causing enormous environmental
and social damage".
Their report said hundreds of thousands of indigenous people and
peasant communities in developing countries were being thrown off
their land as biofuel firms needed more and more space for their
crops.
Elliott Mannis, chief executive of D1 Oils, said the report did not
apply to jatropha, as it grows on land that is unsuitable for arable
crops.
Philip New, head of BP Biofuels, added: "As jatropha can be grown on
land of lesser agricultural value with lower irrigation requirements
than many plants, it is an excellent biodiesel feedstock."
BP and D1 want to plant one million hectares over four years. D1 has
a presence in India, southern Africa, and south-east Asia, including
China. Mr Mannis said it was thinking of expanding to South America,
and possibly Australia.
D1 will keep the plant science, as well as its refinery and trading
activities. The joint venture will plant the trees, harvest the
seeds and extract the oil. D1 and BP will share the crude oil and
sell it.
Quite a few members of the Yahoo Group contact Biofuelwatch by
emailing me directly. This is normally fine, however I will be
offline for much of July. If you would like to contact anybody from
our core group, please email info@biofuelwatch.org.uk instead. Thanks!
Commercial fuel farming still unfeasible
Having acknowleged the benefits of biofuels in the seventies, India
is yet to formulate a comprehensive policy to promote this non-
fossil fuel. As a result, UNCTAD estimates that India loses Rs
20,000 crore of foreign exchange annually due to a spiralling oil
import bill.
India’s biofuel progress has been like going one step forward and
two steps backward. In 2003, as a part of the Planning Commission’s
Biofuel Mission, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas made it
mandatory to sell five per cent ethanol-blended petrol in nine
states. Though the initiative started off well, two successive
sugarcane crop failures had put the initiative on the backburner.
But last year’s record cane production has pushed the ministry to
restore its target, with plans to double it by 2010.
Most of India’s ethanol is made from molasses, a byproduct of the
sugar industry. This is a less profitable process as compared to
Brazil’s, which produces ethanol directly from sugarcane feedstocks.
Though Indian sugar mills have shown interest in producing ethanol
from sugarcane, Dr P P Bhojvaid, senior fellow at The Energy and
Resources Institute, says like Brazil, the government should provide
financial assistance to these mills.
About 80 per cent vehicles in India run on diesel and its demand is
five times higher than petrol. The Biofuel Mission has set an
ambitious target to meet 20 per cent of the country’s diesel
requirements from biodiesel by 2012. And since the demand for edible
vegetable oil exceeds supply, the government has decided to use non-
edible oil seeds from plants like jatropha and pongamia for the
feedstock.
It is estimated that a 20 per cent biodiesel blend will require 110
lakh hectares of jatropha plantation. Since there are only 4 lakh
hectares under cultivation currently, the country’s ability to meet
its ambitious target is quite questionable. Satish Lele, Member of
FICCI core group on biofuels and author of Biodiesel from Jatropha,
says that since commercial production of biodiesel has not yet taken
off in the country, it will be difficult to produce biodiesel for 5
per cent blending with diesel now, let alone 20 per cent by the end
of 2012.
One of the main problems in initiating large-scale jatropha
cultivation is that of feasibility. For example, sugarcane
plantation, on an average, fetches the farmer Rs 70,000 per
hectare. In comparison, a jatropha farmer gets up to Rs 15,000 per
hectare.
Farmers are further discouraged by the absence of support prices or
long-term purchase contracts. Joseph B Gonsalves, biofuel consultant
with UNCTAD says that the Centre needs to sponsor confidence-
building measures, establish a minimum support price for jatropha
oilseeds, and assure timely payments to farmers. Public-private
partnership can help set up infrastructure for seed collection, oil
extraction, and blending.
The national programme on biodiesel is based on the availability of
wastelands for producing jatropha. Since wasteland use and
development comes under six different ministries and a plethora of
laws, the Planning Commission had suggested a comprehensive biofuel
policy to cut the red tape.
The commercial viability of biofuels will depend on future oil
prices and technological breakthroughs. To boost the share of fuel
mix and achieve maximum yield, the policy needs to encompass the
entire economic chain right from research and farming to production
and marketing.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=8ba21fce-
88b8-4bcf-b8b2-576898f192aa&ParentID=f6631a3f-6979-4d25-b4c8-
cdd027b6beaf&&Headline=Commercial+fuel+farming+still+unfeasible
[Comments: It is well established fact since starting of Jatropha
promotion that its cultivation is not feasible. That is why
through 'Say No To Jatropha' campaign we are regularly awaring not
only Indian farmers but also farmers around the world to keep
distance with this poisonous Jatropha as the promotion is only hype.
Now facts are coming in surface. Thanks to media for writing on this
aspect also. Now the big question is that what about the farmers who
have planted this crop after false assurance of planners and our
leaders. Who will compensate them? I feel that fine must be taken
from Jatropha promoters to compensate the loss done to farmers. And
also further promotion must be stopped.]
Charity casts further doubt on biofuels
The biofuels debate was stepped up another notch today as the 'anti
agro-fuels' charity Grain launched an attack on plans to tackle
climate change with plant-based petrol.
The charity claims to have evidence that both biofuels companies and
governments are putting pressure on indigenous peasant communities in
developing countires to vacate areas staked out for growing jatropha.
A spokesman for the charity said: "The numbers involved are mind-
boggling. The Indian government is talking of planting 14 million
hectares of land with jatropha."
http://www.hippyshopper.com/2007/06/charity_casts_f.html
Note: forwarded message attached.
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Today's Today programme on BBC Radio 4 included two features on
Biofuels including comment from Helena Paul of Econexus: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/> listen again
until next Friday's broadcast: 0713 "Are biofuels causing more
harm than good?" - discussion with Helena Paul (Econexus) and
Lord Oxburgh (chairman, D1 Oils). Lord Oxburgh reported having
met South Africans thrilled to be able to grow Jatropha on land
that allegedly couldn't be used for anything else, although it
was not input-free and required at least worker per hectare.
Helena Paul reported a South African report that it was too early
to say if Jatropha was viable, and it would not grow in very arid
circumstances; and Indian reports that forests were to be cleared
for Jatropha, displacing indigenous/tribal peoples. 0805 "A
furious attack on the drive to use more bio-fuels has been
launched by a charity supporting poor farmers in developing
countries. The charity, called Grain, says its worldwide
research shows that schemes to turn crops into fuel are causing
much more environmental and social damage than previously
realised Helena Paul, of the research organization Econexus,
told us there was evidence indigenous people were being moved to
make way for the crops. The Indian government was committed to
planting 14 million hectares to grow a bush called Jatropha..."
(report continues)
The next generation of Hotmail is here - Windows Live Hotmail
<http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUK/2743??PS=47575>
[Filling up with biofuels in California Image: Getty Images]
The rush for biofuels could have a major environmental impactA
furious attack on the drive to grow more biofuels has been
launched by a charity supporting poor farmers in developing
countries.
The charity - called Grain - says their research shows the rush
for biofuels is causing much more environmental and social damage
than previously realised.
Biofuels from crops are being heavily promoted by the US and
Europe as a welcome solution to climate change.
In theory their emissions are much lower than from fossil fuels.
But the report from the charity Grain amplifies recent warnings
from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that some
biofuels produce hardly any carbon savings at all.
The UN says basic food prices for poor countries are being pushed
up by competition for land from biofuels.
Name change
The Grain report says its research shows how governments and
biofuels firms in developing countries are collaborating to push
hundreds of thousands of indigenous people and peasant
communities off their land.
[Barley (Image: National Non-Food Crops Centre)]
Biofuel 'will not cause hunger'
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5406458.stm> Grain says:
"The numbers involved are mind-boggling. The Indian government is
talking of planting 14 million hectares of land with jatropha.
"The Inter-American Development Bank says that Brazil has 120
million hectares that could be cultivated with agrofuel crops;
and an agrofuel lobby is speaking of 379 million hectares being
available in 15 African countries. We are talking about
expropriation on an unprecedented scale."
It points out that one of the main causes of global warming is
agro-industrial farming itself, thanks mainly the use of chemical
fertilisers which introduce nitrous oxide into the air.
The group says the media has been spun into using the attractive
term biofuels - and wants them referred to as "agro-fuels"
instead.
The plant fuel industry accepts that there is a limit to the
energy to be obtained from crops - but believes plant fuels can
be produced sustainably on a large scale. The EU wants to see at
least 10% of road fuel derived from plants by 2020.
Oil firms believe this target is achievable using farm surpluses
combined with fuel digested by bacteria from waste - so called
second generation biofuels.
But their economic calculations do not include competition for
feedstock from power firms wanting biofuel for combined heat and
power - which produces much more energy more economically than
liquid fuel.
The UK government's climate envoy John Ashton recently told BBC
News: "The policy on biofuels is currently running ahead of the
science."
Note: forwarded message attached.
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Dear
Felix,
in Indonesia, promotion of jatropha is right on
the way, especially for the drier Eastern parts of Indonesia. Some plantations
already exist (see fotos below) .
As you can read in the article below, the Government of Indonesia said half a
year ago thatthe first biodiesel
from jatropha will be produced end of 2007. In
Indonesia many farmers believe jatropha to bring some
income to rural families without the negative impacts plasma farmers of palm
oil plantations have to endure.
Regards,
Marianne Klute
Indonesia set to
unlock jatropha shrub as biofuel ANTARA
News
Jakarta, December 15, 2006 (ANTARA News) - Indonesia may be the first country
in the world to commercially use biofuel produced
from jatropha, a hardy drought-resistant shrub that
produces an oil convertible into fuel, a Dutch expert said on Thursday.
The plant, which is believed to originate from South America, already grows
wild in parts of Indonesia.
More than than 25 million hectares (62 million acres)
of land, an area bigger than the United Kingdom, could be suitable for jatropha in Indonesia, said Professor H.J. Heeres, who heads a programme researching the field at the
University of Groningen.
"My feeling is at the moment Indonesia could be the first in the world to
introduce jatropha (commercially)," said Heeres.
He highlighted the potential in Indonesia to use biofuel
produced from jatropha to power small generators.
In a bid to drum up interest in the area and prove the biofuel's
potential, National Geographic Indonesia magazine earlier this year sponsored
an 8-day expedition using jatropha oil to power
vehicles driving across the sprawling country.
Heeres, whose research programme is twinned with one
at Indonesia's Bandung Institute of Technology, said
the performance of the car using pure jatropha was
comparable to regular diesel, using only about 10 percent more fuel.
The chemical engineer also noted encouraging sounds from the Indonesian
government in the area.
Indonesia, Asia Pacific's only OPEC member, is keen to cut a hefty oil subsidy
bill inflated by high global prices by encouraging alternative sources of
energy.
"Yes, the government is very, very supportive, at least in words," he
told Reuters.
Effendi Sirait, the Indonesian industry ministry's
official in charge of biofuel development, said last
month that the government planned to produce just over 15,000 tonnes of biofuels from jatropha by the end
of 2007.
While the government focuses on jatropha as a
feedstock, the bulk of Indonesia's biofuel production
will come from palm oil-based biodiesel produced by
the private sector.
Heeres said he felt that jatropha
could compete with alternative green fuels such as palm oil, despite some
concerns aired by other experts questioning whether its yields were high enough
to make it economic.
"We have the feeling it will be competitive to palm oil."
The Dutchman said another advantage of jatropha was
that it let more light through compared with a dense palm oil canopy so that
other crops such as tomatoes could be grown together.
Jatropha, a shrub which normally grows 3-5 metres
(10-16 ft) was suitable for many areas of Indonesia, including Kalimantan,
Sumatra, as well as Java and Papua, he said. It can also be grown on land
damaged by fire and over cultivation.
Plant nurseries for jatropha, which is non-edible
although has traditionally had medical uses, were being developed in Kupang on west Timor island and in
western Jakarta, he said.
Local companies with commercial plans in this area include Bio-chem Indonesia and PT TrakindoUtama. (*)
-----Original
Message----- From: biofuelwatch@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:biofuelwatch@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Felix Padel Sent: Mittwoch,
27. Juni 2007 10:54 To: biofuelwatch@yahoogroups.com;
almuth@...; helena Subject: [biofuelwatch] Article on
disinformation promoting jatropha biofuel
Jatropha is being hugely promoted in India, and it
seems China. How this promotion compares with the
promotion of soya & other biofuels wordlwide I have
not yet been able to discover - by the time we do
discover, it may prove too late. Does anyone have
solid information on this?
Fuel firm denies China refinery reports
GREEN fuels firm D1 Oils has denied reports that it plans to invest
almost £50m to build a biodiesel plant in China.
The South China Morning Post claimed the Teesside-based company
intends to construct a refinery in southwestern China's Guangxi
region, and use jatropha oil as its feedstock.
The newspaper said D1 plans to set up on a new petrochemical
industry park, in Baise city, and claimed its new plant would be
operational by the end of next year or early 2009, with an initial
processing capacity of 10,000 tonnes rising to 100,000 over five
years.
However, Middlesbrough-based D1 said the report was inaccurate and
denied it was in official talks with anyone in China about opening a
plant.
The firm, which has jatropha plantations in China, did admit that it
was interested in expanding operations there.
A spokesman for the firm said: "We are interested in developing our
jatropha plantations and refining biodiesel in China, although the
projects are at a very early stage."
D1 has five refineries at its plant in Middlesbrough and completed
the £3m acquisition of its second site at Bromborough, on
Merseyside, in January.
http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1495157.mostviewed.fuel_firm\
_denies_china_refinery_reports.php
[Comments: Even in the modern age of fast communication such rumours
about Dangerous One are in air in India also. These rumours have
been spread by Jatropha promoters to fool the farmers and common
people that future with Jatropha is safe. Surprisngly world media
(majority) is still publishing one sided news on Jatropha. There is
need for Jatropha reports having positive as well as negative
aspects.]
I opened C Span today and came upon a speech given by a Maryland Congressman on Peak Oil and renewable energy sources in the Hall of Congress. Crux of the speech was that we are near peak oil which will happen between 2016 and 2027 depending upon fresh new large discoveries. As for renewable energy resources his estimate was that if the whole US corn production is used for ethanol production it will cover 2.5% of US energy requirements, and if the whole of soybean production in the US was used for diesel production it will cover 6% of US needs.
In short the spin doctors are again deluding the world. Renewable resources are not going to supply more than a small part of energy needs of the world. His solution was to cut energy use as the most efficient way to reduce consumption.
Biofuels for Oil Addicts
Cure Worse than The Addiction
Bioethanol and biodiesel from energy crops compete for land that grows
food and return less energy than the fossil fuel energy squandered in
producing them; they are also damaging to the environment and
disastrous for the economy. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BFOA.php
Dear friends
In important articles here you can see a growing
consensus in many countries that the "biofuel"
industry is extremely dangerous on many levels,
helping push up food prices world-wide, and causing
extremely severe threats to indigenous farmers in
Indonesia & Malaysia, which presently contribute 85%
of biofuels. The main motive behind the rapid
corporate push for biofuels seems to be reducing the
G8 countries' dependence on fossil fuels.
Felix
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Press Release
`Ilio`ulaokalani Coalition, KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental
Alliance
June 22, 2007
Groups Concerned about Indigenous, Environmental Impacts of HECO
Plans to Import Palm Oil
Lingle Veto Urged for $59 million bond issue bill for Blue
Earth/HECO palm oil "biodiesel" plant
(Honolulu, Hawai'i) On Monday, Governor Lingle will announce the
list of bills that under consideration for veto. `Ilio`ulaokalani
Coalition and KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance call for
the veto of a bill for a $59 million bond issue in support of the
HECO/Blue Earth proposed mega-"biodiesel" plant. Despite testifying
to the legislature that the plant would not utilize imported palm
oil in an effort to obtain the bond package, project proponents are
now admitting that their operations will be based on imported palm
oil.
Close to 85% of the world's palm oil comes from Indonesia and
Malaysia. At a United Nations conference in May, Victoria Tauli-
Corpuz, chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, warned
that 60 million indigenous people worldwide are at risk of losing
their land and livelihoods because of bioenergy expansion, including
5 million people in West Kalimantan, Borneo. In March 2007, the
Indonesian organization Save Our Borneo warned that the customary
land rights of 2,000 Dayak communities in central Kalimantan are
threatened by palm oil expansion plans. Neither Malaysia nor
Indonesia fully recognize customary or indigenous land rights. In
West Malaysia and Sarawak, plantations are being established in land
claimed by indigenous Orang Asli and Dayak communities. The
government plans to develop one million hectares of oil palms in
Sarawak, on land under Native Customary Rights.
"We are adamantly opposed to SB 1718 CD1 and the import of palm oil
which will negatively impact indigenous peoples," said Vicky Holt
Takamine, President of `Ilio`ulaokalani Coalition. " In our attempt
to provide a sustainable fuel source for Hawai'i, we cannot at the
same time destroy another native people's environment and way of
life for our benefit," she added. "We urge you to veto this bill and
stand with us to protect the rights of native peoples and their
environment."
The recent push towards "cheap biofuels" has been associated with
extraordinary levels of deforestation and violations of indigenous
rights in Indonesia and Malaysia. According to recent estimates, the
demand for palm oil as biofuel may push Indonesia to clear over 49.4
million acres of land for plantations.
According to Tauli-Corpuz, "The main reason for the dramatic
expansion of oil palm plantations, notwithstanding their adverse
impacts on people and the environment, is that these provide big
profits to domestic and international plantation owners and
investors." Said Tauli-Corpuz, "These mega-profits are ensured by
cheap labour, low cost of sale or rent of land, ineffective
environmental controls, high demand, support from multilateral and
bilateral donors and a short growth cycle."
Lack of Sustainable Supplies
Despite pressure to replace coal, oil and gas with cleaner fuels,
major power companies in Britain and the Netherlands have had to
halt palm oil shipments because of a lack of sustainable supplies of
palm oil. Last year, the Netherlands State secretary of Environment
publicly apologized for spending hundreds of millions of Euros in
subsidies to build new palm oil plants given the lack of sustainably
produced supplies.
"We spent more than a year investigating the sustainability issues
with palm oil," said Leon Flexman, of RWE npower, Britain's largest
electricity supplier. The company decided against palm oil because
it could not verify all its supplies would be free of the taint of
destroyed rain forest or peat bogs, he said.
Environmental groups in the Netherlands brought charges of false
advertising against a power company, Essent, which claimed that
their proposed use of palm oil was environmentally sound. The groups
applauded the recent verdict of the Dutch Advertisement Commission,
which indicated that Essent misled the public by claiming that palm
oil was "green energy."
The Indonesian NGO Sawit Watch, which works in 17 Indonesian
provinces, submitted written testimony to the state legislature
against the Blue Earth bill and underscored the extent to which palm
oil production for biofuels is increasing social conflicts and
undermining land reform in Indonesia. They noted 350 land conflicts
related to oil palm plantation developments in Indonesia. Increasing
demand for palm oil will generate new conflicts and worsen the
unresolved conflicts, as local communities and indigenous peoples
are further disposed from their lands and livelihoods.
According to Rettet den Regenwald, a German group analyzing palm oil
production, in Colombia -- the largest palm oil producer outside
South-east Asia -- there are reports of paramilitary and military
forces working together to evict indigenous people from their land
in order to expand oil palm plantations.
Forest "certification" programs -- which may work well in areas
with good governance, transparency, and rule of law -- have been
mired in significant levels of corruption in Indonesia and Malaysia
which, again, make up 85% of the world's palm oil supply. According
to Rettet den Regenwald, "Palm oil expansion is the main driver of
deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia. In both countries,
deforestation rates have accelerated dramatically in recent years,
in parallel to palm oil expansion. Malaysia's deforestation rate
went up 86% between the periods 1990-2000 and 2000-2005, whilst oil
palm plantations were expanded to 4.2 million hectares. Indonesia
now has the fastest rate of rainforest destruction anywhere in the
world. Satellite images confirm that rainforests are being destroyed
for oil palm plantations throughout Malaysia and Indonesia,
including in supposedly protected 'national parks'. Indonesia plans
to convert another 20 million hectares of land on top of the 6.4
million hectares so far to palm oil. The UN warns that 98% of
Borneo's and Sumatra's rainforests may disappear over the next 15
years. Thousands of species are likely to become extinct, including
the orang-utan, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the Sumatran elephant, and
the Sumatran tiger."
In previous years, palm oil expansion was driven mainly by the
demand for palm oil in food and chemicals. The current expansion of
oil palm plantations, however, is driven primarily by the boom in
bioenergy, with palm oil prices rising rapidly as demand outstrips
supply. The Malaysian and Indonesian government state that they
support this expansion in order to satisfy the growing global demand
for bioenergy. Palm oil expansion is causing rainforest destruction
in Colombia, Ecuador, Cameroon and in the Brazilian Amazon, too.
Despite the lack of a sustainable supply of palm oil, this week,
HECO unveiled their plans to import palm oil -- despite Blue
Earth's earlier denial in legislative testimony -- and
released "sustainability criteria" for their proposed imports.
According to Dr. Marcus Colchester, a palm oil expert with decades
of experience in Indonesia who reviewed the HECO document, the
sustainability criteria proposed by HECO for oil palm imports
are "much less than required for full compliance" with the criteria
developed by the industry-heavy international Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil. The RSPO has spent years developing criteria
in consultation with civil society organizations. The HECO proposal
even eliminates the core criterion required by indigenous and forest
communities and recognized by the companies negotiating the RSPO
process as a basic requirement for sustainability standards: the
recognition of customary rights and the requirement for free prior
informed consent of indigenous and other peoples before their lands
are utilized for oil palm cultivation.
Said Marti Townsend of KAHEA, "It is important that HECO understands
that the indigneous people of Hawai'i and Indonesia are firmly
united in their opposition to the destruction of their forests,
lands, and livelihoods. A state bond to BlueEarth could facilitate
acts of cultural genocide, in addition to massive environmental
destruction."
According to Rob Parsons, of Sierra Club-Maui, "The Blue Earth
project would initially import palm oil to produce 40 million
gallons of biofuel by 2009, and 120 million gallons by 2011. But,
palm oil production in Southeast Asia and elsewhere is one of the
great ecological disasters of our time." According to Parsons, who
also serves as Maui County Environmental Coordinator, "The huge
scale of the proposal could actually harm, rather than encourage
local biofuel crop production, which could never compete with oil
prices purchased from countries with cheap labor. Additionally, the
amount of lands necessary to produce such a huge amount of feedstock
exceeds the available acreage on Maui." Parsons added, "It is my
strong belief that this proposal is taking us down a dead-end road.
In the rush to seek renewable energy sources, we are over-looking
the fact that this proposal does not fulfill our goals for self-
sufficiency and sustainability.
For more information on palm oil, see
"Oil Palm and Other commercial Tree Plantations, Monocropping:
Impacts on Indigenous People's Land Tenure and Resource Management
Systems and Livelihoods", Victoria Tauli-Corpuz and Parshuram
Tamang, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, May 2007 http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/6session_crp6.doc
Description of Indonesian small-holder palm oil
production: 'Promised Land', Dr. Marcus Colchester, Norman Jiwan et
al http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/prv_sector/oil_palm/promised_l
and_eng.pdf . Published in 2006 by Sawit Watch, the Forest
People's Programme, HuMA and ICRAF, this report shows that palm oil
plantations which comply with the RSPO principles and criteria are
virtually non-existent in Indonesia.
Population is growing. Supply is falling. Prices are rising. What
will be the cost to the planet's poorest?
By Daniel Howden
Published: 23 June 2007
Most people in Britain won't have noticed. On the supermarket
shelves the signs are still subtle. But the onset of a major change
will be sitting in front of many people this morning in their
breakfast bowl. The price of cereals in this country has jumped by
12 per cent in the past year. And the cost of milk on the global
market has leapt by nearly 60 per cent. In short we may be reaching
the end of cheap food.
For those of us who have grown up in post-war Britain food prices
have gone only one way, and that is down. Sixty years ago an average
British family spent more than one-third of its income on food.
Today, that figure has dropped to one-tenth. But for the first time
in generations agricultural commodity prices are surging with what
analysts warn will be unpredictable consequences.
Like any other self-respecting trend this one now has its own name:
agflation. Beneath this harmless-sounding piece of jargon - the
conflation of agriculture and inflation - lie two main drivers that
suggest that cheap food is about to become a thing of the past.
Agflation, to those that believe that it is really happening, is an
increase in the price of food that occurs as a result of increased
demand from human consumption and the diversion of crops into usage
as an alternative energy resource.
On the one hand the growing affluence of millions of people in China
and India is creating a surge in demand for food - the rising
populations are not content with their parents' diet and demand more
meat. On the other, is the use of food crops as a source of energy
in place of oil, the so-called bio-fuels boom.
As these two forces combine they are setting off warning bells
around the world.
Rice prices are climbing worldwide. Butter prices in Europe have
spiked by 40 per cent in the past year. Wheat futures are trading at
their highest level for a decade. Global soybean prices have risen
by a half. Pork prices in China are up 20 per cent on last year and
the food price index in India was up by 11 per cent year on year. In
Mexico there have been riots in response to a 60 per cent rise in
the cost of tortillas.
It has even revived discussion of the work of the 18th-century
British thinker Robert Malthus. He predicted that the growth of the
world's population would outstrip its ability to produce food,
leading to mass starvation.
So far in Britain we have been insulated from the early effects of
these price rises by the competitive nature of our retail system.
But the supermarkets cannot shield us for long. The European
Commission no longer has reserves to help cushion its citizens. Its
mountains of unsold butter and meat and its lake of powdered milk
have disappeared after reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy.
Then there is corn. While relatively little corn is eaten directly
it is of pivotal importance to the food economy as so much of it is
consumed indirectly. The milk, eggs, cheese, butter, chicken, beef,
ice cream and yoghurt in the average fridge is all produced using
corn and the price of every one of these is influenced by the price
of corn. In effect, our fridges are full of corn.
In the past 12 months the global corn price has doubled. The
constant aim of agriculture is to produce enough food to carry us
over to the next harvest. In six of the past seven years, we have
used more grain worldwide than we have produced. As a result world
grain reserves - or carryover stocks - have dwindled to 57 days.
This is the lowest level of grain reserves in 34 years.
The reason for the price surge is the wholesale diversion of grain
crops into the production of ethanol. Thirty per cent of next year's
grain harvest in the US will go straight to an ethanol distillery.
As the US supplies more than two-thirds of the world's grain imports
this unprecedented move will affect food prices everywhere. In
Europe farmers are switching en masse to fuel crops to meet the EU
requirement that bio-fuels account for 20 per cent of the energy
mix.
Ethanol is almost universally popular with politicians as it allows
them to tell voters to keep on motoring, while bio-fuels will fix
the problem of harmful greenhouse gas emissions. But bio-fuels are
not a green panacea, as the influential economist Lester Brown from
the Earth Policy Institute explained in a briefing to the US Senate
last week. He said: "The stage is now set for direct competition for
grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the
world's 2 billion poorest people."
Already there are signs that the food economy is merging with the
fuel economy. The ethanol boom has seen sugar prices track oil
prices and now the same is set to happen with grain, Mr Brown
argues. "As the price of oil climbs so will the price of food," he
says. "If oil jumps from $60 a barrel to $80, you can bet that your
supermarket bills will also go up."
In the developed world this could mean a change of lifestyle.
Elsewhere it could cost lives. Soaring food prices have already
sparked riots in poor countries that depend on grain imports. More
will follow. After decades of decline in the number of starving
people worldwide the numbers are starting to rise. The UN lists 34
countries as needing food aid. Since feeding programmes tend to have
fixed budgets, a doubling in the price of grain halves food aid.
Anger boiled over this week as Jean Ziegler, the UN special
rapporteur on the right to food, accused the US and EU of "total
hypocrisy" for promoting ethanol production in order to reduce their
dependence on imported oil. He said producing ethanol instead of
food would condemn hundreds of thousands of people to death from
hunger.
Population and starvation
* Robert Thomas Malthus was a political economist who shot to
prominence in late 18th century Britain. His Essay on the Principle
of Population influenced generations of thinkers with its prediction
that the world's population would outgrow its food supply, prompting
starvation on an epic scale. "The power of population is so superior
to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that
premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race,"
he wrote. "Gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear." But
Malthus predicted disaster to strike in the mid-19th century.
"Starting from 1 June 2007 the oil price in the market should have been reached Rp6,500-Rp6,800 per kilogram". Directorate General for Processing and Marketing the Agricultural Product (P2HP), Djoko Said Damardjati when he opens Agro and Food Expo 2007.
The first week in June has passed, but the cooking oil in the domestic market (Indonesia) does not go down, even more and more increases. Various attempts are conducted by the government, from spreading out the Market Operation to expressing the policy on Domestic Market Obligation (DMO) which is poured out in the Decree of Ministry of Agriculture Number 339 in 2007. Domestic Market Obligation policy is expected to be able to stabilize the domestic cooking oil price (Indonesia), because this policy requires the entrepreneurs of CPO for paying CPO to be processed into the cooking oil for maintaining the stability of cooking oil price in Indonesia. But no attempt succeeds, even the cooking oil price should jump up until reaches the highest rate i.e. Rp9.000/kg. And the most serious condition is the village like in Tebo district, Jambi Province, the cooking oil price reaches 10,000/kg (Jambi Ekspres Daily, 4 June 2007), besides this district is an oil palm plantation center area in Jambi Province.
The government strategy by spreading out the Market Operation apparently does not help the people, because the difference of cooking oil price between "market price" with "Market Operation" price is only different of Rp200 per kilogram. The government strategy through Domestic Market Obligation (DMO) apparently means nothing, because apparently a lot of companies disavow the agreement with the government. Case sample in Riau Province, around 18 companies never send CPO to the processing factory to be produced to become the cooking oil (Riau Pos Daily, 07 June 2007). If in the regional scale, such as Sumatra region, the company is more interested in selling CPO to the abroad market than it should sell with the cheap price to the domestic price, moreover in the national scale, of course the company will be interested in conducting the export (selling CPO to the international market).
The unsuccessful of policy of DMO strategy is not only triggered, because it is the weakness of government control toward the oil palm plantation entrepreneurs which operates in Indonesian area, but also the government failure to conduct the price negotiation with the entrepreneur party --- the entrepreneur asks the government to give the price subsidy for CPO which they sell in the domestic market (Indonesia).
The example of Cooking oil
The world palm oil price continuously makes slow progress to increase from US$740 per ton in May, which is increasing to US$i870 per ton in June (Liputan 6 SCTV 10 June 2007). The price increase is triggered with the demand in the abroad market which will be CPO as Biofuel (see Position paper SETARA Jambi in "Indonesia under Biofuel Fever: Food, Fuel, Machine, Human Being not different" 24 May 2007).
The impact of the high of cooking oil price, which becomes one of nine staple foods, has undermined the life of poor people, not only their economic income, but also their health. The following are some impacts which appear due to the increase of cooking oil price in Indonesia, due to "biofuel fever":
1. The home industry, like fried chips, fermented soybean cake, and tofu, starts and has been bankrupt.
2. The poor community cannot purchase palm cooking oil to change into buy oplosan cooking oil or cooking oil which has been used for cooking and will be reused, which is far from the health standard, even makes worse the health.
3. Some cooking oil sellers mix the oil which has been used for cooking and will be reused with chemical such as Hydrogen (H2O2), for keeping maintaining their incomes (Liputan Investigasi SCTV 10 June 2007). The mixing with chemical indeed can clear up the color for oil which has been used for cooking and will be reused it is believed to have the negative impact for health.
Thus, again we call:
1. and urge the government to make DMO to be effective without "covered subsidy", which finally inflicts a financial loss of other people, like oil palm farmer. Meaning, the company obligation to pay CPO to be processed into the palm oil for stabilizing the domestic price is the obligation and responsibility for all entrepreneurs operating in Indonesia area, in this case also including Malaysian companies.
2. and do not fully hand CPO price dynamic over to the market mechanism, the Indonesian government should become the price control holder, because Indonesia is one of the palm oil players in the global market.
3. to the consumer society of oil palm from Indonesia, mainly for the consumption of alternative energy need in order to conduct the control toward their alternative energy policy, in order to not to become the policy boomerang which causes the bad situation for producer country, like Indonesia.
At last, we state to the International community, we do not want the world community commitment to carry away the poverty and increase the health standard in accord with the agenda of Multi Development Goals (MDGs) to become the nightmare due to the policy of consumer alternative energy/rich country, because the fact is that the people of Indonesia currently consume the oil that has been used for frying and will be reused which is dangerous for health and it becomes heavier living load due to the increase of cooking oil price!
SETARA is a Non Government Organization (NGO) based in Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. This organization focuses on the working for plantation issue, energy alternative, conflict resolution, partnership system and International Finance Institution (IFI).
Found in 2007 by some environment and social activists.
[1] "Jelantah Oil" is the oil which has been used for cooking, it is then reused. This kind of oil at the moment is sold and consumed by the poor household in Indonesia.
Biodiesel firms face ruin
Britain’s biofuel industry is close to collapsing, according to one
company, which is millions of pounds in debt
14th June 2007
Bosses at Biofuels warned that the rising cost of vegetable oils,
which are used in the production of the firm’s bio-diesel, were to
blame for its £100million shortfall. Tough competition from the US
has also played a part.
Chief executive Sean Sutcliffe argued increased demand for food was
at the root of the problem. His Teesside business currently uses
edible rapeseed, soya and palm oils to produce its fuel. But he
stated: “China’s food requirements for soya alone increased from 22
to 29 per cent last year, pushing prices up.”
He added that huge subsidies handed out to US producers meant UK
firms also struggled to compete. “It’s threatening to shut down the
entire European biofuel industry,” he warned.
One solution is to use non-edible crops, such as the oil extracted
from Jatropha seeds. A spokesman for rival firm D1 Oils said: “This
doesn’t compete with food sources, so we’re not affected by the
rocketing price of vegetable oils.”
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/209091/biodiesel_fi
rms_face_ruin.html
[Comments: Last comment is most Dangerous 1. In India and other
countries food farmers are under motivation to plant Jatropha by
presenting it as more profitable crop than traditional food crops.
In these countries food is more important than fuel. Last year India
imported wheat from Australia. Now instead of promoting food grains
and ignoring regular suicides of Indian farmers in order to satisfy
fistful of Jatropha promoters planners are making false propoganda
in favour of poisonous Jatropha. Really in this context one more
irresponsible saying of 'Dangerous One' is shocking. Not joking but
if possible moon is best place for them for such non ecofriendly
plantation of Jatropha, not this earth. We are much concerned that
in newspapers we have read that this company was involved in
Infamous Jatropha germplasm theft i.e. biopiracy.
http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr/?id=465 ]
Note: forwarded message attached.
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Third World Resurgence, published in Malaysia, devoted their April
issue (#200) to "Biofuels: An illusion and a threat." It features
articles by Mae-wan Ho, Newton Sibanda of Zambia, Fidel and Guillermo
Castro, and myself. It's not yet posted at their website, http://
www.twnside.org.sg/twr.htm. Mailing address is 131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang, Malaysia.
----------------------------------------------
Brian Tokar
Institute for Social Ecology
P.O. Box 48
Plainfield, VT 05667
www.social-ecology.org
> From: Victor Manfredi <manfredi@bu.edu>
> Date: June 4, 2007 8:36:42 PM EDT (CA)
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,2095348,00.html
>
> Massacres and paramilitary land seizures behind the biofuel revolution
> Colombian farmers driven out as armed groups profit
> Lucrative 'green' crop less risky to grow than coca
>
> Oliver Balch in Mutat and Rory Carroll in Cartagena
> Tuesday June 5, 2007
>
> Armed groups in Colombia are driving peasants off their land to
> make way
> for plantations of palm oil, a biofuel that is being promoted as an
> environmentally friendly source of energy.
>
> [...]
There is, admittedly, a humorous side to the debate over biofuels. A story
that involves rocketing pork prices in China, expensive Mexican tortillas
and Philadelphian farmers feeding their livestock chocolate bars has enough
comic material to keep an entire classroom in giggles. Yet this argument has
a darker side, because the search by politicians for a way to bring down
carbon emissions is driving up food costs and enouraging destruction of
land.
It's not hard to see why politicians are attracted to biofuels. On the one
hand they have fossil fuels which are mucky and expensive. On the other
there are plants such as corn, palm oil, sugar cane and other agricultural
products, which are increasingly viable sources of energy. Put the two
together and you get a biofuel bandwagon. The EU has a target that at least
10% of fuel will come from plants by 2020, while Gordon Brown greeted the
authoritative report by Nicholas Stern last year by trumpeting his
enthusiasm for biofuels (while bypassing the inconvenient fact that he had
kept fuel duty frozen for years). Their most prominent supporter is George
Bush, who laid out ambitious targets for their use in this January's state
of the union address.
This enthusiasm, however, is likely to come at a cost to the world's poor.
Diverting crops away from food into fuel runs the risk of increasing hunger
for the poor. There are already some warning signs. Wholesale corn prices
have rocketed, which caused 75,000 protesters to march through downtown
Mexico City against dearer tortillas a few months ago. It has also made
animal feed dearer, which has helped push up the cost of pork for the
Chinese. Higher prices do not just affect poor countries, which is why
American farmers are now feeding their herds Hersheys and pretzels, and
Germans are upset to see beer prices go up as a result of a shortage of
hops. But for China, still a developing country, to see the price of its
staple meat rise 43% in the first three weeks of May alone is a much bigger
hardship. In some cases the risk is of destruction of land. Palm oil is
another potential biofuel, so farmers are chopping down forests to make way
for palm trees. The conservationist Richard Leakey has warned that the
orangutan is endangered by the drive for biofuels, while the UN has also
shown green fuels the red light.
By adopting biofuels, politicians in rich countries effectively avoid taking
harder, unpopular decisions, such as limiting consumption, either with
tighter caps on emissions or higher taxes. They effectively push the problem
of dealing with environmental damage on to the shoulders of the poor.
However funny biofuels may sound, the politicians' craze for them has
serious side-effects.
Massacres and paramilitary land seizures behind the biofuel revolution
Colombian farmers driven out as armed groups profit
Lucrative 'green' crop less risky to grow than coca
Oliver Balch in Mutat and Rory Carroll in Cartagena
Tuesday June 5, 2007
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>
Armed groups in Colombia are driving peasants off their land to make way for
plantations of palm oil, a biofuel that is being promoted as an
environmentally friendly source of energy.
Surging demand for "green" fuel has prompted rightwing paramilitaries to
seize swaths of territory, according to activists and farmers. Thousands of
families are believed to have fled a campaign of killing and intimidation,
swelling Colombia's population of 3 million displaced people and adding to
one of the world's worst refugee crises after Darfur and Congo.
Several companies were collaborating by falsifying deeds to claim ownership
of the land, said Andres Castro, the general secretary of Fedepalma, the
national federation of palm oil producers.
"As a consequence of the development of palm by secretive business practices
and the use of threats, people have been displaced and [the businesses] have
claimed land for themselves," he said. His claim was backed up by witnesses
and groups such as Christian Aid and the National Indigenous Organisation of
Colombia.
The revelations tarnish what has been considered an economic and
environmental success story. The fruit of the palm oil tree produces a
vegetable oil also used in cooking, employs 80,000 people, and is
increasingly being turned into biofuel.
"Four years ago Colombia had 172,000 hectares of palm oil," President Alvaro
Uribe told the Guardian. "This year we expect to finish with nearly
400,000."
"Four years ago Colombia didn't produce a litre of biofuel. Today, because
of our administration, Colombia produces 1.2m litres per day." Investment in
new installations would continue to boost production, he added.
However the lawlessness created by four decades of insurgency in the
countryside has enabled rightwing paramilitaries, and also possibly leftwing
rebels, to join the boom. Unlike coca, the armed groups' main income source,
palm oil is a legal crop and therefore safe from state-backed eradication
efforts.
Farmers who have been forced off their land at gunpoint say that in many
cases their banana groves and cattle grazing fields were turned into palm
oil plantations. Luis Hernandez (not his real name) fled his 170-hectare
plot outside the town of Mutata in Antioquia province nine years ago after
his father-in-law and several neighbours were gunned down. When he and other
survivors were able to return recently, they found the land was in the hands
of a local palm producer.
"The company tells me that it has legal papers for the land, but I don't
know how that can be, as I have land titles dating back 20 years," said Mr
Hernandez. He suspects palm companies collaborated with the paramilitaries.
"I don't know if there was an official agreement between them, but a
relationship of some sort definitely exists."
A government investigation reportedly found irregularities in 80% of palm
oil land titles in some areas. "If there have been abuses and the titles are
shown to be false, then the land needs to be returned and all the weight of
the law needs to be brought down on those that are responsible," said Dr
Castro, of the producers' association.
Christian Aid is funding an effort to protect peasants who are trying to
reclaim land from the paramilitaries, said Dominic Nutt, who has visited the
plantations. "It is the dark side of biofuel."
The paramilitary groups, first formed in the 80s by businessmen, landowners
and drug lords to fend off guerrillas, became a powerful illegal army which
stole land, sold drugs and massacred civilians. Under a peace deal with the
government they have officially disbanded but many observers say remnants
remain active.
Displacement continues, with an average of 200,000 cases registered every
year over the past four years, according to the UN High Commission for
Refugees, with most coming from palm oil-growing areas on the Caribbean
coast. "We can't keep up, they just keep coming," said Ludiz Ruda, of the
Hijos de Maria school in a shantytown outside the coastal city of Cartagena.
Since opening last year it had been swamped with impoverished newcomers, she
said. "More than 80% are refugees."
Cocaine output rises regardless
Coca production in Colombia has surged despite US-funded eradication
efforts, according to an estimate that casts fresh doubt on Washington's
"war on drugs". Satellite imagery collated by the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy survey suggests that cultivation of coca, the
raw ingredient of cocaine, jumped 8% last year to 156,000 hectares.
The estimate was made public before a trip to Washington this week by
President Alvaro Uribe. If confirmed, it would be the third consecutive rise
in production, and a blow to the US strategy of bolstering Colombia's
security forces to help them destroy the crops.
Under its Plan Colombia project, Washington has funnelled more than $5bn
(2.5bn) in mostly military aid to its South American ally since 2000 - its
biggest aid project outside Afghanistan and the Middle East. The Democrats
say the security forces are accused of human rights abuses and complicity
with traffickers.
Mr Uribe revealed the unpublished findings in an effort to get the bad news
out of the way before he started lobbying Congress; the White House did not
immediately respond.
"They told me they were worried about revealing this number because of my
upcoming trip to the United States - that the Americans should reveal it,"
he said. "But that's why I'm revealing it. We're not trying to put makeup on
what is a serious matter."
Plan Colombia began in 1999 and was supposed to halve production of coca
within five years, using sprayer planes and officers on the ground. But the
latest estimate suggests that since then it has risen 27%.
Last month Mr Uribe trumpeted a UN report that said cultivation was down to
79,000 hectares. The conflicting figures were incomprehensible and
disorienting, said the president: "Could it be we've worked in vain? That
all our work hasn't produced the desired results?"
I am doing a basic research on the issue of palm oil at the
moment.
Do you know how palm oil is being shipped to Europe? By that I mean the
routes of the palm oil tankers and the ports in Indonesia and Malaysia
where the oil is bunkered on the ships.
I have been told that the oil is being shipped to Singapore,
pumped into bigger ships and brought to Europe. Do you know if thats
true, or do you have other information, stating that ships are going
directly from Indonesia or Malaysia to Europe?
Also, if you have any information concerning companies specialised in
shipping palm oil, please let me know.
Mangalore: A setback for biofuel mission in DK?
Mangalore June 5: The fear about the success of the biofuel mission
launched a year ago in the district has, now, come true. The
officials who were heading the mission under various departments
have almost been convinced that maintaining a chapter of biofuels in
Dakshina Kannada will not be a 'working model'.
The Central government had planned to grow Jatropha in a total of
130 million hectares of land (which had been considered as barren),
as a step towards minimising the future crisis of petroleum
resources. On the lines of the vision of the Centre, the State
government too launched a package to boost the biofuel sector, which
was assigned to the departments of Agriculture, Forest and Social
Forestry.
In addition to Jatropha Curcas, the State added Indian Beech (honge
in local usage) to the list and set targets to various districts.
The Department of Agriculture had a target of distributing 50,000
jatropha and 25,000 honge saplings with a total budget of Rs 3 lakh.
About 10,000 jatropha plants were to be distributed in each taluk.
Each sapling was available with a subsidised rate of Rs 4.
On the other hand, the Department of Social Forestry had initiated
into the venture about two years back, but people did not find any
difference when they got plants of biofuels apart from the usual
saplings. The district had as many as 18,000 jatropha and 41,000
honge plants in the 6 nurseries of Social Forestry.
As per the statistics available in the Department of Agriculture,
total of 47,250 jatropha saplings and 22,750 Indian Beech saplings
have been distributed across the district in 2006-07. Mangalore
taluk has got 7,500 jatropha and honge saplings each, Bantwal has
got 10,000 jatropha and 5,000 honge, Bethangady 14,250 jatropha and
1,250 honge, Puttur 7,500 jatropha and honge each and Sullia has got
8,000 jatropha and 7,000 honge saplings.
Though the target achieved appears almost satisfactory, no officials
concerned have a clear picture as how far the scheme has been
working in the district. In other words, there has not been a
concrete survey or 'follow up' across the district to understand the
progress of the programme. However, District Social Forestry
Department Superintendent Nalini said the department produced
saplings every year after conducting a 'demand survey' in various
taluks.
'DK- not suitable'
According to the Joint Director of Agriculture Department A Padmaiah
Naik, the feasibility of growing bio-fuel plants in Dakshina Kannada
is less, compared to some other districts of northern
Karnataka. “When there are no clear-cut ideas on demand and
marketing, people do not venture into a new crop, especially in a
commercial way. There are abundant challenges for the production and
marketing of biofuel,” he said.
The district is such a region that one cannot devote a larger area
to a strange crop unlike the plain regions of the northern part.
There is a lack of orientation and security for those who are
willing to look into the issue, Mr Naik stated.
DHNS
http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=45048
Today's edition of Daily Chhattisgarh reports accidental feeding of
poisonous Jatropha seeds by seven children of Utai region of Durg,
Chhattisgarh, India. The names are Gajendra 5 year, Dageshwar 3 year,
Kuldeep 5 year, Rinku 10 year, Rajesh 3 year and Teekam 4 year. After
this feeding affected children were admitted to primary health centre
but later after seeing their critical condition they were referred to
District Hospital.
After large scale plantation of poisonous Jatropha such cases are increasing at
alarming rates.
Pankaj Oudhia
Dear jatropha group
here are some articles about how biofuels are being
promoted in Indonesia (1), by the EU, US (5, scroll
down), Uganda, where forest/national parks are being
cealr-felled, and Brazil (last), where an article has
appeared in the UK's Guardian saying they are no
challenge for the environment!! The G is normally a
good paper, but recently has also carried some
extremely distorting articles on India by its Delhi
correspondent, basically blaiming Maoists for holding
up India's development!
But NOTE that the article on China (5) points out
there's worry there, realising (as an article recently
by Fidel Castro pointed out), that devoting land for
biofuels when hunger's a problem for large parts of
the population is very dangerous.
Again - do people have any info about similar
promotion of jatropha etc in India?
Best wishes
Felix
________________________________________________________________________________\
____Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Jakarta, 30 May, 2007 (TEMPO Interactive) - Crude palm oil (CPO) producers
are to be obligated to set aside some of their products for domestic needs.
The domestic market obligation (DPO) policy will come into effect as from
June 1, 2007.
"The DPO implementation is a mandate of the State Decree on Plantations,"
said Anton Apriyantono, Agriculture Minister, after accepting bird flu
vaccine aid from Chinese government at the Agriculture Department building,
Jakarta, yesterday (29/5).
"(The implementation provision) is the Agriculture Minister Decision for a
start," he said
Anton explained that for the time being, the DMO policy was being
implemented in order to fulfil domestic cooking oil needs because cooking
oil is one of the nine staple household goods.
Therefore, CPO stocks are prioritized for domestic needs.
"It's unfortunate (for producers) if the price abroad is high, but we limit
it here," said Anton.
On the other side, in order to secure domestic stocks, the government cannot
determine the price.
"We still leave the price to the market mechanism," said Anton.
Regarding the CPO quota per producer, he went on to say it will be
determined later with the Industry and Trade Departments.
"It can't be set by us alone," said Anton
What is certain is the minimum limit being calculated based on the company's
tax payment and amount shipped abroad.
Anton said that the DMO policy is effective even for companies associated
with Malaysia.
Fahmi Idris, the Industry Minister, instead stated that the DMO policy for
fulfilling domestic palm oil need will be effective by the end of the month.
He explained domestic CPO needs reach 4.5 million tons per year.
"So the obligation (DMO) amount is between 4.5 million to 5 million tons per
year," he said, on Monday (28/5) at the Vice President's office, Jakarta.
Irregular USDA's environmental assessment uses confidential
business information liberally and frivolously and violates
its own regulation if not federal law Prof. Joe Cummins and
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Irregularities at USDA
----------------------
USDA/APHIS has prepared an
environmental assessment [1] i n response to a permit
application (APHIS Number 06-325-111r) from ArborGen LLC
(ArborGen) to "continue" a field test of genetically
engineered (transgenic) Eucalyptus trees during which the
trees may flower. These plants are clones codenamed EH1
derived from a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus
urophylla, and have been genetically engineered with three
different constructs. The primary purpose of the test is to
examine the efficacy two of the constructs intended to
confer cold tolerance, and a gene designed to reduce flower
development.
There are serious irregularities with the USDA/APHIS
environmental risk assessment [1].
First, the genes in all three constructs are claimed as
confidential business information (CBI). In addition, the
selectable marker gene that accompanies the constructs is
also claimed as CBI.
Second, according to APHIS, the field test was originally
planted under APHIS Notification (05-256-03r) [2], but that
permit was for a different organism - Eucalyptus grandis -
not the hybrid in the current application 06-325-111r.
Third, ArborGen was charged with non-compliance on 17 July
2006 for failing to maintain the identity of trees in their
test plots and the infraction was resolved by the removal of
the offending trees from the test location [3].
Because APHIS has allowed the transgenes to be designated
CBI, the environmental assessment can have no credence
because there is no way that an independent investigator can
judge the assurances given in the APHIS report. The report
stated [1]: "The gene used as a selectable marker is claimed
as CBI. In a number of instances, plants transformed with
this gene have been deregulated by APHIS. Consequently,
APHIS has determined the presence of this gene will have no
significant environmental impacts." If the marker is a
deregulated item, allowing it to be designated CBI seems
both frivolous and irregular.
The fact that USDA/APHIS is now giving approval for a
previous charge of non-compliance is a clear violation of
its own regulation, if not federal law.
The environmental assessment
claims that the GM hybrids did not contain genes for toxins.
However, a patent application by ArborGen for regulationof
reproduction in Angiosperms and Gymnosperm plants does
employ the potent cell toxin barnase for cell ablation [4].
The well known toxicity of barnase to mammals as used in
cell ablation to control flowering has been discussed [5, 6]
( Terminator Trees , SiS 26; Chronicle of An Ecological
Disaster Foretold , SiS 18). The use of that toxin gene may
have been covered up by the CBI designation. ArborGen has a
number of patent for modification of gene expression [7-12],
all of which pose a significant threat to the environment
which has not previously been subject to regulatory
scrutiny. but CBI designation provided by APHIS will prevent
independent scrutiny and assessment. The various known
complication resulting from the use of transgenes similar to
those available for use by ArborGen were recently reviewed
[13, 14] ( View from MADS House , SiS 26); GM Food Nightmare
Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham , ISIS scientific
publication).
Federal Courts in the US have ruled against the Department
of Agriculture (USDA) in three successive cases for failing
to carry out proper environment impact assessment, making
the original approvals of GM crops illegal. In all three
cases, USDA was found to have flouted the law and
disregarded health and environmental concerns in their
approvals of the GM crops [15]. As we pointed out, the
failure to identify the locations and the exact nature of GM
crops being tested must also be addressed along with the
frivolous use of Confidential Business Information
designations to conceal crucial information for safety
evaluation and the persistent regulatory bias towards the
uncritical acceptance of GM crops.
The current application for GM eucalyptus trees must be
rejected. Furthermore, a ban on further spread of GM forest
trees should be imposed [16].
========================================================
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
If you like this original article from the Institute of
Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving
articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation
or purchase on our website
ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation
dedicated to providing critical public information on
cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability
and ecological sustainability in science.
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM
WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION, PLEASE
CONTACT ISIS at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/contact2.php
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 30/05/2007
15:03
The EU's agrofuel folly: policy capture by corporate interests
Despite growing public concern about the social and environmental
risks associated to agrofuels (more frequently referred to as
biofuels) and their problematic climate impacts, the European Union
is throwing its weight behind the promotion of these often very
harmful crops. In March 2007, the European Commission proposed
targets to increase the use of agrofuels in all road transport fuel
to 10 percent by 2020. The Commission is also planning to channel
large amounts of EU funds towards the research & development to boost
the use of agrofuels.
A new CEO report uncovers how the EU?s promotion of agrofuels has
been heavily influenced by corporate interests, including car
manufacturers, biotech companies and the oil industry. On the
invitation of the European Commission, these industries have steered
EU policy on agrofuels through industry-dominated advisory bodies
such as the Advisory Research Council for Biofuels (BIOFRAC) and
the European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBFTP).
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - A thousand rare black-mane lions -- an Ethiopian
national symbol -- and some 300 elephants are in danger after a swathe of
forest that was part of their sanctuary was cut down, a wildlife expert said
on Thursday.
The land was cleared from a designated conservation area at Midiga Tola,
adjacent to the Babile Elephant Sanctuary located 557 km (346 miles) east of
Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Wildlife Association President Yirmed Demeke said.
Flora EcoPower Holding AG, a German biodiesel producer, cleared the forest
after it was granted 10,000 hectares of land, Yirmed said.
"The company has continued to clear the forested land without any concern
for the wild anmials threatened by the destruction of an internationally
recognized conservation area," Yirmed said.
Munich-based Flora EcoPower's chief operations officer for Ethiopia said the
company met wildlife experts and government officials over the past few days
to solve the problem.
"We are not touching one area where there are elephants," said Alon Hovev,
adding that the area they were working in was 30 km from the elephants'
habitat.
The problem, he said, arose from a lack of communication between the company
and conservation groups, which had been solved by the meetings.
"No one can tell us we are not taking care of animals. Anything they will
tell us to do, we will do and we will contribute money," he said.
Continued... <javascript:goToPage(2);>
End: Story Text
Wildlife experts who visited the forest lodged protests with the regional
and federal governments, saying the company had not conducted the legally
required environmental impact assessment before cutting the forest down.
Tadesse Hailu, head of the Ministry of Agriculture's Wildlife Protection
Department, said local authorities must make sure that investment does not
harm conservation areas, wildlife or the environment.
The 7,000 square-kilometer (4,350 square mile) sanctuary is the only one of
its kind in Ethiopia, and is home to about 300 elephants, 1,000 black-mane
lions and 250 bird and plant species endemic to the Horn of Africa nation.
The black-mane lions are revered as a national symbol in Ethiopia, where
they are on the national currency and are often depicted in statues.
Beijing - Ethanol production has put the Chinese government in an unpleasant
bind, as fears rise that the environmentally friendly gasoline additive is
also fueling politically dangerous increases in the price of food -
particularly pork, a key staple.
With the ethanol industry gobbling up a growing share of China's corn
harvest, authorities have stomped on the brakes to slow what one official
report calls "blind" investment in distilleries.
"China cannot sacrifice food security for energy: that seems to be the
majority view in the government now," says Zhang Zhongjun, deputy head of
the Beijing bureau of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO).
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao offered the latest sign of government concern when
he made a highly publicized visit last weekend to a piggery and a meat
market in Xi'an, about 750 miles southwest of Beijing. The price of pork has
gone up by 29 percent over the past year and the price of live pigs by 71
percent, according to the Agriculture Ministry.
In a country where people eat more pork than anywhere else in the world
except Germany, that jump in the price of a staple has dominated recent
headlines and sparked grumbling.
"The government is going all out to ensure the supply of pork and keep it
affordable," Mr. Wen reassured a supermarket crowd, according to the Xinhua
state news agency.
"The Chinese government is very sensitive to this," says Hu Xingdou, a
political analyst at the Beijing Institute of Technology. "They are afraid
that rising prices will affect social stability. They have not forgotten
that inflation was an important reason for people to get involved in the
events of 1989," when students led massive protests in Tiananmen Square.
Industry analysts blame the price rises partly on a shortage of pigs in the
wake of outbreaks of "blue-ear disease" around China.
Though the authorities have publicly admitted to only 300 deaths, they have
privately reported 100,000 mortalities to international agencies, and even
that figure is not credible, say experts.
"Several million pigs may have died, we just don't know," says one
international expert familiar with the situation. Chinese farmers raised 465
million pigs last year.
At the root of the problem, though, say agriculture analysts, is the rising
cost of pig feed, which is comprised mostly of corn. Despite a bumper crop
last year, corn prices have risen by nearly 30 percent over the past nine
months on the Dalian Commodities Exchange.
That, says Luo Yunbo, head of the food-science department at China
Agriculture University, is because "corn is being sought for industrial
purposes, such as ethanol, not just agricultural use."
Pushback on ethanol
Ethanol has been trumpeted as the alternative fuel of the future, offering
cleaner energy and new opportunities for farmers in developing countries.
(Photograph)
Pricey pork: Chinese premier Wen Jiabao (c.) raised attention to China's
soaring pork prices with a visit last weekend to Xi'an, about 750 miles
southwest of Beijing.
Yao Dawei/Xinhua/Reuters
China's current Five Year Plan sets the goal of using biofuels for 15
per-cent of the country's transport needs by 2020; already gas stations in a
number of provinces mix 10 percent ethanol into the gasoline they sell.
But critics around the world have recently begun to question the
unconsidered effects of large-scale ethanol production, such as increasing
competition for human or animal food supplies. And in China, where an
estimated 30 million people died in a famine less than 50 years ago, many
have reservations about using food for fuel.
As ethanol factories large and small have sprung up in China's corn
producing regions in recent years, they have begun to compete with
animal-feed manufacturers for raw materials.
The industrial use of corn nearly doubled between 2001 and 2005, to 23
million tons, according to a study released last December by the National
Development and Reform Committee, China's chief economic planning agency.
That represented 16.5 percent of the corn harvest in 2005.
The result, said the report, is a shortage of corn. "Corn supplies to the
processing industry compete with supply for [animal] feed, which impacts the
development of stock-breeding."
The proportion of China's corn crop used for nonfood purposes is dwarfed by
the 30 percent of American corn that goes into ethanol, and Chinese ethanol
production - estimated at 3.7 million tons by the Louisiana State University
Agriculture Center in 2005 - was a quarter of US levels.
But "China is different," argues the FAO's Mr. Zhang. "America and Brazil
have huge land areas and plenty of water," he points out. "China has
shortages of water and arable land, and it is a deficit country," importing
more grain than it exports.
Debate in China picking up speed
In the ongoing debate among Chinese leaders and scholars about the value of
ethanol and biofuels, "more and more people think that China's potential is
not so big, that China cannot use food for fuel because food security is
more important than energy and because food is politically very important,"
Zhang says.
Such arguments convinced the government to slap new controls on the
corn-processing industry late last December, suspending all investment
projects still in the pipeline and insisting that all future ethanol
projects should apply for approval from state planning agencies.
The continuing rise in corn prices since the beginning of this year suggests
that the central government is having its usual difficulty in controlling
developments in China's provinces. But the crisis has not deterred the
authorities from pursuing other ethanol distilling projects and biofuel
experiments.
A state-owned grain and oils conglomerate will launch a pilot project later
this year to process cassava - a starchy tuber that is not considered a food
in China - into ethanol. Plans are also under way to plant tens of thousands
of acres of jatropha - also inedible and grown in wastelands - by the end of
the decade.
One principle must rule the development of China's alternative fuel
industry, the National Development and Reform Committee insists: "a
guarantee that foodgrains are not the main source" of its raw materials.
WASHINGTON, May 31 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John
Edwards on Thursday unveiled an energy proposal that rivals plans by fellow
candidates in the race toward boosting the use of ethanol in the United
States.
At a campaign appearance in California, Edwards said he would force oil
companies to install ethanol pumps at a quarter of their service stations
and require automakers to build cars that can run on biofuels.
Edwards' plan to boost the use of ethanol, currently made mostly in the
United States from corn, should appeal to voting farmers in Iowa, which next
January holds the first state caucus of the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
He wants cars built after 2010 to be "flex fuel" vehicles that use either
gasoline or biofuels, like ethanol.
Edwards wants oil companies to make ethanol supplies more widely available.
About 1,200 service stations, located mainly in the Midwest, out of about
180,000 stations nationwide now sell E85 fuel that contains 85 percent
ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.
RIVAL PLANS
Presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, are touting the benefits
of ethanol in their campaigns.
Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama also backs more ethanol use and supported
giving service station owners tax credits to cover 30 percent of the cost of
switching traditional gasoline pumps to E85 fuel.
It can cost $20,000 to $200,000 to install an E85 pump and tank equipment,
according to the American Petroleum Institute.
Under Edwards' energy initiative, U.S. consumption of ethanol would soar to
65 billion gallons a year by 2025.
That amount of ethanol is far more than what farming experts say can be
produced solely from the U.S. corn crop. Ethanol output above about 15
billion gallons a year would require the fuel to be made from cellulosic
sources, such as corn stalks, switch grass, wood chips and other
agricultural and forest waste.
But the science is still not there yet to make cellulosic ethanol cheaper
than corn-based ethanol.
To help reach that goal, Edwards would create a $13 billion fund to develop
new energy sources. The money would come from selling greenhouse gas
pollution permits as part of his plan to cut global warming emissions by 80
percent by 2050 and repealing federal subsidies for oil companies.
Competing presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking a much
bigger $50 billion strategic energy research fund for ethanol and other
energy sources that would be paid for by requiring oil companies to invest
in renewable energy or put money in the fund. She would also end Big Oil tax
breaks.
In an effort to cut America's foreign oil addiction, Edwards wants to lower
U.S. oil imports by 7.5 million barrels a day by 2025, which would equal
almost a third of projected U.S. oil demand at that time.
Energy experts say the most efficient way to do that would be to raise
vehicle fuel economy standards, because gasoline use accounts for about 45
percent of U.S. daily oil demand.
Edwards' energy plan would require cars to get 40 miles per gallon by 2016
and provide automakers $1 billion a year to modernize their plants with the
latest technology to produce the fuel efficient vehicles.
For the short-term, the former North Carolina U.S. senator also wants the
Justice Department to investigate the impact of giant oil company mergers on
record high gasoline prices.
The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on <http://www.ipcc.ch/> Climate Change (IPCC) underscore an enormous challenge facing the planet earth: how to reconcile the wellbeing of the world's six billion inhabitants with the growing threat to the global environment. The IPCC reports convey a clear and dramatic warning about the downside to modernity and industrialisation. Clearly, we can no longer remain indifferent to the impact of climate change on human communities and the biosphere.
Harmonising economic growth and environmental protection is particularly challenging to poor countries, which are most vulnerable to the impact of global warming. Energy conservation and, most importantly, the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, are key elements in the growing international endeavour to reduce climate change.
We all have responsibilities in this global initiative, but they must be differentiated. Developing countries cannot be expected to share an equal burden in offsetting the environmental impacts mostly caused by richer countries, currently still responsible for 65% of overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Brazil does not wish to shy away from its responsibilities. Our energy matrix is 45% renewable, against a worldwide average of 14%. We are dramatically reducing the pace of deforestation - there has been a 52% decrease since 2003.
However, Brazil is determined to be even more ambitious. We have been reducing our greenhouse gases emissions for over 30 years by substituting fossil fuels with sugarcane-based ethanol <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel> . This has led to a dramatic fall in domestic petroleum consumption and pollution. Vehicles currently topping sales in Brazil are "flex-fuel", which means that they can run on petrol, ethanol or any combination of the two.
Certain myths about biofuels must be put to rest. Ethanol use does not threaten the environment. Neither does sugarcane cause damage to rainforests, for it grows poorly in Amazonian soil. Sugarcane does, however, help to recover degraded pasture lands elsewhere in the country, which can then be brought back into agricultural use.
Brazil has 320 million hectares of arable land, of which only a fifth is under plough. Out of this fraction, less than 4% are used for sugarcane-derived ethanol production. Decades of research have made Brazilian sugarcane the most efficient raw material for producing ethanol; it is five times more productive than sugar beet and maize, its main European and American competitors. As a result, ethanol production is expected to increase from the current 18 billion litres per year to 26 billion by 2010, with only a modest increase in land usage.
Nobody need go hungry for lack of food in the world. Global supplies are more than sufficient to feed us all. It is rather the lack of income that prevents a billion men and women from having adequate access to three square meals a day. Unfortunately this is one fundamental human right still not observed universally.
Identifying renewable energy sources is only half of the global challenge. We need to generate employment opportunities and income for small farmers instead of pushing them into urban ghettos. It is worthwhile noting that the sugarcane business in Brazil earns US$ 8 billion a year and generates a million direct jobs.
Brazil's bio-diesel programme, based on oil seeds such as castor and sunflower, is equally impressive. These crops produce clean energy, absorb carbon monoxide and are highly labour intensive: for each mill worker, another thousand are required for harvesting.
The setting up of rigorous national biofuel certification systems, possibly within the framework of multilateral agreements, will ensure the necessary oversight to enforce adequate environmental and labour standards in the biofuels industry. A balance between small family farms and large-scale plantations is also within reach, as provided for by Brazilian legislation.
Brazil is open to requests for technical cooperation in biofuels production and marketing. Mozambique is launching an ethanol programme thanks to the alliance of Brazilian expertise and British funding. We can easily replicate this initiative in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa.
With a view to making biofuels a truly global energy alternative, we are bringing together major biofuel producers and consumers to set joint production goals and agree on common technical standards. Biofuels can help deal with global environmental threats as well as rising fuel prices. Above all, they offer to poor countries the hope of steady economic growth, without putting in jeopardy poverty alleviation and environmental protection policies. The global community would also stand to benefit from the ensuing reduction in political instability, social unrest and unmanageable migration in many poorer countries.
However, this revolution will only come about if ethanol and biodiesel are freely traded internationally as energy commodities. In order to make Brazil's biofuels model widely available, rich countries must open up their markets to developing countries by eliminating agricultural subsidies and other protectionist barriers to biofuels imports.
As Brazil's experience shows, biofuels offer an exciting possibility of combining energy security with social and environmental benefits. The proposal that we are putting forward offers an excellent example of how to apply fairly and effectively the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities to sustainable development.
I wonder if Conor Foley wrote this.
I would love to have a response here from the PM, Mr Bush, and say thehead of BP, Exxon et al plus a couple of agriculturam scientists.
For the poor idiot public of which I am a humble representative, we need a broad rage of interested inputs. Otherwise we will be forced to believe or disbelieve the media coverage of the subject without any way of formulating a proper opinion.
So bad it is.
President Lula , I was a bit disillusioned by your willingness to collaborate with multinational giants which keep on exploiting global resources while destroying the environment. I guess this is called realpolitik. But I am ready to forgive, if I see real changes in other areas.
On the home front, we need to know what has been achieved under your mandate in protecting the Amazonian rainforest from further deforestation.
I believe this could be the greatest contribution you can make to save the planet.
"In order to make Brazil's biofuels model widely available, rich countries must open up their markets to developing countries by eliminating agricultural subsidies and other protectionist barriers to biofuels imports."
Why just stop at biofuel imports?
Globalisation, its a wonderfull thing.
I'm surprised that we so under exploit the solar energy that falls on the 70% of the Earth's surface that is covered by water. It seems to be the one area where there is little research.
"Biofuels can help deal with global environmental threats as well as rising fuel prices. Above all, they offer to poor countries the hope of steady economic growth, without putting in jeopardy poverty alleviation and environmental protection policies. "
To quote G Monbiot
"In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter �containing 44�10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet�s current biota.�(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries� worth of plants and animals."
Meanwhile our use of fuels for transport etc increases every year by several percent, as China and India (and Brazil for that matter) take off demand will increase further. Therefore there is no way that biofuels will ever affect fuel prices because they will never be able to significantly replace petroleum.
Also, as your biodisel industtry takes off so will deforestation and the increase in the use of land for producing the carbon, this is inevitable, if biodisel production is profitable it will expand, Malaysian biofuel production has been one of the greatest contributors to deforestation there.
"In order to make Brazil's biofuels model widely available, rich countries must open up their markets to developing countries by eliminating agricultural subsidies and other protectionist barriers to biofuels imports."
There is much posturing on the left with regard to the Bush administration. To their (our) great discredit, there is a reflexive reaction by the American Right that essentially requires an instant defense of current U.S. policy. Nowhere is this so misguided as in how we regard trade policy with Latin America.
Lula is being polite: he's not naming names, but he's really talking about American farm subsidies, and American trade barriers to agricultural imports. He's being slightly disingenuous in linking biofuels with the question of agricultural subsidies--what Brazil really wants is for the U.S. to eliminate subsidies and other trade barriers that prevent the importation of farm commodities, particularly sugar, from South America.
Current farm policy in the U.S. is to talk about free trade and globalization--but to effectively block many foreign farm products. The U.S. is hardly alone in this (consider the E.U.'s problems with French farm subsidies)--but just because the French are equally bad on the subject is not a reason to declare the policy good. The Bush administration plan is not that different from the Clinton administration plan--both administrations looked at the political might of the sugar cane lobby and blinked. It was a fight they (and no other administration since Reagan's) did not want to take on.
And that's wrong. Because precisely what is so good about America--and precisely what alienates the we're-your-betters elites of Europe--is the idea of America as a moral concept, not just a set of boundaries. We should be that shining city on a hill (Reagan, and Lincoln); that bastion of freedom (Kennedy); that refuge for the huddled masses of (Europe's) fetid shores (the Statue of Liberty); that neighbor who lends a hand, without thought to the cost (Roosevelt). That means doing the right thing--even if that has some cost to it.
And the right thing to do, here, is to agree with Lula. We are harming the American consumer, we are harming our neighbors in Latin America, we are harming our place and stature in the world by holding on to trade barriers that only serve to line the pockets of a small number of the politically influential elite. We do better for the world--and ultimately, better for ourselves--by opening our markets to farm products from Latin America, whether biofuels, sugar, wheat, or anything else. (Well, perhaps not cocaine or cannibis.) A healthy, liquid, expanding economy in Brazil is the best argument against the nationalize/socialize nonsense of Hugo Chavez. Economic development in Brazil--and all across Latin America--is a good, good thing.
Years ago we faced the same issue over orange juice, and fresh flowers. Guess what? Imports of Brazilian orange juice in the early 1980s didn't destroy the Florida citrus industry. It permitted grocery stores to stock low-cost orange juice year 'round: creating a significantly larger marketplace for the product. Fresh flowers? Who would have thought that an entire industry would develop around the importation and distribution of fresh flowers from Brazil? Cheaply enough that my wife keeps fresh flowers throughout our little house throughout the year.
Alas, there's a problem: the American political process places too much emphasis on Iowa in the presidential race--and every candidate for president knows that you can only promise ever more ridiculous support for "farm support" and ethanol to Iowa voters. Back away from the vote-whoring position later in the race, and your opponents accuse you of "flip-flopping"--even if that means changing your mind when persuaded that your earlier position was really dumb.
We should agree with Lula--we should do the right thing, even if it is not politically expedient. I don't see a candidate on the horizon--not on the right (perhaps Fred Thompson, but who knows?), certainly not on the left--who has anything like the courage to do this.
Worried,
Lula can not write English. Portuguese is enough for us Brazilians. He is the President of BRASIL, not the USA.
-------------------------------------------------------
Presidente Lula,
Votei no senhor nas 4 �ltimas elei�oes presidenciais e compreendo os limites constitucionais em ser Presidente do Brasil, particularmente apos as piratisacoes - ou "privatizacoes" de FHC, o sociologo de Jacana nos anos 90 - ou "privatizacoes", como a media golpista do Brasil batisou a roubalheira, em ter que lidar com o congresso de 300 picaretas que os brasileiros ingenuamente elegeram e ainda mais com o nosso judiciario infestado de juizes "Lalaus".
Nao mudei meu voto. A m�dia do Brasil continua tentando aplicar seus golpes, mas nos conhecemos a nossa midia golpista de 1964.
Da-lhe Lula l� ! 60% dos brasileiros est�o ao seu lado.
Valeu Presidente Lula, isso e que e pernambucano, isso e que e brasileiro.
Faz o que da e se contenta com o que nao da para fazer, considerando as circuntancias REAIS do Brasil e do mundo.
Vai re-eleger seu sucessor, com o meu voto, Presidente Lula.
O projeto etanol tem que ser bem gerenciado, o Sr sabe o que pode fazer na vida REAL e n�o na utopia, pelos mais necessitados do Brasil e do mundo e colocar o Brasil no lugar que nos cabe: lider pac�fico no mundo em termos ambientais e sociais.
O Sr sabe, ja sofreu na propria pele a injustica da pobreza extrema e do abandono.
Manda bem, Lula!
(Paciencia com os ratos de Bras�lia, do resto do Brasil e do mundo)
------------------------------------------------
President Lula,
I voted for you on the last 4 presidential elections and understand the constitutional limits of being President of Brazil, particularly after the piratisations -or "privatisations" of FHC, the sociologist of Jacana, in the 90�s - as the "coup detat media" of Brazil baptised the robbery, when dealing with our congress of 300 thieves Brazilians ingenuosly elected, let alone our judiciary of so many "Lalau"(thief)judges.
I have not changed my vote, the "coup detat" media tries hard, but we have known them since 1964.
Right on Lula ! 60& of Brazilians back you.
Thank you Lula, thats a real "Pernambucan", thats a real Brazilian.
You do what you are able to and stop ranting about what can not be achieved, considering the worlds and Brazils REAL circumstances.
You will apoint and re-elect our next president, with my vote.
The ethanol project must be well managed, you know what can be done in REAL life and not in utopia, for those who are most in need in Brazil and overseas and place Brazil in its rightfull place: a peaceful world leader in social and environmental problems.
You have known it yourself, what it is to be confronted to the injustice of extreme poverty and exclusion.
Right on, Lula !
(Patience with the rats in Brasilia, elsewhere in Brazil and overseas...)
Sugarcane ethanol has not proved an environmenal disaster in Brazil and as I am sure you know, sugarcane is grown far from the Amazon and has not even encroached on the other, Atlantic, rainforest.
Biodiesel could be another matter. The government has been promoting palm and castor as biodiesel sources, but at the moment most of it still comes from soy, albeit from small-scale farmers.
Bibamejico: I understand the concern, but a million jobs in ethanol production is more than mere flex-fuel baubles for the rich (and middle and upper working class), and it also means jobs in car assembly. There are some serious questions related to working conditions in sugarcane plantations (some cases of semi-slave labour and some deaths from overwork over the past two years), which Lula has been addressing recently.
56000xp: Monbiot is plain wrong about biofuels never being able to significantly replace oil - they already do in Brazil from a fraction of useable land. Underused land in Africa is also being set aside. Lula mentioned Mozambique, but Petrobras also has projects in the troubled Niger Delta and technology is being exported to India, Vietnam and so forth.
Oil is running out and there will have to be alternatives to stop the global economy crashing. Biofuels are very important, even if largely as an arbitrage tool to contain extreme oil price fluctuations in the medium term.
Just because biofuels are nominally feasible in Brazil, it doesn't follow that they make any sense whatsoever anywhere else in the world.
Brazil is able to maintain a biofuels industry because it has a huge landmass and its population is (on average) very poor. The effect of mandating the use of biofuels in the western world would be to send world food prices soaring as third world countries compete to grow fuel crops for us, resulting in more poverty and famine for the poor buggers.
Let us run the numbers.
Current oil usage is 82.59 million bbl/day
1 barrel of oil is approx. 6.1 GJ
Total is 506 million GJ
6.1 GJ = 0.37 Tons of sucrose
So replacing oil with sucrose requires 30 million tons of sucrose per day or 11.15 billion tons per year. Present production is 114.3 million tons, or 1% of present energy demand.
In the best laboratory conditions 200 grams of sucrose gives 95 grams of ethanol, so if sucrose is converted to ethanol, we presently produce less than 0.5% of our needs.
Total large scale food production.
Corn Acreage: 87,000,000 acres
Production: 335 million tons (87 million for ethanol)
$132 per ton
Wheat Acreage: 60,000,000 acres
Production: 60 million tons
$160 per ton
Soybean Acreage: 70,500,000 acres
Production: 78 million tons
$260 per ton
In terms of energy these all come out to about Corn is about 13 GJ per ton, this means we would need to use 11,700 million tons of food to replace oil.
Biofuels are one amongst many other alternatives for energy, like solar energy, tidal force, eolic technology, for electric cars would help out Australia a lot.
What do you propose instead ? Burning coal as it is in Australia today, one of the greatest polluters per capita in the planet, due to coal ?
Lula offers one alternative amongst many others to be welcome as well.
YOu could also remember, the Australian government is side by side of Brazil , "The group of Cairns", ever heard of it ?
It�s about opening the markets of EU/USA/Japan for imports of agricultural produce of the southern countries, Africa, South America and mind you, Oz included, mate !
You won't get any arguments from me regarding free and fair trade - however, with respect to current biofuels, the numbers simply do not add up.
The growing of crops for sugars to be fermented into alcohol will never be viable as a replacement for fossil fuels in the western world (and developing countries such as India and China). The numbers will never add up as they are orders of magnitude from being feasible.
Any attempt to use human food crops to replace fossil fuels will ultimately fail and will only result in higher food prices and starvation in the mean time.
If an efficient process for converting cellulose biomass into methanol or ethanol could be developed, it would be more likely to be feasible and would have a lower chance of competing with food production. However, it would need to be very efficient to be feasible.
Personally, I've always been a fan of geothermal energy. Dig a hole deep enough anywhere on the surface of the planet and it's hot enough boil water for steam turbines. Sure, it's a lot more complicated than simply digging a hole, but common sense dictates that it's got to be easier than building nuclear fusion reactors. I'm a biologist - are there any geologists or nuclear physicists that would care to comment?
"However, it would need to be very efficient to be feasible"
It is indeed VERY efficient, the cost of a litter of ethanol of Brazilian sugar cane is minimal compared to other alternatives. The technology developed in Brazil for such purpose is unmatched.
biba100mejico
June 1, 2007 4:48 AM
True, Lula inherited the word�s 3rd worst ditribution if income in the planet. The process has been reversed though. AS a matter of fact, Lula�s program "Bolsa Familia" which helps 11 million families mostly in the empoverished Brazilian Northeast was what got him re-elected, in addition to a purchasing buying power of a minimum wage that has grown above the inflation since the beginning of his government.
If you look carefully, Brazils minimum wage amounted to USD60.- when Lula arrived. Today it is at USD 200.-, the buying power of the poor and their share in the country�s wealth has risen for the first time as far as I can remember. Brazilians are not dyeing to crosss the border to the USA, as in Mexico. The country�s foreign reserve reserves are abovo 110 billion USD, the IMF has been paid, the country is expected to reach investment grade by agencies like Moody and Fitch before the end of this year.
The country risk was at 2400 at the beginning of lulas first mandate down to 140, an all time record low.
Brazil has reached a trillion dollar GDP, with better division of the income internally, those are facts.
That is why Lula was re-elected.
The empoverished northeast of the country is booming with new investments. The Bovespa stock index is at an all time high. The fundamentals of Brazil�s economy today are solid.
There is more to be done and he is doing it, quietly, although you might not know, but we Brazilians do.
Europeans are now abounding trying to migrate to Brazil and get their permanent visas, trying to marry Brazilians in order to stay here.
Guess who has just proposed a "strategic alliance" and wil meet Lula just before G-8 meeting soon ?
Recently elected French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Bush has just visited too. Angie Merkel is also engaging with Brazil. They surely have interests.
What is a risk to the Amazon is the logging then cattle then soy frontier booming in the south of the Amazon, the US dept of currently agriculture recommends buying land there. China will buy all the soy. US/EU all the wood but no worries about deforestation, 98% of Amazonas state, the largest in Brazil remains untouched.
It is only the highlands north of Mato grosso and Tocantins state and the south of Par� state which are affected.
True, Rondonia state, rather small has been almost devastated for agriculture, but well, how will the chinese get fed ? With mexican agricultural products ?
Brazil has got a lot coming for it. Small wonder the term BRIC... Brazil, Russia(oil and gas), India(you name it),China(you name it).
Brazil�s economy is number 10 in the world and within 5 years it will overtake Italy and France.
With a diversified economy, sophisticated finacial markets, stable institutions, a democracy with no ethnic/religious tensions like India, no sigle party rule as China and improving living conditions for a majourity which had for long been over-looked before Lula and which re-elected Lula for this reason. Their living conditions have improved considerably and the NE is booming, growing above the industrialised South of the country.
And no civil wars as in Mexico, no great regional disparities like Oaxaca and Monterey. No dependence on the USA as Mexico which has 80% of its trade with its master.
It is leading South America to a new era. Time will tell you and we hope Mexico finds a leader like Lula.
There is still a lot be done and it is getting done. 5 centuries old troubles can not be overcome in 5 years, but the country is in the right direction with a growing, stronger voice in world affairs.
BRIC was coined for no favour for the concerned countries.
In 10 years you are likely to remember this comment.
True, we have some resources which are getting scarce in the planet, like 1/3 of its fresh water reserves and abundant land, no need to destroy the entire Amazon, just develop what�s needed to put the country at its due position as a leader in the world, regardless of the lack of information about it.
Brazil is coming, whether people know it or not, get used to it. Time to learn some Portuguese.
Boa sorte ao Mexico e Australia....
Good luck to Mexico and Oz, specially to Australia, The Murray/Darling basin is suffering serious drought problems, as Mr Howard said, let�s "pray" for rain or no water for irrigation, let alone swimming pools in the North shore of Sydney or Woolahra....
"However, it would need to be very efficient to be feasible"
It is indeed VERY efficient, the cost of a litter of ethanol of Brazilian sugar cane is minimal compared to other alternatives. The technology developed in Brazil for such purpose is unmatched.
biba100mejico
June 1, 2007 4:48 AM
True, Lula inherited the word�s 3rd worst ditribution if income in the planet. The process has been reversed though. AS a matter of fact, Lula�s program "Bolsa Familia" which helps 11 million families mostly in the empoverished Brazilian Northeast was what got him re-elected, in addition to a purchasing buying power of a minimum wage that has grown above the inflation since the beginning of his government.
If you look carefully, Brazils minimum wage amounted to USD60.- when Lula arrived. Today it is at USD 200.-, the buying power of the poor and their share in the country�s wealth has risen for the first time as far as I can remember. Brazilians are not dyeing to crosss the border to the USA, as in Mexico. The country�s foreign reserve reserves are abovo 110 billion USD, the IMF has been paid, the country is expected to reach investment grade by agencies like Moody and Fitch before the end of this year.
The country risk was at 2400 at the beginning of lulas first mandate down to 140, an all time record low.
Brazil has reached a trillion dollar GDP, with better division of the income internally, those are facts.
That is why Lula was re-elected.
The empoverished northeast of the country is booming with new investments. The Bovespa stock index is at an all time high. The fundamentals of Brazil�s economy today are solid.
There is more to be done and he is doing it, quietly, although you might not know, but we Brazilians do.
Europeans are now abounding trying to migrate to Brazil and get their permanent visas, trying to marry Brazilians in order to stay here.
Guess who has just proposed a "strategic alliance" and wil meet Lula just before G-8 meeting soon ?
Recently elected French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Bush has just visited too. Angie Merkel is also engaging with Brazil. They surely have interests.
What is a risk to the Amazon is the logging then cattle then soy frontier booming in the south of the Amazon, the US dept of currently agriculture recommends buying land there. China will buy all the soy. US/EU all the wood but no worries about deforestation, 98% of Amazonas state, the largest in Brazil remains untouched.
It is only the highlands north of Mato grosso and Tocantins state and the south of Par� state which are affected.
True, Rondonia state, rather small has been almost devastated for agriculture, but well, how will the chinese get fed ? With mexican agricultural products ?
Brazil has got a lot coming for it. Small wonder the term BRIC... Brazil, Russia(oil and gas), India(you name it),China(you name it).
Brazil�s economy is number 10 in the world and within 5 years it will overtake Italy and France.
With a diversified economy, sophisticated finacial markets, stable institutions, a democracy with no ethnic/religious tensions like India, no sigle party rule as China and improving living conditions for a majourity which had for long been over-looked before Lula and which re-elected Lula for this reason. Their living conditions have improved considerably and the NE is booming, growing above the industrialised South of the country.
And no civil wars as in Mexico, no great regional disparities like Oaxaca and Monterey. No dependence on the USA as Mexico which has 80% of its trade with its master.
It is leading South America to a new era. Time will tell you and we hope Mexico finds a leader like Lula.
There is still a lot be done and it is getting done. 5 centuries old troubles can not be overcome in 5 years, but the country is in the right direction with a growing, stronger voice in world affairs.
BRIC was coined for no favour for the concerned countries.
In 10 years you are likely to remember this comment.
True, we have some resources which are getting scarce in the planet, like 1/3 of its fresh water reserves and abundant land, no need to destroy the entire Amazon, just develop what�s needed to put the country at its due position as a leader in the world, regardless of the lack of information about it.
Brazil is coming, whether people know it or not, get used to it. Time to learn some Portuguese.
Boa sorte ao Mexico e Australia....
Good luck to Mexico and Oz, specially to Australia, The Murray/Darling basin is suffering serious drought problems, as Mr Howard said, let�s "pray" for rain or no water for irrigation, let alone swimming pools in the North shore of Sydney or Woolahra....
Brasil still currently uses nearly 10X as much crude oil as ethanol to drive its growing economy, but even this relatively small contribution won't be sustainable if Brasil's economy expands as predicted over the next 20 years.
The USA could just about meet its gasoline requirements if it diverted 100% of its agricultural capacity to corn for ethanol. Of course, if they did that, they would have to import 100% of their food from the third world, resulting in catastrophic famines.
Bioethanol from sugar will never be able to replace the 80-90 million barrels of oil used worldwide every day.
Bolivian gas pipelines are there already. Brazil plans 20 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. Hugo Chavez has plans for a gas pipeline down from the Orinoco basin down most of Brazil until Argentina and the "Banco del Sur" will be opened next june to finance it.
Not to mention the massive hydro-electrical power plans coming in the madeira River and a few other rivers leading to the Amazon.
True, the world has got an energy problem.
South America knows it and we have our solutions coming.
We can not fix the troubles of the rest of the planet alone, sorry for that.
But we definitely have our solutions in our continent.
Banco Del Sur will be opened in Asuncion, paraguay, then a major party for the Copa America, with our friend and neighbour, Mr Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
I can�t say much about North-american nor EU energy troubles, I guess they are loosing some wars already and Russia and China will have a strong voice in those affairs.
If our surplus can help out, so let�s trade it, countries have no friends, just "interests" as we well know, but, what has Australia got to offer Brazil, really?
Vegemite from the center of inteligent life in the universe, Wagga-Wagga ?
Let�s hope it rains in the Darling/Murrays basin, that is the "sensible" solution for Mr Howard... "praying"... or perhaps joining the USA in loosing wars for oil based on lies in the ME, how about it as a moral high ground for a self-appointed "lucky" desert with great surfing beaches?
Bolivian gas pipelines are there already. Brazil plans 20 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. Hugo Chavez has plans for a gas pipeline down from the Orinoco basin down most of Brazil until Argentina and the "Banco del Sur" will be opened next june to finance it.
Not to mention the massive hydro-electrical power plans coming in the madeira River and a few other rivers leading to the Amazon.
True, the world has got an energy problem.
South America knows it and we have our solutions coming.
We can not fix the troubles of the rest of the planet alone, sorry for that.
But we definitely have our solutions in our continent.
Banco Del Sur will be opened in Asuncion, Paraguay, then a major party for the Copa America, hosted by our friend and neighbour, Mr Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
I can�t say much about North-american nor EU energy troubles, I guess they are loosing some wars already and Russia and China will have a strong voice in those affairs.
Perhaps they will have to get used to less oil-hungry life-styles.
If our surplus can help out, so let�s trade it, countries have no friends, just "interests" as we all well know, but, what has Australia got to offer Brazil, really?
Vegemite from the center of inteligent life in the universe, Wagga-Wagga ?
Let�s hope it rains in the Darling/Murrays basin, that is the "sensible" solution for Mr Howard... "praying"... or perhaps joining the USA in loosing wars for oil based on lies in the ME, how about it as a moral high ground for a self-appointed "lucky" desert with great surfing beaches?
Mr Silva , you are in no position to lecture the rest of the planet. The Brazilian government has resided over the sickening destruction of the Amazon forest. And you have done nothing to curtail it. Also you have done nothing to hinder and stop the death squads which murder homeless children in Brazilian cites. Your government knows it is the police but you do nothing. And you allow logging companies and beer barrens to determine the future of the remaing forest. The planet would be a beter place if Brazil did not exist has a individual country. The Amazon should be place under UN protection and any logging companies who attempt to fell tress hould be prosecuted and jailed and UN rules. since the Brazilian government is a wretched entity. Mr Silve the money you have receieved from logging companies will never buy you peace.
"The planet would be a beter place if Brazil did not exist has a individual country. The Amazon should be place under UN protection and any logging companies who attempt to fell tress hould be prosecuted and jailed and UN rules. since the Brazilian government is a wretched entity"
Try Tony Blairs government and 700 k dead in Iraq based on lies, instead!
How much wildlife left in the tamed Uk as an example to set ?
When NY s placed under UN jurisdiction, or when the UK government pay compensations to the wretched lives of of the genocide of Iraqis 700 k dead and those kiled during the British Empire in India - how many dead , we�ll discuss the subject...
How about the compensation for Queens victoria glorious opium wars which changed the rice crops from india starving millions to death to addict a few more million amongst chinese in the 1800�s and finance the industrial revolution?
When the Uk stop burning more fossil fuel per person and the USA as well and compensate the rest of humanity for they have already done and carry on doing now, we�ll discuss OUR Amazon...
Bear in mind one thing: "A Amaz�nia � brasileira, como o Big Ben � ingl�s" (The Amazon is brazilian as the Big Ben is English)
When the British compensate what their empire has done to the rest of the planet, time to discuss OUR Brazilian Amazon, who�s to play the high moral ground ?
Whos to tell us what to do with OUR Amazon.
Brazil will do as it pleases with its land. Forget croodile rantings, mind your own country and millions dead from its empire.
Pay compensation for the oil burnt now in the UK, bring back its wildlife to a country fully tamed... then Brazilians will be ready to discuss OUR Amazon.
As that will not happen, get a life, THE AMAZON IS BRAZILIAN and we�ll do as we please with it as the UK has done as it pleased in the past with its land and invaded half the world to build what the UK is today.
Any compensation ?
Mind your own wildlife in the UK, is there any ? Bring it back then!
Of course, if you do the numbers, you realise that bio-fuels will hardly replace the amount of oil that is used today.
However, if you cut down the amount of oil used - better insulation, more fuel-efficient cars, less flying around for cheap holidays, low energy bulbs etc. etc - and produced more energy using wind, sun, wave and geotherm, then perhaps we can get a viable permanent energy system going.
As always, there is no ONE BIG solution, just a lot of small solutions - and this is one, a good one
The world is overpopulated and lacking enough food as it is, yet here we are trashing crops by turning them into biofuels no doubt encouraged by the agricultural lobby. The research also suggests that the production of biofuels outputs as much co2 as the fuels themselves save.
Why don't we try to develop and advance real sustainable energy sources instead of this pathetic robbing Peter to pay Paul approach to the twin problems of declining oil supplies and global warming.
The terrible forest burning in Malay/Indonesia +
Brazil etc isn't the same in India, but probably the
end result may be similar with monoculture replacing
indigenous species in forest/fields....
________________________________________________________________________________\
____Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
HONG KONG, May 31 (Reuters) - Biofuels are likely to speed up global
warming as they are encouraging farmers to burn tropical forests that
have absorbed a large portion of greenhouse gases, climate scientists
warned.
The specialists, who gathered for an international conference in Hong
Kong, rang the alarm bell as Malaysian palm oil futures prices hit
all-time highs this week, helped by new demand for the vegetable oil
from the biodiesel sector.
"Some of these alternative energy schemes, such as biofuels, are
truly dangerous," said James Lovelock, an independent scientist known
for the Gaia theory.
"If exploited on a large scale, they will hasten our downfall," he
said in a video message delivered from Oxford.
Preserving tropical forests is seen as key to mitigating global
warming caused by greenhouse gases, as they capture a large volume of
carbon dioxide emissions.
In Asia, home to the world's top oil palm producers such as Malaysia
and Indonesia, there has been an investment boom in biodiesel plants,
which convert palm oil into biodiesel for cars.
This has helped to push up prices for palm oil -- the cheapest
vegetable oil -- by 25 percent so far this year. Prices had risen by
40 percent in 2006.
Chinese investors are also looking into building palm-based biodiesel
plants in Indonesia or Papua New Guinea as Beijing promotes biofuels
to cut the country's dependence on imported oil, although it already
has a big deficit in vegetable oils.
LITTLE CONTROL, FIRES
"The big issue, particularly in Southeast Asia, is oil palm
plantations. It is expanding rapidly for biofuels," said Simon Lewis
from School of Geography, Earth & Biosphere Institute at University
of Leeds.
"The likelihood is it will increase deforestation," he said. "It is
said this can be regulated. But most tropical forest is essentially
unregulated."
Lewis also said forest fires often caused by farmers were an
additional danger for global warming, to which the international
community had not paid enough attention.
"With the climate change, with periodic droughts, more of tropical
forests is possible to burn," he said.
"People will set fire to forests if they can because they want to
clear the forest for oil palm plantations."
The scientist said a record 2 billion tonnes of carbon went up into
the atmosphere from fires in Indonesia alone during the El Nino in
1997/1998, in addition to usual emissions of 1 billion to 2 billion
tonnes worldwide.
"The El Nino year of 1997/98 with massive burning across the tropics,
record-breaking temperatures, carbon dioxide concentration may become
a dangerously common feature in the coming decades," he said.
Dear jatropha group members
my name's Felix Padel. I'm British by birth but Indian
by marriage, and work as an
anthropologist/writer/activist supporting the cause of
tribal people threatened with displacement.
In mid-May I went to a major Climate Change Conference
in London. There I learnt more about the biofuel
situation worldwide, which is extremely alarming.
Afterwards I joined an internationally focused yahoo
group on the subject, and forward one of their digests
below, in case anyone is interested in joining that
group. If no-one objects I'll forward occasional
digests like this. I find it's very hard that in India
there's not much info or link-up with activists in
other 3rd world countries.
So I now have been asked & wish to know myself if the
situation is getting as bad and dangerous in India
too? I'd heard that in Chattisgarh many thousands
hectares of jatropha have been planted, and that this
includes some of the 700 or so villages that have been
burnt & evacuated by the Salwa Judum in the terrible
civil war in south Chattisgarh. Can anyone in the
group confirm this?
On the international situation, to cut a long story
short, the IPCC has recommended more use of biofuels
and the EU Govt's target's to increase from 1% to 10%,
the US from 4% to 20%. To service this demand millions
of hectares of plantations are being made causing mass
deforestation + unreported human rights abuses on
displaced farmers in Many Countries, including
especially:
Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay.....
Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines.....
Nigeria & other African countries.
Already new ports & factories are being built in
Singapore etc specially for biofuels, so there may be
only a small window of time to stop this industry
investing in unstoppable programmes. Also there's alot
of investment in "2nd generation biofuels" which are a
also new generation of highly complex GM creations,
that are likely to be very dangerous ("floppy trees"
with weak bark fibres, easier to process, that cd
easily spread into & infect other plants....).
I don't know how bad jatropha is relative to other
biofuels, like soya, rape (mustard) etc.
Anyway please let me know any responses.
All best wishes
Felix Padel
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
Very interesting. Please post it to Jatropha group.
regards
pankaj
Felix Padel <felixorisa@...> wrote:
Much in here of interest wfd it be of interest to people in the Indian group?
Felix
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXICDate: 31 May 2007 11:56:15 -0000 From: biofuelwatch@yahoogroups.com To: biofuelwatch@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuelwatch] Digest Number 345
OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT CORREA ON THE AGROFORESTRY PLAN
The indigenous people, peasant and afrodescendent organizations which met in Quito- Ecuador on 24th May 2007, to analyse the Agronomic and Forestry Plan of the Government of Rafael Correa, express:
We know that it is a priority of your government to work for the benefit of the populations that traditionally
they have been excluded, like we are the native people, afro- descendents and peasants of this country, and we have put our hope in you, because until now, the State has traditionally benefited only to the large landlords, to the big producers, to the agrobusiness sector, in detriment of the rural economy.
However, we have seen that the program of the present Minister of Agriculture continues in the same line, "the country is still in the hands of few". The Plan do privileges the agrobusiness sector, promotes the monocultures and intends to deepen a technological package that causes damages to the natural resources, to the soil, al water, to the biodiversity and deepens the rural inequalities and the processes of impoverishment of the peasantry. The production of monocultures is promoted for agrofuels without taking into account the demands of food sovereignty and defence of the collective rights of the Indigenous peoples and afro
descendent communities.
Furthermore, the Plan promotes an anti ecological reforestation based on monocultures, without prior studies on the impact that the plan will have on the rural life. The Plan focus, as the only strategy, on a type of forest plantations directed to the big industry and the external market.
The peasant, rural, afrodescendents and indigenous people organizations of Ecuador who attended the above mentioned meeting, demand President Rafael Correa to ask the Minister of Agriculture to act in accordance with your proposal of refund the country in benefit of the poorest population.
Our demands are:
1. An Integral Agrarian Reform that eliminate the land concentration and guaranties access to the productive resources with justice, to the small farmers 2. The protection and promotion of the national food and agriculture production, with sustainable productive programs in the hands of the
rural communities 3. The defence of biodiversity, genetic resources, traditional knowledge, in contrast with the promotion of forest and agricultural monocultures specially for agrofuels and other cash products, the introduction of GM seeds and the technological packages. 4. The development of rural policies that respect the diversity of the indigenous peoples, the peasants and rural communities that promotes interculturality; and that recognises the contribution of women in the sovereign productive processes 5. To work in a participatory agrarian and forestry policy, with the inclusion of indigenous peoples, the peasants and rural communities, afrodescendent and rural women, using a methodology that respect our traditional practices and that ensure the local control of our resources 6. Prioritise local and national food sovereignty, in which the land and the water are used to satisfy the food needs of the population, an not
any extractive activity (mining, oil and timber). The water have to be used for the human consumption and not for hydroelectric dams. 7. The resources of the State should be use to meet the previous demands and not for the promotion of agrobusiness, and agrofuels, We reject any mechanisms that promotes the land market.
[A ZNet Commentary - have a look and consider supporting ZNet at http://www.zmag.org]
Biofuels: a danger for Latin America May 26, 2007 By Marie Trigona
Renewable fuels, in particular Biofuels, energy sources derived from agricultural crops have suddenly won the support from the United States. This is partly due to George Bush's recent 5-nation tour of Latin America to wedge out unity and push through ethanol accords. Development funds and corporations hope that Latin America, especially refining sugarcane into fuel in Brazil and soybeans in Argentina, can spur the US's booming biofuel industry demands. Corporate experts and financiers held
the First Biofuels Congress of the Americas in Buenos Aires this month to promote biofuel production in the region. Former US Vice President Al Gore addressed investors, NGO's and soy producers at the congress to spearhead renewable fuel production in Argentina.
Northern hunger for "bio" fuels
Inexpensive land, cheap labor and plentiful bumper crops of soybeans make Argentina a prime target for the production of ethanol and bio diesel. Argentina is already offering tax-incentives to step up investments for the biofuels market which is expected to triple by 2015. The South American nation wants 5 percent of its fuel supply be biodiesel or ethanol-based in three years. The government has eagerly pushed through pro-biofuel policy but has ignored worries over food supply, the environmental effects of mono-agricultural production and the social side-effects of biofuel production on the rural population.
Argentina's vice-president Daniel Scioli welcomed international financiers to the Biofuels Congress, saying that Argentina is eager to develop biodiesel technology and production. "Argentina is already exporting biodiesel. We are hopeful and are creating favorable conditions to lure investments to this sector. We are developing the necessary infrastructure, improving our highways and ports to transport and store the fruit of our applied intelligence."
"We are completely convinced that alternative biofuels will convert Argentina into a global leader in renewable energy," said Scioli at the Biofuels Congress. Investors and institutions attending the First Biofuels Congress of the Americas paid 500 dollars a head to attend the event, which was closed off to media outlets not allied to biofuels.
A study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that neither ethanol, which is corn derived, nor
bio-diesel, which is soy- produced can replace petroleum without having an impact on food supply. However, biofuel proponents brushed off any criticism of the renewable energy industry during the First Biofuels Congress of the Americas.
Juan Carlos Iturregui president of the Foundation for InterAmerican Development said that biofuels can only bring positive results. "Biofuels can propel development. They bring a very important factor which is the ability to compete and develop. This has already been proven, let's not get tied up with supposed theories and false debates. There can be food for everyone. There can be biofuels for everyone."
Soybean plantations bump off small farms
Argentina is the third-largest soybean producer in the world after the United States and Brazil. Top soil erosion and pollution caused from pesticides and fertilizers have been just some of the side effects to soybean
plantations which have expanded exponentially at a rate of 10 percent annually.
Many foreign financiers have been eager to invest in the booming biodiesal industry. Dynamotive, a Canadian biofuels developer, will invest up to 120 million in six plants in Argentina that would use lumber- and paper-industry waste to make biofuel. The Spanish- Argentine oil and gas company Repsol YPF has already invested 30 million in dollars in a biofuel refinery in the province of Buenos Aires, expected to produce 100,000 tons a year as of 2007.
According to Oscar Delgado, a farmer from the northern province of Salta, soy production has also led to the violent eviction of small farmers and indigenous from lands cleared for soy bean plantations. "In the northern region of Argentina, in the provinces of Jujuy and Salta, local residents are witnessing a crisis because of the expansion of the mono-crops. Most serious is the expansion
of trans genetic soy in Salta that has produced the eviction of small farmers and indigenous from lands. The local government in Salta supports these evictions; the government is supporting these new businessmen coming to the province."
Shortly after Al Gore's visit to Buenos Aires, seven small-scale farmers were arrested for resisting eviction from lands in the Northern province of Santiago del Estero. The farmers form part of MOCASE, a provincial grassroots movement of campesinos that promotes sustainable agriculture to build community. Their land will be cleared for soy production. The Santiago del Estero provincial government, which ordered the arrests, co-sponsored the First Biofuels Congress of the Americas, which paid Gore 170,000 dollars to give a 40 minute presentation derived from his award-winning film The Inconvenient Truth.
Goodbye food sovereignty Local environmental groups and farmers held
a parallel event to shed light on the dangers of biofuels, especially the effects on food production and prices. They also held a protest outside of the hotel where the Biofuels Congress of the Americas was held.
With surgery masks and megaphones on hand, they chanted "Food sovereignty, Yes! Biofuels, No!" Soledad Ogoliano, from the assembly for food sovereignty said that multi-nationals like Monsanto and Repsol YPF, a Spanish-Argentine petroleum company, speculate large profits while putting Argentina's food production at risk. "The immediate effect of this kind of production is the massive disforestation like we are seeing now in the forests in Chaco, the Amazon, and other areas that are large sources of biodiversity that are destroyed for mono crops, only one agricultural crop, generally transgenetic like soy." She added "We are talking about production that is highly concentrated because it requires large
amounts of capital and investments in technology. It is no longer agricultural food production in the hands of local communities, but simply large scale production of commodities."
Food prices have already been affected due to soy and corn production for export. Economists worry that plant-based fuels will cause food prices to soar in Argentina, where food inflation continues to rise over 15% annually. The nation has unsuccessfully imposed export limits on certain foods like milk and beef, where production is plentiful but supply for the domestic market scarce and expensive for consumers.
A drive in food prices will hit the nation hard, with over 30 percent of the population under the poverty line. The policies promoting biofuel exports over domestic food production in developing countries could be an ecological and social recipe for disaster. In addition to Argentina, small farmers in Brazil and
Paraguay have been pushed off of lands cleared for soy production at an exponential rate. In Mexico, consumers are fighting a tortilla war, a battle over increased prices in tortillas partly due to the nation's increase in ethanol production.
Groups will have to fight an uphill battle against corporations that have a tight hold on growing biofuel production in Latin America promising quench the North's thirst for energy at the cost of food sovereignty and biodiversity. Local environmental groups in Argentina will organize a series of protests against the corporations investing in biofuel in the coming months. Subsequent bio-fuel congresses will take place in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil this year.
Marie Trigona is a writer and independent radio producer based in Buenos Aires. She can be reached at mtrigona@msn.com
Hunting, disease, logging and demand for biofuels cited among prime threats
David Adam, environment correspondent Thursday May 31, 2007 The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>
Gorilla A female mountain gorilla in Uganda. Photograph: Stuart Price/AFP/Getty
One of the world's most prominent conservation experts yesterday issued a rallying cry to save the great apes, man's closest biological cousins, which are under serious threat of extinction.
Richard Leakey, former head of the Kenya wildlife service and now chair of Wildlife Direct, said apes across the world faced unprecedented threats from the combined effects of hunting, disease
and logging. And he said efforts to tackle global warming through the use of biofuels could cause more damage to ape populations because of pressure to chop down their tropical forest homes.
About 80% of orang-utan habitat in south-east Asia has been destroyed in the past 20 years because of soaring demand for land to produce palm oil for western markets. Experts warn that increased uptake of alternative fuels could mean the disappearance of the remaining 50,000 animals there within a generation.
Dr Leakey, who will outline his concerns in a public lecture tonight at the Royal Geographical Society in London, said human activity was directly to blame for the deaths of millions of gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos across the world. He urged politicians working on a new international treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to focus more on incentives to conserve forests across south-east Asia, Africa and central and south
America.
Dr Leakey said: "People shrug their shoulders and say what are poor countries to do if they can't export their natural resources, and I understand this, but it is simply not sustainable the way it is going. The threat to great ape populations around the world is growing visibly."
He said preventing deforestation would help curb global warming as well as preserving endangered apes. Carbon released by deforestation is reckoned to account for 25% of all human greenhouse gas emissions, second only to the energy generation sector.
Scientists say conserving forests offers one of the cheapest ways to tackle climate change, and steps to reward tropical countries which leave their forests untouched will be discussed at the G8 summit in Germany next week.
Dr Leakey, a patron of a United Nations Environment Programme great apes survival project, called for more "imaginative" solutions such as credits for preserving
biodiversity and wildlife habitats which a country could sell to others to offset their carbon pollution. "We find it very hard to preserve natural beauty, but we are happy to spend 80m on a Picasso and a fortune looking after it."
But he insisted developing countries must take their share of responsibility for global warming. "Developing countries are shrill about the damage that developed countries have caused with their pollution," he said. "The developing world should have a comparable amount of responsibility because of deforestation. I don't think we [Kenya] can afford to shelter behind the fact that we're a new country and we were grossly exploited before, and so we need to be given a break. We need to look at the effect we're having on the whole planet."
He called for a "huge revolution in entrepreneurial skills" to develop technology such as nuclear fusion and hydrogen power as a way of limiting the need for
biofuels. "The whole biofuel issue is of great concern. And it's not just biofuels, the destruction of rainforest to make way for palm oil plantations is extraordinary."
A UN report this month also raised concerns over a rapid expansion of biofuels, saying they could have an irreversible environmental impact. There are also concerns about their impact on global food prices, with growing competition for scarce land resources.
Dr Leakey said the direct effects of climate change could spell disaster for the great apes. "I don't think we can say enough to stimulate concern over climate change. It's a complex process but it will undoubtedly impact on everything we know and the implications for biodiversity are there for all to see. We don't know the tolerance of plants to the predicted temperature changes. We should not for a minute assume that forests, rivers and lakes are permanent features of our landscape."
He also
criticised what he called the "oxymoron" of ecotourism, which he said was based on "a desperate race to make money while you still can". He said: "An awful lot of damage is done under the umbrella of ecotourism. The tourism industry needs to be talked to very seriously about setting standards that are something other than profit-motivated."
Profile: Richard Leakey
Born in Kenya in 1944 to two esteemed anthropologists, Richard Leakey led expeditions which uncovered a steady stream of human-ancestor fossils during the 1970s which dazzled the scientific world and helped to clarify our evolutionary history. Among the most important finds are the remains of Turkana Boy, a 1.6m-year-old Homo erectus skeleton, recovered virtually intact, as well as the 2.5m-year-old Black Skull, which forced palaeontologists to drastically rethink the structure of the human family tree.
In 1969 he was diagnosed with a terminal kidney
disease and a decade later received a lifesaving transplant from his younger brother.
In the 1980s he devoted more of his time to Kenya's museums and, subsequently, conservation issues. From 1989 to 1994, as head of the Kenya wildlife service, he beefed up the country's national parks and led high-profile and successful campaigns against elephant poaching. In 1993 he lost both legs below the knee when the plane he was piloting malfunctioned and crashed. Rumours of sabotage were never proven.
In the mid-1990s he entered Kenyan politics, first as co-founder of a new opposition party, and then in government at the invitation of former president Daniel arap Moi.
MEXICO CITY - Mexican farmers are setting ablaze fields of blue agave, the cactus-like plant used to make the fiery spirit tequila, and resowing the land with corn as soaring US ethanol demand pushes up prices.
The switch to corn will contribute to an expected scarcity of agave in coming
years, with officials predicting that farmers will plant between 25 percent and 35 percent less agave this year to turn the land over to corn.
"Those growers are going after what pays best now," said Ismael Vicente Ramirez, head of agriculture at Mexico's Tequila Regulatory Council.
The large, spiky-leaved agave thrives on high, arid land and can take eight years to reach maturity. To remove the plants, growers cut them at their stems and often burn the fields to remove the roots.
Tequila, drunk in shots and cocktails around the world, is named after a town in the western Mexican state of Jalisco.
Production of agave, from the lily family, soared in recent years as farmers cashed in on record prices brought about by a shortage of the plant at the start of the decade.
Despite rapid growth in tequila drinking, especially overseas, the over-supply of agave has driven prices for the plant to rock-bottom levels.
Many growers have started to abandon the crop in favor of corn, whose price has rocketed in line with massive growth in US demand for ethanol after President George W. Bush outlined targets last year to use the corn-based fuel as a gasoline alternative.
Agave supply is also being hit this year by disease in the fields, partly due to farmers caring less for the plants after prices dropped.
"The problem that we are going to see, perhaps by mid-2008, is that a lot of agave is sick," Agriculture Ministry official Arnulfo del Toro said. "That will have to be taken out and production is going to drop a lot."
The article below is from the May World Rainforest Movement Bulletin (www.wrm.org.uy) - it is not yet on the WRM website, but should go up shortly.
The Thai government has set its policy on producing palm oil-based biodiesel as energy. At present, the country's large-scale oil
palm harvest areas account to around 400,000 hectares, but since 2006, a discourse on oil palm has emerged to promote its plantation as a `renewable source of energy', a `country savior', a `reforestation scheme', a `wind-protection zone', and a `transformation of deserted rice fields into palm fields'.
To fulfill the government's ambition, a daily production of 8.5 million litres of biodiesel must be met. That means another 800,000 hectares of oil palm plantation areas must be expanded between 2006 and 2009, totaling 1.2 million hectares of the palm cultivation. By 2029, the plantation areas would reach 1.6 million hectares.
All research work has been conducted to seek monoculture techniques to maximize the production of oil palm, but the Thai government has never revealed this crop's environmental impacts.
It is a great concern that the Thai government has never said that the land used for oil palm
plantation often becomes deteriorated because of the monoculture type of production, with extensive use of chemicals. It is difficult to produce oil palm in an integrated manner because of the bulkiness of the palm trees and because its fibrous roots spread far and wide. Over three-ton weight of each tree allows very few types of plant to be grown in the plantation. Making their way into the plantation ground is very difficult for animals living in the ground such as earthworms. Getting rid of the dead trees and their roots is hard and costs a lot of money since it needs to pay a backhoe to uproot or to use chemicals to destroy them.
The government has provided farmers with funding, raw materials and other inputs. Such active promotion has resulted in the rapid expansion of the plantation areas, especially in the watershed forest, wetlands, community public forest and rice fields. If an expansion of the oil palm
plantation areas was made according to the government's plan, Thailand would irreversibly lose its food security, forests and biological diversity. It would mean a catastrophe for the Thai People.
Excerpted and adapted from `Ten Million Rai of Oil Palm Plantation: A Catastrophe for the Thai People', by Ms.Bandita Yangdee, Project for Ecological Awareness Building (EAB), sent by Sayamol Kaiyoorawong, e- mail: noksayamol@yahoo.com The full article is available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Thailand/Catastrophe.pdf
Offline 
Send Email
