The TOI article
based NSSO survey is reflection of 60 years of achievements of independent India.
On the one hand there is gross incompetence, on second great loot in rampant corruption in every organ of the state, on third there are exploitations by moneylenders, traders & adulterators, on fourth insecurity not just to life in kidnapping, murder and rape but in GOI forcibly acquiring farmers land in millions of acres adjacent to large cities for select corporate at 20 years old rates and fifthly widening social inequalities and caste & religious divide.
I
am a professional inventor have represented India at Expo’85 for Inventions created when 21 years old. You have represented India as President of India when were 71. You as President of India were not obliged to reply to any of my messages. Post retirement you are ethically and morally expected to reply to my messages.
I was critical of your promotion of River Link, Poisonous Jatropha & PURA loot program.
I rate your Alien ideas very wild imagination without any bearing on ground. And you have continued to pursue them post retirement.
Just now I am asking you just one simple question;
How many developed countries from USA to Australia cutting across the globe cultivate Jatropha as bio-fuel?
My idea here is to make you work for undoing all the bad things done in your presidential tenure.
Today you can go and find out whether people need Jatropha or food for people and fodder for farm animals.
You can go to find out how much area of fertile Ganga Basin is irrigated and how much water is available for transfer to south and also to find out how efficiently and productively water is used in India.
And can also find out how many homes in our villages are electrified and how many have pucca houses to
redefine priorities.
I shall help you in this “Exploration” of India any time you need me.
New Delhi: The number of people below the poverty line may have come down, but 79% of
unorganised workers, 88% of SC/STs, 80% of the OBC population and 84% of Muslims belong to the ‘‘poor and vulnerable group’’. That’s the grim warning in the report of the Commission on the condition of unorganised sector workers.
Despite high economic growth in recent years, the report notes, ‘‘they have remained poor at a bare subsistence level without any social security, working in the most miserable, unhygienic and unlivable conditions’’. The category ‘‘poor and vulnerable’’ is one used by the Commission to describe all those who survive on Rs 20.30 per capita per day, which is twice the poverty line, or less. The report notes that 77% of India’s population falls within this bracket.
That includes 6.4% who live on less than Rs 9 per
day or three-fourths the poverty line level, another 15.4% who are between this layer and the poverty line, 19% who earn at best 1.25 times the poverty line and 36% who earn between 1.25 and two times the official cut-off for poverty. It, therefore, cautions that while large numbers may have technically ceased to be included in the official poor, they remain vulnerable.
Analysing various factors which have a bearing on the working and living conditions in the informal sector, the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, headed by economist Arjun Sengupta, found a close correlation with illiteracy.
The NCEUS, that formally announced its findings on Thursday, noted that ‘‘the illiterate have a very high probability of being poor or
vulnerable, almost nine out of ten, and they are predominantly unorganised workers. Even those with education up to only primary level, 83% are in the poor and vulnerable group.’’
Analysing the relationship between poverty and vulnerability and the type of employment among unorganised workers, the report observed that 90% of the poor were casual workers while only 10% of the higher income group were casual workers.
Among regular wage workers, 66.7% were in the poor and vulnerable groups, while 33% were from higher income group. Among the self-employed, 74.7% were from the poor and vulnerable and 25.3% came from the higher income group.
The report highlighted that 79% of unorganised casual non-agricultural women workers in the villages are illiterate. Poverty among casual non-agri workers in cities is higher by almost 60% compared to villages. Also, 87% of women non-agricultural unorganised sectors work for less than the stipulated minimum wages and 85% of women agricultural labourers are illiterate. EYE-OPENER.
·The report revealed that 6.4% live on less than Rs 9 per day or three-fourths the poverty line level, and another 15.4% who are between this layer and the poverty line.
·Analysing various factors which have a bearing on the working and living conditions in the informal sector, it was found that there was a close correlation of being poor with illiteracy.
·Report also observed that 90% of the poor were casual workers while only 10% of the higher income group were casual workers.
RDC probes land grab
Saturday August 11 2007 12:29 IST
BALANGIR: The issue of farmers, who have been cheated by outside
companies, is now being looked into by the Revenue Divisional
Commissioner (Northern) Madhusudan Padhi.
The Delhibased companies have reportedly grabbed hundreds acres of
fertile lands in the name of Jatropha cultivation. Farmers of three
villages under Patnagarh sub-division are living under fear of land
alienation in this drought-prone district.
RDC will submit his report to the government soon.
RDC, who visited the villages recently to take stock of the situation,
interacted with farmers of three villages. He felt that out of the
three big patches of land, two were fraudulently grabbed by the companies.
The most affected village is Ghumer. The other two villages are
Ghunghutipali and Jalpali. RDC revealed that some sorts of
extrapolation have been done by the companies in the land registration
process.
��It seemed that there were many names of company having one
ownership. It came to our notice that some local people helped the
company. A man, who is stationed in Patnagarh acting as agent of
company, could not tell which company appointed him,�� said the
RDC.
He further revealed that although lands were registered at an
exorbitant price, farmers were given less. The intention of the
company behind this may be to avail bank loan, RDC hinted.
However, he said cheating is done in such a manner that it may be
difficult to recover the lands.
The farmers have put signatures in the sale deeds.
Government ordered an RDClevel inquiry when reports spread about the
farmers of three villages lost around 340 acre of land for Jatropha
cultivation to Taj Gas Limited, a Delhi-based private company.
Farmers of Ghumer said 51 acre of land was purchased at the rate of Rs
7000 an acre by the company.
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEQ20070811020743&Page=Q&Title=ORISS\
A&Topic=0
[Thanks S.Choudhary ji for forwarding this information- Moderator]
Editorial
The Farmer's Nightmare?
Published: August 10, 2007
Only a few years ago, ethanol was just a line in a farm-state
politician's stump speech — something that went down well with the
locals but didn't mean much to anyone else. Now, of course, ethanol is
widely touted — and, within reason, rightly so — as an important part
of America's search for energy independence and greener fuels. One
day, we may be using cellulosic ethanol, the kind derived from
grasses. For now, the ethanol boom is all about corn. And the real
question is whether that will finally kill American farming as we know it.
Farmers in the corn belt have watched the coming of the ethanol boom
with an ill-concealed excitement. They've invested in small-town
processing plants, and they've happily seen the price of corn
fluctuate steadily upward. But land prices have also moved steadily
upward. Land set aside for conservation is being put back into
production. And a bidding war has broken out over acreage, a war that
farmers are sure to lose to speculative investors.
In short, the ethanol boom is accelerating the inequity in the rural
landscape. The high price of corn — and the prospect of continued huge
demand — doesn't benefit everyone equally. It gives bigger, richer
farmers and outside investors the ability to outcompete their smaller
neighbors. It cuts young farmers hoping to get a start out of the
equation entirely. It reduces diversity in crops and in farm size.
For the past 75 years, America's system of farm subsidies has
unfortunately driven farming toward such concentration, and there's no
sign that the next farm bill will change that. The difference this
time is that American farming is poised on the brink of true
industrialization, creating a landscape driven by energy production
and what is now called "biorefining." What we may be witnessing is the
beginning of the tragic moment in which the ownership of America's
farmland passes from the farmer to the industrial giants of energy and
agricultural production.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/opinion/10fri2.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin\
&oref=slogin
Dear All,
Reports have come from Adhar, Balangir that farmers who have been
affected by Jatropha plantation have finally got some reprieve after
the intervention of the revenue administration. On 7th August RDC,
Sambalpur and other revenue officials, following up the information
provided by Adhar and Vasundhara, visited Patnagarh where they met the
affected families from Ghumer and other villages from Patnagarh block
whose livelihood has been threatened by companies promoting Jatropha
plantation.
During the grievance, the RDC verified the information and found that
farmers have lost their land to unscrupulous companies promoting
Jatropha. He has assured that the government would take steps to help
farmers get back their land and has also assured to take action
against the people involved in this exploitation. At last information
and mobilization has brought hope for the farmers in Balangir.
Best Wishes,
Tushar Dash
Vasundhara.org, Orissa, India
-----------------
[Thanks Tushar and Vasundhara for sharing this information-Moderator.]
Dear group members,
I am in process of preparation of technical report to show how this
exotic plant is affecting Indian biodiversity. Report is having
information about medicinal species affected by direct negative impact
of Jatropha allelochemicals with pictures taken in different parts of
Chhattisgarh and neighboring state.
regards
Pankaj Oudhia
All set for padayatra against ‘undemocratic’ SEZ policies
‘Jatropha cultivation is being introduced in Rajasthan without
consulting the people’
Dalit and Adivasi groups are worried over proposed amendment to
Rajasthan Tenancy Act
JAIPUR: Growing public unease over the governments’ move in various
States to hand over community land to big companies and influential
groups in the name of promoting Special Economic Zones and bio-diesel
cultivation will manifest itself in a mass padayatra on August Kranti
Diwas (August 9) planned by various activist groups under the banner
of ‘Rozgar Evum Suchana Ka Adhikar Abhiyan’ (Campaign for Employment
and Right to Information) from all four directions of Rajasthan.
Christened ‘Jan Adhikar Yatra’, the march will have four groups
beginning their walkathon from Alwar, Ajmer, Tonk and Sikar --
representing North, South, East and West -- to reach the State capital
here on August 21 and converge into a dharna till August 26. The
marchers all along the route will spread awareness among the people on
the issues involved, hold meetings, collect and disseminate data and
generate public opinion.The issues in focus are: the manner in which
policies and programmes are implemented without consulting the people
in the case of SEZs, the bio-diesel policy and in making amendments in
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to drop Section 42 B which guards the
exclusive land rights of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
“We want answers from all political parties on land rights of the
people, their livelihood avenues and their stake in the democratic
decision making process,†said Magsaysay Award winner Aruna Roy,
talking to journalists here. More than SEZs, the nightmare elsewhere,
the threat from jatropha cultivation seemed to be immediate and
challenging for the rural people of the State.
“Jatropha is being introduced in a large area of Rajasthan without any
consultations with people. People who hold documents for the land they
are occupying are thrown out even without issuing notices,†noted
Sawai Singh. “The attempts at reclaiming the common land also would
lead to serious conflicts in the villages,†he warned.
Hariram Gujjar of Kuncholi village and Jamini Bai Bheel of Mala Magra
in Mawli tehsil of Udaipur district were thrown out of their land a
month ago. There are over two dozen such families in their villages.
Now the paradox is that the same land would be allocated to BPL groups
to cultivate jatropha. “In our village, most of the BPL cardholders
are Rajputs,†said Hariram, revealing another side of the farce.
The Dalit and Adivasi groups are worried about the proposed amendment
to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which would facilitate the sale of land
belonging to them to non-SC/ST. This is also said to be part of the
move to make available land for SEZ and jatropha plantation.
“We are worried about the move as we have been told that the proposed
amendment would be taken up in the Assembly on the last day of the
coming session and passed without any debate,†Mr. Mimroth observed.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/09/stories/2007080956080800.htm
[Thanks Shubhranshu Choudhary ji for forwarding this
information.-Moderator.]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rishu Garg <rishu@...>
Date: Aug 8, 2007 4:49 AM
Subject: RE: [se-food][se-watr] Query: Bio-fuel Plantation through
CommunityGroups - Experiences.
To: "Food and Nutrition Security Community, Water Community" <
se-food_se-wes@...>
Note: The earlier responder Mr. C R Bhatia is no longer with the
Department of Biotechnology; the error is unintentional.
Dear All,
There was an article in HT editorial yesterday (7th August) titled "
From gas to hot air" by Darryl D'Monte trying to address the question,
Are bio-fuels really the answer to our consumption and environmental
problems?. The article raises issues like consequences of large scale
cultivation of Jatropha, use of water and reach of the poor to the
common property resources.
In my earlier response I had meant that there are villages and
habitations spread across the state which are affected by poor water
quality (including salinity), there are also villages spread almost
across the state where mining is done and that there are also areas
that have reported of increasing soil salinity and therefore my query
of "experiences that suggest variation in production of Jatropha seeds
on such lands and how it responds to saline water" was to know if
Jatropha cultivation is feasible in such circumstances. I am sharing
with this mail a "Report of Expert Committee on Integrated Development
of Water Resources". The expert committee was formed by government of
Rajasthan to assess state water resources and requirements in policy,
identify measures for integrated development of water resources in the
state, analyze ground water resources and to identify corrective
measures to enhance water to use efficiency in the state. The report
estimates that in 2004 status of only 14 percent of the blocks of the
state could be categorized as safe. The report states that there are
large tracts of Chambal; Mahi and Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP)
areas that are affected by salinity and water logging problems. The
report also compares the ground water quality of the state with the
status in rest of India. Of the total habitations and villages across
the country that have multiple water quality problems, 76 percent are
in Rajasthan. In all there are 41,072 villages and habitations in the
state reportedly having water quality problems. The report also
suggested that of the total water use 83 percent is used for
irrigation and that there are issues related to equitable access to
water and the need for more efficient use of water. My query on
response of Jatropha seedling to low quality water was based on the
above mentioned status of water quality in the state, as it becomes
all the more important in this context to also ensure that such water
use (for irrigating Jatropha plantations) would not jeopardize use of
water for drinking or irrigation of crops or for that matter further
deplete ground water resources and at the same time yield adequately
so as to be financially feasible. C.R. Bhatia has talked about it,
"The best Jatropha plantations are the ones with intensive management
and drip irrigation".
Viren Lobo have raised two important issues. First, that 60 lakh
persons being affected by forcible cultivation of bio-fuel and second,
the need to look into the aspect of sustainable land use to meet the
needs of small and marginal farmers. I agree with him. C.R.Bhatia has
also talked about the need for developing wastelands as "energy
farms". I would request Viren to share the study of Dr Sudhirender
Sharma's.
Amitangshu Acharya shared the latest issue of Agrofuels. The issue
assesses the problems that have started to surface in South Asian
countries, Brazil and U.S. At this point of time I am sure we need to
learn from experiences across the globe. The article also talks about
the increased release of nitrogen dioxide in atmosphere those results
from use of fertilizers in the production of bio fuels. R. Santhanm
has suggested use of organic farming methodologies to be efficient in
Indian context. Amitangshu has also suggested of identifying and
listing of NGOs working on the issue. I think it's a good suggestion
and this network could easily help us in doing so. This would also
help us in drawing grass root concerns before it too late. Concerns
for landless, small and marginal farmers have been raised by Rahul
Banerjee and M.K.Dasgupta. I would request Rahul to share experiences
of his organisation on Jatropha in Malwa region. As I know, districts
around Indore (Indore, Dewas, Ujjain, Sehore) are highly fertile black
cotton soil areas where cotton and soyabean yields are high and
Jatropha have been grown by farmers on their agricultural bunds for
fencing. Similar concerns have been raised by H.S. Sharma. Concerns
regarding marketing of produce form bio-fuel plantations in Andhra
Pradesh have been raised by G Nirmala. Subhash Mehta by sharing
observations of Macaulay have also expressed concerns regarding long
term implications of policies that affect food security of the country.
Rishu Garg
Association for Rural Advancement through Voluntary Action and Local
Involvement (ARAVALI)
Jaipur
[se-food][se-watr] Query: Bio-fuel Plantation through Community Groups
- Experiences.
Dear Members,
I am Rishu Garg and I work for ARAVALI, Jaipur. ARAVALI is a
Government of Rajasthan initiated NGO working towards bridging the gap
between government and non-government organisations. We work with
partner organisations across the state on issues of Natural Resource
Management (NRM), Microfinance and livelihoods providing sectoral
inputs as well as for developing effective voluntary institutions.
Besides, we also take up research and policy advocacy work and try to
involve our partners into it.
Recently the government of Rajasthan has come out with a notification
on allotment of wastelands for bio-fuel production. According to the
rules the wastelands in the state can be allotted to Self Help Groups
(SHGs), community based organisations, panchayats, societies,
companies and government undertakings with Below Poverty level (BPL)
membership. The land allotment is for twenty years; a premium and
yearly fees is charged for such allotments to companies, societies and
government undertakings. For allotment to SHGs, community based
organisations and panchayats, no fee is charged. There are also some
other salient features in the programmes like mandatory installation
of micro-irrigation system and provision of mortgaging the land from
financial institutions etc. As a result a number of companies and
other private institutions are vying for allocation of wastelands of
the state. This is also (potential) livelihood opportunity for poor
people of the state, therefore the poorest (BPL groups and community
based organisations) must seize the opportunity.
I think the solution exchange community can pour in with their
experiences on bio-fuel plantation and learning from implementation of
plantation projects, with high gestation period (at least four to five
years for seed production), low returns and an element of
privatization of Common Property Resources.
Apart from the above stated issues I request members to respond on the
three specific queries below:
1. Which are plant species other than Pongamia glabra (Karanj)
and Jatropa curcas (Jatropha) that could qualify for bio-fuel plant?
2. What have been the past experiences of promotion of these bio
fuels in semi-arid and arid regions (rainfall up to 450-500 mm)?
3. Experiences of SHGs in taking up Jatropha and other
plantation as a livelihood promotion activity?
I would be thankful to the community if some success or failure
stories or any pertinent information regarding the same could be
shared through this platform.
Thanks and regards
Rishu Garg
Association for Rural Advancement through Voluntary Action and Local
Involvement (ARAVALI)
Jaipur
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shubhranshu Choudhary Freelance Journalist
Ph : + 91 98110 66749 e mail : smitashu@...http://36garh.notlong.comhttp://www.cgnet.in
Dear Jatropha group
Please let me know if it of interest to people in the
jatropha group to get the articles I sometimes forward
on biofuels. It's an area expanding at scary speed as
you all know. Incidentally Vedanta's recent annual
report says it's planting 1 million jatropha plants
annually now. I Just wrote a report on this company's
recent London AGM, where several of us asked searching
questions as shareholder-activists and staged a
demonstration outside. If anyone's interested I'll
forward this report, press clippings etc
Best wishes Felix Padel
________________________________________________________________________________\
____Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
In China, over a million poplar trees have been
planted since 2002 to combat deforestation. But
the move has not been widely applauded by
everyone. The poplars, which are genetically
engineered, are China's first foray into the
world of transgenic forestry -- or
"frankenforests" -- and other countries are not
far behind.
As the biotech industry continues to lay the
groundwork for genetically engineered crops --
poorly tested, widely debated and yet plugged as
a technological wonder -- a potentially greater
threat to biodiversity has begun to emerge.
Pushed forward by biotech and the
multibillion-dollar timber industry, genetically
engineered trees are the latest invention.
"The industry has tried very hard to keep it
quiet, or tout the technology as benign and
beneficial to the environment," says Anne
Petermann, co-founder of the Global Justice
Ecology Project http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/, a nonprofit
established to advance global justice through
ecological awareness. "The technology is moving
forward very quickly, outpacing regulations.
There are no controls in place to properly
address or assess the risks -- which are major."
GE trees are planted in monoculture forests,
which look more like plantations, and pose
serious risks to the ecosystem. Trees live
decades or centuries longer than plants, and
their seeds can travel hundreds of miles,
increasing the likelihood of gene contamination
to wild species. The technology was created to
optimize the manufacturing process, but
environmentalists worry that it will open an
ecological Pandora's Box and threaten the health
of the forests we depend on for survival.
The world is a test lab
GE forestry research is already alarmingly
prevalent across the globe. The United States
leads the world in research projects, with 150
tree test plots -- two-thirds of the world's
known research areas -- and they are joined by
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland,
France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United
States.
Despite the prevelance of the practice, GE
forestry has remained somewhat obscured by GE
crops, which have raised more immediate health
concerns, as forestry "doesn't seem to affect the
daily shopping trip -- or at least, less
visibly," according to Larry Lohmann, a
researcher with U.K.-based Corner House http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/, a nonprofit
that fights for social and environmental justice.
"But the problems transgenic trees pose are just
as severe. Whether it's endangering wild species
or pollen drift, the fact is we're in danger of
setting off a chain of events that's
irreversible. We don't know what we're messing
with," he says.
From the perspective of the timber industry,
driven by commercial pressure and deforestation
to "build" its own resources, the case for GE
trees is clear-cut. Uniform, faster-growing
species produce more paper or lumber in a shorter
period of time, driving down costs.
Faster-growing trees also produce greater
biomass, which can potentially be converted into
a second-generation biofuel -- an important
financial incentive in the current gold rush for
agrofuels. Biomass furthermore acts as a carbon
sink, sucking carbon dioxide emissions from the
air, which the industry claims is an
environmental plus, though native forests
actually absorb more. The industry's outlook is
simple: The technology poses minimal risk with
maximum return.
"The industry is looking for a way to make more
money, damn the consequences. What's driving this
is not environmental concern, but mass production
-- you can't say that's environmentally
friendly," says Lohmann.
Concerns over the technology's long-term impact
are serious. "The forests are already under
tremendous pressure from climate change and human
interaction," says Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher,
co-founder of the London-based nonprofit science
watchdog Eco-Nexus http://www.econexus.info/.
Steinbrecher, also co-author of "Hungry
Corporations: Transnational Biotech Companies
Colonize the Food Chain," has a Ph.D. in
molecular genetics.
"Compared to crops that have been cultivated for
thousands of years, trees are 'wild.' If a GE
trait enters a forest species, the implications
could be absolutely horrendous. We could see the
ecological system weaken and collapse. Without
the forests, we're sunk."
Steinbrecher's fears resonate deeply with
environmentalists. Given genetic science's
infancy, which has been plagued repeatedly by
controversy, biotech -- with its thrust towards
profit -- has continued to promote its art as a
magic bullet solution. But there's always the
risk of misfire. And now that trees have been
loaded into the barrel, environmentalists, those
involved in forestry, indigenous peoples and
scientists have worked to raise the alarm.
"Forests are crucial to us," says Alexander
Evans, research director at the Forest Guild http://www.forestguild.org/, which promotes
responsible forestry in America, noting how they
are one of the most valuable and
little-understood ecosystems in the world. "When
it comes to GE, the potential risks are not well
understood, so why go into it? We're not into the
quick-return model -- there are too many hidden
costs. There's simply no reason to take the risk."
The risks, in fact, are numerous. Genetically
modified trees have been engineered to exhibit
unnatural traits such as herbicide tolerance,
insecticide production, reduced lignin content,
the substance that makes trees strong but must be
removed to make paper, and finally, sterility.
Many of these qualities have already proved
problematic. For example, herbicide-resistant
trees are meant to reduce the quantity of
herbicides applied to tree plantations, yet
experience shows that farmers who converted to
herbicide-resistant, genetically modified crops
used just as much herbicide as their
counterparts, according to the World Wildlife
Fund http://www.worldwildlife.org/.
Or take sterility, also known as terminator
technology and by far the most controversial. In
GE crops, this strategy was used to prevent
farmers from saving and replanting seeds, thus
compelling them to buy from dealers -- a highly
lucrative move for the multinational/agrochemical
seed industry. With trees, however, the
technology is meant to act as a biosafety control
to prevent contamination as trees, large
organisms with a long life span, have enormous
potential for gene flow.
So far, engineering persistent sterility has been
impossible. But its success would be worse,
creating sterile trees that would produce no
seeds, pollen, fruit or flowers, sources of food
for thousands of species of birds, insects and
animals. Instead, sterile trees would comprise
forests akin to silent green desserts, devoid of
life.
"From a scientific perspective, we haven't got a
clue what the response (in GE trees) will be.
There's real arrogance in saying that we do,"
says Steinbrecher. "Genome scrambling isn't like
moving Lego blocks. It's introducing a number of
mutations into the plant's DNA, and the side
effects are not something we can predict."
The U.S. approves GE trees
Back in the States, however, major transgenic
tree projects are in the works. On July 16, APHIS
(Animal Plant Health Inspection Service), a
subsidiary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
approved a request by forestry giant ArborGen http://www.arborgen.com/ to let a field of
genetically modified eucalyptus trees flower and
produce seeds -- a monumental move that has
alarmed environmentalists worried about GE trees
interbreeding with wild ones.
"The USDA has basically been rubber-stamping
things without doing a thorough environmental
assessment," says Petermann of the Global Justice
Ecology Project, critical of the USDA's decision
to give the green light to ArborGen, a $60
million venture between International Paper, the
world' largest forest and paper company, and
Westvaco, another huge U.S. multinational forest
products company. "Trees live for decades, so to
do a thorough study, you have to study them for
decades," she says.
Not that USDA approval counts for much these
days. The pro-GE department has strong ties to
biotech, going so far as to sue other nations
before the World Trade Organization over bans on
genetically engineered crops grown in the United
States. Such political cronyism these days is
rampant, leaving the fox guarding the henhouse.
ArborGen has invited serious criticism on several
fronts: In its permit application, the company
classified certain genes as confidential business
information, meaning even the USDA could not
assess their impact; its field trial site in
Alabama is prone to severe storms that could blow
eucalyptus seeds much farther than the mere 100
meters the USDA anticipated.
And there's also the choice of trees. Eucalyptus,
a fast-growing, high-yield hardwood, is notorious
for colonizing native ecosystems. The species has
become so successful in California, it's now
listed as a plant pest by the state's Invasive
Plant Council. The tree additionally depletes
ground water, exacerbating drought conditions,
and is extremely flammable, potentially causing
massive wildfires, an ongoing issue for the
American South, where ArborGen is headquartered.
By far, the largest threat ArborGen poses,
however, is gene drift. Trees are perennial
plants that can spread seeds and pollen for
hundreds of miles, or even further. According to
new research from Duke University's Center on
Global Change http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/,
which has studied pollen from GE conifer trees,
the pollen from transgenic pines can spread more
than a thousand miles, leading to "substantial
... subsequent colonization."
Gene drift in agricultural crops has already
occurred rapidly. Take, for example, StarLink
Maize, a GM variety approved only for animal
feed, which entered the human food chain in the
United States, Canada, Egypt, Bolivia, Nicaragua,
Japan and South Korea.
With trees, contamination is more worrying
because they are long-living, complex organisms
that are key to the planet's ecosystem. China's
Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science has
already reported contamination of native poplars
-- what's to stop this from spreading elsewhere?
"There's no way to experiment safely in the open
with this technology. Companies say it's very
safe and that they have testing protocols, but
it's an illusion to think, once contamination
starts happening, that it's somehow going to be
regulated," says Lohmann. "That depends on the
assumption that you know what could go wrong."
Steinbrecher, too, finds the promise of halting
GE contamination and thus interbreeding with wild
trees a "scientifically meaningless argument
that's unsatisfactory and unconvincing."
"You cannot design a biological system that's 100
percent fool-proof," she says. Data backs her up.
According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), even at
a 95 percent success rate, it is nearly
impossible to control gene flow through pollen
and seed dispersal.
"Contamination is inevitable and irreversible,"
says Petermann. "Regulations need to be put in
place now to properly address and assess the risk
from these trees because the industry is getting
them out there without public debate. Once it's
too late, it really is too late."
Industry's spin
To pacify these concerns, projects such as the
European Union-funded Transcontainer scheme have
been created. A three-year, 5.38 million Euro
research project, Transcontainer is aimed at
developing technology to allow the coexistence of
GE and non-GE crops, as well as GE trees, through
technology that reverses sterility -- what
critics refer to as zombie seeds. In other words,
seed fertility can be recovered, possibly with a
chemical application, which critics fear would
create a new monopoly for the seed industry.
"This is not a viable solution. No molecular
technology exists for biocontainment -- and if it
doesn't prevent 100 percent gene flow, it's not a
workable option," says Hope Shand, research
director of ETC Group, an organization that
supports socially responsible technology. "Why
should taxpayers, farmers and society be asked to
accept the burden of defective technology and
then accept an even riskier technology to fix it?
You really have to look at it in this light. This
technology is not safe. It shouldn't be used."
But according to Piet Schenkelaars, a Dutch
biotech consultant for the Transcontainer
project, research is still in its infancy.
Schenkelaars agrees the technology isn't failsafe
at the moment -- that's exactly why research is
being conducted. "In a couple of years, we can
deploy the technology for more commercial
purposes if it works as it should -- but that's
something we don't know at the moment," he says.
Asked why, in the face of great public rejection
of GE crops, Europeans were being asked to
support similar research, Schenkelaars responded
that public opposition was questionable. "Whether
people reject GE is doubtful. Surveys on public
attitudes within Europe show different levels of
acceptance," he says.
However, substantial public resistance to
genetically modified crops does exist. In Europe,
the most recent Eurobarometer, a survey conducted
since 1991, indicated that most Europeans
remained skeptical of genetically modified crops,
expressing moral objections about potential risks.
Or closer to home, take Quebec. A survey
conducted for Quebec Science found that more than
75 percent of the province's residents would
rather pay extra for organic food than buy GM
foods at lower prices. And in America, studies by
the International Food Information Council http://www.ific.org/ and the Pew Initiative on
Food and Biotechnology http://pewagbiotech.org/
found nearly an identical lack of awareness of GM
foods among consumers. But when respondents were
told how pervasive GM foods are in the United
States, they were outraged.
Says Schenkelaars, "I think we should develop our
options as much as possible and keep our minds
open. Indeed, this technology is very complex. We
need to proceed with caution."
On that most critics would agree but find the
very existence of Schenkelaars, a public
relations consultant fronting questions for
biotech, troubling.
"This is boiling down to a PR battle. There are
two things research has shown are the industry's
biggest concerns: contamination and public
opinion," says Orin Langelle, co-founder of
Global Justice Ecology Project. "The industry is
going to pull out their wallets to convince the
public this is good, but it's our job to broaden
the debate. We don't have money for big ad
campaigns, but I guarantee the other side does."
One thing that's missing in the current dialogue
is discussion of natural alternatives, such as
hemp. Hemp does not need pesticides or herbicides
and yields three to four times more usable fiber
per hectare per year than forests. But growing
hemp remains illegal in the United States, where
the DEA has taken a hard line on the crop as a
result of the war against its psychoactive
cousin, marijuana, even though hemp contains only
trace amounts of THC. In terms of biofuels, hemp
is capable of producing 10 tons of biomass per
acre in four months --10 times more methanol than
corn, according to the Hemp Industries
Association http://www.thehia.org/.
Clearly, as this issue garners wider attention,
alternatives should be sought and public debate
welcomed. Says Shand, "Research continues to be
done on something that has been repeatedly
rejected by the public, so why not put that money
into researching something more sustainable? We
keep hearing the argument that technology, like
sterility in trees, is safe, but safe for whom?
Is it safe for companies introducing huge
monoculture plantations, or is it safe for the
trees? You have to look at the larger impact."
Global Justice Ecology Project Mission Statement:
Building local, national and international
alliances with action to address the root causes
of social injustice, economic domination and
environmental destruction.
For a while now Ecological Internet have been calling for E Protest against Greenpeace and WWF. They recently reported on an ancient rainforest logging operation in Peru certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme by Rainforest Alliance Smart Wood which has been implicated in massive cross-border illegal logging into Brazil.
Workers from the Peruvian company Venao Forestal, they reported, are said to have been crossing into Brazil and building an extensive road network to illegally fell CITES- listed mahogany. Glen Barry of Ecological Internet is quoted as saying "FSC and big green logging apologists including Greenpeace and WWF are facing tough questions following this and other inappropriate and illegal certifications."
As a Greenpeace supporter and active member I asked for an explanation about this illegal logging from them. I can say I did not really get a clear answer, however Greenpeace are obviously very busy trying to deal with the World Bank and dodgy logging permissions in the Congo and would appear to be very over stretched at present.
The FSC certification scheme relies on extremely efficient and honest policing of the chain of custody which can easily be abused - I doubt if trusting and well meaning charities such as Greenpeace and WWF have the resources to compete with timber barons whose business' may well extend to the heart of development firms within the EU. (The tropical timber will obviously also be going to Asia but I am specifically concerned with the West, Europe and clear evidence of it here in new build in Manchester, England.)
I asked if Greenpeace were tackling the whole issue of exclusive VAT rebate on all materials used for NEW build (which I have good reason to believe is a major factor in import of illegal timber into the EU having witnessed it for myself first hand). I was told that Greenpeace don't have the resources to take this issue on. Greenpeace are targeting their resources on getting legislation in place to stop the import of tropical timber into EU.
I asked 'What is the point of trying to ban the import of illegal timber into EU when the whole British economy (and possibly EU economy) is based on new building development (as opposed to refurbishing existing buildings) and the whole EU Tax system acts in favour of using new raw materials, such as imported timber, with not too many question asked?'. - no answer.
Maybe this is where the middle class Nimbies, Civic Societies and Residence Associations who object to their historic local building heritage being trashed and who are concerned about the proposals of the new Planning White Paper could launch a campaign.
I really feel that this VAT business needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency as it is a key piece in the jigsaw of ancient forest destruction - Buildings which are less than 15 yrs old are regularly demolished all over the U.K. - where does the resource issue kick in? Where does the planning system assume proper responsibility for sustainable construction with built in checks of materials sourcing? The idea of building infinite new carbon zero housing sounds just great but what about the wider resource issues? What about taxing waste building materials instead?
What do European Greens and our MEPs think about VAT issue? The VAT concession is extremely helpful to the European Building industry. What is the EU VAT concession doing for the world's tropical and temperate forests?
Illegal timber can get into Europe and the whole EU VAT tax system favours the use of raw materials for new build - this is a truly awful combination.
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------"The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority." Martin Luther King, Strength to Love p27 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
---------------------------------
Your Yahoo! Mail address is precious. Protect it with our ingenious new AddressGuard tool.
Note: forwarded message attached.
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
Please tell the EU: Don't sacrifice our birds and insects for
agrofuel expansion!
Europe's biodiversity is in steep decline. Common farmbirds have
declined by almost 50% since 1980, largely due to intensive
agriculture and 45% of our butterflies are at risk of extinction.
Bee species have declined by 80% in large parts of the UK and the
Netherlands, threatening the future of pollination and thus of much
of our food supply. Set-asides are now a last refuge, allowing
many of our common birds, insects and also hares to survive. The
European Commissioner for Agriculture plan to scrap next year's set-
aside target without doing any environmental impact assessment or
review, and without any replacement. If this plan is agreed the
millions of our farm birds could face starvation next spring. The
plan is in response to rising food prices - large driven by the
expanding agrofuel industry. The agrofuel lobby have long lobbied
for the abolition of set asides, to create for more intensive
monocultures for 'energy crops'. Agrofuels are already devastating
communities, biodiversity, rainforests and food supplies in many
parts of the global South - they are now threatening our wildlife,
too. Please write to European politicians today, ask them not to
scrap set-aside targets without any replacement, and to agree to a
moratorium on EU biofuel targets. Please go to http://www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/
and ask those responsible for the project to drop these plans.
[Sorry for those who are receiving this twice - I forgot to send it
as a special notice before. Almuth]
Please tell the EU: Don't sacrifice our birds and insects for
agrofuel expansion!
Europe's biodiversity is in steep decline. Common farmbirds have
declined by almost 50% since 1980, largely due to intensive
agriculture and 45% of our butterflies are at risk of extinction.
Bee species have declined by 80% in large parts of the UK and the
Netherlands, threatening the future of pollination and thus of much
of our food supply. Set-asides are now a last refuge, allowing
many of our common birds, insects and also hares to survive. The
European Commissioner for Agriculture plan to scrap next year's set-
aside target without doing any environmental impact assessment or
review, and without any replacement. If this plan is agreed the
millions of our farm birds could face starvation next spring. The
plan is in response to rising food prices - large driven by the
expanding agrofuel industry. The agrofuel lobby have long lobbied
for the abolition of set asides, to create for more intensive
monocultures for 'energy crops'. Agrofuels are already devastating
communities, biodiversity, rainforests and food supplies in many
parts of the global South - they are now threatening our wildlife,
too. Please write to European politicians today, ask them not to
scrap set-aside targets without any replacement, and to agree to a
moratorium on EU biofuel targets. Please go to http://www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/
and ask those responsible for the project to drop these plans.
Picture a liquid fuel that is derived from the same feedstocks as
cellulosic ethanol (switchgrass, sugar cane, corn stover) but
contains 50% more energetic content and is made via a process that
uses 65% less energy.
Unlike cellulosic ethanol, this fuel can be distributed via existing
oil pipelines rather than gas-hogging trucks and trains, dispensed
through existing gas stations rather than specialized pumps, and used
in existing engines rather than modified "flex-fuel" engines.
In short, it is a biofuel that can be substituted directly and
immediately for gas or diesel, on a gallon-for-gallon basis.
Sounds pretty good, eh? Too good to be true?
An outfit called <http://ls9.com/> LS9 says it can create such a
fuel, and that it can do so at a cost competitive with gasoline,
without government subsidies. The company, which was founded in 2005,
is making a few key announcements this morning.
First, it will be releasing, at least in schematic form, the details
of the science it's using. Stephen del Cardayre, VP of Research &
Development, will be at the annual meeting of the
<http://www.simhq.org/>Society for Industrial Microbiology to present
some of the technical details (on those, see below).
Second, it's announcing <http://ls9.com/pr073007.htm>the hiring of
Robert Walsh as its new president. Walsh is an old-school oil guy --
26 years at Royal Dutch Shell, where most recently he managed Shell
Europe Oil Products, to the tune of some $30 billion in revenue. Not
your starry eyed green idealist. Walsh says:
After years of leadership roles in the traditional petroleum industry
and responsibility over all aspects of the hydrocarbon supply chain,
I can see clearly how LS9's products will fit into existing
infrastructure and deliver significant value to partners and
consumers compared with other biofuel alternatives. LS9 has the
opportunity to fundamentally change the transportation fuel equation,
which makes me incredibly excited to join this talented team.
LS9 plans to build a manufacturing facility in 2008 and have products
available at commercial scale within 3-5 years.
All of which is to say: these are not idle claims.
What are these fuels, and how will LS9 make them?
The process is the same as
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol#Production_methods>making
cellulosic ethanol insofar as cellulosic feedstocks are converted
into fermentable sugars, and those sugars are placed in a
fermentation vat. The difference comes in the microbes doing the
fermenting. With ethanol, it's generally some form of yeast. The
researchers at LS9 have engineered their own microbes, lifting genes
from other microbes and recombining them into an organism that does
just what they want. In this way they can precisely tweak the
characteristics of the resulting fuel.
Yeast fermentation produces ethanol, which mixes with water and
subsequently has to be extracted via distillation. LS9's microbes
produce -- via fatty acid metabolism, in a process I won't claim to
understand -- hydrocarbons (the building blocks of petroleum). These
hydrocarbons are immiscible, i.e., they don't mix with water.
Instead, they float to the top of the vat, where they can essentially
be skimmed off. That allows LS9 to skip the distillation process,
which saves a whole boatload of energy. (That's where most of the
claimed 65% energy savings comes from.)
LS9 claims that by tweaking its microbes it can produce "designer
biofuels" that are, in the lingo, "fit for purpose." That is to say,
they can be matched precisely to the required use. One product is
"bio-crude," which can substitute directly for crude oil -- it can be
refined into gas or used to make all the many petroleum products we
know and love, like plastics, fertilizers, etc. Other products can go
directly into tanks, including bio-equivalents to gasoline, diesel,
and even jet fuel.
Chemically speaking, hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons -- LS9's products
are essentially identical to their fossil-based counterparts. They
can do whatever oil products can do, without the need for special
equipment.
Can you be more concise?
Sure. LS9 has genetically engineered microbes that will eat sugar and crap oil.
What are we greens to make of this?
As far as greenhouse-gas emissions, the news is mixed. In terms of
pure combustion -- i.e., what comes out of the tailpipe -- LS9's
fuels are about the same as gasoline. (By comparison, E85 -- 15% gas,
85% ethanol -- is about an 80% emissions reduction from gasoline.)
However, the company claims that on a lifecycle basis, its products
represent a reduction in GHG emission from both gas and ethanol.
Why? Relative to gas, LS9's products don't require drilling for oil.
They don't release any previously buried carbon into the atmosphere.
Instead, the feedstock plants absorb CO2; it's released when the
fuels are burned; it's reabsorbed by the plants; released again; etc.
In other words, it's a closed loop, recycling CO2 already in the
atmosphere.
Relative to ethanol, LS9's products don't require a huge new
distribution infrastructure. Ethanol, if and when it scales up, will
be distributed by lots and lots of trucks and trains, which will be
burning lots of gas and emitting lots of CO2. LS9's products can be
distributed via existing oil infrastructure. That saves gas.
Also, LS9's products have roughly double the energetic content of
cellulosic ethanol, which means they require half as much feedstock
for the same amount of oomph. That reduces the amount of feedstock
crops necessary, thus reducing industrial agriculture and all its
attendant ills.
Another advantage over cellulosic ethanol is that LS9's process can
create a crude oil substitute that can be used to make
petroleum-based products. That means we could get the oil out of
those products immediately, without having to reconfigure the
production process to make use of carbohydrate-based materials.
Incidentally, LS9 says that while its fuel will be roughly equivalent
to gas in terms of nitrogen oxide (NOx), it will have only trace
amounts of sulfur, so no SOx. It will also have much less benzene and
other toxic compounds found in gas.
I know there are greens who feel creepy about genetic engineering,
and they probably won't like the fact that LS9 is trying to patent a
life form. But I don't really share those concerns, so I'll just skip
them.
Can you be more concise?
Sure. "Renewable petroleum" -- yes, that's what they call it --
strikes me as vastly preferable to liquid coal and corn ethanol,
substantially preferable to cellulosic ethanol, and inferior to a
transformed society based on dense cities, public transit, and
electrified transportation using renewable sources.
Conclude already.
We have an enormous infrastructure built up around liquid fuels, so
even if you want to eventually get rid of them -- and I do -- you
need ways to reduce oil use and GHG emissions while you're working
toward that goal. LS9's biofuels can be plugged into our oil
infrastructure immediately and could, if widely adopted, radically
reduce the use of imported oil.
Global Justice Ecology Project Mission Statement: Building local,
national and international alliances with action to address the root
causes of social injustice, economic domination and environmental
destruction.
Sabrina Valle of the Washington Post is reporting that Soros is one of the biggest investors in growing sugarcane ethanol in the Brazilian cerrado, "a vast plateau where temperatures range from freezing to steaming hot and bushes and grasslands alternate with forests and the richest variety of flora of all the world's savannas."
HAMBURG - Rising biofuels production will keep grain and oilseed
prices high in the coming year, German grain trading house Toepfer
International, a unit of U.S. agribusiness Archer Daniels Midland
Co. said.
"As simultaneously demand for food and animal feed continues to
rise, above all in rapidly developing countries including China and
India, all market participants, especially processing companies,
must prepare themselves for a long phase of relatively high prices
for agricultural commodities," Toepfer said in a statement on its
annual results.
Higher prices were needed to stimulate farmers to raise global grain
and oilseeds production and to start cultivation on unused land, it
said.
"A relatively quick end to the current high prices can only be
achieved through record harvests in 2008," it said.
"Along with continued strong demand for human and animal foods, ever
more grain and vegetable oils are flowing into production of
bioethanol and biodiesel," it said.
"In the 2005/06 grain season, about 72 million tonnes of grain were
used worldwide for ethanol production, a year previously this was
only 56 million tonnes and in 2000/01 only around 30 million tonnes."
"In 2006, around 5.5 million tonnes of vegetable oil was used for
production of biodiesel in comparison to 3 million tonnes a year
previously and only 700,000 tonnes in 2000."
"Until now biofuels were previously largely produced in the U.S. and
Brazil -- bioethanol from corn or sugar beet -- and in the European
Union -- biodiesel from rapseeed -- now ever more countries are
following their example and are investing in production of biofuels."
"Sales of biofuels are being promoted in a targeted way using tax
incentives or compulsory blending."
"In turn, the growth in demand for agricultural commodities for
biofuel production will continue in coming years."
"According to our estimates, in 2007 for the first time more than
100 million tonnes of grain will be processed into ethanol.
Processing of vegetable oils into biodiesel could rise to 8 million
tonnes."
Rising biofuel production would also lead to medium-term changes in
global trading patterns, it said.
"This is largely because the traditional exporting countries for
agricultural products will increasingly produce biofuels which will
reduce their export surpluses," it said. "This will open new
marketing opportunities for countries such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan,
Russia and also Bulgaria and Romania to export their increasing
surpluses."
Toepfer said it expected to profit from its previous decision to
expand in these countries.
Toepfer said it raised turnover in its 2005/06 financial year by 1
percent on the year to 5.8 billion euros. The company traditionally
does not release earnings figures.
The British government has set up a website designed to lure consumers
towards buying the greenest cars available as the EU prepares to set binding
caps on the amount of CO2 that new vehicles can emit.
The ''Best <http://www.dft.gov.uk/ActOnCO2/?q=best_on_co2_rankings> on
CO2external '' website, launched by the UK's Department for Transport on 31
July, aims to direct consumers to the cleanest car model within the vehicle
category that they prefer, ranging from the ''super-mini'' and family car
categories to executive, 4x4, luxury and performance cars.
The government hopes that 4x4 fans that check out the site may then decide
to buy a Hyundai Santa Fe, which emits 191g/km, rather than a Toyota Land
Cruiser, which will emit 238g/km, or that families will choose a Citoren C5
or a Peugeot 407, both emitting 140g/km, over a Volkswagen Passat Saloon,
which emits 153 g/km.
Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said: "By choosing the car with the most
fuel efficient engine in its class, drivers could reduce their engine CO2
emissions by 24% and potentially save a quarter on fuel costs. So the
message is simple - the car you choose can help reduce your impact on the
environment, and help save money."
Raising consumers' awareness about the impact their choice of car can have
on the environment and on their fuel consumption is seen as a necessity if
the EU is to go ahead with plans to reduce average fleet emissions to under
120 grams per kilometre by 2012.
Currently, drivers remain attached to certain types of car, viewed as more
spacious, safer, more powerful or more luxurious, regardless of the quantity
of CO2 emissions they spew out or how much fuel they guzzle.
The EU still needs to decide how it will enforce its 120g/km target for cars
sold in Europe, with some members of Parliament calling on an outright ban
on cars continuing to emit more than 240g/km by 2015 (EurActiv 26/06/07
<http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/parliament-weigh-bigger-co2-cuts-carma
kers/article-164956> ).
MEPs and member states will examine the issue later this year and the
Commission is expected to come up with detailed legislation at the beginning
of next year.
Plenty of mistakes in this article. I'm sending
this to [biofuelwatch] Digest due to the mention
of biofuels, ethanol, etc.
FORTUNE senior writer, Marc Gunther, wrote this
article. It would be great if people could
respond to his blog
<http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=240>http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=240
with comments. We, "er, tree-huggers" from
"Global Justice Ecology program" (in actuality,
Global Justice Ecology Project) will respond also
and Anne Petermann, who Marc interviewed for at
least 20 minutes is responding personally to his
email address.
A South Carolina biotech firm re-engineers trees
to make them grow faster and cleaner, says
Fortune's Marc Gunther.
By mailto:mgunther@fortunemail.com Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
August 1 2007: 9:48 AM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In 1913, the New Jersey
poet and critic Joyce Kilmer wrote "Trees," a
poem which concludes with this simple rhyme:
"Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree."
It may be that only God can make a tree. But only
man, and modern biotechnology, can make super
trees - trees that have been genetically
engineered to grow faster, produce more wood on
less land, thrive in unfamiliar climates and be
processed more easily into wood or paper once
they are cut down.
Super trees are the business of ArborGen http://www.arborgen.com/ , a South Carolina
company that says improving the genetic makeup of
purpose-grown trees - that is, trees grown for
paper, wood or biofuels - will help conserve
"native forests in all their diversity and
complexity for future generations."
Yes, ArborGen, like so many companies today, is
painting itself green - although it has run into
a buzzsaw of criticism from the likes of the
Sierra Club.
"Genetically engineered trees pose unpredictable
and unnecessary threats to the environment,
biodiversity and human health," says the Stop GE
Trees Campaign http://www.stopgetrees.org/ , an
alliance of environmental groups which is based
in the village of Hinesburg, Vermont.
Last year, the company began selling its first
commercial product, Loblolly pine seedlings that
have been bred to produce 30 to 40 percent more
lumber than the native, unimproved pine. They are
not genetically engineered but produced through
natural selection and then cloned. Top-performing
trees, selected for straightness, fewer branches
or knots or faster growth are mass produced into
seedlings for customers.
ArborGen is also working on a freeze-tolerant
Eucalyptus, a reduced-lignin Eucalyptus and
faster-growing Aspen. Reducing lignin, a chemical
compound which is removed from pulp before it is
made into paper, means using fewer chemicals and
less energy during processing.
All this, says ArborGen CEO Barbara Wells, means
that land can be used more efficiently, saving
native forests. "Our purpose is more wood, less
land," says Wells, who has a PhD in agronomy and
18 years of experience at Monsanto, a leading
biotech company.
The federal government's push for biofuels is a
boost to Arborgen. The freeze-tolerant,
fast-growing Eucalyptus, for example, could
become a source for the production of ethanol,
which burns cleaner than gasoline and reduces the
U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil. Some of the
trees grow 20-25 feet per year, and produce high
quality fiber. "It is truly a biomass machine,"
Wells says.
ArborGen also belongs to a group of researchers,
companies and universities that received a $125
million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy
for a bioenergy research center at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Tennessee, with the goal
of developing new ways to produce biofuels.
Other companies and scientists also want to
improve trees. After a virus wiped out a wide
swath of Hawaii's papaya industry in the 1990s,
trees engineered to resist the virus helped
restore the business. Synthetic Genomics, a
Maryland firm founded by J. Craig Venter (of
human genome project fame), recently announced a
deal with a Malaysian palm oil plantation company
to analyze the genome of the palm tree that
produces oil. Forest scientists at Oregon State
University have used genetic engineering to
manipulate the height of poplar trees, opening
the door to new products for the nursery industry.
Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club,
the Rainforest Action Network and Forest Ethics,
don't like any of this. They argue, among other
things, that pollen from the genetically modified
trees could escape into the wild and wreak havoc
with forest ecosystems.
"We barely understand how forest ecosystems work,
anyway," says Anne Petermann of Stop GE Trees and
the Global Justice Ecology program. "When you
throw a wildcard in there, like a genetically
engineered tree, who knows how far those impacts
are going to ripple?"
She also says that tree plantations, whether
engineered or not, usually displace agricultural
land, native forests or grasslands, all of which
are better for the earth and for local
communities.
So far, the federal government has ignored the
critics and granted ArborGen permission to do
more than 100 field trials of genetically
engineered - that is, new and improved - trees.
Global Justice Ecology Project Mission
Statement:Ý Building local, national and
international alliances with action to address
the root causes of social injustice, economic
domination and environmental destruction.
--
Orin Langelle
Co-Director/Global Justice Ecology Project
P.O. Box 412
Hinesburg, VT 05461 U.S.
+1.802.482.2689 ph/fax
+1.802.578.6980 mobile
mailto:langelle@globaljusticeecology.org http://www.globaljusticeecology.org
The STOP Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign is
a Program of Global Justice Ecology Project http://www.stopgetrees.org
Global Justice Ecology Project Mission Statement:
Building local, national and international
alliances with action to address the root causes
of social injustice, economic domination and
environmental destruction.
Car makers are warning that an environmentally friendly "biofuel" launched
by Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday could seriously damage up to a
million Japanese imported vehicles.
It could even cause some cars to catch fire, they say.
The Force 10 ethanol blend put on sale by Gull Petroleum yesterday is the
first product to appear under a Government climate change policy that will
require oil companies to ensure 3.4 per cent of their sales are biofuels by
the year 2012.
ODI Forestry Briefing 13
Increasing concerns about climate change are fuelling growth in the market
for carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are purchased by individuals and
organisations from schemes that claim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere. This paper explores how emerging standards
covering the voluntary carbon markets can address multiple aims of carbon
offsetting and sustainable development and how they might be best designed
to bring benefits for developing countries.
Leo Peskett <http://www.odi.org.uk/rpgg/people/leo_peskett.html> , Cecilia
<http://www.odi.org.uk/fpeg/staff/cecilia_luttrell/index.html> Luttrell and
Mari Iwata
July 2007
The development of biofuels has generated vigorous debate on economic and
environmental grounds. Our attention here is on its potential impacts on
poverty reduction. The potential is large, whether through employment, wider
growth multipliers and energy price effects. But it is also fragile: it will
be reduced where feedstock production tends to be large scale, or causes
pressure on land access, and its success can be undermined by many of the
same policy, regulatory or investment shortcomings as impede agriculture.
Whilst some of the factors facilitating, and impacts of, biofuels can be
tracked at global level, its distributional impacts are complex, and point
to the need for country-by-country analysis of potential poverty impacts.
"Agrofuels, Road to Destruction" courtesy Global Forest Coalition
"Agrofuels, Road to Destruction"
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 the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice (SBSTTA) in Paris in early July [1].
SBSTTA is a subsidiary body of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and
advises the CBD on scientific and technical issues. Several government
delegates present called for a precautionary approach to biofuels. Use of
the precautionary approach would require detailed research of the risks of
large-scale biofuel production before any such production could occur.
A large number of organizations and Indigenous Peoples Organizations from
around the world who attended 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.
Many biofuels activists call biofuels "agrofuels" both due to the use of the
industrial agricultural model to produce biofuels, and because of the
diversion of food crops away from people and into vehicles.
"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", said 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 striving 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 was 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", said 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 in May [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.
"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."
Use of large scale tree monoculture plantations, including genetically
modified trees, are planned for second generation biofuel production [3].
Earlier that week over 50 Indigenous Peoples Organizations and
Non-Governmental Organizations involved in the Paris meetings presented an
open letter to the UN body recommending a ban on genetically engineered
trees on the basis of their potential impacts on forest biological diversity
and forest-dependent peoples. 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 [4].
[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 Other Commercial Tree Plantations,
Monocropping and the Impacts on Indigenous peoples' Land Tenure and Resource
Management Systems and Livelihoods", http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/ and scroll down to
6session_crp6.doc
[3] All above information from a 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
Photo: Marcial Arias from Kuna Yala (Panama) makes a point at a meeting in
The Hague, The Netherlands on an agrofuels tour immediately before the
SBSTTA meetings in Paris. Credit: Langelle/Global Justice Ecology Project
Graphic: "Agrofuels, Road to Destruction" courtesy Global Forest Coalition
[Thanks to Shri S.Choudhary for forwarding this article-Moderator.]
Biofuels, climate change and GM crops â€" who is really benefiting?
Rod Harbinson, head of the Environment Programme at Panos London,
looks at some of the controversy regarding genetically-engineered
biofuels, and their suggested role in fighting climate change.
Governments, oil companies and agribusinesses all support biofuels as
a way to combat climate change. Genetic engineering plays an
increasing role in biofuel production. Can replacing fossil fuels with
biofuels reduce carbon emissions?
Biofuels are renewable fuels produced from crops or biomass, including
crops grown specifically for converting into fuel. Political leaders
and businesses increasingly suggest biofuels as an alternative to
declining fossil fuel reserves. One attraction is that they can reduce
a country's dependence on imported fuel supplies, an increasingly
important political issue.
Several countries invest in biofuels:
* Brazil leads the world in domestic biofuel production, mostly
from sugar cane.
* Small-scale production helps small communities to raise an
income and meet their fuel needs, for example in Peru.
* The European Union target for biofuels in the transport sector
is 5.7 percent by 2010. In March 2007, the European Council agreed a
binding minimum level for biofuels of 10 percent of vehicle fuel by 2020.
* The USA has recently built more than 50 ethanol refineries to
meet its target of producing 5 billion gallons of biofuel each year by
2012.
Ambitious targets in rich countries have placed demands on developing
countries to provide crops for biofuel, especially maize. It is not
clear whether developing countries can benefit from large-scale
biofuel production because growing crops for biofuel can take up water
and land currently used for domestic food production. Reduced exports
of crops from rich countries can also hit poor people; in 2007, there
were demonstrations in Mexico about the rising price of maize from
biofuel demand.
Some governments support biofuels to meet targets to reduce carbon
emissions. However, biofuels have limitations as a source of 'clean'
energy. Many have low or negative carbon savings, because growing
crops and the process of converting them into fuel is
energy-intensive, often relying on fossil fuels. Clearing land for
biofuel crops also affects natural ecosystems, particularly tropical
rainforests. In the Amazon, clearing forest for biofuel crops releases
more carbon into the atmosphere than the biofuels save.
Research into biofuels based on cellulose from trees or crop wastes
uses genetically modified (GM) bacteria and enzymes to break down
plant waste and convert it to biofuels. Other GM research seeks
biofuel crops which grow faster. High-yield GM biofuels crops also
require large land areas, putting pressure on natural vegetation or
displacing food crops. Shared concerns, as with food crops, include
the impact of GM organisms on human health and the environment, such
as the risk of genetic pollution.
Biofuels are attracting increasing attention and investment as an
alternative to fossil- based fuels. Before trying to meet global fuel
demands and increase trade in developing countries, governments in
each country must answer some important questions:
* Will the biofuel industry in developing countries support local
energy needs, or just meet the demands of richer nations?
* Will biofuel crops displace domestic food production?
* Are there laws and controls in place to track any GM organisms
used to produce biofuels?
* Has there been any public discussion about GM crops, and which
issues do people consider most important?
* What limits are there to ensure that expanding the area of
cultivated land does not damage natural ecosystems?
Rod Harbinson
What do you think?
Comment on this viewpoint by emailing id21viewpoints@...
Further Information
Environment Programme
Panos London
9 White Lion Street
London, N1 9PD
UK
Panos London, UK
Email: environment@...
See also
Fuelling controversy â€" can biofuels slow the speed of climate change?
Panos Media Toolkit on Climate Change â€" No. 1, by Rod Harbinson, 2006
Useful links
id21 viewpoint: Tree plantations and climate change - avoiding
responsibility in Ecuador
id21 viewpoint: Litigating for climate justice
id21 insights 53: Securing development in the face of climate change
id21 insights 52: Debating GM crops
Maybe we cd co-ordinate a letter to this newspaper?
The propaganada promoting biofuels/jatropha need all
the counteracting they can get!
Best wishes
Felix
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the
Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
This is the kind of thing we are seeing here in the UK.
You might want to respond.
helena
Jatropha promotion – you can write a letter to The Times – letters@... - you have to give a full address and contact phone number or you can go to the page and respond there, which I think is less useful. Poison plant could help to cure the planet Ben Macintyre
The Times July 28th 2007 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2155351.ece The jatropha bush seems an unlikely prize in the hunt for alternative energy, being an ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed. Hitherto, its use to humanity has principally been as a remedy for constipation. Very soon, however, it may be powering your car.
Almost overnight, the unloved Jatropha curcus has become an agricultural and economic celebrity, with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies and deeply alarmed by the effects of global warming.
The hardy jatropha, resilient to pests and resistant to drought, produces seeds with up to 40 per cent oil content. When the seeds are crushed, the resulting jatropha oil can be burnt in a standard diesel car, while the residue can also be processed into biomass to power electricity plants.
As the search for alternative energy sources gathers pace and urgency, the jatropha has provoked something like a gold rush. Last week BP announced that it was investing almost £32 million in a jatropha joint venture with the British biofuels company D1 Oils.
Even Bob Geldof has stamped his cachet on jatropha, by becoming a special adviser to Helius Energy, a British company developing the use of jatropha as an alternative to fossil fuels. Lex Worrall, its chief executive, says: “Every hectare can produce 2.7 tonnes of oil and about 4 tonnes of biomass. Every 8,000 hectares of the plant can run a 1.5 megawatt station, enough to power 2,500 homes.”
Jatropha grows in tropical and subtropical climates. Whereas other feed-stocks for biofuel, such as palm oil, rape seed oil or corn for ethanol, require reasonable soils on which other crops might be grown, jatropha is a tough survivor prepared to put down roots almost anywhere.
Scientists say that it can grow in the poorest wasteland, generating topsoil and helping to stall erosion, but also absorbing carbon dioxide as it grows, thus making it carbon-neutral even when burnt. A jatropha bush can live for up to 50 years, producing oil in its second year of growth, and survive up to three years of consecutive drought.
In India about 11 million hectares have been identified as potential land on which to grow jatropha. The first jatropha-fuelled power station is expected to begin supplying electricity in Swaziland in three years. Meanwhile, companies from Europe and India have begun buying up land in Africa as potential jatropha plantations.
Jatropha plantations have been laid out on either side of the railway between Bombay and Delhi, and the train is said to run on more than 15 per cent biofuel. Backers say that the plant can produce four times more fuel per hectare than soya, and ten times more than corn. “Those who are working with jatropha,” Sanju Khan, a site manager for D1 Oils, told the BBC, “are working with the new generation crop, developing a crop from a wild plant — which is hugely exciting.”
Jatropha, a native of Central America, was brought to Europe by Portuguese explorers in the 16th century and has since spread worldwide, even though, until recently, it had few uses: malaria treatment, a windbreak for animals, live fencing and candle-mak-ing. An ingredient in folk remedies around the world, it earned the nickname “physic nut”, but its sap is a skin irritant, and ingesting three untreated seeds can kill a person.
Jatropha has also found a strong supporter in Sir Nicholas Stern, the government economist who emphasised the dangers of global warming in a report this year. He recently advised South Africa to “look for biofuel technologies that can be grown on marginal land, perhaps jatropha”.
However, some fear that in areas dependent on subsistence farming it could force out food crops, increasing the risk of famine.
Some countries are also cautious for other reasons: last year Western Australia banned the plant as invasive and highly toxic to people and animals.
Yet a combination of economic, climatic and political factors have made the search for a more effective biofuel a priority among energy companies. New regulations in Britain require that biofuels comprise 5 per cent of the transport fuel mix by 2010, and the EU has mandated that by 2020 all cars must run on 20 per cent biodiesel. Biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 80 per cent compared with petroleum diesel, according to the US Energy Department.
Under the deal between BP and D1, £80 million will be invested in jatropha over the next five years, with plantations in India, southern Africa and SouthEast Asia. There are no exact figures for the amount of land already under jatropha cultivation, but the area is expanding fast. China is planning an 80,000-acre plantation in Sichuan, and the BPD1 team hopes to have a million hectares under cultivation over the next four years.
Jatropha has long been prized for its medicinal qualities. Now it might just help to cure the planet.
- D1 Oils, the UK company leading the jatropha revolution, is growing 430,000 acres of the plant to feed its biodiesel operation on Teesside — 44,000 acres more than three months ago, after a huge planting programme in India. It has also planted two 1,235-acre trial sites this year in West Java, Indonesia. If successful, these will become a 25,000-acre plantation. Elloitt Mannis, the chief executive, says that the aim is to develop energy “from the earth to the engine”. Jatropha: costs and benefits - Jatropha needs at least 600mm (23in) of rain a year to thrive. However, it can survive three consecutive years of drought by dropping its leaves
- It is excellent at preventing soil erosion, and the leaves that it drops act as soil-enriching mulch
- The plant prefers alkaline soils
- The cost of 1,000 jatropha saplings (enough for one acre) in Pakistan is about £50, or 5p each
- The cost of 1kg of jatropha seeds in India is the equivalent of about 7p. Each jatropha seedling should be given an area two metres square.
- 20 per cent of seedlings planted will not survive
- Jatropha seedlings yield seeds in the first year after plantation
In response to initiatives by the Government in the State of Rajasthan and in other States, SPWD conducted a study across six states to understand the issues related to biofuel production . The study and subsequent workshop proceedings, are available with me vlobo_1@... . The hard copy includes some additional annexures and is available for Rs 150 at the SPWD Delhi and Udaipur offices .
In the study and subsequent developments the following issues need to be taken to account
1. To produce biofuel of the quantities required ( 20% blending with Diesel around 11 MT , a huge amount of land is required . The Biodiesel Mission has estimated the requirement to be 11 m has .
2. The Mission expected to use wastelands for the purpose, but as we know the wastelands are being used for grazing and some identified wastelands even for agriculture . Land , water and grazing are major issues in India and the programme has come across active and passive resistance in many states .
3. A similar requirement for biofuel is felt in the EU and USA . Due to constraints of land and competing demand from agriculture , there is expected to be a demand from the South East Asian Countries and including India and China. The lucrative market expected has interested many companies including Reliance, DI Mohan Oils , Adani , IOCl . How this demand for export will increase the demand for land will need to be seen in practise. it is already reflected in the move by various governments to allot land to companies .
4. The requirement of large amounts of oil for an expeller unit, means that a large tract needs to be devoted to plantation . Such large tracts are not available. Also there is the issue of productivity in the wild and productivity required to limit the land demand for biodiesel which would otherwise be even 30-40 mhas . This requires heavy investments , some studies talk of it being even in the range of Rs 30,000 per ha. It can well be imagined how small farmers can benefit from this . Arrangements are also being made to provide credit provided the produce is tied to purchase by a company and hence companies have arrived at agreements with banks to do this ( DI Mohan with SBI and Union bank in Tamil Nadu ) . However the agreement is with the farmer and the risk remains with the farmer.
5. The above will have severe impact on the biodiversity, particularly since degraded forest lands are being considered for the purpose .
6. The forest department of Rajasthan is considering that local village management commitees enter into an agreement with companies for sale of jatropha seed grown on degraded forest land. This issue was hotly debated in Udaipur at a meeting jointly organised by Aravali and Seva Mandir on 24th July 2007 , my colleagues Juned Khan and Jagdish Purohit will share more about this as well as other issues related to promotion of jatropha in Rajasthan .
7. Considering that the major issue is large scale diversion of land and its impact on agriculture , grazing and biodiversity , I would request inputs on this burning topic of land use management from the point of view of food, fodder, energy and livelihood security .
‘Tuba-tuba’ nuts down 21 pupils
Cebu Daily News
Last updated 05:44pm (Mla time) 07/27/2007
CEBU, Philippinesâ€"Twenty-one elementary students of a public school in
an island-village of Tubigon, Bohol were hospitalized for food
poisoning after eating the fruit of 'tuba-tuba' on Wednesday.
The students had just been released from their morning class at the
Batasan Island Elementary School at past 11 a.m. on Wednesday and were
walking home when they passed by two tuba-tuba trees and started
picking the nuts and eating its seeds, not knowing they were
poisonous, according to Dr. Adoracion Torregosa, administrator of the
Tubigon Community Hospital.
Tuba-tuba, or jatropha, is considered as one of the country's most
promising source of bio-fuel today because its nuts contained oil that
can be processed into biodiesel fuel.
The victims, with ages ranging from 7 to 13 years old, are all
residents of Batasan Island, an islet 30 minutes by motorized boat
from mainland Tubigon.
Torregosa said the students immediately complained of abdominal pain
and headache after they ate the seeds. Some of them started vomiting,
he said.
Torregosa said the pupils were brought to the hospital at 3 p.m. on
Wednesday, around four hours after the poisoning.
Torregosa said the parents first gave them first aid treatment by
making them drink coconut milk and cooking oil.
"The leader of the group, the one who enticed the other children to
eat the seeds, ate four seeds but he was up and about because (his)
resistance was strong. The rest were the ones who were poisoned,"
Torregosa said.
Torregosa said the children ate the tuba-tuba nuts because they tasted
like peanuts and pili nuts.
Torregosa said the tuba-tuba trees were inside a fence but some
fruit-bearing branches hanged over the road and became easy picking
for the passing children.
Torregosa said that 19 of the children were brought to the town's
hospital. Everlie Bopero, 8, was brought to St. Joseph Clinic in the
town, and John Alfie Oldinaria, 12, was brought to Tagbilaran City's
Governor Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital.
The 19 pupils who were brought to the Tubigon Community Hospital (TCH)
were Princess Mae Ladrera, 7; Chandrina Premacio, 10; Jollyvie
Bañanola, 7; Jessa Bañanola, 7; Krishia Cosicol, 7; Christine Mae
Sucano,7; Jhul Raven Fernandez, 13; Jenalyn Cubellas, 8; Jonalyn
Alipoyo, 8; Dynaven Saavedra, 7; Aina Plaza, 9; Reggie Premacio, 9;
Rica Mejares, 7; Angelica Cabillo, 8; Billy Joe Premacio, 12; Erica
Mae Mejares, 7; Jerrick Elle, 9; Stephen Oldenaria, 7; and Steven
Tabat, 7.
Torregosa said the pupils brought to TCH were given dextrose and
confined overnight. They were released at 10 a.m. yesterday, he said.
Torregosa said Bopero was already home while Oldinaria was also about
to be released.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/visayas/view_article.php?article_\
id=79092
Tribe at threat by 'green' fuels demand
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 28/07/2007
One of the last nomadic tribes on earth is threatened by rampant
commercial logging and palm oil plantations for bio-fuel, a Malaysian
government report said yesterday.
For 20 years the Penan people from the jungles of Serawak have mounted
a peaceful campaign to protect their ancestral lands, only to be
driven back by soldiers, police and contractors.
Earlier this year, as police firing shots in the air tore down the
latest blockades of bamboo tied with grass, Penan leaders said that if
the loggers were not stopped their jungle would be entirely destroyed
within two years.
Now at last they have received some official backing. "Claims made [by
Penans] on ancestral land are often not considered by the relevant
authorities and those who clear the forest areas and commence logging
and oil palm activities," said the report, recommending that the land
code be reviewed to include customary rights.
It may already be too late for the Penan. The rainforests of Serawak
are millions of years old but have been decimated by the Malaysian
logging companies which, campaigners say, have felled trees at a
faster rate than anywhere else in the world.
According to the British charity Survival, the rights of the Penan
over the land are "openly violated".
The ancient inhabitants of the jungle live by a gentle code that
astonishes outsiders. Because sharing is habitual there is no word for
"thank you".
Anthropologists recorded that anger is so rare among the Penan that 40
years after two women argued over an incident of adultery the location
was still known as "the house of hair pulling".
When the loggers came the rivers the Penan relied on for fish were
polluted, while the wild animals and plants that provide their unique
diet and the poisonous latex for the tips of their darts became scarce.
Now, however, there is a new pressure on their environment.
"As our forests disappear, they are being replaced by oil palm and
acacia," a tribal elder said earlier this month.
European and North American demand for "green" bio-fuels made from
palm oil means rainforests across the region are being replaced with
plantations.
Today, only a few hundred Penan maintain their traditional nomadic way
of life, while about 10,000 have settled in village longhouses but
still rely on extended trips to the jungle to gather medicines and food.
According to the report, a majority of the people in these settlements
"live in abject poverty" without education, amenities or basic health
care.
[Source: Telegraph.co.uk] (Thanks to Mr.S.Choudhary for forwarding
this news.-Moderator.)
Tuba-tuba downs 20 pupils in Bohol
At least 20 students in an elementary school in Bohol were rushed
Wednesday afternoon to a local hospital after being poisoned by
jathropa or tuba-tuba fruit.
Radio station dzMM reported Thursday that the victims were Grade 1 and
Grade 2 students from the Batasan Elementary School in Batasan Island,
Tubigon town.
Jerick Edel, one of the victims, was reportedly lured to eat the fruit
located just outside the school premises and invited his other
classmates to join him.
The children then suffered stomach pains and were soon rushed to the
Tubigon Community Hospital for treatment.
Jatropha is potentially lethal to humans and animals once ingested.
Health officers in Mindanao have been quoted in previous reports as
saying that jatropha fruits, once eaten, could cause death if
medication is not immediately administered on the patient.
Oil extracted from the the seed of the jathropa plant, or physic nut,
can be used to produce biofuel and soap. The plant's leaves are also
used to fumigate households and expel bugs.
It takes a 30-minute boat ride from the Tubigon town proper to reach
Batasan Island.
Tubigon is a second class municipality and seaport in Bohol that has a
population of 40,385 people in 7,714 households. - GMANews.TV
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/52808/Tuba-tuba-downs-20-pupils-in-Bohol
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 emissionsâ€"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 Soyâ€, 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 Ni€ ño - 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 Ni€ ño in 1982 -
Kinnaird and her colleagues developed a model describing how the
forest regenerates. This shows that if El Ni€ ños 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 Ni€ ños 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 Europe’s 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 José 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 José 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 didn’t 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 EU’s energy needs in a sustainable way, is something to be expected from a Brazilian minister for exports for example, not the EU’s Trade Commissioner", the Secretary General concluded.
Green NGO Friends of the Earth Europe said that the EU’s 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 world’s 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: EÚ zvažuje 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 président brésilien promeut les agrocarburants en Europe
Les Affaires: Le biocarburant pour lutter contre les inégalités
Reuters Germany: Brasilien rückt in Kreis engster EU-Handelspartner auf
AP: Biokraftstoff als Chance für Entwicklungsländer
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 Microsoft’s 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 FAO’s 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
CHOCÓ, Colombia, Jun 23 (IPS/IFEJ) - Indigenous and black communities
of Colombia's north-western department of Chocó 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 Chocó population.
Cacarica is part of the Special Management Area of the Darién
Mountains, which separate Colombia from Panama. It is located in the
buffer zone of Los Katíos 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, Jiguamiandó
and Curvaradó 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 Andrés 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 Urabá area of Chocó
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 Curvaradó, Pamadó, Palmas SA, Palmura, Asibicon,
La Tukeka, Selva Húmeda 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 Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó 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 Velásquez, 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.â€
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.â€
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 Fundación 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 Asociación Indígena 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 Acción, Ecoropa, Grupo de Reflexión 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
Fundación 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
Asociación Indígena 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 Acción, Ecoropa, Grupo de Reflexión 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 Inácio 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, José 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.]
Offline 
Send Email
