Biofuels spark fears of land grabbing, 'peak food'
Written by: Megan Rowling

Thousands of farmers and trade unionists protested against the rising price of tortillas - partly caused by growing U.S. ethanol demand - at a march in Mexico City, January 2007.
REUTERS/Henry Romero
REUTERS/Henry Romero
Not so long ago, biofuels were being hailed as the answer to the world's fossil fuel addiction. These days, the media is full of warnings about the potential harm of growing crops for fuel instead of food. Britain's Independent newspaper reports that African scientists and activists want a moratorium on new biofuels projects because they're taking over millions of acres of the continent's best farmland. "We need to protect food security, forests, water, land rights, farmers and indigenous peoples from the aggressive march of agrofuel developments," reads the call for a moratorium issued by the African Biodiversity Network at a meeting in South Africa last week. African governments have jumped on the biofuels bandwagon hoping for new exports, jobs and energy security, says the paper. "The reality is the forced removal of small farmers, rising food costs and scant benefits for local populations," it argues. Nigerian environmentalist Nnimmo Bassey describes private companies' accumulation of large areas of agricultural land as "a flashback to colonial plantations". International bank Goldman Sachs predicts that the amount of land given over to biofuels is likely to rise from around 50 million hectares in 2007 to close to 120 million by 2015. Besides the political and ethical implications of this, there are clear signals that growing demand for biofuels will help keep food prices high in the coming years. In a briefing issued last week, the Food and Agriculture Organisation said that around 12 percent of the world's maize is being used to produce biofuels (mainly ethanol). Due to soaring international cereal prices and freight rates, it warned that the cereal import bill for low-income countries is expected to rise by 35 percent for the second consecutive year, with an even higher increase anticipated for Africa. 'PEAK FOOD' In an article based on a presentation by Goldman Sachs, the Daily Telegraph newspaper argues that the way crops can be switched between food and fuel has created a new problem as the world seeks a replacement for limited oil and gas reserves. "Corn can be used for ethanol in cars and power plants, for plastics, as well as in baking tortillas. Natural gas can be made into fertiliser for food output. "Peak Oil" is morphing into "Peak Food"," says the paper, warning that vulnerable parts of the world face the risk of famine in the next three years as rising energy costs cause a food crunch. While that may seem alarmist, food is certainly becoming less affordable from West Africa to South Asia, where Pakistan is introducing ration cards allowing lower-income citizens to buy flour at subsidised prices. To make matters worse, a recent study published in the journal Science warned that food-based biofuels can actually hurt the environment if produced on land that was formerly grassland, rain forest or savanna - in some cases increasing the amount of climate-warming carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere. In response, Britain's Royal Society argued that biofuels can play a role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, depending on how crops are grown and converted, and how the fuel is used. "Given that biofuels are already entering global markets, it will be vital to apply carbon certification and sustainability criteria to the assessment of biofuels to promote those that are good for people and the environment," said Professor John Pickett, who chaired a recent Royal Society study on sustainable biofuels. Painting biofuels as an environmental and political baddie may be premature. But if policymakers don't act to stop the worst scenarios becoming reality, at least they won't be able to say they weren't warned.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
4 responses to “Biofuels spark fears of land grabbing, 'peak food'”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.

19 Feb 2008 16:26:04 GMT
Surely emphasis must be placed on new forms of energy for transport rather than trying to fuel existing vehicles. It may threaten oil and car manufacturers but our own economic mechanisms defeat any attempts at alternative fuels as we are now finding out. The law of supply and demand has been found wanting and is now working against our very survival. If price is determined by availability then who will decide which of us is to starve first, and who will be next? If ever the "ingredients" were being put in place for a nuclear war it is now - with our attempts at food and fuel management!
20 Feb 2008 13:53:18 GMT
When will the world turn itself on energy conglomerates such as exxon in response to their profit hording at it's expense? Perhaps it's too simple a concept to REQUIRE such corps to return a portion of their revenue back into the environment? Nature requires it, does it not?
22 Feb 2008 10:16:24 GMT
Nothing illustrates better our society's inability to comprehend the real urgency and importance of oil depletion and global warming. then this thoughtless and immoral push for so-called "biofuels". Our emotional, economic and social attachment to the motor-car is pathological, we are not only killing the very planet that we live on, which is literally crazy, but we are so determined to keep driving we literally don't care if millions of people starve, or millions of acres of rainforest are destroyed. This is a destructive cultural psychosis that, if it continues, will lead humanity to disaster.
22 Feb 2008 10:16:57 GMT
This horse is pretty much dead. No need to beat it (or eat it) anymore. Cellulosic ethanol from material ready for the Land Fill is all that's necessary and Costka has that covered. Although Exxon's profits are obscene, confiscating them would be moreso. It'll be even less an issue when E-REV's appear in 2010.