Prof. Gernot Klepper Ph.D, Head of the Department "Environmental and Resource Economics" at the Kiel Institute for World Economics

Transcription

1 BONN DIALOGUES 10 November 2009, 18:00 Meeting Report: Prepared by Barbara Solich and Maria Ines Nascimiento, IHDP Panelists: Stefan Gsaenger, Secretary General of WWEA Dr. Wolfgang Jamann, Secretary General of Welthungerhilfe Prof. Gernot Klepper Ph.D, Head of the Department "Environmental and Resource Economics" at the Kiel Institute for World Economics Franz Marré, Head of Division "Water, Energy, Urban Development", Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany Moderator: Thomas Bärthlein, a Deutsche Welle radio Asia expert The 6th event in the Bonn Dialogues series took place on 10 th of November 2009 at the Deutsche Welle headquarters in Bonn, Germany. Four high-level specialists have accepted the invitation to join the discussion entitled: "Energy & Food Security - Much Ado about Nothing?" moderated again by Thomas Bärthlein, a Deutsche Welle radio Asia expert. The panel was preceded by a short movie presenting controversies surrounding biofuel production. The movie presentation was followed by speeches given by Ms. Angelika Maria Kepel, Deputy Mayor of the City of Bonn as well as by Mr. Karl Otto Zentel from the German Committee for Disaster Reduction. Ms. Kepel greeted all gathered at the Deutsche Welle, one of the Bonn s most international places, besides UN. She asked if the biofuels were worth the collateral damage they cause in the environment and stressed the suitability of Bonn, with the Millennium Development Goals campaign and the innovation centre of the International Renewable Energy Agency, as a place where this and the like questions can be answered with high credibility. Mr. Karl-Otto Zentel presented the building on the expertise of Bonn specialists as the aim of the Bonn Dialogue series. He thanked all supporters, among others the European Union, the local government of the state of North Rhine Westphalia, the 1

2 City of Bonn, and the Deutsche Welle. He pointed out the great controversies related to the biofuel production, namely: the rainforest cleaning for plantations of biofuelcrops; impact of biofuel-planting on the ecosystems; and the contribution of biofuels to the agricultural development. After the welcoming speeches, Mr. Bärthlein introduced the panellists and initiated the discussion. Thomas Bärthlein: Mr. Klepper, could you give us an idea about the problem of biofuels? Gernot Klepper: There are two types of biofuels: 1. Gasoline (ethanol) produced usually from corn, maize, sugar cane (US, Brazil); or from wheat or sugar beet (Europe). It is produced mainly for US and Brazilian market. 2. Biodiesel produced from oilseeds like soy or rape, mainly for the European market. Additionally there are three generations of biofuels: 1 st bases on food plants, 2 nd and 3 rd on non-food plants and residues. Currently only the first generation can be produced as the industrial processes have not been developed yet as far as the second and third generations are concerned. Thomas Bärthlein: What are the controversial biofuels? Franz Marré: It depends on where there are being produced and how does the production influence local communities. It can be said that in case of biodiesel, being produced in Europe for European market, the users bear the responsibility for the outcomes of the impacts that the production has on themselves. This is not the case when the production of bioethanol is concerned. It is, by the way, more accurate to talk about agrofuels instead of biofuels as with the prefix bio many positive feelings are connected. The prefix agro is, on the other hand, more of a neutral character. Production of agrofuels may impact local farmers positively and additionally give them an independence from coal and oil. But, examining the matter more closely, there are environmental hazards caused by them (especially concerning water stress). The food crisis has changed the view of many on agrofuels. Thomas Bärthlein: So if it is possible to differentiate the impact of biofuels from region to region, would you say that it is more negative in Asia and Africa? Franz Marré: It is not enough to produce biofuels for the European market exclusively in Europe. Production on the other continents is crucial. It is however extremely difficult to certify biofuel production for its sustainability. Sustainable production is however crucial not only for local communities, but also for the environment. 2

3 IRENA has initially included biofuels into the list of renewable energy sources. Later the condition of sustainable production has been added if biofuels are to be classified as renewables. Thomas Bärthlein: People used to blame biofuels for an increase in food prices. Do you think it is justified? Wolfgang Jamann: The rise of the food prices was very harmful to the poorer population, especially in the South. It is truth that there are some aspects related to the production of biofuels that connect them to the food issues. In case of biofules, food is being burned for energy and additionally lots of arable land that could have been used for food production is cleared for biofuel production. It also can't be said that biofuels provide greener future. Their production costs a lot of carbon. So biofuels are in no way a silver bullet that kills the problem of energy insecurity and climate change. Thomas Bärthlein: Wind power plants are very controversial as well. Is it a similar situation to the biofuels? Stefan Gsaenger: There are parallels between the discussion on biofuels and windmills. Local people should be involved and profit from windmills, then they are also more positive about them. The same is the case of biofuel plantations. The big plantations harm local people, but if local people were more involved it could have become easier. There are some alternatives to big plantations like for example usage of plant oil for own energetic needs. The question about biofuels is not if they are good or bad, but it is a matter of a right approach that can't be the centralised one. The EU did it wrong: it set a quota and left it to the big companies to work it out. Gernot Klepper: First of all it is important to understand that biofuels are a very small part of energy market. They are not important in the energy discussion. As far as the food security is concerned, the main problem is that we produce enough food, but people can't afford to buy it. But it can get worse. With the financial crisis, 1 million hungry people turned into one billion, and it had nothing to do with the biofuels. It can't be said that biofuels have negative influence on food security everywhere in the world. It depends on a specific case. Brazil and US that produce bioethanol do not experience food insecurity and biofuel production has no influence on food issues. Additionally, there is a ban on biofuel import to Europe if sustainable production can't be proven. 3

4 Wolfgang Jamann: An ideological debate is not important. There is a real problem: hunger. And agrofuel production definitely does not reduce hunger. Maybe it produces workplaces but the production is industrialised. Better way to prevent hunger is to let the locals produce their own food. Gernot Klepper: disagrees. In Brazil biofuel workers earn more than regular farmers and thus they can afford food. Real problem is that poverty is soon going to move from rural to urban areas. Furthermore, the most important aspects of rural development is access to electricity that increases education and productivity. Thomas Bärthlein: Next to social aspects of biofuel production, there are some environmental concerns related to it. Palm oil in Malasya and Indonesia leads to a war between producers and ecologists. What is the political response? Franz Marré: The problem is that there is a big uncertainty as far as certification is concerned. The case of Indonesia, where legal logging does not differ from the illegal one in its transparency, shows that it is difficult to be sure of sustainable production methods. So until there has been developed a good way of certification, we are not able to differentiate between legal and illegal biofuel production. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult for farmers to sustain their small-scale farms if the agroenterprises come to play. Thomas Bärthlein: Can we talk about green colonialism in case of biofuel production? Wolfgang Jamann: in Copenhagen we will discuss that, and it should make a difference for global warming. It is an issue of corporate responsibility. The demand on biofuels is created by the countries that need to use biofuels to meet the quota. We could summarise that biofuels are harmful for people and climate; they are energy marginal; they do not diminish poverty; and they are not carbon-neutral. Thomas Bärthlein: How can we find out if the production of biofuels was sustainable? Gernot Klepper: There have been conducted some studies on certification of biofuels. It is not that difficult to take into consideration the most important issues: climate, biodiversity (ecological aspect) and social effects. To avoid climatic effects of biofuel production the plants need to be grown on crop land or marginal land and not on the land cleared from natural vegetation for plantations. In a good industrial process (Brazil, Europe), carbon can be even saved. The next step will be to do it for food production. 4

5 For avoiding negative social effects of biofuel production the whole chain of fuel production needs to be considered, but crucial are the plantations. Thomas Bärthlein: So is it possible to certify biofuel production? Gernot Klepper: It is still a pilot project, but next year the implementation needs to start, otherwise the directive on renewable energy would collapse. In Indonesia there is an interest in certifications from the side of big companies. Small farmers still often put the emphasis on quick income and burning of forests by small farmers to sell it to biofuel plantations investors is not unusual. Thomas Bärthlein: It has been said that biofuels are marginal on the energy market. Could we do without it? Stefan Gsaenger: There are many relations between energy and food security that may not be contradictory. We don t use energy in a sustainable way, and it is not sustainable how we produce food either. Energy crises may lead to food crises. Power stations, for example, use water that could have been used for food production. We have overestimated potential of biofuels. But it is not so easy to say we could do without them. We need a mixture of solutions and biofuels are needed next to other renewable energy sources like wind water etc. We could only ask the question: why don't we use plant oil for our own energy use? Gernot Klepper: It is simply to expensive to produce plant oil for own use. We use biofuels only because there are quotas, not due to market requirements. Only in Brazil biofuels are competitive to fossil fuels. Stefan Gsaenger: Didn't believe that there is any energy system based on market economy. Thomas Bärthlein: To what extend is water use a problem in biofuels production? Franz Marré: Water is needed for energy production. But energy produced with agrofuels needs much more water. 35 m3 of water is needed for a regular energy production, also renewable. But 240 m3 is needed for agrofuels. So there is no economic or ecological reason for agrofuel production. Energy and food insecurity are not linked. Much greater impact have changes in eating habits for example by turning to eating meat. Now food prices are again lower which shows that they are subject to rules of market economy. Hopefully IRENA works more on solutions alternative to agrofuels. Sometimes it is good to produce agrofuels like in case of Brazil. But Brazil is still not a member of IRENA because it is afraid of being blamed for producing agrofuels. 5

6 Thomas Bärthlein: Is it possible that it works out with biofules in the future? Wolfgang Jamann: If people are helped by agrofuels industry then it might work out. But is is still minority of cases where it is so. The problem is that worldwide there is a big demand on strategic resources. If due to climate change the soil productivity decreases, production of biofuels may become a problem. Bärthlein: Are there any alternatives to crops currently being used for biofuel production? Gernot Klepper: In very remote areas energy is extremely expensive. In those regions jatropha as an alternative energy crop could be successful as it grows on degraded land. It has always to be looked into the local needs. Other options could be the second generation of biofuels produced from wood and perennial plants. The problem remains how to convert them into the liquid energy. It works in the lab but there are still no appropriate industrial processes. Until now, Germany has invested two billion Euro in research on this technology and has had no results. Questions and comments from the audience: 1. And what about producing a cryogenic gas? In Germany, in the last years, the production of biogas increased. It has a chance. We have the resources, but we don t use them. Franz Marré: It costs energy to produce energy. Small power plants may be costly and not always add to the economic development. It is all a mix of political will, economic potential and social needs. If we find a good mix of all these factors which reduce the weight of the political will, it might work better. Wolfgang Jamann: It is truth that biogas works pro-poor. However, one still needs to invest in gas plants. It is a real broader vision that we need to bring to the issue. Stefan Gsaenger: It is a huge task for politics to achieve more food security. 2. The panel discussed agrofuels instead of the question of the panel. Why are we worshipping biofuels instead of biomass? Gernot Klepper: It is always better for the environment to eliminate steps in the processes, so biomass is good. But in Europe it is very expensive as far as carbon equivalent is concerned. 3. Who are the big players out there, who set the rules of the whole game? How far is this a conspiracy? Gernot Klepper: There is a huge conspiracy. Half a dozen of players control everything. Could be bad, but turned out to be good because big players want a 6

7 sustainable production. They don't want to have a bad image. The small players are not worried with the media and regulations (in particular there, where no private land rights are in place, like in Indonesia). Stefan Gsaenger: Interesting question but not clear at this point is which policies encourage which structures. 4. Isn t this the best way to push out the small farmers out of the industry? Because they will not be able to compete, and with certification in place they will not be able to get it and therefore even have their products certified in the market. Gernot Klepper: there is a group certification, and that would solve part of the problem. But small farmers are much less efficient, which is a competition problem. Small holders don t have the knowledge or power to be profitable. There is a conflict between social and economic as well as ecological questions. Example of ecological versus social problems: in Brazil, where sugar cane is collected by hand to keep high employment. But the leftovers need than to be burned out. Thomas Bärthlein: What does the certification change for the small farmers? Gernot Klepper: There is a group certification where villages control the farmers themselves. Small farmers are less competitive on the market, less efficient, less educated. Wolfgang Jamann: On the long run we have to clarify land rights, labour rules, social standards, etc., and this takes much more time than establishing quotas. 5. Do more people live from biofuel than subsistent farming? 6. Is subsistence farming always less productive than industrialised farming? Franz Marré: It is better to differentiate between mechanised and unmechanised farming. Then the difference is clear. 7