In March of this year, a group of scientists, technology leaders and energy policy experts convened in the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center to discuss the potential for a global trade in sustainable biofuels that benefits the rural poor. The group consisted of environmental, energy, agriculture and development experts from 12 different countries and was inspired by the original proposal of Prof. John Mathews, of Macquarie University, Australia, to focus on “Prospects for Global Biopact between North and South on Biofuels”, a pact to sustainable free global trade in biofuels. After 4 days of discussions, the experts reached agreement on a number of ideas contained in the final document, the "Sustainable Biofuels Consensus".

Excerpts from the opening declaration read as follows:

When produced responsibly, increased global biofuels trade, transport use and production can be costeffective, equitable and sustainable. Many nations have the ability to produce their own biofuels derived both from agricultural and forest biomass and from urban wastes, subject to adequate capacity building, technology transfer and access to finance.

Trade in biofuels surplus to local requirements can thus open up new markets and stimulate the investment needed to promote the full potential of many impoverished countries.

The Sustainable Biofuels Consensus calls upon governments, the private sector, and other relevant stakeholders to take concerted, collaborative and coordinated action to ensure sustainable trade, use and production of biofuels, so that biofuels may play their key role in the transformation of the energy sector, climate stabilization and resulting worldwide renaissance of rural areas, all of which are urgently needed.

The idea of a global 'biopact' is based on the observation that developing countries have a strong competitive advantage in producing biofuels (agroecological factors as well as the ample availability of inputs allow for far higher biomass productivity in the South). These countries also have a very large potential to produce fuels after they have met their own domestic demand for food, fiber, fodder and biofuels. So they could in principle export renewable fuels. Meanwhile, many other countries are unable to meet their biofuel needs from domestic sources. Therefore, the experts think increased biofuel trade holds a lot of promise for the creation of a win-win situation (see map, click to enlarge):

In order to develop such a win-win, the authors of the Sustainable Biofuels Consensus offer the following recommendations to policy makers, trade negotiators, businesses, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders:

Integrate and better coordinate policy frameworks

Sample requirements:

• coordinating national and international action among key sectors involved in biofuel development and use, including agriculture, energy, environment, and transport;
• negotiating a schedule to gradually eliminate the tariff and non-tariff barriers to biofuels trade;
• agreeing on internationally compatible fuel quality technical standards whilst recognizing that several countries are already engaged in efforts to harmonize these standards;

Assess benefits and impacts of biofuels trade, use and production, and monitor them

Sample requirements:

• recognizing that several key international efforts are already underway both in governmental and non-governmental contexts and that an iterative review of such criteria should be undertaken in order to continually raise the standards through advances in knowledge from research and through experience gained in the field;

Address negative indirect effects of biofuels trade, use and production

As with other sources of energy, agricultural and forest products, and urban wastes, biofuels have positive and negative impacts. In an ideal world, sustainability criteria would be applied to all food, fodder, fiber and all energy production and thus put biofuels on a level playing field with fossil fuels.

Until such a system exists, there will be an excess of indirect positive and negative impacts on conservation areas, GHG balances, and food security from land use change, as well as price variations specifically associated with biofuels.

Sample requirements:

• mechanisms to promote biofuels that do not have negative land use change impacts;
• Reward positive impacts and investments, including through carbon management
• Enhanced market opportunities will open up capital in order to follow the most profitable business models. Some benefits from biofuels use do not have an associated income stream. Therefore even sustainable trade as outlined in this document will not necessarily flow to the best performers.

Underfunded benefits fall into the categories of:

• rural and social development;
• ecosystem services, including biological carbon fixation (through biochar) and water resource management; and
• better practices that might reduce crop yields but restore ecosystem health, such as conservation agriculture.

Rewarding better practice will require:

• using existing and innovative tools to ensure that markets reward environmental and social performance, including carbon sequestration, without additionality requirements;
• recognizing that the post-Kyoto regime will possibly reward biological carbon fixation, and this should be encouraged;
• ensuring that biofuels development is accomplished by shared benefits, rights and rules of law;
• recognizing that biofuel projects that create significant rural and social development benefits will likely be under-invested in due to difficulties in integrating smallholders into markets, tendencies to concentrate buying power within supply chains, and a lack of financial markets for small producers;

Increase investment in research, development and demonstration

While countries could consider other climate related initiatives besides biofuels, the goals of public and private R, D&D investments related to biofuel trade, use and production should include (but are not limited to):

• to produce cost effective second generation biofuels ;
• to enable sustainability lessons learned from first generation biofuels to be used for second generation;
• to increase conversion technology performance;
• to maximize climate change mitigation;

Build capacity to enable producers to manage carbon and water

Capacity building programs are needed for farmers, foresters and small and medium-sized enterprises active in bioenergy and biosphere carbon management systems, such as biochar soil improvement techniques and water management technologies.

Capacity building is also needed for the development of effective technology innovation systems involving research and education, extension, industrial capacity to participate in joint ventures with supportive government agencies and an engaged civil society.

Land availability and biofuels potential

As to the questions of land availability, the experts say the following: Of the 13.2 billion hectares (bn ha) of the world’s total land area, 1.5 bn ha are used to produce arable crops and 3.5 bn ha are in pasture for meat, milk and wool production. Crops currently used specifically for biofuels, as a result of farmers’ choice, utilize only 0.025 bn ha.

In Brazil, for example, over 40% of total gasoline demand is provided by ethanol produced from sugarcane grown on 1% of the 320 Mha of arable and pasture land, and none in the Amazon rain forest. In addition to biofuel production, crops used for energy often also provide co-products such as animal fodder, fertilizers and electricity.

How much biomass could become available for producing biofuels? The future potential for biomass could reach 150-400 EJ/yr (up to 25% of world primary energy) by 2050 using available farm, forest and urban residues and by growing perennial energy crops.

Some of the 1 bn ha of marginal and degraded lands unsuitable for food production (such as from rising salinity levels) could be reclaimed for productive use by growing selected energy crops.

There are competing uses for non-food biomass resources (including for heat, co-firing and biofuels, as well as for bio-materials and bio-chemicals). Global trade in biofuels could help compensate for regional differences in the availability and accessibility of biomass resources.

Food and fuel

Low productivity in agriculture in many regions has resulted in unsustainable land- use, erosion and loss of soils, deforestation and poverty. Increased productivity over time as a result of better farm management, new technologies, improved varieties, energy related capital investment and capacity building would gradually increase the intensity of land use so that sufficient land becomes available the meet the growing demand for food, fodder, fiber and biofuel production.

According to the experts, commercial biofuels markets could become a major factor in raising the economic viability of rural enterprises, especially in developing countries. Increased investment in infrastructure for biofuel processing, distribution and transport would also result. At least some of this infrastructure will also contribute to the overall development of the agricultural sector.

“Second generation” biofuel technologies produced from non-food ligno-cellulosic feedstocks are expected to become commercially viable on large scale, and hold considerable promise, compared to “first generation” biofuels, particularly for expanding the energy base and providing significant GHG emission reductions.

References:

Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center: A Sustainable Biofuels Consensus. Understanding the many drivers for sustainable trade, consumption and production of biofuels, and the comparative advantage of supplying regions combined with demand and technology from consuming regions. Bellagio, Italy, 24-28 March 2008.