The publication of Professor Ed Gallagher's review of the indirect impacts of biofuel production has, as expected, set out clearly the negative consequences of increased production and consumption of first generation biofuels."Our review makes clear that the risks of negative impacts from biofuels are real and significant," said Gallagher.
While biofuels were once touted as the green alternative to fossil fuels, the negative effects of production have more recently become increasingly clear. The review, published yesterday, found that the controversial fuels drive up world food prices, increase poverty, and in many cases do little to combat climate change.
From a social perspective, the main criticisms relate to the displacement of farming land for biofuel cultivation, which is leading to food shortages and price rises; and the involuntary displacement of people as land is grabbed for lucrative biofuel crops. Environmentally, the report finds that direct and indirect land-use change for biofuel crop production leads to significant loss of carbon stocks contributing to climate change. There are also concerning ecological impacts in terms of natural habitat destruction.
The review which was undertake by Gallagher for the Renewable Fuels Agency, recommends that the introduction of biofuels should be slowed until more effective controls are in place to ensure the sustainability of biofuel sources. However, the review draws a distinction between first generation and second generation biofuels, highlighting the potential of the latter, which are comprised of residual non-food parts of current food crops, to offer enhanced greenhouse gas benefits.
Ruth Kelly, the transport minister, said yesterday that Britain needed to move forward with biofuels as the technology could still prove beneficial. However, in accordance with the recommendations of the review, the government will slow down their introduction. "I believe it is right to adopt a more cautious approach until the evidence is clearer about the wider environmental and social effects of biofuels. We also need to allow time for more sustainable biofuel technologies to emerge." she said.
Kelly announced that plans to increase the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) to 5% by 2010 would be pushed back to 2013 to allow for further investigation in to the impacts. Gallagher stated in his report that the RTFO should not rise above this level unless it can clearly be demonstrated the fuels are sustainable and avoid negative indirect impacts such as changes in land use.
Green groups have said that the government funded review has not gone far enough, and have renewed calls for the scrapping of biofuel targets. Mark Avery from the RSPB said: "We all know what someone who finds themselves in a hole should do. This review seems to be saying that it's OK to keep digging, as long as we dig with a little less enthusiasm. The review's analysis is based on rational argument but its conclusion comes with a large dollop of politics mixed in."
Guardian BBC (Ruth Kelly Statement)
