By David Spence
Associate Director
Hill & Knowlton Belgium

A tough ride for biofuels

“A crime against humanity” – this is how Jan Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food chose to describe biofuels last year. Josette Sheeran, Head of the UN World Food Programme echoed his comments by explaining that “an increase of biofuels production will sharpen the shortage of food in the world”.

The production of biofuels is highly controversial. Serious concerns have been raised across the world over biofuels’ climate change reduction potential, their energy balance, their contribution to mass deforestation, ecosystem loss, food shortages, and price increases. Many of these concerns were voiced once again during last week’s “World Food Security Summit” in Rome.

The European Union’s longstanding support for biofuels might then come as a surprise to many. As early as 2001, the European Commission identified biofuels, alongside natural gas and hydrogen as possible future energy sources for transport. In 2003, the first EU “Biofuels Directive” urged EU Member States to increase the share of biofuels in transport to 5.75% by 2010. The EU is now considering a binding 10% target by 2020.

The EU is indeed counting on biofuels to reduce its dependence on foreign oil (the EU imports 98% of its transport fuel from 3rd countries) and to tackle climate change. Domestic production of biofuels will of course also provide an important new outlet to European farmers.

In an effort to pre-empt environmental and social concerns, the EU Commission had already proposed biofuels “sustainability criteria” to prevent investments in cheaper, environmentally damaging biofuels. According to the European Commission’s latest proposal, biofuels will be required to deliver life-cycle CO2 savings of at least 35% when compared to fossil fuels. Moreover, biofuels planted in “highly biodiverse” grasslands, forests and wetland will not count towards the 10% binding target.

EU Commissioners have been compelled to mount a spirited defence of the EU’s biofuels policy. Marianne Fischer Boel, the EU Commissioner for Agriculture has argued that “media claims that biofuel production will empty every food bowl in the developing world are unjustified’’ and that biofuels should not become ‘’a scapegoat”. She has sought to explain how recent food price increases are the result of a shift in diets in China and India (from cereal to meat), the bad weather which hit cereal producing countries in 2006 and 2007 and speculation on the food commodity markets. Andris Piebalgs, the EU Commissioner for Energy has also emphasised that “until other technologies such as hydrogen become competitive, the only alternative to biofuels is oil”.

Nevertheless, in the face of growing public concern and a critical press, EU officials acknowledge that the EU’s 10% target and its biofuels strategy may have to be abandoned. A reversal of the EU’s policy on biofuels would obviously have a dramatic impact on the developing European bio-ethanol and bio-diesel industry.

Throwing the baby out with the bath-water…

This particular example illustrates what happens when highly complex and controversial policy issues come to be debated in the public arena and are simplified for media consumption into “sound-bites”.

Biofuels, a potential solution to EU environmental and security of supply concerns may effectively be abandoned, not on the basis of a sound, science-driven debate, but on the basis of flawed generalisations and ill-informed opinion.

It is worth considering that a multitude of ‘’biofuels’’ are produced across the world, all of which offer very different CO2 savings. Biofuels can be produced from a wide range of biomass products, including sugar cane, rapeseed, corn, straw, wood, animal and agricultural residues and waste. One must also distinguish between 1st generation biofuels (bio-ethanol and bio-diesel) and 2nd generation biofuels (ligno-cellulosic or sources and ‘biomass to liquid’).

European bio-ethanol producers, for example, maintain that they can guarantee production complying with the highest possible sustainability standards and meet the 10% target with EU-grown feedstock without adverse effects. The International Food Policy Research Institute has already suggested that last week’s Food Summit “shied away from distinguishing between beneficial and risky types of biofuels”.

How we can help

If decision-makers are to be expected to make the right decisions on the most complex and divisive issues, then the need to submit timely, clear and convincing arguments is self-evident. Many of our clients have a great story to tell, but that is of little relevance unless they can make themselves heard in the policy debate.

Our role is to ensure our clients get the best possible chance to communicate their views and concerns on the issues of the day to those who matter in government, the media and beyond.

In this particular case, our immediate challenge in Brussels is to counter those who seek to simplify biofuels and to demonstrate how “European sustainable bio-ethanol” differs from other, less sustainable biofuels - an excellent opportunity to demonstrate our added value in both public affairs and media relations.