UN not joined up on biofuels

by | May 9, 2007


 A gaggle of UN agencies have just published a report on biofuels, says the Guardian this morning (see also previous Global Dashboard posts on biofuels). Although the report presents a mixed picture of upsides and downsides, it’s clear about the food security risks:

Expanded production [of biofuel crops] adds uncertainty. It could also increase the volatility of food prices with negative food security implications… The benefits to farmers are not assured, and may come with increased costs. [Growing biofuel crops] can be especially harmful to farmers who do not own their own land, and to the rural and urban poor who are net buyers of food, as they could suffer from even greater pressure on already limited financial resources. At their worst, biofuel programmes can also result in a concentration of ownership that could drive the world’s poorest farmers off their land and into deeper poverty.

Absolutely. Slightly confusing, then, to see UNEP head Achim Steiner saying the opposite, according to the FT last month:

The UN’s top environment official has backed a European Union plan to require the blending of plant-based biofuels into road fuels despite fears by environmentalists that this could lead to increased deforestation in south-east Asia and Brazil. Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Prog­ramme, said on Thursday that biofuels were needed to reduce global dependence on fossil fuels.

What’s especially striking about the coverage of Steiner’s April remarks is that all of his responses to criticism of biofuels focus on the one specific charge that environmental NGOs have decided to lead on: that biofuels are driving deforestation through palm oil plantations and so on.

What he doesn’t address or attempt to rebut is the more significant risk of biofuels undermining food security (remember those riots in Mexico?).

All this just underlines once again the need for development and environmental agencies to pull together a common strategy on biofuels that took account of both climate mitigation and development and food security. Achim Steiner is widely regarded as a smart operator within the UN system, and given the Secretary General’s strong current focus on climate change, perhaps he can drive integration forward.

Or maybe DFID and Defra can get there first and show what a properly integrated approach to biofuels would look like?

Author

  • Alex Evans is founder of Larger Us, which explores how we can use psychology to reduce political tribalism and polarisation, a senior fellow at New York University, and author of The Myth Gap: What Happens When Evidence and Arguments Aren’t Enough? (Penguin, 2017). He is a former Campaign Director of the 50 million member global citizen’s movement Avaaz, special adviser to two UK Cabinet Ministers, climate expert in the UN Secretary-General’s office, and was Research Director for the Business Commission on Sustainable Development. Alex lives with his wife and two children in Yorkshire.


More from Global Dashboard

Let’s make climate a culture war!

Let’s make climate a culture war!

If the politics of climate change end up polarised, is that so bad?  No – it’s disastrous. Or so I’ve long thought. Look at the US – where climate is even more polarised than abortion. Result: decades of flip flopping. Ambition under Clinton; reversal...