Environmental authorities and biofuel controversies

Abstract

The current generation of crop-based biofuels is heavily contested for its negative consequences for the environment and the poor. Hence, the current biofuel system needs to be transformed in the direction of what can be labelled ‘fair fuels’: (bio)fuels that are environmentally and socially sustainable. Conventional state environmental authorities have limited power and legitimacy to effectively regulate the sustainability of current global biofuels. Hence, we witness the emergence of private market environmental authorities, moral environmental authorities and all kinds of hybrid authorities in biofuel regulation. These new forms of environmental authority should neither be condemned as ineffective and undemocratic nor celebrated as the modern answer to transnational environmental problems that face state failure. Further critical inquiry into the changing environmental authority structure under conditions of globalisation is needed.

Keywords:

• fair fuels
• environmental state
• globalisation
• governance
• NGOs

Notes

 1. I use the notion of state environmental authority, rather than environmental state authority, because (i) my focus is on environmental authorities, of which state authority is one form; (ii) state authority on the environment has some particular characteristics (see Carter 2007), notably different from state authority in, for instance, transportation or finance.

 2. Countries as diverse as Canada, U.S., Columbia, India, Thailand and most EU states have recently set targets for increasing the biofuel contribution to transport fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 states that in 2010, 25.8 billion litres bioethanol have to be used as fuel in the US. The EU Directive 2003/30/EC requires biodiesel to account for 5.75% of the overall amount of gasoline and fossil fuel diesel in 2010.

 3. Since 2000, 37 measures on biofuels have been notified by 20 WTO members in the context of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

 4. As suggested by, among others, Ted Turner – the founder of Cable news Network and head of the UN Foundation – in his speech at the WTO Public Forum in Geneva, 25 September 2006.

 5. For example, the G8 initiated Global Bioenergy Partnership ( http://www.globalbioenergy.org/). During the annual G8 summit early July 2008 in Japan, one of the main issues on the agenda was the increasing food prices and related biofuel developments.

 6. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, published 23 January 2008 (2008/0016 COD).

 7. European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 December 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (COM(2008)0019 – C6-0046/2008 – 2008/0016(COD)).

 8. For instance: www.foei.org/en/campaigns/climate/energy/agrofuels-declaration; www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/; www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/climatechange.

 9. Evidence of this impact comes from scientists (e.g. Mol 2007a, Kurdusiewicz and Wandesforde-Smith 2008), biofuel market parties (see www.biofuelreview.com), as well as NGO self reflections (e.g. van den Hombergh 2008, Oxfam 2008).

10. See for the recently established Round Table on Biofuels: http://cgse.epfl.ch/page65660.html; for soy see: http://www.responsiblesoy.org/eng/index.htm; and for palm oil: http://www.rspo.org/.

11. For example, the Brazilian Vegetable Oilseed Industries Association (ABIOVE) and the Brazilian Grain Exporters Association (ANEC) signed an agreement on 24 July 2006 to no longer trade soy originating from areas in the Amazon that were deforested after that date (known as the Soy Moratorium). Representatives of business and civil society organisations (such as Greenpeace, CI and WWF) formed the Soy Workgroup to monitor compliance through GIS, satellite and on the ground monitoring activities.