Sources on How Biofuels are Influencing Food Prices

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/4/163717/0989
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/8/1761/56481
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2008/jul/10/exclusivethebiofuelsreport

Correction to RTFO co-product allocation post

Thanks to Phillip for posting the following correction in the comments section of the blog:

The version of the RTFO Carbon Reporting Methodology you are referring to is out of date. This was a version consulted on in the middle of last year and has since been updated.

In particular, the co-product treatment procedures were updated. The recommendation to use allocation by energy content for energy co-products was withdrawn. During the consultation exercise many stakeholders highlighted the fact that use of the energy allocation method could lead to perverse incentives (e.g. little or no reward for installing an efficient CHP system at a biofuel plant, which would have significant GHG savings).

Energy coproducts are now treated by system expansion / substitution. The rest of your post is accurate.

Please see the following link for the final version of the Carbon Reporting Methodology:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/_db/_documents/080227_Final_Carbon_Reporting_Methodology.pdf

Re: Indirect land use change in Version Zero of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels

Interesting the acknowledgement that there is no “broadly accepted methodology” to determine indirect land use change, and the decision that “RSB will work with key international and national agencies and experts to try to provide a methodology to measure the indirect impacts of biofuels production for inclusion in the assessment of compliance with this standard, and to give guidance to producers”.  Perhaps a window of opportunity for the Berkeley biofuels project to contribute to debates and policy at the international level?  Brent


On 8/13/08 12:16 PM, "Avery Cohn" <avery.cohn@gmail.com> wrote:

3.e looks like a placeholder as yet, but it has some curious parts - i.e. does the use of "previously cleared land" really minimize ILUC?  

3.e        GHG emissions from indirect land use change, i.e. that arise through macroeconomic effects of biofuels production, shall be minimized. There is no broadly-accepted methodology to determine them. Practical steps that shall be taken to minimize these indirect effects will include:
o        Maximising use of waste and residues as feedstocks; marginal, degraded or previously cleared land; improvements to yields; and efficient crops;
o        International collaboration to prevent detrimental land use changes; and
o        Avoiding the use of land or crops that are likely to induce land conversions resulting in emissions of stored carbon.
Key guidance: The use of residues and waste shall not violate Principle 8 on Soil. Careful definitions and guidelines for identifying preferred land (marginal, degraded, underutilized, etc.) will be needed. The RSB will work with key international and national agencies and experts to try to provide a methodology to measure the indirect impacts of biofuels production for inclusion in the assessment of compliance with this standard, and to give guidance to producers.

coproduct allocation as recommended by E4tech to the UK for the RTFO

Therefore, it is recommended that the approach to address co-products

should be flexible and, that the most appropriate approach (i.e. that

which most accurately estimates the net GHG impact) should be

decided for each individual co-product. In practice, this is means that:

• Substitution will be the first choice approach, and

• (I think they omitted the word energy here) Allocation will be preferred when co-products are used for heat or

electricity generation or are converted into another biofuel.

• Allocation by market value will be allowed when it is not possible to define

a sensible substitution approach.

source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/rtforeporting/carbonreporting
-

By substitution they mean that one should measure what the marginal quantity of the co-product replaces (i.e. DDGs might replace soy meal so the substitution method would credit corn ethanol with the carbon footprint of making the amount of soy meal it replaces in animal feed.  They recommend that this is would be allocated by protein equivalence).

Fwd: Cana é proibida na Amazô nia, mas capacidade de fiscalização preocupa

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brent Millikan <bmillikan@uol.com.br>
Date: 2008/8/14
Subject: Cana é proibida na Amazô nia, mas capacidade de fiscalização preocupa
To: Michael O'Hare <ohare@berkeley.edu>, Avery Cohn <avery.cohn@gmail.com>, "Renata M. T. Andrade" <natypete.andradedowns@gmail.com>

FYI, in case you hadn't see this.. Brent


Cana é proibida na Amazônia, mas capacidade de fiscalização preocupa

http://noticias.ambientebrasil.com.br/noticia/?id=39950

09 de agosto de 2008

Não será autorizado nenhum novo projeto de plantio de cana-de-açúcar na Amazônia, de acordo com os resultados da negociação dos ministérios de meio ambiente e agricultura para o Zoneamento Ecológico Econômico.  Segundo o acordo feito entre os ministérios, divulgado na segunda-feira (4), os projetos de etanol já existentes na Amazônia não serão afetados, mas nenhuma outra usina poderá ser instalada.

Além de excluir a Amazônia, o zoneamento agroecológico da expansão da cana-de-açúcar também excluiu as planícies do Pantanal.  A decisão final depende do Palácio do Planalto, que deve analisar o texto acordado entre os ministros e tomar as medidas necessárias para a sua execução.

Na opinião do diretor adjunto da organização Amigos da Terra - Amazônia Brasileira, Mario Menezes, é preocupante a capacidade do poder público conseguir fiscalizar e impedir novos plantios na Amazônia.  "A efetividade dessa medida depende da capacidade do Estado em fazer com que o setor econômico cumpra as restrições", diz.

Menezes, que coordena um projeto para se criar uma certificação socioambiental para a produção agropecuária, inclusive a cana-de-açúcar, acredita que essa capacidade de fiscalização é precária, "como se vê no caso da grilagem, do desmatamento, da exploração ilegal de madeira e tantos outros eventos ilícitos que campeiam na Amazônia e no Pantanal".

Cana-de-açúcar na Amazônia - Existem atualmente três empreendimentos de etanol de cana-de-açúcar na Amazônia, localizados nos estados do Acre, Amazonas e Pará, e um projeto já aprovado no estado de Roraima. O plantio da cana na Amazônia é muito criticado por ambientalistas e pela comunidade internacional, mas defendido pelo setor produtivo dos estados da Amazônia.

No final de julho (30), o ministro da agricultura Reinhold Stephanes admitiu que fosse possível produzir cana-de-açúcar nas savanas de Roraima e a defesa da produção de etanol na região foi uma de suas polêmicas com a ex-ministra do meio ambiente Marina Silva.

Polêmica também é a produção de etanol na Usina Álcool Verde, no Acre.  O Ministério Público Estadual do Acre rejeitou os estudos de viabilidade do plantio de cana, devido à fragilidade do Estudo de Impacto Ambiental (EIA-RIMA), que não avaliou o uso da água e o impacto das plantações na Amazônia.  Além disso, segundo o Ministério Público, na área do canavial da usina encontra-se um importante sítio arqueológico, conhecido como Geoglifos, que pode ser impactado. (Fonte: Bruno Calixto/ Amazônia.org)

Indirect land use change in Version Zero of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels

3.e looks like a placeholder as yet, but it has some curious parts - i.e. does the use of "previously cleared land" really minimize ILUC?  

3.e        GHG emissions from indirect land use change, i.e. that arise through macroeconomic effects of biofuels production, shall be minimized. There is no broadly-accepted methodology to determine them. Practical steps that shall be taken to minimize these indirect effects will include:

o        Maximising use of waste and residues as feedstocks; marginal, degraded or previously cleared land; improvements to yields; and efficient crops;

o        International collaboration to prevent detrimental land use changes; and

o        Avoiding the use of land or crops that are likely to induce land conversions resulting in emissions of stored carbon.

Key guidance: The use of residues and waste shall not violate Principle 8 on Soil. Careful definitions and guidelines for identifying preferred land (marginal, degraded, underutilized, etc.) will be needed. The RSB will work with key international and national agencies and experts to try to provide a methodology to measure the indirect impacts of biofuels production for inclusion in the assessment of compliance with this standard, and to give guidance to producers.

EPA Keeps Biofuels Levels in Place after Considering Texas’ Request

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/871e4716874340fe8525749e005b43be?OpenDocument
Release date: 08/07/2008

Contact Information: Jonathan Shradar, (202) 564-4355 / shradar.jonathan@epa.gov


(Washington, DC – August 7, 2008) Following extensive analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen L. Johnson today announced his decision to deny a request submitted by the State of Texas to reduce the nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). As a result, the required total volume of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, mandated by law to be blended into the fuel supply will remain at 9 billion gallons in 2008 and 11.1 billion gallons in 2009.

“After reviewing the facts, it was clear this request did not meet the criteria in the law,” said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. “The RFS remains an important tool in our ongoing efforts to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign oil, in aggressive yet practical ways.”

Current law authorizes EPA to waive the national RFS if the agency determines that the mandated biofuel volumes would cause “severe harm” to the economy or the environment. The agency recognizes that high commodity prices are having economic impacts, but EPA’s extensive analysis of Texas’ request found no compelling evidence that the RFS mandate is causing severe economic harm during the time period specified by Texas.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the RFS program – and included amendments to the Clean Air Act to set strict criteria for RFS-related waivers. RFS nationwide volume mandates were increased in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law in December 2007.

EPA conducted detailed analysis, consulted closely with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, and carefully considered more than 15,000 public comments in response to the Texas request.

This is the first RFS-related waiver request. In a Federal Register notice, EPA is publishing a detailed rationale that will also serve as a framework for any future waiver considerations.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels

Stephanes defende o ‘plantio’ de cana na Amazônia

http://josiasdesouza.folha.blog.uol.com.br/arch2008-08-03_2008-08-09.html#2008_08-03_22_17_36-10045644-0

Sérgio Lima/Folha
Na contramão do que dissera Lula no início de junho, o ministro Reinhold Stephanes (Agricultura) defende o cultivo de cana-de-açúcar na região Amazônica.

Disse que, do ponto de vista agronômico, o plantio de cana na Amazônia é factível. “Na minha visão, poderia haver plantio nas savanas de Roraima”, exemplificou.

Defende também a preservação da cana em solos amazônicos onde já estão assentadas usinas sucroalcooleiras.

Menciona os casos de três usinas –uma no Estado do Acre, outra nas proximidades de Manaus (AM) e a terceira no Pará.

O risco da proliferação da cana na Amazônia é uma das principais críticas que organizações ambientais estrangeiras fazem ao etanol brasileiro.

Em junho, ao participar de reunião da FAO, em Roma, Lula dissera coisa diversa do que afirma agora o seu ministro da Agricultura.

O presidente afirmara que o Brasil não plantaria cana na Amazônia porque era desnecessário. Acrescentara o seguinte:

"Estamos fazendo o zoneamento agroecológico exatamente para que a gente demarque claramente o que você pode plantar e onde...”

“...Não queremos plantar cana na Amazônia porque sabemos que a terra lá não é produtiva para cana. Então não adianta fazer investimento lá."

Lula alfinetara os ambientalistas em timbre azedo. Tachara a crítica de que as plantações de cana-de-açúcar estão invadindo a Amazônia de argumento "sem pé nem cabeça".

Cuidadoso, Stephanes trata de esclarecer que não se deseja plantar cana em áreas desmatadas, mas em pontos específicos.

Seja como for, a posição do ministro ateia fogo numa fogueira de críticas que Lula imaginava ter apagado com as declarações da reunião da FAO.

Resta agora aguardar pela divulgação do zoneamento agroecológico, cujo anúncio o governo anuncia para breve.

Escrito por Josias de Souza às 21h17

Comentários (20) | Enviar por e-mail | Permalink