Transcript Food Prices and Land Grabbing as a result of REDD+ and Bioenergy

Food Insecurity and Land Grabbing
as a result of REDD+ and Bioenergy
Simone Lovera, Global Forest Coalition and
Sobrevivencia/Friends of the Earth-Paraguay
Getting to the Roots: The drivers of
forest loss
• Demand for Wood
• Demand for Land
• Conflict over land tenure
• Urbanization, industrialization
• Corruption
• Poor planning, lack of
political will and capacity
• Lack of livelihood options
• Climate change
• Unsustainable consumption
www.globalforestcoalition.org
The Risks of Using Land as a Climate
Mitigation Option (REDD++++)
Influence of land-based climate
change mitigation on food prices
FAO submission to UNFCCC 2011: ”Already biofuels (a mitigation response measure)
from food crops were associated with spiking food prices in 2007-2008. While
different country contexts result in different impacts, biofuel crops can potentially
result in competition for land and water resources with food crops and removal of
potential food from food systems.”
[On REDD+:] “Countries will increasingly have to grapple with competing land-uses
and to explore measures to achieve a desirable balance among carbon storage in
forests, increased agricultural productivity and the safeguarding of food security.”
Influence bioenergy on food prices
•
•
•
•
•
Creates extra demand: Biofuels represent extra demand on land and crops, which are then
diverted away from food production.
Strengthens link between food prices and oil prices: because oil is no longer solely an
agricultural input, it is also now an output from agriculture. The FAO summarises this
relationship as follows: “A further source of price volatility is the expanding production of
biofuels based on agricultural feedstocks, which could tighten the link between prices of
agricultural commodities, especially maize, and developments and conditions in international
energy markets, implying an increased transmission of fluctuations in energy prices onto
markets for agricultural and food commodities” .
Strengthens links between prices of individual crops: because all these crops are competing
against each other for the biofuels market.
Further tightens the market for individual crops: when the supply and demand equation is
“tight”, as it is for many food crops, a small amount of extra demand can cause a big inflation
in prices if there is no leeway in the supply to meet the extra demand.
Mandates, obligations and subsidies distort the market: Forced increases in biofuel use
distort the market meaning crops are required by national governments to be diverted away
from food and into fuel leaving a decreased supply for food.
“Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy
Responses” policy paper published for G20 in May 2011.
http://ictsd.org/downloads/2011/05/finalg20report.pdf
Recommends: G20 governments remove provisions of current
national policies that subsidize (or mandate) biofuels
production or consumption. At the same time, governments
should:
• - Open international markets so that renewable fuels and
feed stocks can be produced where it is economically,
environmentally and socially feasible to do so, and traded
more freely.
• - Accelerate scientific research on alternative paths to
reduced carbon emissions and to improved sustainability
and energy security.
• - Encourage more efficient energy use, including in
agriculture itself, without drawing on finite resources,
including those needed for food production.
High food prices mean:
• More forest loss. E.g meat price up with, means it
is far more attractive to convert forests…..
• ….And far more expensive to convince cattle
ranchers not to deforest through payments for
environmental services (/REDD+)
• In general, they increase land conflicts as
“marginal lands” become more interesting to
farm
• But most importantly: Food prices have pushed
44 million more people into extreme poverty
(World Bank)
Example: Isabela Bio-ethanol plant in
San Mariano, the Philippines
Green Futures Investment Inc. and
Ecofuels (subsidiary)
• Plant expected to be operational in March 2012
• By then they need 11000 ha. of sugarcane within 40 km
from the plant to be economically viable (total agricultural
area in San Mariano: 29000 ha. Rest is degraded and
primary forests)
• The project will produce approx. 10% of the 500 million
liter bio-ethanol per year target of the Philippine
government
• Project is in process of CDM registration
• San Mariano was chosen due to availability of “marginal
land”. Philippine policy prohibits conversion of food crops
into biofuels, but many current lands are former food
production areas. The rest are forest regeneration areas.
REDD+ and Bioenergy Triggering Land
Conflicts
Land grabbing risks on agricultural
lands
Converting forest regeneration areas (SIFMAs): IEDD.
Sometimes for only 3 years sugarcane production.
How to address permanence in bioenergy schemes?
Increased risk of landslides in a typhoon
prone area – reduced climate resilience
Conclusion: we need a comprehensive view on land,
taking into account all land-related rights and needs,
while carbon markets and the FCCC in general provide a
square view.