The discussion paper Burning Questions shows that there is a growing consensus among scientists that policy measures to stimulate biofuel production lead to significant agricultural expansion, with negative effects on biodiversity and food prices.
The authors of the discussion paper reviewed a wide range of academic publications on the pros and cons [link: Pros and cons of agrofuel production] of agrofuel production, and interviewed several stakeholders in the Netherlands. The study concluded that:
- In theory, the use of agrofuels can lead to a reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if they substitute fossil fuels, provided that no natural vegetation is converted;
- In practice, blending targets and growing demand for transport fuels are likely to result in additional expansion of agricultural land, with negative effects on communities’ access to lands, biodiversity and food prices.
In line with these findings, an increasing number of NGOs and researchers emphasise the risks of implementing blending targets, as they may stimulate unsustainable agrofuel production. Policymakers in the Netherlands, however, tend to favour such policy instruments, arguing that they provide the opportunity to implement strict sustainability criteria, with potential positive effects on the sustainability of agriculture as a whole.
While most parties acknowledge the potential negative effects of agrofuel production, the responses that NGOs and governments propose differ greatly. NGOs are generally worried and assume that expansion implies ‘business-as-usual’. Most of them, implicitly or explicitly, refer to the precautionary principle. Governments, however, tend to emphasise the potential positive effects on economic growth, employment and rural development in producing countries. They emphasise the opportunities and seem to be willing to take the associated risks.