SOME MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT?

Biofuels were suppose to save us and the planet from a combination of global warming and an over reliance on fossil fuels. The problem is that many biofuels are reliant on monoculture cropping and industrial agricultural systems, massive fertilizer inputs, large quantities of water and huge amounts of oil. One result of this is that biofuels may end up accelerating global warming by leading to the destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems when land is cleared for the cultivation of biofuel crops.

Another result is that biofuels end up in the developing world competing with food for land, increasing food prices and hunger. The biofuels industry is also supported by a number of different policies in both the USA, Brazil and the EU including various tax subsidies, trade barriers, government grants and loans. We need to bring to an end policies that directly support the production of environmentally harmful biofuels, and make room for sustainable energy alternatives and more environmentally friendly and socially responsible biofuels.

A recent report by Chatham House says the growing reliance on sustainable liquid fuels will also increase food prices . Basically biodiesel made from vegetable oil is worse for the climate than fossil fuels. The report noted that the UK’s use of biofuels is “irrational” and will cost UK motorists around £460 million over the next 12 months. The EU plan (underwritten by law) is for biofuels to make up 5% of the UK's transport fuel as of 15th April. The UK (since 2008) has required fuel suppliers to add a growing proportion of sustainable materials into the petrol and diesel they supply.

Many of these biofuels are distilled from ethanol which is sourced  from corn and biodiesel made from rapeseed, used cooking oil and tallow. Chatham House research suggests that reaching the 5% level will result in UK motorists having to pay around an extra £460 million pounds a year because of the higher cost of fuel at the pump and from filling up more often as biofuels have a lower energy content. The report states that if the UK is to meet its obligations to EU energy targets the cost to motorists is likely to rise to £1.3 billion pounds per annum by 2020.

The problem with the EU biofuel mandates are that they have huge distorting effects in the marketplace. As a result of used cooking oil being regarded as one of the most sustainable types of biodiesel, the price paid for it has soured. By the end of 2012 used cooking oil was more expensive than refined palm oil. Another concern is that taking EU land out of production to grow rapeseed oil in particular will end up creating more climate problems than it solves.

The more fuel of this type that is put into cars the bigger the deficit created in the edible oils market. This had resulted in increased imports of palm oil from Indonesia, which is often produced on illegally deforested land. As the UK reaches its 5% of liquid fuels target, the government faces some tough decisions on how to move forward as it may end up facing a tripling of the costs for motorists by 2020.

The UK Westminster government may prefer to try and get do a deal with Brussels on the impacts of indirect costs which might restrict what exactly counts as biofuel. There are problems with this, especially when it comes to reaching an agreement with those EU countries which have powerful agricultural sectors who rake in the cash from the current biofuels arrangements.

Outside of Europe there are other consequences with the acquisition of land by multi nationals for development or to acquire resources at the expense of local people. This is bound to be a touchy subject especially when little medium to long term sustainable benefit is delivered to the indigenous inhabitants. What's happening now in Africa is subtly different, there is a race going on between multinational companies on one hand and the emerging economic giant of the Peoples Republic of China on the other hand to acquire land, not so much for the minerals (although that is a factor) but to acquire the ability to grow food.

An interesting report (produced by the Oakland Institute) has noted that Hedge funds are now getting involved in acquiring land in Africa to produce food and biofuels, which will all boost their profits.  The report notes that foreign firms and hedge funds) have been quietly purchasing large chunks of land in Africa, often without any proper contracts and that this activity has led to the displacement of millions of small farmers, who are losing out as multinational firms try to secure their hold of the global food markets. Food production is often sacrificed to make space for cash crops for export, including flowers and biofuels, which fetch a tidy profit.

Since 2009 foreign firms the report noted that have acquired land equivalent to the size of France (nearly 60 million hectares) from questionable but lucrative deals with a combination of gullible traditional leaders or corrupt government officials in Ethiopia, Tanzania, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Mali and Mozambique. I have no doubt that the foreign firms make many promises of progress, development and jobs to local communities, but they don't necessarily come close to delivering on the promises.

Investors benefit with a wide range of incentives written into their contracts from unlimited water rights to tax waivers, but, are clearly not there to help feed starving Africans. Sounds familiar doesn't it - not that much of step from the old days of the WDA throwing wads of cash of foreign investors, who got all sorts of benefits (grants and incentives), promised much (I seem to recall the magic figure of 6,000 jobs kept cropping up in the 1980's, 1990s and early 2000's) yet in the end never quite delivered all that was promised.

OUR ABSENTEE LANDLORD?

While Wales and Scotland are quite different countries they do share a slightly similar problem with absentee landlords. A new report has been produced by the Scottish Affairs Committee (in Westminster) has said the Crown Estates management of the marine environment around Scotland lacked transparency and public consultation. At the moment the Crown Estate's controls approximately 50% of Scotland's coast and almost all the seabed, as it does around Wales.

The Crown Estate owns the rights to the sites of fish farms, renewable energy developments, ports and marinas. The Crown Estate is owned by the Queen and managed by an independent board known as the Crown Estate Commissioners. The estate's revenues do not belong to the monarch and surplus revenue from its £7bn-worth of business is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

The Scottish Affairs Committee has said that the UK government should commit to having the Crown Estate's marine responsibilities and rights related to Scotland devolved to the Scottish government, on condition the powers were further devolved to local level. MPs in Westminster took evidence from local communities in Orkney, Shetland, Caithness, Argyll and the Western Isles. The MP’s noted that they received responses that were highly critical of the Crown Estate which included criticism of the organisation which behaved like an "absentee landlord" and "tax collector".

The MP’s considered the nature and extent of the problems in relation to the marine and coastal assets in Scotland, and concluded that the Crown Estate Commissioner should no longer be responsible in these areas. The MP’s concluded that when it comes to the conservation of these maritime assets and the benefits to the island and coastal communities most closely involved with them should be maximised. Something that can only be done is by devolving as much of the responsibility - and benefit - down to the level of those local communities as much as possible.

In March 2011, a Plaid Freedom of Information request revealed that the existing offshore wind farms in north Wales at North Hoyle and Rhyl Flats generated income to the Crown Estate of almost £400,000 in 2009-10. And that is set to multiply many times with the development of other sites. Construction of the Gwynt-y-Mor wind project is due to start this year and the Crown Estate told Leanne Wood it also had a zone development agreement with Centrica to develop up to 4.2 gigawatts, covering both Welsh and English waters.

The FOI request revealed that the Crown Estate has onshore options for three wind farms at Lys Dymper with Wind Power Wales, at Llanllwni with RES Renewables and Cilfaesty with RWE Power. Planning applications have been submitted for the first two. The annual report of Crown Estate showed its Welsh holdings generated a gross surplus of £2.3m in 2009-10 with capital receipts bringing in £1.8m. It owns more than 3,000 acres across Wales, principally agricultural holdings. Profits earned by the Crown Estate are paid to the Treasury, according to them, for "the benefit of the nation".

Last year it was revealed that the Con Dem Government and the Royal Family had signed a lucrative deal that will earn tens of millions of pounds from the massive expansion of offshore wind farms. The Crown will net up to £37.5 million extra income every year from the drive for green energy because the seabed within Britain’s territorial waters is owned by the Crown Estate. A nice little earner if you can get it, especially for an absentee landlord!