19 March 2009, Brussels. As we have seen, EU agrofuel policy has spurred a number of initiatives supposedly aimed at bringing ‘sustainable’ agrofuels to the market over the past few years. These efforts have been used to try and justify the 10% agrofuel target.
The “sustainability criteria” adopted for agrofuels by the EU under the Renewables Directive are completely inadequate, but these are now the bottom line. Nevertheless, other initiatives are also being developed. This month, as industry gathered for the third World Biofuels Market, the European stakeholder meeting of the Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) was also taking place in Brussels. On the same day, reportedly five different events on “sustainable biofuels” took place around Brussels. It is clearly still a hot topic.
This generates competition, and at the stakeholder meeting – which was sponsored by car company Daimler – it became apparent that this is a problem for the RSB. Industry representatives, the main participants, such as the European Biodiesel Board, were very clear that it would be unthinkable for industry to agree to any standard that was higher than the criteria agreed on by the EU in December 2008. Indeed, they claimed, going beyond these criteria would be illegal under internal market rules. The Internal market article of the EC Treaty is in part the legal basis of this directive. The RSB, however, claims to be developing a standard that goes beyond the minimal criteria and meagre reporting requirements agreed by the EU. The stakeholder meeting was meant to discuss “Version Zero” of the RSB standard.
Since we’re talking about ”sustainable biofuels”, what does “Version Zero” says about genetically modified agrofuels? “The use of genetically modified: plants, micro-organisms, and algae for biofuel production must improve productivity and maintain or improve social and environmental performance, as compared to common practices and materials under local conditions. Adequate monitoring and preventative measures must be taken to prevent gene migration.” It is yet unclear how ‘productivity’ and ‘social and environmental performance’ will be measured, but it looks as though in the end many GM agrofuel crops will be able to earn the “sustainable” label, including even GM trees.
This is remarkable because the RSB has said it will adhere to the existing labels like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) for most of its criteria. The FSC, however, explicitly excludes GM trees from its certification scheme, because of their strong negative impacts on biodiversity. The RSB has clearly decided not to follow this example. Within the RSB Environmental criteria working group, an expert panel was established, and they were responsible for preparing this criterion for GMOs. Members of this “expert panel” are:
Alain Vertes, Research Institute of Innovative Technology, Japan; Anà Marià Bravo-Angel, Genencor; Eric Shayer, Infinity Bioenergy; Juan Gonzalez, Syngenta; Kirk Leonard; Marion Polk, Food Share; Kirsten Birkegaard-Staer, Novozymes; Kyle White, City of Calgary; Ruaraidh Petre, Solidaridad; Jeff McNeely, IUCN (RSB WG Environment chair).
This composition is unbalanced, especially given that two of the three NGOs present do not have a problem with the notion of “sustainable” GMOs.The chair, Jeff McNeely told the BBC back in 2006 that “Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming,” adding that “Better policies, better science and genetic modification, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolution.” He gave the example of Syngenta’s GM maize that can help convert itself into ethanol by growing a particular enzyme – but what happens if that trait spreads to other maize fields?
McNeely does not have a problem with GM trees, such as the low lignin trees currently being developed for agrofuel. Since lignin is the substance that make trees sturdy, keeping them upright, there are great concerns about the impacts for natural forests if the ‘low-lignin’ gene starts spreading to related natural species. Nevermind, said McNeely, “In the longer run, biotech promises to help convert wood chips, farm wastes, and willow trees into bioethanol more cheaply and cleanly, thereby helping meet energy needs while also improving its public image.”
The Dutch Committee of the IUCN however, has recently signed a letter by Dutch NGOs to the RTRS, stating that excluding GMOs from the criteria (ie. not discriminating between GM and non-GM soy) was a “glaring omission”.
Solidaridad is currently involved in the Round Table on Responsible Soy, about to start pilot projects certifying GM RoundupReady soy as “responsible”.WWF is not on this expert panel.
WWF has previously been a strong critic of GM trees. However, WWF Sweden is now chaired by a board member of SweTreeTechnologies, a Swedish firm developing GM trees.
It remains to be seen whether the Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels will be relevant or not (because industry will take the EU criteria and reporting requirements as a bottom line). Another question is whether the few NGO members of the RSB will help legitimise a wide range of GM crops as “sustainable”. The EU criteria do not exclude GM crops either; but nor have they received the approval of any environmental or social organisations.
