OPEN LETTER: WE CALL ON THE EU TO ABANDON

TARGETS FOR BIOFUEL USE IN EUROPE

31 January 2007

To: The Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and

citizens in Europe

We are extremely concerned by the plans as presented by the European Commission to adopt a mandatory target for biofuel use in transport. Implementing these measures means that the EU will risk breaching its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect biodiversity and human rights; because, as set out below – the proposed targets will amongst other things promote crops with poor greenhouse gas balances, trigger deforestation and loss of biodiversity and exacerbate local land use conflicts.

BIOFUEL TARGETS WITHOUT MUCH STRONGER COMMITMENTS TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION ARE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Any targets relating to energy we believe, must therefore first be directed towards reducing overall energy use, and improving energy efficiency. Instead of addressing Europe’s excessive consumption, the Commission proposes a biofuels target as a percentage of the EU´s fast growing and of as yet unlimited transport fuel consumption.1 This approach must be rejected as counterproductive. The fact that the European Commission’s ‘Energy Package’2 only proposes targets for biofuels for transport but not for other alternative energies is indicative of a seriously flawed policy approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions.

TARGETS WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE GLOBAL SOUTH

The EU is suggesting that much of the biofuel crop will have to be produced in the global South and exported to Europe.3 Although presented as an opportunity for Southern economies, evidence suggests that monoculture crops for biofuel such as oil palm, soya, sugar cane and maize lead to increased destruction of biodiversity and rural livelihoods and further erosion of food security, with serious impacts on water, soil, and regional climate patterns.4 Several statements already made by civil society organisations from the South express deep concern and call for a rejection of the EU biofuel plans.5

RISK OF INCREASED CLIMATE IMPACTS OF BIOFUELS

Biofuel is arguably the least desirable alternative energy form for which the EU could set a target. Biofuels for transport are less effective than wind, solar or solid biomass energy schemes.6 The production of biofuel crops uses scarce resources such as fresh water7 and productive land8 and in most crops used today, the greenhouse gas savings are marginal at best in comparison to fossil fuels. A thorough understanding of the emissions produced throughout the chain from land conversion to production, refining and use of biofuels is essential to ensure biofuel use will truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is deforestation itself a major cause of CO2 emissions, but biodiesel from South East Asian palm oil (where most world palm oil currently originates), can be expected to cause between two and eight times as much CO2 emissions from damage to peat as the CO2 emissions from the mineral diesel it replaces (by conservative estimates, and according to the most recent science).9 These emissions make it less likely for the EU to meet their commitment of achieving the climate

target of no more than 2°C change in average global temperature.10 Furthermore, research already suggests that the carbon balance of some biofuel crops may actually be negative when taking the complete process into account.11 Further study is thus needed before setting biofuel targets.

BIOFUELS WILL INCREASE PRESSURE ON WORLD FOOD SUPPLIES AND FURTHER ERODE FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

Price increases for some biofuel crops that are also staple foods will exacerbate not only deforestation, but also put food security at risk.12 Since biofuel targets in the EU would promote the production of biomass in the global South, the EU could be responsible for reducing the area of land devoted to food production, so eroding local and international food security and sovereignty and causing food shortages. Like EU targets, the US biofuel targets have been criticized for requiring an excessive proportion of the corn crop.13 The combined additional pressure from these two economies on crops widely used as essential food crops seriously threatens food price increases in poorer countries. Already, US demand for biofuel from corn has increased the current world grain deficit, raising corn prices significantly.14 In addition, The FAO in 2006 reported a historical low in the world’s stocks-to-use ratio for grains and record levels of demand (surpassing global production) for oil crops due to biofuel production. World cereal reserves have also fallen to their lowest level in more than two decades.15

MORE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS RELATED TO MONOCULTURE EXPANSION

Serious human rights abuses have been reported from sugar cane, palm oil and soy plantations in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia and South-East Asia. These include slavery, very poor working conditions and low wages, violent land conflicts, death and health crises due to the use of agrochemicals and deforestation.16

TARGETS WILL FUEL GM EXPANSION

The genetic engineering sector of the biotechnology industry is promoting biofuels to gain access to a new market. The GM varieties of several crops now used as biofuel crops (eg: maize, soya, oilseed rape) have met strong resistance to their use as food, especially in Europe. The industry hopes that by promoting them as biofuels, these crops will gain acceptance. However, the problems associated with GM, including contamination, would not be addressed. The introduction of GM crops in the South has had a massive impact on farming methods, human rights and the environment.17 An EU target will give support to the GM industry to expand still further. The industry also plans to use GM to alter, break down or remove the lignin and cellulose of plants to facilitate and increase biofuel yields18, with consequences that cannot be predicted.

INCENTIVES AND SUBSIDIES

If the EU applies incentives and subsidies to biofuels, these will further intensify all the pressures that we foresee from the targets. They will also distort markets and further undermine food production. They should not be applied while there is still so much argument about the real contribution biofuels can make to energy use and climate. Finally, incentives for biofuels contradict the pro-poor strategies of the Millennium Development Goals and disregard the 2010 Target agreed on at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg by adding a severe additional driver of biodiversity loss.

NO CREDIBLE CERTIFICATION PROCESS AVAILABLE AT THIS POINT

Sustainability certification is being proposed as a way of addressing many of the problems outlined above. However, the European Commission energy package does not provide clarity on whether a certification scheme for biofuels will be introduced, and if so, whether it would be voluntary or mandatory. Previous certification initiatives suggest that certification processes by themselves cannot address most of the environmental and social ‘problems’, particularly in countries with poor human rights records or weak enforcement of environmental and labour legislation. The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RSS), a voluntary certification process led by some large environmental NGO's and industry, has run into great controversy with civil society organisations and small farmers' movements in Latin America and is widely perceived as acting against their interests. The Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) has yet to agree on procedures for verifying adherence to its standards

and some of the RSPO industry members continue to destroy large areas of rainforest and openly bid for concessions which contravene RSPO principles, such as Wilmar International’s bid for Bugala Island, Uganda, or PT SMART’s plans for palm oil expansion in Indonesia. At present, no credible certification process leading to strong and mandatory standards, with full involvement of affected groups in producer countries, is available. Setting targets for biofuels before fully addressing the problems it can cause should be strongly rejected. We therefore call on the Member States to reject the biofuel target for transport and halt all other incentives for biofuel production which could encourage in any way the use of biofuels linked to the problems described above. Instead, the focus should be on drastic reduction of energy use and support for genuinely sustainable renewables.

"We are collecting more signatures from organisations, local groups and well-known individuals, such as academics or writers. If you or your group would like to sign, please email us at info@biofuelwatch.org.uk ".

Signatories: Organisations

1. Action Campaign for Endangered Species (ACES)

Brigitte Peter, http://www.aga-international.de/index/index.html

2. ACU Associazione Consumatori Utenti, Italy

www.acu.it/

3. AEFJN - Wtizerland (Reseau Foi et Justice Afrique Europe Antenne Suisse),

Switzerland

Claude Maillard, c.maillard@africanum.ch, www.rfjae.ch

4. Africa-Europe Faith and Justice Network, Switzerland,

Yvonne Goossens, yvonne.goossens@belgacom.net, http://www.aefjn.org/

5. Afrika-Europa Netwerk Nederlands, Netherlands

mafr.cor@planet.nl

6. Aipazcomun Section Suisse, Switzerland

aipazcomun@gmail.com

7. Amis de la Terre (FoE France), France

www.amisdelaterre.org/

8. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Regenwald und Artenschutz, Germany

Wolfgang Kuhlmann, wolfgang.kuhlmann@araonline.de, www.araonline.de

9. Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz – Kolumbien, Germany

Stephan Suhner, stephansuhner@gmx.ch, www.kolumbien-aktuell.ch/

10. Asociacionsanfranciscodeasis, Argentina

asociacionsanfranciscodeasis@telpin.com.ar

11. Asociación pola defensa da Ría, Spain

Benito Andrade, bandrade@mundo-R.com

12. ASEED Europe, Action for Solidarity, Equity, Environment and Solidarity, Holland

info@aseed.net, www.aseed.net/

13. Base Investigaciones Sociales, Paraguay

www.baseis.org.py/

14. Berne Declaration, Switzerland

http://www.evb.ch/en/f25000188.html

15. Bharat Krishak Samaj (Farmers' Forum India), India

Krishan Bir Chaudhary , bksnd@airtelbroadband.in

16. Biofuelwatch

info@biofuelwatch.org.uk

17. Biowatch SA, South Africa

www.biowatch.org.za

18. Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation,

info@savetheorangutan.co.uk, www.savetheorangutan.org.uk/

19. Both ENDS Netherlands

www.bothends.org/ info@botheneds.org,

20. Brothers FIC - General Council, Netherlands

www.brothers-fic.org , gencouncil@brothers-fic.org

21. Bruno Manser Fonds – Fairness im Tropenwald, Switzerland

Lukas Straumann, www.bmf.ch

22. BSOe (Bundeskoordination student. Oekologiearbeit), Germany

www.bsoe.info/wir/

23. BUND (FoE Germany), Germany,

Angelika Zahmt,foret@amisdelaterre.org, info@bund.net , www.bund.net/

24. BUKO Agrar Koordination, Germany

www.bukoagrar.de

25. Bundersverband Buergerinitivativen Umweltschutz e.V., Germany

http://www.bbu-online.de/

26. CAPPA, Indonesia, Rivani Noor

rivani@cappa.or.id

27. Carbon Coach Ltd, UK

Dave Hampton, dave@carboncoach.com

28. Carbon Trade Watch, Transnational Institute

info@carbontradewatch.org, www.carbontradewatch.org, www.tni.org

29. Campaign Promotions, Gareth Strangemore-Jones

www.campaignpromotions.org

30. CENSAT Agua Viva, Friends of the Earth Colombia

www.censat.org, bosques@censat.org

31. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, India

www.csa-india.org/

32. Centro de Proteccion a la Naturaleza, Argentina

cpronat01@yahoo.com.ar, http://www.ambiente-ecologico.com/

33. Chacabuco Sustentable, Argentina

santyoga@yahoo.com.ar

34. Chalice Farm and Sustainable Living Center,California, USA

chalicenew@earthlink.net

35. Cheltenham FoE, UK

sophie@lesberries.co.uk

36. C.I.F.A.E.S. - Universidad Rural Paulo Freire de Tierra de Campos, Spain

plataformarural@nodo50.org

37. Citizens' Biotechnology Information Center (CBIC), Japan

http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~cbic/english/index.html

38. Climate Concern UK, Peter Hale,

peterhale@climate-concern.com, www.climate-concern.com

39. Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN), UK

http://coinet.org.uk/

40. COECOCeiba-FoE Costa Rica; Costa Rica; Isaac Rojas y Javier Baltodano;

gavitza@ice.co.cr , licania@racsa.co.cr ; www.coecoceiba.org

41. Colectivo de Colombianos Refugiados en Asturias, Spain,

refugiados@ozu.es

42. Common Sense Solutions, UK,

Rupert Hawley, ruz@mac.com

43. Communiteit MSC Missiehuis Tilbur, Netherlands

44. Corner House, UK,

www.thecornerhouse.org.uk

45. Coordinadora Ecoloxista d'Asturies, Spain

Fpontigo@telecable.es

46. Coordinadora Popular Colombiana, France,

http://coordinadora.popular.googlepages.com/home ;

coordinadora.popular@gmail.com

47. Coordinación Técnica Red de Semillas, Spain

coord_redsemillas@agrariamanresa.org

48. Corporate Europe Observatory

ceo@corporateeurope.org, www.corporateeurope.org/

49. Dogwood Alliance, North Carolina, USA

www.dogwoodalliance.org/ , eva@dogwoodalliance.org

50. "Echos d'Amérique Latine" association, France

Abimael Castro, echosamela@yahoo.es

51. ecodevelop: Action for Socio-ecologic Development, Germany

ecodevelop@gmx.org

52. Ecologistas en Acción, Spain;

eea_comisioninternacional2@yahoo.es; www.ecologistasenaccion.org

53. Ecological Internet, USA

GlenBarry@EcologicalInternet.org, www.ecologicalinternet.org/

54. Ecological Society of the Philippines

jmc1@mozcom.com

55. Econexus

Helena Paul, h.paul@econexus.info, www.econexus.info

56. Ecoportal.Net, Argentina

Dra. Noemi Abad, nabad@ecoportal.net , www.ecoportal.net

57. Ecoropa, Bonn, Germany

Christine von Weizsäcker

58. El Sindicato Labrego Galego (SLG), Spain

www.sindicatolabrego.com, nacional@sindicatolabrego.com

59. EKPIZO, Consumer Association Quality of Life', Greece

www.ekpizo.gr/

60. European Region of the Humanist International,

Juha Uski, jjou@ruc.dk, www.humanisteurope.org

61. Exeter Friends of the Earth, UK

www.exeterfoe.org.uk, su3052@eclipse.co.uk

62. Farmers' Link, UK

www.farmerslink.org.uk/

63. FASE-AMAZONIA, Brazil

www.fase.org.br/, matheus@fase-pa.org.br

64. FASE Espirito Santo, Brazil,

http://www.fase.org.br/_fase/

65. FERN, Jutta Kill

jutta@fern.org, www.fern.org/

66. Flipside Vision Ltd, UK

vision@flipsidevision.com

67. Food and Water Watch Europe

www.foodandwaterwatch.org

68. Food for Maine’s Future, Maine, USA,

http://foodformainesfuture.org info@foodformainesfuture.org

69. Forum Fairer Handel, Germany

Dr. Hans-Christoph Bill, h-c.bill@hamburg.de , www.forum-fh.de/

70. Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, India

bhaskargoswami@hotmail.com

71. France Amérique Latine, France

Valérie Techer, kasa8@club-internet.fr , www.franceameriquelatine.fr/

72. Friends of the Earth Finland

riitta.savikko@maanystavat.fi, www.maanystavat.fi

73. Friends of the Earth Slovakia, www.priateliazeme.sk

Roman Havlicek, havlicek@changenet.sk

74. Fundacion Ambiente Nacional:, Jorge Castillo, Chaco Argentina

jorgecastillo1946@yahoo.com.ar, http://www.farn.org.ar/

75. Genetic Engineering Network, UK

www.geneticsaction.org.uk/, gen@topfield.org.uk

76. Genetic Food Alert, UK, Robert Vint

rjvint@globalnet.co.uk , http://www.geneticfoodalert.supanet.com/

77. Gesellschaft für Ökologische Forschung,

Sylvia Hamberger, München

78. Global2000, Friends of the Earth Austria

Silva Herrmann, www.global2000.at/

79. Global Justice Ecology Project, USA

globalecology@gmavt.net, www.globaljusticeecology.org/

80. GRAIN

sue@grain.org, www.grain.org/

81. Greenwood Alliance, California, USA

http://www.gapsucks.org, chalicenew@earthlink.net

82. Grupo de Ecología y Ecumenismo, Argentina

ecologiayecumenismo@yahoo.com.ar , marcelaromac@hotmail.com

83. Grupo de Reflexión Rural Europa

stella.semino@mail.dk

84. Grupo de Reflexión Rural Argentina

www.grr.org.ar, contacto@grr.org.ar

85. Humane Earth Foundation, France

http://www.terrehumaine.org

86. INCOMINDIOS, Ressort Ressourcen, Switzerland,

Heinz Lippuner, Prof.Dr.phil., www.incomindios.ch/

87. Integrated Rural Development Foundation (IRDF), Philippines

www.irdfphil.org/, arze@info.com.ph

88. Klimabündnis Österreich

Johann Kandler, johann.kandler@klimabuendnis.at, www.klimabuendnis.at/

89. Kooperation Brasilien (KoBra), Germany

info@kooperation-brasilien.org, www.tropenwaldnetzwerk-brasilien.de/

90. Krishok Federation, Bangladesh, Badrul Alam, President

badrul_a@hotmail.com

91. Kritische Oekologie / ifak e.V., Germany

redaktion@kritische-oekologie.de

92. Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, UK

Andrew.Boswell@yahoo.co.uk

93. Marlborough Climate Pledge, UK

Jo Ripley, marlboroughclimatepledge@yahoo.co.uk

94. MATA - Asien im Blick, Germany, Nicole Weydmann

atarabi@gmx.net

95. Missionary Sisters of O.L.of Africa, Netherlands,

Anne Helwegen, helwe046@planet.nl

96. MOa (MOBIL Ohne auto), Germany

www.mobilohneauto.de

97. Mesa Global de Guatemala, Guatemala

www.mesaglobal.net/, mesaglobal@yahoo.es

98. Missionarissen van het heilig Har, Netherlands

www.misacor.nl/ missieprocuur@misacor.nl

99. Munlochy Vigil

http://www.munlochygmvigil.org.uk

100. National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers(NFFPFW), India

info@forestpeoples.org

101. National Society of Conservationists, Friends of the Earth Hungary

http://www.mtvsz.hu/ , info@mtvsz.hu

102. Nepenthes, Denmark

Tove Maria Ryding, tr@nepenthes.dk , www.nepenthes.dk

103. Netzwerk Afrika Deutschland, Germany

www.netzwerkafrika.de, nad.bonn@netzwerkafrika.de

104. NOAH - Friends of the Earth Denmark

www.noah.dk

105. Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering, Oregon, USA

http://www.nwrage.org, jennifer@nwrage.org

106. Observatorio de la Deuda en la Globalizalización; Spain

www.debtwatch.org

107. Observatorio de Multinacionales en América Latina,

observa.empresas@omal.info, www.omal.info

108. OeIE-Kaernten, Austria

buendnis.oeie@aon.at

109. Openheid naar de wereld

Zrs. Franciscanessen, Etten Leur, Netherlands

110. Oyugis Integrated Project Foundation, Netherlands

Henk van de Wal, h.wal13@chello.nl

111. Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk e.V. (PAN Germany)

www.pan-germany.org

112. Planetary Health Inc., USA

shenwa@bcn.net

113. Plataforma Rural - Alianzas por un Mundo Rural Vivo , Spain

plataformarural@nodo50.org

114. Practical Action, Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development, UK

http://www.practicalaction.org.uk , Rachel Berger,

rachel.berger@practicalaction.org.uk

115. Pro REGENWALD, Germany, Hermann Edelmann

info@pro-regenwald.de, www.pro-regenwald.de

116. Proyecto Gran Simio, Spain

www.proyectogransimio.org, nautilusmar@yahoo.es

117. Pro Wildlife e.V., Germany

mail@prowildlife.de , www.prowildlife.de/

118. Rainforest Concern, UK

www.rainforestconcern.org , info@rainforestconcern.org

119. Red de Accion en Agricultura Alternativa (RAAA), Peru,

cooraaa@hotmail.com , www.raaa.org

120. Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas RAP-AL, Latin America (all national

branches)

RAP-AL: Pesticide Action Network Latin America and Caribbean

www.rap-al.org

121. RAP-AL Colombia

122. RAP-AM, Mexico

123. Rede Alerta Contra o Deserto Verde (Network Against Green Deserts), Brazil

http://www.desertoverde.org/

124. Red-Green Alliance, Denmark

http://enhedslisten.dk/

125. Red Nacional de Accion Ecologista de la Argentina (Renace), Argentina

cpronat@yahoo.com.ar , http://www.renace.net/

126. Red Mexicana de Accion frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC) [The Mexican Action

Network on Free Trade]

www.rmalc.org.mx ; rmalc@prodigy.net.mx

127. Regenwald Institut, Institut fuer angewandten Regenwaldschutz e.V.

http://www.regenwald-institut.de/

128. Rettet den Regenwald e. V., Germany

Reinhard Behrend, info@regenwald.org, www.regenwald.org/

129. Rising Tide Dde Cymru (South Wales), UK

Owain Davies, davies.owain@googlemail.com

130. Rising Tide North America

contact@risingtidenorthamerica.org , www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/

131. Robin Wood, Germany,

peter.gerhardt@robinwood.de , http://www.umwelt.org/robin-wood/

132. Scarborough Against Genetic Engineering (SAGE), UK

sage@envoy.dircon.co.uk

133. Solidarité, France

http://solidarite.asso.fr

134. Spiritan Community of Weert

herman.dillen@planet.nl

135. SUMATE Red de Alternativas, Colombia,

justiciaypaz@andinet.com

136. Sumatran Orangutan Society, UK

Helen Buckland, helen@orangutans-sos.org, www.orangutans-sos.org

137. Sustrans, UK, Peter Lipman

peter.lipman@sustrans.org.uk , http://www.sustrans.org.uk/

138. Swindon Friends of the Earth, UK,

Jean Saunders, jeanadsaunders@tiscali.co.uk

139. Terre des Hommes - Arbeitsgruppe Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany

Norbert Müller, terre_des_hommes_gmuend@web.de

140. Terra de Direitos, Brazil,

terradedireitos@terradedireitos.org.br ; www.terradedireitos.org.br

141. Thanal, Kerala, India,

http://www.thanal.org/

142. The Land Is Ours, UK

www.tlio.org.uk

143. The Low Carbon Lifestyle Tour

www.lowcarbonlifestyle.org, mukti@lowcarbonlifestyle.org

144. Trashumancia y Naturaleza, Spain

Jesús Garzón

145. Veterinarios Sin Fronteras

Ferran Garcia, www.veterinariossinfronteras.org

146. Watch Indonesia!, Germany

Marianne Klute, marianneklute@arcor.de, home.snafu.de/watchin/

147. Westfälische Gesellschaft für Artenschutz e. V. (WGA), Germany

Dr. Martina Raffel, raffel@wgfa.de, www.wgfa.de/

148. United Labour Federation, Bangladesh,

Abul Hossain , bgwef_ulf@yahoo.com

149. Urgewald e.V., Germany

www.urgewald.de

150. Ursuline Sisters of Bergen NH, Netherlands

Sr.G.Weenink, gweenink@zonnet.nl

151. Vida,Si! Alberdi,Pcia de Tucuman, Argentina

vidasirenace@yahoo.com.ar

152. Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI- Friends of the Earth Indonesia) -

national

www.walhi.or.id, Roelly Syumanda, roelly@walhi.or.id

153. WALHI (FoE) South Kalimantan, Indonesia

Berry Nahdian Forqan forqan@walhi.or.id

154. WALHI (Friends of the Earth) East Kalimantan, Indonesia

Isal Wardhana, pilanjau@gmail.com

155. World Development Movement, UK, www.wdm.org.uk

Peter@wdm.org.uk

156. Warwick & Leamington Green Party, Janet Alty

janet@alty.net

157. World Rainforest Movement

http://www.wrm.org.uy

158. XminY solidarityfunds, Netherlands,

Wytze de Lange, wdl@xminy.nl

159. Yayasan Keadilan Rakyat Jambi, Indonesian NGO

mama_aca@cappa.or.id

160. ZGAP e. V., Germany

Roland Wirth, http://www.zgap.de

Signatories: Individuals

161. Susan George Author, Chair of the Planning Board of the Transnational Institute,

www.tni.org/george

162. Dr. Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute

163. Caroline Lucas Green Party MEP, UK, caroline.lucas@europarl.europa.eu

164. Nora Radcliffe, MSP

165. Frank Schwalba-hoth, Consultant and former MEP

166. Mark Lynas, journalist and author of High Tide

167. Brian D. Brunton, Managing Director, Alotau Environment Ltd, Papua New Guinea,

alotauen@online.net.pg

168. Dr. Klemens Laschefski, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de

Geociências, Departamento de Geografia, Brazil, klemens.laschefski@gmx.net

169. Ignacio Chapela, Associate Professor, Ph.D., University of California

ichapela@nature.berkeley.edu

170. Osvaldo Fornari, solicitor assisting people affected by pesticide poisoning on soy

plantations, Grupo de Reflexión Rural, Argentina

171. Dr Michael Antoniou, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King’s College

London School of Medicine

172. Jerry Ravetz, Associate Fellow, James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization,

Oxford University jerome-ravetz@tiscali.co.uk

173. Mohan Mathews, Biologist from India/Denmark, Mathews@webspeed.dk

174. Dr Mark Huxham, Senior Lecturer and Senior Teaching Fellow, School of Life

Sciences, Napier University, Edinburgh UK

175. Dr Ignacio A. Romero Senior Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences, The Open

University, Milton Keynes, UK

176. Sylvia Grevel, Theologian, Netherlands

177. Damian Allen, Executive Director of Children's Services,

damian.allen@knowsley.gov.uk

178. Fr Tom Wijffels M Afr. Jerusalem, Israel

179. Sr. Felisita Sri Budiarti, General Superior Sisters of Our Lady Amersfoort,

Netherlands

180. Zr. Augustina Bastiaansen, Franciscanessen van Etten, Netherlands

181. Dr. Steffen Boehm, University of Essex, UK

182. Noemi Abad, Director of the journal Ambiente y Sociedad and of Ecoportal Net,

Argentina

183. Gerard Dupin, General Manager, Taho!

• And 48 individuals not linked to organisations

References:

1 Annual emissions from EU transport are expected to grow by 77 million tonnes CO2eq between 2005 and 2020 – three times as much as from any other sector of the EU economy.

2 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION: An energy policy for Europe COM(2007)1 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/index_en.htm

3 An EU strategy for biofuels, COM(2006) 34 sets out that “both domestic producers and importers should benefit from a growing EU market for biofuels”.

4 See among others: Polluting effects of Brazil's sugar-ethanol industry by Luiz Antonio Martinelli1 and Solange Filoso. Nature 445, 364 (25 January 2007); Kamerun: Biodiesel als Export-

Schlager. Menschen und Wälder müssen Ölpalmen weichen, http://www.afrika.info/aktuell_detail.php?N_ID=374&kp=news2007-01-11; World Rainforest Movement Bulletin 112, November

2006. www.wrm.org.uy; COLOMBIA: Biodiesel Push Blamed for Violations of Rights by Helda Martínez. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35722

5 (1) We want Food Sovereignty Not Biofuels, signed by Alert Against the Green Desert Network, Latin American Network against Monoculture Tree Plantations, Network for a GM free Latin

America, OilWatch South America and World Rainforest Movement, January 2007. www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/biofuels/EU_declaration.html (2) Statement from SawitWatch. (3) Statement by

the UN Climate Convention negotiations in Nairobi, November 2006, demanding “..the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change to immediately suspend all subsidies and other

forms of inequitable support for the import and export of biofuels.” http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/CCC/Nairobi/Disaster_Making.html

6. For solar vs. biomass, see Pimentel et al, 2002. http://dematerialism.net/Pimentel.pdf, Table 2. Onshore wind can achieve over 3MW ha-1 of actual standing land, NET of wind variability, see

British Wind Energy Association, http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html, equivalent to 38 hectares delivering over 1 bn kWh per year, i.e. far better than solar. For biomass re. biofuels: A biomass

crop can be chosen for best overall energy yield, rather than oil or ethanol yield, and energy is not expended extracting or processing the biofuel element. See evidence to UK Commons EFRA

Committee inquiry, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvfru/965/96507.htm#a22 Note also that tropical energy crops with the highest energy outputs take up

productive land (so displacing natural carbon stores or farmland) and have other ecological downsides or costs e.g. fertilizer use, water.

7 Food, biofuels could worsen water shortages-report. http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L18850725.

8 See 20; also the EC Well To Wheels Study 2006 notes: "expansion of arable area onto other land, notably pasture and forest, would be likely to release large amounts of carbon from the soil, negating any

benefit of the energy crops for decades to come." - p.76, download at http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/wtw.html

9 www.wetlands.org/publication.aspx?ID=51a80e5f-4479-4200-9be0-66f1aa9f9ca9

10 www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/peatfiresbackground.pdf

11 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION: An energy policy for Europe COM(2007)1 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/index_en.htm

12 A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis, Washington Post, January 26, 2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601896.html

13 In 2000, 6 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol production. In 2006 the figure had risen to 20 percent, and the ethanol plants under construction would double capacity by 2010. The

Washington Post: Blindness on Biofuels by Robert J. Samuelson Wednesday, January 24, 2007; Page A23

14 “Higher prices for corn (which is fed to poultry, hogs and cattle) raise retail meat prices. Ironically, fuel subsidies may boost food costs” The Washington Post: Blindness on Biofuels by Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, January 24, 2007; Page A23

15 USDA. Grain: World Markets and Trade. Circular Series FG 11-06. November 2006. FAO Food Outlook Nº. 2. Global Market Analysis. December

2006.

16 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuelwatch/message/239, http://www.grr.org.ar/

17 April 2005: Report “Argentina: A Case Study on the Impact of Genetically Engineered Soya - How producing RR soya is destroying the food security and sovereignty of Argentina” EcoNexus (UK) and

Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina).

18 For example: Plant genetic engineering to improve biomass characteristics for biofuels by Mariam Sticklen www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2006, 17:315–319