EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

FAO report links high food prices to biofuel demand

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 07 December 2012, updated 14 December 2012

Biofuels account for the largest source of new demand for agricultural production and have helped drive price volatility in grain crops like wheat and maize, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization says in a new report.

Biodiesel accounted for 80% of the EU’s vegetable oil production while 37% of the grain crop in the United States went towards ethanol production, the FAO’s ‘State of Food and Agriculture 2012’ report shows.

The report, released Thursday (6 December), calls for ramping up agricultural investment in developing nations to provide jobs and reduce poverty. It points out that average farm production has declined since the 1960s and that threats to land and water could further erase gains.

Droughts that hurt production in southern Europe and devastated the US corn output this summer triggered calls for the United States and European Union to suspend all biofuel mandates.

Prolonged dry spells have threatened parts of China, Russia, Australia, France, Spain, Portugal and the southern United States in recent years – affecting crop output but also leading to frenetic food pricing.

Balancing act

The FAO’s report advocates a balance between improving farm output to meet rising food demand and to prevent price shocks, while also ensuring environmental sustainability.

“Policies in domains such as biofuel production, food self-sufficiency and international trade may have unintended adverse environmental consequences, which should be carefully evaluated. It also requires that public investment is directed towards enhancing production in ways that are environmentally sustainable and socially beneficial,” the report says.

The UN agency attributes growing volatility in farm commodity prices to population growth as well as “higher per capita incomes, urban migration and associated changing diets in developing countries, weather-related production shocks, trade policy shocks and rising demand for biofuel feedstocks.”

Oils produced from wheat, corn, sugar beet, soy and other farm crops are known as first-generation biofuels and their use has become more controversial despite broad public policy support in Europe and America. But non-food alternatives like palm and jatropha are also under fire on the grounds that the land-clearing, production and water use that goes into producing the crops – often in developing countries – yields little or no environmental benefit.

Food prices in 2012 drifted downward from the peaks of 2008 and 2011, but rose during the summer when cereal crops in the United States and parts of Europe failed because of high temperatures and drought. The FAO’s December food price index was at its lowest point since June, although dairy prices rose partly due to tighter feed supplies.

Calls to end mandates

The summer drought that affected three-quarters of the US corn crop and 85% of the main maize-producing region prompted calls for Washington and Brussels to rethink their mandates. FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva urged Washington to suspend its production targets for ethanol. Olivier De Schutter, the UN food rights rapportuer, has also urged the EU to abandon its biofuel targets for road transport set out in the 2006 Renewable Energy Roadmap.

In October, the European Commission called for halving its target of 10% biofuel use in transport by 2020.

But US Environmental Protection Agency rejected such calls, saying it found no evidence that removing the mandate would lead to significantly lower commodity prices, a decision welcomed by the ethanol and biodiesel industries on both sides of the Atlantic.

Development experts call for more focus on farming to create jobs, feed growing populations, while also providing lucrative exports in poor regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, where nearly half of the more than 800 million people live below the UN’s poverty line of less than $1.25 per day. Globally, some 870 million people – nearly one in seven earthlings – don’t have enough to eat, the UN says.

A newly published United Nations Human Development Report on Africa, which focuses on food security, also cites crop failure and low productivity, scare fertilisers and rudimentary irrigation practices as leading factors in food shortages in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Investment is 'key issue'

“Investment in agriculture is the key issue to achieve food security and development. We are seeing today high-level food prices, very volatile food prices and this has been affecting the poorest countries all around the world,” the FAO’s da Silva told a news conference in Rome on Thursday.

“Our publication this year shows very clearly that country where farmers and governments have invested in agriculture are seeing a more rapid progress to meet the Millennium Development Goals, especially those related to poverty and hunger.” The 2000 millennium goals set out eight poverty-fighting goals, including halving the number of malnourished people by 2015

But many countries are lagging behind and overall food production is stagnating. The average annual growth in agricultural production declined in 2001-2010 from the post-war boom years of the 1960s, from 2.7% to 2.6%, the FAO’s new report shows.

EurActiv.com

COMMENTS

  • "In October, the European Commission called for halving its target of 10% biofuel use in transport by 2020."

    That is not quite correct: it called for setting a limit on the share of crop-based biofuels to 5%, but that the rest could come from advanced biofuels.

    By :
    Luca Lytton
    - Posted on :
    07/12/2012
  • In the meantime we are taking more and more cropland out of production every year. In EU there is now 11,2 million hectares fallow and abandoned land.

    This could produce fuel for 20 % of Europe's cars if not some fanatics were so strongly against biofuel - i.e pro fossil oil.

    By :
    Mythbuster
    - Posted on :
    08/12/2012
  • What exactly are the FAO doing to resolve the problems in the food sector? It seems to me that their attacks on biofuels are a convenient and easy way out and a way for them to divert attention from their own failings and incompetence.

    For example, only 2 months ago the UN admitted that they had previously OVERestimated the amount of people who are hunger in the world by over....wait for it..... 100 MILLION people. These people are supposed to be the leading resource for tackling agricultural and food problems at the global level, and they can't even determine a reliable figure for global hunger? This organisation is a joke.

    By :
    Eurocrat
    - Posted on :
    10/12/2012
  • There are so many comments that some rteal issues are being missed.

    There is enough land available to grow foods. A fair proportion of this has been diverted to growing crops for biofuels. This portion is subsidised to the hilt because the remaining area cannot produce enough of the staple crops used for conventional food growing (typically land used for growing food grains is being diverted to biofuel crops.) Thus when there are strains in growing crops for food usage (weather related issues like drought frosts high quantities of rainfall etc) that reduce yields of same the call is to increase prices. When the food prices rise so does the value of crops used for biofuel usage rise. These issues are beyond the control of one country or group. A drought in South Western Europe affects World food prices as much as flooding in Pakistan or droughts in the USA or frosts in Brazil etc etc. So the demand spiral increases the prices of crops used for food as much as increasing the prices for crops used for biofuels. The inevitability is obvious. This has been an ill-thought put mad dash for biofuels that has labouted long and diverted farmers' attentions as well as Countries to the rails the Food Versus Fuel debate. This was the debate which was highlighted back in 2005 when I sat in a conference and the speaker from a biofuels production company said this was a total nonsensical approach as his Company had a process to make biofuels from Non-food sources principally by-products from Farming and Municipal and Industrial and Construction sources (Wastes that are dominated by Biomass) and that his Company can convert these sources of Biomass cheaply and without the need for competition with food uses.
    This was originally his argument which he tabled in 2002...TEN YEARS AGO! It was an argument thathas been confirmed by others that stated there was enough of these Waste sources of Biomass within the EU to provide a 50% substitution of Biofuels for conventional Fossil-Derived Fuels already in place year on year.
    But the Industry took no notice then and it continued (and continues) to subsidise these sources. Now we have realism at last that across the World people are concurring with this eminent persons statements. Alas Food Prices have continued to rise. And now we hear that even Biofuels Digest in the USA suggests that World Food Prices should rise to compensate for the Biofuels issue! Farcically this is the mouth-piece of te industry. If you speak from a place of strength where Food Prices represent but 10% of your income and these prices increase by 30% you couldn't care two hoots. All it means is forfeiting one bottle of wine a week. For those in Pakistan and Africa and elsewhere where food (and grain prices) rise 40% and this represents 70% of your income it is amajor issue. Youhave no choice but to eat less.
    There are enough sources of Biomass in waste to make all the Biofuels needed to sugment greater than 60% of the needs of fossil fueld for transport in the EU and elsewhere. And let's rub it in further. Recently there was a majpr hurricane in the USA. This has provided over 400 Million tonnes of wood abd other debris - this is ideal to make liquid biofuels. Previously there was anothe Hurricane, Katrina in New Orleans, this created over 700 Million tonnes of wood-based debris and equally after all these years that could be used to make liquid biofuels.
    So stop moaning everyone about the issue. Syop subsidising the Food to Biofuels route immediately and divert that attention to the use of biomass from wasted sources as this company has been proposing and is starting to engender in Holland and Malta and beyond. You know that this is eminently sensible.
    Let's now move this on and stop coming back dayy after day to the debate. The EU can develop a really Green Economy here and Companies like Genesyst in Holland and Applied Biofuels in Malta are spear-heading this issue and need all the support there is to proceed. Then the whole debate will rest in peace.

    By :
    Gerry Murphy
    - Posted on :
    10/12/2012
  • Gerry - you miss the point that farmers grow for real markets, not virtual ones. I.e. if wheat prices are high, more farmers will have an incentive to grow wheat because it brings them income, which thus brings more wheat to market, and thus brings prices down. Food commodity prices have always been volatile, long before biofuels were around. When commodity prices are high, a lot of biofuels producers close down operations mostly because the cost of production becomes too much to bear and they can't be competitive on what is now a global market. My point is that you can't have it both ways - you can't have lots of food produced and at the same time low commodity prices (let's be clear here, it is commodity price that is important, not the price of food in the supermarket because commodity prices only represent lest than 10% of over the counter food price). If prices are low, then farmers will not make money and will run into poverty and/or stop production and grow something else. Farmers respond to market prices!!!

    By :
    Eurocrat
    - Posted on :
    12/12/2012
FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva. Photo © FAO/Alessandra Benedetti
Background: 

Biofuel industry groups in Europe and the United States contend that commodities speculation and high fossil fuel prices have had more impact on supermarket prices than biofuel production.

Their assessment was backed up last month when the US Environmental Protection Agency turned down a request by eight state governments to suspend the federal ethanol mandate due to high prices of food and animal feed, saying there was no evidence that fuel crops were driving food prices.

But such interpretations aren’t universal. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) this summer urged the United States to suspend its mandate for producing biofuel to relieve pressure on maize crops amid the nation’s worst drought in 50 years.

The World Bank also has grown more cautious in its support for biofuel development, with one World Bank agro-economist arguing in a report on food prices that EU and US biofuel policies “were the most important factor” in the 2008 price spike.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising