<p>On Christmas eve of 2009, India’s ministry of new and renewable energy (MNRE) put out the ‘much awaited’ national policy on biofuels. Its preamble sets the tone. It defines India as one of the world’s fastest growing economies with the need for energy as critical for its socio economic development.<br /><br />The policy document describes biofuels as a ‘win-win’ option, and concludes that biomass based fuel (or biofuels) options are environmentally benign and cost-effective which will help reduce pressure on the depleting fossil fuels and thereby ensure energy security. But there seems to be no credible basis for such a conclusion.<br />Given the climate imperative, there is little to support the argument for mainstreaming biofuels as central in both the transportation and energy sector sans radical changes in both these sectors. Yet the policy sets an indicative target towards 20 per cent blending of biofuels, both for bio-diesel and bio-ethanol, by 2017.<br />If biofuels are indeed the solution to the energy crisis, then why has there been an international hue and cry against it? Does their promotion not put added pressure on limited land resources? Do they not detract from the energy needs of rural populations? Moreover, there is worldwide consensus that the artificially created market value for agricultural crops as feedstock for the biofuel industry, has had an adverse impact on food prices and its availability.<br /><br />The production of biofuels, particularly first generation variety including biodiesel (from jatropha, pongamia or other oil-bearing plants); vegetable oils or animal fats and ethanol all need one thing: land. This land might be in use for small farm agriculture, ‘wasteland’ used for grazing, or could be ‘degraded’ forest land. With official support for biofuels, land use has been undergoing change towards monocultures and plantations.<br />During 2005-2007 the Chhattisgarh Biofuel Development Authority carried out 21 crore jatropha plantations in 84,000 hectares of revenue land in the state. But till date there is no study on how this land conversion has impacted rural nutritional security, food production or contributed to ecological crisis.<br /><br />Protecting itself from global reactions, the 2009 biofuel policy does not focus on agricultural lands but instead ‘waste’ lands, degraded forest and non-forest lands. This is only for cultivation of shrubs and trees bearing non-edible oil seeds for production of bio-diesel.<br /><br />Governments like Rajasthan will be more than happy as this has been their mantra for long. Only here wasteland has also meant using private grazing lands which appear to be under-utilised without any tree cover. It is a different matter that these lands have been integral to the livelihoods and cultures of pastoral communities of Rajasthan. Till Dec 2009, the biofuel authority of the state had identified 10,423 ha of ‘culturable wasteland’ to be given to companies. Is this any less than a land grab scam?<br /><br />Organising<br />The policy pushes the states to organise themselves for biofuel-related activities by first setting up appropriate nodal agencies. This comes with the prescription to develop state-level policies not in variance of the national agenda. At the Central level, the policy proposes a biofuel steering committee to be led by the department of biotechnology and the MNRE. It also proposes a high-level national biofuel coordination committee headed by the prime minister.<br /><br />The policy speaks the ‘participatory’ language, mandating the involvement of panchayats and using government schemes. Self Help Groups will be encouraged to divert their attention in developing oilseed plantations. The NREGS, which is meant to guarantee employment in rural areas will also be used a medium to channelise labour into raising biofuels. The GoI’s policy also promises a minimum support price (MSP) for biofuel growers. Details of all of these are yet to be worked out. But all this may just bind small growers to contract farming.<br /><br />The policy strives to welcome businesses and big operators like British Petroleum, D1 Oils, and even Indian petroleum giants. The automobile industry, large sugar manufacturers, giant seed companies and grain traders are also important players in the business.<br /><br />The punch line is the fiscal incentives and proposed investments in the new and second generation feedstocks, advanced technologies and conversion processes. The biggest argument for second generation fuel is that it can overcome the limitations of the first generation ones because of their lesser life-cycle emissions; no use of food crops (only by-products) and no new land requirement.<br /><br />But what it brings along are concerns more dangerous and unexplored. These technologies might also rely heavily on genetic modification — highly controversial and full of social and environmental risks. Moreover, it means more thorough monopolised, patented and heavily priced technology transfer.<br />If this is really meant to ‘fuel’ India, policy-makers and implementation agencies need to look at those who have no power (pun intended) rather than cater to those who are already (em)powered and powerful.</p>
<p>On Christmas eve of 2009, India’s ministry of new and renewable energy (MNRE) put out the ‘much awaited’ national policy on biofuels. Its preamble sets the tone. It defines India as one of the world’s fastest growing economies with the need for energy as critical for its socio economic development.<br /><br />The policy document describes biofuels as a ‘win-win’ option, and concludes that biomass based fuel (or biofuels) options are environmentally benign and cost-effective which will help reduce pressure on the depleting fossil fuels and thereby ensure energy security. But there seems to be no credible basis for such a conclusion.<br />Given the climate imperative, there is little to support the argument for mainstreaming biofuels as central in both the transportation and energy sector sans radical changes in both these sectors. Yet the policy sets an indicative target towards 20 per cent blending of biofuels, both for bio-diesel and bio-ethanol, by 2017.<br />If biofuels are indeed the solution to the energy crisis, then why has there been an international hue and cry against it? Does their promotion not put added pressure on limited land resources? Do they not detract from the energy needs of rural populations? Moreover, there is worldwide consensus that the artificially created market value for agricultural crops as feedstock for the biofuel industry, has had an adverse impact on food prices and its availability.<br /><br />The production of biofuels, particularly first generation variety including biodiesel (from jatropha, pongamia or other oil-bearing plants); vegetable oils or animal fats and ethanol all need one thing: land. This land might be in use for small farm agriculture, ‘wasteland’ used for grazing, or could be ‘degraded’ forest land. With official support for biofuels, land use has been undergoing change towards monocultures and plantations.<br />During 2005-2007 the Chhattisgarh Biofuel Development Authority carried out 21 crore jatropha plantations in 84,000 hectares of revenue land in the state. But till date there is no study on how this land conversion has impacted rural nutritional security, food production or contributed to ecological crisis.<br /><br />Protecting itself from global reactions, the 2009 biofuel policy does not focus on agricultural lands but instead ‘waste’ lands, degraded forest and non-forest lands. This is only for cultivation of shrubs and trees bearing non-edible oil seeds for production of bio-diesel.<br /><br />Governments like Rajasthan will be more than happy as this has been their mantra for long. Only here wasteland has also meant using private grazing lands which appear to be under-utilised without any tree cover. It is a different matter that these lands have been integral to the livelihoods and cultures of pastoral communities of Rajasthan. Till Dec 2009, the biofuel authority of the state had identified 10,423 ha of ‘culturable wasteland’ to be given to companies. Is this any less than a land grab scam?<br /><br />Organising<br />The policy pushes the states to organise themselves for biofuel-related activities by first setting up appropriate nodal agencies. This comes with the prescription to develop state-level policies not in variance of the national agenda. At the Central level, the policy proposes a biofuel steering committee to be led by the department of biotechnology and the MNRE. It also proposes a high-level national biofuel coordination committee headed by the prime minister.<br /><br />The policy speaks the ‘participatory’ language, mandating the involvement of panchayats and using government schemes. Self Help Groups will be encouraged to divert their attention in developing oilseed plantations. The NREGS, which is meant to guarantee employment in rural areas will also be used a medium to channelise labour into raising biofuels. The GoI’s policy also promises a minimum support price (MSP) for biofuel growers. Details of all of these are yet to be worked out. But all this may just bind small growers to contract farming.<br /><br />The policy strives to welcome businesses and big operators like British Petroleum, D1 Oils, and even Indian petroleum giants. The automobile industry, large sugar manufacturers, giant seed companies and grain traders are also important players in the business.<br /><br />The punch line is the fiscal incentives and proposed investments in the new and second generation feedstocks, advanced technologies and conversion processes. The biggest argument for second generation fuel is that it can overcome the limitations of the first generation ones because of their lesser life-cycle emissions; no use of food crops (only by-products) and no new land requirement.<br /><br />But what it brings along are concerns more dangerous and unexplored. These technologies might also rely heavily on genetic modification — highly controversial and full of social and environmental risks. Moreover, it means more thorough monopolised, patented and heavily priced technology transfer.<br />If this is really meant to ‘fuel’ India, policy-makers and implementation agencies need to look at those who have no power (pun intended) rather than cater to those who are already (em)powered and powerful.</p>
