The Global Sociology Blog

There have been many articles already concerning the food shortage that affect the poorest countries in particular. Early this week, the BBC reports that the World Bank would double its aid package to Africa.

“It will contribute $700m (£348.6m) in the 12 months from June 2008, up from $400m in the the previous year period, and may boost its loans further. The move comes amid climbing wheat, corn and grain costs, which pushed global food prices up by 40% last year. There are concerns that food aid may be rationed if the high prices continue.”

There are two major reasons for the food shortage: droughts and the use of land and crops to produce ethanol rather than food. But according to the Independent, there is a civil society movement rising in Africa to demand a moratorium on the growth of biofuels in favor of food crops.

“Scientists and NGOs across Africa are calling for a moratorium on new biofuels projects as millions of acres of prime agricultural land in sub-Saharan Africa are switched from food to fuel. African governments, encouraged by counterparts in the industrialised world, have bought eagerly into the “green revolution” with promises of exports, energy security and job creation. The reality is the forced removal of small farmers, rising food costs and scant benefits for local populations.”

Food riots have already exploded in certain African countries. Nothing triggers riots more than food crises. Populations can tolerate a lot of mistreatment but food shortages, usually in already deteriorated economic situations, tend to be the last straw. Moreover, the dominance of foreign companies over the biofuel sector also smells too much of neo-colonialism as African countries are perceived as used by Western ones as energy reserves.

“”Africa is a wide open continent and the energy industry wants to take advantage,” said the renowned Nigerian environmentalist Nnimmo Bassey. “This is a flashback to colonial plantations.” Mr Bassey is part of the African Biodiversity Network, an umbrella group who met to discuss the crisis this week in South Africa.”

And of course, this also suggests that there is no need for core countries to embrace energy-saving and environment-friendly policies when the vast resources of Africa can be used to perpetuate the unsustainable lifestyle of the Northern population.

“Rich nations concerned with future energy security and climate change have begun to seek alternatives to fossil fuels that won’t carry the political costs of calling for consumer restraint. In the US this has meant an epic extension of subsidies for big agricultural interests to switch corn production to ethanol. The European Union has committed itself to switching 10 per cent of all transport fuel to biofuels by 2020 with the shortfall in what can be grown inside the 27-nation bloc to be made up with imports from the developing world.

From the savannahs of west Africa to the rainforests of Congo, the plains of Tanzania and the wilderness of Ethiopia, governments are handing over huge tracts of fertile land to private companies aiming to convert biomass grown on large plantations into liquid fuels for export markets. African leaders like Senegal’s Abdoulaye Wade are predicting a “green revolution” and looking eagerly to lucrative exports.”

Now, modernization theorists and market enthusiasts would see in this the wonders of comparative advantage: what a great opportunity for poor African countries to invest in high-demand, high-priced crops. There is a price to pay though: who will grow the food that will feed the populations of high-fertility countries. So, as Africa is poised to be hit the hardest by global climate change, it will also have less land dedicated to food production. There is reason to worry.

And that’s just for Africa, according to Jessica Aldred, writing in the Guardian, NGOs have reported the connection between biofuel cultivation and human rights abuse.

“A new report, published by Friends of the Earth and indigenous rights groups LifeMosaic and Sawit Watch, said that increasing demands for palm oil for food and biofuels was causing millions of hectares of forests to be cleared for plantations and destroying the livelihoods of indigenous peoples. The report, Losing Ground, said many of the 60-90 million people in Indonesia who depend on the forests are losing their land to the palm oil companies.”

In addition to the violence involved in pushing the natives out of the way, there is also environmental degradation as fertilizers pollute the water. And there is also the deforestation issue as land is cleared to grow biofuels, which contribute to global climate change. And as Liberation reports, in Indonesia, deforestation takes place through burning down entire areas. The effects on wildlife are devastating, especially for tigers and elephants. The massive deforestation that has taken place there produces annually the equivalent of 39% of the UK’s production of greenhouse gases. Research have estimated that, at this rate, both species will be driven to extinction, suffocated by the smoke. Already, in Central Sumatra, 65% of the forests and wetlands have been cleared. As the Guardian reports,

“The report shows there has been a huge decline in elephant numbers – from an estimated 1,067-1,617 in 1984 to possibly as few as 210 individuals today. If this trend continues and the two largest remaining elephant forests are not protected, Riau’s wild elephant population will face extinction, the report warns.

Similarly, (…) the tiger population has declined by 70% in 25 years, from 640 to 192 today. Unless the last remaining patches of tiger habitat are connected by wildlife corridors, these too will face extinction.”

It seems that, by now, we are starting to see clear patterns in terms of the social, economic and environmental effects on the massive turn to biofuels to solve energy shortages. This does not seem to be a case of “the jury is still out”. The effects are devastating. The problem, as is always the case, is that the major victims are powerless and invisible. If smoke due to deforestation was taking place in my Chicagoland suburb, you can bet that hell would be raised about it. But most of these negative side effects are taking place in the periphery, out of sight for core audiences. And indeed, reliance on biofuels permits us to think that no sacrifices will be needed: we will have energy in the future even if access to oil becomes problematic. As always, it is politically necessary to isolate us from the nasty underbelly of our needed unsustainable consumption (gosh, that’s preachy).