BIOFUELS MAY BE INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, NEW STUDIES SUGGEST

The growing popularity of biofuels may actually be hurting the environment, according to two papers published last week in the journal Science.

Biofuels have long been considered ‘carbon-neutral’, as the emissions from consumption are believed to be offset by the plants from which the fuel is made. The studies argue that this conception is overly simplistic, and fails to account for the carbon costs of biofuel-related land use changes.

Both studies focus on cropland. The first study finds that converting rainforests or grasslands to produce biofuels releases much more carbon dioxide into the air than the plants are able to absorb. Similarly, using currently productive farmland to grow biofuel crops will also use more carbon then it saves, according to Princeton’s Timothy Searchinger, the lead author of the other study.

Ten prominent ecologists authored a letter to US President George W. Bush in response to these new findings, asking for new a policy "that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forests, grassland or cropland,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Last year, legislation was passed calling for the production of ethanol, derived mostly from maize, to double over the next 10 years.

The UN announced the formation of a panel to analyse the study’s findings, saying that biofuels could still be useful in the global environmental effort. Bob Dinneen, the president of the Renewable Fuels Association, issued a statement saying that, despite the new studies, “we must all remember where we are today, how world demand for liquid fuels is growing, and what the realistic alternatives are to meet those growing demands. Biofuels like ethanol are the only tool readily available that can begin to address the challenges of energy security and environmental protection.”

Searchinger’s study says that the “extraordinary productivity” of Brasilian sugarcane means that it would need only four years to “pay back the upfront carbon emissions” when grown on tropical grazing land. However, this payback period would rise more than ten-fold if displaced ranchers then proceed to convert rainforest to grazing land.

"The Science articles underscore the great risks of unintended consequences associated with subsidising and mandating biofuels", noted Tara Laan, Assistant Researcher of the Globbal Subsidies Initiative. "The implications of the study by Searchinger et al. are especially important — namely, that developing sustainability standards for biofuels that do NOT account for indirect GHG emissions arising from the displacement of crop production is about as effective as re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

The abstracts of the two papers can be found online at www.sciencemag.org.

ICTSD Reporting; “Biofuel crops increase carbon emissions,” LOS ANGELES TIMES, 8 February 2008. “Simplistic View of Land Use Change Excludes Consequences of Continuing Petroleum Dependence,” RFA NEWS RELEASE, 7 February 2008.

US CONGRESSMAN PUSHES FOR RENEWED TRADE PREFERENCES

A top US lawmaker on 7 February tabled a bill for the extension of trade preferences for Andean and Caribbean countries, calling on Congress to extend the programmes before they expire later this year.

Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), who chairs the House’s powerful Ways and Means Committee, with jurisdiction over taxes and tariffs, wants the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and the Generalised System of Preferences extended until September 2010.

“These preference programs have been a centerpiece of US efforts to spread the benefits of globalisation to the world's poor and developing countries,” Rangel said in a press release. “They have created tens of thousands of jobs -- jobs that are likely to be lost to countries like China if the programs are not renewed.”

The ATPA, under which the US extends duty-free access to a wide range of products from Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, may prove the most contentious. The unilateral preferences were supposed to expire at the end of 2006, and be replaced by two-way free trade agreements (FTA) between Washington and the Andean states. When the FTA negotiations languished, Congress in late 2006 agreed to extend the preferences for six months, with a further six-month extension for countries that actually signed accords.

The preferences for all four Andean countries were subsequently extended till 29 February 2008. The US managed to sign Free Trade Agreements (FTA’s) with Peru and Colombia. Congress has only approved the Peruvian pact, and is still debating the Colombian one, primarily due to Democrats’ concerns about human rights and violence against labour unionists in the country. Ecuador and Bolivia, the other two countries in the Andean bloc, could stand to lose out on duty free market access to the US when the preferences expire. Some Republican lawmakers have argued against the renewal for those two countries because of recent anti-US policies.

The two year extension of preferences would take considerable pressure off of this Congress to ratify the Colombian FTA.

In the same statement, Rangel called for the renewal of the Caribbean preferences, set to expire on 30 September, as well as the Generalised System of Preferences, which provides tariff free access for specific goods from 144 developing nations and expires on 31 December.

Rangel stated that, beyond the direct economic implications, the two year renewal will send a strong message to Doha Round negotiators “that the US commitment to trade and development remains unwavering and substantial.”

ICTSD Reporting; “Lawmaker Pushes Trade Benefit Renewal Package”, REUTERS, 8 February 2008.

US FARM BILL TALKS HEAT UP

Congress and the Bush Administration have until 15 March to strike a compromise on a new farm bill, or else risk severe disruption to agricultural support programmes.

The current farm bill is now set to expire in mid-March, having already been extended past its original expiry date last year. The House and the Senate have already approved a new five-year, $286-billion plan, voting for it by sizable majorities late last year.

However, the administration has threatened to veto the proposed law on the grounds that it would raise taxes, is too expensive, and would leave the US vulnerable to legal challenge at the WTO.

Congress has the option of extending the current farm bill until after the 2008 election, but some Democrats are keen on the idea of bypassing an extension and reverting back to the last permanent farm bill, which was passed in 1949. That would eliminate all of the conservation programs that have been established over the past half century, throwing US agriculture into flux.

Officials are cautiously optimistic about the prospects of the new bill. President Bush reiterated his veto threat last week, signaling to Democrats that they must work further on a bipartisan agreement. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, was sceptical, telling the Associated Press, "For President Bush to continue to take a hard line and threaten to veto a farm bill is unproductive and against the bipartisan spirit that made this bill a reality.”

Some Democrats have openly wondered whether a presidential veto would help their party during the November elections. However, Collin Peterson (D-MN), the Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, this week issued an open letter with Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the top Republican on the committee, saying ”We do not believe that any strategy involving a veto would be good for the country.”

The main differences which still need to be hammered out include requests by the Bush Administration to deny subsidies to farmers who make more than $500,000 a year, and to more actively mandate the requirements for being “actively engaged in farming.” Also, there are some fundamental differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill that need to be reconciled, mostly over the sourcing of the extra costs associated with those versions.

The House and the Senate have nominated committee members to compromise on the final bill. That committee should hold their preliminary meetings next week.

ICTSD reporting; USDA Official Pushes for Farm Bill, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 11 February 2008; “What happens if there’s no new Farm Bill?”, BROWNFIELD AG NEWS, 12 February 2008; “House leaders urge ‘realistic’ farm bill approach,” DELTA PRESS, 12 February 2008.

FOCUS ON IPR ENFORCEMENT AT MEETING IN DUBAI

Representatives from business, governments, civil and international agencies called for greater cooperation to combat counterfeiting and piracy at a 3-5 February meeting in Dubai.

Organised by groups including the World Customs Organisation (WCO), Dubai Customs, Interpol, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Fourth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy looked at the health and safety aspects of counterfeit products, as well as their economic and social effects.

Congress president and WCO Secretary-General Michel Danet said “Nothing has changed; counterfeiting and piracy continues to grow at an alarming rate and these fake products which often prove fatal to consumers are now being produced on an industrial scale.”

Participants suggested that close collaboration between government and business through heavily enforced legislation was the best way to fight counterfeiting.

“Policymakers must stand up and make intellectual property protection a priority,” said David Benjamin, a senior vice president at Universal Music who also co-chairs the ICC’s anti-corruption initiatives. “Counterfeiting and piracy is driven by high profits and low risks, and it is going to take strong legal structures and enforcement of the laws to bring an end to the trade in fakes,” he added, calling on the Group of Eight industrialised nations to take the lead.

WIPO Deputy Director-General Michael Keplinger called for “determination and ingenuity, as well as concerted coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders - countries, developed and developing alike and their governments, intergovernmental institutions, the private sector and consumers.”

In contrast, an event organised by the South Centre on the sidelines of the Dubai meeting highlighted TRIPS flexibilities on the enforcement of IPRs and called for maintaining “legitimate balances” between the rights of intellectual property holders and the public interest.

“Currently there exist a lot of misunderstandings that confuse the public in terms of concepts, definitions and obligations of the enforcement of IPRs and the combating of counterfeiting goods and piracy,” said Xuan Li, coordinator of innovation and access to knowledge at the South Centre.

The enforcement of intellectual property issues has taken on a higher profile in recent months. At the WTO, Washington launched a dispute against China for setting too low a bar for prosecuting counterfeit DVDs, music, and other copyrighted material (see BRIDGES Weekly, 18 April 2007)

Last October, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab announced that the US and some key trading partners would seek to negotiate an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

ICTSD reporting.