The right to food and the impact of liquid biofuels (agrofuels)

This paper examines the impact of biofuel production on the human right to freedom from hunger.
It is argued that liquid biofuel production has already served to weaken access to food resources for the poor and vulnerable and in the future, will continue to threaten such food access in at least three ways:

• by significantly increasing food prices
• by causing land concentration for plantation-type production which are likely to continue to cause eviction or marginalisation of vulnerable groups and individuals
• by causing a number of environmental problems, reducing biodiversity and increasing competition for water

In light of such threats to food security, the author argues that the crucial question is whether there are sufficient ethical justifications for biofuel production to override the negative consequences. It is argued that:

• the most widely used justification, that replacing fossil fuel with biofuel can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thereby reduce global warming, is mostly not tenable
• biofuel production cannot in any significant degree improve the energy security of developed countries – to do so would require so vast an allocation of land that it would be impossible for a multitude of reasons. While the use of biofuel does reduce urban pollution to some extent, there are other ways to reduce pollution which have less negative consequences

It is argued that for liquid biofuel production to be compatible with the right to be free from hunger, it would require that the decisions and implementations of policies and projects for biofuel production conform to the internationally adopted standards and guidelines for the realisation of the right to food. The process requirements and substansive obligations of states at the national and international level are examined to this end.

The paper concludes with a set of recommendations for the adoption of guidelines on biofuel production based on the right to adequate food for all. These include:

• priority should be given to projects based on small-scale farming, possibly through cooperative arrangements and to projects which ensure good and stable working conditions
• feedstock which has the potential, in its production, transport, distribution and use, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be chosen
• the establishment of legally binding certification schemes and reliable monitoring