Climate Change and Agrofuel
- the wrong solution -

Ramananda Wangkheirakpam *

The previous article "The logic of Agrofuel: What is it?" explored what agrofuel is and what it purports to do. This sequence tries to collate from experiences and studies from all around the world that evidence against the very reason for promotion of agrofuel.

Due to lack of space, this article will look at three aspects of why industrial agrofuel can be dangerous and destructive, and how instead it can add to the global climate change phenomenon.

First, it tries to look at how industrial agrofuel expansion causes biodiversity loss. Second, it examines how agrofuel does not cater to local jobs and economies, and lastly, whether agrofuel really mitigate climate change?

Agrofuel plantation requires expansion and intensification of 'agriculture'. In other words, inorder to be profitable and viable, the plantation of agrofuel, including Jathropa, takes over or spreads to vast areas of forest and agricultural land.

For commercial cultivation an average seed yield of 5 tonne/ha is required that will need irrigation, pruning, fertilizers and sufficient sun exposure. Jatropha cultivation requires a minimum rainfall of 600 mm and also needs proper irrigation systems in dry tracts where rainfall varies from 400 to 600 mm.

The government of India plans to take over 13.5 million Hectares of 'wasteland' by 2012 for jathropa alone - almost 7 per cent of the total cultivable area in India. In the North East alone, it is reported that nearly 40,000 hectares of 'wasteland' which are largely jhum plots have begun to be covered with jathropa plantations. If you put the targets and the rate at which agrofuel plantation is expanding the figures are just mind boggling, and much more, it frightening to imagine at the forest clearance and biodiversity loss globally.

It is explained that agro fuels are promoted and planted in wasteland or degraded areas. Defining a place as wasteland itself is controversial. Take for instance, in the north east much of the land to be used for jathropa expansion will be jhum land. While jhum has been treated as un-civilized and primitive, like all else in NE, this agri-forest land can never be justified as a wasteland.

In true sense there are no wasteland at all that can be used for jathropa expansion. Like the colonial expansion of plantation, when agro-forest land is being taken for jathropa plantation, there will be indirect implications too, such as further shortening of jhum cycle contributing to loss of revival of forest or eating up into community forest.

Plantations usually consumes high amount of fertilizers and water. For Jathropa it is claimed that it can grow on poor soil (which they call wasteland) and without irrigation. While this may be true, studies has shown that irrigated ones in better soil condition gets much better yield, and hence implies that it will compete with food crops for more fertile and irrigated land.

Expansion of Jathropa plantation not only leads to further biodiversity loss, but more importantly, it also impacts on the loss of food crops which has direct livelihood implications for those dependent on jhum and small scale farming.

While the usual promise by promoters is that there are enough cash that can flow from such plantations which then can be used for procuring rice and other food crops from the market. While this step further increases dependence on external sources for basic food for survival, procuring food from unknown external sources itself is a high carbon proposition as food has to be brought by fossil fuel fed transport system from far-away places.

The cost and carbon emission involved is not accounted for when jathropa or any other agrofuel is un-critically acclaimed. It must be mentioned that the UN Special Rapportuer on Hunger, Jean Zeigler has called for an immediate 5-year Moratorium on Agro fuels. If this is implemented, it is expected to give some time for people to debate on the future of food and fuel system and not get agrofuel pushed through our throat.

Jobs and better local economy is also being promised by promoters, but findings indicate just the contrary. A simple question to test this is to ask whether people who where manning the jhum or food crops are now out of 'jobs' as their agricultural land is now under monoculture plantation.

Put more crudely, what happens when their land ownership (or the trees on which it grows) has been transferred to someone else (corporate planters). While Jhum and small subsistence farming is family oriented and requires small land, plantation requires thousands of hectares with fewer jobs to man them.

It must be remembered that these are not some small scale household type of production system, but rather it involves corporations with crores of rupees that then through a tight control, from seed to fuel, of contracts of small producers or large plantations. It will be completely erroneous to assume that the farmers will have control over the plantation and the fuel s/he has planted.

What about income? Do local economy gets the boost that promoters talk about? The answer is two-fold, one for the short term benefits/loss and the long term implication on land, fertility and production.

Apart from the uncertainty and danger associated with conversion from food crops to cash crops/jathropa, the most critical is the tying of one's source of income/livelihood to only one major source while the rest are being completely being annihilated thus leaving jhum and small farmers at the mercy of the market and the agrofuel corporations.

While immediate cash income might sound promising, the losses as a result of cutting down forest, or stabilizing jhum areas by converting into a cash crop have ramifications that cannot be accounted monetarily. For example, once Jathropa or other agro-fuel plantations are allowed, the numerous species found in the forest and/or in jhum plots which are used for food, medicinal or other household purposes will be reduced drastically or will not be accessible anymore.

Do agrofuel have a chance to reduce Climate Change? Tangentially touched in the previous article, the possibility of an alternate energy source by using agrofuel has been questioned on several grounds. One is the preposterous claim that it will reduce fossil fuel use.

Current global energy consumption and future projection does not show agrofuel playing a significant role. The fact remains that there are no enforced policy or laws that restricts the use of fossil fuel, nor there are reduction in the number of cars being churned out every day, nor are there signs that fossil fuel use has been reduced since the introduction of agrofuel, nor are there any indication globally that fossil fuel and automobile manufacturers are taking responsibility to deal with climate change. Instead, there are business as usual with additional benefits of carbon subsidies, land and money.

An equally critical factor in climate change is the GHG emission by agriculture which accounts for 14 % of all emissions. If the emissions due to ever expanding agrofuel plantation is added i.e., encroachment into forest land, it will not be wrong to conclude that agriculture, primarily the industrial agriculture coupled with agrofuel, is the main factor that leads to global warming.

The next article will explore the expansion and actors involved in the agrofuel plantation in North East India.