Tag Archives: rainforest

Say no to Shell’s slave sugar cane biofuel plans in Brazil

Posted on by
Reply

Shell has just signed what could be the world’s largest biofuel deal ever – a $12 billion MoU with controversial Brazilian sugar came company Cosan. According to rainforest campaigners Rettet den Regenwald, the deal threatens to lead to deforestation in the Amazon, increased climate chaos and support Cosan in its continued use of slave labour.

Here is an online email action targetting Shell on the issue.

According to Rettet den Regenwald,

“Shell’s role includes contributing about $1.625 billion and 2,740 filling stations. Initially the joint venture will produce about 2 billion litres a year but the companies plan to increase this to a whopping 5 billion litres a year which would make the venture one of the world’s top three ethanol producers.

The Brazilian government and Brazilian ethanol companies have invested large amounts of money and time in persuading the world of sugar cane’s green credentials, glossing over some devastating impacts of Brazil’s sugar cane industry.

Brazilian sugar cane plantations are responsible for the destruction of large areas of cerrado and forest, including the Amazon. The industry will tell you no tropical deforestation occurs as a result of sugar cane plantations. Yet in September 2009 the Brazilian Government felt the need to propose new legislation that would prevent sugar cane expanding directly into the Amazon in the future. The government states, however, that “sugarcane plantations currently in progress, and also the scheduled expansions, even in the Amazonia… should not be prohibited.”

Neither can the proposed legislation stop the phenomenon of indirect land use change where existing agricultural land is given over to sugar cane plantations, and farmers travel to find and create new land for their agriculture. It is very difficult to determine these indirect impacts of biofuel crops such as sugar cane and this is a hotly debated policy area in EU legislation. Current policy ignores these direct impacts, yet they can make the difference between biofuels being better for the climate than fossil fuels and being worse for the climate. Bioethanol from sugar cane is given a high CO2 saving rating in EU law but if indirect deforestation is taken into account it can actually have higher CO2 emissions than petrol.

Another crucial issue for the sugar cane industry is the use of slave labour and appalling working conditions. Shell’s new bedfellow Cosan is currently embroiled in a battle with the Brazilian government over whether or not it should be included on their “black list” of sugar cane companies that use slave labour. Walmart temporarily suspended its supply contract with Cosan in January 2010 because the company was included on the list on 31 December 2009 after an inspection found workers being mistreated (see Bloomberg: Cosan Falls on Slavery Charges . Cosan has since won an injunction and has been removed from the list, but the Brazilian attorney general plans to fight this injunction.

No stranger to the need to seem “green”, Shell has developed some sustainability criteria for its biofuels investments. These include:

“Shell will work with its suppliers to incorporate sustainability clauses into supply contracts that seek to ensure that bio-components and feedstocks are not knowingly linked to violation of human rights (child or forced labour) and have not knowingly been cultivated, produced or manufactured in areas of high biodiversity value”.

Sounds good? However, later down in the principles we find the get-out-clause which it has obviously applied to Cosan:

“Shell recognises that many existing suppliers may not meet our expectations in full immediately. If these suppliers wish to supply to Shell, they must commit to work with us to develop a more sustainable supply chain.”

Eni’s new tar sands projects threaten Congo rainforest

Posted on by
3

Plans by oil company Eni to develop tar sands and oil palm in the Congo Basin risk irreversible damage to biodiversity, local communities and our climate, and break the company’s own guidelines, according to Congolese human rights organisations and their international partners. In a report published today, Energy Futures? Eni’s Investments in tar sands and palm oil in the Congo Basin, the groups argue that given their potential for local harm and their huge carbon footprint, such investments should be considered too high risk for Eni or any other energy company.

This is the first tar sands exploration in Africa2, while the palm oil project for food and agro-fuels would be one of the largest on the continent. Eni’s deal was signed in 2008 with the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), an oil-rich but poor state with minimal transparency and respect for human rights. Forests cover two thirds of Congo and are essential for the livelihoods of local people, as well as a vital carbon sink. Congo’s Government wants to lead on stewarding the global resource of the Basin, but its record on forest law enforcement and environmental protection is weak.

Eni is currently ranked as the world’s most “sustainable” oil company. Most recently, its CEO Paolo Scaroni urged delegates at the UN Leadership Forum in New York to take action on climate change. Yet research shows that Eni’s new investments in Congo are not a step down the path of energy sustainability. “With less than a month to go to the Copenhagen summit, Eni’s projects undermine its green credentials. They also highlight the wider costs of promoting high-carbon, export-driven energy investments – especially in ecologically sensitive areas with poor governance”, commented Barbara Unmüssig, President of the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

Eni’s tar sands exploration is taking place over a huge 1,790 km2 area. The exact location of the oil palm plantation is unknown, but it will claim 70,000 hectares of “unfarmed” land. Eni says neither project will take place on rainforest and areas of high biodiversity or involve resettlement of people. Yet privately, Eni estimates the tar sands zone comprises 50 to 70% rainforest and other highly environmentally sensitive areas. According to Congolese human rights activist Brice Mackosso (Justice and Peace Commission, Pointe-Noire): “Local people, already suffering the impacts of oil development, have not been meaningfully consulted over the new projects. This violates Eni’s own human rights and environmental policies”.

In Alberta, Canada, tar sands development has led to destruction of the boreal forest, air and water pollution, and health impacts for downstream communities. Producing a barrel of oil from bitumen is 3 to 5 times higher in greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, and Canadians now have the highest carbon footprint of any G8 citizens. Equally, monoculture plantations for agro-fuels are a major source of the deforestation that accounts for 20% of global emissions. Oil palm cultivation is also linked to increased food insecurity, land conflicts, human rights abuses and threats to indigenous groups.

“Eni’s new projects point to a lack of oversight by its key shareholder, the Italian Government” states Elena Gerebizza of Italian group Campaign for the Reform of the World Bank. “Italy has a clear responsibility to ensure that investments by Eni consider fully their likely developmental and climate impacts, and do not work against the country’s international commitments, such as reducing carbon emissions”.

Download the full report.

Notes
1. The report is published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, the foundation of the German Green party, and signed by: Bank Track, Campaign for the Reform of the World Bank (CRBM), Fondazione Culturale Responsibilità, Friends of the Earth International, Justice and Peace Commission, Pointe-Noire (Congo), Misereor, Platform, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Rencontre pour la paix et les droits de l’homme (RPDH, Congo) and Secours Catholique/Caritas. The report is available at: http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/Extractives/Energy_Futures_eng.pdf, http://www.boell.de orhttp://www.crbm.org.
2. Tar sands (called oil sands by the industry) are deposits of sand and clay saturated with bitumen that must be extracted and processed or “upgraded” to produce synthetic crude oil. These processes are highly intensive in energy and water use. Canada is the only place where industrial-scale tar sands extraction is currently taking place.

But €4 billion spare to invest into Brazilian agrofuels

Posted on by
Reply

While BP cuts investment into wind and solar, the company is pumping billions into controversial biofuels. The company is apparently planning to invest €4 billion euros into sugar cane ethanol production in Brazil. The company’s first ethanol refinery started production last year and a second is planned.
Rainforest Rescue in Germany have criticised the plan for requiring vast plantations which are destroying Brazil’s Cerrado savannah and threatens rainforests.

“BP has just acquired the Brazilian company Tropical Bioenergia in the state of Goiás, southwest of the capital Brasilia. The companies activities are located in the heart of the Cerrado, the world’s most biodiverse savannah. Sugar cane plantations are mushrooming across Goiás, mostly at the expense of food production. This pushes the agricultural frontier, particularly cattle ranching and soya production, further north into the Cerrado and into rainforests. Already, sugar cane plantations cover 458,000 hectares of land in Goiás. Some 60,000 hectares of those supply BP’s ethanol refineries. No end of this displacement is in sight.”

BP has heavily lobbying for more sugar cane expansion in Brazil, for European tariffs on Brazilian ethanol to be scrapped and for government targets for agrofuels consumption in the US, EU and the UK.

“In the UK, BP was able to shape biofuel legislation, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, which mandates biofuel blending into all road transport fuel. BP is also at the forefront of the push for agrofuels for aviation.”

A recent book published by Oxfam in Brazil with the Heinrich Boell Foundation is more sympathetic to ethanol production than biodiesel, but still argues that

“The issue of greatest contention, perhaps, relates to the indirect effects of the huge projected expansion of sugar-cane ethanol production, particularly the relocation of soy production and cattle raising from the Centre-South to new frontier lands releasing carbon emissions and putting pressure on sensitive biomes.”

Rainforest Rescue have an online petition at to tell BP to stop investing in the Brazilian ethanol industry.