EU Commissioner: biofuels have limited effect on food prices
Despite some legitimate but unfounded fears, analyses show that large-scale biofuel production will not have any noticeable effects on food prices. Earlier, EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs reported that analyses show that biofuels make feed and meat products cheaper, because biodiesel and ethanol production yields a vast stream of waste products that can be used as feed for animals (earlier post).
Today, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel presented analyses showing that the production of ethanol and biodiesel will not significantly impact prices for other food products either. There is a heated debate about whether the EU can deliver on the Commission’s 10% target for biofuels by 2020 (part of the EU's plan to evolve towards a low carbon economy, earlier post), without putting a huge strain on food markets. Speaking to European grain traders of the COCERAL (acronym for "Comité du Commerce des céréales, aliments du bétail, oléagineux, huile d'olive, huiles et graisses et agrofournitures") in Brussels she said this would not be the case.
“Analysis by the commission indicates that, with this target, prices for agricultural raw materials in the EU would increase by 3-6% for cereals, and 5-18% for the major oilseeds. But prices for those raw products influence food prices only to a very limited extent," she said. "The cost of cereals makes up only around 1-5% of the consumer price of bread, which means that bread prices would increase by less than 1% – a hardly perceptible rise.
“The increase in vegetable oil prices would be greater. However, food-manufacturers using vegetable oils can partly replace rapeseed oil with soybean or sunflower oil. Moreover, the higher the level of processing in foods, the lower the share of the cost of vegetable oils in the consumer price. Therefore, in highly processed foods, for example prepared meals and chocolate bars, consumer prices would remain stable.”
Addressing the European Grain and Oilseed Convention, Mrs Fischer Boel added that a proportion of the EU’s biofuel supply would have to be imported:
biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: bioenergy :: cereals :: oilseeds :: food :: EU ::
“The level of imports depends essentially on the competitiveness of European production of feedstock. We could boost this competitiveness by abolishing set-aside and modifying the cereals intervention system. There will also be a big lift for if second-generation biofuels, based on feedstocks such as straw, become more cost-effective by 2015, as many experts predict."
“Developments such as these will still leave us needing imports. But they would ensure that the level required would not overstretch the sustainable production potential in our main supplier countries. Overall, then, we think that the target of 10% will not create unmanageable tensions in markets, or put resources under excessive strain.”
Earlier, increases in corn prices in Mexico were wrongly blamed on biofuels. According to experts, they were the result of dubious trade regimes, tariffs and subsidies (both for corn as well as for ethanol) for U.S. farmers.
In the developing world, large-scale biofuel production is poised to boost the food security of farmers, whose incomes will increase, allowing them to increase their efficiency in agriculture, and their purchasing power. Poverty, lack of income and lack of access to agricultural inputs and food markets are the key reasons for food insecurity, not lack of land or agricultural potential.
By offering farmers in the South the opportunity to diversify their crop portfolios away from single cash crops, and to grow energy crops for a world market - with ever increasing fossil fuel prices - a huge opportunity emerges for poverty alleviation and strengthened food security.
The fact that the EU as well as other markets are no longer uncomfortable with the fact that they will have to import these biofuels and feedstocks, is good news for people involved in designing development strategies for the Global South.
Today, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel presented analyses showing that the production of ethanol and biodiesel will not significantly impact prices for other food products either. There is a heated debate about whether the EU can deliver on the Commission’s 10% target for biofuels by 2020 (part of the EU's plan to evolve towards a low carbon economy, earlier post), without putting a huge strain on food markets. Speaking to European grain traders of the COCERAL (acronym for "Comité du Commerce des céréales, aliments du bétail, oléagineux, huile d'olive, huiles et graisses et agrofournitures") in Brussels she said this would not be the case.
“Analysis by the commission indicates that, with this target, prices for agricultural raw materials in the EU would increase by 3-6% for cereals, and 5-18% for the major oilseeds. But prices for those raw products influence food prices only to a very limited extent," she said. "The cost of cereals makes up only around 1-5% of the consumer price of bread, which means that bread prices would increase by less than 1% – a hardly perceptible rise.
“The increase in vegetable oil prices would be greater. However, food-manufacturers using vegetable oils can partly replace rapeseed oil with soybean or sunflower oil. Moreover, the higher the level of processing in foods, the lower the share of the cost of vegetable oils in the consumer price. Therefore, in highly processed foods, for example prepared meals and chocolate bars, consumer prices would remain stable.”
Addressing the European Grain and Oilseed Convention, Mrs Fischer Boel added that a proportion of the EU’s biofuel supply would have to be imported:
biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: bioenergy :: cereals :: oilseeds :: food :: EU ::
“The level of imports depends essentially on the competitiveness of European production of feedstock. We could boost this competitiveness by abolishing set-aside and modifying the cereals intervention system. There will also be a big lift for if second-generation biofuels, based on feedstocks such as straw, become more cost-effective by 2015, as many experts predict."
“Developments such as these will still leave us needing imports. But they would ensure that the level required would not overstretch the sustainable production potential in our main supplier countries. Overall, then, we think that the target of 10% will not create unmanageable tensions in markets, or put resources under excessive strain.”
Earlier, increases in corn prices in Mexico were wrongly blamed on biofuels. According to experts, they were the result of dubious trade regimes, tariffs and subsidies (both for corn as well as for ethanol) for U.S. farmers.
In the developing world, large-scale biofuel production is poised to boost the food security of farmers, whose incomes will increase, allowing them to increase their efficiency in agriculture, and their purchasing power. Poverty, lack of income and lack of access to agricultural inputs and food markets are the key reasons for food insecurity, not lack of land or agricultural potential.
By offering farmers in the South the opportunity to diversify their crop portfolios away from single cash crops, and to grow energy crops for a world market - with ever increasing fossil fuel prices - a huge opportunity emerges for poverty alleviation and strengthened food security.
The fact that the EU as well as other markets are no longer uncomfortable with the fact that they will have to import these biofuels and feedstocks, is good news for people involved in designing development strategies for the Global South.
2 Comments:
You do very good work here, but you can be a little irritatingly one-sided.
Fischer Boel is right that the 5.75% target would only have a moderate effect on food inflation over the long term, but her analysis - as with most economic analysis of biofuels policy - omits to grapple with the question of how the shift in the supply/demand fundamentals will play out in the market (i.e. market friction). As you can see in the United States, rapidly increasing demand for feedstocks can result in short-term pricing distortions, which accelerate food-price inflation. High prices in the US are already being passed on to consumers in the price of meats in particular.
Hi gacetillero,
thanks for your view, but I think Fischer-Boel only talked about the medium-term effects.
That said, our main point is much broader, namely that it's the price of oil that is ultimately to blame for inflationary pressures.
If you look at Brazil, the inflationary shock of high oil prices has been completely offset there because of massive investments in biofuels.
This is why we think the one-sided view of some that biofuels are to blame for increased food prices, is a bit irritating. Our entire purpose is to show that if biofuel production is limited to places where it makes economic sense to produce them (Latin America/Africa/South East Asia) then they can actually have a deflationary effect.
It is precisely because the EU and the US take food out of the market and turn it into biofuels that there is a problem as the one you describe.
Moreover, with so-called 'spillover' effects of biofuel byproducts that feed other markets (animal feed markets), there are much more complex price effects on many goods. Take soybeans: as a commodity their price has risen substantially, but only their oil is used for biodiesel. The soybean meal (for which they are normally grown) is now flooding the market, with lower prices as a consequence. This actually results in lower meat prices.
Kind regards,
Jonas
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home