Agriculture Calls for Rethinking Indirect Land Use Rules – RFD-TV

Report on Biofuel Policy and Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC) in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Aligning Biofuel Policy with Global Sustainability Objectives

Biofuel policy, central to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), is facing renewed scrutiny over its methods for calculating carbon penalties. The concept of Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC) was initially developed to support SDG 15 (Life on Land) by preventing global deforestation. However, its current implementation in the United States relies on theoretical models that create conflicts with multiple SDGs by penalizing sustainable agricultural practices and creating economic instability, thereby impacting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Analysis of Current ILUC Framework and its Impact on SDGs

The prevailing ILUC policy structure, as analyzed by John Duff of Serō Ag Strategies, presents several challenges to achieving a balanced and sustainable approach. These challenges are driven by a reliance on predictive modeling rather than empirical evidence.

• Dependence on Speculative Models: Current ILUC penalties are derived from large-scale economic forecasting models that predict global farmer behavior. These models are based on assumptions, often disagree, and can deviate significantly from real-world conditions, leading to policies disconnected from measurable outcomes.
• Negative Impact on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The system imposes carbon penalties on U.S. farmers and biofuel producers for theoretical deforestation that may not be occurring. This creates an uneven playing field, imposes competitive disadvantages on U.S. ethanol, and undermines the economic viability of rural industries.
• Failure to Support SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): The current framework can inadvertently punish agricultural efficiency. Instead of rewarding practices that increase yield on existing land, the model’s blanket penalties fail to differentiate between sustainable intensification and actual land conversion.
• Inconsistent Alignment with SDG 15 (Life on Land): By focusing on theoretical global impacts, the policy may assign unfavorable carbon scores to biofuels from regions with no deforestation risk, while fuels from areas with documented deforestation concerns could receive more favorable treatment. This undermines the primary goal of protecting ecosystems.

A Proposed Risk-Based Framework for Enhanced SDG Alignment

An alternative, evidence-based approach is necessary to realign biofuel policy with its intended sustainability objectives. A risk-based framework, already in use in Canada and parts of Europe, offers a model for achieving this. This approach supports SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by adopting proven international best practices.

1. Verify Feedstock Origins: The primary step is to certify that biofuel feedstocks are sourced from established, long-term cropland. This grounds the policy in verifiable, observable facts rather than speculation.
2. Assess Actual Land Conversion Risk: Regulators would analyze local land-use patterns and agricultural practices to determine if a genuine risk of land conversion exists in the sourcing region.
3. Focus on Preventing Deforestation Directly: This framework maintains the original, critical intent of ILUC—preventing deforestation—while removing penalties based on hypothetical economic scenarios. This ensures direct and effective action toward SDG 15.

Conclusion and Recommendations

To better support the interconnected network of Sustainable Development Goals, U.S. biofuel policy must evolve. Moving from a speculative, model-based ILUC system to a verifiable, risk-based framework is critical. Such a reform would not only protect global forests more effectively but also support the domestic bio-economy, ensuring that policies for SDG 7 (Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) do not inadvertently undermine progress on SDG 8 (Economic Growth) and SDG 12 (Responsible Production). Adopting this fact-based approach would create a more equitable, effective, and sustainable policy structure for farmers and biofuel producers alike.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article’s central theme is the debate over “indirect land-use change” (ILUC), which it states “began as a reasonable idea meant to prevent deforestation overseas.” This directly connects to the goal of protecting terrestrial ecosystems and halting deforestation.
2. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The discussion revolves around biofuel and ethanol production. Biofuels are a form of renewable energy, and the policies discussed impact their viability and production levels. The article mentions how current policies create “competitive disadvantages for U.S. ethanol,” which affects the clean energy sector.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The entire policy framework of ILUC is based on “carbon penalties” and creating “carbon scores” for fuels. This is a direct measure to combat climate change by regulating the carbon intensity of energy sources. The article critiques the methodology of these climate action policies, not the intent.
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article highlights economic consequences of the current ILUC policy, stating it creates “competitive disadvantages for U.S. ethanol” and can “punish farm efficiency rather than rewarding it.” This relates to promoting sustainable economic growth and resource efficiency.
5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The debate concerns the sustainable production of biofuels. The article critiques a system that uses “speculative modeling” and advocates for one grounded in “observable, verifiable facts” to ensure that production patterns do not inadvertently cause environmental harm like deforestation.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Target 15.2: “By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.” The article’s focus on policies “meant to prevent deforestation overseas” and the proposed solution that “protects forests” directly aligns with this target.
2. Under SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy):
   • Target 7.2: “By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.” The article discusses biofuel and ethanol, which are key components of the renewable energy mix. The policies surrounding ILUC directly influence the competitiveness and production volume of these renewable fuels.
3. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.2: “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The article explicitly discusses how ILUC projections “were built into federal and state carbon rules,” which is a clear example of integrating climate change measures into national policy.
4. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.4: “Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production…” The article criticizes the current system because it “can punish farm efficiency rather than rewarding it,” indicating a direct link to the goal of improving resource efficiency in production.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Current (Criticized) Indicators:
   • The article identifies the current indicators as flawed. It states that ILUC penalties are driven by “large economic forecasting models” that rely on “modeling assumptions that cannot be seen or measured” and “global economic guesses.” These predictive models serve as the basis for the “carbon scores” assigned to biofuels, but the article argues they are not based on real-world conditions.
2. Proposed (Implied) Indicators:
   • The article proposes a “risk-based framework” that relies on observable and verifiable indicators. These implied indicators are:
     1. Verification of feedstock origin: The article suggests regulators should “verify whether feedstocks come from established cropland.” This provides a direct, data-based indicator to ensure biofuel production is not causing new deforestation, tracking progress towards Target 15.2.
     2. Risk assessment of land conversion: The proposed approach would assess “whether local practices pose any real risk of land conversion.” This moves from a theoretical global model to a localized, evidence-based risk assessment, providing a more accurate measure of the impact of biofuel production on land use.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: rfdtv.com