The United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, called for a 5 year moratorium on pure biofuels on Friday (26th October). In a press conference at UN headquarters Ziegler suggested that the creation of “pure fuels” or biofuels to protect the environment and reduce oil dependence was not a bad idea, but its negative impact on hunger would be catastrophic.  When tons of maize, wheat, beans and other food staples were converted to fuel, food prices rose and arable land was lost to food production.  Last year, the price of wheat doubled and of maize quadrupled.

He said that, currently, 31 of 53 African States had to import food.  As prices rose, the poorest countries could not pay, and the poorest people, generally living without access to subsistence farming, could not purchase more expensive foodstuffs.  The amount of corn that needed to be burned to make enough ethanol to fill a single car’s fuel tank could fill a child for an entire year.

Warning that converting arable land to pure fuel production was a crime against humanity, he called for a 5-year moratorium on such activity.  He offered the use of non-food agricultural products that could grow in soil unfit for food production as an alternative source of biofuels, citing a project in Rajasthan, India, where the Mercedes company was growing jatropha for biodiesel in arid land.  Following a moratorium, such projects could be evaluated and new fuels produced.

Zeigler's caveat appears to bring the report into line with the UN's stance on biofuels, and particularly second generation biofuels. In April the UN's Food and Agriculture Organazation (FAO) met to look at the potential conflict between food and biofuels.

Commenting on the meeting Alexander Müller, Head of FAO’s Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, said; ‘While there is legitimate concern among some groups that bioenergy could compromise food security and cause environmental damage, it can also be an important tool for improving the well-being of rural people if governments take into account environmental and food security concerns,” he said.

“In food security terms, bioenergy only makes sense if we know where the food-insecure populations are located and what they need to improve their livelihoods. Environmentally, we must make sure that both large- and small-scale producers of bioenergy fully take into account both the negative and positive impacts,” Müller said.

“There is a key role for governments to play in setting standards of performance. International organizations such as FAO can also have a major role in providing a neutral forum and policy support,” he noted.

“We need an international commitment to make sure that food security is not impaired and that natural resources are used sustainably,” he added.