Worried that it may be seen as insensitive to the food needs of Africa, the South African government, which is facing a general election in 2009, has chosen food security in framing a biofuel policy.
After months of dilly-dallying, a strategy for the biofuel sector was accepted by the Cabinet at the start of December. But the government excluded maize, a life-saving export during times of recurring drought in Southern Africa.
Politics, according to independent observers and the lobby pushing for maize as a source of biofuel, influenced the announcement, which preceded the Polokwane conference of the African National Congress where Jacob Zuma was elected as new party leader.
“This decision was a complete surprise,” said a shocked Andrew Makenete, president of the South African Biofuels Association (Saba). “The government not once during talks expressed the possibility that maize would be excluded. It was supposed to be the foundation of a South African biofuels project.”
Saba and Grain South Africa had lobbied for maize with government officials and Tito Mboweni, Governor of the South African Reserve Bank, who a few months ago had warned that a diversion of the staple for biofuels could lead to an increase in prices and threaten food security in the region.
“Although we do not want to presume to speak on behalf of government, it could be that the concerns raised by Mboweni influenced this decision,” Makenete said in an interview.
The decision was political, commented Emile van Zyl, professor of microbiology at the University of Stellenbosch, who has been at the forefront of a project to convert biomass into biofuel.
“Food security is not just a rational but also an emotional issue. With the ANC party conference in mid-December and a general election in 2009, the government was not taking any chances on being seen as insensitive to food security,” he explained.
Grain South Africa’s Wessel Lemmer said that South Africa produces 8,6-million tonnes of maize annually, whereas it has a capacity of 12-million tonnes. More than a million hectares of available land are lying idle because of weak markets over the past two decades and production costs overstripping the income, he claimed.
“If we have a market for the potential three million tonnes,” he pointed out, “we are making a huge contribution to economic growth in this country.”
Land reform
Moreover, according to Kobus Lindique, MD of Monsanto sub-Saharan Africa, the transnational agro-giant, the government’s refusal to include maize in the biofuel strategy could have a negative impact on South Africa’s land-reform policy.
By 2014, 30% of farm land has to be in the hands of black owners. But the transfer process has been very slow, sparking fears that the restive masses could resort to a large-scale takeover of agricultural holdings belonging to white farmers, as in neighbouring Zimbabwe.
According to Lindique, “the ethanol maize project [with a huge demand for maize] would have been the perfect opportunity for the government to settle black farmers on farms as part of the land-reform policy”.
The National African Farmers’ Union was also surprised. However, Molefe Mokoene, CEO, said that since “we have not yet seen documentation for Cabinet, we cannot speculate on reasons for the exclusion”.
In South Africa, the private sector has shown willingness to invest in biofuels. A R700-million bio-ethanol plant, the first of eight being planned, is under construction in Bothaville in the Free State. However, its president, Johan Hoffman, was not available for comment.
Under the biofuel strategy, the government has reduced targets from 4,3% to 2%, from sources such as sugar beet, sunflowers (for biodiesel) and sugar cane (for the production of ethanol). Microbiologist van Zyl described the downward revision as “too low”.
“South Africa uses 20-billion litres of fuel annually, of which 12-billion is petroleum and eight billion diesel. A 2% target will effectively translate to a production of only 400-million litres of fuel. This means that only one plant can be erected and that employment opportunities are limited,” he asserted.
Erhard Seiler, CEO of Saba, shares this view. “The economy of scale is too small. It does not make the biofuels strategy viable,” he said.
Food security
Saba’s Makenete had challenged the food-security concerns in an article in Business Day newspaper. He rubbished the tendency to blame biofuels for price increases of commodities across the board as “pure hype”.
He pointed to the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016, which highlighted lower world opening stocks, increased demand, drought and market inefficiencies for higher prices. (This report was produced jointly by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.)
The Agricultural Outlook warned that it would be premature to attribute a long-term rise in commodity prices to biofuels.
Pro-maize officials also opposed environmental concerns about the increase in maize production in a country like South Africa, where water has been a problem because of recurrent drought. According to Seiler, maize requires far less water than a guzzler like sugar cane, which the government has included in its biofuel strategy.
“At Saba we believe that a higher biofuel target would have ensured food security,” he said. “If there is a huge demand, it increases production as more players enter the field to provide in the market for consumption and biofuel. And this, in turn, creates opportunities for the small farmer.” — IPS