Franco et al_EU biofuels_JPS_prodn-corr, 21/07/2010 Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 2010, forthcoming [version that was sent to the journal for production] Assumptions in the European Union biofuels policy: frictions with experiences in Germany, Brazil and Mozambique 1 Jennifer Franco, Les Levidow, David Fig, Lucia Goldfarb, Mireille Hönicke, and Maria Luisa Mendonça Abstract The biofuel project is an agro-industrial development and politically contested policy process where governments increasingly become global actors. European Union (EU) biofuels policy rests upon arguments about societal benefits of three main kinds – namely, environmental protection (especially greenhouse gas savings), energy security and rural development, especially in the global South. Each argument involves optimistic assumptions about what the putative benefits mean and how they can be fulfilled. After examining those assumptions, we compare them with experiences in three countries – Germany, Brazil and Mozambique – which have various links to each other and to the EU through biofuels. In those case studies, there are fundamental contradictions between EC policy assumptions and practices in the real world, involving frictional encounters among biofuel promoters as well as with people adversely affected. Such contradictions may intensify with the future rise of biofuels and so warrant systematic attention. Keywords: biofuels; agrofuels; rural development; greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; energy security; bioethanol, biodiesel Introduction The European Union (EU) promotes biofuels policy in several ways. By 2020, 20% of energy used in the EU and 10% of each member state’s transport fuel must come from renewable sources. The available arable land in the EU will not be sufficient to produce all the needed feedstocks for biofuels, so the EU will have to outsource its biofuels production to the global South. This has made the policy highly contentious regarding socio-economic and environmental impacts. EU biofuels policy assumes that these impacts will be largely beneficial, and that any potential harms can be managed (e.g. by self-regulation) and/or mitigated (e.g. by technological innovation). This paper questions such optimistic assumptions. The discussion is organised as follows: (i) first we review the context within which the controversy over biofuels has arisen; (ii) next we look at the political forces and agendas that have turned biofuels into a priority for EU policy despite public opposition; (iii) next we analyse pro-biofuels arguments and assumptions; (iv) next we compare the assumptions with policies, practices and effects in three countries – Germany, Brazil and Mozambique. Finally (v) we summarise how our findings challenge policy assumptions and hold wider implications for biofuel critics. 1 The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 217647. Carried out during 2008-10, the project called Co- operative Research on Environmental Problems in Europe (CREPE) had a part on agrofuels which aimed: (i) to facilitate interdisciplinary research by and with civil society organisations (CSOs) on agrofuels/ agrofuel policies and their impacts; (ii) to identify, explain and interrogate the key assumptions underlying government policies promoting agrofuels; and (iii) to link these assumptions with accounts of sustainable development. We used a cooperative research approach to involve academic researchers and activist researchers based in civil society organisations, in the conceptualisation and design, data gathering and analysis, as well as in the validation and dissemination of our findings. The research had three phases: (i) desk study of existing policies, their underlying assumptions and understandings of the environment and sustainable development; (ii) case studies of how pro- biofuels assumptions compare with practices in three countries; (iii) an international workshop with civil society organisations to discuss preliminary results and to exchange ideas on possible directions for future research and advocacy; and (iv) a synthesis of results challenging EU policy assumptions. 1