[MUSIC] Thank you so much for participating in this interview, really appreciate it. Could you start by introducing yourself? >> Sure, I'm Deborah Scott. I'm a research fellow post-doc here at the University of Edinburgh, in Science, Technology, and Innovation Studies. And I'm part of European Research Council funded project called Engineering Life, which is a bunch of social scientists, and historians, and philosophers looking at the movement of ideas and policies and promises from engineering into life sciences. I, myself am a human geographer primarily but also used to be a lawyer. >> Can you explain what a human geographer is? >> Yeah. >> For our bench scientist learners. >> So geography, being the study of the interaction of space and place and people and the environment and the built environment. The ways that all of these things interact together. And physical geographers will look at that from the angle of snow melt in Greenland or the rate of forest deforestation. And human geographers will look at those interactions from a whole host of different angles. And so for myself I've been looking at international decision making processes around emerging technologies. But looking at that in terms of sort of how different spaces get created, how different kinds of places are made and represented in these international forums. >> Great, thanks. So we are going to talk today about governance in biofuels. Could you start by talking about or explaining what the conventional and biological diversity is, and how it relates to biofuels? Sure, so the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, is one of the larger international environmental treaties that we have. So people tend to be more familiar with it so-called sister treaty, the Climate Change Convention, or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They were both signed at the same time came into being in 1992. And it's got over 197 states belong to this treaty at this point, and these states are committed. To the protection of biological diversity, the sustainable use of biodiversity and the fair and equitable benefit sharing of genetic resources, of biodiversity. So basically to avoid biopiracy. So that's the overall framework of this treaty, and it is as you can imagine very broad because it sort of has the remit to speak to Issues that relate to biodiversity, and that includes everything from parks and conservation, sort of the more classic ideas of we're going to sort of protect this area and make sure that humans aren't allowed in there. To agricultural biodiversity, to all kinds of different ways of sustainable using the biodiversity that exists. To how forests should be managed, to how land use should be decided on. So it's a really broad treaty. So students in the course based on earlier lectures this week will probably already start to see how that treaty might relate to biofuels, or how the convention might relate to biofuels. Do you want to sort of state explicitly. >> Thank you, yeah sorry so. So the Trying to think of how best to put this. So biofuels involve accessing non-fossilized biomass. And so this relates to forests, because that's one potential source for biomass. It relates to agricultural biodiversity, because you might be growing crops specifically for this. It relates to questions of agricultural subsidies, which is within the mandate of the convention on biological diversity. It relates to, Issues of conservation and of land use, if what we're talking about is the potential direct conversion of sort of pristine land, into agricultural land for biofuel crops. Or if we're talking about potentially protecting areas that would be under threat because of fossil fuel extraction. And that biofuels that could very well be a biodiversity saving thing. So when biofuels sort of came to the core because they've been around for almost a hundred years now. But they really sort of rose as a potential national level and global level solution to these problems of energy and environment and economy. At that time in 2008 there was a push by some countries that are members of the CBD to say, this is relevant to the CBD and it should speak to that. And it could speak to that in a number of ways. But there was this idea specifically that the CBD could provide input into how best the biodiversity impacts of biofuel production and use might be understood and assessed. >> Mm-hm. >> So that was the sort of initial idea going into it, and for a whole host of reasons that didn't really happen. >> Mm-hm. >> And it was an incredibly controversial issue. It was almost the most controversial issue. Probably through to 2014, when it sort of dropped off the radar, and synthetic biology became the controversial issue at the CBD. So, ultimately, the CBD, itself, hasn't ended up Putting that much out there, that much guidance out there when it comes to the question of biofuels and how they should be assessed. But it did, I think there's some agreement that the fact that the CBD was actively asking questions and trying to sort of reframe the debate around questions of biodiversity, and not just around questions of greenhouse gas emissions. >> Mm-hm. >> That had an impact in sort of a global reshifting of how biofuels were thought of. >> Mm-hm. >> Because again, if you go back to like 2006, 2007, there was really a very strong belief that biofuels could be win, win, win. >> Right. >> That they were going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They were going to reduce import dependence on fossil fuels from politically unstable places, and that they were going to both provide industrial agriculture with the new commodity market, and lift small scale farmers out of poverty. >> Who's going to do [LAUGH]. >> Everything. >> And in 2008 you started to see the push back on weight, actually this is already impacting food prices. >> Hmm. >> And you had the, like I think 11 or 12 UN bodies came together and wrote a report that said yeah, actually it is definitely impacting global corn commodity prices. And we can look at this is 2008, 15% of global corn production went into ethanol. >> Wow. >> 18% of sugar cane productive globally went into biodiesel. >> Hm-mm. >> 10% which is oil. And so these were having these huge impacts. So then the issue became sort of like versus fuel. >> Right. >> And this video was able to step in and say, it's not just about greenhouse gas emissions. >> Hm-mm. Which started again to get more complicated, how do we account for that with biofuels. But we also need to think about the sort of the myriad of ways that biodiversity plays a role in this. >> Right. >> And so did the narrative starting shifting more towards, or rather the approach to biofuels. Did it start getting to a more life cycle assessment? Kind of like a broader conception and of what the impacts might be? >> Yes, so this has been an incredibly controversial issue. Is what do we take account of. >> Right. >> In Life Cycle Assessment. >> Yeah. >> And I think that a key concern, and controversy that has been incredibly meaningful for conventional biofuels but that might also continue to be important when we look at advanced biofuels. >> Hm-mm. >> Is this issue of indirect land use change? >> Hmm. >> And so initially the life cycle assessments that were being done and there are a lot of voluntary certifications processes. >> Hm-mm. >> Like the round table, what used to be called the round table on sustainable biofuels. It's now the round table on sustainable biomaterials and others that sort of biofuels producers can get rated as sustainable. >> Hm-mm. >> Amongst different parties. >> Which is also kind of governance. Which is a kind of governance and which is even more important than sometimes voluntary corporate certification is. Because the European union's renewable energy directive in order for the EU to be able to purchase biofuels they have to be rated as a chemical. >> Ooh, yep. >> By one of a certain number. >> Yeah. >> Of specified certification bodies. So this sort of ups the ante. >> Yeah. >> Of what these voluntary certifieds are. Right, so we have these volunteer certification processes, and they're saying, okay this is sustainable. And initially they looked at land use change. They said okay, well if you are going to clear cut a tropical forest so that you can plant palm oil. >> Hm-mm. >> That is not sustainable. But so the direct conversion of. Land that wasn't under production. >> Right. >> Into land that's in production clearly a problem. >> Mm-hm. >> As there was this major bloom of large scale investment in biofuels. >> Mm-hm. >> They're started in 2008 >> I think it was in, dear, it was either Nature or Science. But there were two papers that said, okay so we're measuring direct land use change, but what about indirect land use change. Because actually this could be a really big issue, and that is when you have. Former users of land. And so say, you have a bunch of cattle grazers, cattle farming in the Brazilian Cerrado. >> And that land is identified as being ideal for growing biofuels. >> Hm-mm. >> Okay, so you're going to go from one type of agricultural production to another type of agricultural production. You're probably not going to lose a lot of biodiversity there. But now you have a whole herd of cattle that need to go somewhere. >> Right. >> And. >> It started, they started to see these, sort of when you looked at larger scales, you could start to see. >> The cascade >> Pushing out, right? >> Hm-mm. And that, if then a bunch of rainforest, again or the savannah, gets sort of like a bunch of cattle get loosed into what was virgin area, right? >> Right. Then that has a potentially huge. >> Right. >> Greenhouse gas impact, but also especially biodiversity impact. And so that question of how do we account for indirect land use change. >> Right. >> That's then incredibly contentious for how do we govern for sustainable biofuels. >> Yeah. Great point. So how given that the CBD ended up not being it, right. How are biofuels now being governed nationally and internationally? >> So there's a lot of formal governance of biofuels at national levels. >> Hm-mm. >> There's a lot of, mainly that looks like support. >> There's a lot of [CROSSTALK] of different kinds. And those subsidy schemes have tried to govern for sustainability. >> Hm-mm. >> In their own way, depending on the country. So this has been complicated. But part of the story of it, has been, again since that late 2000s, recognizing whoops. These first generation conventional biofuels are having this whole host of impacts that we didn't anticipate. I'm trying to build in support for advanced biofuels. But the both the science and the commercialization of advanced biofuels has not kept up with the policy plans for those biofuels. And so you saw like, I think like in the early 2010s in the US the Environmental Protection Agency had all its policies, had its support, they were going to minimize the percentage of conventional biofuels. There was going to be a certain percentage, everybody thought that cellulosic. >> Mm-hm. >> Ethanol was going to be the next, what was the next thing. Like this was we can make a side point about when you name things second generation, third generation, fourth generation. >> [LAUGH] >> You sort you're predicting the future and you're giving it sort of a very linear path. And the story of biofuels has not followed the linear path that was laid out for it because sure enough. So you will set biofuels, there was this mandate that a certain percentage had to be purchased, and there were no cellulosic biofuels to purchase. And so what happened was the EPA sort of retweaked, reinterpreted it's policies and said okay, it turned good news. We're not producing advanced ethanol but if we reinterpret what advanced means, Brazil's sugar cane. >> Right. >> They are producing advanced and so we ended up. Importing Brazilian ethanol and exporting first generation corn based ethanol to Brazil. >> [LAUGH] >> And at the European Union level I mean again that's had a huge impact on other countries' biofuel Visions and prospects. Because the European Union as a block never really had much of a vision, especially with the first generation biofuels, of producing its own biomass, right? >> Mm-hm, yeah. >> So, everybody was sort of lining up to try to make the sustainable biomass or potentially make the sustainable biofuels that you wanted. And so, as I was saying before, that has sort of made the voluntary certification schemes more important than they were. And it's been the same struggle in the EU in terms of studying these benchmarks [INAUDIBLE], there can only be a certain percentage that can be conventional biofuels, and having this gap for the advanced biofuels. When you look at the international level, no, go ahead. >> I was just going to say, it based on what I know about governess which certainly in biotech is a reasonable amount it's pretty unusual for the policy to be ahead of the science. >> Yeah, so there's, this is part of what makes biofuels a fascinating topic and also a frustrating one to, it's a fascinating topic to study but a frustrating one to engage with. >> [LAUGH] >> When I did interviews with the convention on biological diapers, the secretary of staff that had been working on agricultural biofuels. They talked about how there's a lot of talk at the international level about how policy needs to be more science-based. And there's a whole host of political projects behind that. A lot of times it's about like certain countries, kinds of science need to be given more weight than other countries instead of more traditional knowledge or public experience, etc. Or [INAUDIBLE], it can mean sort of lab based science versus ecology. That can play out in terms of which is more science based. But they were saying in the case of biofuels this policy has really been unrelated [LAUGH]. Anybody's scientific knowledge and I think part of it is the power of that win, win, win. >> Mm-hm.. >> It's fit in so well with everybody's needs with the need at an international level to take action on climate change. But also with the need at a national level to try to get more national energy independence, as well as. Yeah, I mean the sort of agriculture is a huge stakeholder. And in that sense it's a huge stakeholder in that agribusiness is massive in the global north. But also that the vast majority of tropical, of say, African countries. But the vast majority of people are making their living, of their livelihoods as small scale farmers. >> Mm-hm. >> And so there's all these interests that are involved. And biofuels were born to be like Biofuels promised to do everything for everyone. >> Yeah. >> And then the global financial collapse. >> Yeah. >> And the US started fracking. >> Yap, yap >> And food versus fuel sort of got a lot of global attention. And bodies like the CDD stepped in and there's been a real sort of cooling off of investments in. But interestingly, I just read a 2016 nature biotechnology paper looking at the biofuels' patent landscape. And what you would expect to see would be a movement from the investing and scientific progress in conventional biofuels to these advanced biofuels. And actually what you see is not. >> Mm-mm >> Advance biofuels, the patents are not keeping up. >> And where they are, they're not the synthetic biology-based ones. It's actually the thermo, like hydrolysis. Stuff that South Africa was working on when it was under apartheid, so. >> But
