Agreement the make “substantial cuts” and post-Kyoto deal by 2009 reached.
The study found that expected higher commodity prices reflecting such demand were of “particular concern” in food-importing developing countries and were likely to intensify a “food versus fuel” debate.
It said that while higher biofuel feedstock prices would benefit producers of such commodities, they also “imply higher costs and lower incomes for producers that use the same feedstock in the form of animal feed.”
Tom Adshead, an economist, told Al Jazeera: “The market always finds an outlet. If you artificially depress the price of feedstock for biofuel, then there will be under-investment in agricultural production, and so supply will be restricted.
“The West needs to stop subsidising its farmers, and create a level playing field for farmers in developing countries.”
Tom Adshead, an economist
“If you let the price move freely, then this will give a boost to farmers, including those in developing countries.
“Of course, the West needs to stop subsidising its farmers, and create a level playing field for farmers in developing countries. This will increase investment in renewable fuels, which will reduce the cost of energy in the long run.”
In early June, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said that biofuels would drive the price of petrol “through the roof”.
The upward pressure can be attributed to increased demand and changes in eating habits, as incomes rise, as well as to alternative uses for food crops, notably as components of biofuels, that have “led to higher domestic prices.”
The report said that its projections could be altered by new production technologies, changes in biofuel prices or unexpected changes in prices for crude oil and feedstocks.
There are at present two families of biofuels, ethanols and biodiesels. Ethanols are derived from sugar beets, wheat, corn or sugarcane.
Biodiesels make use of transformed oils from plant sources that are then mixed with diesel fuel.