Search This Blog

Monday, December 27, 2021

Buddhist vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A vegetarian dinner at a Korean Buddhist restaurant
 
A vegetarian dinner at a Japanese Buddhist restaurant
 
A vegetarian dinner at a Taiwanese Buddhist restaurant

Buddhist vegetarianism is the practice of vegetarianism by significant portions of Mahayana Buddhist monks and nuns (as well as laypersons) and some Buddhists of other sects. In Buddhism, the views on vegetarianism vary between different schools of thought. The Mahayana schools generally recommend a vegetarian diet because Gautama Buddha set forth in some of the sutras that his followers must not eat the flesh of any sentient being.

Early Buddhism

The Buddhist king Ashoka built pillars throughout the Indian subcontinent inscribed with edicts promoting Buddhist moral virtues and precepts.

The earliest surviving written accounts of Buddhism are the Edicts written by King Ashoka, a well-known Buddhist king who propagated Buddhism throughout Asia, and is honored by both Theravada and Mahayana schools of Buddhism. The authority of the Edicts of Ashoka as a historical record is suggested by the mention of numerous topics omitted as well as corroboration of numerous accounts found in the Theravada and Mahayana Tripitakas written down centuries later.

Asoka Rock Edict 1 dated to c. 257 BCE mentions the prohibition of animal sacrifices in Ashoka's Maurya Empire as well as his commitment to vegetarianism; however, whether the Sangha was vegetarian in part or in whole is unclear from these edicts. However, Ashoka's personal commitment to, and advocating of, vegetarianism suggests Early Buddhism (at the very least for the layperson) most likely already had a vegetarian tradition (the details of what that entailed besides not killing animals and eating their flesh, were not mentioned, and therefore are unknown).

Views of the three Buddhist vehicles

There is a divergence of views within Buddhism as to whether vegetarianism is required; with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a requirement. Some Buddhists avoid meat consumption because of the first precept in Buddhism: "I undertake the precept to refrain from taking life". Other Buddhists disagree with this conclusion. Many Buddhist vegetarians also oppose meat-eating based on scriptural injunctions against flesh-eating recorded in Mahayana sutras.

Theravada view

The most clear reference in Theravada Buddhism to monastic consumption of non-vegetarian food is found in the Pali Canon, where the Buddha once explicitly refused a suggestion by Devadatta to mandate vegetarianism in the monks' Vinaya monastic code. This refusal to proscribe non-vegetarian food is within the context of Buddhist monastics receiving alms food.

The Buddha in the Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.38 Sukhamala Sutta, before his enlightenment, describes his family being wealthy enough to provide non-vegetarian meals even to his servants. After becoming enlightened, he respectfully accepted any kind of alms food offered with good intention, including meat (within the limitations described above), fruit and vegetables.

In the modern era, the passage cited below has been interpreted as allowing the consumption of meat if it is not specifically slaughtered for the monastic receiving alms food:

… meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta, MN 55 , unpublished translation by Sister Uppalavanna

Also in the Jivaka Sutta, Buddha instructs a monk or nun to accept, without any discrimination, whatever alms food is offered with good will, including meat. In contrast, the Buddha in the Vanijja Sutta, AN 5:177 declares the meat trade to be one of the five wrong livelihood a layperson should not engage in :

Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.

But this is not, strictly speaking, a dietary rule because the Buddha, on one particular occasion, specifically refused suggestions by Devadatta to institute vegetarianism in the Sangha.

In the Amagandha Sutta in the Sutta Nipata, a vegetarian Brahmin confronts Kassapa Buddha (a previous Buddha before Gautama Buddha) in regard to the evil of eating meat. The Brahmin insisted his higher status is well-deserved due to his observance of a vegetarian diet. The Buddha countered the argument by listing acts which cause real moral defilement (i.e. those acts in opposition to Buddhist ethics) and then stating the mere consumption of meat is not equivalent to those acts. 

There were monastic guidelines prohibiting consumption of 10 types of meat: that of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. This is because these animals (allegedly) can be provoked by the smell of the flesh of their own kind, or because eating of such flesh would generate a bad reputation for the Sangha.

Paul Breiter, a student of Ajahn Chah, states that some bhikkhus in the Thai Forest Tradition choose to be vegetarian and that Ajahn Sumedho encouraged supporters to prepare vegetarian food for the temple.

There are a significant minority of Theravada laypersons who practice vegetarianism especially in Thailand.

Mahayana view

Mahayana views on vegetarianism are within the broader framework of Buddhist ethics or Śīla. The aim of Buddhist vegetarianism is to give rise to compassion and the upholder of vegetarianism is expected to (at least faithfully attempt to) observe Buddhist ethics. The Buddhist vegetarian who does not observe Buddhist ethics is not seen as a true Buddhist vegetarian.

According to the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, a Mahayana sutra giving Gautama Buddha's final teachings, the Buddha insisted that his followers should not eat any kind of meat or fish. Even vegetarian food that has been touched by meat should be washed before being eaten. Also, it is not permissible for the monk or nun just to pick out the non-meat portions of a diet – the whole meal must be rejected.

The Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra quotes a dialogue between Gautama Buddha and Manjushri on meat eating:

Mañjuśrī asked, “Do Buddhas not eat meat because of the tathāgata-garbha ?”

The Blessed One replied, “Mañjuśrī, that is so. There are no beings who have not been one’s mother, who have not been one’s sister through generations of wandering in beginningless and endless saṃsāra. Even one who is a dog has been one’s father, for the world of living beings is like a dancer. Therefore, one’s own flesh and the flesh of another are a single flesh, so Buddhas do not eat meat.

“Moreover, Mañjuśrī, the dhātu of all beings is the dharmadhātu, so Buddhas do not eat meat because they would be eating the flesh of one single dhātu.”

The Buddha in certain Mahayana sutras very vigorously and unreservedly denounced the eating of meat, mainly on the grounds that such an act is linked to the spreading of fear amongst sentient beings (who can allegedly sense the odor of death that lingers about the meat-eater and who consequently fear for their own lives) and violates the bodhisattva's fundamental cultivation of compassion. Moreover, according to the Buddha in the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, since all beings share the same "Dhatu" (spiritual Principle or Essence) and are intimately related to one another, killing and eating other sentient creatures is tantamount to a form of self-killing and cannibalism. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the Brahmajāla Sūtra, the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra.

In the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: "[I]t should be rejected... I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction... I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and falsely claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas he says he does not. A long passage in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. This passage has been seen as questionable by a small minority of Mahayana Buddhist writers (eg. D.T. Suzuki).

In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jataka tales), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome.

Some suggest that the rise of monasteries in Mahayana tradition to be a contributing factor in the emphasis on vegetarianism. In the monastery, food was prepared specifically for monastics. In this context, large quantities of meat would have been specifically prepared (killed) for them. Henceforth, when monastics from the Indian geographical sphere of influence migrated to China from the year 65 CE on, they met followers who provided them with money instead of food. From those days onwards, Chinese monastics, and others who came to inhabit northern countries, cultivated their own vegetable plots and bought food in the market. This remains the dominant practice in China, Vietnam, and most Korean Mahayana temples; the exceptions being some Korean Mahayana temples who traced their lineages back to Japan.

Mahayana lay Buddhists often eat vegetarian diets on the vegetarian dates (齋期 zhāi qī). There are different arrangement of the dates, from several days to three months in each year, in some traditions, the celebration of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara's birthday, Bodhi Day and Great Renunciation days hold the highest importance to be vegetarian.

Vajrayana view

Some Vajrayana practitioners both drink alcohol and eat meat. Many traditions of the Ganachakra which is a type of Panchamakara puja prescribed the offering and ingestion of meat and alcohol, although this practice is now often only a symbolic one, with no actual meat or alcohol ingested.

One of the most important tertöns of Tibet, Jigme Lingpa, wrote of his great compassion for animals:

Of all his merit-making, Jigme Lingpa was most proud of his feelings of compassion for animals; he says that this is the best part of his entire life story. He writes of his sorrow when he witnessed the butchering of animals by humans. He often bought and set free animals about to be slaughtered (a common Buddhist act). He ‘changed the perception’ of others, when he once caused his followers to save a female yak from being butchered, and he continually urged his disciples to forswear the killing of animals.

In The Life of Shabkar, the Autobiography of a Tibetan Yogin, Shabkar Tsokdruk Rangdrol wrote:

Above all, you must constantly train your mind to be loving, compassionate, and filled with Bodhicitta. You must give up eating meat, for it is very wrong to eat the flesh of our parent sentient beings.

The 14th Dalai Lama and other esteemed lamas invite their audiences to adopt vegetarianism when they can. When asked in recent years what he thinks of vegetarianism, the 14th Dalai Lama has said: "It is wonderful. We must absolutely promote vegetarianism." The Dalai Lama tried becoming a vegetarian and promoted vegetarianism. In 1999, it was published that the Dalai Lama would only be vegetarian every other day and partakes of meat regularly. When he is in Dharamsala, he is vegetarian, but not necessarily when he is outside Dharamsala. Paul McCartney has taken him to task for this and wrote to him to urge him to return to strict vegetarianism, but "[The Dalai Lama] replied [to me] saying that his doctors had told him he needed [meat], so I wrote back saying they were wrong."

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche became vegetarian in 2008.

Arjia Rinpoche became vegetarian in 1999.

On 3 January 2007, one of the two 17th Karmapa, Urgyen Trinley Dorje, strongly urged vegetarianism upon his students, saying that generally, in his view, it was very important in the Mahayana not to eat meat and that even in Vajrayana students should not eat meat:

There are many great masters and very great realized beings in India and there have been many great realized beings in Tibet also, but they are not saying, "I'm realized, therefore I can do anything; I can eat meat and drink alcohol." It's nothing like that. It should not be like that.

According to the Kagyupa school, we have to see what the great masters of the past, the past lamas of Kagyupas, did and said about eating meat. The Drikung Shakpa [sp?] Rinpoche, master of Drikungpa, said like this, "My students, whomever are eating or using meat and calling it tsokhor or tsok, then these people are completely deserting me and going against the dharma." I can't explain each of these things, but he said that anybody that is using meat and saying it is something good, this is completely against the dharma and against me and they completely have nothing to do with dharma. He said it very, very strongly.

Common practices

Theravada

In the modern world, attitudes toward vegetarianism vary by location. In Sri Lanka and the Theravada countries of South East Asia, monks are obliged by the vinaya to accept almost any food that is offered to them, including meat, unless they suspect the meat was slaughtered specifically for them.

Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Taiwanese traditions

In China, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan and their respective diaspora communities, monks and nuns are expected to abstain from meat and, traditionally, eggs and dairy, in addition to the fetid vegetables – traditionally garlic, Allium chinense, asafoetida, shallot, and Allium victorialis (victory onion or mountain leek), although in modern times this rule is often interpreted to include other vegetables of the onion genus, as well as coriander – this is called pure vegetarianism or veganism (純素 chún sù / 淨素 jìng sù / zhāi). Pure Vegetarianism or Veganism is Indic in origin and is still practiced in India by some adherents of Dharmic religions such as Jainism and in the case of Hinduism, lacto-vegetarianism with the additional abstention of pungent or fetid vegetables.

A minority of Buddhist lay believers are year-long vegetarians in the monastic way. Many lay followers followed monastic style vegetarianism on Lunar New Year's Eve, Saints days and ancestral feast days as well as the 1st and 15th day of the lunar calendar. Some lay followers also followed monastic style vegetarianism on the six-day, ten-day,Guan-yin (Avalokitesvara) vegetarian, etc., set lunar calendar schedule. Other Buddhist lay-followers also follow less stringent forms of vegetarianism. Most Buddhist lay-followers however are not vegetarians. Some Zhaijiao lay adherents also do not eat any meat.

Japanese traditions

Japan initially received Chinese Buddhism in the 6th century. In the 9th century, Emperor Saga made a decree prohibiting meat consumption, except that of fish and birds. Around the 9th century, two Japanese monks (Kūkai and Saichō), introduced Vajrayana Buddhism into Japan, and this soon became the dominant Buddhism among the nobility. In particular, Saichō, who founded the Tendai sect of Japanese Buddhism, reduced the number of vinaya code to 66. (円戒 yuán jiè) During the 12th century, a number of monks from Tendai sects founded new schools (Zen, Pure Land Buddhism) and de-emphasised vegetarianism. Nichiren Buddhism today likewise deemphasises vegetarianism. Zen does tend generally to look favourably upon vegetarianism. Shingon Buddhism, founded by Kūkai, recommends vegetarianism and requires it at certain times, but it is not always strictly required for monks and nuns. Buddhist vegetarianism (aka Shojin Ryori), also dictates Kinkunshoku (禁葷食) which is to not use meat as well as Gokun (五葷 5 vegetables from the allium family) in their cooking.

In 1872 of the Meiji restoration, as part of the opening up of Japan to Western influence, Emperor Meiji lifted the ban on the consumption of red meat. The removal of the ban encountered resistance and in one notable response, ten monks attempted to break into the Imperial Palace. The monks asserted that due to foreign influence, large numbers of Japanese had begun eating meat and that this was "destroying the soul of the Japanese people." Several of the monks were killed during the break-in attempt, and the remainder were arrested.

Tibetan traditions

Sign promoting vegetarianism at Key Monastery, Spiti, India

The practice of non-harming forms the basis of all three vehicles of Buddhist philosophy. For this reason, the Buddha gave advice to the Buddhist community of monastics in the Vinaya concerning food and the consumption of meat, since monastics traditionally relied upon alms given to them by the local community for sustenance on occasions which may include meat, and to refuse such offerings could be considered as going against their vows. The Buddha made clear distinctions between eating meat and killing, by giving instructions on the three-fold purity of meat.

In Tibet, where vegetables are scarce, meat is often consumed as a form of sustenance. However, records show that in Tibet, the practice of vegetarianism was encouraged as early as the 14th and 15th centuries by renowned Buddhist teachers such as Chödrak Gyatso and Mikyö Dorje, 8th Karmapa Lama.

Contemporary Buddhist teachers such as the Dalai Lama, and The 17th Karmapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje, invite their audiences to adopt vegetarianism whenever they can. Chatral Rinpoche in particular stated that anyone who wished to be his student must be vegetarian.

Buddhist cuisine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Buddhist vegetarian cuisine
Chinese-buddhist-cuisine-taiwan-1.jpg
A vegetarian restaurant in Taipei, Taiwan serving Buddhist cuisine in buffet style
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese齋菜
Simplified Chinese斋菜
Vietnamese name
Vietnamese alphabetđồ chay
Korean name
Hangul사찰음식
Hanja寺刹飮食
Japanese name
Kanji精進料理
Kanaしょうじんりょうり

Buddhist cuisine is an Asian cuisine that is followed by monks and many believers from areas historically influenced by Mahayana Buddhism. It is vegetarian or vegan, and it is based on the Dharmic concept of ahimsa (non-violence). Vegetarianism is common in other Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism, as well as East Asian religions like Taoism. While monks and a minority of believers are vegetarian year-round, many believers follow the Buddhist vegetarian diet for celebrations.

The origin of "Buddhist food" as a distinct sub-style of cuisine is tied to monasteries, where one member of the community would have the duty of being the head cook and supplying meals that paid respect to the strictures of Buddhist precepts. Temples that were open to visitors from the general public might also serve meals to them and a few temples effectively run functioning restaurants on the premises. In Japan, this practice is generally known as shōjin ryōri (精進料理, devotion cuisine), and served at many temples, especially in Kyoto. A more recent version, more Chinese in style, is prepared by the Ōbaku school of zen, and known as fucha ryōri (普茶料理); this is served at the head temple of Manpuku-ji, as well as various subtemples. In modern times, commercial restaurants have also latched on to the style, catering both to practicing and non-practicing lay people.

Philosophies governing food

Vegetarianism

Most of the dishes considered to be uniquely Buddhist are vegetarian, but not all Buddhist traditions require vegetarianism of lay followers or clergy. Vegetarian eating is primarily associated with the East and Southeast Asian tradition in China, Vietnam, Japan, and Korea where it is commonly practiced by clergy and may be observed by laity on holidays or as a devotional practice.

In the Mahayana tradition, several sutras of the Mahayana canon contain explicit prohibitions against consuming meat, including sections of the Lankavatara Sutra and Surangama Sutra. The monastic community in Chinese Buddhism, Vietnamese Buddhism and most of Korean Buddhism strictly adhere to vegetarianism. Japanese Buddhist sects generally believe that Buddha ate meat. All Japanese Kamakura sects of Buddhism (Zen, Nichiren, Jodo) have relaxed Mahayana vinaya, and as a consequence, vegetarianism is optional.

Theravada monks and nuns traditionally feed themselves by gathering alms, and generally must eat whatever foods are given to them, including meat. The exception to this alms rule is when monks and nuns have seen, heard or known that animal(s) have been specifically killed to feed the alms-seeker, in which case consumption of such meat would be karmically negative, as well as meat from certain animals, such as dogs and snakes, that were regarded as impure in ancient India. The same restriction is also followed by some lay Buddhists and is known as the consumption of "triply clean meat" (三净肉). The Pali Sutras also describe the Buddha as refusing a suggestion by his student Devadatta to mandate vegetarianism in the monastic precepts.

Tibetan Buddhism has long accepted that the practical difficulties in obtaining vegetables and grains within most of Tibet make it impossible to insist upon vegetarianism; however, many leading Tibetan Buddhist teachers agree upon the great worth of practicing vegetarianism whenever and wherever possible, such as Chatral Rinpoche, a lifelong advocate of vegetarianism who famously released large amounts of fish caught for food back into the ocean once a year, and who wrote about the practice of saving lives.

Both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists consider that one may practice vegetarianism as part of cultivating Bodhisattvas's paramita.

Other restrictions

An example of shōjin-ryōri taken in Kyoto, Japan, at the zen temple of Ryōan-ji.

In addition to the ban on garlic, practically all Mahayana monastics in China, Korea, Vietnam and Japan specifically avoid eating strong-smelling plants, traditionally asafoetida, shallot, mountain leek and Allium chinense, which together with garlic are referred to as wǔ hūn (五葷, or 'Five Acrid and Strong-smelling Vegetables') or wǔ xīn (五辛 or 'Five Spices') as they tend to excite senses. This is based on teachings found in the Brahamajala Sutra, the Surangama Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra (chapter eight). In modern times this rule is often interpreted to include other vegetables of the onion genus, as well as coriander. The origin of this additional restriction is from the Indic region and can still be found among some believers of Hinduism and Jainism. Some Taoists also have this additional restriction but the list of restricted plants differs from the Buddhist list.

The food that a strict Buddhist takes, if not a vegetarian, is also specific. For many Chinese Buddhists, beef and the consumption of large animals and exotic species is avoided. Then there would be the aforementioned "triply clean meat" rule. One restriction on food that is not known to many is the abstinence from eating animal offal (organ meat). This is known as xiàshui (下水), not to be confused with the term for sewage.

Alcohol and other drugs are also avoided by many Buddhists because of their effects on the mind and "mindfulness". It is part of the Five Precepts which dictate that one is not to consume "addictive materials". The definition of "addictive" depends on each individual but most Buddhists consider alcohol, tobacco and drugs other than medicine to be addictive. Although caffeine is now also known to be addictive, caffeinated drinks and especially tea are not included under this restriction; tea in particular is considered to be healthful and beneficial and its mild stimulant effect desirable. There are many legends about tea. Among meditators it is considered to keep the person alert and awake without overexcitement.

Simple and natural

In theory and practice, many regional styles of cooking may be adapted to be "Buddhist" as long as the cook, with the above restrictions in mind, prepares the food, generally in simple preparations, with expert attention to its quality, wholesomeness and flavor. Often working on a tight budget, the monastery cook would have to make the most of whatever ingredients were available.

In Tenzo kyokun ("Instructions for the Zen Cook"), Soto Zen founder Eihei Dogen wrote the following about the Zen attitude toward food:

In preparing food, it is essential to be sincere and to respect each ingredient regardless of how coarse or fine it is. (...) A rich buttery soup is not better as such than a broth of wild herbs. In handling and preparing wild herbs, do so as you would the ingredients for a rich feast, wholeheartedly, sincerely, clearly. When you serve the monastic assembly, they and you should taste only the flavour of the Ocean of Reality, the Ocean of unobscured Awake Awareness, not whether or not the soup is creamy or made only of wild herbs. In nourishing the seeds of living in the Way, rich food and wild grass are not separate.

Ingredients

Vegetarian dishes at a Buddhist restaurant in Ho Chi Minh city

Following its dominant status in most parts of East Asia where Buddhism is most practiced, rice features heavily as a staple in the Buddhist meal, especially in the form of rice porridge or congee as the usual morning meal. Noodles and other grains may often be served as well. Vegetables of all sorts are generally either stir-fried or cooked in vegetarian broth with seasonings and may be eaten with various sauces. Traditionally eggs and dairy are not permitted. Seasonings will be informed by whatever is common in the local region; for example, soy sauce and vegan dashi figure strongly in Japanese monastery food while curry and Tương (as a vegetarian replacement for fish sauce) may be prominent in Southeast Asia. Sweets and desserts are not often consumed, but are permitted in moderation and may be served at special occasions such as in the context of a tea ceremony in the Zen tradition.

Buddhist vegetarian chefs have become extremely creative in imitating meat using prepared wheat gluten, also known as seitan, kao fu (烤麸) or wheat meat, soy (such as tofu or tempeh), agar, konnyaku and other plant products. Some of their recipes are the oldest and most-refined meat analogues in the world. Soy and wheat gluten are very versatile materials, because they can be manufactured into various shapes and textures, and they absorb flavorings (including, but not limited to, meat-like flavorings), while having very little flavor of their own. With the proper seasonings, they can mimic various kinds of meat quite closely.

Some of these Buddhist vegetarian chefs are in the many monasteries and temples which serve allium-free and mock-meat (also known as 'meat analogues') dishes to the monks and visitors (including non-Buddhists who often stay for a few hours or days, to Buddhists who are not monks, but staying overnight for anywhere up to weeks or months). Many Buddhist restaurants also serve vegetarian, vegan, non-alcoholic or allium-free dishes.

Some Buddhists eat vegetarian on the 1st and 15th of the lunar calendar (lenten days), on Chinese New Year eve, and on saint and ancestral holy days. To cater to this type of customer, as well as full-time vegetarians, the menu of a Buddhist vegetarian restaurant usually shows no difference from a typical Chinese or East Asian restaurant, except that in recipes originally made to contain meat, a soy chicken substitute might be served instead.

Variations by sect or region

According to cookbooks published in English, formal monastery meals in the Zen tradition generally follow a pattern of "three bowls" in descending size. The first and largest bowl is a grain-based dish such as rice, noodles or congee; the second contains the protein dish which is often some form of stew or soup; the third and smallest bowl is a vegetable dish or a salad.

Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels

The indirect land use change impacts of biofuels, also known as ILUC or iLUC (pronounced as i-luck), relates to the unintended consequence of releasing more carbon emissions due to land-use changes around the world induced by the expansion of croplands for ethanol or biodiesel production in response to the increased global demand for biofuels.

As farmers worldwide respond to higher crop prices in order to maintain the global food supply-and-demand balance, pristine lands are cleared to replace the food crops that were diverted elsewhere to biofuels' production. Because natural lands, such as rainforests and grasslands, store carbon in their soil and biomass as plants grow each year, clearance of wilderness for new farms translates to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Due to this off-site change in the carbon stock of the soil and the biomass, indirect land use change has consequences in the greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of a biofuel.

Other authors have also argued that indirect land use changes produce other significant social and environmental impacts, affecting biodiversity, water quality, food prices and supply, land tenure, worker migration, and community and cultural stability.

History

The estimates of carbon intensity for a given biofuel depend on the assumptions regarding several variables. As of 2008, multiple full life cycle studies had found that corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol and Brazilian sugarcane ethanol produce lower greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. None of these studies, however, considered the effects of indirect land-use changes, and though land use impacts were acknowledged, estimation was considered too complex and difficult to model. A controversial paper published in February 2008 in Sciencexpress by a team led by Searchinger from Princeton University concluded that such effects offset the (positive) direct effects of both corn and cellulosic ethanol and that Brazilian sugarcane performed better, but still resulted in a small carbon debt.

After the Searchinger team paper, estimation of carbon emissions from ILUC, together with the food vs. fuel debate, became one of the most contentious issues relating to biofuels, debated in the popular media, scientific journals, op-eds and public letters from the scientific community, and the ethanol industry, both American and Brazilian. This controversy intensified in April 2009 when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set rules that included ILUC impacts to establish the California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard that entered into force in 2011.

In May 2009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking for implementation of the 2007 modification of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). EPA's proposed regulations also included ILUC, causing additional controversy among ethanol producers. EPA's February 3, 2010 final rule incorporated ILUC based on modelling that was significantly improved over the initial estimates.

The UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation program requires the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA) to report potential indirect impacts of biofuel production, including indirect land use change or changes to food and other commodity prices. A July 2008 RFA study, known as the Gallager Review, found several risks and uncertainties, and that the "quantification of GHG emissions from indirect land-use change requires subjective assumptions and contains considerable uncertainty", and required further examination to properly incorporate indirect effects into calculation methodologies. A similarly cautious approach was followed by the European Union. In December 2008 the European Parliament adopted more stringent sustainability criteria for biofuels and directed the European Commission to develop a methodology to factor in GHG emissions from indirect land use change.

Studies and controversy

UK figures for the carbon intensity of bioethanol and fossil fuels. Graph assumes all bioethanols are burnt in country of origin and prior cropland was used to grow feedstock. No ILUC effects were included.

Before 2008, several full life cycle ("Well to Wheels" or WTW) studies had found that corn ethanol reduced transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007 a University of California, Berkeley team led by Farrel evaluated six previous studies, concluding that corn ethanol reduced GHG emissions by only 13 percent. However, 20 to 30 percent reduction for corn ethanol, and 85 to 85 percent for cellulosic ethanol, both figures estimated by Wang from Argonne National Laboratory, are more commonly cited. Wang reviewed 22 studies conducted between 1979 and 2005, and ran simulations with Argonne's GREET model. These studies accounted for direct land use changes. Several studies of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol showed that sugarcane as feedstock reduces GHG by 86 to 90 percent given no significant land use change. Estimates of carbon intensity depend on crop productivity, agricultural practices, power sources for ethanol distilleries and the energy efficiency of the distillery. None of these studies considered ILUC, due to estimation difficulties. Preliminary estimates by Delucchi from the University of California, Davis, suggested that carbon released by new lands converted to agricultural use was a large percentage of life-cycle emissions.

Searchinger and Fargione studies

In 2008 Timothy Searchinger, a lawyer from Environmental Defense Fund, concluded that ILUC affects the life cycle assessment and that instead of saving, both corn and cellulosic ethanol increased carbon emissions as compared to gasoline by 93 and 50 percent respectively. Ethanol from Brazilian sugarcane performed better, recovering initial carbon emissions in 4 years, while U.S. corn ethanol required 167 years and cellulosic ethanol required a 52 years payback period. The study limited the analysis a 30-year period, assuming that land conversion emits 25 percent of the carbon stored in soils and all carbon in plants cleared for cultivation. Brazil, China, and India were considered among the overseas locations where land use change would occur as a result of diverting U.S. corn cropland, and it was assumed that new cropland in each of these regions correspond to different types of forest, savanna or grassland based on the historical proportion of each converted to cultivation in these countries during the 1990s.

Summary of Searchinger et al.
comparison of corn ethanol and gasoline GHG emissions
with and without land use change
(Grams of CO2 released per megajoule of energy in fuel)
Fuel type
(U.S.)
Carbon
intensity
Reduction
GHG
Carbon
intensity
+ ILUC
Reduction
GHG
Gasoline
92
-
92
-
Corn ethanol
74
-20%
177
+93%
Cellulosic ethanol
28
-70%
138
+50%
Notes: Calculated using default assumptions for 2015 scenario for ethanol in E85.
Gasoline is a combination of conventional and reformulated gasoline.

Fargione and his team published a separate paper in the same issue of Science claiming that clearing lands to produce biofuel feedstock created a carbon deficit. This deficit applies to both direct and indirect land use changes. The study examined six conversion scenarios: Brazilian Amazon to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to sugarcane ethanol, Indonesian or Malaysian lowland tropical rainforest to palm biodiesel, Indonesian or Malaysian peatland tropical rainforest to palm biodiesel, and U.S. Central grassland to corn ethanol. The carbon debt was defined as the amount of CO2 released during the first 50 years of this process of land conversion. For the two most common ethanol feedstocks, the study found that sugarcane ethanol produced on natural cerrado lands would take about 17 years to repay its carbon debt, while corn ethanol produced on U.S. central grasslands would result in a repayment time of about 93 years. The worst-case scenario is converting Indonesian or Malaysian tropical peatland rainforest to palm biodiesel production, which would require about 420 years to repay.

Criticism and controversy

The Searchinger and Fargione studies created controversy in both the popular media and in scientific journals. Robert Zubrin observed that Searchinger's "indirect analysis" approach is pseudo-scientific and can be used to "prove anything".

Wang and Haq from Argonne National Laboratory are claiming: the assumptions were outdated; they ignored the potential of increased efficiency; and no evidence showed that "U.S. corn ethanol production has so far caused indirect land use in other countries." They concluded that Searchinger demonstrated that ILUC "is much more difficult to model than direct land use changes". In his response Searchinger rebutted each technical objection and asserted that "... any calculation that ignores these emissions, however challenging it is to predict them with certainty, is too incomplete to provide a basis for policy decisions."

Another criticism, by Kline and Dale from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, held that Searchinger et al. and Fargione et al. "... do not provide adequate support for their claim that bioufuels cause high emissions due to land-use change", as their conclusions depends on a misleading assumption because more comprehensive field research found that these land use changes "... are driven by interactions among cultural, technological, biophysical, economic, and demographic forces within a spatial and temporal context rather than by a single crop market". Fargione et al. responded in part that although many factors contributed to land clearing, this "observation does not diminish the fact that biofuels also contribute to land clearing if they are produced on existing cropland or on newly cleared lands". Searching disagreed with all of Kline and Dale arguments.

The U.S. biofuel industry also reacted, claiming that the "Searchinger study is clearly a 'worst case scenario' analysis ..." and that this study "relies on a long series of highly subjective assumptions ..." Searchinger rebutted each claim, concluding that NFA's criticisms were invalid. He noted that even if some of his assumptions are high estimates, the study also made many conservative assumptions.

Slash and burn forest removal in Brazil
 
Cattle ranching in Brazil

Brazil

In February 2010, Lapola estimated that planned expansion of Brazilian sugarcane and soybean biofuel plantations through 2020 would replace rangeland, with small direct land-use impact on carbon emissions. However, the expansion of the rangeland frontier into Amazonian forests, driven by cattle ranching, would indirectly offset the savings. "Sugarcane ethanol and soybean biodiesel each contribute to nearly half of the projected indirect deforestation of 121,970 km2 by 2020, creating a carbon debt that would take about 250 years to be repaid..."

The research also found that oil palm would cause the least land-use changes and associated carbon debt. The analysis also modeled livestock density increases and found that "a higher increase of 0.13 head per hectare in the average livestock density throughout the country could avoid the indirect land-use changes caused by biofuels (even with soybean as the biodiesel feedstock), while still fulfilling all food and bioenergy demands." The authors conclude that intensification of cattle ranching and concentration on oil palm are required to achieve effective carbon savings, recommending closer collaboration between the biofuel and cattle-ranching sectors.

The main Brazilian ethanol industry organization (UNICA) commented that such studies missed the continuing intensification of cattle production already underway.

A study by Arima et al. published in May 2011 used spatial regression modeling to provide the first statistical assessment of ILUC for the Brazilian Amazon due to soy production. Previously, the indirect impacts of soy crops were only anecdotal or analyzed through demand models at a global scale, while the study took a regional approach. The analysis showed a strong signal linking the expansion of soybean fields in settled agricultural areas at the southern and eastern rims of the Amazon basin to pasture encroachments for cattle production on the forest frontier. The results demonstrate the need to include ILUC in measuring the carbon footprint of soy crops, whether produced for biofuels or other end-uses.

The Arima study is based on 761 municipalities located in the Legal Amazon of Brazil, and found that between 2003 and 2008, soybean areas expanded by 39,100 km² in the basin's agricultural areas, mainly in Mato Grosso. The model showed that a 10% (3,910 km²) reduction of soy in old pasture areas would have led to a reduction in deforestation of up to 40% (26,039 km²) in heavily forested municipalities of the Brazilian Amazon. The analysis showed that the displacement of cattle production due to agricultural expansion drives land use change in municipalities located hundreds of kilometers away, and that the Amazonian ILUC is not only measurable but its impact is significant.

Implementation

United States

California LCFS

California carbon intensity values
for gasoline, diesel and fuels that substitute them (grams of CO2 equivalent released per MJ of energy produced)
Fuel type Carbon
intensity
Carbon
intensity
+ land-use
changes
Intensity
change
respect to
2011 LCFS
Midwest corn ethanol
75.10
105.10
+10%
California gasoline
95.86
95.86
+0.2%
CARB LCFS 2011 for gasoline
-
95.61
-
California diesel (ULSD)
94.71
94.71
+0.2%
CARB LCFS 2011 for diesel
-
94.47
-
California ethanol
50.70
80.70
-16%
Brazilian sugarcane ethanol
27.40
73.40
-23%
Biodiesel (B100) Midwest soybeans(1)
26.93
68.93
-27%
Renewable diesel Midwest soybeans(1)
28.80
68.93
-27%
Cellulosic ethanol (farmed trees)(1)
2.40
20.40
-79%
Compressed natural gas (bio-methane)
11.26
11.26
-88%
Note: the complete lifecycle analysis for these fuels and others evaluated are available
at CARB's website (see Lifecycle Analysis). (1) Preliminary values of fuels not included
in the 2009 LCFS ruling and subject to refining.

On April 23, 2009, California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the specific rules and carbon intensity reference values for the California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that take effect January 1, 2011. CARB's rulemaking included ILUC. For some biofuels, CARB identified land use changes as a significant source of additional GHG emissions. It established one standard for gasoline and alternative fuels, and a second for diesel fuel and its replacements.

Controversy

The public consultation process before the ruling, and the ruling itself were controversial, yielding 229 comments. ILUC was one of the most contentious issues. On June 24, 2008, 27 scientists and researchers submitted a letter saying, "As researchers and scientists in the field of biomass to biofuel conversion, we are convinced that there simply is not enough hard empirical data to base any sound policy regulation in regards to the indirect impacts of renewable biofuels production. The field is relative new, especially when compared to the vast knowledge base present in fossil fuel production, and the limited analyses are driven by assumptions that sometimes lack robust empirical validation." The New Fuels Alliance, representing more than two-dozen biofuel companies, researchers and investors, questioned the Board intention to include indirect land use change effects into account, wrote "While it is likely true that zero is not the right number for the indirect effects of any product in the real world, enforcing indirect effects in a piecemeal way could have very serious consequences for the LCFS.... The argument that zero is not the right number does not justify enforcing a different wrong number, or penalizing one fuel for one category of indirect effects while giving another fuel pathway a free pass."

On the other side, more than 170 scientists and economists urged that CARB, "include indirect land use change in the lifecycle analyses of heat-trapping emissions from biofuels and other transportation fuels. This policy will encourage development of sustainable, low-carbon fuels that avoid conflict with food and minimize harmful environmental impacts.... There are uncertainties inherent in estimating the magnitude of indirect land use emissions from biofuels, but assigning a value of zero is clearly not supported by the science."

Industry representatives complained that the final rule overstated the environmental effects of corn ethanol, and also criticized the inclusion of ILUC as an unfair penalty to domestic corn ethanol because deforestation in the developing world was being tied to U.S. ethanol production. The 2011 limit for LCFS means that Mid-west corn ethanol failed, unless current carbon intensity was reduced. Oil industry representatives complained that the standard left oil refiners with few options, such as Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, with its accompanying tariff. CARB officials and environmentalists counter that time and economic incentives will allow produces to adapt.

UNICA welcomed the ruling, while urging CARB to better reflect Brazilian practices, lowering their estimates of Brazilian emissions.

The only Board member who voted against the ruling explained that he had a "hard time accepting the fact that we're going to ignore the comments of 125 scientists", referring to the letter submitted by a group of scientists questioning the ILUC penalty. "They said the model was not good enough ... to use at this time as a component part of such an historic new standard." CARB advanced the expected date for an expert working group to report on ILUC with refined estimates from January 2012 to January 2011.

On December 2009 the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth Energy, two U.S. ethanol lobbying groups, filed a lawsuit challenging LCFS' constitutionality. The two organizations argued that LCFS violated both the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause, jeopardizing the nationwide ethanol market.

EPA Renewable Fuel Standard

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Draft life cycle GHG emissions reduction results
for different time horizon and discount rate approaches
(includes indirect land use change effects)
Fuel Pathway 100 years +
2% discount
rate
30 years +
0% discount
rate
Corn ethanol (natural gas dry mill)(1)
-16%
+5%
Corn ethanol (Best case NG DM)(2)
-39%
-18%
Corn ethanol (coal dry mill)
+13%
+34%
Corn ethanol (biomass dry mill)
-39%
-18%
Corn ethanol (biomass dry mill with
combined heat and power)
-47%
-26%
Soybean-based biodiesel
-22%
+4%
Waste grease biodiesel
-80%
-80%
Sugarcane ethanol
-44%
-26%
Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass
-128%
-124%
Cellulosic ethanol from corn stover
-115%
-116%
Notes: (1) Dry mill (DM) plants grind the entire kernel and generally produce
only one primary co-product: distillers grains with solubles (DGS).
(2) Best case plants produce wet distillers grains co-product.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) established new renewable fuel categories and eligibility requirements, setting mandatory lifecycle emissions limits. EISA explicitly mandated EPA to include "direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes."

EISA required a 20% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions for any fuel produced at facilities that commenced construction after December 19, 2007 to be classified as a "renewable fuel"; a 50% reduction for fuels to be classified as "biomass-based diesel" or "advanced biofuel", and a 60% reduction to be classified as "cellulosic biofuel". EISA provided limited flexibility to adjust these thresholds downward by up to 10 percent, and EPA proposed this adjustment for the advanced biofuels category. Existing plants were grandfathered in.

On May 5, 2009, EPA released a notice of proposed rulemaking for implementation of the 2007 modification of the Renewable Fuel Standard, known as RFS2. The draft of the regulations was released for public comment during a 60-day period, a public hearing was held on June 9, 2009, and also a workshop was conducted on June 10–11, 2009.

EPA's draft analysis stated that ILUC can produce significant near-term GHG emissions due to land conversion, but that biofuels can pay these back over subsequent years. EPA highlighted two scenarios, varying the time horizon and the discount rate for valuing emissions. The first assumed a 30-year time period uses a 0 percent discount rate (valuing emissions equally regardless of timing). The second scenario used a 100-year time period and a 2% discount rate.

On the same day that EPA published its notice of proposed rulemaking, President Obama signed a Presidential Directive seeking to advance biofuels research and commercialization. The Directive established the Biofuels Interagency Working Group, to develop policy ideas for increasing investment in next-generation fuels and for reducing their environmental footprint.

Maize is the main feedstock for the production of ethanol fuel in the U.S.
 
Sugarcane is the main feedstock for the production of ethanol fuel in Brazil.

The inclusion of ILUC in the proposed ruling provoked complaints from ethanol and biodiesel producers. Several environmental organizations welcomed the inclusion of ILUC but criticized the consideration of a 100-year payback scenario, arguing that it underestimated land conversion effects. American corn growers, biodiesel producers, ethanol producers and Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers complained about EPA's methodology, while the oil industry requested an implementation delay.

On June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act 219 to 212, mandating EPA to exclude ILUC for a 5-year period, vis a vis RFS2. During this period, more research is to be conducted to develop more reliable models and methodologies for estimating ILUC, and Congress will review this issue before allowing EPA to rule on this matter. The bill failed in the U.S. Senate.

On February 3, 2010, EPA issued its final RFS2 rule for 2010 and beyond. The rule incorporated direct and significant indirect emissions including ILUC. EPA incorporated comments and data from new studies. Using a 30-year time horizon and a 0% discount rate, EPA concluded that multiple biofuels would meet this standard.

EPA's analysis accepted both ethanol produced from corn starch and biobutanol from corn starch as "renewable fuels". Ethanol produced from sugarcane became an "advanced fuel". Both diesel produced from algal oils and biodiesel from soy oil and diesel from waste oils, fats, and greases fell in the "biomass-based diesel" category. Cellulosic ethanol and cellulosic diesel met the "cellulosic biofuel" standard.

The table summarizes the mean GHG emissions estimated by EPA modelling and the range of variations considering that the main source of uncertainty in the life cycle analysis is the GHG emissions related to international land use change.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Life cycle Year 2022 GHG emissions reduction results for RFS2 final rule
(includes direct and indirect land use change effects and a 30-year payback period at a 0% discount rate)
Renewable fuel Pathway
(for U.S. consumption)
Mean
GHG emission
reduction(1)
GHG emission
reduction
95% confidence
interval(2)
Assumptions/comments
Corn ethanol
21%
7–32%
New or expanded natural gas fired dry mill plant, 37% wet and 63% dry DGS it produces, and employing corn oil fractionation technology.
Corn biobutanol
31%
20–40%
Natural gas fired dry mill plant, 37% wet and 63% dry DGS it produces, and employing corn oil fractionation technology.
Sugarcane ethanol(3)
61%
52–71%
Ethanol is produced and dehydrated in Brazil prior to being imported into the U.S. and the residue is not collected. GHG emissions from ocean tankers hauling ethanol from Brazil to the U.S. are included.
Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass
110%
102–117%
Ethanol produced using the biochemical process.
Cellulosic ethanol from corn stover
129%
No ILUC
Ethanol produced using the biochemical process. Ethanol produced from agricultural residues does not have any international land use emissions.
Biodiesel from soybean
57%
22–85%
Plant using natural gas.
Waste grease biodiesel
86%
No ILUC
Waste grease feedstock does not have any agricultural or land use emissions.
Notes: (1) Percent reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to the average lifecycle GHG for gasoline or diesel sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005.
(2) Confidence range accounts for uncertainty in the types of land use change assumptions and the magnitude of resulting GHG emissions.
(3) A new Brazil module was develop to model the impact of increased production of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol for use in the U.S. market and the international impacts of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol production. The Brazil module also accounts for the domestic competition between crop and pasture land uses, and allows for livestock intensification (heads of cattle per unit area of land).
Reactions

UNICA welcomed the ruling, in particular, for the more precise lifecycle emissions estimate and hoped that classification the advanced biofuel designation would help eliminate the tariff.

The U.S. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) also welcomed the ruling, as ethanol producers "require stable federal policy that provides them the market assurances they need to commercialize new technologies", restating their ILUC objection.

RFA also complained that corn-based ethanol scored only a 21% reduction, noting that without ILUC, corn ethanol achieves a 52% GHG reduction. RFA also objected that Brazilian sugarcane ethanol "benefited disproportionally" because EPA's revisions lowered the initially equal ILUC estimates by half for corn and 93% for sugarcane.

Several Midwestern lawmakers commented that they continued to oppose EPA's consideration of the "dicey science" of indirect land use that "punishes domestic fuels". House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson said, "... to think that we can credibly measure the impact of international indirect land use is completely unrealistic, and I will continue to push for legislation that prevents unreliable methods and unfair standards from burdening the biofuels industry."

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson commented that the agency "did not back down from considering land use in its final rules, but the agency took new information into account that led to a more favorable calculation for ethanol". She cited new science and better data on crop yield and productivity, more information on co-products that could be produced from advanced biofuels and expanded land-use data for 160 countries, instead of the 40 considered in the proposed rule.

Europe

As of 2010, European Union and United Kingdom regulators had recognized the need to take ILUC into account, but had not determined the most appropriate methodology.

UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

The UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) program requires fuel suppliers to report direct impacts, and asked the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA) to report potential indirect impacts, including ILUC and commodity price changes. The RFA's July 2008 "Gallager Review", mentioned several risks regarding biofuels and required feedstock production to avoid agricultural land that would otherwise be used for food production, despite concluding that "quantification of GHG emissions from indirect land-use change requires subjective assumptions and contains considerable uncertainty". Some environmental groups argued that emissions from ILUC were not being taken into account and could be creating more emissions.

European Union

On December 17, 2008, the European Parliament approved the Renewable Energy Sources Directive (COM(2008)19) and amendments to the Fuel Quality Directive (Directive 2009/30), which included sustainability criteria for biofuels and mandated consideration of ILUC. The Directive established a 10% biofuel target. A separate Fuel Quality Directive set the EU's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, requiring a 6% reduction in GHG intensity of EU transport fuels by 2020. The legislation ordered the European Commission to develop a methodology to factor in GHG emissions from ILUC by December 31, 2010, based on the best available scientific evidence.

In the meantime, the European Parliament defined lands that were ineligible for producing biofuel feedstocks for the purpose of the Directives. This category included wetlands and continuously forested areas with canopy cover of more than 30 percent or cover between 10 and 30 percent given evidence that its existing carbon stock was low enough to justify conversion.

The Commission subsequently published terms of reference for three ILUC modeling exercises: one using a General Equilibrium model; one using a Partial Equilibrium model and one comparing other global modeling exercises. It also consulted on a limited range of high-level options for addressing ILUC to which 17 countries and 59 organizations responded. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and several environmental organizations complained that the 2008 safeguards were inadequate. UNICA called for regulators to establish an empirical and "globally accepted methodology" to consider ILUC, with the participation of researchers and scientists from biofuel crop-producing countries.

In 2010 some NGOs accused the European Commission of lacking transparency given its reluctance to release documents relating to the ILUC work. In March 2010 the Partial and General Equilibrium Modelling results were made available, with the disclaimer that the EC had not adopted the views contained in the materials. These indicate that a 1.25% increase in EU biofuel consumption would require around 5,000,000 hectares (12,000,000 acres) of land globally.

The scenarios for varied from 5.6–8.6% of road transport fuels. The study found that ILUC effects offset part of the emission benefits, and that above the 5.6% threshold, ILUC emissions increase rapidly increase. For the expected scenario of 5.6% by 2020, the study estimated that biodiesel production increases would be mostly domestic, while bioethanol production would take place mainly in Brazil, regardless of EU duties. The analysis concluded that eliminating trade barriers would further reduce emissions, because the EU would import more from Brazil. Under this scenario, "direct emission savings from biofuels are estimated at 18 Mt CO
2
, additional emissions from ILUC at 5.3 Mt CO
2
(mostly in Brazil), resulting in a global net balance of nearly 13 Mt CO
2
savings in a 20 years horizon". The study also found that ILUC emissions were much greater for biodiesel from vegetable oil and estimated that in 2020 even at the 5.6% level were over half the greenhouse gas emissions from diesel.

As part of the announcement, the Commission stated that it would publish a report on ILUC by the end of 2010.

Certification system

On June 10, 2010, the EC announced its decision to set up certification schemes for biofuels, including imports as part of the Renewable Energy Directive. The Commission encouraged E.U. nations, industry and NGOs to set up voluntary certification schemes. EC figures for 2007 showed that 26% of biodiesel and 31% of bioethanol used in the E.U. was imported, mainly from Brazil and the United States.

Reactions

UNICA welcomed the EU efforts to "engage independent experts in its assessments" but requested that improvements because "... the report currently contains a certain number of inaccuracies, so once these are corrected, we anticipate even higher benefits resulting from the use of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol." UNICA highlighted the fact that the report assumed land expansion that "does not take into consideration the agro-ecological zoning for sugarcane in Brazil, which prevents cane from expanding into any type of native vegetation."

Critics said the 10% figure was reduced to 5.6% of transport fuels partly by exaggerating the contribution of electric vehicles (EV) in 2020, as the study assumed EVs would represent 20% of new car sales, two and six times the car industry's own estimate. They also claimed the study "exaggerates to around 45 percent the contribution of bioethanol—the greenest of all biofuels—and consequently downplays the worst impacts of biodiesel."

Environmental groups found that the measures "are too weak to halt a dramatic increase in deforestation". According to Greenpeace, "indirect land-use change impacts of biofuel production still are not properly addressed", which for them was the most dangerous problem of biofuels.

Industry representatives welcomed the certification system and some dismissed concerns regarding the lack of land use criteria. UNICA and other industry groups wanted the gaps in the rules filled to provide a clear operating framework.

The negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of European Ministers continue. A deal is not foreseen before 2014.

Marriage in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...