Across northern South America, the promise of agrofuels has been heralded as a key contribution to national energy transitions. Governments in Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have promoted biodiesel and ethanol production as steps toward decarbonization and energy independence. Yet a closer look reveals a troubling paradox: crops like oil palm and sugarcane, intended to fuel a “green” transition, have instead displaced food production and intensified social inequality. Different reports show that vast tracts of fertile land, once used for local food, are now dominated by monocultures for export and biofuel processing. Marco Pernavarre reports.
Palm oil: El Dorado in its “green” version
In Colombia, the expansion of oil palms — whose extracted oil is a key feedstock for biodiesel — epitomises the contradictions of agrofuels as an energy solution. The IUCN-NL supply-chain analysis shows that palm oil production has more than doubled in two decades, primarily to satisfy European Union demand for renewable energy. Meanwhile, Fedepalma’s own sectoral report confirms that the majority of growth occurs on lands previously dedicated to food crops or cattle ranching. The displacement of peasants and Afro-Colombian communities reveals a model where “clean” energy depends on dirty politics of dispossession. As rightly pointed out, certification guarantees are not enough when the environmental impact continues to affect vulnerable territories and populations for decades. Colombia is the largest producer of palm oil in Latin America and the fourth largest in the world. Ecuador offers a similar picture of contradiction. While the government proclaimed ethanol and biodiesel as paths to diversification, reality shows that these projects often reallocate land and water away from local food systems. Palm plantations are encroaching into Afro territories once used for small-holder agriculture, in a slow but constant process in Ecuador. The expansion may boost national employment, but it undermines community resilience and biodiversity, especially through deforestation. If agrofuels depend on sacrificing territories, by definition they cannot truly be part of a just energy transition.
The Venezuelan case differs in scale but not in logic. Facing oil-sector collapse, Venezuela has experimented with domestic ethanol and biodiesel initiatives as part of its ‘post-petroleum’ discourse. However, agronomists from the regions of Zulia, Monagas and Yaracuy warn that without structural land reform and transparent governance, these initiatives risk environmental damage due to the disproportionate growth of palm oil production. Rural regions, still recovering from decades of neglect and economic instability, may be converted into new frontiers of agro-industrial speculation, together with criminal groups threatening local peasants. Then, it is fair to wonder whether agrofuels represent innovation or merely the rebranding of extractivism under a green label.
Critical facts on agrofuel production in the north of the South.
Despite being promoted as a “green” pathway to decarbonisation, evidence around the world shows that agrofuels reproduce long-standing patterns of extraction and inequality.
Investigations expose repeated cases of river contamination and deforestation linked to biodiesel feedstock cultivation, including, during the last years, several cases of penalty proceedings, lack of transparency and unreported environmental damage in different countries where palm oil production is massive. As agrofuels displace forests and traditional food systems, any claims to carbon neutrality collapse.
A key driver of this dynamic is land concentration. Colombia is increasingly controlled by large agribusinesses linked to palm and sugar cane production. This trend intensifies rural inequality and contributes to forced displacement. Rather than democratising energy, agrofuels consolidate corporate power, turning energy transition into a new form of enclosure where communities have little control over land or production. Agrofuels, rather than decentralising energy and empowering communities, take away the possibility of developing food sovereignty.
Labour conditions further expose the contradictions in “green” development. Research reveals precarious employment: informal labour, low wages and exposure to agrochemicals, often justified under the banner of green jobs. These economic regimes perpetuate colonial-style extractivism in which both land and labour are treated as raw inputs for global energy markets. An energy transition built upon exploitation lacks moral legitimacy and deepens the vulnerabilities of rural workers.
Food security, already a pressing issue in the region, is undermined by the expansion of monocultures for fuel. The cost of a healthy diet in Colombia and Ecuador increases year by year. Meanwhile, there is evidence of declining local food availability as fertile land shifts to palm and sugar cane. Communities that once relied on diverse crops now depend increasingly on imported staples. Agrofuels may fill foreign fuel markets, but they often empty rural kitchens.
International demand plays a decisive role. The USDA/FAS Biofuels annual report shows that Colombia’s biodiesel sector is structured around export markets and EU-driven blending mandates, including internal policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but maintaining biofuels as a key component of the energy transition network. Simultaneously, World Trade Organization documents show that disputes over sustainability standards often protect northern producers while disadvantaging southern exporters. This asymmetry raises an uncomfortable doubt: are countries like Colombia and Ecuador truly transitioning, or are they merely adjusting to serve the ‘green ethical needs’ of wealthier nations?
Governments and the private sector have attempted to present agrofuels as part of an integrated climate response. They see biofuels as ‘opportunities’ for rural development and decarbonisation. Yet neither sufficiently addresses land tenure, water rights or the loss of food-producing capacity. Even the private sector’s sustainability claims warrant scepticism. They focus on reports highlighting certification schemes and corporate responsibility programmes as evidence of improvement. However, independent investigations contradict such optimism, citing ongoing deforestation and labour abuses in certified supply chains. Certification may improve public image, but it doesn’t change structural conditions of land concentration and exploitation. When sustainability becomes a marketing tool, transition policies risk turning into public relations exercises rather than genuine reforms. Considering the high volatility in Ecuador and Venezuela of the political security landscape, Colombia could be taking small but important steps towards social movement participation to promote agroecology public policies.
Agrofuels in this region expose the limits of technocratic-economic “green” solutions; therefore, genuine transformation must prioritise food sovereignty, community control and ecological restoration instead of export-driven monocultures. The critical question remains: can the energy transition be just if it continues to rely on the same extractive logic it claims to replace?
The views and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union | Global Dialogue.