Thanks a lot Yin Ye. I however would like to know if you are referring to the production of second-generation biofuels in this case. If yes, has the first generation biofuels production only adverse implications for food security?

But should demand for both first and second generation biofuels increase in net food importing countries, don't you agree such increases (which are mostly accompanied by high prices) could have income increasing effects vital for the accessibility component of food security?

oh ok, thanks a lot Yin for the clarification

Is more than useful dear..thanks

Hi David,

In this debate, I can really recommend you following articles:

1. Plastic vs. fuel: Which use of the Brazilian ethanol can bring more environmental gains?

2. Life cycle assessment of bioethanol-based PVC. Part 1: Attributional approach

3. Life cycle assessment of bioethanol-based PVC. Part 2: Consequential approach

You can find them through:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148113001857

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1398/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1405/abstract

Especially the third one deals with consequential effects such as indirect land use change and thus the competition with food supply chains.

Oh ok, great...Thanks a lot Wouter for the suggestions and links. Am most grateful

Interesting, Thanks a lot Rotimi for the great enlightenment on the benefits farmers can derive from Jatropha carcus...I initially thought it was only for production of oil, but being enlightened on its productivity inducing effects through soil improvement, I now realize there is more to Jatropha than being used for biofuel production.

This one could also be helpful-

Renewable fuels from algae: An answer to debatable land based fuels. Bioresource Technology, Volume 102, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 10–16

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852410010138

Thanks a lot Deepak for the link

Much of the policy literature unquestionably focuses on the negative impacts, notably the idea that land used for biofuels feedstocks cannot produce food - which of itself is correct, but is very very narrow in its approach and ignores, for example, issues raised by Rotimi.

What I have not seen much or anything of, is this question viewed from the perspective of Sen's Entitlements. It is argued by some that the poor cannot eat biofuels, but that is disingenuous because I cannot eat Economics lectures. But if biofuels production generates income, or if it reduces the amount spent on other, purchased, fuels, biofuels can help increase food security because of the potential for higher disposable incomes, with which to purchase food. I argue this at the individual level, but if scaled up to the economy as a whole, there is the potential for greater domestic demand encouraging greater domestic food production.

This article also sheds some light on the impact of biofuels on food security at household level in Ethiopia:

Negash, M., & Swinnen, J.F.M., 2013, Biofuels and Food Security: Micro-evidence from Ethiopia, Energy Policy, 61 p 963-976

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513005168

Fantastic, thanks a lot Robert for the brilliant suggestion. I asked this question in line with Sen's Entitlement Approach (Endowment Set , Entitlement Set, and Entitlement Mapping). Most Economists and other researchers in investigating the effects of bio-fuel production on food security seem to focus solely on the land-use competition induced by biofuel production-food production nexus. I therefore was wondering why they do that..is it that the positive aspect is insignificant or that there is a necessity for us to choose among alternatives (food production or biofuel production), instead of promoting synergy between the two to enhance well-being of all.

Thanks a lot Goedele for the link

Hi David, I suspect at least part of the answer is that it is much easier for Economists to plug land-use assumptions into their models than micro details. The sort of fieldwork undertaken in the paper suggested by Goedele is very time consuming and only applies to a very localised geographical space. Whilst this can inform broader perspectives, it is fundamentally different, both as a method and in terms of the underlying methodology, to the sort of desk-based modelling work so many economists do.

The other thing to say is that our understanding of biofuels and their impacts on all of the different markets they intersect is still, really, as a quite early stage. I would hope that even the macro-modelling community would, over time, be able to better-incorporate the complexities of biofuels into their models.

Great, Thanks a lot Robert for the response. I pray and hope that with time, an interdisciplinary approach to the debate on biofuel production-food security nexus would bring a solution on how the two areas can be synergized without us having to choose one over the other..

One obvious way that there can be food - fuel synergy is by using secondary agricultural residues, such as rice hulls. They are already transported to central processing centers before removal and can be used to make biofuel. They are not useful as compost, since they have a high silica content, and so are often landfilled instead of being used.

Thanks a lot Joan for the wonderful suggestion. I however would like to know if rice hulls have ever been used anywhere for biofuel production, and if they have been, how efficient such fuels were.

Dear David

Coincidentally, this year my colleagues and I did a study on the positive impacts of biofuels and food security for the Dutch government.: http://bit.ly/1c4qO6i.

We identified four ways to combine bioenergy production and food production:

1. Increased efficiency in land use

2. Crop production on abandoned or degraded lands

3. Producing bioenergy from wastes or residues

4. Production of co-products

We also highlight certain conditions that should be in place:

Land rights should be well defined

Biofuel subsidies should not lead to increased consumer prices

Biofuel productio by farmers should lead to increased household incomes

Hope this helps!

Thanks a lot Gerdien for the brilliant suggestions. Your suggestions are well noted. I however would like to know more on your suggestion of cropping on degraded land. What is your definition in this case of "degraded land"?

No, there is also een indirect, more long term, effect: biofuel production will increase the prices of agricultural products, and stimulate agriculture, which will (in part) compensate the direct effects of biofuel production on food security. Biofuel production will create more economic opportunities in rural areas which has also various beneficial impacts.

Thanks a lot Karel for the enlightenment on the beneficial implications of biofuel production. Based on your suggestion, would you advise that we promote production of more biofuels from agricultural lands than food, should more food be diverted into biofuel production, or that we work on achieving a synergy between food production and biofuel production? And should your choice be on achieving synergy between the two, how best can this be done/achieved?

David-

In my work, we look at using native switchgrass on marginal land in the Northeast. We have found that once established, this grass requires few inputs of fertilizer, water or pesticides. It can be converted to ethanol or pelletized for direct combustion. Depending on market prices, switchgrass bales can be sold for mulch hay by farmers. Another advantage is that marginal soils can be improved over a period of time and then eventually converted back to food production.

We are still testing cultivars and various local compost and manure based products to minimize production costs and maximize yield and benefits to soil

Bill Hlubik

Rutgers University

Dear David

I am not an expert on agriculture or food security. I am working since the early nineties on oil, on how does the international oil market function or rather does not function. So my answer will be from that particular angle.

It very much depend on a lot of other problems. For instance the country in which diversion of land from food cultivation into bio fuels takes place, and whom will be diverting. I found that in Mexico land diversion that took place impacted the prices of corn. Mexico does not have new land to be incorporated into cultivation, so you put people to compete for food with cars.

Diverting corn from food to ethanol in the USA was part of the reason for price escalation in 2008-09. It affected Mexican consumers as well since Mexico is a corn net imported. Speculation was also to blame.

So there is not a simple answer. It all depends. But I will like to see the study for the Ductch government. What I know is that there is a direct link between oil and energy and food prices and between the oil and bio fuels. So we can suggest that the higher the oil prices the higher the stimuli bio fuels and so new pressures for higher prices. Besides, to increase corn yields you need fertilizers and for that you need oil or gas (see International Energy Agency, See as well Thimoty Wise several works on food security)

By providing an additional market for grain biofuels can effectively act as an intervention system - giving a bottom price for which grain prices won't drop below so giving farmers the confidence to grow crops and aim for high yields. If grain supply ends up being short compared to demand then prices rise and biofuel production reduces, thus easing the demand for grain and its price. So biofuels can act as a very effective price buffering mechanism for grain. Any long term support for grain price should be very effective in encouraging productivity gains, as it gives farmers and the supply industry the confidence to invest in new ideas, technologies and infrastructure.

Thanks a lot Hlubik for the enlightenment on some beneficial implications of the swtichgrass (which is quite new to me). Your point is well noted and I will as much try to read more about this the switchgrass to see if some of its advantages/opportunities could be exploited or applied in Africa.

Thanks a lot Alicia for the wonderful response. I however need further clarification on your point. Are you suggesting that the implications of biofuel production on food security are context and location specific?

Impressive,,,thanks a lot Daniel for the brief but in-depth explanation. Your suggestion is well noted...

Dear David,

The many answers in a very short time period show that you have touched a hot topic. However, the "plate or tank" discussion at this point in time is absurd and necessary at once. The "tortilla crisis" which erupted in 2007 has demonstrated the interdependance between the different uses of agricultural production - and this long before global land use has become a problem. The real problem at this point in time are global and national trade agreements. The Tortilla crisis happend because NAFTA had made maize production in Mexico unattractive. Corn could be imported from the USA at much lower price - until subsidised biogas production in the USA deviated corn use from export to the fuel business - in other words, we are not talking land use we are talking money and trade agreements behind. 30% of the global arable land is needed for biomass cultivation to meet 10% of the 2030 annual world oil demand. That shows, there is no alternative, no either .... or, when fossil resource will run out and demand for transportation fuel will continue and even grow. If both the emerging energy gap and the fuel crisis are to be solved while at the same time providing sufficient feedstock for foodstuffs, a well organised, anticipatory, cross-border agricultural policy including water management, fair international trade agreements, the successful suppression of corruption, and the global enforcement of "good governance" principles are required (for some more information please refer to R. Höfer, History of the Sustainability Concept – Renaissance of Renewable Resources, In: R. Höfer, ed., Sustainable Solutions for Modern Economies, RSC Publ., Cambridge (2009), pp. 1-11).

Best regards

Rainer

-------------------

Dr. Rainer Höfer

Editorial Ecosiris

Klever Str. 31

D- 40477 Düsseldorf

Tel.: +49 (0) 211 4920479

Fax: +49 (0) 211 4920477

Mobile: +49 (0) 172 2418861

E-Mail: [email protected]

www.ecosiris.eu

Thanks a lot Rainer for the brilliant argument and suggestion. Your view is well noted and appreciated

David

I wanted to add some more information to my previous response. I have a genuine concern about the reduction in productive farmland throughout our nation and the world. In the USA, too much productive land is lost to development with urban sprawl. Across our planet, there are great losses of valuable topsoil to erosion and poor farm practices that do not rebuild productive topsoils to a productive level. It is important to maintain open space and productive farmland throughout the planet for obvious reasons. Climatic change and periodic outbreaks of plant disease and pests can wipe out entire crops in certain areas very rapidly. Having diverse genetics and production areas throughout the planet is imperative for food security. Some biofuel crops such as switchgrass are easy to manage and can be rapidly converted back to productive cropland. I don't believe that biofuel plants are going to replace traditional fuel sources, We are going to need a much more innovative plan for resolving our energy needs. The advantage to some of the native grasses is that they keep marginal lands undeveloped and can help to slowly improve soil quality back to the point of being productive farmland for food production.

Please see our publication. In some cases, some technology helps generating biofuels, as well as increasing food production efficiency and productivity.

Article Rethinking the cane sugar mill by using selective fermentati...

Thanks a lot Yasuhiro for the attachment....

Dear David, In my work we have analysed the impact of 5 biofuel projects on local food security. The study included 2 agro-industrial, 2 smallholder, and 1 outgrower project. Each of the 5 projects had both negative and positive impacts on local food security. The attached poster summarises the key findings! Hope this is helpful, Kind regards, Marc Schut

Thanks a lot Hlubik for the additional suggestion. Your point is well noted.

Thanks a lot Marc for the attachment. Your response is highly appreciated

Yes David. You are right. For instance: biofuels have had a different effect on food prices in Argentina a country land abundant and well fed. Soy been plantations have indeed put food prices up, mainly meat prices since land has been diverted from catle pasturing, but the increases have been millder tan in Mexico. But the effect is there: Argentina is now importing some meat to meet domenstic consumption and prices will depend on the Exchange rate. So we can asume that there is a shift on income distribution as well that has to be studied with care.

Keep in touch. I am interested in the debate

Thanks a lot Alicia for the clarification. Your point is well noted

David, this is a fascinating issue. Colleagues have said a lot, and I do not want to repeat. On the positive biofuels can be Carbon Neutral, because what is emmited is afterwards recovered with the following crop and so on.. I am more infavor of the production of biofuels with orgaic wastes because it avoid the following disadvantages:

- large scale croppi9ng for biofuels that compete with the production of food.

- land grabbing by foreign governments and big corpotarions that amount millions of ha. reserving territories in developing countrioes , what is a touchy political issue.

Thanks a lot Ronnie for the great opinion shared. Your opinion is well noted

Dear PEOPLE (addressed to all interested in theme)--

I am troubled by this discussion. There is overwhelming evidence that in the USA, the impact of corn for ethanol production has been VERY troublesome -- The bringing of fragile and conservations lands into production has had terrible impacts on erosion while also releasing a great deal of GHG stored in the soils. This has been a lively subject for in depth news articles in NY Times and WSJ recently as the EPA is now reducing mandatory levels of ethanol in gasoline (also result of lobbying by oil companies). There is no evidence that many of the tropical oils being produced for biofuels would be viable without subsidies and it is clear that in many parts of Latin America their production has encouraged deforestation in tropical environments.

Interesting, Thanks a lot David for the opinion shared. I however, would like to know if the production of biofuels in the regions aforementioned have had any positive implications as well...or have they been completely adverse in their contribution?

Answer to David Barkin:

Dear David,

So what's your conclusion ? That the world proceeds with fossil petroleum gas and the USA continue to add more and more shale gas to their energy resource portfolio ?

Best regards

Rainer

----------------------

Dr. Rainer Höfer

Editorial Ecosiris

Klever Str. 31

D- 40477 Düsseldorf

Tel.: +49 (0) 211 4920479

Fax: +49 (0) 211 4920477

Mobile: +49 (0) 172 2418861

E-Mail: [email protected]

www.ecosiris.eu

David, Rainer--

I am not reporting these findings to simply disparage biofuels -- Rather I am concerned that the enthusiasm for them has become another way in which large-scale production by often international firms (in the third world) are displacing local food production and garnering subsidies that reduce resources for small scale food production that directly contributes to farmer welfare. I think that David's original question was interesting and I would encourage him to draw together the materials and offer a summary of the discussion.

In Mexico, at least, I cannot recall any positive outcomes, and do know of lots of negative ones.

Rainer -- in Mexico, at least, the response would be a drastic change in model for energy use

Dear David Boansi,

In my region (Southern Africa), there is on-going experimentation with jatropha cultivation for biofuel production. One model that is being piloted in Zambia, for instance, is interplanting jatropha with food crops such as maize and promoting bee-keeping on jatropha plants to facilate pollination. This not only reduces competition for land between food crops and jatropha but also creates another income source for farmers (honey) and facilitates pollination of interplanted food crops like maize. Admittedly, these are still largely hypothetical (though logical) benefit expectations.

I would be interested to learn from scholars who have had more experience with the model I have just described.

David,

Amazon in Pará, Brazil, with African palm crops have, for the purpose of biodiesel and answer the food industry. There are no conflicts in these two production systems.

Dear David,

As more or less said already in my earlier comment: Given the volumes needed when fossil fuels start running out => Yes, there will be a conflict between tank and plate, and there will be deforestation in South America and other parts of the world; just as it happened in North America, when squatters and ranchers took the land, transformed it into farmland for pigs and cattle, corn and cotton, clear-cutting broad-leaved and coniferous woods, and exterminating great number of wildlife - and aborigines.

Will there be an alternative ? => Yes, at least in the medium-term: Instead of giving advice to others, those countries which have double or triple energy consumption per capita compared to other parts of the world need to drastically reduce their energy wastage (please refer to the Brundlandt paper "Our Common Future" of the Rio Conference 1983).If "small scale local food production" is your recommendation, then let's start in your country ! Unfortunately, this concepts historically has gone hand on hand with poverty.

Best regards

Rainer

---------------------

Dr. Rainer Höfer

Editorial Ecosiris

Klever Str. 31

D- 40477 Düsseldorf

Tel.: +49 (0) 211 4920479

Fax: +49 (0) 211 4920477

Mobile: +49 (0) 172 2418861

E-Mail: [email protected]

www.ecosiris.eu

I still think that waste to energy is the way to go. Sewage sludge can be used to produce biofuels. Agricultural residues are also valuable. If a third of the corn stover is left in the field for the next crop, the remainder should be able to be used for biofuels.

Thanks a lot Joan for your wonderful suggestion. Your point is well noted.

Dear all, I want to share my experience with biofuels in Argentina. Argentina mainly produces biodiesel from soy; soy expansion is previous to biofuels (already altering crop mix for internal consumption: wheat, corn...and increasing deforestation); biodiesel looked like a perfect way to value adding to our exports. However, all biodiesel large scale production and export is in the hands of great corporations, and they are also providing internally for the national mandate for mixing with diesel oil. Lower scale biodiesel production and use has been promoted privately, with technology and cooperation among farmers, but that biodiesel cannot be used to provide the internal market due to legal deficiencies. But, I still consider that at a very low scale, with a very low cost equipment and the adequate resources can help overcome many scarcities in not so few areas of the world; it can even contribute with food security being it the only source of energy; lowering the use of wood for cooking and other uses; giving access to education; and, contributing to improve health.

Thanks a lot Monica dear for the great opinion shared. Your point is very well noted and appreciated

I am agree that low scale biofuel production will be an alternative for small communities that can operate biodiesel machines or candles and it would not be necessary to transport electrical lines long distances, which is also very expensive and energy costly. Besides this, we also have to consider that in the case of trees like Jatropha, or palms, you do not destroy ecosystems every year like is happening with annual crops cultivated for bioduel purposes.

For example, in Mexico,some farmers reported that since now they grow Jatropha they cannot fire their land at the end of the harvest, like they did before. Therefore I consider that in some way these trees are also helping the environment.

Thanks a lot ofelia for the opinion shared. Your point is well noted

Try to read my paper on Jatropha curcas:

Food resource of biofuel?

it is about the non toxic jatropha that can be use for biofuel and for food

double purpose

not all biofuel feed stocks are edible. there are some non-edible feedstocks like jatropha which have potentials to replace the fossil diesel fuel. By the way, on Malaysian perspective there are surplus Palm oil production, so we are using 5% Palm biodiesel with diesel fuel in transportation sector though its an edible feedstock. Even Malaysian Govt is planning to use 10% biodiesel in Mid' 2014 without effecting local cooking oil market. It will save millions of dollar as we have to purchase less fossil diesel fuel.

As discussed, whether the feedstock is edible or not do not necessarily determine how much biofuels production compete with food. If Jatropha cultivation takes up land that could have been used for production of food, it still competes with food production. "2nd generation biofuels" (i.e., fiber as raw materials), can also compete with food production, if the finer was originally brought back to soil for food production. "3rd generation" is also the same, it could compete with food production over some resource used for food production.

On the other hand, some biofuel production can help stabilising farmers' income, that also does good to food production. The typical trouble for farmers are that in good years, they produce more, which lowers the price of the products. This hinders younger generations to enter the agricultural sectors in some places. If multiple products (food and fuel) are allowed by the technology development, it may stabilise the price and income.

So, I am sorry that there is no unanimous and simple answer that fits everywhere, but I think my answer to the original question would be...: "No, it depends on many factors".

Thanks a lot Ofelia, Abedin and Yasuhiro for the great responses. However, I need further clarification on the Jatropha suggestion from Abedin and Ofelia. Jatropha for example is promoted to do well on marginal lands and producing it in such places may help minimize the competition over land use for food and biofuel feedstocks (although may affect the livelihood of the landless poor who mostly reside in such areas for sustenance). In countries like Tanzania (for eg in Mpanda), Mali and Burkina Faso for example, although Jatropha is promoted to do well in marginal lands, most farmers and outgrowers actually plant them on the crop fields. How well then can jatropha help to minimize some of the adverse effect of biofuel production on food availability (although through income and employment generation facets could help improve food security)?

First of all, Jatropha needs some fertilization to produce in very marginal lands, otherwise it will produce very few. Fertilization can be done with manure, which gives good results, this way people do not need to spend more money on that. Second, it has to rain at least during one month at the year, otherwise the plant will not survive if water is not available under the ground.

Many people is promoting Jatropha, but they have forgotten one thing, it is like an extra crop to cover some issues, not like the main crop. And you can growth some trees as life fences mostly, to get extra income, but I don´t recommend Jatropha as the primary crop, because it does not produce a lot.

oh ok, thanks a lot Ofelia for the clarification. Your response is well noted and appreciated

My expertise on Jatropha fuel is basically on its diesel engine application i.e. engine performance and emission analysis. As per I know Jatropha grows very well in Indian sub-continent (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc) and also other tropical regions in south and south-east Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia etc.). So, before mass cultivation in a particular region we need to be assured about its growth and productivity ( It is reported that maximum oil content is 66% for Jatropha Curcas) in that region. Researchers all over the world in this field has shown their concern about its cultivation in regular crop fields as still we have serious food scarcity. So without addressing this issues and without the direct supervision, help and support from the governments its quite impossible to run these kinds of projects (biofuel cultivation & production). For example, Malaysian government has introduced a Jatropha cultivation project and expecting 57,601 hectors of Jatropha cultivation by the year 2015. As I mentioned before Malaysia is currently using B5(5% Palm + 95% Diesel) biodiesel in automobiles and they are going to replace B5 by B10(10% biodiesel) soon. So if they can put a few percentages of non-edible biodiesel in this 10%, it will save tons of edible Palm oil.

Jatropha can be used efficiently in motors BUT the industrial process for its transformation is expensive and in every factory that I know of the owners are receiving substantial subsidies for its production.. Also, although, like many other processes in agriculture, although promoted as a tree that can be used on marginal lands, the fact is that because it is a cash crop it is being used on high quality lands and in COlombia, for example has been replacing endemic tropical environments on a VERY large scale; this process is also happening in Brazilian amazon.

We can see with Jatropha how the market can transform potential benefits into a curse!

Thanks a lot David and Abedin for your suggestions. Your views are well noted.

Biofuel production affects food security negatively. Read research papers on " Land grabbing" to get more information.

Dear Colleagues,

To those who are interested in Jatropha please read the following summary reports on Jatropha in Africa: D. Ribeiro and N. Matavel, "Jatropha! A socio-economic pitfall for Mozambique", Justica Ambiental & Uniajo Noconal de Camponeses (August 2009); World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, "Jatropha Reality Check: A field assessment of the agronomic and economic viability of Jatropha and other oilseed crops in Kenya", Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Eschborn (Dez. 2009). We have mentioned these results in a short chapter about Jatropha in A. Kazmi, B. Kamm, S. Henke, L. Theuvsen, R. Höfer, "Advanced Oil Crop Biorefineries", A. Kazmi (Ed.), RSC Publ., Cambridge (2012). For those, interested in the chemisty of Jatropha, we have published the C-chain Distribution of Jatropha oil in: T. W. Abraham, R. Höfer, "Lipid-Based Polymer Building Blocks and Polymers", In: K. Matyjaszewski, M. Möller (eds.) Polymer Science: A Comprehensive Reference, Vol 10, Polymers for a Sustainable Environment and Green Energy, J. E. McGrath, M. A. Hickner, R. Höfer (Vol. Edts.) Elsevier, Amsterdam, Oxford, Waltham (2012) pp. 15-58.

Best regards

Rainer

Thanks a lot Nasim for the opinion shared. I however in line with your suggestion would like to know if that applies in every context. A work down by Ehrensperger et al (2013) showed that in places where food security is mostly economic driven, biofuel production usually has a general positive effect on food security. So how do you justify your point.

Thanks a lot Rainer for the suggested readings

I would say the risk to food security is no greater than that of tobacco or tea, which are also non-food crops. Moreover, energy crops can be irrigated with wastewater, the soils fertilised with materials unsuitable for food crops, etc...

Thanks a lot Angel for the opinion shared. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

Angel, That is a good point. Much higher standard are required for food crops than are allowed for crops to be used for energy. Are genetically altered energy crops permitted in the US or Europe?

David, I would like to see the paper. Can you point me to more details for Ehrensperger et al (2013) ?

Yasuhiro, please find attached a link to the work by Ehrensperger et al (2013).

http://www.cde.unibe.ch/News%20Files/BIA_policy_brief_food_security.pdf

The key term in answering the question is “sustainable” in its broadest sense. “Sustainable” production of energy from biomass would not have adverse effects on food security. When it crosses over to having an adverse effect, then it is no longer sustainable. This implies that the scale of production and the production technologies are regionally appropriate, where “appropriate” means that other interests and needs are adequately factored in. Of course, circumstances vary over time and space, so the specific considerations and questions must also vary. As others have pointed out, feedstocks do not have to be edible to compete with food; if land is taken that could produce food, then sustainability may be compromised. And, because this idea applies to other needs, one cannot necessarily claim that sustainability has been achieved if food security is not adversely affected, if other critical needs are compromised, such as biodiversity conservation. In this light, it may be better to reframe the question against a range of needs and not just food security.

Thanks a lot Brian for your wonderful opinion shared...I know that bioenergy (biofuel) production be it first, second, and to some extent third and fourth generations have sustainability implications. However, my interest for asking this question is more on the specific concept of food security as against the general concept of sustainability. Thanks

In my view bio fuel is a need of future. Bio fuels doesn't have any impact on food security if biofuel obtain from crops grown on marginal land or unfertile land but if biofuels crop such as jatropa grow on fertile land, i think there would be problem in food security specially in Asian country like India. Because land resources is limited and population is growing at a fast pace. but biofuels can also be be obtain from third generation(algae, which can be grown on waste water so no need of land) and fourth generation which is a better option.

Everything should be in sustainable way

Thanks a lot Gulshan for the wonderful opinion shared. I however need a little clarification on a phrase in one of your sentences suggesting that biofuels have no impact on food security if they are obtained from crops grown on marginal land. One observation in the developing world in line with land rights is that most of the landless poor usually do reside on these marginal lands and do cropping for subsistence. In parts of India, Tanzania, and Mali such lands have been used for production of groundnuts and other nuts for sale by these poor people. Food security by definition from the World submit encompasses not only food availability, but in addition accessibility (and utilization and stability), thereby incorporating an element of income which is pre-requisite for effective access. should these landless poor be displaced from such lands for production of biofuel crops/feedstock, do you still think such a move will have no impact on the food security status of the displaced?

I would like to remind the group that the report on Jatropha in Mozambique is unequivocal in stating the Jatropa is displacing food on a large scale and provide evidence on this from many other places.

Dear David

i mean to say unfertile land which is no more productive in that land biofuels crops are great initiative but not on fertile land

Not for low land holding farmers.

oh ok, thanks a lot Sharma for the clarification

Just adding to the question; as far as I can see, the main 'investors' in bio-energy crops in developing countries are the EU and the US (correct?). Does that have any further implications? I mean, it is clear that crops are grown for export purposes, that little employment is involved, or is there a trend towards local bio-refineries? But even then, jobs are limited.

It could contribute to food security if energy crops were grown in a rotation scheme with food crops for the local market; that could mean that soil management and yields increase. But the 'trade off' in terms of social effects are still crucial. Is there any reference to a 'trade off' research paper in this direction?

Dear all, I am learnig many things with this discussion. I want to had a different dimensión to the question originallky made.

In Central America the round Wood production for processing in forest products reaches 3 million cbm ( very low), and the production of fuel Wood reaches around 41 million of cbm. Most of the countries of the región depend fully on fule Wood for their households , and the fact is not considered in most of the energy polcies of the countries. Fule Wood supply comes from sawmill wastes, but principally from forests. There are bno policy axctions dfor a sustainable supply of fuel Wood and this degrades the forests because the material is harvest ilegally. bOn the other side in the short run the supply will continue coming from the forests and additionally the cooking devices in the household are inefficient in the use of the fuel( opewn fires sorrounden by stones) and also highly contaminant for the environment and affectig the health of the inhabitants of the houses. This nissue needs a deep study and a rational scientific and policy approach.. There is a need for a) sustainable management of the forest that supply fuel Wood, b) effcient technologies to cook with densification and /or gasification of the raw materials. ¿ is the situation familiar for you in developing countrties?¿ Can you provide examples and solutions?

My opinion to your question would be that, if it is a conventional first generation biofuel produced from corn or sugar cane then the argument on security is definitely valid. But when we move up the ladder, say for example moving to the second generation biofuels, the question of adverse effects on food security is greatly reduced. The reason for this is, second generation biofuels are mainly produced from food wastes such as kernels, corn wastes, processed food wastes, etc and non-edible crops like Jatropa and so on. But the adverse effects of food security cannot be completely eradicated in case of second generation biofuels as there is an indirect competition (such as the land usage for growing non-edible crops). Further moving up, the third generation biofuels, mostly algae based biofuels as of now are not standalone winners in terms of fuel production as it is not profitable to only produce fuels. It can be sustainable and profitable when combined with processes like anaerobic digestion, waste water treatment or nutraceutical production. In this case the effect of biofuel production on food security is negligible. In case of fourth generation biofuels like bioelectrosynthesis (ARPA-E programme) or other advanced algae biofuel processes like the OMEGA project, the debate on food security over biofuels is still not on as the fourth generation biofuels are still in its early stages. I will be glad if this piece of information can help you by some means.

Hi everybody, I hope I can contribute with this other point. Biofuels like non-toxic Jatropha can be used for oil extraction and the residual cake can be used for food, either human or animals. I think this would be a good example of non-competion and even a contribution for food of biofuels.

Thanks dearies for the opinions shared...Your respective suggestions are well noted and much appreciated

Try reading the Bio-energy and Food Security (BEFS) project materials developed at FAO. Also the Committee on Food Security (CFS) high level panel just issued a report on the topic. Enjoy the read.

thanks a lot Barreiro-hurle for the suggestions. I will surely read the materials you've recommended.

I wrote a report with FAO a few years ago, demonstrating ways that bioenergy and food production could be complimentary (contrary to simplistic messages in the popular press). It was called "Making Integrated Food-Energy Systems (IFES) Work for People and Climate" and you can find it, along with FAO's webpage on the topic, at http://www.fao.org/energy/78517/en/

Dear All,

As a latecomer to this discussion (my, how much attention did this all get!) I should point out that while there is a (perceived?) risk for completion of biofuels crops with food production, there is currently an overproduction of food worldwide. The problem with food production is not a limit on available land, but mainly on good distribution of food. About 1/3 of all food produced is wasted.

So, rather on focusing on whether we have enough food production capacity, we should contrive better ways to process and preserve food and, most importantly, better distribution. Also, we should focus on turning food and food processing wastes into biofuels as has been the focus of my research group for the last 25 years.

Hans van Leeuwen, Iowa State University

Thanks a lot Craig and Hans for the suggestions and points raised.. Your respective views are well noted and much appreciated

Biofuel production can have a very positive influence on sustainability (food, energy, medicine, building materials) if explored in a sensible manner, and I agree with Craig and Hans. We can easily produce more food and more energy, and more materials for building and textiles, as long as we use the land surface efficiently. Any crop produced for a single purpose (i.e food alone, or fuel alone) is wasteful, but as soon as we start thinking about multiple products from a single crop, bio-energy can be one of them, and food can be a by-product, or vice-versa. Current popular rumours that bio-fuel increases food prices are very unfortunate and damaging to science and development, and they are based on few facts, yet they have led to far-reaching decisions, such as EU policy to discourage the use of food crops for bio-energy strategies. One of the largest producers of bio-ethanol is Brazil, using less than 1% of its arable land for the combined production of crystal sugar and bio-ethanol. It is sustainable, because the crop is used for multiple purposes, the fibres can be a fuel to power distillation (bioethanol), to power crystallisation (clean sugar) and to generate surplus energy sold as electricity. And since less than 1% of the arable land is used for this, any increase in food prices would be marginal. It is also wrong to categorically rule out food crops, just because corn-ethanol in the US was a bad example. The best carbohydrate crops (potato) have yet to be explored for bio-fuel, and my research team is currently working on a strategy to produce yeast extract, high value proteins, cell wall pulp for the paper industry, and bioethanol from high starch potatoes. Potato is one of the highest yielding crops in the world, but in the last 50 years Europe has systematically replaced potato culture by very low yielding rape-seed and more recently corn. If sustainability is the aim, we shouldn't discuss food versus non-food. The only considerations that matter are1) how much feedstock can be produced per surface of land and per time, 2) what is the quality and homogeneity of said feedstock, and 3) how well can the crop be integrated into crop rotation practices to allow flexible use of our available land. If you adhere to these 3 principles, you can rule out non-food crops from the start, we can't eat poplar trees or miscanthus, they occupy the land for years offering no flexibility, their annual yield is low, and the quality of the feedstock is poor...makes me wonder why so much money has been invested in second and third generation biofuel.

Fantastic!!!....Thanks a lot Denecke for the wonderful piece of enlightenment. Your opinion is well noted and very much appreciated

Thanks a lot Zhang for the great opinion shared and for the recommended articles. I surely will read them.

Interesting....Thanks a lot Bassam for the wonderful opinion shared. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

David, I'm inclined to agree with the views that biofuels have several positive aspects. I am glad to see that your thread ended up collecting many good references of them.

Allow me to add that the thread's theme would also remains a pertinent one if you'd look beyond food security. I believe your question would remain interesting, in particular, if reformulated in terms of agrarian/rural changes, or changes in food markets. Biofuel production has a lot of potential to impact and rearrange agricultural production, agrarian structure, rural and urban labor markets; the same may apply to food prices. That's probably what exposes biofuel production to political scrutiny, as it affects the interests and the distribution of forces in the political field at large. That makes me think that looking beyond the negative/positive impacts of biofuels, to explore parricular cases of political mobilization/action related to biofuels may be very interesting as a research theme.

Thanks a lot Alves for the opinion shared and suggestion made. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

I think Juergen Denecke hits the nail on the head with comments about high investments in 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels. Thank you! I know it can be argued we have so much lignocellulosic production, much as byproduct from other crops, e.g. corn stover, bagasse and forestry wastes as raw material, but the billions invested have yet to yield a viable process.

Furthermore, it could be argued that chasing after the production of ethanol seems questionable because of the low energy content compared with hydrocarbons. Cultivation of microbes on a variety of starch crops and even lignocellulosic ones shows some promise. Fungi in particular have the ability to yield oils, as high-quality fuel, and by their ability to produce enzymes to break down lignin and cellulose, to even use such low-grade substrates for fuel production. Again, huge amounts have been wasted on algal research, as these have a lower efficiency in conversion, mainly by heterotrophic mechanisms, than fungi to accomplish biofuel production. Fungal mechanisms have been the focus of my research group and have the added benefit of other byproducts of high value.

Lignocellulosic materials can be processed into biobutanol not only into ethanol, and the energy content of biobutanol is much higher (C4 alcohol) than ethanol. It should ba taken into consideration, when we arguing on energy content. Xyloses can be used by C. acetobutylicum bacteria to produce butanol. I have heard about technology, when waste newspaper is transformed into butanol.

Because of gen-technology, the strauns which can transform cellulose directly into butanol, the strains which produced from. C. cereviase, or which can utilize carbopn monoxide as raw material (CO can be produced form any kind of organic materials and carbon) will give new perspectives of biofuels.