Ask the Experts For reprint orders, please contact [email protected] Biofuels (2012) 3(6), 635–648 The food versus fuel debate The food versus fuel debate is arguably one of the most hotly discussed topics in bioenergy research. Biofuels has invited a panel of international experts, covering a wide range of expertise – from policy and economics to advanced feedstocks and technological advances – to express their views on the debate. The experts speak to Ruth Williamson, Commissioning Editor, as they speculate on the current status and future prospects of the evolving debate. Tom Richard, Penn State University, USA; [email protected] Expert in agroecosystem modeling and biomass supply chains Q As an expert in land-based feedstock development, what would you regard as the major advances in this field to date? In sharp contrast to food crops, which people have been growing and breeding for millen- nia, research on most energy crops is still in its infancy. Yet even in a relatively short period of time, we have seen breeding programs increase yields of energy crops such as switchgrass and willow by 30–50% [1,2] . We are just beginning to see results from the application of crop biotechnology to dedicated energy crops, but initial indications are promising. Of particular importance are increased tolerance to stress (e.g., water, nutrients and pests), control of invasiveness (through sterile lines and delayed flowering) and enhanced energy characteristics (e.g., by modifying cell wall constituents such as cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin). Along with these advances in genetics and agronomic practices, there have also been considerable advances in the use of remote sensing, environmental data and crop production models to allow more accurate prediction of food and biofuel crop production and potential. Foley’s group has used these tools to demonstrate the huge potential to increase yields by more effective use of current agricultural technologies for both food [3] and biofuels [4]. These and many other studies demonstrate that agricultural intensification can provide much more food and fuel from existing agricultural land, and in the process free up additional land for biofuel production. When we combine the biofuel feedstock potential of new genetic improvements and agricultural intensification, the potential for large-scale biofuel production is enormous [5]. Q How has the competition for land differed between developed and developing countries? One of the least understood features of agricultural economies in the developed world is the fundamental depen- dence on continuously increasing consumption. In the last few decades, over 100 million ha of agricultural land in Europe and North America has been abandoned, largely due to lack of demand. Over the coming decades, as populations stabilize and diets continue to shift to more poultry and away from land-intensive beef, the land required to feed the developed world will decrease even without increases in crop yield. But yields do increase, by 2–3% annually, and this further reduces the land required. For most of the last century, US agricultural policy has primarily focused on managing excess production and the current corn ethanol industry is in many ways a response to that need. However, it is important to recognize that the situation in Europe and North America is still somewhat unique, and the conflict between food and fuel remains a feature of biofuel development in many other parts of the world. Of particular concern is the land-grabbing phenomena now recognized in Africa, also evident in South America and Asia, where wealthy individuals and multinational corporations take advantage of informal land tenure rela- tionships to secure vast areas for biofuel production, exporting to markets in the developed world. Land-grabbing is also an increasingly common factor in global food production, in part to satisfy demand in the developing world future science group 10.4155/BFS.12.59 © 2012 Future Science Ltd ISSN 1759-7269 635 News & Analysis Ask the Experts where population and diet shifts are still requiring increased production of food. Whether the land is appropri- ated for food or fuel, indigenous people are usually living and subsistence farming in these landscapes, with deep historical and cultural ties. Taking land and livelihoods away from people in such circumstances can be a violation of basic human rights. We need effective governance systems and market incentives to convince biofuel developers to responsibly address the human as well as the environmental dimensions of large-scale commercialization. Q What further challenges remain in scaling up biofuel feedstocks while ensuring direct competition with food crops is reduced? There is increasing evidence that agricultural intensification, more land-efficient diets and better integration of energy crops on existing agricultural land will allow very large-scale production of biofuels without conflicting with food production. But while it may be technically possible to avoid this conflict, successful implementation will require compatible economic, social and cultural systems as well. For example, many parts of the USA currently have conservation programs to encourage switchgrass production on erodible land and cover crops such as winter rye on annual cropland, but the conservation rules often preclude harvesting these crops for bioenergy applications. Financing systems for conventional agriculture are geared toward annual crops, and introducing perennial energy crops requires long-term investments. Similarly, standard mechanisms for risk management, such as crop insurance, are generally not available for energy crops, and shifts in cropping systems will result in different seasonal labor requirements, landscape aesthetics and community dynamics. We need to create balanced incentive programs that support both food and fuel production to achieve the agricultural intensification a sustainable future will require. We need to create balanced incentive programs that support both food and fuel production to achieve the “ agricultural intensification a sustainable future will require. ” Q Is there a particular area of research in feedstock development that warrants further development in order to limit such competition? Land that is marginal or has been abandoned from food production is often targeted for perennial energy crops, but crop varieties and production practices need to be optimized for these less-productive landscapes. Most of our conventional crop breeding programs are situated on prime agricultural land, as many of the initial biomass feedstock trials have been. It is only recently that plant breeders have starting focusing on developing feedstock varieties that are adapted to the low nutrient, dry or waterlogged conditions common on abandoned and marginal landscapes. As we target these nonfood landscapes for energy crop production, we need both adapted varieties and appropriate agronomic practices to achieve commercial success. To maximize these benefits, we also need research on sustainable strategies for land use transitions. In 2008, studies led by Searchinger et al. and Fargione et al. brought the issue of indirect land use change to the forefront of the debate on sustainable biofuels, demonstrating the decades, or sometimes centuries, of carbon debt that can accrue from poorly selected or poorly managed land use transitions [6,7]. Several groups have since published studies that shed additional light on this issue, and some governmental agencies have applied regulatory con- straints. However, we have not seen a widespread attempt to minimize the carbon debt associated with biofuels development and land use change. At a very practical level, we need planting and production strategies for peren- nial crops that retain or enhance soil organic matter, control weeds and minimize nutrient losses, especially on marginal land. Careful site selection, combined with appropriate varieties and agronomic practices, will allow feedstock production in places that minimize conflicts with food. Q Do you feel that further advancing land-based feedstocks is the key to ending the food versus fuel debate? The real key to ending this debate is a more widespread understanding that the choice is not between food and fuel, but rather a choice of how agriculture and forestry can provide for the full range of human and planetary needs. Will our diets be land intensive [8] and our food systems waste 40% of what we grow [9], while we con- tinue to burn fossil energy and heat up the planet? Or will we balance our need for healthy nutrition, renewable materials and low-carbon energy – in which case biofuels will need to play an essential role for aviation, shipping and a significant fraction of land transportation? This is the question we really need to answer. 636 Biofuels (2012) 3(6) future science group Ask the Experts News & Analysis While there is strong evidence that crop improvements and agricultural intensification can effectively resolve the food–fuel dilemma, if biofuels are to be a sustainable energy resource we must ensure they are produced in sustainable agricultural systems. As we are realizing to our collective dismay this year, high yields of conven- tional food crops are highly dependent on both productive soils and a favorable climate. Looking forward, we clearly need both food and fuel cropping systems that are more resilient to climate extremes. The introduction of perennial energy crops into our annual