Frank Rosillo-Calle
Centre for Environmental Policy
Imperial College London
UK
Title: Moving beyond the food V/S fuel Debate
Biography
Biography: Frank Rosillo-Calle
Abstract
The food versus fuel debate (FvF) is as old issue that refuses to go away. It has been plagued with many and often trivial arguments, and ethical, moral and policy considerations rather than by a solid scientific debate.
This specific Session will try to move beyond this old debate and focus on the “food and fuel†argument, in light of new evidence given the many and intertwined considerations that affect biofuels. In particular this Session will consider the following:
- Food Security and its wider implications for food production and biofuels
- Agricultural modernization and impacts on biofuels
- Land use changes [direct (DLUC) and indirect (iLUC)]
- Sustainability issues (environmental, social and economic)
Biomass for energy plays, and will continue to play, a major role in global energy supply. We need to improve our understanding of the wider implications and interactions. For example, the argument of undernourishment and the expansion of biofuels, must be seen within the context of huge food waste, poor agricultural productivity, and lack of infrastructure, obesity, diets changes, and social injustice. As for environmental sustainability, it often overlooks the impacts of fossil fuels, failing to apply the same principle to all energy sources, with too much emphasis on GHG. In the case of social sustainability, now required for all biofuels, it deals with neither underlying fundamentals e.g. applying the same principles to food production nor with wider social and policy implications.
DLUC also needs to be re-visited, particularly iLUC in light of new evidence. There are many and diverse models dealing with iLUC with a wide range of solutions given the nature, dynamism, and complexity of land use changes. In the specific case of iLUC it is very difficult, almost impossible, to model such effects because of the innumerable unproven assumptions; and hence it is often a case of just mere observations. Also, modelling has focused primarily on GHG in detriment of many other factors.
DLUC/iLUC suffer from a restricted and incomplete analysis which has resulted, in most cases, in a negative assessment of biofuels. A more complete assessment could show a very different outcome. iLUC in particular needs to move forward to deal with this high degree of uncertainty to attract new investment on biofuels.
This specific Session will try to move beyond this old debate and focus on the “food and fuel†argument, in light of new evidence given the many and intertwined considerations that affect biofuels. In particular this Session will consider the following:
- Food Security and its wider implications for food production and biofuels
- Agricultural modernization and impacts on biofuels
- Land use changes [direct (DLUC) and indirect (iLUC)]
- Sustainability issues (environmental, social and economic)
Biomass for energy plays, and will continue to play, a major role in global energy supply. We need to improve our understanding of the wider implications and interactions. For example, the argument of undernourishment and the expansion of biofuels, must be seen within the context of huge food waste, poor agricultural productivity, and lack of infrastructure, obesity, diets changes, and social injustice. As for environmental sustainability, it often overlooks the impacts of fossil fuels, failing to apply the same principle to all energy sources, with too much emphasis on GHG. In the case of social sustainability, now required for all biofuels, it deals with neither underlying fundamentals e.g. applying the same principles to food production nor with wider social and policy implications.
DLUC also needs to be re-visited, particularly iLUC in light of new evidence. There are many and diverse models dealing with iLUC with a wide range of solutions given the nature, dynamism, and complexity of land use changes. In the specific case of iLUC it is very difficult, almost impossible, to model such effects because of the innumerable unproven assumptions; and hence it is often a case of just mere observations. Also, modelling has focused primarily on GHG in detriment of many other factors.
DLUC/iLUC suffer from a restricted and incomplete analysis which has resulted, in most cases, in a negative assessment of biofuels. A more complete assessment could show a very different outcome. iLUC in particular needs to move forward to deal with this high degree of uncertainty to attract new investment on biofuels.