Biofuels, Bioenergy and the Bioeconomy in North and South.

A thriving bioeconomy that includes increasing reliance on biological processes and biobased products is a key element of the overall global sustainability transition. Energy can be seen as the ‘‘glue’’ in the bioeconomy due to the high energy requirements of modern economies and the physical interrelationships between energy and non-energy products and processes. The bioeconomy will ultimately replace the fossil economy that is characterized by high reliance on non-renewable resources. At the same time, the bioeconomy will also replace the ‘‘natural economy’’ that is common in the developing world, where heavy reliance on subsistence farming and traditional biomass degrade the resource base with low economic returns. A sustainable bioeconomy is also fully compatible with a circular economy in that it aims for minimal waste and the optimal valorization of biomass across all its different uses. Consequently, the vision for the bioeconomy and its underlying principles should be applied in the global North and South just as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were designed to be universal in nature. The approaches, applications and implementation will nevertheless need to be adapted widely across varying levels of economic development and sociocultural conditions. Advances in industrial biotechnology, as often highlighted in this journal, are key elements in the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy. But the environmental sustainability of the underlying resource base is even more important, since we have many industrial pathways but only one earth. Furthermore, social and economic sustainability must be addressed alongside environmental sustainability. Although we expect the bioeconomy to be more equitable than the fossil economy, there is no guarantee that biological resources will not be monopolized as fossil resources have been. Policies and institutions are especially needed to promote the interests of developing and emerging economies where biomass resources are concentrated. Economic rationalization and sustainable finance are also crucial at a time when low oil prices are placing pressure on the bioeconomy. Both the industrial and agricultural sides of the bioeconomy must be developed in sync since the weakest link in the biomass chain can threaten the collapse of markets before they can develop. Although there is broad agreement on the need for expanding the bioeconomy there is less agreement on the pathways to get there. The role of (liquid) biofuels—and to some extent (solid) bioenergy—has attracted particular controversy. If one believes some NGOs and their media allies, their role has gone from savior to villain during just a decade or so. The potential competition for food production has been a key point of contention. This debate occurs mainly within the North, even though it is supposedly out of concern for the developing South. Yet some developing countries have significant surpluses of food crops that they promote for biofuels and non-food uses; otherwise the crops will simply go to waste rather than having a reasonable chance of supporting livelihoods and rural development. Their challenge is to look for the right balance between industrial crops and subsistence farming—as well as finding hybrid models—a challenge that relates to development pathways more generally and not so much to biofuels or energy. The other key issue has been greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other impacts associated with direct and indirect land use change. There is no denying that most renewable energy sources—not just bioenergy—are more land-intensive than fossil fuels or nuclear power. In a historical context, the land-intensiveness of renewables is a reckoning for the intergenerational subsidy that current generations gave themselves by extracting and using up non-renewables at an accelerating pace far beyond sustainability limits. In the case of biomass, since land is fixed, increasing population and wealth naturally creates greater demands on land. Yet these additional demands also increase competition and thus efficiency, which is sorely needed in light of the low land use efficiency of many types of agriculture and livestock use. As biofuels and bioenergy become part of integrated landscapes and production systems, the multiple products and services available contribute to continuously decreasing land use change and decreasing GHG emissions. The technology learning curve for biofuels and bioenergy thus differs from other energy sources because its scope extends far beyond energy into the entire bioeconomy. Biofuels and bioenergy must also be placed in the context of the bioeconomy and the different uses of biomass. The majority of biomass used globally is for animal feed, followed by food, materials and heat/power. Only slightly more than 1% of biomass is used to produce liquid biofuels. If our long-run goal is to use biomass more effectively and efficiently, it is clear that the extremely disproportionate attention on the impacts of biofuels has distracted from such aims. This is not at all to suggest that the sustainability of biofuels should be ignored but rather that a more balanced approach is needed if the bioeconomy is to find a sustainable future. Deforestation, land degradation and reduced biodiversity are undesirable regardless of the uses of the