At a public school lunch table in rural Colombia, children open plastic-sealed packages of food containing artificial red and yellow dyes. The ingredients are imported, processed, and long-lasting, designed to survive supply chains, not nourish growing minds. Just a few kilometres away, local producers cultivate nutrient-rich açaí, and other native fruits – “non-timber forest products” as some people know them. Yet these foods don’t make it onto the lunch menu. Why not?

“There’s no shortage of good food here,” says Luis Rios, Latin America Natural Capital Director at Palladium. “But what ends up on children’s plates comes from distant factories, not the farms next door.”

This paradox sits at the heart of the global bioeconomy debate.  The promise of the bioeconomy is simple but powerful: that we can build a more sustainable world by replacing fossil-based inputs with biological resources. The bioeconomy refers to the production, use, and regeneration of biological resources such as crops, forests, fish, and microorganisms using science, technology, and innovation to deliver food, energy, and materials in a way that supports both people and the planet. It imagines a future where nature and technology collaborate to feed people, power economies, protect forests, and restore degraded land. But the path to that future is anything but simple.

As the climate crisis accelerates and food insecurity rises, the stakes could not be higher. We face a profound challenge: can we feed the world and fuel the future without exhausting our ecosystems?

The Bioeconomy’s Dual Nature

Food systems are the cornerstone of the global bioeconomy. In regions like the European Union, food, forestry, and fisheries account for over 70% of bioeconomy value. Advances in microbial fertilisers, climate-resilient crops, and underutilised native foods offer hope for both better nutrition and ecological recovery.

Yet, as with the biofuel boom of the 2000s, there is a darker side. Land, water, and capital often shift toward non-food uses like biofuels or bioplastics because these sectors promise quicker returns, greater investor interest, and alignment with national industrial ambitions. But when policy and profit prioritise bio-based exports over food sovereignty, local food production and biodiversity lose out. In many places, including parts of Latin America and Africa, monoculture expansion has displaced smallholders and weakened food access.

This tension plays out in real-time wherever profit is prioritised over sustainability, shaping procurement decisions, investment flows, and commodity markets in ways that undermine nutrition, rural equity, and environmental health.

Integrated Landscapes Offer a Way Forward

What if the land didn’t have to choose between food and fuel? Forests and agroforestry systems show how production and protection can coexist. Integrating trees into farms increases yields, buffers against climate shocks, and enriches diets. Forests supply not only timber and tradable carbon or biodiversity credits—financial mechanisms that reward landholders for conserving ecosystems and species—but also fruits, nuts, pollination, and clean water, all vital for food security.

Phase 1 of the Partnerships for Forests (P4F) programme www.partnershipsforforests.com (2015-2023), funded by the UK government, offers practical examples of these synergies:

In Ghana, a multi‑stakeholder consortium led by Touton pilots a deforestation‑free cocoa landscape model across the Juabeso‑Bia jurisdiction.

• Landscape governance board created with community involvement to ensure that cocoa produced is deforestation free; Touton-supported farmers increased their average yields (from 300 kilograms per hectare to 700), and Touton offered premium payments for cocoa produced using sustainable land use and forest protection practices.
• ≈240,000 ha of forest reserve under sustainable management; 56,625 smallholder farmers (more than 30% of whom are women)

In Indonesia, a pioneering natural rubber partnership integrates a socially inclusive plantation with a Wildlife Conservation Area, protecting forests and elephants while boosting village incomes.

• Secured US$95 m green commercial loan; Wildlife Conservation Area established
• 88,000 ha under sustainable management; ≈50,000 people in 18 villages

In Colombia, Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities partnered with Corpocampo and Naidiseros to cultivate açaí and other native species in restored Amazon wetlands. The initiative enhances nutrition, boosts incomes, and protects fragile ecosystems while helping communities in conflict areas find stable, legal income.

• 56,000 hectares of forest under active, sustainable management; 170 beneficiaries (80 of them ex-combatants),

These models succeed not just because of innovation but because of inclusion. They recognise land rights, respect traditional knowledge, and share value with communities.

A System That Starves Itself

Despite such examples, dominant food systems often betray the very communities they are meant to serve. The Colombian public school system lunch paradox is not unique. Across the world, school feeding programmes, emergency aid, and institutional purchasing frequently source from distant suppliers offering ultra-processed, shelf-stable products.

Efforts to change this pattern often meet silent resistance. In Colombia, informal pushback against reform has been linked to entrenched procurement networks as well as systemic corruption. Local producers are sidelined not because they lack capacity, but because they lack influence.

“If the bioeconomy isn’t feeding children healthy, local food,” Rios asks, “then whose economy is it really building? And if it’s not even supporting legal, sustainable livelihoods, we’re not just missing the opportunity, we’re losing the fight against deforestation, crime, and corruption.”

From Siloed Policies to Systemic Solutions

Bioeconomy, food security, and climate policies too often operate in isolation. Aligning them demands deliberate, sustained coordination. That starts with embedding food security into national bioeconomy strategies, including impact assessments for hunger and nutrition.

Governments and funders must take coordinated action to build a resilient and inclusive bioeconomy. This includes establishing robust sustainability safeguards to govern how land is used, ensuring it supports both ecological balance and community needs. They must also promote regenerative and circular practices that minimise inputs and reduce waste throughout the production cycle. Securing land tenure and resource rights for local communities is essential to empower those closest to the land. Moreover, inclusive governance platforms that bring together multiple stakeholders are needed to guide landscape-level decisions. Finally, public procurement policies must be reoriented to prioritise nutrition and support local economies, ensuring that institutional demand drives equitable food systems.

What Success Looks Like

A successful bioeconomy isn’t measured solely in hectares of biomass or gigatonnes of carbon offset. It is measured in full stomachs with super fruits, healthy soils, empowered producers, and resilient ecosystems. It connects the cafeteria tray with the forest floor.

To get there, we need policies that do more than incentivise new markets. We need a bioeconomy that asks not only what can we grow? but also who benefits, and who eats?

These topics and Partnerships for Forests phase 1 results are discussed by Luis Rios at the Policies Against Hunger conference in Berlin in the Bioeconomy section https://www.policies-against-hunger.de/en/