Quantifying the global cropland footprint of the European Union’s non-food bioeconomy

Abstract

A rapidly growing share of global agricultural areas is devoted to the production of biomass for nonfood purposes. The expanding non-food bioeconomy can have far-reaching social and ecological implications; yet, the non-food sector has attained little attention in land footprint studies. This paper provides the first assessment of the global cropland footprint of non-food products of the European Union (EU), a globally important region regarding its expanding bio-based economy. We apply a novel hybrid land flow accounting model, combining the biophysical trade model LANDFLOW with the multi-regional input-output model EXIOBASE. The developed hybrid approach improves the level of product and country detail, while comprehensively covering all global supply chains from agricultural production to final consumption, including highly processed products, such as many non-food products. The results highlight the EU's role as a major processing and the biggest consuming region of cropland-based non-food products, while at the same time relying heavily on imports. Two thirds of the cropland required to satisfy the EU's non-food biomass consumption are located in other world regions, particularly in China, the US and Indonesia, giving rise to potential impacts on distant ecosystems. With almost 39% in 2010, oilseeds used to produce for example biofuels, detergents and polymers represented the dominant share of the EU's non-food cropland demand. Traditional non-food biomass uses, such as fibre crops for textiles and animal hides and skins for leather products, also contributed notably (22%). Our findings suggest that if the EU Bioeconomy Strategy is to support global sustainable development, a detailed monitoring of land use displacement and spillover effects is decisive for targeted and effective EU policy making.

Reviewing the interface of bioeconomy and ecosystem service research

“…Because of its immediate metaphorical power and the flexibility of its toolbox, the ecosystem services concept has shown potential in bridging various academic disciplines and societal groups and contributing to fostering sustainability (Abson et al 2014 ; Droste et al 2018 ; Steger et al 2018 ). We argue that ecosystem services thinking may also be relevant for monitoring the implementation of bioeconomy strategies by accounting for trade-offs and helping to assess multidimensional problems in land use and beyond (see Karvonen et al, 2017 ; Bruckner et al 2019 ). To establish such a link, we draw from the idea of impacts and dependencies of human activities on ecosystem services in social-ecological systems (D’Amato et al 2018 , 2020 ).…”

“…Several countries worldwide have adopted bioeconomy strategies, with different foci (Dietz et al 2018 ). National strategies in Europe differ according to domestic biomass availability in each country, but they generally rely on the contribution and development of a wide range of economic sectors and industries, including forestry, food, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, and textiles (Hoff et al 2018 ; Bruckner et al 2019 ). On the other hand, the strategy forwarded by the United States strongly emphasizes biofuels and biotechnology (Staffas et al 2013 ; De Besi and McCormick 2015 ; Bracco et al 2018 ).…”

Bioeconomy: Markets, Implications, and Investment Opportunities

“…The same applies to Europe, which "imports" 18 million hectares per year from outside, especially from Asia. This area is equivalent to 65% of the total agricultural area used for industrial purposes (Bruckner et al 2019).…”

Bioeconomy Transitions through the Lens of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems: A Framework for Place-Based Responsibility in the Global Resource System

“…Furthermore, as highlighted by the BIO-SES framework in Section 4, a sustainable bioeconomy transition process requires a comprehensive systems approach of coupled social outcomes and ecological impacts (evidence base) to make stakeholders aware of the impacts of their actions in the global resource system. This includes a quantitative perspective on hotspots of spatial ecosystem impacts associated with place-based consumption and production activities [23,138], capacities of the social system to (collectively) evaluate impacts associated with social outcomes (reflexivity) [122,135], as well as the capacity to create enabling and constraining governance structures for SDG-aligned bioeconomy strategies from a high income responsibility perspective [129,131].…”

“…High income countries, in particular, have been associated with environmental impacts of animal-based diets and high levels of food waste [20][21][22]. Furthermore, increasing demand for non-food bioeconomy products and services, in particular bioenergy, supports global trade of biobased resources from tropical and sub-tropical regions, thereby inducing ambiguous social and environmental impacts [23,24]. Thus, in the context of global challenges in relation to food security and environmental change, questions emerge how bioeconomy transitions in high-income countries can (1) support sustainable development from a global resource use perspective and (2) be comprehensively monitored, evaluated and governed to that end.…”