Search

Fossil fuels dominate the current energy and chemicals' supply and this leads to a rapid growth in global greenhouse gas emissions. One mitigation option is using renewable feedstock for materials, chemicals (ethylene, propylene, acrylic acid and butanol) and, mostly, energy carriers (biodiesel, renewable jet fuel, ethanol and bioelectricity). This study demonstrates the effects of an economy based on biomass (bioeconomy) on macroeconomic aspects through a Computable General Equilibrium model. Three scenarios for 2030 were created to compare different levels of production (amount of chemicals and energy production through fossils versus biomass) for Brazil, based on sugarcane, soy and forest crops. Two important methodological aspects of this paper are the financial support provided by the government to enable the bioeconomy, and the limitations in land use established by the needs to reduce emissions. Overall, the results show that a bioeconomy could result in almost irrelevant negative impacts on GDP and in small increases in unemployment rate comparing to the reference scenario. However, these effects could be reversed, even with no deforestation, if the livestock and agriculture sectors increased their efficiency regarding land. Most importantly, if the livestock sector worked as a source of land for other crops in the event of a bioeconomy, the socioeconomic response would be more positive than if deforestation took place.

This paper reviews European land and bioenergy potential studies to 1) identify shortcomings related to how they account for agricultural intensification and its associated environmental effects, and sustainability constraints, and 2) provide suggestions on how these shortcomings can be improved in future assessments. The key shortcomings are: The environmental impacts of intensification are nearly always ignored in the reviewed studies, while these impacts should be accounted for if intensification is required to make land available for energy cropping. Future productivity developments of crops and livestock, and the associated land-use and environmental effects are currently limited to conventional intensification measures whereby the proportion between inputs and outputs is fixed. Sustainable intensification measures, which increase land productivity with similar or lower inputs, are ignored in the reviewed studies. Livestock productivity developments, livestock specific intensification measures and their environmental effects are poorly or not at all covered in the reviewed studies. Most studies neglect sustainability constraints other than GHG emissions in the selection of energy crops. This includes limitations to rainfed energy crop cultivation, a minimum number of crop species, the structural diversity within cropping areas and the integration of energy crops in existing or new crop rotations, while simultaneously considering the effects on subsequent crops. These shortcomings suggest that the identification of sustainable pathways for European bioenergy production requires a more integrative approach combining land demand for food, feed and energy crop production, including different intensification pathways, and the consequent direct and indirect environmental impacts. A better inclusion of management practices into such approach will improve the assessment of intensification, its environmental consequences and the sustainable bioenergy potential from agricultural feedstocks.