Search

Abstract In this study, the potential global loss of species directly associated with land use in the EU and due to trade with other regions is computed over time, in order to reveal differences in impacts between the considered alternatives of plausible bioenergy policies development in the EU. The spatially explicit study combines a life cycle analysis (LCA) for biodiversity impact assessment with a global high resolution economic land use model. Both impacts of domestic land use and impacts through imports were included for estimating the biodiversity footprint of the member states of the (EU28). The analyzed scenarios assumed similar biomass demand until 2020 but differed thereafter, from keeping the growth of demand for bioenergy constant (CONST), to a strong increase of bioenergy in line with the EU target of decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050 (EMIRED) and with the baseline (BASE) scenario falling between the other two. As a general trend, the increasing demand for biomass was found to have substantial impact on biodiversity in all scenarios, while the differences between the scenarios were found to be modest. The share caused by imports was 15% of the overall biodiversity impacts detected in this study in the year 2000, and progressively increased to 24% to 26% in 2050, depending on the scenario. The most prominent future change in domestic land use in all scenarios was the expansion of perennial cultivations for energy. In the EMIRED scenario, there is a larger expansion of perennial cultivations and a smaller expansion of cropland in the EU than in the other two scenarios. As the biodiversity damage is smaller for land used for perennial cultivations than for cropland, this development decreases the internal biodiversity damage per unit of land. At the same time, however, the EMIRED scenario also features the largest outsourcing of damage, due to increased import of cropland products from outside the EU for satisfying the EU food demand. These two opposite effects even out each other, resulting in the total biodiversity damage for the EMIRED scenario being only slightly higher than the other two scenarios. The results of this study indicate that increasing cultivation of perennials for bioenergy and the consequent decrease in the availability of cropland for food production in the EU may lead to outsourcing of agricultural products supply to other regions. This development is associated with a leakage of biodiversity damages to species-rich and vulnerable regions outside the EU. In the case of a future increase in bioenergy demand, the combination of biomass supply from sustainable forest management in the EU, combined with imported wood pellets and cultivation of perennial energy crops, appears to be less detrimental to biodiversity than expansion of energy crops in the EU. Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image Highlights • Increased EU bioenergy demand risks to have negative consequences for biodiversity. • Bioenergy policies scenarios show negative biodiversity impacts both within the EU, and abroad through trade. • Over time, the negative impacts due to trade are emphasized. • Combination of different biomass feedstocks has less negative impacts than pure energy crop expansion in the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EXIOPOL (A New Environmental Accounting Framework Using Externality Data and Input–Output Tools for Policy Analysis) was a European Union (EU)-funded project creating a detailed, global, multiregional environmentally extended Supply and Use table (MR EE SUT) of 43 countries, 129 sectors, 80 resources, and 40 emissions. We sourced primary SUT and input–output tables from Eurostat and non-EU statistical offices. We harmonized and detailed them using auxiliary national accounts data and co-efficient matrices. Imports were allocated to countries of exports using United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database trade shares. Optimization procedures removed imbalances in these detailing and trade linking steps. Environmental extensions were added from various sources. We calculated the EU footprint of final consumption with resulting MR EE SUT. EU policies focus mainly on energy and carbon footprints. We show that the EU land, water, and material footprint abroad is much more relevant, and should be prioritized in the EU's environmental product and trade policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]