• Energy Research
• 2. Zero hunger close

The dataset includes 90 global food system and land use scenarios developed with the model BioBaM-GHG 2.0. The scenarios have been developed for assessing the global potential of forest regeneration for climate mitigation to 2050 under various food system pathways, i.e. diets, crop yield developments, land requirements for energy crops, and two variants of grassland use. The scenarios include the following data on country level: Land use and land-use change, cropland area by crop group, grazing area by quality classes, crop production by crop groups, crop consumption by crop groups and use types, crop wastes (losses), net imports/exports, production and consumption of animal products, grass supply and demand, GHG emissions from land-use change, GHG emissions from agricultural activities, and total cumulated GHG emissions. The main model result in this context, cumulative carbon sequestration from forest regeneration until 2050, is calculated as difference between the parameters "GHG emissions from land use change (cumulative) (Mt CO2e)" and "GHG emissions from land use change excluding C stock changes from natural succession (cumulative) (Mt CO2e)". Please refer to the related publication "Exploring the option space for land system futures at regional to global scales: The diagnostic agro-food, land use and greenhouse gas emission model BioBaM-GHG 2.0" (Kalt et al., 2021 - currently under review at Ecological Modelling) for further information. This work was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) within project P29130-G27 GELUC.

This is a comprehensive dataset of the agriculture and food system scenarios co-developed with stakeholders with the agricultural land use model BioBaM-GHG 2.0 and presented in Deliverable 4.2 of the H2020 project UNISECO. It includes sub-national (NUTS1/2-level) data on agricultural production and consumption, land use, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and agricultural activities, etc. for the base year 2012 and the scenario years 2030 and 2050. The scenarios include a Business as usual case and four scenarios with focus on organic and agro-ecological farming practices in the EU, based on different storylines. Further information is available from the above-mentioned deliverable. A detailed model description is provided in the paper "Exploring the option space for land system futures at regional to global scales: The diagnostic agro-food, land use and greenhouse gas emission model BioBaM-GHG 2.0", in which these scenarios are also presented as an exemplary application of the model BioBaM-GHG 2.0. This work was funded by the ERA-NET SusAn project 101243 AnimalFuture, as well as by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and its funding of the H2020 UNISECO project under grant agreement N°773901.

AbstractShort rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.

SummaryThe European Commission recently embraced the concept of agroecology as a pathway to reduce negative impacts from agri‐food systems on the environment. So far, it remains unclear whether agroecology can deliver on these high hopes if implemented on a large scale. We here assess socio‐economic and environmental implications of multiple agroecological futures in the European Union in 2050, based on a novel diagnostic scenario approach, i.e. the biomass balancing model BioBaM‐GHG 2.0. We find that agroecological measures from the plot to the food systems level can indeed reduce environmental pressures while maintaining domestic food availability within the EU. Such measures are, for example, more hedgerows on croplands or reduced biomass harvest on high natural value – HNV grasslands. However, a key prerequisite is an overall reduction of the food system's size (based on the reduction of animal production, food wastes, and export production) and an optimised crop‐livestock integration. Only then does the transformation towards an agroecological agri‐food system in the EU not risk overstretching domestic land availability or produce insufficient agricultural commodities. Mitigating the accompanied trade‐off of reduced farm income is a central mandate for policy development aimed at re‐designing agriculture in Europe to align with the Green Deal goals.

Agroecology has been proposed as a strategy to improve food system sustainability, but has also been criticised for using land inefficiently. We compared five explorative storylines, developed in a stakeholder process, for future food systems in the EU to 2050. We modelled a range of biophysical (e.g., land use and food production), environmental (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) and social indicators, and potential for regional food self-sufficiency, and investigated the economic policy needed to reach these futures by 2050. Two contrasting storylines for upscaling agroecological practices emerged. In one, agroecology was implemented to produce high-value products serving high-income consumers through trade but, despite 40% of agricultural area being under organic management, only two out of eight EU environmental policy targets were met. As diets followed current trends in this storyline, there were few improvements in environmental indicators compared with the current situation, despite large-scale implementation of agroecological farming practices. This suggests that large-scale implementation of agroecological practices without concurrent changes on the demand side could aggravate existing environmental pressures. However, our second agroecological storyline showed that if large-scale diffusion of agroecological farming practices were implemented alongside drastic dietary change and waste reductions, major improvements on environmental indicators could be achieved and all relevant EU policy targets met. An alternative storyline comprising sustainable intensification in combination with dietary change and waste reductions was efficient in meeting targets related to climate, biodiversity, ammonia emissions, and use of antibiotics, but did not meet targets for reductions in pesticide and fertiliser use. These results confirm the importance of dietary change for food system climate change mitigation. Economic modelling showed a need for drastic changes in consumer preferences towards more plant-based, agroecological and local foods, and for improvements in technology, for these storylines to be realised, as very high taxes and tariffs would otherwise be needed.

Abstract Global bioenergy potentials have been the subject of extensive research and continued controversy. Due to vast uncertainties regarding future yields, diets and other influencing parameters, estimates of future agricultural biomass potentials vary widely. Most scenarios compatible with ambitious climate targets foresee a large expansion of bioenergy, mainly from energy crops that needs to be kept consistent with projections of agriculture and food production. Using the global biomass balance model BioBaM, we here present an assessment of agricultural bioenergy potentials compatible with the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (2018) ‘Alternative pathways to 2050’ projections. Mobilizing biomass at larger scales may be associated with systemic feedbacks causing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, e.g. crop residue removal resulting in loss of soil carbon stocks and increased emissions from fertilization. To assess these effects, we derive ‘GHG cost supply-curves’, i.e. integrated representations of biomass potentials and their systemic GHG costs. Livestock manure is most favourable in terms of GHG costs, as anaerobic digestion yields reductions of GHG emissions from manure management. Global potentials from intensive livestock systems are about 5 EJ/yr. Crop residues can provide up to 20 EJ/yr at moderate GHG costs. For energy crops, we find that the medium range of literature estimates (∼40 to 90 EJ/yr) is only compatible with FAO yield and human diet projections if energy plantations expand into grazing areas (∼4–5 million km2) and grazing land is intensified globally. Direct carbon stock changes associated with perennial energy crops are beneficial for climate mitigation, yet there are—sometimes considerable—‘opportunity GHG costs’ if one accounts the foregone opportunity of afforestation. Our results indicate that the large potentials of energy crops foreseen in many energy scenarios are not freely and unconditionally available. Disregarding systemic effects in agriculture can result in misjudgement of GHG saving potentials and flawed climate mitigation strategies.