A rapid expansion of biofuel mandates could significantly increase global demand for agricultural land by 2030, adding pressure on forests and other ecosystems, according to a new Chatham House research paper produced with support from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
The study estimates that expanded biofuel mandates and targets could place an additional 36 million hectares under pressure for feedstock production by 2030 — an area roughly the size of Germany. The researchers stress that this represents additional land pressure associated with biofuel production, not a forecast that 36 million hectares of forest will be cleared.
The policy shift comes as governments seek alternatives to disrupted Gulf oil supplies. Chatham House estimates that global biofuel production could rise from about 105 million tonnes of oil equivalent in 2025 to 176 million tonnes in 2030 under the policy developments examined in the report, an increase of about 68%.
Land pressure would not be evenly distributed
Around 32 million hectares were used globally to grow biofuel feedstocks in 2023. Before the latest policy changes, roughly another 20 million hectares were already expected to be needed by 2030. Under the expanded mandates examined by Chatham House, the additional land requirement could rise to 36 million hectares — a scenario that would more than double the 2023 footprint.
The most consequential mandates identified in the report are concentrated in major biofuel-producing countries, notably Brazil, India, Indonesia and the United States. Chatham House says expanded feedstock production in Indonesia could increase deforestation risk if plantations expand into forested areas or displace existing agricultural production.
The report also stresses that outcomes depend on how and where feedstocks are produced. In Brazil, for example, properly managed bioenergy feedstocks grown on degraded land could reduce or reverse some land-degradation impacts. By contrast, the researchers say the report associates first-generation biofuel feedstocks with greater risks related to land degradation, food security and water use.
A wider question for the bioeconomy
For the forest sector, one of the report’s most relevant conclusions concerns how biomass resources are allocated.
Chatham House calls for a “productivity and circularity first” approach, recommending that additional biofuel demand be met where possible through improved yields on existing agricultural land, the use of degraded land, waste- and residue-based fuels, advanced second-generation biofuels and other lower-impact feedstocks.
The researchers also argue that national bioeconomy and circular-economy strategies need to account for situations in which rising energy demand for biomass coincides with limited supplies of agricultural and forestry residues. They recommend prioritizing higher-value uses of bioresources, including materials, ahead of energy while maximizing the use of wastes, residues and by-products.
That recommendation does not establish that biofuel growth will create a shortage of fibre for pulp and paper producers. It does, however, frame a broader policy question: how finite biomass resources should be allocated as demand expands across material, energy and fuel uses.
Traceability and certification gain importance
The report calls for stronger land-use controls, feedstock traceability and certification systems aimed at preventing higher biofuel demand from driving the conversion of forests, peatlands and other high-biodiversity ecosystems.
It recommends clear distinctions between primary biomass and genuine residues, warning against the reclassification of higher-value biomass as “residue” solely to meet fuel demand. Chatham House also cautions that wastes and residues, while preferable to higher-risk crop-based feedstocks, should not be treated as unlimited resources.
The report points to landscape-level approaches, satellite monitoring, geospatial planning and digital traceability as tools that could strengthen oversight of land-use change and displacement effects.
Rather than rejecting biofuels outright, the researchers see a targeted role for them in existing vehicle fleets and sectors that remain difficult to electrify. Their broader conclusion is that expansion should be accompanied by safeguards designed to prevent short-term energy-security measures from creating longer-term pressure on land, forests and biodiversity.
