Currently, only limited feedstock for the production of advanced biofuels is traded and much of the sustainable feedstock, such as waste biomass, is also not likely to be traded in the future. Only forest sector biomass, which is already traded, mostly in the form of pellets for co-firing and electricity production, and possibly energy crops might be traded in the future. The commercialisation of the torrefaction process might make agricultural biomass transportable and hence tradable. Thus, this report is primarily focused on agricultural and forestry biomass. The four distinctive R&I scenarios impact the agricultural and forestry feedstock in different ways. Biomass availability in the enhanced production scenario is mainly driven by improvements in the availability of agricultural biomass, especially energy crops in the medium to long-run. Measures targeting enhanced production in forests are, in contrast, not very effective in the 2030 and 2050 horizon; they show effects only in a very long-term horizon (2100). In general, measures to enhance production increase the total available biomass in 2050 by around 4% as compared to the reference scenario. The improved supply scenario, on the other hand, is characterized by growth of the forestry biomass potential stemming from modified practices to harvest, mobilise and transport forest biomass. Actions to improve supply increase the total available biomass in 2050 by around 16% as compared to the reference scenario. The Combined R&I scenario results in the highest available biomass from the agricultural and forestry sectors. The available biomass in 2050 is almost 20% higher in the Combined R&I scenario as compared to the reference scenario. Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, Russia, Ukraine and the US are regarded to be the most important non-EU countries with respect to current and future feedstock production potential. The EU feedstock potential is surpassed by the potential of other countries, such as Russia, Canada and the US. Also, feedstock production in the EU seems less competitive than production of agricultural and forestry biomass in the US, for instance. Yet, European biomass is expected to face limited competition from other world regions due to limited mobilisation of feedstock from other world regions (Russia and the Ukraine), transportation costs (Brazil, Australia) and local feedstock demand (China, India, Japan, possibly Canada and the US), protecting the competitiveness of the EU's 'own' feedstock supply, even if on-site feedstock production costs are lower elsewhere. The risk that R&I investments towards improving feedstock availability will become redundant due to competition from cheap imported feedstock is hence limited. Moreover, R&I is needed to alleviate feedstock limitations and to mitigate possible dependence on imported biomass, especially regarding the potentially important role of biomass feedstock for the EU's future bioenergy system and for the EU's compliance with its decarbonisation targets.
