Perennial biomass crops (PBC) are considered a crucial feedstock for sustainable biomass supply to the bioeconomy that compete less with food production compared to traditional crops. However, large‐scale development of PBC as a means to reach greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets would require not only the production on land previously not used for agriculture, but also the use of land that is currently used for agricultural production. This study aims to evaluate agricultural market impacts with biomass demand for food, feed, and PBC in four bioeconomy scenarios (“Business as usual,” “Improved relevance of bioeconomy,” “Extensive transformation to a bioeconomy,” “Extensive transformation to a bioeconomy with diet change”) to achieve a 75% GHG reduction target in the emission trading sector of the EU until 2050. We simulated bioeconomy scenarios in the energy system model TIMES‐PanEU and the agricultural sector model ESIM and conducted a sensitivity analysis considering crop yields, PBC yields, and land use options of PBC. Our results show that all bioeconomy scenarios except the one with diet change lead to increasing food prices (the average food price index increases by about 11% in the EU and 2.5%–3.0% in world markets). A combination of the transformation to a bioeconomy combined with diet change toward less animal protein in the EU is the only scenario that results in only moderately increasing food prices within the EU (+3.0%) and even falling global food prices (–6.4%). In addition, crop yield improvement and cultivation of PBC on marginal land help to reduce increases in food prices, but higher land prices are inevitable because those measures have only small effects on sparing agricultural land for PBC. For a transition to a bioeconomy that acknowledges climate mitigation targets, counter‐measures for those substantial direct and indirect impacts on agricultural markets should be taken into account.

No abstract

The UK exited the EU on 31 January 2020, with a transition period agreed as part of the Withdrawal Agreement. During this transition period the UK and the EU will decide on their future trading relationship. No matter what form this relationship takes, there will be disturbances to agri‐food markets. This study analyses four different scenarios with increasing barriers to trade, ranging from a very close relationship similar to the European Economic Area to a distant relationship in which the UK and EU trade on Most Favoured Nation terms, using the EU focused global agricultural sector model CAPRI. In the UK, food prices will increase in all scenarios, making consumers in the UK the biggest losers. Only in a free trade agreement scenario does the UK show an unambiguous positive net welfare gain in just the agri‐food sector. In the case of the European Economic Area scenario, which assumes continued access to the single market, the net welfare impact would depend on the size of the UK’s continued contribution to the EU. In the EU, declining food prices would benefit consumers but the sum of the loss in farmers’ incomes and the UK’s EU CAP contribution would be much greater than the consumer’s gain. These impacts in agricultural markets under different future trade arrangements will also be influenced by the UK’s agricultural policy changes in direct payments as well as by possible further UK trade liberalisation after the end of the transition period.