A new Chatham House analysis says expanded blending mandates could lift global biofuel production by nearly 70% by 2030 and put an additional 36 million hectares under pressure.
A renewed global push for biofuels is turning energy security into an agricultural question, with potential consequences for maize, sugar, vegetable oils, land and water.
A Chatham House research paper published on 21 September estimates that global biofuel production could rise by nearly 70% between 2025 and 2030 if recently proposed or accelerated blending mandates are implemented. Its analysis says an additional 36 million hectares of land — roughly the area of Germany — could come under pressure as governments seek alternatives to disrupted Gulf oil supplies.
The figures are projections, not a forecast that must occur. They depend on policy choices, feedstock mixes, technology and the extent to which countries meet announced mandates.
That distinction matters for agriculture. First-generation biofuels commonly use crops or crop-derived oils that also have food, feed or industrial markets. Stronger fuel demand can therefore change the competition for maize, sugarcane, vegetable oils and other feedstocks. The size of the effect differs by commodity and region and cannot be reduced to a simple claim that biofuels automatically cause food shortages.
The Chatham House paper argues that rapid expansion of crop-based biofuels could increase pressure on food supplies, forests and water, while greater use of waste-based feedstocks could reduce some land-use impacts. Reuters reported that the study comes as several major economies have proposed or accelerated blending measures amid higher oil prices and energy-security concerns.
For South African agriculture, the development is relevant even if most of the policy acceleration happens elsewhere. South African grain, sugar and oilseed prices operate within international commodity markets, while local fuel policy has long included a regulatory framework for biofuel blending and feedstocks.
A global change in demand does not translate one-for-one into South African farmgate prices. Exchange rates, local harvest size, transport costs, import and export parity, domestic processing capacity and policy all intervene. But a sustained increase in global feedstock demand can alter the international price environment against which local decisions are made.
The practical issue for producers is therefore to watch which mandates become binding and which feedstocks actually absorb the additional demand. A headline target for “biofuels” can conceal very different implications for ethanol, biodiesel, waste-based fuels and emerging alternatives.
There is also a land-use question. If crop-based fuel demand expands faster than yields, waste-feedstock supply or safeguards, competition for productive land can intensify. Conversely, technological improvements and genuinely additional waste streams could supply part of the growth without the same pressure.
The study adds another variable to an already volatile agricultural market shaped by weather, trade restrictions, geopolitical conflict and energy prices. It should not be read as proof of a coming food crisis, but it does identify a policy-driven demand shift worth following.
For South African farmers, the key signal will be implementation: which countries turn targets into actual blending demand, which crops are used, and whether the resulting commodity flows are large enough to change international and local market economics.