“Biomass from somewhere?” Governing the spatial mismatch of Viennese biomass consumption and its impact on biodiversity

Vienna’s biomass demand is large and nearly all biomass consumed in the city is produced in the regional and global hinterland. This raises the question, how the socioecological conditions at specific places somewhere in the world are impacted by urban consumption and how negative impacts can be addressed and mitigated by urban actors. Here we focus on the city’s biodiversity footprint and argue that the spatial mismatch between the social-ecological impacts of biomass production and consumption and its impact on biodiversity on the one hand, and the governance instruments available at a city level mentioned by the interviewed experts on the other hand, must be considered when looking for bottom-up governance strategies of urban actors. We combine food regime theory, the analysis of biomass flows and a multiscalar governance approach to analyze “biomass from somewhere” in three important sectors of biomass use in Vienna – food, energy and construction timber. We find that consumption in Vienna requires 3.1 Mio. t of primary biomass per year (2010–2013), of which 59 % are for food, 28 % for material (only 1.3 % for construction) and 13 % for energy; roughly half of this biomass was sourced from Austria, the rest from other countries, mainly in Europe. While governance instruments at the city level are quite effective with respect to urban ecosystems and conservation within the city, they are insufficient to tackle biodiversity loss in the global hinterland. Important leverage points at the city scale are public procurement and the promotion of consumption patterns with lower land and primary biomass demand. An important prerequisite is unambiguous information and labelling concerning the biodiversity impacts of biomass products which is complicated by the fact that indirect land use effects need to be considered. Currently, none of the governance measures investigated includes extensive biodiversity criteria. We conclude that to effectively address the spatial mismatch, a different mode of production – regulated at higher scales and including mandatory measures – and a different mode of consumption as well as a reduction of consumption and production is required.