Fig 2 - uploaded by Sarah Mubareka
Content may be subject to copyright.
Strategies and other policy initiatives dedicated to the bioeconomy in the EU Member States (Status of as of November 2019).

Strategies and other policy initiatives dedicated to the bioeconomy in the EU Member States (Status of as of November 2019).

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
The EU Bioeconomy Strategy, updated in 2018, in its Action Plan pledges an EU-wide, internationally coherent monitoring system to track economic, environmental and social progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy. This paper presents the approach taken by the European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) to develop such a system. To accomp...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... Monitoring System. Several EU MSs have released their own national bioeconomy strategies [32]. Pioneers were Germany in 2010 and Finland in 2014, followed by Spain in 2016, France, Italy and Latvia in 2017, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (The UK was part of the EU at the time of this analysis) in 2018 and Austria in 2019 (Fig. 2). Eastern European countries launched the BIOEAST initiative in November 2016 to develop a common roadmap and vision for the macro region and to support the development of national circular and bioeconomy strategies. Some of these countries are developing monitoring frameworks to assess progress in their bioeconomy. Given the variety of ...
Context 2
... mapping indicators to normative criteria, it becomes apparent that different types of indicators are required to answer specific questions. There are therefore, necessarily, different levels of indicators within the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System (Fig. 3, [52]). At the foundation of the pyramid are underlying statistical data that can be measured, followed by three tiers of indicators differing in complexity, and thus increasingly subject to interpretation. The indicators are chosen based on their suitability to address the particular normative Fig. 3. Illustration of the pyramid of ...

Similar publications

Article
Full-text available
The European Commission’s strategic long-term vision for 2050, “A Clean Planet for All”, identifies the bioeconomy and the circular economy as key strategic areas for achieving a climate-neutral economy. Focus is given to the sustainability of biomass and the circularity of materials. However, in order to facilitate the transition toward a sustaina...

Citations

... Consequentially, beyond the importance of regionalized and spatially explicit datasets in order to improve the quality of results (Chandrakumar and McLaren 2018a, b;Chandrakumar et al. 2018). In recent years, significant developments were made, especially in the context of the European Commission-Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) to integrate PB and environmental footprints (EF) into E-LCA to allow meso-and macroeconomic assessments and conclusions by sector and product specific bottomup approaches (Bjørn et al. 2020;Robert et al. 2020;Sala and Castellani 2019;Sala et al. 2020). Like a majority of LCAs, HILCSA as well entails a relative assessment, e.g. if the observed case is better than a reference of cases and how much it is (substitution factor of impacts). ...
... per product can be considered as (un-)sustainable, however, on an absolute dimension it is a question of what quantities of such a product can be produced in general within a specific time frame. Such PB-LCIAs (Ryberg et al. 2018) addressing challenges of relating LCIs and LCIAs to operational definitions of PBs (Robert et al. 2020) are significant for BE, since a sustainable BE requires that the rate of extraction does not exceed the rate of regeneration, and that this regenerativity and the surrounding supporting systems are maintained. However, such absolute sustainability assessment methods are not robustly available in LCA, yet (Alejandrino et al. 2021;Guinée et al. 2022). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Decoupling the fulfillment of societal needs from an ever-increasing production of goods together with decoupling this sufficient production from negative environmental, social and economic impacts, is and will be the major challenge of our economic systems to avoid an even deeper socio-ecological crisis. The ascending bioeconomy practices have to be assessed with regard to their potential to provide a good life for all within planetary boundaries Addressing this, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is necessary to integrate social, environmental and economic sustainability assessments. However, LCSAs are still in their infancy and a series of practical problems can be traced back to a lack of sound sustainability concepts and applied political economy/ecology. We reflect on social, ecological and economic sustainability, our societal relations to nature and a necessary societal-ecological transformation in order to structure a systemic framework for holistic and integrated LCSA (HILCSA). This framework allows an implementation in openLCA, conducting the inventory and impact assessment with harmonized databases and more coherent results compared to previous approaches. For further development we identify questions of political economy/ecology as significant. The idea of a bioeconomy as well as systemic assessments is a question of the perception of ends and means of a societal transformation.
... "Unlocking the potential of the bioeconomy" and ecosystems, which provide goods and services based on biological resources, so that the monitoring framework can cover the entire value chain of the bioeconomy, from the supply of goods from primary sectors, up to the possible reuse and recycling of biomass (Robert, 2020). This action provides funding for research, with the integration of additional funds allocated to EU framework programmes, such as the Horizon 2020 programme, which, thanks to its 4.52 billion, has financed thousands of research projects in the bioeconomy, which range from new methods of plant breeding to the development of indicators that monitor the evolution of CO 2 emissions (Lühmann, 2020). ...
Article
Anthropogenic activities generally consume non-renewable resources and release polluting substances into the environment. Concerning agriculture, the cropping systems are almost based on exploiting non-renewable resources. In recent years, increasing interest has been devoted to reusing agricultural, food and other biomass wastes, considered relevant as they can be seen as resources rich in compounds that can find numerous applications. Biomass biorefining has been successfully applied and has opened up sustainable alternatives to the disposal of agricultural, agroindustrial and food wastes. In this area, an emerging, smart and environmentally friendly way to reduce the impact of waste on the environment is to obtain innovative materials for agriculture. Therefore, as part of biobased strategies, the use of waste biomass to obtain biostimulants and biogenic nanoparticles for crops has recently been proposed. Some research has shown that appropriate biostimulants and biobased nanomaterials have the potential to counteract some of the problems that plague agriculture. The above materials can improve crop performance, enhance crop tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses, and improve plant nutrition. In light of the above, this review aspires, in the first part, to provide an overview of the ideas and central points that characterize the concept of bioeconomy and circular economy. In the second part, on the other hand, the most recent studies related to the valorization of various types of wastes leading to innovative biobased materials and their application in agriculture are presented. In particular, biostimulants and nanoparticles obtained through biogenic synthesis using agroindustrial and plant residues have been considered. In conclusion, the studies reported in this review show that the use of some biomasses to obtain the above materials represents a sustainable way of waste management and valorization, enabling innovative biobased materials for agriculture.
... Innovation Technology has enabled the SMEs to meet the financial obligations as well (James &Kengatharan, 2020). Solution to these problem with an increase in cooperate expenditure (Robert et al., 2020). With might not be bearable for small firms (Ozili, 2020). ...
Article
The purpose of this study is to investigate and clarify how Innovation Practices (IP) and Technological Innovation (TI) affect smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)' ability to External Support (ES) in the COVID19 period. This research aims to investigate how External Support (ES) mediates the relationship between Technological Innovation (TI), Innovation Practices (IP), and the survival of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as how ES mediates the interaction between IP and TI.This study took a quantitative and deductive approach. The researcher gathered information from three SMEs in Gujranwala using an electronic questionnaire. SPSS software is used to analyses the data. In this study, two independent variables (IP and TI) each impact the SMEs, which leads to the ES. The replies of 250 consumers were used as a sample for this investigation. The judgmental sampling technique is employed in this study to obtain data from knowledgeable people about the subject under investigation. According to this study, both factors (IP and TI) have a substantial relationship with SMEs. Results show that the ES mediates the link between IP and SMEs as well as the association between IP and TI.This research will add to the existing knowledge about SMEs' survivability amid the COVID crisis. This is one of the first studies to look at external support as a mediator between IP and TI and the impact of IP on SSMEs in the COVID context. This study gives managers a thorough picture of the aspects that firms believe are vital in implementing effective Innovation Practices and Technological Innovation to improve their chances of business survival. As a result, this research aids managers in developing product manufacturing plans.
... While visions and narratives are key drivers in the evolution of social-ecological systems, the role of the JRC Bioeconomy Monitoring System is to monitor the state of the Bioeconomy at various time stages and to assess whether the current trajectory is in line with the desired vision. This vision is operationalized into the conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 1 and described in Giuntoli et al. (2020) and Robert et al. (2020). The current framework focuses on the five objectives defined in the 2012 EU bioeconomy strategy and confirmed in the 2018 strategy: given what we have described in section 2.3, these objectives represent a clear political will and reflect a specific vision and specific values (see Figure 3). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
The Bioeconomy is both an enabler and an end for the European Green Deal transformation: achieving the EGD transformation entails transforming the very meaning of sustainable bioeconomy. Among the deepest and most effective leverage points to transform a system are the worldviews driving our behaviours: they yield an enormous power to influence the framings which determine the solution space we explore. Transforming the bioeconomy, thus, requires reflecting on the stories we tell about ourselves, our place in nature, and our relationship with others. Scholars have highlighted how narratives surrounding the EU Bioeconomy have predominantly embraced a “Green Growth” perspective, centred around economic growth, technological innovation, and anthropocentric values, largely ignoring the social and justice dimensions, as well as not questioning the role, relations, and responsibilities of humans in the web of life. These dominant framings are increasingly contested, though, because they have failed to produce the social and ecological outcomes desired. This report introduces perspectives which have been under-represented in the Bioeconomy discourse and integrates them into an alternative vision for a “green, just and sufficient bioeconomy”. This vision places environmental sustainability and social equity at its core, regardless of economic growth; has an inclusive and participatory perspective; care, respect, and reciprocity for and with other humans and non-humans are core values; technology is important to deliver on the green and just objectives, but ethical considerations for new technologies are openly debated.
... It is therefore necessary and essential to monitor and evaluate environmental impacts associated with bioeconomy activities and biobased commodities to identify and minimize negative impacts as well as potential trade-offs. The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System (henceforth 'BMS') Robert et al., 2020;Bogdanski et al., 2021) is being implemented to monitor the progress towards a sustainable and circular EU bioeconomy (European Commission (EC), 2021). The BMS covers a broad spectrum of aspects related to the bioeconomy, and a key component of progress towards Objective 3 "Reducing dependence on non-renewable, unsustainable resources" was identified as reducing the environmental impacts of the bioeconomy as a whole (see Fig. S1 in SM). ...
... The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System has been developed in order to support the implementation of such practices in the economic, environmental and social dimension of sustainability. By providing these indicators at different levels of aggregation, the monitoring system can provide policy officers with a range of tools and a holistic picture in order to do in-depth analysis [16]. It will also be possible to look at the impacts of the bioeconomy from various perspectives, such as sustainability, ecosystem type, and value chain. ...
Chapter
Circular economy is a well know and promising model that has been studied and promoted for important environmental, economic and societal impacts. Bioeconomy is an emerging field, which is regarded as a possible pathway in order to reach a sustainable future. The adoption of the circular economy model for bio-based materials can bring fundamental changes, while shifting from the wide fossil-based production to more natural resources. A significant number of studies have been conducted, which is an indicator of importance, in order to clarify and propose the methodologies that should be followed as well as tools and technologies that can intensify the procedures to reach a sustainable future in all production sectors. Stakeholders have realized the urgency for change and actions have started to be taken. Legislation and technology are working closely in order to accelerate this transition. In this paper, we study where policy and technology stand and how they complement each other to the implementation of such practices at an operational level. Several propositions are outline in order to specify the barriers and locate opportunities to adopt these methods with a focus on the agri-food sector.
... There is a strict definition of the SME sector in the EU, the boundaries of which are determined by grey main criteria: the number of employees, the annual turnover and the balance sheet total. The group of SME companies includes companies with fewer than 250 employees and a turnover less than or equal to EUR 50 million per year or with an annual balance sheet total less than or equal to EUR 43 million [31]. Family businesses play a special role in the European economy. ...
... The discrepancy between the contributions to economic growth that advocates attribute to the bioeconomy and those it actually appears able to deliver is highlighted even more strikingly by research on the flows of matter and energy, or the social metabolism, that make up its material substratum (Bringezu et al. 2020(Bringezu et al. , 2021Haas et al. 2015;Lewandowski 2015). Such analysis has become a field of study in its own right only recently, and unified evaluative frameworks are only gradually emerging (Egenolf and Bringezu 2019;Robert et al. 2020). For Europe, the first comprehensive accounts of the bioeconomy's biophysical structure, composition and dynamics have recently appeared (Bringezu et al. 2020;Gurría et al. 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper starts out from the observation that recent official bioeconomy strategies and policy concepts are markedly more moderate in their promises of economic growth compared to the high-flying expectations of a 'biotech revolution' promoted around the turn of the millennium. We argue that this stepwise process of moderation is partly due to a series of 'reality checks' to which various strands of research on the bioeconomy have (willingly or unwillingly) subjected these promises, forcing governments to move away from visions exposed as unrealistic and to adopt more humble ones. We identify four such 'reality checks', originating from research on (a) bioeconomy discourses and knowledges, (b) contestation and power dynamics among actors and competing interests in bioeconomy politics and policymaking, as well as on (c) the economic and (d) biophysical dimensions of existing bio-based economies. In conclusion, we argue that bioeconomy research should adopt a broader perspective that considers transitions toward bio-based processes and resources as but one element in a comprehensive social-ecological transformation of current modes of production and living, and that understanding the dynamics of societal conflict around that transformation is crucial for assessing the social possibility of bioeconomy visions.
... Accordingly, it is realistic and expected that the bioeconomy has emerged as a representation of the latest direction in the field of science, technology and innovation. Its main direction is to minimize the harmful impact on the environment in the process of doing business, subject to the achievement of operational, operational, strategic goals of sustainable development [8,9]. Between 2020 and 2021, biotechnology saw an annual increase in VC fundraising and deals (partnerships, joint developments, joint ventures) ( Figure 2) Figure 2. Recovery of biotechnologies in the period 01/01/2020 -12/31/2021 Sourse: own processing based on [10]. ...
... In the process of the research, reporting and analytical information and the information base of the Ministry of Education and Culture were used [1,2,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]3,[21][22][23][24][25]27,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. To conduct the research, the dialectical method was applied during the establishment of contradictions in methodological approaches regarding the determination of the features of strategic development and the use of innovations (scientific transformation) in the field of biotechnology in the largest and most developed countries of the world. ...
... If this coefficient approaches 1, then the trend equation can be a predictive model. It seems that the presented method of forecasting the turnover for building the strategic development of the bioeconomy contradicts the claims of research [8,10,13,14] about too much formalization and systematization of processes. The implementation of the authors' initiatives can be supported by efficient and effective communication channels, and the collection of results is automated in the bioeconomy company's IT systems. ...
Article
This paper analyzes the steps of the strategic development and use of innovations in the field of biotechnology in the largest and most developed countries of the world. Support for applied recommendations for state-level fundamental provisions regarding initiatives to develop the capacity of the biotechnology sector and increase the level of an international, strategic and competitive industry is presented. The authors conducted a study and evaluated the further promising use of innovations in biotechnology on the example of the EU-15 and EU13 countries. A regularity was revealed that the biotechnology of the EU countries (EU-15) is developed at a high national and international level. The overall results of our work have helped to define further strategic directions and presented potential prospects for innovation in the field of biotechnology, which will subsequently lead to increased investment in this area. Using the graphical method, a dynamic model of trade turnover in the bioeconomy of the EU-15 countries is presented, followed by the construction of a trend line. And also formulated and predicted the value of trade in the bioeconomy of the EU-15 and EU-13 for the next decade.
... In essence, these are countries or regions with a developed primary sector and the capacity to invest in biomass value chains while achieving environmental and social benefits. Another group of authors focus on technology development and innovation, for the exploitation of renewable resources or waste management [30,31,68,[94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]. Their aim is to achieve sustainability and decoupling from fossil resources. ...
... Nation [66] Czech Republic [84] Norway, Denmark, Canada, Nepal [59] Germany [88] Argentina, Germany [85] Poland [89] Germany, Finland, Ghana [114] Canada [71] Sweden [68] Brazil [115] Germany [69] Italy [95] Czech Republic [73] Latvia [106] New Zealand [75] Thailand, China [81] Bulgaria [48] Czech Republic [116] Czech Republic, Brazil, Italy [92] India [104] New Zealand [93] Greece, Poland [64] Poland [101] Spain [117] Australia [103] Germany, Italy [118] Netherlands [49] Australia [119] Sweden [72] Sweden EU [82] Spain [83] Spain [87] Germany [60] Germany [47] Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Finland [62] Germany [90] United Kingdom [97] Italy, Spain, Belgium [109] Germany [98] Germany [107] Poland [100] Germany [102] Germany, Belgium [19] Germany ...
Article
Full-text available
Bioeconomy is an emerging concept and no commonly accepted definition has been given so far. Bioeconomy strategies attempt to cover every aspect of this emerging concept from a different perspective, depending on the country, region, or organisation issuing them. For these reasons, each strategy has its own priority fields depending on the economic, geomorphological, social, ecological, and technological conditions of each country. In this review, an attempt is made to study the priority fields of bioeconomy strategies through a systematic review of the literature. PRISMA analysis was used to review the literature on the priority fields of bioeconomy strategies. The review examined the issue in the rich academic literature of two databases, Scopus and AgEcon. Using a repeatable search process to identify relevant studies in the literature, only 68 publications met the eligibility criteria that were included in the review. The results show that there are trends in the priority fields of bioeconomy strategies in the years 2013-2022. Moreover, the economic and technological development of the respective countries foreshadows their priorities. A successful transition to a bioeconomic model requires the participation of society as a whole, because a sustainable society as a whole requires sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. The study concludes that governance with global coordination and stakeholder training is needed for successful implementation of bioeconomy strategies.