Content uploaded by Sarah Mubareka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Mubareka on Jul 17, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
New BIOTECHNOLOGY
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt
Full length Article
Development of a bioeconomy monitoring framework for the European
Union: An integrative and collaborative approach
Nicolas Robert
a,
*, Jacopo Giuntoli
a
, Rita Araujo
a
, Marios Avraamides
a
, Elisabetta Balzi
a
,
José I. Barredo
a
, Bettina Baruth
a
, William Becker
b
, Maria Teresa Borzacchiello
a
,
Claudia Bulgheroni
b
, Andrea Camia
a
, Gianluca Fiore
b
, Marco Follador
a
, Patricia Gurria
c
,
Alessandra la Notte
a
, Maria Lusser
d
, Luisa Marelli
a
, Robert M’Barek
c
, Claudia Parisi
c
,
George Philippidis
e
, Tévécia Ronzon
c
, Serenella Sala
a
, Javier Sanchez Lopez
a
, Sarah Mubareka
a
a
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Italy
b
Formerly with the European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Italy
c
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Spain
d
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Belgium
e
Formerly with the European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Spain
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Monitoring framework
European Union
EU bioeconomy strategy
Sustainable circular economy
Sustainable development goals
Ecosystem
Climate change
Environment
Biomass
ABSTRACT
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 accomplish this, we capitalise on (1) the experiences of existing indicator frameworks;
(2) stakeholder knowledge and expectations; and (3) national experiences and expertise. This approach is taken
to ensure coherence with other bioeconomy-related European monitoring frameworks, the usefulness for deci-
sion-making and consistency with national and international initiatives to monitor the bioeconomy. We develop
a conceptual framework, based on the definition of a sustainable bioeconomy as stated in the Strategy, for a
holistic analysis of the trends in the bioeconomy sectors, following the three pillars of sustainability (economy,
society and environment). From this conceptual framework, we derive an implementation framework that aims
to highlight the synergies and trade-offs across the five objectives of the Bioeconomy Strategy in a coherent way.
The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System will be publicly available on the web platform of the EC Knowledge
Centre for Bioeconomy.
Introduction
In the context of global challenges such as climate change, eco-
system degradation, biodiversity loss, growing population, and in-
creasing consumption of resources, the European Union (EU) aims to
pursue sustainable development and to guarantee fair and inclusive
prosperity within the ecological boundaries of the planet [1,2]. The
shift to a sustainable bioeconomy (see definition in Box 1) is arguably
relevant to the success of many EU policies and is expected to con-
tribute to the overall objectives and specific initiatives of the European
Green Deal [3]. The EU Bioeconomy Strategy (hereafter, also the
“Strategy”), operates within a complex existing policy context, which
includes sectorial policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) [4], the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) [5], the New Industrial
Strategy for Europe [6]; as well as cross-sectorial policies such as the
European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, compe-
titive and climate neutral economy [7], the 2030 Climate and Energy
Framework (where the bioeconomy is among the seven strategic
building blocks of the EU long-term vision to reach climate-neutrality
by 2050), the EU Biodiversity Strategy [8], Europe’s strategy for
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.06.001
Received 31 January 2020; Received in revised form 28 April 2020; Accepted 14 June 2020
Abbreviations: CAP, Common Agricultural Policy; CFP, Common Fisheries Policy; EC, European Commission; ES, ecosystem services; EU, European Union; FAO,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; IBF, International Bioeconomy Forum; ISBWG, International Sustainable Bioeconomy Working Group; JRC,
EC Joint Research Centre; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; MAES, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services; MS, Member States; NCA, natural capital accounting;
SDG, Sustainable Development Goal
⁎
Corresponding author at: European Commission - Joint Research Centre (JRC), TP 261, Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra VA, Italy.
E-mail address: nicolas.robert@ec.europa.eu (N. Robert).
New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
Available online 02 July 2020
1871-6784/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
research and innovation, the European action for sustainability [9], the
EU trade policy, the new Circular Economy Action Plan [10] and many
more [11]. Being at the confluence, the Bioeconomy Strategy with its
five objectives (see first column of Table 1) is regarded by EU policy
makers as pivotal to improving the coherence between those policies
aiming to lead the EU society towards more sustainable pathways by
decoupling economic growth and environmental impacts, by lowering
greenhouse gas emissions and restoring ecosystems while providing
jobs and services.
Knowledge as a basis for the bioeconomy development
Being a part of complex socio-economic and environmental systems,
it is difficult to foresee all of the direct and indirect impacts of the
bioeconomy, and trade-offs are expected. Moreover, the impacts are
conditioned by the pathways that individual countries and regions
follow. There is therefore a need for comprehensive, reliable and
comparable information on the bioeconomy and its progress to support
decision making across sectors and across the EU territory at different
scales [12–14]. In this context, the European Commission (EC) has
committed to provide reliable and harmonised data, information, and
knowledge concerning the bioeconomy to policy makers and other
stakeholders (see Action Plan, [1], p. 13).
The EC Joint Research Centre (JRC) launched a long-term study in
2015 in order to provide a sound scientific basis for EC policy making.
The aim of the work is to provide data, processed information, models
and analysis on EU and global biomass supply, demand and its sus-
tainability [15]. The first results of the comprehensive evaluation of
biomass supply, uses and flows were released in 2018 [16]. They show
the status and trends in all primary sectors (agriculture, forestry, fish-
eries and aquaculture).
The EC has invested in managing knowledge about the bioeconomy
and its impacts since the release of the 2012 EU Bioeconomy Strategy
[17]. In 2013, the Bioeconomy Information System and Observatory
(BISO) were established by the JRC with the purpose of structuring and
facilitating access to information. This included information on the
environmental performance of some bioeconomy value chains [18], as
well as on socio-economic indicators [19], bio-based industries [20],
and forward-looking scenarios of the bioeconomy [21]. These efforts
were merged into the EC’s Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy in 2017.
This Centre is coordinated by the JRC and manages knowledge and
expertise from inside and outside the EC by facilitating knowledge
Box 1
Sustainable & Circular: Bioeconomy the European way ([1], p. 1).
“The bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems that rely on biological resources (animals, plants, micro-organisms and derived biomass,
including organic waste), their functions and principles. It includes and interlinks: land and marine ecosystems and the services they provide;
all primary production sectors that use and produce biological resources (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture); and all economic
and industrial sectors that use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-based products, energy and services. To be
successful, the European bioeconomy needs to have sustainability and circularity at its heart. This will drive the renewal of our industries, the
modernisation of our primary production systems, the protection of the environment and will enhance biodiversity.”
Table 1
Objectives of the 2018 EU Bioeconomy Strategy and the main criteria to monitor its effectiveness. The mapping to SDGs is carried out comparing key components/
criteria of the EU Bioeconomy framework to UN SDG targets.
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
11
sharing between experts, scientists and policy makers and by providing
a dissemination platform [22]. The Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy
will host the Bioeconomy Monitoring System on its online platform as
foreseen in the updated EU Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan [1].
The need for a monitoring system
The goal of monitoring systems is to monitor change, and in the case
of the EU bioeconomy, progress. ‘Progress’indicates the advancement
towards an established goal or an improved condition. Policy makers
expressed the need for a transparent and comprehensive assessment of
the status and progress of the bioeconomy to legislate and take deci-
sions [23,24]. Hence one of the 2018 EU Bioeconomy Strategy actions
foresees the development of an EU-wide, internationally coherent
monitoring system to track economic, social and environmental pro-
gress towards a circular and sustainable bioeconomy. The JRC is
leading this action, in collaboration with several Commission Services
and stakeholders (see Action Plan in [1]).
The monitoring system, an essential tool for reflexive governance
[25], will facilitate the evaluation of progress towards the objectives of
the Strategy and support the identification of areas in need of policy
intervention. Furthermore, it will provide the tools for cross-sectorial
and therefore cross-policy assessments. In addition, the system will
highlight synergies and trade-offs across multiple scales and levels:
geographical (global, EU, national and regional); between the five
Strategy objectives; across pillars of sustainability; and across economic
sectors. Given the multi-faceted nature of the bioeconomy, a clear
conceptual framework is seen by many scholars as being necessary
[12,26–28].
In this paper, we present the methodological steps taken by the JRC
(1) to define a monitoring framework flexible enough to inform a wide-
range of stakeholders for different purposes; (2) to interact with na-
tional and international organisations to ensure the coherence between
the different monitoring schemes; (3) to implement the EU monitoring
framework into an operational system; and (4) the way forward.
From the definition and objectives of the EU bioeconomy to the conceptual
framework of the monitoring system
First, we delineate the thematic perimeter and key features of the
bioeconomy to ensure that all relevant facets are represented.
Bioeconomy may be defined in various ways: in the EU case, the defi-
nition given in the Strategy (see Box 1) is broad and encompassing.
Secondly, to ensure the usefulness of the system, stakeholders’ex-
pectations should be taken into account to represent available in-
formation in a way that meets their needs while being scientifically
sound. Thirdly, other bioeconomy or related monitoring systems (both
existing or under development) are reviewed in order to ensure the
coherence between national and international systems, as well as to
limit the reporting burden by using existing information as much as
possible.
Evaluating the bioeconomy from three perspectives
Our work departs from the definition used in the Strategy, which
uses several keywords that are guidelines to define the framework.
From the definition, we elaborate a three-dimension conceptual fra-
mework as follows.
According to the Strategy, the bioeconomy covers the primary
sectors (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture) and the eco-
systems supplying primary goods and services, which constitute the
foundation of the bioeconomy. These sectors are clearly identified in
statistics and targeted by national and/or EU policies. Therefore, the
primary sectors constitute a first dimension that complies with sectorial
knowledge.
The bioeconomy covers economic activities performed in several
sectors of the countries’economies as well as the part of the economic
systems that rely on “biological resources […], their functions and
principles”. This indicates that the monitoring framework must cover
the whole bioeconomy value chains from the supply of biomass and
other goods and services by the primary sectors, to the transformation
and final use of these goods and services as well as the possible reuse
and recycling of the biomass. Therefore, the bioeconomy value chains
constitute the second dimension of the conceptual framework.
The Strategy also specifies that “all economic and industrial sectors
that use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-
based products, energy and services”are covered by the definition of
bioeconomy. This means that the use of biotechnology (in the pro-
cesses) is within the scope of the new Strategy, independently from the
type of feedstock used, with the exception of biomedicines and health
biotechnology, which are explicitly excluded as stated in the EU
Bioeconomy Strategy [1].
The definition in the Strategy ends with a normative requirement
for the bioeconomy to be successful: “the European bioeconomy needs
to have sustainability […] at its heart”. Therefore, monitoring the
progress towards a bioeconomy requires a comprehensive evaluation
across the three sustainability pillars: economic, social and environ-
mental. This constitutes a third dimension to be monitored.
The three dimensions of the definition as mentioned above re-
present the structure of a conceptual framework (Fig. 1) which serves as
a basis to identify data needs for the monitoring system. It is also of
interest to verify that the monitoring system does not lack key in-
dicators and that it uses adequate weights for the different aspects of
the bioeconomy.
Understanding users’expectations
A survey on users’expectations from an EU Bioeconomy Monitoring
System was conducted in April-May 2019 using a snowball sampling
technique [29]. We collected feedback from 76 participants, mostly
from governmental institutions, covering 18 EU Member States (MS):
Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden and the Netherlands. The feedback received indicated that the
System is expected to provide information at both EU and MS levels, as
well as on rural and coastal areas, and should convey knowledge about
all sectors related to the bioeconomy. Users expressed their need for
time series of indicators to analyse trends. They also wished for ana-
lytical knowledge, in particular of synergies and trade-offsrelated to
the development of the bioeconomy to be within the monitoring
system.
Participants to the survey wanted to use the monitoring system to
compare MS performance in different sectors; to follow rural, coastal
and regional trends to support the deployment of bioeconomies at local
level. The main goals of the potential users were stated as (1) prior-
itisation of actions and (2) to inform stakeholders. The user require-
ments will be further refined through workshops and dialogues with
users from the European institutions, and national and international
experts.
Collaboration with other national and international bioeconomy monitoring
initiatives
Maintaining exchanges with national and international organisa-
tions is important to ensure that the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System
is up-to-date with similar concepts and definitions in the worldwide
arena. It is worth noting that the concept of bioeconomy varies between
different initiatives and that these concepts may change over time, just
as the definition of the EU bioeconomy evolved from the 2012 to the
2018 Strategy. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) reports, the bioeconomy has “grown from a
biotechnology-centric vision to an economic activity that spreads across
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
12
several key sectors and policy families: agriculture and forestry, fish-
eries and aquaculture, food, trade, waste management and industry”
[30].
Joining the EU and international perspectives, the JRC, at the
forefront of the EC’s task to establish an EU Bioeconomy Monitoring
System, is co-chairing the Bioeconomy Indicator Working Group of the
International Bioeconomy Forum (IBF) with the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to prepare guidelines for the
monitoring of the bioeconomy. To ensure compatibility with the in-
ternational arena, the JRC is following the International Sustainable
Bioeconomy Working Group (ISBWG) structure of 10 aspirational
principles and 24 criteria [13,31] in its implementation framework by
mapping them to the five EU Bioeconomy objectives.
The JRC is following a bi-directional and mutual-learning approach
with MSs to develop the EU Bioeconomy 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 de-
velop a common roadmap and vision for the macro region and to
support the development of national circular and bioeconomy strate-
gies. Some of these countries are developing monitoring frameworks to
assess progress in their bioeconomy. Given the variety of environmental
and socio-economic contexts and the specific objectives of the national
strategies, these frameworks differ. However, these national initiatives
are an additional source of inspiration to setup the EU-wide Bioec-
onomy Monitoring System. Reversely, some MSs, inter alia Ireland [33]
and Italy [34], explicitly state in their action plans the willingness to
liaise and be consistent with the EU Commission on the EU-wide
Bioeconomy Monitoring System.
The sectors and aspects covered in national bioeconomy strategies
vary. Some countries such as Finland started with a focus on the socio-
economic dimensions of the bioeconomy [35], while additional metrics
to assess more comprehensively the impacts of the national bioeconomy
will be considered in the future. Other national frameworks cover the
biophysical and technological dimensions: in Germany, the monitoring
framework is structured along 3 topic areas: (1) resources and their
sustainability; (2) economic effects and economic development of the
bio-economy, and (3) systemic monitoring, integrating data, indicators
and models to provide a systemic, holistic insight into the bioeconomy
[36]. The monitoring system in Italy relies currently on 8 areas: bio-
mass availability, productive and employment structure, human capa-
city, innovation, investment, demographics and markets. Furthermore,
the Italian Strategy considers separately an additional set of sustain-
ability indicators structured along 5 environmental and social objec-
tives which are in line with the EU Strategy objectives [34].
Several efforts have been carried out, or are ongoing, to select or
define indicators. Lier et al. [37] conducted a study whereby the in-
dicators that were prioritised by MSs at the time of writing were
compared within the context of the MontBioeco project [38]. The MSs
were approached through the Standing Committee on Agricultural
Research Bioeconomy Strategic Working Group (SCAR-BSW) members.
Thirteen countries, represented by different ministries, responded. Re-
spondents confirmed that agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, forestry,
and food industry were always considered as part of the bioeconomy.
Transport, water purification and distribution and construction were
considered by some countries as being partially or not at all part of the
bioeconomy, and the bio-based shares in the pharmaceutical industry
and chemical industry processes was difficult to calculate.
The Horizon 2020 research project BioMonitor aims to establish a
sustainable and robust framework to monitor the bioeconomy and its
various impacts in EU Member States. It focuses on the elaboration of a
comprehensive database and statistics on bio-based activities (including
natural-resource-based activities, conventional bio-based activities and
novel activities). During a first workshop, participating stakeholders
indicated that the monitoring system developed in the project should
track innovation, evaluate the capacity of the bioeconomy to mitigate
climate change, inform about the bioeconomy, assess trade-offs in the
transition from a fossil to a bio-based economy, and support policy
decisions [39].
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework to monitor the sustainable circular bioeconomy.
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
13
The on-going efforts summarised above illustrate the relevance of
mutual learning, and of ensuring the coherence across scales, so that the
EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System reflects national priorities and in-
dicators, and that national initiatives benefit from a coherent EU-wide
framework.
Fig. 2. Strategies and other policy initiatives dedicated to the bioeconomy in the EU Member States (Status of as of November 2019).
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
14
Mobilising expertise in the EU institutions and Member States
In light of the number of initiatives mentioned above, numerous
researchers and stakeholders in national and international organisa-
tions have gained expertise on the bioeconomy. The Knowledge Centre
for Bioeconomy supports the mobilisation of this expertise, which is of
interest to support the development of the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring
System. In particular, it includes a Community of Practice, a network of
EC scientists, policy makers and other experts who share information
and perspectives on the bioeconomy, either in person or virtually [22].
Within this context, the Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy orga-
nised two workshops in November 2018 and June 2019 to complement
the knowledge of the JRC researchers on ongoing efforts to monitor the
bioeconomy, to get feedback on draft versions of the EU monitoring
framework and to establish a first list of indicators [40]. The interaction
with stakeholders and scientists will continue thanks to the organisa-
tion of other workshops and the publication of working documents
open for comments.
Implementation of an EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System
Based on inter-disciplinary knowledge and skills in the EC and on
the interaction with national and international experts, once the con-
ceptual groundwork was laid down, the JRC began the implementation
of a first framework to monitor the EU Bioeconomy. In this section, we
develop the logic underlying this implementation framework.
Implementation framework
The EU Bioeconomy objectives provide a broad vision for a sus-
tainable bioeconomy. When implementing the conceptual framework,
these objectives were disaggregated into normative criteria taking in-
spiration from the work by Bracco et al. [13], and then reframed and
refined into key components tailored to the EU specificities. The criteria
capture the vision that a sustainable EU bioeconomy should contribute
to moving towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), reaching
climate-neutrality, promoting a circular economy, and encouraging a
transition towards sustainable food, farming and fishing systems as well
as towards sustainable forestry and the development of bio-based sec-
tors. Preserving Europe’s natural capital for future generations, re-
storing ecosystems and enhancing their functions while conserving
biodiversity are also core pillars of the Strategy. Furthermore, a sus-
tainable and circular bioeconomy should create economic opportunities
for rural, coastal and urban communities through local bio-based in-
novation, the integration of primary producers in value chains, the
diversification of supply chains and the modernisation of EU industries.
Finally, a sustainable EU bioeconomy must look beyond EU borders and
promote sustainable trade conditions, promoting social fairness, eco-
nomic growth, and environmental protection within trading countries.
Table 1 introduces the proposed framework highlighting the link
with SDGs. Additional details and in-depth description of the frame-
work can be found in [31]. The criteria provide a guideline for which
indicators will be selected, with a preference for established indicators
that are already used in other monitoring processes.
We identified two major sources of indicators covering many of the
dimensions of the implementation framework. The first is the system to
monitor the progress towards the UN SDGs at global and EU levels
[41–43]. This system shares some critical characteristics with the EU
Bioeconomy Monitoring System: they both need to capture aspects of
complex interconnected systems, involving a large number of sectors at
different geographical levels. Since the scope of the SDGs is wider than
that of the bioeconomy, the seventeen SDGs and their specific targets
constitute a “checklist”to assess the full coverage of sustainability as-
pects within the bioeconomy monitoring framework (see e.g [44,45].).
In some cases, where the bioeconomy is the principal driver, the in-
dicators can be similar, for example in the case of SDG targets 2.4
(Ensure sustainable food production systems) or 15.2 (Promotion of
sustainable forest management). In other cases, in which the bioec-
onomy can contribute to meet the targets such as the SDG targets 7.2
(Increase in the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix)
and 8.2 (Achieve higher levels of economic productivity), the SDG in-
dicators can be used as references.
The second source of indicators is the monitoring of EU sectoral
policies dealing with primary productions. For example a Common
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) [46] was established by
the EC in 2014 to assess the CAP. The EU CFP [5] is assessed by the
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)
using a set of environmental, economic and social indicators structured
in CFP performance monitoring reports [47]. European forests, their
function and services as well as the forest-based sector have been
monitored since the 1990s in the context of Forest Europe [48]. These
frameworks are all designed to assess the sustainability of the specific
sectors they are directed towards. They are widely accepted by stake-
holders and provide documented and replicable information. Therefore,
although they differ in contents and approaches, they constitute a major
source of indicators for the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System.
Additionally, the monitoring of the objectives of the EU Bioeconomy
Strategy is aligned with some specific monitoring systems. The FAO’s
Food Security indicators and its four key components: Availability,
Access, Utilisation, and Stability [49] were used to structure the as-
sessment of objective 1.
The first criterion “Ecosystem condition and biodiversity are
maintained or enhanced”of objective 2 is documented using indicators
from the EU’s Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES)
initiative [50]. This initiative aims at supporting the implementation of
the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the new Strategy to 2030. In its
fifth report [50], MAES provided an integrated analytical framework
and set of (spatially-explicit) indicators for mapping and assessing the
condition of ecosystems in the EU.
Objective 4: “Mitigating and adapting to climate change”is eval-
uated using the concepts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC [51]) on mitigation and adaptation. Finally, tools to
monitor Objectives 3 and 5 derive from different sources and make use
of techniques such as macroeconomic analysis or life cycle analysis.
Mapping indicators within the monitoring system
When mapping indicators to normative criteria, it becomes apparent
that different types of indicators are required to answer specific ques-
tions. 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 information applied to the conceptual
framework.
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
15
criteria that needs to be assessed. In some cases it is appropriate to use
basic indicators whereas in other cases it is appropriate to use processed
or system level indicators. Sometimes, the system level indicators make
use of basic or processed indicators, but not always.
Basic indicators and data
The monitoring system will make use of existing and internationally
recognised indicators to limit the reporting burden. Existing frame-
works provide information through reporting systems that are not ne-
cessarily adapted to the bioeconomy, but whose indicators, at their
most basic level, may be relevant to the bioeconomy. They are mapped
within the conceptual framework described in section 2, i.e. within (1)
the biomass source (i.e. agriculture, forest, fisheries and aquaculture as
well as waste); (2) the step in the value chain, from the primary pro-
duction to the final product, recycling and end-of-life; and (3) three
sustainability pillars: economic, social and environmental, acknowl-
edging the corresponding SDG targets.
For these basic indicators, criteria such as relevance, coverage,
frequency and timeliness are important to consider (see e.g. [53]).
Experts from various bioeconomy fields reviewed candidate indicators
and created a “passport”containing the characteristics of each indicator
(see Table 5 in [31]). The passport includes information such as the
source of the indicator, the availability of recent and frequent estimates,
the geographical coverage, the accessibility and the current use in other
monitoring systems. These passports, together with expert knowledge,
are used to select the most appropriate indicators. The mapping of these
indicators onto the framework of the monitoring system highlights the
main data gaps. During this mapping phase, criteria and key compo-
nents of the framework are detailed. Gaps are filled with placeholders,
i.e. a description of the characteristics of the expected indicator, to
pinpoint the need for further research.
Processed indicators for harmonised, coherent and comprehensive
information
The primary information given by basic indicators is normalised
into processed indicators to provide a clearer, while still comprehen-
sive, image of the progress towards the bioeconomy (see Fig. 3). The
need for processed indicators arises for different reasons. Here we in-
troduce three examples of processing that may be applied within the EU
Bioeconomy Monitoring System (see some examples in [54–56]).
The monitoring system is designed such that it should combine
numerous indicators about different facets of the bioeconomy from
different sources. These indicators use different units and definitions
depending on their sources, the sector they apply to, and qualify some
characteristics which are hardly comparable (such as biodiversity and
employment). In this section, we detail some techniques used to shape
the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System to provide a comprehensive
insight.
The biomass is the main good produced and transformed in the
bioeconomy. The monitoring system should provide an overall picture
of the use of this resource and evaluate bioeconomy development op-
portunities–in line with the Bioeconomy objectives–to answer ques-
tions related to food security, to the sustainable management of natural
resources, the competitiveness of the EU industries, the carbon flows
and the dependence on renewable and non-renewable biomass re-
sources. Therefore, the biomass supply and its flow through the
economy must be represented in a coherent way. The biomass comes
from a variety of sources: agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aqua-
culture as well as waste. Statistics on these biomasses and the products
are usually not comparable. To align them, the JRC developed methods
to harmonise the data and coefficients to estimate quantities in dry
matter [16,54]. This allows for a comparison across biomass sources
and sectors. However, the choice of the unit (e.g. mass of dry or fresh
matter, monetary value) changes the perspective on the primary sectors
and their relative importance. Therefore, different harmonisation units
might be selected depending on the aspect to be represented in the
framework.
To assess the fifth objective of the Strategy and to evaluate the
contribution of the bioeconomy to the whole economy [57], the mon-
itoring framework should contain indicators that cut across the eco-
nomic sectors. Official statistics offer a wide variety of fit-for-purpose
indicators (e.g. employment, value added, and trade). However, they
are reported in different statistics according to specificdefinitions and
according to official classifications of activity sectors or products that
sometimes mix bio-based activities with non-bio-based ones. Meth-
odologies were developed to harmonise the basic indicators and, for
sectors only partially included in the bioeconomy, to extract the share
of bioeconomy-related activities. They consist in calculating processed
indicators using basic indicators observed at the level of the bioec-
onomy activity sectors. The indicators could be derived from input-
output analyses (e.g [58].), from social accounting matrices (e.g
[59,60].) or the combination of multiple economic statistics (such as
the National Accounts, the Structural Business Statistics or the Labour
Force Survey) with expert information (e.g [55,56,61].). Therefore,
they embed a higher level of interpretation than basic indicators.
With the development of the bioeconomy, the EU will produce and
consume more biomass. The EU’s own biomass resources will meet part
of the demand although these ambitious targets will also require reli-
able and sustained access to global suppliers. The access to third-
country trade raises concerns related to cropland footprint and emis-
sions from direct and indirect land use change, as well as to changes in
the pressure on natural resources and potential demand/supply con-
flicts, which in turn will require careful consideration of the possible
trade-offs. The first and the third objectives of the Strategy include a
component on trade. The corresponding normative criteria aim to as-
sess whether the bioeconomy promotes sustainable trade of biomass for
food and non-food uses. This is analysed through a combination of
statistics and modelling to calculate processed indicators of the impacts
the European trade on the partner countries [62,63].
System-level indicators to provide an overview
System-level indicators are those that require a higher level of
value-judgement in their compilation given the higher level of com-
plexity of the questions the indicators are addressing. We present below
three methods that can provide relevant system level information on
the bioeconomy.
To bring together the information on the state of ecosystems, the
supply of biomass and other ecosystem services (ESs) and the economic
activities, some system level indicators can be calculated based on
natural capital accounting (NCA). This satellite account system is meant
to integrate official economic accounts by using their same framework
and methodological rules [64,65]. It therefore guarantees consistency
with tools and models used by economists and thus allows integrated
analysis and to analyse the role of the bioeconomy in the total economy
of a country. The methodology developed in the knowledge innovation
project on an integrated system of natural capital and ecosystem ser-
vices accounting (KIP-INCA) can inspire the preparation of some
bioeconomy indicators. In particular, information on the actual flow of
ecosystem services (i.e. the flow supplied by ecosystem types and used
by economic sectors and households) to the economy can be a starting
point to characterize the bioeconomy. It can support the analysis of a
wide range of issues, such as assessing whether the demand from eco-
nomic sectors is met, how sustainably ESs are used, and how ES status
and flows change over time [66–69].
A method to elaborate indicators capable of unveiling causality
links and trade-offs, embracing multiple dimensions (all life cycle stages
along supply chains and different types of impacts) is Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA). This method holistically addresses production and
consumption systems, spillover and transboundary effects, and, relating
all emissions and impacts to a product or function provided, is fit for
sustainability assessment [70]. It is the basis for the calculation of the
EU product environmental footprint [17], which covers 16 impact
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
16
categories (such as climate change, ozone depletion, human toxicity
particulate matter, acidification, land use, and water use). This ap-
proach makes it possible to evaluate the environmental impacts of the
development of the EU bioeconomy in the EU and in partner countries.
Furthermore, bioeconomy-related environmental hotspots may be
identified through this methodology [13,71].
In general, the LCA characterises impacts based on an inventory of
emissions and of resource use. The underpinning models to estimate
those emissions are either very detailed and product-specific (as in
process-based LCA) or associated to sectors or product groups (as in
environmentally extended input-output analysis). At macro-scale, these
two approaches are complementary. Their combination in a hybrid
framework may help better define the overall impacts [72].
Finally, composite/aggregate indicators (mathematical aggrega-
tions of indicators) can give a valuable and accessible overview of the
progress and trends of the EU bioeconomy. Presented as an entry point
to the underlying data, stakeholders can easily identify high-level
trends, make simple comparisons and get a good understanding of the
synergies and trade-offs between different components of the bioec-
onomy [73]. Composite indicators are also powerful communication
tools, which can be used to show progress to the media and the public:
relevant existing indexes include the SDGs Index [74], the Sustainable
Development Index [75], and the Ecological Footprint [76]. However,
composite indicators are complex to design and often entail a higher
level of value-judgement in their compilation [77]. The EU Bioeconomy
Monitoring System will make use of composite indicators, starting from
the set of relevant indicators, and summarising key dimensions such as
the Strategy Objectives. This will help to generate strong and clear
messages for policy makers and other stakeholders.
Conclusions and next steps
In this paper, we present the approach taken in developing the EU
Bioeconomy Monitoring System. Its framework is designed to provide a
comprehensive insight into the bioeconomy along the economic, en-
vironmental and social dimensions of sustainability, both in the EU as a
whole and in Member States. By providing indicators at different levels
of aggregation, the monitoring system will provide policy officers with
a holistic picture while offering the data to perform in-depth analyses.
The framework will also make it possible to look at the impacts of the
bioeconomy from different perspectives such as sustainability, ecosys-
tems type and value chain, following the multiple dimensions of the
conceptual framework. Finally, the monitoring framework is flexible
and may evolve to meet future needs without hampering the capacity to
analyse historical changes. This flexibility comes from the multi-
dimensional structure of the framework feeding the overall thematic
reporting according to the 2018 EU Bioeconomy Strategy objectives.
Compared to previous efforts to monitor the bioeconomy (see e.g.
[58,78,79]), this new framework covers a wider range of perspectives.
It takes advantage of the lessons learnt from European initiatives
[37,80] and expands them thematically in line with the 2018 EU
Bioeconomy Strategy. It also intends to align with international in-
itiatives such as the IBF work on Sustainable Bioeconomy Guidelines
[13] and the ISBWG tasks. Advances in EU MSs also inspire the EU
monitoring efforts in terms of structure, list of indicators and methods
to derive them. A close collaboration with scientists and stakeholders at
the EU, national and international level through workshops and bi-
lateral exchanges, ensures the coherence and the usefulness of the EU
Bioeconomy Monitoring System.
The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System is under development fol-
lowing the framework herein described. In an initial mapping of in-
dicators, some gaps have been identified, particularly in the social di-
mension [31]. Gaps may be due to several reasons, such as the
unavailability of data with EU coverage from official statistics or a lack
of the appropriate granularity in available statistics in particular for
new technologies. For example, the statistics on the chemicals or the
plastics and rubber sectors in Eurostat describe both bio-based and
fossil-based products and, in the case of drop-in chemicals, it is not
possible to make the distinction between the two feedstock sources. In
other cases, the data may be available, but only for one point in time.
For example, the JRC made an effort to obtain specific data about the
bio-based chemical sector through surveys [20] and collection of in-
formation from different sources [81], but the level of uncertainty on
the numbers retrieved is still high and a stable time series does not yet
exist. A long-term solution for a more precise monitoring of these sec-
tors is to add specific codes for bio-based products in the nomenclatures
of the databases, as currently developed in the framework of the EU
BioMonitor project.
Data gaps can be also observed in innovative and emergent sectors:
for example, reliable, robust and temporally consistent information on
the algae sector is not available (for both, micro and macroalgae [82]).
Algae biomass is considered under different EU collection frameworks
but the size of the sector, the confidentiality issues and the still scat-
tered landscape of players hampers the availability of good quality
data. Ongoing efforts aim to improve data on the production, on socio-
economic and environmental aspects as well as on research and in-
novation which would be relevant to the bioeconomy monitoring as
well as to the Water Framework Directive [83] and the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive [84].
The EU framework aims to monitor the impact of the EU bioec-
onomy in and outside Europe. The latter is complex for some cases and
sectors. For example, the impact of imported products –e.g. palm oil,
ethanol or meat–can be complex to identify because information about
bio-commodities is usually aggregated at country or regional level,
hiding the causal links between productive systems and their impacts
on biodiversity or greenhouse gasses within a site-specific context.
Spatially explicit models can be used to compensate for the lack of data,
but these models are not always available or accessible in third coun-
tries. Similarly, some indicators are usually not available at the EU and
MS level, in particular those corresponding to the status of fish stocks.
Techniques to evaluate MSs’contribution to the depletion or the
maintenance of these stocks would be required.
The final set of indicators will need to be balanced across the ob-
jectives and criteria; the indicators will also need to be assessed for their
quality (see [31,53]). Placeholders will be used where data gaps can be
filled neither in a short time nor through proxies. Hopefully, the results
of this exercise will also inform further activities for statistical data
collections.
Finally, once the final set of indicators is defined, aggregated in-
dicators will be elaborated. The process will again require bringing
together scientists and stakeholders to define and parameterize the
methods to produce aggregated indicators and represent the results on a
publicly available dashboard. This will be the main next step towards
the implementation of the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The opinions expressed
herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the European Commission. The scientific output does not imply a
policy position of the European Commission.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was carried out in the context of
the implementation of the Updated EU Bioeconomy Action Plan (COM
(2018)673). We express our gratitude to Jordi Guillén and the two
anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
17
References
[1] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the
connection between economy, society and the environment (COM(2018) 673 final).
2018https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=
CELEX:52018DC0673.
[2] Bell J, Paula L, Dodd T, Németh S, Nanou C, Mega V, et al. EU ambition to build the
world’s leading bioeconomy—uncertain times demand innovative and sustainable
solutions. N Biotechnol 2018;40:25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.06.
010.
[3] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions The European Green Deal. COM
(2019) 640 final. 2019 (accessed December 11, 2019). https://ec.europa.eu/info/
sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf.
[4] European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) No 1306/
2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the
financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and re-
pealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98,
(EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008. 2017http://data.
europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1306/2018-01-01.
[5] European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) No 1380/
2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the
Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and
(EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and
(EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC vol. L 354/22. 2013
(Accessed November 22, 2019). http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1380/2019-
08-14.
[6] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A New Industrial Strategy for Europe.
COM(2020) 102 final. 2020 (Accessed March 11, 2020). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:102:FIN.
[7] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee, the Committee of the regions and the European Investment Bank. A
Clean Planet for all - A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous,
modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. COM(2018) 773 final. 2018
(Accessed January 16, 2019). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?
uri=CELEX:52018DC0773.
[8] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to
2020. COM(2011) 244 final. 2011 (Accessed January 13, 2020). https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244.
[9] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. Next steps for a sustainable European future - European
action for sustainability. COM(2016) 739 final. 2016 (Accessed January 30, 2020).
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0739.
[10] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and
more competitive Europe (COM/2020/98 final). 2020 (accessed March 11, 2020).
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:98:FIN.
[11] Lusser M, Landa L, et al. EU policy framework relevant for the bioeconomy. In:
Ronzon T, Lusser M, Landa L, M’Barek R, Giuntoli J, Cristobal J, editors.
Bioeconomy report 2016 Publications Office of the European Union; 2017. https://
doi.org/10.2777/792130.
[12] Wesseler J, von Braun J. Measuring the bioeconomy: economics and policies. Annu
Rev Resour Econ 2017;9:275–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-
100516-053701.
[13] Bracco S, Tani A, Çalıcıoğlu Ö, Gomez San Juan M, Bogdanski A. Indicators to
monitor and evaluate the sustainability of bioeconomy. Overview and a proposed
way forward. Rome: FAO; 2019 (Accessed December 2, 2019). http://www.fao.
org/3/ca6048en/ca6048en.pdf.
[14] European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
Directorate F - Bioeconomy. Review of the 2012 European Bioeconomy Strategy.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2017. https://doi.org/10.
2777/086770.
[15] European Commission. Mandate on the provision of data and analysis on biomass
supply and demand by the JRC on a long - term basis. 2014 (Accessed February 6,
2020). https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/sites/know4pol/files/
jrc20biomass20-20mandate20021020141.pdf.
[16] Camia A, Robert N, Jonsson K, Pilli R, Garcia Condado S, Lopez Lozano R, et al.
Biomass production, supply, uses and flows in the European Union: first results from
an integrated assessment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union;
2018. https://doi.org/10.2760/181536. (print).
[17] European Commission. Innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe
(COM/2012/060 final). Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. 2012 (Accessed May 21, 2019). https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0060.
[18] European Commission. Environmental Factsheet: exemplary environmental com-
parison between bio-based products and their fossil equivalents 2015 (Accessed
November 18, 2019). https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/sites/know4pol/
files/2015_environmental_factsheet_exemplary_environmental_comparison_0.pdf.
[19] M’Barek R, Philippidis G, Suta C, Vinyes C, Caivano A, Ferrari E, et al. Observing
and analysing the Bioeconomy in the EU –adapting data and tools to new questions
and challenges. 2014. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-14189. 1; 3:83–91.
[20] Nattrass L, Biggs C, Bauen A, Parisi C, Rodríguez-Cerezo E, Gómez-Barbero M. The
EU bio-based industry: results from a survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union; 2016. https://doi.org/10.2791/806858.
[21] Philippidis G, M’Barek R, Ferrari E. Drivers of the European bioeconomy in tran-
sition (BioEconomy2030): an exploratory, model-based assessment. Luxembourg:
Publications Office; 2016. https://doi.org/10.2791/529794.
[22] European Commission. Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy. Knowledge for Policy -
European Commission; 2020 (Accessed February 6, 2020). https://ec.europa.eu/
knowledge4policy/bioeconomy_en.
[23] European Commission. Chapter V guidelines on monitoring. Commission staff
working document. Better regulation guidelines. SWD 2017;350(2017):90
(Accessed March 13, 2020). https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-
regulation-guidelines-monitoring.pdf.
[24] Saltelli A. Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Soc Indic Res
2007;81:65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-0024-9.
[25] Meadowcroft J, Steurer R. Assessment practices in the policy and politics cycles: a
contribution to reflexive governance for sustainable development? J Environ Policy
Plan 2018;20:734–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.829750.
[26] Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC. The struggle to govern the commons. Science
2003;302:1907–12. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015.
[27] Arrow KJ, Dasgupta P, Goulder LH, Mumford KJ, Oleson K. Sustainability and the
measurement of wealth. Environ Dev Econ 2012;17:317–53. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S1355770X12000137.
[28] Zilberman D, Gordon B, Hochman G, Wesseler J. Economics of sustainable devel-
opment and the bioeconomy. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 2018;40:22–37. https://
doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppx051.
[29] Goodman LA. Snowball sampling. Ann Math Stat 1961;32:148–70. https://doi.org/
10.1214/aoms/1177705148.
[30] OECD. Meeting policy challenges for a sustainable bioeconomy. Paris: OECD
Publishing; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264292345-en.
[31] Giuntoli J, Robert N, Ronzon T, Sanchez Lopez J, Follador M, Girardi I, et al.
Building a monitoring system for the EU bioeconomy - Progress Report 2019: de-
scription of framework. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union;
2020https://op.europa.eu/s/nNTs.
[32] Lusser M, Sanchez Lopez J, Landa L, Avraamides M, Motola V, Zika E, et al. Joint
survey on bioeconomy policy developments in different countries Brussels Ispra:
European Commission; 2018 (Accessed December 10, 2019). https://ec.europa.eu/
knowledge4policy/sites/know4pol/files/jrc112081_joint_survey_report_final.pdf.
[33] Bioeconomy Implementation Group, Government of Ireland. First progress report
2019 (Accessed November 8, 2019). https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/
migration/research/bioeconomy/BIGProgressReport050919.pdf.
[34] The National Bioeconomy Task Force, Italy. BIT II - bioeconomy in Italy: a new
bioeconomy strategy for a sustainable Italy. 2019 (Accessed November 8, 2019).
http://cnbbsv.palazzochigi.it/media/1774/bit_en_2019_02.pdf.
[35] Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). Finnish bioeconomy in numbers.
Luonnonvarakeskus. 2019 (Accessed November 8, 2019). https://www.luke.fi/en/
natural-resources/finnish-bioeconomy-in-numbers/.
[36] Wackerbauer J, Rave T, Dammer L, Piotrowski S, Jander W, Grundmann P, et al.
Ermittlung wirtschaftlicher Kennzahlen und Indikatoren für ein Monitoring des
Voranschreitens Der Bioökonomie. München: ifo Institut; 2019http://www.ifo.de/
DocDL/ifo_Forschungsberichte_104_2019_Monitoring-Biooekonomie.pdf.
[37] Lier M, Aarne M, Kärkkäinen L, Korhonen KT, Yli-Viikari A, Packalen T. Synthesis
on bioeconomy monitoring systems in the EU Member States - indicators for
monitoring the progress of bioeconomy. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute
Finland; 2018http://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/542249/luke-luobio_
38_2018.pdf.
[38] LUKE. MontBioeco I:monitoring bioeconomy–current approaches in EU Member
states and at EU level. Luonnonvarakeskus; 2018 (Accessed February 6, 2020).
https://www.luke.fi/en/projects/montbioeco/.
[39] Piotrowski S, Wesseler J, Kardung M, van Leeuwen M, van Meijl H, Costenoble O,
et al. BioMonitor first stakeholder workshop - October 23rd. 2018 (D7.2). 2019.
http://biomonitor.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/D7.2_First-Stakeholder-
Workshop.pdf (accessed January 31, 2020).
[40] European Commission - Joint Research Centre. Report on the Community of prac-
tice workshop. Shaping the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System: a first discussion on
indicators to include. Brussels Ispra: European Commission; 2019 (Accessed
January 16, 2020). https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/sites/know4pol/files/
ares_report_workshop_kcb_indicators_v6.1_final.pdf.
[41] United Nations General Assembly. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly on 6 July 2017 (A/RES/71/313). 2017 (accessed November 21, 2019).
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313.
[42] General Assembly of the United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda
for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25
September 2015: 70/1. 2015 (Accessed December 9, 2019). https://undocs.org/A/
RES/70/1.
[43] Eurostat. Further developing SDG indicators. Sustainable development and europe.
Indicators Working Group; 2020 SDI/WG19/10 2019. https://circabc.europa.eu/
webdav/CircaBC/ESTAT/Environment%20Meetings/Library/meeting_archives_1/
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
18
Meetings%202019%20-%20archive/2019-04%20-%20Working%20Group%20on
%20Sustainable%20development%20and%20Europe%202020%20indicators
%20(26-27%20March%202019)/Point%2010%20-%20Further%20developing
%20SDG%20indicators.pdf (Accessed May 2, 2020).
[44] Ronzon T, Sanjuán AI. Friends or foes? A compatibility assessment of bioeconomy-
related Sustainable Development Goals for European policy coherence. J Clean Prod
2020;254:119832https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119832.
[45] Linser S, Lier M. The contribution of sustainable development goals and forest-
related indicators to national bioeconomy progress monitoring. Sustainability
2020;12:2898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072898.
[46] European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.
The monitoring and evaluation framework for the common agricultural policy
2014-2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office; 2015 (Accessed December 10, 2019).
https://op.europa.eu/s/nNTn.
[47] Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Monitoring
the performance of the common fisheries policy (STECF-Adhoc-19-01).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2019https://op.europa.
eu/s/nNTr.
[48] Forest Europe. State of Europe’s Forests 2015. Madrid: Forest Europe Liaison Unit
Madrid. 2015 (Accessed December 18, 2015). http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/
fullsoef2015.pdf.
[49] FAO. FAO statistics / Food security indicators n.d. http://www.fao.org/economic/
ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/en/#.XUrnxOgzaUk (accessed November 27, 2019).
[50] Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Grizzetti B, Barredo JoséI, Paracchini Maria Luisa, et al.
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: an analytical framework
for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition in EU. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union; 2018. https://doi.org/10.2779/055584.
[51] IPCC, editor. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working
groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. In: Core Writing TeamPachauri RK, Geneva LA, editors.
Switzerland: intergovernmental panel on climate change. 2015https://www.ipcc.
ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf.
[52] Egenolf V, Bringezu S. Conceptualization of an Indicator system for assessing the
sustainability of the bioeconomy. Sustainability 2019;11:443. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su11020443.
[53] Eurostat. Annex 1: principles and selection criteria for EU SDG indicators. In EU
SDG Indicator set 2019. Result of the review in preparation of the 2019 edition of
the EU SDG monitoring report - Final version of 08/01/2019. Eurostat:
Luxembourg: European Commission; 2019https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
documents/276524/9479054/2019-01-08__EU_SDG_indicator_set_2019_review_
final_report.pdf.
[54] Gurría P, Ronzon T, Tamosiunas S, López R, Garcia Condado S, Guillén J, et al.
Biomass flows in the European Union: the Sankey biomass diagram –towards a
cross-set integration of biomass. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union; 2017. https://doi.org/10.2760/352412.
[55] Ronzon T, M’Barek R. Socioeconomic indicators to monitor the EU’s bioeconomy in
transition. Sustainability 2018;10:1745. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061745.
[56] Robert N, Jonsson R, Chudy R, Camia A. The EU Bioeconomy: Supporting an
Employment Shift Downstream in the Wood-Based Value Chains? Sustainability
2020;12:758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030758.
[57] Bracco S, Calicioglu O, Gomez San Juan M, Flammini A. Assessing the contribution
of bioeconomy to the total economy: a review of national frameworks.
Sustainability 2018;10:1698. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061698.
[58] Heijman W. How big is the bio-business? Notes on measuring the size of the Dutch
bio-economy. Njas - Wageningen J Life Sci 2016;77:5–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
njas.2016.03.004.
[59] Mainar Causapé AJ. BioSAMs for the EU Member States: constructing social ac-
counting matrices with a detailed disaggregation of the bio-economy. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union; 2018. https://doi.org/10.2760/811691.
[60] Philippidis G, Sanjuán AI, Ferrari E, M’Barek R. Employing social accounting matrix
multipliers to profile the bioeconomy in the EU member states: is there a structural
pattern? Spanish J Agric Res 2014;12:913–26. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/
2014124-6192.
[61] LUKE. The principles for monitoring the bioeconomy - Changes in calculation
principles. Natural Resources Institute Finland. 2018 (Accessed November 15,
2019). https://www.luke.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/22102018-principles-
for-monitoring-eng-1.pdf.
[62] Follador M, Philippidis G, Davis J, Soares-Filho B. Assessing the impacts of the EU
bioeconomy on third countries: potential environmental impacts in Brazil of EU
biofuel demand to 2030. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union;
2019. https://doi.org/10.2760/304776.
[63] European Parliament. European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2016 on im-
plementation of the 2010 recommendations of Parliament on social and environ-
mental standards, human rights and corporate responsibility (2015/2038(INI)). OJ
C 2018;101:19–29. 16.3.2018 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016IP0298&from=ES.
[64] United Nations, Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting.
System of environmental-economic accounting 2012: experimental ecosystem ac-
counting. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. European
Commission, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United
Nations, The World Bank; 2014http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/
seeaRev/eea_final_en.pdf.
[65] United Nations, Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting.
System of environmental-economic accounting 2012: Applications and Extensions.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. European Commission,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations, The
World Bank.; 2014http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/ae_white_cover.pdf.
[66] La Notte A, Vallecillo S, Maes J. Capacity as “virtual stock”in ecosystem services
accounting. Ecol Indic 2019;98:158–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.
10.066.
[67] Notte AL, Marques A. Adjusted macroeconomic indicators to account for ecosystem
degradation: an illustrative example. Ecosyst Health Sustain 2019;5:133–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2019.1634979.
[68] Vallecillo S, La Notte A, Kakoulaki G, Kamberaj J, Robert N, Dottori F, et al.
Ecosystem services accounting - Part II Pilot accounts for crop and timber provision,
global climate regulation and flood control. Publications Office of the European
Union; 2019. https://doi.org/10.2760/631588. (online).
[69] Vallecillo S, La Notte A, Polce C, Zulian G, Alexandris N, Ferrini S, et al. Ecosystem
services accounting: part I - Outdoor recreation and crop pollination. Publications
Office of the European Union 2018. https://doi.org/10.2760/619793.
[70] Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A. Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from
current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2013;18:1653–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0508-6.
[71] Sala S, Beylot A, Corrado S, Crenna E, Sanye Mengual E, Secchi M. Indicators and
assessment of the environmental impact of EU consumption - Consumption and
Consumer Footprints for assessing and monitoring EU policies with Life Cycle
Assessment. Publications Office of the European Union; 2019. https://doi.org/10.
2760/403263. (online).
[72] Beylot A, Corrado S, Sala S. Environmental impacts of European trade: interpreting
results of process-based LCA and environmentally extended input–output analysis
towards hotspot identification. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2019. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11367-019-01649-z.
[73] OECD, Joint Research Centre - European Commission. Handbook on constructing
composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris, France: OECD; 2008.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en.
[74] Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Teksoz K, Durand-Delacre D, Sachs JD. National baselines
for the sustainable development goals assessed in the SDG index and dashboards.
Nature Geosci 2017;10:547–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2985.
[75] Hickel J. The sustainable development index: measuring the ecological efficiency of
human development in the anthropocene. Ecol Econ 2020;167:106331https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.011.
[76] Wackernagel M, Rees W. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the
Earth. Gabriola Island, B.C. Canada: New Society Publishers; 1998.
[77] Becker W, Saisana M, Paruolo P, Vandecasteele I. Weights and importance in
composite indicators: closing the gap. Ecol Indic 2017;80:12–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056.
[78] Parisi C, Ronzon T. A global view of bio-based industries: benchmarking and
monitoring their economic importance and future developments. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union; 2016. https://doi.org/10.2788/153649.
ISBN 978-92-79-64801-64804.
[79] Efken J, Dirksmeyer W, Kreins P, Knecht M. Measuring the importance of the
bioeconomy in Germany: concept and illustration. Njas - Wageningen J Life Sci
2016;77:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.008.
[80] BioMonitor. The EU BioEconomy contribution to sustainable development - mea-
suring the impact. Biomonitor policy brief #1. 2019 (Accessed December 2, 2019).
http://biomonitor.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-11-BIO_policy-brief-no.
1.pdf.
[81] Spekreijse J, Lammens T, Parisi C, Ronzon T, Vis M. Insights into the European
market for bio-based chemicals. Publications Office of the European Union; 2019
(Accessed November 15, 2019). http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/
bitstream/JRC112989/jrc_europeanmarket_biochemicals_online.pdf.
[82] Araújo R, Lusser M, Sanchez Lopez J, Avraamides M. Brief on algae biomass pro-
duction. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2019 (Accessed
January 23, 2020). https://op.europa.eu/s/nNTA.
[83] European Parliament, Council. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament
and of the council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy vol. OJ L 327. 2000. p.1. 2000. 22.12 http://data.
europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/2014-11-20.
[84] European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Directive 2008/56/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework
for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive), amended by Commission Directive (EU) 2017/845. 2017
(Accessed February 6, 2020). http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/56/2017-06-07.
N. Robert, et al. New BIOTECHNOLOGY 59 (2020) 10–19
19
