Economic and socio-economic evaluation of bioenergy schemes fueled with energy crops in Greece

The main aim of this thesis is to evaluate the economic and socio-economic viability of energy crops as raw material for bioenergy schemes at the local level. The case examined is Greece, a southern Mediterranean country. Based on the current state, on foreseen trends and on the information presented in the literature review (conducted at the beginning of the study), the main goal was defined as follows: To examine the evidence supporting a strong role for dedicated energy crops local bioenergy developments in Greece, a sector that is forecasted to be increasingly important in the short to medium term.' Two perennial energy crops, cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.) and giant reed (Arundo donax L.) were evaluated. The thesis analysed their possible introduction in the agricultural system of Rhodope, northern Greece, as alternative land use, through comparative financial appraisal with the main conventional crops. Based on the output of this comparative analysis, the breakeven for the two selected energy crops was defined along with a sensitivity analysis for the risk of the potential implementation. Following, the author performed an economic and socio-economic evaluation of a district heating system fuelled with energy crops in the selected region. Finally, the author, acknowledging that bioenergy deployment should be studied in the context of innovations proceeded in examining the different perceptions of the key groups involved, farmers and potential end users. Results indicated that biomass exploitation for energy purposes is more likely to be accepted when it is seen clearly as one strand in a national energy, environmental and agricultural policy which embraces several sources of renewable energy, and which also encourages energy efficiency and conservation

Bridging modelling and policy-making efforts to realise the European bioeconomy

The European Bioeconomy Strategy aims to facilitate the transition from a take-make-dispose fossil economy into one fostering circular bio-based value chains linking sustainable land use with cutting-edge products. Optimised designs, implementation and monitoring rely on continuous interactions between policymakers and modellers who run multiple scenarios for environmentally, economically and socially desirable futures. This paper leverages a multi-layered framework that cross-references 39 policies and 32 models to assess how they address the five principle objectives of the Bioeconomy Strategy in terms of accompanying sectors, value-chains, and multi-dimensional indicators. The framework identifies gaps in bioeconomy knowledge both in policy and modelling. Overall, the analysis found little mention of the wide range of bio-based products, technologies and processes, bio-refineries, waste, and land conservation. Bio-based product policies can be simulated only in a limited number of models, compared, for example, to the wide range of modelling capacities that can model bioenergy. Additionally, in both policy and modelling realms, integration of market and biophysical drivers within the full scope of the value chain is scarce. Multidisciplinary studies combining multiple models perform best in this respect by integrating a more comprehensive range of relevant policies, bioeconomy drivers and indicators. Findings point to a more significant issue in policy-modelling information exchange, and this paper discusses the challenges and opportunities for future improvements in this collaboration.Publishe

Future transitions for the Bioeconomy towards Sustainable Development and a Climate-Neutral Economy - Knowledge Synthesis Final Report: WP1 - Knowledge synthesis and foresight

The 2018 EU Bioeconomy Strategy aims to develop a circular, sustainable bioeconomy for Europe, strengthening the connection between economy, society, and environment. It addresses global challenges such as meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations and the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement. A circular, sustainable bioeconomy can be a core instrument for the Green Deal in the post-COVID-19 era, making the EU more sustainable and competitive. In this context, the EC (Joint Research Centre in collaboration with DG Research and Innovation) created an ad-hoc external Network of Experts (NoE) through individual contracts to contribute to the EC’s Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy with forward-looking analysis needed for exploring possible scenarios towards a sustainable, clean, and resource-efficient bioeconomy, with a focus on climate-neutrality and sustainable development. This first work package concerned knowledge synthesis and foresight. The post-Brexit EU27 bioeconomy employs ≈17.5 million people (≈ 9% of its workforce) and generates € 1.5 trillion (≈ 10% of its GDP) when the tertiary bioeconomy sector (bio-based services) is included. To analyse, assess and monitor the bioeconomy’s sustain¬ability, interactions with fossil, mineral, renewable systems as well as bioeconomic contributions to ecosystem services are important, considering dynamic interlinkages and substitution effects. The bioeconomy is the only system providing food, feed, and eco-system services, i.e. for those there is no substitute. Sustainable, affordable, and secure biomass is available from EU sources in the medium- to longer-term, meeting demands for existing and emerging uses (e.g. bio-based material) by 2030. There is enough sustainable EU biomass to contribute to all sectors by 2030, and probably beyond, as well as to bring organic carbon back to soil. To ensure sustainable supply, not only residues and wastes are relevant, but sustainably sourced agricultural and forestry feedstocks, and feedstocks from recovering and restoring marginal and degraded land. Options for managing land and forestry systems for biomass supply that lead to a better carbon balance depend on many factors and have biodiver¬sity, other environmental and socio¬economic trade-offs, all needing consideration. The bioeconomy includes sustainable food systems which can increase resilience. For all of this, change is needed: The EU Bioeconomy Strategy intends a shift from the substitution logic towards circularity and sustainability. This requires governing the sustain-ability of the bioeconomy for which the SDGs are the normative framework. The challenge is to implement sustainability governance of the bioecono¬my to safeguard against negative impacts while fostering positive options. The weak integration of sustainability governance of forests into EU policies and vis-à-vis non-EU countries is a hindrance to achieve the objectives of a circular, sustainable EU bioeconomy, which may be addressed in the upcoming new European Forest Strategy intended to promote the bioeconomy while respecting ecological principles favourable to biodiversity. In preparing for a post-COVID-19 era, the bioeconomy should be a priority for the European economic recovery support: promoting short domestic sustainable bioeconomic supply chains brings resources back to the real economy, creates (rural) employment and favours CO2-neutral development, e.g. through biorefineries and land-based Carbon (C) sequestration with respective agricultural and forestry investments. The synopsis of all EU bioeconomy drivers and trends for 2030 and 2050 (assuming a successful implementation of a sustainable, circular EU bioeconomy, i.e. not for “business-as-usual”) indicates that bioenergy would become less relevant, while biomaterials and ecosystem services will gain significantly, strengthening the EU competitiveness and creating employment. Biomass for construction materials, fibre, food and feed, furniture, and textiles will grow, and use of innovative biomaterials such as bio-based chemicals, lubricants, and bio-based plastics which offer high value added per mass unit will increase. Despite the impressive potential of wind and solar, biomass will provide grid balancing services, and help sectors difficult to be decarbonised through electricity (aviation, heavy duty and maritime transport, high-temperature industrial processes). There is a complementary role of bioenergy and electricity until 2050. Yet, a sustainable bioeconomy is not the only possibility to shape the future, nor the only vision on how to make the world a better place. Over the last decades, several drivers (alternative food, non-biomass renewables, Power to Anything (PtX), socio-economic patterns) emerged which may become trends in the 2030 - 2050 horizons. These competing drivers could significantly affect opportunities for implementing the bioeconomy. Some of these drivers could be disruptive, but some are potentially synergistic to the bioeconomy. The SDG framing for the bioeconomy requires integration. With the European Green Deal, important steps of integration are underway regarding various EU policies, especially biodiversity, circularity, climate change, food systems, forest protection and restoration, and renewable energy. The bioeconomy needs to be part of this integration, for which its inclusion in the EU post-COVID-19 recovery plan would be a critical step. In addition, domestic EU land use – especially in rural areas – and foot¬prints implied outside of the EU need to be integrated, considering the multiple opportunities for rural livelihoods, employment and innovation, both within the EU and outside. Circularity requires integration in terms of recycling and re-use of residues & waste flows for which biorefineries are key, but as mentioned above, there is need for integrated governance as well. The bioeconomy in Europe is not a single one – in Northern EU countries forestry domina-tes, while large proportions of the bioeconomy in the South West concern fibres, bio-based textiles and high-quality food. There is growing interest in the blue bioeconomy in Northern and Southern Europe. This diversity implies not a weakness but a strength: instead of focussing on e.g. corn (as the US), forest (Canada), palmoil (Indonesia), soy (Argentina) or sugarcane (Brazil), the diversified EU bioeconomy is more resilient to changes in feedstock supply, market dynamics and technology innovation. The term transformation is used frequently throughout this report, building on the UN 2030 Agenda which calls for transformative change. The guiding principle of being transformative is acknowledging that trade-offs and possible synergies are subject to societal decision-making, not to a neoliberal economic logic alone. Market aspects are one component of decision-making, but not necessarily the dominant one. This requires to re-define the SDG framing of sustainability: Instead of linear box-by-box representation, the SDGs are ordered according to levels. The base is the biosphere which sustains society, which in turn is served by the economy. This is the fundament for deciding how to live within planetary boundaries and align the economy with societal needs, not vice versa. This is reflected in the Just transition concept of the European Green Deal. Transformation also requires working with people in active roles, considering their capacities to think and speak about the transformation (future literacy). This is why social aspects are of high importance, for which a new term is suggested: BioWEconomy. The 2018 EU Bioeconomy is a sound base to start from – its further development and implementation should aim at becoming a BioWEconomy and include respective targets. Still, even such a bioeconomy will not make all of us secure, nor protect against all dangers. There is a large variety of risks mankind has to face, and most of these are interlinked so that a linear scale may be misleading (e.g. tipping points in the climate system). A circular, sustainable, and transformative BioWEconomy can mitigate several of the severe and likely risks, especially food and water crises, climate change, migration, and social instability. A circular, sustainable, and transformative EU BioWEconomy could become a role model for transforming other parts of the economy as well, helping to make the world a better and safer place for all. Finally, this report presents open questions relevant for further research: climate impacts of biomass, future-proof bioenergy systems, competing drivers, social factors, and sustainability governance. Investing in research on these questions will improve the understanding and implementation of a circular, sustainable, and transformative BioWEconomy, not only in the EU, but globally through knowledge-sharing networks.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Developing a Sustainable and Circular Bio-Based Economy in EU:By Partnering Across Sectors, Upscaling and Using New Knowledge Faster, and For the Benefit of Climate, Environment & Biodiversity, and People & Business

This paper gives an overview of development of the EU-bioeconomy, 2014-2020. The Vision of the new Circular Bio-based Economy, CBE is presented: Unlocking the full potential of all types of sustainably sourced biomass, crop residues, industrial side-streams, and wastes by transforming it into value-added products. The resulting product portfolio consists of a wide spectrum of value-added products, addressing societal and consumer needs. Food and feed, bio-based chemicals, materials, healthpromoting products; and bio-based fuels. The pillars of CBE are described, including biotechnology, microbial production, enzyme technology, green chemistry, integrated physical/chemical processing, policies, conducive framework conditions and public private partnerships. Drivers of CBE are analyzed: Biomass supply, biorefineries, value chain clusters, rural development, farmers, foresters and mariners; urgent need for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and stopping biodiversity loss. Improved framework conditions can be drivers but also obstacles if not updated to the era of circularity. Key figures, across the entire BBI-JU project portfolio (20142020) are provided, including expansion into biomass feedstocks, terrestrial and aquatic, and an impressive broadening of bio-based product portfolio, including higher-value, healthpromoting products for man, animal, plants and soil. Parallel to this, diversification of industrial segments and types of funding instruments developed, reflecting industrial needs and academic research involvement. Impact assessment is highlighted. A number of specific recommendations are given; e.g., including international win/win CBEcollaborations, as e.g., expanding African EU collaboration into CBE. In contrast to fossil resources biological resources are found worldwide. In its outset, circular biobased economy, can be implemented all over, in a just manner, not the least stimulating rural developmentThis study received funding only for covering the production costs (carried by the public BBI-JU secretariat).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 \u201cFood Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research, and the Bioeconomy\u201d Advisory Group Recommendations Programming Period 2018-2020

The Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 Programme was created to develop and implement an EU research and innovation policy for more sustainable and resource efficient agriculture, forestry, inland water and marine systems that supply European society with sufficient food, feed, biomass, and other raw materials, as well as ecosystems services, and support thriving rural and coastal livelihoods. The European Commission has established Societal Challenge Advisory Groups to provide consistent and consolidated advice - by way of opinions, recommendations and reports - on relevant research objectives and scientific, technological and innovation priorities for its strategic and annual work programmes. Our Societal Challenge 2 Advisory Group includes a wide range of members with remarkably rich and diverse backgrounds and affiliations, including researchers, academics, former policymakers - stakeholders covering the whole spectrum of relevant research and innovation domains. Our Advisory Group has met twice formally since our establishment in February 2016, and has used other opportunities for extensive discussion and engagement on the issues surrounding this Societal Challenge. We see Societal Challenge 2 as not only extremely important as a challenge in itself, but also strongly linked with other Societal Challenges such as health, demographic change and wellbeing, climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials, and inclusive, innovative and reflective societies in a changing world. And as the agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food sectors comprise a very large number of smaller businesses \u2013 themselves serving large scale processing and retail business sectors \u2013 there are strong links between our contribution and the input of groups advising on innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises, international cooperation, nanotechnologies, advanced materials and advanced manufacturing and processing. Our Advisory Group\u2018s first task has been to prepare this report to answer five specific questions posed by the Commission and provide input into the strategic programming cycle of the Work Programme for 2018-2020. We have identified some overriding strategic priorities, and backed those with the results of a more detailed analysis of the gaps that need to be addressed. And we highlight the cross-cutting nature of this programme and the importance of an integrated approach to maximise the overall impact of the current Horizon 2020 programme. We hope that the insights in this report may also assist in the identification and prioritisation of research needs and strengthen the Commission\u2018s strategic and impact-oriented approach in future years