Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers

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 sustainable bio-based circular economy and to unlock its potential, strong accompanying measures are required. These should be designed based on a systematic understanding of transition drivers and barriers. This paper, after providing a systematic review of transition research on the circular bioeconomy, focuses on the identification and classification of transition barriers, clustering them into relevant categories. Moreover, it provides a comparison of the barriers identified by various frameworks.BMBF, 031B0781B, Bioökonomie als gesellschaftlicher Wandel, Modul 2 (2): BioTOP - Transformationsorientierte Innovationspolitik in der Bioökonomie - Stand, Potenziale und Strategien, TP TU BerlinTU Berlin, Open-Access-Mittel – 202

Bio-based products: Suggestions for ecolabel criteria and standards in line with sustainable development goals

Communicating the related environmental benefits of bio-based products to consumers represents a key component of their market uptake. In this regard, the use of ecolabels ISO 14024 Type I play a crucial role. This article identifies and analyzes different criteria proposed by ecolabels for conducting a sustainability assessment of bio-based products considering its entire lifecycle. A comparison of the selected criteria with existing indicators ruled out by the SDGs is proposed. Through expert consultation, the suitability of existing ecolabel criteria for bio-based products has been tested for four applications of biobased products: food packaging from PLA; biobased automotive components; bio-based mulch film; and bio-based insulation material.EC/H2020/727740/EU/Sustainability Transition Assessment and Research of Bio-based Products/STAR-ProBioBMBF, 033R236E, ReziProK - Verbundvorhaben: ConCirMy - Entwicklung eines stufen- und kreislaufübergreifend vernetzten Konfigurators zur Gewährleistung geschlossener Material- und Komponentenflüsse im Rahmen der zirkulären Ökonomie, Teilvorhaben 4: Sozioökonomische Analysen und Geschäftsmodell

Policy strategies for a transition to a bioeconomy in Europe: the case of Italy and Germany

Grand societal challenges call for a transition from a society based on finite fossil resources towards a bio-based economy, based on renewable resources. Such a transition should involve not only the energy sector, but also the manufacturing sector. As acknowledged in the European Bioeconomy Strategy, the promotion of a bioeconomy is dependent on policy efforts across a wide spectrum of policy spheres. In the literature on sustainability transitions, this insight is captured in the increasing interest in the concept of policy mixes or policy strategies for promoting transitions to more sustainable modes of production and consumption. In this paper, we present a comparative analysis of bioeconomy strategies in Germany and Italy with a focus on the bioplastics sector. The paper adds to the existing literature on policy mixes by extending the concept of a policy strategy and applying it for the purpose of the comparative analysis. Moreover, the analysis is linked to the discussion on multi-level systems of governance in the European Union. A key finding is that linkages between the two policy strategies via policy making within the European Union have helped in reinforcing the nascent transition to a bio-based economy in Europe

Policy strategies for a transition to a bioeconomy in Europe: the case of Italy and Germany

Grand societal challenges call for a transition from a society based on finite fossil resources towards a bio-based economy, based on renewable resources. Such a transition should involve not only the energy sector, but also the manufacturing sector. As acknowledged in the European Bioeconomy Strategy, the promotion of a bioeconomy is dependent on policy efforts across a wide spectrum of policy spheres. In the literature on sustainability transitions, this insight is captured in the increasing interest in the concept of policy mixes or policy strategies for promoting transitions to more sustainable modes of production and consumption. In this paper, we present a comparative analysis of bioeconomy strategies in Germany and Italy with a focus on the bioplastics sector. The paper adds to the existing literature on policy mixes by extending the concept of a policy strategy and applying it for the purpose of the comparative analysis. Moreover, the analysis is linked to the discussion on multi-level systems of governance in the European Union. A key finding is that linkages between the two policy strategies via policy making within the European Union have helped in reinforcing the nascent transition to a bio-based economy in Europe

Standards and Regulations for the Bio‐based Industry STAR4BBI

This report describes possible solution directions to overcome market entry barriers due to regulation and standardisation that companies that are active in the bio‐based economy experience. The market entry barriers were investigated and described in the deliverable D2.1. Five main hurdles were described in D2.1:‐ A number of issues around End‐of‐Life of bio‐based products‐ Certification and standards‐ Biofuel policy, and the fact that supporting policy for bio‐based products is missing‐ Missing long term policy that helps to promote bio‐based products‐ Communication and image.In order to define possible solution routes to the hurdles, for each hurdle the relevant stakeholders and their drivers towards the hurdle were investigated. Based on this investigation directions for solutions were defined and discussed with various stakeholders. Furthermore a workshop was held where the solutions were presented and discussed with a broad group of stakeholders.Solution directions defined for the first four identified hurdles are:‐ End‐of‐Life issues: There is no general agreement on which EOL option is most preferable for a several bio‐based products. This relates to present regulations, recycling targets, and industrial operation practices and business models of waste processors. All parties involved would benefit from clear LCA data for EOL options for (groups of) products. This would allow governments, municipalities, consumers and waste processors to decide which product best goes where. Clear icons indicating the preferable EOL, EU wide can help to minimise products going into the “wrong” bin. And in particular cases it may be useful to indicate what is not the desired EOL route, e.g. for products which look like a particularmaterial but in fact are not. Furthermore research on recycling of bio‐based plastics and composting of biodegradable plastics is proposed with both the bio‐based plastics suppliers and the waste processors being stakeholders in the project.‐ Certification and standards: Several possible solutions are proposed to overcome the hurdle related to certification and standards. In principle, it is important to involve as many stakeholders as possible in the standardization process, in order to achieve a widely supported middle ground that corresponds as well as possible with everyday practice. Besides this, to give new materials the possibility to enter the market, standards should focus on the functioning of materials instead of the material itself. In the field of certificates, solutions lie in mutual compatibility, alignment and transparency in tests. However, aligning all involved parties can be (politically) challenging due to competition (between schemes). Moreover, amending standards is time consuming, but in the endthese proposed solutions could open the door more easily to new bio‐based materials. ‐ Biofuel policy: The RED puts pressure on availability and price of biomass for bio‐based products. Different options are considered as potential solutions. One option is to reform the RED in order to integrate bio‐based chemicals and materials. Another option is without changing the RED to create a link of bio‐based materials to the RED through a “bio‐ticket” system. The third option considered is a new directive special for bio‐based materials. Furthermore a harmonized classification system of wastes and residues across EU isnecessary, which needs to be implemented under the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD). Where the use of feedstocks by the bio‐based products industry is possible, such Elimination of hurdles in standards and regulation uses must be incentivized. The same classification system that will be needed to bedeveloped by the WFD will need to be adopted by the Biofuel policy for defining the feedstocks of “advanced biofuels”.‐ Missing long term policy: In order to level the playing field between fossil‐based and biobased products two possible solutions are proposed. In the first place, the producer should be responsible for paying for the negative externalities of the production processes (e.g. possible damage to the environment) and not the whole society. Furthermore, sustainablecertifications, currently often asked only for bio‐based products, should be requested for all products. The lack of clear, robust methodologies and criteria for assessing the sustainability of both bio‐based and fossil‐based products represents a major gap that is hampering the future development of the bio‐based industry. Development of the same sustainability criteria for all types of feedstock (bio‐based and fossil based) and all sectors (materials and fuels/energy) across the whole life‐cycle (material production, use and EOL)is proposed as a potential solution. And harmonization of LCA procedures is described to be important for this. During the investigation process it was found that the fifth hurdle, communication and image, was an integral part of the other four hurdles, it was therefore not investigated and presented separately, but integral with the other hurdles. The solution directions described in this report are focused specifically on the hurdles that were collected in D2.1 by interviewing a number of companies. During the investigation also more general aspects to stimulate the introduction of bio‐based products came up. An overview of these is presented in appendix A.The analysis laid down in this report has served as the basis for a deeper investigation and proposals to overcome specific market barriers, which are presented in D4.4, and proposals for supporting policy, presented in D3.3

D4.4 Regulation action plan

The bioeconomy is a new market field that was not considered when most of the existing regula-tions were drafted in several areas, including, for example, regulations on the end-of-life (EOL) stage of plastics. Consequentially, even though an EU bioeconomy strategy exists, a coherent and coor-dinated policy framework is still missing1. In addition, the lack of necessary mechanisms (e.g. regu-lative carbon pricing) and the fact that existing policies and standards are mostly based only on fossil-based products (e.g. existing EOL schemes are focused on fossil-based products and do not consider bio-based counterparts) are hampering the development of the bioeconomy

Bio-Based Products in the Automotive Industry: The Need for Ecolabels, Standards, and Regulations

At the Hanover Fair in April 2018, the Bioconcept-Car was presented as a model for the future of sustainable mobility. Likewise, a car made of cellulose nanofiber was presented at the Tokyo Motor Show in 2019. Various additional automotive applications for bio-based materials have been developed, some of which are already in use in cars. However, supportive measures for stimulating their market acceptance are needed. Based on a mix of research methods, this article describes how ecolabels, sustainability standards, and regulations might support the market uptake of bio-based car components. In addition, comparison with three other types of bio-based products are provided. The article ends with suggestions for future market development activities

Triple-C: A Tridimensional Sustainability-Oriented Indicator for Assessing Product Circularity in Public Procurement

Various microlevel circular economy indicators for assessing sustainability and, partly, additional sustainability characteristics have been developed, but an integrated solution considering the environmental, social, and economic pillars remains a research gap. Method: Based on a multimethod approach, including surveys and the analysis of existing sustainability assessment methodologies and standards, this paper proposes a concept for a multidimensional circular economy indicator tailored to public procurers. It relies on attractive existing building blocks including: (1) the ecological scarcity method, (2) European and international sustainability standards and indicators, and (3) the STAR-ProBio-IAT concept. Results: This article presents the concept of the composite indicator Triple-C, consisting of 20 elements and aimed at facilitating sustainable circular public procurement. It is intended to be incorporated into software that facilitates sustainable product decisions among public procurers in Germany. Conclusions: We propose a generic indicator concept covering all three (environmental, social, and economic) sustainability pillars. More research and additional standards are needed to develop the Triple-C concept further into product-specific applications