EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

EFB Bioeconomy Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bioeco

Bioeconomy national strategies in the G20 and OECD countries: Sharing

experiences and comparing existing policies
Lucia Gardossi a, Jim Philp b,∗, Fabio Fava c,∗, David Winickoff b, Laura D’Aprile d,
Benedetta Dell’Anno d, Ole Jørgen Marvik e, Andrea Lenzi f
a
University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy & National Bioeconomy Coordination Board, National Committee of Biosafety, Biotechnology and Life Sciences of the Presidency of
Council of Ministers, Rome Italy
b
OECD, Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, Paris, France
c
University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy & National Bioeconomy Coordination Board, National Committee of Biosafety, Biotechnology and Life Sciences of the Presidency
of Council of Ministers, Rome Italy
d
Ministry of Ecological transition, Rome Italy
e
Innovasjon Norge, Oslo, Norway
f
University of Rome La Sapienza, Roma & National Committee of Biosafety, Biotechnology and Life Sciences of the Presidency of Council of Ministers, Rome Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This manuscript addresses the existing governance tools and monitoring systems for implementing a sustainable
Bioeconomy and regenerative Bioeconomy in the OECD member states and G20. It takes inspiration from the outcomes of
Bioeconomy indicators an international workshop entitled “Bioeconomy in the G20 and OECD countries: sharing and comparing the
Bioeconomy strategies
existing national strategies and policies for co-designing more effective bioeconomy governance mechanisms and
G20 Italian Presidency
monitoring systems” co-organized by the Italian Presidency of G20 environment 2021, the National Bioeconomy
Circular bioeconomy
Decarbonization Coordination Board of the National Committee of Biosafety, Biotechnology and Life Sciences of the Italian Pres-
idency of Council of Ministers and the OECD Working Party on Bio-, Nano- and Converging Technologies. The
workshop aimed to share virtuous experiences, identify challenges and co-design more robust governance tools
and more comprehensive monitoring systems. The manuscript outlines the current situation regarding governance
and monitoring, so as to identify relevant issues and areas for further research and policy action.

1. Introduction formative and practical measurement tools and indicators as a basis for
policy development and for an effective and responsible implementation
The world has realized that building a sustainable bioeconomy can of the bioeconomy in the different territories, countries and continents.
boost economic growth within environmental policy goals. At least 50 One of the earliest strategies was the US bioeconomy blueprint of 2012
nations (Fig. 1) have put in place national tailored bioeconomy strate- (US White House 2012), which maintained the link between economic
gies or have policies that are steering towards a sustainable bioeconomy activity and biotechnologies. Since then, the links to major economic
(El-Chichakli et al., 2016). For bioeconomy policy makers, the future is sectors have been reinforced while the emphasis on biotechnologies has
complex and multi-faceted. As the first generation of bioeconomy poli- decreased (Bell et al., 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineer-
cies comes to a close, the vision of a bioeconomy pitched against societal ing, and Medicine 2020).
grand challenges clearly needs better national and international policies There is no internationally accepted definition of ‘bioeconomy’, and
and governance to succeed (OECD 2018). different definitions have often arisen in response to the priorities of
The pervasiveness of national bioeconomy strategies (Fig. 1) mani- an individual country (Frisvold et al., 2021). Most EU member states
fests the increasing worldwide commitment to the green transition, i.e., (MS) have adopted the definition proposed in the EU bioeconomy strat-
drastically reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, replacing fossil egy (European Commission 2022). Since the bioeconomy is meant to
carbon with renewable resources, and regenerating the environment, stimulate international trade, a lack of an agreed international defi-
its biodiversity and ecosystems (Anon 2023). While the fundamental nition means that measuring and monitoring the bioeconomy cannot
justification for public intervention in the bioeconomy is improved sus- be carried out on an internationally comparable basis. Moreover, there
tainability (Marvik and Philp, 2020), there is a need to agree on in- is wide agreement that sustainability encompasses the three pillars of

∗
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: James.PHILP@oecd.org (J. Philp), Fabio.Fava@unibo.it (F. Fava).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioeco.2023.100053
Received 23 December 2022; Received in revised form 15 April 2023; Accepted 15 April 2023
2667-0410/© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Federation of Biotechnology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
L. Gardossi, J. Philp, F. Fava et al. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

Fig. 1. National bioeconomy strategies and related policy instruments. Source: OECD (2018). Meeting policy challenges for a sustainable bioeconomy. OECD
Publishing, Paris. ISBN 978–92–64–29,233–8.

economic, environmental and social aspects. This further complicates the European Union. Concrete progress towards a methodology for mon-
sustainability assessment. For instance, there are no internationally itoring at the international level has been made at the United Nations
agreed tools or indicators to measure biomass sustainability (van Dam Food and Agriculture Organization, and this deserves specific attention
and Junginger, 2011; Böhringer and Jochem, 2007; Bruckner et al., as it seems to point to the way that the private sector may operate in
2015; Arru et al., 2022; Velasco-Mu˜noz et al., 2021; Dumitru and future. But the bioeconomy will increasingly need to adjust to the needs
Wendling, 2021; Aggestam and Giurca, 2022) and social issues such as of net-zero carbon by 2050. Thus the final section considers how the
workers’ rights and land rights are difficult to measure (Shawki, 2016). bioeconomy relates to carbon management and the extension to other
Not only has the bioeconomy concept diversified, but several G20 forms of renewable carbon which take pressure off land and biomass –
and OECD countries have revised, or are revising, their bioeconomy it is not possible to replace fossil production completely with biomass
strategies. In Europe, they are aligned in terms of sectors and priori- (Kircher, 2022). The use of such forms of carbon as flue gases, solid mu-
ties and there is significant association of the bioeconomy with the cir- nicipal waste and in the longer term atmospheric carbon (Carus et al.,
cular economy (Stegmann et al., 2020). Furthermore, bioeconomy has 2020) will alleviate biomass supply issues while bringing greater polit-
also the capacity to regenerate the environment, coastal, rural and aban- ical visibility to the bioeconomy.
doned lands as well as former industrial sites. Therefore an inescapable
conclusion is that sustainability and environmental regeneration will be 2. Bioeconomy strategies and monitoring progress: the
a major goal of governance for the bioeconomy of the future. But with contribution of different OECD countries
continuing debate about how to measure and monitor sustainability, it is
timely for an OECD event organized in the frame of a G20 environment The workshop was organized in two panels: “Bioeconomy strategies
chaired by a Ministry for the Ecological Transition to revisit the topic in the different OECD countries: comparison of their objectives, priori-
and identify a way forward for OECD economies. The National Bioe- ties, governance and implementation guidelines” and “Targets and mon-
conomy Coordination Board of the National Committee of Biosafety, itoring tools: towards a common framework to monitor progress in the
Biotechnology and Life Sciences of the Italian Presidency of Council of bioeconomy”. Experts from G20 and OECD countries with a national
Ministers in Rome held a workshop to highlight recent developments in bioeconomy strategy in place or under elaboration were designated by
bioeconomy strategies and ask some key questions of the governance of their national delegates and contributed to the two web panels men-
the bioeconomy. All G20 and OECD countries with a dedicated bioecon- tioned and according to the programme in the supplementary material.
omy strategy in place or ready to be adopted were invited to contribute Their contributions are summarized in the sections below, along with
to the event, which was designed as two panel sessions. The detailed comments and some key statements of the representatives of OECD, Eu-
programme is reported on the Supplementary Materials and further in- ropean Commission, FAO and the hosting G20 Italian Presidency. The
formation is available at the dedicated web site (Anon 2022). The work- first panel session examined the essential elements of the existing bioe-
shop aimed to share virtuous experiences and identify challenges. It is conomy strategies relating to governance through three questions.
hoped that this could lead to future work to co-design more robust gov- 1 Which sectors comprise your national bioeconomy (i.e., agriculture,
ernance tools and more comprehensive monitoring systems across coun- livestock, aquaculture, fisheries, forestry, food industry, industrial
tries such that international harmonization might be approachable. biotechnology and biorefineries – plus the use of products in the
The present paper attempts to set out progress in monitoring the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, chemical, textile, energy industries, mu-
bioeconomy internationally, with particular reference to OECD mem- nicipal biowaste and wastewater valorization, composting, etc.) and
ber states, then takes a more nuanced look at what is happening within the reasons for their selection.

2
L. Gardossi, J. Philp, F. Fava et al. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

2 How is the strategy on bioeconomy in your country implemented? bioeconomy strategies overwhelmingly discuss sustainability (Bell et al.,
Did your country develop an Implementation Action Plan following 2021) but as long as there is confusion as to what sustainability is and
the Bioeconomy Strategy definition? how to measure it, its deployment will be hindered.
3 What are the missing policies, current needs and opportunities for As climate change policy has evolved, there has been a sharp fo-
your national bioeconomy? cus on emissions reduction in sustainability, which should help increase
The Bioeconomy of the EU MSs with a national strategy comprises the visibility of the bioeconomy. If other aspects of sustainability are
sectors and economic activities that have been selected in line with the crowded out of policy conversations, this creates a potential for unin-
EU bioeconomy strategy. However, the relevance of the quoted sectors tended consequences that later may need to be reversed (OECD 2023).
depends on the individual country, and the sectors’ impacts on the re- This has been termed “sustainability tunnel vision”. For example, over-
spective economy, ecosystems and industrial context. Some countries reliance on biomass for bioenergy purposes could result in deforestation,
are focusing more on agriculture, others on forestry, others on marine and exacerbate negative externalities for biodiversity (Anon 2023), and
resources; some others are providing a special emphasis to the key en- even stimulate criminal illegal logging. Land use and land use change
abling role of biotechnologies. Looking beyond the EU borders, Brazil, is a major, if not the major, source of sustainability trade-offs: efforts
Japan, United States and South Africa included health, life sciences, to maximise one benefit of land nearly always reduce other benefits
medical diagnostics, therapeutics and precision medicines amongst the (Meyfroidt et al., 2022). If not apparent at the national level, this is an
enabling pillars of their national bioeconomy, while Norway gives em- essential reason for international dialogues such as this workshop.
phasis to the reduction of climate emissions and more effective use of The debate gave voice to the efforts of nine different countries to-
renewable bioresources. wards the implementation of monitoring systems capable of assessing
Details of the sectors that characterise the bioeconomies of the dif- environmental and socio-economic progress specifically attributable to
ferent OECD countries involved in the workshop are available in Table the bioeconomy. Representatives from Austria, Canada, Finland, Ger-
S1 of Supplementary Material. many, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Africa, the United States reported on
The second panel session attempted to identify the gaps and opportu- the reasons that led to the identification of databases and the selection
nities in policy to ensure this sustainable future, again addressing three of performance indicators that can be used for the monitoring process,
questions which, in some cases, have not been fully implemented. For instance,
Italy relies on EU key performance indicators (KPIs) on national supply
1 Objectives versus indicators: Taking into account the context of your and demand sides (Anon 2022) as reported in Table 1. Most indicators
national bioeconomy, what indicators (economical, environmental refer to Eurostat and national data and allow for the implementation
and social) are you using and would be appropriate for the corre- of benchmarking analysis while others are based on the studies of Lier
sponding monitoring? (Lier et al., 2018) and Egenolf (Egenolf and Bringezu, 2019) and on the
2 Managing complexity and interlinks: How did your country tackle results of the BERST project consortium (Anon 2022, 2022).
the challenge of accessing statistical sources of high quality, homo- Finland is monitoring bioeconomy at sectoral level annually using
geneous and aggregated data for monitoring and assessing the im- selected indicators through the LUKE Institute (Anon 2022). Environ-
pact of the national bioeconomy strategy? mental and social indicators are now part of the broader national sus-
3 What kind of cooperation is needed/recommended between coun- tainability programme and SDGs. Germany is adopting a collaborative
tries and actors active in this field, such as the Food and Agriculture and joint monitoring approach developed by several German federal
Organization (FAO), the JRC Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy of ministries (Research, Agriculture, Economic Affairs). The monitoring
the European Commission, in order to reach consistent and compa- comprises material flows of resources from the agrarian, forestry and
rable country assessment and results? fishery sectors, but also data on residuals and waste streams. It includes
The inputs provided by the speakers during their presentations or in more than 60 economic indicators and five footprints of the German
the discussion session, are summarized in the following paragraphs. The bioeconomy (agrarian and forest land use, material use of wood, water
aim was to offer a picture which, far from being exhaustive, is nonethe- use, GHG balance), which were modelled. Data, indicators and models
less significant because it was traced on the basis of a lively discussion are under refinement with the intent of expanding the monitoring scope
between the representatives of the participating states, rather than on by further aspects like biodiversity.
desk analysis. The Canadian forest bioeconomy is monitored through several pro-
Concerning the monitoring of national bioeconomies, many of the cesses. The Montreal Process is a framework of criteria and indicators
countries with a national strategy (i.e., Italy, Austria, Norway) or similar to report progress towards achieving sustainable forest ecosystem man-
national policy statements (i.e., Ireland), are working at the definition agement. Also, every year the State of Canada’s Forests Report provides
of the most suitable indicators and data to use. The general intention is information on trends, statistics and stories related to sustainable for-
to implement different databases and use the therein mapped measures est management in Canada to ensure forests remain healthy for future
to show the public the level of achievement of the strategic objectives generations.
of the bioeconomy strategies. The point is that the bioeconomy relies on South Africa is measuring the contribution of the bioeconomy to the
several sectors and that each sector draws on a wide range of data and GDP and the focus of much of government attention is on how the strat-
measures to monitor and evaluate its performance and sustainability. egy assists in developing household food security, reducing the impacts
The most envisioned indicators are the availability of primary feedstock, of the disease burden, encouraging entrepreneurial opportunities and
the output from economic sectors considered part of the bioeconomy, relevant skills development, together with the establishment of an en-
and a number of sustainability indicators, including economic (e.g., em- abling system of innovation. A broader macroeconomic monitoring sys-
ployment, private investments in new bioeconomy value chains), social tem is under development, and it will rely on innovation input measures,
(e.g., well-being), and environmental (e.g., accounting of natural capital innovation output measures, and more economic measures including
and ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, reduction of GHG economic growth, employment, investment and export measures.
emissions). The US Bioeconomy Initiative Implementation Framework tracks key
There are risks associated with countries developing their own bioe- indicators (economic, environmental, and social) while board mem-
conomy strategies in isolation. They tend to emphasise what is impor- ber agencies complete an annual or biennial evaluation, leveraging
tant for their own country (Bracco et al., 2018), and this is often contri- resources such as EPA reports and RFS databases (USDA’s various
butions to GDP, turnover and employment in the sectors of most direct databases, statistical services, and market reports; DOE’s biomass as-
concern to them. On the other hand a clear objective of the bioecon- sessments). The US Administration priorities include a requirement to
omy in an international sense is environmental sustainability: national reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and indicators measuring bioeconomy

3
L. Gardossi, J. Philp, F. Fava et al. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

Table 1 to “continue research and outreach in this important emerging area”

Key performance indicators at national and regional level reported in the Italian (Carlson, 2016; Executive Office of the President of the United States
Bioeconomy strategy. 2017; Federal Register 2021). Similarly, Ronzon et al. (2020) described
Criterion Indicators the challenges in estimating ‘bio-based shares’ for sectors which only
partially belong to the bioeconomy, as reported in the European NACE
Biomass availability Agricultural biomass production (kg/capita) – import
of agricultural biomass
(Nomenclature Statistique des Activités Économiques dans la Commu-
Blue biomass production (kg/capita) – import of blue nauté Européenne) classification. Difficulties are also encountered for
biomass properly classifying people working in biorefineries, where they are cur-
Forestry biomass production (kg/capita) – import of rently considered workers providing different types of services.
forestry biomass
In addition, monitoring mechanisms often fail to detect early-stage
Waste biomass production, including OFMSW
(kg/capita) – import of waste biomass companies, start-ups and spin-outs, hence neglecting their key role in
Productive structure Firms in total bioeconomy sectors (% of total firms) biotechnology development. Finally, monitoring tools are subjected to
Firms in bioeconomy sub-sectors (% of total firms) an evolutionary process, also in terms of data availability, that has to
Innovation start-ups in total bioeconomy sectors (% of
meet the change of public awareness and assessment priorities. Thus,
total innovation start-ups)
Innovation start-ups in bioeconomy sub-sectors (% of
several EU countries but also Canada and the US rely on the engage-
total innovation start-ups) ment of relevant national stakeholders for assessing data requirements
Employment structure Employment in total bioeconomy sectors (% of total and for conducting periodic revisions of programmes to evaluate im-
employment) pacts and future needs. At the same time, ad-hoc working groups, in-
Employment in bioeconomy sub-sectors (% of total
cluding different ministerial and regional representatives and national
employment)
Human capacity R&D Employment in total bioeconomy sectors (% of statistics offices, are active in some EU countries for monitoring and
total employment) assessing purposes and they are often connected to the JRC (Joint Re-
R&D Employment in bioeconomy sub-sectors (% of search Centre) of the EU Commission and EU networks and projects (e.g.
total employment)
Biomonitor; https://biomonitor.eu/).
University courses in bioeconomy sectors (% of total
university courses)
An interesting initiative is represented by the Biopreferred Program
Research institutes in bioeconomy sectors (% of total of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which helps to ensure that
research institutes) the federal government prioritises purchasing of bio-based materials for
Innovation IPRs (patents, trademarks, design) applications in total federal procurement and monitors the impact of that programme on the
bioeconomy sectors (number of applications per 1000
US bioeconomy. The USDA tracks developments in the US bioeconomy
population)
IPRs (patents, trademarks, design) applications in with a report entitled “Indicators of the U.S. Biobased Economy” which
bioeconomy sub-sectors (number of applications per details developments bioenergy jobs, revenues, and bio-based products
1000 population) (USDA 2018).
Investment Private R&D expenditure (Index (EU=1]) This second panel session of the workshop capitalised on the infor-
Public R&D expenditure (Index [EU=1])
Demographics Population growth (% year)
mation and analysis provided by the country representatives. The con-
Population 15–65 years (% of total population) clusions called for more intensive cooperation between countries and
GDP (PPP) (Index [EU=1]) actors active in this field (e.g. FAO, JRC Bioeconomy Observatory) in
Markets Turnover of total bioeconomy sectors order to achieve a coherent assessment of the bioeconomy.
Turnover of bioeconomy sub-sectors
A more effective coordination between relevant institutions and
Value-added of total bioeconomy sectors
Value-added of bioeconomy sub-sectors stakeholders is essential to achieve the goal of recognising some com-
Exports of total bioeconomy sectors related goods (% mon key indicators to evaluate the sustainability of the bioeconomy in
of total exports) a comparable manner in the different countries (Bugge et al., 2016;
Exports of bioeconomy sub-sectors related goods (% of German Bioeconomy Council 2022; Stark et al., 2022). EU countries
total exports)
Imports of total bioeconomy sectors related goods (%
are already moving towards this objective via the European Bioecon-
of total exports) omy Policy Forum and the actions formulated therein. In this context,
Imports of bioeconomy sub-sectors related goods (% of all EU MS work together with the JRC to develop suitable indicators,
total exports) applicable in a wider context. In that respect, Canada completed work
as part of the International Bioeconomy Forum to overlay bioeconomy
indicators with the UN SDGs to understand the linkages between the
progress toward emissions targets are also considered together with in- bioeconomy and the SDGs.
dicators on environmental justice to ensuring that the bioeconomy ben- However, it is necessary to underline that bioeconomy potential and
efits all US citizens including traditionally underserved communities needs vary from country to country and even at regional level. There-
(Carlson, 2016; Executive Office of the President of the United States fore, over-centralized, assessment practices and oversimplified data rep-
2017). resentations might jeopardise the validity of monitoring procedures. The
Most countries recognise that monitoring and assessing national workshop gathered the final auspices of the participants, amongst them
bioeconomy strategies is hampered by a general problem of data gaps South Africa and US asking for a far greater cooperation across the globe,
and quality homogeneity, especially at the most disaggregated data lev- possibly led by organizations such as the FAO. The cooperation will
els. Although sectoral data are available, many bioeconomy actions are enable the identification of some common indicators for bioeconomy
cross-cutting and the proposed measures are not able to distinguish how assessment at international level while other more specific indicators
they interact with each other or the overall effect on implementation must be developed for constructing effective comparative analysis of
across the whole bioeconomy implementation. At the same time, disag- bioeconomic developments at the global level. To ensure some agree-
gregation of the bioeconomic shares counted by international, EU and ment on the most suitable indicators, how specific parameters should
national agencies in terms of value-added and employment remains an be measured and ultimately how results can be compared (over time,
important task. Amongst priorities, there is the need to develop tailored regions, sectors) and interpreted, it would be useful to establish a net-
codes to distinguish between bio-based and non-bio-based products. work between bioeconomy monitoring groups, as well as stakeholders
The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has recently ac- in the industry. Furthermore, the data should be available to anyone
cepted recommendations with respect to bio-based products manufac- free of charge (open data access). The advances in digitalization, sen-
turing and renewable chemicals manufacturing, including the decision sors, artificial intelligence (AI) and analytical tools relying on satellites

4
L. Gardossi, J. Philp, F. Fava et al. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

pave the way for the collection of reliable data and effective site-specific anisms. First, the European Bioeconomy Policy Forum is a knowledge
monitoring. At the same time these innovations allow for a drastic re- exchange and policy dialogue forum for EU member states. It has five
duction of the reporting load for companies, forest owners and farm- objectives, enabled by a dual structure: a strategic/political level high
ers. As new technologies are implemented and different priorities of level group, and an operational/working level expert level group. The
sustainability come more into focus, the involvement of data collec- five objectives are:
tors and statistic institutions becomes increasingly crucial for the es-
1 Support networking and interaction between member states.
tablishment of consistent data codes and for the identification of new
2 Enhance cooperation and best practice exchange.
emerging needs in terms of data or monitoring practices. A compre-
3 Shape a concrete agenda of joint actions.
hensive monitoring framework for the bioeconomy should thus address
4 Increase the visibility/potential of the bioeconomy.
economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability and
5 Enable policy feedback and analysis.
should be based on a set of indicators that were selected in a participa-
tory process to provide information on the condition, performance and Second, the Bioeconomy Policy Support Facility was formed, with
trajectory of the bioeconomy as a whole and at different levels. This the objective to support the member states in the development of their
will in turn support the preparation and evaluation of the bioeconomy own dedicated national bioeconomy strategy/action plans. Concern-
related policies/legislations/instruments and will enable better coordi- ing governance, the facility took the form of a Mutual Learning Exer-
nation and cooperation at different policy levels, including regional and cise with the aim of identifying and sharing best practice by 19 mem-
local scales. Thus, the impact of the monitoring framework may be an ber states. The process was steered by independent experts and work-
improved and consistent basis for better policy decisions at different shops were held addressing specific objectives (e.g., encouraging inter-
policy levels. ministerial cooperation and stakeholder engagement, funding of bioe-
conomy development). A final report containing ten key policy messages
3. The bioeconomy in The European Union: the position and the and recommendations for the development of national (or regional) sus-
actions of the European Commission tainable and circular bioeconomies has been published (Anon 2022). On
the larger arena, the European Commission proposes transformation of
The bioeconomy is a cornerstone of the European economy. The EU the EU economy and society to meet climate ambitions through the Eu-
bioeconomy strategy was updated in 2018 (European Commission 2018) ropean Green Deal. The European Commission sees a knowledge-based,
to place sustainability and circularity at its heart. For the update, the sustainable and circular bioeconomy as a model for green growth. The
bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems that rely on renewable bio- JRC is the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. The
logical resources; it includes and interlinks land and marine ecosystems EC’s Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy, managed by the JRC, and the
and the services they provide (Lange et al., 2021). EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System are key tools for the deployment of
Looking at individual member states, there are currently ten EU a sustainable EU Bioeconomy (Sanchez-Jerez et al., 2023; Anon 2022,
member states with dedicated bioeconomy strategies and seven that are 2022, Kilsedar et al., 2021). A robust knowledge base and a fit-for-
in the process of developing theirs. As highlighted in the progress re- purpose monitoring system are crucial elements for adaptive and ef-
port (European Commission 2022) published by the European Commis- fective governance (Mubareka et al., 2023). The JRC approach to bioe-
sion in July 2022, “since 2018, there have been several developments conomy monitoring considers the constant evolution of the entire value
at national level: Austria, the Netherlands and Portugal have developed chain and it is object of a constant updating activity (Kilsedar et al.,
a (new) national strategy while Croatia, Czechia, Poland and Slovakia 2023; Giuntoli et al., 2023). The system consists of ten steps to moni-
(supported by the BIOEAST initiative) as well as Sweden, started the pro- toring and evaluation (Fig. 2), with the selection, collection and compi-
cess of developing one. Furthermore, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Fin- lation of indicators at its core, along with selection of reference values
land, have updated their existing strategies or action plans and Finland, for each indicator (Anon 2022; Kilsedar et al., 2021).
France and Spain are currently updating their existing national strate- The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System addresses the need for a
gies or action plans.” Furthermore, 28 EU regions have in place their comprehensive monitoring system by establishing a mechanism to mea-
own dedicated bioeconomy strategies and 69 other EU regions are in sure the progress of the EU bioeconomy towards the five strategic objec-
the process or have already adopted strategies in which the bioeconomy tives it tackles (see Supplementary Material for details). It defines and
is one of the key elements. (European Commission 2022; Haarich and implements a comprehensive monitoring framework for the EU bioecon-
Kirchmayr-Novak, 2022) Within the European scenario, Norway and the omy, which covers environmental, social and economic dimensions of
UK also have a dedicated bioeconomy strategy. sustainability and relates to the overarching Sustainable Development
There are currently three large macro-regional bioeconomy initia- Goals (SDGs) context.
tives in Europe, involving governmental authorities (Mubareka et al., As commented in a recent JRC publication, the monitoring of
2023): BIOEAST - Central-Eastern European Initiative for Knowledge- progress towards sustainability objectives still presents several indicator
based Agriculture, Aquaculture and Forestry in the Bioeconomy; Nordic gaps, in particular on the full set of climate change adaptation indica-
bioeconomy; Bioeconomy in the Baltic Sea Region. Moreover, the Eu- tors. Nevertheless, the existing indicators in agriculture and LULUCF
ropean Territorial Cooperation Programmes – Interreg - played an im- (Land use, land use change and forestry), already show negative trends.
portant role in developing four additional macro-regional initiatives: Emissions from agriculture increased from 2012 levels and trends in the
Danube Region (DanubeBioValNet); AlpLinkBioEco, Linking BioBased LULUCF are even more worrisome, with the sink effect reduced since
Industry Value Chains Across the Alpine Region; BIO-ECOnomy Re- 2013. The Water Exploitation Index, an indicator showing the balance
search Driven Innovation for the Adriatic-Ionian Region (Bioeco-RDI- between water demand and abstractions vs. water availability, appears
ADRION); Bio-Innovation Support for Entrepreneurs throughout NWE particularly critical for water-stressed regions such as the Mediterranean
regions (BioBase4SME). (Mubareka et al., 2023).
The EU Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan takes a system-wide
approach. It proposes more than research and innovation to strengthen 4. The FAO initiative “Towards sustainable bioeconomy
the bio-based sectors and unlock investments. To deploy bioeconomies guidelines (SBG)”
across Europe, policy must span the sectors and address tradeoffs (eco-
logical boundaries) and co-benefits. It must deliver its benefits for rural Through support provided by the German government, FAO has been
areas in particular. To achieve this, it has a set of 14 well-defined actions, working on the project ‘Towards sustainable bioeconomy guidelines’
including a monitoring system. The further deployment of bioeconomy (De Santi, 2021) to help countries develop coherent sustainable and cir-
strategies and policies within the EU is supported through two key mech- cular bioeconomy strategies, programmes and action plans. As part of

5
L. Gardossi, J. Philp, F. Fava et al. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

Fig. 2. Ten steps to monitoring and evaluation of the bioeconomy. Adapted from (De Santi, 2021).

this project, in 2016, an International Sustainable Bioeconomy Work- ties and when land appears to be a limited resource, how should it best
ing Group, led by FAO, was established to foster knowledge-exchange be used, e.g. for food, feed, energy, or industrial products?
on sustainable and circular bioeconomy between countries and regions, Meanwhile, it has become clear from various lines of evidence that
but also between science, policy and the private sector. biological resources alone cannot replace fossil resources as feedstocks
The International Sustainable Bioeconomy Working Group has al- for the future. Aviation fuel consumption in the EU was 62.8 million
ready achieved a number of concrete results. First, Working Group mem- tonnes in 2018. Using sunflower oil as an aviation biofuel would re-
bers have agreed on a set of principles and criteria that serve as guide- quire 60% of EU arable land (Anon 2022). Polymer production in Eu-
lines to mainstream sustainability in bioeconomy strategies. These 10 rope is of a similar volume (64 million tonnes in 2019). Global plastics
principles and 24 criteria cover the economic, environmental and social demand could continue growing to about one billion tonnes by 2050
dimensions of sustainability, but also include governance as a fourth pil- (Carus et al., 2020), while the entry of plastic waste to the marine en-
lar. Second, Working Group members have stressed the need for com- vironment is already out of control and growing as a threat to ocean
prehensive metrics and data for monitoring systems to measure the de- health (Eriksen et al., 2023). Even with 60% recycling (mechanical and
velopment of the bioeconomy and its contributions to the SDGs. Third, chemical), this implies a fossil replacement of about 400 million tonnes
the International Sustainable Bioeconomy Working Group has stressed (McKinsey 2018). As alluded to above, the heart of the issue is competi-
the need for bioeconomy initiatives to be linked more closely with other tion for land, and the international community will need to confront the
international policy processes, such as multilateral environmental agree- inevitable trade-offs. Thus, biomass must also be accompanied by other
ments, including the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Aichi sources of renewable carbon, and completing the analysis will require
biodiversity targets. policies to maximise the recycling of carbon, to create the renewable
carbon paradigm (Carus et al., 2020; Anon 2022).
Carbon management strategies, which consider all available non-
5. The transition towards carbon neutrality: the OECD BNCT geological sources of carbon, provide a holistic mechanism to plan for
foresight study the efficient supply and use of carbon, putting the carbon in its various
forms to best use (Fig. 3). Carbon management strategies would bring to-
An overarching question is how industry can be supplied with carbon gether new tools to boost bioproduction (e.g., biotechnology), measures
feedstocks when the use of fossil carbon is discontinued. The concept for resource efficiency (e.g., precision farming and cascading use of ma-
of carbon management aims to provide a holistic view on carbon as a terials) and the circular economy (Marvik, 2021). Importantly, carbon
limited resource by broadening the perspectives of the bioeconomy to management policies must also account for energy aspects (Huang et al.,
include reuse and recycling of carbon present in the bio- and techno- 2021) i.e., include the (renewable) energy needed to collect, concen-
sphere (Carus et al., 2020) as well as direct use of atmospheric CO2 as trate, upgrade or recycle the various carbon resources.
a future industrial feedstock. Finally, carbon capture and sequestration In the context of carbon management, more work is required to
activities are also part of carbon management. better understand the constraints on land and water use in bioproduc-
Even with the strongest intention to foster greater future sustain- tion and the energy consumption in carbon recycling (Hernandez and
ability and resilience, it is entirely foreseeable that the increasing use Cullen, 2019) or industrial capturing of atmospheric CO2 (Chen et al.,
of biomass for food, materials, and chemicals, could lead to over- 2023). Even with appropriate indicators in place, it should be realized
exploitation of natural resources. Limited resources could then lead to that a key challenge in addressing these issues and tradeoffs in policy
competition for land between bioenergy (climate action) and food crops making, is that it requires value-based assessment and prioritizing quali-
(food security) or between the bio-based production and the preserva- tatively different entities such as CO2 footprint, food security, economic
tion of biodiversity and natural ecosystems. This raises a series of critical development and biodiversity. This is enshrined in the concept of “car-
questions. How much land should be made available for human activi- bon tunnel vision” (Deivanayagam and Osborne, 2023).

6
L. Gardossi, J. Philp, F. Fava et al. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

Fig. 3. Carbon management: a more complete narrative. DAC:

Direct Air Capture. Source (Marvik, 2021), (Marvik O.J., 2021).

Thus, when limited availability of bioresources lead to sustainabil- Fundings

ity tradeoffs, a logical step would be to expand the reference system to
include all alternative carbon sources. From this perspective, the bioe- This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen-
conomy is a significant but fully integrated part of a comprehensive re- cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
newable carbon economy, while carbon management offers a new over-
arching framework for constructive discussions between all stakeholders Disclaimer statement
in carbon-dependant value chains.
The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those
of the OECD or the governments of OECD member countries.
6. Conclusions: research and policy implications
Declaration of Competing Interest
There are important open-ended issues that are germane to the out-
comes of the workshop that require further research and policy action. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Given that it is unlikely that a unifying definition of bioeconomy is interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
achieved in the near future, there will be a growing need to demonstrate the work reported in this paper.
to governments the economic returns of further investing in the concept.
The factors that thwart such an analysis come back to the fundamen- CRediT authorship contribution statement
tal question about how economic activity and sustainability are mea-
sured. The difficulties in measuring economic activity (Carlson, 2016; Lucia Gardossi: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Super-
European Commission 2008) have been alluded to, and the wide scope vision. Jim Philp: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Super-
of economic sectors further complicates this measurement. An encour- vision. Fabio Fava: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Super-
aging development has been that, for the 2022 revision, the US Of- vision. David Winickoff: Data curation, Writing – review & editing.
fice of Management and Budget (OMB) has accepted recommendations Laura D’Aprile: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Benedetta
with respect to bio-based products manufacturing and renewable chem- Dell’Anno: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Ole Jørgen Mar-
icals manufacturing, including the decision to “continue research and out- vik: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Andrea Lenzi: Data cu-
reach in this important emerging area” (Federal Register 2021). Whilst not ration, Writing – review & editing.
definitive, this is clearly a step in the right direction. If brought to the at-
tention of policy makers in other countries, this might bring the impetus Acknowledgments
needed to fill serious gaps in data on economic activity.
Likewise, ‘sustainability as a mode of governance’ might be mov- The authors are grateful to Professor Roberto Cingolani, Minister,
ing in the right direction, but political pressure will still be needed. In Ministry of the Ecological Transition; Professor Maria Cristina Messa,
practical terms, harmonization of sustainability measurement may not Minister, Ministry for University and Research, and Dr. Giancarlo Gior-
be possible, but harmonization of the methodology for both the public getti, Minister, Ministry of Industrial Development, Dr. Antonio Bernar-
and private sector seems possible. What is indicated is the need for an dini, Italian Ambassador at OECD & Ministry for Foreign Affairs and
international public-private partnership that can decide on the key indi- International Cooperation, Dr. Masamichi Kono, Deputy Secretary Gen-
cators that are within reach of gathering data. For example, Alviar et al., eral, OECD for their key contributions to the opening and concluding
(2021) proposed five indicators to estimate the contribution of the bioe- sessions. They are then wish to acknowledge Peter Wehrheim, European
conomy to value added, employment, and GHG emissions in Colom- Commission (DG RTD), Giovanni De Santi, European Commission (JRC)
bia by an input–output analysis. The extent to which such national ap- and Maurizio Martina, Deputy Director General at FAO, for their ple-
proaches can be harmonized internationally deserves research and pol- nary talks, and are also grateful to the delegates of the G20/OECD coun-
icy attention. tries who contributed to the panel sessions and in particular: Dalia Lewi

7
L. Gardossi, J. Philp, F. Fava et al. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

(Argentina), Gottfried Lamers (Austria), Bruno Nunes (Brazil), Sandy and Innovation, Directorate C — Healthy Planet, Unit C3 — Climate and Planetary
Marshall and Anthony Imbrogno (Canada), Sari Tasa (Finland), Andrea Boundaries. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg doi:10.2777/
244577.
Noske (Germany), Maeve Henchion & Patrick Barrett (Ireland), Takahiro Egenolf, V., Bringezu, S., 2019. Conceptualization of an indicator system for
Ohno (Japan), Thomas Malla and Ole J. Marvik (Norway), Ben Durham assessing the sustainability of the bioeconomy. Sustainability 11 (2), 443.
(South Africa), Jay Fitzgerald (USA), Danilo Porro (Italy) and Françoise doi:10.3390/su11020443.
El-Chichakli, B., Von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D., Philp, J., 2016. Five cornerstones of
Roure (France). Finally, the authors wish to also tank Isabella Palombini a global bioeconomy. Nature 535, 221–223. doi:10.1038/535221a.
(IT representative at the OECD in Paris) and Agostino Inguscio (ISPI, Eriksen, M., Cowger, W., Erdle, L.M., Coffin, S., Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Moore, C.J., Car-
Rome) for their contribution in the programme set up. penter, E.J., Day, R.H., Thiel, M., Wilcox, C., 2023. A growing plastic smog, now
estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans—urgent
The authors are very grateful to the reviewers who analysed the
solutions required. PLoS One 18, e0281596.
manuscript in detail, providing valuable comments and suggestions for European Commission, 2008. NACE Rev. 2 – Statistical classification of Economic Activ-
its improvement. ities in the European Community. Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
European Commission, 2018. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the
Supplementary materials Connection Between Economy, Society and the Environment. Updated Bioeconomy
Strategy. European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2022. EU Bioeconomy Strategy Progress Report. European Bioe-
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
conomy Policy: Stocktaking and Future Developments. Publications Office of the Eu-
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.bioeco.2023.100053. ropean Union, Luxembourg, p. 2022. doi:10.2777/997651.
Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2017. The North American Industry
References Classification System.
Federal Register, 2021. Office of management and budget, North American industry clas-
Aggestam, F., Giurca, A., 2022. Implementing circular-bioeconomy. Principles across sification system—Revision for 2022. Fed. Regist. 86 (242), 72277.
two value chains of the wood-based sector: a conceptual approach. Land 11, 2037. Frisvold, G.B., Moss, S.M., Hodgson, A., Maxon, M.E., 2021. Understanding the
doi:10.3390/land11112037. U.S. bioeconomy: a new definition and landscape. Sustainability 13, 1627.
Alviar, M., García-Suaza, A., Ramírez-Gómez, L., Villegas-Velásquez, S., 2021. Measuring doi:10.3390/su13041627.
the contribution of the bioeconomy: the case of Colombia and Antioquia. Sustainabil- German Bioeconomy Council, 2022. Bioeconomy: Shaping a Sustainable Future Together
ity 13, 2353. doi:10.3390/su13042353. https://www.biooekonomierat.de/media/pdf/arbeitspapiere/Bioeconomy_Shaping_
Anon, Nova Institute press release, http://news.bio-based.eu/can-the-european-unions-ker a_sustainable_future_together.pdf?m=1647441088& (Accessed 5 March 2023).
osene-demand-be-met-by-the-amount-of-biomass-produced-in-the-eu/(Accessed 13 Giuntoli, J., Oliver, T., Kallis, G., Ramcilovik-Suominen, S., Monbiot, G., 2023. Explor-
December 2022). ing New Visions for a Sustainable Bioeconomy. Publications Office of the European
Anon, European Commission, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/monit Union, Luxembourg Giuntoli, J. and Mubareka, S. editorsISBN 978-92-68-00294-0
oring_en (Accessed 29 November 2022). doi:10.2760/79421.
Anon, European Commission, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy_en Haarich, S., Kirchmayr-Novak, S., 2022. “Bioeconomy Strategy Development in EU
(Accessed 29 November 2022). regions, Sanchez Lopez J., Borzacchiello M.T. and Avraamides M. Editors. Pub-
Anon, European Commission, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ lications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg ISBN 978-92-76-49341-9
2cf89630-e2bc-11eb-895a-01aa75ed71a1/(Accessed 23 December 2022). doi:10.2760/065902.
Anon, Natural Resources Institute Finland, https://www.LUKE.fi/en/natural-resources/ Hernandez, A.G., Cullen, J.M., 2019. Exergy: a universal metric for measuring resource
finnish-bioeconomy-in-numbers/(Accessed 29 November 2022). efficiency to address industrial decarbonization. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 20, 151–
Anon, R. Guisson, https://edepot.wur.nl/356165 (Accessed 29 November 2022). 164. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2019.05.006.
Anon, Cambridge Econometrics, https://edepot.wur.nl/356161 (Accessed 29 November Huang, K., Peng, X., Kong, L., Wu, W., Chen, Y., Maravelias, C.T., 2021. Greenhouse
2022). gas emission mitigation potential of chemicals produced from biomass. ACS Sustain.
Anon, National Bioeconomy Coordination Board, National Committee of Biosafety, Chem. Eng. 9, 14480–14487. doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c04836.
Biotechnology and Life Sciences of the Presidency of Council of Ministers, Rome Italy, Kilsedar, C., Patani, S., Olsson, M., Girardi, J., Mubareka, S., 2023. EU Bioeconomy
https://cnbbsv.palazzochigi.it/media/1953/bit-ii-2019-en.pdf (Accessed 29 Novem- Monitoring System Dashboards: Extended With Trade-Related Indicators. Publica-
ber 2022). tions Office of the European Union, Luxembourg ISBN 978-92-76-61625-2JRC132356
Anon https://cnbbsv.palazzochigi.it/en/bioeconomy/bioeconomy-events/g20-oecd-work doi:10.2760/217911.
shop-bioeconomy-in-the-g20-and-oecd-countries/(Accessed 29 November 2022). Kilsedar, C.E., Wertz, S., Robert, N., Mubareka, S., 2021. Implementation of the EU Bioe-
Anon, International Energy Agency Bioenergy, https://www.iea.org/reports/bioenergy. conomy Monitoring System dashboards. Status and Technical Description As of De-
(Accessed 11 March 2023). cember 2020. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg ISBN 978-92-
Anon (2023) https://biooekonomie.de/en/topics/in-depth-reports-worldwide. 76-28946-3 doi:10.2760/577115.
Arru, B., Furesi, R., Pulina, P., Sau, P., Madau, F.A., 2022. The circular economy in the agri- Kircher, M., 2022. Economic trends in the transition into a circular bioeconomy. J. Risk
food system: a performance measurement of European Countries. Economia Agro- Financ. Manag. 15, 44. doi:10.3390/jrfm15020044.
Alimentare/Food Econ. 24 (2). doi:10.3280/ecag2022oa13245. Lange, L., Connor, K.O., Arason, S., Bundgård-Jørgensen, U., Canalis, A., Carrez, D., Gal-
Bell, J., Philp, J., Kitney, R.I., 2021. Addressing the post-COVID era through engineering lagher, J., Gøtke, N., Huyghe, C., Jarry, B., Llorente, P., Marinova, M., Martins, L.O.,
biology. Eng. Biol. 5, 21–34. doi:10.1049/enb2.12008. Mengal, P., Paiano, P., Panoutsou, C., Rodrigues, L., Stengel, D.B., van der Meer, Y.,
Böhringer, C., Jochem, P.E.P., 2007. Measuring the immeasurable - a survey of sustain- Vieira, H., 2021. Developing a sustainable and circular bio-based economy in EU:
ability indices. Ecol. Econ. 63, 1–8. by partnering across sectors, upscaling and using new knowledge faster, and for the
Bracco, S., Calicioglu, O., Gomez San Juan, M., Flammini, A., 2018. Assessing the con- benefit of climate, environment & biodiversity, and people & business. Front. Bioeng.
tribution of bioeconomy to the total economy: a review of national frameworks. Sus- Biotechnol. 8, 619066. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.619066.
tainability 10, 1698. Lier, M., Aarne, M., Kärkkäinen, L., Korhonen, K.T., Yli-Viikari, A., Packalen, T.,
Bruckner, M., Fischer, G., Tramberend, S., Giljum, S., 2015. Measuring telecouplings in the 2018. Synthesis on bioeconomy monitoring systems in the EU Member States
global land system: a review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting - indicators for monitoring the progress of bioeconomy. Natur. Resour. Bioe-
methods. Ecol. Econ. 114, 11–21. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.008. con. Stud.. 38/2018. Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki 2018
Bugge, M.M., Hansen, T., Klitkou, A., 2016. What is the bioeconomy? A review of the http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-326-607-0 . (Accessed 29 November 2022).
literature. Sustainability 8, 691. doi:10.3390/su8070691, (2016). Marvik, O.J., 2021. Carbon management; a potential policy framework integrating the
Carlson, R., 2016. Estimating the biotech sector’s contribution to the US economy. Nat. bioeconomy, carbon recycling and renewable energy. resentation at the G20 OECD-B-
Biotechnol. 34, 247–255. doi:10.1038/nbt.3491. NCT Workshop: Bioeconomy in the G20 and OECD Countries: Sharing and Comparing
Carus, M., Dammer, L., Raschka, A., Skoczinski, P., 2020. Renewable carbon: key to a the Existing National Strategies and Policies for Co-Designing More Effective Bioecon-
sustainable and future-oriented chemical and plastic industry: definition, strategy, omy Governance Mechanisms and Monitoring Systems.
measures and potential. Greenh. Gases 10, 488–505. doi:10.1002/ghg.1992. Marvik, O.J., Philp, J., 2020. The systemic challenge of the bioeconomy: a policy frame-
Chen, H., Dong, H., Shi, Z., SenGupta, A.K., 2023. Direct air capture (DAC) and seques- work for transitioning towards a sustainable carbon cycle economy. EMBO Rep. 21,
tration of CO2 : dramatic effect of coordinated Cu(II) onto a chelating weak base ion e51478. doi:10.15252/embr.202051478.
exchanger. Sci. Adv. 9. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg1956, eadg1956. McKinsey, 2018. How Plastics-Waste Recycling Could Transform the Chemical Industry.
Deivanayagam, T.A., Osborne, R.E., 2023. Breaking free from tunnel vision for cli- Meyfroidt, P., de Bremond, A., Ryan, C.M., Archer, E., Aspinall, R., Chhabra, A., Ca-
mate change and health. PLOS Glob. Public Health 3, e0001684. doi:10.1371/jour- mara, G., Corbera, E., DeFries, R., Díaz, S., Dong, J., Ellis, E.C., Erb, K.-.H., Fisher, J.A.,
nal.pgph.0001684. Garrett, R.D., Golubiewski, N.E., Grau, H.R., Grove, J.M., Haberl, H., Heinimann, A.,
De Santi, G., 2021. The FAO initiative ‘towards sustainable bioeconomy guidelines (SBG)’. Hostert, P., Jobbágy, E.G., Kerr, S., Kuemmerle, T., Lambin, E.F., Lavorel, S., Lele, S.,
Presentation at the G20 OECD-BNCT Workshop: Bioeconomy in the G20 and OECD Mertz, O., Messerli, P., Metternicht, G., Munroe, D.K., Nagendra, H., Nielsen, J.Ø.,
Countries: Sharing and Comparing the Existing National Strategies and Policies for Ojima, D.S., Parker, D.C., Pascual, U., Porter, J.R., Ramankutty, N., Reenberg, A.,
Co-Designing More Effective Bioeconomy Governance Mechanisms and Monitoring Chowdhury, R.R., Seto, K.C., Seufert, V., Shibata, H., Thomson, A., Turner, B.L.,
Systems. Urabe, J., Veldkamp, T., Verburg, P.H., Zeleke, G.,., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J, 2022. Ten
Dumitru, A., Wendling, L., 2021. Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions: a facts about land systems for sustainability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119, e2109217118.
handbook for practitioners. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2109217118.

8
L. Gardossi, J. Philp, F. Fava et al. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 3 (2023) 100053

Mubareka, S., Giuntoli, J., Sanchez Lopez, J., Lasarte Lopez, J., M‘barek, R., Ronzon, T., Stark, S., Biber-Freudenberger, L., Dietz, T., Escobar, N., Förster, J., Hender-
Renner, A., Avraamides, M, 2023. Trends in the EU bioeconomy. EUR 31434 EN. son, J., Laibach, N., Börner, J., 2022. Sustainability implications of transfor-
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg ISBN 978-92-68-00295-7 mation pathways for the bioeconomy. Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 29, 215–227.
doi:10.2760/835046. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.011.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020. Safeguarding the Bioe- Stegmann, P., Londo, M., Junginger, M., 2020. The circular bioeconomy: its elements
conomy. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC doi:10.17226/25525. and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 6, 100029.
OECD, 2018. Meeting Policy Challenges for a Sustainable Bioeconomy. OECD Publishing, doi:10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100029.
Paris doi:10.1787/9789264292345-en. US White House, 2012. National Bioeconomy Blueprint.
OECD, 2023. Carbon Management for Net Zero: Bioeconomy and Beyond. OECD Publish- USDA, 2018. An Economic Impact Analysis of the U.S. Biobased Products Industry (2018).
ing, Paris in press. USDA, Washington, DC.
Ronzon, T., Piotrowski, S., Tamosiunas, S., Dammer, L., Carus, M., M’barek, R, 2020. van Dam, J., Junginger, M., 2011. Striving to further harmonization of sustainability cri-
Developments of economic growth and employment in bioeconomy sectors across teria for bioenergy in Europe: recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire.
the EU. Sustainability 12, 4507. doi:10.3390/su12114507. Energy Policy 39, 4051–4066. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.022.
Sanchez-Jerez, P.J., Raftoyannis, Y., Rihimaki, M., 2023. EU Bioeconomy Monitoring Velasco-Mu˜noz, J.F., Mendoza, J.M.F., Aznar-S´anchez, J.A., Gallego-Schmid, A.,
System Indicator Update. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 2021. Circular economy implementation in the agricultural sector: defi-
Mubareka S. edISBN 978-92-76-61674-0JRC132405 doi:10.2760/19269. nition, strategies and indicators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 170, 105618.
Shawki, N., 2016. Norms and normative change in world politics: an analysis of land doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105618.
rights and the Sustainable Development Goals. Global Change, Peace & Security 28,
249–269. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.008.