The Role of Bioenergy in the Emerging Bioeconomy: Resources, Technologies, Sustainability and Policy

The Role of Bioenergy in the Emerging Bioeconomy

Resources, Technologies, Sustainability and Policy

Edited by

Carmen Lago

Energy System Analysis Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Natalia Caldés

Energy System Analysis Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Yolanda Lechón

Energy System Analysis Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

List of Contributors

Preface

Acknowledgments

Part I: Introduction, Resources and Technology

Chapter One. Nexus Bioenergy–Bioeconomy

Abstract

1.1 Nexus Bioenergy–BE

1.2 BE and Sustainable Development

1.3 Bioeconomy–Circular Economy

1.4 Cascading Use

1.5 Bioenergy and Policy Context

References

Chapter Two. Biomass Resources

Abstract

2.1 Biomass as a Renewable Source of Energy

2.2 Chemical Composition and Characterization of Biomass

2.3 Classification of Biomass Types

2.4 Biomass Resources

List of Abbreviations

References

Chapter Three. Liquid Biofuels

Abstract

3.1 Introduction

3.2 First-Generation Technologies for Liquid Biofuels Production

3.3 Second-Generation Technologies for Liquid Biofuels Production

3.4 Prospective Technologies

3.5 Challenges, Opportunities, and Barriers

3.6 Concluding Remarks

References

Chapter Four. Solid Biomass to Heat and Power

Abstract

Acknowledgments

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Biomass for Solid Biofuels

4.3 Solid Biomass Consumption

4.4 Solid Biomass Heat and Power Generation Technologies

4.5 Thermal Energy and/or Electricity Generation Costs With Biomass

4.6 Conclusions

References

Chapter Five. Biorefineries

Abstract

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Description of Biorefineries

5.3 Concepts of Biorefineries

5.4 Integration in Existing Infrastructure

5.5 Biorefinery Complexity Index

5.6 Economic and Environmental Aspects of Biorefineries

5.7 Perspectives

Endnotes

References

Part II: Sustainability

Chapter Six. Sustainability of Bioenergy

6.1. State of the Art

6.1.1 Sustainability: From Stockholm to Rio to New York—and Beyond

6.1.2 Sustainable Biomass: Principles, Criteria, and Indicators

6.1.3 Sustainability Challenges for Bioenergy: Open Issues

6.1.4 Governance of Sustainable Bioenergy

6.1.5 The Way Forward

Further Reading

6.2. Sustainability of Bioeconomy

6.2.1 Social Considerations for the Bioeconomy Sustainability Assessment

6.2.2 Social Methods in Bioeconomy

6.2.3 Job Creation, Working Conditions, and Rural Development

6.2.4 Food Production, GMOs, and Links to the Sustainable Development Goals

6.2.5 Stakeholders, Gender, Skills, and Training

6.2.6 Society Perception, Corporate Sustainability Reporting, and Monitoring

6.2.7 Conclusions

Further Reading

6.3. Socioeconomic Pillar. Methodology and Case Study

6.3.1 Overview

6.3.2 Socioeconomic Implications of Bioenergy: A Review

6.3.3 Methodologies to Estimate the Socioeconomic Implications of Bioenergy

6.3.4 The IO Methodology

6.3.5 Discussion and Conclusions

Further Reading

6.4. Environmental Pillar: Methodology and Case Study

6.4.1 Methodological Background

6.4.2 Application to Bioenergy Chains

6.4.3 Bourgogne Pellets: A Case Study Based on Perennial Biomass Crops

6.4.4 Advanced Topics

Further Reading

Chapter Seven. Key Challenges and Opportunities

7.1. Contribution of Bioenergy to Rural Development

7.1.1 The Status of World’s Rural Population

7.1.2 Energy Availability and Supply in Rural Areas

7.1.3 Access to Modern Energy Services by Means of Locally Produced Bioenergy

7.1.4 Multifunctionality of Bioenergy in an Integrated Production System for Food, Feed, Energy, and Other Products

7.1.5 Multiplier Effect of Bioenergy in Local Economic Development

7.1.6 Environmental Benefits

7.1.7 The Experience of Bioenergy Villages

7.1.8 Specific Considerations for Developing Countries

7.1.9 Potential Risks and Necessary Requirements for a Sustainable and Equitable Development

7.1.10 Conclusions

7.2. Factors for Bioenergy Market Development

7.2.1 Introduction

7.2.2 Review of Bioenergy Consumer Studies

7.2.3 A Framework for Developing the Bioeconomy

7.2.4 Bioenergy: Policy Context in Europe

7.2.5 National Bioeconomy Strategies

7.2.6 European Commission Market Pull Recommendations

7.2.7 B2B Marketing of Bio-Based Products

7.2.8 Public Procurement as a Market Pull Measure for Bioenergy

7.2.9 Conclusions

Further Reading

7.3. Bioenergy Governance

7.3.1 Climate Change and Bioenergy Governance

7.3.2 Developing a Climate Change Agenda

7.3.3 Bioenergy Opportunities: Setting the Agenda

7.3.4 Why Creating an International Agenda on Bioenergy?

7.3.5 Bioenergy Challenges: Governance Coordination and NDCs Implementation

7.3.6 Case Study: Colombia’s Biodiversity Strategy as a Multilevel Approach to Governance

Further Reading

7.4. Bioenergy and Food Security: Synergies and Trade-offs

7.4.1 Introduction

7.4.2 The Food Versus Fuel Debate: A False Trade-off?

7.4.3 Rethinking Food Security and Bioenergy Linkages

7.4.4 Where Bioenergy Can Help (or Hurt) Food Security

7.4.5 Conclusions

Chapter Eight. Land–Water–Energy Nexus of Biofuels Development in Emerging Economies: A Case Study of Bioethanol Policy in Thailand

Abstract

8.1 Emerging Economies and Biofuels Development

8.2 Land–Water–Energy Nexus and Sustainability of Food and Biofuels Production

8.3 Life Cycle–Based Indicators for Land–Water–Energy Nexus Assessment

8.4 A Case Study: Land–Water–Energy Nexus of Biofuels Policy Mandate in Thailand

8.5 Conclusions

References

Part III: Future Trends and Policy

Chapter Nine. Innovation on Bioenergy

Abstract

Acknowledgments

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Emerging Biofuels From Biochemical-Based Technologies

9.3 Emerging Biofuels From Thermochemical-Based Technologies

9.4 Advanced Renewable Fuels

9.5 Future Trends on Heat, Cooling, and Power Technologies

9.6 Conclusions

References

Chapter Ten. Future Role of Bioenergy

Abstract

10.1 Bioenergy Perspectives

10.2 Policies and Measures to Support Sustainable Bioenergy

Disclaimer

References

Further Reading

Index

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-12-813056-8

For Information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Jonathan Simpson

Acquisition Editor: Raquel Zanol

Editorial Project Manager: Charlotte Rowley/Gabriela Capille

Production Project Manager: Sruthi Satheesh

Cover Designer: Christian Bilbow

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

List of Contributors

Mercedes Ballesteros,     Biofuels Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Natalia Caldés,     Energy System Analysis Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

María Dolores Curt,     Agro-Energy Group, College of Agricultural Engineering, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Jean-Francois Dallemand,     Directorate for Energy, Transport and Climate, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra (VA), Italy

Cristina de la Rúa,     Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

Rocio Diaz-Chavez,     Stockholm Environment Institute Africa Centre, Nairobi, Kenya

Jesús Fernández,     Agro-Energy Group, College of Agricultural Engineering, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Uwe R. Fritsche,     International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy (IINAS), Darmstadt, Germany

Benoît Gabriel,     EcoSys Joint Research Unit, AgroParisTech, INRA, Paris, France

Felipe García Cardona,     Dirección General, Colombia Bio. Bogotá, Colombia

Shabbir H. Gheewala

The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand

Center for Energy Technology and Environment, Ministry of Education, Bangkok, Thailand

Francisco Gírio,     LNEG, Bioenergy Unit, Lisboa, Portugal

Israel Herrera,     Energy System Analysis Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Maria Hingsamer,     Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, LIFE—Centre for Climate, Energy and Society, Graz, Austria

Jorge Islas,     Instituto de Energías Renovables, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Temixco, Morelos, Mexico

Gerfried Jungmeier,     Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, LIFE—Centre for Climate, Energy and Society, Graz, Austria

Carmen Lago,     Energy System Analysis Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Yolanda Lechón,     Energy System Analysis Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Paloma Manzanares,     Biofuels Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Fabio Manzini,     Instituto de Energías Renovables, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Temixco, Morelos, Mexico

Omar Masera,     Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico

Siwa Msangi,     Environment & Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, United States

Paul O’Reilly,     College of Business, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland

Francisco José Domínguez Pérez,     Institute for Energy Diversification and Saving (IDAE), Madrid, Spain

Aurelie Perrin,     EcoSys Joint Research Unit, AgroParisTech, INRA, Paris, France

Mateo Prada Quintero,     Dirección General, Colombia Bio. Bogotá, Colombia

Nicolas Robert,     European Commission—DG Joint Research Centre (JRC), Directorate D—Sustainable Resources, Unit D1—Bio-Economy, Ispra, Italy

Javier Sánchez,     European Commission—DG Joint Research Centre (JRC), Directorate D—Sustainable Resources, Unit D1—Bio-Economy, Ispra, Italy

Nicolae Scarlat,     Directorate for Energy, Transport and Climate, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra (VA), Italy

Thapat Silalertruksa

The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand

Center for Energy Technology and Environment, Ministry of Education, Bangkok, Thailand

Viridiana Vargas,     Instituto de Energías Renovables, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Temixco, Morelos, Mexico

Preface

This book provides the reader with a complete understanding of the role that bioenergy may play in the new bioeconomy paradigm. Given the authors’ expertise and outstanding contributions to this book, this publication provides an excellent, highly readable, and comprehensive overview of the diverse issues of relevance to bioenergy in the emerging bioeconomy. Given the current relevance and even increasing importance that this topic is going to have in the future, it is a useful reference document, not just for the sector itself, but also more widely for policy and decision makers as well as researchers, analysts, and graduate students.

This book covers all key topics such as the nexus between bioenergy and bioeconomy, resources, transport biofuels, heat and power biomass, biorefineries, sustainability of bioenergy, challenges and opportunities, the water–energy–land nexus, innovation, and the future role of bioenergy. It is worth mentioning that for some of these topics, a more detailed analysis and information is provided. For example, within sustainability of bioenergy, a chapter on the state of the art is provided followed by three chapters that cover the three sustainability pillars—social, environmental, socioeconomic—not only from a conceptual point of view but also from an assessment methodological point of view through concrete bioenergy case studies. Similarly, within the section on key challenges and opportunities, four distinctive chapters cover address: the potential contribution of bioenergy to rural developments, bioenergy market developments, relation between bioenergy and food security and bioenergy governance.

The proposed book enlarges the existing body of literature by providing a complete overview of bioenergy main issues focusing on the challenges that bioenergy will have to overcome in order to play a key role in the future energy system.

Sustainable development of bioenergy into a circular economy will require the integration and consideration of the interests and concerns of policy makers, researchers and technology developers, project developers, as well as society. For sustainable bioenergy to have a key role in future energy systems, it will be important to make an optimal use of biomass resources with less environmental impact (particularly reducing greenhouse gas emissions) while fostering positive social and economic effects.

Additionally, novel issues such as land–energy–water nexus implications and governance aspects are treated in detail in the book, being these aspects usually missing in the existing literature in this area. The presentation of the future role of biomass in transition pathways scenarios in competition with other alternative technologies gives the reader with a more complete understanding of the challenges and opportunities of bioenergy.

We hope the book will help researches, analysts, policy makers, and students to update specific knowledge and expertise other aspects of biobased economy not included into their day-by-day activities but needed in the development of their investigations. The book also offers knowledge of valuable case studies of the three pillars of sustainability as well as the competition for land, water, and food and the future trends and challenges.

Acknowledgments

First, we would like to gratefully acknowledge all authors who have written the various chapters included in the Bioenergy in the Emerging Bioeconomy book. Our sincere gratitude for contributing with their time and expertise to make this a relevant, comprehensive, scientifically sound, up-to-date, and high quality publication. Without their dedication and outstanding contributions, this would not have been possible.

Second, we would like to thank the reviewers of this book for their support and guidance to improve the quality, coherence, and content presentation of chapters through valuable and outstanding comments and suggestions. Besides the initial revision by the editors, the review process has been a time-consuming task by a distinguished group of researchers in the field. For this reason, we would like to acknowledge the immense contribution of Ana Luisa Fernando (Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa); Barbara Bramble (The National Wildlife Federation, Washington); and Miguel Brandao (KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm).

Finally, we would also like to expand our deepest gratitude to all those who have directly and indirectly guided us in writing this assignment. We want also to make a special mention to Elsevier editorial personnel for their patient, professional support, and encouragement throughout the book development process.

Part I

Introduction, Resources and Technology

Outline

Chapter One Nexus Bioenergy–Bioeconomy

Chapter Two Biomass Resources

Chapter Three Liquid Biofuels

Chapter Four Solid Biomass to Heat and Power

Chapter Five Biorefineries

Chapter One

Nexus Bioenergy–Bioeconomy

Carmen Lago, Israel Herrera, Natalia Caldés and Yolanda Lechón,    Energy System Analysis Unit, Energy Department, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

This first chapter provides an introduction to the role that bioenergy can play in the future bioeconomy by first defining some key terms such as bioenergy, bioeconomy, circular economy and cascading use.Bioenergy is a renewable energy produced from natural sources -energy crops, biomass, wastes and by-products, macro algae, microalgae, seaweeds and aquatic plants- capable of replacing fossil energy. As such, sustainable bioenergy is called upon to play an important role in the future’s economy by contributing to decarbonise the energy systems and providing GHG emission savings.While the bioeconomy concept is still under development, it refers to the set of economic activities relating to the invention, development, production and use of biological products and processes. In a broader sense, bieconomy implies establishing connections with other industrial sectors to make the human activity more environmentally friendly, more circular, more bio-based, more inclusive, more competitive and, ultimately, more sustainable.Compared to the traditional economy which often implies take, make and dispose, the concept of circular economy is based on the fundamental 'closing the loop' that implies collecting waste from the different processes, recycling and using it to make new products. Finally, the term Cascading use describes the efficient utilisation of resources by using residues and recycled materials for material use to extend total biomass availability within a given system. In this sense, the cascading use of biomass may maintain the optimal value creation and resource efficiency while decreasing at the same time the GHG emissions, minimizing depletion of biomass resource and reducing the competition between different biomass uses such as food and feed, chemicals, materials, fuel and energy.As it is the case for other activities, bioenergy could lead to both positive and negative impacts depending on how, where and under what circumstances biomass and residues are produced, harvested, transported and processed. While most of the environmental studies have focused on the positive aspects related to climate change mitigation such as GHG emission savings, negative impacts have also received special attention mostly as a result biodiversity loss and indirect land use change.In any case, bioenergy sustainable assessments must cover the three sustainability pillars: social, environmental and economic so that their results can incline decision makers towards those chains that are most beneficialIn today’s globalized world, strategies have to be also interconnected. Bioenergy and bioeconomy policies should be aligned with the international initiatives devoting to protect human being and nature such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, United Nations 2030 Sustainable Agenda (Sustainable Development Goals) or the Aichi agreement on biodiversity.Finally, one must not forget that the involvement of all actors and stakeholders is essential in the construction of the governance of the new bioeconomy. Citizens, politicians, business, consumers, policy makers, local, regional and national authorities, scientific and technological community, retailers, media, non-governmental organizations as well as development cooperation agencies have a central role to play.

Keywords

Bioenergy; bioeconomy; sustainable development; circular economy; cascading use

Contents

1.1 Nexus Bioenergy–BE 4

1.2 BE and Sustainable Development 6

1.3 Bioeconomy–Circular Economy 12

1.4 Cascading Use 16

1.5 Bioenergy and Policy Context 17

References 20

The role of bioenergy in the emerging bioeconomy (BE) aims to provide the reader with a complete understanding of the possible future role that bioenergy can play in the new BE paradigm. For this purpose, the book has gathered some of the most prominent authors to cover a wide range of issues that will determine the present and future role of bioenergy in the BE.

Besides describing the content of the book, this chapter also introduces some key concepts that are considered relevant and will be used throughout the following chapters as well as a brief summary about current status and policy context of bioenergy.

As for the content of the book, it starts with an introduction to the nexus between bioenergy and BE as well as the resources and technologies that could play an important role in future bioenergy production. Next, a whole section is also devoted to analyze how sustainability of bioenergy can be assessed from a methodological point of view. In this sense, the three sustainability pillars are addressed, and the applicability of the proposed methodological approaches is demonstrated through concrete bioenergy case studies. Additionally, some of the most relevant challenges and opportunities for bioenergy are also covered in this book. Examples of those include its potential impacts in rural development, food security, and other related markets. The role that institutions and governance currently play in the present and future of bioenergy is also covered in this book together with the implications of bioenergy in the water–energy–land nexus. Furthermore, the expected evolution of biomass technologies as well as the role that bioenergy can play in the possible transition pathways to a low carbon economy are presented using the results from the energy modeling literature. Finally, the last section is dedicated to explore and propose a portfolio of policies and measures to support sustainable bioenergy in the future taking into consideration its challenges and opportunities. As a note of caution to the reader, it is important to take into consideration that many of the concepts covered in this book—such as BE, circular economy (CE), cascading use, and even sustainable development—do not yet have a universal and commonly agreed definition. In this sense, one can find different meanings with slightly different nuances of the same concept in the literature depending on the author and context.

The remaining part of this chapter will focus on introducing the two concepts that are pillars to this book: bioenergy and BE.

1.1 Nexus Bioenergy–BE

Bioenergy is defined as a renewable energy produced from natural sources capable of replacing fossil energy. There exist a wide range of biological resources that can be used to produce bioenergy such as energy crops, biomass residues from forest and crops, wastes and by-products from agro-industries and pulp and paper industries, wet organic wastes and the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Macro algae, microalgae, seaweeds, and aquatic plants are also considered very attractive future biological resources (OECD/IEA, 2017). Regardless of the resource, bioenergy can be used as a sustainable source of power providing heat, gas, and fuel to produce heat, electricity, and cogeneration and transportation fuels. More recently, biomass can also be used for the production of biomaterials and bioproducts.

Projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA) provide a clear vision of the importance of bioenergy expansion. According to the same source, bioenergy will provide nearly 17% of the final energy demand by 2060. At the same time, bioenergy can reach 20% of cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings (OECD/IEA, 2017; Scatlat et al., 2015). These remarkable figures must be obtained in a sustainable way contributing to decarbonize the energy systems. Modern bioenergy is obtained by mature technologies currently available in the biomethane market from wastes and residues, district heating networks, agricultural residues to generate electricity, and different transportation fuels, while other technologies, mostly related to transportation fuels are close to market (biomass gasification, pyrolysis and ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstock) and require additional support.

The BE concept is still under development. According to the OECD, BE refers to the set of economic activities relating to the invention, development, production, and use of biological products and processes. According to the same source, BE could bring major future benefits related to improvements in people's health, agriculture, and industrial productivity boosts while enhancing environmental sustainability (OECD, 2009). Other authors such as McCormick and Kautto understand BE as an economy where the basic components for the production of materials, chemicals, and energy are derived from renewable biological resources (McCormick and Kautto, 2013). The European Commission first defined BE as an economy where production of food, feed, fiber, bio-based products, and bioenergy is efficient and sustainably obtained from renewable resources from land, fisheries, and aquaculture environments including the related public goods (EC, 2012). Later, in 2014, the concept was modified to include that efficient and sustainable primary production and processing meet industry demand, consumer’s needs, and at the same time address environmental challenges such as climate change (van de Pas, 2015). Other authors stated that BE uses renewable biological biomass (trees, shrubs, crops, plantations, algae and aquatic plants, waste and primary agricultural residues, waste and secondary agricultural residues, and successive generations of waste and residues) in its production processes obtaining different types of outputs (thermal energy, liquid fuels, chemicals, bioproducts, food and fodder, as well as cosmetics and medicines; Adamowicz, 2017). More recently, BE has gone from being perceived as a promise to become a tangible reality that will play a remarkable role when it comes to achieving global sustainability (Maciejczak, 2017). On the same line, the revised Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan broadens the definition of the BE, which must to make connections with other industrial sectors (construction, engineering, manufacturing, information and communication technology, and urban planning) to make human activity more environmentally friendly, more circular, more bio-based, more nature-inspired, more inclusive, and more competitive, and ultimately more sustainable (Rauschen and Esch, 2017).

Over the next few years, the concept of BE will probably continue to evolve until a more precise and consensual definition is achieved.

1.2 BE and Sustainable Development

A new concept of economy that takes into account the environmental variables and recovery times of bio raw materials, residues, and wastes must be promoted. For this purpose, sustainable assessments of bioenergy must cover the three sustainability pillars: social, environmental, and economic, so that their results can incline decision-makers towards those chains that are most beneficial for the environment, society, and the economy. In this context, the sustainable use of bioenergy must boost the social, environmental, and economic benefits gained from the better management of renewable resources in such emerging BE.

The most important roles that both bioenergy and BE are expected to play are to significantly reduce GHG emissions (in comparison to the fossil counterpart) and to help achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Bioenergy for Sustainable Development, 2017; GBEP Sustainability Indictors for Bioenergy (GSI)). One of the climate change mitigation measures stated in the Paris Agreement includes the use of renewable energies in substitution of fossil fuels as a way to meet the GHG emission reduction targets and to keep the increase in global temperature this century below 2°C. For these objectives to be achieved, the implication of all parties, the necessary support to developing countries, the appropriate finance funding, and a new technological framework development are required (UN, 2015a).

Bioenergy impacts on the three sustainability pillars must not be generalized nor taken for granted. Instead, it is important to keep in mind that bioenergy development could lead to both positive and negative impacts depending on how, where, and under what circumstances biomass is produced, harvested, transported, and processed. To shed some light to this issue and given the importance of sustainability in the current and future debate on bioenergy, several research studies have been carried out by the scientific community. While most of the studies have focused on the positive aspects related to climate change mitigation such as GHG emission savings, negative impacts have also received special attention such as biodiversity loss and indirect land use change (iLUC).

Among the latter, iLUC has been a predominant concern, especially in the case of biofuels (Ben Aoun et al., 2013; Yeh and Witcover, 2010; Finkbeiner, 2014; Kim et al., 2014; Searchinger et al., 2008; Malins et al., 2014). Several models have been developed addressing iLUC effects (Fehrenbach et al., 2009) such as the FSOM-FAPRI (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010), various GTAP versions (Laborde, 2011; Darlington et al., 2013; Taheripour et al., 2011), the GCAM model (Plevin, 2016), and the GLOBIOM model (Valin et al., 2015). Other authors have developed new frameworks for a consistent modeling of iLUC within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology (Finkbeiner, 2013; Schmidt et al., 2015). More recently, iLUC effects from lignocellulosic non-food biomass—Miscanthus, switchgrass, short rotation coppice, perennial grasses, etc.—have also been studied, identifying the strong influence of assumptions on yield, land conversion, and carbon stocks change on the final results (Pavlenko and Searle, 2018).

Biodiversity loss is another key concern related to bioenergy. The sixth extinction predicted by several authors (Tilman et al., 2017; Ceballos et al., 2015; Barnosky et al., 2011) is also relevant to bioenergy and BE development. Several studies stated land-use change as the main driver for biodiversity loss, whose main impacts are related to loss of valuable habitats and shifts in species richness and abundance. The Immerzeel and co-workers’ review of 53 selected publications (Immerzeel et al., 2014) confirm both direct and indirect negative impacts with respect to the expansion of energy crops. Nevertheless, it also concludes the possibility of positive effects on biodiversity, particularly with the second-generation perennial crops. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the potential negative impacts on biodiversity and boost the positive effects: (1) better management practices, (2) use of marginal, degraded, or abandoned agricultural land, (3) adequate land-use planning, defining conservation areas as well as landscape design maintaining landscape heterogeneity, (4) policy and regulatory measures to ensure protection to high-value natural ecosystems, avoiding deforestation, providing ecological corridors, ecological buffer zones, and (5) policy alignments between agriculture, environmental, and rural development sectors.

However, there is a consensus among the scientific community about the existence of knowledge gaps in biodiversity impacts from bioenergy. To address such limitation, several lines of future research have been identified which include, among others, the need to (1) study all the vulnerable regions, (2) integrate multiple spatial scales, (3) combine o complementary biodiversity indicators, (4) assessment of species extinction risks, (5) include taxonomic groups in the analysis and quantification of pollution effects on biodiversity, especially in aquatic ecosystems, and (6) assess the effects of different mitigation measurements on biodiversity and long-term studies (Immerzeel et al., 2014).

Huge efforts have also been devoted to develop sustainability criteria and indicators as well as to explore synergies between different land uses, as well as to mitigate negative impacts on land, water, and biodiversity (Fritsche et al., 2017b; GBEP-IEA Bioenergy Examples of Positive Bioenergy and Water Relationships, 2016; Thrän et al., 2017; Thrän et al., 2016; Fritsche et al., 2011; FAO-GBEP, 2011). As to the search for sustainability criteria and indicators, one of the pioneer initiatives was the Global Bioenergy Partnership (http://www.globalbioenergy.org/). This effort has resulted in the proposal of 24 sustainability indicators for bioenergy (eight dedicated to environmental pillar, eight to social, and eight to economic one). The consideration of such indicators is expected to provide assistance to the development of national bioenergy policies and programmes, monitor the impact of these policies and programmes, as well as interpret and respond to the environmental, social and economic impacts of their bioenergy production and use (FAO-GBEP, 2011).

The future of bioenergy must necessarily be closely linked not only to BE but also to sustainable development. Back in September 2015, countries adopted 17 goals to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all as part of a new sustainable development path. The next step was taken on January 2016, when the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—adopted by world leaders in September 2015 at a historic UN Summit—officially came into force. As a result, the Agenda is an action plan for people, the planet, and prosperity, which requires international cooperation from all countries and the stakeholders’ involvement (UN, 2015b).

Although most SDG goals are somehow interconnected to the new BE concept, some of them are particularly related to bioenergy (Fritsche et al., 2017a). For example, bioenergy can clearly contribute to the achievement of SDG-7 promote to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all people. In turn, such access to affordable and clean energy can stimulate productive activities and contribute to eradicate poverty, improve food security, and promote sustainable agriculture (IRENA, 2017b). Along the same lines, bioenergy can contribute to SGD-11 Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable and SGD-12 responsible consumption and production. Furthermore, bioenergy can also contribute to SGD-13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts and SGD-15 Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss (OECD/IEA, 2017; Bioenergy for Sustainable Development, 2017; IRENA, 2017b). Such desirable pattern requires the collaboration of all citizens so that they make a rational use of natural resources throughout the entire life cycle both as consumers and producers.

Another crucial aspect resides in the interdependence between bioenergy and water consumption, which is likely to be exacerbated in the future. Such link is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that water is needed for energy production and water supply needs energy for its extraction and transportation. Under the expected future scenarios of water scarcity, increased bioenergy production and growing population will require a successful and smart management of the binomial energy–water. This challenge will also have to be addressed to fulfill SDG 6 related to clean water and sanitation. Jointly addressing the problem of water scarcity and increasing energy demand will allow for smart and efficient solutions to supply clean water and energy (World Energy Outlook, 2016).

Another aspect to take into consideration is the expected future increase in the demand for bioenergy, biomass, and biomaterials which will be accompanied by increased competition for natural resources such as land and water. Unless considered and managed wisely, such competition will generate negative impacts on the environment, biodiversity, and land use. These impacts will be partly offset by expected increases in crop productivity and better breeding management. Similarly, there will be strong competition between traditional uses of biomass and its waste and the most innovative new uses (biomaterials and bioproducts production), a framework in which both cascade use and biorefineries will become very important. Achieving sustainability in the use of biomass is therefore one of the key points of the BE (Scatlat et al., 2015).

The work by Popp (Popp et al., 2014) provides a holistic vision of bioenergy expansion and its influence on food, energy, and environment. Results from this work indicate that increased demand of land as a result of biomass production will most likely affect food prices and water scarcity. Thus, foreseen conflicts for land must be taken into account by policy makers and planners by integrating land use and water scarcity. Furthermore, existing environmental impacts such as, among others, erosion, water stress, and increasing soil salinity could be amplified by climate change, which could also exacerbate land conflicts. Finally, social aspects must also be considered to avoid that communities are, as a result of bioenergy expansion, displaced and lose access to land and other natural resources (FAO-GBEP, 2011).

The more sustainable scenarios are those that avoid expanding land for bioenergy into sensitive areas such as primary forest, natural grasslands, and/or peatlands. In this sense, national policies that promote bioenergy and BE as a whole should take into account potential GHG emissions derived from changes in carbon stocks around the world (Thrän et al., 2017). Thus, to ensure sustainable development, most of the bioenergy expansion must be accomplished on existing agricultural land.

Finally, competition for bio-based resources is one of the challenges that bioenergy will have to overcome to play a key role in the future energy system. In this sense, bioenergy will continue to be a possible alternative within the BE as long as its use of bio-based raw materials, residues, and wastes competes with other production chains from other economic sectors such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food, and pulp and paper production, as well as chemical, biotechnological, and biorefineries capable of producing outputs for most of the above-mentioned sectors (biochemical, biomedicines, bioplastics, energy, etc.). The future will tell us which of the above-mentioned bio-based raw materials’ use will persist when moving towards a more sustainable, fairer, and more habitable planet.

IRENA, IEA, and FAO, the three recognized institutions in favor of sustainable development (Bioenergy for Sustainable Development, 2017) consider that it is possible to combine food, feed, fiber, bioenergy, and bio-based products production in a sustainable way as long as several principles are followed: (1) identify areas best suited for bioenergy production (agro-ecological zoning) through inclusive multi-stakeholder processes, (2) sustainable intensification and landscape planning can make land available for additional production while enhancing ecosystem services, (3) develop good management practices at a local level for growing a mix of high-yielding food and fuel crops in different soils and climates, (4) secure land tenure can give farmers financial incentives to manage their land for higher yields while sustaining soil productivity, (5) promote a widespread use of modern farming techniques, (6) utilize organic residues within healthy soil conditions, (7) reduce losses in the food chain, which can also lower the pressure on land (Bioenergy for Sustainable Development, 2017).

As for the importance and role that BE is currently playing in today´s world economy, in 2014, economic goods related to BE (agriculture, forestry, food, bioenergy, biotechnology, and green chemistry) were marketed for a value around US$ 2 trillion, which accounts for 13% of world trade (El-Chichakli et al., 2016). In addition, these sectors are essential to comply with those SDG related to food security, energy, and health. However, establishing a global BE is not an easy affair, which often clashes with divergent national policies. According to some authors (Arundel and Sawaya, 2009; Communiqué Global Bioeconomy Summit, 2015; El-Chichakli et al., 2016), the main challenges to achieve a global sustainable BE include (1) fostering regional and international coordination and cooperation activities which are essential to share knowledge, skills, and experience to optimize the use of the resource base, (2) achieving a smooth and continuous conversation between the interested parties to define the criteria for the evaluation of the BE as well as the national monitoring systems, (3) developing UN-sponsored policy initiatives that can coordinate and interconnect efforts to achieve the international treaties’ goals related to sustainability such as the Paris Accord on Climate Change, 2030 Sustainable Agenda or the Aichi agreement on biodiversity, (4) educating and providing capacity building on the topic of sustainable BE from an interdisciplinary point of view. Such education must consider local specificities but also include global environmental, social, and economic assessment as well as planning policy and new ways of thinking. Additionally, there is a need to (5) fostering innovation, research, and cooperation about strategic topics such as biorefineries, new food systems, sustainable cities, aquaculture, and so on.

As for the stakeholder involvement and governance required to achieve sustainable development, all actors must be involved and participate in the process. Among others, citizens, politicians, business, consumers, policy makers, local, regional, and national authorities, scientific and technological community, retailers, media, non-governmental organizations, as well as development cooperation agencies will have a role to play.

In this sense, the private sector is expected to be a corner stone in the process towards achieving sustainability of bioenergy and the BE. Partly in response to the growing concerns and pressure from consumers and civil society in general, the private sector is expected to develop and join innovative initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable development. Independently of public measures which may take a longer time to be designed and implemented, private sector representatives, i.e., farmers, farmers associations, manufacturers, retailers, and agro-forestry industries, are expected to play a very important role in promoting sustainable bioenergy and BE. Proof of that is the current adoption of practices such as advanced control systems (i.e., low nutrient application, more efficient irrigation systems, use of renewable energies in agro-forestry sector, and zero deforestation actions). Similarly, the private sector has already been very active in developing and embracing numerous sustainability standards and certification voluntary schemes. Examples of those include the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil—RSPO (https://rspo.org/); Forest Stewardship Council—FSC (https://ic.fsc.org/en); Sustainable Biomass Program—SBD (https://sbp-cert.org/); Fair Trade Labelling Organizations International (https://www.fairtrade.net/); Green Gold Label Program (http://www.greengoldcertified.org/); International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements—FOAM (https://www.ifoam.bio/); Sustainable Agricultural Standards (https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/business/sas/); Ethical Trading Initiative (https://www.ethicaltrade.org/), etc.

Finally, education, innovation, as well as international, regional, and local cooperation and coordination will also be crucial to fulfill sustainable development into a low carbon BE.

1.3 Bioeconomy–Circular Economy

As introduced before, BE can be defined as the type of economy that uses natural renewable biological resources, from both land and ocean, to obtain food, materials, and energy in a sustainable way without compromising their availability for future generations. Crops, fisheries, forestry, microorganisms, algae, and animals as well as wastes or residues generated by them are included into the renewable biological resources category, while waste and residues become inputs for the production of food, feed, industrial bioproducts, and energy. Extending the concept from an economic point of view, BE can be described as those economic activities related to the invention, development, production, and use of biological products and processes (OECD, 2009).

Over the last few years, the inclusion of bioenergy into the CE concept has required the simultaneous consideration and conciliation of the sometime conflicting interests and concerns of policy makers, researchers, technology developers, project developers, and society. For sustainable bioenergy to play a key role in future energy systems, it will be important to make an optimal use of biomass resources with less environmental impact (particularly reducing greenhouse gas emissions) while fostering positive social and economic effects.

The traditional conceptualization of an economy is defined by its linear character: take, make, and dispose. As a result, current economy is conceived as basically extractive. However, CE is based on the fundamental closing the loop that implies collecting waste from the different processes, recycling, and using it to make new products. The CE strategies to close the loop are related to reuse, remanufacturing and recycling. In other words, CE is based on reducing/avoiding waste generation and pollution, keeping wastes and materials in use in the cycle, and protecting natural systems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). However, the major challenge lies in the selection of supply chains and economic models that generate the lowest environmental impacts with the greatest economic benefits. For this reason, decision support models are being developed to allow adaptation to circular model (Lieder et al., 2017).

Circularity is not a novel concept. Over the last decade several authors have been actively working analyzing different dimensions, production patterns, features, and perspectives at different scales (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Geisendorf and Pietrulla, 2017; Moreau et al., 2017). Even the concept of CE itself has been analyzed from different angles, and it could be said that we are still in the phase of having to redefine the concept and develop guidelines that clearly indicate the way forward to the CE [50].

The benefits associated to CE cover economic, social, and environmental dimensions. CE has the potential to decouple economic growth from resource consumption and environmental impacts (Lieder et al., 2017). Decoupling can be defined as reducing the amount of resources used to generate economic growth while decreasing environmental deterioration and ecological scarcity. In today’s globalized world, strategies are also interconnected; therefore, CE packages should be aligned with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and Sustainable Development Goals ensuring that future systematic approaches are developed in close cooperation to gain a better future for all.

According to European Commission and Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the CE concept is defined by several principles: It is restorative and regenerative by design, aims to maintain the economic value of products, materials, and resources as much as possible in the life cycle minimizing waste generation and contributing to sustainable and low-carbon development, encouraging the use of renewable energies, while generating competitive advantages (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, 2014). In other words, the pillars of the CE can be summarized in keeping products and materials in use while reducing and/or eliminating waste and pollution and contributing to the regeneration of natural ecosystems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). Strengthened by a transition to renewable energy sources, the circular model builds on the economic, natural, and social capital (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). As such, CE is an opportunity to reinvent the classic economy to get to a more sustainable and competitive development. Summarizing, CE helps to save energy and avoids overexploitation of natural resources without exceeding the earth's regenerative capacity in terms of climate, biodiversity, air, and soil and water pollution (Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, 2015).

As we are moving forward in the CE paradigm, innovation will be the key in the search for new business opportunities to achieve new ways of producing and consuming without depleting natural resources. As such, the development of the CE will be linked to the creation of new jobs at all levels, generating social cohesion and integration (Lieder et al., 2017). Furthermore, moving to a circular economic model will lead society to rethink production and consumption chains toward increased resource efficiency. All the sectors will be affected as well as all the policy domains. The CE transition has just started (Moreau et al., 2017) and, as such, the next steps are related to the involvement of all the stakeholders and actors in society, collaboration at governmental organizations, NGOs, associations, companies and citizen levels, and exchange of successful experiences and knowledge gained. CE is moving through interdisciplinary frameworks to generate stable tools, guidelines, and policies. Societal challenges on circular business model innovation need to improve collaborative consumption, higher levels of collaboration, environmental protection, and even leading to lifestyle changes (Mentink, 2014). In this sense, CE could be considered as a new way to advance for new business based on innovation under the umbrella of appropriate use, reuse, and recycle, developing at the same time models and regenerative strategies making more with less. The new way has to be properly developed through international collaboration based on research and new models’ approach for a successful implementation worldwide (Ghisellini et al., 2016).

The transition towards CE is unstoppable and is underway. Countries across the world are developing strategies for moving to CE. Europe, The United States, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, Korea, Vietnam, Argentina, Brazil, México, Colombia, Rwanda, Nigeria, South Africa, among others, have been implementing programs, strategies, and plans related to CE (Zero waste, Zero emissions, Closing the loop, Effective utilization of recyclables, Solid waste management, Action plans, and so on) (Ghisellini et al., 2016). CE will benefit not only developed economies but also to developing countries and emerging economies bringing new opportunities because better natural resources and waste management is a key element to eradicate poverty. This is why CE can help to end extreme poverty worldwide too.

BE and CE are concepts whose boundaries overlap in many cases and are closely linked. Both of them are intended to obtain a steady economic development for the future without causing environmental damage and providing social benefits. As shown by D’Amato et al. (2017) and Gobbo Fernandes (2016), while CE is dedicated to decoupling the resources used in the urban industrial development to the economic production, BE is mainly based on the use of biological resources based on innovation framework and the land-use practices in rural development. The circular bioeconomy concept merges these two trends and links urban and rural communities, something which is currently lacking (D’Amato et al., 2017; Gobbo Fernandes, 2016). Furthermore, both BE and CE are intrinsically linked, and the positive synergies between both must be fostered to achieve a more sustainable development. There exist many cross-cutting policies affecting both types of economies (BE and CE). Examples of those include, among others, climate change, environmental protection, waste management, industrial strategies, regional guidelines, research and innovation policies, which should drive forward together to achieve the societal challenges.

1.4 Cascading Use

Another key topic for both bioenergy and bioeconomy is the so called Cascading use, which can be described as the efficient utilization of resources by using residues and recycled materials for material use to extend total biomass availability within a given system (Vis et al., 2016). Again, as it is the case with other terms used in this book, there exist other conceptions with complementary meanings as demonstrated by the study conducted by World Wildlife Fund that found close to 40 definitions of this concept (Dammer et al., 2016). Its comprehensive and wide definition includes all types of biomass sources, taken into account the life cycle of the products and by-products aiming to achieve the highest resource efficiency.

The application of the cascading concept to bioenergy chains consists in considering the CE to the renewable biological resources. The key question is: How to make the best use of our natural resources? To address this issue, the environmental benefits and impacts should be previously assessed for the different possible chains through several procedures such as the internationally standardized LCA methodology (Vis et al., 2016).

Competition for biomass resources and its increase demand in the future will require prioritization in the cascading use of biomass maintaining the optimal value creation and resource efficiency while decreasing at the same time the GHG emissions (Scatlat et al., 2015; Immerzeel et al., 2014). In this way, cascading use of biomass could minimize depletion of biomass resource and could reduce the competition between different uses: food and feed, chemicals, materials, fuel, and energy (Scatlat et al., 2015). The cascade could be single or multiple. In a single cascade, biomass is processed into a product and this product is used once more for energy purposes. In a multistage cascade, the biomass is processed into a product and this product is used at least once more in material form before disposal or recovery for energy purposes (Vis et al., 2016). Some studies have suggested a hierarchical sequence prioritizing first the higher value uses, after that reuse and recycling of the products, raw materials, waste, and streams, and finally the energy use (Vis et al., 2016; Keegan et al., 2013; Risse et al., 2017). Among the proposed actions to support the development of a bio-based economy in the European Commission's Public Online Consultation, the preferential use of raw materials is (1) low meat diet, (2) bio-based material production, (3) recycling, and finally (4) bioenergy and biofuel production (EC, 2011). Recent studies show higher efficiency, more employment, higher added-value, and greater carbon sequestration benefits when wood is using materially (Vis et al., 2016; Keegan et al., 2013; Risse et al., 2017). However, biomass production, logistics, and uses are very dependent on local conditions. Therefore, carefully conducting a case-by-case analysis is needed to define which are the best chains to select them, including environmental, socioeconomic, and social aspects. Probably, the most analyzed cascade is related to wood sector, and even in this case, the cascading uses are very varied and complex. When all possible types of biomass, waste, and streams are included, the number of possible cascades rises and many more sectors are involved, increasing the complexity considerably. It can be concluded that the cascading use concept has a long way to run until getting maturity (Risse et al., 2017).

Governmental policies are still giving priority to energy use as a common strategy to decarbonize energy sector. Most policies encourage the energy use of biomass as part of the strategy to combat climate change promoting renewable energies. In the near future, sustainability biomass analysis will involve all marketable products including energy. These marketable products encompass intermediates and final products of diverse nature: food, feed, chemicals, biomaterials, and energy.

1.5 Bioenergy and Policy Context

The present and future of bioenergy and its role in the bioeconomy greatly depends on the effectiveness of the policies and support measures that are put in place. Among other reasons, such support measures are justified because of its capacity to reduce fossil fuel dependence as well as its contribution to mitigate climate change.

Over the last decade, the fast growth in the production and the use of bioenergy has raised interest from both legislators and investors around the world. For example, within the European Union (EU) context, the Renewable Energy Directive (European Commission, 2009), the 2020 Energy Strategy (European Commission, 2010), the Energy Roadmap 2050 (European Commission, 2011a), and the Roadmap for a Low-Carbon Economy in 2050 (IRENA, 2017b) have defined ambitious targets for the future deployment of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency up to 2020 and beyond. The EU is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80%–95% below 1990 levels by 2050 in the context of necessary reductions by developed countries as a group (European Commission, 2011b). In this context, bioenergy will be of crucial importance for achieving both short- and long-term climate and energy policy targets up to 2050. The large-scale production of crop-based biofuels has been one of the fastest and most controversial global changes of recent years. Global biofuel outputs increased sixfold between 2000 and 2010, and a growing number of countries are adopting bioenergy promotion policies. Meanwhile, multilateral bodies have been created and a wide patchwork regarding bioenergy policies is emerging (Bastos and Gupta, 2013). All of these efforts are geared towards setting a long-term framework dealing with the issue of energy sustainability and the cross-border effects of crop-based biofuels expansion that cannot be dealt with at the national level alone. In this sense, international efforts must continue to find ways in which bioenergy can contribute to decarbonize the worlds’ economy while ensuring the security of energy supply and sector's competitiveness in a sustainable way.

In terms of bioenergy’s role in the current energy system, biomass and waste already represent a significant global energy source, accounting for over 70% of all renewable energy production in 2015 (OECD/IEA, 2017). To continue this positive trend, most support measures are oriented towards promoting higher investments in relevant research areas. In this sense, more support is needed to ensure that the acquired knowledge reaches the commercialization stage. Similarly, the various sectors of bioeconomy must become attractive career options through secondary and tertiary education.

Nowadays, it is unquestionable that bioenergy is the most important renewable energy source and will continue to play a major role in the future as demonstrated by its inclusion in the future energy and climate policies. Far more than any other type of renewable energy, bioenergy is strongly related to the whole system of land use and agricultural and forestry production that make up the global bioeconomy. Modern bioenergy refers to biomass that can be generated directly, processed in dry and densified solid fuels, or converted into liquid or gaseous fuels, using the so-called first- or second-generation technologies, depending on the level of development. However, the current rate of bioenergy deployment is well below the levels required within IEA long-term climate models. Acceleration is urgently needed to ramp up the contribution of bioenergy across all sectors notably in the transport sector where consumption is expected to triple by 2030 (OECD/IEA, 2017).

The increase in the demand for the key products of bioeconomy can be covered by increasing not only the cultivation of crops used for biofuels production but also profiting co-products of these chains. In this sense, biotechnology is used to increase the productivity of biofuel production and is related to many policies and regulations affecting bioeconomy. There are many established bio-based industries of agriculture, food, and forest-based industries dealing with biotechnology.

The analysis of the current status and future predictions of bioeconomy worldwide could help identify some aspects that appear key to strengthen this sector. Among others, these aspects are related to international collaborations on bioenergy, bioeconomy compared to fossil fuel economy, the growth of industrial biotechnology joint in bioeconomy, and finally, the bio-based industries for bioeconomy.

World bioenergy sector (liquid biofuels, solid biomass, and biogas) is the largest employer among renewable energies, with a total of 2.7 million jobs in 2016. The main jobs have been concentrated in feedstock supply in Brazil, China, the United States, and India (IRENA, 2017a). By 2015, the EU had 1.6 million people working on renewables and energy efficiency. This represents a growth of 13% since 2010, which is more than seven times greater when compared to the 1.7% employment increase for the whole EU economy (SET Plan, 2017).

To foster the synergies between bioenergy with bioeconomy, some barriers should be tackled. Among others, these barriers include current regulatory instability, tax levy, lack of coordination among regulators, and how bioprocesses are being involved in the bioeconomy context (ERRIN-ERIAFF-BIC, 2015).

Regarding the regulatory instability, the most fundamental barrier is the frequent change in quotas and support level for renewable energies. To decrease the regulatory uncertainty, it is important to set the rates in the early stages of the project (Held et al., 2013).

As for the issue of taxation, some of the taxes levied on entrepreneurs are not yet recognized as such. For this matter it is necessary to map the costs imposed on the employer and include them in the final tariff.

Finally, in terms of the coordination between regulators, renewable energy entrepreneurs need to work with regulators to enhance the coordination among them. One way to overcome this obstacle is to create a regulatory mechanism aimed at fostering cooperation among the various regulators.

References

1. Adamowicz M. Bio-economy as a concept of development strategies in the European Union. JIBRM. 2017;2(4):7–12.

2. Arundel A., Sawaya, D., 2009. The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda. ISBN:978-92-64-03853-0.

3. Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?. Nature. 2011;471:51–57.

4. Bastos MG, Gupta J. The policy context of biofuels: a case of non-governance at the global level?. Global Environ Polit. 2013;13(2):46–64.

5. Ben Aoun W, Gabrielle B, Gagnepain B. The importance of land use change in the environmental balance of biofuels. Oilseeds Fat Crops Lipids (OCL). 2013;20 D505.

6. Bioenergy for Sustainable Development. IEA Bioenergy IRENA and FAO 2017; http://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/BIOENERGY-AND-SUSTAINABLE-DEVELOPMENT_v20170105-cob-x.pdf.

7. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, García A, Pringle RM, Palme TM. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv. 2015;1:e1400253.

8. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2014. Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe. COM. 398 final/2.

9. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2015. Closing the loop—an EU action plan for the circular economy. COM. 614 final.

10. Communiqué Global Bioeconomy Summit, 2015. Making bioeconomy work for sustainable development. Berlin, Germany.

11. Dammer L., Bowyer C., Breitmayer E., Eder A., Nanni S., Allen B., et al., 2016. Mapping study on cascading use of wood products. WWF & Mondi Group. Technical Report.

12. Darlington T, Kahlbaum Dennis, O’Connor Don, Mueller Steffen. Land Use Change Greenhouse Gas Emissions of European Biofuel Policies Utilizing the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Model Chicago, IL: Air Improvement Resource, Inc., (S&T)2 Consultants Inc., University of Illinois; 2013; http://www.ebb-eu.org/studiesreports/GTAP%20Report%20ILUC%20Aug%2030%202013%20Final.pdf.

13. D’Amato D, Droste N, Allen B, et al. Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability concepts. J Clean Prod. 168 2017;716–734.

14. European Commission. Bio-based Economy for Europe: State of Play and Future Potential—Part 2 Summary of Position Papers Received in Response to the European Commission's Public Online Consultation Publications Office of the European Union 2011; https://doi.org/10.2777/67596.

15. European Commission, 2012. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Bioeconomy for Europe, COM, 60.

16. ERRIN-ERIAFF-BIC. How to build effective regional strategies?. Guideline for Regions, National Governments and Bioeconomy sectors 2015; Consensus document. European Regions for Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN). European Regions for Innovation in Agriculture, Food and Forestry Network (ERIAFF). Biobased Industries Consortium (BIC).

17. El-Chichakli B, von Braun J, Lang C, Barben D, Philp J. Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy. Nature. 2016;35:221–223.

18. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015. The circular economy concept—regenerative economy. www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/overview/concept. Accessed December 2017.

19. European Commission, 2009. Renewable Energy Directive.

20. European Commission, 2010. 2020 Energy Strategy.

21. European Commission, 2011a. The Energy Roadmap 2050.

22. European Commission, 2011b. The Roadmap for a Low-Carbon Economy in 2050.

23. FAO-GBEP, 2011. The Global Bioenergy Partnership Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy, first ed. http://www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gbep/docs/Indicators/The_GBEP_Sustainability_Indicators_for_Bioenergy_FINAL.pdf.

24. Fehrenbach, H., Giegrich, J., Reinhardt, G., Rettenmaier, N., 2009. Synopsis of current models and methods applicable to indirect land use change (ILUC). Report Commissioned by Bundesverband der deutschen Bioethanolwirtschaft e.V, ifeu—Institut für Energie—und Umweltforschung. Heidelberg, Germany: Heidelberg GmbH.

25. Finkbeiner M., 2013. Indirect land use change (ILUC) within life cycle assessment (LCA) e-scientific robustness and consistency with international standards. VDB & OVID Report, May 2013. Available in: http://www.ufop.de/files/5213/.

26. Finkbeiner M. Indirect land use change e help beyond the hype?. Biomass Bioenerg. 2014;218–e221 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953414000257.

27. Fritsche U, et al. Linkages between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the GBEP Sustainability Indictors for Bioenergy (GSI). Technical Paper for the GBEP Task Force on Sustainability Heidelberg: International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy (IINSAS), Darmstadt, and