Next Article in Journal
The Autonomous Intersection Control Method Based on Reduction in Vehicle Conflict Relationships
Previous Article in Journal
How to Measure Sustainability in the Supply Chain Design: An Integrated Proposal from an Extensive and Systematic Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/su15097139
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Contribution of the European Bioeconomy Strategy to the Green Deal Policy: Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing These Policies

by
Genovaitė Liobikienė
* and
Astrida Miceikienė
Department of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, Studentų g. 11, LT-52261 Akademija, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(9), 7139; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097139
Submission received: 3 March 2023 / Revised: 13 April 2023 / Accepted: 22 April 2023 / Published: 24 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Bioeconomy of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Green Deal is an ambitious European development strategy that aims to create a carbon-neutral and environmentally friendly economy. This strategy encompasses key environmental policies such as climate change, circular economy, and sustainable development. Due to its broad and comprehensive definition and sectoral coverage, the European Union’s Bioeconomy Strategy, which is linked to the supply and demand of natural resources, is also crucial to the implementation of the Green Deal. However, there has been very little evaluation of the role of bioeconomy development in the European Green Deal. Therefore, by comparing the documents of these policies, the aim of this paper is to identify the main roles of the bioeconomy in the European Green Deal and overlaps, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of the implementation of these policies. The bioeconomy goals overlap with the European Green Deal targets. Looking at the eight main goals of the European Green Deal, all of them are related to the implementation of the bioeconomy. Preserving biodiversity and Farm to Fork actions are directly linked to the development of the bioeconomy, while the residual actions are partly linked to this development. In order to implement the Bioeconomy Strategy and the European Green Deal policy, it is essential to evaluate the vulnerability of biomass to the effects of climate change and the growing food crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. Furthermore, the sustainable use of biomass and the promotion of biomass consumption in the energy, building, and transport sectors need to be examined.

1. Introduction

Increasing global and local environmental problems have forced policymakers to focus not only on economic development but also on the environmental aspects to ensure the success of economic growth. At the beginning of the 21st century, the need to reconcile economic development with environmental impact was recognised. Since then, various strategies have been implemented to preserve the quality of the environment in the European Union (EU). A sustainable development strategy was one of the first documents to highlight the environmental aspect as one of the pillars, along with the economic and social dimensions, was highlighted [1,2,3]. In 2015, the 2030 Sustainable Development Plan was proposed. Thus, the European Commission remains committed to the 2030 Agenda and has presented a policy to achieve sustainability in the EU [4,5,6].
Recognising the direct link between the economy and the environment and aiming for a cleaner and renewable economy, the Bioeconomy Strategy was launched in 2012 [7]. This Strategy focuses on all activities related to the extraction, production and consumption of biological resources as well as the processes used and the principles applied to provide the main goods and services in each country across all economic sectors [7,8]. It should be noted that the EU Bioeconomy Strategy was renewed in 2018, highlighting the concepts of a sustainable, circular, and climate-friendly economy as key aspects of environmental policy [9,10,11,12,13,14]. Therefore, the successful implementation of the Bioeconomy Strategy and the pursuit of sustainable biomass management could simultaneously mitigate the climate change problem and contribute to achieving sustainability targets.
In recent years, the relationship between the bioeconomy and other environmental policies has been widely analysed in the literature [15,16,17]. The sustainable development aspect has been most emphasised, as a renewed Bioeconomy Strategy aims to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals [18]. According to published studies, the role of the bioeconomy varies across sectors and dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals [13,19,20]. For instance, Calicioglu and Bogdanski [18] and Solarte-Toro and Alzate [21] found that the bioeconomy is directly related to the implementation and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals that focus on economic development, access to basic services and goods by engaging in biodiversity conservation and preservation, waste reuse, achievement of equality and inclusiveness, and international collaboration and cooperation. Ronzon and Sanjuán [10] and Linser and Lier [22] showed that the implementation of the Bioeconomy Strategy enhances the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals. Furthermore, the role of the bioeconomy in the implementation of the circular economy has been widely analysed in recent years. Thus, the authors proposed that the bioeconomy is also circular, and that circularity is the primary goal of the bioeconomy [23,24,25]. Renewable resources are of great importance, as they alleviate the pressing and negative conditions and improve the carrying capacity of the planet [26].
In recent years, the EU’s environmental policy has been reorganised and presented in the format of the European Green Deal, which is a collection of initiatives focusing, in particular, on a carbon-neutral or climate-neutral EU economy by 2050. The Green Deal also introduces legislation on farming, biodiversity, circular economy and building renovation [27,28]. In addition, this new ambitious EU growth strategy is linked to and overlaps with other environmental policies such as climate change [29,30,31,32] as well as circular economy [33,34,35] and even covers a significant part of the Sustainable Development Goals [36,37]. Considering the role and contribution of the bioeconomy in the European Green Deal, more attention has been given to separate strategies such as the EU Forest Strategy [38,39] or soil management [40], farmland [41], food production [42] and green investments for the bioeconomy growth [43]. Pyka et al. [44] reviewed how the bioeconomy addresses climate change policy, circular use of biomass resources, biodiversity conservation, pro-environmental behaviour, and technological change, which are also included in the European Green Deal policy. However, to the best of our knowledge, the role of the bioeconomy and its contribution to the European Green Deal policy has not yet been comprehensively analysed. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the main leading roles of the bioeconomy, focusing on the separate targets of the European Green Deal policy and the overlaps between these policies. In addition, the opportunities and challenges for the simultaneous implementation and outcomes of the bioeconomy and the EU Green Deal strategies are highlighted as future implications for policymakers. Most attention is paid to categories where the implementation of these policies may contradict each other, and possible solutions to achieve the common goals are also proposed. The structure of the paper is, therefore, as follows: Section 2 presents the goals of the Bioeconomy Strategy and the European Green Deal. The role of the bioeconomy in the EU Green Deal is explained in Section 3. The discussion and conclusions are presented in Section 4 and Section 5, respectively.

2. Bioeconomy and the European Green Deal Goals

The EU Bioeconomy Strategy is directly related to the supply and demand of natural resources from the agriculture, forestry, and waste sectors [9]. Thus, the concept of the bioeconomy could be found in various policies related to agriculture and forestry sectors (e.g., the Common Agricultural Policy, Forest and Biodiversity Strategy, Farm to Fork Strategy) [45] and in the circular economy directives on waste management directives [46,47]. Furthermore, due to its broad and wide sectoral coverage, the European Bioeconomy Strategy is also crucial for the implementation and achievement of the Green Deal objectives [11]. The EU’s Green Deal aims for the EU to become the world’s first “climate-neutral bloc” by 2050, seeking to be environmentally friendly in different sectors such as energy, food, construction, and transport. However, in this document, it is also important to include the aspect of biomass production and consumption. The increasing bioeconomy added value of EU Member States [48] has also reiterated the need to update the implementation of the EU Green Deal in this Strategy.
Looking at the bioeconomy goals presented in Figure 1, the main focus is on food security, climate change mitigation, promotion of renewable energy, sustainable use of biomass and increase in EU competitiveness and job creation. These goals overlap with those of the Green Deal, which also emphasises climate change mitigation, renewable energy, food security and resource sustainability.
Referring to the definition of the bioeconomy that it is related to the biological resources [7,8], which is mainly associated with the agricultural sector, the bioeconomy comprises a small part of the EU Green Deal. Meanwhile, the European Green Deal includes more sectors such as transport, construction, industry, etc. Therefore, the following chapters are dedicated to highlighting the importance of the bioeconomy in all categories of the EU Green Deal goals.

3. The Role of Bioeconomy in the EU Green Deal

The scope of the bioeconomy in the Green Deal policy is schematically outlined in Figure 2, and the role of the bioeconomy is discussed by presenting different goals in the following section of the paper.

3.1. Carbon-Neutral Economy

The EU’s main ambition is to become a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most crucial target, with a focus on enhancing energy efficiency levels as well as renewable energy production and consumption and revising the EU energy market. These targets are an integral part of energy and climate policy. The bioeconomy is also an important area in the context of climate change mitigation. In particular, bio-based resources and products have lower carbon pollution and footprints compared to conventional energy sources and products made from fossil-based resources [49,50]. By comparing bioenergy with other renewable energy sources, Baležentis et al. [51] found that the promotion of bioenergy mainly contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass is therefore considered to be a carbon-neutral resource [52].
In addition, carbon sequestration can also generate significant carbon savings, and the bioeconomy sector contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the carbon sink process [53,54,55]. Thus, greenhouse gas emissions from land use change need to be analysed to assess the potential of using bioenergy as a method to mitigate climate change [56].

3.2. Clean, Secure and Affordable Energy

Biomass resources are an alternative organic feedstock to fossil-based resources such as crude oil and other resources such as natural gas [26]. Therefore, in terms of energy security and the promotion of renewable energy consumption, bioenergy production contributes to the pursuit of these goals. The share of bioenergy has increased the most in recent years compared to other renewable energy sources, and this growth has contributed to climate change mitigation in individual EU countries [57]. However, biomass is a finite resource; therefore, sustainable extraction and use of biomass is the most important target in the Bioeconomy Strategy.

3.3. Zero-Pollution Ambition for a Toxic-Free Environment

Achieving zero pollution, in particular, a toxic-free environment is another goal highlighted in the EU Green Deal policy. First and foremost, more accurate monitoring and regulation of pollution levels in production are essential [27]. The toxic compounds have also been used in bioeconomy sectors such as furniture production. D’Amato et al. [58], who recently reviewed forest-based bioeconomy products, found that human and environmental toxicity was assessed in 40–60% of the studies by evaluating the influence of lower-value biomass usage. Therefore, the bioeconomy is linked to this goal through the environmentally friendly production of products made from natural resources. Furthermore, the reduction of excess nutrients, especially in the food sector, is required to achieve the zero-pollution target [59,60], which is also one of the main aspects of the bioeconomy. In addition, pollution from industrial accidents and harmful sources (microplastics and chemicals) contaminates the environment and contributes to the reduction of biodiversity and environmental quality [61,62]. It is also linked to the development of the bioeconomy, and the bioeconomy creates the need to restore the functions and quality of water ecosystems and preserve biodiversity through prevention programmes and the promotion of environmentally friendly production [9].

3.4. Preservation and Restoration of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

The implementation of the bioeconomy depends on natural resources. Thus, the preservation and restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity are directly related to the development of the bioeconomy [63,64]. Natural ecosystems and biodiversity support and provide essential natural resources needed for survival (water, food, and shelter) and help regulate the climate [44]. Therefore, the main target of the implementation of the Bioeconomy Strategy and the EU Green Deal policy in the EU is to halt biodiversity loss [9,27]. The main causes of biodiversity reduction are climate change, changes in land use and overexploitation of natural resources [65,66]. Agricultural areas are expanding at the expense of natural ecosystems and biodiversity loss [67]. Biodiversity loss is also a key concern in the promotion of bioenergy [68]. Titeux et al. [69,70] and Pyka et al. [44] have recently shown that changes in land use are the most significant immediate threats to biodiversity. This is particularly true in the agricultural sector, where monocultures are increasing, and the areas of natural pastures are decreasing. Deforestation and increased harvesting have serious consequences for biodiversity loss as well [71]. Thus, on the one hand, the main aim of the bioeconomy is to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity. On the other hand, an unsustainable development of the bioeconomy, if the existing level of production and consumption is unbalanced and wasteful, can disrupt the achievement of this goal and limit the implementation of the European Green Deal.

3.5. Clean and Circular Industry

The EU Green Deal accelerates the transition of the EU industry transition to a sustainable and environmentally friendly pattern of inclusive development and growth through digital transformation in line with circular economy principles [27]. The circular economy includes the promotion of sustainable production to support the circular design and mode in all life cycle assessments of products [72,73]. Thus, the decarbonisation and modernisation of the steel, chemical and cement industries have been particularly addressed in the European Green Deal policy [27]. The search for natural resource substitutes for non-renewable resources has also been encouraged. For example, in the search for a circular industry, biodegradable and bio-based plastic material has been proposed as one of the main alternatives to standard plastic [74,75]. Therefore, the promotion of bioplastics is part of the development of the bioeconomy.
The development of the bioeconomy also requires circular industry solutions [25]. Considering that the bioeconomy is responsible for a large amount of biowaste, technological solutions (biorefineries, cascading schemes) could contribute to closing the loop of the bioeconomy production [23,24,76,77,78,79]. Therefore, a zero-waste economy is fundamental for the implementation of the European Green Deal goal of promoting a circular economy [77,80,81].

3.6. Construction and Renovation in an Energy and Natural Resource-Efficient Way

The construction of new buildings and the renovation of existing ones to reduce energy consumption is another goal of the EU Green Deal policy. The development of the bioeconomy is also vital in promoting this goal. For example, the use of bio-based insulation materials such as cellulose fibres and sheep’s wool can effectively insulate buildings and reduce greenhouse gas emissions [82]. Moreover, the proportion of wooden buildings in all constructions is relatively high, and the proportion of wood in multi-storey buildings is also increasing [83]. Furthermore, the resources commonly used in the construction sector, such as steel, cement, and aluminium, require large amounts of energy and contribute significantly to climate change emissions [84]. Therefore, wooden buildings could also be one of the alternatives seeking targets of climate change.

3.7. Acceleration of Shift to Sustainable, Environmentally Friendly and Smart Mobility

Achieving sustainable transport focuses on affordable, healthier, and environmentally friendly alternatives for mobility behaviour and habits. The development of innovative traffic management systems is one of the means of achieving the EU Green Deal goal. The transport sector should drastically reduce pollution levels, especially in urban areas. A combination of different tools (infrastructure, economic) must focus on reducing emissions and noise, promoting public transport, and reducing urban congestion. The removal of fossil fuel subsidies is also needed, which could encourage more environmentally friendly fuel consumption and production. Moreover, biofuel production and consumption, in the context of the development of the EU bioeconomy, are good alternatives to reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate climate change in the transport sector. Indeed, the biofuel industry has expanded dramatically over the last decade [52], and even the production of aviation biofuels is accelerating [85]. However, the use of biofuels has been criticised due to environmental impacts, food security issues and rising prices [52,86,87]. Therefore, the introduction of sustainable biofuel production is essential [88] for the implementation of the EU Green Deal goal.

3.8. The Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Clean Food System

The European food system is recognised as safe, high-quality, and nutritious [89]. Thus, the European Green Deal goal is integral and directly related to the development of the bioeconomy because it is linked to natural resources and agriculture. However, feeding a rapidly growing world population with current patterns of food resource extraction and production remains a major policy concern [90]. It is also worth noting that the ongoing war in Ukraine has exacerbated the food supply not only in the EU but also in other regions [91,92]. Moreover, the huge amount of soil, water and air pollution caused by unsustainable food production influences the loss of biodiversity and contributes to the climate change process [93,94]. Furthermore, an excessive amount of natural resources is wasted, especially food [74,75]. Thus, affordable and healthy food, sustainable and environmentally friendly food consumption and production, and the reduction of food waste are required for both the bioeconomy and the implementation of the Farm to Fork Strategy. In particular, sustainable food issues remain a top priority when considering the use of biomass in other sectors [95].

4. Discussion and Policy Implications Considering the Opportunities and Challenges in the Implementation of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy and the Green Deal

The implementation of sustainable bioeconomy policies and their targets has never been more important. The rapid process of climate change, the increasing loss of biodiversity, the continuing crisis consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have drawn increasing political and producer attention to economic development based on the use of natural resources grown and harvested within the carrying capacity of the Earth. The bioeconomy is set to play a significant role in Europe’s green transition by facilitating and mitigating the transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to economic growth based on natural and renewable resources. Therefore, sustainability aspects are highlighted in the renewed EU Bioeconomy Strategy and the Green Deal. However, with the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, new issues and challenges related to climate change and sustainability remain.
Climate change policy is particularly important given the role of the bioeconomy in the European Green Deal policy. Bioenergy is the source that mitigates climate change and increases energy security and renewable energy consumption. Although biomass is a renewable resource, it is also finite, and in the European Bioeconomy Strategy, the sustainable production and consumption of biomass should be the most crucial target. Considering that most countries in the EU are reaching the limits of their land biocapacity [96], the promotion of bioenergy production should be cautious. Furthermore, the bioeconomy sector could also suffer from climate change, and the vulnerability of biomass sources should also be taken into account when evaluating biomass potential in different countries and strategies. Forest ecosystems, in particular, are under increasing pressure from climate change. Therefore, biowaste, including forest residues, could be the main source of bioenergy [97,98,99]. Considering carbon sequestration, land-use change evaluation should be applied. Thus, emissions from biomass used in the energy sector should be accounted for and included in the separate EU member states’ climate commitments by 2030 through the correct application of land-use change accounting. However, evaluating land-use change to bioenergy in terms of carbon emissions is still rather difficult and shows significant knowledge gaps [55,100,101]. Therefore, in the pursuit of a carbon-neutral economy, it is essential to maintain a balance between bioenergy production and the level of carbon sinks in the agricultural and forestry sector.
Given the goal of zero pollution, it is important that production in all sectors of the bioeconomy becomes more environmentally friendly. However, achieving zero pollution is still a challenge, especially when using lower-value biomass [58]. The main criterion for achieving this goal is that the cost of installing technologies should not exceed the economic benefits of production. Furthermore, reducing excess nutrients, particularly in the food sector, should also be considered in the implementation of the bioeconomy and the European Green Deal policies by reducing food waste and pollution caused by food production.
Preserving ecosystems and biodiversity is a major challenge for an unsustainable developing bioeconomy [68]. The main threats to biodiversity are deforestation, agricultural pollution, the reduction of pastures and increasing areas of monocultures [44,69,70,71]. To preserve and restore ecosystems and biodiversity, the expansion of the Natura 2000 network is the most important tool, which mainly focuses on the conservation and restoration of biodiversity [102,103,104]. Furthermore, reducing the use of pesticides and fertilisers in agriculture is also essential to preserve the biodiversity and ecosystems that are polluted by agriculture. The Common Fisheries Policy to reduce the negative impact of fishing on ecosystems, particularly in sensitive areas, is well-managed in Marine Protected Areas. In addition, forest ecosystems should also be developed in terms of sustainable restoration and afforestation of degraded forests. Afforestation, forest preservation and restoration are, therefore, key aims of the new EU Forest Strategy. Forest diversification can also contribute to the protection of biodiversity [105]. Therefore, better management practices, adequate land-use planning, avoiding overexploitation of natural resources and deforestation, and ensuring ecological buffer zones and corridors [68] are essential to the development of the bioeconomy and the European Green Deal’s goal of preserving and restoring ecosystems.
The implementation of circular economy principles, especially the transformation of non-renewable resources into renewable/natural resources, is essential. Bioplastic could be one example. Bioplastic from biowaste has excellent potential for achieving a circular economy [74,75,106]. Ramadhan and Handayani [107] state that food waste has the potential to be replaced by bioplastics. However, replacing all petrochemical plastics used in the packaging process with bioplastics does not seem feasible because this will inevitably lead to and contribute to an increase in land and water use [108]. Bioplastics are not an adequately developed infrastructure due to the current low amount of such materials [86]. A zero-waste economy is a fundamental objective of a circular economy [77,78,79,80,81]. The future potential of biomass resources depends on waste, especially agricultural, forestry and food waste [109]. Increasing residues and agricultural waste could potentially satisfy the biomass resource demand [25,110]. Efficiency and circularity outcomes are not consistently included in European bioeconomy strategies [111], but D’Amato et al. [24] introduced and emphasised the concept of the circular bioeconomy to show that the bioeconomy is a valid support to the circular economy. However, the direct use of biomass resources for energy or fuel production makes it impossible to maintain their value through recycling and reuse [25,81]. Recycling resources through technical processes is energy intensive and requires other materials and freshwater resources [112]. Within this attitude and process, the main issue is not to close loops but to optimise resource stocks and flows that allow positive and natural biogeochemical processes to promote the quality of our environment [113,114].
In the transport sector, the promotion of biofuels is needed. However, biofuel production has a negative environmental impact and contributes to landscape change and biodiversity loss [87]. The promotion of biofuel production has also been criticised, particularly with regard to the increase in global food prices and the conversion of non-agricultural areas into agricultural land [52]. Therefore, the issue of biofuel production is controversial in terms of land-use change and the environmental impact of biofuel consumption. Thus, the authors are sceptical and state that the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy is rather unlikely, considering the high percentage of substitution of fossil-based resources by bio-materials [86]. However, other researchers have suggested alternative technologies that could significantly increase crop production, including the use of the phytomicrobiome, which is now recognised as having the potential to underpin a new green revolution [115]. These technologies help to reduce dependence on fertilisers and pesticides, which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with biomass production and lead to improved and increased overall yield [52]. Moreira et al. [116] state that the use of microalgae in biofuel production is a good alternative and consider the circular bioeconomy concept. It is, therefore, essential to maintain and promote sustainable biofuel production and consumption systems [88]. The EU criteria are connected to the potential of biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid direct land-use changes [117].
With regard to the food sector, the Farm to Fork Strategy uses sustainable and environmentally friendly practices such as organic farming, agroecology and animal welfare standards. The strategic plan significantly reduces the use of chemical pesticides, fertilisers, and antibiotics. The aim of this strategy is to reduce the environmental impact of food production and the retail process by focusing on reducing the environmental impact of storage, transport, and packaging and reducing food waste. Furthermore, the Farm to Fork Strategy aims to promote environmentally friendly food consumption as well as healthy food for all and to reduce food waste. Authors analysing the restrictions on chemical inputs set out in the Farm to Fork Strategy have suggested that it contributes to improving the environmental sustainability of agricultural production [118,119]. However, it has had a negative impact on socioeconomic aspects, particularly now that the war in Ukraine is increasing food supply and security problems worldwide [118]. Purnhagen et al. [118] and Richter et al. [119] showed that the increase in organic farming could also reduce food security due to the lower yields on organic farms. Therefore, biotechnological innovations and farm modernisation are particularly important for the implementation of this Strategy [89]. The implications for prioritising the use of non-food biomass resources have also been presented, as food security must remain the top priority [95].

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

The EU Green Deal is a new direction in the European Union, covering the broad spectrum of environmental issues such as climate change, circular economy, and sustainable development. The development of the bioeconomy is also an integral part of the EU Green Deal. However, a detailed analysis of how the implementation of the bioeconomy contributes to the European Green Deal has not yet been carried out. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to identify the main roles of the Bioeconomy Strategy in the EU Green Deal and their overlaps, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of the implementation of these policies. The most important aspect is that the implementation of these two policies is not contradictory but complementary.
In terms of the goals, the Bioeconomy Strategy and the European Green Deal cover the same aspects as climate change mitigation, renewable energy, food security and resource sustainability. Looking at the eight main targets of the EU Green Deal, all of them are related to the implementation of the bioeconomy. Preservation and restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity and Farm to Fork actions are directly linked to the bioeconomy, while it encompasses agriculture and natural resources. Meanwhile, in the quest for a low-carbon and circular economy, environmentally friendly transport and construction, the sustainable use of biomass is crucial and is at the core of the development of the bioeconomy. However, focusing only on promoting biomass and bioenergy consumption could be dangerous, as these resources are also finite. Furthermore, these resources are vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The growing food crisis due to the war in Ukraine also raises the problem of bioresource scarcity. Therefore, the sustainable use of biomass and the promotion of biomass consumption in the energy, construction and transport sectors must go hand in hand and remain a top priority for food supply and security.
Furthermore, the EU Bioeconomy Strategy can be a key policy for the EU Green Deal in the post-COVID-19 period, contributing to a more sustainable and competitive development of the EU. However, it is a limitation of this paper that this aspect has not been considered. To implement the EU Green Deal, a systematic transition should be carefully designed to cover all sectors of the economy. There are many opportunities to shape the future direction of the development of the EU, particularly through the use of renewable energy and electricity, as well as alternative techniques and approaches to food and materials. Further analysis is therefore important to manage economic, geopolitical, technological, social and environmental risks, taking into account the impact on greenhouse gas emissions and other ecosystem services associated with agricultural, forestry and fisheries practices, with a particular focus on biomass resources, aimed at sustainable development of the bioeconomy and mitigation of the climate change process.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization G.L. and A.M.; Formal analysis G.L.; Investigation A.M., Writing—original draft preparation G.L.; Writing-review & editing G.L. and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jansen, L. The challenge of sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2003, 11, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ledoux, L.; Mertens, R.; Wolff, P. EU sustainable development indicators: An overview. In Natural Resources Forum; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2005; Volume 29, pp. 392–403. [Google Scholar]
  3. Moldan, B.; Janoušková, S.; Hák, T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Kędzierska-Szczepaniak, A.; Szczepaniak, K.; Cheba, K.; Gajda, W.; Ioppolo, G. Innovation in sustainable development: An investigation of the EU context using 2030 agenda indicators. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Stanujkic, D.; Popovic, G.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Karabasevic, D.; Binkyte-Veliene, A. Assessment of progress towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals of the “Agenda 2030” by using the CoCoSo and the Shannon Entropy methods: The case of the EU Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Kroll, C. How is progress towards the sustainable development goals measured? Comparing four approaches for the EU. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. European Commission. Europe 2020: A European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; p. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dubois, O.; Gomez San Juan, M. How Sustainability Is Addressed in Official Bioeconomy Strategies at International, National and Regional Levels: An Overview; Environment and Natural Resources Management Working Paper; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  9. EC. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection between Economy, Society and the Environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/ (accessed on 14 December 2022).
  10. Ronzon, T. and Sanjuán, A.I. Friends or foes? A compatibility assessment of bioeconomy-related Sustainable Development Goals for European policy coherence. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 119832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ronzon, T.; Iost, S.; Philippidis, G. An output-based measurement of EU bioeconomy services: Marrying statistics with policy insight. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 2022, 60, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wohlfahrt, J.; Ferchaud, F.; Gabrielle, B.; Godard, C.; Kurek, B.; Loyce, C.; Therond, O. Characteristics of bioeconomy systems and sustainability issues at the territorial scale. A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 898–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grossauer, F. and Stoeglehner, G. Bioeconomy—Spatial requirements for sustainable development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Hamelin, L.; Borzęcka, M.; Kozak, M.; Pudełko, R. A spatial approach to bioeconomy: Quantifying the residual biomass potential in the EU-27. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 100, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lainez, M.; González, J.M.; Aguilar, A.; Vela, C. Spanish strategy on bioeconomy: Towards a knowledge based sustainable innovation. New Biotechnol. 2018, 40, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vogelpohl, T.; Töller, A.E. Perspectives on the bioeconomy as an emerging policy field. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2021, 23, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Böcher, M.; Töller, A.E.; Perbandt, D.; Beer, K.; Vogelpohl, T. Research trends: Bioeconomy politics and governance. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Calicioglu, Ö.; Bogdanski, A. Linking the bioeconomy to the 2030 sustainable development agenda: Can SDG indicators be used to monitor progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy? New Biotechnol. 2021, 61, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Heimann, T. Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the bioeconomy support the achievement of the SDGs? Earths Future 2019, 7, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Biber-Freudenberger, L.; Ergeneman, C.; Förster, J.J.; Dietz, T.; Börner, J. Bioeconomy futures: Expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sustainability of bio-based transformation. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1220–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Solarte-Toro, J.C.; Alzate, C.A.C. Biorefineries as the base for accomplishing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the transition to bioeconomy: Technical aspects, challenges and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 340, 125626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Linser, S.; Lier, M. The contribution of sustainable development goals and forest-related indicators to national bioeconomy progress monitoring. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Salvador, R.; Barros, M.V.; da Luz, L.M.; Piekarski, C.M.; de Francisco, A.C. Circular business models: Current aspects that influence implementation and unaddressed subjects. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. D’Amato, D.; Droste, N.; Allen, B.; Kettunen, M.; Lähtinen, K.; Korhonen, J.; Toppinen, A. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 716–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Stegmann, P.; Londo, M.; Junginger, M. The circular bioeconomy: Its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 2020, 6, 100029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dahiya, S.; Kumar, A.N.; Sravan, J.S.; Chatterjee, S.; Sarkar, O.; Mohan, S.V. Food waste biorefinery: Sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomy. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. EC (European Commission). The European Green Deal COM/2019/640; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rivas, S.; Urraca, R.; Bertoldi, P.; Thiel, C. Towards the EU Green Deal: Local key factors to achieve ambitious 2030 climate targets. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schoenefeld, J.J. The European Green Deal: What Prospects for Governing Climate Change with Policy Monitoring? Politics Gov. 2021, 9, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Skjærseth, J.B. Towards a European Green Deal: The evolution of EU climate and energy policy mixes. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 2021, 21, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Maris, G.; Flouros, F. The green deal, national energy and climate plans in Europe: Member States’ compliance and strategies. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wolf, S.; Teitge, J.; Mielke, J.; Schütze, F.; Jaeger, C. The European Green Deal—More than climate neutrality. Intereconomics 2021, 56, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Smol, M.; Marcinek, P.; Duda, J.; Szołdrowska, D. Importance of sustainable mineral resource management in implementing the circular economy (CE) model and the european green deal strategy. Resources 2020, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jaeger-Erben, M.; Jensen, C.; Hofmann, F.; Zwiers, J. There is no sustainable circular economy without a circular society. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bonoli, A.; Zanni, S.; Serrano-Bernardo, F. Sustainability in building and construction within the framework of circular cities and european new green deal. The contribution of concrete recycling. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Barry, D.; Hoyne, S. Sustainable measurement indicators to assess impacts of climate change: Implications for the New Green Deal Era. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2021, 22, 100259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tutak, M.; Brodny, J.; Bindzár, P. Assessing the Level of Energy and Climate Sustainability in the European Union Countries in the Context of the European Green Deal Strategy and Agenda 2030. Energies 2021, 14, 1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Aggestam, F.; Giurca, A. The art of the “green” deal: Policy pathways for the EU Forest Strategy. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 128, 102456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mubareka, S.; Barredo, J.I.; Giuntoli, J.; Grassi, G.; Migliavacca, M.; Robert, N.; Vizzarri, M. The role of scientists in EU forest-related policy in the Green Deal era. One Earth 2022, 5, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Montanarella, L.; Panagos, P. The relevance of sustainable soil management within the European Green Deal. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Valujeva, K.; Debernardini, M.; Freed, E.K.; Nipers, A.; Schulte, R.P. Abandoned farmland: Past failures or future opportunities for Europe’s Green Deal? A Baltic case-study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 128, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tsironi, T.; Koutinas, A.; Mandala, I.; Stoforos, N.G. Current and new Green Deal solutions for sustainable food processing. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2021, 21, 100244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gatto, F.; Daniotti, S.; Re, I. Driving Green Investments by Measuring Innovation Impacts. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Regional Bioeconomy Growth. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pyka, A.; Cardellini, G.; van Meijl, H.; Verkerk, P.J. Modelling the bioeconomy: Emerging approaches to address policy needs. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Woźniak, E.; Tyczewska, A. Bioeconomy during the COVID-19 and perspectives for the post-pandemic world: Example from EU. EFB Bioeconomy J. 2021, 1, 100013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mikielewicz, D.; Dąbrowski, P.; Bochniak, R.; Gołąbek, A. Current status, barriers and development perspectives for circular bioeconomy in Polish south Baltic area. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Singh, A.; Christensen, T.; Panoutsou, C. Policy review for biomass value chains in the European bioeconomy. Glob. Transit. 2021, 3, 13–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cingiz, K.; Gonzalez-Hermoso, H.; Heijman, W.; Wesseler, J.H. A cross-country measurement of the EU bioeconomy: An input–output approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kang, Y.; Yang, Q.; Bartocci, P.; Wei, H.; Liu, S.S.; Wu, Z.; Chen, H. Bioenergy in China: Evaluation of domestic biomass resources and the associated greenhouse gas mitigation potentials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 127, 109842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cascione, V.; Roberts, M.; Allen, S.; Dams, B.; Maskell, D.; Shea, A.; Emmitt, S. Integration of life cycle assessments (LCA) in circular bio-based wall panel design. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 344, 130938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Baležentis, T.; Streimikiene, D.; Zhang, T.; Liobikiene, G. The role of bioenergy in greenhouse gas emission reduction in EU countries: An Environmental Kuznets Curve modelling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 142, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Antar, M.; Lyu, D.; Nazari, M.; Shah, A.; Zhou, X.; Smith, D.L. Biomass for a sustainable bioeconomy: An overview of world biomass production and utilization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 139, 110691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Harris, N.L.; Gibbs, D.A.; Baccini, A.; Birdsey, R.A.; De Bruin, S.; Farina, M.; Tyukavina, A. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 2021, 11, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pellis, G.; Chiti, T.; Rey, A.; Yuste, J.C.; Trotta, C.; Papale, D. The ecosystem carbon sink implications of mountain forest expansion into abandoned grazing land: The role of subsoil and climatic factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 672, 106–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Harris, Z.M.; Spake, R.; Taylor, G. Land use change to bioenergy: A meta-analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 82, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Brienen, R.J.; Caldwell, L.; Duchesne, L.; Voelker, S.; Barichivich, J.; Baliva, M.; Gloor, E. Forest carbon sink neutralized by pervasive growth-lifespan trade-offs. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Lap, T.; Daioglou, V.; Benders, R.; van der Hilst, F.; Faaij, A. The impact of land-use change emissions on the potential of bioenergy as climate change mitigation option for a Brazilian low-carbon energy system. GCB Bioenergy 2022, 14, 110–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. D’amato, D.; Gaio, M.; Semenzin, E. A review of LCA assessments of forest-based bioeconomy products and processes under an ecosystem services perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 135859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jurgilevich, A.; Birge, T.; Kentala-Lehtonen, J.; Korhonen-Kurki, K.; Pietikäinen, J.; Saikku, L.; Schösler, H. Transition towards circular economy in the food system. Sustainability 2016, 8, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Aldaco, R.; Hoehn, D.; Laso, J.; Margallo, M.; Ruiz-Salmón, J.; Cristobal, J.; Kahhat, R.; Villanueva-Rey, P.; Bala, A.; Batlle-Bayer, L.; et al. Food waste management during the COVID-19 outbreak: A holistic climate, economic and nutritional approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 742, 140524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Sakadevan, K.; Nguyen, M.L. Livestock production and its impact on nutrient pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Adv. Agron. 2017, 141, 147–184. [Google Scholar]
  62. Nunez, S.; Arets, E.; Alkemade, R.; Verwer, C.; Leemans, R. Assessing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity: Is below 2 °C enough? Clim. Change 2019, 154, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Aguilar, A.; Patermann, C. Biodiplomacy, the new frontier for bioeconomy. New Biotechnol. 2020, 59, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Fava, F.; Gardossi, L.; Brigidi, P.; Morone, P.; Carosi, D.A.; Lenzi, A. The bioeconomy in Italy and the new national strategy for a more competitive and sustainable country. New Biotechnol. 2021, 61, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Marques, A.; Martins, I.S.; Kastner, T.; Plutzar, C.; Theurl, M.C.; Eisenmenger, N.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Wood, R.; Stadler, K.; Bruckner, M.; et al. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Dudley, N.; Alexander, S. Agriculture and biodiversity: A review. Biodiversity 2017, 18, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Egenolf, V.; Bringezu, S. Conceptualization of an Indicator System for Assessing the Sustainability of the Bioeconomy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Di Fulvio, F.; Forsell, N.; Korosuo, A.; Obersteiner, M.; Hellweg, S. Spatially explicit LCA analysis of biodiversity losses due to different bioenergy policies in the European Union. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 1505–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Titeux, N.; Henle, K.; Mihoub, J.B.; Regos, A.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Cramer, W.; Brotons, L. Global scenarios for biodiversity need to better integrate climate and land use change. Divers. Distrib. 2017, 23, 1231–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Titeux, N.; Henle, K.; Mihoub, J.B.; Regos, A.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Cramer, W.; Brotons, L. Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land-use changes. Glob. Change Biol. 2016, 22, 2505–2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Eyvindson, K.; Repo, A.; Mönkkönen, M. Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 92, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Moraga, G.; Huysveld, S.; Mathieux, F.; Blengini, G.A.; Alaerts, L.; Van Acker, K.; de Meester, S.; Dewulf, J. Circular economy indicators: What do they measure? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Morone, P.; Tartiu, V.E.; Falcone, P. Assessing the potential of biowaste for bioplastics production through social network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bishop, G.; Styles, D.; Lens, P.N. Land-use change and valorisation of feedstock side-streams determine the climate mitigation potential of bioplastics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Salvador, R.; Puglieri, F.N.; Halog, A.; de Andrade, F.G.; Piekarski, C.M.; Antonio, C. Key aspects for designing business models for a circular bioeconomy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 124341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Brandão, A.S.; Gonçalves, A.; Santos, J.M. Circular bioeconomy strategies: From scientific research to commercially viable products. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zabaniotou, A.; Kamaterou, P. Food waste valorization advocating Circular Bioeconomy-A critical review of potentialities and perspectives of spent coffee grounds biorefinery. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1553–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Caldeira, C.; De Laurentiis, V.; Corrado, S.; van Holsteijn, F.; Sala, S. Quantification of food waste per product group along the food supply chain in the European Union: A mass flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Sherwood, J. The significance of biomass in a circular economy. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 300, 122755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Carus, M.; Dammer, L. The circular bioeconomy—Concepts, opportunities, and limitations. Ind. Biotechnol. 2018, 14, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Blumberga, A.; Freimanis, R.; Muizniece, I.; Spalvins, K.; Blumberga, D. Trilemma of historic buildings: Smart district heating systems, bioeconomy and energy efficiency. Energy 2019, 186, 115741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gawel, E.; Pannicke, N.; Hagemann, N. A path transition towards a bioeconomy—The crucial role of sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Nambiar, E.S. Tamm Review: Re-imagining forestry and wood business: Pathways to rural development, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation in the tropics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 448, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kim, Y.; Lee, J.; Ahn, J. Innovation towards sustainable technologies: A socio-technical perspective on accelerating transition to aviation biofuel. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 145, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wydra, S.; Hüsing, B.; Köhler, J.; Schwarz, A.; Schirrmeister, E.; Voglhuber-Slavinsky, A. Transition to the bioeconomy–Analysis and scenarios for selected niches. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gasparatos, A.; Romeu-Dalmau, C.; von Maltitz, G.P.; Johnson, F.X.; Shackleton, C.; Jarzebski, M.P.; Willis, K.J. Mechanisms and indicators for assessing the impact of biofuel feedstock production on ecosystem services. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 114, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Correa, D.F.; Beyer, H.L.; Fargione, J.E.; Hill, J.D.; Possingham, H.P.; Thomas-Hall, S.R.; Schenk, P.M. Towards the implementation of sustainable biofuel production systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 250–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Cortignani, R.; Buttinelli, R.; Dono, G. Farm to Fork strategy and restrictions on the use of chemical inputs: Impacts on the various types of farming and territories of Italy. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 810, 152259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tripathi, A.D.; Mishra, R.; Maurya, K.K.; Singh, R.B.; Wilson, D.W. Estimates for world population and global food availability for global health. In The Role of Functional Food Security in Global Health; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  91. Jagtap, S.; Trollman, H.; Trollman, F.; Garcia-Garcia, G.; Parra-López, C.; Duong, L.; Martindale, W.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Hdaifeh, A.; et al. The Russia-Ukraine conflict: Its implications for the global food supply chains. Foods 2022, 11, 2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ben Hassen, T.; El Bilali, H. Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war on global food security: Towards more sustainable and resilient food systems? Foods 2022, 11, 2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jeanneret, P.; Lüscher, G.; Schneider, M.K.; Pointereau, P.; Arndorfer, M.; Bailey, D.; Balázs, K.; Báldi, A.; Choisis, J.-P.; Dennis, P. An increase in food production in Europe could dramatically affect farmland biodiversity. Commun. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Crist, E.; Mora, C.; Engelman, R. The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection. Science 2017, 356, 260–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Popp, J.; Kovács, S.; Oláh, J.; Divéki, Z.; Balázs, E. Bioeconomy: Biomass and biomass-based energy supply and demand. New Biotechnol. 2021, 60, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Liobikiene, G.; Chen, X.; Streimikiene, D.; Balezentis, T. The trends in bioeconomy development in the European Union: Exploiting capacity and productivity measures based on the land footprint approach. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bhatia, S.K.; Joo, H.S.; Yang, Y.H. Biowaste-to-bioenergy using biological methods–a mini-review. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 177, 640–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Jain, A.; Sarsaiya, S.; Awasthi, M.K.; Singh, R.; Rajput, R.; Mishra, U.C.; Shi, J. Bioenergy and bio-products from bio-waste and its associated modern circular economy: Current research trends, challenges, and future outlooks. Fuel 2022, 307, 121859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Angouria-Tsorochidou, E.; Teigiserova, D.A.; Thomsen, M. Environmental and economic assessment of decentralized bioenergy and biorefinery networks treating urban biowaste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 176, 105898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Warner, E.; Zhang, Y.; Inman, D.; Heath, G. Challenges in the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuel-induced global land-use change. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2014, 8, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tamburini, E.; Gaglio, M.; Castaldelli, G.; Fano, E.A. Is bioenergy truly sustainable when land-use-change (LUC) emissions are accounted for? The case-study of biogas from agricultural biomass in Emilia-Romagna region, Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Blicharska, M.; Orlikowska, E.H.; Roberge, J.M.; Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. Contribution of social science to large scale biodiversity conservation: A review of research about the Natura 2000 network. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 199, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Avram, C.M.; Proorocu, M.; Mălinaș, A.; Mălinaș, C. The Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Network in Conserving Salix alba and Populus alba Galleries against Invasive Species: A Case Study of Mureșul Mijlociu—Cugir Site, Romania. Forests 2023, 14, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Pe’er, G.; Finn, J.A.; Díaz, M.; Birkenstock, M.; Lakner, S.; Röder, N.; Kazakova, Y.; Šumrada, T.; Bezák, P.; Concepción, E.D. How can the European Common Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Recommendations by over 300 experts. Conserv. Lett. 2022, 15, e12901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Luhas, J.; Mikkilä, M.; Kylkilahti, E.; Miettinen, J.; Malkamäki, A.; Pätäri, S.; Toppinen, A. Pathways to a forest-based bioeconomy in 2060 within policy targets on climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 131, 102551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Karan, H.; Funk, C.; Grabert, M.; Oey, M.; Hankamer, B. Green bioplastics as part of a circular bioeconomy. Trends Plant Sci. 2019, 24, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ramadhan, M.O.; Handayani, M.N. The potential of food waste as bioplastic material to promote environmental sustainability: A review. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 980, p. 012082. [Google Scholar]
  108. Brizga, J.; Hubacek, K.; Feng, K. The unintended side effects of bioplastics: Carbon, land, and water footprints. One Earth 2020, 3, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Muscat, A.; de Olde, E.M.; Kovacic, Z.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Ripoll-Bosch, R. Food, energy or biomaterials? Policy coherence across agro-food and bioeconomy policy domains in the EU. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 123, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hansen, K.; Mathiesen, B.V.; Skov, I.R. Full energy system transition towards 100% renewable energy in Germany in 2050. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 102, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bezama, A. Let us discuss how cascading can help implement the circular economy and the bio-economy strategies. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 593–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Giampietro, M.; Funtowicz, S.O. From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 109, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Velenturf, A.P.; Purnell, P. Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1437–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Velenturf, A.P.; Archer, S.A.; Gomes, H.I.; Christgen, B.; Lag-Brotons, A.J.; Purnell, P. Circular economy and the matter of integrated resources. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 689, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Timmusk, S.; Behers, L.; Muthoni, J.; Muraya, A.; Aronsson, A.C. Perspectives and challenges of microbial application for crop improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Moreira, J.B.; Santos, T.D.; Duarte, J.H.; Bezerra, P.Q.M.; de Morais, M.G.; Costa, J.A.V. Role of microalgae in circular bioeconomy: From waste treatment to biofuel production. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 25, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Priefer, C.; Jörissen, J.; Frör, O. Pathways to shape the bioeconomy. Resources 2017, 6, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Purnhagen, K.P.; Clemens, S.; Eriksson, D.; Fresco, L.O.; Tosun, J.; Qaim, M.; Zilberman, D. Europe’s farm to fork strategy and its commitment to biotechnology and organic farming: Conflicting or complementary goals? Trends Plant Sci. 2021, 26, 600–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Richter, S.; Szarka, N.; Bezama, A.; Thrän, D. What Drives a Future German Bioeconomy? A Narrative and STEEPLE Analysis for Explorative Characterisation of Scenario Drivers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07139 g001 550
Figure 1. Goals of the European Bioeconomy Strategy and the Green Deal policy [9,27].
Figure 1. Goals of the European Bioeconomy Strategy and the Green Deal policy [9,27].
Sustainability 15 07139 g001
Sustainability 15 07139 g002 550
Figure 2. Policy map of the bioeconomy in the European Green Deal.
Figure 2. Policy map of the bioeconomy in the European Green Deal.
Sustainability 15 07139 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liobikienė, G.; Miceikienė, A. Contribution of the European Bioeconomy Strategy to the Green Deal Policy: Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing These Policies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097139

AMA Style

Liobikienė G, Miceikienė A. Contribution of the European Bioeconomy Strategy to the Green Deal Policy: Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing These Policies. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097139

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liobikienė, Genovaitė, and Astrida Miceikienė. 2023. "Contribution of the European Bioeconomy Strategy to the Green Deal Policy: Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing These Policies" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097139

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop