Circular Bioeconomy: A Pathway to Sustainable Development in an Age of Global Crisis
International Trade, Economic Crisis and the Sustainable Development Goals
ISBN: 978-1-83753-587-3, eISBN: 978-1-83753-586-6
Publication date: 17 May 2024
Abstract
The global economy is facing a steep challenge from volatility, risk and uncertainty associated with climate change, pandemics, regional conflicts and trade wars which are unprecedented and overlapping. These crises are leading to macro- and microeconomic imbalances. The immediate effects like rising inflation, shortage of energy and fertiliser, food insecurity, loss of jobs and poverty are looming large, leading to existential threat. It is evident that decades of progress are at risk and pursuing sustainable development goals (SDGs) requires dedicated and customised efforts by the governments and other relevant actors, especially in the low- and middle-income countries (LMICS). The concept of circular economy is considered to bring a paradigm shift by reducing the dependence on natural resource extraction and decoupling economic growth from use of natural resources. Bioeconomy is another emerging field which deals with the use of renewable biological resources such as biomass to produce renewable biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower for economic, environmental and social benefits. Circular bioeconomy (CBE) lies at the intersection and is defined as the production of recoverable biological (waste) resources and the conversion of these resources into high-value-added products, such as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy. It has been estimated that the economic opportunity for the sector to complement or even substitute conventional ones is estimated to be USD 7.7 trillion by 2030 for food and feed waste products, and energy. CBE is perceived as a pathway for development and has the potential to target different SDGs directly like 6, 7 and 12 and SDGs 2, 3, 11, 12, 13 and 15 indirectly. This study explores the linkages of CBE with the SDG goals and provides recommendations to stimulate the sector.
Keywords
Citation
Taron, A. and Gebrezgabher, S. (2024), "Circular Bioeconomy: A Pathway to Sustainable Development in an Age of Global Crisis", Chatterjee, T. (Ed.) International Trade, Economic Crisis and the Sustainable Development Goals, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 99-117. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-586-620241007
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024 Avinandan Taron and Solomie Gebrezgabher. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
7.1 Introduction
There has been a growing consensus over the last decade towards promotion of green economy. Green economy is defined by UNEP (2011) as an intervention that leads to improvement in human well-being and social equity, with significant reduction of environmental risks and ecological securities. Within the green economy framework, there are related concepts such as bioeconomy and bio-based economy and circular economy. The European Commission (2018) defines bioeconomy as covering sectors and systems that rely on biological resources (animals, plants, microorganisms and derived biomass, including organic waste), their functions and principles. It includes the interlinkage between terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the services they provide; primary production sectors that use and produce biological resources namely agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture; and all economic and industrial sectors that use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-based products, energy and services (excluding biomedicines and health biotechnology). Bio-based economy includes those sectors and systems related to processing of biomass. This includes food and feed; textiles, paper and pulp, furniture; and biorefineries, biofuels, bio-based chemicals, bio-based plastics and biogas (Kardung et al., 2021).
The circular economy approach is based on three principles – (1) eliminate waste and pollution, (2) circulate products and materials at the highest value and (3) regenerate nature. 1 It is targeted to ensure change in the existing production and consumption system that is linear in nature where there is extraction of resources, production of goods and services and eventually waste is generated and disposed. Circular bioeconomy (CBE) is therefore a niche sector that derives goods and services from recovered resources to promote sustainable growth through regenerative practices. This involves different processes utilising biomass from different waste streams into marketable products such as organic fertilisers (compost or biochar) or energy (common products such as biogas, charcoal or charcoal briquettes) in the form of fuel, power or heat (Hetemäki et al., 2017, p. 52; Stegmann et al., 2020; Temmes & Peck, 2020; Zabaniotou, 2018). The transition to a bio-based economy with closed resource loops is necessary to ensure resource conservation and sustainable growth for future generations (European Commission, 2017).
A gradual transition to a CBE is a necessity given the volatility and uncertainty existing across the global scenario. Several economies are hit by pandemics, financial sector turmoil, climate change, regional conflicts and trade wars. The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated government responses to the pandemic have restricted the movement of millions of people, impacting lives and jobs and disrupting international food supply chains and bringing global economies to a halt. In doing so, the pandemic and the lockdown measures have revealed our system's exposure to a variety of risks (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020). The economic growth is said to decline from 3.4% in 2022 to 2.8%, and advanced economies are expected to witness an especially pronounced growth slowdown (IMF, 2023). The immediate effects like rising inflation, shortage of energy and fertiliser, food insecurity and loss of jobs and poverty are looming large, leading to existential threat. World Economic Forum (2023) indicates that climate-related risks dominate and failure to mitigate climate change is perceived as the biggest risk facing the world over the next 10 years. Natural disasters, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are also of top concern. It is evident that these impede the development gains and progress towards pursuing sustainable development goals (SDGs) that had been achieved. SDG Report 2022 reveals that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is in grave jeopardy due to multiple, cascading and intersecting crises, and climate change is perceived to dominate (UN, 2022).
The cross-cutting nature of CBE provides a comprehensive approach towards addressing several interlinked global challenges like hunger and poverty, biodiversity loss and climate change (Gomez San Juan & Bogdanski, 2021). CBE mobilises local resources to reduce import dependence and diversify supplies for greater resilience. However, changing the business-as-usual scenario is a big challenge and requires much more efforts in the form of capacity development and the exploration of strong incentive systems for inter-sectoral collaboration to build new alliances along with the interlinked targets around water, energy, rural–urban linkages (RULs) and food security.
This study proposes different strategies through which CBE can be promoted. CBE requires sectoral linkages that would allow flow of materials – waste from one sector to be recovered and utilised directly or through production of other goods and services. One such strong sectoral linkage exists between agriculture and waste management. A regional approach of integrating RULs in closing the loop for agrifood systems and waste management needs further support from private sector participation, promotion of an enabling environment with regulations and institutions and capacity building and skill development. The study also provides some indicators to monitor and measure the development of CBE in the context of low- and middle-income countries.
7.2 CBE and RULs
Asia and Africa will see nearly 90% of world population growth and urbanisation towards 2050, putting far greater pressure on natural resources. Growth of population and urbanisation leads to challenges in waste management and food security. Peri-urban areas and rural areas near to urban centres are increasingly becoming hotspots for farming systems transformations. These areas need to feed the growing urban population. The biophysical inputs to peri-urban and rural agriculture are under stress to meet the targeted food supply. Intensive agrifood systems to feed growing population have already taken a heavy toll on the environment.
Around one-third of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions currently come from agrifood systems (Crippa et al., 2021). 2 In 2018, global emissions due to agriculture (within the farm gate and including related land use/land use change) were 9.3 billion tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2 eq) (FAO, 2018). The main sources are improper land management, use of pesticides and fertilisers, faulty agricultural practices, deforestation, crop-residue burning and livestock and manure management. Without action, that percentage could rise substantially as other sectors reduce their emissions. Additionally, one-third of the food produced is waste or lost (World Bank, 2020). Addressing the food loss and waste is critical to meet climate goals and reduce the stress on environment. The CBE approach offers opportunities to reduce GHG emissions along the agrifood system by replacing fossil-based resources and processes with biological ones (Babiker et al., 2022). Biological resources include new bioprocesses and technologies that facilitate the production of higher value-added products and allow for a diversification of products (Gomez San Juan & Bogdanski, 2021).
Circular economy and waste management in urban areas can be linked through regional planning approaches like RULs. Fig. 7.1 provides an overview of different urban waste streams, recoverable resources and derived products and services that can be utilised in agriculture and rural development. This approach is one possible solution for two different challenges – (1) cities need to cope with rising demand for safe food and water and manage waste volume; (2) at the same time, rural areas are suffering from soil losses and water scarcity. The RUL approach addresses these challenges from a landscape and territorial perspective. This requires an assessment of the city region food systems (urban and peri-urban agriculture) and potential waste resources, analysis of climate variability, resource competition and environmental parameters. By promoting improved rural–urban food systems and governance, and by turning waste into useable products like fertiliser, irrigation water and fuel, RUL increases water- and nutrient-use efficiency at a systemic level while improving urban resilience, food security and nutrition and vibrant food economies.
It has been estimated globally that 5 million tons of nitrogen phosphorus and potassium (N, P, K) could be replenished from 100% of food waste and 50% other food waste. Similarly, 345 million tons of N, P, K is available from current stocks of cattle, chicken, pig and sheep. This is more than twice the world's current consumption. Human waste also contains significant amount of N, P, K. Recovery of N, P, K from faecal sludge would amount to 41 million tons, representing 28% of the current N, P, K consumption (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013, 2017). In OECD countries, it has been estimated that 177 million tons of municipal organic waste are generated, of which 66 million tons are valorised in composting or anaerobic digestion. The market value of N, P, K in this segment is USD 121 million per year and adds to 5 million tons of carbon to OECD soil. ISWA (2015) estimated that there exists additional opportunity of 58 million tons of recovery from the organic fraction of waste. Countries are becoming increasingly aware that fossil reserves are finite and there is a need to adopt more sustainable consumption practices by promoting bioeconomy (Gomez San Juan & Bogdanski, 2021). An estimate by CIFOR (2021) indicates that shifting the energy and extractives system to circular and resource-efficient models can lead to USD 3.5 trillion in business opportunities and 87 million jobs by 2030. In the context of the resource-poor countries, it is more suitable to argue for a circular approach. This is strongly supported by the SDG targeting, for example, waster reuse (SDG 6), renewable energy (SDG 7), waste recycling and reuse (SDG 12), which help to provide good health and well-being (SDG 3), restore degraded soils (SDG 15), agriculture and food security (SDG 2), resilient cities (SDG 12) and climate mitigation (SDG 13).
7.3 Building Resilience to Pandemic Through Circularity
The economic turbulence as a result of the pandemic has hit a lot of industries and sectors of the world economy, and many entrepreneurial ventures have struggled to survive (Costanza, 2020). In the context of the pandemic, the existing imbalance between available water supply and demand is expected to increase due to, among others, higher water consumption. Furthermore, during the pre-COVID-19 era, in tandem with rapid urbanisation, especially in the developing world, there has been an increase in waste generation in urban settings. Cities in developing countries generate massive amounts of solid and liquid waste in an environment where there is poor waste management, ranging from non-existing collection systems to ineffective disposal, causing air, water and soil contamination. This is exacerbated by the pandemic due to increased use of water and generation of more liquid and solid waste. However, opportunities also exist to adopt circular economy approaches connected with waste management, environmental awareness and local productive resilience (Costanza, 2020).
CBE approach within the context of urban food supply chains plays a key role in contributing towards resilience of the food production systems. Studies show that irrigated urban agriculture could produce as much as 90% of the leafy vegetables consumed in a city, particularly in Africa (Drechsel et al., 2007). As urban food supply chains are at high risk of being negatively affected by pandemics, promoting urban agriculture and shorter food chains are key strategies recommended to maintain urban food supply (Dharmalingam et al., 2021; Komalawati et al., 2022; Marusak et al., 2021; Moustier, 2017). Furthermore, the development of an integrated wastewater treatment plant and aquaculture production system in developing countries represents a low-cost option for wastewater treatment and a source of food production. The use of treated wastewater for aquaculture, i.e. growing fish, fingerling and animal feed in treated wastewater-fed ponds, is a unique system that has potential to create viable fish-farming businesses, support livelihoods and ensure food security while recovering costs for treatment facilities in low-income countries. In the face of the pandemic, it is important to study contribution of wastewater in the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, human health risks it poses and how it can be inactivated or eliminated from the wastewater so that it doesn't find route into the food system. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed guidelines for defining appropriate levels of treatment needed for different types of water reuse, including for aquaculture, to ensure public health protection (WHO, 2006).
7.4 Business Models and Engaging Private Players
Resource recovery and reuse is no longer about technologies but about business models, governance and awareness (Otoo & Drechsel, 2018). The term ‘business model’ can be a misnomer in the sector, as a ‘business’ is typically associated with income generation and profits. The concept of business model here is adapted from Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) and also applied by Otoo and Drechsel (2018) specifically for resource recovery and reuse sector. Business thinking to manage waste and recover products is important as a tool to articulate the solutions for waste management and derive useful products. This basically relates to associating the costs, potential for revenue generation for cost recovery, and partnerships and engagement between diverse stakeholders (government, donors, entrepreneurs, technology providers, community-based organisations [CBOs] and non-governmental organisations [NGOs]) (Rao et al., 2020, p. 199).
Across the developing countries, waste management in the urban areas is provided by the local bodies (municipalities), and one of the most common issues is the techno-commercial feasibility and viability. This sector is prone to market failures due to external effects, imperfect information, disadvantages of monopolies and destructive competition among many actors – resulting in goods and services that are not provided in sufficient quantity and quality. The municipalities depend heavily on the on household tax (e.g. property taxes) and user fee collection for services such as waste and wastewater. They are also reliant on the general budgetary provision from the state and central governments. However, in many instances, these three means cannot ensure the commercial viability of the system. In many cases, public authorities have not been effectively able to maintain the physical infrastructure and provide adequate service to the citizenry due to lack of funds. This leads to a vicious cycle of supply and demand side mismatch and low willingness to pay for such public utilities and hence low level of funds for the municipalities. These market failures are usually contravened through subsidies, which becomes a burden for the central or state government.
The participation of the private sector along with the municipalities is essential in escalating efficiency and quality of the service provision. In the developing countries, the private sector is expected to contribute to technical skills, organisational capabilities and flexibility. It is increasingly recognised that public–private partnerships (PPPs) can target key objectives in the CBE sector – (1) by converting the household and agricultural waste to products with economic value, there is an opportunity of tapping potential markets; (2) technological innovations with the sector; (3) financial viability through revenue generation or cost recovery; (4) risk sharing between the private and public entities; and (5) joint participation can turn policy gaps into opportunities.
There have been significant investments in infrastructure for delivering public utilities related to waste management in developing countries. In a review of 12 PPP applications in the CBE sector from Asia and Africa, Taron et al. (2023) point out to three notable bottlenecks that are critical for these investments and have resulted in failure of such projects. First barrier is related to the inputs which arise from failure of meeting the committed quantity of waste and composition of the waste. In urban areas, municipalities are the owners of the waste. Many municipalities in joint ventures with the private players often do not have proper contractual agreements underlining the waste quantity. The resource recovery plants often run under capacity resulting in lower end product making it financially unsustainable. Poor segregation of waste at the household level is one of the primary reasons behind the poor waste composition and inefficient conversion to end products. In case of PPPs, municipalities need to ensure both quantity and quality of waste for optimal functioning of the recovery plant.
The second bottleneck is related to limited awareness about waste recycling and CBE. In the low- and middle-income countries low awareness of waste as a resource restrict the recovery of the resources that can be derived from the organic fraction of the waste. In addition promotional drive for waste segregation, information, education and communication (IEC) activities for citizens, SMEs, authorities and employees are absent which lead to low quality of waste for resource recovery. Skill and lack of capacity in managing such project are another set of constraints that restrict the proper function of the business. These regional economies suffer from lack of knowledge and planning for end product use. This makes marketing end products and services a challenge and gain revenue for the business. The third set of barriers are related to regulations and improper institutional mechanisms. The absence of well-defined interlinkages between different stakeholders through appropriate regulations cannot ensure functional coordination between all respective parties or contractors. The incentives structures and mechanisms fail to attract new private companies despite proposed subsidies since these are crowded off by high transaction costs arising from high corruption and other externalities (like interest rates, corruption, land prices and availability, etc.). These projects are sometimes marred by less clarity on government assets, improper short-term contractual agreements, as well as international externalities like fluctuating carbon price.
The barriers mentioned above shows that to foster private participation and/or forming PPPs, technical, financial, legal and socio-environmental assessment is a necessity. Apart from these assessments, municipalities need to ring-fence the public finance, develop proper due-diligence, scoping and procurement strategies to engage with the private entities, closely monitor the service delivery and utilise payment mechanisms for the service delivery (for example, hybrid annuity models) and scope for scaling up the business. Private investments would lead to the creation of green jobs. UNEP (2008) defines green jobs as workplaces in agriculture, manufacturing, research and development, administrative and service activities that contribute substantially to preserve or restore environmental quality. This include jobs that protect ecosystems and biodiversity, reduce energy, materials and water consumption and avoids waste generation and pollution. CBE therefore can lead to GJs creation specifically engaging youth in self-employment, research and innovation, and managerial jobs across waste collection, management, resource recovery and recycling, energy recovery systems, and agriculture.
7.5 Capacity Building and Skill Development Among Key Stakeholders
Although the CBE sector is nascent, there exist potential opportunities to upscale businesses through awareness and capacity development of different actors within the bioeconomy value chain – from producers to consumers, project developers to local, regional and national decision makers. The primary stakeholders include households, agricultural dependent population, entrepreneurs involved in the business, local governments, practitioners, CBOs and NGOs, policymakers at the national level. Along with these primary stakeholders, there are secondary stakeholders influencing the adoption of CBE. The secondary stakeholders include media houses, financial institutions (bank and non-bank), business associations and research and innovation hubs (including business incubators).
Lack of awareness among the stakeholders can inhibit – (1) understanding of the need for action, (2) the choices available and (3) the ability to collaborate with other stakeholders in the value chain (ENRD, 2019). However, communicating bioeconomy and the products and services is complex and difficult. The primary challenges are lack of awareness, terminological misunderstandings, and confusions. First, there is a need to communicate and clarify the concept of bioeconomy and how circularity can be integrated within the system. This requires defining a system boundary for the assessment and defining of products and services, their sources and means of resource recovery systems. Second, public awareness is needed particularly on regional and local level, informing the various target stakeholders, using diverse arguments, messages and tools. Designing impactful awareness campaigns and communication strategies – like tailoring messages, use of innovative channels (large scale events, science festivals, workshops, fairs) can be game changers. Other means like (1) storytelling to communicate bioeconomy (for school children and low-income group households); (2) exhibition showcasing samples of bio-based products; (3) engaging social media; (4) capacity and skill development programs – knowledge transfer to practitioner (especially from the local governments); and (5) target and involve multipliers and ambassadors (like champion farmers promoting compost, successful projects, branding products etc.).
Capacity building and skill development on the circularity aspects is imperative, especially for women and youth. Women play a key role in household waste generation and disposal (such as grey water and food waste in kitchens, and grey water from washing laundry and bathing children). As waste managers, women groups support waste collection, segregation, recycling and composting (UNEP-IETC & GRID-Arendal, 2019). The success of the resource recovery from household waste depends on waste segregation. This requires a gender-sensitive approach in the IEC activities. Targeting the right group(s) in the education programs, like women, or school-going children and ensure more awareness for waste segregation (Taron et al., 2021, p. 33). The implementation of CBE requires techno-commercial feasibility which depends on utilising proper technology and management. Therefore, skill development of young entrepreneurs, engineers and managers should be promoted through curricula development and integration within existing courses taught at the respective higher education courses (science, technology, engineering and management [STEM]). The requirement for enhancing skill should be extended further to personnel (labours, managers and engineers) involved in the waste management and agricultural sector to ensure employment and job creation. Ronzon et al. (2022) estimated that the EU-28 bioeconomy was responsible for employing 17.5 million people, generating Euro 2.3 trillion of turnover, and contributed to a value addition of Euro 614 billion in 2017.
7.6 Promoting an Enabling Environment for Circular Bioeconomy
The market failures related to waste management and promotion of the CBE can be addressed through subsidies to influence investment decisions, defining and enforcing regulations and standards to alleviate public health and environmental externalities, and supporting market-based solutions by facilitating finance, dissemination or provision of business support (Rao et al., 2020, p. 199). As had been mentioned earlier, there is a need for the private sector investments to complement the role of the policies laid down by the government towards CBE. Therefore, efforts to understand the conditions of the business environment are important since it shapes, constrains and/or enables the business models used by enterprises through manifold interactions (Adamseged & Grundmann, 2020).
An enabling environment is defined as a combination of conditions that facilitate an enterprise in initiating a business, scale-up and create decent jobs (DCED, 2018; ILO, 2014). These conditions are set by the economic, political, social and environmental context which are external to the business (Fig. 7.2). The main objective of promoting an enabling environment is directed towards improving economic prospects, particularly of small and medium enterprises, overcome decent work deficits for workers, ensure that production is environmentally sustainable, and reduction in health risks. The business environment influences the choice of entrepreneurs (and investors) in locating, operating and expanding their businesses. Uncertain economic policies or those that lack proper direction can hinder economic growth even when a country makes significant progress on other development fronts. Prevailing norms and customs, laws, regulations, policies, international trade agreements and public infrastructure can either facilitate or hinder the movement of goods and services along the value chain. Such investment climate indicators for waste reuse enterprises are discussed in details in Gebrezgabher et al. (2019).
Governments of the developing countries play an important role in controlling the business environment and creating an impact economy. 3 Usually governments act as one of the following – market facilitators, regulators and participants (UNESCAP, 2022). The government can be become a market facilitator by sending an indication to the market through facilitating and leading strategy development. The Government can introduce new regulations for business to incentivise impact or to penalise harmful practices to help to create the conditions for social entrepreneurs and social innovators to succeed. Governments also have the power to open public sector markets for the delivery of public services, and participation in public sector markets can help impact enterprises to grow as a spillover effect. The governments can also facilitate platforms like impact stock exchanges (like green bonds, social stock exchange) to facilitate investments for the social businesses.
In case of market regulation, governments implements laws that enable, support, and incentivise business innovation. This can be through registrations, certification processes, providing fiscal incentives, impact requirement for investors (corporate responsibility related mandates). Governments strengthen the impact economy as market participants by taking part in the market exchanges by providing impact capital or sourcing from impact enterprises.
7.7 Development of Carbon Markets
Beyond the role of the government and the economic functioning, is the importance of the development of carbon markets. Projects related to CBE can be incentivised through revenue generation from carbon markets. Although carbon revenues have sharply increased by almost 60% to around USD 84 billion (from 2021), carbon pricing instruments (CPIs) approximately cover 23% of total global GHG emissions (World Bank, 2022). This provides evidence that there is ample opportunity for the market to grow and projects to reap the benefits of an expanding market. Carbon prices have hit record highs in many jurisdictions (European Union (EU), California, New Zealand, and Republic of Korea), but require a considerable rise in prices to meet Paris Agreement. The Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices indicates that the carbon price needs to be in the USD 50–100/tCO2e range by 2030 to keep global heating to 2°C (CPLC, 2022). There are several recommendations for improving the efficiency of the carbon markets (Blaufelder et al., 2021; Song et al., 2022):
Reduce the time and cost of project development – the time and capital required for carbon project development are the main constraint. It often takes at least two to three years for a project to begin issuing credits, and this might get longer for nature-based solutions or those developing new methodologies. The costs for monitoring, reporting and verifying can amount to 20%–30% of the total credit revenue. Additionally projects face significant backlogs during registration delaying their receipt of carbon credits.
Differentiate the carbon credit supply – carbon supply is highly heterogeneous – emission reductions and removals come from different projects with different geographies, varying levels of risks, externalities and co-benefits. A differentiated carbon market allows buyers sift through a diverse supply but will also provide the incentives to scale up high-quality projects.
Enable a transparent voluntary carbon market – the carbons markets suffers from lack of trust and has responded primarily by creating new standards. There is a need for a complementary strategy: development of a platform with underlying data requirements that would provide radial transparency into the carbon credit supply. This platform must provide complete visibility of carbon credit attributes and transactions. It should empower project developers and local communities to develop high-quality projects quickly and effectively. This would create a consensus about the use of the credits.
7.8 Indicators for Measuring the Development of CBE
A set of indicators (qualitative and quantitative) is useful for tracking the progress of CBE. These indicators must be measurable, comparable, replicable and responsive to fluctuations spatially and temporally. Measuring the set of indicators would help stakeholders in assessing, impact evaluation and designing policies, targets in the short- and long-term. Following Kardung et al. (2021), the present study derives some indicators suitable to low- and middle-income countries (LMICS) in measuring the development of CBE (Table 7.1). The indicators proposed are classified based on the five parameters with linkages to the different sustainability dimensions. Tracking such indicators for LMICS might be a challenge and there need to be a careful planning and classification. For example, tracking jobs CBE might be difficult. The study by Lier et al. (2018), shows a system to capture the actual volume of jobs generated by bioeconomy of different nations. The study indicates six sectors (namely food, bioeconomy goods, renewable energy, water treatment and distribution, transportation of bio-based raw materials/products and bioeconomy services) and respective contribution to (1) number of employed persons in rural and urban areas, (2) value added, (3) contribution to GDP, (4) investment in research and innovation and (5) exports. To determine green jobs generated by CBE, such sectoral classification needs further dissociation capturing jobs related to resource recovery and reuse.
List of Possible Indicators for Measuring the Development of Circular Bioeconomy.
| Indicator/Parameter | Explanation | Dimensions of Sustainability |
|---|---|---|
| Food and nutrition security | ||
| Food production and use of products derived from waste | The interlinkage between agrifood production systems and waste requires assessment of the contribution of waste derived soil nutrients utilised in the regional economy. | Society |
| Natural resource management | ||
| Primary biomass production from waste | To assess the sustainability of biomass production and potential of resource recovery | Environment |
| Sustainable resource use | ||
| Biodiversity | To assess cases which support biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration | Environment |
| Dependence on renewable resources | ||
| Bioenergy replacing non-renewable energy | To assess the direct substitutability of fossil resources with biological resources | Environment |
| Biomaterial replacing non-renewable resources | ||
| Biomass self-sufficiency rate | To assess independence from biomass imports (between regions) | Economy |
| Material use efficiency | To assess the degree of circularity | Economy |
| Certified bio-based products | To assess the quality of products derived from bio-based production | Environment |
| Mitigating climate change | ||
| Greenhouse gas emissions reductions from nature positive solutions in agrifood systems and waste | Traditional indicator for circular bioeconomy | Environment |
| Greenhouse gas emissions reductions from waste management solution | ||
| Employment and economic competitiveness | ||
| Circular bioeconomy technology and business | Investment on research and innovation for circular bioeconomy and business promotion | Economy |
| Production and consumption of non-food and feed bio-based products | Traditional indicator applied in more sectorial and spatial detail | Economy |
| Value added of the bioeconomy sectors | To assess product uptake of bio-based production | Economy |
| Employment | Traditional indicator applied in more sectorial and spatial detail | Society |
| Bioeconomy-driving policies | To assess policies, strategies, and legislation on the bioeconomy | Society |
Source: Adapted from Kardung et al. (2021).
7.9 Conclusion
The present consumption and production process is 90% linear in nature, and while different countries are suffering from resource crunch, especially in agrifood systems and renewable energy, CBE is considered to bring a paradigm shift as it tries to reduce the dependence on natural resource extraction. CBE lies at the intersection of bio-based economy and circular economy and is defined as the production of recoverable biological (waste) resources and the conversion of these resources into high-value-added products, such as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy. With the uncertainty and volatility from climate change pandemics, regional conflicts, financial market turmoil and trade wars, it is envisaged that global economic growth will have a sobering portrait. The immediate effects like rising inflation, shortage of energy and fertiliser, food insecurity, loss of jobs and poverty, are looming large leading to existential threat. The decades of progress attained in pursuing SDGs are facing a steep challenge.
A gradual transition to CBE shows promising potential for revival of the SGDs progress. It has been estimated that the economic opportunity for the sector to complement or even substitute conventional ones is estimated to be USD 7.7 trillion by 2030 for food and feed waste, products and energy. CBE is perceived as a pathway for development and has potential to target different SDGs directly like 6, 7 and 12 and SDGs 2, 3, 11, 12, 13 and 15 indirectly. The present study proposes sectoral and regional linkages (agrifood system and waste in rural urban perspective) that would allow flow of materials – allowing the waste from one sector to be recovered and utilised (directly or through production of other goods and services). This regional approach of integrating RULs in closing the loop for agrifood systems and waste management need further support from private sector participation; promotion of an enabling environment with regulations and institutions; proper capacity building and skill development. The study indicates the role of the private sector in business model approach and that creating an enabling environment (within and external to the economy) for such enterprises will enhance the development of the sector.
The study also provides some indicators to monitor and measure the development of CBE in the context of low- and middle-income countries. The indicators are developed based on the sustainability dimensions and its linkage to the prominent components such as food security, natural resource management, climate change, dependence on renewable sources and economic improvement. However, such indicators need further classification (sectoral) and careful tracking to measure the progress of CBE. This reclassification needs to be based on data availability in developing countries, and hence, further research in this area is a necessity. Such indicators with data sources once developed need to be tested based on their measurability, comparability, replicability and responsiveness to spatial and temporal fluctuations.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview.
An agrifood system includes ‘food and non-food products that serves the production, processing, trade, marketing, consumption and disposal of goods that originate from agriculture, forestry, or fisheries. It also includes the inputs needed and outputs generated at each of these processes’ (Gomez San Juan et al., 2022).
Impact economy – a broader, emerging concept of a part of the economy where actors prioritise social and environmental impact alongside financial impact.
References
Adamseged and Grundmann, 2020 Adamseged, M. E. , & Grundmann, P. (2020). Understanding business environments and success factors for emerging bioeconomy enterprises through a comprehensive analytical framework. Sustainability, 12, 9018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219018
Andersson et al., 2020 Andersson, K. , Rosemarin, A. , Lamizana, B. , Kvarnström, E. , McConville, J. , Seidu, R. , Dickin, S. , & Trimmer, C. (2020). Sanitation, wastewater management and sustainability: From waste disposal to resource recovery (2nd ed.). United Nations Environment Programme and Stockholm Environment Institute.
Babiker et al., 2022 Babiker, M. , Berndes, G. , Blok, K. , Cohen, B. , Cowie, A. , Geden, O. , Ginzburg, V. , et al. (2022). Cross-sectoral perspectives. In IPCC, 2022: Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (p. 220). IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Full_Report.pdf
Blaufelder et al., 2021 Blaufelder, C. , Levy, C. , Mannion, P. , & Pinner, D. (2021). A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets to meet the climate challenge. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/a-blueprint-for-scaling-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-meet-the-climate-challenge#/. (Accessed on April 29, 2023).
CIFOR & ICRAF, 2021 CIFOR (The Center for International Forestry Research) & ICRAF (World Agroforestry) . (2021). The circular bioeconomy: Knowledge guide. https://www.cifor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Flyer%20-%20Knowledge%20Guide_Circular%20Bioeconomy-v4.pdf. (Accessed on April 29, 2023).
Costanza, 2020 Costanza, R. (2020). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096
CPLC, 2022 CPLC (Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition) . (2022). Carbon pricing leadership report 2021–22. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; The World Bank. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff9c5ce4b0a53decccfb4c/t/6290ddafb9a58932868f4797/1653661106052/Carbon+Pricing+Leadership+Report+2021-22.pdf. (Accessed on May 2, 2023).
Crippa et al., 2021 Crippa, M. , Solazzo, E. , Guizzardi, D. , Monforti-Ferrario, F. , Tubiello, F. N. , & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
DCED, 2008 DCED (Donor Committee for Enterprise Development) . (2008). Supporting business environment reforms: Practical guidance for development agencies. https://www.enterprise-development.org/wp-content/uploads/DonorGuidanceEnglish.pdf. (Accessed on April 30, 2023).
Dharmalingam et al., 2021 Dharmalingam, B. , Giri Nandagopal, M. S. , Thulasiraman, V. , Kothakota, A. , & Rajkumar (2021). Short food supply chains to resolve food scarcity during COVID-19 pandemic—An Indian model. Advances in Food Security and Sustainability, 6, 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.af2s.2021.08.001
Drechsel et al., 2007 Drechsel, P. , Keraita, B. , Amoah, P. , Abaidoo, R. C. , Raschid-Sally, L. , & Bahri, A. (2007). Reducing health risks from wastewater use in urban and peri-urban sub-Saharan Africa—Applying the 2006 WHO guidelines. In Paper submitted to 6th IWA conference on wastewater reclamation and reuse for sustainability, October 9–12, 2007, Antwerp, Belgium.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013 Ellen MacArthur Foundation . (2013). Towards a circular economy. In Opportunities for the consumer goods sector (Vol. 2). https://emf.thirdlight.com/file/24/qzvD2i1qVnZjTMqzpI2qI32rGA/Towards%20the%20circular%20economy%20Vol.%202%3A%20opportunities%20for%20the%20consumer%20goods%20sector.pdf. (Accessed on May 2, 2023).
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017 Ellen MacArthur Foundation . (2017). Urban biocycles. https://archive.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Urban-Biocycles_EllenMacArthurFoundation_21-06-2017.pdf. (Accessed on May 2, 2023).
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020 Ellen MacArthur Foundation . (2020). How policymakers can achieve a resilient recovery with circular economy. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/covid-policymakers. (Accessed on May 2, 2023).
ENRD, 2019 ENRD (European Network of Rural Development) . (2019). Exploring the role of awareness-raising and communication in promoting the development of sustainable bioeconomy value chains. https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/sites/default/files/tg3_bioeconomy_education-and-awareness-raising_bowyer_0.pdf. (Accessed on May 5, 2023).
European Commission, 2017 European Commission . (2017). Review of the 2012 European bioeconomy strategy. European Commission, B-1049. https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2018-6/review_of_2012_eu_bes_2E89B85F-950B-9C84-5B426D1C24851387_49692.pdf. (Accessed on May 2, 2023).
European Commission, 2018 European Commission . (2018). A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. ISBN 9789279941450. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0673. (Accessed on April 28, 2023).
FAO, 2018 FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) . (2018). Emissions due to agriculture Global, regional and country trends 2000–2018. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 18. https://www.fao.org/3/cb3808en/cb3808en.pdf. (Accessed on April 29, 2023).
Gebrezgabher et al., 2019 Gebrezgabher, S. , Taron, A. , & Amewu, S. (2019). Investment climate indicators for waste reuse enterprises in developing countries: Application of analytical hierarchy process and goal programming model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 144, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.049
Gomez San Juan and Bogdanski, 2021 Gomez San Juan, M. , & Bogdanski, A. (2021). How to mainstream sustainability and circularity into the bioeconomy? A compendium of bioeconomy good practices and policies. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5798en
Gomez San Juan et al., 2022 Gomez San Juan, M. , Harnett, S. , & Albinelli, I. (2022). Sustainable and circular bioeconomy in the climate agenda: Opportunities to transform agrifood systems. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2668en
Hetemäki et al., 2017 Hetemäki, L. , Hanewinkel, M. , Muys, B. , Ollikainen, M. , Palahí, M. , & Trasobares, A. (2017). Leading the way to a European circular bioeconomy strategy. From Science to Policy 5. European Forest Institute. https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-bank/2018/efi_fstp_5_2017.pdf. (Accessed on May 1, 2023).
ILO, 2014 ILO (International Labour Organization) . (2014). An enabling environment for sustainable enterprises. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/@emp_ent/@ifp_seed/documents/publication/wcms_175476.pdf. (Accessed on May 1, 2023).
IMF, 2023 IMF (International Monetary Fund) . (2023). World economic outlook. A Rocky Recovery.
ISWA, 2015 ISWA (International Solid Waste Association) . (2015). Circular economy: Carbon, nutrients and soil (report 4). https://eco.nomia.pt/contents/documentacao/task-force-report-4.pdf. (Accessed on May 2, 2023).
Kardung et al., 2021 Kardung, M. , Cingiz, K. , Costenoble, O. , Delahaye, R. , Heijman, W. , Lovri´c, M. , van Leeuwen, M. , M'Barek, R. , van Meijl, H. , Piotrowski, S. , et al. . (2021). Development of the circular bioeconomy: Drivers and indicators. Sustainability, 13, 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010413
Komalawati et al., 2022 Komalawati, K. , Sarjana Romdon, A. S. , Hartono, F. R. , Murtiati, S. , Arianti, F. D. , Hariyanto, W. , & Oelviani, R. (2022). Urban farming as a resilient strategy during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Resilient Economies, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.25120/jre.2.1.2022.3910
Lier et al., 2018 Lier, M. , Aarne, M. , Kärkkäinen, L. , Korhonen, K. T. , Yli-Viikari, A. , & Packalen, T. (2018). Synthesis on bioeconomy monitoring systems in the EU member states-indicators for monitoring the progress of bioeconomy. Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke).
Marusak et al., 2021 Marusak, A. A. , Sadeghiamirshahidi, N. , Krejci, C. C. , Mittal, A. , Beckwith, S. , Cantu, J. , Morris, M. , & Grimm, J. (2021). Resilient regional food supply chains and rethinking the way forward: Key takeaways from the COVID-19 pandemic. Agricultural Systems, 190, 103101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103101
Moustier, 2017 Moustier, P. (2017). Short urban food chains in developing countries: Signs of the past or of the future? Natures Sciences Sociétés, 25, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2017018
Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010 Osterwalder, A. , & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley.
Otoo and Drechsel, 2018 Otoo, M. , & Drechsel, P. (Eds.). (2018). Resource recovery from waste: Business models for energy, nutrient and water reuse in low- and middle-income countries (p. 816). Routledge – Earthscan.
Rao et al., 2020 Rao, K. C. , Velidandla, S. , Scott, C. L. , & Drechsel, P. (2020). Business models for fecal sludge management in India. International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). (Resource Recovery and Reuse Series 18: Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.5337/2020.209
Ronzon et al., 2022 Ronzon, T. , Piotrowski, S. , M'barek, R. , Carus, M. , & Tamošiūnas, S. (2022). Jobs and wealth in the EU bioeconomy. JRC – Bioeconomics. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC). [Dataset] PID. http://data.europa.eu/89h/7d7d5481-2d02-4b36-8e79-697b04fa4278
Song et al., 2022 Song, R. , Li, A. , & Ott, C. (2022). How to build a trusted voluntary carbon market? Rocky Mountain Institute. https://rmi.org/how-to-build-a-trusted-voluntary-carbon-market/. (Accessed on May 5, 2023).
Stegmann et al., 2020 Stegmann, P. , Londo, M. , & Junginger, M. (2020). The circular bioeconomy: Its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resources, Conservation and Recycling X, 6, 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100029
Taron et al., 2021 Taron, A. , Drechsel, P. , & Gebrezgabher, S. (2021). Gender dimensions of solid and liquid waste management for reuse in agriculture in Asia and Africa. International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). (Resource Recovery and Reuse Series 21). https://doi.org/10.5337/2021.223
Taron et al., 2023 Taron, A. , Majumder, A. , Bodach, S. , & Agbefu, D. (2023). Public-private partnerships for the circular bio-economy in the global south: Lessons learned (p. 56). International Water Management Institute (IWMI). (Resource Recovery and Reuse Series 22). https://doi.org/10.5337/2023.205
Temmes and Peck, 2020 Temmes, A. , & Peck, P. (2020). Do forest biorefineries fit with working principles of a circular bioeconomy? A case of Finnish and Swedish initiatives. Forest Policy and Economics, 110, 101896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.03.013
UN, 2022 UN (United Nations) . (2022). The sustainable development goals report 2022. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), United Nations Publications.
UNEP, 2011 UNEP . (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication – A synthesis for policy makers. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/126GER_synthesis_en.pdf. (Accessed on April 25, 2023).
UNEP, 2008 UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) . (2008). Green jobs: Towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8825/UNEPGreenJobs_report08.pdf. (Accessed on April 30, 2023).
UNEP-IETC, 2019 UNEP-IETC (United Nations Environment Programme - International Environmental Technology Centre); GRID-Arendal . (2019). Gender and waste nexus: Experiences from Bhutan, Mongolia and Nepal. United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/29821/GaWN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. (Accessed on May 3, 2023).
UNESCAP, 2022 UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific) . (2022). Policy approaches to enable business innovation for inclusive and sustainable development. Trade Investment and Innovation Division, ESCAP. https://www.unescap.org/kp/2022/policy-approaches-enable-business-innovation-inclusive-and-sustainable-development. (Accessed on April 30, 2023).
WHO, 2006 WHO (World Health Organization) . (2006). WHO guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater (Vols. 4). WHO Press.
World Bank, 2020 World Bank . (2020). Addressing food loss and waste: A global problem with local solutions. World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/34521
World Bank, 2022 World Bank . (2022). State and trends of carbon pricing 2022. State and trends of carbon pricing. World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/37455
World Economic Forum, 2023 World Economic Forum . (2023). The global risks report 2023. World Economic Forum.
Zabaniotou, 2018 Zabaniotou, A. (2018). Redesigning a bioenergy sector in EU in the transition to circular waste-based bioeconomy – a multidisciplinary review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.172
- Prelims
- Section I Economic Implications of Crisis on Sustainable Development
- Chapter 1 Economic Crisis and Challenge to Sustainable Development Goals: The Case of a Small Open Economy
- Chapter 2 Sustainable Development and Gender Hiatus: A Theoretical-Cum-Empirical Inquest Into India's Condition Vis-à-Vis Developing and Less-Developed Countries
- Chapter 3 Economic Crisis of 2008–09 and Subjective Well-Being: An Empirical Analysis of Some Selected Countries
- Chapter 4 Poverty, Crisis and Government Expenditure: An Empirical Analysis
- Chapter 5 Financial Crises and Instability Viewed From Economic and International Political Economy Perspectives
- Chapter 6 Effective Radioactive Waste Management Strategies in Nuclear Energy Investments for Environmental Sustainability
- Chapter 7 Circular Bioeconomy: A Pathway to Sustainable Development in an Age of Global Crisis
- Chapter 8 Progress of Peace Score and Its Association With the Peace-Constructing Variables: An Analysis in Terms of Regional and Income Class Specification
- Chapter 9 Mismanagement of Non-Performing Assets is a Hindrance Towards Sustainable Development: A Critical Study With Reference to Indian Economy
- Section II Recent Development Owing to Pandemic Crisis on Sustainable Development
- Chapter 10 Achieving Targets of SDG 7 in Post-COVID-19: Critical Review of Recent Indian Energy Policies
- Chapter 11 Impact of COVID-19 on the Progress of Sustainable Development: Empirical Evidence From Selected Countries in the World
- Chapter 12 Resilience of Sustainable Development in Pandemic: An Analysis in the Context of Circular Economy
- Chapter 13 COVID-19 Crisis and India's Drive to Clean Energy Use for Sustainable Development
- Chapter 14 A Lost Generation Crisis: Does Human Capital Matter?
- Section III Issues Related to International Trade, Crisis and Sustainability
- Chapter 15 Geopolitical Rivalry Among External Powers, Governance Deficiencies and Conflicts in the Horn of Africa: Implications for Cooperation for Durable Peace and Sustainable Development
- Chapter 16 Impacts of the War in Ukraine on Global Sustainable Development and Trade
- Chapter 17 Associations of Trade Openness With Growth and Foreign Currency Reserve: A New Insight for the BRICS Nations
- Chapter 18 Revisiting Sustainable Growth Across Trade Blocs Through the Lens of Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis
- Chapter 19 Global Supply, Production and Value Chains
- Chapter 20 Impact of Economic Crises on Economic Development of Developing Nations in a Globalised World
- Chapter 21 Income Inequality, Economic Crisis and International Trade: Theory and Evidence From the Perspective of Sustainable Development
- Chapter 22 Global Value Chains and Vaccine Equity: An Empirical Quest From the Perspective of Sustainability
- Index