Advertisement

Environmental Sustainability Indicators for the Bioeconomy

  • Tiina Pursula
  • Maija Aho
  • Ida Rönnlund
  • Minna Päällysaho
Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

Bioeconomy is a rapidly evolving field, where novel value chains and concepts are developed and commercialized. In this field, there is a need to address sustainability issues, specific to biobased value chains, such as origin of biomass feedstock and related land use issues, material efficiency and energy and water requirements. There is a place for biobased products, for fossil based products and for mixtures of these, and environmental sustainability indicators should aim at pointing out the most suitable alternative from an environmental point of view, in each unique case. Although biomass is a renewable resource, the production of it is dependent on limited resources, such as fresh water, land, nutrients and in the case of animals, food. Biomass is thus only renewable if these limited resources are used sustainably: avoiding excessive use and ensuring that the impact from production does not affect other issues negatively, which for example emissions and wastes, chemical use, nutrients depletion or overload may do. In this chapter, we summarize current state of environmental sustainability indicator development and use for the bioeconomy. In the light of this, the chapter further addresses the gaps in sustainability assessment and lists the novel attempts to develop assessment methods needed to ensure the sustainability of bioeconomy from a wider perspective, yet maintaining proper alignment with the LCA principles. The use of comprehensive environmental sustainability indicators in bioeconomy value chains is also concretized with two case studies. The case studies cover aspects of environmental sustainability in a holistic manner, including e.g. efficient use of natural resources, including materials, water, and energy, minimization of wastes and emissions and reduction of risks to humans and the environment from use of chemicals and disposal of chemicals. Qualitative indicators are utilized when important sustainability aspects cannot be turned into numeric values. Systemic perspectives have the benefit of showing the wider effects of actions, as many effects are not direct, but indirect, and the use of biobased products may have multiple effects. Lastly, benchmarking is applied in the cases to give a meaning to the calculated values and form a bridge between sustainability indicators, the status of the environment and industrial production. From results of the cases the multi-faceted nature of sustainability in bioeconomy can be clearly seen. While the biobased value chain out performs the fossil value chain in some sustainability aspects, the fossil chains are equally good or superior in certain other sustainability aspects. This highlights the need for comprehensive sustainability assessment. In order to develop a sustainable bioeconomy we need to analyze and benchmark the value chains in a systematic manner and develop the methods and availability of reliable data continuously. The objectives of the paper, bridging the gaps of sustainability assessment of bio-based value chains, supports the inherent target of bioeconomy to utilize bio-based resources in a sustainable manner.

Keywords

Bioeconomy Sustainability Benchmarking Indicators Bioproducts 

References

  1. Beuchelt T, Mohr A, Schneider R, Virchow D (2015) Integrating food security aspects in biomass sustainability standards and certifications through rights-based criteria. Global Bioeconomy Summit, Berlin, 25–26 Nov 2015Google Scholar
  2. Bukhard B, Kroll F, Muller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape 15:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915Google Scholar
  3. Bukhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Muller F (2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands—concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online 34:1–32.  https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cristóbal J, Matos CT, Aurambout J-P, Manfredi S, Kavalov B (2016) Environmental sustainability assessment of bioeconomy value chains, biomass and bioenergy. Available online 12 Feb 2016 (in press)Google Scholar
  5. De Rosa M, Schmidt J, Trydeman Knudsen M, Hermansen JE (2014) Methodologies accounting for indirect land use change (iLUC): assessment and future development. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector (LCA Food 2014), San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA, 8–10 Oct 2014Google Scholar
  6. EPA (2016) United States Environmental Protection Agency. EnviroAtlas—ecosystem services in enviroatlas. https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/ecosystem-services-enviroatlas. Accessed 13 Apr 2016
  7. European Commission (EC) (2012) The bioeconomy strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/index.cfm?pg=policy&lib=strategy. Accessed 14 Apr 2016
  8. European Commission (EC) (2016) Product environmental footprint pilot guidance—guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (PEF) pilot phase, Version 5.2. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/Guidance_products.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016
  9. European Commission Joint Research Centre (EC JRC) (2015) Bioeconomy information system and observatory (BISO)—environmental sustainability assessment—progress workshop. https://biobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/generated/files/documents/1%20%20BISO%202015%20Workshop%20Summary_151002%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016
  10. FAO (2011) Looking ahead in world food and agriculture—perspectives to 2050. In Conforti P (ed). http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2280e/i2280e00.htm. Accessed 13 Apr 2016
  11. Gerbens-Leenes PW, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer Th (2009) The water footprint of energy from biomass: a quantitative assessment and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in energy supply. Ecol Econ 68:1052–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IChemE (2012) The Institution of Chemical Engineers, the sustainability metrics—sustainable development progress metrics recommended for use in the process industries. Available online https://www.icheme.org/communities/subject_groups/sustainability/resources//~/media/Documents/Subject%20Groups/Sustainability/Newsletters/Sustainability%20Metrics.pdf. 14 Apr 2016
  13. OECD (2011) Towards Green Growth. OECD Publishing, Paris, OECD Green Growth Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111318-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. OECD (2012) Recommendation of the council on assessing the sustainability of biobased products. Available online 14 Apr 2016Google Scholar
  15. Rönnlund I, Reuter M, Horn S, Aho J, Aho M, Päällysaho M, Ylimäki L, Pursula T (2016a) Eco-efficiency indicator framework implemented in the metallurgical industry: part 1—a comprehensive view and benchmark. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, accepted (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Rönnlund I, Reuter M, Horn S, Aho J, Aho M, Päällysaho M, Ylimäki L, Pursula T (2016b) Eco-efficiency indicator framework implemented in the metallurgical industry: part 2—a case study from the copper industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess, accepted (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Saling P, Kicherer A, Dittrich-Krämer B, Wittlinger W, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt S (2002) Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: the method. Int J LCA 7(4):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2012) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Ind 15:281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. In Kumar P (ed) Earthscan, London and WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. UNESCO, WWAP and UN-Water (2012) Managing water under uncertainty and risk—The United Nations world water development report 4: executive summary. Accessed http://www.zaragoza.es/contenidos/medioambiente/onu//newsletter12/789-eng-sum-ed4.pdf. 18 Apr 2016
  21. Walton BT, Perla D, Smith ER (2015) Sustainability assessment of a national bioeconomy: approaches and tools to evaluate emergent properties. SETAC North America 36th annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  22. World Economic Forum (WEF) (2016) The global risk report 2016, 11th edition. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR/WEF_GRR16.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2016
  23. Zhang F, Johnson DM, Wang J (2015) Life-cycle energy and GHG emissions of forest biomass harvest and transport for biofuel production in Michigan. Energies 8:3258–3271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiina Pursula
    • 1
  • Maija Aho
    • 1
  • Ida Rönnlund
    • 1
  • Minna Päällysaho
    • 1
  1. 1.Gaia Consulting LtdHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations