newsletter - european commission...4 newsletter bioeconomy stakeholders panel – november 2017...

© Circular graphics design 2017 Brenda Kuzniar-van der Zee

Newsletter

8th Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel

Brussels, 16 and 17 November 2017

1 Newsletter Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel – November 2017 Bioeconomy website

The 8th Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel meeting was dedicated to presenting the European

Bioeconomy Stakeholders Manifesto to the public and reaching out to other interested actors in the

bioeconomy. Therefore, Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel members organised an interactive

workshop to share and discuss their aspirations embedded in the Manifesto and seek broader

engagement together with other stakeholders.

The Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel met for the 8th meeting in Brussels on 16 November. The day

started with a meeting between Panel Members and Carlos Moedas, European Commissioner for

Research, Science and Innovation. The Panel presented Commissioner Moedas with the European

Bioeconomy Stakeholders Manifesto.

Subsequently, the Chair of the Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel, Joanna Dupont-Inglis, presented the

European Bioeconomy Stakeholders Manifesto to a wider audience at the Opening Session of the

Bioeconomy Policy Day, which took place during the Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 Infoweek.

Afterwards, the Panel members participated in the policy sessions of the Bioeconomy Policy Day and

prepared the interactive workshop held on the following day.

8 T H B I O E C O N O M Y S T A K E H O L D E R S P A N E L M E E T I N G

1 6 N O V E M B E R

P R E S E N T A T I O N O F T H E E U R O P E A N B I O E C O N O M Y

S T A K E H O L D E R S M A N I F E S T O

https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/index.cfm?pg=policy&lib=panel


The European Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel together with the European Commission organised

the interactive workshop "The Bioeconomy Manifesto as a Collaborative Tool for Facilitating

Innovation and Growth for a Stronger European Bioeconomy". The Panel invited other interested

actors in the bioeconomy to participate in discussions about the Manifesto and further actions. The

workshop participants had the opportunity to take part in an open debate about some of the Guiding

Principles included in the Manifesto such as a) cooperation between sectors and actors along the

value-chains; b) a long-term education, training and research & innovation agenda for the

bioeconomy; and c) importance of regional strategies and rural renaissance.

Waldemar Kütt, Head of Unit F.1. Bioeconomy Strategy, DG

Research and Innovation, European Commission, welcomed

the workshop participants. He thanked the Panel members

for having delivered the European Bioeconomy Stakeholders

Manifesto and for organising the interactive workshop in

order to engage with more stakeholders. He emphasised the

role and relevance of the Manifesto and then gave the floor

to Joanna Dupont-Inglis (EuropaBio), Chair of the

Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel.

Joanna Dupont-Inglis (EuropaBio), Chair of

the Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel,

expressed her gratitude to all participants

who had come to the workshop at the end

of a long week of policy exchanges. She

explained the background of the

Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel and its

composition as well as the origin of the

European Bioeconomy Stakeholders

Manifesto. The Manifesto is based on the

building blocks from the 4th Bioeconomy

Stakeholders Conference that took place in

Utrecht in 2016. Ms Dupont-Inglis added regarding the process of how the panel members had

created the Manifesto, and that a representative editing group was assembled. At the end of the

editing process, the Manifesto was circulated for internal and external endorsement. However,

certain issues of contention remained, notably, the extent to which biomass is a limited resource and

1 . W E L C O M E T O T H E W O R K S H O P

1 7 N O V E M B E R

I N T E R A C T I V E W O R K S H O P

2 . P R E S E N T A T I O N O F T H E B I O E C O N O M Y M A N I F E S T O :

S T R U C T U R E , C O N T E N T S , H O W I T W A S B U I L T U P



the degree to which the Common Agricultural Policy needs to be reformed, modernised or simplified.

All in all, 26 out of 29 Panel members had been in the position to endorse the Manifesto. The issues,

which the members had not been able to completely agree upon, had led to interesting discussions

and it was agreed that these discussions need to be continued. In addition, Ms Dupont-Inglis

informed the workshop participants that several other stakeholders had expressed their support for

the Manifesto. She mentioned the possibility for other stakeholders to also endorse the Manifesto

and welcomed joint effort in further developing and implementing the actions included in the

Manifesto.



The presentation by Ms Dupont-Inglis was followed by a Q&A session. For a start, several Panel

members shared their experience of having taken part in the process of creating the Manifesto. They

commented on the issues of contention and explained why they endorse or do not endorse the

Manifesto. Overall, the present Panel members voiced similar views that even if there is not a full

agreement on the Manifesto text, it is important to engage and be part of such an inclusive process.

Additionally, the workshop participants raised questions regarding best-practices in the bioeconomy,

the legal framework, the link to human health, the impact of bioeconomy on landscapes, amongst

others.



Afterwards, the meeting continued with Panel Vice-Chair Ortwin Costenoble (CEN/CENELEC)

explaining the "Hands-on" sessions. He informed the participants that the Panel members had

selected three principles from the Manifesto that they wished to discuss in the workshop. The

outcomes of the workshop would then be collected and feed into shaping the future actions of

stakeholders in the bioeconomy. Thus, the selected principles from the Manifesto were the basis for

discussions in three groups. In addition, a fourth group was available for an open discussion about

other principles or issues. The participants were invited by Mr Costenoble to discuss the principles in

rotating groups in three rounds.

Before starting the discussions on the selected principles, three presentations prepared by Panel

members were given as to provide the workshop participants with "food for thought".

Panel member Jorge Molina Villanueva (ADItech) contributed to the "Food for Thought" session with

a presentation relating to the principle "Cooperation between sectors and actors along the value-

chains".

4 . " F O O D F O R T H O U G H T " : B I O E C O N O M Y M A N I F E S T O

P R I N C I P L E S A N D P R A C T I C A L A P P L I C A T I O N S

4 . 1 P R I N C I P L E A : " C O O P E R A T I O N B E T W E E N S E C T O R S A N D

A C T O R S A L O N G T H E V A L U E - C H A I N S "

3 . " H A N D S - O N " : H O W T H E M O R N I N G S E S S I O N I S G O I N G

T O W O R K



Gerlinde van Vilsteren (Wageningen UR) contributed to the "Food for Thought" session with her

presentation "Human Capital for the Bioeconomy" relating to the principle "A long-term education,

training and R&I agenda for the bioeconomy ". Ms van Vilsteren explained that the educational

institutes welcome that education and training receives specific attention in the European

Bioeconomy Stakeholders Manifesto as the human capital is a crucial factor for a successful

transition towards a bioeconomy. Key words are public awareness, multi- and inter-disciplinarity,

cross-sectoral and lifelong learning. Over the last years, several universities (of applied sciences) have

developed new (online) courses and study programmes. Different approaches are seen. In Spain the

Bioeconomy Strategy was an impulse for education. In Poland three universities (including Lodz

University) founded one multidisciplinary MSc-programme Bioeconomy. The Wageningen University

(WU) developed new courses for on Campus and online via a MicroMaster – MOOC. Avans University

of Applied Sciences organises with partners via BioCannDo public awareness. Together WU and

Avans build a Dutch educational network on bio-based economy. These front runners want to

expand their European network together with regions and companies to jointly invest in education

and training as to strengthen the relation between research, innovation and education.

4 . 2 P R I N C I P L E B : " A L O N G - T E R M E D U C A T I O N , T R A I N I N G

A N D R & I A G E N D A F O R T H E B I O E C O N O M Y "



Panel member Michał Korolko (Europe of Kujawy and Pomerania) contributed to the "Food for

Thought" session with a presentation relating to the principle "Importance of regional strategies and

rural renaissance ".

4 . 3 P R I N C I P L E C : " I M P O R T A N C E O F R E G I O N A L

S T R A T E G I E S A N D R U R A L R E N A I S S A N C E "



Principle A: “Cooperation between sectors and actors along the value-chains”

The discussion rounds on principle A were moderated by Jorge Molina Villanueva (ADItech) and

Maria Hollander (Paper Province). The main insights are summarised below:

The groups discussed an EU initiative from the European Commission's DG GROW called the “6

Model Demonstrator regions” and how this can be of interest for the bioeconomy group and

stakeholders.

o Presentations from 6 EU "Model Regions" and an introduction of the self-assessment tool

developed through the initiative were given at the final conference of the European

Sustainable Chemicals Support Service (ESCSS) that took place in Brussels on 14 September

2017 at the European Chemical Regions Network (ECRN).

o The six Model Demonstrator Regions (MDRs) in the field of sustainable chemicals production

are Andalusia (ES), Groningen-Drenthe (NL), Kosice (SK), Scotland (UK), South and Eastern

Ireland, and Wallonia (BE)

Presentation by the Consultant on the ESCSS and the Expert System.

Presentation on the European Sustainable Chemicals Support Service (ESCSS): PHASE I

and PHASE II.

Information on the Workshop entitled "Gaseous Industrial Effluents as Non-Fossil

Feedstock for Sustainable Chemicals Production" (Brussels, 09 November 2016).

The “6 Model Demonstrator Regions” initiative has provided to relevant actors a self-assessment

tool to assess the readiness of SMEs and other stakeholders that are using biomass as feedstock

5 . W R A P - U P O F T H E " H A N D S - O N " S E S S I O N S


http://www.ecrn.net/eventsandactivities/seminarsandworkshops.php


http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8641

http://www.ecrn.net/documents/CO2_Demonstrator_Workshop_Ignacio_Martin.pdf

http://www.ecrn.net/documents/CO2_Demonstrator_Workshop_Timoteo_de_la_Fuente.pdf



for different products, for investment in the bioeconomy. The tool includes 10 different

questions, related for example to availability of biomass, infrastructures, logistics, investment

structure, education, training, universities, institutes, manufacturing industries, upstream

industries, circulation, regional political programmes or strategy etc.

Furthermore, it was mentioned that a renewed industrial policy strategy was outlined in

September 2017 that brings together all existing and new horizontal and sector-specific

initiatives into a comprehensive industrial strategy. The importance of this initiative was

underlined as it might have clear relations with the development of the bioeconomy.

During the discussions it was concluded that there is no such thing as "one Bioeconomy fits all".

Regions do have different raw materials. That means that activities have to be adapted to

regional collaboration and resources, for example regarding feedstock waste and municipalities.

Legal issues linked to this waste and its implications for developing bioproducts are an influential

factor. For instance, leaves of sugar beets are thrown away. If you want to use them, it is not

possible as they are classified as waste. Thus, there is an issue of implementation, concerning

how it is classified and its different EU codes. There is a need for flexibility to what in the past

was waste and is no longer waste. It is better to talk about byproducts instead of waste products.

It should be encouraged to see waste as a feedstock or a secondary raw material.

Moreover, a workshop participant from the region Skåne (Sweden) explained that procurement

is an important tool. Almost 100% of the city busses in Skåne run on local produced biogas.

Political targets and procurement have been crucial factors.

The way of using procurement for new sustainable products is constantly evolving. This could be

an opportunity for the bioeconomy. The public sector sometimes is taking the first step to create

a market for bio-based products. This can also make a big difference.

On the subject of regional bioeconomy strategies it was noted that many regions have

bioeconomy related issues in their regional S3 strategies but they do not call it bioeconomy as

such.

Public agencies can facilitate SMEs its access to projects and improve the capacity building.

Financing on a long term basis and developing comprehensive bioeconomy strategies provide

favourable framework conditions.

Replacing the concept of value chain by the concept of ecosystem services adds a more holistic

vision whereby more parameters are accounted for, including environmental sustainability.

It was further stated that it is important to create "platforms" for cooperation where different

actors can interact and connect the value chains. The question of "what's in it for me" always

arises. So, when encouraging cooperation it is important to have an idea who benefits in the end.

The workshop participants also discussed the need to improve the soil's productivity. If we get

more biomass out of the system we can have "more bioeconomy" for everybody. Consequently,


http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9252

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy_en


there is a need for an improved soil and an improved energy supply. What is and what will be the

available feedstock now and tomorrow in land and also in the oceans is an important question.

It was noted that tourism is not included in the bioeconomy discussions and the question was

raised if it should be. For instance, a potential project linking oceans and public health connecting

with eco-tourism could highlight the link between bioeconomy and sustainable tourism.

Further discussed was the connection between ecosystem services on the regional side vs the

market side. Consumers do not know what they are eating (from food side); this is also an issue

for other materials. Real traceability is therefore needed. Retailers, market, connection to

consumers. Involving retailers is necessary. What is the role and position of big retailers in the

bioeconomy? Digitalisation, sectors and value chains. Block chains, marketplaces are also

important factors to look at improving material traceability.

Involvement of the industry at lower TRLs scale is also necessary. Business models that share

risks and profits can create more trust.

There is a need of strong leadership in regions. This is also good for the inter-regional

cooperation in value chains. Inter-regional value chain cooperation should be assessed from the

point of view of how they are affected by law, politics (e.g. the textile sector (bioproducts)).



Principle B: “A long-term education, training, and R&I agenda for the Bioeconomy”

The "hands-on" sessions on principle B were moderared by Christine Bunthof (Wageningen UR) and

Ann Dierckx (Cefic) and focused on the actions:

13) Enhancing education, training and skills

14) Aligning open science and research programmes

18) Raising public awareness and improving communication.

The discussions on principle B led to the following key insights:

It is important to establish TRUST in the bioeconomy; therefore, the current triple-helix approach

(university-industry-government) towards bioeconomy is lacking two components: the civil

society and the ecosystem.



Feedback was given that the Manifesto and actions herein should better connect to the SDGs,

they should also take into account solidarity between North and South, and should be made

affordable to the widest community possible.

Life-long learning programmes are indeed important (Action 13) but one also needs to consider

job changes – voluntary or after job loss – with special attention given to the agricultural

community.

It was also underlined that an awareness effort and mentality shift is needed in society,

especially with the consumers, and that we need to bring in experts on that matter. The social

aspects were judged quite important.

A dual track was suggested with regard to the skills, training and education:

o Target professors, teachers, curricula, etc.:

an in-depth, specialised focus on

bioeconomy

o Build a holistic narrative around

bioeconomy, allowing different disciplines

to start working around it - in an explicit or

implicit manner.

It was felt important to differentiate

communication in function of the public; policy

makers, academia, consumers, … Especially for

the latter category, it was not always felt

necessary to use the word “bioeconomy”,

rather make the benefits of the bioeconomy

tangible.

It was reminded that digitalisation could also

be an accelerator for the bioeconomy.

Based on the discussions, the workshop participants suggested actions. Many if not all

participants to the sessions supported the idea to create a pan-European network of

practioners/experts. These could be professionals (teachers, professors, etc.) but also

representatives of regional networks, of the industrial and agricultural sector, social experts, etc.

The objective could be to provide materials & information to teach, inspire, etc. as well as to

share experiences and best practices.



Principle C: “Importance of regional strategies and rural renaissance”

The exchange on principle C moderated by Michal Korolko (Europe of Kujawy and Pomerania) and

Hannu Koponen (Regional Council of Central Finland) led to various insights, which are outlined

hereinafter.

On regional and interregional level, bio-resources could be a common denominator. This could be

also a possibility for macro-regional cooperation, for example in the Baltic Sea Region.

The momentum for the regional bioeconomy strategies is now. They should be prepared based on a

quintuple helix (political-research-business-civil society-citizens) and be inclusive. We have drivers,

not only political but also business and other. We need awareness raising, to show good examples of

forest-, agro- and blue bioeconomy, to boost regional bioeconomy further. For the policy makers,

and for general awareness raising, we also need to demonstrate the potential of a sustainable

bioeconomy in job creation and regional economy. Additionally, we need to show the possibilities in

harmonisation of the different interests in the bioeconomy. All this needs awareness raising of all the

relevant stakeholder groups.

Strategic approaches, including strategy on bioeconomy development on the regional level

supported by regional value chain and regional business environment, prove to be most effective.

However, interregional value chains must also be considered as they build upon complementary

competences present in different EU regions.

Good examples include the EC’s self-evaluation on readiness for the bioeconomy investments, the

creation of regional (and trans-regional) bioeconomy stakeholders panels, and regional bioeconomy

strategies supporting the sustainable bioeconomy development.

When talking about the bioeconomy indicators, we need accurate data. Data exists on EU level

(Eurostat), and JRC's Bioeconomy Knowledge Centre could provide more data. Data is required on



regional level as well. This data is required to show the politicians the potential of the bioeconomy.

We also need data to show where the biomass goes to, into which processes and refinement.

Funding via European structural funds has created possibilities for bioeconomy. The bottlenecks in

funding rely on possibilities for SME’s to have

access to risk finance. Also, there is a need for seed

funding to start bioeconomy pilots; this could be a

part of regional bioeconomy strategies.

Strategic approach enables better coordination of

different financial instruments on a regional level.

Regional strategies should provide mechanisms of

synergies between various financial sources.

Bioeconomy also needs a full support from the

regulation. Regulation must support the transition

from fossil based raw materials to bio-based

materials.

There is a need to recognise cities as important

stakeholders. They play an important role

especially in developing circular bioeconomy.

The Open Session

During the open session moderated by Ortwin

Costenoble (CEN/CENELEC) various subjects were

discussed. Circular economy was one of the

subjects. A question was whether the Panel could

focus more on getting systematic thinking and

concepts into play. It was suggested that the

stakeholders need to shift away from the concept

of linearity or discussing end-of-life. Instead, they

should examine if the bioeconomy has specific

examples of systematic products use. On the other

hand, it was discussed that bio-based is not the

opposite of fossil, but a property enhancer and an

end-use improver. Bio-based products will best be

placed on the market where they enhance and

improve properties. An example was that it does

not make sense to use biodegradable plastics in

products that will be anyway incinerated in the

end. It was further voiced in the discussion that

statements like "the bioeconomy is circular in

principle" should be avoided. It was suggested that



the Panel should act on presenting this systematic approach and see where it might be of help,

stimulated or even present.

Another issue highlighted during the open session were the silos that stakeholders use when thinking

about feedstock. Stakeholders should try to initiate actions on research (programmes), innovation

and good examples of projects that use agriculture, forestry and marine/aquaculture products and

processes together. In addition, the fact that the bioeconomy is not a sustainable economy per

definition needs to be taken into account as well. It was concluded that the societal change required

to have people reconsider coordinated processes amongst feedstock-based products could be a

discussion item for the Panel.

In addition, the following subjects were also touched upon during the open session:

Open Science being more than interaction with free publishing as it is indicated in the Manifesto. It

was suggested to think of other rewarding systems for scientists publishing via Open Science and

seek assistance in national government programmes. Another topic of discussion was the global

dimension. Feedstock transport, fishery and recycling all have a global as well as a European impact

and are thus regarded as an important bioeconomy development cause.

The present Panel members thanked the participants for their active participation in the workshop

and for the valuable feedback received. They agreed to follow up on the discussion points brought up

during the "hands-on" sessions on the three principles and further develop their actions accordingly.

This shall be addressed at the next meeting. The next Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel meeting will

take place in Brussels on 23 February 2018.

6 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D N E X T S T E P S



Bioeconomy Stakeholders/ Representatives

Nuria ARRIBAS VERA

Stanislaw BIELICKI

Fabio BOSCALERI

Christine BUNTHOF

Ortwin COSTENOBLE

Ann DIERCKX

Joanna DUPONT-INGLIS

Johan ELVNERT

Sini ERÄJÄÄ

Yannis FALLAS

Maria HOLLANDER

Courtney HOUGH

Kjell IVARSSON

Hannu KOPONEN

Michal KOROLKO

Paolo LA SCOLA (on behalf of Catia BASTIOLI)

Jesper LUND-LARSEN

Magnus MATISONS

Nadia MOALLA (on behalf of Javier GARAT PÉREZ)

Jorge MOLINA VILLANUEVA

Bertrand RIGAL

Jori SIHVONEN

Adrienn SOMOSNÉ NAGY

Daniel ZIMMER

Linde ZUIDEMA

Observers

Jan VAN ESCH

External Participants

Olle BERTILSSON

Agnes BORG

Anders BRUDEVOLL

Pernille DAGOE

Chantal DE COOMAN

Mieke DE SCHOENMAKERE

Karin ELLERMANN-KÜGLER

Judith ESTOL PEREZ

Holger GERDES

Ida HEEBØLL

Patricia JIMÉNEZ BARCELÓ

Georgios KARKAMPASIS

Marian KAT-DE JONG

Zoritza KIRESIEWA

Snezana KNEZEVIC

Kate LARKIN

Anne-Maria MÄKELÄ

Zsanett MAKKAI

Harald MAUSER

Karin METZLAFF

Pedro Marco MONTORI

Ángel MUÑIZ PINIELLA

Hana MUŠINOVIĆ

Valentin OPFERMANN

Maialen PEREZ FERNANDEZ DE RETANA

Teresa PRESAS

Sointu RÄISÄNEN

Stefan RAUSCHEN

Håkan SAMUELSSON

Sofia SERAFIM

Drilona SHTJEFNI

Beata SKOWROŃSKA

Heike SLUSARCZYK

Monika SORMANN

Jan STAES

Eelko STEENHUIS

Sari TASA

Willemien VAN ASSELT

7 . L I S T O F P A R T I C I P A N T S



Gerlinde VAN VILSTEREN

Davide VIAGGI

Signe WALTOFT MADSEN

Annette WEIDTMANN

Katja ZBORALSKI

Zusepe Elias ZIDDA

European Commission

Achim BOENKE, DG GROW.D.2

Gabriela HAUSMANN, DG RTD.F.1

Georgios KASTRINOS, DG RTD.F.1

Waldemar KÜTT, DG RTD.F.1

Voula MEGA, DG RTD.F.4

Lino PAULA, DG RTD.F.1

Disclaimer

"The opinions expressed in this newsletter represent the point of view of the meeting participants. These

opinions cannot, under any circumstances, be attributed to the European Commission. Neither the European

Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made

of the here above information."


newsletter - european commission...4 newsletter bioeconomy stakeholders panel – november 2017...

Documents