Circular Bioeconomy for the Future we want [Promoted content]

2014 was the year when I, as European Commissioner for Environment, introduced the circular economy in the European policy space. It was not a new concept, or unknown to science, but it was new to policy makers. Today, in less than 10 years, the concept is well known, fairly well understood and broadly accepted globally.

Janez Potočnik is Co-chair International Resource Panel.

This is not a surprise. Circular bioeconomy is the oldest concept on planet Earth. All nature is based on the principles of a circular economy: nothing is lost, and everything has its purpose. We humans, as part of nature, should abide by the same principles. Unfortunately, what seems logical in theory isn’t so clear in practice. 

According to the UNEP International Resource Panel, resource use is at the roots of our triple planetary crises (climate, biodiversity loss, pollution), and the trends are alarming. Resource use generates deep inequalities: high-income countries have benefitted most, and have driven the planetary crisis, whilst emerging and developing economies hold least responsibility, and are facing the worst impacts. The central question we should ask is how to meet human needs and maximise our wellbeing in the most energy- and resource-efficient way. For that, we would need to decouple economic growth and wellbeing from unsustainable natural resource use and environmental impacts. 

Circular bioeconomy should be understood in general terms as an efficient instrument for delivering decoupling in practice, as well as a part of the bigger picture of economic, societal, and cultural transformation needed to deliver the European Green Deal and Sustainable Development Goals.  

Policy recognition of circular economy solutions is encouraging, and some circular bioeconomy actors are already delivering decoupling in practice. But if Ellen MacArthur’s famous butterfly would fly, it would be ‘flying in circles’ as we have done more on the butterfly’s techno sphere wing of technical materials than on the biosphere wing of renewable materials!

Nature provides us with a wide range of services, like the food we eat, the water we drink, and the biomass we use for building houses, for producing chemicals, fuels, and clothing. But it also provides those less tangible benefits, linked to ecosystem services, such as climate adaptation and mitigation, flood prevention by forests and trees, or the pollination of crops by insects. Investment in nature-based solutions offers multiple opportunities to unlock new revenue streams and increase societal engagement.

Future demand for biomass will increase. To exploit the full potential that biomass offers, and since the environmental impacts of biomass use could be high, particularly on biodiversity, some basic principles need to be followed. Clear guidelines and agreed sustainability criteria are essential to establish the needed trust. Greenwashing should be avoided, as it risks to backfire and reduce the credibility and potential of biomass use. Access to carbon-rich natural systems must be subject to the condition of limiting biodiversity impacts. The bioeconomy’s potential to address climate change should not be at the price of biodiversity loss. Certification of EU forests under Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) schemes, which provides a third-party verification of management quality on the ground, are important steps to provide the needed credibility.

Sustainably produced biomass is a scarce resource, thus a ‘cascading use’ approach should be the norm. Biomass sourcing should preferably focus on biomass waste. Priority should be given to long-term uses, where carbon is stored, and in applications where alternative materials with very large impacts can be substituted. For example, plastic with paper in packaging, or steel and concrete with wood in construction. 

Most circular strategies still focus on cleaning supply chains, resource efficiency and better waste management. These are all needed but miss the major opportunities for improving resilience through reducing demand for energy and materials altogether. What we really need are systemic interventions, which would encourage and limit the need for energy and resource use in the first place. Policy attention should be given to most energy and resource intensive systems like mobility, housing, nutrition, daily functional needs, and of course energy production. We must reject the assumption that these systems need to be so resource intensive. 

Success is about speed and scale, and both are currently not on our side. But lessons learned from the pandemic are encouraging. When faced with great challenges, we are able and ready to act. Governments do act, although often too little too late and when all other options are exhausted. And private actors need and want to be part of the solution. As a society, we have proven ourselves ready and able to accept systemic behavioural changes – working from home has become widely accepted. 

The circular bioeconomy has a major potential to provide answers to the challenges we are facing. It is an essential ingredient for living well and thriving within planetary boundaries, but only if it respects sustainability criteria and avoids the temptations of using shortcuts and prioritising short-term economic gains. 

Ultimately, as humans, changing our relationship with Nature that we are ourselves a part of, is not only an environmental, but also an economic, equity and security imperative to strengthen collective resilience. This relationship is not stable, nor balanced, and it will need to be resolved either with early action, collective wisdom and cooperation, or in a hard and painful way. More than an economic or a technological choice, this is a moral choice. The future will be green, or there will be no future.