The Bioeconomy is Much More Than a Circular Economy

The concepts of bioeconomy, circular economy and biomass cascading have similar targets, but neither is fully part of the other nor embedded in the other. Dipl.-Phys. Michael Carus explains the differences and overlaps and how to make best use of both concepts.

According to the EU, the bioeconomy encompasses the production of renewable biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value added products, such as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy.1 And (although still loosely defined) the circular economy is presented as the economic space “where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimized“2. Obviously, there are differences and overlaps, which sometimes get confused. Both concepts are still in an early stage, stronger on paper than in practice. But they have a huge potential and are crucial for a more sustainable world.

The cascading use of biomass as a third idea is strongly overlapping with the concept of the circular economy and is mostly a part of it. The main target of cascading and circular economy is increased resource efficiency, less demand for fresh materials and both often linked to job creation. In some bio-based sectors, cascading use already has been established for decades, many years before the term “circular economy“ became mainstream policy, such as in the pulp and paper or the textile industries. Cascading is the result of recycling and remanufacturing in the circular economy and the waste hierarchy, but cascading starts before the waste hierarchy with the decision of how to use the fresh biomass. The cascading principle closes the gap between biomass utilisation and the waste hierarchy. 

The circular economy includes all kind of material streams with different utilization routes. Organic recycling (= biodegradation) and even the capture and utilization of CO2 from industrial processes or the atmosphere are included.

The bioeconomy is not just another material sector, it has special features. The bioeconomy is about the “biologization“ of industrial value creation. It provides renewable carbon to the industry and can directly replace fossil carbon in almost all applications – in contrast to minerals and metals. It is a challenge to keep the value of biomass cascading, which is much easier with metals and minerals. Thus, the circular economy is dominated by the metal and mineral industries. Biomass is considered minor with respect to the other materials. The bioeconomy is adding an additional, organic, recycling pathway that expands the circular economy. 

But it is clear that the bioeconomy and circular economy have a common target which is a more sustainable and resource efficient world with a low carbon footprint. Both the circular economy and the bioeconomy avoid using additional fossil carbon to contribute to climate targets.

The circular economy strengthens the eco-efficiency of processes and the use of recycled carbon to reduce the use of additional fossil carbon. The bioeconomy substitutes fossil carbon by bio-based carbon from biomass from agriculture, forestry and marine environments. These are different but complementary approaches. Both concepts have in common that they are based on improved resources with higher eco-efficiency and a low Green House Gas (GHG) footprint. They are reducing the demand for fossil carbon and lead to a valorisation of waste and side streams.

Figure 1: Comprehensive Concept of Circular Economy: Biomass includes all kind of biomass, from agriculture, forestry and marine environments as well as organic waste streams (nova 2016).

The circular economy

The circular economy includes all kind of material streams with different utilization routes (see Figure1). Organic recycling (= biodegradation) and even the capture and utilization of CO2 from industrial processes or the atmosphere are included. At the top, all kind of raw materials entering the cycle: Fossil resources (crude oil, natural gas, coal), minerals, metals, biomass from agriculture, forest and marine environments and potentially CO2. Left and right we see additional raw material flows from manufacturing side-streams and product recycling.

The raw materials will be manufactured to products, traded, used and then they enter the waste hierarchy from share/maintain, reuse/redistribute, remanufacture to recycling (mechanical and chemical). Biodegradable products add organic recycling (biodegradation, composting) to the end-of-life options and CCU (Carbon Capture and Utilization) the CO2 recycling. 

The least wanted option is landfill

All biomass flows are potentially part of the circular economy, the cascading use is part of the waste hierarchy, especially the steps remanufacture and recycling of bio-based products.

The bioeconomy is not fully part of the circular economy, neither are fossil carbon, metals and minerals. There are different reasons for these differences: First of all, today, most of the material flows – fossil, biomass, metals and minerals – are NOT part of the circular economy. A large proportion of metals and minerals are not maintained in the economy, but lost in the environment or in landfill. Fossil and renewable carbon is mainly used for energy purposes (fossil: 93%, biomass: two-thirds) and with this utilization lost for cascading use. Fossil- or bio-based products often end in landfills or the environment, so they are also lost for circular economy. 

Potentially, a large proportion of all materials can become part of the circular economy and thus the overlap will increase in the future, but this is still far off. Some sectors of the bioeconomy will never be fully part of the circular economy, for example bioenergy and biofuels are “dead ends“ of the biomass utilization. This is also the case for most detergents, cosmetics, coating and paints that cannot be collected and recycled. For some of these applications, biodegradable solutions could be part of organic recycling in the future.

The bioeconomy

The concept of bioeconomy is much more than the biomass flow itself. Important aspects of the bioeconomy, as well as important aspects of the other material sectors, are structurally outside the circular economy, which focuses on “maintaining the value of products, materials and resources in the economy for as long as possible“3 and increasing the eco-efficiency of processes.

The concept of bioeconomy goes far beyond the circular economy (see Figure 2), including a lot more aspects such as new chemical building blocks, new processing routes, new functionalities and properties of products.

Fig. 2: Bioeconomy: More than Circular Economy: “Agriculture & Forestry“ includes all kind of biomass, from agriculture, forestry and marine as well as organic waste streams (nova 2017)

Figure 2 shows the specific features of the bioeconomy along the value chain, which are mostly not covered or not even overlap with the concept of circular economy. This includes the new developments in agriculture and forestry (precision farming, genome editing), new processing pathways with lower toxicities and less harsh chemicals, biotechnology, chemicals and materials with new properties and functionalities as well as more nature compatible, healthy bio-based products.

Consequently, the concepts of bioeconomy and circular economy have similar targets and they are overlapping, but neither is fully part of the other nor embedded in the other.

Crucial aspects of bioeconomy

It would be a great loss for the bioeconomy to be misunderstood as merely a part of the circular economy, because then crucial aspects of the bioeconomy would be overlooked. Furthermore, the bioeconomy research agenda, strategy, and policy will overlap with a circular economy strategy (for example in eco-efficiency of processes), but it will always need additional and specific topics.

On the other hand a comprehensive circular economy is not possible without the bioeconomy. The huge organic side and waste streams from agriculture, forestry, fishery, food and feed and organic process waste can only be integrated in the circular economy with a bioeconomy strategy. It needs new knowledge-based processes, such as biotechnology, algae or insects, new applications and new links between bioeconomy and other industrial sectors. Natural cycles in the bioeconomy, e.g. the nutrient cycle, can strongly contribute to circular economy.

The bioeconomy can contribute in several ways to the circular economy, including the utilization of organic side and waste streams from agriculture, forestry, fishery, food and feed and organic process waste. Also, biodegradable products can be returned to the organic and nutrient circle. And paper, other wood products, natural fibres textiles and many more materials can be successfully cascaded. Furthermore, innovative additives from oleo-chemicals can help enhancing the recyclability of other materials. Once a certain threshold volume of new bio-based polymers is reached, the collection and recycling of bioplastics will become economically attractive. 

One unique strength of the bioeconomy concept is the linking of very different industrial sectors which have not cooperated before. This brings together scientific and technological expertise which allow many new products and processes for a more sustainable world.

Sumber :

https://www.brain-biotech.com/blickwinkel/circular/the-bioeconomy-is-much-more-than-a-circular-economy/

Food Security and Nutrition: a Youth Perspective

novembre 24, 2017

This article is written by Deepak Ghimire.

This article was originally published in the World Farmers’ Organization F@rmletter. Check the original article.

Feeding the world with rapidly growing population has already been a serious challenge for the communities and stakeholders involved in agricultural sector. With global populations rapidly increasing – especially in the developing world – providing food security increasingly requires innovative solutions and technologies. Also, climate change already affects agriculture and food security and, without urgent action, will put millions of people at risk of hunger and food insecurity.

According to FAO, “Food security means having, at all times, both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet dietary needs for a productive and healthy life.” A family is food secure when its members do not live in hunger or fear of hunger. Food insecurity is often rooted in poverty and has long term impacts on the ability of families, communities, and countries to develop. Stunted growth, increased susceptibility to illness along with severe health related problems are resulted from prolonged undernourishment.

As per the projections from The United Nations, by 2050 global populations will increase by approximately 2.5 billion people, with the majority of this increase occurring in the developing world. Much of this growth will be among youth, who are expected to make up half of the 2050 population. These shifts in demography will push youth into extremely vulnerable condition to food insecurity. The vulnerability is further exacerbated by problems of rising food prices and crop loss from climate change related weather patterns. At the same time, youths hold a vital role in addressing the challenge of food security. This places the youths at the centre of food security and nutrition.

Youths, who should have been in the frontline to fight for food security and nutrition, are struck on their way by several barriers on agricultural production, income generation, etc. Youth’s ability to attain food security through production on land is reduced by the lack of availability of agricultural land, agricultural technologies and modern farming techniques and youth-friendly and unattractive agricultural policies. Similarly, the not migrating youth are chained by lack of education, training and market access necessary to generate enough income to maintain household food security while the youth who migrate to urban areas are unable to earn enough income to achieve food security.

At the same time, the majority of youth do not currently see agriculture as a viable career path given the low productivity rates and the difficulties they know previous generations have faced. However, it is important for smallholders to achieve a viable income through agricultural activities in order to continue the production cycle by their children and their children’s children. Developing the knowledge, skills, and talent of youth will also require investing in smallholder agriculture in order to provide successful examples and viable livelihoods for all future generations.

However, in order to effectively address the problem of food security a shift is needed from viewing challenges for youths as an hindrance, to viewing youth as an asset for development, for both the agricultural and economic growth of a country. Youth should be viewed as an integral part of the solution to food security. Unfortunately, there is limited research that looks at food security through the youth’s perspective.

Young professionals have fresh ideas, a strong grasp of emerging trends and are up for the challenge of trying new approaches to work with food security and nutrition. To mobilize greater innovation in the agricultural sector, insight from today’s youth is needed; young people must be instrumental in creating their own future. Realizing this significance of youth role, several organizations are prioritizing the youth empowerment and involvement in agriculture, might it be research, academic or extension. To mention, Young Professionals for Agricultural Development (YPARD) has been always fostering young professionals through mentoring and inclusion of youth’s views in policy making. Some initiatives carried forward by YPARD Nepal, a country branch of YPARD, such as online and on-site mentoring to connect academics with farmers, information stall at food fair to advocate on importance of nutrition, Student Research Symposium to encourage research activities on agriculture and nutrition, etc. are worth explaining the role of youth towards food security and nutrition.

Prioritized as an important issue on The Paris Rulebook (Paris Agreement adapted at 21st United Nations Conference on Climate Change) and identified as a goal for Sustainable Development by United Nations, food security and nutrition is an important issue for youths and rest of all. The underlying responsibility on youth to work collectively for achieving a food secure and well nourished world must be accompanied by address of the challenges being faced by the youth. The vision of youth and youth led initiatives on interwoving the advancements in technologies for higher production with the increased awareness on nutritional practices is a foremost requisite. Provided with handsome opportunities for development of knowledge, skills and capacity on agriculture related activities, youth have the power to turn the fate of food security and nutrition to a brighter side.

Source :

https://studentclimates.wordpress.com/2017/11/24/food-security-nutrition-youth-perspective/

Menurut FAO, “Ketahanan pangan berarti memiliki, setiap saat, akses fisik dan ekonomi terhadap pangan yang cukup untuk memenuhi kebutuhan pangan untuk kehidupan yang produktif dan sehat.” Sebuah keluarga adalah ketahanan pangan ketika anggotanya tidak hidup dalam kelaparan atau ketakutan akan kelaparan. Kerawanan pangan seringkali berakar pada kemiskinan dan berdampak jangka panjang terhadap kemampuan keluarga, masyarakat, dan negara untuk berkembang. Pertumbuhan terhambat, peningkatan kerentanan terhadap penyakit bersama dengan masalah terkait kesehatan yang parah disebabkan oleh kekurangan gizi yang berkepanjangan.

Sesuai proyeksi dari Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa, pada tahun 2050 populasi global akan meningkat sekitar 2,5 miliar orang, dengan sebagian besar peningkatan ini terjadi di negara berkembang. Sebagian besar dari pertumbuhan ini akan terjadi di kalangan pemuda, yang diperkirakan mencapai setengah dari populasi tahun 2050. Pergeseran demografi ini akan mendorong kaum muda ke dalam kondisi yang sangat rentan terhadap kerawanan pangan. Kerentanan ini semakin diperburuk oleh masalah kenaikan harga pangan dan kehilangan hasil panen akibat perubahan iklim terkait pola cuaca. Pada saat yang sama, pemuda memegang peran penting dalam mengatasi tantangan ketahanan pangan. Hal ini menempatkan pemuda sebagai pusat ketahanan pangan dan gizi.

Imbas Pemanasan Global

145 Juta Penduduk Indonesia Bisa Kena Imbas Pemanasan Global, Kok Bisa?

Pemanasan global menyebabkan miliaran penduduk dunia semakin sulit bertahan hidup, akhibat suhu yang kian panas.

Dalam studi terbaru, wilayah bumi yang ditempati oleh sepertiga populasi penduduk dunia, termasuk 145 juta penduduk Indonesia akan sulit bertahan hidup 50 tahun mendatang, karena pemanasan global akibat emisi gas rumah kaca. Dalam jurnal berjudul Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences yang diterbitkan awal Mei 2020, para peneliti memprediksi pemanasan global yang terjadi dengan sangat cepat dan membuat sepertiga wilayah bumi mengalami kemarau layaknya zona terpanas yang ada di Gurun Sahara. 

Pemanasan global yang sangat cepat itu akan menyebabkan 3,5 miliar manusia hidup di luar wilayah layak huni atau tidak dapat bertahan hidup. Pasalnya, kondisi suhu panas ekstrem akan dialami oleh sebagian besar wilayah yang bahkan telah dijadikan tempat tinggal selama lebih dari 6 juta tahun. 

"Masalah wilayah layak huni yang terus menerus ini menunjukkan adanya hambatan yang dihadapi manusia dalam bertahan hidup ataupun berkembang,” ujar Profesor Marten Scheffer dari Universitas Wageningen. 

Sementara, diperkirakan akan ada 145 juta penduduk Indonesia terdampak kenaikan suhu ekstrem dalam studi ini. Suhu di bumi yang diproyeksikan meningkat dengan cepat dan berdampak krisis bagi kehidupan populasi manusia itu adalah akibat emisi gas rumah kaca. 

Oleh sebab itu, para peneliti membuat skenario mengenai pengaruh emosi gas rumah kaca ini terhadap peningkatan suhu di bumi. 

Skenario emisi yang meningkat Skenario utama yang digunakan dalam makalah ini adalah RCP8.5, yang mewakili masa depan di mana konsentrasi gas rumah kaca di atmosfer tinggi. Dalam skenario tersebut menunjukkan bahwa emisi yang terus meningkat tanpa adanya penghentian, suhu yang akan dirasakan oleh rata-rata setiap orang akan meningkat 7,5 derajat celcius lebih panas pada tahun 2070.   

Kondisi suhu itu lebih tinggi dari perkiraan kenaikan suhu rata-rata global yaitu 3 derajat celsius. Kondisi prediksi peningkatan suhu hingga 7,5 derajat celsius itu disebabkan oleh dua hal, yaitu tanah akan menghangat lebih cepat daripada laut dan adanya pertumbuhan populasi saat ini sudah menuju tempat yang panas. 

Perluasan wilayah yang sangat panas dalam skenario iklim saat melakukan bisnis seperti biasa. Dalam iklim saat ini, suhu rata-rata tahunan lebih dari 29 derajat celcius terbatas pada area gelap kecil di wilayah Sahara. 

Ironisnya, kenaikan suhu yang sangat cepat dan dikombinasikan dengan perubahan populasi dunia secara global, dapat menjadikan sekitar 30 persen dari populasi dunia yang akan hidup di tempat suhu yang rata-ratanya di atas 29 derajat celsius dalam kurun waktu 50 tahun mendatang. 

Sedangkan, kondisi dengan zona terpanas di Gurun Sahara saat ini hanya dirasakan oleh 0,8 persen dari permukaan bumi. Akan tetapi, pada tahun 2070 kondisi seperti itu diprediksikan akan dapat menyebar luas menjadi 19 persen dari luas daratan bumi. 

“Situasi seperti ini akan membuat 3,5 miliar orang masuk ke dalam kondisi yang mungkin tidak akan dapat bertahan hidup,” kata Jens Christian Svenning dari Aarhus University, salah satu penulis penelitian ini. 

Para peneliti dari China, Amerika Serikat dan Eropa menilai bencana tersebut dapat dihindari jika terjadi penurunan emisi gas rumah kaca secara drastis dalam kurun waktu 50 tahun. Penelitian ini telah diterbitkan dengan judul “Future of the Human Climate Niche”: PNAS Mei 2020 atas kerjasama antar-peneliti dari Universitas Wageningen, Universitas Nanjing, Universitas Exeter, Universitas Aarhus dan Universitas Washington, Santa Fe Institute.

Sumber :

https://www.kompas.com/sains/read/2020/05/20/180200023/145-juta-penduduk-indonesia-bisa-kena-imbas-pemanasan-global-kok-bisa-?page=all.

Mencapai Sustainable Development Goals

Hanya 10 tahun lagi untuk mencapai Sustainable Development Goals tetapi pelaku usaha masih sibuk dengan tahap awal untuk berintegrasi dan berkembang

20 Januari 2020

Tinggal satu dekade lagi untuk melaksanakan Sustainable Development Goals yang diratifikasi pada 2015. Tindakan, perencanaan, dan target yang terintegrasi semuanya penting agar tindakan usaha dapat berkontribusi terhadap progres SDG nasional. 

Analisis PwC terhadap lebih dari 1.000 laporan yang diterbitkan oleh perusahaan yang terdaftar di bursa, swasta, dan sektor publik, menyoroti bahwa dengan sisa waktu sepuluh tahun untuk melaksanakan Sustainable Development Goals/SDG (Tujuan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan), masih banyak pekerjaan yang harus dilakukan jika pelaku usaha ingin memberikan kontribusi yang bermakna terhadap upaya nasional untuk mencapai SDG.

Penilaian tahunan PwC terhadap pelaporan publik tentang SDG menilai tingkat integrasi antara tujuan SDG dan kepemimpinan, strategi usaha, dan pelaporan, sebagai indikator kontribusi vital pelaku usaha terhadap pencapaian komitmen yang dinyatakan Pemerintah dalam sepuluh tahun ke depan. 

Hampir tiga per empat (72%) perusahaan yang dianalisis merujuk tujuan tersebut dalam pelaporan publik mereka, hanya lebih dari setengah perusahaan yang menyebut tujuan tersebut dalam laporan tahunan mereka. Hanya 1% dari keseluruhan sampel yang melaporkan upaya kuantitatif untuk menunjukkan progres mereka terhadap tujuan tersebut.

Sekarang sudah empat tahun sejak Tujuan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan diratifikasi secara bulat oleh semua 193 negara anggota PBB sebagai kerangka kerja universal untuk cara hidup dan operasi yang lebih berkelanjutan. Walaupun Pemerintah di seluruh dunia memiliki tanggung jawab utama untuk melaksanakan tujuan tersebut, mereka tidak dapat mencapainya tanpa dukungan dari pelaku usaha.

Meskipun terdapat kesadaran yang baik secara keseluruhan, progres terhadap SDG dapat dihambat dengan kurang spesifiknya target, pengukuran, dan integrasi bisnis yang lebih luas. Pelaporan progres terhadap SDG yang dibutuhkan untuk mencapai ambisi tersebut masih sangat minim, padahal tujuan tersebut menawarkan bahasa dan kerangka kerja bersama untuk membangun pandangan yang lebih transparan terhadap masalah-masalah, progres, dan skala perubahan yang dibutuhkan. Hanya 1% perusahaan yang dianalisis mengukur kinerja mereka terhadap target SDG secara spesifik.

Dari perusahaan-perusahaan yang dianalisis:

Satu dari lima pemimpin merujuk SDG dalam proyeksi mereka untuk tahun tersebut – menunjukkan bahwa tujuan tersebut masuk ke dalam agenda dewan.

Dari perusahaan yang merujuk SDG, 59% merujuk tujuan tersebut sebagai bagian dari laporan kinerja keberlanjutan mereka, sedangkan hanya lebih dari setengah (51%) menyebut tujuan tersebut di dalam laporan tahunan mereka.

14% menyebut target SDG secara spesifik: dari angka tersebut, 39% mengidentifikasi ambisi kualitatif, dan 20% ambisi kuantitatif.

Hanya 34% dari perusahaan yang menyebut SDG (25% dari semua perusahaan yang dianalisis), menyebutnya pada bagian pelaporan mereka yang membahas strategi bisnis.

Sebagian besar perusahaan mengidentifikasi tujuan Pekerjaan yang Layak dan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi sebagai fokus mereka, tetapi tujuan yang berkaitan dengan sumber daya alam atau kesejahteraan, yang penting bagi keberlanjutan bisnis kurang ditekankan.

 

Louise Scott, PwC Global Sustainable Development Goals Leader, mengatakan

“Meskipun kesadaran cukup tinggi, tanpa pengukuran dan pelaporan yang terintegrasi, progres dan langkah kebijakan yang relevan tidak dapat diidentifikasi pada tingkat perincian yang diperlukan untuk sungguh-sungguh mendorong progres untuk mencapai SDG.”

“Perusahaan mulai memprioritaskan tujuan-tujuan yang mereka percaya relevan dengan SDG, tetapi kita jarang merembukkan bagaimana kita dapat melakukan pendekatan terhadap tujuan tersebut. Tujuan berkaitan dengan air, tanah, dan energi memiliki peluang dan risiko strategis untuk hampir setiap sektornya, tetapi tidak diidentifikasi secara luas sebagai pertimbangan pada strategi dan investasi bisnis masa depan.”

“Tujuannya praktis, yaitu kerangka kerja pengelolaan risiko dan peluang dari sudut pandang pelaku usaha. Walaupun perusahaan tidak perlu secara spesifik merujuk tujuan-tujuan untuk mengambil tindakan, kita seharusnya melakukan identifikasi masalah-masalah yang mendasari tujuan tersebut dan strategi untuk mengatasi masalah tersebut, dan sayangnya kita belum melakukan itu.”

Marina R. Tusin, PwC Indonesia Consulting Leader, menambahkan, “Para pemimpin bisnis perlu menanamkan SDG dalam cara mereka berpikir, merencanakan, dan menjalankan bisnis. Jadikan cara-cara tersebut bagian dari proses pengambilan keputusan. Benamkan ke dalam kehidupan sehari-hari organisasi - budaya, nilai-nilai, hubungan dan keterlibatan karyawan. Sambungkan tujuan perusahaan dengan nilai yang diciptakan oleh bisnis di seluruh bagian manusia, planet, dan ekonomi dan jelaskan bagaimana hal tersebut dapat berkontribusi pada target SDG tertentu.”

Sumber :

https://www.pwc.com/id/en/media-centre/press-release/2020/indonesian/hanya-10-tahun-lagi-untuk-mencapai-sustainable-development-goals.html