Keywords

Sustainability assessment; bioproducts; standards; biorefineries

4.1 Introduction

Biorefineries transform biomass resources into a variety of products that can be used or recycled as a material or energy. Biorefineries can affect social, environmental, and economic wellbeing, three dimensions often considered in sustainability assessments. Within the bioeconomy, biomass will be used for the sustainable production of food and feed, as well as chemicals, materials, and energy (power, heating/cooling, and/or transport). The total value of the biomass feedstock can be maximized through a so-called “biorefinery approach,” which integrates conversion processes and equipment to coproduce multiple products from different biomass components and intermediates.

Biorefineries can be subdivided into energy-driven biorefineries and product-driven biorefineries. Energy-driven (or biofuel-driven) biorefineries produce mainly huge volumes of relatively low-value energy (or fuels) out of biomass. The full-value chain infrastructure exists; however, at current fuel prices their profitability is still questionable, requiring significant financial governmental support or a regulated market to guarantee large-scale market deployment. Product-driven (ie, chemicals, materials) biorefineries typically produce smaller amounts of relatively higher value-added biobased products out of biomass; primary (agro) and secondary (process) residues are used to produce energy (power/heat) for internal or external use. Currently, only limited product-driven biorefineries are in operation. Biorefineries, if appropriately designed and operated, contribute to sustainable innovation and may foster development in rural areas.

Sustainability assessment is context-specific and subject to change across temporal and spatial scales in response to changing societal needs, economics, and environmental conditions. There is no “one-size-fits-all” sustainability assessment method. The type of assessment is determined by the purpose and objective of the sustainability assessment. Sustainability assessment can serve multiple purposes, but each has certain requirements regarding relevant aspects, data quality, methodological choices, and constraints such as data availability, resource restrictions, and confidentiality issues. Stakeholders should play a central role in defining goals and selecting indicators that are appropriate for a particular assessment. If the purpose of the assessment is the comparison of two options (technologies or products), all relevant indicators for each option should be considered. The indicators for the comparison should be derived using a consistent approach, consistent system boundaries, and relevant data (ISO, 2015).

Sustainability is not a steady state or fixed target. Assessing sustainability involves comparing the relative merits of different options, and achieving it allows for continued adjustment in response to changing conditions, knowledge, and priorities. The concept and assessment has evolved from an environmental position to an integrated one including environmental, economic, social, and policy/institutions or good governance (Diaz-Chavez, 2015). Sustainability assessment is a tool that uses different methods to emphasize synergistic, adverse, as well as short- and long-term effects of different alternatives (OECD, 2008). Several of these methods including traditional environmental management tools (eg, environmental and social impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment) are based on multicriteria methods and the use of indicators for measuring the currently more modern approach of four dimensions of sustainability (GBEP, 2010; Diaz-Chavez, 2014, 2015). Sustainability assessments need to be context-specific because sustainability issues are related to the people and the area that are affected by the proposal. This is also why stakeholder participation is important. The sustainability assessment process is a learning process that should have adequate resources for constant improvements (O’Connell et al., 2013).

Fig. 4.1 shows selected aspects of sustainability issues of bioproducts that should be taken into account.

Despite the plethora of activities related to biomass and bioenergy sustainability assessments, from methodology development to standardization and certification (Buchholz et al., 2015; Keller et al., 2015; Patel et al., 2015; Pinazo et al., 2015; Fritsche and Iriarte, 2014; Buchholz et al., 2007; Martins et al., 2007; Sikdar, 2007), there is no consensus yet for a harmonized assessment framework. According to a report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2010), a common framework may help governments and industry to identify, evaluate performance, and support the development of bioproducts which are likely to be more sustainable than their fossil counterparts.

Such a framework could focus on applying minimum criteria or specific methodologies. As much as possible, assessments should be carried out on a lifecycle basis, starting from biomass feedstock and extending to (and beyond) the end-of-life of the products derived from its biomass feedstocks. Consistency and transparency are key requirements for communicating sustainability results to stakeholders and the public. The target audience using sustainability assessment results includes policymakers, business people, and other stakeholders in all stages of the supply chain from land managers or waste suppliers to those involved in logistics, conversion facilities, and end-users.

This chapter presents an overview of issues related to sustainability assessments that are applicable to the future bioeconomy and integrated biorefineries. It is not exhaustive but presents advancements and lessons learned to date.

4.2 Overview of Methodologies and Sustainability Assessment Frameworks

As sustainability assessment evolved, so also have the methodologies and frameworks applied to project planning and implementation within the bioenergy sector. Different methodologies have been used to assess projects in bioenergy with a particular emphasis on feedstock production (Keam and McCormick, 2008; Rosillo-Calle et al., 2015), the supply chain (eg, Batidzirai, 2013), and the technology used or the process and pathways employed (Dewulf and Van Langenhove, 2006). Many of the methods and frameworks have focused on bioenergy production rather than bioproducts or integrated biorefineries that produce multiple products.

Many sustainability assessments use multicriteria analysis and indicators to monitor the effects of bioenergy feedstocks, technologies, and industrial developments at local, regional, or national levels. For example, the Global Bioenergy Partnership has developed environmental, economic, and social sustainability indicators that can be used by countries to inform development and monitor effects of national-level bioenergy policies and programs (GBEP, 2011). Reviews of sustainability methodologies and the indicators proposed have been published (eg, by Cherubini et al., 2009; Sacramento-Rivero, 2012; Diaz-Chavez, 2014, 2015). Several initiatives have supported sustainability assessments of biorefineries using indicators, including for instance Jungmeier (2014) and BIOCORE (2014).

Criteria and indicators are also widely used in sustainability frameworks and standards. Some of the indicators were also linked to policies and programs. For sustainability assessments to be useful, socioeconomic and environmental indicators need to target stakeholder needs (Dale et al., 2015). Obtaining sufficient evidence to show quantifiable relationships among causes and effects is a key challenge affecting the selection of indicators (Dale et al., 2013). Some effects may differ not only in magnitude but in direction, depending on how, where and when measurements are made. Some indicators can be directly measured and attributable to a supply chain (eg, employment, profitability, public reporting), while others may require considerable research to discern and allocate relative values.

Different policies and mandatory targets have influenced the production of biofuels, but few legal systems incorporate criteria or indicators that regulate sustainability. The EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) (2009/28/EC) introduced basic environmental sustainability criteria for biofuel production including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, protection of land with high biodiversity value, or high carbon stock plus agro-environmental practices. Since its adoption, several standards that cover these criteria have been approved by the EU (17 until 2015; EC, 2015).

Voluntary standards for certification of biomass products have been developed and are commonly used in the USA, for example, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI); Forest Stewardship Council (FSC); and Council on Sustainable Biomass Production (CSBP). Several benchmarking exercises have been conducted to review the similarities and differences of these systems (eg, van Dam et al., 2010).

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has also developed a standard on Sustainability criteria for bioenergy ISO 13065 (2015). The European Committee for Standardization (ECN) in Europe is developing a standard for biobased products (CEN/TC411) and has set up five working groups dealing with relevant issues: WG1 Terminology; WG2 Bio-based solvents; WG3 Biobased content, biological origin, measurement methods; WG4 LCA and sustainability of biobased products; and WG5 Certification and communication (Biobased Economy, 2015). While these diverse mandatory and voluntary approaches have helped establish consensus about the importance of addressing sustainability associated with energy production and use, there is still little agreement on practical steps for decisionmakers to evaluate the relative sustainability of different energy options.

One approach to assessing biobased projects involves lifecycle analysis that subdivides a process into several stages, for example, raw material provision, conversion, consumption, and end-of-life (Fig. 4.2). When using a lifecycle perspective for assessing the environmental dimensions of biomass- or petroleum-derived products, many process steps, such as purification, product formulation, storage, and waste water treatment, are similar, while others are distinct (such as establishing the fuel source, obtaining materials, distributing materials to refineries, and converting materials into fuel) (Parish et al., 2013). The same may apply to assessments of economic and social aspects, although the system boundaries may vary. A fourth dimension shown in Fig. 4.1 indicates the importance of contextual conditions related to governance including policy, regulations, enforcement, and institutional capacity assessment which looks into the area of policy support, governance, and institutions.

Keller et al. (2015) provided a review of methodologies used specifically on the integrated sustainability assessment for biorefineries based on lifecycle assessment. The methodology of integrated lifecycle sustainability assessment (ILCSA) utilizes existing methodologies and added features for exante assessments. This approach allowed flexibility for focusing on those sustainability aspects relevant in the decisionmaking process using the best available methodology for assessing each aspect within the overarching assessment. Environmental and social-economic dimensions have also been analyzed individually in combination with other environmental management tools (Diaz-Chavez, 2014). The IEA Task 42 on Biorefineries produced another framework based on factsheets to assess biorefineries. The system uses a description of the key attributes of a biorefinery; based on a technical description and a classification scheme, the mass and energy balance is calculated for the most reasonable production capacity. Then three sustainability dimensions (as depicted in Fig. 4.2, except for “good governance”) are assessed and documented in a compact form in the “Biorefinery Fact Sheet.” This framework has been applied to multiple types of biorefineries including different feedstock and chemical platforms (Jungmeier, 2014).

Sustainability assessments of biomass-derived chemicals and materials present new challenges relative to more straightforward analyses comparing biofuels versus fossil fuels. A material’s service life is more complex, and, in addition, the consumer behavior has a significantly higher impact on a product’s overall sustainability. While biofuels have a dedicated combustion application, chemicals/materials (either standalone or embedded in more complex products) can have different service life times and end-of-life destinations. The former depends on consumer behavior while the latter depends on both consumer behavior and the existing waste management infrastructure, which influence whether materials are reused, recycled, downcycled, landfilled, or discarded. Fuels just have a single life, as illustrated in Fig. 4.2.

The main difference when comparing fuels is the feedstock choice. Regional and temporal variations in crop yield and residue availability and prices complicate the sustainability assessment, and there is a general lack of regional-specific data that can be used to evaluate biomass availability in a specific region/country.

4.3 Lessons Learned From First-Generation Biofuels and Bioenergy Crops

Since 1990, the carbon and fossil energy footprints of corn production have significantly decreased due to higher corn yields and improved agricultural practices (Babcock, 2015; Chum et al., 2015). Simultaneously, corn ethanol mills have evolved leading to a substantial reduction in production costs, fresh water demand, fossil energy consumption, and GHG emissions associated with ethanol production (Chum et al., 2015). These gains were due to a combination of industry learning, adoption of more energy-efficient technologies, streamlined processing configurations, increased mill size, and replacing coal with lower-carbon process energy. As both corn and ethanol yields have increased, the land-use intensity of corn ethanol has consistently declined (Chum et al., 2013). Growth in the US corn ethanol industry also generated social and economic benefits by catalyzing investments in agricultural R&D, infrastructure, and rural communities (Horta Nogueira et al., 2015). While the environmental performance of first-generation biofuels has improved over the years, biofuels have been subjected to continuing criticism, primarily around concerns that feedstock production may compete with other land-use options, such as food production or habitat, potentially causing direct or indirect land-use change (LUC and iLUC) (Boddiger, 2007; Searchinger and Heimlich, 2015).

Since the early 2000s, there have been a number of studies applying modeling approaches to estimate LUC and iLUC of biofuel production and the associated GHG emissions (Macedo et al., 2015). Early estimates projected high negative impacts; however, these models included simplistic representations of the drivers of LUC and did not account for factors such as yield improvements, multicropping, and double-cropping, and use of underutilized pastureland (Souza et al., 2015).

Model improvements to account for these complexities, as well as comparisons to empirical land-use data, have resulted in much lower iLUC and GHG estimates in recent years (Taheripour and Tyner, 2013). Consistent with these model improvements, analyses of recent empirical land-use data suggest that increased US corn production was largely achieved with intensification on existing agricultural acres—through multiple cropping and technology improvement—rather than cultivating more land (Babcock, 2015). These examples illustrate how bioenergy markets can promote more efficient agricultural and forestry practices, and that care must be taken when applying models and interpreting results about the complex interactions between markets, land-use decisions, and environmental impacts. It is critical that modeling studies test and validate underlying assumptions with empirical data (Youngs and Somerville, 2014; Panichelli and Gnansounou, 2015; Plevin et al., 2015).

The evolution of the US corn ethanol industry offers several lessons that are relevant to the future bioeconomy. Corn ethanol expansion generated increasing concerns about negative environmental and social consequences, largely focused on LUC, impacts to food production, and the intensive agricultural practices associated with corn production. These concerns spurred a number of modeling and research efforts to quantify these impacts, and several lessons emerge from this body of knowledge: the contributions of research, development, and technological learning in improving environmental and energy performance; the importance of scientific rigor when conducting and interpreting modeled analyses on land-use changes and other impacts; and the value of investigating trends over time when evaluating sustainability (Souza et al., 2015).

Modeling and assessing are more easily carried out for biofuel-driven biorefineries as fuels have relatively short value chains. Biochemicals and biomaterials however are typically intermediate products and become part of considerably longer, more complex value chains. Consequently, assessments of product-driven biorefineries are often partial evaluations that are limited by the amount of available data. Another complicating factor is that biorefineries are highly diverse in form and still a nascent industry. As such, there are limited data available. Various examples illustrate the wide range in design configurations and product mixes (see Souza et al., 2015).

4.4 Sustainability Assessment Challenges

In the case of biomass utilization for bioenergy, including liquid biofuels, and for the bioeconomy, several challenges have been identified that draw, among others, from the lessons derived from first-generation biofuels production. Some of the key challenges are related to food security, land use change, genetically modified organisms (GMO), policy, biodiversity, and GHG balance (Mohr and Raman, 2013). Some argue that these challenges may be exacerbated in the production of second-generation biofuels (Mohr and Raman, 2013). Nevertheless, in a future bioeconomy, some of these challenges may also be overcome when using agricultural, forestry, or processing residues. Field-level studies have shown that the use of excess residues can be done sustainably (Muth et al., 2012, 2013). As these residues have no use at this point, products derived from such feedstock could substitute others (eg, derived from food crops or fossil origin) and reduce stress on land. In this section, we discuss the most prevalent potential sustainability challenges and their role in the future bioeconomy.

4.5 Considerations for Future Assessments in the Bioeconomy Sector

Combating climate change, conserving biodiversity, ensuring energy security, conserving fossil resources, revitalizing rural areas, and addressing the need for economic growth without environmental and social damage are key challenges for sustainable development, as specified recently in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). Using biomass as an industrial raw material, replacing fossil/conventional alternatives, is one way towards a more sustainable future. The availability of sustainable biomass as a future substitute for fossil resources is dependent on the availability of land and options for using biomass and residues produced in agriculture and forestry more efficiently. The production of biobased products can contribute to value creation and the preservation of jobs, particularly in rural areas (German Government, 2012).

Applying landscape design principles offers a means to realize the benefits of biomass utilization, bioenergy, and biomaterials while meeting other environmental, social, and economic goals if sustainability requirements are considered. Landscape design involves developing a collaborative, spatially explicit plan to manage landscapes and supply chains. A landscape design process as suggested by Dale et al. (2016), involving six steps, considers both the benefits that can be derived as well as potential negative impacts. Several principles can help avoid, reduce, or mitigate negative outcomes: conserving ecosystem and social services, recognizing the specific local and regional context of the bioenergy system, and employing adaptive management by monitoring outcomes and adjusting plans to improve performance over time (Dale et al., 2016). It is important to note several constraints and considerations for implementing landscape design, such as the challenge of applying the landscape design approach at large scales where the diversity of stakeholders and landowner objectives makes it difficult to develop common goals (Dale et al., 2016).

Several innovations can support the process of sustainably integrating feedstock production into existing landscapes. For example, on-the-ground research is demonstrating how energy crops could enhance water quality, soil carbon, or other ecosystem services while minimizing concerns about land use change (Iqbal et al., 2014; Ssegane et al., 2015). Also useful are optimization methods that use spatial data and knowledge of bioenergy attributes to present the highest-impact scenarios for established objectives (Cibin and Chaubey, 2015).

As innovative methods for integrating feedstock production into a wider landscape emerge, sustainability assessments are also evolving in the scientific literature for bioproducts and biorefinery concepts (eg, Heijungs et al., 2010; SPI, 2012; Horta Nogueira et al., 2015; Keller et al., 2015). Nevertheless, few practical cases exist and the majority of studies are conducted either on theoretical cases, modeling data, prefeasibility studies, or small pilot plants (eg, BIOCORE, 2014).

Often, results of sustainability assessments are not easy to understand. Different approaches leading to different results may confuse decisionmakers including policymakers, industry, and consumers. The opportunities and risks of increased biomass use must be weighed on the basis of clear and objective criteria and parameters. This is also true for the assessment of biorefinery concepts. If sustainability is not guaranteed, the acceptance of bioproducts and bioenergy will be at risk. Therefore, direct and innovative forms to communicate results of sustainability assessments should be considered in the future.

Science-based sustainability assessment can provide the basis for political decisionmaking in relevant areas, but decisionmaking also requires normative elements to deal with tradeoffs between economy and environment aspects of intergenerational equity (Heijungs et al., 2010). Addressing global and local issues simultaneously will require a global multistakeholder partnership, as well as partnerships at multiple levels of governance, from community and national levels up to international levels. Integrating poverty, food security, fair business practices, and environment will require sector-specific and cross-cutting policies that recognize interactions, tradeoffs as well as synergies, and take externalities and earth’s carrying capacity into account. Furthermore, considerations for climate change need to be considered to favor bioproducts in the future. That means a coherent policy across energy, water, and food security issues. For this purpose, integrated knowledge and decisionmaking across disciplinary boundaries and policies is required.

While definitions for various types of biofuels exist, there is no agreed definition on bioproducts. The definition varies with respect to their functionality or the selected feedstock. For example, there are biobased biodegradable and biobased nonbiodegradable products available to the consumer. Biodegradability can be achieved independent from the feedstock; renewable feedstocks do not ensure biodegradability. The same molecules (eg, ethylene, glycerol, succinic acid) can be derived from fossil-based feedstock or biomass (see chapter: Development of Second-Generation Biorefineries). Hence, the environmental functionality can hardly be used as criteria for bioproducts. The preferred criterion for bioproducts is the biogenic content, but there is a need to clarify the referred molecule(s), for example, C, N, H, O, or their combination. Carbon is probably the most relevant molecule, although other biobased molecules should not be ignored in the scientific debate. However, there is no agreement yet on the proportion of biogenic carbon in a bioproduct.

In addition, the potential future penetration of the EU market with products made from renewable raw materials is still not well researched today. Two issues considered to influence how to reach the market are their ecological advantage (eg, recyclability) and cost. With respective policies in place, it is expected that the activities in biorefineries could stimulate the market. High-technology manufacturing (pharmaceutical) and medium-high-technology manufacturing (chemicals) have increased in recent years (US-DOE, 2011; BIOCORE, 2014). Green procurement is also expected to contribute to enhance the low-carbon economy (eg, USDA BioPreferred, 2015). Financial incentives may be possible through green procurement enforcement (Diaz-Chavez, 2014). Another key challenge is related to how to reach a broader market when significantly higher prices of bioproducts prevail compared to conventional (fossil-based) products. A further obstacle is the lack of information held by industrial and private consumers on the advantages of the latest products made from renewable raw materials (Oertel, 2007).

An EU standard is under development for assessing the sustainability of bioproducts, but it is not yet clear if the application will be reflected on an international level. Standards for bioproducts are not ready and a list of products (available and under research) needs to be created. Some measures need to be considered for bioproducts that are or will be in contact with food such as bioplastics used for packaging. Issues to consider include: biobased content, health, safety, environmental effects, and waste (Diaz-Chavez, 2014). Several EU policy instruments and green papers are related to the promotion of bioeconomy (eg, the Bioeconomy Strategy (EC, 2012); Circular Economy Plan (EC, 2015); EU ecolabel (EU Ecolabel, 2015; European Bioplastics, 2014; EMAS, 2015), including packaging, monitoring of environmental impacts, and eco-labeling. Nevertheless, it has been reported (eg, LMI, 2009) that the different legal and regulatory instruments apply at different levels and this makes it difficult to influence all levels of the supply chain (manufacture, sale, and disposal of bioproducts) mainly because they are not one uniform product group, but a wide range of products with completely different characteristics, qualities, and uses. Some recommendations in the literature and interviews conducted demonstrate that this may create new opportunities and areas of R&D.

4.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Lessons learned from the production and use of first-generation biofuels have been considered in the development of sustainability assessment frameworks in general. At the same time, many frameworks primarily focus on feedstock production and are limited with respect to other areas, including health, safety, and final products as well as consumer behavior. Methodologies need further development, especially when compared to other fossil fuel origin products and their impact in the circular economy. Some of the main challenges for sustainability assessments of biobased products and biorefineries include:

Also, with respect to good governance and policy assessment, there is a need to identify and foster the link between science, policies, and the decisionmaking process. Countries need to design, reform, and implement policies that value natural assets and align incentives with policy goals that promote sustainability of biobased systems.

Some general recommendations for future sustainability assessment are as follows: