Biomass such as crops and agricultural waste is increasingly used as the primary resource for products like bioplastics and biofuels. Incorporating the needs, knowledge, skills and values of biomass producers in the design of global value chains – the steps involved in creating any finished product from design to delivery – can contribute to sustainability, reliability and fairness. However, how to involve biomass producers, especially if they are resource poor, remains a challenge. To make sure that inclusion in global biobased value chains is both fair and effective, the capabilities of relevant actors need to be taken into account, especially of those producing biomass. Access to resources determines to what extent a specific actor can participate in a global value chain. Therefore, differences in capabilities should be a central consideration when new (biobased) value chains are designed. Using the capability approach as an ethical framework to realize inclusion, we discern three complementary strategies for setting up inclusive value chains. Firstly, designing for local conversion factors second, providing adaptive design for new capabilities, and third, investing in local conversion factors. Applying these strategies can lead to context-sensitive design of biorefineries that allow for true inclusion of local stakeholders. We support these claims with reference to case-studies of sugarcane production in Jamaica, modified tobacco in South Africa and the non-edible parts of corn (stover) in the US.

@en

Biobased production has been promoted as an alternative to fossil-based production to mitigate climate change. However, emerging concerns over the sustainability of biobased products have shown that tensions can emerge between different objectives and concerns, like emission reduction targets and food security, and that these are dependent on local contexts. Here we present the Open Sustainability-in-Design (OSiD) framework, the aim of which is to integrate a context-sensitive sustainability analysis in the conceptual design of biobased processes. The framework is illustrated, taking as an example the production of sustainable aviation fuel in southeast Brazil. The OSiD framework is a novel concept that brings the perspectives of stakeholders and considerations of the regional context to an ex ante sustainability analysis of biobased production. This work also illustrates a way to integrate methods from different scientific disciplines supporting the analysis of sustainability and the identification of tensions between different sustainability aspects. Making these tensions explicit early in the development of biobased production can make them more responsive to emerging sustainability concerns. Considering the global pressure to reduce carbon emissions, situating sustainability analyses in their socio-technical contexts as presented here can help to explain and improve the impacts of biobased production in the transition away from fossil resources.

@en

More pluralised understandings of incumbencies are often overlooked in transitions research, which may lead to underestimating the enabling roles of incumbents in niche projects. This study explores these roles by applying a power framework to five struggles revolving around a path-breaking decentralised wastewater treatment project in the city of Ghent (Belgium). Remarkably, incumbents from multiple regimes use power to enable the niche project. The study identifies and discusses four patterns in the enabling role of incumbents in niche projects. These patterns are clarified by focussing on incumbents from multiple regimes, belonging to local authorities, neighbouring and more distant regimes, as well as on the power of structural trends related to the urgency of sustainability challenges. As such, the study contributes to the understanding of multiple incumbencies and the conditions under which these may reinforce niche projects. For practitioners, the study underscores the role of power dynamics in the water/wastewater sector.

@en

Although the potential of Alternative Jet Fuels (AJF) to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions has been widely reported upon in the literature, there are still discrepancies among the results. These may be due to the different GHG accounting methods, including those used by different Low-Carbon Policies (LCPs). To have a clearer understanding of the life cycle performance of AJF, the carbon footprint of ten pathways was estimated, comprising promising feedstocks – such as soybean, palm, sugarcane, sugarcane residues, forestry residues, used cooking oil, beef tallow, and steel off-gases – and ASTM-approved technologies: Hydroprocessed Fatty Acids, Alcohol-to-Jet, and Fischer-Tropsch. Six methodological approaches were used: the attributional and the consequential life cycle assessment, as well as guidelines for the four LCPs: Renovabio (Brazil), CORSIA (aviation sector), RFS (United States), and RED II (Europe). Soybean-based pathway (24 to 98.7 gCO_2e/MJ) had the low to no potential for reducing GHG when compared to their fossil counterparts, mainly due to land use change. Of all food-based pathways, AJF produced from sugarcane performed the best (-10.4 to 43.7 gCO_2e/MJ), especially when power surplus was credited. AJF from palm oil could present significant GHG reduction for palm expansion in degraded pasturelands. By contrast, Fischer-Tropsch of lignocellulosic residues showed the highest potential for reducing GHG (-95% to -130%). Different from food-based pathways, the potential GHG reduction of residues-based pathways converged within a narrower range (-130% to -50%), except when residual feedstocks have to be redirected from their current economic use. It could lead to GHG emissions higher than fossil fuel.

@en

The rapid advancements in synthetic biology have allowed for the development of revolutionary technologies such as bacteriophage-mediated gene and microbiome therapies. These technologies create the need for management of the upcoming risks and uncertainties. Safe-by-Design is a strategy to build in safety measures in an effort to mitigate and anticipate risks in synthetic biology applications. This study aims to portray a nuanced review of the opportunities and challenges posed by Safe-by-Design through a case study on this year’s iGEM project, the application of gene and microbiome therapy principles to mitigate the issue of Desert Locust swarms. To gather an all-round perspective on the current state of synthetic biology, bacteriophage-based therapies, and Safe-by-Design, these aspects are assessed in terms of governance. Synthetic biology regulations have long ensured safe research practices, but the lack of adequate regulations for novel phage-based technologies hampers the development of this field of research. In further detail is discussed how the use of the precautionary principle guarantees biosafety but also limits the discovery of risks and uncertainties. Downstream Safe-by-Design is proposed as a method to facilitate policy-making and to tackle concerning issues such as transnational regulations and public perception of biosafety. In this report, the risks associated with the application of bacteriophages for non-therapeutic purposes are determined and multiple Safe-by-Design approaches are analyzed to mitigate these risks and uncertainties. This resulted in the collection of quorum sensing, kill switches, encapsulation, anti-CRISPRs, and auxotrophy as suitable Safe-by-Design measures for this project. Furthermore, the challenges and limitations regarding the application of Safe-by-Design are reviewed. This analysis concludes that uncertainty and a lack of knowledge of the intricate synthetic biology systems are the main constrains on Safe-by-Design for synthetic biology. Lastly, it is concluded that Safe-by-Design is a promising strategy to ensure biosafety because of its dynamic and proactive character, and recommendations are made to stimulate future progress in this area of research.

This paper guides decision making in more sustainable urban water management practices that feed into a circular economy by presenting a novel framework for conceptually designing and strategically planning wastewater treatment processes from a resource recovery perspective. Municipal wastewater cannot any longer be perceived as waste stream because a great variety of technologies are available to recover water, energy, fertilizer, and other valuable products from it. Despite the vast technological recovery possibilities, only a few processes have yet been implemented that deserve the name water resource factory instead of wastewater treatment plant. This transition relies on process designs that are not only technically feasible but also overcome various non-technical bottlenecks. A multidimensional and multidisciplinary approach is needed to design water resource factories (WRFs) in the future that are technically feasible, cost effective, show low environmental impacts, and successfully market recovered resources. To achieve that, the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) design space needs to be opened up for a variety of expertise that complements the traditional wastewater engineering domain. Implementable WRF processes can only be designed if the current design perspective, which is dominated by the fulfilment of legal euent qualities and process costs, is extended to include resource recovery as an assessable design objective from an early stage on. Therefore, the framework combines insights and methodologies from different fields and disciplines beyond WWTP design like, e.g., circular economy, industrial process engineering, project management, value chain development, and environmental impact assessment. It supports the transfer of the end-of-waste concept into the wastewater sector as it structures possible resource recovery activities according to clear criteria. This makes recovered resources more likely to fulfil the conditions of the end-of-waste concept and allows the change in their definition from wastes to full-fledged products.@en

The life cycle human health (HH) impacts related to aviation biofuels have been understood in a limited way. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods for assessing HH are often associated with a high level of uncertainty and a low level of consensus. As a result, it remains challenging to perform a robust assessment of HH impacts with a suitable LCIA method. This study aims to systematically compare six commonly used LCIA methods for quantifying HH impacts, in order to empirically understand the potential impacts of aviation biofuel production on HH and how the results are affected by the choice of methods. Three aviation biofuel production pathways based on different feedstocks (sugarcane, eucalyptus, and macauba) were analyzed and compared to fossil aviation biofuels, on the basis of a functional unit of 1 MJ aviation fuel. The majority of the LCIA methods suggest that, in respect to midpoint impacts, macauba-based biofuel is associated with the lowest impacts and eucalyptus-based biofuel the highest; whereas at endpoint level, the results are more scattered. The LCIA methods agree that biomass conversion into aviation biofuel, H2 production, and feedstock cultivation are major contributors to life cycle HH impacts. Additionally, we provide a guideline for determining an appropriate method for assessing HH impacts.

@en

The growth in biofuels’ investment brings with it concerns about the social and environmental impacts of the sector. Several tools and frameworks have been used to address these concerns, including the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) framework. This paper analyzes whether this framework can be applied in contexts where local culture and values shape differently the freedom of speech and engagement, such as in developing countries in which biofuel innovation projects are often implemented. A literature review focused on eight case studies of other authors was used to explore the role of “participation” as a structural element of the RRI framework and the impact of its absence where effective participation in the innovation development process is not possible. In conclusion, we highlight how this inspirational normative framework, designed to influence innovation, is misused to judge its impacts. More than that, the conclusions of such misused applications reflect more the difficulties involved in applying guidelines than the responsible character of the innovation, whose impacts are usually defined upfront materially and measurably.

@en

The term "responsibility" embodies many meanings, also in the context of corporate research and innovation (R&I). The approach of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has emerged as a promoter for responsible conduct of innovation but so far lacks a systematic framework for describing, inventorying, and eventually managing different responsibilities that R&I units hold in companies and further in society. In this paper we take forward the idea of developing RRI into a "meta-responsibility" approach, for orchestrating responsibilities in corporate R&I. First, we introduce a frame for defining responsibility, which is inclusive of four elements (care, liability, accountability, and responsiveness), and is attentive to the intrinsic uncertainty of the R&I setting. Drawing on empirical data from interviews, we then examine how these responsibility elements become operationalised in an actual R&I project. As a result, we develop a meta-responsibility map for corporate R&I, bringing various and sometimes contradicting principles, expectations and obligations under the common terminology of responsibility. We suggest that such integrative outlook on responsibilities increases theoretical solidity and practical applicability of RRI as an innovation management approach. Regarding R&I practices, we conclude that the meta-responsibility map can support R&I units in exploring their co-existing and sometimes conflicting responsibilities, and in managing those responsibilities in the highly uncertain R&I setting. In particular, meta-responsibility shows applicability in (i) balancing risk and precaution, (ii) exposing and addressing concerns about the goals and impacts of innovation, and (iii) accelerating sectoral transition whilst securing one's own competitive advantage in it.@en

In general, the certified pathways for the production of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) are still far from being competitive with fossil kerosene, although they have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the mitigation costs related to SAFs and how they compete with the carbon credits market remain unclear. The present study addressed these issues, evaluating SAF pathways based on hydrotreatment (HEFA process) of soybean oil, palm oil, used cooking oil (UCO) and beef tallow; dehydration and oligomerization of ethanol (ATJ technology) obtained from sugarcane, lignocellulosic residues, and steel off-gases; and the thermochemical conversion of lignocellulosic residues using the Fischer–Tropsch (FT) process and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL). Residue-based pathways had lower mitigation costs. Used cooking oil / HEFA had the lowest value (185 USD tCO_2e⁻¹), followed by the thermochemical conversion of forestry residues (234–263 USD tCO_2e⁻¹). Of the 1G pathways, SAF production from 1G sugarcane ethanol (SC-1G/ATJ) performed better (495 USD tCO_2e⁻¹) than oil-based ones. In comparison with the carbon market, the mitigation costs of SAFs are much higher than the current prices or even future ones. However, several concerns about the credibility of the emission units and their effective mitigation effects indicate that SAFs could play an important role in aviation sector goals. Considering the potential of supplying SAF and mitigating emissions, SC-1G/ATJ was suggested as a preferred alternative in the short term. Of the residue-based pathways, tallow / HEFA and FT of forestry residues are suggested as strategic alternatives.

@en

The use of renewable jet fuels (RJFs) is an option for meeting the greenhouse gases (GHG) reduction targets of the aviation sector. Therefore, most of the studies have focused on climate change indicators, but other environmental impacts have been disregarded. In this paper, an attributional life cycle assessment is performed for ten RJF pathways in Brazil, considering the environmental trade-offs between climate change and seven other categories, i.e., fossil depletion, terrestrial acidification, eutrophication, human and environmental toxicity, and air quality-related categories, such as particulate matter and photochemical oxidant formation. The scope includes sugarcane and soybean for first-generation (1G) pathways and residual materials (wood and sugarcane residues, beef tallow, and used cooking oil-UCO) for second-generation (2G) pathways. Three certified technologies to produce RJF are considered: hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), alcohol-to-jet (ATJ), and Fischer-Tropsch (FT). Assuming the residual feedstocks as wastes or by-products, the 2G pathways are evaluated by two different approaches, in which the biomass sourcing processes are either accounted for or not. Results show that 1G pathways lead to significant GHG reductions compared to fossil kerosene from 55% (soybean/HEFA) to 65% (sugarcane/ATJ). However, the sugarcane-based pathway generated three-fold higher values than fossil kerosene for terrestrial acidification and air quality impacts, and seven-fold for eutrophication. In turn, soybean/HEFA caused five-fold higher levels of human toxicity. For 2G pathways, when the residual feedstock is assumed to be waste, the potential GHG emission reduction is over 74% with no relevant trade-offs. On the other hand, if the residual feedstocks are assumed as valuable by-products, tallow/HEFA becomes the worst option and pathways from sugarcane residues, even providing a GHG reduction of 67% to 94%, are related to higher impacts than soybean/HEFA for terrestrial acidification and air quality. FT pathways represent the lowest impacts for all categories within both approaches, followed by UCO/HEFA.@en

Derived from renewable feedstocks, aviation biofuel is generally perceived as inherently sustainable. However, its production involves a wide range of sectors and interacts with different actors in society. It is therefore important to understand and evaluate not only the environmental impacts of that process, but also its socioeconomic effects. At present, empirical studies assessing socioeconomic aspects of aviation biofuel are rare in scientific literature. The aim of this study, therefore, is to assess key effects of aviation biofuel production on employment, GDP, and trade balance. A scenarios-based Input-Output (IO) analysis was used to evaluate these socioeconomic effects, taking Brazilian aviation biofuel production to 2050 as an example. To address the uncertainty of IO analysis, we have proposed a stochastic simulation approach for the technical coefficients in the IO model. Four distinct scenarios were developed. In each, three potential combinations of technologies and feedstocks for producing aviation biofuel were evaluated: sugarcane via alcohol to jet (ATJ), macauba via hydro-processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), and eucalyptus via Fischer-Tropsch (FT). Among other things, we found that the production of aviation biofuel would create around 12,000–65,000 jobs, while contributing US$200-1100 million to Brazil's GDP under different scenarios with different supply chains. The socioeconomic effects calculated deterministically were generally higher than the stochastic outcomes, which can be explained by factors such as technological learning and economic growth. Aviation biofuel production showed large positive net socioeconomic effects on employment and GDP, although some of the fossil sectors would be negatively affected. Overall, the macauba-HEFA chain (with the highest effects on employment and GDP, and the lowest effects on imports) seemed to be the most favorable of the scenarios studied, despite the relatively high level of uncertainty associated with it.@en

To continue the success of the Port of Rotterdam (PoR) in the future, a transition to a sustainable industry is essential. Though this is easier said than done. The energy transition involves a variety of initiatives which are at the same time highly dependent on each other. Whilst the increasing scarcity of available area and resources result into the situation that a decision will have to be made. As long as this decision is not made, it leads to high uncertainty on which activities are going to take place in the PoR and at which point in time they are expected.

To support the decision making on which activities to should focus on, there is an urgent need for a decision tool at the PoR authority.

The main conclusion, however, is that it is impossible to develop a decision tool which is able to make a choice among different activities. This decision is impossible because every activity has its own demands and requirements and differs in the contribution it has to the strategic goals. Besides this, the set requirements cannot be expressed in a single unit, leading to the situation that a comparison cannot be judged.

Following from the above, it is being discouraged to develop a decision tool. The allocation process and the involved requirements are too versatile to be simplified in a single tool. If such a simplification is made, this will result in missing essential opportunities and potential bottlenecks in the sequential project phases.

Based on the above conclusions, it is investigated whether it is possible to provide the PoR authority with guidelines that support the comparison of different activities. To do so, the involved requirements in the allocation process are substantiated. These requirements are evaluated from three different points of view: demand side (client), resources side (Port of Rotterdam authority) and their priority in the decision making. By means of the evaluation, the aspects have been identified that must be implemented into the guidelines.

In addition to the requirements, it is important for the PoR authority to incorporate its communicated strategy into the daily activities. To do so, the commercial strategy has been developed. At first sight, the integration of the commercial strategy is not acknowledged to be a requirement in the allocation process. Though, as the research proceeded, it turned out that the commercial strategy has a more important role in the decision making than anticipated. Resulting in the situation that if the PoR authority is really looking to fulfil its climate targets, the commercial strategy should function as a self-contained requirement in the allocation process.

From the conclusions, the recommendation for the PoR authority is to develop a central team that involves the experts of the relevant requirements to judge the potential activities. This team will have the primary task to evaluate and judge the potential activities prior to entering the project phases. The judgement of the potential activities will be founded on four main themes for evaluation: demand, supply, priority and contribution to the commercial strategy.

Though, this recommendation is not aimed at making the decision itself. The main focus is to supply the evaluations on the potential activities to the decision makers. The decision itself will be based on the supplied evaluations through which a decision can be made on which activities should be allocated in the PoR.

This study presents a techno-economic analysis and an environmental assessment, of the whole production chain (biomass production, sugar extraction, biomass pretreatment, sugars fermentation, and products recovery and purification), of a fully autarkic sugarcane-based biorefinery for biojet fuel production. All scenarios considered correspond to 1st/2nd generation integrated biorefineries (i.e. simultaneous use of sugarcane juice stream and lignocellulosic fractions) with a production scale of 208 kton (biojet fuel) yr^-1. In this paper, we compared multiple options for the most relevant processing steps of the biorefinery: eight biomass pretreatment technologies (i.e. dilute acid, dilute acid + alkaline treatment, steam explosion, steam explosion + alkaline treatment, organosolv, alkaline wet oxidation, liquid hot water and liquid hot water + alkaline treatment); two biojet fuel production routes from sugars (i.e. ethanol to jet and direct fermentation); one biojet fuel production route from biomass (i.e. fast pyrolysis); two biojet fuel production routes from lignin obtained after biomass pretreatment (i.e. fast pyrolysis and gasification Fischer- Tropsch); and one alternative use for lignin (i.e. co-generation). From the combination of these key features, 81 scenarios are selected and compared. Furthermore, three potential technological improvements were analysed for selected scenarios: i) recovery of acetic acid and furfural (for cases with bagasse pretreatment); ii) production of succinic acid from a fraction of concentrated juice; iii) increase of operation time (from 200 to 320 days yr^-1) by using sweet sorghum as cumulative feedstock. The different scenarios are compared first based on the minimum jet fuel selling price (MJSP) and then based on their environmental performance (i.e. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and non-renewable energy use (NREU)). Among the scenarios considering biomass pretreatment, the lower MJSP are obtained when 1G/2G sugars are upgraded via ethanol fermentation (ETJ) (i.e. SO₂ steam explosion: 3409 US $.ton^-1, and wet oxidation: 3230 US $.ton^-1). Additional technological improvements may help to further reduce the MJSP either marginally (2%, by using 1G sugars for succinic acid production) or significantly (30%, by increasing the operation time). Thus, the lowest MJSP here calculated is 1725 US $.ton^-1 (with 1G sugars to biojet fuel via ethanol, and bagasse to biojet fuel via fast pyrolysis). Finally, for all scenarios considered, the GHG emissions and NREU were found to be lower than 42.5 kg CO₂eq.GJ^-1 and 700 MJ GJ ^-1 respectively (except for scenarios with fast pyrolysis of bagasse where those figures were further reduced by 50% and 80% respectively). Although, the MJSP calculated for all scenarios are higher than those of the fossil jet fuel reference, the significant potential for environmental impacts reduction (in terms of GHG emissions and primary energy use) are encouraging for further research in costs reduction and technology development.

@en

The concept of mutual responsiveness is currently based on little empirical data in the literature of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This paper explores RRI’s idea of mutual responsiveness in the light of recent RRI case studies on private sector research and development (R&D). In RRI, responsible innovation is understood as a joint endeavour of innovators and societal stakeholders, who become mutually responsive to each other in defining the ‘right impacts’ of the innovation in society, and in steering the innovation towards realising those impacts. Yet, the case studies identified several reasons for why the idea of mutual responsiveness does not always appear feasible or desirable in actual R&D situations. Inspired by the discrepancies between theory and practice, we suggest three further elaborations for the concept of responsiveness in RRI. Process-responsiveness is suggested for identifying situations that require stakeholder involvement specifically during R&D. Product-responsiveness is suggested for mobilising the potential of innovation products to be adaptable according to diverse stakeholder needs. Presponsiveness is suggested as responsiveness towards stakeholders that are not (yet) reachable at a given time of R&D. Our aim is to contribute to a more tangible understanding of responsiveness in RRI, and suggest directions for further analysis in upcoming RRI case studies.@en

Understanding the complex interactions among food security, bioenergy sustainability, and resource management requires a focus on specific contextual problems and opportunities. The United Nations' 2030 Sustainable Development Goals place a high priority on food and energy security; bioenergy plays an important role in achieving both goals. Effective food security programs begin by clearly defining the problem and asking, 'What can be done to assist people at high risk?' Simplistic global analyses, headlines, and cartoons that blame biofuels for food insecurity may reflect good intentions but mislead the public and policymakers because they obscure the main drivers of local food insecurity and ignore opportunities for bioenergy to contribute to solutions. Applying sustainability guidelines to bioenergy will help achieve near- and long-term goals to eradicate hunger. Priorities for achieving successful synergies between bioenergy and food security include the following: (1) clarifying communications with clear and consistent terms, (2) recognizing that food and bioenergy need not compete for land and, instead, should be integrated to improve resource management, (3) investing in technology, rural extension, and innovations to build capacity and infrastructure, (4) promoting stable prices that incentivize local production, (5) adopting flex crops that can provide food along with other products and services to society, and (6) engaging stakeholders to identify and assess specific opportunities for biofuels to improve food security. Systematic monitoring and analysis to support adaptive management and continual improvement are essential elements to build synergies and help society equitably meet growing demands for both food and energy.

@en