Abstract
Abstract
Background
Moving away from fossil towards renewable resources to create a sustainable future is possible through the transition to a bioeconomy. Like any system, bioeconomy entails risks such as overexploitation of biotic resources, land and water, loss of biodiversity or social trade-offs. To understand and tackle challenges, systemic monitoring is demanded in the German bioeconomy strategy. Although several studies already analyse, review, develop or propose new indicators, they disregard the considerable number of existing monitoring initiatives that regularly report over longer periods, documenting actual developments. This study reviews such established monitoring systems related to the bioeconomy in Germany, which provide information and data about biomass-producing and processing sectors, energy, ecosystems, natural resources, biodiversity, climate change, and social developments.
Main text
From a variety of 100 identified monitoring initiatives related to bioeconomy in Germany on national, European and global levels, 71 were identified that regularly provide up-to-date, publicly available information. These were classified by their covered sectors, sustainability pillars, and goals of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy. The current monitoring landscape comprehensively encompasses biomass production, climate change, and environmental aspects such as ecosystem conservation. However, when considering the specific target areas named in the EU Bioeconomy Strategy, there are weaknesses in the representation of resource utilisation pathways, circularity, innovation and resource efficiency. When building a bioeconomy monitoring system more emphasis should be placed on blue bioeconomy and the protection of marine life, as well as social issues such as food security and clean water. Especially, social aspects are essential for a fair and inclusive transition to a bioeconomy.
Conclusions
The collected bioeconomy-related monitoring initiatives do not cover the bioeconomy as a whole, but they provide insights into specific aspects and could potentially facilitate the selection of indicators in the preparation of a bioeconomy monitoring system. Establishing links between existing initiatives could provide more comprehensive, holistic monitoring adapted to stakeholder needs while reducing monitoring efforts. This review can provide a foundation for identifying synergies and guiding future bioeconomy monitoring efforts.