New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

New BIOTECHNOLOGY
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt

Full Length Article

Linking the bioeconomy to the 2030 sustainable development agenda: Can

SDG indicators be used to monitor progress towards a
sustainable bioeconomy?
Özgül Calicioglu *, Anne Bogdanski
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 001 Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Bioeconomy has been proposed as a strategy to overcome many global and national challenges, from climate
Bioeconomy action to income diversification in rural areas. Therefore, the ultimate goal is not to measure the bioeconomy per
Monitoring and evaluation se, but its sustainability. One way to ensure sustainability of bioeconomy strategies would be by linking its
Biomass
reporting with internationally-agreed targets of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations.
Bioproducts
Although there are case studies, scientific articles and technical reports in the literature of bioeconomy and other
Sustainable development goals
Network analysis related strategies (e.g. green economy, circular economy) and their links to SDGs, the complete picture on this
heterogeneous literature is missing. The objective of this work is to lay out the opportunities to couple moni­
toring and evaluation of bioeconomy and bioeconomy-related concepts to aid the countries to report their status
on attaining SDGs. This study is the first to review and harmonize the results through meta-analysis of the
available literature and technical reports on linking bioeconomy and SDGs. The results suggest that bioeconomy
monitoring and evaluation can provide opportunities in terms of SDG reporting, in all three dimensions of
sustainability. Bioeconomy strategies and practices were found to have strong potential in coupled reporting with
several SDGs related to economic development, access to basic services, and sustainable consumption, followed
by biodiversity conservation, waste re-use, equality, gender equality, inclusiveness and international
cooperation.

Introduction system, they must be adequately tracked in order to minimize or ideally

The bioeconomy can be defined as “the production, utilization and
conservation of biological resources, including related knowledge, sci­
ence, technology, and innovation, to provide information, products,
processes and services across all economic sectors aiming toward a
sustainable economy” [1]. At the Global Bioeconomy Summit held in
2018, it was acknowledged that this definition is partly visionary and
broad. In both the scientific literature and policy contexts, the term
‘bioeconomy’ has been used to refer to slightly varying concepts.
Regardless, an expanded bioeconomy has been proposed as a strategy to
overcome many global and national challenges, from climate action to
income diversification in rural areas [2]. However, bioeconomy activ­
ities do not necessarily create a win-win in both environmental and
socio-economic dimensions. Although trade-offs are inevitable in any
to avoid causing indirect and unintended harm, also for bioeconomy [3].
Therefore, monitoring and evaluation of bioeconomy impacts are crucial
to ensuring that it develops sustainably (i.e. safeguarding or fostering
the environmental and social dimensions). Ultimately, the goal of
monitoring and evaluation should not only be to measure progress on
bioeconomy strategic objectives per se but also its sustainability [4].
Since the potentially adverse impacts of bioeconomy development
on environmental and social dimensions of sustainability are acknowl­
edged globally, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) received an international mandate to conduct work on
the “food-first” sustainable bioeconomy in 2015. To this end, it estab­
lished the International Sustainable Working Group (ISBWG) in 2016,
which has the potential to serve as a platform to integrate global efforts
of various stakeholders on sustainable bioeconomy development, as

Abbreviations: FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; ISBWG, International Sustainable Working Group; P&Cs, Principles and Criteria;
SDG, Sustainable Development Goal.
* Corresponding author. Present Address: The World Bank Group, 1818 H St. NW 20443, Washington DC, USA.
E-mail address: ocalicioglu@worldbank.org (Ö. Calicioglu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.010
Received 9 April 2020; Received in revised form 26 October 2020; Accepted 27 October 2020
Available online 2 November 2020
1871-6784/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski
Table 1
List of analysed studies for the analysis and harmonization of bioeconomy-related work and methodologies that contribute to the SDGs.
Aspect Resource
Bio-based Industries Consortium Working Paper – Bioeconomy and the
UN Sustainable Development Goals
Thünen Institute Study – Developing concepts for sustainability
assessment of bioeconomy as part of a bioeconomy monitoring
Bioeconomy
European Bioeconomy Alliance contribute Working Paper – The
Crucial Role of the Bioeconomy in Achieving the UN Sustainable
Development Goals
FAO Report – Towards Sustainable Bioeconomy – Lessons learned from
case studies
The Partnership for Action on Green Economy Report – The Green
Green Economy
Economy Progress Measurement Framework – Application
Circular Institute of Development Studies work – The Relevance of Circular
Economy Economy Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals
The Potsdam Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Working
Biomass Paper – The Role of Biomass in the Sustainable Development Goals: A
Reality Check and Governance Implications
IINAS Technical Report – Linkages between the Sustainable Development
Bioenergy and
Goals (SDGs) and the Global Bioenergy Partnership Sustainability
Biomaterials
Indicators for Bioenergy
UN Environment – Eco-labelling knowledge platform
Research article - Analysis of Standards, Certifications, and Labels for
Bio-based
Bio-based Products in the Context of Sustainable Bioeconomy
products
UN Environment Report – Sustainable Consumption and Production
Indicators for the future SDGs
argued in [5]. As a first step, the ISBWG agreed on a list of aspirational
Principles and Criteria (P&Cs, See Supplementary information,
Table S1) for sustainable bioeconomy in the scope of the FAO project
“Towards Sustainable Bioeconomy Guidelines,” in order to define what
sustainability might normatively entail. Since there is a need for sys­
temic monitoring and evaluation of bioeconomy to ensure global sus­
tainability [4], these P&Cs hold the potential to serve as the aspirational
ground for a unified monitoring framework, linking the overarching
P&Cs to context-specific indicators. The process of deriving impact
categories from the P&Cs was described in the FAO report entitled In­
dicators to Monitor and Evaluate the Sustainability of Bioeconomy [6]. The
list of impact categories is presented in Table S1.
The United Nations (UN) 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda,
consisting of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), represents a
normative framework on sustainable development and comprises 169
targets that provide a quantitative framework towards achieving the
goals [7]. The SDG targets and indicators referred to in this study have
been published as a resolution adopted by the General Assembly on
Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development on 6 July 2017 [8], and the list as of
September 2019 is also provided as a Supplementary Material
(Table S2). The SDGs are integrated and indivisible for all three di­
mensions of sustainability, i.e. economic, social and environmental, and
they stimulate action until 2030 in areas of critical importance for hu­
manity and the planet [7]. The 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Develop­
ment also provides an internationally agreed framework of quantitative
41
New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49
Description and rationale for inclusion Reference
The report contains a list of bioeconomy case studies with identified
[12]
links to SDGs.
The methodology identifies SDG indicators related to the bioeconomy
and potential coupling of reporting. The direct links provided in this
[13]
study with SDG indicators were taken into account to assign P&C impact
categories accordingly.
The report contains a list of bioeconomy case studies with identified
links to SDGs. The identified SDGs were used to determine the SDG
[16]
indicators depending on the context provided, and then these indicators
were matched to P&C-derived impact categories.
The report contains a list of bioeconomy case studies with identified
links to both P&Cs and SDG targets. These links are used to identify the [17,18]
relevant P&C-derived impact categories and SDG indicators.
The methodology identifies SDG targets related to the green economy.
Only those indicators relevant to bioeconomy are considered within the
[19]
scope of the analysis in order to identify relevant P&C-derived impact
categories and associated SDG indicators.
The study reveals links between SDG targets and circular economy
impact categories. The circular economy impact categories were used to
[20]
identify P&C-derived impact categories, which then are matched to SDG
indicators of the mentioned targets.
This report identifies the SDGs relevant to biomass production. This
information was used to identify the relevant SDG indicators and P&C [21]
impact categories within the context of the report.
This report links bioenergy indicators to SDG indicators for potentials in
coupled reporting. The relevant bioenergy indicators were used to
[22]
identify P&C-derived impact categories to reveal their links to SDG
indicators.
This platform shows relevant SDGs regarding sustainable production and
consumption, with an emphasis on bioproducts, and was used to identify [23]
the relevant SDGs for bioproducts.
This article identifies relevant P&Cs in the context of bioproducts. The
identified P&C were linked to impact categories, and were used to
identify P&C impact category – SDG indicator pairs relevant to [14]
bioproducts in the “Sustainable Consumption and Production Indicators
for the future SDGs” report.
This report links indicators related to sustainable consumption and
production to SDGs. The bioproduct-related indicators were identified
[15]
using the “Overview of Indicators for Bio-Based Products Used in
Certification and Labelling” report.
evaluation of achieving sustainability goals, through which countries
are expected to report their progress. Accordingly, one way to evaluate
the sustainability of bioeconomy would be by coupling its monitoring
and evaluation with SDG reporting. In alignment with this approach,
identification of links between bioeconomy and SDGs as a cornerstone
has been emphasized as a crucial step towards agreeing on global pri­
orities and assessment methods for sustainable bioeconomy [5]. In
parallel, the final report of the Global Bioeconomy Summit acknowl­
edges the potential of the bioeconomy to support the achievement of
some SDGs [1]. In this regard, the objective of this work is to lay out the
opportunities to link bioeconomy monitoring and evaluation with SDG
indicators.
To date, a very limited number of studies have revealed links be­
tween SDGs and bioeconomy. At the first Global Bioeconomy Summit in
November 2015 in Berlin, the close relationship between SDGs and
bioeconomy was mentioned by Jeffrey Sachs for the first time in public
on a global level [9]. Others roughly mentioned which SDGs could be
affected by bioeconomy activities [5]. A literature-based scenario
analysis has been performed to identify how the bioeconomy activities
potentially affect the targets of the SDGs [10], with discussion of the
findings for several SDGs. In another relevant study, the stakeholder
opinions on monitoring bioeconomy and relevant SDGs were revealed
[11]. However, none of these studies emphasizes the integrated nature
of both SDGs and bioeconomy. The present study aims to fill this gap in
the literature in order to facilitate further future quantitative analysis, as
well as to guide policymakers on the sustainability implications of their
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49

bioeconomy strategies by taking into account the holistic picture of SDG

interactions and bioeconomy strategic objectives. To this end, analogous
to normative SDGs and their quantifiable indicators, the P&Cs and
P&C-derived (potentially quantifiable) impact categories were used to
enable identification of the links between bioeconomy development and
SDGs, in terms of coupled monitoring and evaluation potential.
Several reports linking the monitoring and evaluation of bioeconomy
strategies and practices to SDGs, their targets and indicators, are already
available to some extent in the literature. This study attempts to analyze
and harmonize the outcomes of several such efforts systematically. In
addition, since certain similarities, analogies and intersections exist
between bioeconomy and related concepts such as green economy, cir­
cular economy, and responsible production and consumption (of bio­
economy end products; i.e. biomass, bioenergy, biomaterials and
bioproducts), several such reports and studies linking these concepts
with SDGs have also been considered as part of the analysis.

Methodology

A survey was conducted to identify relevant work (technical reports,

scientific articles, and case study briefs). The studies analysed all pro­
vide links between monitoring of a given subject of interest relevant to
bioeconomy and SDGs. Although the literature on bioeconomy and
related concepts and how they link to sustainability is abundant, this
report limits the analysis to the literature that mentions direct links to
SDGs [12–23]. The list of the relevant resources analysed is given in
Table 1. In addition, background information on concepts related to
bioeconomy sustainability, including a brief survey of existing litera­
ture, as well as related concepts (i.e. green economy, circular economy,
and responsible production and consumption) and their links to SDGs
are provided as Supplementary Information (S1: Background and liter­
ature review).
This study consists of two methodological stages: (1) analysis and
harmonization of the existing literature on linking bioeconomy and
SDGs, and (2) synthesis of the analysed literature to provide the overall
picture on how bioeconomy can be linked to SDG reporting.
Analysis and harmonization of selected bioeconomy-related work and
concepts with links to the SDGs
In order to reveal coupled reporting opportunities mentioned in the
existing literature between bioeconomy and SDGs, the quantifiable
impact categories derived from P&Cs as described in the FAO report
“Indicators to Monitor and Evaluate the Sustainability of Bioeconomy” [6]
were adopted (Table S1).
Following the adoption of the P&C-derived impact categories,
existing bioeconomy-related work and methodologies with links to SDGs
were analyzed on a spreadsheet, in the form of a gap analysis, by
assigning up to three impact categories per SDG indicator in accordance
with the conceptual link provided in the analyzed literature. Ultimately,
the contents of all studies were used to match P&C impact categories to
SDG indicators according to the concepts mentioned. For example, if in a
case study, the direct link to an SDG was provided, the relevant P&C
impact category and the corresponding SDG indicator were identified
and matched. If the analyzed study provided a link between the bio­
economy or a related concept and a particular SDG indicator, then only
the relevant P&C impact category was identified, in alignment with the
context. This way, all studies were harmonized by assigning P&C-
derived impact categories and SDG indicator matches. In many cases,
more than one P&C impact category was linked to a particular SDG, and
vice versa. The schematic description of the harmonization process is
provided in Fig. 1.
The impact categories are classified in terms of the three dimensions
of sustainability (i.e. social, environmental and economic). However,
this classification is tentative and inconclusive, as the classification can
vary depending on the context. For example, the P&C impact category
Fig. 1. Explanation of the harmonization methodology. The P&C-derived
impact categories are linked to SDG indicators according to available literature.
‘Land for biomass production (1.2.c)’ is classified as environmental in
order to underline the sustainable intensification emphasis of the asso­
ciated P&C. However, land for biomass production can also entail social
and economic consequences. Yet, there are other P&C-derived impact
categories for land, focusing on other dimensions (i.e. land rights – so­
cial, and yield/agricultural productivity – economic).
Synthesis of selected bioeconomy-related work and concepts with links to
the SDGs
Following the analysis of relevant literature and its harmonization
across P&C-impact categories and SDG indicators, a network diagram of
P&C impact categories and SDGs was constructed in order to synthesise
the findings (NodeXL, Version 1.2). In this way, the network of P&C
impact categories and SDG indicator pairs was visualized. In cases where
more than one indicator of an SDG was linked to a particular impact
category, the weight of the link was increased accordingly. The SDGs
were clustered (grouped) by taking into account the degree of common
links they shared with P&C impact categories. The clusters were formed
using the Clauset–Newman–Moone algorithm [24]. The most frequently
encountered links between SDGs and the bioeconomy, as well as the
formed clusters from the perspective of bioeconomy deployment, are
presented in the Results.
Results and discussion
Analysis and harmonization of the selected studies linking bioeconomy and
SDGs
This section shows how the bioeconomy monitoring and evaluation
can be coupled with SDG reporting, according to selected literature. The
detailed analysis and harmonization process carried out for each
reviewed resource can be found as Supplementary Information (S2:
Analysis of selected literature). Herein, the P&C impact categories with
their corresponding SDG indicators that pose coupled reporting are
presented (Table 2). The results suggest that bioeconomy monitoring
and evaluation can provide opportunities in terms of SDG reporting, in
all three dimensions of sustainability, through reporting on P&C impact

42
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49

Table 2
P&C impact categories with contribution potential to SDG reporting. The signs next to each impact category indicates whether it is considered from social (square),
economic (diamond), or environmental (circle) context in this study.
Principles and Criteria Impact Category SDG Indicators

1.1. Food security and nutrition are □

1.1.a Food security 1.1.1 2.1.2 2.c.1 2.1.1
supported □
1.1.b Nutrition 2.1.1
◆
1.2.a Domestic biomass
production
1.2. Sustainable intensification of ◆
1.2.b Yield/agricultural
2.4.1 2.3.1
biomass production is promoted productivity
○1.2.c Land for biomass
15.1.1 15.1.2
production
1.3. Adequate land rights and rights to □
1.3.a Land rights 1.4.2 2.3.1 2.3.2
other natural resources are □
1.3.b Rights to other
14.b.1
guaranteed natural resources
□
1.4.a Food safety 2.4.1
□
1.4.b Disease/hazards
1.4. Food safety, disease prevention
prevention (in biomass 8.8.1 3.9.1 3.9.2 3.9.3
and human health are ensured
production and processing)
□
1.4.c Human health 3.9.1 3.9.2 3.9.3
2.1. Biodiversity conservation is ○2.1.a Biodiversity
14.4.1 15.4.1 15.5.1 15.8.1 2.4.1 15.1.2
ensured conservation
○2.2.a Climate change

mitigation (carbon and 9.4.1 13.2.1

2.2. Climate change mitigation and
other GHG emissions)
adaptation are pursued
○2.2.b Climate change

adaptation
○2.3.a Water quality 6.3.1 6.3.2
2.3. Water quality and quantity are
○2.3.b Water quantity/use/
maintained, and, enhanced 6.4.1 6.4.2
efficiency
○2.4.a Land use change 15.1.1 15.1.2
○2.4.b Soil quality 15.3.1
○2.4.c Soil quantity 2.4.1 15.3.1
○2.4.d Forest quality 15.2.1 15.1.1
○2.4.e Forest quantity 15.2.1 15.1.1
2.4. The degradation of land, soil, ○2.4.f Marine environments’
14.1.1 14.5.1 14.3.1
forests and marine environments is quality
prevented, stopped or reversed ○2.4.g Marine
14.5.1
environments’ quantity
○2.4.h Air quality 11.6.2
○2.4.i Hazardous substances

in production and 12.4.1 12.4.2

processing
◆
3.1.a Economic
3.1. Economic development is fostered 1.2.1 1.2.2 8.1.1 8.2.1 8.5.1 2.3.2 10.1.1 7.3.1 9.2.1 14.7.1
development
◆
3.2.a Employment 8.3.1 8.5.2 8.1.1 8.2.1
□
3.2.b Working conditions 8.8.2
□
3.2.c Access to basic
3.2. Inclusive economic growth is 1.4.1 3.9.1 3.9.2 3.9.3 6.1.1 6.2.1 7.1.1 7.1.2 4.6.1
services
strengthened □
3.2.d Energy security 7.1.1 7.1.2 7.2.1 7.3.1
□
3.2.e Equality 2.3.2 5.4.1 8.5.1 8.5.2 10.1.1 10.2.1
□
3.2.f Gender equality 5.1.1 5.5.2 8.5.1 8.3.1 4.6.1 5.4.1
□
3.2.g Inclusiveness 4.4.1 1.4.2 2.3.1 5.5.2 10.2.1 4.6.1
◆
3.3.a Rural income
diversification
◆
3.3.b Linkages between
3.3. Resilience of the rural and urban 9.1.1 11.a.1
rural and urban economy
economy is enhanced ◆
3.3.c Physical
9.1.1 9.1.2
infrastructure
◆
3.3.d Financial stability
4.1. The sustainability of urban centres □
4.1.a Sustainability of
11.6.1 11.3.2
is enhanced urban centres
□
4.2.a Resilience of biomass
10.4.1
producers
4.2. Resilience of biomass producers, □
4.2.b Resilience of rural
rural communities and ecosystems is communities - social 1.3.1
developed and/or strengthened protection
4.2.c Resilience of
○

14.2.1
ecosystems
○5.1.a Resource efficiency 8.4.1 12.2.1
5.1. Resource efficiency, waste ○5.1.b Energy efficiency 7.3.1 7.a.1
prevention and waste re-use along ○5.1.c Waste prevention

the whole bioeconomy value chain is ○5.1.d Waste re-use 6.2.1 11.6.1 12.5.1 6.3.1 6.4.1 6.4.2
improved ○5.1.e Waste treatment and
6.3.1 12.4.1 12.4.2
hazardous waste
○5.2.a Food loss and waste
12.3.1 11.6.1
minimization
(continued on next page)

43
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49

Table 2 (continued )
Principles and Criteria Impact Category SDG Indicators

5.2. Food loss and waste is minimized

5.2.b Food waste re-use or
and, when unavoidable, its biomass
○

recycling
is re-used or recycled
□
6.1.a Coherent policies,
6.1. Policies, regulations and regulations in the 14.c.1
institutional set up relevant to bioeconomy sectors
bioeconomy sectors are adequately □
6.1.b Coherent
harmonized institutional set-up in the
bioeconomy sectors
□
6.2.a Consultation
6.2. Inclusive consultation processes
processes and engagement
and engagement of all relevant 17.16.1
of all relevant sectors of
sectors of society are adequate and
society
based on transparent sharing of □
6.2.b Transparent sharing
information 4.7.1 12.6.1
of information
6.3. Appropriate risk assessment and ◆
6.3.a Risk assessment and
management, monitoring and management
accountability systems are put in ◆
6.3.b Monitoring and
place and implemented accountability systems
□
7.1.a Existing knowledge
◆
7.1.b Proven sound
7.1. Existing knowledge is adequately 12.a.1
technologies
valued and proven sound □
7.1.c Capacity
technologies are fostered
development (extension
services)
◆
7.2.a Knowledge
generation/(high level) 4.3.1 4.4.1 12.8.1 4.7.1
7.2. Knowledge generation and
education
innovation are promoted ◆
7.2.b Research and
9.5.1 14.a.1
innovation
◆
8.1.a Net trade of raw
17.11.1
biomass
◆
8.1.b Value added of
2.3.2
8.1. Local economies are not be processed biomass
hampered but rather harnessed by ◆
8.1.c Net trade of
the trade of raw and processed processed biomass
biomass, and related technologies ◆
8.1.d Net trade of biomass-
17.11.1
related technologies
◆
8 8.1.e Sustainable market
12.6.1 17.11.1
practices and trade policy
◆
9.1.a Sustainable
9.1. Consumption patterns of 8.4.2 8.4.1 12.2.2 12.5.1 14.7.1 12.a.1 15.2.1 12.2.1 14.4.1
consumption
bioeconomy goods match sustainable
○9.1.b Reducing dependence
supply levels of biomass 7.1.2 7.2.1 12.2.1 13.2.1
on non-renewable resources
◆
9.2.a Market mechanisms
influencing supply and
9.2. Demand and supply- side market
demand of food and non-
mechanisms and policy coherence
food goods
between supply and demand of food ◆
9.2.b Policy coherence
and non-food goods are enhanced
between supply and demand 12.1.1 14.6.1 17.10.1
of food and non-food goods
□
10.1.a International
2.a.1 2.a.2 9.b.1 17.16.1 4.7.1
10.1. Cooperation, collaboration and Cooperation
sharing of resources, skills and ◆
10.1.b Collaboration
technologies are enhanced when and between private sector
17.16.1
where appropriate actors (e.g. licensing,
contract)

categories. Fifty-five bioeconomy impact categories are linked to at least
one SDG indicator. Except for the criterion 6.3, ‘Appropriate risk
assessment and management, monitoring and accountability systems
are put in place and implemented,’ all P&Cs are linked to at least one
SDG indicator. Monitoring and evaluation of bioeconomy can be linked
to the reporting of several SDGs (number of SDG indicator links iden­
tified given in parentheses) related to economic development (10), ac­
cess to basic services (9), and sustainable consumption (9), followed by
biodiversity conservation (6), waste re-use (6), equality (6), gender
equality (6), inclusiveness (6) and international cooperation (5).
Some bioeconomy P&Cs are left with no links identified with SDG
indicators. However, this does not imply that a link does not exist. This
difference might be due to the context of the documents and reports
analysed here. For example, domestic biomass production is found to
have no potential in terms of SDG reporting; however, depending on the
country context and their trade relationship, this impact category might
have links to an SDG indicator, potentially under SDG 17. However, such
links are very much dependent on the specifics of a country’s strategic
objectives related to bioeconomy, and for further analysis of the links,
analysis of the country context is necessary [17].
Synthesis of the selected literature: Common links between SDGs and
bioeconomy impact categories
In current literature linking bioeconomy and SDGs, some SDGs have
been mentioned more than others, i.e. bioeconomy strategies have been

44
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski
Fig. 2. SDG clusters in terms of their relationship with sustainable bioeconomy impact categories derived from International Sustainable Bioeconomy Working
Group’s aspirational Principles and Criteria. Disk colours show various clusters identified using Claust–Newman–Moone algorithm. SDG disk sizes are proportional to
the number of total links (degrees) identified. Line widths are in proportion to the number of bioeconomy impact categories–SDG indicator pairs identified during the
analysis of available literature (min 1, max 4).
considered to have stronger potentials in contribution to the attainment
of several SDGs, compared to others (Fig. 2). SDG 12 ‘Sustainable pro­
duction and consumption’ is found to strongly benefit from bioeconomy
development, and reveals a high potential for linking monitoring and
evaluation activities. Other SDGs following SDG12 are (number of
different impact categories with identified links in parentheses): SDG 2
(11), SDG 14 (9), SDG 8 (8), SDG 1 (6), SDG 9 (6), SDG 6 (5), SDG 7 (5),
SDG 11 (5), SDG 3 (4), SDG 5 (4), and SDG 10 (4). Interestingly, the
lowest number of linked impact categories were identified for SDG 13,
‘Climate action.’ One possible explanation for this observation is that,
rather than the direct link to climate change impact categories, from the
point of view of reporting opportunities, related SDGs such as SDG 7
“Affordable and clean energy” have more direct links to related impact
categories, such as replacement of fossil-based resources. Nevertheless,
SDG 7 and SDG13 are found to be closely linked in the bioeconomy
monitoring and evaluation context.
Since all SDGs also interact with each other, it is important to
demonstrate how the bioeconomy reinforces these interactions. For this
purpose, the SDGs can be clustered, considering the common P&Cs they
share, as described in the Methodology section. The results further
elaborate on the preliminary findings on inter-related SDGs, i.e. SDG
clusters based on the current evidence in the bioeconomy literature.
The clusters show the degree of integration between SDGs, from the
point of view of the bioeconomy literature. The clusters are formed
based on the number of shared P&C impact categories; thus, they reflect
the degree of relevance in terms of coupled reporting. Although it is a
convenient visualization tool, the clustering algorithms also have their
limitations. Therefore, the results must not be taken as conclusive in
45
New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49
prioritizing SDGs. In addition, although the clusters may indicate the
areas of synergies, they should not be accounted for as enough evidence
per se to draw conclusions on synergies or trade-offs without a given
context. In addition, trade-offs are inevitable among SDGs due to bio­
economy activities. Therefore, the discussion in this section exemplifies
bioeconomy strategic objectives where appropriate.
Cluster 1 (SDG1, SDG 2, SDG 5, and SDG 10): Bioeconomy impact
categories cluster ‘end poverty’, ‘zero hunger’, ‘gender equality’ and
‘reduced inequalities’. This cluster emphasizes the socio-economic im­
provements that bioeconomy strategies can bring if, after implementa­
tion, they are adjusted according to monitoring results and management
decisions are taken with a sustainability focus and a focus on
inclusiveness.
Cluster 2 (SDG 4, SDG 6, SDG 11, and SDG 12): This cluster inter-
relates ‘quality education’, ‘clean water and sanitation’, ‘sustainable
cities and communities’ and ‘responsible consumption and production’.
This observation is particularly interesting in the context of the bio­
economy, as it emphasizes the unique opportunities of knowledge gen­
eration potential, including that for reviving indigenous knowledge
through the bioeconomy, on waste (particularly wastewater, urban
waste and food waste) valorization, which has been a widely adopted
strategy worldwide [25].
Cluster 3 (SDG 9, SDG 17): This cluster contains the SDGs ‘industry,
innovation and infrastructure’ and ‘partnership for the goals’, which
emphasizes that international cooperation stands out especially in terms
of knowledge sharing, trade of technologies and sustainable market
practices (considering the available supply and demand of biomass and
bio-based goods) for bioeconomy deployment. Although the statistical
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski
Fig. 3. The links between aspirational bioeconomy principles and SDGs. Arrow thickness does not represent relative weight of the links.
information on innovative non-food uses of biomass is difficult to obtain
[26], the innovation and knowledge base is the main driver for many
countries for an inclusive industrial development [27].
Cluster 4 (SDG 3, SDG 7, and SDG 13): This cluster contains the
SDGs ‘good health and wellbeing’, ‘affordable and clean energy’ and
‘climate action’. The monitoring and evaluation of bioeconomy strate­
gies relevant to energy security, and access to basic services by offering a
non-fossil alternative for energy access (e.g. biowaste-to-energy systems
[28]) can have potentials in coupling with SDGs within this cluster. The
climate benefit impacts of such strategies, along with the associated
impacts on the wellbeing of society, can be captured in this cluster.
However, the positive relationship between bioeconomy and this cluster
is only possible with intentional considerations of the sustainability
aspects. For example, a bioeconomy strategy leading to deforestation
would not only be unsustainable in itself, but would also lead to sig­
nificant adverse impacts on the climate.
46
New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49
As expected, SDG 8 is central to Cluster 1 and SDG12, when
monitoring and evaluation through P&C-derived impact categories are
considered. This shows the equidistant nature of SDG 8 (decent work
and economic growth) to socio-economic aspects, sustainable produc­
tion, and innovation in the bioeconomy, which explains why it is not
part of any cluster but rather a cross-cutting issue. This finding implies
that decent work and economic growth in the bioeconomy context
would help reduce inequalities, end poverty and hunger and promote
sustainable production and consumption. While acknowledging this
potentially positive impact, it is also important to note the potential
negative consequences on socio-economic wellbeing, if not developed
sustainably. Inequalities in bioeconomy development can, for instance,
be reduced through women empowerment or the development of small
and medium scale enterprises. It is therefore key that decent work and
economic growth are not assumed to be automatic consequences of
bioeconomy development, but rather pre-requisites to develop the
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski
bioeconomy in a sustainable way.
SDG 14 and SDG 15, on the other hand, are directly linked to P&C
impact categories that are not shared with other SDGs, i.e. most of the
impact categories linked to each of these SDGs are only linked to them
but not others. This shows that links on reporting bioeconomy moni­
toring and evaluation through identified impact categories and SDGs on
‘life on land’ and ‘life below water’ are relatively straightforward. For
instance, a bioeconomy strategy enhancing restoration of carbon by
forestation and biodiversity would have direct implications for SDG 15
[25]. Furthermore, SDG 14 and 15 are prerequisites for the bioeconomy.
For example, life under water underpins the blue economy [29], while
biodiversity and life on land are essential for a sustainable terrestrial
bioeconomy. Therefore, the links between related P&C impact cate­
gories and SDG indicators for biodiversity and oceans are more direct in
general, i.e. not shared with other SDGs, and hence not in a cluster.
In some cases, multiple SDG indicators are linked to a particular
impact category, which increases the weight of the links. For example,
the P&C impact category of ’sustainable consumption (9.1.a)’ corre­
sponds to both SDG indicators 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 (Table 2). The maximum
of such multiple SDG – impact category pairs is observed to be four
(Fig. 2), which means that depending on the context of a given bio­
economy strategy, there can be multiple SDG indicators to benefit from
the reporting in bioeconomy.
The presented results stem from the direct links found in the litera­
ture between the bioeconomy and SDGs; yet, considering that all SDGs
also have inter-linkages [30], the actual web of interactions is arguably
much more complex. In addition, trade-offs and synergies among
bioeconomy-related SDGs might add to this complexity [31]. For
example, no direct links between SDG 16 and any impact category
are evident in the literature analysed. However, as a core principle,
operating in a sustainable, i.e. ‘safe and just’, space inherently encom­
passes SDG 16 and overall makes SDG 16 cross-cutting to the bio­
economy. The complexity of these links is more evident in the level of
the normative frameworks, i.e. SDGs and aspirational P&Cs, rather than
the resolution of quantifiable indicators and impact categories used in
our analysis. In a more general, aspirational context, Fig. 3 shows the
links of bioeconomy principles to SDGs. In this figure, the linked impact
categories are grouped under the associated principle in order to
simplify Fig. 2.
Prioritization of bioeconomy strategic objectives considering their
contribution to SDGs in a country context
The results presented the preceding section show that the link of the
bioeconomy to the SDGs can vary greatly depending on the bioeconomy
strategic objectives of the country. Therefore, the results presented in
this report are not sufficient to prioritize the SDGs at the country level. In
order to do so, apart from the clusters identified, the country objectives
will be of particular importance together with geographic and political
specifics that will determine what the greatest monitoring needs are.
These factors change both (1) core sustainability objectives of the
country (in turn, SDG priorities), and (2) trade-offs associated with the
main bioeconomy strategic objective.
In order to prioritize the bioeconomy strategies and accordingly
determine the relevant SDGs at the country level, further work is
necessary, as this task would require a thorough assessment of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats that can result from the imple­
mentation of a particular bioeconomy strategy. The clusters presented in
the Results section could be the starting points for evaluating the rele­
vant principles and criteria and derived impact categories for the
country objectives attributed to bioeconomy development. An example
list of the relationship between the clusters and the bioeconomy objec­
tives are given in Table 3. More information on the bioeconomy strategic
objectives can be found in the FAO report entitled Towards Sustainable
Bioeconomy – Lessons learned from case studies [17].
47
New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49
Table 3
SDG clusters by bioeconomy impact categories and corresponding bioeconomy
objective examples.
SDGs Examples of country bioeconomy development
objectives
Cluster 1 (SDG1, SDG2, SDG5, - To create and secure employment through in situ
and SDG10) and SDG8: value addition and enhance rural and urban
economic resilience
- To establish local fair and equitable value chains
or webs by increasing inclusiveness and
information flows
- To increase profitability by adding value to
biomass
- To promote sustainable consumption and raise
the awareness and acceptance among consumers
and manufacturers about the goods and services
provided by the bioeconomy
- To safeguard food security
- To support vulnerable stakeholders who act as
guardians of natural resources, including low-
income communities, smallholder agricultural
producers and indigenous peoples
Cluster 2 (SDG4, SDG6, - To incentivize the sustainable and efficient use of
SDG11, and SDG12) and biological resources while protecting biodiversity,
SDG8: water and the soil (with the addition of SDG14 and
SDG15)
- To promote actions that contribute to the
revitalization and development of rural areas
- To move towards a more circular bioeconomy
- To promote synergies and reduce trade-offs
between biomass uses while meeting the growing
demand for food and non-food goods
Cluster 3 (SDG9, SDG17): - To position the country as an international leader
in the bioeconomy and improve its global
competitiveness in trade and research
- To support research, development and innovation
and put it into practice to accelerate the
deployment of sustainable bioeconomy
Cluster 4 (SDG3, SDG7, and - To mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate
SDG13): change and reduce environmental pollution
- To substitute fossil-based or unsustainably
sourced products with sustainable bioproducts
Limitations and proposed way forward
This study has identified the relevance of bioeconomy indicators and
their links to SDGs through a holistic, top-down desk exercise. However,
in the country context, the opinions of stakeholders will have the utmost
importance [11]. This work, in parallel, can guide countries on potential
links to consider between bioeconomy and SDGs, in order to highlight
those that are in alignment with their bioeconomy strategies, while also
pointing out those which risk being overlooked as a result of their de­
cisions. In this regard, this work concludes by proposing the steps in
Fig. 4 as a way forward to identify, monitor, and evaluate the links
between bioeconomy and SDGs.
The outcomes of this SDG assessment could feed into existing and
forthcoming bioeconomy monitoring and evaluation frameworks of
countries and regions. To this end, the FAO has reviewed existing
monitoring frameworks for the bioeconomy and its various sectors, and,
based on the results, has developed a concept to comprehensively
monitor and evaluate the sustainability of the bioeconomy at territorial
and product/value chain levels [6], which is briefly showcased in Box 1.
Conclusions
This work has demonstrated links between the bioeconomy and the
2030 Sustainable Development Agenda by exploring the potentials of
using SDG indicators for the monitoring and evaluation of the bio­
economy. The results suggested that bioeconomy monitoring and eval­
uation can provide opportunities to be coupled with reporting on SDGs
across all three dimensions of sustainability, especially those related to
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49

Fig. 4. Way forward for context-specific determination of links between bioeconomy and SDGs.

Box 1
FAO’s Work on Indicators to Monitor and Evaluate the Sustainability of Bioeconomy: Overview and a proposed way forward.

FAO’s work on sustainability indicators aims to provide technical assistance to countries and stakeholders in developing and monitoring sus­
tainable bioeconomy, particularly on identifying suitable indicators in line with the P&Cs in the context of FAO’s project on Sustainable Bio­
economy Guidelines. These indicators shall help both policymakers and producers/manufacturers in monitoring and evaluating the
sustainability of their bioeconomy strategies and interventions.
The concept suggests a balanced and stepwise monitoring and evaluation approach, considering all three dimensions of sustainability (i.e.,
social, economic, and environmental); while proposing a limited set of core indicators to keep the monitoring technically and economically
feasible. The authors identified two sets of indicators: (1) at territorial level (which includes bioeconomy-relevant SDG indicators), and (2) at
product/value chain level, including indicators that are used for standards, certificates, and labels.
The recommended methodology demands stakeholder and expert engagement in identifying relevant criteria and indicators based on a
participatory approach, also leaving room for flexibility to reflect the circumstances and specific needs of the stakeholders. It also facilitates
addition of new indicators to improve the monitoring approach over time, and to adapt indicators to the evolving sector and policy needs.

economic development (e.g. SDG 8), access to food security (e.g. SDG 2),
and sustainable consumption (e.g. SDG 12). In addition, bioeconomy
monitoring and evaluation revealed potential synergies for reporting
SDG indicators related to biodiversity conservation, waste re-use,
gender equality, inclusiveness, and international cooperation.
This report has used a variety of resources on relevant methodologies
and case studies relating the bioeconomy and relevant concepts to SDGs.
Therefore, the results reflect the current opinion in the literature, which
is subject to change over time. The current literature landscape shows
that the link of bioeconomy to SDGs can vary considerably depending on
the strategic objectives that a country selects for its bioeconomy.
Therefore, in order to formulate bioeconomy strategies to facilitate
progress in related SDGs, the country context will be of particular
importance, as it may change the core sustainability objectives of the
country (and in turn, SDG implementation strategies).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded in the framework of FAO project GCP/GLO/
724/GER “Towards Sustainable Bioeconomy Guidelines” supported by
the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). For
reviewing this work and providing inputs, the authors are particularly
grateful to: Olivier Dubois, Senior Natural Resources Officer; Stefania
Bracco PhD, Economist; Marta Gomez San Juan, Consultant on Bio­
economy, and Almona Tani PhD, Consultant on Bioeconomy at FAO.
The views expressed in this report reflect those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations or the World Bank Group.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.010.
References
[1] Global Bioeconomy Summit. Innovation in the global bioeconomy for sustainable
and inclusive transformation and wellbeing. Berlin. 2018. https://gbs2018.com/fi
leadmin/gbs2018/GBS_2018_Report_web.pdf.
[2] Bracco S, Calicioglu O, Gomez San Juan M, Flammini A. Assessing the contribution
of bioeconomy to the total economy: a review of national frameworks. Sustain
2018;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061698.
[3] Hildebrandt J, Bezama A, Thran D. Establishing a robust sustainability index for
the assessment of bioeconomy regions. Proc. 2014 Int. Conf. Util. Exhib. Green
Energy Sustain. Dev. ICUE 2014 2014. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome
/6820090/proceeding.

48
Ö. Calicioglu and A. Bogdanski
[4] Sikkema R, Dallemand JF, Matos CT, van der Velde M, San-Miguel-Ayanz J. How
can the ambitious goals for the EU’s future bioeconomy be supported by
sustainable and efficient wood sourcing practices? Scand J For Res 2017;32:551–8.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2016.1240228.
[5] El-Chichakli B, Von Braun J, Lang C, Barben D, Policy Philp J. Five cornerstones of
a global bioeconomy. Nature 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/535221a.
[6] Bracco S, Tani A, Çalıcıoğlu Ö, Gomez San Juan M, Bogdanski A. Indicators to
monitor and evaluate the sustainability of bioeconomy development. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2019. http://www.fao.
org/3/ca6048en/ca6048en.pdf.
[7] UN-ESC. Work on the review of progress towards the Sustainable Development
Goals. 2017. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/48th-session/documents/
2017-4-SDG-SG-E.pdf.
[8] United Nations General Assembly. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on
6 July 2017 - Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. 2017. http://ggim.un.org/documents/A_RES_71_313.
pdf.
[9] Sachs J, Global Bioeconomy Summit. Conference Proceedings. 2015. https://gbs20
15.com/fileadmin/gbs2015/Downloads/GBS2015_01_Proceedings.pdf.
[10] Heimann T. Bioeconomy and SDGs: does the bioeconomy support the achievement
of the SDGs? Earth’s Futur 2019;7:43–57. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018EF001014.
[11] Zeug W, Bezama A, Moesenfechtel U, Jähkel A, Thrän D. Stakeholders’ interests
and perceptions of bioeconomy monitoring using a sustainable development goal
framework. Sustain 2019;11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061511.
[12] BIC. Bioeconomy and the UN sustainable development goals: a view from the bio-
based industries consortium. Brussels. 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge
4policy/organisation/bic-bio-based-industries-consortium_en.
[13] Schweinle J, Geng N, Iost S, Weimar H, Jochem D. Monitoring sustainability effects
of the bioeconomy: a material flow based approach using the example of softwood
lumber and its core product epal 1 pallet. Sustainability 2020;12(6):2444. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12062444.
[14] Bracco S, Calicioglu Ö, Flammini A, San Juan MG, Bogdanski A. Analysis of
standards, certifications and labels for bio-based products in the context of
sustainable bioeconomy. Int J Stand Res 2020. https://doi.org/10.4018/
ijsr.2019010101.
[15] UNEP. Sustainable consumption and production indicators for the future SDGs.
2015. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2301SCP%
20indicators.pdf.
[16] EUBA. The crucial role of the bioeconomy in achieving the UN sustainable
development goals. Brussels; 2018. https://bioeconomyalliance.eu/sites/default/
files/EUBA%20SDGs%20final.pdf.
[17] Gómez San Juan M, Bogdanski A, Dubois O. Towards Sustainable Bioeconomy -
Lessons learnt from 26 case studies. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations; 2019. http://www.fao.org/3/ca4352en/ca4352en.pdf.
49
New BIOTECHNOLOGY 61 (2021) 40–49
[18] Gómez San Juan M. Profiles of 26 bioeconomy case studies. Background material
for the FAO publication towards Sustainable Bioeconomy. Lessons learnt from 26
case studies. Rome. 2019. http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/
CA4352EN/.
[19] PAGE. The green economy progress measurement framework - application. 2017.
https://www.un-page.org/files/public/green_economy_progress_measureme
nt_framework_application.pdf.
[20] Schroeder P, Anggraeni K, Weber U. The relevance of circular economy practices to
the sustainable development goals. J Ind Ecol 2018;00:1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jiec.12732.
[21] Müller A, Weigelt J, Götz A, Schmidt O, Alva Lobos I, Matuschke I, et al. The role of
biomass in the sustainable development goals : a reality check and governance
implications. Potsdam 2015. https://doi.org/10.2312/iass.2015.010.
[22] Fritsche UR, Eppler U, Fehrenbach H, Giegrich J. Linkages between the sustainable
development goals (SDGs) and the GBEP sustainability indictors for bioenergy
(GSI). 2018. p. 41.
[23] UN Environment. Eco-labelling knowledge platform. 2018. https://www.unen
vironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/responsible-ind
ustry/eco-labelling.
[24] Clauset A, Newman MEJ, Moore C. Finding community structure in very large
networks. Phys Rev E 2004;70.
[25] Sadhukhan J, Martinez-Hernandez E, Murphy RJ, Ng DKS, Hassim MH, Siew
Ng DKS, et al. Role of bioenergy, biorefinery and bioeconomy in sustainable
development: strategic pathways for Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:
1966–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.007.
[26] Schütte G. What kind of innovation policy does the bioeconomy need?
N Biotechnol 2018;40:82–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.04.003.
[27] Lokko Y, Heijde M, Schebesta K, Scholtès P, Van Montagu M, Giacca M.
Biotechnology and the bioeconomy—towards inclusive and sustainable industrial
development. N Biotechnol 2018;40:5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nbt.2017.06.005.
[28] Bell J, Paula L, Dodd T, Németh S, Nanou C, Mega V, et al. EU ambition to build the
world’s leading bioeconomy—uncertain times demand innovative and sustainable
solutions. N Biotechnol 2018;40:25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nbt.2017.06.010.
[29] Rickels W, Weigand C, Grasse P, Schmidt J, Voss R. Does the european union
achieve comprehensive blue growth? Progress of EU coastal states in the baltic and
North Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean against sustainable development goal 14. Kiel
2018.
[30] Pradhan P, Costa L, Rybski D, Lucht W, Kropp JP. A systematic study of sustainable
development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Futur 2017;5:1169–79. https://doi.
org/10.1002/eft2.266.
[31] Ronzon T, Sanjuán AI. Friends or foes? A compatibility assessment of bioeconomy-
related Sustainable Development Goals for European policy coherence. J Clean
Prod 2020;254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119832.