since it also puts another value of resources that earlier was only regarded as waste
and as a burden to be minimised. This is one of the differences to be considered in
the life cycles of the two material streams, linear and circular. In circular material
streams, there are also some differences to be done when considering renewable
resources or finite resources cycles. Therefore, the session was focusing on circularity opportunities and challenges for bio-based materials.
2 Session Contributions
For this session, both theoretical and practical examples, relating to a variety of
industrial sectors and bio-based materials were welcomed, and the submission of
abstracts resulted in five oral presentations and six posters. The session ended with
a brief panel discussion where the presenters were invited to share their view on the
variety of challenges and opportunities for their product or sector.
2.1 Oral Presentations
The first presentation on “Wood products circularity and the biodiversity challenge”
was given by Christian Bauer, SIG [1]. Wood is a major input for many circular
products, including half of all packaging material. Within the assessment methods
to quantify the circularity potential, such as Life Cycle Assessment, there are
limitations regarding the evaluation of impacts on biodiversity, for instance due to
the complexity of the characterization of land use and land use change, and to the
lack of consideration of forest management on landscape level and labelling, as
done through certified forestry management. Therefore, practitioners and
decision-makers prefer to look at other impact categories, such as climate change
and water use. Starting from the existing work of UNEP SETAC and other significant existing methods, a new methodology relying on landscape management
system was proposed in order to establish characterization factors aiming at integrating forest management practices and biodiversity.
The second presentation by Serenella Sala, European Commissions had the title
“Bioeconomy contribution to Circular Economy” [2]. Focusing on food waste, the
presentation demonstrated the potential for circularity from the bio-economy and
highlighted the added-value and shortcomings of Life Cycle Thinking based
approaches applied as supporting tools. Based on the quantification of food losses
and waste at the EU scale, and the valorisation options, LCT and LCA approaches
were applied in order to support the identification of the best options. The main
challenges in order to improve LCT methods are related to the characterization of
biotic resources in LCIA, and to the integration of eco-system, water, food, land and
energy into LCA, considering all these issues as correlated.
44
B. Brunklaus and E. Riise
and as a burden to be minimised. This is one of the differences to be considered in
the life cycles of the two material streams, linear and circular. In circular material
streams, there are also some differences to be done when considering renewable
resources or finite resources cycles. Therefore, the session was focusing on circularity opportunities and challenges for bio-based materials.
2 Session Contributions
For this session, both theoretical and practical examples, relating to a variety of
industrial sectors and bio-based materials were welcomed, and the submission of
abstracts resulted in five oral presentations and six posters. The session ended with
a brief panel discussion where the presenters were invited to share their view on the
variety of challenges and opportunities for their product or sector.
2.1 Oral Presentations
The first presentation on “Wood products circularity and the biodiversity challenge”
was given by Christian Bauer, SIG [1]. Wood is a major input for many circular
products, including half of all packaging material. Within the assessment methods
to quantify the circularity potential, such as Life Cycle Assessment, there are
limitations regarding the evaluation of impacts on biodiversity, for instance due to
the complexity of the characterization of land use and land use change, and to the
lack of consideration of forest management on landscape level and labelling, as
done through certified forestry management. Therefore, practitioners and
decision-makers prefer to look at other impact categories, such as climate change
and water use. Starting from the existing work of UNEP SETAC and other significant existing methods, a new methodology relying on landscape management
system was proposed in order to establish characterization factors aiming at integrating forest management practices and biodiversity.
The second presentation by Serenella Sala, European Commissions had the title
“Bioeconomy contribution to Circular Economy” [2]. Focusing on food waste, the
presentation demonstrated the potential for circularity from the bio-economy and
highlighted the added-value and shortcomings of Life Cycle Thinking based
approaches applied as supporting tools. Based on the quantification of food losses
and waste at the EU scale, and the valorisation options, LCT and LCA approaches
were applied in order to support the identification of the best options. The main
challenges in order to improve LCT methods are related to the characterization of
biotic resources in LCIA, and to the integration of eco-system, water, food, land and
energy into LCA, considering all these issues as correlated.
44
B. Brunklaus and E. Riise