How Can Circular Bioeconomy Practices Be Transferred – Defining Key Criteria
Author: Jelizaveta Krenjova-Cepilova, Taltech
This overview examines the transferability of two circular bioeconomy solutions developed during the lifetime of the project: the Rural–Urban Symbiosis Model & Tool and the Local Bioeconomy Model. The objective here is not to present these models, but to assess their potential for replication and adaptation across different regional contexts.
To support this process, a series of workshops were conducted in the TREASoURcE target areas – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Germany. These workshops served a dual purpose. First, they provided a platform to disseminate knowledge about the developed models, including practical insights and best practices, particularly in relation to engaging municipalities and encouraging the development of local bioeconomy initiatives such as biogas plants. Second, they enabled the collection of context-specific feedback, which supported understanding of local conditions, challenges, and opportunities for implementation.
During the workshops, participants were introduced to the core components of the models and invited to reflect on their applicability in their respective regions. To facilitate structured discussion and ensure comparability across target areas, the following key questions were addressed:
- Which stakeholders would be the most appropriate starting partners for developing local bioeconomy models in your region?
- What challenges or barriers (technological, regulatory, or societal) might hinder the development of local bioeconomy models in your region?
These discussions provided valuable insights into regional differences and common patterns, forming the basis for assessing transferability. Building on these findings, the following overview presents a cross-country synthesis and outlines the key criteria for assessing the transferability of these circular bioeconomy practices.
Differences in Bioeconomy Development Stages Across Countries
Poland, Germany, and Estonia are at different stages of development in the field of biogas production, which was reflected in the varying focus of the workshops. In Poland and Estonia, discussions primarily concentrated on existing local biogas models, with particular emphasis on biogas production and the use of digestate as recycled fertilizer. In contrast, stakeholders in Germany demonstrated a stronger interest in advancing toward higher value-added applications, such as the production of pharmaceuticals and other advanced products derived from biobased side streams.
A similar distinction can be observed in Lithuania and Latvia, where the bioeconomy is still largely based on pri-mary biomass production, with ongoing efforts to shift toward higher value-added biobased products and integrated circular systems. Despite these differences in focus and maturity, many of the identi-fied challenges and barriers were notably similar across all countries.
Stakeholder Cooperation Challenges
One of the most significant barriers is the lack of effective cooperation between stakeholders, which largely stems from structural limitations. There are no established or natural mechanisms to facilitate collaboration, meaning that cooperation must be actively initiated and supported. This requires dedicated actors, as well as organized platforms such as events, networks, and coordination bodies that can bring together stakeholders from different sectors.
Similar challenges have been identified in Lithuania, where fragmented governance and weak cross-sectoral coordination limit the development of integrated bioeconomy value chains, as well as in Latvia, where stronger institutional leadership is needed to foster cooperation and local bioeconomy initiatives.
Regulatory Barriers
Regulatory constraints also represent a major obstacle to the development of local bioeconomy models. In many cases, strict, complex, or fragmented regulations limit opportunities for innovation and resource use. For example, the use of digestate as a recycled fertilizer can be restricted if it contains certain regulated inputs, even when it is otherwise suitable for agricultural use. Similarly, the utilization of biobased side streams for higher value-added products is often hindered by complex administrative requirements. Farmers and other primary producers frequently face a significant bureaucratic burden before these materials can be transferred to industrial applications.
Comparable issues are evident in Poland, where strict separation between waste-based and agricultural biogas systems limits efficiency, and in Lithuania, where the absence of a unified bioeconomy strategy con-tributes to policy fragmentation and regulatory uncertainty.
Knowledge Gaps
In addition, a widespread lack of information and awareness poses a critical barrier. This challenge manifests at multiple levels: consumers may lack the knowledge needed to properly sort waste, leading to inefficiencies in recycling systems, while producers of biobased side streams (such as farmers) may not fully recognize the potential value of their by-products. In Latvia, for instance, low public awareness and unclear labelling systems contribute to poor waste segregation, while in Lithuania similar gaps exist in understanding circular bioeconomy opportunities among stakeholders.
Overall, insufficient knowledge sharing and limited access to reliable information con-strain the development of circular and local bioeconomy systems. Addressing this gap will require targeted education, improved communication strategies, and stronger knowledge exchange between stakeholders.
Low Value-Added Biomass
Finally, across all countries a structural challenge remains the limited transition from low value-added biomass use toward higher value-added biobased production. While significant biomass resources exist, their potential is not fully utilized due to technological, financial, and organizational barriers. Strengthening innovation systems, investing in biorefineries and pilot projects, and supporting industrial symbiosis are therefore essential to enable a more advanced and competitive circular bioeconomy.
Summary of Key Barriers
Across the analysed countries, several common barriers consistently hinder the development of a circular bioeconomy. These challenges are interrelated and reflect both governance limitations and practical implementation gaps:
- Fragmented policies and unclear regulatory frameworks
- Low public awareness and social acceptance
- Insufficient waste separation and infrastructure for that
- Limited cross-sector collaboration
- Dependence on low value-added biomass use
Criteria of Transferability
The successful transfer and replication of circular bioeconomy practices depend on a set of enabling conditions that support both innovation and system integration. These factors influence not only the effectiveness of implementation but also the scalability and long-term sustainability of bioeconomy solutions across different regional contexts. Ensuring that these conditions are in place increases the likelihood that good practices can be adapted, adopted, and sustained beyond their original setting.
- Coherent and stable policy framework. A clear, consistent, and long-term policy environment is essential to reduce uncertainty and encourage investment. Integrated policies that align agriculture, waste management, energy, and innovation sectors enable coordinated action and support the development of circular value chains.
- Strong stakeholder cooperation (public – private – local). Effective collaboration between municipalities, industry, farmers, research institutions, and civil society is crucial. Multi-level governance and cross-sector partnerships facilitate knowledge exchange, resource sharing, and the co-creation of locally adapted solutions.
- High-quality waste collection and data systems. Reliable waste segregation systems and accurate data on material flows are fundamental for efficient resource management. High-quality inputs (e.g., uncontaminated biowaste) and transparent data enable better planning, optimization, and monitoring of circular processes.
- Access to technology, innovation, and pilot facilities. The availability of technological solutions, research capacity, and demonstration projects supports experimentation and reduces risks associated with new business models. Pilot and demonstration facilities are particularly important for scaling up innovative biobased processes.
- Public awareness and community engagement. Social acceptance and active participation of citizens are key to the success of circular sys-tems. Awareness-raising, education, and transparent communication improve waste sorting behaviour, build trust in biobased solutions, and strengthen local ownership of initiative.