Bio-based and Applied Economics BAE © 2024 Author(s). Open access article published, except where otherwise noted, by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License for content and CC0 1.0 Universal for metadata. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 Citation: Ronzon, T., Gurria, P., Carus, M., Cingiz, K., El-Meligi, A., Hark, N., Iost, S., M’Barek, R., Philip- pidis, G., van Leeuwen, M., & Wesse- ler, J. (2024). Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value add- ed measurements. Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331. doi: 10.36253/bae-14563 Received: March 30, 2023 Accepted: June 11, 2024 Published: December 31, 2024 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Silvia Coderoni ORCID TR: 0000-0001-8554-627X PG: 0000-0002-0420-3273 KC: 0000-0002-8440-2677 AE-M: 0000-0001-7814-9954 SI: 0000-0001-5123-3822 RM: 0000-0002-3205-3938 GP: 0000-0003-1727-2240 MVN: 0000-0003-1902-4531 JW: 0000-0002-6009-8543 Short Communications Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Tévécia Ronzon1,2,*, Patricia Gurria2, Michael Carus3, Kutay Cingiz2, Andrea El-Meligi1, Nicolas Hark3, Susanne Iost4, Robert M’Barek1, George Philippidis5, Myrna van Leeuwen6, Justus Wesseler2 1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Seville, Spain 2 Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Nether- lands 3 Nova-Institut GmbH, 50354 Hürth, Germany 4 Thünen Institute of International Forestry and Forest Economics, Hamburg, Germany 5 Agrifood and Technology Research Centre (CITA), Zaragoza, Spain 6 Wageningen Economic Research, International Policy, The Hague, The Netherlands *Corresponding author. E-mail: Tevecia.Ronzon@gmail.com Abstract. This paper reviews the main approaches found in the literature to measure the size of the European bioeconomy. The various estimations published might be confusing at first sight, reporting a value added of the European bioeconomy within the large range of EUR 881 billion to EUR 2.3 trillion. However, each approach is best suited to measuring a different aspect of the bioeconomy. Using the different approach- es, we estimate that markets of bio-based products and energy generate EUR 730-790 billion of value added, the use of biomass within the European economy generates EUR 670 billion of value added, and the sourcing of core bioeconomy industries with goods and services generates EUR 270 billion of value added. There is no evidence of an increased use of biomass inputs in EU industries in substitution of fossil resources, nor of a decreasing dependence of traditional bioeconomy industries towards fossil resources over the period 2005-2015. Keywords: bioeconomy, value added, Europe, input-output tables, bio-based indus- tries, methodologies. JEL code: Q57. 1. INTRODUCTION As defined in the European Commission’s bioeconomy strategy, the bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems that rely on biological resources, their functions and principles (European Commission, 2012, 2018). The bio- economy promotes the transition to a sustainable economic model derived from the use of biomass and the application of natural sciences, knowledge, and technologies. Its relevance is well acknowledged by international organi- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode http://www.fupress.com/bae https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14563 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14563 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8554-627X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0420-3273 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8440-2677 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7814-9954 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5123-3822 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3205-3938 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1727-2240 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1902-4531 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6009-8543 mailto:Tevecia.Ronzon@gmail.com 318 Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 Tévécia Ronzon et al. zations such as the FAO (FAO, 2021; Gomez San Juan, Harnett, & Albinelli, 2022) and the OECD (OECD, 2018). The European Union (EU) has also stated its importance for the European economy in its bioecon- omy strategy and action plan (European Commission, 2012, 2018), recently followed by Council conclusions on the opportunities of the bioeconomy in the light of current challenges with special emphasis on rural areas (Council of the European Union, 2023). Together with the development of bioeconomy strategies around the world, the need of tools for quantifying the bioeconomy and monitoring its development has become crucial. However, the bioeconomy is a complex concept, encom- passing a broad range of economic activities and their associated workers and consumers, while being depend- ent on the planet’s ecological boundaries and biomass availability. Understanding and analysing such a multi- disciplinary phenomenon requires implementing several theoretical and conceptual approaches, using a broad range of methodologies. From global (FAO, 2021), macro-regional (European Commission, 2022b), to national (Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL), 2014) and regional level (Junta de Andalucía, 2018), guidelines and monitoring systems are being developed and implemented. In the case of the EU, the indicators to measure the progress of the European bioeconomy are very broad and numer- ous (European Commission, 2022a; Mubareka et al., 2023). However, a smaller number of headline indica- tors is used by policymakers and stakeholders to analyse and report on the bioeconomy. Most prominently among those indicators features (gross) value added, which is the focus of the present study. The European Union’s statistical directorate gen- eral, EUROSTAT, does not (yet) provide statistics of a specific value-added indicator for the bioeconomy and all its sectors spanning a broad range from primary pro- duction (e.g., agriculture), via processing (e.g., wooden products) to services (e.g., restaurants). Here, a key sci- entific challenge relates to the separation of fossil and bio-based production to correctly delimit the bioec- onomy (Ronzon, Piotrowski, M’Barek, & Carus, 2017). Over the last years different methodologies have been developed to fill this gap (for example on the EU: Cin- giz, Gonzalez-Hermoso, Heijman, and Wesseler (2021); Iost et al. (2019); Iost and Weimar (2020); Kuosmanen et al. (2020); M’barek et al. (2014); Porc, Hark, Carus, and Carrez (2021); Ronzon, Iost, and Philippidis (2022a, 2022b); Wesseler and von Braun (2017)). However, these methodologies have not been consistently used in bioec- onomy policy making for two reasons: (i) the calculation methods are difficult to understand by non-specialists, and (ii) the different methodologies yield very different estimates of the European bioeconomy’s size, which may appear confusing at first sight. The aim of this paper is to bring clarity on the esti- mates of the bioeconomy’s value added size across dif- ferent methodologies already published, in order to optimize their use by policy makers and consequently contribute to more evidence-based bioeconomy policies. To do so, the paper clarifies what are the concepts meas- ured by each methodology (section 2) and puts their respective results into perspective (section 3). Emphasis is made on pointing to the different aspects of the bio- economy measured by the different methodologies and on illustrating how each of them can be mobilised to inform on specific policy questions. Finally, conclusions are remarked in the final section. 2. PRESENTATION OF THE DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES 2.1. Overview Cingiz, Gonzalez-Hermoso, et al. (2021) give an overview of the different quantitative approaches for estimating the value added generated by bioeconomic activities from which four types of methodologies match monitoring requirements (i.e., methodologies based on statistical databases that are harmonized across EU Member States and updated over time). Each type is illustrated in this study by a particular publication that applies to all Member States of the EU (Cingiz, Gonza- lez-Hermoso, et al., 2021; Cingiz, González Hermoso, Heijman, & Wesseler, 2021; Kuosmanen et al., 2020; Ronzon et al., 2022a, 2022b). All four methodologies are based on industry-level statistics for quantifying the contribution of industry p to the bioeconomy in terms of value added (Vp). The bioec- onomy being a cross-sectorial concept, the size of its value added is thus the sum of the contribution of all industries represented by NACE1 codes in the European System of National Accounts that are indexed by p = 1,…,n. They comprise the industries that fully fall within the scope of the bioeconomy indexed by q = 1,…,l, the industries that partly fall within the scope of the bioeconomy indexed by r = l+1,…,m, and the industries that do not fall at all with- in the scope of the bioeconomy indexed by s = m+1,…,n.2 1 NACE is the French acronym for Economic Activities in the European Community. 2 We denote here the industries by letters p, q, r and s to differentiate with the original studies that use the same subscripts i, j, k with diverging definitions. 319Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 The families of methodologies differ on three main aspects: (i) The set of industries q. All methodologies concur in considering the biomass producing industries fully part of the bioeconomy (i.e., agriculture, forestry and fishing). However, divergences occur on the addition- al industries that complete the set q within the full scope of industries considered (p), see Table 1. (ii) The level of the contribution of industries r to the total bioeconomy’s value added. Different quantification cri- teria are considered: the biomass content of products and energy produced or the bioeconomy relevance of the services delivered considering a given policy defini- tion of bioeconomy (see section 2.2.1); the use of bio- mass; or the provision of inputs to industries q. (iii) The inclusion or exclusion of the industries pro- viding inputs to industries q into the bioeconomy aggregate (p). The different approaches taken regarding points (ii) and (iii) provide distinct measures of the bioeconomy’s value added and inform on a variety of aspects of the bioeconomy. Measurement principles are clarified in sec- tions 2.2 to 2.5 while measured aspects are presented in section 3. 2.2. The “output-based” approach 2.2.1. Approach The “output-based” approach quantifies the value add- ed generated by an industry p in proportion to the biomass content of tangible (i.e., merchandise) outputs or to the bioeconomy relevance of intangible (i.e., services) outputs. The biomass content is calculated in dry matter content (Ronzon et al., 2022a). The ‘bioeconomy relevance’ crite- rion is derived from a policy definition of the bioeconomy. In the context of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy, it covers the services associated to a bio-based product (e.g., transport, trade, repair), the marketed ecosystem services (e.g., nature tourism), the generation of knowledge in bioeconomy fields (e.g., research and development in life sciences) or support to bio-based markets (e.g., market research, public administration) (Ronzon et al., 2022b). The output-based approach quantifies the value add- ed of the bioeconomy (VBE_O) at a given point in time and space as: VBE_O = ∑q Vq + ∑r δr .Vr (1) with δr = biomass content share or bioeconomy relevance share of industry r (Figure 1). Vq and Vr are the value added of individual industries q and r (see Annex 1). In other terms, the total value added of the bioec- onomy is the sum of the value added generated by those industries whose output is biomass (e.g., agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and beverage manufacturing) or whose output is partially made of biomass (e.g. bio- based textile industry, biochemical industry) or whose output is fully or partially bioeconomy relevant (e.g., food services, veterinary activity, research). Industries q=1,…,l comprise the biomass producing industries (A01, A02, A03), the manufacturing of food (C10) and beverage (C11), water supply, sewerage and management3 (E36-E38) for their full biomass content, as well as food and beverage service activities (I56) and vet- erinary activities (M75) for their bioeconomy relevance. Industries s=m+1,…,n comprise mining indus- tries (B05-B09), the manufacturing of coke and petro- leum products (C19), of mineral or metallic prod- ucts (C23-C25), of electronic or electrical equipment (C26-C27), of machinery and motor vehicles (C28-C30, C33), the wholesale, retail trade and repair of motor vehicles (G45), the industries of information and com- munication (J59-J63), of financial, insurance and real estate activities (K64-K66, L68) and of management, employment, human health and social work activities (M70, N78, Q86-Q88). Industries r=l+1,…,m comprise all other NACE industries. 2.2.2. Data sources The output-based approach builds on a variety of data sources. Industry-level data on value added (Vq and Vr) are retrieved from the Eurostat Structural Busi- ness statistics (Eurostat, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c) and from Eurostat’s national accounts (Eurostat, 2020d) for the industries not represented in the former databases. Oth- er Eurostat databases are mobilised for the computation of the biomass content share or of the bioeconomy rel- evance share δr (Ronzon et al., 2022a, 2022b). In addi- tion to official data, the output-based approach relies on literature, market reports and expert insights for the estimation of the biomass content of the 875 bio-based products listed in the Eurostat database on the produc- tion of manufactured goods (Eurostat, 2021). As δr can- not be quantified with precision with available Eurostat data and expert knowledge for all industries r, a mini- mum and maximum threshold value of δr is determined that consequently generates a minimum and a maxi- mum value of bio-based amount of Vr. 3 The dry matter content of water is considered 100% biomass (i.e., organic matter and micro-organisms). 320 Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 Tévécia Ronzon et al. Time series data of Vr are available from 2008 (the latest revision of the NACE classification), up to the most recent common year of data sources used, typically released with a time lag of two years. 2.2.3. Data interpretation This approach has been coined “policy-driven” in the sense that the bioeconomy relevance of industries in set p follows the concept of bioeconomy as defined in the EU bioeconomy strategy. Indeed, by focusing on the bio- economy nature of industries’ outputs, the output-based approach provides lower and upper thresholds of domes- tic bio-based markets (min VBE_O - max VBE_O). Over time, market developments in the bioeconomy’s valued added, or of an individual bio-based industry’s value added, give insight on progress towards policy objectives of bio-based market uptake. Also, the difference between an industry’s bio-based output share δr attained in one country compared with that of another country, or com- pared with a 100% δr share, gives an indication of the remaining potential for bio-based market development. 2.3. The “input-based” approach 2.3.1. Approach The “input-based” approach quantifies the value added generated by an industry p in proportion to its bio-based input cost share. Among the different vari- ants of input-based approaches published in the scien- tific literature (Efken, Dirksmeyer, Kreins, & Knecht, 2016; Heijman, 2016; Iost et al., 2019; Iost & Weimar, 2020; Kuosmanen et al., 2020; Meesters, van Dam, & Bos, 2013; Robert, Jonsson, Chudy, & Camia, 2020), only Kuosmanen et al. (2020) propose quantifications for the EU aggregate. Their methodology, also coined Funda- mental Industry Level Model (FILM), is thus proposed here as a benchmark for the families of “input-based” approaches while variations from other input-based approaches are briefly discussed. The FILM input-based approach relies on the use of monetary flows of input-output tables (IOTs) for quan- tifying the value added of the bioeconomy (VBE_I) at a given point in time and space, such as: VBE_I = ∑q Vq + ∑r γr .Vr (2) with q being the biomass producing industries (agri- culture, forestry and fishing) and γr being the biomass input cost share of industry r (Figure 1 and equation 3). γr = (3) Thus, Iqr is the cost of inputs from the set of biomass producing industries q to industry r; Ir’r is the cost of inputs from industry r’ to industry r with r’ = l+1,…,m; γr’ is the bio-based input cost share of industry r’ (equation 4); Mr is the cost of imported inputs to industry r; γMr is the bio-based input cost share of imported inputs to industry r; and Ipr is the cost of inputs from all industries to indus- try r. Note that intra-industry trade is captured when r’ = r. γr’ = (4) That is, the total value added of the bioeconomy is the value added generated from biomass producing activ- ities, and from the use of biomass in all other activity sectors, including from imported products and services. 2.3.2. Data sources The FILM approach is systematic across all indus- tries. The data source is the Eurostat IOTs (Eurostat, 2020e) released every five years with some Member States also providing annual estimates. This data does not offer a complete coverage of all EU Member States but does provide complete data for the EU28 aggregate. 2.3.3. Data interpretation By focusing on biomass input cost shares, the FILM methodology reports on the value added (VBE_I) generated from the use of biomass across all industries of an econo- my. The 5-year time step evolution of VBE_I gives insight on the increasing (decreasing) mobilisation of biomass – measured in value terms - by the economic system con- sidered. The bio-based input cost share γr gives an indi- cation of the degree of dependence of industry r towards non-renewable biological resources: the smaller γr is, the higher the dependence. The development of γr over time indicates progress towards the objective of substituting non-renewable resources with bio-based equivalents. 2.3.4. Variation to the FILM approach While the FILM approach is homogeneous across all NACE industries and employs data from a single source, Iost et al. (2019) and Iost and Weimar (2020) adapt the input-based approach to reflect the bioeconomy concept 321Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 as defined in the previous German Bioeconomy Strategy (BMEL, 2014). First, the delineation of the bioeconomy’s industrial scope is restricted to a selection of bio-based industries that includes only a few bio-based services (i.e., joinery installation and erection of frames and construc- tional timber works, food and beverage service activi- ties and research and experimental development on bio- technology). Second, several sources of German statistics are employed for they offer more precise information than IOTs (AGEB, 2015; DESTATIS, 2018). Third, per policy definition, the bio-based share of research indus- tries (M7219) is not determined according to its biomass input cost share but rather from the share of personnel cost incurred in bioeconomy-related research disciplines on total costs (DESTATIS, 2016). Data on value added are retrieved from EUROSTAT’s structural business statistics. 2.4. The “Weighted Input-Output based” approach The “weighted Input-Output based” approach pro- vides a middle ground quantification of the bioecono- my’s value added, taking into account the parameters δp and γp quantified by the output-based and the input- based approaches (Figure 1). It quantifies the value add- ed of the bioeconomy (VBE_W) at a given point in time and country as: VBE_W = ∑p θp.Vp (5) where θp is the weighted average of the input-based and output-based coefficients. With that purpose, the output bio-based share δp is weighed with the ratio of value added on gross output, and the input bio-based share γp is weighed with the ratio of total cost of inputs on gross output: θp = (δp.Vp + γp.Ip) / Op (6) The total value added of the bioeconomy is the value generated from the utilization of biomass and bio-based inputs, as well as their conversion into bioeconomy out- puts through further processing. The data sources used are the same as those employed in the output-based and input-based approaches (see sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2). 2.5. The “Upstream & Downstream” approach 2.5.1. Approach The “upstream & downstream” approach quantifies two different aspects of the bioeconomy (Figure 1, Cin- giz, Gonzalez-Hermoso, et al. (2021)): – ∑r Dr, the “downstream effect” of the bioeconomy which corresponds to the value added size of the industries r that use bio-based inputs in propor- tion to their respective bio-based input cost share βr from industries q. q represents the biomass produc- ing industries, the manufacture of food, beverage, tobacco, wood and paper products, and printing. – ∑r Ur, the “upstream effect” of the bioeconomy which corresponds to the value added size of the industries r that source industries q in proportion to their respective output cost share αr. In sum, the “upstream & downstream” approach quantifies the value added of the bioeconomy (VBE_UD) at a given point in time and space as4: VBE_UD = ∑q Vq + ∑r (Dr + Ur) (7) In other words, the total value added of the bioeconomy is the value generated by activities considered core to the bioeconomy (i.e., biomass producing, the manufacturing of food, beverage, tobacco products, wood products, paper and printed products) as well as the value generated by the use of the outputs of the former activities (downstream effect) and the use of inputs by them (upstream effect). Similarly to equation (2), Dr = βr .Vr (8) Ur = αr (1- βr) Vr (9) where αr is the output cost share of industry r to indus- tries q. αr is multiplied by (1- βr) to avoid double count- ing with the downstream effect. αr = (10) where Fr denotes the final demand for industry r and Er denotes the exports of industry r. 2.5.2. Data sources Similarly to the FILM approach, the “upstream & downstream” approach is systematic across all indus- tries. The two effects are computed from the OECD’s IOTs with annual data series from 2005 to 2015 for the 28 pre-Brexit EU Member States (OECD, 2021). EU28 data are calculated as the sum of IO matrix entries across the 28 countries. 4 Notations have been changed compared to Cingiz, Gonzalez- Hermoso, et al. (2021) for the sake of harmonization across the various methodologies presented in the paper. 322 Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 Tévécia Ronzon et al. 2.5.3. Data interpretation Compared to the other three approaches, the “upstream & downstream” method adds information on how much the bioeconomy is integrated with the rest of the economy, in particular to non-bioeconomy sourcing industries. The downstream component ∑r Dr provides similar information as the input-based approach (see section 2.3.3). Additionally, the output cost share αr used for the quantification of the upstream component Ur illustrates the interconnection between industry r and the core bio- economy industries q. The higher αr is, the larger is the sourcing role of industry r. Moreover, the development of the total upstream and downstream effects over time (∑r Ur and ∑r Dr) informs whether an increasing (decreas- ing) value creation from the use of renewable biological resources (∑r Dr) is concomitant or not with a growth of the economic size of bioeconomy sourcing industries (∑r Ur). Finally, the ratio of bioeconomy value added on GDP (VBE_UD/GDP) describes how much the bioecono- my is integrated into the whole economy. As a summary, Figure 1 graphically illustrates the concepts or f lows quantified in the four approaches and their related equations. Table 1 compares the main parameters of the four approaches. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The four methodologies presented above yield very different estimates of the value added size of the EU bio- economy in 2015, ranging from EUR 881 billion to EUR 2.3 trillion5 (Figure 2). Such a large range may be puz- zling at first sight or may even confuse policy makers. In fact, differences in numbers reflect the different aspects of the bioeconomy captured by each approach. This sec- tion summarises the main results and illustrates how the specific aspects of each methodology can be mobilised to answer relevant policy questions. 3.1. Aggregated results and complementary information on differences In order to provide an overview of main results, we focus hereafter on the comparison of the aggregates of pri- 5 The EU 2015 is the only common scope of the approaches commented at section 3. The output-based approach from Ronzon et al. (2022a and 2022b) provides data at country and EU level from 2008 to 2019, The input based approach published by Kuosmanen et al. (2020) provides data for the EU and the year 2015. The upstream and downstream approach published by Cingiz et al. (2021a) provides country and EU level data from 2005 to 2019. Figure 1. Four methodological approaches for determining the bio-based share of industry p. Note: I stands for Input, O for Output and V for Value added, all three are measured in monetary terms. 323Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 mary, secondary and tertiary economic sectors6 as illustrat- ed by Figure 2. For each of these aggregates, we highlight the reasons leading to differences in value added estimates. The weighted input-output approach is not commented though, as it always provides an intermediate quantification between the input-based and the output-based approaches. All quantifications from the “upstream and downstream” approach are taken from the online database published by Cingiz, González Hermoso, et al. (2021)7. Estimations of value added for the bioeconomy industries of the primary sector are convergent (EUR 207 to 216 billion) in spite of methodological differenc- es and slight variations from the different data sources employed by each approach. The output-based approach only considers those industries that produce biomass (EUR 216 billion) while the other three approaches also consider a proportion of the bioeconomy value added coming from the mining industries. From an input- based perspective, EUR 1 billion of value added is gener- ated from the use of biological material in mining activi- ties such as for bioleaching. Moreover, the upstream effect Ur calculated in the “upstream and downstream” approach reveals that EUR 1.2 billion of value added are generated from the sourcing of core bioeconomy indus- tries q by mining industries. 6 The primary sector refers to NACE sections A and B (biomass production and mining and carrying), the secondary sector to NACE C to F (manufacturing), and the tertiary sector to NACE G to T (services). 7 Although the methodological comments exposed in section 2.5 were derived from Cingiz, Gonzalez-Hermoso, et al. (2021). The value added of the bioeconomy industries oper- ating in the secondary sector differs more from one approach to the other than in the case of primary sec- tor industries: EUR 299 billion (input-based approach) to EUR 573 billion (output-based approach). The bio- mass input cost share γr (input-based approach) is sys- tematically smaller than the biomass content δr of the outputs of the manufacturing industries (output-based approach), except for those industries s considered non bio-based in the output-based approach (γr ranging between 0.6% and 2.5%, Table 2). As a matter of exam- ple, only 55% of the inputs of the manufacturing of food, beverage and tobacco are bio-based inputs while that Table 1. Summary comparison of the four approaches introduced at sections 2.2 to 2.5. Approach “output-based” “input-based” (FILM) “weighted Input-Output” “upstream & downstream” Quantification criteria Biomass content of tangible outputs, bioeconomy relevance of intangible outputs Biomass inputs (biomass input cost share) See the two previous columns Biomass inputs (biomass input cost share) and sourcing of industries q (output cost share) Equations VBE_O = ∑q Vq + ∑r δr Vr Equation (1) VBE_I = ∑q Vq + ∑r γr Vr Equation (2) VBE_W = ∑p θp Vp with θp = (δp Vp + γp Ip) / Op Equations (5) and (6) VBE_UD = ∑q Vq + ∑r (Dr + Ur) Equation (7) Industries q (NACE codes) A01-A03, C10-C12, E36, I56, M75 A01-A03 A01-A03 A01-A03, C10-C12, C16-C18 Industries s (NACE codes) B05-B09, C19, C23-C30, C33, G45, K64-K66, L68, M70, N78, Q86-Q88. None None None Data sources Expert knowledge and many Eurostat sources Eurostat’s IOTs See the two previous columns OECD’s IOTs Interpretation of the results Bio-based market size Use of biomass Middle ground perspective between the previous two columns Use of bio-based inputs and integration to the wider economy - 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 Output Input Up- & Down- stream Weighted Input- Output Tertiary sectors (max) Tertiary sectors (min) Secondary sectors (max) Secondary sectors (min) Primary sectors Figure 2. Estimation of the value added size of primary, second- ary and tertiary activities of the EU28 bioeconomy according to the four quantitative approaches presented in the study 324 Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 Tévécia Ronzon et al. industry generates fully bio-based outputs (Table 2). The proportion (αr (1- βr)) of outputs that secondary sector’s industries sell to bioeconomy industries q ranges from 0.3% to 5.3%. The tertiary sector shows a high divergence in terms of value added size estimates from one approach to the other: EUR 370 billion (input-based approach) to EUR 1,488 billion (output-based approach). The four-fold difference is due to relatively small biomass input cost shares (γr = 1-5%, except for accommodation and food services where γr = 35%) compared with high biomass content or bioeconomy relevance of tertiary outputs (maximum δr = 12-100% in eight out of fourteen ter- tiary industries, Table 2). While the approaches based on IOTs (input and “up and downstream” approaches) are systematic and precise, the output-based approach suffers from both a lack of clarity about the definition of a bioeconomy service and a lack of informative data Table 2. Output bio-based shares (a), biomass input cost shares (b), combined upstream and downstream shares (c) and weighted Input- Output shares (d) at the sectorial level and for the EU28 in 2015. nace (a) min – max (b) (c) (d) min– max A01_A03 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 100% 100% 100% 100.0% 100% 100% B05_B09 Mining and quarrying 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 3.0% 0.6% 0.6% C10_C12 Food, beverages and tobacco products 100% 100% 54.8% 100.0% 66.4% 66.4% C13_C15 Textiles, wearing apparel and leather products 35.6% 46.5% 40.9% 6.0% 38.4% 42.8% C16 Products of wood and cork 99.7% 99.7% 45.7% 100.0% 61.7% 61.7% C17_C18 Paper products and printing 60.8% 98.9% 30.7% 100.0% 37.3% 53.2% C19 Coke and refined petroleum products 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 3.7% 0.5% 0.5% C20_C21 Chemicals and pharmaceuticals 25.6% 27.1% 4.3% 8.4% 12.1% 12.6% C22 Rubber and plastics products 3.3% 3.9% 4.6% 9.1% 4.1% 4.4% C23 Other non-metallic mineral products 0.0% 0.8% 2.5% 5.5% 1.6% 1.9% C24 Basic metals 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.5% 0.7% 0.7% C25 Fabricated metal products 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 4.4% 0.9% 0.9% C26 Computer, electronic and optical equipment 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.7% 0.9% 0.9% C27 Electrical equipment 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% C28 Machinery and equipment, nec 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2.7% 0.7% 0.7% C29 Motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% C30 Other transport equipment 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% C31_C33 Manufacturing nec; repair and installation of machinery and equipment 8.8% 17.8% 8.3% 9.8% 8.4% 11.3% D35_E39 Electricity, gas, water supply, sewerage, waste and remediation services 24.0% 25.4% 1.3% 5.6% 10.2% 10.6% F Construction 5.3% 5.6% 3.4% 4.4% 3.9% 4.0% G45_G47 Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles 24.8% 39.8% 3.7% 11.0% 15.0% 23.0% H49_H53 Transportation and storage 20.1% 32.2% 0.9% 3.9% 8.9% 14.0% I55_I56 Accommodation and food service activities 76.5% 76.5% 34.7% 34.3% 57.7% 56.4% J58_J60 Publishing, audiovisual and broadcasting activities 0.0% 32.1% 4.6% 12.3% 2.4% 19.1% J61 Telecommunications 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.1% 0.5% 0.5% J62_J63 IT and other information services 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.7% 0.5% 0.5% K64_K66 Financial and insurance activities 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 3.3% 0.3% 0.3% L68A Real estate activities 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.2% 0.2% 0.2% M69_N82 Professional, scientific and technical activities, administrative and support services 4.0% 11.8% 2.1% 4.9% 2.0% 9.8% O84 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 10.5% 15.9% 2.6% 4.7% 0.9% 11.5% P85 Education 2.2% 4.9% 4.3% 6.7% 0.9% 3.5% Q86_Q88 Human health and social work activities 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 5.6% 1.8% 1.8% R90_S96 Arts, entertainment and recreation and other service activities 0.2% 47.1% 3.8% 6.9% 1.6% 27.1% T97_T98 Activities of households as employers 0.0% 100.0%   0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Sources: Cingiz, González Hermoso, et al. (2021); Kuosmanen et al. (2020); Ronzon et al. (2022a, 2022b). 325Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 for the quantification of their bioeconomy relevance. In two extreme cases, the bioeconomy relevance of the industries of sport, amusement and recreation activi- ties and of household employerś activities could not be quantified with available data, leading to the very broad assumption of minimum and maximum bioeconomy relevance shares of 0% and 100% (for a discussion of the output-based approach, see Ronzon et al. (2022b)). Finally, the industries of telecommunication and infor- mation technologies, finance, insurance, real estate, human health8 and social work are excluded from the sectorial scope of the bioeconomy in the output-based approach (δr = 0%). Nevertheless, they use biomass (γr ranging between 0.6% and 5.4%) and source core bioec- onomy industries q with their outputs (αr (1- βr) ranging between 0.4% and 2.0%). Consequently, they are worth EUR 75 billion according to the input-based approach and EUR 123 billion in the “upstream & downstream” approach. 3.2. Tailoring the right approach to specific policy require- ments The recent report from the International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy on “Bioeconomy globali- zation” (Dietz et al., 2024) stresses the monitoring of the bioeconomy as a central piece for the implementation of bioeconomy strategies in many countries around the world. The quantitative methodologies presented above all aim at supporting the monitoring and evaluation of public initiatives related to the bioeconomy, with a spe- cific focus on their economic aspects. Taken separately, the different approaches provide insight on fundamental policy questions: (i) What is the size of bio-based markets? What is their potential for development? (ii) What is the size of the economic activities that rely on the use of biomass? (iii) How does the bioeconomy and the rest of the econo- my interlink? (iv) Is the substitution of non-renewable resources by renewable biological resources happening? Moreover, sectorial data can also be used to inform on more specific policy questions related with the bio- economy such as the dependence of the EU economy to fossil resources, the size of the knowledge-based bioec- onomy (KBBE) and many others. 8 Human health is explicitly excluded from the bioeconomy in the European bioeconomy strategy (European Commission, 2018). 3.2.1. Size and development of bio-based markets The development of bio-based markets is pivotal in the EU bioeconomy strategies, which have been con- ceived as engines of green growth. The output-based approach precisely offers the means for monitoring the economic wealth created from the production and selling of bio-based products and bioen- ergy and from waste treatment (NACE sectors A to F). Taking the year 2015 as a reference for comparison with the other approaches, the value added size of the EU bio-based markets is estimated between EUR 730-790 billion. It has increased by 30-31% in the decade 2009- 2019, which has permitted to maintain their contribution to the EU’s total value added at approximately 5.5-5.9%. European bio-based markets are dominated by food and agricultural commodities (respectively EUR 189 billion and EUR 183 billion of value added, Table 3 (a)). If we follow a stricter definition of “bio-based products” that excludes agricultural, food and feed products, then the largest markets for bio-based products are the ones of paper products and of bio-based pharmaceuticals, with a value added size of EUR 45 billion each (Table 3 (a)). Interestingly, the four industries responsible for the big- gest biomass-derived markets – agriculture, food, paper and bio-based pharmaceuticals – were also identified as the main motors of productivity growth in the EU over the last decade by Ronzon et al. (2022a), either because these industries have modernised their production pro- cesses (agriculture, the manufacture of paper), or because they have attracted workers from less intensive bio-based industries (manufacture of bio-based pharmaceuticals and food products) or both phenomena. Their market size has grown by 37-43% over the period 2009-2019, except for the food industry (30% growth). The secondary sector of the EU28 (NACE C to F) is 19-21% bio-based in 2015 (δNACE C-F). That proportion remains stable over the decade 2009-2019. It is certainly impossible to achieve a fully bio-based secondary sector as some metal, mineral and other non bio-based com- ponents of manufactured goods cannot be substituted with biomass. Notwithstanding, a 20% share seems low enough to expect some feasible progress. Output bio- based shares of 35-40% have been achieved by the sec- ondary sectors of Latvia and Lithuania in 2015, thanks to an important manufacture of wood products and food and beverages (both countries), of wooden furniture (Lithuania) and bioenergy industry (Latvia). The Irish case illustrates a bioeconomy less oriented towards wood- en biomass, where the manufacture of bio-based chemi- cals (δr=31%) together with a strong food and beverage industry drives a 32-33% bio-based secondary sector. 326 Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 Tévécia Ronzon et al. 3.2.2. Use of biomass and value added creation Side-by-side with market objectives, the two consec- utive EU bioeconomy strategies promote the sustainable use of biomass – in particular for industrial purposes – to achieve a bioeconomy transition in Europe. A sus- tainability assessment is out of the scope of the present study. However, the input-based approach developed by Kuosmanen et al. (2020) and the downstream component quantified by Cingiz, González Hermoso, et al. (2021) do provide evidence on the extent to which biomass is used in the different economic sectors of the EU28, and on the ability of each industry to create value added from it. According to Kuosmanen et al. (2020), the use of biomass and bio-based products generates EUR 670 bil- lion of value added in the EU28 economy, excluding the biomass producing activities9 (2015 data). The primary 9 The industries that produce biomass are fully accounted part of the bioeconomy by Kuosmanen et al. (2020) (industries q). As a result, no biomass cost share γr is calculated for those industries and we cannot report on their use of biomass. Table 3. Top 5 markets according to the different criteria discussed in the text (EU28, 2015). (a) Top 5 markets of bio-based products and energy by value added size* Industry (nace sector) Value added size (Vp in million euros) Output bio-based share (δp in %) 1 Manuf. of food products C10 189,000 100% 2 Agriculture A01 183,441 100% 3 Manuf. of paper and paper products C17 45,257 - 45,625 99% - 100% 4 Manuf. of bio-based pharmaceuticals C21 44,827 49% 5 Manuf. of beverages C11 40,890 100% (b) Top 5 market industries by value added generated from biomass use Industry (nace sector) Value added size (Vr in million euros) Biomass input cost share (γr in %) 1 Manuf. of food products, beverage and tobacco products C10_C12 152,458 55% 2 Accommodation and food service activ. I55_I56 130,084 35% 3 Human health activities Q86 29,762 4% 4 Education P85 29,226 4% 5 Manuf. of textiles, wearing apparel and leather products C13_C15 28,521 41% (c) Top 5 industries relying on biomass and bio-based product resources in proportion to their inputs Industry (nace sector) Value added size (Vr in million euros) Biomass input cost share (γr in %) 1 Manuf. of food products, beverage and tobacco products C10_C12 152,458 55% 2 Manuf. of products of wood and cork C16 17,363 46% 3 Manuf. of textiles, wearing apparel and leather products C13_C15 28,521 41% 4 Manuf. of paper and paper products C17 17,484 37% 5 Accommodation and food service activ. I55_I56 130,084 35% (d) Top 5 sourcing industries to core bioeconomy industries q, by value added size Industry (nace sector) Value added size (Vr in million euros) Output cost share (αr.(1- βr) in %) 1 Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles G45_G47 112,945 8% 2 Professional, scientific and technical activities, administrative and support services M69_N82 34,750 2% 3 Transportation and storage H49_H53 19,425 3% 4 Electricity, gas, water supply, sewerage, waste and remediation services D35_E39 15,221 4% 5 Financial and insurance activities K64_K66 14,152 2% * sorted on the maximum estimation of value added size. Note: the level of disaggregation varies from one methodology to the other (e.g., the aggregate C10-C12 in (b) is broken down into C10, C11 and C12 in (a)). 327Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 sector, mining and quarrying activities depend on the use of biomass for 1.4% of their input costs, from which they produce EUR 1 billion of value added. The second- ary sector is more dependent on biomass inputs than the tertiary sector but less efficient at generating value added from it: with a 9% biomass input cost share, the second- ary sector generates EUR 299 billion compared to a 4% share in the tertiary sector, generating EUR 370 billion. The manufacturing of food, beverage and tobacco and accommodation and food services create the larg- est amounts of value added from biomass usage in the EU28 (EUR 152 and 130 billion each, Table 3 (b)). More surprisingly, they are followed by human health activi- ties and education (EUR 29-30 billion each). Human health is excluded from the EU definition of the bio- economy but it is preponderant in more process-based definitions (e.g., USA, Brazil). Education uses biomass in the form of paper, wooden desks and furniture and in the form of breakfasts served at school in some Member States. The industries that depend more on biomass usag- es are traditional industrial activities (see the top four industries at Table 3 (c), again excluding biomass produc- ing activities8). Their sourcing in biomass and bio-based products reaches 37% to 55% of total input costs (γr). Ter- tiary activities come only at the fifth position in the form of accommodation and food services (γr = 35%). 3.2.3. The degree of inclusivity of the Bioeconomy within the macroeconomy The scope of the bioeconomy and its penetration into the rest of the economy is another topic of policy interest. The chronological evolution of bioeconomy- related policy initiatives indeed shows different percep- tions of bioeconomy activities. The first policy concept of KBBE put the focus on those scientific and knowl- edge-productive activities in the domain of life sciences (Patermann & Aguilar, 2018). In contrast, the first bioec- onomy strategy of the EU turned the spotlight onto pri- mary and secondary bio-based production while the sec- ond strategy broadened the scope to all types of activi- ties that use biomass, tertiary activities included. The work from Cingiz, González Hermoso, et al. (2021) applies to all three perceptions and quantifies the interlinkages between the bioeconomy and the rest of the economy. At the EU28 level, the production of bio- mass contributes 1.6% of the total value added in 2015, which rises to 4.6% if we add the other fully bio-based industries q (food, beverage, tobacco, wood products and paper, see Table 1). The trickling down of industries q’s output to partly bio-based manufacturing and service activities permits the generation of an additional 3.9% of the EU28 total value added (EUR 511 billion). In addition, Cingiz, González Hermoso, et al. (2021) claim that bioeconomy industries also depend on the rest of the economy for input provision. That economic link is quantified in the form of a so-called ‘upstream effect’ (equation 9) and is worth 2% of the EU28 total value added. The largest upstream effects are observed from tertiary activities (Table 3 (d)), nearly half of the upstream effect being the fact of trade activities (42%) and transportation and storage (7%). In sum, the authors estimate that fully bio-based industries q and the down- stream and upstream effect of other industries account for a significant 10.4% of the EU28 value added. Regarding the size of the KBBE, the results from Cingiz, González Hermoso, et al. (2021) are unfortu- nately not disaggregated enough to inform on the value added generated by the knowledge-productive activities used by the set of industries q (upstream effect of NACE M71-M75 and P85). The estimation could be computed with further research though. Another approximation could be provided from an output-based perspective, i.e., the value added created by the production of knowl- edge in bioeconomy fields. Unfortunately, available data sources cannot permit a more precise quantification than EUR 35-121 billion for the EU28 in 2015. 3.2.4. Substitution effect and dependence of the EU bio- economy to fossil resources The substitution of non-renewable resources in industrial and energy processes is central in the EU bioeconomy strategy for addressing the two objectives of lowering the EU dependence to non-renewable feed- stocks and of contributing to climate change mitigation (European Commission, 2012 page 5; 2018 page 9). Such a substitution effect could be observable from the moni- toring of sectorial biomass input cost shares (γr and βr ) over time in the form of increasing usage of biomass input in proportion to total inputs (in value terms). Time series are only offered for the biomass input cost shares βr by Cingiz, González Hermoso, et al. (2021). Contrary to the expected upward trend, Cingiz, González Hermoso, et al. (2021) indicate a reduction of biomass input cost shares from 2.7% to 2.5% in the sec- ondary sector (excluding the set of sectors q) and from 5.1% to 4.4% in the tertiary sector between 2005 and 2015. The authors note, however, that the biomass input cost share of the secondary sector is stabilising since 2010. At the EU28 level, the reduction trend is particu- larly noticeable in the manufacture of furniture and repair and installation of machinery and equipment 328 Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 Tévécia Ronzon et al. (NACE C31-33) and in the industry of publishing, audio- visual and broadcasting (NACE J58-60) but trends differ across countries. A note of caution has to be introduced here on the monitoring of biomass inputs in value terms. Due to differentials in the relative value of biomass com- pared to other inputs, a decreasing proportion of bio- mass inputs in value does not always correlate with a decreasing proportion in quantity. Beyond the capacity of a whole economy to use bio- logically renewable resources in industrial processes and services, some observers question the capacity of the bio- economy to source itself with less fossil inputs. In that sense, the upstream component of mining and fossil- based industries provides evidence on the link between industries q and fossil resources. Cingiz, González Her- moso, et al. (2021) estimate that 1.1% of the output of the mining and carrying sector and 3.2% of the output of the manufacturing of coke and refined petroleum products source the core bioeconomy industries q. These propor- tions have remained fairly steady over the 2008-2015 time period but they vary across EU Member States: from 0.3% to 4.4% in the case of mining and carrying activi- ties and from 0.5% to 8.1% regarding the manufacture of coke and petroleum products in 2015. The same logic could apply to examine the use of plastics by industries q although the data source used for the quantification of the upstream component does not disentangle fossil-based from bio-based plastic inputs. 4. CONCLUSION The bioeconomy is considered a strategic subsector of the economy. However, there is no single definition of the bioeconomy, and current policy and research questions address various aspects of the bioeconomy, for which different perspectives are required. This diversity of views makes quantification difficult, but the scientific community has responded well to the chal- lenge of quantifying the economic performance of the EU bioeconomy. As this study demonstrates, a vari- ety of sound methodologies are now implementable to inform on various aspects of value creation in bio- economy sectors. The challenge lies in understanding, comparing and applying those different methods. This article gives an overview of four of these approaches, and discusses the different results obtained. We con- clude that the communication of scientific outcomes to stakeholders could be improved, avoiding the general term “value added of the bioeconomy” without addi- tional clarification of the methodology and sources of data used for its quantification. The output method aligns with the definition of bioeconomy in the EU bioeconomy strategy and is therefore useful for monitoring progress from a policy perspective, both at the country and sectorial level. With this method, we can estimate EUR 730-790 bil- lion of value added were created from the aggregated domestic production of biomass, bio-based products and bioenergy (i.e., 5.5-5.9% of the total EU value add- ed) and that it grew by 30-31% over the decade 2009- 2019. The agro-food industry is responsible for half of the EU bio-based market, followed by the paper and bio-based pharmaceuticals industries. Services are not yet well captured in the output-based approach. On the other hand, value creation from the use of bio- mass in the EU is best analysed with the input-based approach. EUR 670 billion of value added were created from the use of biomass in all economic sectors, that is, 5% of the total EU value added. This method indicates that the secondary sector is more dependent on bio- mass inputs than the tertiary sector but less efficient at generating value added from it (EUR 299 billion vs. EUR 371 billion). Finally, the upstream & downstream approach analyses the integration of the bioeconomy into the broader economy well beyond the production of biomass and the manufacturing of products. This approach shows that the bioeconomy contributes 10.5% of the total EU-28 value added: 4.6% from traditional bioeconomy industries, 3.9% from the processing of biomass into other products, and 2% from the use of products and services in the production of biomass and food, wood and paper products. In addition, contrary to the EU bioeconomy strat- egy’s expectations, there is no clear trend towards an increase of biomass input use in EU industries over the period 2009-2019 that could indicate a substitution of non-renewable resources by bio-based ones. However, such an effect could be masked by a reduction in the relative value of biomass compared to other inputs. The share of mining, coke and petroleum products bought by traditional bioeconomy industries has remained sta- ble between 2009 and 2019. Within the bioeconomy, the size of services industries is at least comparable to the size of biomass producing and manufacturing industries. However, it is usually under-estimated because bioecon- omy strategies tend to focus on biomass. The approaches commented in this study can pro- vide quantitative evidence to more sectorial questions, related to, among others, the size of paid recreational services, the Knowledge Bio-Based Economy or the circular economy. However, some limitations remain to be addressed through further research. Refining the estimation of bio-based shares of services and con- 329Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 structing time series with more sectorial breakdown and more recent data would enhance the methodolo- gies based on IOTs. Monitoring the use of biomass and the bio-based substitution of strategic sectors could also provide additional evidence to the debate on the classification of economic activities into green or brown sectors that has become topical in the context of the publication of a Green Taxonomy by the EU (Bohnenberger, 2022) or provide further tools to assess the degree of “greenness” of each specific activity and their development over time. Further research could also address questions of efficient resource/biomass use and the needed transi- tion from linear to circular resource use. Frameworks and indicators for measuring circularity are being devel- oped and tested at micro- (Baratsas, Pistikopoulos, & Avraamidou, 2022; Chrispim, Mattsson, & Ulvenblad, 2023), regional (Bianchi, Cordella, & Menger, 2023), national or international level (Moraga et al., 2019). One of the main challenges is to determine the allocation of impacts to initial biomass use and their subsequent recycled cycles (Corona, Shen, Reike, Rosales Carreón, & Worrell, 2019). Sound knowledge of biomass mate- rial flows is a prerequisite for determining material bio- based in- and outputs. Pursuing a growing value added from bio-based markets, bio-based feedstock, or bioeconomy inputs should not be the only objective of a functioning bioec- onomy. Further research is also needed to complement the economic monitoring of the bioeconomy with envi- ronmental assessments. Only a truly sustainable bioec- onomy can support the transformation of the economic system from fossil-based to green growth. The sustain- ability of production and consumption within the bioec- onomy, the health of natural ecosystems and a fair dis- tribution of bioeconomy’s benefits are also central in the policy narrative. The methodologies presented here pro- vide the basis for developing other indicators of the pro- gress of the bioeconomy such as the number of persons it employs (Kuosmanen et al., 2020; M’barek et al., 2014; Ronzon et al., 2022b; Ronzon et al., 2017) or its impact on the greenhouse gas emissions (Kuosmanen et al., 2020). However, monitoring sustainability aspects of the bioeconomy requires a much more comprehensive set of indicators with its respective scientific methods. REFERENCES AGEB. (2015). Vorwort zu den Energiebilanzen für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Retrieved from https:// ag-energiebilanzen.de/files/vorwort.pdf Baratsas, S. G., Pistikopoulos, E. N., & Avraamidou, S. (2022). A quantitative and holistic circular economy assessment framework at the micro level. Comput- ers & Chemical Engineering, 160, 107697. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107697 Bianchi, M., Cordella, M., & Menger, P. (2023). Regional monitoring frameworks for the circular economy: implications from a territorial perspective. European Planning Studies, 31(1), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.1080 /09654313.2022.2057185 BMEL. (2014). National Policy Strategy on Bioeconomy. Retrieved from https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa. eu/sites/default/files/german_national_policy_strat- egy_on_bioeconomy_.pdf Bohnenberger, K. (2022). Is it a green or brown job? A Taxonomy of Sustainable Employment. Ecological Economics, 200, 107469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2022.107469 Chrispim, M. C., Mattsson, M., & Ulvenblad, P. (2023). The underrepresented key elements of Circular Economy: A critical review of assessment tools and a guide for action. Sustainable Production and Con- sumption, 35, 539-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2022.11.019 Cingiz, K., Gonzalez-Hermoso, H., Heijman, W., & Wes- seler, J. H. H. (2021). A Cross-Country Measurement of the EU Bioeconomy: An Input–Output Approach. Sustainability, 13(6), 3033. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13063033 Cingiz, K., González Hermoso, H., Heijman, W., & Wes- seler, J. (2021). BIOMONITOR - Bioeconomic shares. [Dataset] PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/cde85443- 3e27-4b52-8349-0945a733ff93 Corona, B., Shen, L., Reike, D., Rosales Carreón, J., & Worrell, E. (2019). Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 151, 104498. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498 Council of the European Union. (2023). Council conclu- sions on the opportunities of the bioeconomy in the light of current challenges with special emphasis on rural areas. Brussels Retrieved from https://data.con- silium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8406-2023-INIT/ en/pdf DESTATIS. (2016). Finanzen und Steuern: Ausgaben, Einnahmen und Personal der öffentlichen und öffentlich geförderten  Einrichtungen für Wissen- schaft, Forschung und Entwicklung. Fachserie 14 Rei- he 3.6. DESTATIS. (2018). Baugenehmigungen von Wohn- und Nichtwohngebäuden nach überwiegend ver- 330 Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 Tévécia Ronzon et al. wendetem Baustoff: Lange Reihen 1980 - 2018. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/ Branchen-Unternehmen/Bauen/Publikationen/ Downloads-Bautaetigkeit/baugenehmigungen-baust- off-pdf-5311107.html Dietz, T., Bogdanski, A., Boldt, C., Börner, J., von Braun, J., Ní Choncubhai, Ó., . . . Wehrheim, P. (2024). Bio- economy globalization: Recent trends and drivers of national programs and piolicies. Retrieved from https://www.iacgb.net/lw_resource/datapool/system- files/elements/files/52440fb0-f35d-11ee-9ed1-dead- 53a91d31/current/document/Global_Bioeconomy_-_ April_2024_IACGB.pdf Efken, J., Dirksmeyer, W., Kreins, P., & Knecht, M. (2016). Measuring the importance of the bioeconomy in Germany: Concept and illustration. NJAS - Wage- ningen Journal of Life Sciences, 77, 9-17. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.008 European Commission. (2012). COM(2012) 60 final. Communication from the Commission to the Euro- pean Parliament, the Council, the European Eco- nomic and Social Committee and the committee of the Regions. Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. Official Journal of the Euro- pean Union, 9. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012D C0060&from=EN European Commission. (2018). COM(2018) 673 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the committee of the Regions. A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environ- ment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy Retrieved from Brussels, Belgium: https://ec.europa.eu/transpar- ency/regdoc/rep/1/2018/EN/COM-2018-673-F1-EN- MAIN-PART-1.PDF European Commission. (2022a). EU Bioeconomy Moni- toring System. Last updated 17/05/2022. Retrieved from https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioecon- omy/monitoring_en European Commission. (2022b). European bioeconomy policy. Stocktaking and future development: report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Commit- tee and the Committee of the Regions. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publica- tion/ae0a36d3-eac3-11ec-a534-01aa75ed71a1 Eurostat. (2020a). Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry (NACE Rev. 2, B-E) (sbs_na_ind_r2). Retrieved from: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ nui/show.do?dataset=sbs_na_ind_r2&lang=en Eurostat. (2020b). Annual detailed enterprise statistics for services (NACE Rev. 2 H-N and S95) (sbs_na_1a_se_ r2). Retrieved from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa. eu/nui/show.do?dataset=sbs_na_1a_se_r2&lang=en Eurostat. (2020c). Annual detailed enterprise statistics for trade (NACE Rev. 2 G) (sbs_na_dt_r2). Retrieved from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show. do?dataset=sbs_na_dt_r2&lang=en Eurostat. (2020d). National accounts aggregates by indus- try (up to NACE A*64) (nama_10_a64). Retrieved from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show. do?dataset=nama_10_a64&lang=en Eurostat. (2020e). Symmetric input-output table at basic prices (product by product) (naio_10_cp1700). Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ databrowser/view/NAIO_10_CP1700/default/ table?lang=en&category=na10.naio_10.naio_10_cp Eurostat. (2021). Statistics on the production of manu- factured goods (prom DS-066341). Retrieved from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show. do?dataset=DS-066341&lang=en FAO. (2021). Aspirational Principles and Criteria for a Sustainable Bioeconomy. Retrieved from Rome: htt- ps://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb3706en/ Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). (2014). National Policy Strategy on Bioeconomy. Retrieved from Berlin, Germany: https://www.bmel. de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/NatPo- licyStrategyBioeconomy.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Gomez San Juan, M., Harnett, S., & Albinelli, I. (2022). Sustainable and circular bioeconomy in the climate agenda: Opportunities to transform agrifood systems. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/documents/card/ en/c/cc2668en Heijman, W. (2016). How big is the bio-business? Notes on measuring the size of the Dutch bio-economy. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 77, 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.004 Iost, S., Labonte, N., Banse, M., Geng, N., Jochem, D., Schweinle, J., . . . Weimar, H. (2019). German Bioec- onomy: Economic Importance and Concept of Meas- urement. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(4), 275–288. Retrieved from https://www.gjae- online.de/articles/german-bioeconomy-economic- importance-and-concept-of-measurement/ Iost, S., & Weimar, H. (2020). Chapter 2.5 Bio-based Shares of Sectors. In Setting up a bioeconomy moni- toring: Resource base and sustainability. Thünen Working Paper 149 (pp. 80-94). Hamburg, Germany: Thünen. Junta de Andalucía. (2018). Estrategia Andaluza de Bioec- onomía Circular. Retrieved from Sevilla: https://www. 331Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Bio-based and Applied Economics 13(4): 317-331, 2024 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-14563 juntadeandalucia.es/organismos/agriculturaganade- riapescaydesarrollosostenible/areas/politica-agraria- comun/desarrollo-rural/paginas/estrategia-andaluza- bioeconomia.html Kuosmanen, T., Kuosmanen, N., El Meligi, A., Tévécia, R., Gurria Albusac, P., Iost, S., & M’barek, R. (2020). How big is the bioeconomy? Reflections from an eco- nomic perspective. EUR 30167 EN. Retrieved from Luxembourg: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ repository/handle/JRC120324 M’barek, R., Philippidis, G., Suta, C., Vinyes, C., Caivano, A., Ferrari, E., … Santini, F. (2014). Observing and analysing the Bioeconomy in the EU-Adapting data and tools to new questions and challenges. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 3(1), 83. Retrieved from htt- ps://econpapers.repec.org/article/agsaieabj/172417.htm Meesters, K. P. H., van Dam, J. E. G., & Bos, H. L. (2013). Protocol for monitoring of material streams in the biobased economy (ISBN 978-94-6173-702-1). Retrieved from Wageningen, The Netherlands: htt- ps://english.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2014/12/Proto- col%20monitoring%20materialstreams%20BBE.pdf Moraga, G., Huysveld, S., Mathieux, F., Blengini, G. A., Alaerts, L., Van Acker, K., … Dewulf, J. (2019). Cir- cular economy indicators: What do they measure? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 452-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045 Mubareka, S., Giuntoli, J., Sanchez Lopez, J., Lasarte Lopez, J., M`barek, R., Ronzon, T., . . . Avraamides, M. (2023). Trends in the EU bioeconomy. Retrieved from Luxembourg: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa. eu/repository/handle/JRC132639 OECD. (2018). Meeting Policy Challenges for a Sustainable Bioeconomy (O. Publishing Ed.). Paris: OECD. OECD. (2021). Input-Output Tables (IOTs) 2018 edi- tion. Retrieved from: https://stats.oecd.org/Index. aspx?DataSetCode=IOTSi4_2018 Patermann, C., & Aguilar, A. (2018). The origins of the bioeconomy in the European Union. New Bio- technology, 40, 20-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nbt.2017.04.002 Porc, O., Hark, N., Carus, M., & Carrez, D. (2021). Euro- pean Bioeconomy in Figures 2008-2018. Retrieved from https://renewable-carbon.eu/publications/prod- uct/european-bioeconomy-in-figures-2008-2018-pdf/ Robert, N., Jonsson, R., Chudy, R., & Camia, A. (2020). The EU Bioeconomy: Supporting an Employment Shift Downstream in the Wood-Based Value Chains? Sustainability, 12(3), 758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12030758 Ronzon, T., Iost, S., & Philippidis, G. (2022a). Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an output-based approach with a shift- share analysis. Environment, Development and Sus- tainability, 24(6), 8195-8217. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10668-021-01780-8 Ronzon, T., Iost, S., & Philippidis, G. (2022b). An out- put-based measurement of EU bioeconomy services: Marrying statistics with policy insight. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 60, 290-301. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.10.005 Ronzon, T., Piotrowski, S., M’Barek, R., & Carus, M. (2017). A systematic approach to understanding and quantifying the EU’s bioeconomy. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 6(1), 1-17. https://doi. org/10.13128/BAE-20567 Wesseler, J., & von Braun, J. (2017). Measuring the Bio- economy: Economics and Policies. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9, 275-298. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053701 _Ref114578152 _Ref114489287 _Ref114578337 _Ref115429676 _Hlk124753738 _Hlk124753769 _Ref114578159 _Hlk125619779 _Hlk125620100 _Hlk125620116 _Hlk168057609 _Hlk125617961 _Hlk125617978 _heading=h.1fob9te _heading=h.1y810tw _heading=h.3whwml4 _Hlk105387355 _Hlk162970176 _Hlk120503612 _Hlk94825625 _Hlk101307043 _Hlk112165281 _Hlk110795819 _Hlk163789378 _Hlk101572865 _Hlk101574469 _Hlk162424605 _Hlk163657897 _Hlk163658986 _Hlk163657719 _Hlk163657691 _Hlk163658456 _Hlk163658513 _Hlk163658646 _Hlk162446713 _Hlk125919866 _Hlk107164817 _Hlk162973538 _Hlk162447045 _Hlk107174352 _Hlk162447083 _Hlk124882770 _Hlk142394334 _Hlk142395728 _Hlk142430461 _Hlk142337917 _Hlk142342729 _Hlk142337969 _Hlk142337867 _Hlk142342461 _Hlk142342928 _Hlk142338077 _Hlk142348528 _Hlk164779807 _Hlk125467744 _Hlk141790649 Assessing the bioeconomy’s contribution to evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of value added measurements Tévécia Ronzon1,2,*, Patricia Gurria2, Michael Carus3, Kutay Cingiz2, Andrea El-Meligi1, Nicolas Hark3, Susanne Iost4, Robert M’Barek1, George Philippidis5, Myrna van Leeuwen6, Justus Wesseler2 Predicting the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 using an agent-based model based on PMP methodology Lisa Baldi1, Sara Calzolai2, Filippo Arfini2,*, Michele Donati1 Simulating farm structural change dynamics in Thessaly (Greece) using a recursive programming model Stamatis Mantziaris1,*, Stelios Rozakis2, Pavlos Karanikolas1, Athanasios Petsakos3, Konstantinos Tsiboukas1 Analyzing the impact of government subsidies on household welfare during economic shocks: A case study of Iran Mohammad Dehghan1,*, Seyyed Nematollah Moosavi2*, Ebrahim Zare3 Crop production, the pollinator deficit and land use management: UK farm level survey results Iain Fraser1,*, Michelle T. Fountain2, John M. Holland3