Lithuania NUTS-2 Action Plan

This project has received funding from the European Union‘s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 101036838. D7.18 – Synthesis report on the cluster Circular Economy Action Plan for the deployment of circular systemic solutions in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions March 2025 Authors: Dr. Inga Matijošytė, Virginija Kargytė Organisation: Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists Ref. Ares(2025)2586342 - 31/03/2025 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 2 І 197 Technical references Project Acronym Agro2Circular Project Title TERRITORIAL CIRCULAR SYSTEMIC SOLUTION FOR THE UPCYCLING OF RESIDUES FROM THE AGRIFOOD SECTOR Project Coordinator Fuensanta Monzó CETEC - Technological Centre of Footwear and Plastic of the Region of Murcia [email protected] Project Duration October 2021 – September 2024 (36 months) Deliverable No. D7.18 Dissemination level PU = Public Work Package WP7 – A2C systemic solution adoption, replication and scalability Task T7.6 – Italian/Lithuanian region replication case Lead beneficiary 40 - Tecnoalimenti (TCA) Contributing beneficiaries 41 - Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists (LPK) 21 - Kveloce (KVC) 28 - Bocconi University (UB) 29 - VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) Due date of deliverable 31 March 2025 Actual submission date 31 March 2025 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 3 І 197 Document history Version Date Comments v0.1 20 January 2025 First complete draft of the document v0.2 28 February 2025 Revised version based on provided additional information and feedback from TCA, VTT, UB, & KVC v1.0 31 March 2025 Final version, approved by the WP leader (KVC) and the Project Coordinator (CETEC), (to be) submitted to the European Commission (EC) Document distribution Version Date Distributed to v0.1 20 January 2025 TCA, VTT, UB, & KVC v0.2 28 February 2025 WP leader (KVC), Project Coordinator (CETEC), & TCA v1.0 31 March 2025 WP leader (KVC), Project Coordinator (CETEC), TCA, VTT, & UB Verification and approval Name Date Verification of the final draft by the WP leader (KVC) Alba Matamoros Escobedo (KVC) 31 March 2025 Approval of the final deliverable by the Project Coordinator (CETEC) Fuensanta Monzó (CETEC) 31 March 2025 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 4 І 197 Disclaimer and acknowledgement This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101036838. Disclaimer This document reflects only the views of the author(s), the European Research Executive Agency (REA) is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Whilst efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this document, the A2C consortium shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, however caused. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 5 І 197 Table of contents List of abbreviations ........................................................................ 12 Glossary .......................................................................................... 14 1 Executive summary ................................................................... 17 2 Introduction ................................................................................ 24 3 Replication analysis and action plan.......................................... 33 3.1 Characterisation of Lithuania’s NUTS 2 regions ............................................ 33 3.1.1. Local population, economy, and the environment ........................................ 34 3.1.2. Main characteristics of local agrifood and related industrial sectors ............. 40 3.2 Multidimensional context analysis .................................................................. 59 3.2.1. Contextual analysis performed for Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions ................... 61 3.2.2. Assessment results by each dimension........................................................ 62 3.2.2.1 Socioeconomic dimension ..................................................................... 62 3.2.2.2 Governance dimension ......................................................................... 65 3.2.2.3 Policy and regulatory dimension ........................................................... 68 3.2.2.4 Financial dimension............................................................................... 75 3.2.2.5 Technology, research and innovation and capacity building dimension 78 3.2.2.6 Environmental dimension ...................................................................... 87 3.2.2.7 Standardisation dimension .................................................................... 88 3.2.3. Comparison of the assessed dimensions ..................................................... 92 3.3 Supply and value chain analysis ...................................................................... 94 3.3.1. Assessment of the potential of agricultural and food processing (fruit and vegetable) residues .................................................................................................... 95 3.3.1.1 Waste generation and management throughout the supply chain, potential for increased circularity ............................................................................. 95 3.3.1.2 Assessment of circularity potential by identifying systemic solutions in the supply chain that have the greatest potential to be implemented through innovations and creation of higher added value products ..................................... 109 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 6 І 197 3.3.2. Assessment of the potential of plastic wastes in agriculture ....................... 133 3.3.2.1 Current status of the generation and management of plastic wastes in agriculture: plastic types, volumes, collection and utilisation/recycling methods ... 133 3.3.2.2 Potential of the circular use of agricultural plastic waste ..................... 148 3.4 Business model and action plan for implementing circular systemic solutions ..................................................................................................................... 151 3.4.1. Circular Business Models adopted to Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions ............. 151 3.4.2. Cluster Circular Economy Action Plan ........................................................ 162 4 Conclusions ............................................................................. 166 5 Evaluation of the results .......................................................... 170 6 Bibliography ............................................................................. 174 7 ANNEXES ................................................................................ 178 ANNEX 1 Number of farmers’ farms by the activities carried out and by place of activity (counties) in Lithuania .................................................................................. 178 ANNEX 2 Number of local units (C10, C11, C20, C21, C22, E38) by place of activity (counties) in Lithuania ............................................................................................... 179 ANNEX 3 Production of relevant commodities: manufacturing food products (C10) and beverages (C11) .................................................................................................. 180 ANNEX 4 Production of relevant commodities: manufacturing chemicals and chemical products (C20) ............................................................................................ 192 List of Tables Table 1 Main elements of the A2C systemic solution ........................................................ 24 Table 2 Circular Economy in the A2C regions ................................................................... 28 Table 3 Social characteristics of local population in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions .............. 34 Table 4 Development investments in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions .................................... 36 Table 5 Land use in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions ............................................................... 39 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 7 І 197 Table 6 Usable production, imports and exports of fruits, vegetables, potatoes, beans and peas in Lithuania during the calendar years of 2018 and 2023 (thousand tonnes) ..... 45 Table 7 Major industrial products (C10 and C11) produced in Lithuania ........................... 51 Table 8 Major industrial products (C20) produced in Lithuania .......................................... 55 Table 9 Organisations and, if applicable, departments of focus group participants ........... 61 Table 10 Key findings concerning ―Socioeconomic dimension‖ ......................................... 62 Table 11 Key findings concerning ―Governance dimension‖ .............................................. 65 Table 12 Key findings concerning ―Policy and regulatory dimension‖ ................................ 68 Table 13 Suggested priorities for circular solutions for different country groups ................ 70 Table 14 Relevant measures in Lithuania‘s Circular Economy roadmap until 2035 .......... 71 Table 15 Key findings concerning ―Financial dimension‖ ................................................... 75 Table 16 Key findings concerning ―Technology, research and innovation and capacity building dimension‖ ..................................................................................................... 79 Table 17 Circular Economy-related projects funded under Interreg Baltic Sea Region 2021–2027 .................................................................................................................. 85 Table 18 Key findings concerning ―Environmental dimension‖ .......................................... 87 Table 19 Key findings concerning ―Standardisation dimension‖ ........................................ 88 Table 20 A2C-relevant standardisation Technical Committees in Lithuania ...................... 89 Table 21 Comparison of the A2C multidimensional model application results in Italy and Lithuania ..................................................................................................................... 94 Table 22 Losses of selected fruits and vegetables, incl. root crops, in Lithuanian agriculture in 2019 (tonnes of estimated waste and % from total production) ............. 98 Table 23 Residuals of fruits and vegetables in food industry, trade, catering, and households ............................................................................................................... 101 Table 24 Comparison of functioning of the SRM of biowaste in Europe and Lithuania .... 108 Table 25 Technology/product developers in Lithuania ..................................................... 110 Table 26 Type of agricultural product and their bioactives ............................................... 111 Table 27 Composition of vegetables and fruits ................................................................ 113 Table 28 Potential cluster and use possibilities for beans residuals ................................ 122 Table 29 Potential cluster and use possibilities for peas residuals .................................. 123 Table 30 Potential cluster and use possibilities for sugar beet residuals ......................... 124 Table 31 Potential cluster and use possibilities for potatoes residuals ............................ 125 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 8 І 197 Table 32 Potential cluster and use possibilities for beetroot residuals ............................. 126 Table 33 Potential cluster and use possibilities for brassicas residuals ........................... 127 Table 34 Potential cluster and use possibilities for cucumbers residuals ........................ 128 Table 35 Potential cluster and use possibilities for tomatoes residuals ........................... 129 Table 36 Potential cluster and use possibilities for onions residuals ............................... 130 Table 37 Potential cluster and use possibilities for carrots residuals ............................... 131 Table 38 Potential cluster and use possibilities for apples residuals ............................... 132 Table 39 Comparison of functioning of the SRM of plastics in Europe and Lithuania ...... 138 Table 40 Reported annual amounts of plastic waste in different size farms .................... 145 Table 41 Estimated potential annual amounts of farm-generated plastic waste by county .................................................................................................................................. 145 Table 42 Adopted Business Model for Lithuanian companies willing to use new ingredients in their products (food, nutraceuticals, cosmetics) .................................................... 152 Table 43 Factors affecting the environmental impact ...................................................... 155 Table 44 Comparison between Murcia, Lombardy, and Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions concerning factor affecting the environmental impact in case of A2C solutions replication ................................................................................................................. 157 Table 45 Adopted Business Model for Lithuanian companies willing to use new ingredients in their products (plastic products) ............................................................................ 160 Table 46 Action agenda to facilitate the replication of the A2C systemic solution in Lithuania ................................................................................................................... 163 Table 47 List of communication and dissemination activities organised by LPK team ..... 168 List of Figures Figure 1 Core research tasks and expected results upon their completion........................ 25 Figure 2 Geographical location of the A2C demonstrators and replication case studies ... 26 Figure 3 Population size, population density, and GDP per capita in the A2C regions ...... 27 Figure 4 Employment in the A2C-related sectors in the A2C regions ................................ 28 Figure 5 Patents related to recycling and secondary raw materials in the EU-27 countries .................................................................................................................................... 30 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 9 І 197 Figure 6 Area of the Central and Western Lithuania Region (on the left) and the Capital Region (on the right), with ten county centres (cities) marked .................................... 33 Figure 7 Resident population at the beginning of the year of 2024 in Lithuania‘s counties 33 Figure 8 Sectorial structure of gross value added in the Central and Western Lithuania Region ........................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 9 Sectorial structure of gross value added in the Capital Region ........................... 35 Figure 10 Investment in tangible fixed assets within the A2C-related economic activities in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions ........................................................................................ 37 Figure 11 Institutions with competences in Natural Sciences, Technology, Medical and Health Sciences and Agricultural Sciences in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions ................ 38 Figure 12 Structure of gross agricultural production in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions .......... 40 Figure 13 Crop production in Lithuanian counties .............................................................. 41 Figure 14 Structure of crop production by crop type in Lithuania ....................................... 43 Figure 15 Harvest of major relevant crops (fruits and vegetables, incl. root crops) in Lithuania ..................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 16 Self‐sufficiency rates for fruits, vegetables, potatoes, beans and peas in Lithuania from the calendar year of 2018 to the calendar year of 2023 ...................... 45 Figure 17 Domestic uses of fruits, vegetables, potatoes, beans and peas in Lithuania ..... 46 Figure 18 Trends of value added generated by food sector in Lithuania ........................... 47 Figure 19 Value added of C10 by Lithuanian counties ...................................................... 48 Figure 20 Value added of C11 by Lithuanian counties ...................................................... 48 Figure 21 Enterprises by size (C10) .................................................................................. 49 Figure 22 Value added by enterprise size (C10) ................................................................ 49 Figure 23 Distribution of enterprises by size (C103) .......................................................... 50 Figure 24 Trend of the number of enterprises (C103) ........................................................ 50 Figure 25 Enterprises by size (C11) .................................................................................. 50 Figure 26 Trends of value added generated by C20 and C21 sectors in Lithuania ........... 52 Figure 27 Value added of C20 by Lithuanian counties ...................................................... 53 Figure 28 Number of enterprises by size (C20) ................................................................. 54 Figure 29 Value added generated by enterprises of different size (C20) ........................... 54 Figure 30 Number of enterprises by size (C21) ................................................................. 54 Figure 31 Trends of value added generated by C22 and E38 sectors in Lithuania ............ 56 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 16 І 197 NUTS 2 regions – basic regions for the application of regional policies, which usually have between 800,000 and 3,000,000 inhabitants, according to Eurostat, NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics [9]. Root crops – based on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD) [10], potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), whose starchy tubers are grown as a staple crop, are considered ‗root crops‘, along with cassava (Manihot esculenta), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea spp.) and corms of the Araceae family (Xanthosoma spp.). These crops are categorised separately from vegetables in the FAOSTAT primary production database. Meanwhile, Eurostat [11] distinguishes two main root crops in the EU, i.e. potatoes and sugar beet; other root crops include fodder beet, fodder kale, rutabaga, fodder carrot and turnips. Vegetables – in Eurostat agricultural statistics, the distinction between fruits and vegetables is based on an agronomical and farm management point of view [8]. Therefore, the term ‗vegetables‘ refers to the horticultural crops, i.e. the species that are annual (or rarely biennial) and subsequently occupy the arable land for usually less than one production season. This implies that the fresh vegetables group includes brassica (cauliflowers, broccoli, cabbages), leafy and stalked vegetables (such as lettuce, spinach, chicory, endives, asparagus, artichoke), root and bulb species (carrots, radish, onion, shallots and garlic), fresh pulses (peas, beans) and all the herbaceous crops cultivated for their fruits (such as tomatoes, peppers, aubergines, courgettes, cucumbers and gherkins). Following the above-mentioned distinction, melons, watermelons and strawberries are also included in the main aggregate of fresh vegetables. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 17 І 197 1 Executive summary This synthesis report and the action plan were prepared in the framework of the Horizon 2020 funded project No. 101036838 ―Territorial Circular Systemic Solution for the Upcycling of Residues from the AgriFood Sector‖, abbreviated as ―Agro2Circular‖ or ―A2C‖. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the A2C replication/scalability potential through preparing a specific replication plan, making it ready at the end of the project for the future implementation of the circular economy business models that are specifically identified for the Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions and based on the A2C solutions, thus providing relevant territorial inputs to the other tasks of the project. As planned in Task T7.6 ―Italian/Lithuanian region replication case‖, the work done includes: 1. Analysis of the amounts and types of residues within the regional agrifood industry, the identification of industrial synergies and the definition of new value chains for the implementation of the technological solutions. 2. Public engagement, i.e. involving relevant entities for new value chains for the implementation of the technologic solutions, i.e. agrifood residues providers, technology providers, recyclers, end-users, and reaching the stakeholders at regional/operational levels needed to implement the systemic solutions. 3. Self-assessment based on a multidimensional model facilitating contextual territorial analysis of existing barriers, challenges, enablers, and facilitators. 4. Specific exchanges of knowledge on the A2C solutions (see the list of communication and dissemination activities organised by LPK team in the concluding section of this report). 5. Definition and development of specific circular business models and an action plan for the realisation of these models. Key findings and recommendations A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 18 І 197  Lithuanian replication study’s added value. The A2C project is focused on the upcycling of fruit and vegetable residues and plastic wastes in the agrifood sector into high added value products through new food formulations, cosmetic formulations, and nutraceutical formulations, as well as plastic recycling solutions. Compared to the demonstration region of Murcia (Spain) and another replication region of Lombardy (Italy), the Lithuanian replication study‘s added value is that it represents a distinct climatic area and a case of comparatively low population density regions characterised by disparities in economic performance. Compared to Spain and Italy, Lithuania itself has developed fewer solutions for recycling and secondary raw materials, and has considerably lower circular material use rate.  Lithuania’s NUTS 2 regions. One of Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions, i.e. the Capital Region, is more economically advanced, while another region of NUTS 2 level, i.e. the Central and Western Lithuania Region, is more specialised in the A2C-related sectors. It could be possible to narrow the analysis to one of these regions, for instance, to relevantly specialised Central and Western Lithuania Region. However, useful resources (both material and intellectual), as well as activities related to the A2C solutions take place in both regions. Moreover, the Central and Western Lithuania Region does not have a single authority, since this region includes nine separate counties with their autonomous municipalities. As provided in the contextual analysis, the CE governance, policies and regulations are rather centralised at national level in Lithuania. Thus, the same conditions apply to both regions.  Local agriculture. Lithuania has a strong agricultural industry, one among the fastest growing in the EU. The agricultural production is concentrated in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, and it is specialised in crop production. The most important branch of crop production and one of the main sectors of Lithuanian agriculture is the grain sector. The A2C-relevant branches of crop production are relatively small in Lithuania: vegetables and potatoes constitute around 10 % of the output value of crop production, fruit and berries – 1 %. To satisfy domestic needs, significant amounts of fruits and vegetables are being imported to Lithuania. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 19 І 197  Compared to Spanish and Italian regions (demonstration region of Murcia and another replication case region of Lombardy), Lithuanian regions have different scale and portfolio of locally produced fruits and vegetables.  Food manufacturing. The value added generated by the Lithuanian food manufacturing sector was growing significantly as well. In the larger sector of the production of food products this growth was higher than in the smaller sector of the production of beverages. Within the production of food products, processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables constitutes a small share in Lithuania (4.3 %). This particular activity shows positive development trends, but its further development is dependent on the availability of local raw materials.  Agri-food business structure. In terms of business structure, there are comparatively many farms of a small size in Lithuania, while the level of cooperation in the Lithuanian agrifood sector is relatively low, which can be a challenge for the CE development. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) also dominate in the food manufacturing sector, but larger companies generate most of the total value added of this Lithuanian industry.  Enabling conditions. According to the CE stakeholders, business in Lithuania is capable of adapting to the CE, but this transition requires improving communication and reducing bureaucratic barriers, i.e. legislation and standards need to be improved to facilitate the application of sustainable technologies and ensure sustainable products. Based on the experience of other countries, CE issues could be addressed in a more coordinated manner. Although certain progress was made by developing Guidelines for the Lithuanian Transition to a Circular Economy by 2035, there is still a lack of a clear responsible entity to centrally coordinate CE activities, which results in initiatives being scattered across various institutions and action plans not always being consistent. In order to transition to the CE, it is also necessary to overcome the investment gap for innovation, to promote closer cooperation between science, business, and government, as well as to involve society through educational and other activities.  Within the A2C multidimensional model, the socio-economic and the technology, research & innovation dimensions were assessed as most favourable in Lithuania, similarly as in another replication case region of Lombardy. Interestingly, in both A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 20 І 197 Lithuanian and Italian replication case regions commonly identified weak area was funding and financial dimension.  Biological (fruit and vegetable) waste upcycling. Due to occurrence in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions, residuals of sugar beet (estimated 52,061 t in 2023), potatoes (38,702 t), beans (32,403 t), peas (25,404 t), beetroot (11,933 t), apples (3,563 t), brassicas (cabbage) (1,369 t), cucumbers (829 t), onions (734 t), carrots (570 t), and tomatoes (263 t) were identified as viable waste streams for A2C technological solution replication with potential modifications.  Notably, the biowaste management system in Lithuania is already highly efficient, effectively utilising existing methods to handle waste in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. While extracting specific bioactive compounds from agricultural waste may appear innovative, it requires specialised equipment and substantial investment. Given the relatively small quantities of available waste, the approach to isolate bioactive compounds is not economically viable compared to the simpler, proven management techniques already in place. On the other hand, the technologies proposed by A2C for extracting only fibres and phenols present a more practical and scalable solution. These technologies align well with Businessto-Business (B2B) applications, offering value-added opportunities that complement Lithuania‘s existing biowaste management framework. By focusing on these targeted and feasible innovations, A2C can support the development of costeffective and sustainable industrial processes for the circularity approach of agricultural biowaste.  Plastic waste. Efforts to improve the sustainability of packaging waste management are steadily increasing. Lithuania stands out as a leader in recycling PET bottles, achieving up to 90 % collection rates through its highly efficient deposit-return system. Despite this success, challenges remain in optimising the recycling of other types of plastics. The flow of plastic waste – both in type and volume – is significantly influenced by regional business activities, with complicated waste management solutions across the country. To address these challenges, innovative A2C technologies have been explored and developed. These technologies enable the recycling and upcycling of PET and other than PET plastic materials into high-value products suitable for use in food, cosmetic, and A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 21 І 197 nutraceutical applications. While promising, these breakthroughs require further time, funding, and refinement to scale up effectively. Achieving substantial advancements in plastics recycling and building a strong circular economy requires the active participation of all stakeholders – governments, businesses, and consumers. Legislative changes are also pivotal in creating a supportive framework for these innovations. To maximise the impact of A2C technologies, it is essential to initiate national stakeholder meetings and facilitate joint discussions to align efforts and establish collaborative strategies for a sustainable future.  Based on waste material availability, solutions for plastic waste in agriculture seem more promising to replicate. However, solutions for agricultural and food processing residues might be more easily adoptable based on technology integration possibilities.  Circular BM adaptation. The Business Model (BM) of Spanish organisations demonstrating the A2C systemic solution in Murcia builds on technological advantages, and is mostly of B2B type. The replication of A2C solutions in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions requires modification of this BM. Two circular BMs were elaborated for Lithuanian stakeholders. One BM is adopted for Lithuanian companies producing food, nutraceuticals, or cosmetics that are willing to use new sustainable ingredients in their products. Another BM is adopted for Lithuanian companies producing plastic products that are willing to use new recycled ingredients in their products. All the main elements of these BMs are explained, including environmental and social aspects of their implementation.  Action agenda to facilitate the CE transition. Lithuania has national Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP). To utilise the bottom-up approach, a cluster CEAP was developed focusing on the LPK community. The proposed action agenda to facilitate the replication of the A2C systemic solution in Lithuania covers actions in the socioeconomic, policy and regulatory, financial, and standardisation areas. Considering that, in national bioeconomy strategies of the EU countries, policy actions related to circularity are frequently generic statements of support to the recovery and valorisation of different types of wastes and by-products, this replication study provides more in-depth understanding of relevant potentials, which A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 22 І 197 could be used when developing Lithuanian Bioeconomy Strategy and its implementation plans.  Replicability of the A2C systemic solution. Task T7.6 ―Italian/Lithuanian region replication case‖ defined, validated, and enhanced the replicability of the A2C systemic solution across diverse regions by identifying critical factors influencing CE adoption through a multidimensional analysis, engaging stakeholders, and developing tailored business models. In order to replicate A2C solutions in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions, it is essential to consider the fragmentation of Lithuania‘s agri-food sector and the need for tailored technological integrations. As Lithuania currently has a fragmented approach to the bioeconomy, clearer guidelines and strategic approaches provided in the current study are very useful for exploiting the potential of this area more effectively.  Results of the study and its exploitation. The completion of this study the increased capacity of Lithuanian stakeholders to uptake technological advancements and value chain innovations brought by A2C. By providing analysis of A2C-relevant supply and value chains for Lithuanian regions and adopting Business Model (BM), this work enhanced preparedness of Lithuanian stakeholders to get involved in international R&I projects under CE-focused funding instruments/programmes. It is also useful in developing local projects, both public and private. Meanwhile, the contextual analysis of current conditions in Lithuania for upcycling agri-food waste contributes to the work of LPK‘s committees, which formulate suggestions for the Government and its institutions. The study also provides guidelines for the exploitation of its results. Acknowledgements The authors and LPK are thankful for local experts who contributed to this work with their valuable insights (presented in alphabetical order by surname): Paulius Andriejavas, Lithuanian Vegetable Growers Association, Lithuanian Greenhouse Association. Giedrius Bagušinskas, Lithuanian Food Exporters Association ―LitMEA‖, Smart Dr. Paulina Martusevičė, Startup ―Biohifas‖. Dr. Alvija Šalaševičienė, Kaunas University of Technology. Greta Šaltytė, Association ―CropLife A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 23 І 197 Food Cluster. Prof. Dr. Tomas Baleţentis, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences. Greta Česnaitytė, Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. Paulius Guzevičius, Group of agrifood companies ―Vikonda grupė‖. Dr. Audronė Ispiryan, Lithuanian Berry Growers, Processors and Traders Association. Viktorija Januškevičė, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry. Lithuania‖. Prof. Dr. Ţivilė Tarasevičienė, Vytautas Magnus University. Dr. Karolina Trakšelytė-Rupšienė, Innovation Agency Lithuania. Zita Varanavičienė, Association ―CropLife Lithuania‖. Dr. Viktorija Vaštakaitė-Kairienė, Vytautas Magnus University. Prof. Dr. Vlada Vitunskienė, Vytautas Magnus University. For collaboration in conducting the contextual analysis, which is presented in section 3.2 Multidimensional context analysis, we are thankful to Dr. Mariantonella Palermo from TCA and Alba Matamoros Escobedo from KVC. Meanwhile, for the analysis of the environmental aspects of the proposed Business Model (BM), which is presented in section 3.4.1 Circular Business Model Canvas, we are thankful to VTT researchers: Dr. Silvia Forin, Eveliina Hylkilä, and Essi Paronen. We are also grateful for guidance on the development of business models for Tania Molteni from UB. Finally, this deliverable was peer reviewed by Fuensanta Monzó (CETEC) and Aran Blanco (KVC), which contributed to the quality of the final version. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 24 І 197 2 Introduction Background information The A2C project is focused on the implementation of the first territorial systemic solution for the upcycling of most relevant residues in the agrifood sector (fruits and vegetables and plastic multilayers) into high added value products, powered by a digital tool and constructed upon a systemic approach with high replicable/scalable potential. The main elements of the A2C systemic solution are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Main elements of the A2C systemic solution Sector Product, service, or system developed Target end-users Recycling 1. First recycling plant of plastic multilayer materials (containing aluminium) Plastic compounding industries Cosmetic, food and nutraceutics 2. Building blocks from Polyethylene (PE) and Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) degradation products to use in cosmetic formulations Cosmetic industries, food industries, plastic compounding industries 3. High added value substances from agri-food waste by green extraction + ultrasound 4. High added value extracted substances from agrifood residues by green extraction + enzymatic hydrolysis assisted extraction + microwave 5. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) & carotenoids production Food packaging 6. Bioplastics PHBV compounds to use in biodegradable food packaging Plastic transformers 7. Recycled and recyclable high barrier compounds for food packaging Agriculture 8. Bioplastics PHBV compounds to use in biodegradable agricultural films Plastic transformers 9. Recycled and recyclable very high barrier compounds for agricultural films CE digitalisation 10. Agro2Circular Data Integration System Agrifood industries, recycling industries, plastic industries The A2C consortium is made of 40 partners from 12 European countries, i.e. Spain (24 partners, incl. coordinator), Italy (5), the Netherlands (2), Germany (1), Austria (1), the United Kingdom (1), Belgium (1), Finland (1), Greece (1), Switzerland (1), Lithuania (1), and France (1). The partners have been selected to cover all actors of the value chain and the systemic approach of the project. It is composed of large, medium-sized, and small A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 25 І 197 companies, universities, research institutes, public institutions, and non-profit organisations. Expected results of the replication case study The main output of this case study is a cluster CEAP to facilitate the replication of the A2C systemic solution in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions. Figure 1 summaries core research tasks and expected results upon their completion. Figure 1 Core research tasks and expected results upon their completion Added value to the overall project Demonstration activities for earlier listed products, services, and systems are being implemented in Spain, the Region of Murcia, whereas Italy‘s Lombardy and Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions (Central and Western Lithuania Region and Capital Region) are selected as replication case studies (Figure 2). A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 32 І 197 5. Technology, research and innovation and capacity building dimension; 6. Environmental dimension; 7. Standardisation dimension. The third section (section 3.3 Supply and value chain analysis) introduces two supply and value chain analyses:  Firstly, for the potential of fruit and vegetable residuals (sub-section 3.3.1 Assessment of the potential of agricultural and food processing (fruit and vegetable) residues). This part of the work: a) provides supply chain analysis that captures waste generation and management throughout the supply chain (growers, processors, retailers, consumers), revealing the potential for increased circularity; b) identifies agricultural products with the highest circular innovation potential; c) assesses the circularity potential by identifying systemic solutions in the supply chain that have the greatest potential to be implemented through innovations and creation of higher added value products.  Secondly, for the potential of agricultural plastic waste (sub-section 3.3.2 Assessment of the potential of plastic wastes in agriculture). The potential of agricultural plastic waste is investigated by analysing the current status of the generation and management of plastic waste in agriculture and by evaluating the possibilities for the circular use of this type of waste. In the fourth section (section 3.4 Business model and action plan for implementing circular systemic solutions), based on the findings from the previous parts of the work, business model for the implementation of identified circular systemic solutions is proposed (sub-section 3.4.1 Circular Business Model Canvas), which is accompanied with the cluster Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) for stakeholders in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions (sub-section 3.4.2 Cluster Circular Economy Action Plan). Sections 4. Conclusions and 5. Evaluation of the results summarise the work and its contribution to the A2C project‘s impacts, as well as provide exploitation actions. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 33 І 197 3 Replication analysis and action plan 3.1 Characterisation of Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions On the 6th of January 2016, by the Resolution No. 5 ―On the formation of the Capital Region and the Central and Western Lithuania Region‖ of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania 3 , two new regions were formed, i.e. the Capital Region that is comprised of Vilnius County municipalities and the Central and Western Lithuania Region that is comprised of the remaining counties – Alytus, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Marijampolė, Panevėţys, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai, and Utena (Figure 6). In the latter, economic activities are distributed across nine counties, in which the population ranges from 585.4 thousand to 90.5 thousand residents (Figure 7). Source: Created by the authors using map from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 6 Area of the Central and Western Lithuania Region (on the left) and the Capital Region (on the right), with ten county centres (cities) marked Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 7 Resident population at the beginning of the year of 2024 in Lithuania‘s counties 3 Online access to the resolution on the formation of two Lithuanian regions – https://www.etar.lt/portal/en/legalAct/5bb097a0b92011e5a6588fb85a3cc84b, accessed on 30 10 2024. Alytus Vilnius Kaunas Marijampolė Tauragė Klaipėda Telšiai Šiauliai Panevėžys Utena 868,251 868,251 2,017,640 585,430 339,831 266,803 209,093 134,663 134,181 130,913 126,192 90,534 Capital Region Vilnius County Central and Western Lithuania Region Kaunas County Klaipėda County Šiauliai County Panevėžys County Marijampolė County Alytus County Telšiai County Utena County Tauragė County Resident population (persons) at the beginning of the year of 2024 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 34 І 197 The following sub-sections describe relevant characteristics of these two Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions. 3.1.1. Local population, economy, and the environment Compared to the Capital Region, the Central and Western Lithuania Region is characterised by lower levels of population growth, employment, and earnings (Table 3). There are also comparatively more people living in rural areas in this region. Table 3 Social characteristics of local population in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions Lithuania Central and Western Lithuania Region Capital Region Growth of resident population*, % (2024 compared to 2019) 2.6 0.2 8.8 Share of resident population* in rural areas, % (2024) 31.5 36.2 20.4 Employment rate of persons aged 15-64, % (2023) 73.2 70.7 78.7 Average gross monthly earnings, EUR (2024 Q1) 2,128.7 1,933.5 2,423.2 * Resident population in the beginning of the year. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency) – https://osp.stat.gov.lt/en, accessed on 31 10 2024. In 2022, economy of the Central and Western Lithuania Region generated Gross Value Added (GVA) of 34.5 billion EUR (56.3 % of total GVA in Lithuania), while the Capital Region created remaining 26.8 billion EUR (43.7 % of Lithuania‘s GVA). Most of biological resources production (89.2 % of Lithuania‘s GVA under Agriculture, forestry and fishing (A)), as well as of manufacturing activities (70.4 % of Lithuania‘s GVA under Manufacturing (C)) take place in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, while economy of the Capital Region is more dominated by service activities (see Figures 8 and 9). A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 35 І 197 * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 8 Sectorial structure of gross value added in the Central and Western Lithuania Region * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 9 Sectorial structure of gross value added in the Capital Region As presented in Table 4, the Central and Western Lithuania Region is lagging behind the Capital Region in terms of investments. Both Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and R&D expenditure were considerably higher in the Capital Region and both were increasing at a higher rate in this region. Meanwhile, expenditure of enterprises on innovation activities was of a similar scale in both regions. The concept of Lithuania‘s Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3) 4 notes that, in 2014–2020, as much as 79 % of all EU fund investments in science and innovation went to Vilnius County. Another significant portion of these funds was allocated to the counties of Lithuania‘s major cities – Kaunas (14 %) and Klaipėda (5 %). Therefore, regions with the lowest innovation potential also have the lowest opportunities to benefit from investments aimed at promoting innovation. However, when comparing total EU fund investments in business, the gap from large cities is smaller. Counties of Alytus, Kaunas, Panevėţys, Šiauliai, and Utena attracted a similar number of investments when calculating business investments per capita. This shows that SMEs in various counties of Lithuania are investing in business development and increasing competitiveness, but in many cases, this is not development based on R&D 4 Online access to the concept of Lithuania‘s Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3) – https://www.etar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/9f349d40221011edb4cae1b158f98ea5, accessed on 31 10 2024. Agriculture, forestry and fishing (A), 2389.7, 7% Manufacturing (C), 7728.9, 22% Other industry (B to E, excl. C), 1298.7, 4% Construction (F), 2601, 8% Wholesale and retail trade, transport, accommodation and food service activities (G, H, I), 10091.6, 29% Information and communication (J), 742.8, 2% Financial and insurance activities (K), 364.2, 1% Real estate activities (L), 2379.1, 7% Professional, scientific and technical activities; administrative and support service activities (M, N), 1592.7, 5% Public administration, defence, education, human health and social work activities (O, P, Q), 4631.4, 13% Arts, entertainment and recreation, repair of household goods and other services (R to U), 693.7, 2% GVA by economic activities at current prices (million EUR) and percentage share in the Central and Western Lithuania Region in 2022* Agriculture, forestry and fishing (A), 289, 1% Manufacturing (C), 3251.7, 12% Other industry (B to E, excl. C), 822.6, 3% Construction (F), 1644.9, 6% Wholesale and retail trade, transport, accommodation and food service activities (G, H, I), 7508.8, 28% Information and communication (J), 1979.9, 7% Financial and insurance activities (K), 1752.6, 7% Real estate activities (L), 1517.1, 6% Professional, scientific and technical activities; administrative and support service activities (M, N), 3152, 12% Public administration, defence, education, human health and social work activities (O, P, Q), 4319.9, 16% Arts, entertainment and recreation, repair of household goods and other services (R to U), 550.8, 2% GVA by economic activities at current prices (million EUR) and percentage share in the Capital Region in 2022* A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 36 І 197 activities. Therefore, the concept suggests that it is important to invest not only in existing innovators in major cities, but also to find potential innovators in regions and direct them to higher value-added markets. Table 4 Development investments in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions Lithuania Central and Western Lithuania Region Capital Region FDI at the end of the period, million EUR (2023) 35,553.92 8,870.56 26,683.36 Growth of FDI, % (2023 compared to 2018) 109.6 78.7 122.4 R&D expenditure, million EUR (2023*) 772.084 278.707 493.377 Growth of R&D expenditure, % (2023* compared to 2018) 81.1 52.8 102.3 Expenditure of enterprises on innovation activities, million EUR (2022) 1,557.0 763.4 793.6 Growth of expenditure of enterprises on innovation activities, % (2022 compared to 2018) 44.9 25.8 69.6 Investment in tangible fixed assets at current prices, thousand EUR (2022) 12,793,779 6,104,288 6,163,114 * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency) – https://osp.stat.gov.lt/en, accessed on 31 10 2024. As for investment in tangible fixed assets, these investments were rather equal among the two regions (Table 4), but the intensity is lower in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, since this region is more than twice as large. Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that due to described economic specialisation, the Central and Western Lithuania Region is leading in terms of investment in tangible fixed assets in the A2Crelated sectors (Figure 10). A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 37 І 197 Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 10 Investment in tangible fixed assets within the A2C-related economic activities in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions According to the results of the Comparative Expert Assessment of Research and Development Activities Carried out by Universities and Research Institutes 5 , which was organised in 2023 by the Research Council of Lithuania, both regions have institutions with relevant competences. Figure 11 presents institutions with competences – good ( ), very good ( ), or excellent ( ) – in Natural Sciences, Technology, Medical and Health Sciences and Agricultural Sciences. In the Central and Western Lithuania Region, seven institutions with 1,122.48 FTEs operate in these fields at that level. In the Capital Region, there are six institutions with 1,299.13 FTEs possessing such competences. 5 Online access to the reports of the Comparative Expert Assessment organised by the Research Council of Lithuania – https://lmt.lrv.lt/en/science-quality/comparative-expert-assessment-of-research-and-development-activities/, accessed on 05 11 2024. 149,584 228,248 17,694 36,210 1,313 51,407 35,737 19,296 21,739 6,260 27,894 1,384 40,972 33,237 Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities (A01) Manufacture of food products (C10) Manufacture of beverages (C11) Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (C20) Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations (C21) Manufacture of rubber and plastic products (C22) Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery (E38) Investment in tangible fixed assets at current prices (thousand EUR) within the A2C-related economic activities in 2022 Central and Western Lithuania Region Capital Region A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 38 І 197 Source: Compiled by the authors based on the reports of the Comparative Expert Assessment organised by the Research Council of Lithuania. Figure 11 Institutions with competences in Natural Sciences, Technology, Medical and Health Sciences and Agricultural Sciences in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions The reports of this assessment mention CE-related R&D activities at Kaunas University of Technology (Environmental Engineering, Civil Engineering) and Vytautas Magnus University (Ecology and Environmental Sciences), both of which are based in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, as well as at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (Environmental Engineering), Centre for Physical Sciences and Technology, and Nature Research Center, all three of which are based in the Capital Region. At the same time, the experts note that ―current research fields that are closely related to the priority tasks of EU, such as climate change, circular economy, efficient use of resources, security of energy supply, public health, healthy food, etc., will gain even more importance‖, but ―this envisioned expansion requires a considerable increase of the available manpower, especially doctoral students, in the respective disciplines‖. Also, it is important to mention that the experts acknowledge the presence of ―a very good state-ofthe-art infrastructure and competent research staff for carrying out both basic and applied Vilnius University [5.0] Biochemistry (102.39 FTEs) [4.5] Biology (70.08 FTEs) [4.0] Chemical Engineering (Biotechnology) (43.55 FTEs) [4.0] Biophysics (17.91 FTEs) [4.0] Medicine (91.45 FTEs) [4.0] Physics (97.87 FTEs) [4.0] Astronomy (17.19 FTEs) [4.0] Materials Engineering (28.07 FTEs) [4.0] Mathematics (38.56 FTEs) [4.0] Informatics (40.35 FTEs) [3.5] Chemistry (33.35 FTEs) [3.5] Geology (7.24 FTEs) [3.5] Electrical and Electronic Engineering (8.44 FTEs) [3.0] Ecology and Environmental Sciences (8.61 FTEs) [3.0] Zoology (4.87 FTEs) [3.0] Physical Geography (7.14 FTEs) [3.0] Public Health (10.34 FTEs) [3.0] Informatics Engineering (11.67 FTEs) Kaunas University of Technology [4.0] Chemistry (38.02 FTEs) [4.0] Environmental Engineering (11.76 FTEs) [4.0] Electrical and Electronic Engineering (52.01 FTEs) [4.0] Mechanical Engineering (35.59 FTEs) [4.0] Energetics and Power Engineering (5.11 FTEs) [3.5] Chemical Engineering (54.84 FTEs) [3.5] Informatics Engineering (25.01 FTEs) [3.5] Measurement Engineering (21.36 FTEs) [3.5] Materials Engineering (24.20 FTEs) [3.5] Civil Engineering (26.40 FTEs) [3.0] Transport Engineering (4.49 FTEs) [3.0] Mathematics (13.56 FTEs) [3.0] Informatics (12.69 FTEs) Klaipėda University [4.0] Ecology and Environmental Sciences (25.07 FTEs) [3.5] Transport Engineering (5.58 FTEs) [3.0] Biology (7.63 FTEs) [3.0] Physical Geography (6.74 FTEs) [3.0] Chemical Engineering (5.87 FTEs) [3.0] Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Civil Engineering (7.10 FTEs) [3.0] Informatics (6.19 FTEs) Lithuanian Sports University [3.5] Biology (30.15 FTEs) [3.0] Public Health, Nursing, Medicine (7.24 FTEs) Lithuanian University of Health Sciences [4.5] Medicine (89.39 FTEs) [4.5] Biology (53.83 FTEs) [4.0] Pharmacy (22.92 FTEs) [4.0] Veterinary Sciences (32.92 FTEs) [4.0] Animal Sciences (20.33 FTEs) [3.5] Public Health (32.13 FTEs) [3.5] Nursing (20.97 FTEs) [3.0] Biophysics (20.42 FTEs) [3.0] Odontology (14.13 FTEs) Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry [4.0] Agronomy (agriculture, regional branches –89.00 FTEs, horticulture – 35.18 FTEs) [3.5] Forestry (25.57 FTEs) Lithuanian Energy Institute [4.0] Energetics and Power Engineering (77.49 FTEs) [3.5] Environmental Engineering (9.35 FTEs) [3.0] Materials Engineering (7.75 FTEs) Vytautas Magnus University [4.0] Ecology and Environmental Sciences (22.56 FTEs) [4.0] Environmental Engineering (23.25 FTEs) [4.0] Forestry (13.62 FTEs) [3.5] Agronomy (22.23 FTEs) [3.5] Mathematics (3.24 FTEs) [3.0] Biology (18.24 FTEs) [3.0] Biochemistry (10.37 FTEs) [3.0] Biophysics (7.57 FTEs) [3.0] Informatics (10.48 FTEs) [3.0] Mechanical Engineering (4.84 FTEs) [3.0] Civil Engineering, Energetics and Power Engineering (8.09 FTEs) Central and Western Lithuania Region Capital Region Vilnius Gediminas Technical University [4.0] Civil Engineering (40.44 FTEs) [4.0] Electrical and Electronic Engineering (24.48 FTEs) [3.5] Environmental Engineering (11.92 FTEs) [3.5] Materials Engineering (30.56 FTEs) [3.5] Mechanical Engineering (33.52 FTEs) [3.5] Transport Engineering (17.51 FTEs) [3.5] Informatics Engineering (21.70 FTEs) [3.0] Chemical Engineering, Measurement Engineering, Energetics and Power Engineering (14.07 FTEs) [3.0] Informatics (10.75 FTEs) Centre for Physical Sciences and Technology [3.5] Chemistry (80.63 FTEs) [3.5] Physics (126.00 FTEs) [3.5] Materials Engineering (33.09 FTEs) National Cancer Institute [4.0] Biology (10.56 FTEs) [4.0] Biophysics (2.82 FTEs) [4.0] Medicine (6.19 FTEs) Nature Research Center [4.0] Ecology and Environmental Sciences (56.83 FTEs) [4.0] Zoology (28.88 FTEs) [3.0] Biology (24.14 FTEs) [3.0] Botany (16.69 FTEs) [3.0] Geology (19.50 FTEs) [3.0] Physical Geography (16.00 FTEs) State Research Institute Centre for Innovative Medicine [3.5] Biology (33.77 FTEs) A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 39 І 197 research in horticulture‖ at the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry. This R&D infrastructure includes the Open Access Centre for modelling of Fruits and Vegetables Processing Technologies that is a powerful structure with unique equipment, where various measurements and analyses might be done in pursuit of development and commercialisation of new food products. In terms of land resources, the area of the Central and Western Lithuania Region is almost six times larger than the area of the Capital Region (Table 5). Consequently, most of the utilised agricultural area is located in the Central and Western Lithuania Region. Forest coverage is largest in neighbouring counties of Alytus (49.9 %), Vilnius (44.1 %), and Utena (35.3 %), followed by western counties of Telšiai (36.8 %) and Tauragė (33.3 %). Central counties of Kaunas (30.1 %), Panevėţys (28.9 %), and Šiauliai (28.2 %) are less covered by the forest. Meanwhile, the lowest forest coverage is in Klaipėda County (26.7 %) and Marijampolė County (22.1 %). Table 5 Land use in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions Lithuania Central and Western Lithuania Region Capital Region Area (land) at the beginning of the year, km² (2024) 65,286 55,556 9,730 Utilised agricultural area, hectare (2023) 2,872,407 2,591,810 280,597 Change of utilised agricultural area, % (2023 compared to 2018) -2.5 -2.7 -1.0 Forest coverage on the 1st of January, % (2024) 33.8 44.1 (Vilnius County) From 49.9 (Alytus County) to 22.1 (Marijampolė County) Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency) – https://osp.stat.gov.lt/en, accessed on 31 10 2024. Conclusions and implications One of Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions, i.e. the Capital Region, is more economically advanced, while another region of NUTS 2 level, i.e. the Central and Western Lithuania Region, is more specialised in the A2C-related sectors. It could be possible to narrow the analysis to one of these regions, for instance, to relevantly specialised Central and Western Lithuania Region. However, useful resources (both material and intellectual), as well as activities related to the A2C solutions take place in both regions. Moreover, the A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 40 І 197 Central and Western Lithuania Region does not have a single authority, since this region includes nine separate counties with their autonomous municipalities. As later provided in the contextual analysis (see section 3.2 Multidimensional context analysis), the CE governance, policies and regulations are rather centralised at national level in Lithuania. Thus, the same conditions apply to both regions. 3.1.2. Main characteristics of local agrifood and related industrial sectors Agriculture According to the Eurostat analysis 6 , seven of the EU Member States – Ireland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Latvia, and Poland – recorded value added in their agricultural industries at least doubling in current price terms between 2007 and 2022. The Statistics Lithuania reports that, in 2023, gross agricultural production at current prices in Lithuania amounted to 3,656.7 million EUR, of which crop production – 2,388.0 million EUR (65.3 %), animal production – 1,268.7 million EUR (34.7 %). Concentrated in the Central and Western Lithuania Region (Figure 12), crop production increased between 2018 and 2023 in both regions, and the growth of crop production was higher than in case of animal production. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 12 Structure of gross agricultural production in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions 6 Key figures on the European food chain – 2023 edition. – https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/15216629/18054337/KS-FK-23-001-EN-N.pdf/048e130f-79fa-e870-6c46d80c9408620b?version=7.0&t=1707290893751 [01 11 2024]. 2,161.9 3,318.1 1,330.6 2,241.8 831.3 1,076.3 196.5 338.6 94.8 146.2 101.7 192.4 2018 2023 2018 2023 2018 2023 Gross agricultural production Crop production Animal production Agricultural production at current prices (million EUR) Central and Western Lithuania Region Capital Region A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 41 І 197 At county level, the biggest proportion of crop production was produced in counties of Šiauliai, Kaunas, Panevėţys, and Marijampolė, the smallest – in counties of Alytus, Utena, and Telšiai (Figure 13). In all counties, the value of crop production increased between 2018 and 2023. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 13 Crop production in Lithuanian counties On the 1st of November 2024, there were 86,444 farmers‘ farms in Lithuania, of which 31,117 are carrying out crop production activities, 47,343 – mixed farming activities. Distribution of farmers‘ farms according to the activities carried out and by Lithuanian counties is presented in ANNEX 1 Number of farmers‘ farms by the activities carried out and by place of activity (counties) in Lithuania. Although large producers tend to contribute mostly to the gross crop production, there are comparatively many farms of a small size in Lithuania. Based on key results of the 2020 Farm Structure Survey in the Baltic States 7 , the number of farms in Lithuania was the largest – by 64 % more than in Estonia and Latvia taken together, while the average farm size in Lithuania was the smallest. In Estonia, on the contrary, the number of farms was the smallest, while the average size of a farm was almost four times as large as in Lithuania. Notably, the comparison of 2020 and 2010 data has revealed a decline in the number of farms – in Lithuania by 34 %, in Estonia by about 25 %, and in Latvia by 7 Online access to the results of the Agricultural Census 2020 (edition 2022): https://osp.stat.gov.lt/en/zus2020rezultatai/zemes-ukio-surasymo-pagrindiniai-rezultatai-estijoje-latvijoje-ir-lietuvoje [01 11 2024]. 94.8 346.5 261.4 219.1 196.3 73.9 68 66.6 51.1 47.7 146.2 523.7 438.3 371.4 361.2 136.9 129.1 109.4 90.7 81.1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Vilnius County Šiauliai County Kaunas County Panevėžys County Marijampolė County Klaipėda County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Alytus County Crop production at current prices (million EUR) 2018 2023 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 48 І 197 At the county level, the largest producers of food products were the counties of Kaunas, Panevėţys, and Telšiai (Figure 19). Together, they generated 55.7 % of the total value added of this activity in Lithuania in 2023. Meanwhile, most of value added from the production of beverages (74.4 % of total value added of this activity in Lithuania in 2023) was created in counties of Kaunas, Vilnius, and Panevėţys (Figure 20). * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 19 Value added of C10 by Lithuanian counties * Provisional data. ** Confidential data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 20 Value added of C11 by Lithuanian counties In 2023, there were 3,059 entities manufacturing food products (C10), from which 2,373 were based in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, 686 – in the Capital Region. In the same year, there were 163 entities manufacturing beverages (C11), from which 114 were based in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, 49 – in the Capital 83,987 214,528 110,898 101,284 87,686 64,287 33,225 29,032 36,410 11,180 118,749 357,252 194,281 163,501 134,456 110,182 72,636 61,219 47,253 24,556 Vilnius County Kaunas County Panevėžys County Telšiai County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Utena County Tauragė County Šiauliai County Alytus County Value added at factor cost (thousand EUR) by place of activity in manufacture of food products (C10) 2018 2023* 31,308 40,732 13,592 9,233 9,116 3,725 2,757 39,905 42,632 21,347 14,198 11,886 4,965 4,373 82 Vilnius County Kaunas County Panevėžys County Utena County Alytus County Klaipėda County Šiauliai County Marijampolė County** Tauragė County** Telšiai County** Value added at factor cost (thousand EUR) by place of activity in manufacture of beverages (C11) 2018 2023* A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 49 І 197 Region. Distribution of these entities by the counties is provided in ANNEX 2 Number of local units (C10, C11, C20, C21, C22, E38) by place of activity (counties) in Lithuania. As can be seen from Figure 21, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 19 dominate the production of food products (99 % of all enterprises). However, large companies (24) together with those having at least 50 employees (97) generate 86.9 % of the total value added (Figure 22). * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 21 Enterprises by size (C10) Figure 22 Value added by enterprise size (C10) In processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables (C103), there were even fewer larger enterprises, i.e. only one large company and additional eight having at least 50 employees from the total of 338 enterprises in this production area (Figure 23). The total number of these enterprises was fluctuating with a decline tendency (Figure 24). 19 Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are enterprises with fewer than 250 persons employed. – https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20220627-1 [13 01 2025]. 1906, 83.4% 139, 6.1% 120, 5.2% 97, 4.2% 24, 1.0% Distribution of enterprises by size in 2023* Manufacture of food products (C10) 0–9 employees 10–19 employees 20–49 employees 50–249 employees 250 employees and over 2.5% 3.1% 7.5% 26.7% 60.2% Value added at factor cost in 2023* Manufacture of food products (C10) 0–9 employees 10–19 employees 20–49 employees 50–249 employees 250 employees and over A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 50 І 197 * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 23 Distribution of enterprises by size (C103) Figure 24 Trend of the number of enterprises (C103) As provided in Figure 25, enterprises manufacturing beverages (C11) are comparatively larger. For instance, there were less of very small enterprises having up to 9 employees in this segment (68.4 %), compared with manufacturing of food products (83.4 %) or with processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables (93.5 %). * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 25 Enterprises by size (C11) In 2023, local manufacturers of food products (C10) produced 88 products and local manufacturers of beverages (C11) produced 6 products, in which production fruits and vegetables are or might be used. Information about these industrial products, including their production locations, is provided in ANNEX 3 Production of relevant commodities: manufacturing food products (C10) and beverages (C11). Table 7 presents key commodities (food products and beverages) produced in Lithuania, which amount in 2023 was higher than 25,000,000 in natural units. 316, 93.5% 4, 1.2% 9, 2.7% 8, 2.4% 1, 0.3% Distribution of enterprises by size in 2023* Processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables (C103) 0–9 employees 10–19 employees 20–49 employees 50–249 employees 250 employees and over 404 312 351 324 332 338 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023* Number of enterprises in processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables (C103) 65, 68.4% 8, 8.4% 8, 8.4% 10, 10.5% 4, 4.2% Distribution of enterprises by size in 2023* Manufacture of beverages (C11) 0–9 employees 10–19 employees 20–49 employees 50–249 employees 250 employees and over A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 51 І 197 Table 7 Major industrial products (C10 and C11) produced in Lithuania PRODCOM code, commodity description, (natural units) Amount in 2023 1091103700, Preparations used for farm animal feeding (excluding premixtures): poultry, (kg) 274,990,556 1062200000, Residues of starch manufacture and similar residues, (kg) 198,151,088 1062131000, Glucose and glucose syrup (excluding with added flavouring or colouring matter), (kg) 181,951,547 1051556000, Whey and modified whey in liquid or paste forms; whether or not concentrated or containing added sweetening matter, (kg) 154,861,695 1092103000, Dog or cat food, p.r.s., (kg) 145,601,011 1091103500, Preparations used for farm animal feeding (excluding premixtures): cattle, (kg) 129,872,422 1071110000, Fresh bread containing by weight in the dry matter state <= 5% of sugars and <= 5% of fat (excluding with added honey; eggs; cheese or fruit), (kg) 97,121,618 1091103900, Preparations used for farm animal feeding (excluding premixtures): n.e.c., (kg) 81,262,605 1107193000, Waters, with added suga, other sweetening matter or flavoured, i.e. soft drinks (including mineral and aerated), (l) 66,620,135 1071110080, Other bread, (kg) 60,277,065 1062117000, Dextrins and other modified starches (including esterified or etherified, soluble starch, pregelatinised or swelling starch, dialdehyde starch, starch treated with formaldehyde or epichlorohydrin), (kg) 48,860,075 1052100000, Ice cream and other edible ice (including sherbet, lollipops) (excluding mixes and bases for ice cream), (l) 48,558,747 1107195000, Non-alcoholic beverages not containing milk fat (excluding sweetened or unsweetened mineral, aerated or flavoured waters), (l) 41,462,699 1071110010, Rye bread (wheat flour content no more than 40%), (kg) 36,973,334 1107195020, Other non-alcoholic beverages not containing milk fat (excluding nectar), (l) 36,173,928 1091103300, Preparations used for farm animal feeding (excluding premixtures): pigs, (kg) 34,413,597 1103100000, Fermented beverages and mixtures thereof (including with non-alcoholic beverages, cider, perry and mead; excluding malt beer, wine of grapes flavoured with plants or aromatic substances), (l) 34,133,661 1089195100, Other food preparations n.e.c. (excluding based on insects), (kg) 33,884,521 1071120000, Cake and pastry products; other baker's wares with added sweetening matter, (kg) 29,019,602 1072199000, Bakers‘ wares, no added sweetening (including crepes, pancakes, quiche, pizza; excluding sandwiches, crispbread, waffles, wafers, rusks, toasted, savoury or salted extruded/expanded products), (kg) 28,352,873 Most of these products originate from the Central and Western Lithuania Region. Product portfolio of the Capital Region includes such major products as bread and other baked goods (PRODCOME codes: 1071110000, 1071110080, 1071110010, 1071120000, 1072125500), various non-alcoholic beverages (PRODCOME codes: 1107195000, 1107195020, 1107193000, 1084119000, 1107195010). A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 52 І 197 Other relevant sectors Besides the food sector, the manufacturing chemicals and chemical products (C20) and the manufacturing basic pharmaceutical products and preparations (C21) are relevant destinations to the materials considered in the A2C project. As can be seen from Figure 26, the value added generated in Lithuania from the production of chemicals and chemical products is in decline since 2021. Further on presented county level data shows that this decline comes from the Central and Western Lithuania Region. Meanwhile, available data on the value added generated in Lithuania from the production of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations is incomplete. Data of the Capital Region (Vilnius County) is confidential, and data of different years from the Central and Western Lithuania Region represents different counties as well. * Provisional data. ** Data of Vilnius County is confidential. Data of 2018–2020 and 2023 is from the Central and Western Lithuania Region. Data of 2021-2022 is from Kaunas County. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 26 Trends of value added generated by C20 and C21 sectors in Lithuania 470,105 616,146 915,003 1,238,112 1,102,491 580,941 5,911 8,433 4,746 7,297 8,033 4,983 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023* Value added at factor cost (thousand EUR) Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (C20) Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations (C21)** A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 53 І 197 The Capital Region (Vilnius County) leads the production of chemicals and chemical products (C20). Manufacturers there generated 462.2 million EUR of value added, which was almost two times more than in 2018 (Figure 27). The Central and Western Lithuania Region created 118.7 million EUR of value added from manufacturing chemicals and chemical products in 2023. Most of this took place in Klaipėda County. * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 27 Value added of C20 by Lithuanian counties In 2023, there were 293 entities manufacturing chemicals and chemical products (C20), from which 193 were based in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, 100 – in the Capital Region. In Lithuanian chemical industry sector, four large companies with not less than 250 employees generated 73 % of sector‘s value added in 2023 (see Figures 28 and 29). In the same year, there were 25 entities manufacturing basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations (C21) (for size distribution, see Figure 30), from which 11 were based in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, 14 – in the Capital Region. More detailed (by county) distribution of both C20 and C21 entities is provided in ANNEX 2 Number of local units (C10, C11, C20, C21, C22, E38) by place of activity (counties) in Lithuania. 233,573 96,623 10,885 9,152 860 4,832 2,606 584 1 110,990 462,244 81,926 17,614 7,745 5,461 4,367 2,739 2,652 2,503 -6,311 Vilnius County Klaipėda County Panevėžys County Telšiai County Utena County Marijampolė County Alytus County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Kaunas County Value added at factor cost (thousand EUR) by place of activity in manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (C20) 2018 2023* A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 54 І 197 * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 28 Number of enterprises by size (C20) * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 29 Value added generated by enterprises of different size (C20) * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 30 Number of enterprises by size (C21) In 2023, local manufacturers of chemicals and chemical products (C20) produced 44 products, in which production of fruits and vegetables, as well as plastic materials are or might be used. Information about these industrial products, including their production locations, is provided in ANNEX 4 Production of relevant commodities: manufacturing chemicals and chemical products (C20). Table 8 presents key commodities (chemicals and chemical products) produced in Lithuania, which amount in 2023 was higher than 500,000 in natural units. Notably, among locally produced basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations (C21), there were no relevant products to this study. 157, 69.2% 32, 14.1% 20, 8.8% 14, 6.2% 4, 1.8% Distribution of enterprises by size in 2023* Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (C20) 0–9 employees 10–19 employees 20–49 employees 50–249 employees 250 employees and over 1.3% 4.2% 4.6% 16.8% 73.0% Value added at factor cost in 2023* Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (C20) 0–9 employees 10–19 employees 20–49 employees 50–249 employees 250 employees and over 13, 68.4% 1, 5.3% 2, 10.5% 3, 15.8% Distribution of enterprises by size in 2023* Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations (C21) 0–9 employees 10–19 employees 20–49 employees 50–249 employees A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 55 І 197 Table 8 Major industrial products (C20) produced in Lithuania PRODCOM code, commodity description, (natural units) Amount in 2023 2059200000, Animal or vegetable fats and oils chemically modified, (kg) 25,726,541 2041438900, Other polishes, creams and similar preparations, n.e.c., (kg) 16,844,323 2030226000, Non-refractory surfacing preparations for facades, indoor walls, floors, ceilings or the like, (kg) 12,047,559 2041327000, Washing preparations and cleaning preparations, with or without soap, n.p.r.s. including auxiliary washing preparations excluding those for use as soap, surface-active preparations, (kg) 10,766,281 2041325000, Washing preparations and cleaning preparations, with or without soap, p.r.s. including auxiliary washing preparations excluding those for use as soap, surface-active preparations, (kg) 8,412,092 2030227300, Organic composite solvents and thinners used in conjunction with coatings and inks; based on butyl acetate, (kg) 5,543,503 2041100000, Glycerol (glycerine), crude; glycerol waters and glycerol lyes, (kg) 5,444,920 2016596500, Natural polymers and modified natural polymers, e.g. hardened proteins, chemical derivatives of natural rubber, n.e.s., in primary forms (excl. alginic acid and its salts and esters), (kg) 4,776,100 2016409000, Polyesters, in primary forms (excluding polyacetals, polyethers, epoxide resins, polycarbonates, alkyd resins, polyethylene terephthalate, other unsaturated polyesters), (kg) 2,915,911 2059510000, Peptones and their derivatives; other protein substances and their derivatives; hide powder including glutelins and prolamins, globulins, glycinin, keratins, nucleoproteids, protein isolates, (kg) 2,528,690 2030227900, Organic composite solvents and thinners used in conjunction with coatings and inks (excluding those based on butyl acetate), (kg) 2,464,706 2052108000, Prepared glues and other prepared adhesives, n.e.c., (kg) 2,299,846 2030225500, Painters‘ fillings, (kg) 1,954,074 2030225300, Glaziers' putty, grafting putty, resin cements, caulking compounds and other mastics, (kg) 1,090,045 2041326000, Surface-active preparations, whether or not containing soap, n.p.r.s. (excluding those for use as soap), (kg) 873,470 Some of these products are produced in both the Central and Western Lithuania Region and the Capital Region. The Capital Region leads in the production of certain products presented in Table 8, such as natural polymers and modified natural polymers (2016596500), polyesters (2016409000), glaziers‘ putty, grafting putty, resin cements, caulking compounds and other mastics (2030225300), surface-active preparations (2041326000). A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 56 І 197 Lastly, the A2C systemic solution deals with plastic wastes and regional waste management activities. In Lithuania, manufacture of rubber and plastic products (C22), as well as waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery (E38) generated somewhat increasing value added between 2018 and 2023 (Figure 31). * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 31 Trends of value added generated by C22 and E38 sectors in Lithuania The value-added generating activities of C22 and E38 were spread across the counties in proportion to their size according to local population (Figures 32 and 33). 262,787 285,655 316,572 390,063 519,494 429,658 162,956 182,328 192,694 228,558 225,293 205,450 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023* Value added at factor cost (thousand EUR) Manufacture of rubber and plastic products (C22) Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery (E38) A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 57 І 197 * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 32 Value added of C22 by Lithuanian counties * Provisional data. Source: Compiled by the authors using data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency). Figure 33 Value added of E38 by Lithuanian counties In 2023, there were 510 entities manufacturing rubber and plastic products (C22), from which 353 were based in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, 157 – in the Capital Region. In this sector, larger enterprises created higher shares of value added in 2023, but it was more evenly distributed among companies of different sizes, compared to previously analysed sectors (see Figures 34 and 35). 114,720 47,976 20,310 19,733 16,779 15,743 12,282 11,412 1,541 2,292 166,963 69,847 60,904 48,537 25,739 20,145 17,816 13,867 3,378 2,461 Vilnius County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Šiauliai County Alytus County Panevėžys County Utena County Tauragė County Telšiai County Marijampolė County Value added at factor cost (thousand EUR) by place of activity in manufacture of rubber and plastic products (C22) 2018 2023* 55,234 34,260 16,437 12,566 11,538 8,460 6,330 8,780 5,602 3,749 73,245 45,535 22,419 17,162 15,475 8,901 8,145 6,032 5,536 2,999 Vilnius County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Šiauliai County Panevėžys County Alytus County Utena County Telšiai County Marijampolė County Tauragė County Value added at factor cost (thousand EUR) by place of activity in waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery (E38) 2018 2023* A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 64 І 197 methodology used involved some of the elements of the Baltic Industrial Symbiosis (BIS) 23 project‘s screening tool for symbiosis potentials. The obtained results revealed that considerable portion (43 %) of business entities in the agri-food sector experiences a burden of the costs related to waste utilisation, i.e. income from waste does not cover the costs related to waste utilisation or no income is received and only costs are incurred. Nevertheless, the relative existing sustainability of production was considered as acceptable (neutral) by the agri-food sector businesses (Figure 38), which is in line with the focus group‘s assessment of the ability of local businesses to adapt and transform, overall efficiency and resilience of the region‘s economic system. Source: Compiled by the authors using survey data collected in 2022 within the BioBaltic project. Figure 38 Assessment of circularity enabling factors by Lithuanian agrifood businesses However, other factors enabling greener, resource-saving production, i.e. business development potential (increasing revenues, reducing costs, developing new partnerships), technological potential (possibilities to improve the use of raw materials), the sufficiency of resources for development (competencies, financial and technical resources), and innovation potential (existing cooperation with research institutions, 23 Project website: https://interreg-baltic.eu/project/bis/ [28 12 2024]. 4.01 3.73 3.71 3.36 2.62 1.60 1.60 1.55 1.69 1.83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relative existing sustainability Business development potential Technological potential Sufficiency of resources for development Innovation potential Assessment of circularity enabling factors, where 1 = strongly unfavourable and 7 = strongly favourable (n = 116) Mean Standard deviation A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 65 І 197 participation in cluster organisations), were assessed by the agri-food sector businesses more unfavourably than favourably (Figure 38). The assessment results concerning the innovation potential show that surveyed businesses were not in active cooperation with research institutions and did not participate actively in cluster organisations. As the focus group involved sector‘s representatives that are active members of the innovation ecosystem, their judgment of circularity potentials may differ from those stakeholders who are less involved and, potentially, less aware of relevant opportunities. 3.2.2.2 Governance dimension Standard deviation = 0.84 The discussion on the second ―Governance dimension‖ covered exchanges about the effectiveness of governance structures and mechanisms at various levels, as well as sharing of views on systematic dialogue between stakeholders and coordination of their actions. Based on the assessments of the participants, the governance area needs improvement (2.4 points out of 5). Key findings on this dimension are summarised in Table 11. Table 11 Key findings concerning ―Governance dimension‖ Enablers, facilitators Barriers, challenges - As provided below in Figure 39, Lithuania‘s Secondary Raw Material (SRM) system is complex and involves multiple institutions; the roles of these institutions became clearer with introduction of Guidelines for Lithuania‘s Transition to a Circular Economy by 2035, which are discussed in more detail in section on ―Policy and regulatory dimension‖ - Innovation Agency Lithuania in its study on the Formation of the Lithuanian Secondary Raw Materials System [13] proposes to create a one-stop institution for the - Based on the experience of other countries, CE issues could be addressed in a more coordinated manner; although certain progress was made, there is still a lack of a clear responsible entity to centrally coordinate CE activities, which results in initiatives being scattered across various institutions and action plans not always being consistent - Food waste prevention was discussed, which requires clear strategies and investments; agriculture is often not included in food waste reduction targets A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 66 І 197 development of green technologies and the CE; this agency already established a new division, which focuses on providing consultations and developing financial mechanisms to promote business transformation into CE - There is a need to develop strategic thinking, clearer action guidelines and interinstitutional and cross-sectoral cooperation at different levels (national, regional, municipal) - Deficiencies in data availability, quality, and trust, along with information transfer issues, weaken decision-making and stakeholder confidence in CE initiatives - Bottom-up approach to policy development and multi-stakeholder platforms are yet not fully developed/exploited Actions for improving current situation - Guidelines for Lithuania‘s Transition to a Circular Economy by 2035 foresee the appointment of an institution responsible for monitoring the CE at various levels, the approvement of the CE implementation monitoring and management model, and if necessary, the digitalisation of this model - It is advised to implement participatory governance models and tools to enhance stakeholder involvement in CE initiatives; stakeholder involvement can be facilitated through implementing the proposed action agenda for LPK community (see 3.4.2 Cluster Circular Economy Action Plan) Figure 39 presents Lithuania‘s Secondary Raw Material (SRM) system, which includes all economic and logistical activities, starting from waste collection, sorting and recycling, moving towards industrial production processes. The entire process of circulation of SRMs can be divided into two essential blocks, i.e. supply formation, which falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania 24 and covers the chain of waste generation activities, and demand formation, which falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Economy and Innovation of the Republic of Lithuania 25 and includes activities where SRMs are reused in production, traded through bilateral agreements or on trading platforms. Although these two ministries and institutions subordinate to them, namely, Environmental Protection Agency 26 and Innovation Agency 24 Activities of the Ministry of Environment: https://am.lrv.lt/en/activities/ [29 12 2024]. 25 Activities of the Ministry of the Economy and Innovation: https://eimin.lrv.lt/en/sector-activities/ [29 12 2024]. 26 Activities of Environmental Protection Agency: https://aaa.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys/; https://aaa.lrv.lt/en/ [29 12 2024]. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 67 І 197 Lithuania 27 , have the greatest influence in the area of CE policy, other ministries identified in the scheme and their agencies also influence it through different measures. Source: Compiled by the authors according to the study of Innovation Agency Lithuania [13]. Figure 39 Lithuania‘s Secondary Raw Material (SRM) system Notably, Innovation Agency Lithuania in its study on the Formation of the Lithuanian Secondary Raw Materials System [13] proposes to create a one-stop institution for the development of green technologies and the CE. Meanwhile, the Guidelines for Lithuania‘s Transition to a Circular Economy by 2035, which are discussed in the next section, foresee the appointment of an institution responsible for monitoring the CE at various levels, the approvement of the CE implementation monitoring and management model, and if necessary, the digitalisation of it. 27 Information about Innovation Agency Lithuania: https://inovacijuagentura.lt/kcis/apie-mus/apie-mus/aboutus.html?lang=en [29 12 2024]. SUPPLY FORMATION Ministry of Environment Environmental Protection Agency Development of waste collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure DEMAND FORMATION Ministry of the Economy and Innovation Innovation Agency Lithuania Promotion of sustainable competitiveness and innovation Other institutions involved in CE policy I Ministry of Education, Science and Sport Ministry of Energy Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Transport and Communications Ministry of Finance Cooperation in formation and implementation of CE policy Waste management (collection, secondary sorting, treatment, end-of-waste criteria, Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, recycling) SRMs-using industry and promoting its competitiveness SRMs Waste generation by businesses and households, ensuring proper waste sorting End-users of SRM-based products and services A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 68 І 197 3.2.2.3 Policy and regulatory dimension Standard deviation = 0.67 During the investigation of the third ―Policy and regulatory dimension‖, the focus group discussed how effective are the development and the implementation of policies, laws, and regulations. Planning of CE actions was also discussed. The current situation was assessed poorly by the participants (2.0 points out of 5). Such assessment was influenced by business representatives‘ expectations for reduced bureaucracy, higher simplification of procedures, as well as by science representatives‘ aspirations to remove regulatory barriers for innovation. Notably, the statement ―current legal environment is favourable for our company/farm to transition to greener, resource-saving production‖ was also assessed unfavourably by Lithuanian agri-food businesses (BioBaltic survey, n = 116). The mean of 2.69 with standard deviation of 1.494 was obtained for this statement in the scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). However, this does not mean that the regulatory environment in Lithuania related to the A2C solutions is objectively worse than in demonstration region in Spain, another replication region in Italy, or in other EU countries/regions. Key findings on the policy and regulatory dimension are presented in Table 12. Table 12 Key findings concerning ―Policy and regulatory dimension‖ Enablers, facilitators Barriers, challenges - EU directives and action plans mobilise Member States for the transition to CE - Lithuania has adopted its CE roadmap until 2035, which foresees a complex of measures, including those for country‘s transition to circular industry and circular bioeconomy (see analysis below) - As provided in futher on analysis, new Government‘s programme shows continued commitment to develop CE in Lithuania, as well as its intentions to unlock the potential - Although EU emphasises CE importance, current mechanisms are not sufficient to address existing problems; despite various strategies, there is still a lack of a unified approach and effective regulation to reduce waste and promote circular processes - Despite efforts to reduce the administrative burden, strict legal regulation sometimes becomes a challenge for transparent Lithuanian businesses, although it is necessary to ensure proper waste A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 69 І 197 of bioeconomy by developing and implementing a dedicated strategy - There are relevant on-going initiatives aimed at improving regulatory environment, e.g., Create Lithuania project ―Identification of effective regulatory measures for fostering innovation, creation and development of new technologies‖, which is being implemented at Invest Lithuania28 management, quality and compliance - Inflexible regulations and complex certification requirements often inhibit innovations and business initiatives; they are also not tailored for small businesses - Untapped opportunities for recycling and creating higher value-added products are due to strict waste management regulations, e.g., a number of bureaucratic obstacles need to be overcome to cooperate and process waste regionally - It is important not only to change legal acts, but also to constantly inform and discuss them, so that both business and society understand the requirements Actions for improving current situation - Formulate and provide suggestions for a new Lithuanian Bioeconomy Strategy (action items 63 and 738 of the Nineteenth Government‘s Programme), which would unlock opportunities for upcycling waste generated in the agri-food sector - Held discussions on regulatory obstacles related to the development and production of circular products from agricultural and food processing waste, specify and submit proposals to respective ministries of the Government The Circularity Gap Report 2024 29 emphasises that a circular food system must address the whole value chain, from production to consumption to waste management, and suggests the following four key solutions: 1. Prioritise satiating and healthy foods with a lower environmental impact – ideally shifting calories from meat, fish and dairy towards cereals, fruits, vegetables and nuts. 2. Prioritise the production and consumption of local, seasonal and organic produce (sometimes in combination with GMO (genetically modified organisms) to reduce pests and disease loss on crops), which can lead to a significantly reduced need for chemical inputs, fuels, and processing services that contribute most to environmental impacts. 28 https://kurklt.lt/en/projects/identification-of-effective-regulatory-measures-for-fostering-innovation-creation-anddevelopment-of-new-technologies [19 01 2025]. 29 https://www.circularity-gap.world/2024 [24 12 2024]. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 70 І 197 3. Scale up agricultural practices that regenerate ecosystems, recirculate nutrients and sequester carbon by design. 4. Minimise food loss and valorise waste following the food waste hierarchy along the supply chain and at the consumer level through better management of transport and storage, more refrigeration and smart planning, and technology at the consumer and food service levels. The CE development priorities can be differentiated according to country groups. The Circularity Gap Report 2024 distinguishes three country groups, i.e. ―Build countries‖, ―Grow countries‖, and ―Shift countries‖ that, respectively, are characterised by low, growing, and high Human Development Index (HDI) scores (Table 13). Suggested priorities for ―Shift countries‖, which include the EU Member States, are connected to sustainable consumption and making the most of what already exists. Meanwhile, recommended priorities for ―Build countries‖ and ―Grow countries‖ include mainstreaming regenerative agriculture and prioritising healthier and more satiating or local, seasonal and organic foods. Table 13 Suggested priorities for circular solutions for different country groups Build countries Grow countries Shift countries Key features - Low HDI scores - Modest per capita material footprint - Largely informal waste sectors, where material cycling is largely underreported - Growing HDI scores - Growing per capita material footprint - Large volumes of domestically extracted resources being exported - High HDI scores - High levels of consumption - High volumes of goods being imported Suggested priorities for circular solutions - Mainstream regenerative agriculture - Put healthier and satiating foods first - Prioritise circular materials and approaches - Reuse waste - Mainstream regenerative agriculture - Go local, seasonal and organic - Extend the lifetime of machinery, equipment and goods - Mainstream industrial symbiosis and efficiency - Buy what you need - Extend the lifetime of machinery, equipment and goods - Make the most of what already exists - Prioritise circular materials and approaches Source: Compiled by the authors according to the Circularity Gap Report 2024. The complex of planned CE measures by Lithuania is in line with the suggested pathways for ―Shift countries‖ towards the CE. In Lithuania, CE development actions and A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 71 І 197 investments are presented in the Guidelines for Lithuania‘s Transition to a Circular Economy by 2035, which were accepted by the decision of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the 21st of June 2023. In these guidelines [14], the horizontal principle and the following intervention directions are foreseen: 1. Circular industry; 2. Circular construction; 3. Circular bioeconomy; 4. Circular transport; 5. Circular use of waste; 6. Circular consumption. In total, more than 4.4 billion EUR is required to implement Lithuania‘s CE measures included in this roadmap (Figure 40). The largest share of resources (71 %) is foreseen for the transition to circular construction. Source: Compiled by the authors according to the CE roadmap accepted by the Government (Lietuvos perėjimo..., 2023). Figure 40 Need for funds to implement Lithuania‘s Circular Economy measures until 2035 Measures that are relevant to the A2C systemic solution fall under implementation of horizontal principle and intervention areas of circular bioeconomy, circular industry, circular use of waste, and circular consumption (Table 14). Table 14 Relevant measures in Lithuania‘s Circular Economy roadmap until 2035 Circular industry, 238,050, 5% Circular construction, 3,129,022, 71% Circular bioeconomy, 400,000, 9% Circular transport, 442,600, 10% Circular use of waste, 214,476, 5% Circular consumption, 4,600, 0% Horizontal principle, 15,165, 0% Need for funds to implement Lithuania’s circular economy measures (thousand EUR) A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 72 І 197 Type and title of planned measure30 Anticipated funding (if applicable), year of implementation Responsible institution Horizontal principle Regulatory. Appoint an institution responsible for monitoring the CE at various levels, approve the CE implementation monitoring and management model, and if necessary, digitalise it –, 2026–2027 Ministry of Environment Investment / Communication-related. Finance applied scientific research and experimental development in the CE area, key fields of reuse, replacing fossil raw materials with biological and secondary raw materials, manufacturing durable products, developing new training programmes, and changing consumer habits 3.0 million EUR, 2025–2028 Ministry of Environment Investment. Provide support for business creation, contributing to the green transition and CE objectives 12.14 million EUR, 2023–2026 Ministry of Social Security and Labour Regulatory. Establish requirements for the use of SRMs and alternative materials, replacing fossil and nonmetallic resources and minerals –, 2029–2030 Ministries of Environment and Agriculture Area of intervention: Circular bioeconomy Investment. Promote energy-efficient and climatefriendly investments in direct seeding 30.0 million EUR, 2023–2027 Ministry of Agriculture Investment. Finance the development of organic farming 370.0 million EUR, 2023–2027 Ministry of Agriculture Area of intervention: Circular industry Analytical. Conduct an analysis of potential investors who can contribute to the development of a circular and green economy in value chains important to Lithuania and the EU –, 2023–2030 Invest Lithuania Investment. Create a platform for the exchange of practical technological knowledge and solutions for industry (Industry 4.0 Lab) 3.5 million EUR, 2023–2026 Ministry of the Economy and Innovation Investment. Promote the implementation and development of technologies that ensure the possibility of using more SRMs (made from plastic, textiles, glass, tires, wood, construction, biological and other waste) in production 23.8 million EUR, 2025–2028 Ministry of Environment Investment. Promote the acquisition of digital-circular technologies and/or systems (e.g., digital-circular twins) that support the development of the CE 10.0 million EUR, 2025–2026 Ministry of the Economy and Innovation Investment. Encourage industrial companies to implement CE (loop closure) solutions, apply technologies that reduce waste, as well as increase the amount of recyclable waste and/or the amount of SRMs used in products 150.0 million EUR, 2028–2035 Ministry of the Economy and Innovation Investment. Promote the implementation of innovative 45.75 million EUR, Ministry of the 30 Some of the measures, particularly, those supporting businesses, are regionally focused, i.e. targeted to companies in less developed Central and Western Lithuania Region. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 73 І 197 environmentally friendly technologies, i.e. technologies that promote the production of sustainable products, in companies operating in Smart Specialisation areas 2024–2027 Economy and Innovation Investment. Promote the development and/or implementation of environmentally friendly products or technologies 5.0 million EUR, 2023–2026 Ministry of the Economy and Innovation Investment. Loans for promoting the transition of companies towards the CE –, 2024–2026 Ministry of the Economy and Innovation Area of intervention: Circular use of waste Analytical. Form more effective food waste prevention policy on a collaborative platform, ensuring the sharing of good practices and the search for the best food waste prevention solutions –, 2023–2025 Ministry of Environment Investment. Improve the availability of waste sorting facilities and infrastructure (includes the expansion of the infrastructure for the sorted collection of food (kitchen) waste by providing residents with sorting containers or other means) 36.47 million EUR, 2024–2027 Regional waste management centres, municipalities Investment. Finance the modernisation and development of waste preparation and recycling infrastructure, the installation of new facilities for textiles, furniture, plastics, combined packaging, biological, electrical and electronic equipment and other waste 103.706 million EUR and 27.8 million EUR, 2024–2028 Ministry of Environment Investment. Promote the development and demonstration of environmentally friendly advanced technologies, i.e. technologies that promote the production of sustainable products, in SMEs operating in Smart Specialisation areas 26.5 million EUR, 2023–2027 Ministry of the Economy and Innovation Regulatory. Create SRMs system for industry –, 2023–2025 Innovation Agency Lithuania Investment. Promote the substitution of primary raw materials in industrial enterprises 3.0 million EUR, 2024–2026 Ministry of the Economy and Innovation Area of intervention: Circular consumption Communication-related. Carry out continuous publicity campaigns promoting the separate collection of waste (especially food, textiles, construction, furniture, packaging, tires, hazardous waste) –, 2024–2026 Municipalities Communication-related. Implement publicity measures on the topics of reducing food waste and preventing food waste, and developing food consumption skills among residents Funding split to different measures, 2024–2027 Ministry of Environment Source: Compiled by the authors according to the CE roadmap accepted by the Government [14]. On the 12th of December 2024, the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania approved the Programme of the Nineteenth Government. The programme [15] shows continued commitment of Lithuania‘s Government to develop CE, as well as its intentions A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 80 І 197 developed/exploited Actions for improving current situation - As proposed in the ―Socioeconomic dimension‖ analysis, in connection to the BIOEAST Initiative and its Thematic Working Groups (TWGs), it would be valuable to facilitate the creation of Lithuanian ―mirror‖ TWG on Advanced Bio-based Chemicals and Materials35 and Lithuanian ―mirror‖ TWG on Food Systems36, which could support the exchange of know-how and the development of transnational R&I cooperation - Based on Lithuania‘s CE roadmap (see Table 14), for the exchange of practical technological knowledge and solutions, a platform ―Industry 4.0 Lab‖ is being developed; the roadmap also foresees multiple support measures for developing CE solutions and deploying them in companies, but applicants with solutions to agri-food waste will need to compete with all other solutions in broad CE area The level of involvement in Horizon Europe, its Research and Innovation Action (RIA) and Innovation Action (IA) projects, as well as Coordination and Support Action (CSA) projects, demonstrates field-specific competences of European countries/regions. As of the 19th of November 2024, there were 357 Horizon Europe grant agreements 37 with participants from Lithuania involved. 100 of these projects are bioeconomy-related, including six already mentioned bioeconomy-related co-fund actions. Under Thematic Priority ―Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment‖ of Horizon Europe 2021–2027, Lithuanian organisations (universities, research centres, innovation clusters, SMEs, public agencies, NGOs, etc.) contribute to 35 RIA projects and to 18 IA projects. A significant share of these projects (EO4EU, QuantiFarm, CHAMELEON, ICAERUS, XGain, PURPEST, CrackSense, SYLVA, EULIAA, AgriDataValue, GUARDIANS, Farmtopia, STELLA, 4Growth, SOSFood) develops digital solutions for improved management of resources and processes in agriculture, forestry, and related sectors, considering deployment strategies, for instance, in small and mediumsized farms. However, CE is not addressed by these projects. Another segment of the RIA and IA projects, where Lithuanian organisations are involved, deals with governance and policy by developing frameworks for increased 35 BIOEAST TWG on Advanced Bio-based Chemicals and Materials: https://bioeast.eu/biobased-materials/ [02 01 2025]. 36 BIOEAST TWG on Food Systems: https://bioeast.eu/food/ [02 01 2025]. 37 List of grant agreements available at: https://dashboard.tech.ec.europa.eu/qs_digit_dashboard_mt/public/sense/app/1213b8cd-3ebe-4730-b0f5fa4e326df2e2/sheet/0c8af38b-b73c-4da2-ba41-73ea34ab7ac4/state/analysis [19 11 2024]. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 81 І 197 resilience (SELINA, eco2adapt, BIOTraCes, OptFor-EU), identifying investment incentives, novel business models, and educational opportunities that support the enhancement of soil health and biodiversity (InBestSoil, SoilValues, LOESS, BIO-CAPITAL), and introducing means to facilitate various types of innovations in rural areas (FUTURAL, ESIRA, RURBANIVE, DAISY). From these projects, innovation in rural areas facilitating RURBANIVE considers CE. There is also a segment of the RIA and IA projects that focuses specifically on the protection of marine resources, boosting marine biodiversity and ecosystem services, and promoting integrated seafood farming practices (MSP4BIO, MARBEFES, Marine SABRES, OLAMUR, PROTECT BALTIC, GuardIAS), as well as addressing issues related to other water resources – protecting groundwater (MAR2PROTECT), demonstrating paludiculture potential (PaluWise), and recycling nutrients, which relates to CE (NENUPHAR). Notably, there are RIA and IA projects that focus on food and other bio-based systems, from primary production (BELIS, VALERECO, IPMorama) to food processing and other market applications (WHEATBIOME, seaweed-focused SeaMark, algae-focused LOCALITY). Projects in this segment also cover such issues as food labelling (TealHelix), environmental impact assessment of bio-based products (ARGONAUT) and of food loss and waste (PRECIOUS), healthy and sustainable diets (DietWise). They deal with behavioural change (BEATLES, PRUDENT, ForestAgriGreenNudge), systemic solutions for food security (INCiTiS-FOOD) and for sustainable tourism (ReBoat), as well as with gender equality (GRASS Ceiling), health and safety of agricultural workers (SafeHabitus). In this group of projects, the CE development is considered by algae-focused LOCALITY, environmental impacts assessing ARGONAUT and PRECIOUS, systemic solutions for food and tourism sectors developing INCiTiS-FOOD and ReBoat. Participants from Lithuania are involved in 16 bioeconomy-related CSA projects, one of which develops Lithuanian bioeconomy HUB that is expected to take into account CE opportunities (BOOST4BIOEAST). The CSA projects include National Contact Points network for Horizon Europe Cluster 6 (CARE4BIO), networks to support European Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (modernAKIS), connect advisory communities for advancing farming (ClimateSmartAdvisors) and forestry (FORADVISE), A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 82 І 197 and develop tools for effective Common Agricultural Policy governance (Tools4CAP). Some of the CSA projects gather stakeholders for more specific tasks: launching of the Mission ‗A Soil Deal for Europe‘ 100 Living Labs and Lighthouses (NATI00NS), promoting farm-level climate smart solutions (Climate Farm Demo), good nutrient management practices (NUTRICHECK-NET), and organic farming innovations (OH-FINE). Meanwhile, other CSA projects focus specifically on the issues of rural and coastal areas by contributing to rural bioeconomy (BioRural, thERBN) and blue bioeconomy (BBC). The CSA projects also deal with education: Nature-Based Solutions related competences among educators (NBS EduWORLD), ocean and water literacy in school communities (ProBleu), and mainstreaming biodiversity in higher education, technical and vocational education and training (eNaBlS). From project descriptions, only rural bioeconomy focused CSAs BioRural and thERBN focus on CE development. Under other Thematic Priorities of Horizon Europe 2021–2027, Lithuanian organisations furthermore contribute to 18 bioeconomy-related RIA and IA projects, i.e.:  Thematic Priority ―Civil Security for Society‖: project dealing with climate extremes, including forest fires, droughts, heatwaves, landslides, floods and storms (The HuT);  Thematic Priority ―Climate, Energy and Mobility‖: projects supporting regions in their transition towards a climate-resilient future (P2R, NATALIE) and engaging citizens (CLIMAS), greening cities (GreenInCities), developing land-use strategies (EUROPELAND), promoting the restoration of wetlands (RESTORE4Cs), climate-informed maritime spatial planning (OCEANIDS), fishing sector solutions reducing footprint and GHG emissions (REFEST), and CE-related projects for production of biofuels (CarbonNeutralLNG), renewable and waste heat valorisation (RE-WITCH), zero emission buildings (GreeNest), sustainable operation and management of buildings and districts (WILSON);  Thematic Priority ―Digital, Industry and Space‖: projects supporting digital solutions for pesticide and fertiliser reduction (Smart Droplets), water quality control (M3NIR), improvement of farmland birds habitat suitability (BirdWatch), as well as CE supporting projects developing bio-insulation materials enhancing buildings energy performance (BIO4EEB) and sustainable ore extraction technologies (XTRACT). A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 83 І 197 Finally, under priority ―European innovation ecosystems‖, Lithuania is involved in three CSA projects that aim at boosting innovation agencies for bioeconomy value chains (BIOBoost), fostering Baltic region innovation ecosystem in biotechnology and synthetic biology (BIOCONNECT), and stimulating innovation experiments in food processing live demonstrators (SIXFOLD). Support is also granted under priority ―Reforming and enhancing the European R&I System‖ in the area of healthier and more sustainable food systems (HDHL F4H), as well as for staff exchanges under Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions in the area of sensors for analysis of corn plants (SENS4CORN). In addition, Lithuania is involved in the RIA project under priority ―Research infrastructures‖ focused on agroecological transition (AgroServ), and through the CSA project under priority ―Widening participation and spreading excellence‖, Lithuania coordinates the creation of the centre of excellence in smart forestry (Forest 4.0). These projects do not specifically address CE issues. This overview shows that Lithuania has a solid portfolio of bioeconomy-related Horizon Europe projects. Key participants (at least five projects) are: AgriFood Lithuania DIH (17 projects), Vytautas Magnus University (9 projects), UAB ―ART21‖ (9 projects), Klaipėda University (8 projects), Vilnius University (6 projects and one without the EU funding), Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (6 projects), Kaunas University of Technology (5 projects), Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Service (5 projects). At the same time, the overview reveals that Lithuania‘s specialisation in European biocircular-economy R&I projects is not very high. Notably, at the time of analysis, Lithuanian organisations were absent from projects funded by Circular Bio-Based Europe Joint Undertaking (CBE JU). The only project of this programme with Lithuanian involvement was US4GREENCHEM (2015–2019) that developed combined ultrasonic and enzyme treatment of lignocellulosic feedstock as substrate for sugar based biotechnological applications 38 . Besides Horizon Europe, there are other relevant funding instruments/programmes. For example, Europe‘s LIFE has a sub-programme ―Circular Economy and Quality of Life‖. In total, Lithuania has 35 LIFE projects 39 . Most of them deal with nature and biodiversity. 38 https://www.cbe.europa.eu/projects/us4greenchem [02 01 2025]. 39 https://lifeprojektai.lt/life-projektai/lietuvos-projektai/ [19 01 2025]. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 84 І 197 Few projects (LIFE Fit for REACH - 2 and NutriBiomass4LIFE) deal with waste, but they are not agri-food related. Capacity building for the transition to the CE takes place at macro-regional level as well. The development of solutions for a green and resilient Baltic Sea region, to which Lithuania belongs, is supported by the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme. Table 17 provides a list of the Interreg Baltic Sea Region projects 40 that have CE element and include organisations from Lithuania. Some of these projects are relevant to A2C replication, since they are connected to agri-food waste upcycling (BioBoosters, Circular FoodShift, KISMET) and to recycling plastics and recycled plastic products (BALTIPLAST, Change(K)now!). 40 Interreg Baltic Sea Region projects: https://interreg-baltic.eu/projects/ [19 11 2024]. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 85 І 197 Table 17 Circular Economy-related projects funded under Interreg Baltic Sea Region 2021–2027 Project Description Duration EU contribution Lithuanian participants, excl. associated organisations TETRAS In TETRAS, public authorities trigger fish and shrimp farming on land, which reuses water from industries related to energy production and geothermal resources. January 2023 – December 2025 2,360,000 Klaipėda Science and Technology Park (coordinator), Klaipėda University, AB ―Akola group‖ BALTIPLAST BALTIPLAST brings technological solutions to help public authorities reduce plastic waste and trigger investments in sustainable sorting and recycling. January 2023 – December 2025 3,420,000 Kaunas City Municipality, Kaunas University of Technology, Environmental Centre for Administration and Technology BioBoosters BioBoosters brings together bio-based businesses in rural areas to share the know-how in circular production, and trigger green business opportunities. January 2023 – December 2025 2,230,000 Sunrise Valley Science and Technology Park CEForestry CEforestry establishes cooperation among researchers, SMEs and large companies to support industrial symbiosis using forestry biomass residues in a more efficient way. January 2023 – December 2025 1,890,000 Kaunas University of Technology, UAB ―Bimala‖ Change(K)no w! Change(K)now! helps municipalities reduce single-use food packaging in food delivery and catering systems, and build social acceptance among companies and people for circular reuse of food packaging. November 2023 – October 2026 3,690,000 Environmental Centre for Administration and Technology, Anykščiai District Municipality Administration ChemClimCir cle ChemClimCircle equips municipalities with training modules to apply circular procurement and, by this, to use non-toxic and climateneutral products. October 2022 – September 2024 400,000 Tauragė Municipality, Environmental Centre for Administration and Technology A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 86 І 197 CiNURGi CiNURGi brings companies into symbioses to recycle nutrientrich biomass from agricultural, municipal, and industrial sources into safe fertilisers, and provides authorities with roadmaps to further facilitate reducing nutrient losses in future. November 2023 – October 2026 5,230,000 Green Circle LT Circular FoodShift Circular FoodShift helps authorities in rural and periurban municipalities transform food models with less food waste at schools and gastronomy and new businesses upcycling food and food waste. August 2023 – July 2025 400,000 Sustainable Gastro Circular Spaces Circular Spaces brings together operators and users of maker spaces in eco-design and material reuse to jointly contribute to sustainable product development. January 2023 – March 2025 1,220,000 Kaunas Science and Technology Park, Lithuanian Innovation Centre EMPEREST EMPEREST tests advanced treatment technology that helps water utilities and companies better remove organic micropollutants such as PFAS or pharmaceuticals from wastewater. January 2023 – December 2025 4,350,000 Kaunas Water, Ltd., Environmental Centre for Administration and Technology FoodLoops FoodLoops establishes cooperation among schools, caterers (SMEs), farmers, and professionals in a circular economy to improve biowaste separation at source, prevent excessive food waste and reuse it as organic compost. August 2023 – July 2025 400,000 Lithuanian Consumer Institute GreenIndustri alAreas GreenIndustrialAreas empowers public authorities to increase the share of smart and climate-neutral industrial areas and co-develop a transnational certification standard. January 2023 – December 2025 2,280,000 Lithuanian Innovation Centre KISMET KISMET helps public authorities create favourable conditions for food producers and consumers to choose sustainable food options. January 2023 – December 2025 2,900,000 Lithuanian Innovation Centre A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 87 І 197 ReNutriWater ReNutriWater helps public authorities develop action plans to recover wastewater and reuse it for cleaning, watering recreational areas and plants, as well as for domestic purposes. January 2023 – December 2025 3,080,000 Šiauliai Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Crafts, National Regions Development Agency WaterMan In WaterMan, public authorities and water companies model strategies to reuse water and recirculate retained water, e.g., for industry and agriculture. January 2023 – December 2025 3,500,000 Association ―Klaipėda Region‖, Administration of Klaipėda District Municipality, Klaipėda University 3.2.2.6 Environmental dimension Standard deviation = 1.18 During the exploration of the sixth ―Environmental dimension‖, the focus group discussed the level of development of waste management infrastructure and waste utilisation channels that allow optimising the use of resources and reduce the negative impact on the environment. The assessments of the participants highlight potential for improvement (2.5 points out of 5). Main findings on the environmental dimension are summarised in Table 18. Table 18 Key findings concerning ―Environmental dimension‖ Enablers, facilitators Barriers, challenges - Investments for the development of existing waste management infrastructure are planned in Lithuania‘s CE roadmap under intervention area ―Circular use of waste‖ (see Table 14); notably, Innovation Agency Lithuania in its study on the SRM market development [13] proposed financial measures for waste managers to install modern fire protection systems or other measures to reduce operational risks - Lithuania‘s CE roadmap also foresees multiple support measures (mostly under - Although planned investments and support measures cover food and plastic waste, they might not necessarily contribute to the improvement of specifically the valorisation of A2C targeted wastes from two stages of the food supply chain, i.e. the primary production stage and the processing and manufacturing stage - CE monitoring tools are not fully exploited for both policy implementation and CE transition of businesses A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 88 І 197 intervention area ―Circular industry‖) for developing and deploying CE solutions in companies, which should facilitate more effective waste utilisation Actions for improving current situation - CE monitoring at various levels is planned to be improved in Lithuania‘s CE roadmap, and the roadmap also foresees support for the acquisition of digital-circular technologies and/or systems that support industry‘s CE transition (Table 14) - As advised in A2C‘s Deliverable D7.10 (v0.2), CE monitoring could benefit from creating permanent working and coordination groups for by-products, with regional registers to facilitate reuse and recycling efforts 3.2.2.7 Standardisation dimension Standard deviation = 0.70 The assessment of the seventh ―Standardisation dimension‖ covered the implementation of standards and certificates for products from secondary materials, and the promotion of circularity evaluations in companies. The focus group recognised the need for improvement in these areas (2.4 points out of 5). Key findings concerning the standardisation dimension is provided in Table 19. Table 19 Key findings concerning ―Standardisation dimension‖ Enablers, facilitators Barriers, challenges - Public authorities are developing and improving relevant standards - As provided in Table 20, in terms of voluntary standards, Lithuania has standardisation Technical Committees working in the identified broad technical areas of A2C - Ensuring participatory approach, effectively involving business - Not all relevant standardisation fields are covered by respective Technical Committees in Lithuania: local committees are not involved (as members or observers) in standardisation concerning bio-based products, bio-based and biodegradable plastics, their environmental and other aspects, essential oils, specific A2C-relevant information technologies, such as automatic A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 89 І 197 identification and data capture techniques, blockchain and distributed ledger technologies (Table 20) Actions for improving current situation - Initiate consultations on the need for Lithuania to get involved through respective Technical Committees in A2C-relevant standardisation concerning bio-based products, specific information technologies Voluntary standards are technical documents that set out requirements for a specific item, material, component, system or service, or describe in detail a particular method, procedure or best practice. Deliverable D8.8 ―Standardization landscape and applicable standards‖ (February 2022, v1.0) discusses standardisation Technical Committees and identifies the corresponding standards that are relevant to the A2C solutions. A2C-relevant standardisation Technical Committees in Lithuania are presented in Table 20. Lithuania has standardisation Technical Committees working in the identified broad technical areas of A2C, but local committees are not involved (as members or observers) in standardisation concerning bio-based products, bio-based and biodegradable plastics, their environmental and other aspects, essential oils, specific A2C-relevant information technologies, such as automatic identification and data capture techniques, blockchain and distributed ledger technologies. Table 20 A2C-relevant standardisation Technical Committees in Lithuania A2C-relevant standardisation Technical Committees Respective Technical Committees in Lithuania41 Technical area: Circular economy, LCA, bio-based products 1) ISO/TC 207/SC 1 - Environmental management systems 2) ISO/TC 207/SC 5 - Life cycle assessment 3) CEN/SS S26 - Environmental management 4) ISO/TC 323 - Circular Technical Committee TK 36 “Aplinkos apsauga” deals with the standardisation of environmental protection terminology, environmental management systems, air, water, sludge and waste testing methods and waste management facility characteristics, climate change, incl. related social and economic aspects. This committee is an observer of ISO/TC 207. Technical Committee TK 94 “Žiedinė ekonomika” deals 41 Information about standardisation Technical Committees in Lithuania: https://eshop.lsd.lt/public#!/committee/list [17 12 2024]. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 96 І 197 factors. These include non-conformity of products, which may be due to aesthetic or quality defects, packaging defects, contamination of packaging, non-conformity of packaging, and products with altered taste. Additionally, damage to the products is a significant contributor to food losses in this sector. Other factors can be spillage, breakage, and contamination. Additionally, processing residues and scraps, testing of new products, the expiration of shelf-life for finished products within the establishment, and returns (postdelivery, unsold products), irregularities in transportation also contribute and lead to food losses. Losses and wastes of fruits and vegetables occur differently at different stages of the food supply chain and in different regions. They can occur at five key stages, namely, agriculture (harvest operation and subsequent sorting and grading), postharvest (handling, transportation and storage after harvest and before processing), processing, distribution and consumption. In developing countries, 9 to 18 % of the losses occur at agriculture and 15–20 % at postharvest stages as a result of the lack of infrastructure and inappropriate handling operations. In contrast, in developed countries, the losses ascribed to these two first stages represent the lowest percentages, the major losses occurring at the last stages (e.g., retail and consumers, demanding high-quality products and rejecting products with ugly appearance), according to Cassani and Gomez-Zavaglia [17]. Data on food loses from ‗Farm to Fork‘ in Lithuania, presented in Figures 44 and 45, reflects the tendency in developed countries. It is worth noting that the survey was carried out between 2020 and 2021 when consumers kept diaries of household food waste during the second quarantine imposed as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic COVID-19, while public catering establishments were asked to provide data on food losses at the same time as they were just starting to reopen after the second quarantine. The distribution of food loses across five categories differs significantly (Figure 44). The largest portion of loss is attributed to households at 61 %, followed by agriculture at 21 %, trade at 12 %, food industry at 4 %, and the smallest segment is catering at 1 %. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 97 І 197 Figure 44 Structure of food loses (percentages) in Lithuania Figure 45 Food loses in different stages of food supply chain (tonnes per year) in Lithuania Source: Study commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania. (2021). Maisto švaistymo ir maisto praradimų visoje maisto tiekimo grandinėje lygio ir prieţasčių nustatymas bei rekomendacijų parengimas 42 . Based on the structure of food wastes in 2021 43 , the share of households in European countries were ranked from highest to lowest, as follows: Italy, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden, Portugal, Slovakia, Austria, Lithuania, Germany, Malta, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, EU, Slovenia, Norway, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Cyprus. Lithuania is above the EU average. However, the focus of this study for Lithuanian replication case is directed towards primary production and processing, as the specificities, handling rules and technological solutions differ for food loses in agriculture and households. For households, such collection models as the community-based schemes using regular marketplaces might be deployed. One example of such scheme is developed in Alhama de Murcia (presented in Deliverable D7.4 ―Community based innovation schemes‖). Residuals of fruits and vegetables in agriculture In the Lithuanian replication case, the initial identification of fruit and vegetable types comprised these categories: apples, cabbage, carrots, sugar beets, potatoes, beans, peas, onions, red beetroots, cucumbers, tomatoes, based on the study conducted in 42 https://zum.lrv.lt/uploads/zum/documents/files/LT_versija/Veiklos_sritys/Mokslas_mokymas_ir_konsultavimas/Moksliniu_ tyrimu_ir_taikomosios_veiklos_darbu_galutines_ataskaitos/2021/Maisto%20Švaistymas%20Praradimai%202021%20Ata skaita.pdf 43 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/15216629/18054337/KS-FK-23-001-EN-N.pdf/048e130f-79fa-e870-6c46d80c9408620b?version=7.0&t=1707290893751 Primary production – agriculture: 81,202 Processing – food industry: 17,452 Distribution – wholesale: 265 Distribution – retail: 48,845 Consumption – catering: 4,495 Consumption – households: 241,570 In total: 393,828 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 98 І 197 2021 44 . A total of 357 farmers participated in the survey, with 257 questionnaires completed to indicate food losses in vegetable and fruit production, and 102 questionnaires completed to indicate losses of different categories. The highest levels of food loss were observed in potatoes and beetroot in Lithuania (Table 22). Table 22 Losses of selected fruits and vegetables, incl. root crops, in Lithuanian agriculture in 2019 (tonnes of estimated waste and % from total production) 805.5 t 13542.9 t 9357.9 t 680.3 t 578.9 t 949.3 t 384.3 t 1101.1 t 2.3 % 20.1 % 5.0 % 2.2 % 2.6 % 3.3 % 3.2 % 8.1 % 31851.6 t 1545.6 t 1514.0 t 14.1 % 17.0 % 17.0 % The highest quantity of lost is beetroots (13,542.9 t), which represents 20.1 % of total production, and the lowest quantity is 384.3 t for tomatoes, representing 3.2 %. In Lithuania, according to the same study, storage losses were the main reason why some of the cabbage, carrots, onions and apples were not used for food (Figure 46). Losses of plant breeding products were estimated by combining data on non-food uses and non-harvested plants and expressed as a percentage of total harvested quantities. Tomatoes, cucumbers and apples were not used for human consumption, mainly due to quality-related factors (i.e., they did not meet wholesalers‘, retailers‘ and consumers‘ requirements), and beetroot was not used due to marketing difficulties. It is worth mentioning that farmers producing field vegetables and potatoes relatively often indicated that a certain part of their production was not used for food due to lack of demand following the closure of schools, kindergartens, restaurants, hotels and other catering establishments in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 44 https://zum.lrv.lt/uploads/zum/documents/files/LT_versija/Veiklos_sritys/Mokslas_mokymas_ir_konsultavimas/Moksliniu_ tyrimu_ir_taikomosios_veiklos_darbu_galutines_ataskaitos/2021/Maisto%20Švaistymas%20Praradimai%202021%20Ata skaita.pdf A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 99 І 197 Figure 46 Reasons why part of plant breeding production was not used for food Meanwhile, inclement weather was the most important reason for some of the cabbage and beetroot to remain unharvested, followed by diseases and pests (Figure 47). Diseases and pests were the main reasons for some of the crop failure in onions, cabbage, tomatoes and cucumbers, overproduction in apples and quality-related factors in carrots. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cabbage (n = 7) Beetroots (n = 10) Carrots (n = 7) Onions (n = 5) Cucumbers (n = 4) Tomatoes (n = 4) Apples (n = 9) Potatoes (n = 10) Selected causes by respondents why part of plant breeding production was not used for food, % Factors related to quality Higher yields than expected Difficulties related to the sale Storage losses Handling losses A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 100 І 197 Figure 47 Reasons why part of the vegetable and fruit production remains unharvested Residuals of fruits and vegetables in food industry, trade, catering, and households From the same study, when the survey was applied for representatives from the 3rd-5th stages of food supply chain (processing, distribution, and consumption), it was shown that food losses in fruit and vegetable processing accounted for 0.41 % of annual production (based on survey which represents companies covering 44.6 % labour and 38.4 % revenue of the sector). In 2019, food losses in fruit and vegetable processing and preserving establishments amounted to 435.16 tonnes, including 76.15 tonnes of inprocess food losses, 221.93 tonnes (99 %) of unpackaged ready-to-eat food and 137.08 tonnes of packaged ready-to-eat food. The main causes of generation and the use of fruit and vegetable residuals in supply chain stages after agriculture, i.e. in food industry, trade, catering, and households are summarised in Table 23. Less important were the following reasons: testing of new products, expiry of the shelf-life of finished products when stored in the establishment, returns (post-delivery products, unsold products), and damage during transport of products. Trading companies have chosen a variety of ways to use the resulting food losses, partly due to the specific nature of the food products traded. The majority of food losses were landfilled and discharged into sewers/wastewater treatment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cabbage (n = 1) Beetroots (n = 4) Carrots (n = 3) Onions (n = 2) Cucumbers (n = 2) Tomatoes (n = 1) Apples (n = 5) Potatoes (n = 2) Selected causes by respondents why part of the vegetable and fruit production remains unharvested, % Overproduction / failure to sell / lack of a suitable buyer Factors related to quality Unfavourable weather conditions Diseases, pests Losses due to wildlife Other A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 101 І 197 plants in wholesale businesses, which makes circular economy initiatives relevant to these businesses. Table 23 Residuals of fruits and vegetables in food industry, trade, catering, and households Waste generation Use of waste Stage of supply chain: Food industry Non-compliance of products with requirements (e.g., aesthetic defects, quality defects); packaging defects, contamination of packaging, non-compliance of packaging; products with an altered taste; spoilage of products due to spillage, spillage, dropping, breakage; processing waste and residues. Minor generation: testing of new products, expiry of the shelf-life of finished products when stored in the establishment, returns (post-delivery products, unsold products), and damage during transport of products. As all end-of-life food products are disposed of by waste management companies, initiatives to apply circular economy principles are relevant for fruit and vegetable processing and canning companies. Stage of supply chain: Trade The main causes of food losses in the retail trade are: expired products; spoilage of products; visible defects/damage to the products or their packaging rendering the products unmarketable. Fruits and vegetables accounted for the largest share of food lost in food retailing – 62.8 %. In wholesale trade fruits and vegetables accounted for the largest share of 40.8 % of food losses. The main causes are: damage to products or their packaging during transport, which renders the products unmarketable, and seasonality. Around 75 % of the food losses in retail were used to produce biogas and substrate through anaerobic digestion, 18 % were recycled, 5 % were used/sold for animal feed and 2 % were landfilled. 40.3 % of food losses were landfilled, 20.4 % were discharged into sewers/wastewater treatment plants, 17.7 % were used for composting, 15.9 % were used/sold for animal feed, 4.3 % were used for biogas and substrate production through anaerobic digestion of waste, and 1.4 % were used for land application. Stage of supply chain: Catering 2598,9 tonnes in business catering; More than half of these losses (53.3 %) were due to leftover food from the plates of the eaters after they had eaten. Food losses in the kitchen and from serving were lower at 26.5 % and 20.2 % respectively. Over-preparation of food/portions was the most frequently cited reason (66.7 % of respondents chose this reason), while spoilage of food, contamination of food was much less common (38.9 %). The most common food leftovers on people's plates after eating were side dishes (potatoes, rice, pasta, etc.) (93.1 % of respondents reported these leftovers), salads, fruits and vegetables (81.0 %). 1895,6 tonnes in institutional catering establishments. Food losses in Lithuania's institutional catering establishments: almost three-quarters of these losses The largest share of food losses in Lithuanian business catering establishments was used for animal feed (35.6 %), however, a relatively large share of food losses was disposed of in landfills and discharged into sewers/wastewater treatment plants (33.3 %). Out of 60 business catering establishments, only 5 indicated that they cooperate with the Food Bank and/or other charitable organizations. In one month, an average of 23 kg of food was donated by one establishment. The largest share of food losses in Lithuanian institutional catering A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 102 І 197 (74.3 %) were due to leftover food from the plates of eaters after they had finished eating. Food losses in the kitchen and from serving were significantly lower at 15.6 % and 10.0 % respectively. Over-preparation of food/portions was the most frequently cited reason (79.3 % of respondents chose this reason), while spoilage of food, contamination of food was much less common (24.1 %). The most common food leftovers on people's plates after eating were side dishes (potatoes, rice, pasta, etc.) (77.4 % of respondents reported these leftovers), salads, fruits and vegetables (70.2 %). establishments was used/sold for animal feed (38.7 %). Slightly more than one quarter of food losses were used for biogas and substrate production through anaerobic digestion of waste (25.1 %). Stage of supply chain: Households Households lost most of their ready-to-eat food, dishes and leftovers (soups, stews, porridges, salads and salad mixes, sauces, pancakes, etc.) accounted for 42.3 % of all food losses; fresh and perishable foods such as milk and milk products (14.7 %), fresh vegetables and potatoes (8.8 %), fresh fruit and berries (8.6 %) accounted for a relatively high proportion of food losses. The highest proportion of food loss in households was due to spoilage (44.4 %). Consumers reported throwing away food because it had become mouldy, rotten, rusted, decayed, smelled bad, tasted or looked bad.16.7 % of food was lost due to overpreparation, and a further 12.2 % was lost due to overpreparation during eating. Other relatively common reasons were that the food had passed its expiry date and that they simply did not like the food. Currently goes to landfill. Given that a large proportion of food loss in households was due to prepared food that was thrown away because it had been over-prepared and over-served, because it spoiled, or simply because it was no longer wanted, it can be concluded that consumers need advice and knowledge on how to analyse portion planning, on how to use leftovers to make new and tasty dishes, and on how to properly store prepared food so that it does not go bad. Given the relatively high number of households throwing away fresh vegetables, fruit and berries due to spoilage, rotting and decay, there is a need to educate consumers on how to preserve these perishable foods for a longer period of time, e.g. through proper packaging, canning, etc. In Lithuania, business caterers are taking action to reduce food waste. The most frequently mentioned actions include production planning (81.7 % of respondents reported this action), well planned, well thought out food purchases (75.0 %), menu planning (71.7 %), proper storage (storage) of food (68.3 %), and the use of appropriate portion sizes (66.7 %). However, it should be noted that only a very small number of business caterers are taking one of the most important actions to reduce food losses – transferring surplus food to people who need it. Similarly, institutional caterers are also taking action to reduce food losses. The most frequently mentioned actions include menu planning (84.7 % of respondents reported this action), well planned, well thought out food purchases (72.6 %), production planning (71.8 %), proper storage (70.2 %) and the use of A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 103 І 197 proper portion sizes (66.9 %). It should be noted that in more than one third of the institutional caterers surveyed, conversations about food waste with eaters are organised. Moreover, the same study revealed that the mean amount of food disposed of by households on a weekly basis is 2.6 kg. The research, conducted during the second period of the national lockdown in response to the global pandemic, revealed that lifestyle changes, including remote work, online learning and an increase in food consumption at home, had an impact on food waste. While some studies have indicated that improved food management has led to a reduction in waste, others have suggested that higher levels of home consumption have resulted in a greater amount of wastage. The methodological differences between studies make it challenging to draw comparisons. To validate the findings from Lithuania, further research involving the use of food waste diaries in non-quarantine conditions is recommended. The differentiation of fruit and vegetable waste from the agricultural/primary production sector from that of the food industry, trade, catering and households is a logical and beneficial approach. The composition of fruit and vegetable waste from agriculture is more precise and defined, which allows for a clear choice of treatment and processing method and the potential for further value creation. Residues from agriculture have highly reduced dispersion of the composition which is very important for process validation. Agricultural residues often have specific applications such as bioenergy production, composting, soil improvement, or animal feed. Food waste from households or trade may be less suited for these purposes due to contamination or different characteristics. Agricultural residues arise directly from farming practices, making their volume and type highly dependent on crop types, seasons, and farming methods. In contrast, other sectors generate waste through consumption, preparation, and distribution processes. The management and valuation of agricultural residues often fall under agricultural or environmental regulations, while food waste from other sectors is governed by consumer or trade laws. Separate valuation helps design sector-specific interventions. Thus, fruit and vegetable residues of food industry, trade, catering and households were omitted from the current study. Biowaste A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 104 І 197 Biowaste is any biodegradable organic waste of plant and/or animal origin, susceptible to biological degradation, and generated in the home and commercial environment, normally agri-food industries. These biowastes have great variability, although their largest proportion is made up of organic matter. In 2020, agriculture and fisheries generated 9883.8 thousand tonnes of biodegradable waste, of which 45.5 % was of plant origin, 54.5 % of animal origin and 0.1 % of washing and cleaning sludge. In 2020, biodegradable waste generation increased by 22.8 % compared to 2016. Both vegetable and animal waste increased, although some waste types with a low comparative weight decreased. The largest comparative weights of total biodegradable waste in 2020 were straw (42.5 %), manure (31.4 %) and slurry (23.0 %). All other biodegradable waste accounted for 3.1 %. The food industry, which is obliged to report on waste generation and management, generates much less biodegradable waste than agriculture and fisheries, and the amount of waste from the food industry is decreasing. In 2020, 70,500 tonnes of waste were collected and generated in the treatment process, or 57.9 % less than in 2015. More than half (51.5 %) of the waste generated in 2020 was from the processing of meat, fish and other animal waste, with a further 28.3 % coming from the preparation and processing of fruit, vegetables, cereals, edible oil, cocoa, coffee, tea and tobacco preparation and processing, canning, yeast and yeast extract, and molasses production and fermentation. In the same areas, the quantities of waste in 2020 have increased significantly compared to 2015: meat, fish and other food waste of animal origin by almost 2 times, and fruit, vegetables, cereal processing, edible oil production, cocoa, coffee, tea and tobacco preparation and processing waste, canning waste, yeast and yeast extract production, molasses production and fermentation waste - by 44.3 %. Waste from the production of other products decreased significantly, while sugar production did not produce any waste at all, as it was previously considered as waste and was recognised as a by-product of production in 2016. Figure 48 presents the collected and generated waste from plant-based food cooking and products over six years, categorized into various types of waste. Washing and cleaning sludge (20101) significantly increased, starting at 15,214.7 tonnes in 2017 and peaking at 29,565.4 tonnes in 2022. After a gradual decline up to 2020, the numbers saw A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 105 І 197 a sharp rise in the last two years Plant tissue waste (20103) peaked at 13,741.3 tonnes in 2019 but since then has declined significantly, reaching 4,853.1 tonnes in 2022. Source of data: Environmental Protection Agency. – https://aaa.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys/atliekos/atlieku-apskaita/atliekuapskaitos-duomenys/suvestine-pagal-atlieku-kodus/ [26 10 2024]. Figure 48 Trend of all collected and generated plant-based waste of food cooking and food products in Lithuania This sharp drop indicates improved processing efficiency or changes in waste management practices. Washing, cleaning, peeling, centrifugation, and separation sludge (20301) showed consistent but rather low levels of waste, ranging from 1,435 tonnes in 2017 to 1,744 tonnes in 2022, reflecting a stable waste generation pattern. Materials not suitable for consumption or recycling exposed as following: i) under the code 20304 - gradually increased over the years, reaching 918.7 tonnes in 2022; ii) under the codes 20601, 20701, and 20704 - these categories showed negligible contributions throughout the period, with minimal values of 161 tonnes, 0.9 tonnes, and near zero, respectively, by 87.0 0.0 1,435.0 4,853.1 73.9 0.9 15,214.7 29,565.4 570.4 1,744.0 1,546.8 161.0 13,741.3 918.7 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 All collected and generated plant-based waste of food cooking and food products (tonnes) Washing and cleaning sludge (20101) Plant tissue waste (20103) Washing, cleaning, peeling, centrifugation and separation sludge (20301) Materials not suitable for consumption or recycling (20304) Materials not suitable for consumption or recycling (20601) Waste from washing, cleaning and mechanical chopping of raw materials (20701) Materials not suitable for consumption or recycling (20704) A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 112 І 197 Ascorbic acid, carotenoids, phenolic acids, flavonoids, inorganic nitrate, betalains, betaine, vitamins (folate, copper, manganese iron, magnesium, potassium), vitamins C (ascorbic acid, B6). 18% of sugar, carbohydrates, proteins, and fiber, ferulic acid ester, acetic acid. Anthocyanins, beta-carotene, phenolic acids (caffeic, lactic and glycolic acids), carotol, vitamins (vitamin K, vitamin B9, vitamin C, potassium, manganese, B-complex vitamins, copper). Allicin, phenols, flavonoids, quercetin, alliinase, dietary fiber, vitamins (vitamin C, vitamins B6 and B9). Hypoxanthine, saponin, cucurbitacin, taraxerol, glutathione, vitamin K and vitamin B5, copper, iron. Lycopene, carotenoids (beta-carotene, lutein, and zeaxanthin) coumaric and chlorogenic acids, L-glutamate, vitamins (vitamin C, vitamin K, vitamin A). Ursolic acid, flavonols as quercetin and epicatechin, rutin, pectin, vitamin C and copper, small quantities minerals (potassium, manganese, magnesium, phosphorus, calcium, iron, zinc), and vitamins (B complex, choline, vitamin A, vitamin E and vitamin K). Polyphenols (phenolic acids, flavonoids), glycoalkaloids, vitamin C, carotenoids (lutein and zeaxanthin), dietary fibers, resistant starch, other phytochemicals (saponins). Phenolic compounds (Flavonoids, tannins, phenolic acids), phytosterols (lower cholesterol levels and support heart health), saponins, protease inhibitors, lectins, dietary fiber, resistant starch, isoflavones in some species, anthocyanins (in coloured Beans), lunasin. Phenolic compounds, saponins, phytosterols, protease inhibitors, carotenoids (lutein and zeaxanthin), resistant starch and fiber, lectins. Bioactive compounds derived from fruit and vegetable waste, such as polyphenols, carotenoids, and glucosinolates, have valuable applications in health, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, the cosmetic industry and the food industry. They serve as antioxidants, anti-inflammatory agents, and immune boosters in dietary supplements and functional foods. In the food industry, they are used as natural colourants, preservatives, and flavour enhancers, enriching food products with health-promoting properties. Despite all the advantages and customisation options, the extraction of bioactive compounds from fruit and vegetable waste may not be profitable for several reasons. The main of them is small quantities of waste. The majority of fruit and vegetable waste is directly managed by on-farm treatment. In contrast, only a very small proportion is managed by other means, such as incineration or transfer to handlers. This indicates that the quantities of waste generated on farms that are potentially suitable for the recovery of A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 113 І 197 bioactive compounds are relatively small. Efficient extraction of bioactive compounds requires large volumes of waste to make the process economically viable because the amounts of the active compounds are also very low in mg, µg or even ng scale. Most of the waste is used directly on the farm, e.g., as compost or fodder, which can be more costeffective than extracting bioactive compounds. This means that farmers already have ways to use these wastes efficiently and may not be generating enough surplus waste to be suitable for processing into bioactive compounds. Such obbservation is consistent with feedback from citizens, market vendors involved in the community-based scheme in Alhama, and growers‘ associations in the Region of Murcia. Another important factor is management costs. The amount of waste remaining unmanaged at the end of the year is small; in Lithuania, it is 0.8 thousand tonnes. This shows that the waste management system is already quite efficient. Recovery processes for bioactive compounds can be complex and costly, so a small amount of waste can increase the cost of recovery, as mass recycling is the most cost-effective. Other waste management options, such as onfarm use, incineration or composting, are simple and easy to implement. They require less investment and maintenance than the extraction of bioactive compounds, which may require special equipment, technology and expertise. Therefore, the main reason why it may not be cost-effective to extract bioactive compounds from fruit and vegetable waste is due to the relatively small quantities of waste and the fact that this waste is already efficiently managed in other, cheaper and simpler ways. For the reasons mentioned above, and based on the results of the experimental studies carried out by the project partners, it was decided to concentrate on the fractionation of the fruit and vegetable residues, isolating only the main substances that make up the majority of the fractions, fibres and polyphenolics and pigments, and particularly lycopene (Table 27). Table 27 Composition of vegetables and fruits Fibres, g/100 g 2.5 3.8 70-80 2.8 1.9 0.5 Polyphenols, mg/100 g 100-250 100-800 3.5 100-300 4-25 3.5 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 114 І 197 Lycopene* Fibres, g/100 g 2.2 4.4 2-3 6.5 5.5-8 Polyphenols, mg/100 g 30-70 100-500 50-300 50-120 30-70 Lycopene* *A filled colour means that there is the presence of lycopene. The challenge is intrinsically linked to the advanced developed technologies in the project and replicated in Italy and Lithuania. Lithuania and Italy differ significantly in agriculture, climate, and the food industry, particularly in the Lombardy region. Due to its temperate climate, Lithuania‘s agriculture is largely focused on cereal grains, potatoes, and dairy. Meanwhile, Lombardy, with its more Mediterranean climate, is known for highvalue plants like olives, grapes, and various fruits, as well as rich dairy and wine production. Lithuania has a colder, northern European climate with long winters, limiting the growing season and vegetable variety. In contrast, Lombardy enjoys a milder climate with warm summers and more extended growing seasons, supporting a diverse agricultural output, including specialised crops like rice and wine grapes. Italy, and particularly Lombardy, has a strong tradition of processing agricultural products into highquality goods like olive oil, cheese (e.g., Parmigiano-Reggiano), and wine. Lithuania‘s food industry is more focused on staple foods, dairy processing, and emerging sectors like organic farming. Initially, in the Lombardy region case, it was identified 8 types of fruit and vegetables which account for the majority of food supply chain losses (Deliverable D7.17): tomatoes, grapes, lettuce, apples, melons, zucchini, watermelons and artichokes. The project A2C evaluated different extraction routes based on combined environmentally friendly methodologies, which were applied to different agri-food waste; optimization and scaling-up trials were performed of possible routes which have a high impact on the real potential for waste valorisation. Moreover, circularity and valorisation of vegetable and fruit waste through a technological development based on sustainability has also been taken into account and evaluated (WP2, WP4, and WP6). The developed proposed solutions go beyond the state of the art in terms of the use of innovative and sustainable hybrid processes, the work at pilot scale with significant quantities of waste and the use and consideration of various types of agri-food wastes, the results obtained show a high rigour A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 115 І 197 in terms of the exploitability of the results. The simplified scheme, including two pathways for obtaining fibre extracts and phenolic extracts, is presented in Figure 50. Source: Scheme prepared by project partner CTNC. Figure 50 Two pathways for obtaining fibre extracts and phenolic extracts In Route 1, the obtained solid phase is processed through purification followed by dehydration, resulting in a fibre extract of over 70 % purity. The liquid phase goes through concentration, purification, and freeze-drying processes, producing a phenolic extract comprising about 20 % of the final product. In Route 2, the solid phase is processed through several steps: it first undergoes microwave processing, which helps to break down the material efficiently. This is followed by sieving to separate out the desired components. The mixture then goes through evaporation to remove excess moisture and is finally purified. The result of this process is a phenolic extract with a high concentration of 70%. Meanwhile, the liquid phase is treated differently. It starts with centrifugation and ultrafiltration, which helps separate solids from liquids. The solid phase is then isolated and dehydrated to remove any remaining moisture. This path resulted in a fibre extract with a concentration ranging from 50 % to 70 %. It appears that Route 1 is primarily focused on fibre extraction, whereas Route 2 is oriented more towards the recovery of phenolic compounds. The utilisation of microwave processing in Route 2 indicates the employment of sophisticated technology with the objective of enhancing yield A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 116 І 197 or efficiency, particularly in the case of phenolic compounds. Route 1 focuses on simplicity, using fewer steps to achieve a high-purity fibre extract and a lowerconcentration phenolic extract. In contrast, Route 2 employs a more complex process with advanced techniques like microwave processing to enhance extraction efficiency, achieving a higher concentration of phenolic extract and a balanced fibre extract with 50– 70 % purity. Pomace is the main solid waste obtained in high quantities after the extraction of juices from fruits and vegetables and mainly consists of peels, residual pulp, and seeds. Therefore, the extraction of phytochemicals, the recovery of dietary fibre, or the use of the whole pomace to functionalize and add value to food products, supplements, and cosmetic formulations are promising ways to efficiently use these fruits and vegetables by-products (FLW). As already mentioned, the main categories of the majority of components found in FLW are dietary fibre, polyphenolic compounds and pigments. FLW are rich sources of total dietary, having a higher soluble fibre proportion, better insoluble/soluble fibre ratio, lower caloric content, lower phytic acid content and better functional properties than those obtained from cereal processing (the traditional source of fibre). In particular, pectin is the main type of soluble fibre found in FLW. This carbohydrate was reported in apple pomace, carrot pomace, whole tomato potato, etc. Regarding insoluble fiber, cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin were identified in most of FLW. Moreover, several bioactive compounds present in fruits and vegetables (e.g., phenolics, flavonoids, carotenoids) are usually bound to dietary fiber, which reinforces their antioxidant activity. The resulting association was called ‗antioxidant dietary fiber‘ by Saura-Calixto and was identified in numerous fruits and vegetables matrices, according to Angulo-Lopez et al. [18]. From a technological viewpoint, dietary fiber has some interesting properties, including a high-water holding capacity, swelling capacity and gel formation, which can be useful to increase the texture and viscosity of certain food products. Besides that, dietary fiber from fruits and vegetables has higher oil holding capacity than some legumes, and this property can be useful to avoid fat losses and flavours during food processing, especially in meat products. The health-promoting properties and functionality of dietary fiber have encouraged producers to include this ingredient in different food and nutraceutical formulations, already introduced in the market. Indeed, the main applications A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 117 І 197 of dietary fiber in food industry include beverage (to enhance stability and viscosity), bakery (to improve the nutritional composition and water retention), dairy products (to increase consistency, rheology properties, texture), meat (to improve the nutritional composition, viscosity, emulsion stability) or as food additives. For example, Sudha et al. studied the addition of apple pomace to wheat flour (5–15 %) and observed that the increase of apple pomace levels leads to an increase in water absorption and resistance to extension together with a decrease in extensibility and viscosity, based on Sudha M. et al. [19]. In addition, these authors studied the baking properties when preparing a cake with wheat flour containing apple pomace (0–30 %). They observed that the cake becomes harder with a decreased volume as the apple pomace content increases. Also, when apple pomace is incorporated at a higher concentration, the sensory quality of cakes is negatively affected. In this line, Chau et al. reported that the water-insoluble fibre of carrot pomace has the best functional properties (swelling capacity, waterand oil-holding capacity), leading to better glucose-adsorption capacity and amylase inhibition activity, according to Chau C.F et al. [20]. Similarly, apple pomace is a rich source of dietary fibre (45–60 %) and associated phytochemicals, mainly composed of insoluble fibre, namely cellulose (20.20–43.60 %), hemicelluloses (4.26–24.40 %) and lignins (15.30–23.50 %). The contribution of soluble fibre to the total dietary fibre is also important, with pectins (5.50–11.70 %) and gums being the predominant compounds. Dietary fibre represents a large percentage of the waste and losses of most fruits and vegetables. Incorporating it in food products provides a source of health benefits and has several technological properties. Considering consumers' awareness to ingest nutritious products and avoid the consumption of saturated lipids or trans fatty acids, using fibre-based replacers is an increasing trend that could offer additional ways to diversify the possibilities of adding value to fiber-containing losses and wastes. Besides that, considering the chemical nature of the fibre (polysaccharides) and the wide range of applications of such compounds, fibre from FLW and losses certainly have enlarged application possibilities. As observed in the scientific papers, different approaches have already been carried out. However, there is still a long way to go, and this will not only contribute to the use of by-products but also provide healthier and sustainable products to the population [17]. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 118 І 197 The FLW are also rich sources of polyphenols, a large group of phytochemical compounds with important biological functions in human health. From a chemical point of view, although polyphenols include a great variety of compounds with different chemical structures, they all have one or more hydroxyl groups (–OH) bound to at least one aromatic ring. The different classes and subclasses of polyphenols are subdivided on a biosynthetic basis as follows: phenolic acids, lignans, stilbenoids, flavonoids and tannins. Several works have suggested that polyphenols can be present in fruits and vegetables by-products after industrial processing, even in a higher proportion than in the edible parts. In this way, Li H. Z. et al. [21] identified chlorogenic acid, quercetin-3-O-galactoside, quercetin-3-O-rhamnoside, and phloridzin as extractable phenolic compounds in apple pomace. These authors exposed such by-products to acid and basic hydrolysis (as single or combined procedures) to promote the release of polyphenols bound to the fruit matrix. While acid hydrolysis breaks glycosidic bonds, alkali does it for ether and ester bonds. Hence, acid hydrolysis promotes the release of significant quantities of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid and isoferulic acid, whereas the basic procedure induces protocatechuic acid and catechin extraction. These authors also observed that fractions with higher phenolic compounds are those obtained after basic hydrolysis, which led to higher antioxidant activity through oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) assay, thus, supporting the application of extraction and hydrolysis procedures to the recovery of polyphenols from apple by-products. Similarly, Abbasi-Parizad et al. [22] analysed the polyphenol composition of different agro-industrial by-products (tomato pomace, etc.). They found that flavonoids (quercetin, rutin, apigenin, and naringenin) represent 95% of the total polyphenols in grape pomace. In contrast, gallic acid and chlorogenic acids are the main polyphenols in spent coffee grounds. Tomato pomace showed a higher concentration of cinnamic acid, p-coumaric and caffeic acids. Polyphenols include various chemical compounds, ranging from small molecules to highly polymerised ones. Fruits and vegetables (and also their FLW) are one of the richest sources of natural polyphenols. Considering the large availability of diverse fruits and vegetables worldwide and the large percentage lost at the different stages of production, great amounts of underexploited polyphenols exist. Although they have been correctly identified, their exploitation requires appropriate and sustainable extraction methods, with costs compatible with the fact of A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 119 І 197 using agro-industrial by-products (it would be non-sense to use expensive extraction methods even when they were sustainable) [17]. The global dyes and pigments market size 51 is expected to reach USD 51.7 billion by 2028 and is projected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1 % from 2021 to 2028. However, the synthetic pigments traditionally employed in the food, nutraceutical and cosmeceutical industries are more and more controversial not only because of their unsustainable production (chemical synthesis) but also because, although accepted, their consumption is less safe than that of pigments arising from other sources. FLW (seeds, pomace, peels) are rich and safer sources of natural pigments. Therefore, their valorisation is an interesting strategy to meet the demands of natural pigment production at the industrial level. Their intense colours provide natural pigments for formulating different products, such as juices, candies, chocolates, bakery and confectionery, jams and jellies, instant drink powders, sauces, and ice creams. Furthermore, the healthbeneficial effects of such pigments (e.g., antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, antimicrobial, cardioprotective, antithrombotic) offer an additional advantage, providing not only colourants but also functional ingredients. The challenge that industrials currently face is to find sustainable approaches for their production, including green extraction and processing technologies, encapsulation techniques, and retaining their health-beneficial effects along with processing. From a chemical and structural viewpoint, natural pigments can be classified into four major groups: anthocyanins, betalains, chlorophyll and carotenoids. Anthocyanins and betalains are water-soluble pigments, whereas carotenoids and chlorophyll are mostly hydrophobic. These characteristics determine the extraction and stabilisation methods employed for their sustainable valorisation [17]. The variety of vivid colours from fruits and vegetables is certainly one of the most attractive characteristics. Such colours are also present in most of their losses and wastes. Considering that coloured compounds present in fruits and vegetables are valuable sources of natural and stable colourants and sources of functional ingredients (e.g., antioxidants), their advantages over synthetic colourants are clear. There exists an increasing industrial interest in replacing synthetic with natural colourants. For this reason, 51 https://www.inkworldmagazine.com/issues/2024-01-01/view_features/the-2024-pigment-market/ A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 120 І 197 the great variety of natural colours present in fruits and vegetables wastes and losses have several niches to be exploited (e.g., food, nutraceutical, and cosmeceutical industries), contributing both to providing healthier products to the population and to obtaining sustainable products [17]. Lycopene is a lipid-soluble carotenoid molecule in high red fruit and vegetable concentrations. Lycopene has a significant antioxidative activity. In conclusion, vegetable and fruit waste represents a promising resource for sustainable and innovative applications. In light of the findings yielded by the project, it can be posited that the principal avenue for the utilisation of fibre and phenol extracts is their incorporation into the creation of novel formulations for food, nutraceutical supplements, and cosmetics. Upcycling vegetable and fruit waste into functional ingredients can enhance flavour, nutrition and shelf life in the food sector. To illustrate, the extracted fibres can be incorporated into bakery products, cereals and snacks, promoting digestive health and enhancing texture. Vegetable and fruit-based extraction powders have the potential to serve as natural colourants and flavour enhancers, offering an appealing alternative to synthetic additives. Additionally, vegetable and fruit waste demonstrate considerable potential in the nutraceutical sector, as a considerable proportion of these by-products are rich in antioxidants, polyphenols, flavonoids, and dietary fibres that are known to support health and wellness. With minimal processing, a considerable proportion of fruit and vegetable waste can be transformed into supplements that enhance well-being. In cosmetics, vegetable and fruit waste derivatives are employed as natural and sustainable ingredients in skincare and personal care formulations, including cleansers, toners, moisturisers, and exfoliating scrubs. These are being used as replacements for microplastics with the aim of creating biodegradable and skin-safe alternatives. Furthermore, compounds such as tannins and polyphenols can be employed in antiageing serums due to their capacity to neutralise free radicals and stimulate collagen synthesis. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 121 І 197 Figure 51 Process flow for application of A2C solutions In addition to their functional benefits, these applications address critical environmental concerns by reducing waste in the food supply chain. In light of the global shift towards sustainability, repurposing fruit and vegetable waste is aligned with consumer demand for eco-friendly products and regulatory moves to reduce food waste. The potential economic benefits are significant, as waste-derived ingredients are often more affordable than synthetic alternatives and can attract consumers seeking natural, environmentally responsible options. The application of vegetable and fruit waste in food, nutraceuticals, and cosmetics opens avenues for innovation, aligns with circular economy principles, and caters to the growing demand for sustainable and natural products. This approach provides a secondary life to food waste and fosters a more responsible and resource-efficient supply chain. Cluster identification Futher on, the density of relevant agricultural (certain fruit and vegetable) production and potential waste amounts is presented at county (NUTS 3) level. Information is based on the latest harvest data, while the potential waste amounts are calculated using the earlier introduced coefficients. A2C solutions FIBRE EXTRACTS PHENOLIC EXTRACTS New FOOD formulations New NUTRACEUTICAL formulations New COSMETIC formulations A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 128 І 197 Cucumbers Figure 58 Cucumbers production and potential residuals in 2023 within Lithuanian counties Table 34 Potential cluster and use possibilities for cucumbers residuals Potential cluster Use possibilities Counties of Vilnius, Kaunas and Šiauliai with an estimated 583 tonnes of cucumber residuals in 2023 Integration in current production (products according to their PRODCOM code, see section 3.1.2 Main characteristics of local agrifood and related industrial sectors): 1091103700; 1092103000; 1091103500; 1091103900; 1052100000; 1091103300; 1103100000; 1089195100; 1071120000; 1072199000; 2041438900; 2030226000; 2030227300; 2016596500; 2052108000; 2030225500; 2030225300; 2041326000. Replication of A2C solutions through integrating the developed technologies of Demonstrator 3 and Demonstrator 4. 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals 25,134 9,161 1,108 6,590 1,125 1,795 975 1,936 1,205 412 827 829 302 37 217 37 59 32 64 40 14 27 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total cucumbers (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total cucumbers (field and under glass) Residuals A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 129 І 197 Tomatoes Figure 59 Tomatoes production and potential residuals in 2023 within Lithuanian counties Table 35 Potential cluster and use possibilities for tomatoes residuals Potential cluster Use possibilities Counties of Vilnius, Panevėţys, Kaunas and Šiauliai, with an estimated 193 tonnes of tomato residuals in 2023 Integration in current production (products according to their PRODCOM code, see section 3.1.2 Main characteristics of local agrifood and related industrial sectors): 1091103700; 1092103000; 1091103500; 1091103900; 1052100000; 1091103300; 1103100000; 1089195100; 1071120000; 1072199000; 2041438900; 2030226000; 2030227300; 2016596500; 2052108000; 2030225500; 2030225300; 2041326000. Replication of A2C solutions through integrating the developed technologies of Demonstrator 3 and Demonstrator 4. 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals 8,231 2,714 146 1,301 359 621 1,225 785 394 224 461 263 87 5 42 11 20 39 25 13 7 15 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Total tomatoes (field and under glass) production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Total tomatoes (field and under glass) Residuals A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 130 І 197 Onions Figure 60 Onions production and potential residuals in 2023 within Lithuanian counties Table 36 Potential cluster and use possibilities for onions residuals Potential cluster Use possibilities Counties of Šiauliai, Panevėţys, and Kaunas, with estimated 572 tonnes of onion residuals in 2023 Integration in current production (products according to their PRODCOM code, see section 3.1.2 Main characteristics of local agrifood and related industrial sectors): 1091103700; 1092103000; 1091103500; 1091103900; 1052100000; 1091103300; 1103100000; 1089195100; 1071120000; 1072199000; 2041438900; 2030226000; 2030227300; 2016596500; 2052108000; 2030225500; 2030225300; 2041326000. Replication of A2C solutions through integrating the developed technologies of Demonstrator 3 and Demonstrator 4. 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals 28,217 1,398 1,419 5,907 1,156 1,249 5,508 10,581 196 705 98 734 36 37 154 30 32 143 275 5 18 3 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Onions production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Onions Residuals A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 131 І 197 Carrots Figure 61 Carrots production and potential residuals in 2023 within Lithuanian counties Table 37 Potential cluster and use possibilities for carrots residuals Potential cluster Use possibilities Counties of Šiauliai, Panevėţys, and Kaunas, with estimated 360 tonnes of carrot residuals in 2023 Integration in current production (products according to their PRODCOM code, see section 3.1.2 Main characteristics of local agrifood and related industrial sectors): 1091103700; 1092103000; 1091103500; 1091103900; 1052100000; 1091103300; 1103100000; 1089195100; 1071120000; 1072199000; 2041438900; 2030226000; 2030227300; 2016596500; 2052108000; 2030225500; 2030225300; 2041326000. Replication of A2C solutions through integrating the developed technologies of Demonstrator 3 and Demonstrator 4. 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals 25,923 2,057 899 5,554 1,843 2,410 5,259 5,557 1,033 991 320 570 45 20 122 41 53 116 122 23 22 7 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Carrots production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Carrots Residuals A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 132 І 197 Apples Figure 62 Apples production and potential residuals in 2023 within Lithuanian counties Table 38 Potential cluster and use possibilities for apples residuals Potential cluster Use possibilities Counties of Kaunas, Panevėţys, and Marijampolė, with an estimated 1,980 tonnes of apple residuals in 2023 Integration in current production (products according to their PRODCOM code, see section 3.1.2 Main characteristics of local agrifood and related industrial sectors): 1091103700; 1092103000; 1091103500; 1091103900; 1062117000; 1052100000; 1091103300; 1103100000; 1089195100; 1071120000; 1072199000; 2041438900; 2030226000; 2030227300; 2016596500; 2059510000; 2052108000; 2030225500; 2030225300; 2041326000. Replication of A2C solutions through integrating the developed technologies of Demonstrator 3 and Demonstrator 4. 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals 43,984 3,780 2,792 10,862 790 5,641 7,938 3,687 1,417 2,495 4,582 3,563 306 226 880 64 457 643 299 115 202 371 Lithuania Vilnius County Alytus County Kaunas County Klaipėda County Marijampolė County Panevėžys County Šiauliai County Tauragė County Telšiai County Utena County Apples production and potential residuals (tonnes) in 2023 Apples Residuals A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 133 І 197 Conclusions and implications The biowaste management system in Lithuania is already highly efficient, effectively utilising existing methods to handle waste in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. While extracting specific bioactive compounds from agricultural waste may appear innovative, it requires specialised equipment and substantial investment. Given the relatively small quantities of available waste, the approach to isolate bioactive compounds is not economically viable compared to the simpler, proven management techniques already in place. On the other hand, the technologies proposed by A2C for extracting only fibres and phenols present a more practical and scalable solution. These technologies align well with business-to-business applications, offering value-added opportunities that complement Lithuania‘s existing biowaste management framework. By focusing on these targeted and feasible innovations, A2C can support the development of cost-effective and sustainable industrial processes for the circularity approach of agricultural biowaste. 3.3.2. Assessment of the potential of plastic wastes in agriculture The potential of agricultural plastic waste is investigated by analysing the current status of the generation and management of plastic waste in agriculture and by evaluating the possibilities for the circular use of this type of waste. 3.3.2.1 Current status of the generation and management of plastic wastes in agriculture: plastic types, volumes, collection and utilisation/recycling methods The production of plastic has grown exponentially in just a few decades – from 1.5 million tonnes in 1950 to 359 million tonnes in 2018 worldwide. In 2020, each person in the EU generated an average of 34.6 kg of plastic packaging waste. Out of these, 13.0 kg were recycled. This information comes from data on packaging waste published by Eurostat. Between 2010 and 2020, the per capita plastic packaging waste generation surged by 23%, resulting in an additional 6.5 kilograms of waste per person. During the same timeframe, the recycled plastic packaging waste increased by 32%, amounting to an extra 3.2 kilograms per person. Nevertheless, despite these improvements, the unrecycled portion of plastic packaging saw an increase of 3.4 kilograms per person since 2010, A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 134 І 197 primarily due to the significant rise in the overall volume of plastic packaging waste generated. In 2020, more stringent regulations regarding recycling reporting were implemented. These regulations introduced a standardised measurement point for recycling and stricter accounting practices for composite packaging materials. As a result, a provisional decrease of 3 percentage points was observed, with the recycling rate dropping from 41% in 2019 to an estimated 38% in 2020. The Netherlands, Lithuania, Slovakia, Spain, Bulgaria, and Cyprus have recycled more than half of the plastic packaging waste generated. In contrast, less than one-third of plastic packaging waste was recycled in Malta, France, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Romania, Poland and Austria. While most commercial plastics are derived from fossil resources, an alternative category known as bioplastics can be produced from renewable sources. Bioplastics are created by extracting or synthesising monomers from biomass compounds, such as sugars found in plants, which are subsequently polymerised. This process can result in direct replacements for conventional plastics like polyethylene (PE) or entirely new polymers like polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). Biomass extraction can also yield natural polymers like starch, rubber, and proteins. It's important to note that the term ‗bioplastic‘ is often used but can be misunderstood due to its ambiguous definition. Bioplastics encompass plastics that are made from renewable resources (‗bio-based‘), biodegradable, produced through biological processes, or a combination of these factors. Some biodegradable plastics, even if fossil-based, are also categorised as bioplastics. Currently, bioplastics that are 100% bio-based are produced at a scale of approximately 2 million tonnes per year. They are considered integral to future circular economies, contributing to the achievement of certain United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals. These goals include reducing reliance on fossil resources, introducing new recycling or degradation methods, and employing fewer toxic reagents and solvents in production. Like traditional plastics, bioplastics raise concerns about releasing monomers, oligomers, and additives. Therefore, they require the same level of scrutiny in product design and formulation, according to Rosenboom et al. [23]. The prefix ‗bio‘ in bioplastics can mean several things: the monomers were derived from renewable resources (biomass) and then polymerised through chemical mechanisms; A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 135 І 197 the polymer was extracted from biomass; the polymer or the plastic is biodegradable (note that the processing of a polymer into its plastic product can affect the original biodegradability); the material is produced through biological processes; or a combination of these (see the figure below). The use of ‗bioplastics‘ for fossil-derived degradable plastics is discouraged (Figure 63). Using more descriptive terminologies can be helpful: for example, bio-based durable polyethylene (bioPE) is made from biomass derivatives but is not readily biodegradable, polybutylene succinate (PBS) is typically fossil-based yet biodegradable (that is, easily hydrolysable), and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are biodegradable and bio-based, at least when the synthesising microorganisms are grown on biomass. It should be noted that biodegradation refers to the depolymerisation of polymers by biological organisms, whereas composting is a form of biodegradation that yields CO2, H2O, heat and humus; therefore, the compostability of a polymer depends on the microbial and chemical environment. Bio-based plastics are not, by default, more sustainable than fossil-based plastics. Although renewable resources can reduce carbon emissions, other factors along the life cycle can offset these benefits. Sustainability benefits and trade-offs must be elucidated from life cycle assessments that scrutinise all steps along the fossil-based and bio-based plastic life cycles, from feedstock harvesting, through various processing steps to end-of-life scenarios [23]. Figure 63 Classification of plastics and bioplastics based on biodegradability and material source Bio-based plastics Fossil-based plastics Non-biodegradable Conventional plastics PE, PET, PP Bioplastics PE, PET, PP Bioplastics PLA, PHA, PBS, based on modified starch PBAT, PCL Biodegradable A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 136 І 197 The oxo-degradable plastics are banned in the EU (Directive EU 2019/904) because, in the air, it can degrade and form microplastics. The plastics industry has traditionally been based on linear life cycles – crude oil is cracked and refined into monomers and polymer products using fossil energy, which, at their end of life, are either disposed of (~80 %) with potential environmental leakage, incinerated (~10 %) or, in the minority of cases (10 % globally), mechanically recycled into lower-grade products, which also end up landfilled. In a ‗circular plastic economy‘, plastic waste becomes raw material for a recycling process at its end of life, and all production and recycling processes are supplied with renewable energy. Renewable resources (lignocellulosic biomass and pyrolysis oils) are the starting materials for polymer products, all with a defined circular end-of-life scenario. CO2 generated through bioplastic incineration, aerobic composting or incineration of CH4 from anaerobic composting is a net-zero addition to the carbon cycle, as it is captured by photosynthesis into new biomass. Advanced recycling routes enable the upcycling of plastic waste: polymers with functional backbones (such as polyesters or polyamides) can be depolymerised biologically or chemically, and the subsequent monomers are polymerised into tailored high-quality or virgin-quality products. Polymers with non-functional backbones, such as polyolefins (including polyethylene (PE), biobased PE, polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene), are better suited for cracking into hydrocarbon oil and gas by thermolysis and can then follow a similar upcycling path, PEF, polyethylene furanoate; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PHA, polyhydroxyalkanoate; PLA, polylactic acid. Plastic waste in Lithuania The EU Directive states that in order to reduce plastic waste, plastic bottles should make up at least 25 % of recycled plastic by 2025 and at least 30 % by 2030. Lithuania‘s deposit system, which has been in place since 2016, is an example of good practice for other EU countries on how to make an effective contribution to protecting the environment, not only from plastics but also from environmentally damaging glass packaging. It is estimated that, on average, more than 600 million disposable beverage containers are returned by Lithuanians each year, of which more than 334 million are plastic. In 2021, 92 % of all PET plastic packaging placed on the Lithuanian market bearing the deposit mark was returned A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 137 І 197 thanks to the national deposit scheme. Figure 64 is a line chart displaying the amount of collected and generated plastic packaging waste and other plastic waste (measured in tonnes) from 2017 to 2022. Plastic (incl. PET) packaging (150102) dominates with the highest values. The data shows a steady increase from 54,248.8 tonnes in 2017 to a peak of 77,373.8 tonnes in 2021, followed by a slight decrease in 2022. Some waste types (e.g., Plastic scrap chips) remain consistently low, while others (e.g., Plastic waste 70213 and Plastics 200139) show consistent increases. The dataset highlights variations in waste types, indicating different production, recycling, or disposal trends for various plastic materials. Source: Environmental Protection Agency, https://aaa.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys/atliekos/atlieku-apskaita/atlieku-apskaitosduomenys/suvestine-pagal-atlieku-kodus/, accessed on 26 10 2024. Figure 64 Trend of collected and generated plastic packaging waste and other plastic waste in Lithuania Figure 65 indicates the distribution of plastic waste management practices for different types of plastic waste in 2022. Each bar represents a specific category of plastic 54,248.8 77,373.8 2,911.3 150.5 263.8 769.9 7,427.0 9,955.9 2,523.0 4,859.7 639.6 1,383.4 13,328.0 10,352.1 12,524.6 27,072.7 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 All collected and generated plastic packaging waste and other plastic waste (tonnes) Plastic (incl. PET) packaging (150102) Plastic waste (excl. packaging) (20104) Plastic waste (70213) Plastic scrap chips and cut-offs (120105) Plastic (160119) Plastic (170203) Plastics and rubber (191204) Plastics (200139) A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 144 І 197 In 2021–2023, the BioBaltic 60 project was implemented in Lithuania, which was dedicated to investigating Industrial Symbiosis (IS) opportunities in the agri-food sector in four local municipalities. An industrial symbiosis is an approach when waste or by‐products of an industry or industrial process become the raw materials for another. The questionnaire was launched to investigate socio-economic and technological aspects of the development of IS and to gather data on agri-food waste types and quantities at local business entities. In four Central and Western Lithuania Region locations, 116 producers, i.e., farmers‘ farms, agricultural enterprises, and food and beverage industry companies, participated in the IS study. The results of the survey completed during the implementation of the BioBaltic project revealed potential annual amounts of plastic waste in Lithuanian farms of different sizes (Table 40). 60 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a9a96208b39346fcbfac06501a432253 A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 145 І 197 Table 40 Reported annual amounts of plastic waste in different size farms Farm size Number of respondents Reported annual amount of plastic waste (kg) Lowest value Highest value Mean Median From 5 ha to 49.9 ha 9 200 1,000 527.8 500 From 50 ha to 99.9 ha 6 200 10,000 2,366.7 1,000 100 ha and more 10 500 30,000 4,650.0 1,500 Source: Survey data collected in 2022 during the implementation of the BioBaltic project. As can be seen from the differences between the obtained means and medians in the cases of larger farms, i.e., those possessing 50 ha or more, the data is skewed by outliers. The sample size is not sufficiently large, which also incurs uncertainty. Considering these two aspects, the median is preferred over the mean to estimate potential annual amounts of plastic waste generated by farms in different Lithuanian counties (Table 41). Based on the medians presented in the previous table, farms in Lithuania generate around 25,246.0 tonnes of plastic waste annually. This amount would be higher based on the means, i.e., 37,928.5 tonnes. Table 41 Estimated potential annual amounts of farm-generated plastic waste by county County Number of farms by size as of 1 November 2024* Estimated potential annual amount of plastic waste (tonnes) in different size farms** and totals by county From 5 ha to 49.9 ha From 50 ha to 99.9 ha 100 ha and more From 5 ha to 49.9 ha From 50 ha to 99.9 ha 100 ha and more Total annual amount Alytus County 3,022 146 78 1,511.0 146.0 117.0 1,774.0 Kaunas County 4,267 391 317 2,133.5 391.0 475.5 3,000.0 Klaipėda County 3,580 227 138 1,790.0 227.0 207.0 2,224.0 Marijampolė County 3,307 333 238 1,653.5 333.0 357.0 2,343.5 Panevėţys County 3,774 447 389 1,887.0 447.0 583.5 2,917.5 Šiauliai County 3,687 582 517 1,843.5 582.0 775.5 3,201.0 Tauragė County 4,141 314 143 2,070.5 314.0 214.5 2,599.0 Telšiai County 3,154 267 149 1,577.0 267.0 223.5 2,067.5 Utena County 4,626 322 206 2,313.0 322.0 309.0 2,944.0 Vilnius County 3,595 183 130 1,797.5 183.0 195.0 2,175.5 Lithuania 37,153 3,212 2,305 18,576.5 3,212.0 3,457.5 25,246.0 * Data from the Portal of the Agricultural and Rural Business Register and the Farmers‘ Farms Register [https://ismain.vic.lt/VurapPublic/, accessed on 26 11 2024]. ** Calculations based on survey data collected in 2022 during the implementation of the BioBaltic project. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 146 І 197 Potentially, the highest amounts of farm-generated plastic waste are located in neighbouring counties of Šiauliai, Kaunas, Utena, and Panevėţys. Figure 67 highlights possible synergies between farm-generated plastic waste and local manufacturing of rubber and plastic products (C22) in Lithuanian counties. Source: Compiled by the authors, using provisional data on value-added created within C22 in 2023 from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency) [https://osp.stat.gov.lt/en/statistiniu-rodikliu-analize?hash=0ada58ce-e2cb-4728-8e559bf7ecfb49db, accessed on 26 11 2024]. Figure 67 Potential synergies between farm-generated plastic waste and local manufacturing of rubber and plastic products in Lithuanian counties Alytus County 1,774.0 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 25.7 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Kaunas County 3,000.0 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 69.8 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Klaipėda County 2,224.0 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 60.9 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Marijampolė County 2,343.5 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 2.5 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Panevėžys County 2,917.5 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 20.1 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Šiauliai County 3,201.0 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 48.5 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Tauragė County 2,599.0 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 13.9 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Telšiai County 2,067.5 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 3.4 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Utena County 2,944.0 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 17.8 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products Vilnius County 2,175.5 tonnes of farm-generated plastic waste 167 million euros of value added created from manufacture of rubber and plastic products A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 147 І 197 As provided earlier in this study, plastic products constitute most of the production value within C22 in Lithuania, i.e., 96.5 %, based on provisional data for 2023 61 . More particularly, the production value of plastic packing goods (C2222) amounted to 991.4 million euros and constituted 53.4 % of C22. In contrast, the production value of other plastic products, i.e., plastic plates, sheets, tubes and profiles (C2221), builders‘ ware of plastic (C2223), and other plastic products (C2224), amounted to 798.9 million euros and constituted 43.1 % within C22. Figure 66 shows producers in major Lithuanian counties, i.e., Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, and Šiauliai, create the highest value added from C22 activities. Plastic packaging for plant protection Over the past year, the plant protection sector in Europe has made huge strides towards sustainability, with 71.8 % of all plastic packaging for plant protection successfully collected and recycled, based on the data provided by ―CropLife Lietuva‖. The association ―CropLife Lietuva‖ carried out a survey on plastic waste in Lithuanian farms. Experts estimated that Lithuanian farms generate around 300 tonnes of plastic waste per year, which equates to around 1 million plant protection product packages 62 . Proper rinsing during solution preparation, collection and recycling can positively impact the environment and save farmers up to 2 million EUR. A pilot project in Lithuania involves 100 farms that return neatly rinsed plant protection product packaging to a licensed waste handler. However, if we want to make a significant change in plastics recycling and the circular economy, we need the involvement of all actors in the system and a change in the relevant legislation. During the project, A2C technologies were developed for the sorting and recycling multilayer plastics residues. Hardware for recognition and sorting was developed and validated, and factory acceptance tests were performed. The prototype is able to sort a) plasticand samples, and b) pieces, where metallic and plastic layers are glued together. 61 Data from the Statistics Lithuania (State Data Agency) [https://osp.stat.gov.lt/en/statistiniu-rodikliuanalize?hash=d958899a-e5d8-422b-b0e4-f5e8c24a0e77, accessed on 26 11 2024] 62 https://www.lrt.lt/mediateka/irasas/2000279963/gimtoji-zeme-ukininko-kasdiena-pasarai-karvems-o-betonasfermai?fbclid=IwAR3jP61_3q2lvd3C8HUO7uji8iXY9IY19LbYPohxpOohy_yaajri3lcmXUc A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 148 І 197 Another technology for integrating circularity was the enzymatic recycling of multilayer structures based on PE and PET. Due to fundamental scientific challenges, the technology for PE-based multilayer plastic will be finalised after the project. Still, the technology for structures with PET was successfully developed and optimised (Deliverable D3.8) and transferred to the A2C pilot. 3.3.2.2 Potential of the circular use of agricultural plastic waste Multilayer plastic films are widely used as industrial packaging for the protection of food (2.3Mt/year) and agriculture for crops (0.15Mt/year) due to their unique barrier properties enabling significant extension of food preservation and chemical disinfection of soils in intensive agriculture (data from A2C proposal). They are traditionally composed of multiple high-performance layers: PE, PET, PA, or EVOH, as well as aluminium. Currently, there is a lack of sorting and recycling technologies for an economical and environmentally sustainable valorisation of these multilayer structures due to the different materials they are made: (i) sorting of complex multilayers is not efficient at waste treatment facilities (aluminium and opaque foils are not identified, multilayers contaminates mono-material sorted fractions), (ii) recycling of multi-materials is complex, not economically viable, (iii) food films require decontamination. Being mostly landfilled (34 %) or incinerated (66 %). As a consequence, annually, 650-950 million EUR economic value is not recovered for the EU economy. Thus, circular approaches were urgently needed, and A2C investigated several approaches. Figure 68 illustrates a multi-step process approach developed by A2C consortium for recycling plastics, including simple and complex multilayer materials. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 149 І 197 Figure 68 Recycling pathways for plastics: process flow and outputs Complex multilayers contain aluminium, for example, LDPE/PET-Al, LLDPE/PETAl, and LDPE/Al/PET. Simple multilayers contain LDPE/PA, LDPE/EVOH, LDPE/PA/LDPE, and LDPE/EVOH/LDPE. The process consisted of three steps (phases): i) pre-treatment; ii) optical sorting (sorting of materials based on optical properties to segregate different plastic types and layers); iii) delamination and sorting (further separation and sorting of materials into their constituent layers). After sorting, the materials were processed through one of three pathways:  Aluminium modification (4-I). Modifying aluminium to improve material properties and expand the material's broader application.  Enzymatic recycling (4-II). The process is based on enzyme-based reactions to produce components like TPA (terephthalic acid), EG (ethylene glycol), and alkanes. The latter are used for applications like cosmetic formulations and as building blocks.  Mechanical recycling (4-III). The process is based on physical recycling into new high-barrier plastic compounds (e.g., for food packaging) or agricultural films. Moreover, based on results presented in Deliverable D5.9 from WP5, new A2C technologies for the upcycling of recycled plastic materials were investigated and Post-Industrial Multilayer Food Packaging Agriculture Plastic Waste COMPLEX MULTILAYERS CONTAINING ALUMINIUM SIMPLE MULTILAYERS LDPE/PET-Al LLDPE/PET-AL LDPE/Al/PET LDPE/PA LDPE/EVOH LDPE/PA/LDPE LDPE/EVOH/LDPE PRE-TREATMENT •Shredding •Washing •Centrifugation/drying OPTICAL SORTING DELAMINATION & SORTING 1 2 3 ENZYMATIC RECYCLING Al MODIFICATION MECHANICAL RECYCLING 4-I 4-II 4-III Al modified TPA, EG, Alkanes New cosmetic formulations; building blocks High barrier plastic compounds new recyclable highbarrier films for food packaging New recycled agricultural films A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 150 І 197 suggested in order to obtain high-added value products from the recycled plastic. However, this breakthrough approach needs more allocation of time and fund to optimise and enable technologies for production Conclusions and implications Efforts to improve the sustainability of packaging waste management are steadily increasing. Lithuania stands out as a leader in recycling PET bottles, achieving up to 90 % collection rates through its highly efficient deposit-return system. Despite this success, challenges remain in optimising the recycling of other types of plastics. The flow of plastic waste – both in type and volume – is significantly influenced by regional business activities, with complicated waste management solutions across the country. To address these challenges, innovative A2C technologies have been explored and developed. These technologies enable the recycling and upcycling of PET and other than PET plastic materials into high-value products suitable for use in food, cosmetic, and nutraceutical applications. While promising, these breakthroughs require further time, funding, and refinement to scale up effectively. Achieving substantial advancements in plastics recycling and building a strong CE requires the active participation of all stakeholders – governments, businesses, and consumers. Legislative changes are also pivotal in creating a supportive framework for these innovations. To maximise the impact of A2C technologies, it is essential to initiate national stakeholder meetings and facilitate joint discussions to align efforts and establish collaborative strategies for a sustainable future. Based on waste material availability, solutions for plastic waste in agriculture seem more promising to replicate. However, solutions for agricultural and food processing residues might be more easily adoptable based on technology integration possibilities. A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 151 І 197 3.4 Business model and action plan for implementing circular systemic solutions Based on OECD [24], closed loops, minimised use of natural resource inputs, focus on high quality products, leveraging value of existing materials, components, and products, and high level of collaboration between actors in the supply chain are key characteristics of circular Business Models (BMs). The following section maps out an entrepreneurial journey towards the replication of the A2C systemic solution in Lithuania by elaborating on the key business aspects within circular Business Model Canvas (BMC). Then, an implementation roadmap for Lithuanian stakeholders, i.e. cluster Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP), is presented, which completes this part of the work. 3.4.1. Circular Business Models adopted to Lithuania’s NUTS 2 regions Widely used BMC by Osterwalder and Pigneur [3] consists of nine building blocks: 1. Customer segments; 2. Channels; 3. Customer relationships; 4. Value proposition; 5. Revenue stream; 6. Key resources; 7. Key activities; 8. Key partnerships; 9. Cost structure. When developing circular BMC, it is advised to consider that the actors involved along the value chain take on changed roles, for instance, customers may become suppliers of used products or secondary materials, according to Braun et al. [25]. Circular BMs also need to consider the potential benefits for the partners to get involved and find innovative ways to capture and capitalise value for the recovery of used products and materials. Furthermore, ―Environmental costs/benefits‖ and ―Social costs/benefits‖ are important additions to Osterwalder and Pigneur‘s [3] BMC, strengthening particular case for business development. The A2C‘s Deliverable D6.5 ―Business cases‖ includes the BM canvasses for all Murcia‘s demonstrators. Technology-driven BMs of Spanish organisations demonstrating the A2C systemic solution in Murcia build on technological advantages, and are mostly of B2B type. The value proposition for target clients (in particular, companies willing to use new ingredients in their products or to valorise their waste) is connected to deploying A2C technologies that enable the circular extraction routes valorising waste, the use of green A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 152 І 197 solvents instead of organic solvents that are toxic, and the reduced treatment times. Specifically, the A2C‘s Demonstrators 3 and 4 provide extracts with high antioxidant activity that can be used as preservatives in food, nutraceutical, and cosmetic sectors, fibers that can be used to obtain enriched food, as well as service that is the technological process to obtain the extracts. The difference is that Demonstrator 3 uses ultra sound assisted extraction, while Demonstrator 4 uses microwave assisted extraction. Implementors of this BM collaborate with companies producing waste, and their key activities include waste collection and transport, mechanical pretreatment, and then, extraction, purification, and stabilisation. The replication of A2C solutions in Lithuania‘s NUTS 2 regions requires modification of such BMs. As LPK community mostly consists of manufacturing businesses, two circular BMs were elaborated for Lithuanian stakeholders. One BM is adopted for Lithuanian companies producing food, nutraceuticals, or cosmetics that are willing to use new sustainable ingredients in their products (Table 42). Table 42 Adopted Business Model for Lithuanian companies willing to use new ingredients in their products (food, nutraceuticals, cosmetics) Key partnerships Key activities Value proposition Customer relationships Customer segments - Developers of A2C technologies and providers of new ingredients - Integration of new ingredients: development of new formulations and stabilisation Products with sustainable ingredients, using A2C solutions that ensure: - Circular extraction routes valorising waste - Use of green solvents / enzymes instead of organic solvents that are toxic - Reduced - Business-toBusiness (B2B) - Business-toCustomer (B2C) - Distributors - Final customers Key resources Channels - Personnel - Equipment - New ingredients and materials - Energy - Water - Commercial network - Companyowned (inhouse) store - Online shop A2C – Deliverable D7.18 (v1.0) Page 153 І 197 needed resources treatment Cost structure Revenue stream - Personnel - Equipment - New ingredients and materials - Energy - Water - Sale of final products Environmental costs/benefits Social costs/benefits - Use of sustainable ingredients - Energy and water consumption optimisation (strongly case-dependent) - Business development, including less populated / advanced areas - Job creation - Sustainable products for the market, facilitating sustainable consumption - In case of functional food and nutraceuticals, health-promoting products Source: Prepared by the authors. This BM is well-suited for companies based in the Central and Western Lithuania Region, considering characteristics of its local agri-food sector (see 3.1.2 Main characteristics of local agrifood and related industrial sectors), as well as taking into account findings from respective supply and value chain analysis (see 3.3.1 Assessment of the potential of agricultural and food processing (fruit and vegetable) residues). Value proposition. By applying this BM, the companies bring to the market products with sustainable ingredients, using A2C solutions that ensure: i) circular extraction routes valorising waste; ii) use of green solvents / enzymes instead of organic solvents that are toxic; and iii) reduced needed resources treatment. Customer segments, channels, customer relationships, and revenue stream. Customers can be segmented into distributors (B2B relationship) and final customers (B2C relationship). The main channels are the commercial network of companies, their owned (in-house) stores, or online shops. Revenue is generated from sale of final products. As implementors of this BM, i.e. companies producing food, nutraceuticals, or cosmetics, target final customers, they need to consider relevant consumer behaviour aspects. For instance, in the green food products market, consumers find product quality and characteristics indicating its healthiness to be important attributes, and they prefer these attributes of a product over its credentials of environmental and social benefits [26].