D1.4 - Report on the validation and prioritisation of BBTs per region

Deliverable 1.4 1 TEAGASC 31 January 2025 Report on the validation and prioritisation of BBTs per region DELIVERABLE D1.4 Deliverable 1.4 2 Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. © 2025 by BBioNets consortium is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/bysa/4.0. Document information Document ID D1.4 Title Report on the validation and prioritisation of BBTs per region Work Package WP1 – Forest and Agricultural Networks: stakeholder engagement, needs identification and BBTs validation Due Date 31/01/2025 Delivery Date 29/01/2025 Dissemination Level Public – Fully Open Partner Responsible Teagasc Main Authors Thomas McCarthy – Teagasc Contributors Carmen Giron Dominguez – MTU Peer reviewers Reviewer 1 Carmen Giron Dominguez – MTU Husain Sadeqi – MTU Reviewer 2 Paula Rosa, CTA Coordinator Carmen Giron Dominguez – MTU Document history Version Date Main Modifications Author(s) 0.1 14/01/2025 First draft Thomas McCarthy 0.2 23/01/2025 Second draft Thomas McCarthy … … … … 1.0 28/01/2025 Final version ready for submission Thomas McCarthy, Teagasc 4 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................. 9 2 Introduction .......................................................................................... 11 3 Section 1 - Methodology guidelines generated. ..................................... 12 3.1 Part 1: Guidelines to Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. .......... 12 3.1.1 Interpretation of weights obtained for the BBT assessment tool ............................. 15 3.2 Part 2: Guidelines to Recalibrate previous information and obtain new information ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.3 Part 3: Guidelines to promote ETR meeting/ FAN Operational framework ........... 20 Section 2: Workshop Results ......................................................................... 21 4 Italian FAN ............................................................................................. 22 4.1 Workshop details .................................................................................................... 22 4.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. ........................... 22 4.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region ................................................... 23 4.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region ........................... 25 4.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region ................................................................... 25 4.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region ......................................................................... 25 4.4 Section 3: Economic variables ................................................................................. 27 4.4.1 Supply Value ............................................................................................................. 27 4.4.2 Subrogation Value .................................................................................................... 27 5 Spanish FAN .......................................................................................... 28 5.1 Workshop details .................................................................................................... 28 5.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for the Spanish region. ................ 28 5.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region ................................................... 29 5.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region ........................... 30 5.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region ................................................................... 30 5.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region ......................................................................... 32 5.4 Section 3: Economic variables ................................................................................. 34 5.4.1 Supply value .............................................................................................................. 34 5.4.2 Subrogation value ..................................................................................................... 35 6 Greek FAN ............................................................................................. 38 6.1 Workshop details .................................................................................................... 38 6.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. ........................... 38 6.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region ................................................... 40 6.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region ........................... 42 6.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region ................................................................... 42 6.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region ......................................................................... 43 5 6.4 Section 3: Economic variables ................................................................................. 44 6.4.1 Supply value .............................................................................................................. 44 6.4.2 Subrogation value ..................................................................................................... 44 7 Czech FAN.............................................................................................. 46 7.1 Workshop details .................................................................................................... 46 7.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. ........................... 46 7.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region ................................................... 47 7.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region ........................... 49 7.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region ................................................................... 49 7.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region ......................................................................... 49 7.4 Section 3: Economic variables ................................................................................. 50 7.4.1 Supply value .............................................................................................................. 50 7.4.2 Subrogation value ..................................................................................................... 51 8 Irish FAN ................................................................................................ 53 8.1 Workshop details .................................................................................................... 53 8.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. ........................... 53 8.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region ................................................... 54 8.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region ........................... 55 8.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region ................................................................... 55 8.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region ......................................................................... 56 8.4 Section 3: Economic variables ................................................................................. 58 8.4.1 Supply Value ............................................................................................................. 58 8.4.2 Subrogation Value .................................................................................................... 58 9 Polish FAN ............................................................................................. 60 9.1 Workshop details .................................................................................................... 60 9.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. ........................... 60 9.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region ................................................... 62 9.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region ........................... 63 9.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region ................................................................... 63 9.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region ......................................................................... 63 9.4 Section 3: Economic variables ................................................................................. 64 9.4.1 Supply Value ............................................................................................................. 64 9.4.2 Subrogation Value .................................................................................................... 64 10 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 65 6 List of Figures Figure 3-1. Questions for the feasibility debate over the BBTs in the region and the variables referred under them. ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3-2. Weighting by graded arrows prioritisation of BBT variables using graded arrows. ........... 13 Figure 6-1. A snapshot of part (a) of the workshop taking place in Miroboard .................................... 28 Figure 6-2. A snapshot of Part 2 of the workshop - Results and prioritisation of biomass resources taken from Mentimeter ........................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 6-3. Results on the prioritisation of needs in the Andalusian region from Mentimeter ........... 34 Figure 6-4. Results on the economic evaluation of biomasses from Mentimeter in the Andalusian region from Mentimeter ....................................................................................................................... 37 List of Tables Table 3-1. Template for the collection of weights from the graded arrow system. ............................. 14 Table 3-2. Updated table of needs and resources. ............................................................................... 19 Table 3-3. Supply and subrogation value obtained in the T1.3 workshop. ........................................... 19 Table 4-1. Details of workshop 3 in the Italian FAN .............................................................................. 22 Table 4-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among FAN members for their suitability to the Italian region. ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 4-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question ...................................... 24 Table 4-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in the Italian RR ...................................... 25 Table 4-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Italian region ..................................................... 26 Table 4-6. Economic variables supply value and subrogation value of biomasses in the Italian region ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 5-1. Description of BBTs selected for debate among FAN members for their suitability to the Andalusian region of Spain. ................................................................................................................... 28 Table 5-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among FAN members for their suitability to the Andalusian region. ................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 5-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question in the Andalusian region ............................................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 5-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in the Italian RR ...................................... 31 Table 5-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Andalusian region .............................................. 33 Table 6-1. Details of workshop 3 in the Greek FAN .............................................................................. 38 Table 6-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among FAN members for their suitability to the Greek region. ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 6-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question ...................................... 41 Table 6-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in the Greek RR ....................................... 43 Table 6-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Greek region ...................................................... 44 Table 6-6. Economic variables supply value and subrogation value of biomasses in the Greek region45 Table 7-1. Details of workshop 3 in the Czech FAN ............................................................................... 46 Table 7-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among FAN members for their suitability to the Czech region. ......................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 7-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question ...................................... 48 Table 7-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in the Czech RR ....................................... 49 Table 7-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Czech region ...................................................... 50 Table 7-6. Economic supply value of biomasses in the Czech region ................................................... 51 7 Table 7-7. Economic subrogation value of biomasses in the Czech region .......................................... 52 Table 8-1. Details of workshop 3 in the Irish FAN ................................................................................. 53 Table 8-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among DAN members for their suitability to Ireland. .................................................................................................................................................. 54 Table 8-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question ...................................... 55 Table 8-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in Ireland ................................................ 56 Table 8-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Irish region ......................................................... 57 Table 8-6. Economic variables supply value and subrogation value of biomasses in the Irish region . 59 Table 9-1. Details of workshop 3 in the Polish FAN .............................................................................. 60 Table 9-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among FAN members for their suitability to the Polish region. ......................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 9-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question in the Polish FAN .......... 62 Table 9-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in Poland ................................................. 63 Table 9-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Polish region ...................................................... 64 Table 9-6. Economic variables supply value and subrogation value of biomasses in the Polish region64 8 Table of Abbreviations Abbreviation Meaning AD Anaerobic Digestion/digester D Deliverable ETR European Transnational Region EU European Union FAN Forestry and Agricultural Network GA Grant Agreement GHG Greenhouse Gas kW Kilowatt NGO Non-Governmental Organisation RPFA Regional Partners for Forestry and Agriculture RR Represented Region WP Work Package Deliverable 1.4 9 1 Executive Summary This report summarises the outcomes of the T1.3 workshop, titled “Validation and Prioritisation of Bio-Based Technologies (BBTs) per Region”, conducted with FANs (Forestry and Agricultural Networks) from each Represented Region (RR). Aligned with the BBioNets grant agreement (GA), this workshop forms a crucial step in validating and refining the early prioritisation of BBTs identified in the BBioNets Assessment Tool (D2.2) and mapped through European initiatives in T2.1 “BBioNets Inventory and Knowledge Collection” alongside the information collected by partners in the D2.4 Report on the highlevel study of regional dynamics. The insights documented in this report D1.4 are intended to enhance the BBT Assessment Tool (D2.3) and, ultimately the D2.5 Roadmap for BBTs implementation. The workshop served three primary objectives: (i) Validation and Feasibility Assessment: In a follow-up workshop, BBioNets project partners in each RR met with the FAN members in their region. FAN members reviewed the early prioritisation of BBTs, assessing their feasibility and relevance for their respective regions based on local resources, needs, and regional challenges identified in the preceding “Resources and Needs Workshop” (meeting No.2). (ii) Recalibration and Information Gathering: New information was collected to align with updated inventory fields in T2.1. This process refined BBT parameters and generated weighted variables for the assessment tool. (iii) Promotion of European Transnational Regions (ETR) Meetings: The workshop also laid the groundwork for upcoming ETR meetings, held in December 2024. The discussions and decisions from these workshops are captured in this report captures, providing region-specific validation of BBTs, prioritisation outcomes, and recalibrated needs and resources. These insights contribute to a more tailored and impactful application of bio-based technologies across regions, promoting alignment with EU goals and enhancing regional circularity innovation. Some of the findings are in a similar trend to the ones of Deliverable 1.5 ‘Identified regional needs and challenges’, i.e., the recalibration of regional needs and resources and the suitability of BBTs to each region aligned strongly with the nature of regional agricultural and forestry strengths. In Italy, the agronomic use of bark and pruning residues was the BBT most aligned with the resources and needs of the region due to its potential for enhancing soil quality and reducing fossil-derived peat dependency. Needs shifted focus to projects that emphasise investment resources and sustainable materials. While biochar and composts were perceived as the most economically valuable resources. There was a focus on the Olive Industry in Spain: Technologies related to olive by-products dominated prioritisation, reflecting Andalusia’s agricultural profile, while in terms of needs, these shifted towards financial support and infrastructure readiness. Olive pits and pomace were identified as high-value resources. Similarly, in Greece olive-mill by-product recovery technologies (e.g., OLEOVALORIZA) emerged as key technologies while manure was a significant biomass resource. Needs in the region shifted to increase focus on farmer education and demonstration schemes. In the Czech Republic 97 stakeholders participated in the FAN workshop to validate technologies like biogas systems and biochar-enhanced compost. In terms of resources, agricultural residues and innovative biomass utilisation was highlighted, as was a greater emphasis on the need for value chain development. In Ireland, technologies focusing on soil health and resource efficiency were prioritised, including Deliverable 1.4 10 composting agricultural residues and utilising mixed biomass for energy and soil enhancement. Regional funding for shared technology and infrastructure emerged as the top priority. Priorities like green biorefineries gained attention for their potential to valorise biomasses, while technologies such as slurry separation remained critical for managing agricultural waste. Finally, in Poland, BBTs aligned to the region’s needs and resources included emissions control in slurry management, and the enhancement of composting with biochar. While resources remained unchanged, prioritisation of needs shifted with increased focus on forestry resource optimisation and carbon-rich biomass production. Improved machinery for collecting wood biomass and biomass coaling installations rose in priority. Deliverable 1.4 17 Key Word Weight Agro-ecology 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 AKIS, incl. advice, training, on-farm demo, interactive innovation projects 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Animal husbandry 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Animal welfare 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Aquaculture 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Arable crops 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Biodiversity and nature 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Circular economy, incl. waste, by-products and residues 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Climate change (incl. GHG reduction, adaptation and mitigation, and other air related issues) 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Competitiveness/new business models 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Crop rotation/crop diversification/dual-purpose or mixed cropping 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Digitalisation, incl. data and data technologies 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Energy 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Equipment and machinery 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Farm diversification 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Fodder and feed 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Food security, safety, quality, processing and nutrition 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Forestry 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Genetic resources 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Greenhouse crops 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Landscape/land management 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Organic farming 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Outdoor horticulture and woody crops (incl. viticulture, olives, fruit, ornamentals) 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Pest/disease control in animals 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Pest/disease control in plants 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Plant nutrients 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Rural issues 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Social innovation 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Soil 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Supply chain, marketing and consumption 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Water 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Environmental benefits Weight 3 - High potential - Expected to bring at least 3 significant environmental benefits. 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 2 - Medium potential - Expected to bring 2 or 1 environmental benefits. 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 1 - Low potential - doesn't bring any environmental benefits. 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Deliverable 1.4 18 C Sequestration Weight 3 - High potential - strong potential for carbon sequestration at the feedstock and product level). 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 2 - Medium potential - strong potential for carbon sequestration at the feedstock or product level only. 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 1 - Low potential - low potential for carbon sequestration 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Economic potential Weight 3 - High potential - Expected to bring at least 3 significant economic benefits. 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 2 - Medium potential - Expected to bring 2 or 1 economic benefits. 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 1 - Low potential - doesn't bring any economic benefits. 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Added value Weight Energy & Heat = Very low 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Bulk Chemicals & Fuels = Low 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Bioplastics & Polymers = Intermediate 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Food/Feed = High 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Fine chemicals = Very high 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Final user Weight Farmer 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Forester 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Advisor 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Researcher 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 NGO (env, climate…) 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Training organization 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Processor or retailer 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Consumer 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Public Authority 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Other 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Complexity Weight '1 - very easy to use/replicate 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 2 -easy to use /replicate 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 3 -complex application 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 4 - very complex application (conditions) 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑒𝑞 1 Deliverable 1.4 19 3.2 Part 2: Guidelines to Recalibrate previous information and obtain new information After completion of Part 1 of the workshop, FANs had a more accurate vision of what BBioNets is aiming to bring to the region. Two activities were performed in the part 2 of the workshop: 1. Review and update of the Needs and Resources available in the region stated in T1.2. The list of needs stated in T1.2 were reviewed, and new ones were added if deemed necessary. A reviewed prioritisation of these were also made. Similar approach was taken for the list of resources stated in T1.2. RPFAs were given flexibility on the methodology to follow to collect this information. Methodologies such as dot voting or the use of Mentimeter were suggested. At the end of the event, RPFAs generated an updated prioritised list of needs and resources, see Error! Reference source not found.. Table 3-2. Updated table of needs and resources. Needs (revised in workshop T1.3) Resources (revised in workshop T1.3) 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. … … 2. Collection of information to match the two new inventory fields CREA is generating for economic variables; hence new questions were needed to be asked to the FANs. This information was collected in the Error! Reference source not found.-3. a. First field: Supply Value. This new field in the T2.1 addresses an estimate of the price that the bio-based technology owner would pay to buy the Bio inputs. This can be expressed in the T1.3 workshop as how much farmers and foresters has been paid in the past for biomasses (non-food) that processors valorise. b. Second field: Subrogation value. This other new field addresses the price of a replacement product (e.g., price of a biofertiliser vs current fertiliser). This can be expressed in the T1.3 workshop as bio-based products’ prices farmers and foresters have seen/used/are aware of. Table 3-3. Supply and subrogation value obtained in the T1.3 workshop. Supply Value Subrogation value Biomass 1: €/kg Bio-based product 1: € Biomass 2: €/kg Bio-based product 2: € … … Deliverable 1.4 20 3.3 Part 3: Guidelines to promote ETR meeting/ FAN Operational framework Promotion of the European Transnational Regions (ETR) meetings was a vital component of the FAN workshop at the time, ensuring achieving engagement and collaboration among stakeholders. As the ETR meetings aim to foster cross-regional dialogue, share best practices, and enhance the adoption of BBTs across regions, RPFAs made sure to communicate that BBioNets were going to start these crossfertilisation meetings. This strategy was key to maximise participation and generating interest among FAN members and other stakeholders. Deliverable 1.4 21 Section 2: Workshop Results This section discusses the results of the workshops held by the FAN in each region of the BBioNets Consortium. The details of the workshop, its format and structure are provided. This section discusses the results of the prioritisation of BBTs per region followed by the recalibration of resources and needs in each region from the results of previous workshops. Finally, economic variables relating to supply and subrogation values are provided. Deliverable 1.4 22 4 Italian FAN 4.1 Workshop details Table 4-1. Details of workshop 3 in the Italian FAN Venue Terra Madre meeting Date 30/09/2024 Format In person Attendee number 9 Name of the event The available resources and needs to be met from a circular economy perspective: BBT Prioritization and Needs. 4.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. During the first phase of the workshop, 10 BBTs were introduced to the FAN members by CREA team. These BBTs were taken from EU Operational Groups and presented to FAN members for debate in order to discuss their feasibility for their RR. These BBTs are displayed in Table 4-2: Deliverable 1.4 23 Table 4-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among FAN members for their suitability to the Italian region. No. BBT Code BBT Description 1 IT54-ProBEST Agronomic use of bark and pruning residues to increase organic carbon in agricultural soils, offering an alternative to fossilderived peat. 2 ES-Biochar/BIOCH Use of prunings for biochar production. 3 ES/TOMATO GROUP Utilization of tomato by-products. 4 ΕΛΑΙΩΝΑΣ Composting of olive residues. 5 OLIHERB Production of natural infusions and food additives from olive leaves (rich in polyphenols and other bioactive ingredients). 6 SWANFOAM Transformation of agricultural biomass residues into compost or fertilizers. 7 MIXBIOPELLS/PLTIZ Pelletizing mixed biomass residues and waste from agriculture and forestry. 8 IT45-Stabilized Litter Stabilized bedding for dairy cows: optimizing the use of bedding derived from the solid fraction of separated manure. 9 Innovative Rice Residue Management Practices A method for managing rice residues within the context of sustainable and innovative agricultural practices. 10 GO_GRASS Conversion of low-quality grass from wetlands into biochar to improve soil quality. 4.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region The Italian FAN evaluated the list of BBTs outlined in Table 4-2 above to assess their suitability for the region, with weightage scores reflecting their alignment with regional needs and challenges. The weightage score obtained for each BBT by FAN members for each of the 5 questions outlined above are displayed below in Table 4-3. Among the technologies, BBT 1 (agronomic use of bark and pruning residues to increase organic carbon in soils) received the highest score of 3.8. This highlights its potential to enhance soil quality while providing a sustainable alternative to fossil-derived peat. Other well-received technologies include BBT 5 (production of natural infusions and food additives from olive leaves) with a score of 2.8, and BBTs 6 and 7 (transformation of agricultural biomass into compost/fertilizers and pelletizing mixed biomass residues), both scoring 2.7, indicating strong Deliverable 1.4 24 support for technologies focused on value addition and waste transformation. Conversely, BBT 10 (conversion of low-quality grass from wetlands into biochar) and BBT 2 (use of prunings for biochar production) were deemed less suitable, receiving negative scores of -3.7 and -2.9 respectively. This suggests that biochar-related technologies may face challenges in feasibility or alignment with regional priorities. Overall, the findings underscore the Italian FAN’s preference for technologies that promote soil health, resource efficiency, and value addition in agriculture. Table 4-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question Questions Is the BBt suitable for the available resources in the region? Is the BBT suitable for the region’s needs? Does this BBT have the potential to develop a value chain? Economic potential of the BBT for the region Will the BBT benefit the environment and society in the region? Weighting (average) BBT 1 4.5 4.5 3 2 5 3.8 BBT 2 -3 -3 -3.5 -3.5 -1.5 -2.9 BBT 3 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0.6 BBT 4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 2.4 BBT 5 2 3 3 3 3 2.8 BBT 6 4 4 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.7 BBT 7 3 3 2.5 2 3 2.7 BBT 8 2 2.5 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 BBT 9 3.5 3 1.5 2 2 2.4 BBT10 -4.5 -4 -4 -3 -3 -3.7 Deliverable 1.4 25 4.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region 4.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region Table 4-4 presents a list of biomass resources identified in the Italian region, initially outlined in a meeting held on 18/04/2024 and later revisited and recalibrated during a follow-up meeting on 30/09/2024. Interestingly, the rankings and inclusion of resources remained consistent across both meetings, reflecting an overall agreement on the relative importance and availability of these resources. Table 4-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in the Italian RR Resources meeting 18/04/2024 Resources meeting 30/09/2024 1. Treated wastewater 1. Treated wastewater 2. chestnut shavings 2. chestnut shavings 3. Forest resources 3. Forest resources 4. Woody pruning waste 4. Woody pruning waste 5. Crops pruning waste 5. Crops pruning waste 6. Olive mill wastewater 6. Olive mill wastewater 7. Spent substrates 7. Spent substrates 8. Agri-food waste 8. Agri-food waste 9. Olive pomace 9. Olive pomace 10. Uncultivated lands 10. Uncultivated lands 11. Grape pomace 11. Grape pomace 12. Manure 12. Manure 13. Whey 13. Whey 14. Male calves from dairy farms (dual-purpose breed) that are sent to slaughter in the Netherlands. despite the potential to create a local value chain. 14. Male calves from dairy farms (dual-purpose breed) that are sent to slaughter in the Netherlands. despite the potential to create a local value chain. 4.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region There were a number of observed changes in the prioritisation of needs identified in the region between the first and second meetings (Table 4-5). In the second meeting, territorial and chain projects emerged as the top priority, climbing from fourth place. Similarly, resources for investments rose from third to second place, highlighting the importance of securing funding to support these initiatives. Conversely, transformation chains for plant residues, which was the top priority in the first meeting, shifted to third place. Notably, thermoplastic starch for biodegradable materials made a significant leap from twelfth to fourth place, signalling an increasing recognition of sustainable and innovative materials within the region. Deliverable 1.4 26 On the other hand, some priorities remained consistent, such as dissemination and visibility, which stayed in fifth place, reflecting the ongoing importance of public engagement and communication. Building critical mass with public support and collection costs were not prioritised in the second meeting. Changes in lower-priority items, such as drying plants rising from eleventh to ninth and material storage and sorting areas dropping from eighth to twelfth, suggest a recalibration of logistical and operational considerations. Overall, the revised prioritisation reflects an approach that balances innovation, funding, and regional collaboration to address emerging challenges and opportunities. Table 4-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Italian region Requirements 2° meeting 1°meeting Territorial and chain projects 1 4 ↑ Resources of investments 2 3 ↑ Transformation chains for plant residues 3 1 ↓ Thermoplastic starch for biodegradable materials 4 12 ↑ Dissemination and visibility (publicity) 5 5 - Innovation 6 2 ↓ Transformation systems 7 6 ↓ Mobile forest equipment (e.g. mobile sawmills) 8 9 ↑ Drying plants 9 11 ↑ Regulatory issues 10 10 - Building critical mass with public support 11 NO Material storage and sorting areas 12 8 ↓ Recovery chains for spent substrates 13 7 ↓ Collection costs (how can they be covered?) 14 NO Deliverable 1.4 33 Table 5-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Andalusian region Needs (Update - workshop 2) Needs (identified in workshop 1) 1. Lack of technical and financial support policies for the generation of bio products 1. Absence of biorefineries or biomass management plants close to the production site for local biomass processing 2. Low cost-efficiency ratio of the technology, not available in the market 2. High costs of storage and transport of products with a high percentage of moisture 3. Lack of biorefineries or biomass management plants close to the production site 3. Bio-products currently do not have enough added value to make the logistics cost profitable. 4. Lack of awareness about the concept of circular bioeconomy in the agricultural and forestry sectors 4. Available technologies with a bad efficiency cost ratio, mainly still at pilot phase, not available in the market. Large number of R&D projects but not all are scalable. 5. Logistical issues due to the seasonal generation of biomass 5. Weeding, storage, clutching of forest increase the biomass cost. 6. Low added value of products to make the logistical cost of products profitable 6. Logistics problems due to seasonal biomass generation. No guarantee of a stable prize of the bio-product in the market (uncertainty that makes biomass valorisation not profitable) Lack of awareness about circular bioeconomy concept to the agricultural and forest producer (biomass supplier) and the society as a whole. 7. Lack of regulation and standards concerning substitute bio-products generated with biotechnologies 8. Absence of a stable price for the bio-product in the market (uncertainty) 9. High storage and transportation costs of products with a high percentage of humidity 10. Residues and storage issues in the forestry sector, increasing the cost of biomass Deliverable 1.4 34 Figure 5-3. Results on the prioritisation of needs in the Andalusian region from Mentimeter 5.4 Section 3: Economic variables A number of issues were identified with respect to the economic and subrogation values of the biomasses in section 2 of the workshop as these were aspects that participants were not familiar with. Economic value to biomasses/by-products were difficult aspects to give answers to. It was discussed how most biomasses produced on farms and forestry holdings do not gave specific values since it is incorporated into the soil on agricultural land, or a removal service is contracted at no cost to the farm. By-products in the fields are seen as a “cost” not as a “value”. As during workshop 1, this economic valorisation was difficult to approach. To get an estimate of their economic valuation, it was decided to give values on a comparable basis. In this way, a ranking was obtained with the vision of the attendees in relation to which of the biomasses identified in the agroforestry sector they see as products of greater or lesser value. In the same way, the products were analysed. A distinction was made between energy generation products (biogas and biofuels) and other bio-products such as bio-fertilisers, compost and other biomaterials. The results on the economic valuation of the biomasses (supply chain) and products obtained (subrogated value) are displayed in below (table 5-6): 5.4.1 Supply value In terms of supply value, olive pits were noted as the most valuable resource at 135 €/ton, followed by pomace (35.2 €/ton) and silvicultural residues (34.4 €/ton), which are suited for biofuel and compost production. Other resources like olive tree pruning residues (26.8 €/ton) and pruning residues from agricultural plantations (18.6 €/ton) have moderate value, while almond shells (10.8 €/ton) and slurry (17.8 €/ton) are less expensive but still hold potential for bioenergy or bioproducts. Deliverable 1.4 35 5.4.2 Subrogation value Regarding subrogation value, biomass from fruits and vegetables (190.4 €/ton) offers the highest potential for replacing traditional fertilisers, particularly as bio-fertilisers. Pomace and olive tree pruning residues can also serve as alternatives in composting and biofuels, though they are less efficient as fertiliser substitutes. Slurry has moderate subrogation value due to its ability to produce organic acids and bio-composites, while olive pits and almond shells are more specialised for highvalue applications in the food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries rather than direct fertiliser replacement. Table 5-6. Economic variables supply value and subrogation value of biomasses in the Andalusian region Supply Value Subrogation value Olive tree pruning residues: 26,8 €/ton Biofuel: 6 €/kWh Pruning residues from agricultural plantations: 18,6 €/ton Biogas: 33 €/kWh Biomass from fruit and vegetables: 13,6 €/ton Biofertilisers: 190,4 €/ton Pomace: 35,2 €/ton Compost: 55 €/ton Residues from silvicultural treatments: 34,4 €/ton Ashes from agricultural residues: 21,8 €/ton Slurry: 17,8 €/ton Chemicals: organic acids, bioplastics, biocomposites: 110,6 €/ton Olive pits: 135 €/ton Bioactive compounds for the food, cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries: 200,2 €/ton Almond shells: 10,8 €/ton Deliverable 1.4 36 Deliverable 1.4 37 Figure 5-4. Results on the economic evaluation of biomasses from Mentimeter in the Andalusian region from Mentimeter Deliverable 1.4 38 6 Greek FAN 6.1 Workshop details Table 6-1. Details of workshop 3 in the Greek FAN Venue online Date 30/10/2024 Format Online via Microsoft Teams and Mentimeter Attendee number 14 Name of the event Workshop 2: Validation and Prioritisation of BBTs in Greece 6.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. During the first phase of the workshop, a list of 13 BBTs were introduced by the AFS team to the FAN members, these BBTs were taken from EU Operational Groups, and presented to FAN members for debate in order to discuss their feasibility for their RR. These are displayed in Table 6-2 below: The entirety of the methodology proposed in deliverable D1.4, Methodology on the Validation and Prioritisation of BBTs per Region [Greece], was followed. For recording the responses, the Mentimeter application (https://www.mentimeter.com/) was used. Deliverable 1.4 39 Table 6-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among FAN members for their suitability to the Greek region. As common for the workshops held in each RR, each BBT was prioritised with a score from -5 to +5 according to the methodology from the guidelines in section 3.1 of this document; Guidelines to Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region developed by MTU and Teagasc. No. BBT code BBT Description 1 OLEOVALORIZA (1) Recovery of sludge from olive-mill ponds through a composting process (2) Use of olive trees residues to produce compost 2 ΕΛΑΙΩΝΑΣ/OLFER Utilisation of olive residues for the production of compost and biochar 3 AGROSCHOOLBUS.BIO Recovery of the nutrients contained in the residues (branches, leaves) of olive trees (and other productive trees) through composting 4 COMPOSTINNO/COMPO Improvement of compost production from the processing of by-product-waste mixtures from various sources 5 WOOD2BIOGAS/WD2BG Gasification of wood and the use of wood syngas plus biogas from manure to produce biomethane 6 LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOREFINERY/LIGNO Anaerobic digestion of farm residues (wood, grass, straw) 7 GO-GRASS/GOGRS This technology converts low nutritional quality grass from the wetlands into biochar for soil improvement 8 BIOACTAM/BIOAA Discontinuous biochar production 9 MIXBIOPELLS/PLTIZ Pelletizing mixed biomass residues and waste from agriculture and forestry 10 OLIHERB Exploitation of olive leaves (rich in polyphenols and other bioactive ingredients) to produce herbal infusions and natural food additives 11 REFERTIL/3RZRO 3R zero emission pyrolysis plant recycles and reuses un-exploited biomass for recovery of concentrated Phosphorus and natural BioPhosphate products. 12 GRASSBIOWERT/BWERT Grass biorefinery to produce bio-based materials and energy 13 COBRAF/COBRA Oilseed crops' residues are biorefined to produce bioactive compounds Deliverable 1.4 40 6.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region The weightage scores reflecting the alignment of each of the 13 BBTs from table 6-2 are with regional needs and challenges are displayed in Table 6-3. A number of BBTs aligned strongly with the needs and challenges of the region. For example, BBT1 (OLEOVALORIZA) received a high score (4.6). This technology focuses on recovering sludge from olivemill ponds and using olive tree residues to produce compost. Its strong alignment highlights the significance of addressing olive mill by-products, which are a major concern in Mediterranean regions like Greece. Similarly, BBT2 (ΕΛΑΙΩΝΑΣ/OLFER) obtained a high score of 4.4, this focuses on using olive residues for compost and biochar. It complements BBT1 by providing an alternative use for similar byproducts. BBT3 (AGROSCHOOLBUS.BIO) obtained a score of 4.2, emphasising nutrient recovery from olive and other tree residues through composting. This indicates a strong need for sustainable waste management in olive-centric agricultural systems. While BBT4 (COMPOST-INNO/COMPO) received a weight of 3.6, which aims to improve compost production using diverse waste sources. BBT 6 (LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOREFINERY/LIGNO) scored 3.2 reflecting moderate alignment with the resources and needs of the region. Lower scoring BBTs that demonstrated limited alignment included MIXBIOPELLS/PLTIZ (BBT9): which scored 1.8, OLIHERB (BBT10): which scored 1.2, BIOACTAM/BIOAA (BBT8): which cored 0.8, and REFERTIL/3RZRO (BBT11): which scored 0.4. GO-GRASS/GOGRS (BBT7), GRASSBIOWERT/BWERT (BBT12), and COBRAF/COBRA (BBT13): All scored 0.2, indicating minimal alignment with the region’s needs. These technologies target grasses and oilseed crops, demonstrating less alignment in the region compared to olive-focused applications. WOOD2BIOGAS/WD2BG (BBT5): Surprisingly scored 0, showing no alignment with local needs, possibly due to a lack of wood resources or interest in biomethane production. There was an overall focus on biomasses related to olive production: The top-scoring technologies (BBT1, BBT2, BBT3) heavily focus on olive-related residues. This reflects the regional importance of olive farming and the need for sustainable by-product management. Composting vs. Energy: Composting technologies rank higher than biochar or energy-focused methods, indicating a preference for soil improvement over energy recovery. Specialised Applications: Niche applications like herbal infusions (BBT10) and bio refined compounds (BBT13) received lower scores. Grass and wood-based technologies (BBT5, BBT7, BBT12) scored poorly, reflecting a lack of alignment with local resources and needs in light of the primary agricultural and forestry production in the area. Deliverable 1.4 41 Table 6-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question Questions Is the BBt suitable for the available resources in the region? Is the BBT suitable for the region’s needs? Does this BBT have the potential to develop a value chain? Economic potential of the BBT for the region Will the BBT benefit the environment and society in the region? Weighting (average) BBT 1 +5 +4 +5 +4 +5 4.6 BBT 2 +5 +4 +5 +4 +4 4.4 BBT 3 +5 +4 +4 +4 +4 4.2 BBT 4 +4 +3 +4 +3 +4 3.6 BBT 5 +2 0 -2 +1 -1 0 BBT 6 +5 +4 +3 +4 0 3.2 BBT 7 +2 0 -3 0 +2 0.2 BBT 8 +2 0 0 +1 +1 0.8 BBT 9 +1 +1 +2 +2 +3 1.8 BBT10 +2 0 +2 0 +2 1.2 BBT11 +1 0 -1 1 1 0.4 BBT12 +2 0 -3 0 +2 0.2 BBT13 +2 0 -3 0 +2 0.2 Deliverable 1.4 42 6.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region 6.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region In the initial workshop ‘Identification and prioritisation of resources and needs per region’ conducted earlier in 2024, the resources identified as the most significant in terms of their relative abundance in the region were the following: (1) Olive and olive oil production biomass and prunings (2) Prunings and grass from fruit trees (3) Stone-fruit residue (4) Greenhouse vegetable plant biomass (5) Sheep wool (6) Chestnut skin Although biomass derived from olive trees is closely related to the biomass from olive mills, their nature as resources is quite different. Consequently, the resource "olive and olive oil production biomass and prunings" mentioned in the first workshop was deemed necessary to split into olive mill waste and olive tree biomass and prunings. Then, the similarity between olive tree biomass and that derived from other fruit-bearing trees, were unified and presented as a resource called "tree residues", encompassing biomass from all types of trees. Furthermore, in light of the fact that greenhouse vegetable plant biomass does not differ in nature from other plant-based biomass except for its place of origin, it was replaced by the term ‘biomass from various resources’. In addition, during the period between the two workshops, it was found that manure is the dominant biomass produced in livestock farming and widely used at most plant producing units. As such, it was essential to include it among the resources under evaluation, which was confirmed by its subsequent positive assessment. Straw and avocado were "feedstock" for bio-based technologies that were weighted in Section 1; therefore, it was deemed appropriate to evaluate them as well. Straw is a widely available biomass in the region, while avocado is an emerging alternative cultivar in Greece, and was deemed to be similar in nature to the referral to oilseed in the first workshop. Meanwhile, chestnut skin and sheep wool were referenced by FAN members in the first workshop but not the second. Additionally, no references to these resources emerged during the interval between the two workshops. Based on all the above, the list of resources evaluated was modified as follows: (1) Olive mill waste (2) Tree residues (3) Grass (4) Oilseeds (5) Biomass from various resources Deliverable 1.4 49 7.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region 7.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region Table 7-4 presents a list of biomass resources identified in the Czech region, initially outlined in a meeting held in April 2024 and later revisited in November 2024 and recalibrated during a follow-up meeting. Interestingly, the rankings and inclusion of resources remained consistent across both meetings, reflecting an overall agreement on the relative importance and availability of these resources. Table 7-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in the Czech RR Resources meeting 2 Resources meeting 3 Plant and forest wastes Plant and forest wastes Organic wastes from industrial production Organic wastes from industrial production Wastes from livestock production Wastes from livestock production Municipal organic waste Municipal organic waste Fast-growing woody plants Fast-growing woody plants Grape seeds Grape seeds Residues {stillage (from distillery)} Residues {stillage (from distillery)} Pits Sewage sludge Used cooking oil 7.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region Table 7-5 presents a list of biomass needs identified in the Czech region, initially outlined in a meeting held in April 2024 and later revisited in November 2024 and recalibrated during a follow-up meeting. In similar fashion to the resources outline in table 7-4, FAN members believed that the rankings and inclusion of needs remained consistent across both meetings, reflecting an overall agreement on the relative importance and availability of these resources. Deliverable 1.4 50 Table 7-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Czech region Needs meeting 2 Needs meeting 3 Building a network of buyers for compost from composting plants, as compost is almost unmarketable or very little used in the Highlands. Farmers in the region have enough manure due to livestock production and do not need compost. However, it is suitable, among others, for areas in drinking water protection zones or protected landscape areas, of which there are many in the region. Building a network of buyers for compost from composting plants, as compost is almost unmarketable or very little used in the Highlands. Farmers in the region have enough manure due to livestock production and do not need compost. However, it is suitable, among others, for areas in drinking water protection zones or protected landscape areas, of which there are many in the region. Use of food waste and kitchen waste for biogas and compost production Use of food waste and kitchen waste for biogas and compost production A long-term survey carried out by ZERA identified problems related to insufficient technological interconnection between composting plants, biogas plants and wastewater treatment plants A long-term survey carried out by ZERA identified problems related to insufficient technological interconnection between composting plants, biogas plants and wastewater treatment plants Availability of biomass combustion boilers Availability of biomass combustion boilers Motivation of cider, distilleries and wineries to recover waste biomass in biogas plants, by incineration or composting Motivation of cider, distilleries and wineries to recover waste biomass in biogas plants, by incineration or composting Use of gastro and kitchen waste for biogas and compost production Use of gastro and kitchen waste for biogas and compost production Promote wastewater treatment combined with algae cultivation for biomass Promote wastewater treatment combined with algae cultivation for biomass 7.4 Section 3: Economic variables 7.4.1 Supply value The estimated Supply Values for the various bio-based inputs are displayed in table 7-6, demonstrating the costs that BBT owners might incur to procure these materials. The prices vary significantly, reflecting the availability, processing requirements, and logistical considerations for each type of input. Plant and forest wastes are among the most less valuable resources at €13.5/t, as a result of their abundance and ease of collection. Similarly, organic wastes from industrial production, priced at €2/m³, are relatively economical. Wastes from livestock production, costing €15/t, are slightly more expensive due to the additional effort required for transportation and handling. On the higher end, municipal organic waste is valued at €51/t, reflecting the expenses associated with collection, sorting, and preliminary treatment by municipal systems. Fast-growing woody plants have the highest price in the table at €59/t, which can be attributed to the costs of cultivation, harvesting, and transportation. Deliverable 1.4 51 Grape seeds and pits are priced at €0.78/kg and €6/kg, respectively. Their higher unit prices reflect their niche applications and potential for generating high-value bio-based products. Residues from distilleries (stillage), at €47/t, offer a moderately priced resource for valorisation, benefiting from consistent supply chains in the alcohol industry. Sewage sludge, at €17.89/t, represents a mid-range option with its value influenced by processing requirements for safe utilisation. Finally, used cooking oil is priced at €0.24/l, making it an economical liquid bio-input often used in biofuel production. Table 7-6. Economic supply value of biomasses in the Czech region ID Primary or secondary resources Supply Value per Kg/litre/tone 1 Plant and forest wastes 13,5 €/t 2 Organic wastes from industrial production 2 €/m3 3 Wastes from livestock production 15 €/t 4 Municipal organic waste 51 €/t 5 Fast-growing woody plants 59 €/t 6 Grape seeds 0,78 €/kg 7 Residues {stillage (from distillery)} 47 €/t 8 Pits 6 €/kg 9 Sewage sludge 17,89 €/t 10 Used cooking oil 0,24 €/l 7.4.2 Subrogation value The subrogation values of the various BBTs are displayed below in table 7-7, reflecting the cost of these innovative products compared to conventional alternatives. The ForestChip4Farm project (FI12) produces heating fuel from fresh forest chips, priced at 19 €/m³, relatively economical for renewable energy solutions at the farm level. In contrast, REFERTIL (HU16) offers phosphorus fertilisers derived from biochar and compost at 1.7 €/kg, highlighting a cost-effective alternative to conventional chemical fertilisers. Similarly, Hay Biosyngas (EE18) provides torrefied hay pellets at 3.20 €/kg, emphasising the value of transforming low-quality biomass into high-energy biochar. The MixBioPells project (DE31) produces biomass pellets at 126 €/t, a competitive price for energy production when using materials like low-quality wood or straw. On the other hand, BIOlution (DE33) focuses on biodegradable packaging materials, priced at 10.65 €/m², reflecting the added value of sustainable packaging solutions made from agricultural residues such as tomato and wheat waste. High-value bio-based compounds, such as those produced by BIOECO_FLIES (IT37), are priced at 98 €/m³. This premium reflects the advanced processing of vegetable wastes to produce proteins, fats, and chitin via Black Soldier Fly larvae. Grow_media (CZ) offers an organic growing medium made from liquid digestate at 25 €/m³, making it a cost-effective choice for sustainable agriculture. The Deliverable 1.4 52 Compost_biochar project (CZ) combines biochar and compost, priced at 120 €/m³, delivering a premium solution for soil health enhancement. The SeCoPPA project (FR21) provides alfalfa drying using renewable energy sources, priced at 177 €/t, reflecting the high costs of energy-efficient forage drying processes. Lastly, LIFE Smart Fertirrigation (ES) valorises pig manure digestate to produce organic liquid fertiliser at a highly competitive price of 7.1 €/t, offering an economical and sustainable fertiliser alternative. Table 7-7. Economic subrogation value of biomasses in the Czech region BBT ID Project name Replacement product produced by the BBT Subrogation Value per Kg/litre/tone FI12 ForestChip4Farm Pilot farm-level heating plant (400-500KW) (fuel: fresh forest chips) Bio -based product 1: 19 €/m3 HU16 REFERTIL Phosphorus fertilisers (biochar and compost products) made from organic waste and food industrial by-product streams Bio -based product 2: 1,7 €/kg EE18 Hay Biosyngas Torrefied hay pellets (biochar) Bio -based product 3: 3,20 €/kg DE31 MixBioPells Biomass pellets for energy production using low quality wood, straw or olive press cake Bio -based product 4: 126 €/t DE33 BIOlution biodegradable packaging materials (produced from small farmer waste like tomato and weat, which are pressed, dried, and converted into fibers for subsequent moulding and laminating) Bio -based product 5: 10,65 €/m2 IT37 BIOECO_FLIES High nutritional value compounds (protein, fats, chitin) produced by valorising seasonal vegetable wastes as substarte for Black Soldier Fly Larvae Bio -based product 6: 98 €/m3 CZ Grow_media Organic substrate to be used as growing medium (valorising liquid digestate in its production) Bio -based product 7: 25 €/m3 CZ Compost_biochar Improved biochar infused compost Bio -based product 8: 120 €/m3 FR21 SeCoPPA Forage (alfalfa) dryer powered by solar energy, wood residues and electricity Bio -based product 9: 177 €/t ES LIFE Smart Fertirrigation Pig manure digestate valorised in producing organic liquid fertilizer Bio -based product 10: 7,1 €/t Deliverable 1.4 53 8 Irish FAN 8.1 Workshop details Table 8-1. Details of workshop 3 in the Irish FAN Venue Online Date 22/10/2024 Format Online via MS Teams using Mentimeter and Miroboard Attendee number 10 Name of the event Workshop 3: Validation and Prioritisation of BBTs in Ireland 8.2 Section 1: Debate over the BBTs and feasibility for their region. The meeting was organised to be held online via Microsoft Teams at a time that suited all FAN members. During the first phase of the workshop, 10 BBTs were introduced to the FAN members by the Teagasc team. These BBTs were taken from EU Operational Groups for debate among Irish FAN members to discuss their feasibility for the Irish RR. These are displayed in Table 8-2 below. Similar to the FANs in other regions, the list of 10 BBTs were sent to FAN members 1 week prior to the workshop in order for the members to become familiar with them. Each BBT was prioritised with a score from -5 to +5, based on the following 5 criteria: (i) Adaptability of the BBT to the region’s resources. (ii) Adaptability of the BBT to the region’s needs. (iii) Potential of the BBT to develop a value chain in the region. (iv) Economic potential of the BBT for the region. (v) Effects of the BBT on the environment and society in the region. Deliverable 1.4 54 Table 8-2. Description of BBTs selected for debate among DAN members for their suitability to Ireland. No. BBT code BBT Description 1 IT54-ProBEST Felling by-products chipped and sold to thermoelectric plants 2 IT55-ProBEST In the production of forest wood fuels, the incombustible elements (ash) must be limited 3 IT45-Stabilized Litter Stabilized litter for dairy cows: optimization of the use of litter derived from the solid fraction separated from manure 4 LT33-cogeneration residue Using biogas production residues as fertilizer 5 DE-Manure Efficiency Manure is treated before addition to biogas plant so that as much nitrogen, phosphate and water as possible are removed. 6 IT39-Res4Carbon waste wood chips, biochar and ashes are used to produce an innovative fertiliser 7 LV49WoodResidueLV valorisation of forest wood processing by-products into housing insulation, heating materials and fertilizer 8 PL93-GRIST Organic grain production and processing of brewery residues into meal, using an innovative dehydration 9 DE13-Lignocellulosic Biorefinery Anaerobic digestion of farm residues (wood, grass, straw) 10 IE23-SBDP Small scale biogas production from on-farm feedstock 8.2.1 Results on the prioritisation of BBTs in the region The Irish FAN evaluated the list of BBTs outlined in Table 4-2 above to assess their suitability for the region, with weightage scores reflecting their alignment with regional needs and challenges. Among the technologies, alignment with regional needs and resources was varied. BBT 3 (stabilized litter for dairy cows) obtained the highest weightage, with an average weightage of 3.8, excelling in environmental and social benefits, resource suitability, and economic potential. BBT 9 (anaerobic digestion of farm residues) follows with a weightage of 3.4, demonstrating robust alignment with regional resources and needs. Conversely, BBT 2 (ash management in forest wood fuels) obtained the lowest weightage of (1.0), reflecting limited compatibility with the Irish bioeconomy across all criteria. BBT10 (Small scale biogas production from on-farm feedstock) obtained a comparatively low weightage of 1.9, demonstrating that in the view of FAN members, such technology is not greatly feasible in the Irish RR. Technologies like BBT 4 (biogas production residues as fertilizer) and BBT 5 (treated manure for AD) showed intermediate potential, with average scores of 3.3 and 3.2, respectively. Deliverable 1.4 55 Table 8-3. Summary of the prioritisation of each BBT for each key question Questions Is the BBt suitable for the available resources in the region? Is the BBT suitable for the region’s needs? Does this BBT have the potential to develop a value chain? Economic potential of the BBT for the region Will the BBT benefit the environment and society in the region? Weighting (average) BBT 1 3.8 3.4 2.9 2.1 2.9 3.0 BBT 2 1.9 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.9 1.0 BBT 3 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.8 BBT 4 3.3 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.9 3.3 BBT 5 4.0 3.4 2.5 2.5 3.6 3.2 BBT 6 2.6 2.2 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.3 BBT 7 2.0 2.6 2.4 1.6 3.2 2.4 BBT 8 2.0 2.1 3.3 2.6 3.1 2.6 BBT 9 3.9 3.7 3.3 2.3 3.7 3.4 BBT10 2.0 2.3 1.5 0.6 2.9 1.9 8.3 Section 2: Recalibration of Needs and Resources for the region 8.3.1 Recalibration of resources in the region Table 4-4 presents a list of biomass resources identified in the Italian region, initially outlined in a meeting held on 23/04/2024 and later revisited and recalibrated during a follow-up meeting on 22/10/2024. Some key changes in prioritisation of these resources included Pig & Poultry Manure which moved up the list, reflecting its recognition as a valuable nutrient source to meet soil fertility and crop production. Similarly Green Manures & Cover Crops also increased in the list of prioritisations suggesting recognition of their role in sustainable farming and carbon sequestration. Rushes & Gorse remained low in the prioritisation list while there was a reduced focus on Timber Felling Waste, which lowered in priority. By products of meat processing also reduced in prioritisation, as it was not seen as a significant contributory source to circular processes in the wider agricultural sector. Through the FAN discussions on the topic, grass was introduced as an important resource in the region, highlighting its abundance and potential for bioenergy or bio-based product applications. While food waste in general was mentioned in the previous workshop held in April 2024, this was narrowed down to Deliverable 1.4 56 specifically vegetable waste, or sub-grade vegetable waste by-products that do not meet the standards for supermarkets. Overall, it was noted that cattle slurry remained the top priority in the region across both meetings, reflecting its abundance due to the prevalence of dairy and meat production systems in the region, as well as its suitability for AD and nutrient recovery processes. Interestingly, Horticultural Waste also remained a consistent priority. The increased focus on agricultural residues like manures, sludges, and green manures suggests a pivot towards more readily available resources in the Irish agricultural sector. Meanwhile, the inclusion of grass and vegetable waste underscores a broader integration of diverse feedstocks to support a circular bioeconomy. Overall, these changes reflect a deeper understanding of resource utility and strategic alignment with sustainability goals. Table 8-4. Results on the calibration of resources available in Ireland Resources meeting 2 (April 2024) Resources meeting 3 (October 2024) Cattle slurry Cattle slurry Timber felling waste Pig & poultry manure Food waste Dairy & Brewers sludge Pig & poultry manure Green manures & Cover crops Horticultural waste Horticultural waste AD digestate Timber felling waste Dairy & Brewers sludge Vegetable waste Straw Poultry ash Poultry ash Straw By-products from meat production Rushes & Gorse Rushes & Gorse Grass Green manures & Cover crops By-products from meat production 8.3.2 Recalibration of needs in the region Similarly, the prioritisation of needs was discussed again in meeting 3 to re-calibrate them based on the opinion of the FAN members. There were a number of observed changes in the prioritisation of needs identified in the region (Table 4-5). The recalibration of needs demonstrates an evolving focus on enabling greater circularity and addressing specific infrastructural and technological gaps in the Irish bioeconomy. For example, Regional Funding for Shared Technology and Infrastructure was recalibrated as top priority in Meeting 3, reflecting a stronger emphasis on collaboration and pooled resources to overcome economic and logistical barriers. Making processes more circular was also highlighted as a priority, reinforcing the overarching goal of achieving a more sustainable bioeconomy. Some additional needs highlighted by the FAN for the region included Green Biorefineries in light of their potential to valorise a range of biomasses. Deliverable 1.4 57 Incinerators for Wood By-Product Ashes Generation moved down in priority while a need for a greater number of AD plants also decreased. There was no change in the prioritisation of the need for slurry separation technology, demonstrating its ongoing importance in managing agricultural waste and recovering valuable nutrients. The emphasis on increased biomass utilisation and green biorefinery technology reflects a broader vision to diversify and maximise the value extracted from bio-resources. The reshuffling also highlights a balanced approach—maintaining focus on foundational technologies like slurry separation while advancing higher-value opportunities in line with evolving challenges and opportunities in Ireland’s bioeconomy. Table 8-5. Results on the calibration of needs in the Irish region Needs meeting 2 Needs meeting 3 Incinerators for wood by-product ashes generation Regional funding for shared technology and infrastructure Mulchers and chippers for processing wood byproducts Making processes more circular Greater number of AD plants Shared technology and infrastructure Making processes more circular Increased biomass utilisation Slurry separation technology Slurry separation technology Root harvesting equipment Greater number of AD plants Increased biomass utilisation Green biorefinery Regional funding for shared technology and infrastructure Mulchers and chippers for processing wood byproducts Shared technology and infrastructure Incinerators for wood by-product ashes generation Root harvesting equipment Deliverable 1.4 58 8.4 Section 3: Economic variables 8.4.1 Supply Value The supply values of the various biomasses discussed by members of the Irish FAN indicate significant variation in base costs, reflecting their availability, production processes, and inherent nutrient content. Cattle slurry (€90/tonne) and pig & poultry manure (€85/tonne) were among the more valuable livestock-derived biomasses due to their nutrient-dense profiles, essential for improving soil fertility. Conversely, vegetable waste (€15/tonne) was deemed less valuable. Timber felling waste (€55/tonne) and green manures & cover crops (€55/tonne) were denoted to have intermediate value, reflecting their utility in soil enhancement but also their broader availability. Higher costs for materials like dairy brewers’ sludge (€65/tonne) may be related to additional processing requirements. Overall, the variation in supply costs highlights a balance between demand for nutrient recycling and the logistics involved in sourcing and transporting these materials. 8.4.2 Subrogation Value Bark remnants (€115/tonne) and bark ashes (€120/tonne) offer significant value as soil amendments as potential replacements of traditional synthetic fertilisers, enhancing fertility and carbon sequestration. Similarly, separated dairy cow manure (€100/tonne) and AD digestate-based fertilisers (€160/tonne) provide nutrient-rich organic fertilisers, promoting sustainable nutrient cycling. Fertilisers derived from woodchips, ashes, and biochar were deemed to have a subrogation value of €125/tonne, showing the potential to integrate forestry residues into soil management strategies. Meanwhile, heating materials from wood processing by-products (€150/tonne) and small-scale biogas production (€115/tonne) demonstrate the energy potential of biomass, supporting circular economy practices and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. These values underscore the role of FAN in aligning biobased technologies with sustainability objectives in Ireland. 65 10 Conclusion This report offers a comprehensive overview of the validation and prioritisation of BBTs across the six representative regions within the BBioNets consortium. Through detailed workshops and collaborative discussions, the findings highlight the alignment of prioritised BBTs with regional resources, needs, and economic contexts. The recalibration of needs and resources highlight the dynamic nature of regional priorities and the importance of adapting strategies to promote circular bioeconomy processes effectively. Examples of highly prioritised BBTs in each region included: • In Italy, technologies focusing on the agronomic use of bark and pruning residues to enhance soil organic carbon and reduce dependence on fossil-derived peat were highly prioritised. • In the Andalusian region of Spain, olive-related technologies dominated, including olive byproduct recovery for composting and biochar production, reflecting the region’s agricultural profile. • In Greece, olive mill by-product recovery (e.g., composting) and composting technologies were strongly aligned with the region's agricultural needs. • In the Czech Republic, biogas systems and biochar-enhanced compost were validated as the most suitable technologies for the region. • In Ireland, composting agricultural residues and technologies focusing on soil health and mixed biomass use for energy and soil enhancement were prioritised. • In Poland, technologies addressing emissions control in slurry management and biocharenhanced compost were strongly aligned with regional needs. Examples of the recalibration of needs in each representative region included: • In Italy, investment resources and projects focusing on collaboration emerged as key priorities. A notable shift occurred towards sustainable materials, such as thermoplastic starch for biodegradable products. • In the Andalusian region of Spain, Policies to address the lack of technical and financial support gained prominence. Awareness of circular bioeconomy concepts and the added value of bioproducts were emphasised. • In Greece, increasing farmer education, access to technology, and piloting schemes emerged as critical needs. Inter-sectoral collaboration was slightly deprioritised. • In the Czech Republic, developing value chains and innovative biomass utilisation were prioritised to strengthen regional bioeconomy efforts. • In Ireland, shared infrastructure and funding for collaborative projects were key needs identified during recalibration. • In Poland, Forestry resource optimisation and enhancing carbon-rich biomass production became higher priorities. 66 Examples of economic insights in each region included: • In Italy, Compost and biochar were identified as valuable bio-based products, with a high focus on cost-effective and regionally adapted solutions. • In the Andalusian region of Spain, Olive pits and pruning residues had high supply and subrogation values, supporting their potential for biofuels and fertiliser alternatives. • In Greece, Olive mill waste, and manure were identified as cost-effective resources, with biochar and bioenergy showing strong subrogation value for sustainability applications. • In the Czech Republic, fast-growing woody plants had a high supply value, whole the high subrogation value of producing alfalfa forage (SeCoPPA) at €177/tonne corresponds to their potential in a sustainable energy source from agriculture. • In Ireland, Cattle slurry (€90/tonne) and pig & poultry manure (€85/tonne) were among the more valuable livestock-derived biomasses due to their nutrient-dense profiles. While bark remnants (€115/tonne) and bark ashes (€120/tonne) offer significant value as soil amendments • In Poland, biochar (€2.28/kg) had a high supply value due to versatile applications in soil enhancement and carbon sequestration. 67 [email protected] www.bbionets.eu @bbionets-eu @bbionets.eu @bbionets_eu @bbionets_eu @BBioNetsEU