The high number of bioeconomy (BE) policies and strategies indicates the interest in the BE in many nations. The development of the BE holds opportunities but also risks for sustainability. Thus, the future development of a sustainable BE should be based on coherent policy frameworks. There are already links between private governance approaches and public policy frameworks that might support each other for this purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the current EU BE policy frameworks consider sustainability aspects and if non-governmental governance approaches could support their enhancement. An inventory of BE policy documents on EU and EU member state levels relevant to sustainability was conducted applying desktop research. Major sustainability risk perceptions in the BE sectors were identified. We provide a list of sustainability risks within different BE sectors, based on an expert survey. In a qualitative evaluation, most commonly identified sustainability requirements in policy documents were benchmarked against most important sustainability risk perceptions. Sustainability requirements have been identified in 56% of the policy documents. The influence of the policy frameworks on the industry was found to be rather low. Specific targets and goals are included in 72% of the analysed BE policy documents, but only 50% are quantifiable. Identification of major sustainability risks revealed that in the biomass production stage, mostly environmental risks are most relevant. A “hot spot sector” with accumulated sustainability risk perceptions or a tendency to higher risk levels was not identified. Most important sustainability risk perceptions matched with requirements in policy documents, but requirements were mostly stated in a noncommittal way. Coherence amongst the sustainability criteria included in the various BE frameworks should be increased. Groundwork developed by non-governmental governance approaches should be picked up by policy makers for more harmonised terminologies of sustainability requirements, BE definitions, etc. BE monitoring approaches should take policy targets, sustainability requirements and sustainability risks into account and should adjust them in a dynamic way.

中文翻译：

---

欧盟生物基产品和生物能源可持续性评估框架的优缺点

大量的生物经济（BE）政策和策略表明，许多国家对BE有兴趣。BE的发展既有机遇，也有可持续性的风险。因此，可持续BE的未来发展应基于一致的政策框架。私人治理方法与公共政策框架之间已经存在联系，为此可能相互支持。这项研究的目的是评估当前的欧盟BE政策框架如何考虑可持续性方面以及非政府治理方法是否可以支持其增强。应用桌面研究对欧盟和欧盟成员国层面与可持续性有关的BE政策文件进行了清点。确定了BE行业的主要可持续性风险认知。根据专家调查，我们提供了不同BE行业内的可持续发展风险清单。在定性评估中，将政策文件中最常见的可持续性要求与最重要的可持续性风险认知进行了基准比较。在56％的政策文件中已确定了可持续性要求。人们发现，政策框架对行业的影响很小。具体目标和目标包含在72％的BE政策文件中，但只有50％是可量化的。对主要可持续性风险的识别表明，在生物质生产阶段，大多数环境风险最为相关。没有发现具有可持续发展风险认知或趋向更高风险水平的“热点部门”。最重要的可持续发展风险认识与政策文件中的要求相符，但要求大多以非置信的方式陈述。各种BE框架中包括的可持续性标准之间的一致性应得到提高。政策制定者应采用非政府治理方法开发的基础，以更统一地定义可持续性要求，BE定义等。BE监视方法应考虑政策目标，可持续性要求和可持续性风险，并应动态调整方式。