Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Towards a strong and sustainable EU Algae sector
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: maritime transport



IMMC.Ares%282022%294724695.ENG.xhtml.PART-2021-614029V1.docx








Public Consultation for the Blue bioeconomy initiative – towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector 



FACTUAL SUMMARY REPORT



6 September 2021



























Ref: Inter-institutional service framework contract for Better Regulation related activities | Lot 2: Integrated Maritime Policy | No. 12 Under Framework EASME/EMFF/2016/029


Subject: STUDY TO SUPPORT THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE COMMISSION INITIATIVE: ”BLUE BIOECONOMY – TOWARDS A STRONG AND SUSTAINABLE EU ALGAE SECTOR”



Table of Contents


1. Introduction
   


2. Characteristics of the respondents
   2


3. Core Questions
   6


3.1 General questions
   6


3.2 Questions concerning the five objectives and potential regulatory measures
   7


3.2.1 Objective 1 Improving governance framework
   9


3.2.2 Objective 2 Supporting the functioning of the market
   12


3.2.3 Objective 3 Ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector
   14


3.2.4 Objective 4 Increasing social awareness and acceptance
   16


3.2.5 Objective 5 Closing knowledge, research and innovation gaps
   19


3.2.6 Potential regulatory measures
   24


3.3 Questions concerning potential impacts
   28




3.3.1 Economic impact
   30


3.3.2 Social impact
   32


3.3.3 Environmental impact
   33



Figure 1 Distribution of respondents among affiliation with organisation
   


Figure 2 Distribution of respondents among size of organisation
   5


Figure 3 Survey respondents, by country of origin
   6


Figure 4 Organisation’s role/relevance in the algae industry
   7


Figure 5 Distribution of respondents among micro- and macroalgae
   8


Figure 6 Areas that should be prioritised in the EU algae sector
   8


Figure 7 Most promising potential for algae use
   9


Figure 8 Importance of the objectives to unlock the EU algae sector’s potential
   10


Figure 9 frequency of ‘No opinion’ per objective
   10


Figure 10 Importance of proposed measures for improving the governance framework (microalgae)
   11


Figure 11 Importance of proposed measures for improving the governance framework (macroalgae)
   12


Figure 12 Topics that should be governed at EU level
   13


Figure 13 Highest impact from proposed governance framework changes (microalgae)
   14


Figure 14 Highest impact from proposed governance framework changes (macroalgae)
   14


Figure 15 Importance of proposed measures for supporting the functioning of the markets (microalgae)
   15


Figure 16 Importance of proposed measures for supporting the functioning of the markets (macroalgae)
   15




Figure 17 Highest impact from Supporting the functioning of the market (microalgae)
   16


Figure 18 Highest impact from Supporting the functioning of the market (macroalgae)
   16


Figure 19 Importance of proposed measures for ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector (microalgae)
   17


Figure 20 Importance of proposed measures for ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector (macroalgae)
   17


Figure 21 Highest impact from Ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector (microalgae)
   18


Figure 22 Highest impact from Ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector (macroalgae)
   18


Figure 23 Importance of proposed measures for to increase social awareness and acceptance (microalgae)
   19


Figure 24 Importance of proposed measures to increase social awareness and acceptance (macroalgae)
   19


Figure 25 Highest impact from Increasing social awareness and acceptance (microalgae)
   20


Figure 26 Highest impact from Increasing social awareness and acceptance (macroalgae)
   20


Figure 27 Importance of proposed measures for closing knowledge, research and innovation gaps (microalgae)
   22


Figure 28 Importance of proposed measures for closing knowledge, research and innovation gaps (macroalgae)
   23


Figure 29 Highest impact from closing the knowledge, research and innovation gaps (microalgae)
   24


Figure 30 Highest impact from closing the knowledge, research and innovation gaps (macroalgae)
   25


Figure 31 Importance of proposed regulatory measures (microalgae)
   27


Figure 32 Importance of proposed regulatory measures (macroalgae)
   28


Figure 33 Highest impact from Potential regulatory measures (microalgae)
   29


Figure 34 Highest impact from Potential regulatory measures (macroalgae)
   30


Figure 35 Economic impact on objectives and regulatory measures (microalgae)
   32


Figure 36 Economic impact on objectives and regulatory measures (macroalgae)
   33




Figure 37 Social impact on objectives and regulatory measures (microalgae)
   34


Figure 38 Social impact on objectives and regulatory measures (macroalgae)
   35


Figure 39 Environmental impact on objectives and regulatory measures (microalgae)
   36


Figure 40 Environmental impact on objectives and regulatory measures (macroalgae)
   37
















1. Introduction


The European Green Deal acknowledges the important role of algae in a sustainable food system and global food security, also in relation to various initiatives (e.g. Farm to Fork and Bioeconomy Strategies, Blue Bioeconomy Forum, Renewable Energy Directive (RED), and the upcoming revised Sustainable EU Aquaculture Guidelines) exist to better exploit the potential of algae. However, the Commission has identified major barriers limiting the sustainable growth of the algae sector. The issues demonstrate a largely untapped potential of the EU blue bioeconomy (including algae) sectors despite significant support of EU funding. Stakeholders raise concerns related to "unfair competition" with lower-priced algae products from non-EU countries, partly labelled organic. Therefore, the overall purpose of the Commission Communication “Blue Bioeconomy – towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector” will be to increase sustainable production, ensure safe consumption and boost innovative use of algae and algae-based products. 




The Public Consultation (PC)
1
 intends to provide the public with an opportunity to contribute to the identified policy objectives and measures and their potential economic, social, and environmental impact. The output of the consultation will feed into the impact assessment performed by the Deloitte - Wageningen consortium. 


The Commission launched the PC on the 19th of May 2021 for 12 weeks. The PC therefore ended on the 11th of August. Respondents were able to comment on the five policy objectives, associated measures, and potential regulatory measures. This factual summary provides an overview of the main results of the consultation, as well as some characteristics of the respondents.


2. Characteristics of the respondents


Of the 108 respondents in the PC, 56% of them were written in English, 14% in Spanish, 16% in French, and 6% in Dutch. Additionally, there are contributions in Croatian, Estonian, Greek, Italian, Romanian, and German.


As visualised in figure 1, 31 out of 108 participants indicated that they participated on behalf of a company/business organisation and 26 participants on behalf of an academic/research institution. In addition, 15 EU citizens, 13 business associations, and 12 NGOs participated. To a lesser extent, 1 Non-EU citizen, 4 public authorities, 2 environmental organisations, 1 trade union participated. 3 respondents indicated “other” as a response to this question. Besides, the respondents also provided information on their characteristics such as their first and last name, email address, and the name of the organisation, when relevant. This information has been treated in accordance with GDPR guidelines.
2








Figure 1 Distribution of affiliations with organisations among respondents


This public consultation received a balanced number of responses, as can be seen in figure 2, in terms of the organisation sizes of respondents and brought together 30% of large organisations (250 employees and more), 30% of micro (1 to 9 employees) organisations, 17% of small and 9% of medium sizes organisations. 16 respondents indicated as ‘other’.







Figure 2 Distribution of affiliations with size of organisations among respondents


The distribution of the respondent's country of origin is balanced throughout the European Union. Respondents originate from in total 24 countries: sixteen countries within the EU, four outside the EU but on the continent Europe, and four countries outside continental Europe. Of the 108 respondents, 23 originate from France, 19 from Spain, and 11 from Belgium. The other participants are spread over 21 different countries. This is visualised in figure 3 of this report.







Figure 3 Survey respondents, by country of origin


To gain insights regarding the distribution of respondents within the value chain of the algae sector, respondents indicated their organisation's role in the value chain. As visible in figure 4 below, 40 out of 108 participants are active in algae production, and 43 out of 108 are active in R&D organisations. In addition, 30 out of 108 participants are active as a processor, 20 out of 108 are active in educational organisations, 25 out of 108 are active as a supplier and 21 out of 108 are involved in the last step of the value chain. The remainder of the participants are active in pre-processing, industry associations, NGOs, or are a private person. 14 participants answered this question with ‘other’ and provided their responses in text. Below are the extensive answers the participants provided on their role in the value chain:


·Public administration that manages the permits for the production of algae and authorization for its collection from the natural environment


·At NEN we connect parties and stakeholders, and we ensure that they reach agreements that are recorded in standards and guidelines. In this role, NEN provides the secretariat of the European standards committee on algae and algae products (CEN/TC 454)


·Support of research and development within the framework of the regional innovation strategy 


·We coordinated the development of the toolbox for tackling marine litter in the aquaculture sector across Europe: www.aqua-lit.eu/toolbox 


·In the Signal Transduction group, we are experts in the regulation mechanisms of cyanobacteria and their involvement in the carbon and nitrogen cycles, fundamental knowledge for the environmental and biotechnological use of these microalgae.


·Algae for nutrient removal from wastewaters and eutrophication remediation. Use of secondary phosphorus to feed algal production




·Support for the sustainable development of the algae sector and in particular the microalgae sector (incl. Spirulina / cyanobacteria) in the Pays de la Loire region (throughout the value chain, from production to sale, including R & D & I )


·The Chambre Syndicale des Algues et des Plégétaux Marins, a professional organization, brings together 24 companies for the recovery and processing of algae. it looks after the professional interests of its members


·Environmental Organisation


·BioAtlantis Ltd. manufacture products for the plant, animal, and human health sectors. The raw materials used to manufacture these products include sustainably harvested, wild marine macroalgae (e.g. Ascophyllum nodosum and Laminaria Spp.)


·Collection of microalgae and cyanobacteria cultures


·EIT Food aims to contribute to the acceleration of algae production and stimulate innovative product development by funding innovation projects, supporting startups along their commercial journey, providing skills and education, and engaging consumers


·Innovation consultancy


·A multi-stakeholder (Industry, Research, Academia) European Technology Platform addressing technology & innovation in the aquaculture sector, covering the entire value chain and all sectors, species, and production methods, including aquatic plants/algae







Figure 4 Organisation’s role/relevance in the algae industry


Participants indicated their affiliation with products including micro- or macroalgae, as is shown in figure 5. 48% of the respondents indicated that they are involved with microalgae/Cyanobacteria (including spirulina), 18% indicated their involvement with macro-algae, 34% with both. Several respondents did not answer this question. Therefore, through desk research, those respondents were classified as having an affiliation with either micro- or macroalgae or with both.







Figure 5 Distribution of respondents among micro- and macroalgae


Lastly, the respondents had the choice to make their participation public or to remain anonymous. 67% of participants published their personal details with their contribution while 33% preferred to remain anonymous (only the type of respondent, country of origin, and contribution-related information are published). This information is managed in compliance with GDPR guidelines



3. Core Questions


3.1 General questions


Respondents indicated the policy areas that should, according to them, be prioritised within the EU algae sector for sustainable growth in the future. Of the ten available options to select, the area which was rated the highest – with a 4,6 – was potential contribution of algae towards environmental sustainability. Access to space and water was rated the lowest, on average 3,6, by the respondents.







Figure 6 Areas that should be prioritised in the EU algae sector




Thereafter, the respondents indicated the application of algae perceived as the most promising for the growth of the sector. Respondents could indicate multiple applications. 74 out of 108 respondents indicated that algae as human food and food ingredients are for them the most promising potential. 50 out of 108 participants indicated that animal/fish feed and ingredients are most promising. Bioremediation as promising potential was indicated by 44 respondents. Also, eight respondents indicated that for them the most promising potential was something not listed in the options, namely nutraceuticals, bio- or biobased materials, biofuels, bioplastic, and/or bioenergy.







Figure 7 Most promising potential for algae use



3.2 Questions concerning the five objectives and potential regulatory measures


On each objective, participants indicated the matter of importance on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not important, 5 = very important). For each objective that the participants indicated as being important, meaning the objective was indicated with a 4 or 5 out of 5, potential measures were presented to the participant. Participants then indicated, again on a scale from 1 to 5, the perceived importance of each of the measures associated with the objectives. In figure 8 the average rating of participants’ answers to this question is shown. On average, participants indicated that they perceived ensuring the sustainable development of the EU algae sector and closing the knowledge, research, technological and innovation gaps as equally important with a scoring of 4,4. Second, increasing social awareness and acceptance was rated with a 4,3.  







Figure 8 Importance of the objectives to unlock the EU algae sector’s potential


Additionally, the respondents could choose ‘no opinion’ concerning the objectives and associated measures. In figure 9, the frequency of respondents opting for ‘no opinion’, per objective, is displayed. Here it can be seen that respondents had no opinion about improving governance framework the most, namely 13 times. Per objective, respondents were also asked if any additional measures should be incorporated in the objective. 







Figure 9 frequency of ‘No opinion’ per objective


In the next section of the report, the responses gathered per objective are discussed along with the responses on regulatory measures. The participants rated (on a 1 to 5 scale) all presented measures and could propose additional measures. The participants indicated the measures that would generate the highest economic social and environmental impact, per objective and could choose multiple measures per objective. The output resulting from these questions is also displayed per objective. Since the European algae sector consists of both the microalgae as well as the macroalgae, the summary of the responses distinguishes is for micro-and macroalgae affiliated respondents. Input from respondents who are affiliated with both micro- as well as macroalgae is spread evenly between micro-and macroalgae output – 50% for both.



3.2.1 Objective 1 Improving governance framework


For objective 1, five potential measures were shown to the participants. The measures included:


·Guidelines for sustainable production of algae, and sustainable harvesting of seaweed 


·Guidance on large scale cultivation of algae in multi-use settings (e.g. combination with windfarms, include in local Maritime Spatial Planning, etc) 


·Standardisation of algae product specifications (built on existing standards and standards under development)


·Recommendations for harmonised licensing of seaweed farms


·Recommendations for labelling of sustainable, safe, and/or organic algae products 




Standardisation of specifications for algae production methods was perceived as being the most important to the microalgae sector with a rating of 4,4. By the macroalgae sector, recommendations for labelling of sustainable, safe, and/or organic algae products are seen as most important, with a rating of 4,5.







Figure 10 Importance of proposed measures for improving the governance framework (microalgae)







Figure 11 Importance of proposed measures for improving the governance framework (macroalgae)


Next, participants indicated which topics, in their opinion, should be governed at the EU level. The list of topics provided include: 


·Safety standards (e.g. level of heavy metals or arsenic in seaweed)


·Status of algae products (organic/inorganic)


·The ecological footprint from algae production


·Bioremediation by algae


·Any others 


The number of times participants picked one of the topics, is displayed in figure 12. As can be seen, participants picked the topic of safety standards the most – 61 times. Meaning that over 56% of the participants picked this topic. Fourteen participants suggested additional topics that should be governed at the EU level. These inputs are shown below:


·None


·Novel Foods


·Level playing field for parties in the algae sector within the EU; apply for funding for Novel Food


·Regulatory / EU level governance should remain concerned with issues relating to human health, product safety and environmental requirements / monitoring. There is scope within existing governance structures to include algae


·All, name on biological contamination (bacteria) etc ....


·No opinion


·End-of-Waste and product requirements where algae are grown using waste inputs (wastewater nutrients, offgas CO2 or nitrogen)


·It is very important to be transparent with the environmental impact of the whole process, not just lifting the benefits. All human activities leave a footprint, don't try to hide that




·The use of microalgae in the production of EU fertilizers


·How permits are being given out. e.g. only area-specific such as 1km2 or also Maximum sustainable yield 5000 tons per 1km2. This makes for a more equal playing field. 


·The "cultivation" of macroalgae must be distinguished from the "management" of wild populations of macroalgae. Objectives such as bioremediation will be better achieved through the management of wild populations than with macroalgae crops.


·Carbon Sink


·Cultivation regulations (how are the (micro)-algae cultivated, which nutrients are used, what is the sustainability of these nutrients, etc. etc. 


·Water footprint, carbon mitigation, complex valorisation of thermal and mineral waters


·It is very important to be transparent with the environmental impact of the whole process, not just lifting the benefits. All human activities leave a footprint, don't try to hide that.


·The use of microalgae in the production of EU fertilizers.








Figure 12 Topics that should be governed at EU level


Furthermore, the participants identified the proposed measures that would potentially have the highest impact. 66 out of 108 (=61%) participants indicated this objective (on the topic of improving governance framework) as an important objective and therefore provided further elaboration on the potential impact of the measures. Out of the microalgae affiliated participants, most of them (36) indicated that standardisation of specifications for algae products and production methods would have the highest impact. Out of the macroalgae affiliated participants, most of them perceived guidelines for sustainable cultivation and production of algae as the measure with the highest impact.







Figure 13 Highest impact from proposed governance framework changes (microalgae)







Figure 14 Highest impact from proposed governance framework changes (macroalgae)



3.2.2 Objective 2 Supporting the functioning of the market


For the second objective, eight different measures were displayed to the participants. These measures include:


·Introduce well-targeted and easy accessible financial support that will accelerate the development of the EU's blue bioeconomy and algae sector




·Support the development of market-based instruments to monetize bioremediation and other ecosystem services based on algae production


·Develop European standards for safety and environmental sustainability to use throughout the EU algae sector


·Increased government procurement of algae-based products


·Support/assist the industry to bring new algae species to the market under the Novel Food Regulation


·Increase in demand by raising awareness on the benefits of seaweed


·Support technological developments


·An EU innovation prize for the macroalgae and microalgae industry


On average, the participants affiliated with microalgae rated the measures about the introduction of well-targeted and easy accessible financial support and to support the industry to bring new algae species to the market under the Novel Foods Regulation the highest – both with a scoring of 4,5. The participants affiliated with macroalgae rated the measures about support technological development and support the industry to bring new algae species to the market under the Novel Foods Regulation the highest – both with a scoring of 4,4. 



Several respondents, 19 in total, mentioned that overly restrictive regulations on EU level and unclear and/or lacking legislation on a national level is the most striking barrier that prevents the EU algae sector from sustainable growth. Also, numerous respondents, 16 in total, believe the lack of awareness – and therefore ignorance of the potential of algae and low market acceptance – is the most striking barrier preventing the EU algae sector from sustainable growth. 







Figure 15 Importance of proposed measures for supporting the functioning of the markets (microalgae)







Figure 16 Importance of proposed measures for supporting the functioning of the markets (macroalgae)



76 out of 108 (=70%) participants indicated supporting the functioning of the market as an important objective and therefore provided further elaboration on the potential impact of the measures. 32 of the microalgae affiliated participants indicated that they thought that the introduction of well-targeted and easy accessible financial support would have the highest impact. Most of the macroalgae affiliated respondents (17) indicated that the measure to develop European standards for safety and environmental sustainability would have the highest impact. 








Figure 17 Highest impact from Supporting the functioning of the market (microalgae)









Figure 18 Highest impact from Supporting the functioning of the market (macroalgae)



3.2.3 Objective 3 Ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector


For the objective of ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector, the PC showed the participants six different measures. These include:


·Create an EU wide sector organisation/network 


·Create and maintain a web-based one-stop-shop for EU algae stakeholders for knowledge, good practices sharing, mapping of funding, algae project results, etc


·Create and maintain an assistance mechanism for EU algae stakeholders


·Identify and assess specific needs and availability of investment funding for innovation, technology, infrastructure, knowledge and skills development 


·Mapping and keeping an up-to-date EU funding sources overview for EU algae sector


·Support to start-ups in the algae sector in accessing the value chain, including contacts with others companies, knowledge institutes and/or regulators 


The measures were rated, on average, from a 3,7 to a 4,4. The measure with the highest rating, for the microalgae (scoring of 4,4) and macroalgae (scoring of 4,2) industry respectively, is to identify and assess specific needs and availability of investment funding for the sector and to give support to start-ups in the algae sector.







Figure 19 Importance of proposed measures for ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector (microalgae)







Figure 20 Importance of proposed measures for ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector (macroalgae)


92 out of 108 (=85%) participants indicated the sustainable development of the EU algae sector as an important objective and therefore provided further elaboration on the potential impact of the measures. Of the microalgae-related participants, 38 identified the measure about the needs and availability of investment funding as having the potential highest impact. It is worth mentioning that the measure with the highest ‘importance’ rating is also acknowledged for its high potential impact. Of the macroalgae-related participants, also the most (18) identified the measure about the needs and availability of investment funding as having the potential highest impact. Not many participants think of creating an EU-wide sector organisation/network as something which can create potentially high impact. This measure received also the lowest average rating.







Figure 21 Highest impact from Ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector (microalgae)







Figure 22 Highest impact from Ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector (macroalgae)





3.2.4 Objective 4 Increasing social awareness and acceptance


For this objective, participants were given the possibility to rate seven different measures. These include:


·EU wide communication campaign(s) of benefits on human health of algae food products 


·EU wide communication campaign on environmental, social and commercial benefits of algae products


·Support and promote eco-labelling of sustainable, safe and/or organic algae products 


·Publication of guidance for stakeholder consultations


·Inclusion of algae production into maritime spatial planning processes


·Support Member States and their Nutrition Centres to provide attractive information on algae


·Support the algae sector at European and global conferences such as UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) and World Economic Forum


The measures were on average rated from a 3,8 for the lowest score to at 4,5 for the highest. The measure with the highest rating, from microalgae-related respondents, is about setting up an EU-wide communication campaign to highlight the benefits on human health of algae-based products. For macroalgae-related respondents, the measure to create EU-wide communication campaigns on the environmental, social, and commercial benefits of algae products received the highest rating. The measure of which the participants thought as being the least important is about the publication of guidance for stakeholders on awareness and acceptance of algae, for microalgae-related respondents. For macroalgae-related respondents, this was the measure to support Member States and their nutrition centres to provide attractive information on algae. 



Out of the respondents that believe additional measures should be incorporated for this objective (17), six mentioned they believe that training courses on algae, especially education in school for younger generations should be incorporated. 







Figure 23 Importance of proposed measures for to increase social awareness and acceptance (microalgae)







Figure 24 Importance of proposed measures to increase social awareness and acceptance (macroalgae)


81 out of 108 (=75%) participants indicated increasing social awareness and acceptance as an important objective and therefore provided further elaboration on the potential impact of the measures. Both the measures about the EU-wide communication campaign of benefits on human health and environmental, social, and commercial benefits of algae products were perceived as having the highest potential impact by the micro-and macroalgae-related respondents. 










Figure 25 Highest impact from Increasing social awareness and acceptance (microalgae)







Figure 26 Highest impact from Increasing social awareness and acceptance (macroalgae)


3.2.5 Objective 5 Closing knowledge, research and innovation gaps


For the objective around closing the knowledge, research and innovation gaps, nine measures were presented in the PC. These include:


·Developing improved algae cultivation systems (integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, offshore cultivation) or methods (e.g. cellular mariculture) contributing to fighting the current technical constraints in the production systems and consequently upscaling production volumes 


·Developing improved algae processing systems (biorefineries), processing algae into multiple products and for multiple applications 


·Establishing a monitoring framework, targets and methodologies for (1) quantifying ecosystem services (e.g. carbon sequestration, blue carbon credits, nutrients uptake), (2) carrying capacities of EU waters for seaweed aquaculture and marine permaculture and (3) impacts of cultivation, restoration and harvesting on marine ecosystems


·Research to strengthen the potential nutritional benefits of algae


·Research to deliver new innovative algae-based products 


·Targeted support to industry helping to move from research/demonstration stage to the market


·To support higher education programs in the area of blue biotechnology and innovative solutions for algae cultivation


·Fund doctoral theses in the area of innovative solutions, knowledge, data or good practices on the blue bioeconomy and algae


Participants rated these measures, on average, from a 3,7 to a 4,6 as shown in figure 27. The measure about support to move from research/demonstration stage to the market, for microalgae-related respondents, and the measure about developing algae processing systems, for macroalgae-related respondents, received the highest ratings – a 4,6 and 4,4 respectively. 



36 out of 64 (=56%) participants who answered the question about what specific actions could help to improve the collaboration among academia, research, and industry, indicated that networking events and hubs for ideas exchange could help improve collaboration. Therefore the measure “initiate network events, to connect stakeholders, and hubs to exchange ideas between industry and academia” was added to the policy measures for this objective. 



93 out of 108 (=86%) participants indicated closing the knowledge, research, and innovation gaps as an important objective and therefore provided further elaboration on the potential impacts of the measures. Most of the microalgae-related participants thought that the measure about research to deliver new innovative algae-based products would generate the highest impact. Of the macroalgae-related participants, the measure of developing improved algae cultivation systems or methods, contributing to fighting the current technological constraints in the production systems and consequently upscaling production volumes is perceived as the one with the highest potential impact. None of the participants indicated that research on safe and secure algae production methods in closed systems would have the highest impact.


 









Figure 27 Importance of proposed measures for closing knowledge, research and innovation gaps (microalgae)







Figure 28 Importance of proposed measures for closing knowledge, research and innovation gaps (macroalgae)








Figure 29 Highest impact from closing the knowledge, research and innovation gaps (microalgae)







Figure 30 Highest impact from closing the knowledge, research and innovation gaps (macroalgae)


3.2.6 Potential regulatory measures


In the public consultation, seven potential regulatory measures were presented. The measures were rated by the participants from a 3,6 to a 4,3. The measure opting for targets for government agencies to purchase/subsidize the price of algae-based food, the use of feed, and other products were rewarded the lowest with a 3,7 and a 3,6 for microalgae and macroalgae-related respondents respectively. For both respondents groups, the measure about the identification of regulatory gaps was rated the highest, with a 4,3. 


From the respondents that provided additional measures that, according to them, should be incorporated, 11 (=44%) believed that there should be baseline regulation for all products that can be produced with algae as a raw material (e.g. food, feed, cosmetics, and fertiliser). This observation is acknowledged for and was taken into account while refining the policy options for the potential regulatory measures.







Figure 31 Importance of proposed regulatory measures (microalgae)







Figure 32 Importance of proposed regulatory measures (macroalgae)


All participants were shown the potential regulatory measures. Therefore, all the participants provided further elaboration on the impact of the measures. The measure which was chosen as the one with the highest impact the most is, for microalgae-related respondents, the measure ‘targets for the substitution of fish-based fish feed and animal feed with algae-based feed’. For macroalgae-related respondents, this is the measure about the identification of regulatory gaps such as in agriculture, limiting the use of algae-based feed/fertilisers.







Figure 33 Highest impact from Potential regulatory measures (microalgae)







Figure 34 Highest impact from Potential regulatory measures (macroalgae)




3.3 Questions concerning potential impacts


For each objective that respondents indicated as an important one, questions about the potential economic, social and environmental impact are presented. Respondents indicated, out of a list of options, the most significant economic, social and environmental impact of when the objective at hand would be successful. For example, for objective one; respondents are asked the most significant economic, social and environmental impact of improving the governance framework. Important to take into consideration is that – apart from the potential regulatory measures – not all participants answered questions on all the objectives. Below is an overview of how many participants, divided over micro-and macroalgae-related respondents, rated the different objectives as ‘important’ and therefore answered the questions concerning the potential economic, social, and environmental impacts:





Objective / measures




Number of participants microalgae (+50% distributed over ‘both’)






Improving governance framework




41






Supporting the functioning of the market




52






Ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector




60






Increasing social awareness and acceptance of algae production, products and applications




54






Closing knowledge, research, technological and innovation gaps




61






Regulatory measures 




All participants (108)









Objective / measures




Number of participants macroalgae (+50% distributed over ‘both’)






Improving governance framework




25






Supporting the functioning of the market




24






Ensuring sustainable development of the EU algae sector




33






Increasing social awareness and acceptance of algae production, products and applications




28






Closing knowledge, research, technological and innovation gaps




32






Regulatory measures 




All participants (108)






In figures 35 and 36, an overview of impacts is displayed – per objective and for the regulatory measures. These figures represent the perception of the participants towards a particular objective on a specific economic impact. For example, eight microalgae-related participants believe that when the governance framework is improved (objective 1), the total revenue generated by their organisation is increased. None of the participants think that their total revenue will decrease, in any situation coming from resolving the objectives or having new regulatory measures. As mentioned before, it is important to consider the number of participants who answered questions on each objective. For example, for microalgae, the impact on the expansion of algae production facilities at objective 1 seems low. But also, a relatively low number of participants filled in questions for objective 1 – only 41 respondents filled in questions regarding objective 1, versus 61 respondents who filled in questions regarding objective 5. For each of the following figures, in the top row it is visualised how many participants rated that objective as important and therefore filled in the questions belonging to it.  


3.3.1 Economic impact







Figure 35 Economic impact on objectives and regulatory measures (microalgae)







Figure 36 Economic impact on objectives and regulatory measures (macroalgae)


3.3.2 Social impact


In figures 37 and 38, an overview of impacts is displayed – per objective and for the regulatory measures. These figures represent the perception of the participants towards a particular objective on a specific social impact. There seems to be a consensus among participants that an increase in employment has a higher chance based on the proposed measures, than a decrease in employment.








Figure 37 Social impact on objectives and regulatory measures (microalgae)







Figure 38 Social impact on objectives and regulatory measures (macroalgae)


3.3.3 Environmental impact




In figures 39 and 40, an overview is displayed of – per objective and for the regulatory measures – how many participants think a particular objective influences a specific environmental impact. A relatively low number of the respondents – for both micro and macroalgae – believe that the objectives and regulatory measures have an impact on biodiversity. On the contrary, many participants think there will be an impact by the replacement of current products with more environmentally friendly alternatives, regardless of the objectives / regulatory measure.







Figure 39 Environmental impact on objectives and regulatory measures (microalgae)







Figure 40 Environmental impact on objectives and regulatory measures (macroalgae)






(1)


 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12780-Blue-bioeconomy-towards-a-strong-and-sustainable-EU-algae-sector_en
 




(2)


 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj