#EU4Algae : bottlenecks limiting the development of the algae sector : a concise description of most pertinent remaining research & innovation topics.
Date: 2025-02-25
Institutions: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency
Subjects: agricultural production, agronomic research, algae, environmental impact, innovation, product safety, report, research project, scientific research, sustainable development

#EU4Algae

BOTTLENECKS LIMITING THE  
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALGAE SECTOR

January 2025
Authors: Vitor Verdelho and Arianna Rizzo

#EU4Algae

Bottlenecks limiting the  
development of the algae sector 

A concise description of most pertinent 

remaining research & innovation topics

Vitor Verdelho and Arianna Rizzo 
(EABA), January 2025

  Manuscript completed in January 2025. 

Revised 1st edition.

​This​document​has​been​prepared​for​the​European​Commission​however​it​reflects​the​views​only​

of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the 

reuse of this publication. 

​Luxembourg:​Publications​Office​of​the​European​Union,​2025.  

​©​European​Union,​2025.  

 Logo of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. 

 The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 

2011/833/EU​of​12​December​2011​on​the​reuse​of​Commission​documents​(OJ​L​330,​14.12.2011,​

p.​39).​Unless​otherwise​noted,​the​reuse​of​this​document​is​authorised​under​a​Creative​Commons​

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This 

means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

PDF Web

ISBN  978-92-9405-186-8

doi:10.2926/0092021

HZ-01-25-023-EN-N

 
Abstract 

This  document  provides  an 
overview of the main bottlenecks 
in advancing algae sector through 
research and innovation across 
the​EU.​Based​on​the​mapping​
of​ EU​ funded​ algae​ projects,​
the​outcome​has​identified​the​
knowledge gaps and highlighted 
the  sector ’s  most  pressing 
research needs that will enable technology and innovations transfer to market. 
The​projects​database​available​via​the​EU4Algae​platform​link,​provides​valuable​
knowledge​on​past​and​ongoing​​algae-related​research​projects​​​and​a​useful​
foundation for identifying future research priorities. 

For example, by pinpointing the demand for progress in algae cultivation and 
harvesting—whether at sea, in tanks, or through bioreactors—the report highlights 
an area essential for scalable and sustainable algae production. This prioritization 
ensures​that​future​research​and​innovation​efforts​are​targeted​towards​areas​
with high impact potential, helping to streamline resources towards the most 
critical unmet needs.

The​development​of​the​algae​sector​faces​significant​challenges,​with​main​bottlenecks​
including logistics, contamination, cultivation technology, labour, fragmented regulatory, 
biomass processing technology, facility scale up, product safety, small scale of 
production, limited knowledge of the market and awareness of users.

The​bottlenecks​in​the​microalgae​and​seaweed​sub-sectors​differ​across​various​
aspects of cultivation, processing, applications, and market dynamics. However, 
their downstream processes face similar challenges and encounter the same 
obstacles. Microalgae cultivation typically occurs in controlled environments 
like photobioreactors (PBRs) or raceway ponds, demanding precise nutrient 
supplementation for optimal growth. Conversely, seaweed cultivation relies more 
on natural marine nutrients in coastal areas (often excess nutrients because 
of eutrophication) or specialized farms. Processing techniques diverge due to 
differences​in​cellular​structures​and​biochemical​compositions:​microalgae​can​
undergo extraction for valuable compounds like lipids, while seaweed may undergo 
drying or processing for diverse applications, such as food. 

Market demand for microalgae often stems from industries seeking sustainable 
alternatives e.g. omega-3 oils, while seaweed caters to food and agriculture. 
Environmental​influences​differ,​with​seaweed​cultivation​impacted​by​factors​like​
temperature, pH, water turbidity and salinity, and microalgae cultivation by light 
intensity, available nutrient supply and farming land area availability. Regulatory 
considerations also vary depending on location and intended use. 

4

When​considering​algae​sector​bottlenecks,​the​EU​differs​from​other​World​regions​
due to economic factors e.g. labour cost, market dynamics e.g. State subsidies, 
technological advancements, and environmental factors. In Europe, several 
environmental and food safety regulations shape algae cultivation and processing, 
balancing sector development with environmental responsibility. Diverse market 
demands in Europe drive innovation but necessitate careful market positioning 
and collaboration with the European policies for algae products commercialization. 
Emphasis on research and development fosters technological innovation but creates 
a competitive landscape. Conversely, in other regions like developing countries, 
bottlenecks​arise​from​limited​capital​and​infrastructure​yet​benefit​from​lower​labour​
costs and abundant resources. 

Finally,​different​areas​of​innovation​and​their​importance​for​the​advancement​of​the​
algae​sector​are​described,​e.g.​algae​bioremediation,​algae​biorefinery,​downstream​
processes,​PBR​design​etc.​Specific​research​topics​are​suggested​for​each.​

All the above-mentioned topics will be addressed more extensively in the following 
paragraphs.  

5

Contents

1.​ Objectives​and​relevance​for​evaluating​the​bottlenecks​in​the​algae​

biomass production sector

2.​ The​algaculture​concept​influencing​the​understanding​of​the​bottlenecks
3.  Analysis of the most relevant bottlenecks limiting the algae biomass 

production sector

4.  Regulatory and perceptual barriers in algal biomass Applications 
5.  Comparing algae production in Europe and the global landscape
6.  Advancing research and innovation topics relevant to the algae sector
7.  Conclusions
References
Contributors
Methodology

07

07
08

10
11
13
25
26
27
27

6

1. Objectives and relevance for evaluating the 
bottlenecks in the algae biomass production sector

Understanding​the​most​relevant​concept​boundaries​in​the​algae​biomass​sector​
can help to overcome the limiting bottlenecks and draw an outlook for the future 
development of the algae biomass sector. Namely:

1.  Identify the main bottlenecks in macroalgae and microalgae cultivation based 

both on stakeholders’ perspective and experts’ vision.

2.​ Define​clear​objectives​to​help​the​algaculture​sector​development,​identifying​

the advantages in comparison to the crops limitation

3.  Separating the macroalgae from the microalgae bottlenecks.
4.  Address the limitations of the biology and engineering knowledge, where the 
second​allows​more​control​than​the​biological​parameters​and​define​strategies​
to improve both contributions.

5.  Incorporate existing best practices from successful algae sector initiatives 
globally,​tailoring​these​solutions​to​address​Europe-specific​gaps​and​align​
with regional conditions.

6.​ Address​regulatory​barriers​by​analysing​constraints​imposed​by​existing​EU​
regulations and identifying disparities in regulatory frameworks among Member 
States. Propose harmonized approaches to streamline licensing, standards, and 
market access.

7.​ Raise​public​awareness​about​the​positive​uses​and​benefits​of​algae,​helping​
people​understand​that​not​all​algae​are​harmful.​Clarify​the​difference​between​
beneficial​algae​and​harmful​algal​blooms,​like​those​that​sometimes​appear​in​
the lakes or coastal areas during summer and can cause toxicity. 

8.  Highlight potential future outcomes by addressing productivity challenges, reducing 
market barriers, and enhancing Europe’s position as a leader in the global algae 
industry through innovation and collaboration.

2. The algaculture concept influencing the 
understanding of the bottlenecks

Algae are highly diverse in size, from Ostreococcus tauri, a picoplankton that is less 
than​one​micron,​to​the​gigantic​Pacific​kelp,​Macrocystis pyrifera, which can grow 
up to 60 metres. Microalgae, including cyanobacteria, are highly diverse, and they 
are​spread​in​different​groups​of​the​tree​of​life.​They​highly​vary​in​their​habitats,​e.g.​
from freshwater to hypersaline and high-temperature environments, and can grow in 
autotrophic, heterotrophic or mixotrophic modes. Seaweeds, by contrast, only grow 
in ocean habitats with narrow salinity and temperature requirements yet can also be 
cultivated in land-based systems.

7

These​differences​highlight​how​the​common​term​of​algae​gathers​a​wide​range​of​
organisms which have in common the aquatic habitat and, in most cases, oxygenic 
photosynthesis and the conversion of CO2 into biomass and oxygen.

Seaweed cultivation mostly refers to “low trophic aquaculture” when it comes from a 
production​process,​while​if​collected​from​the​environment​by​vessels,​it​is​classified​as​
“fishing​activity”.​The​resulting​biomass​can​be​defined​as​“crop”​having​applications​in​
foods,​feeds,​fibres,​oil,​ornamental​and​industry.​The​new​term​“algaculture”​has​been​
introduced​to​define​algae​aquaculture,​which​combines​parts​from​seaweed​harvesting​
or farming in open waters and microalgae including cyanobacteria cultivation on land.

The​clarification​of​the​terms​employed​around​the​algae​cultivation​is​important​to​
assess​the​specific​regulations​to​aquaculture,​fisheries​or​crops​in​which​algaculture​
fits.​This​will​help​decision-makers,​investors​and​stakeholders​to​take​appropriate​
actions and overcome legal and governance gaps or clarify the regulation at which 
algae products withstand.

3. Analysis of the most relevant bottlenecks
limiting the algae biomass production sector

The following structure categorises bottlenecks based on their position in the algae 
production and commercialization process (Table 1).

Table 1. The origin of the bottlenecks through the algae production chain

Cultivation

1. Logistics

Processing

Marketing

6. Equipment and Operation Costs

9. Small-scale production

2. Contamination

7. Scale-up

10. Limited knowledge of the market

3. Technology

4. Labour

5. Regulatory Fragmentation

8. Product safety

11.​Users​Awareness

1. Logistics issues in seaweed farming come from the need of quick processing
the harvested biomass to prevent its deterioration considering the high amount
of water present in fresh biomass. This is not the case for microalgae since the
biomass is usually processed immediately (frozen or dried) after harvesting.

2. Contamination​poses​a​significant​bottleneck​as​it​can​affect​the​quality​and​
purity of algae biomass, resulting in reduced productivity and compromised
end products. Contaminants such as unwanted microorganisms, grazers,
environmental pollutants e.g. heavy metals, can hinder algae growth, disrupt

8

cultivation​systems,​and​inflate​production​costs.​Managing​contamination​remains​
a persistent challenge in algaculture, particularly in ensuring crop protection.

3. Cultivation technology​issues​arise​from​outdated​or​inefficient​equipment​and​
processes in algae farming and harvesting. These bottlenecks can lead to lower
productivity, higher operating costs, and an inability to meet quality standards or
market demands. Main challenges in photosynthetic cultivation are inherently
low​biomass​density,​large​water/algae​ratio​and​scarce​light​capture​efficiency,​
which currently hinders microalgae production sustainability. While fermentation
allows higher densities, yet applicability is limited to high added value products.
Conversely,​seaweed​offshore​farming​potential​could​overcome​some​issues​
of microalgae such as the need of huge land area, this is still not exploited yet.

4. Labour: algae cultivation is labour intensive due to limited mechanization and
small scale of operation. The inherent multi-disciplinarity (biology, chemistry,
engineering, marine abilities etc, call for skilled and well-trained human resources
which have relevant impact on production cost.

5. Algae aquaculture has no vertical regulatory framework, most of applicable
legislation​was​written​for​other​sectors​e.g.​fishery,​agriculture,​food​safety​etc.​
Despite​EU​algae​industry​is​adapting​to​existing​legislation​framework,​the​more​
successfully the more it is harmonized at union level, the maritime licensing
fragmentation at national level hinders seaweed sector growth, as well as some
food​safety​issues​e.g.​difference​between​Member​States​about​iodine​content​
limit in food. Regulatory bottlenecks stem from complex or inconsistent regulations
governing​algae​biomass​production,​processing,​and​commercialization.​Unclear​
or stringent regulatory requirements can escalate compliance costs, prolong
product development timelines, and erect barriers to market entry. Regulatory
frameworks and political incentives play a vital role in reducing barriers and
fostering growth within broader economic, social, and environmental contexts.
(See also below paragraph 5).

6. Equipment and operation costs impact in the processes involved in converting
algae​biomass​into​final​products​reflect​the​challenges​in​small​scale​application​
of the technologies from manufacturing industry (separation, drying, grinding,
extraction,​purification,​refining,​etc.)​to​algae​biomass.​Microalgae​are​more​
complex​to​refine​than​their​conventional​equivalent,​i.e.​plant​seeds,​cereals​
and​pulses,​and​have​not​long​history​of​development;​this​leads​to​poor​refining​
yield and/or higher production costs. Addressing bottlenecks in the value chain
is crucial, especially in establishing products to support market demand. Apart
from a few consolidated niches (omega-3, some food supplements, alginates and
carrageenans) new value chains will have to be developed such as biostimulants
and the integration of aquaculture feeds with microalgae biomass. An example
comes from oilseeds processing technology, based on drying, physical separation
(presses, extruders) followed by solvent extraction, to provide vegetal oils and
meals: none of these technologies is readily applicable to microalgae biomass

9

due to physical dimensions of microorganism, which call for dedicated equipment 
and processes which lack large size engineering background.

7. Scale-up of unit operations from pilot to large volume is a classic challenge of
process​industry​which​should​not​be​restricted​by​prejudice,​e.g.​solvent​extraction​
with supercritical carbon dioxide or even the so called “green solvents” might be
not sustainable in comparison with conventional chemicals already regulated for
food purposes [1].

8. Product safety may have impact depending on product use, e.g. in case of
novel​food​the​dossier​required​by​Reg​2015/2283​EU​has​a​cost​ranging​0,3​to​
1​M€​spread​in​2-3​years,​whereas​if​it​is​a​fertilizer​under​Reg​2019/1009​EU​
(so​called​FPR​regulation)​calling​for​CMC1​classification​which​entails​Reach​
Regulation compliance, where the relevant registration can cost several hundred
thousand​€​in​1.2​years.​These​burdens​are​frequently​over​the​financial​capability​
of small-medium enterprises. Other algae biomass applications have generally
the same safety management of similar plant based raw material.

9. Small-scale of production prevent access to scale factor reduction of product
cost​and​hinders​most​food​and​feed​applications:​food​companies​do​not​find​
significant​algae​products​supply,​and​this​ends​up​in​a​vicious​circle.

10. Limited knowledge of the market is a problem both algae producers’ side, e.g.
farmers​have​no​ability​to​offer​tailored​products,​and​user​industry​side,​e.g.​
downstream utilizers ask for ready to use products, potential users are not willing
to develop new products or alternatively look for cheap raw materials from non-
EU​origin.​When​using​algae​for​food,​the​current​practice​often​involves​selling​
algae as ingredients. However, directly incorporating algae into food products to
enhance protein content could familiarize consumers with algae and help them
appreciate its taste. This approach would reduce the risk of negative experiences
from poorly developed recipes or improper inclusion of algae.

11. Awareness of users:​for​food​products,​algae​do​not​suffer​cultural​barrier​such​
as insects, however there is no spread habit in algae food except limited regions
where seaweed are traditionally consumed e.g. Ireland, and Brittany. Microalgae
have one well known product in the market, Spirulina as food supplement.

4. Regulatory and perceptual barriers in algal
biomass applications

Algae​have​great​application​potential​in​largely​different​fields​including​the​following:​
• human nutrition (food and food supplements) and health (pharmaceuticals,

cosmetics);
feed production (forage, aquaculture);

•

10

• agriculture (biopesticides, biostimulants)
• materials and energy (chemical commodities, bioplastics and biofuels);
• bioremediation (Removing pollutants from the air, water and soil, e.g. CO2 capture

from​flue​gases,​soil​regeneration​and​wastewater​treatment).​

In many cases, the application overlaps with both macro- and microalgae with 
some​exemptions​e.g.,​hydrocolloids,​made​only​from​seaweed​but​major​difference​
is​observed​on​the​proportion​of​contribution​to​different​fields​of​use​(Figure​1).​

Figure 1. Overlap in macroalgae and microalgae biomass derived products. 

From​Araújo,​et​al.,​2021.​Front. Mar. Sci. 7:626389.

Macro - and microalgae produce algal biomass that is considered an industrial 
product when undergoing a transformation process by both chemical and mechanical 
operations. Conversely, algae biomass immediately after harvesting in the wild or 
farming cannot be considered as industrial products, but an aquaculture raw material.

These​definitions​are​important​to​identify​the​regulations​which​they​withstand.​
Although​macroalgae​and​microalgae​have​different​historical​cultivation​practices,​
they are regulated under the same framework, yet some impact is relevant depending 
on farming practice, e.g., heavy metal content in macroalgae from sea farms requires 
more expensive monitoring than in microalgae grown in photobioreactors (PBRs).

As mentioned in the bottlenecks, algae products commercialization in Europe may 
be slowed down by their categorization as “Novel Food,” whose path takes long 
time before being approved on the market. The suitability of new algal products 
for​human​food​consumption​is​governed​by​the​Novel​Food​Regulation​(UE)​
2015/2283, which applies to food and ingredients which were not consumed in 
Europe before May 15th, 1997. The Novel Food Status Catalog includes about 
dozens of algae products which are already allowed to consume (not novel”) and 
after the 2024 update it was improved both including new algae species and making 
it more user friendly. The authorization of novel ones is time and money demanding 
(2-3 years , 0,5 M€), so the European Algae Biomass Association (EABA) has 

11

led​two​initiatives,​first​NAFF and then Tfoods, to collect information about algae 
consumption in Europe before 1997, in order to facilitate the approval of algae 
products in the market (NAFF) and to demonstrate the safe consumption of algae 
products​in​non-EU​countries​for​more​than​25​years,​recognized​as​traditional​
foods​(Tfoods).​EU4Algae​assists​stakeholders​in​adhering​to​the​Regulation​and​
maximizing​its​benefits,​as​outlined​in​outcome​O3.1:​the​Protocol​for​Submitting​a​
Novel Food Dossier. Indeed, having strict, transparent, and harmonized food safety 
management is in favor of reliable market development based on consumer trust. 

5. Comparing algae production in Europe and the
global landscape

Global algae production has increased from 0.56 million tonnes fresh weight 
(FW) in 1950 to 35.82 million tonnes FW in 2019, which witnesses algae market 
increasing traction [2]. Over 97% of all production comes from Eastern Asia with 
Chinese production accounting for 57% globally [3]. Macroalgae are traditionally 
consumed by coastal communities in Asia, with most of the production coming 
from Laminaria japonica, followed by Saccharina sp., Porphyra sp. and Undaria 
sp. consumed as salads, in sushi and soup ingredients. While Europe contributes 
with only 0.8% of global production cultivating mainly brown algae Saccharina 
latissima, followed by Alaria esculenta and the green algae Ulva sp. The comparison 
between​Asia​and​Europe​highlights​the​significance​of​the​algae​sector​in​Eastern​
countries, where it is deeply rooted in cultural traditions. This contrasts with Europe, 
where there is less social engagement, a lack of historical ties, and unfavourable 
weather​conditions​for​seaweed​cultivation,​explaining​the​substantial​difference​
in macroalgae production.

Microalgae cultivation is globally more recent than macroalgae cultivation, starting 
in the ‘60s with Chlorella sp. and today dominated by Spirulina with a production 
of 10k ton/year dry weight (DW). A particular case concerns Nostoc sp. as part of 
social and cultural tradition in China which dates to 1500 years ago to be consumed 
especially​at​the​New​Years.​The​Chinese​market​benefits​from​lower​labour​cost​
which facilitated the rising of the algae biotechnologies and the competitiveness 
with Europe, and the favourable weather conditions allowing open pond cultivation 
of Spirulina and more months of productivity.

While it is hard for European algae producers to overcome these structural advantages, 
Europe can well improve its position on the global algae market by addressing 
production costs, harmonizing regional policies, adapting to market demands, fostering 
technological advancements, and leveraging environmental factors.

Strict regulations in Europe ensure environmental responsibility while shaping 
the industry’s growth. Diverse market demands drive innovation but require 
strategic market positioning. Research and development are prioritised, fostering 

12

technological innovation but creating competition. In contrast, developing regions 
experience​bottlenecks​mainly​from​limited​capital​and​infrastructure​but​benefit​
from lower labour costs and abundant resources.

Despite some of these factors favours the Asiatic market for macro- and micro-
algae production, Europe can play an important role in quality standards required 
from the imported algae product, changing the regional policies and increasing the 
market​demands​for​high​quality.​The​objective​is​not​only​to​ensure​differentiation​
between​EU-produced​algae​and​imports​from​other​regions​in​terms​of​food​safety​
but​also​to​establish​mechanisms​within​the​EU​to​distinguish​algae​biomass​entirely​
produced within Europe from biomass grown or sourced externally by European 
stakeholders​in​low-cost​countries.​Notably,​some​European​joint​ventures​already​
source or produce microalgae in Asia, which are later marketed in Europe as 
“Made in Europe” products. However, biomass produced outside Europe often 
fails​to​meet​EU​standards​for​purity​and​toxin​levels.​Additionally,​microalgae-
derived products may contain a blend of synthetic and natural compounds (e.g., 
carotenoids), complicating traceability since only a limited number of laboratories 
possess​the​analytical​capabilities​to​accurately​differentiate​these​components.

The two main organizations regulating the approval of algae products as food 
are the European Food Safety Administration (EFSA) and the Food & Drugs 
Administration​(FDA)​in​the​USA,​whose​regulations​are​quite​close​even​though​
the European one is stricter. This is why the stakeholder perception of the regulatory 
framework must shift from being seen as a barrier to being recognized as an 
opportunity. In some cases, such as the iodine content limit in seaweed and other 
food products, legislation varies between European countries, creating confusion 
and​country-specific​restrictions.​On​a​broader​scale,​this​inconsistency​results​in​
algae​products​being​exported​to​other​countries,​such​as​the​USA,​where​certain​
products not yet permitted in Europe have already been approved for the market. 
In​addition,​Europe​is​global​leader​in​official​algae​standardisation,​with​European​
standardisation Committee (CEN) working on the topic since 2016, and delivering 
more​than​a​dozen​milestones​in​identification,​vocabulary,​productivity,​product​
specifications,​test​methods​whereas​no​American​nor​ISO​standard​is​available​
on algae (ISO started working in 2023, yet no documents published as of today). 
Codex is also known to have initiated work on algae standards1. 

6. Advancing research and innovation topics
relevant to the algae sector
Research, innovation and improved governance can address bottlenecks through 
an integrate approach, where resolving one challenge facilitates the resolution of 
others. The innovation topics and research summarised below are linked to the 
bottlenecks​and​to​recommended​research​projects.​

1  https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/fr/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252F
sites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-701-47%252FCRDs%252Fcac47_crd18x_rev1.pdf  -  Accessed on 27.01.25.

13

1. Genetic engineering and strain optimization

Mutation and selection for favourable phenotypes, widely used in crop improvement, 
is now being applied to microalgae as a promising strategy for strain enhancement. 
This involves inducing mutations and selecting traits like faster growth, accumulation 
of  valuable  molecules  (lipids,  proteins,  carbohydrates),  and  resistance  to 
environmental stressors, helping address bottlenecks such as contamination 
(bottleneck 2), low productivity (bottleneck 6), and quality standards.

For instance, species like Haematococcus pluvialis, which produces the antioxidant 
astaxanthin, have unique potential but face cultivation challenges due to slow 
growth and complex life cycles, unlike resilient strains like Spirulina [4]. Genetic 
modification​offers​a​powerful​solution​to​these​issues,​enabling​improvements​in​
growth, metabolism, and stress resilience. Despite the existence of thousands of 
microalgal species in culture collections, fewer than ten are utilized industrially, 
indicating​significant​untapped​potential​that​could​be​realized​through​advancements​
in​genetic​modification.

Genetic​modification​is​primarily​applied​to​microorganisms​due​to​their​simpler​
genomes. To date, around 20 microalgal species, including cyanobacteria, and 
a​smaller​number​of​macroalgae​have​been​successfully​modified.​This​process​
depends on foundational research such as genome sequencing. However, regulatory 
frameworks,​particularly​in​the​EU,​hinder​innovation​[5].​Genome​editing,​despite​
its​precision,​faces​stricter​scrutiny​than​less​precise​methods​like​chemical​or​UV​
mutagenesis [6,7]. While acceptability is likely to remain zero for human or animal 
food applications, the use of marine microalgae to produce non-food applications 
could still be defended. 

Challenges also arise from the lack of sequenced microalgae genomes, forcing 
companies to sequence them independently, increasing costs and complexity. 
Automated annotation errors and a shortage of experts to address these issues 
compound the problem, leaving researchers with large but error-prone genetic 
datasets,​risking​further​inaccuracies​and​inefficiencies​in​strain​development.​

Future research programs should 
1. prioritize strain optimization of microalgae to overcome key industrial bottlenecks,
including  low  productivity,  contamination  risks,  and  complex  cultivation
requirements. Before resorting to genetic engineering, which often raises public
concerns and regulatory challenges, a promising alternative is adaptive laboratory
evolution​(ALE).​ALE​involves​adapting​microorganisms​to​specific​abiotic​
conditions (e.g., temperature, light, pH) to favour growth in environments that
are less costly to maintain or that confer a production advantage. This approach
could also enable microalgae to outcompete contaminants in mixed cultures,
enhancing​overall​process​efficiency.

14

2. explore genetic diversity and investigate less common or still-unknown algae
species. Ecological and taxonomic studies frequently document species
whose biotechnological potential remains unexplored. Research could involve
characterizing phenotypes of the same species, as geographic variations are
known to produce strains with distinct traits. These strategies may identify faster-
growing strains, higher yields of valuable biomolecules, or greater resistance to
environmental stressors. However, while these approaches are non-genetic and
circumvent regulatory challenges, they tend to be slower and less predictable
than genetic engineering.

3. establish a robust genomic database led by genome sequencing institutes. This
database should focus on elucidating the biosynthetic pathways of bioactive
compounds, providing reliable tools for research institutions to enhance the
production​of​specific​high-value​molecules.​Such​a​resource​would​support​
targeted genetic improvements and accelerate advancements in applications
such as pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, and bioplastics.

A comparable research initiative has been conducted in algae biofuel production, 
focusing​on​genetically​modified​Nannochloropsis sp., which demonstrated the 
potential​for​significantly​enhanced​yields.​This​approach​can​be​extended​to​other​
industrial applications, including the development of algae-derived molecules for 
drug production, paving the way for novel biotechnological solutions.

2. Cultivation optimization

State of art
Innovations in cultivation techniques, including photobioreactors (PBRs) and 
raceway​ponds​aim​to​enhance​efficiency​and​scalability​while​reducing​resource​
inputs and hence costs. Cultivation optimization encompasses multiple stages of 
production, with initial screening for the most productive and promising algae species 
already addressed above in the genetic engineering. Even for well-characterized 
genera like Spirulina and Chlorella sp., there remain opportunities for improvement 
despite their relatively straightforward and well-documented cultivation processes.

The technologies used for algae cultivation, beside seaweed harvesting in the 
wild, include suspension systems (photobioreactors (PBR) and raceway ponds 
(aka​HRAP,​High-Rate​Algae​Pond),​and​thin​layer​systems​(Biofilm,​attached​
cultivation), the latter very rare yet with high potential of water saving (Table 2). 

15

Table​2.​Overview​of​the​different​cultivation​processes​for​microalgae​and​ 

seaweeds with their pros and cons. 

Hard-growing microalgae, 
Heterotrophs

Easy-growing microalgae, 
seaweeds

Seaweeds

PBR, Fermenter

Raceway​pond,​Biofilm

Open​waters,​on​shore,​offshore

Haematococcus, Isochrysis, 
Phaeodactylum, Schizochytrium, 
White Chlorella 

Pros: contamination control, 
possibility to verticalize geometry

Spirulina, Nannochloropsis, 
Tetraselmis, Seaweeds

Saccharina sp.

Pros:​cfit​for​solar​light,​lower​capex​
and energy than PBR, scalability, 
high​biomass/water​ratio​(Biofilm)

Pros: ability to take nutrients from 
environment, sea utilization, IMTA

Cons: high capex and energy input, 
maintenance, cleaning

Cons: lower contamination control 
than PBR, high land extension

Cons: lower biomass value than 
microalgae, high ash content, 
contamination

Raceway design dates to the post-World War II era, yet there is still room for improvement, 
including mixing system design, construction material, cleaning automation and 
advances in greenhouse technology, and process control sensors adaptation for real 
time growth parameter monitoring. For instance, optimize heating and cooling with 
lowest energy input in connection with climate and weather of geolocation).

Recent​trends​in​PBR​design​have​focused​on​tubular,​flat-panel,​bubble-column,​
and​membrane​configurations.​Advances​over​the​last​two​decades​include​the​
development of novel geometries to improve light penetration—one of the critical 
bottlenecks in large-scale cultivation. New designs have been bolstered by engineering 
innovations,​patent​releases,​and​research,​enhancing​the​efficiency,​scalability,​
and​adaptability​of​PBR​systems.​Each​configuration​varies​in​capital​expenditures​
(CAPEX), operational expenditures (OPEX), maintenance needs, suitability for 
specific​applications,​and​choice​of​the​materials​mainly​between​glass​and​plastic.​
These​different​options​make​the​choice​of​PBR​design​critical​to​the​success​of​a​
cultivation​project.​

The ideal photobioreactor (PBR) should be designed to: enhance cell density by 
ensuring homogeneous mixing while minimizing shear stress and reduce the light 
path to maximize light availability without causing overheating. This PBR should 
minimize maintenance and incorporate automated cleaning systems to reduce 
downtime​and​maintenance​requirements,​enhancing​overall​efficiency.​Finally,​
an integrated advanced monitoring includes sensors not only for temperature and 
pH but also for oxygen levels, key nutrients, and cell count. This comprehensive 
monitoring would enable full process automation.

Given the complexity of addressing algae cultivation challenges through a single 
solution, future research should focus on the following areas:

1.

Innovative Photobioreactor (PBR) Design: Develop next-generation PBRs aimed
at reducing costs, optimizing space utilization, and enhancing scalability. This

16

includes the use of novel materials and coatings to improve light transmission, 
heat dissipation, and nutrient absorption. A key focus should be on increasing 
energy​efficiency​through​advanced​light​utilization​strategies,​which​could​mitigate​
the reliance on energy-intensive systems like fans or climate control, thereby 
reducing overall operational costs.

2.​ Equipment​for​Attached​Microalgae​Cultivation​(Biofilm​Systems):​Design​and​
develop systems for attached microalgae cultivation to address challenges 
associated​with​traditional​suspension-based​methods.​Biofilm​cultivation​
eliminates the need for large volumes of water, reducing costs associated with 
water​usage,​mixing,​nutrient​diffusion,​and​wastewater​disposal.​Although​this​
approach​may​introduce​new​challenges​in​the​harvesting​process,​it​offers​
significant​potential​for​cost​reduction​and​operational​efficiency.

3.​ Integration​of​Artificial​Intelligence​(AI)​and​Machine​Learning​(ML):​Leverage​
emerging​technologies​such​as​AI​and​ML​to​enhance​PBR​efficiency.​These​
tools can enable real-time data analysis, predictive optimization of cultivation 
conditions,​and​automated​adjustments​to​process​parameters.​By​integrating​
AI-driven insights, the complexity of algae cultivation systems can be better 
managed, leading to improved productivity and reduced downtime.

These advancements collectively address critical bottlenecks in the algae cultivation 
value​chain,​namely​bottlenecks​3,​on​the​farming​efficiency​and​4​on​the​labour​
intensity if the cultivation systems are automatized.

3. Algal bioremediation

Algal bioremediation is a highly promising and sustainable approach to address water 
pollution, leveraging the natural abilities of algae to remove or mitigate contaminants. 

Algal bioremediation addresses key bottlenecks in the algae sector by mitigating 
contamination through pollutant and heavy metal removal. It reduces logistics 
challenges by enabling local usage at industrial or wastewater sites, minimizing 
transportation needs (bottleneck 1, logistics). Bioremediation relies on the conversion 
of treated biomass into value-added products like biofuels or biofertilizers, optimizing 
equipment and operation cost (bottleneck 6, equipment and costs). Waste utilisation 
and CO2 capture, and utilization are hereby examined.

3.1. Nutrient recycling and waste utilisation
The optimization of the nutrient sources and cultivation strategies is essential in 
enhancing​biomass​productivity​while​minimizing​the​costs.​Fertilizers​and​fine​
chemicals,​such​as​commercially​sourced​nutrient​solutions,​may​offer​precise​
control over the nutrient composition, but they are expensive, especially for large-
scale operations. Waste streams or residues and by-products from other industries 
can​serve​as​cost-effective​nutrient​sources​reducing​reliance​on​external​inputs.​
Facilities of several hectares are already in operation demonstrating the feasibility 
of this technology2. Moreover, despite regulations on wastewater treatment have 

17

significantly​improved​water​quality​in​the​European​Union,​traditional​methods​
and​current​legislation​fail​to​address​emerging​pollutants​and​stormwater​overflow​
from smaller cities. Microalgae are recognized as pollutant scavengers that can 
bioremediate a wide panel of chemicals released by several sectors, such as 
industrial, agricultural, and domestic. In addition to the common inorganic and 
organic compounds found in WW, such as heavy metals, xenobiotics, nitrates, 
phosphates, and carbon compounds, microalgal cells can uptake and decompose 
more persistent pollutants, such as antibiotics, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 
and hydrocarbons, which can be highly toxic [8]. 

WWT​systems​utilizing​microalgae​offer​inherent​disinfection​capabilities​and​can​
surpass traditional WWT approaches in mitigating nutrient pollution. Moreover, 
the​use​of​microalgae​represents​a​change​of​paradigm​in​the​field​of​wastewater​
treatment because by using this type of microorganisms it is possible to produce 
biomass at a higher value than the wastewater treatment cost [9]. 

Microalgae have a large set of applications, some of which are restricted by law 
such as the use of biomass produced from wastewater for human consumption or 
feed application. The remaining applications are related to materials, agriculture or 
bioenergy, on which a techno-economic analysis should be performed to analyse 
the​costs​and​to​define​the​most​recommendable​approach.​In​this​sense,​the​
development of processes capable of operation with wet biomass is highly advisable 
to avoid the cost and energy consumption of drying processes. 

The European Commission is driving policies to enlarge the sustainability of processes 
such as ‘Green Deal’ and ‘Farm-To-Fork’ programmes in addition to others such 
as​Blue​Bioeconomy​among​others.​The​United​Nations​also​recommends​the​
development of policies to enlarge the sustainability of human actions, especially 
related to water management, recovery of nutrients and saving energy. Microalgae-
based​technologies​offer​a​feasible​solution​for​wastewater​treatment​for​small-​and​
medium-sized cities. However, still, the economic feasibility of the process under 
practical operating conditions must be improved by reducing labour costs, which 
implies that more automated designs need to be integrated into the design and 
operation to replace manpower. 

The technology for the construction of equipment (raceways) should focus on 
cheap and durable choices. The energy consumption for aeration, mixing and liquid 
conveying, microalgae harvesting and dewatering could be further reduced through 
the optimization of design and operation. Research on these topics will allow the 
development of robust and reliable technologies for distributed wastewater treatment. 

2  https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/436167-the-world-leading-biorefinery-that-treats-and-repurposes-waste-water​- Accessed 

on 27.01.25.

18

Future research should focus​on​a​metaproject​aiming​at​building​from​EU4Algae​
project​database​(Airtable)​a​Techno-economic​analysis​(TEA)​on​algae​bioremediation​
covering geolocation (climate), downstream uses and regulatory proposals.

3.2. Carbon capture and utilisation
Microalgae are a promising technology for CO2 capture and emission remediation, 
thanks​to​the​possibility​to​feed​flue​gas​directly​(after​eventual​processing​and​in​
closed​system)​in​the​algal​culture,​instead​of​releasing​to​air,​with​the​added​benefits​
of not competing for agricultural land and requiring a smaller footprint relative to the 
amount of CO2 absorbed. Compared to direct air capture systems, microalgae may 
consume less energy and have a lower capital expenditure (CAPEX) for installation. 
Extensive​research​has​focused​on​identifying​species​that​are​effective​at​CO2 
absorption, with the most recent discovery being a species called “Chonkus”, a 
cyanobacteria found in volcanic CO2​seeps​off​the​coast​of​Vulcano,​Sicily​[10].

This research on CO2 absorption is closely linked to improvements in biomass 
production, as microalgae, being photosynthetic organisms, require CO2 for growth. A 
critical​advancement​in​this​field​is​the​collaboration​between​local​industries,​public​
universities, and private sector players to provide a platform for testing and improving 
this​technology​in​situ,​directly​injecting​emission​gases​into​photobioreactors.​In​
China, such studies have been conducted in partnership with industries to validate 
the​technology​through​pilot-scale​data.​In​Europe,​several​EU-funded​projects3 have 
tested microalgae-based CO2 absorption at industrial sites, achieving technically 
satisfactory results, though these solutions have not yet proven economically viable 
for the selected markets.

This highlights the need for a business model that integrates CO2 emission reduction 
with biomass production and sales, capitalizing on the cost savings from reduced 
CO2​supplementation.​Despite​the​ecological​benefits​of​using​natural​resources​
for CO2 mitigation, current regulations that fail to impose strict limitations or taxes 
on industrial emissions reduce the incentives for investing in such technologies. 
Supporting industries in their ecological transition by funding the installation of 
integrated algae farms could provide a viable pathway to enhance CO2 capture 
efforts​and​promote​sustainable​emissions​reduction.

Future research should focus on investigating species with high potential for CO2 
capture, such as the previously mentioned Chonkus, while integrating possible market 
applications​for​these​species,​by​integrating​genetic​modifications​to​increase​a​
bioproduct production for non-food applications and aiming at a large volume market, 
such​as​biofertilizers.​Species​with​significant​CO2 capture capabilities often belong 
to the cyanobacteria group, whose utilization would result in the production of large 

3  https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/711340/reporting - Accessed on 27.01.25

19

quantities of biomass requiring a suitable end-market. The biofertilizer industry, 
given its high-volume demand, could serve as an ideal market for this biomass, if 
cyanobacteria​are​incorporated​into​biofertilizer​legislation.​The​project​should​also​
include pilot-scale testing at industrial emission sites or in collaboration with industry 
partners,​using​their​emissions​to​develop​a​scalable​solution​tailored​to​specific​
industrial scenarios.

4. Downstream processing and product development

Downstream processing is a critical phase in algae biomass production, involving four 
main steps: harvesting, drying, cell disruption, and extraction of valuable compounds. 
Harvesting methods vary, with macroalgae often collected directly from natural 
environments or seaweed farms, while microalgae are typically harvested from 
open ponds or photobioreactors (PBRs). Harvesting and drying are particularly cost-
intensive,​accounting​for​approximately​30%​of​operational​expenses​[11].​Efforts​to​
reduce​these​costs​include​biofilm​cultivation​for​microalgae,​which​minimizes​water​
usage during downstream processing. However, this approach is not yet scalable 
or broadly viable as outlined previously. 

Successful large-scale models often rely on favourable conditions, such as low 
labour costs (e.g., China, Israel), abundant natural light (e.g., Spain), or integration 
with renewable energy systems (e.g., Iceland). 

The interconnected nature of downstream processing challenges means that 
advancements​in​one​area,​such​as​more​efficient​extraction​techniques​or​improved​
cultivation systems, can drive broader cost reductions. Downstream processing 
advancements address several bottlenecks, including improving outdated equipment 
and processes to enhance productivity and reduce costs (bottleneck 8), optimizing 
extraction​and​purification​methods​for​scalable​conversion​of​algae​biomass​into​
value-added products (bottleneck 7), and streamlining harvesting and processing 
to​resolve​value​chain​inefficiencies​and​high​production​costs​(bottleneck​6).​

Future innovations should focus on lower downstream costs by integrating cultivation 
systems with renewable energy sources, such as power plants enhanced with solar 
photovoltaic panels and wind turbines for electricity generation. Additionally, the 
implementation​of​chemical​harvesting​techniques,​such​as​flocculation,​offers​a​less​
energy-intensive alternative to traditional methods like centrifugation or spray-drying, 
providing​a​more​sustainable​and​cost-effective​solution​for​microalgae​processing.

5. Algal biorefineries

Several studies indicate that even with reduced biomass production costs, economic 
feasibility​often​requires​refining​algal​biomass​into​multiple​products,​especially​
outside​high-value​markets,​such​as​antioxidants​[12-14].​Biorefineries​play​a​

20

crucial role in maximizing economic returns by fractionating algae biomass into 
valuable components, including lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and pigments, which 
can be used to produce a range of marketable products. At large scales, such as 
processing​tons​of​biomass,​integrated​biorefinery​approaches​are​essential​to​
enhance​profitability​while​tackling​cost-related​bottlenecks​(bottleneck​6).​

Despite​notable​successes​in​seaweed​biorefineries,​exemplified​by​private​companies​
like Algaia and Olmix in France, which produce multiple products, and the production 
of heterotrophic algal oils by large companies such as Corbion, Veramaris, and 
Fermentalg,​microalgae​biorefineries​encounter​distinct​and​complex​challenges.

For instance, when extracting one component, such as lipids or pigments, other 
valuable fractions may be damaged or lost. Technologies like supercritical CO2 
extraction,​while​effective​for​certain​products,​are​expensive​and​not​applicable​at​
large scale, and indeed solvent extraction for food purposes is based on traditional 
chemicals [15], highlighting the need for more holistic extraction methods. At today, 
milking extraction is a promising alternative, where the analogy to dairy farming 
refers to milking cows without the need to kill the cows. Successful examples of 
microalgae-based​biorefineries​include​those​targeting​Spirulina​(for​phycocyanin,​
proteins, and lipids) and diatoms like Phaeodactylum tricornutum, but comprehensive, 
scalable solutions remain limited.

To​overcome​these​challenges,​projects​such​as​“Miracles”4 demonstrated the 
importance of collaborative, multi-disciplinary research frameworks. These initiatives 
tackle​nested​research​objectives​through​parallel​efforts​across​multiple​work​
packages,​addressing​the​complexity​of​biorefinery​development.​For​example,​
techno-economic​and​environmental​assessments​from​such​projects​highlight​key​
areas​for​improvement​to​increase​profitability​and​reduce​impacts​emerging​from​
life cycle assessment (LCA).

Key recommendations for further R&D in algae biorefineries include:

1.  Energy​efficiency:​Implementing​energy-saving​measures​such​as​optimizing​
oil​extraction​under​nutrient-sufficient​conditions​and​using​renewable​energy​
generated on-site.

2.  Adapt mature technologies such as solvent extraction from oilseed industry to 

algal biomass.

4  https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/613588 - Accessed on 27.01.25

21

6. Algal biofertilizers and soil amendments

Algae, like plants, are organic materials rich in carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus, 
making them suitable as natural soil fertilizers. They can also act as biostimulants, 
targeting plant hormonal pathways and metabolic processes to enhance physiological 
functions. Despite their potential, the biofertilizers market demands low-cost products 
(~€2/kg),​making​industrial​production​viable​primarily​as​part​of​a​biorefinery​program​
focused​on​waste​valorisation.​Research​efforts​are​addressing​the​need​of​resource​
recovery,​as​demonstrated​by​initiatives​like​Algaia’s​in​France​and​Sabana​EU-
funded​project​in​Spain5.

The​EU​has​made​significant​regulatory​efforts​under​the​European​Green​Deal​
(EGD) to reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers through policies like the Farm to 
Fork Strategy and the Zero Pollution Action Plan, which aim to cut synthetic fertilizer 
and​pesticide​use​by​50%​by​2030.​The​EU​Fertilising​Products​Regulation​(FPR)​
introduces component material categories (CMC) and product function categories 
(PFC) to standardize material use and product functionality. However, compliance 
with these regulations may need challenge elaboration for farmers and SMEs.

Public scepticism toward waste-based fertilizers persists due to concerns about odour, 
health impacts, and regulatory inconsistencies across countries. For example, France 
mandates​specific​policies​for​sewage​sludge​use​in​agriculture,​but​requirements​
vary​widely​within​the​EU.​These​challenges​highlight​the​need​for​public​awareness​
campaigns (bottleneck 11), agricultural extension programs, and clear labelling under 
the FPR to improve acceptance of bio-based fertilizers (BBFs), including the admission 
of non-toxic cyanobacteria. BBFs mainly face cost-related bottlenecks, such as high 
production cost (bottleneck 6). Farmers expect competitive pricing, which requires 
policymakers​to​establish​fair​pricing​mechanisms​benefiting​both​manufacturers​
and​end-users.​Additionally,​increasing​nutrient​recycling​and​recovery​efficiency​in​
BBFs can reduce fertilizer import dependency, addressing small scale of production 
(bottleneck​9)​[16].​This​was​the​case​of​the​EU-funded​project,​SABANA,​which​
coupled the wastewater treatment with the production of biofertilizers in Hellin, Spain5. 

Research​is​increasingly​focused​on​assessing​the​effects​of​biofertilizers​on​
agricultural soils, with particular emphasis on biostimulants, which hold greater 
market value than common biofertilizers due to their ability to enhance plant growth 
and prevent contamination. 

Future research should prioritize reducing capital costs by optimizing harvesting 
methods—such as membranes instead of energy-intensive centrifugation—and 
improving solvent extraction processes to lower economic and environmental impacts. 
While​the​efficacy​of​biostimulants​has​been​demonstrated,​further​advancements​
must be complemented by in situ studies and close collaboration with farmers. 

5  https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/436167-the-world-leading-biorefinery-that-treats-and-repurposes-waste-water/fr​​-​​Accessed 

on 27.01.25. 

22

Regular engagement with farmers is crucial to understand their challenges with 
biofertilizer​use​and​to​offer​tailored​solutions.​To​promote​the​adoption​of​biofertilizer​
technologies, it is essential to educate extension personnel, dealers, and farmers on 
their​benefits​and​economic​feasibility.​Practical​training,​comprehensive​knowledge​
dissemination, and fostering positive perceptions are critical components to ensure 
the successful integration and broader application of biofertilizer technologies.

7. Economic and policy analysis

Techno-economic​analysis​(TEA)​and​policy​adjustments​are​critical​for​advancing​the​
algae biomass sector. Existing TEAs of algae-based processes provide insights into 
investment​costs​(CAPEX),​operation​and​maintenance​costs​(OPEX),​and​projected​
revenues across various markets. However, their accuracy depends heavily on the 
quality and scale of input data. Most TEAs rely on pilot-scale data (up to 1000 m²), 
which limits their applicability to industrial-scale operations. Data from full-scale 
facilities​remain​scarce​due​to​limited​industrial​implementation​and​confidentiality​
barriers. Improved data availability for TEAs, particularly for real-case scenarios, 
could enable the development of more precise business models that consider all 
expenses, including water consumption, electricity, material costs, and year-round 
operational demands [17].

The​algae​industry’s​viability​also​hinges​on​addressing​significant​policy​challenges.​
As a newcomer to the European market, the sector must navigate a fragmented 
and​inconsistently​applied​regulatory​framework.​Broad​European​Union​policies​
relevant to algae—such as those governing aquatic resources, renewable biological 
materials, and environmental impacts—often intersect with product- or process-
specific​rules,​such​as​the​Common​Fisheries​Policy​or​food​packaging​standards.​
These regulations can vary widely depending on production methods, product types, 
and​operational​scale,​creating​significant​administrative​and​financial​burdens​for​
algae producers and processors.

To​foster​the​sector’s​growth,​it​is​crucial​to​harmonize​regulatory​policies​across​EU​
member states (bottleneck 5), reduce authorization costs and timelines while ensuring 
proportionality to the scale and nature of operations. Achieving regulatory clarity and 
equity will require collaboration among policymakers, industry stakeholders, and 
researchers,​for​example​by​demonstrating​that​specific​algae​products​meet​policy​
requirements​for​target​markets.​Such​efforts​will​also​address​the​limited​knowledge​
of​the​market​(bottleneck​10)​reducing​financial​risk​and​improving​access​to​credit,​
creating a more supportive environment for scaling algae-based solutions.

Future research initiatives should support new entrants in the algae industry 
would involve leveraging existing algae testbeds in Europe, such as those in Portugal, 
the Netherlands, and Spain. These facilities could be used to generate operational 
data for scalable algae production systems under diverse geographic and economic 

23

conditions.​This​project​could​compare​key​upstream​processes,​such​as​open​
ponds versus closed photobioreactors (PBRs), while also analysing the most used 
downstream​processes​for​biomass​harvesting​and​refinement.​The​resulting​data​
could​then​be​integrated​into​predictive​models​to​simulate​different​operational​
scenarios, validated through real-world case studies. Such models would provide 
valuable insights into optimizing algae production systems by accounting for variations 
in​electricity​prices,​energy​consumption,​labour​costs,​and​other​region-specific​
factors.​This​approach​would​significantly​enhance​scalability,​reduce​investment​
risks, and provide actionable solutions for a range of production environments.

8. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and sustainability metrics: 

In support of the development of sustainable algae-based products, techno-economic 
analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) have become critical tools for guiding 
research and innovation. LCA provides a systematic evaluation of environmental 
impacts across the entire product life cycle, from raw material extraction to disposal 
(ISO14040/44). Over the past 20 years, LCA has been extensively applied to 
algae systems, with its growing importance evidenced by an increasing number of 
publications​and​its​integration​into​European​projects​aimed​at​achieving​economic,​
environmental, and social sustainability in the algae sector.

Despite​its​potential,​several​significant​challenges​must​be​addressed​to​improve​
LCA’s​effectiveness​in​driving​the​development​of​sustainable​algae-based​products.​
One such challenge is the lack of transparency and consistency in existing LCA 
studies,​which​hinders​the​comparability​of​results​across​different​systems.​This​
disparity stems from variations in key factors such as dry matter content (ranging 
from 5% to 96%), the type of energy and water sources employed (e.g., renewable 
versus fossil-based electricity), and the inclusion or exclusion of carbon capture 
during cultivation. Harmonisation methodologies are crucial to ensuring reliable and 
meaningful comparisons across studies.

The​environmental​impacts​of​algae​systems​are​predominantly​influenced​by​energy​
use and nutrient inputs, particularly inorganic fertilisers such as nitrates and carbon 
sources such as carbon dioxide and sodium bicarbonate. These components are 
associated​with​significant​environmental​burdens​due​to​their​energy-intensive​
production processes. Alternative cultivation methods based on the use of organic 
nutrient​sources​and​waste​streams​to​provide​carbon​(e.g.,​flue​gas)​and​energy​have​
shown potential in mitigating these impacts, leveraging algae’s bioremediation ability. 
Such​approaches​can​improve​value​chain​efficiencies​(bottleneck​6)​by​integrating​
algae into sustainable systems like industrial symbiosis and local bioeconomy.

Addressing​these​challenges​requires​a​concerted​effort​to​adapt​LCA​methodologies​to​
the​specificities​of​algae​systems​and​improve​data​availability,​particularly​for​emerging​
algae-based bioproducts. By overcoming these hurdles, LCA can serve not only as 

24

an evaluative tool but also as a guiding framework to optimise system designs and 
drive the algae industry toward more sustainable pathways. Through a combination of 
methodological harmonisation, innovative mitigation strategies, and robust collaboration 
between researchers and industry, LCA can bolster regulatory compliance (bottleneck 
5) and provide a framework for minimizing environmental impacts. 

Future research topics​should​focus​on​artificial​intelligence​(AI)​and​machine​
learning (ML) to optimize LCA inputs, such as process simulations and predictive 
modelling for resource use, energy consumption, and environmental impact under 
varying conditions. These results should afterwards be compared for comparing with 
conventional alternatives (e.g., soy feed, fossil fuels) to contextualize their relative 
sustainability​and​establish​benchmarks​for​the​algae​sector.​In​addition,​a​metaproject​
for​building​from​EU4Algae​project​database​(Airtable)​and​relevant​LCA​standards​
would be useful to obtain a comprehensive review of algae LCA outcomes. 

7. Conclusions 

Recognizing and addressing the bottlenecks limiting the algae sector is essential 
to​unlocking​its​potential​for​economic,​environmental,​and​societal​benefits.​Future​
research should prioritize overcoming these obstacles through innovative solutions, 
focusing on reducing the CAPEX and OPEX costs of the PBRs and optimizing the 
production​processes​integrating​bioremediation​and​biorefinery.​Artificial​intelligence​
(AI)​and​machine​learning​(ML)​offer​significant​opportunities​to​advance​algae​
research, particularly in improving life cycle assessments (LCA), optimizing cultivation 
systems,​and​refining​techno-economic​analyses​(TEA).​These​tools​can​help​analyse​
complex datasets, simulate scenarios, and predict outcomes, streamlining decision-
making​and​reducing​inefficiencies​across​the​algae​value​chain.

Collaboration is fundamental to achieving these goals. Strong partnerships among 
researchers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers will ensure that investments 
and​project​proposals​are​directed​towards​high-impact​areas.​Informing​stakeholders​
about​specific​research​priorities​will​facilitate​targeted​efforts​to​advance​the​
sector.​Engaging​with​platforms​like​EU4Algae​provides​a​valuable​opportunity​for​
stakeholders to share their challenges, propose solutions, and collectively shape 
the future of the algae industry. By fostering transparency and collaboration, such 
initiatives can help harmonize governance, reduce market fragmentation, and create 
a supportive environment for scaling algae-based innovations and enhancing the 
competitiveness of European algae products globally.

Fragmented​regulatory​frameworks​currently​pose​administrative​and​financial​barriers​
to​new​entrants​and​established​producers​alike.​Coordinated​efforts​to​streamline​
licensing processes, clarify standards, and create equitable compliance mechanisms 

Ultimately,​to​position​Europe​as​a​leader​in​the​global​algae​market,​it​is​essential​to​
integrate​research,​innovation,​and​policy​efforts.​Practical​steps​include​leveraging​

25

existing​algae​testbeds​and​create​news​in​different​countries,​to​systematically​
collect and share data, enabling the development of standardized thresholds for 
upstream and downstream TEAs and LCAs. These benchmarks can serve as 
valuable guidelines for future algae stakeholders while also providing clarity and 
confidence​to​investors.

As we navigate the pressing environmental challenges of our time, it is increasingly 
clear that sustainability alone is not enough. The transition towards ocean regeneration 
is essential to restore marine ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, and contribute to 
climate resilience. The EU’s policy developments, including the Nature Restoration 
Law and the Carbon Certification Framework, reflect a growing recognition of the 
need for proactive restoration efforts rather than mere conservation. Within this 
shift, the algae sector stands as a flagship opportunity, offering scalable solutions 
for regenerative aquaculture, carbon sequestration, and ecosystem restoration. 
By integrating algae-based practices into broader regenerative initiatives, we can 
move beyond minimizing harm and actively contribute to the recovery of marine and 
coastal environments, fostering a truly regenerative blue economy.

References

1.  Dir 2009/32/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents 
used​in​the​production​of​foodstuffs​and​food​ingredients​https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02009L0032-20230216

2.  FAO 2021. FAO Global Fishery and Aquaculture Production Statistics (FishStatJ; March 2021; 

www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en).

3.​ Araújo,​R.,​Vázquez​Calderón,​F.,​Sánchez​López,​J.,​Azevedo,​I.​C.,​Bruhn,​A.,​Fluch,​S.,​Garcia​
Tasende,​M.,​Ghaderiardakani,​F.,​Ilmjärv,​T.,​Laurans,​M.,​&​Mac​Monagail,​M.​(2021).​Current​
status of the algae production industry in Europe: An emerging sector of the blue bioeconomy. 
Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 626389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.626389

4.  Hwang, S. W., Choi, H. I., & Sim, S. J. (2019). Acidic cultivation of Haematococcus pluvialis for 
improved astaxanthin production in the presence of a lethal fungus. Bioresource technology, 278, 
138-144.

5.  Rumin, J., Gonçalves de Oliveira Junior, R., Bérard, J. B., & Picot, L. (2021). Improving microalgae 
research​and​marketing​in​the​European​Atlantic​area:​Analysis​of​major​gaps​and​barriers​limiting​
sector development. Marine drugs, 19(6), 319.

6.​ Spicer,​A.,​&​Molnar,​A.​(2018).​Gene​editing​of​microalgae:​Scientific​progress​and​regulatory​

challenges in Europe. Biology (Basel), 7(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology7010021#

7.  Cadoret, J. P., Garnier, M., & Saint-Jean, B. (2012). Microalgae, functional genomics, and 
biotechnology. In G. Piganeau (Ed.), Advances in Botanical Research (Vol. 64, pp. 285–341). 
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-391499-6.00008-6

8.​ Lee,​A.,​Lan,​J.​C.-W.,​Jambrak,​A.​R.,​Chang,​J.-S.,​Lim,​J.​W.,​&​Khoo,​K.​S.​(2024).​Upcycling​
fruit waste into microalgae biotechnology: Perspective views and way forward. Food Chemistry: 
Molecular Sciences, 8, 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochms.2024.10020

26

9.  Liberti, D., Pinheiro, F., Simões, B., Varela, J., & Barreira, L. (2024). Beyond bioremediation: 
The untapped potential of microalgae in wastewater treatment. Water, 16(19), 2710. https://doi.
org/10.3390/w16192710

10.  Schubert MG, Tang T, Goodchild-Michelman IM, Ryon KA, Henriksen JR, Chavkin T, Wu Y, Miettinen 
TP, Van Wychen S, Dahlin LR, Spatafora D, Turco G, Guarnieri MT, Manalis SR, Kowitz J, Hann 
EC, Dhir R, Quatrini P, Mason CE, Church GM, Milazzo M, Tierney BT. 2024. Cyanobacteria newly 
isolated from marine volcanic seeps display rapid sinking and robust, high-density growth. Appl 
Environ Microbiol 90:e00841-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00841-24

11.  Penloglou, G., Pavlou, A., & Kiparissides, C. (2024). Recent advancements in photo-bioreactors for 
microalgae cultivation: A brief overview. Processes, 12(6), 1104. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12061104

12.  Dutta, N., Kundu, P., Lee, J. T. E., & Bhattacharya, S. (2023). Implementation and Optimization of 
Algal Biomass in Value-Added Products Recovery: A Step towards Algae-Based Green Economy. 
Hydrobiology, 2(2), 326-346. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology2020021

13.​ Bhatia,​Dr.​Latika​&​Bachheti,​Rakesh​&​Garlapati,​Vijay​Kumar​&​Chandel,​Anuj.​(2022).​Third​
generation​biorefineries:​a​sustainable​platform​for​food,​clean​energy​and​nutraceuticals​production​
(Journal:​Biomass​Conversion​and​Biorefinery).​Biomass​Conversion​and​Biorefinery.​10.1007/
s13399-020-00843-6.

14.​ ​Sharmila,​V.​G.,​Banu,​J.​R.,​Kumar,​M.​D.,​Kumar,​S.​A.,​&​Kumar,​G.​(2022).​Algal​biorefinery​
towards decarbonization: Economic and environmental consideration. Bioresource technology, 
364, 128103.

15.  Du, Y., Schuur, B., Kersten, S. R., & Brilman, D. W. (2015). Opportunities for switchable solvents 
for lipid extraction from wet algal biomass: An energy evaluation. Algal research, 11, 271-283.

16.​ F.​G.​Acien,​C.​Gómez,​A.​Morillas,​A.​Zouhayr,​A.​Sanchez,​R.​Nordio,​E.​Rodriguez,​J.​L.​Guzman,​
J.​M.​Fernández-Sevilla,​2023.​“Wastewater​treatment​by​microalgae-based​processes”,​Algal​
Systems for Resource Recovery from Waste and Wastewater, Piet N. L. Lens, Amitap Khandelwal

17.  Fasaei, F., Bitter, J. H., Slegers, P. M., & Van Boxtel, A. J. B. (2018). Techno-economic evaluation 

of microalgae harvesting and dewatering systems. Algal research, 31, 347-362.

Contributors

Vitor Verdelho (conceptualization, writing); Arianna Rizzo (writing, revision), Silvio 
Mangini​(review​and​editing),​Carlos​Unamunzaga​and​Jean-Paul​Cadoret​(validation).

Methodology

Process:​A​draft​document​was​developed​by​the​EABA​staff​and​then​circulated​
through​the​Steering​Board,​Scientific​and​Industrial​Committees​that​involve​more​
than 50 European wide relevant experts in the algae biomass sector – for comments 
and​suggested​improvements.​The​final​version​reflects​the​opinion​about​this​topic​
from a large number of expert players in the algae biomass sector.

27