Overcoming hurdles for innovation in
industrial biotechnology in Europe
Biobased Chemical Building
Blocks
Workshop Report
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Minutes from the Meeting
Summary The third BIO-TIC business case bio workshop was held at the Centre des Congrès, Reims,
France on 30th September 2014 and brought together 42 participants to discuss the market
potential, the main barriers, and the most promising solutions needed to develop a vibrant
biobased chemical building blocks (CBB) industry in Europe. This workshop was one of four
parallel tracks on the afternoon of day one of the 7th European Forum for Industrial
Biotechnology and the Biobased Economy (EFIB 2014).
Participants considered that market opportunities for biobased chemical building blocks are
being driven by new properties for existing products, opportunities for product differentiation and
by increasing customer awareness. The major barriers to the production of biobased chemical
building block products in the EU were identified as being competitiveness (as a result of high
feedstock and production costs) and the lack of a supportive policy framework. As a result, it
was felt that at least until 2030, the EU industry will focus on developing products which cannot
easily be made from fossil products, or those which bring new functionalities, rather than
producing commodity products.
R&D was considered crucial to improving process efficiency and reducing costs. Two possible
routes to reducing feedstock costs were identified: processing beet in a minimal way so that the
sugars could be used for IB without being completely refined; and the development of multiple
feedstock facilities so that the EU IB industry is not dependent upon one single feedstock.
Although consolidated bioprocessing was suggested as an efficient route for processing
lignocellulosic feedstocks, integrating pre-treatment and fermentation steps, its operational
expenditure (OPEX) benefits were questioned. Increasing fermentation selectivity or developing
downstream processing steps with increased tolerance to the different contaminants produced
by microorganisms was deemed important to improving product yields. Industrial symbioses
between the IB industry and other industries should be explored both through exchanges of
information and through practical measures such as heat integration as a possible route for
promoting cost reductions.
Mechanisms to improve feedstock availability focussed on reducing the cost of sugar on world
markets by removing import tariffs, and on using fiscal incentives to reinvigorate EU sugar
production. The impact of these suggestions on EU sugar farmers was unclear. More widely, it
was suggested that actions should be undertaken to improve feedstock availability, for example
by educating farmers, foresters and other land owners on the value of their products to the
bioeconomy and by stimulating cross-sectoral collaborations.
In summary, a strategic focus on products which cannot easily be made from fossil products, or
which have new functionalities may bring a competitive advantage to the EU. However, it is
questionable to what extent this can be achieved with high feedstock prices. Technological
improvements can help reduce processing costs and help access new feedstocks, but even if
2
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
such technologies are developed in the EU, they can be deployed elsewhere including in areas
where sugars are cheaper.
Presentations and Workshop Results –
Introduction – Ron Weerdmeester, PNO/Ciaotech
Ron Weerdmeester welcomed participants to the workshop and explained the objectives of the
workshop. He stressed that the session would be highly participatory, and the importance of all
participants getting involved. The workshop would consist of three main parts; the first looking at
what the participants vision for IB was, the second identifying the most important hurdles and
the third looking at what people would do to overcome the hurdles.
General Introduction to the BIO-TIC Project – Claire Gray, EuropaBio
The BIO-TIC project has 11 partners from the EU, is funded through the FP7 programme and
runs from 2012 to 2015. It has a total budget of 2.8 million euro.
The BIOTIC project has three main strands – 1) the bio-roadmaps, aiming to develop roadmaps
to promote IB in Europe, 2) A bio partnering platform aiming to overcome the fragmentation of
expertise which exists and hinders IB deployment, and 3) a data collection framework to
measure the impact of IB. So while part of the project is investigating what hurdles there are
now, two parts of the project are addressing existing hurdles with practical solutions.
Stakeholder participation is a vital part of all three strands of the BIO-TIC project. The bio
roadmaps aim to investigate what hurdles there are to IB in Europe, what could or does act as a
stimulator/enabler to promote IB, and the development of market projections to 2030, indicating
how the market could develop in the future.
The potential market growth for IB products in Europe is staggering, increasing from an
estimated 28 BEUR in 2013, to 41 BEUR in 2020 and 52 BEUR in 2030. There are several
sectors which show significant potential for growth to 2030, for example lignocellulosic ethanol,
biosurfactants and bioplastics, whilst aviation biofuels is expected to emerge as a new sector in
this period. IB is a very wide area, and our existing work has shown lots of cross-cutting issues
which impact IB in several areas. To ensure that we are investigating areas relevant to the EU,
we have chosen to focus on five key business cases, four based on biomass resources, and
one based on fossil resources but using a biological conversion system. These are biobased
plastics, biobased chemical building blocks, advanced biofuels (lignocellulosic ethanol and
aviation fuels), biosurfactants and the use of fossil CO2 for products using an IB conversion
step.
Three roadmaps are being developed as part of the project: one is looking at the market for IB
products both now and in the future, one looking at what R&D barriers there are to IB, and one
looking at non-tech barriers, including the policy issues which could impact upon IB. Towards
the end of the project in 2015, these three distinct roadmaps will be merged to form an
integrated Industrial Biotech Roadmap for Europe and will help guide activities to promote the
bio economy post-2015.
3
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
The roadmaps are being developed through a highly iterative process. Participation from
stakeholders is important throughout the project to ensure that the recommendations developed
are necessary. The second draft of the BIO-TIC roadmaps was released for public consultation
in April 2014. These are based upon an extensive literature study, over 70 expert stakeholder
interviews and the results of eight regional workshops which were carried out in 2013/2014. The
2nd draft of the roadmaps principally focussed upon hurdles to industrial biotechnology although
a few solutions are presented.
The aim of the third and final draft of the BIO-TIC roadmaps is to identify concrete actions by
which these hurdles can be addressed. Five workshops, each focussing in on a specific
business case investigated in the BIO-TIC project, will identify the most important hurdles and
most important solutions for each of the five business case. This workshop is one of those
events. In summary, the BIO-TIC project aims to identify the hurdles and enablers to IB in the
EU and we need your input to make recommendations which are most needed by industry.
Draft Market Roadmap Bio-Based Chemical Building Blocks – Katja Salmenkivi, Poyry
The market roadmap focusses upon the IB sector as a whole as well as a selection of five
business cases which have potential for Europe. The market roadmap provides an overview of
the biobased chemical building block market in the EU and gives demand projections to 2030.
The roadmap also provides information on the current and future value chains which could be
envisaged in this area, highlighting key drivers and barriers impacting upon market
development. The current version of the roadmap is the 2nd draft, which is based on literature
study, 70 expert interviews and on information collected in eight regional workshops.
The biobased chemical building blocks market is currently in its infancy in the EU, and only a
few chemical building blocks are currently cost competitive. Investment in EU R&D in this area
is strong, and there is strong cooperation within the value chain, but, despite the fact that the EU
is one of the major consumer regions for chemical building blocks, it is notable that many new
facilities are built outside of the EU. The value chain is long and comprises of biomass
production, followed by the production of biochemical chemical building blocks which are then
converted to intermediates and final products, and which are finally used by the brand owner,
retailer and consumer.
The demand projections developed in the BIO-TIC market roadmap have been based on
mathematical modelling, assuming that the demand for chemical building blocks is driven by
GDP development and overall EU chemical market demand as estimated by Poyry. These
projections show that in a reference scenario, the market value could reach 9.2 BEUR in 2030.
Market Questionnaire – Chemical Building Blocks – Exercise
Based on the expert interviews and eight regional workshops carried out so far, Poyry has
drafted a vision on how the biobased chemical building block market could look like in 2030.
Each participant was given a market survey, asking participants whether they agreed or
disagreed with these thoughts or what were the key issues to take into account. The results of
this survey are given below. 28 participants filled in the questionnaire.
4
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
New product properties and product differentiation were seen as the most significant market
drivers by the workshop participants. Increasing consumer awareness was also recognised,
particularly by admin/policy representatives.
5
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
The workshop participants considered cost competitiveness and the lack of a supportive policy
framework as the key hurdles for biobased CBBs.
6
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
In general, participants were optimistic on the potential for Europe to develop a biobased
chemicals sector. This sector will begin with new products and niche applications, probably
developing chemicals which are difficult to synthesise using chemical routes, eventually moving
to the use of lignocellulosic feedstocks.
Respondents found the market estimates optimistic, expressing their concerns over the
competitiveness and availability of advanced feedstocks.
Identifying the Most Important Hurdles to Bio-based Chemical Building Blocks
Production in Europe and the Most Important Solutions - Exercise
The second draft of the BIO-TIC roadmap identified a wide range of hurdles to industrial
biotechnology, encompassing technological, market and non-technological hurdles and
proposed solutions. These hurdles have been grouped by theme, for example “regulatory”
“downstream processing” and “product functionality”.
The aim of this exercise was to identify the most important hurdles for the production and use of
biobased chemical building blocks in Europe and the most promising solutions. Each participant
was given 2 sticky red dots by which he/she could mark what they felt were the top hurdles and
4 sticky green dots to mark what he/she felt were the most promising solutions. The results of
this exercise are shown below, with the hurdles and solutions ranked by number of votes. The
top solutions were developed further in small group sessions in the rest of the workshop.
Top ranked hurdles for biobased chemical building blocks
Hurdle
Votes
12
Raw material availability, quality and price
7
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Europe cannot produce CBBs at cost competitive prices
8
Production Costs are high (extraction, productivity, concentration, Downstream Processing (DSP))
5
Taxes, regulation and regulation volatility
Lack of funding/venture capital
Lack of incentives and subsidies
3
Willingness to pay bio-premium
1
Scale-up (infrastructure too costly and takes too long to set up)
1
Processors and brand owners not willing to make changes in their production processes
1
2
2
The top hurdles to the production of biobased chemical building blocks in Europe were therefore
identified as raw material availability, quality and price, cost-competitiveness of products, and
uncompetitive production processes. Taxes, regulation and regulation volatility were also
mentioned as hurdles. Issues over incentives, funding and investments for scale up were less
important in comparison.
Hurdle 1 – Raw material availability, quality and price
Proposed Solution
Votes
Better collaboration with farmers and the feed sector. Install win-win scheme for buyers and
8
producers (farmers)
Re-utilization and recycling materials as a resource efficiency strategy, to decrease the demand for
7
feedstock
Develop processes that can utilise alternative feedstocks
2
Reduction in transportation costs and post-harvest losses through decentralized biorefineries
2
Co-production of high value products
Create new forms of ownership in the forest sector e.g. collectives rather than traditional family
forestry
Feedstock could be partially imported from elsewhere.
1
The surplus of wheat could be utilized as feedstock
1
1
1
Hurdle 2 - Europe cannot produce CBBs at cost-competitive prices
Proposed Solution
Votes
Focus on high value products where quality is more important than price and where production
volumes are small
6
Focus on products with C-O and C-N bonds
1
Developing new biobased CBBs
1
Spread the research towards new products
1
8
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Hurdle 3 - Production costs are high (extraction, productivity, concentration, downstream
processing (DSP))
Proposed Solution
Integrated optimization and development of bioconversion, product recovery and DSP
Have cost-competitive technologies at different scales e.g. fungal strains producing 3hydroxypropionic acid which can be converted into acrylic acid (commonly used in polymers)
9
Votes
7
2
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Developing Concrete Actions to Promote the Development of Bio-based Chemical
Building Blocks in Europe – Interactive Exercise
The top solutions identified in the prioritization exercise were further developed in small group
sessions. The groups, made up of around 6-10 participants identified why action was needed,
how the solution should be addressed, when action should be taken, who should take action,
the costs and boundary conditions for action, and the potential impact of any action. Notes from
the discussions of each group are given in the following tables.
Hurdle: Raw Material availability
Solution: Better collaboration with farmers and the feed sector. Install win-win scheme for
buyers and producers (farmers)
The participants first focussed on measures to create a cost-effective trade in sugars on the
world market and on measures to increase the EU production of sugar beet.
Glucose price is controlled by sugar beet quotas. Since 1996, EU sugar producers have been
encouraged by the EC to reduce production capacity due to fears over prices. Large scale
single crop production is not currently possible in Europe, although is practiced in an efficient
manner outside Europe of, this causes supply chain issues for sugar processing plants in the
EU (who need a large enough processing facility to achieve economies of scale with enough
feedstock to produce sugars at a competitive price). Mechanisms to stimulate an increase in EU
sugar production were discussed, including reinstating the sugar beet chain lost from Ireland
and elsewhere as a result of the 2006 EU sugar reform, perhaps using a government grant or
other fiscal incentives.
It was questioned whether the European IB industry should feel obliged to buy its feedstocks
from EU farmers, because while import tariffs protected EU farmers, it had a negative impact on
the IB industry as sugar prices are inflated compared to world prices. It was suggested that
import tariffs on world sugars should be removed as these are high and disadvantage EU
processors from using cheaper world sugars. It was felt that the playing field between different
uses of sugars should be levelled.
The proposed impact of these changes was unclear, whilst it was suggested that the removal of
import tariffs could help bring cheaper sugars to the EU, this may also have a negative impact
upon the EU sugar producers and it could also be argued that EU-produced sugars would still
be more expensive than world sugar prices. The maintenance of quotas for food production, but
the absence of quotas for industrial use would potentially be one way to mitigate this issue.
The need to improve sugar processing efficiency was discussed. It was suggested that sugars
do not need to be pure refined glucose to be used in IB processes, and that a ‘minimal’
processing route could be developed to isolate sugars in a more cost effective manner. R&D
and collaboration between the sugar industry and industry is needed in this area. Moreover, the
need to ensure that a variety of feedstocks could be processed efficiently at a single facility was
discussed as this would help overcome the potential seasonal changes in feedstock availability
in the EU. This should be combined with R&D on how to cost effectively, and remove efficiently,
C5 and C6 sugars from a variety of biomass sources and identifying which other products could
be produced, preferably those with a high added value.
10
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Another suggestion was to reorganise recycling, for example diverting waste foods from AD to
sugar production, although new methods of extracting the sugars from this source would be
required due to the high water content and multiple feedstock types in food waste.
11
Hurdle: Raw Material Availability
Solution: Better collaboration with farmers and the feed sector. Install a win-win scheme for buyers and producers (farmers)
Why?
How?
Biobased industries are competing in an international
1. Remove import quotas and tariffs (trade policies, CAP policies) to
environment, but due to import tariffs and quotas the
enable cost effective importation of sugar feedstocks.
EU market is non-globalised which creates high
2. Set up a new value chain to process sugar beet in a “minimal way” to
prices for sugars from biomass. Need a level playing
ensure pure enough sugar for biobased industry. Set up good
field for feedstock access for technical (non-food) use
contracts with farmers that enable and encourage them to dedicate
land to producing sugar feedstocks for IB use.
3. Amend trade policy allowing the import of low cost sugars into the EU
from world markets
4. Research is needed; especially in the area of cost effective extraction
of C5 & C6 sugars from cellulosic sources. Also, on a long-term basis,
conduct research into technology for processing multiple types of
feedstock at one facility (to overcome the issue of EU crop variety).
Also the local sugar processing capacity that has been lost in the EU
over the last decade should be reinstalled, perhaps encouraged by
government grants or fiscal incentives. This would also reduce costs
associated with the transportation of biomass.
When?
Who?
1. DG Trade, Agriculture and Rural Development, farmers & industry
2. Farmers, industry, sugar industry
ASAP for 1, 2 & 3, long term for 4
3. DG Trade, Agriculture and Rural Development, farmers & industry
4. Research, industry, policy-makers
Costs/Boundary Conditions
Impact?
1. Study on impact on existing sugar
1. While sugar feedstocks will be available for biobased industry, this
industry/farmers
could have a negative impact on EU sugar industry due to inclusion in
2. Research and collaboration needed to create
the globalised market. One way to mitigate this could be to keep
a win/win situation. Collaboration between
quotas for sugars used for food, but remove them when the sugars
sugar producers and industry
are used in IB.
3. Need for research & technology improvement
2. New chain for chemical industry sugars versus the risk that EU
to be able to use varied feedstock (one year
produced sugars will still be more expensive than world market prices
one type of feedstock might have a good yield,
3. Affordable feedstock available for non-food biobased industries
the next year another)
Hurdle: EU cannot produce cost competitive CBBs
Proposed Solution: Focus on high value added products
Europe has a number of key disadvantages when it comes to economic production of large
scale commodity chemical building blocks. These are high feedstock and energy costs
compared to other regions of the world, the cost-effective production of fossil alternatives and a
fragmented biomass industry which hinders indigenous feedstock supply. This suggests that the
EU will struggle to produce chemical building blocks in a cost effective manner and may be
better placed to focus on high value-added products.
Routes to developing an industry based on the production of high value-added products in the
EU were discussed within the group. It was suggested that some mechanism was needed to
stimulate this sector in the EU, and perhaps this could be a strategic focus on the development
of aviation biofuels as a stepping stone for high value added chemicals production, similar to the
USA’s focus on ethanol production was then able to stimulate the development of other
chemical building block products there. The use of lignin for different end uses should be
developed further, but needs further R&D actions to make this a reality, and it was suggested
that this could be stimulated through Horizon 2020 activities. More widely, actions should be
undertaken to improve feedstock availability, by educating farmers, foresters and other land
owners on the value of their products to the bioeconomy and by stimulating cross-sectorial
collaborations, for example between the chemical and forestry industry.
The EU has considerable technological strengths but is disadvantaged by costs. As such, the
sector should focus on high value and high quality applications such as speciality chemicals
rather than bulk applications.
Hurdle: EU cannot produce cost competitive CBBs
Solution: Focus on high value-added products
Why?
How?
Raw material costs
1. Potential to focus on aviation biofuels to get industrial
1. The EU feedstock cost is too high. Other regions
biotech started (US used an ethanol platform to build
(Asia, Brazil and North America) are better positioned
up the industry, Europe has to do something else to
in terms of feedstock availability.
speed up CBBs). Use aviation biofuels as a platform.
2. Activate lignin research
2. Energy costs are high in Europe.
3. Improve the way feedstocks are used. Engage farmers
Competitiveness
into developing the bio-economy.
3. Fossil based alternatives are more cost competitive as
4. Enable cross sectorial collaboration e.g. the chemical
e.g. capital expenditure (CAPEX) in existing processes
industry and forestry industry.
is paid
5. Use waste heat to grow micro algae (to mitigate
Raw material availability.
seasonal variations).
4. Fragmented ownership of land and forest resources
When?
Who?
1. Reform the EU agricultural policy. Reward farmers for
1. We should begin work on aviation fuels now as a route to
the fact they capture CO2.
stimulating the production of biobased chemical building
2. Mandate aviation biofuels (airlines have programmes
blocks.
in place for using biofuels)
2. Research on lignin uses could be undertaken as part of
3. Create R&D programmes for lignin chemistry.
Horizon 2020 calls.
Costs/Boundary Conditions
Impact?
1. Europe's strength lies in technology – its ability to
1. Jobs in rural economy (positive impact – value
innovate
creation for farmers)
2. Europe is not about low costs, it is about high value
2. Chemical industry: replace – keep value that otherwise
which means focusing on specialty chemicals
would disappear
3. The petrochemical industry rose from nothing in 100
years, the same could be done for industrial
biotechnology
Hurdle: Expensive Conversion Processes.
Proposed Solution: Integrated Development of (bio) conversion, process and downstream
processing (DSP) technologies
IB routes for producing biobased chemicals are expensive for several reasons. 1) Low
concentrations of final products mean that much water needs to be removed, 2) expensive
bioreactors are used, 3) increasing costs for energy and volatile costs for biomass. Routes to
reducing costs for conversion processes were discussed.
Consolidated bioprocessing was suggested as a good way for dealing with lignocellulosic
feedstocks, integrating pre-treatment and fermentation steps, but whilst consolidated
bioprocessing can reduce CAPEX, it can increase OPEX costs because of the lower yield per
unit area and as a result is perhaps only currently suitable for some applications. While in situ
product removal was not deemed feasible, other approaches to reducing downstream
processing costs were discussed. For some biochemical processes, especially for bioplastics, it
was suggested that increasing fermentation selectivity could help reduce contaminants which
need to be reduced in the downstream processing steps or that downstream processing steps
themselves could be developed to be more aligned with the different contaminants produced by
microorganisms. Governments could stimulate a reduction in energy costs, but other routes
should be explored, for example heat integration by exploiting industrial synergies. Sharing
information between different industries on how to overcome energy costs should be
encouraged.
Economies of scale will help enable improvements in costs, but cheap sugars are needed for
large sale commodity chemical production. A strategic focus on products which cannot be easily
made from fossil products, or which bring new functionalities may bring a competitive advantage
to the EU, but it is questionable whether this can be achieved with high feedstock prices. Thus,
the group concluded that while we can improve technology processes, commercial plants will
inevitably be located in areas where sugars are cheaper.
Hurdle: Expensive Conversion Processes
Solution: Integrated Development of (bio) conversion, process and downstream processing (DSP) technologies
Why?
How?
1. High energy cost for production and low product
1. Piloting to help find and solve problems
concentrations (~90% water). High concentrations
2. Combine commodities market and high value chemicals
should be there from the beginning.
3. Check equilibrium for integration and economic
2. Impurities need to be removed
feasibility
3. We should aim for high concentrations of products
4. High-level equipment is used. We do not need to use
and have low scale processes
such expensive equipment for CBBs
5. More robust microorganisms, so not easy to
4. Process integration may help reduce high volumes,
contaminate
and the development of downstream processing
6. Head integration and industrial synergy
technologies with high removal efficiency is needed
(no technology exists to do this)
7. Improve bioconversion so they are more selective
5. No in situ product recovery is feasible.
When?
Who?
1. Researchers and Engineers (industry, academia,
1. Yesterday! We should hurry up and bring more
research and technology organisations)
cases to high scale (pilot and industrial scale)
2. Government cannot make processes any cheaper
unless they reduce energy costs. But they can support
research/engineers (e.g. through funding or legislation
supporting biotech).
Costs/Boundary Conditions
Impact?
1. Some chemicals could be competitive particularly those
1. Funding to support research initiatives from industry
which cannot be easily produced from fossil sources
and government
(Get better functionalities and product properties)
2. More implementation of on-going research. (More
scaling up will reduce opex)
3. Not necessarily more plants in the EU because of
feedstock costs
Photos of the Workshop
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
18
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Presentations
This afternoon workshop had three presentations to set the scene for the day. These
presentations were then followed by individual and group discussions on issues and solutions
for chemical building block production using IB.
The presentations were:



Introduction – Ron Weerdmeester (chair) (PNO Consultants)
BIO-TIC - Developing a Vibrant Industrial Biotechnology Sector in the EU - Claire Gray
(EuropaBio)
Draft Market Roadmap - Bio-Based Chemical Building Blocks – Katja Salmenkivi (Poyry)
Introduction – Ron Weerdmeester (Chair) PNO Consultants
19
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
20
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
BIO-TIC – Developing a Vibrant Industrial Biotechnology Sector in the EU – Claire Gray,
EuropaBio
21
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
22
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
23
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
24
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
25
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
26
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
27
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Draft Market Roadmap – Bio-based Chemical Building Blocks – Katja Salmenkivi, Poyry
28
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
29
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
30
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
31
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
32
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
33
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Participant List
First name
Pierre
Hugo
Fraser
Claire-Line
Ana Maria
Dirk
James
Joanna
Claire
Henri
Arto
Jens
Rolf
Jack
Ralf
Roger
Bruno
Floris
Florence
Filippo Giancarlo
Andrew
Ward
Marc
Antoine
Ioana
Charlyse
Wolfgang
Achim
Andreas
Virginie
Carol
Alex
Samir
Richard
Martin
Surname
Barthelemy
Bauweleers
Black
Blanc
Bravo
Carrez
Craven
Dupont Inglis
Gray
Grunbauer
Heiska
Hoegel
Hogan
Huttner
Jossek
Kilburn
Lepitre
Luger
Lutin
Martinelli
Mearns Spragg
Mosmuller
Noel
Peeters
Popescu
Pouteau
Ranfft
Raschka
Redl
Rimbert
Roa Engel
Scott
Somaiya
Taylor
Timmer
Organisation
Cefic
Citrique Belge
Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre
Ecole Central Paris
DuPont Industrial Biosciences
Clever Consult
PNO
EuropaBio
EuropaBio
Nimaro Ageno Consult
Neste Oil
European Commission - DG Research and Innovation
Round Table on Sustainable Biomaterials
Hutner Strategies
Project Management Julich
Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre
Sustineo 2D
DuPont Industrial Biosciences
Eurodia
PNO
Jellagen
DSM
Wallonia Export-Investment Agency
EuropaBio
EuropaBio
Nestle Waters
De Smet S.A. Engineers and Contractors
nova-Institut GmbH
Tereos Syral
European Commission - DG Agri
TNO
Chemical and Engineering News
Godavari Biorefineries Ltd
E4Tech
Eindhoven University of Technology
34
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
Valerie
Marcel
Jeroen
Will
Wilco
Scott
Johanna
Toniazzo
van Berkel
van Campen
van den Twell
van der Lans
Vitters
Wesnigk
CRP Henri Tudor
GF Biochemicals
DuPont Industrial Biosciences
DSM
Port of Rotterdam
The Coca Cola Company
EMPA
35
BIO-TIC – Biobased CBBs workshop report
36