International and Swedish State of Play in
Industrial Symbiosis
A review with proposals for scaling up industrial symbiosis in Sweden
Murat Mirata
Acknowledgements
This report is the outcome of a study funded by the Re:Source Strategic Innovation Program – through Swedish Energy Agency, Vinnova and Formas. I would like to acknowledge valuable inputs of: Peter Carlsson, for providing an overview of industrial and social symbiosis developments in Sotenäs and for contributing to section 3.1.1; Rickard Fornell, for providing an overview of industrial symbiosis practices and developments in Örnköldsvik; Roman Hackl, for providing an overview of industrial symbiosis practices in Stenungsung; Andreas Nicolaidis, for contributing to the section that provides an overview of Industrial and Urban Symbiosis practices in Malmö; Steve Harris for contributing to the section concerning the “assessment of performance of industrial symbiosis networks; Tobias Källqvist for compiling examples of policy influences on IS in Sweden, and; Michaeal Martin for compiling and summarizing information about selected industrial symbiosis initiatives in the European Union. I also would like to thanks Emma Dalväg and Tobias Källqvist for managing the project where this report was one of the deliverables and for supporting and documenting the workshops that enabled valuable stakeholder input. I also would like to thank Prof. Mats Eklund for his sustained support the Swedish Initiative for Industrial Symbiosis, and for his overall guidance. Last, but certainly not the least, I would like to thank members of the Swedish Initiative for Industrial Symbiosis, who have provided valuable feedback and insights contributing to our understanding of the specific characteristics and needs in the Swedish contexts.
i
Contents
Acknowledgements ... 2
Summary ... ii
1
Introduction ... 7
2
Industrial symbiosis and its value ... 8
3
International and Swedish Experiences with Industrial Symbiosis ... 10
3.1
International industrial symbiosis experiences ... 10
3.1.1
Industrial Symbiosis in Kalundborg, Denmark ... 10
3.1.2
Industrial Symbiosis in Kwinana industrial area, Australia ... 12
3.1.3
Industrial Ecosystem (INES) Program in Rotterdam Harbour, Netherlands ... 14
3.1.4
National Industrial Symbiosis Program (NISP) in the UK ... 15
3.1.5
Korean Eco-Industrial Park Initiative ... 17
3.1.6
Symbiotic Bio-Energy Port Integration with Cities by 2020 (EPIC2020) Project ... 20
3.1.7
Other on-going projects in the EU ... 23
3.2
Industrial and Urban Symbiosis Examples from Sweden ... 27
3.2.1
Industrial and Urban Symbiosis in and around Norrköping ... 27
3.2.2
Industrial and Urban Symbiosis in Helsingborg ... 29
3.2.3
The Domsjö biorefinery cluster ... 31
3.2.4
Industrial Symbiosis in the Stenungsund chemical cluster ... 34
3.2.5
Industrial and Urban symbiosis developments in Malmö ... 36
3.2.6
Industrial and social symbiosis in Sotenäs ... 38
4
Key Elements of Industrial Symbiosis Related Research ... 41
4.1
Determinant factors ... 41
4.1.1
Techno-spatial factors ... 42
4.1.2
Informational and knowledge factors ... 44
4.1.3
Economic and market related factors ... 44
4.1.4
Political and Institutional factors ... 45
4.1.5
Organizational and social factors ... 46
4.2
Development dynamics, facilitation approaches and tools ... 52
4.2.1
Development mechanisms of industrial symbiosis networks ... 52
4.2.2
Facilitation approaches ... 55
4.2.3
Examples of supporting tools ... 62
4.3
Assessment of the performance of Industrial Symbiosis networks ... 64
5
Industrial symbiosis related strengths and weaknesses in Sweden ... 67
5.1
Techno-spatial conditions ... 68
5.2
Informational and knowledge related conditions ... 70
5.3
Economic and market related conditions ... 71
5.4
Political and institutional conditions ... 71
5.5
Organisational and social conditions ... 72
6
Proposed actions for advancing industrial symbiosis in Sweden ... 74
6.1
Proposed actions for the local/regional levels: ... 74
6.2
Proposed actions for the National level ... 75
6.3
Proposed structure for carrying out suggested activities ... 76
7
References: ... 77
ii
Summary
Industrial symbiosis (IS) represents a collective approach to resource management where diverse actors across sectors work together in creating more value from diverse resources and develop more sustainable products, services and utilities.. Operational IS examples have long
demonstrated the potential of the concept to contribute to a more sustainable development. With increasing political and private support towards circular- and biobased-economies and with growing understanding of the role IS can play in their development, Swedish policy makers, public authorities and private actors are also increasingly interested in scaling-up of IS. There are facilitation initiatives in place in some Swedish regions, and the concept is increasingly a part of policies at different levels. However, both practical facilitation and policy-making efforts remain inadequately informed by the relevant scientific knowledge as well as the international and national practices of relevance. Furthermore, in order to scale up symbiotic developments and associated benefits in practice, new knowledge, structures and tools relevant for the Swedish context need to be developed. This study departed from these facts and aimed to make a contribution by providing an overview of the state of international and Swedish play in IS both in research and in practice. Through a review of research findings and by comparing
international and Swedish practical experiences, it delivers focused suggestions to practitioners, policy makers and researchers for effectively assisting additional IS developments in Sweden. It is clear that IS lacks a uniform definition, and the variety of definitions used imply different eligible activities and actors, different outcomes and different views on the concept’s evolution (e.g. a static end result or a dynamic process). This study concludes that recognising IS as a dynamic process of multi-party and cross-sectoral resource management collaborations, that are often geographically concentrated, would be appropriate. These collaborations contribute to meeting societal and industrial needs more sustainably by creating improved value from otherwise wasted or underutilised resources, and by developing new products, services and utilities that are more effective and efficient. They also have significant potential to contribute to business competitiveness, reduced resource demand and environmental impact, and to
sustainable societal development. As such, IS offers a pragmatic and effective means for progressing towards more circular- and bio-based economies.
Internationally, there are numerous examples of IS, showcasing the benefits of the concepts and highlighting the dynamics affecting developments. These have similarities and differences. Some of the networks emerged in a self-organising fashion (e.g. Kalundborg, Denmark; Kwinana, Western Australia) and following their uncovering–revealing both diversity of synergistic connections concentrated to the area and their benefits–were coupled with structures and activities aimed at facilitating their further development. These had different levels of success. Some other examples, such as those found in Rotterdam harbour complex, in the multiple regions of the UK, and in the eco-industrial parks of South Korea, on the other hand, emerged with the support of different facilitation efforts. Facilitation efforts in Rotterdam were strongly anchored in local/regional actors and relied on deep relationship building and collective learning. Approaches in the UK, on the other hand, applied standard methods aimed at increased
transparency in secondary resource markets in multiple regions under a national coordination. This approach was effective in harvesting low-hanging fruits, but seem to have limited impact on building stronger relations, improving innovative capabilities, and building capacity in regions so that they can work with the concept on a continual basis. Approaches in South Korea, on the other hand, put strong emphasis on developing regional capacity. Regional centers established in selected parks with heavy industrial concentration, a common model in the country, were strongly resourced by the national government, and worked closely with local industries in strengthening relationships among actors and identifying synergistic development opportunities through multiple means. Realisation of identified possibilities were assisted with substantial financing from national government and through policy innovation that created more fertile contextual conditions. In recent years, a growing number of projects are initiated in the EU that also aim at building regional, national and EU-level capacity for IS. Swedish regions and stakeholders have been are a part in some of these initiatives.
iii
Operational industrial symbiosis practices and networks are commonly present in Sweden1. This
review provides a closer look at those located in Norrköping, Helsingborg, Stenungsund, and Örnsköldsvik. These, and many others, have all emerged spontaneously, in pursuit of mutual opportunities identified in bi-lateral interactions. While some networks are confined to industrial parks (e.g. Stenungsund and Industry Park of Sweden) in most other cases symbiotic
relationships include strong integration between industrial and urban activities, and in certain cases also extend resource transactions to regional agricultural and forestry related activities. Most symbiotic activity involves traditional industrial sectors such as chemical and
petrochemicals, metal processing, and pulp and paper production and residual energy utilization is often a common element. In more recent times symbiotic exchanges are increasingly linked to emerging bio-based industries and play a crucial role in their competitive development. However, in majority of the cases, involved actors are only aware of the interactions they are directly involved in and often do not recognise these activities as IS. Thus IS practice and networks are not institutionalised. Moreover, there is limited understanding of the multiple benefits–for individual businesses, for the environment, and for the regional socio-economic contexts– provided by these practices and networks.
In recent years, there is also growing interest in supporting IS developments through dedicated action. Facilitation efforts have been on-going in Malmö and Sotenäs for some time, and are slowly emerging in other localities, such as in Västra Mälardalen, Kronoberg and Värmland regions. These show similarities but also have their unique characteristics.
Globally, there is a rapidly evolving research and scientific knowledge on IS and these are strongly connected to the studies focusing on the international, and to some extent Swedish, cases and programs. A key part of such research focuses on determinants, which depending on their characteristics, form barriers and provide drivers for IS developments within given contexts. These determinants are large in number and are related to: techno-spatial conditions; information and knowledge availability; economic and market conditions; elements of the political system; and organisational and social dynamics. These determinants are also tightly inter-connected, making the development processes complex and context-specific. Conceptual and empirical research also provides insights on different facilitation approaches by which these determinants can be influenced to create more supportive conditions for IS developments. These show large variations, providing a broad portfolio of dynamics by which IS networks emerge. Approaches range from the use of ICT tools that help increase transparency in the secondary resource market, to development of resource flow and good practice databases; from organising match-making events with the help of external consultants, to developing institutional capacity with the local and regional actors for collective action. While all of these seem to produce results, those approaches that focus on building institutional capacity with the local and regional actors, and that work with creating supportive framework conditions in the local and national context with a long-term view seem to hold the best potential to assist prominent and sustainable development of IS practices. Such approaches require the identification and capacitation of relevant
intermediaries, developing stronger professional and personal relationships among diverse actors of the regional economic system, increasing knowledge resources through diverse and systemic interventions, supporting the development of identified opportunities with relevant specific inputs, and maintaining effective communication with regional and external actors for necessary business, market and policy innovations. As a sub-set of such approaches, different kinds of intermediaries and their specific roles receive particular attention. Research also highlights the value of tools and approaches that can aid specific elements of IS developments – such as social network analyses, IS maturity grid assessments, or specific analytical techniques. A significant gap, however, exists both in research and practice, in terms of assessing both the outcomes of industrial symbiosis and the effectiveness of facilitation efforts. Although it is often assumed that environmental, business, and socio-economic benefits are produced, these are not
1 So far, more than 35 Swedish IS networks have already been uncovered, and to a certain extent studied, by the Linköping University alone.
iv
methodologically reviewed. Of these, environmental assessments are relatively advanced with the limited application of LCA based approaches (where researchers from Sweden and Nordic countries maintain a leading position). Socio-economic and business value assessments remain under-developed and vague. There is also a big gap regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of different facilitation approaches.
Comparing the situation in Sweden to international practice and relevant research findings a number of strengths and weaknesses are identified. In Sweden, IS practices are relatively well developed, with numerous regions hosting multiple symbiotic relations among diverse actors. Among others, this provides a rich set of cases to build upon and to learn from. The fact that these practices evolved spontaneously with limited dedicated support also points to the presence of supportive contextual conditions. Some examples of these include: a rather supportive policy context; open, collaborative, and environmentally conscious business culture; wide presence of industries with large and steady residual streams with established markets; common availability of relevant transfer and conversion infrastructure; common presence of resourceful public
organisations and utility companies, and; strong public-private partnerships. IS applications in Sweden also show some unique features, such as: stronger integration between industrial, urban and rural systems for mutual benefit; more common and growing support to bio-based
industries, and; allowing higher levels of valorisation of streams commonly wasted elsewhere (such as residual industrial heat).
There are also certain weaknesses and gaps that are likely to be limiting further and accelerated IS developments. Here, the lack of concerted effort for facilitating additional IS developments is a key finding with diverse implications. Moreover, there is no systemic support available for parties who want to work with facilitating IS developments. There are organisations and individuals who have worked with IS developments for a long time and have accumulated substantial amounts of technical, organisational and institutional knowledge and experiences, which can valuably inform emerging facilitation efforts. However, there are no structures and routines to capture and transfer such knowledge and experiences effectively to those who can benefit from it. There is also a significant potential for creating better knowledge on the multiple benefits of IS practice and networks, which is likely to stimulate increased support from
businesses and policy makers. While resourceful public organisations (e.g. municipalities) and utility companies with strong facilitation potential are widely available, these lack the awareness and capabilities to deliver their potential. Last, but not least, there is scattered evidence of political barriers and hindrances, which are not systematically studied and brought to the attention of national level policy makers. Collectively, these findings point at the significant potential for more effectively supporting further IS developments and thereby harvesting further business, environmental and social benefits, among others, by better utilising existing leverages, properly addressing development barriers, and adequately utilising proven tools and techniques. It is clear that facilitation efforts implemented in other countries are not directly applicable in Sweden for optimum impact. Instead, by combining insights from research and international experiences with the strengths and weaknesses observed in the Swedish context and the
expressed needs of the Swedish stakeholders working with IS developments, this study proposes the prioritisation of the following actions, to be implemented at the regional and national levels, for effectively scaling up IS practices in Sweden:
At the regional levels:
• Local/regional entities or structures (e.g. Regional IS centers) should be developed to drive and coordinate systemic facilitation efforts in regions. These should preferably be based on public-sector platforms and led by a public actors to secure continuity, legitimacy and neutrality. Businesses, knowledge institutions, network organisations and consultants should be a part of these entities in order to secure business relevance and engagement, to secure availability of necessary knowledge resources, and to assist effective mobilisation.
v
• Key private and public stakeholders in the regions should be properly informed about the IS concept, the multiple benefits it can provide, and the roles they can play in supporting symbiotic developments;
• Actors that can play leading intermediary roles for local/regional developments should be identified and capacitated to serve as effective facilitators. Business support units of municipalities, locally/regionally active utility operators, and business and network associations should be considered as priority candidates;
• An initial, contextually relevant vision that can align actor interests along common objectives should be formulated;
• Necessary platforms and routines should be developed that can improve mutual understanding and trust among diverse local/regional actors and to form “communities of collaborative resource innovations” where new ideas can be generated and fostered; • New synergistic development opportunities should be systemically identified with the
help suitable techniques–such as resource mapping, opportunity workshops, good practice and technology screening, and through dedicated expert analyses; • Business-, environmental- and socio-economic impacts of identified opportunities
should be determined with appropriate methods and priority options should be selected. All identified opportunities should be stored in a local idea bank for future
consideration;
• Technical, organisational, financial, market related, and institutional development challenges of selected opportunities should be identified, and strategies for overcoming these effectively should be formulated;
• Additional regional and external actors with relevant resources to address identified challenges should be engaged to provide necessary development support;
• Development barriers and challenges requiring action from national and international levels should be systematically documented and conveyed to relevant decision makers; • All performed activities and their impacts should be monitored and documented. These
should be used for the refinement of future practices and can also be communicated with external actors of relevance.
At the national level:
• Pool of “good examples” regarding operational synergies/networks as well as facilitation efforts should be enriched. These examples should be more thoroughly studied in order to create improved knowledge, among others, on: multiple benefits of industrial symbiosis; successful development dynamics; effective facilitation approaches, and; technical, social, business, and policy innovations with positive impact. Findings should be distilled into accessible information and motivation products, and should be
disseminated through right channels;
• Relevant research findings should be combined with practical experiences and should be converted into pragmatic guides that are customised for different stakeholders operating within representative contexts (such as small or big municipalities; settings with or without pre-existing symbiotic activities) in order to make the efforts of local/regional facilitators more focused, effective and efficient;
• Building on the above, capacity building programs should be developed for relevant local/regional actors. Municipal or other local/regional public organisations, utility companies, and industry associations should be given priority as initial target groups. These should be delivered in collaboration with suitable regional entities (e.g. regional IS centers when they are in place, local universities) and in partnership with other national level organisations, such as Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL), Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv), The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA)
• Practical and effective tools that can assist “opportunity identification” and “impact assessment” should be developed, diffused, and maintained.
vi
• Communication, collaboration and networking among actors working with industrial symbiosis in different contexts should be improved in order to improve knowledge and experience exchange;
• Development challenges experienced at the local/regional levels should be systematically captured and, with critical mass at hand, dialogue should be initiated and maintained with actors who have the power and capacity to make a difference. Dialogue with ministries and agencies for policy innovation to overcome regulatory barriers; dialogue with financial institutions for financing and insurance innovations, and; dialogue with research institutions for technical and business model innovation should be considered as priority areas;
• Research that can create new knowledge that is useful for advancing practical industrial symbiosis developments in the Swedish context should be conducted and coordinated. Improving the understanding of the development dynamics and outcomes of IS practices and techniques for more effective facilitation should be priority areas for such research. Moreover, coordination and communication among IS research and research in other relevant areas and disciplines should be improved.
• Organisations and persons with relevant knowledge and capabilities should be identified and an expert group should be formed that can provide specialised input (e.g. on technical, organisational, legal, financial and marketing related aspects) to different regions and projects when needed.
This study also concludes that the development of a structure as shown in Figure below will assist effective and efficient implementation of the above-proposed actions and thereby significantly contribute to the scaling up of IS practices in Sweden.
A structure for effective and efficient scaling up of industrial symbiosis practices in Sweden.
Diverse stakeholders working with, or interested in, supporting IS developments in Sweden endorse the priority actions and implementation structure recommended in this study.
7
1 Introduction
Industrial symbiosis (IS) refers to collaborative processes for resource management, where multiple actors from diverse sectors collectively identify and develop innovative solutions that create environmental, business and development value2. The roots of the concept go a long way
back in history3, but its recognition within academic and practitioner circles in modern times
started in late 1990s. Since then, considerable number of operational IS networks have been uncovered, numerous IS facilitation programs have been implemented, and substantial amount of relevant scientific knowledge is accumulated. In more recent years, both businesses and policy makers started to show stronger interest in the concept. In the European Union, IS is explicitly recognized as an innovative way to improve resource productivity and to achieve green growth. The concept was selected as one of the seven “top priority areas” for implementation across Europe and the member states were called to prioritize exploitation of the opportunities provided by IS4. Recent European communications on Circular Economy also endorses
stimulation of industrial symbioses. In parallel, there has been a substantial surge in the research output related to IS in recent years5.
Sweden is home to a relatively large number operational IS cases and networks. Significant progress has been made in recent years with creating new knowledge about these and some important knowledge gaps still remain to be filled6. With circular- and biobased-economy
concepts gaining political and private support and with the knowledge about the potential of IS growing, policy makers, public authorities and private actors are increasingly interested in more systemically supporting further developments of IS, also in Sweden. There are facilitation initiatives in place in some Swedish regions, and the concept is increasingly a part of policies at different levels. However, both practical facilitation and policy-making efforts remain
inadequately informed by the relevant scientific knowledge as well as the international and national practices of relevance. Furthermore, in order to scale up symbiotic developments and associated desired benefits practice, new knowledge, tools and structures relevant for the Swedish context need to be developed. This study departs from these realities and aims to make a
contribution by providing an overview of the state of international and Swedish play with industrial symbiosis both in research and in practice. Through a review of research findings and by comparing international and Swedish practical experiences, it aims to deliver focused
suggestions to practitioners, policy makers and researchers for effectively assisting additional IS developments in Sweden.
Section 2 gives an overview of the main discourse relevant to the field – including main
principles, benefits, and potential drawbacks of the concept. Section 3 provides international and Swedish examples of operational IS networks, as well as different facilitation initiatives. Section 4 introduces main findings from relevant research, with particular focus on key determinants and dynamics of IS developments. An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Swedish context is provided in Section 5, before introducing proposed actions for supporting the scaling up of IS in Sweden in sixth and final section.
2 (Mirata et al. 2017)
3 The use of the term in economic geography dates back to 1950’s (Spekkink, 2015) and symbiotic resource exchanges were a common part of industrial systems up until the rapid growth of fossil-based industries (see for example Desroches and Leppälä for some examples and a discussion).
4 (Anon; European Commission) 5 (Chertow and Park 2015)
6 For example regarding the details of the development dynamics of these networks as well as the details of their performance outcomes.
8
2 Industrial symbiosis and its value
Industrial symbiosis is a central element of the overarching industrial ecology field, which aims to reduce the ecological impact of industrial activities7. The concept lacks a widely agreed-upon
definition and diverse definitions have differing implications in terms eligible resources and activities, included actors, geographic system boundaries, expected outcomes, and; the dynamic nature of the concept8. A collection of different definitions, along with reflections on their key
characteristics is provided in Annex I.
For the purposes of this study, a few delineations are important. First, while the term “industrial symbiosis” spontaneously triggers a perception of exclusive focus on industrial production, in practice any economic activity can be a part in resource collaborations with mutual benefits. Therefore, activities–such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries– and organisations–such as
communities, governance bodies, cities and knowledge institutions–are important entities to be a part of symbiotic relations and networks. Relatedly, the term “industrial” should be understood to capture diverse activities developed and managed by humans. For the Swedish context, such broad scoping is particularly important, as, for example, integration of industrial and urban flows is common, both in operational examples and in new development efforts. Second, industrial symbiosis needs to be recognised as a dynamic process, that creates continually evolving states of economic activity over time. While the outcomes of industrial symbiosis are tied to these states, the processes governing the development and decline of symbiotic relationships are of prime importance.
With this background, it is appropriate to recognise industrial symbiosis as a multi-party, cross-sectoral and often geographically concentrated collaborations resulting in resource management innovations that meet industrial and societal needs more sustainably by creating improved value from residual resources and by developing more efficient and effective products, services and utilities. More specifically, such positive outputs are enabled by any combination of the following mechanisms:
• By-product synergies, where non-product outputs arising from one process or facility, that is discarded or underutilized, is turned into a higher-value-adding productive input in another facility, at times replacing another primary production input9;
• Utility and service synergies, involves collective development and management of infrastructure for common utility needs (e.g. steam, compressed air, electricity, water and wastewater) and collective management of services (transport, waste management, maintenance) by third parties;10
• Supply synergies, take place when actors locate close to the source of their main inputs/suppliers or markets/customers in order to take advantage of proximity in key transactions;11
7(Boons et al. 2016)
8 (Chertow 2000; Lifset and Graedel 2002; Mirata and Emtairah 2005; Boons et al. 2011; Lombardi and Laybourn 2012)
9 A particular type of by-product synergy is also called supply synergies, in which a new entity co-locates with an existing actor in order to make use of, or supply, a particular by-product.
10 (Chertow 2007)
9
• Knowledge and capability synergies, involves the sharing, collective development and deployment of knowledge and competencies for the new products, services and
markets.12
Of these dynamics, by-product exchanges can be developed within different geographic and organisational boundaries. For example, exchanges within the same organisation, among firms located on the same industrial parks, among activities spread across a region, and even between operations that are located in different regions or even countries13 may arise – depending on the
physical characteristics and inherent value of the exchanged resources, the regulatory pressure placed on their sound management, and the effectiveness of coordination across these scales. Utility and service synergies, on the other hand, typically require actors to be in sufficient geographic proximity, due to the physical characteristics of shared resources (e.g. heating or compressed air is not transferable over large distances) and the techno-economic feasibility of relevant infrastructure. Likewise, supply synergies, by their nature, imply close proximity. Knowledge and competence synergies are not necessarily bound by physical distance between cooperating actors, but can be assisted by geographic proximity, which fosters critical social interactions.
In essence, industrial symbiosis represents a major shift from the traditional industrial model– where transactions are market-based and waste is a norm–into one where alternative resource sourcing and utilisation options are explored and realised. Such a shift is desirable as it can reduce primary resource use in production and transportation, as well as emissions and waste generation. These can also create business value in multiple ways, including: reducing the costs for resource input, waste and emission management, and logistics; increasing sales and revenues; reducing market and regulatory risks; removing bottlenecks to business growth; improving relationships with key stakeholder groups, and; improving organizational eco-innovation capabilities. Such environmental and business benefits also have implications for communities and regional economies. More specifically, IS can reduce costs, and improve the quality, of energy, water, waste management and mobility related services for communities, improve employment and tax revenues, assist regional resilience, and increase the attractiveness of regions for new business development. As such, IS is recognised as a key strategy to advance regional development14.
Today, as inter-connected pressures related to environmental and resource constraints, business
competitiveness, and more sustainable urban development are growing, bio-based and circular-economies are receiving increasing support from key societal actors. While there is clarity about bio-based and circular economies being desirable outcomes, the processes that can effectively lead to these are less clear. As shown by operational examples, IS represents an effective means (the process) for progressing towards more bio-based and circular economies. Therefore, diffusing and scaling up IS is also valuable for accelerating the needed transition.
12 (Mirata et al. 2017) 13 (Chertow 2000)
10
3 International and Swedish Experiences with Industrial
Symbiosis
There are multiple operational IS networks around the world and in Sweden which are outcomes of self-organising processes. These show similarities as well as differences in terms of their actor compositions, geographic boundaries, diversity and complexity of synergistic relationships, and associated outcomes. In the last three decades, there have also been various attempts around the world, and to a limited extent in Sweden15, to facilitate IS developments through dedicated
approaches. These examples provide useful lessons for the further development of IS networks. In the next section, some examples are presented and reviewed.
3.1 International industrial symbiosis experiences
3.1.1 Industrial Symbiosis in Kalundborg, Denmark
The industrial symbiosis network located in Kalundborg, Denmark, is one of the most widely known and most studied cases. The development of the network started in late 1960s as a response to recognised groundwater scarcity. Over time both the number of involved actors and the number and scope of synergies grew in a self-organising fashion, in pursuit of economic gains identified in bilateral relations. As of 2015, key actors in the network included an oil refinery (Statoil), a power station (DONG), a gypsum board facility (Gyproc, Saint Gobain), a pharmaceutical plant (Novo Nordisk), an enzyme producer (Novozymes), local water and wastewater utility company (Kara/Novern) and the city of Kalundborg16. Steam, ash, gypsum,
gas, heat, sludge, organic residues, process and cooling water are among the resources exchanged between local actors. Key actors and resource exchanges in Kalundborg are shown in Figure 1.
15 A dedicated industrial symbiosis program has been implemented in 2003-2004 in Landskrona, Sweden – see Mirata and Emtairah (2005) for further information.
16 Today the network in Kalundborg already looks different, as the coal-fired combined heat and power plant is being replaced by a biofuel fired steam and heating plant. This is a good demonstration of industrial symbiosis being a dynamic process, creating different network structures and outcomes over time.
11
Figure 1: Key actors and resource synergies in Kalundborg (Source: Kalundborg Symbiosis).
The extent of network and its benefits were recognized by local actors following an uncovering effort in 1990s. After this, a formal network involving the highest-level managers of local companies, as well as the head of the municipality, was created. This network is believed to be highly instrumental in keeping actors committed to resource synergies, even when changes in management took place. A coordination function (Kalundborg Symbiosis) was also established for identifying and supporting additional synergies and for supporting industrial symbiosis developments nationally and internationally through knowledge dissemination. In Kalundborg, new synergies between local actors are explored and implemented continuously. Production of biogas and microalgae from residual streams from industry are among more recent examples of synergies.
Various studies report significant, although varying, environmental and economic gains from synergistic relations in Kalundborg, but their assessment methods are not clear. An LCA based assessment of the symbiotic network was recently completed (Möller, 2017), but the findings were not publicly available by the time of writing.
It is commonly acknowledged that good human relationships, communication and cooperation have been key enablers of successful resource collaborations in Kalundborg. Local actors argue that the most important lessons in creating and maintaining the symbiosis network include:
• Having different kinds of activities that fit together; • Focusing on large, continuous waste streams; • Having economically feasible projects; • Having physical proximity between facilities; • Having mental proximity between decision makers.
Kalundborg provides inspiration and guidance to numerous parties from all around the world who are interested in developing IS networks in their own contexts.
12
3.1.2
Industrial Symbiosis in Kwinana industrial area, AustraliaResearchers in Australia uncovered an industrial symbiosis network in the Kwinana Industrial Area (KIA) in Western Australia. Unlike Kalundborg, this network includes 22 regional and 13 external actors which are distributed across a wider region. There is wider sectoral diversity in the area, dominated by the presence of heavy process industries, including Alcoa Alumina refinery, BHP Billiton Kwinana nickel refinery, BP oil refinery, Cockburn Cement lime and cement kilns, Coogee Chemicals, CSBP chemical and fertilisers operation, and Tronox titanium dioxide pigment plant. There are small to medium enterprises as well as the Verve Energy power station and Water Corporation water and wastewater treatment plants.17 32 by-product and 15 utility
synergies were detected among these actors, all which have emerged in a self-organising fashion.18
Key actors of the Kwinna IS network, and the uncovered synergies are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: By-product and utility synergies detected in the Kwinana industrial area, Australia (van Beers, et al., 2007)
In Kwinana, operational synergies were considered to be limited to direct reuse opportunities available through relatively well-established technologies. Studies indicate that this could be linked to lack of understanding or lack of incentives to implement more complex synergies.
19Research has shown that adding value to substantial amounts of other unutilized by-product
required specialized know-how necessitating the involvement of research institutes to help find new technological solutions. To enhance the further development of new regional synergies, Centre for Sustainable Resource Processing (CSRP) of Curtin University collaborated with Kwinana Industrial Council (KIC) and investigated opportunities for waste reuse and
infrastructure sharing. More than 90 additional synergy opportunities were identified through a combination of:
17 (Glen D. Corder et al. 2014) 18 (van Beers et al. 2007) 19 (Glen D. Corder et al. 2014)
13 • A resource and process flow database;
• Focused opportunity identification workshops; • On-site company visits, and;
• A review of earlier reports on synergies in Kwinna.20
After a review, 25 of the new opportunities were prioritized and based on the interest and perceived importance of KIC and member companies, development efforts were focused on nine shortlisted projects related to water and by-products (van Beers et al., 2007). No public information regarding whether or what kinds of new synergies were developed since.
Drivers, barriers and triggers that were found to be applicable to Kwinna are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Drivers, Barriers and Triggers relevant for Industrial Symbiosis Developments in Kwinna (Source: van Beers, 2007)
Category Drivers Barriers Triggers
Economics Increased revenue through lower operational costs
Reduced risks and liability
Relatively low price for utility resources Relatively low costs for waste disposal
Secure availability and access to vital process resources
Information availability Local industry organization Staff mobility
Confidentiality and
commercial issues Local and regional studies
Corporate citizenship and business strategy
Corporate sustainability focus
Community engagement and perception
Core business focus Community engagement and perception
Industry champion
Region-specific issues New company entering industrial area Geographic isolation
Distance between
companies Major new project developments
Regulation Existing environmental regulations (e.g., air and water quality requirements and reporting)
Existing environmental regulations (intensive approval procedure for by-product reuse) Existing water and energy utility regulations
New pollutant targeted regulations (e.g., carbon tax and mandatory energy audits)
Technical issues Research and technology developments Technical obsolescence of existing process equipment Availability of (reliable) recovery technologies
14
3.1.3 Industrial Ecosystem (INES) Program in Rotterdam Harbour, Netherlands
Inspired primarily by the self-organised operational cases, various concerted efforts were initiated around the globe to develop new IS networks. One of these was in Rotterdam harbor– one of the largest and highly concentrated industrial areas in Europe, dominated by chemical and petro-chemical industries. Here, a two-stage Industrial EcoSystem (INES) program was executed between 1994 and 2002. The program was initiated by an industry representative organization, DELTALINQ, which earlier coordinated cleaner production and environmental management programs with its industrial members.
In the first stage–which was supported by public funds from local, provincial, national and EU levels– a survey was conducted with 69 companies in order to identify to identify regional collaboration opportunities and consequently 15 potential sub-projects were identified. One of these resulted in the establishment of a new cogeneration plant as a joint venture of two chemical companies, an industrial gas company and an energy company. The plant became operational in 1995 and uses waste heat of two chemical plants and treated industrial wastewater as water source (Baas 2005). This plant solved environmental compliance issues for one of the chemical plants, provided steam for capacity increase at the other chemical plant, and generated enough electricity to establish a new oxygen plant21. Three of the other key areas that were pursued
within the first stage of INES related to utility synergies for compressed air, wastewater and bio-sludge. The program also identified an opportunity to develop a pipeline to capture and utilize about 2.2 GW of waste heat from different processes. No actual joint utility system was developed, but interactions and knowledge exchange among project members resulted in significant efficiency improvements within individual plants22.
The second stage of the INES program started with a renewed project strategy, where DELTALINQ assumed a stronger project management role and where a high-level advisory committee was formed with representatives from industry, government and other stakeholders to endorse and guide the project. During this phase INES also converged with a parallel policy program–supported both by regional government and industries–aimed to strengthen industrial performance and improve life-quality of local residents by integrating environment in the
physical planning of the region. Wider achievements were realised in the second stage, including: • A new system was developed to supply the largest water-using companies with industrial
water sourced from a nearby lake, thereby replacing higher quality water use from the local utility company. This scheme held the potential to provide savings of around 8 Million €, annually.
• A system was developed to capture residual process heat from Shell and Esso refineries and use it for district heating of new residential areas. This system was planned to expand gradually, reaching the provision of 50 MW of district heating to 25 000 houses in 2020. • A shared compressed air system was developed by another gas company (a competitor of
the one focusing on the idea in the first stage). The new company focused on a smaller group of users, re-established trust, and made necessary investments after securing performance based contracts with four users. The system provided approximately 20% costs and energy savings to the users, and later on was extended to serve seven users. • A giant shrimp producing company, called Happy Shrimps, were established, which met
its energy needs from industrial residual heat available in the area23.
21 (Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production 2007) 22 (Baas 2005; Baas and Boons 2004)
15
Improved success, in terms of regional resources, of the second stage of the INES project was generally attributed to the active facilitation support role played by DELTALINQ (e.g by compiling input and output data, identifying matches between companies, and facilitating development of improved relations among regional actors)24.
3.1.4 National Industrial Symbiosis Program (NISP) in the UK
NISP in the UK was among the first programs in the world with a national scope and was originally developed by the Business Council for Sustainable Development-UK with
contributions from Lund University, Sweden25. The initiative was built upon three regional pilot
programs in the UK initiated between 2000 and 2002. Following a test period, NISP started in its full capacity in 2005 with funding from the UK government using landfill tax revenues.
Within the initiative regional coordinators and facilitation teams were set-up in 12 different region. These delivered a uniform approach in their respective regions, and their activities were coordinated from a central office at the national level. NISP positioned itself as a “facilitator for the willing” and worked with the companies from all sectors that were already interested to develop synergistic relations–rather than attracting actors to the concept, trying to induce cooperation directly or imposing certain projects on firms. During its earlier years, when the program was funded by the government, membership in the program was for free and enrolment required actors to make a commitment to collaboration and disclose information to the
facilitators and to other members. Going beyond energy and materials, NISP encouraged its members to think creatively about using land, facilities, transportation and human resources more productively through collaboration26.
NISP used both simple and complex practices to identify and catalyse symbiotic relationships. Low-hanging fruits were identified through simpler approaches such as “quick wins workshops” and “resource matching through resource streams database. In the quick wins workshops participants from different firms were facilitated to share information on the different resource they would like to supply to and/or source from others. These workshops were generally successful in identifying potential synergies and initiating communication and projects among participants. Resource stream database, on the other hand, served as an online searchable repository for resource streams of member firms. Database contents were developed through material collected from quick win workshops as well direct data input by the member firms. The database hosted information from all the regions, and therefore allowed for identifying potential synergies among a larger number of actors without the need of bringing them physically together at first. Following a brief introduction, members could freely post and search information, and contact other members on the platform. Members can report flows with relevant details (e.g. specific constituents and continuity of flow) and/or by using common European Union waste classification codes. The database automatically searches for potential synergies at regular intervals and informs relevant coordinators about findings. Coordinators can also perform their own searches. When alerted about the potential matches, the coordinators contact relevant actors. The synergies identified by the workshops and the database are often focus on most problematic waste streams or costly resource sourcing, and are therefore lack deeper innovations. While operating with government funding, NISP operators also took a more active brokering and matchmaking roles to facilitate more complex symbiosis projects – e.g those involved further processing of the resources and/or use of new technologies, or those that were less obvious to
24 (Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production 2007)
25 One of the authors of this report is among the original architects of the program. 26 (Paquin and Howard-Grenville 2012)
16
the organisations. Following up on potential synergies identified in workshops or database, regional coordinators provided targeted support to bring two organizations together and/or to form multi-party collaborations across business, government and research sectors. Collecting more detailed information through site visits, forming and partly funding teams with relevant network members to develop and implement new technologies for waste reduction was among performed activities. In such cases, partner organizations moved away from meeting their simple resource transactions towards more complex business and research activities.
When the public funding was stopped in 2009, NISP was terminated and the initiative was transformed into a paid, members-only one. Between 2005 and 2013 NISP gained 15,000 participating industry members, comprised of micro, small and medium businesses (SMEs) and multinational/corporates from diverse industry sector. According to the program’s coordinators, members of the NISP diverted 47 million tonnes of industrial waste from landfill, reduced carbon emissions by 42 million tonnes, reused 1.8 million tonnes of hazardous waste, saved 60 million tonnes of virgin material and 73 million tonnes of industrial water from April 2005 until March 201327.
Research on NISP’s performance recognized that such outcomes were strongly supported by the changes in the institutional context that prevailed during programs implementation. More specifically, tightening waste management regulations and increasing landfilling costs have given strong incentives to the industry to find alternative outlets to their waste streams. In other words, institutional conditions increased the pressure on the industry to take action, NISP assisted the identification of viable options. Another important factor is related to the fact that NISP coordinators are not just passive brokers, but they have an active steering power in prioritizing certain forms of synergies (by choosing to selectively support certain types of synergies). AS NISP’s funding was tied to creating aggregate reductions in waste generation and CO2 emissions
in an economically beneficial way. It is argued that such a position might be used to serve self-interests – prioritising those synergies that will allow faster progress with program’s indicators set by its funders28. It is also argued that many of the resource exchanges enabled by NISP are of
arms-length type, and did not create lasting collaborative relations among member actors29. The
latter implies that the programme provided limited support to the innovative capabilities of the actors and regions. Moreover, there are strong indications that the program failed to built sufficient institutional capacity in the regions it operated, so that the regional actors can continue working with the IS developments even after the program’s freely-accessible phase was
completed.
Global implications of NISP
Following its success in the UK, NISP has been highly influential in diffusing the industrial symbiosis idea to other nations. With a solid business drive from the International Synergies Ltd. coordinating the program, NISP was also initiated in other countries including South Africa, Turkey, China, Brasil and Canada. There is limited credible information on the impact of the program in these countries. However, a common perception of the authors (based on informal communications with people from host countries that were involved with the program) is that implementation relies too much on International Synergies’ long-term involvement and fails to build institutional capacity in the host context. This could partly explain why some of these overseas programs have been short-lived. The strengths and weaknesses of the NISP model are summarized in
27 (Costa et al. 2010)
28 (Paquin and Howard-Grenville 2012) 29 (Domenech and Davies 2011)
17 Table 2:
Table 2: Strengths and weaknesses of the NISP.
Strengths Weaknesses
• Effective brokerage for the willing companies; • Application of a uniform method in multiple regions • Cross-regional opportunities and learning
• Creation of a central database with large amounts of input-output data, and cases
• Creates quick results
• Implementation dependent on an external actor with commercial interests;
• Limited support for local capacity building for working with IS in the long run;
• Focus on low-hanging-fruits and limited contribution for innovative solutions and capabilities
• Limited relationship building among actors;
3.1.5 Korean Eco-Industrial Park Initiative30
In 2003, the government of South Korea announced plans for an ambitious three-phase 15-year National eco-industrial park (EIP) initiative, to restructure the country’s industrial base and to eventually retrofit its industrial complexes (more than 1000 sites) into eco-industrial parks (EIPs). The design of the program was based on the findings of a SWOT analysis for IS implementation in country’s industrial complexes. After two revisions, the program was launched under the management of a semi-governmental body that manages national industrial complexes in Korea (KICOX). EIP development was integrated with other policies on industrial complexes and focused on practical IS projects–rather than technical R&D projects prioritized in first proposal. The program phases and their objectives were as following: 1) the first phase (November 2005–May 2010) aimed to experiment with five pilot industrial complexes to set a foundation 2) the second phase (June 2010–December 2014) focused on expanding the network of physical exchanges by disseminating knowledge and experience to other industrial complexes through a network, and 3) the third phase (January 2015–December 2019) aims to complete the national EIP network and establish Korea's own EIP model based on lessons learned from the previous phases. Five sites, including a total of 7 industrial complexes were included the first phase of the program.
To support the program, the Korean government set up a finance scheme in the form of research funding to provide economic incentives for industries to participate in feasibility studies and draw additional private funds. Evaluation mechanisms were set up for granting financial support promoted more feasible and competitive projects. In order to address expertise and awareness gaps, the EIP program established regional centers. These centers had an advisory board–formed by representatives from local government, academia, and industry–and they worked with a group of local coordinators (mostly retired managers and experts from local industries), who were capacitated on EIP strategy and implementation. In practice these centers offered a wide range of services including providing direction to the regional programs, devising strategies based on local contexts, and facilitating the development of project ideas. In order to develop ideas various approaches were used including development of resource databases, organization of forums and meetings, and appointing coordinators with specialized expertise. Resource databases contain information on material, organizational, human, and infrastructure resources available in their region and are populated with the help of surveys, compiling environmental statistics from governmental and research organizations, and data from project reports. As the contents of the databases are limited to technical and quantitative details and do
18
not consider actual facility conditions or other relevant contexts, they are complemented with forums where contextual information is shared through stakeholder networking and potential resource-sharing opportunities are explored more thoroughly. Relatedly, new ideas were generated both by industries and knowledge institutions (bottom-up) and by the regional EIP center (top-down). The centers also provided support for proposal writing and review, for following-up on-going projects, and for cooperating with local governments and relevant organizations. Projects approved by the regional centers were regularly evaluated for their
economic and environmental potential by a national assessment committee composed of relevant experts and were eligible for up to 75% funding from the national government.
Rest of the funds are provided by local governments and participating industry (min 10%). Feasibility projects are evaluated upon completion, and can be subject to technology fees to be paid back to the national government.
During its first phase, between 2005 and 2010, 175 project proposals were developed; of which 116 were authorized for implementation. As summarized in Figure 4, as of 2013, 47 of these were operational and delivering economic and environmental value.
All sites were able to implement IS projects, and develop operational symbiotic relations, and this was considered to qualify the tested approach suitable for supporting IS developments in other sites and regions. Differences observed between the regions were attributed to variations between sites, in terms of industrial composition, industry size, scale of the region, social relations, and the capacities of the EIP center and stakeholders.
The economic benefits of the operational projects were calculated based on costs saved in resource procurement, operations, and environmental/waste management by replacing virgin materials with by-products and on net revenue generated by selling by-products. In total, the 47 projects generated 189 million US dollars of economic benefits. The energy projects produced more gains due to their larger scale, when total benefits were compared with initial investment (i.e., the sum of government support and private investment), the return on investment (ROI) from by-product projects were much higher (577% vs 110%). This was linked to the fact that compared to by-product projects, energy projects require higher upfront investment in the installation of necessary equipment or pipelines–increasing implementation time and decreasing the rate of return. On the contrary, by-product projects tend to have high rates of return,
Figure 3: Number of projects authorised (solid colors) and operational (faded colors) in Korean EIP Program as of 2013 (Source: Park et al., 2016).
19
sometimes reaching up to 2000 or 3000%. In nine by-product cases, the projects generated considerable benefits without any investment. Wastewater projects showed even higher ROIs than by-product projects. Gains in that group were arising from reduced wastewater treatment costs, as well as from savings in procurement costs by reusing materials recovered from wastewater. Overall, the program produced economic benefits 10 to 100 times greater than the amount of government funding, which enabled continuous support from the government. Energy and wastewater projects showed higher returns on government support than by-product projects: by-product projects were driven more by government funding in developing new ideas for industrial symbiosis but used existing facilities and technologies, whereas energy and
wastewater projects drew sufficient private investments to construct the necessary new facilities
.
The environmental performance was evaluated in terms of direct reduction of energy consumption as well as reductions in the generation of waste, wastewater, and emissions
achieved through industrial symbiosis implementation. The 47 projects reduced waste by 477,633 metric tons, wastewater by 110,032 metric tons, energy by 176,781 tons, and greenhouse gases by 668,198 metric tons CO2-eq. This corresponds to 0.83% of waste generation, 0.008% of
wastewater generation, 0.14% of energy consumption in Korea in the 2011-2012 period. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was primarily associated with energy savings, but a significant reduction was also achieved from the by-product projects due to both a decrease in energy use and the prevention of waste disposal.
The success factors and barriers observed within the Korean Eco-industrial program are summarized in Table 3
Table 3: Success factors and barriers observed with the Korean Eco-Industrial Park Development Program (Source: Park et al., 2015)
Strengths Weaknesses
• Initial SWOT analyses allowed adoption of right institutional approaches • Diverse industries are concentrated in industrial complexes
• Government support highlighted economic returns typically hidden from management and drew private funds in implementation.
• Extensive databases of diverse resources were developed • Dedicated centers and experts supported project development,
implementation, and operation in diverse ways.
• Centers acted as local champions and knowledge brokers, whose credibility and trust increased project implementation.
• Multiple organized forums improved the extent of communication, sharing of tacit knowledge, development of trust, and willingness to cooperate between businesses, universities, research institutes, and local governments
• Hiring local business retirees and professors as experts and coordinators in EIP centers allowed taking advantage of local tacit knowledge in project development and implementation.
• Example synergies in respective regions helped demonstrate concrete benefits and increased participation in subsequent steps.
• In expectation that additional projects in pilot regions may require higher investments (once the lower hanging fruits are collected), in the subsequent phases more government support for implementation was considered.
• An amendment in the national legislation empowered the regional EIP centers to compile the necessary statistics from central and local government bodies and to collect industry data through facility visits and surveys.
• Amendments to the legislation allowed environmental industries that process and recycle by-products and residual heat (i.e., scavengers and decomposers) to be located within industrial complexes–which was not possible earlier.
• Waste management regulations limited potential uses of by-products (A closer collaboration with regulatory bodies are considered for flexible application and adaptation of waste
regulations on a case-by-case basis in the future phases of the program)
• Legislation also limited the development of synergistic relations between companies located in different industrial complexes.
• Personnel at waste management departments of companies saw by-product recovery projects as a threat to their positions (this situation was managed by EIP personnel helping create “resource recovery and circulation” positions.
• Securing financial support from local/regional public authorities proved difficult.
20
3.1.6 Symbiotic Bio-Energy Port Integration with Cities by 2020 (EPIC2020) Project EPIC2020 was a three-year applied-research program aimed at building capacity and know-how to better exploit the potential of European regions to create more value from bioenergy
resources, while at the same time address urban economic development challenges. The project recognized the development of industrial and urban synergies as an effective approach to achieve its objectives and tested a systemic development methodology in four European pilot sites with differing characteristics. The sites were: Malmö Northern Harbour, Sweden; Port of Astakos, Greece; Port of Mantova, Italy; Port of Wismar and Rostock, Germany. The four main stages of the methodology followed in EPIC2020 is depicted in Figure below.
Figure 4: Development methodology tested in EPIC2020.
In the respective sites, the project first focused on creating networks of actors that can play a key role in transforming port areas so as to develop efficient, low-carbon and urban-integrated energy systems, where bio-wastes and biomass supply chains are utilised as local resources. Diverse stakeholders from private and public organizations were engaged in these networks, all which were guided by a joint development concept (developed as part of the project). Network
members were informed about multiple benefits and challenges of Industrial symbiosis and were regularly brought together by local coordinators for guided discussions regarding symbiotic developments. A number of cross regional workshops and visits were also organised. Next, potential availability of bio-energy resources were identified with the help of a systemic data collection approach that focused on both existing and planned activities in the port areas as well as in port hinterlands. Such study identified significant potential for bio-energy resource availability for each port site. Collected data was also analysed in order to identify technical possibilities for conversion technologies and relevant synergistic linkages These potentials were visualised in a graphic form and the so-called Symbiotic Bioenergy Networks (SBN) diagrams, as exemplified in Figure 5 were developed.
21
Figure 5: An example of Symbiotic bioenergy network potential (for Port of Mantova, Italy.)
Formulation of such development visions were highly effective in securing stronger engagement from local stakeholders, despite the fact that majority of the technical possibilities identified were not feasible to develop in reality. Such visualisations presented concrete possibilities and
enhanced engagement from stakeholders. These were used as starting points by the stakeholders and developed into more realistic ideas.
In the next phase of the project, local stakeholders engaged in a more intense dialogue in order to more closely investigate and scrutinize symbiotic development opportunities for their contexts. In order to assist this process, a “symbiotic development opportunity identification and
assessment” guidance document was also developed and tested. These processes resulted in every region identifying a number of specific synergistic development options, which the local
stakeholders were interested in pursuing.
By the end of the project period, some of the opportunities identified were either approved for investments or were still under evaluation. A virtual marketplace tool–aimed at creating more transparent and credible information on supply and demand conditions for bio-energy resources–was also developed and stimulated new bio-energy resource synergies. The tool has been instrumental in the conversion of multiple small and medium scale oil-based heating systems into bio-fuel systems–in the process also enabling income diversification for local forest owners and farmers. Moreover, upon completion of the 3 year program, all of the port sites were able to initiate new programs that built on the foundation set by EPIC2020 and continue to foster symbiotic development in their contexts.
A major achievement of EPIC2020 has been the development of local policies in Malmö and Mantova, explicitly supporting symbiotic developments. As covered later, the developments within EPIC2020 set the foundation for additional support activities and structures for Malmö. Strengths and weaknesses of the EPIC2020 project can be summarized in
22 Table 4:
