The introduction of renewable jet fuel (RJF) is considered an important emission mitigation measure for the aviation industry. This study compares the well-to-wake (WtWa) greenhouse gas (GHG) emission performance of multiple RJF conversion pathways and explores the impact of different co-product allocation methods. The insights obtained in this study are of particular importance if RJF is included as an emission mitigation instrument in the global Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Fischer–Tropsch pathways yield the highest GHG emission reduction compared to fossil jet fuel (86–104%) of the pathways in scope, followed by Hydrothermal Liquefaction (77–80%) and sugarcane- (71–75%) and corn stover-based Alcohol-to-Jet (60–75%). Feedstock cultivation, hydrogen and conversion inputs were shown to be major contributors to the overall WtWa GHG emission performance. The choice of allocation method mainly affects pathways yielding high shares of co-products or producing co-products which effectively displace carbon intensive products (e.g., electricity). Renewable jet fuel can contribute to significant reduction of aviation-related GHG emissions, provided the right feedstock and conversion technology are used. The GHG emission performance of RJF may be further improved by using sustainable hydrogen sources or applying carbon capture and storage. Based on the character and impact of different co-product allocation methods, we recommend using energy and economic allocation (for non-energy co-products) at a global level, as it leverages the universal character of energy allocation while adequately valuing non-energy co-products.

Bioenergy as well as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage are key options to embark on cost‐efficient trajectories that realize climate targets. Most studies have not yet assessed the influence on these trajectories of emerging bioeconomy sectors such as biochemicals and renewable jet fuels (RJFs). To support a systems transition, there is also need to demonstrate the impact on the energy system of technology development, biomass and fossil fuel prices. We aim to close this gap by assessing least‐cost pathways to 2030 for a number of scenarios applied to the energy system of the Netherlands, using a cost‐minimization model. The type and magnitude of biomass deployment are highly influenced by technology development, fossil fuel prices and ambitions to mitigate climate change. Across all scenarios, biomass consumption ranges between 180 and 760 PJ and national emissions between 82 and 178 Mt CO₂. High technology development leads to additional 100–270 PJ of biomass consumption and 8–20 Mt CO₂ emission reduction compared to low technology development counterparts. In high technology development scenarios, additional emission reduction is primarily achieved by bioenergy and carbon capture and storage. Traditional sectors, namely industrial biomass heat and biofuels, supply 61–87% of bioenergy, while wind turbines are the main supplier of renewable electricity. Low technology pathways show lower biochemical output by 50–75%, do not supply RJFs and do not utilize additional biomass compared to high technology development. In most scenarios the emission reduction targets for the Netherlands are not met, as additional reduction of 10–45 Mt CO₂ is needed. Stronger climate policy is required, especially in view of fluctuating fossil fuel prices, which are shown to be a key determinant of bioeconomy development. Nonetheless, high technology development is a no‐regrets option to realize deep emission reduction as it also ensures stable growth for the bioeconomy even under unfavourable conditions.

With the Bioeconomy Strategy, Europe aims to strengthen and boost biobased sectors. Therefore, investments in and markets of biobased value chains have to be unlocked and local bioeconomies across Europe have to be deployed. Compliance with environmental and social sustainability goals is on top of the agenda. The current biomass provision structures are unfit to take on the diversity of biomass residues and their respective supply chains and cannot ensure the sustainability of feedstock supply in an ecological, social and economical fashion. Therefore, we have to address the research question on feasible strategies for mobilizing and deploying local, low-value and heterogeneous biomass resources. We are building upon the work of the IEA Bioenergy Task40 scientists and their expertise on international bioenergy trade and the current provision of bioenergy and cluster mobilization measures into three assessment levels; the legislative framework, technological innovation and market creation. The challenges and opportunity of the three assessment levels point towards a common denominator: The quantification of the systemic value of strengthening the potentially last remaining primary economic sectors, forestry, agriculture and aquaculture, is missing. With the eroding importance of other primary economic sectors, including fossil fuel extraction and minerals mining, the time is now to assess and act upon the value of the supply-side of a circular bioeconomy. This value includes the support the Bioeconomy can provide to structurally vulnerable regions by creating meaningful jobs and activities in and strengthening the resource democratic significance of rural areas.