Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bioeconomy in Maturation: A Pathway Towards a “Good” Bioeconomy or Distorting Silence on Crucial Matters?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bio#Futures

Abstract

The bioeconomy as an emerging research field and policy framework has raised high expectations for enabling a shift to more sustainable practices. However, many of the solutions promoted under it have been heavily criticized for a lack of concern regarding the systemic effects in both environmental and social sustainability. In this article we analyse the differences between “1st round” bioeconomy policies and the revisions that have arisen from the critique (“2nd round bioeconomy policies”). We compare the two consecutive bioeconomy policy frameworks to views presented by a panel of Delphi experts. The experts elaborate on their views about a “good” and “bad” bioeconomy futures, with a long-range timeframe until 2075. The results indicate that the first round of bioeconomy policies contains many of the elements that the experts see as leading to an undesirable future. In contrast, the experts envisioned a “good” bioeconomy which would be based on a just and inclusive transition, a changed economic paradigm moving away from the focus on material growth, and a multitude of sustainable technologies, lifestyle changes, and balanced relations between business and politics. In the second round of bioeconomy policies, many of the issues addressed by the critique have been taken up, but problematic areas remain in the policies somewhat untouched. These include, amongst others, the question of biomass use for energy. We conclude that the bioeconomy finds itself now at an intersection between the old recommendations and novel, more inclusive goals. Are the expert panel’s views indicative of the directions where national-level policy implementation is taking the bioeconomy? If not, how will the bioeconomy policies resolve the most burning critiques in relation to the overreaching policy goals to combat climate change? We argue that what happens in the next phases of bioeconomy policy implementation process will be critical for the fate of the entire bioeconomy project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, e.g. Brown (2003), Brown and Michael (2003), Borup et al. (2006), Goven and Pavone (2015), Petersen and Krisjansen (2015), Van Lente (1993)

  2. 2.

    Brown (2003), 5–6; Deuten and Rip (2000)

  3. 3.

    Brown (2003), see also Brown and Michael (2003), Borup et al. (2006), Deuten and Rip (2000), Goven and Pavone (2015), Petersen and Krisjansen (2015), Van Lente (1993)

  4. 4.

    Quotations are used in this article for “good” and “bad” to signal reservations about using such simplistic terms for complex and multifaceted, value-laden issues.

  5. 5.

    Polak (1973), Bell (1996)

  6. 6.

    Kuusi (1999)

  7. 7.

    E.g. Tapio (2002)

  8. 8.

    Linstone and Turoff (1975)

  9. 9.

    E.g. EC (European Commission), 2002. Life Sciences and Biotechnology: a Strategy for Europe; COM, vol. 27. Brussels, Belgium, 2002

  10. 10.

    A bioeconomy can be thought of as a world where biotechnology contributes to a significant share of economic output (OECD 2009 : 8).

    The bioeconomy’s cross-cutting nature offers a unique opportunity to comprehensively address inter-connected societal challenges such as food security, natural resource scarcity, fossil resource dependence, and climate change while achieving sustainable economic growth (EC 2012 , 9).

    The bioeconomy encompasses the production of renewable biological resources and their conversion into food, feed, bio-based products, and bioenergy. It includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food, and pulp and paper production, as well as parts of chemical, biotechnological, and energy industries (EC 2012 , 16).

  11. 11.

    E.g. EC (2012), Winkel (2017)

  12. 12.

    Staffas et al. (2013), McCormick and Kautto (2013)

  13. 13.

    Ramcilovic-Suominen and Pülzl (2018); Mittra and Zoukas (2020); Staffas et al. (2013), McCormick and Kautto (2013); Varho et al. (2018)

  14. 14.

    Ramcilovic-Suominen and Pülzl (2018); Mittra and Zoukas (2020); Staffas et al. (2013), McCormick and Kautto (2013); Varho et al. (2018); Bugge et al. (2016); Pfau et al. (2014)

  15. 15.

    Varho et al. (2018), 29

  16. 16.

    Ramcilovic-Suominen and Pülzl (2018), 4178

  17. 17.

    Ramcilovic-Suominen et al. (2010, 2013)

  18. 18.

    Arevalo et al. (2014), Danielsen et al. (2008), German et al. (2010), Obidzinski et al. (2012)

  19. 19.

    Ramcilovic-Suominen and Pülzl (2018), 4178

  20. 20.

    Staffas et al. (2013), McCormick and Kautto (2013)

  21. 21.

    Bugge et al. (2016), Mittra and Zoukas (2020)

  22. 22.

    Kröger and Raitio (2017)

  23. 23.

    Kleinschmit et al. (2017)

  24. 24.

    Mittra and Zoukas (2020), 11

  25. 25.

    Brown (2003), Goven and Pavone (2015); see also Brown and Michael (2003), Borup et al. (2006), Deuten and Rip (2000), Petersen and Krisjansen (2015), Van Lente (1993).

  26. 26.

    Goven and Pavone (2015); 307

  27. 27.

    Winkel (2017), 14

  28. 28.

    Mittra and Zoukas (2020), 12; Doezema and Hurlbut (2017)

  29. 29.

    Goven and Pavone (2015), 305

  30. 30.

    Mittra and Zoukas (2020), 12; Brown (2003)

  31. 31.

    Brown (2003), 17

  32. 32.

    Ramcilovic-Suominen and Pülzl (2018), 4178

  33. 33.

    Pülzl et al. (2017), 47

  34. 34.

    OECD (2014), 10–11

  35. 35.

    PBL (2012): EEA (2013)

  36. 36.

    OECD (2014), 19

  37. 37.

    PBL (2012), 2

  38. 38.

    OECD (2014), 39

  39. 39.

    OECD (2014), 12; OECD (2018), 41–42; Van Dam and Junginger (2011)

  40. 40.

    OECD (2014), 5

  41. 41.

    EC (2017), 41

  42. 42.

    European Bioeconomy Stakeholders Manifesto (2017), 4

  43. 43.

    EC (2018), 4

  44. 44.

    EC (2018), 41

  45. 45.

    OECD (2018), 10

  46. 46.

    EC (2018), 14

  47. 47.

    EC (2018), 15

  48. 48.

    EC (2018), 15 (emphasis added)

  49. 49.

    EC (2018), 33

  50. 50.

    EC (2018), 15

  51. 51.

    EC (2018), 45

  52. 52.

    EC (2012), 31

  53. 53.

    EC (2018), 9, 26

  54. 54.

    EC (2018), 41

  55. 55.

    OECD (2018), 7

  56. 56.

    EC (2018), 5

  57. 57.

    EC (2017); OECD (2018)

  58. 58.

    EC (2018), 49

  59. 59.

    EC (2016); Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources

  60. 60.

    EC (2018), 49

  61. 61.

    OECD (2018), 9

  62. 62.

    OECD (2018), 50

  63. 63.

    OECD (2018), 44

  64. 64.

    OECD (2018), 12

  65. 65.

    OECD (2018), 12–13

  66. 66.

    OECD (2018), 57

  67. 67.

    PBL (2012), 7–9, see also Partanen et al. (2014) 

  68. 68.

    OECD (2018), 41; Philp (2015)

  69. 69.

    PBL (2012), 9, 14

  70. 70.

    PBL (2012), 14

  71. 71.

    EC (2018b), 21–22

  72. 72.

    OECD (2018), 7

  73. 73.

    EC (2018), 32

  74. 74.

    EC (2018), 32

  75. 75.

    OECD (2018), 50

  76. 76.

    OECD (2018), 8

  77. 77.

    OECD (2018), 31, 42, 54

  78. 78.

    OECD (2018), 31

  79. 79.

    OECD (2018), 31

  80. 80.

    See, e.g. Jackson (2009)

  81. 81.

    Similar ideas have been used as base for method and theory development in critical futures studies (the CLA method, Inayatullah 2009) and in peace studies (Johan Galtung’s (1981a, 1981b) deep civilizational codes).

Bibliography

  • Arevalo, J., Halder, P., Kortelainen, J., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2014). Bioenergy: from local conflicts to global governance. Oil, Gas & Energy Law 4. www.ogel.org/article.asp?key¼3511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, W. (1996). Foundations of futures studies: human science for a new era. Vol. 1, History, purposes and knowledge. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borup M, Brown N., Konrad K. and Val Lente H. (2006). The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3/4), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N (2003). Hope Against Hype – Accountability in Biopasts, Presents and Futures. Science Studies 16(2), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. and M. Michael. (2003). A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15(1), 3-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugge, M., Hansen, T., Klitkou, A. (2016). What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature. Sustainability 8(7): 691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen, F., Beukema, H., Burgess, N.D., Parish, F., Bruhl, C.A., Donald, P.F., Murdiyarso, D., Phalan, B., Reijnders, L., Struebig, M. & Fitzherbert, E.B. (2008). Biofuel plantations on forested lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conservation Biology 23(2), 348–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deuten, J., & Rip, A. (2000). Narrative Infrastructure in Product Creation Processes. Organization 7(1), 69–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doezema T. and Hurlbut JB. (2017) Technologies of Governance: Science, State and Citizen in Visions of the Bioeconomy. In: Pavone V and Goven J (eds) Bioeconomies: Life, Technology, and Capital in the 21st Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–71.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • European Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel. (2017) European Bioeconomy Stakeholders Manifesto. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/european_bioeconomy_stakeholders_manifesto.pdf (accessed 15.6.2020)

  • European Commission (2012). Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016). Accelerating Clean Energy Innovation. COM(2016) 763 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017). Review of the 2012 European bioeconomy strategy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2018). A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment – Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2018b). A Clean Planet for all: A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. COM(2018) 773 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (EEA). (2013). EU bioenergy potential from a resource-efficiency perspective. EEA Report No 6/2013, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1981a). Social Cosmology and the Concept of Peace. Journal of Peace Research 1981, 18 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1981b). Western Civilization: Anatomy and Pathology. Alternatives 1981, vol. 7

    Google Scholar 

  • German, L., Schoneveld, G., Skutch, M., Andriani, R., Obidzinski, K., Pacheco, P., Komarudin, H., Andrianto, A., Lima, M. & Dayang Norwana, A.A.B. (2010). The Local Social and Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Feedstock Expansion a Synthesis of Case Studies from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Center for International Forestry Research: Info Brief. No. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goven, J Pavone V. (2015). The Bioeconomy as Political Project: A Polanyian Analysis. Science, Technology, & Human Values 40(3), 302–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, S. (2009). Causal Layered Analysis: An Integrative and Transformative Theory and Method. In J. C. Glenn & T. J. Gordon (Eds.), Futures research methodology. The Millennium Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity Without Growth. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinschmit, D., Arts B., Giurca A., Mustalathi I., Sergent A. and Pülzl H. (2017). Environmental concerns into political bioeconomy discourses. International Forestry Review 19(1), 41-55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kröger, M., Raitio, K., (2017). Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability? Forest Policy and Economics 7, 6-15 .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuusi, O. (1999). Expertise in the Future Use of Generic Technologies. Epistemic and Methodological Considerations Concerning Delphi Studies. Acta Universitatis oeconomicae Helsingiensis. A, ISSN 1237-55e6X; 159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method, Techniques and Applications. Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, K., Kautto, N., (2013). The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview. Sustainability 5: 2589–2608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittra, J., & Zoukas, G. (2020). Unpacking the Concept of Bioeconomy: Problems of Definition, Measurement, and Value. Science & Technology Studies, 33(1), 2–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obidzinski, K., Andriani, R., Komarudin, H. & Andrianto, A. (2012). Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for biofuel production in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 17(1), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2006). The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2009). The Bioeconomy to 2030. Agenda. Paris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2014). Sustainable Biomass Drives the Next Bioeconomy: a New Industrial Revolution? Report of an OECD workshop, 10-11 June, OECD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2016). Building a sustainable bioeconomy: a framework for policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2018). Realising the circular bioeconomy. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No.60.

    Google Scholar 

  • PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2012). PBL Note. Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy. A quick-scan analysis of the biomass demand of a bio-based economy in 2030 compared to the sustainable supply. PBL Publication number 500143001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partanen, J., Paloheimo, H., & Waris H. (2014). The World After Cheap Oil. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A., & Krisjansen, I. (2015). Assembling ‘the bioeconomy’: Exploiting the power of the promissory life sciences. Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 28–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfau, S.F., Hagens, J.E., Dankbaar, B., Smits, A.J.M., 2014. Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability 6: 1222–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philp, J.C. (2015). Balancing the bioeconomy: supporting biofuels and bio-based materials in public policy. Energy & Environmental Science 8, 3063-3068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polak, F. (1973). The image of the future. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pülzl, H. et al. (2017). The role of forests in bioeconomy strategies at the domestic and EU level In: Winkel, G. (ed). Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy – assessment and the way forward. What Science Can Tell Us 8. European Forest Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., Gritten, D., & Saastamoinen, O. (2010). Concept of livelihood in the FLEGT voluntary partnership agreement and the expected impacts on the livelihood of forest communities in Ghana. International Forestry Review 12(4), 361–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., Matero, J., & Shannon, M. (2013). Do forest values influence compliance with forestry Legislation? The case of farmers in the fringes of forest reserves in Ghana. Small-scale Forestry 12(2), 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., Pülzl, H (2018) Sustainable development – A ‘selling point’ of the emerging EU bioeconomy policy framework? Journal of Cleaner Production 172, 4170–4180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staffas, L., Gustavsson, M., McCormick, K., 2013. Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and biobased economy: An analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability 5: 2751–2769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapio, P. (2002). The Limits to Traffic Volume Growth, The Content and Procedure of Administrative Futures Studies on Finnish Transport CO2 Policy. Turku: Acta Futura Fennica 8, Finnish Society for Futures Studies & Finland Futures Research Centre. Doctorate thesis. http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/limno/vk/tapio.

  • Van Dam, J. and M. Junginger (2011). Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire. Energy Policy 39, 4051–4066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H. (1993). Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments. Amsterdam: Proefschrift.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varho, V, Rautiainen A, Peltonen M, Niemi J, Ovaska U. (2018). Biopaths to Carbon Neutrality. Publications of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Finland) 2018:3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkel, G. (ed). 2017. Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy – assessment and the way forward. What Science Can Tell Us 8. European Forest Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Finland Futures Research Center, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Sofi Kurki

  2. Department of Management (Philosophy of Management), Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

    Johanna Ahola-Launonen

Authors
  1. Sofi Kurki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanna Ahola-Launonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofi Kurki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group BIOTOPOS, Organic Technologies Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Emmanuel Koukios

  2. 4CF Strategic Foresight Company, Warsaw, Poland

    Anna Sacio-Szymańska

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kurki, S., Ahola-Launonen, J. (2021). Bioeconomy in Maturation: A Pathway Towards a “Good” Bioeconomy or Distorting Silence on Crucial Matters?. In: Koukios, E., Sacio-Szymańska, A. (eds) Bio#Futures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64969-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation