Abstract
Schism is the new normal for the bioeconomy concept. Since its proliferation in governments, the concept has been adapted to fit national or regional exigencies. Earlier this century the knowledge-based bioeconomy (KBBE) in Europe was seen as a technical and knowledge fix in the evolving sustainability landscape. At the OECD, the concept was further honed by imagining a future where biotechnologies contribute significantly to economic growth and development. Countries started to make national bioeconomy strategies. Some countries have diverged and made the bioeconomy both much larger and more general, involving a wide variety of sectors, such as industry, energy, healthcare, agriculture, aquaculture, forestry and fishing. Whatever the approach, what seems to be consistent is the need to reconcile environmental, social and economic sustainability. This paper attempts to establish one schism that could have ramifications for the future development of the bioeconomy. Some countries, including some of the largest economies but not exclusively so, are clearly following a biotechnology model, whereas others are clearly not. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, biotechnologies offer outstanding potential in healthcare, although this sector is by no means included in all bioeconomy strategies. The paper also attempts to clarify how biotechnologies can address the grand challenges and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The communities of scientists seem to have no difficulty with this, but citizens and governments find it more difficult. In fact, some biotechnologies are already well established, whereas others are emerging and more controversial.
Highlights
The bioeconomy concept is decades old, but the story for this paper starts with a landmark publication from the OECD [1], where the science and technology of the bioeconomy was discussed in terms of public policy, thereby putting the bioeconomy on a political and economic footing
This paper argues that biotechnologies and other technologies (Type II) have many and varied roles to play in advancing the sustainable exploitation of biomass and waste materials (Type III) to stay within planetary boundaries (Type I)
A presumption at the start of this work was that the interpretation of bioeconomy had changed since the OECD work that in 2009 emphasised biotechnology as an enabler of economic activity
Summary
The bioeconomy concept is decades old, but the story for this paper starts with a landmark publication from the OECD [1], where the science and technology of the bioeconomy was discussed in terms of public policy, thereby putting the bioeconomy on a political and economic footing It described the bioeconomy as “the set of economic activities in which biotechnology contributes centrally to primary production and industry, especially where the advanced life sciences are applied to the conversion of biomass into materials, chemicals and fuels”. Added value is an important component as it can be applied to the circular economy concept [2], and there have been efforts to link the bioeconomy and circular economy [3] This is especially so if “waste” materials such as agricultural and forestry residues and waste industrial gases can be converted through biotechnology into useful products and services. As grand challenges interact and overlap, policymakers have the unenviable task of attempting to design policy that minimises the possibilities of unintended, and unwanted, consequences
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
