The Bioeconomy–Biodiversity Nexus: Enhancing or Undermining Nature’s Contributions to People?

Mairon G Bastos Lima,Ulrika Palme

doi:10.3390/conservation2010002

Mairon G Bastos Lima, Ulrika Palme

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation2010002

Copy DOI

Abstract

Bioeconomy has become fundamental for a post-fossil-resources society, in line with climate change mitigation ambitions. Although it does not have a single, consensual definition, the bioeconomy encompasses various bio-based value chains and economic activities relying on biodiversity. How these burgeoning developments may affect biodiversity, however, still needs further examination. This article explores the bioeconomy–biodiversity nexus through the lens of nature’s contributions to people (NCPs). Drawing from the bioeconomy literature and Amazonian experiences, we argue that the bioeconomy may: (i) help conserve or restore habitats, (ii) improve knowledge on biodiversity, (iii) valorize livelihoods and increase social participation, and (iv) aid in moving beyond the commodification of nature. However, none of these achievements can be taken for granted. To date, the bioeconomy has focused mainly on extracting goods from nature (e.g., food, energy, or biochemicals), often at the expense of NCPs that require integral ecosystems and are decisive for a sustainable society in the longer run. Moreover, we assert that it is critical to discern the beneficiaries of various contributions, as “people”, in reality, are composed of distinct groups that relate differently to nature and have different preferences regarding trade-offs. The NCPs framework can help broaden synergies in the bioeconomy–biodiversity nexus, but inclusive governance remains critical.

Highlights

Accepted: 19 December 2021Most scenarios for avoiding a global temperature increase beyond 1.5–2 ◦ C, as stipulated by the Paris Agreement, require substantial increases in bioenergy use [1]
The first is the variety of environmental concerns that a susof the bioeconomy transition may vary; at a minimum it must ensure habitat conservation tainable bioeconomy ought to take into account
Our assessment shows that the bioeconomy has tended to focus on only a few NCPs, namely those associated with material benefits such as energy, foods, and finer biochemical extracts for the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries

Summary

Introduction

Accepted: 19 December 2021Most scenarios for avoiding a global temperature increase beyond 1.5–2 ◦ C, as stipulated by the Paris Agreement, require substantial increases in bioenergy use [1]. The ongoing transition towards a bioeconomy is making biomass production from forests and agriculture increasingly multipurpose and expanding its economic uses [2]. Increased industrial use of biomass, if relying on area expansion and plantations of a selected few species, could spell doom for the conservation of natural habitats and biodiversity [3]. As bio-based production systems expand, reconciling bioeconomy with ecosystem conservation and multifunctional landscapes becomes even more vital. Bioeconomy includes both bulk, low-value and high-volume products (e.g., construction materials, biomass for fuels) and finer, low-volume and high-value goods (e.g., biochemical resources for the cosmetic or pharmaceutical industries), as well as services such as experiential tourism [5,6].

Objectives

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion