The EU’s 2018 Bioeconomy Strategy Update and the European Green Deal recently confirmed that the bioeconomy is high on the political agenda in Europe. Here, we propose a conceptual analysis framework for quantifying and analyzing the development of the EU bioeconomy. The bioeconomy has several related concepts (e.g., bio-based economy, green economy, and circular economy) and there are clear synergies between these concepts, especially between the bioeconomy and circular economy concepts. Analyzing the driving factors provides important information for monitoring activities. We first derive the scope of the bioeconomy framework in terms of bioeconomy sectors and products to be involved, the needed geographical coverage and resolution, and time period. Furthermore, we outline a set of indicators linked to the objectives of the EU’s bioeconomy strategy. In our framework, measuring developments will, in particular, focus on the bio-based sectors within the bioeconomy as biomass and food production is already monitored. The selected indicators commit to the EU Bioeconomy Strategy objectives and conform with findings from previous studies and stakeholder consultation. Additionally, several new indicators have been suggested and they are related to measuring the impact of changes in supply, demand drivers, resource availability, and policies on sustainability goals.

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for humans and the environment. Their approval in the European Union (EU) starts with an application in a given Member State followed by a scientific risk assessment, and ends with a political decision‐making step (risk management). In the United States (US) approval begins with a scientific (field trial) step and ends with a ‘bureaucratic’ decision‐making step. We investigate trends for the time taken for these steps and the overall time taken for approving GE crops in the US and the EU. Our results show that from 1996–2015 the overall time trend for approval in the EU decreased and then flattened off, with an overall mean completion‐time of 1,763 days. In the US in 1998 there was a break in the trend of the overall approval time. Initially, from 1988 until 1997 the trend decreased with a mean approval time of 1,321 days; from 1998–2015, the trend almost stagnated with a mean approval time of 2,467 days.

No abstract

The emerging concept of bioeconomy offers several opportunities to address societal challenges. The bioeconomy is mainly driven by advances in microbiology, which can be applied to various processes that use biological resources by shifting consumer preferences and by yielding new insights into resource constraints related to such issues as climate and land. Although expectations are high, less is known about the economic importance of the bioeconomy. This article reviews the methodological challenges of measuring the bioeconomy, the approaches used, and the outcomes reported. The results show that measuring the bioeconomy is still in its infancy and faces a number of methodological challenges. Bioeconomy cuts across sectors and therefore cannot be treated as a traditional sector in economics. Economics must catch up with bioeconomy realities. For a comprehensive economic assessment, information about bioeconomy resources, compounds, and product flows is required. We outline innovations in data storage and analytical methods that would realize bioeconomy opportunities and help guide policy.

ABSTRACT. Vitamin A enriched rice (Golden Rice) is a cost-efficient solution that can substantially reduce health costs. Despite Golden Rice being available since early 2000, this rice has not been introduced in any country. Governments must perceive additional costs that overcompensate the benefits of the technology to explain the delay in approval. We develop a real option model including irreversibility and uncertainty about perceived costs and arrival of new information to explain a delay in approval. The model has been applied to the case of India. Results show the annual perceived costs have to be at least US$199 million per year approximately for the last decade to explain the delay in approval of the technology. This is an indicator of the economic power of the opposition towards Golden Rice resulting in about 1.4 million life years lost over the past decade in India.