Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy

Abstract

Abstract:In view of the increasing depletion of fossil fuel resources, the concept "bioeconomy" aims at the gradual replacement of fossil fuels by renewable feedstock. Seen as a comprehensive societal transition, the bioeconomy is a complex field that includes a variety of sectors, actors, and interests and is related to far-reaching changes in today's production systems. While the objectives pursued-such as reducing dependence on fossil fuels, mitigating climate change, ensuring global food security, and increasing the industrial use of biogenic resources-are not generally contentious, there is fierce controversy over the possible pathways for achieving these objectives. Based on a thorough literature review, the article identifies major lines of conflict in the current discourse. Criticism of the prevalent concept refers mainly to the strong focus on technology, the lack of consideration given to alternative implementation pathways, the insufficient differentiation of underlying sustainability requirements, and the inadequate participation of societal stakeholders. Since today it cannot be predicted which pathway will be the most expedient-the one already being taken or one of the others proposed-this paper suggests pursuing a strategy of diversity concerning the approaches to shape the bioeconomy, the funding of research topics, and the involvement of stakeholders.

Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates

“…This alternative vision is called agroecology vision [54,[144][145][146], alternative agriculture vision [147], bio-ecology vision [148], eco-economy vision [149] or socio-ecological approach [150] and is formulated with slight variations. The alternative vision has not only been developed in criticism of official bioeconomy strategies but also as a fundamental alternative to the currently dominant model of industrialised agriculture or agro-industrial regime, respectively.…”

The Global Cropland Footprint of the Non-Food Bioeconomy

“…Robust quantitative information at high temporal and spatial resolution is needed to inform such a coordinated governance regime on the dynamics of material flows and the associated costs and benefits of impacts on the ground. Our findings suggest that there is scope for reducing negative impacts by optimizing feedstock composition or sourcing from world regions with favourable social and environmental production conditions, including the partial substitution of globally sourced biomass by local or regionally produced alternatives 43,44 .…”

Future Phosphorus: Advancing New 2D Phosphorus Allotropes and Growing a Sustainable Bioeconomy

“…1). These annual monocultures require high external inputs, including P fertilizer, and now compete with food production for land, water, and P use and have diminished ecosystem service provision (Hein and Leemans, 2012; Priefer et al, 2017). Mandates to expand biofuel production in every continent, part of national energy security strategies that also reduce reliance on fossil fuels, have added pressure on P fertilization of biofuel feedstocks.…”

“…Growing the bioeconomy will rely on availability of sufficient biomass, of adequate quality, which is sustainably produced. Although biomass is a renewable resource, it is not an unlimited resource, and demands for P fertilizer for growing biomass crops will inevitably intensify pressures on water and P resources at local to global scales (Priefer et al, 2017). Replacing fossil fuels by biomass feedstocks requires life‐cycle and sustainability assessments for both biomass production and the transformation of biomass into bio‐based products (Aguilar et al, 2018; Hottle et al, 2013).…”

“…1). The bioeconomy encompasses a diversity of “agroecological” approaches in the production and use of renewable biomass and “technological” approaches, including the application of knowledge from the life and materials sciences to develop solutions for health and resource‐based challenges (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009; Priefer et al, 2017; Zilberman et al, 2013) (Fig. 1).…”