The bioeconomy and its untenable growth promises: reality checks from research

Abstract

This paper starts out from the observation that recent official bioeconomy strategies and policy concepts are markedly more moderate in their promises of economic growth compared to the high-flying expectations of a ‘biotech revolution’ promoted around the turn of the millennium. We argue that this stepwise process of moderation is partly due to a series of ‘reality checks’ to which various strands of research on the bioeconomy have (willingly or unwillingly) subjected these promises, forcing governments to move away from visions exposed as unrealistic and to adopt more humble ones. We identify four such ‘reality checks’, originating from research on (a) bioeconomy discourses and knowledges, (b) contestation and power dynamics among actors and competing interests in bioeconomy politics and policymaking, as well as on (c) the economic and (d) biophysical dimensions of existing bio-based economies. In conclusion, we argue that bioeconomy research should adopt a broader perspective that considers transitions toward bio-based processes and resources as but one element in a comprehensive social–ecological transformation of current modes of production and living, and that understanding the dynamics of societal conflict around that transformation is crucial for assessing the social possibility of bioeconomy visions.

Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models

“…Despite the demands for systemic change, the solutions proposed remain limited to only one model. In a nutshell, this can be termed a biomass-based model of ecological modernization with a highly problematic belief in “technofixes” and decoupling, keeping alive the promise of further growth and expansion (Eversberg et al 2022 ; Levidow et al 2019 ; Bugge et al 2016 ; Birch et al 2010 ; Parrique et al 2019 ; Wieding et al 2020 ). As Goven and Pavone ( 2015 ) argue, this model of bioeconomy should be understood both as a political project (and not simply a technoscientific one) and as a response to the acute challenges inherent to the current neoliberal-capitalist accumulation regime, that aims to protect and extend itself using bioeconomy simply as a means to an end.…”

“…However, the founding figure of Ecological Economics, Georgescu-Roegen, who initially termed the concept ‘bio-economics’, pointed out to the ecological foundation of all economic activities and consequently to the inevitability of physical and material boundaries. Various environmental initiatives, think tanks, civil society organizations (e.g., Mills 2015 ; Civil Society Action-Forum on Bioeconomy/denkhausbremen 2019 ; Biofuture Platform 2016 ) and scholars (Birch et al 2010 ; Birch and Tyfield 2012 ; Backhouse et al 2021 ; see also Eversberg et al 2022 ) have thus criticized the promissory discourse on bioeconomy as a mere ‘greening’ of the current economic model by “hijacking” the term bioeconomy (Vivien et al 2019 ).…”

From hegemony-reinforcing to hegemony-transcending transformations: horizons of possibility and strategies of escape

“…Thus far, such approaches have been by far the most widely embraced and operationalized within the international and EU environmental policy spaces, including the bioeconomy policy domain (Eversberg et al 2022;Ramcilovik-Suominen et al 2022;Vogelpohl 2023). Whilst there is a diversity of approaches associated with eco-modernism, market-based and socio-technical solutions, a substantial body of literature asserts that such proposals based on ecomodernism perpetuate the same old hegemonic approaches to global governance with minor, incremental, or aesthetic changes (Feola 2015;Holmgren et al 2022;Vogelphl 2023).…”

Threatened sustainability: extractivist tendencies in the forest-based bioeconomy in Finland

“…According to the European Commission ( 2018a ), the primary sectors of agriculture and forestry as well as further sectors related to bio-based services, knowledge, or materials are defined as being part of the bioeconomy. Within the contested field of competing understandings of what a bioeconomy is or should be (Eversberg et al 2022a ; see also: Priefer et al 2017 ), different visions are not given equal political or economic relevance (Meyer 2017 ; Staffas et al 2013 ). Disputes about hegemonic interpretations of and policy path for the bioeconomy take place in an arena shaped by alliances among dominant groups and institutions as well as the power of corresponding narrative settings (Birch 2017 ; Korhonen et al 2018 ; Petersen and Krisjansen 2015 ).…”

“…Accordingly, the account of bioeconomy currently dominating bioeconomic politics in the EU is a large-scale, growth-oriented, and highly technologized one (Hausknost et al 2017 ). Recent critical accounts on bioeconomy and its role in socio-ecological transformation processes highlight so far missing aspects regarding global and environmental justice (Ramcilovic-Suominen 2022 ) and fair participation (Holmgren et al 2021 ), as well as untenable growth promises (Eversberg et al 2022a ).…”