Anaerobic digestion units in the United Kingdom that uses food waste to produce fuel

www.letsrecycle.com

The Bioeconomy: A Primer


The bioeconomy refers to production and use of renewable biological resources as well as economic activities, both within and between countries, related to the invention, development, production and use of biological products and processes.

Read the original document
Download e-book: The Bioeconomy – a Primer (pdf – 1 MB)

Key Points

  • The bioeconomy is industry’s response to current global social, environmental, and economic challenges including climate change, food insecurity, and natural resource shortages. In the bioeconomy, ‘renewable’ biological resources are used to replace fossil fuels as well as for food, animal feed, and other bio-based products.
  • The bioeconomy agenda has been developed by powerful corporations and is being pushed by EU and G7 member states. It is closely linked to the ‘green economy’ and the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy.
  • Over the past few years, the bioeconomy’s focus on agrofuels has stimulated land grabbing in the Global South. Agricultural land providing food for local people is being converted to agrofuel monocultures, causing numerous negative economic, social, and environmental impacts.
  • An additional flaw is that decreased emissions are greatly overestimated: while the EU’s dependence on biomass imports has continued to grow, the bioeconomy has simply expanded without a parallel decreased reliance on fossil fuels.
  • By prioritising market growth over environmental health and social wellbeing, the bioeconomy agenda ignores the necessity of reducing high levels of consumption, which is the primary cause of resource depletion worldwide.
  • Ultimately, agrofuels appear to have more negative impacts than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace, particularly in terms of lost land, resource access, livelihoods, and food security in the Global South.
  • It is thus critical that other perspectives are also considered, for example ‘agroecology’, which supports the relocalisation of food and energy production as well as autonomous decision-making by farmers.

Introduction

The bioeconomy agenda emerged in response to the need to find alternatives to fossil fuels. The idea is based on increasing the use of biotechnologies and biofuels, and is a response to growing concerns about the unsustainable use and management of finite natural resources. The bioeconomy is based on the premise that achieving a better balance between biological resources and human economic activities is generally problem-free.

However, the way in which powerful corporate forces are defining and driving this agenda is highly problematic. In particular, the impact on agricultural land is of critical importance, as the increasing production of agrofuel crops entails land being shifted away from food production.

This report traces the emergence and the current trajectory of the bioeconomy. It highlights how corporate interests have managed to capture and dominate its development and growth. It raises a number of key questions in the hope that they will contribute to a debate: does the current approach to the bioeconomy need to be completely rejected as an inherently destructive agenda? Or does the idea of the bioeconomy have enough potential that it should be reclaimed and restructured?

What is the bioeconomy?

According to the European Bioeconomy Panel 1, the bioeconomy includes the production and use of renewable biological resources as well as economic activities, both within and between countries, related to the invention, development, production and use of biological products and processes. This includes the production of food and non-food agricultural crops, and the technological processes that turn them into food, feed, bio-based products, agrofuels, and bioenergy. More specifically, the bioeconomy encapsulates numerous sectors: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, construction, food processing, pulp and paper, biotechnology, environmental technology, industrial goods, textiles, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and recycling and waste collection. 2

Concerns about resource sustainability are growing, particularly in regard to food scarcity and food security; limited national (or global) capacity to produce goods; climate change; and environmental degradation. 3 The bioeconomy presents biotechnologies (processes that use and manipulate biological systems and organisms to develop new products) and biomass (material produced from vegetable or animal matter), as solutions for global resource shortages. The European Bioeconomy Panel is engaged in several projects to this end: for example, processing plants that use hydrothermal carbonisation processes to convert agricultural pulp waste into char.4

The composition of the bioeconomy / Photo credit Interdepartmental Working Group for the Bioeconomy (2013)

5Governments worldwide are increasingly focusing on the development of national and international bioeconomies in order to address a growing number of major social, environmental and economic challenges. These bioeconomies purportedly create new employment opportunities, assist in climate change mitigation, and promote resource efficiency. Concurrent to the rise of this corporate-driven bio-based strategy, societies across the planet are struggling with converging crises in the areas of food, energy, climate and finance.6 These multiple and interlinked crises are influencing policy decisions and governance in the agricultural, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture sectors, and by extension impacting people who earn their livelihoods in these areas.

Box 1: The global bioeconomy agenda

Globally, the scope of political measures promoting the bioeconomy has increased significantly in recent years. The potential benefits of a global bioeconomy have been praised by all of the G7 member countries, as well as more than 30 other countries around the world. Both the EU and the OECD have provided significant political momentum to the agenda, and are calling for increased international cooperation to further the development of a global bioeconomy. Germany, the US and Japan have established ambitious national agendas, and have guided the development of the bioeconomy through comprehensive public support programmes. Italy and Canada have taken a more pragmatic approach by letting industry lead the way, while the UK aims to increase its life sciences competencies as a political strategy for supporting the development of high-value industrial and service sectors. France’s approach has been to fund research and development in the bio-based chemistry and energy sectors and to improve the relevant legal conditions (for example by implementing labelling schemes). Including the bioeconomy in comprehensive EU framework programmes (such as FP7 and Horizon 2020) has inspired many EU member states to develop their own national strategies. However, initiatives between G7 member states are poorly coordinated, and many researchers and policymakers argue that international cooperation must be intensified if the full potential of the bioeconomy is to be realised.7 Interestingly, beyond the EU and G7 member states, only two countries have developed dedicated bioeconomy strategies: Malaysia and South Africa. The Malaysian government launched its Bioeconomy Transformation Programme (BTP) in 2012 as a platform for the private sector to maximise commercial biotechnology opportunities. Companies work with policymakers in setting Interestingly, beyond the EU and G7 member states, only two countries have developed dedicated bioeconomy strategies: Malaysia and South Africa. The Malaysian government launched its Bioeconomy Transformation Programme (BTP) in 2012 as a platform for the private sector to maximise commercial biotechnology opportunities. Companies work with policymakers in setting national goals for the application of biotechnology in the areas of agricultural production, industrial manufacturing and health. The BTP’s aim is to increase private sector investment in biotechnology in order to decrease the industry’s dependence on public funds, with the intension of transforming Malaysia into a high income, inclusive and sustainable bioeconomy by 2020. 8 In short, private companies are in control of the country’s biotech development. South Africa’s 2013 Bioeconomy Strategy was implemented as an expansion of its 2001 National Biotechnology Strategy, which initiated the development of health, industrial and agricultural technologies. The 2013 strategy outlines key mechanisms for coordinating the research, development and innovation needs of industries and the government so that South Africa maintains a competitive edge in the global market. Although the Department of Science and Technology plays a key role in leading this strategy, it notes the necessity for the Departments of Trade and Industry, Health and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and Environmental Affairs to be actively involved in directing research and development activities that “improve the quality of life for South Africans”.9

Bioeconomic strategies around the world / Photo credit German Bioeconomy Council, June 2015.

10The European Commission has praised the EU’s growing bioeconomy as a demonstration of its member states’ engagement with the regional ‘green economy’ agenda, catalysed in the early 2000s through the active promotion of bioenergy and a widespread transformation toward agrofuels (see Box 4). Yet more than a decade into this experiment, scientific, academic and grassroots research increasingly exposes its flawed claims. Most importantly, decreased emissions are greatly overestimated. Furthermore, agrofuels have more negative impacts than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace, particularly in terms of lost land, resource access, livelihoods, and food security in the Global South (see Box 8).11

Box 2: Problems with the dominant view of the bioeconomy

The bioeconomy agenda emerged in response to the need to find alternatives to fossil fuels. However, it ignores the necessity of reducing high levels of consumption, which is the primary cause of resource depletion worldwide. Bioeconomy policy documents highlight the need to accommodate the ever-increasing call for bio-products and biomass, rather than suggesting alternatives that could decrease demand. This means that more and more land will be converted to multiple-use ‘flex crops’ like soy, sugar and corn, often at the expense of other food crops.

This trend – creating new biologically ‘enhanced’ products as well as new ways for humans to take control over resource production – leads to the commodification of nature. Furthermore, it perpetuates structures that prioritise market growth over environmental health and human wellbeing. Failure to address this trajectory will aggravate pressures on the environment, forests, and food production, and will lead to the further degradation of lands by chemicals, fertilisers and machinery. In addition to failing in the area of environmental justice, the current bioeconomy threatens social justice by restricting access to land and impacting livelihoods. As the market for bio-products becomes more lucrative, agribusinesses expand their reach. Small-scale producers then succumb either to ‘land grabbing’ by agribusinesses, or they are forced to sell their land as they are no longer able to compete in the market. A vicious cycle ensues, as the gap widens between those with and without access to land, and the control over resources, production chains and biotechnologies becomes further concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations.

Source: R. Hall and J. Zacune (2012). Bio-economies: The EU’s real ‘Green Economy’ agenda? World Development Movement and the Transnational Institute.

Further reading:

OECD (2009). The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda. http:// www.oecd.org/futures/long-termtechnologicalsocietalchallenges/ thebioeconomyto2030designingapolicyagenda.htm. European Commission (2015). What is the Bioeconomy. http://ec.europa.eu/ research/bioeconomy/index.cfm. H. Paul (2013). A Foreseeable Disaster: The European Union’s agroenergy policies and the global land and water grab. Transnational Institute, FDCL and Econexus. http://www.econexus.info/node/185.

 Continue reading

(Visited 64 times, 1 visits today)