Future Opportunities and Developments in the Bioeconomy - a Global Expert Survey - Global Bioeconomy Summit 2018
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Future Opportunities and Developments in the Bioeconomy – a Global Expert Survey
3
Foreword
Insights into expectations, drivers and barriers re- development in the fields of bioeconomy research,
lated to sustainable bioeconomy around the world development and policy.
are essential for international policy and collabo-
ration. The findings of this global expert survey The report provides relevant information for all
indicate that bioeconomy is viewed as central to bioeconomy players. The study has implications
achieving many of the UN Sustainable Development for public policy measures and confirms the im-
Goals. Innovations are key in this respect. Besides portant role of future international collaboration,
satisfying food and energy security, bioeconomy especially for research and capacity building in the
is considered central to climate protection and to bioeconomy.
innovative industrial transformation. Bioeconomy
also entails transitioning to sustainable consump- We would like to thank all the experts who have
tion. participated in the survey and shared their views,
and we acknowledge the contribution made by the
In preparation for the Global Bioeconomy Summit authors.
2018 in Berlin, the German Bioeconomy Council
decided to commission a survey exploring the key
topics of concern to experts around the world. Berlin, April 2018
The Global Bioeconomy Summit has become a
forum for discussing and initiating international
cooperation in bioeconomy innovation agendas
and governance issues. Since organizing the first Prof. Dr. Joachim von Braun Prof. Dr. Christine Lang
Summit in 2015, we have observed highly dynamic Chairs of the Bioeconomy Council4
Background
Global insights into future opportunities and de- BIOCOM AG in Berlin organized the expert survey
velopments in the bioeconomy and the needs of on behalf of the German Bioeconomy Council. The
specific countries are of prime interest to speed up participants for this global survey were sampled
the evolution required. With this in mind, the Ger- from 46 countries with established bioeconomy or
man Bioeconomy Council, an independent advisory bioeconomy-related strategies. Officials represent-
body to the German Federal Government (see www. ing European Union institutions and international
biooekonomierat.de/en/), invited experts from all organizations were also included. The survey con-
over the world to take part in a Global Expert Sur- sisted of closed-ended and open-ended, mainly
vey. The aggregated results will be presented to compulsory questions. It was conducted online in
political leaders; they will help in discussions with the autumn of 2017. The English questionnaire was
representatives of the countries involved, and will designed by members of the Bioeconomy Council.
feed into the debates at the Global Bioeconomy
Summit 2018, which is being held in Berlin (Germa-
ny). It will also be possible to see from the outlook
where future support and updated policies may be
most valuable.5 Content 1 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1 Online survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 Sample description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Survey results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1 Upcoming bioeconomy success stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2 Promising technology fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3 Notable technology characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4 Possible approaches to feeding the world population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.5 Potentially conflicting goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5.1 Non-food use of arable land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5.2 Use of arable land for feed for meat, milk and egg production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.5.3 Conversion of virgin forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.6 Necessary policy measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.7 Desirable communication measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.8 Desirable education measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.9 Important future investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7 Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6
1 Executive summary
Global insights into expected future opportuni- Future opportunities and developments
ties and developments in the bioeconomy and the in the bioeconomy
needs of specific countries are of prime interest to
speed up the evolution required. With this in mind, The future bioeconomy will satisfy primary human
the German Bioeconomy Council, an independent needs; it will be technology-driven and take the en-
advisory body to the German Federal Government, vironment into account. For the most part, people
invited experts from all over the world to take part expect economic advantages. To succeed, policies
in a Global Expert Survey. and strategies will have to pay attention to knowl-
edge transfer and appropriate funding. Depending
An online survey, which made it possible to address on the needs of specific countries, however, region-
a large number of participants from around the al pathways toward the future biobased economy
globe and which included several bioeconomy-rele- may be most appropriate. So far, blue-sky thinking
vant topics, was designed. Closed-ended and open- seems to be mostly absent. Most activities appear
ended questions were introduced to obtain the to be given over to the day-to-day challenges.
information. All answers collected were analyzed
globally and clustered by country. Quantitative and Upcoming bioeconomy success stories
qualitative data analysis was performed. According to the experts, who gave us a total of
832 responses, the future bioeconomy will mainly
The experts were asked to elaborate on upcoming satisfy human needs in the energy, agriculture and
success stories and to indicate promising technol- food sector and will provide people with innovative
ogy fields and notable technology characteristics. products, all based on renewable materials. Agri-
Possible solutions to feeding the growing world culture is fundamental to feeding people, especially
population were assessed, and potentially conflict- in less developed countries. Improvements in agri-
ing goals were examined. The latter included: non- culture and food ranged from new plant varieties
food use of arable land, use of arable land for feed and better production methods to food manufac-
for meat, milk and egg production, and conversion tured from alternative protein sources, e.g. algae
of virgin forests. Most importantly, the experts were or insects. Novel products anticipated included
given the option to rate thirty-one policy measures chemicals and bioplastics and new materials, driven
in order of importance to the bioeconomy’s market mainly by developments in industrialized countries.
success in the future. Desirable communication The energy sector, however, topped all the other
and education measures as well as important fu- success stories (17% of responses). This finding
ture investments completed the questionnaire. probably reflects the considerable efforts made
in recent years, ongoing projects and appreciating
The sample included 4,331 experts from 46 coun- the value of bioenergy. It is still notable because
tries, representing diverse sectors of operation and bioenergy’s reputation has suffered, the commer-
including participants with different roles. Officials cialization of second generation biofuels has proven
representing European Union institutions and inter- to be demanding and political backing for energy
national organizations were also included. In total, based on renewable resources seems to be wan-
345 experts (8%) filled in the questionnaire. ing. Surprisingly, the idea of green cities, outlined7
as a flagship project candidate in the German Bio- Box 1: Policy measures assessed
economy Council’s 2015 international Delphi study,
was mentioned only rarely1. However, the reported Promoting innovation
successes will have a positive effect on major UN Public R&D, private R&D, traditional knowledge
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). and low-tech innovations, public-private partner-
ships, social innovation
Promising technology fields
Knowing the promising technologies and their char- Supporting infrastructure and capacity building
acteristics may help to further streamline existing Capacity building, bioeconomy education pro-
bioeconomy strategies. When asking participants grams, pilot and demonstration facilities, cluster
about technology fields that might enable biobased development
transformation, we collected a total of 1079 an-
swers. Nearly half of the respondents (42%) pro- Supporting commercialization
posed an increase in primary sector productivity. Access to capital, export promotion policy, de-
Technology fields mentioned included breeding velopment and marketing efforts, subsidies for
advances, digitalization and the use of alternative production and use of renewable resources
biomass sources.
Supporting the demand-side
Notable technology characteristics Biobased public procurement policy, certification
When asked about characteristics of technologies, and labels, consumer information and communi-
which might make sustainable biobased transfor- cation campaigns, tax incentives, ban on fossil-
mation possible we received 1140 responses. The based products
largest group of characteristics relates to economic
criteria (37%), which came out well ahead of envi- Ensuring conditions that encourage the
ronmental and technology-oriented characteris- bioeconomy
tics and social factors. Economic criteria included Removal of fossil fuel subsidies, carbon tax, regu-
competiveness, innovativeness, circularity and lations on biodiversity protection and ecosystem
efficiency. regeneration, circular economy regulations
Possible solutions to feeding the world population Promoting good governance
One of the outstanding future challenges is to feed Inter-ministerial and inter-regional cooperation,
the growing world population. The experts, who monitoring and measuring activities, public report-
gave us a total of 1035 reponses, demonstrated ing and multi-stakeholder dialogue, learning and
great faith in innovation and technological ad- adaptive policy, bioeconomy advisory council
vances to tackle this problem. Using new plant
breeds to increase crop yields or using improved Improving international collaboration
production methods were ranked highly across all in the bioeconomy
countries. However, reducing food waste and losses Harmonization in international trade & policy
along the supply chain scored even higher and were frameworks, knowledge-sharing between indus-
seen as the most important approach to feeding trialized and developing countries, private in-
the growing world population in the future. vestment in developing countries, international
monitoring
Potentially conflicting goals
Different conflicting goals emerged within the con-
text of the growing bioeconomy: non-food uses of
arable land, the use of arable land to produce meat,
milk and eggs and the conversion of virgin forests.8
More than three quarters of respondents agreed dustrialized and developing countries as the most
that bioeconomy strategies should deal with these important policy measure overall.
conflicting goals. Suggestions for inclusion in bio-
economy strategies considered the food first prin- Desirable communication measures
ciple and, in contrast, holistic approaches. Reducing As people do not appear to understand the concept
meat consumption and turning to food and feed al- of bioeconomy or how it might improve quality of
ternatives such as insects turned out to be an idea life without using up the world’s natural resources,
that was heavily advocated in the highly developed one solution might be communication campaigns.
countries. Less developed countries regarded yield Respondents clearly preferred passive communica-
increases and technological innovations as more tion measures, such as campaigns using traditional
helpful. Notably, regulatory approaches turned out media channels or social media.
to be most popular for preventing the conversion of
virgin forests into agricultural land. Ideas included Desirable education measures
certificates or labels, incentives, taxes or even pen- The German Bioeconomy Council’s 2015 Delphi
alties but the developed countries showed a greater survey identified education as the key to further de-
preference for regulatory approaches and policies. velopment of the bioeconomy, particularly because
They also ranked conservation highly. In contrast, of the way that natural and engineering sciences
participants from less developed countries pre- and economic and social sciences influence each
ferred land-use optimization, technology innovation other. University courses turned out to be most re-
and, again, an increase in yields. levant. Vocational training courses were mentioned
as a further supporting activity. Interestingly, the
Necessary policy measures respondents would spend more money on educa-
From thirty-one suggested policy measures pos- tion than on communication.
sibly contributing to the market success of the
bioeconomy in the future, knowledge and funding Important future investments
are especially necessary (Box 1). According to the Research drives innovation. Innovation drives prod-
345 experts, know-how should be shared between uct development. Public research money fuels re-
industrialized and developing countries, profession- search. When asked about research goals impor-
als should be trained, people educated. Sufficient tant to future bioeconomy strategies, once again
funding for innovative research and development is great faith in innovation and technological advance
required to take the next step. A supportive political emerges as the strongest driver – irrespective of
framework fostering this would be the final step in the country – and proved to be more important
enhancing the evolution towards a future biobased than traditional knowledge or social innovations.
economy. The developed countries regarded pilot So, future funds should invest a bigger proportion of
facilities, the promotion of public research & de- money in biotechnology, in high-tech strategies and
velopment, and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies in increasing yields in traditional farming. Funds to
as most important. In contrast, less developed increase yields in traditional farming are especially
countries viewed knowledge-sharing between in- important for the less developed countries.9
2 Methodology
The aim of this survey was to identify trends and to countries and potential measures that might ac-
deliver a current snapshot of future opportunities celerate the necessary evolution toward a future
and developments in the bioeconomy. biobased economy.
2.1 Online survey With this in mind, online surveys make it possible to
Future opportunities and developments in the bio- address large numbers of participants from around
economy were assessed via an online expert sur- the globe; they reach the target audience quickly
vey in the autumn of 2017. and respondents can fill in the questionnaire at
their convenience. In addition, the assured confi-
The aim was to gain insights into the bioeconomy dentiality seems to positively impact response and
from a global viewpoint, to identify the needs of completion rates.
Table 1: Types of questions
Topic Type
Upcoming bioeconomy success Array of short text boxes
stories and SDGs
Promising technology fields Array of short text boxes
Notable technology characteristics Array of short text boxes
Possible solutions to feeding the Predefined list of possible answers, ranking via drag & drop
world population
Potentially conflicting goals Combination of yes/no question and text box
Necessary policy measures Answer categories with a rating scale from 1 (totally
unimportant) to 7 (very important)
Desirable communication measures Numerical input and answer categories with a rating scale
from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important)
Desirable education measures Numerical input and answer categories with a rating scale
from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important)
Important future investments Category list for a paired comparison
Statistical information List of radio buttons10
The majority of questions probed bioeconomy-rele- For quantitative analysis, simple descriptive statis-
vant topics. Statistical information, e.g. the sector tics, i.e. frequency distributions, were calculated.
of operation, was also collected. Different types The qualitative data analysis was performed us-
of closed-ended and open-ended questions were ing a content analysis approach2, 3, 4, 5. It was con-
introduced to obtain the information (Table 1). ducted in two steps. First, the study dataset was
analyzed by team members or alternatively using
Where possible, randomization of answer catego- the software tool MAXQDA 11 to produce relevant
ries was applied to prevent sequence effects. All categories. In addition, categories for technologies
relevant questions were compulsory. and characteristics were derived both by means
of lexical analyses of literature and by means of
The survey was designed and conducted using conceptual bioeconomy pathway classifications6.
the open source LimeSurvey online tool. After pre- The coded data were then tabulated based on word
testing with 14 experts and making improvements frequency to identify the main categories and ac-
to the questionnaire, global experts were sent an cording to clusters of countries.
e-mail inviting them to take part, which included a
personalized link to access the online site. Comments by respondents have been included
in this report to emphasize interesting aspects of
The questionnaire is included in the Annex. the survey.
2.2 Analyses The data collection and analyses for this report
All answers collected were analyzed: first globally, were the sole responsibility of BIOCOM AG and the
and second, clustered by country. The latter was University of Bonn (Questions 10 and 11). More de-
especially important for filtering out cluster speci- tailed statistical work, such as multivariate analy-
ficities not visible within the worldwide sample due ses, will be the task in upcoming weeks.
to the unequal distribution of respondents.11
3 Sample description
The German Bioeconomy Council defines bioecono- Box 2: Clusters of countries active in bioeconomy11
my as the production and utilization of biological re-
sources – including knowledge – to provide products, • High-Tech Bioeconomies (HighTech): Aus-
processes and services in all sectors of trade and tralia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Den-
industry within the framework of a sustainable econ- mark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,
omy7. The European Commission includes different Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nor-
sectors in its definition, such as agriculture, forestry, way, Russia, Sweden, United Kingdom,
fisheries, food and feed, pulp and paper as well as USA
parts of the chemical, biotechnological and energy • Emerging Diversified Bioeconomies (Em-
industries8. Several other countries also incorporate Div): Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, (Ice-
parts of the health and pharmaceutical industry. land), Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mauritius,
Mexico, Paraguay, Portugal, Spain, Thai-
Bioeconomy strategies have been published by sev- land, Uruguay
eral countries to date. The German Bioeconomy • Diversified Bioeconomies (Diverse):
Council published comparisons of these bioeconomy China, Malaysia, Mozambique, South
or bioeconomy-related strategies in 2015 (an upda- Korea
ted version will be available in 2018), listing compre- • Advanced Primary Sector Based Bioecon-
hensive information on 46 countries worldwide9,10. omies (AdvancedPrim): India, Indonesia,
Namibia, South Africa, Sri Lanka
Bearing this in mind, we aimed to build a sample • Basic Primary Sector Based Bioecono-
that includes experts from these 46 countries, rep- mies (BasicPrim): Kenya, Mali, Nigeria,
resenting diverse sectors of operation and including Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda
participants with different roles, namely members Note: Only countries with a bioeconomy strategy are listed. Due to data unavail-
ability, Iceland was not included in the original cluster analysis, but was classified
as an Emerging Diversified Bioeconomy based on expert consultations.
of bioeconomy advisory councils, researchers at
public institutions, policy makers, and representa-
tives from companies, associations and civil soci-
ety organizations. Officials representing European tional cases. Thus, the bias in the kind and number
Union institutions and international organizations of respondents, which is caused by the choice of
were also included. Utilizing the BIOCOM in-house keywords is assumed to be small. To compensate
database, we selected relevant experts and lead- for different national stages of development and
ers. Additional participants were identified based the lower visibility of experts in certain countries
on desk research. This search included information and to enable us to filter for regional specificities,
mainly from the websites of conferences, national we subsequently subdivided the 46 countries into
ministries, government agencies, public research five clusters (Box 2). European Union institutions
institutions, industry associations, companies, and and international organizations (UN, FAO) answers
news portals. If there was no specific hit for “bio- were collected separately.
economy” during one of the searches, the search
was extended to include keywords like “biobased”, The model-based clustering was supported by expert
“bioenergy”, “green chemistry”, and “industrial bio- consultation and a literature review, which identified
technology”. However, in order to identify experts a set of globally available, bioeconomy-relevant in-
and keep the research within workable limits, ad- dicators11. These indicators were grouped to reflect
ditional keywords were only considered in excep- the importance of different bioeconomic sectors12
and the availability of resources. The importance bioeconomy in general (6%) (Figure 1). Additional
of the primary and high-tech bioeconomic sectors sectors named included food & nutrition, fisheries,
is likely to reflect comparative advantages and to wood & paper, health & pharma. Several respon-
some degree social choice and voter’s preferences. dents are also engaged in environmental settings
The economic importance of the primary sector was or social sciences.
based on indicators reflecting the economic signifi-
cance, employment opportunities and land occupied Experts in every cluster filled in the questionnaire
for a specific sector. Indicators reflecting the eco- (Figure 2). Surprisingly, the response rate varied
nomic importance in terms of international trade, significantly between countries. For example, in the
patent applications, investments and employment of HighTech cluster: Finland (15%), Germany (10%),
high skilled personnel were employed to capture the and France (2%). No answers were received from
high-tech sector. Comparative advantages, however, Mali and Senegal.
are also reflected by the availability of resources,
such as bioproductive land and skilled labor. While Respondents also represented the targeted set of
the availability of bioproductive land is more or less different roles (Figure 3). When asked to describe
determined by bioclimatic factors, the availability of their role, a majority of 44 percent indicated work-
skilled labor is a result of specific policies. ing as researchers in a public institution. A further
24 percent described their role as policy makers or
Background of the participants public administration staff, 20 percent belonged to
In the autumn of 2017, 4,331 experts were invited the industrial sector, 8 percent represented a non-
via email to take part in the global expert survey, governmental organization (NGO) and 2 percent
with 345 filling in the questionnaire in full (8%). belonged to an association.
The respondents of the survey cover a wide range It is worth noting that 28 percent of the experts
of sectors relevant to bioeconomy as described responding said they were members of a formal,
above: agriculture (23%), biotechnology (17%), governmental bioeconomy advisory council, adding
energy (11%), chemistry (7%), forestry (7%), and further weight to the observations of this survey.
13% Other 23% Agriculture
1% Health, Pharma
2% Social sciences
2% Environment
3% Wood and paper
manufacturing
4% Fisheries
4% Food, Nutrition
6% Bioeconomy 17% Biotechnology
7% Forestry
7% Chemistry 11% Energy
All respondents (n=345)
Figure 1: Respondents cover important sectors of operation13
5% European Union Institutions 4% International Organizations
6% Basic Primary Sector Based
Bioeconomies
8% Advanced Primary Sector 46% High-Tech Bioeconomies
Based Bioeconomies
2% Diversified Bioeconomies
29% Emerging Diversified Bioeconomies
All respondents (n=345)
Figure 2: Respondents represent every cluster, European Union Institutions, and International Organizations
2% Association 2% Other
8% Civil society organization /
Non-governmental organization
20% Industry 44% Researcher / Lecturer
24% Policy maker / Public official /
Public administration
All respondents (n=345)
Figure 3: Respondents active in relevant roles14
4 Survey results
4.1 Upcoming bioeconomy success was also named as a future success story sev-
stories eral times (n=29). Surprisingly, the idea of green
cities, outlined as a flagship project candidate in the
Energy, biobased products and agriculture, food German Bioeconomy Council’s 2015 international
& feed top future successes Delphi study was mentioned only rarely (n=12).
Asking worldwide respondents about promising
bioeconomy success stories in their country over Other answers included aspects such as gender
the next 20 years led to a diverse set of answers equality, job creation, economic growth and diver-
(Figure 4). Irrespective of ongoing discussions, the sification or improved innovation.
energy sector and, in particular, different energy
routes ranging from bioenergy in general to biogas Clusters’ successes differ
and biofuels showed up as the most prominent Clusters varied in their answers: HighTech coun-
future success story (n=141). This finding probably tries envisage notable success stories especially
reflects the considerable efforts made in recent in the product and energy sector. Energy, products
years, ongoing projects and appreciating the value and agriculture receive top marks from the EmDivs.
of bioenergy. It is still notable because bioenergy’s Advanced technology and development activities
reputation has suffered, the commercialization of in these countries may explain a strong product
second generation biofuels has proven to be de- pipeline in the HighTech and EmDivs.
manding and political backing for energy based on
renewable resources seems to be waning. Participants in AdvancedPrim and BasicPrim coun-
tries favor other scenarios. AdvancedPrims also
Other respondents anticipated novel, innovative give top ranking to energy but agriculture, educa-
products as future pioneers of the bioeconomy. tion and health follow. For BasicPrims, success
(n=125). In focus: chemicals and bioplastics and stories will mainly be delivered within agriculture.
innovative new materials, e.g. wood fibers for cloth- Education, energy and less hunger are ranked next.
ing obtained from waste or residues. The importance of agriculture comes as no surprise
since these countries are still struggling to feed the
Improvements in agriculture ranging from new plant ever-growing population.
varieties to smart features like automated work-
flows and better production methods took third Sustainable Development Goals affected strongly
place (n=61). Successes in the food and feed area, Asked about the UN Sustainable Development
e.g. food manufactured from alternative protein Goals (SDGs) that will be affected by promising
sources or sustainable food systems, came next bioeconomy success stories, respondents included
(n=44). every SDG to a certain extent (Figure 5). Never-
theless, three SDGs stood out within the global
Green cities mentioned rarely sample: responsible consumption and production
The valorization and reduction of waste (n=42), (SDG 12), industry, innovation and infrastructure
e.g. “to combine urban organic waste management (SDG 9) and climate action (SDG 13). Affordable
with value creation and not just energy produc- and clean energy (SDG 7), good health and well-
tion”, as well as improvements in technology and being (SDG 3), sustainable cities and communities
process development (n=42) were also mentioned (SDG 11), and decent work and economic growth
frequently. Education with respect to bioeconomy (SDG 8) followed next. Peace, justice and strong15
institutions (SDG 16), gender equality (SDG 5) and AdvancedPrims also placed high emphasis on re-
reduced inequalities (SDG 10) turned out to be the ducing poverty (SDG 1) and hunger (SDG 2) and
SDGs least affected. increasing good health and well-being (SDG 3).
The more developed EmDivs considered decent
Looking into the clusters, the three SDGs se- work and economic growth (SDG 8) the SDG more
lected most often in the global sample are impor- affected.
tant to every country. However, BasicPrims and
Energy
Novel products
Agriculture
Food and feed
Technology
Waste
Education
Health
Biorefinery
Policies
Bioeconomy
Biomass
Circular
Forestry
Water
Cooperation
City
Hunger
Consumption
Climate
Sustainability
Fishery
Poverty
Environment
Paper
Biodiversity
Marine
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
All responses (n=832)
Figure 4: Upcoming bioeconomy success stories16
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
UN Sustainable Development Goals
All responses (n=2178)
Figure 5: UN Sustainable Development Goals affected
4.2 Promising technology fields in primary sector productivity (n=452) (Figure 6).
Technology fields included breeding advances,
Technologies drive transformation in the bioecon- applying classical breeding or modern molecular
omy. Asking participants about promising technol- biological technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9,
ogy fields that might enable this process, the most digitalization ranging from the use of information
frequently collected answers proposed an increase and communication technologies to artificial intel-
Increases in primary sector
productivity
Bio-based value added in low-
volume yet high-value industries
Increases in biomass use efficiency
and new biomass uses
Substitution of fossil resources by
bio-based resources
Other
All responses (n=1079) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 6: Promising technology fields17
ligence and big data analyses as well as the use of proach to solving the challenging global question
alternative biomass sources. Precision farming was of how to feed the growing world population in the
another topic. Within the green cities context, ur- future (Figure 8). An FAO study suggested that
ban farming was only mentioned by a small fraction roughly one third of food produced for human con-
of respondents, which might also be caused by the sumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts
procedure in the selection of survey participants. to about 1.3 billion tons per year12. The food is lost
The second most common responses considered or wasted throughout the supply chain, from initial
the addition of biobased value in low-volume yet agricultural production down to final household
high-value industries (n=283), e.g. by applying consumption in both developed and less developed
metabolic engineering or enzyme technologies. countries. The causes of food losses and waste in
Increases in the efficiency of biomass use and new low-income countries are mainly connected with fi-
biomass uses (n=160) could be made available as nancial, managerial and technical limitations. Food
a result of new processing technologies. waste in industrialized countries can be reduced by
raising awareness among food industries, retailers
Clusters showed no major differences – they most and consumers. Respondents from EU and inter-
often referred to technology fields in terms of in- national organizations like the UN and FAO also
creasing primary sector productivity. One explana- shared the view that the most appropriate solution
tion might be that biomass is the prerequisite for to feeding the growing world population is to reduce
the future biobased economy. food waste and losses.
4.3 Notable technology characteristics Countries believe in innovation
Increasing crop yields using innovations like new
The content analysis highlighted several characteris- plant breeds and seeds or using improved pro-
tics of technologies, which might make sustainable duction methods take second and third place re-
biobased transformation possible. The largest group spectively, reflecting great faith in innovation and
concerns economic criteria (n=420), well ahead of technology. Increasing the land available for crops
environmental and technology oriented character- by converting grassland and/or wilderness is seen
istics in second (n=238) and third place (n=188) as the least suitable solution. Interestingly, reduc-
respectively and social factors (n=155) (Figure 7). ing meat consumption in industrialized countries
Economic criteria include competitiveness, innova- or reducing and optimizing the use of water for
tiveness, circularity and efficiency. Environmental agriculture were ranked equal in the midfield.
sustainability and resource efficiency relate to the
environment. Yield optimization is by far the most New plant breeds and seeds and improved produc-
prominent criterion for technology goals. tion methods to increase crop yields are similarly
favored by respondents from different clusters.
Every cluster mentioned economic criteria most BasicPrim countries in particular view improved
frequently. Differences were observed in the other production methods as very important. This is
characteristics. Social factors were collected more most probably because more developed countries
frequently than technology goals from the less already show satisfactory agricultural output lev-
developed countries, such as BasicPrims and Ad- els. Nevertheless, this solution also receives high
vancedPrims. In contrast, a smaller proportion of marks in the developed countries.
HighTech countries reported social factors.
Reduce meat consumption
4.4 Possible approaches to feeding the Global meat consumption is still rising despite dis-
world population cussion about reducing it. One explanation is the
increasing wealth of several fast-developing coun-
Reduce food waste to feed the population tries, e.g. China. According to this survey, reducing
Global experts, except for the BasicPrim partici- meat consumption in industrialized countries is an
pants, rated the reduction of food waste and losses idea, which is favored by experts from HighTech
along the supply chain as the most important ap- countries and European institutions. Both voted18
Economic
Environment
Technology goals /
Field improvement
Social factors
Other
All responses
(n=1140) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Figure 7: Notable technology characteristics
strongly in favor here. The idea of developing new forgotten crops like millet and sorghum that are
sources of food production, such as algae or in- more resistant to drought and thus more resilient
sects, seems to be preferred. In contrast to High- to climate change”, “natural resources” and the use
Tech countries, several less developed countries of “marginal or waste land”.
serve insects as traditional food. This might explain
why respondents from HighTech countries rated 4.5 Potentially conflicting goals
this solution as more important. Increasing the nu-
tritional value of products is a priority for the less In the context of the growing bioeconomy, different
developed countries. Water is a valuable commod- conflicting goals have evolved in recent years. The
ity, especially in several of the AdvancedPrim and non-food use of arable land, life cycle assessments
BasicPrim countries. Not surprisingly, reducing and and rising crop prices have triggered food and fuel
optimizing the use of water is viewed as another discussions. Using arable land to produce feed
possible solution. Interestingly, international orga- for meat, milk and eggs raised the question as to
nizations viewed this solution as very important. whether this concept will continue in the future.
Using edible biomass primarily for food, producing Finally, the conversion of virgin forests threatens
food in towns and cities, e.g. by roof and vertical global biodiversity. Survey respondents assessed
farming, or increasing the land available for crops these conflicting goals and provided suggestions
by converting grassland are less favored solutions for resolving them.
to feeding the growing population – irrespective of
the country. 4.5.1 Non-food use of arable land
More than three quarters (77%) of the respondents
Access as an alternative solution think that bioeconomy strategies should deal with
Some respondents also pointed to additional solu- the fact that about 10-15% of the worldwide ar-
tions. Access was one example. Access to land, able land (1.5 bn hectares) is not used for food
education and food. The latter by “benefit sharing”, production but for bioenergy crops or crops for
for example. Combining approaches may be an- bioindustrial use. In particular, suggestions consid-
other logical way of moving forward. For example, ered holistic approaches and in contrast, the food
using improved cultivation methods in combination first principle as well as improved land and waste
with improved water management to increase crop use (Figure 9).
yields. Further ideas suggested “bringing back19
Holistic approach contrasts with food first principle lizing new crop varieties. One comment pointed out
Several participants (n=35) say bioeconomy strat- that a “significant portion of arable land has always
egies should be focused on simultaneous production been used for non-food materials and energy and
of food and bioenergy or other biobased products, should be treated as an integral part of land use
the holistic approach. It is mentioned that “cereals practices”. Optimization of land use is suggested
like sugarcane, corn, sorghum, rice and wheat are primarily by the HighTech and EmDiv countries.
cropped worldwide. And all of them have the poten-
tial to produce not only food but bioenergy”. On the Further increases in yields or the use of alterna-
other hand, several respondents underlined the food tive resources, e.g. from marine or forest habitats,
first principle (n=28). could also be part of a future solution. Cascading
use and multiple purpose crops are discussed.
Splitting the answers according to clusters, holistic Respondents also highlighted regional aspects and
and “food first” approaches seem to be favored the necessity of taking local needs and conditions
equally by the different countries. into account. Suggestions included using alterna-
tive renewable energy sources, such as solar or
Land use management important wind power, instead of bioenergy originating from
Land use is also important for respondents (n=30). arable land. HighTech, EmDivs and BasicPrims indi-
It should be promoted by government policies, cated waste valorization and reduction in particular
carefully monitored and optimized. Marginal land as possible measures.
in particular should be better exploited e.g. by uti-
Reduce food waste and losses along the supply chain
Increase crop yields using innovations
(new plant breeds and seeds)
Increase crop yields using improved production methods
Open up new sources of food production such as algae,
insects, in-vitro meat, aquaculture products, etc.
Reduce meat consumption in industrialized countries
Increase the nutritional value of food products
Reduce and optimize the use of water for agriculture
Use edible biomass primarily for food
Produce food in towns, e.g. roof and vertical
farming, aquaponics
Increase land available for crops by converting
grassland and/or wilderness
Other
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
All responses (n=1035) Top 1 Top 2 Top 3
Figure 8: Three most important approaches to feeding the growing world population in the future20
4.5.2 Use of arable land for feed for meat, milk lower prices or more stable prices worldwide”.
and egg production The third suggestion considered, once again, in-
About one third of the global crop land is used to creasing the yields and efficiency of existing agri-
produce feed for meat, milk and egg production, cultural production systems (n=29).
mainly in industrialized and emerging countries.
There is criticism that world market prices for plant- When scrutinizing the cluster-specific responses,
based food increase as a result and make the situa- it again appears that reducing meat consumption
tion worse for the poor. More than three quarters of is an idea widely propagated in the HighTech coun-
respondents (77%) agreed that bioeconomy strat- tries and to a lesser extent in the EmDiv countries.
egies should deal with this challenge. The same holds true for food and feed alterna-
tives, such as insects or algae. In contrast, less
Three main approaches developed countries regarded yield increases and
The suggestions highlight three main approaches technological innovations as more helpful. One
(Figure 10). First, as discussed earlier on, reducing participant stated that “most of the poor live in
meat consumption and feed usage (n=34). Second, the developing world where large tracts of land are
opening up avenues for protein and carbohydrate still uncultivated. The focus should therefore be to
alternatives, such as insects, algae or yeast, for make technologies available, e.g. mechanization
human consumption and feed use (n=29). “Protein and improved hybrids, to enable the poor to pro-
sources could be produced by microorganisms in- duce sufficient food for their households”.
stead of animals. Single cell proteins are produced
by microorganisms faster, cheaper and from poor In the midfield of the suggestions are the use of
raw materials by comparison with animal proteins. new technologies (n=15) and pursuing a holistic
Less animal protein means more grains available in approach (n=13). In general, regional specificities
the world market. More grains in the market means should be taken into account (n=12).
Holistic approach*
Improved land use
Food first principle
Valorisation / Reduction of waste
Alternative resources
Cascade use
Next generation biofuels
Yield increases
Renewable energy (no bioenergy)
Sustainability criteria
Policies
Regional approach
Alternative crops
Innovation
Access
Education
Efficiency
Monitoring
Smart farming
Other
All responses (n=249) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
*Focus on simultaneous production of food and non-food goods
Figure 9: Non-food use of arable land – suggestions to resolve conflicting goals21
Reduce meat and/or feed intake
Food and feed alternatives, e.g. insects
Yield increases
Regulation, e.g. taxes, incentives
Technology
Policies
Holistic approach
Regional approach
Consumption
Education
Nutrition
Preferred plant-based production
Sustainable agriculture
Access / Distribution
Improved land-use
Combination of measures
Cooperation
Food first principle
Valorisation / Reduction of waste
Biorefinery
Smart farming
Other
All responses (n=241) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 10: Use of arable land for feed for meat, milk and egg production – suggestions to resolve
conflicting goals
Other suggestions concerned policies and regula- incentives, taxes or even penalties. One partici-
tory measures, primarily considered by HighTechs, pant noted that “access to foreign, better value
EmDivs and AdvancedPrims, such as taxes, e.g. “a markets should be restricted by tariffs and taxes”.
meat tax, differentiated according to the climate Others opted for bans and embargoes on palm oil,
and environmental consequences of different kinds soybeans, etc.
of meat” or incentives, e.g. “so that farmers pro-
duce for human consumption”. An explanation for The developed countries in particular view regula-
this might be belief in the political system in these tory approaches and policies as the top measure
countries and its regulatory power. for dealing with the conversion of virgin forests.
4.5.3 Conversion of virgin forests Yield increases and conservation to save forests
There is criticism that virgin forests, in South East As mentioned before, increasing yields and produc-
Asia and Latin America for example, are converted tivity as well as optimizing land use are important
into agricultural land to produce palm oil, soybeans to the respondents. They also appear relevant for
or beef for export. Nine out of ten respondents preventing virgin forests from being converted into
(86%) share the opinion that bioeconomy strategies agricultural land. An obvious measure for 35 respon-
should deal with this fact. dents is the strict conservation of virgin forests.
Regulatory approaches most popular Looking into the clusters, it becomes obvious that
Two main suggestions are prioritized (Figure 11). the more developed the countries, notably here the
Surprisingly, regulatory approaches ranked as most HighTechs and EmDivs, the higher is the priority for
popular (n=51). Ideas include certificates or labels, conserving virgin forests. Once again, this observa-22
tion might be explained by the different needs of the lower than the less developed countries. Interest-
countries responding. The least developed countries ingly, the international and the EU group adopted
still struggle to feed their people, so the protection different positions on several occasions.
of forests ranks lower. Participants from BasicPrims
and AdvancedPrims prefer land-use optimization, Promoting innovation
technology innovation and an increase in yields. Respondents rated public research and develop-
ment money (57%), private money (47%) and public-
Other suggestions included sustainability aspects private partnerships (PPPs, 55%) as most important
(n=24), international or national policies (n=23), spe- for driving innovation worldwide (Figure 12).
cific regionally oriented measures (n=11); analyses to
evaluate the ecosystem services of the virgin forests Public and private funding received top ratings
or to calculate costs and benefits were also indicated. within the HighTech cluster. PPPs were especially
There was less mention of changing consumption hab- important for less developed countries like Ad-
its or applying new technologies but “food should be vancedPrims and BasicPrims and also for respon-
considered a local issue and not be targeted at satisfy- dents working within international organizations.
ing the immense demand of developed economies”. Overall, social innovation, e.g. open innovation or
citizen science, and traditional knowledge and low-
4.6 Necessary policy measures tech innovations are viewed as less important in-
novation measures. Nevertheless, both measures
It is possible to imagine a diverse set of policy are important for the less developed countries.
measures aimed at promoting the bioeconomy’s
market success in the future. During this survey Supporting infrastructure and capacity building
the participants rated thirty-one measures in to- Looking from the global perspective at the support
tal, subdivided into seven groups. In general, the necessary for infrastructure and capacity building,
developed countries rated their respective needs pilot facilities (57%) take the lead followed by bio-
Regulation
Conservation
Sustainability
Policies
Yield increases
Improved land-use
Holistic approach
Regional approach
Analyses, e.g. cost-benefit studies
Reduced consumption including meat
Food and feed alternatives, e.g. insects
Technology
Combined measures
Agriculture
Education
Biodiversity
Valorization of waste
Biorefinery
Other
All responses (n=272) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Figure 11: Conversion of virgin forests – suggestions to resolve conflicting goals23
Public R&D
Public-private partnerships
Private R&D
Social innovation
Traditional knowledge and low-tech
innovations
All respondents (n=345) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(7) very important (6) (5) (4) neutral (3) (2) (1) totally unimportant
Figure 12: Policy measures aimed at promoting innovation
economy education programs (44%) and capacity emerging and developing countries. AdvancedPrims
building (44%) (Figure 13). Cluster development and BasicPrims in particular rated capacity building
seems less important. as equal to the need for pilot facilities. In comparison,
a substantially smaller proportion of HighTech respon-
In comparison, pilot facilities are most sought after by dents rated this measure as most important.
the HighTech countries. This is most probably because
product developments have already reached advanced Supporting commercialization
stages. On the other hand, education is a big issue in According to 50 percent of all respondents, access to
Pilot and demonstration facilities
Bioeconomy education programs
Capacity building
Cluster development
All respondents (n=345) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(7) very important (6) (5) (4) neutral (3) (2) (1) totally unimportant
Figure 13: Policy measures aimed at supporting infrastructure and capacity building24
Access to capital for biobased
companies
Development and marketing efforts
Subsidies for (increased) production
and use of renewable resources
Export promotion policy
All respondents (n=345) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(7) very important (6) (5) (4) neutral (3) (2) (1) totally unimportant
Figure 14: Policy measures aimed at supporting commercialization
capital for biobased companies is the most important resources. Strained national budgets might explain this
commercialization support measure for promoting the observation. Interestingly, EU officials ranked export
bioeconomy’s market success in their home country. promotion policies as less important than respondents
Development and marketing efforts take second place from international organizations. This may be because
(37%). Only 22 percent of the responses indicated ex- of the existing large European single market.
port promotion policies as most important (Figure 14).
Supporting the demand-side
Only BasicPrims rated the latter measure more positive According to the global panel, three proposed
than subsidies for the production and use of renewable measures for supporting the demand-side appear
Consumer information and
communication campaigns
Tax incentives
Biobased public procurement policy
Ban of fossil-based products
Certification and labels explaining a
product’s life cycle impact
All respondents (n=345) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(7) very important (6) (5) (4) neutral (3) (2) (1) totally unimportant
Figure 15: Policy measures aimed at supporting the demand-side25
Removal of fossil fuel subsidies
Circular economy regulations
Regulations on biodiversity protection
and ecosystem regeneration
Carbon tax
All respondents (n=345) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(7) very important (6) (5) (4) neutral (3) (2) (1) totally unimportant
Figure 16: Policy measures aimed at ensuring conditions that encourage the bioeconomy
to be most popular: consumer information and developed countries, they do not consider public
communication campaigns (43%), tax incentives procurement policies for promoting biobased mar-
(40%), and biobased procurement policies (38%) kets as very important. Weak public procurement
(Figure 15). within these countries might be an explanation for
this observation. The ban on fossil-based products,
International organizations rated tax incentives such as plastic bags, receives only a low rating
very highly. With regard to public procurement, Ba- from EU respondents. This is probably because the
sicPrims and AdvancedPrims, notably show up as EU already moved to reduce plastic bag use by a
the countries with the smallest needs. Unlike the directive introduced in 201513.
Interministerial and interregional
cooperation
Monitoring and measuring activities
Public reporting and multi-
stakeholder dialogue
Learning and adaptive policy
Bioeconomy advisory council
All respondents (n=345) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(7) very important (6) (5) (4) neutral (3) (2) (1) totally unimportant
Figure 17: Policy measures aimed at promoting good governance26
Knowledge sharing between
industrialized and developing countries
Harmonization in international trade
and policy frameworks
Private investment in developing
countries
International monitoring, e.g.
satellite tracking
All respondents (n=345) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(7) very important (6) (5) (4) neutral (3) (2) (1) totally unimportant
Figure 18: Policy measures aimed at improving international collaboration in the bioeconomy
Ensuring conditions that encourage the bioeconomy Europe. Reporting and monitoring measures receive
Looking from a global perspective at conditions high ratings from the less developed countries.
encouraging the bioeconomy, the removal of fossil
fuel subsidies takes one of the top positions (48%) Improving international collaboration
(Figure 16). One explanation might be the HighTech in the bioeconomy
countries’ great interest in their removal. This obser- Knowledge sharing takes the top position (48%)
vation might also hint at the lack of subsidies in the for improving international collaboration in the bio-
less developed countries or perhaps that less de- economy (Figure 18). Harmonization of frameworks
veloped countries seek to draw closer to developed (36%) and private investment in developing coun-
countries and therefore rely heavily on fossil fuels. Ir- tries (32%) rank next.
respective of the country cluster, respondents think
that circular economy regulations, such as recycling For BasicPrim countries, knowledge sharing between
quotas, use of by-products, eco-design, life cycle as- industrialized and developing countries turns out
sessment of patents, are very important (41%). to be the most important measure for the future of
the respective bioeconomy’s market success. One
Interestingly, the carbon tax is sought almost equal- explanation might be the weak presence of innova-
ly by the different clusters. tive knowledge in these countries and their desire to
close this gap as quickly as possible. Harmonization
Promoting good governance in international trade and policy frameworks is es-
According to the global panel, cooperation between pecially important for the HighTech countries. When
ministries or regions is rated as most important asked about international monitoring, such as satel-
(43%) (Figure 17). An expert bioeconomy advisory lite tracking, this proposed measure is viewed as the
panel is viewed as least important (26%). least interesting for all countries (18%). One reason
might be high costs, necessary knowledge and an
In contrast to international actors, respondents from uncertain outcome.
EU institutions view cooperation between ministries
or regions as highly important. One reason might In conclusion, a set of important policy measures
be the multitude of countries and regions under the has been identified for promoting the bioeconomy’s
European umbrella, which necessitates good bond- market success in the future. However, when ask-
ing to succeed. However, public reporting and multi- ing actors from different countries, differences do
stakeholder dialogues appear well established in exist. In general, the more developed the nationalYou can also read
