2 A. Klitkou et al.
facilitate the exchange of knowledge and experience across the established
groups of actors and sectors. However, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
collaborations are challenging, since partners work under different incentive
structures and draw on different knowledge bases.
This book addresses these challenges through a holistic approach: (1) analyses
of value chains crossing the established sector boundaries, (2) analyses of
policy and governance perspective on the transition process and (3) interdisciplinary studies of the bioeconomy.
1.1 Framework
1.1.1 Background
Over the last decade, the notion of grand challenges has emerged as a central
issue in policymaking and in academic discourse. The Lund Declaration (2009)
stressed the urgency of pursuing solutions to the so- called grand societal challenges, such as climate change, food security, health, industrial restructuring
and energy security. All these challenges are persistent problems which require
long- term approaches and are highly complex, difficult to manage and characterised by uncertainties (Coenen, Hansen & Rekers, 2015; Schuitmaker,
2012). The concept of a bioeconomy has been introduced as an important
pathway for addressing several of these challenges. Replacing fossil- based products with products based on organic waste resources is an important strategy
not only for mitigating climate change, but also for fostering industrial restructuring, improving public health and ensuring food and energy security
(Ollikainen, 2014; Pülzl, Kleinschmit & Arts, 2014; Richardson, 2012).
However, as Bugge et al. (2016) have pointed out, there seems to be little
consensus about what a bioeconomy actually implies. Visions of the bioeconomy range from one that is very closely connected to the increasing use of
biotechnology across sectors (e.g. Wield, 2013), to one where the focus is on
the use of biological material (e.g. McCormick & Kautto, 2013). Others call
for a shift towards locally embedded eco- economies, which use local good
practice as the starting point (Marsden, 2012). Thus, describing the bioeconomy, it has been argued that “its meaning still seems in a flux” (Pfau, Hagens,
Dankbaar & Smits, 2014; Pülzl et al., 2014, p. 386) and that the knowledgebased bioeconomy can be characterised as a “master narrative” (Levidow,
Birch & Papaioannou, 2013, p. 95), which is open to very different interpretations (Bugge et al., 2016, p. 1f.). The different perspectives on the bioeconomy can roughly be aligned into three points of view: (1) the OECD’s and
the United States’ focus on processes that convert raw material into valueadded products using biotechnology and life sciences; (2) the European
Union’s emphasis on the use of biomass resources, such as biological resources
and waste, as inputs for food, feed, energy and industrial products; and
(3) environmental scientists’ and NGOs’ concentration on sustainability and
planetary boundaries (Kleinschmit et al., 2014).
facilitate the exchange of knowledge and experience across the established
groups of actors and sectors. However, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
collaborations are challenging, since partners work under different incentive
structures and draw on different knowledge bases.
This book addresses these challenges through a holistic approach: (1) analyses
of value chains crossing the established sector boundaries, (2) analyses of
policy and governance perspective on the transition process and (3) interdisciplinary studies of the bioeconomy.
1.1 Framework
1.1.1 Background
Over the last decade, the notion of grand challenges has emerged as a central
issue in policymaking and in academic discourse. The Lund Declaration (2009)
stressed the urgency of pursuing solutions to the so- called grand societal challenges, such as climate change, food security, health, industrial restructuring
and energy security. All these challenges are persistent problems which require
long- term approaches and are highly complex, difficult to manage and characterised by uncertainties (Coenen, Hansen & Rekers, 2015; Schuitmaker,
2012). The concept of a bioeconomy has been introduced as an important
pathway for addressing several of these challenges. Replacing fossil- based products with products based on organic waste resources is an important strategy
not only for mitigating climate change, but also for fostering industrial restructuring, improving public health and ensuring food and energy security
(Ollikainen, 2014; Pülzl, Kleinschmit & Arts, 2014; Richardson, 2012).
However, as Bugge et al. (2016) have pointed out, there seems to be little
consensus about what a bioeconomy actually implies. Visions of the bioeconomy range from one that is very closely connected to the increasing use of
biotechnology across sectors (e.g. Wield, 2013), to one where the focus is on
the use of biological material (e.g. McCormick & Kautto, 2013). Others call
for a shift towards locally embedded eco- economies, which use local good
practice as the starting point (Marsden, 2012). Thus, describing the bioeconomy, it has been argued that “its meaning still seems in a flux” (Pfau, Hagens,
Dankbaar & Smits, 2014; Pülzl et al., 2014, p. 386) and that the knowledgebased bioeconomy can be characterised as a “master narrative” (Levidow,
Birch & Papaioannou, 2013, p. 95), which is open to very different interpretations (Bugge et al., 2016, p. 1f.). The different perspectives on the bioeconomy can roughly be aligned into three points of view: (1) the OECD’s and
the United States’ focus on processes that convert raw material into valueadded products using biotechnology and life sciences; (2) the European
Union’s emphasis on the use of biomass resources, such as biological resources
and waste, as inputs for food, feed, energy and industrial products; and
(3) environmental scientists’ and NGOs’ concentration on sustainability and
planetary boundaries (Kleinschmit et al., 2014).