Directionality and diversity 243
much of the equipment from foreign companies and carry out a limited
amount of development work at home (Klitkou, 2010). The natural resource
industries and enabling sectors can be described as the prime carriers and promoters of the three bioeconomy visions described above (Bugge et al., 2016).
Together, they comprise the core of the Norwegian bioeconomy and the
policy positions they advocate reflect, to a large extent, their position within
the wider Norwegian economy.
12.5 Findings
Based on the discourse analysis of the different texts submitted to the public
inquiry on Norway’s bioeconomy strategy, we have been able to identify discursive patterns which relate to the three bioeconomy visions (Bugge et al.,
2016). The three bioeconomy visions are crucial elements in this analysis, as
they reveal the tendency for both conflicts and alignments between the participating actors. As we discussed above, the various bioeconomy visions
differ in terms of aims and objectives, as well as over which might or might
not be compatible as guideposts for a future bioeconomy. It is, therefore,
interesting to see to what extent the different actors commit themselves to
these bioeconomy visions and how the visions become manifested in terms of
specific policy suggestions. It is also interesting to see whether certain actor
groups commit themselves to specific visions and if these groups are large and
powerful enough to influence the direction or pace of the transition process
towards the bioeconomy.
Regarding the participating actors, we find that more than half of the submissions were from industry associations or private firms, followed by an even
distribution of other actor groups representing public authorities, academia,
and environmental and social NGOs. When further dissecting the private
sector group, we find that they represent a multitude of industrial sectors
ranging from forestry to bioenergy, agriculture, waste management and recycling, meat and poultry, marine, health, food, chemicals, and aquaculture
(Figure 12.1). Among these sectors, the forestry sector clearly dominates, followed by bioenergy and agriculture.
Figure 12.2 shows that topics relating to the bio- resource vision, such as
RD and D in agriculture, forestry, bioenergy, and new bio- based materials,
the establishment of new value chains, resource management, and conversion
technologies, all receive considerable attention (62% of the submissions in the
public inquiry). While these issues are discussed across different actor groups,
the industry actors and public authorities lead these discussions. The considerable involvement of private actors within the forest sector may reflect the
interests these stakeholders have in influencing the direction of the bioeconomy discourse. This sector advocates increased harvesting and the exploitation of biomass resources from the forests, and the expanded use of biomass
resources to create, among others, bio- materials, bioenergy, and biofuels. This
position can be interpreted as an outcome of the uncertainties associated with
much of the equipment from foreign companies and carry out a limited
amount of development work at home (Klitkou, 2010). The natural resource
industries and enabling sectors can be described as the prime carriers and promoters of the three bioeconomy visions described above (Bugge et al., 2016).
Together, they comprise the core of the Norwegian bioeconomy and the
policy positions they advocate reflect, to a large extent, their position within
the wider Norwegian economy.
12.5 Findings
Based on the discourse analysis of the different texts submitted to the public
inquiry on Norway’s bioeconomy strategy, we have been able to identify discursive patterns which relate to the three bioeconomy visions (Bugge et al.,
2016). The three bioeconomy visions are crucial elements in this analysis, as
they reveal the tendency for both conflicts and alignments between the participating actors. As we discussed above, the various bioeconomy visions
differ in terms of aims and objectives, as well as over which might or might
not be compatible as guideposts for a future bioeconomy. It is, therefore,
interesting to see to what extent the different actors commit themselves to
these bioeconomy visions and how the visions become manifested in terms of
specific policy suggestions. It is also interesting to see whether certain actor
groups commit themselves to specific visions and if these groups are large and
powerful enough to influence the direction or pace of the transition process
towards the bioeconomy.
Regarding the participating actors, we find that more than half of the submissions were from industry associations or private firms, followed by an even
distribution of other actor groups representing public authorities, academia,
and environmental and social NGOs. When further dissecting the private
sector group, we find that they represent a multitude of industrial sectors
ranging from forestry to bioenergy, agriculture, waste management and recycling, meat and poultry, marine, health, food, chemicals, and aquaculture
(Figure 12.1). Among these sectors, the forestry sector clearly dominates, followed by bioenergy and agriculture.
Figure 12.2 shows that topics relating to the bio- resource vision, such as
RD and D in agriculture, forestry, bioenergy, and new bio- based materials,
the establishment of new value chains, resource management, and conversion
technologies, all receive considerable attention (62% of the submissions in the
public inquiry). While these issues are discussed across different actor groups,
the industry actors and public authorities lead these discussions. The considerable involvement of private actors within the forest sector may reflect the
interests these stakeholders have in influencing the direction of the bioeconomy discourse. This sector advocates increased harvesting and the exploitation of biomass resources from the forests, and the expanded use of biomass
resources to create, among others, bio- materials, bioenergy, and biofuels. This
position can be interpreted as an outcome of the uncertainties associated with