Directionality and diversity 249
strategy. These actors advocate policies enabling the bioeconomy with attention to creating new markets for bio- based products and hence rebalancing
the playing field between bio- based products and products based on fossil
resources. They promote an increased use of policy instruments, such as the
public procurement of bio- based products, in order to stimulate market
demand. Their position often highlights the large unexploited potential for
utilising biomass resources extracted and harvested nationally. In this context,
biomass from forests is seen as having huge potential for the development of a
national bioeconomy. According to this view, the state should take a more
proactive role in developing new value chains based on biomass from forestry. As we have seen, the Norwegian forestry sector has been struggling in
recent years and is seeking new ways of exploiting wood resources. In addition to the industrial players, regional governments seem to have a similar
vision, focusing on the role of research and innovation and on the capitalisation of a wide range of bio- resources. This position emphasises the capitalisation of natural bio- resources in order to make Norwegian industries more
competitive, and to create jobs nationally.
Overall, this position dedicates limited attention towards issues related to
sustainability. Sustainability is seen as an effect of the bioeconomy rather than
as a main starting point for it or outcome from it. To some extent, these positions hence reflect a “business as usual” approach to the bioeconomy, rather
than presenting alternative ways to develop it, or counter- framings to contemporary industrial production practices.
Interpreted through the lens of our conceptual framework, these findings
reflect how the incumbent actors of existing socio- technical regimes often try
to resist change (e.g. Geels, 2014). However, we do not only find that the
incumbent actors try to resist change brought about by niche- level actors; we
also find that some of the incumbents pro- actively take part in the shaping of
the future socio- technical regime of the bioeconomy.
The biotechnology vision, emphasising the application and commercialisation of science and technology, is most frequently advocated by the academic
community. Similarly to the arguments put forward by the natural resource
industries, they view the bioeconomy as an opportunity to create new businesses based on biotechnology products, and at the same time as an opportunity to make important advances within the treatment and prevention of
diseases.
However, these visions based on the development and application of technology and the industrial exploitation of biomass resources are contrasted by
sustainability concerns from NGOs arguing for a more careful use of biomass
resources. These perspectives, reflecting the bio- ecology vision, highlight
how the national bioeconomy strategy should take into account the relationship between biomass utilisation and sustainability, and make sure that the
activities within the bioeconomy minimise negative environmental impacts.
This group of actors represents a minority of the submissions to the public
inquiry. The bio- ecology vision, hence, represents a contending alternative to
strategy. These actors advocate policies enabling the bioeconomy with attention to creating new markets for bio- based products and hence rebalancing
the playing field between bio- based products and products based on fossil
resources. They promote an increased use of policy instruments, such as the
public procurement of bio- based products, in order to stimulate market
demand. Their position often highlights the large unexploited potential for
utilising biomass resources extracted and harvested nationally. In this context,
biomass from forests is seen as having huge potential for the development of a
national bioeconomy. According to this view, the state should take a more
proactive role in developing new value chains based on biomass from forestry. As we have seen, the Norwegian forestry sector has been struggling in
recent years and is seeking new ways of exploiting wood resources. In addition to the industrial players, regional governments seem to have a similar
vision, focusing on the role of research and innovation and on the capitalisation of a wide range of bio- resources. This position emphasises the capitalisation of natural bio- resources in order to make Norwegian industries more
competitive, and to create jobs nationally.
Overall, this position dedicates limited attention towards issues related to
sustainability. Sustainability is seen as an effect of the bioeconomy rather than
as a main starting point for it or outcome from it. To some extent, these positions hence reflect a “business as usual” approach to the bioeconomy, rather
than presenting alternative ways to develop it, or counter- framings to contemporary industrial production practices.
Interpreted through the lens of our conceptual framework, these findings
reflect how the incumbent actors of existing socio- technical regimes often try
to resist change (e.g. Geels, 2014). However, we do not only find that the
incumbent actors try to resist change brought about by niche- level actors; we
also find that some of the incumbents pro- actively take part in the shaping of
the future socio- technical regime of the bioeconomy.
The biotechnology vision, emphasising the application and commercialisation of science and technology, is most frequently advocated by the academic
community. Similarly to the arguments put forward by the natural resource
industries, they view the bioeconomy as an opportunity to create new businesses based on biotechnology products, and at the same time as an opportunity to make important advances within the treatment and prevention of
diseases.
However, these visions based on the development and application of technology and the industrial exploitation of biomass resources are contrasted by
sustainability concerns from NGOs arguing for a more careful use of biomass
resources. These perspectives, reflecting the bio- ecology vision, highlight
how the national bioeconomy strategy should take into account the relationship between biomass utilisation and sustainability, and make sure that the
activities within the bioeconomy minimise negative environmental impacts.
This group of actors represents a minority of the submissions to the public
inquiry. The bio- ecology vision, hence, represents a contending alternative to