Introduction 11
a seat on both the board of directors of the innovative bioeconomic firm and
on the board of directors of an upstream or downstream firm. Such
directorate interlocking could guarantee, also in the eyes of potential investors, that the flow of goods along the value circle is sufficiently stable.
Within the bioeconomy, the valorisation of waste streams necessitates an
even higher degree of coordination along and across value circles. This is due
to the intrinsic properties of waste: both its amount and its production timing
are not functional to its future use, but instead depend on the needs of the
value circle from which it originates. As a consequence, its availability does
not obey the market forces which usually modulate, at least partially, the
supply of products in relation to their demand. There are three possible solutions to this “waste puzzle”. The first one is technical: altering waste in order
not only to make it useful for an economic purpose, but also to improve its
properties for storage and transportation so that production amount and
timing become less important. The second solution is still technical but goes
one step further: processing waste in order to increase its value, up to a point
where the demand for it has a similar importance for the firm as the demand
for the main product associated with it; at this point, the firm will have an
incentive to coordinate the production of the main product and of the
“former” waste. The third solution is organisational: if the firm from which
the waste originates has a connection, in terms of ownership or of management, to a potential downstream sector for the waste, then the actors in the
potential downstream sector can be reassured that the flow of waste will be
sufficiently constant, and therefore the incentives for long- term investments
will be sufficient to allow waste valorisation in the downstream sector.
1.2.4 Policy and regulation of waste valorisation
Policymakers want to influence the bioeconomy for a wide range of reasons.
Among others, they want to ensure that the food we eat is safe and that the
methods used to produce it do not harm the environment; they want to make
sure that biological resources are used in a way that generates new jobs and
economic growth, especially in economically disadvantaged areas; and they
want to make sure that biological residual resources (such as organic household waste, wooden residues, brewers’ spent grain, animal by- products) are
used in a sustainable manner to produce new products and new sources of
energy. To accomplish these ambitions, policymakers have a large arsenal of
different mechanisms at their disposal, ranging from bans and prohibitions to
subsidies, tariffs and quotas and from innovative public procurement to government strategies. The combination of multiple goals and multiple mechanisms makes regulation of the bioeconomy challenging. However, there are
also other factors that complicate policymaking.
Policymaking and the regulation of waste streams take place at different
levels. Some policies and regulations are developed and implemented at the
local level by counties and municipalities. At the local level, policies and
a seat on both the board of directors of the innovative bioeconomic firm and
on the board of directors of an upstream or downstream firm. Such
directorate interlocking could guarantee, also in the eyes of potential investors, that the flow of goods along the value circle is sufficiently stable.
Within the bioeconomy, the valorisation of waste streams necessitates an
even higher degree of coordination along and across value circles. This is due
to the intrinsic properties of waste: both its amount and its production timing
are not functional to its future use, but instead depend on the needs of the
value circle from which it originates. As a consequence, its availability does
not obey the market forces which usually modulate, at least partially, the
supply of products in relation to their demand. There are three possible solutions to this “waste puzzle”. The first one is technical: altering waste in order
not only to make it useful for an economic purpose, but also to improve its
properties for storage and transportation so that production amount and
timing become less important. The second solution is still technical but goes
one step further: processing waste in order to increase its value, up to a point
where the demand for it has a similar importance for the firm as the demand
for the main product associated with it; at this point, the firm will have an
incentive to coordinate the production of the main product and of the
“former” waste. The third solution is organisational: if the firm from which
the waste originates has a connection, in terms of ownership or of management, to a potential downstream sector for the waste, then the actors in the
potential downstream sector can be reassured that the flow of waste will be
sufficiently constant, and therefore the incentives for long- term investments
will be sufficient to allow waste valorisation in the downstream sector.
1.2.4 Policy and regulation of waste valorisation
Policymakers want to influence the bioeconomy for a wide range of reasons.
Among others, they want to ensure that the food we eat is safe and that the
methods used to produce it do not harm the environment; they want to make
sure that biological resources are used in a way that generates new jobs and
economic growth, especially in economically disadvantaged areas; and they
want to make sure that biological residual resources (such as organic household waste, wooden residues, brewers’ spent grain, animal by- products) are
used in a sustainable manner to produce new products and new sources of
energy. To accomplish these ambitions, policymakers have a large arsenal of
different mechanisms at their disposal, ranging from bans and prohibitions to
subsidies, tariffs and quotas and from innovative public procurement to government strategies. The combination of multiple goals and multiple mechanisms makes regulation of the bioeconomy challenging. However, there are
also other factors that complicate policymaking.
Policymaking and the regulation of waste streams take place at different
levels. Some policies and regulations are developed and implemented at the
local level by counties and municipalities. At the local level, policies and