30 M. M. Bugge et al.
revolve around issues such as the conditions for and strategies applied in
building a bio- economy in various emerging economies (Chen & Gottweis,
2013; Hsieh & Lofgren, 2009; Salter, 2009; Salter, Cooper, Dickins & Cardo,
2007; Salter, Cooper & Dickins, 2006; Waldby, 2009).
2.4.2 The bio- resource vision
In the bio- resource vision the overall aims and objectives relate to both economic growth and sustainability. There is an expectation that bio- innovations
will provide both economic growth and environmental sustainability
(Levidow et al., 2013). Whereas economic growth in the bio- technology
vision would follow from capitalising on biotechnologies, capitalising on bioresources is expected to drive economic growth in the bio- resource vision.
While it is often assumed that effects in terms of environmental sustainability
will also be positive, the main focus is on technological development of new
bio- based products, and much less on environmental protection (Duchesne &
Wetzel, 2003). Thus, quite paradoxically, the climate change effects of the
transition to a bioeconomy are rarely assessed, and the sustainability aspect
receives relatively limited attention from policymakers (Ollikainen, 2014;
Staffas et al., 2013). Notably, this weak integration of sustainability aspects in
bioeconomy policies is despite the fact that academics frequently question the
positive sustainability effects of the bioeconomy (Pfau, Hagens, Dankbaar &
Smits, 2014). Ponte (2009) argues that processes and procedures associated
with standard setting in the bioeconomy become more important than outcomes in terms of sustainable development. The bioeconomy discourse may
in fact lead to a decreasing emphasis on issues such as deforestation and loss of
biological diversity (Pülzl et al., 2014).
In terms of value creation, the bio- resource vision highlights the processing
and conversion of bio- resources into new products. Related to the use and
availability of bio- resources, waste management also takes up a more prominent position in the bio- resource vision. Minimising organic waste production along the value chain is a central concern, and waste production, which
cannot be avoided, is an important input to renewable energy production
(European Commission, 2012). The concept of cascading use of biomass is
central in this regard since it highlights the efforts to maximise the efficiency
of biomass use (Keegan, Kretschmer, Elbersen & Panoutsou, 2013). Finally, it
is also argued that processing of waste that allows recycling by converting it
to fertilisers is central to allow large- scale biofuel production (Mathews,
2009).
In relation to drivers and mediators of innovation, and as a natural consequence
of the prime focus on bio- resources, the issue of land use constitutes a more
explicit element than in the bio- technology vision. An important driver in
the bio- resource vision is thus to improve land productivity (Levidow et al.,
2013; Mathews, 2009) and to include degraded land in the production of
biofuels (Mathews, 2009). However, there is often little discussion of the
revolve around issues such as the conditions for and strategies applied in
building a bio- economy in various emerging economies (Chen & Gottweis,
2013; Hsieh & Lofgren, 2009; Salter, 2009; Salter, Cooper, Dickins & Cardo,
2007; Salter, Cooper & Dickins, 2006; Waldby, 2009).
2.4.2 The bio- resource vision
In the bio- resource vision the overall aims and objectives relate to both economic growth and sustainability. There is an expectation that bio- innovations
will provide both economic growth and environmental sustainability
(Levidow et al., 2013). Whereas economic growth in the bio- technology
vision would follow from capitalising on biotechnologies, capitalising on bioresources is expected to drive economic growth in the bio- resource vision.
While it is often assumed that effects in terms of environmental sustainability
will also be positive, the main focus is on technological development of new
bio- based products, and much less on environmental protection (Duchesne &
Wetzel, 2003). Thus, quite paradoxically, the climate change effects of the
transition to a bioeconomy are rarely assessed, and the sustainability aspect
receives relatively limited attention from policymakers (Ollikainen, 2014;
Staffas et al., 2013). Notably, this weak integration of sustainability aspects in
bioeconomy policies is despite the fact that academics frequently question the
positive sustainability effects of the bioeconomy (Pfau, Hagens, Dankbaar &
Smits, 2014). Ponte (2009) argues that processes and procedures associated
with standard setting in the bioeconomy become more important than outcomes in terms of sustainable development. The bioeconomy discourse may
in fact lead to a decreasing emphasis on issues such as deforestation and loss of
biological diversity (Pülzl et al., 2014).
In terms of value creation, the bio- resource vision highlights the processing
and conversion of bio- resources into new products. Related to the use and
availability of bio- resources, waste management also takes up a more prominent position in the bio- resource vision. Minimising organic waste production along the value chain is a central concern, and waste production, which
cannot be avoided, is an important input to renewable energy production
(European Commission, 2012). The concept of cascading use of biomass is
central in this regard since it highlights the efforts to maximise the efficiency
of biomass use (Keegan, Kretschmer, Elbersen & Panoutsou, 2013). Finally, it
is also argued that processing of waste that allows recycling by converting it
to fertilisers is central to allow large- scale biofuel production (Mathews,
2009).
In relation to drivers and mediators of innovation, and as a natural consequence
of the prime focus on bio- resources, the issue of land use constitutes a more
explicit element than in the bio- technology vision. An important driver in
the bio- resource vision is thus to improve land productivity (Levidow et al.,
2013; Mathews, 2009) and to include degraded land in the production of
biofuels (Mathews, 2009). However, there is often little discussion of the