Summit 2018). As noted by the United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization
(2020), the drivers of bioeconomic development include three focus areas:
1. Societal aspirations and good governance for sustainable development and for
improved health and well-being,
2. Needs and opportunities of valorization and protection of biological resources,
including residues, in the traditional bioeconomy core-sectors linked to agriculture, forestry, fishery, water management food and bioenergy, and.
3. Scientific breakthroughs in biological, digital, and other technology fields,
expanding the frontiers of innovation possibilities (FAO 2020).
While sustainability has no formal definition, the commonly accepted definition
is that of the Brundtland Commission (1987), which notes, “sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the
exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as
present needs.” Included in the Brundtland discussion is a recurring theme of moral
decision-making that includes the welfare of all life.
Major changes in policies will be needed to cope with the industrial world’s current high
levels of consumption, the increases in consumption needed to meet minimum standards in
developing countries, and expected population growth. However, the case for the conservation of nature should not rest only with development goals. It is part of our moral obligation
to other living beings and future generations (Brundtland Commission, 1987, p 51).
Interestingly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), due make a reference
to the moral responsibility implicit in sustainability but appear to be aligned to an
anthropocentric approach.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are intended to be universal in the
sense of embodying a universally shared common global vision of progress toward a
safe, just, and sustainable space for all human beings to thrive on the planet. They
reflect the moral principles that no-one and no country should be left behind, and that
everyone and every country should be regarded as having a common responsibility
for playing their part in delivering the global vision (Osborn et al. 2015).
What the FAO definition of bioeconomy has in common with the Brundtland
Commission and the SDGs is the focus on sustainability and a fundamental need to
adjust consumption and production behavior to account for a responsibility to the
present and future. However, the difference in the perception and inclusiveness of
sustainable development differs with respect to the explicit inclusion of non-human
life, the intrinsic value of non-human life, as well as the moral obligation to protect
non-human life (Fig. 2.1). Arguably, the FAO and the Brundtland Commission
address non-human life, while the SDGs promote an anthropocentric perspective.
The Brundtland Commission and the SDGs reference the moral responsibility
inherent in establishing sustainable development.
12
M. Venkatesan
(2020), the drivers of bioeconomic development include three focus areas:
1. Societal aspirations and good governance for sustainable development and for
improved health and well-being,
2. Needs and opportunities of valorization and protection of biological resources,
including residues, in the traditional bioeconomy core-sectors linked to agriculture, forestry, fishery, water management food and bioenergy, and.
3. Scientific breakthroughs in biological, digital, and other technology fields,
expanding the frontiers of innovation possibilities (FAO 2020).
While sustainability has no formal definition, the commonly accepted definition
is that of the Brundtland Commission (1987), which notes, “sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the
exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as
present needs.” Included in the Brundtland discussion is a recurring theme of moral
decision-making that includes the welfare of all life.
Major changes in policies will be needed to cope with the industrial world’s current high
levels of consumption, the increases in consumption needed to meet minimum standards in
developing countries, and expected population growth. However, the case for the conservation of nature should not rest only with development goals. It is part of our moral obligation
to other living beings and future generations (Brundtland Commission, 1987, p 51).
Interestingly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), due make a reference
to the moral responsibility implicit in sustainability but appear to be aligned to an
anthropocentric approach.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are intended to be universal in the
sense of embodying a universally shared common global vision of progress toward a
safe, just, and sustainable space for all human beings to thrive on the planet. They
reflect the moral principles that no-one and no country should be left behind, and that
everyone and every country should be regarded as having a common responsibility
for playing their part in delivering the global vision (Osborn et al. 2015).
What the FAO definition of bioeconomy has in common with the Brundtland
Commission and the SDGs is the focus on sustainability and a fundamental need to
adjust consumption and production behavior to account for a responsibility to the
present and future. However, the difference in the perception and inclusiveness of
sustainable development differs with respect to the explicit inclusion of non-human
life, the intrinsic value of non-human life, as well as the moral obligation to protect
non-human life (Fig. 2.1). Arguably, the FAO and the Brundtland Commission
address non-human life, while the SDGs promote an anthropocentric perspective.
The Brundtland Commission and the SDGs reference the moral responsibility
inherent in establishing sustainable development.
12
M. Venkatesan