by Jenny Walther-Thoß, WWF

While the world population is growing arithmetically, the available land area per person is becoming smaller and smaller, while at the same time the demand for fossil raw materials such as oil continues to rise. The substitution of fossil raw materials with renewable raw materials for a transition to a bioeconomy can only succeed if we produce and consume less overall.

Photo: © Eva-Maria Lopez

In this debate, the bioeconomy is the silver lining for many stakeholders to keep our growth-oriented economic system running with minimal adjustments. The basic idea is this: a pinch of efficiency combined with a bit more recycling will allow us to replace fossil carbon, on which industry is currently largely dependent, with renewable resources without having to fundamentally change our consumption patterns and lifestyles.

The “cornification of the landscape” has become a symbol of misguided biofuel subsidies and has driven the debate in the energy sector. Representatives of the chemical industry, on the other hand, are quite euphoric about new business areas in the field of bioplastics.

The following points show very clearly that mere substitution will not be feasible and that instead we need to have a serious and far-reaching societal debate about our resource use and consumption patterns.

1. the available land area per person is decreasing while the world population is growing (see figure).
2. the global demand for fossil raw materials such as crude oil is enormous. It has continued to rise in recent years, reaching 4.6 billion tons in 2018 (1). This amount covers only 32% of the world’s primary energy demand. The transport sector alone consumes 2.5 billion tons of oil annually (2).

Within the framework of the bioeconomy, this quantity is to be replaced by renewable raw materials. However, the global yield of vegetable oils in 2017/18 was only about 600 million metric tons; cereals (including corn and rice) total about 2.6 billion metric tons (3). Wood is already an intensively used resource for many economic purposes (e.g. energy, paper, building materials). Greater expansion of forest use for the bioeconomy is simply not feasible.
This comparison clearly shows that current levels of consumption and economic activity can in no way be achieved by substituting renewable carbon for fossil carbon.

Biomass is scarce, and sustainably produced biomass is even scarcer – so it is essential to direct the bioeconomy toward significantly reduced production and consumption, extended product life, and an overall smaller environmental footprint.

References:
(1) World crude oil consumption from 1968 to 2018.
(2) Global crude oil consumption by sector.
(3) Union for the Promotion of Oil and Protein Plants (UFOP) (2019): Global Market Supply Report 2018/2019.

Jenny Walther-Thoß is an agricultural scientist and was an expert on sustainable biomass and standards at WWF Germany.

by Nik Geiler, BBU

The bioeconomy threatens global freshwater resources. As biomass imports play an important role in the expansion of the bioeconomy, water conflicts are inevitable, particularly in the Global South.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

Plant growth requires land and large quantities of water. An ample water supply is therefore essential for a successful bioeconomy. When rainfall is insufficient, irrigation becomes obligatory to produce the biomass needed for the bioeconomy (corn, palm oil, sugar cane, algae and many other crops). The water demand for the German bioeconomy can be expressed as a water backpack or water footprint. The more fossil fuels and raw materials (coal, oil, natural gas) are replaced by biomass, the more our water footprint increases.

This footprint is left mainly abroad. Germany’s large appetite for biomass to feed the bioeconomy, cannot be sufficiently satisfied by plant production on German territory (c.f. land competition). The biomass needed for the production of agrofuels and other plant-based products (e.g. bio-surfactants) is mainly imported from overseas producer countries. Problems occur especially in regions that are already suffering from water stress. The cultivation of biomass crops in regions with water shortage, aggravates competing water usages.

The cultivation of cotton in the Aral Sea region is a well-known example. Cotton is so “thirsty” that the water from the Aral Sea tributaries is largely needed for irrigation of the cotton plantations. As a result, the Aral Sea has lost far more than half of its water volume in recent decades.

Water scarcity conflicts are increasingly escalating leading to so-called water grabbing, for instance in countries of the Global South: corporations and state institutions illegally and often violently seize water resources. Consumed by the agro-industrial biomass plantations, the small farmers are in lack of that water. In addition, large-scale plantations use all too often particularly toxic pesticides polluting the groundwater. The rural population living in the vicinity of the plantations loses the access to safe drinking water provided by the groundwater. For lack of alternatives, people still have to drink the poisoned water.

The current volume of biomass exported from overseas cultivation regions to Germany – e.g. in the form of bananas, sugar, cotton, coffee and other colonial goods – is large already. Adding on top a biomass demand for the production of “green” bioplastics or algae-based kerosene, will cause a considerable increase in the demand for biomass imports.

Nikolaus Geiler is a biologist, limnologist and hydrologist and spokesperson for the water working group in the BBU (Bundesverband Bürgerinitiativen Umweltschutz e.V. – Federal Association of Citizens’ Initiatives for Environmental Protection).

by Thomas Fatheuer, FDCL

Globally, the share of renewable energy from biomass is 50%, in Germany even 60.2%. In the frame of bioeconomy, the targeted increase in biomass energy production competes with food production and increases the pressure on ecosystems and their inhabitants.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

Bioeconomy is supposed to provide an answer to three fundamental challenges for humanity: climate change, food security, resource scarcity. To effectively combat climate change, it is necessary to phase out the fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas. No doubt, this represents a gigantic task. The German energy transition focuses on the expansion of wind and solar energy. The importance of energy generated by biomass is often neglected. Yet 60.2% of “renewable” energy in Germany derives from biomass, whereas wind power accounts for only 22%. This large proportion is due to the dominant importance of biomass in satisfying heating needs. For heating, the share of renewable energy is 83%.

The global situation is similar. The International Energy Agency (IEA) states: “Modern bioenergy is the ignored giant in the renewable energy sector. It accounts for 50% of global renewable energy consumption, more than hydro, wind, solar and other renewables combined. We expect bioenergy to continue to lead the field, with huge prospects for further growth” (1).

Biomass energy therefore plays a major role in the phase-out of fossil energy. It constitutes a central area of activity for the bioeconomy with particular products, demand and markets. Besides the traditional biomass use of firewood, two areas can be identified: The production of agrofuels (mainly from corn, sugar cane and palm oil) and the combustion of wood (primarily in the form of pellets). In various European countries such as Great Britain, France and the Netherlands, coal-fired power plants are currently being converted to wood combustion. In this process, the wood combustion is fatally considered as climate-neutral.

In recent years, biomass energy has become a much discussed and highly controversial topic. In the context of the food versus fuel debate, the question of land competition has moved to the core of international discussions.

In Germany, an area of 2.35 million hectares is under cultivation for energy crops, representing as much as 16% of the total agricultural land; nearly as much as the 22% dedicated to food production. However, wood is the main source of biomass energy.

Therefore, the question of requirements of land area and competing land uses remains central. The more recent bioeconomy strategies verbally acknowledge this fact, but do not develop concrete proposals preventing land conflicts. The strategies count on two problematic solutions: an increased productivity per hectare and the enhanced use of the entirety of biomass, e.g. straw in the case of cereals, for agrofuel production. A reaction prompted by the food versus fuel debate. However, the great promise 2nd generation agrofuels has not yet been fulfilled. Production processes are still at an experimental stage. Neither would they solve the land competition dilemma: 2nd generation fuels would be based on biomass, too. As any plants, even non-edible ones, they need land to grow on. Besides the competition between food crops and non-food crops for energy, biomass use is limited by the requirements of biodiversity conservation. In many parts of the world, tree monocultures such as eucalyptus are expanding, displacing species-rich ecosystems and their inhabitants.

The German forest makes a strong case for the need to limit the use of biomass energy. In the Forest Strategy 2020, Germany’s government sets the goal of cutting a maximum of 100 million cubic metres of wood per year (currently about 60-70 million cubic metres per year). Accordingly, Greenpeace calculates for their ecological forest management vision a maximum harvest of 61.8 million cubic metres per year. With this type of management, the storage of CO2 and the biomass of the forest would significantly increase. Species-rich and resilient forests cannot be geared towards an intensified biomass production.

Reference:
(1) International Energy Agency (2007) Potential Contribution of Bioenergy to the Worlds Future Energy

Further reading:
A detailed scientific critique of the climate neutrality of wood combustion: Norton, Michael et al. (2019).
A good overview of the issue of land and biomass: Umweltbundesamt (n.d.): Global Land Areas and Biomass
www.fdcl.org

Dr. Thomas Fatheuer is a social scientist and staff member of the Research and Documentation Centre Chile-Latin America.

by Jenny Walther-Thoß, WWF

As many as 50 countries have developed strategies to promote economic development of a bioeconomy. However, a broad debate on the kind of bioeconomy that points the way to the future has not yet taken place in society.

Photo: © Eva-Maria Lopez

Currently, two economic models coexist: the dominant fossil economy and the emerging biobased economy. The rise of a new bio-based economy highlights the need for a paradigm shift towards sustainability to meet society’s long-term goals and emerging challenges. These include decoupling economic growth from negative environmental impacts, managing natural resources sustainably, improving food security and reducing poverty.

Fifty countries worldwide have developed strategies to promote the development of the bioeconomy. Fifteen of these countries (including the EU member states) have implemented very detailed policy strategies including implementation concepts (1). Basically, most bioeconomy strategies and stakeholders involved describe the bioeconomy as follows: “The bioeconomy strategy aims to reduce dependence on fossil resources, transform production, promote sustainable production of renewable resources from land, fisheries and aquaculture and their conversion into food, feed, fibre, bio-based products and bioenergy, while creating new jobs and industries” (2). The various bioeconomy strategies can be differentiated into rather commodity-based strategies (e.g. Scandinavian countries, African countries such as South Africa) and more technology-focused strategies (e.g. EU and USA) that rely on high-tech such as biotechnologies.

In industrialized countries, bioeconomic strategy development is often framed by corresponding research and industry funding. Since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, the bioeconomy discussion has grown strongly at the global level (see figure for the link between biomass and SDGs). In the meantime, a very broad range of stakeholders are involved, but in most regions (both in industrialized countries and in developing countries with bioeconomy strategies) very few civil society actors are among those represented.

Therefore, the discussion about bioeconomy, possible development paths for the transformation of the economy, about positive and negative effects, both at the European and international level, is an absolute expert discussion. Very technically dominated, research-focused and thus unfortunately mostly conducted in technical silos, the social component is often completely missing (3). Fundamental questions are largely ignored: What technologies do we want? How much nature do we want? Do plastic materials made of potatoes, fuel from sugar or algae-based kerosene for aviation offer solutions to the central question of the 21st century – how can more and more people be supplied with food, energy and materials from fewer and fewer resources in times of climate change? Would this approach not add new risks to the current situation, in which the cultivation of cereals for bread and animal feed, energy crops and fibres are already competing with biodiversity conservation, the conservation of cultural landscapes, for land, water and soil (4)?

The EU already adopted a first bioeconomy strategy in 2012 (5). The European approach to the bioeconomy has been focused on technology and industry for a very long time. To counter emerging criticism of a “totalitarian approach”, the first Bioeconomy Stakeholder Panel on the bioeconomy was launched by DG Research in 2013, which then met until 2015. This panel was intended to facilitate an informed discussion on the bioeconomy and to link both sectors and stakeholder groups (6). However, it consisted exclusively of industry representatives, academia and industry-related associations. There was no civil society representation, neither from the social nor the environmental side (7). The continuation of the panel (2016-2018) was then expanded after clear criticism of the one-sided composition and strengthened with additional stakeholders such as trade unions, environmental organizations, municipalities and regions.

One outcome of the panel was the Bioeconomy Manifesto adopted in 2018 (8). This Manifesto describes from the perspective its participants and supporters fundamental requirements for the further development of the European bioeconomy pillars, serving as a reference for research and funding programs, plus recommendations for policy and the civil society sector. From WWF’s point of view, the Manifesto sets out some of the most important principles we need to follow in order to start a successful and sustainable bioeconomy development – such as respecting the planetary boundaries. However, the function of this Panel is limited to a mere representation, since it has no advisory function, no agency to propose political agendas or research programs. WWF regrets this fact, as the Manifesto made a good start for a broad discussion in society on the bioeconomy.

The draft of the new German bioeconomy strategy presented in the summer of 2019 demonstrated how far even Germany is lagging behind in setting up a truly participatory, broad societal debate that would lead to a future-oriented type of bioeconomy. Today, all stakeholders should acknowledge that the one-to-one substitution of fossil carbon by biological resources cannot be the appropriate path.

References:
(1) Bioeconomy Policy (Part III) Update Report of National Strategies around the World: A report from the German Bioeconomy Council: 2018.
(2) Overview of political bioeconomy strategies
(3) Global Bioeconomy Summit 2018 – Conference Report
(4) Christiane Grefe (2016): Global Gardening
(5) European Union (2012): Innovating for sustainable growth. A Bioeconomy for Europe.
(6) The Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel
(7) Lühmann, Malte (2019): Whose Bioeconomy for Europe? The direction of the EU bioeconomy after its update.
(8) European Bioeconomy Stakeholders Manifesto 2018.

Jenny Walther-Thoß is an agronomist and was sustainable biomass and standards expert at WWF Germany.

by Jutta Kill, WRM

A growing bioeconomy with an increasing total biomass consumption means land grabbing and displacement of smallholder families in the global South. Not even sustainability certifications are able to solve these problems.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

Plant biomass is the cornerstone of the bioeconomy. One result is: In a growing bioeconomy the consumption of biomass increases, and consequently the land area to produce biomass is expanding.

Land, however, is sought-after and expensive in EU countries. Due to climate conditions plants grow faster in the global South. Another component of this European perspective of the current bioeconomy debate is the repeatedly stated position, that large areas of “degraded” land would be available in the global South, and would even benefit from being used for the production of biomass.

The reality is different: Corporations prefer fertile arable land to non-degraded land for their industrial plantations. Plantation operators already make use of large areas of land in countries such as Brazil, Mozambique, Indonesia or Malaysia for industrial plantations producing pulp, energy or palm oil. A growing bioeconomy, here and elsewhere, with stable or even increased consumption of those products derived from biomass produced in plantations, inevitably leads to competition for land in the global South: smallholder agriculture is displaced by plantation companies claiming fertile arable land. This would have far-reaching negative consequences for regional food security and sovereignty, because precisely the smallholder agriculture contributes significanty to the provision of staple food (~70%) in these regions.

Almost everywhere in the global South, the existing industrial tree plantations are already causing conflicts with local people, usually smallholder families and indigenous peoples: their land rights are violated, their harvests are destroyed, they lose access to their farmland and water sources, they are exposed to health risks as a result of the massive use of chemicals in the industrial monocultures, and they often also lose part of their freedom of movement when their own land is surrounded by industrial monocultures and controlled by security forces. In villages surrounded by plantations the paths to fields and market places are cut off, increasing the danger of sexual violence, especially for women.

In the past decades, certifications and standards have been developed to avoid human rights violations and to ensure ecologically sound and socially just plantation management. They have not lived up to this claim and are increasingly criticised for covering up the destruction caused by industrial plantations.

A crucial shortcoming for the bioeconomy debate is that existing certification systems exclude the core problem of expansion of industrial plantations – and the associated land grabbing – or consider relaxing the existing restrictions. Certification thus does not structurally offer a means to prevent the rise of land-use conflicts resulting from the expansion of industrial biomass plantations. However, such land conflicts are an inevitable consequence of an extension of the bioeconomy that does not drastically reduce the energy and material flows in industrialised countries: unused land with required soil fertility and texture as well climatic conditions, sought for industrial biomass production by the corporations, is no longer available to a relevant extent.

In his article “Burning Buried Sunshine”, biologist Jeffrey Dukes shows that the amount of energy produced in one year through oil, coal and natural gas combustion is equivalent to the energy contained in terrestrial biomass grown over 400 years. This comparison underlines the limits of a bioeconomy in the context of an economy geared towards limitless growth.

An expansion of the bioeconomy without a drastic reduction in the overall consumption of energy and biomass as a raw material thus inevitably means more human rights violations, more food insecurity and more people losing their livelihoods in the global South, forced to
inhumane conditions in city slums.

Further reading:
World Rainforest Movement (2019): Breaking the Silence: Harassment, sexual violence and abuse against women in and around industrial oil palm and rubber plantations.
World Rainforest Movement (2012): An overview of industrial tree plantations in the global South: conflicts, trends, and resistance struggles.
The Gecko Project (2019): What we learned from two years of investigating corrupt land deals in Indonesia.
The Jakarta Post (2019): Land disputes still common, putting farmers’ future in jeopardy.
Jeffrey S. Dukes (2003): Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption Of Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31-44.

Jutta Kill is a biologist and active in the World Rainforest Movement (WRM).

by Thomas Fatheuer, FDCL

The Brazilian chemical company Braskem is the world market leader in bioplastics. Its customers include Coca Cola and Lego. The basis for the bioplastics production is sugar cane. Yet, the company, involved in a corruption scandal, provides dubious information regarding the origin of the sugar cane.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

“I’m green” is not a trending exclamation of green politicians, but the registered trademark of the Brazilian chemical giant Braskem – hence legally it must be spelt: I’m green™. Braskem is one of the largest manufacturers of polyethylenes, i.e. plastics. Its German site in Schkopau is still famous from GDR times for the slogan “Plaste und Elaste aus Schkopau” (“Plastics and elastomers from Schkopau”). But most of its production sites are in Brazil, the group’s home country. Combined 90% of voting shares belong to the construction group Odebrecht and the semi-state oil company Petrobras, the state development bank BNDES also has a stake. The group has become the global leader in the production of so-called bioplastics and dominates the market with its I’m green™ polyethylene product line.

Polyethylene bioplastics have the same properties as petroleum-based plastics; the difference is their origin. Thus, the CO2 balances are distinct: according to Braskem, bioplastics are CO2 neutral or even CO2 negative. The cultivation of the plants is supposed to remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than is produced in the production process.

In fact, so far only part of the plastic can be replaced by bio-based materials. The supposedly plastic bottles became green containing 30% of biobased materials – in practice the percentage is 15%. Coca Cola has so far been the best-known “bioplastics” user, for example in Vio Bio, a bio-certified product line of beverages of the group. Recently, Lego became a new customer of Braskem. Lego bricks are increasingly being made from bioplastics. By 2030, the entire production is to be converted to bioplastics.

The raw material for Braskem’s bioplastics is sugar cane, which also plays an important role in the production of biofuels. Therefore, bioplastics reproduce old problems: Fossil oil is replaced by expanding land use. According to the propaganda of Braskem or Coca Cola, this is not a problem: without any evidence, it is claimed that the expansion of sugar cane in Brazil takes place primarily on “abandoned pasture land” (1), and Coca Cola even announces that additional sugar cane cultivation takes place primarily on “unused agricultural land” (2).

“Technology, innovation and sustainability” – these are the company’s guidelines in Braskem’s propaganda. In practice, however, money and corruption seem to play a major role as well. The company’s main shareholders, Odebrecht and Petrobras, are at the same time the main companies in the corruption scandal that has shaken Brazil for several years now. Apparently, Braskem’s existence was used to pay illicit earnings. In 2016, the company agreed to a settlement of the incredible sum of 3.1 billion Reais, an equivalent of around one billion US$. Braskem shows a revealing interconnection of old, petroleum-based industry, corruption and bio-based innovation as an extension of its business model (3).

References:
(1) Interview with Marco Jansen, Braskem Europe
(2) http://www.plantbottle.info FAQ
(3) Brazilian reporting (2016)

Further reading:
Bioplastics – Myths and Facts (Deutsche Umwelthilfe)
Confusion about bioplastics (Riffreporter)

Dr. Thomas Fatheuer is a social scientist and staff member of the Research and Documentation Centre Chile-Latin America (FDCL).

by Christof Potthof, GeN

The list of false promises of genetic engineering advances is substantial. The bioeconomy opens up new opportunities for genetic engineering. By no means, the bioeconomy should act as a green disguise for new agro-genetic engineering applications.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

Through the shift from mineral oil and other fossil raw materials towards the increased use of biological resources as the raw material base, the bioeconomy opens up new opportunities for genetic engineering in at least two sectors.

As early as 2012, the German government defined the biorefineries roadmap aiming at improved crops: “The breeding of optimised regrowing raw material crops for increased biomass yields, and the improvement of ingredients, requires all methods of modern plant breeding and plant production, including plant biotechnology. […] Both, the attainable increase in quantity and the controlled production of required raw materials in their specific composition are significant.” (1). Even though CRISPR technology was not the focus of the debate at the time – this genetic engineering tool had just been invented – it can be assumed that the new genetic engineering methods neatly align with this description.

Another application of genetic engineering in the bioeconomy are the so-called “production organisms”. In particular bacteria and yeasts are modified using genetic engineering methods. The microorganisms are kept in bioreactors and ‘fed’ with biological raw materials, which in turn can be genetically modified (GM). Among representatives of the chemical industry, for example, indifference prevails as to where exactly the genetic adaptation of living organisms to production conditions takes place. The non-disruption of production processes is key.

An overview commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment shows a series of current genetic engineering projects. Some of those belong to the bioeconomy (2). Examples are a rapeseed with an altered fatty acid composition and a higher-yield corn treated with the CRISPR technique. In addition, a number of genetic modifications are tailored to different cultivation phases of crops, e.g. disease-resistant rice varieties or wheat with resistance towards herbicides.

These examples show that the new genetic engineering methods are intended to build precisely those traits into plants that already have dominated the discussion in past decades. While herbicide-resistant plants have dominated the market for GM crops for years, the old genetic engineering methods could not fulfil hopes of higher yielding plant varieties. This fact is revealed in a report published by the Gene Ethics Network in 2018 (3). Empty promises are a red thread throughout the history of agro-genetic engineering.
Civil society observation, not to mention participation, currently takes place almost exclusively in the area of genetically modified plants and animals. The industry’s activities with genetically modified microorganisms, on the other hand, have so far gone largely unnoticed.

References:
(1) German Federal Government (2012): Roadmap Biorefineries.
(2) Gelinsky, Eva (2018): Overview Tables: ‘Plants designed by new genetic engineering techniques’ and ‘Licensing agreements in the field of new genetic engineering techniques’.
(3) GeN (2018): No revolution in the field.

Further reading:
GeN – belief in progress as a driving force

Christof Potthof is a biologist and was an expert in genetic engineering at the Gene Ethical Network (GeN).

by Steffi Ober, NABU

Growth and securing prosperity are the dominant priorities for research policy in the field of bioeconomy. However, a problem-oriented research strategy with an openness towards technologies, is essential to enable institutional, cultural and social innovations.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

Major challenges require courageous political action and a future-oriented science and research agenda: a roadmap off the beaten track, that advances social transformation with new, transdisciplinary alliances. Yet, sustainable development is complex, many decisions regarding a desirable future depend on social norms, on our values. Though, our ideas of prosperity and the good life depend as much on the current Zeitgeist and discourse as the the oft-cited common good. While some regard a return to the consumption level of the 1970s equal to a relapse to the Dark Ages, expecting a nightmare of renunciation, for others, establishing sufficiency is a necessary corrective of Western lifestyles safeguarding a sustainable future.

In research policy, however, clearly set principles are considered unquestionable: Growth and securing prosperity belong together just as much as ensuring the long-term viability of business sites and the competitiveness on the world market. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) is starting out on those premises and reproduces them through the selection of its experts: it acts as a gatekeeper and determines who belongs to the inner circle of expertise, who is heard in and outside the committees. Participation, on the other hand, is provided very selectively and suggestions are rarely taken up.

A sufficiency-oriented bioeconomy, or any proposal that would have a real impact on the 1.5-degree target are blind spots remaining unheard and unseen, since nobody represents positions off the course of the forementioned principles in the committees. The bioeconomy strategy is part of the high-tech strategy. A problem-oriented and technology-open research strategy, on the other hand, would entail as well low- or middle-tech, institutional, cultural and social innovations as possible solutions. In addition, it would involve the relevant experts with practical knowledge of transformation, who would be able to transfer this knowledge into society.

The bioeconomy strategy precisely reflects the political power relations. The invariable focus on efficiency and fixation on technologies obscures the need to enter into a social negotiation process. Here, scientific knowledge has the role of providing an informed background and enabling technological developments to implement concepts pointing to the future.

However, sustainable development requires cultural, economic and institutional changes which will not occur without resistance and conflict. So far, the bioeconomy strategy has failed to provide answers on how to deal with foreseeable conflicts. Instead, research policy relies on the narrative that massive investments in technologies and intensive land use concepts will enable a transformation without sacrifices. The key technologies for transformation are digitalisation and biotechnology. The goal is to maximise efficiency and people need to adapt to that. In an essence, the success of the transformation depends on activating sufficient capital, rapidly establishing the technologies on the market, creating innovation-friendly framework conditions and securing acceptance by means of social research.

Alternatives and a critical reflection enabled through participatory technology assessments are lacking. Such an assessment offers a reflexive framework in regards to the question how certain technological developments will be embedded in a sustainable development of a society. It is indispensable when it comes to designing possible futures, describing alternative paths, and analysing their conditions and consequences. Since the designs of the future will become normative plans with far-reaching ethical, legal, social and ecological consequences, the “societal dialogue” should be embedded in this process.

A bioeconomy research policy relevant to society would therefore have to fulfil three conditions:

1. Problem orientation and openness to alternative economic, ecological and institutional innovations.
2. Clear criteria for the appointment of expert panels including the Bioeconomy Council III as well as support for civil society organisations enabling their participation on an equal footing.
3. New spaces and nodes connecting civil society and science in order to build society as a resource and driver of the transformation. Established bodies between science and industry such as the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Industrielle Gemeinschaftsforschung (AIF) or the Akademie für Technikentwicklung (Acatech) demonstrate how it works.

Dr. Steffi Ober is an advisor for sustainable research and innovation at NABU as well as initiator and head of the civil society platform Forschungswende.

by László Maráz, FUE

Firewood, paper and timber construction are already entirely using up the wood grown in Germany. The forests potential to provide renewable resources for a bioeconomy is therefore very limited if this ecosystem is not to come under further pressure.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

Forests are increasingly coming into the focus of actors who want to promote the bioeconomy. Their wood is considered one of the most important material sources to substitute fossil raw materials. An expansion of the wood production however, is limited by ecological, social and economic boundaries of the forests. Especially since forests are currently suffering from the effects of global warming already.

Paradoxically, after two years of drought in 2018 and 2019, wood is once again designated as one of the most important renewable resources for the achievement of climate goals. The German Federal Ministry of Agriculture is in fact considering making the forest fit for the bioeconomy. To substitute fossil and mineral raw materials for wood, the production of this important renewable resource, shall continue through the cultivation of supposedly more climate-friendly tree species. Instead of sparing the patient, the pressure is increased.

Ignored is the fact that the amount of wood harvested today is already used up entirely for the current main uses: Firewood, paper, wood packaging, timber construction and furniture manufacture. In the future, the building sector will use more timber for the purpose of climate protection.

Furthermore, the combustion of wood shall contribute to the saving of fossil fuels. Paper and cardboard shall increasingly replace plastics. In spite of those promises, it remains unclear where all the wood will come from!

In addition, the bioeconomy needs very specific woods for its purposes. The bioeconomic industry needs cheap raw materials to compete with petroleum-based processes. Rarely mentioned are the facts that the rising demand of wood drives up prices, and that imports from the Global South, for example, are becoming increasingly problematic. Many countries around the world want more wood for building or heating. Besides, the global destruction of forests is reducing the production area for wood. Unfortunately, the many tree planting projects change very little, since the forest area is constantly decreasing. In the wake of the climate crisis, the situation is exacerbated by drought or fires, destroying more forests.

One way out of the looming wood shortage is, same as in agricultural systems, the promotion of an increased productivity: fast-growing plantations, turbo trees, including genetic engineering methods. Again, important facts are omitted: the higher the intended yield, the higher the need of water and nutrients. The availability of both water and nutrients is short, and unused fertile land is very limited, since intensive agricultural production already occupies most of it.

For reliable prediction assessments, the dimensions of the biomass demand must be included. Even a rough estimate is sufficient to unmask the plans as pipedreams – an energy transformation based on wood is such a windmill, as long as the potential for this resource amounts to just four percent of the energy production in Germany (1). Nor can 20 million tonnes of plastics simply be substituted by wood-based materials. This aim alone would consume more than half of Germany’s total wood harvest (approx. 76 million m³/year), which, as described above, is already entirely allocated to other uses. Therefore, the amount of wood available for bioeconomy purposes, is likely a low single-digit percentage figure. As long as wood is consumed for disposable products and energy, this will remain the scenario.

(1) Wood-based potential for energy production in Germany

Further reading:
When Forests Grow Again – A Forest Vision for Climate, People and Nature

László Maráz is a forester and coordinator of the Forest Platform at the Forum Environment and Development.

by Josephine Koch, FUE

A broad bioeconomy debate has not taken place in society yet. In order to develop an ecologically and socially coherent bioeconomy strategy, a dialogue should be established with environmental and development organisations, social associations, trade unions and social movements.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

The bioeconomy debate has an impact on fundamental policy areas – such as economy and energy, agricultural, food, forestry and fisheries, climate and environmental, as well as research and development policy.

While the bioeconomy lays many claims with thorough impacts on society, the concept is neither adequately taken up in public-parliamentary and media debates, nor discussions about the social aspects of bioeconomy initiated on a wider level. Thus, the term is almost unknown among the population or is at most mistakenly confused with organic agriculture.

Even in the NGO scene, the concept is considered nebulous and fragmentary. The reason: the discourse is mainly conducted in exclusive circles of experts between government, business and industry-related research, where bioeconomy is treated as a technocratic, all-purpose approach without alternatives. The narrative is that the bioeconomy will be implemented primarily through technological innovations. An inclusive, open-ended and holistic political debate is thus hampered from the outset. Likewise, the promotion of science and finally the orientation of bioeconomy policy strategies themselves are unbalanced.

The National Research Strategy Bioeconomy 2030 of the Federal Ministry of Research (1) and the National Policy Strategy Bioeconomy of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (2) are combined into a joint National Bioeconomy Strategy. Absent in this process, was an early and adequate involvement of civil society actors.

Alternative approaches, such as agroecology, food sovereignty or decentralised energy systems, are not sufficiently taken into account and effectively included in policy and research strategies. Their representatives are largely left out of the discussion forums (3).

The 2018 Global Bioeconomy Summit, which was hosted in Germany for the first time, is one example of this situation. Instead of addressing the critical perspectives of representatives from a broad spectrum of civil society and discussing the conflicting goals of the bioeconomy strategy, the bioeconomy advocates from governments, research institutions and industry associations dominated the agenda setting (4). The situation is similar at numerous other bioeconomy conferences. A dialogue at eye level with the relevant actors, especially from environmental and development organisations, social associations, trade unions, social sciences and social movements, has so far been neither structurally supported nor financially enabled.

Precisely, this is needed to develop an ecologically and socially coherent bioeconomy strategy and to democratically legitimise the indispensable and far-reaching economic transformation required.

References:
(1) National Research Strategy Bioeconomy 2030 (BMBF)
(2) National Policy Strategy Bioeconomy (BMEL)
(3) Statement by German environmental and development associations on the draft National Bioeconomy Strategy
(4) 10 Questions on the Bioeconomy (Forum Environment and Development)

Further reading:
Agroecology as a guiding principle for agricultural and food policy
On the history and concept of food sovereignty
Energy transition – centralised or decentralised?
www.forumue.de

Josephine Koch studied political science, sociology and German philology and is a consultant for transparency in the raw material sector at the Forum Environment and Development.

by Joachim Spangenberg, BUND

The bioeconomy is dependent on biological resources. Continuous high levels of resource consumption therefore exacerbate the risks of biodiversity loss due to an expansion and intensification of land use.

Foto: © Eva-Maria Lopez

Already today, Biodiversity is the most exceeded area in the planetary boundaries framework (1). The bioeconomy is dependent on biological resources.

As a result, decisive whether the threat to biodiversity is increased or, on the contrary, a reverse of the transgression of ecological limits is supported, are the questions of where, how, which and how many raw materials are produced for bioeconomy uses.

The dominant direct causes of biodiversity loss include land use intensification and an expansion in the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilisers. These cause both direct effects, e.g. the toxic effect of pesticides on insects, and indirect effects, such as the loss of insect food sources and habitats by eliminating accompanying flora through pesticides. Only a bioeconomy with an overall more ecological land use approach would have positive effects on biodiversity – however this barely is demanded.

For economic and technical reasons, bioeconomy uses favour raw materials produced in largely homogeneous monocultures. The alignment with economically effective scaling effects and the industrial biomass cultivation though exacerbate the negative impacts on biodiversity. This evidence makes the economy the most important indirect driver of biodiversity loss (2).

For an “optimised” cultivation in terms of homogeneity, cost-efficiency, and ingredients specifically adapted to the intended uses, genetic engineering is employed – another biodiversity killer as the experience gained with large-scale release of genetically modified plants demonstrates.

Furthermore, the bioeconomy entails the risk of intensifying negative effects due to an expansion of land use, occupying land areas that have not been used in the past (see land competition. A biomass cultivation on previously species-rich fallow and pasture land or the conversion of forests into tree plantations, means an irreplaceable biodiversity loss.

Bioeconomic forecasts anticipate extensive biomass imports, since the demand for the required material cannot be covered with domestic sources. The imported plant material poses an additional risk to the biodiversity in Germany as invasive species are one of the major threats to native biodiversity. In the exporting countries the consequences are more fatal: the species-rich tropical forests are cleared or burned down to make space for export crops. The burning Amazon clearly shows that efforts to make biomass imports harmless through “sustainability criteria” have failed.

Evidently, a bioeconomy based on biological resources substituting for fossil raw materials, can only be obtained through an expansion and/or intensification of land use – and thus with negative biodiversity impacts – if the overall consumption of raw materials were not massively restricted.

According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), only if organic waste material is primarily used as a raw material, if biomass cultivation is limited to areas that do not have a high level of biodiversity at the present, and if extensive imports of biomass are avoided, then the development of a bioeconomy would be without harm to the biodiversity (3).

References:
(1) Rockström et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity.
(2) IPBES Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019). The Global Assessment.
(3) EEA European Environment Agency (2005). How much biomass can Europe use without harming the environment?

Dr. Joachim H. Spangenberg is an ecologist with a doctorate in economics and Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of BUND.