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 …

  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 …

  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 …

  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 …