Now it is finally out! Commissioner Jessika Roswall did not miss the chance to personally present the new EU Bioeconomy Strategy last week at a press conference. It has become the expected document – steeped in the spirit of economic growth, so-called innovations of all kinds, and the dismantling of supposedly hindering regulations, but also with a touch of sustainability and planetary boundaries. Or, to quote the Commission: “Nature itself can become part of Europe’s competitiveness.”
The publication of the strategy update represents the end of a process of discussions with NGO colleagues and exchange with staff from the Commission and Parliament. Above all, we contributed to the debate in cooperation with 60 fellow civil society organisations and developed frameworks for a responsible bioeconomy. Moments like this are a good opportunity to draw conclusions about whether one’s own commitment to the process ultimately justifies the outcome. More specifically, it can be checked whether any of our jointly formulated demands have been adequately addressed in the final version of the strategy.
Concerning our first point – the EU bioeconomy heading for a massive gap in the supply of sustainable biomass – there is at least a vaguely defined acknowledgment of planetary boundaries and the need for sustainable sourcing of biomass. However, concrete proposals from civil society, including a ban on wood burning wherever possible, did not make it into the final version – even though they were still included in leaked drafts. Well done, dear chainsaw lobby!
Our second core demand was that the European bioeconomy should not be carried out on the backs of the Global South. Indeed, this point is included in the text, stating that the bioeconomy should “avoid negative environmental or social impacts abroad.” However, this reference is made in a context where the text discusses urgently needed access to markets in the Global South and that Europe must assert itself in the competition for resources. No crystal ball is needed here to predict which positions will prevail.
And finally, we argued that the EU’s bioeconomy strategy must be coherent with other European measures. Last week, the EU delivered a sobering example of how not to do it: the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation has been pushed back. Unfortunately, this is the exact opposite of “avoiding negative impacts abroad.”
We have seen this pattern across many bioeconomy strategies: Goals such as scaling up innovation and investment, or developing lead markets for materials and technologies, are backed by concrete new initiatives. Yet when it comes to the sustainability of the biomass used, little goes beyond monitoring and data collection. Planetary boundaries are acknowledged in the foreword, but the concrete steps for implementation focus almost entirely on investment support and market development.
Why such EU documents must be written in a language that seems to be a wild mix of Kafka, ChatGPT, Gemini, and other friendly chatbots remains unclear even after decades of careful observation from the sidelines. Probably this is something like gravity: EU policy papers just have to be stuffed with “plastic words.” In light of the spreading democratic fatigue, a more normal language would be a huge step toward citizen-friendliness.
As we cannot continue to treat our biosphere the way we have been, we still need to amplify our demands for an ecological and socially just economy of the future and raise our voices. The updated EU Bioeconomy Strategy shows that it is ultimately very growth-focused and, considering biodiversity and the climate crisis, somewhat detached, reflecting the broader political climate. Our simple answer to this is: solidarity – also in the context of a bioeconomy.
