Exploring criteria for transformative policy capacity in the context of South Africa’s biodiversity economy

Förster, Jan Janosch; Downsborough, Linda; Biber‐Freudenberger, Lisa; Kelboro, Girma; Börner, Jan

doi:10.1007/s11077-020-09385-0

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, doing so requires domain-specific foresight and monitoring capacities as well as implementation structures ( Wesseler and von Braun, 2017 ). Such structures are generally less well-developed in developing and emerging economies than in the industrialized regions of the world that currently invest most in enabling their bioeconomies ( Bracco et al, 2019 ;Förster et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussion and Implications For Sustainability Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…2b ) will ultimately depend on the specific feedstocks and production technologies employed in its implementation, but also on the employed end-of-life options and behavioral change ( Bröring et al, 2020 ). Meanwhile, policy and governance arrangements, also in addition to private corporate governance principles, need to set the regulatory guardrails for such implementation ( Dietz et al, 2018 ;Förster et al, 2020 ). Possible governance intervention should take the reduction of illegal cropland expansion in the tropics into account, promote sustainable intensification of agriculture (e.g.…”

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustainability implications of transformation pathways for the bioeconomy

Stark

Biber‐Freudenberger

Dietz

et al. 2022

Sustainable Production and Consumption

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Countries around the world are devising and implementing bioeconomy strategies to initiate transformation towards sustainable futures. Modern concepts of bioeconomy extend beyond bio-based energy provision and include: (1) the substitution of fossil resource-based inputs to various productive sectors, such as the chemical industry and the construction sector, (2) more efficient, including new and cascading uses of biomass, and (3) a low bulk, but high-value biologisation of processes in agro-food, pharmaceutical, and recycling industries. Outcomes of past attempts at engineering transformation, however, proved to be context-dependent and contingent on appropriate governance measures. In this paper we theoretically motivate and apply a system-level theory of change framework that identifies central mechanisms and four distinct pathways, through which bio-based transformation can generate positive or negative outcomes in multiple domains of the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on emblematic examples from three bio-based sectors, we apply the framework illustrating how case-specific mixes of transformation pathways emerge and translate into outcomes. We find that the observed mixes of transformation pathways evoke distinct mechanisms that link bioeconomic change to sustainability gains and losses. Based on this insight we derive four key lessons that can help to inform the design of strategies to enable and regulate sustainable bioeconomies.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Implications For Sustainability Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability implications of transformation pathways for the bioeconomy

Stark

Biber‐Freudenberger

Dietz

et al. 2022

Sustainable Production and Consumption

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is an ongoing scholarly and political discourse about the benefits and risks of the bioeconomy (Biber‐Freudenberger et al, 2018; Dietz et al, 2018; Förster, Downsborough, Biber‐Freudenberger, Kelboro, & Börner, 2020; Gottwald & Krätzer, 2014; Grefe, 2016; Heimann, 2019; Liobikiene, Balezentis, Streimikiene, & Chen, 2019). Proponents of the bioeconomy highlight the prospects of bioeconomic innovations, to produce food, materials, and other products in a more efficient and therefore sustainable way (Geng, Haight, & Zhu, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Critics of the bioeconomy approach, for example, argue that an increasing reliance on biomass—for example, to substitute fossil fuel resources—has the potential to exacerbate pressures on natural resources while also accelerating biodiversity loss and land degradation in biomass supplier countries (Biber‐Freudenberger et al, 2018; Escobar, Haddad, Börner, & Britz, 2018; Rajeswar, 2010). Furthermore, it is pointed out that bioeconomic growth might not be able to solve or will not even contribute to alleviate classical development challenges related, for example, to unequal societal distribution of benefits from economic activities as long as these concerns are not being properly targeted by appropriate policies (Förster et al, 2020; Kleinschmit et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, it is pointed out that bioeconomic growth might not be able to solve or will not even contribute to alleviate classical development challenges related, for example, to unequal societal distribution of benefits from economic activities as long as these concerns are not being properly targeted by appropriate policies (Förster et al, 2020;Kleinschmit et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bioeconomy futures: Expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sustainability of bio‐based transformation

Biber‐Freudenberger

Ergeneman

Förster

et al. 2020

Sustainable Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic sectors relying on the use of biological organisms, processes, and principles to create products and services are expected to experience accelerated growth due to innovation in the bioeconomy. Associated benefits and risks for sustainable development are increasingly subject to societal debate. We compiled expectation patterns from a global survey with bioeconomy experts and a systematic literature review identifying areas of consensus and controversy across dimensions of the sustainable development goals (SDG). Positive connotations dominated in both expert opinions and the scientific literature, but the level of consensus varied across sectors of the bioeconomy and in relation to applied methodological approaches (scientific literature) and type of employer (experts). In both sources, we found more differentiated views on potential impacts of bioeconomic development pathways on sustainability in more established bioeconomy-related discourses, which indicates that expectation patterns in more recent fields of bio-based innovation are subject to early "hype cycle" dynamics. Our findings suggest the need to systematically mainstream sustainability risk appraisals across relevant application contexts in technology impact assessments for the bioeconomy.

show abstract