Sustainability implications of transformation pathways for the bioeconomy

Abstract

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.

Cutting down trees does not build prosperity: On the continued decoupling of Amazon deforestation and economic development in 21st century Brazil

“…Such failures were also reflected in a recent analysis that showed Brazil -a member of the G20 and the sixth most populous nation-ranked only 71 in an assessment of human capital that takes into consideration mortality and education (Lim et al, 2018). As there are clear systematic weaknesses in the current development trajectory it is important to reinforce alternative sustainable development pathways that can accelerate poverty alleviation without deforestation (Carvalho et al, 2022;Garrett et al, 2021;Moutinho et al, 2016;Stark et al, 2022). Additionally, as forest loss does not appear to benefit the municipalities where deforestation is happening our analysis provides empirical evidence not only of continued decoupling but also of marked inequalities and maldevelopment across Brazilian Amazonia (Russo Lopes et al, 2021).…”

Bioeconomic Entrepreneurship and Key Factors of Development: Lessons from Argentina

“…The pathway concept of Dietz et al [21] is based on theoretical considerations of how techno-economic mechanisms such as factor substitutions (of fossil by renewable resources) and efficiency gains (by innovations) can play out in different ways towards a bioeconomic transition. Whereas the visions typology from Bugge et al [20] might be useful for the analysis of bioeconomic discourses, the transition pathway categories seem more suitable to detect these different techno-economic mechanisms which drive the development and shape the outcomes of the bioeconomy [23].…”

“…Stark et al [23] discuss and give examples of possible outcomes of transition pathways 1 to 4. TP1 can, through higher demand for biomass resources, lead to (indirect) land use change in ecological sensitive regions such as forests.…”

“…Following the literature review and expert opinion survey of Biber-Freudenberger et al [30] and the examples of Stark et al [23], which are, to our knowledge, the first to try to systematize the possible outcomes of each of the transition pathways, we link the pathway characteristics to specific economic, social and environmental impacts.…”

“…However, nearly all (17) enterprises also stated that they contribute to at least two other pathways. Therefore, we continued with the original grouping following the examples given in Biber-Freudenberger et al [30] and Stark et al [23].…”