On behalf of the\nInter-American Development Bank, Technopolis performed a policy comparison to\nprovide insight into the latest state of play in bioeconomy policy in several leading\ncountries (see Box 1). A further goal was to provide lessons and inspiration to\nLatin American countries wanting to reap more benefits from their bioeconomic\nresources. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is known by\ninnovation researchers that in general the dissemination of innovations (be\nthey technical, social, or institutional, like policies) will only be fruitful\nif the local context (laws, resources, industrial base) is taken into\nconsideration. As most countries will not have the resources, nor the long-term\npolicy focus of, for example Germany, this article focuses on several no-regret\noptions that are relatively easy to implement and could be the start of a more\nadvanced bioeconomy approach. The explicit assumption here is that nations are\ninterested in investing in the bioeconomy with the aim of producing products\nthat are higher on the value ladder and developing the bioeconomy \u201cecosystem\u201d,\nwhich includes the National Innovation System. An additional assumption is that\nresearch, development and innovation is difficult to steer and that the\ncreativity of all stakeholders needs to be addressed to tackle national\nchallenges and to reap the benefits of innovation; this requires an open\nattitude on the part of government and linkages among different partners (see Box\n2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Policy to stimulate the bioeconomy is of great interest to a range of countries. However, the exact status of these policies is often difficult to determine, since the bioeconomy is a theme or sector that covers many different policy domains and is also subsumed by wider policy initiatives.
– In some countries, bioeconomy is defined as a broad strategic goal, but the operationalisation has not taken place.
– In all countries, there is a push by (commercial) stakeholders to provide more clarity on ambitions and to back these up by concrete governmental plans.
– The transition to a more biobased economy is a long term process and it is difficult to evaluate policy progress at this point in time. National statistics are often inadequate to capture the breadth of the bioeconomy.
– Successful interventions build on sustained policy activities that link to existing initiatives, for example in promoting research and development, or providing skills for 21st century jobs.
– Advanced countries build upon broadly available science, research and innovation infrastructures. Investments in bioeconomy infrastructures, such as biorefineries and labs, require relatively large sums of money (order of 10+ million dollars).
– For Latin American countries a gradual approach that links with national strengths and specialisations is advisable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fact finding<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The concept of\nthe bioeconomy is very broad and encompasses many different sectors of the\neconomy. Innovations are often driven by small enterprises that offer niche\napplications, sometimes replacing non-bio alternatives. The bioeconomy is therefore\nalso ever-expanding: as innovations take place with biobased materials, new\nsectors are drawn into the bioeconomy. Developments in novel bioeconomy\napplications are difficult to find and are not captured in official statistics.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n A first step in\ncountries that have the ambition to expand their bioeconomy, is to establish\nsome kind of observatory that keeps track of regional\/national developments. An\nobservatory can either be outsourced or placed under relevant ministerial\ncontrol.[1]<\/a>\nSuch an observatory could cover both qualitative and quantitative data\nregarding the bioeconomy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the last\npoint: even countries with advanced plans for the bioeconomy struggle with the \u201cinvisibility\u201d\nof the bioeconomy in official statistics. Often, industry classification codes are\neither too narrow (focusing only on \u201ctraditional\u201d bioproducts) or too broad\n(covering whole subsectors where bioproducts are only partially used). A next\nstep in the fact finding process will be improving statistical data gathering. It\nwould be advisable to do that in coordination with other national statistical\ninstitutes, so that statistics can be compared regionally. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the\nfact finding activities also have a future component. Next to finding more\ninformation on the status quo, it is important to understand what trends are\nshaping the bioeconomy under the motto \u201cthe biomass you have today is not the\nbiomass you will have tomorrow\u201d. Large international economic developments may\ndisrupt markets (growing demand from USA for corn for fuel, leading to higher\ncorn prices, leading to a tortilla crisis); new technologies in labs may alter product\nrequirements and specifications in due time. For any national planning on stimulating\nthe bioeconomy or strengthening it, it is important to know in what ways\ncurrent strengths can be exploited in the future and in what ways weaknesses\ncan be mitigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stakeholder\nidentification and engagement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We have seen\nthat in quite some countries there is a drive from non-governmental players to\nbuild bioeconomic policies where they are absent and solidify them where they\nalready exist. In identifying opportunities and threats, it is important to\ngather information from different sources; howevere, these information sources\nshould not only state (their own) positions but also offer suggestions and\ndirections for further development. Initiatives for strengthening bioeconomy\nmay derive from existing interests in forestry or agriculture, a drive towards\nmore high-tech R&D, or an environmental or political incentive to become\nless dependent on petrol-based products. Bringing the fact finding of\nstakeholders one step further, different players that are in the quadruple\nhelix (government, business, academia, society) should be further questioned\nabout their drivers, demands, and disincentives concerning the bioeconomy in\ntheir country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a\ngovernments\u2019 perspective, supporting a network of businesses or even wider a\nnetwork of people seriously interested in the bioeconomy can prove an\ninvaluable source of inspiration and information. As the bioeconomy is still\nvery much developing, it should be noted that any perspective (even that of\ngovernment or \u201cneutral\u201d researchers) is necessarily biased. Organising a forum\nto amass different viewpoints is a relatively low-cost approach from which new\nconnections, new combinations and new energy can emerge. When organising such\nactivities it is important to realise that SMEs, often the driving force of innovation,\nneed to be incentivised to partake in discussions, as they do not have the\nluxury of larger corporations of having specialised strategists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regulatory framework<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The bioeconomy often\ninvolves new products as alternatives to non-biological sources. These new\nproducts often have to comply with regulation that was not designed for\ninnovations and that may stress characteristics that are not delivered by new\nbiological supply networks. It is important to review the regulatory framework\nto see what rules are unnecessarily hindering bioeconomy development. If they\nare truly unnecessary, they should be removed. However, a review of regulations\nmay also lead to additional requirements to bioproducts that could be resolved\nwith further R&D and innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A wider\nperspective on the bioeconomy focuses on the wealth provided by biodiversity\nand the benefits that can be derived from characteristics of new species. In a\nsituation in which the bioeconomy grows and more resources are being saught, it\nis important to judiciously distribute the economic benefits deriving from\ngenetic heritage, indigenous use, as well as intellectual property deriving\nfrom research. Nations are advised to follow the international developments in\nbiodiversity laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Build on\nexisting policies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Next to the\nregulatory do\u2019s and dont\u2019s, there is a wider array of instruments that\ngovernments employ to stimulate their economy, including subsidies, incentives,\nagreements. Rather than implementing totally new policies, it is advisable to\ndivise ways of adapting and\/or extending existing policies to focus on\nbioeconomy goals. Secific policies that could\nbe extended or adopted are industrial policies, SME-focused policies, or\nskills-focused policies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Innovate and\nexperiment, build R&D capacity in the wider economy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As biobased\ninnovations can take many different shapes, it is difficult to draw a clear\nline of which technologies and applications are to succeed which is why the\naforementioned foresight capability is important. Therefore, it is equally important\nto build the innovative and absorptive capacity of countries, probably starting\nwith the more applied sciences. Innovations can have different shapes and not\nall of them are necessarily in high-tech, fundamental fields. One example that\ncomes to mind is the revival of wood as a building material: new insights in\nconstruction have led to wood replacing concrete, even in high-rise buildings. This\nrevaluation (\u201ccome-back\u201d) of wood requires several players in the building\nindustry to innovate; not only the suppliers of wood (with specifically defined\nquality characteristics) but also architects and builders who need to change\ntheir standard ways of thinking and working.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Build\ngradually, leapfrog if possible<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In line with\nwhat we described in the previous paragraph, the spectrum of opportunities in\nthe bioeconomy is broad, ranging from low-tech to high-tech. In between brewing\nbeer and CRISPR-Cas, there are many opportunities for developing and\ncommercialising innovations. It is advisable to first build basic capacities\nand increasing sophistication (and value) over time. Given a country\u2019s level of\ndevelopment, it is realistic to differentiate between sectors or (scientific)\nfields in which one can be a late adopter (when all pros and cons of an\ninnovation are clear), an early adopter (which builds upon the pioneering\nactivities of other nations), or a true pioneer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Whereas in traditional economic and political thinking natural resources can be a curse, a more recent perspective emphasises that linkages which enable learning and innovation within natural resource industries, as well as between these industries and the wider economy, are key to promoting development. While some natural resource intensive development occurs via the market, government and policy impulses have a defining role to play in accelerating this process. Source: Carlos\nHinojosa, Matthias Ploeg, An innovation and industry perspective on natural\nresource development: opportunities and challenges, December 2016, http:\/\/www.globelics.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/137107-AAU-Globelics_policy_briefs_natural_resource_development_web.pdf<\/a>
\n\n\n\nFigure 2 An innovation and industry perspective on\nnatural resources<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Key to the fruitful utilisation of natural resources, is learning across value chains, sectors, producers and consumers. Natural resources can, under proper management, be an opportunity. This is particularly true in the current global context, characterised by e.g. the increased technological and innovation capabilities of many emerging and developing countries; the increased focus on corporate social responsibility and local sustainability, as well as the integration of many economies into global value chains.
Natural resource industry growth must be accompanied by a process of learning, innovation and competence building within (producers), around (suppliers and users), and beyond (inter-industry) production activities. Linkages within and between value chain actors (such as suppliers, processors and customers) and other actors in the innovation system (e.g. research institutes and regulatory agencies) drive and enable learning, competence building, knowledge transfer and innovation.
Three main types of linkages play a role:
– Backward linkages<\/strong> refer to the local sourcing of inputs such as machinery (e.g. grain combines for wheat harvesting), products used during natural resource extraction (e.g. chemicals used during oil drilling) and services (from catering to IT-systems). Backward linkages are particularly strong when there are \u2018local specificities\u2019 and tailored solutions are required. For instance, salmon farming in Chile required the development of new fish cultivating process innovations compared to market leader Norway due to different environmental conditions and antibiotics regulations.
– Forward Linkages<\/strong> refer to the local development of downstream value chain in terms of further processing or manufacturing, such as the production of steel from iron ore producing countries. These are often more difficult to develop, as they are an opportunity and not just a necessity (if you build ships, you need steel. If you produce steel, you don\u2019t need to build ships).
– Lateral linkages<\/strong> can be established through suppliers using knowledge and skills developed in the natural resources sectors to be applied in other sectors, when products or process technology migrate between sectors (e.g. the development of bioremediation technologies to deal with environmental damages from gold mining). As such, they can be considered inter-industry knowledge spillovers. Lateral linkages are especially important for diversification of an economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n