The Bioeconomy of Modesty

Bioeconomy: back in the early 1980s, scientists were already describing an economic system that was based on solar energy and acknowledged ecological limits. Plants were also a form of stored solar energy, and only if fossil energy was replaced by energy from biomass could the economy be accommodated within the limits set by inescapable laws of nature, argued the Romanian-born economist Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen. At the same time, these limits required a search for socially enriching ways of self-limitation.

This all-encompassing bioeconomy concept was a response to projections such as those made by the Club of Rome in 1972, which predicted “limits to growth” in the face of continuing population growth and simultaneously increasing prosperity. Their authors warned of scarcities; that the increasing consumption of coal and oil, but also of water, land, fertilizer and mineral resources could fuel global wars and conflicts.

Consequences were not drawn at all or only half-heartedly, or at least inadequately, worldwide and especially in the wealthy industrialized countries, and so 53 years later the scenarios are proving to be bitterly true. Fertilizers and many mineral resources are scarce and expensive, with the exception of oil, coal and gas, of all things, which harm the climate. As a result of too many processes of combustion and the associated emissions in power plant chimneys, heating systems, car engines and indirectly also in agriculture, global regions are turning into deserts. Soils are overused and poisoned, forests cut down, they go up in flames as in California or are so stressed that at times they can no longer perform their functions as CO2 sinks, oxygen producers and cooling water reservoirs – even in the Amazon region, which is so important for the global climate. Regional wars are being fought over water and land, the world is falling apart in new geopolitical confrontation.

Transistion to bioeconomy is urgent

In view of this dramatic reality, the question today is all the more acute: How can a growing world population as well as future generations be supplied with everything they need – plant- and animal-based food, fibers, energy, materials – despite an already highly fragile resource base, without having to make compromises either in the Paris climate protection goals or the Montreal Convention on Biodiversity? This challenge makes the transition to a bioeconomy even more difficult and complex today. At the same time, however, turning it into reality is given increasing urgency and political impetus.

Numerous countries from Australia to the USA, from Malaysia to Uganda, including Germany, have launched bioeconomy strategies in recent years, as have supranational alliances such as the OECD and the EU. The BRICS countries Brazil and South Africa, both major agricultural producers, have placed the topic at the center of their G20 presidencies. German Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir also recently put bioeconomy on the agenda at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA), with 62 countries signing a joint communiqué in Berlin in January 2025. The question is: How close are today's protagonists of a “bio-based”, “biotechnological” or “bio-inspired” economy to the comprehensive vision of the early scholars and inventors?

The German government's definition, for its part, is comprehensive and is shared elsewhere – adapted to geographical conditions and innovation philosophies with different emphases: Bioeconomy is the “knowledge-based production and use of renewable resources to provide products, processes and services in all economic sectors as part of a sustainable economic system”. This includes not only the agriculture and food industry, but also virtually all other sectors. With grain, starch, wood or algae as the source materials, tiny microorganisms such as fungi or bacteria are to be used “ever more efficiently and, if possible, in cascades” to produce new proteins, energy and basic inputs for the chemical industry or for building materials, for fuels or for clothing. The slogan is: “More with less.”

In addition to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Education and Research is also in charge of bioeconomy planning. “Knowledge-based": New technologies play a key role when biofuels or packaging materials are created from specially cultivated grass mixtures or cattails (Typha species), when genetically modified yeasts in bioreactors create a basis for low-fat ice creams, muesli bars and food supplements from protein-rich microalgae in order to save on animal protein. Technological developments are needed if 3D printers are to produce bicycle brakes or prostheses from sugar-based filament, if coffee grounds are to supplement high-tech bio-composites or if carbon fibers made from wood are to save energy and material in building construction. Modified microorganisms could one day extract the scarce raw material phosphorus from sewage sludge and recycle it, or biologically synthesized textile fibers could relieve the pressure on cotton fields whose monocultures are exposed to extreme amounts of pesticides – the examples of bioeconomic innovations seem limitless. However, in view of the many conflicting objectives, a great deal of skepticism is also warranted.

Numerous conflicts of interest

First and foremost there is the competition for land. The demand for plant-based raw materials increases if everything is to be produced organically. However, land is limited and fertile soil is a public resource that cannot be multiplied. The controversial nature of this problem was already evident in the first large-scale bioeconomy experiment: biofuel and biogas. They proved to be drivers of illusionary calculations on emission reductions at the cost of what at times was neo-colonial land theft and the displacement of many small farmers and indigenous people. Since the “Plate and Tank Debate” 15 years ago, policy adjustments may have slowed down the enormous hype, for example by reducing bio-quotas for fuel in the EU or subsidies for maize cultivation. The use of biogas is to be reduced and become more targeted. However, diesel fuel from palm oil and bioethanol from sugar cane in particular continue to result in the overexploitation of forests in Asia and Africa by rich countries.

Bioeconomists assure us that in future, surplus and waste from agricultural production will increasingly be used for the production of energy as well as of materials. But competition for these has already heated up, and then – what is waste anyway? Much of what is left over from crop production is already being used; straw, for example, for the essential purpose of reinvigorating soil, giving it new life and fertility.

Conflicts about land and speculation with land therefore remain an issue not only in developing countries, but worldwide. In Germany, too, the rise in land and lease prices is accelerating concentration processes in rural regions and thus social erosion. Land is becoming more and more expensive and only larger operations can afford it.

In view of new demands for land, this situation is becoming even more acute. Food production must become more extensive in order to conserve soil and water, or even better, to renew them, which means that organic farming methods and pasture-based livestock farming require more land. The Montreal Agreement calls for 30 percent of land to be set aside for nature conservation. At the same time, cities are sealing off soils by building housing, industrial estates and roads. The energy transition demands space for wind and solar power plants, and more and more wood from plantations is to be used in construction. So – who gets the land?

There is a great danger that it is not ecological and social priorities that are decisive, but financial power. If, for example, plant-based raw materials one day actually do supply chemical raw materials on a large scale, this industry is more likely to have access than a farmers' cooperative.

Another ambivalent driving force behind the bioeconomy are big data, big biotech and their merging. Precision agriculture: This is the heading for their vision of “more from less”. In the future, data from satellites and sensors should be able to detect to the centimeter where nutrients are lacking, pests are present or water is needed. The aim is to save water, fertilizer, chemicals and energy and improve the soil. New biotechnological and genetic engineering methods such as CrisprCas or Gene Drive also promise to produce varieties that give higher yields more precisely and more cheaply. Instead of making money with increasingly controversial pesticides, major seed and chemical companies want to grow profits from knowledge-based offerings and sell comprehensive solutions for field and livestock farming by combining climate and soil data, seed varieties adapted to those specific conditions, as well as agrochemical or biological agents and computer-generated strategies for cultivation systems.

This market is already highly concentrated; now the interests of these companies are merging with equally concentrated sectors such as agricultural machinery and data handling, forming new conglomerates. Both on their own and in concert they would have significant power in determining land usage. In contrast, an agroecological approach that focuses on maximum diversity still needs to assert itself: diversity of farms, diversity of plants and creatures, diversity of landscapes and markets.

Robust regulatory framework

These are just a few of the problems and risks which, despite all the fascination for the new possibilities, show that the bioeconomy requires sensitive political management if it is not to increase pressure on natural resources even further. Governments usually leave aside questions of power in their commitments to the bioeconomy, but it is a sign of progress that they are now acknowledging all the other problems. The GFFA communiqué also emphasizes that good social, environmental and economic outcomes of the transition to bioeconomies are “not guaranteed” and that a “robust regulatory framework” is therefore required.

Part of this framework are the FAO's Voluntary Guidelines on Land Rights, Food Systems and Nutrition. There are also a large number of instruments that ensure or incentivize responsible land use priorities. In such a broad field, they are naturally diverse and range from restrictions or bans on sealing soils, to nitrogen levies or value-added taxes on land-hungry meat consumption to liability regulations for new breeding technologies and funding policies that minimize the inefficient and environmentally damaging use of wood as fuel, as well as prescriptions for cascading processing or for certain construction methods.

The overriding principle of all policies must be Food First, i.e. the human right to sufficient and healthy food. This had become a consensus, “a politically established hierarchy that can be found in a large number of international political documents”, writes a group of scientists and former members of the now abolished German Bioeconomy Council in a position paper. In reality, however, “as for other hierarchies” in the field of bioeconomy, “there is still no operationalization”.

A source of new economic growth?

Their absence is also due to the fact that most bioeconomy strategies aim above all to create additional value in technologically enriched, new value chains. The bioeconomy is seen as a source of new economic growth – a growth that is different only because it is generated more efficiently and with lower emissions.

However, this “more with less”, which in the final analysis is a function of greater efficiency, is usually not sufficient, at least not as the sole measure of change – because it leads to so-called rebound effects. This means that the money earned by saving energy or resources is spent again – and generates additional consumption. Ultimately, therefore, most bio-based options are not only faced with biophysical limits but also with limits of an economic nature, in addition to limits to profitability at least in the medium term and limits of social acceptance.

The focus on growth exposes a further risk to sustainability: the bioeconomy's focus on technological solutions suppresses political and social innovations in sustainability. For too long, speed limits or new flexible mobility systems have received far less attention than the search for new fuels. The search for new materials is being pursued much more intensively than consumer incentives for long-lasting products or their continued use through swapping and sharing. Alternative nutrition habits, above all the move towards a meatless diet, have only recently been seriously promoted.

In conclusion: The bioeconomy is a risk if, like today’s economy, it is pursued exclusively or even primarily in the name of high growth rates – even if it is green growth. On the other hand, it is an opportunity if it fosters a new respect for biological resources, greater awareness for their wasteful exploitation but also for more intelligent forms of utilization. In other words, if it organizes forms of land use and economic activity that operate within what the Danish scientist Johan Rockström described as a “safe operating space” for humanity.

Which brings us back to the beginning, back to the 1980s: to Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomy of modesty.

Christiane Grefe is a freelance journalist and former reporter in the Berlin office of the weekly newspaper “Zeit”.