A Governance Framework for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Insights from the Case of the German Wood-based Bioeconomy

  • Erik Gawel
  • Alexandra Purkus
  • Nadine Pannicke
  • Nina Hagemann
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

Increasing the sustainability of economic processes and products requires a path transition from the present, predominantly fossil resource-based “throughput economy” towards a renewable resource-based circular flow economy. The bioeconomy concept can contribute to such a transition. However, an adequate governance framework is necessary not only to overcome the current carbon lock-in and create fair competitive framework conditions for bioeconomy processes and products (enabling function), but also to ensure the sustainability of an increased use of bio-based resources (limiting function). At the same time, achieving a path transition is challenging due to, inter alia, interacting market failures which distort allocation decisions, and uncertainties about the economic, environmental and socio-economic impacts of different bio-based production pathways. Moreover, transitioning to a new “upper state” sustainability equilibrium requires a corresponding politico-economic equilibrium in markets for regulation that allows for the provision of necessary transition policies. In this chapter, we discuss the challenges of establishing an effective governance framework for the bioeconomy. Furthermore, focusing on the case of the German wood-based bioeconomy, we analyse how the enabling and limiting governance functions have been implemented in practice. Based on this, we identify scope for improvements. In particular, the case study highlights the important role that policies have to play in establishing fair competitive framework conditions for bioeconomy applications, fostering innovation and safeguarding sustainability. While existing measures remain fragmented and insufficient to initiate a path transition, gradually developing them further may contribute to a dynamic that stimulates demand for more far-reaching transition policies on political markets.

Keywords

Bioeconomy Wood Governance Policies Path dependencies Germany 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adler P, Budzinski M, Erdmann G, Majer S, Meisel K, Schock S, Thrän D (2015), Sachstandsbericht über vorhandene Grundlagen für ein Monitoring der Bioökonomie: Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenbasis der Bioökonomie, Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur BW (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99(394):116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benz A (2009) Politik in Mehrebenensystemen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  4. Benz A, Lütz S, Schimank U, Simonis G (2007) Einleitung. In: Benz A, Lütz S, Schimank U, Simonis G (eds) Handbuch Governance. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 9–25Google Scholar
  5. Berndes G, Hansson J (2007) Bioenergy expansion in the EU: cost-effective climate change mitigation, employment creation and reduced dependency on imported fuels. Energy Policy 35(12):5965–5979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BMEL (2014) National policy strategy on bioeconomy. Renewable resources and biotechnological processes as a basis for food, industry and energy, German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Bringezu S, Schütz H, Pengue W, O´Brien M, Garcia F, Sims R et al (2014) Assessing global land use: balancing consumption with sustainable supply. UNEP/International Resource Panel, Nairobi/ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Carus M, Dammer L (2013) Food or non-food: which agricultural feedstocks are best for industrial uses? Ind Biotechnol 9(4):171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carus M, Eder A, Beckmann J (2014a) Industry report: GreenPremium prices along the value chain of biobased products. Ind Biotechnol 10(2):83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carus M, Raschka A, Fehrenbach H, Rettenmaier N, Dammer L, Köppen S et al (2014) Ökologische Innovationspolitik – Mehr Ressourceneffizienz und Klimaschutz durch nachhaltige stoffliche Nutzungen von Biomasse, Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-RoßlauGoogle Scholar
  11. Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daly HE (1992) Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecol Econ 6(3):185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Besi M, McCormick K (2015) Towards a bioeconomy in Europe: national, regional and industrial strategies. Sustainability 7(8):10461–10478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dixit AK (1996) The making of economic policy: a transaction-cost politics perspective. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. EC (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth. A bioeconomy for Europe, European Commission (EC)/Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. EC (2016), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast). COM(2016) 767 final, European Commission (EC), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. Edelman M (1964) The symbolic uses of politics. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards R, Szekeres S, Neuwahl F, Mahieu V (2008) Biofuels in the European context: facts and uncertainties. European Commission Joint Research Centre, PettenGoogle Scholar
  19. Finger R (2016) Assessment of uncertain returns from investment in short rotation coppice using risk adjusted discount rates. Biomass Bioenerg 85:320–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer C, Newell RG (2008) Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J Environ Econ Manage 55(2):142–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. FNR (2014) Marktanalyse Nachwachsende Rohstoffe. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), Gülzow-PrüzenGoogle Scholar
  22. Foxon TJ, Gross R, Chase A, Howes J, Arnall A, Anderson D (2005) UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures. Energy Policy 33(16):2123–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X et al (2013) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol 30(2):142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Furubotn EG, Richter R (2005) Institutions and economic theory: the contribution of the new institutional economics, 2nd edn. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gawel E, Purkus A (2015) The role of energy and electricity taxation in the context of the German energy transition. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 39(2):77–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. German Bioeconomy Council (2015a) Bioeconomy policy (Part I). Synopsis and analysis of strategies in the G7, Bioökonomierat, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. German Bioeconomy Council (2015b) Bioeconomy policy (Part II). Synopsis of national strategies around the world, Bioökonomierat, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. German Bioeconomy Council (2015c) Die deutsche Chemieindustrie – Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Bioökonomie. BÖRMEMO 02, Bioökonomierat, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Government of Flanders (2013) Bioeconomy in Flanders. The vision and strategy of the Government of Flanders for a sustainable and competitive bioeconomy in 2030, Flemish Government, Environment, Nature and Energy Department, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  30. Grubler A, Aguayo F, Gallagher K, Hekkert M, Jiang K, Mytelka L et al. (2012) Policies for the energy technology innovation system (ETIS), In GEA (ed), Global energy assessment—toward a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press/IIASA, Cambridge, pp 1665–1744Google Scholar
  31. Hagemann N, Gawel E, Purkus A, Hauck J, Pannicke N (2016) Possible futures towards a wood-based bioeconomy—a scenario analysis for Germany. Sustainability 8(98):1–24Google Scholar
  32. Hansjürgens B (2000) Symbolische Umweltpolitik – Eine Erklärung aus Sicht der Neuen Politischen Ökonomie. In: Hansjürgens B, Lübbe-Wolff G (eds) Symbolische Umweltpolitik, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 144–182Google Scholar
  33. Hayek FA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. Am Econ Rev 35(4):519–530Google Scholar
  34. Helm D (2010) Government failure, rent-seeking, and capture: the design of climate change policy. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 26(2):182–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herrmann F, Sanden J, Schomerus T, Schulze F (2012) Ressourcenschutzrecht – Ziele, Herausforderungen, Regelungsvorschläge. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 23(10):523–526Google Scholar
  36. Jacobsson S, Lauber V (2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34(3):256–276Google Scholar
  37. Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54(2–3):164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jakubowski P, Tegner H, Kotte S (1997) Strategien umweltpolitischer Zielfindung: eine ökonomische Perspektive. LIT, MünsterGoogle Scholar
  39. Jenkins JD (2014) Political economy constraints on carbon pricing policies: what are the implications for economic efficiency, environmental efficacy, and climate policy design? Energy Policy 69:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kay A, Ackrill R (2012) Governing the transition to a biofuels economy in the US and EU: accommodating value conflicts, implementing uncertainty. Policy and Society 31(4):295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koch N, Fuss S, Grosjean G, Edenhofer O (2014) Causes of the EU ETS price drop: recession, CDM, renewable policies or a bit of everything?—New Evidence. Energy Policy 73:676–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Köck W, Kern K (2006) Öffentlich-rechtliche Kontrolle von Umweltrisiken, insbesondere Probleme und Perspektiven der europäischen Chemikalienkontrolle. In: Vieweg K (ed) Risiko - Recht - Verantwortung, Heymanns Verlag, Köln, pp 279–320Google Scholar
  43. Lahl U (2014) Bioökonomie für den Klima- und Ressourcenschutz – Regulative Handlungskorridore, BZL Kommunikation und Projektsteuerung/NABU (Nature And Biodiversity Conservation Union), Berlin/OytenGoogle Scholar
  44. Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen (2013) Eckpunkte einer Bioökonomiestrategie für Nordrhein-Westfalen, Ministerium für Innovation, Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  45. Luchs MG, Naylor RW, Irwin JR, Raghunathan R (2010) The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J Mark 74(5):18–31Google Scholar
  46. Ludwig G, Tronicke C, Köck W, Gawel E (2014) Rechtsrahmen der Bioökonomie in Mitteldeutschland – Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung. UFZ Discussion Paper 22/2014, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  47. Ludwig G, Tronicke C, Köck W, Gawel E (2015) Der Rechtsrahmen für die Bioökonomie in Deutschland. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 68(2):41–53Google Scholar
  48. Ludwig G, Gawel E, Pannicke N (2016) Kreislaufwirtschaft im Bereich Holz – Rechtliche Bestandsaufnahme und Reformvorschläge für Kaskadennutzungen. Zeitschrift für das Recht der Abfallwirtschaft (AbfallR) 15(4):170–178Google Scholar
  49. Mantau U (2012) Holzrohstoffbilanz Deutschland – Entwicklungen und Szenarien des Holzaufkommens und der Holzverwendung von 1987 bis 2015. Universität Hamburg, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  50. Mayntz R (2005) Governance Theory als fortentwickelte Steuerungstheorie? In: Schuppert GF (ed) Governance-Forschung. Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien, Nomos, Baden Baden, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  51. McCormick K (2011) The emerging bio-economy in Europe: exploring the key governance challenges. World Renewable Energy Congress 2011, 8–13 May 2011, Linköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  52. McCormick K, Kautto N (2013) The bioeconomy in Europe: an overview. Sustainability 5(6):2589–2608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCormick RE, Tollison RD (1981) Politicians, legislation and the economy: an inquiry into the interest-group theory of government. Martinus-Nijhoff, BostonGoogle Scholar
  54. Nausch H, Sautter C, Broer I, Schmidt K (2015) Public funded field trials with transgenic plants in Europe: A Comparison between Germany and Switzerland. Curr Opin Biotechnol 32:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Norgaard RB (1992) Sustainability as intergenerational equity: economic theory and environmental planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev 12(1–2):85–124Google Scholar
  56. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Ober S (2015) Noch ganz am Anfang. Viele offene Fragen beim Ausbau der Bioökonomie, Available online 18 April 2016: https://www.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/ressourcenschonung/biooekonomie/19308.html
  58. OECD (2009) The Bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ollikainen M (2014) Forestry in Bioeconomy—smart green growth for the humankind. Scand J For Res 29(4):360–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pacini H, Assunção L, van Dam J, Toneto R Jr (2013) The price for biofuels sustainability. Energy Policy 59:898–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pannicke N, Gawel E, Hagemann N, Purkus A, Strunz S (2015) The political economy of fostering a wood-based bioeconomy in Germany. Ger J Agric Econ 64(4):224–243Google Scholar
  62. Pfau SF, Hagens JE, Dankbaar B, Smits AJM (2014) Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability 6(3):1222–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Purkus A (2016) Concepts and instruments for a rational bioenergy policy. A new institutional economics approach. Lecture notes in energy, vol 55, Springer International Publishing, ChamGoogle Scholar
  64. Purkus A, Hagemann N, Bedtke N, Gawel E (2017) Towards a sustainable innovation system for the German wood-based bioeconomy: implications for policy design. J Cleaner Prod. online first: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.146
  65. Rhodes RAW (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Polit Stud 44(4):652–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Richardson B (2012) From a fossil-fuel to a bio-based economy: the politics of industrial biotechnology. Environ Plann C: Government and Policy 30(2):282–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–475Google Scholar
  68. Rodi M, Sina S, Görlach B, Gerstetter C, Bausch C, Neubauer A (2011) Das Klimaschutzrecht des Bundes – Analyse und Vorschläge zu seiner Weiterentwicklung. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-RoßlauGoogle Scholar
  69. Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F (2011) Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: a global overview. Energy Policy 39(3):1630–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scharpf FW (1997) Games real actors play. Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research, Westview Press, Boulder, CO/OxfordGoogle Scholar
  71. Schubert R, Blasch J (2010) Sustainability standards for bioenergy: a means to reduce climate change risks? Energy Policy 38(6):2797–2805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Staffas L, Gustavsson M, McCormick K (2013) Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: an analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability 5(6):2751–2769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Strunz S, Gawel E, Lehmann P (2016) The political economy of renewable energy policies in Germany and the EU. Utilities Policy 42:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sweet CM, Eterovic Maggio DS (2015) Do stronger intellectual property rights increase innovation? World Dev 66:665–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28(12):817–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vandermeulen V, Van der Steen M, Stevens CV, Van Huylenbroeck G (2012) Industry expectations regarding the transition towards a biobased economy. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 6(4):453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Verwer CC, Buiteveld J, Koelewijn HP, Tolkamp GW, de Vries SMG, Meer PJ (2010) Genetically modified trees: status, trends and potential risks. Alterra Report 2039. Alterra Wageningen UR, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  78. WBGU (2008) Future bioenergy and sustainable land use, German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  79. Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Williamson OE (1996) The mechanisms of governance. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  81. Williamson OE (2000) The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Liter 38:595–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wynne B (1983) Redefining the issues of risk and public acceptance. Futures 15(1):13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Gawel
    • 1
  • Alexandra Purkus
    • 2
  • Nadine Pannicke
    • 2
  • Nina Hagemann
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, and Institute for Infrastructure and Resources Management, University of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations