IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v16y2017i2p41-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Good Governance in the Bioeconomy

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Devaney
  • Maeve Henchion
  • Áine Regan

Abstract

In response to growing societal and environmental challenges, the concept of the bioeconomy has emerged in Europe, shifting society away from fossil fuels to utilising renewable biological resources to meet food, feed, fuel and material needs. The bioeconomy poses unique questions for governing stakeholders, with a need to simultaneously consider issues of food, fuel and resource security, competition for biomass supply, environmental degradation, climate change, economic growth and rural development. It thus represents one of the most politically complex areas facing agri‐food and rural resource sectors internationally. Further development of the bioeconomy and its impact on society will depend on how it is governed. It is widely accepted that good governance will require input from a diverse range of stakeholders beyond traditional government intervention. In this article, we explore the application of good governance principles as a common set of objectives for European stakeholders to strive towards, with particular consideration given to the principles of accountability and participation. How these elements need to be addressed as a priority for the economic, environmental and social sustainability of the future European bioeconomy is highlighted. Le concept de bioéconomie a émergé en Europe en réponse aux défis grandissants au plan sociétal et environnemental. Il réoriente la société fondée sur les combustibles fossiles vers l'utilisation de ressources biologiques renouvelables pour remplir les besoins en aliments, aliments du bétail, combustibles et matériaux. La bioéconomie pose des questions uniques aux parties prenantes en termes de gouvernance, car plusieurs questions doivent être considérées simultanément: la sécurité en termes d'alimentation, de combustibles et de ressources, la concurrence pour l'offre de biomasse, la dégradation de l'environnement, le changement climatique, la croissance économique et le développement rural. Elle représente donc l'un des domaines les plus complexes pour l'action publique auxquels sont confrontés les secteurs de l'agroalimentaire et des ressources rurales au plan international. Le développement plus avant de la bioéconomie et de son incidence sur la société dépendra de la façon dont il est géré. Il est largement acquis qu'une bonne gouvernance demandera la contribution d'une variété de parties prenantes au‐delà des interventions traditionnelles des pouvoirs publics. Dans cet article, nous explorons l'application des principes de bonne gouvernance à un ensemble commun d'objectifs pour que les parties prenantes européennes aillent de l'avant. Nous examinons plus particulièrement les principes de responsabilité et de participation, et nous mettons en évidence la façon dont ces éléments doivent être abordés comme une priorité pour la durabilité économique, environnementale et sociale d'une future bioéconomie européenne. Als Reaktion auf die wachsenden gesellschaftlichen und ökologischen Herausforderungen entstand in Europa das Konzept der Bioökonomie. Es beschreibt den Wandel hin zu einer Gesellschaft, die anstelle fossiler Brennstoffe erneuerbare biologische Ressourcen nutzt, um ihren Bedarf an Lebens‐ und Futtermitteln sowie an Brennstoffen und Rohwaren zu decken. Die Bioökonomie stellt führende Akteure vor ganz besondere Aufgaben, denn sie müssen sich zeitgleich mit Fragen zu Ernährung, Energie, Rohstoffsicherheit, Wettbewerb um die Versorgung mit Biomasse, Verschlechterung der Umweltbedingungen, Klimawandel, Wirtschaftswachstum und ländlicher Entwicklung auseinandersetzen. Die Bioökonomie ist daher im Hinblick auf die internationalen Agrar‐ und Ernährungssektoren sowie die ländlichen Ressourcen einer der komplexesten Politikbereiche. Die weitere Entwicklung der Bioökonomie und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Gesellschaft werden davon abhängig sein, wie sie rechtlich geregelt sein wird. Es besteht weitgehend Übereinstimmung darin, dass Good Governance den Input vieler unterschiedlicher Akteure über die klassische staatliche Intervention hinaus erfordert. In diesem Beitrag untersuchen wir die Anwendung von Good Governance‐Prinzipien im Sinne eines gemeinsamen, erstrebenswerten Bündels an Zielen für europäische Akteure, wobei besonders die Prinzipien der Rechenschaftspflicht und der Teilhabe berücksichtigt werden. Wie diese Elemente insbesondere für die wirtschaftliche, ökologische und soziale Nachhaltigkeit der zukünftigen europäischen Bioökonomie eingesetzt werden sollten, wird in diesem Beitrag beleuchtet.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Devaney & Maeve Henchion & Áine Regan, 2017. "Good Governance in the Bioeconomy," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 16(2), pages 41-46, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:16:y:2017:i:2:p:41-46
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12141
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12141?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    3. Sarah Hartley & Kate M. Millar, 2014. "The Challenges of Consulting the Public on Science Policy: Examining the Development of European Risk Assessment Policy for Genetically Modified Animals," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(6), pages 481-502, November.
    4. Devaney, Laura, 2016. "Good governance? Perceptions of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in Irish food risk governance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-10.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonas Van Lancker & Erwin Wauters & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2019. "Open Innovation In Public Research Institutes — Success And Influencing Factors," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(07), pages 1-37, October.
    2. Sanz-Hernández, Alexia & Jiménez-Caballero, Paula & Zarauz, Irene, 2022. "Gender and women in scientific literature on bioeconomy: A systematic review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    3. Davide Viaggi, 2018. "Quantifying the Impact of Scientific Research on Agriculture," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(1), pages 19-24, April.
    4. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Henchion, Maeve & Devaney, Laura, 2018. "Innovation for transition: is the EU R&I landscape supportive of the bioeconomy?," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276194, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Stefan Bößner & Francis X. Johnson & Zoha Shawoo, 2020. "Governing the Bioeconomy: What Role for International Institutions?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    7. Oguntuase Oluwaseun James, 2020. "Bioeconomy for Sustainable Development in Africa – State of Production Determinants and Future Directions," Economic and Regional Studies / Studia Ekonomiczne i Regionalne, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, March.
    8. Urmetzer, Sophie & Lask, Jan & Vargas-Carpintero, Ricardo & Pyka, Andreas, 2020. "Learning to change: Transformative knowledge for building a sustainable bioeconomy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    9. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    10. Arkadiusz Piwowar & Joanna Harasym, 2020. "The Importance and Prospects of the Use of Algae in Agribusiness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-13, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    2. Ma, Jie & Tse, Ying Kei & Wang, Xiaojun & Zhang, Minhao, 2019. "Examining customer perception and behaviour through social media research – An empirical study of the United Airlines overbooking crisis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 192-205.
    3. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    4. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    5. Jared LeClerc & Susan Joslyn, 2015. "The Cry Wolf Effect and Weather‐Related Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 385-395, March.
    6. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    7. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    8. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    9. Marquina, Jesús & Colinet, María José & Pablo-Romero, María del P., 2021. "The economic value of olive sector biomass for thermal and electrical uses in Andalusia (Spain)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    10. Joanicjusz Nazarko & Ewa Chodakowska & Łukasz Nazarko, 2022. "Evaluating the Transition of the European Union Member States towards a Circular Economy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-24, May.
    11. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    13. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    14. Matteo De Besi & Kes McCormick, 2015. "Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-18, August.
    15. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    16. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Mónica Duque-Acevedo & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & Natalia Yakovleva & Francisco Camacho-Ferre, 2020. "Analysis of the Circular Economic Production Models and Their Approach in Agriculture and Agricultural Waste Biomass Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-32, December.
    18. Kirs, Peeter & Bagchi, Kallol, 2012. "The impact of trust and changes in trust: A national comparison of individual adoptions of information and communication technologies and related phenomenon," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 431-441.
    19. Sanchez, Mari & Lamont, Michèle & Zilberstein, Shira, 2022. "How American college students understand social resilience and navigate towards the future during covid and the movement for racial justice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    20. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:16:y:2017:i:2:p:41-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.