Transitioning to what? The role of genetic-engineering in New Zealand’s (circular) bioeconomy debates

ABSTRACT

Bioeconomy conceptualisations often invoke opportunities to transition towards innovative biotechnologies, bioresources and applications. Clarifying goals has implications for the regulations needed for successful transitions. However, most countries have not yet made final decisions on how to regulate particular bio-innovations: those based on genetic-engineering Certain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are still considered high-risk, as full scientific consensus is missing regarding the magnitude/reversibility of potential negative impacts. New Zealand is among these countries; regulations require a case-by-case approval of high-risk GMOs. Key organisations are polarised regarding the ideal kind of bioeconomy. This article draws on literature syntheses, to clarify what features can be regarded as ‘the most distinctive’ for three economic visions currently debated in New Zealand: a natural bioeconomy (BE-1), a genetic-engineering bioeconomy (BE-2) and circular economy (CE). The research objective is to understand what kind of economic transitions are being called-for by key actors in New Zealand. Findings indicate a long-standing BE-2 coalition dominated by science and commercial interests; and a recent CBE-1 coalition already implementing multiple, albeit fragmented, policies. The framework can support similar research in countries still affected by BE-1/BE-2 debates, enabling robust and replicable analyses, longitudinally and comparatively. Agendas for future conceptual and empirical research are also presented.

KEYWORDS:

• Bioeconomy
• circular economy
• genetic-engineering
• genetically-modified organisms (GMOs)

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The electoral cycle is New Zealand lasts three years.

2 For more information, see https://www.circulareconomy.org.nz/.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Valentina Dinica

Dr Valentina Dinica is an Associate Professor in Public Policy and Sustainability at the Wellington School of Business and Government, Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. She teaches courses on environmental policy and governance, sustainability and resilience. She published extensively in the areas of renewable energy policies, governance for sustainable tourism, Protected Area governance, regulating Protected Area tourism through concessions and Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility. She is a member of the World Commission on Protected Areas and currently serves as Convener of the Environmental Policy and Politics Networks of the New Zealand Political Science Association.