A comparative analysis of bioeconomy visions and pathways based on stakeholder dialogues in Colombia, Rwanda, Sweden, and Thailand

ABSTRACT

The bioeconomy offers a cross-cutting perspective on the societal transformation towards long-term sustainability and the transition away from the non-renewable economy. Identification of future pathways towards a sustainable bioeconomy can be related to different ‘visions’ of the bioeconomy, including an ecological vision, a bioresource development vision and a biotechnology vision. This paper synthesises empirical work from stakeholder dialogues conducted in Colombia, Rwanda, Sweden, and Thailand. The dialogues were structured around elaboration of bioeconomy pathways arising from different visions. The dialogues considered key driving factors and enabling conditions for different institutional levels ranging from local to regional. By conducting analysis across multiple countries and regions, we aimed to look across different economic development levels, different sectoral perspectives, and different innovation and bioresource strategies. Key components for bioeconomy pathways were identified with respect to bio-based products and resources, sectoral alignment, innovation clusters or hubs, and landscape transitions. The choice of different bioeconomy pathways is characterised by tensions between sector-based development and cross-cutting approaches, which in turn reflect differences between the bioresource and ecological visions, whereas the biotechnology vision tends to be viewed more as a means of implementation. The comparative analysis suggests some future lines of research on governing bioeconomy pathways.

KEYWORDS:

• Bioeconomy visions
• bioeconomy pathways
• sustainability transitions
• stakeholder dialogues
• bioeconomy governance

1. Introduction

A modern and sustainable bioeconomy relies on renewable resources and biological processes to produce food, energy, materials, and services while minimising biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971; El-Chichakli et al., 2016). The ‘biologisation’ of the economy is in some ways the fifth wave of development and industrialisation – following, and synergising with – the fourth wave of digitalisation (Schütte, 2018). As a long-term strategic issue, bioeconomy cuts across different human development pathways, is defined broadly and is widely applicable:

The bioeconomy is the production, utilization and conservation of biological resources, including related knowledge, science, technology, and innovation, to provide information, products, processes and services across all economic sectors aiming toward a sustainable economy. Bioeconomy is a dynamic and complex societal transformation process, which demands a long-term policy perspective. (GBS, 2018)

This long-term view on bioeconomy calls for transformative knowledge, international cooperation, and new modes of innovation and resource management (Boone & Özcan, 2014; Johnson & Silveira, 2014; Hoff et al., 2018; Urmetzer et al., 2020). Bioeconomy has high relevance in both low and high-income countries, connecting closely with rural development and climate resilience (Johnson & Altman, 2014; Fielding et al., 2015; Johnson, 2017; Mudombi et al., 2021). Bioeconomy is cross-cutting and heterogeneous, requiring a diverse set of enabling policies and institutions (Wesseler et al., 2011; El-Chichakli et al., 2016; Virgin & Morris, 2016).

Although the bioeconomy in a broad sense is associated with – and indeed, critical to – long-term sustainability, particular actions, measures, or sectors connected to the bioeconomy are not self-evidently sustainable (Pfau et al., 2014; Bennich & Belyazid, 2017). More land, water, or nutrients may be required, for example, compared to non-renewable options, a challenge further exacerbated by climate change (Philp, 2018). To address the diversity of potential applications and contexts, the bioeconomy should be analysed from an interdisciplinary and/or transdisciplinary perspective based on close collaboration with key stakeholders (Pfau et al., 2014; Hoff et al., 2018; Knierim et al., 2018).

Alternative bioeconomy visions can result in increasingly contentious stakeholder debates (Gamborg et al., 2014; Vivien et al., 2019). The socio-technical context underlying these contested positions in turn influences the choice and implementation of different bioeconomy pathways (Befort, 2020). In this research, we address this polarised debate by adopting a transdisciplinary approach in which stakeholder views are integrated with a conceptual structure grounded in the published literature.

Our framework draws on the three visions of the bioeconomy elaborated by Bugge et al. (2016): biotechnology, bioresource and bioecology visions. We give special attention to the global South but also offer a global perspective, addressing research gaps in bioeconomy governance and international comparisons of bioeconomy politics and policies (Böcher et al., 2020). In particular, this research investigates the relation between bioeconomy visions and pathways in different world regions through a series of complementary stakeholder dialogues, thus linking a cross-regional perspective with a cross-cutting or cross-sectoral perspective on the governance of bioeconomy pathways.

Section 2 of the paper provides the overall conceptual approach. Section 3 describes the analytical framework that was adopted in designing a stakeholder-driven approach and in gathering empirical data from four dialogues held in four different world regions. The context and results from these four dialogues are described and compared in Section 4. Conclusions are provided in Section 5.

2. Conceptual framework

Different visions can lead to rather different narratives for the bioeconomy (Bauer, 2018). Befort (2020) uses socio-technical analysis to compare technology-based visions and biomass/resource-based visions. Other perspectives are needed to address the bioeconomy vision rooted in ecology and ecosystems, which emphasises resource management and circular economy rather than technology and resource utilisation (Bugge et al., 2016; D’Amato et al., 2020). As explained below, we drew on a wide range of literature to devise a broad conceptual framework, starting with the bioeconomy visions and then considering pathways, levels, and governance mechanisms for realising those visions.

2.1. Visions

A bioeconomy vision is a collective imaginary or shared understanding of the concept of bioeconomy by a group of actors. Bugge et al. (2016) identified three main visions for the bioeconomy: the biotechnology vision prioritises economic growth and employment creation; the bioresources vision aims to achieve environmental sustainability while generating economic growth through bio-based production; the bioecology vision prioritises environmental sustainability, while economic growth and employment creation are secondary (Bugge et al., 2016; Canales & Gomez, 2020). Biotechnology and bioresource visions tend to be connected to public and private efforts charged with – and/or benefitting from – promotion of bioeconomy expansion, whereas appropriate incorporation of sustainability aims via the bioecology vision connects biodiversity, conservation, and circular economy principles (Olsson et al., 2018; Vivien et al., 2019).

2.2. Pathways

Although there is wide agreement on the future significance of the bioeconomy as embodied in different visions, there is less agreement on the pathways to be taken (Bennich & Belyazid, 2017; Meyer, 2017; Priefer et al., 2017). Pathways normally include trajectories of decisions, measures and policies over time that help to realise different visions or some combination thereof. Pathways can also be viewed as patterns of change that are linked to technologies, infrastructure, business models, production systems, and consumer preferences (Turnheim et al., 2015).

Some bioeconomy pathways follow from aims rooted in the global North that are connected to the biotechnology vision (Johnson, 2017; Hoff et al., 2018). The notion of alternative pathways to sustainability is particularly relevant for the global South: some pathways may be hidden from decision-makers and require efforts to empower farmers or community leaders to reveal new alternatives (Leach, 2013). This more inclusive approach tends to reject traditional economic paradigms framed under weak rather than strong sustainability (Meyer, 2017).

Dietz et al. (2018) outlined four types of bio-based transformation pathways: (1) fossil fuel substitution; (2) boosting primary productivity; (3) new biomass uses; (4) high-value products. These different pathways are connected with the bioresource and biotechnology vision, whereas the bioecology vision is largely absent. Such characterisations have been seen as an attempt by those with particular economic interests to co-opt the long-term ecological aims of the bioeconomy (Vivien et al., 2019). More broadly, there appears to be a research gap around broader perspectives on alternative bioeconomy pathways. Our approach recognises that differences in bioeconomy pathways are more contentious than differences in the underlying aims, and thus we aim for methodological diversity in analysing the bioeconomy agenda (Priefer et al., 2017).

2.3. Levels

Bioeconomy pathways are realised through decisions and policy implementation at political levels ranging from local to global, with considerable variation in terms of effectiveness and impacts. Sub-national analysis is valuable since there are logistical and social advantages in anchoring biomass supply locally (Devaney et al., 2017). National-level institutions for bioeconomy may nevertheless be seen as crucial and indeed over forty countries have adopted bioeconomy strategies (Fund et al., 2015; Dubois & Juan, 2016; Van Lancker et al., 2016; Biber-Freudenberger & Börner, 2017). A lack of national leadership can leave bioeconomy development in a fragmented state with poor governance, which has been observed in the U.S. to some extent (Devaney & Iles, 2019). Yet there are also important potential benefits that accrue from pan-national linkages in relation to technology transfer, international trade, and regional cooperation (Johnson, 2017; Hoff et al., 2018). There remains considerable debate as to how to prioritise the different levels of political decision-making and policy implementation in pursuing different bioeconomy pathways. Consequently, the political level at which bioeconomy pathways are implemented is a useful empirical variable.

2.4. Governance

Each political level has quite different governance requirements that in turn affect the credibility and effectiveness of different bioeconomy pathways. There may also be considerable interaction across levels that affects the choice of pathways, requiring integrative and iterative approaches and multi-level governance (Geels, 2002; Turnheim et al., 2015). UNESCO (2016) defined governance as ‘structures and processes that are designed to ensure accountability, transparency, responsiveness, rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment, and broad-based participation.’

Governance issues arise from conflicts and controversies that have emerged around biomass use and international trade, including genetic modification, biodiversity, resource competition, the market power of multinational agri-businesses and the potential effects of land use change and intensification (Rosillo-Calle &Johnson, 2010; Gamborg et al., 2014; Olsson, 2016; Purkus, 2016). Reducing the risks posed by these challenges will require new governance mechanisms to support bioresource management and sustainable bio-industries (Wesseler et al., 2011; Darnhofer, 2015; El-Chichakli et al., 2016; Diaz-Chavez et al., 2016; Diaz-Chavez et al., 2020). Governance analysis can address alternative bioeconomy pathways (section 2.2) by identifying groups that have been poorly represented in the power structure (Aung et al., 2020).

International bioeconomy governance has largely been constrained to sectors (e.g. energy, forests, agriculture) whereas cross-cutting bioeconomy strategies tend to be at national level (von Braun & Birner, 2017; Bößner et al., 2021). For the EU, sustainability certification has been a key bioeconomy governance mechanism though implementation barriers are common (Majer et al., 2018). Globally, transnational sustainability certification efforts have faced pushback on national sovereignty grounds, while territorial or national alternatives have had credibility concerns (Vogelpohl, 2021).

3. Methodological approach and stakeholder engagement

The methodological approach included an initial scoping phase of literature review and informal discussions that also guided the conceptual framework elaborated in section 2. The next phase involved the design of stakeholder dialogues, including a pilot dialogue to test the design and identify key components. The third stage included the series of four stakeholder dialogues held in four countries across four continents (these are described in section 4 rather than in this section). The fourth stage involved analysis, comparison, and synthesis across the results of these dialogues.

3.1. Application of the conceptual framework through stakeholder dialogues

Despite a wide range of priorities, bioeconomy stakeholders tend to be interested in holistic transformation with social, economic, and ecological elements (Zeug et al., 2019). Drawing on the initial scoping phase, we conducted a pilot stakeholder dialogue in Tallinn, Estonia, with the aim to understand key components of bioeconomy pathways and visions (Canales et al., 2020a). We adopted a baseline concept similar to the sustainability scenario in climate assessments, namely Shared Socio-economic Pathway 1 (SSP1) (Riahi et al., 2017). Anchoring the stakeholder discussions in this way allowed a focus on broader bioeconomy characteristics rather than climate targets. The pilot dialogue indicated a need for: (a) clarification of the timeframe for bioeconomy pathways; (b) a mixed stakeholder composition for breakout groups; and (c) a perspective combining national and regional aims (Canales et al., 2020a).

3.2. Identification of key components in bioeconomy pathways

It was important to identify the nature of transformations envisioned for the bioeconomy in the long-term, i.e. 2050, alongside the need for milestones in 2030. In this way a focus could be maintained on the broadly transformative nature of the bioeconomy while relating to ongoing activities and strategies in different countries and regions connected to the 2030 Agenda. Below we outline some key components identified from the literature review and pilot dialogue that we used to structure and analyse the dialogues: adding value to biomass resources; bioeconomy clusters, landscape transitions; and aligning sectoral strategies. These components are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather were chosen to facilitate constructive discussions that could connect to different local issues but also reveal commonalities and differences across both territorial regions and political levels.

3.2.1. Adding value to biomass resources

The transformation from bioresources to value-added products, processes and services can be measured and analysed and for its wider societal contributions (Virchow et al., 2016). Crops such as quinoa, for example, offer a wide range of potential products that cross different end-use sectors and could bring added value in both domestic and export markets (Canales et al., 2019b). Circular economy concepts are also relevant, such as cascading of woody biomass, in which high value uses are prioritised in applications to the extent feasible (Olsson et al., 2018). Where foreign investment is involved, access and benefit regimes developed under CBD/Nagoya protocol could be linked to bio-prospecting to support bioeconomy innovation (Virgin & Morris, 2016; UNDP, 2018).

3.2.2. Bioeconomy clusters

Innovation theory noted the importance of clustering activity to gather critical mass for further development (Porter, 2000). Unlike manufacturing inputs and non-renewable resources that are often concentrated and homogenous, biomass resources are diffuse and heterogeneous. The notion of clusters can be extended to ‘bioeconomy regions’ that stimulate development at sub-national level. The term cluster is preferred to avoid confusion with economic regions (e.g. EU, ASEAN). Furthermore, supply of biomass is not necessarily local or regional; a cluster may be more related to innovation, knowledge nodes, service centres, and digital platforms.

A bioeconomy cluster may serve as a cross-cutting hub for connecting resources and innovation strategies (Siebert et al., 2018; Bezama et al., 2019). Global bioeconomy development can proceed as ‘clusters of clusters’ since many different sectors and applications are involved across different world regions (Kircher, 2012). Key ingredients in clusters or regions may relate to the resource base, supply chain and networks (Bezama et al., 2019). In terms of stakeholders and governance, greater inclusion of citizen groups – as opposed to a focus on experts, government, and industry – has been noted as a valuable means of anchoring and connecting these clusters (Lier et al., 2019).

3.2.3. Landscape transitions

A given physical landscape or territory is sometimes seen as the most relevant to grasp bioeconomy sustainability. Territorial bioeconomy systems normally emphasise local and/or bounded biomass supply areas; however, territorial bioeconomy analysis is limited by the complexities of social-ecological systems (Wohlfahrt et al., 2019). Research on rural transformation (Fielding et al., 2015) and ecosystems services across landscapes (Gasparatos et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2018; Mudombi et al., 2018) also supports this perspective. Landscape issues are often connected to the bioecology vision that considers sustainability goals related to biodiversity, land use and ecosystem services (Bugge et al., 2016; Mudombi et al., 2018; Vivien et al., 2019). Multifunctional landscapes and transformations between natural and managed lands are of particular interest (Mbow et al., 2015).

3.2.4. Aligning sectoral strategies

Perspectives on sustainability of bioeconomy pathways tend to vary considerably across stakeholders in particular sectors, such as energy, forestry, or agriculture (Dietz et al., 2018; Heimann, 2019; Biber-Freudenberger et al., 2020). Some Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) do connect to particular sectors but more generally most SDGs rely significantly on bio-based resources and imply a transformative role for the bioeconomy (Müller et al., 2015). Regional bioeconomy strategies such as the recently updated EU strategy (EC, 2018) suggest significant opportunities to connect with key SDG targets (Ronzon & Sanjuán, 2020). Sectoral strategies can be better aligned through analysing impacts at different levels and uses of biomass (Johnson & Virgin, 2010). For example, heavy reliance on traditional biomass in developing countries has significant impacts across levels (household, community, national) and sectors (energy, forestry, water, health) as well as significant climate implications; a cross-cutting bioeconomy perspective helps to identify synergies and trade-offs (Johnson et al., 2020). Integrated Assessment modelling has been used to explore SDG linkages between land, energy, and health for traditional biomass use in eastern Africa (Bailis, 2019; Van de Ven et al., 2019).

3.3. Stakeholder dialogue locations and context

The global scope of our analysis and the wide thematic scope of the bioeconomy required complementarity in research design and choice of cases. The four dialogues as a group were designed to look across different economic sectors, political levels (i.e. regional, national, sub-national), and world regions. In order to provide additional emphasis on the global South, we chose one each in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, along with one in Europe (Sweden). Stakeholder discussions and strategy development on bioeconomy tend towards a national perspective (Fund et al., 2015; Dubois & Juan, 2016). By choosing countries with fairly open economies and a reasonable degree of integration, our design allowed consideration for regional linkages even when the focus was more local or national. Since we aimed to capture linkages to local, regional, and global governance issues, the cases differed in the political level that was emphasised. The dialogue in Sweden was anchored in local issues, the ones in Colombia and Rwanda emphasised national level with some sub-national implications, and the dialogue in Thailand had an added regional focus for Southeast Asia. The background and context for each case is described briefly below.

3.3.1. Sweden

According to an analysis by the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis the Swedish bioeconomy made up 7.1% of Swedish gross domestic product (GDP) but almost 23% of total exports. The forest sector makes up about two-thirds of the Swedish bioeconomy and the bioeconomy debate in Sweden has thus been largely centred around opportunities for forest-based products to replace fossil alternatives in the materials, chemicals, and energy sectors (Skånberg et al., 2016). However, agriculture and food sectors are quite important in some areas, especially in southern Sweden. Skåne, Sweden’s southernmost county, has the third largest bioeconomy among the 21 Swedish counties, primarily from food and agriculture (Statistics Sweden, 2018) . The bioeconomy in Skåne is thus quite different in composition than that of the country as a whole: focusing on this region offered an opportunity to highlight parts of the Swedish bioeconomy that hitherto received less attention. By focusing on food and agriculture, the dialogue also offered some commonalities with the bioeconomy in the global South, where food and agriculture are normally of considerable importance. Finally, the local focus in this case also highlighted linkages between local, national, and global bioeconomy issues and strategies for a small open economy such as Sweden.

3.3.2. Colombia

Colombia is among the most biodiverse countries in the world, with a variety of climates and biomes, a diversity of species, and a rich complexity of ecosystems. Colombia has emerged in recent years from a long internal conflict and part of the recovery process includes bringing new economic opportunities to its citizens. The official bioeconomy definition within the Green Growth Policy is an ‘economy that efficiently and sustainably manages biodiversity and biomass to generate new value-added products, processes and services based on knowledge and innovation’ (Consejo Nacional de Política y Economía Social, 2018, p. 26). The objectives include fostering rural development, including regions affected by conflict (Henry et al., 2017; López Hernández & Schanz, 2019). The Green Growth policy also highlights the need to measure the contribution of the bioeconomy to GDP and job creation, as well as circular economy. In line with the Green Growth policy, Colombia has been engaged since 2019 in developing a national bioeconomy strategy that is to be implemented starting in 2021. The choice of Colombia among our cases and dialogues allowed consideration of tangible issues in reconciling growth and development with biodiversity and conservation aims in bioeconomy pathways. In this way, we further deepened national level analysis across the three bioeconomy visions, while also facilitating consideration for differences in priorities at sub-national level that arise in a country characterised by a high level of physical and economic diversity.

3.3.3. Rwanda

Rwanda is a small densely populated country in East Africa that has experienced considerable growth and development during the last two decades. In 2011, Rwanda launched a Green Growth and Climate Resilience Strategy (2011–2050), with some linkages to regional and international bioeconomy collaboration in eastern Africa (Virgin et al., 2016). A key issue has been fostering more sustainable use of woody biomass, which is used by nearly all households for cooking and accounts for more than 85% of the total energy mix (MININFRA, 2018; World Bank, 2017). A major concern in Rwanda and throughout eastern Africa is the overharvesting of woody biomass that leads to land degradation and GHG emissions (Bailis et al., 2015). For addressing these concerns, a nationwide Biomass Energy Strategy (BEST) is currently under development, to ensure biomass energy supply while supporting ecological conservation, such as agroforestry and restoration of degraded lands. The BEST will replace an earlier master plan for sustainable wood and charcoal supply (Drigo & Nzabanita, 2011; Drigo et al., 2013). The strategy for use of woody biomass in the context of long-term sustainability and resilience offered a useful focus for the bioeconomy dialogue in Rwanda that was also complementary to the other cases. This focus facilitated a stakeholder-based analysis linking a particular sector (household energy) to changes in a constrained physical landscape.

3.3.4. Thailand

Thailand has major bioeconomy development goals at the national level and is among those Asian nations with a well-articulated bioeconomy strategy. The Thai strategy recognises the role of key agricultural resources, especially cassava and sugarcane, as building blocks for developing the industrial bioeconomy through the application of biotechnology (Government of Thailand, 2012; Lakapunrat & Thapa, 2017). In parallel, Thailand is in its nascent stages of developing a strategy for an artisanal or community-based bioeconomy at the national level that promotes business development based on local knowledge and biodiversity conservation (Aung et al., 2020). Another characteristic of the Thai bioeconomy relates to its role as a major exporter and as a motor for economic growth and development in the ASEAN region. The high level of infrastructure allows for high-added-value that can be linked to the knowledge-based bioeconomy, offering some comparative advantages compared to ASEAN neighbours. The bioeconomy dialogue in Thailand thus facilitated analysis on linkages between national and regional strategies and perspectives.

3.4. Design of dialogues and choice of participants

Gathering stakeholder input is important for analysing bioeconomy pathways as well as in monitoring the sustainability of the bioeconomy (Zeug et al., 2019). The dialogue design and format was tailored somewhat in order to be contextually relevant and tangible for the stakeholders in the different countries and regions, and we relied on a pilot dialogue in refining the approach (Canales et al., 2020a). The choice of stakeholders was by necessity based on existing networks of the research team and partners, and thus was not randomised. For each dialogue, stakeholders were chosen to represent some diversity of views by choosing from among three main groups: (1) researchers and analysts; (2) NGOs or civil society groups; and (3) private sector or trade groups. We aimed for an overall size of twenty participants, which also made it possible to divide into smaller breakout discussions as well. While these subjective choices result in some limitations to the approach, they also allowed flexibility in capturing socio-cultural context. Our reliance on four different country cases and inclusion of some international stakeholders in the dialogues thus partially addressed a limitation noted in past stakeholder-based research in which dialogues are focused in one country only (Zeug et al., 2019).

3.5. Implementation of stakeholder/policy dialogues

For each case analysis and the associated dialogue, stakeholders identified visions and potential pathways in a participatory manner, guided by regional and contextual variations on the basic theme of transitioning to a sustainable bioeconomy by 2050. This participatory process helped to identify divergent and convergent stages of transformative knowledge development with respect to bioeconomy visions and pathways. We avoided presenting too much information beforehand that might bias their views, in order to allow alternative bioeconomy pathways to emerge from the discussions. However, we used the existing research literature to structure the elicitation process by providing definitions and bounding conditions that guided moderators during the dialogues. We conducted the dialogues in the local language where feasible, i.e. Spanish in Colombia and Swedish in Sweden. In Thailand and Rwanda, inclusion of some international actors made it appropriate to run the dialogues in English. Again, this mixed or tailored approach allowed us to capture additional socio-cultural context while also combining national and international perspectives (Canales et al., 2020a).

4. Results for stakeholder dialogues and bioeconomy pathways

The synthesis and integration of key results from the four dialogues with respect to bioeconomy pathways are described below, while the appendix to this paper provides the supplementary material and/or background details for the four dialogues. Each dialogue had an assigned set of facilitators and rapporteurs both for the main discussions and breakout group discussions, and the inputs from stakeholders were organised and documented in separate reports, with one for each of the four dialogues. More complete details are thus available in the four underlying reports (Bailis & Ogeya, 2020; Canales et al., 2020b; Canales & Gomez, 2020; Gladkykh et al., 2020; Olsson et al., 2020). The discussion below thus emphasises the key elements and the results from applying the analytical framework outlined in section 3. The context provided in the appendices along with the discussion below also illustrate how the dialogues, when taken together, address some complementary aspects of bioeconomy visions and pathways rather than necessarily aiming to duplicate the same issues or categories. In this way the four dialogues, when taken together, also provide some insights for future research efforts, as taken up further in section 5. Each of the four cases is discussed in turn below, for the four elements or components of bioeconomy pathways.

4.1. Sweden

The stakeholders were asked to extend the Foodhills’ vision towards a sustainable bioeconomy for the wider Öresund region, including how the Foodhills approach could contribute to a sustainable bioeconomy by 2050 (Olsson et al., 2020). The overall orientation of the participants was towards the bioresource and bioecology visions of bioeconomy, although some of the ideas would require significant investment in new biotechnology.

In this dialogue the pathway component of products and resources emphasised changing diets away from meat and towards protein derived from vegetables, fish, and insects, including high-tech plant breeding efforts towards improving taste. From a market perspective, the efforts should focus on niche markets for aging populations, recognising the role of food in preventive healthcare and growing prevalence of conditions such as lactose-intolerance. In terms of agricultural practices, no-tillage and multi-cropping shall be extensive. There was also an emphasis on achieving fully circular resource flows, minimal external energy inputs and a zero-carbon footprint.

The bioeconomy cluster in this case is centred in the Swedish-Danish Öresund region, and the associated innovation cluster in Bjuv for Foodhills aims to be known as the ‘Food Valley of Sweden.’ Considering that most bioeconomy clusters in the Nordic countries are forest-based, this case is instructive for the agriculture-based bioeconomy in the Nordic region. The need to consider logistics for products and residual flows emerged as an important element for achieving the desired pathways.

As Skåne and the Öresund region are already predominantly agriculture areas, landscape transitions are somewhat limited, but stakeholders highlighted the need to plan for markets extending into other ecological/climatic zones, recognising that both open-land agriculture and greenhouse production may expand, and may include ‘tropical’ products under some scenarios. The emphasis on ecological practices such as no-tillage and multi-cropping implies some longer-term landscape transitions.

For sectoral strategies alignment, the most prominent linkage identified is with the climate objectives associated with changing diets. Other alignment is expected between food products and sustainable packaging to reduce waste, with agricultural waste to be integrated to biodiesel and bioplastics, and finally to ensure that transport is accomplished with electric vehicles.

Governance mechanisms proposed for the pathways emphasised liaising with consumers, and to address social tensions in the region. For consumers, one key pathway component was to educate people on the value of the ‘green premium’ for personal health and well-being as well as climate, including through partnerships between universities and key producers, such as the agricultural cooperative Lantmännen. These also needs to consider the social tensions generated by the increased [in]migration in the region, which could be addressed by highlighting commonalities around food and its role as ‘social adhesive’.

4.2. Colombia

The structure of the dialogue in Colombia offered an opportunity to look into more detail in particular sectors, for which the visions vary and tend to co-exist, depending on resource endowments, technology already developed, and societal needs (Canales & Gomez, 2020). For agriculture, biochemistry, and bioenergy sectors, most characteristics related to the bioresources and bioecology visions. For biopharmaceuticals, the vision leans towards a biotechnology focus. The key components are described below, based on pathways identified during the workshop.

For products and resources, it is widely expected that Colombia’s high biodiversity provides the assets to transform raw materials into high-value added products, through application of technology and innovation. In agriculture, the emphasis was on applying biotechnologies in primary production; while in bioenergy, the emphasis was in working mainly based on residual biomass from large industries (e.g. livestock, poultry, urban waste). Biochemistry and biopharmaceuticals sectors’ development in Colombia is still limited, so one of the first steps suggested was to promote further research, including bioprospecting. Another element common to all sectors is the emphasis in maximising circularity and cascading uses of residual biomass. There was also particular interest from the agriculture and the biochemistry sector to generate inclusivity and ethical business models including local communities. However, this was less prominent in the other two sectors.

In terms of bioeconomy clusters, physical proximity to biomass supply was highlighted, with emphasis on developing sub-national technology hubs as close as possible to the areas of primary production. This can be explained by the current lack of physical infrastructure for processing plants and roads to be able to fully mobilise biomass; and the knowledge base infrastructure (e.g. information systems), particularly from those regions where the resource endowment is high, but levels of development are low.

The component of landscape transitions was less discussed in spite of the fact that Colombia’s high biodiversity was viewed as the foundation for the bioeconomy. Whereas the development of sustainability standards for product development was discussed, competition of biological resources for different sectors was not emphasised, nor how bioeconomy development could affect land use change. The assumption is that biodiversity use for economic competitiveness under the bioeconomy will guarantee its conservation. Such an approach could risk over-exploitation of commercial varieties and/or biodiversity losses among less commercial varieties (Canales et al., 2020b).

With respect to sectoral strategies alignment, whereas alignment with 2030 SDG goals was mentioned, the discussion at national levels remained somehow siloed. This responds to the level of development of bioeconomy policies and strategies within Colombia, in which visions and pathways are still under construction, and when implementation is still yet to start. Nevertheless, potential synergies or trade-off could arise from the competition of agriculture resources, including residual biomass for other sectors. Trade-offs between bioeconomy and employment were not mentioned during the sectoral or national level discussions, even though best practices in agriculture such as precision farming techniques would reduce the number of low-skilled jobs, while creating demand for high-skilled jobs.

All these components also generate various needs for improved governance at different levels. Although the dialogue emphasised national level issues, bioeconomy clearly has significant linkages to sub-national level in Colombia: the physical diversity in the country in combination with lingering impacts in post-conflict areas means that some of the most biodiverse areas are in greater need of the investment and infrastructure that bioeconomy development might bring (Henry et al., 2017; Canales & Gomez, 2020). At national level, coordination mechanisms are needed to integrate bioeconomy within sectoral strategic planning, identify priority resources, and align public policies.

4.3. Rwanda

The stakeholder dialogue in Rwanda considered a sustainable bioeconomy pathway for woody biomass use and examined the future ecological and environmental implications in quantitative terms by evaluating the changing patterns of three inter-related variables or factors: woody biomass extraction, technology adoption, and land use. The sustainable bioeconomy pathway was compared to the baseline case by using the Long-Range Energy Alternatives Planning (LEAP) tool, which thereby allowed consideration for linkages unfolding over time between woody biomass use, end-use technology penetration and land use change (Bailis & Ogeya, 2020).

In terms of products and resources, the biobased options included firewood, charcoal, ethanol, briquettes, pellets, and biogas. The focus in this case was on shifts in applications and end-use of biomass resources as opposed to developing new products. However, the key difference from traditional energy planning analyses was the increased emphasis on the implications of alternative pathways for other sectors and especially for changing land use and ecology. In this respect, stakeholders were thereby encouraged to use a bioeconomy lens rather than an energy lens with respect to the value of biomass resources and the associated end-use products or applications.

With respect to bioeconomy clusters, the interpretation is somewhat different from more general bioeconomy analyses in that innovative management and best practice replication are in focus rather than networks or clusters of new initiatives. Within the LEAP framework, flows of biomass were evaluated in urban and rural settings, within the five sub-national provinces of Rwanda: Kigali, Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern. However, the stakeholders were interested in improving this feature by including cross-regional biomass trade, to capture exchange between surplus to deficit regions, in future iterations.

Landscape transitions were in considerable focus in this case/dialogue, based on estimations of biomass stocks from forests, plantations, agroforestry, degraded land, protected forests, and shrub land with different management practices. These transitions unfold over time as woody biomass is used more efficiently and land is freed up for other uses.

The exploration of an alternative pathway (i.e. the sustainable woody biomass pathway) facilitated some preliminary consideration of differing concepts for biomass and land use in Rwanda. In combining analysis of woody biomass with land use change and land-based resource accounting, the dialogue in Rwanda provided a means to explore and discuss sectoral strategies alignment, through the cross-sectoral intersections between energy, agriculture, and forestry (SEI, 2020).

In terms of governance and policy issues, the dialogue stimulated discussion among the stakeholders around other alternative pathways that might include regional biomass trade and greater integration of agricultural residues as a bioresource for household energy. An exploration of such pathways would in turn require future research in Rwanda to enhance baseline data using the forthcoming biomass demand survey report (2020) and to incorporate agri-based resources for pellet production, briquettes, and biogas as a plausible pathway. In this way, the Rwandan dialogue suggested a need to re-design the data analysis tools to facilitate cross regional bioresource trade in line with stakeholder perspectives (Bailis & Ogeya, 2020).

4.4. Thailand

As described in the Appendix, the stakeholders included not only those involved in national policy issues but also participants from civil society and non-governmental organisations. The group was extended to participants from several other Southeast Asian (ASEAN) countries, due not only to Thailand’s export-oriented economy but also the growing role of Thailand as a major force in bioeconomy development for the ASEAN region. The opportunity to include regional actors contributed to the aforementioned elements of the overall research design in which the four dialogues aim for a better understanding of linkages across political levels. The strong agricultural resource base in Thailand and ASEAN provided a foundation for the discussions. But the dialogue included break-out groups on socio-economic aspects and technology so as to consider cross-cutting technical, social, and economic issues alongside sectoral issues (Gladkykh et al., 2020).

Products and resources prioritised by the three break-out groups include those related to food and agriculture, and energy sectors. For agriculture, two distinctive preferences arose in terms of what could be considered as core within a bioeconomy. For two of the groups, products which ensure food security, while providing benefits to farmers (e.g. increase farmers’ incomes or reducing farmers’ poverty) were expected to define a successful bioeconomy; whereas for the biotechnological group, products that benefit small holder farmers’ wellbeing are not necessarily a core part of the bioeconomy, unlike public private partnerships (PPPs). In terms of technology, one of the groups suggested the need to have a combination of mechanised and traditional practices for agriculture. In addition, Renewable energy products for transport were also highlighted as strongly connected with bioeconomy, with emphasis on biofuels, renewable electricity, and [bio]hydrogen.

Because participants included representatives from other countries in the region, bioeconomy clusters were identified for Thailand at a national level as well for the [supra-national] regional ASEAN level. Decentralised agriculture and energy production was highlighted for both levels; while focusing on building up regional technological capacity in Southeast Asia. However, there were also concerns for the impact on farmers’ wellbeing from prioritising large-scale, vertical production systems, versus small-scale, horizontal ones.

Landscape transitions did not figure prominently beyond the agricultural sector, for which efficiency in land and water use were considered key in advancing the bioeconomy. This result was perhaps not surprising for a country with a fairly mature agricultural sector and associated technology infrastructure, but at the same time the interest for expanding rural development, improving sustainability standards and artisanal bioeconomy implies some potential landscape shifts that could be explored.

Cross-sectoral synergies were considered in various ways that exhibited the interest in aligning sectoral strategies. Among the most frequently mentioned was the relationship between agriculture and bioenergy and climate change, mainly from a mitigation perspective. In addition, interdisciplinarity was also highlighted as a basis for the development of a sustainable bioeconomy.

For governance of the bioeconomy, a multi-stakeholder platform including women and indigenous groups for decision-making was recommended for local, national, and regional levels; accompanied by a more top-down goal setting process. At supra-national level, coordination of bioeconomy strategies within ASEAN countries was encouraged, for knowledge sharing; and between Thailand and the global north for boosting research and development.

4.5. Comparison

When taken together, the dialogues helped to identify a range of common aims accompanied by differentiated priorities and defining issues; a comparative analysis is provided in Table 1 for the key bioeconomy pathway elements and the four dialogues. For products and resources, it is clear how the reality of the contexts, determined by a combination of resource endowments, infrastructure, and industrial development within the sectors analysed affects the priority for sectors and products. It was also clear that when particular sectors were in focus, discussions were much more focused compared with discussions accommodating nation-wide view.

Table 1. Summary of key pathway components in stakeholder dialogues

Dialogue Location	Level(s) in primary focus	Products and Resources	Bioeconomy Clusters	Landscape Transitions	Aligning sectoral strategies
Sweden	Local to sub-national Öresund	healthier, probiotic foods plant, insect & fish protein zero waste, circular flows	Foodhills – the Food Valley of Sweden Öresund region logistics for products and residual flows	increase of greenhouse-grown vegetables increase share of open land-grown vegetables	sustainable packaging for products to reduce waste product transport with electric vehicles biodiesel and bioplastics from agricultural waste climate change
Colombia	National	greater use of native species and biodiversity agricultural waste and circularity urban waste	develop sub-national technology hubs close to biomass sources lack of physical infrastructure (i.e. processing plants and roads) lack of knowledge-related infrastructure	biodiversity use vs. conservation sustainability standards for products high informality in land ownership	agriculture technification vs. rural employment agriculture and urban waste to energy potential competition of biomass resources among sectors
Rwanda	National	firewood and charcoal in urban and rural areas clean cookstoves solutions biogas	urban and rural settings within the five sub-national provinces of Rwanda	expanded role for agro-forestry and small plantations in firewood supply conservation of forest protected areas	greater cohesion between energy, agriculture, and forestry sectors
Thailand	National to regional (ASEAN)	food products biofuels, renewable electricity, and [bio]hydrogen	build regional technological capacity in Southeast Asia decentralised agriculture and energy production prioritising large-scale vertical systems vs. small-scale horizontal	land and water use efficiency in agriculture	aligning agriculture, energy, and climate change objectives

In the case of bioeconomy clusters, we identified that when logistic elements are challenging (e.g. absence or bad state of road infrastructure), proximity to the biomass supply remains as crucial as proximity to technological and innovation knowledge. These of course arise from realities in the global south, such as in Colombia, in which connectivity is not guaranteed nationwide, and where the inequalities between urban and rural are significant.

Even though all dialogues started from the premise of aiming to develop a sustainable bioeconomy, discussions on landscape transitions were somewhat limited in most cases, except in Rwanda, where a modelling tool could be used to consider land management options. However, sustainability elements connected to landscape changes can also discussed by considering the importance given to circular economy and adding value to waste, which was somewhat less explored in the dialogues.

Landscape transitions are also intertwined with the need to align sectoral strategies. Bringing a discussion from the different sectoral biomass needs could be used to identify synergies and trade-offs within landscapes and political levels in terms of biomass and other resources. In addition, most stakeholders also recognised that bioeconomy pathways were closely related with socio-economic conditions and the achievement of different SDGs. Our approach did not focus on SDGs per se but instead connected them to appropriate sectoral issues that arose in the discussions in terms of how they might be better aligned or integrated.

5. Discussion

As discussed in the previous section, stakeholders differed in the priorities and implementation mechanisms envisioned for application across the four components (Table 1). Although this qualitative work is not intended to be illustrative or representative in general terms, the results did suggest broad stakeholder interest for tangible progress in terms of market developments and sustainable land use while also recognising that bioeconomy development relates to broader sustainability transitions in key sectors, especially energy, agriculture, forestry, transport, and industry. The wide scope of the case studies incorporated in the dialogues also serves to remind that it may be appropriate to design bioeconomy pathways by moving outward from one main sector or application, as was the case in Rwanda (woody biomass) and Sweden (food processing), or can develop by looking across sectors from the outset, as was generally the case in Thailand and Colombia.

The approach in Rwanda was somewhat different than in Sweden or Colombia as it adopted a sectoral and national focus to highlight the relationship of bioeconomy strategies to a particular sector. Consequently, it was also more quantitative than the other dialogues as the sectoral focus facilitated a framing around how land and biomass would be used in alternative future pathways, and the relation between landscape transitions and energy sector shifts. (Bailis & Ogeya, 2020). The dialogue in Sweden somewhat analogously helped to show how a bioeconomy perspective supports value-added in the food processing sector while also downscaling the vision to local level (Olsson et al., 2020). These results are also related to the variations arising because our design accounted for the real-world context of bioresources and commodities in the different cases. Thus, the bioeconomy pathways envisioned could be a transformation of the existing pathway along particular dimensions, such as the case in Thailand where there was an emphasis on making the existing pathway more socially equitable and/or inclusive, i.e. a transformation along the social dimension of sustainability.

The comparison also helped to highlight different governance needs, with most stakeholders recognising the multi-level nature of the policy and governance issues involved and the need for clear institutional leadership, and collaboration guidelines. Issues regarding participation and representation are of special interest in the global south, where some groups have been historically marginalised and are likely to be left out of the bioeconomy planning process, unless their interests are addressed purposely. This tension was observed in the Thailand dialogue, in which there are questions about defining the role of large-scale private actors versus small-holder farmers. A related issue was highlighted in Colombia, in which not only the lack of infrastructure can represent a barrier to bioeconomy development, but also the uncertainty over land ownership or tenure, which is common in other countries of the global South. More generally, the dialogues, when taken together, revealed some key relations to the bioeconomy visions, as discussed further below.

5.1. Relation to bioeconomy visions

The three basic visions were reflected to differing degrees among the stakeholders although there was a tendency for the bioresource vision to serve as the main driver, with the bioecology vision complementing and the biotechnology vision viewed as a means rather than an end. The tendency to view biotechnology as responding to priorities set through societal preferences fits with the demand/pull model of innovation rather than supply/push. There was nevertheless strong support for investment in scientific research, suggesting to some extent that bioeconomy pathways still carry some uncertainties that require a certain level of classic research and development, as opposed to more policy-oriented research on issues related to deployment, implementation, and upscaling.

The local context in the Swedish dialogue facilitated emphasis on local ecology and better appreciation for resource efficiency and circular economy approaches, as part of a shift to sustainable food systems, a paradigm captured well in the ‘food valley’ concept. The resources and technology to implement this vision were recognised as critical factors for success although not forming the key drivers behind stakeholders’ visions.

The unique natural endowment in Colombia means that bioeconomy pathways tend towards the bioecology vision, while the emphasis on rural development and green growth in bioeconomy discussions brings their emerging strategy closer to the bioresource vision (Bugge et al., 2016). Yet there are sectors where biotechnology is critical, particularly pharmaceuticals, and here the linear model of biotechnology development was seen as important. Yet participants also recognised the need to take the cross-cutting view and for this reason the alignment of sectoral strategies emerged.

In Rwanda, the context for the three visions was somewhat different because of the emphasis on a particular end-use sector where the issues were concentrated (household biomass/energy). The approach facilitated a different perspective on the alternative pathways for woody biomass in that stakeholders could connect these pathways to changes in land use, which in turn would imply different modes of governance. Resource management and the Bioresources vision thereby drives the need for new conversion technologies across more diverse landscapes.

The key theme in Thailand dialogue arose on the social side, due in part to the fact that stakeholders from civil society and NGOs were included, whereas a strongly industrial bioeconomy pathway would tend not to reflect their views. The point here is to adapt the existing strategy to social aims, since it offers a model that has thus far been successful in economic terms but has not been broadly inclusive of actors at the downstream end of the value chain (Aung et al., 2020).

A description of highlights across the three bioeconomy visions is given in Table 2. The table has less instrumental value, but rather a more conceptual role, in illustrating the use of the three main bioeconomy visions from the literature as reference points; the framework here can be interpreted and shaped in different ways across different regions, levels and physical contexts, while still connecting to the overall scope of pathways that might be realised by these three visions. It can also be noted that the vision in some cases has cross-cutting implications, such as may be the case for Bioresources, where strategies across multiple sectors are developed, but in other cases may reflect more narrowly the view from a given sector (e.g. Pharmaceuticals) looking outwards, which is more likely to apply for the Biotechnology vision (Gladkykh et al., 2020). Thus, the description in the table offers a nuanced set of key highlights rather than a summary across the visions per se.

Table 2. Issues and highlights in relation to bioeconomy visions

Dialogue Location	Key Theme(s) in the dialogue	Biotechnology	Bioresources	Bioecology
Sweden (southern)	Circular bioeconomy for Food Production	Biotechnology needs dictated by sustainable bioeconomy aims rather than being drivers	Focus on developing biomass resources to full potential by well-integrated local supply chains	Resource efficiency and circular economy contribute to improved local ecology
Colombia	Aligning sectoral strategies	Emphasis on the linear model of biotechnology development based on investment in scientific research	Focus on differentiated territorial development based on variation in agroecological and socioeconomic conditions	Safeguarding of genetic material and protection of genetic resources but emphasising markets alongside conservation
Rwanda	Alternative pathways for woody biomass use	New technologies for conversion in combination with improved land use management systems	Shift from uncoordinated resource extraction to planning for long-term resource use and applications	Planning for conservation, sustainable land management and greater diversity in managed landscapes
Thailand	Inclusive Bioeconomy strategies	Strategic application of biotechnology targeting valued-added products for regional markets	Strategies for increased use of agricultural resources that offer improved income and livelihoods to farmers	Establish environmental sustainability criteria to be applied and compared across bioeconomy pathways

5.2. Limitations of the research

A number of limitations can be noted with this approach and the cases included here, in addition to the complications arising from the overall diversity of the subject matter. The heterogeneity of bio-based resource endowments and alternative bioeconomy pathways complicates the identification of commonalities that can serve as benchmarks for comparing different cases or pathways and measuring progress. Consequently, direct and definitive comparisons were somewhat difficult across the cases and our approach therefore was somewhat selective in using these four rather broad elements or components in characterising bioeconomy pathways.

A second limitation was practical in nature and is associated with limitations of time and funding. The selection of the participants had to be carried out in a somewhat subjective manner, based on existing networks and partners, as we could not conduct a thorough compilation and analysis of stakeholders. Whilst the results cannot be seen as representative of the many different stakeholders, sectors, or bioeconomy issues, they are nevertheless indicative of the broader societal context in which the dialogues took place. We thereby incorporated the local context into the design of the study while not aiming to represent all the different bioeconomy components that might be needed, for example, when drafting a national bioeconomy strategy. Future research efforts could include such a phase of stakeholder investigation in order to improve the transdisciplinary character of the results through a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge co-production process.

A third limitation arises from the emphasis on connecting to the current policy context in each case and for different levels or issues, as opposed to constructing an independent research experiment. The particular emphasis in each case – in Rwanda, on a specific product or end use; in Colombia, on a national strategy process; in Sweden, on a particular sector; and in Thailand, on inclusiveness – facilitated instead a deeper dive or a broadening, tailored to the particular perspectives and levels. For this reason, the overall dialogue design was seen as achieving complementarity and providing some initial indications of the multi-level nature of bioeconomy pathways and governance. Future research aimed more at comparative assessment could focus on specific elements or cross-sector issues by choosing dialogues or cases in a different manner.

The divergent nature of the stakeholders’ own visions of bioeconomy meant that the ability to unite behind shared visions was somewhat limited across the dialogues, with the exception of Rwanda which had an explicit focus on woody biomass. The full cross-cutting approach was therefore provided by the dialogue facilitators to some extent, in the sense that we aimed to guide the participants and highlight those aspects that crossed sectors and levels and added value beyond more traditional analyses of bio-based resource endowments and applications. Consequently, there could be scope to introduce more explicit research questions and approaches to explicitly target stakeholders capacity and willingness to adopt the cross-cutting view on bioeconomy in setting priorities for bioeconomy pathways and their governance.

6. Conclusions

This research aimed to identify and analyse the relation between bioeconomy visions and pathways and their governance across different world regions and political levels. We applied a qualitative stakeholder-based approach through dialogues conducted in four countries across four world regions, with particular emphasis on the global South (Africa, Asia, Latin America) where the priorities and debates on bioeconomy can differ significantly from those in the global North (EU and OECD countries). The dialogues employed a similar methodology at the general level of focusing on bioeconomy visions and the pathways for implementation to 2050, but we varied the application to fit with the different socio-economic contexts, resource endowments and political priorities as well as to address the relation to different sectoral issues and institutional relationships. Our contribution to the research literature on bioeconomy pathways is thus grounded in understanding key strategic issues across different sectors, socio-cultural contexts and resource endowments so that more effective and widely applicable multi-level governance mechanisms might be identified.

We found that stakeholders expressed beliefs that were consistent with the three bioeconomy visions in varying degrees. There was some emphasis on the bioresource vision, especially in the three dialogues in the global South, while bioecology vision was seen as complementary, and the biotechnology vision was viewed as the means of implementation rather than being an aim or a driver. These visions did affect the prioritisation of measures and policies and thus the bioeconomy pathways that were envisioned or preferred, and thereby revealed some tensions among stakeholders between pathways drawing on insights from particular sectors versus pathways that arise from cross-cutting perspectives. Since participants were chosen through existing networks based on the conceptual framework that was adopted, our research was not intended to be representative of the views of all bioeconomy stakeholders in these locations or globally. Future research could develop more specific questions and approaches across a broader group of stakeholders or alternatively could consider in more detail some of the relationships identified in terms of different bioeconomy visions and how they lead to different pathways.

The results of the dialogues suggest that a cross-cutting bioeconomy perspective offers a useful lens for stakeholders in envisioning alternative pathways to sustainable futures and identifying tangible approaches for implementation. The dialogues facilitated the identification and characterisation of some broadly relevant components of the long-term transformations required for a sustainable bioeconomy: products and resources, cross-sector linkages, bioeconomy clusters, and landscape transitions. These components are useful in framing bioeconomy discussions as they can in principle play a valuable role in connecting different levels from local to regional level as well as stimulating ideas for measures and actions aimed at innovation and improved valued-added. Taken together, the dialogues enabled the identification of commonalities in bioeconomy visions and pathways across different levels of development, biophysical resource bases, and socio-economic conditions.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the article reviewers for valuable comments and the journal/issue editors for guidance.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

Financial support was provided through Vinnova (Sweden) and the SEI initiative on Governing Bioeconomy Pathways, which is funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation agency [Styrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete] (SIDA) but neither funder was involved in the choice of topics or in the conduct of the research. Any opinions expressed are attributable only to the authors.

Notes on contributors

Francis Xavier Johnson

Francis X. Johnson is a Senior Research Fellow with Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and currently leads the SEI initiative on Governing Bioeconomy Pathways. He has over 20 years of experience in socio-economic and environmental analyses on bioenergy, bioeconomy and climate mitigation. He has PhD in Climate and Energy studies from KTH Royal Institute of Technology. He has served as advisor or expert with UNIDO, UNESCO/SCOPE, FAO and the European Commission. He was a lead author for the IPCC special report on Climate Change and Land.

Nella Canales

Nella Canales is a Research Fellow with Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). She has several years of experience in work on climate finance, adaptation, bioeconomy and sustainable development in Latin America, particularly in Andean countries. She has conducted research in Bolivia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Peru, Uganda, and Vietnam. She holds a Master of Science in Climate Change and Development from the University of Sussex and the Institute of Development Studies (Brighton, UK).

Matthew Fielding

Matthew Fielding is a project manager and communications professional at Stockholm Environment Institute SEI. He is Acting Head of Project Communications and Senior Advisor to SIANI (Swedish International Agriculture Network Initiative). He has 15 years of experience working in environment and sustainable development as a researcher, project manager and communicator across 5 continents. He holds an MSc in Development Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, England.

Ganna Gladkykh

Ganna Gladkykh is a Clean Energy Transition Expert at the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA). She was a PhD fellow in the ITN Marie Curie Project in Economics and Sustainability Science and completed a joint PhD degree at the University of Clermont Auvergne and the University of Iceland. She was a visiting researcher with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) during 2019.

May Thazin Aung

May Thazin Aung was a Research Associate with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Asia centre in Bangkok, Thailand and is currently a researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development. She has been researching environmental issues related to food, water and energy in Southeast Asia and has extensive experience with participatory stakeholder approaches, with recent focus on bioeconomy strategies in Thailand.

Rob Bailis

Rob Bailis is a senior scientist with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) US centre. His research focuses on the relationships between energy, social welfare, and environmental change in developing countries. He is also interested in social impact assessment and life-cycle approaches to help understand the implications of increased reliance on non-traditional forms of bioenergy in both developed and developing nations. He has a PhD in Energy and Resources from the University of California, Berkeley.

Mbeo Ogeya

Mbeo Ogeya is a Research Fellow at the SEI Africa centre in Nairobi and is currently pursuing a PhD at Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology. He has over 10 years of research experience in renewable energy technologies and systems modelling, with extensive skills in LEAP energy systems modelling, engineering design, bioenergy, land use and energy efficiency. He has worked as an energy consultant, mentor and national policy advisor.

Olle Olsson

Olle Olsson is a Senior Research Fellow with Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and Team Leader for Energy and Industry Transitions. He has extensive experience in the forestry and bioenergy sectors in the Nordic countries. He has a PhD in Forest Resource Management from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. He recently led an IEA study on Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and is co-leading the SEI initiative on Gridless Transitions.