The use of technological innovation in bio-based industries to foster growth in the bioeconomy: a South African perspective

Abstract

Several countries around the world are taking advantage of emerging technologies to leverage the use of natural resources to develop and grow bio-based industries. As a result, these activities have become the backbone of bioeconomy-growth strategies in the developing world. Adoption of the concepts and technological aspects of this facet of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) across government, academia, and industry has fostered innovation in the health, agricultural, and manufacturing sectors. However, the relationship between the technological catalysis of innovation and the bioeconomy from the perspective of a developing country has been left unexplored. In this context, this review explores the contribution of technological advances toward a sustainable, valuable bioeconomy and the current policy mandates. We focus our attention on South Africa because the country has a holistic, well-defined bioeconomy strategy that is consistent with the conditions of developed nations more generally. The review suggests that developing countries could adopt a multidisciplinary approach to designing their bioeconomy strategies. We further assert that developing holistic strategies that address the recent COVID-19 pandemic and potential future world crises could be beneficial in achieving sustainable development goals.

Keywords:

• Bio-based products
• innovation
• policy
• South Africa
• sustainability

Introduction

Environmental degradation is one of the world’s persistent challenges (Bugge, Hansen, and Klitkou 2016). Both as a driver and consequence of human-made biospheric damage, sources of harm have undermined the capacity to meet ecological and socioeconomic needs (Chu and Karr 2017). Certainly, global warming and climate change, loss of the ozone layer, extinction of biodiversity, soil erosion and loss arable of land, air and water pollution; disappearing forests, increasing salinity and desertification, depletion of mineral resources, and water scarcity are the cumulative consequences of human action (Shah 2008; Chu and Karr 2017). Sadly, the extent of the environmental challenges facing the planet remained mostly obscure until the first Earth Day which was commemorated 53 years ago (Thompson 2020). Since then, most governments have prioritized sustainability in the broader context of production and consumption (Ballhorn 2005; Mensah 2019). As sustainable development becomes an obligation rather than an option, a new concept has emerged – the bioeconomy (also called the bio-based economy) (Aguilar, Twardowski, and Wohlgemuth 2019; Calicioglu and Bogdanski 2021).

Upon recognizing the potential of the bioeconomy, the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) became pioneering multinational organizations in the development of a global framework for these activities (von Braun 2014; Duquenne et al. 2020). On the national front, Germany, Australia, Finland, France, Malaysia, Spain, Sweden, the United States, and the western Nordic countries (Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Iceland) have developed national bioeconomy strategies and integrated them into their environmental, scientific, and economic policies (Priefer and Meyer 2019). Similarly, South Africa has emerged as one of the few African countries with an integrated bioeconomy strategy (Bambo and Pouris 2020). The South African Department of Science and Technology defines the bioeconomy as “activities that make use of bioinnovations, based on biological sources, materials and processes to generate sustainable economic, social and environmental development” (DST 2013).

The European Commission describes the bioeconomy as the knowledge-based “production of renewable biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value-added products, such as food, feed, bio-based products, and bioenergy” (Gawel, Pannicke, and Hagemann 2019). Globally, the bioeconomy addresses certain environmental, ecological, and socioeconomic sustainability challenges (Gawel, Pannicke, and Hagemann 2019; Stark et al. 2022). In line with international competitiveness, South Africa’s national bioeconomy strategy (NBS) seeks to enhance food security, to create more sustainable jobs, and to facilitate a greener provisioning system as the country shifts toward a low-carbon economy (Ting and Philp 2018; Bambo and Pouris 2020). Generally speaking, bioeconomy strategies seek to meet certain targets of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (e.g., Goal 7 – Affordable and Clean Energy) (Figure 1) (Linser and Lier 2020; Calicioglu and Bogdanski 2021). Due to overlap betweenkey aspects of the bioeconomy and the SDGs, particular aims of the South African bioeconomy are identical and/or complementary to those of the SDGs (Figure 1) (Heimann 2019).

Figure 1. Overlap of bioeconomy aspects and the sustainable development goals.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is defined as “the current and developing environment in which disruptive technologies and trends are changing the way modern people live and work” (Wigmore 2020). By introducing efficiency-focused technical solutions (i.e., low input/high yield systems), the emergence of the 4IR is in line with the drive toward a sustainable and inclusive bioeconomy (Nobre and Nobre 2018; WEF 2018). The advancement of technology in the 4IR has been and will likely continue to positively contribute toward bio-based economic development (Saudi et al. 2019; Hoosain, Paul, and Ramakrishna 2020). As these technologies become autonomously optimal, the energy, resources, and time required to produce bio-based products will be significantly reduced (DoMRE 2019; Papadopoulou, Loizou, and Chatzitheodoridis 2022). Thus, the 4IR innovation ecosystem will be critical for Africa’s engagement and ability to benefit from all aspects of indigenous knowledge-production systems on which the continent highly depends (Oguamanam 2022).

South Africa has yet to fully harness different components of the 4IR to stimulate and grow its bioeconomic initiatives (Poku, Birner, and Gupta 2018; Feleke et al. 2021; Oguntuase and Adu 2021). For example, as a result of the suboptimal functioning of the South African bioprocessing sector, a significant amount of waste (e.g., 9 million tonnes of agricultural waste per year) is generated, posing severe environmental threats (Rademeyer 2018; Virgin 2018). Nonetheless, the concept of bioeconomy in South Africa and other parts of Africa is fast gaining traction in a variety of settings, including institutional, scientific, and entrepreneurial spaces such as biofuel production for commercial airplanes (DST 2018; Gatune, Ozor, and Oriama 2021; Adetoyinbo et al. 2022). Cross-country collaborative efforts are adding a layer of investment, resources, and policy support as highlighted in the African Union’s Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want (Ylöstalo 2019; Teitelbaum, Boldt, and Patermann 2020). For example, South Africa, Namibia, Ghana, and Uganda have a political commitment toward the regional supply of biomass, agricultural byproducts, and sustainable management of biodiversity (Ngige 2022). This review highlights the growth and innovation in the South African bioeconomy as driven by the technological advancement of the 4IR.

With a bioeconomy strategy that has been active since 2001, South Africa can be a model country for other developing nations, especially in Africa. For the last two decades, the South African government and its departments have accelerated the use of technology to strengthen the country’s agricultural, health, and manufacturing sectors. As such, South Africa has a proven track record of the application of a variety of technologies to produce bio-based products and grow the bioeconomy. These contributions have been important in addressing some of the country’s biodiversity and sustainability challenges. However, these advancements have remained obscure in both academia and industry. Thus, this review seeks to describe and disseminate South Africa’s use of technological innovation in bio-based industries to foster growth in the bioeconomy.

Theoretical framework

Online search engines (i.e., University of Johannesburg All-Academic Search, Clarivate Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, and CiteSeer^x), together with direct website search, were used to carry out the literature-review search relevant to the bioeconomy (1998–2022). All the reviewed official documents explicitly focused on the bioeconomy, bio-based products, and the use of technology in a bio-based economy. The following searches were conducted in English using various keyword combinations:

• Object: “Technology” OR “Fourth Industrial Revolution” OR “Bioeconomy” OR “Bio-based AND Products” OR “Bioeconomy Policy” OR “Green Economy”

• Adjective: “Sustainable” OR “Innovative” OR “Development”

• Place: “South Africa” OR “Developing Country”

From a developing country perspective, the impact of the role of technology within the 4IR informed the choice of the selected thematic areas (i.e., bioeconomic industries): agriculture, biomanufacturing, and healthcare. Furthermore, the selected thematic areas were significantly interconnected on ecological, geopolitical, and socioeconomic levels as indicated in other studies (Beluhova-Uzunova, Shishkova, and Ivanova 2019; Muizniece et al. 2020). However, the primary focus of the majority of these studies was on high-income regions such as the EU, China, and the United States rather than low-income regions (Konstantinis et al. 2018; Wei, Luo, et al. 2022). As with many other developing countries, agriculture is one of South Africa’s largest sectors and thus has the greatest impact on the Earth’s ecosystems, environment, and biodiversity (Shah 2008; Ortiz et al. 2021).

Similarly, manufacturing activities related to the traditional economy have been linked to negative effects on the environment such as air, water, and land pollution; toxic waste accumulation; depletion of natural resources; and rise in pollution-related chronic diseases (Manisalidis et al. 2020; Siddiqua, Hahladakis, and Al-Attiya 2022). Thus, from this outlook, the impact on mortality and human health in low-income areas is a major concern (Lelieveld et al. 2020; Fuller et al. 2022). Neglecting health hazards that threaten the public’s well-being is a violation of human rights (Thoms and Ron 2007; Nampewo, Mike, and Wolff 2022). In this vein, a holistic technology approach to address challenges in the agricultural, manufacturing, and healthcare sectors has become an urgent and necessary consideration in discussing aspects of the bioeconomy in the context of a developing country.

The role of technology in bioeconomic industries

In the context of the bioeconomy, the 4IR has a direct impact on three technological concepts: a biotechnology concept (the creation of jobs and economic growth through research and commercialization of biotechnologies), a bioresource concept (transformation and enhancement of biological raw materials); and a bioecology concept (preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, waste recycling, and waste management) (Bößner, Johnson, and Shawoo 2020). Thus, the 4IR plays a crucial role in technological, organizational, and social innovation (El-Chichakli et al. 2016). For example, blockchain, smart grids, real-time monitoring stations, global position systems (GPS) for tracking movement, the Internet of Things (IoT), and sensors are all aimed at developing and enhancing the quality and efficiency of biological, economic, social, and environmental resources (D’Amico et al. 2022). The South African bioeconomy strategy in the 4IR innovation ecosystem is geared toward advancing the agricultural, biomanufacturing (industrial and environmental bioinnovation), and health-bioeconomic industries (DST 2013).

Bioeconomic industries (BEIs) describe industries that harvest, extract, and use biological raw materials in their production processes (Perez-Valdes et al. 2019). The collaboration of BEIs is essential at the local, regional, and national levels (Perez-Valdes et al. 2019). In the developed world, BEIs are often clustered to facilitate “industrial symbiosis” (Yazan, Romano, and Albino 2016), an organization that is characterized by an ecosystem in which industries and businesses share natural resources, byproducts such as biowaste, and production infrastructures for mutual economic, social, and environmental gains (Perez-Valdes et al. 2019). Thus, clustered BEIs provide social benefits (i.e., facilitation of sustainable resource use, job creation, minimization of emissions and waste) and economic benefits (i.e., knowledge sharing, shared infrastructure, and lower transaction costs) (Padmore and Gibson 1998; Hildebrandt et al. 2019).

Globally, the production of bio-based products in the bioeconomy is projected to grow to ZAR 7.60 trillion (US$412.8 billion) by 2024 (Bora 2020). It is estimated that the EU’s bioeconomy will support 8.2% of the bloc’s workforce, generating over €2.3 trillion (US$2.43 trillion) (Neill, O’Donoghue, and Stout 2020). In 2013, bio-based production in the United States had a total economic contribution of ZAR 3.79 trillion (US$205.86 billion) (Golden et al. 2015; BIO 2017). In the same year, BEIs contributed 4 million jobs to the American economy (Golden et al. 2015). To support bioinnovation initiatives, the South African government has invested over ZAR 1.5 billion (US$81.34 million) since the inception of the bioeconomy strategy (DST 2013, 2018). These investments have resulted in over 240 technology-based products and services, 20 patents, and approximately 1,000 jobs (DST 2013). To fast-track this progress, biotechnology-innovation centers were created and finally incorporated into the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) in 2010 (Jordaan and Jordaan 2010; DST 2013). Through its Innovation Fund, the TIA allows biotechnology-innovation centers to leverage government funding to develop critical commercialization and intellectual property-management skills (DST 2013).

Presently, companies, regulators, and consumers can examine and audit the impact that a sustainable supply chain has on the environment and the global bioeconomy using blockchain and automated databases (Paliwal, Chandra, and Sharma 2020; Higgins 2021). For example, an end-to-end blockchain-traceability platform for the diamond industry, DeBeer’s Tracr, is used to ensure traceability, authenticity, and accountability in the diamond trade value chain (Henderson 2020; Smits and Hulstijn 2020). Lean Data by Acumen uses mobile technology and standardized survey tools to collect high-quality data for accurate measurement and monitoring that complies with sustainability targets (Choda and Teladia 2018; Audette et al. 2021). Similarly, Sustainalytics provides a suite of environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) screening solutions. This includes third-party systems integration; ESG financial big data display and comparison; and the creation of databases, reports, and dashboards for use in investment analysis and decision-making (Wolf 2014; Filbeck, Filbeck, and Zhao 2019).

A Kenyan agricultural technology company, Synnefa, comprehensively applies artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and the IoT in its sustainable smallholder-farming operations (Jackson 2021; Machuka 2021). This allows for essential agricultural parameters such as humidity, temperature, and nutrients to be measured, monitored, and auto-adjusted using micro solar-powered sensors (Birch and Maurice 2020). Furthermore, Synnefa’s FarmCloud gives farmers access to a wide range of farm-management and optimization tools (e.g., remote pest and disease control, instant harvest-market access, function- and fault-detection alerts, and inventory management) (Machuka 2022). Similarly, Huawei Technologies launched several digital economy solutions such as Green 5G, a targeted combination of hardware and software, smart packaging, AI and cloud computing, solar-powered sound-monitoring systems, and upcycled phones, all of which are critical for sustainability in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry (Chen 2022; Hua 2022).

The contribution of the agricultural sector in the bioeconomy

South Africa boasts an internationally diverse and sophisticated commercial agricultural sector that is comprised of corporate and privately operated intensive and extensive crop-farming systems (Mbatha 2020; ITA 2021). At ZAR 1.68 trillion (US$91.25 billion), the agricultural sector accounted for 6.3% of the country’s total export earnings and contributed 2.8% to its overall gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 (IDC 2021; ITA 2021). The top five exports were citrus fruit (ZAR 27.81 billion) (US$1.51 billion), grapes (ZAR 10.47 billion) (US$568.69 million), pome fruits (e.g., apples, pears) (ZAR 9.49 billion) (US$515.13 million), wine (ZAR 9.31 billion) (US$505.36 million), and corn (ZAR 6.95 billion) (US$377.26 million) (DALR 2020). Equally, the agro-processing sector produces a variety of niche and high-end market products that contribute to the country’s GDP (Chitonge 2021). It is therefore unsurprising that the agricultural sector contributes more to the economy when compared to the biomanufacturing (industrial and environmental bioinnovation) and the health sectors (DST 2013; Moore 2021).

In this context, a bioeconomy strategy seeks to promote innovation in sustainable agricultural production and processing to improve health, to produce value-added products, to ensure food security, to create jobs and ecotourism, and to enhance nutrition (Goldblatt 2010). South Africa can capitalize on its biodiversity and capture niche markets by unlocking the value of indigenous crops that meet consumer demand for “natural” products (Mabhaudhi, Chimonyo, and Modi 2017). The potential indigenous products include Kalahari melon-seed oil, Bambara groundnut, monatin, honeybush tea, cowpea, fortified sorghum, and rooibos tea (Biénabe et al. 2011; Modi and Mabhaudhi 2016). To exploit the potential of these products, short- to medium-term strategic interventions are required (DST 2013). This necessitates a coordinating committee comprising key representatives of academia, government, and industry to advise, guide, and monitor agro-innovation (DST 2019; NACI 2020).

To date, several agricultural projects and initiatives have been launched. The National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS) supports biotechnology companies and projects that commercialize biocontrol products such as biofertilizers, biopesticides, and plant-growth regulators (DST 2013). These products reduce dependence on environmentally harmful chemical fertilizers and pesticides while promoting a competitive bio-based agricultural sector (Quinn et al. 2011; Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al. 2016). At the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) of South Africa, agricultural waste has been used to produce biocontrol compounds to mitigate fruit spoilage (Mewa-Ngongang et al. 2019). Biofertilizer manufacture and use are expanding in the South African organic farming market (Raimi, Adeleke, and Roopnarain 2017; Hawksworth 2018). Domestic companies such as Mycoroot, Agrispex, and Soygro use a wide range of effective bacteria, fungi, and algae to formulate nutrient-rich and environmentally-friendly biofertilizers and related products (Raimi, Roopnarain, and Adeleke 2021).

Investment in water-resource management and soil-conservation initiatives has been a critical element in implementing sustainable agriculture practices (WWF South Africa 2018; World Bank 2021). However, the lack of sound regulatory policies in wastewater reuse for irrigation in agricultural practices needs to be addressed (Dickin et al. 2016). By comparison, the EU follows strict regulations and has put in place rigorous policy measures for water reuse in irrigation and aquifer recharge (EU 2016). Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 25, 2020 on minimum requirements for water reuse, which is now part of the new Circular Economy Action Plan, will apply to all EU member states from June 26, 2023 (Suman and Toscano 2021). These developments are not surprising since water reuse in agriculture, especially untreated wastewater reuse can pose serious public and environmental health threats (Kesari et al. 2021).

Contamination with microbial pathogens (e.g., enteric bacteria, viruses, parasitic protozoans, and helminths – nematodes and tapeworms) and toxic heavy metals are not uncommon in untreated wastewater (Chahal et al. 2016; Khalid et al. 2018). These contaminants can easily enter the human body through inhalation of contaminated soils and/or consumption of agricultural produce (Othman et al. 2021). Thus, before the release of wastewater into agricultural lands and water systems such as rivers, advanced wastewater-treatment methods are required to safeguard environmental ecosystems and avert health risks (Igiri et al. 2018; Kesari et al. 2021). Treated wastewater is rich in a variety of nutrients, including nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and potassium, thus decreasing the use of fertilizers (reducing crop-production cost), and improving soil fertility and crop productivity (Theregowda et al. 2019; Poustie et al. 2020).

Depending on the application (i.e., treatment step: primary (usually a mechanical process), secondary (a biological process), and tertiary (a combination of advanced methods)) and desired outcomes (e.g., effluent purity), different treatment technologies such as moving bed bioreactors are used (Mainardis et al. 2022). In this regard, the use of nanotechnology and nanomaterials has proved to be a sustainable method for the tertiary treatment of wastewater (Jain et al. 2021; Ahmed et al. 2022). For example, the small pore size of 1–5 nanometers (nm) of nanofillers allows for the easy elimination of organic and inorganic pollutants, pharmaceutically active compounds, pathogenic microorganisms, and heavy metals (Kesari et al. 2021). A study by Vélez et al. (2016) showed a maximum mercury-removal percentage of about 87% (70% average) using low concentrations of iron-oxide nanoparticles (Fe₃O₄ and γ-Fe₂O₃) solution.

South Africa launched its National Nanotechnology Strategy (NNS) in 2006 (South African Government 2006). While research and development at universities and science councils are competitive internationally, commercial application is trailing (Figure 2) (NACI 2017; Walwyn and Cloete 2019). Notably, the South African NNS has focused on the development and application of nanomembrane technology for water treatment in purification to minimize exposure to water-borne diseases such as typhoid and cholera (Zamxaka and Riley 2010; Douglas 2017). The impact of this strategy toward sustainable wastewater treatment was projected for the first generation (short-term impact: 1–3 years) and second generation (medium-term: 3–10 years) (Figure 2) (DST 2006). In the first generation, nanotechnology products, especially in the field of catalysis are used to treat water and effluent (DST 2006). Similarly, the development of water-treatment systems and secondary use of effluents to manufacture low-cost nanoporous absorbents for brine stabilization and water treatment and purification has been applied in the second-generation phase (DST 2006; Masindi, Osman, and Abu-Mahfouz 2017).

Figure 2. The progress of nanotechnology research and application in South Africa relative to the world (DST 2006).

Adopting this approach, the Water Nanotechnology Unit (WNU) within the DST/Mintek Nanotechnology Innovation Center (NIC) has established two water unit nanomaterial platforms: Adsorbents (NicResins™) and Membranes (NicMembranes™) (van der Merwe 2007; Sibuyi et al. 2022). The Adsorbents (NicResins™) platform removes heavy metals from drinking and industrial wastewater (Sikhwivhilu 2019). Similarly, the Membranes (NicMembranes™) platform applies a combination of ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis (Sikhwivhilu 2019). Through the Green Fund, the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) finances projects and programs that contribute toward a green economy (Burger 2022; DBSA 2022). The Green Fund jumpstarted innovation in South Africa’s “green economy” with a financial investment of ZAR 1.1 billion (US$59.71 million) (Engelbrecht 2015). In the same way, the Conservation Agriculture Farmer Innovation Programme by Grain SA has demonstrated its agro-ecosystem conservation prowess and farmer-centered innovation across KwaZulu-Natal, North West, Eastern Cape, and the Free State provinces (Kruger, Dlamini, and Mathebula 2019).

On a related note, developments to safeguard agricultural livestock from biotic stress, as well as physiological and physical challenges that are caused by climate change, are the agricultural sector’s basic programmatic requirements (Rust and Rust 2013; Maluleke and Mokwena 2017). This approach heavily depends on biotechnological techniques such as transgenesis, embryo transfer and animal cloning, artificial insemination, and antibody detection to develop and/or enhance desirable traits appropriate to indigenous livestock (Kahi and Rewe 2008; Onteru, Ampaire, and Rothschild 2010). Test facilities, such as Unistel Medical Laboratories, are available in South Africa for cost-effective diagnostic testing of genetic defects and genetic improvement for commercial farming (van Marle-Köster and Visser 2018). Beyond diagnostic testing, ARC-Onderstepoort Veterinary Research (ARC-OVR) conducts world-class research on vaccine development and production (pathogen characterization, biosafety, foot-and-mouth vaccine production), zoonoses (toxicology and ethnoveterinary medicine), epidemiology, parasites, and vectors (e.g., parasitic helminths, ecology, and control of insect vectors) (Bigalke and Verwoerd 2008; ARC 2022).

The contribution of biomanufacturing (industrial and environmental bioinnovation) in the bioeconomy

South Africa’s NBS focuses on biomanufacturing and sustainable environmental management to address some of its scarcity challenges (Table 1) (DST 2013; D’Amico et al. 2022).¹ Biomanufacturing is perceived as a fledgling field of innovation in which emerging industrial economies like China and India have a competitive edge in the world market (Korenblit 2006; Cirera and Maloney 2017). Conversely, industrialized countries such as the United States, Germany, and Australia are primarily concerned with the ecological sustainability of bio-based products (El-Chichakli et al. 2016; D’Amato et al. 2017). Developing countries such as Malaysia and South Africa are directing their investments to rural development, equitable resource sharing, and value-addition to diverse biological resources (Korenblit 2006; El-Chichakli et al. 2016).

Table 1. The industrial bioeconomy thematic areas of focus.

Industrial applications			Sustainable environmental management
Bioenergy	Bio-based chemicals	Biomaterials	Water	Waste
Biobutanol Biodiesel Bioethanol Biogas	Additives Biocatalysts Biocontrol products Biocolorants Bulk and specialty chemicals	Biocomposites Bioplastics Biopolymers	Domestic and industrial wastewater bioremediation	Bioleaching Biometallurgy Biosorption

Biomanufacturing processes use natural or genetically-modified resources to produce bioproducts and/or perform in biological systems (Zhang, Sun, and Ma 2017). Due to South Africa’s abundant natural resources, biomanufacturing has become a major sector through the use of catalysts such as enzymes and microorganisms to manufacture bio-based products and/or contribute to the relevant processes in the health, food, pulp and paper, feed, waste and water treatment, energy, mining and resource extraction, chemicals, detergents, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles sectors (Gavrilescu and Chisti 2005; White House 2012). As highlighted in the NBS, the biomanufacturing sector is at the core of the agricultural and health bioeconomic industries and has a direct contribution to their growth (DST 2013; Wydra 2019). This is made possible by the sector’s enabling technologies such as functional genomics, structural and synthetic biology, systems biology, and metabolic engineering to exploit opportunities in the bioeconomy (Soetaert and Vandamme 2006; Tang and Zhao 2009; Amer and Baidoo 2021).

South African biomanufacturing firms generated a total annual turnover of approximately ZAR 750 million (US$40.73 million) in 2007 (Kennedy 2015). The market was worth roughly ZAR 15 billion (US$814.5 million) in 2015 and was estimated to reach ZAR 22.5 billion (US$1.2 billion) by 2020 (Patra and Muchie 2017). By the standard of the government’s new bioeconomy strategy, South Africa’s biomanufacturing sector is lagging compared to the rest of the world (Semete-Makokotlela 2015; NACI 2022). Nonetheless, the country has thriving government-and private sector-funded biomanufacturing projects (TIA 2021; Stark et al. 2022). The United States has a large biomanufacturing sector that had a total economic value of bio-based products valued at ZAR 3.46 trillion (US$187.93 billion) in 2013 (BIO 2017; van der Hoeven 2018). In the same year, the sector generated ZAR 1.13 trillion (US$61.30 billion) in induced sales, ZAR 1.22 trillion (US$66.19 billion) in indirect sales, and ZAR 1.22 trillion (US$66.19 billion) in direct sales (Golden et al. 2015). The biomanufacturing industry contributed ZAR 6.25 trillion (US$339.06 billion) to the USA’s economy in 2017 (de Guzman 2021). As per the overall output, the economic contribution of the bioscience industry to the economy of the United States was ZAR 29.41 trillion (US$1.60 trillion) in 2016 (TEConomy-BIO 2018).

National science agencies and universities in South Africa have actively participated in government-funded projects. The Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of KwaZulu-Natal has successfully produced high-value materials such as non-wood pulp paper, cellulose nanocrystals, bio-adsorbents, and keratin through the valorization of sawdust-waste biomass and waste-chicken feathers (Yimer 2017; Fagbemi 2020). Similarly, poly-γ-glutamic acid, a natural biopolymer, was produced from hard candy waste using a selected Bacillus licheniformis strain at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (Rademeyer 2018; Ajayeoba, Dula, and Ijabadeniyi 2019). Another natural product, ambrafuran, a fixative in fine, expensive fragrances has been produced by the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research using advanced biocatalysis technology (Ncube, Steenkamp, and Dubery 2020; CSIR 2022). Researchers at Stellenbosch University have combined nanotechnology, food microbiology. and water-purification fundamentals to develop a low-cost/high-tech disposable water-filtration system that uses nanofibers and activated carbon to deliver clean drinking water (Saenz 2010; Smit 2010).

To facilitate sustainable wastewater treatment, South African water agencies are promoting the use of microalgae farms and computerized management of water flows (Enwereuzoh, Harding, and Low 2021; D’Amico et al. 2022). For example, small towns and cities around the country are benefitting from low-cost integrated algae-ponding systems – a wastewater-treatment technology that produces essential biomass as byproducts (Brink 2011; Wells et al. 2018).² Highlighting biomass use, wood biomass (lignin and hemicellulose) has become Sappi’s raw material in front-end processes such as pulp mills and packaging-material processing (Phillips 2018). Likewise, Sunchem SA and SkyNRG have partnered to produce jet biofuel and high-quality animal feed from genetically-modified, nicotine-free tobacco plants grown in Marble Hall, Limpopo (Campbell 2015; Bekele 2018). The practical use of the biofuel was tested on July 15, 2016 when a South African Airways’ Boeing 737 successfully carried 300 passengers from O.R. Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg to Cape Town (Blackburn-Dwyer 2016; Makoni 2018).

The contribution of the healthcare sector in the bioeconomy

South Africa’s pharmaceutical industry is the single largest industry on the African continent (Parrish 2020). Comprised of more than 200 pharmaceutical companies, the industry was valued at about ZAR 70 billion (US$3.80 billion) in 2019 (Adao, Skhosana, and Varndell 2016; Rayment 2020). Approximately, 130 medicine manufacturers supply 5,000 product lines to the private health market (Ngozwana 2016). Excluding active pharmaceutical ingredients, the imports of pharmaceutical products were estimated at approximately ZAR 16 billion (US$868.50 million) in 2011 (DST 2013). Medical device and pharmaceutical product sales were expected to reach ZAR 19 billion (US$1.03 billion) and ZAR 48 billion (US$2.61 billion), respectively, in (Ragaven and Rikhotso 2020). However, according to a 2022 report by the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), the export of medical devices in 2019 reached ZAR 3.1 billion (US$221.4 million) (SAMRC 2022). Similarly, the export value of pharmaceutical products in 2019 amounted to a value of ZAR 6.3 billion (US$434 million) (Galal 2022). By 2025, the industry is projected to generate ZAR 73 billion (US$3.96 billion) in sales (BusinessLIVE 2020). Due to its market size, the health sector significantly contributes to the South African bioeconomy trade deficit (DST 2013).

Investment in healthcare-sector innovations has been substantially greater when compared to the agricultural and biomanufacturing sectors (Aguera et al. 2020; NACI 2021). The Department of Health has designed research, development, innovation, and manufacturing interventions to focus on local production (DST 2002; NHRC 2021). Research and development priorities are set to work toward increased clinical research and bio-based indigenous knowledge-systems exploration, developing new innovator (patented) therapeutics (biopharmaceuticals, African traditional medicines, phytomedicines, vaccines, biologics), diagnostics, and medical devices (DST 2013; Meyer et al. 2017). On the other end, the application of innovative technologies will be expanded to stimulate the local manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients for drugs, vaccines, and biologics (Banda et al. 2022; South African Government 2022).

Indeed, technology transfer, local production, and access to medication have received increased attention in the last decade (Tawfik et al. 2022; Velásquez 2022). The World Health Organization (WHO) and the EU facilitate a technology-transfer project that provides sustainability-based recommendations and supports the local production of pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and diagnostics to meet the public health needs of developing countries (UNCTAD 2011). With the application of innovative technologies, the market value of locally-produced drugs was estimated to reach ZAR 68.04 billion (US$4.6 billion) in 2021 (GlobalData 2022). Accelerated growth in this regard is due to demand and purchasing preferences for domestically-manufactured generic drugs which are promoted by government incentives and policies that favor local content (Okaalet 2021). As part of its National Health Insurance (NHI) rollout, the government launched the National Digital Health Strategy for South Africa 2019–2024 (DoH 2019; Kante and Ndayizigamiye 2021).

The strategy seeks to improve healthcare-system inputs, patient-healthcare access, and health outcomes (Okaalet 2021). To achieve these objectives, the strategy prioritizes the following aims: promoting target population group-health coverage, digitizing healthcare systems, growing user-based digital health knowledge, and providing an integrated platform and architecture for health-sector information (DoH 2019; WHO 2021). The timely implementation of the strategy depends on funding, lower data costs, and adequate ICT infrastructure (Labrique et al. 2018; DoH 2019). Despite these challenges, the South African National Department of Health (DoH) has already implemented successful initiatives such as MomConnect, an initiative that supports maternal health through the use of cell phone-based technologies integrated into maternal and child-health services (Pillay and Motsoaledi 2018; DoH 2022). Other digital health services and providers are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. South Africa’s digital health services and providers.

Service provider	Technology	Products and/or services	References
Vula Mobile	Mobile application e-Referral platform	Connects healthcare workers; easy transfer of structured patient information and images; patient treatment plan advice-sharing; patient referral to specialist services and departments.	Gloster, Mash, and Swartz (2021); Vula Mobile (2021)
LocumBase.com	e-Booking	Connects medical professionals (i.e., substitutes) and practices.	Wesgro (2021)
Vekta Innovations	IoT	IoT-based injury prevention and exercise-management system; cloud-based analytics; automated biokineticist; KineDek – compact integrated hardware for physical condition assessment, rehabilitation, and general exercise.	Timm (2020); Jackson (2021)
Jembi Health Systems	Software development Big data analytics	Development of the back-end systems for MomConnect; data integration from existing health and clinical systems; eHealth information-systems development.	OpenHIE (2022)
eHealthGroup	Telecommunication technologies	Telehealth program development for clinical use; provides a cloud-based telehealth network; implementation of Intouch Health telehealth solutions (a cloud-based global server infrastructure and Class II(a) robotic Telehealth solutions).	eHealthGroup (2017); Wesgro (2021)

The current digital revolution in the medical field encourages consumers and practitioners to adopt eHealth and telemedicine-related services (Oborne 2010; Wernhart, Gahbauer, and Haluza 2019). eHealth encompasses several kinds of ICTs such as mobile applications and websites for medical screening, health promotion, physical training, electronic recording, social support, medical monitoring, and interaction with healthcare providers (Oh et al. 2005; Stevens et al. 2019). Comparably, telemedicine is “the provision of remote clinical services, via real-time two-way communication between the patient and the healthcare provider, using electronic audio and visual means” (Thomas 2021). Combined, these digital technologies are expected to improve health literacy, healthy living, and self-management. Additionally, they contribute to the rapid availability of updated medical information, promote tailored client-care services, and reduce healthcare consumption and healthcare costs (Elbert et al. 2014; Matthew-Maich et al. 2016). Due to time efficiency, eHealth and telemedicine show promise as alternatives to traditional face-to-face healthcare consultations (van der Vaart et al. 2014). The surge of eHealth and telemedicine services has been significantly accelerated by the outbreak of the unprecedented global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) of the 2019 pandemic. Consequently, these virtual health services have become the most preferred consultation methods as there is no physical contact and thus reducing disease transmissions.

In addition to digital health technologies, patient care is an area of flourishing innovative pharma-based solutions in South Africa (DoH 2019; Mbunge et al. 2022). Right to Care’s Themba Lethu HIV Clinic in Johannesburg has invested in robotic technology and automated teller machines (ATMs) to dispense medication (Moyo 2016; Africanews 2018). Through its eRight Pharmacy, the clinic has launched collect-&-go smart lockers, automatic teller machine (ATM) pharmacies, and in-pharmacy automation (Firnhaber et al. 2018; Beneke 2020; Rhikhotso 2020). Patients can thus quickly and easily access chronic illness medication through these ATMs (Parrish 2020; Siaga 2020).

Progress in the health sector’s bioeconomy will also require bioprospecting, as highlighted in the country’s 2013 Bioeconomy Strategy (DST 2013; Förster et al. 2021). Bioprospecting harnesses biodiversity (i.e., plants and animal species) for medicinal drugs and other commercially valuable natural products. The South African bioeconomy is projected to expand dependence on the bioprospecting of indigenous plant species such as rooibos, honeybush, and aloe ferox (Crouch et al. 2008; Christie and Ngubeni 2020). For example, small-scale bioprospecting firms can use their in-house methods to build platforms for the production and distribution of natural products, as well as bio-based inputs for biopharmaceuticals and personal care products (Förster et al. 2021). These initiatives connect local biomass growers with businesses (“from farmer to pharma”) and provides underprivileged people with alternative methods to make a sustainable living (Förster et al. 2021).

The influence of policy in the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy

The global bioeconomy is gaining attention from public officials, corporate decision-makers, social and biophysical scientists, and the general public (Pyka et al. 2022; Paris et al. 2023). Consequently, the OECD pioneered the development of a global framework highlighting the issues and goals of the bioeconomy (Duquenne et al. 2020). To date, the OECD continues to reflect on the interplay between policy choices and technological advances in shaping relevant developments (OECD 2009). The adoption of the concept of the bioeconomy in government policies is an attempt to resolve environmental degradation and unsustainable resource use (McCormick and Kautto 2013). The policy objectives seek to ensure that the bioeconomy stimulates employment, rural value creation, economic growth, appropriate use of bioresources, renewable energy security, climate-change mitigation, circularity, and environmental protection (Bugge, Hansen, and Klitkou 2016; Hausknost et al. 2017; Gawel, Pannicke, and Hagemann 2019).

The South African bioeconomy-strategy policy has been defined as an “inter-agency” effort involving the following departments: Science and Innovation; Trade, Industry, and Competition; Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development; Environment, Forestry, and Fisheries; and Health (Teitelbaum, Boldt, and Patermann 2020). However, new policy dynamics transcend national policy making and macro-regional collaboration and ensure the engagement of international actors and global collaboration to further develop the bioeconomy on a worldwide basis (Raheem et al. 2022). International collaborations between private researchers, public institutions, and governments are critical for optimizing knowledge sharing and resource use (El-Chichakli et al. 2016). Furthermore, global collaboration is an effective approach for addressing and achieving the SDGs (Issa, Delbrück, and Hamm 2019). Thus, international policy on the bioeconomy can circumvent conflicting national priorities which often make it difficult to align bioeconomy policies to meet the SDGs on a global scale (El-Chichakli et al. 2016).

In contrast to the bioeconomy-strategy policy, the South African policy framework on the bioeconomy has been described as “moderately incoherent” (Reeler 2017).³ This has been attributed to not having a complete policy strategy despite having had some policy elements on the bioeconomy (Bambo and Pouris 2020). Regardless, attempts to advance the policy capacity of central actors and to adapt the regulatory system to suit the anticipated changes are currently being made (Förster et al. 2021). One such policy, the National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES) “aims to grow while assuring the sustainability of the indigenous biological/genetic resources which are exploited and the conservation of the ecosystem within which the resources are found” (DEA 2016). Hence, South Africa’s historical context and developmental challenges inform the political strategy of promoting the National Biodiversity Economy (NBE) as a transformative socioeconomic development strategy (Förster et al. 2021).

Fortunately, the South African government intends to provide opportunities and policy support for bio-entrepreneurship in bioeconomic industries (BEIs) such as the bioprospecting sector (Crouch et al. 2008; Christie and Ngubeni 2020). In this light, the Academy of Sciences of South Africa and the South African Medical Research Council undertook a review of bioethics, regulation, and the policy impact of genome editing (i.e., breeding and human genomics) (Dhai et al. 2020; Teitelbaum, Boldt, and Patermann 2020). Furthermore, the National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) recommended an approach to monitor the bioeconomy’s performance in line with the bioeconomy strategy (NACI 2018). Recently, the South African government has amplified its active participation in international bio-innovative collaboration. To this effect, South Africa has established foreign-supported regional initiatives such as the Southern Africa Network for Biosciences (SANBio) and the Southern Africa Innovation Support Program (SAIS) (Ylöstalo 2019; Teitelbaum, Boldt, and Patermann 2020). It must be noted that successfully implementing a bioeconomy strategy at local, regional, and national levels requires the supply of alternative bioresources and the application of advanced technological tools (Meyer et al. 2017; Bezama et al. 2019; Kardung et al. 2021).

Currently, there is no international policy on the adoption and implementation of bioeconomy strategies (Bracco et al. 2018). Nevertheless, several countries around the world are pursuing interventions and policies to promote their bioeconomies (Dietz et al. 2018; D’Amico et al. 2022). As a consequence, macro-regional policy approaches, multilateral policy processes, intergovernmental dialogue, and stakeholder-driven initiatives have become emerging policy trends (Teitelbaum, Boldt, and Patermann 2020). For example, the Regional Bioeconomy Strategy for Eastern Africa stimulated national efforts to develop dedicated bioeconomy-policy initiatives (Ecuru 2020; Diaz-Chavez, Virgin, and Nzuve 2021). Likewise, the European Commission’s 2012 European Bioeconomy Strategy set in motion the development of innovative and resource-efficient national bioeconomy strategies across the bloc (EC 2018; Ronzon, Iost, and Philippidis 2022). Thus, the transition toward a sustainable bioeconomy is increasingly becoming a worldwide phenomenon (Bastos Lima 2021). Following this global trend, developing countries are adopting different approaches to foster growth in their bioeconomies (Table 3) (Oguntuase and Adu 2021; Siegel et al. 2022

Table 3. Bioeconomy strategies in developing countries.

Country	Title of the document(s)	Adoption year	Type of Strategy	Focus	References
Argentina	Argentina Innovadora 2020; Plan Provincial de Bioeconomía; Bioeconomía Argentina	2012; 2016; 2017	Innovation strategy	Improved quality of life; competitiveness; food security and better nutrition; sustainable energy supply; biorefinery and higher value bioproducts	GBC (2015); GBC (2018); Sili and Dürr (2022)
Brazil	Politica de Biotecnologia; Plano Decenal de Expansão de Energia 2023	2007; 2014	Policy strategy	Bioindustry competitiveness; economic growth and income generation; food and health security; sustainable energy; promotion of bio-based products and process innovations; biotechnology applications; rural development	GBC (2015); GBC (2018)
Colombia	Politica para el Desarrollo Commercial de la Biotecnología a partir del Uso Sostenible de la Biodiversidad	2011	Policy and innovation strategy	Bioprospecting; bio-entrepreneurship; economic growth and competitiveness; commercial development of biotechnology; commercial use of biological resources; creation of added value-from marine bioresources	GBC (2015)
India	National Biotechnology Development Strategy; Biotechnology Strategy II	2007; 2014	Innovation strategy	Affordable healthcare and wellness; promotion of nano-biotechnology; productivity and economic growth; clean energy and biofuel; bio-manufacturing; food and nutritional security; generation of bio-based products; environmental safety	DoB (2015); GBC (2015)
Indonesia	National Energy Policy; Grand Agricultural Strategy	2014; 2015	Policy and innovation strategy	Food security; improved health in rural areas; bioenergy and energy autonomy; climate change mitigation; economic growth and inclusive development; ecological sustainability	GBC (2015); GBC (2018)
Kenya	A National Biotechnology Development Policy; National Bioprospecting Strategy	2006; 2011	Policy and innovation strategy	Bioprospecting; food security; regulation of biopiracy; economic growth; utilization of natural resources; safe biotechnology applications; environmental security; better healthcare	Kingiri (2012); GBC (2015)
Malaysia	National Biotechnology Policy; Bioeconomy Transformation Programme	2005; 2012	Policy and innovation strategy	Industrial competitiveness; bio-manufacturing; adoption of sustainable industrial processes; commercial use of biological resources; generation of medicinal and food bio-based products; agricultural productivity	BiotechCorp (2015); GBC (2015)
Mali	Stratégie Nationale pour le Développment des Energies Renouvelables; Stratégie Nationale de Développement des Biocarburants en Mali	2006;   2009	Policy strategy	Food security; improved rural electrification; new bioenergy infrastructure; environmental protection; utilization of Jatropha-based biofuels	GBC (2015)
Mauritius	Ocean Economy	2013	Policy strategy	Bioprospecting; marine biotechnology; marine pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, thalassotherapy; economic diversification; job creation and wealth generation; ocean knowledge; high-end aquaculture; seafood processing	GBC (2015); EDB (2022)
Mexico	Estrategia Intersecretarial de los Bioenergéticos	2009	Policy strategy	Food security; sustainable use and management of natural resources; energy security; rural development; sustainable production of biofuel; reducing environmental pollution; job creation	GBC (2015)
Mozambique	Politica e Estrategia de Biocombustiveis	2009	Policy and innovation strategy	Agricultural and industrial development; energy security; national poverty alleviation; reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels; job creation and income generation in rural areas; food security	GBC (2015)
Namibia	National Programme on Research, Science, Technology, and Innovation	2015	Innovation strategy	Ecosystem management; food and water security; socio-economic development; using Indigenous knowledge systems; biotechnology research and development; better health, living standards, skills levels; energy security; sustainable ecosystems; product innovation and sustainable rural development	NCRST (2021); GBC (2015)
Nigeria	Biofuel Policy and Incentives	2007	Policy strategy	First-generation biofuels production; technology transfer; rural and agricultural development; job creation; international collaboration	Ohimain (2013); GBC (2015)
Paraguay	Politica y Programa Nacional de Biotecnoloía Agroprecuaria y Forestal del Paraguay	2011	Policy strategy	Technology transfer; biotechnology applications; international collaboration; poverty reduction; food security; agricultural production and exports; industrial competitiveness; rural development	GBC (2015)
Senegal	National Biofuels Strategy; Lettre de Politique de Développement du Secteur de L’Energie	2006; 2008	Policy strategy	Better standards of living; energy security; agriculture and agro-industry; rural electrification; production of bioelectricity	IRENA (2012); GBC (2015)
South Africa	National Biotechnology Strategy; Ten-Year Innovation Plan; The Bio-Economy Strategy	2001; 2008; 2013	Policy and innovation strategy	Food security; industrial competitiveness; job creation; development of bio-based services, products, and innovations; creation and growth of novel industries; biotechnology applications; economic growth; bio-entrepreneurship; nanomaterial research and manufacture; biofuel; health innovation; Indigenous knowledge systems; bio-based chemicals; wastewater treatment; environmental sustainability; bioprospecting	DST (2013); GBC (2015)
Sri Lanka	National Biotechnology Policy	2010	Policy strategy	Bioprospecting; bioenergy development; safe biotechnology applications; added-value biological resources; bioethics; food security; better health; environment protection; socioeconomic development	Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (2009); GBC (2015)
Thailand	National Biotechnology Policy Framework; BioPlastics Roadmap; Alternative Energies Development Plan; The Thailand 4.0 strategy; Bioeconomy Roadmap	2004; 2008; 2012; 2015; 2017	Policy and innovation strategy	Biorefinery development; industrial competitiveness; social development; improve agricultural production and efficiency; aggregation of physics, digital and biological technologies; bio-medicine and health; development of future industries; sustainable development; bioenergy; biofuels and biochemicals	Saardchom (2017); GBC (2015); GBC (2018); Aung (2021)
Tanzania	National Biotechnology Policy	2013	Policy strategy	Biosafety; food security; biotechnology applications; environmental protection; conservation and utilization of genetic resources; generation of bio-products, bioprocesses, and new biotechnologies; strengthening of national and international collaborations; conservation of biodiversity; socio-economic development; poverty reduction	United Republic of Tanzania (2010); GBC (2015)
Uganda	The Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda; National Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy; Biomass Energy Strategy Uganda	2007; 2008; 2014	Policy and innovation strategy	Food security; better healthcare; biomass resources; environmental protection; economic growth; socioeconomic development; bioethics and biosafety; industrial production; constant biomass energy supply; biotechnology applications; poverty reduction; technology transfer	Republic of Uganda (2008); GBC (2015)

).

Compared to the bioeconomy strategies of developed countries such as Finland, the approaches of most developing countries lack a holistic bioeconomy-development outlook (Dietz et al. 2018; Mustalahti 2018). This is demonstrated by limitations in the implementation of well-defined regional bioeconomy policy and innovation strategies (Staffas, Gustavsson, and McCormick 2013). Recognizing this limitation, the South African Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) (formerly called the Department of Science and Technology) launched the 2020–2025 TIA Strategic Plan to support the implementation of the District Development Model which provides decision-support tools, information, and regionally-distributed technology stations (TIA 2022). Generally, the bioeconomy strategies of most developing countries address one or two aspects of the bioeconomy, usually bioenergy (GBC 2015; Oguntuase and Adu 2021). Without a holistic, well-defined bioeconomy-development strategy, the effectiveness and impact of national action plans could be extremely limited (Staffas, Gustavsson, and McCormick 2013; Prochaska and Schiller 2021). As a result, these countries’ contributions toward a sustainable global bioeconomy cannot be accurately measured (Bracco et al. 2018; Alviar et al. 2021). Nevertheless, both Malaysia and South Africa have holistic, well-defined bioeconomy strategies consistent with the frameworks of the EU and other developed nations (GBC 2015; Oguntuase and Adu 2021).

Depending on several factors, the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy can take many forms, leading to various types of societies (Hausknost et al. 2017). However, the transformation toward small-scale bioeconomic activities has often been politically marginalized (Cohen et al. 2019). Furthermore, the transition toward low consumption is challenged by conflicting interests and incompatible objectives (Scarlat et al. 2015). In many cases, the policy making toward a sustainable bioeconomy is often undisclosed to the general public and not subject to open and democratic contestation (Hausknost et al. 2017). As a result, the political dimensions of the bioeconomy, especially in developing countries, are rarely investigated, known, or understood (Bastos Lima 2021). An essential political dimension in policy making and bioeconomy transition is political influence or “power” (Goven and Pavone 2015; Vogelpohl and Töller 2021).

Deficiencies in the correct implementation of bioeconomic activities may have a negative impact on natural resources and the environment (Sheppard et al. 2011; Heimann 2019). Negative impacts can include unsustainable use of biomass and land, competition between food and fuel production, agricultural intensification, risks posed by invasive species, and negative ecological effects (e.g., soil-carbon losses, greenhouse-gas emissions, and decline of biodiversity) (Pfau et al. 2014; Lewandowski 2015; Stark et al. 2022). To circumvent these adverse impacts, future policy objectives must consider ecological and social aspects in alignment with the SDGs (Eyvindson, Repo, and Mönkkönen 2018). Numerous reports have also criticized the lack of measurement and sustainability in most global bioeconomy concepts (Birch, Levidow, and Papaioannou 2010; D’Amato et al. 2017; Bracco et al. 2018; Heimann 2019). Thus, to achieve the systemic transformation of the bioeconomy, new means to identify, to measure, and to communicate the bioeconomy’s contributions to environmental sustainability must be developed (Vargas-Hernández, Pallagst, and Hammer 2017; Wydra 2020).

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new possibilities in the development of policy as well as 4IR technological applications in growing the bioeconomy (Agbehadji, Awuzie, and Ngowi 2021). This has been an accidental and positive outcome of the pandemic (Werikhe 2022). The containment measures such as lockdowns, restrictions on internal movement and international travel, and stay-at-home orders resulted in lowered anthropogenic activity (less industrial production, closure of transport systems, reduced mobility) and subsequently incidental natural environment gains (i.e., recuperating ecosystems, cleaner waterways, less polluted air) and reduced emissions of particulate matter (PM_2.5, PM₁₀), nitrous oxides, and carbon monoxide (EEA 2020; Katewongsa et al. 2021). Despite these positive reports, organizations such as the World Economic Forum have expressed concern over how environmental degradation will be addressed beyond these containment measures (Kumar, Burston, and Karliner 2020). In hindsight, the pandemic highlighted the urgency and interconnection of sustainable development and the global bioeconomy (Woźniak and Tyczewska 2021).

According to the European Commission, the complete integration of bioeconomy strategies can stimulate COVID-19 crisis recovery by aligning the biosphere with the economy (Fritsche et al. 2020; Rozakis, Juvančič, and Kovacs 2022). In a post-pandemic world, bioeconomy strategies and initiatives such as Food Vision 2030, Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, Circular Economy Action Plan, and Farm-to-Fork Strategy can help mitigate climate change, reduce waste, ensure water and food security, use bioenergy, practice the circular bioeconomy, and conserve biodiversity (EC 2020; Woźniak and Tyczewska 2021). Depending on the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, different countries can adopt bioeconomy policies relevant to their situation (OECD 2021). For example, Japan, Costa Rica, and Italy released bioeconomy-related action plans that paid special attention to the impact of COVID-19 in the aftermath of the pandemic (Teitelbaum, Boldt, and Patermann 2020; Woźniak and Tyczewska 2021). Notably, Japan’s updated strategy emphasizes the importance of the bioeconomy in developing countermeasures to any public health emergencies and creating an effective supply chain in the post-COVID-19 era (Yoshida and Yagi 2021). Similarly, Italy’s bioeconomy-action plan is viewed as a catalyst for accelerating the post-COVID-19 departure (Lepore et al. 2021). Developing countries need to devote greater effort to formalizing the transition process in this regard (D’Adamo et al. 2021).

The circular economy and bioeconomy overlap in the integrated concept of the circular bioeconomy (CBE) (Salvador et al. 2022). Indeed, CBE is “the key engine of the future economic growth of post-Covid economic recovery” (Rozakis, Juvančič, and Kovacs 2022). In fact, several countries view the link between the bioeconomy and a circular economy as a way to advance several SDGs while monitoring and evaluating the impacts of the CBE (Gallo 2022; Calicioglu and Bogdanski 2021). One of a CBE’s primary goals is to sustainably turn bioresources into high-value products (i.e. minimal resource inputs from and outputs to the natural environment) (D’Amato, Veijonaho, and Toppinen 2020). The contribution of the bioeconomy to the circular economy is demonstrated by the efficient exploitation of renewable resources in closed material and energy loops (Rozakis, Juvančič, and Kovacs 2022). Advances in technology have eased the transition to the CBE by promoting the conversion of biomass into a variety of bio-based products (Gatto and Re 2021; Wei, Luo, et al. 2022). This is a result of the CBE’s role in introducing disruptive technological and social innovations (Galanakis et al. 2022). Thus, considering the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the CBE is expected to bring about numerous, long-term ecological, environmental, and socioeconomic benefits (Galanakis et al. 2022; Gallo 2022).

Conclusion

Advances in technology are allowing more countries to develop and refine their national bioeconomy strategies. For example, embracing the 4IR has had a significant impact on South Africa’s bioeconomy. The adoption of a NBS that relies on various technologies to derive value and provide bio-based products and services has shown positive results in South Africa. Despite this, developing countries, including South Africa, still face a serious dilemma of conflicting national priorities. Implementation of bioeconomy strategies is often superseded by the government’s need to provide basic services such as food, healthcare, and housing to rural communities. This has been a major hurdle in creating holistic bioeconomy strategies. Developing countries must follow a multidisciplinary approach in designing and implementing their bioeconomy strategies. This is because sector-focused strategies, such as those centered on bioenergy development without any consideration for associated ecological impacts, have severe environmental countereffects. Following the EU’s example, developing nations must adopt holistic and regional bioeconomy strategies that address current and future ecological, environmental, and socioeconomic challenges. Formulating strategies that address the recent pandemic and potential future world crises will be beneficial in achieving specific sustainable development goals.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the National Research Foundation of South Africa.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 The South African industrial and environmental bioinnovation strategy is centered on bioenergy, bio-based chemicals, and biomaterials.

2 Biomass to be used as fertilizer, for energy production, and for biodiesel production.

3 A bioeconomy-strategy policy is the government’s long-term plan, which outlines objectives for the development and growth of the bioeconomy. By contrast, a policy framework on the bioeconomy is a set of guidelines that provides a detailed description of the specific actions taken by the government to support the development of the bioeconomy.