Towards a sustainable innovation system for the German wood-based bioeconomy: Implications for policy design

Abstract In recent years, the EU and several of its member states have adopted strategies in support of a renewable resource-based bioeconomy. It is promoted as a promising means of making economic processes and products more sustainable, with expected contributions to a range of policy aims. However, by increasing the demand for bio-based resources, bioeconomy concepts also impose additional pressures on ecosystems. In limiting these pressures, innovations regarding the use of biogenic and non-biogenic renewable resources play an important role. A well-developed innovation system for the bioeconomy must enable immature renewable resource-based technologies to progress down the learning curve, to eventually reach competitiveness with fossil resource substitutes; second, innovation efforts need to be steered towards bioeconomy pathways with favourable environmental characteristics; third, innovations need to be socially acceptable. Focussing on the case of the German wood-based bioeconomy, this contribution examines the role that policies can play in shaping such an innovation system. First, we review what policy contributions are considered as key for strengthening transition-oriented innovation systems in the innovation economics and innovation systems literature. We then apply these insights to the analysis of the case study’s innovation system, to identify systemic weaknesses and discuss policy implications. Notably, the transition towards a bioeconomy is characterised by a high degree of uncertainty and complexity, making the design of demand-pull policies particularly challenging. We conclude with policy recommendations for strengthening a sustainability-oriented innovation system for the German wood-based bioeconomy.

[1]  S. Wei.  Gradualism versus Big Bang: Speed and Sustainability of Reforms , 1997 .

[2]  Björn A. Sandén,et al.  Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets—economy wide versus technology specific approaches , 2005 .

[3]  M. S. Andersen.  Europe’s experience with carbon-energy taxation , 2010 .

[4]  A.J.M. Smits,et al.  Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research , 2014 .

[5]  Guido Van Huylenbroeck,et al.  Managing innovation in the bioeconomy : an open innovation perspective , 2016 .

[6]  Patrik Söderholm,et al.  Rationales for technology-specific RES support and their relevance for German policy , 2017 .

[7]  C. Edquist.  Innovation Policy in the Systems of Innovation Approach: Some Basic Principles , 2001 .

[8]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Transforming the Energy Sector : The evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology , 2004 .

[9]  B. Wynne.  Redefining the issues of risk and public acceptance: The social viability of technology , 1983 .

[10]  A. Jaffe.  Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[11]  Alan Harding,et al.  Low carbon innovation and enterprise growth in the UK: Challenges of a place-blind policy mix , 2016 .

[12]  Elias Hurmekoski.  Long-term outlook for wood construction in Europe , 2016 .

[13]  Alexandra Purkus,et al.  Possible Futures towards a Wood-Based Bioeconomy: A Scenario Analysis for Germany , 2016 .

[14]  P. Osseweijer,et al.  Trustworthiness and Responsible Research and Innovation: The Case of the Bio-Economy , 2015 .

[15]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  Discursive regime dynamics in the Dutch energy transition , 2014 .

[16]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  Politics and Economics of Second-Best Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: The Importance of Regulatory Credibility , 2010 .

[17]  Alexandra Purkus,et al.  The Political Economy of Fostering a Wood-based Bioeconomy in Germany , 2015 .

[18]  Nuclear Safety,et al.  Energy concept for an environmentally sound, reliable and affordable energy supply. , 2010 .

[19]  Paula Kivimaa,et al.  Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Creation? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions , 2015 .

[20]  Patrik Söderholm,et al.  The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy , 2016 .

[21]  Patrik Söderholm,et al.  Innovation System Strengths and Weaknesses in Progressing Sustainable Technology : The Case of Swedish Biorefinery Development , 2016 .

[22]  Francesco Cherubini,et al.  The biorefinery concept: Using biomass instead of oil for producing energy and chemicals , 2010 .

[23]  CarusMichael,et al.  European Bioeconomy in Figures , 2016 .

[24]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .

[25]  Mathias Dewatripont,et al.  The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty , 1995 .

[26]  Sebastian Strunz,et al.  A public choice view on the climate and energy policy mix in the EU: How do the emissions trading scheme and support for renewable energies interact? , 2013 .

[27]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  The technological innovation systems framework: Response to six criticisms , 2015 .

[28]  Karoline S. Rogge,et al.  Analyzing interdependencies between policy mixes and technological innovation systems: the case of offshore wind in Germany , 2016 .

[29]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues , 2002 .

[30]  Gregory C. Unruh.  Understanding carbon lock-in , 2000 .

[31]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  Innovation Studies Utrecht ( ISU ) Working Paper Series Why does Renewable Energy diffuse so slowly ? A review of innovation system problems , 2011 .

[32]  Giuliana Battisti,et al.  The Diffusion of New Technology , 2010 .

[33]  M. Hekkert,et al.  Innovation Studies Utrecht ( ISU ) Working Paper Series Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems : a framework for policy makers and innovation scholars , 2011 .

[34]  H. Rohracher,et al.  Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change , 2012 .

[35]  Karoline S. Rogge,et al.  Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis , 2016 .

[36]  Walter Eucken,et al.  Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik , 1955 .

[37]  Charles Edquist,et al.  Systems of Innovation Approaches - Their Emergence and Characteristics , 2013 .

[38]  J.C.J.M. van den Bergh,et al.  Evolutionary Economics and Environmental Policy: Survival of the Greenest , 2007 .

[39]  Gregory F. Nemet,et al.  Robust Incentives and the Design of a Climate Change Governance Regime , 2010 .

[40]  Johan Schot,et al.  Strategies for shifting technological systems : the case of the automobile system , 1994 .

[41]  A. Grubler,et al.  The Energy Technology Innovation System , 2012 .

[42]  M. Ollikainen.  Forestry in bioeconomy – smart green growth for the humankind , 2014 .

[43]  A. Jaffe,et al.  A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy , 2005 .

[44]  L. McCann.  Transaction costs and environmental policy design , 2013 .

[45]  David Popp,et al.  Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change , 2009 .

[46]  B. Truffer,et al.  Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy - A framework and a case study on biogas technology , 2016 .

[47]  P. Kreins,et al.  Measuring the importance of the bioeconomy in Germany: Concept and illustration , 2016 .

[48]  Jan M. Lucht,et al.  Public Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM Crops , 2015, Viruses.

[49]  B. Truffer,et al.  Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects , 2012 .

[50]  F. Geels.  Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[51]  Lara Dammer,et al.  Food or Non-Food: Which Agricultural Feedstocks Are Best for Industrial Uses? , 2013 .

[52]  CarusMichael,et al.  GreenPremium Prices Along the Value Chain of Biobased Products , 2014 .

[53]  E. Gawel,et al.  Die Rolle von Energie- und Strombesteuerung im Kontext der Energiewende , 2015 .

[54]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  Transition policy and innovation policy: Friends or foes? , 2011 .

[55]  S. Padel,et al.  The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods and farmer perspective , 2012 .

[56]  G. Van Huylenbroeck,et al.  Industry expectations regarding the transition toward a biobased economy , 2012 .

[57]  J. Schot,et al.  Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation : the approach of strategic niche management , 1998 .

[58]  M. Hekkert,et al.  Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: empirical evidence for earlier claims , 2009 .

[59]  K. McCormick,et al.  Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches , 2013 .

[60]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research , 2011 .

[61]  Lena Neij,et al.  An assessment of governmental wind power programmes in Sweden-using a systems approach , 2006 .

[62]  Göran Berndes,et al.  Future demand for forest-based biomass for energy purposes in Sweden , 2017 .

[63]  R. Schubert,et al.  Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use , 2009 .

[64]  Jochen Markard,et al.  Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework , 2008 .

[65]  Helga Pülzl,et al.  Sustainable development – A ‘selling point’ of the emerging EU bioeconomy policy framework? , 2018 .

[66]  W. Arthur,et al.  INCREASING RETURNS AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS , 1989 .

[67]  P. Sabatier.  An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein , 1988 .

[68]  P. Lehmann,et al.  The political economy of renewable energy policies in Germany and the EU , 2016 .

[69]  Policy convergence: A conceptual framework based on lessons from renewable energy policies in the EU , 2015 .

[70]  Lei Wang,et al.  Use of wood in green building: a study of expert perspectives from the UK , 2014 .

[71]  Maria Minniti,et al.  The Role of Government Policy on Entrepreneurial Activity: Productive, Unproductive, or Destructive? , 2008 .

[72]  E. Mansfield,et al.  The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support , 1996 .

[73]  C. Edquist,et al.  The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments , 2013, Holistic Innovation Policy.

[74]  T. Foxon,et al.  Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime , 2008 .

[75]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[76]  J. Rayner,et al.  Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’ , 2007 .

[77]  Carlo Ingrao,et al.  Agricultural and forest biomass for food, materials and energy: bio-economy as the cornerstone to cleaner production and more sustainable consumption patterns for accelerating the transition towards equitable, sustainable, post fossil-carbon societies , 2016 .

[78]  Jacqueline Senker,et al.  National systems of innovation, organizational learning and industrial biotechnology , 1996 .

[79]  W. Edward Steinmueller,et al.  Economics of technology policy , 2010 .

[80]  Paul Stoneman,et al.  Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change , 1995 .

[81]  R. Gross,et al.  UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures , 2005 .

[82]  L. Hetemäki,et al.  Services in the forest-based sector – unexplored futures , 2015 .

[83]  C. Edquist,et al.  Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy , 2012 .

[84]  Richard G. Newell,et al.  Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation , 2008 .

[85]  P. Lehmann.  Justifying a Policy Mix for Pollution Control: A Review of Economic Literature , 2012 .

[86]  S. Albrecht,et al.  Bioökonomie am Scheideweg Industrialisierung von Biomasse oder nachhaltige Produktion , 2012 .

[87]  Wissenschaftlicher Beirat.  Klimaschutz in der Land- und Forstwirtschaft sowie den nachgelagerten Bereichen Ernährung und Holzverwendung , 2016 .

[88]  Ottmar Edenhofer,et al.  Causes of the EU ETS price drop: Recession, CDM, renewable policies or a bit of everything? - New evidence , 2014 .

[89]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis , 2008 .

[90]  Udo Mantau,et al.  Holzrohstoffbilanz Deutschland : Entwicklungen und Szenarien des Holzaufkommens und der Holzverwendung von 1987 bis 2015 , 2012 .

[91]  R.A.A. Suurs,et al.  Motors of sustainable innovation : Towards a theory on the dynamics of technological innovation systems , 2009 .

[92]  Christine Liddell,et al.  The suitability of wood pellet heating for domestic households: A review of literature , 2015 .

[93]  M. Siika‐aho,et al.  Utilization of recycled wood in biorefineries: preliminary results of steam explosion and ethanol/water organosolv pulping without a catalyst , 2016, European Journal of Wood and Wood Products.

[94]  K. McCormick,et al.  Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies , 2015 .

[95]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change , 2007 .

[96]  Kes McCormick,et al.  Biorefineries in Sweden: Perspectives on the opportunities, challenges and future , 2016 .

[97]  Tobias Schauerte.  Wooden house construction in Scandinavia - a model for Europe , 2010 .

[98]  Björn A. Sandén,et al.  ‘Legitimation’ and ‘development of positive externalities’: two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[99]  Alexandra Purkus.  Concepts and Instruments for a Rational Bioenergy Policy , 2016 .

[100]  B. Carlsson,et al.  On the nature, function and composition of technological systems , 1991 .

[101]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology , 2006 .

[102]  S. Ulgiati,et al.  A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems , 2016 .