Artikkel
I Burton, Rob J.F., Eirik M. Fuglestad, Magnar Forbord og May-Britt Ellingsted (red.) Etter oljen: vår bioøkonomiske fremtid. Oslo: Cappelen Damm
Artikkel
I Burton, Rob J.F., Magnar Forbord, Eirik M. Fuglestad og May-Britt Ellingsen (red.) Etter oljen. Vår bioøkonomiske fremtid. Oslo: Cappelen Damm
Artikkel
I: Burton, Rob J.F., Magnar Forbord, Eirik M. Fuglestad og May-Britt Ellingsen (red.). Etter oljen. Vår bioøkonomiske fremtid. Cappelen Damm Akademisk: Oslo
Artikkel
The background for this paper was a wish to extend the understanding of how sustainable transitions in sociotechnical systems come about, especially the characteristics of processes and the role of actors. The empirical context was the case of developing biogas production and improving transport in the Trondheim region in Norway. The case consisted of two connected units; establishment of a biogas plant (production side) and development of a sustainable public transport system (use side). As a template for the analysis, the Multilevel Perspective (MLP) on sociotechnical transitions was applied. The core in this perspective is the (sociotechnical) regime level, where changes have to occur in order for sustainable transitions to take place. Central at the regime level is the interaction between actors, technologies and institutions. Transitions can take place if actors experience threats from the external world and have access to niche innovations. Analysis of the case showed that the development first went through a transformation phase (ca. 1990–2009) where R&D actors developed basic technical innovations. In the next phase (2009–2019) there was a reconfiguration process were politicians and market actors engaged. Over the years, this process resulted in significant sustainability outcomes (increased production of biogas and exchange of fossil for biofuels in transport). Three major lessons can be drawn: 1) the crucial role of leadership when it comes to interpreting external changes, timing of actions and coordination of resources, 2) the necessity of new technological innovations and their adoption on regime level, and 3) differentiated state support can develop demand for renewable products and is necessary for compensating extra costs for niche actors. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 254, 1 May 2020, 120156
Artikkel
This paper investigates transition pathways using an example from the bioeconomy: salmon farming and feed development in Norway. With a Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), the analysis shows how a crucial biological input factor, feed, was gradually developed and innovated through interactions among technologies, institutions, and landscape (external) pressures, with the industry’s ambitions of becoming more sustainable. The case story presents the start of salmon farming as an example of an incremental transformation pathway with gradual reorientations in the 1960s’, where the shift from wet feed to dry, extruded feed was a crucial technological enabler. At the start of the 1990s, strong exogenous changes, including an economic crisis of overproduction and declines in salmon prices, led to extensive institutional changes. Shifts in ownership and the introduction of feed quotas brought a substitution pathway, whereby salmon farming became a national economic project. As production recovered, however, overfishing for feed became a concern. From the late 1990s on, the sociotechnical regime followed a reconfiguration pathway with the innovation of among others plant-based feed input. Over time, using vegetarian salmon feed has had unintended consequences, particularly environmental and social problems related to soy production. While neither technologies nor transitions in themselves are sustainable, this case exhibits a shift in transition pathways and how the salmon farming industry was able to respond to different sustainability concerns over time. Yet, as the transition to soy-based salmon feed demonstrates, this development entails only a weak sustainability with a main focus on economic sustainability, which also could be the case as new innovative feed substitutions continue to evolve. This finding is line with the critique of the bioeconomy agenda for paying insufficient attention to environmental sustainability and for failing to challenge predominant structures in society.
Rapport
Rapporten viser resultater fra BIOSMART sin spørreskjemaundersøkelse til virksomheter med tilknytning til bioøkonomien. Undersøkelsen kartla virksomhetenes produksjon og bruk av eller annen tilknytning til biologiske ressurser, planer for innovasjon og oppfatninger om rolle i fremtidens bioøkonomi. Analyser av undersøkelsens svar danner grunnlag for utvikling av sektorvise scenarier for bioøkonomien. I rapporten inngår også en presentasjon av BIOSMART-prosjektets perspektiv på endring.
Artikkel
Developing a future bioeconomy has become critical for three main reasons: (1) The need for sustainability of resource use; (2) The growing demand for both food and energy; and (3) The need to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation. As Zilberman observes, a transition to bioeconomy "is a continuing evolutionary process of transition from systems of mining non-renewable resources to farming renewable ones". Hence, to meet the challenges created by a growing dependence on non-renewable resources, radical changes are needed that involve more than development of or changes within the individual bio-based sectors. In line with emerging attention to the bioeconomy in Europe and elsewhere, great expectations towards the bioeconomy have been launched in high level industry and policy fora, as well as in resource-based economies such as Norway's. Grounded in theories of transition and transition management, this paper discusses the Norwegian biosector's expectations regarding a bioeconomy. Analyses are based on empirical survey data from biosector representatives. Findings suggest that there are clear differences between sectors in motivation for a future bioeconomy. A transition into a complete bioeconomy will demand a system shift and more cross-sectoral integration between these regimes than currently exists. Sustainability 9.3 (2017): 341