The EU’s 2018 Bioeconomy Strategy Update and the European Green Deal recently confirmed that the bioeconomy is high on the political agenda in Europe. Here, we propose a conceptual analysis framework for quantifying and analyzing the development of the EU bioeconomy. The bioeconomy has several related concepts (e.g., bio-based economy, green economy, and circular economy) and there are clear synergies between these concepts, especially between the bioeconomy and circular economy concepts. Analyzing the driving factors provides important information for monitoring activities. We first derive the scope of the bioeconomy framework in terms of bioeconomy sectors and products to be involved, the needed geographical coverage and resolution, and time period. Furthermore, we outline a set of indicators linked to the objectives of the EU’s bioeconomy strategy. In our framework, measuring developments will, in particular, focus on the bio-based sectors within the bioeconomy as biomass and food production is already monitored. The selected indicators commit to the EU Bioeconomy Strategy objectives and conform with findings from previous studies and stakeholder consultation. Additionally, several new indicators have been suggested and they are related to measuring the impact of changes in supply, demand drivers, resource availability, and policies on sustainability goals.

The EU Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy includes a number of policy objectives that have implications for agricultural production in the EU and beyond. This contribution discusses the possible implications from an economic perspective. We draw on economic assessments by other authors and discuss their wider implications by considering only partially quantified benefits and costs. Overall, the assessments indicate a decline in EU agricultural production in quantitative terms. The F2F strategy negatively affects aggregate consumer surplus and—depending on the assumption made—a net increase or decrease in producer surplus, thereby inducing an overall net welfare loss. Partially quantified benefits and costs include the environmental benefits and costs linked to the F2F strategy, such as implications for greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, or the landscape. Therefore, by launching the strategy, policy makers have implicitly concluded that the additional net benefits outweigh the losses in consumer surplus. The economic studies combined with studies on the impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity and the emission of greenhouse gases do not support this claim without further technological and institutional changes, such as supporting the application of modern biotechnology by reducing regulatory hurdles. Also, whether most consumers will share this view remains to be seen. EU policy makers have it in their hands to implement the necessary institutional changes.

The emerging concept of bioeconomy offers several opportunities to address societal challenges. The bioeconomy is mainly driven by advances in microbiology, which can be applied to various processes that use biological resources by shifting consumer preferences and by yielding new insights into resource constraints related to such issues as climate and land. Although expectations are high, less is known about the economic importance of the bioeconomy. This article reviews the methodological challenges of measuring the bioeconomy, the approaches used, and the outcomes reported. The results show that measuring the bioeconomy is still in its infancy and faces a number of methodological challenges. Bioeconomy cuts across sectors and therefore cannot be treated as a traditional sector in economics. Economics must catch up with bioeconomy realities. For a comprehensive economic assessment, information about bioeconomy resources, compounds, and product flows is required. We outline innovations in data storage and analytical methods that would realize bioeconomy opportunities and help guide policy.

Vitamin A enriched rice (Golden Rice) is a cost-efficient solution that can substantially reduce health costs. Despite Golden Rice being available since early 2000, this rice has not been introduced in any country. Governments must perceive additional costs that overcompensate the benefits of the technology to explain the delay in approval. We develop a real option model including irreversibility and uncertainty about perceived costs and arrival of new information to explain a delay in approval. The model has been applied to the case of India. Results show the annual perceived costs have to be at least US$199 million per year approximately for the last decade to explain the delay in approval of the technology. This is an indicator of the economic power of the opposition towards Golden Rice resulting in about 1.4 million life years lost over the past decade in India.

The European Commission's Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, under the European Green Deal, acknowledges that innovative techniques, including biotechnology, may play a role in increasing sustainability. At the same time, organic farming will be promoted, and at least 25% of the EU's agricultural land shall be under organic farming by 2030. How can both biotechnology and organic farming be developed and promoted simultaneously to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? We illustrate that achieving the SDGs benefits from the inclusion of recent innovations in biotechnology in organic farming. This requires a change in the law. Otherwise, the planned increase of organic production in the F2F strategy may result in less sustainable, not more sustainable, food systems.

We argue that differences in the perception and governance of adaptation to climate change and extreme weather events are related to sets of beliefs and concepts through which people understand the environment and which are used to solve the problems they face (mental models). Using data gathered in 31 in-depth interviews with adaptation experts in Europe, we identify five basic stakeholder groups whose divergent aims and logic can be related to different mental models they use: advocacy groups, administration, politicians, researchers, and media and the public. Each of these groups uses specific interpretations of climate change and specifies how to deal with climate change impacts. We suggest that a deeper understanding and follow-up of the identified mental models might be useful for the design of any stakeholder involvement in future climate impact research processes. It might also foster consensus building about adequate adaptation measures against climate threats in a society.