The bioeconomy has a variety of definitions. But essentially these include the following four elements:
All of the world's major economies have formulated a bioeconomy strategy (see table). These naturally differ depending on resources, industrial and economic circumstances. The EU's first bioeconomy strategy was published eleven years ago, revised in 2018 and currently contains five priorities. With its Bioeconomy Master Plan 2021-2025, China has recognised the value of biotechnology and is striving to become a global leader in this field. It is therefore not surprising that US President Joe Biden countered last year with a "National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative". Japan also thinks in superlatives. The Japanese government's bioeconomy strategy aims to realise the most advanced bioeconomy society in the world by 2030.
Table: Examples of bioeconomy strategies of some countries and their priorities. The right-hand column shows the availability of arable land per capita:
Land |
| Strategic priorities | ha/capita |
|---|---|---|---|
Switzerland |
| No strategy, but various preliminary work such as the brochure "Renewable instead of fossil raw materials - an opportunity for Switzerland" published by SATW in 2015 or the National Research Programme NRP 66 Resource Wood, which was completed in 2018 | 0,05 |
Europe | 2018 | Food security. Sustainable resource management. Dependence on fossil resources.CO2 emissions. Jobs and competitiveness. | 0,22 |
USA | 2022 | "National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative". Strategic investments in biotechnology and US biomanufacturing sites. Focus on public health and climate change. | 0,48
|
Japan | 2019 | "Japan Bioeconomy Strategy". Sustainable primary production systems. Bio-based high-performance materials such as bioplastics. Healthcare products and lifestyle improvements. Smart forestry. | 0,03
|
China | 21-25 | "Bioeconomy Development Plan". Biomedical technologies. Modernisation of agriculture, energy and materials from biomass. Protection of biological resources. Biological security systems. Leadership in biotechnology. | 0,08
|
India | 2016 | "National Mission on Bioeconomy". Increase biofuel production. Improving the rural economy by utilising bio-resources. National Biopharma Initiative. | 0,11
|
Germany | 2020 | "National bioeconomy". Economy and ecology for a sustainable economy. Biogenic raw materials and bioeconomic value chains. Development of rural areas. | 0,18 |
Switzerland is taking its time for one simple reason. Biotechnology has long since developed into an important factor in the Swiss economy and at Swiss universities, with a focus on innovative pharmaceutical products, fine chemicals and other high-margin products.
Nevertheless, it is time to develop a national bioeconomy strategy, even if the quantity of renewable raw materials is small, especially in order to trigger discussions. Heavily subsidised sugar cultivation is an interesting example: according to Schweizer Bauer magazine, 240,000 tonnes of sugar were produced from 1.65 million tonnes of sugar beet in 2019, a quarter of which was sold to Red Bull for sweet drinks. The question arises as to whether there are not more sensible and, above all, more profitable alternatives for this subsidised sugar.
The availability of raw and source materials from agriculture and forestry is a decisive factor. A limiting problem is the steady global decline in available agricultural land per capita. The current values are given in the table above and show very large differences. In this respect, Switzerland is in the worst possible position. The per capita usable agricultural area is four and a half times smaller than that of the EU. Due to the topography, it is not surprising that Switzerland's overall biomass potential is very sobering and modest. The only usable biomass source worth mentioning would be wood from Swiss forests. A third of the country's surface area is covered with wood, which amounts to around 1450 square metres or about 0.15 hectares of forest per inhabitant. By comparison, the global figure is 0.6 hectares of forest per capita, but with major differences between countries. The leaders in Europe are Finland and Sweden with 4.45 and 3.5 hectares per capita respectively. Compared with the EU, Switzerland brings up the rear. Only Belgium, the UK and the Netherlands have even lower figures. Malta brings up the rear with 0 hectares per capita.
Although we have not yet formulated a national bioeconomy strategy, the following can be deduced from the preliminary work mentioned above: Switzerland has neither the required acreage nor the appropriate structures and interfaces between agriculture and chemistry for the production of bioethanol and other bulk products. The goal should be high-quality products with small tonnages and sufficiently high added value. Orientation towards the export economy and the needs of a global market is a prerequisite.
Theoretically, around 8 million cubic metres of wood could be harvested each year. Under the leadership of the Swiss Wood Innovation Network S-WIN, an expansion of wood utilisation is to be considered. What additional tasks could the wood sector possibly take on in the future? What new wood utilisation technologies and processes are available? What are the most attractive value chains? Is specific R&D needed for such a wood-based bioeconomy? Which alliances should be examined?
This work by S-WIN, which can serve as the basis for a more comprehensive bioeconomy strategy, is worthy of support.
A biorefinery is not the same as a petro-refinery. The highly functionalised and oxidised biomass requires different transformation processes than oil-based feedstocks. It is therefore not possible to piggyback on the refinery installations available worldwide for the bioeconomy. In addition, many of these oil-based plants have been written off. However, both approaches have so far been based on low-margin, cost-sensitive transformations and products. In competition with the conventional refineries that have been perfected over the last hundred years, the new biorefineries are struggling. Cressier is the last remaining oil refinery in Switzerland, operated by Varo Energy Group. With a capacity of 68,000 barrels per day, it covers around a quarter of the daily national demand. This corresponds to less than 0.1 per cent of global oil consumption of around 93 million barrels per day.
In addition to the availability and prices of crude oil and biomass, the prices ofCO2 emission certificates will also be decisive. The reinsurer Swiss Re set theCO2 price for its own risk assessments at 100 US dollars per tonne at the beginning of 2021. By 2030, the price should be 200 US dollars. It is quite possible that insurance and capital markets will greatly accelerate the transition to a bioeconomy.
Today's world is still based on petrochemicals. Fertilisers, chemicals, plastics, clothing and countless consumer goods are oil-based and will remain so for a long time because oil-based products make more sense than bio-based alternatives in many areas. Petrochemicals will continue to be the biggest driver of global oil demand in the coming decades. But a bioeconomy strategy should point the way to the products for which oil or biomass is the most sustainable solution.
The topic of the bioeconomy is complex, but the S-WIN initiative can use standardised approaches to create a well-founded overview of wood-based biomass. This work can later serve as the basis for a more comprehensive bioeconomy strategy for Switzerland, also to assess the framework conditions and long-term effects of decisions.
Contact us if you would like to help shape the topic!
Hans-Peter Meyer, Expertinova AG, Head of the Scientific Advisory Board SATW