Looking at bioeconomy from different perspectives: technological and social innovation approaches

Bioeconomy is getting momentum within the political/research agenda in Europe. About 20 regional, national and sub-national bioeconomy strategies have already been developed (more than 40 globally) nonetheless there is no univocal understanding of this concept. Based on existing literature, two different approaches to innovation in bioeconomy can be identified, i.e. (1) a traditional technological-based approach and (2) an emerging social-based one. The former builds on adaptive strategy and relies on technological/organizational innovations and large-scale investments, focusing on the primary sector mainly as a raw material provider. Examples include large biomass plants and biorefineries in Northern Europe, often depending on imported rather than locally sourced inputs. The second approach considers social innovation and networking as crucial issues for cross-sectoral development and horizontal integration. Forests are seen as green infrastructures promoting rural development through the delivery of added value products and ecosystem services. Examples include public-private partnerships to promote forest management, networking for marketing of wild products (e.g. mushrooms), and the development of cultural and social services (e.g. recreation, health and well-being). The innovative dimension of these initiatives often relies on new forms of networking among different actors. The paper provides relevant examples. Although additional research is needed to fill existing knowledge gaps, the second approach seems to better fit the Mediterranean context, characterized by fragile and fragmented forest resources, often presenting limited financial profitability while ensuring valuable public goods. From a Mediterranean perspective the innovative aspects of the bioeconomy seems to rely on equity, social inclusiveness, local knowledge and employment creation, i.e. on social more than technology innovation. However, integration among the two approaches is advisable