BIOECONOMY IN ROMANIA AND EUROPE Abstract: This paper highlight the importance of the “bioeco nomy” concept and the progress made so far in Romania… [625188]

BIOECONOMY IN ROMANIA AND EUROPE

Abstract: This paper highlight the importance of the “bioeco nomy” concept and the
progress made so far in Romania and Europe in terms of practice implementation and
also in assurance the best strategies for sustainab le development through bio-based
economy.
Keywords: bioeconomy, sustainability, innovation, Europe, Ro mania

INTRODUCTION
To meet the challenges that the 21st century brings to us, and here we can thinking of rare and
limited natural resources, population growth, clima te change, and so on, a possible answer could
be innovation and technological progress.
The possible solutions offered by biotech innovatio ns have gained more and more supporters,
born out a new paradigm for their assessing: bioeco nomy [13]. The concept is relatively new, first
used in 1997 by Enriquez and Martinez [4], at a gen omics seminar, since than bioeconomy
knowing constant improvements of the meaning and sc ope, as it is shown by the following
definitions example (founded in Maciejczak, M. & Ho freiter, K. (2013):
– “bioeconomy does not constitute the ecological alig nment of economics, but the
economical alignment of ecology”- Gottwald and Kratzer [10] – 2014; (cited in
Maciejczak, M. & Hofreiter, K. (2013)
– “an economy where the basic building blocks for mat erials, chemicals and energy are
derived from renewable biological resources, such a s plant and animal sources” –
McCormick [15] – 2013; (cited in Maciejczak, M. & H ofreiter, K. (2013)
– “an economy using biological resources from the lan d and sea as well as waste, including
food wastes, as inputs to industry and energy produ ction, it also covers the use of bio-
based processes to green industries” – EuropeanCommission [6] – 2012; (cited in
Maciejczak, M. & Hofreiter, K. (2013)
– “based on the use of research and innovation in the biological sciences to create
economic activity and public benefit” – The WhiteHouse [21] – 2012; (cited in Maciejczak,
M. & Hofreiter, K. (2013)
– “the sustainable production and conversion of bioma ss, for a range of food, health, fibre
and industrial products and energy” – EPSO [5] – 2011; (cited in Maciejczak, M. &
Hofreiter, K. (2013)
– “production paradigms that rely on biological proce sses and, as with natural ecosystems,
use natural inputs, expend minimum amounts of energ y and do not produce waste as all
materials discarded by one process are inputs for a nother process and are re-used in the
ecosystem” – European Commission [8] – 2010; (cited in Maciejcza k, M. & Hofreiter, K.
(2013)
– “transforming life science knowledge into new, sust ainable, eco-efficient and competitive
products” – OECD [18] – 2009; (cited in Maciejczak, M. & Hofrei ter, K. (2013)

After two decades of debates there is no unanimous accepted definition of bioeconomy, but its
various aspects are explored forward by scholars, p ractitioners and politicians. Their efforts could

be captured on various meetings, seminars, conferen ces, summits, such as First Global
Bioeconomy Summit in November 2015, at Berlin, wher e met experts from around the world. The
identification of factors influencing the developme nt of the bioeconomy acts as the basis for
setting visions and objectives as well as strategie s and actions to realise the transition towards a
bio-based economy [15].
Beate El-Chichakli and his colleagues outlined five principles for coordinating bio-based
industries in order to achieve the sustainable deve lopment goals [17]:
1. “international collaborations between government s and public and private researchers
are essential for optimizing resource use and shari ng knowledge [17]”;
2. “ways to measure the bioeconomy’s development an d its contributions to the SDGs need
to be found[17] ”;
3. “bioeconomy initiatives need to be linked more c losely with multilateral policy processes
and intergovernmental discussions, particularly the SDG 2030 agenda and follow-ups to
the Paris climate and Aichi biodiversity agreements [17]”;
4. “educators should collaborate internationally to define the knowledge, skills and
competencies required for developing a bioeconomy t hat enhances the sustainable use
of bio-based materials in manufacturing and in cons umer products [17]”;
5. “research-and-development support programmes are needed to encourage global
collaborations in a few breakthrough projects [17]” .
Considering all these, the concept of bioeconmy is far to be completed, but, certainly,
sustainability and innovation will be the main pill ars of the future economy, its success depending
on how it is implemented and fostered. The essence will based on sustainable transformation of
renewable biological resources into products and pr ocesses that aim to meet private and public
expectations [13].

1. BIOECONOMY in Europe
EU 2020 Strategy promotes the bioeconomy as an impo rtant tools for intelligent and green
growth, focuses on the investment in research innov ation and skills, on the reinforcement of
policy interaction and stakeholder engagement and o n the enhancement of markets and
competitiveness in green sectors. The possibility o f collaboration between different sectors allow
the bioeconomy to find solutions for the major chal lenges as food security, limited natural
resources, dependence on fossil resources and clima te changes [1].
In the EU, “bioeconomy industries account for 17 mi llion jobs, or 8.5% of the region’s workforce
(A) and generate more than €2 trillion (US$2.2 tril lion) annually (B) [17]. Equivalent statistics are
unavailable elsewhere, but US industries producing bio-based products (non-food) account for
about 4 million jobs and US$370 billion. India’s bi oeconomy surpassed US$4 billion in 2013. And
Brazil’s sugar-cane industry accounted for 2% of it s gross domestic product and 4.5 million jobs
in 2012” [17].
Figure 1

Source: Nature, vol 535(7611):221-223 · July 2016, DOI: 10.1038/535221a
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305311278 _Policy_Five_cornerstones_of_a_global_bi
oeconomy)
To maximise the impact of bioeconomy research and i nnovation, European Commission need to
prove coherent policy framework, increase in resear ch investments, development of bio-based
markets and better communication with the public sh ould be prioritized.
On 13 February 2012, the European Commission adopte d the strategy “Innovating for
Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe”. The B ioeconomy Strategy includes a set of
objectives and actions to be taken at EU and Member States levels. The Action Plan describes
the Commission’s actions for the implementation of the Bioeconomy Strategy objectives, building
on the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7),
Horizon 2020 and other relevant existing policy ini tiatives, such as the European Innovation
Partnerships (EIPs) [7].
It is worth to be mention here The European Union’s Standing Committee on Agricultural
Research (SCAR), established in 1974 by a Regulatio n of the Council of the European Union,
who “is mandated to advise the European Commission and the Member States on the
coordination of agricultural research in Europe. It s work covers the European Research Area,
currently composed of 28 EU Member States and 11 Ob servers. In 2005, the SCAR was given a
renewed mandate by the Council to play a major role in the coordination of agricultural research
efforts and the organisation of European advisory s ervices, education, training and innovation
[23]”.
A number of working groups and actions of SCAR are connecting to the Commission’s 2012
Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan [23]:
– “The Foresight action – explores the future of ag riculture (chain) development in the
bioeconomy [23]” ;
– “The Strategic Working group on Sustainable Bio-r esources for a Growing Bioeconomy –
develops a strategy and a Research & Innovation age nda for the SCAR on bioeconomy
[23]”;
– “The Collaborative Working group on Integrated Bi orefineries – focuses on the research
needs for the development of bio-refinery technolog y and capacity in Europe. This
working group is aligning with member states and JT I [23]”;
– “The Collaborative Working Group on Agricultural Knowledge Systems – works on the
development of an interactive innovation approach [ 23]”.

The Bioeconomy Panel believes that the European Com mission’s Bioeconomy Strategy would
need further efforts to address the triple challeng e of producing enough biomass without
overexploitation and negative impact on the environ ment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
and ensuring economically viable production that be nefits the whole value chain [23].

2. BIOECONOMY IN ROMANIA
In Romania, sectors as agriculture, forestry, fishe ries, food, as well as parts of chemical,
biotechnological and energy industries have a large innovation potential based on sciences (life
sciences, agronomy, food science, social sciences) enabling and industrial technologies
(biotechnology, information and communication techn ologies) and local knowledge [1].
Nevertheless, the concept of bioeconomy appears onl y in three official documents: „National
Strategy for Research, Development and Innovation 2 014-2020”, „National Strategy for
Competitivenes 2014-2020” and „National Strategy fo r Rural Development 2014-2020” [19].
Statistical data show that more than 1/3 of the act ive population work in subsectors of
bioeconomy and their contribution on GDP exceeds 20 % [19].
The evolution of sectors production related to bioe conomy is illustrated in the table 3.

Table 3
Input-Output table, production account and generati on of income account by industries – uses by
product and by activity of the national economy – c onstant prices – ESA 2010 – CANE Rev.2
Years
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Production
account by
categories
on products
CANE
Rev.2 MU: Millions of lei
Crop and
animal
production,
hunting and
related
service
activities 27540 26775 24587 35544 40233 42911 47428 43543 43915 43374
Forestry
and logging 1735.7 1880 2276.5 2602.7 2649.3 1713.5 2837.8 3256.1 4632.7 5669.3
Fishing and
aquaculture 154.2 169.8 196.4 300.9 293 223 366.8 276.9 302.9 170.4

Manufacture
of food
products 19805 18996 22387 27055 28862 16134 16176 13852 16444 25912

Manufacture
of
beverages 4548 5757.7 6100.5 9263.7 9394.7 8840.4 8128.5 7026 7439 6466.8
Manufacture
of tobacco
products 3033 3413 3836.5 4343.1 5273.3 4831.7 5578.4 8356.4 8648.2 10938

Manufacture
of textiles 10108 9155.9 8458.5 7568.4 5904.7 9582.9 11775 13251 16407 14823

Manufacture
of wood and
of products 5206 6109.7 8525.7 9282.8 8956.7 8154.9 8427.5 8737.7 10603 10306

of wood and
cork, except
furniture;
manufacture
of articles of
straw and
plaiting
materials

Manufacture
of paper
and paper
products 3611.9 3864.2 5435.9 6198.8 6020.7 5426.8 5563.6 5904.5 6200.5 6965

Manufacture
of chemicals
and
chemical
products 12297 15786 20348 23000 22314 21388 22187 25561 25876 27877

Manufacture
of furniture 1046.2 617 560.1 2733 1682 4104.3 2751.4 3312.8 3685 4146.4
Source: INS
Romania can develop production systems on all types of renewable sources, according to the
specifics of each geographical area in the country. Studies reveal that at the country level our
potential in the production of green energy biomass is 65%, 17% wind, 12% solar energy, 4%
small hydropower and 2% geothermal voltaic. Accordi ng to a map developed by NMA [11], the
energy potential of Romania is area partitioned as follows: Delta – solar energy; Dobrogea – solar
and wind; Moldova – micro-hydro, wind, biomass; Car pati- high potential for biomass and micro-
hydro; Transylvania – potential for micro-hydro; We st Plain – possibilities of exploiting geothermal
energy; Subcarpati – potential for biomass and micr o-hydro; Romanian Plain – biomass,
geothermal and solar energy. Electric energy produc tion by type of energy plant is presented in
Table 4.
Table 4 Electric energy production by type of energy plant
Millions KWh
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Types of electric
energy production
plants
Total, of which: 59413 62696 61673 64956 58016 60979 62216 59047 58888 65675
Thermoelectric 33651 38709 37995 36529 30448 28807 34136 32596 27023 26903
Hydroelectric 20207 18355 15966 17196 15807 20243 14946 12337 15307 19279
Wind : : 3 5 9 306 1387 2640 4520 6201
Solar : : : : : : : 8 420 1616
Nuclear-electric 5555 5632 7709 11226 11752 11623 11747 11466 11618 11676
Source: INS
Wind and solar energy have experienced rapid dynami c by attracting the largest amount of
investment as a result of improving the national le gal framework [1]. Assuming the European
target of increasing by 24 percent green energy con tribution to electricity consumption has
resulted in the development of a package of financi al support schemes and market operation
mechanism of green certificates.
Green certificate promotion system tries to reduce imports of primary energy resources, stimulate
local and regional sustainable development and crea ting new jobs, reducing environmental
pollution by reducing the production of pollution e missions and greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2016, 6.2 million green certificates have been i ssued related to energy production from
renewable sources. However, manufacturers complain that they went bankrupt. And 2017 does

not look to be better compared to 2016 because ANRE proposed a share of 8.3%, compared to
12.1% today. This means that a smaller portion of g reen energy produced will benefit from green
certificates scheme, which means that manufacturers will collect less money. Moreover, these
green certificates are valid for 12 months after th at becoming void. The companies from PATRES
organization must pay taxes for green certificates that can not sell them, which means costs of
160 million lei. Romania has attracted around EUR 7 billion worth of investments in the renewable
sector between 2008 and 2013, but the losses in the sector are to the tune of billions of euros,
according to Eric Stab, the president of the Foreig n Investors’ Council [24]. The head of the FIC
underlined that it “would be very sad to see a coll apse of this sector” and that Romania might
miss its Europe 2020 targets regarding the share of renewable energy in the total output if
authorities don’t do anything [24].
Most important potential for providing renewable th ermal energy is provided by agricultural
biomass, including the biodegradable fraction of in dustrial and domestic waste. By processing the
small investment and minimum, biogas, biomass provi ding extremely low cost compared to the
combustion of natural gas (less than half), and car bon (four or less). Special issues and
controversies even appear on competing uses of biom ass taking into account the challenges of
food security, increasing demand for renewable biol ogical resources of other sectors, the state
land in Romania etc.

CONCLUSIONS
Providing the knowledge base on sustainable intensi fication of primary production taking into
account the current and future demand and populatio n growth, fertility and natural resources to
climate change mitigation, preparation of high and low skilled professionals, establishment of
public private partnerships for research and bio-in dustries innovation, building integrated and
diversified distribution chains of bio etc. are jus t some of the objectives to be included in a
complex coherent framework.
There is a clear need to develop and implement a co herent communications strategy to raise
consumer awareness around the bioeconomy and the op portunities for and barriers to its
development. This should be done in the context of the grand challenges facing future
generations such as climate change, resource effici ency, energy and food security [23].

REFERENCES
1. Cămăș oiu C.; Caragea N.; Cristea A., A green economy and new challenges in Romania ,
Working papers from Ecological University of Buchar est, No 7, Department of Economics,
2013
2. DG Research, FP7 Theme 2: Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biote chnology , 2007 work
programme.
3. DG Research , New perspectives on knowledge based bio-economy . Conference report.
Brussels, 14-15.09.2005.
4. Enriquez, J., Genomics and the World's Economy . Science 281(5379): 925-926, 1998
5. EPSO , The European Bioeconomy in 2030: Delivering Sustain able Growth by addressing the
Grand Societal Challenges . European Plant Science Organisation, 2011,
<http://www.becoteps.org/>, <http://www.europabio.o rg/EU%20Projects/bioeconomy-2030-
becoteps-final-white-paper.pdf>.
6. European Commission , Bio-economy Newsletter, February 2012,
http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/press/pdf/1 20202_research_en.pdf .
7. European Commission , Innovating for Sustainable Growth – A Bioeconomy for Europe,
2012

8. European Commission , The Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) in Europe:
Achievements and challenges . Full conference report, 2010
<http://www.tetalap.hu/ktconference/images/stories/ related_documents/KBBE_2020_BE_pre
sidency.p>.
9. German Presidency . En Route to the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy; Germ an Presidency
of the Council of the European Union: Cologne, Germ any, 2007.
10. Gottwald F-T, Krätzer A , Irrweg Bioökonomie. Kritik an einem totalitären Ans atz , Edition
Unseld, Suhrkamp, Berlin, 2014
11. http://www.responsabilitatesociala.ro/editoriale/de spre-investitiile-in-energie-
regenerabila.html
12. Louise Staffas, Mathias Gustavsson and Kes McCormic k , Strategies and Policies for the
Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Of ficial National Approaches ,
Sustainability, 2013, 5(6), 2751-2769
13. Maciejczak, M., & Hofreiter, K ., How to define bioeconomy . Roczniki Naukowe SERIA,
2013, 15(4), 243-248
14. Matteo de Besi and Kes McCormick , Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional
and Industrial Strategies , Sustainability, 2015, 7(8), 10461-10478
15. McCormick K.; Kautto N. , The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview, Sustainabi lity, 2013,
5(6), 2589-2608
16. Menrad, K., Eberle, U., Schmid, O., Vanhemelrijk, J . and Viaggi, D. (2011). Assessment
of the Impacts of a European Bio-Based Economy. Rep ort of the External Expert Group on
Social, Economic and Environmental Implications of a Bio-Based Economy . Expert report for
DG Research, EU Commission Brussels
17. Nature , vol 535, 14 July 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limit ed, part of Springer Nature, found
at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305311278_ Policy_Five_cornerstones_of_a_global
_bioeconomy and http://www.nature.com/news/policy-five-corner stones-of-a-global-
bioeconomy-1.20228
18. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Developme nt (OECD) . The Bioeconomy to
2030: Designing a Policy Agenda, Main Findings ; Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development: Paris, France, 2009.
19. Pasculea, M., Strategic options of public policy for developing t he bioeconomy sector in
Romania, Revista Romana de Economie, 41(1), 2015
20. Schmidt, O., Padel, S., & Levidow, L. , The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in
a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective . Bio-Based And Applied Economics, 1(1), 2012, 47-
63.
21. The White House, National Bioeconomy Blueprint , Washington DC., 2012
22. UK Biomass Strategy . DEFRA White Policy paper , London 2007
23. European Commission , Where next for the European bioeconomy? The latest thinking from
the European Bioeconomy Panel and the Standing Comm ittee on Agricultural Research
Strategic Working Group (SCAR), 2014, http://docpla yer.net/213135-Bioeconomy-where-
next-for-the-european.html
24. http://www.business-review.eu/news/renewable-cr isis-in-romania-eur-2-bln-thrown-out-the-
window-over-legal-changes-says-eric-stab-fic-112500