European workshop on bioeconomy. June 28-29th, 2017, Paris · 2018-02-16 · necessary involvement...

DOI10.15454/1.508506670775328E12;http://prodinra.inra.fr/record/410335

Europeanworkshoponbioeconomy.June28-29th,2017,Paris

1

Europeanworkshoponbioeconomy.June28-29th,2017,ParisAuthorsMoniqueAxelos,MichelBeckert,Jean-MarcCallois,PaulColonna,JulienDugue,CatherineEsnouf,BenedicteHerbinet,EgizioValceschiniCorrespondingauthor:[email protected],PaulColonna,CatherineEsnouf,BenedicteHerbinet,EgizioValceschiniarefromINRAJulienDuguefromFrenchMinistryforagricultureandfoodJean-MarcCalloisfromIrsteaMichelBeckertfromFrenchMinistryofHigherEducation,ResearchandInnovationDOI10.15454/1.508506670775328E12http://prodinra.inra.fr/record/410335

Positionpaperextendedversion

IntroductionINRA and Irstea have hosted a europeanworkshop on Bioeconomyon June 28 and 29th,2017inParis.ThelargeaudienceparticipationgatheredparticipantscomingfromEuropeancountries (AT, BE, DL, FIN, FR, IT, IRL, LTU, NL, SP, UK) and also Burkina Faso , Canada,Gambia,Georgia,Guinea,Morocco,Russia,USA,Colombia.A total of320people, including awide rangeof stakeholders (from research to economicspheres) and disciplines (for research), attended the28 presentations and 3 roundtablesthat took place over two days. A youth panel was associated all along themeeting. Theknowledges gained during these two days give an ideal opportunity to publish a positionpaper to provide new ideas and research directions to stimulate further advancement ofBioeconomy.Thispositionpaperaimsatmappingbioeconomyrelatedissues:R&Drelatedrecommendationshavebeen identified. Theneed fornew tools andpartnerships and thenecessary involvement of new stakeholders were also highlighted. All issues have beenclassifiedinfourchapters:

o Overcomingdisciplinarysilosandbuildingasystemapproachbeyondsectors,o Accompanyingplayersonthepathsoftransition,o Identificationoftherelevantterritorialscalesfororganizingvaluecreation,o Measuring,analyzingandimprovingtheimplementationofthebioeconomy.



2

•_ContextBioeconomy is on the agenda ofmany research policies all over theworld. National andEuropeanstrategiessharethesamedefinitionofbioeconomy.TheGlobalBioeconomySummit(Berlin,2015)statedthatthereisacommonunderstandingof“bioeconomyastheknowledge-basedproductionandutilisationofbiologicalresources,innovative biological processes and principles to sustainably provide goods and servicesacrossalleconomicsectors”.Theperimeterofthebioeconomystartsfromlocallyavailablebiological resources (forestry and agricultural crops,wastes) andextends to thebiologicalutilization of CO2 (e.g., concentrated sources of CO2 ). Foods, bioenergies, biobasedchemicalsandmaterialspurposesareconsideredsimultaneouslyasdriversofbioeconomy.This approach of development represents a turning point where all three pillars ofsustainability are thewatchwords. Bioeconomy responds to the achievementof someUNSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDG),Goal2"ZeroHunger",Goal7«AffordableEnergy»,Goal12«Responsibleconsumptionandproduction»,Goal14«Lifebelowwater»,Goal15«LifeonEarth»andthetermsandambitionsoftheParisClimateChangeAgreement.Bioeconomyisnolongeranotherissuebutaparadigmchangeforsustainabledevelopment.Anoldsociotechnicalsystemisdyingaway,whileanewonestrugglestocomeforth.Sincethefirstuseof theconceptofbioeconomy in2005-2010, itscontenthasevolvedandnewissuesarenowonthetopoftheresearchagenda.•_StatementofthepositionThe bioeconomy is above all a political vision emblematic of the ecological transition Itsdevelopment requires breaking with the old linear logic of separate optimization in thedifferentproductionandtransformationsectors,andto"thinksystem"instead.Bioeconomyis enrolled in three major directions: (a) valorization of the traditional sectors linked toagriculture, forestry and fishery complemented by the wastes, (b) high-tech innovationmainly based upon biotechnolgies, and finally (c) changes in demand, favouringconsumption of sustainable goods and reduction ofwaste and fatal losses. Beyond linear«cause andeffect» relationships, non linear relationships (coupling, retroaction, cascade,snowball effects) arise from interrelationships among various parts, either environmental,social or technical factors affecting the organizational performance. The corollary is thatopmization of each pilar alone (environment, economical, social) tends to increase un-designedrelationships,injurioustothesystem’sperformance.Theconsequenceistheneedtodevelopjointoptimizationorecodesign,thatis,designingtheenvironmental,socialandtechnical system so that elements work smoothly together, inside a system boundaries.Relationships between the three pilars lead to productivity andwellbeing simultaneously,rather than the all too often case of new technology failing tomeet the expectations ofdesignersandusersalike.The bioeconomy is partially (but not completely) inscribed in the circular economy, thislaterencompassingothersectors.Twonewconceptsenrichthelandscape:cascadinguses,andclosingofC,N,PandKcycles.Theseconcepts challenge thenotionofanullorevennegative value ofwaste in the value chains and, as a consequence, the link between the



3

materialspecificationsofproductsenteringorexitingsuccessiveoperations.Inthisway,thebioeconomymakes possible to decouple growth from the use of rawmaterials. A majorquestion still remains about phosphates that are non-renewable since they are mined,requiringa'recycling'perspectiveaswell.Thebioeconomyhasnotyetgivenrisetoacollectivepolicyconstructioninvolvingalloftheactorsofsociety.Suchaconstructionshouldbebasedonalineofthoughttargetedattheyounggenerationswhowillbetheactors in2030-2050,byfocusingon"environment-diet-consumption-health-life"nexus.Howcanwearticulatecollectivegoalswhoseformulationisdelicate,actorswhosestatusandinterestsareverydifferent,heterogeneousterritoriesandvariabletimescales?Itassumesare-assessmentoftherelationshipsbetweenthedifferentstakeholdersfromtheagriculturalcommunity,uptoindustriesandmanagersofend-of-lifeproducts. A shared systemic framework, with emphasis on desired use functions shoulddeterminedegreesof freedom,consequentlyrevealing linksandmaterialsavingsbetweensectors. Policy-makers, private sector, civil society, foresight and think tank orientedactivitiesarewelcomeinthesediscussions,priortothedefinitionofpublicpoliciesbasedonprinciplesoftransparency,opennessandevidence.Thebioeconomymustthereforerelyonarealresearchstrategy.Evenifthisnotionofthebioeconomyisalreadypresentinseveralsectionsofdifferentnationalresearchstrategies,itmainlyconsistsofanevocationofsocietalchallengesandareasofsciencewithoutextendingto new research questions. Basic research remains the cornerstone of science-baseddevelopment and science-based policy. At the same time, more systematic networking,interaction and collaboration between scientists and practitioners, and new fundings forthat kind of transdisciplinary interplay are needed.Weneedprogrammes for “knowledgecreation”aswellasfordeploymentaddressingthevaluechainapproach(e.g.PPP)asbothofthemareequallyimportant.Theindustry-drivenbottom-upinstrumentlikeaPPPshouldfostercooperationbetweenpublicandprivateactors,andstimulateinvestments.Firstissue:overcomingdisciplinarysilosandbuildingasystemapproachbeyondsectorsSeveralscenario-basedforesightstudiesareinprogressorhavealreadybeenpublished,allconsidering sectors, energy or foods individually. Major efforts are necessary to discernpossible evolution pathways of biomass uses based on supply or demand from differentanglesintheplanetboundaries,abletoconsidertheimpactsofbreakthroughdevelopmentsincertainsectorsonothersectorsofthebioeconomy.Thebioeconomyrequiresscenarioswithalongtimehorizon(2050)torepresentcontrastingsituations and to simulate evolutions thatwill help us to prioritize research issues. Thesescenarios should integrate the drivers (foods, bioenergies, biobased chemicals andmaterials) in order to verify the comparative interest of contrasted options and theircompatibility,inparticular,andtoshedlightonthechoiceoffutureinvestments.The major problem is the current lack of integration between the different activities,whetheritbethespecies-variety-croppingsystemshiftortheintegrationofcropproductionandinitialtransformation.Agenerictooltodevelopscenariosandtomodelsystemsattheregionalscale,tocreatescenariosforthedevelopment/destructionofactivities(becauseitwilloccur)andtoreflectontrainingandeducationisalsolacking.



4

Inthesescenarios,itwouldbenecessarytosummarizetheunderlyinghypotheses,lock-ins,whethertheyareexplicitornot,andtoundertakeasurveyofthescenariosandmodelsthatare currently used or proposed (or, if this is not possible, to propose a "bioeconomy"frameworkwithinwhichthemodelsandscenarioscouldbeanalyzedbycrossingverticalandhorizontal fluxes). This would make it possible to identify convergences, contradictions,overlappingofscalesandpossiblelinkswithinabioeconomicperspectiverangingfromtheimpact of humans on ecosystems to public policies, and including the biotechnologies,processes,organizations,jobs,environmentalexternalities,etc.Whatever the intensity of bioeconomy development, biological resources, including soils,shouldnotbedepletedbyoverconsumptiontoguaranteetheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds.Theopportunitiesandrisksofbioeconomydevelopmentwithaviewto sustainability have to be defined in the broad frame of the diversity in bioeconomystrategies.Thisthresholdofoverconsumptionshouldleadtothedefinitionofbioressourcebelts,adaptedtoeachlongtermandintegratedstrategy.Withintheoverallbioeconomicsystem,theworldwidegeneralizationoftheWesternfoodmodelisnotpossiblewithoutendangeringtheecosystemsthemselves.Thedeterminismofcontrasted evolutions of diets observed worldwide requires dedicated research thatcombines nutritional and cultural components, as well as an analysis of generationalevolutions (the impactof long-term flexitarian/vegetarianbehavior). This "consumptionofanimalproducts"variablemustbecombinedwithdemographicevolutions,alongwith themajoruncertaintiesconcerningtheirquantitativepredictions.Qualitatively, trends inagingandurbanizationare significantandwill havea strong influenceonconsumptionpatternsandtheconsumptionofspace.Thefirstlevertoreduceourdiet’senvironmentalimpactistowaste less, and eat justwhatwe need.More research is neeeded on policy and societalrelevant researchwhichgives insighthowtosteer the foodsectors inmoresustainable,healthierandmoreequitableway.Food security is considered as a priority (Food first). Up to now, the global food securitydebatehasasingledominantfocus:increasingagriculturalproductiontogainbothphysicalaccesstofoodandadequacywithpurchasingpower.At localscale,thisproductionistbiashas tobe revisitedwithagroecology-push.Meanwhile it isaquestionofproposinga foodsupplythatmeetstheneedsofconsumers(sanitary,nutritional,hedonistic,cultural,ethical...), accessible to all and favorable to well-being, health and the environment. The cross-sectoraland/orsystemicapproachesspecifictothechallengesofthebioeconomyfallinthesystem approaches. Meat and milk products certainly constitute one of the adjustmentvariables at the world scale, but little explored until now: what are the scenarios for aneventualdecreaseinEuropeofmilkandmeatproductsfrom10to20%over30years,andwhatwouldbetheimpactsontheavailabilityofbiomassesandfarmland?Adequatepublicpoliciesshouldplayamajorrolefororientatingproductionsystemstosustainablesolutions.Re-evaluating food sectors in viewof a bioeconomic system raises the issueof trade-offbetweenenvironnementallycroppingandlivestocksystemsdrivenbyagroecologyandfoodsupplythatmeetstheneedsofconsumers(sanitary,nutritional,hedonistic,cultural,ethical...),accessibletoallandfavorabletowell-being,healthandtheenvironment.



5

The design of sustainable cropping systems under constraint of uses of the biomassproducedleadstothediversificationofcropsandofthecompetitivenessof«minor»crops,aswellasthedevelopmentofvarietalinnovationondefinedtraitsforthesuitabilityforuse,processingprocessesandthesustainabilityofproductionsystems.Morediversifiedcroppingsystemsat the field, farmand territory levelsmeanchanges in the storage capacitiesandfirst transformation steps. Digital technologies should bring decision support systems forbetteragriculturalproduction, ieproducingmorewhile impacting lessontheenvironmental,whatever the typeof agriculture.Digital bioeconomy isnot amagicwand.More research isneededtodevelophardandsoftwaressuitedtosystemandsubsystems.The stackingofpublicpolicies thatopposeor ignorefoodandnon-foodend-purposes,orproductionvs.transformation,constitutesamajordifficultytoovercometoensuregreatercoherenceandefficiencyintheEU'sactions.Atleastsixpublicpoliciesareconcernedwithbioeconomy:

• Food,nutritionandhealthpolicies,• Climate,energyandenvironmentalpolicies,• Agriculturalandfisheriespolicies(CAP),• IntegratedMaritimePolicy(IMP),• Tradepolicies,• Ruralandurbanpolicies.

This segmented approach overlooks activities that already exist (local industrial ecologywherefood,chemicalandenergyusesofthebiomassareconsideredtogetherineconomicandtechnologicalmodels),impedingtherevisionofgenericeconomicmodelandneglectingtheroleofsmallandmedium-sizedcompaniesintheestablishmentofanindustrialsector.Agriculturalcooperatives,someofwhichcombineproductionandinitialprocessing,playanimportantrolebyoccupyingthefirstlevelofthebiorefinery.However,theidentificationofspecific researches dedicated to the bioeconomy is still to be done, with the danger ofexclusivelyrelyingonsectorpoliciesdisconnectedfromthenecessarysystemicvision.Moremultidisplinary research is needed to help to analyse cobenefits and trade-offs inbioeconomy.Thediversityofterritorialauthoritiesandthevariabilityoftheperimetersofmanagement of public issues clearly raise the question of the institutional arrangementsdetermining the framework for the exercise of political power and the modalities ofcooperationbetweentheactors.ABioeconomypanelorCouncilcould fosterstrategicdialoguewithpolicy-makers,privatesector,civilsocietyandscientists,baseduponforesightbasis. Itshouldbe involved in theanalysis of thesepolicieswith the aim to select Evidence-BasedPolicies and tomonitorprogressataninternationallevel.Secondissue:accompanyingplayersonthepathsoftransitionStarting from our actual productive systems, one difficulty is to insert bioeconomy in thedynamics of ecological transition. In fact, characteristic time responses for technologicalsegments of the system cover a wide time range, from the instantaneous act ofconsumption, thehoursandweeksof transformation,up todecadesof forestproduction.Finally,thedevelopmentofindicatorslinkingagriculturalandforestrypracticestoproductsresulting from the bioeconomic system assumes that links within the sector or between



6

differentsectors(e.g.,betweenmilkandmeat)aretakenintoaccountbyproposingrobustdistributioncriteria.Re-evaluatingtechnologicalleveragesinviewofabioeconomicsystemraisesfourquestions:• production and transformation processes are not linearly extrapolable and make usquestionchangeofscalelaws.Atthisstage,wedonotyetknowifthebioeconomywillbean exception to the scale economy law. This response will affect the re-evaluation oftraditionalprocesses(downsizing,upscaling)usingcurrentecodesigntools.• usage functions (clothing, bioenergies, hygiene, housing) can be partly fulfilled by"bioeconomic"processesandproductswithoutnecessarilyusingcurrentmoleculeplatformsderived from fossil fuels. Two pathways are possible: a progressive evolution throughisomolecularsubstitutionoranisofunctionalrupture.• the link to be created with agronomy in view of the rise in agroecology. How can thebioeconomy generate constraints vs. new opportunities for agriculture (economicdiversification:evolutionoffarmingsystemswithlanduse,croppingsystemswiththechoiceof species) and, more generally, the development of ecosystems ? Does reflection at aregional scalemake it possible to identitynewpossibilities fordesigning andoptimizing asystem thatworksor does it createmore constraints and, overall, a drop in efficiency?Atopicthusemergesattheintersectionofagroecologyandbiorefinery.• intra/inter synergies between production areas by exploring space and time scales.Fulfillingseveralelementaryhumanneedswillraisethequestionofhowtoensurelong-termsupply,resultinginanassessmentoftheresilienceofsystemsfacingclimatehazards.Without innovationand (global) innovationmanagement, thebioeconomycannotbecomesustainable/effectivefortheplanet.Modernbiotechnologiesaregamechangeressentialtothebioeconomy.Starting fromexplorationandcharacterizationofcontinentalandmarinebiodiversity, including microbial consortia, green and white biotechnologies have alreadyclearly revealed the contributions of incremental innovation and the disruption ofproduction (photosynthesis) and processing systems, and remain themajor hope for newtechnological innovations, with, in perspective, synthetic biology coupled with systemsbiology.Insomewaybioeconomyconsidersbiomassandrelatedprocessedatthemolecularlevel,reinforcingtheopportunitiesofpredictiveapproachesinmodernbiology(-omics)andquantitativestructure-propertyrelationships.Besides mass and energy considerations, production and transformation throughout theprocesses generates data, hence a link with big data, even if low data is not to beoverlooked.Itsstructureandcompositionlinkedtothecontextcreatedifferentsituations(incontrasttogasolinethatismorehomogeneous)thatmustbetakenintoaccountinordertocorroboratesustainabilityandtodesign insilicoexperimentstotestadiversityofpossiblesituationsintermsofbiomassandprocessesorcombinationsofprocesses.Innovationprojectsneedtocovertheentirevaluechains.Theseprospectsforinnovationrequiretheavailabilityof infrastructurestoensureadvancesintechnologicalmaturity.Theadvancementofanyprojectwouldnecessitatethemobilizationandsynchronizationoftheengineeringdisciplines,socialscience.Thelinkbetweenbioeconomyandagroecologyraisesthe question of systemic experiments. The link between varietal innovation and theoptimization of cropping systems is an element of rupture to be integrated into



7

experimental setups to corroborate synergies between crops and the associatedecosystemic services. A consequence of this is to design long-term projects that includeGo/NoGosteps.Committing to the transition (and accelerating it) requires clear, coherent, consistent andpersistentsignals:• Changing the system of relative prices for products by creating value through theinternalization of the cost of damage to the environment (water, biodiversity, climatechange, health) or of the value of ecosystemic services rendered, via incentives (taxes orpermitmarkets)ornormativesystems.•Includingtheentirelifecycleintheprice.•Redistributing this valuecreationat thecoreof loops thatarevirtuousbecauseof theirincentivepotential,thusencouragingtheconvergencetowardsnewstandardsofproductionandconsumption.• Stabilization of the different public policies over long periods of time to allow for theinvestment and, therefore, the commitment of private stakeholders, NGOs, cultural frontrunners(bloggers,vloggers)andcompanies.Thirdissue:identificationoftherelevantterritorialscalesfororganizingvaluecreation.All strategies point out the need and the objective to more effectively allocate theresources inherent (natural and regional, human, scientific) to each country or region.National specificities are linked to local pedoclimatic, topographic features and landownerships. So the rule One size fits all does not apply to bioeconomy. The interfacebetween production and transformation occurs at the biorefinery stage; bioresourceprocessing processes (chemical, physicochemical, thermal, pre-treatment, separation,purification, etc.) allow multiple valuations and adaptation to biomass heterogeneity(variability,volumes,specifications,prices,etc.).Forestryrepresentsamajorelementofbioeconomy. Importantregionaldifferencesoftheforest-based sector in Europe are due to the different forest ecosystems, popularrepresentations, infrastructure and various forest ownership structures. The rule of localdifferencesappliesalso tomediterranean regions comparatively toNorthern EU regions.This concerns in particular 3.5 billion of ha ofmediterrenean area abandoned landwhichcouldbevalorizedtogrowautochthonous,andresilientfoodorindustrialbiomass,providevalue to theabundant vegetationandproductsof local forestry and the large volumesofagri-foodby-productsandwasteforthemediterreneanfood/biobasedindustry.Differentlevelsoforganizationandspatialandtemporalscalesareconcerned:• spatial scale, from the gene to the individual, from the individual to the cropping andlivestock subsystems, and then to the ecosystem; At the same time, mass exchangesbetweenruralandurbanareashavetobemasteredintheframeworkofcirculareconomy.•temporalscale,fromshort-termdecisions(financial)tolong-termgoals.Researchmustalso focusonthearticulationbetweenthesescales, from localsolutionstoglobal coordination. A mapping of sustainable regional biomass potentials is key toestimatepotentialdevelopmentandreorganizationsbetweensectorsthatrelyonbiomass



8

resources. Together with projections on the biomass demand from foods, bioenergies,biobased chemicals and materials, it is possible to identify the most promising biomassresources, cascade uses and value chains for their utilisation. These complex andinterrelated domains mobilize the life sciences, soil sciences and agronomy, human andsocialsciencesandmaterialssciencesforthetransformationofbioresources.Depending on the local availability of biological resources and/orwastes, it is possible toinitiate projects that depend on the opportunities provided in a country to develop pilotfacilities. More generally, the issues developed initially with food can be extended tobioenergiesandbiobasedchemicalsandmaterials.Theyconcerninparticular:• socio-technical configurations of sectors: the capacity of sectors to integrate newconstraintsandtogenerateproductivitygains;Dynamicsandterritorialorganizationoffoodsystems; Distribution of value between actors in the sectors; Resilience to economic orhealth shocks; Challenges of competition and complementarity between food industries,agro-industriesandretailing;• Public policy design and performance: impact analysis and levers of action for publicpoliciestargetingsystemactors(companies,consumers,newactors,etc.).Thekeyfactorfortransitionisthemovefrom«niche»intheformerproductionistregime«under tension» to a new one by percolation of the sociotechnical systemof the niche,establishingtherebyanewregime.Experimentswhere the behavior of citizen-consumers-households is considered, could beimplementedwithin this framework. This behaviour is a variable in interactionwithothervariables (type and availability of consumer goods, organization of space, public policies,etc.). This goal requires living labs thatwill alsomake it possible to observe in vivo thecoherence of technological and organizational innovations, to co-design and co-learn intheseinnovationplatforms.Emerging science can bring major opportunities. However in developing countries, thepromiseofbioeconomyisfirstonbetterusingthebiomassresources,whichtheyhave,andalso from circular thinking and differentways of using the resources (‘value add”), takingadvantageofknowledgethatisalreadyavailableandstillunderutilized.Theproblemofthefairdistributionanddisseminationofnewknowledgeandtechnologiesacross theglobe isquitecrucial.Fourthissue:measuring,analyzingandimprovingtheimplementationofthebioeconomyThebioeconomyisnot intrinsicallysustainable.Furthermore,anotherdifficulty istoagreeonwhatwecanconsidersustainable:thedifferentcountriesoftheworldandofEuropedonotsharethesamevisionThemain challenge here is to corroborate sustainability,which requiresa clarificationofthe importance that we give to negative externalities. The first difficulty is to moreeffectivelytakeaccountofthediversityofthedifferentscenariosinlifecycleanalyses(LCA)by considering local conditions (water, pollution, etc.) and the necessity of being able tocompareverydifferenthumanactivitysystemswithoutmakinganexceptionforanteriority.SocialLCAisthelessdevelopedpilaranddeservesmoreresearch.



9

Theaimhereistodevelopresearchon:• improved assessment, decision support and monitoring tools for the environmental,economic and social performance of the bioeconomy, particularly in cascade applications(LCA, risk and uncertainty assessment, industrial ecology, Taking account of direct andindirectchangesinlanduse,etc.);•methodologies(andtheirsoftwares)forassessingthesocial,economicandenvironmentalperformance of models for the bioeconomy including transition processes, valid for anyscaleofassessment;•methodologiesforassessingsocialchangesduetodiffusionofdigitaltechnologieswhichchangessocialorganisations,•measuringtheimpactoftheenergytransitiononproductivity,•measuringtheanthropogenicpressureexpressed intermsofentropy,usingcriteriasuchasHANPP(HumanAppropriationofNaturalPrimaryProduction).Inlightoftheseresults,coherentregionalbioeconomypolicieswillbewrittenaccordingtoadefinedhierarchyofimpacts(uponhealth).Asbioeconomyislinkedtopublicgoods,sharingopendataisakeypointtoensurecitizens'acceptance. The availability of datasets concerning environmental, economic and socialimpacts iscrucial inordertoeliminateambiguitiesaboutnewsolutionsandtoadoptcost-benefitapproaches,systematicallytakingthebusinessasusualoptionintoconsideration.Before implementation, regulatory issues concerning new technologies have to beconsidered. Itraisesthequestionofwhethernewwaysofpublicengagementareneeded.The key is to foster strategic dialoguewith policy-makers, private sector, civil society andscientists,includingforesightandthinktankorientedactivities.FinallythesesuggestionsfitwithanInternationalR&Dnetwork,toexploreopportunitiesforlong-term international research and development collaboration on these cutting-edgesciences. Forexample,anetworkof centersonLCAcould facilitateexchangeofpractices,eachgivenlocusconsideringspecificimpactsand/orspecificsociotechnicalsystems.Anoverall consequenceof these four chapters is theneed todevelop training programs,both intermsoftheircontentandtheirmethodsformanagerscapableofmasteringdata,modelingandmakingdecisionsbasedonmulticriteria.Designbecomesalsoakeyexpectedskill, because the best bioeconomy system does not exist by itself. Training "to and by asystemicvision"isindispensableandmustincludesystemicresearchprojectsthatare,aboveall,platformsforco-constructionbetweentrainingandresearch,inordertogobeyondthecall for interdisciplinarity alone. Team working is more important as it already was. Thisresults in the need to develop a community/network (and to mobilize platforms) formultiscaleandtransdisciplinarysystemicmodelinganddesign.Presentationsandadditionalinformationsareavailableintheworkshopwebsite:https://colloque.inra.fr/bioeconomy2017/



10

European workshop on bioeconomy. June 28-29th, 2017, Paris · 2018-02-16 · necessary involvement...

Documents

Transcript of European workshop on bioeconomy. June 28-29th, 2017, Paris · 2018-02-16 · necessary involvement...