Bioeconomy – an emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses?

The term bioeconomy and closely related notions like bio-based economy or knowledge-based bioeconomy (KBBE) are increasingly used by scientists and politicians in the last years. It does therefore have the potential of becoming an influential global discourse. Its role is however so far unclear. The general assumption that guides this paper is that discourses, resulting ideas and arguments are generally said to have performative power. They shape actors' views, influence their behaviour, impact on their beliefs and interests and can cause institutional change in a given society. Thus, the aim of this paper is twofold: first, it aims to analyse whether the ideas used in a bioeconomy discourse differs from those in other global meta-discourses of the last decades affecting forest discourses, such as the ecological modernization discourse or the sustainable development discourse. Second, this paper aims to analyse whether and how the bioeconomy discourse has started (or not) to reshape or overshadow the “classical” forest discourses, such as sustainable forest management, forest biodiversity or forest and climate change

Environmental concerns in political bioeconomy discourses

The term bioeconomy has been generated as a new discourse in the environmental policy arena. This paper raises three questions: (i) are environmental concerns integrated in the political discourses of bioeconomy and, if so, to what extent?, (ii) in which way is the environment framed in the political discourses of bioeconomy?, and (iii) are environmental concerns considered in the political discourses on forest-based bioeconomy? The theoretical framework of this paper builds on the cognitive approach of policy integration and on frame analysis. The empirical research design is a comparative qualitative analysis of five different political bioeconomy discourses in the EU and four different EU member states – Germany, Finland, France and the Netherlands – in general and in the forestry sector specifically. Results show a weak and mainly rhetorical integration of environmental concerns in political bioeconomy discourses. Three major environmental frames are identified: (i) The dominant frame of 'Environment benefitting from economic growth', (ii) the 'Environment as a challenge' and (iii) the less visible 'Environment as a standard' frame. In general, these frames address the environment mainly as a challenge or something that needs to be safeguarded with the help of the bioeconomy. With the exception of Finland, amongst the countries studied, forests plays only a minor role in bioeconomy discourses while environmental concerns in this strand of discussion are mainly focused on sustainability arguments in general

Le rôle des forêts dans les stratégies bioéconomie à l'échelle de l'union européenne et à l'échelle nationale

International audienceThe European forest-based bioeconomy is affected by a huge number of policy instruments. Different policies affect distinct stages of the forest-based value chain (and its respective sub-sectors) in different ways. Diversification processes, as part of a cross-sectoral bioeconomy, increase this complexity. (i) Several policies address trade-offs between economic profitability/competitiveness and social and environmental sustainability. The latter is of particular importance as the forest-based bioeconomy is dependent on forest ecosystem goods and services produced on one third of the territory of the EU where many of these areas are subject to contradicting societal demands. This raises the general question in how far policies can transform trade-offs into synergies. (ii) Implementation (and related impacts) of policies affecting the European forest based bioeconomy are not necessarily straightforward. Many EU policies represent conflicting goals where priorities are only defined during the transposition, implementation and enforcement by Member States

Cooling of soybean seeds and physiological quality during storage

<div><p>Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the physiological quality of soybean seeds submitted or not to dynamic cooling, and kept in cold storage (CS) and non-cold storage (NCS). A soybean seeds lot, variety M7639RR, was divided into two parts, and each one was subdivided into three parts that were subjected to one of these cooling procedure: seeds without cooling (SWC), dynamic cooling at 17 °C (SC17), and dynamic cooling at 13 °C (SC13). Seeds were kept in CS and NCS at 20 °C. Samples were collected at six times (0, 45, 90, 135, 180 and 225 days), and then submitted to germination, tetrazolium, accelerated aging and seedling emergence tests. Dynamic artificial cooling at 13 °C followed by maintenance at 20 °C ensured the preservation of physiological quality of soybean seeds for up to 225 days. The vigor of the soybean seeds subjected to dynamic cooling at 13 °C was better preserved than that of the non-cooled or of the cooled at 17 °C ones and kept in NCS for 225 days. CS at 20 °C contributed to the preservation of the physiological quality of the soybean seeds, regardless of whether or not they were submitted to the dynamic procedure.</p></div