Biodiversity and Bioeconomy: Status Quo, Challenges, and Opportunities

Biodiversity and Bioeconomy: Status Quo, Challenges, and Opportuniti es comprehensively delivers the latest developments in theories of biodiversity and ecosystem functi oning and their major implicati ons for biodiversity conservati on through diversifying agriculture, forestry, and biomass producti on systems and linking these developments with sustainability of bioeconomy. This book provides basic understanding of biodiversity and bioeconomy, diff erent views of their interrelati onship, and their links with sustainable development goals. It also examines the research and practi ce of biodiversity and ecosystem functi oning in agriculture, forestry, and biomass producti on systems to achieve sustainable bioeconomy. Finally, this book examines status, challenges, and opportuniti es for biodiversity-centered bioeconomy providing a way forward.

• Examines the status of scienti fi c understanding of biodiversity and bioeconomy and interrelatedness
• Describes challenges and opportuniti es for socioeconomic and ecologically sustainable development of bioeconomy
• Covers agriculture, forestry, and aquati c ecosystems and explores their biodiversity and bioeconomy potentials

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Sep 30, 2023
• ISBN: 9780323954839

Book preview

Preface

Kripal Singh

Milton Cezar Ribeiro

Özgül Calicioglu

Biodiversity conservation always has been and is going to be an integrated part of the top priority of all the actions of policymakers, academia, society, nongovernment organizations, and businesses during the next decades to realize major global sustainability goals set to be achieved by 2030–50. The COVID-19 global pandemic has increased the demand for more education, research, and training on biodiversity conservation and eco-friendly economic development. This time is less important to focus on how much biodiversity we already have lost and how many species will disappear from the Earth planet during the next mass extinction. This is the time to apply all available and possible knowledge to halt further biodiversity loss.

Bioeconomy has already made a significant contribution to socioeconomic growth and is one of the top priorities of most of the courtiers to achieve climate neutrality. The bioeconomy is expected to play an important role to support biodiversity conservation and in achieving climate and land degradation neutrality across the globe. Now, almost every nation has some flagship programs to support bioeconomy to replace energy-intensive fossil-based industries with bio-based products to avoid such pandemics in the future.

The major challenge in bioeconomy research is to make it socioeconomically—well accepted by society at different supply chains with higher economic gains—and ecologically—supports biodiversity and creates ecological balance in nutrient cycling and energy flows—sustainable. The ecological sustainability of bioeconomy will mostly be met by innovations at the level of producing biological resources for various products, chemicals, and energies. Under a business-as-usual scenario, this massive as well as rapid growth of bioeconomy in coming years may further promote intensive and unsustainable land cultivation for bioresource production. Scientists are concerned about the damage to biodiversity through such revolutionary growth in bioeconomy and producing biological resources (food, fiber, timber, biomass, and so on) without following ecological principles of sustainability.

With this backdrop, we edit this book to provide ecological principle–based comprehensive framework for the sustainable use of biodiversity that supports biological production (agriculture, forestry, and biomass) and bioeconomy. Although biodiversity conservation, economic and social sustainability, and human well-being are massively and independently discussed at various global forums, loudly spoken by various renowned scientists, and published by several publishing houses, bringing all these subjects together, understanding their status, examining challenges, and revisiting opportunities in a single edited volume is an entirely new contribution. To accelerate the transition toward a bio-based economy, millions of new-generation professionals are being trained via education, research, and training at different globally ranked universities across the world. Various scientists and academicians from Europe, the United States, Africa, Australia, India, Brazil, and so on are working to develop innovative and novel methods for the cultivation of food crops, forest products, trees, perennial grasses, agroforestry, and medicinal plants. This book will be their first choice for new and all information on integrating diversity in different bioresource production systems.

In addition to the global importance of the subject, this book is bringing together insights and visions of experts in ecology, biodiversity, biotechnology, agronomy, soil science, and economy from different parts of the world. So the scientific community, including researchers at different levels of degrees and diplomas studying different aspects of biodiversity (agro-ecology, forest ecology, agroforestry, restoration ecology, landscape ecology, and soil ecology) and bioeconomy (biomass feedstock production, strengthening linkage among economical, ecological, and social sustainability), policymakers adopting and promoting different bio-based strategies (biopharma, bioenergy, green deal, and so on) to achieve sustainable development goals, bio-based industries, general environmentalists, and NGOs will be the most benefited audience of this book.

The book includes four parts (Parts 1–4). In addition to an independent introduction section, Part 1 provides a basic understanding of biodiversity and bioeconomy, different views of their inter-relationship, and their links with sustainable development goals. Parts 2, 3, and 4, respectively, examine the current status of research and practices of theories of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in agriculture, forestry, and biomass production systems to achieve a sustainable bioeconomy. To the best of the knowledge of the editors, this is the first edited book that is linking biodiversity with bioeconomy and vice versa and calling for ecological principle–based cultivation of land for bioresource production.

Part I

Introduction

Outline

Chapter 1 Biodiversity and bioeconomy: are these two faces of a single coin?

Chapter 2 Impact of drivers of biodiversity loss on mountain ecosystems: assessing the need for ecosystem health assessments in Indian Himalayan Region

Chapter 3 Linking bioeconomy with sustainable development goals: identifying and monitoring socio-ecological opportunities and challenges of bioeconomy

Chapter 4 Linking ecological restoration and biodiversity conservation with bioeconomy

Chapter 5 Biodiversity for ecosystem services and sustainable development goals

Chapter 1

Biodiversity and bioeconomy: are these two faces of a single coin?

Kripal Singh¹ and Nivedita Mishra²,    ¹Department of Biological Sciences, Andong National University, Andong, South Korea,    ²CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract

Biological resources are needed for the sustainable production of biobased products for the existing and ever-increasing human population. These resources are coming from different candidates and components of biological diversity. If the production and use of biological resources are not sustainable then the future of biological diversity is at high risk despite highly ambitious global goals and negotiations in place. Burgeoning increases in investment to halt biodiversity loss and restore damaged ecosystems for more and more regulatory and supporting services with less focus on their economic exploitation will ensure bioeconomy to be ecologically and economically unsustainable in the long run. This chapter describes this dilemma in detail.

Keywords

Bioresources; biodiversity; bioeconomy; climate change; sustainable production

1.1 Introduction

In order to achieve food security for the growing population, the scientific endeavors of the mid-twentieth century resulted in green revolution. This revolution enabled tremendous socioeconomic growth worldwide but also entailed several socio-ecological impacts such as biodiversity loss, land use simplification, greenhouse emissions, degradation and fragmentation of natural habitats, outbreaks of zoonosis, and various associated ecological challenges. Currently, 75% of the land area of the earth is degraded (EU-JRC 2019) with 1.3 billion farmers, equal to the population of India, growing plants (26%) and livestock (14%) on 40% of land area (P. Kumar, Brondizio, et al., 2013; Ring et al., 2010; Sukhdev et al., 2016), to provide food to ≈8 billion people (Tilman et al., 2002). By 2050 we will need 70% of land area to provide food to >9 billion people. Thus our land and life on it are in severe crisis (Isbell et al., 2023). Although various international negotiations, sustainable development goals, United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, Post 2020 CBD Biodiversity framework, the Bonn Challenge, Kew Declaration, etc. are in place to restore the health of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, displaced and/or misplaced production of food crops and fruits further jeopardizes the earth system and human wellbeing (Wanger et al., 2020). All socioeconomic needs of humans can be met by establishing a strong nexus between all kinds of biodiversity on earth and its utilization for economic development. It is estimated that USD 4–20 trillion are lost every year due to both severe degradation of our natural ecosystems and declining biodiversity due to agricultural expansion and intensification (Dasgupta et al., 2013; Partha Dasgupta, 2021). The Amazon and Afrotropical regions are experiencing a potential loss of 30% species richness and 31% species abundance because of agricultural expansion and intensification (Bergamo et al., 2022). Similarly, various regions in India, Europe, and Afromontane are losing species diversity at a high rate with agricultural intensification (Kehoe et al., 2017; Pe’er et al., 2014). This clearly shows that the originally well-intentioned third agricultural revolution is highly unsustainable at the level of crop production, that is, farm level (Moore, 2010).

Now, bioeconomy (see Section 1.2 for definition), particularly the production of chemicals, products, energy, and medicines (hereafter bioproducts) from plant biomass (hereafter biomass for wood, herbage, fruits, seeds, etc.), is being promoted as a panacea for all ecological challenges in addition to its contribution to socioeconomic growth (Heimann, 2019). Please see Chapter 3 for more details on the sustainability of bioeconomy and its role in achieving sustainable development goals. The European Union (EU) has been a champion in the development of bioeconomy strategies since its inception in 2005. Later in 2012, the EU and the United States came forward with their independent bioeconomy strategies aiming to replace finite fossil fuel-based energy-intensive industries with renewable sources (natural resources that can be replenished over time). In 2012, the Obama Administration put forth the National Bioeconomy Blueprint, which outlines the strategic objectives for capitalizing upon the potential of the US Bioeconomy (Maciejczak & Hofreiter, 2013). The EU has released multiple reports and action plans, including A Bioeconomy for Europe in 2010, Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for Europe in 2012, and more recently Farm to Fork Strategy in 2020.

The bioeconomy as an alternative to a fossil-based economy is currently being globally promoted for achieving various environmental and socioeconomic goals. However, the maximum research and innovations for bioeconomy have been at the biotechnology level (conversion technologies, identifying new products, genetic manipulations for biomass, etc.) with the least at the farm and land use level/bioresource level (Morizet-Davis et al., 2023), the first level of bioeconomy value chain. If the production of biomass is practiced the way it is currently practiced for annual food crops and even timber production, it will further impact ecosystems negatively. The large-scale cultivation of avocados in Chille for its consumption in rich European countries has substantially altered the landscape, reduced water availability, and impacted the lives of millions of people in that country (Caro et al., 2021; Pedreschi et al., 2022). With this strategy, there are ample biobased economic opportunities for local communities and the country as well but at the cost of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss. Similarly, replacing mangrove forests in North-East India for palm oil monoculture plantations is another so-called biobased economic development to reduce the consumption of oil produced based on annual crops (Pandey et al., 2022). But see a recent study by Srivathsa et al. (2023). Furthermore, the current research on the conceptualization and implementation of bioeconomy is not linked with biodiversity and ecosystem services (D’Amato & Korhonen, 2021). In the recent past, several countries from the developed and developing world have framed their own highly ambitious goals and announced to achieve many-fold growth in bioeconomy by the end of 2030 and 2050 to align with the Paris Agreement and other international climatic negotiations (Wydra et al., 2021). For example, (1) the bioeconomy as a strategy to make the EU climate neutral by 2050 and boost the economy in the post-COVID-19 era has been well recognized in the EU’s green deal 2020, (2) the bioeconomy of the United States is estimated to be nearly a trillion dollar (USD 952.2 billion) in 2021, (3) India announced to touch USD100 billion bioeconomy (with≈50% biopharma, 12% enzymes and biofuels) by 2025 over its value of USD 60 billion in 2020.

With the mindset of more business (more economic gains; Fig. 1.1) from biodiversity, this massive as well as rapid growth of bioeconomy in coming years will further promote intensive and unsustainable land cultivation for biomass production (Calicioglu & Bogdanski, 2021) (Chapter 2). Developing monoculture landscapes of promising plant species for bioproducts and expecting biodiversity conservation as repercussions of this initiative is fundamentally flawed. Although such monoculture cropping systems are important components of global efforts for a carbon negative economies, this unsustainable diversion to monocultures enhances soil pollution, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, exotic invasion, disease incidences, and biodiversity loss (Fargione et al., 2008; David Tilman et al., 2009). It is estimated that converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a biofuel carbon debt by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual GHG reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels (Fargione et al., 2008). Long-term biodiversity and ecosystem functioning experiments across the globe (>80% from Europe) have provided clear insights about how and why important a diverse biotic community is for the functioning of different ecosystems and human wellbeing (Isbell et al., 2015). These very influential biodiversity experiments were set up on annual grasses in the United Kingdom (The Park Grass Experiment), the United States (Cedar Creek Experiment, University of Minnesota), Europe (BIODEPTH, Oxford University), Germany (Jena Experiment, Leipzig University and Ecological Restoration for Sustainability, Leuphana University), on food crops in Germany (Agricultural diversification at University of Göttingen), Europe (DiverImpact, involving ten field experiments led by a cluster of various European institutes), on trees across the globe (27 experiments), and on algae in the United States (Win-win Scenarios for Biodiversity & Biofuel, Michigan University) to clearly and strongly demonstrate that biodiversity can enhance productivity and stabilize ecosystem functioning under biotic and abiotic perturbations. A recent study of these experiments also shows that the results from these systematic experiments are similar to the real natural world (Jochum et al., 2020). In spite of having such a great deal of studies, knowledge, and scientific messages about the impacts of land use simplification, the EU is investing huge money in developing monoculture landscapes of lignocellulosic biomass feedstock production (see Chapter 17) such as growing advanced industrial crops on marginal lands for biorefineries (cultivation of miscanthus or hemp on marginal lands), MAGIC (resource-efficient and economically profitable industrial crops for marginal land), Dendromass4Europe (growing poplar on marginal lands), PANACEA (applying best scientific knowledge for perennial crop production on marginal lands), etc. and anticipating biodiversity out of these ecologically unsustainable biomass cropping methods. Currently, two biodiversity experiments, that is, W. K. Kellogg Biological Station (Michigan State University, USA, see Chapter 9) and Tallgrass Prairie Center (University of Northern Iowa, USA) are examining the relationship between species richness and productivity of perennial crops with only Switchgrass as a monoculture. Therefore innovation and the maximum input of scientific understanding at the level of production of biomass for various bioeconomy sectors only can significantly contribute to achieving goals of biodiversity conservation, land restoration, and climate neutrality and prosperity. Plenty of long-term studies (a few are close to three decades old) based on trees, grasses, food crops, microalgae, and bacteria suggest that a decrease in species diversity of production system impedes its productivity, stability, and multifunctionality (Fargione et al., 2008; Hector et al., 1999; Isbell et al., 2015; D. Tilman et al., 2005; David Tilman & Hill, 2006; David Tilman et al., 2014; David Tilman et al., 2006; David Tilman et al., 2009; Weigelt et al., 2010; Zuppinger-Dingley et al., 2014). A recent study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution also shows that the results from these well-designed community experiments are as real as they exist in natural counterparts. In July 2020, 366 scientists from 42 countries called for the transition of traditional intensive natural resource production to ecological principles during post-2020 Biodiversity Conservation Initiatives (Wanger et al., 2020). These studies strongly advocate that integrating biodiversity into the production system can enable the sustainable intensification of agriculture, forestry, and biomass crops and protect biodiversity and climate (Fig. 1.1). Thus this chapter, after briefly defining these terms (biodiversity and bioeconomy; the second term is still under development and used differently in various contexts), is addressing these two questions. (1) How sustainability of bioeconomy is governed by biodiversity? and (2) are biodiversity and sustainability supported by bioeconomy? The last section concludes how biodiversity and bioeconomy, if, are two faces of a single coin.

Figure 1.1 Business from biodiversity under global bioeconomy strategies without practicing the science of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning at the farm level will not support existing global goals even various trade-offs are inevitable. Biodiversity and bioeconomy are two different concepts but are strongly related and linked to each other. Biodiversity should be part of the production system regardless of biomass is used for developing biobased products, chemicals, and energies and food products.

1.2 Defining bioeconomy

Bioeconomy has recently emerged as a buzzword in all national and international negotiations pertinent to the policy frameworks for sustainable development with all socio-economics achievement without using fossil-based products and energies, a just transition beyond fossil resources (McCormick & Kautto, 2013). The tremendous growth in bioeconomy to seek solutions to all challenges (Chapter 2) has been seen in the last decade, especially after the 2012 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil (Maciejczak & Hofreiter, 2013). Originally it is derived from the word the green economy—economy benefits arise from green vegetation and diversity anywhere on earth and its atmosphere—the word bioeconomy has been used to explicitly cover all sorts of economic developments to replace fossil fuel-based economy. It is interchangeably and/or with mutual permeation used as biological economy, biobased economy, bioeconomy, and economy involving biotechnological tools to develop some products—food and nonfood products—from biological resources living organisms, compounds (some metabolites) they produce, and biomass (leaf, fruit, wood, litter, etc.). Various bioenergies such as syngas, ethanol, and biodiesel also come under the term bioeconomy. At the political end, all policies, research, and innovations pertinent to developing new products and replacing the existing portfolio with products developed from renewable biological materials are part of bioeconomy. Industries with partial or complete development of biobased products are also calling them bioeconomy industries (Albrecht & Kortelainen, 2021). While among the sustainability researchers community, it is bioeconomy if it supports inclusive development without hampering environmental and human well-being. At the end of the 20th century, Martinez stated that all economic activities that derived from understanding biotechnological scientific innovations emerged during the understanding of the mechanistic process at the molecular level and its applicability to the industrial level is bioeconomy (Maciejczak & Hofreiter, 2013). But since the coining of this term in 1997, the definition has evolved, sometimes broadening to various product portfolios and to some extent narrowing with products based on biotechnological research only. But in a concluding sense, unless it receives new developments, financial benefit arising from biological resources is bioeconomy.

1.3 Defining biodiversity

Biological diversity or biodiversity encompasses every single life and variety of life at a particular time and space. It ranges from noncellular microbes—a composition of protein, nucleic acids, and lipids—to giant trees and animals. It also includes human beings. All these life forms and species interact with each other—the outcome may be positive or negative for one or all interacting species—and their environment to adapt, adjust, or change over time and space. Except for humans, all other species work together in an ecological way to perpetuate equilibrium or balance and support life, providing a range of goods and services. Achieving 100% global economical development based on biological diversity is the goal of bioeconomy believing it will strengthen linkages between socioeconomic and ecological sustainability. However, the exploitation of biological resources in an unsustainable manner will deepen the vulnerability of biodiversity. Realizing that all sorts of bioeconomical developments will support biodiversity is fallacious. The fullest benefits of bioeconomy in terms of reduction in GHG emissions and lesser natural ecosystems degradation activities such as deforestation for coal mining and drilling for petroleum fuels can only be achieved if all fossil fuel dependent industries are on hold and further bioeconomy developments are circular (zero waste) and biomass production is ecologically fit.

1.4 How sustainability of the bioeconomy is supported by biodiversity?

Biological diversity—the diversity of ecosystems, habitats, life (plants, animals, and microorganisms), communities, species, and genetic diversity—provides clean air, water, and healthy soil—and all goods such as food, clothing, and shelter, which are developed via these three abiotic components of the earth to support bioeconomy. The diversity of life in each ecosystem is important for the sustainability of renewable products and services we receive. In a great deal of empirical and theoretical studies, how the diversity of plants, microbes, and animals in different ecosystems is related to bioeconomy and ecological services has been studied. However, there are variable results but it is evident that to harness diverse products and services for a longer period of time the conservation of biodiversity through continuously diversifying the production systems is pivotal. Biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems supports bioeconomy. The major contributors to bioeconomy are natural and commercial forests, medicinal plants, lignocellulosic feedstock, their residues, and microbial fauna are major production systems to support bioeconomy growth. The major proportion of economic gains from aquatic biodiversity is from oceans, that is, called blue economy.

1.4.1 Forest biodiversity and bioeconomy

Forests for centuries have been important ecosystems for providing various goods—timber, and non-timber forest products—for the economic development of tropical, subtropical, and temperature nations. In addition, human communities living around forests receive fuel wood, food, fodder, fruits, shelter, and medicines for their various socioeconomic benefits. Before including all these activities, a part of the bioeconomic development area of forest ecosystems was shrinking because of well-known various anthropogenic developments, but to some extent, their structure and composition were not altered. Now to support bioeconomy by replacing energy-intensive steel and cement industries, the forestry sector has been more intense like agricultural food crops (Bauhus et al., 2017). Although the forest-based bioeconomy uses forestry residues such as stumps, whole trees, bark, shrubs, slabs, and logging by-products for innovative products, the composition of forest landscapes with large-scale plantation of Eucalyptus, Cottonwood in India, conifers in Europe, avocado in Chile, etc. is becoming monotonous like maize, winter wheat, and paddy fields (Bastos Lima & Palme, 2022). Further these fast-growing, non-native species in some parts, species also affect biodiversity through allelochemical release, high water uptake, and dense and wide canopies. This tremendously supplements the rate of loss of aerial and soil biodiversity, which in turn facilitates the disruption of various ecosystem services and ultimately creates extreme events. In the lack of these ecosystem services governed by diverse ecosystems and complex interactions among species therein, bioeconomy itself will not be sustainable in the future (Pülzl et al., 2014). Researchers reported that harvesting—however, this activity impacts biodiversity in many ways—decreases biodiversity in those forests and habitats that are more natural and less managed and also decreases the number of red-listed forest-dwelling species (Stokland et al., 2012). It should also be noted as researchers investigated that high plant biodiversity does not always guarantee to provide maximum direct economic benefits and said that one needs to evaluate other ecosystem services to make biodiversity economically profitable (Hallikma et al., 2023).

1.4.2 Medicinal biodiversity and bioeconomy

The biobased pharma industry completely relies on the diversity of medicinal plants including aromatic crops. According to a study, medicinal plants have gained more and more attention on a local, national, and worldwide level in recent years due to their low side effects and rising demand (Kurnaz & Aksan Kurnaz, 2021). Kurnaz et al. reported that the natural stocks of medicinal plants are depleted in the global healthcare system due to increased demand for traditional ethnic pharmacy. Around 80% of the global population still relies on botanical drugs; today, several medicines owe their origin to medicinal plants (Zahra et al., 2019). In 2006, the global trade of medicinal plants was USD 60 billion (Stark et al., 2022). Europe has been found to import about USD 1 billion in medicinal and aromatic plants from Asia and Africa (Bracco et al., 2018). In the past, most medicinal and aromatic plants were harvested in the wild mostly by local communities to cure their daily ailments and by some traditional small business owners. For example, the business of medicinal and aromatic plants in Lithuania is largely 29% based on wild collection (Radušiené, 2002). Similarly, in India, 9500 plant species have ethnobotanical importance and 7500 species are in medicinal use for indigenous health practices as well as modern systems of medicine (A. Kumar, Pandey, et al., 2013; N. Sharma & Pandey, 2013). But with more demand for herbal products, market based on medicinal and aromatic plants created more hope for such crops. Many corporations those deal with herbal products like started cultivation of these crops in their own field or with farming contracts. In the recent past, thousands of small and big companies have emerged to provide herbal products to customers. Initially, it was reported that about 900 plant species are cultivated for the biopharma industry without much information on the way of cultivation and how it impacts diversity. Recently, Brinckmann et al. (2022) reported that 3227 taxa from 235 families are commercially cultivated to support growing bioeconomy industries. The herbal industry shares about US$100 billion with decent growth potential worldwide (Ahmad Khan & Ahmad, 2019).

1.4.3 Lignocellulosic crop diversity and bioeconomy

The contribution of bioenergy in its various forms—energies generated through lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose contents in biological mass—to total renewable energy consumption is increasing (Li et al., 2018). Lignocellulosic crops are a promising source of biomass for the bioeconomy. According to a study published in Fuel Journal, lignocellulosic biomass represents ~90% of the biomass, of which only about 3% were efficiently utilized and incorporated within the circular bioeconomy (Banu et al., 2021). Trees, grasses, and harvest residues from food crops are the major sources of lignocellulosic biomass. It is the most abundant biomass on Earth with an annual global production of about 181.5 billion tonnes (Dahmen et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2022). Likewise, burgeoning growth in bioeconomy requires increasing amounts of biomass from wild and domestic crops, residues, and wastes, for developing variable biobased products, chemicals, and energies (Cossel, 2020). According to data compiled by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, biomass in the EU comes mainly from crops (63%) and wood (25%); it is mostly used for animal feed (51%), heat and electricity production (16%), plant-based food (12%), and material for wooden products (11%). The European Commission’s Joint Research Center reported that unused residues account for 17% of the biomass extracted in the EU. Bioenergy with the potential to generate electricity, fuel land, and aerial transportation has been promoted across the globe since the last decade of the 20th century. Various food crops like maize, sugarcane, wheat, sugar beet, cassava, and others contribute to the production of ethanol. In 2019, the global production of ethanol stood at 126.3 million liters led by the United States, Brazil, China, India, Thailand, Canada, and Argentina (Global Ethanol Market 2023–26). Similarly, agriculture and forestry diversity contribute to bioeconomy via various products and services excluding the food industry. The utilization of lignocellulosic feedstock from native perennial grasses has been proposed across the globe, but how biomass harvesting frequency can negatively alter plant community composition and productivity of native perennial grasslands was less known. Stahlheber et al. determined biomass production and species composition in experimental plots. The plant communities that were established at the two sites differed markedly in composition and there was little evidence of convergence after 5 years. At the site dominated by warm-season C4 grasses, single harvests generally produced more biomass than double harvests. By contrast, biomass production was unaffected by harvesting at the more diverse site. Contrary to our prediction that a summer harvest would increase diversity, we found small and subtle effects on plant community composition. This may be due in part to the timing of our harvest treatment. They suggest that a single, end-of-season harvest is the best practice for maximizing biomass production in prairies, especially at sites where warm-season grasses dominate. However, at more diverse sites, two harvests can produce the same total biomass and may support other beneficial ecosystem services. This study indicates that in the short term, double harvests are unlikely to affect plant species diversity or community composition in prairie plantings (Stahlheber et al., 2016). Similarly, Pawan et al. investigated the potential of diversifying perennial aromatic grasses for biomass production on marginal lands to support lignocellulosic biomass-based bioenergy industries (Pawan K. Maddhesiya et al., 2021; P.K. Maddhesiya et al., 2022). These studies investigated the effects of perennial grass species richness levels on biomass production of grasses. Four species of perennial aromatic grasses, namely vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides), lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus), palmarosa (Cymbopogon martinii), and citronella (Cymbopogon winterianus) were planted in all possible combinations at one, two, three, and four species richness levels. The highest annual total dry biomass was produced by monoculture of vetiver and two species richness levels of vetiver and lemongrass. If agricultural activities do not follow the traditional circular sustainability models, in which wastes were reused for agricultural production, it produces tons of waste, which are burned on the fields and collected in large landfill, creating disputes and environmental concerns (Jimenez-Lopez et al., 2020). A recent review by Jimenez-Lopez et al. (2020) demonstrates different aspects of recovering phenolic compounds from agricultural wastes and their potential applications within a circular and sustainable bioeconomy.

1.4.4 Plant diversity and bieconomy

The abundance, dominance, and richness of plant species affect various interactions with other trophic-level organisms and thereby flow of energy and ecosystem services (Schuldt et al., 2019). Increasing plant species diversity in production forests, grassland, and agriculture promotes sustainability through various aboveground and belowground interactions (Cappelli et al., 2022). As we discussed above, the whole plant contributes to supporting various product portfolios of bioeconomy. Various oilseed crops such as rapeseed, palm oil, Jatropha, soybean, mustards, sunflower, and coconut provide a huge amount of oil to support this industry. In addition, their wastes contribute immensely to bioeconomy products. The wastes from the sugarcane industry directly contribute to generating bioenergy ethanol and electricity. Industrial residues and wastes such as straw, bagasse, husks, shells, wood shaving, sawdust, fiber sludge, brewery by-products, oil extraction meal, cross-cut ends, and plywood by-products are because of plant diversity and a range of products they offer. Agriculture and forestry residues such as stumps, whole trees, bark, shrubs, slabs, logging by-products, dung, manure, and poultry wastes also contribute to developing various bioproducts such as fertilizers, fuels, and furniture. Various individual compounds present in each plant species contribute to the development of various drugs for complex diseases such as bradykinin, a peptide extracted from Bothrops jararaca that is used for the treatment of hypertension, the flavonoid vitexin from the Passiflora incarnata extract is an important ingredient in Sintocalmy, and gallic acid and derivatives isolated from the pulp of Spondias tuberosa, presented high antioxidant activity and acetylcholinesterase inhibition (Valli & Bolzani, 2019).

1.4.5 Microflora and fauna and bioeconomy

Microbial and biological products are becoming increasingly popular in agriculture as a biofertilizers, biopesticides, etc., and significantly contributing to bioeconomy industries. Similarly, in biotechnology, microbes are utilized to develop several drugs, enzymes, and hormones. Biopesticides and biofertilizers have the potential to help farmers better manage nutrients and pests. However, growing microbial stains and storing them for a longer period of time for marginal farmers are not logistically possible as microbes are mostly in bioreactors. Microorganisms in natural settings and/or ecosystems live in communities of different species and interact with each other to perform various activities needed for their growth. However, for field application, biopesticides and biofertilizers are developed using one or two species, which hampers their multifunctionality, and in many contexts, they do not work at all. Therefore if bioproducts are not developed by a consortium of species, it is a threat to their diversity at the selection level and the field level. Microbial species are also used for generating various energies such as biofuels and bioproducts from different biomasses and biological wastes.

1.4.6 Aquatic biodiversity and bioeconomy

The major contribution of life in water, fresh, and marine is in the blue economy. In recent years, global economical ambitions are turned toward the blue economy as an approach to sustainability. The blue economy refers to the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, social inclusion, and preservation or improvement of livelihoods while ensuring the environmental sustainability of oceans and coastal areas (Alharthi & Hanif, 2020; Rahmayanti et al., 2023). Globally, the blue economy has an asset base of over $24 trillion and generates at least $2.5 trillion each year from the combination of fishing and aquaculture, shipping, tourism, and other activities (Abad-Segura et al., 2021; Alharthi & Hanif, 2020; Rahmayanti et al., 2023). A rough computation indicates that the blue economy is contributing between 3% and 5% to global GDP. However, there are several pressing environmental concerns (Bennett et al., 2019).

1.5 Are biodiversity and sustainability supported by bioeconomy?

Many studies and high-level researchers believe that a paradigm shift or transition from a fossil fuel economy to a biological resource-based economy in the circular model can contribute to every single sustainable development goal (Heimann, 2019) (Fig. 1.2). Bieconomy has been put forward as an opportunity to build synergistic links and relationships with the economy and ecology. An economy that values nature, that is nature-based and is for nature can support biodiversity and sustainability. The circular economy and circular bioeconomy have great potential to realize all sustainable development goals. The European continent with 40% forest cover on its lands contributes to sequestering CO2 equivalent to emissions from energy-intensive energies in the world. This is coupled with substantial biodiversity support and climate change mitigation. Similarly, growing lignocellulosic feedstock on marginal lands in Germany and other countries under Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking (BBI JU) of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program has significant outcomes for land restoration, biodiversity conservation, and various chain supply products (Home | Grace (grace-bbi.eu)). Further, a circular model of bioeconomy has been advocated as an effective and efficient strategy to exploit ecosystem services that are environmentally safe for social, cultural, and ecological development and transformation toward sustainability. The bioeconomy in a sustainable and circular way offers remarkable opportunities to achieve 134 targets of 17 sustainable development goals by 2030. This sustainability model further addresses several complex challenges created by climate change (R. Sharma & Malaviya, 2023). However, some loopholes in these initiatives weaken and question the sustainability of bioeconomy, particularly biodiversity support.

Figure 1.2 Bioeconomy and sustainable development goals. Every sustainable goal is driven, in either direction, for and by the finance. As bioeconomy delivers economic gains via utilizing biological resources, it is argued that bioeconomy developments will help in the realization of all United Nation’s sustainable development goals. Heimann, T. (2019). Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the bioeconomy support the achievement of the SDGs? Earth’s Future, 7(1), 43–57.

Bioeconomy itself has been a threat to biodiversity and sustainability as the production of biological resources is not intelligent and sustainable. There is much discussion about how industrial crop cultivation could promote social–ecological outcomes such as environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation, food security, GHG mitigation, and landscape appearance. Johan Rockstrom and Pawan Sukhdev presented sustainable development goals with biological components as a foundation of all societal and economic achievements. It is demonstrated that with little unsustainability at the level of biological systems, the entire social and economic system may greatly be impacted by 2030 (Fig. 1.3).

Figure 1.3 The wedding cake concept of sustainable development goals. It is demonstrated that with biological systems as a foundation for societal and economic gains, the stability of sustainability can be achieved. Azote Images for Stockholm Resilience Centre.

However, the implementation of bioeconomy on a large scale can create competition for space, light, nutrients, and water, generally termed a food-fuel conflict, and this may have adverse effects on food production and food security. To lessen this competition, agriculture may be expanded by clearing forested areas, which further will accelerate damage to natural systems. In addition, there is a possibility of competition between various technologies and utilities at different levels and scales. For example, (1) governmental support in terms of incentives and subsidies to promote the use of bioenergy may intensify biomass production, (2) deepening support for bioenergy may demotivate stakeholders to develop other products from renewable biological materials, and (3) there will be higher competition between renewable and nonrenewable products. Therefore ensuring equal support to various forms of bioproducts—biofuels, biomaterials, and bioenergy—would create balance among different bioeconomy portfolios and increase the possibilities of success for interconnected bioeconomies (Bourguignon, 2017).

For instance, if the cultivation of forestry and timber species (e.g., cottonwood (Populus deltoides), conifers, Eucalyptus, and palm trees), lignocellulosic crops (mainly switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, giant reed, canary grass, bamboo, etc.), medicinal plants (Rouwolfia serpentine, Withania somnifera, Euraria picta, etc.), and aromatic plants (lemongrass, palmarosa, citronella, artemisia species, etc.), microalgae, seaweeds, etc. is not nature-based or does not follow ecological principles, it will further degrade our natural ecosystems and damage biodiversity. For example, to some extent, the cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants helped to conserve these species in agricultural fields from the wild but a loss in genetic diversity and quality of key secondary metabolites has also been observed. This sudden increase in the cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants also entails land use simplification and biodiversity loss. The motivation factor in cultivating land with medicinal plants is less inputs and higher return but to support the demand, there is an increase in the application of high doses of chemical fertilizers. Further, growing medicinal crops, which were initially pest resistant for a longer period of time, also get damaged by newly evolved insects, and emerging new challenges to control pests and pesticide applications are needed. The loss of genetic diversity on one hand impacted the quality of the products and biopharma-based bioeconomy, and on the other hand, intensified cultivation of these crops accelerated the rate of biodiversity loss. In India, more than 90% of medicinal plants are facing threats due to excessive and unsustainable collection, utilization, overexploitation, or unskilled harvesting (Kumari et al., 2011). Ollinago and Kroger recently analyzed the metadiscourse of bioeconomy and the ways in which bioeconomy is gaining new meanings in Brazil and concluded that the term bioeconomy has become so conflated that it cannot be rescued to serve the development of socio-biodiverse economies, such as agroecology or agroforestry. The authors conclude that making policy suggestions from a more global development perspective, situating the bioeconomy framing at the center of current moment of converging global crises (Ollinaho & Kröger, 2023).

The most frequently and most sustainably identified forms of cultivation are agroforestry, intensive farming, and controlled cultivation, followed by, to a much lesser extent, extensive farming, and natural fostering. Of the identified species, 954 have a global International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment, of which 82 species (2.5%) are threatened to some degree according to IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Of the 3227 cultivated taxa, 1732 (54%) have also been assessed by national red lists, of which 688 taxa are assessed as threatened in at least one country. Additionally, 109 of the 3227 cultivated species are included in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Appendices. The results of this research show that the number of cultivated plants is significantly higher than previously estimated. Potential consequences of threat status on the domestication of MAP species are discussed (Josef A. Brinckmann et al., 2022).

With the increased realization that many wild medicinal and aromatic plant (MAP) species are being overexploited, a number of agencies are recommending that wild species be brought into cultivation systems. Others argue sustainable harvest to be the most important conservation strategy for most wild-harvested species, given their contributions to local economies and their greater value to harvesters over the long term. Besides poverty and the breakdown of traditional controls, the major challenges for sustainable wild collection include a lack of knowledge about sustainable harvest rates and practices, undefined land use rights, and a lack of legislative and policy guidance. Identifying the conservation benefits and costs of the different production systems for MAP should help guide policies as to whether species conservation should take place in nature or the nursery, or both (Schippmann et al., 2006).

1.6 Bioeconomy industries and associated biodiversity gains and losses

The bioeconomy industries encompass the production of renewable biological resources and their conversion into food, feed, bio-based products, and bioenergy. As such, it includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food, pulp, and paper production, as well as parts of the chemical, biotechnological, and energy industries. Through recent innovations stretching from biological resource, production level, farm level, to logistics, conversion technology, market, and its circularity various industries whether big or small are coming up with new circular and biobased products. The most promising sectors for the bioeconomy to be recycled or looped are plastics, glasses, and construction and building materials (Stegmann et al., 2020). The cement and steel industries are the most energy-intensive industries that entirely depend on fossil fuels. Plastic in addition to being energy intensive is the biggest environmental hazard for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. To fuel, the glass industry with renewable energy researchers from nongovernment organizations, academia, and industry analyzed the potential of biomass available from different sectors to energize the glass industry in the United Kingdom. The study identifies key types of biomasses such as animal and agricultural wastes, forestry, and wastes that may provide energy opportunities for the future glass sector in the United Kingdom (Welfle & Freer, 2022). After that, the steel cement industry is the most energy-intensive industry, which emits a lot of CO2 when calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is converted to calcium oxides (CaO). A recent study completed by a team of researchers from Wageningen University and the Research and Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research team developed a biobased cement by adding some biological additives. With this new development, the cement obtained through demolishing buildings can be recycled, which would be as strong as the original cement and it is expected this will be a game changer for the construction industry to be sustainable in the Netherlands and beyond. Considering the urgency and importance of climate and biodiversity crises, pro-environmental diversification of pasture-based dairy and beef production has rarely been holistically approached and remains understudied. The development of practical, sustainable solutions for farming based on a circular economy and respect for nature and additional strategies to increase farmer and consumer environmental awareness should be prioritized by policymakers, advisory, and scientific bodies (Markiewicz-Keszycka et al., 2023). The bioeconomy is a term used to describe the economic activity derived from scientific and research activity focused on biotechnology. The bioeconomy is a rapidly growing industry that has the potential to provide many benefits to society, including new products and services, job creation, and environmental sustainability. Like any industry, there are also potential threats associated with the bioeconomy. Some threats are associated with the intersection of digital, biological, health, and ecological problems of the Anthropocene (Braun, 2022; Pursula et al., 2018).

1.7 Are biodiversity and bioeconomy two faces of a single coin?

Biodiversity and bioeconomy by definition are two different concepts. However, they are related to each other. The fate and economic sustainability of the bioeconomy depend on biodiversity and its values to deliver various products. There is no need for any study or confirmation that the realization of national and global goals of bioeconomy is only possible with biodiversity. At the same time, the bioeconomy itself cannot contribute to biodiversity conservation or halt biodiversity loss if the biological resources are produced the way food crops are cultivated and livestock is grown. Every single bioeconomy move will contribute to biodiversity is misleading and the policymakers are trying to win the race of bioeconomy by paving a path with confusion by putting stones of economic turnover. For example, sudden growth in the biopharma industry during the 2019 global pandemic cannot be portrayed as a path toward sustainability unless it is not evaluated how these crops were produced on land where a diversity of plants, microbes, and animals dwells. Biodiversity is a fundamental component of long-term business survival, and biodiversity should be the aim even though there are no direct economic gains. Bioeconomic businesses and industries depend on genes, species, and ecosystem services as critical inputs into their production processes and depend on healthy ecosystems to treat and dissipate waste, maintain soil and water quality, and help control the air composition. Therefore conservation of genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity should be focused. In one sense, that is, bioeconomy relies on biodiversity for its existence, growth, and sustainability, and biodiversity and bioeconomy are two faces of a single coin. We argue that the transition to an economy completely driven by biological resources must be an approach of developing all bioproducts by assuring: (1) zero deforestation, (2) strengthening all sorts of cultural and economic practices of traditional population, (3) diversification of production systems regardless the produce is used for biomedicines, bioenergies, and biochemicals, and (4) sharing higher economic benefits with farmers and communities those produce biological materials for bioeconomy following traditional ecological knowledge and ecological principles. Ongoing monoculture plantations projects must consider biodiversity to be part of the production system.

References

Abad-Segura et al., 2021 Abad-Segura E, Batlles-Delafuente A, González-Zamar M-D, Belmonte-Ureña LJ. Implications for sustainability of the joint application of bioeconomy and circular economy: A worldwide trend study. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2021;13 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137182https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85109260671&doi=10.3390%2fsu13137182&partnerID=40&md5=c4dac683e23e39054f78e57419b724ef.

Ahmad Khan and Ahmad, 2019 Ahmad Khan MS, Ahmad I. Herbal medicine Elsevier BV 2019;3–13 10.1016/b978-0-12-814619-4.00001-x.

Albrecht and Kortelainen, 2021 Albrecht M, Kortelainen J. Recoding of an industrial town: Bioeconomy hype as a cure from decline?. European Planning Studies. 2021;1:57–74 https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1804532http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09654313.asp.

Alharthi and Hanif, 2020 Alharthi M, Hanif I. Impact of blue economy factors on economic growth in the SAARC countries. Maritime Business Review. 2020;3:253–269 https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-01-2020-0006http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/services/publishing/mabr/index.htm.

Banu et al., 2021 Banu JR, Kavitha S, Tyagi VK, Gunasekaran M, Karthikeyan OP, Kumar G. Lignocellulosic biomass based biorefinery: A successful platform towards circular bioeconomy. Fuel 2021;.

Bastos Lima and Palme, 2022 Bastos Lima MG, Palme U. The bioeconomy–biodiversity nexus: Enhancing or undermining nature’s contributions to people?. Conservation. 2022;1:7–25 https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation2010002.

Bauhus et al., 2017 Bauhus J, Kouki J, Paillet Y, Asbeck T, Marchetti M. How does the forest-based bioeconomy impact forest biodiversity Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy 2017;.

Bennett et al., 2019 Bennett NJ, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Blythe J, et al…. Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nature Sustainability. 2019;11:991–993 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0404-1.

Bergamo et al., 2022 Bergamo Daniel, Zerbini Olivia, Pinho Patricia, Moutinho Paulo. The Amazon bioeconomy: Beyond the use of forest products. Ecological Economics 2022;:107448 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107448.

Bourguignon, 2017 Bourguignon, D. (2017). Bioeconomy: Challenges and opportunities.

Bracco et al., 2018 Bracco S, Calicioglu O, Gomez San Juan M, Flammini A. Assessing the contribution of bioeconomy to the total economy: A review of National frameworks. Sustainability. 2018;6:1698 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061698.

Braun, 2022 Braun. Exogenous and endogenous drivers of bioeconomy and science diplomacy. EFB Bioeconomy Journal 2022;.

Brinckmann et al., 2022 Brinckmann JA, Kathe W, Berkhoudt K, Harter DEV, Schippmann U. A new global estimation of medicinal and aromatic plant species in commercial cultivation and their conservation status. Economic Botany. 2022;3:319–333 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-022-09554-7https://www.springer.com/journal/12231.

Calicioglu and Bogdanski, 2021 Calicioglu Ö, Bogdanski A. Linking the bioeconomy to the 2030 sustainable development agenda: Can SDG indicators be used to monitor progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy?. New Biotechnology 2021;:40–49 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.010https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85096589008&doi=10.1016%2fj.nbt.2020.10.010&partnerID=40&md5=98b9ceffa95eca4e6075c882c39c9a7b.

Cappelli et al., 2022 Cappelli SL, Domeignoz-Horta LA, Loaiza V, Laine A-L. Plant biodiversity promotes sustainable agriculture directly and via belowground effects. Trends in Plant Science. 2022;7:674–687 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.02.003.

Caro et al., 2021 Caro D, Alessandrini A, Sporchia F, Borghesi S. Global virtual water trade of avocado. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021;:124917 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124917.

Cossel, 2020 Cossel V. Renewable energy from wildflowers—Perennial wild plant mixtures as a social-ecologically sustainable biomass supply system. Advanced Sustainable Systems. 2020;7.

Dahmen et al., 2019 Dahmen N, Lewandowski I, Zibek S, Weidtmann A. Integrated lignocellulosic value chains in a growing bioeconomy: Status quo and perspectives. GCB Bioenergy. 2019;1:107–117 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12586.

D’Amato and Korhonen, 2021 D’Amato D, Korhonen J. Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework. Ecological Economics 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107143https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85111344964&doi=10.1016%2fj.ecolecon.2021.107143&partnerID=40&md5=63132ff0010a44c62dc22fcaf05325ed.

Dasgupta, et al., 2013 Dasgupta, P., Kinzig, A.P., & Perrings, C. (2013). The value of biodiversity encyclopedia of biodiversity (2nd ed., pp. 167–179). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00372-5, https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85026448141&doi=10.1016%2fB978-0-12-384719-5.00372-5&partnerID=40&md5=320602c251d74d8b9f1d7caec6eb713f.

Dasgupta, 2021 Dasgupta P. The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. Hm Treasury 2021;.

Fargione et al., 2008 Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science (New York, N.Y.). 2008;5867:1235–1238 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152747.

Hallikma et al., 2023 Hallikma T, Tali K, Melts I, Heinsoo K. How is plant biodiversity inside grassland type related to economic and ecosystem services: An Estonian case study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2023;:108429