This year too, the NGO Forum on Environment and Development presented a critical review of developments in a panel at the GFFA, which was held in Berlin in mid-January 2025. Furthermore, farmers and civil society…
A new handbook provides a comprehensive overview of the latest research and concepts in the bioeconomy, focusing here on economic, technological and social aspects.
Africa’s natural and human capital provides unique opportunities to expand the forest-based bioeconomy and to become a driver of transformational change in the region, FAO says.
Approaches towards a sustainable, bio-based economy were at the focus of this year’s Global Forum for Food and Agriculture, held for the 17th time in the context of the Internationale Grüne Woche in Berlin/Germany in…
This report explores global bioeconomy trends, highlighting policies, innovation and sustainabil-ity. It examines impacts on land use, biodiversity and society, revealing key opportunities and risks.
ON OUR OWN BEHALF
Dear Reader,
Rural 21 has been a vital platform for sharing knowledge, fostering dialogue, networking and driving solutions for rural development world-wide for nearly 60 years. This has only been possible thanks to your engagement and the generous support of our partners, for which we are deeply grateful.
However, due to significant financial cuts in development cooperation, one of our key partners is withdrawing its funding. Without new funding, we will be forced to shut down our website on June 30th, 2025. This is why we are appealing to you today.
We believe in the power of knowledge to drive change, empower communities and fight global poverty through collective action. If you do, too, and want to back us in this endeavour, make an impact – become a partner of Rural 21! As a partner, you are able to take advantage of our global network to reach out to a committed audience eager to keep in touch with the latest issues. You can take part in developing the focal items on our platform and thus have a say in the international dialogue on rural development.
If you believe in what we do and want to support us, please don't hesitate to contact us and discuss further details – we’d love to hear from you.
Together for Rural Development!
Your Rural 21 team
Ines Lechner, Olive Bexten, Silvia Richter and Angelika Wilcke
At the GFFA 2025 in Berlin/Germany, around 2,000 shared views and insights on the development of a sustainable bioeconomy and closer cooperation at global level.
Photo: © GFFA/BMEL
Civil society calls on the GFFA to support social-agro-ecological bioeconomy
Most of the panel debates at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture GFFA, which takes place in Berlin/Germany once a year in January in Berlin, are organised by governments, the European Union Commission, the World Bank or other international institutions. At this year’s GFFA, held under the title “Farming a Sustainable Bioeconomy”, the panel discussions seemed to suggest that bioeconomy was an innovative patent recipe for economic growth, prosperity and solutions to the climate and hunger crises of this world. It was all the more important to create an opportunity for those affected by the bioeconomy to voice their criticism and present issues of concern with their analyses and reports of conflicts over land, deforestation and growing hunger in a civil society panel headed “No bioeconomy without agroecology – planetary boundaries and right to food as guard rails”.
An apparent solution cloaked in green?
The promise of bioeconomy paving the way towards a post-fossil, climate-friendly economy with world-wide food security contrasts starkly with reality, according to the Forum on Environment panel. Here, it was also agreed that the globalised, agro-industrial approach of most of the bioeconomy agendas goes hand in hand with uncontrolled biomass production which is already in strong competition with food production and smallholder farm livelihoods, especially in the countries of the Global South. The consequence is deforestation and displacement . The figures for biodiversity and hunger speak for themselves. Two million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. A current 733 million people are suffering hunger.
The experts from Vía Campesina, the World Rainforest Movement and the scientific advisory council of the German NGO BUND clearly illustrated that industry-driven bioeconomy overexploits ecological and social resources. Only few benefit from this, and they above all include wealthy groups of people and major corporations from the North, as the most familiar bioeconomy product – biofuel - demonstrates.
According to the panellists, whether bioeconomy can make a relevant positive contribution or, on the contrary, represents an apparent solution in a green guise depends on the political framework conditions. So far, bioeconomy has lacked a framework promoting positive developments, as its openness regarding concepts, many conflicting aims and the absence of international minimum standards shows. The panel was particularly critical of reduction measures addressing the huge consumption of natural resources not even being discussed.
Smallholder agriculture is more important than corporate interests!
In addition to trade agreements or legislation on seed, politicians protecting the interests of major private sector actors regarding the distribution of profits accruing from farm produce is among the disadvantageous framework conditions. One considerable problem is international trade in agro-fuels and the resultant competition between food and fuel. The consequences are less food for those suffering hunger and depopulated rural regions without farming structures and biological diversity. In addition, the bioeconomy triggers desires on the part of major agricultural corporations, e.g. with regard to what are presumed to be technical solutions, such as genetically modified plants. This is bound to aggravate shortcomings and inequality in the food system if no stringent regulations are introduced.
No bioeconomy without the guard rails of agroecology, planetary boundaries and the right to food
In their note of protest to the ministers of agriculture, organisations such as Vía Campesina, Brot für die Welt, FIAN and others demand that all people living and working in rural areas be involved in the political designing of our food systems, especially marginalised, indigenous groups and women. Bioeconomy policies have to be adapted to the rights and needs of the rural population, not to corporate interests. In this sense, agro-ecology, the planetary boundaries and the right to adequate food have to become the basic principles of the bioeconomy.
Furthermore, the NGOs demand improvements in access to land and an end to land-grabbing.
Concluding with progress on paper
At least on paper, the Final Communiqué of the 62 agriculture ministers taking part in the GFFA contains clear progress in terms of content – also when compared to the 2015 GFFA Communiqué on Bioeconomy and, above all, to the ten principles of the 2024 Brazilian G20 Bioeconomy Initiative. Positive aspects include the strong references made to the Right to Food and the resolutions of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), in particular on land, gender and agroecology. It is precisely these direct links which are missing in the G20 initiative. Compared with the recent GFFA Communiqué, the G20 principles are vague. Thus the GFFA-Communiqué distinguishes itself positively from the club governance of those wielding power in the G7 and G20. Nevertheless, paper with non-binding resolutions is patient.
What is therefore needed is concrete government initiatives showing what bioeconomy looks like with the guide rails called for above. There are a number of possible entry points, such as organic fertiliser production, for instance.
Authors:
Josephine Koch, Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
Stig Tanzmann, Brot für die Welt, Germany
More information:
Previous article
At the GFFA 2025 in Berlin/Germany, around 2,000 shared views and insights on the development of a sustainable bioeconomy and closer cooperation at global level.
Photo: © GFFA/BMEL
Civil society calls on the GFFA to support social-agro-ecological bioeconomy
Most of the panel debates at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture GFFA, which takes place in Berlin/Germany once a year in January in Berlin, are organised by governments, the European Union Commission, the World Bank or other international institutions. At this year’s GFFA, held under the title “Farming a Sustainable Bioeconomy”, the panel discussions seemed to suggest that bioeconomy was an innovative patent recipe for economic growth, prosperity and solutions to the climate and hunger crises of this world. It was all the more important to create an opportunity for those affected by the bioeconomy to voice their criticism and present issues of concern with their analyses and reports of conflicts over land, deforestation and growing hunger in a civil society panel headed “No bioeconomy without agroecology – planetary boundaries and right to food as guard rails”.
An apparent solution cloaked in green?
The promise of bioeconomy paving the way towards a post-fossil, climate-friendly economy with world-wide food security contrasts starkly with reality, according to the Forum on Environment panel. Here, it was also agreed that the globalised, agro-industrial approach of most of the bioeconomy agendas goes hand in hand with uncontrolled biomass production which is already in strong competition with food production and smallholder farm livelihoods, especially in the countries of the Global South. The consequence is deforestation and displacement . The figures for biodiversity and hunger speak for themselves. Two million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. A current 733 million people are suffering hunger.
The experts from Vía Campesina, the World Rainforest Movement and the scientific advisory council of the German NGO BUND clearly illustrated that industry-driven bioeconomy overexploits ecological and social resources. Only few benefit from this, and they above all include wealthy groups of people and major corporations from the North, as the most familiar bioeconomy product – biofuel - demonstrates.
According to the panellists, whether bioeconomy can make a relevant positive contribution or, on the contrary, represents an apparent solution in a green guise depends on the political framework conditions. So far, bioeconomy has lacked a framework promoting positive developments, as its openness regarding concepts, many conflicting aims and the absence of international minimum standards shows. The panel was particularly critical of reduction measures addressing the huge consumption of natural resources not even being discussed.
Smallholder agriculture is more important than corporate interests!
In addition to trade agreements or legislation on seed, politicians protecting the interests of major private sector actors regarding the distribution of profits accruing from farm produce is among the disadvantageous framework conditions. One considerable problem is international trade in agro-fuels and the resultant competition between food and fuel. The consequences are less food for those suffering hunger and depopulated rural regions without farming structures and biological diversity. In addition, the bioeconomy triggers desires on the part of major agricultural corporations, e.g. with regard to what are presumed to be technical solutions, such as genetically modified plants. This is bound to aggravate shortcomings and inequality in the food system if no stringent regulations are introduced.
No bioeconomy without the guard rails of agroecology, planetary boundaries and the right to food
In their note of protest to the ministers of agriculture, organisations such as Vía Campesina, Brot für die Welt, FIAN and others demand that all people living and working in rural areas be involved in the political designing of our food systems, especially marginalised, indigenous groups and women. Bioeconomy policies have to be adapted to the rights and needs of the rural population, not to corporate interests. In this sense, agro-ecology, the planetary boundaries and the right to adequate food have to become the basic principles of the bioeconomy.
Furthermore, the NGOs demand improvements in access to land and an end to land-grabbing.
Concluding with progress on paper
At least on paper, the Final Communiqué of the 62 agriculture ministers taking part in the GFFA contains clear progress in terms of content – also when compared to the 2015 GFFA Communiqué on Bioeconomy and, above all, to the ten principles of the 2024 Brazilian G20 Bioeconomy Initiative. Positive aspects include the strong references made to the Right to Food and the resolutions of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), in particular on land, gender and agroecology. It is precisely these direct links which are missing in the G20 initiative. Compared with the recent GFFA Communiqué, the G20 principles are vague. Thus the GFFA-Communiqué distinguishes itself positively from the club governance of those wielding power in the G7 and G20. Nevertheless, paper with non-binding resolutions is patient.
What is therefore needed is concrete government initiatives showing what bioeconomy looks like with the guide rails called for above. There are a number of possible entry points, such as organic fertiliser production, for instance.
Authors:
Josephine Koch, Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
Stig Tanzmann, Brot für die Welt, Germany
More information:
At the GFFA 2025 in Berlin/Germany, around 2,000 shared views and insights on the development of a sustainable bioeconomy and closer cooperation at global level.
Photo: © GFFA/BMEL
Civil society calls on the GFFA to support social-agro-ecological bioeconomy
Most of the panel debates at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture GFFA, which takes place in Berlin/Germany once a year in January in Berlin, are organised by governments, the European Union Commission, the World Bank or other international institutions. At this year’s GFFA, held under the title “Farming a Sustainable Bioeconomy”, the panel discussions seemed to suggest that bioeconomy was an innovative patent recipe for economic growth, prosperity and solutions to the climate and hunger crises of this world. It was all the more important to create an opportunity for those affected by the bioeconomy to voice their criticism and present issues of concern with their analyses and reports of conflicts over land, deforestation and growing hunger in a civil society panel headed “No bioeconomy without agroecology – planetary boundaries and right to food as guard rails”.
An apparent solution cloaked in green?
The promise of bioeconomy paving the way towards a post-fossil, climate-friendly economy with world-wide food security contrasts starkly with reality, according to the Forum on Environment panel. Here, it was also agreed that the globalised, agro-industrial approach of most of the bioeconomy agendas goes hand in hand with uncontrolled biomass production which is already in strong competition with food production and smallholder farm livelihoods, especially in the countries of the Global South. The consequence is deforestation and displacement . The figures for biodiversity and hunger speak for themselves. Two million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. A current 733 million people are suffering hunger.
The experts from Vía Campesina, the World Rainforest Movement and the scientific advisory council of the German NGO BUND clearly illustrated that industry-driven bioeconomy overexploits ecological and social resources. Only few benefit from this, and they above all include wealthy groups of people and major corporations from the North, as the most familiar bioeconomy product – biofuel - demonstrates.
According to the panellists, whether bioeconomy can make a relevant positive contribution or, on the contrary, represents an apparent solution in a green guise depends on the political framework conditions. So far, bioeconomy has lacked a framework promoting positive developments, as its openness regarding concepts, many conflicting aims and the absence of international minimum standards shows. The panel was particularly critical of reduction measures addressing the huge consumption of natural resources not even being discussed.
Smallholder agriculture is more important than corporate interests!
In addition to trade agreements or legislation on seed, politicians protecting the interests of major private sector actors regarding the distribution of profits accruing from farm produce is among the disadvantageous framework conditions. One considerable problem is international trade in agro-fuels and the resultant competition between food and fuel. The consequences are less food for those suffering hunger and depopulated rural regions without farming structures and biological diversity. In addition, the bioeconomy triggers desires on the part of major agricultural corporations, e.g. with regard to what are presumed to be technical solutions, such as genetically modified plants. This is bound to aggravate shortcomings and inequality in the food system if no stringent regulations are introduced.
No bioeconomy without the guard rails of agroecology, planetary boundaries and the right to food
In their note of protest to the ministers of agriculture, organisations such as Vía Campesina, Brot für die Welt, FIAN and others demand that all people living and working in rural areas be involved in the political designing of our food systems, especially marginalised, indigenous groups and women. Bioeconomy policies have to be adapted to the rights and needs of the rural population, not to corporate interests. In this sense, agro-ecology, the planetary boundaries and the right to adequate food have to become the basic principles of the bioeconomy.
Furthermore, the NGOs demand improvements in access to land and an end to land-grabbing.
Concluding with progress on paper
At least on paper, the Final Communiqué of the 62 agriculture ministers taking part in the GFFA contains clear progress in terms of content – also when compared to the 2015 GFFA Communiqué on Bioeconomy and, above all, to the ten principles of the 2024 Brazilian G20 Bioeconomy Initiative. Positive aspects include the strong references made to the Right to Food and the resolutions of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), in particular on land, gender and agroecology. It is precisely these direct links which are missing in the G20 initiative. Compared with the recent GFFA Communiqué, the G20 principles are vague. Thus the GFFA-Communiqué distinguishes itself positively from the club governance of those wielding power in the G7 and G20. Nevertheless, paper with non-binding resolutions is patient.
What is therefore needed is concrete government initiatives showing what bioeconomy looks like with the guide rails called for above. There are a number of possible entry points, such as organic fertiliser production, for instance.
Authors:
Josephine Koch, Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
Stig Tanzmann, Brot für die Welt, Germany
More information:
At the GFFA 2025 in Berlin/Germany, around 2,000 shared views and insights on the development of a sustainable bioeconomy and closer cooperation at global level.
Photo: © GFFA/BMEL
Civil society calls on the GFFA to support social-agro-ecological bioeconomy
Most of the panel debates at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture GFFA, which takes place in Berlin/Germany once a year in January in Berlin, are organised by governments, the European Union Commission, the World Bank or other international institutions. At this year’s GFFA, held under the title “Farming a Sustainable Bioeconomy”, the panel discussions seemed to suggest that bioeconomy was an innovative patent recipe for economic growth, prosperity and solutions to the climate and hunger crises of this world. It was all the more important to create an opportunity for those affected by the bioeconomy to voice their criticism and present issues of concern with their analyses and reports of conflicts over land, deforestation and growing hunger in a civil society panel headed “No bioeconomy without agroecology – planetary boundaries and right to food as guard rails”.
An apparent solution cloaked in green?
The promise of bioeconomy paving the way towards a post-fossil, climate-friendly economy with world-wide food security contrasts starkly with reality, according to the Forum on Environment panel. Here, it was also agreed that the globalised, agro-industrial approach of most of the bioeconomy agendas goes hand in hand with uncontrolled biomass production which is already in strong competition with food production and smallholder farm livelihoods, especially in the countries of the Global South. The consequence is deforestation and displacement . The figures for biodiversity and hunger speak for themselves. Two million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. A current 733 million people are suffering hunger.
The experts from Vía Campesina, the World Rainforest Movement and the scientific advisory council of the German NGO BUND clearly illustrated that industry-driven bioeconomy overexploits ecological and social resources. Only few benefit from this, and they above all include wealthy groups of people and major corporations from the North, as the most familiar bioeconomy product – biofuel - demonstrates.
According to the panellists, whether bioeconomy can make a relevant positive contribution or, on the contrary, represents an apparent solution in a green guise depends on the political framework conditions. So far, bioeconomy has lacked a framework promoting positive developments, as its openness regarding concepts, many conflicting aims and the absence of international minimum standards shows. The panel was particularly critical of reduction measures addressing the huge consumption of natural resources not even being discussed.
Smallholder agriculture is more important than corporate interests!
In addition to trade agreements or legislation on seed, politicians protecting the interests of major private sector actors regarding the distribution of profits accruing from farm produce is among the disadvantageous framework conditions. One considerable problem is international trade in agro-fuels and the resultant competition between food and fuel. The consequences are less food for those suffering hunger and depopulated rural regions without farming structures and biological diversity. In addition, the bioeconomy triggers desires on the part of major agricultural corporations, e.g. with regard to what are presumed to be technical solutions, such as genetically modified plants. This is bound to aggravate shortcomings and inequality in the food system if no stringent regulations are introduced.
No bioeconomy without the guard rails of agroecology, planetary boundaries and the right to food
In their note of protest to the ministers of agriculture, organisations such as Vía Campesina, Brot für die Welt, FIAN and others demand that all people living and working in rural areas be involved in the political designing of our food systems, especially marginalised, indigenous groups and women. Bioeconomy policies have to be adapted to the rights and needs of the rural population, not to corporate interests. In this sense, agro-ecology, the planetary boundaries and the right to adequate food have to become the basic principles of the bioeconomy.
Furthermore, the NGOs demand improvements in access to land and an end to land-grabbing.
Concluding with progress on paper
At least on paper, the Final Communiqué of the 62 agriculture ministers taking part in the GFFA contains clear progress in terms of content – also when compared to the 2015 GFFA Communiqué on Bioeconomy and, above all, to the ten principles of the 2024 Brazilian G20 Bioeconomy Initiative. Positive aspects include the strong references made to the Right to Food and the resolutions of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), in particular on land, gender and agroecology. It is precisely these direct links which are missing in the G20 initiative. Compared with the recent GFFA Communiqué, the G20 principles are vague. Thus the GFFA-Communiqué distinguishes itself positively from the club governance of those wielding power in the G7 and G20. Nevertheless, paper with non-binding resolutions is patient.
What is therefore needed is concrete government initiatives showing what bioeconomy looks like with the guide rails called for above. There are a number of possible entry points, such as organic fertiliser production, for instance.
Authors:
Josephine Koch, Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
Stig Tanzmann, Brot für die Welt, Germany
More information:
At the GFFA 2025 in Berlin/Germany, around 2,000 shared views and insights on the development of a sustainable bioeconomy and closer cooperation at global level.
Photo: © GFFA/BMEL
Civil society calls on the GFFA to support social-agro-ecological bioeconomy
Most of the panel debates at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture GFFA, which takes place in Berlin/Germany once a year in January in Berlin, are organised by governments, the European Union Commission, the World Bank or other international institutions. At this year’s GFFA, held under the title “Farming a Sustainable Bioeconomy”, the panel discussions seemed to suggest that bioeconomy was an innovative patent recipe for economic growth, prosperity and solutions to the climate and hunger crises of this world. It was all the more important to create an opportunity for those affected by the bioeconomy to voice their criticism and present issues of concern with their analyses and reports of conflicts over land, deforestation and growing hunger in a civil society panel headed “No bioeconomy without agroecology – planetary boundaries and right to food as guard rails”.
An apparent solution cloaked in green?
The promise of bioeconomy paving the way towards a post-fossil, climate-friendly economy with world-wide food security contrasts starkly with reality, according to the Forum on Environment panel. Here, it was also agreed that the globalised, agro-industrial approach of most of the bioeconomy agendas goes hand in hand with uncontrolled biomass production which is already in strong competition with food production and smallholder farm livelihoods, especially in the countries of the Global South. The consequence is deforestation and displacement . The figures for biodiversity and hunger speak for themselves. Two million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. A current 733 million people are suffering hunger.
The experts from Vía Campesina, the World Rainforest Movement and the scientific advisory council of the German NGO BUND clearly illustrated that industry-driven bioeconomy overexploits ecological and social resources. Only few benefit from this, and they above all include wealthy groups of people and major corporations from the North, as the most familiar bioeconomy product – biofuel - demonstrates.
According to the panellists, whether bioeconomy can make a relevant positive contribution or, on the contrary, represents an apparent solution in a green guise depends on the political framework conditions. So far, bioeconomy has lacked a framework promoting positive developments, as its openness regarding concepts, many conflicting aims and the absence of international minimum standards shows. The panel was particularly critical of reduction measures addressing the huge consumption of natural resources not even being discussed.
Smallholder agriculture is more important than corporate interests!
In addition to trade agreements or legislation on seed, politicians protecting the interests of major private sector actors regarding the distribution of profits accruing from farm produce is among the disadvantageous framework conditions. One considerable problem is international trade in agro-fuels and the resultant competition between food and fuel. The consequences are less food for those suffering hunger and depopulated rural regions without farming structures and biological diversity. In addition, the bioeconomy triggers desires on the part of major agricultural corporations, e.g. with regard to what are presumed to be technical solutions, such as genetically modified plants. This is bound to aggravate shortcomings and inequality in the food system if no stringent regulations are introduced.
No bioeconomy without the guard rails of agroecology, planetary boundaries and the right to food
In their note of protest to the ministers of agriculture, organisations such as Vía Campesina, Brot für die Welt, FIAN and others demand that all people living and working in rural areas be involved in the political designing of our food systems, especially marginalised, indigenous groups and women. Bioeconomy policies have to be adapted to the rights and needs of the rural population, not to corporate interests. In this sense, agro-ecology, the planetary boundaries and the right to adequate food have to become the basic principles of the bioeconomy.
Furthermore, the NGOs demand improvements in access to land and an end to land-grabbing.
Concluding with progress on paper
At least on paper, the Final Communiqué of the 62 agriculture ministers taking part in the GFFA contains clear progress in terms of content – also when compared to the 2015 GFFA Communiqué on Bioeconomy and, above all, to the ten principles of the 2024 Brazilian G20 Bioeconomy Initiative. Positive aspects include the strong references made to the Right to Food and the resolutions of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), in particular on land, gender and agroecology. It is precisely these direct links which are missing in the G20 initiative. Compared with the recent GFFA Communiqué, the G20 principles are vague. Thus the GFFA-Communiqué distinguishes itself positively from the club governance of those wielding power in the G7 and G20. Nevertheless, paper with non-binding resolutions is patient.
What is therefore needed is concrete government initiatives showing what bioeconomy looks like with the guide rails called for above. There are a number of possible entry points, such as organic fertiliser production, for instance.
Authors:
Josephine Koch, Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
Stig Tanzmann, Brot für die Welt, Germany
More information:
At the GFFA 2025 in Berlin/Germany, around 2,000 shared views and insights on the development of a sustainable bioeconomy and closer cooperation at global level.
Photo: © GFFA/BMEL
Civil society calls on the GFFA to support social-agro-ecological bioeconomy
Most of the panel debates at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture GFFA, which takes place in Berlin/Germany once a year in January in Berlin, are organised by governments, the European Union Commission, the World Bank or other international institutions. At this year’s GFFA, held under the title “Farming a Sustainable Bioeconomy”, the panel discussions seemed to suggest that bioeconomy was an innovative patent recipe for economic growth, prosperity and solutions to the climate and hunger crises of this world. It was all the more important to create an opportunity for those affected by the bioeconomy to voice their criticism and present issues of concern with their analyses and reports of conflicts over land, deforestation and growing hunger in a civil society panel headed “No bioeconomy without agroecology – planetary boundaries and right to food as guard rails”.
An apparent solution cloaked in green?
The promise of bioeconomy paving the way towards a post-fossil, climate-friendly economy with world-wide food security contrasts starkly with reality, according to the Forum on Environment panel. Here, it was also agreed that the globalised, agro-industrial approach of most of the bioeconomy agendas goes hand in hand with uncontrolled biomass production which is already in strong competition with food production and smallholder farm livelihoods, especially in the countries of the Global South. The consequence is deforestation and displacement . The figures for biodiversity and hunger speak for themselves. Two million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. A current 733 million people are suffering hunger.
The experts from Vía Campesina, the World Rainforest Movement and the scientific advisory council of the German NGO BUND clearly illustrated that industry-driven bioeconomy overexploits ecological and social resources. Only few benefit from this, and they above all include wealthy groups of people and major corporations from the North, as the most familiar bioeconomy product – biofuel - demonstrates.
According to the panellists, whether bioeconomy can make a relevant positive contribution or, on the contrary, represents an apparent solution in a green guise depends on the political framework conditions. So far, bioeconomy has lacked a framework promoting positive developments, as its openness regarding concepts, many conflicting aims and the absence of international minimum standards shows. The panel was particularly critical of reduction measures addressing the huge consumption of natural resources not even being discussed.
Smallholder agriculture is more important than corporate interests!
In addition to trade agreements or legislation on seed, politicians protecting the interests of major private sector actors regarding the distribution of profits accruing from farm produce is among the disadvantageous framework conditions. One considerable problem is international trade in agro-fuels and the resultant competition between food and fuel. The consequences are less food for those suffering hunger and depopulated rural regions without farming structures and biological diversity. In addition, the bioeconomy triggers desires on the part of major agricultural corporations, e.g. with regard to what are presumed to be technical solutions, such as genetically modified plants. This is bound to aggravate shortcomings and inequality in the food system if no stringent regulations are introduced.
No bioeconomy without the guard rails of agroecology, planetary boundaries and the right to food
In their note of protest to the ministers of agriculture, organisations such as Vía Campesina, Brot für die Welt, FIAN and others demand that all people living and working in rural areas be involved in the political designing of our food systems, especially marginalised, indigenous groups and women. Bioeconomy policies have to be adapted to the rights and needs of the rural population, not to corporate interests. In this sense, agro-ecology, the planetary boundaries and the right to adequate food have to become the basic principles of the bioeconomy.
Furthermore, the NGOs demand improvements in access to land and an end to land-grabbing.
Concluding with progress on paper
At least on paper, the Final Communiqué of the 62 agriculture ministers taking part in the GFFA contains clear progress in terms of content – also when compared to the 2015 GFFA Communiqué on Bioeconomy and, above all, to the ten principles of the 2024 Brazilian G20 Bioeconomy Initiative. Positive aspects include the strong references made to the Right to Food and the resolutions of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), in particular on land, gender and agroecology. It is precisely these direct links which are missing in the G20 initiative. Compared with the recent GFFA Communiqué, the G20 principles are vague. Thus the GFFA-Communiqué distinguishes itself positively from the club governance of those wielding power in the G7 and G20. Nevertheless, paper with non-binding resolutions is patient.
What is therefore needed is concrete government initiatives showing what bioeconomy looks like with the guide rails called for above. There are a number of possible entry points, such as organic fertiliser production, for instance.
Authors:
Josephine Koch, Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
Stig Tanzmann, Brot für die Welt, Germany
More information:
