Abstract: The bioeconomy is a shared vision for a future European industry entirely based on organic matter. Authorities support this technological development with subsidies and policies stimulating R&D. One major limitation for the bioeconomy is that R&D and industrial growth require the continuous availability of biomass as a primary resource. This resource dependence is already present during the formative years of new biobased innovations and influences the pilot and demonstration phase of the development. Traditionally, it is assumed that public support for pilot and demonstration initiatives may overcome this hurdle. In this paper, we investigate how this resource constraint limits the effectiveness of bioeconomy policies. The future development of the biobased sector is simulated including the inherent dependence of industrial activity on biomass. We simulate the future growth and technological diversity of an emerging biotechnological sector: the sector of manure transformation in Belgium. The paper reports the evolutions for three policy scenarios. The model explicitly accounts for endogenous innovation and knowledge transfer mechanisms. The results show that policies may have an important impact on the sector structure in the long run, but the sector growth remains ultimately constrained by the availability of inputs. So bioeconomy policies to promote innovation will be less effective, unless mechanisms are included to alleviate the resource constraint.

Abstract: Phytoremediation could be a sustainable remediation alternative for conventional remediation technologies. However, its implementation on a commercial scale remains disappointing. To emphasize its sustainability, this paper examines whether and how the potential economic benefit of CO2 abatement for different crops used for phytoremediation or sustainable land management purposes could promote phytotechnologies. Our analysis is based on a case study in the Campine region, where agricultural soils are contaminated with mainly cadmium. We use Life Cycle Analysis to show for the most relevant crops (willow (Salix spp), energy maize (Zea mays), and rapeseed (Brassica napus)), that phytoremediation, used for renewable energy production, could abate CO2. Converting this in economic numbers through the Marginal Abatement Cost of CO2 ( 20 ton−1) we can integrate this in the economic analysis to compare phytoremediation crops among each other, and phytoremediation with conventional technologies. The external benefit of CO2 abatement when using phytoremediation crops for land management ranges between 55 and 501 per hectare. The purpose of these calculations is not to calculate a subsidy for phytoremediation. There is no reason why one would prefer phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production over normal biomass. Moreover, subsidies for renewable energy already exist. Therefore, we should not integrate these numbers in the economic analysis again. However, these numbers could contribute to making explicit the competitive advantage of phytoremediation compared to conventional remediation technologies, but also add to a more sustainably funded decision on which crop should be grown on contaminated land.