Spaces of the forest-based bioeconomy in Finnish Lapland and Catalonia: practitioners, narratives and forgotten spatialities
URN:NBN:fi:tsv-oa109523
DOI: 10.11143/fennia.109523
Spaces of the forest-based bioeconomy in Finnish Lapland and
Catalonia: practitioners, narratives and forgotten spatialities
DIANA MORALES
Morales, D. (2021) Spaces of the forest-based bioeconomy in Finnish
Lapland and Catalonia: practitioners, narratives and forgotten spatialities.
Fennia 199(2) 174–187. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.109523
Over the last decade, the bioeconomy has been increasingly
promoted as a strategy able to shift our economies away from
fossil fuels and boost local economic growth, especially of rural
areas in Europe. The bioeconomy is an important part of the European
Union agenda, it is promoted through European wide strategies that are
translated into local and regional policies. However, the bioeconomy does
not unfold equally across regions; it has different implications influenced
by the spaces and the narratives with which the policies are created and
implemented. Amongst all the actors participating in the bioeconomy
strategies, local practitioners play a crucial role in interpreting the
narratives and implementing the policies in a way that makes sense for
their local contexts. Hence, there is a need to understand how local and
regional practitioners apply bioeconomy strategies to grasp how those
are expressed in different regional contexts. Through the case studies of
the forest-based bioeconomy in Catalonia and Finnish Lapland, this paper
explains why economic narratives prevail in the local bioeconomy and
how regional spatialities are affected by it. The cases show that the
bioeconomy remains close to economic growth and is applied through
regional economic development policies, thus focusing on specific
economic sectors and hindering the role of the bioeconomy in a wider
regional transformation. Understanding the narratives and how these
reflect the spatialities help us to advance a spatially sensitive approach to
the bioeconomy, this is, a bioeconomy practised according to the socio-
spatial conditions, closer to ideas of inclusivity, plurality and justice, and
with a greater role in a wider regional transformation, rather than the
greening of specific economic sectors.
Keywords: bioeconomy, forest industry, regional development, place
specificities, narratives
Diana Morales (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6277-2784), Centre for Research
on Sustainable Societal Transformations CRS, Karlstad University, Sweden &
Department of Geography, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden. E-mail:
diana.morales@umu.se
© 2021 by the author. This open access article is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.109523
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6277-2784
mailto:diana.morales@umu.se
FENNIA 199(2) (2021) 175Diana Morales
Introduction
By promoting the bioeconomy, the European Union advocates for a technological and economic
change to address climate change, and reaffirms its intention to maintain a leadership position in the
transit towards a fossil fuel free society (European Commission, 2012, 2019). The first European
bioeconomy strategy was published in 2012 and, since, it has been modified and criticised for not
addressing issues of ecological sustainability and social inclusiveness. The conversation about an
inclusive and sustainable bioeconomy has started (Fritsche et al. 2020), however, a sustainable and
inclusive bioeconomy remains vague and challenges the capacities and innovation of local actors in
charge of materialising the strategy (Morales & Sariego-Kluge 2021).
Critical voices in the bioeconomy highlight its unquestioned rush to support growth and innovation
without addressing issues of environmental and social justice, and disregarding activities that portray
a human-nature relationship without a clear economic benefit (e.g. Schmidt et al. 2012; Mustalahti
2018). Part of what these critiques claim is that the spatialities with which the bioeconomy interacts
are often overlooked and, despite the attempts for promoting an inclusive and sustainable
bioeconomy, elements of sustainability and inclusion remain vague. In this paper, I refer to spatialities
as the social, economic, cultural and natural processes that constitute the spaces inhabited and lived
(Walker 2009; Merriman et al. 2012).
By comparing how local practitioners understand and conceptualise the bioeconomy policies, and
by examining the narratives with which it is reproduced in Lapland (Finland) and Catalonia (Spain), I
argue that even if the conceptualisations tend to place the bioeconomy as a wider process of regional
sustainable transformation beyond industries, some of the spatialities where it is applied are largely
overlooked. This because the policy strategies used to implement the bioeconomy remain strongly
linked to regional economic growth, imposing economic growth views over other ways of understanding
the bioeconomy. The case studies show that those narratives favour the transition of specific economic
sectors but hide diverse socio-spatial configurations and, ultimately, downplay the role of the
bioeconomy in a larger regional transformation (understood as a larger societal transformation that
includes as much industrial modernisation and economic growth as civil society participation, social
innovation and environmental justice). Empirical studies explaining how local and regional actors
interpret and adapt green policies are still scarce (Amundsen & Hermansen 2020), and with this paper
I intend to contribute to this debate. I begin with an overview of the multiple definitions given to the
bioeconomy, paying special attention to the branch of the bioeconomy based on forest resources, as
it is the dominant type of bioeconomy in Lapland, and gaining relevance in Catalonia. Then I continue
to the methodological and data collection strategies, followed by an explanation of the narratives and
how these reflect and conflict with the spatialities. Conclusions can be found in the last section.
Bioeconomy: narratives and conceptualisations
The bioeconomy is a long existing concept interpreted in multiple ways, from ecological economy,
industrial biotechnology to biomass-based economy replacing fossil fuels (Vivien et al. 2019). According
to the European Commission, the bioeconomy is the part of the economic processes that covers all
sectors and systems relying on biological resources (animals, plants, microorganisms and derived
biomass). It encompasses economic activities of primary production, such as agriculture and forestry,
plus all sorts of industrial sectors that use biological resources to process food, energy or biotechnology,
providing elements to substitute fossil fuels (European Commission 2018; Fritsche et al. 2020).
The literature analysing the narratives in the bioeconomy is rich, as the narratives are (e.g. Schmidt
et al. 2012; De Besi & McCormick 2015; Birch 2016; Bugge et al. 2016; Bauer 2018; Ramcilovic-Suominen
& Pülzl 2018; Vivien et al. 2019; Befort 2020). Accordingly, narratives seem to juggle between
bioeconomy as biotechnology, use of biomass, economic growth, sustainability, competitiveness,
sectoral capacities, technological fixes, industrial biotechnology, as well as opposing (yet
complimentary) non-technological conceptualisations, inclusiveness and limits to biomass (Befort
2020). Within this variety of approaches, I focus on those narratives directly related to the use of forest
biomass: bioeconomy and economic growth, and bioeconomy as a regional transformation.
176 FENNIA 199(2) (2021)Research paper
Forest-based bioeconomy and economic growth
The forest based-bioeconomy (F-BB) is a popular concept amongst northern Europe and countries
with a strong prevalence of the forest industry (Pülzl et al. 2017). It is broadly defined as the use of
forest biomass to replace fossil fuels through the means of innovation and technological development
(Wolfslehner et al. 2016). The F-BB is often promoted as an opportunity to gain regional competitive
advantage by exploiting an underutilised resource (Pülzl et al. 2017), while creating alternatives to
transition away from fossil-fuels and modernising the forest industry (Pülzl et al. 2014).
The F-BB has been criticised for taking economic growth and environmental sustainability for
granted and assuming a positive impact on regional development by creating new jobs (Schmidt et al.
2012; Ferguson 2015; Ramcilovic-Suominen & Pülzl 2018; Vargas-Hernández 2019). Some argue that
the F-BB remains mostly concerned about the economy and its policies are focused on efficiency,
productivity and industrial competitiveness, while concerns about sustainability are often used as
selling points (Ramcilovic-Suominen & Pülzl 2018). The F-BB is also criticised for focusing on the role
of regional innovation systems (comprised by governments, firms and universities), while leaving
aside crucial social actors such as civil organisations, conservation groups, citizens and consumers
(Kitchen & Marsden 2011; Grundel & Dahlström 2016; Mustalahti 2018).
Forest-based bioeconomy as regional transformation
Behind the concerns about the excessive focus on economic growth, is the acknowledgement of the
bioeconomy as part of a wider regional transformation that includes societal, economic and cultural
aspects, and not limited to technological changes (Kemp & Never 2017). Critical voices often call for
acknowledging the bioeconomy’s role in a transformation towards sustainable regional economies
(Bauer 2018; Albrecht et al. 2021; Andersson & Grundel 2021). However, the F-BB is embedded in uneven
power relations that can undermine its role in such wider transformation. Powerful corporate interests
can determine the use of natural resources in geographically remote rural areas and co-opt the
bioeconomy narratives, as seen in Finland (Ahlqvist & Sirviö 2019) and Sweden (Holmgren et al. 2022).
The bioeconomy is also a contested policy concept that encompasses a diversity of imagined
futures and is able to produce transformations at a regional scale (Bauer 2018). Bioeconomy strategies
contain imagined visions of what the future should be, as well as the set of policies, strategies and
institutional arrangements needed to achieve those imaginations (Schmidt et al. 2012; Birch 2016). The
F-BB is often promoted through public agencies in charge of agriculture, rurality and forestry, where it
is portrayed as a solution for rural unemployment, sluggish modernisation and depopulation (European
Commission 2018; Fritsche et al. 2020). Furthermore, both the European Commission and the Finnish
national bioeconomy strategy portray the bioeconomy as a solution to the environmental crisis and the
uneven development of rural regions (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland 2014; CTFC 2018;
European Commission 2018; Fritsche et al. 2020). To achieve those goals, the F-BB endorses the use of
existing assets locally available, in order to boost production and industrial modernisation.
The way how the narratives described above are grasped and reproduced by those in charge of
creating and implementing the policies locally, play a key role in determining whether the spatialities
in which the F-BB interact are reflected or not (Amundsen & Hermansen 2020). I will explore this
argument in the following sections.
Methods and cases
The question guiding this analysis is: are the spatialities with which bioeconomy policies interact
reflected or overlooked in its narratives, as identified by the practitioners (the people in charge of
design and implementation of the bioeconomy polices regionally)? To do so, a case study and qualitative
analysis was used to pinpoint the narratives and strategies with which regional practitioners grasp and
apply bioeconomy strategies, to then contrast them with the place specific conditions of each region.
The cases were selected for having an active bioeconomy strategy with focus on rural development,
yet different in their institutional, economic and social contexts (see Seawright & Gerring 2008).
FENNIA 199(2) (2021) 177Diana Morales
After identifying potential regions that fulfilled the requirements mentioned, and accounting
for practical reasons such as pre-existing networks and language, Catalonia and Finnish Lapland
were chosen (Fig. 1). Another reason to study these two regions was that their F-BB practitioners
are engaged in processes of policy learning with each other, through field visits, conferences and
other exchange platforms (Albrecht et al. 2021). They have collaboration efforts to do research and
raise funds from the European Union and are especially active in the network of F-BB practitioners
in Europe (Andersson & Grundel 2021).
Fig. 1. Finnish Lapland and Catalonia.
178 FENNIA 199(2) (2021)Research paper
The empirical material analysed comes from a broader project looking at the development of
bioeconomy strategies in European regions. One of the project objectives was to understand the
narratives and spatialities of the bioeconomy strategies, which I am addressing here. This paper is
supported on primary and secondary data. Primary data was crucial to obtain in-depth information
about how local practitioners apply the bioeconomy and the narratives that help shaping their
decisions. It comprises participant observation in meetings, presentations and conferences where
practitioners and policy makers linked to the bioeconomy in Catalonia and/or Lapland shared their
experiences and forthcoming agendas. These encounters occurred during 2019 and 2020 both face-
to-face and online. Additionally, 15 semi-structured interviews, conducted virtually and in situ during
March, April and May 2019 in Barcelona, Girona, Solsona (Catalonia), and Rovaniemi (Finnish Lapland),
inform the results presented here (Table 1). The interviewees were selected because of their active
involvement in implementing the bioeconomy strategies at regional and national scale. In general, the
questions were directed at understanding how each participant understands the bioeconomy, how it
is implemented and what challenges and opportunities they encountered.
Leeni: muuta taulukon fontti oikeaksi!
Table 1
Identifier Interviewee
Interview 1 Entrepreneur
Interview 2 Director, Catalonia Landscape Observatory
Interview 3 (2
participants)
Consultancy firm
Sectorial coordinator, ACCIO
Interview 4 Innovation Board Strategic Manager, Technology development
centre
Interview 5 Circular economy coordinator, ACCIO
Interview 6 Technician, area of bioeconomy and governance, CTFC
Interview 7 Director, CTFC
Interview 8 (3
participants)
Director, National institute for agriculture and food technologies INIA
Professional, INIA
Professional, INIA
Interview 9 Entrepreneur
Interview 10 Senior expert in research and Innovation support services, Univ. of
Lapland
Interview 11 Future bioeconomies manager, Lapland University of Applied
Sciences
Interview 12 Expert in international affairs, Lapland Regional Council
Interview 13 (3
participants)
Business advisors for small Enterprise and farmers, Proagria
Companies expert, Proagria
Interview 14 Researcher, National Resources Institute Finland Luke
Interview 15 Arctic Smart Rural Community deputy manager, Lapland Regional
Council
Table 1. List of interviews.
The secondary data was obtained from various sources and includes reports, scientific publications,
conference observations, websites, social media platforms, and policy reports from different scales
(European Union, research organisations from the European, Spanish and Finnish level, national
policies, and public and private research centres reports from the national and regional level). The
secondary data was crucial to obtain information about the European, national and regional
bioeconomy strategies and plans as seen from the different scales.
FENNIA 199(2) (2021) 179Diana Morales
To identify how practitioners shape the bioeconomy regionally, I conducted an analysis based on
interviews, notes from participant observations at conferences and meetings, and policy documents
on the bioeconomy. The data was manually coded and then categorised in N-VIVO. Two types of
coding were used. First, based on characterisations of the bioeconomy found in the data and previous
research, terms such as growth, jobs creation, rural development and opportunities, constituted the
first set of codes. These were extracted and prioritised according to how many times the thematic was
referenced and classified according to the data source (practitioners or reports from industry-related
fields, local governments or landscape and rural development agencies). The most repeated and
cross-referenced the code, the most prevalent the term. The second set of codes correspond to place
specific conditions, codes such as peripheries, access to forests, fires and forest growth management,
energy supply, were extracted giving priority to primary sources. With these two sets of codes and
referenced data, the analysis consisted on identifying prevalent narratives (code set 1) and contrasting
them with place specificities (code set 2).
The following section presents the bioeconomy strategies in Catalonia and Lapland and explains
the narratives with which the bioeconomy is portrayed, while pinpointing the place specificities that
shape the bioeconomy as a public policy (industrial Catalonia, rural Catalonia, urban Catalonia,
industrial Lapland, forestry Lapland, rural and indigenous Lapland).
Results1: narratives and spatialities
Catalonia
Catalonia is a region of contrasts, with both a high and low population density (over 400 inhabitants
per square km and less than 10 inhabitants per square km) (CTFC 2018). The urban and rural divide is
evident; while urban areas keep growing, rural areas face depopulation and land abandonment. This
has contributed to the growth of Catalonian forest, now covering around 70% of the region (ibid.).
Some argue that this creates a good opportunity for the forest-based bioeconomy, while others are
concerned with the lack of management and risk of fires (interviews).
The bioeconomy public policy landscape in Catalonia is shaped by first, the European strategy
(European Commission 2018). Second, the individual actions that different public organisations have
designed according to their competences, scope and the Spanish bioeconomy strategy to a lesser
extent (Gobierno de España 2018). According to the interviewees, the rationales to promote the
bioeconomy in Catalonia are the incentives given by the European Union, regional actors’ perception
of the opportunities that the bioeconomy represents, and the acknowledgement of environmentally
unsustainable practices. Catalonia does not have one regional bioeconomy policy, but a collection of
plans dispersed amongst different public agencies applying the bioeconomy according to the
population and economic sectors within their competences. Hence, the bioeconomy is referred to as
circular bioeconomy when tailored to industrial production, or forest-based bioeconomy when
targeted at the use of forest biomass. Here, the focus is set on two agencies that are taking leadership
in promoting the Catalonian bioeconomy. First, the regional agency in charge of promoting innovation
and competitiveness amongst firms and businesses ACCIO (based in Barcelona), and, second, the
Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia CTFC (based in Solsona), a public consortium
created in cooperation with local universities and governments.
ACCIO representatives interviewed emphasised the importance of promoting the bioeconomy
amongst the economic sectors that already have potential to transform biomass efficiently, the
chemicals industry for example, thus creating wealth by utilising the region’s industrial competitive
advantages (infrastructure, large internal markets and capacities to reach external markets). This side
of the Catalonian bioeconomy is more linked to industrial policies2. It aims to improve the social
perception of the regional industries while promoting innovation, efficiency and circularity. For ACCIO,
the bioeconomy and the circular economy are complementary approaches, the bioeconomy provides
renewable resources and the circular economy maximises their use. Therefore, seen from ACCIO,
narratives of industrial modernisation are prevalent and applied to an industrial spatiality. The
dominant narrative here is the modernisation and circularity of Catalonian industries through
180 FENNIA 199(2) (2021)Research paper
innovation to ”use natural materials and keep them in the loop the longest possible (…), using local
biomass and managing the waste created” (interview 3).
On the other hand, CTFC aims to “contribute to the modernization and competitiveness of the forest
sector, to promote rural development and the sustainable management of the environment” (Centre
de Ciencia y Tecnologia Forestal de Catalunya n.d.). CTFC is divided into six areas, one of which is
dedicated to bioeconomy and forest governance (other areas include biodiversity and conservation).
The bioeconomy is conceptualised as the use of renewable biomass to add value to forest products
while contributing to decarbonise the economy, similar to ACCIO, but building over an underdeveloped
economic sector (forestry). The dominant narrative, seen from CTFC, is industrial path creation in a rural
spatiality that lacks competitive advantages and faces challenges of depopulation, unemployment and
poor accessibility. The Catalonian F-BB remains in a nascent stage, partly explained because forestry is
not a relevant economic sector for the region, and because the region’s socio-economic dynamics are
not strongly shaped by its inhabitants’ relationship with the forests (except from some traditions for
example mushroom picking in autumn). Most of the population live in cities, separated from their
natural surroundings as if ”the end of the city was also a closed door to outer spaces” (interview 1).
The type of strategies to promote the bioeconomy depend on who has designed them, and who is
the target. The strategies designed by ACCIO target industries and business of all sizes, aiming to
promote innovation and collaboration between private actors. Some examples are: i) Providing grants
for firms to reach technological and research centres and to develop circular economy solutions,
either individually or collectively; ii) Helping firms to find external funding for research and
development, iii) Collaborating with other regional agencies to obtain additional resources for the
grants scheme, and iv) Collecting and documenting good practices and successful examples to share
with firms. The strategies designed by CTFC are aimed to strengthen the research carried out in the
centre, find external partners and create networks, and exchange knowledge with other actors
working in the forest-based bioeconomy. Some examples are: i) Conducting research about potential
uses of Catalonian forests; ii) Collaborating with other regional agencies interested in rural development
to, for example, create circular solutions to agricultural production, iii) Organising conferences with
European partners, and iv) Keeping an active networking with European organisations aiming to
become a reference point of the forest based-bioeconomy in Southern Europe.
To summarise, ACCIO is driven by an industrial modernisation and circular economy narrative that
promotes the use of existing advantages of Catalonia’s industrial spatiality. Those advantages include
having a diverse industrial sector, infrastructure and knowledge production centres that can push
technological changes, and a large local market and international networks. Their approach is that of
an industrial transformation that relies on innovation and technological changes, boosted by strong
industrial development. CTFC, on the other hand, is driven by a narrative of rural economic growth
and path creation for a rural spatiality characterised by abandonment, lack of jobs and abundant and
underutilised natural resources. The forest-based bioeconomy becomes an “opportunity to increase
the competitiveness of the [underdeveloped] forestry sector” (interview 6), integrating economic
growth with forest management and biodiversity conservation, “processing biomass and managing
environmental services and biodiversity, both sides of the same coin” (interview 7).
Lapland
Lapland is the northernmost region in Finland and has low population density (1.8 inhabitants per square
km). It is mostly a rural region, even “in this café in the middle of Rovaniemi, we are in the rural area”
(interview 12). Similar to Catalonia, the forest continues to grow beyond the annual harvesting volumes
(Viitanen & Mutanen 2018; interviews), but, in contrast, the regional socio-economic dynamics are profoundly
linked to the forest because of the forestry and tourist industry (which, alongside mining, dominate the
regional economy), leisure activities, and ancestral traditions and knowledge carried by Sami communities
and local inhabitants (Arctic Smartness n.d.; Lapland University of Applied Sciences 2019).
The bioeconomy policy landscape is bounded within the Finnish National Bioeconomy strategy
and the Lapland’s smart specialisation strategy called Arctic Smartness (Regional Council of Lapland
n.d.; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland 2014). The Finnish bioeconomy strategy pinpoints
FENNIA 199(2) (2021) 181Diana Morales
Finnish forest industry strong position in global markets, Finland’s natural advantages (forestland
and fresh water), and its people’s close relationship with their forests. Arctic smartness, on the other
hand, has become a priority for regional development and an important tool of place branding.
Based in these policies, the strategies to promote the bioeconomy, although vary depending on who
is targeted, aim to promote research and innovation, gain and maintain recognition at the European
level, and to endorse the F-BB as a regional branding. Some examples are: i) Connecting customers
with local food producers, and local producers with the tourist industry and public kitchens, ii) Visiting
rural villages to explain the benefits of the forest-based bioeconomy, and the forms in which rural
entrepreneurs can get involved, iii) Promoting entrepreneurship based on existing forest and mining
industries, iv) Connecting researchers with industries, and v) Updating educational curricula with
bioeconomy and opening postgraduate programs with applied research.
Arctic Smartness is divided in five clusters, two of which are relevant for the forest-based bioeconomy:
The Arctic Smart Rural Cluster (rural cluster hereafter), and the Arctic Industry and Circular Economy
(industrial cluster hereafter). The rural cluster targets rural inhabitants, entrepreneurs and micro-
enterprises. It is managed in collaboration between the regional council and Proagria, a cooperative
organisation integrated by rural communities and entrepreneurs with national presence and regional
branches. The rural cluster conceptualises the bioeconomy as the entrepreneurial activities carried
out by rural inhabitants (interviews 13 and 15). From their perspective, rural businesses in Lapland
have been always practicing the bioeconomy, as they already work with agriculture and forest products.
The concern is the creation and survival of rural businesses and villages.
[The rural communities cluster] is a different bioeconomy, because the companies are smaller,
sometimes one-person companies. We do not want to be so dependent on the national energy
grid, or the national food businesses, or imports of food if we can produce it here (…) that is what
I understand by the bioeconomy. (interview 11)
As the quote shows, the rural cluster supports the production of local food (aiming for a 30% of local
consumption to come from local producers), and the establishment of biogas refineries and other
local solutions to energy and heating that use the natural resources available (Arctic Smartness n.d.).
Practitioners involved in the rural cluster are driven by an economic development narrative applied
to a rural spatiality where entrepreneurs already practice the bioeconomy but need support to
guarantee income and survival of their businesses, while villages need support to take ownership of
energy and heating systems, improving their finances by decreasing their expenses.
On the other hand, the industrial cluster targets the larger economic actors in the region (steel and
forestry industries), and related SMEs. The cluster is hosted at Digipolis OY, a technological centre
located in the Kemi-Tornio sub region (southwest, frontier with northern Sweden). This area alone
holds 80% of Lapland’s industrial production (interviews). Digipolis gathers more than 50 companies
(including forestry multinationals, energy companies, biorefineries, research centres, corporate
health, inspection and testing companies, amongst others), working as an industrial agglomeration
that facilitates innovation and industrial collaboration (interview 12). It also hosts the Circular and
Bioeconomy centre, a project supported by the Finnish Innovation Fund (Sitra), with essentially the
same goals as the cluster (industrial symbiosis, use of side streams, innovation, entrepreneurship).
The industrial cluster conceptualises the bioeconomy as the activities carried out by larger industries
(interview 10), aiming to promote innovation and collaboration, circular solutions and innovative ways
to modernise production (interview 12). Their concern is that the arctic industry’s production systems
are circular and more efficient while more economic actors can create businesses by taking advantage
of side streams. Practitioners involved in the industrial cluster are driven by an industrial modernisation
narrative applied to an industrial spatiality dominated by the forestry industry.
Discussion: reproducing the economic of the bioeconomy
The F-BB in Catalonia and Finnish Lapland is dominated by narratives of modernisation, industrial
development, creation of jobs, income, creating value and entrepreneurship opportunities. This
mirrors what other research concerned with the narratives in the bioeconomy have found. Despite
the bioeconomy’s potential to drive inclusive and sustainable transformations, its most relevant
182 FENNIA 199(2) (2021)Research paper
feature is its presumed ability to foster regional economies, remaining at odds with environmental
sustainability and human-nature interactions that do not create monetary value (Schmidt et al. 2012;
Mustalahti 2018; Ramcilovic-Suominen & Pülzl 2018). The following section explains this argument.
This is about the economy!
This is not about politics, it’s about the economy (…) about the numbers and data, not the arguments
but the facts. (interview 13)
While environmental ethics and climate change are usually acknowledged as the main rationale for
the bioeconomy in the European, Spanish and Finnish strategies, the need to reconcile sustainability
with economic growth and regional competitiveness is always stressed. This is reproduced by the
practitioners, who see the F-BB as an alternative to address climate change while gaining competitive
advantage and promoting regional growth.
From the practitioners’ point of view, the bioeconomy is both a process of modernisation and a
process of rural economic development. Accordingly, the F-BB is implemented in industrial and rural
spaces based on socio-economic interactions and acquires distinct connotations. Lapland’s economy,
argue the interviewees, has always been a bioeconomy because their culture and economic activities
have revolved around the forests. As one interviewee puts it, “you can’t just go to a farmer and tell
them about bioeconomy just like that, also, that is something they have been doing for 100 years!”
(interview 13). The F-BB involves a multiplicity of spatialities (including economic but also cultural and
environmental processes shaping rural spaces) and actors (including farmers, family businesses,
villages, the tourist and the forest industries). Yet, the main concern is how to make the forest industry
circular and more efficient and how to ensure the survival of rural businesses and villages. The
bioeconomy applied to rural spaces is carried out by rural inhabitants who need support to participate
in profitable economic activities utilising forest resources. On the other hand, the bioeconomy applied
to industrial spaces is carried out by larger and more powerful economic actors looking for support
for modernising and greening their production.
As explained, in Lapland the F-BB strategy is contained in the regional policy for smart specialisation.
The practitioners see smart specialisation as beneficial because it promotes the greening of large
industries and because it creates spaces for involving more actors in profitable economic activities.
However, even if Arctic Smartness has been influential in path development and place branding to
attract private investment and European Union funds, it’s contribution in promoting a wider
sustainable transformation remains unclear (interview 9, meetings proceedings). Widening the actors
who benefit from the bioeconomy is a significant progress towards reducing spatial unevenness, yet,
a shortcoming of smart specialisation is its blindness towards other forms of social interaction with
the forests, non-profitable activities, sustainable use of resources, forest governance, and traditional
knowledges, as pointed out by the bioeconomy critics outlined in the literature review. In addition,
there is little said about the actual sustainability of the bioeconomy, how can it coexist with other
economic and non-economic activities, or how it can benefit from the contributions of traditional
knowledges. Indeed, as the interviewees pointed out, the participation of Sami communities in the
bioeconomy has been rather limited (interviews 11 and 13). To summarise, applying the bioeconomy
through smart specialisation in Lapland does not solve the critiques amply made by previous research.
Rather, it reduces rural spatialities to economic constructs and sustainable development to industrial
modernisation (Gibbs & O’Neill 2017; Vivien et al. 2019; Befort 2020).
On the other hand, the Catalonian bioeconomy either builds over already established industries or
promotes the emergence of a new sector. It pushes technological breakthroughs using an existing
robust network and infrastructure, or the development of an economic sector by maximising the use
of an abundant resource that needs to be managed. Thus, the bioeconomy is either a strategy for
rural economic growth via innovation or a tool of industrial modernisation. A strategy of industrial
modernisation focused on circularity and practiced by larger economic actors, or a strategy for rural
economic growth that is expected to add value to the Mediterranean forest biomass, creating more
income for forest owners (largely private individuals with small plots of abandoned land) while
improving forest management.
FENNIA 199(2) (2021) 183Diana Morales
The bioeconomy is often criticised because sustainability is not implicit. Truth is, the bioeconomy
is not necessarily sustainable but it is sold as a way to transit towards sustainable economies, but
at the end you are doing more of the same, and even worst because the use of biomass is more
intensive. (interview 6)
The Christmas [tourist] season starts earlier and earlier each year, and we are waiting for snow
desperately at the beginning of the season (…) there are not enough discussions about climate
change, it is very short-term thinking. (interview 9)
The quotes show practitioners’ awareness about the shortcomings of implementing the bioeconomy
with a strong economic narrative. The problem is not that the role of the bioeconomy in sustainability
and inclusiveness is unknown, but that those narratives remain less visible in the practice of the
bioeconomy. Both Catalonian and Lapland’s interviewees acknowledged that business as usual
scenarios are insufficient to address the environmental crisis. They also acknowledged the
importance of conservation and the large variety of uses for forests, including activities where
commodification is not yet occurring amply (for example, berries and mushroom picking). But even
in these cases, the activities that receive more support are those that imply economic revenue, like
ecotourism. Practitioners intend to diversify the bioeconomy to reflect the spatialities and integrate
the different uses of forest, but these efforts require greater support that, by the time that this
research was conducted, was not provided.
Narratives of the bioeconomy as a process of economic growth and regional transformations
may appear complementary; however, when grounded, they can turn contradictory and create
spatial unevenness (see Ahlqvist & Sirviö 2019). This because the narratives with which practitioners
design and apply the bioeconomy create stories of ‘success’, becoming the ones that turn into public
policies and receive more funding (Albrecht et al. 2021). Those stories promote pathways, actions,
strategies, and interventions to enable the desired outcomes (Bauer 2018). They privilege economic
over other types of social, cultural and natural processes, and pose deep implications for rural
spaces. Indeed, rural spatialities can be reduced to become suppliers of biomass and containers of
technology, industries and infrastructure, while reinforcing the idea of a unique path to achieve
sustainable development (Giddings et al. 2002; Ollikainen 2014; Ferguson 2015; Ramcilovic-
Suominen & Pülzl 2018).
Clusters and innovation
The prevalence of economic narratives in the bioeconomy has been pointed out in previous research.
In this section I intend to expand this argument by explaining how that prevalence is partly explained
by the set of policies and strategies that the practitioners and regional authorities have at hand to
implement the bioeconomy. These policies and strategies, including for example incentives for
innovation and entrepreneurship, regional branding to attract private investment, and support for
clusters and other forms of private collaboration, are typical for the promotion of economic
development, but do not address concerns of sustainability, social or environmental justice. Thus,
even if the bioeconomy is conceptualised as a wider regional transformation, the strategies with
which it is grounded have an economic lens that do not see beyond creating economic value.
We have grants of 6000 euros, we promote collaboration with technological centres with grants
of up to 100.000 euros, and we promote R&D in firms with circular economy projects with grants
of up to 500.000 euros if done in collaboration. These instruments are co-financed with the
department of territory and sustainability and the waste agency. (interview 3)
The Catalonian bioeconomy means strengthening and modernising industries with a geographical
connection to the region (such as production sites, headquarters, offices, subsidiaries, or R&D centres).
It also means boosting an underdeveloped economic sector to promote economic development and
forest management in rural areas. As shown in the quote, most of the ACCIO strategies include
providing grants and collaborating with other regional public agencies to coordinate efforts and raise
funds. On the other hand, CTFC, being a research centre, invests in research and innovation from
within or in collaboration with other universities or partners from other European regions. Each
184 FENNIA 199(2) (2021)Research paper
agency focuses on distinctive economic sectors that define how the bioeconomy is understood,
shaping the interactions with other actors outside the traditional regional innovation systems
(universities, firms and governments), namely consumers, providers, suppliers and rural communities.
In Lapland, the bioeconomy is promoted by the regional government under the smart specialisation
program. The strategies chosen to coordinate the policy implementation are clusters, agglomerations
where relevant actors are provided with spaces for innovation and collaboration. It puts together
firms and researchers connected to the forestry industry, expecting to develop entrepreneurship
and innovation further.
As a result of the smart specialisation program, we [we found that] clustering is the best approach
to find [and address our] priorities, not [sic] all is smart specialisation, that is a wider concept, but
it helps to find those most emerging and promising collaborations. (interview 12)
A crucial difference between Catalonia and Lapland bioeconomies is found on the bet for creating
and incentivising agglomerative economies (clusters). While Catalonian bioeconomy can rely on a
strong regional economy and industrial development, Lapland’s bioeconomy requires bigger efforts
of organisation and agglomeration. Due to the size, diversity and global character of Catalonian
economy (biorefineries, extensive research and development centres and large local and
international markets), the bioeconomy is implemented through direct promotion of private
innovation and entrepreneurship to produce greener goods. On the other hand, the Catalonian
F-BB is led by a sole actor with multiple roles. It has the job to innovate, create the markets and
liaise with stakeholders, forest owners, and civil society organisations to strengthen forest
governance and promote the bioeconomy as a feasible solution for the forest industry and
management. The Catalonian F-BB, however, is expected to benefit from the region’s strong regional
economy and extensive markets. In Lapland, the understanding of regional economies as clusters
of prioritised economic activities dominates the discourse, programs and collaborations. Arctic
Smartness has become not only the main strategy for implementing the bioeconomy, but a central
strategy of local and regional economic growth that occupies a great part of the regional practitioners’
agenda. From the practitioners’ perspective, the bioeconomy through smart specialisation is an
attractive alternative for smaller and geographically remote regions.
Programs such as smart specialisation, clustering, innovation, grants and collaborations to obtain
funds are all typical strategies to promote regional economic development (see Gibbs 2000). As the
practitioners pointed out, narratives and policies of regional economic development, growth,
industrialisation, entrepreneurship and innovation, are seen as ‘easier’ to materialise. The promotion
of new economic geographies for production (industrial symbiosis and collaborations) and
institutional arrangements (cluster or other forms of agglomeration), are attractive strategies insofar
they offer solutions through actions relatively easy to implement (tax breaks, incentives to innovation,
spatial redistribution and proximity) (Gibbs 2000; Kitchen & Marsden 2011). Also, results measured
in terms of how many jobs are created, how many mills are transformed, how many new biorefineries
were built, how many new industrial collaborations, innovations, and new businesses, are the most
salient and easier to measure. However, these strategies and measures of success often overlook
deeper reflections on the relationships between society, the environment and the economy (Giddings
et al. 2002, interviews 2 and 7 ), as well as the different layers and interactions that comprise the
spatialities with which the bioeconomy will interact. As a result, the bioeconomy becomes a policy
of sectorial and industrial trans-formation with questionable sustainable credentials that do not see
beyond creating economic value.
Conclusions
This paper provides material to unpack the spatialities with which the bioeconomy interacts and to
reflect on the processes of implementing the bioeconomy as a policy concept. To answer whether the
spatialities of the bioeconomy are reflected or overlooked in its narratives, and how this plays a role
in a wider regional transformation, I analysed the bioeconomy strategies in Catalonia and Finnish
Lapland as portrayed by its practitioners. Table 2 summarises the areas prioritised and overlooked
within economic narratives of the bioeconomy.
FENNIA 199(2) (2021) 185Diana Morales
When the bioeconomy is understood as a policy concept able to create imagined futures, the narratives
become powerful tools to shape the transformation process (Birch 2016; Bauer 2018). Successful
narratives (or desirable imaginations), are supported while less successful ones are left with little
support. The case studies show that dominant narratives of economic growth and industrial
modernisation, facilitate the transition of specific economic sectors but hide diverse socio-spatial
configurations and, ultimately, downplay the role of the bioeconomy in a larger regional transformation.
That prevalence is partly explained by the set of policies and strategies the practitioners have at hand
to implement the bioeconomy. Having no more tools than those traditionally used for regional economic
growth, even if the bioeconomy is conceptualised as a wider regional transformation, the strategies
with which it is grounded have an economic lens that do not see beyond creating economic value.
Questioning the dominant narratives and the strategies that apply and reproduce them is relevant
when it comes to implementing the F-BB, as the impact on rural areas can be profound. The
bioeconomy proposes a route for rural development: that forest biomass can replace fossil fuels and
other materials to address climate change while stimulating economic growth, rural development and
the modernisation of the forestry industry. These narratives endorse imagined futures of rural
spatialities that are not only too narrow in how non-urban spaces and nature are perceived. They also
overlook local knowledge, the role of farmers, indigenous communities and other rural inhabitants in
rural development (see Schmidt et al. 2012; Mustalahti 2018).
To finalise, this paper is limited by not accounting for local conflicts likely to occur when different
economic actors compete for the same natural resources. A future research agenda includes
questioning the relationship between the bioeconomy and local knowledges, lives and experiences.
Several questions remain. What kind of conflicts can emerge from an increased demand for biomass,
what is the impact of a forest-based bioeconomy in regional labour markets, or how to govern the
bioeconomy and biomass production when its supply depends on a multitude of actors (farmers,
landowners, states, corporations)? Addressing these kinds of questions is key to keep advancing our
knowledge about sustainable transformations.
Notes
1 More details about the strategies and policies in Catalonia and Finnish Lapland can be found in
Morales 2020a, 2020b.
2 The smart specialisation strategy RIS3CAT, the regional industrial pact, the green and circular economy
strategy, eco-design strategy and the waste prevention and management program PRECAT 20.
Leeni: muuta taulukon fontti oikeaksi!
Table 2.
Bioeconomy in
Rural spatialities Industrial spatialities
Prioritised areas in
economic growth
narratives
Creation of jobs
Modernisation
Infrastructure
Natural resources
Income for rural inhabitants
Creation of jobs
Modernisation
Infrastructure
Natural resources
Greening of forestry and other
industries
Agglomerations and collaborations
Circular production
Overlooked areas in
economic growth
narratives
Non-economic relations with
nature
Local and traditional knowledges
Conservation and biodiversity
Spatial unevenness
Environmental justice
Sustainable use of resources
Conservation and biodiversity
Table 2. Summary of identified areas within the rural and industrial spatialities within
the bioeconomy.
186 FENNIA 199(2) (2021)Research paper
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the interviewees for the time and generosity with your knowledge. Thanks to professor
Margareta Dahlström and the Green Economies Network for the comments and encouragement.
References
Ahlqvist, T. & Sirviö, H. (2019) Contradictions of spatial governance: bioeconomy and the management
of state space in Finland. Antipode 51(2) 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12498
Albrecht, M., Grundel, I. & Morales, D. (2021) Regional bioeconomies: public finance and sustainable
policy narratives. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography 103(2) 116–132.
https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2021.1921603
Amundsen, H. & Hermansen, E. A. (2020) Green transformation is a boundary object: an analysis
of conceptualisation of transformation in Norwegian primary industries. Environment and
Planning E: Nature and Space 4(3) 864–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620934337
Andersson, I. & Grundel, I. (2021) Regional policy mobilities: shaping and reshaping
bioeconomy policies in Värmland and Västerbotten, Sweden. Geoforum 121 142–151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.02.005
Arctic Smartness (n.d.) Arctic smartness clusters. . 12.6.2022.
Bauer, F. (2018) Narratives of biorefinery innovation for the bioeconomy: conflict, consensus
or confusion? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 28 96–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.01.005
Befort, N. (2020) Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: the
contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 153 119923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119923
De Besi, M. & McCormick, K. (2015) Towards a bioeconomy in Europe: national, regional and industrial
strategies. Sustainability 7(8) 10461–10478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810461
Birch, K. (2016) Emergent imaginaries and fragmented policy frameworks in the Canadian bio-
economy. Sustainability 8(10) 1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101007
Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T. & Klitkou, A. (2016) What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature.
Sustainability 8(7) 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691
Centre de Ciencia y Tecnologia Forestal de Catalunya (n.d.) The institution. .
8.12.2021.
CTFC (2018) Bioregions forum. Memories of the event organised by CTFC, 13 November 2018 in
Barcelona. . 12.6.2022.
European Commission (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe. . 12.6.2022.
European Commission (2018) A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection
between economy, society and the environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. . 12.6.2022.
European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal. In: Commission E (ed) COM (2019). Brussels.
Ferguson, P. (2015) The green economy agenda: business as usual or transformational discourse?
Environmental Politics 24(1) 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.919748
Fritsche, U., Brunori, G., Chiaramonti, D., Galanakis, C. M., Hellweg, S., Matthews, R. & Panoutsou, C.
(2020) Future Transitions for the Bioeconomy Towards Sustainable Development and a Climate-
Neutral Economy. Knowledge Synthesis Final Report. The European Commission’s Knowledge
Centre for Bioeconomy. . 12.6.2022.
Gibbs, D. (2000) Ecological modernisation, regional economic development and regional development
agencies. Geoforum 31(1) 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00040-8
Gibbs, D. & O’Neill, K. (2017) Future green economies and regional development: a research agenda.
Regional Studies 51(1) 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1255719
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. & O’Brien, G. (2002) Environment, economy and society: fitting
them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development 10(4) 187–196.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199
Gobierno de España (2018) Estrategia española de Bioeconomía. Horizonte 2030.
Grundel, I. & Dahlström, M. (2016) A quadruple and quintuple helix approach to regional innovation
systems in the transformation to a forestry-based bioeconomy. Journal of the Knowledge
Economy 7(4) 963–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0411-7
https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12498
https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2021.1921603
https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620934337
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.02.005
https://arcticsmartness.eu/arctic-smartness-clusters/
https://arcticsmartness.eu/arctic-smartness-clusters/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.01.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119923
https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810461
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101007
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691
https://www.ctfc.cat/en/
http://www.ctfc.cat/bioregions/en/
https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-strategy_en.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-strategy_en.pdf
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/edace3e3-e189-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-85471490
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/edace3e3-e189-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-85471490
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/edace3e3-e189-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-85471490
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.919748
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC121212/fritsche_et_al_%282020%29_d2_synthesis_report_final_1.pdf
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC121212/fritsche_et_al_%282020%29_d2_synthesis_report_final_1.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00040-8
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1255719
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0411-7
FENNIA 199(2) (2021) 187Diana Morales
Holmgren, S., Giurca, A., Johansson, J., Söderlund Kanarp, C., Stenius, T. & Fischer, K. (2022) Whose
transformation is this? Unpacking the ‘apparatus of capture’ in Sweden’s bioeconomy. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions 42 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.11.005
Kemp, R. & Never, B. (2017) Green transition, industrial policy, and economic development. Oxford
Review of Economic Policy 33(1) 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw037
Kitchen, L. & Marsden, T. (2011) Constructing sustainable communities: a theoretical exploration
of the bio-economy and eco-economy paradigms. Local Environment 16(8) 753–769.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.579090
Lapland University of Applied Sciences (2019) The usage of forest resources in Finnish Lapland. Forest
resources and bioeconomy. Presentation made at Karlstad University (Sweden), 14th November 2019.
Merriman, P., Jones, M., Olsson, G., Sheppard, E., Thrift, N. & Tuan, Y-F. (2012) Space and spatiality
in theory. Dialogues in Human Geography 2(1) 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820611434864
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland (2014) Sustainable growth from bioeconomy.
The Finnish bioeconomy strategy. . 12.6.2022.
Morales, D. (2020a) CRS Policy Brief 1. Regional bioeconomies in Catalonia and Finnish Lapland.
Karlstad. . 12.6.2022.
Morales, D. (2020b) CRS Policy Brief 3. Public sector innovation in Värmland (Sweden) and Finnish
Lapland (Finland). Karlstad.. 12.6.2022.
Morales, D. & Sariego-Kluge, L. (2021) Regional state innovation in peripheral regions:
enabling Lapland’s green policies. Regional Studies, Regional Science 8(1) 54–64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2021.1882882
Mustalahti, I. (2018) The responsive bioeconomy: the need for inclusion of citizens and
environmental capability in the forest based bioeconomy. Journal of Cleaner Production 172
3781–3790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.132
Ollikainen, M. (2014) Forestry in bioeconomy – smart green growth for the humankind. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research 29(4) 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.926392
Pülzl, H., Kleinschmit, D. & Arts, B. (2014) Bioeconomy – an emerging meta-discourse affecting
forest discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 29(4) 386–393.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.920044
Pülzl, H., Giurca, A., Kleinschmit, D., Arts B. J. M., Mustalahti, I., Sergent, A., Secco, L., Pettenella, D. &
Brukas, V. (2017) The role of forests in bioeconomy strategies at the domestic and EU level. In
Winkel, E. (ed.) Towards a Sustainable European Forest-Based Bioeconomy: Assessment and the Way
Forward, 36–53. European Forest Institute.
Ramcilovic-Suominen, S. & Pülzl, H. (2018) Sustainable development – a “selling point” of the
emerging EU bioeconomy policy framework? Journal of Cleaner Production 172 4170–4180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.157
Regional Council of Lapland (n.d.) Arctic Smartness. Implementing smart specialisation in Lapland.
. 11.1.2022.
Schmidt, O., Padel, S. & Levidow, L. (2012) The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in
a public goods and farmer perspective. Bio-based and Applied Economics 1(1) 47–63.
https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-10770
Seawnght, J. & Gerring, J. (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu
of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61(2) 294–308.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077
Vargas-Hernández, J. G. (2019) Bio-economy at the crossroads of sustainable development. In Patti,
S. & Trizzino, G. (eds.) Advanced Integrated Approaches to Environmental Economics and Policy:
Emerging Research and Opportunities, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9562-5.ch002
Viitanen, J. & Mutanen, A. (2018) Finnish forest section economic outlook 2018–2019. Executive
Summary. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies. Natural Resources Institute Finland
(Luke), Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-326-637-7
Vivien, F-D., Nieddu, M., Befort, N., Debref, R. & Giampietro, M. (2019) The hijacking of the bioeconomy.
Ecological Economics 159 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027
Walker, G. (2009) Beyond distribution and proximity: exploring the multiple spatialities of
environmental justice. Antipode 41(4) 614–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00691.x
Wolfslehner, B., Linser, S., Pülzl, H., Bastrup-Birk, A., Camia, A. & Marchetti, M. (2016) Forest bioeconomy
– a new scope for sustainability indicators. From Science to Policy 4. European Forest Institute.
https://doi.org/10.36333/fs04
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.11.005
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw037
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.579090
https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820611434864
https://biotalous.fi/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The_Finnish_Bioeconomy_Strategy_110620141.pdf
https://biotalous.fi/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The_Finnish_Bioeconomy_Strategy_110620141.pdf
https://www.kau.se/files/2020-02/Policy
https://www.kau.se/files/2020-12/CRS_PolicyBrief_nr3-2020_en_final.pdf
https://www.kau.se/files/2020-12/CRS_PolicyBrief_nr3-2020_en_final.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2021.1882882
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.132
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.926392
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.920044
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.157
https://arcticsmartness.eu/
https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-10770
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9562-5.ch002
http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-326-637-7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00691.x
https://doi.org/10.36333/fs04