Development of the bioeconomy in the context of securing technological sovereignty: The experience of French regulation
https://doi.org/10.18184/2079-4665.2025.16.4.748-761
Abstract
Purpose: to identify common patterns in the regulatory framework for bioeconomic approaches of business activities in France.
Methods: the study uses a set of historical methods to identify patterns in the development of regulations governing the use of bioeconomic approaches in France. General scientific methods are actively used, primarily systematic analysis, which allows social phenomena and their parts to be represented as systems and their elements. The interdisciplinary nature of the study determines the use of methods of formallogical interpretation of law and comparative legal research methods.
Results: the evolution of ideas about bioeconomics in science and their connection with the concept of a closed-loop economy is shown. The main directions of European policy in the field of production relations under consideration are studied, followed by French legislation and strategic planning documents for the development of the bioeconomy sector. The important role of agro-industrial clusters in the efficient use of biological resources as well as industrial symbiosis relations is revealed. These issues are considered using the example of the French cluster “Bioeconomy for change”, and the characteristics of the relations that have developed between its participants regarding the rational use of natural resources and production waste are analyzed. Measures of state support for the development of bioeconomic projects are considered using the example of the emerging biogas industry. Among such measures, the establishment of a purchase tariff for biomethane supplied to the gas distribution network, the issuance of guarantees of origin, and biogas production certificates are highlighted.
Conclusions and Relevance: the conclusion is reached that there are three key elements determining the development of the bioeconomy in France. These include a comprehensive system of regulatory and technical regulation, industrial clusters, and targeted government support, expressed, in particular, in the establishment of obligations to purchase biogas, the introduction of mechanisms for guarantees of origin, and production certificates.
Supporting agencies: The study was carried out within the framework of the state assignment of the Russian Academy of Sciences No. 125013001144-6.
About the Author
R. Yu. Kolobov
Federal Research Center A. E. Favorsky Irkutsk Institute of Chemistry of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Roman Yu. Kolobov, Candidate of Legal Sciences; Associate Professor, Leading Researcher; Laboratory of Legal Problems of High-Tech Industries
ResearcherID: H-4644-2016, Scopus Author ID: 57210558887
Irkutsk
Competing Interests:
The author declares that there is no Conflict of Interest.
References
1. Diemer A. Industrial symbioses: A new field of analysis for industrial economics. Innovations. 2016; 50(2):65–94. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.050.0065 (In Fr.)
2. Bugge M.M., Hansen T., Klitkou A. What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability. 2016; 8(7):691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691 (In Eng.)
3. Kiryushin P.A., Yakovleva E.Yu., Astapkovich M., Solodova M.A. Bioeconomy: EU experience and opportunities for Russia. Moscow University Economis Bulletin. 2019; (4):60–77. EDN: https://www.elibrary.ru/tjlrmn. https://doi.org/10.38050/01300105201945 (In Russ.)
4. Rassokhina I.I., Kotkova D.N., Platonov A.V. Analyzing global publication activity in the field of “bioeconomy”. Problems of territory's development. 2019; (3(101)):152–165. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/wwhjqw. https://doi.org/10.15838/ptd.2019.3.101.10 (In Russ.)
5. Pahun J., Fouilleux È., Daviron B. Bioeconomy: from early meanings to the emergence of a new framework for public action. Natures Sciences Sociétés. 2018; 26(1):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2018020 (In Fr.)
6. Vivien F.-D. Economics approached through the prism of the Groupe des Dix: bioeconomy revisited. Natures Sciences Sociétés. 2019; 27(2):147–158. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2019033 (In Fr.)
7. Debred R., Vivien F.-D. What bioeconomy? The lessons of a debate in France in the 1970s and 1980s. Économie rurale. 2021; 376:19–35. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.8789 (In Fr.)
8. Georgescu-Roegen N. From economic science to bioeconomy. Revue d’Economie Politique. 1988; 88(3):337– 382. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24696907 (In Fr.).
9. Befort N. Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: the contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020; 153:119923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119923 (In Eng.)
10. Bosman R., Rotmans J. Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: a comparison of Finland and the Netherlands. Sustainability. 2016; 8(10):1017. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101017 (In Eng.)
11. Staffas L., Gustavsson M., McCormick K. Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: an analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability. 2013; 5(6):2751–2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5062751 (In Eng.)
12. Kirchherr J., Reike D., Hekkert M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2017; 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 (In Eng.)
13. Corvellec H., Stowell A., Johansson N. Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2021; 26(3):421–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13187 (In Eng.)
14. Giampietro M. On the circular bioeconomy and decoupling: implications for sustainable growth. Ecological Economics. 2019; 162:143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.001 (In Eng.)
15. Kardung M., Cingiz K., Costenoble O., Delahaye R. et al. Development of the circular bioeconomy: drivers and indicators. Sustainability. 2021; 13(1):413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010413 (In Eng.)
16. Madelrieux S., Courtonne J.-Y., Grillot M., Harchaoui S. Bioeconomy and circular economy: critical reading and place of the livestock sectors. INRAE Productions Animales. 2023; 36(1). https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2023.36.1.7430 (In Fr.)
17. Danet D., Desforges A. Digital sovereignty and strategic autonomy in Europe: from concept to geopolitical realities. Hérodote. 2020; 177–178(2):179–195. https://doi.org/10.3917/her.177.0179 (In Fr.)
18. Vivien F.-D., Nieddu M., Befort N., Debref R., Giampietro M. The hijacking of the bioeconomy. Ecological Economics. 2019; 159:189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027 (In Eng.)
19. Thénot M., Bouteiller C., Lescieux-Katir H. Agricultural cooperatives as agents of industrial symbiosis. Study of the Bazancourt-Pomacle biorefinery (Marne, France). Revue internationale de l’économie sociale. 2018; 347(1):31–47. https://doi.org/10.3917/recma.347.0031 (In Fr.)
20. Thénot M., Honorine K. Industrial bioeconomy at the regional scale: The Bazancourt-Pomacle biorefinery, a springboard for a territorial strategy. Réalités industrielles. 2017; (1):66–70. URL: https://stm.cairn.info/revuerealites-industrielles-2017-1-page-66?lang=fr (accessed: 01.04.2025) (In Fr.)
21. Ayrapetyan D., Befort N., Hermans F. The role of sustainability in the emergence and evolution of bioeconomy clusters: an application of a multiscalar framework. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022; 376:134306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134306 (In Eng.)
22. Qian H. The evolution of clusters and implications for the revival of old industrial cities. In: The road through the rust belt: from preeminence to decline to prosperity. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2014. P. 69–94. https://doi.org/10.17848/9780880994774.ch4 (In Eng.)
23. Porter M. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review. 1998; 76(6):77–90. URL: https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the-new-economics-of-competition (accessed: 01.04.2025) (In Eng.)
24. Assens C., Abittan Y. Management of a common good: the territory. The case of competitiveness clusters. RIMHE: Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme & Entreprise. 2012; 1(1):19–36. https://doi.org/10.3917/rimhe.001.0019 (In Fr.)
25. Depret M.-H., Hamdouch A. The deployment of industrial and innovation ecosystems in the green business. Revue d’économie industrielle. 2015; 152(4):121–150. https://doi.org/10.4000/rei.6238 (In Fr.)
26. Stadler T., Chauvet J.-M. New innovative ecosystems in France to develop the bioeconomy. New Biotechnology. 2018; 40(A):113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.07.009 (In Eng.)
27. Mantulet G., Bidaud A., Mima S. The role of biomass gasification and methanisation in decarbonisation strategies. Energy. 2020; 193:116737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116737 (In Eng.)
28. Bunel S., Hadjibeyli B. Evaluation of the innovation tax credit. Economics and Statistics. 2021; (526–527):113– 135. https://doi.org/10.24187/ecostat.2021.526d.2055 (In Fr.)
29. Appels L., Baeyens J., Degréve J., Dewil R. Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 2008; 34(6):755–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2008.06.002 (In Eng.)
Review
For citations:
Kolobov R.Yu. Development of the bioeconomy in the context of securing technological sovereignty: The experience of French regulation. MIR (Modernization. Innovation. Research). 2025;16(4):748-761. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18184/2079-4665.2025.16.4.748-761
Views:
87
Email this article 