The Role of Industrial Revival in Untapping the Bioeconomy's Potential in Central and Eastern Europe

The bioeconomy occupies the centre of the Green Deal, the EU's plan to support transformative growth following the COVID-19 episode. However, parts of the EU, such as countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) continue to lag behind in harnessing the potential held by the bioeconomy. This article argues that in CEE countries, where the primary and conventional bioeconomy sectors play a more important role, 'early' transition pathways such as improvements in productivity and practice- as well as commercialisation-oriented innovation (the do-use-interact model: DUI) are just as important as approaches based on (generally publicly supported) R&D, innovation adoption, and technology transfer (science-technology-innovation model: STI), typically associated with high-value bioindustrial applications. The argument is tested by conducting a survey of 352 experts in the region that gives an insight into the CEE macro-region's assets with respect to deploying the bioeconomy's potential and assessing the transition pathways relevant to the better performance of bioeconomy (primary, manufacturing, and other related) sectors. The results show the particular relevance of consolidating the primary and traditional sectors to support improvements in productivity based on the vertical and horizontal interaction typically associated with DUI, while the relevance of STI is mostly linked to advanced sectors, which are narrowly distributed across the region. The findings are relevant to policy given that the EU's bioeconomy policy has thus far chiefly focused on STI support that better corresponds to the needs of countries at more advanced stages of developing the bioeconomy, but is less appropriate for the specific context and needs of CEE.

Automated summary

This article argues that in Central and Eastern European countries, where the traditional bioeconomy sectors are more important, 'early' transition pathways such as the DUI model and the STI model are equally important. The findings are relevant to policy as the current EU bioeconomy policy may not be suitable for the specific needs of CEE countries.