Circular Regulations (CR) for Bioeconomy Development

The term Circular Regulations (CR) is introduced to describe a broad regulatory framework, designed with a circular understanding of the economy. Central in this discussion is the transition towards bioeconomy, a term that is not always used consistently, and sometimes treated in the same way as circular economy (CE), although these terms are not necessarily equivalent. In this article we endorse a systemic interpretation of CE, where a continuum of approaches, extending from reusing/recycling/upcycling to refuse/rethink/reduce, gradually replace existing linear “end-of-life” concepts. CE is a key prerequisite for the bioeconomy shift, a transition that further builds on CE, where circular design and processes are further augmented with increased resource utilization and intensive applications of innovative science and technology. The prevailing regulatory arrangements in CE, however, remain either fragmented or largely based on pre-existing policies, drafted to address issues of the linear economy, thus presenting several limitations when dealing with the underlying paradigm shift: complex market relationships that go beyond the standard neoclassical model. CR adopts an encompassing approach to regulatory design; it is not meant to be a rigid set of rules, but rather a regulatory framework where institutions, market rules, and business practice explicitly account for environmental and socially responsible activities, while securing an enabling environment for innovation. CR directly reflects on CE, where bioeconomy growth is informed by science, enabled by technology, driven by business, and supported by relevant policies and institutional frameworks. The article presents a conceptual setting towards CR and a practical example for its development.


INTRODUCTION
The emerging bioeconomy is not only an expression of new technologies and processes, but a fundamental change in our socioeconomic system; a central element is the increased utilization of biological resources and the overall redesign of economic activities so that treated interchangeably, although they may not necessarily reflect to the same concept. The systematic classification and nomenclature of these terms lies beyond the scope of our discussion and has already been addressed in the literature (Kirchherr et al., 2017;McCormick and Kautto, 2013;Brunori, 2013) [2][3][4]. For the purpose of this paper we rely on the CE definition by Kirchherr et al. (2017) [2], where a CE continuum, extending from reusing/recycling/upcycling processes to refuse/rethink/reduce, gradually replaces the linear "end-of-life" concepts of the linear economy.
Bioeconomy then builds on the circular end of this CE continuum, to expand the utilization of biological material and processes with the help of innovative science and technology. CE is therefore the foundation for bioeconomy growth.
The transition to bioeconomy, sometimes also called the "green shift", has not yet fully manifested in contemporary research, since the latter mostly relies on tools and concepts from the previous linear paradigmespecially in terms of defining and measuring. In some ways it is the same discussion of producing more, increasing (production) efficiency, enhancing profitability, and so on. Similarly, regulatory developments and our understanding of regulations and institutions remain largely out of pace with bioeconomy developments and needs. The transition to the bioeconomy raises the need for a new approach in our understanding and measuring of the bioeconomy, moreover on ensuring enabling environments around these new concepts. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the need for such new approaches, especially with respect to regulations, and suggest some modest proposals towards regulatory innovations that we call Circular Regulations (CR).
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section frames bioeconomy and its relation to CE, while emphasizing the paradigm shift that raises the need for CR. Next, an abridged description of some key national bioeconomy strategies is presented; regulations that are, to a large extent, based on pre-existing policies drafted with a linear approach in mind and present significant shortcomings in addressing modern bioeconomy needs. The introduction to the concept of CR follows, along with a practical example on how CR can be further developed. The article ends with a short summary.

BIOECONOMY AND VALUE WEBS
Bioeconomy is associated with an ongoing paradigm shift, the "green shift", and has received several definitions. According to the OECD (2009) [5], bioeconomy is "…transforming life science knowledge into new, sustainable, eco-efficient and competitive products", while according to the first Global Bioeconomy Summit (GBS) bioeconomy is the "…knowledge-based production and utilization of biological resources, biological processes and principles to sustainably provide goods and services across all economic sectors" (Global Bioeconomy Summit, 2015) [6]. Several other definitions of the bioeconomy can also be found, illustrating the confusion and complexity of the term that sometimes is treated in the same way as the terms CE or bio-based economy, although these terms are not necessarily equivalent (D'Amato et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017) [2,7]. In our discussion for bioeconomy we use CE as the starting point, where we adopt the approach from Kirchherr et al. (2017) [2] that define CE as "…an economic system that replaces the 'end-of-life' concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes. It operates at the micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks) and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, thus simultaneously creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations. It is enabled by novel business models and responsible consumers." Bioeconomy builds on CE developments and further expands resource utilization (biological materials and processes) with the intensive application of innovative science and technology. In this article we therefore consider CE as key prerequisite for bioeconomy development. The rest of the section highlights some of the complex market dynamics that characterize bioeconomy development, a paradigm shift that sets the demand for regulatory innovation. Zilberman et al. (2013) [8] argue that the transition towards bioeconomy "…is a continuing evolutionary process of transition from systems of mining non-renewable resources to farming renewable ones".
Bioeconomy is primarily based on biogenic instead of fossil resources, and inherently incorporates circular value chains (e.g., recycling, upcycling, reusing, etc.). In that respect, bioeconomy stands on two legs: one is the extensive usage (and extraction) of bio-resources, and the other is the efficient and sustainable (economically, environmentally, and socially) utilization of such resources. The new extraction methods are supported by (economically and environmentally) efficient utilization technologies, as well as by enabling markets and institutional arrangements. There are increasing signs that biotechnology may flourish in clusters (Philp and Winickoff, 2017) [11], however there is still not definitive answer on how to properly set up value webs that will efficiently take advantage of such synergies to advance the bioeconomy transition. There have been several industrial symbiosis schemes in the Nordics, along with Innovation Platforms (IPs) and quadruple helix templates, however, it remains a key challenge remains in setting up new value webs that will efficiently carry the bioeconomy outputs to their markets, and unless this last crucial step is addressed the whole premise is precarious, no matter has the potential to support bioeconomy transition. As we discuss in the next section, existing regulatory approaches are not sufficient and, in some cases, can even inhibit CE development and thus the bioeconomy transition, mostly due to their fragmented and outdated approach that typically originates from a linear understanding of the markets.
It is worth noting that bioeconomy presents new economic opportunities that can be particularly important for rural areas in the European periphery. These areas are naturally situated within rich bioeconomy zones (i.e., they have a natural advantage in terms of bioeconomy resources) and therefore they have the potential to become (with the help of appropriate policies) bioeconomy hubs. A key issue however, lies on the design of value webs in such ways where the additional economic surplus that is being generated will also benefit those communities actively affected (as opposed to linear extractive schemes where surpluses are extracted to large operators in big urban centers or abroad). Properly setting CR may help alleviate such distributional issues and allow for truly embedded bioeconomy hubs.

CURRENT NATIONAL STRATEGIES ON BIOECONOMY AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY
There has been considerable effort over the last years to develop strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and the circular economy. In level, depending on where the material is physically located; such fragmentation raises several issues that relate to jurisdiction, competence, enforcement, and collaboration, among others.

A MODEST PROPOSAL TOWARDS CIRCULAR REGULATIONS (CR)
Central in the discussion on bioeconomy advancement is the continuous and, in some cases, unprecedented technology convergence.
The author believes that bioeconomy initially emerged largely due to       In a broader sense, CR attempts to re-establish the balance between the ongoing changes in the market side and traditional regulatory elements.
The former is characterized by new market dynamics, such as value webs, that create the demand for regulatory innovation; this demand is not met with existing frameworks, mostly due to their linear (or semi-linear) approach. The continued reliance on existing regulatory frameworks while facing a paradigm shift is an oxymoron that the CR addresses.
A practical way to implement CR development is by engaging

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.