ABSTRACT

Bioeconomy conceptualisations often invoke opportunities to transition towards innovative biotechnologies, bioresources and applications. Clarifying goals has implications for the regulations needed for successful transitions. However, most countries have not yet made final decisions on how to regulate particular bio-innovations: those based on genetic-engineering Certain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are still considered high-risk, as full scientific consensus is missing regarding the magnitude/reversibility of potential negative impacts. New Zealand is among these countries; regulations require a case-by-case approval of high-risk GMOs. Key organisations are polarised regarding the ideal kind of bioeconomy. This article draws on literature syntheses, to clarify what features can be regarded as ‘the most distinctive’ for three economic visions currently debated in New Zealand: a natural bioeconomy (BE-1), a genetic-engineering bioeconomy (BE-2) and circular economy (CE). The research objective is to understand what kind of economic transitions are being called-for by key actors in New Zealand. Findings indicate a long-standing BE-2 coalition dominated by science and commercial interests; and a recent CBE-1 coalition already implementing multiple, albeit fragmented, policies. The framework can support similar research in countries still affected by BE-1/BE-2 debates, enabling robust and replicable analyses, longitudinally and comparatively. Agendas for future conceptual and empirical research are also presented.

摘要

生物经济概念化往往会带来向创新生物技术，生物资源和应用过渡的机会。明确目标对成功过渡所需的法规有影响。但是，大多数国家尚未就如何规范特定的生物创新做出最终决定：基于基因工程的生物创新某些基因改造生物（GMO）仍被认为是高风险的，因为关于强度/潜在负面影响的可逆性。新西兰是这些国家之一；法规要求对高风险的GMO进行逐案批准。关键组织在理想的生物经济方面两极分化。本文采用文献综合的方法，阐明了在新西兰目前争论的三种经济前景中哪些特征可以被认为是“最独特的”：自然生物经济（BE-1），基因工程生物经济（BE-2）和循环经济（CE）。该研究的目的是了解新西兰的主要角色正在要求什么样的经济转型。研究结果表明，由科学和商业利益主导的BE-2联盟由来已久。最近的CBE-1联盟已经实施了多个（尽管是零散的）政策。该框架可以为仍受BE-1 / BE-2辩论影响的国家中的类似研究提供支持，从而可以进行纵向和比较性分析，并且分析结果可靠且可重复。还提出了用于未来概念和实证研究的议程。