Good Thursday afternoon!
It’s Christin again, your bioeconomy enthusiast, and it’s time for some bioeconomy reading! Here’s a quick roundup of the stories, developments and discussions that have shaped the field over the past two weeks.
Before you dive in: At the end of this edition, you’ll find a short feedback poll. If you have a minute, I’d love to hear whether you found this newsletter useful and how I could improve it.
TOP STORY
Three months after the Russian “Forum of Future Technologies,” the Kremlin has moved from discussion to implementation. At the beginning of May, President Vladimir Putin issued a set of formal instructions to accelerate the development of biotechnology and the broader bioeconomy in Russia.
The directives focus on approving a long-term bioeconomy strategy by June 1 that extends to 2036 and beyond. This strategy must align with related policies in areas such as spatial development, food and biological security, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, industry, energy, and agriculture. An accompanying action plan, due by June 15, will outline measures to support bioeconomy projects at every stage, from research to commercialization.
The instructions also call for improving public administration in technology policy, assessing workforce capacity, and potentially raising enrollment targets for higher education and vocational programs. Funding for the national project “Technological Support for the Bioeconomy” is to be gradually increased alongside broader efforts to expand exports, develop critical technologies, and attract extra-budgetary investment.
Other expected measures include supporting research, education, and innovation to accelerate the transition from laboratory research to industrial production and stimulating demand for biotechnological products. The government is also tasked with strengthening the legal framework, including mechanisms that protect the domestic biotechnology market, ensure product safety and quality, and improve monitoring and statistical classification systems.
Further initiatives include establishing experimental legal regimes in designated innovation territories (such as Sirius), promoting public awareness of biotechnology; and exploring the development of “bio-eco settlements” along the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor. (RBC)
THE PAST TWO WEEKS IN THE BIOECONOMY
🇨🇴
A new analysis by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) reveals Colombia's strong potential for developing a bioplastics industry, thanks to its abundant biomass, scientific capacity, and recent plastic reduction policies. However, progress is hindered by unclear regulations, higher costs, weak composting infrastructure, and competition from misleading alternatives, such as oxo-degradable plastics. This underscores the necessity of coordinated policies, investments, and consumer awareness to stimulate growth. (SEI)
🇩🇪
On May 20, Germany introduced a new series of technology roadmaps as part of its innovation policy framework. This initiative is part of Hightech Agenda Germany (HTAD), the federal government’s program to strengthen technological sovereignty, accelerate the translation of research into industrial applications, and coordinate investments in key future technologies. The biotechnology roadmap outlines priorities such as genomics, cell and gene therapies, molecular diagnostics, AI-enabled life sciences, industrial biotechnology, and biomanufacturing. It also outlines measures to expand innovation ecosystems, increase capacity and research infrastructure, and develop skills. (BMFTR)
A new study titled “Scenarios for the optimal use of biomass in the bioeconomy by 2050” examines how to cost-efficiently use limited biomass resources across the energy, chemicals, peat replacement, and timber construction sectors in order to help Germany achieve its climate targets by 2050. The study found that biomass should be prioritized for hard-to-abate applications, such as aviation and shipping fuels, high-temperature industrial processes, flexible power generation, peak heating demand, and the chemical industry. (DBFZ)
🇳🇿
The Waikato region of New Zealand has endorsed a draft economic development strategy that identifies the bioeconomy as one of the region’s key economic sectors. The strategy outlines priorities such as strengthening regional productivity, supporting innovation, improving skills, and attracting investment. (Inside Government NZ)
🇵🇦
Panama is advancing its efforts to measure the contribution of the bioeconomy to its national economy. The National Secretariat for Science, Technology and Innovation of Panama (Senacyt) is leading a thematic report on the Panamanian bioeconomy as a key initiative for developing the National Bioeconomy Strategy. The report will quantify the contribution of related sectors to the gross domestic product (GDP) and provide the evidence base to define strategic goals, priority intervention areas, and future policy actions. (SENACYT)
🇹🇭
Thailand’s Industry Minister, Varawut Silpa-archa, instructed the Office of the Cane and Sugar Board (OCSB) to upgrade the country’s sugarcane and sugar industry to a “green bioindustry.” This marks a turning point for the sector, shifting the focus from sugar production to providing raw materials for future industries, such as bioenergy, bioplastics, clean fuels, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and other high-value products. Through the Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) model, the Thai government aims to establish Thailand as the ASEAN bio-industry hub by 2027. (Naewna)
🇺🇸
The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology published updates on its website about the ongoing FY2027 appropriations process and the role of biotechnology in the U.S. federal government. The updates outline proposed measures related to regulation, funding, supply chains, biosecurity, and interagency coordination. (NSCEB)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a request for information (RFI) seeking public input on modified organisms subject to the Plant Protection Act. (Gregory Jaffe via LinkedIn)
GEOPOLITICS & BIOECONOMY
A recent opinion piece argues that rising geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions are transforming the bioeconomy from an environmental initiative into a strategic resilience tool. Against this backdrop, the article emphasizes Latin America’s strategic importance to the global bioeconomy and highlights the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture's (IICA) role in promoting policy discussions, regional strategies, and institutional frameworks to accelerate bioeconomy development throughout the region. (laRazón)
FROM THE LITERATURE
A new discussion paper by the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) analyzes evolving global policy trends in the bioeconomy. The paper outlines convergences and divergences between bioeconomy strategies in OECD and non-OECD countries. It also situates India’s bioeconomy vision and priorities within the global context and identifies areas where the G20 and other multilateral bodies can advance the policy discourse. (RIS)
In a new article, researchers compare bioeconomy transition pathways in the Netherlands and Brazil. They argue that combining technology-driven innovation with biodiversity-based, community-led approaches and mutual learning between regions could lead to more sustainable and inclusive bioeconomies. (Springer)
The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) released a new report on the geopolitics of food, arguing that current food crises reflect structural vulnerabilities in global food systems rather than temporary disruptions. The report emphasizes that geopolitical tensions, climate shocks, supply chain instability, export restrictions, sanctions, and volatile commodity markets are exacerbating risks in the food system, especially for countries that depend on imports. It calls for policies that strengthen local and regional food systems, territorial markets, food reserves, small-scale producers, and agroecological transitions, while promoting what it describes as “cooperative self-reliance” alongside continued international cooperation. (IPES-Food)
EVENT RECAP
The Embassy of India in Berlin hosted an Indo-German roundtable on "Biotechnology for Bioeconomy" on May 7. The event brought together policymakers, startups, researchers, and industry representatives to strengthen bilateral cooperation in biotech innovation and sustainability. Discussions were led by Indian Department of Biotechnology (DBT) Secretary Rajesh Gokhale and his German counterparts, who highlighted the growing momentum for science diplomacy between India and Germany. (Embassy of India, Berlin via LinkedIn)
THE SIGNAL
Beyond biosecurity: Defense as an emerging market for the bioeconomy
Over the past fifteen years, the scope of bioeconomy policy has continuously broadened. What began as an agenda largely focused on innovation and economic growth has gradually expanded to include sustainability, decarbonization, and the circular economy. More recently, bioeconomy policy has been increasingly framed through the lenses of competitiveness and industrial policy, particularly in Europe, the United States, and China. In parts of Latin America, meanwhile, the bioeconomy is primarily positioned as a development strategy.
Another dimension may now be entering the picture.
Bioeconomy and bio-based industries are increasingly becoming part of security and defense discussions, not only as risks to be managed, but also as potential strategic capabilities. A series of developments in recent weeks suggests that this is no coincidence.
In April, Canada’s industry association, Bioindustrial Innovation Canada, called for “unlocking Canada’s dual-use advantage.” On May 5, Europe’s Bio-based Industries Consortium (BIC) urged policymakers to explicitly include biomanufacturing in dual-use policies and procurement frameworks. Two weeks later, EuropaBio launched a new Biodefense & Biosecurity Task Force, aimed at ensuring that security frameworks remain effective while avoiding excessive regulation. In Europe, these developments also coincide with ongoing negotiations around the EU Biotech Act I and preparations for a potential Biotech Act II.
At first glance, these may appear to be isolated industry requests. Taken together, however, they point to a broader development: Defense may gradually emerge as a legitimate domain of demand for the bioeconomy.
This is not a story of militarization. Rather, it reflects the growing recognition that bio-based industrial capabilities are becoming strategically relevant.
This logic is not entirely surprising. The bioeconomy has long been considered cross-sectoral. This extends increasingly beyond biotechnology itself to industrial capabilities such as biomanufacturing, bio-based materials, and enabling production systems. Infrastructure and material innovations developed for civilian purposes may also support resilience and, in some cases, defense-related applications.
The characteristics that make bio-based innovations valuable for food security, healthcare, and industrial production also make them strategically sensitive. Bio-based solutions may strengthen resilience by reducing dependence on fossil fuels and vulnerable supply chains while maintaining functional performance. Potential applications span areas such as bio-based carbon fibers for lightweight structures, natural fibers for technical textiles, remote energy systems, and bio-enabled sensing technologies.
In policy language, this falls under dual use – technologies and capabilities that serve both civilian and military purposes. Yet, not only is the relevance of dual use evolving, but also how the concept itself is understood.
Traditionally, the dual use of biotechnology has largely been discussed through a biosecurity lens as a risk requiring oversight and control. Increasingly, however, several stakeholders have begun approaching parts of the bioeconomy through a biodefense lens, viewing them as capabilities that should be secured, strengthened, and scaled.
The broader geopolitical context helps explain why this conversation is emerging simultaneously across countries and regions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, supply chain disruptions, and growing concerns about strategic autonomy have all intensified the focus on resilience. Meanwhile, biology itself is becoming more industrialized – increasingly automated, digitalized and standardized – and the convergence of AI and biology is accelerating both the pace and scalability of innovation.
Security institutions are adapting accordingly. For instance, NATO’s new Technology and Science Incubation Panel brings together biologists, engineers, data scientists, and defense planners to better understand how emerging technologies interact and shape future operational capabilities. The premise is straightforward: Biology increasingly influences what states need to protect, how threats are sensed, and how operations are sustained.
For industry, this creates new opportunities, as well as new governance challenges.
Calls to strengthen dual-use frameworks are rarely only about security. They also concern legal certainty, competitiveness, and market access. Companies want clarity on what constitutes technology transfer, which exports require approval, and how future collaboration rules may evolve. Without clearer frameworks, firms face investment uncertainty, compliance risks, and barriers to international cooperation.
At the same time, a more systematic dual-use integration would likely also mean more regulation and of a different kind.
Currently, bio-based industries are still largely governed on a sector-by-sector basis. Yet industrial bio-capabilities increasingly cut across these boundaries, creating gray zones between innovation policy, industrial strategy, and security governance.
This raises a complex question: Can capability-building and biosecurity be governed together?
A capability-oriented governance model would not necessarily replace biosecurity. Instead, it could complement it by shifting the focus from restriction to secure capability-building. The challenge will be ensuring that efforts to strengthen resilience, competitiveness, and strategic autonomy do not weaken safeguards against misuse or create overly complex regulations.
The practical application of such a framework remains unclear, and industry groups are often deliberately vague about implementation.
However, the direction is becoming clearer. The question may no longer be whether biotechnology has defense relevance, but rather, how countries choose to govern the growing overlap between the industrial bioeconomy and security priorities.
WHAT TO WATCH
During Amazon Week 2026 in Berlin (June 1-6), which is hosted by the Embassy of Brazil, the bioeconomy program will highlight sustainable value chains, forest-based innovations, and circular, bio-based solutions. The program will bring together policymakers, researchers, and businesses to discuss how the Amazon region can develop a regenerative bioeconomy, attract international investment, and strengthen EU–Latin American cooperation. (Embassy of Brazil, Berlin)
That’s it for this week’s Bioeconomy Snap.
If you found this useful, share it with colleagues working on bioeconomy policy.
Have a wonderful week ahead!