Good Sunday morning!

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 shaped the field this week.

This week, I found myself particularly drawn to an interview about the intersection of science and security policy on The Ongoing Transformation podcast. In it, Edward You, a former molecular biologist turned FBI biosecurity expert, explains why governments need to rethink how they approach technological risk. Instead of focusing on individual innovations, he stresses the importance of understanding the convergence of technologies and their potentially disruptive, transformative applications. While much of today’s policy debate focuses on privacy, the economic and national security dimensions receive far less attention. You argues that biosecurity must now be understood as ‘bioeconomic’, as biotechnology increasingly shapes critical sectors ranging from healthcare and agriculture to energy and manufacturing. However, current security frameworks remain misaligned with this reality. Describing the current situation as a global biotechnology ‘space race’ rather than a traditional arms race, he highlights the growing geopolitical and economic implications of leadership in biotech. (Issues in Science and Technology)

🇧🇷 “Strengthening Brazil’s National Bioeconomy Policy”: new report highlights progress in developing Brazil’s National Bioeconomy Development Plan (CEBDS)

🇧🇷 & 🇵🇪 Peru and Brazil have signed a significant five-year scientific cooperation agreement, focusing on critical areas such as artificial intelligence, the bioeconomy and clean energy. The agreement aims to promote innovation, protect the Amazon and strengthen bilateral ties, while utilizing science as a strategic instrument for international cooperation and science diplomacy. (CONCYTEC)

🇩🇪 Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Federal Ministry for the Environment unveiled the results of the national chemical agenda “Chemieagenda 2045,” highlighting biotechnology as key to decarbonizing the chemical sector through sustainable processes and replacing fossil feedstocks, while stressing the need for both waste-based and sustainably produced primary biomass to scale a competitive bioeconomy. (German Government, in German)

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 The Scottish Government is developing a dedicated bioeconomy roadmap as part of its Circular Economy Strategy for 2045, targeting the food system as a key priority sector. Scotland aims to scale-up innovations in the bioeconomy and to maximize the use of biological resources through circular practices. The roadmap is expected to be published in 2027. (Scottish Government)

🇺🇬 & 🇳🇬 Uganda and Nigeria are increasing policy attention on bio-based sectors to support food security and economic growth. The governments are highlighting agtech and bioenergy as ways to use local biomass for industrialization. Meanwhile, rising private investment in biochar, alternative animal feed and bioplastics shows that there is growing momentum at the intersection of policy priorities and innovation. (World Bio Market Insights)

Recent analysis highlights how deeply interconnected the current regional escalation in the Middle East already is. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz not only cause an energy shock, but also put systemic stress on fertilizer and food systems. This affects production costs, trade flows and food security far beyond the region (UN FAO).

Against this background, there are calls for forward-looking economic policy: to avoid short-term interventions that undermine long-term transformation, and to use the crisis to strengthen structural resilience instead (SAB for Evidence-Based German Economic Policy). But how this should be done, and where the bioeconomy fits in, remains largely unaddressed.

This absence itself is a signal.

In moments of crisis, political attention understandably shifts to the immediate: stabilizing markets, securing supply, cushioning social impacts. Long-term transformation can quickly appear as a ‘luxury problem’. Yet crises are also inflection points, where rapid decisions risk locking in existing, often fossil-based, structures.

From this perspective, allowing for long-term thinking is not misguided; it is necessary. The challenge is not to prioritize transformation over stabilization, but to align both strategically.

Integrating the bioeconomy into crisis responses could provide this vital connection. Reducing the dependence on fossil energy, strengthening the resilience of food systems, promoting circular rather than linear resource use, and decouple energy and agricultural markets with the help of bioeconomic solutions could link short-term supply security with the long-term goals of resilience, sustainability, and diversification.

I look forward to seeing more contributions on this topic in the coming weeks, and I can only hope that this unbearable war will end soon.

That’s it for this week’s Bioeconomy Policy Brief.

The next edition will be in your inbox after a personal Easter break.

If you found this useful, share it with colleagues working on bioeconomy policy.

Have a wonderful week ahead!