Feedback from the audience: what is missing?

After the presentations, the partners and experts at the workshop were asked to provide input via Sli.do regarding the following questions:

• What is most relevant to you in this framework (one word)? – The emerging most relevant word was bioeconomy, perhaps not surprising given the workshop theme, followed by more general concepts such as transformation, justice, circular, sustainability, resilience and by more specific ones, such as plastic substitution, private sector buy-in, and rural-urban linkage.
• What do you think is missing in the framework? – Biodiversity came out first, followed by private sector buy-in. In addition to these concepts, other ideas showed up, such as gender, finance, local people buy-in plus bottom-up approach, business models and economic potential – all important ideas to consider when developing the project concept note further.
• Which other aspects should be considered as cross-cutting issues? – Governance came out first, scalability / replicability second, and other terms such as sustainable environment and value creation emerged, too.

The three themes of the program

After this interactive session, each of the thematic sub-areas was highlighted by one research project:

• Kenji Umemura, professor at the Laboratory of Sustainable Materials at Kyoto University in Japan, gave a presentation for the pillar Going Green with the “Development of sustainable wood-based materials.” 
• Lauri Hetemäki, Assistant Director for Policy Support at the European Forest Institute (EFI) in Finland presented for the pillar Choosing Goals: “Dynamics of the bioeconomy market with focus on wood.”
• Mary Njenga, a Bioenergy Research Scientist at World Agroforestry (ICRAF) based in Nairobi, Kenya, presented for pillar Weaving Together with the topic “Bioenergy circular approach.”

Group work fleshing out additional ideas

Next, the workshop participants split into breakout groups, each to discuss one thematic sub-area along three guiding questions:

• Which (additional) relevant research fields do you recognize within pillar?
• Which concrete research questions come to your mind?
• Which topics do you think are, within this pillar, most relevant in the global South?

The discussions in the groups were memorized by rapporteurs. After the breakout sessions, the plenary again came together, shared the highlights discussed in the groups, and put them into the broader framework of the proposal.

In all three groups, the participants highlighted the importance of taking up a holistic perspective instead of silo-thinking, cultivate an integrative systems’ view that is not limited by sectoral boundaries. For such a program to make a difference, the participants stressed the relevance of employing many different lenses, e.g. using the viewpoint of biodiversity and landscapes, and the economic, political and social viewpoints. Consequently, it was understood that this holistic view would lead to multi-stakeholder collaborations as partnerships. Limits of the bioeconomy concept have to be clearly defined and communicated.

Additionally, all three groups highlighted the relevance of life-cycle analysis and creating key indicators to successfully operate any activity under this umbrella.

Finally, the research programme should not only look at the (final) shape of the circular economy but also at transition opportunities to reach this required model.

Covid-19 effects on the circular bioeconomy

In the following plenary discussion, Covid-19 and its implications on the programme played an important role. Some experts stated that the pandemic reinforced inequalities in societies, and that the programme should therefore contribute to a greener and more socially inclusive development, which should also be targeted by governments. Additionally, value chains should become shorter and more local to become less prone to disruptions as was seen during the pandemic. 

Success factors for a circular bioeconomy approach

Then, another Sli.do session was used to collect the views and opinions of the participating partners regarding the question “What is the one thing that will make a forest-based circular bioeconomy program successful?”

In response, business cases as well as systems view became central, followed by single answers such as partnerships, local experience, accessibility, material production, private sector buy-in, equity, adaptability, monitoring and appropriate technologies.

What do we do next?

Finally the question was asked through Sli.do “What do you expect from the programme’s next steps?” Multiple answers were possible, and the following suggestions came up amongst the answers:

• Partnerships, i.e. build partnerships; identify key private sector partners; partner with (fellow CIFOR-ICRAF Transformative Partnership Platforms (TPP)) on Greening Forest and Tree Product Value Chains; and define generally how other partners can collaborate.
• Strategy, i.e. concrete definition of goals; define entry points for each pillar; identify low-hanging fruits and projected outcomes; develop strategic market linkages.
• Case studies, i.e. develop case studies; identify 2-3 key landscapes to start with; identify priority species; business models for smallholders.
• Fundraising, to make the program realization possible.
• Communication, i.e. to hold a Global Landscapes Forum (GLF) event with this topic. 

A discussion about next steps of the programme rounded up the workshop. In the end, the participants were asked what they see could be their role and engagement in the next steps of the programme. Here, many participants offered their organizations’ strengths and perspective to enrich the circular bio-economy programme, which will greatly advance the forest-based circular bioeconomy programme.