10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17428
A biorefinery is an agro-industrial facility which creates an interface between the industrial and agricultural worlds: between technological and natural assets. Biorefineries are one element of a global socio-technical system and reflect how the sustainability transition is put in place at the local and regional levels. Analyzed according to the model of transition management, on-going generations of biorefineries are regarded as new niches of innovation and experiment, no longer solely dedicated to biofuel production. The stakeholders involved in their development try to find new processes of biomass transformation, rooted in their local situation, which consume less energy less energy, to use different types of feedstock and produce a variety of final products/ outputs. However, this biomass optimization is a controversial issue because it raises multi-scale societal environmental dilemmas. Based on empirical research this article reflects on the tangibility of sociotechnical transitions and their respect for sustainability principles.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17428
1
en
Julie Gobert
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
narratives
Biorefineries as Models of a Sustainable Socio-technical Transition?
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
10
Essays
2019-07-16
2023-06-26
2019-07-16
2023-10-05
29-50
TS
Julie Gobert
2019/07/16
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17428
29
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées and LEESU Lab'Urba, UPEM
2038-3460
1
narratives
en
50
Biorefineries as Models of a Sustainable Socio-technical Transition?
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17428/16278
10
                                                                                 Essay
                                                                                        29




Biorefineries as Models of a Sustainable
Socio-technical Transition?
Julie Gobert
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, LEESU
Lab'Urba, UPEM



    Abstract: A biorefinery is an agro-industrial facility which creates an inter-
    face between the industrial and agricultural worlds: between technological
    and natural assets. Biorefineries are one element of a global socio-technical
    system and reflect how the sustainability transition is put in place at the local
    and regional levels. Analyzed according to the model of transition manage-
    ment, on-going generations of biorefineries are regarded as new niches of in-
    novation and experiment, no longer solely dedicated to biofuel production.
    The stakeholders involved in their development try to find new processes of
    biomass transformation, rooted in their local situation, which consume less
    energy less energy, to use different types of feedstock and produce a variety
    of final products/ outputs. However, this biomass optimization is a contro-
    versial issue because it raises multi-scale societal environmental dilemmas.
    Based on empirical research this article reflects on the tangibility of socio-
    technical transitions and their respect for sustainability principles.

    Keywords: biorefineries; sustainability transition; multi-level perspectives;
    socio-technical system; narratives.

    Submitted: May 25, 2018 – Accepted: April 29, 2019

    Corresponding author: Julie Gobert, Ecole d’Urbanisme de Paris -
    Université Paris Est, Cité Descartes, Bâtiment Bienvenüe, 14-20 Boulevard
    Newton, 77420 Champs-sur-Marne, France. Email: julie.gobert@gmail.com




1. Introduction

    Biorefineries are one component of a global socio-technical system
and reflect how sustainability transition is conceived at local and regional
levels. Analyzed in terms of the transition management model defined by
Geels (2002) and Grin, Rotmans and Shot (2010), successive generations
of biorefineries are regarded as new niches for innovation and experimen-

TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies
10 (1) pp. 29–50 – ISSN 2038–3460
                                                    2019
www.tecnoscienza.net
30                                                          Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

tation, with activities no longer confined to the production of biofuels.
The actors involved in their development try to find new biomass trans-
formation processes that consume less energy, that use different types of
feedstock and produce a variety of outputs, while remaining embedded
within their local context.
    This transition towards a new agro-industrial system could be inter-
preted as a new and more sustainable “green revolution”, since it impacts
agricultural practices, industrial processes, energy production and distri-
bution. In addition, it leads to changes in human organizations and col-
lective systems of agro-industrial governance, as it is often rooted in prin-
ciples of industrial ecology (Octave and Thomas 2009; Gobert 2017).
    However, biomass optimization of this kind is controversial because it
raises multi-scale societal environmental dilemmas (Olsson et al. 2004).
The best known is the “food-vs-fuel” debate (Koh et al. 2008), but this is
just one of the ethical and societal issues around energy and planning
choices that deserves exploration at a variety of levels (Fitzherbert et al.
2008; Nieddu 2010). Moreover, this new way of thinking about an alli-
ance of industry and agriculture to produce energy and materials should
perhaps not really be called a “transition” if it does not result in a reduc-
tion in resource use and is not correlated with new practices (reduced
carbon consumption) or a new “energy democracy” (Feenberg 2004), i.e.
a system in which all stakeholders participate in decision-making. In fact,
we believe that biorefinery development is often characterized by a dis-
connect between those who decide and justify these technical changes,
consumers, and the farmers who produce the feedstock.
    It therefore seems particularly appropriate to explore these ambigui-
ties around the future of biorefineries by combining the perspectives of
transition management literature and the multi-level perspectives (MLP)
approach with developments arising from critical academic debate, par-
ticularly concerning the meaning of sustainability. The aim of this article
is to question the narrative of biorefineries’ proponents and their linear
presumptions through the frameworks of transition management and
multi-level perspectives. Indeed “[a]dvocates of sustainable transition
management do not always appreciate the deep ambivalence of sustaina-
bility as a category and its power as legitimizing discourse” (Shove and
Walker 2007, 766). In the case of biorefineries, this transition has not
been fully explored, and certain issues relating to sustainability (participa-
tion, distribution, etc.) have been neglected.
    Empirical studies were carried out in 2012 (Gobert 2016) and then
consolidated by other case studies conducted in France between 2013
and 2016. They therefore offer an opportunity to reflect on the reality of
socio-technical transitions and their adherence to sustainability principles
(Allais et al. 2015). Our different case studies showed that the biorefinery
industry – with its wide diversity of forms, technical processes and gov-
ernance systems – is not as “sustainable” as its promoters claim. Certain
critical issues regarding bioenergy implementation identified twenty years
Gobert                                                                     31
ago by Roosa et al. (1999) have been not resolved. In fact, while bioener-
gy has attracted attention and state involvement (through R&D funding,
subsidies, etc.), the social and societal issues at different levels have not
been fully grasped (Gobert 2016). This is partly because of the ambigu-
ous meaning of the notion of ‘sustainability’ (Redclift 2005). As observed
by Vo et al. (2009, 294) “it therefore seems central to strengthen and
clarify sustainable development as a policy problem that transition man-
agement is addressing”.
    In analyzing rural biorefineries as socio-technical systems that repre-
sent environmental transitions, it is essential to take into account the mi-
cro-level (as an innovation niche in which the industrial step and the so-
cio-technical regime coevolve), the meso-level (the biorefinery as the out-
come of a specific arrangement of local assets embedded in a localized
“path dependency” process; see Gobert et al. 2017), and the macro-level
impacts (change in biodiversity and land use, redistribution of power and
value).


2. Biorefinery as an Indicator of Environmental and Bio-
Economic Transition?

    One of the major challenges for western society is to limit climate
change, rather than simply reacting to it through changes in urban plan-
ning and public and private practices. Since human activities are consid-
ered to be the main cause of rising greenhouse gas emissions and natural
resource depletion, the responses must entail a radical ecological shift,
changes of practice, and multi-scale coordination between governments,
experts, private entities and civil society organizations (environmental
groups, residents, consumers, etc.). A more sustainable society has to be
devised. Although the attempts to tackle this global change through
transnational regulation have encountered problems (e.g. the failure of
the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as the Co-
penhagen Summit, the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agree-
ment), a degree of international consensus (Kyoto Protocol, Rio+20 Con-
ference, the 2016 Paris climate deal, etc.) and a number of supra-regional
and national level decisions have opened the way to new societal, eco-
nomic and environmental initiatives. These are helping to facilitate the
quest for a new model. Decision-makers, experts and civil society togeth-
er are considering a “new policy approach for dealing with persistent and
highly complex societal problems such as climate change, loss of biodi-
versity…” (Loorbach and Kemp 2005). In this new approach, the impera-
tive is to redefine collective action at different scales, with the participa-
tion of government bodies, economic actors (particularly industrial con-
cerns) and ordinary citizens, who are collectively and individually respon-
sible for significant negative impacts in their production, consumption
and waste practices. This first part describes why biomass transformation
32                                                          Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

is considered as a sustainable transition. It explains what a biorefinery is
and how can it be interpreted as a socio-technical system within the
framework of transition studies, promoting innovation and incorporating
ecological transition.

2.1 Biomass Transformation and Valorization: A Sustainable
Transition

    There is a wide range of definitions of biorefineries: some view them
as production systems “that incorporate different firms and factories
which may be geographically dispersed and operate throughout the entire
value chain from raw material to consumer goods, whereas other defini-
tions focus on the factory which utilizes an undefined set of processing
technologies to produce certain products from biomass” (Bauer et al.
2017, 538). The biorefinery can be described as a classic model of a bio-
economy infrastructure, insofar as it is an agro-industrial facility that cre-
ates an interface between the industrial and agricultural worlds, between
technological and natural assets. A “biorefinery should produce a spec-
trum of marketable products and energy [from biomass]. The products
can be either intermediates or final products, and include food, feed, ma-
terials, chemicals, and energy (defined as fuels, power and/or heat) (…) a
true biorefinery has multiple energy and non-energy products” (IEA Bio-
energy 2009, 84).
    The production of energy and materials of different kinds from the
conversion of biomass is advocated as a more sustainable process than the
use of fossil resources (Naik et al. 2010; Suhag and Sharma 2015). Bio-
mass can be burned, converted into fuel gas through partial combustion,
into a biogas through fermentation, into bioalcohol through biochemical
processes, into biodiesel, into bio-oil, or into a syngas from which chemi-
cals and fuels can be synthesized (Laurent et al. 2011). Bioethanol from
either sugarcane or maize, and biodiesel from oilseeds, are currently the
major products of first-generation biorefining. In economic terms, they
continue to be the most productive processes, but they have attracted
strong criticism. In response, industrial firms are striving to make the
conversion process better and more sustainable by using the whole plant
rather than just the edible part.
    These incremental innovations are broadly conceptualized in terms of
a succession of generations defined by changes in processes, in the bio-
mass used or in territorial integration1. The objective for instance, is to
consume forestry or agricultural waste residues and more specifically to
convert lignocellulosic biomass rather than using only the edible part of
the plant. In addition, the principles of “doubly green chemistry” (Nied-
du et al. 2010) are applied to demonstrate green credentials. Green be-
cause they use renewable bio-material from agriculture or forestry, and
because they claim to use safer solvents, design safer chemicals and in-
crease the energy efficiency of synthetic methods (Anastas and Warner
Gobert                                                                     33
1998). At the local level, the argument is that the new generation of biore-
fineries will benefit rural communities and old industrial areas by pro-
cessing forestry and farming resources and thereby providing new sources
of revenue (Antizar-Ladislao and Turrion-Gomez 2008).
    Globally, industries and governments argue that bioproducts obtained
through biorefining are a viable substitute for fossil fuels, and that all the
technologies can enhance global productivity without exacerbating cli-
mate change, since they result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Conse-
quently, in social, economic and environmental terms, converting biomass
into biofuels and various high-value products is interpreted as an efficient
industrial method. It gives the European Union an opportunity to be
highly innovative in a specific domain, and to address global concerns
while fulfilling its international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

2.2 Biorefineries as Socio-technical Systems in Transition

    Making the transition to sustainability is a modern challenge facing
public politics, and policy makers at different levels, necessitating a
change in existing socio-technical systems (Akrich 1989). The field of
“transition studies” employs several different academic frameworks and
tackles a range of issues associated with the process: transition manage-
ment (focusing on coordinated governance models for transitions) (Kemp
and Loorbach 2006); strategic niche management (support for niche in-
novations as a way to trigger transition); and multilevel perspectives and
technological innovation systems (Geels and Raven 2007). They deal not
only with uncertainty but with complexity, since processes, habits and re-
lationships cannot be isolated or separated from their context of emer-
gence in order to be made “sustainable”. Mossberg et al. (2018) explain
that sustainability transitions, which entail long-term, multidimensional
transformation processes, bring about a shift from established socio-
technical systems to more sustainable modes of production and consump-
tion. But this transformation is long and complex, and demands simulta-
neous changes in different domains and at different levels of action.
    Biorefineries are often analyzed as a good example of sustainable tran-
sition, using the grid of transition management. The second-generation
biorefineries are seen as innovation niches destined to upscale to industri-
al format and then gradually evolve to become part of the socio-technical
regime (Geels 2002) (dominant technologies, practices, policies, regula-
tions etc). However, this process runs into difficulties because of the nu-
merous barriers to “full spectrum” innovation – not just in the technolog-
ical or industrial sphere, but also in social and policy domains. It usually
requires a “co-evolutionary process” (Bauer et al. 2017) and an interplay
between society, technology and governance across different geographical
and temporal scales.
    It might be asked whether the dominant narrative around biorefining
34                                                          Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

as a transition pathway does not ignore certain fundamental dimensions
of sustainability. Geels (2014) explains “regime stability” in the sector as
the outcome of active resistance by incumbent actors. Our contribution
argues that this relative regime stability is also due to a very narrow con-
ception of sustainability, because the views of certain stakeholders domi-
nate and exclude some dimensions of sustainability. Here the issue is not
so much one of resistance as of only partial adaptation to the principles of
a low-carbon society. The dominant players try to devise more environ-
mental trajectories for biomass conversion, without fundamentally chang-
ing other components and thereby they do not cause a profound transi-
tion. Strategies of this kind allow some stakeholders to maintain their
economic and social capital without any change in their roles. In accord-
ance with Wittmayer and Schäpke (2017), we considered that fundamen-
tal changes in the roles of actors and in their relations with other are a vi-
tal element of transition. The disconnect between technical transition
management illustrated by biorefinery evolution and the absence of con-
certation processes with local stakeholders also raises question (Hen-
dricks, 2009). From this perspective, transition is less a question of inno-
vation and multi-actor coevolutionary process, than of powerful stake-
holders gradually adjusting to new environmental constraints.
    This narrative is a strategy for agro-industrial groups to legitimize
their activities by presenting them as a process of continuous progress
towards sustainability and good environmental practice(s). “Narratives
contribute to delimiting the space of what is ‘politically feasible’, thus
contribute to the inertia of regimes with respect to socio-technical change
beyond technological and political potentials” (Hermwille 2016, 238).
They design the framework for their own evaluation. In this way, they
seek to stabilize the very uncertain socio-economic environment while
imposing their own narrative around biorefineries. In our different case
studies, the stakeholders involved explicitly refer to programs described
as the “biorefinery of the future”, all depicting ambitious technical and
economic goals. They emphasize the potential of new bio-based products
in order to justify their research and development projects, arguing that
they could revolutionize our oil-dependent economy and create the same
products as traditional refineries: viscose for the textile industry; bio-
pharmaceutical molecules etc. Future expectations create legitimacy as
they paint a picture of future technological conditions. Industrialists need
to generate belief in these expectations and innovations in order to obtain
resources, attract attention and “stimulate agenda-setting processes”
(Levidow et al. 2014). Similarly, the concept of “biorefineries of the fu-
ture” evokes a rosy future and reinforces the widespread view that tech-
nical fixes can solve systemic problems like climate change, resource de-
pletion, and biodiversity loss.
 Gobert                                                                                                                                35

                                                                                                                          Pomacle-
                Kalundborg2             Wanze3                  Lestrem4                     Örnsköldsvik5
                                                                                                                          Bazancourt6
                (Denmark)               (Belgium)               (France)                     (Sweden)
                                                                                                                          (France)
                                       CropEnergie
Initiator of   Dong Energy
                                       (Biowanze) (agro-       Roquette                     A coalition of local firms   Different agro-
biorefinery    (Inbicon)
                                       industrial group -      (starch producer)                                         industrial groups
process        (energy supplier)
                                       sugar refiners)
Transforme
                                                                                                                         Wheat – Sugar
d biomass      Straw                   Wheat                   Corn - Wheat                 Timber
                                                                                                                         beet

Governance
of the      Collective                                                                                                   Collective
                                       Individual              Individual                   Collective
biorefinery (Cluster Biofuels                                                                                            through different
                                       (Biowanze)              (Roquette)                   (Processum)
project     Denmark)                                                                                                     structures

               - Communication
               documents from the                              - Strategic orientations
               municipality about                              for innovations in the
               its green                                       Pas de Calais Region
               involvement;                                    (2010);                      - Numerous scientific        - Reports issuing
                                       - Communication
               - Dong Energy’s                                 - Roquette’s Annual          productions concerning       from the pole IAR
                                       documents from
               information leaflets                            sustainable                  the forest industry and      and the different
                                       Tierlemont (sugar
               and reports;                                    development reports;         transformation;              firms involved in
                                       refinery firm;
               - A Specific report                             - Public inquiry files for   - Vinnova reports            the biorefinery
Documents                              - Information
               describing the                                  the siting of new            (Swedish innovation          project);
analyzed                               leaflets about
               results obtained by                             production units;            agency);                     - Regional
                                       “l’agrobiopole
               projects (Integrated                            - Regional sustainable       - Annual sustainable         documents
                                       wallon”;
               Biomass Utilisation                             agriculture plan (2013);     reports of the different     concerning
                                       - Strategical reports
               System);                                        - Documents issuing          firms involved in the        bioeconomy and
                                       from Sudzücker.
               - PowerPoint                                    from regional clusters       Processum cluster.           innovation.
               presentations made                              (like MAUD: materials
               by stakeholders in                              for sustainable
               different                                       consumption).
               conferences.
               - Two
                                                                                                                         - A representative
               representatives of
                                                                                                                         of BioAmber;
               Kalundborg                                                                   - A representative of Ovik
                                                                                                                         - A representative
               municipality;           - An Official                                        Energy
                                                                                                                         of Cristanol (sugar
               - A Representative      Manager of the                                       A representative of
                                                                                                                         refinery)
               of Inbincon;            biorefinery;                                         SEKAB producing
                                                                                                                         A representative
               - A meeting with        - Two researchers       - Representatives of         ethanol, black liquor;
                                                                                                                         of ARD (common
               Novozymes and           involved in             farmer cooperatives          - A representative of
                                                                                                                         R&D centre);
               Inbincon to be          biorefinery research    (providing feedstock to      Akzo Nobel (a paints and
                                                                                                                         - A representative
               informed on the         projects in the         Lestrem);                    coatings
                                                                                                                         of Pomacle
               refining process;       Wallonia region         - A representative of        company producing
                                                                                                                         municipality
Interviewed    - A researcher          (Valbiom);              Lestrem municipality         cellulose derivatives);
                                                                                                                         The cooperation
stakeholder    involved in the         - A Representative      and conurbation              - A representative of
                                                                                                                         manager of the
s              R&D projects IBUS       of Wallonia region;     A representative of the      Örnsköldsvik
                                                                                                                         Pole IAR
               and KACELLE;            - A representative of   Pas de Calais Region;        municipality
                                                                                                                         (cluster);
               - A representative of   a local                 - A representative of        A representative of the
                                                                                                                         - A member of
               the Region, to          environmental           Roquette at Lestrem          Processum cluster
                                                                                                                         CARINNA
               understand the          grassroots              (manager of innovation       focused on the
                                                                                                                         (regional
               global strategy and     organization;           affairs).                    biorefinery of the future;
                                                                                                                         innovation
               the local               - A representative of                                - A representative of
                                                                                                                         agency);
               implementation of       Wanze                                                Domsjö Fabriker
                                                                                                                         - A representative
               Energy Technology       municipality.                                        producing cellulose and
                                                                                                                         of the Regional
               Development and                                                              hemicellulose.
                                                                                                                         Chamber of
               Demonstration
                                                                                                                         Agriculture
               Program better.


 Table 1. Case studies analyzed and mobilized for this article
36                                                          Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)


     3. Methodology

    This paper is based on the results of qualitative and comparative re-
search which was presented in different articles (Gobert 2017; 2018).
This research was part of a regional project (FASE) and a 10-year global
study on “the oilseed biorefinery of the future”, named PIVERT7.
    We conducted a sociopolitical study based upon a comparison of five
biorefineries. The method was qualitative. We read the relevant docu-
mentation available relating to the transformation of the industrial pro-
cess in these territories (annual reports, internal documents, answers to
research bids which gave data on the way the biorefinery stakeholders
present their project and its story). This “grey” literature was specifically
chosen to understand the economic, social, local contexts and provide da-
ta about the different routes by which biorefineries emerge.
    We also conducted between 5 and 8 semi-structured interviews with
different institutional stakeholders and firms involved in the development
of the biorefinery project (companies, local academics familiar with the
site, representatives of local communities). These interviews were then
analyzed using a qualitative method (Beaud and Weber 2003; Lejeune
2014). The analysis grid was focused on the role of the stakeholders in the
biorefinery process, how they related the biorefinery story, the relations
they had with other actors, their sources of supply and the integration of
environmental questions (Table 1).
    We decided to select different European Union case studies charac-
terized by both common features and interesting disparities. With regard
to the shared characteristics, they are all subject to Europe’s regulatory
framework and eligible for EU funding. They are industrial sites, located
in peripheral zones, which are not new entities but have been recently re-
classified as biorefineries. However, they work with different types of bi-
omass, which are seldom a pure local resource. The project to convert bi-
omass into multiple products is either driven by a single main player (a
big industrial firm) or by a plethora of stakeholders who have pooled
their strengths and resources. In the table shown here, we have distin-
guished between the project initiator and the project coordinator (a firm
or a coalition of persons). It provides a context-rich empirical description
that helps us to understand the narratives of innovation deployed in favor
of biorefineries.


4. Biorefineries: An Incomplete Sustainability Process

    Biomass processing is the conversion, by means of human interven-
tion, of natural capital – whether domestic or not – into different prod-
ucts: energy, high-value chemicals, purportedly more environmentally
Gobert                                                                    37
friendly and biodegradable bio-products. The dominant narrative ad-
vanced in support of biorefinery development claims that the transition
from fossil to bio-sourced feedstock is an indisputably rapid and sustain-
able path. However, it can be argued that the characteristics of the cur-
rent conversion processes and the social integration of biomass engineer-
ing are more consistent with weak sustainability (Dobson 1998; Vivien
2009). Why are we making this assertion? Firstly, the dominant narrative
displaying the bioeconomy and biorefinery as the result of disruptive and
innovative strategies can be questioned, insofar as biorefineries, as transi-
tion symbols, are more or less embedded in their siting area and exempli-
fy historical innovation and existing stakeholders’ relations. Secondly,
wherever a high degree of entropy (Samieia and Fröling 2014) continues
to be generated (e.g. land-use change, use of genetically modified organ-
isms, pesticides) without consideration of the impacts at all scales and on
all affected spaces, the production system will lead to environmental irre-
versibility (Gobert 2016). Biorefining raises issues around biodiversity
and land-use change, plus lack of integration into a global environmental
trajectory. Moreover, the social and political system that facilitates this
development does not contribute to existing value and power redistribu-
tion principles: “New energy production is often portrayed as providing
economic benefits through new jobs, declining energy prices, and ancil-
lary economic development. Yet, this perspective is often narrowly
framed in terms of net benefits to specific regions, ignoring a range of ad-
ditional considerations” (Miller et al. 2015, 78). We illustrate our argu-
ment by referring to the different case studies.

4.1 Territories and Path Dependency. Innovation Pathways
   Designed by the Past

    The biorefinery projects could be seen as innovation niches, both
technical (e.g. lignocellulosic fragmentation), and in some cases organiza-
tional: i.e. in the use of new feedstocks or the generation and subsequent
sale of new products (Bauer 2017). However, niches do not appear sud-
denly. They result from a combination of factors, including the willing-
ness and ability of stakeholders to act, local economic culture and know-
how.
    Our case studies revealed that rural biorefineries are not created from
scratch but result from the evolution of previous industrial and agricul-
tural activities, followed by movement along a technological path (Rako-
tovao et al. 2017). For example, the Örnsköldsvik area was already heavi-
ly involved in the timber sector, which had been seriously affected by
global competition. It had continuously been forced to adapt following
sharp decline in the European pulp and paper industries in the 1990s.
Since then, innovations devised by numerous industrial actors had
emerged, establishing new technical processes and developing new prod-
ucts (biofuels, bioplastics). Using the vocabulary of biorefining would
38                                                           Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

thus seem to be primarily an attempt to acquire a positive green image as
a producer of renewable energy and bio-sourced materials, rather than as
reflecting a profound change in the essence of the initial economic pro-
ject. Likewise, the firm Roquette has been established in the north of
France since 1933 and from the beginning has had an activity of starch
production, in particular for the local textile industry.
    Our comparison revealed that the path dependency processes in play
are more significant than the biorefinery players recognize (Pierson 2000).
Acknowledging the influence of the past on current choices challenges
the idea of disruptive innovations that constitute a break with previous
socio-technical and political practices. Industrial trajectories are therefore
dependent on the industrial history and resources of the territory, even if
some firms have the size and financial capacity to attempt to escape (at
least partially) from these dependencies (by relocating, closing plants,
etc., see Arbuthnott et al. 2010). Industrial facilities themselves can reflect
this territorial legacy, insofar as their existence, as well as their organiza-
tional and institutional links, predates the term biorefinery. A number of
academic works have underlined this technical, social, economic and in-
stitutional continuity. Béfort and Nieddu (2017) pay particular attention
to the material and immaterial nature of production assets. Gobert and
Brullot (2017) describe how stakeholders move local assets into or out of
a territory, thus creating specific territorialized arrangements, whose
study can help us to understand how an agricultural and industrial pro-
ject may have emerged. For example, Biowanze began processing wheat
and sugar beet in 2008, at a time when the region was severely affected by
market difficulties in European sugar production and the large-scale clo-
sure of sugar refineries. Biowanze proposed new solutions for feedstock
processing, using existing assets (water infrastructure, local agricultural
production). In the Örnsköldsvik area, a number of firms decided to cre-
ate a biorefining cluster to produce cellulose and cellulose by-products,
such as black liquor, substances that had already been produced during
the Second World War because of restrictions, but were not adopted by
the market when the conflict finished.

       Our location is considered one of the birthplaces of Swedish
       chemical industry, and during the blockade of the Second World
       War, a chemical industry based on forest raw materials was devel-
       oped here. (Interview with a representative of Domsjö Fabriker,
       05/2012).

    To apply a path dependency framework that identifies the influence
of historical, social and economic factors is not to deny the reality of
change, caused by different drivers: sudden events, new stakeholders, ex-
ogeneous elements such as new legal frameworks or incentives or oppor-
tunity windows (Kingdon 1984). It simply takes into consideration the
role played in innovation by “historical” and “local” factors (Greener
Gobert                                                                   39
2005). It also helps us to understand what aspects of territorial and indus-
trial systems can generate inertia. Legacy may be a positive basis for new
dynamics, but it may also prevent social and environmental innovation.
    Embeddedness and path dependence enable the integration of the dif-
ferent lock-ins which can interfere with innovation into the transition
management approach. However, other environmental challenges at local
and global scales also have to be taken into account.

4.2 Biodiversity and Land Use Change

    Several studies have underlined the negative impacts of the first gen-
eration of biofuels: biodiversity erosion (Fitzherbert et al. 2008); land-
scape fragmentation; food price increases (Mitchell 2008). Moreover,
even where biofuels may be more environmentally friendly and economi-
cally beneficial to local communities than conventional fossil fuels, some
of their effects are ill-understood and underrated (land-use conflict, net
energy consumption). Products originating from biomass compromise a
number of ecosystems such as food, and freshwater services (Fisher
2009). In examining these criticisms, different scales of impact can be
identified. The land-use issue has local, regional and international reper-
cussions (Gawel and Ludwig 2011). Direct land-use change occurs when
forests or woodlands are converted into biofuel crops. Indirect land-use
change (ILUC) takes place when food or feed crops are displaced by bio-
fuel farming to other places and countries, in other words when this kind
of agriculture competes for available land with food crops. Converting
rainforests, savannas or grasslands into farmland for biofuel crops releas-
es billions of megatons of CO2, far more than the annual reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions supposedly brought about by the substitution
of biofuels for fossil fuels. This process creates a biofuel carbon debt
(Fargione et al. 2008) that will take a very long time to repay. For many
years, life-cycle analysis methodologies have minimized this ILUC criteri-
on, and the potential displacement of negative effects from one region to
another. Another effect is that farmers and agricultural cooperatives may
become more dependent on industry for their markets, a shift that could
profoundly alter the role of farmers, making them suppliers of “mole-
cules”. In order to meet industrial demand, they may have to employ in-
tensive agricultural or silvicultural methods (short rotation forestry), add
polluting external inputs (insecticides, fertilizers) or plant genetically
modified crops, which contribute to biodiversity loss. Biomass produc-
tion also increases water use. Other issues include competition with other
investments, limited or uncertain return on investment (Adams et al.
2011; McCormick and Kaberger 2007), that are particularly dependent
on a stable policy environment, which is conspicuously absent, and the
possible seasonality of bioenergy supply.
    The economic and social effects of increased biofuel production (food
insecurity, volatile commodity prices, poor working conditions and viola-
40                                                             Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

tions of land rights, unfavourable net lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions),
and the reactions to them (Ribeiro 2013), have forced the advocates of
biomass conversion as an efficient alternative to fossil resources to im-
prove technical processes, to use biomass differently and to pay more at-
tention to negative impacts. Social learning from the controversy has thus
provided impetus for industrial change (Rip 1986). This change is clearly
visible in the case studies analyzed, as in each case the project managers
are striving to move beyond first-generation biorefining (not using the ed-
ible part of the plants, producing products other than fuels) and to obtain
their feedstock from “local” biomass. Agro-industrials and cooperatives
claim a strict differentiation between their “sustainable activities” and
those which lead to deforestation. A representative of the Wanze biore-
finery asked for biofuels to be distinguished according their production
process:

       Comparing all biofuels and sources of biofuel production is the
       main problem at the European and international levels. Because
       this puts together biofuels coming from agricultural areas with
       those produced after deforestation. The legislation has to be care-
       ful before comparing our products and take into account the pro-
       duction process, the energy consumed … Currently we cannot
       find a reliable and neutral study (Interview, 18/06/2012).

    According to the actors involved, technical progress and innovation
are bringing step-by-step solutions. However, this does not resolve issues
such as how these processes fit into a global strategy of decarbonization.

4.3 Poor Coordination with Other Dematerialization and
   Decarbonization Strategies

    As summed up by Shove and Walker (2007, 278): “For all the talk of
socio-technical coevolution, there is almost no reference to the ways of
living or to the patterns of demand implied in what remain largely tech-
nological templates for the future.” A basic weakness of biorefinery pro-
motion is the poor coordination with other dematerialization and decar-
bonization strategies. Firstly, using bio-products and biofuels as a substi-
tute for the petroleum industry is not a preventative but a reactive re-
sponse to climate change and resource depletion. This biomass conver-
sion system does not deal with problems at source, but consolidates
“business as usual” practices and therefore treats biomass as a resource
like any other, with the capacity to resolve one major problem (petroleum
depletion). It acts as an obstacle to serious changes in consumption, mo-
bility and waste disposal patterns. It does nothing to reverse the dominant
economic paradigm, in which economic activities and industrial devel-
opment are not subject to ecological constraints (Nahrath and Gerber
2014). Biorefining does not call into question agricultural practices or or-
Gobert                                                                      41
ganizational schemes (Shove 2010), but sheds light the technical innova-
tion induced by feedstock fragmentation and transformation. Biomass
production for biorefineries often relies on resource and technology in-
tensive modes of agricultural production (Plumecocq et al. 2018) and
therefore does not open the way to agro-ecological transitions (Ollivier et
al. 2018).
    In the interviews conducted for the case studies, the stakeholders in
the different biorefinery projects seldom or never mentioned the up-
stream or downstream changes needed to effect a sustainable transition.
Instead, the talk was primarily about local feedstock supplies. In fact, in
some cases, even this was not an issue. In Kalundborg, the energy suppli-
er’s goal was to obtain low-cost biomass, even if this meant importing it
and accepting the longer value chain and the environmental impact of
transport. Similarly, Wanze acquires its supplies from a very wide harvest
perimeter (300 km).
    The main biorefinery stakeholders make no clear temporal and spatial
connections between resources, production systems and consumers in
their strategy. The resource “biomass” is rarely analyzed in its global con-
text (associated ecosystemic services, production, et al.), but rather as a
“normalized” input into the industrial production system. From the insti-
tutional point of view, when representatives of state agencies or local
communities were specifically asked, biorefinery development was linked
to the bioeconomy promises of energy transition and oil substitution, but
not to the other essential components of this transition: cutting energy
consumption, dematerialization and decarbonization.

4.4 A Weak Participatory Process at the Meso and Global Levels

    Transitions are described as “multi-actor processes” (Geels 2010),
however, as pointed out by Wittmayer and Schäpke (2017) it is important
to understand how actors and their relations evolve in a changing envi-
ronment.
    Some of the academic literature (Rumpala 2013; Feenberg 2014) ar-
gued that the development of renewable energy is pushing society to cre-
ate new technical models (less dependent on very large transport and dis-
tribution networks, as production sites are more localized), and therefore
new political forms based on new communities of action and practice. In
fact, they argue that the transition also has social and political dimensions
with its capacity to “nurture public trust in energy decision-making, cre-
ate a collaborative environment for energy deliberations, and build effec-
tive partnerships on wider scales between communities and energy indus-
tries” (Miller et al. 2015, 81). As Vo et al. noted (2009, 293), it is particu-
larly important to consider democratic legitimacy, for example by design-
ing new forms of deliberation, new participatory arenas for different
kinds of stakeholders. Nevertheless, no such development seems to be
visible in biorefining and no avenue for empowerment and redistribution
42                                                           Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

appears (Schreuer 2016), which is visible in the choice of power plant
sites.
    From a societal perspective, one of the major aspects is that this
change in energy and agricultural production does not appear to have any
impact in terms of more equitable power and revenue distribution be-
tween stakeholders. The “era of biomass transformation” is apparently
neither a green nor a societal revolution. At this stage of development, re-
newable energy has brought about no major change in the incumbent so-
cio-technical regimes (Geels 2002), i.e. no adjustments in other fields and
in social representations of the world (Dobigny 2009; Rumpala 2013). In-
dustrialists have consolidated their dominant role in influencing econom-
ic orientations and as managers of “environmental change”. They domi-
nate at the strategic level, imposing their vision of sustainability and influ-
encing European and national decision-makers through highly effective
lobbies (Grossman 2003). Their strategy is clearly based on efficient net-
working with influential stakeholders and the construction of powerful
coalitions at different levels. Their aim is to formulate long-term goals to
consolidate their investments and their markets. At the tactical level, they
help to develop public instruments that will be useful to them. At the op-
erational level, they participate actively in experiments (pilot and demon-
stration units to trial new processes before upscaling to industrial produc-
tion), which are at the heart of European and national programs to test
the technological and economic viability of different processes. This is
enables them to bypass legislation and, as far as possible, to reduce uncer-
tainty by influencing regulatory and legislative frameworks. These strate-
gies create carbon lock-ins and can prevent more significant changes in
the environmental transition.
    In consequence, decisions on the development of biomass conversion
are rarely rooted in a participatory process, and do very little to involve
local stakeholders and, in particular, public opinion. The following quo-
tation illustrates how the decision is progressively moved away from the
farmers, i.e. the biomass producers:

       A cooperative spirit is important. Cooperation depends on farm-
       ers, who get together. Then cooperation depends on cooperatives,
       which work together and then with the researchers… and other
       external actors. (representative of Pomacle-Bazancourt biorefin-
       ery).

   As a result, local renewable energy strategies are not negotiated with
farmers and civil society. Although biorefineries do not always generate
local opposition and conflict, they acquire “weak acceptability”8 (Gobert
2016), something that would be worth exploring through specific case
studies (McGuire et al. 2018). In fact, biorefinery developers comply with
planning procedures and licensing processes, but local authorities do not
take the process further by examining the impact that these choices could
Gobert                                                                     43
have on local development and the local environment. In the Biowanze
case, a special local committee was created to tackle odor and risk issues,
but it did not cover other questions. It was the only example of a partici-
patory forum that we encountered in our research. Even if biorefinery
managers are regularly submitted to administrative procedures when they
want to expand or transform their facility, the compulsory processes
(public consultation, environmental impact assessment) do not cover all
impacts of biorefining, seldom involve the participation of the people
concerned (Morgan 2012). In fact, they are often not accessible to farm-
ers or inhabitants, because they use expert language and open arenas not
usually open to public discussion.


5. Conclusion

    This article has analyzed rural biorefineries as socio-technical systems
and as a possible model of environmental transition. It considers the mi-
cro-level (the biorefinery as an innovation niche in which the industrial
process and the socio-technical regime coevolve), the meso-level (the bio-
refinery as the outcome of specific arrangements and visions of the future,
embedded in a localized “path dependency” process), and impacts at the
macro-level (biodiversity loss and land use change, power and value redis-
tribution). This was an opportunity to explore not only the ambiguity of
the notion of “sustainability” promulgated in the dominant narrative on
biorefining, but also to contribute to the perspective of transition studies.
As a matter of fact, representations of biorefineries are dominated by the
technical aspect of the biorefinery system and the associated changes, and
do not embrace the full meaning of sustainability (participation, social
equity, etc.). The different European case studies offered a way to appre-
hend and question the dominant narrative. What actually emerges is the
relative regime stability and the difficulty of effecting societal change in
response to the challenge of climate change. This is also linked to a nar-
row conception of sustainability held by the main stakeholders. In the ab-
sence of a common vision of the characteristics and limitations of a desir-
able future, the likely outcome will be opposition and environmental fall-
out (transfer of impacts from one locality to another, agricultural intensi-
fication).
    This is one reason why transition is hard to manage. Transition poli-
cies are supposed to coordinate strategies, to encourage global cohesion
between the different niches and to stimulate profound and simultaneous
transitions in different fields (Kemp 2010). But this would require
knowledge management and governance capabilities for example through
the creation of arenas where all viewpoints and objections can be ex-
pressed and, if not solved, be defined clearly enough so that shared and
sustainable transition pathways can be outlined. In fact, it is not sufficient
to build biomass conversion facilities and to organize the supply chain,
44                                                               Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

other changes need to take place at the same time: “the challenge is not
simply what fuel to use but how to organize a new energy system around
that fuel” (Miller et al. 2013, 139). While biorefinery development has re-
ceived strong support from public authorities at local and national levels,
other dimensions have not been so easily tackled and handled at each lev-
el: social acceptance, economic viability relative to oil prices. Moreover,
biorefineries have not brought about major changes in the value chain
(for farmers or customers).
    For all these reasons, further research is needed to address more spe-
cifically the links between the upstream dynamics of biomass supply (and
perhaps provide recommendations on localizing flows and producing
feedstock that is more sustainable for the soil, for farmers and for com-
munities). Moreover, research dedicated to bioeconomy would gain cred-
ibility by introducing social dimensions (acceptability, changes in social
structures), defining new participatory structures (societal consensus on
the desirable future), and contributing to the global dematerialization and
decarbonization of our societies from the individual to community level.
In this way, transition studies which enable us to understand large socie-
tal processes, the possible drivers and lock-ins will be closely linked with
a reflection on the satisfaction of sustainability principles (Loorbach
2015).


Acknowlegments

    I’m particularly grateful to the anonymous reviewers, who offered their valua-
ble recommendations to improve this article. The different researches were prin-
cipally funded by the Champagne-Ardenne Region (FASE - Programme Es-
saimage 2012) and for one case study by the Institute for energetic transition Pi-
cardie Innovations Végétales Enseignements et Recherches Technologiques. I am
also indebted to Sabrina Brullot, John Crisp and Muriel Whitchurch.



References

Adams, P.W., Hammond, G.P. and McManus, M.C. (2011) Barriers To and
   Drivers For UK Bioenergy Development, in “Renewable and Sustainable
   Energy Reviews”, 15 (2), pp. 1217-1227
Akrich, M. (1989) La construction d’un système socio-technique: Esquisse pour
   une anthropologie des techniques, in “Anthropologie et sociétés”, 13 (2), pp.
   31-54.
Allais, R., Reyes, T. and Roucoules, L. (2015) Inclusion of Territorial Resources in
    the Product Development Process, in “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 94,
    pp. 187-197.
Gobert                                                                      45
Anastas, P.T. and Warner, J.C. (1998) Green Chemistry. Theory and Practice,
   Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Antizar-Ladislao, B. and Turrion-Gomez, J. (2008) Second Generation Biofuels
   and Local Bioenergy Systems, in “Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining”, 2
   (5), pp. 455-469
Arbuthnott, A., Eriksson, J. and Wincent, J. (2010) When a New Industry Meets
   Traditional and Declining Ones: An Integrative Approach Towards Dialectics
   and Social Movement Theory in a Model of Regional Industry Emergence
   Processes, in “Scandinavian Journal of Management”, 26 (3), pp. 290-308.
Bauer, F., Coenen, L., Hansen, T., McCormick, K. and Palgan, Y. (2017)
   Technological Innovation Systems for Biorefineries: A Review of the
   Literature, in “Biofuels, Bioprodruction, Biorefinery”, 11 (3), pp. 534-548.
Beau, S. and Weber, F. (2003) Guide de l’enquête de terrain, Paris, La
   découverte.
Béfort, N. and Nieddu, M. (2017) De la variété des ancrages territoriaux des
   firmes en Chimie Doublement Verte, in “Géographie, économie, société“, 19
   (1), pp. 133-152.
Dobigny, L. (2009) Changement énergétique et rapport au monde, in M.-J.
   Menozzi, F. Flipo and D. Pecaud, (eds.) Énergie et société : sciences,
   gouvernances et usages, Aix-en-Provence, Édisud, pp. 215-224.
Dobson, A. (1998) Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental
   Sustainability and Dimensions of Social Justice, Oxford, Oxford University
   Press.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthorne P. (2008) Land
   Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, in “Science”, 319 (5867), pp. 1235-
   1237.
Feenberg, A. (2004) (Re)penser la technique. Vers une technologie démocratique,
   Paris, La Découverte/MAUSS.
Fitzherbert, E.B., Struebig, M.J., Morel, A., Danielsen, F., Donald, P.F. and
    Phalan, B. (2008) How Will Oil Palm Expansion Affect Biodiversity?, in
    “Trends in Ecology and Evolution”, 23 (10), pp. 538-545.
Gawel, E. and Ludwig, G. (2011) The iLUC Dilemma: How To Deal with
  Indirect Land Use Changes When Governing Energy Crops?, in “Land Use
  Policy”, 28 (4), pp. 846-856.
Geels, F. (2002) Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration
   Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and Case Study, in “Research Policy”,
   31 (8–9), pp. 1257–1274.
Geels, F.W. (2014) Regime Resistance against Low- Carbon Transitions:
   Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective, in “Theory,
46                                                             Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

     Culture & Society”, 31 (5), pp. 21-40.
Geels, F.W. and Raven, R.P. (2007) Socio-cognitive Evolution and Co-Evolution
   in Competing Technological Trajectories. Biogas Development in Denmark
   (1970-2002), in “International Journal of Sustainable Development and
   World Ecology”, 14 (1), pp. 63-77.
Geels, F.W. (2010) Ontologies, Socio-technical Transitions (to Sustainability),
   and the Multi-level Perspective, in “Research Policy”, 39, pp. 495–510.
Gobert, J. (2016) D’une acceptabilité «end of pipe» à une réflexion multiscalaire
  sur les systèmes socio-techniques : exemple des bioraffineries, in “VertigO - la
  revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement“ [Online], 16 (1), URL :
  http://vertigo.revues.org/16930
Gobert, J. (2017) Bioeconomy, Biorefineries and Territorial Capitals, in
  “Proceedings 24th APDR CONGRESS, Intellectual Capital and Regional
  Development: New landscapes and challenges for space planning”, University
  of Beira Interior, pp. 945-950.
Gobert, J. (2018) La bioraffinerie : mythe structurant d’une infrastructure clé de
  la transition écologique, in “Tracés”, 35, pp. 99-116.
Gobert, J. and Brullot, S. (2017) La mobilisation du capital territorial pour le
  développement d’une logique d’EIT, in “Revue d’Economie Régionale et
  Urbaine“, 5, pp. 881-903.
Greener, I. (2005) The Potential of Path Dependence in Political Studies, in
   “Politics”, 25 (1), pp. 62–72.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J. and Shot, J. (2010) Transitions to Sustainable Development.
   New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, New
   York, Routledge.
Grossman, E. (2003) Les groupes d'intérêt économiques face à l'intégration
   européenne : le cas du secteur bancaire, in “Revue française de science
   politique“, 53 (5), pp. 737-760.
Hendriks, C. (2009) Policy Design Without Democracy? Making Democratic
   Senseof Transition Management, in “Policy Sciences”, 42 (4), pp. 341-368.
Hermwille, L. (2016) The Role of Narratives in Socio-Technical Transitions –
   Fukushima and the Energy Regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United
   Kingdom, in “Energy Research & Social Science”, 11, pp. 237-246.
IEA Bioenergy (2009) Annual report, in http://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-
   content/uploads/2013/10/IEA-Bioenergy-2009-Annual-Report.pdf (Retrieved
   May 2, 2019)
Kemp, R. (2010) The Dutch Energy Transition Approach, in “International
   Economic and Economics Policy”, 7 (2-3), pp. 291-316.
Kemp, R. and Loorbach, D. (2006) Transition Management: A Reflexive
Gobert                                                                         47
   Governance Approach, in J. Voss, D. Bauknecht, R. Kemp (eds.) Reflexive
   Governance for Sustainable Development, Northhampton, MA, Edward
   Elgar, pp. 103–130.
Kingdon, J. (1984) Agendas Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston, Little
   Brown & Co.
Laurent, P., Roiz, J. and Wertz, J.L. (2011) Le bioraffinage, une alternative
   prometteuse à la pétrochimie, in “Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and
   Environment”, 15 (4), pp. 597-610.
Lejeune, C. (2015) Manuel d’analyse qualitative. Analyser sans compter ni classer,
    Louvain-la-Neuve, De Boeck.
Levidow, L., Borda-Rodriguez, A. and Papaioannou, T. (2014) UK Bioenergy
   Innovation Priorities: Making Expectations Credible in State-Industry Arenas,
   in “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, 87, pp. 191–204.
Loorbach, D.A. and Kemp, R. (2005) Innovation policy for the Dutch energy
   transition Operationalising transition management?. Dutch Research Institute
   for Transitions. Available at https://repub.eur.nl/pub/34985 Retrieved 15th
   May 2019
McCormick, K. and Kåberger, T. (2007) Key barriers for Bioenergy in Europe:
  Economic Conditions, Know-How and Institutional Capacity, and Supply
  Chain Co-Ordination, in “Biomass and Bioenergy”, 31 (7), pp. 443-452
McGuire, J.B., Leahy, J.E., Marciano, J.A., Lilieholm, R.J. and Teisl, M. (2017)
  Social Acceptability of Establishing Forest-Based Biorefineries in Maine,
  United States, in “Biomass and Bioenergy”, 105, pp. 155-163
Miller, C.A., Richter, J. and O’Leary, J. (2015) Socio-energy Systems Design: A
    Policy Framework for Energy Transitions, in “Energy Research and Social
    Science”, 6, pp. 29-40
Miller, C.M., Iles A. and Jones, C. F. (2013) The Social Dimensions of Energy
    Transitions, in “Science as Culture”, 22 (2), pp. 135-148.
Mitchell, D. (2008) A Note on Rising Food Prices, World Bank Policy Research
   Working Paper Series, in “Policy Research Working Papers”, 4682. Available
   at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1233058 (Retrieved May 2, 2019).
Morgan, R.K. (2012) Environmental Impact Assessment: The State of the Art, in
  “Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal”, 30 (1), pp. 5-14
Mossberg, J., Söderholm, P., Hellsmark, H. and Nordqvist, S. (2018) Crossing the
  Biorefinery Valley of Death? A Role-Based Typology for Understanding Actor
  Networks’ Ability to Overcome Barriers in Sustainability Transitions, in
  “Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions”, 27, pp. 83-101.
Nahrath, S. and Gerber, J.D. (2014) Pour une approche ressourcielle du
   développement durable, in ”Développement durable et territoires” [Online],
48                                                               Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

     5 (2).
Naik, S., Goud, V., Rout, P.K., Jacobson, K. and Dalai, A. (2010)
   Characterization of Canadian Biomass For Alternative Renewable Biofuel, in
   “Renewable Energy”, 35 (8), pp. 1624-1631.
Nieddu, M., Garnier, E. and Bliard, C. (2010) L'émergence d'une chimie
   doublement verte, in “Revue d'économie industrielle”, 132, pp. 53-84.
Octave, S. and Thomas, D. (2009) Biorefinery: Toward an Industrial Metabolism,
   in “Biochimie”, 91 (6), pp. 659-664.
Ollivier, G., Magda, D., Mazé, A., Plumecocq, G. and Lamine, C. (2018)
    Agroecological Transitions: What Can Sustainability Transition Frameworks
    Teach Us? An Ontological and Empirical Analysis, in “Ecology and Society”,
    23(2), in https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss2/art5/ (Retrieved May
    2, 2019)
Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Berkes, F. (2004) Adaptive Comanagement for Building
   Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems, in “Environmental Management”, 34
   (1), pp.75-90.
Pierson, P. (2000) Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of
    Politics, “American Political Science Review”, 94 (2), pp. 251-267
Plumecocq, G., Debril T., Duru M., Magrini M.-B., Sarthou J. P. and Therond, O
   (2018) The Plurality of Values in Sustainable Agriculture Models: Diverse
   Lock-In and Co-Evolution Patterns, in “Ecology and Society”, 23 (1), in
   https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/ (Retrieved May 2,
   2019).
Rakotovao, M., Gobert J. and Brullot, S. (2017) Bioraffineries rurales : la question
   de l’ancrage territorial, in “Lucrarile Seminarului Geografic "Dimitrie
   Cantemir", 44 (1), pp. 84-100.
Redclift, M. (2005) Sustainable Development (1987-2005): An Oxymoron Comes
   of Age, in “Sustainable Development”, 13 (4), pp. 212-227
Ribeiro, B. (2013), Beyond Commonplace Biofuels: Social Aspects of Ethanol, in
   “Energy Policy”, 57, pp. 355-362.
Rip, A. (1986) Controversies as Informal Technology Assessment, in
    “Knowledge”, 8 (2), pp. 349-371.
Roosa, A., Graham, R.L., Hektor, B. and Rakos, C. (1999) Critical Factors to
   Bioenergy Implementation, “Biomass and Bioenergy”, 17, pp. 113-126.
Rumpala, Y. (2013) Formes alternatives de production énergétique et
   reconfigurations politiques. La sociologie des énergies alternatives comme
   étude des potentialités de réorganisation du collectif, in “Flux“, 92 (2), pp.
   47-61.
Samieia, K. and Fröling, M. (2014) Sustainability Assessment of Biomass
Gobert                                                                             49
    Resource Utilization Based on Production Of Entropy – Case Study of a
    Bioethanol Concept, in “Ecological Indicators”, 45, pp. 590–597.
Schreuer, A. (2016) The Establishment of Citizen Power Plants in Austria: A
   Process Of Empowerment?, in “Energy Research & Social Science”, 13, pp.
   126-135.
Shove, E. (2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social
   Change, “Environment and planning A”, 42 (6), pp. 1273-1285.
Shove, E. and Walker, G. (2007) CAUTION! Transitions Ahead: Politics,
   Practice and Sustainable Transition Management, in “Environment and
   Planning A”, 39, pp. 763-770.
Suhag, M. and Sharma, H. (2015) Biorefinery Concept: An Overview of
   Producing Energy, Fuels and Materials from Biomass Feedstocks, in
   “International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and
   Technology”, 12 (2), pp. 103-109.
Vivien, F.D. (2009) Les modèles économiques de soutenabilité et le changement
    climatique, in “Regards croisés sur l'économie”, 6 (2), pp. 75-83
Voß, JP., Smith, A. and Grin J. (2009) Designing Long-Term Policy: Rethinking
   Transition Management, in “Political Sciences”, 42 (4), pp. 275-302.
Wittmayer, J.M. and Schäpke, N. (2014) Action, Research and Participation:
   Roles of Researchers in Sustainability Transitions, in “Sustainability Science”,
   9 (4), pp 483-496.



    1
      In interweaving the discourses of different stakeholders, we observe significant
differences in their understanding of what a 1st or 2nd generation biorefinery is
(from one to multiple products). Others distinguish the type of biomass (sunflower,
maize, lignocellulosic biomass etc.) or the method of biomass processing.
    2
      Kalundborg in Denmark was one suitable example. Although known for the
systematic implementation of eco-industrial principles, the industrial area presented
one major limitation: the fact that the system of industrial symbiosis depended on
the coal-fired Asnæs Power Station, hardly a symbol of sustainability. The goal was
to test the possibility of using straw and converting the power plant to biomass. A
second-generation ethanol demonstration plant was then built in Kalundborg in the
environs of the existing plant.
    3
      The Biowanze facility in Belgium converts wheat and sugar beet into ethanol
and other associated products. Another current project aims to transform bran into
surfactant agents. This biorefinery was presented as a way to find new markets for
growers severely affected by European sugar beet quotas.
    4
      Roquette is an old, family-owned agro-industrial group, which processes corn
and wheat in Lestrem in France and produces starch. The firm has launched
different innovative programs (Biohub, Nutrahub, etc.) to test new technical
processes (based on green chemistry) and develop their product range
(biopolymers, bioplastics).
50                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)


     5
       At Örnsköldsvik, in Sweden, a number of firms located in an industrial zone,
largely working in the timber processing sector, decided to form a forestry-based
biorefinery cluster (Processum) specializing in the production of bioethanol and
cellulose.
     6
        The Pomacle Bazancourt biorefinery near Reims in France is a biomass
processing site. It encompasses a sugar factory and drying plant, a combined
research center, a starch and glucose plant, an ethanol production plant, an
industrial demonstrator, a CO2 collection center, a production and research center
specializing in active ingredients for cosmetics, the pilot plant for the FUTUROL
second-generation fuel project, and a White Biotechnologies Centre of Excellence,
the product of a partnership between academic institutions.
     7
       PIVERT for Picardie Innovations Végétales Enseignements et Recherches
Technologiques (Picardy Plant Innovations, Teaching and Technological Research)
is an Institute of Excellence in plant chemistry, which was selected for support
under France’s Investment for the Future Programme. The goals of this research are
to transform oilseed biomass, i.e. the whole plant, into renewable chemical products
for numerous applications. It is built on the concept of industrial ecology: the idea
that one company’s by-products can become another company’s resource. In the
biorefinery concept, all waste is seen as a potential input for another product. Water
and energy are to be recycled to limit negative environmental impacts. The biomass
refinery must use local agricultural and forestry resources from the region where it is
located (Picardy). It is a cross-disciplinary project involving numerous research
fields.
     8
       The siting or the development of bioenergy plants is decided by companies
and national authorities and not negotiated with all potential stakeholders. The
impacts resulting from biorefineries’ growth are not discussed in public arenas
(landscape changes, new requirements for farmer, etc.). A strong acceptability
would have obliged biorefineries proponents to overcome an “end-of-pipe”
acceptability only focused on the technical facility and to enlarge their
environmental scope.
