Abstract The CGIAR should establish a bioeconomy center in the Global South. The bioeconomy uses biological resources to produce food, fuels, materials, and medicines. It can address climate change, preserve biodiversity, reduce pollution, and create rural income — but only where supply chains connect feedstock to markets. Traditional CGIAR centers specialize in growing crops; this center would give equal weight to processing feedstock into marketable products. Its work would span research, supply chain design, and education, helping developing countries capture value beyond raw material supply. This center will contribute to transition from nonrenewable to renewables and contribute to shared prosperity.
The bioeconomy comprises the sectors that use biological resources and technology to produce food, fuels, materials, medicines, and other products. It encompasses traditional agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, and is expanding through biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and the circular use of residues and waste.
It is also a strategy for four problems at once. Bio-based products displace fossil carbon and can store it in durable materials, addressing climate change. Higher productivity on existing land reduces pressure to clear habitat, preserving biodiversity. Converting residues into feed, fuel, and fertilizer reduces the pollution caused by burning and dumping them. And new rural industries create income and employment where poverty is most persistent. Few sectors offer all four.
This expansion changes what rural economies produce and how they earn. A crop can supply food and industrial ingredients. Residues can become feed, fertilizer, or energy. Microorganisms can manufacture chemicals and pharmaceutical ingredients. These opportunities support a transition from nonrenewable to renewable resources, provided their economic and environmental performance justifies the investment.
The opportunities differ sharply in complexity. Improving the use of local residues may require modest investment. Pharmaceutical ingredients require specialized facilities, strict quality control, and substantial scientific expertise. Countries need help assessing these differences and choosing opportunities that match their capabilities.
Universities are responding. Wageningen has substantial research in biobased production, and Queensland University of Technology hosts a Centre for Agriculture and the Bioeconomy. We are going to establish a bioeconomy center at Berkeley. Institutions in developing countries are advancing this agenda too, and their priorities and scientific capabilities must help shape the international bioeconomy. However, while universities in the Global north have the resources to establish and grow such centers, developing bioeconomy centers in the global South is much more constrained
Climate change is a global problem, and realizing the bioeconomy’s contribution requires participation across countries. National and regional centers are essential. Developing countries also need an international institution dedicated to their shared challenges, connecting scientific advances with local resources, enterprises, and development priorities. I propose that CGIAR establish a bioeconomy center with this mandate, located in the Global South.
Why CGIAR
CGIAR is a global agricultural research partnership working toward food security, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability. Its centers collaborate with national research systems, universities, and farmers, and their research helped develop and adapt the crop technologies of the Green Revolution, making innovations work under different local conditions.
That experience is the institutional foundation for the bioeconomy. CGIAR combines expertise in biological production with knowledge of water, natural resources, markets, and policy. Relevant activities already exist, including circular bioeconomy hubs in Ghana, India, and Viet Nam. A dedicated center would connect and extend this work.
The new center would differ from its predecessors in one decisive respect. Traditional CGIAR centers specialize mostly in growing crops — breeding better varieties, raising yields, protecting plants from pests and drought. A bioeconomy center must give equal emphasis to processing feedstock. What happens to a crop or a residue after harvest — how it is collected, converted, and sold — determines whether new income actually reaches rural households. A country that only supplies raw material captures little of the value its resources create. Concentrating that capability in one institution is the gap this center would fill.
Food production would remain central. Climate change, pests, and resource constraints require continued productivity gains. Yet households can face hunger even when food is available, because they cannot afford it. New rural industries, employment, and income strengthen food security alongside higher yields. The center should pursue these opportunities while safeguarding food supplies, land rights, and the resources on which farming depends.
Figure 1. Proposed functions and supply chain scope of the center. Policy and economic assessment would inform all three functions.
Designing supply chains
The center’s defining emphasis should be the design of supply chains. Its agenda would follow biological resources from production through collection, processing, and manufacturing to final products and customers. Existing CGIAR institutions already study markets and value chains; this center would make the integration of biological technologies and new industries its organizing purpose.
Producing feedstock is only the beginning. A technology creates value when reliable supplies reach a processor that can make a marketable product at a competitive cost. Farmers need dependable buyers; processors need assured inputs before investing. Neither moves first. The center should resolve this through research on contracts, producer organizations, financing, logistics, and customer relationships.
Converting food-processing residues into animal feed illustrates the point. Success requires more than a working conversion process. It requires knowing seasonal availability, collection and storage, safety, nutritional quality, processing costs, and what buyers will pay. Demonstration projects should test the commercial arrangements alongside the technology, revealing which problems need better science and which need different business models or policy.
Heterogeneity and scale are central research questions. Biomass availability, infrastructure, skills, and demand differ across locations. Large facilities reduce processing costs while raising transport costs. Some settings favor local preprocessing linked to a larger plant; others support decentralized production. Comparing these alternatives would help countries choose supply chains suited to their circumstances.
Economic models and field evidence should guide these choices together. Researchers can estimate how profitability changes with feedstock prices, transport distances, energy costs, and plant capacity, then test predictions against pilot experience. Publishing comparable results would help donors and investors identify promising applications and stop repeatedly financing approaches that cannot compete.
Circularity needs the same discipline. Residues may already provide feed, fuel, or soil protection, so diverting them carries an opportunity cost. Recovery and processing consume energy and water. The center should assess the full economic and environmental consequences, including the effect of removing nutrients from fields. Circular activities deserve support for demonstrated benefits, with realistic attention to costs.
Research and education across a global network
The center should coordinate a research network spanning CGIAR institutions, national laboratories, universities, and businesses. It would conduct research itself while supporting complementary work elsewhere. Shared methods, data, and access to demonstration facilities would let partners compare technologies, learn from failures, and adapt what works. Southern institutions should set priorities and lead projects.
This network should connect biological science and engineering with economics from the start. Priorities could include biomanufacturing, nutrient recovery, improved uses of agricultural and forestry residues, and new products from aquatic resources. Projects should examine commercialization, environmental performance, and who captures the benefits. Countries should have the chance to participate in processing, innovation, and enterprise ownership — not only in supplying raw materials.
Education is a core responsibility, not a supporting activity. Universities and regional partners could develop graduate programs, professional courses, and practical training connecting biological science with supply chain management, economics, and policy. Farmers and entrepreneurs need accessible training; technicians need experience operating facilities; public officials need to assess technologies and design policy. Students should work on actual projects, learning how decisions about technology, organization, and markets interact, and return that knowledge to their communities. Fellowships and exchanges would build lasting local expertise.
Policies that support viable enterprises
The policy agenda should identify the barriers that keep worthwhile innovations from reaching the market. Public research, demonstration facilities, infrastructure, and training address needs no individual business can finance. Predictable standards and science-based regulation protect health and the environment while giving investors a clear path to market.
Carbon pricing and payments for verified environmental services can improve the economics of activities whose benefits markets do not reward. The center should compare outcomes with and without such incentives, recognizing differences among technologies and locations. Temporary support for early projects may be justified, but it needs clear objectives and honest evaluation.
Establishing the center
CGIAR and its donors should begin by appointing an independent scientific advisory board with strong representation from developing countries. Consultation with farmers, national institutions, businesses, and governments would identify unmet needs and define the mandate. An assessment of existing capabilities should guide the choice of host through a transparent process, and determine which functions belong at the coordinating center and which at regional partners.
Regional partners need resources and authority to shape implementation. Opportunities in forestry, food processing, and aquatic production vary, and local institutions understand constraints an international headquarters will overlook. Agreements should set responsibilities for intellectual property, facility access, and benefit sharing.
Stable core funding would sustain shared research, education, and coordination, with competitive grants for regional projects. The mandate should bring additional resources that strengthen CGIAR’s existing work rather than divide it. Partnerships with international universities, including a future Berkeley center, could broaden scientific exchange while preserving leadership by institutions in the Global South.
Success should be measured beyond publications and completed pilots. Technologies must be adopted, enterprises must survive, and rural communities must benefit. Evaluation should track income, employment, food security, and verified environmental outcomes. The purpose is to build capabilities countries can use to develop their own bioeconomies.
CGIAR helped organize global science to improve agricultural production. A bioeconomy center would extend that contribution by helping developing countries create value throughout the supply chain — not only by growing more, but by making more from what they grow. Its guiding idea is simple: renewable resources, shared prosperity.
