5.3 Agency in Biofuel Governance in Brazil
111
inclusion in industry-controlled value chains can be positive, even if insufficient.
Policy-core beliefs, however, clearly set the two coalitions apart.
5.3.2 Strategic Uses of Power
Both coalitions have used various advocacy resources and forms of power to pursue
their beliefs in biofuel governance. The agribusiness coalition has primarily relied on
financial resources and members in positions of legal authority to influence policymaking—which is characteristic of dominant coalitions (see Sabatier and Weible
2007). This ability has allowed it to widely advance its development agenda while
excluding non-member actors. In practice, the government promotes agribusiness
through enabling policies and public financing, while the private sector uses its
material capabilities such as technology and financial resources to produce biofuels.
In turn, supportive scientists use information as an advocacy resource to further
promote and legitimize the agribusiness approach, while they are favored with public
and private funding. This collaboration works both domestically and internationally,
as all three—agribusiness, scientists, and government actors—have actively helped
promote Brazilian ethanol abroad and, consequently, the other two’s competence. It
reveals a degree of “symbiotic interdependence,” i.e., a situation in which different
actors depend on each other to fulfill their beliefs and therefore become inclined to
cooperate (Fenger and Klok 2001). While the sugarcane sector has systematically
relied on public policies, the government needs the private agroindustry to advance
its ethanol agenda. Finally, scientists strengthen the coalition’s technology resources
(through biofuels R&D), add legitimacy, and increase public acceptance. Such a
relationship of interdependency leads to strong coordination, where all these agents
are better off with the pursuit of their shared beliefs (Fenger and Klok 2001).
Internal coordination is less strong in the agroecology coalition, and its financial
resources and access to positions of legal authority are much more limited—which
may help explain its subordinate position (Weible 2006; Sabatier and Weible 2007).
Coordination arises much more out of a common view and belief system than of functional interdependence. That said, there has been cooperation around pilot projects
of small-scale biofuel production following agroecology and food sovereignty principles, usually led by NGOs or rural social movements (see Moreno and Ortiz 2007;
Biondi et al. 2009). The approach has counted on increasing scientific information on
productivity and sustainability (see IAASTD 2009; Altieri and Toledo 2011; Horlings
and Marsden 2011), but this is yet to seep through to public opinion or policy circles.
19
Tellingly, the government, too, has showed its divided nature by publishing on family
19 See Clapp (2009) for a general analysis on how mainstream actors have largely ignored the
IAASTD report, an assessment by more than 400 experts which concludes that a shift towards
agroecology is necessary to improve the sustainability of agriculture.
111
inclusion in industry-controlled value chains can be positive, even if insufficient.
Policy-core beliefs, however, clearly set the two coalitions apart.
5.3.2 Strategic Uses of Power
Both coalitions have used various advocacy resources and forms of power to pursue
their beliefs in biofuel governance. The agribusiness coalition has primarily relied on
financial resources and members in positions of legal authority to influence policymaking—which is characteristic of dominant coalitions (see Sabatier and Weible
2007). This ability has allowed it to widely advance its development agenda while
excluding non-member actors. In practice, the government promotes agribusiness
through enabling policies and public financing, while the private sector uses its
material capabilities such as technology and financial resources to produce biofuels.
In turn, supportive scientists use information as an advocacy resource to further
promote and legitimize the agribusiness approach, while they are favored with public
and private funding. This collaboration works both domestically and internationally,
as all three—agribusiness, scientists, and government actors—have actively helped
promote Brazilian ethanol abroad and, consequently, the other two’s competence. It
reveals a degree of “symbiotic interdependence,” i.e., a situation in which different
actors depend on each other to fulfill their beliefs and therefore become inclined to
cooperate (Fenger and Klok 2001). While the sugarcane sector has systematically
relied on public policies, the government needs the private agroindustry to advance
its ethanol agenda. Finally, scientists strengthen the coalition’s technology resources
(through biofuels R&D), add legitimacy, and increase public acceptance. Such a
relationship of interdependency leads to strong coordination, where all these agents
are better off with the pursuit of their shared beliefs (Fenger and Klok 2001).
Internal coordination is less strong in the agroecology coalition, and its financial
resources and access to positions of legal authority are much more limited—which
may help explain its subordinate position (Weible 2006; Sabatier and Weible 2007).
Coordination arises much more out of a common view and belief system than of functional interdependence. That said, there has been cooperation around pilot projects
of small-scale biofuel production following agroecology and food sovereignty principles, usually led by NGOs or rural social movements (see Moreno and Ortiz 2007;
Biondi et al. 2009). The approach has counted on increasing scientific information on
productivity and sustainability (see IAASTD 2009; Altieri and Toledo 2011; Horlings
and Marsden 2011), but this is yet to seep through to public opinion or policy circles.
19
Tellingly, the government, too, has showed its divided nature by publishing on family
19 See Clapp (2009) for a general analysis on how mainstream actors have largely ignored the
IAASTD report, an assessment by more than 400 experts which concludes that a shift towards
agroecology is necessary to improve the sustainability of agriculture.