182
8 Bioeconomy Lessons from Biofuel Policies …
this regard. Indonesia and Brazil are abundant producers and exporters of vegetable
oil (palm and soy, respectively). Therefore, it is in their interest to find new markets
to increase demand and raise these commodities’ prices. In contrast, India is a net
importer of edible oil and cannot divert its production for biofuels without deepening
its import dependence.
Another critical factor has been the availability of land where to expand feedstock
cultivation. Brazil has counted on large tracts of arable land used as pastures to
convert into soy or sugarcane plantations—even if that has often meant pushing
cattle ranching further into forest frontiers, i.e., indirect land-use change (Arima
et al. 2011). Similarly, soy expansion has often come at the expense of the highly
biodiverse Cerrado savannas (Rausch et al. 2019). Although this expansion would
be more accurately credited to soybean’s use as animal feed than its (comparatively
unimportant) economic use as a biodiesel feedstock, the latter is nevertheless a new
market. In contrast to Brazil, the situation is somewhat more delicate in Indonesia,
which has a much higher population density, less availability of non-forest areas, and
where oil palm expansion over peatland and rainforest has been very controversial.
India, in turn, is severely constrained both in terms of arable land and freshwater for
expanding cultivation, making it rely mainly on marginal lands.
Although these energy and agri-food contexts have not necessarily determined the
policy choices of each country around biofuels and bioeconomy development, they
certainly have limited the range of options and made some pathways more likely than
others. As far as their agricultural sectors go, path dependency clearly is a significant
factor at play.
8.2.2 “Development” as Livelihood Losses
and the Proletarianization of the Rural Poor
“Rural development” has been commonly sought after as a major goal and justification of bioeconomy policies in the Global South. Its exact meaning, however,
is most often—perhaps purposively—left unspecified, although references to job
creation and income generation tend to be made (see Chaps. 5–7). In this regard, the
cases of Brazil, India, and Indonesia, despite the contrasts in their energy and agrifood contexts, reveal somewhat similar strategies. Crops and specific policy targets
have differed, but the types of policy instruments, production structures, value-chain
organization, and business models have been more or less the same. This similar
approach, in turn, has created a relatively common pattern of socio-political outcomes
with similar limitations, falling into the same pitfalls, and ultimately, creating nearly
identical allocation patterns.
All three countries have adopted a two-tiered strategy of biofuels production. On
the one hand, they have relied on established agroindustrial sectors endowed with the
capacity to offer sufficient feedstock supplies within a short time. On the other hand,
they have attempted to promote non-food feedstock crop cultivation on marginal
8 Bioeconomy Lessons from Biofuel Policies …
this regard. Indonesia and Brazil are abundant producers and exporters of vegetable
oil (palm and soy, respectively). Therefore, it is in their interest to find new markets
to increase demand and raise these commodities’ prices. In contrast, India is a net
importer of edible oil and cannot divert its production for biofuels without deepening
its import dependence.
Another critical factor has been the availability of land where to expand feedstock
cultivation. Brazil has counted on large tracts of arable land used as pastures to
convert into soy or sugarcane plantations—even if that has often meant pushing
cattle ranching further into forest frontiers, i.e., indirect land-use change (Arima
et al. 2011). Similarly, soy expansion has often come at the expense of the highly
biodiverse Cerrado savannas (Rausch et al. 2019). Although this expansion would
be more accurately credited to soybean’s use as animal feed than its (comparatively
unimportant) economic use as a biodiesel feedstock, the latter is nevertheless a new
market. In contrast to Brazil, the situation is somewhat more delicate in Indonesia,
which has a much higher population density, less availability of non-forest areas, and
where oil palm expansion over peatland and rainforest has been very controversial.
India, in turn, is severely constrained both in terms of arable land and freshwater for
expanding cultivation, making it rely mainly on marginal lands.
Although these energy and agri-food contexts have not necessarily determined the
policy choices of each country around biofuels and bioeconomy development, they
certainly have limited the range of options and made some pathways more likely than
others. As far as their agricultural sectors go, path dependency clearly is a significant
factor at play.
8.2.2 “Development” as Livelihood Losses
and the Proletarianization of the Rural Poor
“Rural development” has been commonly sought after as a major goal and justification of bioeconomy policies in the Global South. Its exact meaning, however,
is most often—perhaps purposively—left unspecified, although references to job
creation and income generation tend to be made (see Chaps. 5–7). In this regard, the
cases of Brazil, India, and Indonesia, despite the contrasts in their energy and agrifood contexts, reveal somewhat similar strategies. Crops and specific policy targets
have differed, but the types of policy instruments, production structures, value-chain
organization, and business models have been more or less the same. This similar
approach, in turn, has created a relatively common pattern of socio-political outcomes
with similar limitations, falling into the same pitfalls, and ultimately, creating nearly
identical allocation patterns.
All three countries have adopted a two-tiered strategy of biofuels production. On
the one hand, they have relied on established agroindustrial sectors endowed with the
capacity to offer sufficient feedstock supplies within a short time. On the other hand,
they have attempted to promote non-food feedstock crop cultivation on marginal