6
1 Introduction: Political Dimensions …
choose—and regularly adjust their choices—of which commodities to produce from
those crops, selecting among different downstream markets depending on which one
is most attractive at a given moment. These potentials can be a boon for flex-crop
producers, but the bioeconomy’s foundation on agriculture has broader implications.
Ever-larger reliance on agriculture means, first, that increased demand for liquid
biofuels and other bioproducts provides a growing market and thus an incentive
to cultivate those particular feedstock crops. As such, the bioeconomy becomes
connected to the whole range of ecological and socio-economic issues related to
agriculture: impacts on soil and water quality, deforestation, but also the creation of
employment and income in rural areas. Globally, liquid biofuels already sustain more
than two million jobs, more than any other renewable energy sector besides solar
photovoltaic (REN21 2019). Second, the utilization of crops—or resources such as
arable land and freshwater—for biofuel manufacturing or other novel uses means that
these uses compete directly or indirectly with food production, thus impacting food
supplies, food market prices, and possibly food security. Rather than deny or polemicize such a competition, the key might be to understanding how different objectives
can be sustainably balanced—as required, not the least, by the SDGs. Third, expanded
dependence on agriculture means that social groups, regions, countries, and even
continents with this sector as a significant economic activity can become new energy
and bioproduct providers, potentially altering political power structures from local
through to the global level. As such, the bioeconomy has dimensions that go beyond
conventional debates around renewable energy.
The fact that biofuels over the past decades and bioeconomy as of today have
become so appealing to public and private interests does not, however, mean that
these necessarily are sustainable endeavors. What it demonstrates is, instead, that
such innovations have successfully captivated the actors whose interests and decisions shape the development agenda at domestic and international levels. This agenda
is far from being uncontroversial or free of risks, as seen widely in the biofuels’ case
when some asked whether the cure was not worse than the disease (Doornbosch and
Steenblik 2007; FAO et al. 2011; see also Chapter 2). There remain fears that, in trying
to address the climate crisis, production on a larger scale could trigger other environmental problems related to deforestation or excessive freshwater consumption.
Much evidently depends on how the bioeconomy is pursued (Bastos Lima 2018).
Therefore, assessing the political and institutional factors that have shaped biofuel
policy agendas and directed bioeconomy governance to date is timely.
1.3 The Political Ecology of the Bioeconomy
1.3.1 Ecological Modernization and Its Limits
Today’s dominant strand of environmentalism and sustainability approach arguably is
the ecological modernization paradigm (Adams and Jeanrenaud 2008; Foster 2012).
1 Introduction: Political Dimensions …
choose—and regularly adjust their choices—of which commodities to produce from
those crops, selecting among different downstream markets depending on which one
is most attractive at a given moment. These potentials can be a boon for flex-crop
producers, but the bioeconomy’s foundation on agriculture has broader implications.
Ever-larger reliance on agriculture means, first, that increased demand for liquid
biofuels and other bioproducts provides a growing market and thus an incentive
to cultivate those particular feedstock crops. As such, the bioeconomy becomes
connected to the whole range of ecological and socio-economic issues related to
agriculture: impacts on soil and water quality, deforestation, but also the creation of
employment and income in rural areas. Globally, liquid biofuels already sustain more
than two million jobs, more than any other renewable energy sector besides solar
photovoltaic (REN21 2019). Second, the utilization of crops—or resources such as
arable land and freshwater—for biofuel manufacturing or other novel uses means that
these uses compete directly or indirectly with food production, thus impacting food
supplies, food market prices, and possibly food security. Rather than deny or polemicize such a competition, the key might be to understanding how different objectives
can be sustainably balanced—as required, not the least, by the SDGs. Third, expanded
dependence on agriculture means that social groups, regions, countries, and even
continents with this sector as a significant economic activity can become new energy
and bioproduct providers, potentially altering political power structures from local
through to the global level. As such, the bioeconomy has dimensions that go beyond
conventional debates around renewable energy.
The fact that biofuels over the past decades and bioeconomy as of today have
become so appealing to public and private interests does not, however, mean that
these necessarily are sustainable endeavors. What it demonstrates is, instead, that
such innovations have successfully captivated the actors whose interests and decisions shape the development agenda at domestic and international levels. This agenda
is far from being uncontroversial or free of risks, as seen widely in the biofuels’ case
when some asked whether the cure was not worse than the disease (Doornbosch and
Steenblik 2007; FAO et al. 2011; see also Chapter 2). There remain fears that, in trying
to address the climate crisis, production on a larger scale could trigger other environmental problems related to deforestation or excessive freshwater consumption.
Much evidently depends on how the bioeconomy is pursued (Bastos Lima 2018).
Therefore, assessing the political and institutional factors that have shaped biofuel
policy agendas and directed bioeconomy governance to date is timely.
1.3 The Political Ecology of the Bioeconomy
1.3.1 Ecological Modernization and Its Limits
Today’s dominant strand of environmentalism and sustainability approach arguably is
the ecological modernization paradigm (Adams and Jeanrenaud 2008; Foster 2012).