208
9 The Politics for a Fairer Bioeconomy
The second underlying norm to bioeconomy governance to date is a limited and
politically conservative view of sustainable development—in line with conservative
ecological modernization and so far not going beyond it. For one, biofuels have
mostly been technocratic “solutions” of reassurance to incumbent dominant actors
and their arrangements. That includes reassurance to the conventional, automobilecentered transport systems, as well as to the mainstream productivist approach
to agriculture, which emphasizes yields while overlooking its broader social or
environmental performance (see IAASTD 2009; Horlings and Marsden 2011).
The biofuels case corroborates several critiques leveled against the prevalent
ecological modernization praxis (see Chap. 1). It provides a telling illustration of
how such a narrow view of sustainability indeed leads to unsustainable practices.
Capital-intensive approaches have privileged wealthier agribusiness actors. While
overlooking power relations, they have exacerbated inequities; and by favoring
only expert-based scientific rationality, they have supported the one-way treatment
dispensed to smallholders and the dismissal of their traditional knowledge.
Moreover, there has been a nearly exclusive emphasis on climate issues—what
one could term a “climate eclipsing” of nearly all other environmental issues—
and wild biodiversity conservation, that is, ignoring biodiversity within farming
systems. Biofuel policies have systematically overlooked issues such as the depletion of agro-biodiversity, soil, and freshwater caused by industrial feedstock cultivation. “Sustainable” becomes thus reduced to being a synonym of “climate-friendly,”
“climate-smart,” or of “low-carbon” development.
Finally, underlying most biofuel production strategies as an implicit norm is a
bias towards urban-centered development. Despite the prevalent rural development
discourse, its promotion has generally been limited to giving incentives for feedstock
cultivation. Biofuel policies have hardly included any instruments to promote rural
entrepreneurship, local value addition, or to address rural energy poverty. Instead,
rural areas’ natural and human resources have been mobilized to provide more energy
to urban centers and mostly to higher-income motorists. Environmental pollution and
resource depletion from feedstock cultivation are felt primarily in rural areas, while
highly skilled work and resource consumption mostly benefit city dwellers. This
norm remains implicit, but the reality is that bioeconomy promotion thus far has
almost invariably widened the rural-urban divide.
9.2.3 The State-Agribusiness Nexus in Bioeconomy
Value Webs
Institutions usually do not come about spontaneously. Those prevailing norms, policy
frameworks, and even the absence of an international bioeconomy regime have
resulted from dominant actors’ agency—and, therefore, mainly represent their views.
In this regard, the biofuels case offers a significant example of conflation between
state and agribusiness interests. Far from being absent or relegated to the background
9 The Politics for a Fairer Bioeconomy
The second underlying norm to bioeconomy governance to date is a limited and
politically conservative view of sustainable development—in line with conservative
ecological modernization and so far not going beyond it. For one, biofuels have
mostly been technocratic “solutions” of reassurance to incumbent dominant actors
and their arrangements. That includes reassurance to the conventional, automobilecentered transport systems, as well as to the mainstream productivist approach
to agriculture, which emphasizes yields while overlooking its broader social or
environmental performance (see IAASTD 2009; Horlings and Marsden 2011).
The biofuels case corroborates several critiques leveled against the prevalent
ecological modernization praxis (see Chap. 1). It provides a telling illustration of
how such a narrow view of sustainability indeed leads to unsustainable practices.
Capital-intensive approaches have privileged wealthier agribusiness actors. While
overlooking power relations, they have exacerbated inequities; and by favoring
only expert-based scientific rationality, they have supported the one-way treatment
dispensed to smallholders and the dismissal of their traditional knowledge.
Moreover, there has been a nearly exclusive emphasis on climate issues—what
one could term a “climate eclipsing” of nearly all other environmental issues—
and wild biodiversity conservation, that is, ignoring biodiversity within farming
systems. Biofuel policies have systematically overlooked issues such as the depletion of agro-biodiversity, soil, and freshwater caused by industrial feedstock cultivation. “Sustainable” becomes thus reduced to being a synonym of “climate-friendly,”
“climate-smart,” or of “low-carbon” development.
Finally, underlying most biofuel production strategies as an implicit norm is a
bias towards urban-centered development. Despite the prevalent rural development
discourse, its promotion has generally been limited to giving incentives for feedstock
cultivation. Biofuel policies have hardly included any instruments to promote rural
entrepreneurship, local value addition, or to address rural energy poverty. Instead,
rural areas’ natural and human resources have been mobilized to provide more energy
to urban centers and mostly to higher-income motorists. Environmental pollution and
resource depletion from feedstock cultivation are felt primarily in rural areas, while
highly skilled work and resource consumption mostly benefit city dwellers. This
norm remains implicit, but the reality is that bioeconomy promotion thus far has
almost invariably widened the rural-urban divide.
9.2.3 The State-Agribusiness Nexus in Bioeconomy
Value Webs
Institutions usually do not come about spontaneously. Those prevailing norms, policy
frameworks, and even the absence of an international bioeconomy regime have
resulted from dominant actors’ agency—and, therefore, mainly represent their views.
In this regard, the biofuels case offers a significant example of conflation between
state and agribusiness interests. Far from being absent or relegated to the background