214
9 The Politics for a Fairer Bioeconomy
Labour Conference 2008). These have been particularly critical issues to indigenous peoples and rural communities constrained by large-scale feedstock expansion.
Besides lost access to essential resources and often physical violence, under the guise
of job creation many have been submitted to unsafe and insecure work conditions,
frequently at the expense of their livelihoods.
Second, omission on equity has led to decreased recognition of indigenous and
customary property rights. Without social safeguards, biofuel expansion has often
been a process of “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey 2004), transferring de
jure or de facto control over land, water, and other resources from local communities
to private companies or the state. As such, legally recognized land property rights of
indigenous peoples are trampled, while land tenure insecurity is exploited instead of
being addressed (see also Russo Lopes et al. 2021).
Third, failure to include disadvantaged actors in policy- and decision-making
leaves critical knowledge gaps that can compromise bioeconomy value-web development. The jatropha and castor bean experiences showed how lack of consultation
led to dysfunctional chains built on incorrect assumptions. They found support among
scientists and other formal experts but proved false and would have been clarified if
local knowledge had been taken into account. Such knowledge gaps refer not only to
traditional know-how but also to a proper understanding of how small-scale farmers
and their mixed farming systems operate.
Fourth, lack of political participation decreases social acceptance and may thus
compromise bioeconomy development initiatives. The biofuels case has shown that
social acceptance is crucial not just from energy consumers (see Wustenhagen et al.
2007; Sengers et al. 2010; Bronfman et al. 2012) but also from producers, who
may have trade-offs to make and livelihoods at stake. Lack of acceptance or buy-in
usually leads to uncooperative behavior, efficiency losses, waste of public money,
and sometimes outright social conflict, as seen particularly in India’s experience in
“marginal lands.” In contrast, participation in decision-making has shown to increase
interest and engagement from local actors. They feel their views and preferences are
taken into account, as seen in Brazil’s earlier biodiesel experience.
Fifth, this research shows that vulnerability aggravates poverty and vice versa,
as in a vicious cycle. By lacking proper access to information, capital, and legal
processes—or, to put it simply, by being poor—actors are more prone to making
disadvantageous bargains, risky deals, and compromises that otherwise they would
likely not make. In turn, losing control over their means of subsistence and production
(e.g., land, agricultural resources) and being allocated with roles that create excessive
risks and dependency (e.g., on one source of income, one buyer), disadvantaged actors
become even more vulnerable. Such vulnerability is not only to environmental and
socio-economic change but also to making even more disadvantageous deals in the
future, as if going down a vicious spiral of powerlessness.
That dynamic reveals the political implications of access and allocation patterns
and their close relation to agency. Some multilateral organizations indeed highlight
that one of the most noxious effects of poverty is powerlessness (UN ESCAP 2007;
UNRISD 2010). Crucially, by being allocated with more burdens, fewer benefits, less
control, and less advantageous roles, and eventually having their access to resources
9 The Politics for a Fairer Bioeconomy
Labour Conference 2008). These have been particularly critical issues to indigenous peoples and rural communities constrained by large-scale feedstock expansion.
Besides lost access to essential resources and often physical violence, under the guise
of job creation many have been submitted to unsafe and insecure work conditions,
frequently at the expense of their livelihoods.
Second, omission on equity has led to decreased recognition of indigenous and
customary property rights. Without social safeguards, biofuel expansion has often
been a process of “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey 2004), transferring de
jure or de facto control over land, water, and other resources from local communities
to private companies or the state. As such, legally recognized land property rights of
indigenous peoples are trampled, while land tenure insecurity is exploited instead of
being addressed (see also Russo Lopes et al. 2021).
Third, failure to include disadvantaged actors in policy- and decision-making
leaves critical knowledge gaps that can compromise bioeconomy value-web development. The jatropha and castor bean experiences showed how lack of consultation
led to dysfunctional chains built on incorrect assumptions. They found support among
scientists and other formal experts but proved false and would have been clarified if
local knowledge had been taken into account. Such knowledge gaps refer not only to
traditional know-how but also to a proper understanding of how small-scale farmers
and their mixed farming systems operate.
Fourth, lack of political participation decreases social acceptance and may thus
compromise bioeconomy development initiatives. The biofuels case has shown that
social acceptance is crucial not just from energy consumers (see Wustenhagen et al.
2007; Sengers et al. 2010; Bronfman et al. 2012) but also from producers, who
may have trade-offs to make and livelihoods at stake. Lack of acceptance or buy-in
usually leads to uncooperative behavior, efficiency losses, waste of public money,
and sometimes outright social conflict, as seen particularly in India’s experience in
“marginal lands.” In contrast, participation in decision-making has shown to increase
interest and engagement from local actors. They feel their views and preferences are
taken into account, as seen in Brazil’s earlier biodiesel experience.
Fifth, this research shows that vulnerability aggravates poverty and vice versa,
as in a vicious cycle. By lacking proper access to information, capital, and legal
processes—or, to put it simply, by being poor—actors are more prone to making
disadvantageous bargains, risky deals, and compromises that otherwise they would
likely not make. In turn, losing control over their means of subsistence and production
(e.g., land, agricultural resources) and being allocated with roles that create excessive
risks and dependency (e.g., on one source of income, one buyer), disadvantaged actors
become even more vulnerable. Such vulnerability is not only to environmental and
socio-economic change but also to making even more disadvantageous deals in the
future, as if going down a vicious spiral of powerlessness.
That dynamic reveals the political implications of access and allocation patterns
and their close relation to agency. Some multilateral organizations indeed highlight
that one of the most noxious effects of poverty is powerlessness (UN ESCAP 2007;
UNRISD 2010). Crucially, by being allocated with more burdens, fewer benefits, less
control, and less advantageous roles, and eventually having their access to resources