9.2 Unraveling the Politics of Bioeconomy Governance
217
winners and losers. This ongoing experience already offers both technical and political lessons. The technical lesson is that, without explicitly incorporating social equity
requirements and multiple environmental criteria, labeling development initiatives
as “green” or as part of a bioeconomy is likely to give undue legitimacy and thrust to
unsustainable practices. The main risk is to overemphasize the issue that helps drive
the “green” strategy (as climate change has done to biofuel production or marine
pollution could do for bioplastics) and overlook all the rest. This risk also exists in
other forms of renewable energy promotion, frequently assumed to be automatically
sustainable. Social dimensions are particularly vulnerable because economic inclusion without political participation is likely to be on terms that favor the stronger
actors who set the agenda. As the focus has been on absolute standards (i.e., poverty
reduction or eradication) rather than relative ones (i.e., equity), inequitable power
and economic relations can remain unaddressed or may even be fostered.
The political lesson is that the predominance of such a biotechnology-centered,
conservative ecological modernization disproportionally benefits some actors while
marginalizing alternative sustainable development views. As such, it should not be
regarded uncritically as something politically neutral. However marketed as driven
by altruistic interests in poverty reduction, global development or the environment,
large-scale biofuel production has been promoted mainly by actors who economically and politically benefit from it. While promoting that reformist approach of
conservative ecological modernization, these actors have limited the expression of
more radical views by either co-opting or robbing weaker actors of their material and
conceptual means of staking claims and advocating for alternatives. That includes
access to natural resources and public finances as much as “tamed” interpretations of
initially critical concepts such as social inclusion, empowerment, and participation.
Without a change of course, the promotion of a bioeconomy is likely to exacerbate
social and political inequities. From an environmental perspective, purported “solutions” might turn out worse than the problems they aim to solve. The way ahead does
not require rejecting the bioeconomy per se but how it has been promoted, without
taking social equity and political dimensions into account. Only by integrating
these dimensions can governance institutions be redesigned to promote full-fledged,
socially transformative sustainable development.
9.3 Promoting a Fairer Bioeconomy
9.3.1 Better Institutions for Sustainable Bioeconomies
Institutional redesign can substantially improve the sustainability of biofuel production and other emerging bioeconomy sectors. It requires shifting policy incentive
217
winners and losers. This ongoing experience already offers both technical and political lessons. The technical lesson is that, without explicitly incorporating social equity
requirements and multiple environmental criteria, labeling development initiatives
as “green” or as part of a bioeconomy is likely to give undue legitimacy and thrust to
unsustainable practices. The main risk is to overemphasize the issue that helps drive
the “green” strategy (as climate change has done to biofuel production or marine
pollution could do for bioplastics) and overlook all the rest. This risk also exists in
other forms of renewable energy promotion, frequently assumed to be automatically
sustainable. Social dimensions are particularly vulnerable because economic inclusion without political participation is likely to be on terms that favor the stronger
actors who set the agenda. As the focus has been on absolute standards (i.e., poverty
reduction or eradication) rather than relative ones (i.e., equity), inequitable power
and economic relations can remain unaddressed or may even be fostered.
The political lesson is that the predominance of such a biotechnology-centered,
conservative ecological modernization disproportionally benefits some actors while
marginalizing alternative sustainable development views. As such, it should not be
regarded uncritically as something politically neutral. However marketed as driven
by altruistic interests in poverty reduction, global development or the environment,
large-scale biofuel production has been promoted mainly by actors who economically and politically benefit from it. While promoting that reformist approach of
conservative ecological modernization, these actors have limited the expression of
more radical views by either co-opting or robbing weaker actors of their material and
conceptual means of staking claims and advocating for alternatives. That includes
access to natural resources and public finances as much as “tamed” interpretations of
initially critical concepts such as social inclusion, empowerment, and participation.
Without a change of course, the promotion of a bioeconomy is likely to exacerbate
social and political inequities. From an environmental perspective, purported “solutions” might turn out worse than the problems they aim to solve. The way ahead does
not require rejecting the bioeconomy per se but how it has been promoted, without
taking social equity and political dimensions into account. Only by integrating
these dimensions can governance institutions be redesigned to promote full-fledged,
socially transformative sustainable development.
9.3 Promoting a Fairer Bioeconomy
9.3.1 Better Institutions for Sustainable Bioeconomies
Institutional redesign can substantially improve the sustainability of biofuel production and other emerging bioeconomy sectors. It requires shifting policy incentive