218
9 The Politics for a Fairer Bioeconomy
patterns and the underlying norms that have shaped the development paths considered (see Finnemore and Sikkink 2001). This section starts with general recommendations for sustainable bioeconomies, then it narrows down to rural and agricultural
contexts, and finally to biofuels specifically.
First, to improve equity in governance and production processes, sustainable
development theory may need to express its social requirements more clearly. That
might be particularly key for emerging bioeconomy sectors, which have sustainability at heart almost by definition. The concepts of allocation and access offer a
useful analytical framework, but clear normative principles are also needed. Such
principles are particularly necessary for allocation, as access (in its absolute terms,
i.e., as minimum standards) already counts on a human rights framework that is
widely accepted (even if insufficiently implemented). In contrast, there are no such
widely embraced principles on tackling inequality, except through taxation of the
rich and subsidies for the poor—and still facing widespread resistance in low- and
high-income countries alike. Globally, official development assistance tries to deal
with some inequality elements, but it is far from sufficiently addressing the problem.
Therefore, as argued in Chap. 3, Rawls’ (1971) principles of difference and
redress—stating that inequalities are only acceptable when to benefit disadvantaged
ones and that undeserved inequalities invite redressing—could well serve to underscore sustainability policy. In practice, this also requires changing the prevailing
norm of seeking economic without political inclusion and limiting empowerment
to economic empowerment (i.e., poverty reduction). For in their political senses,
inclusion and participation require gaining a measure of control over resources and
governance institutions from which actors were previously excluded (Stiefel and
Wolfe 1994, p. 5; Cornwall and Brock 2005; Cook et al. 2012; UNRISD 2016).
Likewise, empowerment requires reconfiguring power relations to reduce vulnerabilities and inequities (Zimmerman 2000; Cornwall and Brock 2005; McEwan and
Bek 2006; Cook et al. 2012; UNRISD 2016). That means including weaker actors
in agenda-setting and decision-making positions, realizing they have particular preferences, worldviews, value systems, and a right to self-determination. Participation
would thus empower them to improve control over the resources on which their livelihoods depend. Similarly, it would enable them to pursue their preferred development
paths and “varieties of environmentalism” (Guha and Martínez-Alier 2000) rather
than adopt and follow alien approaches based on others’ norms and interests. This
application of Rawls’ principles at the political level to redress historical political
disempowerment can, in turn, lead to the embodiment of equity also at the economic
level through production systems that genuinely benefit the poor.
Besides incorporating such equity considerations, more sustainable outcomes
would also require that bioeconomy policies broaden their considerations of environmental issues. Issues such as agrobiodiversity, soil degradation, and impacts on
the nitrogen cycle have been comparatively overlooked in mainstream sustainable
development parlance and policy-making. That has led to unsustainable energy and
agricultural production that, nevertheless, gets labeled as “green” or environmentally sound solely based on being renewable and because of their anticipated (but not
9 The Politics for a Fairer Bioeconomy
patterns and the underlying norms that have shaped the development paths considered (see Finnemore and Sikkink 2001). This section starts with general recommendations for sustainable bioeconomies, then it narrows down to rural and agricultural
contexts, and finally to biofuels specifically.
First, to improve equity in governance and production processes, sustainable
development theory may need to express its social requirements more clearly. That
might be particularly key for emerging bioeconomy sectors, which have sustainability at heart almost by definition. The concepts of allocation and access offer a
useful analytical framework, but clear normative principles are also needed. Such
principles are particularly necessary for allocation, as access (in its absolute terms,
i.e., as minimum standards) already counts on a human rights framework that is
widely accepted (even if insufficiently implemented). In contrast, there are no such
widely embraced principles on tackling inequality, except through taxation of the
rich and subsidies for the poor—and still facing widespread resistance in low- and
high-income countries alike. Globally, official development assistance tries to deal
with some inequality elements, but it is far from sufficiently addressing the problem.
Therefore, as argued in Chap. 3, Rawls’ (1971) principles of difference and
redress—stating that inequalities are only acceptable when to benefit disadvantaged
ones and that undeserved inequalities invite redressing—could well serve to underscore sustainability policy. In practice, this also requires changing the prevailing
norm of seeking economic without political inclusion and limiting empowerment
to economic empowerment (i.e., poverty reduction). For in their political senses,
inclusion and participation require gaining a measure of control over resources and
governance institutions from which actors were previously excluded (Stiefel and
Wolfe 1994, p. 5; Cornwall and Brock 2005; Cook et al. 2012; UNRISD 2016).
Likewise, empowerment requires reconfiguring power relations to reduce vulnerabilities and inequities (Zimmerman 2000; Cornwall and Brock 2005; McEwan and
Bek 2006; Cook et al. 2012; UNRISD 2016). That means including weaker actors
in agenda-setting and decision-making positions, realizing they have particular preferences, worldviews, value systems, and a right to self-determination. Participation
would thus empower them to improve control over the resources on which their livelihoods depend. Similarly, it would enable them to pursue their preferred development
paths and “varieties of environmentalism” (Guha and Martínez-Alier 2000) rather
than adopt and follow alien approaches based on others’ norms and interests. This
application of Rawls’ principles at the political level to redress historical political
disempowerment can, in turn, lead to the embodiment of equity also at the economic
level through production systems that genuinely benefit the poor.
Besides incorporating such equity considerations, more sustainable outcomes
would also require that bioeconomy policies broaden their considerations of environmental issues. Issues such as agrobiodiversity, soil degradation, and impacts on
the nitrogen cycle have been comparatively overlooked in mainstream sustainable
development parlance and policy-making. That has led to unsustainable energy and
agricultural production that, nevertheless, gets labeled as “green” or environmentally sound solely based on being renewable and because of their anticipated (but not