9.3 Promoting a Fairer Bioeconomy
219
always confirmed) climate benefits. It should be clear that “renewable” is not necessarily a synonym for “sustainable.” Environmental assessments and green profiling
need to take multiple criteria into account, such as perhaps the whole set of “planetary boundaries” (Rockström et al. 2009)—or of the “planetary doughnut,” inclusive of social issues (Raworth 2017)—rather than seeking legitimacy based only on
one or two indicators. The UN Sustainable Development Goals have tried to represent this plurality of concerns to be regarded even if they, too, have been markedly
vulnerable to cherry-picking by actors who then claim to be addressing the whole of
sustainability (Siegel and Bastos Lima 2020).
In the specific case of agriculture, it is crucial to shift its current productivist orientation and the prevailing urban bias. It is well-known that sustainability requires
a transition from input-intensive monocultures towards agroecology and mixed
farming, potentially building upon indigenous and peasant systems (Tilman et al.
2002; IAASTD 2009; Altieri and Toledo 2011; Horlings and Marsden 2011). More
recently, the global assessment report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has made vividly evident the need
for transformative change in agriculture (IPBES 2019). Furthermore, sustainable
rural development requires that rural areas be developed not as corporate-controlled
resource pools drained for urban consumption but as living places with decent
employment, infrastructure, and access to services. That requires enhancing both
physical and institutional capacities in rural communities. It means expanding the
focus from productivity gains to promoting local value-added and various forms of
environmentally sound rural industrialization. Effective bioeconomy strategies can
lift smallholders from the condition of mere raw material providers and also improve
non-agricultural jobs in the countryside, which already constitute relevant income
sources but are frequently sub-standard (Renkow 2000). In parallel, farmer cooperatives can provide the necessary institutional and local organizational capacity,
facilitating knowledge sharing, collective bargaining with government and private
actors, and political agency. Such an inclusive and equitable bioeconomy agenda
could significantly contribute to promoting sustainable food security and healthy
communities in the countryside (see Bastos Lima 2008).
States have vital roles to play—and democratic duties to fulfill—financing and
supporting that transition. However, their willingness and capacity are both limited.
Emerging economies, in particular, will hardly let go of their aspirations to equalize
with highly industrialized countries. To meet sustainability demands without compromising production capacity and trade, the transition could be gradual and first reduce
large-scale agricultural production’s negative impacts. Private certification systems
seek that, but to work at scale and have greater effectiveness such requirements would
need to be turned into public policy and become conditions for incentives (Lambin
et al. 2018). Still, developing states often depend on (frequently foreign) private
agribusiness’s material capabilities, and the latter is unlikely to foster alternative
agricultural systems that empower small farmers (Bastos Lima and Persson 2020).
That is particularly the case for value-adding technologies. Therefore, a way forward
would be to increase investments in publicly owned technologies—as has been done
to protect other public goods such as healthcare. As such, agribusiness dominance
219
always confirmed) climate benefits. It should be clear that “renewable” is not necessarily a synonym for “sustainable.” Environmental assessments and green profiling
need to take multiple criteria into account, such as perhaps the whole set of “planetary boundaries” (Rockström et al. 2009)—or of the “planetary doughnut,” inclusive of social issues (Raworth 2017)—rather than seeking legitimacy based only on
one or two indicators. The UN Sustainable Development Goals have tried to represent this plurality of concerns to be regarded even if they, too, have been markedly
vulnerable to cherry-picking by actors who then claim to be addressing the whole of
sustainability (Siegel and Bastos Lima 2020).
In the specific case of agriculture, it is crucial to shift its current productivist orientation and the prevailing urban bias. It is well-known that sustainability requires
a transition from input-intensive monocultures towards agroecology and mixed
farming, potentially building upon indigenous and peasant systems (Tilman et al.
2002; IAASTD 2009; Altieri and Toledo 2011; Horlings and Marsden 2011). More
recently, the global assessment report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has made vividly evident the need
for transformative change in agriculture (IPBES 2019). Furthermore, sustainable
rural development requires that rural areas be developed not as corporate-controlled
resource pools drained for urban consumption but as living places with decent
employment, infrastructure, and access to services. That requires enhancing both
physical and institutional capacities in rural communities. It means expanding the
focus from productivity gains to promoting local value-added and various forms of
environmentally sound rural industrialization. Effective bioeconomy strategies can
lift smallholders from the condition of mere raw material providers and also improve
non-agricultural jobs in the countryside, which already constitute relevant income
sources but are frequently sub-standard (Renkow 2000). In parallel, farmer cooperatives can provide the necessary institutional and local organizational capacity,
facilitating knowledge sharing, collective bargaining with government and private
actors, and political agency. Such an inclusive and equitable bioeconomy agenda
could significantly contribute to promoting sustainable food security and healthy
communities in the countryside (see Bastos Lima 2008).
States have vital roles to play—and democratic duties to fulfill—financing and
supporting that transition. However, their willingness and capacity are both limited.
Emerging economies, in particular, will hardly let go of their aspirations to equalize
with highly industrialized countries. To meet sustainability demands without compromising production capacity and trade, the transition could be gradual and first reduce
large-scale agricultural production’s negative impacts. Private certification systems
seek that, but to work at scale and have greater effectiveness such requirements would
need to be turned into public policy and become conditions for incentives (Lambin
et al. 2018). Still, developing states often depend on (frequently foreign) private
agribusiness’s material capabilities, and the latter is unlikely to foster alternative
agricultural systems that empower small farmers (Bastos Lima and Persson 2020).
That is particularly the case for value-adding technologies. Therefore, a way forward
would be to increase investments in publicly owned technologies—as has been done
to protect other public goods such as healthcare. As such, agribusiness dominance