1.3 The Political Ecology of the Bioeconomy
9
human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental
risks and ecological scarcities.”
2 This broad scope, encompassing all three pillars of
sustainability, is reaffirmed in the final UNCSD declaration, “The Future We Want,”
which sets several green economy principles that include, for instance: closing technology gaps between developed and developing countries, promoting social inclusion
and equitable development to overcome poverty and inequality, and enhancing the
welfare and empowerment of smallholders, indigenous communities, and other poor
and vulnerable groups (UNCSD 2012, paragraph 58).
However, there is a contrast between these all-inclusive definitions and how the
green economy concept is generally understood, with a narrower focus on only reconciling ecological issues and economic growth (see Brockington 2012). As such, a
significant concern is that such a more limited understanding of sustainability inspired
by ecological modernization may end up supplanting sustainable development as an
ideal—if not in theory, at least in policy and practice. Although arguments have been
made for not conflating the two concepts (see Langhelle 2000; Wright and Kurian
2010), they are most often bundled together, with ecological modernization usually
taken as the approach to sustainability.
3
Bioeconomy offers a lucid illustration of the above. For example, the European Commission’s strategy explicitly highlights that “A sustainable European bioeconomy supports the modernization and strengthening of the EU industrial base
through the creation of new value chains and greener, more cost-effective industrial
processes” (European Commission 2018, p. 6, emphasis in the original). The choice
of words could not have made its intellectual origins clearer. Sustainability assessments, in turn, have focused on economic, ecological, and technological aspects
while generally overlooking issues of social equity, power relations, or conflicts
among different actors in governance (Sanz-Hernández et al. 2019). It has become
increasingly clear that there are different visions in society about what the bioeconomy represents and what it should mean (Bugge et al. 2016), yet governance and
other socio-political dimensions remain relatively little studied.
There are at least two crucial gaps in knowledge that are only starting to be
addressed. There is little understanding of how policy design relates to the distributive
outcomes and social impacts of the bioeconomy. Even the few studies that generally
discuss equity issues do not connect them to the particular institutional frameworks
in place (see Ariza-Montobbio and Lele 2010; and German et al. 2011). There is
consensus on paying attention to how the bioeconomy is gaining shape (see Sagar
and Kartha 2007; Koh and Ghazoul 2008; FAO 2008; UNEP 2009). However, there is
not enough clarity as to what institutional arrangements may work best under what
circumstances—particularly concerning social sustainability issues (Bastos Lima
2018).
Moreover, there is little analysis of bioeconomy governance at national and international levels, especially on agency. There is insufficient attention to how different
2 This definition has been embraced by other UN agencies, too. See un-page.org.
3 See Baker (2007) for an analysis of how the European Union uses “sustainable development” or
“sustainability” in its terminology while promoting essentially ecological modernization.
9
human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental
risks and ecological scarcities.”
2 This broad scope, encompassing all three pillars of
sustainability, is reaffirmed in the final UNCSD declaration, “The Future We Want,”
which sets several green economy principles that include, for instance: closing technology gaps between developed and developing countries, promoting social inclusion
and equitable development to overcome poverty and inequality, and enhancing the
welfare and empowerment of smallholders, indigenous communities, and other poor
and vulnerable groups (UNCSD 2012, paragraph 58).
However, there is a contrast between these all-inclusive definitions and how the
green economy concept is generally understood, with a narrower focus on only reconciling ecological issues and economic growth (see Brockington 2012). As such, a
significant concern is that such a more limited understanding of sustainability inspired
by ecological modernization may end up supplanting sustainable development as an
ideal—if not in theory, at least in policy and practice. Although arguments have been
made for not conflating the two concepts (see Langhelle 2000; Wright and Kurian
2010), they are most often bundled together, with ecological modernization usually
taken as the approach to sustainability.
3
Bioeconomy offers a lucid illustration of the above. For example, the European Commission’s strategy explicitly highlights that “A sustainable European bioeconomy supports the modernization and strengthening of the EU industrial base
through the creation of new value chains and greener, more cost-effective industrial
processes” (European Commission 2018, p. 6, emphasis in the original). The choice
of words could not have made its intellectual origins clearer. Sustainability assessments, in turn, have focused on economic, ecological, and technological aspects
while generally overlooking issues of social equity, power relations, or conflicts
among different actors in governance (Sanz-Hernández et al. 2019). It has become
increasingly clear that there are different visions in society about what the bioeconomy represents and what it should mean (Bugge et al. 2016), yet governance and
other socio-political dimensions remain relatively little studied.
There are at least two crucial gaps in knowledge that are only starting to be
addressed. There is little understanding of how policy design relates to the distributive
outcomes and social impacts of the bioeconomy. Even the few studies that generally
discuss equity issues do not connect them to the particular institutional frameworks
in place (see Ariza-Montobbio and Lele 2010; and German et al. 2011). There is
consensus on paying attention to how the bioeconomy is gaining shape (see Sagar
and Kartha 2007; Koh and Ghazoul 2008; FAO 2008; UNEP 2009). However, there is
not enough clarity as to what institutional arrangements may work best under what
circumstances—particularly concerning social sustainability issues (Bastos Lima
2018).
Moreover, there is little analysis of bioeconomy governance at national and international levels, especially on agency. There is insufficient attention to how different
2 This definition has been embraced by other UN agencies, too. See un-page.org.
3 See Baker (2007) for an analysis of how the European Union uses “sustainable development” or
“sustainability” in its terminology while promoting essentially ecological modernization.