9.3 Promoting a Fairer Bioeconomy
221
before promoting them commercially to smallholders to avoid exposing the latter to
unnecessary risks.
Agency to achieve such policy changes will invariably depend on the opportunity
structures of each context. Nevertheless, a rule of thumb is that critics of mainstream biofuel production are unlikely to succeed without offering alternative ways
of providing for renewable energy and rural development needs. Ideally, such actors
should conceive, test, and replicate ideas and designs for sustainable bioeconomy
value webs. For that, they need to form coalitions and seek resource complementarity
with other like-minded actors. Contender coalitions must carefully shop for the best
venues available and exploit windows of opportunity—both regular political opportunities and fortuitous events—which may give them additional visibility (Huitema
et al. 2011).
9.3.3 Improving International Bioeconomy Governance
Biofuels are not a case of non-governance (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2013). A fledgling
bioeconomy governance therefore exists. However, the absence of a regime and the
narrow treatment of such products purely as economic goods have left a large governance vacuum that can be problematic in the face of the severe social and environmental issues at stake. Despite extensive lip service paid to sustainability issues,
these have, in reality, all been left to the market or individual countries to resolve—
however limited their capacity may be. That may prove dangerous because it does
not account for the global impacts of domestic biofuel policies. As argued in Chap. 4,
food-insecure countries can do little if bioeconomy policies from major agricultural
producers affect international food prices (see Clapp 2009). Other global environmental impacts, such as the cumulative effects of land-use change, may need greater
governance attention (see Rockström et al. 2009). At the same time, addressing
sustainability issues unilaterally as the EU has tried to do seems paternalistic and
biased towards European priorities. Arguably, such extraterritorial control is also
unfair to those who are affected but have no say in the drafting of sustainability
policy (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2014).
Still, as argued earlier in this chapter, a multilateral biofuels regime is unlikely to be
formed any time soon. As such, rather than attempt to detain the inevitable transition
towards multipurpose agriculture and the bioeconomy, governance efforts may be
more effective—and find higher political viability—focusing on adaptation measures
that address the vulnerability of poorer countries. Adaptation is vital not only in the
face of ecological changes but also of the socio-economic changes underway (in this
case, possibly higher agricultural commodity prices). Non-staple cash crops such
as coffee, cocoa, cotton, or flowers have long diverted resources away from food
production without being vilified for that. Instead, and especially given that most of
the world’s poor live in rural areas, governance attention seems much more needed
on promoting sustainable bioeconomy systems. In this sense, for the sake of greater
resilience, too, it is critical to promote agri-food-biomass systems that reduce rather
221
before promoting them commercially to smallholders to avoid exposing the latter to
unnecessary risks.
Agency to achieve such policy changes will invariably depend on the opportunity
structures of each context. Nevertheless, a rule of thumb is that critics of mainstream biofuel production are unlikely to succeed without offering alternative ways
of providing for renewable energy and rural development needs. Ideally, such actors
should conceive, test, and replicate ideas and designs for sustainable bioeconomy
value webs. For that, they need to form coalitions and seek resource complementarity
with other like-minded actors. Contender coalitions must carefully shop for the best
venues available and exploit windows of opportunity—both regular political opportunities and fortuitous events—which may give them additional visibility (Huitema
et al. 2011).
9.3.3 Improving International Bioeconomy Governance
Biofuels are not a case of non-governance (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2013). A fledgling
bioeconomy governance therefore exists. However, the absence of a regime and the
narrow treatment of such products purely as economic goods have left a large governance vacuum that can be problematic in the face of the severe social and environmental issues at stake. Despite extensive lip service paid to sustainability issues,
these have, in reality, all been left to the market or individual countries to resolve—
however limited their capacity may be. That may prove dangerous because it does
not account for the global impacts of domestic biofuel policies. As argued in Chap. 4,
food-insecure countries can do little if bioeconomy policies from major agricultural
producers affect international food prices (see Clapp 2009). Other global environmental impacts, such as the cumulative effects of land-use change, may need greater
governance attention (see Rockström et al. 2009). At the same time, addressing
sustainability issues unilaterally as the EU has tried to do seems paternalistic and
biased towards European priorities. Arguably, such extraterritorial control is also
unfair to those who are affected but have no say in the drafting of sustainability
policy (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2014).
Still, as argued earlier in this chapter, a multilateral biofuels regime is unlikely to be
formed any time soon. As such, rather than attempt to detain the inevitable transition
towards multipurpose agriculture and the bioeconomy, governance efforts may be
more effective—and find higher political viability—focusing on adaptation measures
that address the vulnerability of poorer countries. Adaptation is vital not only in the
face of ecological changes but also of the socio-economic changes underway (in this
case, possibly higher agricultural commodity prices). Non-staple cash crops such
as coffee, cocoa, cotton, or flowers have long diverted resources away from food
production without being vilified for that. Instead, and especially given that most of
the world’s poor live in rural areas, governance attention seems much more needed
on promoting sustainable bioeconomy systems. In this sense, for the sake of greater
resilience, too, it is critical to promote agri-food-biomass systems that reduce rather