10
1 Introduction: Political Dimensions …
actors influence (and possibly steer) bioeconomy expansion and its related policymaking process (Dietz et al. 2018). Even studies that have dealt with bioeconomy
strategies have rarely considered the broader political contexts in which policies are
inserted (Santos 2020). As a consequence, many policy recommendations have made
little sense in the real world. For instance, those who simply call for not using food
crops in biofuel production may be disregarding the political importance of agricultural interests as a driver—and the fact that many countries have engaged with biofuel
production primarily to benefit their farmers. Therefore, addressing these knowledge
gaps contributes to a better understanding of bioeconomy governance and making
useful policy recommendations.
Finally, although most assessments have focused on domestic contexts, there is
also a global dimension to the bioeconomy. Ecological modernization has long been
critiqued for tending to focus on local and national experiences while overlooking
“leakages” of environmental impacts elsewhere (York and Rosa 2003; Salleh 2010;
Foster 2012). This argument is frequently illustrated with the so-called “Netherlands fallacy,” the false belief that such an advanced economy has emerged while
maintaining a relatively clean and integral environment—when in reality most of the
resources it consumes come from abroad (see Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990; York and
Rosa 2003; Foster 2012). Biofuels expansion, in particular, raised alarm bells when it
appeared that developing countries could become major biomass feedstock providers
for developed countries to become greener (Smith 2010). Recently, bioeconomy
strategies may have become far more home-focused—creating jobs and expanding
the domestic industrial base. Yet, in an increasingly economically and ecologically interconnected world, the global dimensions of bioeconomy promotion remain.
Ecological modernization advocates have responded by paying increasing attention
to global commodity chains and “ecological flows,” which transcend national jurisdictions (see Mol 2007, 2010). However, there are also questions about how one
region’s bioeconomy pathway affects another and how the bioeconomy is governed
on the international level—or left in a state of non-governance (see Bastos Lima and
Gupta 2013).
1.3.2 Political Ecology
This book draws on political ecology insights in its approach to the bioeconomy.
Although political ecology lacks a consensual definition, it is generally understood
as a politicized view on environmental issues (Blaikie 1985; Bryant and Bailey 1997;
Martinez-Alier 2002; Peet and Watts 2004; Forsyth 2008; Warner 2010). In other
words, these issues are not seen as technocratic but instead placed in a broader socioeconomic and political context, where there are likely to be winners and losers as
well as various competing views and interests at stake (see Bryant and Bailey 1997;
Forsyth 2008).
Bryant and Bailey (1997, pp. 28–29) identified three central tenets of political
ecology:
1 Introduction: Political Dimensions …
actors influence (and possibly steer) bioeconomy expansion and its related policymaking process (Dietz et al. 2018). Even studies that have dealt with bioeconomy
strategies have rarely considered the broader political contexts in which policies are
inserted (Santos 2020). As a consequence, many policy recommendations have made
little sense in the real world. For instance, those who simply call for not using food
crops in biofuel production may be disregarding the political importance of agricultural interests as a driver—and the fact that many countries have engaged with biofuel
production primarily to benefit their farmers. Therefore, addressing these knowledge
gaps contributes to a better understanding of bioeconomy governance and making
useful policy recommendations.
Finally, although most assessments have focused on domestic contexts, there is
also a global dimension to the bioeconomy. Ecological modernization has long been
critiqued for tending to focus on local and national experiences while overlooking
“leakages” of environmental impacts elsewhere (York and Rosa 2003; Salleh 2010;
Foster 2012). This argument is frequently illustrated with the so-called “Netherlands fallacy,” the false belief that such an advanced economy has emerged while
maintaining a relatively clean and integral environment—when in reality most of the
resources it consumes come from abroad (see Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990; York and
Rosa 2003; Foster 2012). Biofuels expansion, in particular, raised alarm bells when it
appeared that developing countries could become major biomass feedstock providers
for developed countries to become greener (Smith 2010). Recently, bioeconomy
strategies may have become far more home-focused—creating jobs and expanding
the domestic industrial base. Yet, in an increasingly economically and ecologically interconnected world, the global dimensions of bioeconomy promotion remain.
Ecological modernization advocates have responded by paying increasing attention
to global commodity chains and “ecological flows,” which transcend national jurisdictions (see Mol 2007, 2010). However, there are also questions about how one
region’s bioeconomy pathway affects another and how the bioeconomy is governed
on the international level—or left in a state of non-governance (see Bastos Lima and
Gupta 2013).
1.3.2 Political Ecology
This book draws on political ecology insights in its approach to the bioeconomy.
Although political ecology lacks a consensual definition, it is generally understood
as a politicized view on environmental issues (Blaikie 1985; Bryant and Bailey 1997;
Martinez-Alier 2002; Peet and Watts 2004; Forsyth 2008; Warner 2010). In other
words, these issues are not seen as technocratic but instead placed in a broader socioeconomic and political context, where there are likely to be winners and losers as
well as various competing views and interests at stake (see Bryant and Bailey 1997;
Forsyth 2008).
Bryant and Bailey (1997, pp. 28–29) identified three central tenets of political
ecology: