2.4 Socio-Economic Issues and North-South Dimensions
37
and other bioproducts can play another vital role because endogenous innovations
are generally better able to ignite sustainability transitions than technology transfers
(Berkhout et al. 2011). Endogenous innovations are frequently cheaper (Doranova
et al. 2010) and are usually more connected to the local economy, local knowledge production, and more socially appropriate (Franco et al. 2011; Fu and Gong
2011). Consequently, rather than being static technology in the form of equipment
or machines, those innovations generally lead to an increase in actual technological
capability that spills over to local industries and continues to evolve (Franco et al.
2011).
Nevertheless, it must be noted that most social and ecological impacts of biofuels
or other bioeconomy production happen at local and regional levels—particularly
from feedstock cultivation. While climate change mitigation brings global benefits, and the reduction in pollutant emissions (at the combustion stage) from fossil
fuel substitution is to the benefit of consumer regions, eventual socio-environmental
costs such as natural resource depletion or ecosystem contamination from chemicalintensive agriculture are all borne locally. Ecosystem conservation might be of value
to all, but their loss burdens local dependent populations more than others (Bryant
and Bailey 1997; Peet and Watts 2004). Furthermore, if traditional farming systems
are disrupted, or if rural peoples are evicted from their lands and sent forth to swelling
city slums, or if food security is negatively affected, the price is to be paid mostly by
more impoverished populations in the developing world. Therefore, biofuels offer a
sharp double-edged sword to the Global South.
The mixed evidence in the literature thus far suggests that a critical question is
how rural people have been incorporated or not in biofuel production systems, and
the quality of that inclusion (Bastos Lima 2012; Clancy 2013). This observation
means looking beyond the number of jobs created and examining what livelihoods
or traditional economic activities may have been replaced. There are cases where
employment in industrial feedstock plantations or smallholder farmers’ integration in
biofuel production chains has created perceived welfare improvements to local populations (Rist et al. 2010; Zapata et al. 2010; German et al. 2011). However, many
large-scale land investments—driven partly by biofuels—in the developing world
have frequently displaced customary landowners and traditional populations (what
has been sometimes referred to as “land grabbing”) (Cotula et al. 2011; Fairhead et al.
2012; Borras and Franco 2012). Also, there are cases where health-degrading work
on plantations or problematic incorporation of smallholders leads to significant livelihood losses and local food insecurity, which worsens rural poverty (Ariza-Montobbio
and Lele 2010; Schoneveld et al. 2011). From a global North-South perspective, the
main risk is that biofuel production strategies may fail to reap sustainable development opportunities and become established in a way that provides renewable fuel
to Northern consumers at the cost of further socio-environmental damage in the
South—what has led some critics to call biofuel production a neocolonial strategy
(Smith 2010). All these stakes become higher as a broader bioeconomy is promoted.
Based on such risks and opportunities appraised in the biofuels case, it is possible
to develop a typology of bioeconomy development based on its socio-environmental
performance and economic features that may help developing countries catch up with
37
and other bioproducts can play another vital role because endogenous innovations
are generally better able to ignite sustainability transitions than technology transfers
(Berkhout et al. 2011). Endogenous innovations are frequently cheaper (Doranova
et al. 2010) and are usually more connected to the local economy, local knowledge production, and more socially appropriate (Franco et al. 2011; Fu and Gong
2011). Consequently, rather than being static technology in the form of equipment
or machines, those innovations generally lead to an increase in actual technological
capability that spills over to local industries and continues to evolve (Franco et al.
2011).
Nevertheless, it must be noted that most social and ecological impacts of biofuels
or other bioeconomy production happen at local and regional levels—particularly
from feedstock cultivation. While climate change mitigation brings global benefits, and the reduction in pollutant emissions (at the combustion stage) from fossil
fuel substitution is to the benefit of consumer regions, eventual socio-environmental
costs such as natural resource depletion or ecosystem contamination from chemicalintensive agriculture are all borne locally. Ecosystem conservation might be of value
to all, but their loss burdens local dependent populations more than others (Bryant
and Bailey 1997; Peet and Watts 2004). Furthermore, if traditional farming systems
are disrupted, or if rural peoples are evicted from their lands and sent forth to swelling
city slums, or if food security is negatively affected, the price is to be paid mostly by
more impoverished populations in the developing world. Therefore, biofuels offer a
sharp double-edged sword to the Global South.
The mixed evidence in the literature thus far suggests that a critical question is
how rural people have been incorporated or not in biofuel production systems, and
the quality of that inclusion (Bastos Lima 2012; Clancy 2013). This observation
means looking beyond the number of jobs created and examining what livelihoods
or traditional economic activities may have been replaced. There are cases where
employment in industrial feedstock plantations or smallholder farmers’ integration in
biofuel production chains has created perceived welfare improvements to local populations (Rist et al. 2010; Zapata et al. 2010; German et al. 2011). However, many
large-scale land investments—driven partly by biofuels—in the developing world
have frequently displaced customary landowners and traditional populations (what
has been sometimes referred to as “land grabbing”) (Cotula et al. 2011; Fairhead et al.
2012; Borras and Franco 2012). Also, there are cases where health-degrading work
on plantations or problematic incorporation of smallholders leads to significant livelihood losses and local food insecurity, which worsens rural poverty (Ariza-Montobbio
and Lele 2010; Schoneveld et al. 2011). From a global North-South perspective, the
main risk is that biofuel production strategies may fail to reap sustainable development opportunities and become established in a way that provides renewable fuel
to Northern consumers at the cost of further socio-environmental damage in the
South—what has led some critics to call biofuel production a neocolonial strategy
(Smith 2010). All these stakes become higher as a broader bioeconomy is promoted.
Based on such risks and opportunities appraised in the biofuels case, it is possible
to develop a typology of bioeconomy development based on its socio-environmental
performance and economic features that may help developing countries catch up with