74
4 International Bioeconomy Governance …
certification (Faaij et al. 2010). Subsequently, newer tasks—41 to 45, as of 2020—
have focused on biorefining, biomass supply chain governance, and the role bioenergy
can play “within the broader bioeconomy” and concerning the 2030 Agenda, notably
to help address climate change (IEA Bioenergy 2019).
Meanwhile, new multilateral bodies have been set up to assist with biofuel governance. The main body has been the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), set up in
2005. Its membership has remained more or less stable over the years and, as of 2020,
comprised 23 countries and 15 international organizations. Members are arranged
in working groups to coordinate bioenergy R&D and harmonize sustainability standards, in particular accounting methodologies for greenhouse gas emissions. These
are the same goals pursued at the International Biofuels Forum (IBF), launched in
2007 by Brazil in partnership with China, India, South Africa, the US, and the European Commission. All these are also GBEP members except for India and South
Africa, which have observer status (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2013).
Finally, several multi-stakeholder roundtables have emerged to pursue sustainability certification within the private sector (see Oosterveer and Mol 2010). They
include, most notably: The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Bonsucro
(previously named Better Sugarcane Initiative), the Round Table on Responsible
Soy (RTRS), and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB), which aims
to be universally applicable (see Palmujoki 2009). These initiatives have primarily
brought together large agroindustrial producers from the developing world, food or
fuel processors and retailers in developed countries, and environmental NGOs—
mostly North-based ones (Bastos Lima 2009). They have focused on creating standards for voluntary international market certification, but biofuel producers’ uptake
of those standards remains limited. In some cases, contestation over their requirements has led developing country producers to seek their own certification schemes.
Most notably, Malaysia and Indonesia came to create national sustainability standards—Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) and Indonesian Sustainable Palm
Oil (ISPO)—although these have limited international recognition.
4.2.2 Analyzing the Architecture of International Biofuel
Governance
Three underlying assumptions and norms seem to characterize the architecture of
international biofuel governance. First, most initiatives have focused not on regulating but on promoting biofuels, assuming as a principle that biofuels are mostly
beneficial to sustainable development and that they can replace fossil fuels on a large
scale. This premise seems to work as an a priori belief that has not been open to
revision despite indications that such a large-scale transition raises serious sustainability issues (see Chapter 2). Second, as an explicit norm, there has been a mission
to turn biofuels into commodities for international trade—among many options that
could be taken up, such as encouraging biofuel production for local consumption.
4 International Bioeconomy Governance …
certification (Faaij et al. 2010). Subsequently, newer tasks—41 to 45, as of 2020—
have focused on biorefining, biomass supply chain governance, and the role bioenergy
can play “within the broader bioeconomy” and concerning the 2030 Agenda, notably
to help address climate change (IEA Bioenergy 2019).
Meanwhile, new multilateral bodies have been set up to assist with biofuel governance. The main body has been the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), set up in
2005. Its membership has remained more or less stable over the years and, as of 2020,
comprised 23 countries and 15 international organizations. Members are arranged
in working groups to coordinate bioenergy R&D and harmonize sustainability standards, in particular accounting methodologies for greenhouse gas emissions. These
are the same goals pursued at the International Biofuels Forum (IBF), launched in
2007 by Brazil in partnership with China, India, South Africa, the US, and the European Commission. All these are also GBEP members except for India and South
Africa, which have observer status (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2013).
Finally, several multi-stakeholder roundtables have emerged to pursue sustainability certification within the private sector (see Oosterveer and Mol 2010). They
include, most notably: The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Bonsucro
(previously named Better Sugarcane Initiative), the Round Table on Responsible
Soy (RTRS), and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB), which aims
to be universally applicable (see Palmujoki 2009). These initiatives have primarily
brought together large agroindustrial producers from the developing world, food or
fuel processors and retailers in developed countries, and environmental NGOs—
mostly North-based ones (Bastos Lima 2009). They have focused on creating standards for voluntary international market certification, but biofuel producers’ uptake
of those standards remains limited. In some cases, contestation over their requirements has led developing country producers to seek their own certification schemes.
Most notably, Malaysia and Indonesia came to create national sustainability standards—Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) and Indonesian Sustainable Palm
Oil (ISPO)—although these have limited international recognition.
4.2.2 Analyzing the Architecture of International Biofuel
Governance
Three underlying assumptions and norms seem to characterize the architecture of
international biofuel governance. First, most initiatives have focused not on regulating but on promoting biofuels, assuming as a principle that biofuels are mostly
beneficial to sustainable development and that they can replace fossil fuels on a large
scale. This premise seems to work as an a priori belief that has not been open to
revision despite indications that such a large-scale transition raises serious sustainability issues (see Chapter 2). Second, as an explicit norm, there has been a mission
to turn biofuels into commodities for international trade—among many options that
could be taken up, such as encouraging biofuel production for local consumption.