No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The bioeconomy is nowadays widely proclaimed by governments and corporations around the world as a new paradigm for a sustainable economy. Essentially, it broadly denotes the promotion, development and establishment of the use of biogenic resources in diverse kinds of industrial technologies, production processes and products. Yet, in order for the bioeconomy to be sustainable, it has to be assured that these biogenic resources are sourced sustainably. In the last 30 years, transnational sustainability certification (TSC) has established itself as a popular instrument in this context, for example in the case of European biofuels sustainability regulation. In the last decade or so, however, TSC initiatives in several biomass production sectors like palm oil, soy, fruits, aquaculture or fisheries—mostly initiated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations from the Global North—are increasingly met with resistance from actors from the resource-producing countries, mostly located in the Global South. Issues brought up in this context concern their lack of legitimacy and respect for national regulatory sovereignty and conflicting priorities in terms of sustainable development. Consequently, governmental and corporate actors from the resource-producing countries have developed sustainability standards that now at least partly compete with TSC. Against this background, this contribution investigates this apparent dilemma of biomass certification by taking stock of existing TSC initiatives and territorial responses to them in several sectors of the bioeconomy in order to discover general patterns and dynamics of transnational biomass sustainability certification. This analysis is based on a review of existing empirical studies on these issues as well as on conceptual literature on discourse coalitions and transnational hybrid governance for the classification of the different aspects and developments in the individual sectors. Results show that TSC is indeed challenged in all sectors around story lines of sovereignty and sustainability, employed by closely associated state and industry actors in the specific context of the prevalent state-industry relations and the practices and institutions of the respective international political economies. Beyond this general pattern, these alternative systems take on different shapes and complex relations between transnational and territorial sustainability governance emerge that are not always antagonistic, but also exist in parallel or even complementarily and involve various hybrid configurations of public and private actors. Overall, this casts some doubt on the potential of TSC as an instrument to safeguard the sustainability of the bioeconomy and shows one of its potential pitfalls, which is reflected upon in the conclusion.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the institutional dimension is of critical importance for achieving sustainable development, which is why the view that it should be considered as a fourth dimension of sustainability is acquiring increased support. It is argued that the institutional dimension represents an important challenge to the full integration of the economic, social and environmental sustainability objectives within the necessary institutional setting. But despite its importance, the latter is often neglected when it comes to scientific assessments of sustainability performance. A fact that holds particularly true for the forestry sector. The aim of the present paper is to describe and discuss how the institutional dimension of sustainability can be incorporated into a Sustainability Impact Assessment of the European Forest-Wood-Chain (FWC) by using a policy database developed within the context of EFORWOOD. The policy database, covering all policies of key relevance to FWCsustainability, was employed for the purpose of connecting the EFORWOOD sustainability indicators to its institutional and political background. This connection provides direct and detailed insights into the governance structures prevailing in the European forest-based sector and thereby into the institutional dimension of FWC-sustainability. The results illustrate that FWC-sustainability is governed and regulated rather inconsistently by the many political institutions involved, various types of policies in force, and different modes of governance applied. The connection between the EFORWOOD sustainability indicators and a comprehensive database of sector-related policies thus presents a feasible approach for overcoming the lack of consideration given to the institutional sphere of sustainability.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract