Global Inequalities and Extractive Knowledge Production in the Bioeconomy

Backhouse, Maria

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-68944-5_2

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(1) Standing in the tradition of earlier visions of ecological modernization (Backhouse 2021;Bastos Lima 2022), the dominant narratives of official bioeconomy strategies present innovation as a means to turn the tensions between environmental concerns and economic priorities into synergies. Rather than aiming at any kind of post-growth strategy, they claim to offer a way to reconcile environmental and economic concerns, by putting bio-based 'solutions' at the service of economic growth and constructing the plausible image of a winwin strategy (Kovacic et al 2019).…”

Section: Transformation Without Transformation: Investigating a Contr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The more things change, the more they stay the same: promises of bioeconomy and the economy of promises

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This editorial lays out the core themes of the special feature and provides an overview of the contributions. It introduces the main argument, namely that the promises of far-reaching change made by recent bioeconomy policies are in fact strategically directed at avoiding transformative change to existing societal arrangements. Bioeconomy discourse showcases technological solutions purported to solve sustainability ‘problems’ while sustaining economic growth, but avoids issues of scalability, integration or negative consequences. Thus, bioeconomy policies, and particularly the latest versions of the predominantly European ‘bio-resource’ variety that have rhetorically integrated a lot of previous sustainability-minded criticism, serve to ward off or delay challenges to an unsustainable status quo, in effect prolongating the escalatory imperatives of capitalist modernity that are at the root of current crises. The editorial’s second part highlights the contributions that the 13 featured articles, based on theoretical considerations as well as policy analyses and empirical case studies from a range of countries, make to this argument.

show abstract

Section: Transformation Without Transformation: Investigating a Contr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The more things change, the more they stay the same: promises of bioeconomy and the economy of promises

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the 1970s and 1980s, state-owned agricultural institutes in Brazil and Argentina played a key role in developing a type of soy that is adapted to the specific weather and soil conditions in South America, but these institutes have been displaced by transnational companies and their seeds, which have dominated the region since the 1990s [23] (pp. 253-254), [51]. In the 1990s, Brazil and Argentina were focused on exports, the deregulation of the banking system, and attempts to attract foreign direct investment in trade infrastructure such as ports, warehouses, and crushing facilities [23] (p. 254).…”

Section: Actors and Power Relations In The Soy Complex And The Bioeco...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Inequalities in the Bioeconomy: Thinking Continuity and Change in View of the Global Soy Complex

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a proposed pathway to societal transformation, the bioeconomy is aimed at providing a sustainable alternative to the fossil-based economy, replacing fossil raw materials with renewable biogenic alternatives. In this conceptual contribution, we argue that it is impossible to transform societies into sustainable bioeconomies considering the narrow boundaries of the bioeconomy as a policy. Drawing on approaches including agro-food studies, cheap food, and agrarian extractivism, we show that the bioeconomy is entangled in a broader context of social relations which call its claim to sustainability into question. Our analysis of the global soy complex, which represents the core of the current agro-food system, demonstrates how the bioeconomy perpetuates global inequalities with regard to trade relations, demand, and supply patterns, as well as power relations between the involved actors from the global to the local level. Against this background, we propose a fundamental rethink of the underlying understanding of transformation in bioeconomy policies. Instead of thinking the bioeconomy only along the lines of ecological modernisation, its proponents should consider studies on social-ecological transformation, which would entail radical structural change of the prevailing food regime to cope with the social-ecological crisis.

show abstract

Is the EU shirking responsibility for its deforestation footprint in tropical countries? Power, material, and epistemic inequalities in the EU’s global environmental governance

Kumeh

Ramcilovic‐Suominen

2023

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critically examines the European Union’s (EU) role in tropical deforestation and the bloc’s actions to mitigate it. We focus on two EU policy communications aimed at the challenge: stepping up EU action to protect and restore the world's forests and the EU updated bioeconomy strategy. In addition, we refer to the European Green Deal, which articulates the bloc’s overarching vision for sustainability and transformations. We find that by casting deforestation as a production problem and a governance challenge on the supply side, these policies deflect attention from some of the key drivers of tropical deforestation—the EU’s overconsumption of deforestation-related commodities and asymmetric market and trade power relations. The diversion allows the EU unfettered access to agro-commodities and biofuels, which are important inputs to the EU’s green transition and bio-based economy. Upholding a ‘sustainability image’ within the EU, an overly business-as-usual approach has taken precedence over transformative policies, enabling multinational corporations to run an ecocide treadmill, rapidly obliterating tropical forests. Whereas the EU's plan to nurture a bioeconomy and promote responsible agro-commodities production in the global South are relevant, the bloc is evasive in setting firm targets and policy measures to overcome the inequalities that spring from and enable its overconsumption of deforestation-related commodities. Drawing on degrowth and decolonial theories, we problematise the EU’s anti-deforestation policies and highlight alternative ideas that could lead to more just, equitable and effective measures for confronting the tropical deforestation conundrum.

show abstract

Global Inequalities and Extractive Knowledge Production in the Bioeconomy

Cited by 3 publications

References 18 publications

The more things change, the more they stay the same: promises of bioeconomy and the economy of promises

The more things change, the more they stay the same: promises of bioeconomy and the economy of promises

Global Inequalities in the Bioeconomy: Thinking Continuity and Change in View of the Global Soy Complex

Is the EU shirking responsibility for its deforestation footprint in tropical countries? Power, material, and epistemic inequalities in the EU’s global environmental governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About