The extraterritorial dimensions of biofuel policies and the politics of scale: live and let die?

Abstract

Despite criticism, global biofuel production continues to rise, using primarily food crops. Between 2001 and 2012 it increased nearly six-fold, driven primarily by domestic policies, yet raising strong international concerns, eg over impacts on global food prices. Nevertheless, little international biofuel governance has emerged. This article examines the various extraterritorial dimensions of domestic biofuel policies and investigates why international biofuel governance has remained vague, despite its controversial nature. It uses the politics of scale to analyse why countries may wish to frame it as a global or domestic issue. Three extraterritorial dimensions are identified: global environmental impacts, global socioeconomic impacts, and attempts at extraterritorial control over biofuel production abroad. While major producers have successfully avoided liability for impacts by preventing the scaling up of much biofuel governance to the international level, major importers have tried to fill perceived governance gaps using policies aimed at extraterritorial control. We show that both the rise of nationally oriented development policies with extraterritorial impacts and of unilateral sustainability rule making primarily affect weaker countries, making global inequalities more pronounced. It is essential that adaptation governance take into account both environmental and global socioeconomic changes, such as higher agricultural commodity prices.

Keywords:

• biofuels
• governance
• scale
• politics
• extraterritoriality

Notes

1. Roberts, “Multipolarity and World (Dis)order”; and Sonnenfeld and Mol, “Social Theory and the Environment.”

2. Clapp, “wto Agriculture Negotiations”; and Pritchard, “The Long Hangover.”

3. Florini and Sovacool. “Who governs Energy?”

4. Gupta, “A History of International Climate Change Policy.”

5. Murray, Ethanol’s Potential; ren21, Renewables 2013 Global Status; and unep, Towards Sustainable Production.

6. iea, World Energy Outlook; and ren21, Renewables 2013 Global Status.

7. oecd/fao, Agricultural Outlook 2011–2020.

8. Koh and Ghazoul, “Biofuels, Biodiversity, and People”; and Sagar and Kartha, “Bioenergy and Sustainable Development?”

9. Sagar and Kartha, “Bioenergy and Sustainable Development?”

10. ren21, Renewables 2012 Global Status.

11. Bastos Lima and Gupta, “The Policy Context of Biofuels.”

12. Cash et al., “Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics”; idgec, Science Plan; and Gupta, “Global Change.”

13. Gibson et al., “The Concept of Scale.”

14. Cash et al., “Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics”; idgec, Science Plan; Gupta, “Global Change”; and Scott, Seeing like a State.

15. Lebel et al., “The Politics of Scale”; and Towers, “Applying the Political Geography of Scale.”

16. Meijerink and Huitema, “Policy Entrepreneurs and Change Strategies”; and Towers, “Applying the Political Geography of Scale.”

17. Gupta, “Global Change.”

18. Cash et al., “Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics”; and Hooghe and Marks, “Unraveling the Central State.”

19. Murphy, The United States and the International Court of Justice.

20. Gupta, “Global Change.”

21. See Rockström et al., “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.”

22. Gupta, “A History of International Climate Change Policy’; and Lebel et al., “The Politics of Scale.”

23. Gupta, “Global Change.”

24. Mitchell, “Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Institutions.”

25. See Nye, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.”

26. Hurrell and Sengupta, “Emerging Powers.”

27. See Biermann and Pattberg, Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered; Dellas et al., “Agency in Earth System Governance”; and Mert, “Partnerships.”

28. Dover and Frosini, The Extraterritorial Effects of Legislation.

29. Bastos Lima, “Biofuel Governance and International Legal Principles”; and Dingwerth, “North–South Parity.”

30. Mongabay, “Belgium to Source only rspo-certified Palm Oil.”

31. fao, Biofuels; Sorda et al., “An Overview of Biofuel Policies”; and unep, Towards Sustainable Production.

32. Bastos Lima, An Institutional Analysis of Biofuel Policies; and Searchinger, “Government Policies and Drivers of World Biofuels.”

33. Pilgrim and Harvey, “Battles over Biofuels.”

34. Bastos Lima and Gupta, “The Policy Context of Biofuels.”

35. oecd/fao, Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021.

36. Charles et al., “The EU–Africa Energy Partnership.”

37. Bastos Lima, An Institutional Analysis of Biofuel Policies; and Seelke and Meyer, Brazil–US Relations.

38. oecd/fao, Agriculture Outlook 2012–2021.

39. ren21, Renewables 2012 Global Status.

40. epa, epa Finalizes Regulations.

41. US National Research Council, Renewable Fuel Standard.

42. unep, Towards a Green Economy.

43. conab, Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira.

44. See mapa, AgriEnergy Statistical Yearbook 2009.

45. epe, Balanço Energético Nacional 2012.

46. Ibid.

47. oecd/fao, Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021.

48. epe, Balanço Energético Nacional 2012.

49. ren21, Renewables 2012 Global Status.

50. Flach et al., EU-27 Biofuels Annual 2011; and oecd/fao, Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021.

51. European Parliament, Directive 2009/28/EC.

52. Flach et al., EU-27 Biofuels Annual 2012.

53. Abbot et al., What’s Driving Food Prices?; Ajanovic, “Biofuels versus Food Production”; Baffes and Haniotis, Placing the 2006/2008 Commodity Price Boom; fao, Biofuels; and oecd/fao, Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021.

54. Runge and Senauer. “How Biofuels could Starve the Poor.”

55. oecd/fao, Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021.

56. See Fonseca et al., Impacts of the EU Biofuel Target.

57. Borras and Franco, “Global Land Grabbing”; Cotula et al., “Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals”; and Dauvergne and Neville, “The Changing North–South and South–South Political Economy.”

58. Charles et al., “The EU–Africa Energy Partnership.”

59. Bastos Lima, “Biofuel Governance and International Legal Principles”; and Smith, Biofuels and the Globalisation of Risk.

60. Bastos Lima, An Institutional Analysis of Biofuel Policies; Cotula et al., “Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals”; and German et al., “Local Social and Environmental Impacts of Biofuels.”

61. Koh and Ghazoul, “Biofuels, Biodiversity, and People”; and Sagar and Kartha, “Bioenergy and Sustainable Development?”

62. Fargione et al., “Land Clearing”; and Searchinger et al., “Use of US Croplands.”

63. Mulder et al., “A Comparative Analysis.”

64. Koh et al., “Remotely Sensed Evidence”; and Sawyer, “Climate Change.”

65. The reductions achieved by each biofuel have been set by the EU itself, through an accounting methodology set by its Joint Research Centre. European Parliament, Directive 2009/28/EC.

66. Ibid.

67. Deutsche Welle, “Biofuels Producers.”

68. Charles et al., “The EU–Africa Energy Partnership”; and Reuters, “EU, Brazil, Mozambique.”

69. Bastos Lima and Gupta, “The Policy Context of Biofuels.”

70. Bastos Lima, “Biofuel Governance and International Legal Principles”; and Bastos Lima and Gupta, “The Policy Context of Biofuels.”

71. Pomeroy and Doyle, “Interview.”

72. iisd, “Summary of the Tenth Conference of the Parties”; and Petterman, “Update on the Negotiations at cop-10.”

73. See Stearns, “EU Warns Brazil.”

74. Douma, “Legal Aspects of the European Union’s Biofuels Policy.”

75. See Hasan, “Gapki withdraws from rspo.”

76. Ibid.

77. Adnan, “Malaysian Palm Oil Association.”

78. See Hertogen, “Sovereignty as Decisional Independence.”

79. Ibid; and Shaffer and Bodansky, “Transnationalism, Unilateralism and International Law.”

80. See Clapp, “Food Price Volatility.”

81. Young, “Institutions and Environmental Research.”

82. Langeveld et al., “Development Perspectives.”

83. Sen, Poverty and Famines.

84. oecd/fao, Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021.