Forests, food, and fuel in the tropics: the uneven social and ecological consequences of the emerging political economy of biofuels

Abstract

The global political economy of biofuels emerging since 2007 appears set to intensify inequalities among the countries and rural peoples of the global South. Looking through a global political economy lens, this paper analyses the consequences of proliferating biofuel alliances among multinational corporations, governments, and domestic producers. Since many major biofuel feedstocks – such as sugar, oil palm, and soy – are already entrenched in industrial agricultural and forestry production systems, the authors extrapolate from patterns of production for these crops to bolster their argument that state capacities, the timing of market entry, existing institutions, and historical state-society land tenure relations will particularly affect the potential consequences of further biofuel development. Although the impacts of biofuels vary by region and feedstock, and although some agrarian communities in some countries of the global South are poised to benefit, the analysis suggests that already-vulnerable people and communities will bear a disproportionate share of the costs of biofuel development, particularly for biofuels from crops already embedded in industrial production systems. A core reason, this paper argues, is that the emerging biofuel alliances are reinforcing processes and structures that increase pressures on the ecological integrity of tropical forests and further wrest control of resources from subsistence farmers, indigenous peoples, and people with insecure land rights. Even the development of so-called ‘sustainable’ biofuels looks set to displace livelihoods and reinforce and extend previous waves of hardship for such marginalised peoples.

Keywords:

• biofuel alliances
• global political economy
• institutions
• state-society relations
• sustainability

Notes

¹For a more detailed analysis of these changes, see Dauvergne and Neville (2009).

²We use the term ‘livelihoods’ to refer to the activities of subsistence and income generation for individuals and households. See Scoones (2009) for a full discussion of the meaning and implications of livelihood perspectives in the development literature.

³We use the term ‘forest-dependent’ to indicate communities that rely on forest products and livelihood activities, such as non-timber forest products (NTFPs) including cultivated and gathered seasonal foods and medicines. These communities may be agrarian, but rely to some extent on the forests to complement and buffer against fluctuations in other income-producing and subsistence activities (see Belcher and Schreckenberg 2007 on the effects of commercialisation of NTFPs on communities and especially poor households). In agrarian communities, landless families may have the highest dependence on forests. Santra et al. (2008) document the forest-dependence of farmers in southwest Bengal, noting that, on average, landless families visit the forest six days a week, while land-owning families' visits are closer to four days a week; Vedeld et al. (2007) document the equalising effects on local income distribution of ‘environmental incomes’ from forest products like fuel wood and fodder.

⁴Insecure land tenure might be the result of a lack of formal title, but might also be the product of a government's disregard for formal land rights (see, for example, Broegaard 2005 on perceived insecurity despite formal land tenure in Nicaragua).

⁵There are significant differences in what McCarthy (2010) terms ‘commodity specific factors’ of different biofuel feedstocks, where ecological characteristics vary by crop type and have implications for the ways in, and scale at which they are grown, harvested, and processed. Moreover, regional and local differences exist in the environmental and social conditions in which these feedstocks are produced. Nevertheless, a growing number of studies indicate that in spite of these differences – across biofuel types and production locations – there are similar and considerable environmental and human costs, as well as opportunities, from biofuel development (see, for example, Hunsberger in this volume, for Jatropha in Kenya; Vel (2009), for Jatropha in Indonesia; Wilkinson and Herrera in this volume, for sugarcane and soy in Brazil; Pye in this volume, for oil palm in Indonesia; and Franco et al. in this volume, for sugarcane and Jatropha in Mozambique).

⁶Note, however, that there is some doubt that biofuels can achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions (see, for instance, Righelato and Spracklen (2007) and Pimentel and Patzek (2005) for discussions of various feedstocks) and that biofuels are replacing, rather than supplementing, fossil fuels.

⁷See Moreira et al. (2005, 28–30) for a history of Brazil's early investment in biofuels, including the quadrupling of sugar production from 1975 to 1986. Low oil prices in the late 1980s and early 1990s combined with the removal of government subsidies slowed the biofuel sector, but it was able to capitalise on its early progress when global interest surged.

⁸Martin (2008) and Campbell (2008), for example, examine South-South linkages, particularly between Asian and African countries.

⁹Similarly, in the specific case of Brazil, Novo et al. (in this volume) find that sugarcane-based biofuel production is usefully understood ‘in the context of the dynamics of other agricultural sectors’, including dairy farming and beef production.

¹⁰For recent discussions of agrarian political economy, see, for example, Bernstein (2009) and Akram-Lodhi (2007). For other work adopting an agrarian political economy framework for analysis, see Martins (2002), Gropas (2006), and Saikia (2008).

¹¹This is, in many ways, similar to the approach taken in work on the concept of a ‘food regime’, which considers local food production and distinct food commodity crops in the context of the global political economy. See McMichael (2009) for a genealogy of the food regime analytic approach.

¹²A caveat should be added, though, that at the state level, immediate economic gains may not translate into long-term benefits. Richardson (in this volume) cautions (in the context of biofuels from sugarcane in least developed countries in southern Africa) ‘in terms of countries trading their way out of poverty, then, while static gains may immediately result for the national GDP [gross domestic product], the more beneficial – and pro-poor – dynamic gains may ultimately be sacrificed’.

¹³However, the potential for small-scale production does not necessitate production at small scales: Jatropha can also be produced as a large-scale monocrop (see Achten et al. 2010 for a discussion of the potential benefits and concerns of this feedstock), and may in some places be emerging as a crop for wealthy rather than poor farmers (see Ariza-Montobbio et al. in this volume for an analysis of Jatropha production in India).

¹⁴The Round Table on Responsible Soy Association involves multiple stakeholders at the international level; specific regional initiatives also exist, such as the efforts of Dutch corporations to promote sustainable soy through the Task Force Sustainable Soy (TFSS 2009).

¹⁵See McMichael (in this volume) for an analysis of the meaning and consequences of this ‘global land grab’ and of the intensification of ‘a long-term process of appropriation of resources by powerful states and firms’.

¹⁶Noting, as in footnote three, that these categories are not strictly delineated; for instance, landless households may be more dependent on forest products than land-holding households, as Santra et al. (2008) document.

¹⁷In the context of biofuels, see Julia and White (2009) for an analysis of the impacts of oil palm expansion on a Hibun Dayak community in Indonesia, disaggregated by gender. Additionally, for a more general discussion of gender in agrarian political economy, see Razavi (2009).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Peter Dauvergne

We extend thanks to three anonymous reviewers for their extensive and insightful comments, as well as to Jun Borras, Ian Scoones, Phil McMichael, John McCarthy, and the participants of the JPS and Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies (ICAS) workshop on ‘Biofuels, Land and Agrarian Change’ (hosted by the International Development Studies Program at Saint Mary's University, 16–17 October 2009) for comments on an earlier draft. We are grateful for funding support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.