IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4525-d538908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge Production and Land Relations in the Bioeconomy. A Case Study on the Brazilian Sugar-Bioenergy Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Backhouse

    (BMBF-Junior Research Group “Bioeconomy and Inequalities”, Institute of Sociology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Bachstr. 18k, 07743 Jena, Germany)

  • Kristina Lorenzen

    (BMBF-Junior Research Group “Bioeconomy and Inequalities”, Institute of Sociology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Bachstr. 18k, 07743 Jena, Germany)

Abstract

National bioeconomy strategies aim for a comprehensive transition from a fossil-based to a biomass-based economy. One common feature of the strategies is the optimistic reliance on technology as main tool in order to overcome the socio-ecological crisis. From the critical perspectives of political ecology and the political economy of research and innovation, technologies and technological innovations are not neutral solutions to the problem; they are generally socially embedded. Against this backdrop, we contextualise the technological innovations that support a more climate-friendly production of ethanol on a sugarcane basis, building on a field research in the more recently developed cultivation areas in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. In doing so, we explore the co-production of the green framing of the sector in combination with technologies for a more climate-friendly agriculture and the political economy of land. Our investigation shows that the bioeconomy in the sugar-ethanol sector perpetuates the socio-ecological problems associated with the agricultural sector. These socio-ecological problems range from the increasing concentration of landownership to the negative impact of agrotoxins.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Backhouse & Kristina Lorenzen, 2021. "Knowledge Production and Land Relations in the Bioeconomy. A Case Study on the Brazilian Sugar-Bioenergy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4525-:d:538908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4525/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4525/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Defante, Lilliane Renata & Vilpoux, Olivier François & Sauer, Leandro, 2018. "Rapid expansion of sugarcane crop for biofuels and influence on food production in the first producing region of Brazil," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 121-131.
    2. Louise Staffas & Mathias Gustavsson & Kes McCormick, 2013. "Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Stefania Bracco & Ozgul Calicioglu & Marta Gomez San Juan & Alessandro Flammini, 2018. "Assessing the Contribution of Bioeconomy to the Total Economy: A Review of National Frameworks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Wiebke Jander & Sven Wydra & Johann Wackerbauer & Philipp Grundmann & Stephan Piotrowski, 2020. "Monitoring Bioeconomy Transitions with Economic–Environmental and Innovation Indicators: Addressing Data Gaps in the Short Term," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Eva Cudlínová & Valny Giacomelli Sobrinho & Miloslav Lapka & Luca Salvati, 2020. "New Forms of Land Grabbing Due to the Bioeconomy: The Case of Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    7. D'Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2020. "A New Socio-economic Indicator to Measure the Performance of Bioeconomy Sectors in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    8. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Bergtold, Jason Scott & Caldas, Marcellus M. & Granco, Gabriel, 2016. "Ethanol and sugarcane expansion in Brazil: what is fueling the ethanol industry?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(4), September.
    9. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    10. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    11. Erik Gawel & Nadine Pannicke & Nina Hagemann, 2019. "A Path Transition Towards a Bioeconomy—The Crucial Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bastos Lima, Mairon G., 2022. "Just transition towards a bioeconomy: Four dimensions in Brazil, India and Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. George B. Frisvold & Steven M. Moss & Andrea Hodgson & Mary E. Maxon, 2021. "Understanding the U.S. Bioeconomy: A New Definition and Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Zeug, Walther & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2020. "Towards a holistic and integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of the bioeconomy: Background on concepts, visions and measurements," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2020, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    3. Gołębiewski, Jarosław, 2020. "Employment And Added Value In Europen Union Bioeconomy – A Sustainable Development Perspective," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2020(4).
    4. Leire Barañano & Naroa Garbisu & Itziar Alkorta & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2021. "Contextualization of the Bioeconomy Concept through Its Links with Related Concepts and the Challenges Facing Humanity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    6. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2022. "Priorities in Bioeconomy Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    7. Mauricio Alviar & Andrés García-Suaza & Laura Ramírez-Gómez & Simón Villegas-Velásquez, 2021. "Measuring the Contribution of the Bioeconomy: The Case of Colombia and Antioquia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    8. Maximilian Kardung & Kutay Cingiz & Ortwin Costenoble & Roel Delahaye & Wim Heijman & Marko Lovrić & Myrna van Leeuwen & Robert M’Barek & Hans van Meijl & Stephan Piotrowski & Tévécia Ronzon & Johanne, 2021. "Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Lisa Biber-Freudenberger & Amit Kumar Basukala & Martin Bruckner & Jan Börner, 2018. "Sustainability Performance of National Bio-Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Xuezhou Wen & Daniel Quacoe & Dinah Quacoe & Kingsley Appiah & Bertha Ada Danso, 2019. "Analysis on Bioeconomy’s Contribution to GDP: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    12. Idiano D’Adamo & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2022. "Exploring regional transitions to the bioeconomy using a socio-economic indicator: the case of Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 989-1021, October.
    13. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    15. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    16. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    17. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    18. Eva Cudlínová & Valny Giacomelli Sobrinho & Miloslav Lapka & Luca Salvati, 2020. "New Forms of Land Grabbing Due to the Bioeconomy: The Case of Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, April.
    19. Filip Lestan & Babu George & Sajal Kabiraj, 2021. "Economic Performance and Composition of Nordic Bioeconomy Sectors (NBES)," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Bogner, Kristina & Dahlke, Johannes, 2022. "Born to transform? German bioeconomy policy and research projects for transformations towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4525-:d:538908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.