Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 455–468 | Cite as

Depoliticizing land and water “grabs” in Colombia: the limits of Bonsucro certification for enhancing sustainable biofuel practices

  • Theresa Selfa
  • Carmen Bain
  • Renata Moreno
Article

Abstract

As concerns heighten over links between biomass production and land grabs in the global south, attention is turning to understanding the role of governance of biofuels systems, whereby decision-making and conduct are not solely determined through government regulations but increasingly shaped by non-state actors, including multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSI). Launched in 2005, Bonsucro is the principal MSI that focuses on sustainability standards for sugar and sugarcane ethanol production. Bonsucro claims that because it is free from government interference and draws on scientific metrics, their standards transcend localized, political–economic contexts. In this paper, we illustrate how the local context shapes the prospects for Bonsucro sustainably certified biofuel production in relation to land and water grabs. To accomplish this, our case focuses on Colombia, which has used a range of national policy mandates to establish itself as one of the larger producers of agrofuels in Latin America. We draw on interviews with stakeholders in the sugar and ethanol industries, paired with an examination of Bonsucro principles on land rights and water use, to illustrate how the sugar industry is framing their participation in Bonsucro, and the effects of the increasing intensification of sugarcane for ethanol production on land and water access for communities. We find that within the context of Colombia, efforts such as Bonsucro provide a veil of legitimacy and authority to a system that is premised on deeply entrenched historical patterns of inequitable land ownership patterns and access to natural resources.

Keywords

Multi-stakeholder initiatives Land grabs Bonsucro Certification 

Abbreviations

Asocaña

Colombian Sugarcane Growers Association

CVC

Cauca Valley Corporation

EU

European Union

MSI

Multi-stakeholder initiatives

Procaña

Colombian Association of Sugarcane Cultivators and Suppliers

RED

Renewable Energy Directive

RSB

Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials

RSPO

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

RTRS

Roundtable on Responsible Soy

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grants OISE-PIRE 1243444: Sustainability, Ecosystem Services, and Bioenergy Development across the Americas and CBET-1140152 RCN-SEES: A Research Coordination Network on Pan American Biofuels and Bioenergy Sustainability. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to express their appreciation to all those who kindly agreed to participate in this research project. We also want to thank Laura Silva-Castenada, Michel Köhne, and the special issue editors for their most helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

  1. Bailis, R., and J. Baka. 2011. Constructing sustainable biofuels: Governance of the emerging biofuel economy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101(4): 827–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain, C., and T. Selfa. 2013. Framing and reframing the environmental risks and economic benefits of ethanol production in Iowa. Agriculture and Human Values 30(3): 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bain, C., and M. Hatanaka. 2010. The practice of third party certification: Enhancing environmental sustainability and social justice in the global south? In Calculating the social: Standards and the re-configuration of governing, ed. V. Higgins, and G. Lawrence, 71–83. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bartley, T. 2010. Certification as a mode of social regulation Jerusalem Papers in Regulation & Governance. Jerusalem Forum on Regulation & Governance Working Paper 25.Google Scholar
  5. Bonsucro. 2013. Bonsucro production standard including Bonsucro EU production standard. United Kingdom, Bonscucro. Version 3.0. http://www.bonsucro.com. Accessed 19 Apr 2013.
  6. Borras Jr, S., and J. Franco. 2010. From threat to opportunity? Problems with the idea of a ‘code of conduct’ for land-grabbing. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 13(2): 507–523.Google Scholar
  7. Borras, S., Jr., J. Franco, C. Kay, and M. Spoor. 2011. Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean viewed from broader international perspectives. FAO. A paper prepared for and presented at the Latin America and Caribbean seminar: ‘Dinámicas en el mercado de la tierra en América Latina y el Caribe’, 14–15 November, FAO Regional Office, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
  8. Chao, S., M. Colchester, and N. Jiwan. 2012. Securing rights through commodity roundtables? A comparative review. Forest peoples program and rights and resources initiative. http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2012/11/securing-rights-through-commodity-roundtables-comparative-review.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  9. Cheyns, E. 2011. Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture: Limits of the ‘inclusiveness’ paradigm. In Governing through standards, ed. S. Ponte, P. Gibbon, and J. Vestergarrd, 210–235. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Corpodice (Corporación para el desarrollo integral entre la comunidad y el ecosistema). 2000. Acción Colectiva Popular en procura de Acceder a un aprovechamiento racionable de recursos naturales hídricos, un equilibrio ecológico, un medio ambiente sano, una salubridad y seguridad publica, la defensa del patrimonio público, y el derecho a la vida correspondiente. http://www.corpodice.cocogum.org/Archivos/Accion%20Colectiva%20Popular/Accion%20Colectiva%20Popular.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  11. Cotula, L. 2012. The international political economy of the global land rush: A critical appraisal of trends, scale, geography and drivers. Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3–4): 649–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CVC (Cauca Valley Autonomous Regional Corporation). 2011. Riesgo de contaminación de las aguas subterráneas por actividades agrícolas, Valle del Cauca. Water resources group report. http://www.cvc.gov.co/portal/images/CVC/Recurso_Hidrico/agua_subterranea/calidad_de_agua/RIESGO%20DE%20CONTAMINACION%20DE%20LAS%20AGUAS%20SUBTERRANEAS%20POR%20ACTIVIDADES%20AGRICOLAS.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2014.
  13. CVC. 2012. 58 Anos al servicio del Valle del Cauca. http://cvcambiental.blogspot.com/2012/10/58-anos-al-servicio-del-valle-del-cauca.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  14. DANE (Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadistica de Colombia). 2012. Pobreza en Colombia. Comunicado de Prensa. http://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/condiciones_vida/pobreza/cp_pobreza_2011.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  15. Djama, M., E. Fouilleux, and I. Vagneron. 2011. Standard setting, certifying and benchmarking: A governmentality approach to sustainability standards in the agro-food sector. In Governing through standards, ed. S. Ponte, P. Gibbon, and J. Vestergaard, 184–209. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  16. El País. 2011. Río Paila-Castilla construirá la sexta planta productora de etanol en el Valle. August 12th, 2011.Google Scholar
  17. El País. 2012. Habría alivio para la gasolina en la Reforma Tributaria. Jun 29, 2012.Google Scholar
  18. Elgert, L. 2012. Certified discourse: The politics of developing soy certification standards. Geoforum 43: 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EU (European Union). 2013. Renewable energy recognized voluntary schemes. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/sustainability_schemes_en.htm. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  20. Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319: 1235–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fedebiocombustibles (Federación Nacional de Biocombustibles de Colombia). 2012. Cifras Informativas del Sector Biocombustibles – Etanol Anhídrido de Caña. Available at http://www.fedebiocombustibles.com/files/Cifras%20Informativas%20del%20Sector%20Biocombustibles%20-%20ETANOL(39).pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  22. German, L., G. Schoneveld, and P. Pacheco. 2011. Local social and environmental impacts of biofuels: Global comparative assessment and implications for governance. Ecology and Society 16(4): 29.Google Scholar
  23. Gillon, S. 2010. Fields of dreams: Negotiating an ethanol agenda in the Midwest United States. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4): 723–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gobernación del Valle del Cauca. Secretaría de Planeación Departamental. 2011. Anuario Estadístico del Valle 2008–2009. http://www.valledelcauca.gov.co/planeacion/publicaciones.php?id=19299. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  25. Grain. 2008. Seized! The 2008 land Grab for food and financial security. Grain Briefing Paper. http://www.grain.org/article/categories/14-reports. Accessed 19 Feb 2013.
  26. Gronewold, N. 2011. Colombia pursues sweet dream of becoming a sugar-cane ethanol powerhouse. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/09/09greenwire-colombia-pursues-sweet-dream-of-becoming-a-sug-91543.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  27. Klooster, D. 2011. The local instrumentality of global standards: How Mexican indigenous communities use FSC certification to foster a furniture production Network. In Governing through standards, ed. S.P. Gibbon, and J. Vestergaard, 266–288. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  28. Köhne, M. 2014. Multi-stakeholder initiative governance as assemblage: Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil as a political resource in land conflicts related to oil palm plantations. Agriculture and Human Values. doi: 10.1007/s10460-014-9507-5.
  29. Levidow, L. 2013. EU criteria for sustainable biofuels: Accounting for carbon, depolicising plunder. Geoforum 44: 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Londono, B. 2008. Las ONG ambientales y su ejercicio de las herramientas de participación institucionalizada. In Gobernabilidad, Instituciones y Medio Ambiente en Colombia, ed. M. Rodriquez, 523–547. Bogotá: Foro Nacional Ambiental.Google Scholar
  31. Manning, S., F. Boons, O. Von Hagen, and J. Reinecke. 2012. National contexts matter: The co-evolution of sustainability standards in global value chains. Ecological Economics 83: 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Margulis, M., N. McKeon, and S. Borras Jr. 2013. Land grabbing and global governance: Critical perspectives. Globalizations 10(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marin, V., J. Lovett, and J. Clancy. 2011. Biofuels and land appropriation in Colombia: Do biofuels national policies fuel land grabs? Paper presented at International Conference on Global Land Grabbing. Brighton, UK, April 2011.Google Scholar
  34. McMichael, P. 2010. Agrofuels in the food regime. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4): 609–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mehta, L., G.J. Veldwisch, and J. Franco. 2012. Introduction to the special issue: Water grabbing? Focus on the (re)appropriation of finite water resources. Water Alternatives 5: 193–207.Google Scholar
  36. Mejía, S.L. 2011. Agrofuels policy in Colombia: Expectations and rural development. Agronomía Colombiana 29(1): 133–140.Google Scholar
  37. Minminas (Ministerio de Minas y Energía de Colombia). 2012. Energía sostenible para Colombia. http://www.minminas.gov.co/minminas/hidrocarburos.jsp?cargaHome=2&opcionCalendar=4&id_noticia=1469. Accessed 26 Oct 2103.
  38. Mol, A. 2010. Environmental authorities and biofuels controversies. Environmental Politics 19(1): 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mol, A. 2007. Boundless biofuels? Between environmental sustainability and vulnerability. Sociologia Ruralis 47(4): 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paéz, G.I. 2007. La calidad del agua subterranea, Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Water resources group report, CVC. http://www.cvc.gov.co/portal/images/CVC/Recurso_Hidrico/agua_subterranea/calidad_de_agua/CALIDADDELAGUASUBTERRANEASVALLE-2006.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2014.
  41. Partzsch, L. 2011. The legitimacy of biofuels certification. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perez, M., M. Pena, and P. Alvarez. 2011. Agro-Industria Canera y Uso dela Agua: Analisis Critico en el Contexto de la Politica de Agrocombustibles en Colombia. Ambiente & Sociedade 14(2): 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinzon, L. 2012. Colombia biofuels annual: Colombian biofuels use close to reaching E10 and B10 levels. GAIN report USDA FAS (Foreign Agricultural Service). http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Bogota_Colombia_6-22-2012.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  44. Ponte, S., P. Gibbon, and J. Verstergaard. 2011. Governing through standards: An introduction. In Governing through standards, ed. S. Ponte, P. Gibbon, and J. Vestergaard, 1–24. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  45. Ponte, S. 2008. Greener than thou: The political economy of fish ecolabeling and its local manifestations in South Africa. World Development 36(1): 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raynolds, L. 2012. Fair trade: Social regulation in global food markets. Journal of Rural Studies 28: 276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Recorder Report. 2012. Colombia sees ethanol output doubling by 2014. http://www.energytribune.com/10523/colombia-sees-ethanol-output-doubling-by-2014. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  48. Ribot, J., and N. Peluso. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68(2): 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scarlat, N., and J. Dallemand. 2011. Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview. Energy Policy 39(3): 1630–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schouten, G., and P. Glasbergen. 2011. Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecological Economics 70: 1891–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and Y. Hsiang. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319: 1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Semillas. 2009. Misión Internacional De Verificación Sobre La Situación Ocasionada Por Los Agrocombustibles En Colombia: Palma Aceitera Y Caña De Azúcar. Boletin Semillas. http://www.semillas.org.co/sitio.shtml?apc=h1-1–&x=20156714. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.Google Scholar
  53. Silva-Castenada, L. 2012. A forest of evidence: Third party certification and multiple forms of proof- case study of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values 29: 261–370.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, D., and J. Vivekananda. 2008. A climate of conflict. International alert. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.Google Scholar
  55. Toasa, J. 2009. Colombia: A new ethanol producer on the rise. Outlook. USDA/ERS, USDA/ERS: 1–15.Google Scholar
  56. Van der Horst, D., and J. Evans. 2010. Carbon claims and energy landscapes: Exploring the political ecology of biomass. Landscape Research 35(2): 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White, B., S. Borras Jr, R. Hall, I. Scoones, and W. Wolford. 2012. The new enclosures: Critical perspectives on corporate land deals. Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3–4): 619–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Witte-Lebhar, B. 2011. In Colombia, Blossoming Biofuel Industry Driven by Top-Down Targets and Incentives. NotiEn; an analytical digest about energy issues in Latin America. http://hdl.handle.net/1928/13076. Accessed 26 Oct 2013.
  59. World Bank. 2004. Colombia land policy in transition. Report No. 27942-CO, Rural Development Unit. Latin American Region. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/14351/279420CO.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 15 Nov 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations