When the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) was negotiated in Brussels, the problems associated with biofuels became obvious, especially in light of the 2007-08 world food price crisis. The European Commission engaged with stakeholders and integrated the need for ‘sustainability certification’ in the new Directive. At first glance, the European Commission exercised power with, rather than power over affected parties, such as biofuel industry, consumers and small famers in the global South. It appeared to exemplify scholarly thinking on an alternative approach could usher deliberative practices of governance through which the voices of multiple stakeholders could be heard (Brasset et al., 2012). However, at second glance, the new “hybrid” (Ponte & Daugjberg, 2014) and “polycentric” approach (Abbott, 2011) reveals diverse power asymmetries, especially with regard to implementation in exporting countries such as Brazil.
Our paper reflects upon the power dynamics of biofuel certification. We use Partzsch and Weiland’s (2015) concepts of power with (cooperation and learning) and power over (coercion and manipulation) to analyse and compare two certification schemes and their implementation in Brazil, the RSB (Roundtable for Sustainable Biomaterials) and the ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification). Both schemes were among the first schemes to be accepted under the EU RED in 2011. However, the RSB has resulted from a multi-stakeholder roundtable, while the ISCC is an industry-led initiative and has a much higher uptake in terms of certification numbers. In this paper, we draw on existing research as well as our own empirical data on biofuel certification in Brazil.
On the one hand, the paper demonstrates that biofuel certification is an innovative governance approach in a polycentric world, in particular, with regard to outbalancing negative social and ecological effects of policies in third countries (power with). While on the other, we argue that biofuel certification allows dominant actors to mainly reproduce system and positions (power over). While many biofuel deployment programs promise sustainable rural development, over the past decade biofuel markets have come to be dominated by large companies and conglomerates. In particular, industry-led initiatives, such as the ISCC, are inclined to forego the interests of marginalized actors in the third countries. Our paper argues that if we simply assume biofuel certification will serve sustainability and the common good, we may become inattentive to often hidden or invisible conflicts of interests and values.
