Abstract
AbstractBioeconomy as a new promissory discourse neither challenges the paradigm of economic growth, nor questions its embeddedness in capitalist (neo-)colonial patriarchal power relations. However, the calls for a ‘genuine’ socio-ecological transformation and for alternative bioeconomy visions imply exactly a destabilization of these power relations. Drawing on the Bielefeld subsistence approach and on its colonialism–capitalism–patriarchy nexus, I argue that the latest bioeconomy strategy and policy papers of both the EU and Estonia each disregard certain spheres of the bioeconomy due to the three-dimensional power relations. As a seemingly neutral political discourse, the bioeconomy is shaped by cultural assumptions and narratives that determine and perpetuate what is deemed worthy of protection and what is pushed aside as merely ‘natural’. As such, the current bioeconomy papers promote a ‘biomass-based model of capital accumulation’ that is essentially built on the prerequisite of the subordination, devaluation, appropriation and/or exploitation of (1) different geographical regions, (2) ecological foundations, and (3) prevalent bioeconomy practices. As a widespread agricultural practice in Eastern Europe, Food Self-Provisioning (FSP) serves as a good example of how predominant bioeconomy models (1) simply operate as new forms of postcolonial development discourse, instead of embracing the plurality of decolonial ‘alternatives to development’; (2) deepen the human–nature dichotomy by regarding nature as a mere resource to be extracted more efficiently instead of cultivating mutually nourishing partnership-like relation(ship)s with nature; and (3) maintain the separation between monetized and maintenance economies, rather than fostering ethics of care to overcome the structural separation between the latter.
Funder
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Sociology and Political Science,Ecology,Geography, Planning and Development,Health (social science),Global and Planetary Change
Reference178 articles.
1. ADDVAL-BIOEC (2021) Lisandväärtuse tõstmine ja toorme tõhusam kasutamine Eesti biomajanduses. ADDVAL-BIOEC uuringu lõppraport, Tallinn ja Tartu. https://haldus.taltech.ee/sites/default/files/2021-11/ADDVAL-BIOEC%20loppraport_FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.87354072.1308183502.1640895854-1171543657.1640895854. Accessed 16 Dec 2021
2. Agarwal B (1992) The gender and environment debate: lessons from India. Fem Stud 18(1):119–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217
3. Agri (Maaeluministeerium) (2021) Põllumajanduse ja kalanduse valdkonna arengukava aastani 2030 (PõKa 2030). https://www.agri.ee/sites/default/files/content/arengukavad/poka-2030/poka-2030-taistekst.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2021
4. Aistara GA (2015) Good, clean, fair … and illegal: paradoxes of food ethics in post-socialist Latvia. J Baltic Stud 46(3):283–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2015.1073915
5. Alber J, Kohler U (2008) Informal food production in the enlarged European Union. Soc Indic Res 89(1):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9224-1
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献