Search results

Biofuels have transitioned from a technology expected to deliver numerous benefits to a highly contested socio-technical solution. Initial hopes about their potential to mitigate climate change and to deliver energy security benefits and rural development, particularly in the Global South, have unravelled in the face of numerous controversies. In recognition of the negative externalities associated with biofuels, the European Union developed sustainability criteria which are enforced by certification schemes. This paper draws on the literature on stewardship to analyse the outcomes of these schemes in two countries: the UK and Guatemala. It explores two key issues: first, how has European Union biofuels policy shaped biofuel industries in the UK and Guatemala? And second, what are the implications for sustainable land stewardship? By drawing attention to the outcomes of European demand for biofuels, we raise questions about the ability of European policy to drive sustainable land practices in these two cases. The paper concludes that, rather than promoting stewardship, the current governance framework effectively rubberstamps existing agricultural systems and serves to further embed existing inequalities.

In less than a decade, biofuels transitioned from being a socially and politically acceptable alternative to conventional transport fuels to a deeply contested solution. Claims of land grabs, forest loss and food riots emerged to undermine the sustainability rationale that originally motivated their adoption. One of the early controversies to hit biofuels was that of food versus fuel. This framing drew attention not only to the competing uses of land i.e. for food or for fuel, but also to the impacts of consumption on marginalised people, particularly in the global South. While the debate has provided a useful hook on which to hang criticisms of increased demand for biofuels, it also masks a more complex reality. In particular, the multifaceted and global linkages between the stewardship of land, the food sector, and global energy policies. In this paper, we use the debate on food versus fuel as a lens to examine the interdependencies between the multiple end-uses of feedstocks and the multifunctionality of land. Revealing a more nuanced understanding of the realities of agricultural networks, land use conflicts and the values of the people managing land, we argue that the simplification achieved by food versus fuel, although effective in generating public resonance that has filtered into political response, has failed to capture much that is at the heart of the issue.

AbstractThe desire to govern antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in animal agriculture has gained renewed prominence in the UK and international policy and practice in response to growing concern about the impact of AMR infections on human and animal health. This article adopts a more‐than‐human approach inspired by assemblage and biopolitical thinking to explorehowdiverse actors work to assemble a regime of governance in animal agriculture through their efforts to tackle AMR. How agricultural animals are represented and positioned in this process, and the consequences of these efforts for broader agricultural animal–human relation in UK animal agriculture is also a concern. Qualitative, empirical material is produced from documents published by government, industry organisations, NGOs and retailers. We highlight the negotiated contingencies of actions on AMR in UK animal agriculture and reflect on the limited extent to which they constitute a new front in the regulation of agricultural animals.

The desire to govern antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in animal agriculture has gained renewed prominence in the UK and international policy and practice in response to growing concern about the impact of AMR infections on human and animal health. This article adopts a more-than-human approach inspired by assemblage and biopolitical thinking to explore how diverse actors work to assemble a regime of governance in animal agriculture through their efforts to tackle AMR. How agricultural animals are represented and positioned in this process, and the consequences of these efforts for broader agricultural animal–human relation in UK animal agriculture is also a concern. Qualitative, empirical material is produced from documents published by government, industry organisations, NGOs and retailers. We highlight the negotiated contingencies of actions on AMR in UK animal agriculture and reflect on the limited extent to which they constitute a new front in the regulation of agricultural animals.

The concept of antibiotic stewardship has recently gained prominence in UK and EU policy and practice as part of wider efforts to reduce antibiotic use in agriculture and respond to concerns about antimicrobial resistance. The purpose of the paper is to provide initial insights into what antibiotic stewardship might mean in practice for agricultural animal-human relationships, particularly within intensive systems. We do this by firstly outlining the anticipated implications for agricultural animals by different stakeholders. Secondly, we develop the concept of heterogeneous biosocial collectivities through engagement with the literatures on care and thirdly we apply this concept to one case study (intensive dairy) farm to explore empirically how animal-human relationships are changing in response to antibiotic stewardship. Three on-farm heterogeneous biosocial collectivities are identified, each of which coheres around a particular problem of life associated with distinctive practices of care and antibiotic use resulting in collectivity specific responses to antibiotic stewardship. These collectivities are: the calf collectivity and the problem of immunodeficient life; the milking cow collectivity and the problem of 'stoic' life; the dry cow collectivity and the problem of fatigued life. In conclusion we point to: the uneven effects for animal-human relationships of changes in antibiotic use including in particular practices of care and their consequences; an intensification of human control over animals with variable implications for their health and welfare. The analysis raises questions for future research, in particular the need to test the assumption that reducing antibiotic use will stimulate systemic change in intensive animal agriculture towards sustainable, highwelfare, and more extensive systems of production.

Plant genome editing has the potential to become another chapter in the intractable debate that has dogged agricultural biotechnology. In 2016, 107 Nobel Laureates accused Greenpeace of emotional and dogmatic campaigning against agricultural biotechnology and called for governments to defy such campaigning. The Laureates invoke the authority of science to argue that Greenpeace is putting lives at risk by opposing agricultural biotechnology and Golden Rice and is notable in framing Greenpeace as unethical and its views as marginal. This paper examines environmental, food and farming NGOs' social and ethical concerns about genome editing, situating these concerns in comparison to alternative ethical assessments provided by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a key actor in this policy debate. In doing so, we show that participant NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics share considerable concerns about the social and ethical implications of genome editing. These concerns include choices over problem/solution framing and broader terminology, implications of regulatory and research choices on consumer choice and relations of power. However, GM-engaged NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics diverge on one important area: the NGOs seek to challenge the existing order and broaden the scope of debate to include deeply political questions regarding agricultural and technological choices. This distinction between the ethical positions means that NGOs provide valuable ethical insight and a useful lens to open up debate and discussion on the role of emerging technologies, such as genome editing, and the future of agriculture and food sovereignty.

Outside of Denmark, straw-based bioenergy has seen uneven success across Europe. In the UK, straw-based bioenergy has been positioned as making a potentially important contribution to the UK government's energy and environmental objectives. However, growth of the sector has been modest and supply shortages have been experienced despite straw being anticipated as readily available in the UK and surplus to existing market requirements. This paper explores a previously under theorised and neglected aspect of this story, the role played by agricultural intermediaries, merchants, contractors and advisors. Drawing on interviews with farmers, bioenergy industry representatives, agronomists, straw merchants and contractors from three case study areas, it finds that intermediaries undertake key roles providing physical and social labour required to maintain straw supply chains. They provide baling equipment, maintain informal and formal agreements with producers and users, build and maintain trust, influence on-farm management of straw and increase supply chain resilience to market shocks. However, there is tension between agronomists who advise straw incorporation and the aims of straw merchants/bioenergy policy which seek to incentivise baling. If policy makers are committed to developing a straw-based bioenergy industry, then policy frameworks need to engage in a multi-actor approach that enables the development of committed and well-resourced intermediaries.