Papers by Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen
Effects of EU illegal logging policy on timber-supplying countries: A systematic review, 2022
The EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan (FLEGT) adopted in 2003 include... more The EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan (FLEGT) adopted in 2003 includes bilateral trade agreements known as Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) signed between the EU and timber-supplying countries. The EU has invested more than 1.5 billion euros in VPAs; however, only one of the seven concerned countries has managed to complete all the necessary requirements to expire FLEGT licences. Since there is no research that comprehensively integrates the scientific evidence regarding the effects of this policy, this study systematically reviews all empirical scientific studies on the effects of VPAs. We found that almost all relevant studies are case reports that use qualitative data and focus on only one country at a time, mainly Ghana, Cameroon, or Indonesia. The evidence suggests that while VPAs have contributed to the establishment of governance structures, tools, and procedures they have not been able to solve social problems (i.e., inequality and injustice) and have potentially harmed the economies of EU timber suppliers. Evidence on the effects of VPAs on illegal logging and trade and the environment remains limited. Thus, future research should focus on more countries; use a greater range of methods, including comparative experimental designs; explore possible intended effects on under-researched categories; and systematically investigate unintended effects on other categories within and outside the forestry sector.
Indigenous Knowledge in the Amazon's Bioeconomy: Unveiling Bioepistemicide through the case of Kambo Medicine, 2023
Indigenous knowledges have received increased attention in environmental governance issues over t... more Indigenous knowledges have received increased attention in environmental governance issues over the last decade, especially biodiversity. Epistemic injustices, however, remain. Forms of knowledge that differ from dominant ‘Western’ knowledge are either not recognized and valued as equal, or are misused for land reoccupation and knowledge appropriation that further settler colonialism. Drawing on the conceptual framing of epistemic justice, biopiracy and biocolonialism we introduce the concept of bioepistemicide and analyse possible implications of the rising bioeconomy agenda for Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon. While many argue the value of Indigenous knowledges in the context of bioeconomy, it remains unclear how issues concerning epistemic plurality and epistemic injustices will be addressed. Among the most seriously questioned issues are intellectual property rights and ownership. Focusing on the Indigenous medicine Kambo, the secretion of a tropical frog (Phyllomedusa bicolor), we explore if and how bioeconomy governance and initiatives in Brazil address the epistemic injustices that may arise in Amazonian Indigenous territories. We take the perspective that epistemic plurality and conflicts may trigger the transformations needed to tackle epistemic injustices. Based on our case study, we argue that bioeconomy can only challenge epistemic hierarchies if it steps outside of colonial settler rationality and sovereignty regarding the very ideas of nature and ‘traditional knowledge’ which in the first place enable new forms of colonialism, like biocolonialism. We conclude with suggestions on how to embrace epistemic pluralism and strengthen the role and positionality of Indigenous knowledges in the implementation of bioeconomy in the Amazon
Neoliberal pathways to the bioeconomy: Forest land use institutions in Chile, Finland, and Laos, 2023
Global capitalism has changed the Earth system to the extent that the current epoch is called the... more Global capitalism has changed the Earth system to the extent that the current epoch is called the Anthropocene. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), land use change has played a crucial role in this profound functional shift in the Earth system. The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and its follow-up processes have insisted the same regarding the persisting decline in biodiversity. To shed light on the institutional aspects of land use change and the transformation towards the bioeconomy, we focus on three countries-Chile, Finland, and Laos, showing (i) how these historically very different societies have designed their land use institutions in recent decades, and (ii) what kind of bioeconomy and biosociety these institutional changes seem to presuppose. Our study's timespan is about fifty years, and the analysis is based on our ongoing research in the countries and the content analysis of legal and policy documents in them. These countries obviously differ regarding their basic constitutional and institutional structure and purposes in land use policy processes. We illuminate similarities and differences in authoritative and authorised transactions and discuss, from the perspective of classical institutional theory, how the state and property are entangled in power, how nature is not understood as a common good and public property, and how the negative liberty and economic conception of democracy is prevalent.
Key Logics of International Forest Governance and SDG 15, 2023
In 2015 the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, building on the Millennium Development Goals... more In 2015 the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, building on the Millennium Development Goals, was adopted by the UN member states. The SDGs, and in particular SDG 17 (Partnerships for the goals), have emphasized global partnerships as a means of overcoming the shortcomings of the MDGs in relation to Goal 8 (To develop a global partnership for development) (UN System Task Team, 2012: 5). In these regards, partnerships at the global level between governments, as well with other stakeholders such as the private sector, are described as being essential (Lomazzi et al, 2014). This was in response to known power asymmetries in international arrangements, namely, a Northern-driven agenda and a bias in governance forms that favour international organizations, governmental actors and a strong private sector, while dismissing Southern and local participation as well as non-state actors and authorities (Menashy, 2019). SDG 17 is essential for, and thus should be integrated by, all other SDGs, including SDG 15 (Life on land). While the other SDGs focus on economic development, social rights or cooperation, SDG 15 flags terrestrial ecosystems, and correspondingly forests, as being essential for sustainable development. Forest ecosystems are assigned a particular role not only in SDG 15 but also in other SDGs, building a 'complex relationship' between them (Baumgartner, 2019: 1). This is in part due to their geographic scope (with forest covering about one third of the world's land area) but also because of the goods and services they provide: timber and non-timber forest products; a fundamental basis for ecological processes (CO 2 mitigation, water supply and quality); habitat for plants and animals; basis for livelihood and human well-being; and a
Democracy through technocracy? Reinventing civil society as a state-monitored and unpaid service provider in the EU FLEGT VPA in Laos, 2024
This paper analyses the European Union's (EU's) democratising agenda within the frame of the EU's... more This paper analyses the European Union's (EU's) democratising agenda within the frame of the EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) in Laos. In particular, it focuses on the requirement for the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) in the VPA and the Lao state actors' responses to this requirement. I frame the VPA's democratising agenda and its conditionality of civil society participation as acts of governmentality exercised by the EU in Laos. This EU governmentality is exercised through the EU and EU member states' funded development partner in the frame of their project supporting the FLEGT VPA process in Laos. The Lao government responses and strategies to the EU governmentality resulted on the one hand in the Lao state's governmentality towards domestic CSOs, and in counter-conduct (i.e. a subtle and sly resistance to some aspects of the VPA) on the other. First, by tracing the establishment of the Lao FLEGT Civil Society Organisations Network (FLEGT CSO Network), I highlight the trend of depoliticisation and rendering technical, where the EU-funded development partner, with full support and backing from the Lao state, trained the CSOs in various VPA and timber legality issues. In the training, the CSOs were given specific roles and tasks, building up their fields of expertise, and were integrated in the formal VPA organisational structures, which allowed for their scrutiny and tight survelience by the state. Second, I analyse the counter-conduct by the Lao government against a civil society that is independent from the state, which the government manifested through further disempowerment of CSOs and tightening of the CSO regulation shortly after the FLEGT CSO Network was established, while at the same time simulating democratisation by welcoming CSOs' participation in the VPA. Summoning CSOs as compliant actors and unpaid service providers working for and alongside the state was in part enabled by the VPA's own rendering technical approach. Hence, the EU's VPA governmentality and the Lao state counter-conduct mutually reinforced one another, even if their initial agendas around democratisation and CSO engagement in forest governance and the VPA diverged.
Transformation or more of the same? The EU’s deforestation-free products regulation through a radical transformation lens, 2024
The European Union (EU) is a major consumer of forest-risks commodities and therefore a key contr... more The European Union (EU) is a major consumer of forest-risks commodities and therefore a key contributor to imported deforestation. In 2023, the EU Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products (EUDR) entered into force, which aims to counter the imported deforestation resulting from EU consumption of cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, wood and derived products. With this regulation, the EU is seemingly recognising its position as one of the world's largest consumers of natural resources and land-consuming agricultural products and adjusting its economy in the face of the global biodiversity, climate and planetary justice crises. In this article, we develop a radical transformation framework to put the EUDR to the test, asking to what extent the EUDR provides a truly transformative response to today's planetary socio-ecological and justice crises. We develop a fourpronged radical transformation framework bridging insights from transformation, degrowth, Indigenous and decolonial environmental justice, restorative justice and science and technology studies. Concretely, we distil four tenets of radical transformation: onto-epistemic transformation, political transformation, economic transformation and judicial transformation. We apply our framework tentatively to the EUDR to illustrate its practical use, raise questions and highlight possible points of tension. Our preliminary findings point to the simultaneous existence in the EUDR's design of elements potentially paving the way for counter-hegemonic (re)interpretations and uses on the ground and elements reflecting and reinscribing existing hegemonies.
Forest (landscape) restoration governance Institutions, interests, ideas, and their interlinked logics, 2024
This book takes a multidisciplinary perspective to analyze and discuss the various opportunities ... more This book takes a multidisciplinary perspective to analyze and discuss the various opportunities and challenges of restoring tree and forest cover to address regional and global environmental challenges that threaten human well-being and compromise sustainable development. It examines forest restoration commitments, policies and programs, and their planning and implementation at different scales and contexts, and how forest restoration helps to mitigate environmental, societal, and cultural challenges. The chapters explore the concept of forest restoration, how it can restitute forest ecosystem services, contribute to biodiversity conservation, and generate benefits and synergies, while recognizing the considerable costs, trade-offs, and variable feasibility of its implementation. The chapters review historic and contemporary forest restoration practice and governance, variations in approaches and implementation across the globe, and relevant technological advances. Using the insights from the ten topic-focused chapters, the book reflects on the possibility of sustainable and just approaches to meet the challenges that lie ahead to achieve ambitious international forest restoration targets and commitments.
Decolonial environmental justice in landscape restoration, 2025
This chapter presents ways of enhancing justice in international landscape restoration initiative... more This chapter presents ways of enhancing justice in international landscape restoration initiatives. We depart from the three-dimensional environmental justice framework to draw from decolonial and indigenous justice perspectives, placing particular attention to human-nature binaries, epistemic justice, relational ontology, self-determination, and self-governance. We highlight the embeddedness of the current international landscape restoration efforts within the (neo)colonial and neoliberal natural protection efforts, risking similar injustices, violence and forms of oppression, including epistemic and political denial and oppression, ignorance and/or erasure of local people's histories, agency, their sense of belonging and ways of knowing, as well as weakening of their rights and access over their territories and livelihoods. Some of the major barriers to effective, just and equitable landscape restoration include: (i) prioritization of global over local knowledge systems, logics and politics in global landscape restoration; (ii) targeting of small-scale drivers of land degradation over large-scale and more profitable ones; (iii) offshoring burdens of global landscape restoration on the local people's shoulders; and (iv) reliance on state authority and institutional structures and bypassing of customary and indigenous authorities and legal systems. We conclude by proposing a set of questions and conditions for policy makers and scholars to contemplate and reflect upon when designing and analysing landscape restoration projects and activities.
How can relational, decolonial and feminist approaches inform the EU bioeconomy?, 2025
In this commentary we argue that, to transform the bioeconomy sectors towards ecologically less h... more In this commentary we argue that, to transform the bioeconomy sectors towards ecologically less harmful and socially fairer outcomes, the bioeconomy policy project must be questioned, re-politicised and fundamentally reframed and reinvented. We firstly identify some of the main root causes for continuity of extractivism and injustices in the bioeconomy policy and, more broadly, in the green transition ("Root causes of today's socioecological crises and why they matter for the EU bioeconomy project" section). Secondly, we outline the largely neglected ideas and concerns emerging from relational, feminist and decolonial approaches and perspectives ("Moving beyond growth while enabling marginalised voices, knowledges, and practices that nurture web of life and wellbeing for all" section). Finally, we compile a list of 11 actions and 47 suggestions for decisionmakers, practitioners and academics to contemplate on how to cocreate bioeconomies founded on ethics of care, relationality and socioecological justice. Ultimately, the aim is to reject socioecological domination, extractivism and exploitation and foster collective wellbeing for all beings, human and other-than-human.
Just global socioecological transformations: It takes a worldview change to change the world, 2025
The chapter introduces the 14 contributions of this edited volume, as well as the aims and scope ... more The chapter introduces the 14 contributions of this edited volume, as well as the aims and scope of the book, and the book’s contributions to socioecological transformations literature. The book responds to several trends identified in transformations literature: (i) apolitical and ahistorical framing of transformations, which waters down the concept with intended or unintended benefit of the status quo; and (ii) the tendency to overemphasize the structural causes of socioecological violence and destruction, while overlooking the ontological bases of the structural violence. It also responds and challenges the related trend of (iii) highlighting social movements and activism as the only viable response to socioecological violence and strategies for transformations. In the light of these trends, the book emphasizes the deeper roots of the current socioecological violence, namely the materialist-dualist ontologies as the basis for the colonial-racial-capitalist systems and the associated structural violence. It broadens the spectrum of viable means and responses for transformations to include those that challenge and seek to unsettle the ontological foundations of the socioecological violence and destruction, and that do so through a wider range of means, including contemplation, practice of deep interconnectedness, and inner change. The ontological roots of socioecological violence and the diversity of responses to them are proposed as complementary, rather than supplementary to the root causes and responses that focus on structures and direct action. The chapter dives into the diverse ontological positions, from materialist and dualist to idealist, to relational and nondualist ontologies. It outlines the key concepts engaged with in the book, including, deep relationality, potentiality, entanglement, radical intraconnectedness, ecological self, ecologies of mind, worlding, ontological transformations, care as politics and care as ethics, shadow forests, ecological livelihoods, epistemic (in)justice, epistemicide, scholasticide, and degrowth tourism. It concludes with some omissions and editor’s reflection on her positionality
EU green transition as a barrier for socioecological transformations, 2025
This chapter explores the role of state and state policy in transformations by scrutinizing the E... more This chapter explores the role of state and state policy in transformations by scrutinizing the EU’s Green Deal (EGD) and the EU bioeconomy (EBE), which are landmarks of the EU’s green politics and the green transition (GT). The analysis herein empirically shows that the tensions between the EU’s green policy, the GT, and the need for originates of socioecological transformations already in the policy design phase, rather than only as the result of policy implementation. The main motives for policy makers to engage with the language of transformations include: (i) climate concerns and the associated public pressure to act on climate change and climate justice; and (ii) the EU’s ambition to reinvent itself as a global leader in green technologies and decarbonization, especially in the context of ongoing geopolitical upheaval and wars. However, these motives are contradictory, as the former requires uprooting and fully transforming the dominant capitalist and growth-oriented model and structures (i.e. a call for transformations), while the latter merely calls for reinventing the current model and capitalist structures as “green”, and in so doing, it emerges as an obstacle for transformations. To balance the tension between the two motives and avoid questioning greening the capitalist growth-oriented model and mentalities, policy makers engage in: (i) deradicalization or watering down ideas and agendas associated with transformations, including degrowth and justice; and (ii) rationalizing the status quo by elaborating on various barriers for change, many of which concern the EC internal structures and its ways of working and thinking. This in turn deradicalizes and bypasses the politics associated with transformations, degrowth, decoloniality, and justice, which inhibits a shift towards more just, decolonial and post-growth futures, which in turn enables the continuation of injustices, violence and (neo)coloniality in the EU’s GT and green politics.
On the illusion of separate self (as root cause of socioecological crises) and radical intraconnectedness (as precondition for healing and transforming), 2025
This chapter continues to embed the book in the wider transformations literature, and to unpack t... more This chapter continues to embed the book in the wider transformations literature, and to unpack the connections between meaning and materiality, and ontologies and structures. Drawing on Eastern philosophical and spiritual teachings, its main contribution is defining and exploring the “illusion of separate self” as the root cause of human suffering. Such suffering encourages selfishness, competition, and the will to dominate others, not understanding that “others” are I and I am others, which eventually leads to the destruction of the “Self”. The Self in this context includes all Life in its various manifestations, hence the destruction of the Self is synonymous to the socioecological destruction addressed in this book. The chapter proposes the concept of “radical intraconnectedness” as a precondition for healing and a precondition for tackling Self-destruction. The differences and similarities are explained between the concepts of radical intraconnectedness and “radical interdependence”, which originates from the South American indigenous context. Finally, the chapter concludes by connecting the inner/personal and the collective/societal by outlining the fractal approach to scaling transformations
Broadening the scope for just socioecological transformations: Ideas, structures, and alliances, 2025
The book in a nutshell: emphasizing the ideational and ontological bases of structures The premis... more The book in a nutshell: emphasizing the ideational and ontological bases of structures The premise of this book is that ideas and ontologies on the one hand and structures or physical reality they represent on the other are intrinsically linked part-wholes of the same "entity". Thus, one cannot be more or less important in socioecological transformations context, as they are ultimately two sides of the same coin that reflect and reproduce one another. To highlight their intra-action and intra-connection, their mutual coexistence and cocreation (Chapters 1-5), we refer to them as "ideas-structures" and "ontologies-structures". Acknowledging the less emphasized ideational and ontological dimensions of socioecological destruction and violence and their manifestation through societal structures and institutions has significant bearing for the way we frame both the root causes of socioecological destruction, and consequently the responses to them, that is, the pathways to socioecological transformations. Concerning the root causes of socioecological destruction and violence, the book points out the importance of ontologies, worldviews, and mindsets in maintaining and reproducing the colonial-racial-capitalist structures, as described in Chapters 1 and 2 (Ramcilovic-Suominen, see also Ramcilovic-Suominen 2025). We suggest that while colonial-racial-capitalist structures are root causes of socioecological violence and destruction, they are also a symptom of certain ways of being (ontologies), knowing (epistemologies), and doing (ethics) (Chapters 3-6). Chapter 1 explores a range of ontological positions and their structural implications, from dualist-material to nondual-idealist and relational ontologies. The first chapter connects the dualist-material ontology to colonial-racial-capitalist structures, while Chapters 2-5 present ontological frameworks emerging from South and North American indigenous contexts and Eastern spiritual traditions, including the teachings of Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali. They emphasize the ultimate oneness of all beings through notions of radical intraconnectedness (Ramcilovic-Suominen, Chapter 2), expanded ecological self (Chapter 5 by Gebara), deep relationality and potentiality (Chapter 3 by Gram-Hanssen), and ontological disruptions in more-than-human worlding (Chapter 4 Ehrnström-Fuentes).
This editorial lays out the core themes of the special feature and provides an overview of the co... more This editorial lays out the core themes of the special feature and provides an overview of the contributions. It introduces the main argument, namely that the promises of far-reaching change made by recent bioeconomy policies are in fact strategically directed at avoiding transformative change to existing societal arrangements. Bioeconomy discourse showcases technological solutions purported to solve sustainability 'problems' while sustaining economic growth, but avoids issues of scalability, integration or negative consequences. Thus, bioeconomy policies, and particularly the latest versions of the predominantly European 'bio-resource' variety that have rhetorically integrated a lot of previous sustainability-minded criticism, serve to ward off or delay challenges to an unsustainable status quo, in effect prolongating the escalatory imperatives of capitalist modernity that are at the root of current crises. The editorial's second part highlights the contributions that the 13 featured articles, based on theoretical considerations as well as policy analyses and empirical case studies from a range of countries, make to this argument.
This paper critically examines the European Union's (EU) role in tropical deforestation and the b... more This paper critically examines the European Union's (EU) role in tropical deforestation and the bloc's actions to mitigate it. We focus on two EU policy communications aimed at the challenge: stepping up EU action to protect and restore the world's forests and the EU updated bioeconomy strategy. In addition, we refer to the European Green Deal, which articulates the bloc's overarching vision for sustainability and transformations. We find that by casting deforestation as a production problem and a governance challenge on the supply side, these policies deflect attention from some of the key drivers of tropical deforestation-the EU's overconsumption of deforestation-related commodities and asymmetric market and trade power relations. The diversion allows the EU unfettered access to agro-commodities and biofuels, which are important inputs to the EU's green transition and bio-based economy. Upholding a 'sustainability image' within the EU, an overly business-asusual approach has taken precedence over transformative policies, enabling multinational corporations to run an ecocide treadmill, rapidly obliterating tropical forests. Whereas the EU's plan to nurture a bioeconomy and promote responsible agro-commodities production in the global South are relevant, the bloc is evasive in setting firm targets and policy measures to overcome the inequalities that spring from and enable its overconsumption of deforestation-related commodities. Drawing on degrowth and decolonial theories, we problematise the EU's anti-deforestation policies and highlight alternative ideas that could lead to more just, equitable and effective measures for confronting the tropical deforestation conundrum.
The Bioeconomy is both an enabler and an end for the European Green Deal transformation: achievin... more The Bioeconomy is both an enabler and an end for the European Green Deal transformation: achieving the EGD
transformation entails transforming the very meaning of sustainable bioeconomy.
Among the deepest and most effective leverage points to transform a system are the worldviews driving our
behaviours: they yield an enormous power to influence the framings which determine the solution space we
explore. Transforming the bioeconomy, thus, requires reflecting on the stories we tell about ourselves, our place
in nature, and our relationship with others.
Scholars have highlighted how narratives surrounding the EU Bioeconomy have predominantly embraced a
“Green Growth” perspective, centred around economic growth, technological innovation, and anthropocentric
values, largely ignoring the social and justice dimensions, as well as not questioning the role, relations, and
responsibilities of humans in the web of life. These dominant framings are increasingly contested, though,
because they have failed to produce the social and ecological outcomes desired.
This report introduces perspectives which have been under-represented in the Bioeconomy discourse and
integrates them into an alternative vision for a “green, just and sufficient bioeconomy”. This vision places
environmental sustainability and social equity at its core, regardless of economic growth; has an inclusive and
participatory perspective; care, respect, and reciprocity for and with other humans and non-humans are core
values; technology is important to deliver on the green and just objectives, but ethical considerations for new
technologies are openly debated.
The EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan (FLEGT) adopted in 2003 include... more The EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan (FLEGT) adopted in 2003 includes bilateral trade agreements known as Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) signed between the EU and timber-supplying countries. The EU has invested more than 1.5 billion euros in VPAs; however, only one of the seven concerned countries has managed to complete all the necessary requirements to expire FLEGT licences. Since there is no research that comprehensively integrates the scientific evidence regarding the effects of this policy, this study systematically reviews all empirical scientific studies on the effects of VPAs. We found that almost all relevant studies are case reports that use qualitative data and focus on only one country at a time, mainly Ghana, Cameroon, or Indonesia. The evidence suggests that while VPAs have contributed to the establishment of governance structures, tools, and procedures they have not been able to solve social problems (i.e., inequality and injustice) and have potentially harmed the economies of EU timber suppliers. Evidence on the effects of VPAs on illegal logging and trade and the environment remains limited. Thus, future research should focus on more countries; use a greater range of methods, including comparative experimental designs; explore possible intended effects on under-researched categories; and systematically investigate unintended effects on other categories within and outside the forestry sector.
While most of the literature on park management and nature conservation has focused on the negati... more While most of the literature on park management and nature conservation has focused on the negative implications for local people's livelihoods, fewer studies have empirically analysed local people's strategies in responding to these policies and renegotiating their position to continue their traditional livelihoods using their traditional knowledge and legal systems. This study contributes to the current literature on nature conservation by focusing on the impacts of nationally and internationally driven nature conservation policies on indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs) and collective strategies and responses to such policies and initiatives to continue their livelihood and cultural practices. We employ a qualitative research approach, using the convivial conservation theoretical lens to analyse the data collected. We conclude that conservation policies have worsened existing livelihoods and constrained the improvement of indigenous people's livelihoods and local communities. Yet, IPLCs have devised coping mechanisms to deal with the negative effects of these conservation interventions, which include resistance to some conservation policies, agricultural intensification, and involvement in commercial activities. We argue that the convivial conservation approach may offer viable solutions to existing conflicts by promoting human and non-human coexistence, based on indigenous and local people's knowledge and practices.
From hegemony-reinforcing to hegemony-transcending transformations: horizons of possibility and strategies of escape, 2023
In the face of ever escalating global socioecological crises, the necessity of radical systemic t... more In the face of ever escalating global socioecological crises, the necessity of radical systemic transformations has gained increasing political and academic traction over the last decade, among others in the context of 'green' and bio-based economies. We draw on the works of political philosophers Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe and Judith Butler to develop a typology of transformational dynamics. In this typology, the word transformation implies political agendas, processes and outcomes that involve the total structural reordering of a social field, which we juxtapose with 'inclusion', which implies cases in which pre-existing logics are further entrenched or extended. Drawing on the theoretical framework of hegemony, inclusions and transformations, we develop an analytical lens that focuses on the relations between hegemony and transformative dynamics. This analytical lens is developed and exemplified by discussing the transformative potentials of multiple socioecological and political agendas, including those associated with eco-modernism, Marxism, decoloniality, eco-feminism, degrowth and eco-anarchism. Depending on the transformative dynamics in relation to hegemony and the dominant political logics, we distinguish between hegemony-reinforcing, hegemony-replacing, and hegemony-transcending transformations. The provided lens and the typologies of transformations should be useful to those seeking to conceptualize, differentiate, analyse, and tactically strategize the realization of an array of socio-ecological agendas.
From pro-growth and planetary limits to degrowth and decoloniality: An emerging bioeconomy policy and research agenda, 2022
In 2012, the European Commission (EC) introduced the new bio-based economy or bioeconomy policy p... more In 2012, the European Commission (EC) introduced the new bio-based economy or bioeconomy policy project,
since adopted by about 50 countries. Alongside politicians, various research and other interest groups have
promoted the bioeconomy as inevitable, apolitical, and a triple-win strategy for nature, people, and the economy.
Recently, bioeconomy is also actively promoted and framed as transformative. Yet what is transformative or even
new in the EU bioeconomy policy, and why is it important to critically engage with the concept of bioeconomy,
especially but not only in the so-called Global South? To address these questions, we revisit the discursive field of
the bioeconomy, outlining two dominant yet opposed visions that focus on economic growth and planetary limits
respectively. We term them ‘pro-economic growth’ and ‘pro-planetary limits’ bioeconomy visions. Drawing on
the literature and our own empirical research in market-based, ‘green’, ‘climate friendly’, and ‘bio-based’
economy policy approaches and initiatives, we highlight the EU bioeconomy’s embeddedness in colonial and
neocolonial logics of domination and green extractivism. While our examples are drawn from the Global South
they connect and resonate with the wider European bioeconomy project. We argue that the existing EU bioeconomy visions are poorly suited to address multidimensional and intertwined existential and civilisational
challenges, including overconsumption, extractivism, and global socioecological inequalities and injustices.
Employing the decolonial environmental justice, feminist political ecology and degrowth literature we outline
the missing narratives, ideas and logics and their potentials for fundamental and systemic change in and beyond
the bioeconomy project. Finally, we highlight gaps in policy and research that warrant further attention,
including: self-reflexivity in identifying policy problems and solutions; historical contextualisation of the EU’s
role in global environmental governance; silencing and (mis)representation; and reprioritisation of multiple
existences and life-supporting practices, together with the relevant epistemologies and ontologies that support
them
Uploads
Papers by Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen
transformation entails transforming the very meaning of sustainable bioeconomy.
Among the deepest and most effective leverage points to transform a system are the worldviews driving our
behaviours: they yield an enormous power to influence the framings which determine the solution space we
explore. Transforming the bioeconomy, thus, requires reflecting on the stories we tell about ourselves, our place
in nature, and our relationship with others.
Scholars have highlighted how narratives surrounding the EU Bioeconomy have predominantly embraced a
“Green Growth” perspective, centred around economic growth, technological innovation, and anthropocentric
values, largely ignoring the social and justice dimensions, as well as not questioning the role, relations, and
responsibilities of humans in the web of life. These dominant framings are increasingly contested, though,
because they have failed to produce the social and ecological outcomes desired.
This report introduces perspectives which have been under-represented in the Bioeconomy discourse and
integrates them into an alternative vision for a “green, just and sufficient bioeconomy”. This vision places
environmental sustainability and social equity at its core, regardless of economic growth; has an inclusive and
participatory perspective; care, respect, and reciprocity for and with other humans and non-humans are core
values; technology is important to deliver on the green and just objectives, but ethical considerations for new
technologies are openly debated.
since adopted by about 50 countries. Alongside politicians, various research and other interest groups have
promoted the bioeconomy as inevitable, apolitical, and a triple-win strategy for nature, people, and the economy.
Recently, bioeconomy is also actively promoted and framed as transformative. Yet what is transformative or even
new in the EU bioeconomy policy, and why is it important to critically engage with the concept of bioeconomy,
especially but not only in the so-called Global South? To address these questions, we revisit the discursive field of
the bioeconomy, outlining two dominant yet opposed visions that focus on economic growth and planetary limits
respectively. We term them ‘pro-economic growth’ and ‘pro-planetary limits’ bioeconomy visions. Drawing on
the literature and our own empirical research in market-based, ‘green’, ‘climate friendly’, and ‘bio-based’
economy policy approaches and initiatives, we highlight the EU bioeconomy’s embeddedness in colonial and
neocolonial logics of domination and green extractivism. While our examples are drawn from the Global South
they connect and resonate with the wider European bioeconomy project. We argue that the existing EU bioeconomy visions are poorly suited to address multidimensional and intertwined existential and civilisational
challenges, including overconsumption, extractivism, and global socioecological inequalities and injustices.
Employing the decolonial environmental justice, feminist political ecology and degrowth literature we outline
the missing narratives, ideas and logics and their potentials for fundamental and systemic change in and beyond
the bioeconomy project. Finally, we highlight gaps in policy and research that warrant further attention,
including: self-reflexivity in identifying policy problems and solutions; historical contextualisation of the EU’s
role in global environmental governance; silencing and (mis)representation; and reprioritisation of multiple
existences and life-supporting practices, together with the relevant epistemologies and ontologies that support
them