TheEnergy Leviathan: or how U.S. Shales and Brazil Biodiesel Governance Systems Fail to Promote Decentralization, Accountability, Equity, and Society Participation

Abstract

Energy resources and their different forms of regulation are critical to sustainable development. Given this perspective, we compare two different energy resources and their governance systemsthe Eagle Ford Shale in the U.S. and the Gaucho Biodiesel Pole in Brazil. Despite the differences in terms of the nature of the energy resource, stakeholders, and institutions, both systems perform poorly in terms of governance, defined here as equity, participation, transparency, and accountability. We collected data using semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, participated in public hearings, and archival research. We found patterns that reveal asymmetric power relations amongst stakeholders and institutions, especially the dominance of the energy industry"s agenda, which hinders self-regulatory autonomy of communities and societal participation. Introduction: Biodiesel and Shales -between Good Governance and the Energy LeviathanThe transition from traditional forms of government to governance arrangements that overcome top-down "big government" structures and widen society participation on policy-making is not a simple task (Jordan, et al., 2005).The heterogeneity among institutions and the uneven distribution of power among stakeholders pose challenges to the enhancement of accountability and to the neutralization of mutual mistrust (Lemos & Agrawal, 2009). The discourse of sustainable development is ubiquitous in the energy sector, yet, complex power relations may turn governance arrangements into threats rather than opportunities (Verdonk, et al., 2007). As Nadaï et al. (2010 p.143) put it, "new energies bring new practices" -shifts in energy generation and in the control and use of resources do not necessarily lead to more transparency, accountability, and equity. Federalist systems are particularly complex, for private and public actors interact at multiple levels. Governance analysis, therefore, needs to address the ways that the regulatory framework flows across the political structure and how policy guidelines define arenas in which actors contend and reap their gains and losses. The degree of 1) decentralization, 2) participation, 3) accountability, and 4) transparency indicates paths towards democratic governance and well-designed policies (Scheberle, 2004;Ribot, 2007). In the opposite direction, arrangements that fail on those parameters have the potential to render spurious governance arrangements (Gerber & Kollman,

Renovabio: Innovation and Sustainability at the New Brazilian Biofuels Policy or The Emperor’s New Clothes?

“…Political arenas remained concentrated at the federal scale resulting in an unequal distribution of benefits and rights. Mechanism of community participation and representativeness did not emerged to counter-balance power asymmetries [37] .…”

Balanced territorial economic development in the conditions of providing stability of human resources management

“…The experience of European countries shows that significant progress in the administrative-territorial system and local government reform has been achieved only where the government's reform innovations have taken into account the interests of local communities [12]. Among the countries that can share successful experiences in decentralization processes are Sweden, France, Finland, Poland, etc.…”

Impact of Decentralization on Sustainable Development of the Newly Created Amalgamated Territorial Communities in the Regions of Ukraine

“…At the end of the XX century, the so-called newest model of public administration began to emerge. The main principles of the new model are the growing importance of civic initiatives, the impact of community residents on the activities of local self-government bodies; transfer of the rights to provide part of public services to non-governmental organizations and businesses; the right of the local government bodies to search for sources of funding for community development from non-governmental organizations and institutions (Balabayeva et al, 2016;De Lima et al, 2018). The experience of the European countries shows that significant progress in the administrative-territorial system and local self-government reform was achieved only where the reformist innovations of the government considered the interests of local communities (Pavliuk et al, 2016;Krat et al, 2016;Shportiuk, 2011;Secco et at., 2017).…”