
In October 2021, two tractors with a large chain spread between them cleared more than 2,000 hectares of forest in the Brazilian Cerrado, one of the most biodiverse areas in the world. Unfortunately, such scenes have become all too familiar in the region.
In 2021 alone, 8,531 square kilometers (3,294 square miles) of Cerrado forests, grasslands and other native vegetation were destroyed – the highest rate since 2015. And in recent decades, 40 to 55 percent of the Cerrado biome has been converted to vegetation land. , pastures and tree plantations, with most of the deforestation making way for large-scale industrial soy monoculture and cattle production. Agribusinesses have invaded thousands of communities, grabbing land and destroying the environment.
The Cerrado is a sad and alarming example of how quickly the world’s biological diversity is being lost. The region is home to an estimated 12,000 plant species – 35 percent of which do not grow anywhere else in the world – as well as about 25 million people, including Indigenous peoples, smallholder farmers and farmers and other communities where traditional livelihoods depend on biodiversity. Everyone needs protection.
In the last few years, governments have negotiated a new Global Biodiversity Framework under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. But very little progress was made in the latest round of talks in June, and although there is global consensus on the urgent need to act, the current debate is based on two dangerously flawed premises .
The first is the assumption that human societies and ecosystems exist separately from each other, which means that the best way to conserve biodiversity is to carve out protected areas that exclude all human activity. Therefore, much of the focus now is on the “30 x 30” campaign to establish formal protections for 30 percent of all land and sea areas by 2030.
But this method of “citadel conservation” has been tried, and it has been shown to lead to systematic violations of the rights of local communities. By deploying such strategies, governments risk sidelining the very people who live closest to the ecosystems we are trying to protect, and who play an important role in the sustainable management of resources to preserve their own livelihoods.
The second false premise guiding the current negotiations is that protecting biodiversity should be made a business. Instead of ensuring that industrial and financial activities are regulated to avoid harming people and the planet, the current proposals focus on trying to transform the biodiversity crisis into another opportunity to increase profits. of the corporation.
In “green” business and financial circles, the current buzz is about “nature-based solutions,” a term used to describe interventions from reforestation to the carbon market. The concept has a nice ring to it, and it has been endorsed by the UN Environment Assembly. But this is dangerously misunderstood.
Those who use the term rarely refer to human rights and tend to focus on offset mechanisms, such as carbon markets, that tie the protection of biodiversity in one area to the ongoing destruction of others. place Instead of a remedy, “nature-based solutions” become part of the problem, serve as a license for business-as-usual, or even encourage more land grabbing in areas traditionally managed by Indigenous and local people. community.
Governments must look beyond “30 x 30” and “nature-based solutions” to put human rights at the center of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Doing so recognizes that human societies and natural ecosystems are inextricably linked, and that protecting biodiversity requires a shift to more sustainable social and economic models. The goal is to achieve human and ecosystem benefit, not shareholder value.
The human rights lens sharpens the focus on those people and communities most affected by today’s destructive practices. This shows that we need to address the drivers of biodiversity loss – extractive and industrial activities – rather than leaving the protection of the world’s ecosystems to corporations and financial markets. Governments are required to hold these entities accountable for the damage they cause to the environment and human communities, and to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples, small farmers, and others who have long helped protect them. of the world’s precious ecosystems.
Our food systems are a prime example of why we need a different approach. The crops and animal breeds that feed humanity have been associated with human farming communities over the course of millennia. But with the expansion of industrial farming models since the twentieth century, we are radically breaking this tradition, destroying 75 percent of the biological diversity of our food and agriculture. Most of today’s food systems are based on deforestation, land degradation, use of pesticides, pollution, high energy consumption, genetic homogeneity, and socioeconomic inequity.
We cannot solve the biodiversity crisis without changing these dysfunctional food systems. In their place, we can embrace agroecology, which has been shown to be a powerful and effective method of producing, distributing, and consuming food. Agroecology enhances biodiversity by stimulating synergies within the ecosystem to improve stability and productivity. Instead of degrading the land, agroecology revives the lands and contributes to their restoration and conservation.
This approach – oriented towards the creation of integral well-being – is often used by indigenous peoples, farmers, and other small-scale food producers. Traditional, collective knowledge of sustainable farming (much of which is held by women), along with locally adapted and self-reliant innovations, are central to the management systems of these groups. Protecting this knowledge and supporting agroecology is essential to the transition towards a more sustainable, healthy, and rational way of producing, distributing, and consuming food.
A good example is Cuba, where farmers and urban farmers are increasing food production and sustainability while reducing the use of agrochemicals. A key factor in their success is the strengthening of farmers’ networks to facilitate knowledge sharing.
This year’s biodiversity negotiations are an important opportunity for world leaders to agree on a plan to protect nature and people. But a new framework will only be successful to the extent that it guarantees the rights of Indigenous peoples, farmers, and other small-scale food producers, while placing the world’s food systems in a road to agroecology.
Sofia Monsalve is the Secretary-General of FIAN International. Georgina Catacora-Vargas is the President of the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology.