BIOECONOMY VERSUS
BIODIVERSITY
“Potential Impacts on Vulnerable
Communities from the Proposed
Expansion of the ‘Bioeconomy’”
www.globalforestcoalition.org
Potential Impacts on Vulnerable Communities from the
Proposed Expansion of the ‘Bioeconomy’
• In 1987 the Brundtland
comission - link between
environment and development
objectives.
• Later, recognition of economic
institutions, trends like Bretton
Woods institutions and
• Increasingly environmental
corporate driven globalization
policies shaped by the
as main drivers of forest loss
rules of main stream neoand environmental
liberal economics.
destruction.
• “Green Economy” –
• Hopes that economic policies
promoting expansion of
would be adapted to the
‘bioeconomy’, expanded
needs of conservation…
markets in ecosystem
based goods and services.
 Thus, the current approach to conservation = Biodiversity and the
environment as marketable goods - Markets necessarily need
privatization…
 What are the consequences for Indigenous Peoples & Local
Communities if a resource that used to be freely accessible is
now privatized?
 Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, Women, often Do Not
Have capital assets, more disadvantages in markets.
 When closing deals – lack of skills including language; need for
intermediaries.
 Decisions with impacts in governance local systems.
 Women constitute 70% of the world’s poor (UNICEF) - lower
income, less land ownership, unpaid and/or unrecognized
work.
 Caretakers of biodiversity, valuable knowledge often
unrecognized.
 Climate crisis - false solutions not addressing root causes,
thus policies promoting continued economic growth.
 Instead of adapting peoples to flawed economic models and
policies we should adapt economic policies to ensure they
respond the rights and needs of peoples.
 Payment for Environmental Services Scheme (PES) = paying
countries or communities for the “environmental service they
provide”
 PES – formally recognized land tenure rights.
 Economic rationale of promoting markets in PES is to have
market based mechanisms such as Carbon Trade (e.g.
REDD+), Certification, Trade in Genetic resources, Ecotourism
operating under the premise of being equitable but, what if
they are not?
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and
Enhancing Forest Carbon Stocks (REDD+)
“A global results-based PES scheme discussed within UNFCCC, with a view to
reducing global CO2 emissions by rewarding governments and/or individuals for
not cutting down or degrading forests”.
•Countries in the South responsible for absorbing CO2 from the North
(polluting countries not taking responsibility)
•Forests represent monetary Value (to Industries) but
“The socio-economic value of biodiversity of those groups in society that
depend on it for their livelihoods (…) is much higher than the socioeconomic
value of biodiversity for an energy company seeking to offset its carbon
emissions, for instance” - Naidoo & Rickets.
“Biodiversity means everything to them” (Mulenkei, 2008) as they are more
dependent on its non-monetary benefits.
REDD+ projects - carbon sequestration in trees, BUT:
-WHO OWNS THE CARBON?
-WHAT IS EXACTLY BEING BOUGHT?
-WILL THEY RESTRICT SUBSISTENCE?
• REDD+ is more than 90% publicly funded: mainly readiness funding
• Ready for what? No mandatory REDD market until 2020 if at all. EU position on
Climate Finance: Only 20% Official Development Assistance.
• No caps, no trade: Carbon markets are very uncertain and volatile as a funding
source.
• Uncertainties about future REDD+
funding: indebting developing
countries?
• Hard for participation of small-land
holders = small-scale initiatives
not something for REDD.
• Monoculture tree plantations allowed
• Risk for expansion and GE trees
REDD + Safeguards?
Main challenge = Implementation.
Lack of enforcement of national and international laws, standards and
agreements (UNDRIPs, human rights) - remote forest ecosystems often
inhabited by economically and politically marginalized peoples and
communities. Non-binding safeguards have little to contribute in this
respect
Counting, Verification, Leakage…
THE CHIAPAS CASE
Area with most diversity, forest cover and Indigenous Peoples in Mexico but
also highest poverty.
Historic conflict with government. Entire state into carbon market.
Montes Azules Biosphere-eviction to lead way to REDD+ (“illegal settlers”),
including Chiapas-California Agreement
Plantations surrounding Lacandon
jungle
 Chiapas positioning as leader on biofuel production.
 IF projects given to people = grow foreign trees
 Thus, aims for carbon storage and utilization of products (eucalyptus for
paper, palm oil for CO2 absorption and products).
 Fencing off the Lacandon jungle violating
UNDRIPs.
Rural Cities – Santiago del Pinar
Women from Amador Hernandez
Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities on Climate Change and Against REDD+
“Indigenous preservation happened for ages,
a “Green Economy” doesn’t work for
Indigenous Peoples” - Leticia Yawanawa,
Union of Indigenous Women of the Brazilian
Amazon
WHAT IS NEEDED?
Effective mechanisms at the local,
national and regional level ensuring
compliance with human rights and
biodiversity standards in forest
policies in general.
 Recognizing traditional knowledge
and its role on biodiversity
stewardship.
Strengthening the capacity of
Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations,
social movements and independent
NGOs in developing countries to
monitor and disseminate information
on compliance
Implement UNDRIPS – respect for  Retain access to biodiversity and the
customary rights and traditions
including their Free, Prior and
Informed Consent.
environment and keep
environmental functions and forests
out of markets, out of privatization.
 Community-led initiatives
 Most successful conservation experiences can be found on
recognized indigenous lands and territories and community
conserved areas (ICCAs).
 Recognition of ICCAs could play a major role on reaching gender
equity.
 Cheaper alternatives that do not increase value of forests, inc:
 Reduce pollution and address drivers such as consumption, fuel,
poverty
 Moratoria / bans on deforestation
 Change UN definition of forests
A DARKER SHADE OF GREEN: REDD ALERT AND FUTURE OF FOREST
Photo contributions: Stelios Grafakos, Peter van Sluijs, Orin Langelle,
Hortencia Hidalgo, Isis Alvarez.