Skip to content

| EFE

Biodiverse business: the private sector at COP16

One of the indicators of success was the participation of the private sector in COP16. Under the guise of the green economy, the national government and the business community sought to position a message of progress in terms of economic diversificatio…

One of the indicators of success was the participation of the private sector in COP16. Under the guise of the green economy, the national government and the business community sought to position a message of progress in terms of economic diversification and energy transition based on the opportunities offered by the environmental market. 

Specifically, the event concluded with the official approval of 35 events and 240 national and international exhibitors that were present in the green and blue zones, in addition to the Economies for Life Fair that served as a preparatory event for the Conference, and the private talks and events that were held independently parallel to the official areas of the COP. 

The relationship between business and the triple global crisis is undeniable. On the one hand, they not only face direct repercussions of climate change, but are also among the main emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG). This is how, in 2017, 66% of Colombian companies reported significant impacts due to extreme weather phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña, and only 100 international corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But also, the solution to this enormous environmental problem requires the generation of other more sustainable economic alternatives that guarantee the conservation and reproduction of the lives of local communities that inhabit the forests and the territories of greatest biodiversity at the same time. 

In Colombia, as in other countries, the solution adopted is green growth. However, given the complexity of the problem, there is still doubt about the capacity of this type of response to the challenges related to social and environmental inequality and human rights violations that the economic model has endured.

In this article, we present two cases associated with large companies that we believe should be assessed in greater detail before celebrating Colombia’s victory in the race to transition to sustainable economies with social justice. 

Agroindustry dressed in green: more contradictions than hopes

From the airport to the blue zone, the road was lined with billboards promoting the COP and the commitment of the Valle del Cauca business community to biodiversity protection. The location of the negotiations was in Yumbo, an industrial municipality surrounded by canyons and paper companies, which is known for its economic relevance and serious air pollution problems that make it a city that no one wants to live in

Like several industrial sectors, the sugar industry took advantage of COP16 to make public announcements about the projects it will undertake as part of its commitment to biodiversity. In view of the failed sugarcane cultural landscape initiative, there was consensus on the signing of a commitment to suspend sugarcane burning and create a “biodiversity highway”. This would consist of setting aside a biological corridor along the river banks and wetlands present in the area where sugarcane is grown.   

This is one of the innovation strategies that the company has been implementing in recent years to meet the demands of carbon reduction and its incursion into green markets with its organic sugar line. And although these actions undoubtedly send a positive message for our emissions indicators, they leave aside other demands associated with human rights and environmental justice. These are, for example, the violation of labor rights of the so-called “corteros” (sugarcane cutters), water and land grabbing, as well as the low standards of application of due diligence in their internal processes. In this regard, it should be noted that the area cultivated with sugarcane is a little more than 207 thousand hectares, which constitutes 66% of the most productive land in the entire department. In other words, it is the main regional monoculture. Additionally, the construction of deep wells and detour of water sources to guarantee a continuous irrigation and production system during the different stages of the year is another of the complaints that the local communities have made visible even before the COP.  

Although these contradictions were evidenced by the President of the Republic himself, most of these companies had an exhibition stand in the green zone, advertising on sustainable production is still being transmitted and it is difficult for consumers around the world to know under what conditions the organic sugar of their choice was produced. 

Situations such as this one highlight some of the blind spots in the discourse of decarbonization and conversion to green economies. On the one hand, the unlimited hope in technological innovation seems to be the mantra of the answer to all the environmental challenges of the industry, forgetting the lessons that the green revolution left us in the past. On the other hand, spaces such as the COP seem to be interpreted as “an opportunity for new business” rather than a recognition of co-responsibility and socio-environmental reparation. 

Biodiversity markets: the nature-based solution that broke new ground at COP16

COP16 was also the stage for the launching of the issuance and public offering of the first ordinary biodiversity bond for a value of US $50 million in the name of a Colombian bank. This event was carried out with the support of the national government, who despite the fact that months before had expressed the need to “put the brakes on this market” to study it well and avoid the problems of the carbon market, celebrated the arrival of international donations and highlighted the economic benefits brought by the COP in the country

Like the carbon market, biodiversity credits are strategies that are part of the climate mitigation arsenal proposed in these international treaties and conventions. In the case of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), it is linked to financing target 19, which function as economic units that, through the issuance of certificates, quantify and monetize areas with high ecosystem and biodiversity potential in the stock market. In simple terms, it is a security where a buyer pays for an area to be conserved or restored according to its characteristics of environmental importance.    

Complementary to the energy transition, nature-based solutions are strategies that seek to build new markets based on environmental economic potential. The premise is that environmental goods and services are not only symbolic but concrete wealth that can begin to be monetized and constitute a new “sustainable” economic engine for the tropical countries that make up the global south. Once again, the market would be the answer to the global environmental and poverty crises. 

At COP16 this message was repeated in many places. At least 11 talks on the subject were tracked in the Blue Zone, in addition to the large number of private events that took place on the day of financing according to the official agenda. The protagonists: private companies and multilateral banks. Cercarbono was one of them, a company reprimanded by the Colombian Constitutional Court for violating the rights of indigenous peoples in the case of carbon markets in the Pirá Paraná reservation

In the face of criticism, companies argue that they are moving forward with the lessons learned from the carbon market, presenting biodiversity credits as a business model with more guarantees. However, so far these initiatives also operate in the voluntary market, the methodologies for valuation and certification of biodiversity are dissimilar and respond to the portfolio of services of each company, and although proposals seem to be moving, there is no national regulation as in the carbon market. This constitutes once again a risk for the rights of local communities, in addition to the little evidence available to guarantee their effectiveness in containing deforestation and biodiversity loss.     

The urgency of finding alternatives that harmonize economic development and environmental conservation is unquestionable. In this context, although decisions on climate mitigation and adaptation solutions are promoted by States, business is at the center of the implementation of these strategies. However, making the protection of the environment and human rights “attractive” to the market is not only a great challenge, but may also bring the risk of simplifying the complexities of the crisis by continuing the expansion of the economy under new flags, without reflecting on the causes that brought us here.   

This dimension requires a type of corporate responsibility that has been questioned by civil society actors. It is not enough to promote business involvement in climate adaptation or mitigation solutions. Rather, it is imperative that policies address underlying inequalities and move towards designs that take into account justice and rights dimensions. Resolving this crisis requires a thorough overhaul of the system of corporate impunity and the implementation of corporate due diligence and accountability that is reflected in climate policies. Doing this work also implies exploring the different scales of this crisis, and reviewing the power dynamics between the Global South and the Global North that persist in the international system.

Powered by swapps
Scroll To Top