Proposal

PROBLEM
Blind green investment drives war.

Colombia, ranked second in global biodiversity (1), possesses abundant water resources and is among the top seven potential food suppliers worldwide (2). Its pivotal role in the sustainability agenda attracts significant financing. In 2023, the global carbon offsetting market alone reached USD $414.80B and is expected to grow over six times by 2030 (3). Latin America thrives in this market, hosting 13% of the world’s CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) by 2022 –– that’s over a thousand projects (4). To transition to a climate-resilient, zero-emission economy, the region needs to redirect between 7%-19% of its GDP annually, totaling approximately US$1.3 trillion (5).

However, this level of influx has a dark side. There is a well-known correlation between natural resource economies and conflict, and Colombia has been prone to these dynamics. Banana crops encouraged the presence of armed forces in the 80/90s as well as political targeting of actors with dissenting positions. Coal extraction encouraged selective blackmailing, land price speculation, looting and displacement. The international market also propelled territorial struggle around gold, as the prospect of rising prices boosted competition for mining regions. Oil has also experienced infrastructure sabotage, which in turn was countered with militarized security in the private sector (6). In addition, resource-focused dynamics also influence unplanned migration to and from territories, which can trigger poverty and undiversified employment.

There’s no reason to believe that territories dedicated to green development are save from conflict. There have already been cases of green-related violence in different parts of the world: In Colombia, a wind power project conflicts with the Wayúu indigenous people and threatens ecosystem biodiversity (7). In the Amazon, deforestation driven by peasant communities and conflict-related actors undermines conservation efforts (8). In Indonesia, biomass activities stressed wildlife and villagers, destroying natural reserves like the Balai Raja forest (9). Brazil’s Plantar project, initially hailed for tree planting, displaced people, polluted water, and harmed soil (10). All these cases encountered community resistance, threats, persecution and resentment.

With the amount of financing that green projects are attracting, and the propensity of territory-focused economies to encourage conflict, it is urgent to conceive of a systemic environmental approach that incorporates land, society, and history. Without first dealing with the land’s political conflicts, conservation projects will at best fail. At worst, they will exacerbate marginalization, resistance, landlessness, poverty, and war (11). Left unattended, green conflict could impact the entirety of the Colombian people living in rural areas – that would be 23.7% of the country’s population (12M+ people by 2022) (12).

Circular bioeconomy, understood as the development of opportunities for society within the limits of the ecosystem, has been proposed as a viable guideline to face the environmental challenges (13). In fact, by 2030, Colombia hopes that bioeconomy represents 10% of its GDP.

This also supports a more peaceful environment. It has been evidenced that when civil society plays a more active role in natural resource economies, conflict chances decrease. Both in the coffee sector in Colombia (with multiple small farmers engaging in institutionalized cooperation), and in the flowers industry (which is built on stronger social fabric involving more women in the employee base), the violent destiny of other sectors was avoided (14).

Therefore, it’s crucial for investors aiming to make a positive impact to truly understand the landscape and its changes. Governments and civil society also need to work together to monitor and influence new developments. Despite efforts from research institutions and policy think tanks to guide bioeconomy management and decision-making, there are still obstacles like handling big data efficiently and scaling up circular bioeconomy practices. Additionally, this specialized knowledge often stays within scientific circles, making it harder for broader society to engage. Today, those involved in the bioeconomy struggle with challenges like accessing different information sources, dealing with large amounts of data, inefficient analysis, and facing blind spots. These difficulties hinder their ability to contribute effectively to environmentally sustainable projects.

SOLUTION
A tool for informed investments to harmonize perspectives.

To empower bioeconomy actors, we are building the Bioeconomy Propulsor, a tool built on a data science architecture that models circular economy parameters and merges social perspectives with ecological realities. Environmental investors will be able to assess the differences across territorial realities and identify opportunities to co-create with local communities. Civil society will capture bioeconomy opportunities in a way that enhances local culture and creativity. Policy makers can use this consolidated insight to make prioritizations, as well as compare their region to peers.

Its baseline comprises economic, social, environmental indicators, adding a layer of natural capital valuation to help understand the richness of the territory. Overlayed is biodiversity knowledge, delivering insight into what flora and fauna inhabits the space, as well as their different cultural uses and bioeconomy possibilities. All of this is built on existing data sources, articulated for the first time in a single, user-friendly experience.

Upon this architecture, the mechanism will house perspectives from local communities using bottom-up strategies, whereby communities provide input on defining and constructing multi-variate knowledge for their use.

The Bioeconomy Propulsor will deliver trends, conclusions, and suggestions from a multiplicity of perspectives and data inputs. This tool is replicable, scalable, and somewhat automated, without obscuring the insights from the actual communities of interest.

By promoting circular bioeconomy, this project targets multiple SDGs: environmental conservation and climate action (goals 6, 13, 14, 15) through ecological prioritization, sustainable cities and communities (goal 11) by involving communities in regional environmental planning, and partnerships (goal 17) by fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders.

REFERENCES:

1. Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/gbo1/gbo-pdf.shtml.
2. WWF Colombia. https://www.wwf.org.co/?319474/Grandes%2Dlogros%2D2017%2Dalimentos.
3. Coherent Market Insights. https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2023/10/06/2756169/0/en/Carbon-Offset-Market-to-Hit-2-850-62-Billion-at-a-CAGR-31-7-by-2030-Says-Coherent-Market-Insights.html.
4. Arbache et al. Diagnóstico del mercado de crédito de carbono en América Latina y el Caribe (CAF).https://scioteca.caf.com/handle/123456789/1949
5. Talbot-Wright et al. https://publications.iadb.org/en/expectations-economy-and-finance-ministries-carbon-pricing-and-evidence-their-effectiveness
6. Rettberg et al. https://cienciassociales.uniandes.edu.co/publicaciones/different-resources-different-conflicts/.
7. Badia Dalmases et al. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/colombia-wind-power-guajira-en/.
8. International Crisis Group. https://www.crisisgroup.org/es/latin-america-caribbean/andes/colombia/091-broken-canopy-deforestation-and-conflict-colombia.
9. Reyes et al. https://doi.org/10.3898/136266210792307050.
10. Reyes et al. https://doi.org/10.3898/136266210792307050.
11. Woods, Kevin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0063-x.
12. https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/notas-estadisticas/oct-2022-nota-estadistica-mujer-rural-presentacion.pdf.
13. Grilli et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120042.
14. Rettberg et al. https://cienciassociales.uniandes.edu.co/publicaciones/different-resources-