Just Pathways to Sustainability: From Environmental Human Rights Defenders to Biosphere Defenders

2.2.1From ‘Victims of Violence and in Need of Protection’ to ‘Agents of change in Need of Political Recognition’

Violence –including threats- accompanies ‘mainstream’ narratives on environmental defenders. As such, these actors are depicted as vulnerable and at risk of attacks and death.¹⁸ The association between environmental defenders and vulnerability is almost direct, as if embedded in the concept. This is obviously the case in many regions specially in the Global South, and we acknowledge the urgency in making a global call to pay attention to this.

Despite this, we also consider that it is important to acknowledge that vulnerability can be politically constructed and paying attention to only this might invisibilise the agency of environmental defenders - for instance –to mobilize resources for their cause or to make a sustainable use of their lands, waters or territories. We argue that if vulnerability and risk are represented as the only way to appeal to action (e.g., obligation of the states to protect), this might ultimately reinforce colonial attitudes: environmental defenders are in need of protection and only non-rural, non-indigenous people can protect them. This risks to reproduce a ‘white saviour’ attitude.¹⁹

Our proposed biosphere defenders concept decouples vulnerability from weakness and couples it with agency and solidarity.²⁰ Because defenders are strong and successful in challenging the status quo is that they become vulnerable -not because they are inherently weak. The reason, for instance, why many women are especially vulnerable is not because they are feeble but because of their bold proposals for more equal gender relations as well as a more respectful relation with nature.²¹ See below cases studies in Section 4.

2.2.2From ‘Contrarian to Development’ to ‘Inspirations for just Sustainability Policy and Law’

Often defenders are portrayed as in opposition to one economic activity in particular (e.g., mining, biofuel, infrastructure) because such activity is destroying their natural environment or denying their access to natural resources. Sometimes, the problem is depicted as environmental defenders not having a say in the implementation of those activities, or communities not participating or giving free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) to economic projects that will modify their natural. Since these activities are promoted by nation-states in the name of ‘development’, in some countries environmental defenders are portrayed as ‘anti-development’, ‘anti-progress’, ‘anti-modernity’, or ‘enemies of the state’.²²

It is not only the impact of a particular extractive activity or the distribution of benefits and burdens, but the system or development model that supports that activity, what some biosphere defenders oppose. A narrow view of defenders in environmental matters obscures what defenders support which includes distinct relational human and nature dynamics. Defenders challenge the status-quo and power relations. A positive defender’s narrative also opens possibilities of bringing a diversity of people together. For instance, scholars working with sustainability issues in the context of agriculture or water engineering may not see their role in tackling violence but would indeed see their role in co-creating multiple-evidence based solutions for positive social-ecological outcomes.

2.2.3From ‘Individual Right-Holder’ to Individual and Collective Right-holders Catalysing Just Pathways to Sustainability

Despite acknowledging the central role EHRDs play in sustainable development, we observe a tendency to frame EHRD only in relation to State’s human rights obligations to protect individual’s personal integrity and life, but little is discussed about the socio-ecological system they represent, advocate for and the collective they defend. We argue that by paying attention to the individual person under attack or killed, the mainstream narrative of environmental defender leaves aside who they represent, not only in terms of a community, but also in terms of collective’s worldviews and values. This becomes clear e.g. Front Line Defenders (2022)²³ and Global Witness 2020²⁴ opening their reports by listing the names of those murdered during the year under study. By abstracting the individual from her or his environment, there is a risk of dispossessing EHRD from people’s particularities e.g. if they are female, young, or member of an indigenous people, and an opportunity is missed to see what the individual person is representing.

We consider that an intersectional approach embedded in the concept of biosphere defenders contributes to overcoming the individual/collective divide. Individuals do not operate in isolation hence the need to couple agency with solidarity between humans and with biosphere -humanity understood as part of the biosphere as above-mentioned. Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters recognizes that environmental defenders have diverse backgrounds, cultures and belief systems and may not self-identify, or be identified by others, as EHRD.²⁵ Forst calls for viewing the interconnectedness between individual defenders and their groups, organizations, communities. An analytical framework and empirical case studies on the rights and roles of biosphere defenders are needed to see the individual as part of the collective(s) which they form part and their role in societal change.

3.1.1Universality and Interdependence of Biosphere Defender’s Rights

Even before the term ‘human rights defender’ was coined and incorporated in the Declaration on HRD, many people acted as biosphere defenders, reshaping gender roles, confronting colonialism, restoring ecological cycles, and advancing solidarity within a collective but also with other collectives they represent (e.g., Afro, youth, indigenous).The spirit of the Declaration on HRDs, interpreted based on its travaux preparatoire, is on human rights defenders and their rights informed by the principle of universality of human rights rather than a limited interpretation of individuals framed in the context of the principle of sovereign equality of States and non-interference in their internal affairs.³¹

The Declaration on HRDs has had a trickling effect: the Organization of American States, the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the African Commission on Human’s and People’s Rights have used this Declaration as a basis for further work in their respective regions.³² However, the first and only plurilateral treaty explicitly recognizing the rights of human rights defenders in environmental matters is the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean commonly known as Escazu Agreement (EA).³³ While the State’s human rights obligations specifically mentioned in Article 9 (paragraph 2) concern rights sometimes framed as civil and political rights namely right to life, personal integrity, freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, and free movement, this first paragraph also mentions that “Each Party shall take adequate and effective measures to recognize, protect and promote all the rights of human rights defenders in environmental matters”. Based on the principle of pro persona (EA, Article 3 k), State’s obligations towards defenders should be constructed based on an interpretation covering the broadest spectrum of defender’s human rights. OHCHR notes that “when closely scrutinized, categories of rights such as “civil and political rights” or “economic, social and cultural rights” make little sense. For this reason, it is increasingly common to refer to civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.” ³⁴ For instance, education on environment and climate enables individuals and groups to participate in political activities and exercise their freedom of expression and opinion and advance the stewardship of biodiversity and ecosystems in an informed way.

Furthermore, States shall take the most favourable interpretation to advancing biosphere defender’s rights specified in EA, Article 9. Article 4 (parr 7) of the EA establishes that “no provision in the present Agreement shall limit a more favourable interpretation of rights and guarantees set forth, at present or in the future, in the legislation of a State Party or in any other international agreement to which a State is party”. Therefore, the broad spectrum of rights of defenders shall be used in interpreting biosphere defender’s right to a healthy environment and to sustainable development recognized in EA, Article 1. This interpretation should be done in convergence not only with civil and political rights and freedoms recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)³⁵ but also the rights recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)³⁶ , to which most Latin American and Caribbean countries are parties.

3.1.2Individual and Collective Dimensions of Full Spectrum of Biosphere Defender’s Rights

International human rights law recognizes that every person, irrespective of gender, age, ethnic, economic conditions has the right to what the IPBES conceptualises as a good quality of life.³⁷ In its report presented to the UN Human Rights Council, Knox (2017) clarifies obligations concerning social-ecological systems: in order to protect human rights, States have a general obligation to protect ecosystems and biodiversity because biodiversity is necessary for ecosystem services that support the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and culture.³⁸, para 65. Rights of biosphere defenders encompass economic, social and cultural rights recognized in the ICESCR³⁹ and a way to do so is being steward of biodiversity and ecosystems. For example, agrobiodiversity contributes to people’s good quality of life by providing varied and nutritious foods which are key for enjoyment of the right to adequate food (Article 11, ICESCR).

Like economic, social and cultural rights, defender’s civil and political rights recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)⁴⁰ also have individual and collective dimensions. For example, defender’s right of freedom of expression and opinion (Article 19, ICCPR) encompasses access to information held by State institutions and businesses but also the ‘right of voice’ including exchanging information that in turn enables informed and free participation in legal and policy processes. The 2023 thematic report by Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and opinion, Irene Khan, calls for a paradigm shift by looking at sustainable development through the lens of freedom of expression.⁴¹ She argues that the promise of leaving no one behind will only be fulfilled when both access to information and the voices of human rights defenders, women, youth and others in disadvantage positions are heard and these groups of people can participate effectively.

Human rights treaties provide content to individual and collective dimensions of biosphere defender’s rights. Civil and political rights have value in themselves. Yet, interpreting civil and political rights in connection with economic, social, and cultural rights in line with the interdependency of human rights enables to visibilize the concrete ways in which biosphere defenders are not only protesting against something but also proposing economic, social and cultural alternatives, more attuned to healthy social-ecological systems.

3.1.3Defender’s Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment and Actions Towards a Healthy Biosphere

The civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights are also interdependent on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (R2HE). The R2HE unites procedural and substantive elements and provides a useful umbrella category to delineating the content of biosphere defender’s rights.⁴² The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David Boyd reaffirms that there is global agreement that human rights norms apply to a broad range of environmental issues, including biodiversity.⁴³ Hence, biosphere defender’s right to a healthy environment shall be constructed not only limiting to procedural State’s obligations but also to substantive obligations of this right and the interactions of these two types of State’s obligations. This interpretation allows to put a spotlight not only in process but also in social-ecological substantive outcomes.

The recognition of the R2HE by the UN General Assembly in 2022⁴⁴ is an outcome of collective action from a diversity of groups of peoples since 1970 s. While there is not a global binding treaty recognizing the right to a healthy environment in general or of biosphere defender’s right to a healthy environment in particular, State obligations regarding this right can be derived from various sources of international public law including multilateral environmental agreements, international human rights law⁴⁵ and regional treaties such as the EA above-mentioned. Like other human rights, State’s obligations towards biosphere defenders entail obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. State’s obligations to fulfil biosphere defender’s rights, entail obligations that are relevant to addressing the structural obstacles that prevent the realization of human rights and this type of State obligation is particularly important to catalyze the virtuous spiral of sustainability.

3.1.4State’s Heightened Obligations Towards Certain Biosphere Defender’s Groups

International frameworks specifying the rights of particular groups are a source to make more precise the meaning of State’s general obligations towards individuals and collectives. Heightened State’s human rights obligations emerge towards people in vulnerable situations such as children, and people with disabilities. Below we refer to the human rights of specific groups which are relevant for our case studies in Section 5. As for rights of women biosphere defenders, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women CEDAW (1979) recognizes civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights in a single instrument. Based on Article 14, CEDAW, States parties to this treaty shall consider the particular problems faced by women defenders in rural context and their significant role in the non-monetized and monetized economy. Different forms of participation are specified in Article 14 which range from participating in all community activities (parr f), to participating in the elaboration and implementation of development planning at all levels (parr a) and organizing self-help groups and cooperatives for equal access to economic opportunities through employment or self-employment (parr e).⁴⁶ The UN General Assembly resolution focusing on women human rights defenders⁴⁷ serves to specify CEDAW’s general State’s obligation in the context of women biosphere defenders. Like CEDAW, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women (Maputo Protocol)⁴⁸, recognizes a wide range of environmental related women’s rights such as the right to live in an acceptable living conditions in a healthy environment (Article 16).⁴⁹ The Maputo Protocol also reaffirms the principle of gender equality enshrined in the Constitutive Act of the African Union as well as other principles including the principles of solidarity, democracy, freedom and peace. The EA specifically refers to State obligations to establish conditions that are adapted to gender characteristics of the public and that are favourable to public participation in environmental decision-making processes (EA, Article 7, paragraph 10).

As for rural biosphere defenders, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (2018), Article 18 serve to specify the rights of collectives who engage in actions for safeguarding the health of rural ecosystems as well as the conservation and sustainable sustainable use of biodiversity. For example, exchanging seeds between communities serves to guard agrobiodiversity including seeds’ genetic diversity. The UN Human Rights Council (2023) has called upon all States to conserve and sustainable manage biodiversity and ecosystems applying a human rights-based approach that emphasizes participation and accountability; and that promotes a safe and enabling environment in which environmental human right defenders working on biodiversity can operate free from threats, hindrance and insecurity.⁵⁰ Among these biosphere defenders are rural communities and indigenous peoples including women, men, non-binary people, children living in these communities and their allies.

In the case of indigenous peoples as biosphere defenders, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples International Labour Organization Convention⁵¹ (ILO Convention No 169) and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of indigenous people specify the individual and collective dimensions of the indigenous peoples’ defender's rights as well as also indigenous peoples as collective subjects of rights. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), Article 29 serves to specify indigenous peoples’ rights and corresponding obligations of State concerning a healthy environment. At the EA’s Defenders Forum, Darío Mejia, President of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues noted that indigenous peoples as collective subjects of rights is often confused with specifying the collective dimension of indigenous peoples’ rights.⁵²

3.2.1Leverage Points

1. Embrace diverse visions of a good life. Current natural resource overexploitation equals development with economic growth and a modern society with that of higher levels of consumption. However, other understandings of a good life exist (e.g., buen vivir) ontologically position humans in a more equal relation to nature, understanding living well in a more holistic way. Biosphere defenders show how alternative understandings of human-nature relations exist where non-material aspects of wellbeing are central such as solidarity, recognition, trust, and care.

2. Rethink and change total consumption and waste considering the inequalities between rich economies and poor ones and between middle-upper income groups and people in poverty situations. While those whose levels of consumption need to be risen, there is a need to transform how we consume and how waste is managed. Biosphere defenders showcase different socio-ecological models to relate with nature and the economy that are not based on consumism and/or to minimize waste.

3. Recognize and promote latent values of responsibility and solidarity is about changing how we interact with nature (and among us) based on values and attitudes of stewardship and care. Biosphere defenders promote relations among people and with nature (caring, safeguarding, restoring, etc.) that value nature because it mediates those social relations and not only because of its economic value.

4. Address and reduce inequalities to start up sustainable pathways at different scales. Biosphere defenders shows how unequal distribution of benefits and burdens, unfair recognition and/or exclusion of certain knowledges and socio-ecological relations are detriment to sustainable pathways while at the same time they show ways towards their transformation.

5. Promote just and inclusive conservation. Nature conservation and restoration should be just and inclusive, not to the detriment of some groups in society. Biosphere defenders, many of them members of local communities impacted by conservation policies that displace them, demand to be part of the decision-making process in such policies. At the same time, they contextualize their claims from a multi-scale approach advocating for connecting conservation in one place in a larger regional context and promote conservation with sustainability practices.

6. Consider how externalities and telecouplings impact sustainability pathways. Distant connections between two seemingly unconnected events need to be better acknowledged (e.g., increases in conservation areas in one place may trigger overexploitation in another). Biosphere defenders show how economic and political decisions sometimes made in distant places and based on particular understandings of development (e.g., extractivism based on economic growth) may impact local communities whose livelihoods depend directly on nature.

7. Reformulate the role of innovation and investment in sustainability to address how unsustainable practices are reproduced. There is a need to rethink how innovation in society and technology takes place and the externalities of innovation and investment to reverse ecosystem’s degradation. Biosphere defenders promote socio-ecological innovation uniting their traditional knowledge with new technologies. At the same time, biosphere defenders show how key international financial organizations continue to support unsustainable economic projects.

8. Generate and share education and knowledge for transformative change towards sustainability. Biosphere defenders showcase how local and traditional knowledge based on solidarity and care towards nature and human relations are central for sustainability pathways (e.g., repairing community relations through nature restoration).

3.2.2Levers

A. Incentives and mobilization of capacities. Subsidies, incentive programmes, and other types of financial commitments should be aligned to just sustainability pathways. The role of biosphere defenders has been central in this regard as they have critically pointed financial mechanisms that are detrimental to sustainability (e.g. as in the case of unsustainable extractives practices supported by international banks) as well as mobilised political, economic, cultural, socio-ecological capacities at local level.

B. Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions. There is a need to recognize the importance of integration across administrative boundaries and regions. Biosphere defenders in conjunction with other stakeholders have been putting forward projects that address policy coherence and further allow integration of environmental goals into institutions at different levels of governance (local, provincial, federal, regional and international). Cooperation among diverse governance bodies is central to sustainability pathways.

C. Pre-emptive action. Addressing emerging risks proactively, even before establishing specific proof of impact, is necessary to initiate sustainable pathways. Biosphere defenders have been at the forefront of such practice when denouncing large-scale projects bringing environmental degradation. Proactive and precautionary approaches are essential due to the slow responses of nature, but also because there is often a significant time lag between scientific attention and consensus on causality. In many cases, traditional and local knowledge understands ecological dynamics better than those whose livelihoods do not depend directly on nature and therefore biosphere defenders’ voices are central.

D. Adaptive decision-making. Policies, programs, and initiatives assuming linear ecosystem dynamics may lead to surprises, while those designed to be robust, adaptive, and resilient can be more effective in the long term. Biosphere defenders are showing how relevant it is to invest in the restoration and enhancement of ecosystems and create projects and programme adapted to ecological cycles instead of the other way around.

E. Create, reform, and implement laws for R2HE outcomes. Consistent creation, reformation and implementation of laws, particularly those governing rights and responsibilities, is crucial for protecting nature and human well-being. Strengthening international and domestic environmental laws and policies, along with better implementation and enforcement, is vital. Biosphere defenders have been central to mobilize policy and law to realize their rights, but also to advocate for the reform or development of new laws and regulations when it is insufficient to apply the existing ones.

4.1.1Biosphere Defender’s Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Affected by Social-Ecological Dynamics

The department of La Guajira was declared in a state of humanitarian crisis in July 2023 after years of paramilitary actions, corruption and food and water shortages that have led to human rights violations⁵³, particularly of the rights of the Wayúu –an indigenous people living in this semi-desertic region of Colombia. La Guajira also hosts one of the world’s largest open pit coal mines. Glencore owns Cerrejón and this area is also seen as the epicentre for the energy transition that Colombia is facing as it seeks to gradually shift from fossil fuels to renewables. Both the mining operations but also e.g., plans for wind parks have faced local resistance due to negative socio-ecological impacts especially on the indigenous peoples, afro and peasant communities living close to the initiatives.⁵⁴ At the forefront of these struggles have often been the women led organisation Sutsüin Jieyuu Wayúu - Fuerza de Mujeres Wayúu (FMW), which translates to The Wayuu Women Force.⁵⁵

4.1.2Individual and Collective Dimensions of Biosphere Defender’s Rights

FMW has operated since 2006. A big part of its work has been to shed light on the environmental, social and cultural impacts of Cerrejón and related human right violations not only on individuals but also to the Wayúu as a collective. Colombia has the highest record of assassinations of environmental defenders, with over a third of killings globally happening in Colombia in 2022.⁵⁶ The leaders, both women and men, of FMW are also constantly exposed to danger and face intimidations and death threats due to their activism.⁵⁷ The organisation actively trains women to advocate for their rights and aims to pass on to future generations and broader Wayúu community its experiences and knowledge of activism and resistance (Leverage 8).⁵⁸

4.1.3Biosphere Defender’s R2HE: Zooming in on how Clean Water, Food and Non-toxic Environment Depend on Access to Justice

One of the most scrutinised cases of environmental conflict in La Guajira is related to the Bruno stream. In 2014, the national environmental licencing authority (ANLA) approved the plan of Cerrejón to divert a section of the Bruno stream to expand the coal extraction from the pit El Puente. This was in a time when the Colombian government vigorously promoted mining and foreign investment as part of their national development plan, often at the expense of proper environmental impact assessments and community consultations.⁵⁹ The diversion plan was instantly met with resistance (Lever C). Marches, press releases, social media posts and other statements mobilised by FMW and community members vocalised the importance of the river for not only the instrumental values of the river, but the cultural and spiritual values that the river and water, the Pulowi (female water spirit), hold for the Wayúu and that are affected when water becomes scarce⁶⁰ (Leverage 3). In 2017, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled in favour of the local communities, among them FMW leaders, stating that the diversion would violate their fundamental rights to water, health and food sovereignty.⁶¹

The court determined that several uncertainties regarding the social and environmental impacts of the project remain and therefore the diversion should be suspended. An Interinstitutional Working Group (IWG) with governmental and non-governmental actors was created to assess how Cerrejón should realise the further studies and then recommended actions to ensure the environmental viability of the project. The Bruno case was also brought to the attention of the High Commissioner of the UN by FMW and other organisations. The Wayuu and FMW have received support and made alliances with both local and international organisations supporting the fight for their rights, including help to demonstrate that some of the environmental impact claims of Cerrejón are faulty.⁶² The case thus reveals how these rural communities can harness solidarity from the local to the global to strengthen their resistance (Lever B).

The case of Bruno illustrates how FMW have highlighted several levers and priority issues in their advocacy for the realization of human rights and just transformations. Most notably, the SU-698 can be seen as a win for local communities as it ordered Cerrejón to return Bruno back to its natural cause. However, the stream remains diverted to date as different entities continue to argue about the real impacts of the diversion and Glencore has sued the Colombian state as it argues that it will suffer financial losses due to the demands presented.⁶³ Using legal strategies to seek just sustainability may thus be tricky if implementation of law is lacking and policy priorities are incoherent. Nonetheless, the legal struggles have given visibility to the case, leading to further support in forms of an Amicus Curiae by ABColombia.⁶⁴ The legal strategies can be seen as a coordinated action across sectors and jurisdictions as they managed to bring together the IWG and also to illustrate, although not corrected to date, some of the major flaws in the environmental governance of Colombia (Lever B, E). However, the IWG did not prove to be unproblematic and the Wayúu walked out of the working group after disappointment towards lack of implementation of actions required in SU-698.

The participation by FMW in the defence of Bruno unleashes relational values, noting that water is what maintains the relations between humans and Mother Earth. Through their ontological stance ‘Wayúu women safeguard their communities against colonial power structures such as green colonialism’.⁶⁵ Recently, the first woman Wayuu senator Marta Peralta’s bill to declare Rio Rancheria and its affluents, including Bruno, as subjects of rights for their protection, conservation, preservation and restoration was approved in the first debate in the senate⁶⁶. The bill states the formation of a Commission of Guardians of the River composed of government and local community actors who are responsible for protecting the rights of the river (Leverage 5). The objective is to decontaminate the river and its surroundings and promote the peaceful and balanced enjoyment of the river (Lever D). The bill notes as its precedent similar cases of jurisprudence in Colombia, where rivers, moors and other ecosystems have been declared holders of rights. This Rights of Nature approach may be the next legislative strategy that combines relational values in seeking justice and socio-ecological sustainability for Bruno (Leverage 1, 3).

Lastly, it should be noted that the fight is not primarily against something, but for the future of the communities that will live in La Guajira after all else (Leverage 6). Despite threats and violence, Wayuu women continue to fiercely translate their anger into action and power and strive to overcome silencing practices for the sake of future generations ⁴³. Therefore, highlighting the agency and solidarity instead of the victimization of FMW highlights the fierce power they possess to push for just sustainability transformations.

4.2.1Fulfilling the Right to a Healthy Environment: Sustainable Localised Food Systems

In his report to the Human Rights Council in 2010 the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, identified “agroecology as a mode of agricultural development which not only shows strong conceptual connections with the right to food, but has proven results for fast progress in the concretization of this human right for many vulnerable groups in various countries and environments”.⁶⁷

The negative socio-ecological impacts of industrial agriculture and husbandry has been widely shown.⁶⁸ Recently, connections have been made between human rights violations, industrial food systems, and the role of agroecology in a Just Transition: “[t]here are multiple problems with the way food is produced, processed, distributed, prepared, consumed, and disposed of in industrial food systems. Their environmental consequences amplify pre-existing inequalities and contribute to human rights violations. For the needed transformation of food systems, which is equitable, just, and sustainable, agroecology plays a crucial role”.⁶⁹

Agroecology is a type of agricultural system that is embedded in local ecologies. It is based on local knowledges produced by people whose livelihoods depend directly on their natural environment (e.g., indigenous communities, peasants, fishers, pastoralists). It is also characterized by short value chains, localized production-consumption, organic production minimizing waste and energy and being relatively independent from supply and inputs markets (usually, non-local). This translates into organic, fresh, culturally appropriate food, which does not pollute the environment.

4.2.2Seeking to Fulfil the Right to Food and the Environment Amidst Structural Challenges

While Argentina is known to be one of the major industrial agriculture producers and consumers of agrochemicals, it is also the case that the country’s organic production is expanding, particularly after the Covid-19 pandemic.⁷⁰ The ferias francas (tax-exempt farmer markets) are a paradigmatic example of family farming based on agroecological principles. These ferias are direct spaces of food commercialisation (‘farm to table’) that can be found all over the country.⁷¹ They are well-known institutions that have garnered the attention of public law and policy makers and scholars in the field of family farming for more than twenty years.⁷²

The first market was created in 1995 in the province of Misiones in the context of a profound crisis resulted from the implementation of structural adjustment programmes and ecological degradation. The deregulation of the provincial markets was pushing farmers out of business and with the need to reconvert their production.⁷³ The national and provincial governments introduced different support mechanisms, namely rural development programmes: micro-credits, technological transfer, capacity building and organisational support among other strategies (Lever A; Leverage 7, 8) with different target populations. The aim was to prevent rural-urban migration and increase the deteriorating quality of life of family farmers by assisting them to continue living and producing in their farms (e.g., introducing value-added by home-processing food, increasing independence of farmers from inputs markets, restoring ecological productivity, and/or creating new local channels of direct commercialisation). Environmental considerations were mainstreamed in this new development agenda as the native forest (local ecosystem) was incorporated as a key element in family farming planning (Leverage 1 and 3).

The first feria franca was inaugurated in the locality of Oberá as the result of the cooperation among farmers, local civil society, and the municipal government (Lever B). Since then, around 70 local markets have been created in Misiones currently involving around 3000 families.⁷⁴ The markets have consolidated new rural-urban linkages and at the same time facilitated women and young farmers’ participation in public life, among other relevant socio-economic, political, and ecological issues in different scales (from the farms to the provincial parliament).

4.2.3Women’s Biosphere Defenders: Realising Women’s Rights

The ferias francas gather farmers to directly sell their food surplus production (vegetables, dairy produce, eggs, chicken, pork, bakery, jams, and other home industrialization products) between two and three times a week in many localities around the province. The participation of women in these markets has proven to be decisive. Certainly, women’s role in the agrarian economy in Misiones has always been linked to food production for domestic consumption⁷⁵. Their work in horticulture, small animal husbandry and food preparation have long been vital to provision of food for the family.

Since food produce is produced in rural areas, women and men move to nearest towns or cities to sell their products. Historically, male farmers have enjoyed the ‘right to urban space’ as men were normally in charge of the commercialisation of industrial crops from their farms (e.g., tobacco, mate, tea, and timber). With the creation of ferias francas, women increased their opportunities to access urban spaces. This has been highly appreciated by those women participating in these spaces of commercialisation despite in many cases increasing the burden for female members since they had to work even more at the farm to increase farm production (vegetable volumes, homemade bakery, sausages, jams, and dairy products), travel to the town to sell, all while taking care of children and husbands.⁷⁶

Farmers directly selling their produce highly value their new identity as feriantes (people that commercialise in this kind of markets) because the market is a social space for meeting and socializing with other people. They also find that this kind of project reintroduces the role of women in the urban society as well as in the family, since now they are providers not only of food but also of a regular income (Leverage 4).

4.2.4Fulfilling the R2HE: From Accessing Information to Creating New Legislation

Farmers’ organizations, cooperatives, rural development programmes, civil society organisations, schools, among others support the organisation of the production and commercialisation in these collective spaces. Not only have the national and provincial governments granted financial support to informal grass-roots organizations to organize the commercial aspect of agriculture, but they have also assisted through information and capacity building in food production and agroecology (e.g., facilitating access to seeds have been central in the support of ferias francas) (Lever A, D).

The local governments supported ferias francas by creating the legislative and institutional regulations which allowed a feria (market) to be tax-exempt (Lever E). This means that the markets are exempt from certain local taxes and therefore are able to sell fresh and good quality food with lower prices, allowing urban population to access better quality food (Leverage 2). In addition, since they are installed in public spaces, they need to be granted permission by the local government, who also must do the bromatological⁷⁷ control of the food (e.g., when home industrialised). In this way, the municipalities assume a role usually given to the market so as to leverage small-scale farmers to participate in the local economy (Leverage 4, 7).

The markets enhance food security in rural, peri-urban, and urban communities because farmers produce and consume their own food, selling the surplus in nearby towns. This has also increase local and regional food sovereignty since food is supplied to the provincial market decreasing this way the dependency of food produced from other provinces. During crisis times (e.g., 2008 agricultural blockage, 2020 covid) the local production and supply of food has proven to be central for accessing food.

Scaling up this, the provincial state has created a legislative framework central to sustain and promote a development model based on family farming, agroecology, and ferias francas (Lever E). More than ten laws were enacted to further support this model. In 2010, the provincial law III-10 for the Development and Promotion of Ferias Francas and Zonal Market Concentrator of the Province was passed. In 2015, the provincial law VIII-69 of promotion of family farming stablished that “the province of Misiones adopts a productive, economic, social and environmental development model based on family farming”⁷⁸ and the provincial law VIII-68 that Promotes Agroecology was enacted. In the latter, the second article clearly specifies the centrality of environmental care for the production, consumption, and commercialization of agriculture in the province.

4.2.5The Future of Agroecological Localised Food Systems: Creating Spaces of Hope

Farmers’ local markets, ferias francas, are socio-economic, cultural, and political spaces that emerged as a political decision of finding ‘alternatives’ to highly polluting development based on monocultures and the internationalisation of the local industrial agriculture. Agroecology, as an alternative development model⁷⁹ has promoted relational values -urban and rural- between peoples and their natural environment which are central for sustainability.

Currently, agroecological production coexist in Misiones with industrial agriculture based on tobacco and pine plantation and an area-based nature conservation. While dismantling industrial agriculture - highly contaminant of soil and water- may seem a utopia, this case study reveals how women and men from the countryside have proven that it is possible to create new social relations based on solidarity and local production in tune with local ecologies and less dependent on agrochemicals (Leverage 3).