Knowledge Management

Conservation advocates can promote structural changes that makes Bioeconomy strategies (ch30) viable at scale by: 
– Facilitating autonomy. Generating proposals for regional/global payments for environmental services. The income should be redirected to local governments.
– Reducing dependence in external markets by identifying needs and incentivizing local initiatives. Community-based practices can be implemented through training programs.
– Investment in participative research where knowledge (e.g. use of biodiversity/biotechnology, agroforestry, sustainable tourism) can be exchanged horizontally through regional initiatives.

Chapter 30 of the Science Panel for the Amazon report addresses the new bioeconomy in the Amazon context. The chapter accurately summarizes the alternatives to the traditional extractive economy that have prevailed in the region during the last decades and elaborates on the challenges those alternatives must overcome to have an impact on changing the productive matrix. 

Several important points emerge from this analysis. First of all, social-ecological inequalities must be addressed to halt the destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems in the region. The local inhabitants of the Amazon region must benefit from the economic gains produced by the different productive activities from which they participate in a way that their basic needs are properly addressed. This is not an easy task, of course, given the deficiencies in technology, access to markets and credit, and other caveats. Corruption on the value chain and the prevalence of perverse social-economic dynamics are the factors that most significantly hinder this process. Conservation advocates might help address this dynamic by bringing information and knowledge to the people at different levels; this information and knowledge must help the producers access innovative processes and technology that maximizes their production and economic gain. At the same time, it is vital to mobilize public opinion by creating awareness about the importance of fostering and maintaining a sustainable management process in the Amazon region. The chapter mentions the creation of seals of quality and the use of technology for the user to track the origin of their products, a process that has a great potential to be replicated in other amazonian areas (besides Brazilian Amazon) and elsewhere. I believe it is key to influence people´s behavioral changes that promote the use of certified products and discourage their participation in destructive activities, including participation in illegal markets. 

The thing that stood the most for me in this analysis is that the authors state that the Amazon must always be presented in its plurality, meaning recognizing its diversity and complex social-ecological realities that vary from one region to another. With this in mind, the chapter also highlights the need to have pan-amazonian laws and regulations for the use and commercialization of forest products, timber, agricultural products, and even other alternatives, like tourism and carbon markets. It is essential, from my perspective, for the Amazonian countries and territories to have a “common language” that allows for international cooperation (in legal terms), allowing at the same time for the local municipalities to adjust those regulations to their own environment. The most challenging thing in this endeavor is the enormous biodiversity that the Amazon basin harbors and recognizing the variation in its diversity from one area to another while taking advantage of the different products that each sub-region or zone may offer. This is a titanic task in which scientific and conservationists may help, through research and collaboration, with proper support from the government(s) and international cooperation. The potential for alternative agricultural and timber products and medicine and fisheries production is in its infancy in most Amazonian regions. It is precisely here where the potential for a biocultural economy resides.

(In reference to Chapter (30) of the Science Panel for the Amazon Report)

When reading the bioeconomy chapter of the Science Panel for the Amazon Report (Ch 30), I first identified the strategies stated by the authors as necessary steps to achieving a “new bioeconomy” before outlining potential actions that can be taken by conservation advocates to help implement those strategies at scale. One of the first strategies or premises stated for the successful emergence of a new bioeconomy was the recognition of Amazon Socio-biodiversity as a vital component to improved living conditions for all life on Earth. With this comes the realization that stated Socio-biodiversity aids in mitigation of climate change-related variables which affect all people on the planet, regardless of their income, status or geographic location. This also includes the fact that standing forests and flowing rivers of the Amazon are one of the most efficient providers of ecosystem services essential for life on Earth to survive and flourish. I found the most important action to be taken by conservation advocates related to this point was increased education on this linkage of tropical forests and environmental well-being. Increased education on this topic would have to span across the board and be improved upon internationally, across all socio-economic demographics and age groups. Although beginning education on this matter at a young age through integration to school curriculums is a key component to increased awareness, adults must also be educated as they are the primary decision-makers of the current era. Adult education could be achieved through the implementation of this information into major media sources such as primary news channels, social media or advertisements on frequently trafficked websites such as YouTube, Google and Facebook.

A second strategy called for in this chapter was a changed conception of infrastructure, planned to now actually meet the needs of local populations coupled with increased environmental sensitivity and the improved commercialization of bioproducts. I believe this could be achieved through coordinated fluctuations in market demand for eco-friendly products inspired by increased awareness of those products that damage and degrade tropical forests. Once consumers are aware of which products to avoid and given alternatives that have a cleaner footprint, they can make informed decisions and create rifts in demand when compounded to a society-wide scale. This would ideally urge the companies losing income to clean up their practices and provide a more eco-friendly product for an increasingly conscious market. Conservation advocates could help facilitate this process by creating lists of top “dirty” and “clean” products as seen in the animal welfare industry with cosmetics, (https://www.peta.org/features/dirty-dozen-12-worst-ceos/), simplifying the shopping process for busy consumers. Social media could be used as an outlet for these lists with boycotts of damaging products encouraged along with something as simple as coupon codes or discounts for eco-friendly alternatives (awarded to conservation organizations by companies for the free advertisement provided). I believe the true power for this strategy should come from the public who historically hold great control over supply and demand curves and have the power to incite changes in production chains by decreasing revenue to targeted companies. As far as a changed conception of infrastructure, investments in long-term, high yield energy and agricultural operations that could only benefit the local communities rather than harm them are necessary. Within this lies the condition that resources yielded from these infrastructure projects must first provide for the local community and supplement their economy before being outsourced to nearby urban areas and states. Ideally, infrastructure such as non-invasive solar power grids (panels on rooftops) and small-scale wind-power generation could provide clean and sustainable power to local communities without degrading their forests or altering the flow of their rivers, while giving them autonomy over their own power and eliminating the need to coordinate with outside providers to attain energy for desired development (access to Wi-Fi, electricity, infrastructure etc. An additional thought I had was an alternative to increased degradation of forests by land clearing for cattle farming purposes, that being investments in cultured meat infrastructure. Cultured meat eliminates the need for large expanses of land and wasteful amount of water to farm and raise cattle, completely eliminates methane emissions from the cattle themselves, and actually provides a cleaner product and higher yield for producers. Prioritizing local communities and states to invest in cultured meat startups or showing potential profit margins to cattle farmers could inspire a change in their behavior.   

The final strategy touched on was the fostering of investments in teaching and research organizations in all regions of the Amazon. This could be achieved through institutional investments in relevant, local research projects and international collaborations with institutions supporting leading ecological/ sustainable development programs. Conservation advocates could help promote these partnerships through sharing the news of any opportunities for incentivized research degree programs to top students in related fields (national + international), especially those who are degree-seeking and intending to conduct relevant research. These students could be incentivized to live in these regions for long-term periods by being provided with complete tuition packages, living stipends health-care benefits, etc. Scholarships for such research topics could also be provided by conservation advocates if local/ state funding was unable to be obtained. Upon graduation, tenured research positions at Universities in the Amazon region could be offered with attractive benefits to promote scientist retention in the area and cultivate globally-renowned research programs to attract top researchers/ students in the future.

These Are the 12 Worst CEOs for Animals Imprisoned in Laboratories. (2013). PETA. https://www.peta.org/features/dirty-dozen-12-worst-ceos/
‌