The indigenous and peasant communities that inhabit the tropical forest of Montes de María, in the municipality of María La Baja, in the Colombian Caribbean, have witnessed in recent decades the changes in their various crops that have become monocultures of African palm and rice, the decrease in waters that flow from the mountain, the disappearance of medicinal plants and the increasing irregularity of the rains.
The increasingly frequent overflows of rivers cause floods that bring with them a series of diseases, while fires not only devastate subsistence crops (crops that satisfy part of the food needs of a specific population), but also the rainforest that also facilitates access to water for the inhabitants.
However, for Duvan Andrés Caro, who is dedicated to communicating the problems of these impoverished, racialized and forgotten communities, climate change “is a tale of scientists, NGOs, cities. From another world”.
For decades, scientists have pinned their hopes that the evidence would help policymakers make decisions that reduce social vulnerability and environmental conflict.
It is increasingly common to hear public and private sector “decision makers” talk about environmental change and sustainability. But as international conferences on climate change multiply, the number of people leaving rural areas, displaced by the destruction of nature and their livelihoods, increases exponentially. The disconnection between the international forums where solutions are sought and the territories and their populations is evident.
But not everything is lost. Currently, new ways of linking science with territories and decision-making centers are emerging. If scientists really want to contribute to finding solutions to environmental problems, they must begin to take into account the voice of local populations and open up to their knowledge.
Joint production, or “co-production”, between local populations, scientists, decision makers and other social actors linked to the territory is a way of reconnecting these distant and distinct worlds, of generating spaces for the dialogue of knowledge and generating spaces for negotiation between the parts.
Furthermore, if the data being generated in the research centers were adapted to languages understandable by the communities, it could give a 180º turn in the decision-making processes that affect these territories and their inhabitants. This would facilitate the processes of restoration and conservation of biological corridors, something that is increasingly urgent as the food sovereignty and security of communities depend on it.
In this context, the inhabitants of the Colombian community of María La Baja and the small town of Sachayoj (“Lord of the Forest”, in Quichua) in the Argentine Chaco, which has gone from one of the largest forested regions on the continent to one of the largest deforestation frontiers in the planet in just 30 years, participated in a scientific project that had promising results in the “co-production” of knowledge and skills.
The socio-ecological resilience project to global environmental changes in heterogeneous territories brought together villagers, producers, scientists and other social actors to jointly identify the main threats and opportunities for local development.
In Sachayoj, due to the demand of the actors in the territory, a plan to monitor environmental indicators is being implemented to correct bad practices and avoid greater risks and vulnerabilities. Monitoring pollinators, for example, is reducing the use of agrochemicals and favoring biological pollination.
In María La Baja, on the other hand, the local community and scientists co-designed communication pieces about life and the diversity of the territory, memory and food, and actions for the well-being and revitalization of the territory within the scope of forest conservation. Tropical Dry. The project also promoted and strengthened socio-ecological dynamics in the monitoring of fauna and flora and in agricultural production, in order to overcome the region’s vulnerabilities.
These advances in two marginalized communities in Latin America confirm that carrying out processes of co-production, co-creation and resorting to community work when carrying out environmental research in specific territories is of paramount importance.
The achievements achieved through greater approximation and participation between researchers, community members and research centers also help to bring the future of natural resources into the discussion. This is very important for decision-making related to policies that affect spaces of biological relevance.
While in the center of large cities and in the most powerful countries of the world, people seek to temporarily “isolate” themselves from environmental conflicts, families and rural communities in Latin America and the Caribbean live permanently exposed to their consequences.
Therefore, according to Duvan, “the inhabitants of the communities urgently need that their ancestral practices of conservation, care of nature and of understanding nature be endorsed and taken into account when generating information about the territory”.
It’s time to consolidate the change. Although scientists have opted for an ineffective and naive strategy to contribute to the solution of environmental problems, rural populations on the borders of extractivism in Latin America and the Caribbean disproportionately suffer the consequences of the destruction of nature.
There is still time to reverse this situation. But, instead of continuing to place our hopes on influencing decision-makers, we must commit to working on an equal basis with all the social actors who live and work in the territory. In order to face the environmental crisis, which is increasingly manifesting itself in the most impoverished regions, it is necessary to carry out more democratic processes that take into account the different forms of knowledge.
Duvan A. Caro , Olga Lucía Hernández-Manrique , Matías Mastrangelo and Diana C. Moreno
