Agroecology and the Struggle for Food Sovereignty ... - Yale University

132
agroecology and the struggle for food sovereignty
trees and water: “Biodiversity is under ‘national treatment’ for any would-be buyer.
We could sell nature to whoever will buy. We won’t be able to give preference to
national scientists in bioprospecting.”
While markets for ecosystem services were criticized, participants offered steps for
improving them. Ivette Perfecto, from the University of Michigan, asked the group to
consider whether it is appropriate to require farmers to shoulder the burden of
biodiversity conservation. She noted that biodiversity can be the byproduct of farmer
practices, and not the goal. Rodríguez agreed that the introduction of markets
changed priorities for Costa Rican farmers; therefore, an improved practice would be
to understand farmers’ priorities. She said that in Costa Rica, “Crops are a part of
culture. Now the generation that remembers pre-Green Revolution days wants to go
back . . . wants to return to coffee culture.” John Lewis argued that securing land
tenure for small-scale farmers would improve their ability to benefit from ecosystem
services markets.
The session concluded with a discussion of steps forward. Participants noted that
ecosystem services is a relatively new approach to conservation and development, and
practitioners, farmers, and academics are still grasping how to manage and
implement it as a conservation tool. Shapiro pointed out that biodiversity
measurement and quantification techniques remain undeveloped, which makes it
especially difficult to implement markets fairly. Perfecto suggested that new
techniques would require merging various disciplines, including agronomy,
conservation, and social sciences. In the end, she concluded, “We need to bend the
mainstream market approach [to] make community-to-community links.”
yale school of forestry & environmental studies