Introduction

Linkages between environmental risks and racial discrimination have long been areas of research and activism in the domestic sphere. The term ‘environmental racism’, coined by Rev. Dr Benjamin F. Chavis Jr and Robert D. Bullard in the 1980s, refers to racial discrimination embedded into the process of environmental decision-making, whether by a conscious design or institutional neglect (Bullard 1993, 17). The results are that communities of colour are disproportionately exposed to environmental issues (Bullard 1990, 1993; Schlosberg and Collins 2014). However, an unresolved theoretical issue in this conversation is applying such framework in the global order, particularly considering Global South countries1 in the realm of international negotiations on climate change. Such an application builds on scientific evidence that communities most at risk have emitted the least greenhouse gases (GHGs) and also have fewer resources to deal with climate change, and that climate change has generated and perpetuated vulnerabilities (IPCC 2022, 9–11). This is deeply intertwined with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC principle), since it acknowledges that Global North countries should bear the higher costs of mitigation and adaptation to climate change, as well as recent discussions on climate justice and human rights – particularly considering the economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rights. However, the current understanding and operationalization of the CBDR&RC principle does not enhance climate justice and human rights, because it does not address the underlying root causes of climate change (see the third section).

Introduction

According to estimates made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2019, the global agro-food system's emissions account for about 21 per cent to 37 per cent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC 2022a). Almost half of those emissions can be attributed to deforestation and land use changes associated mainly with the growth of the agricultural and livestock borders (Ecologistas en Acción n.d.). In this context, the production of soy for animal feed and biofuel represents a major contributor to the carbon footprint (Ecologistas en Acción n.d.). An estimate of 85 per cent of the worldwide soy production is used to feed animals (Ritchie and Roser 2021; WWF 2007).

The prevalent agribusiness model in the Latin American Southern Cone is characterized by the large-scale cultivation of genetically modified (GM) seeds, mainly of soy, which have been developed to tolerate primarily glyphosate, among other herbicides. Moreover, this model entails high levels of land concentration and monocultures and is one in which few large transnational corporations have high levels of market share for the production and distribution of both GM soy seeds and glyphosate. The other end of the value chain mirrors this scenario, with only a few retail companies dominating the market.

Since its introduction to the market in the 1990s, GM soy seeds and associated pesticide use have become one of the major drivers behind the decline of South America's natural ecosystems, especially in the tropics (Fehlenberg et al. 2017). The use of both products together has increased substantially over the years as weeds have evolved to become resistant to glyphosate (Perry et al. 2016; Tsatsakis et al. 2017).