"Bioeconomy" will be a hot topic at COP30 – but no one agrees on what it means

In Brazil, the Amazonian bioeconomy is often presented as a strategy to stimulate economic growth while protecting forests. Yet, beneath this apparent consensus, lies significant differences  in what various actors hope to achieve. Emiliano Cabrera Rocha argues that recognizing these differences is essential to fostering genuinely collaborative agendas. 

 

In Brazil, there is considerable discussion about the Amazonian Bioeconomy. What is this?

Discussions about a bioeconomy have taken place in Brazil since the early 2010s. Scientists and policymakers in Brazil proposed the idea of an Amazon-specific bioeconomy between 2016 and 2017, describing it as an economic system that supposedly is compatible with standing biodiversity-rich  forests, and social inclusion. In those years, Brazil was facing overlapping political, economic, and environmental crises. In that context, the Amazonian Bioeconomy (ABE) was an attempt to address these crises by framing the Amazon—Brazil's largest biome—as an asset. The idea was to generate economic value and elevate Brazil’s global standing, while also promoting forest conservation.

 

How has the concept of Amazonian Bioeconomy developed since then?

Because ABE quickly came to mean different things to different people, it became a flexible idea in the late 2010s and early 2020s. Mining and beef industries, for example, claimed that they were planning to invest in ABE initiatives, hoping to associate their brands with seemingly green agendas. Environmentalists and Indigenous groups, in contrast, argued that they must be part of the discussion. They pushed for the bioeconomy to focus on social and environmental well-being, calling their version a socio-bioeconomy. Political parties across the spectrum incorporated the bioeconomy into their plans without defining the term or clarifying their ideas. Now, under President Lula’s government, the concept was elevated to the status of federal policy. But the term still covers many different and sometimes conflicting projects.

 

What are some of the concrete differences?

For some, the Amazonian Bioeconomy entails building high-tech labs to collect genetic material from Amazonian plants for pharmaceutical companies. Others want to convert deforested areas into large-scale agroforestry farms producing products to export. Some believe that ABE is just a new name for the long-standing practices of Indigenous and Traditional peoples. They argue that policies should be about supporting the diverse, sustainable ways Indigenous and local people engage with the forest—ranging from sustainable harvesting and herbal medicine to agroforestry with native species. For the latter, the focus is on securing their rights to land, health and education.

 

In this confusion, is there a way to find common ground - and why is this important?

Finding overlaps is not only important but essential. Transformative policies require broad coalitions and continuous negotiations. The first step – before highlighting commonalities – is to acknowledge the diversity of and potential conflicts between the multiple sociopolitical and environmental projects that are grouped under the Amazonian Bioeconomy label. Addressing conflicts and incompatibilities between different ABE visions is crucial because these points of contention – if unaddressed - will likely stall any efforts to enact an ABE policy.  For example, the government of Pará collaborated with the World Bioeconomy Forum in 2021 to celebrate an event in Belem to announce the state's new bioeconomy policy vision. There the organizers prided themselves on having dozens of bioeconomy commentators and policymakers on their stage, giving the appearance of a broad consensus among diverse social groups. However, before, during and after the Forum, representatives of Indigenous and Traditional organizations protested that they had been excluded from this official event. This exclusion of dissenting voices was a missed opportunity to begin building a truly diverse coalition and it led to the further fragmentation of ABE debates. 

 

What are your expectations for COP30 in connection to ABE?

The Amazonian bioeconomy will likely be a major topic at COP30 in Brazil. There's a risk that the ABE is discussed by only a few voices, making it seem like everyone agrees, when this is not true. I would hope that Indigenous and Traditional peoples, both urban and rural, take center stage in discussions about the ABE. I would also like ABE debates to focus on building a broad coalition to confront the currently dominant model of predatory agribusiness.

 

About

Emiliano Cabrera Rocha is a Ph.D. in Geography at the University of Cambridge, where he studies how diverse combinations of practices, knowledge, and infrastructures produce different forms of development and shape relations between people and their environment.

August 25t, 2025.