Green technology is often framed as the solution. Local reality is often different
When apps, certification systems, and AI are introduced in Amazonia, they often bring profound changes for the local communities — changes that are not always for the better, says Magda Ribeiro. She argues that the key lies in asking better questions before implementing new technologies.
Green technologies are often seen as progress. You suggest they are more than that. How?
The notion that technology automatically improves things can be misleading, especially when we talk about the environment. It largely depends on who designs the tools, and what problems they are meant to solve. In the name of efficiency, we often introduce tools that reorganize people’s routines, reshape their relationships, and sometimes completely replace local knowledge. For example, drones and mapping apps are used to track nut harvesting, but this shifts the logic from community-based, experiential understanding of the forest to digital traceability. So, it is no longer just an addition: it redefines an entire knowledge system. So, the real question is: progress for whom?
Can you give an example of how that is felt by Brazil-nut harvesting communities in the Amazon?
Take forest certification for Brazilian nut groves. The purpose of this certification is to prevent predatory practices and ensure sustainability. But what it does on the ground is that it applies rules that often clash with how people have lived and harvested sustainably for centuries. One example is about the families I spend months with deep in the forest during harvest season. When they go into the forest, they bring their children, because families live together 24/7. But according to the certifiers, these areas in the forest are "work zones," which means that children are banned according to child labor laws. But what alternatives do these families have for child-rearing? In practice, none. Another example is mandatory safety gear like helmets, which are impractical in the local climate and terrain. The result is that generations of forest-dwelling communities are being instructed by outsiders who’ve never set foot there, blindly applying urban labor standards to a very different reality.
Your work traces the last 35 years in the Brazil nut economy. What changed in each period?
The first shift came in the early 1990s, when Indigenous and traditional communities finally gained territorial rights and political recognition. This coincided with Brazil hosting the ECO-92 summit, which mainstreamed environmental issues. The second wave (2000s) focused on partnerships—between communities, companies, and the state—often branded as "sustainable development." This is when projects like Natura’s collaboration with the Iratapuru community took off. Now, we’re in a third phase: apps, certification systems, even AI are being integrated into forest management. These changes are profound for all the actors involved, especially forest communities, and often they incorporate very little of the existing knowledge. But we cannot disregard ancestral knowledge—technologies must take local wisdom and their active participation into consideration in this transformation.
The Brazilian company Natura has built a lab in the Amazonia: is that the model to follow?
I wouldn’t say Natura is the solution. But they’re trying something different — developing technology with communities, not just for or despite them. That is a positive step. Natura has worked to understand these communities, engages with traditional knowledge, and acknowledges the consequences of its choices. It’s a more grounded approach—imperfect, but at least attentive to the people and the forest.
You referred to the second period as introducing partnerships. Would you call the collaboration between Natura and the harvesting families a partnership today, and if so, are they really equal partners?
Challenges remain. These aren’t perfectly balanced relationships. Companies still make major decisions, and communities are told to adapt to their logic. Some argue it’s better than the past, but in Brazil—with its history of slavery—that is a low bar. That said, Natura is popular locally, though not without friction. For instance, hiring select families for ads creates income disparities, breeding discontent. The corporate individualist logic clashes with communal Amazonian lifeways—a persistent tension. If we can call this relationship a partnership, each side certainly benefits in different and unequal ways.
So, what message should we take forward for the green agenda?
One of the messages is that choices shape the future. Technology is often framed as innovation, as the solution. But we must keep asking: What problem is it really solving? I don’t believe in simple answers, but we need better questions—about development, capitalism, our relationship with nature. Whether we realize it or not, we are always choosing. And those choices shape the world.
What do you hope to see at COP30?
One of the most interesting moments at COP30 is the Amazon Summit or Traditional People's Summit, where Indigenous leaders will present their proposals and suggestions. A lot of Brazilian Indigenous leaders are being heard internationally, such as Davi Kopenawa, Ailton Krenak, Célia Xakriabá. To me, it is crucial that the world is not just listening, but that it seriously considers what Indigenous peoples are saying about environmental sustainability and the importance of forest preservation. We hear what forest communities say - but do they also impact our decisions? I hope they will after COP30 in the Amazon.
About
Magda Ribeiro is an anthropologist and professor at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. Her work is grounded in extensive field research with forest communities in the Amazon. She holds a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of São Paulo and completed postdoctoral research at the University of Manchester. Her current research compares technologies developed in scientific laboratories with traditional techniques of plant manipulation in the Amazon.
August 25t, 2025.