Corporate Power in the Bioeconomy Transition: The Policies and Politics of Conservative Ecological Modernization in Brazil

Abstract

The bioeconomy transition is a double-edged sword that may either address fossil fuel dependence sustainably or aggravate human pressures on the environment, depending on how it is pursued. Using the emblematic case of Brazil, this article analyzes how corporate agribusiness dominance limits the bioeconomy agenda, shapes innovation pathways, and ultimately threatens the sustainability of this transition. Drawing from scholarship on power in agri-food governance and sustainability transitions, an analytical framework is then applied to the Brazilian case. The analysis of current policies, recent institutional changes and the case-specific literature reveals that, despite a strategic framing of the bioeconomy transition as a panacea for job creation, biodiversity conservation and local development (particularly for the Amazon region), in practice major soy, sugarcane and meatpacking conglomerates dominate Brazil’s bioeconomy agenda. In what can be described as conservative ecological modernization, there is some reflexivity regarding environmental issues but also an effort to maintain (unequal) social and political structures. Significant agribusiness dominance does not bode well for smallholder farmers, food diversity or natural ecosystems, as major drivers of deforestation and land-use change (e.g., soy plantations, cattle ranching) gain renewed economic and political stimulus as well as greater societal legitimacy under the bioeconomy umbrella.

What’s governance got to do with it? Examining the relationship between governance and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon

“…Others may have promoted agricultural expansion by loosening environmental monitoring or by participating more often in federal credit programs that increased incentives driving forest loss [ 98 ]. In other cases, these results may have corresponded to a broader trend where powerful interests, such as wealthy elites or large agribusinesses, gained control over municipal governments and diverted power from the state [ 99 ]. This phenomenon of elite capture has often enabled farmers, land speculators, agribusiness enterprises, and ranchers to more easily expand their businesses while loosening or restraining forest regulations [ 12 , 61 , 100 ].…”

Towards a transformative governance of the Amazon

“…Moreover, implementation should consider existing power imbalances and inequalities in Amazonian societies with a view to prevent elite capture of the project's agenda. In Brazil, control of the transition towards bioeconomy by corporate agribusiness is disproportionately benefiting the already‐dominant actors and concentrating economic benefits in a few hands, while preserving unsustainable systems under the pretext of green progress (Bastos Lima, 2021). This raises warning signs for the AAA Corridor initiative and reinforces the importance of building and strengthening coalitions of like‐minded actors representing transformative sustainability values (Visseren‐Hamakers et al, 2021).…”

Contextualization of the Bioeconomy Concept through Its Links with Related Concepts and the Challenges Facing Humanity

“…Similarly, Gottwald and Budde (2015) [9] consider that bioeconomy is promoted to pursue the interests of large companies involved in commercializing innovations in the life sciences and are worried that bioeconomy will promote "land grabbing" and threaten food security and nature conservation; and (ii) the greenwashing critique [10], which emphasizes that many initiatives promoted under the bioeconomy label are not environmentally sustainable. Although it is beyond the purpose of this manuscript to enter such political-ethical debates, the reality is that, depending on how it is pursued, the bioeconomy transition may either address fossil fuel dependence sustainably or aggravate human pressure on the environment [11]. As an example, Bastos Lima (2021) [11] has reported how corporate agribusiness dominance limits the bioeconomy agenda, shapes innovation pathways, and ultimately threatens the sustainability of this transition.…”

“…Although it is beyond the purpose of this manuscript to enter such political-ethical debates, the reality is that, depending on how it is pursued, the bioeconomy transition may either address fossil fuel dependence sustainably or aggravate human pressure on the environment [11]. As an example, Bastos Lima (2021) [11] has reported how corporate agribusiness dominance limits the bioeconomy agenda, shapes innovation pathways, and ultimately threatens the sustainability of this transition.…”