Monica Piccinini
11 August 2026
Brazil has become a global testing ground for green finance, regenerative agriculture and forest restoration. As governments, corporations and philanthropies increasingly align around the same solutions, the concentration of influence behind those initiatives deserves closer attention.
Few countries face a challenge on Brazil’s scale. Home to around 60 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, one of the world’s most important carbon sinks, it’s also the world’s largest exporter of beef and one of its leading agricultural producers. Protecting forests without undermining an industry worth billions of dollars has become one of the defining tests of Brazilian environmental policy.
Rather than slowing agricultural expansion, Brazil has sought to reconcile production with conservation. Governments, multinational food companies, development banks, philanthropic foundations and environmental organisations are investing heavily in restoration, regenerative agriculture, digital cattle traceability, carbon markets and the bioeconomy. Together, they argue, these approaches can reduce emissions while allowing agricultural production to continue growing.
The partnerships are publicly documented, so are the funding arrangements, advisory boards and government appointments. Less attention has been paid to how often the same institutions, and sometimes the same individuals, reappear across them. Following these connections offers a clearer picture of who’s helping shape one of the world’s most influential environmental transitions.
The beef industry
Brazil has the world’s second-largest cattle herd, with around 239 million, and has led global beef exports for more than two decades. According to the Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (ABIEC), exports exceeded 2.8 million tonnes in 2024, generating around $12.8 billion. China remained the largest market, accounting for 46 per cent of Brazilian exports. Beef is central to Brazil’s trade surplus and rural economy, making livestock production politically and economically inseparable from environmental policy.
Three companies dominate the sector. JBS, the world’s largest meat processor, reported revenues of around $77 billion in 2024. Marfrig, following its merger with BRF, became part of MBRF Global Foods, with annual revenues exceeding $29 billion. Minerva Foods exports to more than 100 countries and consolidated cattle slaughter of around 5.9 million in 2025. Together, the three companies exert enormous influence over the global beef trade and the debate around traceability, emissions and land use.
In 2026, JBS announced it was abandoning its target of reaching net zero emissions by 2040.
Gema Hoskins, global climate lead for NGO Mighty Earth, said:
Backtracking on measurable targets doesn’t diminish the scrutiny JBS will face for its climate and nature-wrecking record of pollution, deforestation, land-grabbing, human rights abuses and corruption.
The non-profit Changing Markets Foundation estimated that JBS alone generated around 241 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in 2023, more than many industrialised nations.
In its report, The Meat Agenda, the organisation writes:
The reality is a far cry from the rhetoric: the industry is responsible for a range of well-documented crimes – from deforestation to exploitative practices, land grabbing, and pollution – which permeate the supply chains of global meat giants like JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva.
While international attention has largely focused on the Amazon, the Cerrado has experienced extensive agricultural conversion. Research by the Changing Markets Foundation estimated that one in every three cattle processed by Brazil’s three largest meat companies originated from land cleared there. Much of that conversion complied with Brazil’s Forest Code, highlighting the distinction between legal compliance and ecological sustainability.
Successive governments have responded without attempting to reduce production. Under the 2026/27 Plano Safra, Brasília allocated around $103 billion in subsidised rural credit for commercial agriculture and approximately $16 billion through Pronaf for family farming. Credit lines under the ABC+ Programme support pasture restoration, integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems, low-carbon agriculture and precision farming. The aim is to produce from existing land rather than slow the expansion of Brazil’s livestock economy.
The meat industry now presents regenerative grazing, methane reduction, forest restoration and digital traceability not simply as environmental commitments, but as commercial necessities, reflecting growing pressure from international retailers and export markets. Productivity and sustainability are increasingly portrayed as complementary rather than competing objectives.
The shift extends well beyond livestock. As Brazil’s environmental agenda has expanded, professionals have moved between government, environmental organisations, philanthropic foundations and agribusiness, carrying expertise and influence with them. There’s nothing unusual about careers spanning across different sectors, but as environmental policy has broadened to include sustainable finance, agricultural reform and the bioeconomy, those professional networks have become increasingly influential.
The people
The growing overlap between government, philanthropy, conservation organisations and agribusiness is reflected not only in institutional partnerships, but also in the careers of the people shaping Brazil’s environmental agenda.
Carina Pimenta is one example. Before becoming National Secretary for the Bioeconomy at the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, she co-founded Conexsus, which supports community-based businesses and sustainable supply chains. Earlier, she worked at Fundo Vale, the non-profit created by mining giant Vale to promote forest conservation, restoration and the bioeconomy in the Amazon. Her career reflects a broader pattern in which experience gained in civil society and philanthropy organisations increasingly feeds directly into public policy.
Valmir Ortega has followed a similar cross-sector path. He worked for the Ministry of the Environment, founded Belterra Agroflorestas and co-founded Conexsus and Rio Capim Agropastoril, a company associated with regenerative livestock systems. He’s also a council member for FUNBIO and WRI Brasil. Belterra Agroflorestas itself was established in 2020 with support from Fundo Vale. Rather than remaining within government, business or civil society, Ortega’s experience spans all three.
Roberto Waack has spent decades leading organisations including FUNBIO and the Forest Stewardship Council, while serving on the boards of Marfrig, WWF Brasil, Wise Plásticos, Instituto Ethos, Instituto Ipê and Instituto Arapyaú. He also sits at the governing bodies of Natura, Tupy and re.green. He’s also an associate fellow at Chatham House.
Supporters argue that experience across these sectors helps bridge the gap between conservation and agribusiness. Critics, however, question whether institutions can remain fully independent while working so closely with the industries they seek to influence.
Scientists have become part of the same landscape. Carlos Nobre’s research on Amazon tipping points has shaped international understanding of tropical deforestation, and he has consistently argued that cattle ranching accounts for around 90 per cent of Amazon deforestation. In an interview with Democracy Now! in November 2025, he said:
90 per cent of the deforestation in the lowlands in the Amazon in Brazil is related to cattle ranches. And when we compute, Brazil is the only country in the world where 70 per cent of fossil fuel emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, come from land use change, about 70 per cent of emissions, 40 per cent deforestation. And about 20, 25 per cent of this comes from agriculture, but mostly for cattle ranches. Particularly, the cattle emit a lot of methane, so — all ruminants. So, we say 55 per cent of emissions in Brazil related to livestock, you know, the deforestation for cattle ranches and the cattle emitting methane.
Alongside his academic work, Nobre serves on the advisory board of the JBS Fund for the Amazon, a non-profit supported by meat company JBS that promotes sustainable development and the bioeconomy. He also sits on the advisory board for Conservation International Brasil (CI-Brasil), is a founding member of WRI Brasil and has been one of the driving forces behind Amazonia 4.0, an initiative promoting a new socio-bioeconomy for the Amazon.
Taken individually, none of these careers is unusual. Together, they reveal how expertise, influence and decision-making circulate through a relatively interconnected group of public institutions, conservation organisations, philanthropic foundations and agribusiness. The same pattern becomes even clearer when the flow of funding is examined.
The money
Money has become as important as legislation in shaping Brazil’s environmental agenda. Over the past decade, development banks, philanthropic foundations, multinational corporations and environmental organisations have channelled billions of dollars into forest restoration, regenerative agriculture, sustainable finance and the bioeconomy. Although these initiatives are managed independently, they often support similar models of rural development.
Restaura Amazônia is one example. Managed by the Brazilian Development Bank, BNDES, through the Amazon Fund, the programme plans to restore 15,000 hectares across Indigenous Lands (TI), Conservation Units (UC), agrarian reform settlements and small rural properties within the so-called Restoration Arc, a region covering 256 municipalities where most Amazon deforestation occurs.
Rather than being delivered directly by the state, the programme is coordinated by three organisations: the Brazilian Institute of Municipal Administration (Ibam), the Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable Development (FBDS) and Conservation International Brasil (CI-Brasil), each responsible for part of the Legal Amazon.
Funding comes from around $ 87 million from the Amazon Fund, alongside an additional $ 9.7 million from Petrobras, making Brazil’s state-controlled oil company one of the programme’s main backers.
Supporters argue that the project will restore degraded forests while creating jobs, strengthening local economies and helping Brazil meet its climate commitments. But it also highlights a striking contradiction.
Petrobras, whose business is built on oil and gas production, is helping fund one of Brazil’s forest restoration programmes. The company presents the investment as part of its commitment to nature-based climate solutions. At the same time, its involvement illustrates how the world’s largest emitters and extractive industries are becoming influential participants in environmental policy.
A recent investigation by journalist Mirna Wabi-Sabi, added another dimension to that debate. Examining funding records, partnerships and public statements, the investigation concluded that Petrobras has spent hundreds of millions on environmental sponsorships that extend beyond conservation projects, helping strengthen the company’s public reputation. It found that several organisations receiving Petrobras funding have remained largely silent on the company’s plans to expand oil exploration, including in environmentally sensitive Equatorial Margin.
The findings raise uncomfortable questions about whether environmental sponsorship has become a powerful reputational tool, blurring the line between genuine conservation and corporate influence.
The same mix of public policy and private finance is visible elsewhere. The Bezos Earth Fund is supporting the government of Pará and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in developing a digital cattle traceability system expected to cover more than 26 million animals. The aim is to improve transparency across the beef supply chain, reduce deforestation risks and strengthen access to international markets.
Research organisations have adopted similar approaches. The Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) promotes sustainable livestock systems in the state of Pará, home to Brazil’s second-largest cattle herd. WRI Brasil, Conexsus and the Brazil Restoration & Bioeconomy Finance Coalition (BRBFC) are developing financial mechanisms designed to attract investment into restoration, low-carbon agriculture and community enterprises.
Collectively, these actors reveal an increasingly interconnected system. Many rely on the same technical expertise, attract similar funding and involve many of the same institutions. Environmental policy is becoming shaped by a dense web of public and private organisations working towards a shared model.
The implications
Brazil’s environmental strategy now rests on a broad consensus. Forest restoration, regenerative livestock, digital traceability, sustainable finance and the bioeconomy are no longer presented as alternatives to agricultural growth, but as how that growth can continue while reducing its environmental impact.
That consensus has brought governments, corporations, philanthropies and environmental organisations into closer alignment than at any point in the past. They frequently finance the same projects, advise the same institutions and promote similar policy frameworks. In doing so they also influence which ideas attract political backing, scientific authority and investment.
As a result, environmental policy is influenced by a relatively small network of organisations whose priorities help define the terms of the debate.
Brazil is unlikely to be unique. Across the world, climate policy is moving towards blended finance, public-private partnerships and voluntary sustainability initiatives. As these models expand, understanding the relationships that connect governments, corporations, researchers and philanthropies may become as important as evaluating the projects themselves.
Many of these partnerships have delivered important environmental gains, but when the same organisations fund projects, advise governments, produce research and help shape policy, scrutiny becomes as important as cooperation.
The question is whether a system built on broad agreements remains open to challenge, accountability and competing ideas. As consensus grows, understanding who shapes it may become just as important as measuring the outcomes it delivers.
Featured image: business and nature – consensus building concept. Credit: Malp/Alamy
YourVoiz 