COP30: Brazil’s bioeconomy – Hope or hype?

Monica Piccinini

12 August 2025

The upcoming UN climate conference, COP30, scheduled for November in Belém, presents a strategic platform for Brazil to position the bioeconomy as a central pillar in its climate agenda.

The bioeconomy is an approach often promoted as both a solution to the environmental crisis and a catalyst for inclusive development. However, growing scrutiny surrounds this narrative.

Critics question whether the bioeconomy will truly prioritise ecological integrity and social equity, or if it risks becoming yet another extractive, market-oriented framework repackaged in green rhetoric, serving private interests while sidelining genuine environmental and societal transformation.

Brazil defines its national bioeconomy strategy as a model of productive and economic development based on justice, ethics, and inclusion, which uses natural resources in a sustainable, regenerative, and conservationist manner, integrating scientific and traditional knowledge to generate goods, services, and socioeconomic benefits.

In his address at the BRICS Business Forum opening in Rio de Janeiro on 5 July, Brazil’s president Lula said:

Our countries can lead a new development model based on sustainable agriculture, green industry, resilient infrastructure, and the bioeconomy.

According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the bioeconomy is projected to generate over $7.7 trillion globally by 2030.

Brazil’s bioeconomy is set to open new markets across a wide range of sectors, from forest-based products and expanded biofuel production to innovative financial mechanisms such as nature credits, green bonds, Eco Invest Brasil, Fundo Clima, carbon offset programmes. Strategic investment initiatives like the Brazil Climate and Ecological Transformation Investment Platform (BIP) are also central to this growth.

The bioeconomy also encompasses biotechnology, strategic minerals, the restoration and sustainable management of natural vegetation, agricultural bio-inputs, waste management, regenerative farming, tourism, fishery, and other emerging industries.

Major Investments

In July 2025, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) approved a $1 billion loan to back Brazil’s ambitious policy reforms as part of its ecological transformation plan.

Central to this effort is Eco Invest Brasil, a partnership between the IDB and the Brazilian government. Eco Invest aims to mobilise around $10.8 billion in resources by 2027, with the majority coming from the private sector.

Eco Invest, though presented as a sustainability-focused initiative, has raised concerns among civil society groups and environmental observers.

Critics point to recent regulatory changes that may weaken environmental oversight and reduce protections for Indigenous and traditional communities, particularly if projects proceed without robust consultation or safeguards.

There are also warnings about potential risks related to land use, carbon markets, and the need for stronger governance to ensure the initiative aligns with environmental and human rights standards.

A Concept Lacking Clarity

A 2023 paper published in Ecological Economics warns that the ambiguity surrounding the bioeconomy concept poses serious risks to both the Amazon’s ecosystems and its communities.

Across the globe, a wide range of actors, from NGOs and government bodies at every level to private corporations, are promoting the bioeconomy as a path forward.

Yet, beneath this promise lies a risk: the push for biofuel monocultures like soybean and palm oil plantations, which carry serious socio-environmental consequences.

In Brazil, the widespread use of feedstocks such as sugarcane, palm oil, corn, and soybean spark intense debate. These crops, often presented as green alternatives, compete directly with food production and drive the alarming conversion of vital agricultural land into fuel production zones.

Take açaí, for example, the Amazon’s flagship bioeconomy product, valued at over $1 billion (IBGE, 2023). While its market is considered a success, the rapid expansion of açaí cultivation has come at a heavy cost: accelerating biodiversity loss and increasing social vulnerabilities within local communities.

Most profoundly, the article warns that the very framework of the bioeconomy, as currently designed, falls short in its ability to truly protect the Amazon and other richly biodiverse, socio-ecological landscapes.

Without urgent clarity and a committed, holistic approach, the promise of the bioeconomy risks becoming a threat to the land and people it aims to serve.

The term bioeconomy is increasingly used to describe a wide range of land-use practices, but a study published in the Forest Policy and Economics journal highlights the dangers of grouping together two fundamentally opposing models: industrial plantation economies and community-based sociobiodiverse systems.

While the former prioritises large-scale monocultures like soy and eucalyptus, often at the expense of ecosystems and traditional communities, the latter supports biodiversity, local livelihoods, and sustainable forest use.

The authors argue that merging these approaches under a single term obscure critical social and environmental conflicts and call for clearer policy distinctions to support truly sustainable, biodiversity-driven economies.

Additionally, the study also raises concerns about the Amazônia 4.0 project for promoting a high-tech, market-driven “bioeconomy” in the Amazon that risks reproducing capitalist, extractivist, and colonial dynamics under a sustainability guise.

While presented to harness biodiversity for local development, the authors argue it frames Indigenous and agroforestry practices within the same economic logic as large-scale monocultures, invites massive capital and infrastructure into sensitive forest areas, and overlooks power inequalities, social conflicts, and the potential erosion of Indigenous cosmologies and autonomy.

The lead author of the study, Ossi I. Ollinaho, lecturer at the global development studies of the University of Helsinki, said:

The extension of this concept [of bioeconomy] to the Amazon and similar high sociobiodiversity contexts carries the inherent risk of it ending up being pulped and sold for profit.

Institutional Structure

Brazil’s National Bioeconomy Commission (CNBio) was established as the governing body for the country’s national bioeconomy strategy, officially launched by the federal government under decree 12.044 on 5 June 2024. The commission’s primary role is to define the strategic pillars that will shape Brazil’s bioeconomy development plan (PNDBio).

CNBio consists of 34 members, evenly split between representatives from the federal government and civil society. The latter group includes stakeholders from the private sector, academia, financial institutions, environmental NGOs, Indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and family farmers.

To advance its mission, CNBio formed three specialised working groups via resolution CNBio 02/2025. The first group focuses on bioindustry and biomanufacturing, the second addresses biomass, and the third concentrates on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as well as sociobioeconomy, with particular emphasis on the forest economy, fishing, tourism, and sociobiodiversity.

Mapping the Opportunity and the Risks

Brazil ranks as the world’s most biodiverse country, hosting up to 20% of the world’s species (9,000 species of vertebrates and 42,000 of plants), across six distinct biomes (the Amazon rainforest, Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Caatinga, Pampas, and the Pantanal).

The Legal Amazon covers nearly 60% of Brazil’s territory and comprises nine states: Pará, Amazonas, Amapá, Roraima, Rondônia, Acre, Tocantins, Mato Grosso, and Maranhão. (IBGE, 2023-a).

As the world struggles with climate change and shrinking resources, all eyes are on Brazil, not just for its biodiversity, but for what can be extracted from it. For some, this is less about environmental stewardship and more about turning nature into profit.

Brazil now faces a critical question: will this moment serve the planet and its people, or just open the door to a new wave of exploitation dressed in green?

In 2023, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) teamed up with Brazil’s Ministry of Trade and Services to launch a new initiative called the Amazon Bioeconomy Business Mapping study.

The goal? To explore business opportunities in the Amazon based on the idea of building an economy that works with nature, not against it.

The study looked at several sectors. It found big potential in forest products, both timber (PFM) and non-timber (PFNM).

There’s particular interest in timber extraction, which has been legally regulated under “sustainable” forest management practices since 1965. The report suggests that there’s still plenty of room to expand this type of activity using native Amazon species.

Fishing and aquaculture are also in the spotlight. Native fish like the pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) and tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) are being eyed for commercial expansion.

In fact, Brazil created the Genomic Editing Centre for Aquaculture Fish (CNPASA) in 2023, and by 2024, Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) had already produced the first genetically modified tambaquis.

Scientists are now working to develop tambaquis without intermuscular bones, and they’re also experimenting with genetically edited tilapia designed to grow faster and produce more meat by turning off the gene responsible for regulating muscle growth. The goal? Scale up production and get these fish on more dinner tables both in Brazil and abroad.

Tourism in Brazil’s conservation areas (UCs) was highlighted in the study as a potential tool for protecting forests within the broader bioeconomy.

While the study points to strong opportunities in this sector, it doesn’t seem to fully consider the possible social and environmental impacts that could come with expanding tourism in these protected areas.

Brazil is clearly standing at a crossroads. On one side, there’s an opportunity to lead the way in sustainable development. On the other, there’s a risk of repeating old mistakes, exploiting nature for short-term gain while calling it something new. The world is watching to see which path the country will choose.

Global Spotlight and G20 Leadership

At the G20 summit held in Brazil last November, discussions around bioeconomy policies and strategies took centre stage. Brazil used the occasion to launch the Global Bioeconomy Initiative (GIB), laying out 10 high-level principles aimed at guiding the development of bioeconomy efforts both nationally and globally.

According to the G20 executive summary titled Pathways to a Sustainable Bioeconomy, Brazil’s bioeconomy covers a wide range of sectors: industrial biomanufacturing and biotechnology, agrifood systems and agriculture, bioenergy and biofuels, ecosystem restoration and regeneration, and sociobioeconomy value chains rooted in local communities.

Despite its potential, the summary points out several challenges. Access to international markets for sociobioeconomy products remains limited.

There’s also a lack of financing tools and incentives to support growth in the sector, alongside serious gaps in processing facilities and transport infrastructure.

The push to grow the bioeconomy, especially in the Amazon, brings with it a wave of difficult questions.

While the development of this sector will require major infrastructure investments, such as new roads, power grids, transport, facilities, these changes also carry serious environmental and social risks.

Expanding infrastructure to support the bioeconomy could lead to faster urbanisation and rising pollution in one of the most ecologically sensitive areas on Earth.

Studies have shown that projects like the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway, a key piece of the region’s bioeconomy development, often go hand in hand with deforestation, habitat loss, and increased pressure on Indigenous and traditional communities.

As Brazil moves forward with its plans, striking the right balance between economic opportunity, environmental protection, and social justice remains one of the country’s biggest challenges.

The Biofuels Dilemma

Bioenergy and biofuels are central to Brazil’s climate strategy. But rising mandates for ethanol and biodiesel are driving relentless expansion of sugarcane, soy, corn, and palm oil, of then at the expense of food systems and ecosystems.

Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez Morales, lecturer and researcher in environmental policy and climate change governance at the Department of Economic History and International Relations at Stockholm University, explained:

Like food production, ethanol requires land, water, and nutrients, meaning that a large-scale expansion could intensify the negative side effects of agricultural growth.

Positioning bioenergy as a climate strategy has effectively justified broader policies supporting the biofuel industry and contributed to the greenwashing of Brazil’s climate policy on the international stage. Several countries have mirrored Brazil’s approach, adopting bioenergy into their climate agendas in response.

Green Finance or Green Mask?

The Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (TSB) represents an effort by the government to align financial flows with environmental and social objectives.

Positioned as a key instrument in the fight against the climate crisis, it seeks to identify economic activities that align with environmental and social sustainability.

However, its initial focus on a small group of commodities, including soy, corn, cattle, coffee, cocoa, eucalyptus, pirarucu, tilapia and tambaqui, has prompted discussion about whether the selection reflects environmental priorities or prevailing economic interests.

There is concern that, without clearly defined and rigorous criteria, the taxonomy could inadvertently support existing practices rather than driving meaningful change.

This raises a broader concern: amid a global climate emergency, it is essential that sustainability frameworks remain robust and grounded in tangible outcomes.

If sustainability is defined more by procedural formalities than by real environmental results, there is a risk that the taxonomy could be perceived as allowing surface-level compliance rather than driving genuine transformation.

Additionally, given the significant involvement of major economic sectors in shaping the taxonomy, questions have emerged around how to ensure transparency and guard against unintended influences that might weaken its environmental credibility.

Crossroads at COP30

As COP30 approaches, Brazil faces a defining moment. The bioeconomy could become a powerful engine for justice and regeneration, or it could repeat the old story, where corporations profit from nature while the communities who protect it are sidelined.

If driven by financial interests alone, the Amazon risks becoming just another asset on a balance sheet, and sustainability reduced to a convenient label. This is not innovation, it’s business as usual in a green disguise.

But Brazil can choose another way. With its deep cultural knowledge, grassroots leadership, and global influence, the country has the power to shape a bioeconomy that puts people and ecosystems first.

COP30 offers a critical platform to shift the narrative, from one of extraction and exclusion to one of inclusion and respect. This is Brazil’s moment to lead with purpose and prove that a just, sustainable future is not only necessary, but possible.

The BR-319 threatens the Amazon in the name of ‘progress’ and politics

Monica Piccinini

19 July 2025

On 15 July, Brazil’s environment minister, Marina Silva, and transport minister, Renan Filho, formally announced and signed an agreement outlining plans to reconstruct the controversial BR-319 highway.

On the surface, this appears to be a calculated strategy with promises of environmental assessments and governance structures, but beneath the political rhetoric lies a dark, irreversible truth: BR-319 may be the final blow that drives the Amazon to the brink of collapse.

The path of destruction

The BR-319 is an 885km stretch of road cutting through one of the last untouched areas of the Amazon rainforest. Connecting Manaus to Porto Velho, it cuts through pristine rainforest, Indigenous lands, and vital biodiversity.

Originally built under Brazil’s military dictatorship in the 1970s, it was abandoned in 1988 for being economically and environmentally unviable. But like a ghost from the past, BR-319 keeps returning, this time with far more dangerous implications.

Governments have tried to revive the highway for decades. Yet every credible environmental study confirms that paving BR-319 would open a Pandora’s box of illegal roads, deforestation, degradation, land grabbing, and violent occupation.

Lucas Ferrante, researcher at the University of São Paulo (USP) and the Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), highlighted the alarming consequences of Brazil’s current environmental policies and the lack of effective safeguards. He emphasised the global implications of these decisions and their impact on the Amazon region:

The country is systematically ignoring warnings from the scientific community, despite clear evidence published in leading journals such as Science, Nature, and The Lancet. This is a deliberate decision that threatens all nations across the globe.

In this context, Brazil is left without any effective environmental safeguards, and the BR-319 highway has become a route for the expansion of deforestation, land grabbing, illegal cattle ranching, organised crime, and oil extraction in the Amazon.

Governance: A dangerous illusion

The government claims it will establish a governance model to monitor the region. However, even Brazil’s military police have declared any governance scenario unachievable and unrealistic. Given the vast and challenging terrain, no oversight body has the resources, reach, or capacity to contain the chaos the BR-319 would unleash.

Today, more than 6,000km of illegal side roads already crisscross the region, forming a devastating fishbone pattern that grants unprecedented access to miners, loggers, land grabbers and organised crime. BR-319 would not just be a road, it would become an artery of destruction, feeding a vast, uncontrolled deforestation machine.

A death sentence for the rainforest

BR-319 would connect the central Amazon to the AMACRO region, a deforestation hotspot named after the states of Amazonas, Acre, and Rondônia. Its reconstruction would bring catastrophic consequences, destroying biodiversity by opening one of the richest ecosystems on Earth to exploitation.

It would intensify climate change by releasing vast amounts of stored carbon. It would fuel illegal mining and logging, undermining the rule of law. It would invade Indigenous territories, violate their rights and put their lives at risk. And it would create a fertile ground for organised crime to flourish.

The damage would not be limited to the forest. The “flying rivers”, massive air currents that transport moisture from the Amazon to southern Brazil, would be disrupted. These flying rivers are essential to rainfall patterns. Without them, major cities and agricultural regions will experience crippling droughts.

Over 70% of the rainfall that sustains São Paulo’s Cantareira water system originates from the Amazon. If BR-319 moves forward, the water security of Brazil’s largest city could be at risk, leading to direct consequences for agriculture and potentially causing a collapse across the country’s economic sectors.

The human cost: Disease and displacement

The consequences of the BR-319 would also be measured in human lives. By destroying forest ecosystems and pushing deeper into wildlife habitats, this project creates perfect conditions for new zoonotic diseases to emerge, and increasing the risk of another global pandemic. Malaria cases in the region have already increased by 400%.

The spread of Oropouche fever, transmitted by the tiny Culicoides paraense mosquito, known locally as maruim, has been another alarming sign. Between 2022 and 2024, more than 6,000 cases of Oropouche fever were recorded. These outbreaks originated in the AMACRO region have already spread across Brazil to the state of Espírito Santo, to other countries in South America, and the Caribbean.

According to the UK government, several travel-associated Oropouche cases have been reported in the US, Europe and the UK.

Ferrante warns about the severe biosecurity risks associated with ongoing environmental destruction in the Amazon:

Deforestation and environmental degradation are already encroaching upon sensitive areas that safeguard unique zoonotic reservoirs. The Oropouche virus lineage now reaching Europe originates from this region. Nevertheless, the Brazilian government is opening a true Pandora’s box of new viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens. The consequences for global biosecurity will be catastrophic.

If BR-319 goes forward, the health crisis will deepen. The Amazon will become a breeding ground for future pandemics, and Brazil will bear the cost of a preventable catastrophe.

Who really benefits?

The benefits of BR-319 won’t go to the Indigenous people, whose lands and lives it threatens. There are 69 Indigenous territories and 18,000 Indigenous people along the path of the highway. None of them have been properly consulted, despite protections under ILO Convention 169 and Brazilian law.

Instead, the primary beneficiaries will be oil and gas giants like Petrobras and Rosneft (Russian), mining companies such as Potássio do Brasil (Canadian), and agribusiness conglomerates like JBS.

Legal and illegal mining operations will expand. Livestock farming, which is already responsible for at least 88% of deforestation in the Amazon, will be supercharged. The result will be more forests cleared, more carbon in the atmosphere, and more violence on the ground.

The highway will also strengthen the grip of organised crime. Land grabbing and illegal deforestation are already closely tied to criminal networks in the region. BR-319 would create a corridor of exploitation and conflict.

The bioeconomy mirage

Some argue that the BR-319 is essential for developing Brazil’s so-called “bioeconomy”. According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the bioeconomy is projected to generate over $7.7 trillion globally by 2030. This concept, however, remains poorly defined and deeply controversial.

With COP30 on the horizon, Brazil is pushing this narrative hard. But what is being sold as a sustainable alternative may just be a new form of extraction.

Under the banner of the bioeconomy, projects include carbon credits, biofuels, timber and non-timber forest products, fishing, biotechnology, tourism, and even virtual platforms.

A bill has been proposed to create a bioeconomy free trade zone (FTZ) in Belém, the host city for COP30. It offers tax incentives, deregulation, and trade privileges. The beneficiaries, once again, will be corporations and elites.

Far from being a solution, the bioeconomy risks becoming another vehicle for greenwashing destruction in the Amazon.

Devastation by law

Underlying all this devastation is legislation designed to dismantle Brazil’s environmental protections. Bill 2159/21, known as the “Devastation Bill”, allows companies to self-license their projects without any environmental impact assessment. A simple online form is all it takes.

Backed by the powerful “ruralista” bloc, large landowners and agribusiness interests, this bill paves the way for unregulated expansion in oil and gas, mining, agribusiness, and infrastructure, including the BR-319.

On 17 July, Brazil’s chamber of deputies approved the Devastation Bill, which now awaits president Lula’s approval. This marks a significant blow to Brazil’s efforts on environmental justice and climate commitments.

Another law, 14.701/2023 (previously PL490), known as the “marco temporal”, redefines Indigenous land rights. It states that Indigenous communities can only claim land if they were in possession of it on October 5, 1988, the day the Brazilian constitution was enacted.

Ferrante said:

Brazil is experiencing the greatest environmental vulnerability in its history. This decision aligns with the approval of bill 2159/2021, which eliminates environmental licensing for this type of project, and with the advancement of the so-called ‘timeframe thesis’, which invalidates the recognition of Indigenous lands demarcated after 1988.”

This cruel logic ignores centuries of displacement and paves the way for violent evictions, granting military police the authority to remove Indigenous people from their own ancestral lands.

What future do we choose?

The BR-319 is more than just a highway; it’s a symbol of a dangerous choice. It forces us to decide between two futures: one where we protect the Amazon, respect Indigenous rights, and chart a sustainable path forward; and another where we sacrifice it all for short-term profits, political gain, and corporate greed.

The Brazilian government must make a real technical decision, one grounded in science, not politics, because once the BR-319 is paved, there will be no turning back. If we lose the Amazon, we lose the climate, we lose biodiversity, and we lose our collective future.

We must ask: Is the destruction of the planet worth a few more kilometres of road? Is this the legacy we want to leave behind to the next generations?

Toxic Dependency: Fossil Fuels Undermine Food Security, Experts Warn

Monica Piccinini

7 July 2025

Despite consuming 40% of all petrochemicals and 15% of the world’s fossil fuel, global food systems remain largely absent from global climate discussions. This oversight obscures a critical reality: without rethinking how we produce, process, and consume food, meaningful progress on climate goals will remain out of reach.

As oil prices increase in the wake of escalating global conflicts, a new report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) delivers a stark warning: the world’s food systems are dangerously dependent on fossil fuels, and this addiction is driving both climate chaos and food insecurity.

The report, Fuel to Fork: What will it take to get fossil fuels out of our food systems?, reveals that food systems have become Big Oil’s next big target. A staggering 40% of global petrochemicals and 15% of all fossil fuels are now funnelled into agriculture and food supply chains through synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, plastic packaging, ultra-processed foods, cold storage, and transport.

“Fossil fuels are, disturbingly, the lifeblood of the food industry,” says Errol Schweizer, IPES-Food expert. “From chemical fertilisers to ultra-processed junk food, to plastic packaging, every step is fossil-fuel based. The industrial food system consumes 40% of petrochemicals – it is now Big Oil’s key growth frontier. Yet somehow it stays off the climate radar.”

For years, the climate impact of our food systems has been clear, and today, it can no longer be overlooked. Food production now contributes nearly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with agriculture and land-use change driving much of the damage. Forests are cleared for cattle, and vast areas are transformed into chemically intensive, resource-heavy crop systems.

Global Conflicts Driving Food Prices Up

With Israel-Iran tensions pushing oil prices higher, the knock-on effects on food are becoming more acute. Food and energy markets are deeply linked, the report emphasises, and when oil prices spike, food prices quickly follow, worsening hunger and economic instability worldwide.

IPES-Food expert, Raj Patel, warns:

Tethering food to fossil fuels means tying dinner plates to oil rigs and conflict zones. When oil prices rise, so does hunger – that’s the peril of a food system addicted to fossil fuels. Delinking food from fossil fuels has never been more critical to stabilise food prices and ensure people can access food.

The Invisible Engine of Big Oil’s Expansion

Global subsidies for coal, oil, and gas, both direct and hidden, have surged to a staggering $7 trillion, equivalent to 7.1% of the world’s GDP. This massive sum surpasses total annual government spending on education and amounts to nearly two-thirds of global healthcare expenditures.

In 2024 alone, $2 trillion was funnelled directly into fossil fuel industries, while and additional $5 trillion represents the devastating societal costs, from toxic air pollution to oil spills and widespread environmental destruction.

At the same time, nearly 90% of the $540 billion in annual agriculture subsidies is driving harm, to both people and the planet. These funds overwhelmingly support chemical-intensive commodity crop production, entrenching destructive practices. Most of this money flow through price protections and input-linked payments, locking farmers into unsustainable systems that degrade ecosystems, threaten health, and undermine long-term food security.

Fossil Fuels in Every Bite: How Pesticides and Plastics Feed Big Oil

As industries around the world start the slow shift toward decarbonisation, the global food system is quietly doing the opposite, pushing fossil fuel demand even higher. Major food corporations routinely deploy aggressive tactics to undermine or obstruct public health and environmental policies, replicating the same playbook fossil fuel giants have used for decades to stall climate progress.

According to the report, nearly all synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, an astonishing 99%, are made from fossil fuels. Fertiliser production alone eats up a third of the world’s petrochemicals, making agriculture a major profit driver for oil and gas companies.

Global pesticide use continues to grow, having risen by 13% over the past decade, and doubling since 1990, particularly in countries like China, the United States, Brazil, Thailand, and Argentina. China stands out as the world’s largest pesticide producer, responsible for one-third of global output.

Pesticides have emerged as one of the leading global drivers of biodiversity loss. Their toll on human health is just as alarming: every year, over 385 million people suffer from unintentional pesticide poisonings, resulting in 11,000 deaths and impacting nearly 44% of the world’s farming population.

Moreover, the extensive use of plastics, over 10% of global plastic production for food and beverage packaging, and an additional 3.5% for agriculture, reveals a stark reality: the food system is a powerful but overlooked driver of Big Oil’s continued growth.

Yet, despite this heavy footprint, food systems are still largely ignored in national climate strategies and global negotiations, a dangerous blind spot that experts warn can no longer be overlooked.

Tech Fixes Are a False Solution

The report is highly critical of so-called “climate-smart” innovations such as “blue” ammonia fertilisers, synthetic biology, and high-tech digital agriculture. These approaches, the authors argue, are energy-intensive, costly, and risk locking in fossil fuel use and agrochemicals under the guise of climate progress.

Molly Anderson, IPES-Food expert, mentioned:

From farm to fork, we need bold action to redesign food and farming, and sever the ties to oil, gas, and coal. As COP30 approaches, the world must finally face up to this fossil fuel blind spot.

Food systems are the major driver of oil expansion – but also a major opportunity for climate action. That starts by phasing out harmful chemicals in agriculture and investing in agroecological farming and local food supply chains – not doubling down on corporate-led tech fixes that delay real change.

A Clear Path Forward

There is hope, and there are already alternatives. Agroecology, Indigenous foodways, regenerative farming, and local supply chains offer viable, fossil-free models for nourishing people and the planet.

Georgina Catacora-Vargas, IPES-Food expert, said:

Fossil fuel-free food systems are not only possible – they already exist, as the world’s Indigenous people teach us. By shifting from ultra-processed diets to locally sourced, diverse foods; by helping farmers step off the chemical treadmill and rebuild biological relationships; by redignifying peasant farming and care work – we can feed the world without fossil fuels.

With COP30 in Brazil on the horizon, IPES-Food is calling on governments to phase out fossil fuel and agrochemical subsidies, cut fossil fuels from food systems, and prioritise agroecological, healthy, and resilient food systems.

The takeaway is clear: continuing to power our food system with fossil fuels is driving us toward climate chaos, economic upheaval, and deepening world hunger. We must break free from this destructive cycle. The future of our planet depends on the choices we make now.

Climate Change and El Niño: Pushing Brazil’s Amphibians to Extinction

Monica Piccinini

7 July 2025

A groundbreaking new study has challenged a long-standing belief in conservation science, revealing that climate change, intensified by increasingly extreme El Niño events, is the true force accelerating the extinction and decline of Brazil’s amphibians. Contrary to decades of assumptions, researchers have found that the aquatic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), once blamed as the main cause, plays only a secondary role in the crisis.

The study delivers a striking revelation: while Bd is undeniably harmful, it acts not as the trigger but as an opportunistic invader, targeting amphibian populations already weakened by climate stress, loss of immunity, and reduced genetic diversity.

Rather than causing mass deaths directly, Bd outbreaks tend to emerge years after populations have already declined, revealing the real danger: environmental instability. Intense droughts, rising temperatures, and erratic weather patterns fuelled by El Niño have severely damaged amphibian habitats, stripping species of their ability to adapt and survive.

The research also highlights a surprising twist, Brazilian amphibians, through generations of exposure, have developed herd immunity to Bd. Their vulnerability originates not from the fungus itself, but from a changing environment.

Shifts in temperature and rainfall have disrupted ecosystems and damaged the skin microbiomes that amphibians rely on for defence. As water sources dry up, frogs and other species are forced into smaller, crowded areas, perfect conditions for disease to spread.

This study marks a critical turning point in our understanding of amphibian decline, redirecting attention from disease to the broader and more urgent threat of a destabilised climate.

Célio Fernando Baptista Haddad, biologist in the department of biodiversity and CBioClima centre at São Paulo State University (UNESP), and one of the authors of the study, mentioned that adapting conservation strategies to address human-induced climate change is a multifaceted challenge that requires profound changes in our way of life. He further explained:

We must urgently transition to cleaner energy sources, but this is obstructed by powerful oil and coal lobbies that resist ending the exploitation of polluting resources – resources that are not only heating the planet but also pushing wildlife and ecosystems toward extinction.

Haddad also emphasised that deforestation remains a major concern, driven by a growing global population, now over 8 billion, exceeding the Earth’s carrying capacity and prompting land clearing for agriculture and livestock.

From 1923 to 2014, scientists documented the extinction or decline of 90 Brazilian frog species, with at least eight possibly extinct. One species was classified as critically endangered, while another was deemed endangered. This trend began in the 1970s and shows no signs of stopping, driven by a combination of factors: loss of biodiversity, agricultural expansion, pesticide use, disruption of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and, most significantly, climate change.

The lead author of the study, Lucas Ferrante, said:

Our research refutes the hypothesis that the decline of Brazilian amphibians was primarily caused by the Bd fungus. Using causal effect equations, we demonstrate that climate change, extreme weather events, and rising temperatures are in fact the main culprits. This is particularly important because the declines began after the Industrial Revolution – the same period during which humans began significantly altering the planet’s climate.

He further stresses that current mitigation targets are no longer sufficient. Brazil plays a significant role in this scenario: when deforestation alone is considered, the country ranks as the fourth-largest global emitter of greenhouse gases.

Moreover, emissions from wildfires, which have increased under the current government, have yet to be fully accounted for. The situation is further worsened by President Lula’s plans to expand oil exploration, including in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Amazon River mouth, as well as in several other sites within the Amazon rainforest.

Brazil is home to the world’s largest number of amphibian species, the majority of which are found nowhere else on Earth. This makes the country a critical hotspot for biodiversity, and the ongoing amphibian crisis is a blow to global conservation efforts.

Zoonotic Spillovers

Adding another layer of concern, climate change and extreme weather events, such as the severe droughts and rising temperatures linked to El Niño, are also accelerating the spread of zoonotic diseases, which pose significant risks to both wildlife and human populations.

In the Amazon region, record-breaking temperatures and unusual weather patterns – combined with deforestation driven by road projects like the BR-319 highway and the expansion of cattle farming into conservation areas – are amplifying the risk of disease spillover.

As ecosystems are disrupted and human activities encroach deeper into wildlife habitats, the likelihood of disease transmission increases, posing a growing threat to both animals and humans.

Haddad highlights how deforestation and infrastructure projects not only disrupt ecosystem, but also contribute to the spread of infectious diseases and climate instability:

Human-driven environmental degradation is a key driver of climate change, with deforestation altering critical abiotic factors like temperature, humidity, and light, often making habitats uninhabitable for many species. While the link between deforestation and diseases like chytridiomycosis is complex and context-dependent, one principle holds true: the more intact and undisturbed an ecosystem is, the greater the resilience of its wildlife, including against disease.

Infrastructure such as roads not only accelerates deforestation by enabling easier access for logging and agriculture but also serves as a vector for the spread of infectious agents. In regions like the Amazon, a moratorium on deforestation, highway and dam construction, and extractive industries is urgently needed. Sustainable, economically viable alternatives for local communities are not only possible, but they’re also essential for the survival of both the forest and the planet.

Research indicates that intensified agriculture and the conversion of forests into farmland and cattle pastures increase interactions between humans and pathogens, thereby facilitating the emergence of viral, bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections.

The rising frequency of these extreme climate events not only strains the survival of amphibians but also compromises the overall health of the Amazon’s delicate ecosystem.

Haddad warns that human disruption of ecosystems not only threatens wildlife but also increases our own vulnerability to future pandemics:

Human-induced environmental degradation increases the exposure of wildlife to infections and parasites, often introducing pathogens into species that have never encountered them before.

While Bd is unlikely to infect humans, diseases affecting birds and mammals, species with physiologies closer to ours, pose a much greater risk. As we’ve seen with COVID-19, environmental disruption can bring humans into contact with novel pathogens capable of adapting to our bodies and causing serious public health crises.

As the situation grows more dire, the study highlights the urgency of addressing climate change and its cascading effects. The decline of amphibians, once considered a silent environmental crisis, is now an unmistakable signal that broader ecological changes are underway.

Haddad underscores that environmental restoration, and systemic change must occur simultaneously, despite the political and economic challenges. He said:

We need immediate local actions like halting deforestation, road and dam construction, and extractive projects, alongside global measures such as transitioning away from fossil fuels and restoring degraded ecosystems.

Forest restoration can help absorb excess carbon, but implementing these solutions in a world driven by economic power and home to over 8 billion people is far more difficult than it sounds.

The extinction of amphibians, especially in a biodiversity-rich country like Brazil, serves as a clear warning of the broader environmental challenges confronting humanity. If we fail to take meaningful action to combat climate change and safeguard ecosystems, the planet’s vulnerable species, particularly those that rely on fragile habitats, will continue to suffer the consequences of our collective neglect.

COP30: Will Brazil Step Up as a Climate Leader?

Monica Piccinini

6 February 2025

As the host of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP30, Brazil stands at a crucial moment in history. This is more than just a global summit; it’s an opportunity for the nation to establish itself as a leader in the climate agenda and set an example for the world.

This November, the spotlight will be on Belém, the capital of Pará, as it hosts COP30, bringing together world leaders, activists, corporations, and policymakers to tackle the world’s most urgent environmental challenges, where the stakes have never been higher.

With climate disasters intensifying and deforestation threatening the planet’s most critical ecosystems, Brazil has both the responsibility and the power to drive real change.

For Brazil’s President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, COP30 presents a defining moment. It is a chance to take bold, decisive action, protecting Brazil’s rich biodiversity, halting deforestation and degradation in the Amazon rainforest, and shutting the door on further fossil fuel expansion.

The world is watching to see whether Brazil will step up with concrete policies and enforcement that safeguard its natural resources. If Lula seizes this moment, Brazil won’t just be hosting COP30, it will be leading the charge toward a more sustainable and resilient future.

Cássio Cardoso Pereira, ecologist, conservation biologist, and editor of BioScience, Biotropica, and Nature Conservation journals, shared his perspective on COP30:

Brazil stands at a crossroads. Events like COPs may generate ideas, but without real commitment, they will fail to drive the urgent change we need. Empty declarations about having the world’s largest tropical forest and abundant renewable resources mean nothing if we ignore the fires, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and relentless destruction that threaten them.

Oil and Gas

In 2024, the world has witnessed alarming new records in greenhouse gas levels and rising air and sea surface temperatures, as tracked by the Copernicus Climate Change Service. These shifts have triggered extreme weather events across the globe, including in Brazil, highlighting an urgent need for nations to phase out fossil fuels. Yet, instead of taking decisive action, countries, including Brazil, are ramping up fossil fuel production, pushing the planet further into crisis.

Brazil’s path is deeply concerning. According to the country’s trade ministry, oil exports surged to $44.8 billion this year, surpassing soybeans as the nation’s top export. Projections from Rystad Energy indicate that by 2030, Brazil’s oil production will exceed 7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd), elevating the country from the seventh to the fifth-largest oil producer in the world.

In 2024, state-owned oil giant Petrobrás reached a staggering production level of 2.4 million barrels of oil per day. Having Lula’s full support, the company is moving forward with controversial plans to expand oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River, an ecologically fragile region. This project threatens vital coral reefs, extensive mangroves, and the livelihoods of Indigenous and local communities. Beyond these immediate dangers, the risks of oil spills and increased greenhouse gas emissions could have catastrophic global consequences.

Pereira emphasised that Brazil’s choices today will determine whether it curbs environmental collapse or accelerates a climate catastrophe:

Brazil must foster an inclusive, transparent dialogue, one that listens to all voices, especially Indigenous communities, instead of being drowned out by misinformation and intolerance. While deforestation grabs headlines, the deeper crisis of forest degradation continues unchecked.

And now, reckless projects, including the BR-319 highway, the Ferrogrão railroad, and the disastrous proposal to drill for oil at the mouth of the Amazon, push the rainforest closer to collapse.

If these threats are ignored and buried beneath diplomatic pleasantries, Brazil will not only fail its emissions targets but betray its responsibility to the planet. The time for real action is now.

Amazon’s BR-319 Highway

The BR-319 highway, an 885 km stretch connecting the capital of Amazonas, Manaus, to Porto Velho, runs through one of the most pristine regions of the Amazon rainforest. Now, with a proposed reconstruction of 406 km, this project threatens to unleash a chain of destruction, turning an intact ecosystem into an open gateway to deforestation, crime, and corporate greed. The consequences  wouldn’t just be local, they would ripple across Brazil and the world, accelerating climate collapse and putting Indigenous communities at extreme risk.

At the heart of this looming disaster is the AMACRO region, a deforestation hotspot covering the states of Amazonas, Acre, and Rondônia. If BR-319 is rebuilt, it would carve open a direct path between these heavily deforested lands and the untouched heart of the Amazon. With the rainforest already approaching an irreversible tipping point, this highway could be the trigger that pushes it over the edge.

The rainforest, long considered the “lungs of the Earth,” plays a crucial role in stabilising global temperatures. Destroying it would speed up climate change, making extreme weather events even more frequent and devastating.

Beyond environmental catastrophe, the human cost is staggering. The highway would expose 69 Indigenous communities, over 18,000 Indigenous people, to land invasions, violence, and displacement. Illegal land grabbing, mining, and logging have already inflicted damage on the Amazon, but with a newly reconstructed BR-319, these activities would expand uncontrollably.

Over 6,000 km of illegal roads have already been built off BR-319, and with further expansion, organised crime will only strengthen its hold on the region, putting both Indigenous lives and rainforest defenders in danger.

The threat extends beyond land. The destruction of the rainforest could disrupt the “flying rivers”, air currents heavy with water that bring rain to vast areas of Brazil. Without them, droughts could devastate agriculture and water supplies, affecting millions of people. Worse still, deforestation could create conditions for new zoonotic diseases to jump from wildlife to humans, increasing the risk of another global pandemic. In a world still struggling with the effects of COVID-19, this is a risk too great to ignore.

Despite urgent warnings from leading scientists Lucas Ferrante and Phillip Fearnside, the Brazilian government remains unmoved. With the president’s full support and backing from politicians, business leaders, and even some NGOs, BR-319 has being pushed forward in the name of economic growth. But the real beneficiaries are the powerful industries behind oil and gas, agribusiness, and mining, both legal and illegal, while the Amazon and its people suffer the ultimate price.

Lucas Ferrante, researcher at the University of Sao Paulo (USP) and Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), said:

This is more than a road; it’s a turning point. Deforestation and degradation are already seen around BR-319. If the highway is rebuilt, it could set off an irreversible chain reaction that will devastate the Amazon, harm Indigenous communities, and accelerate climate change beyond control.

The choice is clear: either listen to the science and protect the rainforest, or let short-term profits destroy one of the world’s last great ecosystems. The world is watching and what happens next will define the future of the Amazon, Brazil, and the planet.

Biofuels

At COP30, Brazil will showcase its commitment to building a strong bioeconomy, an opportunity to unlock its vast natural wealth and drive economic growth. Central to this ambition is the aggressive expansion of biofuels, a key pillar of Brazil’s decarbonisation strategy, reinforced by President Lula’s Fuel of the Future Law, increasing biofuel mandate in the country.

Yet, this path is not without consequence. The soaring demand for biofuel crops, sugarcane, soy, corn, and palm oil, threatens food security, drives deforestation, and puts immense pressure on vital ecosystems. Land conversion accelerates greenhouse gas emissions, while water depletion, soil erosion and pollution by using pesticides raise serious concerns about sustainability.

In Pará, the expansion of palm oil has sparked conflict, marked by allegations of environmental crimes and violence against Indigenous and traditional communities.

Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez Morales, lecturer and researcher in environmental policy and climate change governance at the Department of Economic History and International Relations at Stockholm University, mentioned:

Brazil’s ethanol diplomacy aims to portray the nation as climate-conscious, using biofuel as leverage in climate negotiations. Many countries have followed Brazil’s ‘successful’ example by integrating bioenergy into their climate policies, even though its social and environmental costs are widely acknowledged.

Brazil stands at a defining moment. Will its bioeconomy set a global example for true sustainability, or will progress come at an irreversible cost?

Livestock

In 2024, Brazil witnessed a catastrophic environmental crisis. According to MapBiomas’ fire monitor, a staggering 30.8 million hectares (119,000 square miles) of land were consumed by fires, an area larger than Italy, marking a shocking 79% increase from 2023.

The Amazon, already under immense pressure, faced its worst year for fires in 17 years. At the heart of this devastation are cattle farmers, clearing vast tracts of land for agriculture and pasture.

Meanwhile, Brazil set a grim record, exporting the largest quantity of beef in its history: 2.89 million tons valued at $12.8 billion, as reported by the Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (ABIEC). Most of this beef went to China, followed by the US, UAE, and the EU.

Livestock farming is a leading driver of the Amazon’s destruction, responsible for 88% of deforestation.

Global NGO Global Witness holds three major Brazilian meatpacking giants, JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva, accountable for much of this devastation. These companies are linked to the destruction of vast stretches of forest in Mato Grosso, an area larger than Chicago.

JBS, the world’s largest beef exporter and second-largest beef producer, employs over 250,000 people globally and generated an estimated $77 billion in revenue in 2024, contributing about 2.1% of Brazil’s gross domestic product (GDP). Yet, the company’s profits are built on a foundation of environmental degradation, deforestation, and exploitation.

JBS has been accused of greenwashing, promoting unsustainable practices, and violating human rights, including child labour at meatpacking plants in the US.

A report from NGO Mighty Earth revealed the shocking extent of these crimes. JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva sourced cattle from a farmer accused of illegally clearing 81,200 hectares of land, an area nearly four times the size of Amsterdam. This farmer was also linked to the use of a toxic chemical, 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange), to deforest his land, marking the largest deforestation case ever recorded in Mato Grosso.

João Gonçalves, Mighty Earth’s Senior Director for Brazil, said: 

Our recent analysis shows JBS is still linked to rampant deforestation in its beef supply chains in Brazil and is at the bottom of Mighty Earth’s Scorecard when it comes to tackling the issue. It’s admission a couple of weeks ago that it has ‘zero control’ of its supply chain means JBS doesn’t care where it gets it meat from, including from farms destroying the Amazon. 

JBS is tinkering at the edges of requiring traceability to cattle suppliers, while at the same time massively expanding its climate-wrecking meat operations. This includes a huge deal with China, which has the backing of President Lula, who promised to end deforestation in the Amazon by 2030, but his support for JBS’ expansion could push the Amazon closer to an irreversible tipping point.

The eyes of the world will be on Brazil for COP30 and already the optics aren’t good with the mixed messages and contradictory actions of government.

Corporate Power Shaping Brazil’s Policies

In 2023, Brazil’s president, Lula, established “Conselhão,” a council aimed at promoting sustainable socioeconomic development (CDESS). This group, comprising around 250 representatives from various sectors and civil society, was formed to provide guidance on the development of economic, social, and “sustainable” policies and strategies.

Among the members of the CDESS advisory group are major corporations like JBS, Copersucar, Cargill, Cosan, Raízen, Comgás, Novonor (formerly Odebrecht), Unilever, Braskem, Meta, Google, Microsoft, as well as prominent figures such as Eraí Maggi Scheffer, one of the largest cotton and soybean producers in Brazil; businessman linked to agribusiness and biodiesel production, Erasmo Carlos Battistella; and Rosana Amadeu da Silva, president of the national centre for sugarcane and biofuel industries, among others.

How much influence do these corporations truly hold over Brazil’s economic, social, and environmental policies? Will their power extend to shaping the course of COP30?

No More Greenwashing

As the world gathers at this critical moment, the question remains: will COP30 become yet another stage for polluting industries to continue business as usual, or will Brazil seize the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the planet’s future?

This is a chance for Brazil to stand strong and prioritise environmental protection, Indigenous rights, and bold climate actions over the forces of reckless development, profit, and greed. The stakes are higher than ever, and the world is watching closely.

Will President Lula’s promises be more than just words, and will they evolve into the bold, transformative actions our planet so urgently needs?

The time for decisive action is now. The world is waiting for Brazil to lead with integrity, courage, and a vision for a sustainable future.

Solar Geoengineering: Risks and Geopolitical Challenges

Monica Piccinini

23 January 2025

In 2024, the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) reported alarming new records in global greenhouse gas levels, alongside unprecedented rises in air and sea surface temperatures. These escalating climate indicators have triggered extreme events worldwide, wildfires ravaging forests, heatwaves sweeping across regions, and catastrophic floods reshaping landscapes.

Confronted by the growing severity of this global crisis, an influential coalition of scientists, billionaires, and technocrats has emerged with an ambitious proposal: the deployment of solar geoengineering (SG), or solar radiation modification (SRM) technologies. Their mission is clear, to alter the global climate system itself in a desperate bid to halt the relentless advance of global warming.

The fossil fuel industry continues to refuse any commitment to reducing global production, deliberately ignoring the devastating consequences they inflict on our planet. Will the adoption of SG give the industry and polluters a convenient excuse to maintain their business-as-usual approach?

SG fails to address the root causes of the climate crisis, merely treating the symptoms while allowing greenhouse gas concentrations to keep rising unchecked.

Olaf Corry, professor of global security challenges at University of Leeds with focus on the security implications of geoengineering technologies, said:

There is a political risk that SG could be used or misused, potentially contributing to a broader effort to delay or avoid the radical decarbonisation and social and economic transformations necessary to properly and sustainably address the climate crisis.

SRM, or SG technologies, include marine cloud brightening (MCB), space-based approaches involving placing mirrors, shades or reflecting particles in the space between the sun and earth, and stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which involves the injection of particles into the stratosphere.

The most extensively studied method is SAI, where sulphur dioxide is released into the stratosphere at altitudes of 20-25 km. This technology simulates the effect of a volcano eruption, like the eruption of Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines on 15 June 2001. The injected particles help form clouds that reflect some of the incoming solar radiation back into space, resulting in a cooling effect.

In an interview with climate tech expert, Dan Miller, on 12 January, David Keith, professor in the department of the geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, stated that geoengineering is more effective at cooling the planet than CO2 reduction. He added:

Research is accelerating. I think nobody has any idea what’s going to happen.

A bunch of the data shows that cold northern places actually benefit a little bit from climate change. I think it’s a mixed bag. I personally oppose climate change because I care about the natural environment.

I think tipping points are primarily a political construction, people in the mainstream science community don’t take them very seriously. Tipping points were constructed carefully to produce a kind of political outcome.

On January 17, 2022, over 60 senior climate scientists and governance experts worldwide initiated a global effort advocating for an international agreement to prohibit the use of solar geoengineering (SG). To date, a coalition of more than 500 academics from over 60 countries has signed an open letter supporting this initiative. They argue that deploying this technology as a potential climate policy option presents an unacceptable risk.

Frank Biermann, professor of global sustainability governance at Utrecht University, said:

The recent developments around solar radiation modification are deeply disturbing. The complete risks of eventual SRM deployment are unknowable, and there are at present no plausible global governance mechanisms to deal with such planetary-scale intervention technologies.

Furthermore, there is a high risk that the current proposals for more SRM research will eventually delay or even derail all efforts to mitigate climate risks by bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.

Risks and Doubts

The Royal Society of Chemistry’s scientific assessment, along with various other reports and articles, indicates that the implementation of SAI could result in numerous negative consequences, such as heatwaves, droughts, ozone depletion, and disruptions to weather and climate patterns.

Stratospheric ozone depletion contributes to higher levels of UV-B radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, which can adversely affect human health, marine and terrestrial species, causing DNA damage and raising the risk of cancer.

The deployment of SAI could also disrupt hydrological cycles and influence extreme weather events, including tropical cyclones, hurricanes, and an increase in the frequency of storms.

Moreover, the potential impacts are projected to be particularly severe for communities most vulnerable to climate change, such as those in coastal regions and tropical areas.

SAI could pose significant health risks due to the inhalation of suspended particles and the ingestion of particles through water and food sources.

Additionally, excessive cooling from volcanic eruptions, like the effects of deploying SAI technology, has led to events like volcanic winters, such as the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, which caused the “year without a summer” and resulted in a global food shortage, as seen in 1816.

Once SAI is implemented, we could become permanently reliant on it with no option to reverse the process. This is known as “termination shock.” If SAI were suddenly halted, the natural climate cycle would resume, leading to a rapid temperature increase, potentially two to four times higher, which could be difficult to manage.

Corry highlighted additional risks associated with research, development, and deployment of SG technologies:

Geopolitical dynamics are already at play and have been recognised; decision-making around research, development, and potential deployment of SG technologies is unlikely to be guided solely by climate risk management. We cannot assume these technologies will be deployed rationally or for purely altruistic global purposes – they will also serve geostrategic interests. The world doesn’t think – let alone act – like a climate scientist.

SG technologies are likely to be driven not solely by climate concerns, but by factors such as security, control, and economics. 

Geopolitical Unrest

One of the most alarming aspects of SG lies in the geopolitical risks and governance challenges it presents. A dominant nation or a coalition of powerful countries could take the lead in deploying this technology, potentially inflicting immediate and profound harm on other regions. At present, there is no comprehensive multilateral governance framework to oversee the research or deployment of SG, leaving the world vulnerable to its unchecked consequences.

Corry explained:

I’m not opposed to SG research or the technology per se – but not the current unilateral free-for-all, hoping for some unspecified ‘governance’ down the line. If there were a global moratorium coupled with a coordinated multilateral research effort that considered legal, ethical, and geopolitical concerns, as well as other forms of knowledge beyond just scientific, I would support such research. As things stand, I believe any responsible researcher should be on board with a moratorium on deployment, with a push for responsible, governed research.

SG modelling experiments leave out geopolitical and governance challenges, according to a research article co-authored by Corry, and published at Review of International Studies (RIS).

Concerns about the weaponisation of SG have been dismissed as either false or vastly exaggerated, largely due to the perceived geophysical “imprecision” of the technology.

If SG is weaponised, it has the potential to deepen global inequality and escalate conflicts worldwide. It could be used as a strategic tool in negotiations, targeted in conflicts, or even provoke new sources of conflict. We already exist in a political landscape incapable of reaching fair, collective agreements. Some nations may view unilateral SG initiatives as a direct threat to their national security, prompting retaliatory actions that could destabilise international peace and security.

In his interview with Miller, Keith was asked how world leaders, unable to reach a consensus on climate change action, could possibly agree on a governance framework for SG. He replied:

World leaders never agree on anything, and world leaders didn’t perfectly agree on climate action, and yet we have climate action, so basically nothing in the world has actually been done by some magic consensus, and yet a lot still happens, so SG, I think if it’s implemented in the next decades, it’ll be implemented by some small coalition of countries and the question is, what’s the coalition of countries that want to do it , how stable is that coalition, how representative is it of the kind of south versus north, and what would the coalition look like that oppose it or why would they oppose it, but that’s the way in practice that international rules will work, it won’t work by some UN level single unanimous vote.

The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), the global body responsible for making key decisions on environmental matters, consists of 193 member states. However, governments have been unable to reach a consensus on a multilateral governance framework concerning the research and deployment of SG technologies, both during UNEA’s fourth session in March 2019 and its sixth session in March 2024.

Corry highlighted another troubling concern regarding the deployment of SG:

Disinformation or propaganda about SG could be generated and disseminated by a range of actors, including major powers like the USA, Russia, or China. Imagine the political strain it would put on climate and atmospheric science and the potential for controversy.

Moreover, SG could be blamed for negative weather or climate events – such as droughts, floods, or storms – and framed as a form of atmospheric colonialism, exacerbating disruptions in climate-vulnerable regions of Asia and Africa.

Key Stakeholders

Billionaires, state and private investors, NGOs, and financial and technology institutions from Silicon Valley and Wall Street are backing research into SG technology. This coalition includes individuals and organisations with significant ties to both corporate and political power.

Prominent private funders of SG technologies include the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER), Bill Gates’ personal fund managed by Ken Caldeira and David Keith, and Silver Lining, a non-profit backed by LowerCarbon Capital, with executives from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan on its board. The Simmons Foundation, established by hedge fund billionaire Jim Simmons, and his wife, is also supporting SG initiatives.

Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook, along with partners Cari Tuna and Holden Karnofsky, funds the SG project, Open Philanthropy Project. William Hewlett, founder of Hewlett-Packard, is another investor in SG technologies. The Environmental Defence Fund (EDF), which has corporate ties with companies like Citigroup, GE, McDonald’s, Shell, Tyson and Walmart, is another prominent backer.

Other funding organisations include the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation of General Motors, the Pritzker Innovation Fund, founded by the Hyatt Hotels Corporation’s founders, and the VK Rasmussen Foundation.

US-based start-up Make Sunsets and Israeli company Stardust Solutions are actively working to commercialise SG. In 2023, Make Sunsets released aerosol-filled balloons in Baja California, Mexico, without the Mexican government’s consent. This led Mexico to announce it would ban ban such experiments in its territory. Stardust Solutions has reportedly begun indoor testing of a system designed to disperse reflective particles, with funding sources linked to the Israeli military and security sectors.

In his research article published in the Journal of Political Ecology, Kevin Surprise, senior lecturer in environmental studies at Mount Holyoke College, points out that the US is currently the only nation with the capacity for unilateral SG deployment in the foreseeable future.

Surprise’s article suggests that the Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Programme (HSGRP) is the global leader in SAI research. It maintains connections with the Weatherhead Centre for International Affairs and the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, both of which have long-standing relationships with the defence and intelligence sectors.

HSGRP is developing the first outdoor SAI field experiment, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCOPEX), in collaboration with Raven Aerostar, a Department of Defence contractor specialising in border security and surveillance, with contracts involving the US Navy and Air Force.

Corry highlighted further risks tied to the potential radical measures the new US administration might choose to implement:

The risks seem clear to me – it’s all too tempting for figures like Trump or Musk to claim it’s a solution or frame the problem purely as one of temperature and propose a solution that directly targets it.

We’ve already seen right-wing U.S. figures claim that climate change discussions are driven by communists or ideologues aiming to take away your beef, SUV, or even dismantle capitalism. If the issue is narrowly defined as temperature alone, this approach could easily be presented as a cheaper or even preferable ‘solution’.

He added:

Comparing risks can enhance decision-making but choosing which versions of the future to compare and which risks to take out can be very arbitrary, and you need to be super careful. 

SG should be evaluated specifically in relation to the climate risks it aims to address, not all climate risks. Alternative approaches, such as degrowth or the phase-out of fossil fuels, should also be assessed alongside SG.

Comparisons need to include geopolitical, ethical, and social risks, in addition to environmental ones even if they are harder to quantify. Furthermore, public participation is crucial throughout the process, from identifying risks to determining the appropriate actions.

Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer: A Silent Killer

Monica Piccinini

8 January 2025

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is second most common type of breast cancer, representing up to 15% of all breast cancers cases, and is the sixth most prevalent cancer among women. This type of cancer may be hard to detect with a screening mammogram or ultrasound, as it spreads in straight lines rather than forming lumps. As a result, these tumours can grow significantly and diagnosed at more advanced stages.

Over the next 10 years, approximately 3.75 million people globally are expected to be diagnosed with ILC. Currently, 22 individuals in the UK and 1,000 women worldwide are diagnosed with ILC each day. Unfortunately, specific treatments for ILC are yet to be created for this type of cancer.

Lack of Hope in Diagnostics and Bespoke Treatments

During the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Heather Cripps, a public servant at the Home Office, experienced severe back pain and was prescribed pain medication for what was initially believed to be a musculoskeletal issue. Unfortunately, her condition worsened rapidly, and she was eventually diagnosed with stage four ILC (the cancer had spread from its primary site). By the time of diagnosis, the cancer had already spread to her spine. Heather underwent chemotherapy for three years but tragically passed away on 30 August at the age of 48.

At a parliament debate on ILC on 10 December 2024, Helen Hayes, Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, said:

“We need to do better for women affected by lobular breast cancer, in memory of Heather and many more women like her who will not live to see their children grow up.”

Like Heather, many women are diagnosed with ILC too late and with poorer long-term outcomes. This is due to the difficulty of detecting these tumours through physical exams or standard imaging techniques such as mammograms and ultrasounds. ILC cells typically spread through breast tissue in a diffuse pattern, rather than forming a distinct lump.

Most ILCs are diagnosed at a more advanced stage with up to 30% of patients with early-stage primary ILC may experience metastasis to other organs, which can occur many years after the initial diagnosis.

Currently, there are no specific treatments designed for ILC, which is known to have poorer long-term outcomes. The available therapies were not tailored made for the unique biology of this cancer type.  Moreover, although MRIs are widely recognised as significantly more effective than mammograms at detecting and monitoring ILC, they are not recommended for use under the NICE guidelines for detection or ongoing monitoring. 

Women’s health in the UK has been neglected and underfunded. A report by the NHS Confederation highlights that prioritising women’s health could contribute £319 million in gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy.

Research from Breast Cancer Now shows that breast cancer currently costs the UK economy £2.6 billion, a figure expected to increase to £3.6 billion by 2034.

Lack of Research Investment

ILC remains poorly understood, as it is a type of cancer that has received limited research and funding. To provide accurate diagnostics and effective treatments for patients with ILC, further research and financial support are essential to fully uncover its basic biology.

The Manchester Breast Centre has announced its plans to conduct research aimed at understanding the basic biology of ILC, which could lead to the development of targeted treatments. This research is expected to take around five years and require an investment of £20 million. The Centre is collaborating with the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

The Lobular Moon Shot Project was founded in 2023 by Dr Susan Michaelis, a former Australian pilot, to address the urgent need for ILC research funding. This is a £20 million research project and a volunteer-driven initiative supported by an increasing number of women diagnosed with ILC and their families.

Dr Michaelis was first diagnosed with ILC in 2013 and later diagnosed with stage four metastatic lobular breast cancer in 2021. Her cancer has since spread to her neck, spine and pelvis area, head, eye area, and ribs.

In December 2023, Dr Michaelis, along with several MPs supporting her cause, met with former health secretary, Ms Victoria Atkins. Convinced of the need for action, Ms Atkins agreed to fund the Lobular Moon Shot Project and integrate it into England’s 2024 women’s health strategy, but a change of parliament has not yet seen this become a reality. Currently, the Lobular Moon Shot Project has the backing of over 200 MPs.

Several MPs have written to the government expressing their concerns, only to receive generic responses from civil servants stating that £29 million has been allocated to the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). However, these responses fail to clarify that the funding is not specifically targeted at lobular breast cancer. Despite repeated efforts from MPs to reach out to the health secretary, Wes Streeting, regarding the project, they have yet to receive a reply.

Dr Michaelis commented:

“Each year, 11,500 people die from secondary (metastatic) breast cancer, yet none of the studies referenced by the government tackle the unique biological challenges of invasive lobular carcinoma. This area remains a scientific black hole, with crucial work still undone. That’s precisely why we are calling for dedicated funding.

“The 10 National Institute for Healthcare Research Network studies cited in the government’s letter to MPs are a smokescreen. A closer examination reveals that nine out of 10 of these studies do not appear to address lobular breast cancer. We need to focus on understanding the basic biology of the disease through a ‘Moon Shot’ approach, instead of attempting to repurpose drugs that were not designed for this disease.

“Cancer Research UK has allocated no funding to ILC research, and Breast Cancer Now has dedicated less than 1% of their research budget funding. This means the government needs to step in and resolve this unmet clinical need. This would equate to under £240 per person in the UK who would be diagnosed with the disease over the next 10 years.

“The former health secretary, Victoria Atkins, had agreed to fund the project. Since the general election in 2024, 180,000 people globally have been diagnosed with ILC, and we are still waiting to hear from the new health secretary, Wes Streeting.”

Katie Swinburne, diagnosed with ILC at the age of 47, endured a double mastectomy, radiotherapy and chemotherapy and is now on a 10-year endocrine treatment therapy. Her experience was shared during the parliament debate on 10 December, 2024:

“It’s very hard to accept that none of my treatment is specific to lobular breast cancer and no one can tell me if it’s working or has been effective… I find myself living in fear of recurrence. I deserved to have an early diagnosis; I did not get this. I deserve a specific treatment; I do not have this. I have three young children; they deserve to have a mum. I deserve effective follow up; I do not get this. I need you to change this for me, my husband, my family, all the women with a lobular diagnosis and all the women who will be diagnosed in the future.”

Health secretary Wes Streeting, and under-secretary at the department of health and social care, Baroness Merron, did not respond to a request for comment.

Alarming Increase in Cancer-Linked Pesticides Associate with UK Food Imports

Monica Piccinini

11 December 2024

According to a new analysis by Pesticide Action Network (PAN UK), food brought into Great Britain contains a far higher concentration of pesticides linked to cancer than domestically grown produce.

Recent UK government testing revealed 46 cancer-associated pesticides on imported food, compared to just 19 found on homegrown items, raising serious concerns about the safety of the food on our plates.

Imported foods had two to three times more “developmental or reproductive toxins” (which can affect sexual health and fertility) and neurotoxins (which harm the nervous system) compared to UK-grown food. Imported foods also had more than twice the number of endocrine disrupting chemicals (29 compared to 12), which can mess with hormone systems and cause health issues like cancer and birth defects.

Recent findings revealed that while five PFAS “forever chemicals” were detected in UK-grown food, the number spiked to 12 in imported products. These chemicals, known for their persistence in the environment and the human body, are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they accumulate in blood, bones, and tissue, remaining for years.

PFAS exposure has been linked to numerous serious health risks, including a heightened risk of cancers and a weakened immune system, making it harder for the body to fight off infections. This troubling increase in their presence in food highlights the urgent need for more stringent controls on food imports and pesticide use.

Nick Mole, PAN UK’s policy officer, mentioned:

“While the results for UK produce are also concerning, when it comes to pesticides that pose a risk to consumer health, imports tend to be far worse than food grown here in the UK.  The imported food tested by the government contained almost three times the number of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), including carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins.

“With rates of diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s on the rise, we should be doing everything we can to reduce our chemical exposure. But the UK government is allowing larger amounts of chemicals to appear in an ever-growing list of common food items. They urgently need to reverse this current trend,” he added.

PAN UK’s annual “Dirty Dozen” report, which reveals the fruits and vegetables most likely to be contaminated with multiple pesticides, has just been released. This year’s top contender is soft citrus fruits like satsumas, tangerines, and clementines. Alarmingly, some of these food items contain residues from up to 12 different pesticides. Yet, government safety regulations still only account for the risks of individual chemicals, ignoring the fact that pesticide mixtures, the “cocktail effect”, can be far more dangerous than a single chemical.

The UK government tested 917 samples of domestically grown, non-animal origin food, with 286 (31%) found to contain multiple residues. Additionally, 1,046 samples of imported non-animal origin food were tested, and 577 (55%) contained multiple residues.

Imported produce was three times more likely to exceed the UK’s legal pesticide limits. Indian beans were the most problematic, with 10 of 25 samples testing positive for illegal residue levels. As the UK negotiates a trade deal with India, food imports from there are expected to rise.

“We’ve long been concerned that new trade deals signed by the UK since EU exit pose a major risk to the health of British consumers. This is especially true when it comes to countries like India that struggle with high pesticide residues in their food exports.

“There are major questions over whether British border controls are robust enough to detect food imports contaminated with pesticides and prevent them from reaching our plates. And yet, when we’ve pointed out these risks to the UK government, they refuse to take them seriously. Given that today’s findings are based on imports that have already made it past our borders, we strongly urge the government to take action to protect British consumers,” said Mole.

Device in hand measuring pesticides on market vegetables and fruits. Photo credit: ID 208941092 © Anastasiia Soloveva | Dreamstime.com

The presence of 48 pesticides banned in the UK on imported food gives foreign growers an unfair advantage, as they can use cheaper, dangerous chemicals that British farmers are forbidden to use. These pesticides, including cancer-linked carbaryl and diazinon, pose significant health and environmental risks.

Even more concerning, the bee-killing pesticide imidacloprid, banned in the UK since 2018, was found on imported potatoes, peas, and grapes, further threatening both human health and biodiversity.

Mole issued a powerful warning about the grave consequences of permitting banned toxic pesticides in UK food imports:

“By allowing banned pesticides in our imports, the UK is exporting its environmental and human health footprint abroad. Farmworkers and wildlife in countries where our food is grown are exposed to these dangerous chemicals and will suffer the associated harms. It also undermines British farmers at a time when we are asking them to produce more sustainably.

“But any drop in British pesticide standards will be a major problem for trade with the EU, which could also devastate UK farming. If the government is serious about protecting British consumers and supporting our farmers, it can kill two birds with one stone by not allowing food imports grown using pesticides banned for use domestically to enter Great Britain.”

Exploiting Brazil’s Biodiversity: Who Profits from its Genetic Resources?

Monica Piccinini

9 December 2024

At the COP16 UN biodiversity summit in Colombia, the role of genetic heritage in shaping Brazil’s bioeconomy was a central theme. Brazil’s genetic resources and traditional knowledge are vital for generating economic value, with the government keen on exploring opportunities to monetise these assets.

How will genetic resources drive the development of new technologies, and what negative impacts could emerge? What ethical considerations are at stake, and most importantly, who will truly benefit?

Brazil’s Biodiversity

With over 20% of the world’s species, Brazil is home to more than 46,000 plant species and 129,000 animals spread across six biomes, including the Amazon rainforest, Pantanal, Cerrado, and the Atlantic Forest.

Henry Philippe Ibanez de Novion, director of Brazil’s genetic heritage department of the ministry of environment and climate change (MMA), spoke about the value of Brazil’s biodiversity and traditional communities during a webinar hosted by the Brazilian Embassy in Berlin in September:

“According to the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), 80% of the biodiversity that is still conserved is found in the territory of these peoples (traditional communities). The traditional knowledge and sustainable practices of these people allow biodiversity to be protected.”

Brazil’s rich biodiversity makes it a prime target for biopiracy, the unlawful exploitation and commercialisation of natural resources and traditional knowledge for profit, without the consent of authorities or traditional communities. This illegal practice not only harms the communities dependent on these resources, but also disturbs the delicate balance of plant and animal life. The most sought-after species are Amazonian frogs, macaws, snakes, and spiders.

Global companies have been collecting genetic material from plants and animals in biodiverse countries like Brazil, patenting it without recognising the rights of local communities. As a result, these communities are left out of any benefits, whether economic, health-related, or social.

In Brazil, foreign researchers often gather plant and animal samples for study and take them overseas. These samples are then used in research and turned into products like medicines, clothing, cosmetics, food, furniture, paper, insecticides, among others.

A study published in the journal World Patent Information found that 92% of patents related to Atlantic Forest plants were developed and filed outside of Brazil, primarily by China, the United States, Japan, and Korea. At least 1,258 patent applications are focused on sectors such as agriculture and livestock, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, food and beverages, and waste treatment.

By 2022, Brazil’s national institute of industrial property (INPI) had recorded 43,400 patents for innovations using Amazonian plants filed worldwide. China topped the list with 18,965 applications, followed by the USA with 3,778.

The patenting of products made from Amazonian genetic resources without fairly sharing the benefits with local communities or respecting their rights, raises serious concerns.

Some experts argue that Brazil has not adopted a stronger industrial intellectual property policy or increased investment in research, development, and technology, which has made the country more reliant on others. For example, about 90% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used in Brazil are imported. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies worldwide have been earning large profits from open access to genetic heritage data.

Brazil’s Biopiracy Legacy

The first case of biopiracy in Brazil dates to the 16th century during Portuguese colonisation, when brazilwood (pau-brasil) was extracted and sold to Europe for use in furniture making and fabric dyeing.

In the 19th century, Brazil became the world’s leading producer of latex from rubber trees. In 1876, British explorer and botanist Henry Wickham smuggled over 70,000 seeds from Brazil to England, where they were transported to Malaysia. This led to the establishment of rubber tree plantations in Malaysia, disrupting Brazil’s dominance in the rubber market.

In 1962, Brazilian scientist Sergio Ferreira discovered the bradykinin-potentiating factor (BFP) in the venom of the Bothrops snake (jararaca). This discovery led to the development of captopril, a hypertension drug, by the American pharmaceutical company Squibb, generating billions in revenue for the industry.

Another case of biopiracy involved cupuaçu, a fruit used in the production of chocolate (cupulate). In the early 2000s, Japanese company Asahi Foods Co Ltd. patented the fruit in Japan and Europe. The patent was later revoked after Brazilian authorities and national mobilisation challenged it, ensuring cupuaçu remained a Brazilian product.

In 2000, the BioAmazônia research centre entered into an agreement with Novartis laboratory to collect bacteria from Brazil’s biodiversity for research in Switzerland. The contract granted the pharmaceutical company the right to manipulate, license, and sell compounds derived from Brazil’s genetic resources. This sparked a national and international controversy, prompting the Brazilian government to suspend the contract and enact law MP 2.186/2001, which established regulations on access to the country’s genetic heritage.

Patent and Genetic Resources Registration Requirements in Brazil

In Brazil, patent applications for cosmetics, medicines, ointments, and foods derived from substances extracted from the country’s flora and fauna are subject to special screening by the national institute of industrial property (INPI).

The genetic heritage management council (CGen) was established in 2015 under Law 13,123 and is chaired by the ministry of the environment. CGen is responsible for developing and enforcing regulations on the use of genetic resources, ensuring that traditional communities are properly compensated.

The national system for the management of genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge (SisGen) was created in 2016 by Law 13,123 as a tool to assist CGen in managing genetic heritage and related traditional knowledge. SisGen is operated and maintained by CGen, and any access to Brazilian genetic heritage or associated traditional knowledge must be registered in this system.

Multilateral Agreements and Ongoing Concerns

The Nagoya Protocol, an international agreement adopted in 2010, seeks to ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. It came into force on 12 October 2014, with 142 countries, including Brazil, as signatories.

In May, a diplomatic conference on genetic resources and traditional knowledge, organised by the world intellectual property organisation (WIPO), led to the approval of a new treaty by 190 countries. This treaty mandates that patent applications based on genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge must disclose, at the time of filing, the country of origin, the original source of these resources, and the indigenous peoples or local communities that contributed the knowledge.

There have been multiple efforts to reach a consensus on the distribution of benefits from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) – a practice where genetic data is digitised, stored, and shared in open-access online databases for researchers and companies. This issue was a central topic at COP16.

Some of the technologies that use DSI commercially include industrial, medical, agriculture, DNA barcoding, and synthetic biology (designing synthetic genes using AI-powered programmes).

In an interview to NGO Instituto Escolhas in February, Novion spoke about some issues concerning DSI:

“Anyone who develops products or processes from sequences available in digital databases, without knowing their origin, will have difficulty knowing what legal framework they are linked to, which makes it impossible for the user (company or researcher) to seek their regularity and thus provide legal security for their result, be it a publication, a patent or a product. The use of this sequence therefore falls into a legal limbo.

“Another layer of complexity arises from the fact that, today, we do not use just a single sequence, from a single genetic resource, from a single country. And addressing this form of use without making it unviable is the greatest challenge we will have to face, both in Brazil and internationally, particularly in relation to shared or cosmopolitan sequences and genetic resources,” he added.

A proposal from the ad hoc open-ended working group on benefit-sharing from the use of DSI on genetic resources suggests that countries accessing this material should contribute to a voluntary and not legally binding mechanism, a global fund (Cali Fund), to conserve biodiversity and compensate traditional communities. Some advocate for contributions based on a percentage of revenue from products that utilise DSI, while others propose a fixed 1% of revenue generated by these companies.

However, many questions remain unanswered, such as how benefit-sharing would function in practice, the equitable distribution of funds, storage architecture, who holds the rights to the data, who owns the technology (intellectual property rights), how to trace the origin of digitalised genetic resources, how would products deriving from novel synthetic DSI fit in, determining if DSI is naturally occurring or the product of synthetic biology or even AI, and the possibility of a negative outcome and ethical concerns related to the application of AI to synthetic biology.

Additionally, what is the significance of traditional knowledge in the context of DSI, and how will this multilateral mechanism incorporate the principles of consultation, consent, and benefit-sharing with Indigenous communities? Why have traditional communities been excluded from the decision-making process?  What are the steps and process involved in ensuring these benefits reach the traditional communities?

Is this simply another tool to control, exploit, and profit from the world’s most biodiverse regions? And who will truly benefit in the end?

BR-319: A Highway to Climate Chaos in the Heart of the Amazon

Monica Piccinini

20 November 2024

As Brazil prepares to host the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP30, the Brazilian government is sending a powerful message about its commitment to environmental conservation and sustainable development. Central to this message is the protection of the Amazon rainforest, vital to the planet’s ecological balance. Yet, a controversial project hangs over these declarations: the planned Amazon’s BR-319 highway, a proposal that has sparked intense debate over its potential to disrupt one of Earth’s most critical ecosystems.

The reconstruction of the Amazon BR-319 highway in Brazil, connecting Manaus, the capital of Amazonas, to Porto Velho, on the southern edge of the forest, cutting through one of the most preserved blocks of the rainforest, could trigger a climate crisis chain reaction with severe irreversible impacts on the Amazon, Brazil and the entire planet.

Although the Brazilian government promotes the BR-319 project as essential for regional economic development, it represents one of the most significant threats to the Amazon’s survival. This project endangers at least half of Brazil’s remaining rainforest, putting 69 Indigenous communities, 64 Indigenous territories, and over 18,000 Indigenous people at risk.

Map of Indigenous lands and communities impacted by Brazil’s BR-319 Highway. Reference: Ferrante et al., 2020.

During a visit to Amazonas in September, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, showed his commitment and full support for the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway by saying, “this road will now begin to be built.”

“BR-319 is a necessity for the state of Amazonas, it is a necessity for Roraima, and a necessity for Brazil,” he added

Lula’s ambition to lead on the climate agenda appears to conflict with his own policies and actions.

Philip Fearnside, a senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research (INPA), and Nobel peace prize winner, mentioned:

“In Manaus, every politician supports the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway – on the condition that the federal government, and by extension, the 99% of taxpayers who live outside Manaus, foots the bill. After more than two decades of consistent misinformation about the project, nearly the entire local population now favours it, and questioning the initiative would be political suicide for any candidate.

“Repaving the BR-319 highway would link the relatively undisturbed central Amazon to the AMACRO region – a deforestation hotspot named after the states of Amazonas, Acre, and Rondônia. Although AMACRO is promoted as a sustainable development zone (ZDS), it has become a major driver of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest,” he added.

The BR-319, an 885-km highway, was inaugurated in 1976 during Brazil’s military dictatorship, but was abandoned in 1988. In 2015, under Dilma Rousseff’s government, a maintenance program was launched to revive the highway. Since then, various governments have made multiple attempts to reconstruct a 406-km section of the highway.

Catastrophic and Irreversible Consequences

The fishbone effect results from the opening of illegal branches on both sides of the BR-319 highway, created by land grabbers. This phenomenon is already unfolding around the highway, with over 6,000 km of illegal extensions, which is more than six times the length of BR-319. Furthermore, proposed roads along BR-319, such as the AM-366, would provide deforesters with access to a vast area of rainforest in the Trans-Purus region, west of BR-319.

Brazilian Amazonia and Highway BR-319 (Manaus-Porto Velho). Source: map produced by researcher Lucas Ferrante in the ArcGIS software, deforestation data from INPE 2021.

The reconstruction of the BR-319 highway could lead to catastrophic and irreversible consequences, including widespread deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and environmental degradation. It may also fuel an increase in illicit activities such as organised crime, illegal logging, mining, and encroachment on Indigenous lands. Furthermore, the risk of zoonotic leaps and the emergence of new pandemics could rise. These impacts could push the rainforest beyond its ability to survive, causing it to cease functioning as a carbon sink and disrupting its role as a regional and global climate regulator.

Lucas Ferrante, researcher at the University of Sao Paulo (USP) and Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), discussed the critical role of flying rivers in climate regulation:

“In this forest region, a crucial environmental ecosystem service occurs, known as flying rivers, plays a crucial role in regulating Brazil’s climate. Moisture from the Atlantic Ocean is carried into the continent through the North region, where it enters the Amazon. Evapotranspiration from the preserved forest generates high-pressure systems that produce rainfall, which then travels southward, supplying water to the southeast, central-west, and southern regions of Brazil.

“For instance, 70% of the rainfall that supplies the Cantareira system – responsible for providing water to São Paulo, the most densely populated area in South America – originates from this forested region. However, deforestation along BR-319 poses a serious threat to these flying rivers, and continued destruction could lead to devastating consequences for the entire country.

“We will face severe water shortages in densely populated regions, leading to the death of the most vulnerable populations, industrial disruptions, and devastating impacts on agriculture, rendering these areas uninhabitable. Essentially, the collapse of the flying rivers will trigger the breakdown of the country’s economic sectors, potentially causing annual losses of up to $ 500 billion (R$3 trillion),” Ferrante warned.

Wildfires, Drought, and Disease

Brazilian Amazon Forest burning to open space for pasture. Credit: ID 69667961 @ André Costa | Dreamstime.com

A survey by MapBiomas‘ Fire Monitor reveals that from January to September this year, Brazil saw 22.38 million hectares burn, marking an increase of 13.4 million hectares compared to 2023. This represents a 150% rise from the previous year. Over half of the burned area (51%, or 11.3 million hectares) occurred in the Amazon.

Commenting on the fires in the Amazon and across Brazil, Ferrante stated:

“It’s crucial to recognise that Brazil has surpassed its greenhouse gas emissions targets, with the highest levels originating from the Amazon due to widespread fires in the biome.”

The fires and drought in the Amazon are expected to worsen due to climate change and other factors, including the rampant expansion of agribusiness, particularly cattle farming, both legal and illegal mining, logging, and large-scale biofuel production – especially with the recent biofuel mandate increase announced by Lula. This is further intensified by Lula’s push to extract “every last drop” of oil. The BR-319 highway plays a central role in facilitating these developments in the region.

The Amazon rainforest is recognised as one of the largest reservoirs of zoonotic diseases. Scientists consistently warn that reconstructing the BR-319 highway, in conjunction with climate change, will accelerate forest degradation driven by agribusiness expansion, mining, oil and gas exploration, illicit activities, and infrastructure projects. This would lead to increased human mobility and urbanisation, heightening the risk of zoonotic spillovers -diseases stored in the forest potentially jumping to humans, which could trigger a global pandemic or a series of them.

Deforestation along the BR-319 has already resulted in a 400% increase in malaria cases in the region, highlighting the potential environmental damage caused by this project and its role in the emergence of a new global pandemic.

An article in Nature reported that the western Brazilian Amazon is facing its largest confirmed outbreak of the Oropouche virus (OROV), with over 6,300 cases recorded between 2022 and 2024. Researchers identified a novel genetic variant of the virus and highlighted fragmented forest landscapes and vegetation loss caused by deforestation and expanding agricultural activities as significant factors driving its transmission. Most OROV-positive cases in 2022–2023 were concentrated in the AMACRO region, a hotspot for deforestation.

“Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and other tropical regions increase the risk of emergence of new human diseases by increasing contact between rainforest wildlife and the human population and its domestic animals. It also contributes to climate change, which can create conditions favouring the emergence of parasitic, fungal, viral, and bacterial infections,” explained Fearnside.

Profit Driven

Deforested and burned area long the middle stretch of BR-319 highway. Credit: Lucas Ferrante.

The BR-319 highway will serve an expanding range of national and international industries, particularly those focused on the significant profits that a ‘bioeconomy’ can generate. Additionally, it will play a crucial role in facilitating oil and gas exploration in the region, including Petrobras’ operations along the equatorial margin, a project that has the full backing of Lula.

Russian oil and gas company Rosneft will also benefit from the BR-319 project, as it holds drilling rights to 14 oil and gas blocks situated west of the highway, around 35 km from the Purus River, within the Solimões Sedimentary Basin. This pristine area is larger than the state of California.

Other sectors would also gain from the BR-319 project, such as the expansion of agribusiness, cattle farming, both legal and illegal mining, logging, and organised crime.

Ferrante elaborated on how BR-319 is facilitating the expansion of agribusiness, cattle farming, and mining:

“BR-319 is accelerating the growth of agribusiness in the region, especially on unallocated public lands (‘terras devolutas’). Soybean farmers from Mato Grosso do Sul are migrating to Rondônia, purchasing land from livestock farmers who, in turn, are moving south of Amazonas within the BR-319 corridor. These lands are often occupied illegally, either through land grabbing, illegal deforestation, or violent eviction of traditional communities.

“Since 2023, Manaus has experienced a rise in smoke levels during the dry season, primarily due to forest fires spreading along the newly paved sections of BR-319, where cattle farming is rapidly expanding. The presence of asphalt accelerates deforestation, and fires are commonly used to clear land for pasture.

“Moreover, there is a well-documented connection between land grabbers and organized crime along BR-319. Criminal groups seize land, expelling legitimate owners and traditional communities, and often use the profits to force these displaced communities into labour in illegal mining operations.”

Smokescreen

Supporters of the BR-319 project, including politicians, corporations, and individuals, have presented various justifications for the highway’s reconstruction, citing the ongoing drought in the region. However, Ferrante points out that despite the drought, the Madeira River remains navigable. Furthermore, the BR-319 does not connect to any of the municipalities impacted by the drought, as they are located across the Rio Negro.

The Madeira River has long been the primary transportation route in the region, running parallel to the BR-319 highway, and offering a safer, cleaner, and more cost-effective means of transporting goods.

Rodrigo Agostinho, president of Brazil’s environmental protection agency, Ibama, told AmazoniaReal on November 14 that without good governance, the BR-319 project could become a “major deforestation front.” He further noted that those who construct a road do not take on responsibility for managing the surrounding area, which remains a highly contentious issue.

(A) Deforestation along BR-319 highway from 1988 to 2020 (PRODES data). Deforestation in red represents cumulative deforestation from 1988 to 2014 before the highway “maintenance” program began. Deforestation in purple represents cumulative deforestation from 2015 to 2020 (i.e., during the “maintenance” program). (B) Points with land grabbing, illegal logging, illegal mineral prospecting and illegal land sales observed on BR-319 highway. The inset map of South America shows Brazil’s “Amazon Biome” region in green, Highway BR319 as a black line, and the area of the larger map as a red rectangle. Image provided by researcher Lucas Ferrante.

The Brazilian government continues to advocate for governance along the BR-319, with support from a few NGOs backed by an international philanthropic organisation. These groups, however, refuse to oppose the BR-319 project.

Meanwhile, members of the Brazilian federal police and army have made it clear that any future governance scenario is unrealistic, as the inspection bodies would lack the necessary resources to monitor the area due to its vast size, complexity, and danger. Organised crime already controls land grabbing and mining in the region, which has had a devastating impact on traditional communities.

Who stands to benefit from the BR-319 project? The primary beneficiaries are those financing illicit activities, such as illegal mining and organised crime, as well as the expansion of agribusiness, large-scale biofuel production, cattle farming, oil and gas exploration, and the development of a “bioeconomy.” These highly profitable ventures are financed by both national and international stakeholders.

“The 2009 environmental impact assessment (EIA) indicated that business leaders did not view this project as a priority for Manaus’s industrial hub. In the years following, the unanimous political support for the project naturally prompted businesspeople to adopt the same position, given their reliance on political backing.

“However, academic studies assessing the project’s feasibility have found it to be economically unjustifiable. Notably, it remains the only major project in Brazil without an official economic feasibility study (EVTEA), which is unlikely to be a coincidence,” mentioned Fearnside.

The reconstruction of the BR-319 highway lacks the required economic feasibility study (EVTEA) mandated by Law 5917/1973, and has failed to conduct crucial consultations with Indigenous communities, as stipulated by both the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 and Brazilian Law 10.088/2019, making the BR-319 project unconstitutional.

Following Ferrante’s presentation at the ministry of the environment on October 29 highlighting the negative impacts of the BR-319 project, he is calling the suspension of all licenses and tenders until consultations are held with all affected Indigenous communities.

Additionally, he urges the suspension of the maintenance license for the entire highway due to significant environmental harm already inflicted by the national department of transport infrastructure (DNIT) on ecosystems, streams, and traditional communities. He further requests the removal of the illegal branches, and the expropriation of all areas occupied along the BR-319 highway since 2008.

Brazil’s Biofuel Boom: Green Growth or Greenwashing?

Monica Piccinini

7 November 2024

Brazil’s push to expand biofuels is central to its strategy to “drive the decarbonisation agenda” and build a robust “bioeconomy,” setting the stage for this to become a major focus at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference (COP 30) in Brazil in November 2025.

During a ceremony at the Brasilia Air Base in October, president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva declared:

“Brazil will lead the world’s energy revolution”

This statement came as he signed the Fuel of the Future Law, a set of initiatives aimed at advancing the country’s bioenergy sector. Lula added:

“Brazil will get a head start because you, the entrepreneurs, who have the capacity to produce, to research. Enacting this law demonstrates that none of us have the right to continue disbelieving that this country can be a large economy.”

Lula announced a rise in ethanol blending with gasoline from 22% to 27%, with a target of 35% by 2030. Biodiesel blending, currently at 14%, will increase by one percentage point annually, aiming to reach 20% by March 2030.

Biofuel mandates have generated a relentless demand for crops, including sugarcane, corn, soybean, and palm oil.

Ethanol and biodiesel production in Brazil reached nearly 43 billion litres in 2023, according to the 2024 Brazilian Statistical Yearbook on Oil, Natural Gas, and Biofuels, published by Brazil’s National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels (ANP).

In Brazil, biofuels make up 25% of transportation fuels – a remarkably high share compared to other nations – and this proportion is still increasing. Bioethanol leads the biofuel sector, representing an average of 49% in terms of energy of the total gasoline and ethanol consumption.

Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez Morales, lecturer and researcher in environmental policy and climate change governance at the Department of Economic History and International Relations at Stockholm University, mentioned:

“Historically, Brazilian energy policy has achieved significant success, largely due to the development of the oil industry alongside biofuels and other energy sources. This diversification has enabled Brazil to rely less on energy imports from the global market, fostering a degree of energy independence and security critical for economic stability.

“By reducing dependence on external energy sources, Brazil’s economy is less vulnerable to external shocks, such as fluctuations in oil and gas prices. Sugarcane ethanol, in particular, has been pivotal in these developments, positioning bioenergy – a renewable energy form derived from recently living organic materials known as biomass – at the forefront of national strategies to combat climate change,” he added.

Green Sheen

Although bioenergy has been promoted as a climate strategy, there is ongoing debate within the scientific community regarding the actual sustainability of biofuel production.

Some scientists argue that the production of biofuels is an energy-negative process that may lead to various socio-environmental consequences. These include rising food prices that threaten food security and the conversion of forestlands for biofuel cultivation. Some state that presenting bioenergy as a climate strategy has served as a justification for the industry’s expansion in Brazil and globally.

“Despite its success, the biofuels industry in Brazil developed within broader developmental and territorial security goals, often placing significant pressure on ecosystems and communities in an institutional environment that generally overlooked socio-environmental concerns.

“This unsustainable co-evolution of development pathways and bioenergy – marked by deforestation, land colonization, and agricultural expansion – has limited the adaptation space in agriculture. As a result, current climate policy is largely oriented toward path-dependent and potentially maladaptive strategies, such as relying on sugarcane ethanol for transportation,” explained Morales.

A report by the Royal Society raises concerns about expanding biofuel production, highlighting issues such as the impact on food prices, the potential rise in greenhouse gas emissions due to direct and indirect land use changes (LUC) associated with biofuel feedstock production, and the risks of land, forest, water resource, and ecosystem degradation.

The Royal Society report recommends comprehensive auditing of biofuel supply chains as essential, along with enhancing transparency, data availability, and sharing. These elements are crucial for ensuring that the life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuels is reliable and beneficial for policymaking.

The use of feedstocks like sugarcane, palm oil, corn, and soybean – predominant in Brazil – has sparked significant controversy, primarily due to competition with food production and concerns about converting agricultural land into fuel production. Rising demand for agricultural products poses a risk of increased deforestation and the use of land with high biodiversity value to satisfy this demand, along with related freshwater consumption.

The EU Deforestation-Free Regulation (EUDR) identifies soybean as one of the world’s leading drivers of deforestation. Trade interests appear to be the main barrier to removing soy biofuels from the Renewable Energy Directive, as Europe imports nearly 90% of its soy for biodiesel production from Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.

Dr David Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University, asserted that there is insufficient land, water, and energy available for biofuel production. He also highlighted environmental issues associated with converting crops into biofuels, such as water pollution from fertilisers and pesticides, air pollution, soil erosion, and contributions to global warming.

Pimentel conducted calculations that accounted for all the inputs needed to produce ethanol, including machinery, seeds, labour, water, electricity, fertilisers, insecticides, herbicides, fuel, drying, and transportation. He found that producing one litre of fuel-grade ethanol (5,130 kcal) requires an energy input of 6,600 kcal, indicating that biofuel production is an energy-negative process.

A report published in the Biofuel journal states that measuring greenhouse gas emissions linked to ethanol fuel should account for emissions at every stage, including production, processing, distribution, and vehicle use. This comprehensive assessment is known as the core “well-to-wheels LCA emissions, along with any additional emissions resulting from LUC.

Morales discussed some of the impacts of implementing a climate policy that relies on biomass fuels:

“Current climate policy positions biomass-based fuels as a replacement for fossil fuels in the transport sector, with sugarcane ethanol as a flagship solution for greenhouse gas reduction in international climate negotiations. However, scaling up bioenergy production can have serious socio-environmental impacts.

“Like food production, ethanol requires land, water, and nutrients, meaning that a large-scale expansion could intensify the negative side effects of agricultural growth. These include significant socio-environmental challenges related to sustainable development goals, such as deforestation (SDG 15), CO2 emissions from land-use change (SDG 13), nitrogen losses (SDGs 13, 14, 15), unsustainable water withdrawals (SDG 14), and food security risks (SDG 2), among others,” he added.

Biofuel Policies

Postage stamp printed in Brazil shows Ethanol, Alternative Energy serie, circa 1980.
Credit: ID 235489969 © Alexander Mirt | Dreamstime.com

During Brazil’s colonial period (1500-1822), sugarcane plantations established the basis for political power through land monopoly and slavery. Policies were implemented to promote the economic interests of the agribusiness sector.

In response to the energy and sugar crisis of the 70s, Brazil launched a national ethanol program called “Pró-Álcool” in 1975. This initiative included tax breaks, subsidies, and lower financing costs to benefit the sugarcane industry, including producers, planters, distillers, and the automotive sector.

The “Pró-Álcool” policy led to significant repercussions, such as the exploitation of workers (bóias-frias) and environmental degradation, which the Brazilian government neglected out of concern that environmental regulations might hinder economic growth and development.

From 1992 to 2004, while Brazil’s total greenhouse gas emissions rose by 80%, the government defended its support for ethanol on environmental grounds, positioning bioenergy as a “sustainable energy source.” This approach framed bioenergy as part of a climate strategy, leading to its promotion at international levels to combat climate change.

However, the socio-environmental impacts of bioenergy production were largely overlooked, including direct and indirect LUC, water and biodiversity loss, deforestation, fertiliser pollution, and soil erosion.

In 2017, the “Renovabio” initiative was launched as a new government program aimed at promoting the growth of the bioenergy sector, with an emphasis on various types of biofuels, such as biodiesel, biomethane, bioethanol, and biokerosene.

A report published in the Biofuels journal indicates that Brazil’s RenovaBio programme does not account for direct or indirect LUC in its emissions calculator, potentially leading to an overestimation of decarbonisation levels and encouraging biofuel production with greater environmental impacts. To ensure the program is environmentally effective and delivers appropriate signals to decision-makers, it is crucial to incorporate LUC parameters into the calculator.

“Brazil’s ethanol diplomacy aims to portray the nation as climate-conscious, using biofuel as leverage in climate negotiations. Many countries have followed Brazil’s ‘successful’ example by integrating bioenergy into their climate policies, even though its social and environmental costs are widely acknowledged,” mentioned Morales.

Biofuel Expansion

Raízen, formed from the merger of Cosan and Shell, along with BP Bunge, Atvos, São Martinho, Tereos, Lincoln Junqueira, Cofco, Coruipe, Adecoagro, Katzen, Millenium, Brasil BioFuels (BBF), and Agropalma, represent some of the leading bioenergy companies in Brazil.

In October, Katzen International, a prominent bioethanol company, announced the successful completion and launch of the INPASA Agroindustrial S/A bioethanol plant expansion project in Sinop, Mato Grosso. This expansion boosted the plant’s production capacity to 2.1 billion litres per year, establishing it as the largest grain-based dry mill bioethanol facility in the world.

Corn ethanol production in Brazil is projected to reach 7.7 billion litres in 2024/25, representing a 20% increase compared to previous years.

The biofuel industry is making significant investments in the state of Pará. Governor Helder Barbalho has announced plans for a biofuel refinery to be established in the municipality of Redenção, located in the southeastern part of the state. A collaboration between the Mafra Group and Companhia Mineira de Açúcar e Álcool (CMAA), which together comprise Grão Pará Bioenergia, will contribute over $350 million to this project.

“These are the agendas that will be challenging for us: the forest agenda, the energy production agenda. These are different agendas in which each one of them can present their solutions,” said Barbalho.

Alongside the refinery, a fattening service for cattle will be provided to partner ranchers, allowing them to use the refinery’s facilities for confining their animals. The primary feedstock for cattle confinement will be Dried Distillers Grain (DDG), a by-product of corn ethanol production.

Conflicts

A report by NGO Imazon revealed that Pará accounted for 57% of the degraded forest areas in the Amazon. Forest degradation surged from 196 km² in September 2023 to 11,558 km² in the same month this year – nearly a 60-fold increase.

The state of Pará, which will host COP30, is marked by conflicts, including those related to the palm oil industry. Palm plantations in Pará cover an area that was once rainforest, approximately 226,834 hectares, nearly equivalent to the size of Luxembourg.

An investigation by the NGO Global Witness revealed that two major Brazilian palm oil companies, Agropalma and Brasil Biofuels (BBF), were implicated in conflicts with local communities in the state of Pará. BBF faced allegations of environmental crimes and violent efforts to suppress indigenous and traditional communities. Meanwhile, Agropalma was associated with community evictions and land grabbing.

A study by scientists Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside revealed that biofuel companies, such as Millenium Bioenergia, are establishing a production chain for biofuels and food products derived from monocultures on Amazonian Indigenous lands and within other traditional communities.

Millenium announced plans to “partner” with Indigenous and traditional communities, proposing unpaid labour to produce corn, fish, chickens, pigs, and confined cattle. This approach not only infringes on human rights but also poses a risk of triggering new pandemics due to zoonotic leaps linked to environmental degradation.

Brazil must expand biofuel production to meet growing demand, which will increase logistical pressures nationwide. Critical to this expansion are infrastructure projects, such as the construction of highways like the Amazon’s BR-319, connecting Manaus to Porto Velho, and the Ferrogrão railway project, linking Sinop in Mato Grosso to the port of Miritituba, situated across the Tapajós River from Itaituba in Pará. These developments are likely to cause irreversible environmental degradation and adversely affect numerous indigenous and traditional communities in these areas.

Morales highlighted the Brazilian government’s position and priorities concerning the expansion of biofuel production:

“In foreign environmental policy, the Brazilian government has historically been reluctant to prioritise environmental protection over economic growth, often attributing major environmental issues to developed countries. Although various administrations have made efforts to address environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss and climate change, these issues remain secondary concerns, frequently viewed as obstacles to short-term political and economic goals.

“Positioning bioenergy as a climate strategy has effectively justified broader policies supporting the biofuel industry and contributed to the greenwashing of Brazil’s climate policy on the international stage. Several countries have mirrored Brazil’s approach, adopting bioenergy into their climate agendas in response,” he added.

Brazil’s Indigenous Crisis: Violence and Rising Suicide

Monica Piccinini

17 October 2024

Suicide is a major global public health issue, leading to approximately 700,000 deaths each year. While the global suicide rate decreased by 36% from 2000 to 2019, Brazil saw a dramatic 43% rise in suicide cases during the same period.

A study conducted by the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), in collaboration with Harvard University, found that Brazil recorded 147,698 suicides between 2011 and 2022. In 2022, the Indigenous population had the highest rates of self-harm notifications (103.72 per 100,000) and suicides (16.58 deaths per 100,000), compared to the overall population, which reported rates of 70.06 and 7.27 per 100,000, respectively.

Territorial conflicts, the expansion of agribusiness, oil and gas exploration, infrastructure projects, both legal and illegal mining and logging activities, along with discrimination, inequality, climate change, violation of Indigenous rights, inadequate state protection, and lack of permanent policies, are significant contributors to the increasing suicide rates among Indigenous people in Brazil.

Daiane Borges Machado, one of the authors of the Fiocruz study, mentioned:

“Increasing suicide rates among Indigenous communities are deeply rooted in a complex web of systemic challenges. These populations have long been dramatically exposed to violence, territorial disputes, and the expansion of industries like agribusiness, mining, and logging, all of which severely impact Indigenous lands and ways of life. These activities not only threaten physical spaces but also disrupt the social and cultural connections that are vital for well-being.

“Additionally, longstanding issues such as inequality, discrimination, and inadequate state protection highlight the failure to implement effective, permanent policies that safeguard Indigenous rights and health. Addressing these interconnected issues requires a holistic approach, focusing on cultural preservation, sustainable development, and equitable policy implementation.”

Brazil’s Indigenous population exceeds 1.7 million, with more than half living in the Legal Amazon, based on the 2022 Census by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).

A report from Brazil’s Indigenous Missionary Council (Cimi) reveals that suicide among Indigenous people in Brazil rose by 56% in 2023, totalling 180 cases compared to 115 the previous year. This data may be underestimated due to flaws in Brazil’s death verification and registration system.

From 2019 to 2022, Brazil recorded a total of 535 suicides among Indigenous people. The highest number of cases occurred in Amazonas (208), followed by Mato Grosso do Sul (131) and Roraima (57). In 2023, Amazonas again had the highest number of suicides (66), followed by Mato Grosso do Sul (37) and Roraima (19). More than a third of all cases, totalling 59, involved individuals aged 19 and younger.

Jacyra Azevedo Paiva de Araujo, one of the authors of the Fiocruz study, stated:

“It is essential to ensure that government agencies are actively engaged, adequately funded, and properly equipped to maintain a strong presence and function effectively in the region. This would help reduce violence, protect Indigenous lands, and lower the risk of suicide. Since suicide risk is closely linked to mental health disorders, providing access to mental health care must be a priority. While Brazil’s public health system offers mental health treatment to the entire population, these services need to be tailored specifically to the needs of Indigenous communities in these areas.”

Jesem Orellana, an epidemiologist at Fiocruz, highlighted that suicide rates among Indigenous populations are associated not only with depression but also with socioeconomic factors such as inequality, economic crises, discrimination, and the decline of Indigenous traditions and practices, including hunting, fishing, and agriculture.

“Suicide is known to be a complex and multicausal phenomenon. However, in indigenous contexts, sociocultural factors associated with the symbolic and cosmological universe or even with the clash between ancestral traditions and antagonistic worldviews, such as Western ones, tend to play an important role in the tragic statistics of indigenous suicide, especially among younger people,” explained Orellana.

Territorial Conflicts and Violence

The invasion of Indigenous lands and territorial disputes continue to be major issues that contribute to the ongoing pressures these communities face. Numerous cases of intimidation, threats, sexual assaults, and violent attacks against Indigenous communities have been reported in Brazil. The states of Roraima, Mato Grosso do Sul and Amazonas have recorded the highest rates of assassinations.

The Cimi report indicates that invasions of Indigenous lands rose by 252% from 2019 to 2022, compared to earlier years. This period also saw an increase in cases of homicide, sexual violence, and death threats against Indigenous people.

The key factors behind the violence against Indigenous communities include the expansion of agribusiness, cattle farming, oil and gas extraction, both legal and illegal mining, fishing, hunting, and logging, as well as infrastructure projects such as road, railway, and dam construction, along with the private appropriation of their territories. Indigenous people frequently feel pressured to leave their land due to concerns for their safety.

Of the 1,381 Indigenous lands and territorial claims in Brazil, 62% are still facing administrative obstacles to their regularisation, with 850 pending resolutions, and 563 having received no action from the state regarding demarcation.

The Brazilian government’s support for expanding oil and gas projects in the Amazon, along with agribusiness, cattle farming, mining, and infrastructure projects like the Ferrogrão railway – linking the port of Miritituba in Pará to Sinop in Mato Grosso – and the recently approved BR-319 highway, is expected to have devastating impacts on the environment and Indigenous communities.

The reconstruction of Amazon’s BR-319 highway, which connects Manaus, the capital of Amazonas, to Porto Velho, will affect 64 Indigenous territories. This project is key for the expansion of agribusiness, oil and gas exploration, illegal mining, logging, and organised crime, all of which will directly threaten Indigenous communities in the region.

In Brazil, Indigenous communities are confronted with a multitude of challenges, frequently left to face life-threatening conditions without sufficient state protection. This lack of support undermines their ability to defend their rights and has driven some to such desperation that they resort to extreme actions, including tragically taking their own lives.

Climate Change and Mining

Indigenous child from the Asurini tribe of Baixo Amazonas, Rio Xingu, Brazil. Credit: ID 245527629 | Brazil Indigenous © J Brarymi | Dreamstime.com

Climate change and global warming leads to environmental degradation, posing yet another threat to Indigenous communities. Their livelihoods, dependant on agriculture, fishing, and hunting, have been affected by rising temperatures, droughts, and extreme weather events.

The rise in fires and droughts is pushing Indigenous people to leave their lands and seek work in urban centres. However, they often struggle to find employment, leading to economic difficulties and, at times, an inability to sustain themselves. The lack of job opportunities and a sense of purpose can lead to substance abuse, with drugs and alcohol becoming an escape, often resulting in severe depression and, tragically, sometimes suicide.

Illegal mining is a critical issue affecting Indigenous communities in Brazil. A Fiocruz study discovered alarming mercury concentrations in hair samples and oral swabs from 293 Yanomami individuals in nine villages located in the upper Mucajaí River area of Roraima. The mercury levels were three times higher than the recommended safety limits, primarily due to fish contamination, which is a staple in the Yanomami diet. Additionally, cognitive impairments were found in 55.2% of the children across these villages.

Mercury is a neurotoxin, and high levels of exposure can lead to damage to the nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, and kidneys. Symptoms of high exposure include cognitive disturbances, memory impairment, mood swings, muscle weakness, and skin conditions such as rashes and dermatitis.

A study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that maternal consumption of mercury-contaminated fish during pregnancy over three generations contributed to children’s poor mental health, with emotional and behavioural issues linked directly to an increased risk of attempted suicide.

The degradation and contamination of Indigenous lands and water sources drive the Indigenous communities to move to the cities in search of work, exposing them to a range of challenges that can have devastating outcomes.

Preserving Indigenous knowledge and practices is vital for safeguarding the physical and mental well-being of Brazil’s Indigenous populations. The contamination of their land and water forces these communities to relocate to urban areas in search of survival, disrupting their traditional lifestyles. As they adapt, many turn to ultra-processed foods, alcohol, and drugs – substances foreign to their bodies – which can severely affect their health. This shift often results in increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide, highlighting the urgent need to protect their heritage and support their communities.

Protection and Action

It’s crucial to establish and enforce permanent policies that safeguard Indigenous people and their sacred lands, while ensuring their participation in the decision-making process. The demarcation of Indigenous territories must be a priority, followed by empowering these communities to defend their rights and protect their land.

“A Brazilian program has demonstrated significant effects in reducing suicide rates among impoverished populations and could potentially be applied as a preventive measure within Indigenous communities as well. By providing financial support, educational resources, and access to healthcare, such programs can help reduce socioeconomic inequalities and promote mental well-being. Strengthening these measures and ensuring access within Indigenous communities, while respecting their cultural and territorial autonomy, could be a crucial step toward mitigating the factors contributing to rising suicide rates,” explained Machado.

Indigenous communities must be protected by the loss of their territories to deforestation and environmental degradation caused by agribusiness expansion, including cattle farming, legal and illegal mining, logging, oil and gas exploration, and harmful infrastructure projects. These activities not only violate Indigenous rights, but also have devastating effects on their physical and mental health. Protecting ecosystems is crucial for Indigenous communities, as their very survival is inextricably tied to the health of the natural world.

The pursuit of profit and the persistence of an extractive colonial mindset must never outweigh the survival of Indigenous communities and the lands they defend. The alarming rise in self-harm and suicide among these communities is a stark indicator of our collective failure to protect them. We must act urgently to reverse this destructive path before it’s too late.