A diverse network of NGOs, corporations, development banks, and philanthropic resources is transforming the Amazon’s “bioeconomy.” As financial resources pour into the region, critical questions about control, influence, and the future direction of the rainforest emerge. Over the last two decades, the way we talk about the Amazon rainforest has evolved significantly.
READ: A RECKONING IN THE AMAZON (PDF)
Previously regarded primarily as a delicate ecosystem needing protection from deforestation, it’s now increasingly seen in economic terms, holding measurable value and gaining importance in financial and policy dialogues.
Market-based
This article was originally published at YourVoiz.org. For the full version with illustrations and tables, visit the site now.
A shift in language is noticeable across governments, financial bodies, and environmental organizations.
The concept of “bioeconomy” reframes biodiversity, ecosystem services, and indigenous knowledge as not just preservation targets but as income-generating resources that maintain the forest’s integrity.
Key institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Resources Institute (WRI), and global climate funds are leading this movement, creating frameworks that link conservation efforts with market-based strategies.
Productivity
WRI’s funding sources include Cargill, the Bezos Earth Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, CLUA, Google, the Good Energies Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Meta, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, the Skoll Foundation, the Oak Foundation, the World Bank, the US Department of State, Walmart, and others.
The idea is straightforward and appealing: a thriving forest is more valuable than a deforested one if its ecological worth is properly recognized and monetized.
However, turning a forest into an economic entity has consequences. It shifts from being guided by environmental and social priorities to being driven by financial expectations, including performance metrics and profitability.
In this scenario, conservation is redefined, focusing on efficiency, productivity, and scale. Essentially, the Amazon isn’t just being preserved; it’s being restructured.
The hidden architecture
Most of this change occurs out of public view. Before projects reach specific locations, the groundwork is laid through financial planning, institutional partnerships, and investment strategies.
This is more than just conservation funding; it’s creating a system where nature becomes a viable investment.
This system relies on collaborations among public institutions, development banks, and private investors. They construct financial frameworks that make large-scale conservation financing possible.
Entities like the International Finance Corporation, IFC (part of the World Bank Group), the Brazilian development bank, BNDES, and Germany’s state-owned bank, KfW, play a pivotal role in establishing these frameworks, creating tools that channel capital into historically risky regions.
However, funding comes with stipulations. Projects need to be measurable, scalable, and meet investor expectations.
This results in a subtle selection process. Initiatives based on local customs and non-market land management aren’t explicitly barred but often struggle to conform to these frameworks, thus remaining on the periphery.
Blended finance: the engine of the bioeconomy
“Blended finance” is central to this model, combining public, philanthropic, and private investment to mitigate risk and attract substantial capital.
The IDB, the IFC, and funds like the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) are key in crafting these mechanisms, often collaborating with national bodies like BNDES.
The goal is to attract significant conservation funding by making projects financially appealing to private investors. This model reassigns financial risk in a structured manner.
Public entities and philanthropic groups, like the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Climate and Land Use Alliance, often absorb initial losses or provide guarantees, enabling private investors to engage with greater certainty of returns.
This mechanism effectively channels funding that conservation efforts have struggled to secure historically. Yet, it prompts a significant question: with shared risk, who reaps the benefits?
Financial systems
Blended finance’s impact extends beyond funding, influencing project designs. To ensure predictability, investors often demand measurable outcomes such as carbon credits, certified goods, and biodiversity-related revenues.
While this can foster innovation, it can also restrict possibilities. Projects emphasizing long-term ecological health, cultural preservation, or non-commercial stewardship may find support elusive.
Over time, this shapes the bioeconomy. It decides what becomes prominent, what thrives, and what is overlooked.
New types of risk arise. These appear when sustainability narratives advance faster than actual progress or when minor successes are overstated amidst enduring environmental challenges.
Greenwashing concerns often stem not from false claims but from a system where financial returns and reputation are tightly intertwined.
In this transformation, the Amazon is not just being preserved but integrated into financial systems that redefine how nature is valued and success is evaluated.
Intermediaries
In Brazil, organizations like the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO) act as crucial intermediaries in these financial networks.
Established in 1996 with support from GEF and multilateral partners, FUNBIO functions as a financial hub, amassing funds from governments, corporations, and philanthropies, then distributing them to projects throughout the Amazon and Brazil.
This role grants these institutions substantial influence. They don’t just finance projects; they help shape which succeed, expand, and are prioritized.
While such concentration can enhance efficiency, it also centralizes decision-making within a limited network.
Partnerships
An example is the Suruí Forest Carbon Project, initiated in 2009 and partially managed by FUNBIO with the Paiter-Suruí Indigenous people.
Considered a groundbreaking attempt to connect conservation with carbon markets, it also highlighted tensions within these models.
Over time, some community leaders reported delays in carbon credit payments and that crucial decisions were made by a small group, not the broader community.
Meanwhile, illegal logging and mining persisted in the area, diminishing the project’s effectiveness. This led to questions about who truly benefits from such initiatives and whether the system is as transparent or equitable as it seems.
Financial disclosures reveal the extent of this network.
FUNBIO’s programs involve collaborations with organizations including BNDES, KfW, IDB, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, WWF, the Good Energies Foundation, CLUA, Bezos Earth, Petrobras, Eneva, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Vale, Anglo American, Natura, JBS, Heineken, and others, covering public, private, and philanthropic sectors.
In reality, a single conservation project might involve financing from development banks, oil, mining, and agribusiness sectors, philanthropic donors, and environmental NGOs concurrently. These multi-tiered partnerships can mobilize significant funds but also create intricate dependencies.
Philanthropy is indispensable
Philanthropic foundations have become essential to this system, often stepping in where others cannot.
Organizations such as the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Good Energies Foundation (Porticus), and the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA) provide early-stage funding that enables projects to develop and attract major investors.
Without this initial support, many initiatives wouldn’t launch.
Consider the ARPA program as an example. Started in 2002 and managed by FUNBIO, this alliance aims to conserve and sustainably manage 60 million hectares, an area twice the size of Germany.
Its funding is sourced from major entities, including the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, WWF, the German government (via KfW), GEF, Anglo American, the Amazon Fund, IDB, the World Bank, Margaret A. Cargill, and BNDES. FUNBIO manages and executes the project.
Philanthropy isn’t neutral
In 2024, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation allocated over $24 million to projects in Brazil, primarily in the Amazon.
Yet, philanthropy isn’t neutral. By selecting which projects to fund, these organizations influence the bioeconomy’s direction.
Projects promising scale and aligning with market-driven strategies are likelier to receive support. In contrast, alternatives focusing on land rights or non-market solutions may struggle to gain traction.
The Soros Economic Development Fund, supported by George Soros’s Open Society network, has identified Brazil as a prime target for impact investment, particularly in regenerative agriculture, bio-inputs, and nature-based solutions.
Their approach emphasizes scaling commercially viable models that connect environmental preservation with financial returns, reinforcing the trend of aligning conservation with market-driven frameworks.
This raises a critical question: who truly shapes the Amazon’s future? Local communities, national governments, or global funding networks?
Corporate participation
Corporations are now deeply embedded in the bioeconomy.
Companies from the oil, mining, and agribusiness sectors contribute to environmental funds and engage in conservation projects, often as part of broader sustainability agendas.
These efforts can aid restoration and local development. Simultaneously, they function within a reputational economy, where evident environmental involvement can enhance public perception and investor trust.
This establishes a tension. Industries historically associated with environmental damage now also finance its restoration.
Commercialisation
The growth of biodiversity-based businesses illustrates how the bioeconomy operates.
Companies like the Brazilian cosmetics firm Natura are creating global markets for forest-derived products, often collaborating with local communities.
Natura’s participation in programs like Amazônia Viva, developed with the IFC and FUNBIO, demonstrates integration of commercial supply chains with conservation finance.
Natura’s model shows that forest-based economies can generate revenue without deforestation. However, it also highlights the challenges of scaling such systems.
As demand grows, supply chains must expand and standardize, exerting pressure on local practices to align with global market demands.
This balance between opportunity and limitation is delicate.
Sustainable beef narratives
The involvement of major meat producers adds complexity.
JBS, the world’s largest meat producer, through the JBS Fund for The Amazon, represents another facet of the bioeconomy: engagement from sectors historically linked to deforestation, environmental harm, and human rights violations.
The fund supports conservation and sustainable development initiatives, positioning the company as part of the environmental solution.
Nonetheless, substantial investigative reporting and watchdog analyses have raised ongoing concerns about JBS’s supply chain transparency and environmental impact.
This underscores a broader paradox: companies can support sustainability initiatives while continuing practices that cause social and environmental harm.
Mining capital
A similar trend is seen in the mining industry, particularly with Brazil’s mining giant Vale. The company has invested in biodiversity programs, restoration efforts, and bioeconomy partnerships, positioning itself within the narrative of environmental accountability.
However, Vale’s environmental history includes one of Brazil’s most catastrophic industrial disasters.
The 2015 Mariana dam disaster, a joint venture between Vale and BHP, released millions of cubic meters of toxic waste, causing extensive destruction and legal claims from hundreds of thousands of affected individuals.
In light of this, Vale’s involvement in environmental and bioeconomy initiatives gains added significance.
Through organizations like Fundo Vale, the company co-finances conservation and development projects with public institutions and NGOs, embedding itself within sustainability frameworks that emphasize restoration and resilience.
These initiatives are presented as part of a transition toward sustainable practices. However, they coexist with ongoing extraction activities that have substantial social and environmental impacts.
This reflects a broader pattern: sustainability initiatives often accompany, rather than replace, extractive industries.
Institutional web and accelerators
Organizations such as the WWF, IDESAM, Conexsus, and Sitawi, play a crucial role connecting finance and implementation on the ground.
They design projects, manage funding, and work directly with communities. This gives them an important bridging role but also places them in a delicate position.
Many rely on funding from the same entities they are expected to hold accountable.
New platforms like Amaz and networks linked to Instituto Arapyaú aim to scale Amazon-based businesses by connecting them with investors, mentors, and markets. These accelerators are often presented as vehicles for empowerment, enabling local entrepreneurs to access opportunities previously unreachable.
These initiatives can broaden opportunities, but they also draw local enterprises into global systems where success is defined by growth and financial return. Participation increasingly comes with conditions.
The Amazon Fund
The Amazon Fund is one of the largest international funding sources for forest conservation.
Managed by BNDES, it has received billions in donations, mainly from the Norwegian government. Brazil’s state-owned energy firm, Petrobras, is also a contributor.
The fund’s structure channels international climate finance into national programs, often working through intermediaries like FUNBIO.
This multi-tiered system enables considerable investment but also adds layers of complexity. Decision-making is dispersed across many actors, complicating accountability.
It’s notable that Aloisio Mercadante is both the president of the Amazon Fund and BNDES.
Who benefits?
Indigenous peoples and local communities are central to the bioeconomy.
Their expertise, traditions, and deep connection to the land shape many projects now gaining global attention and investment.
However, the financial gains reaching them often remain limited. They frequently bear the brunt of delivering results without a proportional share in the profits.
This disparity is at the heart of the bioeconomy debate. Does the bioeconomy redistribute value or reinforce existing inequalities?
Finance
There is no simple answer. Project outcomes vary based on local factors and design. Yet, the question remains unavoidable and increasingly urgent.
The Amazon bioeconomy is not a straightforward solution. It is a complex, evolving system influenced by environmental goals, financial interests, political priorities, and social realities.
It offers the potential to channel investment toward conservation and create new economic pathways that preserve the forest.
However, it also risks further entrenching nature into financial systems long driven by extraction. The tension remains unresolved.
The key question persists: will the bioeconomy ultimately serve the forest and its dependent communities, or the financial systems that support it?
This Author
Monica Piccinini is a Brazilian-British journalist and a member of the National Union of Journalists. She regularly contributes to The Ecologist and publishes on Substack, Medium, and her platform, YourVoiz.org. This article was first published at YourVoiz.org. For the original version, complete with illustrations and tables, visit the site now.
