12.2.1 A Brief Overview of Land Use Ethical Issues in the Amazon

The bioeconomy refers to the utilization of renewable biological resources from both land and sea (e.g., crops, forests, animals, fish, micro-organisms) with the purpose of generating food, materials, and energy. It is seen as a path to global sustainability, with the Amazon at the core of worldwide conversations on the topic. The term ‘bioeconomy’ can have different meanings for different groups and scientific perspectives. It may refer to either monoculture or sustainable forest management, depending on the context (Costa et al. Reference Costa, Nobre and Genin2022). The prevailing bioeconomy approaches, such as ‘biotechnology’ and ‘bioresource’, originate mainly from the Global North and focus on advanced technologies and market-driven strategies for economic growth. In the Amazon region, discussions on the bioeconomy have often aligned with the bioresource narrative,Footnote ³ associated with major industries such as sugarcane, soy, and meatpacking. A ‘forest-product-based bioeconomy’ involving wood and non-wood products has emerged in the Brazilian Amazon, but it has not yet transformed the region’s predatory economic development agenda (Bergamo et al. Reference Bergamo, Zerbini, Pinho and Moutinho2022). While the bioeconomy is presented as a solution for biodiversity protection and local development, in practice, it has become a form of ‘conservative ecological modernization’ dominated by large agribusinesses. This approach has legitimized activities that cause deforestation, put plant and animal species at risk of extinction, violate Indigenous rights, and marginalize vulnerable groups in the region (Bastos Lima Reference Bastos Lima2021).

This bioeconomy paradigm contributes to biodiversity loss by replacing natural ecosystems with capital-intensive monocultures (Bergamo et al. Reference Bergamo, Zerbini, Pinho and Moutinho2022). It also neglects the needs of rural communities. In the Amazon, subsidized agricultural credit by governments benefits large landowners in the livestock and agriculture sectors, while small farmers face exclusion from the bioeconomy and displacement due to soy plantations and cattle ranching (Bastos Lima Reference Bastos Lima2021). Influential political groups oppose family farming, considering it unproductive and against their interests, which leads to small farmers having limited political power compared to the agribusiness sector (Sabourin et al. Reference Sabourin, Craviotti and Milhorance2020). This lack of support leads to increased deforestation as small farmers resort to unsustainable practices (Pereira & Viola Reference Pereira and Viola2022). Moreover, the move to a bioeconomy based on plantation economies erodes the land-based cultures and ways of knowing, surviving, and thriving within nature of Indigenous peoples, while maintaining neocolonial relationships (Bergamo et al. Reference Bergamo, Zerbini, Pinho and Moutinho2022; Pereira & Gebara Reference Pereira and Gebara2023). The impacts of agribusiness (e.g., land dispossession, loss of food biodiversity, water resource contamination) on Indigenous peoples and traditional communities are overlooked, with no efforts towards restorative justice (Bastos Lima Reference Bastos Lima2022). Finally, although crop production and exports linked to deforestation have sometimes led to economic growth in Amazonian countries, the benefits from clearing forests have primarily been gained by foreign players and wealthy local groups. Indeed, education, innovation, and sustainable infrastructure have not received enough investment to make products from the region more valuable or to reinvest profits into healthcare and education (Garrett et al. Reference Garrett, Ferreira and Abramovay2023).

The carbon market is seen by political elites, the business sector, and some academic circles and Indigenous communities as an alternative way to promote the bioeconomy in the region. The sale of carbon credits is considered a sustainable and profitable way for Amazonian countries, particularly Brazil, to protect their forests and promote local development. These credits aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by financing projects to protect at-risk areas from deforestation as well as nature-based solutions such as reforestation and land restoration. In the Amazon, forest degradation is both a significant source of emissions and the main cause of impoverishment. It is estimated that one-third of the region has been degraded due to human disturbances (Lapola et al. Reference Lapola, Pinho and Barlow2023). Although carbon credits can help fund land restoration, the market lacks proper regulation and clear negotiation rules (Ferrante Reference Ferrante2023), leading to projects overlapping public lands without government authorization, lack of prior and informed consent from communities involved, and unfair negotiation conditions between companies and communities (Antunes Reference Antunes2023). Amazonian Indigenous and traditional peoples face threats from companies seeking deals in their territories. The agreements can last up to several decades and are often written in English with unclear terms that communities do not understand; consequently, these are displaced and lose access to their lands (Greenfield Reference Greenfield2023).

President Lula da Silva’s administration in Brazil prioritizes an inclusive bioeconomy and regulating the national carbon market to control deforestation (Governo Federal do Brasil 2023). However, the green agenda of the government’s most progressive members faces resistance from right-wing opposition in Congress and Amazonian state governments with agribusiness and pro-mining agendas (Vilani et al. Reference Vilani, Ferrante and Fearnside2023). The environment and Indigenous ministers, environmentalist Marina Silva, and Indigenous leader and activist Sônia Guajajara encountered political setbacks just six months into their terms when Congress voted to reduce their powers. The environment ministry lost control over a land registry system used for land grabs and the Indigenous ministry no longer has authority over demarcating Indigenous lands (Schröder Reference Schröder2023). The Lower House also passed legislation invalidating Indigenous claims to territories they could not prove physical occupation of on the day the country’s Constitution was enacted in 1988, potentially allowing road-building, mining, dam construction, agriculture, and genetically modified crops on protected Indigenous lands. Those supporting the legislation emphasized more land for farmers, economic development, and aiding Indigenous communities’ integration into mainstream society (Phillips Reference Phillips2023). A common belief in the Amazon countries is that progress entails transforming the region’s natural and societal wealth into standardized, nature destructive commodities for the market (Pereira & Gebara Reference Pereira and Gebara2023). Albeit the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against the legislation a few months later, the Indigenous movement remains concerned that the ‘ruralist’ caucus in Congress will mobilize in response to the Court’s decision and attempt to introduce a new law through an amendment to the constitution (Mori Reference Mori2023).

The problem of deforestation is often analyzed from the supply side, looking at the sectors responsible for replacing forests. Yet one should also consider the demand perspective, identifying incentives driving deforestation and empowering anti-environmentalist forces. More than 80 per cent of deforestation in the Brazilian Legal Amazon results from domestic demand outside the region and foreign trade, with livestock product demand being the primary driver (Nobre et al. Reference Nobre, Feltran-Barbieri and Costa2023). From a broader perspective, livestock production raises further ethical implications, namely about animal rights. In the Brazilian Amazon, for example, there are over 230 million cattle (Lima Filho et al. Reference Lima Filho, Bragança and Assunção2021) treated as commodities or resources for human consumption, who are denied their own subjecthood and agency as well as sentient character. Likewise, as previously seen, the large-scale farming of animals negatively impacts other animals, plants, and human communities. These land use dynamics thereby demonstrate how (global) power relations, which determine whose lives are valued, when, why, and for what purpose, cross species boundaries, and entangle human and non-human beings in shared networks of vulnerability, loss, and extinction, but potentially also of resilience and survival.

12.2.2 A Transformative Multispecies Land Use Ethic

The Amazon basin is incredibly diverse. Indigenous organizations, small farmer associations, and other grassroots movements criticize the technological and productive bioeconomy paradigm that has threatened their lands and ways of knowing and being; they advocate for a ‘sociobioeconomy’ based on a production model that prioritizes bio- and social diversity (Amazonian Socio-Biodiversity Meeting 2021). In fact, sustainable bioeconomies centred around specific locations have long been integral to the Amazon’s economy; built on the responsible use and restoration of forests and rivers, the region’s sociobioeconomies bring benefits to both regional communities and the global society. Amazonian sociobioeconomies offer an alternative to current economic models and power structures; bioeconomy plans and efforts ought to prioritize helping, gaining insights from, increasing, and generating new ideas based on current sociobioeconomies (Garrett et al. Reference Garrett, Ferreira and Abramovay2023).

A sociobioeconomy model should closely align with an inclusive, relational, and non-anthropocentric multispecies justice perspective. This perspective acknowledges the intricate connections between human and non-human beings in shaping and sustaining earthly communities, granting non-human entities the freedom to thrive and fulfil their socioecological roles (Celermajer et al. Reference Celermajer, Schlosberg and Rickards2021; Tschakert et al. Reference Tschakert, Schlosberg and Celermajer2021). Similarly, the cosmologies and ethical frameworks of many Amazonian Indigenous peoples recognize animals, plants, and ecosystems as living, agentic, and communicative beings (Inoue Reference Inoue2018), perceiving humans as part of these multispecies communities (van Dooren et al. Reference van Dooren, Kirksey and Münster2016).

In Amazonian land ethics, adopting a multispecies standpoint involves acknowledging the cohabitation of humans, animals, plants, and other entities like water on the land. This emphasizes biodiversity protection and recognizes the autonomy, agency, and lifeways of non-human beings within land and water management. Viewing a bioregion like the Amazon through a multispecies lens can shape ethical and political frameworks as well as human livelihoods. Examples include agroecological practices such as permaculture, regenerative agriculture, natural farming, and agroforestry, along with concepts like ‘forestzenship’ (Barca Reference Barca2020). The latter refers to understanding human beings as one among many members of a forest community, each contributing to the preservation and development of the entire community. Drawing from Ailton Krenak’s work on ‘extractive reserves’ in Brazil, the principle of florestania (forestzenship) is founded on the idea that ‘the forest and its peoples constitute a polis, a more-than-human community endowed with proper political subjectivity’ (Barca Reference Barca2020: 24). This principle encourages us to include non-human entities in our concept of a ‘safe operating space for humanity’ within the framework of the planetary boundaries. It emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the various ways in which those entities interact with and shape the environment, the potential consequences of disrupting their ecological roles and behaviours, and the imperative of establishing a ‘safe operating space’ for multiple species.

Barca presents an illustrative instance in the Brazilian Amazon – an agroforestry initiative known as Praialta Piranheira. Here, local nut collectors Zé Claudio Ribeiro da Silva and Maria do Espírito Santo collaborated with chestnut trees, not only to ensure their livelihoods but also to enhance the ecological sustainability of the forest region (Barca Reference Barca2020). Tragically, both were assassinated in 2011 while striving to safeguard the forest, including the chestnut trees, from illegal logging and timber trafficking – a burgeoning activity that claims human and arboreal lives alike, along with other species. Their story epitomizes these varied agroecological (and concurrently political) practices that prioritize values such as well-being, economic justice, and democracy over mere economic expansion.

Another example manifests through the environmental activism of Indigenous groups and local communities spanning Amazonian nations. Initiatives like Kawsak Sacha, the Living Forest Declaration, originated by the Kichwa people of Sarayaku, Ecuador, exemplify the defence of ancestral forests against extractive industries like oil, mining, wood extraction, and biopiracy. According to the Kichwa people’s worldview, their forest is akin to a multispecies political community preserved through interrelationships between its constituents – active participants in forest life (Houart Reference Houart2022).

The degraded pastures in the Amazon could be transformed into agroforestry systems, a multispecies land use offering benefits for both nature and people, such as carbon storage, biodiversity protection, sustainable livelihoods, and improved food security (Ollinaho & Kröger Reference Ollinaho and Kröger2023). Agroforestry can also help restore and enhance ecological connectivity in the landscape (Kremen & Merenlender Reference Kremen and Merenlender2018). The increased fragmentation of the forest as a result of deforestation activities hinders animal movement and disrupts vital ecological processes (e.g., seed dispersal, gene flow, colonization of suitable areas), posing risks to ecosystem functionality and the survival of various species, while impeding sustainable development as small forested areas lack the capacity for conservationist land management practices (SPA 2021). Agroforestry on degraded lands, despite its potential, falls short when compared to the significant expansion of pastures and plantations. This foregrounds the importance of forming and reinforcing alliances among actors who share transformative multispecies sustainability and justice principles towards the policy interventions and investments that are urgently needed to support local sociobioeconomies in the Amazon region.

First, governments in the region should implement measures to cease actions that endanger Indigenous and other local communities and their sociobioeconomies (Garrett et al. Reference Garrett, Ferreira and Abramovay2023). An Amazon bioeconomy policy should commit to strongly avoid any deforestation, including legal deforestation, and stop forest degradation and land grabbing (Bergamo et al. Reference Bergamo, Zerbini, Pinho and Moutinho2022). It is essential to enhance governance and enforcement capacities, and redirect funds from activities that directly harm existing sociobioeconomies towards agroecology practices. In addition, increasing demand, funding, and channels for promoting ecosystem services and valuable, environmentally friendly products (e.g., fruits, nuts) as well as research in collaboration with local populations and regional research institutions should be a priority. Another crucial aspect is to strengthen the land rights of Amazonian communities. This can be achieved by implementing existing legislation or reinforcing it to formally acknowledge their territorial rights, while enabling these communities to effectively oversee and prevent deforestation as well as the degradation of forest ecosystems (Bastos Lima Reference Bastos Lima2021; Garrett et al. Reference Garrett, Ferreira and Abramovay2023). There is significant evidence that Indigenous/local forest management has been more successful than other methods in reducing deforestation.

Second, a participatory ‘bottom-up’ democratic governance model that empowers Indigenous organizations, family farming associations as well as cooperatives and community enterprises (especially by women and youths) is essential for driving transformative change in the region. This model ensures that local voices are both heard and respected, alongside the preservation of the ancient socioeconomic practices and cultural diversities of Amazonian peoples. It also facilitates the equitable sharing of bioeconomy benefits and the inclusion of a wide range of ideas about the bioeconomy, encompassing both new and traditional knowledge and technologies to ensure the diversification of production methods that value biodiversity (Bastos Lima Reference Bastos Lima2021; Bergamo et al. Reference Bergamo, Zerbini, Pinho and Moutinho2022; Garrett et al. Reference Garrett, Ferreira and Abramovay2023). Moreover, legal and political representation for non-humans and combining rights of nature and animal rights approaches are necessary actions to achieve transformative bioeconomy governance. This shift aims to move away from prevailing human-centred perspectives towards a multispecies orientation (Schapper et al. Reference Schapper, Visseren-Hamakers, Humphreys, Bliss, Visseren-Hamakers and Kok2022).

Third, the establishment of interconnected networks that span across diverse scales and communities becomes essential to enhance local engagements with sociobioeconomies. This undertaking will necessitate persistent dedication, culminating in a joint political endeavour encompassing countries within the region (Garrett et al. Reference Garrett, Ferreira and Abramovay2023). The ‘Belém Declaration’, signed during the 2023 Amazon summit, reflects the consensus among member countries of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organisation. While specific measures were not outlined, the declaration serves as an initial step, as it emphasizes the imperative to prevent the forest from reaching a critical tipping point and enhance regional collaboration (Organização do Tratado de Cooperação Amazônica (OTCA) 2023).

Considering the case of Praialta Piranheira and the active citizenship, or ‘forestzenship’, demonstrated by individuals like nut collectors Zé Claudio and Maria prompts us to conceive of the forces of reproduction as subjects and agents that sustain humanity by caring for the biophysical environment that underpins life itself (Barca Reference Barca2020). These forces stand in contrast to the forces of production outlined in Western political-economic paradigms, founded on continuous exploitation of humans, non-humans, lands, and waters for economic growth.

Shifting our perspective to focus on forces of reproduction encourages us to reimagine bioeconomies. This reimagining aims to foster social and ecological sustainable futures in regions of diverse species, such as the Amazon. However, these forces of reproduction often preserve the world, yet their ecological agency remains largely unnoticed in prevailing narratives. This is due to their misalignment with mainstream accounts of human advancement and well-being in the global capitalist economy (Barca Reference Barca2020). Crucially, neoliberal frameworks driven by economic expansion often align with anthropocentric worldviews that regard nature as a passive backdrop for human exploitation and control; despite that, it is possible to reject neoliberalism without entirely relinquishing anthropocentrism. As an example, ecosocialist perspectives may recognize the existential threat to humanity posed by capital accumulation (Foster Reference Foster2023) while not fully considering its effects on the non-human world or acknowledging the agency and contributions of non-human entities in shaping our shared reality (Barua Reference Barua2018). This emphasizes the significance of multispecies justice perspectives, which actively challenge human exceptionalism and advocate for recognizing agency and knowledge as diverse and interconnected. Transformative multispecies land use ethics should involve acknowledging the agency and lifeways of those subjects and collectives that already participate in (social, cultural, environmental) practices that enable the survival and flourishing of multispecies communities.