This year, the Amazon rainforest witnessed the worst fire outbreak in the last decade. Acute drought conditions in part intensified the fire emergency, but at the center of this crisis is astronomical rates of deforestation. Behind escalating environmental degradation are familiar culprits: unrestrained cattle ranching, soy cultivation, mining, and illegal logging. National discourse frames these activities as necessary in a country undergoing a snail-paced recovery from the 2015 recession. On his campaign trail, Brazil’s far-right president Jair Bolsonaro pledged to turn the Amazon into the “economic soul” of the country.

However, research is mixed on the economic benefits of large-scale land conversions for cattle ranching and agriculture. A study on land use in the Amazon biome revealed high levels of educational attainment, income, and life expectancy in areas with soybean centers. Yet such progress is often short-lived. Growth in the Amazon tends to follow a boom-and-bust cycle of development: Deforestation produces accelerated progress followed by precipitous drops in profit once natural resources dwindle.

How can the Amazon reduce dependence on these unstable and increasingly unsustainable economic systems?

A promising alternative to cattle economies is decentralized, locally based bioeconomies. The bioeconomy concept lacks clear definition; it encompasses everything from sustainable industrial processes to biology-based businesses. In the Amazon, bioeconomies envision new agriculture models built on traditional knowledge and conservation, as opposed to destruction, of the Amazon’s rich biodiversity. By harnessing the economic potential of renewable biological resources like Brazil nuts, acai berry, and cocoa, bioeconomy initiatives generate employment for the Amazon’s rural and urban communities, populations that have long struggled against some of the highest poverty rates in Brazil.

Bioeconomies benefit both consumers and farmers. In Mato Grosso, local cooperatives sell Brazil nuts for $4 a pound, three times cheaper than the cost in large cities. And the acai berry, hailed as a superfood, is making major inroads in the global economy. Yielding a profit of $1 billion a year, the acai berry industry provides job opportunities for more than 300,000 producers in the Amazon.

Sustainable farming and industrial processes that tap into the Amazon’s vast biological reserves boost environmental protection and economic growth (Source: Innovation News Network).

So why aren’t more cattle ranchers turning to bioeconomies? One explanation is poor infrastructure. For all the engineering feats in the Amazon, there are few roads connecting rural areas to cities. Local farmers, therefore, lack access to the necessary refrigerated transport and supply chains to expand biodiversity-based businesses. High upfront costs also make it harder for cattle ranchers to transition to sustainable farming.

More fundamentally, however, is the question of whether bioeconomies can rival Brazil’s mammoth cattle and soybean industries. For scientist Carlos Nobre, the answer is clear: Bioeconomy products reap $3,3000 per hectare per year, and soy and beef, $183 per hectare per year. High value bio-industries are simply more productive than intensive soy agriculture and cattle breeding. Yet Brazil is the world’s largest beef producer. Brazilian beef exports stood at $7.449 billion in 2019. Bioeconomies have to be scaled up considerably to compete with the rainforest’s dominant industries. Doing so requires nothing short of “an industrial and scientific revolution,” said Nobre.

To this end, the Brazilian government should enact policies that drive economic transformations in the rainforest. For one, investments should be redirected from cattle ranching to biodiversity-based farming. Economic incentives first catalyzed growth in what was then Brazil’s nascent cattle industry. Similar financial schemes may spur development and expansion of bioeconomies. Government oversight is also vital to the crackdown on illegal land clearing. Between 2004 and 2014, strong enforcement of environmental protection contributed to a 70% drop in deforestation rates. Efficient enforcement of environmental legislation coupled with financial incentives could alter economic structures in the Amazon region, and help pave the path for bioeconomy products.

But Bolsonaro’s administration is mired in corruption and political controversy. Ruralistas, a powerful agribusiness lobby, exert disproportionate influence on congressional decision-making. This presents a significant bottleneck to structural change in the Amazon. With little political impetus, the Brazilian government is unlikely to take environmental action on its own.

Here, the international community has a key role to play. Global investments, such as president-elect Joe Biden’s proposal to amass $20 billion to protect the Amazon, and donations from the Amazon Fund, an international mechanism to raise money for forest preservation, can finance infrastructure development in the Amazonian interior. International markets should also be leveraged in this effort. The Amazon’s beef and soy industries are growing more responsive to economic and social pressures, including the global outcry against poor environmental standards in agricultural production. Economic drivers such as consumer demand, trade partnerships, and international collaboration could similarly propel innovation in the Amazon’s bio-industries.

Ultimately, however, the Amazonian crisis demands a reckoning with ideas of progress itself. Without growth that centers on people over profit, inclusion over exclusion, and environmental protection over destruction, the expansion of bioeconomies could turn into another tragic tale of exploitation in the Amazon basin. In a region trapped within cycles of poverty and degradation, equitable and sustainable development is the need of the hour.