Civil society survey will support the federal government in negotiations in the group
05/13/2024
Luana Maia — Foto: Divulgação
The main innovation introduced to the G20 agenda by the Brazilian presidency, the bioeconomy, still has a long but urgent road ahead of it, starting with its very definition. Throughout this week, representatives of governments and civil society discussed the issue at length in Brasilia, where the first of three face-to-face meetings of the bioeconomy working group established within the G20 structure took place.
Defining what the bioeconomy encompasses was a significant part of the debate. Financing the sector, which presents itself to the world with the potential to generate trillions of dollars, was also a major topic. In the short term, however, the primary goal is to ensure that the bioeconomy gains enough traction to be included in the final declaration of the group’s summit in Rio de Janeiro in November.
Upon arriving in Brasília last Monday (6), negotiators received a detailed inventory of global discussions and publications on the topic. The document, organized by the international NGO NatureFinance and the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV), cites an estimate that bioeconomy projects could reach $30 trillion by 2050.
But what exactly would these projects entail? The report acknowledges a wide range of opinions on what constitutes the bioeconomy. “This is due to the fact that G20 members have different priorities and strategies, contexts, and motivations,” the document states, compiling about 7,000 articles on the subject.
Annelise Vendramini, FGV project coordinator, explains the differing perspectives, for example, between countries rich in “financial resources” and those rich in “nature.” According to her, the former group tends to focus more on technology and innovation, while the latter emphasizes economic and social development.
The closest consensus on the concept is that it is an economic activity based on adding value to the “assets” found in nature, combined with the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. For instance, some argue that the social inequalities and cultural aspects of the traditional communities involved should be considered.
“It’s not just any bioeconomy. The document itself mentions that the bioeconomy can benefit some populations at the expense of others. That’s why ensuring equity is crucial,” argued Luana Maia, senior manager at NatureFinance.
Activities ranging from producing cupuaçu-based chocolates to selling carbon credits and manufacturing biodiesel could be included under the bioeconomy umbrella. “The great challenge is to offer sectors the possibility of aligning with the parameters of what the bioeconomy encompasses. We have to clarify where we want to aim,” said Carina Pimenta, head of the National Bioeconomy Department, a body established by the current government specifically to advance this promising agenda.
In Brazil, activities most commonly associated with the bioeconomy are currently concentrated in the cosmetics, chemicals, and food sectors. “The challenge is scale,” added Juliana Lopes, director of Nature and Society at the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (CEBDS). She emphasizes that addressing the challenge of scale necessarily involves technology and innovation.
“Discussing the scientific bottlenecks to achieving this scale is our concern,” stated Osvaldo Moraes, director of the Climate and Sustainability Department at the Ministry of Science and Technology.
Securing reliable sources of funding for investments in the sector is another current priority. Cristina Reis, Undersecretary for Sustainable Development at the Ministry of Finance, highlights some of the government’s initiatives, such as issuing green bonds and structuring a fund for tropical forests, developed in partnership with multilateral banks.
If some proposals for reforming these institutions—a cornerstone of Brazil’s leadership during the G20 presidency—succeed, the possibilities for financing the bioeconomy could expand.
Despite occasional updates, “no one knows for sure where the money will come from,” said Ms. Vendramini from FGV. In March, during a visit to Brazil, French President Emmanuel Macron announced an investment program worth €1 billion (R$5.5 billion) for bioeconomy projects in the Amazon. Since then, the specifics regarding the origin, instrument, or destination of this funding have not been clarified.
The document organized by NatureFinance was distributed to members of the delegations who went to Brasilia for meetings this week. There will be another round of meetings for this working group in Manaus in June and a final one in Rio de Janeiro in September. The expectation is that other G20 countries will submit contributions to be incorporated into the final document.
“It’s important that Brazil has introduced the bioeconomy to the G20 for the first time to build a global vision of what the bioeconomy is. It’s important both technically and politically,” said Simon Zadec, co-CEO of NatureFinance. “It’s about encouraging countries to develop their strategies because it’s going to take years to develop this economic and financial environment.”
Luana Maia says that addressing the issue is “the big step on a long and urgent road.” In her view, defining a concept common to all is not necessarily a goal in itself. For her, it would already be a great victory if the G20 summit adopted some “high-level principles” around the bioeconomy that could be embraced by the group’s next presidency (South Africa).
Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, Climate Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is Brazil’s lead negotiator. According to him, the large turnout of representatives from G20 countries at the face-to-face bioeconomy meetings indicates that the topic has “caught on.” However, he cautions: “This is all a new economic paradigm. We have to be careful that they don’t think we’re going to solve everything.”
*Por Murillo Camarotto — Brasília
Source: Valor International