Skip to main content

Investing in Sustainable Use of Biodiversity for Social Benefit in Brazil

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Ecological Economics ((SEEC,volume 4))

Abstract

Brazil is a megadiverse country of continental dimension, with a wide range of distinct biomes and aquatic zones and cultural patterns associated with the use (and misuse) of nature. It is simultaneously the world’s largest producer and consumer of tropical timber, for example, and its beef cattle enterprises occupy over 70 % of all land cleared for production, which accounts for half of all tropical deforestation. With rapid loss of remaining biodiversity, conservation must rely increasingly on strategies to integrate biodiversity use and protection into the rural production landscape. The authors here appraise investment opportunities associated with sustainable use of components of biodiversity. Official data on existing uses of non-timber forest product raw materials are valued by the market at less than $500 million/year though they involve several million forest-dwelling people. Only one cosmetics corporation, Natura, has over $2 billion in annual revenues with growing sales based on a biodiversity-friendly image including community investment and equitable distribution of benefits to recognize traditional knowledge. Such business strategies create value but as yet little of these benefits trickle down. The use of native oilseeds and essences in natural cosmetics, for example, has foundered by over-concentration by producers in one or two oilseeds or essences (e.g. Brazil nut oil, rosewood essential oil) that may also result in species extinctions due to overharvest. Strategies proposed for greater integration of biodiversity within regional development processes include the adoption of a territorial perspective in which clusters of interlinked enterprises can achieve more positive feedback on local employment and income distribution by finding uses for a range of biodiversity components rather than specializing in a narrow band of species, technologies, product or service types. Small-scale natural product enterprises are most viable when upward linked with partners at a larger scale and/or have the potential to innovate in diversified product development. Research and development should stimulate entrepreneurial innovation along with basic enterprise capacity building, legal and technical support and certification of sustainable origin.

Research for this chapter was undertaken under a programme of Brazil’s National Bank for Economic and Social Development-BNDES, as part of a wide-ranging exploration into potential areas for social and environmentally appropriate investment (May and Vinha 2010).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    MP 2186-16/2001 regulates the National Constitution and the CBD, applied to access to components of Brazil’s genetic heritage (translation by the authors).

  2. 2.

    This concept is also based on two connected areas: evolutionary biology considers that if an organism or ecosystem does not depend upon a given characteristic for its survival, it is fated to disappear from the evolutionary process. It is also used to refer to intellectual property rights, such as over geographic designation of origin. If the origin is not formally declared, there is a risk of loss of the right to exclusive use of the product name or quality, and it becomes generic.

  3. 3.

    The study on which this chapter is based (May and Vinha 2010) also includes a review of issues facing bioprospecting and pharmaceutical products, artisanal fisheries and ecotourism enterprises.

  4. 4.

    A survey done in March, 2009, noted that 81% of the population interviewed (with ±  4% error) would prefer buying products derived from processes certified as responsible, even if they cost more than a similar product lacking such a label (Datafolha 2009).

References

  • Abramovay, R. (2000). O capital social dos territórios: repensando o desenvolvimento rural. Economia Aplicada, 2, 379–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balick, M., Elisabetsky, E., & Laird, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Medicinal resources of the tropical ­forest; Biodiversity and its importance to human health. Nova York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazil. (2009). Plano Nacional de Promoção de Cadeias da Sociobiodiversidade. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, C. R., Rocha, S. F., Rizzi, C., David, M., & Vivan, J. L. (2007). Conservação on farm. In L. L. Nass (Ed.), Recursos genéticos vegetais (pp. 511–543). Brasilia: Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conservation International. (2005). Megadiversity. Washington, DC: Conservation International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datafolha. (2009). A visão da população brasileira sobre certificação florestal e agropecuária. São Paulo: Folha de São Paulo/Amigos da Terra-Amazônia Brasileira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diegues, A. C. (2000). O mito moderno da natureza intocada. São Paulo: Hucitec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durojeanni, M., & Pádua, M. T. J. (2001). Biodiversidade: A hora decisiva. Curitiba: Editora UFPR/Fundação O Boticário.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonçalves, A. (2008). Sistemas agroflorestais na agricultura familiar noroeste do Mato Grosso; sistematização e análise. Brasília: UNDP/GEF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Homma, A. (2010). Extrativismo, manejo e conservação dos recursos naturais na Amazônia. In P. May (Ed.), Economia do meio ambiente: Teoria e prática (2nd ed., pp. 353–374). Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier/Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • IBGE/SIDRA. Brazilian Foundation for Geography and Statistics, SIDRA database. Municipal extractive production. Yearly.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, P. H., & Vinha, V. (2010) Perspectivas sobre investimentos sociais no Brasil: Utilização sustentável da biodiversidade. BNDES/CEDEPLAR, Minas Gerais (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • MDA/SDT. (2003). Referências para um programa territorial de desenvolvimento rural sustentável. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário/Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Territorial, Núcleo de Estudos Agrários e Desenvolvimento Rural (NEAD). Retrieved October 4, 2011, from http://www.nead.gov.br/portal/nead/arquivos/view/publicacoes-nead/publicacoes/arquivo_253.pdf

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: policy responses findings of the responses working group (Millennium ecosystem assessment, Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons; the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, C. M., Balick, M. J., Kahn, F., & Anderson, A. B. (1989). Oligarchic forests of economic plants in Amazonia: Utilization and conservation of an important tropical resource. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper, M. (1998). Innovation as collective action: Conventions, products, technologies, and territories in the regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sukhdev, P., & Gundimeda, H. (2008, August) The GDP of the poor. Paper presented at the Tenth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics, Nairobi, Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunderlin, W., et al. (2005). Livelihoods, forests, and conservation. World Development, 33, 1383–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viergever, M. (2010). Arranjos organizacionais da produção agroextrativista. Brasília: Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos/UNDP. Retrieved on October 1, 2011, from http://www.sae.gov.br/site/wp-content/uploads/2009-Edital_003-Marcel.zip

  • Wunder, S. (1999). Value determinants of non-timber forest products in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: IPEA-Rio, Textos para Discussão.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter H. May .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

May, P.H., da Vinha, V. (2013). Investing in Sustainable Use of Biodiversity for Social Benefit in Brazil. In: Muradian, R., Rival, L. (eds) Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Studies in Ecological Economics, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics