Aid & development, explained.
As countries compete for access to biomass, genetic resources and carbon landscapes, the bioeconomy will increasingly become the new playing field (Getty Images)
The Brazil meeting will need to confront old tropes of competition and control over the world’s natural resources.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
COP30: Is the bioeconomy the answer to equitable prosperity?COP30: Is the bioeconomy the answer to equitable prosperity?
When world leaders gather in Belém, Brazil, this November for COP30, it will be more than just another round of climate negotiations. Held in the capital city of the Brazilian Amazon, it will be a battle over who controls the future of sustainable development. The buzzword surrounding the meeting – “bioeconomy” – captures both the promise of a greener world and the danger of a run on nature’s wealth.
The bioeconomy is being sold as one of the next phases of climate policy development. It aims to replace fossil and extractive economies with those that harvest value from biological assets and regrow the ecosystems on which they depend. On paper, it marries economic growth and nature regeneration with guaranteed prosperity. But behind the hype is a hard question: who will drive the transition, and on whose terms?
Unless there are institutional reforms, biological resources will only shift the geography of inequality, not eliminate it.
Brazil wants to be at the centre of this new model. Its proposed “Bioeconomy Challenge” is meant to trigger investment for green innovation in agriculture, forestry and biotechnology. However, the country’s objectives are also geopolitical. Brazil asserts itself as a leader among the world’s emerging economies – a landscape characterised by inequality, resource competition and environmental crisis. As countries compete for access to biomass, genetic resources and carbon landscapes, the bioeconomy will increasingly become the new playing field. Competition for the world’s natural resources – from tropical forests and oceanic ecosystems to soil carbon and diversity – is set to mirror the energy race of the fossil fuel era.
This contest has already begun. In Southeast Asia, mangrove forests are being mapped anew as carbon stocks to be traded in global offset markets. Across Africa, states are negotiating biofuel deals that risk replicating colonial patterns of trade under a green label. In Latin America, the commodification of biodiversity through bio-based economies has triggered alarm among Indigenous peoples whose territories contain much of the world’s genetic capital.
In Southeast Asia, mangrove forests are being mapped anew as carbon stocks to be traded in global offset markets (Joel Vodell/Unsplash)
Those who advocate for the bioeconomy tend to position it as scientifically and ethically inevitable. But without regulation that respects equity and sovereignty, the new green regime is likely to replicate the same extractive logic that typified the fossil fuel era. A world of bio-based value chains could ultimately mean that the power is in the hands of the owners of the technology, patents and money to support them. For poor nations with natural capital but no access to biotechnology, the risk is one of new dependency, this time mediated by carbon accounts rather than crude oil.
The economic stakes are huge. The global bioeconomy could be worth trillions of dollars by 2050, ranging from food systems to medicines, materials and energy. But the payoff will not be shared equally. The ability to convert biological assets into economic gains depends on intellectual property, research capacity, and access to green finance, all of which remain in the hands of more developed economies. Unless there are institutional reforms, biological resources will only shift the geography of inequality, not eliminate it.
This is the paradox that will be unleashed by COP30. The bioeconomy is framed as a bridge between climate goals and development needs but also heightens strategic rivalry over land, data and technology. In this new world, biodiversity is capital and the recovery of ecosystems a measure of power. States are not merely competing to reduce emissions but to control the bookkeeping regime that defines what is “green”. The bioeconomy is no post-geopolitical utopia, but geopolitics reimagined in green form.
A just bioeconomy cannot rely on markets alone but must be guided by strong political will and collective governance.
For the Global South, this reality poses both threats and opportunities. Tropical countries hold most of the world’s biological resources, thus the bargaining power in setting the terms of transition. But to exercise that bargaining power, they need enhanced regional coordination, transparency of governance, and new mechanisms for sharing technology. Schemes such as the G20 Initiative on Bioeconomy indicate the way forward. But they are still removed from the scale of global market forces currently driving bio-based trade.
A just bioeconomy cannot rely on markets alone but must be guided by strong political will and collective governance. Regional alliances are needed to define fair rules for bio-based trade and prevent the concentration of power among wealthier nations. Transparency in decision-making and regional cooperation can ensure that natural wealth is not surrendered cheaply but negotiated through collective bargaining that strengthens the position of biodiversity-rich countries.
Sovereignty over biological assets and data is essential to prevent new dependencies. Nations must establish legal and digital frameworks to control access to genetic resources, carbon stocks, and ecosystem knowledge. Technology and knowledge diplomacy, built through South-South cooperation, can reduce inequality by enabling fair access to biotechnology and open innovation that supports long-term ecological resilience and self-determination.
A fair bioeconomy also requires reform of global governance and finance systems. Equitable frameworks for carbon markets, green investment, and biodiversity trade must ensure that developing nations benefit from their ecological assets. Transparency, accountability, and regional financing mechanisms can prevent new green protectionism, while the preservation of local rights ensures that regeneration, not extraction, becomes the measure of prosperity and geopolitical strength.
COP30 offers a chance to face this challenge directly. The Belém summit has the potential to take the world beyond rhetoric and into the gritty politics of constructing an equitable ecological order. That will not be achieved in “win-win” slogans, but in plain-spoken negotiations about who pays and who benefits from the transition. The bioeconomy will test whether human beings can create a system in which growth and regeneration co-exist or whether the pursuit of green prosperity repeats the old story of competition and control.
About the author
Mohd Yunus
Mohd Yunus is an independent researcher hailing from Riau Province, Indonesia, and is currently pursuing a master’s degree in biological sciences at Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
