Pollinator-Friendly Policies in Brazil: History and Future Directions
National Institute of Science and Technology in Pollination: Knowledge, Conservation, and Sustainable Use of Pollinators (INCT INPol), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
https://ror.org/0395f2d850000 0004 7705 4832Instituto Nacional da Mata Atlântica (INMA), Santa Teresa, ES Brazil
https://ror.org/0482b5b22grid.460200.00000 0004 0541 873XEcology and Biosafety Laboratory, Embrapa Recursos Genéticos E Biotecnologia, Brasília, DF Brazil
https://ror.org/0482b5b22grid.460200.00000 0004 0541 873XEmpresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa Maranhão, São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil
https://ror.org/02xfp8v59grid.7632.00000 0001 2238 5157Ecology Department, University of Brasilia, Brasília, Brazil
https://ror.org/00vwq0k57grid.456775.20000 0004 0616 9501Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Brasilia, Brazil
Abstract
This article reviews existing and proposed Brazilian policies aimed at promoting the conservation and sustainable use of wild and managed pollinators. Emphasis is placed on strategies for habitat conservation and restoration, as well as the reduction of stress associated with agrochemical use. The origins and development of the International Pollinators Initiative (IPI) under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Brazilian Pollinators Initiative are detailed, including their connections to pollinator and pollination assessments conducted by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and its national counterpart, the Brazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BPBES). A summary of Brazil’s current nature conservation policies, particularly the Native Vegetation Protection Law (the updated version of the Brazilian Forest Code), is provided, alongside policies that promote sustainable agriculture. The article also presents a concise review of the usage and impacts of agrochemicals in Brazil on both humans and pollinators, with a focus on bees, and discusses the prospects for biological control. The paper concludes by outlining critical areas requiring greater attention from public policies.
Introduction: The pollination crisis
The economic benefit of animal to crops has been estimated at approximately from US$195 billion to US$387 billion (Gallai et al. 2009; Calderone 2012; Wolowski et al. 2019; Porto et al. 2020; Oliveira et al. 2024). Furthermore, over 95% of wild plants globally depend on animal pollination for their reproduction, population survival, and adaptation (IPBES 2016a, b; Imperatriz-Fonseca et al. 2012, 2019; Rech et al. 2014; Gemmil-Herren 2016; Wolowski et al. 2019). Despite this critical role, the world faces an accelerating decline in pollinator populations and an increasing pollination deficit, affecting both wild plants in fragmented ecosystems and cultivated crops (IPBES 2016a, b; Wolowski et al. 2019). This decline poses a severe threat not only to biodiversity but also to the global economy and food security.
The decline in pollinator populations is driven by multiple, interacting factors. On the one hand, there is extensive degradation of natural ecosystems due to ongoing expansion of areas dedicated to crops, livestock, aquaculture, single‑species forest plantations, mining, hydropower plants, urbanization, and infrastructure development (FAO 2020a). On the other hand, the intensification of production systems involves increased agrochemical use and heightened exposure of managed bees to stress and diseases (Biesmeijer 2006; Butchart et al. 2010; Potts et al. 2010; Goulson et al. 2015; Aizen et al. 2019).
Beyond honey bees and bumble bees, solitary wild bees are also threatened, and their populations are declining in many regions (e.g., Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Nieto et al. 2014; Goulson et al. 2015). The continuous collapse of bumble bee populations in recent decades (Nieto et al. 2014) and the high mortality rates of honey bee colonies, including instances of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), over the past two decades (Ellis et al. 2010; Pettis et al. 2013; DeGrandi‑Hoffman & Chen 2015; Laurent et al. 2015, Gray et al. 2023), have significantly elevated attention to this issue.
Yet, most focus on pollinators remains predominantly centered on bee species. Ecological crop and wild plant reproduction relies heavily on diverse animal taxa, including various insect orders like Lepidoptera (e.g., butterflies, moths), Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), and other Hymenoptera (e.g., wasps), alongside vertebrates such as bats, birds, and even some non-volant mammals (Fleming et al. 2009; Rader et al. 2016; Ratto et al. 2018). These groups offer unique functional services crucial for agricultural output and ecosystem health, often irreplaceable by bees alone. Evidence, such as Lewinsohn et al.’s (2022) Brazilian appraisal noting widespread terrestrial insect reductions, including butterflies and scarab beetles, confirms a broader pattern of insect loss affecting varied species vital for these services.
This disproportionate research focus risks a substantial underestimation of true global pollination deficits, especially where non-bee taxa are dominant or critical. Neglecting the status of these diverse species leaves ecological functions and agricultural systems vulnerable and poorly understood, thereby weakening conservation strategies. While continued research into bee health is crucial, broadening monitoring and scientific inquiry to encompass the full spectrum of animal groups providing these services is essential for robust food security and effective ecosystem management. Given the predominant focus in existing literature, our investigation primarily utilized studies centered on bees. However, we underscore the critical importance of future research encompassing a broader spectrum of animal pollinators to capture the full ecological complexity.
Recent studies have provided robust evidence of the environmental impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides (Goulson 2013; Wood & Goulson 2017), demonstrating that acute (typically single/short exposures with effects assessed within ≈ 24–96 h) or chronic exposure (repeated exposures over days/weeks) to these pesticides alone can significantly alter honey bee flight and impair foraging and homing behaviors, which are vital for normal colony function and ecosystem services (Tosi et al. 2017a, b). Furthermore, studies have shown that stingless bees are also negatively affected by sub‑lethal pesticide exposure (Lima et al. 2016; Dorneles et al. 2017; Miotelo et al. 2021). While Apis mellifera is typically used as the model for pesticide risk assessment (Botina et al. 2024; Bernardes et al. 2022), there is a clear need for more extensive studies on native bees in this context (Cham et al. 2019; Miotelo et al. 2021; Lourencetti et al. 2023a, b).
Policy and governance frameworks
In (Ipbes 1996), Buchmann and Nabhan published the influential book “The Forgotten Pollinators” (Buchmann & Nabhan 1996), which inspired the successful North American Pollinator Campaign and prompted the Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Mudança do Clima—MMA (n.d.) (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change) and the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária—Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) to prioritize pollinator conservation. This topic was integrated into a proposed work program on sustainable agriculture under the Biodiversity Diversity Convention Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica—CBD), adopted at COP 3 in 1996 as Decision III/11 on the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biological diversity (Campanhola et al. 1998; Dias 2021a, b).
In 1998, an international workshop coordinated by B. F. S. Dias, with support from V. L. Imperatriz‑Fonseca and A. Raw, gathered 60 experts at the University of São Paulo and produced the São Paulo Declaration on Pollinators, recommending the establishment of an international initiative for the conservation and sustainable use of pollinators in agriculture, with emphasis on bees (Dias et al. 1999; Kevan & Imperatriz‑Fonseca 2002; Imperatriz-Fonseca et al. 2004). This initiative was subsequently adopted under the CDB in Decision V/5 in 2000, with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—FAO invited to coordinate implementation. In 2012, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services —IPBES was established by the United Nations Environment Programme—UNEP (Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente; PNUMA). Operating similarly to the IPCC, IPBES provides critical assessments to inform decision‑making at international, national, and local levels. In 2016 and 2017, IPBES published its Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (IPBES 2016a, b), which informed CDB policy decision XIII/15 (2016) and, subsequently, XIV/6 (2018) (CBD Secretariat 2016a, b, 2018). Following IPBES recommendations, the Coalition of the Willing on Pollinators (Promote Pollinators n.d.) was founded in 2016 at CBD COP 13 to support national strategies for pollinator conservation. Over 30 countries have joined; Brazil, however, has not yet formalized membership.
Also in 2016, during the II Brazilian Symposium on Pollination, the Brazilian Network of Plant–Pollinator Interactions – REBIPP (Rede Brasileira de Interações Planta-Polinizador) was established. This effort was bolstered by the GEF‑supported Projeto Polinizadores do Brasil (2010–2014), which laid the groundwork for current actions and contributed to the REBIPP database. Two years later, at CBD COP 14 (2018), Parties adopted the Plan of Action 2018–2030 for the International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Pollinators, aiming to coordinate efforts to safeguard wild and managed pollinators and foster the sustainable use of pollination services (CBD Secretariat 2018; Dias 2021a, b). The Plan also emphasized the engagement of Indigenous People, local communities, and other relevant actors. More recently, CBD COP 15 (CBD 2022) adopted Decision 15/4 establishing the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, with four long‑term goals (2050) and 23 action targets (2030), including ecosystem conservation and restoration, halting species extinctions, ensuring sustainable management of native and domesticated species, promoting sustainable agriculture, and maintaining ecosystem services with explicit reference to pollination.
Within Brazil, in 2019, REBIPP and the Brazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—BPBES (produced the first comprehensive national report on pollination, pollinators, and food production (Wolowski et al. 2019), which drew attention to the Brazilian context and motivated the consultation process for the Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação de Insetos Polinizadores—PAN Insetos Polinizadores (National Action Plan for the Conservation of Pollinating Insects), coordinated by the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade—ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) and launched in late 2022. Despite being initiated in 2019, this Action Plan remains in preparation.
In this context, several important publications have emerged over the past decade, including manuals providing guidance on pollinator management in major Brazilian crops. These materials were developed under the "Project Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach" (GEF‑FAO‑UNEP; in Brazil, coordinated by the MMA with managerial support from the Fundo Brasileiro para a Biodiversidade—FUNBIO (Brazilian Biodiversity Fund). Additional contributions came from the PROBIO (Projeto de Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade Brasileira—Project for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biodiversity) I; a call in 2009 from CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—National Council for Scientific and Technological Development); and an initiative coordinated by the University of São Paulo). CNPq and the Associação A.B.E.L.H.A (Associação Brasileira de Estudo das Abelhas—Brazilian Association for the Study of Bees) issued research calls in 2018 and 2021 (last call). Manuals and research published between 2003 and the present indicate a consolidated knowledge base that integrates traditional and scientific knowledge; best agricultural practices for pollinator conservation and sustainable use; enhanced capacity; and increased awareness among the public and policymakers (MMA online publications; Yamamoto et al. 2014; Witter et al. 2014; Dias 2006; Imperatriz‑Fonseca et al. 2012; Rech et al. 2014; Giannini et al. 2015; Klein et al. 2020). A major step toward consolidating Brazil’s pollination research network was the approval and funding in 2023 of the Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (National Institute of Science and Technology) “INCT—Pollination: knowledge, conservation and sustainable use of pollinators” by CNPq.
Despite recent advancements, there is broad consensus that current public policies remain inadequate to effectively address pollinator‑related issues (Byrne & Fitzpatrick 2009; Dicks et al. 2016; Hall & Steiner 2019; Hipólito et al. 2021). This inadequacy spans: (i) the diversity of pollinators and plant dependency on animal pollination; (ii) pollination of crops and wild plants and their economic values; (iii) protection and restoration of habitat diversity (forage, nesting substrates); (iv) pesticide control (acute and chronic effects, adherence to IPM); v) integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM) (Biddinger & Rajotte 2015); (vi) treatment of pollinators as bio‑inputs in agriculture; (vii) control of invasive alien species and associated pests and diseases; (viii) pollinator health and sanitary measures for bees and other pollinators; (ix) pollinator population collapse and extinction (monitoring, red listing, and action planning); (x) sustainable use of managed pollinator species (honey bee, bumble bees, stingless bees, solitary bees); (xi) certification and economic incentives; (xii) citizen science monitoring; (xiii) research and technology development; (xiv) inclusion of pollination in school curricula; and (xv) public education and farmer extension services.
Broadly, there is a pressing need for public policies that promote pollinator and habitat protection and restoration, reduce or eliminate threats, and enhance the availability of pollination services for both cultivated and wild plants. Prior works have reviewed or proposed policy options abroad (Eardley et al. 2006; Tang et al. 2007; Byrne & Fitzpatrick 2009; Mader et al. 2011; Rose et al. 2015; Dicks et al. 2016; Gemmil‑Herren 2016; Schelske et al. 2018) and in Brazil (Cunha & Landeiro 2012; Freitas & Bomfim 2017; Pires et al. 2016; Dos Santos et al. 2018; Hipólito et al. 2021).
In July 2013, the Chamber of Deputies (Câmara Dos Deputados 2013) and, in August 2013 and March 2018, the Federal Senate (Senado Federal 2013, 2018) organized public hearings on honey bee mortality and risks to pollination services. Bill 1634 (2007), by Deputy João Dado (PDT‑SP), aimed to introduce measures for the protection of bees and associated plants. A Senate hearing led to Bill 1918/2019 (Senator Lasier Martins, PODE/RS), proposing legal measures to protect pollinators. As of May 2022, these bills remained pending and were ultimately archived due to lack of voting. Of three Senate bills related to bees, only Bill 1918/2019 specifically addressed measures to stimulate research and pollinator protection; others focused on policies encouraging honey production and apicultural products and services (Bill 6913/2017) or inspection and regulation of agricultural products like honey (Bill 3358/2015). Hipólito et al. (2021) reviewed Brazilian pollinator‑relevant policies (federal and state) and concluded that specific laws for pollinator maintenance are absent, and that existing policies generally lack necessary standards for sustainable conservation underscoring the need for more comprehensive, interdisciplinary legislation. This article builds on that context, emphasizing key areas requiring attention and considering international examples relevant to Brazil.
Habitats conservation and restoration
The establishment and management of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs, IUCN 2019) play a pivotal role in maintaining pollinator-rich natural or semi-natural ecosystems. These areas provide unique research opportunities to understand natural pollination syndromes and promote abundant pollination services to wild plant communities and to small-scale agriculture practiced by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Additionally, protected areas and OECMs can deliver adequate levels of pollination services to neighboring croplands within the flight range of pollinators (Fig. 1). Flight ranges vary substantially, from a few hundred meters for most small bees (including stingless bees), flies, beetles, and butterflies, to several kilometers for larger bees and moths, hummingbirds, and bats (Carvalheiro et al. 2010; Zurbuchen et al. 2010a, b; Benjamin et al. 2014). However, most crop areas in Brazil are located far from existing protected areas and OECMs and, therefore, do not directly benefit from them for their pollination needs (Giannini et al. 2020).
One of the key objectives of the IUCN Bonn Challenge is to restore 350 million hectares of degraded land by 2030 (Temperton et al. 2019). The maintenance of restored plant communities requires sustaining diverse pollinator communities, especially bees, within these landscapes (Menz et al. 2011; FAO 2020b). Landscapes featuring diverse habitats characterized by a range of plant species, land cover types, and seasonal resource availability are more likely to support bees with a wide array of functional traits (Coutinho et al. 2021). This is because social and solitary bees, ground- and cavity-nesting bees, and bees with different tongue lengths and body sizes utilize environmental resources in distinct ways. Moreover, while multiple studies report positive associations between functional diversity and ecosystem services (e.g., Wood et al. 2015; Hipólito et al. 2018; Dainese et al. 2019; Woodcock et al. 2019), evidence indicates that benefits to crop production can be context dependent and not universally guaranteed. Thus, for successful restoration, managing for functionally diverse pollinator assemblages is advisable, while recognizing variability across cultivated species, crop systems, and landscapes.
Several actions can promote higher bee diversity at farm and landscape scales. For example, uncommon native bee species were sevenfold more abundant on hedgerow flowers than at weedy, unmanaged edges; 40% of species observed on hedgerow flowers were exclusive to hedgerow sites. Hedgerows are especially important for supporting less common native bees in intensive agricultural landscapes (Morandin & Kremen 2013). Similarly, wildflower plantings adjacent to crop fields can increase the abundance of wild pollinators during crop bloom, enhancing pollination services and yield (Blaauw & Isaacs 2014). Providing forage habitat near pollinator dependent crops is, therefore, an effective strategy to conserve wild pollinators in otherwise resource-poor agricultural environments.
Brazilian biomes face multiple environmental challenges that threaten pollinator communities (Joly et al. 2019). Deforestation, intensive farming, widespread agrochemical use, mining, desertification, large-scale infrastructure projects, uncontrolled burning, and the scarcity of designated conservation areas are key drivers of impacts on pollinators. Deforestation causes both habitat loss and fragmentation. Habitat loss reduces vegetation cover and the quantity/quality of floral resources for bees and other pollinators (Kennedy et al. 2013), removes hollow trees, and increases soil compaction, reducing nesting sites. Fragmentation can impede movement across the landscape, lowering pollen flow among remnants and, in plant species dependent on animal pollination, decreasing genetic diversity (Aguilar et al. 2006).
For pollinators, species with limited mobility may become confined to isolated habitat patches, compromising their long-term viability. Beyond the typical problems associated with reduced genetic variability in small, isolated populations, bees also face a specific issue: increased homozygosity at sex determination loci can lead to the production of diploid males; workers may eliminate queens in such cases, weakening colonies and potentially leading to colony failure (ICMBIO 2018). Conversely, heterogeneous, connected, and pollinator-friendly landscapes support the maintenance and growth of pollinator populations by providing trophic resources and nesting sites and contribute to more stable pollination services (Viana et al. 2012; Ferreira et al. 2015).
Accordingly, there is a clear need for public policies, including economic incentives, that promote the conservation or restoration of natural and semi-natural ecosystems within agricultural landscapes and on farms. In Brazil, the Lei de Proteção da Vegetação Nativa — LPVN (Native Vegetation Protection Law; updated Brazilian Forest Code; Law 12.651/2012) establishes requirements for the conservation of natural vegetation on private lands, including Áreas de Preservação Permanente—APPs (Permanent Preservation Areas) and Reservas Legais—RLs (Legal Reserves). Internationally, examples include conservation requirements linked to public land concessions (e.g., USA and Australia) and economic incentives embedded in agricultural subsidies such as the US Farm Bill and the EU Common Agricultural Policy—CAP (Política Agrícola Comum da União Europeia). More recently in Brazil, sustainable agriculture policies and programs—e.g., Sistemas de Produção Integrada de Alimentos (Integrated Food Production Systems) (MAPA 2009), Sistema Plantio Direto—SPD (No Tillage Cropping System) (Landers 2005), Integração Lavoura Pecuária Floresta—ILPF (Crop Livestock Forest Integration), o Plano de Agricultura de Baixa Emissão de Carbono—Plano ABC/ABC + (Low Carbon Emission Agriculture Plan) (Lima et al. 2020; MAPA 2021), na the Política Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção Orgânica—PNAPO (n.d.) (National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production), as well as recent proposals to provide lower interest rates within the Plano Safra (Brazilian Farm Bill) for farmers adopting sustainable practices, play a vital role. The relevance of these policies to pollinators lies in their potential to increase the year-round availability of foraging resources (nectar, pollen, floral oils, resins) and nesting substrates (tree and branch cavities, suitable soils, ravines, and similar habitats).
Another broad conservation approach supported by public policies involves species-focused measures: regular assessments of conservation status and monitoring of pollinators; formal inclusion of threatened species in red lists and red data books/databases; legal protection; and conservation action plans (e.g., Planos de Ação Nacional — PANs e Planos de Ação Territoriais—PATs) to restore threatened populations. Conservation assessments are coordinated globally by IUCN (via the Species Survival Commission), regionally (e.g., European Union), nationally and sub-nationally (in Brazil, by the ICMBio). Among pollinator groups, regular assessments are currently available mainly for bees, butterflies, birds, and bats. For bees in Brazil, of 209 species assessed between 2009 and 2014, 4 were classified as Endangered, 1 as Vulnerable, 2 as Near Threatened, 180 as Least Concern, and 22 as Data Deficient (ICMBIO 2018, volume 7). Habitat loss and alteration from agricultural activities and urban expansion are the primary pressures. Substantial gaps remain for many pollinator groups, underscoring the need to invest in baseline surveys across all Brazilian biomes, including non-bee pollinators that are often neglected (Rader et al. 2016; Lopes et al. 2021).
Pesticide use in Brazil
The average annual impact of pests on Brazilian agriculture is estimated at 7.7% of crop yield (≈ US$ 14.7 billion per year; Oliveira et al. 2014), which is lower than the global average loss of 13–13.8% (Pimentel 1986). Expenditure on pesticides in Brazil in 2011 was US$ 8.5 billion (164,074 metric tons of pesticides; Oliveira et al. 2014). In 2013, 102 active ingredients and 423 commercial products were available on the market; 52% were toxicity classes I (highly hazardous) and II (very hazardous). Brazil is currently the second largest overall consumer of agrochemicals in absolute values, showing a strong increase between 2009 and 2013 and stabilizing thereafter, with an apparent average annual consumption of around 755,489 metric tons of active ingredients and average use of 4.3 kg/ha (according to the Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária—MAPA, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock; MAPA), 6.2 kg/ha (Zhang 2018), or 8.3 kg/ha, reaching 12–16 kg/ha in the states of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goiás, and São Paulo (Bombardi 2017). The herbicide glyphosate represents a substantial portion of this consumption: according to the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis—IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources; IBAMA), from 2009 to 2020, sales of glyphosate (tons of active ingredient) accounted for approximately 60% of all pesticide sales, making it the most sold active ingredient in Brazil during this period among the 309 active ingredients listed in the 2020 Bulletin of Production, Import, Export, and Sales of Agrochemicals in Brazil (IBAMA 2020).
Herbicide consumption in Brazil increased dramatically following the approval of glyphosate-resistant soybean in 2005, rising from 22,903 metric tons in 1990 to 413,833 metric tons in 2020 (FAO 2019; FAO 2022). Glyphosate use alone surged 75% from 2009 to 2019, while total pesticide use expanded from 141,130 tonnes in 2000 to 685,746 tonnes by 2020 (Merotto et al. 2022; Procópio et al. 2024). By 2022, Brazil became the world’s largest herbicide consumer with 492,450 metric tons annually, surpassing the United States (405,500 metric tons) (FAO 2022). This escalation far exceeds growth in cultivated area, reflecting intensified chemical dependence driven by no-tillage adoption and herbicide-resistant crop technologies (Procópio et al. 2024). Concurrent with market expansion, herbicide costs per hectare increased, driven by both increased application rates and newer, more expensive active ingredients required to manage resistant weed populations (Merotto et al. 2022). Glyphosate application frequency intensified from 1.8 to 2.4 applications per season between 2005/06 and 2010/11, exemplifying this trend (Merotto et al. 2022). Approximately 90% of herbicide sales are financed through agrochemical company credit (~ 250 days), compared to only 10% from public funds, fostering farmer loyalty and accelerating technology adoption (Santos, 2012). These trends underscore a critical paradox: while herbicide intensification has sustained production growth, it has simultaneously created a cycle of escalating chemical dependency and herbicide resistance.
Production and consumption of agrochemicals in Brazil have received economic incentives since the 1960s. "Sistema Nacional de Crédito Rural"—SNCR (National Rural Credit System; SNCR), created in 1965, is highlighted as a fundamental factor for the growth in agrochemical consumption, by conditioning access to public agricultural credit on compulsory purchase of chemical inputs by farmers (Silva et al. 2005). Another initiative was the "Programa Nacional de Defensivos Agrícolas" (National Program of Agricultural Defenses), created in 1975 under the II "Plano Nacional de Desenvolvimento"—II PND (Second National Development Plan), which provided financial resources for the creation of domestic enterprises and for the establishment in Brazil of subsidiaries of transnational agricultural input companies (De Benedicto et al. 2019). Additionally, agrochemicals receive tax benefits: exemption from the Imposto sobre Produtos Industrializados—IPI (Industrialized Products Tax) (Decree 6.006, Dec 26, 2006); 60% reduction in the Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços—ICMS (State Value Added Tax) (ICMS Agreement 100, Nov 6, 1997); and exemption from PIS/PASEP contributions (Decree 5.630, Dec 22, 2005), with complementary exemptions in some states (Londres 2011; De Benedicto et al. 2019; Mitidiero Junior & Goldfarb 2021).
Additionally, all agrochemicals in Brazil are exempt from the Imposto sobre Produtos Industrializados—IPI (Industrialized Products Tax; IPI) (Federal Decree No. 6.006, December 26, 2006), receive a 60% reduction in the ICMS (ICMS Agreement 100, November 6, 1997), and are exempt from PIS/PASEPcontributions (Federal Decree No. 5.630, December 22, 2005). In addition to federal tax relief, some Brazilian states grant complementary exemptions (Londres 2011; De Benedicto et al. 2019; Mitidiero Junior & Goldfarb 2021).
A review on the safe use of agrochemicals in Brazil (2000–2014; Abreu & Alonzo 2014), based on 25 detailed studies, found that 65–89% of interviewed users did not follow agronomic prescriptions as required by the Lei de Agrotóxicos—Lei No. 7.802/1989 (Brazilian Pesticides Law), instead relying on advice from neighbors or vendors rather than independent agronomists. Combined with evidence that ≈ 90% of sales are made directly by agrochemical companies, this suggests that many farmers follow company technical guidance for purchase and use. This pattern helps explain the rapid increase in seed coatings with neonicotinoids and herbicides associated with herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops, which conflicts with a central Integrated Pest Management—IPM principle: monitoring to decide whether to apply a control product. IPM was more prevalent in Brazil before the sharp rise in agrochemical consumption observed in the last two decades. Moreover, in vast monocultures (e.g., continuous areas of 5000–10,000 ha of soybean, corn, or cotton), it is practically difficult to implement timely monitoring as a decision tool; preventive, calendar-based spraying is common. Another major issue is the illegal market: smuggled products may represent about 20% of total sales, including non-authorized products lacking proper risk assessment (de Moraes 2022). A comparison of nationwide pest lists since the 1930 s indicates a steady increase in the number of pests per crop species, interpreted by Paschoal (1979) as consistent with selection for pesticide resistance.
Despite the lack of comprehensive, standardized monitoring of pollinator populations in Latin America, surveys have reported high honey bee colony losses (Requier et al. 2018, 2024). In Brazil, high rates of honey bee mortality and colony loss have been reported mainly in the Southeast and South (Pires et al. 2016; Castilhos 2018; Freitas et al. 2017; Castilhos et al. 2019; Dias De Freitas et al. 2022), and, where investigated, these cases were associated with pesticide contamination rather than pathogens or parasites. In the first half of 2019, press and digital media reported losses exceeding half a billion honey bees in Southern Brazil. Unsurprisingly, Dos Santos et al. (2018) documented beekeepers’ reluctance to provide hives of honey bees and stingless bees for crop pollination due to heavy pesticide use and concerns over bee health.
Over the last 15 years, toxicological studies in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America have increased, focusing on acute and sublethal effects of pesticides on honey bees and multiple stingless bee species (Valdovinos Núñez et al. 2009; Freitas & Pinheiro 2010; Pinheiro & Freitas 2010; Lourenço et al. 2012; Barbosa et al. 2015; Tavares et al. 2015; Soares et al. 2015; Lima et al. 2016; Cham et al. 2017; Tomé et al. 2017; Botina et al. 2020; Ribas et al. 2024), revealing that native Neotropical bees can be more sensitive than honey bees to several compounds. For example, in the Brazilian stingless bee Melipona scutellaris, exposure to food-ingested sublethal concentration of thiamethoxam (a broad spectrum neonicotinoid) was associated with morphological damage to internal organs related to nutrient absorption, excretion, and neural function—without directly testing those functions (Miotelo et al. 2022). Similarly, Scaptotrigona bipunctata workers exposed to chlorpyrifos (an organophosphorus insecticide/acaricide), through contamination of the larval diet, showed reduced body mass and size, and ≈28% of emerged adults had reduced wing area and deformities (Dorneles et al. 2021). These results indicate that stingless bees may have reduced survival chances when exposed to different pesticides (Fig. 2).
Reflecting accumulating evidence of deleterious effects on pollinators—especially neonicotinoids—the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis—IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) reviewed its pesticide evaluation processes for pollinators. In 2017, it implemented a risk analysis standard that explicitly incorporates different exposure routes (direct and indirect) and sublethal effects (Cham et al. 2017, 2020).
As in other countries, the IBAMA relies on tests with Apis mellifera to conduct environmental risk assessments of pesticides on pollinators. This species has been widely used as a surrogate due to its broad geographic distribution, well-known biology, and ease of laboratory maintenance. However, uncertainties remain regarding whether A. mellifera is the most suitable indicator species to ensure protection of native pollinators. In 2017, the Workshop on Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-Apis Bees (United States; with Brazilian participation) concluded that, although current risk-assessment procedures for honey bees are largely conservative, non-Apis bees may experience exposure routes unique to this group and requiring further investigation (Boyle et al. 2019). As a follow-up, IBAMA established a Technical Working Group with representatives from academia, EMBRAPA, the private sector, and the MMA to discuss risk-assessment approaches reflecting Brazilian conditions. The GTT recommended assessing the feasibility of incorporating one or a few native bee species into the framework to better represent Brazil’s pollinator diversity. Consequently, in 2018, a list of candidate native bee species suitable for pesticide risk assessment was published (Pires et al. 2018). In addition, recent work highlights the lack of testing protocols adapted for native stingless bees and ongoing efforts to adapt OECD protocols (e.g., Botina et al. 2020; Dorigo et al. 2019).
The persistence and expansion of legal permits for highly toxic pesticides in Brazil, even for active ingredients banned or restricted in parts of Europe or North America, about 30% of agrochemicals used in Brazil have been banned in the European Union (Bombardi 2017), combined with frequent human poisonings associated with agrochemical use in rural areas and rising reports of honey bee colony losses, have heightened public concern among scientists, beekeepers, health professionals, and conservationists (Rocha Franco & Pelaez 2016; Vasconcelos 2018; Vieira 2019). Although Bombardi (2017) noted that the Brazilian Pesticides Law - Law 7.802/1989 prioritizes re‑evaluation under strong evidence of human carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic risks (in contrast to the EU’s periodic review scheme in Directive 91/414/EEC), environmental re‑evaluations do occur in Brazil when ecological harm is evidenced. For example, in 2012, IBAMA initiated re‑assessments of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and fipronil due to accumulating scientific evidence and bee mass‑mortality reports (Cham et al. 2017). On March 31, 2021, IBAMA concluded the environmental reassessment of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid and submitted a Technical Opinion to the Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária—MAPA (n.d.) (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock), including use restrictions for specific crops (e.g., exclusion during inflorescence), prohibition in seed‑production crops, limitations for other crops, and labeling warnings such as: “This product is toxic to bees. Non‑target broadcast spraying is not allowed. Do not apply during or immediately before the flowering period”.
Since 1985, the Fundação Oswaldo Cruz—Fiocruz (Oswaldo Cruz Foundation; Fiocruz) has annually published national poison‑exposure statistics via the Sistema Nacional de Informações Tóxico‑Farmacológicas—SINITOX (National System of Toxic‑Pharmacological Information; SINITOX), based on reports from Poison Control and Information Centers. Between 1999 and 2015, major categories included medicines (20,000–35,000 cases/year; 50–107 deaths), venomous animals (snakes, scorpions, spiders, bees; 15,500–27,700; 36–48 deaths), agrochemicals used in agriculture (3300–6300; 97–190 deaths), rodenticides (2800–4400; 20–89 deaths), and addictive drugs (2100–7100; 11–71 deaths). Although agricultural‑agrochemical poisonings ranked third in frequency, they accounted for the largest share of deaths among these categories. Under‑reporting is substantial: the World Health Organization (Pignati et al. 2014 ) estimates approximately 50 unreported cases for each reported case, suggesting ~ 165,000–315,000 agrochemical‑related cases annually in rural areas.
The "Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária" — Anvisa (National Health Surveillance Agency) has monitored pesticide residues in foods since 2001 via the "Programa de Análise de Resíduos de Agrotóxicos em Alimentos—PARA (Pesticide Residue Analysis Program in Food). From 2013 to 2015, 12,051 samples of 25 foods representative of Brazilian diets were analyzed for 232 agrochemicals: 80.3% were compliant (42.0% with no residues; 38.3% below Maximum Residue Limits), and 19.7% were unsatisfactory (18.3% with non‑authorized substances for that crop; 3.0% above limits) (Anvisa 2016).
Promoting sustainable agricultural solutions
Brazil has a century-long tradition of biological control against agricultural pests (Alves 1998; Parra et al. 2002; Bueno 2009). Risk assessment, importation, and quarantine procedures are formally established by the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis—IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and the Embrapa with a main quarantine facility for imported biocontrol organisms at Embrapa Meio Ambiente (Embrapa Environment Center) in Jaguariúna, São Paulo, since 1991 (Sá et al. 2016). Overviews of recent progress are available in Parra (2014), Parra & Coelho (2019), and Mascarin et al. (2018). A cost–benefit case study for sugarcane is provided by Renzi et al. (2019).
The expansion of biocontrol in Brazil led to the establishment of the Associação Brasileira das Empresas de Controle Biológico—ABCBio (Brazilian Association of Biological Control Companies; ABCBio) in 2007, which currently includes dozens of companies commercializing hundreds of products. The market experienced rapid growth (e.g., + 70% in 2018), contributing to reduced reliance on conventional agrochemicals (ABCBio 2018). A recent ABCBio survey indicated that 57% of farmers were aware of biocontrol products and 39% were users, often in combination with agrochemicals. Reported adoption approaches ~ 20% for soybean and coffee (historically higher before recent technological packages), ~ 20–40% for sugarcane, beans, apple, and grapes, and > 40% for potato, melon, strawberry, tomato, and vegetables/greens. Farmers cited efficiency (76%) and applicator safety (60%) as main reasons for adoption (Barsari & Claudino 2018). In recent years, some farmers have established on-farm production of parasitoids and microorganisms for mass release as a response to rising costs of imported agrochemicals.
According to ABCBio (ABCBio n.d.), “biological control” refers to the use of organisms or natural substances produced by organisms to prevent, reduce, or eradicate pest and disease outbreaks. Products are commonly grouped as:
- Macro-organisms (insects, mites, nematodes that parasitize or prey on pests);
- Microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses that infect pests);
- Biochemicals (plant/algal extracts, enzymes, hormones that can induce plant resistance); and
- Semiochemicals (pheromones and related metabolites used for monitoring, mass trapping, and mating disruption).
Regarding “reduced risk” pesticides, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies them by comparative criteria, including (1) low impact on human health; (2) low toxicity to non-target organisms; (3) low potential for groundwater contamination; (4) lower use rates; (5) low resistance potential; and (6) compatibility with Integrated Pest Management — IPM (Barbosa et al. 2015). The “biopesticide” concept is frequently used in a broad sense to include molecules of biological origin as well as living agents. A common misconception is that biological origin implies lower risk; in reality, toxicity depends on chemical structure and exposure conditions, not on natural vs. synthetic origin. Consequently, some biopesticides and reduced risk products can still exert lethal and/or sublethal effects on honeybees and stingless bees, potentially approaching impacts reported for neonicotinoids in certain contexts (Barbosa et al. 2015). Complementarily, recent studies discuss biopesticides and native bees in Brazil and highlight evidence gaps in risk assessment for non-targets (e.g., Catania et al. 2023; Lima et al. 2024). These concerns do not apply uniformly to all forms of biological control (e.g., macro/micro organism releases), which undergo specific regulatory pathways and risk assessment under Brazilian law.
Since 2001, the Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária—MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock; MAPA) has implemented the Programa de Produção Integrada de Alimentos (Integrated Food Production Program), promoting sustainable production across > 60 value chains (grains, tubers, oilseeds, biofuels, vegetables, flowers, fruits, medicinal plants, meat, milk, honey). More recently, MAPA launched the Programa Nacional de Bioinsumos (National Bio-inputs Program) (Decree No. 10.375/2020) to foster the development and use of biological products for pest control and biofertilizers. According to the Censo Agropecuário (IBGE 2018), farms using agrochemicals increased by 23.1% from 2006 to 2017 (1,396,077 to 1,815,361), while 3,230,186 farmers (64%), mostly family farmers, reported not using agrochemicals, likely to reduce costs. Certified organic production increased ~ 400% from 2010 to 2017 (from 5406 to 20,050 farms; MAPA). Since 2013, Brazil has implemented the Política Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção Orgânica—PNAPO (National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production) (Dias 2018). To meet the goals of the second PLANAPO (2016–2019), the legal framework of the National Bio-inputs Program was launched after ~ 5 years of multi-stakeholder development, establishing standards for biological products used in plant and animal production (Vidal et al. 2021). Further reinforcing these efforts, the federal government instituted the Programa Nacional de Redução de Agrotóxicos—PRONARA (National Program for Pesticide Reduction) by Decree No. 12.538 (Brasil, 2025), integrated into PNAPO, to promote the gradual and continuous reduction of agrochemical use, especially highly hazardous products by incentivizing sustainable practices, strengthening bio inputs, and enhancing intersectoral monitoring and control. PRONARA also emphasizes healthy food systems, the human right to health, and research and innovation in agroecological production.
Conclusions and recommendations
Despite the global and national challenges related to pollinator threats, there remains significant scope and a robust legal framework to focus on and invest in promising strategies and plans for pollinator conservation in Brazil. Initiatives such as the National Action Plan for Pollinators Conservation, currently being finalized, and strong research networks like REBIPP and INPOL, which unites many researchers working on pollinators, are crucial. Future endeavors, such as the proposed Regional Action for the Enhanced Protection of Pollinating Insects and Pollination Services in Latin America (Poli-LAC), presently under negotiation, also offer pathways for pollinator protection and sustainable development in the country. While Brazil possesses significant legislation related to biodiversity conservation, there is still a need for more comprehensive and interdisciplinary legislation specifically addressing pollinator conservation (Hipólito et al. 2021). Furthermore, it is essential to implement best practices for pollinator protection and the sustainable use of pollinators across various agricultural production systems. Existing legislation and policies should be enhanced; we outlined key aspects summarized in Fig. 3.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Kayna Agostini (UFSCAR) for her valuable comments on this manuscript. We thank the INCT Pollination (CNPq 406976/2022-8, CAPES 88887.953442/2024-00, and FAPERJ). Juliana Hipólito thanks Fapes/Cnpq for her productivity grant. Jeferson Coutinho thanks the National Institute of Citizen Science for granting a postdoctoral scholarship linked to the line of Engagement and co-production of knowledge in Brazil and Latin America (Grant Number 88887.990390/2024-00).
Funding
The Article Processing Charge (APC) for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614). This study was funded by the INCT Pollination (CNPq 406976/2022-8, CAPES 88887.953442/2024-00, and FAPERJ).
Declarations
Ethical approval
This study did not involve human or animal subjects, and thus, no ethical approval was required. The study protocol adhered to the guidelines established by the journal.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.