Since Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019, the fate of the Amazon and its indigenous peoples has been hanging by a thread. With the executive, legislative and judicial branches having now decimated the environmental agenda, Brazil’s pathways toward a greener future seem bleak.
Last year, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon reached its highest level since 2006, while illegal mining in the legally protected Yanomami indigenous lands increased by 46 percent. Such gold mining led not only to malaria and mercury exposure, but also to unprecedented violence against indigenous peoples. In 2019, there were 277 registered cases of such violence, including 113 murders, 33 death threats, 16 cases of racist and ethno-cultural discrimination, and 10 instances of sexual violence.
The exploitation and destruction of the world’s largest rainforest relies on well-known methods. For starters, Bolsonaro’s government has neutered agencies created to protect the environment and indigenous peoples. They include the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation and the National Foundation for the Indigenous.
Bolsonaro’s administration has weakened these agencies in part by not enforcing environmental fines: Since 2019, 98 percent of administrative proceedings dealing with environmental crimes have been paralyzed. Funding to prevent and control forest fires has been slashed by about 38 percent compared with 2018. The government has also intimidated and removed public servants for being proactive in environmental enforcement, and legalized the actions of squatters and land-grabbers on indigenous lands.
Bolsonaro pursues a “take-no-prisoners” approach to reversing hard-won rights. Dismantling the authority of oversight and protection agencies, creating rules to impede environmental sanction processes, and capturing institutions takes time and requires a permissive institutional setting.
Bolsonaro is not quiet about it. He publicly incites invasions of indigenous lands, claiming that they should be occupied for mining, agriculture and cattle rearing. It is no coincidence that invasions, illegal mining and deforestation of indigenous lands have increased sharply – and gone unpunished – since 2019.
The president’s allies occupy key positions in the Brazilian Congress, where landowners and agribusiness are strongly represented (the “rural caucus” controls 245 of the chamber’s 513 seats). Congress is working on a raft of controversial bills that will most likely destroy natural resources and erode institutional safeguards, with dire consequences for the environment and indigenous people’s rights.
For example, bill 2159/21 will abolish environmental licensing. Bills 2633/20 and 510/21 encourage illegal occupation of public land, bill 6299/02 facilitates pesticide approvals and bill 490/07 adopts a timeframe criterion (marco temporal) — Oct. 5, 1988, the date when the Brazilian Federal Constitution was promulgated — as a condition for demarcating indigenous land. Finally, bill 191/20 allows for mining and hydroelectric dams on indigenous lands and has recently been fast-tracked through Congress with little debate or transparency.
For those seeking to preserve Brazil’s invaluable natural resources and to protect its indigenous peoples, the judiciary should be the natural forum of last resort. The Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, or STF) currently must decide seven lawsuits, known as the “green docket,” challenging the government’s environmental record. However, while final decisions are pending, the contrasting initial votes of two justices highlight the obstacles the green docket faces.
On the one hand, Justice Carmen Lucia likened the government’s attacks on the green agenda to a “colony of termites,” emphasizing the assault’s effectiveness in destroying protective mechanisms and, ultimately, democracy itself. However, Lucia went further, declaring that the government’s failure to protect the environment had created an “unconstitutional state of affairs.”
As Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito of New York University said, such a declaration might entail the court instructing “various government agencies to take coordinated actions to protect the entire affected population and not just the specific complainants in the case.”
A decision of this nature invites several challenges, including from critics of judicial activism. However, in the face of a systemic failure deliberately provoked by elected institutions, and an environmental emergency directly affecting Brazilian indigenous groups’ survival, the STF should assume its constitutional role.
Unfortunately, Lucia’s promising decision was suspended by a single justice, Andre Mendonca, a recent Bolsonaro appointee who previously served as his minister of justice. According to STF practice, there is no deadline for reconsidering a suspended lawsuit. Only Mendonca can decide if and when the STF will examine the matter — a mechanism that is widely regarded as a form of veto that harms the court’s legitimacy.
The remaining hope lies in mobilizing Brazilian civil society ahead of presidential and congressional elections in October. During the recent 18th Acampamento Terra Livre, a landmark event for indigenous resistance and the fight for rights, about 8,000 indigenous people from across the country occupied the federal government headquarters in Brasilia. For the first time, indigenous mobilization put institutional politics at the forefront, pre-launching congressional candidates with the slogan Retomando o Brasil: demarcar territorios e aldear a politica (Retaking Brazil: demarcating territories and reshaping politics with the villages).
On April 12, former Brazilian president and current candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visited the camp, and promised to demarcate indigenous territories and respect International Labour Organization Convention 169 if elected. That promise might not be enough, given the urgent environmental crisis, but bottom-up pressure is all we have.
Bolsonaro’s authoritarianism will make for a highly polarized election. He repeatedly questions the legitimacy of Brazil’s electronic ballots and mimics former US president Donald Trump’s threats not to accept the result if he loses. With deforestation in the Amazon increasing, the world’s hope for climate justice is as endangered as Brazil’s democracy.
Danielle Hanna Rached is professor of international law at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro. Marta Machado, a professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation Law School in Sao Paulo, is a researcher at the Brazilian Center of Analysis and Planning. Denise Vitale is professor of humanities and international relations at the Federal University of Bahia.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The recent passing of Taiwanese actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known to many as “Big S,” due to influenza-induced pneumonia at just 48 years old is a devastating reminder that the flu is not just a seasonal nuisance — it is a serious and potentially fatal illness. Hsu, a beloved actress and cultural icon who shaped the memories of many growing up in Taiwan, should not have died from a preventable disease. Yet her death is part of a larger trend that Taiwan has ignored for too long — our collective underestimation of the flu and our low uptake of the
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
Actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known affectionately as “Big S,” recently passed away from pneumonia caused by the flu. The Mandarin word for the flu — which translates to “epidemic cold” in English — is misleading. Although the flu tends to spread rapidly and shares similar symptoms with the common cold, its name easily leads people to underestimate its dangers and delay seeking medical treatment. The flu is an acute viral respiratory illness, and there are vaccines to prevent its spread and strengthen immunity. This being the case, the Mandarin word for “influenza” used in Taiwan should be renamed from the misleading