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 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) use their bi-annual Zhuhai Airshow to attack Taiwan on two levels. The first level became apparent to this observer after attending the first two airshows in 1996 and 1998: Why would the CCP allow Zhuhai leaders to build a second large international airport a mere 26 kilometers from the far busier Macau International Airport, with Zhuhai only cycling about ten flights a day? Zhuhai city fathers were not guilty of some corrupt “boondoggle,” they had clearly convinced the PLA to bless their city with a massive reserve airport to support future
You can picture it now. It is 2025 and Apple chief executive officer Tim Cook has just taken the stage to announce the company’s latest gadget. It is faster, more powerful and in every way better than the previous iteration, and one more thing: It features chips made in the US. The crowd applauds. Apple, its key component supplier Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), US Congress and the Arizona government have been working up to this moment since early 2020. Dozens of news releases have been written, billions of dollars spent and numerous speeches given lauding the US’ return to chip
The White House went into damage control mode after US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley suggested that there is no military solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and diplomacy is needed to end it: The official US position is that Ukraine itself should set the terms of the peace and decide when, if ever, it is ready to talk. Yet after Tuesday’s incident with two missiles landing in Polish territory after a massive Russian strike on Ukrainian power stations, it should be clear why Milley appeared to swim against the US policy tide. The danger of accidental escalation, or world
Superman’s latest flight took him halfway across the world. After an uncertain free agency, superstar former NBA center Dwight Howard finally and surprisingly settled on Taiwan’s T1 League, where the Taoyuan Leopards have welcomed him with open arms and plenty of photographs. In the two weeks since the team announced their latest addition, Taiwanese media and fans have barely been able to contain their excitement. A livestreamed video of Howard visiting a Taoyuan night market and trying chicken butt on a stick (“This is some good-ass chicken!”) not only got thousands of views and extensive media coverage in Taiwan, but
RSS