The challenges of protecting Indigenous and environmental rights in Brazil
Conservatism in Brazil cannot be analysed separately from the economic dynamics that perpetuate the country’s dependence on its trade relations with the rest of the world. It is not the cause, but the product of a process that naturalizes accumulation by dispossession and serves as an ideological tool to legitimize violence and the suppression of rights. For Indigenous peoples and the environment, this mechanism results in the expropriation of their territory for the benefit of agribusiness, mining and other related sectors and the marginalization of traditional ways of relating to the Earth. Capital appreciation needs symbolic backing to justify its expansion and normalize the imperative of violence that contributes to the concentration of wealth and social insecurity by turning territorial, human and environmental rights into obstacles to so-called progress. This, in turn, accelerates the climate crisis and corrodes the foundations of socioenvironmental justice.
Conservatism is advancing in Brazil beyond the political dispute and anchoring itself in an economic model that maintains the country in a subordinate position in the centre-periphery order, in which the intense exploration of natural resources and the commodification of territories are the bases of its reproduction. Accumulation by dispossession emerges as the main driver of economic expansion, fuelling the expropriation of Indigenous territories and preserved areas for the benefit of agribusiness, mining and large-scale projects, which marginalize traditional systems of relating to the environment.
In this dynamic, conservatism acts as a tool for reaffirming power structures, eliminating collective rights and sanctifying private property, which, similar to the historical process of the formation of the Brazilian state, is being consolidated through the imposition of barbarity. It involves the dismantling of environmental regulatory frameworks, attacks on and the criminalization of Indigenous resistance and the delegitimization of alternative forms of socioeconomic organization. It weakens territorial protections and exacerbates historical inequalities further.
The tendency towards accumulation reproduced by the neoliberal institutional framework requires a symbolic basis that justifies its unfettered expansion by portraying all remaining institutional obstacles as something that reactionary forces must urgently oppose. By doing so, it authorizes disruptive responses in the name of “progress” based on a rationale that preserves powers and represses sectors of society. Consequently, the legal and institutional mechanisms that protect territorial and environmental rights are redefined as expressions of state authoritarianism that are incompatible with free market principles. As the regulatory apparatus limits the exploration of natural resources to a certain extent and recognizes territorial rights, especially those of Indigenous and traditional peoples, a reactionary rhetoric starts to be used to disqualify it—one that seeks to legitimize the erosion of historical gains for the sake of progress, economic efficiency and legal security, thus broadening the horizons for capital’s expansion.
The institutional frameworks that shape Brazil’s current economic development were established at the end of the 20th century. This process was part of the global restructuring of production, triggered by the systemic crisis of capitalism. Under imperialist control, the process relentlessly sought to restore accumulation rates by imposing the consolidation of the neoliberal dynamic on the periphery.11. Elton Rafael Lorena, “Neoliberalismo, reestruturação produtiva e novos imperativos do capital no contexto urbano”, Revista Aurora 6, no. 2 (2013): p. 7-18, accessed May 15, 2025, https://doi.org/10.36311/1982-8004.2013.v6n2.3051. This allowed the system to stabilize momentarily, since the devaluation of capital assets and labour in the periphery made it easier for over-accumulated capital to sell and recycle these same devalued assets in the circuit of capital for a profit.22. David Harvey, O Novo Imperialismo, 2nd ed. (São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 2025), accessed March 19, 2025, https://gpect.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/david-harvey-o-novo-imperialismo.pdf.
In both Brazil and other countries of the periphery, this involved restructuring the economy to meet the imperatives of accumulating low value-added capital to facilitate the transfer of wealth to the Global North, either through economic relations based on comparative (dis)advantages or the neoliberal institutional framework’s own mechanisms that allow foreign capital to enter or expand in the economy and national interests. This expansion limits the capacity for a sovereign response in defence of domestic capital.
The historical process and the most recent geopolitical developments are reinforcing the tendency towards accumulation focussed on re-primarization. On one hand, the Port of Chancay, located north of Lima, shows the magnitude of the infrastructure that China is financing in Latin America as part of its “Belt and Road” project. Building a new route for shipping Brazilian low value-added commodities tends to be justified by the convenience of reducing transportation time and costs. On the other hand, the recent Mercosur-European Union Agreement,33. In August 2025, the Agreement was still pending ratification. commemorated by Brazil,44. Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria, Comércio e Serviços do Brasil, “Acordo de Parceria Mercosul-União Europeia”, last modified in December 2024, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.gov.br/mdic/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2024/dezembro/acordo-de-parceria-mercosul-uniao-europeia. illustrates how the system’s centre-periphery dynamic accentuates Brazil’s comparative disadvantages in its trade relations with the rest of the world, thus increasing structural pressure to open up new fronts for the predatory economic exploration of preserved biomes.
It is true that Brazil has made efforts to establish a new industrial development matrix. One example is the Nova Indústria Brasil (NIB or New Brazilian Industry).55. Ministério das Comunicações do Brasil, “Governo Federal lança Nova Indústria Brasil”, January 22, 2024, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.gov.br/mcom/pt-br/noticias/2024/janeiro/governo-federal-lanca-nova-industria-brasil. The current and projected public investment is, however, expected to be of modest proportions66. Ministério da Indústria, Comércio Exterior e Serviços do Brasil, “NIB completa 1 ano com R$ 3,4 trilhões de investimentos e crescimento industrial”, February 12, 2025, accessed March 21, 2025, https://www.gov.br/mdic/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2025/fevereiro/nib-completa-1-ano-com-r-3-4-trilhoes-de-investimentos-e-crescimento-industrial. when one considers the challenge of halting the trend towards primary accumulation and altering the level of de-industrialization seen in the past 50 years.
The tendency is to accommodate Brazil in a subordinate position in the international division of labour so that economic dependency and specialization in low value-added activities continue to be central characteristics of the national economy. This promises to lead to social and environmental consequences that are not hard to predict.
Due to the way wealth has been concentrated in the country, the central-west and Amazon regions have emerged as the new, dynamic hubs that are structuring the national economy. The logic of the reproduction of capital underlying this development tends to put tremendous pressure on territories that have not been included in market relations. This process threatens to erase the remaining vegetable cover and thus fuel the climate crisis.
Furthermore, in the primary sector, boosting productivity requires territorial expansion, and this advancement is not mitigated by the limited gains from technological advancements. In the agricultural industry, for instance, biological factors restrict the reproduction of production dynamics, while foreign market demand for low value-added products induces capital to increase its profit margins by raising its volume of production. The players responsible for the concentration of land ownership expand the expropriation process, either through physical force or institutional violence, using paramilitary organizations and mobilizing the state’s repressive apparatus against the affected peoples, while weakening historical rights and offering ideological justifications based on conservatism.
Indigenous lands and the environment can be analysed in terms of idle capital surpluses that have no profitable outlets—at least not according to the destructive economic imperative described above—because of the use and, in the case of Indigenous lands, the multiple relations that these peoples have with the territories. Accumulation by dispossession releases the set of assets materialized in the areas mentioned so that over-accumulated capital can seize them and immediately turn them to profitable use.77. David Harvey, O novo imperialismo. Thus, appropriating land—or weakening rights to allow these areas to be exploited—injects into the system cheap raw materials, whose value added is already negligible in comparative terms, to ensure that the costs of inputs or of the means of production are reduced and profits are enhanced.88. David Harvey, O novo imperialismo.
Put differently, it is possible to accumulate while facing stagnant effective demand, as long as the costs of inputs decline significantly. The implication of this is that non-capitalist territories should not only be forced open to trade, but also allow capital to invest in local ventures while using labour or raw materials at affordable or non-existent prices.99. David Harvey, O novo imperialismo.
Among the myriad of factors that contribute to the concentration of land ownership in Brazil, conservatism emerges as the “naturalizer” of this economic imperative. By redefining violence, it turns arbitrariness into a legitimate mechanism of progress and inverts, both rhetorically and aesthetically, the image of aggressors and victims. As a result, territorial expropriation, persecution and the assassination of minorities, along with the commodification of the commons, cease to be exposed as central issues inherent to the economic phenomenon, while the structure itself uses the moral dimension to shape the public debate.
Indigenous resistance is thus portrayed as an obstacle to development, while land grabbers, mining companies and large landowners are presented as entrepreneurs who are treated unfairly and allegedly suffocated by excessive regulations and the native peoples’ “intransigent demands”. This masks the power relations that sustain the violent appropriation of the territories.
The real movement of the tendency towards accumulation involves constructing new institutional arrangements to deepen the mechanics, while land concentration continues to advance daily through illegal actions and structural violence. Due to pressure from reactionary sectors and the convergence of economic interests, these institutional arrangements, in turn, remove illegality as a way of eliminating the barriers that limit the frontiers of appropriation and the reproduction of capital. This explains the current paradoxical destruction of the constitutional and existential rights of Indigenous peoples by the institutions that are supposed to protect them.
One emblematic example is Law no. 14,701/2023 (the Indigenous Genocide Act) adopted by the Brazilian Congress. In its ruling on Extraordinary Appeal no. 1,017,365/SC, the Supreme Court recognized that the legal thesis and related matters are blatantly unconstitutional. However, even though Justice Gilmar Mendes had the opportunity to reaffirm the Federal Supreme Court’s ruling when judging the cases concentrated under his control, he opted for a joint decision for Declaratory Action of Constitutionality 87; Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality 7,582, 7,583 and 7,586, and the Direct Action for Unconstitutionality by Omission 86. He dismissed the possibility of taking an assertive stance by stating that “out-of-court settlements among parties can no longer be considered alternatives” and that a “new perspective and procedure for conflicts between the branches of government” are needed. He also affirmed that “to sit down at the table, political will and a willingness to reopen the negotiations are necessary”.1010. Supremo Tribunal Federal, Brazil, “Recurso Extraordinário 1017365 - Santa Catarina”, June 27, 2024, accessed March 19, 2025, https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=778214029&prcID=6824370. In practice, this opened the door to bargaining away fundamental Indigenous rights.
The conversion of fundamental rights into mere objects of political negotiations exposes a broader process that is corroding democratic legality. In this process, the state not only fails to act on violence, but also legitimizes it by adopting institutional adjustments that favour accumulation. The rhetoric of conciliation, deployed under the guise of conflict resolution, camouflages the structural asymmetry between the agents involved, allowing economic interests to encroach on historically won rights and converting legal norms into instruments of dispossession.
In addition, the insertion of Indigenous lands into the predatory logic of national and international ventures—such as mining, prospecting and cattle ranching—is an alarming environmental setback. The intensification of these activities fuels deforestation, the destruction of fauna and the contamination of water sources, catalysing exponential growth of greenhouse gas emissions and undermining the climate commitments made by Brazil on the international scene. It especially compromises compliance with the Paris Agreement, since the urgency of mitigating climate change clashes directly with the expansion of practices that degrade ecosystems and perpetuate the destruction of ancestral territories.1111. Nota Técnica sobre a Ação Declaratória de Constitucionalidade 87/DF, Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil, May 2, 2024, accessed March 18, 2025. https://apiboficial.org/files/2024/05/Nota_T%C3%A9cnica_sobre_a_A%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Declarat%C3%B3ria_de_Constitucionalidade.pdf.
In the context described above, conservatism acts as both a mechanism for the reproduction of structural inequalities and the driving force behind institutional weakening by reframing social and environmental protection provisions as obstacles to the imperative of economic growth. Under the pressure of reactionaryism—but also the rhetoric of modernization, the need to guarantee free enterprise with legal security and, even more perversely, claims of protecting Indigenous populations—even the Supreme Court, which should halt the predatory advances of parliamentary majorities and economic interests on Indigenous existential rights, becomes a key player in the normative reconfiguration in which the state goes from guardian of fundamental rights to a mediator of the interests of capital.
By weakening environmental standards and fundamental rights in the name of economic growth, conservatism (symbolically) and economic determinants (concretely) contribute actively to the climate collapse and worsen the impacts of the environmental emergency already affecting millions of people around the world. The attack on Indigenous territorial rights and environmental protections not only threatens the ecologic stability needed to mitigate the impacts of climate changes, but also brings to light the state’s role in perpetuating an order that prioritizes accumulation over the preservation of life and intergenerational justice.
The climate crisis we face is inseparable from the economic and social dynamics that perpetuate accumulation by dispossession in Indigenous territories. Legitimized by neoliberal conservatism, the unbridled expansion of agribusiness, mining and other economic enterprises not only worsens environmental imbalances, but also directly threatens the ways of life and the physical and cultural survival of Indigenous peoples.
The preservation of Indigenous territories and the recognition of their rights are essential for tackling the global climate emergency. Many studies have already proven that areas managed by Indigenous people are the most environmentally preserved and efficient and play a fundamental role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and safeguarding biodiversity.
Therefore, it is crucial that we overcome the conservative narratives that turn fundamental rights into economic barriers. Only by strengthening democratic institutions, ensuring full respect for Indigenous rights and defending the environment will we be able to stop the climate crisis from advancing. This requires a profound transformation of the economic model, which entails abandoning predatory practices and guaranteeing that Indigenous peoples are recognized, not as obstacles, but as essential guardians in the fight for socioenvironmental justice and the sustainability of the planet.
