Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 10

In the Brazilian context, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international donors have played complex and sometimes contradictory roles in the promotion—and, at times, restriction—of cultural rights within environmental conservation projects. Many of these projects are implemented in territories inhabited by Indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and local populations whose ways of life and cultural values are deeply intertwined with biodiversity.
Among the positive examples of promoting cultural rights, initiatives led by UNESCO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) stand out for protecting intangible heritage and traditional knowledge linked to biodiversity. UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage inspired national programs in Brazil that document and recognize traditional practices such as the cultivation of native seeds, traditional medicine, and ritual celebrations related to environmental cycles. Another example is the GEF Amazon Project, supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which strengthens socio-environmental governance and promotes Indigenous and quilombola (Afro-descendant) participation in natural resource management. These programs seek to align environmental conservation with cultural autonomy.
In the field of international cooperation, the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA)—created in 2002 with funding from the World Bank, GEF, WWF, and the Brazilian government—is considered the largest tropical forest conservation program in the world. While it has contributed to the creation and management of over 60 million hectares of protected areas, ARPA has also faced criticism for restricting traditional access to common-use lands, especially when decisions were made in a top-down manner without proper free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). In response, ARPA has since integrated social participation mechanisms, management councils, and sustainable-use plans to mitigate impacts on local cultural practices.
Other good participatory practices include the Suruí Carbon Project, developed by the Paiter-Suruí people of Rondônia with support from Forest Trends and the UN-REDD Programme. The community created its own consultation protocol and implemented a forest management plan consistent with its social organization and traditions. The project became an international reference for combining forest conservation with cultural preservation, reinforcing Indigenous self-determination.
Conversely, there are emblematic cases of cultural rights violations in the name of conservation or development. The Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam, financed by public banks and multilateral institutions such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), became one of the most controversial projects in Latin America. It was denounced before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for lack of consultation and for the irreversible cultural damage inflicted on Indigenous and riverine communities along the Xingu River, including the loss of sacred territories and the disruption of traditional livelihoods. Following public and international pressure, both the IDB and the World Bank withdrew financial support, acknowledging failures in social and environmental safeguards.
Another controversial case is the “Adopt a Park” program, launched in 2021 by the Brazilian federal government and criticized by organizations such as Terra de Direitos and FASE. The initiative allowed private companies to “adopt” protected areas without consulting traditional populations residing within them. According to civil society reports, the program effectively privatized public conservation spaces and threatened cultural continuity and territorial rights, particularly in Amazonian parks, by granting corporate sponsors undue influence over land management policies.
Furthermore, studies by the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) and FASE show that the establishment of certain “strict protection” conservation units has led to the displacement or restriction of traditional communities—such as rubber tappers, fisherfolk, and quilombolas—who had sustainably managed these lands for generations. This form of “fortress conservation”, although environmentally motivated, disregards the cultural and symbolic relationships that these groups maintain with their territories.
In contrast, recent initiatives like “Naturezas Quilombolas” (2024), supported by the Amazon Fund and NORAD (the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation), represent a positive shift. The program recognizes quilombola territories as cultural landscapes of conservation, governed by ancestral land-use practices that safeguard biodiversity while generating sustainable livelihoods. It funds local management projects, capacity-building, and community-based governance structures that align cultural heritage with ecological stewardship.
Overall, these experiences demonstrate that cultural rights can be either strengthened or undermined by conservation projects, depending on the degree of community participation and the commitment of institutions to equity, consultation, and respect for traditional knowledge. International organizations such as UNESCO and GEF have been key allies in advancing inclusive policies, while projects implemented without social dialogue—even under the banner of conservation—have often reproduced patterns of exclusion and cultural erasure. The contemporary challenge, therefore, lies in consolidating culturally just and participatory conservation models, in which biodiversity protection advances hand in hand with the preservation of the ways of life that have sustained it for centuries.