Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 7

[ISCCLAdmin Brabec]

#5074

Have you identified any human rights challenges related to biodiversity loss and/or measures adopted in the context of the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework? Please identify and share examples of conservation projects and measures that have implied restrictions to cultural rights, and explain the legitimacy such restrictions and under which provisions of international law?

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

#5109

Human Rights Challenges Related to Biodiversity Loss and Cultural Rights Restrictions in Brazil
Context

The implementation of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) requires countries to respect and promote human rights, including the cultural rights of Indigenous Peoples, traditional communities, and other social groups. In Brazil, however, several examples demonstrate that conservation measures and biodiversity policies have sometimes conflicted with cultural rights, traditional livelihoods, and self-determination.

1. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples in Conservation Units

The creation of national parks and ecological stations in Brazil—particularly during the military regime (1964–1985)—often imposed restrictions on the traditional practices of Indigenous and riverine populations, such as hunting, fishing, small-scale agriculture, and access to sacred sites. Examples include:

Iguaçu National Park (Paraná), which prohibited the Avá-Guarani from occupying ancestral lands, restricting their cultural and spiritual connection to the forest.

Juréia-Itatins Ecological Station (São Paulo), where Caiçara and Quilombola communities were prevented from fishing and planting manioc, central to their subsistence and cultural identity.

Araguaia National Park, which restricted the Javaé people’s mobility and access to traditional food sources, threatening their cultural continuity.

These cases reveal a persistent “fortress conservation” model that prioritizes ecological protection through exclusionary practices, undermining the GBF’s human rights approach (Targets 22 and 23).

Legitimacy under International Law:
Although international law allows environmental restrictions when strictly necessary for conservation, such measures must comply with principles of proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination.
Key norms include:

ILO Convention 169 (arts. 6–7): requires free, prior, and informed consultation before adopting measures that affect Indigenous and tribal peoples.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (arts. 11–32): protects cultural heritage and land-based practices.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (art. 15): guarantees the right to take part in cultural life.
When conservation measures disregard these obligations, their legitimacy becomes questionable, even if their environmental purpose is valid.

2. The Suruí Forest Carbon Project (REDD+)

Initiated in 2009 as Brazil’s first Indigenous-led REDD+ project, the Suruí Forest Carbon Project aimed to generate carbon credits while protecting 248,000 hectares of forest in Rondônia. However, the initiative later collapsed (2018) due to:

internal divisions and unequal benefit distribution;

illegal gold mining and logging pressures;

lack of sustained consultation mechanisms and transparency.

Although conceived as a climate action project, its implementation limited traditional hunting and planting practices without providing viable alternatives, causing cultural tensions.

Legal analysis: the project’s restrictions were not inherently illegitimate but required continuous free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Its failure illustrates how environmental measures that do not adequately integrate human rights safeguards can erode local trust and legitimacy.

3. Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) and the Biodiversity Law (Law 13.123/2015)

Brazil’s Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge Law regulates research and commercialization of biodiversity-related products. While the law acknowledges traditional knowledge, it imposes bureaucratic requirements that can marginalize Indigenous and local communities.
For example, some communities argue that registering traditional knowledge in national databases compromises their intellectual and spiritual rights.

International standards: the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (2010), to which Brazil is a Party, mandates equitable sharing of benefits and the protection of Indigenous knowledge. However, implementation in Brazil has been slow and uneven, highlighting the challenge of balancing intellectual property, biodiversity conservation, and collective cultural rights.

4. Emerging Human Rights–Based Approaches

Recent advances have sought to correct historical imbalances:

The reform of the National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO) now includes Indigenous and traditional representatives.

The Ministry of Indigenous Peoples (created in 2023) and the National Secretariat for Traditional Peoples and Communities strengthen cultural rights and territorial participation.

The Municipal Law 4,225/2024 (Linhares, Espírito Santo), which recognizes the “intrinsic rights of the waves at the mouth of the Doce River,” introduces a participatory model of environmental governance grounded in local identity and collective stewardship.

Impact: these measures align Brazil’s biodiversity governance with GBF Section C, fostering legitimacy through participatory decision-making, gender equity, and recognition of biocultural rights.

Conclusion

Brazil’s experience illustrates that biodiversity conservation and human rights are deeply interconnected. While conservation units and carbon projects have sometimes restricted cultural rights, emerging rights-based approaches—such as FPIC, ABS mechanisms, and inclusive governance—are progressively harmonizing environmental objectives with international human rights standards. The challenge lies in ensuring that restrictions on cultural practices are legitimate, proportional, and always preceded by meaningful participation, in accordance with ILO 169, UNDRIP, and the ICESCR.

[Author]

Posts