environmental conservation – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Indigenous Groups Demand Change at COP30

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP, brings together nearly every country annually for a “multilateral decision-making forum on climate change.” Leaders in business, science, governance, and civil society organizations attend to “strengthen global, collective and inclusive climate action.” In the first organized protests at a major climate summit since 2021, thousands of Indigenous activists marched the streets of Belém, Brazil, the site of COP30 in 2025, to demand action on a range of issues. COP30 Executive Director Ana Toni stressed that the protestors had legitimate concerns and that Brazil’s democratic government allows for “different forms of protest.” Protestors travelled from across South America to call for Indigenous representation in the formulation of global climate policy and to spotlight local Indigenous land sovereignty issues.

Leaders at COP30 climate panel — Leaders discuss climate action at COP30 panel. By: peopleimages.com. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 1782077705

Demand for Demarcation

Signs at the marches read “demarcation now,” demanding that states, particularly Brazil, transfer legal ownership of land to Indigenous peoples. Brazil’s Minister for Indigenous Peoples, Sonia Guajajara, echoed the protesters’ sentiment, claiming that one goal of COP30 is to ensure that “countries recognise the demarcation of Indigenous lands as climate policy.” Demarcation is more than an issue of sovereignty or law; it is also a strategy for environmental conservation. Indigenous communities tend to their local forests and bodies of water using unique cultural knowledge. Some research suggests that Indigenous caretaking can enhance wildlife biodiversity, decrease deforestation, and mitigate disease. The UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognizes that Indigenous cultural practices “[contribute] to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment.”

Amid the encroachment of mining companies and the recent authorization of oil drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River, one Indigenous leader stated, “We want our lands free from agribusiness, oil exploration, illegal miners and illegal loggers.” He also said, “We can’t eat money,” critiquing the focus on climate finance at previous COP summits while environmental degradation continues.

Advocates have called for the Brazilian government to abandon the marco temporal legal theory, which holds that only lands allotted to Indigenous peoples during the 1988 adoption of the Brazilian constitution are eligible for demarcation.

In a breakthrough, the Brazilian government announced at COP30 that it would, for the first time since 2018, demarcate ten Indigenous lands. The UNDRIP states that redress, including land repatriation, should be provided to Indigenous peoples whose property was taken without their consent. All 193 UN member states have adopted the UNDRIP, but it is a non-binding declaration, meaning states must decide whether to incorporate its ideals in their national laws. Brazil’s demarcation efforts exemplify the commitments outlined in the UNDRIP.

Violence in Guarani-Kaiowá

The murder of Guarani and Kaiowá Indigenous peoples during the final week of COP30 by private security forces demonstrates the importance of demarcation and protection of Indigenous lands and their peoples. Attacks on the Guarani and Kaiowá communities over land disputes in the state of Mato Grosso Do Sul, Brazil, have an ongoing history. In 2024, the head of UN Human Rights in South America called for land demarcation and a full investigation into these attacks. In the Guarani-Kaiowá struggle to regain sovereignty over their land, which has largely been lost to agribusiness, activists and spokespersons have been targeted by security forces allegedly hired by estate owners.

Global Witness has tracked murders and disappearances of environmental defenders since 2012, and Indigenous leaders, particularly in Central and South American countries, are overrepresented among the victims of these attacks. According to the report, extractive, land, and agribusiness industries have been linked to these attacks. These attacks underscore the importance of demarcation for Indigenous peoples in South America.

Indigenous woman walks on a mountainside in Peru. By: sayrhkdsu. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 451597782

Brazil’s Environmental Policy

Before the conference, the Brazilian government positioned itself as a climate leader, but some have criticized the current administration’s inconsistent attitude toward environmental conservation. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has overseen a significant reduction in deforestation, which was ramped up under former President Bolsonaro’s leadership, but some environmental groups have denounced the recent authorization of oil drilling near the Amazon River. The president argues that oil will remain a necessity for years to come and that Brazilians should profit from it. Others point to the Amazon rainforest’s crucial role in storing carbon and reducing global atmospheric greenhouse gases. Some evidence suggests that the Amazon could become a savannah in the coming years as deforestation and drought intensify.

Like Brazil’s broader environmental policy, recent actions have included successes for Indigenous rights, as well as failures to protect marginalized groups. The country recently undertook the Ywy Ipuranguete, or “Beautiful Land“, initiative, which aims to strengthen Indigenous-led land management efforts across fifteen Indigenous lands, accounting for six million hectares of land. The Brazilian Biodiversity Fund states, “the project focuses on strengthening sustainable territorial management.” When Indigenous communities are given access to collective property rights over land, there is a marked decrease in deforestation in these areas. Experts at a 2019 UN conference highlighted the importance of Indigenous participation in conservation efforts.

The Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Brazil is suing the mining company Vale and the Brazilian government for “heavy metal contamination in the bodies of Xikrin Indigenous people.” The company’s nickel mining contaminated the Catete River and Indigenous lands, the lawsuit alleges. A study conducted by the Federal University of Para found nickel levels as high as 2,326% above the safe limit in one woman.

Aerial view of Amazon rainforest in Brazil. By: Curioso.Photography. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 339931047

COP30 Outcome

Brazil’s tepid attitude towards climate policy reflects the results of COP30. While $5.5 billion was raised for the Tropical Forests Forever Fund, with 20% going to Indigenous communities, the Conference fell short of an explicit commitment to move away from fossil fuels—despite a warning from scientist Carlos Nobre before the final talks that continuing fossil fuel use beyond 2040 will lead to catastrophic temperature increases, collapsing the Amazon rainforest ecosystem. UN leadership emphasized the significance of a multilateral agreement in an era of geopolitical strife, despite the agreement’s limitations. The COP30 president, André Corrêa do Lago, conceded that “some […] had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand,” acknowledging the gap between the Indigenous protestors’ demands for a radical change in climate policy and the material commitments made at the Conference.

In a potent moment of recognition for Indigenous grievances, do Lago held an Indigenous baby before leading a group of protestors to an hours-long discussion. Indigenous participation in COP30 yielded wins for Indigenous communities, even if the global commitments did not go as far as some hoped. 15 governments agreed to support the Intergovernmental Land Tenure Commitment, which will “collectively recognise and strengthen 160 million hectares of Indigenous Peoples and local community lands” across tropical forest regions. While progress in the fight for environmental protection and Indigenous rights is staggered, Indigenous protestors made their presence felt at COP30, showing the world that Indigenous participation in environmental conservation matters.

Zambia Acid Spill: The Death of a River and the Ongoing Struggle of Local Communities to Recover

This year in Zambia, Chambishi residents saw the Kafue River die before their eyes. Millions of liters of acidic, contaminated water containing toxic mining chemicals burst from a dam in February. Crops and animals died as residents suffered the effects of careless mining practices. This incident raises questions about environmental concerns regarding current mining practices in Zambia, as well as how to address cleanup and compensation for affected communities whose human rights were violated by this event.

Dam Failure and Toxic Water Spill

On February 18, a dam at the Sino-Metals Leach Zambia mining site collapsed, releasing a reported 50 million liters of contaminated water that flooded into the Chambishi Copper Belt region. Toxic spillage, containing heavy metals and high levels of acidity, flowed at least 60 miles down the Kafue River, a major river in Zambia used by many locals for fishing, irrigation, and water.

Image of the Kafue River in Zambia — Image of the Kafue River Source: Olympian Xeus, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

The immediate effects on the region were apparent in the devastation to local wildlife. The head of a Zambian monitoring group, Nsama Rusonda, reported the aftermath of the acid spill was shocking, saying, “It was a horror to see maize, bean crops that were green the night before, just turn brown. Tonnes of dead fish were floating in local riverways.” The environmental devastation was one of the first things to catch locals’ attention, but as time goes on, more and more effects of the toxic spill are becoming apparent.

Initial Reports and Health Concerns of Residents

The Kafue River is one of the largest rivers in Zambia, and many locals use it as a source of water for drinking, washing, and for their animals and crops. In the days after the spill, people ingested toxins through contaminated water and food, leading to “headaches, coughs, diarrhea, muscle cramps, and even sores on their legs.” Zambia’s reliance on the Kafue also exacerbates the seriousness of the crisis. 21 million people live in Zambia, and more than half rely on the river for water. For example, health concerns led to the water being turned off in the city of Kitwe, leaving 700,000 people without access to water. To drive home the magnitude of this catastrophe, Kitwe is Zambia’s second-largest city, and cutting off water to 700,000 people would be like cutting off the water to all of Washington, DC.

Officials from the Sino-Metal mining company expressed their regret for the incident shortly after it occurred, stating their intent to assist both with environmental cleanup efforts and to re-establish the economic means of affected individuals. To determine the scope of the damage, Sino-Metals needed to conduct an ecological study. South African company Drizit found that 1.5 million tonnes of hazardous waste were released during the dam collapse, 30 times the 50,000 tonnes initially reported by Sino-Metal. The need for outside observers during environmental disasters is crucial. It’s necessary to provide an objective report on the damage that communities and nations, particularly developing ones, have suffered, so they can respond appropriately, warn their residents, and hold parties accountable for human rights violations.

Official Response

In the days after the spill, the Zambian government worked to reverse the environmental damage. Hundreds of tons of lime were dumped into affected waterways in an effort to combat acidity from the spill. Zambian officials faced the challenge of finding an appropriate response that balanced harm to residents with environmental concerns, while also working with foreign powers and important infrastructure investments in their country. When Sino-Metals gave a $580,000 payout, Zambian Vice-President Nalumango remarked that this must be coupled with neutral environmental analysis to ensure proper reparations. Nalumango further said, “If the damage to the land and livelihoods proves to be more extensive or long-lasting than initially understood, then further compensation will be necessary and it will be pursued.” This approach will allow flexibility in Zambia’s approach, enabling it to assess whether additional negative effects arise for residents over time and then pursue more compensation accordingly.

Despite the words promising accountability and help from Sino-Metal, Zambia’s ability to force them into meaningful action remains limited. In direct response to the acid spill, Zambia fined Sino-Metals $50,000. This fine is not enough for restoration efforts and is an insignificant amount compared to the widespread damage to Zambia and the harm done to communities. Differences in political and economic power between countries may create additional difficulties when a smaller country is seeking recourse against a larger one. This may especially true for Zambia, a country heavily dependent on copper production, which has received $3.5 billion in investments from China in the past two decades associated with mining and metal in Zambia. Such dependence on economic support from larger countries may dissuade countries from taking action against foreign players in order to continue receiving funding.

Recent Analysis

While bureaucracy and legal proceedings may take months, residents face daily struggles in the aftermath of the disaster. Conditions from the spill persist in their toxicity to such a degree that Finland issued a travel advisory regarding high levels of toxic heavy metals in the water, and the US embassy issued an evacuation order for all officials from the area, citing health concerns related to the environmental state. In light of such serious concerns raised by other countries, Zambia was thrust into the international spotlight.

With global attention, Zambia seemed to dismiss concerns and assure that harms had been dealt with. A spokesperson from Zambia reported, “pH levels have returned to normal and concentrations of heavy metals are steadily decreasing, which means that the immediate danger to human, animal and plant life has been averted.”

Image of a conveyor belt with coal on it at a mine — Conveyor systems, often used in mining operations. Source: pkproject via Adobe Stock Images, Licensed for Educational Use

Residents affected by the pollution continue to complain of many physical ailments, including headaches and diarrhea, but the Zambian government’s dismissive attitudes towards concerns seems as though they are prioritizing their appearance and foreign investors over their citizens’ right to health.

While the mining sector is crucial for much of Zambia’s economic activity, it is, from a human rights standpoint, unacceptable for the government to not protect its citizens and to ignore or hide obvious and continued harms. A government’s duty to the wellbeing of its citizens should be foremost in its response during a crisis.

Chinese Influences and Zambia’s Future

This is not the only time mining activities have concerned residents in Zambia. In the past, residents have contracted lead poisoning from pollution incidents and mining operations, while schools have been shut down due to noise and hazardous chemicals.

Balancing China’s interests in minerals with protecting Zambia’s environment and communities is a difficult task for Zambia, especially when they have received billions in funding from China and are over $4 billion in debt to China. These power imbalances can lead to struggles for accountability and justice at both the community and national levels.

This toxic spill is only one event in a disturbing pattern of environmental devastation in Zambia. Access to clean water, secure livelihoods, and environmental justice are crucial to the survival and well-being of many residents. The Zambian response to this latest disaster will set expectations for future interactions and shape the fate of thousands of Zambians, and it is to be hoped that Zambia prioritizes its citizens’ human rights over all other concerns.

Brazil Decides in Landmark Court Case to Grant Land Rights to Indigenous

by Delisha Valacheril

Image 1. Indigenous Representatives Speaking with Local Leaders in Brazil. Source Flickr.

A jubilant celebration of color erupted as several indigenous leaders and activists gathered outside the courthouse adorned in tribal wear and brilliant headdresses to rejoice in the top court’s decision to rule in favor of their land rights. Dubbed the “trial of the century,” Brazil’s Supreme Court decided against a so-called cutoff date restricting Indigenous people’s claims to their traditional lands. Demarcation of ancestral lands is essential in preserving Indigenous human rights. By protecting these lands, indigenous communities can aid in conservation and preserve their cultural integrity. It is reported that 29% of the territory around indigenous lands in Brazil has been deforested, according to the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (Ipam). Now that the native people can access their roots, they can help preserve what is left. This decision also provides legal ramifications against land poaching or exploitation, which applies to several indigenous areas throughout the Amazon. Addressing historical injustices is a crucial step to ensuring that these communities can enjoy a more equitable and sustainable future.

Image 2. Tribal Chief at Land Protest. Source Flicker.

Context

On September 21^st, the Federal Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the native people’s right to their territories predated the Constitution of Brazil formulated in 1988. The Justices followed the precedent set up by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which states that the right continues as long as their “material, cultural, or spiritual connection” with the land persists. This case has been brewing in the nation for quite some time. The dispute stems from Santa Catarina’s legal battle against the Ibirama-La Klãnõ Indigenous Land. The Xokleng tribe sought to regain their ancestral land from the state of Santa Catarina. The state used the “Marco Temporal” legal argument, which prohibited Indigenous Peoples who were not living on the land when Brazil’s current constitution was enacted in 1988 to apply for land demarcation. This is gravely prejudicial, given a significant part of the indigenous population was expelled and displaced during Brazil’s two decades of military dictatorship. Numerous tribal communities were killed and displaced due to that repressive system, which included the invasion of land, forced labor, displacement, and other human rights violations.

With this in mind, hundreds of activists have flocked to the capital, demanding respect for the rights that were stolen from them. These activists advocate for land traditionally occupied by indigenous people to be reserved for their perpetual possession. They are the natural owners of the land, so it should belong to them. They also argue that the natives can conserve the land much better than the local government. Traditional habits and customs of the indigenous are the most significant deterrent to deforestation. However, there are some critical opponents to this viewpoint. Individuals involved in the agribusiness sector and those on the far right are stronger than ever in National Congress, upholding the time limit principle. This decision opposes their farming interests because they want that land to grow their business. Currently, Indigenous reservations cover 11.6% of Brazil’s territory, notably in the Amazon. This area is rich in biodiversity, making it ideal for agricultural commodities. However, ruling against business interests could exacerbate violence against Indigenous peoples and escalate conflicts in the rainforest.

Image 3. Indigenous People Protesting Brazil Government. Source Flickr.

Historical Significance

The Xokleng, the tribe responsible for taking this case to the highest court in the country, was nearly wiped out by Italian settlers who were granted “uninhabited” land in the State of Santa Catarina by the Brazilian government during the 20th century. They were pursued by “bugreiros,” or hired hunters, who were sent into the forest to hunt down and exterminate the Amazon’s native inhabitants. After that mass extermination, how can the government uphold such a discriminatory precedent? The Xokleng are the rightful owners of the land because the Brazilian government forcibly removed them. Marco Temporal is a complete infringement on human rights. The tribe was almost decimated in the 1900s, and the law stated indigenous people living on the land past 1988 had a right to the land. Examining this from a historical viewpoint further illuminates the egregiousness of the situation. The Supreme Court of Brazil found this law inherently unfair because the same government that invaded indigenous lands could not decide on the legality of their land rights.

Conclusion

While this is a historic milestone for indigenous communities, the work is not over. Though land demarcation is critical in the pursuit to secure the rights of Indigenous Peoples, it does not, by itself, sufficiently protect ancestral land. We must hold the government accountable to implement an active, systemic policy that enshrines Indigenous rights from violence, especially violence committed by anyone who illegally trespasses into their territory. Additionally, they must have unhindered access to their territories. From a human rights standpoint, defending indigenous rights is critical because it resolves past wrongs, assures access to necessities, fights discrimination, and upholds justice, equality, and respect for the dignity of all people and communities.