Amazon Residents Accuse US Cargill of Threatening Their Rights and Way of Life

For centuries, riverside communities, including the “quilombola” descendants of enslaved Africans who escaped from plantations and ranches, have shared Xingu Island in Brazil’s Amazon Basin.

Its inhabitants live in brightly painted wooden houses overlooking rivers where small boats crisscross between islands and Abaetetuba city on the mainland to trade fish, seeds and fruits gathered from the Amazon forest in their backyard.

In 2016, however, strangers docked on Xingu Island, in Pará state, and staked it out with something unfamiliar: concrete fence posts.

Felled trees now rot on the ground by the posts marking out nearly 359 hectares (887 acres) of Amazon rainforest – land that was later bought by U.S. grain-trading giant Cargill and earmarked for a 700-million-reais (US$ 143 million) port project that is bitterly opposed by many Xingu Island residents.

“I’m being harmed by this,” fisherman João Assunção dos Santos, 64, said, gesturing towards Cargill’s land parcel demarcated by the posts just a few meters (feet) from his house.

“My mango trees, açaí trees, cupuaçu trees are all on their side,” said dos Santos. His family is one of 180 whose land rights over Xingu Island were recognized in 2005 by Brazil’s federal government when it established a community agricultural and forest reserve, known as a PAE, in the area.

The islanders say Cargill never should have been able to acquire the land for the planned grain export terminal as it was part of the PAE reserve – a 2,705-hectare (6,680-acre) area used to source farm and forest products such as prized açaí berries.

Dos Santos and other Xingu inhabitants are pinning their hopes of stopping the port project on a lawsuit involving federal prosecutors who found “irregularities” in the chain of documents and procedures that led to the land’s sale to Cargill.

Prosecutors said in June that the process by which Cargill acquired the plot – which was originally public land – without consulting the local community “strongly resembles illegal practices” of land-grabbing. They also requested that Cargill put on hold any measures to advance the project.

Prosecutors joined the lawsuit after the judiciary asked if they wanted to act on it – a common practice in legal cases with social impacts in Brazil.

In August, a criminal probe was launched by the federal prosecutors’ office in Pará state.

Cargill, the world’s largest grain trader and the biggest privately owned company in the United States, said it bought the land “in good faith and following all company protocols to ensure the legality of the operation”.

Demand for dialogue

Land tenure is a persistent source of disputes in Brazil’s Amazon, with speculation and “grabbing” of public or communal land – often for infrastructure development, agriculture or mining – linked to deforestation and Indigenous grievances.

A 2005 entry in Brazil’s Federal Official Gazette states that Xingu Island, including the plot acquired by Cargill, was designated as a community agriculture and forest reserve named PAE Santo Afonso.

As well as using this land to plant crops and collect wood, seeds and fruit, locals said they fish from a set of three lakes called Piri.

“When I was a kid and my parents were young, we went there in December to catch fish (and) shellfish,” said Cleonice Araujo Cavalheiro, 70, who was born and raised in the area. “We came back with the baskets full.”

But Piri is now partially enclosed by the concrete fence posts.

In a 2022 court response to the lawsuit, Cargill said it had signed an agreement with port developer Brick Logística in 2015 in which it committed to buy the area where it wants to build its port.

Notary registries and Cargill’s response show the government officially sold the land to Brick Logística in 2019 for about 1.38 million reais. Within a year, Brick Logística resold it to Cargill for 53.2 million reais.

Brick Logística said official documents show the land had been privately occupied “for at least 60 years”. It was only used by locals for agriculture or ranching in that period with permission from those controlling it, the company added.

Cargill said the property it acquired had already been sold privately before the land was designated as part of the PAE.

The U.S. agribusiness giant faces additional legal action over its planned Abaetetuba port, which would be used by boats transporting up to 9 million tons a year of mainly corn and soy through the Amazon from Brazil’s northern and midwest regions as an alternative to saturated roads and southern ports.

Last year, a Pará state court ruled that islanders must be consulted as part of the port’s licensing process. In August, the case was transferred to the federal justice system which has yet to rule on the issue, effectively putting the project on hold.

Rosalina dos Santos Teles, a leader of the Bom Remédio “quilombola” community on Xingu Island, said its members live just a few kilometers from the planned port and “demand to be consulted”.

“In their (Cargill’s) environmental studies, it is as though there was no one here,” she said, showing a brochure outlining a community protocol for consultation on projects that affect it.

Cargill said it had “spared no effort to dialogue with all social actors related to the project”, adding that it was complying with the environmental licensing process for the port terminal.

“We have not and will not build a terminal until all required permits are in place and we have consulted with local communities,” it said in a written statement reported by Reuters after the criminal investigation was made public.

Infrastructure driving deforestation

The prosecutors’ criminal probe comes as Cargill and other companies face local and international calls to prevent their port and rail infrastructure – existing and planned – from harming Indigenous and other communities, and the Amazon forest.

The grain trade in Brazil’s Amazon Basin is expected to increase sharply if the region is connected to two planned railways – Ferrogrão (“Grainrail”), which is backed by Cargill, and the Pará Railway supported by China.

Mathew Jacobson, campaign director at U.S.-based environmental advocacy group Stand.earth, said Cargill is “dramatically increasing the infrastructure that drives deforestation” while making “public promises … to phase out deforestation from their entire supply chain”.

Cargill says on its website it has pledged to end deforestation across its entire agricultural supply chain by 2030. It did not respond to a request for comment on the impact of its infrastructure.

Barges belonging to a separate company are already docking on the strait where Cargill wants to build the Abaetetuba port, between Xingu and the smaller island of Capim – which locals say is driving fish away and putting them in danger.

“Traffic is getting ugly – one boat after another… We can no longer fish at night, afraid that they will run us over,” said Santo Afonso fisherman José Rosivaldo Rodrigues Cardoso.

He worries that larger waves from Cargill’s grain ships could sink fishing boats if the port project goes ahead and starts operating as initially slated by 2025.

Others said they were concerned that its construction would destroy rocks that are a spawning and fishing area.

Asked about the complaints relating to its land acquisition, Cargill said its port project would use only a portion of the land it controls on Xingu Island.

The rest will be conserved “and may even continue to be used by residents”, the firm said in a written response to questions.

Land deal in dispute

The criminal probe is connected to a lawsuit filed in 2021 by Catholic aid agency Caritas, which argues that the sale of the land now controlled by Cargill was based on illegal documents and procedures by government agencies, municipal officials and the companies themselves.

Lawyers for Caritas argue that means the land’s transfer into private control should be reversed, calling for Cargill and Brick Logística to compensate local families for collective damages “because of fraud in public registers” and the ensuing “economic, social and environmental” harm.

In its 2022 court response, Cargill said land titles issued by a local notary and signed by Abaetetuba mayors in 2001 and 2016 showed the municipality had verified the area’s “occupation in good faith”, paving the way for it to pass into private hands.

Caritas, however, said those documents were illegal as the municipality never formally owned the federal island land and so was not in a position to authorize its transfer into private control.

The Abaetetuba mayor’s office said the municipal attorney was re-examining relevant documents and would “act immediately … if any irregularity in the titling is found”.

There is also disagreement over the legitimacy of the process setting up the PAE. Cargill argued in its response to the Caritas lawsuit that the PAE Santo Afonso had not been formally established in accordance with government rules.

The National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) said it signed an agreement in 2005 with the federal government’s property office (SPU), which led to the creation of about 320 PAEs in the Amazon including Santo Afonso.

In late 2021, INCRA excluded the land acquired by Cargill from the PAE Santo Afonso – a move it has since said it will reassess and which could be reconsidered.

The prosecution said that Xingu Island communities have a constitutional right to the area and should not be penalized by any shortcomings on the part of the state when it established the PAEs.

Amazon-wide threat

Researchers see the legal case over the land acquisition as having wider implications for Amazon forest communities.

Caritas said in the lawsuit that the land rights of more than 113,000 families living in Brazil’s PAE settlements could be weakened if the arguments used to sell off the Santo Afonso land parcel are accepted by the courts.

According to INCRA, the PAE projects cover 9.8 million hectares – an area bigger than Austria or the U.S. state of South Carolina. It is now reassessing all requests for “enterprises” overlapping with PAE areas, it said.

Tatiane Vasconcelos, a law doctorate student at the Federal University of Pará and author of the research underpinning the Xingu lawsuit, said there is “a movement to overrun” the PAE projects, using “the same modus operandi” across the Amazon.

Elsewhere in Pará state, Indigenous and other traditional communities are at loggerheads with Cargill over two of its other Amazon river ports – Santarém and Itaituba – saying they were not consulted during the licensing process in compliance with Brazilian and international law.

In the case of Santarém, which began operating in 2003, Cargill informed it followed legislation in force on Indigenous studies and consultation at the time of its licensing process and “cannot be accused of not having complied with standards that came into force or were regulated” afterwards.

With Itaituba, in operation since 2017, Cargill said Amport, the association representing port terminals in Brazil’s Amazon region, had filed a preliminary plan to consult local Indigenous communities but it was still awaiting government approval.

The Munduruku Indigenous people say ports managed by Cargill and other private firms in Itaituba harm their fishing and navigation activities, while also driving land speculation, invasions and land-grabbing within their territory – something they fear could be exacerbated by the planned Ferrogrão railway.

Beka Saw Munduruku, a 21-year-old leader from the Amazon Sawré Muybu territory, traveled to Cargill’s head office in Minneapolis on October 12, to hand-deliver a letter to the Cargill-MacMillan family, which owns the company, urging them to stop destruction of her people’s forest.

Cargill did not respond to a request for comment on the letter. In August, the company’s president in Brazil, Paulo Sousa, called opposition to the Ferrogrão railway “an irresponsibility”.

“What is irresponsible is for your company to make promises to end deforestation while continuing to expand into our territories and giving license to others to do the same,” the young Munduruku representative wrote in the open letter.

(US$ 1 = 4.8888 reais)

Andre Cabette Fabio is Climate and Nature Correspondent for the Thomson Reuters Foundation based in Rio de Janeiro.

This article was produced by the Thomson Reuters Foundation. Visit them at https://www.context.news/

Tags:

You May Also Like

Dani Silva, center, alongside Francineide Ferreira dos Santos and Raimunda Gomes da Silva. All three were expelled from their land. | Pablo Albarenga

For Dani, Defending the Amazon Is Defending the Planet’s Life

Some 40 kilometers from the Brazilian city of Altamira, ‘Photograph Belo Monte’ is written ...

Blue macaws seek rest at Fazenda São Francisco do Perigara.

The Dramatic Struggle to Save the Threatened Blue Macaw from Brazil’s Pantanal Fires

In the 1960s, Luiz de Figueiredo Barretto bought the São Francisco do Perigara farm, ...

Political and Economic Instability Are History, New Brazil President Tells Chinese

Brazil’s new president Michel Temer received strong support from Beijing when Chinese president Xi ...

Brazil Not Out of the Woods Yet. 1.3% GDP Growth Lower than Expected

According to the official release on Thursday from the Brazilian statistics office, the IBGE, ...

It seems the future never arrives in Brazil What Lies Ahead in Brazil? Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country? Europeans, US, developed country, developing country. Bolsonaro, future B. Michael Rubin For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of a country is one simple way to measure its economic development. Another way to measure a country's progress is the extent of public education, e.g. how many citizens complete high school. A country's health may be measured by the effectiveness of its healthcare system, for example, life expectancy and infant mortality. With these measurement tools, it's easier to gauge the difference between a country like Brazil and one like the U.S. What's not easy to gauge is how these two countries developed so differently when they were both "discovered" at the same time. In 1492 and 1500 respectively, the U.S. and Brazil fell under the spell of white Europeans for the first time. While the British and Portuguese had the same modus operandi, namely, to exploit their discoveries for whatever they had to offer, not to mention extinguishing the native Americans already living there if they got in the way, the end result turned out significantly different in the U.S. than in Brazil. There are several theories on how/why the U.S. developed at a faster pace than Brazil. The theories originate via contrasting perspectives – from psychology to economics to geography. One of the most popular theories suggests the divergence between the two countries is linked to politics, i.e. the U.S. established a democratic government in 1776, while Brazil's democracy it could be said began only in earnest in the 1980s. This theory states that the Portuguese monarchy, as well as the 19th and 20th century oligarchies that followed it, had no motivation to invest in industrial development or education of the masses. Rather, Brazil was prized for its cheap and plentiful labor to mine the rich soil of its vast land. There is another theory based on collective psychology that says the first U.S. colonizers from England were workaholic Puritans, who avoided dancing and music in place of work and religious devotion. They labored six days a week then spent all of Sunday in church. Meanwhile, the white settlers in Brazil were unambitious criminals who had been freed from prison in Portugal in exchange for settling in Brazil. The Marxist interpretation of why Brazil lags behind the U.S. was best summarized by Eduardo Galeano, the Uruguayan writer, in 1970. Galeano said five hundred years ago the U.S. had the good fortune of bad fortune. What he meant was the natural riches of Brazil – gold, silver, and diamonds – made it ripe for exploitation by western Europe. Whereas in the U.S., lacking such riches, the thirteen colonies were economically insignificant to the British. Instead, U.S. industrialization had official encouragement from England, resulting in early diversification of its exports and rapid development of manufacturing. II Leaving this debate to the historians, let us turn our focus to the future. According to global projections by several economic strategists, what lies ahead for Brazil, the U.S., and the rest of the world is startling. Projections forecast that based on GDP growth, in 2050 the world's largest economy will be China, not the U.S. In third place will be India, and in fourth – Brazil. With the ascendency of three-fourths of the BRIC countries over the next decades, it will be important to reevaluate the terms developed and developing. In thirty years, it may no longer be necessary to accept the label characterized by Nelson Rodrigues's famous phrase "complexo de vira-lata," for Brazil's national inferiority complex. For Brazilians, this future scenario presents glistening hope. A country with stronger economic power would mean the government has greater wealth to expend on infrastructure, crime control, education, healthcare, etc. What many Brazilians are not cognizant of are the pitfalls of economic prosperity. While Brazilians today may be envious of their wealthier northern neighbors, there are some aspects of a developed country's profile that are not worth envying. For example, the U.S. today far exceeds Brazil in the number of suicides, prescription drug overdoses, and mass shootings. GDP growth and economic projections depend on multiple variables, chief among them the global economic situation and worldwide political stability. A war in the Middle East, for example, can affect oil production and have global ramifications. Political stability within a country is also essential to its economic health. Elected presidents play a crucial role in a country's progress, especially as presidents may differ radically in their worldview. The political paths of the U.S. and Brazil are parallel today. In both countries, we've seen a left-wing regime (Obama/PT) followed by a far-right populist one (Trump/Bolsonaro), surprising many outside observers, and in the U.S. contradicting every political pollster, all of whom predicted a Trump loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016. In Brazil, although Bolsonaro was elected by a clear majority, his triumph has created a powerful emotional polarization in the country similar to what is happening in the U.S. Families, friends, and colleagues have split in a love/hate relationship toward the current presidents in the U.S. and Brazil, leaving broken friendships and family ties. Both presidents face enormous challenges to keep their campaign promises. In Brazil, a sluggish economy just recovering from a recession shows no signs of robust GDP growth for at least the next two years. High unemployment continues to devastate the consumer confidence index in Brazil, and Bolsonaro is suffering under his campaign boasts that his Economy Minister, Paulo Guedes, has all the answers to fix Brazil's slump. Additionally, there is no end to the destruction caused by corruption in Brazil. Some experts believe corruption to be the main reason why Brazil has one of the world's largest wealth inequality gaps. Political corruption robs government coffers of desperately needed funds for education and infrastructure, in addition to creating an atmosphere that encourages everyday citizens to underreport income and engage in the shadow economy, thereby sidestepping tax collectors and regulators. "Why should I be honest about reporting my income when nobody else is? The politicians are only going to steal the tax money anyway," one Brazilian doctor told me. While Bolsonaro has promised a housecleaning of corrupt officials, this is a cry Brazilians have heard from every previous administration. In only the first half-year of his presidency, he has made several missteps, such as nominating one of his sons to be the new ambassador to the U.S., despite the congressman's lack of diplomatic credentials. A June poll found that 51 percent of Brazilians now lack confidence in Bolsonaro's leadership. Just this week, Brazil issued regulations that open a fast-track to deport foreigners who are dangerous or have violated the constitution. The rules published on July 26 by Justice Minister Sérgio Moro define a dangerous person as anyone associated with terrorism or organized crime, in addition to football fans with a violent history. Journalists noted that this new regulation had coincidental timing for an American journalist who has come under fire from Moro for publishing private communications of Moro's. Nevertheless, despite overselling his leadership skills, Bolsonaro has made some economic progress. With the help of congressional leader Rodrigo Maia, a bill is moving forward in congress for the restructuring of Brazil's generous pension system. Most Brazilians recognize the long-term value of such a change, which can save the government billions of dollars over the next decade. At merely the possibility of pension reform, outside investors have responded positively, and the São Paulo stock exchange has performed brilliantly, reaching an all-time high earlier this month. In efforts to boost the economy, Bolsonaro and Paulo Guedes have taken the short-term approach advocated by the Chicago school of economics championed by Milton Friedman, who claimed the key to boosting a slugging economy was to cut government spending. Unfortunately many economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, disagree with this approach. They believe the most effective way to revive a slow economy is exactly the opposite, to spend more money not less. They say the government should be investing money in education and infrastructure projects, which can help put people back to work. Bolsonaro/Guedes have also talked about reducing business bureaucracy and revising the absurdly complex Brazilian tax system, which inhibits foreign and domestic business investment. It remains to be seen whether Bolsonaro has the political acumen to tackle this Godzilla-sized issue. Should Bolsonaro find a way to reform the tax system, the pension system, and curb the most egregious villains of political bribery and kickbacks – a tall order – his efforts could indeed show strong economic results in time for the next election in 2022. Meanwhile, some prominent leaders have already lost faith in Bolsonaro's efforts. The veteran of political/economic affairs, Joaquim Levy, has parted company with the president after being appointed head of the government's powerful development bank, BNDES. Levy and Bolsonaro butted heads over an appointment Levy made of a former employee of Lula's. When neither man refused to back down, Levy resigned his position at BNDES. Many observers believe Bolsonaro's biggest misstep has been his short-term approach to fixing the economy by loosening the laws protecting the Amazon rainforest. He and Guedes believe that by opening up more of the Amazon to logging, mining, and farming, we will see immediate economic stimulation. On July 28, the lead article of The New York Times detailed the vastly increased deforestation in the Amazon taking place under Bolsonaro's leadership. Environmental experts argue that the economic benefits of increased logging and mining in the Amazon are microscopic compared to the long-term damage to the environment. After pressure from European leaders at the recent G-20 meeting to do more to protect the world's largest rainforest, Bolsonaro echoed a patriotic response demanding that no one has the right to an opinion about the Amazon except Brazilians. In retaliation to worldwide criticism, Bolsonaro threatened to follow Trump's example and pull out of the Paris climate accord; however, Bolsonaro was persuaded by cooler heads to retract his threat. To prove who was in control of Brazil's Amazon region, he appointed a federal police officer with strong ties to agribusiness as head of FUNAI, the country's indigenous agency. In a further insult to the world's environmental leaders, not to mention common sense, Paulo Guedes held a news conference on July 25 in Manaus, the largest city in the rainforest, where he declared that since the Amazon forest is known for being the "lungs" of the world, Brazil should charge other countries for all the oxygen the forest produces. Bolsonaro/Guedes also have promised to finish paving BR-319, a controversial highway that cuts through the Amazon forest, linking Manaus to the state of Rondônia and the rest of the country. Inaugurated in 1976, BR-319 was abandoned by federal governments in the 1980s and again in the 1990s as far too costly and risky. Environmentalists believe the highway's completion will seal a death knoll on many indigenous populations by vastly facilitating the growth of the logging and mining industries. Several dozen heavily armed miners dressed in military fatigues invaded a Wajãpi village recently in the state of Amapá near the border of French Guiana and fatally stabbed one of the community's leaders. While Brazil's environmental protection policies are desperately lacking these days, not all the news here was bad. On the opening day of the 2019 Pan America Games in Lima, Peru, Brazilian Luisa Baptista, swam, biked, and ran her way to the gold medal in the women's triathlon. The silver medal went to Vittoria Lopes, another Brazilian. B. Michael Rubin is an American writer living in Brazil.

Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country?

For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. ...

Brazilian president Michel Temer flies over cotton plantations - Alan Santos/PR

Only Promises of Economic Improvement Keep Brazil’s President in Power

When Michel Temer assumed the presidency in 2016 after the illegitimate impeachment of former ...

Brazil Might Enjoy European Living Standard If It Had Kept Growing as in the 60s and 70s

The biggest economic question facing Brazil, as for most developing countries, is when it ...

Speculators Are Not Welcome, Says Brazil’s Lula

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva once again came out in defense of ...