Advertisement

Indigenous Peoples, Traditional Communities and the Environment: The ‘Territorial Question’ Under the New Developmentalist Agenda in Brazil

  • Klemens Laschefski
  • Andréa Zhouri
Chapter
Part of the Marx, Engels, and Marxisms book series (MAENMA)

Abstract

Laschefski and Zhouri analyze the consequences of the ‘new era of developmentalism’ introduced by the Brazilian center-left government (2003–2016) on indigenous peoples and traditional communities. They highlight that the reprimarization of the economy, albeit in the context of re-democratization and environmental governance, led to increasing land conflicts and reinforced Brazil’s subordinate role within the global division of labor. Attention is drawn on the Eurocentric views of leftist strategies which perceive traditional communities merely as rural poor to be integrated in urban labor markets. Given the fight of these groups for autonomy and the political responses that threaten their constitutional rights and Brazilian socio-biodiversity, the authors develop a complex ‘territorial question’ between competing urban capitalist and nonurban metabolisms that challenge visions of a united class struggle.

Keywords

Neodevelopmentalism Indigenous peoples Traditional communities Territory 

References

  1. Acosta, Alberto. 2016. O Bem Viver. Rio de Janeiro: Elefante.Google Scholar
  2. Acselrad, Henry. 2004. Justiça ambiental: ação coletiva e estratégias argumentativas. In Justiça ambiental e cidadania, ed. Henri Acselrad, Selene Herculano, and José Augusto Pádua, 23–39. 2.ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará.Google Scholar
  3. Alimonda, Hector. 2011. La Naturaleza colonizada: Ecologia Política y Minería em América Latina. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.Google Scholar
  4. Altvater, Elmar. 1999. Restructuring the Space of Democracy. Ambiente e Sociedade, ano II (3 e 4): 5–27.Google Scholar
  5. ANA – Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia. 2018. Carta convocatória do IV ENA. http://enagroecologia.org.br/files/2018/02/CARTA_CONVOCATORIA_IV_ENA_Final.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2018.
  6. Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: verso.Google Scholar
  7. Berno de Almeida, Alfredo Wagner. 2010 Terras de preto, terras de santo, terras de índio: uso comum e conflito. In Nelson Giordano Delgado (org.) Brasil Rural em Debate: coletânea de artigos. Brasília: CONDRAF/MDA.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Das politische Feld: Zur Kritik der politischen Vernunft. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  9. Brenner, Neil. 2014. Introduction: Urban Theory Without an Outside. In Implosions/Explosions Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization, ed. Neil Brenner, 14–35. Berlin: Jovi.Google Scholar
  10. Bresser-Pereira, Luis Carlos. 2011. An Account of New Developmentalism and Its Structuralist Macroeconomics. Revista de Economia Política 2 (3(123)): 493–502.Google Scholar
  11. Bullard, Robert. 1983. Solid Waste Sites and the Black Houston Community. Sociological Inquiry 53: 273–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carneiro, Eder J. 2005. A oligarquização da,política ambiental’ mineira. In A insustentável leveza da política ambiental: desenvolvimento e conflitos socioambientais, ed. Andréa Zhouri, Klemens Laschefski, and Doralice Perreira, 45–64. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica.Google Scholar
  13. Chesnai, François, and Claude Serfati. 2003. Ecologia e condições físicas da reprodução social: alguns fios condutores marxistas. Crítica Marxista, São Paulo, 16: 39–75.Google Scholar
  14. CONAB – Companhia Nacional de Abastamento. 2018. Brasil – Por Produtos. https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/serie-historica-das-safras. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  15. COSIPLAN – Consejo Suramericano de Infraestructura y Planeamient. 2018. Plan de Acción 2012–2022 – ajustada a 2017. http://www.iirsa.org/admin_iirsa_web/Uploads/Documents/PAE_digital.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  16. Cowell, Adrian. 1990. Decade of Destruction: The Crusade to Save the Amazon Rain Forest. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  17. CPT – Comissão Pastoral da Terra. 2017. Conflitos no Campo Brasil 2017. https://www.cptnacional.org.br/publicacoes-2/destaque/4371-conflitos-no-campo-brasil-2017. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  18. Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Esteva, Gustavo. 2006. The Revolution of the New Commons. Beyond Development, Beyond Economy, Beyond the Individual Self, Beyond the Nation State. Motion Magazine, April 8. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/gest_int_4.html. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  20. FIOCRUZ. (n.d.). Mapa de Conflitos e Injustiça Ambiental em Saúde no Brasil. https://www.conflitoambiental.icict.fiocruz.br/. Accessed 8 June 2018.
  21. Foster, Bellamy. 2013. Marx and the Rift in the Universal Metabolism of Nature. Monthly Review 65 (07), December. https://monthlyreview.org/2013/12/01/marx-rift-universal-metabolism-nature/. Accessed 10 June 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foucault, Michel. 2008. Segurança, Território, População. São Paulo: Martins Fontes (Coleção Tópicos).Google Scholar
  23. Gellert, Paul K., R. Scott Frey, and Harry F. Dahms. 2017. Introduction to Ecologically Unequal Exchange in Comparative Perspective. Journal of World-Systems Research, [S.l.], 23(2): 226–235. http://jwsr.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/jwsr/article/view/733. Accessed 10 June 2018.  https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2017.733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. GESTA – Grupo de Estudos em Temáticas Ambientais. (n.d.). Mapa dos conflitos ambientais em Minas Gerais. http://conflitosambientaismg.lcc.ufmg.br/observatorio-de-conflitos-ambientais/mapa-dos-conflitos-ambientais/. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  25. Global Witness. 2017. Defenders of the Earth, Global Killings of Land and Environment Defenders in 2016. London. Available at: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/defenders-earth/. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  26. Gudynas, Eduardo. 2011. Tensiones, contradicciones y oportunidades de la dimension ambiental del Buen Vivir. In Vivir bien: ¿Paradigma no capitalista? ed. Yvonne Farah and H. Luciano, 231–246. Vasapollio, La Paz: CIDES – UMSA y Plural.Google Scholar
  27. Harvey, David. 2004. The ‘New’ Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession. Socialist Register 40: 63–87.Google Scholar
  28. INCRA – Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária. 2017. Área Incorporada ao Programa de Reforma Agrária – histórico até 2016. http://www.incra.gov.br/tree/info/file/11933. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  29. ISA – Instituto Socioambiental. 2016. ISA e sociedade civil repudiam proposta do governo Temer que inviabiliza demarcações. December 15. https://www.socioambiental.org/pt-br/noticias-socioambientais/isa-e-sociedade-civil-repudiam-proposta-do-governo-temer-que-inviabiliza-demarcacoes. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  30. ———. 2018. Com pior desempenho em demarcações desde 1985, Temer tem quatro Terras Indígenas para homologar. https://www.socioambiental.org/pt-br/noticias-socioambientais/com-pior-desempenho-em-demarcacoes-desde-1985-temer-tem-quatro-terras-indigenas-para-homologar. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  31. Laschefski, Klemens. 2014. Governança, Neodesenvolvimento e Autoritarismo difuso. In Zhouri, Andréa, Valencio, Norma. (Org.). Formas de matar, de morrer e Resistir, ed. Andréa Zhouri and Norma Valência, 243–276. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2018. Conflicting Urban and Rural Territorial Livelihood Metabolisms: The “Explosion” of the “Sustainable” Urban-Industrial Pulp Complex in Bahia – Brazil. Sustainable Cities and Society 45: 159–171, accepted manuscript, available in:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.030. Accessed 25 Nov 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lefebvre, Henri. 2003. The Urban Revolution. Trans. Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original French Version, 1970).Google Scholar
  34. Little, Paul. 2002. Territórios Sociais e Povos Tradicionais no Brasil: por uma antropologia da territorialidade. Série Antropologia n° 322. Brasília: UNB. http://www.direito.mppr.mp.br/arquivos/File/PaulLittle__1.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  35. Martinez-Allier, Joan. 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monte-Mór, Roberto L. de M. 2014. Extended Urbanization and Settlement Patterns in Brazil: An Environmental Approach. In Implosions/Explosions Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization, ed. Neil Brenner, 109–120. Berlin: Jovi.Google Scholar
  37. MP – Ministério do Planejamento, Desenvolvimento e Gestão. 2015. Qual a diferença entre PAC1 e PAC2? http://www.planejamento.gov.br/servicos/faq/pac-programa-de-aceleracao-do-crescimento/visao-geral/qual-a-diferenca-entre-pac1-e-pac2. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  38. Oliveira, João Pacheco de, ed. 1998. Indigenismo e Territorialização: Poderes, Rotinas e Saberes Coloniais no Brasil Contemporâneo, 310. Rio de Janeiro: Contra Capa Livraria.Google Scholar
  39. Oliver-Smith. 2006. Displacement, Resistance and the Critique to Development: From Grassroots to Global Change. In Development-Induced Displacement: Problems, Policies, People, ed. Chris de Wet. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  40. Petras, James, and Henry Veltmeyer. 2017. The Class Struggle in Latin America: Making History Today, Routledge Critical Development Studies. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prates, Clarissa. 2017. Efeitos Derrame da mineração, violências cotidianas e resistencias em Conceição do Mato Dentro-MG. Master’s thesis, UFMG-UNIMONTES, Montes Claros.Google Scholar
  42. Quijano, Anibal. 2002. Colonialidade, poder, globalização e democracia. Revista Novos Rumos 17 (37): 4–37.Google Scholar
  43. Raffestin, Claude. 1993. Por uma geografia do poder. Trans. Maria Cecília França. São Paulo: Ática.Google Scholar
  44. Ranciére, Jacques. 1996. O Dissenso. In A crise da razão, ed. Adalto Novaes, 367–382. São Paulo: Cia das Letras.Google Scholar
  45. Sader, Emir. 2013. Apresentação. In 10 anos de governos pós-neoliberais no Brasil: Lula e Dilma, ed. Emir Sader. São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro: FLACSO Brasil/Boitempo.Google Scholar
  46. Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine and Atherton.Google Scholar
  47. Said, Edward. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. London: Vintage edition.Google Scholar
  48. Salleh, Ariel. 2010. Climate Strategy: Making the Choice Between Ecological Modernisation or Living Well. Journal for Australian Political Economy 66: 124–149.Google Scholar
  49. Sassen, Saskia. 2013. When Territory Deborders Territoriality. Territory. Politics, Governance 1 (1): 21–45.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2013.769895. Accessed 20 May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. Can the Subaltern Speak? In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. Carry Nelson and Larry Grossberg, 271–313. Urbana: Illinois University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Svampa, Maristella. 2012. Consenso de los commodities, giro ecoterritorial y pensamiento crítico en América Latina. Revista del Observatorio Social de América Latina, Año XIII N° 32 – Noviembre de 2012: 15–38. http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/osal/20120927103642/OSAL32.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  53. Turner, Barry. 1978. Man-Made Disasters. London: Wykeham.Google Scholar
  54. UNCSD – United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. 2012. The Future We Want. http://www.unis.unvienna.org/pdf/2012/Rio20_brochure.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  55. UNICA – União da Indústria de Cana-de-Açúcar. 2018. Área cultivada com cana-de áçúcar. http://www.unicadata.com.br/historico-de-area-ibge.php?idMn=33&tipoHistorico=5. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  56. Verdum, Ricardo. 2007. Integração, Usinas Hidrelétricas e Impactos Socioambientais. Brasília: INESC.Google Scholar
  57. ———. 2017. Povos indigenas, meio ambiente e políticas públicas. Uma visão a partir do orçamento indigenista federal, Coleção antropologias 14. Rio de Janeiro: e-papers.Google Scholar
  58. WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Zhouri, Andréa. 2010. ‘Adverse Forces’ in the Brazilian Amazon: Developmentalism Versus Environmentalism and Indigenous Rights. Journal of Environment and Development 19 (3): 252–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhouri, Andréa, and Klemens Laschefski. 2010. Desenvolvimento e Conflitos Ambientais: Um Novo Campo de Investigação. In Desenvolvimento e Conflitos ambientais, ed. Andréa Zhouri and Klemens Laschefski, 11–33. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.Google Scholar
  61. Zhouri, Andréa, Raquel Oliveira, Marcos Zucarelli, and Max Vasconcelos. 2017. The Rio Doce Mining Disaster in Brazil: Between Policies of Reparation and the Politics of Affectation. Dossier Mining, Violence, Resistance. Vibrant 14 (2): 81–101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klemens Laschefski
    • 1
  • Andréa Zhouri
    • 2
  1. 1.Geography DepartmentFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.Anthropology DepartmentFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations