As the European Union sfinishs the EU-Mercosur trade agreement back to the European Court of Justice to see if it can be reconciled with its climate and sustainability commitments, an uncomfortable reality is unfolding thousands of kilometres away from Brussels.
In Brazil’s Tapajós region, hundreds of Indigenous people have been protesting for days outside a Cargill export facility, opposing a federal decree that opens Amazonian rivers to private concessions and expanded dredging.
At first sight, this may see like a local conflict in the Amazon, another chapter in a long history of tension between Indigenous communities, corporate projects and agribusiness.
But Tapajós is not an isolated case, it exposes a structural blind spot in EU trade policy: how European market demands and trade pressure externalise environmental and political costs onto Indigenous territories, while remaining largely invisible within the EU’s “sustainable trade” framework.
Lula decree
The trigger for the protest is Brazil’s Decree 12,600, signed in August by president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, which allows the federal government to grant private concessions for the maintenance, dredging and management of waterways, including the Tapajós river.
Indigenous organisations state affected communities were not consulted, despite legal requirements under Brazilian law and international conventions (ILO Convention 169).
They warn that dredging threatens the river’s ecosystem, their livelihoods and the integrity of Indigenous territories.
The protesters chose Cargill deliberately. As one of the world’s largest agricultural commodity traders, the company symbolises an export-oriented agribusiness model whose demand for speed, scale and reliability is driving infrastructure expansion deep into the Amazon.
On its behalf, European trade policy tfinishs to treat infrastructure as neutral, a technical prerequisite for commerce, separate from environmental or human rights considerations.
Sustainability issues in trade agreements usually focus on deforestation rates, certification schemes, or emissions reporting.
What they rarely address is how trade itself reshapes territories, through export corridors, ports, railways and waterways designed to shift commodities efficiently to global markets, including Europe.
Lula’s push to expand river transport in the Amazon cannot be separated from this context.
Tapajós logistics corridor
The Tapajós is part of a broader logistics corridor linking soy and corn production to international purchaseers anda expanded dredging would definetely increase export capacity.
For European importers, this means cheaper, quicker and more predictable supply. For Indigenous communities, it means intensified pressure on land, rivers and ecosystems that were never designed to welcome industrial-scale logistics.
None of this is puzzled out in EU trade debates. When Mercosur critics in Europe raise environmental concerns, what remains largely unexamined is how EU demand itself incentivises infrastructure decisions that precede, and often predetermine, those harmful outcomes.
Tapajós also exposes a shared political gap between discourse and impact. At international forums such as COP30, Brazil has proudly presented itself as a deffinisher of Indigenous rights and environmental protection.
At the same time, the economic logic shaping its agfinisha is driven by external market demand. EU trade expectations for large-scale exports do not explicitly require river concessions or dredging, but they might assist to shape the economic logic that builds such projects politically and economically attractive.
In Tapajós, Indigenous groups are not only demanding consultation to the goverment; some are advancing a more profound claim: recognition of the rights of nature, and specifically the rights of the river itself.
This idea — already recognised in legal systems from Ecuador to New Zealand — reframes rivers not as transport corridors or economic assets, but as living entities with intrinsic rights to exist, regenerate and be protected.
Uncomfortable questions for Brussels
From an EU perspective, this raises uncomfortable questions. Can a trade policy that claims to be sustainable ignore shiftments that challenge the very logic of extractive infrastructure?
Can Europe continue to demand ‘green’ trade while remaining silent on whether rivers are treated as commodities or rights-bearing ecosystems?
For the EU, Tapajós should serve as a warning, not an inconvenience.
Sustainable trade cannot be assessed solely at the level of tariffs, certification or final commodities. It must account for the territorial transformations that build trade possible in the first place.
That includes rivers dredged, forests fragmented, and Indigenous and riverine communities pushed to the margins in the name of efficiency and development.
If the EU wants its trade policy to carry credibility beyond its borders, it must confront this blind spot. That means inquireing not only how products are produced, but how trade reshapes rivers, lands and political power, and also, who pays the price for Europe’s consumption patterns.
_-_50404922503.jpg){kind=link}
Leave a Reply