----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subject: Enhancing equity in the relationship between protected areas and
indigenous and local communities in the context of global change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lessons Learned in the Establishment and Management of
Protected Areas by Indigenous and Local Communities in
South America
PROTECTED AREAS
AND
INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
IN BRAZIL
Cláudio C. Maretti
and collaborators
Dec. 2002 / Jan. 2003
[preliminary version 2]
IUCN - The World Conservation Union
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) - Brazil
IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP)
CEESP Collaborative Management Working Group (CMWG) - South America
WCPA-CEESP Task Force on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity and Protected Areas (TILCEPA)
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
04
Concepts and Guidelines (of this report)
06
Biomes, Protected Areas and Local (non-indigenous) Communities
08
Indigenous Communities
16
Brazilian Protected Areas
24
Protected Areas Types at Least Partially Non-Governmental
29
Typology of Communitarian (conservation) Areas
35
Some Case Studies
38
Xingu Indigenous Park and the Xingu Headwaters Region
38
Environmental Management of Indigenous Lands in Acre
39
Coastal Resources Management in Cananéia Estuary
41
Some Key Issues and Problems
44
Some Possible Solutions and Actions
48
Contacted Individuals and Organisations
52
References
54
5
LIST OF TABLES, GRAPHICS AND MAPS
Brazilian Biomes [table]
08
Brazilian Biomes [map]
09
Brazilian Protected Areas and Biomes… [graphic]
10
Estimated Protected Areas… and the Biomes in Brazil… [table]
12
Federal Protected Areas in the Brazilian Biomes [table]
13
Indigenous Peoples… [table]
17
Indigenous Lands [table]
18
Indigenous Associations and Peoples in Amazonian… [table]
18
Indigenous Lands [map]
19
Watershed Headsprings of Xingu River… and Xingu Indigenous Park… [map]
21
Priority Biodiversity Conservation Areas in Amazonia… [map]
23
Lato Sensu Protected Areas in the Legal Amazon region… [map]
23
Protected Areas Budgets; World Regions Averages [graphic]
24
Protected Areas Staffs; World Regions Averages [graphic]
25
Staff and Budget in Federal Protected Areas [table]
25
Expenditure on Environmental Activities in the Brazilian Federal Budget [table]
26
Expenditure on Environmental Activities in the Brazilian Federal Budget [graphic]
26
Brazilian Protected Area… According to the International Classification… [table]
28
Brazilian Federal Extractive Reserves… [table]
30
Localisation of Federal Extractive Reserves… [map]
30
Chosen Protected Areas… Expanded Matrix of Management Objectives… [table]
32
Parameters for a Typology of… Protected Areas with Communitarian Management [table]
36
Xingu Indigenous Park [text box]
39
Acre Indigenous Lands [text box]
40
Coastal Resources Management in Cananéia Estuary [text box]
42
6
PROTECTED AREAS AND INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
IN BRAZIL
Cláudio C. Maretti and collaborators
1
INTRODUCTION
Some persons have said that Brazil is not a poor country, but an unfair one. Without
going into details and deep analysis, it could be possible to say that the country has one of
the larges economies in the world (oscillating around the 9th position), but also is one of
countries with the worst wealth distribution. Several tens of millions inhabitants are under
the so-called poor lines –for instance, earning less than one US dollar per day. Unfortunately
–even if understandable– there is at least one common reason to the similar location of the
poor areas, the areas with importance for nature conservation, and some of the culturally
differentiated social groups territories: although not always coincident, all are more likely to
occur at the economic marginal regions.
Many indigenous groups lived in the area now called Brazil. Most of them were
decimated through the centuries, but several resisted, either as more isolated tribes in the
Amazonia, or oppressed, and sometimes hidden, in coastal or more 'developed' areas. Some
have large lands, most have communitarian relations and specific cultural heritage, all are
important and needs respect being what they are –and can contribute to nature conservation
strategies. In the historical process of this 'big land' White, Black and Indians interbred;
some groups migrated, others were left behind, and almost all fought for survival; cultural
patterns were created, and several of them disappeared, but some remained. Remnants of
those groups are found today, although often not easily recognised as culturally specific and
differentiated groups. They also have a rich range in terms of cultural patterns and relations
to nature.2
Local and indigenous communities may have important characteristics (distinctions?).
Nevertheless, it should not be considered that only the so-thought different, distinct, 'exotic'
social groups are to-be considered among the local communities. They could be village,
rural, 'traditional' or 'indigenous' inhabitants –and can be situated inside or around protected
areas. Western, urban, and other kinds of social groups should also be part of these
considerations if some of local and the communitarian qualities are (still?) there. Sometimes,
there are also special relations to nature –and natural resources. And it is possible that, to
some extent, there still exist flexibility and ability to find living conditions out of what is
captured by the standardised economic indicators. These are not always, or necessarily,
better or worse than other kinds of cultural relations with nature –including the so-called
western, rational, commercial, or ‘globalised’. What is important is to accept the diversity of
cultures and learn with them. For all the mentioned or thought features and reasons is
important to know and keep conditions of the maintenance of local communities, including
their self-identity and culture. 3
Brazil can be divided by biomes. Some cultural groups could be related to them, once
there is no other knowledge taking all the territory known by this name. With the prejudices
or policies through the years, protected areas were defined. Some biomes are better known
4
than others, some have larger protected areas, but none of them have their nature
effectively conserved. Budget and staff face shortages, policies are partial or limp, natural
and cultural heritage protections are disconnected. But, not necessarily related to an atavistic
position, the practice of many communities is friendlier towards nature. This document
presents general information about the biomes, the protected areas, and indigenous and
local communities. Some examples of conflicts in-between local communities and protected
areas and of communitarian management are also brought here. With those data and
examples, the objective is to show some lessons learned or possible ways to go.
5
CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES (of this report)
−
The protected areas have objectives directed to nature conservation –and
should remain like that. They are some of the best and most important tools for such
protection. But considering and implementing those objectives should not mean
disrespect people. Especially defined through legal or other means, the protected areas
represent cultural and ethical social actions.4
−
The protected area definition (by IUCN-WCPA) is: "an area of land and/or sea
especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of
natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective
means". That is the world's most accepted one, fits with this report purposes, and it is
not that different from the Brazilian legal definition. Nevertheless it is important to
remark that "other effective means" are equally acceptable, and it is necessary to
consider the administrative, or management, mechanisms.5
−
Although the simple designation of an area as protected is already important –in many
times a product of an important amount of work and significant social demands, with
already some results in terms of conservation–, it is absolutely necessary keep the
work and the social pressure towards its effective implementation.6
−
No management category is more or less important than other. Each has more
appropriated, specific, and sometimes different objectives. But only through their
combination and use as a system may enable us to achieve conservation and
development goals. And only with the incorporation of broader ranges of values –i.e.
cultural, social and economic recognitions of cultural and natural aspects– can them be
sustainable.7
−
The precedent remark is very true in local, regional or national sustainable development
and land-use planning and management, with the use of the all spectrum of protected
areas and categories possibilities, to the needs and goals achievement. No protected
area can be isolated, for any of them can only be meaningful if ecologically and
socially (culturally and economically) integrated in its region.
−
Local and indigenous communities have their own rights, without needing
relations with the nature conservation or environmental questions –i. e. their rights do
not depend on the conservation function of their areas.8
−
Nevertheless, it is not rare that areas belonging to or managed by indigenous or
other kinds of local communities have environmental importance and meanings
to the nature protection.
−
Local communities are those people living in small places, where they usually keep
communitarian linkages among people, families, ethnies, age classes, professional
associations, neighbourhoods, and other social groups. There may be conditions of
partial self-governance, with some communal or collective, but also non-governmental,
sense in the practical customary decision making processes. Often they area culturally
specific and differentiated.
−
Rights are always socially and historically built (cultural, political and
economically), and nowadays it is possible to joint two trends on that: the increasing
respect towards the local communities rights; and the process of loosing absoluteness of
any kind of private, specific, or individual right, in subordination to the collective or
diffuse interests, which includes with special emphasis the environment and
6
communitarian issues. We should better look to the ways on how to bring both
trends together.
−
The international classification of protected areas management categories is
not related –at least not directly– with land ownership or with who holds the
administration responsibility (titular). But are related mostly with levels of activities
restriction and differentiation of objectives –which complementariness among categories,
that is essential to the general goals achievement. In theory, any protected area
management category could be owned, administered, or managed by governments,
communities or private institutions or individuals, once the objectives were respected.9
−
But, looking towards the community conservation areas and the general nature
protection goals, decisions shall not be excessively strict –sometimes 'obtuse'.
Discussions in relation with matching or not the protected areas categories
with community conservation contributions ought to look to the broader
picture, to consider opportunities, political possibilities, and to appeal to open
engagement.
−
For some peoples and cultures it is possible to see their relation with nature as a kind of
‘enchantment’ –i. e. how they may consider and appropriate the landscapes. The
sciences may have brought us important knowledge about nature –and sometimes better
ways in using its resources, but not always. And, yet, even if so, that rationalisation
often cut emotional or deep relationships, what usually brings loss in senses
of caring responsibilities.
−
Therefore, considering the communities conservation areas is not only a matter
of respecting rights, but also a need to include different approaches to the
nature conservation and to broaden the base of its support. Some propose a kind
of ‘re-enchantment’ in our relation with the nature.
7
BIOMES, PROTECTED AREAS AND LOCAL (non-indigenous) COMMUNITIES
Just to explain the importance of the ecosystems and of their protection, it is exposed
below some information on them (but some data are not that consistent, in particular the
ones related with protected areas). The Brazilian territory (around 8.5 million square Km) is
sometimes considered to have seven biome groups, or more usually grouped into five.10
(Related to the biomes and protected areas see: table and map "Brazilian Biomes"; graphic
"Brazilian Protected Areas and Biomes, until 1997–99"; table "Estimated Protected Areas
(federal and states) and the Biomes in Brazil, until 1997–99" table "Federal Protected Areas
in the Brazilian Biomes".)
Brazilian Biomes (adapted/modified from IBAMA, 2002; others)
biomes
Amazônia (Amazon forest) [1]
Amazônia-Caatinga transition
Amazônia-Cerrado transition
Caatinga (semi-dry shrub) [2]
Caatinga-Cerrado transition
Cerrado (savannah) [3.1]
Pantanal (wetland) [3.2]
Mata Atlântica (Atlantic forest) [4.1]
Campos Sulinos (southern grasslands) [4.2]
Coastal ecosystems (not marine) [5 partial]
area not defined
Total
biome surface
(hectares)
% of continental
Brazilian territory
% of the biome
area
11
conserved
368,896,022.32
43.17
88
14,458,259.63
1.69
–
41,400,717.74
4.84
–
73,683,115.53
8.62
55
11,510,813.00
1.35
–
196,776,092.52
23.03
55
13,684,530.26
1.6
?
110,626,617.41
12.95
07
17,137,704.54
2.01
?
5,056,766.47
0.59
?
1,310,194.36
–
–
853,230,639.43
99.85
–
• The Amazônia (Amazon biome) [1] takes most of the national area (near 3.7 million
square Km), mainly but not only composed with different rainforest ecosystems, with around
a third of the world species (for instance: 2.5 thousand tree and 30 thousand plant species).
But the region has also grasslands, savannahs, and, most of all, water: rivers (1,100+),
lakes, wetlands… –discharging near 20% of the flow of fresh water to the oceans in the
world. It includes 23 different ecoregions. The Amazônia-Cerrado transition zone has around
414 thousand square Km, and includes the ‘dry’ forests of Mato Grosso. The protected areas
are increasing in this regions –as could be expected Amazônia has the largest areas–, for the
last decades it has been the priority for the federal environment agency. More than 70% of
the Brazilian protected areas surface –in less than 20% of the protected areas number– is in
this biome. That represents more than 12% of the region covered. But, in the other hand,
570 thousand square Km have already been deforested –in the last years 17.6 thousand
square Km were deforest per year (without considering forestry degradation, small plots
deforestation, partial burning…). And the treats are yet very real, for agriculture and grazing
keep advancing in the region. This is he region were the most important diversity in terms of
indigenous and local communities is find. There is an estimation of: 160 different indigenous
societies; probably 50 indigenous tribes without regular contacts; 357 ‘quilombola’
communities, and others. Besides the Indians, the ‘Seringueiros’ (rubber-tappers) are
historically and environmentally important for the ‘forest peoples’ movement and the
extractive reserve concept (see further down).12
8
Brazilian Biomes (Brasil MMA, 2002)
‘Quilombolas’ are not specific from any biome or landscape, but are black, slave
descendant communities. They might have historically grouped themselves as former slave
fugitive communities (quilombos) or by staying in the farms and lands left by the landowners
in economic decline. Often they present particular cultural characteristics, with some
European, Indian –and Brazilian– influences, but obviously with strong African aspects.
Although socially and environmentally important and existent for centuries, the ‘visibility’ on
them is quite recent, probably because land rights struggles. The category is recognised by
law, in the National Constitution of 1988, and is defined in its regulation, but the field
identification is yet in process. Officially –when recognised– they have the right over their
land, which then is protected by law and collective owned. As usually occur in this kind of
process, one of the most important aspects is not to consider only the agriculture and
houses areas, but include areas the whole range of land and activities practised on them –
like extractive, hunting, cultural and other activities–, in order to keep the conditions for their
proper social reproduction.
The ‘Seringueiros’ (rubber tappers, rubber latex extractor) are mostly descendant
from ‘Sertanejos’ and other groups from the Northeast Brazilian Region (the poorest in the
country), sometimes interbred with local Indians. They came to work at the Amazonia at the
rubber economic cycle. As employees or contracted they lived inside the jungle and walked
through several kilometres per day to collect the rubber latex from sparsely distributed
hevea trees (Hevea brasiliensis). One rubber tapper took care of large forest areas and
worked mostly alone in the harvest phase. But they lived in small communities in the forest.
With the economic cycle decline, a large part of them left the region, but several
communities stayed, either forgotten by the entrepreneurs and the traders, or trying to
roughly survive selling the rubber, even by lower prices. Although they conquered sometimes
9
violently the places when arrived, with time the ones that remained in the forest established
important relations with indigenous and local peoples. (Based mainly on the author general
knowledge, but also on Cunha & Almeida, 2001, and others.) (See also the ‘forest peoples’
movement and the extractive reserve concept further down.)
‘Babaçueiros’ are extractive groups living from the babaçu (Orbignia martiana or
Orbygnia phalerata) harvesting. The coconut is collect to oil extraction (for cosmetics,
margarine, soaps, lubricants), but leaves and other parts of the tree are also used as fuel, in
housing, handcrafting etc. This palm-tree occurs in the transitions from Amazon to Caatinga
biomes, and sometimes to Cerrado (ecotones), at Maranhão, Piauí states and part of the
neighbour states. They women are also called ‘quebradeiras-de-coco’ (‘coconut breakers’).
The carnaubeira (Copernicia cerifera) is another palm-tree that occurs in those ecotones
(transition zones), and has been quite important in the local economy through the centuries.
From it is extracted mainly a leave powder to make a wax (carnaúba), but other parts have
also other uses. Among the ‘Caboclos & Ribeirinhos Amazônico’ (Amazonian riverine and
extractive groups) –mostly related with extractive activities–, the ‘Ribeirinhos‘ live more close
to water bodies –rivers, lakes, igarapés (small river like water bodies in the floodplains),
igapós (wetland forest), floodplains…– and depend mostly on the fisheries. ‘Seringueiros’ and
‘Castanheiros’ (Brazilian-nut collectors) may or not live near the water, but have most of the
activities out of floodplains. Both tend to leave the floodplains at the rain season, looking for
activities as forest collecting and ‘terra-firme’ agriculture. ‘Seringueiros’, ‘Castanheiros’ and
others are not always separated groups.13
This region has received the most important amount of international support, both for
nature conservation and for local communities sustainable development. Nevertheless, the
effort in that direction is far less important than the amount of money going to the
governments and private (non-sustainable) development initiatives.
Brazilian Protected Areas and Biomes, until 1997–99
(source: estimations from Maretti et alii, 1999; and Queiróz et alii, 1997)
bars: surface protected (x106 ha); line: No. of protected areas
50
400
40
300
30
200
20
100
10
0
0
Amazonia
Mt.Atlantica
Cerrado
Catinga
Pantanal
Campos S.
Z.C.-Marinha
• The Caatinga [2] area comprises around 8,6% of Brazilian continental territory,
mostly with semi-dry shrub, with spots of humid forests. In this region the rain varies from
300 to 800 mm per year, with temperatures around 25–29°C. At the dry season, water may
not run in the small rivers from five to seven months. 12 phyto-physiognomy types are
described. The ‘babaçu forest’ (or ‘mata dos cocais’) is part of the Amazônia-Caatinga
10
transition zone, witch has around 145 thousand square Km –probably the ‘babaçu’ have
been taking advantage of deforestation. Based on bad policies and nature prejudices this is
the biome less covered by protected areas. Much less than 1% of the biome is under that
protection, with probably less than 3% of the number of Brazilian protected areas. The
Brazilian federal government already recognised this, saying that this biome has not been
well considered in the public policies, both for the few existent protected areas, and for the
non-inclusion of the environmental issues in the development plans. More than that, it says
that the Caatinga is not homogeneous, does not lack biodiversity, and has been damaged
throughout the centuries –although there are yet some extensive areas with medium
conservation state.
As one of the first colonised regions in the ‘new world’, most of indigenous groups
that existed there were exterminated, assimilated, or oppressed. More recently, several
groups have been redefining themselves as indigenous again, but most of them are not (yet)
legally or socially recognised. More than indigenous communities, several kinds of local social
groups of fishermen and farmers are there found: ‘Sertanejos’, ‘Quilombolas’, ‘Ribeirinhos
Não-Amazônicos’, ‘Pescadores’ etc. The ‘Sertanejos’ (‘Vaqueiros’) are groups raising animals
–mostly cows and goats–, together with some agriculture and extractive activities, in a rustic
and poor economy. Most of them could have been originated from the livestock farmers'
inland migration through the centuries. Although with some differences, they could be
grouped as the ones living in the Caatinga and Cerrado more open areas –which are
disturbed by use, but not completely destroyed. Best known –at the folkloric, imaginary and
general Brazilian knowledge– are the ones living in the drier areas of Caatinga –rustic
people, feeding several migration movements. Some of them have historic importance, as
the ones that generated the rubber tappers at the rubber economic cycle in the Amazon
jungle. ‘Ribeirinhos Não-Amazônicos’ (non-Amazonian riverine peoples) are the ‘traditional
groups’ living alongside the rivers and in floodplains, mostly along the São Francisco, Paraná,
and other important rivers. ‘Pescadores’ (‘Pescadores Artesanais’, artisanal fishermen) are
the generic group living along the coast, whose economy is based mainly on fisheries,
although complemented by agriculture, extractive and other economic and social activities.
Important part of the production is for self-subsistence, but part is sold. The production units
include mostly the relatives.14
For both natural and cultural exposed conditions, this region should be among the
priorities to further studies.
• The Cerrado [3.1] and the Pantanal [3.2] (with around 2 and 0,1 million square
Km) are the general names for a mosaic of vegetation types. The Pantanal is a huge
wetland, mostly covered by grasslands, rivers and lakes. It is the largest continental wetland
in the world (around 137 thousand square Km in Brazil, and probably near 200 thousand
square Km in South America, with for instance around 263 species of fish and 656 of birds).
Its conservation is closed related with that of the Cerrado, for from this last comes most of
the drainage to the wetland, and its equilibrium depends upon the floods. The CaatingaCerrado transition zone has near 115 thousand square Km. The Cerrado is probably the
biome currently most threatened in terms of the area loss, for it is over it that the most
important agriculture frontier is advancing –mostly with soya beans plantations. Although
relatively flat, the removal of the forest and the plantation activities are leading to great
amounts of soil erosion. The Cerrado is dominated by savannah like vegetation types,
varying from grasslands to short forests. The Cerrado is considered among the biodiversity
‘hot spots’ (with for example around 759 species of nesting birds, 180 reptile species, and
195 mammals, but the insect diversity is much more impressive and impossible to present
figures about it).
11
Estimated Protected Areas (federal and states) and the Biomes in Brazil, until 1997–99
(estimations adapted/modified from Maretti et alii, 1999; and Queiróz et alii, 199715)
biomes
Amazônia [1]
Caatinga [2]
Cerrado [3.1]
Pantanal [3.2]
Cerrado + Pantanal [3]
Mata. Atlântica [4.1]
Campos Sulinos [4.2]
Mata Atlântica + Campos Sulinos [4]
Coastal Marine Zone [5]
Total
P.A.s surface
(million ha)
44.254
P.A.s
No.
% total
P.A.s
No.
% total P.A.s
surface
% Brazil
surface
% biome
surface
70.37
5.18
11.96
127
16
2.89
99
15.05
19
19.30
0.464
0.74
0.05
0.46
5.427
8.63
0.64
2.71
0.151
0.24
0.02
1.08
9
1.37
5.578
8.87
0.65
2.61
108
16.41
7.709
12.26
0.90
–
331
50.30
0.346
0.55
0.04
–
6
0.91
8.055
12.81
0.94
8.06
337
51.22
4.538
7.22
0.53
1.30
67
10.18
62.891
100.00
7.36
7.36
658
100.00
But it is considered that around 45% of the original area of the biomes have been
deforested or substituted for plantations. Both the Cerrado and the Pantanal have few
protected areas. The evaluation of Brazilian biomes, for the setting of conservation priorities,
understood that the protected areas in the Cerrado have bad distributions of management
categories, geographic distribution, size and representativeness of ecologic heterogeneity.
Besides the indigenous groups, among the social groups in this region there are the
‘Pantaneiros’ and the ‘Ribeirinhos Não-Amazônicos’. ‘Pantaneiros’ are the various social
groups, in different economic activities, living in the Pantanal –coping with the wetland, and
the dry and flooding seasons. The regional most important activity today is the livestock
farming.17
• The Atlantic tropical rainforest (Mata Atlântica) [4.1] is closed related with the
Brazilian history. From this biome it was set the enduring image for this part of the ‘new
world’: a forest paradise with plenty fauna and friendly indigenous groups. Most of the
important economic cycles of the initial centuries were developed over its forests: pau-brasil
(Cæsalpinia echinata), exploration; sugar-cane plantations; part of the gold mining; and
coffee plantations. Together with the southern grasslands (Campos Sulinos) [4.2], it was in
these biomes areas that from the ending of the XVIII century the urbanization and the
industrialization took place. Today over their area run the economic activities responsible for
around 70% of the GNP. All this resulted in the devastation of near 93% of the Atlantic
forests (by the years 1990 only around 90 thousand square Km were left, and in 1990–95
5,76% of the remnants were deforested). For its menace but also because of the extremely
important biodiversity, the Atlantic forest has been considered a ‘hot spot’ for the world
conservation. Going from the north to the south along the Brazilian Atlantic coast, the
Atlantic forest comprises 10 ecoregions. More than only different biogeographic units, and
besides the generalised degradation, the vegetation diversity is still impressive (458 trees
species in one hectare of forest in south of Bahia) and the fauna important –even if some
top trophic web species exist only in the more important remnants. There are also high
levels of endemism.
Even if several of the indigenous groups were exterminated by the European
descendents advance, still exist some, and there are the ones that keep coming back –as the
Guaranis. Other groups include: ‘Caiçaras’, ‘Caipiras’, ‘Açorianos’, ‘Ribeirinhos NãoAmazônicos’, ‘Quilombolas’, ‘Pescadores’, ‘Sitiantes’. In the southern grasslands the Gauchos
(‘Pastoreio’, ‘Campeiro’) resulted from interbreeding of European descendants –Portuguese
and Spanish– and local indigenous groups. ‘Caiçaras’ are groups living along the cost of the
12
Southeast and South Regions in Brazil (states of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná and north
of Santa Catarina). Their livelihood is based in itinerant agriculture, small fisheries,
extractive, and handcraft activities. They were formed probably in the periods intermediate
to the economic cycles –struggling for survival, and were descendants from Indians and
Europeans, with black influences. In the last decades the tourism and urbanisation of the
coastal zone are a major threat. Although with serious conflicts over the local communities,
the protected areas sometimes represented a survival space for the local communities, for
the areas could resist partially the land-taking processes, and the tourism and urban
invasion, but, as not really implemented, they did not finished to expulse all local
communities.
The ‘Caipiras’ are small farmers still exiting, and resisting, in the middle of plantations
and extensive livestock farming, in the Southeast and Central-West Brazilian Regions –mostly
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes. They have different kind of agricultural activities for the
self-subsistence and for the small market. This lifestyle may have come from nucleus of
mining and its supplying activities [concentrated mostly in Minas Gerais and at the XVII and
XVIII centuries], and spread mainly to the states of São Paulo, Espírito Santo, Rio de
Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Mato Grosso [at that time including Mato Grosso do Sul]. In the
tradition they used more the neighbours cooperation, what gave them community cohesion
and the rural neighbourhood identity. ‘Sitiantes’ (small farmers, rural neighbourhood) are
defined as the generic group whose livelihood rely on agriculture [mostly for food], with
complementary activities –as for example honey and other forest products collecting. Usually
they have the in fact control over their land, but not rarely without property documentation.
They produce for the small market, besides the self-subsistence, and use mostly relatives in
the economic activities, sometimes contracted labour, but now only in rare situations
neighbourhood cooperation. The Gauchos (‘Pastoreio’, ‘Campeiro’) live in the ‘pampas’ –
extensive grasslands, including some short soft sloped hills, forest spots and wetlands, in the
south of Brazil (and Uruguay and north of Argentina). They resulted from interbreeding of
European descendants –Portuguese and Spanish– and local indigenous groups (Guaranis).
They were developed and are related to extensive livestock raising activities –mainly cows
and some sheep, living mostly in small villages.18
Federal Protected Areas in the Brazilian Biomes (adapted/modified from IBAMA, 2002)
biomes
Amazônia [1]
Amazônia-Caatinga transition
Amazônia-Cerrado transition
Caatinga [2]
Caatinga-Cerrado transition
Cerrado [3.1]
Pantanal [3.2]
Mata Atlântica [4.1]
Campos Sulinos [4.2]
Coastal ecosystems (only, not marine) [5 partial]
Total
total area of
protected areas
40,459,850.26
% of the
biome
% of the total
P.A.s area
10.97
76.06
1,072,431.13
7.42
2.02
125,163.07
0.30
0.24
2,169,647.64
2.94
4.08
399,260.69
3.47
0.75
4,957,117.47
2.52
9.32
78,206.64
0.57
0.15
2,883,106.59
2.61
5.42
368,008.57
2.15
0.69
683,126.22
13.51
1.28
53,195,918.28
6.23
100.00
• The Brazilian marine coastal line is long (more than 8 thousand Km) and diversified.
The coastal-marine zone [5] is legally defined for environment management –the National
Programme of Coastal Zone Management (‘Programa Nacional de Gerenciamento Costeiro’).
13
The coast is a transitional zone by its own definition –and for that has some of the most
diversifies, rich and fragile ecosystems–, with part of it terrestrial, part intertidal and part
aquatic. But it also has overlaps with other biomes, as the Amazon and Atlantic Forest. For
management purposes is better do not divide –not even considering the overlapping with
other biomes, but much less putting apart terrestrial and marine coastal areas or
ecosystems. But for exposition reasons, and if not considering the zone legally defined, the
coastal ecosystems are considered to have around 51 thousand square Km, and the marine
part around 3.5 million square Km. (This last figure is usually not considered in the Brazilian
territory figures and calculations, but some extent of it is actually part of the national
territory.) 19
Being a coastal zone crossing from north to south the Brazilian (terrestrial, aquatic,
and marine) territory, it should be divided according with different climatic, oceanographic,
geologic, drainage, and terrestrial vegetation conditions –besides the social (cultural and
economic) diversification. A first level division could show three parts: the northern coast,
humid and large; the northeastern coast, dry and narrow; and the southeastern-southern
coast, more habitats diversified. At the north, also considered as the Amazonian coast sector,
there is a major influence from the Amazonas River, with obvious consequences in terms of
water constituents (salinity, turbidity, nutrients…), hydrodynamic, and aquatic life. The wet
coast elongates to the south, with a major mangrove, muddy and swamp coastal area from
Amapá to Maranhão –recognised at the WWF Global 200 ecoregions, since Venezuela. There
are also dune fields (Lençóis Maranhenses), lagoons, etc. The northeastern coast sector is a
drier one. The rain dropping in the water basin draining to this coast is not important, and
there are not that large and numerous rivers arriving at it. With the warm waters of the
South Equatorial current, there is a propitious environment to the coral reefs –with their
usual important biologic diversity. This is part of the Brazilian coast recognised at the WWF
Global 200. This northeastern part of the coast has tow sub-sectors, one with a NNW–SSE
coast and the other in a NNE–SSW position. Dunes are important in the very northeast, short
escarpments are common in the east coast, and smaller estuaries and mangrove spots are
also present.
The southeast coast sector is dominated by the presence of the ‘Serra do Mar’ (‘Sea
Mountains Range’) with the ‘Mata Atlântica’ (Atlantic forest), sometimes arriving at the sea,
with rock coasts, pocket beaches and hilly islands or rocky islets, sometimes the mountains
are a little more distant of the sea, leaving the coast to the long beaches and ‘restingas’
(coastal sand formations) –barriers, sand ridges, islands... Mangroves are important in some
areas, as well as, of course, estuaries at river-mouths. Although dominated by the warm
Brazil Current, the presence of cold water in parts of the sector, with possible resurgences,
bring locally more productivity. Together with the northeastern coast, the Brazil Current is
recognized as ‘large marine ecosystems’ with high diversity and potential threat (CI & NOAA).
At the extreme south, the small coast sector is mostly flat with long beaches and ‘restingas’.
This is already part of a South-American coast, together with Uruguay and north of
Argentina, and has important influence of the Malvinas (Falklands) Current –with the coming
up of the subtropical south convergence, at least at the winter and a fauna different from
the rest of the coast. The Southwest Atlantic is recognised at the WWF Global 200
ecoregions, with importance to the marine mammals and coastal-marine birds.
Most of the indigenous groups were decimated or thrown out of the coast through
the centuries. At the north they may exist more at the countryside, at the northeast they
mixed (interbred) with white and black peoples –and ‘abandoned’ their specific identity for
centuries–, and at the south and southeast some are trying to come back –as the Guaranis.
Among the non-Indian local communities, ‘Caiçaras’, ‘Jangadeiros’, ‘Praieiros’, ‘Pescadores’
and ‘Açorianos’ are mentioned. ‘Jangadeiros’ are marine fishermen of the northeast coast –
from Ceará to Bahia. ‘Jangada’ is a raft boat –with attached logs. It was created by the
14
Indians, and much used by former slaves through the centuries; the today type incorporates
European and African descendants devices, as sails and rudder. This fishing possibility were
probably responsible for the establishment and staying of coastal communities, but today
they see threats from the motorboats and coast land use by tourism –either competing with
them or cutting their access to the sea. Because of the ‘piúba’ (Tecoma umbellate?) logs
shortage, they started making the rafts of lumber (wood boards). They have important
knowledge on the fishes, for the fisheries are much more important than the land-based
activities, although coconuts and manioc flower are also important.20
‘Açorianos’ are descendants from migrants, since the XVIII century, that came mostly
from Azores Archipelago, but also from Madeira Archipelago and Portugal mainland. The
communities relied on the small fisheries and agriculture, taking agriculture techniques and
food habits from Indians and fishing also whales and fishes for the oil –use as lightning fuel
and cement on housing. Their historical importance is also related to the spreading of
fisheries techniques in the coast of South and Southeast Brazilian Regions. They are found
today mainly at the Santa Catarina cost. Urbanization, tourism growth, and over-fishing are
their main cultural and economic threats. The ‘Praieiros’ live in the Amazon coast –between
Amapá and Piauí. They are artisanal fishermen in beaches and mangrove dominant habitat,
with high amplitude tide. There is a great boat styles variety. Although fishing –together with
shell and crab collecting– is the most important economic activity, agriculture and extrativism
are also part of the livelihood. Today some of them may also work with tourism.
15
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
The numbers about the indigenous peoples are always estimated and controversial.
Taking what is probably the most consistent information about the whole country, the
figures are as follow. In Brazil today there are around 216 'indigenous peoples', with near
350 inhabitants. In terms of their languages, there are grouped in 41 families, 2 branches,
and around ten isolated languages. These figures represent a small proportion of the
indigenous peoples that lived in the area –today called Brazil– before the arrival of the
Europeans. More controversial, there are estimations of around 1,000 peoples, with between
2 to 4 million inhabitants. Although extermination process started early in the colonization
period, estimations show that in the first half part of the 20th century some 80 indigenous
peoples were decimated –by violent conflicts, epidemics, social and cultural
disorganisation...–, bringing down the population from 1 million to 200 thousand in that
period.21 (See table "Indigenous Peoples, with more than 2,000 inhab. in Brazil".)
In the recent times the indigenous population has been growing at an average rate of
3.5% per year –more than the general population in Brazil, with 1.6% per year in 1996–
2000. It is difficult to say it that rates are more related with changes, or a conscious
demographic recovery. Among the changes are the livelihoods, for some of the groups
probably rely more on agriculture today than they used centuries ago –what may support
more numerous communities. Other changes are related with increasing general health
assistance –what may have reduced damages from the 'white' brought illnesses, or had
impacts on the general death rate. For several groups the populations figures still show
serious threats: 61 peoples have less than 200 inhabitants.
Some groups, although loosing some cultural aspects, as the language, could resist
as a group. Indeed, there is a contemporary movement through which descendant from
Indians that were living in the middle of the 'general' population are asking back their
identities. Nevertheless, at the same time, there still exist evidences of some 42 isolated
groups –officially considered by the federal government (FUNAI), but without regular contacts
with the 'general' population–, mostly at Amazon region. One of the important questions,
obviously, is how to recognise the indigenous groups. Even apparently easier than the socalled 'traditional peoples', and accepting the self-identification as the main criterion, that is
not an easy task. Bráz de Oliveira França, a Baré Indian (from Rio Negro, AM), wrote: "... if
some of ours ancestors could see how we are today, and if we could ask them why 500
years ago there lived with freedom and calm, they certainly would answer us: 'We were not
Indians!'." In-between the knowledge or pride of being part of an indigenous group and the
survival strategies through these centuries of oppressions, not everybody remember, accept
or understand the ethnic pertaining. And not all indigenous groups are officially recognised
and live in 'indigenous lands'.22
According with Brazilian legislation, the indigenous groups have rights to live on their
lands, to use and manage them –not to own or sell them. Traditionally, Brazilian laws
defined a temporary protection over the 'non-capable' Indians, expecting them to 'evolve'
and incorporate themselves at the general 'normal' population. (These peoples were
considered not fully citizens, not self-sufficient in terms of civil rights.) Since the 1988
National Constitution the Federation has to protect them, but does not explicitly consider
them 'non-capable' anymore. The 'indigenous land' concept is also expressed in it: the lands
traditionally occupied by the Indians are: the ones used permanently; the ones used by their
production activities; the ones vital for the preservation of the natural resources needed to
their well-being and to their physical and cultural reproduction, following the uses, habits,
16
and traditions. These lands are owned by the Brazilian Federation for the use of the
indigenous groups.23 (See table and map "Indigenous Lands".)
Indigenous Peoples, with more than 2,000 inhab. in Brazil (adapted/modified from ISA, 2000)24
group / people25
Guarani
Guajajara
present in
family /
other countries
language
(+ Paraguay,
Tupi-Guarani
Argentina)
Tupi-Guarani
Xavante
Kayapó
Kaingang
Xakriabá
Ticuna
Terena
Wapixana
Baniwa
(+ Peru,
Colombia)
(+ Guiana)
(+ Colombia,
Venezuela)
Apurinã
Brazilian
Region
state
population26 year
NE
MS/SP/RJ/PR/
ES/SC/RS
MA
Jê
Jê
Jê
Jê
CO
CO / N
S / SE
SE
MT
MT/PA
SP/PR/SC/RS
MG
Ticuna
N
AM
32,613 1998
Aruák
Aruák
CO
N
MS
RR
15,795 1999
6,500 2000
Aruák
N
AM
4,000 2000
Aruák
N
AM
RR
RR/AM/PA
(+ others)
2,779 1999
29,074
16,500 2000
CO / SE / S
Makuxi
(+ Guiana)
Karíb
N
Wai Wai (+ others)
(+ Guiana)
Karíb
N
35,000 1998
11,450
46,450
9,602
6,306
25,000
5,093
46,001
1998
2000
2000
2000
1997
2,020 2000
18,520
Yanomami (/ others)
Munduruku
Sateré-Mawé
Mura
Kaxinawá
Tukano
Fulni-ô
Baré
Maku (+ others)
Kulina / Madihá
Pakaa Nova
Potiguara
Xukuru
Pankararu (/ Kalankó /...)
Pataxó
Atikum
Tapeba
Pataxó Hã-Hã-Hãe
total (this table)
31
total Brazil (ISA, 2000)28
216
(+ Venezuela)
(+ Peru)
(+ Colombia)
(+ Venezuela)
(+ Colombia)
(+ Peru)
Yanomami (/
others)
Munduruku
Mawé
Mura
Pano
Tukano
Yatê
Nheengatu
Maku
Arawá
Txapakura
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
N
RR/AM
11,700 2000
N
N
N
N
N
NE
N
N
N
N
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
PA
AM
AM
AC
AM
PE
AM
AM
AC/AM
RO
PB
PE
PE
BA
PE
CE
BA
7,500
7,134
5,540
3,964
3,670
2,930
2,790
2,548
2,318
2,050
7,575
6,363
4,376
4,151
2,743
2,491
2,050
29,749
27
254,551
4129
c. 350,000
16
1997
2000
2000
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
1999
1996
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1998
* Do not speak the original language anymore; use the regional Portuguese.
17
Indigenous Lands (adapted/modified from ISA, 2000)
number
area (ha)
% of total TIs
% of Brazil
% of total TIs30
to be identified
52
8,98
189.750
0,02
0,18
identification process
62
10,71
2.563.100
0,30
2,47
114
19,69
2.752.850
0,32
2,66
24
4,15
1.474.506
0,17
1,42
sub total (a)
identification / revision process
restricted to non-Indians use
8
1,38
570.970
0,07
0,55
subtotal (b)
32
5,53
2.045.476
0,24
1,97
identified, approved (FUNAI) (c)
21
3,63
3.449.280
0,41
3,33
delimitated (d)
68
11,74
19.714.317
2
19,01
reserved
13
2,25
71.357
0,01
0,07
ratified
72
12,44
17.395.620
2,04
16,78
registered (CRI & SPU)
259
44,73
58.250.721
6,84
56,18
sub total (e)
344
59,41
75.717.698
8,90
73,03
Total (without "a")
465
80,31
100.926.771
11,86
97,34
Total
579
100,00
103.679.621
12,18
100,00
Since the 1988 National Constitution the Indians are not considered 'non-capable'
anymore. They had recognised their right of association and any juridical relationship.
Nowadays, only in Amazon Region, there are 183 indigenous organisations/associations,
representing 146 ethnic groups, and around 185 thousand individuals (near 62% of the total
indigenous population in Brazil) living in 215 indigenous lands. Those organisations could be
a better partner in associations or alliances that should be established between the local
communities –and their advocates– and the 'protected areas groups'. (See table "Indigenous
Associations and Peoples in Amazonian Brazilian States".)
Indigenous Associations and Peoples in Amazonian Brazilian States (adapted from Albert, 2000)
Amazonas Rondônia
No. of indigenous
organisations
No. of ethnic
groups
No. of inhabitants
% of indigenous
population in Brazil
No. of indigenous
lands (TIs)
Area (square Km)
Acre
Roraima
Pará
Amapá
total
90
31
22
18
16
6
183
74
30
11
13
36
9
146
99,604
10,826
9,655
31,322
28,445
5,634
185,486
33.2
3.6
3.2
10.4
9.5
1.9
61.8
107
18
24
26
35
5
215
441,523.33 60,783.54 19,407.59
154,543.42
280,249.66 41,965.21
998,472.75
The indigenous lands are larger at the Amazon region. Around 50% of the indigenous
lands are situated in the 'Legal Amazonia'. Probably the reasons are related with the period
of recognition of the specific indigenous people existence and rights. Some cases could
exemplify that evolution –and the resistance.
18
Indigenous Lands (ISA, 2000)
• Several groups in the Northeast Brazilian Region were very early oppressed, and
mixed and interbred with the general population, and therefore had no rights recognised.
Nevertheless, and even sometimes loosing cultural characteristics –as the language–, they
could resist as a self-identified group, or recover that identification. They usually do not have
adequate natural conditions for their 'physical' and cultural reproduction.
• Guarani are one of the most important indigenous groups in South America. They
were part of an important branch that used to live in the southeast Brazilian coast. After
several centuries of resistance, and even if almost expelled from the Southeast Brazilian
Region and areas closer to the coast, they kept their language and several cultural
characteristics –even when living for centuries in the middle of the 'general' population–, and
are now coming back, asking back for their land. There are conflicts, for instance, in the
Superagüi National Park, Ilha do Cardoso and Intervales State Parks, Juréia-Itatins [State]
Ecological Station, and others. The environmentalists argue that the Indians that lived at the
area before the protected areas creation could or should stay, but it should not be accepted
the newcomers for no protected area will stand if it was to be allowed to all that wanted to
come. Yet the National Constitution recognise the right of the indigenous groups to live and
manage the area were they 'traditionally' used to. But what should be done when they
'traditionally' occupied areas that became cities of well-established farmlands? This could
result as a problem –sometimes a big problem– when only protected areas are considered
empty areas for them to occupy. This happen because the absence of a good policy to cope
with the Indians recovery, the non-consideration of them in the 'general' land-reform
processes, and for the weak implementation stage, vigilance of enforcement of most of
protected areas. Nevertheless, even considering that indigenous lands could be important for
nature conservation and that some of the protected areas accepted from the beginning the
19
indigenous lands, the situation is giving birth of, yet small and localised, but increasing,
conflicts.
• It is said that in April, the 21st, of 1500, the Portuguese caravels 'discovered' what
would came to be the today Brazil –they arrived at what is today the south of Bahia State. In
2000, for the 500th anniversary, an outdoor museum was proposed and a great celebration
was to be prepared… But it could better show out the confusion of the federal government
authorities and the disrespect that indigenous communities were still exposed to. The region
had a local economic cycle related with cocoa plantations –that protected relatively some
forest cover for the plantation was made underneath it. After more than 400 years of the
discovery, around the years 1930, the regional indigenous groups yet had no protection, and
farmers threw them away looking for land to cocoa plantations and grazing. In 1961 the
Monte Pascoal (Easter Mount) National Park was created in that region, also without taking
in consideration the Indians. The federal agencies and departments could not work together,
and therefore, even with the laws and regulations, decisions were made one over the other:
with indigenous lands definition in process, protected areas were created and land-reform
settlements were established. In the last decades the region saw a tourism boom.
The two indigenous groups –Pataxó and Hã-Hã-Hãe–, from different indigenous
villages, resisted as they could. They were spread out, expelled by the farmers' land
obsession and by the agriculture forbidden in the park. But they regrouped themselves,
either in new locations, or with the villages that resisted in place –or nearby. And organised
themselves in a 'caciques' (tribal chiefs) council'. In the last decades they started to try to
recover their land, with factual or symbolic 'invasions' and demonstrations. But it could result
in no important victories or much more respect to the indigenous causes, for the violence in
the precedent decades left at least 14 Indians assassinated, without anyone under trial for
that. In the middle of that facts evolution, suggestions were made to find other lands for the
indigenous groups, but these made clear that they wanted their land, not any land. The
pressures to take more land for tourism facilities or the outdoor 'discovery' museum, the
region 'visibility' close to the 500 anniversary, and the barbarous unmotivated assassination
of a supposed street-living man in Brasília –that turned to be an Indian that went to the
federal capital for their claims–, exploded the situation in the region and took attention to
their conditions. And, then, the indigenous lands processes start to move again and Indians
rights recognition is growing in the region. Even after all that, the disputes in-between the
protected areas technicians and the Indians advocates are opposed and the first still think
that the Indians should find another land for there are few forest areas remained and the
Monte Pascoal National Park 'is there' for decades.
• Created in 1961 the Xingu Indigenous Park (Parque Indígena do Xingu - PIX) was
planed to be a area for the Indians, considering that they needed land and natural
resources, but accepting that the size of the area were more important than its location and
other conditions. Federal government teams with good sensibility towards the Indians –but
with different concepts from today's more accepted ones–, went to the Amazon region
before the public works or agriculture frontier advance in order to contact and try to
'protected' them. As possible, an area with several groups was identified, and some others
were brought inside. The Xingu Indigenous Park delimitation did not count with the Indians
participation, nor included the water sources of the Xingu River. There are some conflicts
among the indigenous groups obliged to live together. The demographic increase within the
indigenous population is bringing difficulties with some natural resources stocks.
Nevertheless, one of the main problems that this area faces today is the land occupation and
natural resources exploration in its surroundings. Not without problems, the Xingu Park had
its nature conserved, and as maintained, it is coming to represent an island in terms of
'nature lato sensu protected area'. More than only contribute to the national nature
conservation outcomes, it urgently needs the protection of the surroundings in order to keep
20
the conditions for the Indians reproduction. It is, then, an emblematic case where Indians
and non-Indians need to cooperate in order to find the good solutions for both. (See map
"Watershed Headsprings of Xingu River (deforestation until 1997), and Xingu Indigenous
Park and other Indigenous Lands". See also case study.)
Watershed Headsprings of Xingu River (deforestation until 1997), and Xingu Indigenous Park and
other Indigenous Lands (ISA, 2000)
• The Yanomami is one of the last well known contacted indigenous groups. This
group was under polemic discussion in these last decades. Apart from other discussions,
21
fantasies, and possible bad professional behaviour of anthropologists, the point here is how
protected areas can be used as a intervention tool against local and indigenous communities
interests –having not much to do with nature protection. After anthropological studies, an
area of 820 thousand square Km was interdicted in 1988, next to the Brazilian frontier with
Venezuela –where other parts of the same Yanomami indigenous group live. This was never
accepted by the militaries and other so-called 'nationalist' groups –and for several of them
the problems are still there. Among others, three major arguments were used: the area was
'too large' for such 'small group' –specially if compared with other colonisation or land-reform
parameters–; such large are of special but non-military use should never be 'placed' in the
Brazilian border, for this needed to be supervised; all these together with the recognition of
indigenous rights was seen as a precondition to demands of Yanomami national recognition
–or the recognition of Brazil as a pluri-national state (a state with several nations) would be
a step towards demands of separatism. And probably, would said them, all these could be
used by the powerful countries to take out the Amazonia from Brazil, either weakening this
country, or taking control themselves of its richness. Around a year later, the Yanomami
indigenous land –still under process, were diminished to fragmented 200 thousand square
Km, and a series of national forests (category VI protected areas) were created in the middle
of the former indigenous land. Although the Justice had revoked the second definition, and
kept the larger continuous area as the Yanomami Indigenous Land, officially the federal
government never revoked the creation of the protected areas.31
It is important to understand that the indigenous rights took centuries to become
recognised, but at least from the middle second half of the 20th century it is well accept in
the Courts. The indigenous groups right over their land –even if under governmental
property– stood above the private ownership. (If the area were well intended colonised, the
farmer could receive compensations, but would not keep the right or the ownership over the
land.) Other social functions of the private land took more time to be accepted, and still
sometimes difficult to be recognised. The 1988 National Constitution was a general turnover
point, both for indigenous lands and protected areas. Both are defined in the Brazilian major
law. But the concordances stop there. Most of Indians advocates understand that their rights
are superior. Part of the protected areas technicians and environmentalists –the part that are
in conflict with the former– do not agree, and argue that both Indians rights and nature
protection are government and society obligations and have the same status under the law.
Nevertheless, most of the legal system and workers –lawyers, attorneys, judges…– believe
the indigenous rights are better established and accepted. (And, moreover, tend not to
always easily accept that nature conservation should be imposed over the ownership rights –
even if this is expressed in the laws.)
If the aim of indigenous land is the protection of the Indians' lands and life
possibilities –not the nature conservation by itself–, to keep their lands on good conservation
standards is vital for most of these peoples. Those lands represent a great amount of lands
and are in fact –but could also be officially considered– as part of a lato sensu protected
areas system. They have special importance in Amazonia. Together the indigenous and
nature protected areas represent 1.4 million sq. Km of Amazon region (28%), from which 1
million are indigenous lands.32 (See and compare maps "Priority biodiversity conservation
areas…" and "Protected areas in the Legal Amazon region…".)
22
Priority Biodiversity Conservation Areas in Amazonia: extreme importance (red); very high
importance (brown); high importance (yellow); not sufficient known (probably important; green); and
new areas (blue) (ISA et alii, 1999, apud Schneider et alii, 2000)
Lato Sensu Protected Areas in the Legal Amazon Region: integral preservation protected areas
(dark green); sustainable use protected areas (light green and blue); military lands (red); indigenous
lands (dark yellow) (ISA et alii, 1999, apud Schneider et alii, 2000)
23
BRAZILIAN PROTECTED AREAS
In Brazil the issue of the relations between local communities and protected areas are
–still are?– 'hot' ones. At one side, the some nature defenders diffuse the idea that the local
communities can damage protected areas –any human presence is negative to the nature
preservation and obligation on that should stand over any human communities rights. At the
other side, some advocates of the local and indigenous communities think that, having
evolved in closely they know very well and always have 'harmonious' relation with nature –
there is no 'untouched' nature and the relationship is in mutual benefit. Yet, in this country
the distance between the two extreme positions sometimes seems to get wider.
Nevertheless, "both are right, and both are wrong"33. It has been argued that those groups –
not only the 'radical' parts of them– have much more in common than what oppose them.
For that, instead of fighting each other for relative smaller questions, the two groups should
look at the questions on a broader perspective. An alliance between them would only bring
benefits (for our society, in general). This would strength the power to the better-protected
areas and to the local and indigenous communities rights respect. Experience show how
worse it is when protected areas are established without considering the local communities
and that such broader and allied perspectives bring better results in terms of nature
conservation.
Protected Areas Budgets; World Regions Averages
34
(based on 1996 US$ per sq. Km; adapted/modified from: James; Green & Paine, 1999, WCMC )
3,000
2,838
1996 US$ per square kilometer
2,500
2,033
1,923
2,000
1,500
1,043
1,032
1,000
559
433
500
331
257
100
74
23
Af
ric
a
(W
es
t
&
id
dl
e
C
en
tra
l)
Ea
st
a
er
ic
Am
Af
ric
a/
M
N
or
th
t&
So
ut
h
So
ut
h)
ia
As
(E
as
a
ric
Af
ia
As
as
t
So
ut
h
a
m
er
ic
So
ut
hE
C
en
t ra
lA
Ze
al
an
d
ar
ib
be
an
tra
lia
/N
ew
a
Au
s
C
er
ic
Am
N
or
th
Eu
ro
pe
Pa
ci
fic
0
One of the greatest problems of the Brazilian protected is the non-effective
implementation after their creation. Low budgets and small and not well prepared teams
have important contribution to that. In a study based on data from 1993–95, and based also
on the UN Protected Areas List, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre identified some
figures. The world budget average is US$ 893,00 per square Km, but with a large variation
among the regional and national numbers: there area countries with less than US$ 1.00 and
24
others with more than US$ 1,000.00 per square Km; the developing countries have an
average of US$ 157.00 and for the develop countries the average is US$ 2,058.00 per square
Km –with 90% of the total US$ 3.2 billion considered. South America has a low average
budget: US$ 100.00 per square Km –only bigger than 'North Africa and Middle East' and
'Africa (West and Central)'. And probably Brazil, even with the major regional international
aid, was a major responsible for that low regional average. The country had only US$ 97.00
per square Km –near the half of developing countries average and around 20 times less the
developed countries average– and a estimated shortage of US$ 31.6 million. The study
conclusion showed that developing countries needed to double their budget to achieve the
expectation for management (US$ 5267.00 per square Km).35 (See graphic "Protected Areas
Budgets; World Regions Averages".)
Protected Areas Staffs; World Regions Averages
(based on professionals per sq. Km; adapted/modified from: James; Green & Paine, 1999, WCMC36)
250
196
staff per 1000 square kilometers
200
146
150
100
65
50
60
41
36
25
15
13
4
8
4
Af
ri c
a
(W
es
t&
C
en
tra
l)
Ea
st
a
id
dl
e
a/
M
ric
N
or
th
Af
Af
ri c
a
(E
as
t
So
ut
h
&
Am
So
er
ic
ut
h)
ia
As
So
ut
h
As
as
t
So
ut
hE
m
er
ic
ia
a
d
C
en
tra
lA
Ze
al
an
ea
n
ra
lia
/N
ew
a
Au
st
C
ar
ib
b
er
ic
Am
N
or
th
Eu
ro
pe
Pa
ci
fic
0
In terms of protected areas staffs, the study showed an world average of 27
professionals per 1,000 square Km. The difference between developed and developing
countries seems less important –even if the personnel not always are working directly with
the protected areas in the field. South America, together with Central America, has the
lowest rate: 4 professionals per 1.000 square Km. Brazil has a lower number: 3.5 –eight
times less than developing countries average. Nevertheless, according with other study,
inside the country the distribution in uneven, varying from 23 professionals per 1,000 square
Km at the Southeast Brazilian Region, to 0,6 at the North Brazilian Region. (See graphic
"Protected Areas Staffs; World Regions Averages".)
Staff and Budget in Federal Protected Areas
(adapted/modified from: James; Green & Paine, 1999; James, 1999; Alves, 1996; Maretti, 2001)
Brazil
US$ per square
Km
professionals per
1,000 square Km
97
3.5
(varying: from 23 at the SE, to 0.6 at the N)
South
America
developing
countries
developed
countries
world
100
157
2,058
893
4
27.6
26.9
27
25
Expenditure on Environmental Activities in the Brazilian Federal Budget
(R$1,000,000; at average 2001 prices) (CEPAL, 200237)
direct
administr.
[a]
IBAMA
[b]
FNMA
ANA [d]
[c]
total fed.
envrmt.
budget
%
envrmt.
in fed.
budget
751,346
913,877 1,665,223
0.5
total
other
MMA
ministries
[a+b+c+d]
*
total fed. expend.
as %
envrmt.
fed.
expend. budget
1993
147,459 587,453 16,435
n.i.
1994
375,058 409,876 22,158
807,092
956,520 1,763,612
0.4
n.i.
n.i.
1995
376,497 609,881 19,634
1,006,012
954,555 1,960,567
0.7
671,494
0.3
1996
544,903 537,838 16,181
1,098,921
54,449 1,153,370
0.5
840,795
0.4
1997
526,745 546,971 14,346
1,088,062
77,028 1,165,090
0.4
912,091
0.4
1998
688,635 560,613 20,104
1,269,352
36,207 1,305,560
0.4
1005,488
0.4
1999
418,005 483,823
9,786
911,614
50,662
962,276
0.3
835,293
0.3
2000
361,233 585,842
2,986
1,976,937
1,001,132 1,978,068
0.7
1298,69
0.5
2001
355,767 562,085 46,200 243,291 1,207,343
2,639,219 3,846,562
1.4
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
* Preliminary figures.
Expenditure on Environmental Activities in the Brazilian Federal Budget
4.000
1,6
3.500
1,4
3.000
1,2
2.500
1
2.000
0,8
1.500
0,6
1.000
0,4
500
0,2
MMA
% of total federal budget
R$1,000,000 at average 2001 prices
(Cepal, 2002)
fed. envrmt.
budget
fed. envrmt.
expend.
envrmt.
budget
envrmt.
expend.
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
From the above presented study is possible to see that, more than big variations
among world regions, and great differences between developed and developing countries,
some of the countries with the most important biological diversity have low levels of budget
and staff for their protected areas management. Brazil has low rates and, for that bad
numbers and for its size, brought with him South America to the undesired conditions. (See
table "Staff and Budget in Federal Protected Areas".)
26
The Brazilian situation apparently is not improving, nor is not static. Even if the
protected areas total had an increase these last years, another more recent study on federal
budgets for environment issues show that effective expenditures are not following. (See
table and graphic "Expenditure on Environmental Activities in the Brazilian Federal Budget".)
Several technicians use to divide the Brazilian protected areas categories in two
groups, for: integral protection (or indirect use); and sustainable (or direct) use. This may
have good reasons, but bring at least two kinds of problems. Doing so, the management
categories are in fact reduced to two major types with subtypes. That idea has also a notalways-explicit intention of considering a 'first class' group and a 'second class' one of
protected areas. With the most important world tradition of technical assistance and study
on protected areas and after a 10 years analysis evaluation, the IUCN World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA) concluded in 1994 with a new international classification of the
protected areas management categories. This is not a rule, but an international code of
communication and a technical guideline. It is very clear, though, that there is no category
more important, and the difference among them is related to the objectives and level of use
restrictions. The meaning is that there are categories more related to the biodiversity
preservation than others, but to achieve good local, national and international nature
conservation results all possibilities should be used in, as a integrated system, both among
the categories and the protected areas with their regions.38
Brazil has not yet a good protected areas database. This is partially because the
national 'system' has three levels of protected areas considered: federal, state and municipal.
Moreover, until recently did not exist a common set of parameters for aggregating those
'subsystems'. According with the National Constitution, the environment conservation is a
right and a duty for the citizens and a concurrent responsibility of all three levels of
government (i. e. a parallel responsibility that may be convergent to, be competitive to, or
overlap each other, depending on the co-ordinating among the government levels, agencies
and departments). Even if the national laws and categories served as models for the other
two levels, each one can create different management categories. A tremendous
diversification was the characteristic of all the three levels. Two years ago a new law was
approved setting up the definition of a national system and conditions for any protected area
to be part of it and of its official register. Twelve protected area categories were defined –
but unfortunately the two groups division was kept. Although this process is just beginning –
federal regulations, and state and municipal laws or regulations are needed, reclassification
will be necessary, a official database it yet to be started…–, it is already a good guideline.39
It is possible to relate the Brazilian protected areas management categories with the
international classification (IUCN). (The database is not official and considers only a good
part of federal and state protected areas.) But some of them clearly did not fit in the IUCN
protected areas definition, in the classification criteria, or in the aggregated criterion of
proper administration/management mechanisms. Among them might exist areas for other
purposes than nature conservation –for instance for cultural protection or recreation only–,
or for ex situ species conservation. These were here classified as 'lato sensu protected areas'
(APs: áreas protegidas lato sensu). Areas with nature conservation objectives –like land-use
zoning, watershed protection, natural heritage declaration… and other similar schemes–,
even if defined by law, but without properly adequate and specific administration
mechanisms, were not considered here (not 'stricto sensu protected areas').40
Among the Brazilian protected areas, usually there was a concentration in the
category II. More recently it has been used more the categories V and VI. This is less
interesting that it might appear. Category V has a proper very interesting concept: landscape
(and seascape) protection. Nevertheless, it is often used in Brazil only for its softer
restrictions and, much more, for it need not land acquisition: it is a governmental regulation
27
over private or public lands. Category VI is also very interesting one, but not always applied
as such as well. IUCN stated that it could be accepted as a protected area, but considered
that "at least two-thirds of the area should be, and is planned [sic] to remain in its natural
state" –curiously this is not (explicitly) necessary for other categories, like IV, V, or even
others. This category was born with great influence from the Brazilian model extractive
reserves. But under Brazilian legislation these last ones need not to match that IUCN
criterion. Nevertheless, those extractive reserves are considered protected areas for they
legally need to contribute to nature conservation, even if by management use. The
'sustainable development reserve' –recently defined– is more likely to fit the IUCN category
VI condition, although not explicitly needed. But the larger problem is how to consider the
'national forest' category. This is an area for forest management, or forestry, that could be
done by the government of through concessions to private companies or to local
communities. (See table "Brazilian Protected Area and Others (federal and state level ones),
According to the International Classification".)
Brazilian Protected Areas and Others (federal and state level ones), According to the
International Classification (adapted/modified from: ISA, 2000, 2002; IUCN, 1994; Maretti, 2001)
mangt. categ.:
intern. classif. &
others
% of
Brazil
area (ha)
% of
total UCs
% of total
number
UCs + APs
% of
total UCs
% of total
UCs + APs
I
7,519,168.54
0.88
7.77
7.77
151
10.1
9.5
Ia
4,149,815,55
0.49
4.29
4.29
87
5.8
5.5
Ib
3,369,352.99
0.40
3.48
3.48
64
4.3
4.0
II
24,278,795.75
2.85
25.10
25.09
837
55.7
52.6
II pub
23,626,571.68
2.78
24.42
24.41
232
15.5
14.6
II priv
652,224.07
0.08
0.67
0.67
605
40.3
38.1
III
436,769.79
0.05
0.45
0.45
133
8.9
8.4
IV
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
(I – IV pub)
31,582,510.00
3.71
32.65
32.63
516
34.4
32.4
(I – IV priv)
652,224.07
0.08
0.67
0.67
605
40.3
38.0
(I – IV tot)
32,234,734.07
3.79
33.32
33.31
1,121
74.6
70.5
V
33,789,520.60
3.97
34.93
34.91
227
15.1
14.3
VI
30,709,390.05
3.61
31.75
31.73
154
10.3
9.7
(V – VI)
64,498,910.65
7.58
66.68
66.68
(I – VI pub)
96,081,420.66
11.29
99.33
99.28
897
59.7
56.4
(I – VI priv)
652,224.07
0.08
0.67
0.67
605
40.3
38.0
96,733,644.73
11.36
100.00
99.95
1,502
100.0
94.4
46,809.10
0.01
0.05
0.05
89
5.9
5.6
96,780,453.83
11.37
100.05
100.00
1,591
105.9
100.0
103,726,430.10
12.19
107.23
107.18
668
44.5
42.0
200,460,074.83
23.55
207.23
207.13
2,170
144.5
136.4
Ucs total
41
(I – VI tot)
APs
42
UCs + APs total
(I – VI + APs)
TIs
43
+ APs
Total
UCs + TIs + APs
UCs: protected areas stricto sensu (or conservation units: unidades de conservação). TIs: indigenous lands (terras indígenas).
APs: lato sensu protected areas (áreas protegidas lato sensu) –without TIs. Pub: public protected areas (decided by the
governments, yet over public or private lands). Priv: private protected areas (decided by the landowners, although officially
recognised by the governmental/public national system).
28
PROTECTED AREAS TYPES AT LEAST PARTIALLY NON-GOVERNMENTAL
Among the management categories of the Brazilian Protected Areas National System
(SNUC) there are some protected areas that are less related with the governments. (For all
types see table "Chosen Protected Areas: 'Partially Non-Governmental' Management
Categories; Expanded Matrix of Management Objectives and Other Characteristics".)
Brazilian Federal Extractive Reserves (adapted/modified from IBAMA, 2002)
name
state
creation
area (ha)
population
Extractive Reserves of Amazon Region
AC
1990
506,186
4,170
main resources
1.
ResEx do Alto Juruá
2.
ResEx Chico Mendes
AC
1990
970,570
6,028
3.
ResEx do Alto Tarauacá
AC
2000
151,199
–
4.
ResEx do Rio Cajarí
AP
1990
481,650
3,283
RO
RO
1990
1999
204,583
52,065
431
400
rubber
Brazilian nut; copaíba44;
rubber
Brazilian nut; copaíba; rubber;
açaí45
Brazilian nut; copaíba; rubber
fish46
TO
1992
9,280
800
babaçu ; fish
MA
1992
10,450
500
babaçu; fish
MA
1992
9,542
900
babaçu; fish
MA
AM
PA
AM
RO
AM
RO
PA
AM
AC
1992
1997
1998
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
7,050
253,226
647,610
187,982
73,818
146,951
107,234
15,343
275,533
750,795
4.845.724
1,150
700
4,000
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
22,362
babaçu
rubber / fish
rubber; fish; oils and resins
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
fish; crustaceans
–
–
600
berbigão48; fish; crustaceans
5.
6.
7.
ResEx do Rio Ouro Preto
ResEx do Lago do Cuniã
ResEx do Extremo Norte do
Tocantins
8. ResEx da Mata Grande
9. ResEx do Quilombo do
Frexal
10. ResEx do Ciriáco
11. ResEx do Médio Juruá
12. ResEx Tapajós-Arapiuns
13. ResEx Baixo Juruá
14. ResEx Rio Cautário
15. ResEx Auatí-Paraná
16. ResEx Barreiro Das Antas
17. ResEx Soure
18. ResEx Jutaí
19. ResEx Cazumbá-Iracema
total Amazonian 'ResEx's
1.
2.
ResEx Marinha do Pirajubaé
ResEx Marinha de Arraial do
Cabo
3. ResEx Marinha da Baia de
Iguape
4. ResEx Marinha da Ponta do
Corumbau
5. ResEx Marinha do Delta do
Parnaíba
6. ResEx Marinha da Lagoa do
Jequiá
total marine 'ResEx's
Total
Marine Extractive Reserves
SC
1992
1,444
47
RJ
1997
56,769
3,000
fish
BA
2000
8,117
1,150
fish
BA
2000
38,174
800
fish
MA
2000
27,071
–
crab; fish
AL
2001
fish; crustaceans
10,204
–
141,779
5,550
4,987,503
27,912
• The movement that gave us Chico Mendes also brought us the concept of the
extractive reserves (reservas extrativistas - ResEx). Like all other categories, these are
official protected areas established by governments of any level –federal state, and, in
theory, also by local/municipal governments. Its objectives are both the sustainable use of
natural resources and the protection of the local communities livelihoods and life-styles. The
29
creation of extractive reserves depends on the local communities’ demand and the area is
managed by those communities with governmental supervision. Extractive reserves are
category VI governmental protected areas created and managed by the communities or their
demands, under governmental supervision.49 (See table "Brazilian Federal Extractive
Reserves –Federal and Marine" and map "Localisation of federal extractive reserves, before
2001: already created; or in study".)
Localisation of Federal Extractive Reserves, before 2001: already created (in read); or in study (in
blue) (adapted from IBAMA, 2002)
• With the recent law that defined the protected areas national system a new
category was introduced: sustainable development reserve (reserva de desenvolvimento
sustentável - ReDeSus). Its main objective is the nature conservation, but keeping at the
same time the conditions for local communities reproduction and their life standards
improvement –these do not need to be 'extractives groups'. It is also supposed that it should
have the conditions for protection, use and improvement of those communities' knowledge
and techniques. Although not depending on local communities demands –as the extractive
reserves–, and lacking the specific category regulations, it could be supposed that the local
communities should be one of the most important participants on its creation process and
decisions. It is not legally necessary that a major part of the area remains at its 'natural
state', but this is likely to occur in this case. For those conditions, some think that permitting
other activities this category is less restrictive than the extractive reserves, others believe
that keeping a major part of the area in 'natural conditions' this is more restrictive than that
other one. Anyway, this is a category VI –or a multiple use– protected area, created and
managed by governments with important local communities participation.
• National forest (floresta nacional - FloNa) and similar areas were originated from
classified forests to forestry exploration trough concessions. In the recent Protected Areas
National System (SNUC) it was decided that local communities could remain at the area. This
permission reflects a growth in the local communities rights respect, but it is probably more
30
related to avoid conflicts. The specific categories regulations are not done yet, but it is
possible to suppose that those local communities could explore the forest by concession.
Although legally defined in Brazil, it is not completely clear if the national –or state or
municipal– forest should be considered a stricto sensu protected area within the IUCN
definition and criteria. It is close to the category VI, is a governmental area, that could be
managed by communities of private individuals or companies by governmental concession.
• At Brazil there are private reserves officially recognised by the national and by some
state systems (reserva privada de patrimônio natural - RPPN). They already represent an
important set (more than 600 units, taking almost 1% of the Brazilian territory). Usually the
private reserves were not considered protected areas, but in Brazil these ones are defined by
law and have a perpetuity condition. Although in the 'sustainable use' group, this category
has objectives and restrictions close to the category II ones. Even in private lands, the
conservation interest may be for the whole society, or important parts of it. But today we
could not consider this as a communitarian protected area, for it is under governmental
control and the social relations are not always obvious. Nevertheless, other possibilities for
private reserves are demanded or could be placed: Why not has another category of 'private
official protected area' with less restrictions (and smaller incentives)? Why not have also
others non-official schemes of self-recognition of private reserves (even if not considered
stricto sensu protected areas or part of the official system)? Why not have private reserves
closer to communitarian, social or collective interests, decisions and management? Those
private reserves (RPPN) are recognised and supervised by governments by landowners'
demands and with their responsibility.
• The 'environment protection area' (área de proteção ambiental - APA) is a great
concept, inspired in some European landscape conservation areas–Portuguese 'natural park',
for instance. Nevertheless, it has never been well understood in Brazil, not even by
technicians –supposed experts. At the beginning, some units were created, if not already as
a well understood cultural landscape, at least in areas (scenery) with natural and cultural
values. (Cultural landscapes should not be considered only when transformations by human
beings are more evident. Having a cultural meaning, the site –or the protected area–, is a
cultural site, a cultural landscape.) Soon this category was used, as a protected area with
softer restrictions, to protect some or specific resources without interdicting the area. But
this was more an open use of the category concept, than a really deformation of it. Through
the years, though, some institutions and technicians that did not really understood the
concept, started taking advantage of the soft characteristics of the category to use it in
distorted ways: use as a zoning mechanism –environment planning especial area; use to try
to protect an area without the need of land ownership compensation, without adequate
studies to apply the proper objectives, criteria, conditions or restrictions to the conservation
needs or intentions; and/or, even demagogically, to just declare as area as protected without
the intention of really implement it. Those situations did not (completely) damaged the
concepts, and at these last years several technicians are retrieving the good part of them.
APA is a category V protected area, defined by the government, with land-use, deforestation
and other restrictions, over private or public land. Although a governmental protected area,
the only real way of implementing and managing it is through committees.
31
Chosen Protected Areas: 'Partially Non-Governmental' Management Categories;
Expanded Matrix of Management Objectives and Other Characteristics
(adapted or modified from: IUCN, 1994; Brazilian Law nº 9.985, 2000;
50
national and state legislation and cases; Silva, 1999; Maretti, 2001; others )
objectiv.
51
categ.
scie.
wild.
52
biod.
env.
serv.
53
spec.
54
feat.
tour.
edu.
sust.
use
maint.
55
n/c
exot.
prot.
nat.
carac.
mang.
own.
+(+)
priv
priv
-+
priv
(pub)
priv
(pub)
56
Ia
1
2
1
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ib
3
1
2
1
X
2
X
3
X
X
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
X
X
(2)
(3?)
1
(2)
(3)
(2)
(2)
X
X
X
III
2
3
1
X
1
1
2
X
X
X
IV
2
3
1
1
3
3
2
2
X
X
2
X
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
3?
2
(3?)
1
[2]?
(1?)
3
2
(2?)
1?
2?
3?
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
X
2
X
(2)
(1)
(3)
2
(2?)
1
1
X?
+-
62
1
X
(3)
(2?)
(3)
2
(2)
1
(3)
3
+-
ReDeSus 63
2
(2)
1?
(1)
(3)
2
(2?)
1
1
3?
+(-)
X
(2?)
(3)
(2)
X
X
(3?)
1
1
X
(3) ?
+-
II
RPPN
V
58
APA
VI
57
59
60
ResEx
(
61
?)
FloNa **
com /
pub
pub
(com)
/ conc
com /
pub
pub
pub
pub
Not ss PA
64
** :
TI **
Management Objectives
1 = primary objective.
2 = secondary objective.
3 = potentially applicable objective.
X = not applicable.
?: doubt or controversy.
( ): not explicit.
[ ]: second option.
objectiv.: management objectives.
categ.: management categories.
Management objectives
scie.: science research.
wild.: wilderness protection.
biod.: preservation of species and genetic
diversity.
env. serv..: maintenance of environmental
services.
spec. feat.: protection of specific natural and
cultural features.
tour.: tourism and recreation.
edu.: education.
sust. use: sustainable use of resources from
natural ecosystems.
maint. n/c: maintenance of cultural and
traditional attributes.
exot. prot.: protection of exotic species and
genetic diversity.
com /
pub
pub
Characteristics of the area or the management
nat. carac.: “natural” or “disturbed” characteristics of the area:
++ considered pristine;
+ natural areas;
+- areas with some human presence;
-+ areas with important human influence (in terms of nature conservation);
-- disturbed areas (outside protected areas).
mang.: management & own.: ownership and control:
pub: public;
priv: private;
com: communitarian;
conc: by concession (except when “com.”).
Not ss PA: not a stricto sensu nature protected area.
Selected Management categories of Brazilian Protected Areas (including
not-nature protected areas)
APA*: environmental protection area (área de proteção ambiental).
/( ?)
FloNa* ** : national forest or similar (floresta nacional; floresta estadual;
floresta municipal).
ReDeSus*: reserve for sustainable development (reserva de desenvolvimento
sustentável).
ResEx*: extractive reserve (reserva extrativista).
RPPN*: private reserve of natural heritage (reserva particular de patrimônio
natural).
TI**: indigenous land (terra indígena).
* Categories defined by the Federal Brazilian Law for the National Protected
65
Areas System (Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação - SNUC).
** Areas relatively protected, but not always considered strict nature protected
areas.
32
The nature conservation should always be the major goal of a (nature) protected
area throughout all categories and objectives. But, although with that, there is no problem to
accept the differences. Management of natural resources has its own rational, but should be
part of a protected areas system when the nature conservation is a major goal. Cultural,
historic or communitarian needs protection is important in itself. There are a series of other
possibilities, tools, mechanisms to do that, but they should be part of (nature) protected
areas system when nature conservation is a major goal. Moreover, accepting that natural
and cultural aspects are at least not always dissociate, and looking for a broader support for
the nature conservation, it is important to strengthen the mechanisms that bring both parts
together.
• Indigenous lands are not stricto sensu protected areas, for they are not established
with nature conservation goals. Nevertheless, several of those areas have in fact the nature
well conserved –in particular the larger ones and in the Amazonia. They represent around
12% of the Brazilian terrestrial territory. The question is not to consider if the Indians are or
not 'natural ecologists' for that is a wrong concept and erroneous analysis. The important
points are following: The indigenous groups have rights for their social (physical and
cultural) reproduction, what includes the respect to the (socio-)diversity and to the need of
their land. Under the present legislation (1988 National Constitution) the indigenous lands
are "vital for the preservation of the natural resources needed to their well-being and to their
physical and cultural reproduction, following the uses, habits, and traditions". In fact, when
with enough area and natural resources, the indigenous groups have been using the natural
resources under the limits. By that, they could be considered areas lato sensu protected,
and, of course, alliances should be strengthened among indigenous people and nature
conservation efforts. This would recognise the their importance, not only for the Indians, but
also to the nature conservation.66
That importance is remarkable in particular in the Amazonia, where the indigenous
lands represent around 19% of the territory and compose, with the protected areas,
important ecological corridors. (Ecological corridors, not in the idea of strips of forest linking
plots of protected areas, but as large bands, strip zones, of areas with environment interest
–as if they were lengthy bioregions.) A problem is the environmental degradation on the
surroundings of indigenous lands, needing protection around them, as well as the stricto
sensu protected areas need. Taking the fact that this kind of linkages are beneficial to the
ecological functions –and therefore to the nature conservation–, the indigenous land have
important contribution, but also benefit from that. Nevertheless, some areas are not large
enough and some groups have not enough natural resources. With the demographic recover,
other groups may face similar problems of 'natural resources shortage'. The symbiosis
among communitarian (or 'traditional') wisdom and technical knowledge should also benefit
in establishing zoning, specific protected areas, and land and natural resources management
mechanisms inside indigenous lands –all under Indians demands and with their approval.
• Other protected areas possibilities could be considered if the communitarian
conservation areas were taken in account. These would neither be governmental areas, nor
recognised by governments. They ignore that kind of areas, actually: by the definition used
here, 'communitarian' is something based on social relations, and not depending on State
systems. For example: an indigenous group that, by their tradition, natural resource
management, or mystic reasons, leave apart a piece of forest without agriculture; a
fishermen community that, understanding the stocks renewal, let some parts of the river
without traps; a community that, looking for a better place to leave, decide to take care of a
green part of the neighbourhood… Those areas are not considered under the stricto sensu
nature protected area system, nor are listed here. Nevertheless, in-between the classical
governmental protected area and an exclusively communitarian conservation area, there is a
full range of variation and intermixing. They should be better studied and considered, then,
33
and maybe integrated with other, possibly official systems, of nature and culture
conservation, although respecting their specific particularities and communitarian
characteristics. Some aspects, though, should be taken in account to consider or not them as
protected areas –even if lato sensu protected areas. Those could be: effectiveness of nature
protection (taking in account the objective diversity found in the international classification of
management categories –and not only a strict biodiversity approach); long term viability –
taking in consideration the history and the future possibilities; management scheme,
mechanisms or/and structures, assuring responsibilities and corrections possibly needed –
without 'copying' state/governmental models; be part of a region conservation, with different
functions for parts of the territory and contribution to bioregional approach –but without
necessary need to land-use planning or official integration scheme; etc.67
34
TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNITARIAN (conservation) AREAS
More than criteria to verify if an area, a communitarian conservation area, could be
considered or not a protected area –as expressed above–, the parameters presented below
intend to show some aspects to a possible typology of areas, in-between the supposedly the
completely governmental protected areas and the fully communitarian conservation areas.
Among others, three more important groups of criteria could be considered: area history; its
objectives; and its management. The history of the area considers the possibility of a
process before –and sometimes after– the specific area 'creation' (or classification of a
specific area in a defined protected area category). A single act is something theoretically
possible in rational systems. Not even in the official decisions of any national-state an area is
classified in a protected area category without a process behind, be that a proper
consultation with local communities, or adequate studies, or others, be that the political
process –lobbies or others– to present and convince the authorities to do that. Nevertheless,
the idea of an area history is included to bring the social (anthropological, cultural,
economic…) process that a community often pass through to define the rights, responsibility,
and use destination of an area, usually in relation with other communities, but also dealing
with the social definition intra-community. Considering that, a lato sensu protected area
could be historically constructed by the community or decided by government. In the first
case, it could be recognised by governments or not. In the second case, its
creation/classification is decided by a government, either under community demands, with
local consultation, without local consultation, or even against communities willing.
The objectives of a lato sensu protected area, being that historically defined by the
community or decided by government, could be related to the nature conservation –even
considering the objective diversity of the international classification. Some areas are not
directly defined to biodiversity preservation, but to sustainable use of natural resources. But,
if this is done with proper manipulations and under major regulations this could be part of
the nature conservation. Often, in particular the communitarian areas, are defined for other
reasons than nature conservation, as cultural protection or living conditions defence. This
does not mean that those areas could not have important collaboration to nature
conservation –as is the case of the indigenous territories and several other local communities
conservation areas. The management of the areas considered is obviously related with the
creation and its objectives, but is not necessary that this follows that, i. e., a protected area
created/classified by governments not necessarily need to be managed by the government,
as well as an are historically defined by communities could be managed with governmental
support. So, the management could be: governmental; with or without participation;
communitarian by government permission; or communitarian by itself.68
Considering those and other criteria, several types of protected areas could be
defined. (The table "Parameters for a Typology of (Nature) Protected Areas with
Communitarian Management" show an exercise of 'classifying' some possible protected
areas.) Hypothetically, too, there are possibilities of conflicts among 'communities' and
'nature conservation'. Some conditions are more likely to predispose the area to conflicts,
like, in particular, communitarian defined areas overlapped by governmental protected areas
without consultation or participation, or any situation where the social groups interests are
not considered.
Considering the Brazilian situation, five possible types of areas were chosen to explain
the most important conditions –the case presented at the table are not necessarily exact
35
representatives of categories, for the conditions could be variable, but exemplify the different
criteria possibilities.
Parameters for a Typology of (Nature) Protected Areas with Communitarian Management
Å - -
- -
not
(nature)
protected
69
areas
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
with
communitarian
71
management
A B C D E
- -
- -
- Æ
areas without
communitarian
70
management
to categories
…
p
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
…
…
p
N
Y
–
Y
–
–
N
N
…
…
p
p
p
p
Y
–
p
N
p
…
…
p
p
p
Y
Y
p
p
N
p
…
…
p
p
p
–
–
p
p
Y
p
…
…
p
p
–
–
–
p
p
p
p
…
nature conservation
…
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
…
cultural protection or
defence of living
conditions
…
Y
Y
Y
Y
p
N
p
N
N
…
…
N
Y
Y
Y
–
–
–
–
–
…
…
p
–
–
–
–
Y
p
Y
Y
…
…
p
–
Y
p
Y
p
Y
N
Y
…
…
p
–
Y
Y
Y
p
Y
N
N
…
…
p
Y
p
p
–
–
p
N
–
…
–
H
M
H
M
l
l
l
H
l
…
p
p
p
p
historically constructed
by the community
area history;
creation;
definition;
classification
objectives
decided by government
73
governmental
management
recognised by
72
government
after community
demands
with local consultation
without local
consultation
against communities
willing
collaboration to nature
conservation
with participation
communitarian by
74
government permission
communitarian
possibilities of conflicts (communities vs. nature conservation)
to specific areas
overlapping
with official
systems
75
nature protected area
76
system
…
possibilities of
conflicts
…
pH pM pM pM
p
p
p
p
p
…
pl
pl
pl
pl
–
…
N: no; Y: yes; p: possibly; –: not applicable (or answered by other items); H: high; M: medium; l: low.
• The indigenous land (terra indígena - TI; close to the type 'A') is governmentally
created as a category of land. Specific areas are classified as indigenous lands by the federal
government. Although a clear consultation process is not legally required, it is not likely to
define such type of area without at least local consultation, even because those areas are
defined over "lands traditionally occupied by the Indians". Those are not areas primarily
defined for nature conservation, but the protection of the indigenous people includes the
"ones vital for the preservation of the natural resources needed to their well-being and to
their physical and cultural reproduction". If the area is governmental, the legal definition
clearly says that it is so to the indigenous exclusive use and permanent possession, and the
Indians could only be removed with the National Congress permission. What means that,
even under legal and sometimes administrative tutelage, the Indians have the effective
management of their land. Although this is the legal position nowadays, it has not been
always like that.
• It happened that the federal government, either with good intentions of Indians
protection, or wanting to 'clean' an area of interest, removed Indians or indigenous groups
to locate them elsewhere in a kind of 'indigenous reserve' (close to type 'B').77
36
• As mentioned above, the category VI of the protected areas international
classification was inspired also on the Brazilian extractive reserves (reservas extrativistas ResEx; close to type 'C'), then recently created. Theoretically, those areas are decided after
a local community demand, supposing this community dominate the area and its natural
resources use and conservation for some time: the area is classified as extractive reserve by
the government, with local communities interest. As these communities usually do not have
the proper land-ownership documents, it is suitable for them that the governments keep the
property. Although it represents some restrictions to the communities, it is also supposed to
be a guarantee of collective interest and environment conservation. At the same time, the
government itself should act as a guardianship of those interests, for it could not decide
alone what to do with the land: the extractive reserve is managed by a 'deliberative council'
composed with representatives from public institutions and the local communities and it is
this council that approved the management plan. With that respect, inclusion and
participation, the conflict potential is considerably smaller. As analysed above, the
'sustainable development reserve' (reserva de desenvolvimento sustentável - ReDeSus) could
fit or not those considerations (close to type 'C').78
• Protected areas defined in what were not well-established communitarian lands
could count with local communities participation (close to type 'D'). 'National forests'
(florestas nacionais - FloNa's) or other categories could fit these conditions. Their
participation could be good mechanisms of social policy and to avoid conflicts. Together, the
'C' and 'D' types could be used as models for an ecological land-reform.
• 'Environmental conservation area' (área de proteção ambiental - APA) and new
kinds of private reserves could be design or/and managed to fit the conditions of the type
'E'.
The possible overlapping of communitarian defined areas with official nature
protected area systems has a souvenir in the table, to be considered or filled up at specific
protected areas evaluation, for that possibility represents a major source of conflict between
protected areas systems and local or indigenous communities. (The advocates and
supporters are here considered included in both parts in conflict.)
37
SOME CASE STUDIES
Xingu Indigenous Park and the Xingu Headwaters Region
The Xingu River is nation-wide perceived as ‘the river of the Indians’. But for some
urban populations it also has an important image based on its plentiful fishing resources.
Thousands of amateur fishermen go to Xingu River and mainly to its tributaries during the
dry season. The Xingu Indigenous Park (Parque Indígena do Xingu - PIX) is situated on
northern Mato Grosso State. This region includes the Xingu River sources and headwaters,
covering 177,978 square Km, and encompassing nineteen out of its thirty-one municipalities.
The Xingu River sources region holds the Amazon forest and the Cerrado savannah. Such
ecosystems cover acid soils susceptible to erosion, inappropriate for intensive land use. The
region remained well preserved until the late years 1960’s. But in the 70’s, it started to be
definitely settled, with support of governmental tax incentives for large-scale farming and
the private colonisation. This official policy was established with intention to 'incorporate' the
Mid-West Brazilian Region (Região Centro-Oeste), aiming to expand agricultural frontiers,
supposed to provide stronger links with the national economy. Road infrastructure was
greatly improved (e.g., the Cuiabá–Santarém highway or BR-163) and huge investments
were made on mechanised soy-bean production and cattle grazing projects. In this scenario
the Xingu Indigenous Park was created to protect the indigenous inhabitants, some of whom
were displaced of their traditional areas. But, a fault of the Xingu Indigenous Park design,
which reflects today as source of its major problems, is that it does not encompass the
headwaters, despite its location along the main river (Xingu). This situation strongly
contributes to the vulnerability of the indigenous communities in relation to human
settlements and urbanisation processes outside protected areas, threatening the
environmental integrity of the entire basin.79 (See map "Watershed Headsprings of Xingu
River (deforestation until 1997), and Xingu Indigenous Park and other Indigenous Lands".
See also text on Xingu I. Park in "Indigenous Communities".)
Some challenges
−
integrate management among the indigenous parks and (future) protected areas;
−
generation of public awareness on issues that connect the sustainability of indigenous
lands with the contemporary economic and land use models;
−
increase interaction of indigenous leaders with other stakeholders, in order to discuss
strategies related to environmental conservation and sustainability;
−
integration of the environment and indigenous governmental polices.
Some options for actions and advises
−
Classification of some of the surroundings as protected areas, establishment of ecological
corridors, and integrate management among the indigenous parks and (future) protected
areas. Based on the field studies and priorities for biodiversity conservation –defined with
and to the federal government–, it would be an advantage for both the indigenous
peoples and the nature conservation. This would be possible with and at the same would
led to the integration of the environment and indigenous governmental polices.
38
−
Monitoring of the forest cover, based on LANDSAT images, and analyses of the economic
model impacts imposed by the settlement process: it can reveal a steady settlement and
land use of the indigenous park surroundings, as, for instance, the growth of urban
settlements, cropping and farming areas in the sources and headwaters areas.
Indigenous leaders demanded this monitoring and Instituto Socioambiental, a Brazilian
non-governmental organisation, has been doing this since 1994. Also, it has gathered
information through a socio-environmental survey of the region in combination with
fieldwork-derived data. The LANDSAT imagery is offered to indigenous protection
activities, as well as the results of the survey improved better understanding of the
economical and settlement processes in their lands frontiers.
−
Information dissemination and debate promoting the recognition of indigenous' rights
and their role in the conservation of the region: ISA intends to use this survey to create
public consciousness concerning the importance of Xingu River. It has been identified
leaders and others regional actors (non-Indians).
−
Develop multidisciplinary projects with the Xingu (PIX) indigenous communities: ISA have
been mobilising a multidisciplinary staff to develop projects in the fields of education,
technical capacity building, public policies monitoring, and other activities concerning the
sustainable development.80
Xingu Indigenous Park (Parque Indígena do Xingu - PIX)
Localization: on northern Mato Grosso State in Brazil, covering an area of almost 30,000 square
Km.
Some biological characteristics: - holds transitional ecosystems between Amazon Forest and
the Cerrado (central lowlands savannahs); - Xingu River; - it has been considered a priority area for
conservation.
Some socio-cultural characteristics: - the indigenous park shelters 14 native indigenous
peoples; - the Xingu River constitutes a foremost important cultural and environmental reference
for the Amazon imaginary; occupation and deforestation in the surroundings of the park, mainly at
the watershed headsprings.
Some threats to the Xingu Indigenous Park: - the watershed headsprings of Xingu River are
outside of indigenous land; - those areas have being impacted by deforestation for livestock
farming, soy-bean monoculture and logging activities; - indigenous people whose depends of
natural resources have been directly suffered the impacts; - conflicts between indigenous and the
surrounding areas.
Some options for action: - classification of some of the surroundings as protected areas; establishment of ecological corridors; - integrate management among the indigenous parks and
(future) protected areas; - indigenous agents formation and training to the environmental
management of the indigenous park and control of the limits; - integration of the environment and
indigenous governmental polices. The Socio-Environmental Institute (Instituto Socioambiental ISA), a Brazilian NGO, has been developing projects within the Xingu River Basin, in cooperation
with indigenous communities and organizations, as well as with governmental, non-governmental
and research institutions.
Environmental Management of Indigenous Lands in Acre
As mentioned, the indigenous peoples in Brazil are trying to get the management of
their lands more entirely on their own hands –searching to get out the 'non-capable'
condition that the ancient laws and governmental policies let them and looking for the
maintenance of the good environmental conditions they need. This willing has been fostering
39
several partnerships among indigenous communities and NGOs. In that sense a project was
created to the implementation of agro-forest management technologies in indigenous lands
in the State of Acre, through the formation of agro-forest management agents. The
'technical management' in indigenous lands of Acre started in 1996, by a work that intends
to be deep and permanent. The objective of the project is to enlarge, more and more, the
number of Amazonian indigenous peoples that take on their hands the environmental
administration of their territories. The main way to do so is through the valorisation of
management values in their knowledge –identification, systematisation, valorisation and use–
and the addition of any needed technologies related to the environment.
So, the environmental administration of their territories includes the aspects of the
resources management and the indigenous knowledge valorisation, but also the surveillance
training to their territories defence. (The defence of the indigenous lands –or territories– is
related to prevent invasions, explorations and nature degradation, not to any souveranity
intent.) There are 66 agro-forest indigenous agents now in training –number that is bigger
than the 18 agents initially trained. Great part of the agents are bilingual, having been
educated (to literate –able to read and write) by indigenous teachers, whose work produced
publications and documents that valuate their knowledge on the management of the natural
resources. This has been a joint effort of the Comissão Pró-Índio of Acre and other proIndians (indigenistas) organisations. The project involved 11 indigenous lands of the State of
Acre (of the 29 existent ones) and includes the training of agro-forest indigenous agents,
and indigenous education. Together those lands recover around 15% of the State territory,
which still maintains an important percentage of Amazon forest in good conservation
conditions.81
Acre Indigenous Lands
Localization: on northern in Brazil, covering almost 22,389 square Km.
Some biological characteristics: - Amazon forest; - includes the Purus River; - the region has
been considered a high biological diversity area.
Some socio-cultural characteristics: - there are 29 indigenous lands that shelter 12
indigenous peoples; - 92 indigenous schools, 138 indigenous teachers and more than 2.000
students; - 130 health agents and 85 agro-forest agent.
Some threats: - invasion of the indigenous lands by hunters and lumbermen; - robbery of
mahogany Swietenia macrophylla inside the indigenous lands; - conflicts between indigenous and
the surrounding areas; - proximity of urban centres and federal highways to the lands' limits.
Some options for action: - formation of indigenous agro-forest agents; - valorisation of
indigenous knowledge; - incorporation of needed and wanted outside techniques; - definition of
indigenous lands and natural resources management schemes; increase the defence of the
indigenous lands against invasions, explorations and nature degradation; - better exchange and
articulation among indigenous peoples and with other social groups. The Pro-Indians Commission
(Comissão Pró-Índio - CPI-AC), a Brazilian NGO, has been developing projects within the
indigenous land in Acre State, to the indigenous communities –who are the most important actor
in management of their lands–, as well as together with governmental, non-governmental,
research institutions, and others.
40
Some challenges
−
increase the conditions for the indigenous peoples to manage and defend their
territories;
−
valorisation of indigenous knowledge on lands and natural resources management and
incorporation in the right way the needed and wanted outside techniques;
−
better relationship among indigenous peoples, in terms of exchanging information,
techniques, knowledge, proposals, and actions;
−
better relationship of indigenous peoples with environmentalist and other society groups,
including the increase of the public awareness on the connection of indigenous lands
with the Amazon forest conservation.
Some options for action and advice
−
Formation (information, training, definition of roles) of indigenous youths and adults in
areas, articulated to each other, such as health, education, agriculture, and environment
–towards the valorisation of indigenous knowledge and right incorporation of needed and
wanted outside techniques–and promotion of the indigenous vigilance of their territories.
−
Articulation within the indigenous community and articulation and search (lobby) for
support from government's and of no-government institutions –towards the defence of
the indigenous lands and maintenance of their nature conservation and the increase of
the public awareness about the indigenous lands nature conservation role.
−
Creation of a structure to systematisation, evaluation and exchange of information –
including visits to other indigenous lands out of Acre and exchange with similar
experiences –disseminating the 'indigenous agro-forest agents' experiences to the
surrounding areas and other indigenous peoples.
Coastal Resources Management in Cananéia Estuary
Although São Paulo is considered the most developed State in Brazil, its 'Ribeira
Valley' (Vale do Ribeira) region have bad social-economic indices (indicators), but is one of
the best conserved in terms of nature and have also important cultural heritage values. Strict
nature preservation (as categories I and II), as supposed within more restrict protected
areas, has its achievement limits. Similarly, landscape protected areas (as category V) and
planning proposals alone, without proper and practical mechanisms to the policies
implementation, are not much effective. In that so important area, after the definition of
several protected areas –including 'strict preservation' (as Cardoso Island State Park) and
'sustainable use' (as Cananéia-Iguape-Peruíbe Environmental Protection Area) ones– and
after its coastal zone management, other tools were searched to the implementation of
nature conservation and sustainable development. Several villages are located at near the
coast-line, far from the main public services facilities. Fishing activities have been loosing
economic strength for decades. The 'normal trend' would be the degradation of living
conditions, economic oppression and, with that, a tendency to over or bad exploration of
natural resources. The local communities and the São Paulo State coastal and environmental
policies, willing to revert that trend, chose the classification of an extractive reserve
(category VI protected area), with the ordering of management, and improvement of
exploration, cleaning processing, and food certification. If the extractive reserve is related
with a particular community, as an example, the oysters processing benefit around 20
communities of the region.82
41
The key issues of this case study are related to the: - the local communities
protagonism; - the recognition of local communities management practices and knowledge
by governmental policies; - its improvement with scientific knowledge and political and
market adaptations; - the need of practical tools and the importance of local communities
and other stake-holders participation for environmental policies implementation; - the use of
protected areas to achieve both the nature conservation and the local communities needs; the bioregional approach, with regional land-use planning, sustainable management of
natural resources projects, use of a varied range of protected areas categories –adapted
more to the regional landscape protection, to biological diversity preservation, to the
sustainable management, to the local communities involvement, etc.
Coastal Resources Management in Cananéia Estuary
Localisation: in the Cananéia estuary, at the southeast coast of Brazil (south coast of the State
of São Paulo).
Some biological characteristics: - wet coast estuary, with mangroves, open lagoons, coastal
islands, land ridges coastal plains, rain forest; - importance as South Atlantic nursery area; transition from the Atlantic forest biome to the coastal zone; - part of the most conserved region
with Atlantic Forest.
Some socio-cultural characteristics: - small town, but one of the most ancient ones of
Brazil; - several fishermen and other villages; - important historical and cultural heritage and
communitarian 'traditional' knowledge about the nature and natural resources management; bad social-economic indices; - part of the Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve and one of its
priority areas, with several protected areas of different categories (II, V, VI), some of them
recognised as South-East Atlantic Forest World Heritage Site.
Some threats: - economic relative isolation ('marginalisation'), with living conditions
degradation through this last decades; - risk of cultural heritage and knowledge weakening and
disappearing; - trend towards natural resources degradation; - tourism increasing, with 'landtaking' and possible bad use of coastal waters.
Some options for action: - valuation the communities knowledge; - association with technical
and scientific knowledge; - creation of political conditions to the local communities willings
manifestation and their feasibility; - mobilise several governmental and NGOs bodies to the
technical, political and financial support to the local communities management processes; promote the 'solidary economy'; - marketing the 'sustainable' products and services; - look for
connections with other social groups and general public awareness about nature and culture
conservation through the right consumption and use of natural resources.
Some challenges
−
development of the region, improving the living conditions, with the cultural heritage and
nature conservation; or profit the cultural heritage to the nature conservation and socialeconomic development;
−
allow the conditions to the local communities to take their own decision, to improve their
life conditions, and to play their role in the regional management;
−
use of bioregional/ecosystem and sustainable development approaches for the regional
development, including the use of diverse protected areas management categories and,
in particular, the adaptation of the extractive reserve models to the local communities
management of coastal resources;
42
−
integration of cultural aspects and economic activities interests of the region stakeholders, in particular the local communities, and the nature conservation, including the
use of protected areas to achieve both the nature conservation and the local
communities needs.
Some options for action and advice
−
Recognition, valuation and use the communities knowledge; association with needed and
wanted technical and scientific knowledge; creation of political conditions to the local
communities willings manifestation and their feasibility; mobilise several governmental
and NGOs bodies to the technical, political and financial support to the local communities
management processes.
−
Use of protected areas to achieve both the nature conservation and the local
communities needs, allowing stake-holders participation and other values consideration,
in particular from local communities.
−
Promote the fostering conditions to the 'solidary economy' development, with support to
the local communities processes; marketing the 'new' ('sustainable') products and
services options in urban areas, looking for connections with other social groups and
general public awareness about nature and culture conservation through the right
consumption and use of natural resources.
43
SOME KEY ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
From the general information about the country, its biomes and protected areas, and
about the local and indigenous communities, and from some details shown by the case
studies, several points could be made in terms of identification of problems. Some of them
were chosen and presented below, as: general conflicts among protected areas and local
and indigenous communities, mostly related with general concepts and policies; some more
specific ones relating to local communities living inside 'integral preservation protected
areas'; economic conditions of sustainable use schemes of natural resources exploration; the
relations among the indigenous and local communities areas and the protected areas; and
the relatively restrict knowledge about indigenous and local communities. Those are probably
among the most important or strategic ones –and some possible solutions and actions are
presented further down.
• Unfortunately there are general and strategic conflicts between: (a) part of the
technicians and others who are working for or supporting the protected
areas; and (b) local and indigenous peoples and others advocating for them.
By their theoretical concept definitions, part of Brazilian protected areas technicians
consider the overlapping of customary and legally protected areas as not good. For that
group, when a nature conservation value of an area is defined, or 'discovered', a decision
should be taken about establishing or not a so-called 'integral preservation protected area'.
(They consider the so-called 'sustainable use protected area' with no-value for nature
conservation –what means 'biodiversity protection' for them.) If decided yes, that the area
needs protection (under an so-called 'integral preservation protected area'), the local
community should be transferred to somewhere outside. Some of those technicians, even if
and when they respect local communities’ rights and accept participation models, they
strongly believe in the existence of 'pristine natural areas' and in the necessary damages that
human beings bring to them. Therefore, they do not rest 'comfortable' with 'simple'
protected areas creation, but firmly advocate for continuously expansion of strict
preservation –not in an integrative approach, but with larger and larger 'integral preservation
protected areas', and more and more control, from those areas, over whole regions, looking
to achieve huge 'undisturbed areas' where local communities should not be accepted.
Of course there are also other positions, including the opposite ones. There are, for
instance, those advocating for the acceptance of the supposed intrinsically 'harmonic'
relationship among 'traditional peoples' and nature. For them, human beings are integral
part of the nature and its evolution, and the activities of 'traditional peoples', in particular,
should be always accepted wherever they are. But, neither one, nor other, integrative
approaches should be searched, respecting the indigenous and local communities rights,
looking for alliances, working with whole regions through different kinds of areas and several
management categories. Instead of fighting each other, the two groups should look at the
questions on a broader perspective. An alliance between such groups would only bring
benefits for them (and us, the ones that do not feel in conflict and the people in general)
and strength the power to look for better conservation of nature and respect to the local
communities.83
44
• When there are local or indigenous communities living inside official
protected areas where this is not legally allowed, the situation of both is not
good and may degenerate even more.
It is not uncommon that local communities live in areas with environmental
importance. The local communities and protected areas condition under a non-solved
situation brings degradation for both of them. Part of the conservation technicians and
authorities and environmentalist groups prefer to believe only in the 'untouched nature'
reserves. Many protected areas were defined without a careful field research or without
respecting local people particular needs. It is not rare that, even when decided so, local
communities are not effectively displaced or appropriated replaced. Some kinds of local
communities have special rights over the land and the natural resources, as the indigenous
groups and 'Quilombolas'. But many local communities do not have special rights, and
therefore are under the general laws without any specific consideration. In some specific
situations –as the coastal areas under high pressures for the tourism development– the
classification of protected areas together with their non-implementation let space for local
communities’ survival. But usually the protected areas restrict the local communities’ use of
natural resources needed by them. And, in fact, either throw them out the area or stiffen
their poor living conditions.
There are no updated data, but it is logic to imagine that an expressive number of
the co-called 'integral preservation' protected areas have local communities living inside
them. This happened because most of those areas were created without local debates or
fieldwork. The situation still remains for several of those protected areas that were not well
implemented yet. After 10 years debates, when this issue was the most polemic one, the
recent protected areas law defined that human living or use is not permitted in the 'integral
preservation' protected areas. Even if several aspects of this law have been considered
against local communities interests, several rights were respected, like the natural resources
exploration for their 'basic needs', which is protected against interruption, even in 'integral
preservation' protected areas, at least until alternatives are found. Nevertheless, this
situation is breaking local communities’ free development and protected areas full
implementation. These communities, even if they had lived with sustainable use before, once
'convinced' that the land and natural resources are not theirs anymore, and that they could
not more exercise control over and benefit from them, they may turn into these resources
predators.
• Even when local or indigenous communities' livelihoods are based on natural
resources exploitation (extraction), in a sustainable approach, there are economic
difficulties because their products and services are usually under-valuated.
Often local and indigenous communities have strong relationship with natural
resources and activities that, although adapted, with some flexibility, and under their control,
are not that monetarily comparable with others. Deeper and fuller contacts with other
activities and economic options can bring pressures for changing lifestyles. The loss of
control and flexibility in their relation with the natural resources, and sometimes the increase
of demands –perhaps 'artificial'–, bring dependence and poverty, and are the ingredients for
penury and sometimes calamity when something else happens –unexpected weather
conditions, commodities prices fall… Of course this should bring attention for the human and
social reasons well alone, but also when dealing with conservation policies. Moreover, some
local communities may need protected areas to strength their fight for land and natural
resources rights, and freely chosen livelihoods. As presented above, several culturally
differentiated peoples have specific knowledge and management techniques. But that is not
45
only a condition to the so-called 'traditional peoples' or the ones with special rights
recognised. It should be considered that the sustainable use of natural resources needs to
be strengthened and cared out, in order to keep their services in terms of nature
conservation working. Different kinds of local communities may present benefits to the
society if the adequate mechanisms are in place.
• It should be (better) defined how to relate the indigenous lands, and other
local communities areas, to the protected areas systems –if their nature
conservation contribution are to be considered or not, for instance as ‘lato sensu
protected areas’.
For many years, the authorities responsible for the indigenous police treated the
environmental issues as secondary level ones. Similarly, environment institutions never
understood the indigenous lands demarcation as important for nature conservation. That
dichotomy, not only did not help both policies and outcomes, but also led to overlapping of
protected areas and indigenous lands. (Only in the Amazon region there are around 118
square Km of areas overlapped, taking 28 protected areas and 18 indigenous lands.)
Nevertheless, it seems impossible to guarantee the indigenous peoples rights, in particular
over the lands they traditionally lived on –as defined in the National Constitution Law–,
without maintaining the lands' physical integrity and the natural resources conservation,
needed to their survival. Besides these peoples' rights over their lands and natural resources,
the indigenous lands and other local communities areas do contribute to nature
conservation. Those areas, often, not only are important for environmental issues, but also
may be significant parts of mosaics and ecological corridors. (See and compare maps
"Priority biodiversity conservation areas…" and "Protected areas in the Legal Amazon
region…".)84
• It is yet neither properly understood which actually are now and how could be
the different types of community conservation areas, nor even it is well
known who and of which kinds are the communities –indigenous, culturally
differentiated, or local–, what knowledge is interesting, which management is
profitable, in which ecosystem conditions… and, specially, which are their
conservation willings and needs.
Although much specific studies have been done recently about indigenous and other
peoples, and general approaches it exist, in fact the knowledge about the indigenous and
local communities is rather small. Taking the easier defined kinds of communities, like the
indigenous ones that clearly differ from the rest of the society, like the Yanomamis, Ticunas
or others, it is not yet known how many they are and which actually is their natural
resources management. 'Quilombolas' are an important example of a recent and yet very ongoing process of reviewing concepts, defining areas and deciding how they should be treated
–how deep to go in terms of differentiated rights towards protected areas, which projects
should be developed with and to them, etc. Other so-called culturally differentiated peoples,
or communities, are not well defined: who are them; which kind of knowledge they have;
where they are; how many are them; which benefits and problems their management
schemes may bring…? It is not yet properly evaluated the importance of local communities
lands to the nature conservation. Within the range of local communities, the more common
ones –villages, neighbourhoods, associations…– are not considered yet. (The tendency is to
look only towards the more ‘exotic’ peoples, like Indians and other ‘traditional’ or ‘native’
peoples, i.e. the ones appearing to be more culturally differentiated.)
46
Moreover, when local or indigenous communities are recognised, and their role
related with protected areas is accepted, in many cases the tendency is to open the
participation, but yet usually trying to convince them –the culturally differentiated peoples–
about ‘normal’ nature conservation needs, not-rarely based on ‘official’ or ‘scientific’
approaches, instead of learning with them. For instance, the Brazilian government to address
the requests of the Convention on the Biological Diversity, including reports, law-proposals
and others, did great efforts. Although relatively retarded and timid, a report was done on
the 'traditional knowledge'. Amazonian leaders proposed law-projects to more properly
recognise the knowledge and rights and realise the benefit to the indigenous and local
communities. Nevertheless, to the definition of the priorities for nature conservation, studies
were developed and workshops were carried out, but mostly dealing with the scientific
knowledge in terms of species diversity and distribution. It is not accepted yet that the
'differentiated cultures' could have diverse approaches in terms of nature classifications and
priorities for its conservation.
47
SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND ACTIONS
Directly related or not with the key issues and problems presented just above, but
certainly inserted in the whole picture sketched in this document, some possible solutions
and actions are presented bellow, like: the necessary respect to the indigenous and local
communities; the incorporation of other kind of 'lato sensu protected areas'; the possible
need of protected areas to the communities sustainable use of natural resource; the solidary
economy; the training for natives and local communities; the need to incorporate different
visions on nature. These are probably among the most important or strategic ones, but not
necessarily well specified –as it would be good to arrive at. Nevertheless, it should be
considered that most of them are related to each other. (Therefore, it was avoided to include
too many comments on their relations, but some repetition, overlapping, and partial
misallocation may always occur.)
• Protected areas should neither disrespect the local communities livings
needs and their natural resources rights, nor stiffen their relation with nature.
Protected areas should neither disrespect the local communities living needs, and
therefore their natural resources rights, nor make more rigid their ability to cope with natural
cycles and other variations –towards loosing the flexibility and or to taking of their
adaptation to the uncertainties. When the local communities and their management can be
integrated as part of protected area management approach, their knowledge and labour
could be of use in advantage of the nature conservation. Any area should be properly study
before classifying it as protected. Any protected area should be opened to the participation
of the stakeholders, in particular local and indigenous communities, since the
creation/classification studies. Indigenous and local communities should be recognised, and
their rights and their lands as well. Areas should be managed integrated, in schemes such as
mosaics, ecological corridors or bioregions, with ecosystem approach, but keeping each ones
specificities and own management. The public awareness ought to be generated or
increased on issues that connect the sustainability of indigenous lands and other local
communities areas with the contemporary economic, land use models, and the ecosystems
preservation. But indigenous and local communities leaders, themselves, should increase
their interaction with other stakeholders, to discuss strategies related to environmental
conservation and sustainability. Support to that need to be considered as part of
environment policies. Information should be disseminated and debate promoted about the
recognition of indigenous' rights and local communities role in the conservation of their
regions.
• The consideration of other types of protected areas, which are not
necessary part of 'strict sensu protected areas', may result in better
conservation and benefits for the communities, but it should have an integrated
management among them.
Considering that, even if not predefined as such, most of indigenous and local
communities areas have their nature either relatively or quite well conserved, and that they
may include large amounts of areas, the indigenous peoples and local communities areas,
should be incorporate, in protected areas systems, as 'lato sensu protected areas'. Even
though if they may not be part of official and stricto sensu protected areas systems, the
adequate consideration of other, diverse, kinds of areas, and the management of them
48
altogether, with integrated approaches –although keeping their specific objectives and
independence–, could result in better nature conservation and benefits for the communities.
Regions should be planned using protected areas with the possibilities of the whole range of
different management categories, and 'lato sensu protected areas'. Extractive reserves
model should better considered to inspire models for ecological types of land reforms, and
should be strongly tested at other biomes and social-economic conditions, in particular the
better coastal zone. Local communities should be encouraged to constitute and manage their
own 'lato sensu protected areas' (community conservation areas). Other kinds of private
reserves including possibilities on sustainable use of natural resources should be defined or
recognised and promoted their meaning towards communitarian interests and collective
support. Even the overlapping of indigenous lands and 'stricto sensu protected areas', that is
far from legally solved, could benefit from these consideration. Moreover, there are
suggestions to create an 'indigenous land of natural resources management' ('reserva
indígena de recursos naturais'). According to the proposals, an indigenous land or part of it
would be classified in this kind of area after demands and with the agreement of the specific
indigenous community, would be part of both indigenous and environment policies and
systems, and would benefit from technical support from the last to achieve the goals of the
first.85
• Some local communities may need protected areas to strength their search for
land and natural resources rights, and freely chosen livelihoods.
Considering that most local communities do not have any protection to their life
styles, that the areas of most of those communities have relatively conserved nature, and
that their natural resources management schemes can benefit the society with several
environment services, the protection of them and their lands should be part of environmental
policies. The fact that some protected areas may be wanted by local communities more for
the defence of the communities' interests than for nature conservation objectives is not good
or bad in itself. It is good when this can foster wider alliances for nature conservation. Most
local and indigenous communities have acquired important lessons about specific habitats
and particular management techniques, usually through their daily presence and interaction
with nature. Besides the important advantages of incorporating such knowledge in the
management schemes, other points should also be considered. Their presence and utilisation
of those habitats and natural resources often avoid other uses –not rarely more depredating
ones. Not exactly as guards, but as a social practice –to the benefit to the whole society–, if
well integrated, those behaviours can be of profit to the management and nature
conservation. (In fact, even the damaging behaviours from the same communities –what
could sometimes occur when they are not properly respected– could be avoided, when
rightful integrated.)
It should be considered that, to the 'new alliance', all stakeholders need be called to
joint efforts. Nevertheless, to work together, it is not enough to call potential partners and to
open the management for their participation, if this involvement is not truly understood by
all participants –with possibilities to build or modify the agenda– and if there is not openness
to the others approach –to other interests, to other priorities, to other cultural approaches…
It should be also considered that: specific values could be chosen as important, and even the
decisive ones, to the area protection; the higher is the level of recognition and protection
decision, the fewer and more specific those values seem to be; but a whole set of local and
communitarian values ought be considered in the protected area partnership and
management –even if those are not the officially recognised ones at the high levels.86
49
• The 'solidary economy' needs to be promoted, with support to the local
communities’ production and marketing processes and good propaganda of the
sustainable products and services.
It should be considered that the sustainable use of natural resources needs to be
strengthened and cared out, in order to keep their services in terms of nature conservation
working. Therefore, higher prices and fairer marketing conditions for the products coming
from forest or conserved areas –in what may be called 'solidary economy'– is not only a
matter of giving those peoples a chance of a better survival, but also of understanding that,
with their knowledge and sustainable use of natural resources, they give environmental
services to the whole society –and should be proper paid for, although usually cheaper than
if the specific services needed to be contracted, as cleaning water or air. Different kinds of
local communities may present benefits to the society if the adequate mechanisms are in
place. And have protected areas designed to match those needs and at the same time
deliver important services in terms of nature conservation is not only fair, but also beneficial
to the whole society. Efforts are needed towards solidary markets, public incentives
(recognition of environmental services) and other mechanisms to help supporting the
economic success of communities livelihoods based on sustainable use of natural resources.
• The communities' knowledge is to be valuated, but technical and
scientific information is also important to be associated, when needed and
wanted, and through the right processes; so, specific training usually is important
for indigenous and local communities.
The indigenous and local communities’ social behaviour usually tends to be adapted
to the natural conditions oscillation; they also have important knowledge and techniques to
the natural resource management. Nevertheless, the adaptation to the actual contemporary
market conditions may led to degeneration of the social and environmental conditions. To
achieve better living conditions, with the communities empowerment and natural and
cultural heritage values conservation, it is necessary an 'alliance' of both 'fields': the
communities' knowledge is to be valuated, but technical and scientific information is also
important to be associated, when needed and wanted, and through the right processes. So,
in those conditions and with those willings, specific training usually is important for
indigenous and local communities. Once recognised the importance of the indigenous lands
in the conservation, it is necessary to develop programs and projects in that the indigenous
communities become active agents in the delimitation and demarcation of your lands, as well
as in the administration and handling of the natural resources. In that way, those
communities can maintain the integrity of their lands and, at the same time, develop
appropriate productive activities, with their economical, social and cultural peculiarities, and
the protection of the environmental quality.
This seems even more appropriate when pressures are evident from outside towards
the indigenous and local communities’ lands and natural resources –for instance
deforestation, illegal exploration of wood, etc. Efforts should be directed to promote training
of indigenous peoples on: remote sending and other forms of monitoring their lands (forest
cover, analysis on the impacts of the economic model imposed by the settlement process…);
practice their own vigilance and increase the number of indigenous up to defend their
territories; market relationships; incorporate management and agro-forestry techniques,
without loosing their concepts and management flexibility… Interchange programmes;
processes, structures and institutions for the systematisation and evaluation of mixed
(local/'traditional’ and ‘modern'/western) or new experiences; strengthening of governmental
and non-governmental support.
50
• Indigenous and local communities are not yet well know and recognised,
but, besides more studies, necessary to know better and respect them, there is a
need to incorporate different stake-holders and cultural visions of nature,
values, importance of its conservation, and natural resources management schemes.
The knowledge and recognition of indigenous and local communities management
techniques and knowledge, their incorporation in protected areas management, and
acceptance of their participation and use of their own natural resources are not enough. To
work together, it is necessary to encompass possibilities to build or modify agendas and the
others interests, priorities and cultures. Any gap analysis or other consideration about the
representativeness of protected areas systems should, at least start to, include different
cultural and stakeholders approach towards nature conservation. More systematic studies
and other efforts towards a better understanding of the importance and possibilities of
community managed protected areas are necessary: definition; recognition; inventories;
estimations; evaluations; assessments. This could start by the areas with more importance
to nature conservation and local communities under law protection, but it should go much
further and consider a proper range of rights, contributions, and needs, including
communities with no law protection and areas with medium or local importance for nature
conservation. There is a need to define, identify and recognise other kinds of communities
and their conservation areas –Quilombolas (Negro former slaves communities), riverine
peoples (ribeirinhos), pantaneiros (from Pantanal), countryside small ancient farmers
(caboclos), fishermen villages (vilas caiçaras), rural villages (bairros rurais), urban
communities...
The valuation of the communitarian wisdom, together the scientific knowledge, could
led to the ‘re-enchantment’ in the relation with nature.87
51
CONTACTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS
Contacts directly related to this work, together with the preparation to the V World
Parks Congress:
MMA
MMASBF
[federal] Ministério do Meio Ambiente
(Ministry of Environment)
José Carlos Carvalho [a], former ministry88
tel.: +(55) (61) 322-8239; fax: +(55) (61) 226-7101
Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas José Pedro de Oliveira Costa [at], former national
(Secretariat of Biodiversity and Forests) secretary89
Fredmar Correa [at], COBRAMAB executive secretary
tel.: +(55) (61) 317-1115; fax: +(55) (61) 323-7936
MMASBFDNAP
Diretoria Nacional de Áreas Protegidas
(National Direction of Protected Areas)
Marco Antônio Ramos Caminha [t], former director
IBAMA
(MMA)
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e
dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis
(vinculado ao Ministério do Meio
Ambiente) (the Brazilian environmental
federal agency)
SAIN av. L4; ed. Sede do IBAMA; Brasília, DF; CEP: 70.800200
IBAMADIREC
Diretoria de Ecossistemas (Direction of
Ecosystem)
Júlio Cesar Gonchorosky [at], former director, responsible
for most of federal protected areas
tel.: +(55) (61) 316-1184 /1163 / 1164; fax: +(55) (61) 3161139; e-mail: gjulio@sede.ibama.gov.br
IBAMACNPT
IBAMADIREF
Centro Nacional de Populações
Tradicionais e Desenvolvimento
Sustentável (National Centre for
Traditional Peoples and Sustainable
Development)
Atanagildo de Deus Matos [**ac], former director,
responsible for the extractive reserves
Diretoria de Florestas (Direction of
Forests)
Humberto Candeias Cavalcanti [at], former director
responsible for the national forests
cnpt@sede.ibama.gov.br
tel.: +(55) (61) 225-4443 /316-1475 /1476; fax: +(55) (61)
223-6410; e-mail: chumberto@sede.ibama.gov.br
CNS
Conselho Nacional de Seringueiros
Memorial Chico Mendes - Embaixada dos Povos da
Floresta; Parque da Cidade, Estacionamento 12; Brasília,
DF; CEP: 70.610-300; tel.: +(55) (61) 322-9291; fax: +(55)
(61) 323-4600; e-mail: bsb@cnscns.org.br
Manuel Mercado Soares [*c], president
rua Dr. Lewrger, 22; Guajará- Mirim, RO; CEP: 78957-000;
tel.: +(55) (69) 541-6556; cel.: +(55) (69) 9969-0022; e-mail:
cnsro@gm.net.com.br ;
Joaquim de Souza Belo [**c], director-secretary
rua São José, 1478, Macapá, AP; cep: 68900-110; tel./fax:
+(55) (96) 222-4453; e-mail: cnsregap@tvsom.com.br ;
Carlos C. Martins Leal [*t], technical assessor
tel.: +(55) (61) 322-9291; tel./fax: +(55) (61) 323-4600; email: memorialnet@uol.com.br
52
ISA
Instituto Socioambiental
João Paulo Capobianco [*t], co-ordinator, environment
issues
capo@socioambiental.org ;
Fany Ricardo [*t], co-ordinator; indigenous lands and
protected areas database
fany@socioambiental.org ;
Rosely Alvim Sanches [**t], officer, working with indigenous
people and conservation in the Amazon region
rosely@socioambiental.org ;
and team
av. Higienópolis, 901, Higienópolis, São Paulo, SP; CEP:
01238-001; tel: +(55) (11) 3660-7949; fax: +(55) (11) 36607941; e-mail: isa@socioambiental.org
(Also:
SCLN, 210 Bloco C sala 112; Brasília, DF; CEP: 70862-530;
tel: +(55) (61) 349-5114; fax: +(55) (61) 274-7608; e-mail:
isadf@socioambiental.org;
and
Caixa Postal 21; São Gabriel da Cachoeira, AM; CEP:
69750-000; tel: +(55) (97) 471-2193; tel/fax: +(55) (97) 4711156; e-mail: isarionegro@uol.com.br )
FF
Fundação Florestal (Forest Foundation),
linked to the Secretaria de Meio
Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo
(State Secretariat of Environment of São
Paulo)
rua do Horto, 931; São Paulo, SP; cep: 02377-000; tel.:
+(55) (11) 6997-5000
COOPEROSTRA (Oysters Exploration Cooperative) and the Extractive Reserve
(Reserva Extrativista do Mandira ResEx Mandira)
Francisco de Sales Coutinho ('Chico do Mandira') [**c],
president of the COOPEROSTRA and leader of the Mandira
Community and ResEx
Wanda Maldonado [**t], manager of Sustainable
Development (Gerente de Desenvolvimento Sustentável)
wandmald@usp.br
All contacts were important to this report, but some (*) contacts were more important and others (**) even more –including to the
possibilities of participation in the V World Parks Congress.
Although a little artificial, 'a'; means public authority; 't' technician; 'c' member of local community. For the V World Parks
Congress, the contacts with some members of communities may need pass through the respective technicians.
53
REFERENCES
Albert, Bruce. 2000. Associações Indígenas e Desenvolvimento Sustentável na Amazônia Brasileira.
In: Instituto Socioambiental. 2000. Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto
(Beto) Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), pp. 197–207.
Alves, K. R. 1996. Uma visão geral das unidades de conservação no Brasil. In: A. Ramos & J.P.
Capobianco. Unidades de conservação no Brasil: aspectos gerais, experiências
inovadoras e nova legislação (SNUC). São Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental. 203 p.
(Seminário interno com convidados, abr.96. Documentos do ISA, n.º 1.)
Azevedo, Marta. 2000. Censos demográficos e "os índios": dificuldades para reconhecer e contar. In:
Instituto Socioambiental. 2000. Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto
(Beto) Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), pp. 79–83.
Bahia (Estado). [1997]. Decreto n.º 6.785 de 23 de setembro de 1997; aprova o Regulamento da Lei
n º 11 6.569, de 17 de janeiro de 1994, que dispõe sobre a Política Florestal do Estado da
Bahia e dá outras providências. Governo do Estado da Bahia, Internet, em dez. 2002.
Beltrán, J. (ed.) 2000. Indigenous and traditional peoples and protected areas: principles,
guidelines and case studies. Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge (UK), IUCN and WWF
International. xi + 133 p.
Biodiversitas, Fundação. s/d. Estação Biológica de Canudos, BA. [Belo Horizonte], Fundação
Biodiversitas, Internet (http://www.biodiversitas.org/areas21a.htm); Dec. 2002.
Brasil (MMA). Ministério do Meio Ambiente, web site. Internet ( http://www.mma.gov.br ).
Brasil (MMA). 1998. Primeiro relatório nacional para a Convenção sobre a Diversidade
Biológica. /by Bráulio Ferreira de Souza Dias (coord.) et alii/. Brasília, Ministério do Meio
Ambiente, dos Recursos Hídricos e da Amazônia Legal (MMA). 282 p.
Brasil. 1998(–2002). Constituição Federal; República Federativa do Brasil (inclui emendas). Brasília,
Senado Federal, 2002. 206 p. (Normas jurídicas em texto integral. Web site:
http://www.senado.org.br)
Brasil. 2000. Lei nº 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000 (Brazilian Federal Law No. 9985, of July the 18th,
2000); regulamenta o art. 225, § 1o, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituição Federal, institui o
Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências.
Brasília.
Brasil. 2000b. Mensagem nº 967 , de 18 de julho de 2000 [ao Senado Federal]. Brasília, Presidência
da República, Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Internet.
Brasil (MMA-SBF). 2002. Biodiversidade brasileira: avaliação e identificação de áreas e ações
prioritárias para conservação, utilização sustentável e repartição dos benefícios da
biodiversidade nos biomas brasileiros. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, dos
Recursos Hídricos e da Amazônia Legal (MMA), Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas
(SBF). 404 p. (Web site: http://www.mma.gov.br .)
Brasil (MMA). [2002b]. Áreas Protegidas no Brasil [federais e estaduais]. [Brasília], Ministério do
Meio Ambiente (MMA), Internet. (http://www.mma.gov.br), Oct.–Dec. 2002.
Brasil. 2002c. Decreto nº 4.340, de 22 de agosto de 2002 (Brazilian Federal Decree No. 4340, of
August the 22nd, 2002); regulamenta artigos da Lei nº 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000, que
dispõe sobre o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza - SNUC, e dá
outras providências. Brasília.
Brasil. 2002d. Decreto de 13 de dezembro de 2002; cria a Reserva Extrativista do Mandira, no
Município de Cananéia, no Estado de São Paulo, e dá outras providências. Brasília, Diário
Oficial da União, 16 Dec. 2002, p. 8, col. 2.
BRB21 Engenharia e Meio Ambiente. s/d [2002]. Glossário. BRB21 Engenharia, Internet
(http://www.brbambiental.com.br/baixo_glossario.html, em 18 dez. 2002).
Candido, Antonio. 1964. Os parceiros do Rio Bonito: estudo sobre o caipira paulista e a
transformação dos meios de vida. São Paulo, Duas Cidades. 284 p. (8th edition. First ed.
1964, Rio Janeiro, José Olympio.)
Capobianco, João Paulo Ribeiro (coord.); Veríssimo, Adalberto; Moreira, Adriana; Sawyer, Donald;
Santos, Iza dos; Pinto, Luiz Paulo (orgs.) et alii. 2001. Biodiversidade na Amazônia
brasileira: avaliação e ações prioritárias para a conservação, usos sustentável e
repartição de benefícios. São Paulo, Estação Liberdade and Instituto Socioambiental. 540
90
(incl. maps.)
54
Carvalho, Luis C. de; Schlenker, Harvey & Oliveira, Karina de. 2000 (nov.) Estrada da Graciosa:
histórico, problemas e soluções. SPVS, Internet
(http://www.spvs.org.br/noticias/artigos/artigograciosa1011000.htm, em 17 dez. 2002).
Casteleti, Carlos Henrique Madeiros; Silva, José Maria Cardoso da; Tabarelli, Marcelo; Santos, André
Maurício Melo. 2000. Quanto ainda resta da Caatinga? Uma estimativa preliminar. Petrolina,
WORKSHOP AVALIAÇÃO E IDENTIFICAÇÃO DE AÇÕES PARA CONSERVAÇÃO E UTILIZAÇÃO
SUSTENTÁVEL E REPARTIÇÃO DE BENEFÍCIOS DO BIOMA CAATINGA. 11 p. (Documento para
discussão no GT.)
Ceará (Estado). [1996]. Decreto nº 24.220, de 12 de Setembro de 1996. Fortaleza, Governo do
Estado, Internet, em dez. 2002. (Publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado em 17 set. 1996.)
CEPAL. 2002 (ago.) Financiamiento para el desarrollo sostenible en América Latina y el Caribe;
de Monterrey a Johannesburgo. /by Alicia Bárcena; Carlos J. de Miguel; Georgina Núñez;
José Javier Gómez; Jean Acquatella; Guillermo Acuña et alii/. Comisión Económica para
América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) and Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo
(PNUD). v + 119 p. (Project CEPAL/PNUDRLA/01/001 “Financiamiento para el desarrollo
ambientalmente sostenible”.)
Citybrazil. s/d. Estação Biológica Santa Lúcia. Citybrazil, Meio Ambiente, Brasil > Estado: Espírito
Santo > Região : Santa Teresa, Estação Biológica Santa Lúcia, Internet (URL:
http://www.citybrazil.com.br/es/regioes/santateresa/meioamb.htm, em 18 dez. 2002).
Claval, Paul. 1995. La géographie culturelle. Paris, Nathan. 384 p. (Nathan Université, fac., Série
Géographie, Jean-Robert Pitte.)
Cohen, R. & Kennedy, P. (2000; "Global Sociology"), apud web site Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, University of Canterbury, New Zealand (URL:
http://www.soci.canterbury.ac.nz/glossary).
Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre. 2002. Implantação de tecnologias de manejo agroflorestal em terras
indígenas do Acre. Brasília, Experiências PDA, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Secretaria de
Coordenação da Amazônia, nº 3, 76 p.
Conservation International. 2001. Vai dar macaco na cabeça; muriqui, homenageado pela loteria
federal, conta com área de proteção especial em Minas Gerais. [Belo Horizonte],
Conservation International [do Brasil], “Press Releases”, 24 set. 2001, Internet (URL:
http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/newsroom/press_releases/2001/092401.xml, dez.
2002).
Cunha, Manuela Carneiro da & Almeida, Mauro W. B. 2001. Populações tradicionais e conservação
ambiental. In: Capobianco, João Paulo Ribeiro (coord.) et alii. 2001. Biodiversidade na
Amazônia brasileira: avaliação e ações prioritárias para a conservação, usos
sustentável e repartição de benefícios. São Paulo, Estação Liberdade and Instituto
Socioambiental, pp. 184–93.
Di Méo, Guy. 1998. Géographie sociale et territoires. Paris, Nathan. 320 p. (Nathan Université, fac.,
Série Géographie, Jean-Robert Pitte.)
Diegues, Antonio Carlos (org.); Arruda, Rinaldo Sergio Vieira; Ferreira da Silva, Viviane Capeluzzo;
Figols, Francisca Ainda Barboza & Andrade, Daniela. 2000 (fev.) Os saberes tradicionais e
a biodiversidade no Brasil. São Paulo, Núcleo de Pesquisas sobre Populações Humanas e
Áreas Úmidas Brasileiras (NUPAUB) da Universidade de São Paulo; Coordenadoria da
Biodiversidade (COBIO) do Ministério do Meio Ambiente, dos Recursos Hídricos e da
Amazônia Legal; and Conselho Nacional de Pesquisas (CNPq). 211 p.
Dowbor, Ladislau. 1995 (Jun.) Da globalização ao poder local: a nova hierarquia dos espaços.
São Paulo / Internet (URL: http://ppbr.com/ld ; Mar. 2002). 10 p. (Also published as "Da
globalização ao poder local", at Pesquisa e Debate, PUC-SP, v. 7, nº 1 (8), 1996.)
Dowbor, Ladislau. 1999 (Nov.) Gestão social e transformação da sociedade. São Paulo / Internet
(URL: http://ppbr.com/ld ; Mar. 2002). 15 p.
Drislane, Robert & Parkinson, Parkinson. Web site Athabasca University, Canada's Open University
(URL: http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict ).
Durand, Marie-Françoise; Lévy, Jacques & Retaillé, Denis (orgs.). 1993. Le Monde; espaces et
systèmes. [Paris?], Presses de la Foundation Nationale des Sciences Politiques & Dalloz.
591+ p.
Enciclopédi@mbiental. s/d. Unidades de proteção integral. Enciclopédi@mbiental, Internet, Dec.
2002 (URL: http://www.enciclopediambiental.hpg.ig.com.br/index-page2.html).
Ferreira, Aurélio Buarque de Holanda (autor) et alii. s/d. Novo Aurélio; século XXI. Nova Fronteira e
Lexikon, Internet (http://www.uol.com.br/aurelio); Oct.–Dec. 2002.
55
Franchetto, Bruna. 2000. O que se sabe sobre as línguas indígenas no Brasil. In: Instituto
Socioambiental. 2000. Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto (Beto)
Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), pp. 79–83.
Fundação BIO-RIO, Pará (Secretaria de Estado de Ciência, Tecnologia e Meio Ambiente - SECTAM),
Instituto de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Meio Ambiente do Rio Grande do Norte (IDEMARN), Sociedade Nordestina de Ecologia (SNE), São Paulo (Estado, Secretaria de Meio
Ambiente - SMA-SP) & Fundação Estadual de Proteção Ambiental Henrique Luis Roessler
(FEPAM-RS). 2002. Avaliação e ações prioritárias para a conservação da biodiversidade
das zonas costeira e marinha. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA), 72 p. + map +
CD-ROM (com memória técnica, relatório final, mapas e relatórios parciais e preliminares).
Fundação Florestal. 2002 (Dec.) Ordenamento da exploração de ostra do mangue no estuário de
Cananéia, SP. /by Wanda T. P. de V. Maldonado/. São Paulo, Fundação Florestal (Forest
Foundation, linked to the Secretariat of Environment of the State of São Paulo). 19 p.
Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica & Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. 1993. Atlas da evolução
dos remanescentes florestais e ecossistemas associados do Domínio da Mata Atlântica
no período 1985-1990. São Paulo, SOS Mata Atlântica e Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas
Espaciais.
Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica; Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais & Instituto Socioambiental.
1998. Atlas da evolução dos remanescentes florestais e ecossistemas associados no
Domínio da Mata Atlântica no período 1990-1995. São Paulo, SOS/INPE/ISA. 47 p.
Furriela, Rachel B. & Valle, Raul S. T. do 2000. Regularização das superposições entre terras
indígenas e unidades de conservação. In: Instituto Socioambiental. 2000. Povos Indígenas
no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto (Beto) Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São Paulo, Instituto
Socioambiental (ISA), pp. 169–172.
Giddens, Anthony (1997, “Sociology”), apud web site Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
University of Canterbury, New Zealand (URL: http://www.soci.canterbury.ac.nz/glossary).
Hobsbawm, Eric J. & Ranger, Terence. 2000 (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge,
Cambridge Univ. Press. 320 p.
IBAMA. 2002. web site IBAMA. Brasília, Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais
Renováveis (IBAMA), Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA) (URL: http://www.ibama.gov.br),
Dec. 2002.
IBAMA. 2002b. Unidades de conservação federais no Brasil, por bioma; situação em 18/12/2002. In:
web site IBAMA. Brasília, Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais
Renováveis (IBAMA), Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA) (URL: http://www.ibama.gov.br),
Dec. 2002.
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). 1999 (fev.) Monitoramento da Floresta
Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite; 1997 - 1998. 22 p. (URL:
http://www.inpe.br/Informacoes_Eventos/amz/Internet.html; Feb. 1999.)
Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). 1999 (fev.) Projeções para 98 mostram crescimento do
desmatamento na Amazônia; nos últimos três anos desmatamento na Amazônia equivale a
11,3 % do total desmatado desde 1.500; nota à imprensa / press release.
Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). 2000. Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto
(Beto) Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). 831 p.
Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). 2002. Unidades de Conservação Federais e Estaduais no Brasil;
tabelas e dados, atualização até 09 dez. 2002. São Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental. Não
publicado.
Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). 2002b. Instituto Socioambiental web site. Internet, Instituto
Socioambiental (URL: www.socioambiental.org.br).
Instituto Socioambiental (ISA); Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental na Amazônia (IPAM); Grupo de
Trabalho Amazônico (GTA); Instituto Sociedade, População e Natureza (ISPN); Instituto
Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (IMAZON); & Conservation International. 2001.
Avaliação e identificação de ações prioritárias pára conservação, utilização sustentável
e repartição dos benefícios da biodiversidade na Amazônia brasileira. Brasília, Ministério
do Meio Ambiente, Projeto de Conservação e Utilização Sustentável da Diversidade Biológica
Brasileira (PROBIO). 144 p., map., CD.
International Labour Organisation (ILO). 2002 (1989). C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
Convention. Internet, ILO web site ( http://wwwilo.org ), 1989.
IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. /By IUCN-CNPPA [now IUCNWCPA] with the assistance of WCMC [now UNEP-WCMC]./ Gland, Switzerland, and
Cambridge UK. x + 261 p. (English, pp. vii–83; French, pp. 85–173; Spanish, pp. 175–261.)
56
IUCN-WCPA. 1997. Imperatives for protected areas. Gland and Albany, World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN - The World Conservation Union. 2 p. (Statement adopted by
the IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Symposium on "PROTECTED AREAS
IN THE 21ST CENTURY: FROM ISLANDS TO NETWORKS"; November 24–29, 1997; Albany, Western
Australia.)
IUCN. 1998. United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. Cambridge, IUCN - The
World Conservation Union. Publications Services Unit, 1998. 412 p.
IUCN, WWF & UNEP. 1990. Caring for the Earth. Gland & Nairobi, IUCN, WWF & UNEP (“Cuidando
da Terra”: versão brasileira, São Paulo, Estado, SMA-SP, 1992.)
James A. N.; Green, M. J. B. & Paine, J. R. 1999 (March). A Global Review of Protected Area
Budgets and Staffing. World Conservation Monitoring Centre & University of Cambridge.
38p. (WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 10.)
James, A. N. 1999. Institutional constraints to protected area funding. Newbury, Parks (IUCN-WCPA),
vol. 9, No. 2 (June 1999).
Leach, Melissa; Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian. 1997. Environmental entitlements: a framework for
understanding institutional dynamics of environmental change. Brighton, IDS - Un.
Sussex. 39 p. (IDS discussion paper 359, March 1997. Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex.)
Lévy, Jacques. 1999. Le tournant géographique. Paris, Belin. 400 p. (Mappemonde.)
Maldonado, Wanda T. Passos de Vasconcellos. Da mata para o mar: a construção da canoa
caiçara em Ilhabela, SP. São Paulo, PROCAM-USP. 145 p. (Dissertação de mestrado.
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Ambiental, da Universidade de São Paulo.)
Maretti, Cláudio C. 2001. Comentários sobre a Situação das Unidades de Conservação no Brasil. São
Paulo, Revista de Direitos Difusos, ano I, vol. 5, Florestas e Unidades de Conservação, pp.
633–52, fev. 2001. (Editora Esplanada - ADCOAS e Instituto Brasileiro de Advocacia Pública.)
Maretti, Cláudio C. 2002. Comunidade, natureza e espaço: Gestão territorial comunitária?
Arquipélago dos Bijagós, África Ocidental. São Paulo, Depto. Geografia -FFLCH-USP. 2 v.
(Ph.D. thesis, Geography department, University of São Paulo.)
Mato Grosso (Estado). [1997]. Decreto Estadual n.º 1795, de 04 de novembro de 1997, que institui o
Sistema Estadual de Unidades de Conservação. FEMA-MT, Internet, em dez. 2002 (URL:
http://www.fema.mt.gov.br%2Farquivolinksund.asp%3Fcat%3DUnidades-Reservas).
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. 2002. In Merriam-Webster OnLine, Internet
(http://webster.directhit.com/webster); Ago.–Dec. 2002.
Metha, Lyla; Leach, Melissa; Newell, Peter; Scoones, Ian, Sivaramakrishnan, Kalyanakrishnan & Way,
Sally-Anne. 1999. Exploring understandings of institutions and uncertainty: new
directions in natural resource management. Brighton, IDS - Un. Sussex, 48 p. (IDS
discussion paper 372. Environment Group, Institute of Development Studies, University of
Sussex. )
Michaelis; moderno dicionário da língua portuguesa. s/d. /by Walter Weiszflog (ed.) et alii/.
Melhoramentos; Internet (http://www.uol.com.br/michaelis); Ago.–Dec. 2002. (1962: Novo
dicionário brasileiro ilustrado; 1975: Grande dicionário brasileiro melhoramentos.)
Mourão, Fernando Augusto Albuquerque. 1971. Os pescadores do litoral sul do estado de São
Paulo: um estudo de sociologia diferencial. São Paulo, FFLCH-USP. 2 v. (Tese de
doutorado.)
Neoambiental. s/d [2002]. Especial; dossiê; Mata Atlântica. Neoambiental, Internet (URL:
http://www.neo.com.br/html/especial/mata_atlantica/html/texto_especial_016.htm, em 18 dez.
2002.
Oviedo, Gonzalo. 2002. In: Lessons learned in the establishment and management of protected
areas by indigenous and local communities; first partial draft. 15 p.
Pankararu, Paulo. 2000. Do manejo florestal em Terras Indígenas. In: Instituto Socioambiental. 2000.
Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto (Beto) Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São
Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), pp 190-192.
Passarinho, Jarbas. 2000. Amazônia, Yanomami e os equívocos. In: Instituto Socioambiental. 2000.
Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto (Beto) Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São
Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), pp. 337–9.
Petrone, Pasquale. 1966. A baixada do Ribeira; estudo de geografia humana. Boletim FFCL-USP,
São Paulo, (283):1–429. (Geografia, 14.)
Redford, Kent H. 2002. Creating natural alliances before the forest is destroyed. In: Miguel S. Milano
(org.). Unidades de conservação: atualidades e tendências. Curitiba, Fundação O
Boticário de Proteção à Natureza, pp. 179–90. (III CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE UNIDADES DE
57
CONSERVAÇÃO, Rede Nacional Pró-Unidades de Conservação, Fundação O Boticário de
Proteção à Natureza e Associação Caatinga, Fortaleza, 22–6 set. 2002.)91
Rio de Janeiro (Estado, Secretaria de Meio Ambiente). s/d. Atlas das unidades de conservação da
natureza. Rio de Janeiro, Governo do Estado, Secretaria de Estado de Meio Ambiente,
Internet, em dez. 2002.
Rio Grande do Sul (Estado). [1992]. Decreto n.º 34.256, de 02 de abril de 1992, que cria o Sistema
Estadual de Unidades de Conservação e dá outras providências. Governo do Rio Grande do
Sul, Internet, em dez. 2002 (URL: http://www.sema.rs.gov.br/sema/html/dec_34256.htm).
Rio Grande do Sul (Estado). [1998]. Decreto nº 38.814, de 26 de agosto de 1998, que regulamenta o
Sistema Estadual de Unidades de Conservação e dá outras providências. Governo do Rio
Grande do Sul, Internet, em dez. 2002 (URL:
http://www.sema.rs.gov.br/sema/html/dec_38814.htm ).
Sampaio, José Augusto Laranjeiras. 2000. Pataxó: retomadas na rota do Quinto Centenário. In:
Instituto Socioambiental. 2000. Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto
(Beto) Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), pp. 715–21.
Sanches, Rosely A. & Gasparini, R. C. 2000. Diagnóstico Socioambiental da Região dos
Formadores do rio Xingu: Consolidação de Dados Secundários. São Paulo, Instituto
Socioambiental. 2 vol. (Non-published report. Project: "Projeto Diagnóstico Socioambiental da
Região dos Formadores do rio Xingu", Instituto Socioambiental, coord. A. Villas-Bôas.)
Sanches, Rosely A. 2002. Situação das áreas naturais e desmatamentos no ano 2000. São Paulo,
Instituto Socioambiental. (Non-published report. Project: "Projeto Diagnóstico Socioambiental
da Região dos Formadores do rio Xingu", Instituto Socioambiental, coord. A. Villas-Bôas.)
Santilli, Márcio. 2000. As terras indígenas e as unidades de conservação: a proposta de 'RIRN' é
direito e vantagem para os índios. In: Instituto Socioambiental. 2000. Povos Indígenas no
Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto (Beto) Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São Paulo, Instituto
Socioambiental (ISA), pp. 173–5 p.
Santilli, Márcio. 2001. Reservas indígenas de recursos naturais. In: Capobianco, João Paulo Ribeiro
(coord.); Veríssimo, Adalberto; Moreira, Adriana; Sawyer, Donald; Santos, Iza dos; Pinto, Luiz
Paulo (orgs.) et alii. 2001. Biodiversidade na Amazônia brasileira: avaliação e ações
prioritárias para a conservação, usos sustentável e repartição de benefícios. São Paulo,
Estação Liberdade and Instituto Socioambiental, pp. 290–1.
Sales, Renato R. de. 1997. Projeto de implantação da Reserva Extrativista Estadual do Bairro
Mandira (Cananéia, SP). In: São Paulo (Estado, SMA). Coletânea de Trabalhos; da SMA-SP,
enviados ao Congresso Brasileiro de Unidades de Conservação /org. by C. C. Maretti/. São
Paulo, Secretaria de Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo (SMA-SP).
São Paulo (Estado, SMA). 1987. Resolução SMA, de 10 fev. 1987 (cria a ASPE CEBIMar). In: USPCEBIMar. s/d [2002]. Área preservada [ASPE CEBIMar]. São Sebastião, USP-CEBIMar, Internet
(URL: http://www.usp.br/cbm/cebimar/aspe.html#aspe, em 18 dez. 2002).
São Paulo (Estado, SMA-IBt). s/d ‘a’ [2002]. Estação Biológica do Alto da Serra de Paranapiacaba.
[São Paulo], Instituto de Botânica, Seção de Ecologia, Estação Biológica do Alto da Serra
de Paranapiacaba, Internet (URL: http://www.ibot.sp.gov.br/instituto/eco3.htm, em 18 dez.
2002).
São Paulo (Estado, SMA-IBt). s/d ‘b’ [2002]. Reserva Biológica e Estação Experimental de MojiGuaçu. [São Paulo], Instituto de Botânica, Seção de Ecologia, Reserva Biológica e Estação
Experimental de Moji-Guaçu, Internet (URL: http://www.ibot.sp.gov.br/instituto/eco4.htm, em
18 dez. 2002).
São Paulo (Estado, SMA-PROBIO/SP). 1996. WORKSHOP BASES PARA CONSERVAÇÃO E USO
SUSTENTÁVEL DAS ÁREAS DE CERRADO DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO (Pirassununga, SP, out. 95).
(URL: http://www.bdt.org.br/bdt/sma/cerrado; Feb. 1999.)
Schneider. Robert R.; Arima, Eugênio; Veríssimo, Adalberto; Barreto, Paulo & Souza Jr., Carlos.
2000. Amazônia Sustentável: limitantes e oportunidades para o desenvolvimento rural.
Belém e Brasília, Imazon e Banco Mundial. 57 p.
Silva, Carlos Eduardo Ferreira. [1999]. Desenvolvimento de metodologia para análise da
adequação e enquadramento de categorias de manejo de unidades de conservação.
Internet (URL: http://www.enquadramentounidadesconservacao.hpg.ig.com.br, em 18 dez.
2002). (Dissertação de Mestrado apresentada ao Centro de Estudos Ambientais, UNESP, Rio
Claro, 1999.)
Siqueira Jr., J. G. 2000. A Organização Timbira e a “Rede Frutos do Cerrado”. In: Instituto
Socioambiental. 2000. Povos Indígenas no Brasil, 1996-2000. /by Carlos Alberto (Beto)
Ricardo (ed.) et alii/. São Paulo, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), pp. 667–669.
58
Trochet, Jean-René. 1998. Géographie historique; hommes et territoires dans les sociétés
traditionnelles. Paris, Nathan. 254 p. (Nathan Université, fac., Série Géographie, JeanRobert Pitte.)
UniSantos. s/d [2002]. Conceitos ecológicos básicos relacionados à fiscalização ambiental. [Santos],
UniSantos, Internet (URL: http://genesis.unisantos.com.br/~metropms/meioamb/glossario.htm,
em 18 dez. 2002).
USP-CEBIMar. s/d [2002]. Área preservada [ASPE CEBIMar]. São Sebastião, USP-CEBIMar, Internet
(URL: http://www.usp.br/cbm/cebimar/aspe.html#aspe, em 18 dez. 2002).
Veríssimo, Adalberto; Souza Jr., Carlos & Amaral, Paulo Henrique. 2000. Identificação de áreas
com potencial para a criação de florestas nacionais na Amazônia Legal. Brasília,
Ministério do Meio Ambiente. (Projeto UTF/BRA/047: Agenda Positiva para o Setor Florestal
do Brasil.)
World Bank (Group), the. 2002 (1991). Operational directive: OD 4.20; September 1991. Internet, The
World Bank Group web site. (URL: The World Bank Group Æ Topic and Sectors Æ Social
Development Æ Indigenous Peoples). (Also in: The World Bank Operational Manual,
Operational directive: OD 4.20; September 1991. Internet The World Bank Group web site.)
WWF-Brasil. [2002]. Biomas. [Brasília], WWF-Brasil Internet (url: http://www.wwf.org.br), at Dec.
2002.
Young, C. E. & Roncisvalle, C. A. 2002. Gasto, inversión y financiamiento ambiental en Brasil.
Santiago de Chile (to be published); apud CEPAL. 2002 (ago.) Financiamiento para el
desarrollo sostenible en América Latina y el Caribe; de Monterrey a Johannesburgo. /by
Alicia Bárcena et alii/. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) and
Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD). v + 119 p. (Project
CEPAL/PNUDRLA/01/001 “Financiamiento para el desarrollo ambientalmente sostenible”.)
59
Notes:
1
Authors and collaborations: Cláudio C. Maretti: Ph.D. in Human Geography, expert on environmental
regional and protected areas planning, sustainable management of natural resources, and local communities.
IUCN-WCPA regional vice chair, IUCN-CEESP-CMWG member, and consultant. Participation of Rosely A.
Sanches, M.Sc. in Human Ecology, expert on environmental management, protected areas, and local and
indigenous communities, officer of ‘Instituto Socioambiental’. Collaborations were received from the CNPT-IBAMA
(‘Centro Nacional de Desenvolvimento e Populações Tradicionais’, ‘Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos
Recursos Naturais Renováveis’; National Centre on Development and Traditional Peoples, of the Environment
Federal Brazilian Agency, linked to the Ministry of Environment), from the ‘Conselho Nacional dos Seringueiros’
(Rubber Tappers National Council), from the ‘Instituto Socioambiental’ (the Socio-environmental Institute; ISA)
through Fany Ricardo, João Paulo Capobianco and other colleagues, and Wanda Maldonado and 'Chico'
Coutinho, from Forest Foundation (Fundação Florestal) and COOPEROSTRA.
2
The world ‘indigenous’ in English bring the idea of: native; having originated in and being produced,
growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment. But, as used here, it means more than
that: it is related to the Indians from the whole Americas, or the peoples that already lived in the Americas
(western hemisphere) before the arrival of the Europeans. See also 'indigenous peoples' in other note related to
'community', 'local', and 'traditional peoples'.
3
"It is sometimes assumed that protected areas must be in conflict with the rights and traditions of
indigenous and other traditional peoples on their terrestrial, coastal/marine, or freshwater domains. In reality,
where indigenous and traditional peoples are interested in the conservation and traditional use of their lands,
territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources, and their fundamental human rights are accorded, conflicts
need not arise between those peoples' rights and interests, and protected area objectives. [§] In line with current
understanding of the concept of sustainable development, as well as with several international agreements and
dispositions, IUCN/WCPA and WWF have recognised that: [§] - protected areas will survive only if they are seen
to be of value, in the widest sense, to the nation as a whole and to local people in particular; [§] - the rights of
indigenous and other traditional peoples inhabiting protected areas must be respected by promoting and allowing
full participation in co-management of resources, and in a way that would not affect or undermine the objectives
for the protected area as set out in its management plan; [§] - knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous
and other traditional peoples have much to contribute to the management of protected areas; [§] - governments
and protected area managers should incorporate customary and indigenous tenure and resource use, and control
systems, as a means of enhancing biodiversity conservation." (Beltrán (ed.) et alii, 2000, p. ix.)
'Community', as use in this document, is a social group that is a whole, an entirety, sometimes selfconscious, but not necessarily static, permanent, or homogenous, not even representing a unique or the only
possible social division. It is relatively small, rather local, and less complex than the society –but may be part of
the society. It is a collective body, in the sense that the common quality is more important than the individual one,
with norms, institutions lato sensu, behaviours, and actions. The general trends are collective (generically related
to a group), without excluding individuals' manifestation and self-determination. It is non State-related, maybe with
partial self-governance, in the sense that there are reasons, definitions, and decisions that come from
themselves, not always imposed by State systems, or governments. See: Maretti (2002, incl glossary v. 2), based
also on: Claval (1995); F. Tönnies, apud A. C. R. Moraes (2002, oral information), Claval (1995), Lévy (1999);
Leach, Mearns & Scoones (1997); Durand; Lévy & Retaillé (1993); Lefebvre (from 1986) apud Maldonado (2001);
Metha et alii (1999); Di Méo (1998); Cohen & Kennedy (from 2000) and Giddens (from 1997), both apud
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Canterbury); Drislane & Parkinson (in Athabasca
University, Canada's Open University); dictionaries; others.
'Local' is where the peoples are and live, and where things happen. Local is better defined as adjective –
to things, peoples, processes, and places. The quality of local is related to non-national and non-global. Local is
fundamental to explain the places –that do not always tends to homogenisation and can not be explained only by
national and global forces, powers and processes. Indeed, some larger or more important processes could be
built on the bases of local ones conjugation, multiplication, or growth. The local is framed, conditioned, by larger
or more important processes, but is not completely determined by them. There are possibilities to local choices,
although these are not always self-conscientious and not-rarely not the most important ones. If it is important to
study the local characteristics to understand how things happen, it is not correct nor enough to have a 'localist'
approach. Local places or peoples may sometimes be considered at the margin of the contemporary
(industrialised, 'globalised'...) world, but are by any means not apart from it. Some authors also give to the local a
position of resistance in face of the global (and national?). See also Maretti (2002), based also on: Santos (1980,
1996); Diegues (1998); dictionaries; others.
For the purpose of this report, it is preferred do not to use the term 'traditional people' for the possible
misconceptions, common in Brazil: On the one hand, 'traditional people' can be misunderstood as 'retrograde'
(development 'retarded', either economic or intellectual) in a one-way evolution model or without considering other
life options and the cultural diversity. On the other hand, the term 'traditional' can suggest people living in 'perfect
harmony', both with nature and among themselves, and, therefore, it could be supposed that they should be left
'alone', for they left by themselves they would never damage the nature. Both concepts are here considered
wrong. But, also, when trying to define the 'tradition', two problems could be faced: First, if 'tradition peoples' are
60
considered the ones that have 'traditions' in a general sense; who would not fit in this? Second, when trying to
oppose 'traditional' and 'modern' peoples or tendencies: consider that the tradition would push people towards to
the repetition of customary ways of life –instead of looking for renovation, or changes, as the 'modern peoples'
should do–, the local people needs of adaptation for their survival would not be well taken in account. And,
pushing further this last argument, the pretended to be 'western societies' –supposedly 'modern'– are not in
essence the ones that tend to the repetition of models? See Maretti (2002, incl glossary v. 2), based also on:
Hobsbawn & Ranger (2000/1983); Trochet (1998); J. Oliva (oral information); dictionaries; others.
Nevertheless, without going into a compendium, some other definitions of 'traditional peoples' by authors
used in this report should be here mentioned. Cunha & Almeida (2000) consider 'traditional peoples' ('populações
tradicionais') as an in-formation process category, used in nature conservation strategies, and slowly appropriated
by themselves. "Adhesion to traditions" or "environment friendly behaviour' can not be used in their definition,
either for "respect to the anthropological studies", or 'to avoid tautology". As the category it not include indigenous
peoples, for their lands are not defined with nature conservation objectives, although might be "'islands' of
conserved nature". Understanding it in a broad sense, they prefer to define it referring to some cases:
‘Seringueiros’ (rubber-tappers) and ‘Castanheiros’ (Brazilian-nut collectors); berbigão (shellfish) collectors;
Babaçueiras (babaçu extractive-related people); Quilombolas (black communities, former slave refugees or not).
In common, they had at least part of their history with low environment impact, are now trying to in keep or
recover control over their territories, and have interest in negotiating that control with compromise of
environmental services (p. 184).
The Brazilian Federal Law that created the National Protected Areas System, as approved by the
National Congress, had a definition of 'traditional population', that was eventually vetoed by the Brazilian
president: "human groups, culturally differentiated, living at list for three generations in a particular ecosystem,
historically reproducing their life style, closely depending of the natural environment to their subsistence and using
the natural resources in a sustainable way" (as in Portuguese "XV - (vetado) população tradicional: grupos
humanos culturalmente diferenciados, vivendo há no mínimo, três gerações em um determinado ecossistema,
historicamente reproduzindo seu modo de vida, em estreita dependência do meio natural para a sua subsistência
e utilizando os recursos naturais de forma sustentável"). (Brazilian Federal Law No. 9,985, 2000 or art. 2, Lei
9.985; Brasil, 2000.) Supposedly the veto was decided after the demands of Amazonian leaders that thought this
could restrict the (right) consideration of some local communities. But the official explanation is in the opposite
sense: "the definition is so wide and open that all Brazilian population could fit in it…" –but, if stressed that this
could not be a adequate definition of 'traditional peoples' for the Protected Areas System purposes (live in a
particular ecosystem and the time or number of generations should not be part of such definition, "…otherwise
almost all poor population could fit in it and with this would be impossible to give the special protection that should
be given to the peoples truly traditional" (Brasil, 2000b; Presidência, mensagem nº 967.)
Beltrán (ed.) et alii (2000; IUCN-WCPA & WWF, p. 17) adopted the definition of 'indigenous peoples'
from the ILO Convention 169 (1989), selecting the following (from the article 1): "1. This Convention applies to: [§]
a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic conditions distinguish them from
other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs
or traditions or by special laws or regulations; [§] b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as
indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region
to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state
boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural
and political institutions. [§] 2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental
criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply."
Besides the "ILO Convention 169" adoption, the most close to a definition from Beltrán (2000) is its
'Principle 1': "Indigenous and other traditional peoples have long associations with nature and a deep
understanding of it. Often they have made significant contributions to the maintenance of many of the earth's most
fragile ecosystems, through their traditional sustainable resource use practices and culture-based respect for
nature. Therefore, there should be no inherent conflict between the objectives of protected areas and the
existence, within and around their borders, of indigenous and other traditional peoples. Moreover, they should be
recognised as rightful, equal partners in the development and implementation of conservation strategies that
affect their lands, territories, waters, coastal seas, and other resources, and in particular in the establishment and
management of protected areas." (Beltrán (ed.) et alii, 2000, p. ix or 7; IUCN-WCPA & WWF.)
According with the World Bank "the terms 'indigenous peoples,' 'indigenous ethnic minorities,' 'tribal
groups,' and 'scheduled tribes' describe social groups with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant
society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. […] Because of the
varied and changing contexts in which indigenous peoples are found, no single definition can capture their
diversity. Indigenous people are commonly among the poorest segments of a population. They engage in
economic activities that range from shifting agriculture in or near forests to wage labour or even small-scale
market-oriented activities. Indigenous peoples can be identified in particular geographical areas by the presence
in varying degrees of the following characteristics: [§] (a) a close attachment to ancestral territories and to the
natural resources in these areas; [§] (b) self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct
cultural group; [§] (c) an indigenous language, often different from the national language; [§] (d) presence of
61
customary social and political institutions; and [§] (e) primarily subsistence-oriented production. (World Bank,
2002/1991, "Operational Directive 4.20", from 1991, currently under revision.)
Diegues et alii (2000) considered various other documents (for instance: according with international
institutions, as indigenous peoples in World Bank, of 1982 and 1991; some social sciences analysis, as part
society from Foster, of 1971, peasants from Firth, of 1950, ecosystem peoples from Dasmann, of 1989, marxist
perspective from Diegues, of 1983; an anthropological approach from Godolier, of 1984; coastal or marine
perspective, as in Maldonado, of 1993, Diegues, of 1983, 1988 and 1993, Cordell, of 1982, and Mourão, of 1971;
and cultural perspectives, as in Câmara Cascudo, of 1972; including obviously perspectives of the territories and
relationship to nature, among other aspects). And came to their definition of 'traditional peoples' (populações,
comunidades ou sociedades tradicionais) as the ones characterised: - by the dependence to natural cycles and
resources to the making of a life style, often because of symbiosis relationships; - by the deep knowledge of the
nature, shown by the natural resources management, and transferred orally; - by the territory notion –the space
where happens social and economically the group reproduction; - by living in and using the territory through
generations –even when some members went to the urban centres or came back; - by the importance of
subsistence activities –even if also with market related productions; - by the reduced capital accumulation; - by
the importance given to the family, domestic or communal unity and to the relatives and companions (or
'godparents' –compadrio) relations to the economic, social and cultural activities; - by the importance of the
symbols, myths, and rituals related to hunting, fishing and extractive activities; - by the relatively simple
technology used, with limited impact on the environment; and a reduced social and technical division of the work,
highlighting the artisanal one in which the worker (and his family) dominates the whole process; - by the weak
political power –usually concentrated in the urban centres; - by the self-identity, or the identification by others, of
being part of a distinct culture. With that, 'traditional societies' are human groups, culturally differentiated, that
historically reproduce their life style, in a relatively isolated manner, with social cooperation and specific
relationships with nature, which could be characterised traditionally by the sustainable management of the
environment. This notion refers to the 'indigenous peoples' and the segments of the national population that
developed particular existence styles, adapted to the specific ecologic niches. The author's recognise limitations
in the definition and the risk of a stiffening simplicity. Nevertheless, with that, the relations with the State and their
territorial and cultural rights demands have been legitimating those peoples, but bring also the inhibition to
evolution in order to fit the rules and stereotypes. This may particularly occur in relation with protected areas
works and processes, when 'naturalistic' visions tend to advocate the maintenance of those peoples with rustic
techniques in order to consider them 'traditional' and keep their (special?) right to the natural resources. (Diegues
et alii, 2000, pp. 17–26.)
4
Those paragraphs with concepts and guidelines area based also on: IUCN (1994); Brasil (2000); Beltrán
(2000, part A), based on IUCN-WCPA & WWF (2000); Brasil (MMA-SBF) et alii (2001); Capobianco et alii (2001);
Maretti (2002); de la Torre (2002); Perley (2002); Borrini-Feyerabend (2002); others.
5
Based also on: IUCN (1994, p. 7). Beltrán (ed.) et alii (2000) added emphasis to “associated cultural
resources” for it "reflects a view of conservation that can accommodate the social, economic and cultural
interests, values, rights and responsibilities of local communities living in and around protected areas" (p. 3).
Protected area in the definition at the recent Protected Areas National System (Sistema Nacional de
Unidades de Conservação - SNUC) law: "a territorial space and its environmental resources, including waters
under governmental jurisdiction, with relevant natural characteristics, legally created [/defined/classified] by the
Public Power (governments), with [nature] conservation objectives and defined borders, under special
administration [management] regime, to which adequate protection guaranties are applied" (“I - unidade de
conservação: espaço territorial e seus recursos ambientais, incluindo as águas jurisdicionais, com características
naturais relevantes, legalmente instituído pelo Poder Público, com objetivos de conservação e limites definidos,
sob regime especial de administração, ao qual se aplicam garantias adequadas de proteção”). (Brazilian Federal
Law No. 9,985, 2000 or art. 2, Lei 9.985; Brasil, 2000.)
It seems that the terms are more properly used in different conditions: 'creation' would be more
appropriate to a category; 'definition' to its regulation (included or not at the creation act); and 'classification' to the
decision of a particular area to become a defined protected area.
6
For that, the so called ‘paper parks’ usually are result of lots of work and do not only exist in papers, but
they are not enough.
7
For instance, some of them, like categories I and II are more directed towards biodiversity preservation
than others, as the V and VI. But these last ones can incorporate social and cultural wills in a more appropriated
manner than most other ones.
8
The most important conflicts, among indigenous peoples and conservation authorities, found in the
cases studied by Beltrán (2000) are: the ownership of land and sea within protected areas – with still unresolved
issues, even in those cases where there is better understanding and communication–, and tends to be more
problematic where there are high human population density or receiving migration; access to land and
coastal/marine resources, and maybe partially resolved when management authorities tolerate some level of use
of resources –but the use of resources by indigenous peoples is still considered as unacceptable and negative for
the long-term preservation of natural resources in some areas; and the granting of concessions to commercial
62
companies to extract land or sea resources (oil, forest, fish, lobster) from within the protected areas or from their
surroundings –and in some cases the government has failed to control the exploitation within the protected areas
to the disadvantage of indigenous peoples. (Beltrán (ed.) et alii, 2000, pp. 25–6; IUCN-WCPA & WWF.)
9
Although the classification system does not direct relate with ownership, there are remarks about the
"organizational responsibility" to each category. The guidance is mostly towards public and national authorities,
although different arrangements area accepted here and there (see also IUCN, 1994, pp. 12, 17–23).
"Management Responsibility [§] Governments have a fundamental responsibility, which they cannot
abdicate, for the existence and well-being of national systems of protected areas. They should regard such areas
as important components of national strategies for conservation and sustainable development. However, the
actual responsibility for management of individual protected areas may rest with central, regional or local
government, non-governmental organizations, the private sector or the local community. These guidelines,
therefore, contain considerable flexibility in the advice given on the form of managing authority for each category
of protected area. The test, after all, is whether the designated authority is capable of achieving the management
objectives. In practice, however, protected area categories I-III will usually be the responsibility of some form of
governmental body. Responsibility for categories IV and V may rest with local administrations, albeit usually
working within the framework of national legislation.
"Ownership of Land [§] As with the question of the managing authority, the key test is whether the type of
ownership is compatible with the achievement of the management objectives for the area. In many countries
ownership by some form of public body (whether nationally or locally based), or an appropriately constituted nongovernmental body with conservation objectives, facilitates management and is therefore to be favoured in
Categories I-III in particular. However, this is not universally true, and –in the remaining categories– private
ownership will be much more common, often being the predominant form of land ownership. Moreover, whatever
the ownership, experience shows that the success of management depends greatly on the good will and support
of local communities. In such cases, the managing authority will need to have good consultative and
communications systems, and effective mechanisms which may include incentives, to secure compliance with
management objectives." (IUCN, 1994, p. 12.)
And the note about the equal importance of the categories and the degrees of human intervention in the
table "Chosen Protected Areas: 'Partially Non-Governmental' Management Categories; Expanded Matrix of
Management Objectives and Other Characteristics".
10
The continental area of Brazil is 854.546.152,91 ha, just the continental area, not including the oceanic
islands. The biomes areas figures are approximate and vary a lot according with the definitions, methods, and
sources. Just as a sample of the data inconsistence, Brasil (MMA-SBF, 2002) presents the figure of 4,105,401
square Km for the Amazon biome (48,1 % if Brazilian territory) –probably including part of the ecotones, transition
areas–734,478 square Km for the Caatinga and 1,360,000 for Mata Atlântica and 180,000 square Km for Campos
Sulinos.
For this and the following paragraphs see also: Brasil (MMA-SBF, 1998, 2002); IBAMA (2002); WWFBrasil [2002]; Dinerstein et alii (1995; apud Brasil, 1998); Conservation International; Maretti (2001); INPE (2001;
apud Brasil MMA-SBF, 2002); Cunha & Almeida (2001); Diegues et alii (2000); CEPAL (2002); Capobianco et alii
(2001); São Paulo (SMA-PROBIO/SP, 1996); SOS Mata Atlântica & ISA (1993); SOS Mata Atlântica; INPE & ISA
(1998); IBGE; INPE (1999); ISA (1999); Casteleti, Silva, Tabarelli, Marcelo & Santos (2000); among others.
11
Rough estimations of the percentages of still conserved areas –in relative medium or good conditions– in
each the biome. Those are based in several documents: São Paulo (SMA-PROBIO/SP, 1996); SOS Mata Atlântica
& ISA (1993); SOS Mata Atlântica; INPE & ISA (1998); IBGE; INPE (1999); ISA (1999); among others –but most
biomes have not a really good scientific and field evaluation.
12
Brazil has around 60% of the total Amazonia biome in South America. (Brasil, MMA, 1998, 2002; WWFBrasil, [2002].)
In Rondônia the soya production grew from 4.5 to 45 thousand tonnes in 1997–2000 (Brasil, MMA-SBF,
2002).
The groups’ descriptions are based mainly on Diegues et alii (2000) , but also on the author knowledge
and experience. See also: Candido (1964/1998); Mourão (1971); Petrone (1966); Cunha & Almeida (2001);
Ribeiro (1995, “O povo brasileiro: a formação e o sentido do Brasil”, apud Diegues et alii, op. cit.); Queiróz (1967,
“Bairros Rurais Paulistas”, apud Diegues et alii, op. cit.); Forman (1970, “The raft fishermen”, apud Diegues et alii,
op. cit.); and others.
From those found in Diegues et alii (2000), ‘Ribeirinhos Amazônicos‘ (‘Caboclos’) and ‘Quilombolas’, are
more likely to occur in the Amazon region. ‘Babaçueiros’ are found in the transitions from Amazon to Caatinga
biomes (ecotones). ‘Praieiros’ are found in the Amazonian coastal zone.
Diegues et alii (2000) identified in Brazil two major ‘types’ of ‘traditional peoples’: the ‘indigenous groups’;
and the ‘non-indigenous traditional groups’. The ‘Caiçaras’, ‘Jangadeiros’, ‘Caboclos & Ribeirinhos Amazônicos‘,
‘Sertanejos’ (‘Vaqueiros’), ‘Caipiras’, ‘Açorianos’, ‘Ribeirinhos Não-Amazônicos’ (‘Varjeiros‘, ‘Varzeiros’),
‘Pantaneiros’, ‘Quilombolas’, Gauchos (‘Pastoreio’, ‘Campeiro’), ‘Pescadores’ (‘Pescadores Artesanais’),
‘Babaçueiros’, ‘Sitiantes’, ‘Praieiros’, etc. are from the second ‘type’. (Their description presented here are based
mostly on Diegues et alii, 2000, but also on other documents, and on the author general knowledge and
63
experience.) Although done by an important research centre (with some experienced researches and newcomers)
and based on extensive bibliography, we do not understand this as a result of a systematic (anthropological or
geographic) inventory in the field. That selection represents probably a mixed of: ‘classical’ thinking; influential
papers; categories defined or recognised by laws; interpretations on some ‘typical’ landscape and their people;
particular experience from some of the involved researchers; general and scientific knowledge concentration (in
terms of themes and regions); etc. Some of the groups are more specific defined, other are more general. And it
exists a series of overlaps and lacks. Finally, we do not think of those as a complete range of local communities –
for those are different concepts–, but a set of possibly culturally differentiated groups, in the possible national
approach today. It was produced for the National Programme on the Brazilian Biologic Diversity (PRONABIO).
It is interesting that, although taking a minor part in the first national report of the Brazilian Biologic
Diversity, after it a study was done about the publications on ‘traditional knowledge’.12 Diegues et alii (2000)
considered more than 3,000 published documents related with the traditional knowledge in databases, and, from
that, selected 868 of high or medium relevance: 385 were related with indigenous peoples and 483 with traditional
non-indigenous groups.
Diegues et alii (2000) found that, among the papers researched (more than 850, among books, thesis,
articles, reports), ‘Amazônia’ (57%) is the most mentioned biome, followed by the coastal zone (21%) and the
Cerrado (19%). Among the non-indigenous peoples, more papers were published on the ‘Ribeirinhos
Amazônicos’ (riverine Amazonian groups), followed by the ‘Caiçaras’ and the ‘Jangadeiros’ –supposedly by the
importance of the groups, the scientific interest, but also the ‘visibility' (media space, political movements...) of
them this last years. Not may works were done over the flora and fauna traditional management –75% of the
papers have no information on that. But this could be considered a recent issue, and the importance and works
number are growing. Among the few works on nature management of the non-indigenous communities, the
‘Pantaneiros’ (39%) come first, followed by the ‘Caboclos & Ribeirinhos Amazônicos’ (31%), ‘Sitiantes’ (29%),
‘Jangadeiros’ (27%), ‘Pescadores’ (26%), ‘Caiçaras’ (20%) and ‘Ribeirinhos Não-Amazônicos’ (18%). Within the
indigenous groups, the ‘Kaiapó’ (68%) has more papers on nature management, followed by the ‘Tukano’ (67%),
‘Dessano’ (42%), ‘Xavante’ (33%), ‘Kaapor’ (23%), ‘Wayana’ (22%), ‘Karajá’ (22%), ‘Yanomami’ (17%), ‘Waiãpi’
(11%), ‘Araweté’ (9%), and ‘Bororo’ (8%).
13
Considering that the ‘non-indigenous traditional groups’ of Amazonia are mostly related with extractive
activities, Diegues et alii (2000) grouped as ‘Caboclos & Ribeirinhos Amazônicos‘ (Amazonian riverine and
extractive groups) the ‘Caboclos & Ribeirinhos‘, ‘Seringueiros’, and ‘Castanheiros ‘ (Brazilian-nut collectors). The
‘Ribeirinhos‘ live more close to water bodies –rivers, lakes, igarapés (small river like water bodies in the
floodplains), igapós (wetland forest), floodplains…– and depend mostly on the fisheries. ‘Seringueiros’ and
‘Castanheiros ‘ may or not live near the water, but have most of the activities out of floodplains. Both tend to leave
the floodplains at the rain season, looking for activities as forest collecting and ‘terra-firme’ agriculture.
‘Castanha’ is the Brazilian-nut: Brazilian nut tree: Bertholletia excelsa, castanha-do-Pará, castanha-doBrasil.
14
‘Ribeirinhos Não-Amazônicos’ (Non-Amazonian riverine peoples) and ‘Pescadores’ (‘Pescadores
Artesanais’, artisanal fishermen) as defined by Diegues et alii (2000).
Sertão may mean the countryside, distant, non-urbanised, non-farmed, supposedly non-occupied, dry, or
poor areas.
‘Pescadores’ (‘Pescadores Artesanais’, artisanal fishermen) are a generic group, with overlapping over
several other more specific groups, like ‘Jangadeiros’, ‘Praieiros’, etc.
15
In Dec. 2002 the Ministry of Environment considered that 8.13% of the national territory was covered by
protected areas, 2.61% considered in the integral protection group and 5.52% in the sustainable use group (MMA,
s/d [2002]).
16
Brasil (MMA-SBF, 2002) presents the figure of 16 federal and 7 state protected areas with Caatinga or
transition formations.
17
From those found in Diegues et alii (2000) ‘Caipiras’, ‘Ribeirinhos Não-Amazônicos’ (‘Varjeiros‘,
‘Varzeiros’), ‘Pantaneiros’ and ‘Quilombolas’ may occur in the Cerrado and Pantanal biomes region.
18
‘Sitiantes’ (small farmers, rural neighbourhood) are a generic group with overlaps over several other
more specific groups, like ‘Caipiras’, etc.
According with the folklore, the Gauchos are identified by outsiders, for the grazing activities, typical
dressing, the drinking of chimarrão, mate, and the meat eating.
The ‘pampas’ probably designated better the southern Brazilian part of Campos Sulinos.
19
As usually and internationally considered, until 12 nautical miles from the (coastal) base-line is the
Brazilian National (Marine) Territory, and from 12 to 200 nautical miles is the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone.
All the sectors have general descriptions, for, in more detail, other habitats occur.
This and other paragraphs are based on WWF (2002), MMA (2002), Fundação BIO-RIO (2002).
64
20
There are overlaps from the ‘Pescadores’ (artisanal fishermen) over this more specific ‘Jagadeiros’.
Sometimes it maybe difficult to isolate them from the generic, for, although among the last one other kind of boats
are used –including small boats and canoe (‘piroga’, ‘ubá’)–, changes and intermixing happen.
21
This and the next paragraphs are based mostly on ISA (2000). See also: Azevedo (2000); Franchetto
(2000); Santilli (2000); Passarinho (2000); Sampaio (2000); others. Some few considerations were made based
only in the author's general knowledge and data analysis.
22
'Indigenous lands' ('terras indígenas') are used here as the official area designated to the indigenous
exclusive use, according the Brazilian legislation, although it could be in different steps of the whole process –
identification, study, approval, delimitation, demarcation, ratification, registration.
23
Definition of the Brazilian indigenous land, as in Portuguese: "Art. 231. São reconhecidos aos índios sua
organização social, costumes, línguas, crenças e tradições, e os direitos originários sobre as terras que
tradicionalmente ocupam, competindo à União demarcá-las, proteger e fazer respeitar todos os seus bens. § 1.º
São terras tradicionalmente ocupadas pelos índios as por eles habitadas em caráter permanente, as utilizadas
para suas atividades produtivas, as imprescindíveis à preservação dos recursos ambientais necessários a seu
bem-estar e as necessárias a sua reprodução física e cultural, segundo seus usos, costumes e tradições. § 2.º
As terras tradicionalmente ocupadas pelos índios destinam-se a sua posse permanente, cabendo-lhes o usufruto
exclusivo das riquezas do solo, dos rios e dos lagos nelas existentes. § 3.º O aproveitamento dos recursos
hídricos, incluídos os potenciais energéticos, a pesquisa e a lavra das riquezas minerais em terras indígenas só
podem ser efetivados com autorização do Congresso Nacional, ouvidas as comunidades afetadas, ficando-lhes
assegurada participação nos resultados da lavra, na forma da lei. § 4.º As terras de que trata este artigo são
inalienáveis e indisponíveis, e os direitos sobre elas, imprescritíveis. § 5.º É vedada a remoção dos grupos
indígenas de suas terras, salvo, ad referendum do Congresso Nacional, em caso de catástrofe ou epidemia que
ponha em risco sua população, ou no interesse da soberania do País, após deliberação do Congresso Nacional,
garantido, em qualquer hipótese, o retorno imediato logo que cesse o risco. § 6.º São nulos e extintos, não
produzindo efeitos jurídicos, os atos que tenham por objeto a ocupação, o domínio e a posse das terras a que se
refere este artigo, ou a exploração das riquezas naturais do solo, dos rios e dos lagos nelas existentes,
ressalvado relevante interesse público da União, segundo o que dispuser lei complementar, não gerando a
nulidade e a extinção direito a indenização ou a ações contra a União, salvo, na forma da lei, quanto às
benfeitorias derivadas da ocupação de boa-fé. […]". (Brasil, Constituição Federal, 1988.)
24
Based mostly on ISA (2000, pp. 10–15).
25
Written with the orthography adopted by Instituto Socioambiental (ISA).
26
Population according with census or estimations in Brazil. The subtotals are language families grouping
only the here mentioned peoples (indigenous peoples with more than 2,000 inhabitants in Brazil; ISA, 2000, pp.
10–15).
27
Total of the 'families/languages' presented in this table, without "*".
28
Based on ISA table (ISA, 2000, pp. 10–15), but also on: Azevedo (2000); Franchetto (2000); others.
29
Total of the 'families/languages' presented in the ISA table (ISA, 2000, pp. 10–15), including one time
"?"; and considering also Franchetto (2000).
30
Percentage of total indigenous lands (TIs: Terras Indígenas), without 110 areas to be identified.
31
According with ISA (2000, indigenous peoples table, p. 15), 11,700 Yanomamis live in Brazil (RR and
AM) –including Yanomami, Sanumá and Ninam groups, linked to the family/language Yanomami and Xirianá–,
and other 15,193 in Venezuela.
32
Veríssimo et alii (2000) and Schneider et alii (2000).
33
To use the expression of Redford (2002) that expresses a synthesis of his conference in the called "Third
Brazilian Protected Areas Congress" –maybe to the surprise of part of the audience that expected him to address
points for protected areas against local and indigenous communities. This should be the position of most people
in Brazil, but it is not always the case. It was good to hear this, anyway, at the Brazilian protected areas congress.
34
Not shown the numbers of Oriental Asia: US$ 12,308.00 per square Km.
35
This and the next paragraphs are based mainly on James, Green & Paine (1999); James (1999); Alves
(1996).
The WCMC (James, Green & Paine, 1999; James, 1999) study was done on data of 1993–95. The
budget information was obtained at answers from 123 agencies and departments, from 108 countries,
representing 3.7 million square Km –28% of the protected areas in the world database. The staff information
came from 92 agencies or departments, from 78 countries, with 83,141 professionals in 3.0 million square Km –or
23% of the protected areas in the world database.
South America has few countries in the study, varying from US$ 8.00 per square Km in Peru and US$
109.00 per square Km in Colombia. The other Latin America countries considered in the study vary from US$
1.00 per square Km in Honduras and US$ 288.00 per square Km in Panama. The world regions were considered
65
according with IUCN-WCPA regions. For Brazil, only the federal agency was considered (James; Green & Paine,
1999; James, 1999).
About Brazil, in other study, Alves (1996) presents a budget of US$ 3 million for 73 federal protected
areas and a international aid of US$ 12 million for 30 PAs –only considering the so-called then 'indirect use' PAs
(Alves, 1996).
36
Not shown the numbers of Oriental Asia: 432 professionals per square Km.
37
CEPAL (2002). Sources: Instituto Brasileiro para o Meio Ambiente e os Recursos Naturais Renováveis
(IBAMA), Fundo Nacional para o Meio Ambiente (FNMA), Agencia Nacional das Águas (ANA) –created in 2002,
Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA); in Young & Roncisvalle (2002; apud CEPAL, 2002).
38
According to the recent Brazilian Federal Law for the protected areas system, the nature conservation is
a qualification of the human management that includes (stricter) preservation, (softer) maintenance, and
restoration of natural environments, for the benefit and potential use to the present and future generations
(“conservação da natureza: o manejo do uso humano da natureza, compreendendo a preservação, a
manutenção, a utilização sustentável, a restauração e a recuperação do ambiente natural, para que possa
produzir o maior benefício, em bases sustentáveis, às atuais gerações, mantendo seu potencial de satisfazer as
necessidades e aspirações das gerações futuras, e garantindo a sobrevivência dos seres vivos em geral”; art. 2,
Lei 9.985/2000.)
39
For this report it was considered that the best database was a NGO one, considering only a good part of
federal and state protected areas: ISA (2002).
Definitions of environmental responsibilities in the National Constitution, as in Portuguese: "Art. 225.
Todos têm direito ao meio ambiente ecologicamente equilibrado, bem de uso comum do povo e essencial à sadia
qualidade de vida, impondo-se ao poder público e à coletividade o dever de defendê-lo e preservá-lo para as
presentes e futuras gerações. [§] § 1.º Para assegurar a efetividade desse direito, incumbe ao poder público: [§] I
- preservar e restaurar os processos ecológicos essenciais e prover o manejo ecológico das espécies e
ecossistemas; [§] II - preservar a diversidade e a integridade do patrimônio genético do País e fiscalizar as
entidades dedicadas à pesquisa e manipulação de material genético; [§] III - definir, em todas as unidades da
Federação, espaços territoriais e seus componentes a serem especialmente protegidos, sendo a alteração e a
supressão permitidas somente através de lei, vedada qualquer utilização que comprometa a integridade dos
atributos que justifiquem sua proteção; [§] IV - exigir, na forma da lei, para instalação de obra ou atividade
potencialmente causadora de significativa degradação do meio ambiente, estudo prévio de impacto ambiental, a
que se dará publicidade; [§] V - controlar a produção, a comercialização e o emprego de técnicas, métodos e
substâncias que comportem risco para a vida, a qualidade de vida e o meio ambiente; [§] VI - promover a
educação ambiental em todos os níveis de ensino e a conscientização pública para a preservação do meio
ambiente; [§] VII - proteger a fauna e a flora, vedadas, na forma da lei, as práticas que coloquem em risco sua
função ecológica, provoquem a extinção de espécies ou submetam os animais a crueldade. [§] § 2.º Aquele que
explorar recursos minerais fica obrigado a recuperar o meio ambiente degradado, de acordo com solução técnica
exigida pelo órgão público competente, na forma da lei. [§] § 3.º As condutas e atividades consideradas lesivas
ao meio ambiente sujeitarão os infratores, pessoas físicas ou jurídicas, a sanções penais e administrativas,
independentemente da obrigação de reparar os danos causados. [§] § 4.º A Floresta Amazônica brasileira, a
Mata Atlântica, a Serra do Mar, o Pantanal Mato-Grossense e a Zona Costeira são patrimônio nacional, e sua
utilização far-se-á, na forma da lei, dentro de condições que assegurem a preservação do meio ambiente,
inclusive quanto ao uso dos recursos naturais. [§] § 5.º São indisponíveis as terras devolutas ou arrecadadas
pelos Estados, por ações discriminatórias, necessárias à proteção dos ecossistemas naturais. [§] § 6.º As usinas
que operem com reator nuclear deverão ter sua localização definida em lei federal, sem o que não poderão ser
instaladas." (Brasil, Constituição Nacional, 1988.)
40
In Brazil the law oblige any rural property to keep a part of its land with forest (or other natural
vegetation) –called 'permanent protection area' (área de proteção permanente) and 'legal reserves' (reservas
legais). By the definitions used in this report, those areas are not considered 'stricto sensu protected areas'
(unidades de conservação) and are not considered in any presented calculation –although for some people they
could be considered 'lato sensu protected areas' (áreas protegidas lato sensu).
41
These are legally defined protected areas –stricto sensu protected areas (or conservation units; UCs:
unidades de conservação)– within the federal or state Brazilian systems, included in the ISA (2002) database,
and fitting the IUCN protected areas definition and the classification criteria.
42
Those here classified as APs –lato sensu protected areas (APs: áreas protegidas lato sensu)– are areas
with nature conservation objectives and administration mechanisms, and for that included in the ISA (2002)
database, but not fitting the IUCN protected areas definition or the classification criteria. They are 'not UCs'.
43
Indigenous lands (TIs: terras indígenas) are officially defined like that under Brazilian legislation. They
could be considered lato sensu protected areas (APs: áreas protegidas lato sensu), but were here taken in
separately for this report purposes.
44
Copaíba: Copaifera spp (from Tupi name 'kopaýua') is an Amazon big tree, from which is extracted
medicinal and cosmetic oil.
66
45
Açaí: Amazon palm tree Euterpe oleracea (from Tupi name 'yua saí'), from which is extracted a fruit juice
and palm heart.
46
In the case of Amazon extractive reserves the fish is related to rivers or plain flood lakes.
47
Babaçu: Amazon and Caatinga palm tree Orbygnia spp (from Tupi name 'yuá uasú'), from which is
extracted kind of wax, oil, leaves etc.
48
Berbigão: an Atlantic coastal shellfish Anomalocardia brasiliana (from Tupi 'cernambi') used as food.
49
Chico Mendes was famous rubber-taper, come from the Amazon forest, in Acre. He took part in a labour
movement. The groups stood in front of bulldozers to stop deforestation. They believed that conserving the forest
they could keep their economic activities, but if they let the landowners implement pastures most of them would
be workless. But Mendes understood the politic, trade union, and ecologic importance of the ‘forest peoples’
(povos da floresta) fight. And brought it to the cites and to the intellectuals. Together they found the concept of the
extractive reserves. Unfortunately he was assassinated –as he himself had predicted– by landowners that did not
accepted the defiance of local dominant groups ‘authority’.
50
Also based on: Maretti et alii. 1999; IUCN-WCPA & WCMC, 1998; Queiróz et alii, 1997; FUNATURA &
IBAMA, 1989; IPT, 1992; IBAMA, 1997; Fundação Florestal & São Paulo (SMA), 1997; São Paulo (SMA), 1996; and
the author and collaborators experience.
51
The protected areas categories do not need to have the same denomination everywhere, but the
international classification should be used as a communication code and could also be a guideline (IUCN, 1994;
Silva, 1999).
In this table are presented the management categories of the international classification (IUCN, 1994)
and chosen protected areas from the National Protected Areas System (Sistema Nacional de Unidades de
Conservação - SNUC; Brazilian Federal Law No. 9985; Brasil, 2000) and that are 'partially non-governmental'
management categories. These last chosen ones are compared and related to the international categories, within
the matrix of management objectives –that was expanded with other characteristics. It is important to remember
that the comparison is done with the legally defined objectives, not the practice. Nevertheless, considering that
the SNUC is rather recent and the practice in several areas should be considered in a reclassification process,
some comments on the relations, doubts, possibilities, practices are presented here. It was considered that, for
the comparison process, first the objectives of the Brazilian categories, and their priority, should be annotated in
the matrix and only then compare with the international categories positions.
52
Looking to the international classification, it seems that this objective have been created specifically to
the category Ib 'wilderness areas' (and its United States characteristics), although it should be applied more
clearly to other categories with nature protection. The difference seems related to consider large areas without
human intervention, instead of generic 'wild conditions' (or 'wilderness protection'). For instance, the 'protection of
wild characteristics' should be applicable to the sustainable development reserve (reserva de desenvolvimento
sustentável - ReDeSus), at least as a secondary objective, even if this is a category VI protected area.
If one of the objectives used for the categories classification is previously and directly related to a
specific category to be classified, there is a logic bias in the matrix.
53
Although this objective seems defined more towards the 'wilderness area', apparently there is no reason
to not consider it equally the 'strict nature reserve'. Even 'wilderness' areas should have an ecosystem approach,
whenever appropriated.
54
Looking to the international classification, it seems that this objective have been created specifically to
the category III 'natural monuments' (and its United States characteristics), although it should be applied more
clearly to other categories. The differences seem related to consider small and specific areas, with scenic
qualities –therefore, without ecosystem approach–, instead of generic 'protection of specific natural and cultural
features'.
55
Looking to the international classification, it seems that this objective have been created specifically to
the category V 'landscape conservation' (and its European characteristics), although it should be applied more
clearly to other categories. The differences seem related to large areas with significant human marks and historic
signs, or evolved landscapes, instead of generic 'maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes'. Nevertheless,
the classification guidance to the category V is clearly said, in the 'definition': "safeguarding the integrity of this
traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area"; and, in the 'objectives
of management': "to maintain the harmonious interaction of nature and culture through the protection of
landscape and/or seascape and the continuation of traditional land uses, building practices and social and cultural
manifestations" (IUCN, 1994, p. 22).
Although the national parks today's objectives might be more related with the ecosystems functions,
biodiversity conservation, and tourism, their tradition is based upon relation with the national heritage: they were
supposed to be national symbols, linked with the national history, territory or identity. Therefore, a national park in
its classical meaning –but not necessarily all category II protected areas–, is by definition a cultural site. Cultural
landscapes should not be considered only when transformations by human beings are more evident. Having a
cultural meaning –and, even more, have being created for that–, the site, or protected area, is a cultural site, a
67
cultural landscape. Moreover, those kinds of areas, even when no important visible marks are present, probably
received human activities (for instance Indians pathways) and are the product of human interaction with nature.
56
“All Categories are Important [§] The number assigned to a category does not reflect its importance: all
categories are needed for conservation and sustainable development. Therefore IUCN encourages countries to
develop a system of protected areas that meets its own natural and cultural heritage objectives and then apply
any or all the appropriate categories. Since each category fills a particular 'niche' in management terms, all
countries should consider the appropriateness of the full range of management categories to their needs.
"...But they imply a Gradation of Human intervention [§] However, it is inherent in the system that the
categories represent varying degrees of human intervention. It is true that research has shown that the extent of
past human modification of ecosystems has in fact been more pervasive than was previously supposed; and that
no part of the globe can escape the effects of long-distance pollution and human-induced climatic change. In that
sense, no area on earth can be regarded as truly 'natural'. The term is therefore used here as it is defined in
Caring for the Earth: [§] Ecosystems where since the industrial revolution (1750) human impact (a) has been no
greater than that of any other native species, and (b) has not affected the ecosystem s structure. Climate change
is excluded from this definition. [§] Under this definition, categories I to III am mainly concerned with the protection
of natural areas where direct human intervention and modification of the environment has been limited; in
categories IV, V and VI significantly greater intervention and modification will be found." (IUCN, 1994, pp. 9–10.)
Even if the general trend goes from the more restrict conditions to softer ones, the categories are not
exactly following the pattern at each step –for instance, it is not necessary that a category III protected area is
always more strict preserved than a category IV, and is not likely that a category V could always contribute to the
biodiversity protection more that a category VI protected area.
See also note about the "management responsibility" and "ownership of land" (based on IUC, 1994, p.
12, others), at the "Concepts and Guidelines" chapter.
57
Brazilian national definition, as in Portuguese: “A Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural é uma área
privada, gravada com perpetuidade, com o objetivo de conservar a diversidade biológica.” (Art. 11, Lei
9.985/2000.)
Considering the restriction level and some of the objectives, the RPPN should be considered in the
category II, but it is important to remember that, unlike most of them, this is private owned and managed. See
also Maretti (2001). Nevertheless, others think differently, and Silva (1999), for instance, consider that RPPN is
related to the category IV.
58
Brazilian heritage protection areas –either at the national, or at a more local level– have similar
objectives with this category V. Nevertheless, they usually have not an administrative scheme, and for that are not
considered here as a protected area.
59
Brazilian national definition, as in Portuguese: “A Área de Proteção Ambiental é uma área em geral
extensa, com um certo grau de ocupação humana, dotada de atributos abióticos, bióticos, estéticos ou culturais
especialmente importantes para a qualidade de vida e o bem-estar das populações humanas, e tem como
objetivos básicos proteger a diversidade biológica, disciplinar o processo de ocupação e assegurar a
sustentabilidade do uso dos recursos naturais.” (Art. 15, Lei 9.985/2000.)
About the land ownership: “A Área de Proteção Ambiental é constituída por terras públicas ou privadas.
[§] Respeitados os limites constitucionais, podem ser estabelecidas normas e restrições para a utilização de uma
propriedade privada localizada em uma Área de Proteção Ambiental.” (§ 1 e 2, art. 15, Lei 9.985/2000.)
A state definition, as in Portuguese: “APA é uma categoria de Unidade de Conservação de uso
sustentável prevista no Sistema Estadual de Unidades de Conservação (SEUC). As APAs são porções do
território que exigem proteção para assegurar o bem estar das populações humanas, resguardar ou melhorar as
condições ecológicas locais, manter paisagens e atributos culturais relevantes. As APAs podem ser
estabelecidas em propriedades particulares que podem continuar suas atividades agropecuárias ou até
industriais, porém sofrem de controle e monitoramento mais criteriosos.” (Web site FEMA-MT.)
60
"The Recommendation adopted at Caracas [IV World Congress on National Parks and Other Protected
Areas] invited IUCN to consider further the views of some experts that a category is needed to cover
predominantly natural areas, which "are managed to protect their biodiversity in such a way as to provide a
sustainable flow of products and services for the community". Consideration of this request has led to the
inclusion in these guidelines of a category where the principal purpose of management is the sustainable use or
natural ecosystems. The key point is that the area must be managed so that the long-term protection and
maintenance of its biodiversity is assured. In particular, four considerations must be met: [§] - the area must be
able to fit within the overall definition of a protected area (see above), [§] - at least two-thirds of the area should
be, and is planned [sic] to remain in its natural state, [§] - large commercial plantations are not to be included, and
[§] - a management authority must be in place. [§] Only if all these requirements are satisfied, can areas qualify
for inclusion in this category." (IUCN, 1994, p. 9; Maretti, 2001; Silva, 1999.)
61
It should be considered that, although this Brazilian category match the category VI concept –and was in
fact the most important inspiration for it–, it does not legally need to keep two-thirds of the area in its 'natural state'
as the IUCN demand. Curiously –understandable, but not necessarily acceptable–, IUCN (1994) made notes on
68
the "new category introduced" (VI): the area must fit the overall definition; at least two-thirds of the area should
remain in its natural state; large commercial plantations are [obviously!] not included; and a management
authority must be in place (p. 9). But this kind of remarks was not made for other categories. It is not supposed
that the "conservation through active management" (category IV) should keep "natural conditions" of any
percentage of the area. It is not demanded that the "protected landscape/seascape" should not included
agriculture.
Brazilian national definition, as in Portuguese: “A Reserva Extrativista é uma área utilizada por
populações extrativistas tradicionais, cuja subsistência baseia-se no extrativismo e, complementarmente, na
agricultura de subsistência e na criação de animais de pequeno porte, e tem como objetivos básicos proteger os
meios de vida e a cultura dessas populações, e assegurar o uso sustentável dos recursos naturais da unidade.”
(Art. 18, Lei 9.985/2000.)
And, talking about the community management and land ownership: “A Reserva Extrativista será gerida
por um Conselho Deliberativo, presidido pelo órgão responsável por sua administração e constituído por
representantes de órgãos públicos, de organizações da sociedade civil e das populações tradicionais residentes
na área, conforme se dispuser em regulamento e no ato de criação da unidade.” (§ 2, art. 18, Lei 9.985/2000.) “A
Reserva Extrativista é de domínio público, com uso concedido às populações extrativistas tradicionais conforme
o disposto no art. 23 desta Lei e em regulamentação específica, sendo que as áreas particulares incluídas em
seus limites devem ser desapropriadas, de acordo com o que dispõe a lei.” (§ 1, art. 18, Lei 9.985/2000.) “A
posse e o uso das áreas ocupadas pelas populações tradicionais[...] serão regulados por contrato[...] [§] As
populações[...] obrigam-se a participar da preservação, recuperação, defesa e manutenção da unidade de
conservação. [§] O uso dos recursos naturais pelas populações[...] obedecerá[...][a]: [...] proibição do uso de
espécies localmente ameaçadas de extinção ou de práticas que danifiquem os seus habitats; [§] [e a]
[...]proibição de práticas ou atividades que impeçam a regeneração natural dos ecossistemas[...].” (Art. 23 e § 1 e
2, Lei 9.985/2000.)
And, also, talking about the natural resources not completely open to the sustainable use: “São proibidas
a exploração de recursos minerais e a caça amadorística ou profissional. [§] A exploração comercial de recursos
madeireiros só será admitida em bases sustentáveis e em situações especiais e complementares às demais
atividades desenvolvidas na Reserva Extrativista, conforme o disposto em regulamento e no Plano de Manejo da
unidade.” (§ 6 e 7, art. 18, Lei 9.985/2000.)
A state definition, as in Portuguese: “Reserva Extrativa - Áreas naturais ou pouco alteradas, de domínio
público, ocupadas por grupos extrativistas que tenham como fonte de sobrevivência a coleta de produtos da
biota nativa e que a realizem segundo formas tradicionais de exploração, conforme planos de manejo
preestabelecidos” (art. 12, Decr. Est. nº 38.814/98, corrigido pelo Decr. Est. 39.414/99, RS).
62
It should be considered that, although this Brazilian category does not legally need to keep two-thirds of
the area in its 'natural state' as the IUCN demand. Moreover, with main objectives related with forestry, or
sustainable forest management, and research, even if considered under Brazilian protected areas law –with
general nature conservation goals–, it is not clear if FloNa should be considered a stricto sensu protected area,
and fit the IUCN definition and criteria. Coming out of the strict legal definition, and into the practice, some units of
this category have exotic species plantations, and under that conditions should clearly not be considered a stricto
sensu protected area, while others are managed mostly for conservation or research objectives or under local
communities management, and in that cases could be considered a protected area.
Brazilian national definition, as in Portuguese: “A Floresta Nacional é uma área com cobertura florestal
de espécies predominantemente nativas e tem como objetivo básico o uso múltiplo sustentável dos recursos
florestais e a pesquisa científica, com ênfase em métodos para exploração sustentável de florestas nativas.” (Art.
17, Lei 9.985/2000.)
About the local communities: “Nas Florestas Nacionais é admitida a permanência de populações
tradicionais que a habitam quando de sua criação, em conformidade com o disposto em regulamento e no Plano
de Manejo da unidade.” (§2, art. 17, Lei 9.985/2000.)
And about the ownership: "A Floresta Nacional é de posse e domínio públicos, sendo que as áreas
particulares incluídas em seus limites serão desapropriadas, de acordo com o que dispõe a lei.” (§ 1, art. 17, Lei
9.985/2000.)
63
It should be considered that, although this Brazilian category match the category VI concept, it does not
legally need to keep two-thirds of the area in its 'natural state' as the IUCN demand. The ReDeSus category
seems more a multiple use protected area, with two major parts: one with acceptance of natural resources
sustainable use; and other with intention of 'almost integral preservation'. If both parts were legally and clearly
defined –separately, even part of one PA– those parts could be considered in two different management
categories –maybe VI and I.
Brazilian national definition, as in Portuguese: “A Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável tem como
objetivo básico preservar a natureza e, ao mesmo tempo, assegurar as condições e os meios necessários para a
reprodução e a melhoria dos modos e da qualidade de vida e exploração dos recursos naturais das populações
tradicionais, bem como valorizar, conservar e aperfeiçoar o conhecimento e as técnicas de manejo do ambiente,
desenvolvido por estas populações.” (§ 1, art. 20, Lei 9.985/2000.) And: “A Reserva de Desenvolvimento
69
Sustentável é uma área natural que abriga populações tradicionais, cuja existência baseia-se em sistemas
sustentáveis de exploração dos recursos naturais, desenvolvidos ao longo de gerações e adaptados às
condições ecológicas locais e que desempenham um papel fundamental na proteção da natureza e na
manutenção da diversidade biológica.” (Art. 20, Lei 9.985/2000.)
About the management committee and the community participation: “A Reserva de Desenvolvimento
Sustentável será gerida por um Conselho Deliberativo, presidido pelo órgão responsável por sua administração e
constituído por representantes de órgãos públicos, de organizações da sociedade civil e das populações
tradicionais residentes na área, conforme se dispuser em regulamento e no ato de criação da unidade.” (§ 4, art.
20, Lei 9.985/2000.)
About the land ownership: “A Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável é de domínio público, com uso
concedido às populações extrativistas tradicionais conforme o disposto no art. 23 desta Lei e em regulamentação
específica, sendo que as áreas particulares incluídas em seus limites devem ser desapropriadas, de acordo com
o que dispõe a lei.” (§ 2, art. 20, Lei 9.985/2000.) See also the 'art. 23' of this law in the note related to the
extractive reserves.
64
Usually area not considered stricto sensu protected areas the ones that are not defined (primarily) with
nature conservation objectives (considering the objective diversity found in the IUCN international classification of
protected areas management categories, and not only strict biodiversity approach) and the ones that have no
administration, management scheme. But it is also difficult to consider stricto sensu protected areas the ones
designed to ex situ species protection, like botanic gardens, zoos etc., even if those kind of areas not rarely
appear in legal definitions as 'protected areas'. They do not appear any more in the Brazilian main protected
areas law, but may be present in other legislation, including state protected areas systems.
In the database used as a main base to this document, ISA (2002) do not consider among the protected areas the
following 'categories': zoo (jardim zoológico); botanic garden (jardim botânico); park-road (estrada-parque);
district park (parque distrital); zoo-botanic park (parque zoobotânico); biosphere reserve (reserva da biosfera);
protected heritage area (corredor ecológico).
At the Rio Grande do Sul protected areas state system (SEUC-RS) some of the not-clearly protected
areas are called 'areas under special protection', and not simply included as stricto sensu protected areas. As in
Portuguese: “são consideradas áreas sob proteção especial, não se enquadrando na definição de Unidades de
Conservação deste Decreto, as Reservas Legais, Florestais e Indígenas, conforme legislação própria e as
Reservas Ecológicas, sendo estas áreas de domínio público ou privado, definidas em lei, consideradas de
preservação permanente, onde, excepcionalmente, poderão ser permitidas atividades humanas regulamentadas
pelo CONSEMA” (Parágrafo único, Decr. Est. nº 38.814/98, corrigido pelo Decr. Est. 39.414/99, RS; SEUC-RS).
65
Management categories not defined by the National Protected Areas System (Snuc) could be present in
state or municipal systems. Categories could be included in the national system if approved, as in Portuguese:
“Podem integrar o SNUC, excepcionalmente e a critério do Conama [CONAMA], unidades de conservação
estaduais e municipais que, concebidas para atender a peculiaridades regionais ou locais, possuam objetivos de
manejo que não possam ser satisfatoriamente atendidos por nenhuma categoria prevista nesta Lei e cujas
características permitam, em relação a estas, uma clara distinção.” (Parágrafo único, art. 6, Lei 9.985/2000.)
66
Based also on: Brasil, "Constituição Federal", 1988, art. 231.
67
The objectives of the protected areas, according to IUCN (1994) area shown in the table: "Protected
Areas and Management Categories; Matrix of Management Objectives": scientific research; wilderness protection;
preservation of species and genetic diversity; maintenance of environmental services; protection of specific
natural and cultural features; tourism and recreation; education; sustainable use of resources from natural
ecosystems; maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes.
68
Within cultural protection or defence of living conditions it is included the social (including economic and
cultural) and environmental (including natural) conditions for the social reproduction of the local and indigenous
communities. It is necessary to keep the means and avoid poverty (land, natural resources, possibilities of
economic activities –agriculture, fisheries…–, trade conditions…). But it is also necessary to permit the cultural
survival. And, sometimes, the community itself (including human lives) need to be defended against aggressions.
The collaboration to nature conservation is present, although not its main objective (for the main goal is
related to cultural protection or defence of living conditions). Nevertheless, it is important always to keep in mind
that cultural and natural aspects are at least not necessarily dissociated. Not having important collaboration to
nature conservation does not take out the importance of the area or its protection, but this is not the subject of this
text.
The nature conservation is a qualification of the human management that includes (stricter) preservation,
(softer) maintenance, and restoration of natural environments, for the benefit and potential use to the present and
future generations (art. 2, Lei 9985, Brasil, 2000.)
Management here includes planning and administration of policies, areas, and work with different
stakeholders, more than only direct natural resources management. (It is better translated to gestão, than manejo,
or administração –and probably gestión better than manejo or administración.) Maretti (2002, v.2, glossary).
69
These areas are protected area, but only examples of possibilities on not-nature protected ones.
70
70
These are nature protected areas, without communitarian management, but only examples among the
possibilities.
71
To assign the conditions to the types of areas it was considered the most common, most likely, or most
probable situations, for not always they represent well defined conditions –sometimes not even under the law
definitions. The types are arranged to match conditions find in the area covered by this report: Brazil, but the table
could evolve towards a general framework.
72
Recognised by government(s), for nature conservation or other reasons.
73
Decided by government(s), for nature conservation or other reasons. The government decisions include
all different levels and branches –national, local, executive, parliament (legislative), judicial, direct administration,
governmental agencies, governmental foundations…
74
Permission: permit, concession, cession…
75
To be filled up at specific protected areas evaluation. This is presented here for the overlapping of
communitarian defined areas with official nature protected area systems represents a major source of conflict
between protected areas systems and local or indigenous communities. (The advocates and supporters are here
considered included in both parts in conflict.)
76
The community areas could be overlapped by other systems of (not-nature) protected areas, but that is
not the subject of this report.
77
Brasil, Constituição Federal, art. 231, 1988.
78
Brazilian Federal Law No. 9985, Brasil, 2000; Brazilian Federal Decree No. 4340, Brasil. 2002c.
79
Based on: Rosely A. Sanches collaboration; ISA (2002b); Sanches (2002); Sanches & Gasparini (2000).
See also: Coy et alii (1997); Sánchez (1992); Menezes (1990); Oliveira (1997), all apud Sanches & Gasparini
(2000) and Sanches (2002); others.
80
Two projects can be mentioned: (1) the “Xingu Frontiers Project”, co-ordinated by "Associação de Terras
Indígenas Xingu" (ATIX), which goal is to develop a monitoring and protection model to assure the physical limits
and natural resources of the Xingu Indigenous Park (PIX), and which has been effective in protection to logging
invasion; (2) the “Economical Alternative Project”, which goal is to develop and join value to agricultural and
forest products by the indigenous communities –the honey production is one of the main results and it has its
market in São Paulo city. These projects has been supporting mainly by Rainforest Norwegian (RFN), with other
financial supports, as Ford Foundation and the National Environment Fund (Fundo Nacional de Meio Ambiente),
and the partnership of an local indigenous association (Associação de Terras Indígenas Xingu - ATIX) and other
partners, as ICCO (Organização Intereclesiática para a Cooperação ao Desenvolvimento), form Netherlands,
IBAMA (the governmental federal environment institute) and FUNAI (the governmental federal foundation to the
indigenous police).
81
Project for agro-forest management technologies implantation ("Implantação de tecnologias de manejo
agroflorestal em terras indígenas do Acre"), with resources received from the Programa Piloto para Proteção das
Florestas Tropicais do Brasil (PPG7), through the Subprograma Projetos Demonstrativos (PDA), of the Ministério
do Meio Ambiente. See also: Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre (2002).
Based also on: Rosely A. Sanches collaboration.
82
This process was a consequence of local communities’ willings and the São Paulo State coastal and
environmental policies –or particular parts of them. It was implemented with support of the Secretariat of
Environment (Secretaria de Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo) –its Department of Coastal Zone Planning
(Divisão de Planejamento do Litoral - DPL-CPLA-SMA) and the linked Forest Foundation (Fundação Florestal)–,
with partnerships, mainly the Fisheries Institute (Instituto de Pesca, Secretaria da Agricultura), and several others.
Based also on: Wanda Maldonado collaboration; Fundação Florestal (2002); Sales (1997); and other,
besides the authors' own experience and knowledge.
83
IUCN-WCPA statement ("imperative") for protected areas (stressing the need of a 'new alliance' and a
'new' approach) "Then we call on all members of the protected areas community to: [§] Rethink: We need to place
protected areas in their broader context so as to demonstrate that they contribute to local economies and human
welfare as integral components of a productive and secure environment. We need to ensure that our sites are
selected and managed primarily for their biodiversity and ecosystem service values, while considering the
livelihoods of the communities dependent upon them. We need to develop ways of working with land managers
in areas surrounding protected areas. Our communication strategies need to convey this new image. [§] Reorient:
We need to expand on our principal role of establishing and managing protected areas by emphasising the
bioregional approach, and working for the compatible management of surrounding areas. We need to connect
them with nature-friendly corridors to form a conservation matrix using a range of protected area types.
[…]"(IUCN-WCPA, 1997.)
84
Based also on: Brasil (Constituição Federal, art. 231); Furriela & Valle (2000); Pankararu (2000); others.
85
Based also on: Santilli (2000; 2001); Furriela & Valle (2000); others.
71
IUCN-WCPA statement: "Protected areas are special places on land and sea which are managed for
conservation purposes. […] They are of various kinds. Many have cultural components and support appropriate
sustainable use. They play a key role in conserving natural ecosystems and, where managed effectively,
contribute substantially to sustainable development. [...] [§] Then we call on all members of the protected areas
community to: [...] [§] Reach out: We need to establish partnerships and encourage co-operation with neighbours
and other stakeholders, promote stewardship, enhance the use of relevant information, and strengthen the
policies and other instruments which support protected areas objectives. [§] Our efforts need to be complemented
by those of other public and private organisations and interests that have the required skills and capabilities, and
especially by those with authority and responsibility over natural resources so as to realise this vision." (IUCNWCPA, 1997.)
86
See also: de la Torre (2002).
IUCN-WCPA statement: "A new alliance is sought among all stakeholders at the local, national, regional
and global levels to pool their talents and capacities to realise a new vision for protected areas in the bioregional
context." (IUCN-WCPA, 1997.)
87
See also: Perley (2002).
88
The new minister is Marina Silva, representant of Amazonian communities (rubber-tappers in particular)
and senator.
89
The new national secretary of Biodiversity and Forests is João Paulo Capobianco (from ISA, a NGO)
(see in the table).
90
Project “Avaliação e Identificação de Ações Prioritárias para Conservação, Utilização Sustentável e
Repartição dos Benefícios da Biodiversidade na Amazônia Brasileira”, Brasil, Ministério do Meio Ambiente,
Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Programa Nacional de Diversidade Biológica (PRONABIO), with: Instituto
Socioambiental (ISA); Instituto Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (IMAZON); Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental
na Amazônia (IPAM); Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico (GTA); Instituto Sociedade, População e Natureza (ISPN);
and Conservation International (CI).
91
Presented as: Redford, Kent H. 2002. A conservação dos recursos naturais pelas populações
tradicionais: mitos e realidades. III CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE UNIDADES DE CONSERVAÇÃO, Rede Nacional PróUnidades de Conservação, Fundação O Boticário de Proteção à Natureza e Associação Caatinga, Fortaleza, 22–
6 set. 2002.)
72