Course:CONS370/Projects/The responses of the Indigenous Peoples to the fall in honey bee production in Xingu Indigenous Park, Brazil

From UBC Wiki

This study is focused on Indigenous people in Xingu Indigenous Park in Brazil and their responses to the fall in honey bee production. The overall systems of the background history of Xingu Park, tenure, administrative arrangements, affected stakeholders and interested outside stakeholders are explained in detail. The decreasing of honey bee population is due to the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and utilization of agrochemicals. Therefore, the government and organizations should provide some supports such as funding and technology. Additionally, the indigenous people inhabiting the Xingu indigenous park had successful bee ecology project focusing on sustainable beekeeping.

Description

This case study focuses on the honey bee production in Xingu Indigenous Park in Brazil. The Xingu River basin covers 280,000 km2 of indigenous lands and protected areas (ILPA) which form a continuous forest corridor larger than the United Kingdom, home to 25 indigenous people and 215 riverine (riberirinho) families [1]. A large amount of areas in Xingu is managed and inhabited by indigenous people over past millennium. The Xingu Indigenous park wad created by the Brazilian government in 1961. It lies in a transitional zone between the savannas and the Amazonian tropical Forest [2]. There are fourteen indigenous groups living in the park [2].

Honey is a natural product produced by bees from the nectar of the flowers. Latin American countries are one of the world’s major honey production areas [3]. In Brazil, honey production is regulated and supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture of Brazil and the Federal Inspection Service. Hence, the honey produced by Brazil is not residue contaminated and is considered as high quality products with Organic Certification [4]. In addition, Brazil has a great extension of territory, including the abundant flora, natural forests, crop resources developed by bees and honey production [4]. According to the IBGE, there are about 300 million hectares of reserves, Indian territories and other protection areas for biodiversity, which allows Brazil to have the largest organic honey production potential in the world [5]. Furthermore, eucalyptus plantations are widely cultivated in Brazil, which are known as good sites for producing honey, since they can be planted without chemical treatments and the produced honey is organic certified honey [4]. There are mainly two bee species in Brazil, respectively, the Africanized honey bee (genus Apis) and stingless bee (genus meliponines), the native species. According to the research, European Apis melliferia was first introduced in Brazil around 1839 by the Portuguese [6]. Biologically, the Africanized honey bee is a hybrid of one of the several European honey bee species [7], which discovers new habitat quickly, reproduces rapidly and produces more honey than do the stingless bees [2]. In contrast, native stingless bee cannot migrate, are restricted to local and regional ecology and process relatively less economic importance. Indigenous people have their own knowledge of stingless bee species, for example, Kayapo ethnoentomology, including Kayapo knowledge and management practice of stingless bees [8][9][10][11][12].

In the past several years, there was an unprecedented collapse happened in Africanized honey bee colonies, which is known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) [2]. Colony Collapse Disorder is caused by complicated factors including pathogens, bacterial diseases, cumulative impacts of pesticide utilization and genetic diversity decline [13]. Other reasons like the lethal effects of agrochemicals also cause bee mortality [14]. The reduction in managed bee colonies puts enormous pressure on the agriculture sector, which relies on commercial pollination services. The conservation plans on honey bees are mainly made by four different indigenous groups [2].

  • The Kawaiwete or Kaiabi indigenous people
  • The Yudja or Juruna indigenous people
  • The KÄ«sêdjê or Suyá indigenous people
  • The Ikpeng or Txicão indigenous people
    Xingu Basin indigenous lands and protected areas corridor. Data sources: rivers, state boundaries and national boundary; Xingu River basin, indigenous territories and protected areas; deforestation within the Amazonia biome; deforestation within the cerrado biome.

Tenure arrangements

The land settlement process in Brazil has been made haphazard by limited control of the government and inadequate separation between public and private lands [15]. Indigenous peoples have inhabited in Brazil for centuries, before the arrival of the Portuguese in 1500 lead to Brazil becoming part of the Portuguese colony through conquests [15]. During the colonization period, the land property rights were transferred from public to private hands and transmitted from one person to another [16]. After European's colonization, pau-Brasil, the name of a species of wood given by the traders and colonists, was a major land export, giving its name to the country.

The Brazil federal government had established the indigenous reservation policy in 1952, which result in the establishment of the Xingu Indigenous Park, which was created in 1961[2]. To be more specific, the Brazilian Indian reserve system is a land-tenure model about protectionist policies toward forest dwellers, such as the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) established in 1967[17]. Indian Statute in 1973 was another advanced land agreement stated that “Indians should be guaranteed permanent residence in their own habitat, should they choose to remain there, along with the resources for their development and progress. It is also a crime against the indigenous culture to ridicule a ceremony, rite, practice, custom or traditional indigenous culture, or to vilify and in any way interfere with the practice thereof [18].” Additionally, the 1988 Constitution realized the right of indigenous people to permanently preserve traditional cultures, perpetuate indigenous lands and resource rights, and become the basis of large-scale division of indigenous territories [19][20]. According to research, indigenous people have control over 20% of the Amazon through recognition of their rights [1].

Currently, the Brazilian Constitution recognizes the rights of indigenous people to live in their traditional territories with their own way of living, and the government is responsible for providing bilingual education and health services that meet the needs and beliefs of indigenous people [21].


Administrative arrangements

The Institutional framework of the Brazilian land tenure administration.

In Brazil, the complex institutional framework for the land administration consists of multiple organizations working independently of each other[22]. First, the changes in legislation, as well as the foundation of Conservation Units (e.g., Extractive Units and National Forests), need to be approved by the Congress, and then it can be presented by the Federal government[22]. After the publication of legislation, another government agency- the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI)- is responsible for regulating and supervision of Indigenous Policy changes[23]. Additionally, for the management and distribution of the unclaimed lands and the finalize of management plans such as colonization or settlement projects, the Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (INCRA), which is a part of the Ministry of Agrarian Development[22], is in charge of it.

The Xingu indigenous lands and protected areas (ILPAs) are located in the Brazilian Amazon Rain-forest area, and belong to and are managed by the indigenous groups living in the protected area [1]. The Indigenous land in Brazil Xingu River basin can be separated into multiple areas and are home to different indigenous people, such as Kayapô people and Suyá [1][24]. ILPAs is consisted by multiple indigenous territories, except the Xingu indigenous Park, also included the Pequizal do Naruvôtu, Batovi, Wawi, Capoto/Jarina, Terena Gleba Iriti, Panará, Menkragnoti, Badjônkôre, Kayapô, Baú, Kuruáya, Xipaya, Apyterewa, Araweté/Igarapé Ipixuna, Trincheira/Bacajá, Koatinemo, Kararaô, Arara, and Cachoeira Seca do Iriri[1]. The park was established by Villas Bôas brothers in 1961[1], the original purpose of the Xingu Indigenous park was to protect the indigenous culture as well as the land itself. Now, the indigenous people living in this land of Xingu have their rights to live in and manage their properties, to produce and to sell the crops they planted, and the honey they collected.

Affected Stakeholders

Although been considered as the legal residents and owners of the land, the Indigenous societies lived in the Xingu Indigenous Park have not been permitted with authority to proceed logging or gold mining activities on their territory; and the reason can be explained by the severe effects that may be brought along with exploitation activities, include the deforestation and damage to the fragile mahogany habitats in Xingu Park[23][25]. In the 2000s, the honey collection became one of the primary products and main source of earnings to the Xingu Indigenous groups[23]. In 2001, Xingu honey trademarked as “Mel dos Índios do Xingu” (Xingu Indigenous Honey) was certified as an organic product by the Instituto Biodinâmico (IBD)[23].

With the increasing effects of wildfire, climate change, deforestation, and the decline in honey production happened in ILPAs, the Indigenous groups and communities live in the Xingu (and work as beekeepers for living) are the first to be affected.

  • The Kawaiwete or Kaiabi indigenous people (Total population in Xingu park around 1000)[2]

The Kawaiwete people were transferred to Xingu Indigenous Park in around 1950, now spread around the northern part of Xingu park in nine villages.

  • The Yudja or Juruna indigenous people (378)[2]

The Yudjia are a canoe people, inhabited the islands and peninsulas of the lower and middle Xingu.

  • The Kīsêdjê or Suyá indigenous people (330)[2]

Suyá is the only group of the Gê linguistic family lived in the Xingu, in 2002, they moved from their old villages in Suyá River to the Xingu indigenous park.

  • The Ikpeng or Txicão indigenous people (450)[2]

The Ikpeng are a Carib-speaking group. They moved from feeder streams region to Xingu in the early 20th century. Most of the population now lived in the middle part of Xingu at the Moygu village.

  • And many other Indigenous Groups with smaller population size (The total population amount that lived in Xingu Park has already exceeded 5000 in 2011)[2]

In addition to commercial beekeepers in Xingu Park, the decline of honey production also brought struggles to the farmers and ranchers living in the Xingu Park. The decline of honey production and population size of honeybees not only decreased the beekeepers' income, farmers and ranchers also been affected by the decreasing pollination activities of bees. Besides, the reclamation of lands, grazing, planting activities, and the colonization of new Africanized honeybee species[26] would also cause the deforestation, soil erosion, and brought more negative effects to native sting-less bee species in Xingu Park, cause further damage to the local bee population[2]. To change the current situation of the honeybees population decline appeared in Xingu Park, local indigenous communities need to unite together to discuss the actions that needed to be applied.

Interested Outside Stakeholders

The National Indian Foundation (FUNAI)- Help monitor and deal with the illegal acts that happened in Xingu Park, also help to protect and conserve the indigenous land of Xingu. In the early 2000s, FUNAI helped the Panará People to set the demarcation and remove invaders before large-scale deforestation appeared in the park by the illegal logging and mining activities[1].

The Brazil Government- Promulgate legislation (e.g., The Forest Code) in land management to prevent the over-exploitation and deforestation[1].

The international environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs)-work with local indigenous groups to develop local economics, increase incomes and market access of indigenous people in Xingu Park[1].

Instituto Socio Ambiental (ISA)- In 1995, the Instituto Socio Ambiental (ISA), one of Brazil’s principal indigenous rights and environmental organizations, set up a project in the Xingu Park and helped local indigenous people organized the first community-based organization((Schwartzman & Zimmerman, 2005), Xingu Lands Indigenous Association (ATIX). In 1998, ISA started to support the development of meliponid culture (stingless bee stewardship)[2].

Ministry of the Environment- Issued the observed problem of decreasing of honey collection and honeybee population[2].

The Fundo de Pequenos Projetos do GEF/PPP/Global Environmental Facility Small Projects Fund- Provided the funds for the address of the issue that appeared in the Xingu area of the declining of honey collection, also encouraged the trading and production of Apis honey in Xingu Park as sustainable market activity[2].

Discussion

Brazil had been colonized in past centuries. The land was occupied and managed by different colonizers and culture groups [27]. Unite Nations addressed that the largest conflict and threat to Indigenous people was “the lack of guarantees of land right” [28]. Here in Xingu Basin indigenous land, the indigenous people also have problems of aggression or their land right.

In 1988, indigenous people were recognized by the Brazilian government and were given the primary right to maintain their culture and traditional activities on the land. However, they still did not have the ownership of the land. Therefore, it was difficult for them to keep the land border and defended their right on the land [27][29]. The indigenous people in Xingu park also have these problems. After the park founded in 1961 [30], Xingu Basin was still invaded by different groups of people for resources, such as miner, logger, and rancher[30][31]. Although the park was expanded the border and government set up 11 vigilance posts at the area that can directly get into the park, there is still illegal logging happen till nowadays[30] [32]. Besides the invasions, the Indigenous people still struggle to protect their rights of the land against the farmers that have the legal document from the 18th century to assure their farmland. Therefore, the courts have been dealing with the conflict on the property right between indigenous people and the farmers during recent years [27].

Xingu Indigenous Park as a national park is owned by the government. For better management and take more care to the indigenous people, indigenous association was founded that unite the 16 indigenous groups to communicate with the government departments and the non-government organizations. However, there is a conflict between traditional culture and modern politics and management due to the differences in the concept and the culture[30]. The indigenous groups in Xingu Park still maintain the traditional management system and activities. The chief and the seniors in the indigenous group has the strongest power in traditional politics while the unite association is monopolized by the young people for modern and scientific management. Therefore, the communication between the community and the indigenous groups[30][33] .

Another large problem is the poverty in the indigenous community. Since the indigenous people have difficulty communicating with the organizations and government, and their farmlands do not have strong protection from laws or government departments. They continuously slash and burn the fire for new farmlands. In recent years, climate change further influences farming and other agriculture activities [31]. Also, the use of insecticide increases quickly in Brazil. These have a negative effect on the crop production that relate to the bee pollination[34]. In addition, the ecosystem of the Amazon is weakened by climate change[31] and human activities, such as logging and large infrastructure projects[32]. The uncertain crop harvest amount makes the lives of indigenous people who rely on farming for living become more and more difficult. Although the indigenous association, government and organizations tried to help the indigenous people for better economic, the result was not great enough to help all the indigenous groups. Therefore, illegal logging becomes more common and part of the indigenous people also take part in the illegal activity since it has the high profit [31][33].

Assessment

The government has the strongest power and the highest management of the Xingu Park. However, it did not give enough support to the indigenous communities. For example, although the indigenous people have the right on the land, on the conflict of the land right between the farmer and indigenous people, the decisions of the Brazilian supreme court only have 43% favor the indigenous people in the cases during 2009-2013 [27]. The decisions were mostly based on the Federal Constitution and the Indigenous People Statute, which couldn’t give assure on the indigenous right. The conflict is still going on. This influences the indigenous people’s living spaces and traditional activities[27][29].

The Indigenous Association is the medium between the communities and the government departments. It has no right to manage the park or communities. It did not get the economic support from the government, such as the salaries of the members. It is hard to run the association.

The indigenous group, as the affected stakeholders of the forest in Xingu park, only have the primary right of the land. They can not manage the forest. They require support from the government and NGOs to maintain their culture-building and livings. However, the organizations are also not given power by the government to manage the forest. They only can give suggestions for technology and economic support to the indigenous communities.

Recommendations

The overcome the decline of the bee populations and the loss of economic in the indigenous community, the government and organizations should give more support to the communities on both funding and technology. In Xingu Indigenous Park, there was a successful bee ecology project held by the non-organization[35]. The program invited four indigenous groups living in the park and the scientists. It aimed to combine the traditional knowledge and modern technology for beekeeping. The involved indigenous group were willing to share their knowledge of characteristics of the local bee species and ecosystem, as well as their sprite on bees. The project also became an opportunity for the indigenous people to get funding by large companies and institutions to selling their organic honey[35] . The project not only focused on the sustainable beekeeping, but also made a great communication between the indigenous culture and modern culture. Therefore, we recommend the project should be promoted to other indigenous communities to help them overcome the decline of bee problems.

Besides the beekeeping, the government and the organizations should also pay more attention to other economic activities. Also, the government should assure better medical care and education for the indigenous group which helps the indigenous communities have a stable and developing economy. In addition, more patrols and vigilance posts should be set up around Xingu park to keep the park from the illegal hunting and logging for Amazon forest conservation and the safety of the indigenous communities. Meanwhile, for the steady development of the Xingu park, the government should be work on a clearer boundary of the forest and the indigenous people to avoid conflicts with other stakeholders.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Schwartzman, S., Boas, A. V., Ono, K. Y., Fonseca, M. G., Doblas, J., Zimmerman, B., . . . Torres, M. (2013). The natural and social history of the indigenous lands and protected areas corridor of the Xingu river basin. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1624), 20130308. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.017.1360723
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 Athayde, S., Stepp, J. R., & Ballester, W. C. (2016). Engaging indigenous and academic knowledge on bees in the amazon: Implications for environmental management and transdisciplinary research. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12(1), 26-a. doi:10.1186/s13002-016-0093-z
  3. ↑ Vandame, R, and Palacio, M.A. (2010). Preserved honeybee health in Latin America: a fragile equilibrium due to low-intensity agriculture and beekeeping? Apidologie, 41, 243-255. doi:10.1051/apido/2010025
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Franciane Marquele-Oliveira, Daniel Blascke Carrão,Rebeca Oliveira de Souza, Nathalia Ursoli Baptista,Andresa Piacezzi Nascimento, Elina Cássia Torres,Gabriela de Padua Moreno,Andrei Felipe Moreira Buszinski,Felipe Galeti Miguel, Gustavo Luis Cuba,Thaila Fernanda dos Reis, Joelma Lambertucci,Carlos Redher & Andresa A. Berretta .(2017). Fundamentals of Brazilian Honey Analysis. Honey Analysis (1st ed.) doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67279
  5. ↑ IBGE.(2016). Agricultural production. Retrieved from: page 40/41. ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Producao_Agricola/Producao_Agricola_Municipal_[anual]/2013/pam2013.pdf
  6. ↑ Nogueira Neto P, Camargo JMF. Manual de Apicultura. (1972).Notas Sobre a História da Apicultura Brasileira. São Paulo: Editora Agronômica Ceres,17, 32.
  7. ↑ Roubik, D.W. (1989). Ecology and Natural History of Tropical Bees. New York: Cambridge University Press
  8. ↑ Posey, D.A. (2002). Keeping of stingless bees by the Kayapó Indians of Brazil. Kayapó Ethnoecology and Culture. London: Routledge,134.-8.
  9. ↑ Posey, D.A. (1983). Folk apiculture of the Kayapó Indians of Brazil. Biotropica,15,154.-8. doi: 10.2307/2387963.
  10. ↑ Posey, D.A. (1983). The importance of bees to an Indian tribe of Amazonia. Florida Entomol, 65,452.-428. doi: 10.2307/3494679.
  11. ↑ Posey, D.A. (2002).Wasps, warriors and fearless men: ethnoentomology of the Kayapó Indians of Central Brazil. Kayapó Ethnoecology and Culture. London: Routledge,82.-92.
  12. ↑ Camargo, J.M.F., Posey, D.A. (2012). Kayapó Ethnoecology and Culture. Additional notes on the classification and knowledge of stingless bees (Meliponinae, Apidae, Hymenoptera) by the Kayapó Indians of Gorotire, Pará, Brazil. London: Routledge,112.-33.
  13. ↑ Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health.(2012).Alexandria: USDA
  14. ↑ Cerqueira A, Figueiredo RA. (2017). Percepção ambiental de apicultores: Desafios do atual cenário apícola no interior de São Paulo. Acta Bras,1, 17–21.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Damasceno, R., Chiavari, J., & Lopes, C.L. (2017). Evolution of land rights in rural brazil. Climate Policy Initiative. Retrieved from: https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Evolution_of_Land_Rights_In_Rural_Brazil_CPI_FinalEN.pdf
  16. ↑ Smith, T.L. (1944). Land tenure in Brazil. The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, 20(3), 194-201
  17. ↑ Shelton, H.D., & Wall, A. (1994). Indigenous land tenure and tropical forest management in Latin America. Ambio, 23 (8), 485-490
  18. ↑ Report on the situation of human rights in brazil. (1997). Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Organization of American States. Retrieved from: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/brazil-eng/chaper%206%20.htm
  19. ↑ República Federatva do Brasil. (1988). Constituição. Título VIII, Capítulo VIII. Dos índios ,150
  20. ↑ Santilli M. (1991). Os Direitos Indígenas na Constituição Brasileira, São Paulo, 11-14. Brazil: Centro Ecumênico de Documentação e Informação
  21. ↑ Good principles, bleak reality. WWF. Retrieved from: https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/about_the_amazon/people_amazon/indigenous_brazil/
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Reydon, B.P., Fernandes, V.B., and Telles, T.S. (2015). Land tenure in Brazil: The question of regulation and governance. Land Use Policy, 42, 509-516. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.007
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Schwartzman, S. and Zimmerman, B. (2005). Conservation alliances with indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 721-727. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00695.x
  24. ↑ Pagliaro, H., Carvalho, N.S., Rodrigues, D., and Baruzzi, R.G. (2004). Demographic dynamics of the Suyá, a Jê people of the Xingu Indigenous Park, Central Brazil, 1970-2004. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 23(5), 1678-4464. doi:10.1590/S0102-311X2007000500009
  25. ↑ Schmink, M., Hoelle, J., Gomes, C.V.A., and Thaler, G.M. (2017). From contested to ‘green’ frontiers in the Amazon? A long-term analysis of São Félix do Xingu, Brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(2), 377-399. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1381841
  26. ↑ Athayde, S, and Silva-Lugo, J. (2018). Adaptive strategies to displacement and environmental change among the Kaiabi Indigenous People of the Brazilian Amazon. Society & Natural Resources, 31, 666-682. doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1426801
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 Monteiro, G. F. A., Yeung, L. L., Caleman, S. M. Q., & Pongeluppe, L. S. (2019). Indigenous land demarcation conflicts in brazil: Has the supreme court's decision brought stability? European Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 267. doi:10.1007/s10657-019-09628-3
  28. ↑ Unite Nations. (2018). Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples – An introductory comment on the issue of indigenous peoples and self-governance. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/73/176
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Neves, M. B. C., & Machado, M. A. C. (2017). Nationalising indigenous peoples, legalising indigenous lands: A (post)colonial critique of the land demarcation process in brazil by the analysis of the guarani-mbyá case. Postcolonial Studies, 20(2), 163-175.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 Bôas. V.A. (2002,2018). Xingu. Retrive from: https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/Povo:Xingu#Indigenous_associations
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 Schwartzman, S., Boas, A.V., Ono, K.Y., Fonseca, M.G., Doblas, J., Zimmerman, B., Junqueira, P., … Torres, M. (2013). The natural and social history of the indigenous lands and protected areas corridor of the Xingu River basin. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 368, 20120164. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0164
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Begotti, R. A., & Peres, C. A. (2019). Brazil's indigenous lands under threat. Science (New York, N.Y.), 363(6427), 592-592. doi:10.1126/science.aaw3864
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Chernela, J., & Zanotti, L. (2014). Limits to knowledge: Indigenous peoples, NGOs, and the moral economy in the eastern amazon of brazil. Conservation and Society, 12(3), 306-317. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.145149
  34. ↑ dos Santos, C. F., Otesbelgue, A., & Blochtein, B. (2018). The dilemma of agricultural pollination in brazil: Beekeeping growth and insecticide use. PloS One, 13(7), e0200286. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200286308
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Athayde, S., Stepp, J. R., & Ballester, W. C. (2016). Engaging indigenous and academic knowledge on bees in the amazon: Implications for environmental management and transdisciplinary research. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12(1), 26-a. doi:10.1186/s13002-016-0093-z


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
 This conservation resource was created by Xinyue Chen, Nicole Xu,Yuchen Zhao. It has been viewed over {{#googleanalyticsmetrics: metric=pageviews|page=Course:CONS370/Projects/The responses of the Indigenous Peoples to the fall in honey bee production in Xingu Indigenous Park, Brazil|startDate=2006-01-01|endDate=2020-08-21}} times.It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS370/Projects/The_responses_of_the_Indigenous_Peoples_to_the_fall_in_honey_bee_production_in_Xingu_Indigenous_Park,_Brazil&oldid=597191"