Course:FRST370/2021/Indigenous Knowledge and Forest Succession Management of the Xingu Indigenous Communities in The Amazon, Brazil

From UBC Wiki

This conservation resource was created by Course:FRST370.


Adra Al-Shakarji, Roberta Gonzalez, and Rahel Samarakkody

Summary

Figure 1. Encroachment of intensive agriculture on the Xingu Indigenous Reserve
Figure 2. Illegal logging on Brazilian Indigenous amazon lands with a repository of round logs

Indigenous agricultural practices and forest management within the Xingu Indigenous Territory (XIT) have been deeply rooted by Indigenous knowledge of the ecosystem and its processes, fire management, and maintaining biodiversity. [1] The XIT contains 16 different Indigenous communities and is located in the amazon basin, predominant vegetation being dense ombrophylous forest, around the Jatobá river, in the state of Mato Grosso, in Brazil. [1] The park was demarcated by the Villas-Boas brothers (Orlando, Claudio and Leonardo Villas Bôas), Brazilian activists who fought for Indigenous rights in Brazil and managed to get the land of the Xingu legally protected in 1967. However, even with the land demarcated and protected under the national law, the forest in the region has been suffering alarming rates of deforestation, which threaten wildlife, biodiversity and the Indigenous communities that reside in it. [1]

For the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete Indigenous communities, two of the tribes within the XIT, these practices have been disrupted and hindered on a social, ecological, and economic level by factors such as the intensification of agriculture, food system changes, deforestation, and forest fires. In recent years, these factors have resulted in a longer regrowth period of secondary forests and therefore impact social-ecological resilience. [1] The Ikpeng speak Txikão and the Kawaiwete speak Kayabi, very distinct languages from two different language families. [2] The Ikpeng community first got in touch with the outside, non-indigenous population, in the 1960s, which resulted in decimation of half of the population, due to diseases and murderers. [2] Before that, they only had contact with other rival indigenous communities which resulted in constant wars throughout their history. Nowadays, they are considered to be 'pacified' and have good alliances with neighbouring communities. Their community currently has around 500 members. The Kawaiwete population on the other hand, also known as Kaiabi, has around 2300 members and are known for their artistic objects such as baskets made of the tucumã palm (Astrocaryum vulgare) and inajá (Attalea maripa), creating elaborate patterns that reflect their rich cosmology beliefs and mythology.[3]

These Indigenous communities not only depend on the forest for their survival, but also have a deep spiritual and cultural connection to the land. Throughout the thousands of years, they developed elaborate agricultural systems which rotate according to season and provide them with several staple foods they consume on a regular basis, such as cassava root (Manihot esculenta), which is used in several recipes, maize, tucumã palm (Astrocaryum vulgare) and several other nuts and wild fruit. They also depend on river health for fishing, which has been increasingly threatened by water pollution and overfishing of outsiders. The Ikpeng and Kawaiwete are having to adapt their forest management in this new era of change in order to regenerate forests in areas encroached upon by cultivation. This can be achieved by local practices such as allocated forested areas for agricultural use, promoting seed dispersal, and controlled burning. [1]Also, they fight for environmental protection with the support of NGOs such as Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), as vulnerability to destruction of their land is constantly increasing due to rising governmental neglect of extreme right political parties. [4]

Key Words

Forest Succession: How forest communities re-assemble and change over time following natural or human-caused disturbances. [5]

XIT: Xingu Indigenous Territory. [1]

Stakeholders: A person who uses forest resources in any way. For example, people that are living in or near the forest who depend on forest resources for their livelihood, or industry governments who benefit economically from the forest. [6]

Interested Stakeholder: Interested stakeholders are those that are linked to the land by their interest in the extraction and other activity regarding forest resources, but do not have a long-term dependency. Therefore they are not personally affected by adverse changes. [6]

Affected Stakeholder: An affected stakeholder is often personally impacted by changes to their traditional land/territory, due to their long-term dependence and lived connection with it. Disrupting this process through changes in land use and activity may be culturally and financially detrimental on a personal level. In this case study, the affected stakeholders are the Ikepeng, the Kawaiwete, the Kayapó. [6]

Rightsholder: actors that possess internationally recognized human rights and represent the un-assumed beneficiaries of sustainable development policies. [6]

Description of the Xingu Indigenous Communities

Figure 3. Xingu Indigenous Territory, Mato Grasso, Brazil

Ikpeng Indigenous Community

Geographical Context

The Ikpeng (or Txikāo) are an indigenous community currently living in the Xingu Indigenous Park in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Specifically, they live along the western bank of the Rio Xingu at the Pavuru Indigenous Post and the Ronuro Vigilance Post. [7]

Originally, the Ikpeng inhabited the region of converging rivers (Iriri River and Jari River) called the Teles Pires-Juruena river basin, until they were relocated into the Upper Xingu Basin. [7]

Figure 4. Ikpeng men dance at the Kuarup festival in the XIT.

In 2010 they were recorded to have a population of 450 individuals. [7]

History

The Ikpeng population suffered a blow in 1969 following a time of war and non-native disease. Brazilian activities, the Villas-Boas brothers, aided in the relocation of the Ikpeng to the Xingu Indigenous Park in 1967. By the 1980s, they moved to the middle Xingu region of the park where the Pavuru and Ronuro posts are, close to their traditional land on the Jatobá river. [4]

The Ikpeng are traditionally hunter-gatherers but have recently adopted an agrarian lifestyle following their colonization and move to the reserve. Their primary crops include cotton, gourd, maize, manioc and urucum. [4]

Within the reserve, non-indigenous settlement, tourism, missionary activity, and commercial enterprise are illegal. From the Ronuro Vigilance post, they defend the Xingu Indigenous Park from illegal loggers and fishermen. [4]

Currently, the Ikpeng are distributed across four villages in the Park including the Moygu and Arayo villages. [4]

Spirituality

Given the violent history of the Ikpeng, to this day the community believes that war is what engines the world functioning and cycle of life, not only in terms of deaths but also the important reincarnation of the enemy, as a form of reproducing social life.[8]

Kawaiwete Indigenous Community

A basket with traditional patterns made with Buriti (Mauritia flexuosa) woven by the Kawaiwete Indigenous community  

Geographical Context

The Kawaiwete, also known as the Kayabí among several other names, currently inhabit the northern state of Mato Grosso in the Xingu Indigenous Park and the Apiaká-Kayabi Indian Reservation that is the South of Pará. [9]

The Kawaiwete are currently seeking to regain their traditional territory on the Jatobá river, and approximately 200 Kayabi still live in their traditional territory due to their close ties with their ancestors buried there, currently inhabit the northern state of Mato Grosso in the Xingu Indigenous Park and the Apiaká-Kayabi Indian Reservation that is the South of Pará. [9]

They reside on the reservation in the Xingu River basin with 14 other Indigenous groups including the Ikpeng.[9]

In 2010 they were recorded to have a population of 1,855 people. [9]

History

They originally occupied large areas within Brazil in relatively self-reliant villages along the coast of Brazil and mouth of the Amazon river. These tribes occupied a hunter-gatherer and agrarian lifestyle. With colonization by Portuguese settlers, their population has declined over the years, especially due to exposure to diseases brought from Europe. [10]

In the 1950s, the Kawaiwete people were relocated to the Xingu Indigenous Park due to the encroachment of their land and culture by commercial companies, as well as to evade rubber tappers, loggers, farmers, miners, and other Euro-Brazilians. [11]

Figure 5. Upper Xingu Indigenous community dance

The Kawaiwete people maintain a strong connection to their lands. They have a diversified horticulture and elaborate agricultural system where each season dictates the sowing, growing and reaping of plants, similar to the slash-and-burn method. They are subsistence farmers depending on their manioc, maize, and other staples for their food. Baskets, sieves, slings, and hammocks are woven and designed with cotton and tucumã palm (Astrocaryum vulgare) foliage. [12]

Spirituality

The Xingu Indigenous communities understand the forest as a large plantation of creative spirits. They believe that the plants over which the spirit Oyng cries to refresh the earth are plants that should be considered in forest recovery projects such as “regeneration-animating” plants (ywakamaap for the Kawaiwete) and “real trees”. Therefore forest succession, tree regeneration, and the control of the types of plants and trees is deeply rooted in the culture of Ikpeng and Kawaiwete peoples. [1]

Tenure Arrangements & Bundle of Rights

Tenure arrangement in the land occupied by the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete people is done through a collaborative management agreement, and the duration of this tenure over the land has no time frame. It is a community-based tenure that is of customary and informal nature. [1]

In the 1960s, policies instituted by the federal government and development projects commenced. The goal of the government was to develop the infrastructure and economic activity of the Amazon and in doing so, this attracted many logging and mining companies into the forests for economic opportunities. A lack of official regulations and laws by the Ministry of Environment governing the extraction of forest products lead to a spike in illegal logging activity. [13]

The Brazilian constitution of 1988 guaranteed the customary rights of indigenous populations to be consulted before Indigenous land use projects ensue. The constitution also pointed out that indigenous people have the right to the land that they “traditionally occupy”. In conjunction, a devolution of rights occurred where some tenure rights were transferred from the federal government to community-level institutions. The sovereignty of Indigenous people are thus only recognized on a de facto level. [14] This meant that the Indigenous communities were provided with potent protections including the ‘inalienable and indispensable’ right to traditional lands, as well as the right to control the use of water bodies, rivers, and subsoil resources within homeland boundaries. [15]

However, these two rights have been largely neglected by the Brazilian State and by private individuals seeking fortunes on Indigenous lands. [16]

Currently, indigenous communities within the Xingu basin have the legal right to access, withdrawal and use any of the forest resources for their use. They have to right to alienation and cannot sell or lease the land to outsiders. However, they also have the right of exclusion, as the sole objectives of the demarcation of the park is protecting the forest and the communities that reside in it. [15]

Despite this level of protection, forest concession licenses were introduced in 2014 by the federal government of Brazil and started being sold to private logging companies through auction. The recent concession is granted to logging companies while neglecting to consult indigenous people, and therefore these companies can carry out logging activity in the national forests. [17] Blairo Maggi, a Brazilian billionaire, and owner of one of the world’s largest soybean producers, holds the licensing for large public work projects making them immune to legal challenges and objections of civil society (Agricultural Minister of President Temer). [16]

Table 1. Stakeholders and Bundle of Rights Table
Strands in the Bundle of Rights Stakeholders
Affected Stakeholders Interested Stakeholders
Xingu Indigenous Communities The Federal Government The Brazilian Ministry of Environment ISA FUNAI Resource Extraction Companies
Access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Withdrawal Yes Yes Yes Certain conditions Yes No
Management Some rights (within co-management agreement) Yes Yes Certain conditions Yes No
Exclusion Yes Yes Yes Certain conditions Yes No
Alienation No Yes Yes Certain conditions Yes No
Duration Unknown Indefinite Yes Certain conditions Unknown No
Bequeathment Some rights (only bequeathment of reserve, not traditional land) Yes Yes Certain conditions Yes No
Extinguishability Unknown Yes Yes Certain conditions Yes No

Administrative Arrangements

Figure 7. Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations of Brazil

Government Institutions


The Federal Government

Dictates laws and mandates that govern the use of land in the Amazon and Indigenous territory. Between 2011-2016, an incentive called The Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC) which translates to Growth Acceleration Program which drove unregulated economic development projects across the Amazon such as highways, water resource projects, and energy plants. [18] This has led to Indigenous land fragmentation. [19]

Under a new president, Jair Bolsonaro who was elected in 2018, the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous communities of the Amazon continued to be undermined. His views and policies gained public support for resource extractivist who became empowered and attempted to claim Indigenous land through force and violence. This is an example of where the 1988 Constitution fails to protect the rights and lands of the Xingu Indigenous communities. [18] The federal government is highly influential, and Bolsonaro has openly opposed environmental fines and Indigenous land stewardship practices such cultural burning, which has led to the rise in illegal logging and mining practices to this day. [18]

The Brazilian Ministry of Environment

The Ministry of Environment is a cabinet-level form of governance of the executive branch of the federal government. The aim is to promote participatory environmental management of Indigenous lands through policy and project management and in intervening in in environmental licensing processes that may have a substantial impact on Indigenous communities [20].

However, with Bolsonaro's presidency, climate action became a decentralized goal for the Ministry of Environment. The rise in deforestation became catalyzed by several environmental setbacks starting with the Brazilian Forest Code of 2012 being amended to favour supporting resource extraction companies. The influence of the Ministry of Environment on Indigenous land and rights protection has weakened over this period. [21]

Fundação Nacional do Índio or the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI)

FUNAI is an organization established from the Ministry of Justice of the executive branch of the federal government of Brazil. It serves as an indigenous rights agency to protect and advocate for the rights and lives of Indigenous communities in Brazil such as the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete. It aims to abide by the 1988 Constitution and the Indian Statute, to which the rights of Indigenous communities have been denied through the exploitation of illegal miners, rangers, loggers, and dam-builders. [22]

In the years between 2007-2012, FUNAI became controversial with a change in leadership. During this time the agency was involved with mandating policies regarding the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam and other watershed projects that negatively impacted the Xingu Indigenous communities. [23]


Non-governmental Institutions

Instituto Socioambiental (ISA)

The Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) is a non-governmental organization that focuses on environmental and social rights within the Brazilian community, especially regarding native people and Indigenous rights and knowledge. Within the institution, they have a Xingu Program, which supports research based on Indigenous territories. [24]

Rules of the ISA

The ISA follows a Policy and Law Program that strives to support policies and create rights that encourages environmental and ecological sustainable living for indigenous peoples in Brazil. The ISA works in the executive, legislative and judiciary systems. They focus on programs ranging from forest policy, environmental permits, protected areas, indigenous territorial rights and climate change.[24].

Management Authority [24]

  1. General Assembly of ISA
  2. Board of Directors of ISA
  3. Executive board ISA

Reporting System

The National Fund for Climate Change, of the Ministry of Environment donates to the ISA, which in turn, the ISA has used that fund to support the research in Xingu regarding Indigenous knowledge and forest succession management. The ISA is able to propose lawsuits, fund and research studies, and spread information to the public, as well as attend international conferences to be a voice for the indigenous peoples in Brazil. [24].

Co-management Strategy

Village-level Strategies

The Xingu Indigenous people use methods of Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) such as the growing of fruit trees and adult trees on the borders of swiddens to improve soil fertility, the limiting of crop cycles, selective cleaning, cultural burning, and the cultivation of plants that encourage nitrogen-fixing bacteria. [1]

The Ikpeng community has specific strategies to manage agroforestry. These strategies include the cultivation of fruit trees to maintain soil fertility from the dropped fruits and seeds, as well as the cleaning of plots. These techniques were already used among the peoples of the upper Xingu. [1]

Some farmers within the Ikpeng community prefer doing selective cleanings around plants in the swidden (cultivation plot) and decreasing cleaning intensity as crops develop, instead of the traditional slash-and-burn cleaning technique. This is done to favor forest regeneration during the fallow. Overcleaning of the plots leads to reduced resilience of the land, and thus low productivity of cassava. [1]

The cultivation of plants such as cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), an important grain-producing legume, is practiced by the Kawaiwete as these plants encourage nitrogen-fixing bacterial colonies which improve soil fertility, particularly in areas affected by intensive agriculture. [1]

Campaigns and Organizations

Y Ikatu Xingu: a social campaign concerning conservation and protection of the Xingu spring region. [25]

  • Important as this land was lost due to agricultural intensification
  • Xingu Seed Network originated from this campaign

Xingu Seed Network: 20 communities in the XIT + ISA + other organizations joined together to collect seeds with the goal of restoring the forest and soil fertility to counteract the effects of intensive agriculture over the decades. [25]

  • Goal: to plant mixed native seeds: the high plant density allows for robust, heterogenous forest structure leading to a more efficient carbon cycle, greater biodiversity, and pollination [26].
  • Women's empowerment [25]

Atix (Indigenous Land Association of the Xingu): Communities in partnership with ISA that seek to amplify relationship with the market specialized in indigenous artwork in Brazil.

  • To conciliate the generation of income with the environmental sustainability of the raw materials utilized in the making of the principle products commercialized.
  • e.g concern for the impact on birds of the making of feather art [25].

Honey Cooperative: Economic alternative connected to external markets in association with ISA where households harvest honey that later on gets commercialized in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. [25]

Affected Stakeholders

The Ikpeng

The Ikpeng indigenous community in Xingu are considered as affected stakeholders because they are directly impacted by the land and resources in the territory.[8]

Goals

The Ikpeng indigenous community strive to achieve several goals. Firstly, they wish to restore soil fertility and encourage forest succession in order to grow their primary crops (cotton, maize, manioc etc.), and have also expressed their desire to defend their territory from illegal loggers, poachers, and deforestation efforts. It is also deeply important to them to preserve their cultural practices of crop cultivation, and to maintain and improve land rights. [8]

The Kawaiwete

The Kawaiwete indigenous community in Brazil's Xingu territory are considered as affected stakeholders because any changes within their land and available resources affects them directly and with impact.[9]

Goals

Figure 8. Encroachment of Intensive Agriculture on Xingu Reserve

The Kawaiwete is an indigenous community that has various goals in terms of their native and occupied territories. Firstly, they wish to regain access and rights to live on their traditional land on the Jatobá river where their ancestors were buried. In addition, they wish to protect their land from commercial companies, rubber tappers, farmers and others. They desire to maintain their strong connection to their land by maintaining their land rights to cultivate their crops according to their own agricultural system. They aspire to be able to generate sustainable income by creating baskets, sieves, slings, and hammocks using their natural resources such as cotton and tucum palm. In terms of cultivation, the Xingu Indigenous communities find importance in the different types of soil for cultivation. Anthropogenic soils, called “Amazonian Dark Earth” are important for the Xingu communities, particularly for the Kawaiwete people to grow corn, peanuts, and broad beans. Likewise, non-anthropogenic soils called “Red Earth” are important for the cultivation of cassava by both the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete people.  Lastly, they wish to pass on their traditional knowledge of their land, forest management, and traditional practices— whether its within their community, nearby villages or the broader public.[9]

Relative Power of the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete Indigenous Communities

The Ikpeng and Kawaiwete indigenous community possesses a deep historical knowledge on the land history usage, native species, and traditional practices of their traditional land. They hold customary rights to their reserve, but not to their traditional land.[9]

For the last several decades, the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete indigenous people have been trying to reclaim and protect their constitutional rights over their land due to encroachment by loggers and intensive agriculture. Historically, legal protections have failed to protect them from outside interested stakeholders. Currently, they have official recognition of their land and de facto sovereignty, but they are still threatened by resource extraction and intensive agriculture encroachment. As observed in Figure 8, from 2011-2021 the encroachment decreased slightly signifying the involvement of NGOs such as ISA who have helped them reclaim some rights. [13]

Interested Outside Stakeholders

The Federal Government

The federal government dictates the laws and mandates affecting the Amazon and Indigenous lands. They have a direct influence over these lands, and can pursue deforestation and logging activity in the interest of financial and social capital. [16]

Relative Power

The federal government has the power to make federal based decisions in support of indigenous peoples and their land, deforestation and more. They have a large fund to support decisions, policies, and goals. [16]

The Brazilian Ministry of Environment

The Brazilian Ministry of Environment's main objective includes: interest in developing management practices and mitigation of forest succession. [16]

Relative Power

The Brazilian Ministry of Environment has a large fund and ability to support research studies. In fact, the case study research was indirectly funded by The Climate Change National Fund of The Brazilian Ministry of Environment. [16]

National Indian Foundation (FUNAI)

The National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) has the objective to support indigenous peoples across Brazil. They understand that indigenous peoples in Brazil live in different levels of isolation, and deal with various risks that targets their rights, resources, and well-being.[27] They claim that the main groups that negatively impact indigenous peoples are: illegal miners, loggers, ranchers and more.[27] They wish to reduce these threats, and ensure that the indigenous peoples' rights are respected in practice and not only in the writing of the Brazilian Constitution and the Indian Statute.[27]

Relative Power

The FUNAI has power to establish and release policies in regards to the Indigenous peoples in Brazil.[27] They are also responsible in creating boundaries for areas of protection that are used or traditionally occupied by indigenous communities. They played an important role in approving the recognition of the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete rights in the late 1900s. [27]

Instituto Socioambiental (ISA)

The ISA is a non-governmental organization partnered with several indigenous projects, one being the case study on "Indigenous Knowledge and Forest Succession Management of the Xingu Indigenous Communities in The Amazon, Brazil". They are interested stakeholders because they strive to learn from and support indigenous communities, such as the Kawaiwete and Ikpeng communities. Furthermore, they're interested in alternative management practices to help build mitigate climate change affects on forests in Xingu Indigenous Parks. In fact, they have a program solely for the Xingu territories and communities called "Xingu Program". ISA is not directly impacted by any changes from these communities, their land, their resources, and practices. However, they do hold power and interest in spreading traditional knowledge, supporting the indigenous communities and thus making them a very essential outside stakeholder. [1]

Relative Power

The ISA have a "Cooperation Agreement" in which aims to create projects and support indigenous peoples that reside in the XIT. [1] Through this Cooperation Agreement, they are capable of raising awareness of issues that the Xingu peoples deal with which often stems from climate change. [1] In addition, the ISA receives funds from the National Fund for Climate Change, of the Ministry of Environment to carry out research and projects. [1] They've used parts of that fund to carry out the study on "Indigenous Knowledge and Forest Succession Management of the Xingu Indigenous Communities in The Amazon, Brazil" and by supporting the researchers with logistical and technical assistance. [1] Lastly, they have the power to monitor and intervene in the processing of bills, which can have a significant impact on Indigenous communities.[22]

Resource Extraction Companies

Since president Bolonaro's election, there has been a rise in land and resource exploitation by resource extraction companies, particularly logging and mining. Old growth mahogany forests and gold are two examples of resources that have been extracted throughout the 1900s that has caused the fragmentation of Indigenous land, loss of Indigenous medicinal plants and fertile soil, and war, both between extractivists and Indigenous communities as well as between Indigenous communities.[28]

Relative Power

Resource extraction companies have little importance in the role of achieving project outputs and purpose, and also have little influence over the project process and outcomes as the federal government has power over their activities. However, they have more influence than the Indigenous communities due to their greater support by the federal government. [28]

Power Analysis

Table 2. Power Analysis
Power Stakeholders Stakeholder Position
Low influence, high importance The Ikpeng indigenous community Affected stakeholder
Low influence, high importance The Kawaiwete indigenous community Affected stakeholder
High influence, high importance The Federal Government Interested outside stakeholder
Low influence, high importance The Brazilian Ministry of Environment Interested outside stakeholder
Low influence, high importance National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) Interested outside stakeholder
Low influence, high importance Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) Interested outside stakeholder
Low influence , low importance Resource Extraction Companies Interested outside stakeholder

Power Assessment

As with Nicholas Menzies' study of the Naidu people in China and Mazagão in Brazil, it is a similar case with the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete case study where the state has high influence and importance over their land and resources. Historically and contemporarily, they are subject to exploitation, looting, forest clearing, soil infertility, loss of traditional crops, and severe land degradation. With the aid of ISA, the Xingu Indigenous communities have joined to co-manage their lands with the goals of restoring, cultivating, and preserving their rights and influence. [29]

Concessionaires possess de facto rights in terms of land use and usufruct rights regarding their plot. The state have rights to act on major land independently from scope of concession, and this is called de jure rights. In contrast, locals are not able to enact or decide on important measures regarding illegal logging offenders neither can they successfully litigate overlap disputes.[28] The state possesses the highest control but has the lowest interest in locals' problems. Concessionaires and their level of power is being secured through their partnership with BAM, thus growing the economic incentive to the state. Lastly, REDD+ is a project initiated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to ensure international interest and incentive for similar projects. [28]

Discussion

Aims of the Community Forestry Project

The primary objective of the "Indigenous Knowledge and Forest Succession Management of the Xingu Indigenous Communities in The Amazon, Brazil" research project is to obtain indigenous knowledge on traditional and adaptive forest succession management strategies. Additionally, they aimed to learn more about way to combat climate change and its affects on forests: drier seasons, change in soil, changes in species composition and more. [30]

The questions directly stated in the study as topics of exploration are: "How do forests regenerate during the fallow period? How can local management improve forest regeneration? Are there indicator species for secondary succession, soil recovery, and vulnerability to fires? Is the increase in the number of fires affecting the sustainability of the shifting cultivation systems?" [30]

Successes

Ecological Achievements:

Similar agricultural strategies and techniques are used between the Ikpeng and the Kawaiwete people which was successful. Through their co-management, the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete people reclaimed and practiced their traditional cultural practices along with new innovative practices with the aid of ISA.

Traditional practices of the Indigenous people in XIT have high success rates for forest regenerations.

Brazil was included in a 2014 study of forest-rich countries in Latin America where the research was focused on community forest rights, forest health, and climate change. The study concluded that legal recognition of Indigenous rights to their land and government protection has been linked to lower deforestation and lower carbon emissions. [31] Between 2000-2012, it was found that the annual deforestation rates in tenure-secure Indigenous communities were 2.5 times lower than before - the same timespan that NGOs such as ISA were involved. [32]

Carbon emission reduction is one of the global benefits. This significantly outweighs the cost of 20 years of having the forest secured for community forestry, estimated to be around 1% of the total benefits. A lot of the forest area is held by communities, under customary tenure, however, not everything is effectively protected or recognized. As an effort to strengthen the indigenous forest rights, the climate benefits could be expanded as community forest management is significantly cost-effective. [31] [32]

Social Achievements

Considering the gains beyond economic scope, social capital was gained in the process. Undivided and holistic relationships of indigenous peoples and other local communities towards their territory is crucial to their ways of living and culture preservation. This also increases security in relationships, contributing to the achievement of their human rights. [33] [34]

Conflicts

  • The increasingly stricter international regulations, on the level of the federal government, would negatively impact small fishery communities, with no consideration given to the difference between organized crime and self-governance. This phenomenon is known as 'state-organized crime'.[6]
  • Farmers within the community (Ikpeng) have different strategies for cleaning in regards to farming. Certain farmers want to continue to practice their traditional way of cleaning (large-scale slash and burn), whereas some farmers believe that introducing more balanced cleaning management practices will be highly beneficial. [1]
  • Climate change has led to a hotter and drier atmosphere, increasing the vulnerability of the environment to fire and resulting in the loss of land. [1]
  • Agricultural intensification of the land by interested stakeholders such as the federal government has led to shorter fallow times (period of non-cultivation to restore soil fertility). This has led to lower soil fertility, fewer harvests of traditional crops, and forest degradation. [1]
  • Traditional agroforestry management is being replaced by techniques that take into account the practicality and ease of access to areas, with food production as a priority, rather than a good regeneration of fallows. The replacement of traditional practices has led to the loss of traditional knowledge and cultural practices such as cultivation cycles which intensive agriculture doesn’t allow for. [1]
  • There is an impact of intensive agriculture on social and natural capital. Indigenous people are traveling further from their villages to grow their traditional crops in more fertile soils in old forests but this requires physical exertion and greater amounts of transport and fuel to transport the production. The environmental pollution from fuel and transport has led to environmental degradation. [1]
  • Rapidly increasing deforestation rates in the Xingu territory has been observed after Bolsonaro became the president, where approximately 513 thousand of hectares in the Xingu basin were deforested. [24] One of the main reasons for the increase in deforestation is the active neglect of the government in terms of environmental causes by promoting illegal and destructive activities, by lowering surveillance and investments in conservation. lllegal mining activities, forest fires and clearing land for cattle grazing are just a few of the several threats to the Xingu communities. Not only should this be a concern for the indigenous peoples, but also scientists claim that the loss of connectivity of the forest with the region of the Iriri will be extremely detrimental to the chances of survival of many species as well as speeding up the process of getting closer to the ‘tipping point’, a state where the forest will not be able to recover, becoming permanently desertified [24].

Recommendations

Recommendation/improvement to the original case study:

Ensure future projects have ethical approvals. This research did not receive an ethical approval statement because it was working in partnership with ISA, which is an association that closely works with Indigenous peoples in Brazil [35].

The case study did not have sufficient information on tenure in terms of the official type of tenure, and what the government rights vs Indigenous rights are. Due to this, it was difficult to create an assessment of relative power. The case study mainly focused on village-level co-management with NGOs such as ISA, however there was little investigation as to how other levels of governance were in conflict with the Indigenous people. This would have provided a lot of useful information about various outside interested stakeholders and their influence which was another reason why the power analysis was difficult.

Due to the above, it was also difficult to create a multi-level assessment of governance.

Other Case Studies On Similar or Relevant Topics:

  1. The future of the Amazon: new perspectives from climate, ecosystem and social sciences by Richard A Betts, Yadvinder Malhi and J. Timmons Roberts (2008).
  2. Interactions of anthropogenic activities, fire, and rain forests in the Amazon Basin by Kauffman J.B., & Uhl C. (1990).
  3. The ecology, management and marketing of non-timber forest products in the Alto Rio Guamá Indigenous Reserve (eastern Brazilian Amazon): A thesis in ecology by Plowden, J. C. (2001).
  4. Secondary succession and indigenous management in semideciduous forest fallows of the Amazon Basin by Toledo, M., & Salick, J. (2005).
  5. The Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: the case of the Kayapó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon by Posey, D. A. (1985).

Conclusion

This case study on the Ikpeng and Kawaiwete Indigenous people of the Xingu River Basin was an example of how the co-management of forested areas between Indigenous people and outside stakeholders can be successful to restore and conserve natural resources. This was made possible due to the increased recognition of the importance and influence that Indigenous communities have and their rights. Prior to the 1988 constitution, Indigenous people were treated unjustifiably and their land was strictly under the ownership of the federal government. After devolution, Indigenous people were given certain rights to their land through customary, collective tenure. This enhanced the security of this community-based forest tenure and in turn, with NGOs, aided Indigenous communities in reaching their goals of restoration, cultural preservation and sustainability.

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 Schmidt, M. V. C., Ikpeng, Y. U., Kayabi, T., Sanches, R. A., Ono, K. Y., & Adams, C. 2021. Indigenous Knowledge and Forest Succession Management in the Brazilian Amazon: Contributions to Reforestation of Degraded Areas. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.60592
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Parque Indígena Xingu. Terras Indígenas no Brasil. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2021, from https://terrasindigenas.org.br/pt-br/terras-indigenas/3908#demografia.
  3. ↑ Kaiabi. Kaiabi - Povos Indígenas no Brasil. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2021, from https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Povo:Kaiabi.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 "Ikpeng." Ethnologue. 2009. Retrieved 23 November 2021.
  5. ↑ Chang, C. C., & Turner, B. L. 2019. Ecological succession in a changing world. Journal of Ecology, 107(2), 503–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13132 ‌
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Global Forest Coalition. (2016, November 2). On Stakeholders, Rightsholder and Conflicts of Interests in Agenda2030 - Global Forest Coalition. Retrieved November 22, 2021, from Global Forest Coalition website: https://globalforestcoalition.org/stakeholders-rightsholder-conflicts-interests-agenda2030/
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 "Ikpeng: Introduction." Instituto Socioambiental: Povos Indígenas no Brasil. Retrieved 23 November 2021
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Ikpeng. Ikpeng - Povos Indígenas no Brasil. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2021, from https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Povo:Ikpeng.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 "Kaiabi: Introduction." Instituto Socioambiental: Povos Indígenas no Brasil. Retrieved 23 November 2021
  10. ↑ 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(1619), 20120164. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0164
  11. ↑ "The Kayabi: Tattooers of the Brazilian Amazon". Lars Krutak. https://archive.md/20120910040821/http://www.larskrutak.com/articles/Kayabi/ Retrieved 23 November 2021.
  12. ↑ Senra, Klinton. "Subsistence". Retrieved 23 November 2021
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Lele, U. J. 2000. Brazil: Forests in the balance: Challenges of conservation with development. World Bank Publications.
  14. ↑ Fearnside, P. M. 2015. Brazil’s São Luiz do Tapajós Dam: The Art of Cosmetic Environmental Impact Assessments. Water Alternatives 8(3): 373-396
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Xingu. Xingu - Povos Indígenas no Brasil. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2021, from https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Povo:Xingu.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 Walker, R., & Simmons, C. 2018. Endangered Amazon: An Indigenous Tribe Fights Back Against Hydropower Development in the Tapajós Valley, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 60:2, 4-15, DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2018.1418994 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2018.1418994
  17. ↑ World Rainforest Movement. The Mundukuru peoples in Brazil: forestry concessions imposed on indigenous lands. (2015, September 15). Retrieved November 24, 2021, from http://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/the-mundukuru-peoples-in-brazil-forestry-concessions-imposed-on-indigenous-lands/
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Maisonnave, Fabiano (2019). "Amazon's indigenous warriors take on invading loggers and ranchers.
  19. ↑ Menezes, R. G., & Barbosa, R. 2021. Environmental governance under Bolsonaro: dismantling institutions, curtailing participation, delegitimising opposition. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 15(2), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-021-00491-8 ‌
  20. ↑ https://antigo.mma.gov.br/desenvolvimento-rural/terras-ind%C3%ADgenas.html
  21. ↑ Climate institutions in Brazil: three decades of building and dismantling climate capacity. 2021. Retrieved December 2, 2021, from Environmental Politics website: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1957614 ‌
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 International, S. (n.d.). Funai - National Indian Foundation (Brazil). Survival International. Retrieved December 2, 2021, from https://www.survivalinternational.org/about/funai.
  23. ↑ Branford, Sue; Torres, Mauricio. 2017. "Tapajós Under Attack 12: Indigenous Groups, the Amazon's Best Land Stewards, Under Federal Attack"
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 Harari, I. (2021, April 19). Desmatamento no Xingu Avança com Governo Bolsonaro E Põe em Risco 'Escudo Verde' Contra a desertificação da amazônia. ISA - Instituto Socioambiental. Retrieved November 29, 2021, from https://www.socioambiental.org/pt-br/noticias-socioambientais/desmatamento-no-xingu-avanca-com-governo-bolsonaro-e-poe-em-risco-escudo-verde-contra-a-desertificacao-da-amazonia.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 Xingu - Indigenous Peoples in Brazil. 2018. Retrieved November 29, 2021, from Socioambiental.org website: https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/Povo:Xingu ‌
  26. ↑ De Urzedo, D. I., Fisher, R., Sá, D., & Junqueira, R. 2020. Indigenous participation in the native seed market: Adapting ethnic institutions for ecological restoration in the southeastern amazon. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29153-2_12
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 Survival International, & Survival International. 2019. FUNAI - National Indian Foundation (Brazil) - Survival International. Retrieved December 2, 2021, from Survivalinternational.org website: https://www.survivalinternational.org/about/funai ‌
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 Amazon Watch 2020. "Global NGOs: Dirty Dozen Companies Driving Deforestation Must Act Now to Stop the Burning of the World's Forests". Amazon Watch.
  29. ↑ Menzies, N. 2012. Our Forest, Your Ecosystem, Their Timber (pp. 87-99). New York: Columbia University Press
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Schmidt, M. V. C., Ikpeng, Y. U., Kayabi, T., Sanches, R. A., Ono, K. Y., & Adams, C. 2021. Indigenous Knowledge and Forest Succession Management in the Brazilian Amazon: Contributions to Reforestation of Degraded Areas. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.60592
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Stevens, S. 2014. Front Matter. In Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and Protected Areas (pp. i–vi). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt183pbn5 ‌
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Ding, H., Veit, P., Gray, E., Reytar, K., Juan-Carlos Altamirano, & Blackman, A. 2016. Climate Benefits, Tenure Costs. In World Resources Institute. Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/research/climate-benefits-tenure-costs ‌
  33. ↑ Almeida, Fernanda. 2017. “Legislative Pathways for Securing Community-Based Property Rights.” Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
  34. ↑ Roldán-Ortiga, Roque. 2004. “Models for Recognizing Indigenous Land Rights in Latin America.” Biodiversity Series Paper no. 99. Washington, DC: World Bank Environment Department.
  35. ↑ Betts, R. A., Malhi, Y., & Roberts, J. T. 2008. The future of the Amazon: new perspectives from climate, ecosystem and social sciences. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 363(1498), 1729–1735. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0011
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:FRST370/2021/Indigenous_Knowledge_and_Forest_Succession_Management_of_the_Xingu_Indigenous_Communities_in_The_Amazon,_Brazil&oldid=708816"