Collaborative Management in Brazil`s Xingu Indigenous Park Kateryna Byelova Abstract Indigenous communities play important role in maintaining both biological and cultural diversity throughout the world. However, they might be exposed to certain pressures and challenges which put under threat local ecosystem and community integrity as, for example, in case of the Xingu Indigenous Park. This ancestral area, being highly diverse in both ecological and social contexts, has been experiencing active occupation from outside actors, particularly from farmers and cattle ranchers. In recent years the situation has improved in a certain extent, mainly due to work of indigenous associations. They have been playing a vital role of mediators both between communities of the Xingu and with outsiders in implementing a number of collaborative projects. Community based nature resource management turned out to be one of the crucial and most appropriate tools in coping with the actual problems in this indigenous area. By recognizing indigenous people`s land rights, protecting their traditional culture and incorporating their environmental knowledge it has been contributing to more efficient conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Taking into account the achievements made so far and the potential threats for the Xingu Indigenous Park, it is important to maintain cooperation between indigenous communities and outsiders in sharing power, responsibility and actions on equal basis. Introduction Brazil, one of the most biologically diverse country in the world, has been experiencing an alarming rate of natural environments` occupation throughout the whole country, but especially in the Amazon and along the Brazilian coastline (Collomb, 2011). A strong need to conserve the natural resources through their protection and sustainable use arose. For this purpose protected areas began to appear, known in Brazil as Conservation Units (Green, 2004). In 2000 the National System of Conservation Units (the Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conserva or the SNUC) was established (Silva, 2005). Such government institutions as National Environment Council coordinated by Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, and Directorate of Ecosystems of the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) administer the SNUC (Mason, 2004). NGOs, the private sector and indigenous communities also manage protected areas in Brazil (Green, 2004). The SNUC divides all protected areas in Brazil into two categories: strictly protected and of sustainable use. In strictly protected areas the main goal is biodiversity conservation and the use of natural resources is not allowed. They include: national parks, biological reserves, ecological stations, natural monuments, and wildlife refuges. Protected areas of sustainable use allow to exploit natural resources but only in a sustainable way. Environmental protection areas, areas of particular ecological interest, national forests, extractivist reserves, fauna reserves, sustainable development reserves, and private natural heritage reserves belong to this category (Silva, 2005). Most of the conservation units were created in coastal territories inhabited by relatively isolated people who lacked their legal land rights (Ferreira, 2007). It was only after 80s when both national and international interest began to consider local human communties in the protected natural areas. In 1988 Brazilian Constitution recognized ancestral rights over land areas that indigenous groups traditionally occupied. Since then federal government undertook official responsibility for demarcating indigenous reserves and protecting land rights of indigenous groups (Borrini-Feyerabend, 2004). Hence, local knowledge started to be incorporated in management of the conservation units. The concept of collaborative management appeared that means sharing of power, responsibility and actions between government and communities ideally on equal basis. In this process states are supposed both to legitimize and to recognize traditional local-level management systems (Abbot, 1998). Among the positive impacts of co-management is that informal local knowledge complements scientific knowledge with more “enlightened, effective and equitable remedies and solutions to management challenges” (Pathak, 2000). Resourse users also can offer insider understanding within sociocultural context while the State`s main role is enforcement efforts (Pretty, 2009). As a result, collaborative management contributes to more efficient conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Though many conservation units in Brazil face some problems, for example, financial and personnel deficits, weaknesses in infrastructure and management efficiency, protected areas remain the important tool for preserving vulnerable ecosystems in collaboration with local communities (Silva, 2005). In this term paper I`d like to focus on the peculiarities of collaborative management in Brazil`s Xingu Indigenous Park. In particular, it will be about actual problems Xingu indigenous people have been facing from the outside world and their outcomes for the ecosystem and the community, about the role of indigenous associations, the challenges they have been experiencing and the projects been implemented so far as the achievements of collaborative management in the Park. Xingu Indigenous Park The Xingu Indigenous Park was created in 1961 by the government of Brazil with the dual objectives to protect the environment and the indigenous populations within its boundaries (Athayde, 2002). Nowadays it is administered by the National Indian Foundation and the Brazilian government’s environmental agency (Schwartzman, 2005). The Park is located in the southern part of the Brazilian Amazon in the State of Mato Grosso, covering an area of 6,5 million acres and having a perimeter around 900 km (Athayde, 2002). The area holds some of the richest biodiversity in the world. It is located in an area of ecological transition, consisting of Amazon rain forest at the north and Cerrado (savanna) at the south. The climate varies between a rainy season, from November to April, and a period of drought in the other months. To the south of the Park are the feeder rivers of the Xingu, which make up a basin (Turner, 1995). The Xingu Indigenous Park is the largest Indigenous Land in the State Mato Grosso hosting a coalition of 16 indigenous groups with around 4,000 individuals speaking 14 different languages (Athayde, 2002). Despite their linguistic diversity, these indigenous communities are very similar to each other in their ways of life and world view. They are interconnected through a network of specialized trade, marriages and inter-village rituals. However, in the same time, each of these groups is cultivating its own ethnic identity (Zimmerman, 2001). As long as fish, porridges and manioc bread mainly constitute the everyday diet of the community, fishing and agriculture are the central productive activities there. During the rain season, when fish is relatively scarce, the diet becomes more varied and includes pumpkin, watermelon, papaya, corn etc. Agricultural activity also contributes in cultivation of other plants, for example, for ceremonial purposes (red dye, tobacco etc.), and for production of crafted goods (as gourds and cotton) (Turner, 1995). As to hunting and gathering activities, they play secondary role in food production. Hunting of several birds and small animals is more individual and male, while gathering of, for example, honey, pequi, mangaba, ants, firewood and etc., is usually collective and involves women and children (Turner, 1995). Pressures and their outcomes However, in recent decades the indigenous communities of the Park have been experiencing a number of pressures on their native territory. In the 1980s hunters and fishers started invading the area of the Xingu Indigenous Park. Then it was booming agricultural industry (especially of soybean) and cattle ranching in the region (Athayde, 2010). By the end of the 1990s, forest fires on cattle ranches located to the northeast and the forestry operations to the west also affected the Park (Nepstad, 2006). Further, the occupation of the area around the indigenous land began pesticide pollution of the rivers supplying water (ISA, 2012). Among the actual problems confronted by the inhabitants of the Park, the greatest perhaps result exactly from this process of rapacious occupation in the area surrounding the Park. Due to these pressures, there has been an ever-increasing perception among the indigenous inhabitants of the Park that they are in an uncomfortable “embrace”, surrounded by a process of occupation, and that the Park is a shrinking “island” of forest in the midst of pasture and intensive agriculture (Collins, 2010). With a growth rate of around 3% per year, the population has nowhere to expand. Therefore, life in the villages follows a progressively sedentary pattern, in contrast to traditional semi-nomadism (Athayde, 2002). Activities that surround the Park are preventing the flow of sources of animal protein (game animals) into the Park, so the availability of natural resources is becoming increasingly scarce (Collins, 2010). Indigenous associations As long as Xingu Indigenous Park is very diverse both from a socio-cultural and an ecological perspective, it was a real challenge to create and maintain dialogue both within the Park between the different communities and with outside world represented by national society (Chernela, 2005). Specially for this purpose indigenous associations have been created. Three of them are directly connected to local interests of specific villages: Mavutsinim, of the Kamaiura, Jacui, of the Kalapalo, and the association of the Wauja (Athayde, 2010). In 1994, Indigenous Land Association of the Xingu (ATIX) also was established as a mediating agent. It works in a collaboration with the Social and Environmental Institute (Instituto SocioAmbiental or ISA), which is a Brazil-based NGO with many years of experience working among indigenous peoples of the Xingu basin (Schwartzman, 2005). The Atix is also supported by the Rainforest Foundation of Norway (Chernela, 2005). Apart of organizing meetings of leaders of all the ethnic groups, these indigenous associations work together in projects involving territorial monitoring and control, bilingual education and environmentally sustainable economic alternatives (Mulale, 2011). The question of monitoring the territory is one of the highest priorities on the list of political questions in the Park, being discussed both in meetings of leaders of the Atix and in meetings with state environmental agencies. So called Borders Project is being conducted icluding: mapping of deforestation rates, through satellite photos, and the identification of new vectors of occupation in the area surrounding the Park; a training program for the heads of the vigilance posts; restoration and maintenance of the boundary marks that establish the physical limits of the territory; a databank of all ranchers` properties bordering the Park (Mulale, 2011). This project makes it possible for the indigenous people to follow the situation up close as to what is happening inside the borders of the Park and mobilize their communities against external threats, both in inter-village discussions, and with the public agencies responsible (Mulale, 2011). In education, the organizations provide teaching of the Portuguese language, basic mathematics, legislation and inter-institutional relations. Younger individuals are the ones who dominate the new knowledge. It generates conflict with traditional village politics, which is generally controlled by elders (Athayde, 2002). And this might be a challenge. Thus, an indigenous association does not always succeed in reconciling the traditional politics with the political administration of the national society. As to environmentally sustainable economic alternatives, Indigenous Land Association together with SocioEnvironmental Institute work as intermediaries between communities and a market specialized in indigenous artwork in Brazil. Also they try to balance generation of income with the environmental sustainability of the raw materials utilized in the making of the principal products commercialized, as, for example, the concern for the impact on birds of the making of feather art (Chernela, 2005). Besides commercializing artwork, recently many villages have developed other projects for economic alternatives that are connected to external markets. Two examples are the apiculture project (beekeeping) and the project for production of pequi oil, both in partnership with the ISA (ISA, 2012). For instance, in apiculture project ISA helps to commercialize in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo honey produced in the villages as it maintains a contract with a large Brazilian supermarket chain. On the average, the production results in two tons of honey per year (ISA, 2012). Xingu program In 1995 ISA created the Xingu Program to contribute more into protection of communities living in the Xingu River Basin and to support regional environmental development. Among its main lines of action is encouraging the practice of family agriculture, maintaining carbon stocks in the forest of Xingu River Basin, promoting sources of sustainable income, supporting farming production etc. (ISA, 2012). Several actions of the Xingu Program in this region are inmplemented through the Campaign Y Ikatu Xingu, meaning “Save the good water of the Xingu” on the language of one of the ethnic communities inhabiting the Xingu Indigenous Park. This campaign was created in 2004 as an active coalition of interests for the protection and restoration of riparian forests and springs of the Xingu basin in Mato Grosso. It involves partners from many different sectors: indigenous peoples, ranchers, farmers, researchers and civil society organizations operating in the region (Ferreira, 2007). There are three lines of action within the campaign including forest restoration, agroforestry education and planning and management of land use. These actions mobilize and coordinate different actors in the municipal, state, national and international levels to ensure the integrity of water resources and warn about the environmental impacts of the use and occupation of that territory (Ferreira, 2007). A “life plan” There is also another organization, the Amazon Conservation Team (ACT), which also has been working with Xingu indigenous communities. In 1996 it has established a culturally appropriate management scheme, called a “life plan”, for the Park and its inhabitants. Within it, the project called “Territorial Management in Brazil’s Xingu Indigenous Park” developed biocultural mapping of traditional territories to drive the conservation of biodiversity in the Park. It was conducted on collaborative basis. ACT supplied the indigenous researchers with all necessary equipment, like motorboats, GPS devices, two-way radios etc. and provided training in ethnographic map composition. In the same time ACT worked in collaboration with National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) and with the Pilot Program to Preserve the Brazilian Rainforest. A collaborative mapping process ended up in a map for the entire Xingu Indigenous Park which is over seven million acres of savannah and lowland tropical rainforest (Collins, 2010). As a part of the “life plan” certified Park Guard Training Course also has been conducted. Within it ACT placed vigilance posts in the strategic points along the border, together with furnishing the indigenous guards with communication facilities in order to help them to maintain the integrity of their territory (Collins, 2010). Conclusion The indigenous groups of the Xingu, so far have managed to resist powerful expansion of their frontiers, demonstrating their capabilities as strong regional actors. The indigenous associations, in spite of challenging a high level of ecological and social diversity in the Xingu Indigenous Park, have been playing an important role of mediating agents both between the communities and with outside world. So far, with the help of these associations, including other NGOs and government agencies, a number of successful collaborative management projects were implemented. However, certain threats to the park`s territorial integrity and to preserving local bilogical and cultural diversity still might be actual. Therefore, it is important to keep on supporting these indigenous communities and to collaborate with them on equal basis in the development and conservation efforts. References ABBOT, J., GUIJT, I. (1998). Changing views on change: Participatory approaches to monitoring the environment. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK. ADAMS, W.M., AVELING, R., ET AL.(2004). Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty. Sciences. 306: 1146-1149. ATHAYDE, S. F. (2002). Environmental Education and Biodiversity Conservation: the Experience of Indigenous Peoples at Xingu Park. Brasilia: Editora da Universidade de Brasília/Instituto Socioambiental. ATHAYDE, S.F., HECKENBERGER, M., FAUSTO, C., KAIABI, A., KAIABI, M., KUIKURO, A. (2010). Defining Cultural Resilience of Indigenous Peoples in a Shifting Amazonian Landscape. Science 2: 50-63. ATHAYDE, S.F., KAIABI, A., ONO, K.Y., ALEXIADES, M. (2009). Weaving power: displacement and the dynamics of basketry knowledge amongst the Kaiabi in the Brazilian Amazon. Chapter of Book. In: M. Alexiades (ed.) Mobility and Migration in Indigenous Amazonia: Contemporary Ethnoecological Perspectives. London: Berghahn Books. BORRINI-FEYERABEND, G., KOTHARI, A., OVEIDO, G. (2004). Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 11. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. CHERNELA, J. (2005). The Art of Listening: Collaboration between International Environmental NGOs and Indigenous Peoples in the Amazon Basin of Brazil. WorldWatch January/February. COLLINS D. (2010). A “Life Plan” for the Park: Culturally Appropriate Management in Brazil’s Xingu Indigenous Park. http://www.terralingua.org/bcdconservation/?p=247. Access date: 18.03.2012. COLLOMB, J.G., ROMERO, C., SCHMINK, M., ATHAYDE, S.F., SCHRAMSKI, S., DIGIANNO, M., SEALES, L. (2011). Guest Editorial: Conservation and Development in Latin America and Southern Africa: Setting the Stage. Ecology and Society 7 (2): 39-47. FERREIRA, L., BUSCHBACHER, R., BATMANIAN, G., BENSUSAN, N. (2007). Protected Areas or Endangered Spaces? WWF Report on the Degree of Implementation and the Vulnerability of Brazilian Federal Conservation Areas. WWF Brazil, Brasilia. GREEN, M.J.B., KANYAMIBWA, S., BELTRAN, J. (2004). Monitoring biodiversity conservation in protected areas. IBAMA/GTZ International Workshop on the Biodiversity Protection Monitoring System in Conservation Units. ISA/FOREST TRENDS (2010). Avoided Deforestation (REDD) and Indigenous Peoples: Experiences, Challenges, and Opportunities in the Amazon Context. Sao Paulo: Instituto Ambiental. ISA/ INSTITUTO SOCIOAMBIENTAL (SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE). http://www.socioambiental.org/e/. Access date: 20.03.2012. MASON, R. (2004). Performance monitoring of programs to conserve biological diversity: a brief introduction with examples. IBAMA/GTZ International Workshop on the Biodiversity Protection Monitoring System in Conservation Units. MULALE, K., NELSON, F., ATHAYDE, S.F., DIGIANNO, M., SKYER, P., MAGURANYANGA, P. (2011). Institutional Change in Social Ecological Systems: Insights from Community-based Natural Resource Management in Latin America and Southern Africa. Ecology and Society 9 (4): 27-38. NEPSTAD, D., SCHWARTZMAN, S., BAMBERGER, B., SANTILLI, M., RAY, D., SCHLESINGER, P., LEFEBRVRE, P. (2006). Inhibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks and Indigenous Lands. Conservation Biology 20(1): 65–73. PATHAK, N., KOTHARI, A., ROE, D. (2000). Conservation with social justice? The role of community conserved areas in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies 4: 90-105. PERES, C.A. (1994). Indigenous reserves and nature conservation in Amazonian forests. Conservation Biology 8: 586–588. PRETTY, J., ADAMS, B., BERKES, F., ATHAYDE, S.F., DUDLEY, N., HUNN, E., MAFFI, L., RAPPORT, D., ROBBINS, P., STERLING, E., STOLTON, S., TSING, A., VINTINNER, E., PILGRIM, S. (2009). The Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity: Towards Integration. Conservation & Society. SCHWARTZMAN, S., ZIMMERMAN, B.(2005). Conservation Alliances with Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon. Conservation Biology 19(3): 721-727. SILVA, M. (2005). The Brazilian Protected Areas Program. Conservation Biology 19 (3): 35-43. TURNER, T. (1995). Indigenous Rights, Environmental Protection and the Struggle over Forest Resources in the Amazon: The case of the Brazilian Kayapo. Manuscript. ZIMMERMAN, B., PERES, C.A., MALCOLM, J.R., TURNER, T. (2001). Conservation and development alliances with the Kayapó of south-eastern Amazonia, a tropical forest indigenous people. Environmental Conservation 28:10-22. PAGE 1