Conservation at Stake: Institutionalized Environmentalisms and Indigenous Knowledges About How to Protect the Brazilian Atlantic Forest
Abstract
This paper aims to compare two different sets of solutions on best pathways for biodiversity conservation present in a specific territory in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, in southern Bahia. We look specifically at three interconnected administrative instances: the Tupinambá de Olivença Indigenous Land; the Una Biological Reserve; and the Una Wildlife Refuge. We show that different perspectives regarding what it means to preserve nature come into focus in this territory. These are intertwined with power relations that highlight the inequality in the legitimacy of different groups in decision making for environmental governance. We map the causes and solutions for biodiversity degradation proposed by two contrasting narratives: the Indigenous perspective and the institutionalized western science-based environmentalism developed by state agencies and non-governmental organizations that work with conservation projects in the region. We expect to equalize these contrasting perspectives that are commonly seen in hierarchical terms. We conclude by advocating for managing combinations of diverse sets of knowledge and for pluralism in conservation efforts that accounts for underlying power relations.
References
Adams, W. M., and J. Hutton. 2007. People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation and Society 5 (2):147–183.
Alarcon, D. 2013. O Retorno da terra: As retomadas na aldeia Tupinambá da Serra do Padeiro, sul da Bahia. Masters Dissertation, Department of Anthropology Universidade de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil.
Alger, K., K. Chomitz, P. Vila Nova, and H. Orlando. 2004. Instrumentos econômicos e de políticas públicas para o estabelecimento do corredor central. In: Prado, P.I., E. C. Landau, R. T. Moura, L. P. Pinto, G. A. Fonseca, and K. Alger (Eds.). Corredor de biodiversidade da Mata Atlântica do sul da Bahia. IESB/CI/CABS/UFMG/ UNICAMP, Ilhéus.
Araújo, M., K. Alger, R. Rocha, and C. A. Mesquita. 1998. A Mata Atlântica no Sul da Bahia: situação atual, ações e perspectivas. Série Estados e Regiões da Bahia. Ed. Conselho Nacional da Reserva da Biosfera da Mata Atlântica, São Paulo.
Araújo, M. 2014. Avaliação Final do Projeto Corredores Ecológicos. PCE/MMA, Brasília.
Ayres, J. M., G. Fonseca, A. Rylands, H. Queiroz, L. P. Pinto, D. Masterson, and R. B. Cavalcanti. 2005. Os corredores ecológicos das florestas tropicais do Brasil. Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, Belém.
Beck, S., S. Jasanoff, A. Stirling, and C. Polzin. 2021. The Governance of Sociotechnical Transformations to Sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 49:143–152. DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.010
Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology. Routledge, New York.
Bixler, R. P. 2013. The Political Ecology of Local Environmental Narratives: Power, Knowledge, and Mountain Caribou Conservation. Journal of Political Ecology 20:273-285.
Bogoni, J. A., J. S. Pires, M. E. Graipel, and C. A. Peres. 2018. Wish You Were Here: How Defaunated is the Atlantic Forest Biome of its Medium- to Large-bodied Mammal Fauna? PLoS ONE 13(9). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0204515.
Büscher, B., and R. Fletcher. 2020. The Conservation Revolution: Radical Ideas for Saving Nature Beyond the Anthropocene. London: Verso Books.
CEPF - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. 2008. Relatório Final do Projeto: Strengthening Enforcement of Environmental Laws in the Atlantic Forest of the Central Corridor, Brazil. Conservation International, São Paulo.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
CI/IESB - Conservation International and Instituto de Estudos Socioambientais do Sul da Bahia. 2000. Planejando Paisagens Sustentáveis: a Mata Atlântica Brasileira. Conservation International, São Paulo.
Collins, A. Y., V. Maguire, J. E Krauss, A. Asiyanbi, A. Jimenez, M. Mabele, and M. Alexander-Owen. 2021. Plotting Coloniality of Conservation. Journal of Political Ecology 28 (1):1–22. DOI:10.2458/jpe.4683.
Delabie, J. H. C., A. Argolo, B. Jahyny, C. R. Cassano, C. Jared, C. Mariano, D. M. Faria, G. Schroth, L. C. Oliveira, L. Bede, R. T. Moura, S. Lacau, and W. D. Rocha. 2011. Paisagem cacaueira no sudeste da Bahia: desafios e oportunidades para a conservação da diversidade animal no século XXI. Agrotrópica 23 (2/3):107–114.
Escobar, A. 2015. Territórios da diferença: a ontologia política dos “direitos ao território”. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 35:89–100.
Fandi, A. C. 2013. Apoio de Organizações Transnacionais e os caminhos do ambientalismo brasileiro: O Caso do Instituto de Estudos Socioambientais do Sul da Bahia (IESB). Masters Dissertation, Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fonseca, G. B., K. Alger, L. P. Pinto, M. Araújo, and R. Cavalcanti. 2004. Corredores de biodiversidade: o Corredor Central da Mata Atlântica. In: Prado, P.I., E. C. Landau, R. T. Moura, L. P. Pinto, G. A. Fonseca, and K. Alger (Eds.). Corredor de biodiversidade da Mata Atlântica do sul da Bahia. IESB/CI/CABS/UFMG/ UNICAMP, Ilhéus.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. 1982. The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry 8(4):777–795.
Hirota, M. M., and F. J. Ponzoni (Eds). 2017. Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica Período 2015-2016. Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica/INPE, São Paulo.
IESB - Instituto de Estudos Socioambientais do Sul da Bahia and World Wide Fund for Nature. 2004. Transformando Olhares: o Mato que virou Mata. IESB, Ilhéus.
Ingold, T., and T. Kurtilla. 2000. Perceiving the Environment in Finnish Lapland. Body & Society 6(3–4):183–196. DOI:10.1177/1357034X00006003010.
Holmes, G. 2009. Global Conservation and Local Resistance: Power and Protected Areas in the Dominican Republic. Doctoral Thesis, Geography Institute, University of Manchester, UK.
Joly, C. A., Metzeger, J. P & Tabarelli, M. 2014. Experiences from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Ecological Findings and Conservation Initiatives. New Phytologist 204:459–473. DOI:10.1111/nph.12989.
Landau, E. C., R. T. Moura, P. H. Cordeiro, D. L. Silvano, B. Pimenta, J. Jardim, P. I. Prado, A. Paglia, and G. A. Fonseca. 2004. Definição de áreas biologicamente prioritárias para a formação do corredor central da Mata Atlântica no sul da Bahia, Brasil. In: Prado, P.I., E. C. Landau, R. T. Moura, L. P. Pinto, G. A. Fonseca, and K. Alger (Eds.). Corredor de biodiversidade da Mata Atlântica do sul da Bahia. IESB/CI/CABS/UFMG/ UNICAMP, Ilhéus.
Lejano, R. P., J. Tavares-Reager, and F. Berkes. 2013. Climate and Narrative: Environmental Knowledge in Everyday Life. Environmental Science and Policy 32:61–70. DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.009.
Mares, C. 2021. Demarcação das Terras Indígenas e seus entraves. In Povos tradicionais e biodiversidade no Brasil [recurso eletrônico]: contribuições dos povos indígenas, quilombolas e comunidades tradicionais para a biodiversidade, políticas e ameaças, edited by M. C. Cunha, S. B. Magalhães and C. Adams. São Paulo: SBPC.
Mesquita, C. A., and F. S. Leopoldino. 2002. Incentivando e apoiando a criação, manejo e integração entre Reservas Particulares do Patrimônio Natural (RPPNs). IESB, Ilhéus.
MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2006. O corredor central da mata atlântica: uma nova escala de conservação da biodiversidade. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente/ Conservação Internacional, Brasília.
Moon, K., and K. Pérez-Hämmerle. 2022. Inclusivity via Ontological Accountability. Conservation Letters 15:e12888. DOI:10.1111/conl.12888.
Oliveira, J. P. 1998. Uma etnologia dos ‘índios misturados’? Situação Colonial, territorialização e fluxos culturais. Mana 4(1):47–77.
Oliveira, J. P. 2018. Fighting for Land and Reframing the Culture. Vibrant 15(2):1–27. DOI:10.1590/1809-43412018v15n2a400.
Pascual, U., W. Adams, S. Diaz, S. Lele, G. M. Mace, and E. Turnhout. 2021. Biodiversity and the Challenge of Pluralism. Nature Sustainability 4: 567-572. DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7.
Peluso, N. 2003. The Politics of Specificity and Generalisation in Conservation Matters. Conservation & Society 1:61–64.
Pinto, L. P., L. Bede, A. Paese, M. Fonseca, A. Paglia, and I. Lamas. 2006. Mata Atlântica Brasileira: os desafios para conservação da biodiversidade de um hotspot mundial. In Biologia da Conservação: essências, edited by C. F. Rocha, H. G. Bergallo, M. A. Alves and M. Sluys. RiMa, São Carlos.
Rezende, C. L., F. R. Scarano, E. D. Assad, C. A. Joly, J. P. Metzger, B. B. N. Strassburgg, M. Tabarelli, G. A. Fonseca, and R. A. Mittermeier. 2018. From Hotspot to Hopespot: An Opportunity for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 16:208–214. DOI:10.1016/j.pecon.2018.10.002.
Ribeiro, R. R., E. Martins, G. Martinelli and R. Loyola. 2018. The Effectiveness of Protected Areas and Indigenous Lands in Representing Threatened Plant Species in Brazil. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 69(4):15391546 DOI:10.1590/2175-7860201869404.
Robertson, M., P. Nichols, P. Horwitz, K. Bradby, and D. Mackintosh. 2000. Environmental Narratives and the Need for Multiple Perspectives to Restore Degraded Landscapes in Australia. Ecosystem Health 6(2).
SAVE Brasil; IESB. 2009. Complexo de Serras das Lontras e Una, Bahia: Elementos naturais e aspectos de sua conservação. SAVE Brasil, São Paulo.
Sutherland, W., A. Pullin, P. M. Dolman, and T. M. Knight. 2004. The Need for Evidence-based Conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(6):305–308. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018.
Turnhout, E., T. Metze, C. Wyborn, N. Klenk and E. Louder. 2019. The Politics of Co-Production: Participation, Power, and Transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42:15–21. DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.
Vaccaro, I., O. Beltran, and P. A. Paquet. 2013. Political Ecology and Conservation Policies: Some Theoretical Genealogies. Journal of Political Ecology 20(20):255–272. DOI:10.2458/v20i1.21748.
Viegas, S. M., J. Melo, and J. de Paula, 2009. Relatório Circunstanciado de Delimitação da Terra Indígena Tupinambá de Olivença. Diário Oficial da União, Seção 1, edição nº 74, 20 de Abril de 2009.
Viegas, S. M. 2016. Temporalities of Ownership: Land Possession and its Transformations Among the Tupinambá (Bahia, Brazil). In Ownership and Nurture: Studies in Native Amazonian Property Relations, edited by M. Brightman, C. Fausto and V. E. Grotti. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Copyright (c) 2023 Laila Thomaz Sandroni
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.
