Comments
Indigenous Reserves and Nature
Conservation in
Amazonian Forests
C A R L O S A. P E R E S
Center for Tropical Conservation
Duke University
3705-C Erwin Road
Durham, NC 27705, U.S.A.
The growing duality a m o n g scientists b e t w e e n n a t u r e and p e o p l e - o r i e n t e d conservation has b e e n explicitly
illustrated o n c e again in a dispute b e t w e e n Redford and
Stearman ( 1933a~ 1993b) and Alcorn ( 1 9 9 3 ) in a recent
issue of Conservation Biology. Many conservation biologists would agree that the long-term objectives of indigenous peoples e n p o w e r e d to determine their own
destinations are incompatible with the conservation of
tropical forest biodiversity. Cultural anthropologists and
ethnobiologists, on the other hand, are quick to a r g u e - under the banner of "use it or lose i t " - - t h a t communities of forest peoples are the most legitimate inhabitants
and effective guardians of what would otherwise be a
d o o m e d habitat. What at a glance might appear to be a
small ideological clash, however, actually reflects a fundamental philosophical divergence that has b e e n extended to small and corporate-sized n o n g o v e r n m e n t organizations, central-government decision makers, and
the overall agenda of global environmental blueprints
(Robinson 1993). Amidst this unresolved controversy,
uninformed persons may be left wondering w h e t h e r native peoples are an asset or a handicap to nature conservation.
Unfortunately, this otherwise healthy academic debate dramatically obscures c o m m o n interests of all conservationists and undermines a potentially rational consensus on h o w to best p r o t e c t tropical forests. Here I
wish to refocus the recent discord over the definition of
* Current address: Departamento de Ecologt~ Untvemidade de SdLO
Paulo, Catxa Postal 11.461, Sd~oPaulo, XP. 05422-970, Brazil
Paper submitted June 22, 1993; revised manuscript accepted July 16,
1993.
586
Conservation Biology, Pages 586--588
Volume 8, No. 2, June 1994
conservation by indigenous peoples on what may be
considered a m o r e practical problem.
Because most Amazonian countries recognize indigenous land rights and designate---even if on p a p e r o n l y - substantial chunks of their largely undisturbed forests to
this category of conservation unit, the role of indigenous parks and reserves in Amazonian nature conservation is a substantial one. These countries thus provide a
good n u m b e r of (largerly u n d e c r e e d ) indigenous and
anthropological reserves, resguardo~ and Amerindian
lands w h e r e native peoples are allowed to continue
their traditional livelihoods, often within large, legally
notified land blocks. The process of setting aside Indian
lands does not please b o t h regional or central governments. For example, the recent demarcation of large
tracts of Yanomami Indian lands in Roraima was m e t by
harsh criticisms from Brazilian politicians across the
country.
Mirroring the disagreements that have sparked these
comments, Amazonian Indian reserves are usually administered by independent g o v e r n m e n t agencies (such
as the National Indian Foundation--FUNAI--in Brazil)
whose goals and priorities do not necessarily coincide
with those of natural resource and forestry institutes.
This represents a profound obstacle to forest conservation policy and enforcement. Although logging permits
may be required in some rapidly developing areas, indigenous groups are in practice given a blank c h e c k to
exploit and manage their resources according to rapidly
evolving "traditional practices." This has b e e n widely
witnessed on a vast d e v e l o p m e n t frontier in the southern and eastern Amazon, w h e r e several Indian tribes
have begun a process of outright liquidation of their
Peres
land resource capital in the form of western-style land
concessions granted to logging c o m p a n i e s and gold
miners. For instance, having found their way to lucrative
markets, the Kayapo of eastern Amazonia have logged
$33 million in profits from m a h o g o n y extraction alone
in 1988 ( T h e Economist 1993). Under the current system their trees will continue to fall, because the Brazilian g o v e r n m e n t will never b e able to m e e t the Kayapo's
demand for $50,000 p e r village p e r m o n t h for timber
sales forgone. O t h e r Brazilian Indian groups helping to
shatter the myth of the noble savage include the Guajajara of the northeast, the Kaxarari of Acre, and the Nambikwara of Mato Grosso, all of w h i c h are involved in
prime h a r d w o o d business. These market-oriented practices are clearly not w h a t is generally considered genuine nature conservation, which raises serious questions
over the role of indigenous reserves as conservation
units. Other smaller-scale forms of resource d e p l e t i o n - including overhunting, overfishing, and overharvesting
of timber and n o n t i m b e r products---may also be incompatible with biodiversity conservation, yet they are under heavy subsistence and m o n e t a r y pressure from increasingly consumptive societies. Current demands for
material c o m m o d i t i e s range from pots and pans and
shotguns to chain-saws and small aircrafts. Double standards in land- and resource-use policy directed to tribal
and nontribal Amazonians is also a pervasive phenomenon. One therefore might wish to see greater uniformity
b e t w e e n these policies---traditional w i s d o m alone will
not prevent Indians from overharvesting r e s o u r c e s - - i f
Indian reserves are to fulfill a m o r e useful conservation
role in the long run.
The e n o r m o u s magnitude and future consequences of
this issue entitle it to be at the forefront of any Amazonian conservation discussion. For instance, Indian reserves account for 54% of all 459 Amazonian reserves
with k n o w n areas in nine South American countries (including all recognized categories of "strictly protected"
nature reserves, p r o d u c t i o n and extractive forests and
Amerindian lands). These include anthropological reserves and all forms of indigenous reserves, colonies,
and parks. In terms of c o m b i n e d acreage, they represent
100.2 million ha in 371 reservations in Brazilian Amazonia alone (Fundq~o Nacional do Indio 1989), or 52%
of the entire area receiving s o m e form of nonprivate
protection within the entire Amazonian region (adapted
from World Conservation Monitoring Centre 1992a~
1992b). In addition, indigenous conservation units in
Amazonia tend to comprise sizeable areas ( m e a n =
400,256 --+ 987,044 ha, n = 248) and o u t n u m b e r all
other forms of reserves, particularly in the range of
1000-10,O00 ha (Fig. 1 ). This accounts for a substantial
portion of yet relatively undisturbed Amazonian forests.
Approximately 20% of Brazilian Amazonia, for instance,
is represented by indigenous parks and reserves under
the jurisdiction of Fundq~o Nacional do Indio FUNAI;
Indigenous Reservesand NatureConservalion
587
120
e~
100
o
80
L.
~
60
t-
~"
O
40
T..
-~
20
Z
0
0-
1000-
10000-
I00000- I million+
Total reserve area (ha)
Figure 1. Updated number and size of existing Ama.
zonian indigenous reserves "'on paper" compared to
those of all other categories of conservation unitg
including national parks, biological resenms, ecological stations, and other recognized forms of extractive and production forest (adapted from World
Conservation Monitoring Centre 1992ag 1992b).
Rylands 1991). Moreover, the n u m b e r of very large Amazonian Indian reserves ( > 1 million ha), w h i c h are
likely to be the most viable from the viewpoint of longterm biodiversity maintenance, rival that of all other
reserves combined. Finally, c o m p a r e d to all Amazonian
nature reserves combined, the geographic distribution
of Indian reserves is far m o r e widespread across major
river barriers, which greatly increases their c o m p l e m e n tary value to species conservation (Pressey et al. 1993).
Clearly, if Indian areas are to remain relatively stable
and serve as strongholds of full c o m p l e m e n t s of biological diversity, a substantial legislative revision of the Indian Code will need to be incorporated into national
constitutions. This should be particularly the case
w h e r e Indian reserves are being e n c r o a c h e d by settlers
or overrun by d e v e l o p m e n t projects. Subsequently, rational quotas on indigenous peoples' rights to manage,
harvest, and convert their forest resources will have to
be enforced. Negotiated commercial contracts with private companies dealing with live or mineral resource
extraction shoud be terminally prohibited, e x c e p t in a
few cases w h e r e approval of the relevant authorities and
consulting e x p e r t s w o u l d b e c o m e mandatory. This
could be achieved initially by an increased dialogue
b e t w e e n Indian and natural resource agencies, in Brazil
represented by FUNAI and IBAMA (Brazilian Institute
for the Environment and Renewable Natural
Resources). The cost-efficiency of these agencies in a
wide range of field operations would increase if they
joined efforts, because many Amazonian Indian and nature reserves are located near or b o r d e r one another.
Joint operations could include the d e p l o y m e n t of sur-
Conservation Biology
Volume 8, No. 2, June 1994
588
IndigenousReserves and Nature Conservation
veillance and patrol personnel, revision of logging and
clear-cut permits, and inspection of boats and trucks
from strategic guardposts intercepting important access
routes. Forest-dwelling peoples' organizations could
also b e i n s t r u m e n t a l in this p r o c e s s , s h o u l d t h e y realize
that t h e c a u s e t h e y are fighting for w i l l gain f e w e r a d e p t s
as i n d i g e n o u s g r o u p s i n c r e a s i n g l y fail to s e r v e t h e interests o f c o n s e r v a t i o n .
I n d i g e n o u s lands, are, h o w e v e r , an e x t e m e l y i m p o r tant r e s e r v o i r for A m a z o n i a n b i o d i v e r s i t y , w h e t h e r in
t h e f o r m o f i s o l a t e d parks, a d j a c e n t buffer zones, o r conn e c t i n g c o r r i d o r s in a w i d e r l a n d s c a p e o f r e s e r v e networks. Every effort s h o u l d t h u s b e m a d e to r e f o r m Ind i a n land-use p o l i c y a n d s e c u r e A m a z o n i a n I n d i a n lands
f r o m an i n c r e a s i n g l y b r o a d e r d e v e l o p m e n t frontier. Perh a p s t h e n A m a z o n i a n I n d i a n s w i l l b e able to r e d e e m
s o m e o f t h e i r c r e d i t as c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s - a n d satisfy skeptics s u c h as R e d f o r d a n d S t e a r m a n ( 1 9 9 3 a ) - - - - p r o m o t i n g
a b a d l y n e e d e d c o n s e n s u s b e t w e e n b i o l o g i c a l and cultural c o n s e r v a t i o n .
Acknowledgments
I w o u l d like to t h a n k N i c k Salafsky for c o m m e n t s o n t h e
manuscript.
Literature Cited
Alcorn, J. B. 1993. Indigenous peoples and conservation. Conservation Biology 7:424-426.
ConservationBiology
Volume 8, No. 2, June 1994
Peres
The Economist. 1993. The savage can also be ignoble 327
(June 12):54.
Fundag~o Nacional do Indio. 1989. Terra indigenas: Legislagio
e simaq~o latifundiari~L Minist~rio do Interior, Superintend~ncia de Assuntos Fundifirios, e Documenta~io Interna Indigena,
Brasilia, D.F.
Pressey, R.L., C.J. Humphries, C.R. Margules, R.I. VaneWright, and P. H. Williams. 1993. Beyond opportunism: Key
principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution 8:124-128.
Redford, K. H., and A. M. Stearman. 1993ac Forest-dwelling native Amazonians and the conservation of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7:248-255.
Redford, K.H., and A.M. Stearman. 1993b. On c o m m o n
ground? Response to Alcorn. Conservation Biology 7:427428.
Robinson, J.G. 1993. The limits to caring: Sustainable living
and the loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7:20-28.
Rylands, A.B. 1991. The status of conservation areas in the
Brazilian Amazon. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1992ac Protected areas of the world: A review of national systems, vol. 4. Neartic
and neotropics. Cambridge, England.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1992b. Mapping tropical managed areas. Cambridge, England.