Indigenous Land Under Attack and its Consequences for Biodiversity Conservation

Abstract

Indigenous Lands are globally recognized as crucial for maintaining ecosystem services, enhancing climate resilience, and supporting both biodiversity conservation and indigenous rights. They are essential not only for their ecological importance but also for preserving the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities, which significantly contributes to sustainable environmental management. The “Marco Temporal” legislation proposed by Brazilian legislators’ states that only Indigenous Lands occupied before October 1988 can be demarcated or remain registered, opening the way for the fragmentation and extinction of demarcated areas. This legislation will lead to deforestation and biodiversity loss, threatens indigenous cultural heritage, and traditional knowledge, and undermines food sovereignty for indigenous communities. The potential approval of the “Marco Temporal” legislation represents a significant retrogression in addressing environmental and social justice. Safeguarding Indigenous Lands is imperative for promoting ecological restoration, mitigating climate change, and ensuring the continued protection of both biodiversity and indigenous cultural practices.

Indigenous Lands (ILs) are globally recognized for their role in environmental conservation, particularly for their importance in protecting biodiversity (Estrada et al., 2022; O’Bryan et al., 2020). These areas have high diversity of vertebrate species and provide habitats for many species that have become extinct elsewhere (Estrada et al., 2022). ILs cover around 37.9 million km² of the earth terrestrial surface, are present in all continents, and account for 37% of remaining natural lands (Garnett, Burgess, Fa, Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2018). The importance of ILs has been recognized by several international communities (e.g. IPBES, CBD), including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Target 3), which states that 30% of global surface must be conserved as Protected Areas (PA) and Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs), “recognizing indigenous and traditional territories” (CBD, 2022).

The recognition of ILs is of particular importance in Brazil, a megadiverse country that is home to 15-20% of the world´s biological diversity. Apart from its importance regarding biological diversity, the country also hosts 154 different languages and dialects spoken by more than 283 indigenous groups (ISA, 2024), and ILs cover 13.82% of the country’s territory, with highest concentrations in the Amazon Biome (FUNAI, 2024). Indigenous People´s (IP) perpetual rights over the lands they occupy was assured by the Brazilian Constitution in 1988, and there are currently 799 areas in various stages or legal recognition: under identification (157), identified (36), declared (71), homologated and regularized (535) (ISA, 2024), and approximately 490 indigenous people’s claims are under analysis by the National Foundation of the Indigenous People (FUNAI).

Recently, IP increased their participation and empowerment in decision making, and for the first time in the country´s history a representative from these communities was appointed as a government minister. Further, different stakeholders in Brazil, including government environmental agencies, NGOs and international bodies, recognize the importance of ILs and the need for developing strategies for strengthening these areas for biodiversity conservation (Alves-Pinto et al., 2021; Bogoni et al., 2023; Resende et al., 2021; Pinto et al., 2014).

Despite increased acknowledgment of the essential roles played by IP and their lands in conserving the nation’s biocultural diversity, and despite exiting legal safeguards for these regions, a new proposed legislation now under debate threatens these territories. The called “Marco Temporal” (MT) is a Legal Thesis and proposed law (14.701/2023) that establishes the date of promulgation of the Brazilian constitution (1988), as a limit to demarcation of ILs: in other words, it implies that lands not occupied by indigenous people in 5^th October 1988 can be degazetted, while those awaiting recognition may never attain legal establishment. Even though the MT specially threatens lands that were not occupied before 1988, it has weakened policies and actions related to IL demarcation, increasing invasions, agricultural expansion and deforestation (Abessa et al., 2019) and have increased conflicts between IP and land grabbers. One example of IL that could be affected is the Marãiwatsédé territory, in Mato Grosso State as they were removed from its original territory before 1988. This indigenous land, which is already homologated, is inhabited by the Xavante group and occupied an area of 165 thousand hectares (ISA, 2024). Its surrounding landscape is threatened by soy and pasture expansion.

Even though the MT was considered unconstitutional by the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2023, it was approved by the Senate in December the same year overturning Presidental’s vetoes to the document. The Brazil’s Indigenous People Articulation (APIB) with other stakeholders required it is again considered unconstitutional and is now under evaluation by a commission within the judiciary, which might be decided in the coming months.

The thesis of the MT was first used in 2009 in a specific case of the Raposa Serra do Sol IL and used later by agriculturalist and land holder groups to stop IL demarcation. The most iconic case where the MT was used was against the Xokleng territory in the state of Santa Catarina, in which agriculturalists claimed the indigenous groups were not in the area at the time of the last constitution in 1988. In fact, in the previous decades, many indigenous groups in this region were expelled from their lands. The Brazilian Supreme Court rejected the state of Santa Catarina’s MT argument in September 2023.

The arguments supporting the establishment of the MT are that some ILs could be used for commodity production by the Brazilian agrobusiness, and the underlying misconception that the demarcation of ILs and Protected Areas (PAs) poses a threat to the sovereignty of the commodity trade (Ferrante & Fearnside, 2019). Yet, studies have shown that Brazilian agriculture does not need to expand its current land holdings (Rajão et al., 2020), and that land under agricultural production is enough for future product demands (Strassburg et al., 2014). The urgent imperative lies in the adoption of sustainable resource management practices, and several have been proposed (e. g. Arroyo-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Grelle et al., 2021). Their implementation, however, will involve changes in the agrobusiness mindset, which is not a simple process. Examples of more specific actions in this direction could be legal reforms to strengthen environmental protections, and meaningful policy dialogues with Indigenous leaders.

The impacts of the MT on biodiversity are likely to be enormous, as the recognition of ILs often result in numerous benefits to biodiversity conservation (IPBES, 2019). Indigenous knowledge, sustainable management practices and cosmologies are known to actively support biodiversity conservation in all its levels, including genetic, species and ecosystem diversity (Alves-Pinto et al., 2021; Garnett, Burgess, Fa, Fernández-llamazares et al., 2018; Levis et al., 2024). Thousands of years of intricate relationship with nature result in the accumulation of unvaluable Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK). This type of knowledge incorporates ancestral visions based on respect to nature, including the non-human’s aspects of nature, and which positively influences conservation practices (Garnett, Burgess, Fa, Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2018; Porter-Bolland et al., 2012). ILK can aid in understanding additional gaps in biodiversity information including taxonomic, evolutionary and ecological intra and interspecific interactions (Hortal et al., 2015), which will also contribute to conservation strategies. The degazettement of ILs threatens IP’s culture and knowledge acquired orally over generations, resulting in the loss of already threatened biocultural diversity. Medicinal plants knowledge, for example, is associated to uniquely spoken languages in the Amazon, and might be lost (Camara-Leret & Bascompte, 2021).

ILs are known to contribute to curbing native vegetation conversion, and to promote ecological restoration (Alves-pinto et al., 2022; Nolte et al., 2013), playing a significant role in carbon sequestration and climate regulation. In addition, protecting areas with native vegetation coverage ensures the continuity of ecosystem services intrinsically linked with biodiversity (Vale et al., 2023), which is beneficial to society as a whole and, particularly, to agrobusiness, especially in extreme scenarios of climate change. Degazettement of ILs will adversely affect the country collective ability to address environmental concerns, reducing Brazil’s resilience to climate change, and pose a risk to the conservation of natural capital provided by native species and their ecosystem services (Lima et al., 2024; Vale et al., 2023), whether animals or plants are conserved by ILs.

Even though ILs legal demarcation alone does not stop deforestation without the integration of institutions, such as the Brazilian military, Federal Police, and Institutions related to the Ministry of Environment, as seen in the recent invasions to the Yanomamis Lands in the state of Roraima, demarcation provides a legal foundation to prosecute those attempting to pursue mineral extraction practices (e.g., gold, diamonds), and land use (e.g., land grabbing, agriculture) in ILs. Further, in the Atlantic Forest, formalized tenured ILs were more effective in curbing deforestation than pre-tenure ones (Benzeev et al., 2022). Thus, the MT will likely promote native vegetation conversion to anthropogenic uses, specifically agricultural areas.

ILs, as PAs within sustainable-use category, hold significant potential for a nature-based economy, such as community-based tourism and the sustainable management of plant and animal species. These activities can, if properly implemented, contribute not only for biodiversity conservation, but also for social and economic inclusion (Dawson et al., 2021). Some ILs, such as the Upper Xingu River basin, have been recently considered as “Social-ecological hope spots”, impacting positively the conservation of both vulnerable biodiversity and promote social benefits (Levis et al., 2024).

Finally, the MT will expose the lives of IP, whom have been in their land for thousands of years and fighting for them for more than 500 years. Many indigenous communities rely on their lands for subsistence agriculture, and the implementation of the law may compromise their food sovereignty, increasing dependence on external and less sustainable food systems. Further, as it threatens their constitutional rights, it may undermine democratic principles and social justice in Brazil, particularly in forums relating to the environment and human rights. This could lead to sanctions or restrictions on global economy and impact on democracy.

Considering the global recognition of ILs, their importance for biocultural conservation, the need to preserve ILK and assure equity and inclusion for human well-being, and the history of invasions that culminated in the extermination of millions of IP throughout the country’s history, it is especially outrageous such a law is being considered. It is unacceptable that an unconstitutional law such as the MT is currently being discussed within the government, based on arguments that have neither legal or scientific basis. Considering the importance of Brazil regarding the provision of biocultural diversity globally, the implementation of such law will certainly be a step further in increasing the climate, biodiversity and democracy crisis the world is facing.