Corresponding Authors:

*aliciabarceinas@uchicago.edu **arianerodrigues@gmail.com

Legal Recognition of Indigenous Territories supports climate balance in the Brazilian Amazon

Alicia Barceinas Cruz1,*, Ariane de Almeida Rodrigues2,**, Márcia Nunes Macedo3, Paulo Moutinho4, Divino Vicente Silvério4, Ludmila Rattis4, Isabel de Castro4, Raíssa Guerra4

1 Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 2 Graduate Program in Environmental Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil, 3 Woods Hole Research Center, Woods Hole, MA, USA, 4 Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia,

Brasilia, DF, Brazil

1

Executive Summary

Indigenous Lands (ILs) in the Brazilian Amazon effectively inhibit deforestation (1, 2, 3), preserving cultural and natural resources, as well as ecosystem services. Combined with protected areas (PAs), IL creation is largely responsible for Brazil’s successful trajectory in reducing deforestation (4, 5). Yet, these benefits are not guaranteed until ILs achieve legal recognition, which is necessary to empower indigenous peoples and hinder illegal activities. Major infrastructure and mining projects, along with law proposals to reduce indigenous territories –such as the Proposed Constitutional Amendment n. 215/2000 (PEC 215) —are also likely to affect ILs and the environmental protection they offer (6, 7). In this context, we assessed the impacts of failing to legally recognize ILs over ecological features and processes in the Brazilian Amazon. Based on previous studies (8), we assumed an increased deforestation rate within non-homologated ILs due to legal uncertainty and land speculation, compared to a scenario of legal recognition. Our results indicate that increased deforestation in these areas would reduce the amount of water available for rainfall by 1.96 km3 each year, and would increase regional average temperature by 0.54 ºC. This would impact both regional climate balance and agricultural productivity (9, 10). Likewise, it would result in additional 21 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as a result of deforestation in 14,801 km2, thereby jeopardizing the achievement of Brazil’s intended Nationally Determined Contribution (iNDC), agreed to under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (11). In addition, landscape fragmentation and habitat loss could harm wildlife populations occurring in ILs. We, thus, recommend combining efforts to further advance the process of homologation; strengthen ILs and PAs, both institutionally and financially; and scale positive synergies with indigenous groups. Such actions will contribute to a regional balanced climate, and will also help to accomplish Brazil’s international commitments, maintaining the country’s environmental leadership (6).

2

Challenges for Indigenous Lands’ Legal Recognition

In Brazil, the Executive branch has full responsibility in conducting the process for ILs official approval. Acknowledging territories traditionally occupied by indigenous groups is a right recognized nationally and internationally. Yet, the legal recognition process involves a series of steps that can last several years, starting with an anthropological study to identify the IL. The homologation is one of the final steps, and consists of a presidential decree designating the IL and its limits, thereby providing legal certainty of the land rights to indigenous groups. Before homologation, ILs are vulnerable to invasions, illegal logging and mining activities that contribute to deforestation and forest degradation. The National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), the governmental agency responsible for policies for indigenous peoples, is a key participant in the process of IL recognition.

A steadfast effort by the federal government, FUNAI and non-governmental agencies has protected 1.05 million km2 of land in the Amazon biome within 330 ILs (12, 13). Additional 86,641 km2 of land occupied by indigenous peoples, however, are still waiting for official recognition, and other 45 indigenous groups are being identified (13). The PEC 215, currently under discussion at the National Congress, might potentially obstruct the continuity of the ILs homologation. The proposal is aimed to shift the mandate to recognize and revise the boundaries of ILs from the Executive to the Legislative branch (9). As a result, legal recognition of ILs could be subject to a majority vote in Congress. Beyond its implications for indigenous rights, this situation is likely to have negative effects on regional climate and biodiversity.

POLICY BRIEF BRASILIA, BRAZIL, AUG 2016

1

1

Failing to Legally Recognize Indigenous Lands Will Impact Regional Climate, Brazil’s Carbon Emissions and Biodiversity

We analyzed 44 non-homologated ILs in the Brazilian Amazon (Figure 1). These ILs have already been physically demarcated and are ready for homologation. We compared the effects of two scenarios of deforestation by 2030 in these areas:

ü With PEC 215 approval: ILs are not legally recognized, 20% of forest cover is lost, following a conservative assumption of full compliance with the Brazilian Forest Code ü Without PEC 215 approval: ILs are legally recognized and deforestation remains low in most ILs, as expected under a sustainable use and governance scenario (14).

Using remote sensing data, we calculated deforestation rates (15), average biomass (16), evapotranspiration (17) (i.e. the amount of rainwater recycled to the atmosphere by native vegetation), and land surface temperature (17) values inside each IL. We, then, used calculations from previous studies that assessed the relationship between each feature and forest cover (18), to estimate the regional changes under both scenarios. To analyze the impacts on biodiversity, we evaluated the connectivity and habitat suitability of each IL for theoretical species with

2

contrasting habitat needs and dispersion capacities using Ecologically Scaled Landscapes Indexes (19, 20). Results for regional changes are summarized in Table 1.

Our findings suggest that if PEC 215 is approved, even in a conservative scenario assuming Forest Code compliance, deforestation by 2030 will be twice as much as the scenario “Without PEC 215”, adding up to 14,801 km2, which is more than 12 times the size of the city of Rio de Janeiro

(21). Carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation would increase by 21 million tons, which represents 2% of the iNDC emission target for 2030 (11). Furthermore, available water from evapotranspiration could decrease by 1.96 km3 each year —equivalent to the amount of water needed to grow 3,000 km2 of soybeans (22). In addition to this water loss, droughts are going to increase due to global climate change. Therefore, this shortage is likely to negatively impact agriculture yields because less water will be available for irrigation systems, and natural systems, leading to increased fire occurrence, which could increase forest degradation beyond the conservative scenario presented here. Deforestation in the “With PEC 215” scenario might also increase the mean temperature inside the ILs studied by 0.54ºC, on average. Combined, these effects would contribute to disturb the climate balance in the region.

Table 1. Predicted values of deforestation, water loss from evapotranspiration reduction, average temperature and carbon dioxide emissions in two contrasting scenarios expected in non-homologated ILs by 2030:

Without PEC 215 With PEC 215

Deforestation 6,531 km2 14,801 km2 Water loss 2.9 km3 4.9 km3 Average Temperature

28.4 ºC 28.9 ºC

CO2 emissions 15,664,190 ton 37,211,955 ton

POLICY BRIEF BRASILIA,BRAZIL, AUG 2016

2

Acknowledgments We would like to thank to Christopher Neill, Fernanda Bortolotto, Caroline Corrêa Nóbrega, Martha Fellows Dourado, Isabel Rodrigues de Mesquita, Nicole Anderson, Valderli Jorge Piontekowski and Julia Shimbo for their contributions to shape and finish this project.

1

The analysis on biodiversity revealed that under the “With PEC 215” scenario, the habitat available to large mammals would be reduced by up to 65%, on average, inside ILs. In addition, habitat fragmentation is likely to limit the survival of animals that cannot move large distances, such as reptiles and amphibians. Conversely, under “without PEC 215” scenario, the connectivity of forest patches inside ILs will be maintained and the habitat will

2

remain suitable to hold most of its species.

In sum, ILs will play a key role in the future balance in regional climate and rainfall patterns, while keeping carbon dioxide emissions low and maintaining biodiversity. Advances in the process of demarcation, therefore, will be important to preserve these environmental services.

POLICY BRIEF BRASILIA, BRAZIL, AUG 2016

Final Remarks and Recommendations

PEC 215 impairs indigenous groups cultural maintenance and historically acquired rights. Nonetheless, indigenous peoples will not be the only sector affected. We proved that predicted consequences of PEC 215 in ILs are likely to undermine agricultural productivity through reducing water available for crop production and disturbing regional climate. If rural producers and their elected representatives in the Congress are to support agriculture production, they shall consider indigenous peoples as potential allies that will provide them with necessary ecosystem services. Failing to do so would erode this important economic activity. In addition, PEC 215 might hinder Brazil’s achievement of international commitments with the UNFCCC, due to increased CO2 emissions from deforestation. Therefore, it is recommended to:

a. Strengthen the political support basis to dismiss PEC 215 or any proposal that could obstruct demarcation process b. Promote alliances between agriculture sector and indigenous groups in order to maintain the necessary environmental services to sustain agricultural production c. Recognize the economic value of the ecosystem services generated in ILs and implement Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes for indigenous peoples d. Continue the process of legal recognition of ILs to increase the number of areas that contribute to a balanced climate e. Increase funding for IL and PA networks, as part of Brazil’s mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change, expanding actions such as recent investments from Amazon Fund in ILs (23)

1

References 1. D. Nepstad et al., Conservation Biology 20, 65 (2006). 2. T. H. Ricketts et al., PLOS Biol. 8, e1000331 (2010). 3. W. Walker et al., Carbon Management 5, 479 (2014). 4. B. Soares-Filho et al., PNAS 107, 10821 (2010). 5. D. Nepstad et al., Science 344, 1118 (2014). 6. J. Ferreira et al., Science 346, 706 (2014). 7. Brazil, Proposta de Emenda à Constituição nº 215/2000.

Document accessed in July 2016 from www.camara.gov.br.

8. IPAM, “Ameaça aos Direitos e ao Meio Ambiente PEC 215” (IPAM, Brasília, Brazil, 2015).

9. M. Coe et al., Journal of Hydrology 369, 165 (2009). 10. D.V. Spracklen and L. Garcia-Carreras, Geophys. Res.

Lett. 42, 9546 (2015). 11. Brazil, 2015. Intended Nationally Determined

Contribution (iNDC). Document accessed in July 2016 from www.mma.gov.br.

12. S. Schwartzman et al., Conservation Biology 19, 721 (2005).

13. ISA, 2016. Povos indígenas no Brasil, Situação jurídica das Tis no Brasil hoje. Website accessed in July 2016 from pib.socioambiental.org.

2

14. B. Soares-Filho et al., Nature 440, 520 (2006). 15. INPE, 2015. Projeto PRODES: Monitoramento da floresta

Amazônica Brasileira por satélite. Database accessed in July 2016 from www.obt.inpe.br.

16. A. Baccini et al., Nature Climate Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1354 (2012).

17. D. V. Silvério, unpublished. 18. D. V. Silvério et al.,Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 104015 (2015). 19. C.C. Vos et al., Am. Nat. 157, 24 (2001). 20. S.F. Gouveia et al., doi: 10.1111/gcb.13162 (2015). 21. IBGE, 2015. Database Cidades@. Database accessed in

July 2016 from www.cidades.ibge.gov.br. 22. FAO, 2015. Water Development and Management Unit.

Website accessed in Aug 2016 from www.fao.org. 23. MMA, 2016. Ministro destina R$ 11,7 mi a terras

indígenas. Website accessed in Aug 2016 from www.mma.gov.br.

3