Indigenous Latin America Series, 1 Indigenous Peoples and the Brazilian Amazon Challenges and Perspectives for a Sustainable and Inclusive Future ©️ 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Phone: +1-202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org Rights and Permissions This work is a product of the staff of the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work and assumes no responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the content, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and any other information shown on any map or charts in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory, nor an endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of any of the organizations of the World Bank Group, all of which are specifically reserved. Because the World Bank Group encourages the dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution Please cite the report as: World Bank. 2025. Indigenous Peoples and the Brazilian Amazon: Challenges and Perspectives for a Sustainable and Inclusive Future. Indigenous Latin America Series, 1. Washington, DC: World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO. Adaptation If an adaptation of this report is created, please add the following disclaimer in addition to the attribution: This is an adaptation of an official World Bank document. The views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by the World Bank. Third-Party Content The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to: World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; email: pubrights@worldbank.org. Responsible Team (in alphabetical order) Daniella Ziller Arruda Flavia Carbonari Alberto Coelho Gomes Costa Pedro Gondim Davis Germán Freire Carla Landim Gabriela Lima de Paula Juliana Paiva Sara Messaggi Macedo Pollyana Mendonça Camila Santana Text Pedro Gondim Davis Edition Germán Freire Tamires da Silva Graphic Design REC Design Illustration Victor Tufani Pictures Chris Diewald / World Bank: Photos from the World Bank’s DGM Project, which collaborates with Indigenous Peoples of the Brazilian Cerrado biome. Julio Pantoja / World Bank Agência Brasil Contents Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Pan-Amazon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Brazilian Amazon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Interaction of Indigenous Peoples with the Brazilian Amazon. . . . . . . . . . . 11 Key Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Chapter 1 Overview of Indigenous Peoples in the Brazilian Amazon. . . . 15 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Territorial Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Chapter 2 Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Violence Linked to Territorial and Land Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Indigenous People outside Indigenous Lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Climate Change and REDD+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Chapter 3 Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Institutional Strengthening, Inclusion, Biodiversity Conservation, and Ethnodevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Recommendations and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Appendix A Brazil Portfolio: Projects with Direct Involvement of Indigenous Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 BOXES Box 1.1 Important Data on the Amazon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Box 2.1 Isolated Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Box 2.2 The Time Frame Thesis (Marco Temporal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Box 3.1 Indigenous Education and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Box 3.2 Voluntary Carbon Market: Indigenous Peoples and the World Bank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Box 3.3 The Paiter-Suruí Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Box 4.1 Institutional Strengthening: Ministry of Indigenous Peoples. . . . 55 Box 4.2 Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation and Consultation Protocols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Box 4.3 Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 TABLES Table 1 Demographic Data on Indigenous Peoples in the North Region of Brazil, 2022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 2 Indigenous Peoples by Ethnicity and State in the North Region of Brazil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 3 Summary Table of Data on the Demarcation Process of Indigenous Territories in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 4 Indigenous Territories and Area by State in the North Region of Brazil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 5 Indigenous Territories in the States of the Legal Amazon . . . . . . 27 MAPS Map 1 Biomes of the Legal Amazon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Map 2 Indigenous Lands by Land Tenure Status, Brazil, 2022 . . . . . . . . . 24 Foreword Indigenous Peoples and indigenous territories play a key role in protecting forests and biomes from deforestation, conserving biodiversity, and regulating climate balance. In Brazil, data reveal that indigenous territories protect 20.3 percent of national forests. In addition, in conservation units where traditional occupation is allowed, indigenous territories have the highest rates of preservation of native vegetation, standing out in comparison with other categories of protected areas. However, the legacy of centuries of exploitation and marginalization exposes Indigenous Peoples to deep social inequalities, precarious access to basic services, and a still growing escalation of threats to and violations of their rights. The advance of illegal mining, deforestation, invasion of traditional land, and the persecution of indigenous leaders have put their lives, cultures, and livelihoods at risk, as well as compromising the global environmental benefits associated with the preservation of these territories. The World Bank recognizes that the protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples is a fundamental component of the promotion of sustainable development. These rights are intrinsically linked to environmental conservation, the reduction of poverty and inequalities, and the fight against climate change. The World Bank’s Country Partnership Framework for Brazil, built on a process of dialogue with indigenous leaders and representatives of their organizations, reflects this commitment. This strategy prioritizes land tenure security, promotion of sustainable viii livelihoods, strengthening of institutions, responsible management of natural resources, reduction of ethnic, racial, and gender inequalities, and construction of a green, prosperous, and livable Amazon. Through partnerships with the federal government, local governments, and civil society organizations, our projects and operations aim not only to avoid adverse impacts but also to identify concrete opportunities to improve the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples. We know that this is not a simple task— profound, sustainable changes are needed based on political, social, economic, and environmental commitments at the most diverse levels. However, we believe that it is possible to achieve these goals if we can move forward together, with coordinated actions, in a fast, broad, and sustainable way. This report provides an overview of the challenges facing Indigenous Peoples in the Brazilian Amazon, as well as perspectives and recommendations that, in line with the World Bank’s action strategies, seek to increase the benefits and positive impacts of these efforts. More than anything, it reaffirms the World Bank’s commitment to inclusive and sustainable development, which recognizes the cultural and environmental richness of Indigenous Peoples as an essential foundation for building a just, balanced, and prosperous future for all. Johannes Zutt World Bank Country Director for Brazil ix Acknowledgments This report is a product of the World Bank’s Social Sustainability and Inclusion Global Practice and is a part of the Indigenous Latin America Series. The team responsible for preparing this report used documents and reports produced by the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program (P158000), the Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities under the Forest Investment Program–DGM/BRASIL, Phase 2 (P177957), Bahia Sustainable Rural Development Project (P180429), Agroecology and Sustainable Rural Development in Pernambuco (P500431), Mato Grosso Sustainable Development of Family Farming (P175723), Mato Grosso Resilient, Inclusive, and Sustainable Learning Project (P178993), Proactive, Safe, and Resilient Maintenance Program for Highways in the State of Bahia and Brazil Proactive, Safe, and Resilient Road Asset Management Program–State of Bahia (P180555), Brazil Proactive, Safe, and Resilient Road Asset Management Program–State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Phase 4 (P505590), and the Land Restitution as Peacebuilding in Indigenous Territories Project (P504533). We thank the teams of these projects for their contributions. We also appreciate the long partnership between the World Bank, the National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples (Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas), and the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples (Ministério dos Povos Indígenas) through a memorandum of understanding focused on promoting the rights of Indigenous Peoples, signed between both parties on June 24, 2024, in the presence of the Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Sônia Guajajara, and the World Bank’s country director for Brazil, Johannes Zutt. x The World Bank team thanks the Department of Mediation and Conciliation of Indigenous Conflicts (Departamento de Mediação e Conciliação de Conflitos Indígenas) of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples for reviewing and submitting detailed comments that helped improve the report. This document is aligned with the report A Balancing Act for Brazil’s Amazonian States: An Economic Memorandum (Hanusch 2023), which seeks to provide a path that provides greater income for the population, while protecting natural forests and traditional ways of life. It also has as a supporting document and reference the World Bank’s internal report Indigenous Peoples and Sustainable Development in the Legal Amazon (Sanchez Martinez et al. 2022). Finally, the report was inspired by and is in line with the World Bank’s Country Partnership Framework for Brazil and the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework, and the results of important consultations with relevant representatives of indigenous and traditional communities. We hope this report contributes to amplifying their voices and perspectives. xi Abbreviations CAR: Rural Environmental Registry (Cadastro Ambiental Rural) DGM: Dedicated Grant Mechanism ESS: Environmental and Social Standard FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FIP: Forest Investment Program FNRB: National Benefit Sharing Fund (Fundo Nacional de Partilha de Benefícios) FUNAI: National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples (Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas) GDP: gross domestic product GEF: Global Environment Facility IBAMA: Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis) IBGE: Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) ILO: International Labour Organization IPAM: Amazon Environmental Research Institute (Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia) NGO: nongovernmental organization xii PCFS: Paiter Suruí Forest Carbon Project (Projeto de Carbono Florestal Paiter Suruí) PGTA: territorial and environmental management plan (plano de gestão territorial e ambiental) PNGATI: National Policy for Territorial and Environmental Management of Indigenous Lands (Política Nacional de Gestão Territorial e Ambiental de Terras Indígenas) REDD+: reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, enhanced version SESAI: Secretariat for Indigenous Health (Secretaria de Saúde Indígena) SICAR: Rural Environmental Registry System (Sistema de Cadastro Ambiental Rural) SII: Indigenous Information System (Sistema Indigenista de Informações) xiii Photo: Agência Brasil xiv Introduction Indigenous Peoples As defined by the World Bank Group on its official website dedicated to this topic: Indigenous Peoples are distinct social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced. The land and natural resources on which they depend are inextricably linked to their identities, cultures, livelihoods, as well as their physical and spiritual well-being. They often subscribe to their customary leaders and organizations for representation that are distinct or separate from those of the mainstream society or culture. Many Indigenous Peoples still maintain a language distinct from the official language or languages of the country or region in which they reside; however, many have also lost their languages or on the precipice of extinction due to eviction from their lands and/or relocation to other territories.1 1 Indigenous Peoples: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/ indigenouspeoples. 1 It is estimated that there are 476 million indigenous people worldwide, which represents about 6 percent of the global population. However, they represent approximately 19 percent of the world’s extreme poor. They also have a lower life expectancy than the nonindigenous population and often do not have formal recognition of their lands, territories, and natural resources. This situation, in many cases, is one of the main causes of their vulnerability and the violence to which they are subjected, exacerbated by the precariousness of public investment in basic services and infrastructure that they face. In addition to this scenario, there are significant barriers to their access to justice and participation in the political and decision-making processes that may affect them. About a quarter of the globe’s surface is in the care of Indigenous Peoples—territories that encompass a significant part of the world’s biodiversity, almost half of its protected areas, and a significant proportion of the most ecologically intact landscapes on the planet. Much of the land occupied by Indigenous Peoples is under customary possession, but that is 1/4 th of the not always recognized in full and on the basis of legal provisions. globe’s Even when territories and indigenous lands are recognized, surface is in measures to control borders or the use and exploitation of the care of natural resources are often inadequate. Land insecurity is a Indigenous factor that generates conflicts, environmental degradation, and Peoples weak economic and social development. This threatens cultural survival and crucial knowledge systems, further increasing the vulnerability of these groups and, consequently, increasing the risks to biodiversity and unique ecological systems— which, in turn, impact the ecosystem services on which an entire chain of beings (human and nonhuman) depend. 2 To address these limitations and expand benefits to Indigenous Peoples, the World Bank has, among the environmental and social standards that compose its Environmental and Social Framework, an Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) aimed at Indigenous Peoples/Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa (ESS7). This standard contributes to poverty reduction and sustainable development by ensuring that Bank-supported projects increase opportunities for Indigenous Peoples to participate in and benefit from Bank-financed investments in a way that respects their collective rights, promotes their aspirations, and ensures that their unique cultural identities and ways of life are not threatened or impacted. ESS7 further indicates that free, prior, and informed consent must be obtained under specific conditions, including when a project proposes to use the cultural heritage of these peoples—providing that, in such cases, they must be enabled to equitably share the benefits to be derived from the commercial development of this cultural heritage (tangible and intangible), in a manner consistent with their customs and traditions. Currently, ESS7 is being applied to approximately 33 percent of the Bank’s investment loans worldwide.2 The situation of Indigenous Peoples in Brazil, which will be discussed in detail in this document, is representative of the global scenario described above. However, considering the unique characteristics of the country, both in relation to the indigenous population within its territorial boundaries and the biomes they inhabit, there are key points that require particular attention. Among these particularities, despite the diversity of the theme, there is the fact that most of the Amazon biome lies within Brazilian territory, which is home to immense ecological and social diversity. 2 See Appendix A for a brief list of the main projects (in preparation or under implementation) that are currently part of the World Bank’s portfolio in Brazil and have a significant relationship with Indigenous Peoples. 3 The Pan-Amazon The Amazon biome extends across nine Latin American countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela), in addition to covering parts of overseas territories. It is composed of vast tropical forests and nonforest vegetation (savannas and natural grasslands), agricultural land, wetlands, and urban areas. In addition, the Amazon River and its tributaries form the Amazon basin (the largest hydrographic basin on the planet), encompassing about 25,000 kilometers of navigable rivers. In total, the biome occupies 7 million square kilometers, which is home to the largest tropical forest in the world, while indigenous lands and protected areas in general occupy almost half of this territory. The largest areas of the biome are in Brazil (62 percent), followed by Peru (11 percent), Bolivia (8 percent), and Colombia (6 percent) (Santos, Lima dos Santos, and Veríssimo n.d.). Among its many remarkable qualities, the Amazon is recognized for being the largest freshwater system on the planet, with the Amazon River network carrying 20 percent of the world’s fresh water; for representing 40 percent of the world’s remaining tropical forest; and for being home to 10 percent of the known biodiversity across the globe. These characteristics, combined with others, make the Amazon responsible for storing 150 billion to 200 billion tonnes of carbon and absorbing, annually, 5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. From a social and demographic point of view, 47 million people live in the biome, and more than 70 percent are in urban areas. Of this total, there are approximately 2.2 million indigenous people, who are organized into about 410 peoples or groups, and who speak 300 different languages. The Amazon’s unique characteristics highlight its potential to provide ecosystem services, including the stock, preservation, and maintenance of freshwater reserves, activities related to climate regulation, food production, the supply of raw materials, and knowledge for the development of medicines. Furthermore, it is an inexhaustible source of cultural and traditional knowledge and practices, all of which, in turn, can provide livelihoods and foster economic development 4 Photo: Chris Diewald/ World Bank for its population and region. On the other hand, in practice, a paradoxical situation exists whereby socioeconomic indicators reveal a reality of poverty and lack of assistance, despite the wealth derived from natural resources. The states, departments, and provinces of the areas covered by the Amazon rain forest in different countries, in general, are the poorest regions of their countries, with 40 percent of the biome’s population living below the poverty line and 50 percent of families not having access to basic sanitation services. Despite progress in reducing inequality, ethnic minorities face higher levels of poverty, illiteracy, and child mortality, as well as lower rates of education. Women are particularly vulnerable, and high rates of gender violence are recorded. Data indicate that sustainable economic opportunities are lacking, and that public services are insufficient to meet the demands of the territory and its population. 5 Brazilian Amazon In the Brazilian Amazon, it is important to recognize and distinguish between two territorial definitions, one ecological and the other geopolitical: the Amazon biome and the Legal Amazon. The biome occupies 4.2 million square kilometers, distributed across six states in Brazil—Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Pará, Roraima, and Rondônia—along with parts of Maranhão, Mato Grosso and Tocantins, encompassing various types of humid tropical forests, an extensive hydrographic network, and great biodiversity (Santos, Lima dos Santos, and Veríssimo n.d.). The Legal Amazon, in turn, is approximately 5 million square kilometers in extent, representing about 60 percent of the Brazilian national territory.3 Established in 1953 to demarcate territorial boundaries for economic development strategies in the region, its boundaries extend beyond the humid jungle ecosystem (which occupies 49 percent of the national territory) to include parts of the Cerrado and Pantanal biomes. The region is composed of 772 municipalities, divided between the states of Rondônia (52), Acre (22), Amazonas (62), Roraima (15), Pará (144), Amapá (16), Maranhão (181), Tocantins (139), and Mato Grosso (141) (listed clockwise). In the case of Maranhão, only the areas of the municipalities located west of the 44th meridian are considered, 21 of which are partially integrated into the Legal Amazon (map 1). 3 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Amazônia Legal: https://www.ibge.gov.br/ geociencias/informacoes-ambientais/geologia/15819-amazonia-legal.html?=&t=o-que-e. 6 MAP 1 BIOMES OF THE LEGAL AMAZON Source: Santos, Lima dos Santos, and Veríssimo n.d.), page 21. From a demographic point of view, the population of the Legal Amazon has tripled in the last 50 years, reaching 28.4 million inhabitants in 2021, with a third residing in the nine state capitals and their metropolitan regions. The most populous states are Pará (8.8 million inhabitants) and Maranhão (5.9 million) (Santos, Lima dos Santos, and Veríssimo n.d.). In national terms, the Amazon provides ecosystem services to Brazil that are estimated at US$317 billion per year. In regional and global terms, the forest and its dynamics play an important role in maintaining the ecological balances that influence the planet. The Amazon biome is one of the largest remaining natural areas with the potential for conservation and sustainable management on Earth, in addition to being home to endemic and endangered floral and faunal species and playing a critical role in climate regulation (with 70 billion tonnes of carbon stocks). The Amazon rain forest provides a range of irreplaceable ecosystem services for the well-being of humanity and global balance, including the regulation of the water 7 cycle, climate maintenance and stability, nutrient cycling, and the supply of food, fibers, and fuels. On the other hand, tropical deforestation is a major driver of global environmental change, given its impacts on the carbon cycle and biodiversity. The loss of the Amazon rain forest is particularly concerning because of the size of the forest and the rapid rate at which it is being converted to other uses. While 84.1 percent of its area remains preserved, the average annual deforestation rate in the Amazon surged for several years after a long period of decline. The annual rate of deforestation had been decreasing—14,000 square kilometers per year in the last 30 years, 12,000 square kilometers per year in the last 20 years, and 6,500 square kilometers per year in the last 10 years—but increased from 7.1 square kilometers to 12.7 square kilometers between 2018 and 2022. However, since 2022, deforestation rates have once again begun to trend downward. Although deforestation decreased by 22.7 percent in the Amazon region in 2023, the risks of climate change remain exacerbated by the high levels of emissions resulting from land use transformation in the ecosystems of the Amazon and Cerrado. However, as demonstrated in the Pan-Amazon region, which spans multiple countries, the socioecological richness of the forest is not reflected in the living conditions of its population. Considering the average per capita household income of the regions of Brazil, the North Region is the second poorest in the country, with a monthly average income of 1,096 Brazilian reals (IBGE 2023), compared to the poorest, the Northeast Region, with a monthly average income of 1,011 Brazilian reals.4 In terms of gross domestic product (GDP), the North Region contributes the least, with about 6 percent of the national GDP in 2023. According to data from the Brazil Country Climate and Development Report (World Bank 2023), continuous degradation has been putting this ecosystem at risk, as the Amazon biome is rapidly moving toward a scenario of no return— beyond which large areas of the Amazon basin would no longer have enough 4 For comparison purposes, the other Brazilian regions present the following figures: South 1,927 Brazilian reals, Southeast 1,891 Brazilian reals, and Central–West 1,857 Brazilian reals. 8 box 1.1 important data on the amazon About 60% 44% of the Brazilian Amazon comprises of the protected areas, including conservation amazon units and indigenous territories. biome is in Brazil 56 million hectares 28 of land are yet to be designated. million people inhabit the area 90% of all deforestation (of whom more in the Brazilian Amazon is than 75% live illegal. in villages and cities) 95% of deforestation occurs within a radius of 5.5 kilometers of a road, The main sources of mainly in the so-called “arc of Brazil’s greenhouse deforestation.” gas emissions are land use change (52%) and There are 37 million agriculture (24%). hectares of degraded pasture areas in the Amazon. 9 Photo: Julio Pantoja/ World Bank rainfall to sustain native ecosystems or provide essential ecosystem services, such as erosion mitigation, water supply and purification, biodiversity, and carbon storage. In other words, if Brazil fails to curb deforestation and land conversion, the Amazon could reach a tipping point, beyond which permanent forest destruction and impacts on rainfall patterns across the country and South America would occur.5 However, for Brazil to reach its goal of zero deforestation in 2030, an annual reduction of emissions of 1.4 gigatonnes would be required (equivalent to the annual emission of vehicles in the United States of America). Despite the good progress made since the beginning of 2023, structural changes and political consensus are essential to prevent setbacks, especially when it is considered that deforestation is systematically and intentionally driven by land speculation and illegal activities, extensive cattle ranching, and the expansion of agriculture. Additionally, organized crime, including illegal mining, drug trafficking, and illegal logging, has spread to the Brazilian Amazon, affecting public security. In addition, current tax incentives favor deforestation (including tax transfers based on economic growth). A delicate balance is thus needed to establish governance that safeguards forests and traditional livelihoods while providing pathways to higher incomes and greater inclusion. 5 This risk is also a reality for the Cerrado. 10 Interaction of Indigenous Peoples with the Brazilian Amazon Scientific literature acknowledges the Amazon region’s remarkable sociocultural diversity and the wide range of distinct ethnic identities, particularly indigenous ones. These communities possess unique perspectives, values, and interests regarding the use, interaction with, and experience of nature to ensure a high quality of life. At the same time, indigenous groups hold traditional knowledge that enables them to uniquely understand the socioecological elements and relationships that shape the forest and beyond. On the one hand, this cultural and demographic diversity is a challenge for public policies aimed at improving the living conditions of vulnerable populations, as they must take into account the cultural and organizational specificities of the communities. On the other hand, this sociodiversity is associated with ecological heterogeneity, contributing to sustainability and expanding the contribution of the Amazon forest to the well-being of all peoples (not just Indigenous Peoples). As already indicated, a large part of the areas that remain preserved in the Amazon consist of protected areas, including indigenous lands. Indigenous Peoples and indigenous lands (as well as traditional communities and conservation units) in the Brazilian Amazon therefore play a key role in protecting the rain forest against deforestation and degradation, conserving biodiversity, and regulating the climate balance of the country and the region. All these groups rely on forest-centered livelihoods based on hunting, fishing, and gathering, as well as subsistence agriculture and the exploitation of timber and other forest resources using artisanal technology.6 Given their crucial role in preserving the forest, Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities in the Amazon have unique and pressing needs. Their reality is far from satisfactory and is often invisible due to the lack of data, research, and, above all, specific and well-informed actions and policies aimed at these groups. In fact, it is recognized that their traditional way of life is decisive in maintaining the health of the Brazilian Amazon rain forest. Using data from 2022 obtained from the methodology implemented in the carbon 6 Socioenvironmental Institute: Indigenous Lands in Brazil: https://terrasindigenas.org.br. 11 calculator platform of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute ((Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia, IPAM), it is estimated that indigenous lands in the Amazon hold 27 percent of the forest area and store about 14 billion tonnes of carbon.7 However, despite a downward trend in the rate of deforestation since 2023, in the recent past Brazil and the Amazon (in particular) have experienced an increase in violence against it is traditional populations and invasion of indigenous lands. During estimated this period, deforestation alerts within indigenous lands and that conservation units in the Brazilian Amazon have also increased. indigenous lands in In this context, paying close attention to native peoples not only the Amazon is a fundamental and urgent issue, given the basic principle of hold 27% of recognition and respect that must be afforded to any human collective inhabiting our planet, particularly those formed by the forest minority groups or those in vulnerable situations, it also offers area and an opportunity for learning. This attention can stimulate the store about evolution of viable and innovative ways to promote inclusive 14 billion and sustainable development, combat climate change, and tonnes of strive for a world free of poverty on a habitable planet. carbon Key Challenges In light of the current scenario, whereby the Amazon region has recently experienced record deforestation (despite a reversal of this trend in the past two years), increased violence, and worsening social conditions, Indigenous Peoples, due to their social, cultural, and demographic characteristics, are among the groups most vulnerable to the harmful consequences of these developments. Three major pillars gain relevance in light of the interests (and security) of Indigenous Peoples, when considering the current reality of the Amazon region: (a) land 7 For more information, see IPAM carbon calculator: https://carboncal.org.br/. 12 Foto: Julio Pantoja/ World Bank violence; (b) the presence of a large number of indigenous people in urban areas of the region; and (c) effects and consequences of climate change. However, many of the factors contributing to the current crisis also contain elements that could underpin the region’s sustainability. This context constitutes the Amazonian paradox: from an apparently insoluble situation, a new model of regional development could emerge, one based on the sustainable use of the forest’s natural resources and on sociodiversity. In this (potential) new model, Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge can (and should) play a leading role. In this new context, these groups should be regarded not merely as subjects of protection, but as references, models, and examples of what can be achieved. In this sense, protection goes hand in hand with valuing these peoples and their knowledge. Without guaranteeing their protection, it is impossible to learn from them. Conversely, once we learn from them, their protection will naturally follow, along with the preservation of the entire biome that houses them and with which they interact and coexist. 13 Photo: Agência Brasil 14 Chapter 1 Overview of Indigenous Peoples in the Brazilian Amazon Demographics According to the latest official demographic census (2022) of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, IBGE), Indigenous Peoples are present 15 in the five regions of the country, totaling 1,693,535 people (0.83 percent of the country’s total population). Compared to the previous census, in 2010, the indigenous population nearly doubled in the intercensal period (an increase of almost 90 percent).8 The population residing in indigenous lands is 689,202, which includes 622,066 indigenous and 67,136 nonindigenous people. This means that 1,071,469 (63.27 percent) of indigenous people live outside demarcated areas. Regarding the number of indigenous people living within indigenous territories, almost half of this population is in the North Region, with 338,547 (49.12 percent) indigenous people. In total, the region is home to 753,357 indigenous people (44.48 percent of all living in Brazil). The state of Amazonas has the largest indigenous population in the country: 490,894 indigenous people, representing approximately 20 percent of the Indigenous Peoples in Brazil and 12.45 percent of the state’s population. Table 1 presents demographic data on Indigenous Peoples in Brazil’s North Region. 8 It is worth noting that, from a methodological point of view, there was a change between the 2010 and 2022 population censuses. While in the 2010 survey the coverage question Do you consider yourself indigenous? was restricted to indigenous lands and was responsible for 15.26 percent of the capture of the indigenous population in the indigenous lands, and 8.8 percent of the total number of indigenous people in Brazil, in 2022 this coverage question was asked to the resident population of the set of indigenous localities represented by the IBGE in the census base cartography for the census, maintaining the opening rule: those people who, in terms of color or race, did not declare themselves indigenous answered the coverage question Do you consider yourself indigenous? In 2022, this question accounted for 27.58 percent of the total number of indigenous people residing in Brazil, 3.55 percent of the total number of indigenous people residing within indigenous lands, and 41.53 percent residing outside indigenous lands in the country. This change met the recommendations of representatives of Indigenous Peoples who indicated that in the previous census there had been an undernumbering of the indigenous population outside the indigenous lands. 16 TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE NORTH REGION OF BRAZIL, 2022 States of North Population of % of state’s Region Indigenous Peoples population Acre 31,699 3.82 Amapá 11,334 1.55 Amazonas 490,854 12.45 Pará 80,974 1.0 Rondônia 21,153 1.34 Roraima 97,320 15.29 Tocantins 20,023 1.32 Total 753,357 Seven of the ten municipalities in the country with the highest number of Indigenous Peoples in their population are in the North Region (six in the state of Amazonas and one in Roraima). These are Boa Vista, capital of Roraima, with 20,410 indigenous people, and the Amazonian municipalities of Manaus, the state capital, with 71,713 indigenous residents, São Gabriel da Cachoeira (48,256 people), Tabatinga (34,497 people), São Paulo de Olivença (26,619 people), Autazes (20,442 people), and Tefé (20,394 people). Similarly, six of the ten municipalities in the country with the highest proportion of indigenous people in their populations are located in the North Region: São Gabriel da Cachoeira, Amaturá, São Paulo de Olivença, and Santa Isabel do Rio Negro, in Amazonas; and Normandia and Uiramutã, in Roraima. 17 These Indigenous Peoples belong to 305 different ethnicities and speak 274 indigenous languages. The Indigenous Peoples found in the seven states of the North Region belong to 164 different groups (table 2). TABLE 2 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BY ETHNICITY AND STATE IN THE NORTH REGION OF BRAZIL State Indigenous People Acre Arara do Rio Amônia, Arara Shawãdawa, Ashaninka, Huni Kuin, Katukina Pano, Kuntanawa, Manchineri, Nawa, Nukini, Puyanawa, Shanenawa, Yaminawá and Yawanawá.9 Amapá Galibi do Oiapoque, Galibi Marworno, Karipuna do Amapá, Palikur and Wajãpi.10 Amazonas Apuriña, Arapaso, Banawá, Baniwa, Barasana, Bará, Baré, Borari, Deni, Desana, Dâw, Hixkaryana, Hupda, Jamamadi, Jarawara, Jiahui, Juma, Kaixana, Kambeba, Kanamari, Karapanã, Katuenayana, Katukina do Rio Biá, Kaxarari, Kaxuyana, Kokama, Koripako, Korubo, Kotiria, Kubeo, Kulina, Kulina Pano, Makuna, Maraguá, Marubo, Matis, Matsés, Miranha, Mirity-tapuya, Munduruku, Mura, Nadöb, Parintintim, Paumari, Pira-tapuya, Pirahã, Sateré Mawé, Siriano, Tariana, Tenharim, Ticuna, Torá, Tsohom-dyapa, Tukano, Tuanayana, Tuyuka, Waimiri Atroari, Waiwai, Warekena, Witoto, Yanomami, Yuhupedeh and Zuruahã.11 9 https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Categoria:Povos_ind%C3%ADgenas_no_Acre. 10 https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Categoria:Povos_ind%C3%ADgenas_no_ Amap%C3%A1. 11 https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Categoria:Povos_ind%C3%ADgenas_no_Amazonas. 18 State Indigenous People Pará Aikewara, Amanyé, Anambé, Aparai, Apiaká, Arapiuns, Arara, Arara da Volta Grande, Arara Vermelha, Araweté, Asurini do Tocantins, Asurini do Xingu, Borari, Cara Preta, Gavião Parkatêjê, Guarani, Guarani Mbya, Hixkaryana, Jaraqui, Karajá, Katuenayana, Katxuyana, Kayapó Xikrin, Kuruaya, Mebêngôkre, Munduruku, Panará, Parakanã, Tapajó, Tembé, Tiriyó, Tunayana, Tupaiú, Turiwara, Waiwai, Wajãpi, Wayana, Xipaya and Zo`é.12 Rondônia Aikanã, Akuntsu, Amondawa, Apurinã, Arikapú, Aruá, Cinta Larga, Djeoromitxí, Guarasugwe, Ikolen, Kanoê, Karipuna de Rondônia, Karitiana, Karo, Kassupá, Kaxarari, Kujubim, Kwazá, Makurap, Migueleno, Nambikwara, Oro Win, Puruborá, Sakurabiat, Surui Paiter, Tupari, Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau, Wajuru and Wari’.13 Roraima Ingarikó, Macuxi, Patamona, Sapará, Taurapang, Waimiri Atroari, Waiwai, Wapichana, Yanomami and Ye`kwana.14 Tocantins Apinajé, Avá-Canoeiro, Guarani Mbya, Javaé, Karajá, Karajá do Norte, Krahô, Krahô- Kanela, Tapirapé and Xerente.15 12 https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Categoria:Povos_ind%C3%ADgenas_no_ Par%C3%A1. 13 https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Categoria:Povos_ind%C3%ADgenas_em_ Rond%C3%B4nia. 14 https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Categoria:Povos_ind%C3%ADgenas_em_Roraima. 15 https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/Categoria:Povos_ind%C3%ADgenas_no_Tocantins. 19 Photo: Chris Diewald/ World Bank Moreover, according to data from the 2022 IBGE census, when considering the Amazon territory beyond the northern states and including the Legal Amazon, 867,919 indigenous people were registered in the municipalities that compose this territory. This represents 3.26 percent of the total resident population of the region and accounts for 51.25 percent of the indigenous population residing in Brazil. In the Legal Amazon, 403,287 indigenous people residing in indigenous lands were registered, accounting for 64.83 percent of the national indigenous population in these territories. Regarding the indigenous population residing in officially delimited territories, the Legal Amazon shows a higher proportion (46.47 percent) compared to the overall indigenous population in the country (36.73 percent) (IBGE 2022a, 2022b). 20 box 2.1 Isolated Indigenous Peoples There is also evidence of isolated Indigenous Peoples in the Amazon. The Brazilian government recognizes the existence of 114 records of Indigenous Peoples who have chosen to live separately or in voluntary isolation from other indigenous or nonindigenous groups. They are mainly found in the Legal Amazon region. This total number of records, based on the methodology used and the progress of the work conducted by the National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples (Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas, FUNAI), can be classified into three categories (or stages): (a) “isolated indigenous groups,” when there have been systematic efforts to locate them geographically, enabling confirmation of their existence and the acquisition of more information about their territory and sociocultural characteristics; (b) “references to isolated indigenous people,” when there is strong evidence of their existence (entered and qualified in the database), but without systematic work to confirm it; and (c) “information on isolated indigenous people,” which are records of the existence of isolated indigenous people duly registered with FUNAI, meaning they have gone through a screening process but have not yet received a qualification study. These groups range from hundreds of people to a few survivors. In the past, these “isolated” peoples often maintained relationships with segments of the national society—frequently marked by violence, disease contagion, and extermination—following which the remaining members of these groups rejected the colonial situation and fled to remote and hard-to-access refuge areas. This decision to remain in isolation is also related to experiencing conditions that allow them to autonomously meet their social, material, or symbolic needs, avoiding social relationships that could trigger interethnic tensions or conflicts. 21 The records of the presence of isolated Indigenous Peoples are distributed across a total of 86 territories: 54 indigenous territories, 24 conservation units (15 federal and 9 state), and 8 areas without a protection mechanism. FUNAI has already demarcated five indigenous territories and established usage restrictions in six areas, and is in the process of identifying an indigenous territory due to the confirmed presence of isolated Indigenous Peoples. Brazil’s policy regarding isolated Indigenous Peoples is based on the premise of not contacting isolated groups and intervening only in specific cases when the isolated group is at risk or facing a concrete threat. This no-contact policy with isolated Indigenous Peoples has been in place since 1987, when FUNAI established the Coordination of Isolated Indians (now renamed the General Coordination of Isolated and Recently Contacted Indigenous Peoples) with the duty of ensuring the rights of isolated Indigenous Peoples as well as those who have been recently contacted. FUNAI is responsible for ensuring that isolated Indigenous Peoples can fully exercise their freedom and traditional ways of life without needing to make contact with them. Currently, FUNAI’s policy toward isolated and recently contacted peoples is considered pioneering on the global stage. When the presence of isolated Indigenous Peoples is detected outside the boundaries of already demarcated indigenous lands, FUNAI uses the legal mechanism of “restriction of use” of the land to interdict the area occupied by isolated groups, restrict the entry of third parties, and ensure the physical integrity of the Indigenous Peoples while other protection actions are carried out and administrative procedures for the demarcation of indigenous land are processed. The “restriction of use” is supported by Article 7 of Decree 1775/96, Article 231 of the Federal Constitution of 1988, and Article 1, item VII, of Law No. 5371/67. 22 Territorial Rights In Brazil, the recognition of the original rights of Indigenous Peoples over the land they traditionally occupy, regardless of their demarcation, is guaranteed in Article 231 of the Federal Constitution. Of the total area of Brazil, approximately 13.8 percent (1,173,776 square kilometers) is reserved for Indigenous Peoples. According to data from the 2022 population census, based on information from FUNAI, considering the officially delimited indigenous territories (that is, those that, on July 31, 2022, were in the land tenure statuses of declared, approved, regularized, and designated as an indigenous reserve), 626 indigenous territories were accounted for in the country. Of these, 7 were under study, 45 were delimited, 72 declared, 8 approved, and 475 regularized, in addition to all the 47 indigenous reserves. Map 2 shows indigenous lands by land tenure status in Brazil. 626 indigenous territories 7 were under study 45 were delimited 72 declared 8 approved 475 regularized 23 MAP 2 INDIGENOUS LANDS BY LAND TENURE STATUS, BRAZIL, 2022 Sources: IBGE 2022b and data from FUNAI. Table 3 presents data on the demarcation process of indigenous territories in Brazil, based on data made available by FUNAI through the Indigenous Information System (Sistema Indigenista de Informações, SII) in November 2024.16 16 SII: Terras indígenas: http://sii.funai.gov.br/funai_sii/informacoes_indigenas/visao/ visao_terras_indigenas_situacao.wsp?tmp.uf_codigo=. 24 TABLE 3 SUMMARY TABLE OF DATA ON THE DEMARCATION PROCESS OF INDIGENOUS TERRITORIES IN BRAZIL Stage of the No. of indigenous Surface area (ha.) demarcation procedure territories Under study 132 899,970 Delimited 32 507,878 Demarcated 58 6,662,678 Approved 10 463,372 Regularized 452 105,808,903 Indian reserve 48 65,929 Total 732 114,408,730 Source: Adapted from data in the Indigenous Information System (FUNAI). Apart from the temporal difference between the IBGE and FUNAI references, another factor leading to some inconsistency in the data is that the criterion adopted by the IBGE in the 2022 census considered only officially delimited indigenous territories. It is important to note that these numbers are constantly changing as the administrative demarcation processes progress, which in turn affects the respective status of legal recognition. Consequently, it is possible to find discrepancies between different sources—even official sources. The North Region has 364 indigenous territories,17 which account for more than half of the country’s indigenous territories. Of these, about half are approved or regularized (table 4). 17 Terras Indígenas no Brasil: https://terrasindigenas.org.br/. 25 TABLE 4 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIES AND AREA BY STATE IN THE NORTH REGION OF BRAZIL States Indigenous territories Area (ha.) Acre 36 3,169,618 Amapá 6 4,196,541 Amazonas 175 58,174,477 Pará 68 35,315,216 Rondônia 31 6,261,315 Roraima 35 19,618,634 Tocantins 13 2,580,694 Total: North Region 364 129,316,495 In the Brazilian Amazon, most of the land is under federal domain: 43 percent are protected areas (conservation units and indigenous territories) and 21 percent are public lands, which lie outside protected areas and are thus vulnerable to occupation. Landholdings cover 9 percent of the territory and 27 percent are supposedly private properties, most of which have no validation in official rural property records. The Legal Amazon holds 98 percent of the area of regularized indigenous territories in Brazil. Indigenous land in the Legal Amazon covers 1,151,065 square kilometers (23 percent of the regional territory). Together with other protected areas, indigenous territories occupy almost half of the Legal Amazon. From 2000 to 2018, only 13 percent of deforestation occurred within these territories (table 5). 26 TABLE 5 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIES IN THE STATES OF THE LEGAL AMAZON Indigenous % of the States State area (km2) territories (km2) state Acre 164,173 24,410 14.9 Amapá 142,470 11,848 8.3 Amazonas 1,559,255 455,733 29.2 Maranhão 329,651 22,797 8.7 Mato Grosso 903,208 149,375 16.5 Pará 1,245,870 307,681 24.7 Rondônia 237,754 50,044 21.0 Roraima 223,644 103,296 46.2 Tocantins 277,423 25,876 9.5 Source: Adapted from Santos, Lima dos Santos, and Veríssimo n.d. The Brazilian Federal Constitution (Article 231, paragraph 4) defines the lands occupied by Indigenous Peoples as “inalienable and unavailable, and the rights over them, imprescriptible.” Brazil also ratified, in 2002, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). The Convention fully recognizes the right to consultation and free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples. However, these rights have been continuously threatened, with attempts to even change the Constitution, such as the Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 215 (PEC 215/2000). This amendment sought to grant the National Congress exclusive authority to approve the demarcation of lands traditionally occupied by Indigenous Peoples 27 and to ratify demarcations that had already been approved, establishing that the criteria and procedures for demarcation would be regulated by law. The proposed amendment is currently suspended, but it exemplifies the risks arising from nonrecognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The demarcation of indigenous territories in the Amazon (as elsewhere in Brazil) must be continued in order to formalize the right to land of Indigenous Peoples, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and to ensure the protection of the actual size of the land area to keep invaders at bay. The main reason for expanding land demarcation is the fulfillment of a fundamental constitutional right of Indigenous Peoples. Unlike other protected areas, whose primary objective is the conservation of biodiversity, indigenous territories aim to safeguard the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands and livelihoods for social, cultural, and equity reasons. Indigenous Peoples use the territory’s resources in a diversified way, avoiding external dependence for their livelihoods through a combination of traditional ways of life and sustainable use activities. In addition, the conservation of the Amazon forest due to the presence of indigenous territories seems to be more effective and less expensive than conventional alternatives sponsored by different national governments (Walker et al. 2020). As mentioned earlier, indigenous territories also provide several ecological and climate cobenefits. In short, the continued demarcation of indigenous lands is vital to protect rights and generate socioeconomic and environmental benefits. Brazil’s rich legal framework related to indigenous lands and climate change adaptation is not, however, fully implemented, as exemplified by the National Policy for Territorial and Environmental Management of Indigenous Lands (Política Nacional de Gestão Territorial e Ambiental de Terras Indígenas, PNGATI). PNGATI, issued by Decree No. 7.747, of June 5, 2012, represented a remarkable advance by Brazil in the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights. This policy aims to guarantee and promote the protection, recovery, conservation, and sustainable use of the natural resources found in indigenous lands, and to ensure the integrity of indigenous heritage, the improvement of the quality of life of 28 box 2.2 The Time Frame Thesis ( Marco Temporal ) At present, there is a controversy within Brazilian institutions involving a key agenda for Indigenous Peoples and their territorial rights: the “time frame thesis.” This is a legal thesis according to which Indigenous Peoples have the right to occupy only the lands they occupied or were disputing on October 5, 1988, the date of the Constitution’s promulgation. The issue, based on an appeal regarding a territory occupied by the Xokleng indigenous people in the state of Santa Catarina, had been pending in the Supreme Federal Court since 2019. In a ruling in September 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the constitutionality of this thesis by a vote of nine to two. Thus, it was determined that the situation of the area on the date of the Constitution’s promulgation cannot be used to define whether an area has traditional occupation by indigenous communities. The National Senate, in turn, put to vote, days later, a bill (PL 2.903/2023) that set the time frame on October 5, 1988. In October 2023, the bill was sanctioned by the Presidency of the Republic, giving rise to Law 14.701 of 2023. However, there were vetoes to relevant points of the bill, which were subsequently overturned in a new vote in Congress in December of the same year. With the rejection of the veto, Indigenous Peoples will have the right to demarcate only the areas they occupied until October 5, 1988, when the Constitution was promulgated. The discussion, however, will continue, as the constitutionality of Law 14.701/2023 will once again be on the Supreme Federal Court’s agenda. 29 Photo: Chris Diewald/ World Bank Indigenous Peoples, and the physical and cultural sustainability of current and future Indigenous Peoples, respecting their sociocultural autonomy. However, the implementation of PNGATI—which could be a significant tool and means to subsidize the continued demarcation of indigenous territories— was affected by several factors. Among them were the discontinuities and changes in priorities of the government of the time, resulting in significant cuts in the budget of portfolios that were directly related to the implementation of PNGATI, including FUNAI (the body responsible for protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples) and environmental agencies such as the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, IBAMA) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (Garcia et al. 2021). The implementation of the territorial and environmental management plans 30 (planos de gestão territorial e ambiental, PGTAs), the main instrument for implementing PNGATI, has also not progressed as expected. The PGTAs are based on recognition of the autonomy and self-determination of each indigenous group. The plans aim to implement strategies for the sustainable use of territories and improve indigenous well-being to provide physical and cultural conditions to serve present and future generations. The PGTAs are the most crucial instrument of PNGATI, as they establish the requirements for Indigenous Peoples to promote and carry out— autonomously—their land use plans to protect their way of life and prevent illegal occupation and deforestation of their lands. Ideally, a properly and successfully designed PGTA provides information on the culture and ways of life of that group, maps the territorial and environmental threats, and outlines the development potential to which Indigenous Peoples aspire. Current data show that the implementation of PGTAs has been halted or is proceeding very slowly. Less than 20 percent (or 129) of the indigenous territories in Brazil developed their PGTAs to some level between 2013 and 2018. Of the PGTAs developed or under development, almost 70 percent were submitted by Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon biome, often with the support of civil society organizations (GIZ n.d.). 31 Photo: Agência Brasil 32 Chapter 2 Challenges Violence Linked to Territorial and Land Issues Although there is a clear positive effect of the demarcation of indigenous lands in halting or slowing the advance of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, in recent years the rate of deforestation in these territories has experienced considerable variation. According to data from the Deforestation Alert System,18 there was a peak in the area deforested within indigenous territories in the Legal Amazon in 2020 (269 square kilometers), with a maintenance of this situation in 2021 (249 square kilometers), with a reduction in the rate of deforestation in the following years to 73 square kilometers between August 2023 and March 2024—numbers still much higher than those observed in previous years, such as 2016 (19 square kilometers) and 2017 (18 square kilometers). Also, according to Deforestation Alert System data, since 2010, 1,186 square kilometers of forests in indigenous territories in the Legal Amazon 18 The Deforestation Alert System is a monitoring tool for the Legal Amazon based on satellite images, developed by Imazon in 2008, to report monthly on the pace of forest degradation and deforestation in the region (https://imazon. org.br/categorias/sad/). 33 have been illegally deforested by illegal loggers and miners, as well as by land grabbers. However, despite the escalation in numbers between 2018 and 2021, what is currently observed is a downward trend. Land grabbing in Brazil has historically been related to the intense exploitation of natural resources, including the usurpation of indigenous land. Land grabbing can be defined as the appropriation of land through false land titles. This is a long-standing crime that threatens the sociobiodiversity of Brazilian biomes, including the Amazon. In the region, half of the deforestation between 2019 and 2021 occurred on public lands through land grabbing—proving that this is a strategy adopted not only to access resources illegally and criminally, but also to signal land occupation and claim land rights (Alencar et al. 2020; Azevedo-Ramos et al. 2020). In 2019 and 2020, in the Brazilian Amazon, 50 percent of deforestation occurred in public forests within indigenous territories, protected areas, and undesignated public forests because of land grabbing. In 2019 and 2020, land grabbing represented the main driver of deforestation in the Amazon indigenous lands. The number (and area) of private properties illegally registered in the Rural Environmental Registry (Cadastro Ambiental Rural, CAR) that overlap with indigenous territories provides evidence of the dimensions of land grabbing in the Amazon. CAR is an electronic registry of georeferenced information about a rural property. Any person can claim to be the rightful owner of an area and register it geographically in the database of the Rural Environmental Registry System (Sistema de Cadastro Ambiental Rural, SICAR). A validation process will verify the legality of the declared registration. However, validation is slow, allowing land grabbers to occupy public lands, including indigenous ones. Between 2016 and 2020, the number of CAR registrations in indigenous lands, self-declared illegally by “would-be owners,” increased by 36 percent. The occurrence of deforestation in the CAR-registered properties overlapping with indigenous territories reaches 3.25 percent (3.5 million hectares) of the total area of indigenous territories in the biome. The growth in deforestation 34 between 2016 and 2020 in areas with overlapping CAR- registered properties within indigenous territories was 2.3 times higher than the rest of the indigenous territory areas—evidence that land grabbers are using SICAR to occupy indigenous lands through illegal land speculation. According to data from a report of the Indigenous Missionary Council (2022), between 2019 and 2022, 407 cases of conflicts related to territorial rights and 1,133 cases of possessory invasions, illegal exploitation of natural resources, and various damages to heritage were registered throughout Brazil. According to the The occurrence criterion adopted by the institution, such occurrences are of deforestation classified as “violence against property.” Regarding the in the CAR- main types of damage to indigenous heritage recorded registered in 2022, cases of natural resource extraction (timber, properties mining, illegal hunting and fishing) and possessory overlapping invasions linked to land grabbing stand out. with indigenous Despite the general spread of ideas of multiculturalism territories and the widespread acceptance of indigenous rights, reaches Indigenous Peoples are still the target of overwhelming 3.25 percent discrimination. Such discrimination is usually articulated (3.5 million through and overlaps with multidimensional layers of hectares) of the symbolic and physical violence. Over the past decade, total area of violence against Indigenous Peoples has increased indigenous dramatically. Violence is a historical heritage of the territories in interaction between the State—and its society—and the biome. Indigenous Peoples. It has material and symbolic dimensions, resulting from the structural threats to the survival conditions of Indigenous Peoples and individuals through the deterioration of the quality of life resulting from the lack of demarcation of indigenous lands, environmental degradation, 35 insecurity in the face of invasions related to extractive activities, expansion of agriculture and cattle raising, and construction of highways, railways, dams, and hydroelectric plants in or near their territories. Such activities often cause forced displacement, taking indigenous people to peripheral areas of cities, causing the rupture of their social ties, mental health problems (anxiety, anguish, and depression), domestic violence, and suicide. In addition, invasions by outsiders into indigenous land are often accompanied by a regional climate of violence and lawlessness against Indigenous Peoples. The murders of indigenous leaders and community members is the most serious of these crimes—though very few of these cases result in conviction and imprisonment (Cerqueira and Bueno 2024). In close relation to the numbers presented above, the study On the Front Line: Violence against Human Rights Defenders in Brazil mapped, throughout Brazil, 1,171 cases of violence against human rights defenders between 2019 and 2022 (da Silva et al. 2023). These violations included physical aggression, threats, murder, attacks, criminalization (institutional), and delegitimization (for example, slander), sexual harassment, and suicide. The North Region has the highest number of murders, which can be explained by the high rate of land conflicts in the region (land grabbing of public lands, invasions of indigenous lands, deforestation, and illegal mining). In turn, almost half (47 percent) of the cases of violence against human rights defenders were reported in the Legal Amazon, and in 919 (78.5 percent) of those cases, the struggles of the defenders who were victims of violence were associated with the theme of land, territory, and the environment, and in 346 (29.5 percent) of cases the defenders were indigenous. There is a general sense of impunity that facilitates the continuation of these acts of violence and widens existing security gaps. However, the data show fluctuations in homicide rates among indigenous people compared to homicide rates of the general population. Between 2012 and 2022, data from the Ministry of Health showed a significant decrease in lethal violence against indigenous people in Brazil, with the homicide rate falling from 46.4 to 24.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2022, the homicide rate among indigenous people was almost 36 Photo: Agência Brasil the same as the national rate, the lowest in the time series (21.5 per 100,000 indigenous people against 21.7 per 100,000 inhabitants in the general population). However, 2013 and 2020 were years of significant increase in lethal violence against indigenous people. The homicide rate of indigenous people was twice the general rate in 2013 and 2014. The downward trend began in 2014 (61.5 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants), with exceptions in some years. In 2020, the homicide rate among indigenous people tripled compared to the general increase, registering 30.1 per 100,000 indigenous people, highlighting their vulnerability. Overall, violence was more intense among indigenous people than in the general population, especially between 2012 and 2021. Indigenous People outside Indigenous Lands The largest presence of indigenous groups is in the Amazon region, where they inhabit urban areas, reserves, and rural areas. Almost half of Brazil’s 1,693,535 indigenous people live in the nine states of the Legal Amazon. 37 On the other hand, they represent only 1.5 percent of the total Amazonian population. The state of Amazonas has the largest number of Indigenous Peoples and territories, in addition to preserved forests. Territorial extension by the state is certainly a factor explaining the relatively large number of Indigenous Peoples, indigenous territories, and preserved forests in the region, as well as the ecological, economic, and historical trajectories related to the expansion of border development activities in the region. The intensification of urbanization has led Indigenous Peoples to interact with urban life in a way that often has negative consequences. The dominant and recurring views that define the effects of such interaction solely as acculturation, or that directly link it to poverty and exclusion, are not without reason. However, even considering all the challenges and all the critical and problematic situations arising from this relationship between Indigenous Peoples and urban life, it is necessary to try to seek positive examples in order to, whenever possible, envision viable alternatives that contemplate the coexistence of these perspectives (especially when this relationship is with the willing engagement of the Indigenous Peoples involved). Therefore, despite all the problems concerning these relationships, there are also synergistic experiences for both “sides” of the equation – that is, cases in which both the indigenous groups and the urban context mutually influence each other in a potentially positive way. The case of the municipality of São Gabriel da Cachoeira, in Amazonas, is of particular relevance. More than 80 percent of the urban population recognizes itself as indigenous. Even with several rounds of urbanization with the protagonism of external and nonindigenous actors (incorporating land and seeking better locational advantages in the emerging urban spaces), indigenous groups such as the Baré and Tucano peoples have managed to include these urban areas in their own circulation 38 processes (of people, goods, ritual exchanges, and kinship relations) based on traditional practices—hence reinforcing the “multilocational” character of these groups. Several urban and peri-urban places are part of everyday life, including those used for leisure, cultural events of all kinds, and the production of food and other uses of regional resources. The case of São Gabriel da Cachoeira illustrates the ways in which these peoples are able to benefit from natural reproductive cycles in ways that would not be possible without the knowledge derived from their traditional ways of life. For example, seasonal cycles (such as periods of rain or drought and river regimes) are incorporated into urban everyday life (in which economic life is embedded) through activities such as fishing, leisure, and agriculture. This helps secure their economic advantage, as traditional knowledge—particularly how they interact with the natural cycles of the forest—is incorporated into urban exchange and production practices. Urban practices, in general, tend to overlook such variables in their routines. Despite the expansion of agricultural, productive, and urban borders, as well as the advancement of development projects into the Amazon, this integration between nature and urban life has fueled and accelerated the urbanization of municipalities such as São Gabriel da Cachoeira. However, it has done so without fully displacing the Baré and Tucano peoples, who continue to maintain strong multilocal connections to urban life in a way that remains both rooted in and deeply tied to their traditions. In São Gabriel da Cachoeira the conditions of access to land, income, economic opportunities, and other daily material needs were influenced by market dynamics, but they retained their diversity as indigenous groups and actively reasserted themselves to ensure that their interactions with urban life were also beneficial to them. Housing conditions and types of insertion in local commerce, for example, were carefully examined and implemented by these groups, generating institutional innovations. For example, there is a specific settlement in the city that is owned by the municipality granted to indigenous families who may need to spend some time in the city for whatever reason (school, commerce, or personal disagreements in the village). In addition, there are forms of access to land through kinship relations, the exchange of services, and donations—temporary or permanent concessions of land for varied uses with a series of rules and common regulations. 39 It is important to note that typical market mechanisms and urban–industrial relations coexist with collective uses in this context, which are not disconnected from rules and regulations. Together, they create hybrid conditions that shape both material and institutional realities. In addition, what safeguards the formation of alliances and sectors that multiply the details and nuances of social relations are the strategies of “mixed families,” whereby indigenous and nonindigenous people marry and form families. In this context, indigeneity is not a condition of urban exclusion. Here, the economic dimension is clear: the urban becomes a center of economic diffusion. Regional knowledge, practices and resources spill over into other territories outside the Amazon and even outside Brazil. For example, new production strategies through agroforestry systems increase urban resilience and expand economic diversification. More importantly, this process expands the perceived wealth of indigenous (urban) society at large through new goods, services, and divisions of labor. The relationality of poverty here is quite straightforward, as most will not perceive the indigenous society of São Gabriel da Cachoeira as “rich” (Eloy 2008; Emperaire and Eloy 2008; Eloy and Lasmar 2011). As already mentioned, Indigenous Peoples are overrepresented among the extremely poor, and their probability of being extremely poor was more than twice as high among them as among the country’s total population in 2010. Their access to the labor and financial market, if they so desire, is often barred by prejudices regarding their low level of education, previous economic conditions, management skills, and lack of understanding and knowledge about new technologies. The situation is worse among indigenous women, who are often discriminated against both as indigenous people and as women, resulting in poorer access to education and lower wages than indigenous men (indigenous men earn on average 39 percent less than nonindigenous men, while indigenous women earn almost 58 percent less than nonindigenous men). Such situations are even worse among the growing number of indigenous families living in marginalized urban environments and underserved slums, whose needs and priorities are neglected even in the context of theories and approaches based on ethnodevelopment, which are often misinterpreted due to stereotyping and preconceived assumptions about what it means to be indigenous, and aim to promote their return to the traditional means of production, from which, in many cases, they have intentionally walked away. 40 box 3.1 Indigenous Education and Health Indigenous Peoples’ health and school education systems were designed and established based on broad consultations with Indigenous Peoples. However, as with other policies, their implementation has been impeded by interruptions and discontinuities. Providing adequate health services to all indigenous territories remains a significant challenge due to their widespread dispersion across the country and their relative isolation. The Secretariat for Indigenous Health (Secretaria de Saúde Indígena, SESAI), which is the federal agency responsible for providing this care through its numerous special indigenous sanitary districts, suffers from persistent understaffing and underfunding, which has long hampered the delivery of health services. All of these issues came to the fore in efforts to combat the spread of COVID-19. In January 2023, the number of deaths of indigenous people due to COVID-19 (according to official sources) was 928 individuals, and 74 percent of the indigenous population over 3 years of age has been vaccinated. Currently, SESAI is coordinated by Ricardo Tapeba, the first indigenous person to hold this position. With regard to indigenous education, a number of relevant challenges remain, highlighted by the fifth National Forum on Indigenous School Education, held virtually on October 20, 2020, including (a) budget cuts for public policies for teacher training and production of differentiated teaching materials for indigenous schools; (b) noncompliance with the curricular guidelines, national plans, and goals of indigenous school education, already endorsed by the indigenous movement and current legislation; (c) the denial of spaces for 41 representation of Indigenous Peoples on the National Council of Education and other deliberative bodies; and (d) the continued provision of indigenous school education in inadequate conditions, with precarious and even nonexistent infrastructure (there are numerous cases of schools without buildings, sufficient classrooms, libraries, laboratories, adequate furniture, or access to the internet, which intensifies the precariousness of indigenous education). In fact, according to the 2019 School Census of Basic Education by the Anísio Teixeira Educational Institute for Educational Studies and Research, indigenous schools face enormous infrastructure challenges: 906 indigenous schools (27.1 percent of indigenous schools in the country) did not operate in school buildings; 1,320 (39.5 percent) schools had no drinking water; 1,090 (32.6 percent) had no electricity; 1,695 (50.7 percent) had no sanitary sewage; and 2,651 (79.3 percent) had no access to the internet. 42 Climate Change and REDD+ In the Brazilian case, the combined effect of deforestation and global climate change is transforming the Brazilian Amazon into a drier and warmer area, imposing an extra threat to indigenous territories and the forest in general, which may experience a continuous process of biological and ecological impoverishment. This impoverishment could also spearhead a process of replacing the rain forest with a savanna-like environment. Considering that the Amazon forests sustain extraordinary biodiversity and a considerable carbon stock, essential to maintaining a healthy global ecological system, this change could have a massive impact on climate change. This combination of deforestation and global climate change creates a paradoxical situation for Indigenous Peoples regarding their impacts. While Indigenous Peoples protect the forest from deforestation, preventing local and global climate change, they are (or will soon be) the main ones affected by these changes. Considering the current projection for climate scenarios for 2040–2069, about 60 percent of all indigenous territories in the Brazilian Amazon could be affected by high temperatures and low precipitation compared to the period 1961–1990. The indigenous territories located in the eastern regions would be affected by lower precipitation and more frequent and severe dry regimes. Among the projected impacts of this transformation are changes in the fruiting of trees and fish reproduction. Such changes directly affect the daily lives of these populations in a transversal way, imposing changes in food production and in the relations of the indigenous people with the natural environment, on which their hunting, fishing, and fruit gathering routines depend. These changes would also be reflected in their cultural rites and ritual practices. Therefore, given the interdependence of Indigenous Peoples and the natural resources on which their physical and cultural survival depends, these groups are among the main victims of the effects of climate change. To reduce the adverse effects of climate change and deforestation on indigenous lands and keep the climate regime in balance, it will be necessary to continue expanding the titling of new indigenous territories 43 Photo: Chris Diewald/ World Bank and conservation units in the Brazilian Amazon, while degraded areas must be reforested. According to data presented in table 3 above, currently 222 indigenous territories are waiting to be regularized, mainly in the Amazon region (that is, waiting to have their declaratory ordinances approved). In addition, there is room for the creation of new conservation units in the region. About 50 million hectares (roughly the size of Spain) of “undesignated public forests” have not yet been earmarked for protection or sustainable use by the federal and state governments, as required by law (Public Forest Management Law No. 11.284, 2006) (Azevedo-Ramos et al. 2020). A specific mechanism has emerged to provide financial compensation to Indigenous Peoples in order to prevent deforestation from spreading across the landscape: reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, enhanced version (REDD+). Since 2012, several REDD+ initiatives involving Indigenous Peoples have taken place in the Amazon. REDD+ projects often 44 access the voluntary carbon market to generate internationally traded carbon credits (offsets). REDD+ can also take the form of a fund-based mechanism. This modality of REDD+ has raised essential resources for developing countries or subnational jurisdictions, notably in Latin America (Garcia et al. 2021). Fund-based REDD+ initiatives such as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility hosted by the World Bank, the UN-REDD Programme, or Germany’s REDD Program for Early Movers are playing an essential role as official development assistance in preparing for REDD+ mechanisms to be regulated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Garcia et al. 2021). In 2012, FUNAI had 30 projects involving different ethnic groups contacted by companies or individuals interested in generating forest carbon credits (to be negotiated within the scope of the voluntary carbon market). Most of these financial compensations to Indigenous Peoples’ initiatives, however, did not prosper in the years that followed. The only forest carbon project, self- titled REDD+, to generate and trade carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market in Brazilian indigenous territories was the Paiter Suruí Forest Carbon Project (Projeto de Carbono Florestal Paiter Suruí, PCFS). The PCFS can be considered pioneering, but it revealed several unresolved difficulties involving a REDD+ project in indigenous territories (Garcia et al. 2021). The difficulties facing Indigenous Peoples’ REDD+ projects are partly related to the project-based approach historically adopted for the mechanism. For many reasons, this approach seems inappropriate for Indigenous Peoples due to the potential risks involved. For example, the excessive focus of REDD+ projects on protecting forest carbon can affect the livelihoods of indigenous communities or violate their rights. In many cases, REDD+ projects in the Amazon have been built without the participation and free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous communities and involving abusive contracts. In addition, there is still no clear definition of the principles, criteria, and even operational structures for the implementation of REDD+ projects in indigenous territories. There is no guarantee that REDD+ projects in indigenous territories will respect REDD+ safeguards. 45 box 3.2 Voluntary Carbon Market: Indigenous Peoples and the World Bank A recurring issue in recent years related to voluntary carbon markets concerns the violation of the rights of local communities, especially Indigenous Peoples. Brazil, in turn, has been at the forefront of capitalizing on forest preservation through carbon markets, having had, since the first days after the inception of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, three waves of projects being submitted: (a) the first wave (from 2010 to September 2020), marked by pioneering projects; (b) the second wave (October 2020 to May 2023), with the publication of the Glasgow rulebook (following the 2021 Glasgow Climate Change Conference); and (c) the third wave (June 2023 to April 2024), when the National Congress started to pay more attention to the topic with the discussion of a new carbon market bill. Despite the challenges posed, indigenous groups have expressed their intention to lead and own carbon projects in their territories, for which they have sought assistance from civil society organizations, both as codevelopers of the projects and in capacity building in the technical and legal aspects of those projects. This work has intensified since the third wave of projects, which has led to complaints from indigenous communities of harassment by companies; situations requiring interventions by the Public Prosecutor’s Office; waves of consultations, often conducted inadequately; and grievances 46 from the communities and their associations to the relevant authorities. The current scenario is still uncertain. However, in order to overcome these challenges and enable fair and well-informed access to the benefits of this mechanism by indigenous communities, the World Bank has been working to offer its expertise in such areas as (a) working with associations to conduct workshops and develop materials in various native languages; (b) supporting special training sessions with technical guidance participants together with experienced nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for the development of projects; (c) supporting the legal teams of indigenous associations and the standardization of documents and procedures; (d) sharing experiences with organizations from other countries in the Amazon basin; and (e) paying special attention to the commercial side of carbon trading, ensuring that the conversion of these credits into actual revenues is handled with due diligence, as this process is still not very transparent within the voluntary carbon market. 47 Photo: Chris Diewald/ World Bank Among some challenges that deserve attention are (a) issues related to land rights, including the increase in land conflicts and lack of progress in land demarcation and regularization processes in indigenous territories and territories of traditional peoples and communities, lack of standardized and systematized data on the different types of processes of demarcation and approval of traditional territories, and lack of coordination by the Ombudsperson’s Office on the violation of safeguards in REDD+ initiatives compared to other existing ombudsperson arrangements aimed at specific audiences; and (b) challenges associated with culturally appropriate consultation and participation in development plans, exemplified by the difficultly faced by Indigenous Peoples and traditional peoples and communities in accessing results-based payments for REDD+, indirect access of Indigenous Peoples, traditional peoples and communities, and family farmers to projects, and poor implementation of the planned governance structures. 48 Faced with such challenges, in May 2023 FUNAI issued a technical information note (IT No. 27/2023/COPAM/CGGAM/DPDS-FUNAI) that provides technical guidance and makes propositions to define and consolidate their institutional stance on credit trading projects. This note specifically addresses the voluntary market and its implications for indigenous lands and territories. The objectives of this instrument are to (a) respond to the demands for analysis of proposals and projects for the commercialization of carbon credits, within the scope of the voluntary market in indigenous territories; (b) provide guidance to indigenous organizations and interested companies; and (c) advance a potential regulatory framework for carbon credit projects within the voluntary market, specifically concerning indigenous lands and territories. The technical information note provides a brief historical overview, documenting that between 2008 and 2012 (first wave) 24 proposals or projects were initiated, mostly located in the Legal Amazon; and, in the second wave (between 2022 and mid-2023), the project proposals that came to FUNAI’s attention involved a total of 34 indigenous lands (with 9 contracts or similar legal instruments being officially registered). 49 box 3.3 The Paiter-Suruí Case One of the first REDD+ projects in Brazil was notable for being the only one led by an indigenous community (along with the support of a local NGO). To highlight its uniqueness, the technical information note issued by FUNAI in 2023 (IT No. 27/2023/COPAM/CGGAM/DPDS-FUNAI) treats the case as “the exceptionality of the Paiter Suruí Forest Carbon Project (PCFS) in the Sete de Setembro indigenous land.” Among the characteristics that qualify it as such, the following particularities are listed: (a) the proponent of the project is an indigenous association, the Metareilá Association of the Paiter Suruí Indigenous People; (b) the PCFS is part of a longer process, of about a decade, of carrying out participatory diagnoses, elaboration of ethnomapping and PGTA in the Sete de Setembro indigenous territory, involving a series of supporters from organized civil society; (c) the PCFS was supported and advised by a series of civil society entities; (d) there is a separation between the PCFS and the contracts for the purchase and sale of emission reductions that have been made with companies, that is, the project has the freedom to trade all the credits generated (100 percent) with any companies that want to buy them; (e) a process of free, prior, and informed consultation was carried out, recorded through an anthropological report, in addition to the constitution of a project governance structure based on the traditional social organization of the Paiter Suruí; (f) the preparation of the project and the signing of contracts with the companies was monitored by FUNAI and the Federal Public Ministry; (g) the project and the terms of the contracts signed took into account and met FUNAI’s recommendations on the subject; (h) a clear governance and benefit- sharing structure was put in place; (i) the project was aligned with PNGATI; and (j) the credits marketed by the PCFS referred to reductions calculated in the past, therefore without compromising the exclusive use of natural resources. 50 In a report published in March 2019 by Forest Trends, it is highlighted that the PCFS drastically reduced deforestation within the Sete de Setembro indigenous territory during the first five years of its operation and funded six self-sufficient community development initiatives that continue to generate income to this day. In the end, however, the project was suspended in 2018 (although it demanded and received almost unanimous support from the Paiter Suruí people) after the discovery of large gold deposits in the territory, which caused an increase in deforestation and disputes within the community. Between successes and challenges, lessons were learned, such as (a) the importance of nesting projects within a national or jurisdictional approach; (b) the need for baselines and adaptable methodologies; (c) the value of formalized resolution procedures; (d) the need for more government cooperation; (e) the necessity of simplifying projects; and (f) the benefits of diversified financial flows. 51 Photo: Agência Brasil 52 Chapter 3 Perspectives Institutional Strengthening, Inclusion, Biodiversity Conservation, and Ethnodevelopment Since the beginning of 2023, the Brazilian State, under new federal management, has signaled a renewed emphasis on the indigenous and environmental agenda at the national level, particularly in contrast to the previous administration. Among the relevant institutional actions there has been the creation of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples and the “resumption” of the activities of the National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples (FUNAI), headed (for the first time) by two indigenous women. The Ministry of Indigenous Peoples is responsible for indigenous policy in its broad sense, as well as working in particular for (a) the recognition, guarantee, and promotion of the rights of Indigenous Peoples; (b) the recognition, demarcation, defense, exclusive use, and management of indigenous lands and territories; (c) the well-being of Indigenous Peoples; (d) the protection of isolated and recently contacted Indigenous Peoples; and (e) the application of international agreements and treaties (especially ILO Convention No. 169), when related to Indigenous Peoples. 53 In addition, at the international level, in the last 30 years the rights of Indigenous Peoples have been increasingly recognized through the adoption of international instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2016, and the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation, and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement), 2018. At the same time, global institutional mechanisms have been created to advance the rights of Indigenous Peoples, such as the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, although the right of Indigenous Peoples to protection is recognized, in addition to their fundamental role in protecting natural systems, there remain persistent limitations in guaranteeing their fundamental and constitutional rights. It is essential to promote their inclusion in general and their participation in the regional development agenda. Social inclusion, viewed as a process of enhancing the conditions for individuals and groups to participate in society, aims to improve the capacity, opportunity, and dignity of disadvantaged people based on their identity. This remains a perpetual goal to be achieved. In turn, social exclusion is a multidimensional process in which practices in one domain lead to or reinforce exclusion in another domain. Policies to confront social exclusion, therefore, require a dynamic sequence of interventions. Often, the same policy or program can cut across different areas—market, services, and spaces. In the case of Indigenous Peoples, as has already been pointed out, their cultural and identity foundations are often closely linked to the conservation of biodiversity (especially when we consider the groups that continue to live in indigenous lands in the Amazon, which is the focus in this analysis). Effective public policy structures and a strategic environment are necessary to ensure that the interconnections between the economy, the environment, and people are fundamental elements for protecting Indigenous Peoples and fostering sustainable regional development. 54 box 4.1 Institutional Strengthening: Ministry of Indigenous Peoples MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING In 2024, the World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) and the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples signed a memorandum of understanding to express their mutual intention to collaborate and cooperate on common objectives for the development of activities aimed at improving policies and practices applicable to Indigenous Peoples, including (a) knowledge sharing and training focused on conflict prevention in indigenous territories; (b) sharing of good practices on peaceful conflict mediation; (c) development of initiatives focused on the promotion of indigenous rights, including the fight against gender-based violence; and (d) development of initiatives to promote the ethnic development agenda, including sustainable livelihoods and nature-smart economic opportunities. Among the main activities and areas of collaboration contemplated, participants plan and anticipate the realization of the following activities: (a) plan joint activities in areas of common interest; (b) share efforts and technical knowledge; (c) use and leverage existing resources and facilities to mutual advantage and benefit; (d) collaborate in the promotion, preparation, and organization of workshops, conferences, training seminars, and knowledge exchanges; (e) collaborate in the organization and execution of projects and research; (f) jointly engage in a dialogue with stakeholders and other interested parties in the activities being carried out under the memorandum of understanding; (g) collaborate on ways to associate with other entities involved in similar, additional or related activities to those being carried out in the memorandum of understanding; (h) collaborate in the dissemination of lessons learned and results of the activities being carried out within the scope of the memorandum 55 of understanding through publications, internet, seminars, workshops, conferences, and other easily accessible means; and (i) regularly assess the effectiveness of their collaborative efforts, considering their respective mandates and priorities. LAND RESTITUTION AND PEACEBUILDING IN INDIGENOUS TERRITORIES PROJECT (SEE APPENDIX A) Currently, the Land Restitution and Peacebuilding in Indigenous Territories Project is under implementation with the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples. It aims to support the institutional efforts of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples to prevent and reduce the high levels of land-related conflicts and violence against indigenous communities in Brazil, through the development and adoption of protocols for the peaceful negotiation and mediation of land conflicts. Among the planned activities and products, the project will include three components to strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples to mediate conflicts and protect and promote peace in these territories. The project components seek to (a) support the mapping of conflicts in indigenous territories on a digital platform, namely an observatory of conflicts and violence; (b) assist in the production of technical notes that consolidate information on the dynamics and actors of land conflicts involving indigenous communities, with anthropological and legal analyses and identification of administrative examples with recommendations to resolve them; and (c) conduct meaningful consultations with organizations representing Indigenous Peoples and support capacity building and knowledge generation and dissemination for actors involved in the implementation of conflict mediation measures. The proposed activities would also inform and provide inputs for the Bank’s ongoing engagement in states and municipalities through operations targeting indigenous communities.19 19 The resources for the development of the actions come from the State and Peacebuilding Fund, which aims to improve and expand the frontiers of the World Bank’s involvement to help countries address the drivers and impacts of fragility, conflict, and violence and strengthen the resilience of countries and affected populations, communities, and institutions. The State and Peacebuilding Fund is an important component of the World Bank’s response to fragility, conflict, and violence and supports progress toward the World Bank’s mission to eradicate extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity in a sustainable way, thus assisting attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals. 56 As already highlighted, Indigenous Peoples have historically protected a large part of the Brazilian Amazon biome. Indigenous territories hold about 23 percent (97.2 million hectares) of the forest area and provide a global service by storing 14.2 billion tonnes of carbon.20 Although indigenous territories cover a huge area of the Brazilian Amazon biome, they contribute to less than 3 percent of total emissions, which is significantly lower than all other land categories (Soares-Filho et al. 2010). The low average rate of deforestation in the indigenous territories is a result of the peculiar use of natural resources by Indigenous Peoples and their customs and traditions (FAO and FILAC 2021). In addition, Indigenous Peoples’ own initiatives to protect their lands have been crucial in reducing forest destruction. For example, several groups monitor the borders of their lands to prevent illegal deforestation and fire—this action has been carried out using their own digital monitoring tools, such as a web platform, smartphone apps, and large databases and mapping. In addition, Indigenous Peoples’ self-defense of their land rights is allowing the Brazilian courts (National Council of Justice, Supreme Court, and Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office) to request more protection for their lands, reinforcing the forest’s protective role. The role of the indigenous environmental and territorial agents has been fundamental in conservation, reforestation, development of sociobioeconomy actions, and reduction of invasions, including the experiences of professionalization of the category in Acre and the participatory elaboration of PL 2936/2022, led by former federal deputy and current president of FUNAI Joênia Wapichana (which is attached to PL 4347/2021 and mandates the creation of PNGATI, also authored by Wapichana). With a broad and cross-cutting role, they operate as multipliers of environmental management actions in their territories, coordinating the protection and management of indigenous territories with planning and surveillance actions (aligned with the PGTAs). In addition, the indigenous environmental and territorial agents are responsible for encouraging the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the planning of actions and public policies for territorial protection and the dissemination of information on the environmental situation of indigenous territories. 20 For more information, see IPAM carbon calculator: https://carboncal.org.br/. 57 Finally, the campaigns promoted by the indigenous representatives in the Amazon at the international level are mobilizing global communities, governments, and investors in favor of the protection of indigenous rights, bringing more security to their lands and helping combat illegal deforestation. The Amazon hosts a diverse array of ecosystems that are vital for providing nature’s contributions to hundreds of Indigenous Peoples, Quilombola communities, and traditional communities, including riverine and forest-dependent groups, as well as small family farmers. These social groups draw on their traditional knowledge of biodiversity for food balance, healing practices, spiritual beliefs, and religious rituals. The international scientific literature on biodiversity conservation has emphasized the importance of traditional knowledge held by Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities in the Amazon for the effective conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources. It has also emphasized that the environmental management systems of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities are based on extensive and detailed ecological knowledge accumulated over several generations, and that these systems are highly relevant for the conservation of agrobiodiversity and for food security in the current global context of climate change, population increase, and genetic erosion of plant cultivars. Centered on many cultivated plant varieties, the agricultural practices of Indigenous Peoples (and also traditional communities) and the humanized forests they created have played a central role in the formation of highly productive soils (dark earth, or terra preta in Portuguese) and the domestication of plants and crops. There is a growing view of bioeconomy as an engine of development, particularly in the Amazon region, that takes advantage of Brazil’s economic vocation and constitutes an alternative route for sustainable development. In that scenario, bioeconomy would foster the industrialization of biodiversity production chains, combining traditional knowledge with technological innovation (research and development), adding value to the production of agroforestry systems, promoting the recovery of deforested areas, and encouraging forest conservation, thereby leading to the social inclusion 58 box 4.2 Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation and Consultation Protocols Contrary to what PNGATI provides, the right to consultation and consent of Indigenous Peoples for their informed participation has not been respected or implemented to a significant degree. Generally, these infractions occur during conflicts that affect sociobiodiversity and the lives and territories of peoples and communities that inhabit the various ecoregions of Brazil: Amazon, Cerrado, Pantanal, Caatinga Northeast, Atlantic Forest, and Pampa, in the south of the country. They also typically occur when large-scale enterprises or extractive projects are carried out. There is no national regulation for consultation and free, prior, and informed consent in Brazil. Since 2014, Indigenous Peoples and traditional peoples and communities have been developing their consultation protocols in the Amazon and other Brazilian regions. Several court decisions have determined that peoples and communities must be consulted according to their protocols. The first of these decisions occurred in 2017, when the Department of Justice forced the Brazilian State to use the protocol of the Juruna people (Yudjá) to consult on gold exploration by the Canadian company Belo Sun. Autonomous indigenous consultation protocols assign how, where, and when Indigenous Peoples wish to be consulted and establish the rules and procedures for their implementation, including issues related to representation and legitimacy of decisions. 59 of local communities. While protecting standing forests, the agroforestry production of nontimber native forest products (such as açaí, Brazil nuts, peach palm, cupuaçu, camu-camu, cocoa, and rubber) is more profitable than cattle ranching and soy monoculture. It is estimated that açaí production has a profitability per production area ten times greater than livestock and five times greater than soybean cultivation in the Amazon. Ensuring the rights of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities to land and to the maintenance of traditional management practices— inside or outside protected areas—is closely related to a strategy for the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services at a relatively low cost. This cost is significantly lower than the expenses associated with ecosystem restoration, which can be facilitated through mechanisms such as payments for ecosystem services or biodiversity offset policies. Although the role of current Amazonian indigenous practices in conserving and enhancing biodiversity both in natural ecosystems and in cultivated fields is increasingly recognized, the protection and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from their contributions still receive insufficient attention in public policy. Brazil was one of the pioneering countries in the implementation of a regulatory framework on access to genetic heritage, associated traditional knowledge, and benefit sharing (Provisional Presidential Decree 2186-16/2001). The country signed the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010. In 2015, the Biodiversity Law (Law 13.123/2015, regulated by Decree 8.772/2016) came into force. It is fully aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity, and has the objective of preventing biopiracy and ensuring the sharing of the benefits of the use of biodiversity and traditional knowledge in a fair and equitable way. The Biodiversity Law covers issues related to the rights of holders of traditional knowledge and obligations of users of traditional knowledge, covering 60 topics such as (a) access to the country’s genetic heritage and traditional knowledge associated with it; (b) obtaining access to technologies and technological transfer aimed at the conservation and use of biodiversity; (c) economic exploitation of assets related to genetic heritage and traditional knowledge; (d) establishment of a fair benefit-sharing scheme through the payment by the user of monetary or nonmonetary compensation; (e) export of genetic heritage; and (f) implementation of international treaties ratified by Congress. However, the Biodiversity Law spares many users from the obligations related to benefit sharing. According to the Biodiversity Law, traditional knowledge refers to all the information and practices held by indigenous people, traditional communities, and farmers regarding the characteristics and direct and indirect uses of genetic heritage. The law differentiates between two types of traditional knowledge: that whose origins can be attributed to specific social groups and that whose origins cannot be attributed to specific groups. The benefit- sharing scheme provides for monetary and nonmonetary compensation for traditional transferable knowledge and only nonmonetary compensation for nontransferable knowledge. The law also establishes the need for free, prior, and informed consent of the holders of traditional knowledge before its use. The Biodiversity Law created the Genetic Heritage Management Council and the National Benefit Sharing Fund (Fundo Nacional de Partilha de Benefícios, FNRB). Since November 2017, in order to develop activities on genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge, traditional users must register in the National System for the Management of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen). The implementation of the FNRB, however, has been marked by several technical challenges. 61 Despite its innovative and promising character, the Biodiversity Law has been the target of criticism by the scientific community, scholars, NGOs, and organizations representing Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities. Initially, the main arguments raised against the provisions of the law included (a) the lack of participation of representatives holding traditional knowledge (Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities), since negotiations were carried out only with users, biotechnology companies, and researchers; (b) the registration of associated traditional knowledge in databases over which their holders had no control over access and use; (c) the exemption from prior informed consent in accessing traditional knowledge of unidentified origin; (d) the distinction between “holders” and “providers” of traditional knowledge, since the signing of a benefit-sharing agreement is only granted to the latter; (e) the exclusion of representatives of traditional peoples and communities from the negotiations of sectoral agreements (signed between the government and users); (f) the exemption from benefit sharing granted to microenterprises, small-sized enterprises, individual microentrepreneurs, traditional producers and their cooperatives, as well as to users who had access to genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge before the enactment of Provisional Presidential Decree 2186-16/2001; and (g) the fact that the law does not define the crime of biopiracy, nor does it require an official hearing of the bodies responsible for defending the rights of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities. In response to these criticisms, Indigenous Peoples, traditional communities, and solidarity civil society organizations have been advocating a paradigmatic shift to ensure the Biodiversity Law functions more effectively. This paradigmatic change would consist mainly of (a) empowering Indigenous Peoples in the decision-making and management processes of the FNRB through the Genetic Heritage Management Council; (b) implementing direct agreements for the use of their traditional knowledge on biodiversity; and (c) supporting the research and development of new biodiversity products. This paradigmatic shift would require respectful engagement between traditional and scientific knowledge, in which young researchers from Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities are fully involved and play a key role in bridging the gap between the two knowledge models, as well as valuing community-based initiatives. 62 Regarding the alternatives associated with income generation through the provision of environmental services, indigenous territories play a crucial role in the Brazilian Amazon. These territories are vital for ecosystem services, as they protect the forest from deforestation and degradation. This protection is essential for maintaining global climate balance and sustaining local food production and nutritional security. An additional path to promote innovative economic incentives for Indigenous Peoples is based on the National Policy for Payment of Ecosystem Services, approved in 2021 by the National Congress (Law 14.119/2021). This policy represents a significant advance in favor of environmental protection. Under this law, the PGTAs in indigenous territories could be financially compensated for the provision of ecosystem services. For example, the law established that Indigenous Peoples could be compensated for the conservation of landscapes of significant scenic beauty. In addition, the resources from this compensation must be applied “in accordance with the territorial and environmental management plans of the indigenous territories, or equivalent documents, prepared by the Indigenous Peoples residing in each land” (items III of the law (Art. 8, IV)). All processes involving payment for environmental services must be conducted considering free and prior consultation, under the terms of the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and registered by contracts (Section IV; Art. 12). However, the National Policy for Payment of Ecosystem Services is not explicit regarding safeguards beyond ILO Convention No. 169. During the implementation of this policy, it is necessary to work on the mechanism to ensure transparency and how the benefits of the payment for environmental services would be distributed among stakeholders. In this sense, tenure security is a precondition and essential element when it comes to ecosystem services and is particularly fundamental for Indigenous Peoples in the Amazon. In a complementary way, the application of the payment for environmental services involves, in the first place, the structuring of a system for monitoring and reporting the results achieved and a mechanism for the distribution of benefits that recognizes and remunerates different factors that contribute to the conservation of forests and to the promotion of productive activities. 63 The potential for economic development of Indigenous Peoples from forest products and environmental services must be leveraged, however, by adapted public policies. The lack of implementation of public policies—such as PNGATI—brings several difficulties to the establishment of mechanisms that can economically empower indigenous communities, keeping their lands and forests protected. The Indigenous Peoples of the Brazilian Amazon have been experimenting with different and innovative economic activities in recent decades. For example, the handicrafts produced by them are now marketed through e-commerce. Other economic activities include tourism and the exploitation of nontimber products, such as Baniwa pepper, Sateré-Mawé guarana, and Yanomami mushroom (Brandão, Barbieri, and de Jesus Silva 2012). The work of the Xingu Seed Network Association is also remarkable, recovering about 5,000 hectares of forest in 10 years, using seeds collected by 450 Indigenous Peoples. Throughout this time, the revenue for the association was 2.5 million Brazilian reals (Marimon 2020). Although nontimber products from forests and other Brazilian biomes generated about 1.6 billion Brazilian reals in 2018, the economy of the Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon may best be based on the environmental services they could provide. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) report on forest governance by Indigenous Peoples around the world emphasizes the “profitability of investing in climate action in indigenous territories.” The report estimated that compensation to Brazilian and Colombian Indigenous Peoples for the service already provided in protecting the forest from deforestation could reach 25 billion to 35 billion US dollars (FAO and FILAC 2021). It is necessary to understand that the indigenous economy, for the most part, is not and does not intend to be based on basic elements of the capitalist economy, such as private ownership of the means of production, payment for the work performed, and the generation of profit. The economy of Indigenous Peoples is primarily based on fishing, hunting, fruit gathering, and subsistence agriculture. Indigenous lands are meant for collective use, where the concept of profit is unknown. However, Indigenous Peoples need financial resources to continue living on their vast lands. Payment for environmental service initiatives constitutes a pathway to indigenous economic development in a dynamic Amazon. Therefore, this mechanism 64 Photo: Agência Brasil emerges as a promising initiative to reduce deforestation, with significant implications for both production and social inclusion. Forests are sources of livelihood and income for Indigenous Peoples and other traditional communities. Because indigenous territories efficiently protect the forest from deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, Indigenous Peoples could be financially compensated for keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. In other words, the payment for environmental services could be a source of additional financial resources for the actions of PGTAs, reinforcing the various economic initiatives that are being promoted by Indigenous Peoples, supporting their independent actions in protecting their lands against illegal deforestation, mining, and illegal logging, and promoting forest or agroforestry recovery. The World Bank has advanced a pilot program (the Dedicated Grant Mechanism) to include Indigenous Peoples and local communities and strengthen their capacity to take part in discussions and agreements on payment for environmental services. 65 box 4.3 Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities Phase 2 of the Dedicated Grant Mechanism (DGM) for Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities Project, currently under implementation in Brazil, is a continuation of phase 1 of the project. It is an integral part of the Forest Investment Program (FIP), and follows its guidelines and thematic areas. The DGM phase 2 activities are centered on the Cerrado biome, which covers almost 24 percent of the country (2.04 million square kilometers). With a mosaic of 23 types of vegetation (tropical savannas, woodlands, grasslands, and forests), and encompassing regions that are part of the Legal Amazon, it is considered one of the 34 global biodiversity hotspots and is home to 41 Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities contribute to the conservation of their living habitats (an area that covers about 15 percent of the biome). However, as in the case of the Amazon biome, their traditional systems of forest and land use management, livelihoods, and cultural survival in the Cerrado are under increasing threat due to external and internal pressures that are eroding their capacity for adaptation and social resilience. In the Cerrado, indigenous and traditional territories face significant external threats, primarily driven by the intensified occupation of surrounding areas over 66 the past 20 years by grain monoculture (especially soybeans), intensive livestock activity, urbanization, and current and planned construction works, which have caused the degradation, pollution, and silting of rivers, loss of plant and animal biodiversity, changes in the local climate, and changes in the diet of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The DGM is a global initiative that supports the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in an international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and to promote sustainable forest management and forest carbon stocks (REDD+). In addition to its sizable funding, the DGM is a pioneering initiative in Brazil, notable for having been conceived by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who lead the governance of the program at all levels. These groups are leaders and beneficiaries of DGM activities, ensuring that program support is demand driven and aligned with local interests to drive change from the ground up. In this case, the project is organized around two main axes of activities: (a) support for community subprojects (with the provision of technical assistance and donations); and (b) capacity building, networking, and knowledge exchange. See Appendix A for additional information. 67 Photo: Agência Brasil 68 Recommendations and Strategies Considering the challenges and perspectives previously discussed, we present recommendations that align with the World Bank’s strategies for engaging with Indigenous Peoples and advancing efforts in the Amazon. These recommendations aim to strengthen initiatives focused on (a) improving the security of indigenous territories; (b) strengthening governance; (c) promoting public investments in the provision of quality and culturally appropriate services; and (d) supporting indigenous systems for resilience and subsistence, aiming at mitigation and adaptability in the face of extreme weather events and ensuring food sovereignty. Such approaches are essential to reduce the multidimensional aspects of poverty, while contributing to sustainable development and attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals. In this regard, the World Bank works with Indigenous Peoples and governments to ensure that broader development programs reflect the voices and aspirations of these groups, considering their particularities and sociocultural aspects. Among the objectives supported by the World Bank Group Program under the Partnership Strategy 69 developed for Brazil for the period 2024–202821 are essential agendas for Indigenous Peoples and the Amazon region, with a focus on improving governance and strengthening institutions. As a result of this approach, inclusive land governance models will be supported to promote greater land regularization of indigenous and traditional territories. In addition, in the search for better opportunities for Indigenous Peoples, efforts will be made to ensure that they (together with women and Afro-Brazilians) benefit from the implementation of sustainable environmental practices through facilitated access to regenerative agriculture technologies, low- carbon production systems, and green financing, among others. The World Bank’s engagements in Brazil will be compatible with the Latin American and Caribbean program for Amazonia, focusing on the pursuit of (a) a green Amazon—safeguarding natural assets by strengthening forest, land, and water management, protected areas, indigenous territories, and land and environmental regularization; (b) a prosperous Amazon— promoting nature-smart economic opportunities by promoting bioeconomy and productive and sustainable value chains, low-carbon agriculture, forest restoration, and green urban jobs; and (c) a livable Amazon—serving people by improving rural health and education services, basic infrastructure, and connectivity, and promoting sustainable and resilient cities. Historically, the World Bank’s support in the Amazon region since the 1990s has contributed to the demarcation of indigenous territories in an area the size of Sweden; to the establishment of community-managed extractive reserves; to greater adoption of certified forest management approaches; to significant institutional strengthening at the federal and state levels; and to participatory approaches in hundreds of communities and civil society organizations.22 21 Developed under the Country Partnership Framework for Brazil. 22 The World Bank in Brazil: https://www.worldbank.org/pt/country/brazil/overview#3. 70 From the point of view of the World Bank, engagement with Indigenous Peoples’ organizations is currently being sought to better understand and develop traditional knowledge for climate change mitigation and adaptation solutions. Through direct donations to indigenous organizations and inclusion in national programs, the Bank is also working to promote the recognition and strengthening of the significant contributions of Indigenous Peoples as stewards of the world’s forests and biodiversity. With a strategy focused on leveraging existing commitments to achieve greater impact, the World Bank, through the coordination of its projects, envisions the construction of a sustainable Amazon that is green, prosperous, and habitable, where the safeguarding of natural assets is ensured, alongside the enhancement of smart economic opportunities that are in harmony with nature and the provision of services to people. This strategy is shaped by the following pillars: (a) clean and free-flowing rivers; (b) protected areas; (c) territorial and land governance; (d) growth of the bioeconomy; (e) training of the private sector; (f) public finance and governance; (g) sustainable and resilient cities; (h) people-centered development; (i) improved connectivity; and (j) affordable, sustainable, and clean energy. To enhance the benefits and positive impacts while addressing financing gaps in the Amazon region, the following lines of action are proposed: • Prioritize investments to reduce deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes, focusing on investments that are critical to achieving deforestation goals in the short term, that are resistant to policy reversal, and that are replicable and scalable; • Simplify loans for priority actions; • Assist the Brazilian government in improving the use of existing resources (for example, reform of public credit systems and the climate fund, strengthening environmental agencies and public administration); • Provide advice to improve the fiscal transfer mechanism, including performance-based elements for states and municipalities, benefiting those who reduce deforestation rates; 71 • Leverage private financing by creating favorable conditions (guarantees for public-private partnerships, security of tenure, forest concessions, and carbon finance guarantees); • Help mobilize forest carbon finance and build the necessary readiness and infrastructure for REDD+. Considering the relationship between the World Bank and Borrowers in projects in which Environmental and Social Standard 7 (ESS7) is assessed as relevant, and to close the gaps identified between national legislation and this ESS, it is recommended that: • With respect to consultations with Indigenous Peoples, Borrowers should always seek the involvement of indigenous associations or organizations representing the Indigenous Peoples concerned. Borrowers’ engagement and contact with affected populations should be established in the design and planning stages of the project, so that the considerations received can be incorporated into the proposed activities. • Considering more specifically the implementation of these consultations, it is recommended that Borrowers adopt, where appropriate, the consultation protocols developed by Indigenous Peoples (where available) and, if there is interest on the part of indigenous groups, support the development of such protocols where they are not available, so as to ensure that this process is culturally appropriate. • In addition to the previous recommendation, it is recommended that the World Bank work collaboratively with Borrowers to develop clear guidelines for engagement and consultation with Indigenous Peoples, widely disseminating the content of ESS7. This effort 72 can include workshops, training sessions, online courses, printed materials, and dissemination on social networks to guide government agencies and other relevant institutions (such as indigenous associations, civil society organizations, and research institutions). • Considering the institutional weaknesses that hinder compliance with the Brazilian legal framework, it is also recommended that the World Bank carry out activities that promote dialogue and the exchange of experiences between the main institutions involved with indigenous policy in the country, such as government agencies (Federal Public Ministry, FUNAI, Ministry of Indigenous Peoples and others), indigenous associations, universities, civil society organizations, and research institutions. At the same time, in line with the needs raised by the scientific community and the indigenous organizations and groups that support them, as well as in line with the recommendations of the World Bank Brazil Country Climate and Development Report (World Bank 2023), support for effective strategic and political actions by the Brazilian State should be prioritized, such as: • The resumption of territorial demarcations traditionally occupied by Indigenous Peoples, Quilombolas, and traditional peoples and communities; • The effective suppression of illegal mining, logging, land grabbing, and deforestation of indigenous territories, speeding up the demarcation, regularization, and protection of indigenous, Quilombola, and traditional territories, and implementing monitoring, command, and control measures that guarantee the territorial and physical security of these peoples; • Strengthening land governance, including providing adequate resources for satellite forest monitoring (for example, PRODES 73 and DETER) and law enforcement agencies, to eliminate political interference and uncertainties about the implementation of laws; • Modernizing land registration, analysis and validation practices, which would also accelerate the validation of the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), and consequently enable the use of instruments of the Forest Code, such as the mechanism for trading forest certificates; • Recognizing and appreciating the fundamental role that Indigenous Peoples, Quilombolas, and traditional communities (and the lands under their control) play in mitigating and adapting to climate change and stopping deforestation and biodiversity loss; • The promotion of ethnodevelopment within these communities, respecting their traditional ways of life and valuing their traditional knowledge and life projects. Once the territories are established and protected, ensuring the maintenance and physical and sociocultural reproduction of these peoples—which guarantees forest preservation, biodiversity conservation, and the reduction of deforestation—the benefits experienced will reach not only Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities (who, first of all, must have their basic rights guaranteed), but also the Amazon in general and, consequently, the entire planet. 74 Appendix a Brazil Portfolio: Projects with Direct Involvement of Indigenous Populations Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Landscapes Project is a part of the GEF Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program, which aims to protect the areas of globally relevant Amazonian forest ecosystems, in addition to implementing policies to promote the sustainable use of natural resources and the restoration of native vegetation cover in the region. In Brazil, the project was developed based on the experiences of working in the Brazilian Amazon to strengthen biodiversity conservation, reduce deforestation, and improve the livelihoods of local communities. The Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program is not aimed directly at Indigenous Peoples. However, some activities affect Indigenous Peoples whose territories are in the surrounding area or overlapping, or even peoples who live in conservation units, for example, environmental protection areas and sustainable development reserves, as in the case of the Kambeba and Baré in the environmental protection area called Margem Esquerda do Rio Negro. In this context, in addition to proposing control and monitoring initiatives using the project’s socioenvironmental safeguard policies, avoiding or minimizing potential negative impacts, Indigenous Peoples can participate in activities related to forest restoration, fishing agreements, and management plans. 75 Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities under the Forest Investment Program – DGM/BRAZIL (Phase 2) The Dedicated Grant Mechanism (DGM) Global is an initiative established under the Forest Investment Program (FIP), with the purpose of disbursing grants to Indigenous Peoples and local communities and supporting their initiatives in 14 countries. The DGM aims to strengthen their participation in the discussion on the REDD+ mechanism (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation). Expanding the conservation, management, and increase of forest carbon stocks at the local, national, and global levels, FIP is one of the three programs that make up the Strategic Climate Fund, which is part of the Climate Investment Fund. DGM Brazil is part of DGM Global and is a fund to support Indigenous Peoples, Quilombola communities, and traditional communities of the Brazilian Cerrado, being part of the Forest Investment Program (DGM/FIP/ Brazil Program). This fund will support projects that prevent deforestation and degradation of the Cerrado, and that promote the protection and conservation of natural resources (especially forests) and social inclusion. Through these projects, actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change will be fostered. In its first stage, DGM Brazil supported 64 subprojects that promoted agroecology, sustainable agroextractivism, the recovery of natural resources, the conservation of biodiversity, the diversification of markets, and the preparation of environmental and territorial management plans. In general, the DGM directly benefited 51 subprojects for Indigenous Peoples from different territories, including the Apinajé, Atikum, Bakairi, Enawenê Nawê, Fulniô, Guarani-Kaiowá, Guarani Nhandeva, Guajajara, Krikati, Krahô, Krahô-Kanela, Karajá, Kinikinau, Myky, Terena, Tuxá, Xakriabá, Xavante, and Xerente peoples. Bahia Sustainable Rural Development Project The Bahia Sustainable Rural Development Project will support, throughout the state of Bahia, an increase in agricultural productivity, improvements in market access, and strategic initiatives in the development of climate 76 resilience in family farming, while expanding access to water services in selected rural communities, including productive organizations, family farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and traditional communities. Under preparation, a policy framework for indigenous peoples has been elaborated to establish principles, guidelines, and strategies to guarantee the active and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples, ensuring that they will not be excluded from project benefits or eventually negatively affected by its activities. Agroecology and Sustainable Rural Development in Pernambuco The Pernambuco Agroecological Project aims to promote sustainable rural development and greater gender equity in rural areas through the protection and restoration of environmental resources and the expansion and diversification of agroecological and organic production of family farming in the state of Pernambuco. The project will include traditional peoples and communities (indigenous people, Quilombolas, fishers, shellfish gatherers, and cattle herders) in the territories participating in the project, according to their culture, knowledge, and traditions. The Indigenous Peoples of Pernambuco will be consulted on the project activities, through their sociopolitical organizing bodies, thus establishing intercultural dialogue in a participatory, inclusive, collaborative, and consultive approach for the joint construction and implementation of projects driven by local demand. To ensure that Indigenous Peoples benefit from the Pernambuco Agroecological Project, partnerships will be developed with indigenous organizations, indigenists, and relevant government bodies. The monitoring and evaluation of the participation of indigenous populations will adopt the same methodology as the Pernambuco Agroecological Project, using the indicators established for monitoring this group. 77 Mato Grosso Sustainable Development of Family Farming  The project aims to promote the sustainable rural development of family farming among Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities by improving production, strengthening production chains, and increasing competitiveness and access to markets in an inclusive and sustainable manner. The project is not expected to have any adverse impact on Indigenous Peoples. On the contrary, it can contribute to promoting sustainable development interventions that benefit them, improving their standard of living and livelihoods in a way that respects their aspirations, unique cultural identities, traditional knowledge, and natural resource-based livelihoods, and that is culturally appropriate and inclusive. The project is under preparation. A planning framework for Indigenous Peoples has been elaborated to establish principles, guidelines, and strategies to guarantee the active and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples, ensuring that they are not excluded from its benefits and that they are not eventually affected negatively by its activities. Although the strategy for serving Indigenous Peoples has not yet been defined, dialogues, consultations, and listening activities have already been carried out with indigenous associations and leaders at the preparation stage, so that their contributions are recorded and, as far as possible, incorporated into the project. Mato Grosso Resilient, Inclusive, and Sustainable Learning Project Focusing on supporting the state and its strategy for recovery and acceleration of learning, the project will address the main interrelated challenges in education. Indigenous populations will be included in component 3, which aims to create adequate learning environments through reforms and maintenance of school infrastructure, as well as adaptations to foster schools that are more resilient to the potential impacts of climate change, and promote safer and more inclusive school environments. Within this component there is a subcomponent aimed at preventing violence and promoting inclusion, which also extends to indigenous schools. The project’s strategy for Indigenous Peoples was designed in collaboration with the State Council of Indigenous School Education of Mato Grosso. There were 78 dozens of meetings over the course of a year to define how and which indigenous schools would be included. The project had a differentiated preparation approach based on a collective construct, with indigenous people taking leading roles in the decisions of a project that directly affects the original peoples of Mato Grosso. Brazil Proactive, Safe, and Resilient Road Asset Management Program, State of Bahia The Brazil Proactive, Safe, and Resilient Road Asset Management Program in the state of Bahia aims to improve access to economic opportunities for the population of Bahia by improving traffic conditions, road safety, and climate resistance of the road network, increasing the sustainability of the state’s infrastructure. Within subcomponent 3.3 (dedicated to the recovery of local roads), the Secretariat of Infrastructure of Bahia will carry out works on side roads in municipalities gathered in intermunicipal consortia, among which the presence of the Tumbalalá and Pataxó Hã-Hã-Hãe Indigenous Peoples is registered. These activities will have the following objectives: the improvement of traffic conditions throughout the year on unpaved municipal (rural) roads, expansion of the degree of access of producers to the market, and achievement of greater levels of mobility by the residents of the project’s surroundings, enabling the access of communities to school and health services. During the preparation stage of the project, an Indigenous Peoples plan was prepared, in which the consultation, participation, and engagement activities of the Indigenous Peoples benefited were established. Among the adopted definitions, it was established that the two groups within the geographic area of operation would not compete for resources with other requests, thereby ensuring their benefits were guaranteed. The definition of the priority stretches to be recovered was also defined by the indigenous groups themselves. Brazil Proactive, Safe, and Resilient Road Asset Management Program, State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Phase 4 Under preparation, the project aims to ensure accessible, sustainable, safe, and climate-resilient traffic flows on state highways, promote socioeconomic development 79 and institutional strengthening, and improve access to learning environments and human development in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, with the integration of environmental aspects, social considerations, and road safety. Some of the roads included in the project’s activities cross or intersect with indigenous territories. Improvements related to road safety in the surroundings of indigenous schools are also planned—previously selected through consultations and dialogues between state institutions and indigenous leaders and associations. A policy framework for Indigenous Peoples is being prepared to define guidelines for the culturally appropriate engagement of indigenous groups that will be affected by the project, in order to ensure that any risks arising from the project are avoided or mitigated and that its benefits are accessed by these groups in an appropriate manner. Land Restitution as Peacebuilding in Indigenous Territories The project is funded by the State and Peacebuilding Fund, a World Bank fund that allocates resources to conflict prevention and resilience- building activities in situations of fragility, conflict, and violence. The project aims to support and strengthen the institutional efforts of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples in preventing and reducing the high levels of violence against indigenous communities caused by land conflicts, and is structured in three main components: the mapping of land conflicts in indigenous territories, the production of technical notes for mediation and conflict resolution, and the dissemination of knowledge. The first component focuses on the consolidation and systematization of information from administrative and judicial proceedings related to conflicts in indigenous territories and the creation of a conflict information management platform, integrated with government systems, to support the prevention and resolution actions of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples. The second component aims to prepare technical notes for the analysis and recommendation of legal and administrative practices for mediation of these conflicts, while the third promotes engagement with indigenous leaders and authorities to build a framework establishing roles for specific government agencies to address land conflicts. These efforts seek to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples, promoting the protection of indigenous territories and the construction of peace. 80 References Alencar, A., P. Moutinho, V. Arruda, and D. Silvério. 2020. “The Amazon in Flames: Fire and Deforestation in 2019 and What’s to Come in 2020.” IPAM Amazônia, April 23, 2020. https://ipam.org.br/bibliotecas/the-amazon- in-flames-fire-and-deforestation-in-2019-and-whats-to-come-in-2020/. Azevedo-Ramos, C., P. Moutinho, V. Laísa da S. Arruda, M.C.C. Stabile, A. Alencar, I. Castro, and J.P. Ribeiro. 2020. “Lawless Land in No Man’s Land: The Undesignated Public Forests in the Brazilian Amazon.” Land Use Policy 99: 104863. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104863. Brandão, C.D.N., J.C. Barbieri, and L.C. de Jesus Silva. 2012. “Sustainable Tourism in Indigenous Communities of the Amazon.” Revista de Administração de Roraima–RARR 2 (2): 17–28. doi:10.18227/rarr.v2i2.1136. Cerqueira, D., and S. Bueno. 2024. Atlas of Violence 2024. Institute of Applied Economic Research; Brazilian Forum on Public Security. https://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/handle/11058/14031. da Silva, A.L., D. Frigo, F.P. Schramm, G. Marinho, L.C.F. Pivato, and S. Carvalho, eds. 2023. On the Frontline: Violence against Human Rights Defenders in Brazil 2019–2022. Terra de Direitos and Justiça Global. https://terradedireitos.org.br/en/archive/publications/books/42/on-the- frontline-violence-against-human-rights-defenders-in-brazil/23936. Eloy, L. 2008. “Resilience of Indigenous Shifting Farming Systems in the Context of Urbanization in the Northwestern Brazilian Amazon.” Franco-Brazilian Journal of Geography 2 (2). 81 Eloy, L., and C. Lasmar. 2011. “Urbanization and Transformation of Indigenous Systems of Natural Resource Management: The Case of the Upper Rio Negro (Brazil).” Acta Amazônica 41 (1): 91–102. Emperaire, L., and L. Eloy. 2008. “The City, a Focus of Agricultural Diversity on the Rio Negro (Amazonas, Brazil)?” Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 3 (2). FAO and FILAC (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Fund for the Development of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean). 2021. Forest Governance by Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: An Opportunity for Climate Action in Latin America and the Caribbean. Policy brief. https://www.fao.org/3/cb2930en/cb2930en.pdf. Garcia, B., L. Rimmer, L. Canal Vieira, and B. Mackey. 2021. “REDD+ and Forest Protection on Indigenous Lands in the Amazon.” Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 30 (2): 207–19. doi:10.1111/reel.12389. GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit; German Society for International Cooperation). n.d. Planos de gestão territorial e ambiental em terras indígenas do Brasil: Estratégias para apoiar o bem viver, culturas, florestas e paisagens sustentáveis [Territorial and Environmental Management Plans in Indigenous Lands in Brazil: Strategies to Support Good Living, Sustainable Cultures, Forests and Landscapes]. https:// cooperacaobrasil-alemanha.com/Indigenas/PGTAs_Terras_Indigenas_BR.pdf. Hanusch, M., ed. 2023. A Balancing Act for Brazil’s Amazonian States: An Economic Memorandum. International Development in Focus. Washington, DC: World Bank. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2022a. Censo Demográfico: Principais resultados [Demographic Census: Main Results]. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/ multidominio/genero/22827-censo-demografico-2022.html. 82 IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2022b. Censo Demográfico 2022: Indígenas: Primeiros resultados do universo. Demographic Census 2022: Indigenous Peoples: First Results of the Universe]. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca- catalogo?view=detalhes&id=2102018#:~:text=Os%20primeiros%20 resultados%20do%20Censo,%C3%A9tnico%20no%20Brasil%2C%20com%20a. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2023. Síntese de indicadores sociais: Uma análise das condições de vida da população brasileira [Synthesis of Social Indicators: An Analysis of the Living Conditions of the Brazilian Population]. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. https://biblioteca.ibge. gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=2102052. Indigenous Missionary Council. 2022. Relatório: Violência contra os povos indígenas no Brasil—Dados de 2022 [Report: Violence Against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil—2022 Data]. https://cimi.org.br/wp-content/ uploads/2023/07/relatorio-violencia-povos-indigenas-2022-cimi.pdf. Marimon, A.S. 2020. Seed Collectors and Forest Seeders: The Role of Women in the Xingu Seed Network. Sanchez Martinez, G., J. Paiva, G. Lima de Paula, P. Moutinho, R.Castriota, and A.C. Gomes Costa. Indigenous Peoples and Sustainable Development in the Legal Amazon. Technical Notes: A Contribution to the Amazon Economic Memorandum. Santos, D., M. Lima dos Santos, and B. Veríssimo. n.d. Fatos da Amazônia: Meio ambiente e uso do solo [Facts of the Amazon: Environment and Land Use]. Amazonia 2030 Project. https://amazonia2030.org.br/wp-content/ uploads/2023/01/FatosdaAmazonia_Meioambiente_e_usodosolo.pdf. Soares-Filho, B., P. Moutinho, D. Nepstad, A. Anderson, H. Rodrigues, R. Garcia, L. Dietzsch, F. Merry, M. Bowman, L. Hissa, R. Silvestrini, and C. Maretti. 2010. “Role of Brazilian Amazon Protected Areas in Climate Change 83 Mitigation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (24): 10821–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913048107. Walker, W.S., S. Gorelik, A. Baccini, J. Aragon-Osejo, C. Josse, C. Meyer, and M. Macedo. 2020. “The Role of Forest Conversion, Degradation, and Disturbance in the Carbon Dynamics of Amazon Indigenous Territories and Protected Areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (6): 3015–25. doi:10.1073/pnas.1913321117. World Bank. 2023. Brazil Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR). Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank. org/en/news/infographic/2023/05/08/brazil-country-climate-and- development-report#:~:text=The%20Brazil%20Country%20Climate%20 and,goals%20and%20its%20climate%20commitments. 84