Conservação da natureza, direitos indígenas e colonialismo de povoamento: a política dos pa-gamentos por serviços ambientais em Mato Grosso do Sul (Brasil)

Palavras-chave: pagamentos por serviços ambientais, Brasil, direitos indígenas

Resumo

Os pagamentos por serviços ambientais (PSA) são fortemente criticados por acadêmicos da ecologia política. Predominantemente, suas críticas estão enraizadas em noções de justiça distributiva, que se concentram no impacto negativo (por exemplo, distribuição de direitos a terra) de PSA para comunidades indígenas e outras comunidades locais. Muitos defensores liberais do PSA não negam que tais problemas sejam reais. No entanto, eles colocam mais ênfase na justiça processual e afirmam que o PSA pode desencadear uma institucionalização de diálogos mais inclusivos. Até o momento, ambas as vertentes da literatura subestimam o impacto das condições pós-coloniais em que muitos projetos de PSA estão situados. É aqui que entra nosso artigo. Investigamos a política inicial de PSA em Mato Grosso do Sul, uma província brasileira dominada pelo contínuo colonialismo de povoamento. Os resultados de nossa pesquisa indicam que a implementação de procedimentos inclusivos em projetos de PSA pode mitigar parcialmente as consequências do colonialismo de povoamento em curso, mas isso frequentemente falha por estar embutido nas estruturas de uma economia política de formato colonial. Embora o PSA ocasionalmente dê poder aos atores indígenas para enfrentar as elites locais de forma mais eficaz e para fortalecer os direitos das mulheres indígenas, as transformações resultantes dentro das próprias comunidades provavelmente enfraquecerão sua auto-organização política.

Biografia do Autor

Thomas R. Eimer , Radboud University Nijmegen

Assistant Professor of International Relations at Radboud University Nijmegen, Institute for Management Research, Department of Political Science and Public Administration.

Maliene Kip, Radboud University Nijmegen

Junior Teacher at University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural sciences, Department of Political Science.

Referências

ARTS, B. Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’perspective: Government, governance, gov-ernmentality. Forest Policy and Economics, [s.l.], v. 49, n. 12, p. 17-22, 2014.

ASIYANBI, A. P. A political ecology of REDD+: property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 77 p. 146-56, 2016.

ATELA, J. O.; QUINN, C. H.; MINANG, P. A.; DUGUMA, L. A.; HOUDET, J. A. Implementing REDD+ at the national level: stakeholder engagement and policy coherences between REDD+ rules and Kenya's sectoral policies. Forest Policy and Economics, [s.l.], v. 65, p. 37-46, 2016.

BENJAMINSEN, G.; KAARHUS, R. Commodification of forest carbon: REDD+ and socially embedded forest practices in Zanzibar. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 93, p. 48-56, 2018.

BÉTRISEY, F.; BASTIAENSEN, J.; MAGER, C. Payments for ecosystem services and social jus-tice: Using recognition theories to assess the Bolivian Acuerdos Recíprocos por el Agua. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 92, p. 134-43, 2018.

BHABHA, H. K. Signs taken for wonders: Questions of ambivalence and authority under a tree outside Delhi, May 1817. Critical inquiry, [s.l.], v. 12, n. 1, p. 144-65, 1985.

BHABHA, H. Of mimicry and man: The ambivalence of colonial discourse. October, [s.l.], v. 28, p. 125-33, 1984.

BOITO JR., A.; BERRINGER, T. Brasil: classes sociais, neodesenvolvimentismo e política externa nos governos Lula e Dilma. Revista de Sociologia e Política, [s.l.], v. 21, n. 47, p. 31-7, 2013.

BORDE, R. How Popular Culture at Different Scales Influenced the Representation of the Nature Religiosity of the Indigenous People in the Niyamgiri Movement in India. In: BORDE, R. Protect-ing Indigenous Land from Mining: a study of activist representations of indigenous people, in the context of anti-mining movements, with a focus on an Indian case. Thesis (PhD in Social Sciences) – Wageningen University, Gelderland, 2017. p. 31-44.

BRAND, U.; WISSEN, M. Global environmental politics and the imperial mode of living: articula-tions of state-capital relations in the multiple crisis. Globalizations, [s.l.], v. 9, n. 4, p. 547-60, 2012.

BÜSCHER, B.; DRESSLER, W. Linking Neoprotectionism and Environmental Governance: On the Rapidly Increasing Tensions between Actors in the Environment-Development Nexus. Conser-vation and Society, [s.l.], v. 5, n. 4, p. 586-611, 2007.

UNITED NATIONS. Cancun Guidelines. REDD+Web Platform. New York, [s.d.]. Available at: https://redd.unfccc.int/fact-sheets/safeguards.html. Accessed: 18 may 2021.

CAVALCANTE, T. L. V. Colonialismo, esbulho territorial, e demarcação de terras indígenas gua-rani e kaiowá em mato grosso do sul. In: CONGRESSO INTERNACIONAL DE HISTÓRIA [CIH], 6., september 25 to 27, 2013, [s.l.]. Annals [...]. [s.l.]: CIH, 2013.

CHAMORRO, G.; COMBÈS, I. Povos indígenas em Mato Grosso do Sul: história, culturas e trans-formações sociais. Caminhos, [s.l.], v. 17, n. 1, p. 397-403, 2019.

CHIARAVALLOTI, R. M.; HOMEWOOD, K.; ERIKSON, K. Sustainability and Land tenure: Who owns the floodplain in the Pantanal. Land Use Policy, [s.l.], v. 64, p. 511-24, 2017.

COLLINS, Y. A. Colonial residue: REDD+, territorialisation and the racialized subject in Guyana and Suriname. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 106, p. 38-47, 2019.

CORRADO, E. F. A espiral das retomadas indígenas no sul do Mato Grosso do Sul. Aceno - Re-vista de Antropologia do Centro-Oeste, [s.l.], v. 5, n. 10, p. 189-206, 2018.

CUNDILL, G.; THONDHLANA, G.; SISITKA, L.; SHACKLETON, S.; BLORE, M. Land claims and the pursuit of co-management on four protected areas in South Africa. Land Use Policy, [s.l.], v. 35, p. 171-8, 2013.

CUNHA, R. C. C.; FARIAS, F. R. Dinâmica produtiva e ordenamento territorial dos agronegócios do Mato Grosso do Sul pós-2003. Geosul, [s.l.], v. 34, p. 71, p. 130-53, 2019.

EIMER, T. R. What if the subaltern speaks? Traditional knowledge policies in Brazil and India. Third World Quarterly, [s.l.], v. 41, n. 1, p. 96-112.

EIMER, T. R.; LÜTZ, S.; SCHÜREN, V. Varieties of localization. The commodification of knowledge in India and Brazil. Review of International Political Economy, v. 23, n. 3, p. 450-79, 2016.

ENGLE, K. The elusive promise of indigenous development. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010.

ESCOBAR, A. Territories of difference: place, movements, life, redes. Durham: Duke University Press, 2008.

FAIRHEAD, J.; LEACH, M.; SCOONES, I. Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies, v. 39, n. 2, p. 237-61, 2012.

FANON, F. The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press, 1961.

FERREIRA, A. C. Políticas para fronteira, história e identidade: A luta simbólica nos processos de demarcação de terras indígenas Terena. Mana, v. 15, n. 2, p. 377-410, 2009.

FLY7. 2020 is the year Fly 7 launches its brand new carbon-offsetting program. Fly7, [s.l.], 2020. Available at: https://www.fly7.ch/green/. Accessed: 10 dec. 2020.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY [GEF]. Payment for Ecosystem Services. Report prepared by J. Cavelier and I Munro Gray. Washington DC: Global Environment Facility, 2012.

MATO GROSSO DO SUL (Estado). I Plano Estadual de Políticas Públicas para os Povos Indíge-nas em Mato Grosso do Sul. Unpublished document prepared by the Government of Mato Grosso do Sul (Sub-department for Indigenous Affairs), 2018.

GANDHI, L. Postcolonial Theory. A critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998.

GROSFOGUEL, R. Decolonizing post-colonial studies and paradigms of political-economy: Transmodernity, decolonial thinking, and global coloniality. Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, [s.l.], v. 1, n. 1, 2011

GUHA, R. Gramsci in India: homage to a teacher. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, v. 16, n. 2, p. 288-95, 2011.

HAUTELA REPORT. Report on transparent and accountable management of natural resources in developing countries: the case of forests. European Parliament 2018/2003(INI), 2018.

HOLMES, G.; CAVANAGH, C. J. A review of the social impacts of neoliberal conservation: For-mations, inequalities, contestations. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 75, p. 199-209, 2016.

HUFTY, M.; HAAKENSTAD, A. Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation: a criti-cal review. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, [s.l.], v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-24, 2011.

IORIS, A. A. Political agency of indigenous peoples: the Guarani-Kaiowa’s fight for

survival and recognition. Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, [s.l.], v. 16, 2019.

IORIS, A. A. R. Approaches and responses to climate change: challenges for the Pantanal and the upper Paraguay River basin. Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research, n. 25, 2014.

IORIS, A. A.; BENITES, T.; GOETTERT, J. D. Challenges and contribution of indigenous geogra-phy: Learning with and for the Kaiowa-Guarani of South America. Geoforum, n. 102, p. 137-41, 2019.

JOSLIN, A. J.; JEPSON, W. E. Territory and authority of water fund payments for ecosystem ser-vices in Ecuador’s Andes. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 91, p. 10-20, 2018.

KAPOOR, I. The Postcolonial Politics of Development. London: Routledge, 2008.

KAPOOR, D. Subaltern Social Movement Learning and the Decolonization of Space in India1. International Education, [s.l.], v. 37, n. 1, p. 10-41, 2007.

KOSOY, N.; CORBERA, E.; BROWN, K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 39, n. 6, p. 2073-83, 2008.

KULL, C. A.; DE SARTRE, X. A.; CASTRO-LARRAÑAGA, M. The political ecology of ecosys-tem services. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 61, p. 122-34, 2015.

LEDERER, M.; HÖHNE, C. Max Weber in the tropics: how global climate politics facilitates the bureaucratization of forestry in Indonesia. Regulation & Governance, [s.l.], v. 15, n. 1, Jan. 2021, p. 133-51, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12270

LEITE, M. B.; DE ANGUITA, P. M. Classificação das políticas públicas relacionadas com os servi-ços ecossistêmicos no território brasileiro. Boletim Goiano de Geografia, [s.l.], v. 37, n. 1, p. 106-21, 2017.

MCELWEE, P. D. Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conserva-tion in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 43, n. 3, p. 412-26, 2012.

MONDARDO, M.; SERJO, A. A. C.; STALIANO, P. Conflitos na luta pela terra e território em áreas de agronegócio: das violências, negligências e precariedades às manifestações e conquistas dos Guarani e Kaiowá. Geosul, [s.l.], v. 34, n. 71, p. 573-98, 2019.

MOROS, L.; CORBERA, E.; VÉLEZ, M. A.; FLECHAS, D. Pragmatic conservation: Discourses of payments for ecosystem services in Colombia. Geoforum: [s.l.], 2019. doi:10.11016.j.geoforum.2019.09.004

NEL, A. Contested carbon: Carbon forestry as a speculatively virtual, falteringly material and dis-puted territorial assemblage. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 81, p. 144-52, 2017.

OGDEN, L.; HEYNEN, N.; OSLENDER, U.; WEST, P.; KASSAM, K.-A.; ROBBINS, P. Global assemblages, resilience, and Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, [s.l.], v. 11, n. 7, p. 341-47, 2013.

OSBORNE, T. Tradeoffs in carbon commodification: A political ecology of common property for-est governance. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 67, p. 64-77, 2015.

PEGAS DE VASCONCELLOS, F.; CASTLEY, J. G. Private reserves in Brazil: Distribution pat-terns, logistical challenges, and conservation contributions. Journal for Nature Conservation, [s.l.], v. 29, p. 14-24, 2016.

PATTBERG, P. The Institutionalization of Private Governance: how business and nonprofit organi-zations agree on transnational rules. Governance, [s.l.], v. 18, n. 4, p. 589-610, 2005.

SAID, E. W. Culture & Imperialism. London: Vintage, 1994.

SCHMIDT, Thales. Mato Grosso do Sul: a 'Faixa de Gaza' brasileira? Sputiniknews, [s.l.], 2018. Available at: https://br.sputniknews.com/brasil/2018060611403683-mato-grosso-sul-faixa-de-gaza-brasil-genocidio-indigena-guarani-kaiowa/. Acessed: 10 dec. 2020.

SCHULZ, C.; IORIS, A. A.; MARTIN-ORTEGA, J.; GLENK, K. Prospects for payments for eco-system services in the Brazilian Pantanal: a scenario analysis. The Journal of Environment & Devel-opment, [s.l.], v. 24, n. 1, p. 26-53, 2015.

SHAH, A. In the Shadows of the State. Indigenous politics, environmentalism, and insurgency in Jharkhand, India. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010.

SHAPIRO-GARZA, E. Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico’s national payments for eco-system services programs: Four sites of articulation and hybridization. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 46, p. 5-15, 2013.

SPEED, S. Rights in Rebellion. Indigenous Struggle & Himan Rights in Chiapas. Stanford: Stand-ford University Press, 2008.

SPIVAK, G.C. Righting Wrongs. The South Atlantic Quarterly 103, [s.l.], v. 2, p. 523-81, 2004.

SPIVAK, G. C. Can the subaltern speak? In: WILLIAMS, P.; CHRISMAN, L. (Ed.). Colonial Discourse and Post-colonial Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. p. 66-111.

SOARES-FILHO, B.; RAJÃO, R.; MERRY, F.; RODRIGUES, H.; DAVIS, J.; LIMA, L.; SAN-TIAGO, L. Brazil’s market for trading forest certificates. Plos one, [s.l.], v. 11, n. 4, 2016. e0152311

SOBREVILA, C. The role of indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation. The natural but often forgotten partners. The World Bank: New York, 2008.

STRECK, Charlotte: Shades of REDD+: A Marshall Plan for Tropical Forests? Ecosystem, 2019. Available at: https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/shades-of-redd-a-marshall-plan-for-tropical-forests/. Accessed: 10 dec. 2020.

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE [UNFCCC]. Report on the converence of the parties on its sixteenth session. UNFCCC, 2010. Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf. Accessed: 08 jun. 2021.

VAN HECKEN, G.; BASTIAENSEN, J.; HUYBRECHS, F. What’s in a name? Epistemic per-spectives and Payments for Ecosystem Services policies in Nicaragua. Geoforum, [s.l.], v. 63, p. 55-66, 2015.

VERACINI, L. Settler Colonialism. A Theoretical Overview. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010.

VIJGE, M. J. Competing discourses on REDD+: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project. Forest Policy and Economics, [s.l.], v. 56, p. 38-47, 2015.

ZELLI, F.; GUPTA, A.; ASSELT, H. V. Institutional Interactions at the Crossroads of Trade and Environment: The Dominance of Liberal Environmentalism? Global Governance, [s.l.], v. 19, n. 1, p. 105-18, 2013.

ZIPS, W.; ZIPS-MAIRITSCH, M. Lost in translation? The politics of conservation, indigenous land rights and community-based resource management in southern Africa. Journal of Legal Pluralism, [s.l.], v. 55, p. 37-72, 2007.

INTERVIEWS

INTERVIEW 454: Representative of a transnational environmental NGO. Skype conversation, Feb-ruary 21, 2019.

INTERVIEW 455: Representative of the federal public prosecution office. Ministério Público. Pon-ta Porã, March 26, 2019.

INTERVIEW 456: Indigenous spokesperson and lawyer, Campo Grande, March 29, 2019.

INTERVIEW 458: Natural scientist at a public university. Campo Grande, March 29, 2019.

INTERVIEW 459: Deputy of the legislative assembly of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, March 29, 2019.

INTERVIEW 460: Group conversation with indigenous lawyers and activists, Campo Grande, March 31, 2019.

INTERVIEW 461: Group conversation with representatives of the federal prosecution office

(Ministerio Público), Naviraí, April 1, 2019.

INTERVIEW 462: Natural scientist at a public university. Dourados, April 1, 2019.

INTERVIEW 463: Representative of the National Office for Indigenous Affairs (FUNAI), Doura-dos, April 2, 2019.

INTERVIEW 464: Indigenous spokesperson. Tacurú, April 2, 2019.

INTERVIEW 465: Representative of the government of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, April 3, 2019.

INTERVIEW 466: Representative of the federal public prosecution office. Ministerio Público. Campo Grande, April 3, 2019.

INTERVIEW 468: Social scientist and indigenous activist, professor at a private university, April 6 and 11, 2019.

INTERVIEW 469: Employee of the state government of Mato Grosso do Sul (department for cul-tural affairs), Campo Grande, April 6, 2019.

INTERVIEW 470: Representative of a transnational environmental NGO, Campo Grande, April 8, 2019.

INTERVIEW 472: Representative of the state government of Mato Grosso do Sul (sub-department for indigenous affairs), Campo Grande, April 9, 2019.

INTERVIEW 473: Deputy of the legislative assembly of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, April 10, 2019.

INTERVIEW 474: Indigenous spokesperson. Campo Grande, April 10, 2019.

INTERVIEW 475: Representative of a local environmental NGO, Campo Grande, April 12, 2019.

INTERVIEW 476: Lawyer and representative of the agribusiness, Skype interview, April 25, 2019.

INTERVIEW 500: Representative of a transnational NGO, Campo Grande, August 12, 2019.

INTERVIEW 502: Indigenous leader, Miranda, August 16, 2019 .

INTERVIEW 503: Daughter of a large landowner, Campo Grande, August 18, 2019.

INTERVIEW 504: Agribusiness lawyer, Campo Grande, August 20, 2019.

Publicado
2021-06-10
Como Citar
Eimer , T. R., & Kip, M. (2021). Conservação da natureza, direitos indígenas e colonialismo de povoamento: a política dos pa-gamentos por serviços ambientais em Mato Grosso do Sul (Brasil). Série-Estudos - Periódico Do Programa De Pós-Graduação Em Educação Da UCDB, 26(56), 5-39. https://doi.org/10.20435/serie-estudos.v26i56.1528
Seção
Artigos