The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative

Case Received: February 4, 1998

Author: Catarina Cardoso

Tel.: +44 171 955 61 58

Fax: +44 171 955 74 12

Email:C.A.Cardoso@lse.ac.uk

The present case study refers to the Extractive Reserve Chico Mendes, located in the western state of Acre, Brazil. Extractive reserves (ERs) are areas designated for the protection of the environment and the sustenance of traditional populations practising their customary activities, such as rubber tapping. The ER model is based on the traditional land tenure structure of the forest dwellers, which involves individual family rights and communal property rights to common areas, like forest paths. All the economic activities practised in the Chico Mendes reserve - rubber tapping, collection of Brazil nuts and subsistence agriculture – are based on forest resources.

The three most important contextual factors in the process leading to the establishment of extractive reserves were: the Brazilian government’s policies for the development and occupation of Amazonia in the 1970s; the international concern with deforestation in the region in the 1980s; and the environmental policies of Brazil in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

This case study is part of a PhD project conducted by the author. It is based on approximately 100 qualitative interviews with the inhabitants of the reserve, and nearly 40 interviews with key policy informants from governmental and non-governmental organisations, carried out between April and December 1995.

The initial situation was one of conflict between the traditional inhabitants of the Acrean forests, rubber tappers, and the new owners of the lands, mainly cattle ranchers. The conflict involved a dispute over property rights to forest resources; incompatibility of uses between the two sets of actors; and differences in landed property rights systems.

The rubber tapper population was formed during the rubber boom at the end of the 19^th century, when workers from other regions of Brazil were brought to Amazonia to collect rubber. With the end of the rubber boom, many rubber barons - the owners of the rubber estates - abandoned the areas. The rubber tappers who stayed went on collecting rubber, practising subsistence agriculture and selling the produce to small traders. In the 1970s, the Brazilian government encouraged cattle ranching in Amazonia as part of their development policy for the region, and many of the rubber estates were bought for rearing cattle. The new owners tried (often successfully) to expel the tappers living in their newly bought lands, and often resorted to violent means to do so.

The situation was unsatisfactory in several ways. Rubber tapping is based on the standing forest, while cattle ranching requires clearing the forest for the creation of pasture. The rubber tappers’ possession rights (direito de posse) to their rubber stands were thus in conflict with the property rights of the cattle ranchers. Moreover, the latter did not recognise the tapper’s rights. Subsequently, the rubber tappers were offered compensation for the loss of their rubber stands in the form of plots in agricultural settlements. This solution, however, involved a property rights system that was not adequate to their traditional use of the area because it did not take into consideration the irregular distribution of rubber trees and other resources inside the forest. As a result of the continuing conflict, levels of violence and rates of deforestation in the area were extremely high – and would have continued to be so if the extractive reserves had not been established.

Faced with this situation the rubber tappers organised to fight against land expulsion. Initially, their struggle was only known to local organisations and ‘policy entrepreneurs’ such as journalists and anthropologists living in Acre, but in the late 1980s the tapper’s plight acquired international coverage - which in turn provided the context for the creation of Extractive Reserves.

The process that led to the creation of extractive reserves can be separated into three parts. The first took place at the local level, involving stand-offs (peaceful demonstrations in areas of forest about to be cleared) and support from local actors such as rural unions, and the above mentioned ‘policy entrepreneurs’. The second phase took place mainly at the international level. Rubber tappers’ organisations established alliances with the American environmentalist movement which, as part of their campaign against industrial countries’ financing of environmentally destructive projects in the developing world, exerted pressured on the Brazilian government to stop deforestation in Amazonia. The struggle of the tappers was presented as an indication that the model of development was not only environmentally destructive, but that it also had dramatic impacts on the traditional population. The NGOs’ international campaign against deforestation, together with the international media coverage of the issue, were key factors in bringing the struggle of the Acrean rubber tappers for landed property rights onto the Brazilian public agenda. The third phase of the process was the creation of extractive reserves by the Brazilian government, first in the context of land reform, in 1987, and later, in 1990, as part of its environmental policy.

Three groups of key actors can be identified in this process:

• the rubber tappers themselves and their leaders, seeking to maintain their livelihoods. These actors were the first to present the proposal for a landed property rights model, the extractive reserves, that would be based on their own land tenure system;
• locally based organisations or single individuals interested in development and human rights issues;
• international environmental NGOs whose support to the tappers was part of their more general interest in finding sustainable development alternatives for the rainforest.

The outcome of the above process was the legal establishment of extractive reserves. Extractive reserves are areas owned by the state, which give a concession to the association of inhabitants of the reserve, which in turn give use rights to the various families. The use rights are exclusive, are subject to the sustainable use of the resource, and they cannot be transferred inter vivos. The exploitation of the rubber tappers’ stands is conducted by the family subject to the rules of the reserve, which are set up by the forest dwellers themselves, the associations representing them and the state agency responsible for the reserves - National Centre for Traditional Populations, (CNPT). The administration of common areas, such as forests paths, lakes, and common facilities, is carried out by the community using the resources. The administration of the reserve as a whole is mainly performed by the rubber tappers’ organisations in co-operation with CNPT, and has the support – and increasing participation – of the forest dwellers.

Following the creation of extractive reserves rural violence in the area virtually stopped and levels of deforestation diminished significantly. The creation of ERs also involved several institutional changes in the context of Brazilian legislation: recognition of communal rights to land; inclusion of environmental concerns as a motive for disappropriation; acknowledgement of extractivism as a (potentially) viable economic activity; and creation of areas where conservation and sustainable livelihood are coexisting objectives.

These institutional changes in the legislation have enhanced community-based management of forest resources in the ER Chico Mendes in many ways. First, legal recognition of the traditional land tenure model of the tappers has allowed them to take full advantage of their know-how in the use of forest resources. Second, linking property rights over the resource to conservation objectives has diminished the attraction of non-sustainable activities (although it has not eliminate them). Third, the fact that the property rights are granted to the community of inhabitants of the reserve strengthens the importance of communities in the rubber estates. And finally, security of access to resources has allowed the tappers to develop strategies for improving their livelihoods (e.g. creation of co-operatives), and to obtain the support of official development programs.

The examination of the ER Chico Mendes suggests that three factors were crucial for the success of the tapper’s struggle:

• the development of leaders among the rubber tappers. These leaders were naturally familiar with the customs of the tappers and were also affected by the arrival of the ranchers. They could thus more easily encourage their fellow men and women to resist expulsion from their lands.
• the help received from external actors in the form of education, information (e.g. on their legal rights to the land), organisation skills, publicity and contacts with other organisations that could help them; and
• the international concern with deforestation that transformed a local struggle into an issue with implications for humankind and therefore with international political leverage.

Some of these factors, and in particular, the timely concern of the international community with deforestation in Amazonia, are perhaps not easily replicable in other cases. Not all local communities practice activities that involve the conservation of a highly valued forest. Nevertheless, the implication that the wider national and international context may influence local communities deserve careful examination when designing strategies for enhancing community-based natural resource management. The role of external actors in contributing to the success of the tappers’ struggle suggests that local and ‘outsiders’ knowledge are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. New technologies, contacts with possible allies and publicity techniques, are relevant skills that outsiders may be able to provide to local communities.

With regard to the property rights system of the ER Chico Mendes, this is not easy replicable. Each of the rights involved is grounded in historical, political, economic and social factors that are specific to the rubber tappers case. However, the suitability of such a combination of rights to the case of the tappers, suggests that property rights regimes need not necessarily be private property or state property - or even common property regimes strictly speaking. On the contrary, to encourage the emergence of community-based institutions the policy environment should be open to diverse systems of property rights.