[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 12 #5114

Based on research and examples from Brazil, the following recommendations and cases illustrate how these goals can advance together:
1. Strengthen legal safeguards and cultural rights – Brazil’s Constitution recognizes Indigenous peoples’ permanent possession and exclusive use of their lands and resources. FUNAI requires carbon or conservation projects to include participatory territorial management plans defining benefit-sharing and social oversight mechanisms. Conservation policies should always uphold self-determination, free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and the right to veto projects that threaten cultural identity.
2. Guarantee participation and respect community protocols – Initiatives such as the Suruí Forest Carbon Project demonstrate that success depends on community-driven governance: approval came only after general assemblies in which each clan and village participated, and decisions were made by consensus. The National Council of Extractive Populations (CNS)’s Guidelines for REDD+ Projects in Extractive Reserves require dialogue with local associations and full FPIC compliance, ensuring that management plans, consultation protocols, and traditional lifestyles are fully respected.
3. Ensure continuity of cultural practices and equitable benefit-sharing – The FGV report highlights that maintaining traditional productive systems and resource management—essential for cultural and social reproduction—alongside fair benefit-sharing is key to safeguarding rights and food sovereignty. The Juma Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) REDD+ Project channels carbon credit revenue into environmental monitoring, education, community empowerment, and sustainable income generation, showing that well-governed markets can fund cultural and environmental resilience.
4. Invest in training and institutional capacity – The COIAB (Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon) climate document recommends continuous training in climate policy and REDD+ mechanisms, using accessible language and Indigenous translation, and calls for full Indigenous participation in all levels of governance. The IPAM Policy Brief (2024) emphasizes that social and environmental safeguards must ensure gender equity and inclusion of Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples, addressing persistent challenges such as lack of consultation, unequal benefit-sharing, and insufficient territorial protection. Dedicated funding for legal assistance and Indigenous technical training is recommended.
5. Protect cultural diversity and recognize intangible heritage – National programs such as Brazil’s National Program for Intangible Cultural Heritage and the National Inventory of Cultural References (INRC) could be expanded to document knowledge systems linked to biodiversity (e.g., traditional agriculture, medicine, ritual practices). Integrating cultural heritage and environmental policies ensures that protected areas also serve as living cultural landscapes.
6. Include women, youth, and people with disabilities – Women often serve as guardians of traditional knowledge and leaders in sustainable value chains. Conservation programs should guarantee gender parity on management councils and offer capacity-building programs tailored to women. Youth participation, as emphasized in the Pre-COP Letter of Traditional Peoples, ensures intergenerational transmission of knowledge. Accessibility initiatives, such as those in the guide Nature for All, should be scaled to enable participation of persons with disabilities in environmental stewardship.
7. Support territorial economies and sustainable alternatives – Programs such as Inatú Amazônia show that forest-based bioeconomies can generate income while preserving traditional knowledge and empowering women and youth. Encouraging agroecology, community-based tourism, and cooperative forest management aligns biodiversity conservation with cultural permanence.
8. Promote transparency and social monitoring – The FGV report calls for a public database of REDD+ and carbon market initiatives, including data on social and cultural impacts. This transparency would allow communities and oversight bodies to monitor safeguard compliance and activate protective mechanisms when necessary.
9. Integrate scientific and traditional knowledge systems – Indigenous leadership statements advocate connecting “Indigenous and non-Indigenous sciences” for climate and conservation strategies, emphasizing that traditional peoples are climate authorities. Research and monitoring projects should therefore include cultural indicators and rely on traditional knowledge holders as co-researchers.
By implementing these recommendations, conservation efforts can promote both ecological integrity and cultural diversity, recognizing that traditional ways of life are not obstacles but essential allies in maintaining biodiversity and confronting climate change.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 11 #5113

To understand how cultural rights are considered and protected within carbon markets and biodiversity offset systems in Brazil, it is necessary to examine both successful experiences and the safeguards developed in recent years.
The Suruí Forest Carbon Project, created by the Paiter-Suruí people in Rondônia, was initiated by the Indigenous community itself, not by external organizations. During the first general assembly in 2009, 95% of the participants approved the continuation of the project; each clan and village participated in the discussions, and all decisions were made by consensus. External partners emphasized that carbon credits were not the sole path to development but should integrate with the Suruí people’s broader territorial and cultural management plan. This case shows how self-determination and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) can be effectively embedded in carbon initiatives, ensuring that benefits align with cultural and environmental priorities.
Another relevant example is the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) REDD+ Project in Amazonas. Validated under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standard, the project was implemented by the Amazonas Sustainable Foundation (FAS) with private-sector partners. Revenue from carbon credit sales has funded activities in environmental monitoring, sustainable livelihoods, community empowerment, scientific research, and education, in addition to direct payments for environmental services through the “Standing Forest” program. This demonstrates that voluntary carbon markets can channel resources toward education, capacity building, and the preservation of local cultural practices.
At the institutional level, Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office and FUNAI (the National Indigenous Foundation) recognize that Indigenous peoples are entitled to all economic benefits generated by REDD+ projects within their territories. Representation must follow Indigenous social organization, and payments can be made either in cash or through ethnodevelopment initiatives. Contracts must respect collective will and customary law, or they risk nullification. FUNAI further requires that projects be located only on officially demarcated Indigenous lands and include a participatory territorial management plan detailing benefit-sharing and social control mechanisms. These measures aim to protect cultural continuity and territorial autonomy.
Civil society organizations have echoed these principles. The Terra de Direitos technical note warns that carbon contracts may interfere with traditional livelihoods if they impose restrictions on ancestral practices such as farming, housing construction, or vegetation use. It stresses that communities must have the right to define their economic, social, and cultural development priorities and participate in the design, implementation, and evaluation of any project affecting them. The document highlights that consultations must occur during the planning phase and assess social, spiritual, and cultural impacts, following precedents set by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Respect for Indigenous consultation protocols is a binding requirement under ILO Convention No. 169.
Among extractivist communities, the National Council of Extractive Populations (CNS) published Guidelines for REDD+ Projects in Extractive Reserves (2023). The document mandates that proponents begin dialogue with local associations and present a preliminary proposal to the community to initiate the FPIC process. It also requires that all management tools (e.g., management plans and consultation protocols) be respected and that the identity and traditional lifestyles of the community be safeguarded through fair and equitable benefit-sharing models.
Indigenous organizations have also mobilized around this issue. In its 2023 COIAB (Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon) climate statement, Indigenous leaders called for continuous training on carbon markets and implementation of the Cancun Safeguards, aimed at preventing risks to Indigenous sovereignty, autonomy, and well-being. The document urges full participation in REDD+ governance and climate negotiations, accessible information campaigns in Indigenous languages, and support for the development of life plans and consultation protocols.
Academic institutions and policy think tanks, such as the FGV/EAESP (Fundação Getúlio Vargas – São Paulo School of Business Administration), also highlight the social dimension of carbon markets. Their 2025 report on carbon markets in collective territories argues that FPIC, information symmetry, and equitable benefit-sharing are essential for protecting rights and ensuring the cultural and social reproduction of communities. The report recommends creating a public database of REDD+ initiatives, improving institutional coordination, and strengthening land tenure and environmental policies to promote meaningful participation.
Finally, a 2024 policy brief from the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) stresses that social and environmental safeguards must ensure gender equity, and the inclusion of Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples, while addressing socio-environmental risks. It recognizes that these groups have historically conserved the forest and should be fairly compensated, warning that persistent challenges include the lack of effective participation, absence of consultation protocols, unequal benefit-sharing, and insufficient territorial protection.
Taken together, these examples illustrate that carbon markets and biodiversity offset systems in Brazil can uphold cultural rights when they embed FPIC, ensure collective participation, promote fair benefit-sharing, and value traditional knowledge. However, as noted by Terra de Direitos and the CNS, carbon contracts that disregard community autonomy risk reproducing forms of “green colonialism.” Strengthening social oversight, transparency, and safeguards remains essential to ensure that climate and biodiversity goals advance hand in hand with the protection of the cultural identities and livelihoods that sustain Brazil’s forests.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 10 #5112

In the Brazilian context, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international donors have played complex and sometimes contradictory roles in the promotion—and, at times, restriction—of cultural rights within environmental conservation projects. Many of these projects are implemented in territories inhabited by Indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and local populations whose ways of life and cultural values are deeply intertwined with biodiversity.
Among the positive examples of promoting cultural rights, initiatives led by UNESCO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) stand out for protecting intangible heritage and traditional knowledge linked to biodiversity. UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage inspired national programs in Brazil that document and recognize traditional practices such as the cultivation of native seeds, traditional medicine, and ritual celebrations related to environmental cycles. Another example is the GEF Amazon Project, supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which strengthens socio-environmental governance and promotes Indigenous and quilombola (Afro-descendant) participation in natural resource management. These programs seek to align environmental conservation with cultural autonomy.
In the field of international cooperation, the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA)—created in 2002 with funding from the World Bank, GEF, WWF, and the Brazilian government—is considered the largest tropical forest conservation program in the world. While it has contributed to the creation and management of over 60 million hectares of protected areas, ARPA has also faced criticism for restricting traditional access to common-use lands, especially when decisions were made in a top-down manner without proper free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). In response, ARPA has since integrated social participation mechanisms, management councils, and sustainable-use plans to mitigate impacts on local cultural practices.
Other good participatory practices include the Suruí Carbon Project, developed by the Paiter-Suruí people of Rondônia with support from Forest Trends and the UN-REDD Programme. The community created its own consultation protocol and implemented a forest management plan consistent with its social organization and traditions. The project became an international reference for combining forest conservation with cultural preservation, reinforcing Indigenous self-determination.
Conversely, there are emblematic cases of cultural rights violations in the name of conservation or development. The Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam, financed by public banks and multilateral institutions such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), became one of the most controversial projects in Latin America. It was denounced before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for lack of consultation and for the irreversible cultural damage inflicted on Indigenous and riverine communities along the Xingu River, including the loss of sacred territories and the disruption of traditional livelihoods. Following public and international pressure, both the IDB and the World Bank withdrew financial support, acknowledging failures in social and environmental safeguards.
Another controversial case is the “Adopt a Park” program, launched in 2021 by the Brazilian federal government and criticized by organizations such as Terra de Direitos and FASE. The initiative allowed private companies to “adopt” protected areas without consulting traditional populations residing within them. According to civil society reports, the program effectively privatized public conservation spaces and threatened cultural continuity and territorial rights, particularly in Amazonian parks, by granting corporate sponsors undue influence over land management policies.
Furthermore, studies by the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) and FASE show that the establishment of certain “strict protection” conservation units has led to the displacement or restriction of traditional communities—such as rubber tappers, fisherfolk, and quilombolas—who had sustainably managed these lands for generations. This form of “fortress conservation”, although environmentally motivated, disregards the cultural and symbolic relationships that these groups maintain with their territories.
In contrast, recent initiatives like “Naturezas Quilombolas” (2024), supported by the Amazon Fund and NORAD (the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation), represent a positive shift. The program recognizes quilombola territories as cultural landscapes of conservation, governed by ancestral land-use practices that safeguard biodiversity while generating sustainable livelihoods. It funds local management projects, capacity-building, and community-based governance structures that align cultural heritage with ecological stewardship.
Overall, these experiences demonstrate that cultural rights can be either strengthened or undermined by conservation projects, depending on the degree of community participation and the commitment of institutions to equity, consultation, and respect for traditional knowledge. International organizations such as UNESCO and GEF have been key allies in advancing inclusive policies, while projects implemented without social dialogue—even under the banner of conservation—have often reproduced patterns of exclusion and cultural erasure. The contemporary challenge, therefore, lies in consolidating culturally just and participatory conservation models, in which biodiversity protection advances hand in hand with the preservation of the ways of life that have sustained it for centuries.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 9 #5111

Brazil has implemented multiple participatory and inclusive approaches in its conservation projects, centered on free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and community involvement. These initiatives aim to ensure that Indigenous peoples, local communities, Afro-descendant populations, women, youth, and people with disabilities are active participants and partners in biodiversity conservation, restoration, and sustainable use.

Participatory Approaches and FPIC

Autonomous Consultation Protocols (RCA, 2019) – The Rede de Cooperação Amazônica (RCA) published a guide on Indigenous consultation protocols, outlining FPIC as a dialogic process between the State and Indigenous peoples. It stresses that consultations must occur in good faith, respect the self-determination and internal governance of each people, and be guided by their own consultation protocols. These protocols ensure that Indigenous communities define how, when, and under what conditions consultations take place, guaranteeing culturally appropriate participation and consent.

The Suruí Carbon Project (Rondônia) – The Paiter-Suruí developed one of the most emblematic FPIC-based initiatives in Brazil. The project’s governance included “communicative events,” documenting internal and interethnic meetings where clans, villages, and traditional leaders sought consensus. Decisions were made collectively, reflecting Suruí temporal and social structures. The process began autonomously, with no external imposition, and achieved 95% community approval during the first general assembly. This case became an international reference for ethical environmental collaboration and Indigenous participation in REDD+ and carbon projects.

Traditional Peoples’ Letter (Pre-COP, 2025) – During Brazil’s Pre-COP conference, 28 traditional peoples and community groups presented a public letter affirming that their territories and knowledge “are not negotiable.” The letter called for direct participation in national climate policies and NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) and insisted on the right to veto extractive or energy projects affecting their lands. It also highlighted the central role of women as “guardians of ancestral knowledge” and the need to address their invisibility in climate governance. Youth participation was also emphasized, with demands for access to rural development programs and contextualized education that respects Indigenous and Afro-Brazilian realities.

Quilombola Governance – The “Naturezas Quilombolas” Initiative (2024) – Funded by the Amazon Fund, this program supports Afro-descendant rural communities (quilombolas) in managing their territories sustainably. With more than 7,600 quilombola communities identified in Brazil, these lands are among the most preserved—responsible for only 0.04% of Amazon deforestation in 2023. The initiative provides grants for community-led projects, technical training, and long-term governance structures, recognizing quilombolas as essential allies in forest conservation and climate resilience.

Awareness and Inclusion Programs

Women’s Leadership in Conservation – The Inatú Amazônia network, supported by Idesam, empowers women producers of oils and non-timber forest products. Between 2019 and 2023, it conserved over 2 million hectares, generated R$ 9 million in sales, and trained 167 women leaders. The initiative addresses gender inequality and emphasizes that empowering women strengthens local economies and environmental protection.

Gender and Protected Areas (FUNBIO, 2025) – The COPAÍBAS Program’s report “Gender in Protected Areas” underscores that women play vital roles as knowledge keepers and environmental defenders. It recommends gender parity in park management councils, leadership training, and inclusive scheduling of decision-making meetings. The program aligns with the CBD and Agenda 21, reaffirming that sustainable development is impossible without gender equity and the recognition of racial and class inequalities.

Accessibility and People with Disabilities – The “Nature for All” guide (Instituto Semeia, ICMBio, and Instituto Novo Ser, 2021) highlights the importance of accessibility in protected areas. A 2018 national survey found that only 33% of conservation units included accessibility measures. The guide proposes design adaptations, inclusive communication, and staff training. Case studies, such as Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park, showcase accessible trails and facilities, proving that inclusive tourism enhances both social justice and local economies.

Youth and Intergenerational Participation – Many conservation programs integrate environmental education and youth protagonism. The Pre-COP Letter urged investments in popular education and leadership programs for young people, ensuring transmission of traditional knowledge and long-term stewardship. Projects like Inatú Amazônia also create income opportunities that encourage youth to remain in their communities rather than migrating to urban centers.

Impacts of Promoting Inclusive Participation

1. More Effective Conservation – FPIC-based projects like the Suruí Carbon initiative achieve stronger community buy-in and long-term ecological protection. Quilombola territories’ extremely low deforestation rates demonstrate the success of community-led conservation.

2. Valorization of Knowledge and Innovation – Incorporating traditional knowledge leads to innovative, culturally grounded solutions. Women-led cooperatives merge ancestral extraction techniques with modern sustainable production chains, combining conservation with economic empowerment.

3. Social and Environmental Justice – Recognizing the rights of Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples—particularly their right to veto harmful projects—builds equity and strengthens environmental governance.

4. Youth and Knowledge Succession – Involving young people ensures continuity of cultural practices and environmental stewardship, linking ancestral wisdom to modern conservation science.

5. Accessibility and Broader Support – Making nature accessible to people with disabilities expands public engagement, fostering empathy, inclusion, and broader support for environmental protection.

In conclusion, participatory and inclusive conservation in Brazil has transformed biodiversity governance. Projects grounded in FPIC, gender equity, cultural diversity, and universal accessibility not only safeguard ecosystems but also strengthen democracy, social justice, and community resilience—aligning Brazil’s conservation strategies with the global goals of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the UN 2030 Agenda.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 8 #5110

Brazil has implemented a robust set of measures to document, preserve, and value traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity, in accordance with its commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol, ratified in 2021 and in force since 2025. These actions aim to ensure respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional communities, promoting the sustainable use of natural resources and recognizing their knowledge, values, and cultural practices.

The main legal framework is Law No. 13.123/2015, regulated by Decree No. 8.772/2016, which established the National System for the Management of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen). This system mandates the registration of research, products, and activities that use genetic resources or traditional knowledge, requiring free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from the communities and ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. The registered information feeds into the database of the Genetic Heritage Management Council (CGen), a collegiate body of the Ministry of the Environment that oversees and regulates access and use of this knowledge.

Another key instrument is the National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities (PNPCT), established by Decree No. 6.040/2007, which defines guidelines for recognizing, valuing, and strengthening traditional knowledge systems and practices, as well as their integration into environmental conservation processes. Complementarily, the **National Policy for Territorial and Environmental Management of Indigenous Lands (PNGATI)**, created by Decree No. 7.747/2012, promotes the protection of Indigenous territories and ways of life, encouraging participatory methodologies such as ethnomapping and ethno-zoning, which document biodiversity management practices and knowledge in culturally appropriate ways.

In the field of cultural heritage, the National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) uses the National Inventory of Cultural References (INRC) and the Registry of Intangible Cultural Heritage to recognize and document traditional knowledge, celebrations, and ways of making linked to biodiversity—such as agricultural systems and medicinal plant practices. These inventories are essential for safeguarding cultural expressions connected to Brazil’s ecosystems.

In recent years, Brazil has also developed mechanisms for community and territorial recognition through the TICCA Brazil Registration Guide (2023), created by organizations like Mupan and Wetlands International. This guide assists Indigenous and traditional communities in voluntarily registering their Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (TICCA/ICCAs), granting formal recognition to community-based conservation and sustainable management practices.

Furthermore, CONABIO Resolution No. 09/2024, which defines the National Biodiversity Targets for 2030, incorporated the axis of “valuing socio-biodiversity and traditional knowledge.” The resolution emphasizes integrating Indigenous knowledge into environmental governance, ensuring that conservation planning respects cultural diversity and the symbolic values of communities. It also reinforces the importance of free, prior, and informed consent, community participation in management councils, and equitable access to economic benefits from the use of genetic resources.

Finally, the 6th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2023) highlighted projects focused on mapping and valuing traditional foods and sustainable biodiversity use practices, as well as Amazon Fund initiatives evaluating the effectiveness of Indigenous and community-based conservation. The report also emphasized the integration of scientific and traditional knowledge, promoting participatory methodologies and cultural indicators for biodiversity monitoring.

Altogether, these legal, institutional, and community instruments form a comprehensive framework for protecting and valuing traditional knowledge in Brazil, articulating environmental conservation, cultural diversity, and socio-environmental justice.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 7 #5109

Human Rights Challenges Related to Biodiversity Loss and Cultural Rights Restrictions in Brazil
Context

The implementation of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) requires countries to respect and promote human rights, including the cultural rights of Indigenous Peoples, traditional communities, and other social groups. In Brazil, however, several examples demonstrate that conservation measures and biodiversity policies have sometimes conflicted with cultural rights, traditional livelihoods, and self-determination.

1. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples in Conservation Units

The creation of national parks and ecological stations in Brazil—particularly during the military regime (1964–1985)—often imposed restrictions on the traditional practices of Indigenous and riverine populations, such as hunting, fishing, small-scale agriculture, and access to sacred sites. Examples include:

Iguaçu National Park (Paraná), which prohibited the Avá-Guarani from occupying ancestral lands, restricting their cultural and spiritual connection to the forest.

Juréia-Itatins Ecological Station (São Paulo), where Caiçara and Quilombola communities were prevented from fishing and planting manioc, central to their subsistence and cultural identity.

Araguaia National Park, which restricted the Javaé people’s mobility and access to traditional food sources, threatening their cultural continuity.

These cases reveal a persistent “fortress conservation” model that prioritizes ecological protection through exclusionary practices, undermining the GBF’s human rights approach (Targets 22 and 23).

Legitimacy under International Law:
Although international law allows environmental restrictions when strictly necessary for conservation, such measures must comply with principles of proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination.
Key norms include:

ILO Convention 169 (arts. 6–7): requires free, prior, and informed consultation before adopting measures that affect Indigenous and tribal peoples.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (arts. 11–32): protects cultural heritage and land-based practices.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (art. 15): guarantees the right to take part in cultural life.
When conservation measures disregard these obligations, their legitimacy becomes questionable, even if their environmental purpose is valid.

2. The Suruí Forest Carbon Project (REDD+)

Initiated in 2009 as Brazil’s first Indigenous-led REDD+ project, the Suruí Forest Carbon Project aimed to generate carbon credits while protecting 248,000 hectares of forest in Rondônia. However, the initiative later collapsed (2018) due to:

internal divisions and unequal benefit distribution;

illegal gold mining and logging pressures;

lack of sustained consultation mechanisms and transparency.

Although conceived as a climate action project, its implementation limited traditional hunting and planting practices without providing viable alternatives, causing cultural tensions.

Legal analysis: the project’s restrictions were not inherently illegitimate but required continuous free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Its failure illustrates how environmental measures that do not adequately integrate human rights safeguards can erode local trust and legitimacy.

3. Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) and the Biodiversity Law (Law 13.123/2015)

Brazil’s Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge Law regulates research and commercialization of biodiversity-related products. While the law acknowledges traditional knowledge, it imposes bureaucratic requirements that can marginalize Indigenous and local communities.
For example, some communities argue that registering traditional knowledge in national databases compromises their intellectual and spiritual rights.

International standards: the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (2010), to which Brazil is a Party, mandates equitable sharing of benefits and the protection of Indigenous knowledge. However, implementation in Brazil has been slow and uneven, highlighting the challenge of balancing intellectual property, biodiversity conservation, and collective cultural rights.

4. Emerging Human Rights–Based Approaches

Recent advances have sought to correct historical imbalances:

The reform of the National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO) now includes Indigenous and traditional representatives.

The Ministry of Indigenous Peoples (created in 2023) and the National Secretariat for Traditional Peoples and Communities strengthen cultural rights and territorial participation.

The Municipal Law 4,225/2024 (Linhares, Espírito Santo), which recognizes the “intrinsic rights of the waves at the mouth of the Doce River,” introduces a participatory model of environmental governance grounded in local identity and collective stewardship.

Impact: these measures align Brazil’s biodiversity governance with GBF Section C, fostering legitimacy through participatory decision-making, gender equity, and recognition of biocultural rights.

Conclusion

Brazil’s experience illustrates that biodiversity conservation and human rights are deeply interconnected. While conservation units and carbon projects have sometimes restricted cultural rights, emerging rights-based approaches—such as FPIC, ABS mechanisms, and inclusive governance—are progressively harmonizing environmental objectives with international human rights standards. The challenge lies in ensuring that restrictions on cultural practices are legitimate, proportional, and always preceded by meaningful participation, in accordance with ILO 169, UNDRIP, and the ICESCR.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 6 #5108

Measures in Brazil to Ensure Human Rights in the Implementation of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
Context

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) emphasizes, in its Section C, that implementation must be grounded in human rights, including the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), gender equality, and intergenerational justice. In Brazil, several measures have been taken to align biodiversity policies with these principles, promoting inclusion, transparency, and community participation in national biodiversity governance.

1. National Consultation and the Updating of the Brazilian Biodiversity Strategy (EPANB/NBSAP)

In 2023–2024, Brazil conducted a broad participatory process to update its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (EPANB/NBSAP) in line with the GBF. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MMA) organized regional, sectoral, and national consultations that gathered more than 140 Indigenous and local representatives (with participation expected to exceed 300).
An online consultation via the Participa+Brasil platform expanded access to civil society, while the National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO) was restructured to include representatives from Indigenous, traditional, and quilombola communities, women’s organizations, and youth groups.
Impact: These processes broadened legitimacy and social ownership of the GBF in Brazil, improving alignment between national biodiversity targets and local priorities.

2. Institutional and Legal Measures for Inclusion and Rights Recognition

The creation of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples (2023) and the National Secretariat for Traditional Peoples and Communities and Sustainable Development strengthened Indigenous representation in biodiversity and land governance.

Gender-focused leadership training workshops were held for Indigenous women leaders in 2023, enhancing their participation in biodiversity-related decision-making.

Municipal governments, such as Linhares (Espírito Santo), advanced rights-based innovations: Law No. 4,225/2024 recognized the “intrinsic rights of the waves at the mouth of the Doce River,” creating a participatory committee including surfers, fisherfolk, local residents, and public officials. This law institutionalized community co-management of a natural entity as a cultural and ecological heritage.
Impact: These measures expanded the concept of environmental governance, linking biodiversity protection to cultural identity, gender equity, and environmental justice.

3. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Human Rights Impact Assessments

Projects with potential socio-environmental impacts—such as conservation units, REDD+ initiatives, and carbon credit schemes—are now required to comply with FPIC standards under ILO Convention 169. Brazil’s National Human Rights Council has also recommended the adoption of Human Rights and Environmental Impact Assessments (HR-EIAs) for biodiversity projects, especially those affecting Indigenous territories and traditional communities.
Impact: These instruments have reduced the occurrence of social conflicts in conservation planning and improved compliance with international obligations under the CBD and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

4. Multi-Stakeholder Governance and Monitoring Mechanisms

The Biodiversity Committee of the Brazilian Association of State Environmental Agencies (ABEMA) and multi-stakeholder working groups established under CONABIO now monitor GBF implementation. The use of digital participatory platforms (such as Participa+Brasil) has made consultation processes transparent and accessible nationwide.
Impact: These governance innovations have strengthened accountability and integration between federal and state biodiversity policies, facilitating progress monitoring of GBF Targets 22 (participation and gender equality) and 23 (human rights-based approach).

Conclusion

Brazil’s approach to implementing the GBF demonstrates how biodiversity policy can serve as a platform for human rights realization. Through participatory consultation, institutional reforms, legal recognition of community rights, and integration of FPIC and HR-EIA mechanisms, Brazil has advanced toward a model of biodiversity governance that respects cultural diversity, strengthens local autonomy, and links conservation outcomes with social and environmental justice.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 5 #5107

Examples of Conservation Projects and Measures that Faced Challenges or Failed Due to Disregard for Local Values and Priorities
1. Iguaçu National Park and the Avá-Guarani People

Context: The Iguaçu National Park (Parque Nacional do Iguaçu) was created in 1939 to protect the Iguaçu Falls, a natural and tourist landmark. The park was established without consulting the Avá-Guarani people, who had lived in the area for generations. The absence of prior consultation and the expulsion of Indigenous families caused a lasting conflict.
Consequences: In 2023, Brazil’s Federal Court again prohibited the Avá-Guarani from entering their ancestral territories, despite their demand for recognition of traditional rights under ILO Convention 169. The case highlights the tension between conservation policies and Indigenous self-determination: by excluding traditional land use, the project undermined both social justice and the long-term sustainability of the protected area.

2. The Suruí Forest Carbon Project (REDD+)

Context: Launched in 2009, the Suruí Forest Carbon Project was Brazil’s first Indigenous-led REDD+ initiative, designed to generate carbon credits by preventing deforestation in Rondônia. The project was internationally celebrated and supported by corporations such as Natura.
Challenges and Failure: According to the 2019 Forest Trends report, the project eventually collapsed due to several interrelated issues: internal divisions within the Paiter Suruí community, ideological opposition from the Catholic Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI), slow and unequal distribution of financial benefits, and increased illegal logging and gold mining within the territory. Many community members felt the project imposed an external agenda and did not align with their cultural priorities or daily economic needs. The project was officially suspended in 2018.
Lesson: The case shows how top-down carbon projects can fail when they do not incorporate Indigenous governance structures and mechanisms for equitable benefit-sharing.

3. Ka’apor Territory Carbon Credit Project (Maranhão)

Context: In 2023, a private company signed a carbon credit agreement with leaders from the Ka’apor Indigenous Territory in Maranhão, aiming to trade carbon offsets without proper federal authorization.
Outcome: Brazil’s Federal Court suspended the project after recognizing that it had been implemented without free, prior, and informed consultation (FPIC). The ruling emphasized that, under the Constitution and ILO Convention 169, Indigenous territories are public lands under federal management, and no private contract can assign carbon rights without community consensus and government approval.
Lesson: The project’s suspension illustrates that conservation or carbon initiatives carried out without legitimate Indigenous participation are not only socially unjust but also legally invalid.

4. Creation of Conservation Units and the Displacement of Traditional Communities

Context: Throughout the 20th century, numerous national parks and ecological stations in Brazil were created using an exclusionary “fortress conservation” model that removed the people who had historically inhabited these territories—such as extractivist families in the Amazon and coastal caiçara communities. Examples include the establishment of the Serra do Mar State Park and parts of the Amazonian conservation mosaic.
Consequences: According to studies by the NUPAUB/USP research center and reports by WWF-Brazil, these displacements generated social injustice, cultural loss, and hostility toward environmental agencies. In many cases, local communities—once natural guardians of the environment—became marginalized and associated conservation policies with repression.
Lesson: Excluding traditional populations erodes trust, increases illegal exploitation, and undermines the effectiveness of conservation goals. Participatory and co-management approaches are essential to align biodiversity protection with social equity.

Conclusion

These cases reveal a recurring pattern: conservation and climate-finance projects often fail when they disregard local worldviews, traditional livelihoods, and the right to self-determination. Sustainable environmental governance depends on respect for cultural diversity, equitable benefit-sharing, and genuine participation in decision-making. Only by aligning conservation goals with community aspirations can preservation efforts achieve both ecological resilience and social legitimacy.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 4 #5106

Conservation Projects Integrating Traditional Knowledge and Practices
This report identifies examples of conservation initiatives in Brazil that have incorporated traditional knowledge, languages, ways of life, and local practices in their design and implementation. It highlights how these resources have positively influenced project outcomes, as well as the challenges observed.
1. Mangues da Amazônia Project
Developed by civil society organizations in northern Brazil, this project promotes the restoration of Amazonian mangroves through community participation and cultural identity. It integrates traditional fishing and shellfish-collecting knowledge with ecological education. Local women, known as “Mothers of the Mangroves,” lead reforestation and sustainable collection activities while transmitting knowledge about tidal cycles and crab reproduction.
Positive impact: increased mangrove restoration, community empowerment, and youth environmental education.
Challenges: balancing traditional harvesting with market pressures for crab and shrimp.
2. Águas do Tapajós – OMEC Initiative
This community-based project supports riverine populations along the Tapajós River through “Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures” (OMECs). It values local ecological knowledge about fish breeding, flood cycles, and seasonal river dynamics, expressed through traditional languages and oral narratives.
Positive impact: recognition of local management systems strengthened community governance and reduced illegal fishing.
Challenges: limited state recognition and insufficient technical support for monitoring.
3. Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve and the Inclusive Bioeconomy Program (Embrapa)
The reserve, created through the struggles of rubber tappers led by Chico Mendes, remains a model of community-based forest management. Current Embrapa projects integrate local practices for latex extraction and forest management with research on inclusive bioeconomy, combining scientific and traditional knowledge to create sustainable income sources.
Positive impact: preservation of the Amazon forest, social organization of extractive communities, and reduced deforestation rates.
Challenges: dependence on fluctuating markets for natural rubber and limited funding for infrastructure.
4. Kalunga Quilombo – Guardians of the Cerrado
Located in Goiás, the Kalunga Quilombo community preserves over 83 % of native Cerrado vegetation through traditional rotational agriculture, collective land management, and sacred practices tied to springs and hills.
Positive impact: biodiversity preservation and the protection of cultural heritage recognized by Brazil’s National Historical and Artistic Heritage Institute (IPHAN).
Challenges: threats from agricultural expansion and lack of technical assistance for sustainable tourism.
5. Rede de Sementes do Xingu (Xingu Seeds Network)
This network links Indigenous peoples, rural settlers, and NGOs in collecting and selling native seeds for large-scale forest restoration. Communities such as the Yudjá and Kayapó apply traditional ecological knowledge of species and soil cycles to seed collection.
Results: over 620 seed collectors, BRL 1.5 million in income generated, and 500 hectares restored between 2020 and 2024.
Challenges: variable demand for seeds and logistical difficulties in reaching remote areas.
6. Projeto Tamar (Sea Turtle Conservation Program)
Active since 1980, TAMAR integrates scientific research with the participation of coastal fishing communities. Former turtle hunters became conservation agents and environmental educators. Traditional maritime knowledge—currents, moon phases, and nesting sites—has been crucial for monitoring and protecting five sea-turtle species.
Positive impact: recovery of sea-turtle populations, local employment, and cultural revitalization through community-based ecotourism and art.
Challenges: balancing tourism growth with species protection and ensuring long-term funding.

Conclusion
Across these experiences, the integration of traditional knowledge, languages, and practices has proven essential to the success of conservation initiatives. Projects that respect and include local voices tend to produce more lasting social and environmental results. However, they require continuous institutional support, fair benefit-sharing, and cultural recognition to ensure sustainability and equity in biodiversity conservation.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: Cultural Rights General Question 3: #5105

Several widespread beliefs and practices in Brazilian society continue to hinder nature conservation.
A World Resources Institute (WRI-Brazil) report identifies six key structural barriers explaining ongoing forest degradation: forests are treated as political capital and bargaining tools in patronage systems; the economy still values trees more dead than alive, linking “development” to logging, cattle ranching, and mining; conservation lacks financial incentives; insecure land tenure excludes Indigenous and traditional communities from decision-making even though they occupy only a fraction of their rightful territory; environmental governance is fragmented among federal, state, and municipal levels; and laws, though progressive, are undermined by corruption and weak enforcement.
Beyond institutional failures, cultural attitudes perpetuate destructive myths. Research by the Capitals Coalition notes that political opponents of Indigenous land demarcation spread the slogan “too much land for too few Indians.” In fact, Indigenous Lands cover 13.5 % of Brazil’s territory, shelter one-fifth of Amazonian species, store 13 gigatons of carbon, and maintain more vegetation than adjacent areas. This prejudice delegitimizes Indigenous territories, fuels land grabbing and violence, and accelerates deforestation. Another widespread harmful practice is improper waste disposal. According to Brasil Escola, roughly 20 million Brazilians lack garbage collection, leading to waste accumulation in forests, rivers, and vacant lots, which causes flooding and pollution. The same source highlights that agricultural expansion, burning, and urban growth are central causes of biodiversity loss across Brazilian biomes.
To reverse these trends, deep cultural change is required. The WRI recommends reshaping the narrative that a forest’s worth depends on its conversion into resources, emphasizing instead the economic role of ecosystem services; building political coalitions that defend forests; and securing funding for conservation. The Capitals Coalition stresses that guaranteeing territorial rights for Indigenous and traditional peoples is essential to maintain vegetation and biodiversity—thus, the “too-much-land” myth must be dismantled, and these groups recognized as allies of conservation. Brasil Escola underscores cultural and educational strategies such as expanding environmental education, promoting conscious consumption, recycling, reforesting degraded lands, adopting sustainable farming practices, and increasing renewable-energy use.
In short, the most urgent cultural transformations include:
• Valuing the living forest — abandoning the frontier mentality that equates progress with clearing vegetation and integrating the economic and spiritual worth of ecosystems into decision-making.
• Strengthening Indigenous and traditional territorial rights — combating rhetoric that delegitimizes their lands and recognizing that their stewardship sustains biodiversity and carbon stocks.
• Promoting environmental education and responsible consumption — raising awareness of the impacts of deforestation, fires, and waste, encouraging behaviors that reduce pressure on natural resources.
• Improving governance and enforcement — overcoming institutional fragmentation, combating corruption, and ensuring that environmental laws are effectively implemented.
• Financing conservation — creating economic instruments that reward communities and landowners who protect ecosystems.
Together, these cultural and institutional shifts can transform how Brazilian society perceives nature—moving from exploitation toward reciprocity—and build the foundation for lasting protection of the country’s natural resources and biodiversity.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: General Question 2: #5104

Indigenous forests and Amazonian rivers are identity reference points for hundreds of Indigenous peoples. An article by The Nature Conservancy on forest conservation notes that Indigenous territories occupy about 14 % of Brazil’s land and form large blocks of forest that act as barriers against deforestation. The lives of these communities revolve around rivers and streams; the consumption, hygiene and leisure of riverside families depend on the water and fish, and the protection of these waters is central to their health and culture. The article adds that only 2.5 % of Indigenous land in the Amazon has been cleared, whereas deforestation on private rural properties reaches 52.5 %. This shows that Indigenous ways of life preserve the forest and are viewed by Brazilian society as part of the national heritage.
In the Atlantic Forest, the Guarani Mbya people live in patches of forest near major cities and have begun reforestation projects. A report in Yale E360 describes how the community of Yvy Porã, in São Paulo, noticed the disappearance of native bees and started to keep hives and plant native trees. The study referenced points out that Indigenous peoples are considered land protectors: besides resisting deforestation, they carry out restoration projects such as reintroducing bees and planting native species. The article states that granting land titles to villages reduces deforestation and allows the forest to recover. For the Guarani, the forest and the creatures within it are not just resources; they are part of their identity, and preserving them ensures the continuity of their way of life.
The São Francisco River — known as the “Velho Chico” — is described as “a vital artery of life, history and resilience” for populations in Brazil’s northeast. An article written by a farm on its banks recalls that the river sustained Indigenous peoples for millennia, providing fishing, agriculture and spiritual practices, so it is seen as a provider and sacred space. Today, farmers like those in the article strive to use the water responsibly and replant riparian forests to protect the ecosystem. By participating in watershed committees and management programs, communities show that the “Velho Chico” is a cultural and natural heritage whose preservation ensures their own survival.
Along the northern coast, networks of women called “Mothers of the Mangroves” act as guardians of mangrove ecosystems. A report from Mongabay says that hundreds of women from traditional Amazonian communities organise forums, workshops and seminars to teach sustainable fishing and shellfishing, respecting breeding periods to protect crab populations. They live in extractive reserves such as São João da Ponta that permit subsistence use alongside conservation. A leader from the network explains that caring for the coastline and territory is a legacy and responsibility; for them, mangroves are not just a source of food but are “responsible for life on the planet”. This understanding places mangroves at the centre of their identity and motivates their struggle to protect the ecosystem.
Beyond Indigenous lands, Brazil has Private Natural Heritage Reserves (RPPNs). These conservation units are created voluntarily by landowners and have been legally recognised since 1990; there are about 1,500 reserves covering 772,000 hectares. RPPNs allow scientific research, tourism and environmental education compatible with conservation and remain protected even when the property is sold. Environmentalist Beto Mesquita calls them “an achievement of Brazilian society” and says they show citizens’ and companies’ commitment to safeguarding natural heritage. Likewise, extractive reserves such as the Chico Mendes Reserve protect the forest and ensure the livelihood of rubber tappers; studies show these areas have reduced forest destruction and provided economic autonomy for residents.
A unique example of community connection with a natural element is Municipal Law 4,225/2024 of Linhares, Espírito Santo. The law recognises the waves at the mouth of the Rio Doce, in Regência, as a specially protected entity. It states that the municipality recognises the “intrinsic rights of the waves” and that public authorities and the community must respect, protect and conserve their integrity and identity. Among the rights recognised are existing with their ecological conditions, maintaining free water bodies, protecting areas of cultural, environmental and tourism interest, and allowing a biocultural relationship through activities such as surfing, artisanal fishing and agroecology in harmony with the bem viver philosophy. The law establishes a committee made up of surfers, residents, surfing associations and public representatives to ensure community participation in management. This legislation shows that the people of Regência see their waves as part of the common heritage and wish to preserve them as a cultural and ecological symbol.
In addition to this pioneering law, the Brazilian Surfing Reserve Program selected in 2024 four beaches — Francês, Itamambuca, Regência and Moçambique — as National Surfing Reserves. According to the Instituto APRENDER, the aim of the reserves is to recognise, value and protect surfing ecosystems with environmental, cultural and economic attributes. Candidate sites were assessed based on wave quality, socio ecological characteristics, surfing history and culture and community engagement. The programme emphasises that the participation of local communities is essential for implementation and plans to set up management committees for each reserve. Thus the waves and beaches become not just recreational spaces but identity elements that mobilise residents, surfers and authorities around conservation.
In Brazil, various natural elements are viewed as cultural and spiritual heritage. Forests, rivers, mangroves, waves and reserves reflect collective ways of life and identities. Indigenous and traditional peoples maintain reciprocal relationships with nature; coastal communities preserve waves and mangroves as sources of subsistence and cultural symbols; farmers and landowners create private reserves to protect ecosystems. These initiatives show that nature conservation in the country is deeply linked to feelings of belonging and a desire to pass on a healthy environment to future generations.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

in reply to: General Question 1: #5103

Various Brazilian myths and practices help to instil a sense of respect for and protection of nature. Curupira, for example, appears as a small figure with flaming hair and backward‑turned feet who acts as the forest’s guardian, punishing loggers and hunters who exploit it by causing them to become lost. Another figure, Caipora, protects small game and punishes those who ignore sustainable hunting rules, such as hunting pregnant females or hunting on forbidden days; these stories function as taboos enforcing sustainable hunting. Boitatá, a fiery serpent, frightens those who cause wildfires and symbolises the defence of fields and forests against burning. In the Amazon, legends about the river dolphin (boto) say that killing or eating the animal brings bad luck; it is seen as the guardian of manatees and thus discourages the capture of aquatic mammals.
Indigenous worldviews reinforce these values. Peoples such as the Yanomami view the forest as a living being and maintain a reciprocal relationship with it. Yanomami leader Davi Kopenawa explains that trees hold up the sky; cutting them down would cause the sky to fall and humanity to perish. These communities hold knowledge of sustainable management passed down through generations and resist mining and deforestation on their lands.
In Afro‑Brazilian religions such as Candomblé and Umbanda, nature is sacred; plants and leaves house the orixás. The saying “without leaves there is no orixá” shows the importance of vegetation. Priests lead reforestation, replant what they harvest and promote environmental education. Among quilombolas and other traditional communities, nature is part of identity and survival; community fields, artisanal fishing and forest management preserve biodiversity, and the concept of bem viver guides a harmonious relationship with the environment. Extractive reserves, created by rubber tappers, are another example of communal management; they protect forests, ensure livelihoods and reduce destruction. On the coast, the jangadas used for artisanal fishing reveal the communities’ link to the sea; this way of sailing respects winds and tides and is passed down through generations.
These beliefs and ways of life are also reflected in physical expressions and sports. Capoeira Angola, created in forested quilombos, combines fighting, dance and music; environmental education projects integrate capoeira with agroecology classes, awakening environmental awareness among children and young people. On the coast of Santa Catarina, the community of Guarda do Embaú obtained the status of World Surfing Reserve; the combination of world‑class waves and preserved landscape has created a surf community oriented toward conservation that uses the sport to promote coastal activism. In 2024 a municipality in Espírito Santo legally recognised a wave as a subject of rights, granting it the right to exist, regenerate and retain the natural flow of the river feeding it; this initiative, aligned with the rights‑of‑nature movement, strengthens estuary protection. Even Catholic celebrations, such as Saint Francis of Assis’s feast with blessings of animals, reinforce compassion for living beings and encourage care for fauna. Thus myths, religious practices, communal ways of life and sports show that, in Brazil, protecting nature is not just an ecological necessity but a core element of cultural and spiritual identity.

[Author]

Posts