PROTECTED AREAS AND THEIR MULTIPLE TERRITORIALITIES - A SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REFLECTION ON CATIMBAU NATIONAL PARK - BRAZIL¹

Abstract

In the 1970s, the social impacts of protected areas (PAs) began to be widely recognized as conservationist thinking and human rights evolved to an acceptance that conservation can be achieved in collaboration with traditional communities. However, such a 'human face' given to conservation is still not present in some 21^st century PAs: Catimbau National Park - CNP (Northeast Brazil) is a strict protection park which does not allow people residing inside its borders. Thirteen years after its creation, people are still confused about the monetary compensations and displacements strategies. In this study, a review of the bibliography concerning the CNP is performed and a proposal is made to change the current park classification from National Park to Natural Monument, allowing for private areas and their residents, providing that their use of its natural resources is compatible with the conservation objectives stipulated.

Keywords:
Protected areas; traditional communities; social impacts; semiarid region; Kapinawá

Resumen

En los años 70, los impactos sociales de las áreas protegidas comenzó a ser reconocido como el pensamiento conservacionista y los derechos humanos han evolucionado a la comprensión de que la conservación se puede lograr con la colaboración de las comunidades tradicionales. Este "rostro humano" permanece ausente en algunas áreas protegidas en el siglo 21: el Parque Nacional Catimbau (PNC - noreste de Brasil), es un parque estrictamente protegido, lo que significa que la residencia de población en su límites no está permitido. Trece años después de su creación, la gente continúa confundidos acerca de la compensación monetaria y las estrategias de desplazamiento. Este estudio, realizó una revisión de la literatura en la PNC y propone cambiar la actual clasificación de Parque Nacional para Monumento Natural, lo que permite la existencia de áreas particulares asegurando que es posible conciliar los objetivos de unidad con el uso de los recursos naturales.

Palabras clave:
Unidades de conservación; comunidades tradicionales; impactos sociales; región semiárida; Kapinawá

1. Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) are one of the main strategies used for environmental protection and a cornerstone of land management policies worldwide. Emerging in the US in the nineteenth century, the PA ideology was based on a negative nature-society relation: nature could only be preserved if kept uninhabited, set aside for science and recreation purposes, but otherwise left untouched (COATES, 1998; COLCHESTER, 2004; REDFORD; STEARMAN, 1993). This 'traditional preservationist' point of view, whereby the aesthetic, biological and ecological features of the environment are highly valued, tends to exclude completely the social aspect inherent to PAs creation (ABAKERLI, 2001). Until the mid-1960s, PAs were set up around the world favoring top-down approaches by states with little or no concern for their impact on local people (WEST et al., 2006).

The social impacts of PAs began to be widely recognized in the 1970s when the idea that parks should be socially and economically inclusive began to become widespread in general conservation thinking (ADAMS; HUTTON, 2007). Gradually, several social actors responsible for PA creation and maintenance have been accepting the importance of the traditional communities (indigenous peoples, quilombolas - slave descendants' communities, rubber tappers and so on) and of the local communities inside PAs and in the surrounding areas, taking into account their rights, responsibilities and interests. This recognition is a result of the understanding that PAs are complex systems and that when creating them, an overlapping of territorialities occurs: a protected area is simultaneously a conservation territory, a scientific research territory, a production territory, a living space territory, a culture and landscape territory and more. Multiple territorialities have originated from multiple uses and multiple social actors involved in or affected by the delimitation of such areas (COELHO et al., 2009).

In 2000 the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) jointly published their 'Principles and Guidelines on Protected Areas and Indigenous/Traditional Peoples' (NELSON e HOSSACK, 2003), in which they recognize the rights of indigenous and other traditional peoples inhabiting PAs, their importance in the co-management of resources and contribution to the management of PAs and also their knowledge, innovations and practices when integrated to government and PA managers, as a means to enhance biodiversity conservation (BELTRÁN, 2000).

With the creation of the National Protected Areas System (SNUC - Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação), in 2000, the Brazilian government innovated in the legal organization and protection of natural resources by categorizing them, thereby homogenizing public policies on the subject and defining specific geographical areas of important biological interest (PAs). On the other hand, that has favored the institutionalization of environmental conflicts and territorial disputes over resources within the limits of, and around those spaces (MARTINS, 2012). Many are the research works that make exhaustive descriptions of Pas multiple spheres - their socioeconomic, political and environmental aspects -, but few suggest changes in the established political categorization or any real actions based on a joint evaluation of all those spheres in order to avoid conflicts among the various interested parties of the territory.

This paper is divided into two main sections. Section 1 makes an overview of the origins and founding ideas behind the creation of PAs world-wide. It discusses the US National Park movement, the complex social and economic implications of the idea of nature as pristine and dichotomized from humans, and the emergence of alternative approaches to conservation. Section 2 examines the origins and various types of PAs in Brazil, focusing on Catimbau National Park (CNP) and its social impacts on people living inside and around its borders. In this section, we perform a bibliographic review addressing the CNP's social impacts and suggesting a main action: the transformation of the CNP into a Natural Monument in order to conciliate human activities and wildlife preservation.

2. Protected areas: an overview of their origins and impacts

2.1. Protected areas and their origins

Whenever protected areas history is researched, recurrently the Yellowstone National Park, created in 1872 in USA, is cited as the oldest. However, the idea that certain portions of land should be set aside and protected because of their natural beauties and biological uniqueness can be traced back to the Assyrians, a Middle East civilization that established natural reserves in the first millennium B.C. (COLCHESTER, 1994). In Medieval Europe, vast forested areas protected by the king were already being created and designated as Parks. At that time, a Park was referred to as a limited area in which animals lived in nature and where only royalty could hunt (RUNTE, 1997). In Europe, hunting reserves and reserved forests arrogated to the State and where local people had little or no access became routine techniques of land management in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and were broadly applied in the colonies (COLCHESTER, 2004). Therefore, although its author is unknown, the preservation idea goes back many centuries.

Despite those previous experiences, the modern concept of Park only came with the advent of Yellowstone, where the union of protection and public access first emerged. Therefore, it was in the United States that the concept of National Park created by State intervention to protect natural areas from selfish exploitation of the few arose, in order to ensure the usufruct of all in aeternum (MORSELLO, 2008). To that vision of a Park for public use through tourism and recreation, an environmental vision was gradually added. Thus, national parks gained increasing importance for nature and its respective biodiversity's preservation, emerging as a new 'ecological concern' (RUNTE, 1997).

According to Brito (2000), this evolution of the protected areas concept was occasioned by increased scientific knowledge, especially in the natural sciences. In most cases, the increasing of economic development provided an improvement in people's quality of life, but at the expenses of nature whose ecosystems were severely damaged. This same author states that, from that moment onwards, the creation of protected areas plays the role of 'the antithesis of development'.

Two main currents influenced concern about nature and natural resources during the twentieth century: the preservationist ideal of John Muir (1838-1914) and the conservationism of Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946). Preservationist initiatives intended to protect nature for posterity and were strongly linked to the creation of national parks. The creation of national parks to preserve natural areas endowed with great natural beauty in their wild state influenced the views of authors such as Thoreau and Marsh, motivated by new discoveries in the field of biology. Human beings are seen as part of the natural environment which is contemplated in the light of its aesthetic characteristics (FRANCO and DRUMMOND, 2009; MACCORMICK, 1992). On the other hand, conservationists believed in the possibility of a rational exploitation of the forests, soil, water and other natural resources. Conservationists have an instrumental perspective of man's relationship with nature. They favor the use of natural resources in a sustainable manner ensuring their existence for future generations and their better distribution among the entire population.

The idea of Park matured and progressively gained more strength, slowly until 1920 and 1930, when it increased significantly. During World War II, concern for conservation stagnated, but in the 1950s it gained a new impulse, especially between 1970 and 1980 when the number of PAs doubled in comparison to those registered in 1969 (MORSELLO, 2008).

In 1998, the World Conservation Union recognized 9,869 protected areas, corresponding to 931,787,396 ha (6.29% of earth surface) (UNEP-WCMC, 2006). According to the World Database on Protected Areas' (WDPA) most recent statistical data, in 2014 the number of PAs rose to 197,368 (terrestrial areas), protecting a total area of 20.6 million km², which represents 15.4% of terrestrial and inland water areas (IUCN; UNEP-WCMC, 2014).

As the number of PAs rose all over the world, the confusion concerning the concept of park increased, resulting in an enormous variety of different meanings. This inconsistency was seen as a major impediment to gaining popular support, encouraging planning strategies or conducting scientific studies (MACHLIS; TICHNELL, 1985). Therefore, in 1930, the first attempt to establish a unique concept was made through international agreements for nature protection. With the same purpose, the London International Conference for the Protection of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State took place in 1993. In 1940, the 'Washington Convention' was signed in which the signatory countries committed themselves to focus efforts on the establishment of new protected areas in their territories. After several more international conventions, in 1948 the International Union for the Protection of Nature was created and later in 1965, it gave rise to the IUCN, which persists to this day (BRITO, 1995).

An important achievement of IUCN was the creation, in 1958, of the WCPA, the world's premier network of protected area expertise, which has as one of its primary functions, to identify and draw up an inventory of all protected areas in the world (MORSELLO, 2008). Nowadays, a definition for Protected Area (KEENLEYSIDE et al., 2012: 8) widely accepted across regional and global frameworks and provided by IUCN in its categorization guidelines for PAs is as follows:

'A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values'

2.2. Protected areas and their impacts

The political strategy to conserve nature through the creation of parks emerged in a context of capitalist solidification, rapid urbanization and frontier settlement in the USA (ABAKERLI, 2001). PAs were conceived to preserve nature from abusive human exploitation, for the benefit of future generations. However, in order to do so, the exclusion of residents was considered essential. The denying of indigenous peoples' rights and, often, their eviction from their homelands, resulted in long-term conflicts and even death (COLCHESTER, 2004). For instance, in Yellowstone, the implementation of the natural park by the State completely excluded the indigenous peoples who lived in and depended on its natural resources to survive, leading to resistance and the subsequent killing of hundreds of Indians (KELLER; TUREK, 1998). In addition, this first American Protected Area, created under the motto of 'preservation of reminiscent large areas of natural landscape for public recreation in order to prevent others forms of economical exploration far more damaging to nature' was actually, according to Sellars (1997), from the very beginning, a way to serve corporate interests based on tourism. Private corporations with close relations with the federal government strongly influenced the kind of land use and economy by stimulating the creation of public parks and tourism development (ABAKERLI, 2001). In the following century, the US model of nature conservation spread throughout the world.

The early PAs were created under the conception of nature as 'pristine', distinguishable and physically separated from human-transformed lands; a dichotomized conception of nature separate from human beings, an untouched nature, for which the only means of conservation is the removal of the human element. This vision rapidly brought inevitable social and economic impacts for the people surrounding the park frontiers. Direct costs to such people are hazards from crop raiding, wild animals causing crop damage, costly labor and costs for crop defenses, physical risks and even death. However, the greatest impacts of PAs are related to people's eviction (ADAMS; HUTTON, 2007; BROCKINGTON; IGOE, 2006). People displaced from PAs and those in receiving communities around the park frontiers suffer direct impacts on their livelihoods. They are no longer authorized to hunt, to collect firewood or use any of the park resources which were, in many cases, essential for their survival, leading to a wide range of risks of impoverishment, including landlessness, joblessness, food insecurity and other serious threats to people's quality of life.

In the 1970s, the social impacts of PAs began to be widely recognized as conservationist thinking and human rights evolved to an acceptance that conservation can be achieved in collaboration with indigenous peoples (ADAMS; HUTTON, 2007; COLCHESTER, 2004). By the 1980s, this 'human face' given to conservation began to change the whole conservation paradigm and feature social inclusion rather than exclusion (ADAMS; HULME, 2001; HULME; MURPHREE, 1999). After a while, it became clear that such a chain of ideas could bring several benefits to nature conservation.

A case that illustrates the contemporary importance of the debates about the relation between people's welfare and biodiversity conservation is the Nechasar National Park in Southern Ethiopia where, in 2004, 500 people were forced to leave their lands by the government in order to clear the park of encumbrances before handing it over to a private Dutch-based organization - the African Parks Foundation (APF), that would be responsible for managing the park (ADAMS; HUTTON, 2007; PEARCE, 2005). Several international human rights NGOs condemned the Ethiopian government's course of action. Again, in 2006, the Botswana High Court ruled that the eviction of Bushmen from their reserve by the Botswana government was 'unlawful and unconstitutional'.

Another case worth following up is the story of the Wauja, a small community living in the Xingu National Park in Northern Mato Grosso, Brazil. The Wauja preserved rights to their traditional lands when the park was created. However, an important part of their land was left outside the park boundary, leading them to protest to the Federal Indian Agency (FUNAI). FUNAI in turn initiated a five-year long study (in course in 1990) which was unsatisfactory to the Wauja who saw the land in question being taken over by ranchers. In 1989, after several Wauja, including the chief, were shot at by poachers, the group built a new village and an airstrip in the park near the area where poachers were penetrating. The new village was burned by a local rancher. The Wauja rebuilt the village and increased their demands to enlarge the park boundaries to include more of their traditional territory, and, when the government refused to perform a survey, they undertook it themselves. The cause became internationally known, supported by Sting and the Rainforest Foundation, and was seen as an important precedent-setting legal case in terms of increasing Indians' power to influence decisions on the boundaries of their territories. In addition, it potentially represents a ground-breaking use of non-violent resistance in a Brazilian indigenous land claim (Ireland, 1990). Their self-displacement to protect their own land and the building of an airstrip to facilitate communication with the outside world - including with people such as Sting - is particularly fascinating.

When creating and maintaining a protected area, the complex relations between population, territory and nature conservation must be taken into consideration. Territory must be seen as a portion of the Earth's surface corresponding to a space of experiences lived by people and protected areas are not necessarily 'the antithesis of development'. Many conservation projects are now including local people in their management planning, conciliating nature preservation and people's welfare.

In South America, the great majority of national parks have people residing within their boundaries, who, due to poverty, are ill-equipped to practice sustainable management. Policies of relocation or resource-use restriction have mostly been counterproductive. For instance, at Alerces National Park, created in 1937 in the Andes of southern Argentina, a boundary dispute has resulted in poor policy implementation, which prevents residents from accessing resources to which they have rights and complicates the governmental program to grant land titles. In the past, displacement and exaggeration of ethnic differences (Argentinean vs. Chilean) were significant effects of the creation of the park (Aagesen, 2000)

So, it becomes evident that to make a detailed and thorough study about the environmental characteristics of the reserve is not enough. It is of fundamental importance to profoundly investigate facts and founders ideas, conflicts between territorialities and initiatives directed at natural resource management (BEGOSSI; ÁVILA-PIRES, 2003; COELHO et al., 2009). It is vital to create rules and regulations for nature protection with the knowledge and active participation of the individuals and/or social groups existing in the space, working together in a civilizing process; multiple territorialities in harmony to achieve the best management possible of a space of environmental and cultural preservation.

The multiple territorialities notion (HAESBAERT, 2004) fits in perfectly with the ideas stated above. It appears to be a response to "deterritorialization", a myth of those who think that man can live without a territory, that society and space can be disassociated. It is as if the territory destruction movements are, in a certain way, its reconstruction on new bases.

3. Brazilian protected areas - a social and environmental reflection on the Catimbau National Par

3.1. An overview of Brazil's protected areas

In June 1992, Brazil signed the most important international agreement for the protection of biodiversity: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD's eighth article states that each of the signatory parts must, if possible and as appropriate, establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken in order to protect biological diversity (CDB, 1992). Hence, in 2000, the SNUC was legally instituted (Law 9985, July 18^th 2000), which defines protected areas as territorial spaces with relevant nature characteristics, legally instituted by the Public Authority, under a special administration regime and to which appropriate protection guaranties are applied. The SNUC has two kinds of PAs: (1) Strict Protection Areas, where only the indirect use of natural resources is allowed; and (2) Sustainable Use Areas, which permit the direct use of natural resources (SILVA, 2005). In 2006, Brazil established the 'National Goals for Biodiversity for 2010' approved by the National Commission for Biodiversity (CONABIO) where the guidelines and objectives for the conservation of protected areas are presented. The specific goal for biomes protection is the achievement of at least 30% of the Amazon Biome and 10% of all other biomes and Coastal and Marine Zones effectively preserved by PAs of the SNUC (MMA, 2007).

Between 2003 and 2008, Brazil had a prominent place in the world conservation effort, being responsible for 74% of the world's protected areas created in that period, which represents 703,864 km² (JENKINS; JOPPA, 2009). According to the National Registration of Protected Areas (CNUC), up until November 2010, the several SNUC categories covered approximately 15% of the national territory, embracing all biomes (MMA, 2011). Despite the significant numbers, the National Goal was not yet been achieved for any biome. According to the Fourth National Report for CDB (MMA, 2011), the percentage achieved was different in each biome: the Amazon presented 90% of the goal achieved which is an equivalent to 27% of the biome protected. In the other biomes, Atlantic Rainforest stands out with 8.9% of protection followed by Cerrado with 8.4% and Caatinga with 7.3%. Pantanal with 4.7% and Pampa with 3.5% represent the smaller proportion of the goal achieved (Table 1).

Table 1
National Goal for Protected Areas achievement percentages by August 2010, adapted from the Fourth National Report for CDB (MMA, 2011).

• * Including Strict Protection and Sustainable Use PAs.
• ** Including federal and state private reserves.

3.2. Catimbau National Park creation and social conflicts

Catimbau National Park (CNP) was created by constitutional decree Nº 913/12 in 2002, after work done by the Northeastern Society of Ecology (Sociedade Nordestina de Ecologia - SNE) that, under article 11 from law Nº 9985/2000, elaborated a proposal for the creation of a National Park. The Park has 62,300 ha of beautiful landscape, archaeological richness, unique biological diversity and geomorphologic rarities. The reserve is located in an area of harsh, dry climate (BShw according to Köppens classification) in the state of Pernambuco (Brazil), covering parts of Buique, Ibimirim and Tupanatinga municipalities (Figure 1). The proposal for the creation and implementation of the CNP was mainly to ensure the protection of a representative portion of the Caatinga, a unique biome, exclusively Brazilian, which covers about 12% of the national territory.

Figure 1
Catimbau National Park location using a 2010 TM Landsat 5 image, highlighting the limits of Kapinawá indigenous reserve, Catimbau National Park limits and the buffer zone, 10 km wide outlining the boundaries of the park, as stipulated by 13/90 resolution of the National Council of the Environment.

The CNP is a conservation unit categorized as a National Park, which is a kind of strict protection park. According to the National Conservation Units System (SNUC), and law Nº 9.985, dated July 18^th 2000, this kind of park category has the main objective of preserving natural ecosystems with important ecological features and natural beauties, allowing research, educational and recreational activities, environmental interpretation and ecotourism. However, private areas inside National Parks limits are to be expropriated.

Several communities exist inside CNP borders and have lived there for generations. In addition, an indigenous reservation, called Kapinawá, whose official borders are adjacent to the park, has many of the tribe's families living inside the CNP borders, as discussed in the next section. All the people living inside the CNP are facing the risk of displacement and having to leave their homes, according to the law. The lack of proper communication between residents and the governmental entities, a consequence of power unbalances, and felt since the very beginning, is the main reason for the general discontentment with the park's creation and the resulting conflicts (SIQUEIRA, 2006), according to the following discussion.

The 'top-down' decisions made by the government, with poor public consultation, originated a collective will to resist. The historical bonds with the land and the identity felt towards it are the main reason for the general refusal to leave the park. Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration of Principles, clearly states (LING, 2012, p.52):

"Indigenous peoples and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development."'

3.2.1. Kapinawá reserve, origins and conflict

According to the technical project for the creation of Catimbau National Park (SNE, 2002), the indigenous reservation - Kapinawá indians, has been taken into consideration during the proposed perimeter sketch. The National Indian Foundation (FUNAI - Fundação Nacional do Índio) offered a descriptive memorial for the delimitation of Kapinawá land and undertook the fieldwork. Thus, the indigenous lands were marked out in the area surrounding the Catimbau National Park (Figure 1).

The Kapinawá are descendants of the Indians that lived in the Macaco village, Buíque municipality, where the old mission was located during the 18^th century. In 1710, the mission was composed by the Paraquiós or Paratiós Indians, in the Ararobá Parish. A single typed copy of an Imperial letter from 1874 proves the donation of those lands (Macaco Lands) to the Macaco village descendants and in it, the territory's limits are described, with some imprecision (ALBUQUERQUE, 2005, 2008).

According to Andrade (2014), the local organization of the Kapinawá is a result of several alliances and conflicts created over the years, and their ability to adapt to the changing environmental and territorial conditions. Sampaio (1995, 2011) explains that, based on the 1874 donation letter, it is possible to trace back the descendants lineage that connect the present families to the Kapinawá cited in the document, four or five generations ago, that originally occupied the following villages: Macaco, Lagoinha, Julião, Queimada Velha and Palmeira.

Between the end of the 19^th century, after the Macaco Lands donation, and the 1960's, the families lived in peace in their territory. After that, new housing locations were established in the surroundings, expanding outside the original boundaries in a natural process of land occupation that started with hunting and gathering activities and then crops and fixed farm houses were established.

According to Andrade (2014), the process of increasing demographic density south of the ancient Macaco village and the consequent advance of planting and pasture areas, where the cities of Buique, Tupanatinga, Cabo do Campo and Moxotó are located, forced Kapinawá families to expand to the north, occupying territories outside the original indigenous territory (IT) and called the New Area. There were no fences or owners and that allowed families to carry out their hunting, gathering and farming activities and to perform rituals and gatherings, maintaining close ties (WEBER, 1999).

A series of territorial conflicts drove the indigenous population to strengthen its ties and to organize around indigenous identity, continuing the territorial process initiated in the late 1970s. The 1970's marked the beginning of conflicts generated by the expansion of cattle lands and the economic interests of farmers. Some areas resisted farmers' pressure and managed to regularize their territory by way of indigenous laws. The conflicts became rather violent and the Kapinawá mobilized for a clear demarcation of their lands, forcing FUNAI, in 1984, to organize a working party in order to identify and delimit a Kapinawá reservation (Ordinance Nº. 1647/E, dated June 01, 1984). However, this delimitation considered mainly river lines and the 1874 imperial donation letter. As a result, many of the lands south of the IT were not included (SAMPAIO, 1995) and many of the New Area families lost their lands and were evicted or forced to stay in the occupied lands as farm employees or residents (Andrade, 2014).

In addition, the economic interests in the region also drove a titling movement through adverse possession, which on one hand was triggered as a defense of the territory occupied by families, on the other, it was a resource used in bad faith, to serve individual interest with the intention of selling the lands to big farmers. According to Andrade (2014), there were three worrying situations: (1) some sold the land without the common consent of all; (2) others gained the land title by adverse possession and registered areas beyond those that were effectively occupied and (3) there were people who had won the land title through adverse possession and registered areas used by more than one local political community.

With increasing conflicts with farmers, tired of land conflicts and the lack of space to plant, the New Area families decided to go in search of their indigenous kinship in order to be included in Kapinawá Indian regime. They were, thus, inserted into specific public policies for indigenous peoples, creating new social dynamics with already regularized indigenous villages. A joint effort, moderated by the Kapinawá chief, allowed the New Area villagers to be identified as Indians, contributing to the softening of the conflict climate in the region (ANDRADE, 2014).

In the early 2000s, the vulnerability of the New Area families was worsened by the creation of the CNP, as the decree of its creation clearly states that private properties in its boundaries must be expropriated. From there on, the Indians reported a series of conflicts, initially with IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of the Environment), the executive body responsible for the implementation of the Brazilian Environmental Policy and then with the ICMBio, the Institute for Biodiversity Conservation, responsible for parks management since 2007, previously an IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment) responsibility (ANDRADE, 2014).

There is a difference in the comprehensive logic of the discussion of space by the Indians and by the state, not just in legal terms but in values ​​and world conceptions. On one hand, the state conception of nature as something untouchable, that should not suffer the actions of human beings, but admitting ideas that serve ecotourism and research. On the other hand, the Kapinawá conception, with all their trodden paths in this territory, reported in Sampaio (2011, 1995), Andrade (2014), Albuquerque (2005, 2008), Machado (2009) among many others.

Nowadays, Kapinawá call for a new study of their land demarcation in order to include important and vital areas, like archaeological sites with cave paintings from their ancestors and the many families currently outside of the official reserve limits (ALBUQUERQUE, 2005, 2008).

Like other Brazilian Indians, the Kapinawá perform the Toré, a ritual to invoke the 'enchanted', who are the deceased and who, according to their beliefs did not really die but are just 'enchanted', and are always present among them (ALBUQUERQUE, 2008). Kapinawá, young and old, repeat the ritual every Sunday, in a joint effort to maintain their tradition and identity. The Kapinawá are willing to participate in the environmental projects for biodiversity conservation but refuse to leave the land, as they understand their right to stay where they feel most deeply connected in a historical and cultural manner.

According to international laws, indigenous people have the right to own and manage their lands. Since 2003, the World Parks Congress recognizes the rights of indigenous people and calls for the restitution of their rights in existing parks (COLCHESTER, 2004). The exclusion of indigenous people from the CNP is creating conflicts and, as a result, is undermining the park conservation objectives. Therefore, it is fundamental to associate the diverse CNP planning and projects for environmental conservation with the needs of the indigenous people that live their culture in it and from it retrieve their livelihood.

3.2.2. Local communities

In addition to the Kapinawá families, there are many local communities inside the Park limits with uncertainties concerning the expropriation and respective monetary compensations. After informal conversation with park guides, we were told that more than 2,000 families still live inside the reserve. Vranckx (2010) speaks of 36 communities.

Siqueira (2006) has followed the park's creation from a social and political point of view since the first public consultation. According to article 22 from law nº 9985/2000, public consultation allows for public participation in the creation and planning of a National Park. However, Siqueira (2006) states that the public consultation process was not as expected and the population directly involved was very unsatisfied. The three public consultations failed to address the fundamental questions and interests of the communities, as for instance: land value, park objectives, total park area, population displacement process and bureaucratic issues such as how to resolve the situation of those who do not have a deed for their lands. Besides, many residents and other people directly affected by the park creation were not informed and failed to participate in the public consultations (SIQUEIRA, 2006). According to that author, there is a deep disarticulation between indigenous people, local communities and government entities.

According to Silva and Maia (2008, 2011) these residents are unaware of the park situation and do not realize the benefits coming from tourism practiced in it. Paula (2013) states that, according to several interviews performed in 2009-2010, there was an effort made toward the organization of a group of residents unwilling to accept the government monetary compensations and preferring to stay in the park and invest in environmental education in order to actively contribute towards park conservation.

Siqueira (2006), Silva and Maia (2008, 2011), Vranckx (2010) and Paula (2013), after several interviews with members of local communities, state that the population has considerable doubts about the state's monetary compensations and would rather stay on their lands. All are aware of the environmental importance of the park and agree with its creation but prefer to actively participate in the biodiversity conservation projects and adopt sustainable practices than to have to leave their homes.

Residents' first contact with the park was tense (SIQUEIRA, 2006). However, some progress can be noted toward a better understanding between the residents and the management entities resulting from the creation of the Park Advisory Council whose objectives are to join social and political dimensions during park management discussions and planning (PAULA, 2013).

In CNP, the social dimension is clearly strong and cannot be ignored, risking disrupting the whole planning effort for biodiversity conservation. Integrating the sustainability of resident people's livelihoods and their culture into the park conservation projects would build a bridge between the multiple territorialities involved: ecological, social and political.

3.3. Catimbau National Park management - suggestions to conciliate nature conservation and people's welfare

Environmental conservation by means of protected areas has marked Brazilian conservationist policies. Aberkerli (2001) mentioned that this political system has not only disrupted traditional forms of common property management but also promoted unequal wealth distribution by excluding resident peoples from sustainable control over their lands. In 1992, at the World Congress on Protected Areas, the congress recognized that the denial of the existence and rights of residents in Parks was not only unrealistic, but above all, counter-productive. Thirteen years after the park's creation, local communities and indigenous people are still living inside CNP borders and most are confused about the monetary compensations and displacement strategies. Because the fact that the monetary compensations are still unresolved, the management plan, as required by law, which should occur within five years after the park's creation, has not been made as yet (SILVA; MAIA, 2008). According to Silveira et al. (2013), ICMBio has evaluated only six properties and estimated their value but has yet to propose the monetary compensations. Hence, given that there are about 36 communities and several indigenous families living inside the CNP, one can conclude that the expropriation work is far from nearing an end. This is a 'typical' problem that many Brazilian parks have to endure because most have residents inside their borders (CATTANEO, 2004) and, according to that author, impasses concerning land use, agriculture, mining activities, water use, hunting, fishing, vegetation exploration, housing and, most of all, expropriation and monetary compensations, are inevitable. These problems are so complex that finding solutions is always very time consuming (PAULA, 2013). Almeida (2012) states that local and traditional communities are squeezed between, on the one hand, 'protection policies' innocuousness - policies with no success in regularizing land ownership, avoiding Indian land intrusion, giving quilombos land titling, fully recognizing traditionally occupied land or reducing conflicts in overlapping situations - and, on the other, the offensive targeting basic resources launched by 'protectionist' measures.

The lack of communication between residents and governmental entities, a consequence of the power unbalances felt since the beginning, might be one reason for the present park stagnation. Another reason is the residents strong will to stay in the lands where they were born and raised, as their fathers and their fathers before them were.

Silva Junior (2013) concluded in his CNP evaluation that its scenic wealth, biological importance and geological features (Figure 2) make it an area with enormous potential for tourism development, especially for geo-tourism and he emphasizes that the creation of a Geo-park could significantly contribute to natural resource preservation through an increase of public concern and awareness regarding nature preservation. Rodrigues et al. (2008) in their study concerning the CNP referred to its enormous potential for nature tourism. However, they warned that existing infrastructure to support tourism was very poor. There was a lack of transportation support, poor road conditions, incipient trails, untrained guides and hardly any educational material available. After several visits performed in 2012 and 2013, we observed that the infrastructure deficiency still persists; almost nothing has changed since Rodrigues et al.'s (2008) study. The only support available to tourists is that of the AGTURC (Catimbau Association of Tourist Guides) (SILVA; MAIA, 2008).

Figure 2
CNP photos illustrating some of its archaeological richness, varied landscapes, biological diversity and geomorphological rarities.

In this case study, in view of the particular socio-economic and environmental reality of the park, the preservationist course of action has not been effective and another approach must be envisaged, given: (1) the slow rate at which the expropriation and monetary compensation occur; (2) thirteen years of stagnation (in all spheres: infrastructure, management plan...); (3) the recognized will of the residents (local communities and Kapinawá Indians) to remain in their lands; (4) their motivation to participate in park conservation; and (5) the park's enormous potential for tourism development. That said, the authors find it more realistic to envisage a more conservationist course of action; one that would demonstrate the benefits of nature protection for people and their children and allow an active participation of local residents in the conservation planning and actions; one that would improve people's welfare, achieve the biodiversity conservation objectives and stimulate ecotourism.

We believe that the biological, archaeological and geomorphologic rarities of the place make Catimbau an especially rich and endangered landscape. In that light it would seem to require the choice of a PA category governed by more rigorous regulations - a strict protection area. However, the important and valuable social and cultural reality of the place must be integrated in the conservation purposes of the management plans and, in turn, it will be benefited by them. So, we propose that the current CNP classification be changed from National Park to Natural Monument (Catimbau Natural Monument - CNM). Natural Monuments are still a type of strict protection areas and their main objective is to preserve nature, but allowing the indirect use of natural resources. However, according to the article 12 of law nº 9985/2000, a Natural Monument also allows for private areas and their residents, providing that the use of the land and its natural resources are compatible with the conservation objectives stipulated for the PA in question.

A similar proposal was made and approved for the Pontões Capixabas National Park (Espírito Santo State - Brazil). The park was created in 2002 as a National Park and soon motivated several social conflicts among the 583 families living inside its borders. Unwilling to leave their homes, the residents claimed their right to be heard and to be included in the conservation projects for the park. After several hearings, law Nº 11.686, June 2^nd 2008, modified the National Park of Pontões Capixabas category to Natural Monument of Pontões Capixabas. This modification allowed residents to maintain their properties and continue with farming activities providing they employed sustainable practices.

4. Conclusions

The social actors involved or affected by protected areas delimitation are numerous, resulting in the overlapping of territorialities that, depending on the course of action, can be a source of cooperation or conflicts. A planning effort is fundamental to ensure a consensus and progress in the work among the multiple territorialities towards the best management possible of the area; an area of environmental and cultural preservation. Advances in conservationist thinking have led to an acceptance that conservation can and must be achieved in collaboration with local communities and based on respect for their internationally recognized rights. Catimbau protected area stagnated because the responsible entities failed to realize that conservation planning moves beyond social exclusion to imagine a place for human society within, and not outside, nature

5. References

• AAGESEN, D. Rights to Land and Resources in Argentina's Alerces National Park. Bulletin of Latin American Research, v.19, p.547-569, 2000.
• ABAKERLI, S. A critique of development and conservation policies in environmentally sensitive regions in Brazil. Geoforum, v.32, p.551-565, 2001.
• ADAMS, W.M.; HULME, D. Conservation and communities: Changing narratives, policies and practices in African conservation. In: HULME, D.; MURPHREE, M. (Eds) African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. London: James Currey, 2001.
• ADAMS, W.M.; HUTTON, J. People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation and Society, v.5, p.147-183, 2007.
• ALBUQUERQUE, M.A.S. O Torécoco (a construção do repertório musical tradicional dos índios Kapinawá da Mina Grande -PE). Dissertação (Mestrado em Sociologia) - Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, Brazil, 2005.
• ALBUQUERQUE, M.A.S. O dom dos índios Kapinawá (Ensaio sobre uma noção nativa de autoria). Religião e Sociedade, v.28, p.56-79, 2008.
• ALMEIDA, A.W.B. de. Territórios e territorialidades específicas na Amazônia: entre a "proteção" e o "protecionismo". Caderno CRH, v.25, n.64, p.63-71, 2012.
• ANDRADE, L.E.A. de. Kapinawá é meu, já tomei, tá tomado: organização social, dinâmicas territoriais e processos identitários entre os Kapinawá. Dissertação (Mestrado em Antropologia), Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Rio Tinto, Brasil, 2014.
• BEGOSSI, A.; ÁVILA-PIRES, F.D. Latin America and Brazil Biodiversity and indigenous people. Environment, Development and Sustainability, v.5, p.179-195, 2003.
• BELTRÁN, J. (Ed.). Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. Cardiff University. 133p. 2000.
• BRITO, M.C.W. Unidades de conservação: intenções e resultados. São Paulo: Annablume FAPESP, 2000.
• BROCKINGTON, D.; IGOE, J. Eviction for Conservation - A global overview. Conservation and Society, v.4, p.424-470, 2006.
• COATES, P. Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998.
• COELHO, M.C.N.; Cunha, L.H.; MONTEIRO, M.A. Unidades de conservação: populações, recursos e territórios (abordagens da geografia e da ecologia política). In: GUERRA, A.J.T.; COELHO, M.C.N. (Eds) Unidades de conservação: abordagens e características geográficas. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2009.
• COLCHESTER, M. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation. UNRISD Discussion Paper 55, Geneva, 1994.
• COLCHESTER, M. Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Environmental Science and Policy, v.7, p.145-153, 2004.
• CONKLIN, B.A. Shamans versus Pirates in the Amazonian Treasure Chest. American Anthropologist, v.104, n.4, p.1050-1061, 2002.
• CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. Signed during United Nations Convention about Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, 1992. http://www.mma.gov.br Accessed on February 24, 2013.
  » http://www.mma.gov.br
• FIGGIS, P.; HUMANN, D.; LOOKER, M. Conservation on private land in Australia. Parks, v.15, p.19-29, 2005.
• FRANCO, J. L. A.; DRUMMOND, J. A. O cuidado da natureza: a Fundação Brasileira para a Conservação da Natureza e a experiência conservacionista no Brasil: 1958-1992. Textos de História, v.17, n.1, p.59-83, 2009.
• GURGEL, H.C.; HARGARVE, J.; FRANÇA, F; HOLMES, R.M.; RICARTE, F.M.; DIAS, B.F.S.; RODRIGUES, C.G.O.; BRITO, M.C.W. Unidades de Conservação e o falso dilema entre conservação e desenvolvimento. Boletim Regional, Urbano e Ambiental, v.3, p.109-120, 2009.
• HAESBAERT, R. O mito da desterritorialização: do "fim dos territórios" à multi-territorialidade. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil , 2004.
• HULME, D.; MURPHREE, M. Communities, wildlife and the "new conservation" in Africa. Journal of International Development, v.11, p.277-286, 1999.
• IRELAND, E. Neither Warriors nor Victims, the Wauja Peacefully Organize to Defend their Land. The Latin American Anthropology Review, v.2, n.1, v.3-12, 1990.
• IUCN; UNEP-WCMC. Protected Planet Report 2014.Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. 2014.
• JENKINS, N.C.; JOPPA, L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biological Conservation, v.142, n.10, p.2166-2174, 2009.
• KEENLEYSIDE, K.; DUDLEY, N.; CAIRNS, S.; HALL, C.; STOLTON, S. Ecological restoration for protected areas: principles, guidelines and best practices. Gland: iucn, 2012.
• KELLER, R.; TUREK, M. American Indians and National Parks. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1998.
• LICHTNOW, P. Concessão é alternativa para áreas protegidas. Entrevista Portal H2FOZ, 9 de jan. 2009. <http://h2foz.com.br/modules/entrevistas/integra.php?codigo=8>. Accessed on February 5, 2013.
  » http://h2foz.com.br/modules/entrevistas/integra.php?codigo=8
• LING, C.Y. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: an assessment. Penang: Third World Network, 2012.
• MACHADO, G.F. Os significados das imagens filmicas: um dialogo com os índios Kapinawá. Dissertação (Mestrado em Antropologia), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brasil, 2009.
• MACHLIS, G.E.; Tichnell, D.L. The state of the World's Parks: an international assessment for resource management, policy and research. Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1985.
• MARTINS, A. Conflitos ambientais em unidades de conservação: dilemas da gestão territorial no Brasil. Revista bibliográfica de geografia y ciencias sociales, v. 17, n. 989, 2012.
• MCCORMICK, J. Rumo ao Paraíso: a história do movimento ambientalista. Rio de Janeiro: Relume-Dumará, 1992.
• MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. Metas nacionais de Biodiversidade para 2010. Brasília: MMA, 2007.
• MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. Quarto relatório nacional para a convenção sobre diversidade biológica: Brasil. Brasília: MMA, 2011.
• MORSELLO, C. Áreas protegidas públicas e privadas - seleção e manejo. 2ª edição. São Paulo: Annablume, 2008.
• NELSON, J.; HOSSACK, L. (Org.) From principles to practice: Indigenous peoples and protected areas in Africa. Morteon-in Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. 2003.
• PAULA, E. Territórios vividos no contexto da proteção ambiental, uma problemática socioambiental. Revista Movimentos Sociais e Dinâmicas Espaciais, v.2, p.82-91, 2013.
• PEARCE, F. Humans losing out to Africa's big game industry. New Scientist, v.2495, p.21, 2005.
• PEREIRA, M.C.B., MELLO, Y.R. Projetos globais e resistências locais: pescadores artesanais e Unidades de Conservação no litoral, Rio de Janeiro - Brasil. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, v.24, p.137-150, 2011.
• RAFA, M. Protecting nature and landscape in southern Europe: a social approach. Parks, v.15, p.61-66, 2005
• REDFORD, K.H.; STEARMAN, A.M. On common ground? Response to Alcorn. Conservation Biology, v.7, p.427-428, 1993.
• RODRIGUES, N.M.; MOTA-FILHO, F.O.; PEREIRA, E.C. Potencialidades Turísticas e Riscos Ambientais no Parque Nacional do Catimbau. In: CASTILHO, C.J.M.; VIEGAS, J.M. (Eds) Turismo e práticas socioespaciais: Múltiplas Abordagens e Interdisciplinaridades. Recife: Editora Universitária da UFPE, 2008.
• RUNTE, A. National Parks: the American experience. 3rd edition. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.
• SACK, R.D. Human territoriality: its theory and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
• SAMPAIO, J.A.L. Notas sobre a formação histórica, etnicidade e constituição territorial do povo Kapinawá. São Paulo, 1995.
• SAMPAIO, J.A.L. De Caboclo a Índio: etnicidade e organização social e política entre povos indígenas contemporâneos no nordeste do Brasil: o caso Kapinawá. Cadernos do LEME, Campina Grande, v.3, n.2, p.88-191, 2011.
• SELLARS, R.W. Preserving Nature in the National Park: A History. London: Yale University, 1997.
• SILVA, J.H., MAIA, F.B.A. O turismo no Parque Nacional do Catimbau: avaliação dos benefícios da atividade percebidos pelos moradores. Revista Turismo Visão e Ação, v.10, n.2, p.204-220, 2008.
• SILVA, J.H., MAIA, F.B.A. Organização local e gestão participativa do turismo em unidades de conservação: a difícil tarefa de integração no Parque Nacional do Catimbau (PE). Caderno Virtual de Turismo, v.11, n.1, p.36-48, 2011.
• SILVA JUNIOR, E.D. Levantamento do potencial geoturístico do Parque Nacional do Catimbau - como subsídio para a criação de um futuro geoparque. Tese (Mestrado em Geografia), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, 2013.
• SILVA, M. O Programa Brasileiro de Unidades de Conservação. Megadiversidade, v.1, n.1, p.22-26, 2005.
• SIQUEIRA, G.R. Avaliação da implementação do Parque Nacional do Catimbau - PE: uma análise do desenvolvimento sustentável na perspectiva do ecoturismo e da comunidade local. Dissertação (Mestrado em Geografia), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, 2006.
• SOCIEDADE NORDESTINA DE ECOLOGIA (SNE). Projeto Técnico para a Criação do Parque Nacional do Catimbau/PE. Subprojeto "Proposta para Criação do Parque Nacional do Catimbau/PE", 2002.
• UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME - WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE (UNEP-WCMC). World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, U.K: UNEP-WCMC. 2006. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/ Accessed on February 6, 2013.
  » http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/
• UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME - WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE (UNEP-WCMC). World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, U.K: UNEP-WCMC . 2012. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/ Accessed on February 6, 2013.
  » http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/
• VRANCLX, E.C.P. A (Des)territorialização do Parque Nacional do Catimbau - PE. Dissertação (Mestrado em Geografia), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, 2010.
• WEBER, M. Economia e sociedade: fundamentos da sociologia compreensiva. Tradução de Regis Barbosa e Karen Elsabe Barbosa; Revisão técnica de Gabriel Cohn - Brasília, DF: Editora Universidade de Brasília: São Paulo. Imprensa Oficial do Estado de São Paulo, 1999. 586p.
• WEST, P.; IGOE, J.; BROCKINGTON, D. Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, v.35, p.251-277, 2006.
• WPC. Recommendations of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress, 2003. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-09/information/sbstta-09-inf-21-add3-en.pdf Accessed on December 13, 2012.
  » http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-09/information/sbstta-09-inf-21-add3-en.pdf

• 1
  The authors would like to thank CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for the scholarship provided to the first author, PQ/CNPq grant for the last author and the important contributions of an anonymous reviewer.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Jan-Mar 2017

History

• Received
  10 July 2015
• Accepted
  12 July 2016