FUNAI and INCRA PCI - reflections on Anthropology and agribusiness

Abstract Between 2015 and 2017, a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (PCI) took place in the Câmara dos Deputados (Brazil’s lower house) of the Brazilian National Congress, which investigated the formerly named National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) and the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) in their attributions of demarcating lands, Indigenous and Quilombola lands, respectively. This PCI was established by the Ruralista caucus, a group that represents the interests of agribusiness inside Congress. One of the focuses of the PCI was to discuss the role of anthropology in the demarcation processes of Indigenous and Quilombola lands, questioning not only the work of anthropologists, but the field of knowledge itself. Through an ethnography of documents (shorthand notes of the meetings and reports presented) and by direct observation, the research that culminated in this article sought to reflect on the anthropological practice related to public policies for the redistribution of land to Indigenous peoples and Quilombola communities and their friction with agribusiness interests. The centrality of the agrarian agenda and the model of territorial development defended by agribusiness clashes with public policies for the democratisation of access to land. The FUNAI-INCRA PCI reveals yet another articulated attempt by agribusiness to establish new benchmarks for these public policies, through the Ruralista caucus, and for this reason anthropology was included in the debate.

CPI da Funai e do Incra -reflexões entre Antropologia e agronegócio
The FUNAI-INCRA PCI is a prominent event for us to discuss the relationship between anthropology and agribusiness 4 .In truth, this debate did not originate in the FUNAI-INCRA PCI 5 .There have been numerous points of tension over the years6 , but there was a marked change in the way the anthropological issue was addressed by agribusiness actors at this time.
Brazilian anthropology developed from a perspective of nation-building, understood as the development of national awareness, the participation of and an ethical commitment to the populations studied (Peirano, 1981).
The discipline prospered in Brazil through deep relationships with historical, political and social contexts, such that it is associated with a commitment to defending the rights of the groups studied.This association is achieved through research and ethnographies that acknowledge the political and social contexts in which their interlocutors find themselves (Ramos, 1990).In this sense, anthropological work reveals the intricacies of logics and actions, often of domination, that encompass the groups studied, which, as seen in the case of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, places the anthropologist in a central position to confront actors of power (Silva, 2015).
In the processes of the demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands, anthropology is the area of knowledge that focused on the histories, the founding cosmologies of the groups, the forms of appropriation and expropriation of land, retrieving for the literate world a collection of situations that were outside its purview (Leite, 2000).Through anthropologists, the points of view of these communities were and continue to be favoured, transforming oral traditions into documents that are also considered and presented as state documents (land demarcation reports).The demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands is accomplished by FUNAI and INCRA, respectively, and both processes begin with the preparation of a technical report -a Relatório Circunstanciado de Identificação e Delimitação (RCID) [Detailed Report on Identification and Delimitation] for Indigenous lands, and a Relatório Técnico de Identificação e Delimitação (RTID) [Technical Report on Identification and Delimitation] for Quilombola territories -the centrepiece of which is the anthropological report 7 .
Despite the participation of several professionals and actors in the extensive and complex processes of Quilombola and Indigenous land demarcation, the FUNAI-INCRA PCI settled a recurring accusation: suspicion of the work of anthropologists.Silva (2015:158) emphasises that 'suspicion, as a possibility, is something applicable to any expert professional; the fact that it falls on anthropologists in an a priori manner is the result of ignorance of our premises and methods, but perhaps also of something more serious: of their prior and ill-founded disqualification.' 4 A Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (PCI) is a legislative instrument provided for in the Brazilian Constitution to fulfil one of the constitutional attributions of the National Congress, to investigate and supervise public administration.Any congressperson can propose a PCI, but to gain approval, the support of one third of the members of the respective house is required to verify a particular issue.The specificities of a PCI are established by its temporality, since it has a deadline to determine its conclusions (it is temporary), and in its investigative character, 'that of judicial authorities'.With this prerogative, the committee can hold public hearings, summon any authority or citizen to provide clarification, including state authorities, receive petitions from the community in general, assess and issue an opinion on government programmes.In addition, these committees can travel to any place in the national territory to conduct investigations and public hearings and stipulate a deadline for complying with any measure or carrying out due diligence.This action of legislative control enables the referral of its results for investigation and accountability through the competent authorities (the Public Prosecutor's Office and the federal police).The provision for a PCI in the Federal Constitution is outlined in article 49, item X; article 71, item IV; in paragraph 3 of article 58, in Section VII -The commissions of Chapter I -Legislative power, where the general lines for their creation and objectives are established.5 Although they were formally constituted as two distinct committees of inquiry, FUNAI-INCRA PCI 1 and FUNAI-INCRA PCI 2, here I consider them as a single inquiry, since the second only concluded the works that were conducted within the scope of the first, thus it is impossible to dissociate them in terms of analysis.
Even on other occasions when the group that represents agribusiness in the legislative branch, popularly known as the Ruralista caucus, has presented criticisms of the work of anthropologists, this has never been the main point of the debate.In 1999, for example, when the PCI on FUNAI's activities was completed, the report highlighted the arbitrariness of the Indigenous body in the process of demarcating Indigenous areas.
The principal difference is that the 1999 PCI report criticises the administrative process as a whole, FUNAI's administrative attributes as the body responsible for the demarcation of Indigenous lands, and the influence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the institution.In contrast, the FUNAI-INCRA PCI directs this criticism towards the work of anthropologists specifically, claiming that demarcation 'is based on a simple technical, unilateral, ideological and arbitrary report' and that this work is conducted based on 'the abusive actions of the FUNAI, NGOs and the anthropology departments of universities, all supported by the Ministério Público Federal [Federal Public Prosecutor's Office]' (Brasil, 2015: 04) 8 .Therefore, the FUNAI-INCRA PCI demonstrated from the outset that anthropology was one of the focuses of its activities9 .Since its inception, investigating this field of knowledge and its professionals pervaded the PCI.In the justification that supports the request for the PCI, the Ruralista representatives, who recognise the constitutional prerogatives for regularising Indigenous and Quilombola areas (art.231 and art.68 of the ADCT), argue that there is a distortion in the conduct of the administrative processes established for these purposes at INCRA and FUNAI, they are too subjective and biased, since 'the mere opinion of an anthropologist supersedes everything and everyone' (Brasil, 2015: 03).Thus, according to the requesting representatives, there is an 'anthropological problem' in these institutions that needs to be combated.As a strategy to delegitimise the demarcation of traditional lands, led by INCRA and FUNAI, representatives began directly attacking anthropology, claiming that there is no technical or scientific rigor to obtaining anthropological reports.
In this wake, it becomes evident why the approval of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI by the directorate of the lower house took place the day after the final report on Proposta de Emenda à Constituição (PEC) [draft amendment to the Constitution] no.215 was approved10 .In general terms, PEC no.215 proposes a transfer of competence for approving the demarcations of Indigenous lands and the ratification of previously homologated demarcations exclusively to Congress.The objective of this series of coordinated actions in Congress, particularly by the Ruralista caucus, was the prioritisation of the agrarian agenda that is central to this group.To this end, the legitimation of such a fact pervaded the investigation of the institutions entrusted with the task (INCRA and FUNAI), since according to the Ruralista discourse, they were riddled with illegalities in the conduct of this legal attribution, which the representatives aimed to investigate and disseminate within the scope of the PCI.
In this investigative spirit, the opening of the parliamentary inquiry alerted the public servants concerning the institutions that were to be investigated, including the anthropologists who worked at INCRA and FUNAI, and anthropologists outside these institutions who had directly or indirectly collaborated in the processes of Indigenous and Quilombola demarcations, together with the entire field of anthropology.
The approval and creation of a PCI is made in the form of a formal written request, in which the justifications for the investigation are presented.The content of the Request for PCI no.16/2015, which demanded an investigation into the INCRA and FUNAI, a small text of 16 pages, fulfilled the minimum requirement.In this document, the signatory representatives did not skimp on adjectives to expose their considerations on anthropological practice.
In order to accomplish their intentions, anthropologists do not have any ethical or legal limits, or even respect for people illicitly affected by their reckless, fraudulent and tyrannical actions.(Brasil, 2015: 08) The main alleged reasons for the creation of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI were the invalidity of the demarcation processes, anchored in 'fraudulent anthropological reports'.Thus, the role of anthropologists working for the state was under suspicion, particularly those working for INCRA, FUNAI and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, but also those in civil society organisations, universities and the Associação Brasileira de Antropologia severe attacks in this new context.The Federal Constitution represented a break with the preceding Brazilian constitutional system, 'since it recognises the Brazilian state as pluri-ethnic, and no longer based on intended homogeneities' guiding the actions of social actors, especially public agents and politicians (Pereira, 2002: 01).
Achievements by Indigenous and Quilombola social movements regarding the recognition of their territorial rights, especially in the years following the country's re-democratisation, have faced serious setbacks that include the PCI examined here.The perspective that was taking shape -and that we have seen implemented -was meant to bring about abrupt changes in the inspiring legal principles of the rule of law that the 1988 Constitution inaugurated.Among the various events taking place at that moment in national history, the PCI is relevant in exposing the activities of an important group in the political and economic scenario, the so-called Ruralista caucus, and its agenda to maintain control over Brazil's agrarian structure.

A brief history of the Ruralista caucus
Considering the implications and developments of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, I understand that its analysis and dissemination of the debate on its effects is of 'democratic relevance', to use the terms of Nader (1972).
For this, it is necessary to situate the PCI as a study on an elite group: politicians democratically elected to the national legislature, federal representatives that compose the Câmara dos Deputados (lower house).The position of congressperson itself can be considered an elite position, where the term elite means a group of power, one which occupies influential and important positions in social life, whose decisions shape what happens in society in general, and whose interests are hegemonic (Shore, 2004).
Another inherent characteristic of the Brazilian political elite is that it is a family niche (Oliveira et al., 2018).The rationalisation, bureaucratisation and modernisation of the political field were unable to subdue the presence of families dominating politics in the most varied spheres of power, in the apparatus of state administration or in the presence and the direction of actions and trends of state political parties.Oliveira et al. (2018) draw attention to the process of metamorphosis that dominant groups, organised as families and kinship networks, have attained over time.After all, they were able to remain in power amid the processes of change in Brazilian society and improvements in its numerous institutions.It was no different in the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, where representatives who form part of certain traditional political families were readily identified 12 .
The FUNAI-INCRA PCI was a privileged space for the Ruralista caucus, the popular name for the group of representatives who are linked to the FPA, itself a fairly mixed association of members of various parties in both the Senado and the Câmara dos Deputados.The FPA currently has 280 signatories (241 federal representatives and 39 senators), which in relative terms represents almost half of the Senado (48%) and the Câmara dos Deputados (47%) 13 .Thus, the dominant political elite in the PCI was the agrarian elite.
The agrarian elite is one of the most long-established groups of the Brazilian elite.It is old, traditional, and does not merely form part of national politics, it shapes it.This group has its origins in colonisation and influenced the agrarian organisation of the country.It is not possible to discuss agricultural or land policy without a historical perspective of the formation of rural property in Brazil.The formation of the agrarian network, based on land grabbing and subsequent privatisation of land, reached its peak under the so-called Lei de Terras [Land Law] of 1850 (Law no.601), issued two weeks after Law no.581, which ended the slave trade.
From the onset, the Brazilian colonisation process engendered the concentration of land by national economic elites.The Land Law of 1850 facilitated access to land for those who had the capital to acquire it, leaving a large part of rural workers, including Indigenous and traditional peoples, outside the system.Land concentration is a consequence of the Brazilian historical and economic process, based on slave labour (Alcântara Filho & Fontes, 2009;Leite, 2018).
At the beginning of the twentieth century, attempts to deconcentrate land were timid, supported by popular movements that began to organise themselves as a result of the struggle for land, but these were suppressed by the 1964 coup d'état.However, even the establishment of the military dictatorship did not mean the end of social movements, many emerged and gained strength during this period.The slow but progressive transition from the existing military dictatorship towards democracy mobilised civil society in defence of social and labour agendas, promoting an increase in progressive members of Congress (Kinzo, 2001).The struggles of Indigenous peoples and traditional communities, such as the Quilombolas, formed part of the democratisation process in Brazil.
12 As the sub-rapporteur of the INCRA commission, Tereza Cristina (then a member of the PSB/MS) is the great-granddaughter of Pedro Celestino Corrêa da Costa and the granddaughter of Fernando Corrêa da Costa, both of whom are former governors of Mato Grosso (before it was divided into two states) as members of the União Democrática Nacional (UDN) [National Democratic Union].The 2 nd vice-chairman of the Commission Directorate, representative Mandetta (DEM/MS), is the nephew of former representative Nelson Trad (MDB/MS) and cousin of the former mayor of Campo Grande, Nelsinho Trad (MDB/MS), who unsuccessfully ran for state governor in 2014.He is also the cousin of Fabio Trad, federal representative for the PSD/MS, and Marquinhos Trad, former state representative for the MDB/MS and current mayor of Campo Grande for the PSD/MS.Among the PCI opposition members, it is worth mentioning federal representative Nilto Tatto (PT/SP), whose four brothers held positions as federal and state representatives and municipal councillors.The then federal representative Janete Capiberibe (PSB/AP), wife of João Capiberibe (PSB/AP), has held the positions of Mayor of Macapá, state senator and state governor.In the 2018 elections, the couple's son, Camilo Capiberibe (PSB/AP), was elected as a federal representative.
13 According to its statute (art.1), the FPA is an associative entity that 'defends common interests, constituted by representatives of all currents of political opinion in the National Congress and aims to stimulate the expansion of public policies for the development of national agribusiness.'<https://fpagropecuaria.org.br/estatuto/>Beginning in the 1980s, Brazil underwent a broad process of re-democratisation that enabled the inclusion of issues on the state agenda, which until that time were barely visible, generating innovative public policies.
Demands for land redistribution and recognition of the ethnic groups that formed Brazilian society gained greater relevance from that decade onwards.The 1988 Constitution confirmed the existence of a pluri-ethnic state in Brazil, recognising and ensuring ethnic differences (Silva, 1994).
Despite this re-democratisation movement and the recognition of rights, the agrarian and rural elite showed concerns with the initiatives that were in progress, such as the foundation of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) [Landless Rural Workers Movement], the creation of the Ministério da Reforma e do Desenvolvimento Agrário [Ministry for Agrarian Reform and Development] and the Plano Nacional de Reforma Agrária [National Plan for Agrarian Reform] (Pompeia, 2018).However, as Pompeia points out, the agrarian sector was fragmented, with its numerous actors experiencing a crisis of representation, different priorities and struggling with the country's fiscal crisis.
In this scenario, the political organisation of the Ruralista caucus began during the period of the Assembleia Nacional Constituinte14 , when congresspersons from different groups in the agricultural sector began a conformation in defence of the interests of this field.It was initially named the Frente Ampla da Agropecuária Brasileira (FAAB) [Broad Front for Brazilian Agribusiness], and its composition presented a diversity of organisations and interests, including the União Democrática Ruralista (UDR) [Rural Democratic Union], the Sociedade Rural Brasileira (SRB) [Brazilian Rural Society] and the Organização das Cooperativas Brasileiras (OCB) [Organisation of Brazilian Co-operatives].These entities, which had been the protagonists in disputes with each other in previous periods, formed the FAAB to oppose the growing demand for land redistribution through agrarian reform (Pompeia, 2018).
For these groups, represented by the FAAB in the Assembleia Constituinte (1987), the land issue was much more relevant than the agricultural issue15 .Thus, the main agenda on which the FAAB sought to act Much like the period of the Assembleia Nacional Constituinte, these facts reveal the agenda of the Ruralista caucus, which while it includes other policies16 , continues to be centred on the agrarian issue.Even though the articulation of the FAAB had managed to curb the establishment of broad agrarian democratisation during the Assembleia Constituinte, in subsequent years, public policies of access to land, notably agrarian reform and Indigenous and Quilombola land rights, were established through technical procedures, staff, and concrete results.Even considering that the demands are much higher than the execution capacity of the INCRA and FUNAI, these public policies are not aligned with the interests of the conforming agribusiness groups.
One of the factors that provided the growth and broad articulation of this group, and of parties mostly In this scenario, there were several impasses between organised civil society and the government, especially related to environmental, labour and land redistribution issues (agrarian reform, demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands).While the agribusiness entities strengthened actions in the Legislative branch, with the growing demand for arable land, they questioned the demarcation of Quilombola territories, Indigenous lands and expropriation for the creation of agrarian reform settlements, sealing the partnership between sectors of industry, agribusiness and congress (Pompeia, 2018).
According to research conducted by Pompeia, mobilisation for changes in the Forest Code was a determining factor for bringing these actors together.From the debates around this agenda, relationships between the various companies in the agribusiness segment became more systematic and institutionalised through the FPA.
Amendments to the Forest Code, in 2012, weakened legal provisions for environmental protection, overcoming protests from civil society organisations, such as rural workers and traditional peoples and communities, and Therefore, the FPA began to play a central role in the political articulations of the agribusiness sector.Thus, it is not surprising that the Ruralista caucus won the vast majority of seats and the entirety of the Commission's Directorate in the FUNAI-INCRA PCI.It did so in compliance with the principle that the representation of political parties and congressional blocs in the legislature must be proportionally reproduced, as far as possible, in the composition of the Directorate and the Commissions, demonstrating the influence and power of the group within parties, and the importance of this agenda to specific parties17 .The two Commissions (FUNAI-INCRA PCI 1 and 2) consisted of 66 representatives (48 in the first and 49 in the second), and of these, 31 participated in both Commissions and 42 were linked to the FPA 18 .

Anthropological work as a fragile link in the chain of the demarcation process
As previously mentioned, the entire Directorate of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI was composed of members of the Ruralista caucus: Alceu Moreira (MDB/RS), chairman; Luis Carlos Heinze (PP/RS), 1 st vice-chairman; Luiz Henrique Mandetta (DEM/MS), 2 nd vice-chairman; Nelson Marquezelli (PTB/SP), 3 rd vice-chairman; Nilson Leitão (PSDB/MT), rapporteur; Tereza Cristina (then PSB/MS, now DEM/MS), sub-rapporteur; Valdir Colatto (MDB/ SC), sub-rapporteur.The effects of this comprehensive representation by the FPA were quickly visible in how the PCI operated, including but not limited to: decisions on the agenda of the Commission's meetings were taken by the chair; the preparation of the report was the sole responsibility of the rapporteur (incorporating suggestions from other representatives also occurred at his discretion); definitions concerning trips for due diligence (place, date, participating team) were taken by the Commission's Directorate; invitations for external actors to act as consultants and collaborators in the PCI were granted by the chair.Such attributions, typical of the chair of the PCI, provided for in the Internal Regulations of the Câmara dos Deputados, demonstrate the importance of ensuring these central positions by the Ruralista caucus.What was evident is how discussion agendas by non-FPA representatives, presented throughout the PCI, were not even considered.
Regarding its investigative objective, a PCI requires the collection and investigation of information concerning the 'specific fact' approved as the purpose of the work.Thus, its activities consisted of meetings that included internal, deliberative, public hearings for taking testimonies, and external due diligence (outside Brasilia, DF).The PCI members presented requests as a way of participating and trying to influence the discussions 19 .
In the first sessions of the PCI, a kind of tacit agreement was established among the representatives for all the requests presented to be approved.As explained by some representatives, this was to ensure counterpoints to the perspectives of the debate and broad participation.Thus, the approval of requests of different natures practically became protocol, and it was quite common for them to be carried out in blocks to speed up the process.Based on this recourse, what is evident was how disputes did not take place over the approval of requests, but over the selection of which of those approved would be acted on.
It is important to emphasise that the 14 representatives who opposed the creation of the PCI and the work carried out by its chair were essentially representatives who identify as centre-left and left 20 .While the FUNAI-INCRA PCI was in progress, these representatives from different parties and with distinct agendas formed an opposition21 .Unlike the Ruralista caucus, which has an agenda that can be defined, together with a congressional front that unites them, the opposition representatives formed a temporary articulation in relation to the conflict established in the PCI, as a block of 'resistance' to this attack.
As presented, the dynamics of the PCI meant it was possible to identify the sides in dispute, the Ruralista caucus that supported the commission and the opposition group.As is characteristic of legislative activity, policy is carried out through debates, compositions and agreements.Even in an environment with clear dispute, such as the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, it is possible to perceive certain moments in which the opposition and Ruralista benches sought some kind of understanding for certain themes.Despite these, there were no changes in the way the chair of the commission worked.

Vibrant v.20
The choice of activities that were carried out based on the approved requests, such as which deponent was prioritised and when, was arbitrary and unilateral, transferring the friction between the representatives from the approval of requests to the definition of the agenda of the meetings, since the conflicting positions in the commission were not respected.The PCI's agenda was defined by the chair, thus the strategy of facilitating the approval of the requests eased the pressure on the discussions regarding the pertinence of each of them, and above all enabled the chair and his colleagues on the Directorate the freedom to define the agenda.The chair of the PCI had space to establish its timetable and work pace, counting on the support of the federal representatives in the Ruralista caucus to echo any of the bloc's demands.This organisation of the work is of paramount importance for understanding the outcome of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI.
The majority of the meetings that involved the broad participation of representatives were those in which both invited and summoned deponents were present.The definition of invitations or summons was established in the requests presented and approved by the PCI, at the discretion of the member who prepared them.The main difference is that an invitation (or request) can be refused without sanctions, whereas with a summons (or subpoena), attendance is mandatory and punishment can occur in cases of non-compliance.
In the initial sessions of the PCI, when the procedures for its operation were established, there was intense debate with regard to the pertinence of the principal of a summons and when it should be activated.Several representatives, particularly those who were against the PCI's objectives, advocated for the use of invitations in all requests.For them, a summons should only be used when the person invited refused to participate.However, in organising the work of the PCI, the Directorate reinforced the importance of a summons to achieve the proposed investigation objectives on several occasions.Despite efforts to reach an agreement between the parties, in order to transform the summonses into invitations, this procedure was unsuccessful among the agribusiness representatives.Everything indicates that the interest of the Ruralista representatives in using the mechanism of a summons, especially among members of the Directorate (chair and rapporteurs), was to ensure the presence of the actors that they considered essential, but above all, actors they considered to be resistant to the PCI, who could potentially refuse to appear, and those for whom the constraining effect of this mechanism indicated the relationship of forces to which they would be subject in the PCI.
As noted, the polarisation seen in the PCI reflected the interests in dispute around the issue of land.The themes dear to the Ruralista caucus, as previously announced in the requests for the creation of the PCI, made direct reference to the demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands, as well as the responsibility of anthropologists in 'false' demarcations.
The regularisation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands, and agrarian reform, raise a factor important to the Ruralista caucus: they are public policies for land redistribution, which are contrary to the interests of this agribusiness alliance, but not to them alone.Land regularisation for traditional peoples and communities consists of a public policy that combines the dimensions of recognition and social redistribution.Demands for recognition are those that call for official acceptance of group differences and specificities, while demands for redistribution refer to better material conditions of reproduction.The allocation of land to traditional peoples and communities addresses this ambivalent demand for recognition of their specific history within Brazilian history and, at the same time, culminates in the delivery of traditionally occupied territory, guaranteeing formal access to land and permanence in areas sufficient for their physical and cultural reproduction, a basic condition for development and social inclusion (Fraser, 1995).Thus, when resuming the requests presented in the PCI, it becomes apparent which themes focused on the representatives' political interests and for which actors coercion was considered necessary to ensure attendance.I observed that summonses were reserved for authors of anthropological reports on Indigenous and Quilombola land regularisation processes, leaders of social movements, and members of NGOs linked to the defence of Indigenous and Quilombola rights.According to members of the Ruralista caucus in the PCI, these were the actors for whom a summons was necessary to ensure their presence and testimony22 .
As I highlighted earlier, it is the responsibility of the chair of the PCI to define the agendas and organise the meetings.Based on the participants selected for these hearings, it was clear what the tone of the meeting would be.The majority of the testimonies recorded came from requests by members of the Ruralista caucus and, given this situation of control, the ease with which the chair conducted the meetings was visible.Invitations and summonses caused different interactions between members of the PCI23 .
Of the 26 testimonies given during the 20 hearings, only three were from women and all those present were due to requests from members of the Ruralista caucus.In the sessions in which women were present as deponents, different treatment was observed, particularly regarding the anthropologists Flávia de Mello and Daisy Barcellos.As I have already highlighted, summonses were an instrument used by Ruralista representatives to ensure the presence of certain deponents and debate during the hearings.Both anthropologists were summoned, that is, they were seen as averse or resistant to the ideas of their summoners.
In another work, I focused on the PCI meetings in which the anthropologists were present in the role of invited and summoned deponents (Dalla Costa, 2019).Here, I briefly allude to some of these discussions.In almost all the meetings, there was at least some mention of anthropological practice.However, anthropologists were present to testify in the PCI on only four occasions, and on two of these, they were there to discuss the elaboration of specific works (identification and delimitation reports concerning Indigenous land and Quilombola territory).On these occasions, there were constant accusations by Ruralista representatives and their guests that the INCRA and FUNAI staff, together with the anthropologists/authors of the reports, presented clearly ideological and unethical conduct that focused on serving 'their own interests', rather than being guided by the rules and techniques that govern their activities.From this perspective, these professionals aimed to favour people or groups who had no rights on this issue, with the clear intention of harming those who are truly deserving of public policies, in addition to rural producers who would unfairly lose their properties.
One of the cases which representatives focused on intently is that of the Mato Preto Indigenous Land identified in the municipalities of Erechim, Erebango and Getúlio Vargas, in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, which threatened to dispossess around 300 non-Indigenous families who owned small rural properties.The document establishing the PCI, Request no.16/2015, is emphatic in stating that the report prepared by the anthropologist Flávia de Mello 'is a fraud', 'During the work, it was proven that the anthropologist falsified information', 'Her performance as an anthropologist was completely unethical' (Brasil, 2015: 6-7).Among the accusations levelled at anthropologist Flávia de Mello was how her knowledge of the Guarani ethnic group, whose study she coordinated at FUNAI, made her unfit for the task, because she was too close to the 'object of study' and, therefore, impartial in the realisation of this task.
In her participation in the PCI, Flávia de Mello explained in detail the misrepresentation made by the request for the PCI.Indeed, opposition representatives and many of those present showed embarrassment at the fragility of the request for the PCI, confirming the weakness of the investigation of the facts by the requesting representatives and, by extension, the commission's object of investigation.This situation can be summarised in the manifestation of federal representative Erika Kokay (PT/DF) at a meeting on December 1, 2015, recorded in shorthand notes: It seems to me, therefore, that in today's hearing, the explanations of the deponent demonstrate and expose how the purpose of the PCI is to criminalise even professionals, a profound disrespect of professionals and anthropologists in this country.I keep asking myself: if there had not been a report attesting to the Indigenous presence in this region, if there had not been occupation by settlers or farmers, would this act of questioning the report have taken place?
The report exists because representatives created, appended and copied part of a [civil] action.Look at what was read and spoken here by the chair of this PCI!What was read here as an argument for establishing this PCI was taken from a petition, it was taken from a [civil] action.Look at what we're discussing here!? Someone took the action of an interested party of settlers who were questioning a report by the FUNAI itself, that is, a report by anthropologist Flávia [de Mello], they copied this document from the action and constructed the elements and arguments for the creation of a PCI that, as I keep saying, has no determined fact-and all this without the anthropologist herself having been heard in this action.
As reported by representative Erika Kokay at the aforementioned hearing, the chairman of the PCI, Alceu Moreira (MDB/RS), had informed that the data presented in the request for the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, which accused not only Flávia de Mello, but the practice of anthropology as a whole, were obtained from a legal process in progress that sought to annul the process of demarcation of the Mato Preto Indigenous Land.
Representatives from the Ruralista caucus limited themselves to minimising the huge mistakes highlighted by the anthropologist to document nonconformities.Even with the corrections and notes made by the anthropologist, the audience continued as if Flávia de Mello had not said a thing.Contrary to that determined by an argumentative logic, the representatives continued their questioning along the same lines.
Another example presented in the request for the PCI deals with the land regularisation of the Morro Alto Quilombola Territory, located in the municipalities of Osório and Maquiné, also in the State of Rio Grande do Sul.According to the document, the ongoing expropriation by INCRA of 4,564 hectares occupied by family farmers is a demand from the state's Black and Quilombola social movement in conjunction with academia.
In the case of Morro Alto, anthropologist Daisy de Barcellos was summoned, since she was responsible for the identification studies of the Quilombo.As occurred in Flávia de Mello's hearing, no one addressed questions with the view to debating the report she had prepared.The questions indicated revolved around the central argument of the PCI, the ideologisation of anthropology as a field of knowledge, and the partiality of professionals thus trained whose actions favoured their interlocutors.
In addition, some deputies understood that it was pertinent not only to discuss the capacity of these women regarding the activities they carried out, but that it was acceptable to present questions of a personal nature.In an attempt to discredit the testimony of anthropologist Flávia de Mello, a representative questioned whether she had a 'love relationship' with one of the Guaranis whose Indigenous land was the subject of her studies.During the testimony of anthropologist Daisy Barcellos, the rapporteur, Nilson Leitão (PSDB/MT), questioned her about her relationship with a member of the local Black movement, one of her interlocutors in the preparation of the anthropological report.As previously discussed (Dalla Costa, 2019), the treatment given to deponents invited by the Ruralista caucus was the opposite, such that they were free to use the time, compose their explanations and expound their conclusions.These hearings were marked by the exchange of compliments between the Directorate and those invited to speak, encouraging them to fully express their opinions.
Based on the material presented in the PCI requests and participation in commission meetings, according to members of the Ruralista caucus, it was evident that ongoing collusion had occurred between anthropologists in state and academic positions and NGOs, with the protection of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office.They claimed that this 'conspiracy' acted with the intent to attack private property and rural producers, that 'the wave of demarcations has had ideological and financial motivations' (Brasil, 2015: 8).The 'denunciations of fraud' in relation to these 'groups with shady interests that take advantage of the good faith of humble people' are by these representatives as 'a genuine "industry" to legitimise third party lands' using constitutional demarcation devices as a pretext (Brasil, 2015: 14) 24 .
The participation of the aforementioned anthropologists in the PCI did not change the arguments of the Ruralista caucus.In the same manner that the request for the PCI made serious accusations of non-compliance with various laws, codes of ethics and conduct, the Ruralista caucus maintained its assertions that the unsatisfactory quality of the reports was the motive behind their questioning the demarcation processes, even after meetings that involved the participation of anthropologists.In this dispute, anthropology assumes the place of an imprecise, subjective, partial field of knowledge, responsible for causing bias in Indigenous and Quilombola demarcation processes.
As discussed at the beginning of this text, when we reflect on why anthropology is being attacked in this space of land dispute and redistribution, one factor that cannot be left out of the equation is how the histories of Indigenous peoples and Quilombolos have been essentially erased until recently.Brazil's official historiography has long-favoured other points of view.Indigenous peoples and rural Black communities have always been on the margins of formal land registration systems, the result of instruments created by those in power.
The lack of access to legal documentation of their lands, or even the impossibility of registering them in a registry office, adds to social and racial discrimination and the difficulties in overcoming the barrier of bureaucracy in the literate world.The rule for these groups is one of experiencing a profound strangeness in relation to bureaucratic-legal codes, facing difficult barriers to surmount regarding state services and structures.Sometimes official documents are defended as the only sources of reliable information.Written documentary sources are subject to subjectivities in their elaboration, which highlights the fact that their preference is to value an elite social group to the detriment of others, who live on the margins (Almeida, 2011;Paraíso, 1994).Thus, oral history is imperative to prevent persistent errors that exclude Indigenous and Quilombola communities from official historiography.In this sense, through oral history, anthropology accesses the collective memory of these groups as a means to bring their histories to the literate, bureaucratic and legal planes.
In the demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands, anthropological work is central to the development of other technical works (agronomic, cartographic, administrative) and, as posed earlier, exposes and characterises a historical situation under dispute.By advancing in the recognition of the ethnic territory within the cultural and historical sphere to consolidate the right to restitution, anthropological work as state identification and delimitation reports becomes a potential instrument for changing the agrarian reality.
The demand for land from these groups, guaranteed in constitutional precepts and which use anthropological knowledge to ensure their materiality, leads to the exclusion of potentially productive areas from the real estate market, since Indigenous lands become the property of the federal government for the exclusive use of the group, and Quilombola territories are private lands that cannot be sold, divided or used as collateral.
Thus, the attack on the work of anthropologists seems to have been the strategy encountered by the Ruralista caucus to alter the current process required for the demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands.
Instead of criticising the process as a whole, like the 1999 FUNAI PCI did, the FUNAI-INCRA PCI sought to construct a vision of and simultaneously attack that which, from its perspective, was a kind of fragile link in the demarcation process: the anthropological report.
Accusations of fraud, lack of ethics, ideological and biased work were thrown around during the PCI to point out that this is not about scientific knowledge, that anthropologists are biased in how they favour Indigenous and traditional peoples.The former president of the ABA, Lia Zanotta Machado, noted that the PCI's accusations were directed at the ethnographic methodology, which demands that the researcher maintains a profound and continuous dialogue with the community in question.The narrative constructed from the PCI ignores that anthropological research is supported by scientific evidence, extensive research, and that ethnography enables studies that respect traditional peoples as holders of rights (Machado, 2020).
It is important to observe that in addition to summoning the anthropologists Flávia de Mello and Daisy Barcellos to testify, because they coordinated specific anthropological reports under investigation, the then president of the ABA, Antonio Carlos de Souza Lima, was invited.However, the chair of the PCI favoured other deponents on the same date as his participation and the ABA was not heard25 .Like the ABA, civil society organisations and social movements were not offered the space to participate in the meetings.As can be seen in its documents (Brasil 2016(Brasil , 2017)) What is clear is that the representative entities of Indigenous peoples and Quilombolas were completely ignored; they were not invited or summoned, nor were they discussed in the meetings, in the requests to establish PCI 1 (no.16/2015) and 2 (no.26/2016) or in the final report prepared and approved by the Ruralista caucus.Despite being silenced in the official records of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, several representative institutions and leaders made public declarations to address the issues disclosed by the commission.
As I have discussed, the space of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI was controlled by the Ruralista caucus so that the conclusions expressed in the final report reflected its political agenda.Even though anthropologists Flávia de Mello and Daisy Barcellos had made relevant, informative statements during the PCI hearings, the final report repeated the same arguments seen in the requests for the PCI and those presented during the commission meetings.Moreover, in the final report of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, the FPA representatives went further, presenting requests for the indictment of around 130 people27 , only four of whom had actually appeared in commission hearings, including anthropologists Flávia de Mello and Daisy Barcellos.Thus, the PCI's final report addressed several issues that were not even discussed in commission hearings, but nevertheless resulted in indictments.

Final considerations
As I hope to have shown, the FUNAI-INCRA PCI constructed its own narrative concerning Brazilian anthropology and its professionals.As a group of the national political elite, the Ruralista caucus used this event as an expression and materialisation of their interests that dialogue directly with public policies for the redistribution of land to ethnically differentiated groups, Indigenous peoples and Quilombolas.In the broader sense, the centrality of the agrarian issue for agribusiness is evident.As Souza Lima (2015) pointed out, the idea of development for agribusiness implies progress over natural resources that naturally go against the territorial rights of traditional peoples and communities.
For the Ruralista caucus, the desired development for the country, in its various nuances -economic, social, political -collides with public policies implemented by the FUNAI and INCRA, and, consequently, with anthropology, the central discipline involved in the identification and delimitation of Indigenous and Quilombola traditional territories.The ideology of the Ruralista caucus, expressed in the PCI, is translated into its own agenda, into a project of power and development of their own, characteristic of an elite, to use Shore terms (2004).
The activities of the Ruralista caucus in the Legislative branch, a space where the conflict is legitimate, by means of an investigative instrument, the PCI, were marked by discursive practices and silencing that reinforced their worldview and their position of strength in the current configuration of power.The space of the PCI can be seen as a vector for the materialisation and conjunction of knowledges, shared values, ideologies and worldviews in physical documents, formal records that, based on their concreteness as state documents, could also be used in other spaces -other commissions, other spheres of public power, in conjunction with agribusiness sectors.These projects were materialised in the final report approved by the commission.As the final report points out, 'misconceptions' of past public policies serve as a 'shield for a false protectionist discourse, hiding shady interests', such as personal enrichment, the weakening of national sovereignty, the 'expropriation and collectivisation of private property' and 'socioeconomic subjugation as an instrument for maintaining power' (Brasil, 2017: 2.523).This passage of the commission's final document highlights how representatives of the Ruralista caucus classified as deviations logics distinct from that of the private appropriation of land.Other forms, like holding collective titles to land for common use, do not fit into their concept of development and threaten the expansion of agribusiness, since they remove land from the real estate market.
The idea of land is linked to that of merchandise, one not aligned with the value attributed to land by Indigenous and traditional communities, for whom legitimate right is acquired through effective possession, based on consuetudinary or customary law.In this sense, Almeida (2010) emphasises that the growing global demand for land for agribusiness has triggered a process he called agrostrategies, where deterritorialisations imposed on Indigenous and traditional peoples are influenced by political actors.Agribusiness actors have made an effort to influence government policies aimed at the agribusiness sector, such as tax incentives, the regularisation of public lands, changes in regulations, including through the FPA (Almeida, 2010;Carneiro et al., 2017;Pompeia, 2018;Dalla Costa and Picelli, 2020).Thus, agrostrategies have been intensified on several fronts within the state (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches) aimed at removing administrative, political and legal obstacles that prevent the commercialisation of land, including those concerning conservation units and traditional territories.Regarding this point, as previously highlighted, anthropology has entered the sight of this political group for the role it plays, that is, when it enables 'a vision and a reality that previously had not found space (or power) for manifestation, and which, precisely for this reason, had not been codified' (Silva, 2015: 160).
Contrary to that presented during the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, the anthropological work of identifying and delimiting Indigenous and Quilombola lands does not give rise to local conflicts.Studies for the demarcation of ethnic territories, by means of the scientific techniques of anthropology, together with Indigenous and traditional knowledge, explain existing truths that were often suppressed in relations of force and symbolic violence (Ferreira, 2015).The social structure is based on latent, hidden ethnic and social conflict, in which the Quilombolas and Indigenous people unwillingly occupy the subaltern pole of this structure, often without the conditions to form open opposition.It is also essential to point out that the work of state agencies in the demarcation of traditional lands does not originate internally, rather it stems from the demand of the traditional group, that is, these demarcations occur as part of the community's internal process of fighting for its rights.
It is based on contact between the different groups and, therefore, from the confrontation between the distinct logics of land appropriation, or in the terms of Cardoso de Oliveira (1976), in the interethnic friction that takes place during the process of affirming their identity.The anthropological report is not a cause of this process of self-affirmation, but a consequence, and during the report's elaboration, the conflicts are visible and previously established in the region.
Initially, the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, set up during the Ruralista caucus's defence of PEC 215, sought to gain more support for the draft amendment to transfer the constitutional obligation of demarcating Indigenous and Quilombola territories to the Legislative branch.However, during the PCI, President Dilma Rousseff was impeached, which led to the departure of the PT and its supporters from managerial positions in federal public bodies, including those responsible for land redistribution, INCRA and FUNAI.
Following the developments and the deepening consequences of the impeachment, the political groups that supported it gained wider access to the Executive branch after 13 years of PT governments.Thus, there was no longer a need to transfer the competence for the demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands to the National Congress, since some of the representatives who worked for PEC 215 and were protagonists in the FUNAI-INCRA PCI began to occupy strategic positions in the Executive branch of the new government28 .
After this reorganisation of the Executive branch, a number of the actions that were under development to establish a larger role for the Legislative branch in the Ruralista agenda with regard to agrarian policy began to take a back seat, and this is what happened with PEC 215.In the PCI's final report, the chapter on propositions contains a request to the President of the Câmara dos Deputados that, when the vote on PEC 215 is inserted in the activities of the plenary, he should add the proposed suggestion to suppress the articles that had been inserted related to transferring the approval of demarcations to the Legislative branch 'in view of the latest events in this area' (Brasil, 2017: 3.083).
Based on the referral contained in the commission's final report, it becomes apparent that the impeachment of the President of the Republic, Dilma Rousseff, altered the course of the legislative dynamics that were being outlined, accelerating them.When the PCI was established, much was said about the use of this commission by the Ruralista caucus to support and consolidate the discourse that approved the legal-technical opinion of PEC 215 in a special commission, in order to put the vote to the plenary of the Câmara dos Deputados, with broad parliamentary support.On a macro level, the FUNAI-INCRA PCI was an important arena for the Ruralista caucus to present their alternatives for public land redistribution policies under the new national political scenario being constructed following the impeachment.The dynamics of the commission's operation provided a glimpse of the construction of the final report.
In its ethnographies, anthropology, as an area of knowledge that the state uses to identify the Indigenous and Quilombola lands that will be the object of demarcation, fully contemplates the various political, moral, ethical, and other elements involved in fieldwork.For this reason, not only was this area of knowledge on the PCI's radar, but also the ABA, which brings together researchers in the field.The ABA takes a public stand in defence of constitutional rights and guarantees, its practice in the public sphere, and its theoreticalmethodological principles.Thus, Brazilian anthropology and the ABA can rightfully be considered 'engaged' and 'ideological', to use terms of the Ruralista caucus in the PCI, but only to the extent that they do not behave as passive spectators, nor do they ignore events in their scientific productions that affect the universe in which their research unfolds and which, for the majority of this group of anthropologists, is Brazil.There is no other way to conduct ethical, scientific anthropological research, that is, it is not possible to detach the field from the social and historical context in which it is inserted, to treat the subject as isolated in time and space, or avoid dialogues with traditional communities in order to apprehend their point of view to compose the analyses.As previously highlighted, the work of the anthropologist brings to light complex social entanglements that, in a latent form, are often taken for granted.By bringing dissenting voices to light, exposing the contradictions and differences in the forces at play, it is the work of the anthropologist, and no other, that puts the disputed issues on the table 29 .
Since the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, as anthropologists, we perceive that the allegation that something on which you disagreed is 'ideological' has become increasingly recurrent, when in reality, it is merely a matter of a divergent conception or orientation, that is, of another ideology.Since then, this has transformed into a widely used jargon, not only during the electoral campaign of the 2018 elections, but continues to be an important tool for differentiating the federal administration elected in 2019.Based on discussions in the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, the consolidation of a Ruralista project of power was observed that, following the election of Jair Bolsonaro as President of the Republic, became a government project for the demarcation of Indigenous lands, Quilombola

(
ABA) [Brazilian Association of Anthropology].The scope of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI must be seen in a broader political context.The debates and arguments that were repeated throughout commission hearings form part of a political discussion that intensified with the impeachment of the President of the Republic, Dilma Rousseff 11 , in 2016, and culminated in the election of Jair Bolsonaro to the office of president in October 2018.Arguments concerning anthropological practice, the general contribution of social and human sciences to national development, which were presented at the PCI, reached new heights during the government elected from 2019 to 2022.Notably, we observe that the recognition of the coexistence of different peoples in the same nation, confirmed above all by articles 215, 216, 231 and 68 of the Ato das Disposições Constitucionais Transitórias (ADCT) [Transitory Constitutional Provisions Act] of the Federal Constitution of 1988, would be subject to was preventing large scale land redistribution, an objective of agrarian reform defended by entities like the Associação Brasileira de Reforma Agrária (ABRA) [Brazilian Association of Agrarian Reform], the Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT) [Pastoral Land Commission], and others.According to Pompeia, the FAAB's role in the Assembleia Constituinte achieved an 'innovative result' by bringing together representative associations in agriculture and livestock production, such as the Confederação da Agricultura e Pecuária do Brasil (CNA) [Agriculture and Livestock Confederation of Brazil], the aforementioned OCB, SRB and UDR, and industrial and service sectors.After the enactment of the 1988 Constitution, the Ruralista caucus continued to exist informally between 1990 and 1994.The FAAB was reorganised in 1995; in 2002 it became the Frente Parlamentar de Apoio à Agropecuária [Parliamentary Front for the Support of Agribusiness], and in 2008 was renamed the Frente Parlamentar da Agropecuária (FPA) [Agribusiness Parliamentary Front].Regarding the organisation of the FPA in 2015, the year of the FUNAI-INCRA PCI, and given the centrality of the theme for the group, the main political actors of the Ruralista caucus ran the commission.The entire Directorate of the PCI (all seven positions) was occupied by members of the Ruralista caucus.
aligned with the right-wing in the National Congress, were the successive defeats in presidential elections between 2003 and 2014 (four victories for the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) [Workers' Party]: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva between 2003-2010 and Dilma Rousseff between 2011-2016).During the PT's period in government, agendas enabling social participation were widely disseminated, despite the fact that, from the perspective of numerous actors, certain issues dear to social movements more aligned with the left have not been translated into public policies and effective state practices.
scientists, Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência (SBPC) [Brazilian Society for Scientific Progress] and the Academia Brasileira de Ciências (ABC) [Brazilian Academy of Sciences].
, the PCI made abundant mention of organisations, including the Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) [Socio-environmental Institute], Centro de Trabalho Indigenista (CTI) [Indigenous Work Centre] and the Conselho Indigenista Missionário (CIMI) [Indigenous Missionary Council], with allegations of collusion, information trafficking, interference in the institutions and decisions of the FUNAI; however, no defence or counterarguments were allowed in the official spaces 26 .Likewise, the participation of Indigenous and Quilombola organisations, such as the Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil (APIB) [Articulation of the Indigenous Peoples of Brazil], the Coordenação Nacional de Articulação das Comunidades Negras Rurais Quilombolas (CONAQ) [National Coordination of the Articulation of Black Rural Quilombola Communities] and the Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira (COIAB) [Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon] was not scheduled.
territories and agrarian reform.In the first few months of government, we saw actions aimed at implementing the conclusions presented in the final report of the PCI, with the extinction of Executive structures focused on family farming and traditional peoples and communities30 , such as the Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário (MDA) [Ministry of Agrarian Development] and the Secretaria de Extrativismo e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável (SEDR) [Secretariat for Extractivism and Sustainable Rural Development] of the Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA) [Ministry of the Environment].Bodies that concentrated activities of interest to agribusiness were reallocated of interest to political and economic groups, such as Medida Provisória [Provisional Measure] 910/2019, which dealt with the regularisation of public areas owned by the federal government, transformed into Bill 2633/2020, popularly known as the Grilagem Bill [lit.Land grabbing Bill]; Bill 191/2020, which provides for mining on Indigenous lands; Bill 3729/2004, which preceded the Lei Geral de Licenciamento Ambiental [General Law on Environmental Licensing], making existing environmental norms less restrictive; and several other measures.In this context, it is important to emphasise that the political groups operating at the highest level of the Executive branch have not yet managed to change the procedures for demarcating Indigenous lands and Quilombola territories, which they had defended since the FUNAI-INCRA PCI.Nevertheless, public servants who work in this area are under constant scrutiny, such that their professional practices are often examined and called into question.However, even without ideal conditions for their actuation, these bodies still operate based on identification and delimitation sustained by anthropological work.Right now, I understand that we have not yet seen the full unfolding of this story.The effects of this political strategy are still under development and a greater historical distance is required to be able to map them adequately.Received: June 30, 2022 Approved: January 16, 2023 Translated by Philip Badiz