PROJECT DOCUMENT (PIMS 3600) United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility Ministry of Environment (MMA) and National Indigenous Foundation (FUNAI) Federative Republic of Brazil BRA/09/G32- CATALYZING THE CONTRIBUTION OF INDIGENOUS LANDS TO THE CONSERVATION OF BRAZIL’S FOREST ECOSYSTEMS Brief description : Brazil’s National Biodiversity Policy (NBP) identifies conservation through protected areas (PAs) as central to protecting the country’s megadiversity and has, therefore, established a goal to have 10% of each of Brazil’s 6 biomes classified as PAs. The current National System of Conservation Units (SNUC) covers approximately 12% of the territory, however this does not achieve adequate protection for all forest biomes nor does it include many sites defined as high priority for forest conservation. To this end, Brazil’s 611 Indigenous Lands (ILs) represent a significant opportunity. They promote the physical and cultural safety of indigenous people (IPs) - often referred to as ecosystem or forest people - and consequently, through indigenous traditional natural resource management strategies and cultural beliefs, these lands protect forest biodiversity and the services provided by these ecosystems. ILs cover as much, if not more area, than the current SNUC system, and many contain forests identified as priorities for conservation. Others are strategically located in sites critical for connectivity between PAs within SNUC, or for inter-biome transition zones. However, given external and internal pressures on ILs, the ability of indigenous peoples (IPs) to continue their traditional, cost- effective conservation strategies is being compromised. Threats to biodiversity in ILs can be grouped according to (i) those arising from land uses outside ILs ( such as monoculture cultivation, intensive cattle ranching and urbanization); (ii) those arising from the extraction of resources by non-IPs that encroach on IL territory (such as logging, hunting, prospecting for mineral wealth); and (iii) those arising from the over exploitation of resources by IPs within the ILs (such as subsistence and commercialization needs). The main barriers to consolidating the conservation of forest biodiversity in ILs are: (i) gaps and inconsistencies in policies, institutional mandates and capacities that inhibit ILs from receiving effective support for conservation, (ii) weak operational management capacities to optimize the role of ILs in biodiversity conservation, and (iii) limited knowledge and skills among IPs to develop sustainable production practices that do not undermine the resource base while also meeting the economic needs of IPs. While the Brazilian government has provided a strong legislative basis for recognizing the rights of IPs to ILs and also undertaken several programs and projects of support, there remain challenges to fully realizing the conservation potential of ILs. Global benefits currently delivered by ILs will be eroded overtime and a significant opportunity to maximize and sustain IPs conservation of forest biodiversity will be lost along with irreparable losses in ethno-cultural and spiritual diversity. The proposed Alternative is to adopt a ground-tested and officially recognized strategy for environmental management in Indigenous Lands (IL) by Indigenous Peoples (IP) for the effective conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity. The Project will achieve this through the following three Outcomes and their related Outputs: (i) Mechanisms and tools have been developed that enable Brazil’s ILs to be recognized and strengthened as effective areas for conserving forest biodiversity, natural resources and the environmental services, (ii) A network of ILs modeling environmental management practices for conservation in different forest biomes is in place and is being effectively managed by the indigenous peoples and organizations, and (iii) Sustainable and replicable models of forest management , based on ethno-management principles, are piloted in selected ILs from different forest biomes. Direct global benefits to be delivered include: an increase in the area (4,563,933ha) of representative forest ecosystems of Brazil under conservation through the recognized environmental goals of ILs located in areas of high priority for biodiversity conservation; maintaining forest habitats in these areas at same or higher levels; improved connectivity between PAs; and improved management effectiveness in the RAs. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE .................................................................................... 7 PART A.1 SITUATION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Globally Significant Biodiversity and Brazil’s Indigenous Lands.................................................................. 7 1.2. Cultural and Socio-Economic Context of Brazil’s Indigenous People........................................................ 11 Amazon Biome.................................................................................................................................................................11 Caatinga and northeast part of Atlantic Forest..................................................................................................................12 Cerrado and Pantanal Biomes...........................................................................................................................................12 Atlantic Forest in the South of Brazil ...............................................................................................................................13 1.3 Threats to Biodiversity in Indigenous Lands ................................................................................................ 14 1.3.1 External threats to Indigenous Lands.......................................................................................................................15 1.3.2 Encroachment into Indigenous Lands......................................................................................................................15 1.3.3 Internal threats from overuse ...................................................................................................................................16 1.4. Legislative, Policy, Institutional, and Programming Context...................................................................... 16 1.4.1 Legislative and policy context .................................................................................................................................17 1.4.2 Baseline programs related to Indigenous Lands ......................................................................................................18 1.5 Long-Term Solution for Reducing Threats to Biodiversity in ILs................................................................. 20 1.6 Barriers to Consolidating the Conservation of Forest Biodiversity in ILs ................................................... 20 1.6.1 Gaps and inconsistencies in policies, institutional mandates and capacities............................................................20 1.6.2 Weak operational management capacities to optimize the role of ILs in biodiversity conservation........................21 1.6.3 Limited knowledge and skills among IPs to develop sustainable production practices ...........................................24 PART A.2 PROJECT STRATEGY................................................................................................................ 25 2.1 Conformity of the Project with GEF Policies ............................................................................................... 27 2.2 Project Goal, Objective, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities ......................................................................... 27 2.3 Project Indicators, Assumptions and Risks................................................................................................... 45 2.4 Expected Global, National and Local Benefits............................................................................................. 48 2.5 Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness............................................................... 49 2.5.1 Country Eligibility...................................................................................................................................................49 2.5.2 Link to National Strategies ......................................................................................................................................50 2.5.3 Link with ongoing UNDP Programs and Projects ...................................................................................................51 2.6 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................ 52 2.7 Replicability.................................................................................................................................................. 53 2.8 Stakeholders Participation ........................................................................................................................... 54 2.9 Outcome/ Output Budget and Cost-Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 55 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................................................57