amerindian agriculture in an urbanising amazonia (rio negro, brazil

Bulletin of Latin American Research, 2014 DOI:10.1111/blar.12176

Amerindian Agriculturein an Urbanising Amazonia(Rio Negro, Brazil)

LAURE EMPERAIREInstitut de Recherche pour le Developpement, France

LUDIVINE ELOYCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France

This article explores the transformations undergone by indigenous agri-cultural systems in periurban areas of the Rio Negro (Amazonas, Brazil).Rather than losing their characteristics, these systems have basicallybeen transposed from a forest context to periurban areas, maintainingmulti-plot cultivation, dynamic management of agrobiodiversity and tra-ditional knowledge. But this agriculture is confronted by the values ofmodernity embedded in urban agriculture. The recognition of the ecolog-ical and cultural relevance of indigenous practices depends on new kindsof market integration and partnerships.

Keywords: agrobiodiversity, Amazonia, cassava, periurban indige-nous agriculture, shifting agriculture.

Since the 1980s, the population of the three main towns in the Upper and Mid RioNegro, in north-western Brazilian Amazonia, has steadily increased and is now on thepoint of exceeding the rural population. In this region, located 400 km upstream fromManaus, population density is low (under one inhabitant per square kilometre). Thephenomenon concerns all of Brazilian Amazonia. In 2000, 68 percent of the Amazonianpopulation lived in urban areas; today this figure has increased to nearly 75 percent andcontinues to rise rapidly. At present, nineteen cities have populations of over 100,000inhabitants each. Manaus and Belem, each with about 2 million people, have the largestconcentrations of the urban population. However, towns have been emerging andgrowing along the agricultural frontier since the 1970s (Browder and Godfrey, 1997),and, more recently, urban growth has also become significant in remote areas suchas the Rio Negro, in Amazonas State (Eloy, Le Tourneau and Thery, 2005). Whetheralong rivers or along roads, population growth takes place mainly in urban centres.

Population movements between towns and forests are often temporary or circu-lar, depending upon school calendars and those of productive activities (agriculture,

© 2014 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2014 Society for Latin American Studies.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 1

Laure Emperaire and Ludivine Eloy

fishing, hunting, gathering, extractivism). Like other riverine populations of the Ama-zon (Padoch et al., 2008; Nasuti et al., this volume), most indigenous families resort tomulti-sited land use in order to gain access to urban goods and services, while maintain-ing productive activities and social relationships in their villages (Moreira, 2003; Eloy,2008). The emergent towns thus acquire an increasing importance in the Amerindian ter-ritoriality. New ‘networks of material and symbolic exchanges’ (Castro, 2008: 8) operatebetween cities and forests and link agricultural modernity to an indigenous shifting agri-culture, one that displays strong values of cultural identity, knowledge and practices,as well as of conservation of a wide diversity of genetic resources. This tendency isnot marginal: in 2010, nearly one-third of the Amerindian population lived outside ofIndigenous Lands (IBGE, 2012), usually in an urban or periurban environment.

However, these emerging cities do not have a labour market large enough toabsorb the influx of rural populations. So most new migrants have to reconfigure theirlivelihoods, especially slash-and-burn agriculture, on the outskirts of the urban in acontext of high land pressure. The question of the dynamics of traditional shiftingagriculture in the periurban context arises in relation not only to food security but alsoto the maintenance of the variety of production systems in Amazonia. This diversity isimportant not only as part of the solution to problems of climate change, but also asthe key to maintaining a wide range of plant genetic resources and the cultural diversitythat characterises these unique agricultural systems.

In Amazonia, as in other tropical rainforests, the urbanisation process is oftenseen as negative for the environment and for traditional agricultural systems based onslashing and burning. As proposed by Vliet et al. (2013), we differentiate slash-and-burnagriculture from shifting agriculture even if the first step is the same. The slash-and-burnmodality refers to the establishment of permanent plots, while the latter applies topractices that lead to a plot-forest cycle, as in the case of the Mid Rio Negro region.

These traditional agricultures adapt in countless ways, depending on the cultural andmaterial characteristics of the social groups involved and on factors that modify pro-duction conditions, such as land tenure, technological changes and market integration.Several studies have shown that the diversity of phytogenetic resources is maintained oreven increased in urban home-gardens (Winklerprins, 2006; Emperaire and Eloy, 2008;Akinnifesi et al., 2010). An improved understanding of such adaptations requires ananalysis of the spatial strategies of local populations, both at individual and collectivelevels, and the associated flows of goods, services and knowledge (Emperaire, 2000;Hamlin and Salick, 2003; Moreira, 2003; Wezel and Ohl, 2005; Freire, 2007). Multi-faceted, multifunctional and dynamic territories are thus emerging from these strategiesof economic diversification, and new social networks that link rural and urban areasare being formed. Nevertheless, the relationships between urbanisation, subsistence andmanagement of biodiversity are still poorly understood.

In this study, we approach these connections through the example of the reconfigura-tion of agricultural systems on the outskirts of a small town in north-western Amazonia.What, if any, are the new relationships the farmers forge with the tangible and intangiblecomponents of agrobiodiversity – understood as the diversity of cultivated plants – inperiurban areas? How does this new environment lead to changes in perceptions andidentities associated with the management of agrobiodiversity?

After a brief presentation of the urbanisation process in this part of Brazilian Amazo-nia, we will present the main characteristics of indigenous agriculture in traditional andurban contexts. We will then analyse how these practices are perceived by agriculturalinstitutions and affected by environmental policies.

© 2014 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2014 Society for Latin American Studies2 Bulletin of Latin American Research

Amerindian Agriculture in Amazonia

The Mid Rio Negro and Forest Urbanisation

The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) has adopted a broaddefinition of what constitutes an urban area: the administrative seat of any Brazilianmunicipality or district is officially considered ‘urban’, irrespective of its size and itseconomic importance. As noted by Eli da Veiga (2006), because this definition blursthe boundaries between rural and urban areas, the urban phenomenon is overestimatedand questions of rural development often neglected. Nevertheless, considering urbanunits of a few thousand inhabitants as ‘towns’ leads to a better understanding of theiremergence and dynamics.

The three main towns of the Rio Negro (Sao Gabriel da Cachoeira, Santa Isabeldo Rio Negro and Barcelos – Figure 1) trace their origins back to between 1650 and1750. Catholic missions, followed by military forts, are at their origin. The earlycolonisation resulted in the slave trade of thousands of Amerindians who were removedfrom the upper courses of the tributaries of the Rio Negro river (Meira, 2006). In the1750s, depletion of upper river populations was still going on: forest products suchas cocoa, spices and medicinal plants, known as drogas do sertao (backland drugs)were harvested by this displaced indigenous work force (Wright, 1981). Later, from thenineteenth century to the 1980s, other extractive products such as rubber and fibreswere exploited. While the latter were shipped to be commercialised on national andinternational markets, manufactured goods and foodstuffs were shipped from Manausand Belem to be sold or bartered to dispersed workers located in remote forest areas.The dense network of extractivist patroes (bosses) was established, connecting towns

Figure 1. Location of the Study Area in North-Western Amazonia.

Source: Map produced by Ludivine Eloy / CNRS, 2013.

Data base: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) (nd), Fundacao Nacional do Indio

© 2014 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2014 Society for Latin American StudiesBulletin of Latin American Research 3


and remote forest areas. The collapse of extractivism in 1980s led to a rise in agriculturefor the production of cassava flour, which gradually replaced extractivist products andrekindled commercial relationships between forests and towns.

In the Rio Negro, the 1980s were a time of change in the relationship betweenforest communities and urban areas. Three factors converged to lead to a demographicconcentration: the collapse of the extractivism-based economy, the weakening of themissionary educational system (closure of boarding schools) and the increase of publicinvestment in cities. In order to continue the education of their children, parents wereforced to send them to towns to live with relatives or to move there permanently.Alternatively, families would divide residence and economic activities between ruraland urban areas (multi-sited households). Migration to the cities was driven not onlyby the need for public services (education, health, administrative services, etc.), butalso by families seeking a new way of life for themselves and a better economicfuture for their children. At present, urban growth in riverine Amazonia results mainlyfrom the activities of public administration (municipal budgets, administrative services,government salaries, retirement, credits, etc.) and federal cash-transfer policies (mainlythe Bolsa família [family grant]). Local authorities invest in management of the urbaninfrastructures: the town is their showcase.

Within 30 years, the total population of the Santa Isabel do Rio Negro municipality,the focus of this article, more than tripled (from 4,981 to 18,146 inhabitants) andthe urban population increased six-fold (from 1,034 to 6,856 inhabitants) (Table 1).Since 2010, a new question in the census records the respondent’s ethnic identity.Santa Isabel, where 31.6 percent of the urban population is indigenous, is one of tenBrazilian municipalities in which over 50 percent of the population declare themselvesto be indigenous (IBGE, 2010b). A survey by the Socio-Environmental Institute (Dias,2008), based upon a comprehensive census of Santa Isabel, corroborates and amplifiesthis result, with 4,867 Amerindians (86.2 percent) and 781, people who do not declaretheir origin (345), or do not know it (436). The self-identification Bare is dominant andrepresents nearly 60 percent of the indigenous segment of the urban population (for adiscussion about Bare identity cf . Meira, 2006).

The more recent national data available on migration were collected in 2000 frompopulation samples (IBGE, 2000). They indicate that migration occurs most in urban(with migrants comprising 27 percent of the population) than rural areas (5 percent)

Table 1. Evolution of Urban and Rural Populations between 1980 and 2010 and in theMunicipality of Santa Isabel do Rio Negro (AM)

Census year 1980 1991 1996 2000 2010 2010

Population NI + I NI + I NI + I NI + I NI + I NI I

RuralIndividuals 3,947 13,317 9,010 6,341 11,290 2,706 8,584% 79.24 86.36 74.33 60.04 62.22 23.97 76.03

UrbanIndividuals 1,034 2,104 3,111 4,220 6,856 4,691 2,165% 20.76 13.64 25.67 39.96 37.78 68.42 31.58

Total 4,981 15,421 12,121 10,561 18,146 7,397 10,749

NI: non-indigenous; I: indigenous.Source: IBGE (1980, 1991, 2000, 2010a,b and 1996).



and that it is an internal Amazonas State phenomenon. In fact, all the life histories wecollected recorded migration from the nearby municipalities, Barcelos and Sao Gabriel.However, migration and mobility practices are very complex and involve intensecirculation between rural and urban areas, related to familiar strategies of dispersionand aggregation and to economic opportunities.

This brief review of local history shows that relationships with an urban centre havebeen relevant for centuries in the Amazon. As Santos (1972) has pointed out, these townshave played a strong functional role and they should be called local towns instead oflittle towns, because the latter term only refers to their spatial and demographic aspects(Santos, 1972: 10). At present, the urban reference is turning into the dominant modeof life even in remote areas such as the Mid and Upper Rio Negro (Andrello, 2006; Eloyand Lasmar, 2012).

Study Area

The study area is located on the left bank of the Rio Negro, in north-western Amazonia,home to twenty ethnic groups belonging to three major language families (Arawak,Tukano and Maku). The settlement pattern is composed of comunidades (scatteredvillages) or sítios (hamlets) on the banks of the Rio Negro and its tributaries. Igapos andterra firme forests (seasonally flooded and not-flooded forests) are omnipresent. Theonly human footprints in the landscape are scattered cultivated plots near the hamlets.

A group of five Terras Indígenas (Indigenous Lands, registered areas recognised asa permanent possession of the Amerindians with exclusive usufruct of soils, rivers andlakes) covers the upstream part of the region; a large part of the downstream region is inthe process of being delimited. Land tenure is primarily dominated by customary landrights of family or community occupation. Land under private ownership accounts foronly a small proportion and is concentrated around towns. The practice of agricultureis pervasive in the towns along the Rio Negro. Thirty-eight percent of the 975 familiesliving in Santa Isabel do Rio Negro report having a cultivated field in the periurbanarea (Dias, 2008).

The production system combines shifting agriculture, fishing, hunting, gathering andextractivism. These activities take place in a context of low population pressure (exceptaround towns) which allows for long fallow periods. Each year a new field is cleared,thus generating a mosaic of plots at different stages of ecological succession. Thecomplete burn-and-fallow cycle takes about twelve years. The size of the cleared area isusually less than half a hectare, and it is used on average for three years before beingleft to fallow regeneration. Agricultural production is primarily destined for familysubsistence with a small part being sold in the town.

Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is the main crop, in terms of cultivated spaces,infraspecific diversity and diet (Emperaire, 2004). As in other parts of the Amazon, themanagement of agrobiodiversity is highly dynamic (McKey et al., 2001; Emperaire andPeroni, 2007; Coomes, 2010): seeds and cuttings circulate in the whole region and thiscirculation complies in part with rules for constitution of lineages (Chernela, 1986).These depend on linguistic exogamy in the case of Tukanoan groups (or clanic in thecase of Arawak ones), virilocality and patrilinearity, so a newly-wed woman will livein the community of her mother-in-law and will receive from her a stock of cassavavarieties. Later on, she will expand her collection with varieties from her mother or



other family members. These main characteristics and agriculture as a whole representa strong cultural reference for the different ethnic groups present in the region.

Methods

The data analysed here are drawn from fieldwork conducted between 2005 and 2012 intwo forest communities (Tapereira and Espírito Santo) and in the town of Santa Isabel doRio Negro. The research framework was discussed with the local indigenous association,the Associacao das Comunidades Indígenas do Medio Rio Negro (ACIMRN), at thebeginning of the project. Our objective was to understand and compare the dynamicsof the Amerindian agricultural system in urban and forest contexts. Following the leadof Browder (2002), we differentiated between internal and external factors in analysingthis reconfiguration. The former encompass descriptors inherent in the agriculturalpractice, both qualitative (land rights and cultural values) and quantitative (number andarea of fields, agrobiodiversity and patterns of circulation of seeds and cuttings). Thelatter focus on understanding the impact of new urban elements: the recognition of thelocal agricultural system as an intangible heritage, the agricultural development agenciesand the legal environmental norms. The market insertion of cassava production, whichis similar for both the urban and rural contexts, was not explored in any depth.

Three field methods were used at the household level: semi-structured interviewsabout life trajectories; field inventory of the cultivated plants at specific and infraspecificlevels with the local names of the plants, their uses and information about whereand from whom the agriculturist (usually the woman of the domestic unit) obtainedeach cultivated plant; and land-use mapping using Landsat satellite imagery. In thetwo forest communities, we worked with all the families (four in Tapereira, and ninein Espírito Santo). In Santa Isabel the choice of informants (seventeen) was madeaccording to our local networks of acquaintances. Informants were the individualsresponsible for agricultural production: 29 women and one man. We emphasise thatthe domestic unit does not always overlap exactly with the farm unit and can aggregate,sometimes temporarily, members of a wider kinship. This often renders difficult astrict comparison between indicators. The informants belonged to various Amerindiangroups: Desana (three), Tukanoan (four), Piratapuia (one), Baniwa (eight), Bare (seven),and descendants of Amerindian women and Portuguese or Nordestino men whosearrival in the region was linked to the trade in forest products, for the former, and goldmining, for the latter (seven). All informants were fluent in Portuguese, the language inwhich we conducted the interviews.

Forests, Towns and Shifting Agriculture

Access to Land and Multi-Plot Agriculture

In forest areas with open access to land, the spatial distribution of slash-and-burnplots is determined in accordance with three main elements: ecological characteristicsof the environment that make it suitable or not for cultivation, distance from theplace of residence and affinities among family groups within the village. These socialrelationships are reflected by the forest trails leading to the plots. In general, the firstfamily to clear a field is granted land-use rights. However, clearing a new area is subject



to consent of the village leader, who is responsible for making sure that the use of aparticular space will not generate conflicts. Land rights associated with cultivated areaschange along the course of their productive history. Productive fields and young fallowsthat still provide fruit and propagative material are for the exclusive use of the domesticunit’s members. These access and use rights become diluted over successive fallow stagesand are extended to the broader family. Forest fallows are considered free of rights onlywhen they regain the appearance of an undisturbed forest. In summary, the ecologicalheterogeneity of productive spaces is reflected by the heterogeneity of land use rights.

The situation is quite different in urban areas. First, the management unit is no longera mosaic of scattered fields in the forest, but a limited area of a few hectares. Second,the plots are under different sets, direct or indirect, of land rights: (a) legalised area withownership rights; (b) occupied lands – often interstitial spaces with poor quality soils;or (c) indirect access within an area belonging to a large landowner, either freely orin exchange for manual labour or production within kinship networks, according to alogic of solidarity and need. Access to land in urban areas depends heavily on the socialintegration of the family.

In forest areas or in the city, the only model of private ownership is the one thatapplies to areas permanently cultivated as orchards or gardens, generally located nearthe houses (Guillaumet et al., 1990). For the most part, these lands are derived from thevery first fields cleared during the installation of a family.

The pressure on land in periurban areas is high. Cultivated fields and fallows atdifferent stages of regeneration extend 10 km beyond Santa Isabel (Figure 2). Thenearest and more accessible lands, along the roads, belong to the main traders from

Figure 2. Land-Use Dynamics around Santa Isabel do Rio Negro between 1985 and 2008.

Source: Map produced by Ludivine Eloy / CNRS, 2013. Classification on Landsat images.



Table 2. Principal Characteristics of the Cultivated Area and Agrobiodiversity in Urban andForest Contexts

Location Santa Isabel Tapereira Espírito SantoInformants N = 17 N = 4 N = 9

Mean of cultivated area (ha) 0.98 1.1 1.0Number of cultivated plots 2.9 2.25 3.3Mean number of plots by category new/mature/old 1.4/0.5/1.1 1.5/0.0/0.8 1.7/0.3/1.5Number of cassava varieties 84 28 35Number of others plants cultivated 259 113 129

Source: Authors’ field data.

the city. All areas along the three main roads are already fully occupied and land usedfor agriculture now extends beyond the roads, into the forest, with access by narrowtrails. In the north-western part of Santa Isabel, cultivated plots run along the southernboundary of the Yanomami Indigenous Territory. The urban demand for agriculturalland is focused on areas located within an hour’s travel by foot, bicycle or canoe, orby collective transportation in the local government truck that operates a few timesa week. Although this new transport option is useful, only being able to access plotsperiodically means farmers can no longer organise their own agricultural schedule orkeep an eye on their fields. This new dependence is perceived as a constraint on theagriculturists’ ability to fulfil their responsibilities in moral as much as functional terms.

According to the farmers, food security is ensured by the combination of at leastthree swidden plots: a new plot, one mature and one older plot (with replanted cassava).However, our data indicate a relative instability as compared to this ideal pattern: wefound only three such cases in the urban areas and two in the rural areas. The otherindicators, such as the mean of cultivated area per farmer, number of cultivated plotsand their distribution between the three categories – new, mature and old plots – aresimilar in urban and forest areas, according to our sample (Table 2).

In the periurban area, farmers say that they reduce the fallow period due to thescarcity of land. The strategy to overcome the precariousness of land tenure and achieveeconomic insertion in the urban market is to plant perennial species on their plots. Theplanting of acaí palm – with the cepistuous species Euterpe oleracea that is ubiquitousin central Amazonia or, more rarely, E. precatoria, which is a monocaulous forestspecies – is frequent. Its fruit is used to make juice, the vinho de acaí , appreciated bythe entire population, be it urban or rural. It is produced for self-consumption in thehousehold or, in an urban context, for the informal market, being sold on the street orby request. Given the short shelf life of the fruit and its juice, sales are perforce local,thus creating market opportunities for local production. Moreover, the planting of afew acaí palms on the plot falls into the category of improvements (benfeitorias) and isthus likely to bring added value in case of transfer, whether voluntary or involuntary,of the plot. As in other regions of Amazonia, the intensification of acaí culture makesland tenure visible and increases monetary incomes (Lewis, 2007; Padoch et al., 2008),but the production remains domestic.

Agrobiodiversity

The Rio Negro area is known as a high agrobiodiversity region, mainly for itscassava varieties. Women play a central role in the management and conservation of



phytogenetic resources. Initially, clearing and burning operations are the responsibilityof the men but after burning, the plot is put under the responsibility of women, thedonas de roca. These women will select varieties to be cultivated, especially of cassava,plant them and weed the fields. Later, they will harvest the cassava roots or otherproducts, frequently with the help of the men. The expression dona da roca refers toauthority, responsibility and expertise. The expert knowledge held by women is mainlyrelated to cassava varieties, their names, their ecological preferences and their cyclesand properties. Such knowledge does not apply to cassava only as object. The donada roca is responsible for the well-being of these cassava plants, which are treated assubjects (Emperaire et al., 2010). Growing cassava requires agronomic expertise butalso includes a feeling of caring for non-human beings, as Descola (2005) described inthe Achuar context.

Table 2 shows that, from a quantitative perspective, with a total of 106 cassava vari-eties and 328 other cultivated plants (for food, medicinal, technical or other uses), therewas no major difference in the diversity in urban or forest areas. The diversity of plantscultivated in the town of Santa Isabel is the same or higher for all categories, excludingornamental ones, which form a new emergent category found in urban gardens.

Plants and People, a Social Relationship Network

A comparison of surveys undertaken in forest communities and around the town high-lights the fact that the agricultural system relies on a wide diversity of cultivated plantsand an intense circulation of cuttings and seeds within social networks. Agrobiodiversityis the result of the constant interest of the agriculturist in new varieties and the circula-tion of cuttings or seeds within the social network of farmers, relatives, neighbours oracquaintances, as seen in Figure 3 (Emperaire and Oliveira, 2010). Agricultural diversityis dynamic, always renewing itself. To visit relatives, travel to Manaus or gather forestproducts is always an opportunity to bring back new plants. These plants are testedand carefully planted in spaces reserved for experimentation. Maintenance of diversitydepends on this interest, this curiosity in search of new morphotypes, combined witha continuous process of innovation and experimentation. The diversity of fields andcultivars also contains elements of aesthetic pleasure and cultural memory because ofthe diversity of foliage tones, the promise of abundant harvests and the set of socialrelations revealed by the presence of these plants. In both urban and forest contexts,the dona da roca focuses her attention on agrobiological diversity – for which she caresmore than she does for the area of the plot devoted to cultivation.

Recognising an Agricultural Heritage

In November 2010, a new stakeholder came into play: the Institute of National Historicand Artistic Heritage (IPHAN). At the request of local associations, the traditionalagricultural system of the Rio Negro was recognised as intangible heritage of theBrazilian nation under the terms of Decree 3551/2000. This recognition entails theestablishment of a safeguarding plan, defined through mutual agreement between thethree main Amerindian associations in the Rio Negro – the Federation of IndigenousOrganisations of the Rio Negro, the Association of Indigenous Communities of MidRio Negro, and Barcelos Association of Indigenous Populations – with the IPHAN incharge of implementing the decree. The coexistence within an urban environment of the



Figure 3. Representation of the Social Networks of Plant Circulation in Three Localities of theMid Rio Negro: Tapereira (TA), Espírito Santo (ES) and the Town of Santa Isabel do Rio Negro(SI).

Source: Emperaire and Oliveira (2010).

Note: The labelled dots are the agriculturist informants and the grey dots are the donors of seeds orcuttings. The line between donor and recipient represents the transfer of propagative material and a socialor kinship relation (e.g. a variety of cassava is given by a mother-in-law to her daughter-in-law).

features of this agriculture made it possible to explicitly include Amerindian periurbanagriculture in this heritage, rather than limiting the concept of the traditional to theforest context (Emperaire et al., 2010).

Archaism and Modernity

In the urban context, indigenous agriculture presents challenges – for different rea-sons – for both younger generations and agricultural development agencies (MunicipalSecretariat for Agriculture and the Amazonas State Institute of Sustainable Agricultureand Forestry Development (IDAM). Cities embody an image of modernity but sincethese agricultural systems are perceived as an inheritance of the past, their credibilityand relevance are often called into question.

Despite the government’s professed commitment to developing public policies forsustainable local development in accordance with the reality of family farmers (Mattei,2005), educational and agricultural extension systems do not take the specific charac-teristics of local farming systems into account. As is the case in the rest of the Amazon,agricultural credit, intensification of labour and inputs, use of productive varieties, tech-nical support for processing of products, market integration and breeding development



are seen as levers to help indigenous families switch to the model of the small-farmereconomy (Brondizio, 2006).

This modernist approach to development is prevalent in public institutions involvedwith agriculture (Lena, 2004). From a symbolic and material perspective, this approachincludes characteristics that hamper, rather than encourage, local agriculture. Thelatter’s capacity for dynamism and innovation remains unacknowledged. The widediversity of plant genetic resources is not considered by these institutions to be the resultof knowledge and local practices, but rather manifestations of ignorance of notions ofproductivity and improvement or ‘resistance [ . . . ] to technological innovation’ (Pinton,2003: 674). Moreover, this diversity is considered to be the reason for low yieldsand limited extent of areas under cultivation. The criteria for determining what afully planted plot is also differ. From the point of view of agronomists, the tangle offoliage colours and plant forms should be organised in regularly spaced rows; they donot recognise that the apparent disorder reflects a cultural choice of diversity and anecological optimisation of the burned area.

Possibilities for interfacing between indigenous farmers and agricultural developmentinstitutions remain relatively limited. But, since 2013, the interest of the federal andAmazonas governments in modernising indigenous agriculture is starting to grow viathe ‘Amazonas rural’ programme (IDAM, 2013). In Santa Isabel, this programme’sobjective is to increase cassava flour production destined for the market (Interview withAntonio Carlos da Motta Filho, 2013). A new dynamic is emerging as a result but itdoes not take into account the specificity of agriculture that exists in the Rio Negroregion and instead prioritises mechanisation, industrial inputs and modern forms ofproducer organisation. Technical experts and local authorities perceive cultivated plotsas archaic. In their perspective, such plots have a messy layout where their agronomiccriteria – metric, productive or aesthetic – do not apply. According to them, the maincharacteristic of indigenous agriculture is its itinerancy, and they are not aware of thelocal practices that ensure the renewal of soil fertility and conservation of phytogeneticresources. Their categorical frame of reference is family farming, understood as thesocio-professional category of farmer or producer. Indeed, the specificities of indigenousagriculture (diversity, dynamics and sustainability) are not taken into account.

In summary, dominant implicit concepts and discourses make characteristics ofagriculture nearly invisible and do not take into account its strength at the regionalor national level, in terms of conservation biodiversity (cultivated or not) and culturalvalues. This perspective creates frontiers between what is traditional and modern.Development actions are ‘still subject to technical and scientific rationality disconnectedfrom [the] reality lived locally’ (Pinton, 2003: 674).

Environmental Norms

The adaptability of Amerindian shifting cultivation systems has yet to be recognisedby current environmental norms. Fire is seen as a problem, irrespective of the forestregeneration cycles it promotes. Existing standards follow the general trend in tropicalcountries: reduction of deforestation is associated with intensification and eliminationof shifting agriculture. In a context of an intensive struggle against deforestationin the Amazon and commodification of environmental services, most environmentalmanagement projects continue to promote the substitution of shifting agriculture withintensive and permanent crop systems. Even when agroforestry systems and inclusionof local knowledge are promoted (for example, within the Federal Institute in charge



of agricultural education in Sao Gabriel da Cachoeira), the main objective remainsto design productive systems that do not rely on shifting agriculture and that spareland for ‘protected’ forests (Eloy, 2008). Thus, these approaches may encourage alandscape model of land sparing (spatial segregation between protected forest areasdriven by intensively managed production areas), rather than a model of land sharing(Fischer et al., 2008), that is, spatial integration as in the indigenous system. Theconcept of eco-efficient landscapes often overlooks local knowledge of agriculturalbiodiversity management and forest regrowth. Indeed, these concepts are based onthe common assumption that demographic concentration makes smallholder practicesresponsible for deforestation, mainly because of the shortening of fallows and soildegradation (Myers, 1992). In Amazonia, urbanisation affects shifting cultivationsystems in different ways: giving rise to conflicts, food security and health issues(Siren, 2007). But others argue for the adaptability of shifting cultivation practices ina changing environment and their capacity to conserve biodiversity (Finegan and Nasi,2004). Amazonian studies show that Amerindian farmers and smallholders have soughtto develop innovations to cope with urbanisation and maintain shifting cultivationsystems in various ways: multi-sited households (Padoch et al., 2008; Nasuti et al.,2014), space–time complementarity between market-oriented (peri)urban agricultureand extensive swidden cultivation (Brondizio, 2009), income diversification (Steward,2007), agroforestry management (Eloy, 2008), and intense circulation of objects andland-use rights within social networks (Eloy and Lasmar, 2012). As a result, althoughthe need to promote production systems rich in biodiversity is now recognised, themodels used give the impression that everything should be reinvented with ‘innovative’technologies. Shifting agriculture is difficult to include in conservation programmesand agricultural development because of its complexity and dynamism (Padoch andPinedo-Vasquez, 2010).

Conclusions

We demonstrate in our findings that, thanks to multi-sited land use and intensecirculation of planting material and knowledge, indigenous agriculture is basicallytransposed from rural to periurban areas without major changes in cultivation practicesand agrobiodiversity. But two main factors modify its significance. First is the difficultyin accessing land and expansion of urban areas that has led farmers to strengthentheir land use rights by perennial plantations, the crucial objective being to ensurecontinued land access. It is safe to assume that, in urban conditions, the importance ofplant diversity, as a primary cultural value of this indigenous agriculture, is decliningwhen faced with this constraint. Indigenous agriculture and family-farming agriculturebecome less distinguishable one from the other.

Second, the Rio Negro Amerindian agriculture is confronted by the system of urbanvalues. Its practices contrast with ideas about of modernity that emerge from theurban context, and its ecological and cultural value generally go unacknowledged.We argue here that the continuity of the current agricultural system depends largelyon the concepts and discourses with which local protagonists (indigenous groups andagricultural development institutions) are confronted. At present, in the Rio Negroregion, the two sets of instruments, of heritage and of agricultural development, willhave to shape a new dialogue. But it is too early to predict any results. Marketintegration and construction of new partnerships are also essential to the continuity of



traditional agriculture. The vitality of the indigenous movement, the regional dynamicsof cultural enhancement of the last twenty years with delimitation of a continuousstretch of Indigenous Lands, the projects of ethno-development and differentiatedschools for Amerindians, and the regional politics of heritage are all powerful driversfor constructing links between the past and the future.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Development Research Institute, the Brazilian NationalCouncil for Scientific and Technological Development, the City and Environment Inter-disciplinary Research Programme 2009 (PIRVE – the CNRS and the French Ministryof Ecology), and the Intercultural Practices and Heritage Programme (French Ministryof Culture). The research project PACTA ‘Local Communities, Agrobiodiversity andTraditional Associated Knowledge’ was developed through the cooperation programbetween CNPq-Unicamp and IRD (No. 490826/2008–3). The research project ‘Agro-biodiversity in Indigenous Lands of Upper Rio Negro’ was funded by the MooreFoundation. We thank E. Katz and K. Agrawal for their readings.

References

Akinnifesi, F., et al. (2010) ‘Biodiversity of the Urban Homegardens of Sao Luís City,Northeastern Brazil’. Urban Ecosystems 13(1): 129–146.

Andrello, G. (2006) Cidade do Indio: transformacoes e cotidiano em Iauarete. Unesp, ISA,NUTI: Sao Paulo.

Brondizio, E. S. (2006) ‘Landscapes of the Past, Footprints of the Future’ in W. Balee and C.Erickson (eds.) Time and Complexity in Historical Ecology: Studies in the NeotropicalLowlands. Columbia University Press: New York, 365–405.

Brondizio, E. S. (2009) ‘Agriculture Intensification, Economic Identity, and Shared Invisibilityin Amazonian Peasantry: Caboclos and Colonists in Comparative Perspective’ in C.Adams, R. S. S. Murrieta, W. Neves, and M. Harris (eds.) Amazonian HistoricalPeasants: Invisibility in a Changing Environment. Springer Publishers: Dordrecht.

Browder, J. (2002) ‘The Urban-Rural Interface: Urbanization and Tropical Forest CoverChange’. Urban Ecosystems 6(1–2): 21–41.

Browder, J. O. and Godfrey, B. J. (1997) Rainforest Cities: Urbanization, Development andGlobalization of the Brazilian Amazon. Columbia University Press: New York.

Castro, E. (2008) ‘Introducao’ in E. Castro (ed.) Cidades na Floresta. AnnaBlume: Sao Paulo,7–10.

Chernela, J. M. (1986) ‘Os cultivares de mandioca na area do Uaupes (Tukano)’ inB. G. Ribeiro (ed.) Suma etnologica brasileira – Etnobiologia. Vozes/FINEP: Petropolis,151–158.

Coomes, O. T. (2010) ‘Of Stakes, Stems, and Cuttings: The Importance of Local Seed Systemsin Traditional Amazonian Societies’. The Professional Geographer 62(3): 323–334.

Descola, P. (2005) Par-dela nature et culture. Gallimard: Paris.Dias, C. (2008) Santa Isabel do Rio Negro (AM): situacao socioambiental de uma cidade

ribeirinha no noroeste da Amazonia brasileira. ISA/ACIMRN/FOIRN: Sao Paulo/SantaIsabel do Rio Negro/Sao Gabriel da Cachoeira.

Eloy, L. (2008) ‘Dynamiques et adaptation des systemes agroforestiers periurbains dans leNord-Ouest amazonien’. Bois et Forets des Tropiques 295(2): 45–55.



Eloy, L. and Lasmar, C. (2012) ‘Urbanization and Transformation of Indigenous ResourceManagement: The Case of Upper Rio Negro (Brazil)’. International Journal of Sustain-able Society 4: 372–388.

Eloy, L., Le Tourneau, F.-M. and Thery, H. (2005) ‘Une ville dans la foret: Sao Gabrielda Cachoeira, capitale isolee du haut Rio Negro’. Cybergeo: Revue Europeenne deGeographie 304: 1–39.

Emperaire, L. (2000) ‘Entre selva y ciudad: estrategias de produccion en el Rio Negro Medio(Brasil)’. Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines 29(2): 215–232.

Emperaire, L. (2004) ‘Elements for a Discussion on the Conservation of Agrobiodiversity:the Exemple of Manioc (Manihot esculenta Crantz) in the Brazilian Amazon’ in A.Veríssimo et al. (eds.) Biodiversity in the Brazilian Amazon: Assessment and PriorityActions for Conservation, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing. Estacao Liberdade: SaoPaulo, 224–233.

Emperaire, L. and Eloy, L. (2008) ‘A cidade, um foco de diversidade agrícola no RioNegro (Amazonas, Brasil)?’. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Serie CienciasHumanas 3(2): 195–211.

Emperaire, L. and da Oliveira, J. C. (2010) ‘Redes sociales y diversidad agrícola en laAmazonía brasilena: um sistema multicentrico’ in M. L. Pocchetino, A. H. Ladio andP. M. Arenas (eds.) ICEB2009: Tradiciones and Transformaciones en Etnobotanica.Cyted-Risapred: Bariloche, 180–185.

Emperaire, L. and Peroni, N. (2007) ‘Traditional Management of Agrobiodiversity in Brazil:a Case Study of Manioc’. Human Ecology 35(6): 761–768.

Emperaire, L. et al. (2010) Dossie de registro do sistema agrícola tradicional do Rio Negro.ACIMRN/IPHAN/IRD/Unicamp-CNPq: Santa Isabel do Rio Negro/Brasília. [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.iphan.gov.br [accessed 21 December 2013].

Finegan, B. and Nasi, R. (2004) ‘The Biodiversity and Conservation Potential of SwiddenAgricultural Landscapes’ in G. Schroth, G. A. B. Da Fonseca, C. A. Harvey, et al.(eds.) Agroforestry and Biological Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Island Press:Washington.

Fischer, J. et al. (2008) ‘Should Agricultural Policies Encourage Land Sparing or Wildlife-Friendly Farming?’. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(7): 382–387.

Freire, G. (2007) ‘Indigenous Shifting Cultivation and the new Amazonia: A Piaroa Exampleof Economic Articulation’. Human Ecology 35: 681–696.

Fundacao Nacional do Indio (nd), Terras Indígenas do Brasil. [WWW document]. URLhttp://mapas.funai.gov.br/ [accessed 1 January 2014].

Guillaumet, J.-L. et al. (1990) ‘Les jardins-vergers familiaux d’Amazonie centrale : unexemple d’utilisation de l’espace’. Turrialba 40(1): 63–81.

Hamlin, C. C. and Salick, J. (2003) ‘Yanesha Agriculture in the Upper Peruvian Amazon:Persistence and Change Fifteen Years Down the ‘‘Road’’’. Economic Botany 57(2):163–180.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatísticas (IBGE) (nd), Mapeamento Topografico.[WWW document]. URL http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/geociencias/default_prod.shtm#TOPO [accessed 1 January 2014].

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatísticas (IBGE) (1996) Sistema IBGE de RecuperacaoAutomatica, SIDRA. [WWW document]. URL http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/tabela/listabl.asp?z=t&o=25&i=P&c=472 [accessed 21 December 2013].

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatísticas (IBGE) (1980, 1991, 2000, 2010a) Seriesestatísticas. [WWW document]. URL http://seriesestatisticas.ibge.gov.br/series.aspx?no=10&op=0&vcodigo=CD91&t=populacao-situacao-domicilio-populacao-presente-residente [accessed 21 December 2013].

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatísticas (IBGE) (2010b) Indígenas. [WWW document].URL http://indigenas.ibge.gov.br/graficos-e-tabelas-2 [accessed 21 December 2013].

IDAM (2013) Cultivo de mandioca tem incentivo do Pronaf em Santa Isabel do Rio Negro.[WWW document]. URL http://www.idam.am.gov.br/ [accessed 25 September 2012].



Lena, P. (2004) ‘Matrizes de desenvolvimento na Amazonia’ in F. Ricardo (ed.) Terrasindígenas e unidades de conservacao: o desafio das sobreposicoes. Instituto Socioambi-ental: Sao Paulo, 146–152.

Lewis, J. A. (2007) ‘The Power of Knowledge: Information Transfer and Acaí Intensificationin the Peri-Urban Interface of Belem, Brazil’. Agroforestry Systems 74: 293–302.

Mattei, L. (2005) Impactos do Pronaf: analise de indicadores. Ministerio do DesenvolvimentoAgrario, Nucleo de Estudos Agrarios e Desenvolvimento Rural: Brasília.

McKey, D. et al. (2001) ‘Gestions locales et dynamiques regionales de la diversite varietaledu manioc en Amazonie’. Genetic Selection and Evolution 33(supl. 1): 465–490.

Meira, M. (2006) ‘Indios e Brancos nas aguas pretas’ in L. Forline, R. S. S. Murrieta and I.C. Vieira (eds.) Amazonia, alem dos 500 anos. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi: Belem,183–226.

Moreira, E. (2003) ‘Amazonia em movimento: Redes e Percursos de Desenvolvimento dosIndios Ye’kuana, Roraima’. Cadernos de Campo (USP) 11: 21–35.

Myers, N. (1992) ‘Tropical Forests: The Policy Challenge’. Environmentalist 12: 15–27.Nasuti, S., Eloy, L., Raimbert, C. and Le Tourneau, F. M. (2014) ‘Can Rural-Urban

Household Mobility Indicate Differences in Resource Management within AmazonianCommunities?’. Bulletin of Latin American Research.

Padoch, C. et al. (2008) ‘Urban Forest and Rural Cities: Multi-Sited Households, Con-sumption Patterns and Forest Resources in Amazonia’. Ecology and Society 13(2):1–16.

Padoch, C. and Pinedo-Vasquez, M. (2010) ‘Saving Slash-and-Burn to Save Biodiversity’.Biotropica 42(5): 550–552.

Pinton, F. (2003) ‘Savoirs traditionnels et territoires de la biodiversite en Amazoniebresilienne’. Revue Internationale des Sciences Sociales 178: 667–678.

Santos, M. (1972) ‘Le decollage urbain’. Revue de Geographie de Lyon 47(1): 5–25.Siren, A. H. (2007) ‘Population Growth and Land Use Intensification in a Subsistence-based

Indigenous Community in the Amazon’. Human Ecology 35(6): 669–680.Veiga J. E. da (2006) A relacao urbano-rural no processo de desenvolvimento [WWW

document]. URL http://www.zeeli.pro.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Mudancas_nas_relacoes_entre_espacos.pdf [accessed 21 December 2013].

van Vliet, N., Adams, C., Vieira, I. C. G. and Mertz, O. (2013) ‘‘‘Slash and Burn’’ and‘‘Shifting’’ Cultivation Systems in Forest Agriculture Frontiers From the BrazilianAmazon’. Society and Natural Resources 26(12): 1454–1467.

Wezel, A. and Ohl, J. (2005) ‘Does Remoteness from Urban Centres Influence Plant Diversityin Homegardens and Swidden Fields? A Case Study from the Matsiguenka in theAmazonian Rain Forest of Peru’. Agroforestry Systems 65(3): 241–251.

Winklerprins, A. M. (2006) ‘Urban House-Lot Gardens and Agrobiodiversity in Santarem,Para, Brazil: Spaces of Conservation that Link Rural with Urban’ in K. S. Zimmerer(ed.) Globalization and New Geographies of Conservation. Chicago University Press:Chicago and London, 121–140.

Wright, R. M. (1981) History and Religion of the Baniwa Peoples of the Upper Rio NegroValley. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stanford, Stanford.

Interview

Motta Filho, Antonio C. da (2013) Manager of the IDAM in Santa Isabel do Rio Negro(AM), 19 April, Santa Isabel.


amerindian agriculture in an urbanising amazonia (rio negro, brazil

Documents