Proposed Legislation to Mine Brazil's Indigenous Lands Will Threaten Amazon Forests and Their Valuable Ecosystem Services.

A recent proposal to regulate mining within Indigenous Lands (ILs) threatens people and the unique ecosystems of Brazil's Legal Amazon. Here, we show that this new policy could eventually affect more than 863,000 km2 of tropical forests-20% more than under current policies-assuming all known mineral deposits will be developed and impacts of mining on forests extend 70 km from lease boundaries. Not only are these forests home to some of the world's most culturally diverse communities, they also provide at least US $5 billion each year to the global economy, producing food, mitigating carbon emissions, and regulating climate for agriculture and energy production. It is unclear whether new mines within ILs will be required to compensate for their direct and indirect environmental and social impacts but failing to do so will have considerable environmental and social consequences.

Introduction

On February 5, 2020, Brazil's President Bolsonaro signed a bill (PL 191/2020) that will permit mining inside Indigenous Lands (ILs)—a unique category of protected area (PA) covering 1.2 million km2 (23%) of the Legal Amazon. ILs are home to 222 indigenous groups speaking a combined 160 languages. The current political context is unfavorable to indigenous people , and, if approved by Congress, the proposed policy changes have the potential to not only permanently transform the lives of indigenous communities, , but also negatively impact a large extent of biodiverse forests and the ecosystem services they provide.

Along with Brazil's other PA categories, such as national parks and biological reserves, ILs not only safeguard indigenous people and their traditional knowledge, but also protect ecosystems. , , , There are 332 officially designated ILs in the Brazilian Amazon, with another 92 in earlier stages of legal and administrative approval (see Note S1 and Figure S1). However, many of these areas are also known to contain valuable undeveloped mineral deposits (including a range of commodities, such as gold, copper, and iron ore; see Note S1 and Table S1). Under current legislation, mining inside ILs requires Congressional authorization—a Constitutional shield that has effectively deterred all industrial mining within these sites to date, albeit far less effective at deterring illegal small-scale mining activities.

Mining can affect forests through various pathways, either by directly clearing vegetation to establishing open pits, mineral processing plants, and ancillary installations, or indirectly due to the need to build infrastructure to access mine sites and transport minerals. Such infrastructure facilitates access to otherwise barely accessible land and can result in cumulative impacts from multiple mining operations and other surrounding land users. In the Brazilian Amazon, mining has been found to indirectly affect forests up to 70 km from large-scale mining sites. Indeed, this offsite deforestation was 12 times larger than the mines' local footprint between 2005 and 2015.

Forest loss also affects valuable ecosystem services. Tropical forests provide benefits to society as a whole, for example, by storing carbon and regulating regional and global climate; providing food and raw materials, such as nuts and rubber, for both domestic use and export; securing freshwater quality and quantity; and providing recreational opportunities. All these ecosystem services, along with a unique socio-biodiversity (i.e., the biological and cultural diversity sheltered by Amazonian ecosystems, as well as the products obtained by traditional extractives activities), may be affected by future policy changes that could unleash mineral exploration and extraction across the Brazilian Legal Amazon.

In this study, we assess the impacts of the proposed policy by quantifying associated threats to forests and their ecosystems. We outline what is needed to safeguard indigenous rights, forest biodiversity and the services these places provide, for consideration by the National Congress when should they vote on this bill. In the following sections, we present our results and discuss foreseeable effects of the proposed policy change.

Mining Impacts on Forests and Ecosystem Services

Current Context of Mining within Indigenous Lands

This is not the first time a policy change has seen mining interests threaten Brazil's PAs—many previous bills have been presented (PL 1610/1996; PL 3642/2012) (see Note S2). However, the exponential growth in mining proposals inside ILs in 2018 (Figure 1 ) suggests that prospectors have anticipated and planned to exploit this opportunity in recent years.

Figure 1

Mining Proposals and Claims Registered with the National Mining Agency (Accessed in February 2020)

The bars indicate the number of mining proposals and claims in the Legal Amazon per year and the red line indicates number and the percentage of total proposals inside Indigenous Lands. Source: Mining claims (National Mining Agency, 2020); Indigenous lands (FUNAI, 2020).

We found that 115 ILs (31%) contained at least one claim or mining proposal and most were already under application for exploration (the initial stage of mineral permit process) (Figure 2 ). In addition to legal mining activities, we found 148 ILs (45%) that already contain illegal mining activities (Figure 2), which may also eventually be influenced by an increase in legal operations. These activities may impact uncontacted and currently isolated groups living within these ILs, requiring a special attention in future research.

Figure 2

Current Mining Proposals and Claims (Accessed February 2020) inside Indigenous Lands and the Location of Illegal Mining (Accessed April 2020)

Source: Mining proposals and claims (National Mining Agency, 2020); Indigenous lands (FUNAI, 2020); Illegal mining (RAISG, 2020); Deforestation alerts (DETER-B, 2020).

Impacts on Forests and Their Ecosystem Services

If all 4,600 known mineral deposits and known occurrences outside current PAs were to be developed, and assuming indirect impacts extent up to 70 km from mining sites, 698,000 km2 of forest may be affected by mining (Figure 3 ). However, the approval of the proposed policy (i.e., also permitting mining inside ILs) could increase this area by 20% (up to 863,000 km2; Figure 4 ). Using a more conservative 10 km buffer to capture indirect effects reduces the total estimates of affected forests under our “policy” and “no policy” scenarios to 222,000 and 182,000 km2, respectively; but this still represents a 22% increase in the area affected by the policy change.

Figure 3

Forest Cover and the Extent of Forests that Could Be Affected in the Policy Scenario

Buffers of 10 and 70 km surround mining occurrences inside ILs and exclude areas outside other conservation units. Sources: Forest cover (PRODES, 2018); Indigenous lands (FUNAI, 2020); Conservation units (MMA, 2020).

Figure 4

Consequences of Mining All Known Mineral Deposits on Forest Extent under Two Alternative Scenarios—No Policy and Policy Implementation

The area of forests potentially affected by mining increased by 20%, considering both an upper (70 km) and lower (10 km) buffer of indirect impacts.

Considering the provision of only four ecosystem services (food production, raw materials provision, greenhouse gas [GHG] mitigation, and climate regulation), we estimated that affected forests provide at least US $5 billion of value each year to the global economy (Figure 5 ). Our analysis reveals particularly large consequences for GHG mitigation reaching more than US $2.2 billion annually of losses. We found that raw materials provisions of rubber and timber would have considerable monetary losses (up to US $1.4 billion) in the scenario of policy implementation.

Figure 5

The Monetary Value of Ecosystem Services Losses Provided by Potentially Affected Forests, Assuming Indirect Impacts Extend 10 and 70 km from Potential Mining Occurrences in Both Scenarios

Other Factors Influencing the Impacts

Two major factors need to be considered to fully appreciate the implications of the proposed policy on forests and ecosystem services. Firstly, the construction of transportation infrastructure and the emergence or growth of urban centers will add to the effects of mining on forests and ecosystems. Mine output (usually a concentrate, i.e., an enriched product for further metallurgical or industrial processing) requires bulk transportation to reach markets and in some cases construction of large mines requires a large labor force, hence attracting many migrants in search of jobs or opportunities. The size and impacts caused by infrastructure may change according to the commodity (see Note S1; Table S2; Figure S3).

Secondly, most ILs are located in remote areas, sheltering some of the world's most pristine ecosystems and Brazil's socio-biodiversity (see Note S1; Table S3). Establishing even one new mine in these areas could trigger a cascade of further forest loss due to growth-inducing infrastructure, and potentially send many yet-to-be discovered species and ecosystems to extinction in addition to degrading traditional livelihoods.

In addition to the impacts of this proposed policy on forests and ecosystems, the presence of illegal gold miners within ILs and their related activities trigger other impacts. These additional pressures include degradation and pollution of the environment with mercury, and potentially more worrisome, transmission of diseases, such as the COVID-19. Given that the policy changes would increase the outside access to indigenous groups, a public health problem has potential to be intensified.

Moreover, there is currently a push to dismantle policies that protect the rights of indigenous groups, , as exemplified by recent government initiatives. Changes in the Ministry of Environment and National Indian Foundation-FUNAI's policies follow an extensive roadmap of setbacks: , the emptying of the institution's functions and budget, , granting of environmental authorizations with no indigenous consultation, a willingness to comply with requests for the extinction or reduction of PAs, and defending non-compliance of the law against illegal logging and mining. The faulty interpretation that the rights of indigenous people currently depend on the completion of the IL demarcation process confronts the Constitution and ignores the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

Management and Mitigation Requirements

The proposed bill does not contain any environmental or social safeguards and is silent about whether mining within ILs will require Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Considering the current regulatory status of mining claims in the Legal Amazon, less than 2% require a comprehensive EIA for licensing (see Note S3; Tables S4 and S5). Developing a mine in some claims may require only a simplified environmental assessment and licensing process, while other types of requirements are currently uncertain (see Note S3; Tables S4 and S5).

While the proposed policy does suggest that some financial compensation will be provided by companies to indigenous associations and leaderships for the use of the ILs, there are no guarantees to ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), as established by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Under the terms of PL 191/2020, if the application for exploration is within a non-regulated IL, it is not mandatory to consult the impacted communities. It is also unlikely that the compensation payment, calculated on the basis of net revenues and commodity type, will come even close to the value of ecosystem services lost due to mining (Figure 5).

We urge those involved in designing and approving this bill to seriously consider the impact it could have on ecosystems and people—not only indigenous people, but the society—as impacts will not be restrained to the boundaries of ILs because many traditional communities could be displaced. If approved, at the very least, a mechanism for assessing and mitigating impacts must be established and compliant with best practice. All new mines must require a comprehensive EIA, including mitigation plans that comply with the mitigation hierarchy. Explicitly requiring FPIC would not only contribute to safeguard the rights of indigenous people but also benefit environmental protection and mitigation outcomes if linked to EIAs.

While Brazil decides on whether or not approve this bill, environmental NGOs can build awareness of these threats both in the country and internationally in order to protect such valuable environmental resources. Just like proposals to open Renca (National Reserve of Copper and Associates in Brazil)—a mineral rich biodiverse region—to mining were overturned, the values of ILs can too be protected from unchecked long-term damage.

Experimental Procedures

Resource Availability

Lead Contact

Further information and requests for the datasets should be directed to and will be fulfilled by the Lead Contact, Juliana Siqueira-Gay (siq.juliana@gmail.com).

Materials Availability

This study did not generate new unique materials.

Data and Code Availability

Data on mining claims and proposals were accessed from the official spatial database of the Brazilian government's National Mining Agency (AMN): http://sigmine.dnpm.gov.br/webmap/. These data provide the current status (accessed on February 10, 2020) of all mineral claims and proposals covering the Brazilian territory. The data on mining deposits and occurrences were provided by the Brazilian Geological Survey (CPRM): http://geosgb.cprm.gov.br/. The PA’s limits of sustainable use and full protection units were obtained from the Environmental Ministry website: http://mapas.mma.gov.br/i3geo/datadownload.htm. The Indigenous Lands boundaries are from the official database of the National Foundation of Indigenous People, containing the polygons, the current status, types, and ethnicity of each land: http://www.funai.gov.br/index.php/shape. The forest cover was provided by the National Institute for Space Research (INPE): http://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/. The spatial database of ecosystem services is from the study of Strand and colleagues available at https://csr.ufmg.br/amazones/. The illegal mining information is a data summary from different sources (such as studies and management plans) provided by Amazon geo-referenced socioenvironmental information network (RAISG): https://www.amazoniasocioambiental.org/en/.

Analysis of Impacts on Forests and Ecosystem Services

We calculated the total number of claims made each year between 2010 and 2019 and determined the proportion of these claims that occurred inside ILs. To determine current threats, we overlaid ILs with spatial data on legal mineral claims, illegal mining activities, forest cover, deforestation trajectories, and ecosystem services.

We investigated two alternative scenarios for comparison with the current situation: (1) without policy implementation (“no policy”): developing all known mineral deposits and occurrences outside PAs and (2) “policy implementation”: developing all mineral deposits and occurrences outside other PAs (conservation units of full protection and sustainable use) but permitting development inside ILs. For both scenarios, we quantified the area of forests potentially influenced by mining—i.e., the forests that occur within a buffer surrounding each mineral occurrence using an upper limit of 70 km and a more conservative lower limit of 10 km (Figure 6 ). To estimate the forest extent potentially affected by mining under each scenario, we used data from 2018 of PRODES and overlaid this with our four scenario masks (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Main Steps of Data Analysis Considering the No-Policy and Policy-Implementation Scenarios

To estimate the impacts on ecosystem services, we used spatially explicit monetary valuations for four key services provided by Amazon forests: food production (Brazil nut), raw material provision (timber and rubber), GHG mitigation (reduction in CO2 emissions), and climate regulation (rent losses to soybean, beef, and hydroelectric production due to reduced rainfall). These ecosystem services maps were overlaid with our areas of forests affected by mining (for each the 10 and 70 km buffers) to quantify the monetary value of ecosystem services provided by forests potentially influenced by the proposed policy.