Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

A critique of development and conservation policies in

environmentally sensitive regions in Brazil
Stefania Abakerli
Lambertusstraat 118, 3062 XA, Rotterdam, Netherlands
Received 5 November 1999; in revised form 31 January 2001

Abstract
More than a strategy for environmental conservation, protected area paradigm has represented a specic conception of nature
society relationship. Originated in a context of capitalist consolidation, rapid urbanisation and frontier development in the US, this
paradigm has given rise to a `politically viable rationale' in which utilitarian use of natural resources by tourism development would
ensure nature preservation. This political rationality has deeply inuenced environmental policies in developing countries, fostering
a paradoxical model in the history of nature preservation. It also has brought into play diverse interests that have shifted patterns of
local naturesociety interaction, conguring a complex politicised environment. Established in `isolated' regions, protected areas
have been implemented often by topdown approaches, disrupting resident peoples' livelihoods strategies through conicts over the
control of natural resources. Understanding the implications of development and conservation policies on resident peoples' livelihoods may represent a starting point for an integrated developmental conservation policy towards the promotion of sustainable
livelihoods in environmentally sensitive regions in developing countries. These issues are analysed in the region of the Lencois
Maranhenses National Park in Brazil. This paper argues that the context facing the region reveals a standardised conservationist
paradigm marked by the absence of wider ecological criteria informing nature protection and a disregard for the strengthening of
sustainability in existent socio-economic dynamics. The regional development and conservation policies have not only promoted
tensions between resident peoples' livelihoods and the protected area paradigm, but also reinforced the legitimisation of social
exclusion and environmental disruption under the prevalent rhetoric of nature protection and tourism development. 2001 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sustainable livelihoods; Protected areas; Environmental conservation; Environmentally sensitive regions

1. Introduction
Protected areas have been designated as one of the
principal strategies for environmental conservation
particularly in developing countries. Emerging in a
context of capitalist consolidation, rapid urbanisation
and frontier development in the late 19th century in the
US, the protected areas paradigm has been strictly based
on a preservationist ideology of a negative naturesociety relation (Nash, 1989). Vast remnants of American
scenic ecosystems conceived as `wilderness' were enhanced and protected from human occupation and alteration, ensuring nature preservation for the
admiration of urban-industrial society, which had been
losing its daily contact with nature (Sellars, 1997).

E-mail address: s.abakerli@planet.nl (S. Abakerli).

The transposition of this wilderness paradigm to developing countries, however, has neglected many socioeconomic dynamics and resource management practices
which have been fundamental to nature conservation in
these areas (West and Brechin, 1991). According to
G
omez-Pompa and Kaus (1992, p. 273), `traditional
conservationists, on the other hand, see the aesthetic,
biological and ecological value of the same land but do
not necessarily see the people. They often fail to see the
eects of past or current human actions, to dierentiate
among types of human use, or to recognise the economic
value of sustainable use'.
In fact, protected areas have been systematically implemented in environmentally sensitive regions usually
isolated from urban-economic centres and occupied
even for generations by `traditional' populations
(McNeely, 1995). Characterised by few development
pressures, low consumption patterns and small-scale
subsistence economy, many of these populations have

0016-7185/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 1 8 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 5 - X

552

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

managed the environment within a complex socio-environmental organisation directly related to their livelihoods, leading to very low impacts on the resource base
(Diegues, 1994).
Environmentally sensitive regions, therefore, have
experienced rapid processes of transformation as the
scenarios of tensions among environmentalists, developers and resident peoples in developing countries have
unfolded (Wells and Brandon, 1995). While the protection of their fragile ecosystems has been the focus of
many conservationist policies by means of protected
area designation, the aesthetic and natural richness of
their resources have interested prot-oriented enterprises through tourism development. Meanwhile, resident peoples have been systematically kept outside the
mainstream political sphere in relation to control over
natural resources (West and Brechin, 1991; Diegues,
1994).
This paper argues that the non-acknowledgement of
resident peoples' livelihood strategies in the early environmental movement and in policies for development
and conservation of environmentally sensitive regions
has promoted conicts over the control of natural resources. Indeed, it has undermined the achievement of
conservationist aims and the improvement of resident
peoples' lives, fundamentally constraining the capabilities of peoples to maintain their means of living while
not undermining the natural resource base, which can be
understood as sustainable livelihoods (DFID, 1998;
Chambers, 1985).
These issues are analysed in the specic context of the
Lencois Maranhenses in Brazil, one of the poorest regions of the country composed of many traditional
communities. Comprising approximately 30,000 inhabitants spread in 264 localities, the region has one of the
most diverse ecosystems in the country. Its geographic
isolation has contributed to the development of complex
socio-economic dynamics and resource management
practices and, to some extent, to regional environmental
conservation. The designation of the Lencois Maranhenses National Park in 1981 and the Environmental
Protected Area APA Pequenos Lencois in 1991,
however, have brought into scenario diverse interests,
challenging protected area paradigm to nature conservation in developing contexts. Consequently, the region
is actually facing a context of rapid structural changes in
resident peoples' livelihoods and their interaction with
nature through the introduction of development and
conservation policies strictly based on tourism. These
have promoted tensions among various actors in relation to their control over the natural resources, aggravating a process of social exclusion and environmental
disruption.
This paper is divided into two main sections. Section 1
examines the roots of the US National Park movement,
which deeply inuenced environmental policies in

developing countries, fostering a paradoxical model in

the history of nature preservation in environmentally
sensitive regions. Then it examines the current state of
analysis of socio-environmental conicts in most protected areas in developing countries as well as the power
relations underlying this debate.
Section 2 examines the establishment of the rst
protected areas in Brazil. Using as a framework the
earlier theoretical debates, it analyses the impacts of
development and conservation policies on resident
peoples' livelihoods and environmental conservation,
focusing on Atins. This brings into view the power relations behind dominant development and conservation
rationality, questioning the appropriateness of the
adoption of prevalent economic development and protected area paradigms in environmentally sensitive regions in Brazil.

2. Debate on conservation and development policies in

environmentally sensitive regions in developing countries
2.1. Roots of the US National Park paradigm
The US National Park movement has its roots in the
19th century within a context of capitalist consolidation
and rapid urbanisation of its considered `wild' western
territory. In that time, according to Nash (1989, p. 35):
The majority of the territory claimed by the US was
wilderness. The inexhaustibility of resources was
the dominant American myth for a century after independence. . . . Even people critical of resource exploitation could not escape the feelings that there
was, after all, plenty of room for people and nature
in the New World . . .. In this geographical context
progress seemed synonymous with growth, development and the conquest of nature.
This view lead to the 1862 Homestead Act through
which any American citizen could acquire the property
rights to own and cultivate `empty' land (Diegues, 1994).
This process resulted in profound environmental transformations through consumptive uses of natural resources such as logging, mining and reservoir
development. Within 10 years, the evidences of the high
environmental costs of frontier development policy were
translated into widespread uncertainty.
It is in this context that the rst American protected
area Yellowstone was created, marking a historic
step in nature preservation by preventing occupation,
exploitation and division of its majestic landscape. The
main idea was that the preservation of reminiscent large
wild areas for public recreation could prevent other far
more exploitative forms of natural resources use.

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

According to Sellars (1997, p. 16), over time this

concept gave rise to a politically viable rationale for the
national park movement in which utilitarian use of
natural resources by recreational tourism development
would ensure nature preservation.
Despite the `democratic' concept of protecting nature, as Sellars (1997, pp. 910) notes, National Parks
served de facto from the very beginning corporate prot
interests based on tourism.1 Private corporations
through strict relationships with the federal government
decisively inuenced the denition of western kind of
land use and economy by stimulating the creation of
public parks and tourism development. Yellowstone
legislation was deeply inuenced by the Northern Pacic
Railroad Company, which seeking to establish a monopolistic trade corridor across the West, lobbied for the
creation of a federally controlled park, preventing further private land claims. In Sellars own words, `with
magnicent scenery as the principal fount of prot,
tourism was emerging in the nineteenth century as an
economic land use attractive to business investment. The
success of such investment depended. . .on the preservation of scenery' as well as `federal co-operation to
manage vast scenic areas in the West and control development'.
It is worth noticing the non-acknowledgement of
Native Americans intensive use and `sustainable' management of natural resources or their rights to their
ancestral lands in the early National Park movement.2
Conversely, parks were established in `empty wild' lands
reinforcing a process that started with the conquest of
the West in which indigenous peoples were exterminated
or located from their territory to reserves which would
be, according to socio-political thought of that time,
`sucient for their use' (Diegues, 1994, p. 25).
In fact, rather than being based on socio-ecological
and scientically informed environmental policy, the
national park paradigm has been dened as a reaction
against dominant practices of exploitationism, but one
widely shaped by corporate interests (Norton, 1991). As
Sellars (1997, p. 290) argues, `beginning with the construction of Yellowstone's roads and lodges, the history
of development and use of the parks for tourism extends
for more than a century and reects an entrenched
perception of the purpose of national parks'.
In this context, the advance of science, ecology and
culture as more comprehensive means of informing

1
In 1905, President Roosevelt declared that the preservation of
nature by means of National Park was considered as `essentially a
democratic movement', beneting the American people (Sellars, 1997,
p. 14).
2
According to many authors, Yellowstone and other parks were
implemented in indigenous territory, which although considered as
isolated and wild areas, had already been partially altered by Native
Americans (McNeely, 1995; Diegues, 1994).

553

protected area designation and resource management

has congured a major challenge to environmental
policies.
2.2. Impacts of the US conservation paradigm on
sustainable livelihoods in developing countries
It is exactly this development and conservation rationality that has inuenced environmental policies in
developing countries, although the clear dierences between their socio-cultural, environmental, economic and
political contexts, and development pattern, fostering a
paradoxical model in the history of nature preservation
(West and Brechin, 1991; Wells and Brandon, 1995).3
A central issue regarding the direct adoption of US
developmental conservation paradigm in developing
countries has been its role in promoting socio-environmental conicts over access and control of natural resources.
One major characteristic of developing countries is
exactly the coexistence of `indigenous' peoples and industrial society (Diegues, 1994). Living in regions distant from urban-economic centres and where the
capitalist logic of consumption and production has not
yet been totally incorporated, many of these `traditional
populations' have developed complex socio-environmental dynamics which sustain their livelihoods
(McNeely, 1995). Considered as `pre-capitalist' societies,
their small-scale economic systems have been based on
production for subsistence, leading to very low impacts
on the resources base, which has contributed to the
conservation of their environment.
Throughout history, many traditional populations
have sustainably managed environmentally sensitive
regions, the main source of their livelihood, to obtain
ecient and equitable benets. Although their direct
dependency on the intensive use of resources has varied,
dierent cultures have shared similar characteristics
such as low population density, consumption patterns
and levels of pollution, which have contributed to a
limited interference in the carrying capacity of the resources base (Berkes, 1999). Many of them have also
developed a particular form of property management,
which provides assurance that the resources on which
people depend collectively will be sustainably available,
known as common property regimes. Through the definition and continuous acceptance of a set of social
norms and rules, individual behaviour for the interdependent management of the collective resources has
been regulated, ensuring their livelihoods and maintaining the resources base (Ostrom, 1990).
3

Five percent of the Earth's surface is legally protected by means of

approximately 7000 protected areas in 130 countries (Wells and
Brandon, 1995, p. 1).

554

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

In this context, environmental conservation relies not

only on resource management practices based on the
diversication and combination of activities such as
shing, agriculture, harvesting, but also on a long process of culture-ecological adaptation and respect for
natural cycles. As Berkes (1999, p. 159) states, it is important to `recognise indigenous resource management
systems not as mere traditions but as adaptive responses
that have evolved over time'.
It is in these regions, however, that protected areas
have been systematically implemented often by centralised government decision making and with no major
attention to existent social contexts and economic-environmental dynamics. Many governments have disregarded the traditional resource management practices
and knowledge of resident peoples in preserving their
environmentally sensitive regions (West and Brechin,
1991; Wells and Brandon, 1995).
Government policies have promoted compensation
schemes, income generating projects and substitution of
traditional techniques and management practices which
aim to reducing costs of conservation as resident peoples
will become at least in theory a less dependent on local
natural resources as the unique source of their livelihood. Although these interventions may appear as
positive initiatives, they have been provided with no
adequate socio-economic evaluations of changes in and
impacts on livelihood strategies of resident peoples
(IIED, 1994). Many solutions, priorities and economic
alternatives which have been dened and provided are
far from local resource management practices, knowledge and potentials, neglecting that many communities
have already established a long process of regional adaptation (Diegues, 1992).
Loss of cultural integrity, socio-economic autonomy
and impoverishment of many resident peoples in and
around designated protected areas has been the historical result of this process. In some extremes, the disruption of their resource management systems has
obligated them to migrate to the favelas of urban areas
or to live within the boundaries of the protected area
with few or no economic alternatives. Consequently,
socio-environmental conicts tend to occur, contributing to changes in the livelihood strategies of displaced
peoples. Interfering in the viability of traditional livelihoods, many policies have inicted extensive environmental damage (Bidol and Crowfoot, 1991).
It is important to clarify that it has not been presumed that local peoples have entirely coexisted in
harmony with nature nor that they have always provided the best solution to environmental conservation in
their regions. The argument made here rather focuses on
the gap between the theoretical basis of proposed `environmental conservation' and the achieved results. As
West and Brechin (1991, p. 17) states, `the real tragedy is
that, based on such [National park] denition alone,

resident peoples in developing countries have been displaced or blocked from traditional uses of park resources and left to suer severe deprivation and social
impacts without any documented proof that they were
harming the resources of the park'.
2.3. Power dimensions of a politicised environment
Underlying the implications of development and
conservation rationality for resident peoples' livelihoods
and environmental conservation in developing countries
is the role of power in conditioning patterns of nature
society interaction as well as control over natural resources (Descola and Palsson, 1996; Hannigan, 1995;
Bryant and Bailey, 1997).4
Many authors concerned with political ecology have
argued that environmental conicts should be addressed
not only as a neutral process amenable to technical
management, but mainly as complex political and economic processes which have impinged on existent social
inequalities. As Bryant and Bailey (1997, p. 28) argue,
`central to the idea of a politicised environment is the
recognition that environmental problems cannot be
understood in isolation from the political and economic
contexts within which they are created'. This assumption
has raised the notion of a politicised environment in
which costs and benets associated with environmental
conicts are unequally distributed among dierent actors.
Many sociologists have raised similar debates by arguing that the socio-environmental problematic involves
diverse social actors who may dene, negotiate and
construct it dierently (Hannigan, 1995). The social
constructivist perspective of the nature of environmental
conict refers to the outcome of a dynamic political and
social process in which dierent actors interact in the
public and private spheres for the negotiation and legitimisation of their environmental interests and claims.
The power dimension of a politicised environment in
this perspective is precisely the ability that each actor
possesses to inuence and control his or her own interaction with the environment and the environmental interaction of others actors according to a range of specic
and complex interests regarding the environment. These
diverse interests may motivate the action of those involved towards the achievement of their supremacy over
all other actors, who may represent a constraint to their
objectives.
4

Although the issue of the environment and its relations to humans

will be examined from the perspective of political ecology and
sociology, it has taking place in many other disciplines, including
philosophy, history and anthropology. As Descola and P
alsson (1996,
p. 12) argues, naturehuman relations are `the forefront of the public
agenda, as the place of the environment in human aairs has become a
major political and ethical concern of peoples and governments'.

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

Through this perspective, the role that power may

play in conditioning contextual patterns of interaction
between dierent actors and the environment contributes to understanding the nature and dynamics that
constitute particular socio-environmental conicts. Understanding that the livelihood of the majority and
mainly the poorest in environmentally sensitive regions
remains directly dependent upon the environment, the
disruption of their access to natural resources by politicaleconomic systems may represent their absolute exclusion and impoverishment. Indeed, government
support for corporate-oriented interventions in environmentally sensitive regions traditionally occupied and
rich in natural resources by privatising or by `protecting'
their lands has lead to resident peoples expulsion to
ecologically marginal lands and the systematic degradation of their resources base. As Redclift (1997) notes,
if the environment in developing countries is above all a
`livelihood issue' then any change or degradation in that
environment will inevitably aect their ability to control
the main source of their livelihoods.
The resultant unequal distribution of environmental
costs and benets among dierent actors has directly
reinforced existing social inequalities, increasing the
vulnerability of those who have been impacted by this
political logic through their physical exposure to environmental changes. In this respect, socio-environmental
conicts over the control of natural resources have political and economic sources, which have been related to
the characteristics of related development models and
also widely inuenced by the global economic `order'
(Descola and P
alsson, 1996).

3. Impacts of development and conservation policies on

resident peoples livelihoods and environmental conservation in Brazil
3.1. Protected areas designation in Brazil
Environmental conservation by means of protected
areas has been the major approach adopted by Brazilian
policy makers for environmental care within a context
of environmental disruption related to rapid urbanisation and large-scale development schemes.5 As Diegues
(1994, pp. 5253) notes, the period 193064 was marked
by the `rapid rise of governmental sponsored industri5
The rst Brazilian Conference on the Protection of Nature took
place in 1934 a year in which Brazilian Forest Code was launched
introducing the concept of protected area (Hall, 1997, p. 53). Deeply
inuenced by the US national park principles, the Code dened that
extensive areas with outstanding scenic attributes would be delimited
and preserved for urban population enjoyment, scientic research and
environmental education while human occupation and exploitation of
its natural resources would be prohibited.

555

alisation, which placed a strong priority on natural resources exploitation. . .through state monopolies'.
Nature was viewed as non-scarce, oering `an innite
supply of physical resources for economic development'.
Although this showed government disregard for natural
resources, `the need for some form of environmental
protection' was recognised.
Examination of the location of Brazilian protected
areas reveals that their creation started in the populated
and industrialised Southeast-south region.6 It was only
from the 1960s, due to the expansion of the urbanisation
and agricultural frontier to the hinterlands and
Amaz^
onia, leading to rapid deforestation, that protected
areas were created in other regions (Diegues, 1994).
In fact, most protected areas were designated in the
period of military dictatorship (196486) when an aggressive policy for promoting national integration and
economic development was established. Two major
factors led to a systematic implementation of protected
area policy. Firstly, the pressure of international organisations such as the World Bank and Inter-American
Development Bank, which began to include environmental protection clauses as a condition of loans for
large development schemes.7 Secondly, military interest
in Brazil's sovereignty and national security through the
occupation and development of frontier regions. According to Diegues (1994, pp. 534), environmental
protection through `centrally controlled conservation
units' was viewed by the military as a strategy for `developing a strong federal focus from which to direct the
nation's modernisation process and place political control at the centre'.
Through this perspective, a rational and conservative
vision regarding resident peoples and traditional resource management practices have marked Brazilian
preservationist policies. During early frontier development policy, little or no attention was given to resident
peoples, deeply disregarding the fact that their livelihood was directly related to the management of natural
resources. As Diegues (1994, pp. 23) notes, protected
areas were designated `in a topdown manner, without
consulting the regions involved or the populations
whose way of life would be aected by the restrictions
imposed on their use of natural resources'. Local populations and their traditional economic dynamics and
common property practices were de facto perceived as
obstacles to government development conservation
strategies and centralised policy making (Hall, 1997).
Although many theorists no longer accept this view, it
6
It is exactly in the division of the states of S~ao Paulo, Minas Gerais
and Rio de Janeiro that the rst Brazilian National Park, Itatiaia was
established in 1937 by the Federal Government.
7
As it is known, this period coincided with the growth of Brazil's
foreign debt and consequent soliciting of large loans for the viability of
mainstream development policies.

556

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

remains a powerful inuence on conservationist policies

allowing prot oriented interventions in environmentally sensitive regions by privatising or supplanting the
existing traditional forms of resource management
(Ghai and Vivian, 1992).
The federal Brazilian Institute of Forest Development
IBDF founded in 1967, and responsible for protected
area policies, established Brazilian conservationist policy as paradoxical due to its involvement in the deforestation of large areas and also in reforestation for
industrial-oriented proposes.8 In addition, these policies
have been based on a `defeatist' position in which human growth and technological development were seen to
inevitably degrade nature and in which it was foreseen
that only some `primitive' regions under special protection regimes would remain in the long term (Diegues,
1994).
These government approaches were later challenged
by Jose Lutzenberger, one of Brazil's most distinguished
environmentalists, who was appointed as the Secretary
of the Environment by newly democratically elected
president Collor in 1990. As Hall (1997, p. 59) states,
rejecting technocratic and large-scale development paradigms, Lutzenberger promoted a radical shifting in
previous conservationists policies by acting on illegal
forest burning, incorporating local peoples into the
formulation of public policy and setting up a new institutional framework for environmental care. His vision, however, directly conicted with the interests of
powerful timber industries and politicians in favour of
regional `modernisation' and `economic growth', ending
up in his replacement, conveniently after the 1992 Rio
Summit.9
A central issue is that since colonial times, access to
and management of Brazilian natural resources have
been based on government priorities, pointing towards
initiatives which have systematically valued special
groups interests over the majority well-being.10 This
political system has not only disrupted traditional forms
of common property management, but also promoted
unequal wealth distribution, with thousands of people
excluded from sustainable control over their own environment.
8

In 1989, the IBDF was absorbed by the new environmental federal

agency, IBAMA together with other three major Brazilian environmental protection agencies: SUDEPE, SEMA and SUDHEVEA (Hall,
1997, p. 56).
9
As Hall (1997, p. 60) states, the divergences and conicts between
Lutzenberger and corporate-political groups was set aside temporarily
as Brazil hosted the 1992 UNCED.
10
This dominant political rationality has it roots in the logic of
capitanias heredit
arias, which are large-scale land properties, established by Portugal in the 16th century. Landowners of these enormous
properties, known as latifundistas, have basically used them as a
measure of power and inuence in society, instead of promoting
sustainable resource management practices.

3.2. Political and economic interests behind the designation and delimitation of the Lencois Maranhenses National Park
Amazon rainforest, semi-arid, mangroves, dunes and
babacus reserves are some of the ecosystems which
compose the state of Maranh~ao,comprising 5,222,183
inhabitants.11 It has the biggest area of mangroves in the
region and its 640 km of littoral, the second biggest of
Brazil, is characterised by an impressive landscape of 10
of small bays and islands in the west, Reentr^
ancias
Maranhenses, and the only open sea delta in the whole
America, Delta do Parnaba, in the east.
Between them, extraordinary ecosystems of dunes,
mangroves, igarapes (narrow riverbanks) and restingas
(sandbanks) compose the region known as the Lencois
Maranhenses. The region is marked by two main seasons due to the proximity with the equator: the winter
from January to June and the summer from July to
December. In the winter, the rainfall waters create tens
of thousands of lagoons while the sea winds drop and
the sea tranquillises.12 During the dry summer, the lagoons evaporate and the sea becomes turbulent.
The singularity of the regional environment led to the
establishment of the Lencois Maranhenses National
Park by IBDF in 1981, which aimed at `protecting the
ora, fauna and existent local natural and scenic beauties' for scientic, educational and recreational use
(Article 2, Decree 86,086-02/06/81).
One hundred and fty thousand hectares in extent,
the Park is characterised by a rare geologic formation of
white dunes, which are constantly moving and reshaping
themselves according to the sea winds and watercourses.
This apparently arid environment comprises three major
ecosystems, including cerrado which contour the dunes,
restingas inside the dunes and mangroves in the margins
of the Preguicas River (UEMA, 1999). It also represents
the habitat of many endangered species as well as the
support to thousands of migratory birds and to many
sea turtles that use its environment to lay their eggs
(IBAMA, 1997). Its perimeter is dened in Article 1:
It starts in the point of geographic co-ordinates:
Latitude 0239'29''S and longitude 4311'42''W
Gr., localised in the telegraphic network alignment
which connects Humberto de Campos and Barreirinhas, point 1. Proceed north in a straight and dry
line until the point of geographic co-ordinates: Latitude 230'00''S and longitude 4311'42''W Gr.,
11
Maranh~ao has a terrestre surface of 333,365,6 km2 . Its limits are
the Atlantic Ocean (N); the state of Piau (E); the state of Tocantins (S)
and the state of Para (W).
12
During the winter season, the pluvial metric level of the region
steadily increases achieving a rainfall precipitation of more than 60%
of the total 1600 mm annually (UEMA, 1999).

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

point 2. Inect north-westward through other

straight and dry line until the point of geographic
co-ordinates: Latitude 222'03''S and longitude
4325'34''W Gr., localised in the intersection of
the previous line and the septentrional part of the
Santaninha Island, point 3. Contour south-westward until the point of geographic co-ordinates:
Latitude 233'11''S and longitude 4327'56''W
Gr., point 4. Enter perpendicularly 1 km into the
Atlantic Ocean contouring the littoral in a clock
wise direction until the point of geographic co-ordinates: Latitude 233'50''S and longitude
4245'00''W Gr., point 5. Follow through the carriageable road which connects Ponta do Mangue
and Barreirinhas until the point of geographic coordinates: Latitude 244'39''S and longitude
4251'11''W Gr., localised in the insertion of this
road and the telegraphic network, point 6. Proceed
north-westward until the point 1 described, enclosing the perimeter'.13
As stated by IBAMA's authority in S~
ao Luis, many
of these limits followed routes and marks already demarcated by the Petrobr
as, which had tried unsuccessfully to nd petrol in the region.14 In addition, according
to IBAMA's administrator in Barreirinhas, the designation of the Park was much more the result of initiatives by Floralim Coelho, a state representative of IBDF
in 1981, than of an ecological detailed study (D'Antona,
1997, p. 155). In Coelho's own words:
The idea of the Park was raised in 197374, when
we carried out research on the natural resources
of the coastal areas of Maranh~
ao to the Programme
of National Integration of the Ministry of Energy. . . Following other parks, which present rare
beauty scenic and unique ecosystems, the objectives
were publishing, studying and protecting these privileged environments. . . The delimitation of a protected area is based on many criteria: from the
strategic point to be conserved such as existent nat-

13

According to the division of the Maranh~ao in 21 homogeneous

regions, the Park is part of the Microregi~ao 04 which is composed by
the municipalities of Barreirinhas, Humberto de Campos, Primeira
Cruz, Santo Amaro do Maranh~ao and Tut
oia (IBGE, 1994). Translated by the author.
14
Since 1989, IBAMA has been responsible for the management and
scalisation of the Park and later of the APA while the State Adjunct
Environmental Administration GAMA has a supplementary role
such as the approval of enterprises in the region. GAMA's lack of
resources, however, has given to IBAMA a major role of direct
actuation, which is well illustrated by the unique governmental
representation in the region, IBAMA Post of Control and Fiscalisation
POCOF in Barreirinhas. Established in 1953, the Petrobras will
become a major governmental monopoly of petrol and natural gas in
30 years.

557

ural auent, demographic boundaries, relief and

vegetation, to the facility of demarcation of the
area. . . No expropriation in the area was planned
or happened, due to the non-interest in the natural
aspect of the sandy soil and the vegetation being
economically non-viable.
Nevertheless, while the dunes, lagoons and restingas
were protected within the boundaries of the Park, important ecosystems remained totally outside its perimeter. Only 10 years after the creation of the Park, the
mangroves, the mouth and ciliary vegetation of the
Preguicas River were designated by IBAMA as
the Environmental Protected Area APA Pequenos
Lencois. It is important to stress that in this time Lutzenberger headed environmental policies in Brazil, and
his challenging position is visible in the adoption of an
alternative protected area category APA, focusing on
resident people's participation in nature conservation.15
Based on the previous theoretical debate, however, it
remains to consider the real political and economic interests behind the designation and delimitation of the
Park and the APA. Established during a period of
strong government incentives for national integration
through large-scale infrastructure and frontier occupation, the Lencois Maranhenses National Park is the result of a reactive environmental policy narrowed
towards the protection of large stocks of natural resources from its own economic development paradigm
(Nash, 1989). Following the US experience, its designation represents a standardised conservationist paradigm marked by absence of wider ecological criteria
informing nature protection and a disregard for the
strengthening of sustainability in existent socio-economic dynamics (Norton, 1991; Diegues, 1994).
This government approach has not only promoted
tensions between resident peoples' livelihoods and the
protected area paradigm, but also reinforced the legitimisation of social exclusion and environmental disruption under the rhetoric of nature protection (Sellars,
1997). In fact, the designation process of the Park has
brought into play diverse political and economic interests which have shifted patterns of local naturesociety
interaction and therefore congured a complex politicised environment (Bryant and Bailey, 1997; Hannigan,
1995).
It is worth noticing that although the region did not
represent an axis of urbanisation according to military
development frontier logic, the designation process of
15
According to the Brazilian government, the objective of APA is `to
discipline the process of land occupation and promote natural
resources protection within its limits in order to secure the well-being
of resident populations by conciliating human actions and wildlife
preservation, natural resources protection and improvement of quality
of life of the population' (IBAMA, 1999). Translated by the author.

558

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

the Park is posterior to Petrobr

as unsuccessful eort to
explore for petrol in the area. In fact, the Park was
`coincidentally' established in the `non-economically viable' area of dunes, while other areas potentially attractive for economic development, were `not protected'.
This includes the fragile mangroves and ciliary vegetation of the Preguicas River, from where a great part of
regional resources are extracted. Furthermore, the government discourse of `protection of ora and fauna'
contradicts the Park's perimeter based on rigid references aforementioned, illustrating the government disregard for local ecosystem particularities.
The government strategy of non-intervention in the
local agrarian structure has promoted speculation, environmental disruption and social exclusion of the resident peoples. This trend is conrmed by the absence of
government policies to regularise the land tenure of
resident peoples whist local oligarchies have acquired
economically viable lands favoured by government
tourism development policies. This challenges Coelho's
testimony expressing the objectives of the Park, including the `publishing, study and protection of these privileged environments' and `the non-expropriation of
resident peoples' due to the `non-interest in the natural
aspect of the sandy soil and the vegetation being economically non-viable'.16 Behind the political rhetoric of
`environmental protection', the designation of the Park
represents a process of government and local elites
control over natural resources.
Although the later Environmental Protected Area
APA designation tried to challenge these politicaleconomic interests through a wider socio-ecological
perspective including the armation of resident peoples'
positive role in environmental conservation, it was
deeply constrained by political interests and corporate
pressures. As a result, it recovered a more conservative
ecological vision and topdown power relations in resource management through a restrictive and punitive
form of environmental policy in relation to local people
who have been kept outside the formal political sphere
(Nash, 1989; West and Brechin, 1991; Wells and Brandon, 1995).
3.3. Impacts of protected area paradigm on resident
peoples' livelihoods and regional environmental conservation
Resident peoples' relationship with nature in the region of the Lencois Maranhenses is a signicative example of sustainable humannature interaction,
ensuring their livelihoods and maintaining the resources
base (Berkes, 1999).

16

Italic added by the author.

Although their direct dependency on the intensive use

of resources, residents' `artisanal' economic system, long
process of cultural adaptation and knowledge of natural
cycles have formed the basis of their sustainable livelihoods (Wells and Brandon, 1995; Diegues, 1994). The
livelihoods of most traditional resident peoples in and
around the boundaries of the Park and the APA have
been marked by complex socio-environmental dynamics
based on extended-family strategies and the production
of a range of products resulting from the diversication
of small-scale activities.
Following the climatic dynamic of the region, their
livelihoods are subject to changes according to the seasons. The rainfall denes the seasons and emphasises
certain socio-economic activities: shing in the littoral in
the winter, farming in the countryside in the summer. In
this temporal process, many people from the countryside go shing in the littoral during the winter and vice
versa during the summer. Other typical resource management practices include the extraction of Buriti palms
and mangrove trees, collecting crabs, cattle ranching,
pottery and handicraft. All of them together have created a complex regional network of exchange among
people from dierent localities sustaining their diversied livelihoods.
The Preguicas River is a fundamental part of this
regional socio-economic dynamic. Crossing its calm
waters, the littoral and the countryside meet each other
through the circulation of people, products and information. The most `signicant harbour' of this movement
is the seat of the region, Barreirinhas, which concentrates the majority of regional services and institutions
such as the local government, the federal bank, the
hospital, the high school, the mail, the market and
IBAMA's post. It is in Barreirinhas that the majority of
regional products are daily sold, bought or exchanged.
Power relations behind the designation of the Park
and the APA, combined with the introduction of new
commercial forms of resource management have deeply
aected the basis of this regional dynamic. As a result,
this context has represented the beginning of a rapid
process of structural change in local naturesociety interaction, disrupting resident peoples livelihoods strategies.
To better understand the implications of the protected area paradigm for resident peoples' livelihoods
and regional environmental conservation, these issues
are more deeply analysed focusing on resident peoples
debates over the Lencois Maranhenses National Park
and the incorporation of modern techniques of resource
management in Atins.17

17
In July 1999, the author conducted a small eld research in Atins,
intending to investigate further the subject of this paper.

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

Then there is an examination of the `development'

process actually facing the region due to the construction of an interstate road as part of state government
policy for regional economic development based on
tourism (Fig. 1).
Situated in the mouth of the Preguicas River, Atins is
a shing village with a population of six hundred inhabitants most of whom regard Atins as the `entrance'
of the Lencois Maranhenses National Park area. The
village, however, does not fall within the ocial
boundaries of the Park illustrating previous debate on
the government disregard for regional socio-environmental particularities.
The village is divided into family groups as part of
their socio-economic organisation based on extendedfamily strategies. It has one elementary school, one
health post and one telephone. There are no land titles
as the area is property of the federal government nor are
there any local political organisations. In 1997, electricity was brought to the village at the same time as a
non-paved road was built by its own inhabitants, connecting Atins with Barreirinhas.
One of the major implications of the designation of
the Park for Atins is related to IBAMA's punitive
practices towards residents' daily activities, which they
argue `profoundly interfere in our livelihoods'. Although this environmental agency was established in the
region to manage the Park, it has systematically implemented the National Park's restrictive legislation in the
broader zone of inuence of the APA, where `in theory'
the conservation of the natural resources should be
reconciled with the improvement of resident peoples
quality of life. As a result, this scenario has promoted
tensions and excluded residents from control over their
own environment and livelihoods.
Examination of IBAMA's discourse reveals that de
facto the Park itself is far from achieving its own agenda
for intervention. Firstly, the Park is dened by IBAMA
sta in the region as an exotic and distant place whose
ecosystem of dunes and lagoons are subjects of lesser
degradation than the mangroves and ciliary vegetation
near Barreirinhas. In addition, according to POCOF's
administrator, the limits of the Park are `imaginary'. As
a result, `there is no way to deal with resident peoples as

559

we do not know de facto who is inside and outside'. For

IBAMA's sta, resident peoples do not `create problems'. Their practices are not environmentally disruptive
as they are for `their subsistence'. . . `The problem is the
draw shing'. However, lack of resources and equipment, which was considered by them to be a result of
federal government neglect, have `limited' their intervention. Finally, according to POCOF's administrator
there are `no conditions to manage the whole region as
we only have four people, one small boat and one
Toyota four-wheel drive'.
This discourse and Federal Government nancial
constraints have not only justied IBAMA neglect in
managing the Park, but have also directly limited their
activities mainly to the Preguicas River where coincidentally the great majority of resident peoples earn a
signicant part of their livelihoods daily. As a local
woman says: `rather than act regarding the Park and
punish the most powerful, IBAMA is always restricting
our activities'.
In fact, behind the conict between IBAMA's actions
and its discourse of sensitivity to traditional resident
peoples there are several interests and actors including
the owners of the draw-shing boats and many politicians at state and even federal level. This can be illustrated by the case of a shing engineer, who had been
`temporarily retired' from IBAMA's draw shing operations when he apprehended the boat of a politician.
This was commented on by some shworkers in Atins
who argued that `the one person who did something in
this littoral was recently retired by the `powerful'.
The testimony of a sherman who has lived in Atins
for more than 20 years summarises the position of many
shworkers interviewed with regard to the discrepancy
between IBAMA's discourse and its practice:
IBAMA does not come here to Atins because they
do not `earn' anything from it. They know that the
powerful boats are here but they say there is no petrol to put in the car and other excuses. But, I always
think that they do not want to come here and solve
this problem. Imagine, if they really wanted to they
could ask any resident to bring them very early,
work the whole day in the area and then come back.

Fig. 1. Atins resident peoples and artisanal shworkers, 1999.

560

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

If they had to continue the next day, they could put

even their hammocks here in my yard. But why
should they come if they have all the comfort in
Barreirinhas?
IBAMA's position in relation to a rally held in the
dunes of the Park also illustrates its `paradoxical' environmental policy in the region. Rallies are totally prohibited in any National Park, in line with total
restrictions on disruptive human actions characteristic
of this protected area category. This issue was claried
when the author went to interview the POCOF administrator, who was wearing a T-shirt from the rally.
Nevertheless, when asked about the legislation, he said:
We organised a public debate in Barreirinhas with a
hundred percent of agreement to hold it. . .you
know, people here do not have any entertainment. . . what could I do?
The `public meeting in Barreirinhas', however, did
not involve the resident peoples in or near the Park in
decision making nor did it inform them about the real
consequences of this kind of practice in the Park's fragile
ecosystems. This event also reveals the way in which the
Park and resident peoples are perceived by many tourists and POCOF's administrator as illustrated by the
event advertisement. It described a `pioneer adventure of
conquest of a wild area. . . amid the curiosity of peaceful
local peoples, who have never seen such cars and noise.'
It is not surprising that the environmental conservation of the Park itself and the improvement of resident
peoples livelihoods almost disappears in IBAMA's actions. In this respect, the designations of the Park and
the APA have neither fullled their major role of `protecting the environment' nor brought any benet for
resident peoples. Conversely, it has conditioned contextual patterns of interaction between dierent actors
and the environment, compromising resident peoples
ability to control the main source of their livelihoods. As
a result, this political rationality has represented resident
peoples impoverishment and the systematic degradation
of their natural resource base.
These structural changes in resident peoples livelihoods are illustrated by the debates over the incorporation of modern techniques of resource use into Atins.
Although environmental degradation was not part of
resident peoples' daily vocabulary, their livelihood was
associated with certain levels of `natural resource consumption'. The shworkers in Atins used the expression
artisanal as a way of dierentiating their subsistence
practices from those shing activities undertaken on a
new commercial basis. They generally divided resource
management practices into three groups: non- damaging
actions such as `artisanal shing'; necessary but not intentionally harmful actions such as the wood collection

in the mangroves and environmentally disruptive actions that should be totally avoided such as draw shing.
While their subsistence practices were perceived as `environmentally friendly', the draw shing companies
from Barreirinhas and other Brazilian regions, were seen
as `responsible for the destruction of our littoral'. According to one sherman:
Until 20 years ago it was not necessary to go far away
shing, everything was here in the littoral. . . Since the
entrance of motorised boats drawing shrimps, the
sh have disappeared obligating us to spend two or
more weeks at sea in order to sh something.
The introduction of motorised boats and the draw
shing practices in the region of the Lencois Maranhenses has led to environmental disruption, which has
directly aected the livelihoods of most resident shworkers. If in the past they used to sh daily within the
region, nowadays they have to spend two or more weeks
in the deep sea to catch the same amount of sh. The
actual context of shing scarcity in the region reveals the
consequences of the introduction of environmentally
disruptive values and practices far from the local socioenvironmental reality.
The relationship between shing in Atins and Cabure
also draws into question the implications of the protected area paradigm for local people's ability to control
natural resources. Localised in the mouth of the Preguicas River near Atins, Cabure is a sandbank which is
considered to be an excellent location for shing. The
richness of the local environment has contributed to the
denition of a very particular interaction between `nomadic' shworkers and Cabure.
Since the designation of the Park, Cabure's privileged
location between the river and the sea has also attracted
entrepreneurs and tourists. This scenario has been accentuated since 1992, when the rst lodging was built in
the area, marking a rapid process of structural changes
through the re-directing of its use from subsistence shing
to tourism.18 Aware of the tourism potential of the area
due to its `privileged' location, many people from Barreirinhas and other localities have invested in Cabure,
`selling' the area as if it was the Park. This process has not
only led to the expulsion of the nomads, increasing their
livelihood vulnerability, but also conditioned patterns of
interaction between tourists and the Park, undermining
the opportunity of Atins to benet from tourism (Redclift, 1997). As observed by a woman in Atins:
18

Since then, its development has been extremely fast as could be

observed in comparison with the rst visit of the author in the region in
1996. When the author asked about Cabure before going to Atins,
many people in Barreirinhas used to describe the rapid local change by
exclaiming `Cabure. . . ah! It is a city now. . . you will not recognise'.

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

The tourists come here in the morning to see the

dunes and then come back to Cabure at lunchtime. . . Some tourists, however, do not come as in
Barreirinhas they [the owners of lodging in Barreirinhas who have been investing in Cabure] say to
them that Cabure is the Park. As they do not know
that the dunes are here, they go to Cabure. . . We
only observe this movement.19
The lack of government incentives to resident peoples
is evidenced by the fact that in Atins only two families
rent a room for tourists and there is only one lodging
with two rooms, whose owner's statement well illustrates the local context:
The tourists do not contribute to improving our
lives. You have to understand that tourism is good
only for those who have something to invest. . . we
do not have the means even for the education of
our children. . . why would people invest what they
do not have in something uncertain?
Nevertheless, the consolidation of tourism as an
`economic alternative for poor populations' is the major
state government policy for the region of the Lencois
Maranhenses, namely the Action Programme for the
Development of Tourism PRODETUR II, sponsored
by the IADB.20 According to the manager of State
Tourism Subadministration GETUR, due to its `outstanding beauty landscape and inestimable natural and
cultural resources' the region has `a major patrimony for
the development of tourist products such as ecotourism'.
In line with the national programme implemented in the
North-east region, PRODETURNE, its main objective
is to `implement a programme of investments for the
development of an important regional economic sector,
guaranteeing the improvement of resident population's
quality of life and promoting the preservation and
maintenance of existing ecosystems' (Maranh~ao,
1999).21

19

The author stayed in one house in which the owner rents a room
(of her daughter who lives in S~ao Luis) in the Main Street. Tourists
have to cross this street to go to the dunes. In this respect, every
morning when they passed in front of her house she used to say `you
see. . . they [the owners of lodging in Cabure] bring them in their fast
small boats and then after three, four hours they come to take there
back. . . this is the way they earn money.
20
The Programme is also supported by Sudene, Embratur and BNB
(Rodrigues, 1999, p. 159).
21
In this respect, the rst step adopted was `the regional division of
the state into poles of interest according to local homogeneity and
attractive proximity'. The rst phase of the programme (PRODETUR I)
focused on investments in infrastructure in S~ao Luis, which is
considered the `central receptor and distributive of tourism of the state'
(Maranh~
ao, 1999).

561

Based on the results of previous experiences

throughout the NE, however, this national programme
has been widely criticised by academics and environmentalists. Emphasising its socio-environmental impacts, Rodrigues (1999, pp. 156158) argues that `the
tourism model proposed by the PRODETUR NE reproduces the neoliberal paradigm of corporate capitalism, which has excluded local populations by
disregarding not only conjectural, but mainly structural
social demands'. It has been stated that this national
programme has dramatically altered the local ecological
balance by promoting unseen environmental problems
such as the dismount of mobile dunes for the building of
hotels and secondary housings. In addition, rather than
providing economic alternatives for the local populations, the majority of tourist infrastructure has been
`articially' implemented, neglecting existent cultural
particularities and promoting socio-physical segregation
between resident peoples and tourists (Rodrigues, 1999,
p. 18).
PRODETURNE has de facto prioritised social investments in corporate enterprise from the beginning,
separating economics from environment in the name of
individual interests. The most visible results of this
`economic development' policy has been an asymmetrical development process associated with the dominant
ideology of concentration of benets in the hands of an
elite.
It is worth noticing that this programme has progressed under a state government currently characterised by neoliberal policies based on huge privatisation
and reduction of social expenditure. The state political
arena is characterised by the centralisation of power in
the hands of the female governor and her husband, who
is coincidentally the head of Planning and Economic
Development Administration GEPLAN and responsible for the proposal of regional tourism development.22
Although government discourse on `improvement of
local peoples life and environmental conservation', the
real interests behind the PRODETUR II in the region of
the Lencois Maranhenses should be questioned. There is
a clear lack of adequate socio-environmental and economic evaluation of the impact that it may have on
resident peoples livelihoods and on the environment. In
addition, there is no attempt to involve resident peoples
in decision making, including the strengthening of their
political autonomy and the sustainability of their livelihoods.

22
The governor, furthermore, is the daughter of the former governor
and Brazilian president (198589) who has been in the power of the
state for a long time. Nevertheless, she was re-elected as governor in
the last elections in 1998.

562

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

Indeed, why invest only in tourism in face of those

regional potentials, needs and problems? In this perspective, rather than an economic alternative, it could be
argued that the way in which tourism has been implemented in the region reects the supremacy of powerful
actors and interests over those systematically excluded
from the political arena. This may consolidate the process observed in Cabure, which has beneted few people,
contrary to the government's `poor people oriented
discourse'. Furthermore, it reveals that government has
neglected the resolution of structural problems facing
the region such as draw shing. Finally, it shows government's disregard for the existing resource management practices which are deeply related to resident
peoples livelihoods.
These assumptions are illustrated by the construction
of the `tourism road', the MA-402 which is the rst step
towards the implementation of the PRODETUR II. The
region is characterised by its isolation and scarce alternative access to S~
ao Luis. Barreirinhas is currently
connected to S~
ao Luis through the roads BR-135 and
BR-222, totalising 337 km of which 145 km are nonpaved (MA-025) Fig. 2.
Following the Programme this road will connect the
region with the NE through the state of Ceara, expanding the existing axis of tourism development from
the south to the north of the Brazilian littoral. In this
respect, it is worth stressing the testimony of the manager of GETUR:
One of the major problems in the region is the tourism from Cear
a, which does not respect our nature,
our littoral. Government idea is to anticipate this
process of spontaneous occupation, creating the infrastructure for tourism development.

This reveals the total absence of political coherence to

justify the construction of this tourism road, as the `infrastructure' proposed by the government is restricted to
the new road, which proposal is exactly to facilitate the
access to the region and to the Park for `public recreation'.
Although the new road may improve people's access to
S~ao Luis, the reason for giving priority to a new road
rather than to improving the existing infrastructure,
which could benet the numerous settlements along it, are
questionable. According to IBAMA's representative in
S~ao Luis, the construction of this new road will `certainly
isolate the old roads from the state economy. . . and,
consequently, their villages and resident peoples'.
Furthermore, the construction of the road had not
received a consensus among resident peoples, academics
and environmentalists. Many have argued that the region is not `prepared to receive mass tourism'. A common argument in Barreirinhas and in Atins was that `we
do not have the infrastructure even for us. . . you cannot
imagine during holidays when the city is crowed with
tourists. . . the quantity of waste in the streets triples. . .
can you imagine when this road arrives here?' On the
other hand, it has been argued that the new road will
shorten the distance between Barreirinhas and S~
ao Luis
by almost a hundred kilometres, increasing the proximity of new economic opportunities.
It was observed, however, that there was no discussion about the PRODETUR II per se and the possibility
of paving the last half of the existing roads. These issues
were in a certain way avoided by the authorities and
excluded from local debate, as visibly resident peoples
have no knowledge about the Programme and its consequences in other regions. The only authority that opposed the new road from the beginning was the IBAMA
shing engineer `temporarily retired'. He argued that the

Fig. 2. Schematic localisation of the MA-402, the Park, Atins and Cabure, indicated by the author.

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

rst environmental impact of the road could be observed near S~

ao Luis:
Since the construction of the road there an average
of 3040 buses per weekend have accessed its auence rivers. . . the problem is that there is no infrastructure to receive these people, resulting in the
rapid pollution of this ecosystem. . . As part of IBAMA sta, I know that the same process will happen
in the region of the Park. . . maybe even worse as
Barreirinhas is the seat of the region.
The MA-402 will connect S~
ao Luis directly to Barreirinhas, crossing many fragile ecosystems and the zone
of inuence of the Park (UEMA, 1999). The Environmental Impact Assessment EIA for the road only
refers to physical impacts, neglecting wider socio-environmental implications. There was one attempt in this
direction through an `ecological-economic assessment'
but the construction of the road has already started,
bringing into play a political process of land speculation
around Barreirinhas and the Park lands as analysed in
Cabure. In this respect, the authorities of the State Environmental Agency in S~
ao Luis, responsible for the license of the road, have unocially stated that the road
is a `predator' instrument and that they are aware that
`these people' will be expelled.
Rather than strengthening the sustainability of resident peoples' livelihoods, the above scenario reveals the
accentuation of dierences and the role of power relations in the control of natural resources at the expense of
`protected' nature and local livelihoods. A central issue
is precisely the gap between government discourse and
practice regarding the development and environmental
conservation of environmentally sensitive regions such
as the Lencois Maranhenses.
Despite the existing government discourse, this context illustrates the longstanding incorporations isolated
regions into development schemes by investing in largescale infrastructure (supported by governmental and
international development agencies) and followed by the
privatisation of valuable adjacent lands and elite control
over natural resources.
In this perspective, government development and
conservation policy for the region of the Lencois Maranhenses again performs a controversial protected area
paradigm, which has constrained the capabilities of
resident peoples to improve the sustainability of their
livelihoods while promoting the conservation of their
environmentally sensitive regions.
4. Conclusions
Conguring essentially a standardised environmental
policy against exploitative approaches to resource use,

563

the direct adoption of the protected area paradigm in

developing countries has promoted conicts over control of natural resources. Based on a politically viable
rationale in which recreational tourism development
would ensure nature preservation, protected areas have
been designated in `traditionally' occupied environmentally sensitive regions often by centralised government decision making. Although many theorists no
longer accept this view, it remains a powerful inuence
on conservationist policies allowing prot oriented interventions in environmentally sensitive regions by
supplanting the existing traditional forms of resource
management.
Rather than being based on socio-ecological criteria
informing environmental conservation policy, this rationality has been implemented far from the conservation of
nature per se and with no major attention to existent social dynamics. Perceived as obstacles to government development and conservation strategies, resident peoples
and their resource management practices have been
widely disregarded. Understanding that the livelihood of
the majority in environmentally sensitive regions remains
directly dependent upon the environment, the disruption
of their access to natural resources by political-economic
systems represents their exclusion and impoverishment.
Indeed, bringing into play diverse interests, the protected area paradigm has conditioned patterns of naturesociety interaction, reinforcing existing social
inequalities and disrupting the environment.
Environmental conservation by means of protected
areas has marked Brazilian conservationist policies
within a context of environmental degradation related
to rapid urbanisation and large-scale development
schemes. This political system has not only disrupted
traditional forms of common property management, but
also promoted unequal wealth distribution, excluding
resident peoples from sustainable control over their own
environment.
This paradigm was illustrated by the implications of
development and conservation policies for the livelihoods of resident peoples in the region of the Lencois
Maranhenses National Park. The power relations behind the designation of the Park combined with the introduction of new commercial forms of resource
management such as draw shing have promoted a rapid process of structural change in the local naturesociety interaction. In addition, the government policy for
the regional economic development based on tourism
has neglected the existing complex socio-environmental
dynamics and kept resident peoples outside the political
arena. As a result, this controversial policy has promoted
the continuity of a process of social exclusion and environmental disruption under the rhetoric of protected
area designation as a strategy for nature conservation
and tourism economic development for improvement of
resident peoples livelihoods.

564

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

The fact that this process has just started in the region
may represent a major challenge for environmental
conservation policy in integrating the sustainability of
resident peoples livelihoods into the development and
conservation of environmentally sensitive regions in
Brazil. After a century of experience in development and
conservation of traditionally occupied regions, it is high
time to ponder the ethics and power relations behind
human practices and understanding of existing naturesociety interaction, and to consider the potential for
enabling sustainable livelihoods in environmentally
sensitive regions in developing countries.

Abbreviations
APA
BNB
DFID
EIA
EMBRATUR
GEPLAN

GETUR
IBAMA

IBDF

IBGE

IADB
IUCN
MA
NE

PETROBRAS
POCOF

PRODETUR

SEMA

SUDEPE

SUDENE

Area
de Protec~
ao Ambiental
(Environmental Protected Area)
Banco do Nordeste do Brasil
(Brazilian North-east Bank)
Department for International
Development
Environmental Impact
Assessment
Empresa Brasileira de Turismo
(Brazilian Tourism Agency)
Ger^encia de Planejamento e
Desenvolvimento Econ^
omico
(Planning and Economic
Development Administration)
Subger^encia de Turismo
(Tourism Subadministration)
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio
Ambiente e dos Recursos
Renov
aveis
(Brazilian Institute of the
Environment and Renewable
Resources)
Instituto Brasileiro de
Desenvolvimento Florestal
(Brazilian Institute of Forest
Development)
Instituto Brasileiro de Geograa
e Estatstica
(Brazilian Institute of Geography
and Statistics)
Inter-American Development
Bank
World Conservation Union
Maranh~
ao
Nordeste
(Brazilian North-east Region)
Petr
oleo Brasileiro S/A
(Brazilian Petrol S/A)
Posto de Controle e Fiscalizac~ao
(Post of Control and Inspection)

SUDHEVEA
UEMA
UNEP
UNESCO

Programa de Ac~ao para o

Desenvolvimento do Turismo no
Nordeste
(Action Programme for the
Development of Tourism in the
Northeast Region)
Secretaria Especial de Meio
Ambiente
(Special Secretariat for the
Environment)
Superitend^encia do
Desenvolvimento da Pesca
(Superintendence for the
Development of Fishing)
Superitend^encia do
Desenvolvimento Do Nordeste
(Superintendence for the
Development of Northeast)
Superitend^encia da Borracha
(Superintendence for the Rubber)
Universidade Estadual do
Maranh~ao
(Maranh~ao State University)
United Nation Environment
Programme
United Nation Educational,
Scientic and Cultural
Organisation

Acknowledgements
Although I am responsible for the research and
writing, this study is in many ways a cooperative eort.
Special thanks to Benedicto, Rosane, Priscila, Mariane,
Cesar, Ros^angela, Rita, Merege and Diegues for their
time, stimulus and support to nurture this study from
its conception to conclusion. I am profoundly grateful
to those who willingly gave their views on the socioenvironmental and political arena of the Lencois
Maranhenses. I am grateful to Adriana Allen and
Nadia Taher for their advice and encouragement. I
acknowledge the support from University College
London for awarding me a Sir Henry Herbert Bartlett
Scholarship that helped to nance the eld research in
Brazil. I am particularly grateful to Jenny Robinson
and Edesio Fernandes for their outstanding dedication
to publish this study. This paper is dedicated to the
resident peoples in the Lencois Maranhenses and to
Andre Herzog, my sherman.

Note added in proof

The author translated all testimonies and took the
presented pictures during eld research in 1999.

S. Abakerli / Geoforum 32 (2001) 551565

References
Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Knowledge and
Resource Management. Taylor and Francis, London.
Bidol, P., Crowfoot, J.E., 1991. Towards an interactive process for
siting national parks in developing nations. In: Patrick, C.W.,
Brechin, S.R. (Eds.), Resident Peoples and National Parks.
Arizona Press, US.
Bryant, R.L., Bailey, S., 1997. Third World Political Ecology.
Routledge, London.
Chambers, R., 1985. Rural Development: Putting the Last First.
Longman, London.

D'Antona, A.O.,
1997. O Ver~ao, o Inverno e o Inverso: Sobre o Modo
de Vida de Comunidades Residentes na Regi~ao dos Lencois
Maranhenses. Master dissertation, State University of Campinas,
S~
ao Paulo.
Descola, P., P
alsson, G., 1996. Nature and Society Anthropological
Perspectives. Routledge, London.
Diegues, A.C.S., 1992. Sustainable development and people's participation in Wetland ecosystem conservation in Brazil: Two comparative studies. In: Ghai, D., Vivian, J.M. (Eds.), Grassroots
Environmental Action: People's Participation in Sustainable Development. Routledge, New York.
Diegues, A.C.S., 1994. O Mito Moderno da Natureza Intocada.
Research Centre on Human Population and Wetlands of the
University of S~
ao Paulo NUPAUB, S~ao Paulo (reedited in 1998).
DFID, 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods. In: Carney, D. (Ed.), What
Contribution Can We Make? Russel Press, Nottingham.
Ghai, D., Vivian, J.M., 1992. Grassroots Environmental Action:
People's Participation in Sustainable Development. Routledge,
New York.
G
omez-Pompa, A., Kaus, A., 1992. Taming the wilderness myth. In
Bioscience 42 (4).
Hall, A., 1997. Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots Action for Productive Conservation. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Hannigan, J.A., 1995. Environmental Sociology A Social Constructionist Perspective. Routledge, London.
IBAMA, 1997. Parque Nacional dos Lencois Maranhenses, Pamphlet.

565

IBAMA, 1999. Unidades de Conservac~ao do Brasil: Linhas de

Atuac~ao (Actuation Guidelines for Brazilian Protected Areas).
htpp://www.ibama.gov.br, assessed 18 February 1999.
IBGE, 1994. Barreirinhas, Maranh~a- NE. Collection Monograas
Municipais, Rio de Janeiro.
IIED, 1994. Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to
Wildlife Management. Russell Press, London.
Maranh~ao, G.E., 1999. Ger^encia de Planejamento e Desenvolvimento
Econ^
omico e Subger^encia de Turismo, Estrategia para o Prodetur
II. S~ao Lus, Maranh~ao.
McNeely, J.A., 1995. Biodiversity conservation and traditional agroecosystems. In: Saunier, R.E., Meganck, R.A. (Eds.), Conservation
of Biodiversity and the Biodiversity and the New Regional
Planning. IUCN, Switzerland.
Nash, R., 1989. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental
Ethics. University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin.
Norton, B.G., 1991. Toward Unity Among Environmentalists. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of
Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Redclift, M., 1997. Frontiers of consumption: sustainable rural
economies and societies in the next century. In: de Haan, H.,
Kasimis, B., Redclift, M. (Eds.), Sustainable Rural Development.
Ashgate Publishing company, UK.
Rodrigues, A.A.B., 1999. Desaos para os Estudiosos de Turismo. In:
Rodrigues, A.A.B. (Ed.), Turismo e Geograa: Reex~
oes Te
oricas
e Enfoques Regionais. HUCITEC, S~ao Paulo.
Sellars, R.W., 1997. Preserving Nature in the National Park: A
History. Yale University, London.
UEMA, 1999. Estudo de Impacto Ambiental da Rodovia MA-402.
Universidade Estadual do Maranhao, Brasil.
Wells, M., Brandon, K., 1995. People and Parks: Linking Protected
Areas Management with Local Communities. World Bank, Washington, DC.
West, P.C., Brechin, S.R., 1991. Resident Peoples and National Parks.
The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.