The Jari/Amapá REDD+1 Initiative, which is led by the private investment company Biofílica and a corporate group called Grupo Jari, aims to protect an area of FSC-certified forest in the Jari Valley, which straddles the states of Pará and Amapá in the Brazilian Amazon. This area was acquired by the Grupo Jari in 2000 from the former Jari enterprise. The main goals of the initiative are to reduce deforestation and forest degradation in the forest management area. Proponents also plan to promote social co-benefits by providing technical assistance for sustainable production to some of the smallholders living inside and around the intervention area. These activities are coordinated by both Biofílica and Fundação Jari, and executed by Fundação Jari, which is the social branch of Grupo Jari. Fundação Jari has worked for 14 years with communities on company lands in the state of Pará and recently began working with smallholders in five communities in Amapá as part of the REDD+ initiative. A key challenge for the initiative is the historical lack of land tenure clarity in the area, which is reflected in smallholders’ insecurity regarding both their land holdings and the initiative. In this chapter, we describe the goals and strategies of the initiative, characterize the smallholders in the intervention area, and discuss key challenges and concerns.

5.1 Basic facts: Where, who, why and when

5.1.1 Geography

The Jari/Amapá REDD+ Initiative is located in the southern part of the state of Amapá in the Jari River Valley, which is an affluent of the Amazon River. The intervention area is a 659.8 km2 subset of the overall Jari Initiative area of approximately 10,000 km2. It encompasses the municipalities of Laranjal do Jari and Vitoria do Jari (Figure 5.1). According to the Köppen system, the climate in Amapá is tropical monsoon characterized by year-round monthly mean temperatures above 18°C, with wet and dry seasons. In southern Amapá, the average annual rainfall is 2100 mm (Arvorar and IPÊ 2011). Ninety percent of the initiative area consists of low and medium plateaus. Elevations measured in our five study communities were 75 masl, 69 masl, 25 masl, 22 masl and 12 masl. Amapá is largely dominated by soils with high concentrations of aluminum, which are fairly acidic, and represent varying degrees of soil fertility. The major soil types in the study area are yellow/red latosols, yellow latosols, yellow podzolics, and red/yellow nitosols (Arvorar and IPÊ 2011). In the intervention area, there are two main kinds of forest: Submontane Open Ombrophilous Forest with lianas, and Dense Ombrophilous Forest Lowlands with Emergent Canopy (Arvorar and IPÊ 2011).

Forests in the intervention area are extremely rich in natural resources, including timber and NTFPs such as Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl.) and natural rubber (Hevea spp. Aubl.). Rubber was historically the basis of the regional economy. In 1882, during the rubber boom, a migrant from northeastern Brazil, José Julio de Andrade, began to acquire lands in the Jari Valley. He established commercial relations with local extractive communities and eventually declared himself the owner of 3 million ha. He organized and controlled the sale of rubber and Brazil nuts to international markets until 1948 when he was forced to leave the region by popular uprisings (Greissing 2010). Subsequent rubber and Brazil nut commerce was controlled by a group of Portuguese traders who then sold the area to an American billionaire named Daniel Ludwig in 1967 (Greissing 2010). Supported by Brazil’s military government, Ludwig acquired 16,321 km2 of land in Amapá and Pará, with the intention of creating a large agro-silvopastoral project focused on cellulose production, but also including kaolin and bauxite mining, buffalo ranching and rice cultivation (Arvorar and IPÊ 2011). To implement this enterprise, Ludwig built roads, an airport and two cities (Monte Dourado and Vila Munguba) for company employees. Cellulose production began in 1978 after installation of a cellulose factory constructed in Japan, and some of the natural forests were converted to Gmelina (Gmelina spp.) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) plantations.

This major transformation negatively affected extractive communities that had traditionally occupied the area. In the early 1970s, many families were forced to leave their residences when they lost access to forest resources due to conversion to other land uses and move to more remote areas or to the new urban settlements. At the same time, thousands of migrants from all over Brazil, especially the northeast, moved to the area in search of work with the cellulose company. Once their temporary contracts were over, they colonized the banks of the Jari River (Lins 2001). This settlement resulted in the emergence of two makeshift towns known as ‘Beiradão’ and ‘Beiradinho,’ which later formed the cities of Laranjal do Jari and Vitória do Jari, respectively. While the company towns in the state of Pará were very well planned, with modern houses and infrastructure, Laranjal do Jari and Vitória do Jari in Amapá received minimal government and company support. Both cities still face a lack of basic sanitation, fires due to poor electrical installations, floods and poor housing conditions. In 1987, when Laranjal do Jari became an official municipality, it was known as a ‘pistol city,’ afflicted by prostitution, violence and serious sanitation issues (Greissing 2012). The rural areas of these municipalities, which according to Grupo Jari fall within its boundaries, also suffer from a lack of roads, transport and technical assistance for production. The rural population that has re-settled this area over the past decade suffers from a lack of formal land tenure and pollution from Jari Celulose (one of the companies of Grupo Jari), including contamination of soils and water from pesticides used in the eucalyptus plantations and siltation of streams from trucks transporting logs (Greissing 2010).

Grupo Jari is central to the economy of Laranjal do Jari and Vitória do Jari, as reflected in the large shares of the service and industry sectors in the municipal GDP of both municipalities. In 2009, the service sector was the largest in both municipalities. In Laranjal do Jari, the second most important sector was industry, while in Vitória do Jari, it was agriculture/livestock (IBGE 2012b). In terms of agricultural products, in 2009, cassava had the highest production value in both municipalities (IBGE 2012a). Logs, followed by Brazil nuts, were the forest products with the highest production values (IBGE 2012a).

In 2010, the total population of Laranjal do Jari was 39,942 inhabitants (5% rural) and that of Vitória do Jari was 12,428 inhabitants (21% rural). Between 2000 and 2010, the municipality of Laranjal do Jari grew by 40.07% and Vitória do Jari grew by 45.18%. For our study, we focused on the five communities (Figure 5.1) targeted by the initiative, interviewing a total of 122 households (57.3% of the total).

5.1.2 Stakeholders and funding

The Jari/Amapá REDD+ Initiative is being implemented through a partnership between Biofílica and Grupo Jari (specifically, Jari Florestal and Jari Celulose). Biofílica is a private company in São Paulo that promotes management and conservation of Amazonian forests through the commercialization of environmental services. Grupo Jari is comprised of a group of private companies, originally from southeastern Brazil, which specialize in cellulose pulp production and packaging. The group (formerly called Grupo Orsa) was founded in 1981, and in 2000 expanded its activities to the Jari Valley when it bought Ludwig’s original Jari enterprise. The group acquired the enterprise with a debt of USD 215.2 million, which it was able to resolve by 2011. In 2011, the group sold seven companies from southeastern Brazil to concentrate activities in the Jari Valley. In 2000, Grupo Jari created the Fundação Jari with the initial goal of providing social services to children and teenagers living within or close to the company’s forest management units. After 3 years, Fundação Jari shifted its focus to local development, by supporting local associations and cooperatives and incentivizing productive activities such as agroforestry and eucalyptus plantations, and good practices for Brazil nut harvesting (personal communication from J Almeida, 26 August 2014).

Biofílica and Grupo Jari each have a specific role in the REDD+ initiative. Biofílica is responsible for the design and management of the initiative. Jari Florestal is responsible for sustainable forest management activities that are certified by the FSC, along with initiative management. One of the companies in Grupo Jari (Jari Celulose) is the legal owner of the intervention area. Fundação Jari is not considered a proponent, but rather a partner institution. Its function is to provide social services and technical assistance to the five communities targeted by the REDD+ initiative. Biofílica currently covers initiative costs, and once carbon credits are sold on the voluntary market, benefits will be shared between Biofílica (15%) and Jari Florestal (85%). Fundação Jari receives a fixed amount of money (USD 45,455/year) to perform its work in the target communities independent of the amount of carbon sold. In the first crediting period (2011/2012), the initiative offset 200,000 tC, but was only able to sell 20% of the credits produced to Brazilian companies seeking to neutralize their carbon emissions. Carbon offsets from the 2013/2014 crediting period will be verified in October 2014 and sold in the voluntary market.

5.1.3 Motivation

Biofílica was the first organization to introduce REDD+ in the Jari Valley. According to the Biofílica initiative manager, after two years of searching for a site in the Amazon that met their criteria of clear land tenure and technical and economic feasibility of REDD+, Biofílica identified Jari Amapá. In 2010, Biofílica presented a proposal to Grupo Jari, which they accepted by the end of that year (see the initiative timeline, Figure 5.2).

Even though there were no previous conservation initiatives in the intervention area, Jari Florestal always monitored the region to deter new settlers and conversion of forests for other uses, including by reporting to the federal environmental agency (IBAMA). Proponents perceive the primary threats to forests in the intervention area to be small-scale swidden agriculture, small- and medium-scale cattle ranching, and illegal small-scale logging by people living both inside and outside the area. Although Grupo Jari does not inventory its emissions,2 because they are outside the scope of its REDD+ initiative, it is important to note that the industrial cellulose pulp production realized by Jari Celulose is a major emitter of GHGs.

5.1.4 Timeline

While Grupo Jari agreed to partner with Biofílica at the end of 2010, February 2011 is considered to be the initiative start date, since this is when Biofílica and Grupo Jari held their first socioeconomic and environmental assessment planning meeting. Biofílica developed the PDD between early 2012 and 2013, and in July 2012, representatives of Biofílica and Fundação Jari presented the initiative to target communities. The timeline (Figure 5.2) summarizes the history of the initiative and interventions applied until early 2014. Details on specific interventions are presented in Section 5.2.

5.2 Strategy for the initiative

The proponents consider the initiative as ‘REDD+’ and have set specific goals to reduce deforestation (RED), reduce forest degradation (second D), and promote forest conservation and management (+). The co-benefits of highest priority to the proponents are livelihood benefits for smallholders through technical assistance oriented to sustainable production. The initiative was certified by the VCS in 2013 for access to the voluntary carbon market and the proponent will pursue complementary certification by the CCBA. The reference level established for the initiative was based on historical deforestation data (2000–2010) obtained from the National Institute of Spatial Research (INPE) and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), following the VCS VM0015 methodology. The proponents also use INPE and IBGE products to evaluate and monitor changes in forest cover in addition to ground measurements.

The proponents plan to accomplish their goals of reducing carbon emissions and generating co-benefits through four strategies: (i) certified forest management; (ii) deforestation monitoring through remote sensing; (iii) regular surveillance by Jari Florestal security; and (iv) provision of technical assistance for sustainable production in the five target communities. For the first strategy, although the forest management area is already FSC-certified, Jari Florestal has yet to attain government permits to begin operations. The second strategy is performed through the generation of an annual bulletin of deforestation that is checked in the field by Jari Florestal security. The third strategy is essentially a continuation of the monitoring already performed by private security guards of Jari Florestal in the intervention area to restrict access to company lands which are only partially titled, prevent land occupation by new settlers, and monitor land use and deforestation by families already settled in the area. In addition to monitoring, the security guards report forest clearing and fires to the environmental agencies. The fourth strategy builds on Fundação Jari’s experience with communities on company lands in Pará, but is tailored to the target communities in the REDD+ intervention area in Amapá.

The five participant communities were selected in April 2012 according to five criteria: (i) location outside the Cajari River Extractive Reserve and the area of influence of the newly constructed Santo Antônio hydroelectric power plant; (ii) livelihoods relying on agriculture and/or extraction of NTFPs; (iii) inclination toward social organization; (iv) existence of public interventions; and (v) production potential of sustainable activities focused on agriculture and extractivism (Biofílica 2013).

After the selection of communities, Fundação Jari and Biofílica organized one meeting per community to explain the initiative goals in July 2012 (Figure 5.2). By the end of these meetings, Fundação Jari and Biofílica decided to create the REDD+ Thematic Chamber as a forum for the REDD+ initiative proponents and partners, public agencies and community representatives to discuss REDD+ and the Jari/Amapá REDD+ Initiative. Along with promoting conceptual discussions, the objective of the Chamber was to discuss how to decrease deforestation in the initiative area, and strengthen relations among government agencies, proponents and communities. The next interaction with target communities was in May to September 2013 when Fundação Jari led the Community Participatory Organizational Diagnosis that consisted of three workshops to: (i) build awareness about conservation and REDD+; (ii) allow community members to assert preferences; and (iii) elaborate community action plans. The five community action plans were then presented to the REDD+ Thematic Chamber as a way to promote their recognition and monitoring.

Contrary to the expectations of Fundação Jari and Biofílica that smallholders would mostly be concerned with rural production systems, their demands largely focused on land tenure regularization, road improvement, and access to transportation and educational facilities (personal communication from R Lima, 29 July 2014). When Fundação Jari and Biofílica emphasized that their work would focus on technical assistance, and that the other demands would be brought to the REDD+ Thematic Chamber on REDD+, many smallholders decided not to participate in the initiative. For the 48 families that voluntarily signed on, Fundação Jari technicians conducted a household-level socioeconomic diagnosis and elaborated individual property management plans based on the experience of the Proambiente3 Program. The plans consisted of a set of steps to reach desired productive outcomes and simultaneously reduce deforestation. During the diagnosis and property management plans, Fundação Jari also provided punctual technical assistance based on smallholders’ specific demands. Technical assistance in upcoming years will be specifically aligned with the goals of the property management plans and include technical training at the community level. One training course was already held in one of the target communities (JARI5) and focused on the production of açai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) seedlings and nursery construction (Figure 5.2). Importantly, the proponents do not plan to use conditional incentives, at least in the short term while they are still building communication and trust with communities.

According to the proponents, selection of families for the initiative is not complete. During the household diagnosis, some families decided to leave the initiative and others decided to join. Nonetheless, proponents have a limited budget that currently allows them to work with a maximum of 50 families. Although the Fundação Jari activities focus mainly on technical assistance, the proponents view the REDD+ Thematic Chamber as an opportunity to involve public agencies in discussions related to the broader community demands. For instance, in December 2013, Fundação Jari organized a special Thematic Chamber meeting to discuss land tenure issues. In addition, in 2006, Grupo Jari signed a memorandum of intention with the state government of Amapá to carry out an exchange of lands in the intervention area as a way to secure land rights for local communities. Grupo Jari would concede select areas occupied by smallholders to the state for regularization (creation of official rural settlements or individual land titles) and in return would receive land titles for areas of equivalent size, where the company is the de facto user. Although the state land institute, Instituto de Meio Ambiente e de Ordenamento Territorial do Amapá (IMAP) has already mapped the smallholders’ properties, the exchange process had not progressed since 2010.

While the proponents were rolling out their REDD+ initiative, there were few other interventions related to forest conservation and/or support for rural livelihoods in the intervention area. In terms of forest conservation, two communities mentioned command and control actions. In one (JARI3), there was the first occurrence of an IBAMA fine for a community resident in 2011. In the other (JARI5), community members mentioned a recent increase in surveillance by IMAP. In JARI4, Jari Florestal held a training course for smallholders on controlled burning. In terms of support for rural livelihoods, in JARI3, CADAM (a kaolin mining company in the Jari Valley) promoted beekeeping courses and provided beekeeping equipment. In JARI2, the state rural assistance agency (RURAP) provided support to households for transporting production to the market and worked with three households on implementation of an experimental mechanized agricultural plot. Also, in this community, some families participate in two federal food security programs.4 Households in all five communities obtained support from Bolsa Família (national government social welfare program, based on cash transfer) and Renda para Viver Melhor, which is similar to Bolsa Família, but implemented by the Amapá state government.

5.3 Smallholders in the initiative

Our sample includes the five communities targeted by the initiative. In August 2012, we interviewed 122 of a total of 213 households in these five communities. Households were randomly selected in JARI1 and JARI5; given the small size of the other three communities (JARI2,5 JARI3 and JARI4), we interviewed all families present during the fieldwork period (Table 5.1). In each community, we also held one community meeting, and one meeting with women, with an average of 15 participants.

Local institutions were not well developed in the study communities; only two of the five communities (JARI1 and JARI5) had active small-farmer associations with leaders elected by members, and JARI3 had a beekeepers’ group. In the two communities with local associations, the majority of women reported not being sufficiently represented on community decision-making bodies. No community had local organizations specific to women.

Table 5.1 summarizes basic characteristics of the study communities. In terms of access to infrastructure, none of the communities had health facilities, and there was a health agent only in JARI3. This was also the only community with a primary school. JARI3 has greater access to basic infrastructure, because it is situated in an area that was granted to smallholders by Jari Celulose. The municipal government encouraged the settlement through the construction of a church and school and installation of an electric generator with governmental provision of fuel.

In the other communities, the tenure situation is very unclear, and smallholders lack schools, decent roads, transport, health agents, electricity and general means of communication. This lack of basic infrastructure creates a situation in which most households alternate between the city and rural area for their livelihood activities. Many have two houses, one in the city and one in the community (rural area). The women usually stay in the city with their children, while the men go to the community for a few days during the week or stay for an extended period of time (15 days) to take care of the household crops and/or animals. Some men also have a job in the city, so they spend only weekends and/or holidays on production activities in the community.

In terms of agricultural production, cassava flour was the product with highest value (cash and subsistence) for all communities in the sample period of August 2011 to August 2012 (Table 5.1). In addition, in JARI1 and JARI2, households indicated that cassava production had increased in 2010–2012 due to the ease of cultivation, processing and commercialization, and also due to families’ participation in government food security programs (PAA and PNAE). In the other three communities, however, smallholders noted that cassava production declined due to a lack of access to technology and mechanization, and increased monitoring by IBAMA. IBAMA does not allow forest clearing without authorization, which households reported they cannot obtain since they do not hold land title. The production of rice declined in three communities (JARI1, JARI2 and JARI4) due to the high competition with rice from other regions sold in local supermarkets. Three communities (JARI1, JARI3 and JARI4) mentioned an increase in açai palm fruit (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) production due to growing market demand. In JARI5, the production of leafy greens increased during this period, which can be explained by their short growing cycle and this community’s proximity to the city of Vitória do Jari, where there is a market for these products.

With the exception of JARI5, which is less remote (Table 5.1), people from the other communities face challenges in transporting their produce due to poor road conditions and infrequent transportation. JARI3 has access to municipal transportation that reaches the community twice a week. JARI1 and JARI2 have access to a municipal truck that transports their produce every 15 days, but households need to carry their produce to the highway (1–20 km away) to be able to use this service.

Table 5.2 summarizes socioeconomic characteristics of the sampled households. In terms of education, household members (≥16 years old) across the five communities had studied on average for 4 to 6 years. Only two of the communities had access to electricity (JARI2 and JARI3). In JARI2, this was through the municipal connection, and in JARI3 it was through a community generator. Most households accessed water directly from streams or springs, but in JARI5, one-third of families had piped water and 47% had their own wells. About half the households from the rural community had latrines or flush toilets, while the other half (49%) did not have any kind of toilet in the house.

In terms of income, households in JARI2 had the highest average income and JARI5 the lowest. Although there was great variation in mean income levels between communities, more than half of households in all five agreed that their incomes had been sufficient to cover basic household needs. Households from the two communities with higher mean incomes (JARI2 and JARI4) controlled larger parcels of land and had more transportation assets.

Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show that households in the five study communities were reliant on different types of income. In JARI2 and JARI3, more than a third of income was derived from crops (JARI2, 43%; and JARI3, 36%). In JARI1, business (30%) and crops (27%) comprised the largest shares. In JARI4 and JARI5, off-farm labor represented the principal income source (43% and 32%, respectively). The high reliance on business income and wage labor reflects smallholders’ dual livelihoods between the city and rural area. The ‘other income’ category included mainly government support through the Bolsa Família and Renda Para Viver Melhor programs, which was also very important for the study communities, ranging from 11% to 24% of total household income. Livestock income was negligible in all communities. In general, smallholders in the area were not highly reliant on forest income, but they did collect a diversity of products from the forest.

Female participants in the women’s meetings in all five communities reported that nearly all men and women go to the forest to collect forest products. They reported that women generally collect wild fruits, firewood, vine, charcoal, traditional medicine, organic material, seeds, Brazil nuts and thatch and for hunting and fishing. Men were said to collect similar products in addition to logs and poles. In three communities (JARI1, JARI2 and JARI3), women reported that most men and women go to the forest during the rainy season, especially in May, to collect uxi (Endopleura uchi (Huber) Cuatrec.) and piquiá (Caryocar villosum (Aubl.) Pers.) fruits. In JARI4, the main season for forest product collection is during the school holidays (July, December and January) when the family can stay in the rural area for a longer period of time. In JARI5, this period coincides with the Brazil nut collection season (January–March).

Table 5.3 summarizes other information about forest dependence among households sampled. Our data show that the collection of forest products was for households’ own consumption and sale. The five categories of products collected by the largest percentage of families were fruits (93%), followed by mammals (bushmeat, 76%), firewood (39%), Brazil nuts (36%) and medicinal plants (34%). The main products sold by households were Brazil nuts (21%) and açai (4%).

In terms of forest cover change, during community meetings, smallholders from three communities (JARI1, JARI4 and JARI5) reported a decrease in forest cover in the community in 2010–2012. In all three communities, the main cause was forest clearing for swidden agriculture. In JARI4, there was also a reported increase in clearing forest for cattle ranching. Community meeting participants in JARI3 reported a recent increase in forest cover and in JARI2 that forest cover had not changed. In JARI3, the increase was attributed to amplified enforcement of government restrictions by IBAMA and to the monitoring carried out by Jari Florestal security staff.

With the exception of JARI2, at least half of households in all communities reported clearing forest between 2010 and 2012 for the main purpose of growing crops (Table 5.3). Yet, three communities (JARI1, JARI4 and JARI5) reported that the area under swidden agriculture did not change in this period. Importantly, in JARI1, residents said that the number of families practicing swidden increased, but since they were clearing smaller areas, the overall area under swidden stayed the same. In JARI2, there was a reported increase in the area under swidden, and in JARI3 a decrease mainly due to government restrictions. With the exception of JARI1, in all other communities, the net area of permanent agriculture increased.

5.4 Challenges facing the initiative

The proponents and partners of the initiative, along with local participants, identified a variety of challenges and concerns with implementation of the Jari/Amapá REDD+ Initiative. From Biofílica’s point of view, the main challenge is the heavy oscillation of the carbon market (price and demand), which makes it hard to estimate the revenues to be obtained, and likewise, to budget for investments. They relate this oscillation to the lack of stronger national and international policies for REDD+. Biofílica also stressed the complexity of standards and methodologies for estimating emissions reductions and the difficulty of adapting them to local contexts, since they were created in the United States and Europe (personal communication from P Ribeiro, 27 March 2013). For the Fundação Jari, a primary concern is the unclear land tenure situation in the intervention area, which depends on support from the state government to resolve (personal communication from J Almeida, 9 September 2012).

During community meetings, we asked local people about their concerns and recommendations regarding the initiative. Importantly, at the time of our fieldwork, the initiative was in an early implementation stage and proponents had held only one meeting with community members. In JARI3, where the land tenure situation was relatively secure and there was some infrastructure, the primary concern was that the initiative would not actually be implemented and nor would it provide the technical assistance that they needed. In JARI1 and JARI4, local people feared that the initiative would restrict swidden agriculture, that they would lose autonomy and be encouraged to produce products that they could not sell. In JARI5, worries were related to initiative management and benefit sharing. Households felt that the initiative might only benefit the proponent organizations with no benefits allocated to the community members. They also worried that proponents would not be transparent during initiative implementation and would not inform households about the use of funds gained from their efforts to reduce deforestation. In JARI2, the main worry was that the initiative would cause the households to lose their land.

In fact, in three of the communities (JARI1, JARI2 and JARI4), the main recommendation for the initiative was to first realize land tenure regularization. Other important recommendations focused on improving local production systems through technical assistance, and provision of machinery and inputs. In terms of technical assistance, they highlighted that extension agents must be sensitive to and respect families, that activities should focus on individual family needs and that all steps of the initiative should be widely discussed with them. They also mentioned that for the initiative to work, proponents should invest in the improvement of basic infrastructure, such as roads, transportation and electricity.

Households also recommended that Grupo Jari use its influence on the municipal government to promote construction of a school and health center in the communities. As seen in one woman’s statement, the lack of basic infrastructure is an immense challenge for rural families: “For me, it is much better to live on my rural property than [in the city]. If there was a school, I could move [to the community] with my children and be without worries. Today, I would not feel comfortable spending one month there and leaving the children [in the city], because transportation is very difficult” (woman, 9 August 2012).

While some households believed in the positive influence of the proponents, others were more distrustful, as seen by the following two statements: “If Grupo Orsa (Grupo Jari) wanted to help, they would already have done that. They have forestry engineers, rural technicians, they have everything” (man, 10 August 2012). “Grupo Orsa (Grupo Jari) is here with IMAP, giving fines (…). It would be easier if they helped the families” (man, 10 August 2012). Also, during the initial presentation of the initiative by Biofílica and Fundação Jari to the communities, the daughter of one rural producer said, “See the contradiction, the company from São Paulo (Biofílica) and the Fundação Jari come here to discuss a project that depends on the land tenure that Orsa (Grupo Jari) does not want to clarify” (woman, 11 July 2012).

As mentioned by many households, there is an urgent need for clarification of land tenure in the intervention area. Nearly half of the households (43%) reported feeling insecure about their land rights, mainly due to the lack of land titles and competing claims with Grupo Jari. Families also mentioned their insecurity regarding the presence of the Jari Florestal security agents who monitored their lands and reported them to IBAMA when they cleared forest. Additionally, smallholders reported that many people who settled on Grupo Jari company lands in Pará had been forcibly expelled from their lands, and they feared that the same would happen to them. Even though the company claims to be the owner of about 10,000 km2, some smallholders contest that they are settled on public lands for which the state government provided land titles in 2006, but that these were not considered valid by Grupo Jari.

5.5 Lessons from the initiative

From a technical perspective, the Jari/Amapá REDD+ Initiative has a well-developed carbon baseline and system of monitoring and reporting carbon emissions. In terms of social co-benefits, since 2013, Fundação Jari has begun to educate local people about the initiative, and to construct community and household property management plans to allow the provision of targeted technical assistance. The creation of the REDD+ Thematic Chamber was an important advance in promoting discussions about the initiative with a diverse group of stakeholders. From an equity perspective, however, local households were not involved in designing the initiative, and their insecurities related to land tenure and monitoring by Jari Florestal highlight clear historical power differences that have continued to the present day.

Undoubtedly, the greatest challenge facing this initiative is the local land tenure situation, which has been ambiguous since José Julio Andrade’s first acquisition of land in the Jari Valley. During this acquisition and subsequent transactions with new owners, traditional land rights of smallholders in the area were ignored. Many families were expelled from their lands when Jari Celulose decided to expand its activities and newcomers were prevented from settling, which explains the ongoing insecurity felt by many community members in relation to the REDD+ initiative. Although the proponents reported that they intend to resolve this situation through the exchange of private and public lands, Grupo Jari and the state must arrive at a new agreement for the development of the smallholders’ land regularization process. Despite the lack of land tenure clarity, Grupo Jari received large amounts of credit from the national government to invest in the cellulose industry, and the REDD+ intervention area was certified by VCS and FSC.

While this unclear tenure situation has not posed problems for Grupo Jari in terms of certifying forest production and obtaining credit, it prevents smallholders in the area from accessing credit and basic government infrastructure and from obtaining environmental permits for their productive activities. This is the reason that families’ main recommendations for the initiative focused on land tenure regularization and subsequent access to infrastructure, since the state will not invest in public infrastructure on private lands. In addition, many families decided not to participate in the initiative when they realized that it would focus mainly on technical assistance, which they felt would not resolve the underlying structural problems that needed to be addressed to improve local well-being. That said, families from JARI5 have been working to restructure their community association and engage with the national agency of land tenure regularization (INCRA) to create an official land reform settlement.

Even though Biofílica chose the Jari site specifically because of the company’s clear title to the land, in practice, conflict over tenure is a barrier to the fair distribution of REDD+ benefits at this site, as in other REDD+ initiatives around the Amazon. Follow-up research at this site will need to investigate if indeed the REDD+ initiative can regularize smallholder land tenure, enabling the development of basic infrastructure, smallholder permanence on the land and well-being, or if the initiative will only be able to produce carbon credits.

5.6 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the households of Jari Valley for their friendliness, hospitality and patience in answering our endless questionnaires and to Biofílica, Fundação Jari and Jari Florestal for sharing their REDD+ initiative information with us. We are also thankful to the members of our field team. Cley and Dadá shared their knowledge of the region and transported us safely. Carlos Henrique Menezes da Silva, Denise Reis do Nascimento and Eliude de Jesus Brito Lopes provided outstanding collaboration as enumerators and data encoders.