Introduction

Protecting forests is essential for addressing climate change and biodiversity loss (Damian et al. 2021; Gibson et al. 2011; Mackey et al. 2020). However, forest loss and degradation continues to increase (FAO and UNEP 2020), including in the Amazon (Silva Junior et al. 2021; Silva-Junior 2023), largely driven by industrial logging, mining, and agriculture (Bebbington et al. 2018; Curtis et al. 2018). Forest landscapes are also home to local communities, including Indigenous communities, who rely on the forests for food, fiber, and fuel and often have a close cultural connection to the forest. These communities are often on the front line of forest conservation, despite the pressure to lease or sell their forest for logging, mining, and agriculture in pursuit of development (Bebbington et al. 2018; Zimmerman et al. 2020). They often see limited benefits of industrial land use change, while deforestation threatens their livelihoods and non-extractive options for development, such as non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (Brandão et al. 2021). Illegal activities threaten their resources, land, land rights, and lives (Siqueira-Gay and Sánchez 2021; Bebbington et al. 2018).

The role of local and Indigenous communities in preventing and reversing deforestation is widely recognized within the academic and policy literature (dos Santos et al. 2022; Fa et al. 2020; Fernanda Gebara 2018; Nolte et al. 2013; Osorno-Covarrubias et al. 2018; Turnhout et al. 2017; Walker et al. 2014). This article builds on that literature and proposes an answer to the more challenging and less widely addressed question of how Indigenous groups have protected almost 90% of their territory in a context of limited government support, including insufficient law enforcement, based on the experience of the Kayapo Indigenous people and their supporting NGOs in the Brazilian Amazon.

The Kayapo have uncontested constitutional rights to their land and natural resources, including the legal right to defend their territory. Under the Brazilian Constitution (art. 231(2)), native communities have exclusive use rights to the riches of the soil, forests, rivers, and lakes within their lands (Law 6001/1973, art. 18(1)). However, the Kayapo’s 2200-km border is under threat from invasions by external stakeholders. Kayapo territory is currently surrounded by cattle ranches, roads, and towns (Mertens et al. 2002; Zimmerman et al. 2020), in a region where lawlessness, illegal activity, and corruption prevail. Despite this, the Kayapo protect over nine million hectares of near-intact Amazon primary forest, part of the world’s most diverse terrestrial ecosystem and large enough to maintain its fauna and flora species diversity, including healthy populations of many endangered species, ecosystem services, and rainfall regimes (Zimmerman et al. 2020).

With help from international NGO partners, the Kayapo founded three NGOs — the Protected Forest Association (based in Tucumã, Pará), the Raoni Institute (based in Peixoto de Azevedo, Mato Grosso), and the Kabu Institute (based in Novo Progresso, Pará) — in the early 2000s.

Background

Indigenous forest management/conservation and the Kayapo

There is significant scientific literature on the performance of conservation governance regimes, including Indigenous territories, protected areas, and private conservation concessions, particularly in the Brazilian Amazon (Malhado et al. 2020; Schleicher et al. 2017; Crisostomo et al. 2015; Nepstad et al. 2006). Comparative studies on the performance of uninhabited (e.g., national parks) and inhabited (e.g., Indigenous lands, extractive reserves) reserves have shown that Indigenous lands have had a strong inhibitory effect on deforestation in the Amazon, even after centuries of contact with the national society (Baragwanath et al. 2023; Nepstad et al. 2006). It is recognized that Indigenous lands contribute significantly to forest and biodiversity conservation (Silva and Pureza 2019) and play a crucial role in climate change mitigation (Mackey et al. 2020).

Social science research on governance, notably polycentric governance systems, has long discussed how social structures and processes operate and interact to achieve collective goals, such as forest conservation. The concept of polycentric governance, which emphasizes networks and alliances, is particularly relevant to the present study. Polycentric governance recognizes multiple centers of authority, which create opportunities for local institutions to evolve by tightening monitoring and feedback loops (Bixler 2014). In part, polycentric governance tries to achieve these objectives by recognizing and building on existing networks, markets, and hierarchies of organization (Jordan et al. 2018). Networks can be thought of as polycentric, connecting across different institutional levels and providing communication channels for the various stakeholders at multiple levels (Bodin and Prell. 2011; Berkes 2010). In these multilevel and polycentric governance systems, partnerships and alliances are fundamental (Visseren-Hamakers and Glasbergen 2007).

In particular, research on forest governance discusses an increasing trend towards community-based forest governance across much of the world, reflecting a wider trend of devolution of natural resource management to local and community-based level (Berkes 2010; Bixler 2014). Community-based governance emphasizes the importance of community participation in decision-making and management. Arguments for community-based governance suggest that communities are best placed to make decisions about and manage the forest (Aswani et al. 2017; Paletto et al. 2015; Tavares et al. 2014; Menzies 2004; Gibson et al. 2000). Community-based approaches to natural resources, including forests, are claimed to create more equitable and sustainable outcomes by empowering communities that have land and resource rights to the forests (Aswani et al. 2017; Ellis and Porter-Bolland 2008; Tavares et al. 2014; Bixler 2014; Menzies 2004). However, implementing such management has presented challenges, for instance, capacity limitations, elite capture of resources, and lack of representation (Berkes 2007, 2010; Bixler 2014).

In the context of the Amazon basin, substantial historical and anthropological research has been dedicated to understanding the ways of life and social structures of the Amazonian Indigenous peoples, including the Kayapo (Filho et al. 2020; Hemming 2019; Zanotti 2016a, b; Brown 2014; Balée, 2013; Kronik and Verner 2010; Posey and Balick 2006; Conklin and Graham 1995; Moran 1993). The literature has discussed the history of Kayapo activism and collaboration with conservation NGOs to influence decision-making (Turner 1993; 1995; Turner and Fajans-Turner 2006; Diversi 2014; Fisher 1994). The Kayapo have been combating illegal activities and advocating for the protection of their forests through conservation alliances (Turner 1995; Zimmerman et al. 2001, 2020; Schleicher et al. 2017; Zanotti 2014; Visseren-Hamakers and Glasbergen 2007; Turner and Fajans-Turner 2006; Schwartzman and Zimmerman 2005; Menzies 2004) — collaborations that have lasted decades, despite concerns by many that they would be short-lived (Conklin and Graham 1995; Fisher 1994). However, there has been no research examining how the Kayapo governance and planning processes operate, utilizing a theoretical governance framework to support this analysis. This article aims to make this contribution to the literature.

Landscape approaches and evaluation

The complexity of competing land uses and the importance of culture and Kayapo livelihoods suggest that the protection of the Kayapo lands should be viewed through a landscape approach lens. Landscape approaches are widely discussed as alternatives to conventional single-sector approaches to create more sustainable outcomes (Arts et al. 2017; Reed et al. 2016; Sayer et al. 2005, 2013). Approaches that focus on timber extraction, such as SFM and reduced-impact logging, have still resulted in significant forest loss and degradation, especially in tropical primary forests (Achard et al. 2014; Curtis et al. 2018; Zimmerman and Kormos 2012). At the same time, conventional conservation-focused approaches have been criticized for locking up land and resources, creating negative social and economic impacts on local communities, especially Indigenous communities (Lele et al. 2010; Miranda et al. 2016; Phillips 2003). Landscape approaches seek to take a more holistic view of land management, that recognizes the multiple uses and users of a forest landscape, and better include Indigenous knowledges and perspectives (Sayer et al. 2005). In this case, the prevalence of logging and mining pressures, the importance of territorial integrity, Kayapo culture and livelihoods, and creating alternative, sustainable sources of income to support well-being all suggest that the case aligns with the ideas behind landscape approaches. However, despite agreement within the literature that landscape approaches can be more effective at protecting forests, there is less agreement on what constitutes a landscape approach, resulting in limited evaluation and therefore evidence of its effectiveness (Arts et al. 2017; Reed et al. 2017; Sayer et al. 2017).

In response, Morgan et al. (2021) reviewed and synthesized existing work on landscape approaches with empirical insights from a global primary forest protection project. The work analyzed three of the most common and highly cited principles related to landscape approaches: the ecosystem approach (Convention on Biological Diversity 2007), Sayer et al.’s ten principles of a landscape approach (Sayer et al. 2013), and Ostrom’s analysis of common pool resources (Ostrom 1990). This revealed that there was significant agreement and overlap between them and the synthesis suggested that landscape approaches could be defined and evaluated by three pillars: ecosystem integrity, effective planning, and strong governance. Further work expanded on principles, criteria, and indicators for governance evaluation (Cadman 2012) to develop similar evaluation frameworks for effective planning (Morgan et al. 2022a) and ecosystem integrity (Mackey et al. 2023). These three pillars and accompanying evaluation frameworks provide a basis for the analysis in this paper.

Ecosystem integrity recognizes that ecosystem structure and function are the basis of the landscape. It draws significantly from the ecosystem approaches (Convention on Biological Diversity 2007; Sayer et al. 2005). Ecosystems define landscapes and provide the ecosystem services at local, regional, and global scales. Communities harness these ecosystem services to support their livelihoods, in turn shaping the landscape. Landscape approaches highlight the importance of protecting ecosystems and their services. Ecosystem integrity integrates characteristics of an ecosystem that result in autopoiesis, its ability to achieve and maintain its optimum operating state, through self-organization and regeneration (Kay 1991; Mackey et al. 2023; Rogers et al. 2022).

Strong governance determines how decisions are made in landscape management. Participatory governance is essential to the sustainable management of common pool resources, which commonly define forest landscapes (Nagendra and Ostrom 2012; Ostrom and Nagendra 2006). Landscape approaches commonly discuss the need to include multiple stakeholders (Sayer et al. 2005). This is particularly important when considering the participation of Indigenous groups, where land rights, sovereignty, and cultural or spiritual connection to the land should require their involvement in decision-making (Klenk et al. 2013; Lane 2003). Creating productive deliberation, alongside participation, ensures that decisions are made effectively and legitimately (Cadman 2012).

Effective planning connects governance to ecosystem integrity and defines the “what” of landscape approaches. Planning brings multiple landscape stakeholders together to identify options and choose activities for the landscape to achieve agreed future goals and objectives (Albert and Vargas-Moreno 2010; Healey and Hillier 2010; Selman 2009). Note that planning need not always be formalized, Western-style planning (Morgan et al. 2022a). In complex and often conflicting landscape contexts, effective planning requires shared learning, integration, and consideration of justice — especially given the historical injustices faced by Indigenous people in many landscapes.

These three components interact and overlap, e.g., participatory governance supports more effective planning. However, all three are necessary, and evaluating them as separate “pillars” helps identify strengths and weaknesses in landscape approaches or, as here, provides a way to understand successful management. Examining each pillar, and how they interact within landscapes provides a comprehensive and holistic analysis.

Methods

This study includes (1) a document analysis of recent materials produced by the Kayapo NGOs and other Brazilian organizations, as well as academic publications; (2) a geographic information system (GIS) analysis; and (3) empirical data collected through 30 interviews with representatives from the three Kayapo NGOs and key partners. The interviews, which included Indigenous and non-Indigenous respondents, took place both in person and online between October and December 2022. The interviewees are identified here as nK (non-Kayapo) and K (Kayapo).

Initially, the document analysis, supplemented by interview data, provided a detailed understanding of the history and current context of the social organization, partnerships, and institutional arrangements of the Kayapo NGOs, including their relationships with other NGOs. To provide a deeper analysis of how these factors interact to support forest protection, our analytical framework is built upon the three-pillar framework elaborated by Morgan et al. (2021), which encompasses three fundamental elements necessary for integrated landscape management, as discussed above: ecosystem integrity, strong governance, and effective planning (Table 1). Various principles have been proposed for assessing ecosystem integrity, governance, and planning (Graham et al. 2003; Lockwood 2010; Ostrom 1990; Wurtzebach and Schultz 2016). In this study, a key issue was the need for evaluations across the pillars to ensure that all elements of a landscape approach were captured. Previous frameworks have been criticized for lacking a consistent evaluation framework (Lockwood 2010; Roche and Campagne 2017), prompting the development of principles and criteria, developed in the context of forest protection, to evaluate the integrity of each pillar (Cadman 2012; Mackey et al. 2023; Morgan et al. 2022a). Acknowledging the complexity of forest landscapes and the multiple competing pressures and stakeholders that influence forest landscape management, this analytical framework is used to ensure that all aspects of forest landscapes and their management are captured and analyzed consistently. The detail inherent within the evaluations also provides a deeper understanding of how and why the Kayapo and their NGOs have been successful in protecting the forest on a large scale.

Table 1 The three-pillar framework principles and criteria (based on Cadman 2012; Mackey et al. 2023; Morgan et al. 2022a)
Full size table

The GIS analysis provided evidence of the ecosystem integrity pillar by examining the forest cover within the Kayapo territory and comparing it with deforestation within the territory, in the immediate surrounding areas, and in the broader Brazilian Amazon. Given the resource requirements for conducting a full evaluation of ecosystem integrity, we take the extent of primary forest as an indicator of ecosystem integrity. Note that the aim of the analysis was not to quantify the area of land that had been deforested, and it is known that illegal logging, deforestation, burning, and mining have taken place in Kayapo Territory (Zimmerman et al. 2020; Hänggli et al. 2023; Lapola et al. 2023; Mataveli et al. 2023). Rather, the aim was to compare the relative level of deforestation and degradation within the territory to that in the surrounding territory. To analyze the other two pillars — governance and planning — we used interviews to (1) understand how the Kayapo NGOs work, with a particular focus on their planning and governance processes and (2) identify the key actions and factors that have contributed to forest conservation. We used these principles and criteria, presented in Table 1, to design the questionnaires used to conduct the NGO interviews. The results begin with an explanation of the current social and institutional context relevant to the Kayapo’s ongoing management and protection of their forest. This is followed by an analysis of how the ecosystem integrity has been maintained over time, in comparison to surrounding areas. Next, the governance and planning integrity of the Kayapo NGOs is analyzed in an attempt to explain the ongoing forest protection evidenced by the ecosystem integrity analysis. Finally, we discuss these findings and offer key lessons and considerations for the continued viability of the Kayapo NGOs.

Results

Kayapo Indigenous territories — social and institutional context

The vast block of five ratified Kayapo Indigenous territories spanning 10.6 million hectares (containing an estimated 1.9 billion tonnes of forest carbon) is located in the Xingu basin of the southeastern Amazon of Brazil. The protected areas within the Xingu basin buffer the Kayapo lands to the north and south and greatly contribute to the ecological effects and value of large continuous forests. These five Kayapo Indigenous territories were demarcated between 1991 and 2009, with the demarcation of a sixth Kayapo territory, Kapôt Nhinore, spanning 360,000 hectares (ISA 2019), formally approved and pending. The Kayapo territory constitutes the world’s largest Indigenous-managed tropical forest under the control of a single ethinc group (AFP 2020; ICFC 2023; Turner 1995; Zimmerman et al. 2020). Kayapo lands are surrounded by threats from roads, settlement, ranching, logging, and mining. Roads and population growth significantly increase deforestation rates throughout the Amazon region (ICFC 2023; Nepstad et al. 2006). People migrate and settle along the roads, resulting in incursions and deforestation by ranchers, loggers, and gold miners in the lawless south-eastern Amazon. Once a foothold is established, larger landholders drive large-scale deforestation (Fearnside 2007; Nepstad et al. 2006).

The Kayapo population numbers about 11,675 (ISA 2023, p. 13), with villages ranging in size from dozens to hundreds of inhabitants (AFP 2020; Turner 2003). Each village is autonomous, with village life central to political and social lifeways (Lea 1992; 1995; Posey 2000; Turner 2003; Zanotti 2016a, b; Zimmerman et al. 2020). Within Kayapo communities, the village is organized in concentric circles around the ngabe (warrior’s house), which serves as the locus of social and political activities (Lea 1992; Murphy 2004; Turner 2003; Verswijver 1992). Politically active men meet within the ngabe for discussions, village decision-making, and leisure activities; the entire village gathers there for important social events or decisions. The space around the ngabe is an open plaza used for festivals and recreation. In the next concentric circle are family homes, followed by family orchards and some gardens, and, beyond them, the forest (Turner 2003; Zanotti 2014; Zimmerman 2005).

Kayapo social organization

Kayapo politics, knowledge exchange, and rituals are organized by gender and age grade (Bamberger 1979; Fisher 1994; Turner 2003). Naming ceremonies are of particular importance and take months to prepare, with the entire village organizing to gather food and other resources for the bestowing of a “beautiful name” upon a child (Bamberger 1974; Fisher 2003; Lea 1992). Senior men and women provide leadership and share knowledge with younger generations, who are responsible for the lower age grades. The lower age grades defer to and learn from those above them (Murphy 2004; Turner 2003; Zimmerman et al. 2020). As Kayapo men and women grow older, they progress through the age grades, access new forms of knowledge, and are given more social and political responsibilities (Murphy 2004, p. 57; Turner 2003; Zimmerman et al. 2020). Mebengnet, or community elders, are “considered to have attained full status in the community” (Murphy 2004, p. 61) and are able to speak on their behalf. Social and political structures are organized around ceremony and ritual, where social “strength or power” and “beauty” (Zanotti 2018, p. 355) are bestowed upon individuals as they advance through the grades (Fisher 2003; Murphy 2004; Turner 2003; Zimmerman 2005).

Kayapo conservation partnerships

The Kayapo have a long history of resistance that has been supported by conservation groups. After more than a century of battles over incursions into their lands, most of the extant Kayapo groups entered peaceful relations with the national society in the mid-1950s (Zimmerman et al. 2001). However, the lingering fear of the Kayapo warrior among the surrounding non-Indigenous populations, fueled by a history of violent conflicts, has shielded the Kayapo from assimilation into Brazilian society. While the Kayapo warrior tradition was crucial for their territorial gains, internal conflicts among the Kayapo influenced the distribution of their villages and the demarcation of their territory (Verswijver 2018).

In the late 1970s, loggers began offering fees to the Kayapo to access forest areas for mahogany in the eastern Kayapo territory (Turner 1995). The loggers were quickly followed by gold miners, who were attracted to the region by huge open-pit gold mines (Turner 1995). Some Kayapo leaders enriched themselves from logging and gold mining (Turner 1995), dismaying supporters who had idealized the Kayapo as primitive ecologists living in harmony with their environment (Turner 1995). Nevertheless, warrior Kayapo began a resistance campaign in the 1970s, leading to official recognition of most of their traditional lands and increased influence both nationally and internationally (Turner 1999). The resistance included the armed struggle against illegal intruders, negotiations, and public demonstrations in Brazilian cities (Zimmerman et al. 2001). The battles against recurrent land invasions continued over the years, supported by national and international NGOs (Diversi 2014; Fisher 1994; Turner 1993; 1995; Turner and Fajans-Turner 2006). Insufficient government action in the region necessitated the alliances between Indigenous peoples and conservation NGOs (Zimmerman et al. 2001). Due to their activism, the Kayapo are considered one of the most politically successful Indigenous peoples in the Amazon (Turner 1995). Embedded within a complex political ecology, Kayapo livelihoods continue to intersect with agricultural, logging, and mining interests; government policies; and environmentalists (Anderson 2019; Hecht and Cockburn 2010; Zimmerman et al. 2020). It is worth noting that Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon, as well as within the Pan-Amazon, have made important territorial gains since the twentieth century, with around two-thirds living within their territories, which cover between 170 and 220 hundred million hectares (Killeen 2021). In the Xingu basin alone, the Kayapo territories are part of a continuous 26-million-hectare corridor of Indigenous territories and protected areas (Schwartzman et al. 2013). The existing Indigenous territories of the Amazon reflect the strength and resilience of Indigenous cultures, identities, and culture over centuries of colonization, including but not limited to the Kayapo.

Kayapo nongovernmental organization associations and alliances

The Kayapo began creating their own associations in the 1990s. The first inter-communal association, called Iprenre, was founded in 1993 (Turner 1995). The loss of income from logging and mining intensified interest in alternative sources of revenue. The Kayapo soon learned that legally constituted associations were essential for accessing funding and support (Turner 1995). Ironically, Kayapo collaboration with loggers, miners, and farmers led to the establishment of Indigenous associations driving sustainable revenue enterprises (Turner 1995).

In 1992, Conservation International (CI) founded the Kayapo Centre for Ecological Studies, a research station that, in addition to research, generated benefits for the community of A’Ukre and supported the protection of a population of endangered mahogany trees (Aruch 2021). In 2001, after 8 years of successful collaboration, Barbara Zimmerman, founder of the project, and CI moved forward with Phase 2 of the Kayapo project to expand the conservation alliance with international NGOs across the Kayapo territory (Zimmerman et al. 2001). Between 2000 and 2006, CI sponsored four meetings with pan-Kayapo leadership to discuss the alliance and outside support for territorial protection and to develop sustainable income generation initiatives (Aruch 2021).

Supported by CI, the Kayapo established the Protected Forest Association (Associação Floresta Protegida (AFP) in 2002 to represent communities in the north-east and the Kabu Institute in 2008 to represent communities in the north-west of the Kayapó territories (Aruch 2021). The Raoni Institute was founded in 2001 with support from the Belgian government and represents communities of the southwest. In 2009, the main international support for the Kayapo project moved with Zimmerman from CI to the International Conservation Fund of Canada (ICFC). Since then, the ICFC has continued to support the three Kayapo NGOs and many of their programs (ICFC 2023).

The Kayapo NGOs currently represent 60% of Kayapo communities. They developed their own governance systems, building on traditional decision-making and collective management practices, while working closely with conservation NGOs in Brazil and abroad (Schwartzman and Zimmerman 2005; Turner 1995; Turner and Fajans-Turner 2006; Zanotti 2014; Zimmerman et al. 2020). Currently, 9,400,000 hectares — equivalent to 89% of their territory — are controlled by 60% of the Kayapo population, who live in almost 70 communities. In contrast, approximately 4000 Kayapo living in 34 communities are involved in the illicit frontier economy (Zimmerman et al. 2020). They inhabit the 1,200,000-hectare eastern territory, which engaged in predatory resource extraction before the arrival of NGOs, or before NGO programs were developed enough to help the Kayapo bar the intense wave of illegal activity. The intact environmental and social conditions of NGO-allied Kayapo territory contrast starkly with the social and environmental breakdown in the east (Zimmerman et al. 2020), discussed in the “Nature and scope of the Kayapo NGOs” section. This contrast evidences our argument that long-term NGO support and alliances have made forest protection possible within the allied NGO territory.

For the most part, the Kayapo maintain traditional subsistence livelihoods of hunting, fishing, gathering, and small-scale slash-and-burn gardening. After four decades of intensifying contact with Brazilian society, however, the Kayapo became inserted into the regional economy (Zimmerman et al. 2001). Today, the Kayapo need money to buy the manufactured goods they have come to depend on, such as clothing, household goods, glass beads, boats, fuel, radios, cell phones, and internet connectivity.

The Kayapo NGOs support sustainable income sources tied to forest conservation and territorial protection. The current portfolio of Kayapo enterprises includes the harvesting and commercialization of Brazil and cumaru nuts, as well as handicrafts, sport-fishing, and field course tourism enterprises (ISA 2019). Together, these ventures generate significant, equitably accessed income for Kayapo communities. Furthermore, they align with Kayapo capacity and culture and do not rely on Western-style hierarchies of authority, nor do they require advanced training or technology. All families can participate in these enterprises. This equitable distribution of income forms a powerful antidote to the cash offered to individuals by loggers and gold miners in exchange for access to Kayapo territory and resources. Gold mining and logging payments are rarely shared, provoking disunity and tensions in communities.

The primary goal of the Kayapo people and their NGOs is to protect and maintain control over their territory, recognizing that there can be no outside support, sustainable development, or future in invaded land dominated by illegal predatory activity. Therefore, the Kayapo NGOs coordinate a territorial surveillance program based on a series of guard posts located at key entry points along the Kayapo territorial border. Kayapo guards are paid a day rate for work at the guard posts and guard teams are rotated weekly to maximize job opportunities. For the Kayapo, territorial surveillance and sustainable income generation have emerged as the crucial factors enabling forest conservation, as supported by the data discussed here.

Nature and scope of the Kayapo nongovernmental organizations

The Kayapo NGOs are Indigenous associations with Kayapo holding leadership positions and non-Indigenous staff performing technical roles of fundraising, administration, and accounting. This support is vital due to illiteracy, limited fluency in Portuguese, and unfamiliarity with Western bureaucracy and legal systems among the Kayapo — although the younger generation is beginning to develop those skills. Kayapo staff explain the work and goals of their NGOs to their communities and convey the demands and concerns of the villages back to their organizations: “The Indigenous staff form the bridge between the Kayapo NGOs and the communities” (AFP, Interview (nK) 8/11/22).

Currently, the young Kayapo, who will assume leadership roles within their communities, are seeking education and developing new skills to interact with Brazilian society. This shift may alter the traditional organization and values of leadership, vested largely in mostly monolingual, illiterate, and innumerate elders. New skills, particularly in technology, are now required for influencing policy and decision-making processes, potentially engaging more youth, including women. This generational succession might affect the Kayapo warrior tradition as knowledge-based skills become essential for maintaining their territory and traditional ways of life, beyond physical force and resistance.

The Kayapo NGOs are bound by their constituent statutes, which define their rights, obligations, and institutional processes. The Annual General Assembly — formed by Indigenous leaders elected by their communities — is the sovereign deliberative body where the Kayapo exercise their right to voice concerns and to vote. The Kayapo directors and Advisory Council review the previous year’s projects and spending by their NGO and plan the upcoming year’s strategy and projects. Decisions are taken through voting and are implemented by a Deliberative Leadership Council, formed by at least four Indigenous counsellors who are elected by the General Assembly for a 3-year mandate. Each NGO has an Executive Board consisting of a president, vice-president, and treasurer, whose roles are held exclusively by Kayapo. Importantly, to remain associated with their NGOs and receive outside support, Kayapo communities must not engage in illegal activities.

Ecosystem integrity

We used time series GIS analysis of primary forest cover to indicate ecosystem integrity. The data, as indicated in Fig. 1, clearly show that the NGO-allied Kayapo are protecting intact forest, whereas the forest outside their territory has been extensively cleared and degraded. There are likely to have been areas of deforestation through logging within the Kayapo territory. This analysis is not able to provide a detailed analysis of this, the focus instead being on the difference in intensity of deforestation within and around the Kayapo Territory. The Kayapo forest maintains high-value ecosystem services, from carbon stock maintenance and sequestration to rainfall and biodiversity conservation, with these services flowing to the region and the planet. Notably, significant loss of primary forest has occurred in approximately 1.5 million hectares of eastern Kayapo territory that is not represented by one of the three Kayapo NGOs and for historical reasons does not form part of the conservation alliance. This supports our hypothesis that philanthropic support administered and implemented by a consortium of NGOs underpins Kayapo territorial protection.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Following fire and deforestation events in 2022, 9.4 million hectares of the block of Kayapo territories (outlined in yellow) that receives philanthropic investment remains intact, whereas 1.2 million hectares of Kayapo territory that does not form part of the NGO alliance (outlined in purple) and receives no conservation investment is heavily invaded by gold mining and logging. (Note: Fire on naturally occurring savanna patches is normal during the summer dry season and does not indicate anthropogenic deforestation)

Full size image

Figure 2 demonstrates the substantial correlation between the occurrence of deforestation hotspots and the presence or absence of NGO support and investment in Kayapo communities (Zimmerman et al. 2020).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Source: Zimmerman et al. 2020, p. 5

Hotspot analysis of all forest cover loss events across Kayapo territory from 2001 to 2019. The map shows statistically significant areas of higher hotspot incidence (in red) given the event points. Hotspots indicate deforestation events.

Full size image

Governance integrity

Strong governance is based on the principles of meaningful participation and productive deliberation.

Meaningful participation

Meaningful participation requires wide interest representation and organizational responsibility.

Interest representation

The Kayapo NGOs seek to ensure inclusiveness and equality, although they face financial challenges when it comes to bringing people together from far-flung communities. Increasingly, women are elected to leadership roles and also participate in all projects: “We provide training for women and engage them in monitoring activities because we want to reach a broader range of individuals, not just the same ones. Previously, those who participated in assemblies were the same individuals involved in projects” (Raoni, Interview (K) 28/11/22).

Kayapo NGOs and their international NGO partners respect the traditional organizational and decision-making processes of the Kayapo. Traditionally, a male chief who is elected informally by his community — particularly the elders — makes the final decisions. Recently, however, the role of women is changing. Communities have begun electing female leaders and women and younger age groups are becoming full participants in decision-making, a societal change that is Kayapo-driven but supported by their NGOs. For example, the NGOs have held all-female meetings to provide space for women to voice their concerns and opinions: “The AFP has been promoting women’s gatherings. Now there are female chiefs. Women have different needs, particularly concerning children and health” (AFP, Interview (nK) 9/11/22). This has been a positive experience, with women articulating their desire to be included in decision-making: “Women are the ones who will hold onto the land. They have children and are less susceptible than men to consumer society” (Kabu, Interview (nK) 5/10/22). Traditionally, Kayapo women did not learn to speak Portuguese, which has been a limiting factor to their political involvement, and “women do not have the same access to technology as men, including cell phones and the internet” (Raoni, Interview (nK) 1/11/22). However, today young women are learning Portuguese and gaining literacy equally alongside their male peers.

Information-sharing among communities of the NGO alliance is challenging due to long distances, poor roads, rocky rivers, and the high cost of air taxis. For example, the crucial Annual General Assembly meetings cost about US$40,000 each, with difficult logistics to bring the Kayapo directors and Advisory Council together. Ongoing consultation with communities is similarly expensive and also limited by staff availability. Most communities are accessible only by boat or airplane, and staff may need to spend more than a week in community consultation. However, technology is making communication with their NGOs easier and decision-making more dynamic, as internet connectivity and the use of mobile phones are growing fast in Kayapo villages, allowing for the use of communication apps such as WhatsApp.

Organizational responsibility

In their Annual General Assembly meetings, NGOs report on the previous year’s spending, activities, and results and plan the upcoming year’s projects and budgets. Over the year, the Kayapo NGOs undertake consultations with their leaders and communities about proposed projects and benefit sharing. Due to the logistical challenges and limited staff means, this process is not perfect, and some misunderstandings persist, with interviewees raising concerns about lack of information: “they do not share with me the money that comes in and goes out” (AFP, Interview (K)8/11/22).

Kayapo NGO statutes establish rules of financial accountability. Each NGO has a Fiscal Council that reviews and deliberates on. Acts of the President are scrutinized by the Deliberative Leadership Council (AFP Statute, art. 20I). The Executive Board submits accountability reports to the General Assembly for approval. Breaches of statutory provisions involve penalties that include the exclusion of the NGO. The Kayapo NGOs are bound by these rules and are also subject to the scrutiny of independent auditors. Accountability is a strength of the Kayapo NGOs: “We want the Institute to be a fundamental and recognized actor in the region” (Kabu, Interview (nK) 13/10/22). Moreover, the government, donors, and investors demand transparency and accountability on how funds are being used and whether outcomes are achieved.

Productive deliberation

Productive deliberation rests on decision-making processes that allow for democracy, along with implementation processes that solve problems, encourage behavioral change, and are likely to be durable.

Decision-making

The Kayapo NGOs use democratic decision-making processes in community meetings, Annual General Assemblies, and Extraordinary Assemblies for deciding on specific matters. The NGO staff, president, and board members are chosen through voting: “[C]ommunities have complete autonomy. If there is an initiative that the communities do not want, the activities are stopped” (AFP, Interview (K) 4/11/22). Strategic decisions on NGO goals and projects are taken in the General Assemblies, while everyday decisions — such as participation in meetings, projects, and workshops — are discussed with the Executive Boards of the NGOs, which take these matters to the community leaders.

Ongoing consultation, discussion, and consensus-building within and among communities are central to the projects and activities supported by the Kayapo NGOs. The usual outcome is consensus, but communities have the right to veto a project (Raoni, Interview (nK) 15/12/22).

Internal disputes are settled formally at the General Assemblies and other meetings with communities and/or leadership. Although Kayapo NGO staff facilitate discussion around projects and activities, the NGOs do not interfere in internal Kayapo conflicts within and among communities. Annual General Assemblies are the formal venue for resolving disputes that involve NGO activities and projects. Communities also have the right of recourse to the General Assembly against acts of the Executive Board or the Deliberative Leadership Council.

The most serious disputes among Kayapo arise when community members become involved in illegal gold mining or logging. A decision to engage in illegal activities always results from an individual or small group being bought off by loggers and/or gold miners, rather than a community decision in the sense of any form of free, prior informed consent. The “benefits” of illegal activity are never shared equitably and inevitably provoke both intra- and inter-community conflict. Kayapo NGOs discourage entry into illegal activity by raising awareness about the inevitable dire consequences of cultural and environmental degradation and the ultimate loss of territory to frontier society; however, a final decision by a community to leave the NGO alliance for the illegal sector is respected. Communities rarely leave the alliance.

Implementation

Increased contact with frontier society presents threats and challenges to Kayapo culture: “Many things have changed … there are many influences from the white people. If it weren’t for the Indigenous organizations, I don’t even know what would become of the communities” (Kabu, Interview (K) 13/10/22). Kayapo perception of their own environment has also changed: “When they were semi-nomadic, they didn’t have as much awareness that natural resources are finite. This has changed, for example regarding increased wildfires. They also notice that when rivers are left to be exploited, the resources become depleted” (AFP, Interview (nK) 4/11/22). Intensified contact with Brazilian society has led to changes in diet and new diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and alcoholism (ISA 2019). Additionally, the appeal of modern technology is a strong lure to youth, who tend to be less interested in traditional livelihood practices. Often lacking experience and context, youth are more susceptible than their elders to seduction by illegal actors. Evangelical missionaries pose another threat to traditional Indigenous culture and, therefore, territory (ISA 2019). Kayapo NGOs work hard to raise awareness about the choices the Kayapo have as they try to navigate a complex foreign culture that surrounds and threatens to devour them.

Kayapo understanding of the financial, legal, and political systems operating in the outside world is still very limited. The Kayapo have no access to education beyond a rudimentary elementary level and the majority are illiterate and speak only the local language. And yet there is strong outside pressure for them to participate in the outside world by selling off their natural resources. Kayapo NGOs, therefore, play a key role in elucidating Indigenous people’s rights, connections, and value to the global world, as well as the inevitable outcomes of various choices. Kayapo empowerment for territorial control has been based on this raised awareness and opportunity to participate in national society, combined with NGO programs of sustainable income generation.

Furthermore, long-term NGO support has built trust between the NGOs and the communities they represent. Unlike international aid, where funds are allocated for a limited time period, Kayapo NGO support is ongoing. The NGOs have built a better understanding of the circumstances of each community, while the communities have come to appreciate their NGOs as an important — and often sole — permanent source of support. This relationship is the result of many years spent working together.

The Kayapo NGOs see their support for communities as long-term, if not permanent, given the many challenges they face and the limited government support. This dynamic may change if the economic value of the living forest surpasses that of deforested land. For this to happen, ecosystem services and benefits of forests (Alamgir et al. 2016; Mackey et al. 2015), such as carbon sequestration and storage, and non-timber forest products, must be valued equally or higher than commodities such as timber, beef, and soy, and there would need to be mechanisms in place so that the forest stewards — in this case the Kayapo — can receive payments for the benefits that their management provides to others at regional and global scales (Wallbott et al. 2019). This would likely require the multiple services provided by the ecosystem integrity of primary forests to be recognized, and the value to them demonstrated through economic valuation (Keith et al. 2021; Taye et al. 2021) and planning, and then appropriate and equitable schemes for payments developed through strong governance (Morgan et al. 2022b). If this becomes a reality, the focus of the Kayapo NGO efforts might shift from supporting survival needs, particularly territorial protection, to other areas such as health, education, traditional knowledge, and culture.

Planning integrity

The Kayapo NGOs support their communities in designing Indigenous Territorial and Environmental Management Plans for their territories. The federal government mandated these plans, which are known in Brazil by the acronym PGTA, although no dedicated funding exists to support their development. The goal of PGTA policy is for Indigenous people to articulate the sustainable development future they envision for their territory and chart a roadmap for investment in their communities. The AFP supported the creation of the first Kayapo PGTA in the territory of Las Casas, which was completed in 2017 and financed by the Amazon Fund. AFP is currently supporting the development of the PGTA for the Kayapo Indigenous Territory, and, together with Kabu and Raoni institutes, working on the PGTA for the Menkragnoti Indigenous Territory. Finally, Raoni Institute is supporting the PGTA for the Capoto/Jarina territory.

Shared learning

Shared learning relies on knowledge integration and building a shared understanding.

Knowledge integration

The Kayapo NGOs share information and knowledge in Annual General Assemblies and myriad other meetings and workshops throughout the year at NGO headquarters and in communities. More recently, WhatsApp groups have become a communications tool. Additionally, the Kayapo participate in national and regional networks, such as the Xingu+ and Origens Brasil Networks, and in several meetings of the national indigenous movement. In particular, the Xingu+ Network, a civil society coalition whose origins trace back to resistance movements in the 1980s against the damming of the Xingu River, currently involves several Indigenous associations, movements, and various other organizations. New scientific or other expert knowledge is shared through training and capacity-building activities conducted by the Kayapo NGOs and through cooperation with researchers and academic partners.

Kayapo NGOs bridge two radically different cultures, translating the concerns, needs, and demands of the Kayapo to the outside world and visa-versa: “There is an intercultural dialogue. It is necessary to have the ability to understand and share within the Kayapo culture and the Western/Brazilian culture. This is fundamental for the flow of knowledge. That is why engaged, committed, and culturally sensitive individuals are required to deal with intercultural issues. It is also important to have the ability to listen” (AFP, Interview (nK) 3/10/22).

Shared understanding

The Kayapo NGOs understand threats to Kayapo culture and territory and the consequences of various paths taken. For example, collaborators perform GIS analysis of Kayapo territory to track forest change and identify invasions and encroachment and share this information with Kayapo leaders and communities.

Kayapo NGO projects are based on work plans, outcomes, and budgets. Outcomes must be demonstrated and financial accounts for grant spending must be approved before every grant installment. For example, the number of families benefitted is a performance indicator for sustainable income generation projects (such as ecotourism and the harvesting of Brazil and cumaru nuts), whereas the main indicator used for territorial surveillance is the number of hectares of intact forest preserved as detected by satellite. Crucially, a key measure of a project’s success is Kayapo satisfaction: if they are happy with a project, then it has been useful. Conversely, communities will express their dissatisfaction when project activities do not make sense or do not achieve the expected results: “When they are not satisfied, they do complain” (AFP, Interview (nK) 9/11/22).

The NGOs hold regular project evaluation meetings with the relevant communities and prepare written minutes. With increasing community member participation in meetings and WhatsApp groups, monitoring and evaluation processes have improved: “The contact is constant. There is an open channel, specially through WhatsApp groups … now everything is faster” (Kabu, Interview (nK) 13/10/22).

In response to feedback, project activities can be adjusted or discontinued. However, in some cases, shifting course once a project is underway can be problematic. Partners and donors are not always open to changes — particularly when the parameters of the project are well defined under public notices or governmental policies. Grants must also be spent to support work plans that are authorized in contracts between the NGOs and donors. This is part of the learning process that the Kayapo must undergo to deal effectively with outside society. Donors are paying for agreed activities and the Kayapo must demonstrate that they have performed those services if they wish to have outside investment in their communities.

Integration

Integration relies on coordination and collaboration.

Coordination

The Kayapo NGOs coordinate closely with their Kayapo membership to plan activities. All projects are discussed beforehand with the relevant communities, allowing for the understanding of project goals and the discussion of concerns. Before a project begins, the technical and Indigenous staff visit the communities involved to discuss the proposal and obtain a green light. In Annual General Assemblies, Kayapo directors and advisers formally agree on the work plan and budgets for activities, which gives the NGOs a clear schedule of activities – including who is responsible for what.

Collaboration

Collaboration among Kayapo NGOs, their international partners, and the communities is built on trust, shared objectives of forest protection, Kayapo territorial control, and equitable benefits distribution. The NGOs are clear that their main constituents are the communities they represent, but they also seek collaboration with the government and with national and international organizations. The interests of the Kayapo NGOs and other external partners are aligned and often based on strong interpersonal relationships. For example, the ICFC is the principal outside partner and funder of the Kayapo NGOs, a collaboration built on the shared objective of forest protection (Aruch 2021; Zimmerman et al. 2020; Schwartzman and Zimmerman 2005; Zimmerman et al. 2001). This partnership is long-term and largely based on the close relationship between individual Kayapo leaders and ICFC staff (Aruch 2021). The Environmental Defense Fund has also been a core supporter of the ICFC’s Kayapo project since the early 2000s (Connor 2014). The relationships are not merely bureaucratic: “Personal relationships are extremely important, among partners, community members, women, and youth … they are not merely bureaucratic or institutional relationships. These people often share an ideology and world view” (AFP, Interview (nK)3/10/22).

Situated justice

Situated justice — supporting and promoting ethical and responsive deliberation and discussion about choices of actions within the context of the specific place (Morgan et al. 2022a) — relies on improving capabilities and ensuring accessibility.

Improved capabilities

Crucial to improving situated justice is the focus on establishing and protecting Kayapo territorial integrity. Ultimately, the mission of the Kayapo NGOs is to defend Indigenous rights. Territorial control is a major challenge in a region of high settlement, economic pressures, and lack of governance. As with all Indigenous peoples, the future of the Kayapo is tied to the land and the natural ecosystems that sustain their livelihood and culture. If they can maintain control over their vast territory, or most of it, there exist many opportunities for sustainable development and a healthy future. The illegal sector offers only short-term gain for a few, along with a degradation of culture and the environment.

All sustainable development supported by the Kayapo NGOs and their partners is structured to generate equitably distributed income rather than benefitting only a few. Benefits may include family income, training, equipment, and/or infrastructure. Communal income — for example, the entry fees paid by sport fishermen and government-mandated environmental compensation payments from neighboring infrastructure projects such as mines, dams, and highways — is distributed among communities in proportion to their population size. Individual cash payments are made only when the Kayapo perform specific services, such as collecting Brazil nuts, guiding sport fishermen, producing handicrafts, or providing guard-post duty. However, care is taken such that work is an equal opportunity and anyone who wants to participate can. For example, because some villages have fewer Brazil nuts, alternatives must be developed. Nonetheless, equitability is challenging: “Resources are not enough to meet all demands” (Kabu, Interview (nK) 13/10/22).

Accessibility

The Kayapo NGOs work with their constituents in a relationship of mutual trust built on long-term partner support, especially between the ICFC and the Kayapo. This has made the Kayapo NGOs and the communities open to change even while trying to protect traditional ways of life. It is not the Kayapo NGOs or their partners that are driving (cultural) change, it is the Kayapo themselves who are making choices to which their NGOs and partners must adapt. The relationship with the government can also be fraught, depending on the political climate; for example, the NGOs were unable to have an open relationship with the Bolsonaro administration, which worked to undermine the Kayapo NGOs.

The structure, leadership, and governance of the Kayapo NGOs ensure that they are always answerable to the Kayapo, as well as to their partners and donors. They do not dictate what the Kayapo do but work in partnership, bringing ideas and opportunities and helping the Kayapo understand and deal with the outside world without being exploited. The organizations are also partially answerable to the Kayapo in the distribution of benefits. However, this remains a challenge: because they do not always receive direct cash payments from the projects; some Kayapo perceive themselves as being “in captivity” (AFP, Interview (K) 18/11/22). This may encourage them to engage in illegal activities.

Discussion

The results of this study are evidence that the Kayapo NGOs are largely succeeding in fulfilling the principles and criteria of ecosystem integrity, planning, and governance outlined in the three-pillar framework. They have effectively facilitated productive deliberation through Annual General Assemblies and other consultation processes. The involvement of Kayapo communities in decision-making and planning processes is meaningful, with an increased participation of women and young people. Organizational responsibility is demonstrated through the discussion of activity reports and financial accounts during General Assemblies. These tasks also adhere to the statutes of the Kayapo NGOs. Transparency is maintained, particularly through financial and technical reports to donors and external audits. The Kayapo NGOs exhibit effective planning through their use of annual work plans and PGTA, which define and prioritize communal land uses.

While the current governance and planning processes of the Kayapo showcase significant achievements, there is always room for improvement. One challenge is building a better Kayapo understanding of the social and political processes of outside society. Western-style bureaucracy, decision-making, and monetary processes are foreign concepts. Ensuring optimal benefits-sharing and meeting the needs of the Kayapo can also be challenging. The existing decision-making processes are not without flaws, and obstacles such as language barriers, cultural differences, logistical constraints, and costs can hinder community gatherings and participation. Despite these challenges, the Kayapo undeniably possess strong governance and effective planning processes — as demonstrated by their successful forest protection efforts.

Communal territorial surveillance

The most significant direct threat faced by the Kayapo is the loss of control of their territory to the frontier of logging, gold mining, and ranching: “No action can be taken on invaded lands controlled by illegal activities” (ICFC, Interview (nK) 7/10/22). The work of the Kayapo NGOs is vulnerable to hostile governments and public policies that undermine Indigenous territorial rights. This vulnerability was evident during the Bolsonaro years, with the Kayapo facing death threats, land invasions, and increased illegal activities. The dismantling of governmental agencies and the slashing of budgets for environmental conservation have further hindered the Kayapo NGOs (Pereira and Garcia 2021). The territorial surveillance program led by the Kayapo NGOs has enabled the Kayapo to maintain control over their territory, providing the basis for all other activities. It is, therefore, legitimate — and necessary — to fund activities that protect rights and empower Indigenous communities as part of conservation or sustainable development.

Sixteen (as of 2023) guard posts operate to protect the Kayapo border against invasion and to signal to the outside world that the Kayapo are organized to defend their territory. The weekly or biweekly rotation of guards maximizes employment opportunity and, therefore, equitable benefit sharing. Combined with the Kayapo’s inherent drive to protect their land and culture, equitably accessed benefits for guard-post duty form a powerful barrier against invasion by illegal activity. Figure 1 indicates the current positions of the guard posts.

The communal territorial surveillance and rotation strategy in the guard posts has been crucial in ensuring the protection of the Kayapo territories. In contrast, the surveillance approach employed by the Brazilian government in the 1990s was less successful, primarily due to the lack of social control (ISA 2023). During that time, a single family was responsible for a particular surveillance post, which carried the risk of becoming a gateway for illegal activities. Today, the rotation strategy employed by the Kayapo NGOs allows community-wide oversight of the surveillance activities.

Income generation and financial sustainability

Kayapo communities recognize the value of their NGOs and the financial support they receive from the ICFC and other partners: “[T]his is recognized even by the communities that are disconnected or not associated with the Kayapo NGOs” (AFP, Interview (nK) 8/11/22). Funding for the Kayapo NGOs comes from international philanthropy channeled through the ICFC, national funds, and environmental compensation programs that address the impacts of infrastructure projects affecting the Kayapo. Presently, the Kayapo NGOs have professional Brazilian staff with the capacity to secure and manage substantial budgets. As noted earlier, income-generating activities tied to forest conservation support the Kayapo in meeting their basic needs, while also uniting communities against illegal activities. This highlights the importance of putting livelihoods and community needs at the heart of forest protection.

As is often the case with NGOs, raising funds to support the Kayapo NGOs and their conservation and development programs is a challenge and depends heavily on private philanthropy. “We are not able to serve all villages. There are not enough resources to serve everyone” (AFP, Interview (K) 8/11/22). It is therefore essential to explore new avenues of funding while reducing dependence on manufactured food products, addressing issues such as increased solid waste in Kayapo villages, and enhancing the Kayapo’s capacity to manage projects. Fundraising is labor intensive, requiring a great deal of effort by the technical team. Project budgets have limited capacity to support salaries for administrative staff, often increasing the workload of the existing staff. Retaining skilled experienced professionals is a challenge after projects end.

Kayapo NGOs rely heavily on the efforts of a few dedicated individuals who work tirelessly to raise funds. More sustainable funding based on payment-for-ecosystem services is needed. Ensuring the integrity of such schemes remains a significant challenge, but — as the Kayapo case demonstrates — strong governance, effective planning, and ecosystem integrity are key.

Maintaining culture and connection to the land

As with all peoples, the Kayapo place enormous value on their territory and culture, a legacy passed down through the generations: “We take this message to the whole community. As long as we don’t get involved in illegal activities, our forest remains untouched. I always had this thought. What is passed on to me is the legacy of the elders. This legacy has been transmitted from generation to generation” (Kabu, Interview (K) 14/12/22). Most Kayapo are committed to preserving their ancestral territory. Young Kayapo working for the NGOs spread this message in the villages: “That’s why we have donors and support, so that we can work in the villages. Financial resources that we receive are to support sustainable projects. We don’t need to destroy the forest and rivers for our living” (Kabu, Interview (K) 11/10/22).

The Kayapo understand that illegal activity results in polluted rivers, depleted fish and wildlife, and, ultimately, sickness and hunger: “All chiefs know if there is a split with the Kabu Institute, from then on, they will only have problems. They won’t have clean rivers, there will be mercury in the fish, and we will end up getting sick because we allow the entry of miners and loggers. If we continue with Kabu no harm will happen to us” (Kabu, Interview (K) 14/12/22). Today’s elders fought for territorial rights and inspired younger generations: “Keeping the forest intact and the rivers clean are the future of our children and grandchildren. We want to leave something for them. Not only the protection of the territory, but we also want culture, language, all of which we work to maintain. Without our language, cultural tradition we are nothing” (Kabu, Interview (K)11/10/22).

At the core of their commitment to forest protection lies cultural identity. The Kayapo continue to maintain their unique culture, language, and — for the most part — traditional livelihoods. The Kayapo were once a warrior culture. Although overt warrior practices have receded into the past, the warrior essence and attitude remain: “They have a preserved culture, language, shamans, traditional medicine, this is still preserved. There is an arrogance that makes the relationship with the white people more difficult … If they were otherwise and less arrogant, they might have already been incorporated by the surrounding society” (AFP, Interview (nK) 4/11/22).

The Kayapo’s cultural heritage and connection to the land face growing threats due to increased contact with Brazilian society and its idiosyncrasies (ISA 2019). Indigenous interviewees expressed concerns that the internet and smartphones pose a serious risk to their traditional culture and way of life: “We must pass on our concern for the protection of our territory to the young generations. They are today more concerned with technology” (Raoni, Interview (K) 28/11/22). The Kayapo NGOs acknowledge the importance of creating spaces for dialogue and mediation among different generations (ISA 2019). Kayapo culture is the foundation for protection of the last large block of forest surviving in the south-eastern Amazon.

Conclusions and recommendations

Satellite imagery shows that the Kayapo have successfully protected most of their vast territory. Having evaluated ecosystem integrity, governance, and planning to explain this success and the role of the Kayapo NGOs, we suggest six key lessons or recommendations for forest protection with Indigenous communities.

Ensuring territorial integrity and rights

The results strongly highlight the importance of protecting and maintaining territorial integrity, rights, and self-determination for the Kayapo. All of the positive elements here identified rest on the involvement of the Kayapo and the control of their territory, which is built into their planning, through guard posts and related activities. Current and future income streams rely on the Kayapo being on their lands and having control. Similarly, the crucial cultural connection to the land relies on the Kayapo’s rights to their territory not only being recognized but actively protected and enforced. Displacement or assimilation would place their culture at risk, as a long history of colonialism shows. The recent challenges of a national government with a clear focus on expanding deforestation and ignoring Indigenous rights clearly demonstrated the threat and dominated the work of the Kayapo NGOs, taking away resources from other activities and straining both governance and planning. The Kayapo will continue to face significant threat of illegal activities, and from simply being persuaded that logging and extraction are in their best interests. As a new generation takes on leadership and seeks development and income opportunities, they will continue facing pressure to allow logging and mining. It is vital that state and national governments, as well as the international community and NGOs, see protecting Indigenous rights as essential. There is always the risk that one (or more) of these stakeholders, such as the government, might choose not to prioritize Indigenous rights, and so having the others maintain their commitment is vital. At the same time, future planning has to consider how territorial integrity can be maintained by including considerations of justice.

Building strong partnerships

Durable and strong partnerships must be formed to allow communities and those supporting them to gain understanding, build trust, and complement each other’s strengths. The results show that partner organizations supporting the Kayapo have gained deep knowledge about the circumstances and needs of their communities and that this has been crucial to them providing effective support. In turn, the Kayapo communities recognize their NGOs and partners as a real source of support. The relationships between the Kayapo NGOs, their communities, and partner organizations like the ICFC are not merely bureaucratic; rather, they are rooted in trust, respect, personal connections, and shared worldviews. This comes with many years of working together. The work done by Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff within the Kayapo NGOs is complementary and based on their distinct strengths and roles. This division of roles may change over time, but neither is considered more or less important. Their history and culture suggest the Kayapo are unlikely to tolerate governance based on anything other than respect and trust, and this is crucial to the success of large-scale conservation.

Creating community-centered sources of income

Sustainable and continuous income streams must be created to support livelihoods and meet diverse community needs, including improved health care, education, and access to material goods. The results make it clear that the Kayapo are seeking sources of income and ways to engage in national and international markets. The Kayapo NGOs focus on alternative income sources and the role of mediator between the Kayapo, and markets offer legal and sustainable alternatives to the illegal predatory resource extraction to which communities might resort when no other options to support their livelihoods are available. These provide a shared objective within planning that provides an emphasis on the future of the forest. To be successful, forest conservation projects should be centered on livelihoods and community well-being.

Promoting equal access

Equitable access to project opportunities and benefits is fundamental. In contrast to predatory activities such as gold mining and logging, which benefit only a select few, projects developed by the Kayapo NGOs — for example, the guard posts — benefit the entire community or even all communities from a region. This equal access and sharing of benefits provide ownership and agreement across the large landscape. It is supported by the efforts put into highly participatory governance, and also considerations of justice within planning. Given the notable collective benefits, including territorial integrity, communities are more actively engaged in executing projects and ensuring successful outcomes. In turn, equal access to activities and benefits encourages agreement on objectives in planning and making future decisions that protect the forest. Maintaining this equality of opportunity is especially important where there are other interests seeking to influence local leaders to undertake extractive activities.

Ensuring meaningful participation

Community participation must be real, not merely symbolic. The Kayapo NGOs have created participatory processes, notably through General Assemblies, enabling communities — including women and youth — to engage actively. Projects and actions discussed and approved during these meetings reflect the will of the communities and give them ownership. This participatory approach also respects and harnesses existing local governance rather than imposing new structures on it, so it reduces barriers to involvement. The community buy-in is crucial to ensure that the Kayapo actively participates in initiatives and projects led by their NGOs. At the same time, the collaboration with NGOs has encouraged greater participation of some groups and challenged Kayapo structures to make participation more equal. While closer interaction with external actors can challenge cultural norms, this study has revealed the ability of the Kayapo to adapt to changes, such as increased use of technology, to further engage communities and support their causes.

Preserving culture

As discussed, territorial integrity, notably achieved through the guard posts initiative, has provided the shield for the Kayapo to develop other activities, such as sustainable commercial enterprises. On the other hand, the Kayapo’s culture has provided the strong foundation for realizing each of the three pillars. The Kayapo have been successful in protecting their forest, as demonstrated here, and in engaging their communities to take collective decisions and plan for the future. The common underlying driver in all these efforts is in the Kayapo’s desire to leave something for future generations beyond the land, and their realization that without their language and culture, there is little left, as revealed in the presented interviews.

As observed in the Kayapo experience, forest conservation projects involving Indigenous communities must not only respect cultural and social norms but also encourage and promote traditional culture. Despite evolving over time, the Kayapo maintain a strong cultural identity and deep connection to their land and natural environment. Their desire is to continue dwelling in the forest and to preserve their ways of life. The Kayapo culture is intricately linked to the environment. The preservation of traditional culture must then be an integral aspect of any conservation efforts, as the two are mutually reinforcing.

Achieving financial sustainability

Achieving each of the three pillars discussed here largely requires financial resources. For example, as noted, ensuring meaningful participation and productive deliberation in General Assemblies is a costly exercise. Most of the efforts by the Kayapo to ensure ecosystem integrity, strong governance, and effective planning depend on the availability and reliability of funding. Therefore, conservation and development funding must become more sustainable and less dependent on fickle annual philanthropic donations. Currently, the funding of the Kayapo NGOs relies heavily on international philanthropy and the dedicated fundraising efforts of a handful of individuals. This leaves the Kayapo susceptible to budget fluctuations and external funding disruptions. Stable funding sources are essential to ensure continuity in the work of the Kayapo NGOs and the ability to plan future actions.