Who Owns Guaraná? Legal Strategies, Development Policies and Agricultural Practices in Brazilian Amazonia

Abstract

This paper offers a historical perspective on the interactions between legal standards and agricultural practices relating to guaraná, an energy‐inducing Amazonian plant that is in increasing demand. Guaraná is managed in a number of socio‐technical contexts, ranging from the fizzy drink industry to alternative agro‐ecological farming systems, and is subject to a great many legal rules that determine the conditions for its use and appropriation. The paper shows how, in guaraná's native region of Maués, Brazilian Amazonia, various stakeholders including the indigenous population, associations of smallholdings and multinationals use legal standards in order to gain prerogatives over the plant and/or win a share of a growing market. In spite of the fact that the plant has been domesticated by the Sateré‐Mawé and that traditional knowledge has been recognized in Brazil, to a certain extent history has dispossessed them of their rights to guaraná. New political and economic circumstances have favoured those actors committed to strategies of agricultural modernization and industrial processing. On the other hand, the ecologization of agriculture and the increasing numbers of instruments for differentiating production (such as fair trade, organic farming and geographical indications) seem to be favouring diversification in the methods of managing guaraná, as well as a certain re‐appropriation of the plant by local communities.

Local knowledge, know‐how and knowledge mobilized in a globalized world: A new approach of indigenous local ecological knowledge

“…In this evolving context, the Sateré‐Mawé (re)consider and present their production of guarana in a way that links their representations with the places that they wish to occupy, roles they want to have, ways they want to be seen in a globalized world and global forces that they must contend with. For example, given the way they manage their guarana, it is impossible for the Sateré‐Mawé to have it recognized as a single cultivar and hence protect it as intellectual property (Filoche & Pinton, 2014). Neither is it feasible for them to adopt the improved cultivars promoted by EMBRAPA, since these do not correspond to their own representations of what ‘good’ guarana is and lack the attributes that confer on guarana its cosmological role as ‘guide’ of the Sateré‐Mawé people (Congretel, 2017).…”

“… 13 13 Note that this latter claim has been acknowledged by geneticists; however, it remains a claim that fails to serve Sateré‐Waré ambitions for autonomy and territorial defence. (see Filoche & Pinton, 2014). …”

“… 7 7 See Filoche and Pinton (2014). UPOV was created in 1961 to encourage research and innovation with a view to creating more productive and predictable plant varieties by offering breeders the possibility to have their variety innovations registered and protected and opening opportunities to derive income from them.…”

¿Innovar para resistir? La territorialización del Guaraná en la Amazonia (Brasil)

“…Brasil se adhiere, a partir de 1999, al sistema UPOV (Unión Internacional para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales), después de adoptar la Ley sobre la Protección de Cultivos (1997) que se prolongará, en 2003, con la Ley de Semillas y la creación de un Registro Nacional de Cultivos (RNC) donde cada nueva variedad tiene que estar inscrita, para poder ser comercializada (Filoche y Pinton, 2013;Santilli, 2009). Aplicadas a la guaraná, estas nuevas legislaciones cambian fundamentalmente el estatuto de la planta, que se convierte en sus versiones más recientes (innovaciones varietales) en propiedad de EMBRAPA, mientras que los Sateré-Mawé no pueden alegar ningún derecho, por el hecho de haber sido los primeros en utilizar la planta y descubrir sus propiedades.…”

Indicações Geográficas e a Valorização Comercial do Artesanato em Capim-dourado no Jalapão

“…Além disso, o novo paradigma de desenvolvimento preconizado pelo socioambientalismo deve promover e valorizar a diversidade cultural e a consolidação do processo democrático no país, com ampla participação social na gestão ambiental (SANTILLI, 2005b, p.34) Em outra publicação, Santilli (2005a) discute o potencial do uso das IGs para a proteção e valorização comercial de produtos da sociobiodiversidade, abordando como exemplos o mel dos índios do Parque Indígena do Xingu no Mato Grosso, o artesanato de arumã e a pimenta em pó dos índios Baniwa da região do Alto Rio Negro no Amazonas, a castanha da Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Iratapuru no Amapá, o caju, a juçara, o bacuri, o buriti e o cajá, dos povos do cerrado no Maranhão e Tocantins. Nos últimos anos, essa temática da associação das IGs à preservação e valorização da biodiversidade e do patrimônio do cultural, tem aparecido de forma recorrente em trabalhos acadêmicos, tanto no âmbito nacional (GIUNCHETTI, 2008;ALMEIDA et al, 2009;EMPERAIRE et al, 2012;FILOCHE;PINTON, 2014), quanto internacional (BERARD, 2005GOPALAKRISHNAN et al, 2007;LARSON, 2007;AUTREPART, 2009;THÉVENOD-MOTTET, 2010).…”