Indigenous Peoples languages not only strengthen social cohesion and the transmission of values and community practices, but they also preserve systems of knowledge essential for the safeguarding of the planet. Their preservation is crucial, not only for the cultural identity of each people but also for the balance and conservation of nature.

By: Guriwun Torres*

Indigenous Peoples’ languages are a reflection of the culture of their speakers, their cosmovisions, and knowledge. They contain wisdom about how, where, and when to use the resources and goods of nature, making them essential in ecological protection and conservation, as well as in the harmonious relationship between Indigenous Peoples and their environment. These languages are the main medium through which knowledge, the history of their Peoples, and their territories have been passed down from generation to generation, acting as custodians and sources of cultural heritage.

They represent the very language in which the inherent relationship between the spiritual world and the material world is expressed, a vision that guides Indigenous Peoples’ understanding of nature, the universe, and everything contained within it. This knowledge has allowed for the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in various regions of the world. It is no coincidence that many areas with high biodiversity are also rich in cultural diversity, represented by Indigenous Peoples and linguistic diversity.

A clear example of this is the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, ancestral territory of the Indigenous Peoples Arhuaco, Kogui, Wiwa, and Kankwamo, who speak three Indigenous Peoples’ languages: Ikun, Kogui, and Dámana. Its high level of endemism and biodiversity in flora and fauna, documented by biologists and ecologists, demonstrates how cultural practices and traditional knowledge have been fundamental in its conservation.

From my experience as an Indigenous woman and as a biologist, I have found and understood that there is no more intimate and profound way to understand cosmovisions and knowledge than by exploring them through the language itself. The language guards deep layers of cultural knowledge.

For example, in the Arhuaco people, when the Mamos (spiritual authorities) teach or explain an idea related to the cosmovision – whether it is about a natural phenomenon, an object, an animal, a plant, or a star – they do so in a language that is not everyday language, but one that is more precise and specialized. An example is the concept Seyn zare (seyn = related to the night, zare = past suffix), which literally translates as “when everything was darkness.” This expression refers to the beginning of time, when everything was darkness, and everything existed only in thought and spirit, when the norms that govern nature and the universe in the present began to be established. This word is often translated as “Law of Origin,” a concept fundamental to explaining the norms and laws that govern the mission and mandate of the Arhuaco People in the care of life.

To understand this type of knowledge, it is not enough just to speak the language; a prior understanding and a broad mastery of the vocabulary are required to grasp and access these concepts. When it is necessary to comprehend these uncommon terms in everyday life, seeking someone with this knowledge, who can interpret and explain in a more accessible language, becomes an indispensable option.

Therefore, the extent of knowledge can only be fully grasped to the degree that one’s understanding permits and as much as those with the wisdom are willing to share. When these concepts are translated without this level of depth, they are often oversimplified, losing key ideas and nuances. Protecting Indigenous Peoples’ languages is essential to preserving the richness and depth of ancestral wisdom.

In the Arhuaco or Iku people, the language is called ikun, which means “to speak in the language of the Iku.” However, when it comes to transmitting knowledge and ideas, it is referred to as ga’kunamu, which literally translates to “carrier of the message/idea.” This reflects that the ideas explaining the cosmovision of all aspects surrounding the Arhuaco are contained in the ga’kunamu. Therefore, when an Arhuaco refers to their own language, they say niwi ga’kunamu, which can be translated as “our ideas,” “our thoughts,” or “our language,” depending on the context.

All of these forms of knowledge are expressed and developed in everyday life, influencing collective decision-making and the defense of territory, which is the very manifestation of culture. Thus, the Arhuaco mission is to safeguard the natural balance of the planet through rituals, payments, dances, and the strict observance of the Law of Origin, which is transmitted through the language or ga’kunamu. These practices seek respect and reciprocity with Mother Earth, the universe, and all its beings, which constitute biodiversity and ecosystems.

It is understood then that within the language resides the knowledge of biodiversity and the sustainable use of resources, encompassing everything from the most everyday aspects to the most complex elements of the cosmovision. This knowledge is deeply connected to the territories that Indigenous Peoples inhabit, conserve, and protect.

Indigenous Peoples’languages carry the knowledge of the land inhabited by their speakers. The specificity in the naming of geographical features—rivers, lakes, lagoons—and the beings that make up the landscape—plants, animals, fungi, insects, rocks—not only reflect their uses but also their connection to the history and cosmogony of each being. This speaks to the complexity with which these cultures understand nature.

For example, in the Ikun language, the puma (Puma concolor) is called gwiajina, a compound word whose literal meaning is “older brothers,” gwia = older brother, and the suffix jina = plural. Why are they called older brothers? For the Arhuaco cosmovision, these felines are the first inhabitants of the territory, considered Mamos, guardians of the kunsamu, knowledge and wisdom that are preserved in the mountains, high moors, and snowy peaks of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, which are their Kunkurwas or ceremonial homes.

Although most Indigenous Peoples do not have a written tradition, there are knowledge systems that have been documented in geoglyphs and paintings, whose shapes and images are interpreted by the wise individuals or spiritual authorities of each people in their language. For this reason, Indigenous Peoples recognize different types of language, such as the interpretation of the sounds and behavior of certain insects and birds, the arrangement of clouds, the speed and direction of winds, the position of stars, or the color of the sky. These observations and analyses guide decisions in daily life, from agricultural planning to social events such as marriage or collective meetings. All this knowledge is part of the language that is expressed and transmitted through the tongue.

*Guriwun Torres Zalabata is an Indigenous woman from the Arhuaco People of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. A biologist by profession, with a focus and interest in ethnobiological research, strengthening traditional knowledge, and defending the rights of Indigenous peoples. She is a member of the Network of Indigenous Women on Biodiversity in Latin America and the Caribbean.

She is part of the professional and support team of the Arhuaco Indigenous authorities in environmental and/or educational projects and programs, integrating Indigenous perspectives both in their formulation and implementation. She is also an interpreter and translator of the Ikun language

El cargo The Possibilities of Naming the World are the Possibilities of Caring for It: The importance of indigenous Peoples’ languages in the protection of knowledge and ecosystems. apareció primero en Land Is Life.

From the 8th to the 12th of March, Land is Life held a training session for Indigenous women as part of its ongoing Indigenous Women’s Program. The event, organized in Panamá, also served as the launch point for the new cohort (2024 – 2025) of the Women’s Program fellowship.
The meeting was a space for learning, sharing of experiences and knowledge, and building solidarity amongst Indigenous women. The session was attended by Fellows from Land is Life, as well as by Indigenous women from The Indigenous Women’s Network on Biodiversity. In all, five countries were represented – Mexico, Ecuador, Kenya, Colombia and, of course, Panama, where representatives of the Guna and Emberá Peoples were present.
The event was held in the Dad Naggue Dubbir community, in the Indigenous Comarca of Guna Yala, on the country’s Pacific Coast. In 2025 the community will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Guna revolution, and the return to the Guna People of control over their traditional territory.
Workshop participants engaged in discussions about the empowerment of women and youth in decision-making processes, and the importance of developing community protocols on Free, Prior and Informed Consent. They built their capacity to engage in negotiations of the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions, sharing their communities’ perspectives and experiences. Participants also learned about the unique governance structure of the Guna People, their history, and their culture, including a visit to the Mola Dibanan Galu Women’s Cooperative project.
The fellows present left the event inspired to start their local projects, which have one common goal: to strengthen the rights of Indigenous women.

El cargo LAND IS LIFE HOLDS INDIGENOUS WOMEN’S TRAINING SESSION IN PANAMA: launches new cohort of Women’s Program Fellowship apareció primero en Land Is Life.

‘Voluntary trust’ legislation discussed in Senate.

While the Ayoreo Indigenous People have title to half their traditional territory, draft legislation introduced by a group of government senators would establish a Fideicomiso Voluntario or  ‘voluntary trust’ for the rest of their traditional territory.

The Ayoreo-Totobiegosode were never consulted about the Trust, as is their right, and have denounced it as a threat to the existence of isolated communities, stating that it could lead to the privatization of land where they are located.

In February 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued precautionary measures that required the government of Paraguay to put an end to the deforestation of the ancestral territory of the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode, located in the country’s Gran Chaco area. The measures also demanded that Indigenous Peoples in Isolation and Initial Contact be protected from unwanted contacts.

However, the IACHR measures did not have the hoped for effects; the Gran Chaco forests where the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode live, continue to suffer major levels of deforestation that show little signs of coming to an end.

And at present Paraguay is the South American country with the second highest level of deforestation in the last two decades, surpassed only by Brazil, and its Chaco dry forest is disappearing faster than any other on the planet.

As a result, in 2022 Indigenous organizations demanded action, warning that Ayoreo Totobiegosode communities, the only communities still in voluntary isolation outside the Amazon, were at serious risk of disappearing.

The Indigenous organizations also stated that “the absolute and deliberate absence of action by the Paraguayan State” to protect and return to this community the collective ownership of their territory, which they consider “theirs by right and on which they depend to survive.”

For the Ayoreo, not only has the Paraguayan state shown a total lack of interest in returning their remaining lands, the Senate is now considering a measure that could make that even more unlikely.

Land is Life urges the Paraguayan Senate not to proceed with the dangerous and oddly named ‘Fideicomiso Voluntario’; to act to restore traditional territories to which the Ayoreo People have a right; and to protect the remaining Ayoreo Totobiegosode living in Isolation and Initial Contact from further encroachments and deforestation, as required by the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. Not to do so would imply complicity in a genocide.

Background

The Ayoreo first came into contact with outsiders in the 1940s and 1950s, when Mennonites settlers established colonies on their land, leading to clashes and deaths on both sides. Arriving in the late 1970’s, American missionaries also showed little concern for the lives of the Ayoreo; the US based New Tribes Mission helped organize ‘manhunts’ whose purpose was to forcibly evict numerous Ayoreo Totobiegosode from the forest. Constant land invasions forced other Ayoreo groups to leave the forest in 1998 and 2004.

In recent years, agribusiness has replaced religion as the major threat to the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode, although the Mormons are a major force in Paraguayan agribusiness. A large part of the Ayoreo land, which is also home to groups living in Isolation and Initial Contact, is ‘owned’ by five companies responsible for much of the deforestation affecting the Indigenous People’s ability to survive. If their plans come to pass, most of the land will be stripped for cattle raising.

Paraguay’s 1992 constitution guarantees the right of indigenous communities to hold land communally, but that right is mainly words on paper. And in 2005 a twelve year court case to preserve Ayoreo traditional land came to an end when the country’s Congress voted against the expropriation of 114,000 hectares from Brazilian and Argentine landowners.

Paraguay, a country of a little more than 400 km2, has been the second most deforested country in South America in the last two decades, only surpassed  by Brazil, a country many times its size*. As a result, Chaco’s dry forest has been disappearing at a faster rate than any other forest on the planet. (Global Forest Watch, 2021)

In 1993 the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode submitted a formal land claim to their forest, and in 2013 they requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to intervene. Two years later, the Commission issued urgent protection measures for the Ayoreo territory while its land claim was being considered. As a consequence, the Paraguayan and the Indigenous People entered formal negotiations in 2016, with the objective of transferring titles to their lands. The Commission acted as mediator.

However, the Ayoreo pulled out of the discussions in 2021, stating they were little more than a delaying tactic that would permit the deforestation to continue; they subsequently requested the Commission to rule on their land rights case.

Photo: Andrés Unterladstaette  IWGIA. The forest and agrobusiness. Soybean and corn planting increase along deforestation, to the detriment of biodiversity in the Chaco region.

Further Information:

https://www.iwgia.org/en/news/4435-the-ayoreo-the-last-isolated-people-outside-the-amazon.htm l
https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-01-13/between-the-forest-and-death-in-paraguay.html
https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/ayoreo

Since its founding in 1992, Land is Life has played an important role in the struggles of Indigenous peoples around the world, working in partnership with them to advance their rights locally, nationally and internationally.

Please donate (see below) and help us continue supporting Indigenous Peoples such as the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode, and many others.

El cargo INDIGENOUS TERRITORY AND ISOLATED COMMUNITIES UNDER THREAT IN PARAGUAY apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Sin embargo, los requerimientos de la CIDH no parecen haber surtido mucho efecto. Los bosques donde viven estos Pueblos Indígenas han sido sometidos a una deforestación extrema que da pocas señales de llegar a su fin. En consecuencia, las comunidades Ayoreo Totobiegosode en Aislamiento Voluntario y Contacto Inicial se encuentran en grave riesgo de desaparición.

Los Ayoreo sí cuentan con título de la mitad de su territorio tradicional, pero un proyecto de ley presentado por un grupo de senadores oficialistas establecería un “fideicomiso voluntario” para el resto de sus tierras. Sin embargo, los Ayoreo-totobiegosode nunca fueron consultados sobre la legislación, como es su derecho, y han denunciado que representa una amenaza a la existencia de comunidades aisladas, ya que en la práctica el ‘fideicomiso voluntario’ podría llevar a la privatización de las tierras donde estas se ubican.

Para los Ayoreo no sólo había una total falta de acción por parte del Estado paraguayo para devolverles las tierras restantes, sino que ahora está considerando una medida que podría privatizar esas tierras y ponerlos en mayor riesgo de desaparición.
La legislación se debatirá el lunes 4 de marzo cuando el Senado reanude sus sesiones.

El cargo TIERRAS AYOREO-TOTOBIEGOSODES Y COMUNIDADES AISLADAS AMENAZADAS POR PROPUESTA DE LEY EN PARAGUAY apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Land is Life entrega la Secretaría Técnica después de 4 años consecutivos de intenso trabajo.

Los Pueblos Indígenas viviendo en aislamiento voluntario y contacto inicial en las regiones amazónicas y del Gran Chaco de América del Sur están amenazados como nunca antes. La falta de reconocimiento en los marcos legales en los Estados, la minería, la tala ilegal de árboles, la presencia de menonitas, los misioneros, la soya y la ganadería, y ahora el narcotráfico y la violencia están haciendo incursiones cada vez mayores y más graves en los territorios de estos Pueblos. A modo de ejemplo, en el peor de los casos la infame legislación ‘Marco Temporal’ podría afectar al 95% de los Territorios Indígenas de Brazil.

De ahí la importancia de la reunión anual de la organización regional GTI-PIACI, un grupo de trabajo de 20 organizaciones regionales dedicadas a avanzar los derechos de estos Pueblos Indígenas a vivir en estado natural. Desde su creación en 2019, Land is Life “ha ejercido la Secretaría Técnica aportando de forma sustancial para posicionar y promover la agenda de nuestro grupo en espacios nacionales, regionales e internacionales con compromiso, transparencia y sobre todo solidaridad con todas las organizaciones que hacemos parte de esta iniciativa.”

Land is Life promovió un trabajo arduo de incidencia para avanzar en los derechos de los PIACI, como lo hizo en las Naciones Unidas, con importantes aliados como el Foro Permanente sobre Cuestiones Indígenas, el Relator sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, el Mecanismo de Expertos sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos.

La reunión anual del GTI-PIACI se lleva a cabo esta semana en la sede de la Organización de Pueblos Indígenas de Colombia, OPIAC, como parte del trabajo incesante en coordinar y fortalecer esfuerzos para proteger a los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento Voluntario y Contacto Inicial en toda la región.

Land is Life agradece la confianza puesta en ella por las organizaciones que conforman el GTI-PIACI, y seguirá luchando, como siempre, por los derechos de los Pueblos en Aislamiento Voluntario y Contacto Inicial.

En 2024, Land is Life pasa la batuta a Amazon Conservation Team, quien asumirá la Secretaria Técnica del GTI-PIACI.

* El Grupo de Trabajo Internacional sobre los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento y Contacto Inicial

El cargo EL GTI-PIACI* RENUEVA LA LUCHA PARA PROTEGER A LOS PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS EN AISLAMIENTO VOLUNTARIO Y CONTACTO INICIAL apareció primero en Land Is Life.

January 15 2024

At the end of October 2023, a delegation of the A’i Cofán Indigenous People from the province of Sucumbíos, Ecuador, demonstrated in front of  the country’s Constitutional Court, in Quito, the country’s capital. At almost the same time, members of the Ogiek People were protesting during the official visit to Kenya of King Charles III of England.

In both cases the Indigenous Peoples involved sought to draw attention to a phenomenon being repeated around the world: the suppression of the right of Indigenous Peoples to Consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), regarding the implementation of any project that may affect their territories and ways of life.

However, declares David Suárez, coordinator of the FPIC Program of Land is Life, “what we have at the moment is a profound contradiction between legal advances, and a political debt in their effective implementation. This is why indigenous peoples often have such sharp differences of opinion with national governments.”

Impulses for self-determination

These are not isolated incidents, but part of a necessary and ongoing process that has amplified the voice of Indigenous Peoples everywhere. The change has been advancing slowly but inexorably since June 1989, when the International Labor Organization (ILO) published its Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. This instrument –correcting and deepening the ILO own 1957 recommendations – consolidated the push for the recognition of self-determination for indigenous communities, although without specifically mentioning the concept.

“By referring to autonomy, making one’s own decisions, and choosing one’s own development priorities, ILO 169 establishes the idea of self-determination, which is the umbrella under which all the other human rights of Indigenous Peoples are organized and have meaning,” says Suárez, who warns that a common mistake is to consider that the exercise of this guarantee is limited to large extractive and energy projects. “Consultation also has to do with the definition of education or intercultural health policies, based on prioritizing the needs of these populations.”

Over time, other multilateral organizations designed legal tools that coincided with the Convention 169 principles. The most relevant were the declarations of the United Nations declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007), and that of the Organization of American States (OEA, 2016). Both determine that states “will hold consultations and cooperate in good faith” with the “representative institutions” of the communities that request it, before any potentially harmful actions are implemented.

In line with these examples, the governments of several countries – especially in Latin America – sought to incorporate this right into their  legal codes. For example, at the constitutional level, FPIC processes were recognized in the Constitutions of Ecuador (1998 and 2008) and Bolivia (2009), while the authorities in Peru (2011) and Panama (2016) approved specific laws.

This does not mean, however, that the situation has been resolved, far from it. “In Bolivia, for example, Prior Consultation is not binding. And as Bolivian journalist Etzhel Llanque has pointed out, “this is a major weakness, because even though a community says ‘no’, its position has no legal validity”. There are numerous similar examples in Latin America, which, while being a “vanguard” region with regard to FPIC policies, also has the highest rates of conflict in relation to them.

Litigate and construct in order to move forward

Just over 65% of the States that ratified ILO Convention 169 – 15 out of 23 – are Latin American. This part of the world also has a significant proportion of Indigenous populations (just over 8% of total inhabitants): peoples whose ancestral territories cover 45% of the intact forests of the Amazon basin, where deforestation is notably less prevalent. These indicators are evident even in Brazil, whose public policies on conservation and Indigenous Peoples are rarely characterized by their understanding and appreciation of the cultural aspect.

Despite their evident importance, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), only “in the minority of cases, do Indigenous Peoples and organizations participate in the governance, decision-making, and management” of these areas. And guaranteeing Indigenous Peoples the exercise of their legitimate right to decide, is something that “no country has done (…) according to the minimum standards established by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” SIRGE (the Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy Coalition), in its Guide to FPIC.

The consequence of non-compliance is that Indigenous groups are obliged to resort to judicial processes and confrontational shows of strength in order to access the denied or disputed guarantees. In the former case we have emblematic litigations such as Saramaka vs. Suriname, where the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) spoke for the first time of consent, albeit in a very limited sense, with regard to projects that may irreversibly affect the way of life of an Indigenous People. Another example is the ruling of the same court in the case of Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua, regarding the responsibility of the state in the correct delimitation of Indigenous territories.

At the same time, the elaboration of their own FPIC protocols has allowed many Latin American indigenous communities to express their priorities more clearly. Recently, this alternative – which includes examples from Argentina to Central America, passing through Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia – has become a regional and even global trend. For example, the above mentioned Ogiek People of Kenya, are working on this type of protocol with the support of the Sarayaku People of Ecuador.

While there may be progress in Latin America, it is essential to understand that the reality in Asia and Africa is much more challenging for Indigenous Peoples, even when judicial rulings and multilateral organizations support their territorial claims. In the case of Asia, although “two thirds” of the world’s Indigenous Peoples live on that continent, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has warned that many “are affected by the lack of recognition of their cultural identity, its exclusion and its marginalization”.

Regarding the African context, Suárez points out that there “there are authoritarian regimes or countries where the decolonization process is more recent,” a fact that makes self-organization and actions to defend rights more difficult. On that continent, not even classic concepts such as “nation” and “citizenship” – which take for granted the equality of all inhabitants before the law – are immune to dispute: in Tanzania, for example, the Maasai are not recognized as “Indigenous People”, which both complicates their demands, and leads to them being questioned for not helping to forge a new nation.

Ecuador: words and popular action

As already indicated, beginning with the Constitutions of 1998 and 2008, Ecuador consolidated its position as regional leader in the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ right to consultation and free, prior, and informed consent. This was not a gift or official generosity: it was achieved by means of both shows of strength and long drawn out judicial processes; unfortunately, many of the latter still remain incomplete, or have been systematically undermined by political and economic authorities.

The emblematic ruling of the IAHCR in the Sarayaku vs. Ecuador case, is a clear example. The Kichwa community initiated legal action in 2003, but the ruling was only issued in 2012, and while the judgment was favorable the community, one of its main provisions, obliging the Ecuadorian state to legislate the right to FPIC through promulgation of a specific law, is still pending. For Suárez, the positive aspect is that ” it is no longer possible for an administrator of justice to claim a lack of jurisprudence on the subject, and that was achieved thanks to the tenacious struggle of the Sarayaku People on two levels: legal and territorial.”

The lawsuit also contributed to consolidating other central standards of prior consultation. Among these is the obligation for the state and the private sector to act in good faith and in a culturally appropriate manner, and to respect the guarantee of use of indigenous languages during any process. The latter is crucial, given that lack of recognition invalidates intercultural dialogue, which allows all members of a community to access real knowledge about a project requiring their consent. Consultations consequently become hollow administrative processes.

Many of the recent public and collective demonstrations of discontent, such as the sit-in by the A’i Cofán community mentioned at the beginning of this text are, in fact, linked to precisely this problem. More specifically they were demands for the repeal of Executive Decree No. 754, signed by President Guillermo Lasso in May 2023, whose precise intention was to limit FPIC processes to administrative actions. The response to the protests was not positive, has included acts of repression, intimidation and militarization of communities, which is not surprising, comments Suárez, because “Any law that regulates indigenous rights must, as a fundamental principle, count on the participation of the Peoples.”

At the end of 2023, the Constitutional Court ruled decree No. 754 unconstitutional due to its form. And although the decree will remain partially valid, it cannot now be applied in cases related to Indigenous communities until the National Assembly “issues a law that regulates the exercise of the right to environmental consultation.”

This is obviously a victory, but, once again, it is partial. A fundamental obstacle, one already mentioned above, is the gap between the Judiciary – which in certain current cases takes the side of the Indigenous Peoples – and an Executive that intends, as far as possible, to ignore or avoid rulings contrary to its interests.

The reasons for the divergence between these two branches of the state are as obvious as they are seductive: money and power, concentrated in few hands, that are derived from the exploitation of natural resources. And, it is worth pointing out, many of the countries that register acute territorial conflicts also have high rates of structural poverty. In addition, as the areas occupied by native communities frequently coincide with enormous subsoil wealth, it is easy for national governments to install the false notion that it is conscious minorities, in their fight for environmental conservation, that “hinder general development.” On other occasions, power struggles within the government are to blame, mutating as they often do, into de facto alliances that favor of business interests and against the recognition of rights.

In both these scenarios, Indigenous Peoples see their territorial rights postponed, as well as their prospects of reaching a favorable and definitive solutions. Although the possible lines of action are clear, the insurmountable obstacle has been the complete absence of political will to implement them.

Providing proof are two books, one published by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) in 2014, and the other by Land is Life in 2020. In the first case, the Commission called, unsuccessfully, for “a harmonization of the different national regulatory frameworks in the shortest possible time”, and for “prioritizing the application of the pro homine principle of international law”, in addition to strengthening “the judicial systems in each country, aiming to eradicate any type of racist conception and practice in the application of justice.”

In the second, Suárez notes that similar concepts had been assumed at the community level but had not been effectively implemented by state authorities. “The realities of the people and their decision-making systems are far from those of the state and capitalist society. The optimal solution,  is that alternative systems be defined. (…) the only legitimate way to achieve adequate and satisfactory regulations related to fundamental rights, is the development of regulations by the indigenous peoples themselves.”

The urgent need to solve existing problems

So far, the victories of Indigenous Peoples in their demand for the right to consultation and prior, free and informed consent, have been as resounding as they are sporadic. Consolidating the continuity of these successes is urgent, but it depends on settling a numer of accounts pending, in several well-defined areas. Firstly, it involves ensuring that states and governments clearly recognize consent as the substantive and fundamental right in the self-determination of indigenous peoples.

But the state role does not end there. According to a guide published by the Colombian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Acnudh), it includes many other elements:  including gender and generation perspective; starting from the life plan of the respective Indigenous People as a framework for dialogue and agreement; and strengthening social responsibility and the corporate-social pact. “The state, as guarantor of rights, is also responsible for ensuring that private companies respect the rights of indigenous peoples,” the document emphasizes.

The preservation of the cultural and territorial integrity of Indigenous communities is another official responsibility whose compliance has been sporadic at best. Not only due to the advance of projects and settlements that affect these territories and their inhabitants, but also because of the government’s difficulty in managing their growing complexities: “The challenge is not only to think about those situations where traditional territoriality is diminished, but also about what we do, today, with Indigenous presence in urban spaces, or with the intercultural city in the Amazon,” Suárez warns.

Other dimensions that require immediate attention are the incorporation of consent into the programs of multilateral organizations, and greater transparency in consultations with Indigenous Peoples in relation to so-called “green financing.” In the first case, while, as indicated, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, ADB, and the Inter America Development Bank, IDB, have instituted FPIC regulations, their implementation has not been constant or decisive.

Putting these measures into practice will never be easy. It is often more tempting to give in to the economic interests that put pressure on indigenous territories, or to mere inaction that allows a mandate to end without rocking the boat. But it it is worth keeping in mind that this too has a high cost: i.e. socio-economic conflict. As Suárez points out: “Conflict will continue to increase, unless we find a path that allows the full participation of indigenous peoples.”

*  Jorge Basilago is a journalist and freelance, writer, born in Argentina and residing in Quito, Ecuador. Sonce 1995, her has worked as a collaborator and correspondent for both print and digital media in Latin America

El cargo FROM WORD TO ACTION: the right of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent apareció primero en Land Is Life.

O conceito de ‘Marco Temporal’ (promovido por legisladores ‘ruralistas’ que representam os interesses do agronegócio, dos mineiros e dos pecuaristas) procura limitar o direito aos povos que podem demonstrar que qualquer território reivindicado foi ocupado por eles antes da promulgação da Constituição . Portanto todas as reivindicações futuras, e mesmo algumas reivindicações passadas, estariam consequentemente sujeitas ao ônus da prova do “Marco Temporal”, representando um grave perigo para os Povos Indígenas do Brasil.

No dia 21 de setembro deste ano, numa decisão amplamente celebrada pelos Povos Indígenas e seus aliados, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) do país declarou inconstitucional tese de o “Marco Temporal”.

Em resposta, a oposição dominada pelo Senado brasileiro aprovou recentemente o PL2903, em um claro desafio à decisão do STF e legitimidade deste.

A lei não só ignora a decisão do Supremo Tribunal, como também viola os direitos dos Povos Indígenas consagrados na Declaração das Nações Unidas sobre os Direitos dos Povos Indígenas (UNDRIP), que afirma em seu art. 26, que:

1. Os povos indígenas têm direito às terras, territórios e recursos que possuem e ocupam tradicionalmente ou que tenham de outra forma utilizado ou adquirido.
2. Os povos indígenas têm o direito de possuir, utilizar, desenvolver e controlar as terras, territórios e recursos que possuem em razão da propriedade tradicional ou de outra forma tradicional de ocupação ou de utilização, assim como aqueles que de outra forma tenham adquirido.
3. Os Estados assegurarão reconhecimento e proteção jurídicos a essas terras, territórios e recursos. Tal reconhecimento respeitará adequadamente os costumes, as tradições e os regimes de posse da terra dos povos indígenas a que se refiram

Se o Senado dominado pela oposição tiver sucesso na sua tentativa de desafiar a decisão do “Marco Temporal” do STF, os danos resultantes para os Povos Indígenas, incluindo os 144 Povos Indígenas que vivem em Isolamento Voluntário, seriam graves.

Os principais grupos indígenas e seus aliados da sociedade civil pedem, portanto, ao Presidente Lula da Silva que vete o Projeto de Lei 2.903/2023 em sua íntegra.

Para LAND IS LIFE, a questão é clara: seja qual for a forma ou por qualquer mecanismo, o ‘Marco Temporal’ é uma grande ameaça não apenas para os Povos Indígenas e suas culturas, mas também para a floresta amazônica, pois abriria grandes extensões de terra a passíveis de desmatamento. Para LAND IS LIFE, os Povos Indígenas e as suas culturas têm o direito humano básico de existir e de florescer nos seus territórios. O Marco Temporal representa, portanto, uma terrível ameaça a esse direito e deve ser combatido.

Os principais grupos indígenas e seus aliados da sociedade civil pedem, portanto, ao Presidente Lula da Silva que vete o Projeto de Lei 2.903/2023 na íntegra.

Para LAND IS LIFE, a questão é clara. Seja qual for a forma, ou por qualquer mecanismo, o ‘Marco Temporal’ é uma grande ameaça, não apenas para os Povos Indígenas e suas culturas, mas também para a floresta amazônica, pois abriria grandes extensões de terra à possibilidade de desmatamento. Para LAND IS LIFE, os Povos Indígenas e as suas culturas têm o direito humano básico de existir e de florescer nos seus territórios. O Marco Temporal representa, portanto, uma terrível ameaça a esse direito e deve ser combatido.

El cargo SENADO BRASILEIRO DESAFIA DECISÃO DO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL SOBRE MARCO TEMPORAL: COLOCA OS POVOS INDÍGENAS E A AMAZÔNIA EM GRAVE PERIGO. apareció primero en Land Is Life.

The ‘Marco Temporal’ concept (promoted by ‘Ruralist’ legislators who represent the interests of agribusiness, miners and cattle ranchers) seeks to limit the right to those Peoples who can demonstrate that any territory claimed was occupied by them before the enactment of the Constitution. All future, and even some past claims, would consequently be subjected to the ‘Marco Temporal’ burden of proof, representing a clear and present danger to Brazil’s Indigenous Peoples.

On September 21st of this year, in a ruling widely celebrated by Indigneous Peoples and their allies, the country’s Supreme Court declared the ‘Marco Temporal’ concept to be unconstitutional.

In response, the opposition dominated Brazilian Senate recently passed PL2903, or the ‘Marco Temporal’ legislation, in both clear defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision, and as a challenge to the legitimacy of the Court itself.

The law not only ignores the Supreme Court’s ruling, it also contravenes the rights of Indigenous Peoples enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which states in Art. 26, that:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
   2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
   3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned

There is no doubt that if the opposition dominated Senate succeeds in its attempt to defy the Supreme Court’s ‘Marco Temporal’ ruling, the resulting damage to Indigenous Peoples, including 144 Peoples living in Voluntary Isolation, would be grave.

The major Indigenous groups and their civil society allies are therefore calling on President Lula da Silva to veto Bill 2903/2023 in its entirety.

For LAND IS LIFE, the issue is clear. In whatever form, or by whatever mechanism, the ‘Marco Temporal’ is a major threat, not only to Indigenous Peoples and their cultures, but also to the Amazon rainforest, as it would open up major tracts of land to the possibility of deforestation. For LAND IS LIFE, Indigenous Peoples and their cultures have a basic human right to exist, and to flourish within their territories. The Marco Temporal therefore represents a dire threat to that right, and must be resisted.

El cargo BRAZILIAN SENATE DEFIES SUPREME COURT RULING ON MARCO TEMPORAL: PLACES INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND AMAZON IN GRAVE DANGER. apareció primero en Land Is Life.

La crisis climática es una realidad que ya nadie puede desconocer. Tampoco existe duda alguna acerca de la seriedad del fenómeno para la vida de los Pueblos Indígenas, explica José Proaño, Director de Programas de Land is Life para América Latina. “Todos seremos afectados de manera dramática y aquí, en América Latina, encontrarnos en la región del planeta que genera menos emisiones de CO2, tampoco impide que las consecuencias del cambio climático sean cada vez más visibles y dramáticas. Más grave aún, es que la crisis impactará con mayor severidad a los pueblos indígenas, con especial énfasis en las mujeres de esas comunidades.”

La respuesta, según Proaño, radica en tomar decisiones difíciles, como cuando la población ecuatoriana optó por dejar el petróleo bajo tierra, en la Consulta Popular sobre la explotación hidrocarburífera en el Parque Nacional Yasuní.

Es indudable que el mundo tiene que superar la era de los combustibles fósiles, y para los Pueblos Indígenas de todo el mundo, incluyendo los Pueblos en Aislamiento Voluntario, mientras más rápido suceda eso, será mejor. Su supervivencia puede depender de ello.

La crisis climática: impacto global, daños particulares

A comienzos de septiembre de 2023, la Organización Meteorológica Mundial (OMM) presentó un informe sobre las temperaturas récord del verano boreal precedente. Según este organismo, el trimestre junio-julio-agosto fue el más caluroso en la historia del planeta tierra: en conjunto, este período resultó 1.5°C más cálido que el promedio preindustrial de 1850-1900. Este dato llevó al Secretario General de la ONU, António Guterres, a concluir que “el colapso climático” mundial ha comenzado. “Los científicos han advertido hace mucho tiempo sobre lo que desencadenará nuestra adicción a los combustibles fósiles.”

Al ritmo en que aumentan los desastres de origen meteorológico – las inundaciones por esta causa se incrementaron un 134% entre 2000 y 2023 –, también se hacen más evidentes sus consecuencias negativas para poblaciones rurales e indígenas en regiones como el continente asiático, los pequeños estados insulares y el África subsahariana.

Los países con menor responsabilidad en la aceleración del cambio climático padecen sus consecuencias con mayor crudeza

De hecho, la Cumbre Climática de África, reunida en Kenia en septiembre de 2023, determinó en su Declaración Final que ese continente “se está calentando más rápido que el resto del mundo”. Las autoridades gubernamentales participantes del encuentro, manifestaron asimismo su preocupación porque “muchos países africanos enfrentan cargas desproporcionadas y riesgos crecientes relacionados con el cambio climático”.

Por lo general, los países con menor responsabilidad en la aceleración de este proceso padecen sus consecuencias con mayor crudeza, pero a la vez albergan gran parte de los activos naturales y culturales que podrían contribuir a atenuarlas. Características que desvelan, simultáneamente, otras inequidades históricas: las naciones africanas, por ejemplo, concentran en conjunto cerca del 40% de los recursos de energías renovables del mundo, pero solo recibieron el 2% de la inversión total en ese ámbito, durante la última década.

Algo similar sucede con los pueblos indígenas, a los que un estudio de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) consideró “fundamentales para el éxito de las medidas y las políticas dirigidas a mitigar el cambio climático”. En principio, porque son alrededor de 370 millones de personas en todo el planeta, situadas “a la vanguardia de un modelo económico moderno basado en los principios de una economía verde sostenible”, las que pueden impulsar un cambio de matriz productiva a partir de sus conocimientos tradicionales.

Sin embargo, la OIT indicó también que estas poblaciones concentran otras seis características que las vuelven especialmente frágiles ante un eventual colapso del clima. La primera y más dañina de ellas es la pobreza, que acosa a un 15% de sus integrantes; al igual que la dependencia de los recursos naturales; la vulnerabilidad de las regiones geográficas y ecosistemas en que viven; la potencial obligación de migrar por la destrucción de esos hábitats; las desigualdades de género y la falta de reconocimiento como personas indígenas, de sus derechos e instituciones.

Pueblos Indígenas africanos como los Maasai de Tanzania, por ejemplo, ya han sido desplazados de sus territorios y confinados al borde del hambre a partir de políticas que restringen sus actividades de pastoreo en “áreas de conservación”. Advertidos de esta circunstancia, los gobernantes reunidos en la cumbre africana instaron a “apoyar a los pequeños agricultores, Pueblos Indígenas y comunidades locales en la transición a economías sustentables dado su papel clave en la gestión de los ecosistemas”. Pero aun así, múltiples culturas ancestrales, en todo el mundo, pueden afrontar idéntico destino a corto o mediano plazo.

América Latina

Los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina tampoco escapan de los impactos de la marginación y el cambio climático. “Mientras en el mundo se discuten las formas de parar el cambio climático, las empresas transnacionales no han hecho ningún esfuerzo por bajar las presiones sobre nuestros territorios”, sostuvo Leonidas Iza, presidente de la Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (Conaie) en la Cumbre Climática COP27 de Egipto, a fines de 2022.

Por su parte, para Germán Freire, autor de la investigación “Latinoamérica Indígena en el Siglo XXI”, publicada por el Banco Mundial (BM), no siempre el porvenir es sinónimo de aprendizaje: “Cuando escribimos el informe en 2015, nos impactó que, a pesar de los avances de las décadas pasadas en términos de marcos legales y representación, los pueblos indígenas seguían rezagados detrás de todos los demás en casi todos los aspectos. Desde entonces, las cosas han empeorado aún más, debido a los efectos acumulativos de la pandemia, el cambio climático y el crecimiento de la desigualdad. Los pueblos indígenas necesitan estar al volante de su propio desarrollo para que este sea sostenible y resiliente”.

Sobre un estimado de 42 millones de personas indígenas en América Latina, un 43% es pobre, mientras que el 24% sufre pobreza extrema

En sintonía con otros análisis globales, el documento del BM puso el foco en la notoria marginación económica que castiga a este sector de la población: sobre un estimado de 42 millones de personas indígenas en la región, un 43% es pobre, mientras que el 24% sufre pobreza extrema. Una cifra a la que podrían añadirse otros 5.8 millones de habitantes indígenas para 2030, de acuerdo a estimaciones del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), si no se contiene la crisis ambiental en curso; proyección triste pero nada descabellada, ya que “América Latina y el Caribe es la segunda región del mundo más propensa a sufrir desastres de origen climático”.

De allí la importancia de garantizar el pleno acceso a derechos, tierra y recursos para las culturas originarias latinoamericanas, como parte de “una estrategia eficaz para combatir el cambio climático” apoyada en sus saberes y su conducta responsable con el entorno. Como ejemplo, los investigadores del BM puntualizaron que entre “2000 y 2012, la deforestación en la Amazonía brasileña fue de 0,6% dentro de los territorios indígenas protegidos legalmente, mientras que fuera de estos llegó al 7%, lo que produjo 27 veces más emisiones de dióxido de carbono”.

No se trata de un dato menor tomando en cuenta que, desde 1990 hasta 2015, la superficie forestal de la región disminuyó en 14 puntos porcentuales. Tendencia que puede volverse terminal en Brasil: durante la presidencia de Jair Bolsonaro, este país limitó las agencias ambientales y redujo las normas de protección forestal; mientras que en mayo de 2023, la Cámara de Diputados aprobó un proyecto de ley que busca limitar los reclamos territoriales indígenas a las poblaciones que habitaran regiones en litigio antes de 1988. Y aunque el pasado 21 de septiembre la Corte Suprema de Brasil bloqueó los esfuerzos para restringir los derechos territoriales de los indígenas y, en una decisión histórica 9 de los 11 miembros del tribunal votaron en contra de lo que grupos de derechos humanos habían denominado el “truco del marco temporal”, la aplicación de la sentencia sobre el terrero será muy complicada dado el enorme poder de los terratenientes que ocupan muchas de esas tierras indígenas.

“Si esto continúa, se alcanzará un irreversible punto de inflexión que no permitirá recuperar los ecosistemas, sumideros de carbono y conocimientos de los pueblos indígenas”, enfatizó el Grupo de Trabajo Internacional para Asuntos Indígenas (Iwigia, por sus siglas en inglés). Y a pesar de las reducciones logradas durante el primer año del nuevo gobierno de Lula da Silva, se trata solo de avances porcentuales: mientras tanto, el proceso sigue.

Combinados, estos hechos implican una disminución de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos, así como alteraciones en el régimen de lluvias y un aumento acelerado de la temperatura promedio.

El caso Ecuador: ¿Cuestión de Estado?

La organización Global Forest Watch identificó un proceso similar al de Brasil en Ecuador, que en los últimos veinte años (2000-2022) ha perdido casi 230 mil hectáreas de bosque primario húmedo. En realidad, en su mayor parte, esa superficie boscosa fue destruida por la deforestación vinculada con actividades agrícolas (monocultivos de palma aceitera, cacao, café y ganadería extensiva, entre otras) y extractivas, la imprevisión y la falta de control estatal.

En gran medida, la pérdida de bosque se debe a que el Estado ecuatoriano no ha mantenido una política ambiental clara, coherente y comprometida con la defensa de los derechos humanos, comunitarios y de la naturaleza. De hecho, en su informe 2022-2023, Amnistía Internacional cuestionó la “actuación deficiente” de la gestión presidencial de Guillermo Lasso, en relación con la actual “crisis climática”.

Falencia que también evidenciaron sus predecesores en el cargo, Lenín Moreno y Rafael Correa, a pesar de que, en lo formal, la Constitución de 2008 convirtió a Ecuador – firmante asimismo de convenios ambientales internacionales como el Acuerdo de París y el Protocolo de Kioto – en el primer país que considera a la naturaleza como sujeto de derechos.

Además, la Constitución establece (Art. 74) que los servicios ambientales “no serán susceptibles de apropiación; su producción, prestación, uso y aprovechamiento serán regulados por el Estado”, al tiempo que reconoce la condición pluricultural y multiétnica de su población, junto con mecanismos de protección de sus derechos territoriales y comunitarios.

Aunque dos de los últimos tres gobiernos ecuatorianos presentaron sendos planes integrales de manejo del cambio climático (en julio de 2012 y febrero de 2023), esto no significa que su desempeño sea siempre congruente con esas políticas o con la Carta Magna.

“Según las Contribuciones Determinadas a Nivel Nacional (NDC, por sus siglas en inglés) presentadas en 2019, las metas son bastante bajas: el gobierno solamente se plantea reducir las emisiones de carbono un 9% en los sectores de energía, agricultura, procesos industriales y residuos, si no cuenta con apoyo externo, o un 20,9% si lo consigue; y en cuestión de Uso de Suelos, Cambios en el Uso de Suelos y Silvicultura (USCUSS), un 4 o un 6% respectivamente”, resumió Natalia Greene, vicepresidenta de la Coordinadora Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones para la Defensa de la Naturaleza y el Medio Ambiente (CEDENMA).

La activista señaló además las contradicciones del Ministerio del Ambiente que, en su opinión, muestra menos agilidad para enfrentar las problemáticas derivadas de la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero o los riesgos de la deforestación impulsada por los cambios en el uso de suelos, que para autorizar la operación de empresas extractivas.

Opciones, contradicciones, y los fondos internacionales

La preocupación de los pueblos y nacionalidades indígenas ecuatorianos por el cambio climático es de larga data. Y también más consistente que las políticas oficiales en la materia, lo que les expone a la ironía de proteger aquello que el propio Estado descuida: en 2010, apenas dos años después de promulgada la actual Constitución Nacional, la Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (Conaie) organizó su “Primer Taller sobre Derechos, Cambio Climático y Bosques”.

Aquello impulsó una incesante serie de actividades similares, que llega hasta el curso “Cambio Climático, Financiamiento y Gestión de Proyectos”, convocado en agosto pasado por la Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana (Confeniae). De estos espacios surgieron diversas alternativas de manejo de la crisis ambiental y también posibilidades de articulación con organizaciones nacionales e internacionales para concretarlas.

Desde el Estado, en cambio, las contradicciones son la regla. Poco después de firmar los Acuerdos de París, se aprobaron en Ecuador varias normas relacionadas con la conservación de la naturaleza, que los pueblos originarios consideran potencialmente lesivas de sus derechos. Como el Código Orgánico de Ambiente (2018) y su Reglamento (2019), que establecen la obligatoriedad de asignar territorios indígenas al sistema nacional de áreas protegidas, gratuitamente, pero sin fijar “un procedimiento claro, expedito para garantizar la seguridad jurídica de la posesión ancestral”, indica el libro Vulneración de Derechos Colectivos de los Pueblos Indígenas en Ecuador.

Otro tanto sucede con el “mercado de carbono”, que por diferentes razones despierta casi tanto interés como escepticismo entre las poblaciones originarias. En particular porque, como se ha subrayado desde el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), si bien las políticas de descarbonización son necesarias, de no aplicarse “medidas de compensación adecuadas” algunas de ellas “pueden tener impactos sociales negativos”. Uno de los más evidentes es la destrucción de empleos en sectores con una alta informalidad laboral, como el agropecuario o el transportista.

En regiones como la Amazonía abundan los servicios ecosistémicos que el planeta necesita para sostener la vida

“Para los pueblos indígenas, esto no puede reducirse a una transacción entre carbono y dinero: se trata de nuestra vida y del lugar donde habitan también los seres no humanos, espirituales, con los que nuestros abuelos tienen que hacer la interlocución para autorizar ese proceso”, observó Justino Piaguaje, dirigente de territorio de la nación Siekopai, en la provincia de Sucumbíos.

En línea con los postulados de Confeniae, de “apoyar a la gobernanza colectiva de la biodiversidad”, Piaguaje opinó que la decisión sobre un acuerdo de reducción de emisiones de carbono en territorios ancestrales (o cualquier medida que implique restricciones en la movilidad o el uso que les den sus habitantes) no puede ser potestad exclusiva del Estado ecuatoriano. “Los pueblos y nacionalidades tenemos que contar con autonomía para decidir”, remarcó. Y si bien rescató lo positivo del aporte de recursos económicos por servicios ambientales, “como el programa SocioBosque”, exigió reciprocidad en el intercambio. “Es importante analizar qué tipo de relación tendríamos, por cuánto tiempo sería, qué se protegerá y qué actividades estarán limitadas”, apuntó.

Acceder a fondos internacionales de apoyo a la conservación ambiental, o a las iniciativas productivas respetuosas de la naturaleza, es un objetivo central en muchas áreas rurales e indígenas del Ecuador, donde es limitado el acceso a empleo e ingresos regulares. En especial, al cruzar la variable étnica con la de género, que desnuda las afectaciones específicas del cambio climático sobre las mujeres, en estas zonas del país, “el 61,3% de mujeres” realizan actividades agropecuarias de alto valor cultural, mediante “la protección y conservación de semillas nativas” y “la producción ancestral libre de agroquímicos”. Pero al tratarse de cultivos de subsistencia, son también más vulnerables a eventos climáticos extremos o irregulares.

Pese a todo, en regiones como la Amazonía abundan los servicios ecosistémicos que el planeta necesita para sostener la vida, existen donantes a nivel internacional que pretenden enfocar su trabajo en los territorios y en relación directa con las comunidades. Pero, opina José Proaño, muchas veces esa relación se limita a una consulta, sin ninguna participación o incidencia real de los Pueblos Indígenas: “Lo que pretendemos nosotros es que las comunidades incidan directamente en las decisiones y reciban los debidos beneficios. Es hora de reconocer la importancia de los Pueblos Indígenas y el papel crucial que juegan, en todo el planeta, en la lucha contra el Cambio Climático.

El cargo LOS PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS, AGENTES EN LA LUCHA CONTRA LA CRISIS CLIMÁTICA apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Article 231 of the Constitution grants Indigenous Peoples the right to land they have “traditionally occupied”, and according to the National Indigenous Peoples Foundation (FUNAI), 761 territories covering  about 1.2 million square kilometers (almost 14% of Brazil’s territory) have in fact been claimed. But of these the government has recognized only 475, despite the fact that the 1988 Constitution also guaranteed that all claims be resolved within five years.

The  legal argument, promoted by the ‘Ruralist’ block of legislators representing the interests of agribusiness, miners and cattle ranchers, would have made that constitutional right time dependent, and placed the burden of proof on the Indigenous Peoples themselves. Such proof may have been difficult to produce: one of the principal reasons being that many Indigenous Peoples were forced to keep moving in order to avoid conflict with agribusiness, and illegal loggers and miners, the very people that today want to limit their rights

There is little doubt that a vote in favor of the ‘Marco Temporal’ would have been disastrous for the country’s Indigenous Peoples, including the Amazon’s 144 Peoples in Voluntary Isolation, who live mainly in territories created to protect them. But the fate of Brazil’s Indigenous Peoples was not the only thing in play, the entire Amazon forest would also have been dramatically affected.

Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon is a global concern, and after the devastating effects of the Bolsonaro government’s policies, in the first year of President Lula da Silva’s third term in office, the world has seen some long desired success in reducing deforestation rates. But under the ‘Marco Temporal’ this would have represented an extremely short term victory in a much longer term war.

For example, it has been estimated that up to 95% of Indigenous territories could have been affected, contributing massively to the climate crisis. According to environmental scientist Ana Claudia Rorato of Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, and conservation biologist Celso Silva-Junior of the Federal University of Maranhão, some 87,000 to 1 million square kilometers of forest could be left unprotected. In other words, left at the mercy of the farmers, loggers, miners, cattle ranchers and others that have fought against recognizing Indigenous territories. Clearing these forests would have caused a massive increase in carbon emissions, and have moved the Amazon closer to a tipping point: a condition which would change the hydrologic cycle and begin a process in which rainforests would be turned into much dryer savanna.

In sum, the ‘Marco Temporal’ would have had devastating consequences for both Brazilian Indigenous Peoples, and the Amazon rainforest and its priceless biodiversity. Land is Life applauds the combined efforts of Brazilian Indigenous Peoples and civil society organizations in the fight to avoid an extremely dangerous and short-sighted policy. However, we must continue to be vigilant, as despite this crucial victory the Ruralist legislative block will not disappear, and will surely be working hard to find other ways to achieve its objectives.

Fotos @Coiabamazonia

El cargo THE MARCO TEMPORAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: LAND IS LIFE CONGRATULATES BRAZIL’S INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ON A CRUCIAL VICTORY apareció primero en Land Is Life.