WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY: THE PARTICIPATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
“I am the river and the river is me”
Yasmín Granados Torres, Environmental Lawyer. Alta Batalla.
The new sociopolitical scenarios are characterized by a greater openness in the constitutional recognition of the multiethnicity of Latin American states. This has produced a need to visualize the living conditions of indigenous peoples, the gaps in access to State assets and to have statistics on intercultural populations (Popolo & Oyarce, 2005). Regarding this last aspect, it is known that the indigenous population of Latin America amounted to 45 million people in 2010, with a high degree of heterogeneity: at one extreme are Mexico and Peru, with almost 17 million and 7 million indigenous populations. respectively; and in the other, Costa Rica and Paraguay, with just over 100,000 indigenous people, and Uruguay with almost 80,000 indigenous people (Economic Commission for Latin America, 2014).
In recent decades, indigenous movements have made significant progress in the struggle for the recognition of their rights. In April 2018, during the Indigenous Peoples Forum, the "Declaration in Defense of the Territory and the Free Determination of Indigenous Peoples or Nations" was presented in which they synthesized their main demands and proposals for the defense of their territories in the face of: " ... the predatory and destructive development model where corporations seek to accumulate wealth for a few, violating our rights and destroying Mother Earth, through the imposition of mega extractive projects such as: mining, hydroelectric, hydrocarbons, forestry, monocultures and infrastructure in the name of development, which are executed without consultation or free, prior and informed consent ”(Abya Yala, 2018).
Indigenous peoples have reiterated their autonomy in decision-making related to the management of natural resources, but discriminatory actions and erroneous approaches to these groups persist. Regarding the defense of the environment, although they have established alliances with environmental organizations and with non-governmental organizations that coincide in the criticism of capitalism for its implications on the environment, in some environmental groups the vision of the good savage or the "good savage persists. ecological indigenous ”caretaker of nature. This classic vision of Western thought that separates nature from culture, sees the indigenous as part of the natural environment that must be defended (Caudillo A., 2010).
Considering the indigenous as part of the natural environment is to place them at the level that modernity always assigned to nature. Donated space that must be served by mastering it. This desire to dominate the land from which modernity is nourished is a constant in Western history (Moran, 2008). In this regard, Gudynas (2002) mentions that the conquest campaigns of the late colony, as in the first years of the independent republics, only sought to “civilize” the spaces that were considered wild, together with the indigenous groups that lived there, considering that western culture was superior and had to domesticate wild environments to make them "habitable."
The objective of this article is to generate a critical reflection on the role of indigenous peoples in the conservation of biodiversity. In this dynamic, it seeks to identify which aspects strengthen and affect its real participation. In addition to internal and external threats that affect the protection of their natural resources and respect for their collective rights in general.
The cultural axiom in the conservation of biodiversity.
The conservation of biological, cultural and linguistic diversity are closely linked. The languages reflect the accumulated knowledge about the environment and natural phenomena typical of the ancestral regions of the indigenous people. They are also the vehicle through which the culture, art and vision of the world that were developed throughout its history by ancestral peoples are transmitted (Salamanca, 2012).
Most of the natural areas chosen for conservation in Mesoamerica are within the lands and territories of indigenous peoples. This coincidence, consisting in the fact that the best preserved natural areas are where indigenous peoples live, is due to the practical model of management and use of natural resources that emanates from traditional knowledge that has a spiritual base, which does not depend only on the relationship between humans and nature, but also the relationship between the visible and invisible world. That is, from the world of spirits, which are related to sacred sites and places, plants and animals; those who cohabit on earth are part of this social and spiritual universe (Camac, 2010).
In this sense, a study by the International Union on the Conserv ación de la Naturaleza (2016) on the relationship between forests, protected areas and indigenous peoples, establishes that the existing overlap in all of Central America is 96,432 km2, including terrestrial and marine areas. In the cases of Belize, Honduras and Costa Rica, the forest covers are greater than 50% of their national territories. This situation is the result of various factors that combine changes in national economic structures, protection actions, incentives for environmental conservation and forest recovery; but above all and above all it is the result of the interaction of the ancestral practices of an important group of indigenous peoples and the actions of environmental protection through the establishment of protected areas (International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2016) .
Indigenous peoples have unique ways of life, and their worldview is based on their close relationship with the land. The territories traditionally used and occupied by them are a primary factor in their physical, cultural and spiritual vitality. This unique relationship with the traditional territory can be expressed in different ways, depending on the particular indigenous people in question and their specific circumstances; may include the traditional use or presence, the preservation of sacred or ceremonial sites, settlements or sporadic crops, seasonal or nomadic gathering, hunting and fishing, the customary use of natural resources or other characteristic elements of indigenous or tribal culture (Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, 2009).
From the Andean countries, mainly Bolivia and Ecuador, the philosophy of Good Living or Kaw Say Sumak has spread to Latin America. This has been a great contribution to understanding and restoring the relationship of human beings with the natural environment. In the words of Luis Macas (2010), Kawsay is life in material and spiritual excellence in harmony with all living beings. For Rojas (2009) it implies an indissoluble and interdependent relationship between the universe, nature and humanity, where an ethical and moral basis favorable to the environment is configured. Caudillo (2012) gives a more comprehensive vision by considering that not only harmony with nature is required, but also changes and demands that go through the transformation of the State and society.
The fact that the natural ecosystems in indigenous territories are less affected, responds to the fact that the relationship of indigenous peoples with their territory is not merely a matter of possession and production but rather a material and spiritual element that they must fully enjoy, to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2004). This has been manifested in the fight for the defense of their territories, in cases such as the Ngobe in Panama before the mining and hydroelectric concessions in their territory; the Malecu in the border area between Nicaragua and Costa Rica for the opening of a trail along the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan River, and the Mayagnas in the Bosawas forest reserve in northern Nicaragua for the illegal extraction of wood (Salamanca, 2012).
The resistance of science to include indigenous peoples in the management of biodiversity.
Historically, the conservation of natural resources has focused on the protection of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in their natural environments (United Nations, 1992). This strictly biological vision excludes from policies, legislation and conservation strategies a wealth of ancestral knowledge that exists about nature, which involves cultural, historical and social aspects.
At the formal level, there are international conventions that recognize the importance of integrating indigenous peoples in the conservation of biodiversity and oblige the subscribing States to ensure compliance. Convention 169 on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (International Labor Organization, 1989) recognizes in its article 15 the right of these peoples to participate in the use, administration and conservation of said resources. While the Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations, 1992) in article 8 j) establishes the obligation of States to respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities that involve traditional lifestyles relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
Although there is progress at the normative level, there is still resistance on the part of the States and various sectors to truly integrate indigenous peoples in biological conservation. An interesting case is the discussion that exists in relation to the discovery of a new species of tapir in the Amazon; the Tapirus Kabomani. It led to a series of publications in the scientific journal Journal of Mammalogy, setting out criteria for and against the inclusion of indigenous communities in scientific research processes.
The researchers Cozzull and Santos (2014) recognized as evidence of the existence of this species that the indigenous hunters of the Karitian indigenous people recognized two varieties of tapir and used to keep the skulls of the hunted animals as trophies, and that this information coincided with the results. of DNA information and morphological description. Contrary to this thesis, researcher Voss (2013) pointed out that the evidence from local people could have other explanations and that native informants are often wrong about the taxonomy of the species. This discussion is an example of the separation that exists between local knowledge and scientific knowledge.
In response to this apparent dichotomy, the approach of Santos (2009) is interesting, strongly questioning the contents of scientific knowledge. In this regard, the author considers that: “[...] being a minimal knowledge that closes the doors to many other knowledge about the world, modern scientific knowledge is a disenchanted and sad knowledge that transforms nature into an automaton [... ] reduces the supposed experimental dialogue to the exercise of an arrogance over nature. Scientific rigor, being based on mathematical rigor, is a rigor that quantifies and that, by quantifying what it does is disqualifying [...] knowledge gains in rigor what it loses in wealth ”(Santos, 2009).
The main threats to indigenous peoples and biodiversity.
In the first place, activities such as biopiracy persist, which constitutes the illegal extraction of genetic and biological resources, this is carried out without the approval of the legitimate owner communities of this information and that lead to a monopoly on intellectual property (Castillo, 2011) . This activity generates greater inequality, does not respect community rights, does not generate any economic benefit or encourages citizen participation.
The second threat is large-scale development projects such as dams and mining activities that have caused violence and forced displacement of indigenous peoples in many countries. However, pressure also exists for conservation policies with the creation of national parks that have forced indigenous people to be displaced from their territories.
The third threat is the acculturation processes as a consequence of the loss of the territories and their exclusion from the decision-making processes of the States. The erosion of culture is particularly sensitive in relation to the survival of the language, these are less and less spoken and their knowledge is not transmitted to the new generations. Consequently, not only is language lost as a linguistic expression, but the entire body of knowledge on the management of natural resources is not lost. As the great Mexican anthropologist Miguel De León Portilla recites: "When a language dies, humanity is impoverished."
Conclution
The intention of this article is to raise a critical discussion at a time when new national and global development and sustainability agendas are raising expectations about the role of indigenous communities in conservation. On the basis of these reflections and my experience in working with communities, it is evident that there is a resistance from the academic and institutional sector linked to the environment to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples over their natural resources, nor has it encouraged a real impact on decision making.
The progress and achievements of indigenous communities regarding the recognition of their rights to land have a gap in relation to social recognition and the actual exercise of control over their territories. Reflection is needed on stereotypes and misrepresentations that in turn could jeopardize improvements in indigenous peoples' human well-being and conservation goals.
Conservation policies and programs cannot ignore the historically, socially and economically inequitable conditions that shape the livelihoods of indigenous communities. Aggressive development policies are rarely questioned at the international and national level, expectations that local populations and their lands offset and cushion the impact of environmental degradation continue to rise as a predetermined solution.
Indigenous peoples should be included as part of multi-ethnic societies, recognizing or its historical contribution to the conservation of biodiversity. Their integration into decision-making should be like that of any citizen and not as idealized conservationists. Finally, it is necessary to open interdisciplinary dialogues and generate more collaboration between social and natural scientists; have indigenous communities as partners, not as spectators.