Can the Indians ally themselves to the Brazilian State to promote the
conservation of existing natural resources in their lands? Can the
Indians ally themselves with third parties, to promote the exploration of
existing natural resources in their lands? These issues have generated
controversy in the discussions which aim to formulate the legislation for
the defense of Indian and environmental rights, and also in relation to
the work strategies of the organizations which jointly support the
indigenous communities. The difficulties stemming from the multiplication
of relations of contact between indigenous groups and Brazilian society
(and International), associated to the the ambiguity of concepts
consecrated in the tradition of the Brazilian constitution relative to
Indian rights, cause enormous confusion among indigenists and
environmentalists who act in the government and non-governmental sphere.
The relations of contact, once established, introduce into indigenous
societies necessities and expectations which cannot be solved by the
economic and cultural practices prior to contact. Generally, prior even
to seeing their first white man, the indigenous communities begin to be
affected by white diseases, unrecognized by their immunological system and
their traditional medicine. The first contacts are usually made by
adventurers in conflicting contexts and in unequal relationships. They
are mediators who are looking to explore the riches of the Indians and
their lands. Even cases of official contact are established by generating
relations of dependency, offering knives, pans and other practical
consumer goods which produce new expectations and necessities. The
pre-contact relation between Indians and nature has a high degree of
sustainability. They occupy a determined area and within that area
practice agriculture, collect, hunt and fish until the resources start to
become exhausted. While the former area recovers, they move village sites
in search of new natural resource reserves -- thus, one day able to return
to where their old village was located. This process is not always a
pacific or linear one, as war is a frequent resource, in the manner in
which a previously occupied area by a determined group becomes the
possession of others. There are, certainly, cases of pre-Columbian groups
which excessively pressured the resources in their territories, but there
are also cases in which traditional resource management implied in an
increase of biodiversity, in the development through cultural processes of
genetic varieties of great nutritive importance. In general the groups
which lived in the tropical forests of the Americas had many available
resources. At present, pertinent as well to the future, indigenous
peoples live in radically different circumstances. Even assuming the best
hypothesis, that their lands are demarcated in large tracts and are not
invaded, they will be confined in them. With the existing resources
contained there, they will be forced to produce their subsistence, and the
excesses, which is indispensable for purchasing consumer goods they desire
or need. If the population grows, which is desirable, above all in the
cases of peoples who are in a process of demographic re-growth as a result
of contacts of genocide, the pressure, which they will have to exert upon
these finite resources, will be even greater. To re-new sustainable
relations, they will need support from partners, technical support,
scientific knowledge which will provide them with some degree of autonomy
and resistance to the total devastation. Another hypothesis for survival
is via official or missionary charity, those who give the Indians what
they need, and are capable of continuing with this type of donation in a
permanent and increasing fashion. Dependency in the place of autonomy.
The restrictive interpretations of the Constitutional rights of the
Indians do not make sense, perhaps only to those who hasten to become the
tutors of the Indians. The Constitution speaks of the exclusive right to
usufruct (fruition) which the Indians hold upon the existing riches of the
soil, the rivers, and the lakes within their lands. It is a right, not an
impediment. If to exert this right in an effective manner the Indians
ally themselves, if this association is not prejudicial to them, there is
no violation of exclusive usufruct. Exclusive usufruct does not signify
that the Indians can only explore their resources with their own hands,
with their own technical people, with their own knowledge or with their
own equipment. Or they would only be able to explore them to a much
lesser point than their given possibilities and necessities, and even
still, without a guarantee of sustainability. If indigenous usufruct is
subject to such limitations, it would not be usufruct, but merely
limitation. There are many cases in which destructive associations
between Indians and third parties result in the environmental detonation
of their territories. They are not inscribed within the legally foreseen
usufruct. The third parties in these cases, could neither devastate nor
misappropriate resources, as they do with the economic results in
society. But one cannot hold the Indians unilaterally responsible for
environmental conservation. They are able do what others do too. They
should do it better, since the right to resources also pertains to their
future generations. The same should count for the others. The Indians
are not atavistic ecologists, but can, more easily than any cattle
raiser, be interested or become convinced to preserve the natural
resources in their lands because they are clear about the necessity of
these resources for their lives. If the Indians can explore their
resources even in an unsustainable manner, since the resources and the
decision whether or not to explore them pertains to them, can they not
also conserve these resources? Can they not obtain official support for
this? Can they not carry out a zoning of their territory to define where
they are going to explore and where they will conserve? Can they not
obtain formal recognition from the State for the zoning of their
territory? Can they not build political alliances with the involved
sectors of society who desire environmental protection? Autonomy or
limitation? There are indigenous demands to this effect. The Kayapo of
the Aukre village, in southern Para, notorious mahogany sellers, decided
to demarcate part of their territory of occupation in the form of an
ecological station, which is exempted from any predatory and subsistence
activity, and develop research projects upon the existing natural
resources, of the flora and fauna, found there in partnership with a
Canadian environmental organization. There is absolute respect for the
borders of this area. Is official recognition in this respect possible?
The Xicrim do Cateti, also located in southern Para, together with ISA,
carried out the zoning of their territory, with the objective to manage
the wood, but also aiming at the permanent conservation of their cashew
nuts. Did they practice an unconstitutional act? Can they obtain
official recognition for the zoning of their territory? Were they
converted to neo-liberalism? The Yanomami never so much as walk through
the numerous, existing mountains in their territory. It is the resting
place of the spirits of their ancestors. The absolute conservation
(inviolability) of these mountains is an immemorial and future cultural
value. There is no reason to protect them from the Yanomami themselves,
but indeed from the mining companies that desire the riches in their
territory. Should the Brazilian State promote this protection? Invest
concretely in it? Compensate the Yanomami, out of respect for the
mountains, which are, in fact, among the highest and prettiest in Brazil?
How many indigenous peoples would not be interested in the long-term
protection of their natural resources and cultural values which are
attributed, in part, to their lands? What support could they obtain, by
associating themselves to the protection of these resources, through the
protection of their rights? What would they have to lose? On the other
hand, a resource conservation policy or a biodiverstiy one should not
ignore the importance which indigenous lands maintain in the national
context (11% of the national territory) and, principally in the context of
the Amazon (19% of the legal Amazon). We should not underestimate the
concrete possibilities of linking the conservation of resources with
future projects with various indigenous peoples. In many situations, in
which the indigenous lands are diminutive and super populated, the
difficulties would be great and the possibilities of conservation would be
small. However, in the cases in which indigenous peoples were able to
obtain the recognition of extensive territories, the compatibility is
virtual, albeit, evident. To imagine a national system of environmental
conservation areas, without a systematic communication with indigenous
territories, is to think small and conserve little. The fundamental
difference between natural resource reserves located in indigenous lands
and those situated outside of them, is in the fact that the former
presupposes necessarily the initiative, or at least, the support of the
Indians themselves in its creation, in the protagonistic participation in
its management, the effective compatibility between a conservation policy
and their future projects. One cannot unilaterally establish a natural
resource reserve in indigenous territory, like the public power does in
the case of other environmental conservation areas, because, then yes,
they would be violating the rights and desires of the occupying group, and
the efficiency of the conservation would be compromised. The plenitude of
the right to usufruct presupposes the possibility of association for
natural resource exploration and conservation. The law should open
alternatives for Indians, and not limit them. The diversity of future
projects of these peoples cannot be contemplated in a protective
perspective of pseudo ideological judgment, even if well intentioned,
about whether they can or cannot explore or conserve that which pertains
to them by right, in partnership or not with allies who can support them
or with public institutions which should support them. For those who
allege that the creation of natural resource reserves in indigenous
territories is unconstitutional, to follow is a re-production of the
concept of indigenous lands in accordance with the first paragraph of
Article 231 of the Brazilian Constitution. They are territories
traditionally occupied by Indians, ones inhabited by them in a permanent
characteristic, ones utilized for their productive activities, ones
vital for the preservation of environmental resources necessary for their
good state and those necessary for their physical and cultural
reproduction, according to their usages, customs and traditions. If the
Constituion was stupid or perverse, and impeded the preservation of
necessary resources for their well being, it would be the case to alter
it. Fortunately, the Constitution is generous in respect to the Indians
and their habitats, and only requires respect and comprehension. To
follow is a proposal formulated by ISA as a sugestion to include in the
projeto de lei under consideration in Congress, which aims to create the
National System of Conservation Areas, by rapporteur Deputy Fernando
Gabeira. The text, so that readers can make their own evaluation, will
follow.
Brasilia, 10 de setembro de 1996 Instituto Socioambiental