Source: Cimi

About 700 indigenous people have transferred the Indigenous to an occupation in April the Chamber of Deputies on the Esplanade of the ministries in the Federal District on Tuesday (16). The decision was taken by the Indians during the public hearing convened by the parliamentary front in defense of the indigenous. The indigenous leaders claim that only come out of the Congress when the front bench, House Commission that will extinguish the PEC 215/2000 among parliamentarians.

“We do not accept nonegotiation or dialogue type m for PEC 215. What we want is for the Commission to be undone, “said Sonia Guajajara, leadership of the APIB (Articulation of the indigenous peoples of Brazil). The Mayor, Henrique Eduardo Alves (PMDB/RN) was present at the public hearing after much pressure from the indigenous movement. On the claim of indigenous peoples, only said that he would ask the party leaders who do not indicate to the Commission representatives of the PEC 215 until the situation was good for all parties.

“No President, we do not accept this. Therefore, we will stay here (in occupation to Congress) for an indefinite period “.

BERLIN, 15 April 2013:



Bacre Waly Ndiaye, the Director Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Conference reminded everyone about the history of the United Nations battle for human rights in his opening address to mark the 20th Anniversary of the Vienna World Conference “Vienna + 20″, which hosted by the Human Rights Forum Menschenrechte und das Deutsche Institut für Menschenrechte in Berlin.


Vienna + 20
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE INDIVISIBLE


Opening address by Bacre Waly Ndiaye
Director Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Berlin, 15 April 2013

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for the opportunity to journey back into the past, and to measure the distance we have covered since the Vienna World conference on human rights, 20 years ago.

It is also an occasion for me to recall and pay homage to Stéphane Hessel, for whom it is my heart-felt and painful duty to replace at this podium.

A diplomat, writer, member of the French Resistance and survivor of the Buchenwald concentration camp, Stéphane Hessel was an inspiring and beloved example of humility, clarity, perception and depth, and I believe I speak for many of the people in this room when I say that I sorely miss his presence among us today.

I met Stéphane Hessel in Strasbourg in January 1993, at a cross-regional preparatory meeting for the Vienna conference which was being held under the auspices of the Council of Europe. It was barely six months before the conference was due to take place, and the general assumption was that it was going to be a failure. A failure so terrible that it might even lead to a roll-back of human rights protection around the world.

Despite the efforts of some leaders, including former US President Jimmy Carter, there were many disagreements on the agenda. Like the 1968 Tehran conference, 25 years before Vienna, it seemed that the delegations would break apart into blocs, each grasping tightly onto their highly fortified positions — the Western countries favouring the primacy, or exclusivity, of civil and political rights; the East bloc and many developing nations arguing for economic and social rights above all.

In addition, there was a bloc of countries pushing for what they called “third generation” human rights; these spanned a number of variously defined group rights and collective rights. And there was another sizeable group of countries who vigorously argued that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was in some deep sense the product of a specifically Western culture, possibly imposed by colonial powers, and that in reality human rights should be understood to vary according to the characteristics and traditions of different cultures, so as to accommodate the peoples that were not around the table in 1948.

These were some very deep, very sharp differences — potentially irreconcilable. Moreover, as many of you here today will recall, the world was undergoing a series of tectonic shifts at that time, and some of them seemed extremely ominous.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall had created a global surge of hope, and indeed it was the main factor that had inspired the Vienna conference to be called in the first place. It had seemed to be the right moment for a new world to review its agenda for human rights, from basic principles to implementation.

But at the same time, the cannons were rumbling just next door, in the former Yugoslavia. There were charnel houses and killing fields less than a day’s drive from the conference rooms where our meeting was to take place.

It was in this difficult, conflicted period — the run-up to what promised to be a very trying conference — that I met Stéphane Hessel on a bus. We were both on our way to the Palais de l’Europe, in Strasbourg. I had no inkling that he was an Ambassador, or that he had worked at the UN during the process of writing the Universal Declaration, or that he was in fact one of the leading figures in our modern human rights landscape. What I knew from the start was that he was friendly, funny, humble, with a sharp mind and no pretensions whatsoever. He was in his mid 70s, though he looked far younger, and he could recite the entire Universal Declaration by heart. Over dinner, poetry spooled out of him. He was both a learned man and completely devoid of ego. It was a joy and a never ending lesson of life to be in his company.

It turned out that Stéphane Hessel had been asked to chair the discussion on the relationship between human rights, development and democracy at that preparatory conference in Strasbourg. And I, who was then the UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions, had been invited to preside the commission on the protection of human rights and development. So we did have quite a lot of work to do in common together with President Mary Robinson of Ireland who volunteered to be the rapporteur of the cross regional Strasbourg conference.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As our working relationship blossomed, we watched the larger process of developing consensus in Vienna unfold. Just a few weeks before the Vienna conference, Ibrahima Fall, the Secretary-General of the conference, still had quite literally hundreds of parentheses on his draft document for consensus. But gradually those parentheses fell away, and were replaced by agreement.

The key point, I now believe, was acceptance of what became almost a magic formula: the universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights. This was the single factor that was most responsible for crafting the agreement that ultimately emerged. It allowed a number of States that had been resisting the entire notion of economic and social rights – because they saw them as a laundry-list of aspirations rather than rights intrinsic to human dignity and freedom – to take these economic and social rights on board, and it really anchored them within our discussions.

For example, the right to development. Several delegations would essentially get up and leave the room if a discussion of the right to development was tabled. There was a very binary mindset: either political rights, OR economic rights. But if you phrased this as indivisibility — as an inter-related and inter-dependant constellation of human rights, each of them a meaningful contribution to enjoyment of the others — those same delegations would stay in the room.

The debate regarding the alleged cultural specificities of human rights was resolved in a manner that to me seemed to strongly recall the legacy of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which had been adopted in 1981. Ibrahima Fall was indeed a member of the drafting Committee of the African Charter. The African Charter states that ”civil and political rights cannot be dissociated from economic, social and cultural rights in their conception as well as universality “ and makes liberal reference to the primordial importance of rights and freedoms in traditional African cultures. It seeks, in its article 29, to preserve and reinforce Africa’s positive cultural values. (One example of those values would be the traditional freedom accorded to griots to criticize without risk of reprisals the conduct of the powerful. This in a sense prepares the way for freedom of expression and information).

This approach — of working with positive traditional values to strengthen attachment to the rights laid down in the Universal Declaration — was a particularly interesting one, given that African countries could not easily be suspected of seeking a colonial domination over other regions. As I’ve noted, in the run-up to Vienna a number of countries were asserting that human rights varied according to national and regional characteristics. These were countries which had not been present in 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, because they did not at that time yet exist. The underlying notion was that criticism of your government for its failure to respect individual liberty and dignity was a kind of betrayal, a form of cultural imperialism, so that such critics were somehow working in the service of foreign, possibly colonial, interests.

I had myself an experience of this kind and had to confront the then President of Benin, Mathieu Kerekou, while leading an Amnesty International delegation.

Of course all countries are not the same, and all voices must, naturally, be heard. But these cultural specificities in no way erode the universality of human rights. Indeed aspiration to equality of all human beings, in dignity and rights inspired the fight against colonialism and doctrines of racial or cultural superiority. And the formula that ultimately created consensus on this point was: you choose your path, but the goal is something we hold in common. Your specificity will influence your way to advance towards the common goal, but that goal — of human dignity and human freedom, via the specific human rights elucidated in the International Bill of Rights — is something we share.

This inclusive approach, which wraps in the resilience and flexibility of every culture’s traditions to strengthen a common goal, has since then been used many times, to shield the International Bill of Rights from various specious attempts to alter its integrity with claims of cultural or religious singularity.
And so the Vienna Declaration became one of the strongest human rights documents of the past century. It emphasized that human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and took the key notion of universality a step further by committing States to the promotion and protection of all human rights “regardless of their political, economic, and cultural systems.”
Dear Participants,
What emerged from Vienna was powerful new recognition of women’s rights as human rights. The Declaration called for universal ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the integration of women’s rights into all UN activities. It recommended adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and endorsed the creation of a Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women.
Today, denial of rights to women — including sexual violence and domestic violence, subjects that had always been conceived as private crimes rather than human rights issues — are the subject of detailed reports by all the world’s governments in the course of the remarkable Universal Periodic Review, and this concerted global scrutiny of a long-neglected subject is just one of the many achievements of Vienna.
Mindful of the horrific abuse that continued in Bosnia, the Vienna conference was particularly vocal regarding impunity. Thus just one month after, the first ad hoc international criminal tribunal since Nuremberg was established, the Vienna Declaration encouraged the International Law Commission to push on with its work on establishing a permanent international criminal court.
A number of you in this room work closely on cases before the European Court of Human Rights, and you will understand the importance of this process.
The Vienna Declaration also amplified treaty implementation and their international and national monitoring. For instance, the Optional Protocols to the CAT, to CEDAW and to the ICESCR provide very important tools for the implementation of treaty bodies obligations; so is the expansion of special procedures to all sets of rights. It also called for new momentum in developing national human rights institutions. The thrust here was to “bring human rights home”.
This meant recognizing that human rights are not abstract words on an international treaty, but very real and practical rights to which every child, woman and man in every country are entitled.
They are also not limited to legal cases before the courts, but cut transversally across professions such as education, medicine and more.
National human rights institutions such as the German Institute of Human Rights — which was, I believe, set up following Vienna — are best placed to embed human rights into their home territory.
Vienna also acknowledged the crucial importance of civil society organizations. An unprecedented 800 NGOs were present, and they contributed with striking energy to the proceedings and to the mobilization of public opinion worldwide for a positive outcome of the Vienna Conferences.
Some of them are with us today in this room, as part of the German Human Rights Forum that was established following Vienna, and now counts 48 members.
But today we are seeing human rights NGOs under attack in several countries as “foreign agents” who face surveillance and even unacceptable reprisal. And I wonder, if Vienna were to be restaged today, whether they would be accorded as much prominence and respect as they were in 1993.
Women, children, persons with disabilities, indigenous people, representatives of minorities and migrants: individuals from all these groups testified to their experience at Vienna, and their concerns are reflected in the Declaration and Programme of Action. This laid the foundation for further development of international legal standards, their subsequent codification and establishment of means to encourage implementation.
Dear Friends,
It was also in Vienna that, upon an initiative from Amnesty International, NGOs pushed very hard for the creation of a High Commissioner for Human Rights. This was an old, blue-sky notion that had always seemed far too politically divisive and far-fetched to function. Most at the preparatory conference in Strasbourg thought it completely unrealistic. For one thing, how could the East bloc, the West and developing nations ever agree on who would become High Commissioner?

But the remarkable consensus that emerged, day after day, at the Vienna conference, made it possible for the idea of a High Commissioner to be accepted, too.

So as we discuss the legacy of the Vienna World Conference, we do also need to look at everything the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has achieved, because in a very real sense, OHCHR is the child of the Vienna Conference.

The post of High Commissioner was created to ensure that an independent, authoritative voice would speak out against human rights violations wherever they occur; to coordinate and supports the work of a range of different bodies; and to bring the weight of the United Nations to the work of supporting human rights for all.

With only two field presences in 1993, OHCHR now operates in 58 countries, and these field offices have increasingly played a human rights protection role — which is the ultimate aim of OHCHR — through their direct interventions, advocacy, monitoring, and contribution to legislative and policy reforms.

OHCHR has also become the focal point for commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions into violations of human rights and humanitarian law, whether through mandates of the Human Rights Council, the Security Council, the Secretary-General or upon the High Commissioner’s own initiative.

In addition to ensuring that human rights promotion and protection has become an integral feature of the UN’s peacekeeping and peace building, OHCHR has endeavoured to be increasingly responsive to crises, with a rapid response capability. The Office deploys staff for human rights monitoring or assessments in cases of deteriorating human rights situations, and recently has participated in UN responses to humanitarian crises such as the Haiti earthquake in 2010. These crisis response activities are increasingly contributing to the fight against impunity, and have been paving the way for international criminal investigations opened by the ICC.
In order to play a key role in UN efforts in the most critical situations, OHCHR must continue to expand its crisis capabilities, and explore new opportunities to engage effectively. In the late 90s it became a key member of the UN prevention and early warning framework team. The recent establishment of the UN Operations and Crisis Centre is an opportunity to provide more early-warning and crisis-related human rights information to senior decision-makers. But becoming a more systematic, operational and predictable actor in humanitarian and human rights crisis response remains a challenge.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Alongside the Office of the High Commissioner, the entire human rights system of the UN has grown stronger since Vienna.
The Human Rights Council began its work in 2006, replacing the Commission on Human Rights. The Council has gained credibility for its brave and steadfast positions in the face of controversy. It has adopted approximately 456 resolutions which address a wide range of issues, some of them very sensitive — such as the protection of human rights on the Internet — and others serving to create a consensus on thorny issues such as “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.”
In particular, the Human Rights Council has been notable for its successful management of the unique and remarkable Universal Periodic Review. This process — which examines every UN Member State’s human rights record without exception — requires governments to take charge of assessing and challenging each other’s detailed submissions regarding human rights measures in a number of specific topics, including women’s rights, domestic violence and gender-based discrimination. Other stake-holders, including non-governmental organizations, UN country teams, Treaty body experts and Special Rapporteurs, may also be involved in these Universal Periodic Reviews, and I can assure you that it is often a very powerful process.
During its first cycle, which ended in 2011, the Universal Periodic Review examined every UN Member State’s human rights record without exception, and it is now embarked on a second cycle. Implicit in this cycle is the need for every country to make progress regarding a number of benchmarks and recommendations that arose during the first round. Noting that the entire UPR procedure is also webcast — and thus available not only live but also permanently via the Internet — I think there can be no person in this room who does not appreciate what a ground-breaking process the UPR really is, and its potential for creating real advances in human rights in countries across the globe.
In June 1993, there were just 26 Special Procedures with thematic or country-based mandates. Today there are 48 separate mandates with 72 experts appointed by the Council. This combination of independence, expertise and UN-bestowed authority is a powerful one.
The human rights treaty bodies have also grown in number and weight. Two major new international treaties – on Persons with Disabilities and Disappearance – and nine important substantive and procedural Optional Protocols have been adopted since Vienna. In 1993, the seven treaties and protocols had received 742 ratifications by States. That number has grown to 2010 ratifications of 18 treaties and protocols.
Dear Participants
If we were to gather again in Vienna today, would we have a better text, or would the final declaration fall back from our 1993 commitments?

The global context was ominous in 1993, and it is ominous again now.

I refer not only to the upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa over the past two years, and to the crisis in the Sahel, but also to the painful global financial and economic crises and threats to the environment that make Vienna’s focus on economic, social and cultural rights especially relevant. Migrants, minorities and indigenous peoples remain the most vulnerable; the low ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is a matter of great concern.

In addition, terrorism and counter-terrorism have created a situation that seems to once more call into question rights we had thought were agreed on for good. I refer of course to acts of forced disappearance, arbitrary detention, and torture which pull us back to practises unbefitting of mankind.
There has been significant progress since Vienna in tackling impunity for international crimes. In particular, ad hoc tribunals such as those for Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Cambodia, but also the establishment of the International Criminal Court — the world’s first permanent tribunal with powers to prosecute suspected perpetrators of international crimes.
Yet here too, we still have a long way to go. The ICC can only become involved if the State concerned is among the 122 State Parties to the Rome Statute, or if a situation is referred to it by the Security Council. Two important situations – Darfur in 2008, and Libya in 2011 — have been referred, but the Security Council has so far failed with regard to Syria, despite OHCHR’s repeated reports of widespread or systematic crimes and violations.
Despite some truly inspiring advances in combating impunity and ensuring accountability both internationally and at the national level, far too many people with command responsibility continue to escape justice following gross human rights violations. Since Vienna, hundreds of thousands of people have died in genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia Herzegovina. The Palestinian territories are still occupied. Massive violations have occurred in Iraq and Sri Lanka. And war crimes continue to be committed in numerous internal conflicts, including those in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Syria and Sudan.
Moreover, despite tremendous progress, there continues to be some resistance within the UN and the international community regarding the priority that needs to be given to human rights issues. The economic context affects the UN as a whole, but has particular impact on OHCHR, which has since its inception been financially fragile. For many years, limited funding to OHCHR (we painfully moved from 1% to 3% of the UN regular budget) revealed unwillingness to support a strong human rights mandate, and this problem may re-emerge.
Many other challenges will face us in coming years. The spectre of discrimination and prejudice continues to fall across entire communities, creating obstacles to free choice, twisting lives, inciting hate and violence on the basis of perceived differences in birth or belief. Thus, because of spurious assertions based on national, ethnic or racial origin or religion, Muslim, Jews, Roma, Christians and indigenous people live, in various regions, under the threat of violence, and are prevented from playing full roles in their society.
Another example of such prejudice is the problem of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Recently there has been significant movement, including the first formal UN debate on the issue, which took place in March 2012 at the Human Rights Council. The atmosphere at the outset was tense and some States walked out rather than engage in discussion. There was also a walk out at the Durban Review conference against Racism and Xenophobia in 2008. But different States were involved and the very fact that there was a structured, formal debate among States was in itself a step forward.
Yet another thorny topic that will require sustained attention in years to come is helping companies and corporations to develop human rights agendas. Important economic actors, both transnational and national, need to understand the nature and legal protection of economic, social and cultural rights; the right to health; the right to housing; and, the right to water. We will also need to provide training and support for partners engaged in the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, including NGOs, judges, lawyers, and national human rights institutions, as well as civil servants and regulators.
In fact, in a more general sense, translating States’ human rights commitments into reality is perhaps the single most important challenge of our time, following a long period devoted more to standard-setting. The demand on OHCHR’s field offices for technical assistance has increased steadily, and national human rights institutions can also play a crucial role. We also need to enhance the United Nations’ ability to improve the human rights of all. And this means we must also continue striving to mainstream human rights throughout the UN system, particularly in terms of the UN’s development agenda. This mainstreaming has been something of a challenging process, to date, but as part of drawing up post 2015 goals, we have seen some significant advances, including on 30 September 2010 when, under the leadership of High Commissioner Navi Pillay, 16 UN agencies agreed on a joint declaration on the human rights of migrants in irregular situation. Human rights are now much more widely regarded as indispensible assets, and, indeed, as the foundations, of a global partnership for development.

Dear Participants,

As we embark today on an agenda that promises to be rich with insight and practical advice, it seems to me I can do no better than to urge all of you to honour the memory of Stéphane Hessel, by striving for a world in which his vision of human freedom and dignity can be realized in the spirit of article 28 of the UDHR. All of us, I believe, are convinced that this world can only come about if there is greater accountability, the complete elimination of discrimination and prejudice, a more equitable allocation of resources, and a globalized freedom from want and from fear. Laws and international bodies are a necessary baseline, but the real work is to strengthen the “girdle of brotherly hands”, and of equally sisterly hands to make human rights, at last, a reality for all.

Thank you.

Opinião de Earth Peoples: Mesmo que o governo realizou um seminário para jovens indígenas sobre instrumentos dos direitos indígenas internacionais parece cínico, como uma dissimulação da realidade no país. Apesar disso aplaudimos a qualquer país (governo) que facilita tais eventos informativos importantes. Os Povos Indígenas do Brasil são empurrados contra a parede pela legislação cada vez mais rigorosa em curso, que pretende fazer exatamente o coposto do que foi falado no seminário.

Formação sobre Direitos com base nos instrumentos nacional e internacional, Políticas Públicas e Movimento indígena.

Como convidados do governo, estavam representantes da OIT, Secretaria Geral da Presidência, FUNAI, MInc e Assessora parlamentar que falaram sobre a Conveção 169 e sua aplicabilidade, o funcionamento do Congresso Nacional, a Constituição Federal e a Declaração das Nações Unidas sobre Direitos dos povos indígenas e Plano setorial de culturas indígenas. A Juventude convidou também profissionais e lideranças indígenas atuantes como a Vice Coordenadora da COIAB Sônia Guajajara do Maranhão e Sandro Tuxá da Bahia para falarem sobre os desafios atuais para o movimento indígena e as experiências de lutas e conquistas.
Sônia Guajajara ressaltou o difícil momento da conjuntura política para os povos indígenas citando ameaças de retrocessos na legislação brasileira e a violação dos tratados internacionais, destacando a PEC 215, 038 ambas tiram do executivo a responsabilidade sobre demarcação de Terras indígenas e a transfere para o Congresso Nacional, sobre a Portaria 303 editada pela Advocacia Geral da União, que é um pacote de medidas inconstitucionais baseadas nas 19 condicionantes estabelecidas pelo STF por ocasião da demarcação da TI Raposa Serra do Sol/RR, um processo ainda não concluído, a PEC 237 que trata da possibilidade de arrendamento de Terras indígenas para grandes produtores e o PL 1610 que se refere a exploração mineral nas Terras indígenas. “Como podem perceber, os nossos direitos conquistados à duras penas com a luta de várias lideranças indígenas, hoje enfrenta a ganância dos 3 poderes da União, o Executivo, o Judiciário e o Legislativo”disse.
No último dia da oficina houve um breve encontro com o Presidente do STF o Ministro Joaquim Barbosa, onde foi pedido atenção especial aos casos de impunidade em relação aos conflitos, a violência e assassinatos de indígenas e nenhum culpado nunca foi punido, outra questão abordada foi os processos que tramitam no STF para demarcação das TI Guarani Kaiowá no MS. Sônia Guajajara afirmou ao Sr Ministro que ao Julgar as condicionantes mantenha seu posicionamento como foi na ocasião do seu voto na época e que interceda com base na Constituição Federal e não sob o interesse dos ruralistas, pois a Portaria 303 atende exclusivamente a um acordo com esta categoria. O Ministro mostrou-se surpreso e disse desconhecer tal Portaria e que sem dúvida alguma não faz nenhum sentido, pois este não é o papel da AGU. Marcio Kaingang, sustentou que muitos conflitos agrários se acirraram pois para os grandes produtores a Portaria já está valendo.

Pedimos cuidado e atenção especial quanto ao posicionamento do Ministro em relação a esse julgamento.

SEM INTERVENÇÃO PÚBLICA, AS COMPENSAÇÕES FINANCEIRAS DA USINA DE BELO MONTE
DESAGREGAM AS ALDEIAS DA REGIÃO

Willian Vieira

Para ir de Altamira à aldeia Paquiçamba são duas horas de caminhonete por uma rota lamacenta que só ganha asfalto quando ladeada pelos canteiros da usina de Belo Monte. De barco levaria oito horas. Graças a uma carona, após oito dias na cidade, Marino Juruna é recebido por seus índios. Em silêncio. Traz em seu poder só um galão de gasolina. Nada de material de construção, nenhuma notícia de avanço nas negociações pela ansiada indenização da Norte Energia. “A aldeia não é mais a mesma”, diz o cacique, enquanto abre a janela da recém-construída casa com cinco cômodos, sofá e televisão e aponta para as antenas parabólicas e telhados que desalojaram li palha dos casebres.



Poços artesianos, um engenho de farinha e placas de energia solar surgem no horizonte, tudo comprado com recursos do consórcio construtor da usina. Os últimos quilômetros da estrada, antes intrafegáveis, ganharam uma cobertura de pedra, obtida na marra” após bloqueio no canteiro, diz Juruna. “É o lado bom da coisa. E eles não dão nem metade do que agente pede.”



Das palavras do cacique emerge um dos maiores efeitos da obra: um jogo de negociações entre indígenas e empresas, fruto de um modus operandi duvidoso e da ausência da Funai, que transformaram Paquiçamba, uma das poucas comunidades diretamente afetadas, no retrato fiel do impacto cultural e socioeconômico de Belo Monte. A aldeia não é mais a mesma”, repete Juruna. Até o começo de 2011, quando a obra começou, havia 37 famílias sob sua liderança. Hoje são nove. As outras se dividiram em três novas aldeias, cada qual com seu cacique. “Esses recursos causaram desunião. Muitos pensam que a liderança está desviando recursos, ouvem que a outra aldeia tem mais objetos, que podemos conseguir mais.” Juruna suspira. “Já botei meu cargo à disposição. Ninguém quer.”



O caso não é único. Foram criadas 15 aldeias em dois anos. As 19 existentes em 2010 viraram 34 em 2012. Outras estão prestes a nascer. Uma “proliferação de aldeias” que o indigenista Antonio Carlos Magalhães atribui ao Programa Emergencial, acordo assinado entre a Funai e a Norte Energia, em 2010, para fornecer compensações aos indígenas enquanto as medidas do Projeto Básico Ambiental (PRA), emaranhado de contrapartidas que vai de ações de desenvolvimento nas aldeias ao saneamento de Altamira, não estivessem prontas, mas que virou eufemismo para uma mesada de 30 mil reais paga aos índios por dois anos, até setembro de 2012.



O documento garante o ‘‘fortalecimento institucional” da Funai, a “promoção do etnodesenvolvimento” e a “proteção das terras indígenas”. A fundação receberia infraestrutura, e os índios, “sem prejuízo de sua identidade”, participariam de reuniões, sem “a necessidade de estarem na cidade”.



O auxílio ao órgão público foi temporário. 



As terras indígenas estão vulneráveis. E os índios, cada vez mais dependentes. Daí as lanchas seguirem rumo às aldeias com colchões, televisores c quinquilharias e voltarem para vendê-los por preços ínfimos. Como um escambo moderno, o processo “deslocou a atenção dos índios do questionamento sobre a barragem para o consumo”, diz Magalhães. As aldeias deixaram seus roçados e se acostumaram à dependência alimentar. Lideranças jovens passaram a criar aldeias de olho nos repasses. O resultado foi perda de identidade cultural. Epicentro da construção da mais ambiciosa obra do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC), Altamira, maior município brasileiro em extensão, virou um misto de balcão de negócios e ponto de peregrinação de índios em busca de demandas materiais. Em turnos, eles batem ponto no prédio da Funai, na sede do Ministério Público ou onde houver uma autoridade. Mas visitam, sobretudo, o número 1.482 da Avenida João Pessoa, à beira do Xingu, sede de um escritório da Norte Energia dedicado às “questões indígenas”. Nas paredes, fotos de índios. Nas cadeiras, índios sentados. São 30 atendimentos diários. A explicação é óbvia: o governo e o consórcio querem terminar a usina. Os índios, melhorar de vida. A Funai não tem estrutura para intermediar. Assim, as nebulosas negociações entre as partes seguem sua rotina.



“A gente fazia uma lista e entregava na Norte Energia. Aí buscava no escritório. Comida, combustível, motor”, diz José Carlos Arara, homem de expressão glacial e líder da aldeia Terrawagã. ‘‘Eles prometeram 27 casas, pista, antena de celular. Nada.” Para chegar a Altamira e exigir seus “direitos”, Arara leva seis horas de barco e dorme em uma rede na Casa do índio, improvisado albergue para as diversas etnias. Como ele, dezenas dividem os quartos da casa. Alguns gastam dias de barco e vêm para estadias de quase um mês, quando fazem o périplo de sempre: compram mantimentos, participam de reuniões e passam horas no escritório da empresa. “Acabou o tempo da gente. Neste ano, não plantei um pé de mandioca, Essa é a vida do índio hoje.”



São 4 da tarde na sede da Funai em Altamira. índios mais velhos fumam tabaco em compridos cachimbos, enquanto jovens conversam em suas línguas, e crianças fogem do tédio com risadas. Dentro, em uma sala com ar-condicionado, está Estella Libardi de Souza, a coordenadora regional da fundação. “O fortalecimento institucional nunca ocorreu”, frisa. A ideia do termo seria fortalecer a Funai para que esta pudesse fiscalizar e tentar reduzir o impacto da obra. “O consórcio doou cinco voadeiras e vários carros e bancou a contratação de mais de 20 funcionários”, diz. Mas, com o fim do prazo, os empregados foram desligados. “Voltamos à estaca zero. Temos oito carros e só um motorista. E nenhum condutor para as lanchas.” Algumas aldeias distantes não recebem visita há um ano. “O plano previa postos de vigilância, bases para fiscalizar as terras. Hoje temos um funcionário para dar conta de 6 milhões de hectares” O Parecer Técnico 21, de 2009, que alertava para o impacto sobre os índios, foi ignorado por todos. “Disputas internas alimentadas por esses recursos estão esfacelando as comunidades”, diz a coordenadora. “Para a empresa, é mais barato dar dinheiro aos caciques do que investir em projetos.”



A leitura das atas das reuniões entre lideranças indígenas e a Norte Energiaé autoexplicativa. Em uma delas, de 31 de outubro de 2012, dias após a invasão do sítio Pimental, quando mais de cem índios paralisaram as obras para exigir o cumprimento das contrapartidas, o tom é de um leilão. Inês Marques, funcionária da empresa, apresenta “o cronograma de entrega dos kits de informática e voadeiras tratado nas reuniões de 9 e 10 de julho” índios exigem veículos. “Se eles não forem entregues, voltaremos à obra!” A funcionária pede desculpas e mais tempo. Os índios reivindicam a reforma da estrada, técnicos para operar os computadores doados, uma pista de pouso. A empresa promete rediscutir os pedidos na próxima reunião.



A promotora Thais Santi aponta para uma pequena área amarela no mapa da região do Xingu, na parede de sua sala, no Ministério Público Federal de Altamira. “Essa aldeia nem sequer tem estrada. Mas ganharam uma Hilux da Norte Energia, no nome de um índio sem habilitação, que bateu o carro em um poste, com crianças dentro, no carnaval.” Ela balança a cabeça. :‘É um assistencia-íismo funesto que está acabando com a capacidade de reivindicação dos índios. Eles perderam a confiança na Funai e vão à empresa resolver as demandas. Quando não conseguem, invadem o canteiro ”



O Ministério Público investiga a situação patrimonial de algumas lideranças. Um índio chegou a sacar 100 mil reais na boca do caixa. Mas o que mais preocupa a promotora é um novo capítulo do processo, Aconselhadas por advogados, as comunidades criaram associações para gerir os recursos sozinhas e negociar diretamente com empresas a serviço da Norte Energia. ‘‘São milhões de reais nas mãos dos índios”, alerta a promotora. “Houve um prejuízo para os índios qLie não tem volta. Precisamos agora proibir qualquer contato direto da empresa com os indígenas” Em última instância, diz Thais Santi, a responsabilidade é do Estado. “O dinheiro para a obra vem de um banco público. A obra é federal. Mas o governo não fez seu papel ” Belo Monte será a terceira maior hidrelétrica do mundo e custará 29 bilhões de reais, dos quais 22,5 bilhões via BNDES. É o maior empréstimo de sua história.



Cerca de 5 mil índios de dez etnias e graus diversos de contato com os brancos povoam a região do Médio Xingu. Muitos só voltaram a constituir aldeias nos anos 1990, em um processo que começou com as incursões evangelizadoras no século XVII, seguiu com a invasão de seringueiros cem anos atrás e ganhou força com a Rodovia Transamazônica. Com Belo Monte, o último boom emergiu. Sua genealogia remonta aos anos 1970, quando a ditadura quis construir uma série de megalomaníacas hidrelétricas na região do Rio Xingu. Os estudos de viabilidade atravessaram os anos 1990, a Eletrobras aliou-se à Eletronorte e, em 2005, o Congresso autorizou o Executivo a erguer Belo Monte, em troca de contrapartidas ambientais. Isso antes de as consultas aos índios darem resultado, apontam alguns críticos. “O que deveria ter sido feito é a realização de consultas prévias e o respeito do governo aos direitos indígenas, em vez de jogá-los como reféns das empresas”, afirma o antropólogo Stephen Baines, da UnB.



Em 2007, o governo incluiu a obra no PAC e buscou derrubar na Justiça os impedimentos à licença ambiental. Queria evitar o desabastecimento em um país onde o consumo anual de energia crescia acima do PIB. Em 2009. o Ibama aceitou o EIA-RI-MA, o estudo de impacto. Para liberar a licença prévia, exigiu o cumprimento de 40 condicionantes. A licença foi dada em abril de 2010. E um consórcio formado por grandes empreiteiras, fundos de pensão e pela Eletrobras deu início às obras em 2011, embora parte das condicionantes esteja “em andamento”. A Norte Energia afirma que “a execução do PBA caminha na mesma velocidade das obras da usina”.



Especialistas em energia sustentam que, a despeito dos deslizes sociais, Belo Monte é uma obra importante para o desenvolvimento do País e uma opção ecologicamente mais defensável do que usinas térmicas a gás, óleo ou carvão. A hidrelétrica no Xingu terá capacidade instalada de 11.200 MW e energia assegurada de 4.600 M W médios. Foi projetada para não ter grandes reservatórios e funcionar a fio d’água, o que reduz o tamanho das áreas alagadas e o impacto ecológico, embora represente menor segurança de fornecimento: sem reservatório, não há como armazenar água para os períodos de seca. Uma vitória dos movimentos ambientais que não apaga a desastrada política de varejo com os índios.



Sob uma árvore à beira do Xingu, a poucos metros do escritório para “assuntos indígenas” da Norte Energia, três índios debatem. “Eles não vão enrolar a gente”, diz Cláudio Curuaia, da Associação dos índios Citadinos, que representa 200 moradores de áreas de risco a ser reassentados. Criada há pouco, a associação não entrou na partilha de benesses do consórcio. “Os índios das aldeias ganharam 21 picapes, lanchas com motor, computador e filmadora. E nós?” Curuaia aponta para uma Mitsubishi L200 em frente ao escritório. “Até o Léo arrumou carro no nome dele.”



Léo (Jair Xipaia) desce da caminhonete e senta em um boteco acompanhado de duas lideranças. Aos 26 anos, o líder da aldeia Cojomin é o mais presente nas reuniões com o consórcio. “Queremos só o que é nosso,” Ele vive na cidade, estuda Direito na faculdade, vai pouco à aldeia. “Quase perdi o cargo de cacique porque disseram que peguei o recurso e gastei. Rodrigo Valério de Souza, da aldeia Kwruatxe, teve menos sorte. “Perdi o cargo ontem.” A causa, diz, foram acusações incentivadas pelo consórcio. “Tinha coisas de que a gente precisava, gerador, lona, espingarda, então eu vendia o combustível e comprava. Daí foram falar mal de mim, eu não tava facilitando pra eles.” O colega interrompe. “A Nesa joga as pessoas umas contra as outras”, diz Kwazady Xipaia, 23 anos e expressão de ancião. “Se houve mau uso do recurso é porque não teve orientação. Teve aldeia que torrou os 30 mil em comida, o que ninguém diz é que essa lista foi só para calar o.s índios, Porque projetos de desenvolvimento, para dar autonomia, não teve. Nas visitas, os técnicos mostraram desenhos de engenhos, plantações. Nada aconteceu.”



Nas negociações sem registro formal, ocorridas no escritório da empresa e em visitas do consórcio diretamente nas aldeias, a tônica do processo c menos clara e mais eficaz, diz Marcelo Salazar, coordenador técnico do instituto Socioambiental (ISA). Salazar cruza as mãos e desfia a genealogia da negociação. “Ao perceber que os índios se organizavam, a empresa saiu distribuindo cesta básica.” Isso antes de o consórcio sair do papel. “Mas os índios ficaram espertos.” É quando teria entrado em ação a linha de frente da desagregação. Figuras ligadas a consultorias teriam sido contratadas para abordar as lideranças e debelar as demandas com dinheiro pequeno.



O nome que surge é Antenor Bastos. “Ele prometeu casas”, diz um cacique. “O Antenor vai dar pista”, diz outro. Juruna garante: “Ele vinha toda semana, dormia aqui. A lista de compras, eu levava direto pra ele”. Bastos, um senhor de seus 70 anos, foi “coordenador de assuntos indígenas” da Norte Energia até janeiro, quando “se afastou por problemas do coração” diz o assessor da empresa. “Ele dormia nas aldeias, comia com eles, era uma figura. Quando os índios invadiam, ligavam para o celular dele pra negociar. Ele entendia os índios. No lugar dele há agora um ex-funcionário da Funai.



Dias atrás, um suposto caso de espionagem tensionou ainda mais as relações. Segundo Antonia Melo, do Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre, um funcionário do consórcio foi flagrado em uma reunião da entidade com uma câmera escondida. Ele teria gravado um vídeo no qual afirmou receber 5 mil reais por mês para acompanhar as reuniões e relatá-las aos dirigentes da empresa. O consórcio nega.



É no último andar do prédio de concreto branco de três pavimentos bem guardado por seguranças e altas grades, sede local da Norte Energia, que o diretor de assuntos institucionais da empresa, João Pimentel, 1,94 metro e voz firme, chega com fartes apertos de mão. Pede para o gravador ser desligado. E dispara: “Os índios já custaram quase 80 milhões de reais”. O assessor de imprensa corrige: “Foram 97 milhões”. Pimentel elenca os feitos da empresa: a casa de apoio aos Caiapós, engenhos de farinha, poços, carros doados às prefeituras, a reforma na escola. E a mesada?



Pimentel franze o cenho. “Havia certa expectativa. A maneira de dar uma acalmada neles foi o plano emergencial” O executivo lembra o bloqueio dos Jurunas ao canteiro. Os índios afirmavam que as obras haviam toldado as águas e atrapalhado a pesca ornamental. Exigiam respostas e dinheiro. “Essa pesca é biopirataria”, diz. “Mas, enfim, fomos lá. A água não estava turva, mas pagamos a compensação. Eles ficaram felizes” E as obras continuaram. “Nós não somos uma mãezona” diz. “E que todos acham que o índio deve viver num outro mundo. Você foi às aldeias? Viu as parabólicas? As casas? Eles querem isso tanto quanto a gente”.



Belo Monte enfrenta outras pressões. Há dias a Justiça Federal, a pedido do MPF, determinou que a Norte Energia pode ser multada em 500 mil reais por dia, se não comprovar a adoção das medidas compensatórias. Dias depois, o Ibama a notificou com base em um parecer que constatou pendências na execução dos programas ambientais. A empresa não concluiu o cadastro das famílias afetadas, não fez as obras de saneamento, não, reassentou as comunidades desapropriadas, diz o documento. Por outro lado, na segunda-feira 18. a Justiça do Pará expediu um interdito proibitório contra o Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens e o Movimento Xingu Vivo. Pela decisão, as entidades ficam proibidas de fazer qualquer ação qne interfira na obra. Enquanto a briga cresce na Justiça, as obras seguem. A primeira turbina deve entrar em funcionamento em 2015.



Alheio a tudo, imerso no calor sufocante de uma tarde de sol no meio da roça de mandioca, o ex-cacique Manoel Junina, 70 anos, segura sua enxada e sorri. “Esses cabras não querem trabalhar. Aí vem essa gente, dá um dinheirinho e bota tudo pra brigar. Vê se eu brigo com alguém?” Na casa do ancião, a cem metros da roça. a família discorda. “Antes, a gente se reunia, irmãos de aldeias diferentes, pra decidir como se posicionar”, diz Eliete Juruna. “Aí eles começaram a fazer reuniões com as lideranças em separado. Foi a estratégia da Norte Energia, dar dinheiro aqui e ali. E agente caiu. Estamos nas mãos deles.” •



Há cerca de um ano os servidores da Polícia Federal de Altamira encaminharam um ofícío a chefia. Não seria possível viver na cidade se não fossem tomadas médicas urgentes. Ameaçavam até se exonerar. O documento, endossado pela associação do setor, chegou ao Ministério da Justiça e denunciava a”sitiação realmente crítica”. Não era de violência que reclamavam os funcionários, e sim do custo de vida. Apelidaca de “Angola Brasileira”, em referênca aos preços do país africano assolado pela doença do petróleo, Altamira sofre com Belo Monte.



Se antes da obra, até 2010, a cidade tinha 99 mil habitantes, hoje são 150 mil. Só nos canteros há 21 mil, de peões a executivos com suas camisas sociais e caminhonetes em fila nos restaurantes. Aqui não há taxímetro: entrar num táxi já custa 15 reais. Nos postos, a gasolina sai por 3.5 reais o litro (em São Paulo custa de 2.6 a 2.9 reais). Em um restaurante mediano, um prato morde 15 reais. Nos melhores, 80. Inflação é termo corrente. Todos têm um índice a dar. “Os alimentos subiram 200%”. diz o taxista a caminho do mercado. “Coisa de louco”. Mesmo.

“

Todos querem sair daqui. O custo de vida é irreal”, diz um agente da PF que pede anonimato. Quando o policial veio para Altamira, em 2010, alugou uma casa com dois quartos por mil reais.

“

Um ano depois, o cara me pediu 4.5 mil.” Ele vendeu sua casa em um condomínio fechado em Natal e comprou um terreno aqui por 60 mil reais, em uma rua de barro sem saneamento. Outros policiais vivem em uma república. Suas famílias não puderam vir por causa do custo de vida.



“Muitos proprietários deixaram suas casas para alugar. É o caos para alguns e uma mina de outro para outros”, contemporiza Artémis Cardoso, gerente de imobiliária. O aumentofoi de 200%. em média, diz. “Aqui é um paradoxo. A gente aluga casas de 5 mil em ruas de barro onde falta luz todo dia. Não falta gente atrás.” Uma loja de material de construção recém-aberta tem filas à porta. Ruas de barro “asgam adeiras com loteamentos de casas de três andares. No centro há sete farmácias em um quarteirão. Só em 2012 foram abertas 400 empresas na cidade, três vezes mais que em 2010.



Altamira é o paroxismo do Brasil que cresce sem infraestrutura. Não houve plano para preparar a cidade. As medidas compensatórias previstas pelo Ibarra. por entraves burocráticos, falta de kncw-how da prefeitura ou descaso do empresariado, em parte não saíram do papel. Não há água encanada nem saneamento básico. As poucas vias receberam asfalto, mas milhares de caminhonetes hoje dividem espaço com dezenas de ônibus vindos dos canteiros em engarrafamentos às 6 da tarde. Faltam escola e hospital. E falta luz - até na sede da Norte Erergia.



Atualmente, faltam até prostíbulos. Antes de Belo Monte, havia um só na região. Em dois anos, o número saltou para sete. com programas a 200 reais. Em 2013. após denúncia da presença de menores, todos fecharam. “Agora é só com agenciacor”. diz o taxista. “E tá mais caro. viu?”teamentos de casas de três andares. No centro há sete farmácias em um quarteirão.

Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira – COIAB

A Funai anuncia que a AGU vai suspender os efeitos da portaria, mas não garante revogação .
A luta contra a portaria continua importante.

Suspender não é suficiente: COIAB exige a imediata revogação da Portaria 303 da AGU.
A Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira-COIAB, vem de público exigir a imediata revogação da Portaria 303 da Advocacia Geral da União (AGU) que orienta os órgãos do governo federal a aplicar as condicionantes decididas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal na demarcação da TI Raposa Serra do Sol/RR, para todas as terras indígenas do país. Somente a SUSPENSÃO dos efeitos como anunciado, não é suficiente. Exigimos sua revogação.

De forma arbitrária, essa Portaria antecipa a decisão final do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre o caso e estabelece seu efeito vinculante as demais terras indígenas, expressamente negado recentemente pelo Ministro Ricardo Lewandowski, numa Reclamação do Município de Amarante/MA contra portarias da Funai.

A Portaria, o que é ainda mais grave, questiona a validade de tudo o que já foi feito em relação à demarcação das terras indígenas. Isso quer dizer que inclusive as terras já demarcadas, poderiam ser revistas. Ela atende assim plenamente as expectativas dos grileiros de se apossarem definitivamente das terras indígenas.

A inciativa da AGU rasga todas as letras da Carta Magna do país e com ela os direitos indígenas reconhecidos pela Constituição Federal e pela Convenção 169 da OIT e afronta a memória das numerosas lideranças indígenas mortas pelo latifúndio, que entregaram a vida para assegurar a terra sagrada para o futuro de seus povos. Com as incertezas levantadas sobre a legalidade da demarcação das terras indígenas estimula irresponsavelmente uma nova onda de violência contra os povos indígenas.

Essa portaria faz parte de uma série de iniciativas, tomadas no âmbito do Executivo e do Legislativo que visam desconstruir os direitos dos povos indígenas, das comunidades tradicionais e da natureza, a exemplo das Portarias Interministeriais 420 a 424, que estabelecem prazos irrisórios para a Funai se posicionar frente aos Estudos de Impactos e licenciamento de obras, da mudança do Código Florestal para facilitar a exploração da natureza e da PEC 215 para inviabilizar a demarcação das terras indígenas. A finalidade é remover os chamados obstáculos ao desenvolvimento, com a incorporação de novas terras para o agronegócio e facilitar o acesso e a super exploração dos recursos naturais.

As terras indígenas e a luta dos povos indígenas para manterem seus projetos próprios de vida resistem contra essa perspectiva insustentável do ponto de vista social e ambiental. Na região sul da Amazônia, por exemplo, é facilmente percebível como as terras indígenas aparecem como verdadeiros oásis verdes em meio a terra arrasada pelo latifúndio, sem florestas e sem gente.

A luta pela revogação da Portaria 303, contra a PEC 215 e em defesa das terras indígenas, por isso, não é só dos povos indígenas, mas de todos aqueles que estão preocupados em assegurar condições dignas de vida para as futuras gerações.

COP-18: Pronunciamento de Sônia Guajajara na Coletiva de Imprensa em Doha, no Qatar

by Paul Wolters

Today, Tuesday December 4th, about 70 indigenous leaders from Mato Grosso do Sul and various other regions of Brazil will be in Brasilia, to deliver to the Brazilian authorities over twenty thousand signatures of the campaign “I support the Indigenous Cause.” The movement claims the demarcation of indigenous lands, the rejection of the Constitutional Amendment Proposal nr. 215 (PEC 215) and the judgment of all urgent actions underway in the Supreme Court (STF) involving indigenous peoples’ rights.

The signatures will be delivered to the Supreme Court, the Congress and the Presidency after a rally organized by the Human Rights and Miorities Commission of the Chamber of Deputies.

Renown human rights activists like Noam Chomsky and Eduardo Galeano as well as a series of famous Brazilians like Wagner Moura and DJ Leonardo support the campaign. Launched in June, the movement is an initiative of the Indigenist Missionary Council (CIMI) and the Association of Judges for Democracy (AJD), with the support of dozens of indigenous organizations, indigenous and social movements. The Brazilian cartoonist and activist Carlos Latuff dedicated a cartoon to the campaign “I support the Indigenous cause.”

Indigenous leaders from across the country, members of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) as well as members of the National Council of Indigenous Policy (CNPI) will participate in the rally.

Murder victims

The major indigenous delegation is of the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, coming directly from the Aty Guassú, the general assembly of the Guarani and Kaiowá peoples, held between November 28 and December 2. Among them, Genito and Walmir the children of the murdered Kaiowá leader Nízio Gomes of the Guaiviry community; Ladio Veron, son of Marcos Veron, murdered in 2003; Lucine, daughter of chief Zezinho, whose assassination was never investigated; Shatalim will be present, representing the community of Ñu Vera, which at this very moment is subject to repossession ruling of the Federal Court; chiefs that are under death threat, like Eliseu of the Kurusu Ambá community;

Also present is Líder Lopes representing the Pyelito Kue community, that sent out the death sentence letter that recently spread around the world.

A group of leaders of the Terena people, that have been struggling for the demarcation of their ancestral lands for 30 years, who have suffered four violent repossessions and eviction attacks from farmers since 2008, when they began the process of recovering their ancestral territories, will also be part of the demonstration.

VIOLATIONS

The petition comes at a time of serious violations of indigenous rights in Brazil. In the state Amazonas, on Sep. 7, an indigenous Munduruku leader was killed during a Federal Police operation on demarcated indigenous territory. In Mato Grosso do Sul, indigenous Kadiwéu are being evicted from land that has been demarcated over a century ago, while Guarani-Kaiowá suffer violent attacks and pressures of all kinds.

In Rio Grande do Sul, indigenous Kaingang and Mbyá live on road sides, camping under the intense cold of the South, surviving for decades on small pieces of land between the fences of large landowners and asphalt highways.

In the Javari Valley, where about 4000 indigenous of the Marubo, Kanamari, Matis, Kulina, Maioruna and Korubo, as well as at least 13 other uncontacted peoples live, the health situation is dire. Among them is the highest level of hepatitis contamination, especially type B, deadly and incurable - more than 85% of the population is infected with one or more types of the virus. There occur also strong malaria epidemics. Both diseases directly attack the liver, and the combination of the two problems have weakened the population and led to am extremely alarming number of deaths. For years the population have called for urgent measures to the Brazilian government - which is no longer a fight for decent public health policies that meet the Indigenous, becoming a battle to against the extermination of these indigenous peoples.

Maranhão: Awá-Guajá

Another emblematic case is the one of the Awa-Guajá people in the state of Maranhao. If realized, the expansion Carajás railroad of the mining company Vale will cause the destruction of forests and wildlife, source of life of the indigenous who today have their lands invaded by loggers. These open up clandestine roads, deforesting privileged hunting and fishing regions of critical importance to the physical and cultural survival of the Awá-Guajá people, especially the non-contacted communities.

Denunciation at UN

The APIB denounced the violation of indigenous rights and the genocide promoted against indigenous peoples of Brazil to the United Nations (UN). Highlighted were the Constitutional Amendment Proposal nr. 215 (PEC 215) and the 303 Ordinance of the Attorney General (AGU) as legal instruments that contravene ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. To read Document that was submitted to the UN click here.

PEC 215

The PEC 215 proposes the transfer to the National Congress of the authority to approve the demarcation of indigenous lands, creation of conservation units and titling Maroon territories. This has been, so far, the responsibility of the executive branch, through the National Foundation for the Indigenous (Funai ), the Brazilian Institute of Environment (IBAMA) and the Palmares Cultural Foundation (PCF). The approval of PEC 215 - as well as PEC 038/99, pending in Senate – would endanger indigenous lands already demarcated and inhibit any possible future demarcation.

Information
What: Delivery of the campaign signatures of the “I support the indigenous cause”campaign and Public Act the houses of Parliament with indigenous participation
When: December 4, 9 am
Where: Plenary Room nr. 1 of Annex 2 of the Chamber of Deputies, Brasília
How and Why: Several leaders from across Brazil will be present to denounce the indigenous rights’ violations, demanding land demarcation and celerity of Supreme Court rulings and protesting PEC 215.

Übersetzt ins Deutsche von der Aktionsgemeinschaft Solidarische Welt e.V. (ASW)

(Dokument eingereicht von Uilton Tuxá (APIB) beim OHCHR in Genf, 13. November 2012)

Genf, 13. November 2012

Zur Situation der Indigenenrechte in Brasilien

Der Dachverband der Indigenen Völker Brasiliens (APIB) setzt sich aus den regionalen indigenen Organisationen des Landes zusammen:

· Articulação dos Povos indígenas do Nordeste e de Minas Gerais e Espírito Santo – APOINME (Verband der Indigenen Völker des Nordostens, Minas Gerais und Espirito Santo),

· Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira – COIAB (Koordination der Indigenen Organisationen des Brasilianischen Amazonasgebietes),

· Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Sul – ARPINSUL (Verband der Indigenen Völker des Südens),

· Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Sudeste – ARPINSUDESTE (Verband der Indigenen Völker des Südostens),

· Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Pantanal – ARPIPAN (Verband der Indigenen Völker des Pantanal),

· Grande Assembleia Guarani – ATY GUASU (Großes Gremium der Guarani).

Hiermit möchten wir unsere Besorgnis über die Zunahme der Menschenrechtsverletzungen und Missachtung der grundlegenden Rechte der indigenen Völker in Brasilien ausdrücken.

Unser Hauptanliegen ist, das System der Vereinten Nationen zu bitten, einzugreifen, sodass der brasilianische Staat den Empfehlungen der UN folgt und dringende Schritte einleitet, um die Einhaltung der Rechte indigener Völker sicherzustellen gemäß internationaler Übereinkommen, wie der Konvention ILO 169 und der Deklaration der Vereinten Nationen der Rechte indigener Völker. Letztere legt das Recht auf freien, vorherigen und informierten Konsent der indigenen Völker fest. Häufig werden unsere Rechte von der brasilianischen Regierung verletzt, trotz der Empfehlungen des UN-Rapporteurs für indigene Fragen über die Lage der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten der indigenen Völker und der Inter-Amerikanischen Kommission für Menschenrechte (IACHR/OAS).

Brasilien gilt heute als eines der Länder mit dem weltweit größten wirtschaftlichen Wachstum in den letzten zehn Jahren. Es ist vom Status eines Schwellenlandes zur sechstgrößten Volkswirtschaft der Welt aufgestiegen. Unter der Regierung Dilma wurde in Sozialprogramme wie Bolsa Familia investiert, mit dem Ziel, den Hunger des in extremer Armut lebenden Bevölkerungteils zu beenden. Dennoch gibt es noch immer viele arme Familien. Vor allem die indigenen Völker Brasiliens müssen im Kontext von Armut leben.

In diesem Dokument präsentieren wir einen Überblick über die Situation indigener Völker in Brasilien.

Soziale Rechte

Die Wahrung der Rechte der indigenen Völker, wie in der Verfassung festgelegt, ist bei weitem nicht gewährleistet. Es mangelt an der Verabschiedung eines Gesetzes zur Regelung des Artikels 231 der Verfassung. Entgegen aller Versprechungen der aktuellen Präsidentin Dilma Rousseff und des Ex-Präsidenten Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wurde ein solches Gesetz nicht verabschiedet.

Laut der Volkszählung von 2010, durchgeführt von dem Brasilianischen Institut für Geografie und Statistik (IBGE), leben insgesamt 817.963 Indigene in Brasilien. Davon leben mindestens 326.375 in extremer Armut (39,9%) - fast vier von zehn Indigenen. Im Gegensatz dazu weisen andere Segmente der brasilianischen Gesellschaft viel niedrigere Prozentsätze auf. So beträgt der Anteil der von extremer Armut Betroffenen bei der weißen Bevölkerung 4,7%, und bei der schwarzen Bevölkerung 10,0%. In diesem Zusammenhang muss erwähnt werden, dass Indigene nur 0,4 % der Gesamtbevölkerung Brasiliens stellen.

Land und indigene Territorien

Die brasilianische Regierung bekräftigt immer wieder, dass die Demarkierung der indigenen Territorien fast vollständig vollzogen wurde, für 95 % der Indigenengebiete. Dabei wird jedoch außer Acht gelassen, dass sich der angegebene Prozentsatz fast ausschließlich auf indigene Territorien innerhalb der Amazonasregion bezieht. Die Angabe lässt ebenfalls außer Acht, dass die Demarkierung und Regularisierung einiger dieser Gebiete auf Anreiz erheblicher finanzieller Unterstützung der internationalen Zusammenarbeit hin stattfand und mit geringer finanzieller Investition durch die brasilianische Regierung.

Ein Großteil der indigenen Bevölkerung in extremer Armut lebt im Norden (Amazonasregion) und im zentralen Westen, häufig auf Land, das bereits demarkiert wurde. Das zeigt, dass eine Demarkierung der indigenen Territorien nicht ausreicht, wenn nicht gleichzeitig würdige Arbeitsbedingungen und Voraussetzungen zur nachhaltigen Nutzung des Landes geschaffen werden. Die Angehörigen der indigenen Völker und Gemeinschaften benötigen, wie jeder andere Staatsbürger, nachhaltige Lebensbedingungen und den Schutz ihrer Territorien. Während in Regionen mit demarkierten Gebieten Armut herrscht, ist die Situation in anderen Regionen noch verheerender, wie im Nordosten und Süden des Landes, wo viele Indigenengebiete nicht demarkiert sind und Viehzüchter fortwährend in indigene Territorien eindringen.

Die Mehrheit der indigenen Völker Brasiliens ist dem Druck auf ihr Land, ihre Territorien und ihre natürlichen Ressourcen ungeschützt ausgesetzt. Indigene Gebiete sind von Großprojekten der Regierung zur wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, wie dem Bau von Straßen, kleinen und großen Wasserkraftwerken und der Umsetzung des Wasserlaufs des Flusses São Francisco, vom Ausbau der Netze zur Elektrizitätsübertragung, dem Eindringen von Bergbau und Holzeinschlag, der Expansion der Landwirtschaft, Monokulturen sowie Konflikten mit Landeigentümern und Großgrundbesitzern bedroht.

Als Beispiele können die Fälle der indigenen Völker Guarani Kaiowá im Bundesstaat Mato Grosso do Sul, Pataxó Hã-Hã-Hãe, Pataxó und Tupinambá im Bundesstaat Bahia und der Xavante im Bundesstaat Mato Grosso aufgeführt werden. Die Guarani Kaiowá sind offener Diskriminierung und Ethnozid ausgesetzt. Sie leben in extrem kleinen Gebieten, in welche Viehzüchter, Pistoleiros (Revolvermänner), Landwirte und Agrarunternehmer mit Monokulturen wie Soja, Zuckerrohr und Eukalyptus eindringen. Im indigenen Territorium von Dourados ist die Mordrate aufgrund von Landkonflikten besonders hoch. Im Falle des indigenen Volkes der Pataxó Hãhãhãe im Bundesstaat Bahia warten die Indigenen seit mehr als 20 Jahren darauf, dass der Oberste Gerichtshof des Bundesgerichtes ihre Landsituation löst. Am 2. Mai dieses Jahres erklärte der Oberste Gerichtshof die Landtitel für ungültig, welche die Regierung von Bahia an Farmer der Region erteilt hatte. Die Regierung, welche für die Demarkierung indigener Gebiete zuständig ist, hat bisher nichts unternommen, um die zahlreichen Farmer vom indigenen Territorium zu entfernen.

Im Falle des Volkes Xavante im Bundesstaat Mato Grosso wird deutlich, dass die Absicht der lokalen Eliten darin besteht, die per Verfassung zugesichterten Rechte der indigenen Völker zu verletzen. Für die Wahrung dieser Rechte ist die Regierung zuständig. Das Indigenengebiet Maraiwatséde wurde 1998 ratifiziert und somit den Xavante das permanente Recht auf Besitz und exklusive Nutzung zugewiesen. Doch von der staatlichen Indigenenbehörde Fundação Nacional do Índio (FUNAI) wurde nichts unternommen, dieses Recht gegenüber den dort siedelnden Landwirten durchzusetzen - bis hin zu der Tatsache, dass die Legislative des Staates Mato Grosso zum Entsetzen der Xavante einem Gesetzesentwurf zustimmte, welcher die Umsiedlung der Xavante in einen bundesstaatlichen Park vorschlug, damit die nichtindigenen Produzenten und Landwirte auf dem indigenen Territorium bleiben können. In den südlichen Bundesstaaten des Landes existieren etwa 50 Camps, in denen die Guarani Kaiowá auf die Demarkierung, die Räumung der nicht-indigenen Landbesitzer und die Wiederbesiedlung ihres traditionellen Territoriums warten.

Aus den genannten Beispielen wird deutlich, dass die Situation der indigenen Völker Brasiliens insgesamt eine sehr bedrohliche ist. Ohne die Sicherung von Land und Territorium und ohne die Gewährleistung von Schutz und Nachhaltigkeit bieten sich keine Lebensperspektiven für die indigenen Völker.

Megaprojekte

An dieser Stelle möchten wir auf zwei Projekte der brasilianischen Regierung zur Entwicklung der Infrastruktur hinweisen, von denen mindestens 434 Auswirkungen auf indigene Territorien haben: Das Wasserkraftwerk Belo Monte in der Amazonasregion und die Umleitung des Flusses São Francisco im Nordosten des Landes. In beiden Fällen hat die brasilianische Regierung das Recht der indigenen Völker auf freien, vorherigen und informierten Konsent missachtet.

Das Projekt Belo Monte, schon vor mehr als 20 Jahren umstritten, wurde damals aufgrund des erbitterten Widerstandes der betroffenen indigenen Völker nicht ausgeführt. Dieses Projekt, auch als große Tragödie für die Umwelt angesehen, wird enorme soziale Probleme für die betroffenen indigenen Völker mit sich bringen. Eine Fläche von 500 Quadratkilometern wird überflutet werden.

Die Umleitung von Gewässern des Flusses Xingu im Bundesstaat Pará wird dazu führen, dass indigene Völker und traditionelle Gemeinschaften ohne Wasser, ohne Fisch und ohne fluvialen Transportweg bleiben, insbesondere die Menschen im Umkreis von bis zu 130 Kilometern Entfernung vom Projekt. Die Gemeinschaften werden unter den Auswirkungen des Projektes auf ihre traditionellen Formen der Produktion und Kultur zu leiden haben. Die Zuwanderung von 20.000 Arbeitern aus verschiedenen Regionen des Landes auf der Suche nach Einkünften und besseren Lebensbedingungen wird Konflikte und soziale Probleme mit sich bringen.

Die Umlegung des Flusses São Francisco in die Bundesstaaten Pernambuco, Paraíba, Ceará und Rio Grande do Norte sollte angeblich die arme Bevölkerung dieser Staaten mit Wasser versorgen. In Wirklichkeit wurde dieses Projekt jedoch entworfen, um die Agrarindustrie zu begünstigen und die ökonomischen und politischen Interessen anderer Sektoren der Region zu bedienen.

Der Fluss São Francisco durchfließt von seiner Quelle bis zu seiner Mündung traditionelle Territorien, die seit mehr als 9.000 Jahren von den indigenen Völkern des Nordostens besiedelt sind. Er hat eine Länge von etwa 2.800 km. In seinem Einzugsgebiet leben 32 indigene Völker, die 38 traditionelle Territorien bewohnen: Kaxagó, Kariri-Xocó, Tingui-Boto, Akona, Karapotó, Geripancó, Xoco, Katokin, Koiupanká, Karuazu, Kalankó, Pankararu, Fulni-ô, Xucuru-Kariri, Pankaiuká, Tuxá, Pipipã, Kambiwá, Kapinawá, Xukuru, Pankará, Tupan, Truká, Pankararé, Kantaruré, Atikum, Tumbalalá, Pankaru, Kiriri, Xacriabá, Kaxixó e Pataxó, mit einer Bevölkerung von ca. 70.000 Indigenen.

Der Fluss São Francisco ist von vitaler Bedeutung für das physische und kulturelle Überleben dieser Völker, ebenso für deren Produktionsform und die Weiterführung ihrer Rituale und Kultur. Die brasilianische Regierung ignoriert diesen Zusammenhang und die lautstarke Ablehnung seitens der indigenen sowie der nichtindigenen Bevölkerung und genehmigte den Bau des Projektes. Auf diese Weise wurde das Recht auf vorherige Konsultierung verletzt.

In Brasilien wird die Konvention ILO 169 nicht respektiert und deshalb nicht angewendet. Ein Beispiel hierfür ist das Ereignis im Jahr 2011, als die Interamerikanische Kommission für Menschenrechte (IACHR) die brasilianische Regierung bat, den Prozess zur Genehmigung und zum Bau von Belo Monte einzustellen, solange die betroffenen indigenen Völker nicht ordnungsgemäß konsultiert wurden.

Die brasilianische Regierung informierte daraufhin am 5. April, dass sie ihre institutionelle Rolle der Konsultierung der indigenen Gemeinschaften erfüllt hat. In Wirklichkeit fanden einfache Sozialisierungs- und Informationstreffen statt, welche manipuliert wurden, um ihnen den Charakter von Konsultationen zu verleihen. Außerdem kam es zu Ereignissen, die geprägt waren von Vorwürfen der Spaltung, Praktiken der Kooptierung und Diffamierung von indigenen Führern.

Eindeutig fehlt es dem brasilianischen Staat an gutem Willen. Es fehlt der politische Wille, indigene Völker tatsächlich bei Projekten, die Auswirkungen auf sie haben werden, zu konsultieren und sie an Instanzen der Entscheidungsfindung über legislative und administrative Maßnahmen, welche sie direkt betreffen, mit einzubeziehen.

Kriminalisierung, Gesundheit und andere Aspekte

Die Verletzung der Indigenenrechte in Brasilien ist in jeder Hinsicht besorgniserregend. Nach dem neuesten Jahresbericht des Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI) vom 30. Juni 2011 starben im Jahr 2010 92 Kinder aufgrund mangelnder medizinischer Versorgung. 60 Indigene wurden ermordet und 152 erhielten Morddrohungen. Von den 60 Morden an Indigenen ereigneten sich 34 bei den Guarani Kaiowá im Bundesstaat Mato Grosso do Sul.

Die Gesundheitsversorgung für indigene Völker ist unzureichend. Die Spezialbehörde für die Gesundheit der Indigenen, welche 2010 eingerichtet wurde, funktioniert nicht adäquat und ihre Struktur genügt nicht, um eine gesundheitliche Basisversorgung zu gewährleisten. Gleiches trifft auch auf die staatliche Indigenenbehörde Fundação Nacional do Índio (FUNAI) zu, deren Umstrukturierung zur Verbesserung ihrer Arbeit an der Basis, hauptsächlich hinsichtlich der Prozesse zur Regelung von indigenen Territorien, versprochen wurde. Bisher konnten noch keine derartigen Strukturveränderungen festgestellt werden. Tatsächlich unterliegt dieses Organ zum Schutz der Indigenen einer gezielten Vernachlässigung durch die Regierung, damit eben gerade keine Fortschritte bei Prozessen der Landdemarkierung erreicht werden können.

Indigenenrechte

In Bezug auf die Rechte der Indigenen warten wir seit über 20 Jahren darauf, dass der Nationalkongress das neue Statut der indigenen Völker verabschiedet, welches in Form des Gesetzentwurfs N° PL 760/2011 vorliegt. Dieser schlägt die Regularisierung der Artikel 231 und 232 der brasilianischen Verfassung vor, welche die Rechte Indigener behandeln. Außerdem warten wir auf die Verabschiedung des Gesetzentwurfs n° PL 3571/2008 zur Schaffung des Nationalen Rates für Indigenenpolitik, der im Verfahren der Abgeordnetenkammer ist. Mangels Verbindlichkeit der aktuellen Regierung kommen diese legislativen Prozesse im Kongress nicht voran. In Wahrheit besteht kein Interesse der Regierung, Gesetze zur Garantierung von Indigenenrechten zu verabschieden. Die Projekte des Plans zur Beschleunigung des Wachstums (Plano de Aceleração do Crescimento - PAC) verdeutlichen die Absichten der Regierung, unser traditionelles Territorium auszubeuten.

Anti-indigene legislative Prozesse

PEC 215/2000. Entgegen der Erwartungen des Schutzes indigener Rechte wurde am 21. März dieses Jahres im Ausschuss für Verfassung und Justiz (Comissão de Constituição e Justiça - CCJ) der Abgeordnetenkammer der Zulässigkeit des Vorschlages der Verfassungsänderung (PEC) 215/00 zugestimmt. PEC 215/00 beabsichtigt die Zuständigkeit für die Genehmigung der Demarkierung von Indigenengebieten, die Einrichtung von Schutzgebieten, und Landtitulierung für Quilombolas auf den Nationalkongress zu übertragen. Bisher unterliegen diese Aufgaben den exekutiven Organen FUNAI, Institut für Umwelt und erneuerbare Ressourcen - IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis) und Kulturstiftung Palmares – FCP (Fundação Cultural Palmares). Die Verabschiedung des PEC 215, sowie des im Senat verhandelten PEC 038/99, gefährden die bereits demarkierten Indigenengebiete und schließen weitere Demarkierungen zukünftig aus. Die Gefahr einer Verabschiedung ist groß, da im Kongress mehrheitlich Repräsentanten mächtiger Sektoren der Wirtschaft vertreten sind, welche die Sponsoren des aktuellen Entwicklungsmodells sind.

Bergbauprojekt PL 1610/1996. Die Bergbaulobby, zusammengesetzt aus Parlamentariern der Regierungsallianz, beabsichtigt den Gesetzentwurf PL 1610/96 zu verabschieden. Dieser sieht Bergbau in Indigenengebieten vor. Der Bericht ignoriert völlig die Wahrung des Schutzes der territorialen, sozialen, kulturellen und spirituellen Integrität der indigenen Völker und entbürokratisiert die Autorisierung von bergbaulichen Untersuchungen und dem Abbau mineralischer Bodenschätze in Indigenengebieten. Er schafft Voraussetzungen für eine erleichterte Gewinnerzielung und Gewinnvergrößerung zugunsten der involvierten Unternehmen. Der Text beschäftigt sich in skandalöser Form mit der Verfügbarmachung der Indigenengebiete und ihrer Potentiale für das spekulative Finanzkapital durch Bergbau. Der Text schafft die Voraussetzungen für ein unkontrolliertes Fortschreiten des Goldabbaus im großen Stil auf indigenen Territorien. Er greift in Isolation lebende und wenig kontaktierte indigene Völker an, indem er deren Schicksal den Prinzipien der nationalen Sicherheit unterordnet. Er relativiert die Beteiligung der Bundesanwaltschaft (Ministério Público Federal) in seiner Rolle für den Schutz der Indigenenrechte. Er schafft die Autonomie der indigenen Völker ab und unterwirft deren Entscheidung gegen den Bergbau dem Beschluss eines Regierungsausschusses, der entscheidet, welcher Vorschlag der beste für die indigenen Gemeinschaften ist. Auf diese Weise wird die bevormundende, paternalistische und autoritäre Indigenenpolitik wiederbelebt. Abschließend ist zu sagen, dass der Text die Tragweite des Konsultationsrechtes minimiert, welches durch die Verfassung und die Konvention ILO 169 festgelegt wurde.

Die Indigenenorganisationen sind wegen der Schäden, die es mit sich bringt, gegen diesen Gesetzentwurf zur Förderung des Bergbaus. Sie fordern, dass das Thema des Bergbaus im Text des Statuts der Indigenen Völker behandelt wird, wie es in den Jahren 2008 und 2009 von der indigenen Bewegung mit der Regierung diskutiert und in Konsens gebracht wurde.

Administrative und juristische Maßnahmen gegen Indigenenrechte

Die brasilianische Regierung hat in den letzten zwei Jahren eine Reihe von gesetzlichen Erlässen und Verordnungen herausgebracht, welche beabsichtigen, die von den indigenen Völkern geforderte Demarkierung ihrer Gebiete zu vereiteln und diese Territorien und deren natürliche Ressourcen der unkontrollierten Exploration durch nationale Unternehmen und das transnationale spekulative Finanzkapital preiszugeben. Von diesen gesetzlichen Erlässen und Verordnungen (Portarias) stellen wir folgende vor:

Verordnung 2498/2011 beabsichtigt die Beteiligung der Bundesländer und Munizipien im Prozess der Identifizierung und Grenzziehung von Indigenengebieten. Mit der Herausgabe dieser Maßnahme ignoriert die Regierung die Verordnung 1775/96, welche das Vorgehen zur Demarkierung von Indigenengebieten festlegt und die schon das angebliche Widerspruchsrecht für die Schaffung dieser Portaria garantiert.

Verordnung 419/2011 regelt das Vorgehen der Indigenenbehörde FUNAI in Umweltgenehmigungsprozessen innerhalb eines sehr kurzen Zeitraums, um die Umsetzung von Projekten des Programms zur Beschleunigung des Wachstums – PAC (Wasserkraft-werke, Bergbau, Häfen, Wasserwege, Straßen, Elektrizitätsleitungen) auf indigenen Territorien zu erleichtern.

Verordnung 303/2012 bestimmt die Normierung der Vorgehensweise der juristischen Organe der Bundesverwaltung, die direkt und indirekt mit dem institutionellen Schutz der Indigegengebiete zu tun haben. Den Interessen der Großgrundbesitzer und des Agribusiness entgegenkommend, erlaubt die Verordnung, die Bestimmungen, welche im Gerichtsverfahren gegen das Indigenengebiet Raposa Serra do Sol vom Obersten Gerichtshof (STF) entschieden wurden, auf alle Indigenengebiete auszuweiten (Petição 3.888-Roraima/STF). Die Regierung brachte die Verordnung mit dem Wissen heraus, dass die Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofes über die deklaratorischen Unterbindungen der Raposa Serra do Sul noch nicht rechtskräftig ist, die Bestimmungen noch Änderungen erfahren oder gänzlich vom Verfassungsgericht abgelehnt werden können. Die Portaria gestattet Militärbasen und Militärinterventionen, Straßenbau, strategische Projekte für Wasserkraftwerke und Bergbau in Indigenengebieten ohne vorherige Konsultation der indigenen Völker und der FUNAI. Des Weiteren legt sie die Revision von laufenden Demarkierungsprozessen und bereits erfolgten Demarkierungen fest, da diese nicht mit der Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofes im Fall des Indigenengebietes Raposa Serra do Sol übereinstimmen. Die Verordnung greift die Autonomie der indigenen Völker über ihre Territorien an; beschränkt und relativiert das per Verfassung zugesicherte ausschließliche Nutzungsrecht der Naturreichtümer durch Indigene in Indigenengebieten. Sie überträgt dem Chico-Mendes-Institut für Biodiversitätsschutz (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade - ICMBIO) die Kontrolle über Indigenengebiete, die missbräuchlich und illegalerweise von Schutzgebieten (Unidades de Conservação - UCs) überlagert werden, und schafft Probleme hinsichtlich der Überprüfung der Grenzen von demarkierten Indigenengebieten. Dabei bleibt das Recht der Indigenen auf ihr traditionelles Territorium gänzlich unberücksichtigt.

Petition

Angesichts dieser Situation wendet sich der Dachverband der Indigenen Völker Brasiliens (Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil - APIB) an das Menschenrechtssystem der Vereinten Nationen, um notwendige Maßnahmen zur genaueren Beobachtung der Situation der Indigenenrechte und der Verletzung dieser Rechte in Brasilien einzufordern. Möglich wäre ein gemeinsames Handeln mit mehreren Berichterstattern, zum Beispiel durch Unterstützung einer gemeinsamen Mission mit dem Sachverständigenausschuss für die Durchführung der Übereinkommen und Empfehlungen, um die Umsetzung der Konvention ILO 169 und der Deklaration der Vereinten Nationen der Rechte indigener Völker zu prüfen.

Bei dieser Gelegenheit möchten wir den Vereinten Nationen vorschlagen, ein Online-Übersetzungssystem einzurichten, damit auch Bürger der UN-Mitgliedsstaaten, welche nicht die offiziellen Sprachen sprechen, wie im Fall der indigenen Völker Brasiliens, ihre Anliegen mitteilen können.

Mit Zuversicht auf ihre Unterstützung und Aufmerksamkeit verbschieden wir uns und stehen Ihnen jederzeit zur Klärung der in diesem Dokument angesprochenen Sachverhalte zur Verfügung.

Hochachtungsvoll,

Manoel Uilton dos Santos / Indigener vom Volk Tuxá
Leitung des Dachverbandes der Indigenen Völker Brasiliens - APIB

(Document submitted by Uilton Tuxá (APIB) to the OHCHR in Geneva, 13 November 2012)

Translated into English by EARTH PEOPLES. Click here to read the original in Portuguese

Geneva, 13 November 2012.

Regarding: Situation of Indigenous Peoples Rights in Brazil

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen

Our National Indigenous Umbrella organization of Brazil (APIB) “Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil” (APIB) is comprised of the main regional indigenous organizations in the country:

• Articulation of Indigenous people in the Northeast and Minas Gerais and Espirito Santo - APOINME,

• Coordination of the Brazilian Amazon - COIAB,

• Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of the South - ARPINSUL,

• Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of the Southeast - ARPINSUDESTE,

• Articulation of Indigenous Peoples and the Pantanal region - ARPIPAN,

• the Great Assembly Guarani - ATY Guasu.

We are highly concerned about the worsening situation in our country and the increasing violations on our fundamental collective human rights as a peoples.

The main objective of this document is to request the UN system to intervene with the Brazilian State to take measures to ensure respect for indigenous peoples rights in accordance with international human rights instruments, among which we highlight the ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which establish the right of indigenous peoples to Free, Prior and Informed Consent, yet frequently violated by Brazil despite the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, or the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR / OAS).

Brazil is seen in the world as one of the fastest economically growing countries especially in the last decade, and therefore considered to have evolved from the status of a third world country to the status of an emerging country, but even with the investment in programs such as the Bolsa Familia that aims to end hunger of the population living in extreme poverty, there are still many poor, and indigenous peoples in Brazil are within this context of poverty.

We wish to present in this paper an overview about the situation of indigenous peoples in Brazil:

SOCIAL RIGHTS

Regarding the rights of indigenous peoples that are constitutionally guaranteed is far from being achieved, due to the absence of the passing of a law that would regulate the Article 231 of the Constitution. The lack of such regulation of the law contradicts the discourses of the leaders of the current government such as President Dilma Rousseff and Former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

According to Census 2010, conducted by the Institute Brazilian Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the total indigenous population in Brazil is 817,963. Of these, at least 326,375 Indigenous individuals are living in extreme poverty (39.9%), which are almost every fourth of each tenth. Unlike other segments of the Brazilian society where the percentages are way lower than those of the indigenous peoples, for the white population the percentage reaches 4.7%, and for the population of African decent 10.0%, it is noteworthy that the indigenous population in Brazil represents only 0.04% of the total population in the country.

LAND AND INDIGENOUS TERRITORIES

The Brazilian government is claiming that 95% of  Indigenous Territories are already demarcated in Brazil, but does not explain that this percentage is almost exclusively related to land in the Amazon region, and that some territories that were demarcated as well as others who were regularized relied on the encouragement of significant financial support through international cooperation and that little investment of financial resources was coming from the Government of Brazil.

Most of the indigenous population that suffers and lives in a situation of extreme poverty is located in the North (Amazon) and Midwest, and many cases occur on land that has been demarcated, showing that it is not enough to demarcate indigenous lands without offering decent work conditions and the sustainable use of land. Indigenous peoples and communities like any other citizen need the conditions in order to sustain themselves and to protect their territories. If there is visible poverty in the regions with land that is already demarcated, imagine then the other regions,  such as the south and northeast of the country, where many indigenous lands are not even demarcated and continue to be invaded by farmers.

Most of the indigenous peoples of Brazil are subject to vulnerabilities, because they are under pressure over their lands, territories and natural resources, because of the construction of large economic development projects of the government, such as roads, small and large hydroelectric dams, transposition of watercourses - as in the case of the São Francisco River, electricity transmission networks, the intrusion of mining and logging operations, agricultural expansion, monoculture plantations and general conflicts with settlers and landowners.

As an example, we wish to cite some cases of the indigenous peoples, such as the Guarani Kaiowá people, located in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, the Pataxó Hã-Hã-Hãe, Pataxó and Tupinambá people in the State of Bahia, and the Xavante people in the state of Mato Grosso. In the first case the Guarani Kaiowá are subjected to discrimination and ethnocide. They live in extremely small areas, and large-scale farms invade and occupy the land with monoculture plantations such as soy, sugarcane and eucalyptus,  and their gunmen. In indigenous territory Dourados, the homicide rate is very high due to the land conflict,  and there are other cases where indigenous peoples such as the Pataxó Hãhãhãe in the state of Bahia wait for more than 20 years that the Federal Supreme Court may resolve the situation with their territory. Only this year, on May 2nd, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Pataxó Hãhãhãe that the property titles that the regional government of Bahia had awarded to the farmers of the region are rejected and nullified, however the federal government that is responsible for indigenous peoples land demarcation in Brazil has done nothing to ensure the withdrawal/removal of several Farmers that illegally occupy the indigenous Pataxó Hãhãhãe territory.

The case of the Xavante people in the state of Mato Grosso is another revealing case of hegemony, in which the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples are blatantly violated, even so under the laws of the country the implementation of constitutional rights are the responsibility of the federal government. In 1998 the Indigenous territory Maraiwatséde was ratified, therefore the Xavante people got entitlement to permanent possession and exclusive use of their ratified territory, however, the federal government, through the governmental bureau of indigenous peoples affairs, the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), has not removed the farmers to this date, to the dismay of the Xavante people. But worse, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mato Grosso approved a bill proposing that Xavante be transferred to a state park, so that the non-indigenous large-scale farms and plantations can remain on the Indigenous territory. Moreover, like the Kaiowá in southern regional states of the country, there are about 50 indigenous groups living in camps and awaiting the demarcation of their traditional territory while others are awaiting the removal of non-indigenous intruders.

As you can see the fate of the indigenous peoples of Brazil is threatened, because we know that without our land and territories guaranteed, and without conditions of protection and sustainability, the survival of indigenous peoples become unviable.

MEGAPROJECTS

Regarding Brazilian governmental infrastructure development projects, at least 434 would affect indigenous territories. We highlight two megaprojects: the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam in the Amazon region and the transposition / diversion of the waters of the Rio São Francisco, in the northeast of the country. In both cases, the Brazilian government has not respected the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

For over 20 years the Belo Monte hydroelectric project was met with resistance and was not executed due to the powerful protest struggle of the indigenous peoples that would have been affected by the dam. This project is considered as a major environmental tragedy, it will flood an area of ​​500 square kilometers, and will bring huge social problems to the people that are impacted by the dam. The diversion of the waters of the Xingu River in the state Para will leave (parts with nearly) no water, no fish and no means of river transportation for the indigenous and traditional communities. These communities will be impacted with their traditional forms of production and their culture, not to mention the conflicts and social problems that will be caused by the immigration of ~20 000 workers from various regions of the country in search for work and better living conditions.

The transposition/diversion of the São Francisco River in the states of Pernambuco, Paraíba, Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte, which supposedly would bring water to the poor people of these states is actually planned as a project that aims to promote and meet the demands of agribusiness, political and economical interests and other interests of the various sectors of the regions.

The São Francisco River passes from its birthplace to its river’s mouth through traditional territories that are occupied for over 9000 years by the indigenous peoples of the northeast. It is over 2,800 km long, and home for 32 indigenous nations, occupying 38 traditional territories of the following people: Kaxagó, Kariri-Xocó, Tingui-Boto, Akona, Karapotó, Geripancó, Xoco, Katokin, Koiupanká, Karuazu, Kalankó, Pankararu, Fulni-ô, Xucuru-Kariri, Pankaiuká, Tuxá, Pipipã, Kambiwá, Kapinawá, Xukuru Pankará, Tupan, Truká Pankararé, Kantaruré, Atikum, Tumbalalá, Pankaru, Kiriri, Xacriabá, Kaxixó and Pataxó, with a population of approximately 70,000 Indigenous individuals.

For these peoples, the São Francisco River is of vital importance for their physical and cultural survival,  for their way of production/livelihood as well as for the continuity of their rituals and culture. However, the government ignores this wholesome context and especially the scream of repudiation of the indigenous but also non-indigenous people and decided to authorize the works for the project, violating the right to prior consultation.

The ILO Convention 169 is not respected and therefore does not apply in Brazil. A good example of the ILO Convention 169 being violated happened in 2011, when the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) asked the Brazilian government to suspend the permitting process and construction of the Belo Monte dam, while not properly consulting the indigenous peoples concerned.

So, slanderously, the Brazilian government reported on April 5 that it had fulfilled its institutional role to inform and consult the indigenous communities. When in fact there were social gatherings/meetings with basic/simple information provided and afterwards manipulated and characterized as consultation, even so these events were denounced as division with practices of cooptation or mischaracterization of indigenous leaders.

“Good faith” is clearly missing on the part of the Brazilian State, there is no political will to accept that indigenous people would be actually consulted about projects that will impact them, or that they are also involved in the decision making processes about the legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly.

CRIMINALIZATION, HEALTH AND OTHER ASPECTS

The violation of indigenous rights in Brazil is worrying in all respects according to the latest annual report of the Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI), released on 30 June 2011, 92 children died in 2010 due to lack of medical care. There were 60 killed and 152 death threats. Of the 60 Indians killed, 34 were in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, where the Guarani Kaiowá are located.

The health care attendance for indigenous peoples is very poor, the Special Indigenous Health Secretariat (Secretaria Especial de Saúde Indígena), created in 2010 can not function properly and has a insufficient structure that doesn’t promote adequate basic health care.

The National Office for Indigenous Affairs (Fundação Nacional do Índio - FUNAI) that got restructured, with the promise that this change would improve it’s work on the ground, mainly in the processes of land regularization of indigenous territory, but it has been impossible to see such changes on the ground. Actually, the governmental body for indigenous issues (FUNAI) goes through a purposeful scrapping by the government to hinder the process of land demarcations.

INDIGENOUS RIGHTS

In respect to indigenous peoples rights, we are waiting for over 20 years that the Brazilian National Congress approves a new Statute for Indigenous Peoples, which is being processed under No. PL 760/2011 that proposes to regulate the articles 231 and 232 of the Federal Constitution of Brazil concerning the rights of indigenous peoples.

We also await the approval of the bill No. PL 3571/2008 - the creation of the National Indigenous Policy (Conselho Nacional de Política Indigenista - CNPI), which is being processed in the Chamber of Deputies. These legislative steps do not advance in Congress due to lack of commitment of the current government that actually does not want to pass laws that guarantee our rights because of the interest to explore our traditional territory through projects of the Growth Acceleration Plan (Plano de Aceleração do Crescimento -PAC).

ANTI-INDIGENOUS LEGISLATION

PEC 215/2000. Contrarily to expectations for the protection of indigenous rights, the Chamber of Deputies’ Committee on Constitution and Justice (Comissão de Constituição e Justiça-CCJ) approved instead the admissibility of the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (Proposta de Emenda à Constituição - PEC 215/2000) in March 21 2012. The Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC 215) aims to transfer the authority to approve indigenous land demarcation to the National Congress, as well as the creation of conservation units and land-titles for traditional communities of African decent (Quilombolas), which should be the responsibility of the executive branch, through FUNAI, IBAMA and the Fundación Cultural Palmares (FCP), respectively. The approval of PEC 215 - as well as PEC 038/99 is pending in the Senate,  that would endanger indigenous territories that are already demarcated, and  prevent any possible future land demarcation. The risk is great since Congress is mostly composed of representatives from economic sectors that are powerful sponsors of the current development model.

Legislative Mining Project (Projeto de Mineração PL 1610/1996). The parliamentarian-mining lobby also aims to approve the bill (PL) 1610/96 that deals with mining on indigenous lands. The text of the rapporteur totally ignores safeguards to protect the territorial integrity, and the social, cultural and spiritual rights of indigenous peoples. Instead, the text is watering down bureaucratic processes in order to ease the permission process for mineral prospecting and mining concessions on indigenous lands, with abundant facilities and conditions that allow the easy reaping of profits and growth/expansion of the companies involved. That is, the scandalous text is only concerned to make indigenous peoples land and recourses available for financial speculative capital. PL 1610/1996 would create conditions for an uncontrolled large-scale mining rush in indigenous territories. It would increase the attacks / pressure on indigenous peoples that live in voluntary isolation or those that still have little contact, and would leave their fate to the principles of national security- taking in a ridiculous way the participation of the Federal Public Ministry (Ministério Público Federal- MPF) and it’s prosecutors away in their role to protect indigenous rights. It would bury the autonomy of indigenous peoples, would drown indigenous peoples decisions if they do not want mining on their land, as their objection would be deliberated by a Governmental Deliberative Committee that would tell the indigenous peoples what proposal would be best for their communities, which is tutelary, paternalistic and authoritarian. Anyway, PL 1610/1996 minimizes the right of consultation already established by the Brazilian Constitution and the ILO Convention 169.

The indigenous peoples and organizations are opposed to this proposed mining law PL 1610/1996 because of the damage that it would cause, and demand that the issue of mining is guided by the text in the Indigenous Peoples Statute, which was widely discussed and consented by the indigenous peoples with the Federal Government in 2008 and 2009.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL MEASURES CONTRARY TO INDIGENOUS RIGHTS

During the past two years,  the Federal Government published a series of decrees and ordinances which aim to derail the demarcation of lands claimed by indigenous peoples, opening the indigenous territories and their natural resources to uncontrolled exploitation by domestic firms and transnational speculative capitalism. Between these measures we highlight the following:

Ordinance 2498/2011 that aims to grant participation of federal entities (states and municipalities) in the process of identification and demarcation of indigenous lands; in order to bypass and edit this measure, the government ignored the decree 1775/96 that establishes the procedures for the demarcation of indigenous lands and already guarantees rights, contrary to the creation of this Ordinance.

Ordinance 419/2011, which regulates the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) in derisive terms in regards to environmental licensing processes, with the goal to facilitate the implementation of projects of the Growth Acceleration Program - PAC (hydroelectric, mining, ports, waterways, roads, transmission lines etc..) in indigenous territories.

Ordinance 303/2012, which proposes to “normalize” the direct and indirect actions of the judicial organs of the Federal Public Administration regarding institutional safeguards related to indigenous lands. Given the desire of landowners and agribusiness, the Ordinance actually seeks to extend to all indigenous territories conditions that have been decided by the Federal Supreme Tribunal (Supremo Tribunal Federal - STF) in the Lawsuit Raposa Serra do Sol (Petition 3.888-Roraima/STF). The Government enacted (wrote) the Ordinance even though the Federal Supreme Tribunal decision on the declared Raposa Serra do Sol embargos have not yet become final, and these constraints may change or even be removed by the Supreme Court. The Ordinance 303 affirms that indigenous lands can be occupied by military units, stations and other military interventions, road networks, hydroelectric dams and mining extraction for strategic purposes, without consulting the indigenous communities and the FUNAI; determines the revision of work- in-progress land demarcations and the revision of already demarcated indigenous land that are not in accordance with what the Supreme Court decided in the case of the Raposa Serra do Sol, therefore attacking the autonomy of indigenous peoples over their territories, limiting and weakening the right of indigenous peoples on the exclusive use of existing natural resources on indigenous lands even so it is a right already secured by the Federal Constitution; transfers to the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBIO) the control of indigenous lands, with superimposed unduly and illegally Conservation Units (CUs) and creates problems for the revision (extention) of the limits of demarcated indigenous lands where the indigenous right to traditional land occupation was not fully observed.

PETITION

We, the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) came to meet the Human Rights Mechanisms of the United Nations, to urge for a stricter monitoring of the situation of indigenous rights in Brazil, in particular the violations of their rights, perhaps allowing joint action by various Rapporteurs, that may promote, for example, a joint mission with the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), to verify the application of ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

On occasion we would suggest that the United Nations create an online language translation for any follow-up UN member countries that do not speak the official language also can make their complaints as is our case of indigenous peoples in Brazil.

Confident count on your support and attention we parted at the same time as we prepare to clarify any matter addressed herein.

Sincerely,

Uilton Manoel dos Santos / Indigenous People’s Tuxá

National Board for Coordination of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil - APIB

*******************

Translated by EARTH PEOPLES. Click here to read:original in portuguese

Geneva, 13.11.2012   At a meeting with various UN officials from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the organization National Articulation of the Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) submitted a document that listed human rights violations and complaints about proposed laws in Brazil that would, if approved, undermine or even entirely remove indigenous peoples rights.

One of the law’s, Ordinance 303, was already approved but awaits the final decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which is currently considering if it is actually constitutional.

It would be truly disastrous if this law would become active, because it denies the indigenous peoples their right to say no to projects on their land, such as streets, mining projects, or hydroelectric dams. Brazil’s Ordinance 303 would violate rights that are international human rights standard,  such as the ILO Convention 169, or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, because the Ordinance would deny indigenous peoples their right to be consulted, and to decide freely, without pressure, prior informed if the want to consent to a development project on their territory, or not.

Another proposed law, PEC 215, is also causing many sleepless nights for indigenous leaders in Brazil. Still awaiting the approval by Congress, this law would literally dissolve the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional territories.

To read the original document submitted by APIB to the OHCHR in Portuguese CLICK HERE