Supreme Court Asked to Protect Habitat for Endangered Frogs

Supreme Court Asked to Protect Habitat for Endangered Frogs

by | Jul 7, 2018 | Lobbying

Featured image: Dusky gopher frog courtesy USFWS

     by Center for Biological Diversity

NEW ORLEANS— From economists and scientists to religious leaders and business owners, dozens of groups this week submitted “friend of the court” briefs asking the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain protections for 1,600 acres of “critical habitat” designated in Louisiana for endangered dusky gopher frogs.

“It’s inspiring to see so many people eloquently urge our nation’s highest court to protect endangered wildlife,” said Collette Adkins, a Center attorney fighting in the Supreme Court for the frog’s protections. “While these folks represent a wide range of interests, they’re united in supporting these little frogs, their habitat protections and the Endangered Species Act. Like most Americans, these scientists, businesspeople and faith leaders recognize that imperiled animals need a place to live.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in January granted a “petition for certiorari,” filed by the timber company Weyerhaeuser, to reconsider a June 2016 decision from a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a 2012 rule establishing the frog’s protections.

That rule protects 6,477 acres of critical habitat in Mississippi and Louisiana, including 1,600 privately owned acres of unoccupied frog habitat in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The panel held that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reasonably concluded that the St. Tammany Parish land is essential for recovery of the frogs, which are now confined to just three sites in southern Mississippi — with only one site regularly showing frog reproduction.

The “friend of the court” briefs, also known as “amicus briefs,” filed this week ask the Supreme Court to affirm the panel decision. Volunteer lawyers and law students wrote the briefs, in a coast-to-coast effort to represent scientists, legal experts and others with economic, scientific, moral and aesthetic interests affected by this case:

  • Landowners who value the presence of endangered species on their property and welcome efforts to preserve their habitats;
  • Faith-based groups recognizing a shared commitment, rooted in religious teachings and principles, to care for the earth and its species;
  • Scientists with expertise in conservation biology, including Stuart Pimm and E.O. Wilson;
  • Frog experts who study amphibian ecology and have expertise in conservation of gopher frogs;
  • Leading nonprofit conservation organizations with longstanding interests in protecting wildlife;
  • Environmental law professors with expertise in the Endangered Species Act;
  • Economists and law professors with expertise in economic theory, cost-benefit analysis, the valuation of environmental goods and environmental law and regulation;
  • Former leaders of the Department of the Interior, ranging from the Nixon administration through the Obama administration, who administered and enforced the Endangered Species Act; and
  • Small-business owners including ranchers, ecotourism entrepreneurs and artists, who make an economic case for biodiversity and stewardship.

The Center for Biological Diversity organized the amicus effort and, along with the Gulf Restoration Network, intervened in the case. Participating as parties in the litigation before the Supreme Court, the Center and GRN last week filed their brief in support of the frog’s habitat protections.

Background
The dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa) is a warty, dark-colored frog with ridges on the sides of its back. When picked up, these frogs cover their eyes with their forefeet, possibly to protect their faces until predators taste their bitter skin secretions and release them. Gopher frogs spend most of their lives underground in burrows created by gopher tortoises — hence their name.

Once prevalent in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, dusky gopher frogs are nearly extinct. More than 98 percent of longleaf pine forests — upon which the frog and many other rare animals depend — have been destroyed. Fire suppression, drought, pesticides, urban sprawl, highway construction and the decline of gopher tortoises have made this frog so rare it now lives in only a few small Mississippi ponds, with only one pond showing consistent frog reproduction.

In response to a Center lawsuit, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the gopher frog as a federally endangered species in 2001. The lawsuit and advocacy by the Center also prompted the 2012 critical habitat designation at issue in the Supreme Court case. Additionally, in response to legal advocacy by the Center and Gulf Restoration Network, the agency released a final recovery plan for the frogs in 2015.

Book Excerpt: Acts of Commission: Indirect to Direct

Book Excerpt: Acts of Commission: Indirect to Direct

by | Jul 1, 2018 | Strategy & Analysis

Editor’s note: The following is from the chapter “A Taxonomy of Action” of the book Deep Green Resistance: A Strategy to Save the  Planet.  This book is now available for free online.

     by Aric McBay

As we’ve made clear, acts of omission are not going to bring down civilization. Let’s talk about action with more potential. We can split all acts of commission into six branches:

  • lobbying;
  • protests and symbolic acts;
  • education and awareness raising;
  • support work and building alternatives;
  • capacity building and logistics;
  • and direct confrontation and conflict.

The illustration “Taxonomy of Action” groups them by directness. The most indirect tactics are on the left, and become progressively more direct when moving from left to right. More direct tactics involve more personal risk. (The main collective risk is failing to save the planet.) Direct acts require fewer people.

Chart: A Taxonomy of Action

Figure 6-1. Click for larger image.

The first, lobbying, is attempting to influence or persuade those in power through letter writing, petitions, declarations or “speaking truth to power,” protests, and so on. For the liberal, even atrocities are just big misunderstandings.29Lobbying informs those in power of their mistake (of course, since those in power are well-meaning, they will reform after being politely informed of their error).

Lobbying seems attractive because if you have enough resources (i.e., money), you can get government to do things for you, magnifying your actions. Success is possible when many people push for minor change, and unlikely when few people push for major change. But lobbying is too indirect—it requires us to try to convince someone to convince other people to make a decision or pass a law, which will then hopefully be enacted by other people, and enforced by yet a further group.

Lobbying via persuasion is a dead end, not just in terms of taking down civilization, but in virtually every radical endeavor. It assumes that those in power are essentially moral and can be convinced to change their behavior. But let’s be blunt: if they wanted to do the right thing, we wouldn’t be where we are now. Or to put it another way, their moral sense (if present) is so profoundly distorted they are almost all unreachable by persuasion.

And what if they could be persuaded? Capitalists employ vast armies of professional lobbyists to manipulate government. Our ability to lobby those in power (which includes heads of governments and corporations) is vastly outmatched by their ability to lobby each other. Convincing those in power to change would require huge numbers of people. If we had those people, those in power wouldn’t be convinced—they would be replaced. Convincing them to mend their ways would be irrelevant, because we could undertake much more effective action.

Lobbying is simply not a priority in taking down civilization. This is not to diminish or insult lobbying victories like the Clean Water Act and the Wildlife Act, which have bought us valuable time. It is merely to point out that lobbying will not work to topple a system as vast as civilization.

Protests and symbolic acts are tactics used mostly to gain attention. If the intent of an action is to obstruct or disrupt business as usual in terms of transportation, the enforcement of laws, or other economic and political activities, then it’s direct confrontation. If the protest is a rally for discussion or public education, it’s education and awareness raising (see the next section).

When effective, demonstrations are part of a broader movement and go beyond the symbolic. There have been effective protests, such as the civil rights actions in Birmingham, but they were not symbolic; they were physical obstructions of business and politics. This disruption is usually illegal. Still, symbolic protests can get attention. Protests are most effective at “getting a message out” when they focus on one issue. Modern media coverage is so superficial and sensational that nuances get lost. But a critique of civilization can’t be expressed in sound bytes, so protests can’t publicize it. And civilization is so large and so ubiquitous that there is no one place to protest it. Some resistance movements have employed protests, to show strength and attract recruits, but the majority of people will never be on our side; our strategy needs to be based on effectiveness, not just numbers.

All resistance groups engage in some type of education and awareness raising, often public. In the most repressive regimes, education moves underground. Propaganda, agitation, rallies, theater, art, and spectacle are all actions that fall into these categories.

For public education to work, several conditions must be met. The resistance education and propaganda must be able to outcompete the mass media. The general public must be able and willing to unravel the prevailing falsehoods, even if doing that contravenes their own social, psychological, and economic self-interest. They must have accessible ways to change their actions, and they must choose morally preferable actions over convenient ones. Unfortunately, none of these conditions are in place right now.

Another drawback of education is its built-in delay; it may take years before a given person translates new information into action. But as we know, the planet is being murdered, and the window for effective action is small. For deep green resisters, skills training and agitation may be more effective than public education.

Education won’t directly take down civilization, but it may help to radicalize and recruit people by providing a critical interpretation of their experiences. And as civilization continues to collapse, education may encourage people to question the underlying reasons for a declining economy, food crises, and so on.

Resistance movements need internal support structures to win. This may take the physical form of sustainable local food systems, alternative construction, alternative health care, and off-the-grid energy, transport, and communications. It may also include socially focused endeavors such as mutual aid, prisoner support, conflict resolution work, alternative economics, and intentional communities.

These support structures directly enable resistance. The Quakers’ Society of Friends developed a sturdy ethic of support for the families of Quakers who were arrested under draconian conditions of religious persecution (see Chapter 4: “Loyalty, Material Support, & Leadership”). People can take riskier (and more effective) action if they know that they and their families will be supported.

Building alternatives won’t directly bring down civilization, but as industrial civilization unravels, alternatives have two special roles. First, they can bolster resistance in times of crisis; resisters are more able to fight if they aren’t preoccupied with getting food, water, and shelter. Second, alternative communities can act as an escape hatch for regular people, so that their day-to-day work and efforts go to autonomous societies rather than authoritarian ones.

To serve either role, people building alternatives must be part of a culture of resistance—or better yet, part of a resistance movement. If the “alternative” people are aligned with civilization, their actions will prolong the destructiveness of the dominant culture. Let’s not forget that Hitler’s V2 rockets were powered by biofuel fermented from potatoes. The US military has built windmills at Guantanamo Bay, and is conducting research on hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Renewable energy is a necessity for a sustainable and equitable society, but not a guarantee of one. Militants and builders of alternatives are actually natural allies. As I wrote in What We Leave Behind, “If this monstrosity is not stopped, the carefully tended permaculture gardens and groves of lifeboat ecovillages will be nothing more than after-dinner snacks for civilization.” Organized militants can help such communities from being consumed.

In addition, even the most carefully designed ecovillage will not be sustainable if neighboring communities are not sustainable. As neighbors deplete their landbases, they have to look further afield for more resources, and a nearby ecovillage will surely be at the top of their list of targets for expansion. An ecovillage either has to ensure that its neighbors are sustainable or be able to repel their future efforts at expansion.

In many cultures, what might be considered an “alternative” by some people today is simply a traditional way of life—perhaps the traditional way of life. Peoples struggling with displacement from their lands and dealing with attempts at assimilation and genocide may be mostly concerned with their own survival and the survival of their way of life. And for many indigenous groups, expressing their traditional lifestyle and culture may be in itself a direct confrontation with power. This is a very different situation from people whose lives and lifestyles are not under immediate threat.

Of course, even people primarily concerned with the perpetuation of their traditional cultures and lifestyles are living with the fact that civilization has to come down for any of us to survive. People born into civilization, and those who have benefitted from its privilege, have a much greater responsibility to bring it down. Despite this, indigenous peoples are mostly fighting much harder against civilization than those born inside of it.

Every successful historical resistance movement has rested upon a subsistence base of some kind. Establishing that base is a necessary step, but that alone is not sufficient to stop the world from being destroyed.

Capacity Building and Logistics

Capacity building and logistics are the backbone of any successful resistance movement. Although direct confrontation and conflict may get the glory, no sustained campaign of direct action is possible without a healthy logistical and operational core. That includes the following:

Resistance groups need ways of recruiting new members. The risk level of the group determines how open this process can be. Furthermore, new and existing members require training in tactics, strategy, logistics, and so on. Some or all of that training can take place in a lower-risk environment.

Resistance movements of all kinds must be able to screen recruits or volunteers to assess their suitability and to exclude infiltrators. Members of the group must share certain essential viewpoints and values (either assured through screening or teaching) in order to maintain the group’s cohesion and focus.

Resisters need to be able to communicate securely and rapidly with one another to share information and coordinate plans. They may also need to communicate with a wider audience, for propaganda or agitation. Many resistance groups have been defeated because of inadequate communications or poor communications security.

Resistance requires funding, whether for offices and equipment, legal costs and bail, or underground activities. In aboveground resistance, procurement is mostly a subset of fund raising, since people can buy the items or materials they need. In underground resistance, procurement may mean getting specialized equipment without gathering attention or simply getting items the resistance otherwise would be unable to get.

Of course, fund raising isn’t just a way to get materials, but also a way to support mutual aid and social welfare activities, support arrestees and casualties or their families, and allow core actionists to focus on resistance efforts rather than on “making a living.”

People and equipment need access to transportation in order to reach other resisters and facilitate distribution of materials. Conventional means of transportation may be impaired by collapse, poverty, or social or political repression, but there are other ways. The Underground Railroad was a solid resistance transportation network. The Montgomery bus boycott was enabled by backup transportation systems (especially walking and carpooling) coordinated by civil rights organizers who scheduled carpools and even replaced worn-out shoes.

Security is necessary for any group big enough to make a splash and become a target for state intelligence gathering and repression. Infiltration is definitely a concern, but so is ubiquitous surveillance. This does not apply solely to people or groups considering illegal action. Nonviolent, law-abiding groups have been and are surveilled and disrupted by COINTELPRO-like entities. Many times it is the aboveground resisters who are more at risk as working aboveground means being identifiable.

Research and reconnaissance are equally important logistical tools. To be effective, any strategy requires critical information about potential targets. This is true whether a group is planning to boycott a corporation, blockade a factory, or take out a dam.

Imagine how foolish you’d feel if you organized a huge boycott against some military contractor, only to find that they’d recently converted to making school buses. Resistance researchers can help develop a strategy and identify potential targets and weaknesses, as well as tactics likely to be useful against them. Research is also needed to gain an understanding of the strategy and tactics of those in power.

There are certain essential services and care that keep a resistance movement running smoothly. These include services like the repair of equipment, clothing, and so on. Health care skills and equipment can be extremely valuable, and resistance groups should have at least basic health care capabilities, including first aid and rudimentary emergency medicine, wound care, and preventative medicine.

Coordination with allies and sponsors is often a logistical concern. Many historical guerilla and insurgent groups have been “sponsored” by other established revolutionary regimes or by states hoping to foment revolution and undermine unfriendly foreign governments. For example, in 1965 Che Guevera left postrevolutionary Cuba to help organize and train Congolese guerillas, and Cuba itself had the backing of Soviet Russia. Both Russia and the United States spent much of the Cold War “sponsoring” various resistance groups by training and arming them, partly as a method of trying to put “friendly” governments in power, and partly as a means of waging proxy wars against each other.

Resistance groups can also have sponsors and allies who are genuinely interested in supporting them, rather than attempting to manipulate them. Resistance in WWII Europe is a good example. State-sponsored armed partisan groups and other partisan and underground groups supported resistance fighters such as those in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Direct Conflict and Confrontation

Ultimately, success requires direct confrontation and conflict with power; you can’t win on the defensive. But direct confrontation doesn’t always mean overt confrontation. Disrupting and dismantling systems of power doesn’t require advertising who you are, when and where you are planning to act, or what means you will use.

Back in the heyday of the summit-hopping “antiglobalization” movement, I enjoyed seeing the Black Bloc in action. But I was discomfited when I saw them smash the windows of a Gap storefront, a Starbucks, or even a military recruiting office during a protest. I was not opposed to seeing those windows smashed, just surprised that those in the Black Bloc had deliberately waited until the one day their targets were surrounded by thousands of heavily armed riot police, with countless additional cameras recording their every move and dozens of police buses idling on the corner waiting to take them to jail. It seemed to be the worst possible time and place to act if their objective was to smash windows and escape to smash another day.

Of course, their real aim wasn’t to smash windows—if you wanted to destroy corporate property there are much more effective ways of doing it—but to fight. If they wanted to smash windows, they could have gone out in the middle of the night a few days before the protest and smashed every corporate franchise on the block without anyone stopping them. They wanted to fight power, and they wanted people to see them doing it. But we need to fight to win, and that means fighting smart. Sometimes that means being more covert or oblique, especially if effective resistance is going to trigger a punitive response.

That said, actions can be both effective and draw attention. Anarchist theorist and Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin argued that “we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda.”30 The intent of the deed is not to commit a symbolic act to get attention, but to carry out a genuinely meaningful action that will serve as an example to others.

ESA Update: Victory Stands as USFWS Withdraws Appeal

ESA Update: Victory Stands as USFWS Withdraws Appeal

by | Jun 30, 2018 | Lobbying

Featured image by Stephany Seay, Buffalo Field Campaign

     by Buffalo Field Campaign

On Monday, (June 25) our attorneys at Friends of Animals informed BFC that the US Fish & Wildlife Service has withdrawn their appeal, and Buffalo Field Campaign and Western Watersheds Project’s lawsuit victory will stand.

On January 31, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled the Service violated the Endangered Species Act in finding that the imperiled bison did not warrant protection under the Act. With their appeal officially withdrawn, the Service now has to issue a new 90-day finding consistent with Judge Cooper’s opinion.

In his ruling, Judge Cooper said the Service couldn’t pick and choose science and ignore evidence that bison may be threatened. At the 90-day finding stage, Judge Cooper found the Service must credit evidence presented in our petition that bison may warrant listing as an endangered species.

The clock is now ticking for the Service to act and issue a new 90-day finding on our petition to list bison as an endangered species.

Water Protector Suspends Himself from 25-Foot Structure in St. Paul to Demonstrate Resistance to the Line 3 Pipeline

Water Protector Suspends Himself from 25-Foot Structure in St. Paul to Demonstrate Resistance to the Line 3 Pipeline

by | Jun 28, 2018 | Biodiversity & Habitat Destruction, Climate Change, Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy, Obstruction & Occupation

For Immediate Release

June 28, 2018

Activist risks arrest in front of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Office during its final hearings to permit the Line 3 tar sands pipeline

Contact: Ethan Nuss, (218) 380-9047,  stopline3mpls@gmail.com

ST PAUL, MN – A water protector ascended a 25-foot steel tripod structure erected in the street in front of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) office to demonstrate ongoing resistance against Enbridge’s proposed Line 3 tar sands pipeline. Today marks one of the final public hearings held by the PUC on its decision to grant a certificate of need to the controversial pipeline.

All five of the directly affected Objibwe Tribal Nations in Minnesota oppose the dangerous project because of the threat it poses to their fresh water, culturally significant wild rice lakes, and tribal sovereignty. Line 3 will accelerate climate change by bringing carbon-intensive tar sands bitumen from Alberta to refineries in the Midwest. Climate change disproportionately impacts Indigenous and frontline communities across the world. This deadly infrastructure project is another example of the genocidal legacy of colonialism faced by Native peoples and the ecological destruction caused by corporate greed. Water protectors, climate justice advocates, landowners, and faith leaders stand united alongside Native communities against this dangerous pipeline.

At around 7AM CST water protectors blockaded traffic by erecting 25-foot steel poles in a tripod structure on 7th Pl. in front of the PUC offices in downtown Saint Paul, MN. Ben, a 30-year-old Minneapolis resident, ascended the structure and unfurled a banner that reads, “Expect Resistance,” a clear message to Enbridge and the PUC that fierce opposition to this pipeline will continue to grow at every stage.

“If the PUC doesn’t stop Line 3, then we will,” said Ben, suspended from the 25-foot structure in the street in front the PUC. “Today’s action isn’t about me but is a demonstration of the growing resistance to Line 3. ” Ben continued, “We’re taking action in solidarity with Native people, who continue to fight for their existence on occupied land and with people all over the world who resist the desecration of nature by extractive industries.”

For photos and live updates go to: twitter.com/ResistLine3

(Update: the tripod was occupied for three years before being vacated)

New York: Neighbors Rally at Cuomo Appearance to Shut Down Pipeline

New York: Neighbors Rally at Cuomo Appearance to Shut Down Pipeline

by | Jun 25, 2018 | Protests & Symbolic Acts

Activists’ Fears Confirmed by Newly Released New York State Multi-Agency Report Showing Dangers of Siting AIM Pipeline Next to Indian Point Nuclear Facilities

     by ResistAim

Croton-On-Hudson, NY Sunday, June 24, 2018 —  Residents of towns near the Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) pipeline gathered today at a fundraiser where Governor Cuomo was scheduled to appear, to tell the Governor to immediately shut the “Algonquin” Pipeline down. Today’s protest is a response to the New York State multi-agency Risk Assessment regarding co-locating a high pressure, high volume fracked gas pipeline alongside the failing Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant; the report was due over a year and a half ago and its executive summary was released on Friday evening. This report substantiates arguments made for years by community members, experts, and elected officials that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) did not sufficiently consider risks and other concerns before constructing the “Algonquin” Incremental Market (AIM) Pipeline expansion alongside Indian Point.

In February 2016, the Governor ordered the New York State Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES), Department of Public Service (DPS), Department of Health (DOH), and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to undertake the Risk Assessment.  Last year, construction was completed on the AIM Project, a high-pressure, 42’ inch diameter, fracked gas pipeline that runs under the Hudson River and within 110 feet of critical safety infrastructure for the aging and failing nuclear plant. The pipeline was completed after years of protest from the community and beyond, and in direct opposition to objections from elected officials at all levels. Further, this pipeline was built despite a report from the Massachusetts Attorney General showing that the additional capacity was not needed for the region to meet its energy needs.

While Governor Cuomo was a no-show at the event, activists did speak with Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul, demanding the state act immediately now that it has evidence of the risks posed by the pipeline. Despite attending the fundraiser only a few miles from the plant, the Lieutenant Governor said she wasn’t well versed on the topic and couldn’t speak to the state’s next steps. “How can the Lieutenant Governor attend an event only a stone’s throw from the plant and not be aware of the risk assessment that was released only 48 hours ago saying the home she was standing in was in danger?” asked Courtney Williams, a Peekskill resident who attended the rally with her young daughter. “We’ve been pressing the state on this for years. The fact that she was unable to speak to us about this is just more evidence that New York State isn’t doing its due diligence to protect us.”

“For years we have been saying that none of the Federal agencies were evaluating all the necessary risks when they granted permits for this pipeline. The Risk Assessment executive summary released on Friday is clear evidence that an independent contractor and four State agencies agree that there are too many unanswered questions to accurately assess the risk of running a high pressure, fracked gas pipeline right by Indian Point. The Governor must stop the the flow of gas at least as long as so many questions remain unanswered,” said Amy Rosmarin, co-founder of Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion (SAPE).

“This Risk Assessment could have been completed and released before the AIM Pipeline construction was finished,” said Tina Volz-Bongar, from Resist Spectra. “Now we are in a situation where gas is flowing through a pipeline for which proper safety determinations were not made. We are calling on the Governor to go to FERC and ask for an immediate stay to halt the gas flow alongside and under Indian Point,” she continued.

“Given what the Risk Assessment says, it is incumbent upon the Governor to direct the Public Service Commission to use its authority under PHMSA (Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration) to turn off the AIM Pipeline and do a proper safety and risk assessment without residents living daily with the potential danger of fracked gas under the plant,” said Nancy Vann, co-founder of Safe Energy Rights Group (SEnRG).

Today, community members and groups called on the Governor to shut the pipeline down by directing the Public Service Commission to exercise its authority over pipelines under PHMSA (Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration).

“While the probability of pipeline incidents is low, the proximity to the Indian Point nuclear plant makes the potential consequences of such an event very significant,” said the agencies in their press release. “Additional scrutiny and monitoring to better understand and reduce risks associated with the Algonquin pipelines is warranted. FERC must engage in further action to mitigate and investigate potential risks.”

Thousands of Indigenous Peoples Converge on Brazil’s Capital

Thousands of Indigenous Peoples Converge on Brazil’s Capital

by | Jun 14, 2018 | Protests & Symbolic Acts

Featured image: Photo: Mídia NINJA/flickr (Some Rights Reserved). Political setbacks in Brazil give renewed thrust to annual mobilization for land rights.

     by , GlobalVoices / Intercontinental Cry

The camp smelled like smoke and urucum, a plant used for body painting. A defiant energy pulsed through the crowd. We could hear chants, ritual mantras, and ceremonial crying.

The place resounded with the voices of the more than 3,000 indigenous people from more than 100 different groups from all over Brazil, who gathered for the five-day 2018 National Indigenous Mobilization, held from April 23 to 27 in Brasilia, the Brazilian capital city.

Also known as the ‘Free Land Camp’ (‘Acampamento Terra Livre’, in Portuguese), the sit-in is a yearly event organized by the Articulation of the Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB, in the Portuguese acronym). This year’s was its 15th edition.

According to the last Brazilian demographic census, there are 305 indigenous populations in Brazil, speaking 274 different languages. Together, they number almost 897,000 — approximately 0.47% of the country’s 200-million-strong population.

Most of them are scattered over thousands of villages, from north to south of the national territory, located in the 715 Indigenous Lands already regularized and formally recognized by the federal government. There are more than 800 cases of indigenous lands awaiting regularization.

The ‘Genocide Opinion’ and other blows

The movement has been facing a series of political setbacks, which gave renewed thrust to this year’s mobilization.

The Brazilian National Congress, whose majority is currently dominated by supporters of the agribusiness sector, are trying to approve a bill package that would undermine the rights of indigenous peoples guaranteed by Brazil’s 1988 Constitution and other international laws, such as Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization.

In the current complex political situation in Brazil, under the controversial administration of president Michel Temer, representatives of the agribusiness sector have gained even greater footholdand managed to also occupy other levels of government.

Only days before the Free Land Camp took place, President Temer yielded to pressure from a ruralist caucus and fired the president of the National Indigenous Foundation (FUNAI), replacing him with someone more agro-friendly.

The government’s reluctance to grant formal recognition of indigenous lands’ boundaries and the criminalization of the movement’s leaders were major points of concern and grievance for those who gathered in Brasilia.

Photo: Mídia NINJA/flickr (Some Rights Reserved)

Kretã Kaingang, an indigenous leader from the state of Paraná and coordinator of the indigenous program of 350.org in Brazil, recalled the kind of threats he has faced. “I was imprisoned for a time, accused of crimes that were not proven and I have been prevented by a judge from approaching the land where I was born. For four years I couldn’t step on the place where my umbilical cord is buried,” he said.

In September 2017, Brazil’s attorney general issued a legal opinion asserting that only indigenous peoples who were occupying their territory on the day the 1988 Constitution was promulgated should benefit from the recognition of their right to land.

Known as the “time limit” thesis, and sometimes called the “genocide opinion“, it has been endorsed by President Michel Temer. Should it ever become law, it would severely cripple the recognition of new indigenous lands.


There’s life in the trees just as there is in us. If you kill them, they die and never come back. If a logger kills a ‘cacique’, a story ends
‘We have only one objective here: to resume the process of demarcation of our lands’

The night fell as the indigenous leaders stood in vigil in front of the federal government building. At one point, the crowd raised candles and stopped their activities to listen to a lament sung by one of the indigenous women. It was a mourning ceremony.

Photo: Mídia NINJA/flickr (Some Rights Reserved)

On the following day, the Esplanade of Ministries, the main route where all federal government buildings are located, was occupied again by protesters, who marched towards the seat of the National Congress.

With paintings and adornments, dancing and singing war cries, indigenous Kaingang, Guarani, Guarani-Kaiowá, Guarani-Mbya, Xucuru, Pataxó, Munduruku, Awá-Guajá, Guajajara, Marubo, Xerente, Xavante, Kayapó, Tenetehara, Tembé, Tucano, Krahô, Kanela and many others demanded the process of demarcation of their lands be resumed and asked for respect for their rights, as enshrined in the 1988 Constitution.

Indigenous leaders carried banners with messages targeted at the authorities: “Demarcation Now!”, “No fracking in our lands!” and “Guarani resists”. Other signs called out the destruction of territories, rivers and natural resources by giant infrastructure and energy projects.

Photo: Mídia NINJA/flickr (Some Rights Reserved)

“We have only one objective here: to resume the process of demarcation of our lands. Many of our relatives could not join us, so we came to represent our communities,” said Kretã Kaingang.

During the demonstration, the street was stained red, symbolizing the blood shed by indigenous people during acts of repression and violence which are considered by many a continuation of the historical genocide perpetrated against them during colonial times.

“‘The trail of ‘blood’ we leave represents the violence and attacks imposed by the state to the original peoples of this country. Several invasions, threats, and assassinations have been occurring in Brazil, in addition to a cruel process of criminalization of our leaders. But despite this problematic conjuncture, we will always resist and fight, as we learned from our ancestral warriors,” said Chief Marcos Xukuru of Pernambuco.

Joênia Wapichana, the first indigenous woman and indigenous lawyer to stand up in the Federal Supreme Court, recalled what is really at play: “The fact that the Executive Branch has an instrument to restrict the right to demarcation puts the lives of all indigenous peoples at risk, whose subsistence depends directly on the land and everything it gives.”

Photo: Mídia NINJA/flickr (Some Rights Reserved)

“The demarcation of our lands equals their preservation. We have heard reports from our relatives from all regions about invasions pursued by loggers, prospectors, grabbers and state enterprises. What we want is to ensure the lives of future generations. We fight here not only for us indigenous peoples but for the Brazilian society as a whole,” said Tupã Guarani Mbya, from the Indigenous Land Tenondé Porã, in São Paulo.

For the chief Juarez Munduruku, indigenous peoples are like trees. “There’s life in the trees just as there is in us. If you kill them, they die and never come back. If a logger kills a ‘cacique’, a story ends.”

He recalled that in the middle of the Tapajós River, in the Amazon, where his territory is located, there are plans to build 43 big hydroelectric plants, which will dam one of the largest rivers in the country, a sacred place for his people. Two of these projects have already been implemented, and there are plans to also build 30 ports to transfer monoculture soybeans, in addition to mining and illegal logging.

This article was reported by Nathália Clark of 350.org. It was originally published by Global Voices and it has been re-published by Intercontinental Cry under a Creative Commons License.