Exploring indigenous peoples' participation within climate solutions through indigeneity narratives: a comparison between Peru and Bolivia

在全球寻找环境破坏性较小的替代发展模式的过程中，将土著人民的知识、可持续生计和他们的福祉理念纳入气候解决方案的制定中已经司空见惯。尽管最近出现了将土著人民的知识纳入其中的趋势，但土著代表的决策能力仍然很弱，因为他们大多是accordedonly一个观察员的地位（Comberti等。al，2019.）我们如何把握这种矛盾的包容性？为了理解占主导地位的气候发展机构（萨默维尔，2021年，Vergara Camus，2021年）如何在实践中界定土著人民的参与，我们需要认识到哪些土著人的叙述正在被使用，以及它们对气候政策的影响。考虑到对土著人民的属性没有共同的概念，（Canessa，2018年; Radcliffe，2015年，Perreault和绿色，2013年），值得注意的是，虽然土著人民强调森林管理及其土著发展模式的合法性（被称为“美好生活”），占主导地位的基于市场的解决办法仅仅将土著人民视为有用知识的容器和当地利益攸关方，通常忽视领土权利和土地分配问题（Kodiveri，2021; Borras和Franco，2018; Franco和Borras，2021，Fairhead et.等人，2012）。我认为，对这些不同内容的研究使我们能够理解气候解决方案的集体决策中的政治和文化紧张局势。我建议将土著动员和社会运动理论研究的特定背景和比较方法扩展到将土著知识融入“西方”环境政策的研究（Hui，2020），这些政策倾向于使用抽象的，主要是本地的，和土著孤立的方法（Petzold et. 2020年;参见Dietz，2013年; Ulloa，2011，2012）此外，这也是对气候正义运动研究的一个重要贡献，它涉及了运动的内部差异（Della Porta和Sparks，2013年，Dietz和Garrelts，2013年），但主要关注非政府组织和城市社会运动（Claeys和Delgado，2016年），但考虑到玻利维亚的情况，有一些例外（Fabricant和Hicks，2016年; Hicks，2013年; Aguirre和Copper，2010年）。我将提出一个比较的方法之间的倡导做法的两个土著成员的气候正义运动在秘鲁和玻利维亚，因为谈判的范围内的气候讨论的每个土著人民（Comberti等。al，2019），他们对印第安人的概念可能会有很大的不同（Gudynas，2011），这取决于他们与国家政府的历史关系。这两个国家，被认为是全球保护目标的优先事项（Dinerstein等。2020年）显示了发展和土著问题辩论的两个不同的极端：玻利维亚的后发展和国家对土著的占有，以及秘鲁的极端新自由主义，在那里土著自治建立在国家的边缘上。这项研究将利用多尺度民族志、访谈和定性制图的数据，以了解土著和发展叙事如何在围绕REDD+（减少毁林和森林退化所致排放量）项目和水电能源的讨论中展开，以及如何在土著人提出的通过自治和美好生活概念解决气候问题的建议中展开。最后，这项研究提供了可能性，目前学术知情的批评失败的内部参与机制的气候治理。如果没有有组织的民间社会对气候解决方案的实质性参与，我们就面临着继续采取表面的自上而下的政策的风险，这些政策往往会排斥受不断升级的气候危机影响最严重的人口。

In the global search for alternative development models that are less environmentallydestructive, the incorporation of indigenous peoples' knowledge, sustainable livelihoods, andtheir ideas of well-being have become commonplace in the crafting of climate solutions.Despite this recent trend to include indigenous people's knowledge, the decision-makingcapacities of indigenous representatives have remained weak, as they are mostly accordedonly an observer status (Comberti et. al, 2019.) How can we grasp this contradictoryinclusion? To understand how dominant climate development institutions (Somerville, 2021,Vergara Camus, 2021) delimit the incorporation of indigenous peoples in practice, we need torecognize which narratives of indigeneity are being used and which effects they have onclimate policy. Considering there is no common conceptualization of indigenous peoples'attributes (Canessa, 2018; Radcliffe, 2015, Perreault and Green, 2013), it is noticeable thatwhile indigenous peoples stress legitimacy on forest management and their indigenousdevelopment model (known as Buen Vivir), dominant market-based solutions representindigenous people merely as containers of useful knowledge and local stakeholders, usuallyignoring issues of territorial rights and land distribution (Kodiveri, 2021; Borras and Franco,2018; Franco and Borras, 2021, Fairhead et. al, 2012). I argue that the study of these differentcontents of indigeneity allows us to understand the political and cultural tensions within thecollective making of climate solutions. I propose to extend the context-specific andcomparative approaches of studies of indigenous mobilization and social movement theory tothe studies of the integration of indigenous knowledge into "Western" environmental policies(Hui, 2020) that have a tendency to use abstract, mostly local, and indigenous-isolatedapproaches (Petzold et. al, 2020; See Dietz, 2013; Ulloa, 2011, 2012) Moreover, it is also arelevant contribution for climate justice movement studies, that had engaged with internaldifferences of the movement (Della Porta and Sparks, 2013, Dietz and Garrelts, 2013), butfocusing mostly on NGOs and urban social movements (Claeys and Delgado, 2016) with a fewexceptions considering the Bolivian case (Fabricant and Hicks, 2016; Hicks, 2013; Aguirre andCopper, 2010). I will present a comparative approach between the advocacy practices of twoindigenous members of the climate justice movement in Peru and Bolivia because the scopeof negotiation inside climate discussions of each indigenous people (Comberti et. al, 2019) andtheir concepts of indigeneity can vary greatly (Gudynas, 2011) depending on the historicalrelationship with their national governments. These two countries, considered priorities toglobal conservation goals (Dinerstein et. al, 2020) show two different poles of developmentand indigeneity debates: Bolivia's post-development and appropriation of indigeneity by theState, and Peru's extreme neoliberalism, where indigenous autonomy is constructed on themargins of the State. The research will draw on data from multi-scale ethnography, interviews,and qualitative cartography, in order to understand how indigeneity and developmentnarratives unfold in the discussion around REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation andforest degradation) projects and hydropower energy, as well as in the indigenous proposals ofclimate solutions through autonomy and Buen Vivir concepts. Finally, this research offers thepossibility to present academically-informed critiques to failures inside participatorymechanisms of climate governance. Without a substantial involvement of organized civilsociety in climate solutions, we face the risk of continuing superficial top-down policies thatend up excluding the most affected population of the escalating climate crisis.