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

在全球寻找对环境破坏较小的替代发展模式的过程中，在制定气候解决方案时，将土著人民的知识、可持续生计和他们的福祉理念结合起来已成为司空见惯的事情。尽管最近出现了纳入土著人民知识的趋势，但土著代表的决策能力仍然很弱，因为他们大多只被赋予观察员地位（Comberti et. al ., 2019）。我们如何理解这种矛盾的包容？要了解主流气候发展机构（Somerville， 2021年，Vergara Camus， 2021年）在实践中如何界定土著人民的结合，我们需要认识到正在使用哪些土著叙述以及它们对气候政策的影响。考虑到土著人民的属性没有共同的概念化（Canessa, 2018; Radcliffe, 2015； Perreault和Green， 2013），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（称为Buen Vivir）的合法性，但主流的市场解决方案仅将土著人民代表为有用知识和当地利益相关者的容器，通常忽略了领土权利和土地分配问题(Kodiveri, 2021；Borras and Franco,2018；Franco and Borras, 2021, Fairhead et al, 2012)。我认为，对这些不同的土著内容的研究使我们能够理解集体制定气候解决方案中的政治和文化紧张关系。我建议将土著动员和社会运动理论研究的特定情境和比较方法扩展到将土著知识整合到“西方”环境政策中的研究（Hui, 2020），这些政策倾向于使用抽象的、主要是地方性的、土著孤立的方法(Petzold et. al ., 2020; See Dietz, 2013；Ulloa, 2011, 2012)此外，它也是气候正义运动研究的相关贡献，这些研究涉及了运动的内部差异（Della Porta and Sparks, 2013, Dietz and Garrelts, 2013），但主要关注非政府组织和城市社会运动（Claeys and Delgado, 2016），考虑到玻利维亚的情况（Fabricant and Hicks, 2016; Hicks, 2013; Aguirre and copper, 2010）。我将在秘鲁和玻利维亚的气候正义运动的两个土著成员的倡导实践之间提出一种比较方法，因为每个土著人民的气候讨论中的谈判范围（Comberti et. al ., 2019）和他们的土著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 et. al ., 2020），表现出发展和土著辩论的两个不同的极点：玻利维亚的后发展和国家对土著的占有，秘鲁的极端新自由主义，土著自治建立在国家的边缘。该研究将利用来自多尺度人种学、访谈和定性制图的数据，以了解在围绕REDD+（减少森林砍伐和森林退化造成的排放）项目和水电能源的讨论中，以及在通过自治和Buen Vivir概念提出的气候解决方案的土著建议中，土著和发展叙事是如何展开的。最后，本研究提供了对气候治理参与机制内部失败提出学术批评的可能性。如果没有有组织的民间社会在气候解决方案中的实质性参与，我们将面临继续实行表面的自上而下政策的风险，这些政策最终会将受影响最严重的人群排除在不断升级的气候危机之外。

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.