Indigenous Interests in International Trade Governance
A case study of APIB and the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement
Emilia Hallström
International Relations
Dept. of Global Political Studies Bachelor program – IR103L 15 credits thesis
Thesis submitted: Spring/2021 Supervisor: Ulrika Waaranperä
Abstract
This thesis addresses indigenous groups agency in trade governance to enhance their ability to affect international decision-making that benefits their capability to sustainable development. It conducts a case study of Articulation of Indigenous People Brazil (APIB) in the EU-Mercosur Agreement and utilizes Eimers (2020) theory of subaltern social movement theory to establish: what strategies the APIB have used in the decision-making processes of the “Mercosur Agreement? This theory allows consideration of indigenous agency and the effect of post-colonial structures on their capability to keep control over their realties. To collect data on this topic the author uses qualitative semi-structured interviews and qualitative thematic text analysis. The thesis finds that framing strategies of claims enabled alliance-building in Brazil and Transnational Advocacy Coalitions, which used international norms to enhance indigenous interests. However, has post- colonial structures hindered APIB´s ability to enhance interest in Brazil and silenced indigenous interests in governmental representation in the making of the EU-Mercosur.
Keywords: Articulation of Indigenous People Brazil, EU-Mercosur Agreement, Trade governance, sustainable development, marginalised groups, indigenous agency, civil society actors, subaltern social movement theory.
Word count: 13 951
List of Abbreviations
APIB CPTPP CSD CSO EC EEAS FBSCO FTA ILO no.169 IG
IP IR MEP SIA TSDC QTTA UNDHR UNDRIP
Articulation of Indigenous People Brazil
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Civil Society Dialogue
Civil Society Organizations European Commission
European External Action Service
Front of Brazils Civil Society Organizations Free Trade Agreement
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) Indigenous Groups
Indigenous people
Field of International Relations Ministers of the European Parliament Sustainable Impact Assessment
Trade and Sustainable Development Chapter Qualitative Thematic Textual Analysis United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ... 2
2.1. The Indigeneity debate: Who is indigenous? ... 2
2.2. Trade as a means to sustainable development for all ... 4
2.3. Indigenous agency in international (trade) governance ... 6
2.4. Theoretical framework: Subaltern social movement theory ... 8
3. Contextual Framework ... 10
4. Method ... 12
4.1. Case study of the APIB and the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement ... 12
4.2. Qualitative Semi-structured Interviews ... 14
4.3. Qualitative Thematic Textual Analysis ... 18
4.4. Delimitations of data collection methods ... 18
5. Analysis – What strategies have the APIB used? ... 19
5.1. APIB Claims ... 19
5.2: Framing Strategy: Correlation between claims and everyday practices ... 20
5.3. Strategies used in Domestic Political Arena ... 23
5.4. Strategies to Access the International Political Arena ... 27
5.4. Discussion: What strategies did the APIBs use and were they successful? ... 32
6. Conclusion ... 35
Bibliography ... 37
Interviews... 43
Appendix 1 – Pre-set Interview Questions ... 44
Appendix 2 – Documents analyzed ... 45
1
1. Introduction
Indigenous people have been categorized as one of the most important groups to include in the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 (henceforth Agenda 2030) due to historic trajectories of marginalization in development agendas and its implementation (IPMG, 2019; World Bank, 2021). Since 2015, Agenda 2030 has created a new normative direction interlinking three sectorial pillars: the social, the economic and the environmental (David, 2020), in which trade governance is argued to be a vital policy area to achieve sustainable development (UNCTAD, 2016: David, 2020:138; Deere-Birkbeck, 2011). Nevertheless, indigenous people (IP) are rarely included in international trade governance (Borrows, 2020; David, 2021). Although, IP have the right to free consulting and consent prior to the development decisions effecting their lives under UNDRIP and ILO no.169, (Chase, 2019) and are categorized as one of the left behind groups in Agenda 2030 (IPMG, 2019; World Bank, 2021).
Previous research has found that network and social movement strategies can be used by indigenous groups to influence international decision-making (Chase, 2019; Eimer, 2020).
Therefore, the APIB, Brazils widest network of indigenous groups active in advocacy work concerning the Mercosur Agreement will be the focus on this thesis (Fern, 2020). Moreover, indigenous incorporation is especially interesting when looking at the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement (henceforth “Mercosur Agreement”) as it is one of few Free Trade Agreements that embody the three sectorial pillars into some extent, including clauses about climate change and indigenous people (Kehoe, 2020; Barlow, 2001). However, the Mercosur Agreement has received critique for "failing the sustainability test” in areas of local inclusion, climate change, transparency, enforcement, from scholars, member states and non-state actors (Colli, 2019;
Kehoe, 2019: Friends of the Earth, 2020). The lack of inclusion indicates that the “Mercosur Agreement” might not be a driving force to achieve sustainable development for most indigenous people. Instead, it might support the continuance of status quo in trade governance, which has left indigenous groups behind (IPMG, 2019; Fern. 2019a)
This thesis engages in the debate on trade governance as means for marginalized groups to strengthen their ability to keep control over the development concerning their lives and territories by focusing on the APIBs ability to influence the decision-making of the EU- Mercosur Trade Agreement by examining: What strategies have the APIB used in order to enhance the visibility and potential interests of Brazil’s indigenous groups in the EU-Mercosur
2 Agreement? It finds that APIB are to some extent able to enhance the visibility and interests of indigenous groups (henceforth IG) though framing strategies, alliance-building, transnational coalitions and usage of international norms. However, does post-colonial structures shaping imagery and governmental activates limit APIB ability to influence domestic decision-making and representation in international pollical arenas.
This thesis will be divided in six chapters: Firstly, chapter two will discuss relevant literature on indigeneity, trade governance as means to sustainable development and indigenous agency.
The theoretical framework, subaltern social movement theory, used in this thesis is also introduced to the reader together with conceptualizations of IP and other important concepts guiding thesis. Secondly, background will be presented to provide the reader with contextual knowledge of the Mercosur Agreement and APIB. Thirdly, the research design of this thesis will be presented. It included case selection, qualitative semi-structured interviews, and qualitative thematic text analysis, and delimitation. Fourthly, the analysis presents the findings by analysing the data collected through the previous mentioned methods by applying the Eimers (2020) theoretical framework. Lastly, a conclusion will be presented, including a summary of what has been done in this thesis and how the findings contribute to the field of IR.
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
The following sections will present and situate this thesis in the existing IR literature within debate about indigeneity, trade as a means to sustainable development, inclusion of indigenous people in international trade governance and if IP can be heard in international decision- making. Additionally, will the theoretical framework of this thesis be presented.
2.1. The Indigeneity debate: Who is indigenous?
Other fields related to IR, such as political science, sociology, international law, human rights, globalization studies, development studies and global environmental politics have during the last decade engaged in the indigeneity debate (Van Cott, 1996; Neville and Coulthard, 2019;
Matute, 2021). Nevertheless, the debate is fairly absent in IR, only a few scholars have touched upon the subject (Shaw, 2002; Georgis and Lugosi, 2014; Morozov and Pavlova, 2018), despite Global IR calling for more nuanced and less euro-centric focus within the IR field (Acharya, 2014; Morozov and Pavlova, 2018). This section will highlight how engaging in the indigeneity
3 debate can contribute to the Global IR approach by presenting new perspectives and recognition of “multiple forms of agency beyond material power, including resistance, normative action and local construction of global order” (Acharya, 2014:647).
Moreover, scholars engaging in the debate concerning indigeneity: who is indigenous and who or what determines who is indigenous (Matute, 2021; De la Cadena and Starn, 2010; Lopez Caballero and Acevedo-Rodrigo, 2018). De la Cadena and Starn (2010) argues that indigeneity is defined in relational terms, in opposition of what is non-indigenous. Matute (2021) uses a critical post-colonial social movement perspective and argues that indigeneity is shaped by state practices, global capitalism, hegemonic discourses and from local realities and responses from below. Lopez Caballero and Acevedo-Rodrigo (2018) argue that the distinction between indigenous and non-indigenous is both fluid and problematic but emphasizes the importance of understanding indigeneity within national and global politics. Additionally, De la Cadena and Starn (2010:20) argues that the demands of indigenous groups are a product of their indigeneity; demands shaped by relations not only binary to colonizers, but to what is non- indigenous (ibid) and in opposition to what is said and represented by experts, bureaucrats and non-indigenous political designs. This relational opposition supports the new lineage of multicultural global political discourse which sometimes occur through joint forces that connect subaltern indigenous groups with non-indigenous groups though similar interests (De la Cadena and Starn, 2010:20) — a premise for this thesis.
Moreover, fluidity and diversity of indigenous classification is the reality in the Latin American region (Telles, 2014; Telles and Torche, 2019), even though self-identification is the new general norm (Del Popolo and Oyarce, 2005). In Argentina and Uruguay, one’s ancestry determines who is indigenous while in Brazil it is determined by self-identification and one’s color and race, here who is indigenous is relational to who is white, black, and Asian, etc.
(Telles, 2014:1547). Eimers (2020) argues indigeneity is based on imagery of IP as “the other”.
In Brazil indigeneity is perceived as living harmony with nature in relation to non-indigenous processes, such as industrial agrobusiness and colonialism. (Eimer, 2020). This thesis will use the definition based on the Brazil’s legal criteria’s, thus self-identification of ethic characteristic (Telles, 2014:1547). In Brazil people fulfilling these criteria can be part of the APIB. However, their indigenous demands will be determined within relational aspects of resistance to state
4 practices, global capitalism, hegemonic discourses and from local realities and responses from below (Matute, 2021).
Additionally, Matute (2021) argues that transnational networks (social movements) can provide a transnational process in which strengthening of an existing ethnic group that confront racial, ethnic, cultural, social hierarchies to keep control over ‘development’, and thus, over their lives and territories'' (Matute, 2021:260). She calls this “the dignification of indigeneity”, which occurs in transnational political space where multiple subjects contest and negotiate the management of their lives and territories. This resonates with subaltern theory, which stresses subaltern inability to speak without someone listening (JanMohamed, 2010). These arguments open an avenue where scholars can discuss in which transnational political spaces IP has a voice and how they can influence decision-making by voicing their resistance, thus where and how IP have agency to influence the governance of their lives and territories within global politics.
Lastly, this section has established that literature on the topic of indigeneity in international decision-making is scarce in within the field of IR. A social movement theory can be helpful to capture indigenous agency and indigenous people (Matute, 2021). This thesis definition of indigenous is based on the Brazilian categorization, which incorporate self-identification and ethnicity. This thesis will contribute to the understudied topic of indigeneity by looking at relational structures shaping APIBs claims and agency in the decision-making of the Mercosur Agreement. Thus, this thesis will contribute to the Global IR project, which stresses an inclusive discipline, that draws on diverse and multiple origins of social interaction and to the sixth main element of Global IR: Recognizing “multiple forms of agency beyond material power, including resistance, normative action and local construction of global order” (Acharya, 2014: 647).
2.2. Trade as a means to sustainable development for all
This section presents the debate on trade governance as a means to sustainable development to guide the position of this thesis. It establishes how trade as means to sustainable development can be measured.
5 Making trade a means for development is a controversial question among scholars and practitioners, some argue that it might be one of the most difficult challenges for global governance (Deere-Birkbeck, 2011). During the last two decades development issues has become a central concern in trade negotiations (ibid; Thoyer and Martimort-Asso, 2007). The controversy is twofold. Fisrtly, developing countries argue that trade liberalization and trade laws continue to fail to sufficiently represent their development goals. Secondly, there are ongoing complaints about how the global trade agenda and the substance of trade regulations are forged and enforced (Deere-Birkbeck, 2011:1). This thesis focusses on the second issue;
how international the trade governance can favour development that benefit IP. One response to this issue is to create more inclusive trade governance (Rocha Menocal, 2020; Borrow and Schwartz, 2020). Some argue that inclusive participation is enough, others argues that trade governance also need to take the political environment into account when making policy (Meléndez-Ortis and Biswas, 2011). In other words, trade governance needs to assess impact and state capacity to implement (inclusive) development when drafting trade regulation and policy in order to align its economic incentives with socio-environmental costs and benefits (ibid; Rocha Menocal, 2020).
Furthermore, many scholars argues that participation is one part of the problem but also the solution (Rocha Menocal, 2020 Thoyer and Martimort-Asso, 2007:1-15). Thus, participation can be the key to make trade a means to sustainable development for all groups. Some stress the importance of including civil society groups in trade negotiation to create trade agendas and regulations which support sustainable development (Thoyer and Martimort-Asso, 2007;
Orbie et al., 2016; Borrows and Schwartz, 2020). Civil society is argued to highlight the need of issue-linkage to other global issues, such as environmental protection, poverty, human rights and democracy in trade negations (Thoyer and Martimort-Asso, 2007; Orbie et al., 2016).
Resulting in that trade negotiations no longer only discuss the matter of promoting economic growth in isolation of other issues (Thoyer and Martimort-Asso, 2007). Additionally, scholars also stress the problem of the 'participation gap' in environmental politics which highlights the importance of direct inclusion of marginalized groups such as women and IP and not only the economic elite such as multinational corporations, banks, and industry associations as they are particularly critical to the achievement of sustainable development (Elliot, 2004:129; Borrows and Schwartz, 2020). Thus, during the last years few scholars have focused on the role of IP and their participation or representation in decision-making and implementation processes of
6 economic and trade governance (Borrows and Schwartz, 2020; David, 2020; Sarson, 2019;
Moon, 2017).
To summarize, existing literature stress the importance of a more broad-based participation in trade negotiations to establish trade agendas and regulations that support the implementation of sustainable development for all. This thesis will position it-self in this critical approach, which highlight the importance of inclusion of civil society and marginalized groups in trade governance. Thus, arguments will be based in the assumption that IP need to be directly included or their claims represented by other societal actors in the decision-making processes for trade to be a means to sustainable development that leaves no one behind.
2.3. Indigenous agency in international (trade) governance
This section will address indigenous agency in international (trade) and development governance. Firstly, Borrows and Schwartz (2020) finds that IP are absent in global economic and trade governance, by looking at who existing literature highlight as economically influential actors. Furthermore, Borrows and Schwartz (2020) uses post-colonial theory to analyze why IP have been marginalized. They find that the state-centric nature of international law, the exclusion of indigenous thought, practice and representation, and the colonization of indigenous land, resources labor has hindered IP to effectively participate and thus address the inequalities in economic international law (Borrows and Schwartz, 2020:2). However, some argue that the three-dimensional approach of Agenda 2030) might provide new opportunities for ingenuous people to participate in trade governance (Borrows and Schwartz, 2020;
David:2020). Since the economic-environment linkage can contribute to more focus, space and opportunity for inclusion of IP in trade and investment agreements (David, 2020). A few scholars build on the previous research and conduct case studies on IP inclusion in specific Free Trade Agreements (FTA) to test trade agreement’s ability to include IP and its effect on IP well-being. (Sarson, 2019; Borrows, 2020; David, 2020). David, (2020) focus on a few FTA and concludes that very few Free Trade Agreements (FTA) include IP in any aspect of drafting and decision-making process: not in not by consultation, participation in negotiations or provisions of international law that protect IP rights (David, 2020). However, in the last few years the linkage of environment-economic sectors has included IP in FTA to a limited extent (David, 2020).
7 Moreover, socio-economic linkage is also argued to extend the incorporation of IP by address human rights in trade and investment governance (Borrows, 2020; David:2020). The inclusion of human rights (including indigenous right) in FTA’s have been found to be present in legal texts (Franco, Filho, et.al, 2014, Sarson, 2019). However, soft enforcement mechanisms applied to articles regarding social issues results in weak safeguards in practice, despite rhetoric being present in FTA, when there is no political will (Ibid.). This rhetoric-practice gap is also seen in other international agreement which purpose is to enhance the inclusion of IP in decision-making processes such as the ILO, no.169 (Chase, 2019). This correlates with Rocha Menocal's (2020) argument that the effects of the agreement — in addition to the IPs inclusion in the negations process — needs to be considered. Thus, this thesis will examine the participation/representation in negotiation process or text, what type of enforcement mechanism is used, and the current political ambition to protect IP in the member states.
Furthermore, aforementioned scholars have utilized thematic textual analysis on FTA documents to collect data on indigenous inclusion to measure if the agreements include or consider IP when drafting the agreement (Borrows, 2020; David, 2020). Sarson (2019) on the other hand use a mix of interviews and document analysis, to examine effect of the NAFTA agreement inclusion of a “indigenous chapter”. Sarson’s method provide a more in-depth analysis of how IP are affected and how they influence the outcome of agreements.
Additionally, some scholars use critical theories to analyze the effect of indigenous agency in international agreements and point out two essential aspects : the ability to voice one's concerns and interests; and being heard: the effect of the spoken on the outcome (Enns, Bergoglio &
Kepe, 2014; Georgis and Lugis, 2014; Morozov Pavlova, 2018). These concepts come from Spivak’s (1988) subaltern theory and will be used in the analysis to define visibility and enhancement of interests. Spivak’s (1988) concepts have been integrated into the postcolonial approach of IR and he is perceived as one of the most influential scholars in postcolonial studies (Maggi, 2007). The core of subaltern theory addresses the silencing of the subaltern and is based on the question of “Can the subaltern speak?” and specifically, “Can the subaltern be understood or are they always spoken for?”, "Under what conditions can socially, culturally and economically marginalized groups become the maker of their own destiny?” (Guha, 1984;
Spivak, 1988; Maggi, 2007).
8 Within IR, Eimer (2020) has combined subaltern theory with social movement theory to analyze indigenous agency in international property rights to keep control their traditional knowledge. Eimer links the local to the global by focusing on strategies used by IP in three different areas employed to influence international governance: framing of claims, alliance- building and transnational coalition building. The addition of subaltern theory provides explanations of constrains on subaltern agency rooted in historical trajectories of colonialism.
This theoretical framework will be used to analyze both the limitations and opportunities IP have had in the decision-making of the Mercosur Agreement.
2.4. Theoretical framework: Subaltern social movement theory
This section will present the theoretical framework utilize in this thesis and conceptualizations of concepts.
Eimer (2020) uses social movement theory to conceptualize strategies used by indigenous groups. Therefor in this thesis, framing strategy is conceptualized as the ability to craft ones demands in wording that mobilize potential supporters and allowing connection to broader societal discourse by framing their claims in correlation with everyday practices of IG and master frames (explained further below). Alliance-building is defined as the ability to build bridges between APIBs claims and claims of other societal actors contributing to build a larger support base for policy change. Alliances can gain support from political cleavages between political elites. Political cleavages are conceptualised as opposing interests or opinions of different political actors. Political elite is conceptualised as the executive branch in Brazil and EU member states. Also, usage of political cleavage will be conceptualized as an alliance's ability to influence governmental officials to represent their claims in the Mercosur Agreement negotiations. Lastly, strategies to access the international political arena Eimer (2020) outlines two strategies. One is based on Keck and Sikknik’s (1998:12-13) ‘boomerang effect, meaning marginalized groups building ‘transnational advocacy coalitions’ with civil society actors from developed (Global North) countries. In this case the transnational coalition strategy is conceptualized as the ability to build transnational advocacy coalitions with CSOs from EU countries. These transnational coalitions might use international norms to pressure international organizations against their domestic governments if they have committed to protect indigenous and subaltern groups (ibid) by ratifying international agreements. In this
9 thesis, the actors will include not only international organizations but also intergovernmental organization (EU-Mercosur) and other nation-states.
Moreover, to elaborate how subaltern theory and master frames are incorporated to explain possible barriers to indigenous agency based in post-colonial structures. The success of indigenous agency is dependent on what Said (1994) and Bhabha (1985) calls imaginaries of
“the other” (Eimer, 2020). The imaginaries of “the other” shape political discourse and the role expectation of the formerly colonized and colonizers. More specifically, western imaginary of IP as “the other” has shaped the stereotype of IP as the “noble savage that lives in harmony with nature’ (Eimer, 2020). However, Spivak’s subaltern theory, that build on this imaginary of
“the other” but rejects the binary division of colonisers and the colonised. She stresses the historical and ideological factors that obstruct the possibility of being heard for those who inhabit the periphery. It is a probing interrogation of what it means to have political subjectivity, to be able to access the state, and to suffer the burden of difference in a capitalist system that promises equality yet withholds it at every turn. Therefore, this thesis theoretical framework draws on the ontological assumption that colonial societies are shaped by diverging historical experiences and political attitudes that can silence the interest of IG, as subalternity is a relational position dependent on historic and social contextual conditions, (de la Cadena and Strarn, 2016, Eimer, 2020). Historic structure of domination in post-colonial countries are preserved by internal colonialism, which has leads to that political elites in the Global South indirectly or directly entails discriminatory or paternalistic activities towards domestic IG (Eimer, 2020). These power structures result in that IP (subaltern actors) are silenced under one or more master frames which are formulated by domestic elites, transnational actors or a coalition of both. Moreover, these frames might not at correlate with the interests of the subaltern actors. In this thesis master frames are conceptualised as the imagery of IP that the political elites or the public holds, which is based in historic structure of domination in post- colonial that silences IG if their claims do not correlate with the imaginary held by the non- indigenous. However, if IG succeed to frame their claims in line with the master frames, they have a successful framing as their indigeneity (subalternity) and claims is seen as legitimate by other political actors. All these criteria will be used to analyse if IP can speak in the making of the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement. More importantly, their ability to be enhance IP interest to be heard and have agency, is dependent on their opportunity to gain support form cleavages between political elites and use international norms to pressure decision-makers.
10
3. Contextual Framework
This section is added to provide the context which will frame the following chapters. Starting with the process and current state of the Mercosur Agreement, followed by the current
political discourse around the agreement and who the APIB are and their role in Brazil political system.
Firstly, the Mercosur Agreement is one part of a larger Association Agreement, which also includes political dialogue and inter-regional cooperation. This thesis focusses on the Trade Agreement, which has been in negotiations from 2000-2019, including a pause between 2010- 2016 due to deadlock (EEAS, 2016). Negotiations were finalized three years after the re- launch June 2019, then entered the ratification process, which is its current state (EC, 2021).
The ratification process entails that all member states of EU and Mercosur must approve the Mercosur Agreement to be ratified. In this process, documents and implementation papers can be added, but the agreement cannot be changed to a larger extent (EU). Thus, it is still possible to influence the final outcome.
Secondly, since the negotiations were finalized, and the legal text draft was published. Civil society have been critical of the outcome due to multiple reasons: limited inclusion of CSOs in negotiation; SIA was not published until February 2020, wherefore the impacts of the agreement were not consideration in the negotiations (LSE, 2020); questioning how SIA was conducted, the data included, theory used, etc. (Burley, 2020; FBSCO Against Mercosur Agreement, 2020). Nevertheless, the most controversial critique is grounded in that the Mercosur Agreement would support path dependence as approach diverge from norms established in international agreements, such as Agenda 2030, UNDHR and the Paris Climate Agreement (Paris Agreement). One of the loudest claims is based in that that the general non- voluntary dispute settlement enforcement mechanism does not include Trade and Sustainable Development chapter. Instead, voluntary enforcement mechanisms are applied, and monitoring of supply chains will be done by domestic advisory groups (DAG). Thus, a political dialogue with voluntary compliance mechanisms ensure that trade implementation serves the three pillars of sustainable development and who makes up the DAGs are not specified (EC, 2019).
11 Additionally, these claims are framed in facts and other political debates about climate change, economic primacy and trade liberalization model’s vs three-dimensional sustainable development and state capacity to implement the Mercosur Agreement in line with the international norm and goals (Deere-Birkbeck, 2011; Rocha Menocal, 2020). This claims and framing issues have all been focused on Brazil’s state (in)capacity to implement the agreement without intensifying the deforestation of the Amazons (Boadle, 2020) This is based in fact that exchange pattern between EU and Brazil would intensify beef, soy and sugarcane that are some of the main drivers of deforestation in Brazil (Fern, 2020; Burley, 2020; APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020).
Moreover, this claim has gained more support as Brazilian government (Bolosonaro’s administration) has weakened environmental and human rights protection polices in Brazil in favour of promoting a development agenda that stress industrialisation of agricultural, mining and energy production processes to develop economic growth for the majority of Brazils citizens (APIB and Amazon watch, 2020; Fern, 2019b). The questioning is not linked to the aim of creating development for the majority. Instead, it’s based in the governance approach violating international agreements the state has signed, such as the UNDRIP, ILO convention 169, and especially the Paris Climate Agreement, (Fern, 2020: Chase, 2019; Correia, 2019).
This agreement includes international norms of environmental and biodiversity preservation and free, informed, prior consultation (FRIC) and consent decision-making of matter that affect IP (UNDRIP, 2007; ILO, 1989)
Thirdly, the APIB was established in 2005, at an annual national mobilisation to raise awareness of the indigenous rights situation (APIB, 2021). The purpose of APIB is to improve communication between regional indigenous organisations, strengthen unity of Brazilian IP and mobilizable indigenous resistance to treats and aggression against indigenous rights, (APIB, 2021). There are almost 900 000 IP living in Brazil, which make up 0,4% of the total population (IWGA, 2021; World Bank, 2019). The umbrella organisation is made up of 300 IG in Brazil, which makes it one of the widest networks of IP in Brazil (Interview 1; Fern, 2020). Moreover, in terms of international trade governance the APIB has written reports about the effect global supply chains have on the local livelihoods of IP (APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020). In which they have stated that the Mercosur Agreement is another FTA which continue an economic model enables violations of human rights (APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020). They
12 have also joined the large civil society coalition in both Brazil and transnationally that argues for the re-negotiation of the Mercosur Agreement. Thus, they seem to have been able to use some of the strategies Eimer´s (2020) framework highlights and is therefore an interesting NGO to examinate how indigenous interests can be visible and heard in international trade governance.
4. Method
This section presents how my upcoming thesis will be conducted by presenting the research design and the data collection strategies used to collect data, and conceptualization of terms important to analyze: What strategies have the APIB used in order to enhance the visibility and interests of Brazil’s indigenous groups in the EU-Mercosur Agreement?
4.1. Case study of the APIB and the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement
This thesis has chosen to conduct a case study of the APIB in order to understand what strategies non-governmental actors can utilize in order to enhance the visibility of indigenous interests in trade agreements. This choice is motivated by the following rationales. Selecting the case of APIB role in the Mercosur Agreement is illuminating as the Mercosur Agreement is one of few trade agreements that mention IP in sustainable forestry implementation (EC, 2019; David, 2020) in the included Trade and Sustainable Development chapter (EC, 2019).
This indicates that negotiation parties have considered linkage between trade and sustainable development and IP are perceived as having an important role in the sustainable implementation of Mercosur Agreement. However, previous literature argues that the rhetoric- practice gap is a common occurrence when international agreements only have voluntary enforcement mechanism (Chase, 2019; Enns, Bergoglio & Kepe, 2014). Thus, by looking at if IP have been heard (through APIB strategies) in this agreement, the author can establish if it is an empty rhetoric which will maintain the status quo of trade governance or if the agreement is progressive and thus a means of sustainable development that leaves no one behind.
Moreover, conducting research on a specific indigenous organization (APIB) in a specific trade agreement (the Mercosur Agreement) makes it possible to produce valid knowledge within the time and space constraints of this thesis project (Halperin and Heath 2017; Sarson, 2019).
Additionally, knowledge produced decreased the literature gaps on indigeneity, indigenous agency in trade governance, in IR (see 2.1). Also, it will engage in theory-testing of Eimers
13 (2020) theoretical framework and its ability to assess subaltern indigenous agency in creating trade agenda and regulations through social movements.
Furthermore, the Amazonian area is also a contributive factor in case selection. It is an area argued to be negatively affected as trade of products and services produced in this area will intensify and experience more pressure on land and more use of chemicals if the Mercosur Agreement is ratified (LSE, 2020;). More importantly, this area is important for the international community as environmental preservation of Amazon is a major factor in countering the global challenge of climate change, which is interlinked with indigenous resistance (Chase, 2019; Correia, 2019). Hence, the focus an indigenous organization in Brazil (the only Mercosur country with geographical placement in the Amazon), was chosen due to the negative effect on indigenous land in Brazil opens up for examination for issue-linkage (environment and indigenous) as tool for indigenous agency in Trade Agreements (David, 2020). Moreover, selecting to focus on the widest network of IG in Brazil has contributed to limited literature and in the debate on socio-environmental inclusion in trade governance can enhance trade as means to sustainable development for left behind groups.
Additionally, was APIB chosen due to four reasons. Primarily, the APIB was selected due to that the umbrella organization made by different regional indigenous organization all over Brazil. In total the APIB make up over 300 different IG (Fern, 2019a) and its one of the largest IP networks in Brazil (Fern, 2020). This makes the APIB an good actor to examine as it was created by IP for IP in Brazil (Gerogis and Luis, 2018) and represent the interest of a large percentage of IP in Brazil that are shaped in relation to the non-indigenous interest within Brazil (De la Caderna and Starn, 2010). Additionally, the APIB works with coordination and unity among Brazils indigenous groups and work with mobilize indigenous groups in Brazil against treats and aggression against indigenous rights. Their Executive Coordinating Committee include different indigenous leaders (APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020:10) that works with the general mission to defend and promote indigenous rights in line with the interests expressed by IP and union between regional indigenous organization in Brazil (APIB, 2021). Currently these interests are e.g.: 1) the construction and implementation of public policies aimed at indigenous peoples in the issue areas: legislation, health, territorial management and sustainability, human rights and social participation and control (ibid.) Strengthen alliance- building with international indigenous movement and other social movements, establish
14 partnerships with institutions and networks of solidarity and support for social causes, especially that of indigenous peoples. Thus, the APIB was chosen as it works with different social movement strategies to influence both local, national and international decision-making in favor of IP interests.
Moreover, the third reason APIB was selected is grounded in their active participation in indigenous resistance against international trade processes that contributes to the human rights violation of IP in Brazil, including the Mercosur Agreement (APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020).
Thus, by selecting the APIB for a case study on indigenous agency in trade governance this thesis will be able to link APIBs indigeneity to trade governance beyond the Mercosur Agreement. Lastly, the APIB has published a number of reports on their opinions on international trade processes and governance in English, which made it possible for the author to find information of the structure of their work and their interests (ABIP and Amazon Watch, 2020).
4.2. Qualitative Semi-structured Interviews
A qualitative method was chosen as the RQ could not be explored through quantitative data.
Interviews enabled the gathering of data otherwise hard to find in secondary sources as the topic is fairly understudied. Moreover, interviews were chosen as the main method as IP often are marginalized from trade governance and politics in general. Thus, interviews with APIB partners allowed data collection of their understanding of APIBs ability to influence trade agreements as it difficult to conclude if their interest have been heard only by looking at stakeholders included in consultations, or other secondary data. Moreover, accessibility has been a major issue in the midst of a pandemic. Thus, online face-to-face interviews made it possible to conduct interviews with people living in South America or other cities in Europe.
These interviews enabled the author to ask spontaneous follow-up questions to gain more in- depth data on NGOs partnerships with APIB and their indigenous groups that gave the author the ability to capture deeper, personal information the spaces IP were able to influence decision-making. (Halperin and Heath, 2017). Lastly, the face-to-face interviews made it easier to maintain a relationship after the interview, which facilitated follow-up inquiries.
4.2.1 Informant Selection
Informants were selected based on their knowledge of APIBs work and their relation to the APIB or their member organizations. The interviewees are part of the same networks or another
15 kind of partnership with the APIB, such as engaging in advocacy work in similar issues or assist indigenous groups advocating for their interests. All participating informants hold different professional positions: international coordinators within a Swedish branch of a global environmental organization; international coordinator within a South American branch of an international network of small and medium sized farmer; political and environmental law advisor at a Brazilian NGO working with socio-environmental issues, including indigenous rights; Representative at the EU, working with assisting and supporting IP to advocate for their interests at the EU. The employees’ relation to the APIB enabled the author to gain data on what issue areas the APIB engage in; how the APIB established alliances and joined transnational advocacy coalitions; and how they used networks to enhance the visibility and interests of Brazilian IG. Moreover, the informants held knowledge of the imagery and everyday practices of IP in Brazil and provided the author with relevant secondary sources about the interests and claims of the APIB, its alliances and transnational coalitions, which were later analysed through QTTA (see.4.3).
Additionally, language skills (English and Swedish) were the second criteria for selecting informants, as the author do not speak indigenous languages or Portuguese. Eleven different NGOS fulfilling these criteria were contacted such as APIB, COIBA, Fern, EU Delegation in Brazil, Amnesty, Mercosur´s secretariat, Climate Action. All four were sent a short research proposal. However, only four interviews were conducted due to availability and lack of responses. Three interviews were conducted in English and one in Swedish. Participance received an informed consent form. Two of them were sent out before interviews took place and the other two after interviews were conducted due to unawareness and miscommunication from the authors side but was rectified as soon as pointed out. All interviews began informing the participant about their informed consent. The author decided to give the informants total anonymity due to political situation in Brazil and ethical purposes of reducing any risk of harm for participating.
4.2.1. Operationalizing variables of APIBs advocacy strategies
Eimers (2020) theoretical framework influenced the operational definition of variables used to collect data on what strategies the APIB used and if they were successful. The variables were categorized into six different themes, based on the strategies and concepts outlined in Eimers (2020) theory (see 2.4 for definition): Framing strategies; alliance-building; usage of cleavage;
16 transnational coalition; usage of norms and were the APIB heard (see table below).
Categorization of data into these different themes allowed the author to measure what strategies the APIB have used and how they had enhanced the visibility and interests of IG in Brazil. The indicators were based on concepts within the different conceptualizations of strategies (see 2.4). Some indicators were given different definitions or were added, to not miss important findings. “Imagery” is used as an indicator for master frames. The indicators concerning “issue areas” under alliance-building were added to enable collection of data on what issue areas claims belong to enables the measurement of APIB ability to build bridges between their claims and other actors due advocacy in same issue areas. Usage of cleavages indicator
“communication channel” were added to capture how and where the APIB had used cleavages, and “barriers” was added to capture post-colonial structures limiting APIBs ability to use political cleavages. The indicator “forums” under usage of international norms was added to capture how and where norms were used. “State decisions” were added to capture the success of the strategy used. Moreover, the theme “were APIB heard” was added to draw conclusions of how decision-making correlated with the APIBs claims.
Framing strategies Alliance-building Usage of Cleavages Claims of APIB
Everyday practices Imagery of IP in Brazil Imagery of IP in Europe
Claims of other societal actors Issue areas important to others Issue areas of APIBs claims
Political cleavages Communication channels Barriers
Transnational Coalition Usage of international norms Were APIB heard APIB part of coalition
Type of actors
What type of relationship Claims of Coalition
International norms
Forum’s norms were used in State decisions based on norms
State compliance to APIB claims
17 4.2.2. Conducting interviews and Coding
The set-questions are phrased to gain data on the outlined variables be able to measure the data to answer how APIB have used strategies to enhance visibility and interests. Exactly how questions correlate with variables can be seen in Appendix 1. Interviews were structed in the following matter: 1) general question about the NGO work and answers determined what questions was asked next depending on where the conversation were going, what had been answered and what areas interviewee were knowledgeable of. 2) most relevant questions was asked. Not all questions were answer through expert interviews, instead background checks and utilizing secondary data was added. 3) To end the interview, interviewees were asked if he/she has something he/she want to add or ask. When that has been thoroughly done, the interviewer will thank him/her and them end the call. See questions in Appendix 1.
Moreover, after conducting the interviews, audio files were transcribed by using two different software programs: “Otter.Ai”: and AmberScript. These programs work pretty well, has around a 90-95% turnout. As there is room for some mistakes, the transcripts will be gone through manually to corrects the occasional mistakes. This also has another advantage, it makes the author re-read and listen to the interview ensures that the author processes the information a second time, which gave more in-dept understanding for what the data entails. After transcription, the data collected were cross-checked with other interview transcriptions, document used in QTTA (Fern, 2019: LSE, 2020) or earlier research (Chase, 2019; Correia, 2019; Leuzinger and Lyngard, 2016, etc,) to ensure the reliability of the data collected. After this, the software programmed NVIVO was used for coding, this was done by categorizing paragraphs and statements into themes and codes. Then transcribed interviews were processed by categorizing the answers into the different variables (themes) and indicators (codes).
Furthermore, the current political situation constitutes an environment in which human right-, environmental- and indigenous defenders experience psychologically and physically violence (HRW, 2021). The informants work with all a range of different groups that are partly or fully sub-organizations of IG member groups, except Quilombolas: IP in the Rio Negro area;
Kanipé; APIB executive branch; Quilombolas; Guarani-Kaiowá indigenous leaders; COIBA;
small scale indigenous farmers. Hence, the author has chosen to keep the interviewees anonymous as some information are sensitive and has been assessed by the author to possible lead to potential insecurity for interview participants. Therefore, interviews will be referred to
18 as Interview 1, 2, 3 and 4 in this thesis. Transcripts are not included in the appendix, but can they be accessed upon request.
4.3. Qualitative Thematic Textual Analysis
Qualitative thematic textual analysis was conducted, both to give context to the issue, add additional data needed after the interviews and lastly to triangulate data collected in interviews (Bryman, 2015). This method has been proven useful to collect data on indigenous inclusion and indigenous agency in trade governance (Borrows and Schwartz, 2020; Sarson, 2019;
Matute, 2021, Georgis and Lugosi, 2014). Additionally, has it been useful to gain data that will complement my interview method (Sarson, 2019). For example, as no interview with APIB was conducted, due to language limitations of the author, this method made it filled the data gap of APIB claims.
Different types of documents were analyzed through QTTA to collect data into themes and codes outlined above (see 4.3.3). Firstly, Position papers, newspaper, reports and a few scholarly articles were analyses to collect data which enabled measurement of APIBs usage of framing strategies, alliance-building, usage of political cleavages, transnational advocacy coalition and usage of international norms (see appendix 2.). paragraphs and themes segment were the unit of content that categorized segments is the documents analyzed (see Appendix 2.) The categorization of the segments was conducted in the same way as interview transcriptions were coded (see 4.3.3.) Moreover, QTTA was most useful in collecting data under APIBs claims and Brazilian Alliance claims. As interviews were not conducted with the APIB and interviews left a gap of data on the indicators “Claims of APIB “claims of other societal actors”. Here APIB position papers and one report were analyzed to gain data categorized under APIB claims (APIB, 2019; see appendix 2) and civil society alliance position papers. Additionally, did the usage of QTTA in provide the author to collect data on small data gaps under the other indicators. QTTA also made it easier to cross-check data collected through interviews and QTTA, as all data was analyzed into the same themes and coded in the computer program NIVIVO.
4.4. Delimitations of data collection methods
The material used in this research was delimited to some extent by language limitations of the author (no Portuguese or indigenous languages). Some sources, such as positioning papers, some reports of Brazilian organization and interviews with the APIB could have provided
19 important data on the rationale behind APIBs strategies and indigenous interests to the analysis was lost. However, the combined method, especially the interviews enabled data collection of APIBs rationale and indigenous interests that would not have been found in secondary sources and the QTTA filled the major gaps of data after interviews were conducted. Moreover, some data that could have enhanced the findings within communication channels used within the Mercosur, Brazil and EU during the negotiations, was delimited due to the number of interviews conducted. Thus, the findings could have been more expansive on APIB ability to enhance or make indigenous interests visible. Nevertheless, this thesis was able to contribute to the field by producing knowledge of what strategies the APIBs used within national and transnational social movements to enhance the interests of IP in trade governance and contribute to how indigeneity shapes demands and how indigenous agency can be strengthened.
5. Analysis – What strategies have the APIB used?
This part of the thesis will analyze the data collected through semi-structured interviews and qualitative thematic textual analysis (QTTA) by applying Eimers (2020) theoretical framework to answer: What strategies have APIB used in order to enhance the visibility and potential interests of Brazil’s indigenous groups in the EU-Mercosur Agreement?
The analysis will be structured based on the findings and the theoretical framework. Firstly, APIBs claims are presented, which represent the interests APIBs 300 indigenous groups.
Secondly, analysis of APIBs ability to frame claims with everyday practices are presented.
Thirdly, strategies APIB used in Brazil are presented, including framing strategies, alliance building and usage of political cleavages. Fourthly, strategies used by the APIB to access the European political arena are analysed, including transnational coalition building, framing strategy and usage of international norms to pressure the EU parliament or EU member states to not ratify the Mercosur Agreement. The divide of strategies used on the national and international level was based on findings that different strategies were used in Brazil and EU.
The difference between the perception of IP between Brazil and EU will also be examined.
Lastly, the discussion presents the findings of this thesis.
5.1. APIB Claims
APIBs advocates for the non-ratification or re-negotiation of Mercosur Agreement. This opposition is grounded in three claims: 1) they oppose the Mercosur Agreement as the
20 voluntary enforcement mechanism covering the TSDC cannot ensure implementation that respects indigenous rights and territories.
“Refrain from entering into trade agreements, including the EU-Mercosur agreement, until robust, verifiable safeguards are in place ensuring the preservation of Indigenous rights and territories in the Brazilian Amazon” (APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020:49).
2) Ratification would legitimize the Brazilian government’s development agenda which promotes industrialization of production at the expense of violation to indigenous rights and environmental degradation (Fern, 2019); 3) the Mercosur Agreement “will facilitate trade for companies that will exploit indigenous land even more” (Reuters, 2019; Interview 2).
Ratification will lower tariffs between EU and Brazil, which is assessed to intensify the production of agricultural products and other extractive production processes. These production processes often lead to illegal or legal activity on indigenous land without the consent of IP (APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020)
5.2: Framing Strategy: Correlation between claims and everyday practices
Framing strategy is the ability to make claims correspond with IP’s everyday practices and their imagery master frames, if so, claims are perceived as legitimate. This section will analyse the former part — the correlation between APIBs claims and everyday practices.
APIB claims that the voluntary enforcement mechanisms of the Mercosur Agreement will not ensure safe implementation for IPs rights or territories (Interview 1, 2021; APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020:49). This claim is framed in the rhetoric-practice gap of international (trade) agreement with voluntary enforcement mechanisms, such as the: ILO no.169, UNDRIP (Chase, 2019). More specifically, the TSDC includes articles about workers’ rights, environmental protection and the inclusion of local communities (including IP) in forestry management. Thus, it contains rhetoric of critical juncture towards a sustainable trade model but ensures no mechanism for it to be performed. The agreement’s voluntary enforcement mechanism make these articles reliant on political will (interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 3;
Interview 4; EC, 2019), hence adding to the status quo of empty rhetoric that ensures socio- environmental protection and maintain the “patronage of international buyers and/or investors”. (APIB and Amazon Watch, 2020:15,75; Interview 1)
21 The second claim is framed in correlation with that negotiations were finalized under the mandate of Bolsonaro and the increased insecurity for IP in Brazil after Bolsonaro was elected and struggle to gain recognition and keep control of their land dating back centuries (interview 1; Interview 4 )To elaborate, struggles to gain recognition or keep control of indigenous land is a core issue and embodiment of a lot of issued IP face. (Interview 1; Interview 4). At the moment 724 different areas of indigenous land are in the legal procedure process to be recognized in Brazil (Socioambiental, 2021). The right to land is protected under Brazils Constitutional law:
“Any land that has been traditionally occupied by Indigenous peoples, those inhabited by them permanently, those that are used for any productive activity, those indispensable to the preservation of natural resources that are necessary for their wellbeing and those necessary to their physical and cultural reproduction, according to their uses, customs and traditions” (Translation of Constitution in Leuzinger & Lyngard, 2016:421).
However, since Bolsonaro gained presidency, the indigenous struggles connected to legal recognition of indigenous land has become tougher (Interview 1). On the presidents first day, an executive order issued the transfer of responsibility for the "identification, delimitation, demarcation and registration of lands traditionally occupied by indigenous people" from Brazil’s National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) to the Ministry of Agriculture (Fern, 2019:3).
This made the issue of recognition a matter of agriculture which is one of the biggest threats to IP keeping control over their land. Additionally, Bolsonaro only recognize land that is homologated as indigenous, which is the last step of a long legal process (Socioambiental;
2018), which goes against what is recognized as indigenous land under the constitution (Interview 1). Since Bolsonaro took office, no land has been homologated:
‘
22 (Socioambiental, 2018)
The neglection of violation of indigenous right to land is not a new governmental approach, but Bolosonaro’s harsh rhetoric and anti-indigenous agenda has increased the support for maintaining the high degree of invasions in protected areas by illegal lang-grabbers, loggers and miners (Socioambiental, 2020; Interview 1). Thus, the claim: that ratification would legitimize Bolosonaro’s development agenda, which favors industrialized agribusinesses and extractive processes of minerals and oil , resulting in an increased degree of invasion of indigenous lands. This approach violates indigenous rights protected under national law and a number of international agreements such as United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, UNDRIP and ILO no. 169 (Interview 1).
Thirdly, APIB claim that the Mercosur Agreement “will facilitate trade for companies that will exploit indigenous land even more” (Reuters, 2019). The lower tariffs that will follow the ratification of the Mercosur Agreement is assessed to intensify the production of agricultural products and other extractive production. These production processes often lead to illegal or legal activity on indigenous land without the consent of IP. This claim is connected to the other claims about voluntary enforcement mechanism and the governments development agenda.
Thus, the ratification of the Mercosur Agreement will result in more pressure on indigenous land all over Brazil, including the Amazon (LSE, 2020: 94-99,103; Burley, 2020). This claim, facilitation of trade interlinked with indigenous exploitation of indigenous land, is framed within everyday practices of indigenous resistance to extractive production processes that has been proven to be connected to patterns of exploitation, displacement, physical threats, land- grabbing, and other threats (Interview, 2). In purpose of creating resources (wealth, products, etc.) for others without indigenous consultation, consent or compensation (Interview 1, Interview 2).
Additionally, the resistance to extractive practices is also interlinked with environmental protection as extractive production processes contribute to environmental degradation (Interview 2; Interview 4). Deforestation and loss of biodiversity is often a result of agribusiness or mining, chemical contamination of nature is a result of a side effect of pesticides usage or mining processes (Interview 2; Fern, 2019; LSE, 2020: 94-99,103). In 2016 agricultural processes were responsible for 80% of all deforestation in the Amazonas in Brazil
23 (FAO, 2016), where soy is one of the leading commodities exported by Brazil (Fern, 2019:2).
Thus everyday struggles of IP in Brazil to keep control over their land and the development of their territories are often interlinked with environmental protection (Interview 1; Interview 3;
Interview 4). Thus, APIBs claim in opposition to the Mercosur Agreement facilitation of trade that exploit indigenous land is framed in IP everyday struggles against extractive production processes due to unequal exchange, and human and environmental degradation, which has been path-dependent since European colonialization.
Lastly, APIB has succeeded to frame their claims in everyday practices of IP in Brazil and other larger issue areas, such as human rights and environmental degradation, preservation of the Amazon etc. Thus, they have succeeded in correlating their claims with local realties of IP in Brazil, which is one aspect that makes their claims seen as legitimate. However, some everyday practices of IP diverging from APIBs claims was also found in the data collected.
That a small percentage of Brazils IP engage in industrial agribusiness or other extractive processed that result in environmental degradation might decrease the legitimacy of APIB claims. (Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 4). However, these practices often interlinked to local indigenous people and other citizen face on the ground, due to the unequal wealth distribution of the state, but also marginalization, stigmatization, exploitation and threats and aggression (World Bank, 2019; Interview 1; Interview 3; Interview 4).
5.3. Strategies used in Domestic Political Arena
This section will analyze the data collected concerning APIB strategies used in Brazil under the themes: framing strategies, alliance-building strategies and usage of political cleavages.
5.3.1. Framing Strategy in Brazil
APIBs did not succeed to establish the correlation between APIBs claims and the imagery of IP among the political elite due to that master frames held by the political elite did not correlate with the framing of APIBs claims. However, did they succeed to some extent with the general public.
To elaborate, IP in Brazil have historically been perceived to be an obstacle to development or savages (Interview 1). These trajectories have led to marginalization of IP within the political system, which still affect indigenous agency in Brazil. These historical connotations in the master frame held by the current government have led to inability for the APIB to make their
24 claims perceived as legitimate by the executive branch (Interview 1). Bolsonaro´s has called IP an obstacle to development and “almost humans” (Phillips, These master frame has resulted in that the political elites in Brazil directly engaged in discriminatory or paternalistic activities towards domestic indigenous groups (Eimer, 2020), outlined under 5.2. Especially has the dismantling of indigenous governmental agencies limited APIB from voicing their interests in policy-making affecting them, including the Mercosur Agreement (Interview 1). However, have harsh anti-indigenous rhetoric changed what the media writes about IP, which has changed the general public’s imagery of IP (Interview 1). IP are now more often perceived and described as environmental protectors, and who culture is seen as something to preserve due to its historical value of Brazil (Interview 1) This more positive frame of IP correlates with APIBs claims to a larger extent and increased the legitimacy of them among the public, which opens avenues to mobilize and connect claims to other societal actors.
5.3.2. Alliance-building strategy in Brazil
In this section the alliance-building strategy used in Brazil will be analyses to establish the ability of the APIB to build bridges between their claims and the demand of other societal actors as this contributes to a larger support base for policy change (Eimers, 2020) and enhance the visibility and interests of Brazilian IG.
APIB have been able to build bridges with multiple societal actors (Interview 1; Interview 2;
Interview 3; Interview 4:). One reason for this was found to be that the APIB it-self is an alliance of multiple indigenous organizations within Brazil (Interview 1). Thus they have been able to build bridges and unity among indigenous groups all over the country, which often speak with a unified voice in matters related to the Mercosur Agreement (Interview 1). E.g. the ABIP participated in one of the biggest indigenous meetings held in Brazil 2020, where 600 indigenous leaders were present, and they sent a joint letter that refused Bolsonaro’s new bill limiting the recognition and protection of IP rights (Nationalia, 2020; Human Rights Watch, 2020). Here they voiced an interest to re-launch the Forest’s People Alliance as threats and aggressions within Brazil has increased not only for indigenous people but Quilombolas and other traditional people, thus the domestic situation an avenue to build bridges between the APIB other traditional people in Brazil (Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 4).
Moreover, the APIB have been able to frame their claims in words allowing connection to a large CSOs Alliance called Front of Brazilian Civil Society Organization against EU-Mercosur
25 Agreement (henceforth, FBSCO against Mercosur). The main building block is the general opposing the ratification of the Mercosur Agreement (Interview 1; Interview 3). It has created an opportunity for the APIB to build bridges with both old and new societal actors in Brazil to prevent the ratification of another trade agreement that affects the sustainable development of IP negatively (APIB and Amazon Watch; 2020; Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 4). The FBSCO against Mercosur Agreement, is a civil society alliance which joined forces as they do not believe that additional documents will be enough to make the Mercosur Agreement serve the sustainable development for the environment or minority groups, small, -medium farmers or workers in general (Interview 1). The alliance includes other minority groups, which included IP, Quilombolas (Afro-Brazilian) and other traditional people (Interview 1, 2021), workers and small and medium sized farmers (Interview 4) In their joint letter sent to the government in December 2020, signed by 105 other civil society organizations (FBSCO against Mercosur, 2020) similarity between APIBs claims and other domestic societal actors are illuminated. Together the broad-based alliances of societal actors argue: 1) Mercosur Agreement will maintain the Brazil role as the eternal supplier of natural resources and importer of industrialized goods, economic benefits for large and transnational companies are prioritized on the expense of the environment and the ordinary citizen (FBSCO against Mercosur, 2020); 2) against the ratification of the Mercosur Agreement due to that enforcement mechanism cannot ensure implementation that does not violate human rights and or contribute to sustainable environment management (FBSCO, 2020); One claim illuminates the APIB ability to frame their claims in this broad-based alliance is the following quote:
“Trade and sustainable chapter voluntary enforcement mechanism are empty rhetoric trying to camouflage real interest (see row below) on the expense of environment and people: men, women, workers and territories of the country (…)The advance of agribusiness violates the ways of life of indigenous peoples and other traditional populations and their territorial rights. In this sense, it reinforces the main vectors of deforestation and fires [2] that have impaired the climate commitments taken by Brazil in the Paris Agreement and the Aichi Goals on biodiversity protection.” (FBCSO against Mercosur, 2021).
These joint claims also include a sentiment of general frustration towards the rhetoric-practice gap in implementation of trade liberalization as a means to development, which Diereke- Bierre, (2011) argues is common in the global south. Additionally, do they highlight how APIB claim against voluntary enforcement mechanisms, facilitation of trade for companies that
