Temporal framework will bring security, says ruralist – 05/31/2023 – Daily life
[ad_1]
The advance of the time frame in the Chamber happened under protests from wings of the federal government and indigenous movements. After being approved by 283 votes in favor and 155 against, bill 490 is now going to the Senate, where it should face more resistance, while the issue will be judged again by the STF (Federal Supreme Court).
Founder of the Instituto Pensar Agro, the guarantor of the FPA (Parliamentary Front for Agriculture) and the ruralist caucus in Congress, agronomist João Hummel defends the proposal, says that it should not review territories already demarcated and that it will increase legal security for investments when defining clearer rules for disputed lands.
“[A lei] It will consolidate what exists today. What is demarcated is demarcated, it is over. The Indians are no longer in that area. What we want is security for what lies ahead,” he says.
During the interview, Hummel uses the term “Indian”, not adopted by indigenous movements because it is interpreted as a colonial heritage. The name of Funai, the former National Foundation for the Indigenous People, this year became the National Foundation for Indigenous Peoples, for example.
The temporal framework thesis, defended by the FPA, determines that indigenous lands must be restricted to the area occupied or claimed by the peoples on the date of enactment of the Federal Constitution of 1988. The main argument in favor of the measure is to guarantee legal security.
The indigenous people refute the idea and argue that, according to the Constitution, they are entitled to their original territories, not limited by a certain date.
Why mr. defend the landmark temporal? Behind the temporal framework there is a concept that is the original right. If original law prevails, the Brazilian people have no right to property. Any ethnic group can claim its territory and, with that, I am expropriated and lose my heritage. If I don’t have a timeframe saying that whoever was in possession of it, at that time, is the owner, everything is left to the Indians. So the Brazilian who built, evolved, does not have the right to the heritage, does it all belong to the Indian?
Previous constitutions already dealt with the right to land of indigenous peoples. Why 1988, and not another, for defining the landmark? Because it is the date of the Constitution. There they resolved the following: from now on, we need to consolidate what has been done, to bring legal certainty and be able to make investments. Are you going to build a house where you don’t know if it’s yours or not? There has to be a milestone, and the Constitution of that time said that, in five years, [as terras] had to be resolved. [Hoje] nothing is resolved, it generates great insecurity.
The 1988 Constitution speaks of “traditionally occupied indigenous lands”.. The Indians were nomads in Brazil, so they might want all of Brazil?
Do you understand that there must be compensation for the so-called “historic debt” of Brazil with the indigenous people? What repair? PL 490 deals with the following: in Raposa Serra do Sol, there were 19 conditional [colocadas pelo STF] to change the process of how to demarcate indigenous lands. What is being put into the project is within these constraints. Placing a new transparent framework, clear rules on how a procedure for the demarcation of indigenous lands should be.
There are reservations with a thousand Indians and I don’t know how many thousand hectares. Do they use these hectares? For what? Why can’t they explore this? They want cell phones, to have a life like ours, evolution. Am I going to ban them from this? Are they going to live with a thousand hectares, which are worth a huge patrimony, and live naked, without the right to a cell phone, communication, information, traditionally, like a museum?
But the framework is not about that… PL 490 talks about all this.
On land use… About the use, the way it will demarcate, what is the social impact of this.
Instead of 1988, could the milestone be another date? Can these rules be debated? No, you have to have a rule, without a rule there is no parameter, it is individualized, as defined by the Supreme Court. And what security do you have about your reality?
Do you defend that the demarcations already made be revised to adapt to the new law? It will consolidate what exists today. What is demarcated is demarcated, it’s over. The Indians are no longer in that area. What we want is security for what lies ahead. At no point does the project say that [de revisão de terras].
What has already been defined as private land and does not have an indigenous presence, be defined [dessa forma]. If there is one that has a fight, dispute, apply these new processes that are in PL 490. And if it is fair, within the rules, be demarcated.
The brand will be good for society, it will bring security for investments, and for the Indians, who will be able to discuss what they want in life, whether it is to explore that economically, make a museum to preserve part of their lives.
UNDERSTAND THE TIMEFRAME PROJECT
The thesis
The time frame determines that the demarcation of indigenous territories must respect the area occupied by the peoples in the promulgation of the Federal Constitution, in October 1988.
The critic
Indigenous movements disagree with the thesis and claim that, in 1988, their territories had already been targets of centuries of violence and destruction of villages; therefore, they understand that the lands that are the right of the peoples should not be demarcated by a date.
the ruralists
They defend the thesis on the grounds that it will give more legal security to agribusiness.
the stf
The Supreme ruled for June 7 the resumption of the trial that will decide whether the thesis is valid or not. So far, minister and rapporteur Edson Fachin has voted against the milestone. Minister Kassio Nunes Marques, in favour.
The law project
At the same time, the bill establishing the timeframe is being processed in the Chamber of Deputies. The President of the House, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), sought to approve the text before the STF trial, which took place this Tuesday (30). The text will still go to the Senate
And what about an indigenous people that grew up from 1988 to now? Grew up, do what? They will have to adapt.
The project has criteria of national relevance, subjective, to allow or not developments in land indigenous. This is within the policy. In Roraima, how many years [se viveu com energia] based on fuel, why couldn’t you make a power line that passed through an indigenous land? Brazil needs fertilizers and has a viable mine for exploration, it is not in an indigenous land, but it cannot [explorar] because it can become an indigenous land. It’s fair?
But what if it’s inside an indigenous land? Then you need to have authorization, have a discussion, go through Congress. The project doesn’t take any of that away. What needs to be known is this: what is the social impact and what is the cost? The impact needs to be assessed and mitigated. Life is a risk assessment, everything has risk.
And how should this assessment be made? It’s written in the law. It’s been a discussion for years, even within the Supreme Court, which is a good rule, to bring legal certainty. To have an investment, you need legal certainty. When there is uncertainty, it is necessary to add a risk tax.
Is there not a risk that the project will generate more conflicts in lands claimed by the indigenous people? Only now they would be held accountable, because they won’t be able to do that. The law must be applied. The law applies as much to us as it does to them. Just like us, the world is growing and we are adapting.
If the STF rules against the thesis of the landmark as unconstitutional, does that overthrow the project? No way. Which is more important, the law or the decision of the Supreme Court? Or else, if you make a PEC [Proposta de Emenda à Constituição]. Congress determines these rules, it has the responsibility to create this legal certainty. If the Supreme decides against the time frame, it is up to Congress to make a PEC literally copying the text [do projeto] and correcting the theses that say that there cannot be a time frame.
Precisely because it deals with issues of the Constitution, would it not be wrong to process the timeframe as a bill? Wouldn’t it have to be a PEC? In our understanding, we are regulating the Constitution. Based on a Supreme Court decision. My question: is society represented by the Supreme Court or by Congress?
The Supreme cannot legislate, legislation is made in Congress. He can even discuss the [conceito] of original law, which is not described anywhere, is a principle, but cannot legislate.
Do you advocate that the demarcation process pass from the Executive to the Legislative? I am against it, I have discussed this a lot, but I think that if it is a transparent process and with the participation of society from the beginning, there is no need for this.
What do you understand by participation in society? The text says that committees should be created. Cities, communities, everyone has to be notified that a study is going to start in that place [para demarcação], so that not only anthropologists could participate in the study group. And everyone will defend their interests, everyone will have arguments and time to decide.
When the law talks about the possibility of evaluating the loss of cultural “traits” of a community, this would be applied, for example, to the case of the land of Índio do Buraco [indígena que resistiu sozinho em uma área de preservação reivindicada por fazendeiros em Rondônia]? Each case… If it were an area in the center of Brasília, which has no more Indians, it goes back to the Union. The Union will do this in the best possible way, if it is in an area that needs to be preserved, then it is a decision by society, which has a need for each area. If it’s interesting to have a park, you can have a park.
But isn’t the loss of cultural trait subjective? How would this assessment be done? If the community no longer exists, it has lost its character. The indigenous land is demarcated by cultural necessity. If you lose the cultural need, you lose the principle of demarcation.
But what does “losing the cultural need” mean? This has to be defined. Philosophically arguing, if I use a principle to demarcate and that principle does not exist, why demarcate? It loses its meaning. Society will define it.
O [conceito do] original law does not bring legal certainty, this framework, with transparent procedures. If you have the participation of society, we will have good results. It will not fail to demarcate, it may even demarcate more.
Wouldn’t it be, then, to discuss the concept of original law first and then define the best time frame?
No, because from the moment the framework is established, it is defined that the original right is limited to that framework. The security [jurídica] it is not the concept of original law, it is the framework.
X-RAY – Joao Henrique Hummel, 61
Agronomist and consultant, he was responsible for founding IPA (Instituto Pensar Agro). He also headed the FPA (Frente Parlamentar da Agropecuária) for 11 years. He is currently Executive Director of Action Government Relations.
[ad_2]
Source link
