The Paradox of Isolation: How to Safeguard Indigenous Peoples Who Refuse Contact. By Ubhra Battacharjee (Director General, Forest Stewardship Council International)

By Subhra Battacharjee

Director General, Forest Stewardship Council International

Few challenges in responsible forest management are as complex as protecting Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation. Their survival depends on remaining uncontacted, while responsible forest management requires the participation of Indigenous voices in decisions that affect them. How can both principles be honored?

The case of the Mashco Piro people of the Peruvian Amazon illustrates the dilemma. This semi-nomadic people move between indigenous reserves and permanent production forests. For over a decade, there has been debate about expanding the Madre de Dios Territorial Reserve by 240,000 hectares to strengthen its protection. However, much of this land is under concession, which has generated uncertainty for companies and indigenous communities. The Mashco Piro, living in isolation, cannot be part of the debate.

This isn't a theoretical dilemma, but rather a challenge that goes to the foundations of sustainability: how to apply ethical principles when they are nearly impossible to put into practice.

Indigenous Peoples and Global Sustainability

Indigenous Peoples manage 28% of the planet's land surface, including 36% of intact forests and more than 80% of the world's biodiversity. Their knowledge and traditions are essential to the health of ecosystems. However, their rights remain fragile: they are frequently denied tenure, excluded from decision-making, and displaced by economic pressures.

The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) was created to ensure that Indigenous Peoples can decide on activities that affect their lands and resources. It is a cornerstone of human rights and the FSC system. However, its application is impossible in communities that have opted for voluntary isolation.

In South America, 188 groups in this situation have been registered, although only 60 are officially recognized by the states. This gap leaves more than 100 without basic legal protection, exposed to concessions, extractive industries, and illegal activities.

The role of the FSC in the face of an ethical dilemma

Some indigenous organizations have called on the FSC to revoke certifications in cases affecting uncontacted communities. Others argue that certification guarantees higher standards, protects biodiversity, and reduces illegal exploitation. Both positions reflect the complexity of the dilemma.

The case of the Mashco Piro has highlighted the lack of preparedness of current systems. In response, the FSC has initiated investigations and consultations with communities, companies, and governments, resulting in measures such as increased restrictions on operations near the territories of uncontacted peoples.

Towards effective protection

These actions don't eliminate the dilemma, but they represent an important step toward creating protective barriers where the law has yet to reach. This is an extraordinarily complex challenge, one that combines laws, ethics, and survival.

The very existence of these communities calls into question whether sustainability can overcome its most difficult test: protecting those who choose to remain on the sidelines. The FSC has chosen to face this challenge, convinced that forests will only endure if the people who live in them do so.

By Subhra Battacharjee Director General, Forest Stewardship Council International

Main photo: (Brazil). EFE/Tatiana Nevo/ARCHIVE

About @CDOverde

Green Opinion Makers #CDO is a collective blog coordinated by Arturo Larena , director of EFEverde

This column may be freely reproduced, citing its authors and EFEverde.

Other Green Opinion Makers (#CDO) forums

This "green influencer" blog has been a finalist in the 2023 Orange Journalism and Sustainability Awards in the "new formats" category.