November, 20 2018, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
From Amazon Leaders to World Leaders: We Call for an Ambitious Post-2020 Agreement That Heals Our Mother Earth
Leaders from the Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA) present a proposal for the Amazon and call for the consolidation of a new global post 2020 agreement addressed at restoring and protecting half of our Mother Earth and managing the rest in harmony with Her.
SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt
The Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA) has presented at the 14th UN Biodiversity Conference a proposal for the Amazon, and has called on the governments of the world to follow the example of indigenous leadership in creating consensus towards ambitious objectives that ensure ecologic stability and the security of this and future generations.
Likewise, and as a result of the tone used in his declarations during the election campaign, the COICA made a pressing and urgent call to Brazil's President Elect Jair Bolsonaro, to respect indigenous rights, the integrity of indigenous territories and international conventions on biodiversity and climate change as well as other agreements such as Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization and the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
1. INTERCONNECTIVITY OF THE AMAZON: A PROPOSAL FOR UNITY
COICA will present before the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity, governments and NGOs the "Bogota Declaration", which describes the principles and joint vision of the indigenous confederations to protect the Amazon rainforest by using a traditional and holistic perspective. The area included in this interconnection perspective is the size of Mexico.
The declaration resulted from the COICA summit held last August in Bogota with indigenous leaders from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guyana, Guyana, Peru, Surinam and Venezuela, representing over 400 nations. At the summit, they discussed alternatives based on ancestral knowledge on how to connect indigenous territories to preserve close to 200 million hectares of tropical rainforest, by connecting the Andes, Amazonas, and up to the Atlantico.
In the declaration, the indigenous delegations invite States and other entities to "join efforts to build visibility strategies, recognizing the importance of this corridor as a first step to guaranteeing the existence of all forms of life on the Planet" and to "weave alliances and commitments to promote, protect and make visible" the Andes, Amazonas, Atlantico corridor, its biodiversity, its cultures and sacredness of the territory" (1).
Tuntiak Katan, the Representative of the Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin COICA before the negotiations at the CBD COP 14 in Egypt stated, "Indigenous Peoples and local communities are a solution to the devastation of our ecosystems and climate change both in the Amazon as well as in the rest of the world. But whether policies addressed at mitigating climate change and promoting the restoration of rainforests succeed, depends on the security of having possession of community lands. 65% of the world's lands are indigenous territories, but only 10% are legalized. Thus, guaranteeing indigenous territorial rights is an inexpensive and effective way of reducing carbon emissions and increase natural areas. Ensuring possession of community rainforests is a low cost-high benefit investment to protect our Mother Earth and stop extinctions."
2. TOWARDS A GLOBAL POST-2020 AGREEMENT ADDRESSED AT RESTORING AND PROTECTING HALF OF OUR MOTHER EARTH AND MANAGING THE REST IN HARMONY WITH HER.
COICA is also present at Sharm El Sheikh to start bilateral negotiations with different actors in the quest for an ambitious and fair agreement for 2020. COICA wishes to invite all world leaders to work alongside indigenous leaders in the goal of restoring at least half of the Planet by 2050; COIA also wishes to promote a constructive dialogue with the governments of the Amazon region to avoid the terminal crisis of the Planet's largest forest.
Indigenous leaders have stated that any post-2020 agreement must include active participation of Indigenous Peoples since their territories are home to 80% of biodiversity and 24% of forest carbon, and must also ensure funds for local communities. They additionally stated that they are willing to share their traditional knowledge and wisdom with any government that is genuinely open to listening about specific on site experiences.
COICA wants to open working tables and boards with several actors who are behind a common goal to protect and restore half of the Planet before 2050, which would ensure restoring the habitats and would leave us a minimum base of protected ecosystems to prevent a climate change crisis and the loss of biodiversity. Renowned scientists and conservation experts believe in the need to protect 50% and ensure that the remaining 50% is managed sustainably. Scientists have discovered that if we protect 50% of the Planet from human exploitation (whether from extracting activities such as mining, lumbering, deforestation to give way to monoculture, oil exploration), the Earth's ecosystems may stabilize and regenerate.
Juan Carlos Jintiach, Technical Coordinator on Biodiversity and Climate Change stated, "The scope for action concerning biodiversity must not be alien to the decisions already included in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2030, but we need to go much further for our vision as Indigenous Peoples by 2050 to be coherent with our own demands and realities at a local, national and international levels. These must not exclude a gender, and youth focus or the synergy between people, culture and Nature."
3. A CALL TO BOLSONARO: CAUTION, RESPECT FOR INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
COICA wishes to express its deep concern for the declarations made during President Elect Jair Bolsonaro's campaign concerning his environmental policy and his approach to indigenous issues.
COICA wishes to remind Bolsonaro that Brazil has national and international obligations to guarantee the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, to protect Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and to respect the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples and communities; and wants to advise that Brazil's international credibility will depend on its actions in the environmental and indigenous sphere. COICA will mobilize as much international solidarity as possible to protect Brazil's Indigenous Peoples and communities
Juan Carlos Jintiach, Representative of the Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin COICA in the CBD COP 14 in Egypt stated, "Bolsonaro's declarations are concerning because they nurture a disturbing tendency in different parts of the world, where almost 3/4th of environmental defenders assassinated in 2017 were indigenous leaders; where opposing agroindustry is the main cause for assassination of our leaders world wide; and where imposing projects on to communities without their free, prior and informed consent is at the root of all attacks to indigenous and community leaders. Likewise, we see that it is increasingly frequent for Indigenous Peoples and communities to face costly and difficult processes to legalize their lands, while corporations obtain licenses with ease. Because of this and based on the tone used in Brazil's past election campaign, we call upon Bolsonaro to caution and full respect of the law, and particularly to ensure respect for the rights of our brothers and sisters in Brazil, ensuring their safety and physical integrity."
LATEST NEWS
Second US Strike on Boat Attack Survivors Was Illegal—But Experts Stress That the Rest Were, Too
"It is blatantly illegal to order criminal suspects to be murdered rather than detained," said one human rights leader.
Dec 02, 2025
As the White House claims that President Donald Trump "has the authority" to blow up anyone he dubs a "narco-terrorist" and Adm. Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley prepares for a classified congressional briefing amid outrage over a double-tap strike that kicked off the administration's boat bombing spree, rights advocates and legal experts emphasize that all of the US attacks on alleged drug-running vessels have been illegal.
"Trump said he will look into reports that the US military (illegally) conducted a follow-up strike on a boat in the Caribbean that it believed to be ferrying drugs, killing survivors of an initial missile attack. But the initial attack was illegal too," Kenneth Roth, the former longtime director of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said on social media Monday.
Roth and various others have called out the US military's bombings of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific as unlawful since they began on September 2, when the two strikes killed 11 people. The Trump administration has confirmed its attacks on 22 vessels with a death toll of at least 83 people.
Shortly after the first bombing, the Intercept reported that some passengers initially survived but were killed in a follow-up attack. Then, the Washington Post and CNN reported Friday that Bradley ordered the second strike to comply with an alleged spoken directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to kill everyone on board.
The administration has not denied that the second strike killed survivors, but Hegseth and the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, have insisted that the Pentagon chief never gave the spoken order.
However, the reporting has sparked reminders that all of the bombings are "war crimes, murder, or both," as the Former Judge Advocates General (JAGs) Working Group put it on Saturday.
Following Leavitt's remarks about the September 2 strikes during a Monday press briefing, Roth stressed Tuesday that "it is not 'self-defense' to return and kill two survivors of a first attack on a supposed drug boat as they clung to the wreckage. It is murder. No amount of Trump spin will change that."
"Whether Hegseth ordered survivors killed after a US attack on a supposed drug boat is not the heart of the matter," Roth said. "It is blatantly illegal to order criminal suspects to be murdered rather than detained. There is no 'armed conflict' despite Trump's claim."
The Trump administration has argued to Congress that the strikes on boats supposedly smuggling narcotics are justified because the United States is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels that the president has labeled terrorist organizations.
During a Sunday appearance on ABC News' "This Week," US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that "I think it's very possible there was a war crime committed. Of course, for it to be a war crime, you have to accept the Trump administration's whole construct here... which is we're in armed conflict, at war... with the drug gangs."
"Of course, they've never presented the public with the information they've got here," added Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "But it could be worse than that. If that theory is wrong, then it's plain murder."
Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the US Naval War College, rejects the Trump administration's argument that it is at war with cartels. Under international human rights law, he told the Associated Press on Monday, "you can only use lethal force in circumstances where there is an imminent threat," and with the first attack, "that wasn't the case."
"I can't imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water... That is clearly unlawful," Schmitt said. Even if the US were in an actual armed conflict, he explained, "it has been clear for well over a century that you may not declare what's called 'no quarter'—take no survivors, kill everyone."
According to the AP:
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group and a former State Department lawyer, agreed that the US is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
"The term for a premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder," Finucane said, adding that US military personnel could be prosecuted in American courts.
"Murder on the high seas is a crime," he said. "Conspiracy to commit murder outside of the United States is a crime. And under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 118 makes murder an offense."
Finucane also participated in a related podcast discussion released in October by Just Security, which on Monday published an analysis by three experts who examined "the law that applies to the alleged facts of the operation and Hegseth's reported order."
Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman, and Tess Bridgeman emphasized in Just Security that the law of armed conflict (LOAC) did not apply to the September 2 strikes because "the United States is not in an armed conflict with any drug trafficking cartel or criminal gang anywhere in the Western Hemisphere... For the same reason, the individuals involved have not committed war crimes."
"However, the duty to refuse clearly unlawful orders—such as an order to commit a crime—is not limited to armed conflict situations to which LOAC applies," they noted. "The alleged Hegseth order and special forces' lethal operation amounted to unlawful 'extrajudicial killing' under human rights law... The federal murder statute would also apply, whether or not there is an armed conflict."
Goodman added on social media Monday that the 11 people killed on September 2 "would be civilians even if this were an armed conflict... It's not even an armed conflict. It's extrajudicial killing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Prices Soar, Trump Denounces 'Affordability' as 'Democrat Scam'
"The president is trying to gaslight Americans into believing that everything is fine."
Dec 02, 2025
President Donald Trump on Tuesday blew off US voters' concerns about affordability, even as polls show most voters blame him for increasing prices on staple goods.
At the start of a Cabinet meeting, Trump falsely claimed that electricity prices are coming down, despite the fact that Americans across the country are struggling with utility bills being driven higher in large part by energy-devouring artificial intelligence data centers.
The president then claimed more broadly that voter concerns about increased costs were all figments of their imaginations.
"The word 'affordability' is a Democrat scam," Trump declared. "They say it and they go onto the next subject, and everyone thinks, 'Oh they had lower prices.' No, they had the worst inflation in the history of our country. Now, some people will correct me, because they always love to correct me, even though I'm right about everything. But some people like to correct me, and they say, '48 years.' I say it's not 48 years, it's much more, but they say it's the worst inflation we've had in 48 years, I'd say, ever."
Trump: But the word "Affordability" is a Democrat scam. pic.twitter.com/WmXeDLWQ0X
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 2, 2025
Later in the Cabinet meeting, a reporter asked Trump if he believed voters were growing "impatient" with his policies, which have not produced the kind of broad-based decline in prices he once promised.
Trump, however, doubled down.
"I think they're getting fake news from guys like you," he said. "Look, affordability is a hoax that was started by Democrats, who caused the problem of pricing."
Q: You talk about affordability. Are the American people getting impatient with the reforms you're making?
TRUMP: I think they're getting fake news from guys like you. Look, affordability is a hoax that was started by Democrats. pic.twitter.com/EhtSaKHEMk
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 2, 2025
The president's claims about affordability being a "scam" issue are at odds with what US voters are telling pollsters, however.
A Yahoo/YouGov poll released late last month, for instance, found 49% of Americans say that Trump's policies have done more to raise prices in the last year, compared with just 24% who say that he's lowered their costs. The survey also found voters are more likely to blame Trump for higher prices than they are to blame former President Joe Biden.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump routinely campaigned on affordability and vowed to start lowering the cost of groceries starting on the very first day of his presidency. Since then, however, Trump has slapped heavy tariffs on a wide range of imported goods, which economists say have led to further price increases.
Many Democrats were quick to pounce on the president declaring affordability a "scam."
"There you have it folks," wrote Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.) on X. "From 'I will lower prices on Day 1' to this."
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) argued that Trump was trying to make Americans' economic anxieties disappear by telling them not to believe their own bank balances.
"The president is trying to gaslight Americans into believing that everything is fine," he observed. "The reality is millions of Americans are worried about their checking accounts and whether they can put food on the table, afford healthcare, and pay their bills."
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) said that Trump's dismissal of voters' affordability worries are "easy to say when you are a billionaire who has never had to choose between groceries and the light bill."
"Working families in Texas know the real scam is his tariffs, his higher premiums, and his complete failure to offer any plan to address the housing crisis or actually lower prices," Garcia added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Spending Law Gives Corporations $16 Billion in Retroactive Tax Breaks: Analysis
“You cannot change what a company did in the past, so that half-year of retroactive effect of the provision is just a windfall to companies," said one critic.
Dec 02, 2025
Corporations are likely to claim $16 in fresh tax breaks on expenditures made before the passage of the budget legislation signed earlier this year by US President Donald Trump, according to an analysis by a nonpartisan congressional committee released Tuesday.
The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)—a panel composed of five members each from the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee—came in response to a September query from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) regarding the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's (OBBBA) extension of full bonus depreciation, a tax-savings tool allowing businesses to automatically deduct costs of qualifying assets.
As Warren explained in her letter, full bonus depreciation enables corporations "to immediately deduct some or all of the cost of new business investments, such as the purchase of manufacturing equipment, software, and furniture, rather than deducting those costs over the estimated lifetime of those assets."
"This policy was first implemented in 2010 as an intended temporary economic stimulus in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and Congress allowed it to expire the following year," Warren noted.
"However, President Trump’s 2017 tax law reinstated 100% bonus depreciation from 2018 through 2022 in what amounted to a massive corporate giveaway," the senator continued, highlighting nearly $67 billion in tax savings for more than two dozen corporations including Google, Facebook, UPS, and Target.
"And after extensive lobbying from billionaire-funded right-wing lobbying groups, the OBBBA reinstated 100% bonus depreciation permanently to the tune of hundreds of billions of more dollars over the next decade," Warren added.
Applying retroactively to capital expenditures since January 19, corporate tax deductions under the OBBBA's reinstatement of the full bonus depreciation will cost $16 billion in lost federal revenue, according to the JCT's analysis. The tool has been hailed as game-changer for Bitcoin miners, who can write off 100% of hardware costs in the year of purchase.
The OBBBA provision allows firms to use the deduction to write off certain qualifying business-related properties, such as corporate jets. Meanwhile, millions of lower-income US households are suffering from the law's unprecedented cuts to vital social programs including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
While proponents of the full bonus depreciation argue that large corporations benefit most from the tool because they make up the lion's share of investments, critics point out that such breaks are generally poor investment incentives because they are applied after companies have already made their spending decisions.
“Thanks to Donald Trump and Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill, giant corporations will win big while American families see their costs skyrocket," Warren said Tuesday in response to the JCT analysis. "Next year, the federal government will spend over five times more on these tax handouts for billionaire corporations than it spends each year on childcare."
"Time and time again, Donald Trump and Republicans have made clear that they stand with billionaires and billionaire corporations—not American families," she added.
Numerous corporations taking advantage of the full bonus depreciation have paid effective federal corporate tax rates far below the statutory 21%, according to a 2023 analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
One tax expert called the deduction "a cheat code to saving millions in taxes," as thousands of companies have dodged paying their fair share by effectively reducing their income to zero, or even making it negative.
As Warren noted Tuesday, "over 80% of the 100% bonus depreciation claimed by corporations from 2018-22 went to companies with over $1 billion in yearly income," while "99% of bonus depreciation benefits went to corporations making over $1 million annually."
ITEP federal policy director Steve Wamhoff told the Washington Post Tuesday that “it is quite obvious that if an incentive is retroactive, it is not actually an effective incentive."
“You cannot change what a company did in the past, so that half-year of retroactive effect of the provision is just a windfall to companies," Wamhoff added. "That part is just ridiculous.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


