Sir: Chile submitted a voluntary report year 2017 about the implementation of the objectives of sustainable development (ODS) to the year 2030. In this document, is considered to the peoples originating in a restricted way. The inclusion of this important component is associated with the invocation of the public-private dialogue that is proposed from the intermediate figures such as the Council of civil society, assuming the context of the legend «no one left behind». This seems consistent with the ratification of the ILO C169 by Chile, already a decade ago.
Native peoples even though they are considered measures of dialogue, in legislative motions (eg. Proceedings in the first instance of a Ministry of indigenous peoples and Council of indigenous peoples, which modernizes and gives new institutionality to the issue regarding the law 19253 of 1993; constitutional invocation), and in Government speeches – allusive figures included performance rituals native-, are even with a place on the participation and public decision-making. Although indigenous consultation and participation processes has been adopted (not without discord between the representatives of peoples and the State, eg.) At the time of the definition and implementation of a protocol of consultation through the Supreme Decree 66 and Decree 40, with non-binding and only advisory character), matter even challenges with respect to the inclusion of the political, social, and territorial component of peoples.
This, is by the neo-liberal tradition of the State or by the absent modernization of governance in this parameter, as well as the absence of understanding of the magnitude of the required changes in the implementation of measures seeking, since good faith, influence in the general welfare with relevance. In such an order, worth considering some of the limitations in respect of the guarantee of the rights of second (cultural, economic and social) and third generation (territorial, and self-assertion) of peoples: 1) Inclusion of the figure of peoples and rights customary in the management of the State, and in the planning of the territory, is still rhetoric. Little political will is suitable for a social agenda to be set at the time. Therefore topic drift at the mercy of shift executives and their ideologies (which set speeches ad hoc of philanthropy in the matter, and conflicting actions in the order of intervention, ignoring the figure of organizations in matters that you) they are incumbent). In fact, in conjunction with the consultation, also should be given the inclusion of the participation of specific peoples in foresight and generation of development and decentralization measures, if you will, by invoking article 7 of the C169 (in this case, for example, the) Regional development strategy of Arica and Parinacota did not have a specific process of peoples, and the measures and strategies do not consider the perspective of the people in decision-making, leading those quotas in legitimation, as agents ((that certain leaders support x different Governments) 2) is not the theme indigenous as cross, they referred to the figure of «territories of high concentration». And even so, the incidence of people in such an effect is unknown.
(3) is considered in mitigation measures of inequalities and poverty people in comparison to measurements with the non-indigenous general population, where is in the already known diagnoses of historical injustice and structural violence, but do not innovate to understand the character of indigenous poverty (income and multidimensional), and its relationship with the (re) production of inequalities.
(4) according to the above, obtuse measures that advance in the recognition of the conditions of exercise of collective rights, and territorialities (in the case of the paradigm of «territories of indigenous concentration»), and to develop mechanisms that are not reinforce indigenous civil society, but that seeks it to make functional to the action of the State and its logic of generation of welfare, where the social democratic model is not reflective with the role and nature of the formal market.
(5) emphasis on materials of native autoadscripcion according to how the State defines indigenous, and deals with the classification of cultural diversity in the field of indigenous peoples from there. This causes a hegemony of who defines indigenous people, creating conflicts between indigenous peoples in this regard, or respect other otherness seeking recognition of cultural rights.
(6) the subject matter of Agenda 2030 is not usual at the subnational level, having a discrete action in the local territories, where people know little or nothing of the objectives of development and its incident links to local sustainability strategies.