‘We have to bring trust’ into funding talks: Valéria Paye on Indigenous-led funds

Emotions were running high when Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announced the formal recognition of several Indigenous territories at COP30, the U.N. climate conference held in the Amazonian city of Belém. For Indigenous peoples in one of those territories — the 22,000-square-kilometer (8,500-square-mile) Kaxuyana-Tunayana Territory — it was a landmark moment in a decades-long struggle for recognition and self-determination.

One of the organizations supporting this work behind the scenes, the Podáali Fund, is at the forefront of a shift in philanthropy: the rise of Indigenous-led funds.

The mainstream philanthropic sector can be financially conservative by nature. Philanthropic foundations are generally established to exist “in perpetuity” and investment strategies tend to be risk-averse; only a small proportion of the available wealth is distributed each year through grants. Foundation grants are often short-term, administration-heavy and restricted to the funder’s priorities, with decisions made far away from the people and places they are supporting.

However, there is growing momentum around trust-based philanthropy and dedicated funds led by the rights-holders and movements they are serving, including women, youth and Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous-led funds are created, governed and managed by Indigenous peoples and rooted in their worldviews and values such as respect, reciprocity and trust.

The Podáali Fund, the Indigenous fund for the Brazilian Amazon, is one such example. Indigenous leaders invested more than 10 years in discussions and preparations before the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB) formally established it in 2020.

One of their goals is to enable and increase direct funding to Indigenous peoples and movements — on their terms. Despite their outsized role in sustaining and defending a healthy planet, Indigenous peoples and their organizations receive a small fraction of global philanthropic funding, with a 2024 report finding “consistent patterns of pervasive and systemic inequities.”

“If we in the field of philanthropy really want to support Indigenous peoples and even traditional communities, the conversation and dialogue have to change. The principle has to be one of true reciprocity, of joint construction, with respect,” Valéria Paye (Tiriyó Kaxuyana), executive director of the Podáali Fund, tells Mongabay.

In an interview with Mongabay’s Holly Jonas and Alexandre de Santi, Paye reflects on Indigenous values in philanthropy, how the Podáali Fund differs from and interacts with non-Indigenous philanthropy and why she thinks “there will be no other COP” like COP30.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Mongabay: What are some of the philanthropic traditions or values in your community or among the different Indigenous peoples of the Amazon?

Valéria Paye: Our principle of philanthropy, in general, is very much based on exchanges and a lot of trust.

That is the basis of our philanthropy. And, of course, as oral peoples, words have great value. Words are a commitment between us. These are the principles we value most. We already think of philanthropy on this side [non-Indigenous society] as exactly the opposite of that. So much so that the name Podáali is synonymous with exchange, with reciprocity. It represents for us as Indigenous peoples, its meaning, what we wanted.

Mongabay: How have you approached engagement with non-Indigenous philanthropy?

Valéria Paye: We knew of other funds with a history of working with and supporting Indigenous peoples in Brazil, but doing this ourselves was something different, because the fund deals with this intermediary relationship of management from the perspective of this non-Indigenous society.

We had to learn how to deal with this, to understand a little bit about it in order to build this relationship between Indigenous society and non-Indigenous society. We are here after many experiences that were also negative. This issue of dealing with management from the perspective of the bureaucracy of non-Indigenous society … we took a lot of flak.

Podáali’s construction is a well-established history of more than 10 years of work. Before creating Podáali, there were 10 years of many meetings, assemblies and workshops for us to understand and also to say what we want with this new instrument. What do we want from this organization? Why are we creating it? First and foremost, we said that it had to be something that responded to us, not to outside society. So, I think this is a debate that we are trying to bring to the philanthropic sector: Why was the fund created? What for?

If we in the field of philanthropy really want to support Indigenous peoples and even traditional communities, the conversation and dialogue have to change. The principle has to be one of true reciprocity, of joint construction, with respect. At the same time, we also have to bring trust back into this dialogue, because what we feel is that this trust has increasingly been set aside.

Bureaucracy is imposed, and by imposing more bureaucracy, access to support in general terms becomes increasingly difficult. I think this is something we have brought to the discussion on philanthropy.

On the other hand, it means that we have to engage in dialogue, recognizing our synergies. What do we have in common? If we are talking about the environment, we already know that the results are concrete; it is the peoples who care most, based on their knowledge.

So, our commitment is to support what is already being done so they can continue doing it, so we can continue to have this contribution from Indigenous peoples, especially on climate [and] biodiversity.

Mongabay: What are some of the challenges you have faced and how have you addressed them?

Valéria Paye: One thing I always say is: We did not create Podáali to respond to the demands of external financiers, or whoever else. In fact, we have already been through situations [where external funders] look at this instrument as an intermediary in which [they can] dictate what [they] want.

We have been through a lot of these tests, and then I say, ‘No, let’s sit down and talk, because Podáali, first and foremost, responds to us.’ … We have principles that we cannot abandon. Many partners want to support Podáali in order to support Indigenous peoples, but these are the rules. … We’ll say, ‘We want this as a real partnership.’ We start from the principle that we have to support what Indigenous peoples do. These communities have their own life plans.

Many institutions are rigid; they want to support us, but from this dialogue, we begin to feel that they are actually looking back to their own processes. We had to say ‘no’ many times, to say that we are not willing to receive any money under any conditions. So we said, ‘Partner, if you’re not ready for a relationship with Podáali yet, let’s take a break.’

It’s good for you to gain other experiences. And, oddly enough, we deal with this situation even with partners who already work with Indigenous peoples and traditional communities and who don’t yet understand this unique process. How so? You’ve been here with us for 30 years and still haven’t understood this? These are learning processes for us and, we believe, also for non-Indigenous society and institutions.

Mongabay: Could you share how the Podáali Fund’s approach works in practice?

Valéria Paye: One thing we can bring up as an example is the principle of trust. We see trust in projects in the sense that they are based on agreements and accountability, which, in general, is very difficult on our side. But why, for now, do we consider this to be positive and effective? Because our [Indigenous] relatives are taking charge and making their projects happen.

First, it is something we emphasize: The project is not ours; it does not belong to Podáali or to COIAB. The project belongs to [the communities], our relatives. If the project is successful, the results will be for [the communities] first and then for Podáali or others. With that, we began to see a turnaround. It was always said, ‘The project belongs to Funai [Brazil’s Indigenous affairs agency], it belongs to our partner, it belongs to the government, it belongs to the municipality.’ It was never [the community’s project]. But now, we began to observe this shift in the communities saying that the project is theirs and that they are doing everything to make it work and for things to turn out the way they planned.

Another thing is that our action, as part of this large network of the Indigenous movement, makes them see us, in fact, as partners and not as an institution that supervises them. It is different from the type of relationship in which, no matter how much you are a partner, the monitoring process is usually seen as supervision. With us, it doesn’t seem to be like that. We tell them, ‘You have to monitor the actions, but you are the ones who have to do it and tell us the results based on the agreements and principles we are defining.’ Let’s look at everyone together, not as oversight, but as a commitment, a result of what we want to achieve.

Mongabay: Is there a specific example that exemplifies how only Podáali can provide support?

Valéria Paye: Through Podáali, we are supporting some initiatives for the demarcation of Indigenous territories in the Brazilian Amazon. One of the Indigenous lands approved by President Lula now within the scope of the [UNFCCC] COP had the support of Podáali to physically demarcate the Kaxuyana-Tunayana Territory. Physical demarcation is the final process for the approval of Indigenous land. Our [Indigenous] relatives, with the support of Podáali, managed to take on the task of demarcating their territory. They did it. This is something very different, because normally it is the state or others from outside who do this. When there is something to be done, they take it on and do it, as long as they have the opportunities and support.

Mongabay: There is a discussion about the difficulty Indigenous organizations have in accessing funding and dealing with administrative issues. Some say that organizations in the non-Indigenous world should adapt. Some say that Indigenous people like you, who have already left to study, already have the knowledge to build this bridge. What is your personal opinion about who should make the effort: Indigenous peoples or non-Indigenous people?

Valéria Paye: I think this is an issue for both sides. Both have to understand that we on this side are striving to understand this process, which is much more complicated. This issue of general rules, country rules and resource management is really quite bureaucratic in the government and in many philanthropic organizations.

That’s why I say that there is a principle of mistrust here; it’s what governs this relationship. That’s why this side is bureaucratizing a process that makes resources practically inaccessible to us, Indigenous peoples.

Because, while I learn a little bit, the bureaucratic process has already advanced and become more complex. I have to chase after it to understand it. On the non-Indigenous side of society, philanthropy — if it doesn’t understand this — will also be very difficult.

There is a question being asked today: ‘We want to support Indigenous peoples and traditional communities directly.’ But what is direct support for you? When thinking about direct support, you will have to open yourself up to understand this other society and its vision so that this direct support actually reaches these organizations the way you want it to. For us, direct support is through our organizations and our way of organizing ourselves.

Mongabay: What are some specific considerations in Brazil that others should be aware of?

Valéria Paye: [In] Podáali, we argue that direct support requires understanding [Indigenous peoples’] form of organization. Not all Indigenous peoples have an institution with a CNPJ [corporate taxpayer ID], that blessed document that classifies them in this field. Many do not. If you require that there be a formal organization to receive funds, perhaps that organization will only exist for that period, because they do not understand how the bureaucracy works to keep an organization up to date. As it is not part of their structure, the process is one of ‘create and die.’

What paths can we follow so that support reaches the most difficult places, while respecting their form of organization? It is by opening up so that we can see together what these paths are. At Podáali, we are saying, within what is possible under the law, we can provide this support in recognition. The resources arrive directly, rewarding and recognizing initiatives through awards. For now, this is the way forward; by rewarding them, you recognize what they already do.

Mongabay: There are similar initiatives of Indigenous-led funds around the world. What lessons have you learned at Podáali that you would like to pass on to other organizations?

Valéria Paye: The main thing, which is still confusing, is to really be who we are. The discussion needs to respond to us first and foremost. If we don’t have that firmly and securely in place, we end up adapting and responding to other demands.

It is also important to carry out these processes within our Indigenous time frames. Whether it takes one, three or 10 years, that is our time to develop an instrument that responds to us and serves as a mechanism for dialogue with non-Indigenous society. This should govern the principles. In the international debate, [adhering to Indigenous time frames] is part of the discussion, but there is difficulty due to the current global pressure for resources to reach the territories.

I see many funds being created by non-Indigenous institutions to respond to this global pressure. They want to create funds for Indigenous peoples, but these funds will never belong to Indigenous peoples. This is the difference for me. If they want to make a difference, the funds have to come from the discussion of Indigenous peoples and belong to Indigenous peoples. Otherwise, it is just another fund where management and governance never pass through us.

The role of governance by our leaders is very important. I studied [outside my community], but those who guide me sometimes don’t even have a primary school education. The Indigenous principle is what must be strong in governance to provide general direction as we operationalize the instrument.

I tell my [Indigenous] relatives: Let’s first understand each other. Creation must come from us, responding to us first, so that the instrument is strong and grounded. Don’t worry about time; Indigenous time is what it should be, because that’s how we build things.

Mongabay: There are new mechanisms, such as the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF), which claim that they will deliver money directly to Indigenous peoples. What needs to happen for these processes to work? Are these mechanisms a sign that the philanthropic world is understanding the need for a more trusting relationship?

Valéria Paye: Let’s take the TFFF as an example. I see it as yet another fund created by nation-states, where they have the most important voice in decision-making governance. I don’t see what’s different about that. The guarantee of a percentage is the result of a lot of pressure from Indigenous peoples and traditional communities.

At the first meeting I attended on the TFFF, they said that in Brazil, 20% would be direct support for Indigenous peoples, but that it would support government institutions such as Funai, MPI [Ministry of Indigenous Peoples] and SESAI [Special Secretariat for Indigenous Health]. What is different about that? Nothing.

I asked if this was ‘direct’ for them, because for us it is not. This is continuing to support public policy, which is the responsibility of the state. And what will Brazil do with the 80%? If we manage to influence this space, we can only talk about the 20%.

This shows that the fund is not being created with Indigenous peoples and traditional communities in mind; we will not be part of the overall governance. The World Bank will receive the TFFF, and we have experience of very difficult access. I want to learn more and I hope it works, but I would say that it is no different from the many funds that states create.

Mongabay: Technology and social media have enabled many people, including Indigenous peoples, to connect directly with decision-makers and global audiences. How has this process been transformative? Are there ways for philanthropy to support this process?

Valéria Paye: COIAB leads a network of Indigenous communicators in the Brazilian Amazon. This communication by Indigenous people is very positive because it takes our voice outside and also speaks a language that our relatives understand. This network has done this brilliantly, and it is important to continue supporting it. It is our voice and our next step in this process led by our organizations.

“The Answer Is Us” was born at COIAB and took the world by storm. It is very powerful, and communication is what drives it. It is an example of communication that transcends borders, led by Indigenous peoples.

Mongabay: Brazil hosted COP30 and there was a lot of talk about it being the ‘Indigenous COP’ or the ‘forest COP.’ Do you think it met the expectations?

Valéria Paye: Yes, it was a great COP. I’ve been to two others, and this one was really different, with strong Indigenous participation in all areas, including the Blue Zone [where formal negotiations are held] and Green Zone [a public, open-access area]. The possibility of having an Indigenous space there enabled this large participation. We managed to plant the seed that Indigenous territories are a climate policy. The Brazilian government’s commitment to demarcating almost 20 Indigenous territories was a gain from this pressure. The Kaxuyana-Tunayana Territory, which was approved, is one of the largest and was the result of a lot of pressure.

On the other hand, the presence in the Blue Zone allowed us to mention Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples in important global documents. We see this as a response to the actions of social movements. There will be no other COP like this one.

At the same time, we are experiencing a contradiction: We have these achievements [internationally], but the Brazilian Congress is dismantling the legal process of demarcation and Indigenous rights. This complicates the commitment. It is important that institutions continue to support Indigenous peoples. It is a challenge; we are reflecting on how to reverse this destruction of legislation.

We continue to count on the support of those who believe in our political organizations. We understand that our voice here [in Brazil] is sometimes not heard, but when we send messages abroad, it resonates here. It is important that international organizations exert this pressure with us from outside to help with our internal processes.

Banner image: In the village of Três Maria in Mato Grosso, Brazil, a woman holds a sample of babassu coconut. The community initiative to protect the biome and fruit extraction in the Cerrado received a Xavante Award from the Podáali Fund. Image by André Dib.

Holly Jonas is the director of Mongabay’s Network Program and Alexandre de Santi is Mongabay’s managing editor in Brazil.

Credits

Latoya Abulu Editor

This story first appeared on Mongabay

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.