Regarding the methodology

The protection of isolated peoples depends on the preservation of ecosystems, not on establishing contact.

Vaz developed a methodology based on a fundamental principle: the protection of isolated and initially contacted indigenous peoples requires a rigorous policy of no contact. Before 1988, Brazil's approach to isolated peoples focused on establishing contact. The results were devastating, with contacted groups losing, on average, half of their populations due to the spread of infectious diseases. Vaz contributed to changing this approach by developing a no-contact methodology that has guided protection policies in Brazil.

Instead of directly seeking out isolated peoples, Vaz's methodology relies on field expeditions to search for traces left by these communities—abandoned villages, deforested lands, hunting and fishing areas, material culture—using anthropological methods to construct a portrait of who these communities are. For example, after two years in the field around the Massaco Indigenous territory, Vaz and his team discovered what they ate, where they hunted and fished, how they built their huts, and where they obtained the materials to create their belongings: bows and arrows, pots and kitchen utensils, hammocks, and decorations. The first application of this approach led to the demarcation of the Massaco Indigenous Land in Brazil, the first territory in the country's history designated exclusively for isolated peoples—and without a single conversation with its inhabitants.

Regarding barriers

The threat is structural.

The main obstacle to protecting the rights of isolated and recently contacted indigenous peoples is not a lack of awareness, but rather an economic and political model. All South American countries operate under an agro-extractive development model geared towards export, which means deforestation, mining, road construction, and energy infrastructure—all direct threats to the territories on which isolated peoples depend. According to Vaz, all political and economic decisions are planned to stimulate the growth of these industries, which directly conflicts with the protection of isolated indigenous peoples who depend on a balanced territory for their subsistence. “The forest is their pharmacy, their supermarket, their spiritual temple,” says Vaz. “Therefore, there is no hierarchy in the preponderance of human beings over other living beings, visible or invisible, in the forest. In the conception of indigenous peoples, especially those isolated and recently contacted, human beings are just another ingredient in this great cosmos in which we live.”

According to Vaz, what exacerbates these conflicting interests is that, when there is no direct contact, governments can pretend that these peoples do not exist. And when the existence of isolated peoples is ignored or denied, their territorial rights can also be denied. Funders and policymakers need to understand that protecting these communities means confronting this political reality directly, not circumventing it. Furthermore, organizations that seek to protect and defend the rights of isolated and initially contacted indigenous peoples must disseminate awareness about the existence of these communities.

At the intersection of climate and the rights of PIACI

The relationship between PIACI rights and climate resilience is fundamental.

Vaz sees an opportunity in reframing the issue of the rights of Isolated and Early Contacted Indigenous Peoples (IECPs) beyond human rights. His recent research documents the existence of isolated peoples in 61 Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) in South America, encompassing 65 million hectares of some of the continent's most intact forests. These communities have resisted the devastation of the Amazon, the Cerrado, and the Paraguayan Chaco for centuries, becoming concrete agents of climate resilience, not just its beneficiaries. This reframing is strategically important: it opens doors with conservation institutions and climate funders who may not engage solely on the basis of human rights. Vaz is currently in dialogue with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to explore how conservation units worldwide can take into account the presence of isolated peoples within their territorial boundaries.

Regarding global expansion

PIACI cannot become a global cause without first becoming a global conversation.

Although the UN, OAS, and ACTO have adopted frameworks for the rights of indigenous peoples, indigenous peoples, and other ethnic minorities (PIACI), bringing the issue to the Human Rights Council requires establishing it as a universal concern, not just a regional one for South America. Multilateral organizations are actively seeking the support of the GTI-PIACI Working Group to substantiate this argument—but this requires genuine intercontinental dialogue and evidence that isolation is a condition that exists beyond the Amazon basin. A recent exchange in Indonesia brought together organizations and activists working for the rights of PIACI in South America and the Indonesian archipelago, representing an important first step toward expanding the discussion to other continents.

On building effective alliances

Arriving with the answers is not the same as arriving ready to collaborate.

Vaz openly admits that the exchange in Indonesia revealed what will be necessary for deeper, intentional inter-regional collaboration: more listening, openness to other ideas and experiences, and awareness of any underlying power structures guiding interactions. South America’s more developed structures and longer history of fieldwork can easily lead to what Vaz calls a “colonialist posture”—presenting the experience as a model, rather than as a contribution to a shared conversation. A genuine partnership requires that we begin by listening: what problems do the counterparts face, and what do they truly want from an exchange? It also requires a serious investment in ensuring that the counterparts can understand each other and build a common vocabulary. Categories like “isolated” or “initial contact” carry different legal, cultural, and anthropological meanings depending on where you are in the world—and assuming otherwise shuts down the dialogue before it even begins.