 This presentation is to analyze the main European charters concerning archaeology, especially the Baleta Convention, focusing on current challenges and opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean. The presentation starts with a brief timeline of the recent advances in the European regime concerning archaeology since the Lausanne Charter in 1990, followed by the Baleta Convention, the Florence Convention, the Faroe Convention, the European Agenda for Coaching, the Namur Declaration, and the AEC Agenda for Archaeological Heritage Management. Analyzing these instruments, we highlight their strengths and weaknesses considering the main challenges that exist today in archaeological research in Latin America and the Caribbean. In the Baleta Convention, the strength we want to highlight is that it introduced the basis for public archaeology as described in Article 9. The Baleta Convention has had a positive impact on the development of archaeology in Europe over the last 25 years, especially concerning the financing of archaeological research. However, many other aspects still need to be improved, especially in preventing archaeology and illicit circulation of archaeological elements. In addition to this, another weakness of this convention is the fact that its focus is mostly on scientific and technical values and that public is considered a specific recipient. The Florence Convention presents a more integrative approach moving away from scientific heritage values. For this convention, we would highlight articles 5, 6A, and 6B, as you can read on the board. The Faroe Convention's most important point, considering, of course, Latin America and the Caribbean point of view, is its powerful link between archaeology and social cohesion. In this context, we could mention Article 1B, People and Human Values, at the center of a large and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage, and articles 4 and 5, Access to Cultural Heritage as a Human Right and the support for public participation in cultural heritage activities and decision making. On the downside, we could mention that this convention is less practical and more difficult to measure. However, most European countries have not adopted this convention. The EAC Agenda for Archaeological Heritage Management has its foundations in the Valletta Convention with its key principles in the spirit of the Faroe Convention. Therefore, the EAC Agenda presents guidelines for repositioning archaeological practice, integrating communities and providing the researchers with broader results. Among these guidelines, we can mention the items embedding archaeology in society, dare to choose and managing the sources of European history. These items present important recommendations related to the integration of society, cooperation and the use of digital technologies to share, connect and provide access to archaeological information. As we have seen in these different conventions, the debate has evolved from Valletta to Faroe, from participation of the public in archaeological projects to more integration of archaeology to people's reality. Let's now take a look at Latin America and the Caribbean. Cultural heritage in this enormous region is known to be diverse, considering not only its geographical extension, but also its multicultural history. In fact, this region has a pre-colonial history of human occupation dating back to at least 25,000 years, resulting in a great diversity of archaeological sites. From the 16th century on, this scenario was enriched by the arrival of European colonizers. Around 200 years later, several countries received the massive arrival of African populations because of slave trade. These inserted new cultural matrices into the formation of these territories. However, the national societies of current countries were formed greatly through a drastic rupture between native indigenous occupations and the European element. As a result, many communities often do not recognize the ties to the archaeological or historical context. This is aggravated by the fact that the construction of Latin America and the Caribbean history was traditionally made from the perspective of a dominant intellectual class, and therefore the general population does not recognize the native cultural heritage as being their history. School curricula in general do not include an effective history of minorities, despite their essential role in the formation and development of national societies. It was only in the last decades that the countries started to go through a political and social process resulting, among others, in a struggle for the recognition and preservation of cultural heritage, including archaeological remains. All the countries in the region have their own legislation for conducting archaeological research and preserving the sites and environmental heritage. The World Bank's recommendation to use environmental impact assessment EIA in 1992 led countries in the region to include these studies in their legislation. We can say that this brought about a tendency in the preservation policies in the region and placed higher value in archaeological and cultural heritage research considering economic development. This chart lists the countries according to micro-regions and divided in categories A and B. Category A concerns the countries that have included cultural and or archaeological heritage in the EIA. Category B includes the countries that make no mention to cultural and or archaeological heritage in the EIA or that have not yet included it in their federal legislation. As is the case of Argentina, where environmental licensing is done at the state level. Despite the stricken differences between these countries, we have attempted to identify common elements concerning their challenges and opportunities. The first step to accomplish this was to map the cultural risk and we can mention five attention points. The lack of identity or significance of cultural heritage for the current and future communities considering the low recognition and value given to local histories and cultures by governmental organs. The lack of integration with governmental programs or still the frequent changes in the government's political priorities, which occurs every election. The fact that a large part of the archaeological remains in these countries pertain to ancient settlements of current original peoples and have thus kept historical ties to living communities. However, the scientific research methodologies continue to be excluding, resulting in a technical treatment of these remains as archaeological sites, with no reference to or participation of the communities in the development of the research or in the decisions about the destination of the remains. The treatment of cultural heritage dissociated from environmental heritage, making it almost impossible to accomplish sustainable majorities. The low or inexistent acknowledgement of a science of the communities that integrates local knowledge and traditional ways of life in the establishment of territorial management, measures and development policies. Now we will analyze how the development of good practices and solutions in infrastructure investment projects affecting large areas effectively promotes sustainable results. To do that, we analyze the practice of researchers based on the challenges established by UNESCO for the 21st century in its 2030 agenda, as you can see in this chart. Building societies of knowledge, transdisciplinary strategies for redesigning global challenges, science, technology and innovation based on development plans, protection of our heritage and promoting of creativity, education for the 21st century, open data in a big data world, science for a sustainable future. We will now make a brief presentation of two case studies from research I conducted in Brazil. Our first case study is related to an archaeological research done in the port region of Rio de Janeiro that has revealed the presence of a complex and well-preserved juxtaposing of building structures in the cities underground. Dated from the 17th century when Rio de Janeiro became the center of political occupation for the Portuguese crown, these remains are representative of colonial and postcolonial Brazilian history. During six years, we developed archaeological and cultural heritage research in an area equivalent to five million square meters in the heart of Rio de Janeiro. This program was developed from the perspective of a learning organization where all members, researchers, local communities, institutions and so on are continually involved in the learning process and in which learning and working are seamlessly integrated. With strong investment in technology, these researchers have also served as a basis for elaborating detailed models of the city in its formation from the past until the present. They have made the development of management tools for archaeological remains present in the city's underground possible, including the systematic register for our archaeological remains from the underground using laser scanner and 3D modeling. This knowledge has also contributed to the creation of predictive models for the planning of the city's future in the search for sustainable urban environments, adhering to the world model of intelligent cities. Currently, we have been implementing a cultural, excuse me, in this scenario, results from cultural heritage researchers can be integrated to public management tools and dissemination of knowledge. Currently, we have been implementing a cultural circuit in the region. It corresponds to an open-air museum integrated with the plan of revitalizing the port region. It is the first initiative of its kind in Brazil. Our second case study is an iconic case, the Serra da Capivara region, where the Serra da Capivara National Park is located. It is well known internationally for its hundreds of archaeological rock art sites. However, the establishment of this park in the 1970s was based on a model of total exclusion of the traditional population who inhabited the area and who also maintained identity ties with their archaeological heritage. With the exclusion of the local population, the natural consequences were a feeling of not belonging, a lack of interest and a feeling of abandonment. For years ago, we took part in the creation of the Olhudagua Institute, an NGO that has been attempting to integrate the traditional knowledge from these communities into the preservation of the archaeological heritage that goes much beyond the boundaries of the national park. Different social media has been developed to integrate the results of this work and to receive contributions and recommendations from the communities in the context of co-creation. Tourist alternatives have been increased with new visitation circuits that join archaeological heritage and local cultural manifestations such as parties, cuisine and handicraft. Different education tools are being developed exploring available technology from the archaeological past to the present, integrating different experiences of managing territory from the perspective of the formation of a knowledge society. After only four years, the Olhudagua Institute has managed to integrate all the city's population and has over 50 countries as followers on social media. Now we introduce the focal points of the discussion on how to accomplish the goals presented on the one hand by the archaeological research in Latin America and the Caribbean and on the other hand by the European conventions discussed here. In this context, we can highlight the following challenges. Integrative project designs, tackling the top-down approach, development of a participative heritage management regulatory framework, incorporating local social values to the process, ability to deliver relevant outcomes and outputs to society. Finally, we will propose strategies for meeting the Valeta Convention goals with adherence to a broader sustainability science scenario from which archaeology cannot be isolated. These strategies are also aligned with archaeology's contributions to the development of UNESCO sustainability science. So we can mention the development of cultural environmental projects where archaeology research has more visibility and encourages more participation when integrated into wider scope studies. In such multi-variable projects, archaeology is part of a bigger picture and is in dialogue with current issues advocating for integrative approach regulations. This perspective links archaeological evidence based on scientific findings to the history and identity of local communities. The development of an applied science that allies the accomplishment of scientific research with the symmetrical involvement of local communities, establishing a complementary relationship between science and tradition with collaborative knowledge production. The intensive use of technology not only to disseminate the research, but especially to increase the real involvement of the communities in the construction of knowledge societies. For this to happen, we must design strategies and methodologies and build an agenda that aim for the continuous involvement of the different stakeholders. Therefore, we understand that an update of the Valletta Convention can take a step further than other European conventions that followed it by positioning archaeology without within the transdisciplinary studies that are necessary to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. Thank you for your attention.