Indigenous Peoples across Eastern Africa continue to face deep marginalization, exacerbated by the discovery of valuable natural resources such as oil and gas. These discoveries often lead to the militarization of Indigenous territories as governments prioritize securing investments. Additionally, the push for carbon credits and tourism has further threatened Indigenous Peoples’s communities. Take, for instance, the violent evictions of the Maasai from Ngorongoro in Tanzania, the Ogiek from the Mau Forest in Kenya, and the Sengwer—a forest-dwelling community with a long history of coexisting with nature, now accused of forest destruction. The loss of land is not just a physical displacement; it is the loss of food sovereignty. Communities like the Endorois and Ogiek rely on forests for grazing and beekeeping, vital to their survival. These forced evictions, often violent, leave lasting physical and psychological scars. When displaced, Indigenous Peoples are forced to either assimilate into other communities, leading to cultural erosion, or struggle to survive on shrinking parcels of land, as seen with the Ogiek people now living in Mumberes, Baringo County, Kenya. This disruption not only threatens their way of life but undermines their sources of livelihood.

Indigenous Peoples have co-existed with nature since time immemorial. The existence of an intricate totem system makes it inconceivable for Indigenous Peoples to destroy the very nature that they have a bond with. However, the introduction of industrial food production systems, reliant on synthetic fertilizers, has complicated their way of life. These systems are often supported by policies that criminalize traditional practices such as seed saving, sharing, and exchange—practices that have long been integral to Indigenous food sovereignty and ecological stewardship in East Africa.

As the world grapples with multiple crises, Africa finds itself in a particularly dire situation. Despite owning 60% of the world’s arable land and having an environment conducive to food production, at least one in five Africans goes to bed hungry every day. According to the 2024 State of Food Security and Nutrition (SOFI) report, the continent remains home to the world’s hungriest people. Eastern Africa, in particular, has suffered from extreme weather events, including droughts, floods, and locust infestations, which have devastated food security, caused loss of life, and destroyed property. In 2019, Kenya was ravaged by locust swarms, severely impacting food access. In 2022, the country faced its worst drought in four decades, and in 2024, March brought massive floods. Tanzania also faced catastrophic flooding, which killed 58 people and affected over 126,000 others.

In response to these challenges, Land is Life’s Food Security Program has been working to support Indigenous Peoples in Kenya, Burundi, and Tanzania. Rooted in agroecological principles, the program collaborates with the Sengwer, Batwa, Ogiek, and Endorois Indigenous Peoples’ communities to foster food systems transformation. Training sessions emphasize the value of Indigenous knowledge and promote intergenerational knowledge transfer. Participants learn climate-adaptive practices like sustainable land management, soil erosion prevention, and fertility retention through techniques such as contour farming. Biodiversity enhancement is also prioritized through intercropping and biological pest control, such as using onions and ginger to repel pests.

The program also tackles gender imbalances in land ownership by creating safe spaces for bold discussions among women, where role-playing and gender analysis help reimagine a future where women control natural resources. Additionally, the initiative encourages the diversification of livelihoods, enabling Indigenous Peoples’ communities to move beyond reliance on livestock and embrace food cultivation. In schools, the project is reshaping the narrative around youth and agriculture by making food production engaging and fun. In school gardens, land tilling and vegetable planting are integrated with music and poetry, creating an enjoyable and educational experience for young people.

The impact of the agroecology training within Indigenous Peoples’ communities has been overwhelmingly positive. Community members now have a deeper understanding of agroecological principles, the importance of healthy food, and the value of intergenerational knowledge transfer. The program has also spurred greater community engagement in policy processes, encouraging people to challenge prevailing narratives about Indigenous Peoples’ ways of life and their food systems.

This initiative has fostered resilience across Kenya, Tanzania, and Burundi, creating a ripple effect that continues to strengthen communities. With its proven success, the project holds significant potential for expansion, paving the way for truly transformative food systems.

El cargo Reclaiming Our Food Systems: Agroecology in Indigenous Peoples Territories in East Africa apareció primero en Land Is Life.

We endorse the statement from allied civil society organizations that, concerned about the catastrophic consequences of oil spills, gas flaring, and poor remediation efforts, which have left the land, water, and air severely polluted, condemn the planned resumption of oil extraction in Ogoniland, Rivers State.

Concerned civil society organisations in the Niger Delta met at the Port Harcourt office of Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria to deliberate on the recent invitation by the office of the National Security Adviser to the President, Mr Nuhu Ribadu to some Ogoni leaders and stakeholders to a private meeting in Abuja to discuss the resumption of oil production in Ogoniland. While recognising and condemning the nations dependence on fossil fuel, it is however insensitive for this administration to open any form of discussion with handpicked group of Ogoni leaders for such talks, noting that the overall will of the majority of Ogonis is -paramount in this matter. The groups expressed their unequivocal condemnation of the planned resumption of oil exploration and production activities in Ogoniland. This decision disregards the enduring environmental, social, and economic injustices faced by the Ogoni people and undermines efforts toward sustainable development, environmental justice, community empowerment and cleanup of the devastated environment.

Ogoniland has been a symbol of environmental degradation caused by decades of reckless oil exploitation and decrepit equipment. Reports, including the UNEP Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland of 2011, have documented the catastrophic consequences of oil spills, gas flaring, and poor remediation efforts, leaving the land, water, and air severely polluted. The livelihoods and health of the Ogoni people have suffered immeasurably, with no substantial accountability from the oil industry or adequate redress from the government.

The groups explained that they had expected that this administration would have called for a multi stakeholder meeting in Ogoni land to listen to the plight of the Ogonis and also agree with them on how best to tackle the poverty and hunger occasioned by their loss of livelihoods caused by years of pollution and resultant poisoning of their land and waters.

The forum noted with dismay that two major issues-June 12 and the Ogoni struggle were plaguing the nation when democracy was restored in 1999. The matter of June 12 has been settled with the federal government conferring a national honor of GCFR on MKO Abiola and also recognizing him as the hero of democracy. It is time, Ken Saro-Wiwa is recognized and honoured as the hero of the environment and given his due honour.

Despite numerous calls for justice and transparency, the Nigerian government has been slow in the implementation of the UNEP report recommendations to clean up the land effectively. It is also on record that the government of Nigeria is reluctant to contribute to the ongoing cleanup of Ogoniland and is keeping a blind eye to the atrocious continuation of destructive oil activities across the Niger Delta.  The attempt to resume oil extraction in a region already ravaged by environmental neglect further exacerbates the suffering of the people and is an affront on their right to a safe environment. It also disregards their right to free, prior, and informed consent, a fundamental principle under international law.

We demand as follows:

1. Halt all plans for resumption of oil extraction in Ogoniland until there is meaningful consultation with the Ogoni people and full remediation of the damaged environment.
2. That not one more oil well should be drilled in the Niger Delta and the government, and the oil companies should commence immediate and total cleanup of the region.
3. One trillion United States Dollars should be earmarked for immediate clean up of the Niger Delta and compensation for loss of livelihoods.
4. Immediate review of the Kangaroo Military trial and execution of ken Saro-Wiwa with other martyrs and their exoneration.
5. Immediate and unconditional release of the confiscated Ken Saro-Memorial Bus sculpture held by Nigeria Customs since 2015.
6. Full Implementation of the UNEP Report and ensuring that the clean-up and restoration of Ogoniland are prioritized and carried out transparently and effectively.
7. More funding should be allocated to HYPREP to hasten up their actions on the clean up.
8. Ensure justice for the Ogoni People by addressing historical grievances, including compensation for environmental and economic losses and accountability for decades of ecological destruction.
9. Community participation and a guarantee that decisions affecting Ogoniland follow the respect for the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the communities.
10. Holding oil companies, particularly Shell, accountable for past environmental damages and human rights violations.
11. Demilitarization of the Niger Delta and an end to the intimidation and harassment of environmental activists and local communities.
12. Enforcing strict regulations on oil companies operating in Nigeria.
13. Halt all discussions on divestment until the polluted Niger Delta region is cleaned up.
14. Transitioning to renewable energy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels to mitigate environmental harm.

The contemplated resumption of oil operations in Ogoniland poses a significant threat to the fundamental human rights of the Ogoni people and negates Nigeria’s effort at tackling climate change. These include the right to a clean and healthy environment, the right to health, and the right to life. Any attempt to impose extractive activities without addressing these historical injustices will only deepen the mistrust between the government, oil companies, and local communities. The resumption of oil activities in Ogoniland is not only a betrayal of the Ogoni struggle but also a threat to the environment and future generations and a false hope that colonial extractivism promotes positive development. We stand in solidarity with the Ogoni people in their fight for justice and sustainable development. 

Signed:

Miideekor Environmental Development Initiative-MEDI

Health of Mother Earth Foundation-HOMEF

Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa-CAPPA

Ogoni Solidarity Forum-Nigeria

South South Youths Initiative

Peoples Advancement Centre

Environmental Rights Action

Kebetkache Women Development & Resource Centre

Social Action

We The People

Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice-ANEEJ

Lekeh Development Centre

Rainbowwatch Development Centre

Kalop Environmental Centre

Pilex Centre

CEE-HOPE 

HEDA Resource Centre

Peace Point Development Foundation

Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre-CISLAC

Foundation for Environmental Rights Advocacy and Development-FENRAD

Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law-IHRHL

El cargo Statement on the Contemplated Resumption of Oil Extraction in Ogoni Land apareció primero en Land Is Life.

In 2022, the Tanzanian Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism announced the demarcation of 1,500 hectares of Maasai land for the Pololeti Game Management Reserve. The announcement led to major protests in the Loliondo/Ngorongoro area of northern Tanzania, and on June 10th 2022, the Tanzanian police used force to evict the Maasai from their land.

The result was dozens of people injured and thousands seeking shelter in the nearby forest. Arbitrary arrests of community leaders were also reported, including Village Councillors and Chairpeople, in clear violation of the Maasai’s human and collective rights. The protests arose due to the government’s plans to lease the legally registered village lands to the Otterlo Business Corporation, (a Dubai company linked to that country’s royal family), for tourism and hunting.

One year later, however, after a judicial review that challenged the Minister’s decision as based on illegalities, the absence of consultation, and carried out with violence, the country’s High Court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling the Game Management Reserve illegal. The Court stated that in view of the lack of consultation, the entire process for the establishment of the Pololeti area was null and void. On the other hand, the court stopped short of assigning blame for the ensuing violence.

Whether this is the end of the affair, is another matter: harassment of the pastoralist Maasai, whose grazing land is essential to their survival, is ongoing. In 1992, the Tanzanian government authorized the OBC to take over four hundred thousand hectares of land for game hunting and a private airport, land that was home to over fifty thousand Maasai. In 2009, the government forcibly displaced over three thousand Maasai at gunpoint. From 2015 to 2017, Serengeti Rangers set fire to over two-hundred eighty homes), leaving over twenty thousand Maasai homeless.

The High Court’s decision represents a highly positive act for the Maasai People , and will hopefully be accepted by the Tanzanian authorities without reprisals. The sustained pressure exerted by international and Civil Society organizations has no doubt had an effect, and will need to be continued if the Maasai are to stand a chance of surviving the assault on their communities and their lands.

Fotos: Land is Life

Land is Life applauds the High Court’s decision, and calls on the Tanzanian government of Samia Suluhu Hassan to accept the ruling, and to respect the rights and needs of the pastoralist Maasai People. Indigenous Peoples are the best protectors of the land on which they depend, and although tourism may be an important contributor to Tanzania’s economy, it cannot be promoted at the cost of the lives and welfare of Indigenous People who are also the country’s own citizens.

El cargo AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR THE MAASAI: High Court of Tanzania rules Pololeti Game Reserve illegal apareció primero en Land Is Life.

En janvier 2024, les gardes de l’Autorité du Parc, accompagnés de militaires congolais, ont attaqué plusieurs communautés Batwa, déplaçant des centaines de personnes et incendiant leurs maisons. Les violences actuelles ont conduit la Commission africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples à adresser une lettre au gouvernement du pays, dirigé par le président récemment réélu Félix Tshisekedi, appelant à la fin des violences et à l’expulsion des peuples autochtones du Parc.

Les autorités du Parc accusent les Batwa d’être membres du M23, un groupe armé tutsi en conflit avec le gouvernement de la République démocratique du Congo, principalement dans la province du Kivu, au nord du pays. Les Batwa rejettent fermement cette accusation et ont déclaré leur intention de poursuivre la lutte pour retourner sur leurs terres par tous les moyens non violents possibles.

Land is Life soutient pleinement la position de la Commission Africaine, et fait écho à son appel à mettre fin à la violence contre les Batwa, qui ont été brutalement déplacés de leurs territoires ancestraux, dans autre exemple de ce qui a été appelé « Conservation de la Force ». Les Batwa sont les premiers habitants de ce qui est aujourd’hui le Parc National de Kahuzi-Biega, et, à ce titre, leur droit de vivre en paix sur leurs territoires d’origine doit être respecté. La conservation ne peut jamais être une raison pour violer les droits humains des peuples autochtones.

Voir ci-dessous la lettre de la communauté Batwa

El cargo LE PEUPLE BATWA SOUS ATTAQUE: pour avoir tenté de retourner sur ses terres traditionnelles à l’Est du Congo (RDC) apareció primero en Land Is Life.

En enero de 2024, los guardias de la Autoridad del Parque, acompañados por militares congoleños, atacaron a varias comunidades Batwa, desplazaron a centenares personas e incendiaron sus hogares. La violencia actual ha llevado a la Comisión Africana de Derechos Humanos y de los Pueblos a dirigir una carta al gobierno del país, bajo el presidente recientemente reelegido Félix Tshisekedi, pidiendo el fin de la violencia y el desalojo de los Pueblos Indígenas del Parque.

Las autoridades del Parque han acusado a los Batwa de ser miembros del M23, grupo armado Tutsi que está en conflicto con el gobierno de la República Democrática del Congo, principalmente en la provincia de Kivu, al norte del país. Los Batwa rechazan firmemente la acusación, y han declarado su intención de continuar la lucha para regresar a sus tierras por todos los medios no violentos posibles

Land is Life respalda plenamente la postura de la Comisión Africana y se hace eco de su llamado a poner fin a la violencia contra los Batwa, quienes han sido brutalmente desplazados de sus territorios ancestrales, en otro ejemplo de lo que se ha llamado “Conservación de Fortaleza”. Los Batwa son los habitantes originales de lo que hoy es el Parque Nacional Kahuzi-Biega, y, como tales, se debe respetar su derecho a vivir en paz en sus territorios originales. La conservación nunca puede ser motivo para violar los derechos humanos de los Pueblos Indígenas.

El cargo EL PUEBLO BATWA BAJO ATAQUE: por intentar regresar a sus tierras tradicionales en el este del Congo (RDC) apareció primero en Land Is Life.

SIGN UP BELOW TO RECEIVE OUR WEEKLY ALERTS

El cargo BATWA PEOPLE UNDER ATTACK AGAIN: for attempting to return to traditional lands in eastern Congo (DRC) apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Jorge Basilago*

A finales de octubre pasado, una delegación del Pueblo Indígena A’i Cofán de la provincia de Sucumbíos, Ecuador, se manifestó frente a la sede de la Corte Constitucional, en Quito. Casi al mismo tiempo, en Kenia, integrantes del pueblo Ogiek hicieron lo propio durante la visita oficial del rey Carlos III de Inglaterra a esa nación africana.

Las protestas, en ambos casos, buscaban llamar la atención acerca de un fenómeno que se repite en todo el mundo: el avasallamiento del derecho de los Pueblos Indígenas a la Consulta y el Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado (CLPI), ante la implementación de cualquier proyecto que pueda afectar sus territorios y formas de vida.

No son situaciones aisladas: forman parte de un proceso necesario e imparable, que ayuda a amplificar la voz pública de los Pueblos Indígenas del mundo. “En este tema, tenemos una contradicción profunda entre los avances jurídicos y las deudas políticas en la implementación efectiva de esos avances”, analizó David Suárez, coordinador del Programa de CLPI de la organización Land is Life. “De ahí la explicación de porqué los pueblos indígenas siguen teniendo contraposiciones a veces tan agudas con los Estados”.

Impulsos para la autodeterminación

El cambio ha sido lento pero inexorable desde que, casi 35 años atrás, en junio de 1989, la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) emitió su Convenio N°169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales. Este instrumento – que corrige y profundiza la recomendación de la OIT de 1957, consolidó el impulso inicial para el reconocimiento de la autodeterminación de las comunidades originarias, aún sin mencionar textualmente ese concepto.

“El 169 de la OIT, al referirse a la autonomía, a la toma de decisiones propias y a elegir sus prioridades de desarrollo, conforma la idea de libre determinación, que es el paraguas debajo del cual se ordenan y tienen sentido todos los otros derechos de los pueblos originarios”, puntualizó Suárez, quien advirtió que otro error frecuente es considerar que el ejercicio de esta garantía se limita a las grandes obras extractivas y energéticas. “La consulta debe regir también para definir cómo será la educación propia o las políticas de salud intercultural, a partir de la priorización de las necesidades propias de esas poblaciones.” especificó.

Con el tiempo, otros organismos multilaterales diseñaron herramientas legales convergentes con los principios del Convenio 169 de la OIT. Las más relevantes son las declaraciones sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU, 2007) y de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA, 2016). Ambas determinan que los Estados “celebrarán consultas y cooperarán de buena fe” con las “instituciones representativas” de las comunidades que lo requieran, “antes de adoptar y aplicar” medidas potencialmente dañinas.

A tono con tales precedentes, los gobiernos de varios países –en especial latinoamericanos– buscaron incorporar este derecho a sus diferentes cuerpos legales nacionales. Por ejemplo, a nivel constitucional, los procesos de CLPI fueron reconocidos en las Cartas Magnas de Ecuador (1998 y 2008) y Bolivia (2009); en tanto, las autoridades de Perú (2011) y Panamá (2016) han dictado sendas leyes específicas sobre el tema.

Sin embargo, esto no significa que la situación esté resuelta, ni mucho menos. “En Bolivia, por ejemplo, la Consulta Previa no es vinculante. Esa es una gran debilidad, porque a pesar de que una comunidad diga ‘no’, su posición no es válida en primera instancia”, reveló el periodista boliviano Etzhel Llanque. Son numerosos los ejemplos similares en América Latina, que así enfrenta la paradoja de ser una región de “vanguardia” en relación con políticas de CLPI y, en simultáneo, registra los mayores índices de conflictividad al respecto.

Litigar y construir para avanzar

Poco más del 65% de los Estados que ratificaron el convenio 169 de la OIT – 15 sobre 23 – son latinoamericanos. Esta parte del mundo cuenta asimismo con un significativo número de población Indígena (que representa algo más del 8% del total de habitantes de América Latina), cuyos territorios ancestrales abarcan el 45% de los bosques intactos de la cuenca amazónica y registran una deforestación notoriamente menor. Estos indicadores se evidencian incluso en Brasil, cuyas políticas públicas sobre las áreas de conservación y de vida de los Pueblos Indígenas, pocas veces se caracterizan por su comprensión y valoración del componente cultural.

Sin embargo, según la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (Unesco), sólo “en la minoría de casos, los pueblos y organizaciones indígenas participan en la gobernanza, toma de decisión y gestión” de esas áreas. Y garantizar a los Pueblos Indígenas el ejercicio de su legítimo derecho a decidir sobre esos espacios, es algo que “ningún país ha hecho (…) según los estándares mínimos establecidos por la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas”, sostiene la Coalición Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy (Sirge) en su Guía sobre CPLI.

La consecuencia del incumplimiento, es que estos colectivos se ven obligados a recurrir a medidas de fuerza y a litigios judiciales para acceder a las garantías negadas o en disputa. “Hay casos emblemáticos como el de Saramaka vs. Surinam, donde el fallo de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CoIDH) habla por primera vez de consentimiento, en un sentido muy estricto, para aquellos proyectos que puedan afectar irreversiblemente el modo de vida de un pueblo”, reflexionó David Suárez. De igual forma, el entrevistado destacó la sentencia del mismo tribunal en la causa Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua, sobre la responsabilidad del Estado en la correcta delimitación de los territorios indígenas.

Por otra parte, la construcción comunitaria de protocolos o leyes propias para ordenar los procesos de CLPI, permitió a muchas comunidades originarias latinoamericanas expresar con mayor claridad sus prioridades al respecto. En tiempos recientes, esa alternativa – que cuenta con ejemplos de aplicación concreta desde Argentina hasta Centroamérica, pasando por Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador y Colombia – se ha vuelto una tendencia regional e incluso global: por caso, los mismos Ogiek, de Kenia, se encuentran trabajando en un protocolo de este tipo, con apoyo del pueblo Sarayaku de Ecuador.

No obstante, es imprescindible comprender que la realidad en Asia y África resulta mucho más desafiante para los Pueblos Indígenas; aún ante el eventual respaldo judicial o de organismos multilaterales a sus reclamos territoriales. En el primer caso, aunque “dos tercios” de los Pueblos Indígenas de todo el mundo son asiáticos, el Foro Permanente de las Naciones Unidas para las Cuestiones Indígenas advirtió que gran parte de ellos “se ven afectados por la falta de reconocimiento de su identidad cultural, su exclusión y su marginación”.

Respecto del contexto africano, Suárez apuntó que allí “todavía existen regímenes autoritarios o países donde el proceso de descolonización es más reciente”, lo que en la práctica dificulta la auto-organización y las acciones de defensa de derechos. En ese continente, ni siquiera los conceptos clásicos como “nación” y “ciudadanía” –que dan por sentada la igualdad de todos los habitantes ante la ley– resultan inmunes a los conflictos: en Tanzania, por ejemplo, los Maasai no son reconocidos como “Pueblo Indígena”, lo que diluye o dilata sus exigencias, mientras ellos mismos son cuestionados por no contribuir a forjar juntos una nueva nación.

Ecuador: la letra y la acción popular

Como ya se indicó, a partir de la promulgación de las Constituciones de 1998 y 2008, el Ecuador consolidó el liderazgo regional, mediante el reconocimiento concreto del espacio democrático para que los pueblos originarios ejerzan su derecho a la consulta y el consentimiento previo, libre, e informado sobre las actividades en sus territorios. No fue un regalo ni un gesto de generosidad oficial: se trata de un logro alcanzado tanto a través de medidas de fuerza como de procesos judiciales largos y laboriosos; por desgracia, muchos de ellos aún permanecen inconclusos o son vulnerados sistemáticamente por las autoridades políticas y económicas.

El emblemático fallo de la CoIDH en la causa Sarayaku vs. Ecuador es un claro ejemplo de lo antedicho. Favorable a la parte acusadora, la sentencia resulta paradigmática: la comunidad Kichwa inició acciones legales en 2003, el dictamen fue emitido recién en 2012, pero una de las principales disposiciones del tribunal, que obliga al Estado ecuatoriano a regular el derecho a CLPI mediante el dictado de una ley específica, continúa pendiente. Para David Suárez, la arista positiva es que “un administrador de justicia, hoy, no puede alegar falta de jurisprudencia en el tema, y eso se consiguió gracias a la tenaz lucha del pueblo Sarayaku en dos niveles: jurídico y territorial”.

Aquella demanda contribuyó además a consolidar otros estándares centrales de la consulta previa. Entre ellos, la obligación de que el Estado y las empresas obren de buena fe y de forma culturalmente apropiada, respetando la garantía de emplear las lenguas indígenas durante los procesos. La omisión de este requisito, por ejemplo, anula el diálogo intercultural que asegura, a todos los miembros de una comunidad, el acceso al conocimiento real del proyecto que solicita su consentimiento.

Muchas de las recientes manifestaciones públicas y colectivas de descontento, como el plantón de la comunidad A’i Cofán mencionado al comienzo de este texto, reclamaban la derogación del Decreto Ejecutivo N°754, firmado por el presidente Guillermo Lasso en mayo de 2023 con la intención de limitar los procesos de CLPI a una mera acción administrativa. La respuesta estatal a las exigencias indígenas incluyó diversos actos de represión, amedrentamiento y militarización comunitaria.

“Cualquier ley que norme derechos indígenas debe, como principio fundamental, contar con la participación de los pueblos”, comentó David Suárez. “Es un tema de agenda legislativa pendiente que veremos cómo se resuelve, ya que sustituiría la mala práctica de los gobiernos, de regular la consulta mediante un simple decreto”.

A fines de 2023, la Corte Constitucional dictaminó inconstitucionalidad “por la forma” del decreto N°754. Aunque ese instrumento conservará parcialmente su vigencia, no podrá aplicarse en el caso de comunidades indígenas hasta que la Asamblea Nacional “emita una ley que regule el ejercicio del derecho a la consulta ambiental”.

Se trata, como es obvio, de otra victoria parcial. Y transparenta una dificultad de fondo ya aludida: la brecha entre el Poder Judicial –que en ciertos casos actuales toma la parte de los Pueblos Indígenas– y el Ejecutivo que pretende, en lo posible, desconocer o eludir los fallos contrarios a sus intereses.

Esta divergencia se funda en dos razones tan obvias como seductoras: el dinero y el poder derivados –y concentrados en pocas manos– de la explotación de recursos naturales. Muchos de los países que registran una aguda conflictividad territorial por esta causa tienen, al mismo tiempo, elevados índices de pobreza estructural. Y, dado que las áreas de vida de las comunidades originarias coinciden frecuentemente con enormes riquezas del subsuelo, resulta muy sencillo para los gobiernos nacionales instalar la falsa noción de que son las minorías conscientes, en su lucha por la conservación ambiental, las que “obstaculizan el desarrollo” general.

La pugna de poderes al interior del Estado, en otras ocasiones, muta en alianza de hecho a favor de los intereses empresariales. En ambos escenarios, los pueblos indígenas ven postergados sus derechos territoriales, al igual que las perspectivas de alcanzar una solución favorable y definitiva al respecto. A pesar de que las posibles líneas de acción están bastante claras, la deuda insalvable hasta el momento ha sido la ausencia absoluta de voluntad política para ponerlas en marcha.

Doble prueba de ello son sendos libros editados por la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) en 2014 y Land is Life en 2020. En el primer caso, se reclamó sin éxito “una armonización de los diferentes marcos regulatorios nacionales en el menor tiempo posible” en la materia, y “priorizando la aplicación del principio pro homine del derecho internacional”. Además de fortalecer “los sistemas judiciales en cada país, apuntando a erradicar cualquier tipo de concepción y práctica racista en la aplicación de justicia”.

Mientras que en el segundo, David Suárez anotó conceptos coincidentes, asumidos a nivel comunitario pero sin implementación efectiva por parte de las autoridades estatales. “Las realidades de los pueblos y sus sistemas de decisión distan de parecerse a las del Estado y la sociedad capitalista. Lo más óptimo es, por tanto, que sean sistemas alternativos los que definan. (…) la única vía legítima para lograr una normatividad adecuada y satisfactoria respecto a los derechos fundamentales, es la construcción de normas efectuadas desde los propios pueblos indígenas”.

La necesidad urgente de saldar cuentas

Hasta el momento, las victorias de los pueblos originarios en sus demandas por el pleno acceso al derecho a la consulta y el consentimiento previo, libre e informado, han sido tan resonantes como esporádicas. Consolidar la continuidad de esos éxitos es urgente, pero depende de saldar diversas cuentas pendientes, en varios ámbitos bien determinados. En primer lugar, conseguir que los Estados y gobiernos reconozcan con claridad al consentimiento como el derecho sustantivo y fundamental para la libre determinación de los de los pueblos indígenas.

Pero el rol estatal no se agota en esa legitimación. Según una guía publicada por la oficina colombiana del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos (Acnudh), comprende muchos otros elementos: algunos de ellos son fortalecer la responsabilidad social y el pacto social empresarial; incluir la perspectiva de género y generación; y partir del plan de vida del pueblo indígena respectivo, como marco para el diálogo y la concertación. “El Estado, como garante de derechos, también es responsable de vigilar que las empresas privadas respeten los derechos de los pueblos indígenas”, enfatiza el documento.

La preservación de la integridad cultural y territorial de las comunidades ancestrales, es otra responsabilidad oficial de cumplimiento insuficiente. No sólo por el avance de proyectos y asentamientos sobre esos territorios y sus habitantes, sino por la dificultad gubernamental para gestionar sus crecientes complejidades: “El desafío no es solamente pensar en aquellas situaciones donde la territorialidad tradicional se ve menguada, sino incluso qué hacemos hoy con la presencia indígena en espacios urbanos o con la ciudad intercultural en la Amazonía”, advirtió Suárez.

Otras dimensiones que requieren atención inmediata son la incorporación del consentimiento a los programas de las organizaciones multilaterales y una mayor transparencia en las consultas a los pueblos originarios en relación con el llamado “financiamiento verde”. En el primer caso, si bien el BID, el BM y el ADB, como ya se indicó, emitieron normativas sobre los procesos de CLPI, su implementación no ha sido constante ni decisiva todavía. Mientras tanto, la falta de claridad durante las negociaciones de fondos climáticos –como en el caso de los “bonos de carbono”- originó muchas dudas al interior de las comunidades e incipientes formas de pillaje relacionadas.

Desde luego, llevar a la práctica todas estas medidas nunca será sencillo. Suele ser más tentador ceder a los intereses económicos que merodean los territorios indígenas, o a la mera inacción que permita finalizar un mandato sin agitar las aguas. Pero también eso tiene un elevado costo, tal como concluye Suárez: “La conflictividad socioambiental seguirá en ascenso, a menos que encontremos un camino que permita la plena participación de los pueblos indígenas”.

*  Jorge Basilago es periodista y escritor freelance, nacido en Argentina y residente en Quito (Ecuador). Desde 1995 se ha desempeñado como colaborador y corresponsal para medios impresos y digitales en varios países de América.

El cargo DE LA LETRA A LA ACCIÓN: el derecho de los Pueblos Indígenas al Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado apareció primero en Land Is Life.

January 15 2024

At the end of October 2023, a delegation of the A’i Cofán Indigenous People from the province of Sucumbíos, Ecuador, demonstrated in front of  the country’s Constitutional Court, in Quito, the country’s capital. At almost the same time, members of the Ogiek People were protesting during the official visit to Kenya of King Charles III of England.

In both cases the Indigenous Peoples involved sought to draw attention to a phenomenon being repeated around the world: the suppression of the right of Indigenous Peoples to Consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), regarding the implementation of any project that may affect their territories and ways of life.

However, declares David Suárez, coordinator of the FPIC Program of Land is Life, “what we have at the moment is a profound contradiction between legal advances, and a political debt in their effective implementation. This is why indigenous peoples often have such sharp differences of opinion with national governments.”

Impulses for self-determination

These are not isolated incidents, but part of a necessary and ongoing process that has amplified the voice of Indigenous Peoples everywhere. The change has been advancing slowly but inexorably since June 1989, when the International Labor Organization (ILO) published its Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. This instrument –correcting and deepening the ILO own 1957 recommendations – consolidated the push for the recognition of self-determination for indigenous communities, although without specifically mentioning the concept.

“By referring to autonomy, making one’s own decisions, and choosing one’s own development priorities, ILO 169 establishes the idea of self-determination, which is the umbrella under which all the other human rights of Indigenous Peoples are organized and have meaning,” says Suárez, who warns that a common mistake is to consider that the exercise of this guarantee is limited to large extractive and energy projects. “Consultation also has to do with the definition of education or intercultural health policies, based on prioritizing the needs of these populations.”

Over time, other multilateral organizations designed legal tools that coincided with the Convention 169 principles. The most relevant were the declarations of the United Nations declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007), and that of the Organization of American States (OEA, 2016). Both determine that states “will hold consultations and cooperate in good faith” with the “representative institutions” of the communities that request it, before any potentially harmful actions are implemented.

In line with these examples, the governments of several countries – especially in Latin America – sought to incorporate this right into their  legal codes. For example, at the constitutional level, FPIC processes were recognized in the Constitutions of Ecuador (1998 and 2008) and Bolivia (2009), while the authorities in Peru (2011) and Panama (2016) approved specific laws.

This does not mean, however, that the situation has been resolved, far from it. “In Bolivia, for example, Prior Consultation is not binding. And as Bolivian journalist Etzhel Llanque has pointed out, “this is a major weakness, because even though a community says ‘no’, its position has no legal validity”. There are numerous similar examples in Latin America, which, while being a “vanguard” region with regard to FPIC policies, also has the highest rates of conflict in relation to them.

Litigate and construct in order to move forward

Just over 65% of the States that ratified ILO Convention 169 – 15 out of 23 – are Latin American. This part of the world also has a significant proportion of Indigenous populations (just over 8% of total inhabitants): peoples whose ancestral territories cover 45% of the intact forests of the Amazon basin, where deforestation is notably less prevalent. These indicators are evident even in Brazil, whose public policies on conservation and Indigenous Peoples are rarely characterized by their understanding and appreciation of the cultural aspect.

Despite their evident importance, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), only “in the minority of cases, do Indigenous Peoples and organizations participate in the governance, decision-making, and management” of these areas. And guaranteeing Indigenous Peoples the exercise of their legitimate right to decide, is something that “no country has done (…) according to the minimum standards established by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” SIRGE (the Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy Coalition), in its Guide to FPIC.

The consequence of non-compliance is that Indigenous groups are obliged to resort to judicial processes and confrontational shows of strength in order to access the denied or disputed guarantees. In the former case we have emblematic litigations such as Saramaka vs. Suriname, where the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) spoke for the first time of consent, albeit in a very limited sense, with regard to projects that may irreversibly affect the way of life of an Indigenous People. Another example is the ruling of the same court in the case of Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua, regarding the responsibility of the state in the correct delimitation of Indigenous territories.

At the same time, the elaboration of their own FPIC protocols has allowed many Latin American indigenous communities to express their priorities more clearly. Recently, this alternative – which includes examples from Argentina to Central America, passing through Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia – has become a regional and even global trend. For example, the above mentioned Ogiek People of Kenya, are working on this type of protocol with the support of the Sarayaku People of Ecuador.

While there may be progress in Latin America, it is essential to understand that the reality in Asia and Africa is much more challenging for Indigenous Peoples, even when judicial rulings and multilateral organizations support their territorial claims. In the case of Asia, although “two thirds” of the world’s Indigenous Peoples live on that continent, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has warned that many “are affected by the lack of recognition of their cultural identity, its exclusion and its marginalization”.

Regarding the African context, Suárez points out that there “there are authoritarian regimes or countries where the decolonization process is more recent,” a fact that makes self-organization and actions to defend rights more difficult. On that continent, not even classic concepts such as “nation” and “citizenship” – which take for granted the equality of all inhabitants before the law – are immune to dispute: in Tanzania, for example, the Maasai are not recognized as “Indigenous People”, which both complicates their demands, and leads to them being questioned for not helping to forge a new nation.

Ecuador: words and popular action

As already indicated, beginning with the Constitutions of 1998 and 2008, Ecuador consolidated its position as regional leader in the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ right to consultation and free, prior, and informed consent. This was not a gift or official generosity: it was achieved by means of both shows of strength and long drawn out judicial processes; unfortunately, many of the latter still remain incomplete, or have been systematically undermined by political and economic authorities.

The emblematic ruling of the IAHCR in the Sarayaku vs. Ecuador case, is a clear example. The Kichwa community initiated legal action in 2003, but the ruling was only issued in 2012, and while the judgment was favorable the community, one of its main provisions, obliging the Ecuadorian state to legislate the right to FPIC through promulgation of a specific law, is still pending. For Suárez, the positive aspect is that ” it is no longer possible for an administrator of justice to claim a lack of jurisprudence on the subject, and that was achieved thanks to the tenacious struggle of the Sarayaku People on two levels: legal and territorial.”

The lawsuit also contributed to consolidating other central standards of prior consultation. Among these is the obligation for the state and the private sector to act in good faith and in a culturally appropriate manner, and to respect the guarantee of use of indigenous languages during any process. The latter is crucial, given that lack of recognition invalidates intercultural dialogue, which allows all members of a community to access real knowledge about a project requiring their consent. Consultations consequently become hollow administrative processes.

Many of the recent public and collective demonstrations of discontent, such as the sit-in by the A’i Cofán community mentioned at the beginning of this text are, in fact, linked to precisely this problem. More specifically they were demands for the repeal of Executive Decree No. 754, signed by President Guillermo Lasso in May 2023, whose precise intention was to limit FPIC processes to administrative actions. The response to the protests was not positive, has included acts of repression, intimidation and militarization of communities, which is not surprising, comments Suárez, because “Any law that regulates indigenous rights must, as a fundamental principle, count on the participation of the Peoples.”

At the end of 2023, the Constitutional Court ruled decree No. 754 unconstitutional due to its form. And although the decree will remain partially valid, it cannot now be applied in cases related to Indigenous communities until the National Assembly “issues a law that regulates the exercise of the right to environmental consultation.”

This is obviously a victory, but, once again, it is partial. A fundamental obstacle, one already mentioned above, is the gap between the Judiciary – which in certain current cases takes the side of the Indigenous Peoples – and an Executive that intends, as far as possible, to ignore or avoid rulings contrary to its interests.

The reasons for the divergence between these two branches of the state are as obvious as they are seductive: money and power, concentrated in few hands, that are derived from the exploitation of natural resources. And, it is worth pointing out, many of the countries that register acute territorial conflicts also have high rates of structural poverty. In addition, as the areas occupied by native communities frequently coincide with enormous subsoil wealth, it is easy for national governments to install the false notion that it is conscious minorities, in their fight for environmental conservation, that “hinder general development.” On other occasions, power struggles within the government are to blame, mutating as they often do, into de facto alliances that favor of business interests and against the recognition of rights.

In both these scenarios, Indigenous Peoples see their territorial rights postponed, as well as their prospects of reaching a favorable and definitive solutions. Although the possible lines of action are clear, the insurmountable obstacle has been the complete absence of political will to implement them.

Providing proof are two books, one published by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) in 2014, and the other by Land is Life in 2020. In the first case, the Commission called, unsuccessfully, for “a harmonization of the different national regulatory frameworks in the shortest possible time”, and for “prioritizing the application of the pro homine principle of international law”, in addition to strengthening “the judicial systems in each country, aiming to eradicate any type of racist conception and practice in the application of justice.”

In the second, Suárez notes that similar concepts had been assumed at the community level but had not been effectively implemented by state authorities. “The realities of the people and their decision-making systems are far from those of the state and capitalist society. The optimal solution,  is that alternative systems be defined. (…) the only legitimate way to achieve adequate and satisfactory regulations related to fundamental rights, is the development of regulations by the indigenous peoples themselves.”

The urgent need to solve existing problems

So far, the victories of Indigenous Peoples in their demand for the right to consultation and prior, free and informed consent, have been as resounding as they are sporadic. Consolidating the continuity of these successes is urgent, but it depends on settling a numer of accounts pending, in several well-defined areas. Firstly, it involves ensuring that states and governments clearly recognize consent as the substantive and fundamental right in the self-determination of indigenous peoples.

But the state role does not end there. According to a guide published by the Colombian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Acnudh), it includes many other elements:  including gender and generation perspective; starting from the life plan of the respective Indigenous People as a framework for dialogue and agreement; and strengthening social responsibility and the corporate-social pact. “The state, as guarantor of rights, is also responsible for ensuring that private companies respect the rights of indigenous peoples,” the document emphasizes.

The preservation of the cultural and territorial integrity of Indigenous communities is another official responsibility whose compliance has been sporadic at best. Not only due to the advance of projects and settlements that affect these territories and their inhabitants, but also because of the government’s difficulty in managing their growing complexities: “The challenge is not only to think about those situations where traditional territoriality is diminished, but also about what we do, today, with Indigenous presence in urban spaces, or with the intercultural city in the Amazon,” Suárez warns.

Other dimensions that require immediate attention are the incorporation of consent into the programs of multilateral organizations, and greater transparency in consultations with Indigenous Peoples in relation to so-called “green financing.” In the first case, while, as indicated, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, ADB, and the Inter America Development Bank, IDB, have instituted FPIC regulations, their implementation has not been constant or decisive.

Putting these measures into practice will never be easy. It is often more tempting to give in to the economic interests that put pressure on indigenous territories, or to mere inaction that allows a mandate to end without rocking the boat. But it it is worth keeping in mind that this too has a high cost: i.e. socio-economic conflict. As Suárez points out: “Conflict will continue to increase, unless we find a path that allows the full participation of indigenous peoples.”

*  Jorge Basilago is a journalist and freelance, writer, born in Argentina and residing in Quito, Ecuador. Sonce 1995, her has worked as a collaborator and correspondent for both print and digital media in Latin America

El cargo FROM WORD TO ACTION: the right of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent apareció primero en Land Is Life.

David Chemutai, coordinator of the Benet Mosopisyek community, declares that the eviction of the community from their ancestral land was illegal. And now, he says, “Whenever our community tries to access the ancestral land for resources and cultural issues, they face human rights abuses like torture,shootings, and illegal arrests.” Chemutai also mentions that three people were reportedly shot in November.

The community coordinator is calling for dialogue and an end to the violence and the dispute with the government and the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). “We need joint conservation. The community should be given a chance to conserve the forest.”

However, after a number of meetings with UWA staff, including the Executive Director, and being asked to put the plan in writing, the proposal was rejected. The plan has now been presented to the Ugandan Prime Minister and the Minister of Tourism.

Says Chemutai, “Instead of the government allowing the Mosop Benet Indigenous community to carry out joint conservation to save our forest, and handing over the 6,000 ha. of land meant for resettlement of Mosop Benet… demolishing our houses, destroying our crops and impounding our cattle is the order of the day.”

Land is Life wholeheartedly supports the call for dialogue and Joint Conservation made by the Mosop Benet. We urge the Government of President Yoweri Museveni and Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja, to enter into good faith dialogue and come to an agreement with the community; cooperation and Joint Conservation rather than violence, is the best way to ensure the vitality of the land. The violence and displacements, which are clear violations of the human rights of the Mosopisyek Benet people,  have been going on too long, and conservation can never be an excuse for displacing Indigenous Peoples from their ancestral lands.

The UWA, conservation, and violence

The Mount Elgon National Park area of Uganda was home to the Mosopisyek of Benet (Mosop Benet) Indigenous People well before it was declared a forest reserve in 1920 by the British colonial administration. In 1968, six years after the British left, the newly independent Ugandan government declared the area a central reserve, and in 1993 named it Mt. Elgon National Park, all without the free, prior and informed consent of the Mosop Benet.

Since the designation of the Mt. Elgon region as a conservation area in 1920, the Ugandan government has assumed primary responsibility for environmental protection, and it is this obligation that is being utilized by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) to justify displacing thousands, and preventing the Mosop Benet from accessing their ancestral lands and the sacred sites that are an essential element of their culture.

The forced evictions from disputed areas led to legal action being taken against the Uganda Wildlife Authority, and while the resulting judgment recognized the rights of the community, and allowed them agricultural and grazing rights, the judgment was never implemented. As a consequence, the violence and displacements continue.

According to a recent report published by the Mosop Benet community elders:

“Since October 2022, the Benet Mosop have suffered escalating and relentless attacks carried out by Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) agents, including human rights violations such as shootings, rape, torture, burning and demolition of the houses and impounding of cattle. Since the institution of litigation, these attacks have become more frequent, more violent and accompanied by a heightened level of property destruction. UWA employs lethal force, either shooting or beating up community members found within the boundaries of the (Mount Elgon) Park or on its outskirts.

The current attacks, characterized by their brutal and violent nature, have escalated the perilous threat of sustaining gunshot wounds, and even losing one’s life. Fourthly, in a bid to further intimidate the community, UWA agents are incessantly threatening BCMA’s leaders for daring to stand up for the rights of the community. Among the most grievous violations, on 28th December 2022, a 16-years-old Benet Mosop girl was raped by a UWA agent, and on 10th February 2023, a 45-year-old man was shot dead by rangers who had found him collecting firewood in Mt. Elgon forest. In fact, the exacerbated nature of these violent attacks caught the attention of government officials.”

The Joint Conservation Proposal

A Mosop Benet community proposal for Joint Conservation with the UWA includes, amongst others, the following recommendations:

•         A system through which Mosopisyek observers are permitted to observe activities in each part of the park, to report unlawful users like poachers and those depleting our trees, and to track changes of the local ecosystem to know what is needed, based on historical knowledge.
•         An initiative which specifically engages Mosopisyek of Benet as the protectors of the moorland, in conjunction with rights to access and use the grazing of the moorland in agreed ways, including limitations on stock, and a system of regulation by appointed clan cluster leaders.
•         The launching of discussions to understand the problems of the present composition and settlement of the Benet Resettlement Scheme 6,000 ha. Gazzeted (set aside) for farming. This needs discussion between the Mosopisyek of Benet council of elders and government about how it can be handled, since it’s already occupied by majority Sabinys (People) and displacement will cause conflicts. The 2,250 ha above the 6,000 ha. is also a water catchment area. A discussion can be held on how to replant indigenous trees to combat climate change.

Uganda TV Report:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB5J0OqQZSM&authuser=0

El cargo THE MOSOPISYEK OF BENET PROPOSE JOINT CONSERVATION OF ANCESTRAL LAND: CALL FOR DIALOGUE WITH UGANDA GOVERNMENT AND WILDLIFE AUTHORITY apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Share Tweet Forward

El cargo UGANDA MUST RESPECT RIGHTS OF THE BENET MOSOP apareció primero en Land Is Life.