By Killa Becerra, Land is Life Coordinator of the Amazon Basin

“In the Amazon, defending the territory is defending life itself; we feel deep pain for every hectare lost, every river that disappears, and every family displaced.”

The words of a Traditional Doctor from the Cofán Indigenous People in Colombia are not a metaphor. They describe a daily reality across the Amazon Basin, where forests fall to illegal mining and logging, rivers are poisoned, armed actors expand their control, and Indigenous defenders are threatened or killed for protecting their lands.

Yet amid this violence, Indigenous Peoples are not retreating. They are organizing.

For Indigenous Peoples’ communities across the Amazon, security does not begin with police or military forces. It begins with the territory itself: with collective governance, ancestral knowledge, vigilance over rivers and forests, and the protection of community members who raise their voices.

At Land is Life, we see security as sovereignty in action. The Indigenous-Led Security Program is based on a simple truth: those who inhabit and govern the territory understand its risks better than anyone else.

Security, therefore, cannot be imposed from outside. It must strengthen Indigenous Peoples’ autonomy, reinforce existing systems of governance, and provide flexible resources that allow communities to respond quickly and strategically.

In 2025, as extractive expansion, illegal economies, and armed violence intensified across the Amazon Basin, this vision translated into 88 rapid emergency responses in less than 36 hours, protecting Indigenous defenders at imminent risk. These actions safeguarded more than 35,000 Indigenous defenders,  including over 16,000 Indigenous women, from 65 Indigenous Peoples and strengthened 69 Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, reinforcing territorial governance, collective protection systems, and Indigenous-led responses throughout the region.

It tells of Indigenous Peoples’ communities reclaiming control over their safety, mapping their territories, monitoring incursions, and standing guard over forests and rivers. It speaks of women who, despite intimidation and violence, lead assemblies and protection efforts. Of Indigenous youth using secure communication tools to document threats and counter disinformation. And of organizations building community-based alert systems and collective strategies that allow them to act swiftly when danger approaches.

Coshikox Consejo Shipibo Konibo Xetebo (COSHIKOX) an Indigenous Peoples’ organization in Peru described what this support meant:

“This support have been fundamental in strengthening our communities’ capacity for self-management, promoting the conservation of our culture and protecting our ancestral territories. These activities have not only benefited our members, but strengthened respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights.”

Protection as a Collective Process

The fund operates on multiple levels.

When a defender faces imminent threats, emergency funds can support temporary relocation, medical care, or legal assistance. In the medium term, communities strengthen collective systems: territorial patrols, early warning mechanisms, internal governance processes, and physical and digital security training. In the long term, advocacy efforts seek recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ protection systems as legitimate and effective within national and international policy frameworks.

Security, in this sense, is not an isolated intervention. It is a continuous process that links land, culture, leadership, and autonomy.

Women at the Center

Nearly half of those directly reached in 2025 were Indigenous women. This is not incidental.

Indigenous women defenders often face differentiated risks, including gender-based violence and exclusion from decision-making spaces. Investing in their leadership strengthens entire communities. It reinforces cultural continuity, territorial cohesion, and intergenerational resilience.

Challenges and Hope

The challenges remain severe. Illegal mining, narcotrafficking, and deforestation continue to expand. Protection mechanisms are often weak or poorly implemented. Connectivity gaps limit safe communication in remote areas.

And yet, there is also momentum.

Indigenous Peoples’ agendas are gaining visibility in global spaces.A new generation of Indigenous communicators is combining ancestral knowledge with digital tools. Regional Amazonian networks are deepening coordination across borders.

The lesson is clear: when Indigenous Peoples are trusted with direct resources and decision-making power, protection becomes more effective and more sustainable.

Protecting the Amazon Means Strengthening Self-Determination

In 2025 alone, 88 rapid emergency responses helped protect thousands of Indigenous lives, strengthen governance structures, and safeguard territories across the Amazon.

At the heart of this work are clear strategic priorities:

• Direct, intermediary-free funding, so Indigenous organizations can access flexible resources without burdensome bureaucracy.
• Comprehensive protection for defenders, including legal, medical, psychosocial, and collective protection mechanisms.
• Strengthening Indigenous women’s leadership, recognizing the differentiated risks they face and their central role in territorial sustainability.
• Digital security and information protection, equipping communities to respond to surveillance, disinformation, and technological threats.

Defending the Amazon is not only about conserving trees. It is about strengthening self-determination, protecting cultures, and ensuring the right to live with dignity, where the forest stands, life stands.

El cargo In the Amazon, Security Begins with the Territory 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.

O conceito de ‘Marco Temporal’ (promovido por legisladores ‘ruralistas’ que representam os interesses do agronegócio, dos mineiros e dos pecuaristas) procura limitar o direito aos povos que podem demonstrar que qualquer território reivindicado foi ocupado por eles antes da promulgação da Constituição . Portanto todas as reivindicações futuras, e mesmo algumas reivindicações passadas, estariam consequentemente sujeitas ao ônus da prova do “Marco Temporal”, representando um grave perigo para os Povos Indígenas do Brasil.

No dia 21 de setembro deste ano, numa decisão amplamente celebrada pelos Povos Indígenas e seus aliados, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) do país declarou inconstitucional tese de o “Marco Temporal”.

Em resposta, a oposição dominada pelo Senado brasileiro aprovou recentemente o PL2903, em um claro desafio à decisão do STF e legitimidade deste.

A lei não só ignora a decisão do Supremo Tribunal, como também viola os direitos dos Povos Indígenas consagrados na Declaração das Nações Unidas sobre os Direitos dos Povos Indígenas (UNDRIP), que afirma em seu art. 26, que:

1. Os povos indígenas têm direito às terras, territórios e recursos que possuem e ocupam tradicionalmente ou que tenham de outra forma utilizado ou adquirido.
2. Os povos indígenas têm o direito de possuir, utilizar, desenvolver e controlar as terras, territórios e recursos que possuem em razão da propriedade tradicional ou de outra forma tradicional de ocupação ou de utilização, assim como aqueles que de outra forma tenham adquirido.
3. Os Estados assegurarão reconhecimento e proteção jurídicos a essas terras, territórios e recursos. Tal reconhecimento respeitará adequadamente os costumes, as tradições e os regimes de posse da terra dos povos indígenas a que se refiram

Se o Senado dominado pela oposição tiver sucesso na sua tentativa de desafiar a decisão do “Marco Temporal” do STF, os danos resultantes para os Povos Indígenas, incluindo os 144 Povos Indígenas que vivem em Isolamento Voluntário, seriam graves.

Os principais grupos indígenas e seus aliados da sociedade civil pedem, portanto, ao Presidente Lula da Silva que vete o Projeto de Lei 2.903/2023 em sua íntegra.

Para LAND IS LIFE, a questão é clara: seja qual for a forma ou por qualquer mecanismo, o ‘Marco Temporal’ é uma grande ameaça não apenas para os Povos Indígenas e suas culturas, mas também para a floresta amazônica, pois abriria grandes extensões de terra a passíveis de desmatamento. Para LAND IS LIFE, os Povos Indígenas e as suas culturas têm o direito humano básico de existir e de florescer nos seus territórios. O Marco Temporal representa, portanto, uma terrível ameaça a esse direito e deve ser combatido.

Os principais grupos indígenas e seus aliados da sociedade civil pedem, portanto, ao Presidente Lula da Silva que vete o Projeto de Lei 2.903/2023 na íntegra.

Para LAND IS LIFE, a questão é clara. Seja qual for a forma, ou por qualquer mecanismo, o ‘Marco Temporal’ é uma grande ameaça, não apenas para os Povos Indígenas e suas culturas, mas também para a floresta amazônica, pois abriria grandes extensões de terra à possibilidade de desmatamento. Para LAND IS LIFE, os Povos Indígenas e as suas culturas têm o direito humano básico de existir e de florescer nos seus territórios. O Marco Temporal representa, portanto, uma terrível ameaça a esse direito e deve ser combatido.

El cargo SENADO BRASILEIRO DESAFIA DECISÃO DO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL SOBRE MARCO TEMPORAL: COLOCA OS POVOS INDÍGENAS E A AMAZÔNIA EM GRAVE PERIGO. apareció primero en Land Is Life.

The ‘Marco Temporal’ concept (promoted by ‘Ruralist’ legislators who represent the interests of agribusiness, miners and cattle ranchers) seeks to limit the right to those Peoples who can demonstrate that any territory claimed was occupied by them before the enactment of the Constitution. All future, and even some past claims, would consequently be subjected to the ‘Marco Temporal’ burden of proof, representing a clear and present danger to Brazil’s Indigenous Peoples.

On September 21st of this year, in a ruling widely celebrated by Indigneous Peoples and their allies, the country’s Supreme Court declared the ‘Marco Temporal’ concept to be unconstitutional.

In response, the opposition dominated Brazilian Senate recently passed PL2903, or the ‘Marco Temporal’ legislation, in both clear defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision, and as a challenge to the legitimacy of the Court itself.

The law not only ignores the Supreme Court’s ruling, it also contravenes the rights of Indigenous Peoples enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which states in Art. 26, that:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
   2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
   3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned

There is no doubt that if the opposition dominated Senate succeeds in its attempt to defy the Supreme Court’s ‘Marco Temporal’ ruling, the resulting damage to Indigenous Peoples, including 144 Peoples living in Voluntary Isolation, would be grave.

The major Indigenous groups and their civil society allies are therefore calling on President Lula da Silva to veto Bill 2903/2023 in its entirety.

For LAND IS LIFE, the issue is clear. In whatever form, or by whatever mechanism, the ‘Marco Temporal’ is a major threat, not only to Indigenous Peoples and their cultures, but also to the Amazon rainforest, as it would open up major tracts of land to the possibility of deforestation. For LAND IS LIFE, Indigenous Peoples and their cultures have a basic human right to exist, and to flourish within their territories. The Marco Temporal therefore represents a dire threat to that right, and must be resisted.

El cargo BRAZILIAN SENATE DEFIES SUPREME COURT RULING ON MARCO TEMPORAL: PLACES INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND AMAZON IN GRAVE DANGER. apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Article 231 of the Constitution grants Indigenous Peoples the right to land they have “traditionally occupied”, and according to the National Indigenous Peoples Foundation (FUNAI), 761 territories covering  about 1.2 million square kilometers (almost 14% of Brazil’s territory) have in fact been claimed. But of these the government has recognized only 475, despite the fact that the 1988 Constitution also guaranteed that all claims be resolved within five years.

The  legal argument, promoted by the ‘Ruralist’ block of legislators representing the interests of agribusiness, miners and cattle ranchers, would have made that constitutional right time dependent, and placed the burden of proof on the Indigenous Peoples themselves. Such proof may have been difficult to produce: one of the principal reasons being that many Indigenous Peoples were forced to keep moving in order to avoid conflict with agribusiness, and illegal loggers and miners, the very people that today want to limit their rights

There is little doubt that a vote in favor of the ‘Marco Temporal’ would have been disastrous for the country’s Indigenous Peoples, including the Amazon’s 144 Peoples in Voluntary Isolation, who live mainly in territories created to protect them. But the fate of Brazil’s Indigenous Peoples was not the only thing in play, the entire Amazon forest would also have been dramatically affected.

Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon is a global concern, and after the devastating effects of the Bolsonaro government’s policies, in the first year of President Lula da Silva’s third term in office, the world has seen some long desired success in reducing deforestation rates. But under the ‘Marco Temporal’ this would have represented an extremely short term victory in a much longer term war.

For example, it has been estimated that up to 95% of Indigenous territories could have been affected, contributing massively to the climate crisis. According to environmental scientist Ana Claudia Rorato of Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, and conservation biologist Celso Silva-Junior of the Federal University of Maranhão, some 87,000 to 1 million square kilometers of forest could be left unprotected. In other words, left at the mercy of the farmers, loggers, miners, cattle ranchers and others that have fought against recognizing Indigenous territories. Clearing these forests would have caused a massive increase in carbon emissions, and have moved the Amazon closer to a tipping point: a condition which would change the hydrologic cycle and begin a process in which rainforests would be turned into much dryer savanna.

In sum, the ‘Marco Temporal’ would have had devastating consequences for both Brazilian Indigenous Peoples, and the Amazon rainforest and its priceless biodiversity. Land is Life applauds the combined efforts of Brazilian Indigenous Peoples and civil society organizations in the fight to avoid an extremely dangerous and short-sighted policy. However, we must continue to be vigilant, as despite this crucial victory the Ruralist legislative block will not disappear, and will surely be working hard to find other ways to achieve its objectives.

Fotos @Coiabamazonia

El cargo THE MARCO TEMPORAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: LAND IS LIFE CONGRATULATES BRAZIL’S INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ON A CRUCIAL VICTORY apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Surprisingly perhaps, the problem is not simply one of supply. According to the forecasts of the International Energy Agency (IEA), in a few years we will reach the global demand high point, or so-called ‘Peak Oil‘, undoubtedly due to the changes brought about in Europe due to the war in Ukraine. From there demand is expected to keep falling.

It now appears that for Ecuador the eagerly awaited energy transition, necessary due to the pressing need to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and avoid an increase in the planet’s temperature, is now knocking on the door. A climate change that, it is worth mentioning, would put many people at risk, principally the most impoverished and marginalized sectors. The dilemma for the country is how to manage this energy and economic transition internally, and with no contingency plan in sight.

The situation is delicate, however, because the other side of the coin is a country where the formal employment rate barely reaches 3 out of 10 people of working age; and where, according to the World Bank, in 2022 GDP per capita reached only US$5,590, and where oil revenues form a substantial percentage of the national income. It is obvious, therefore, that stopping all oil production is not an immediate option, while at the same time it is essential to design and implement a post-oil policy in the medium term. The million dollar question, is whether political will to do so exists.

The Consultation on the Yasuní Park and oil.

The answer to the question is, no, at least for now. But with a popular consultation called for August 20^th, 2023, the country is now facing the possibility of a turning point in its history of oil dependence. The current question posed is the same as the one raised in a frustrated 2013 plebiscite: whether the oil from oil Block 43, located to the northeast of the Yasuní National Park, one of the areas of greatest biodiversity on the planet, should be kept in the ground. A Yasuní, it is worth mentioning, that has been classified as a “Pleistocene refuge”, declared by Unesco as a World Biosphere Reserve, and is also home to peoples in voluntary isolation: the Tagaere, Taromenane and Dugakaere.

The consultation is –  and always was – conceived as a turning point in the search for a post-oil future for Ecuador. It will also take place almost 10 years after the previous attempt to prevent exploitation of the same Block 43, an initiative that was clearly, and illegitimately undercut by the Constitutional Court of the time. Only a sustained campaign in the face of a highly politicized national institutional structure, and confrontations with a succession of governments, was able to persuade the current Constitutional Court to issue a favorable opinion for the second version of the referendum on May 9^th of this year.

But while the question is identical, the political and economic conditions in which the consultation will take place are very different from those in play 10 years ago. The Block’s oil wells have been in operation since 2016, coming within meters of the buffer area of the Park’s Intangible Zone, where the previously mentioned isolated peoples live. Putting an end to oil extraction in Block 43 will consequently not only costs in terms of lost income, but also in terms of the removal of the infrastructure; which is one of the hottest points of the debate. But these costs are fixed, and no matter who wins the vote, will have to be paid, now or whenever the oil wells run dry.

In Yasuní National Park, the options that the country has are seen more clearly. On the one hand, is the already traditional policy of living off oil, which does offer the possibility of sustaining social security programs for the bulk of the population, which as the poverty rate testifies has not guaranteed them, and implies an active participation in the global climate crisis. On the other hand, there is the need for a post-oil policy focused on healthier ways of living, on the need to preserve biodiversity, to reduce the impacts of climate change – which, it should be noted, will affect the most unprotected segments of the population – and protect nomadic Indigenous Peoples who live in voluntary isolation.

Can the extermination of ‘peoples in isolation’ be avoided?

The aforementioned Intangible Zone, located meters from block 43, is an area of Yasuní National Park reserved for protecting and guaranteeing the conditions vital for the survival of Indigenous Peoples in Isolation and Initial Contact (PIACI). A development model based on the extraction of natural resources, which includes the infrastructure required to obtain the county’s ‘black gold’, clearly endangers Indigenous Peoples and those in voluntary isolation. The forest was their home long before the arrival of the colonizers and their extractive projects.

With more ecological awareness than in current times, on July 26, 1979 – and that with a military triumvirate in power –, the Yasuní National Park territory was established, which according to the Ministry of the Environment’s website implies “protecting this ecological zone of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations; excluding exploitation or occupation not linked to the protection of the area; and providing the basis for visitors to make spiritual, scientific use (of the area)”.

However, and always with the unfulfilled justification that “the area’s oil reserves will help us overcome poverty”, oil blocks 14, 16, 17, 31 y 43 (from 2014) were authorized. And the face of the Yasuní National Park was filled with black dots.

“Let us live as (the) Waorani want,” Alicia Cahuiya, herself Waorani, told the plenary session of legislators prior to the debate in the National Assembly of October 2013, when with 108 votes, they authorized the government of Rafael Correa to exploit the Yasuní ITT (Block 43) oil fields.

“There are seven companies (operating) in Waorani territory, but there are no benefits, there is more poverty (…) Respect the territory!” demanded Cahuiya, in front of a Legislature that would then cede another piece of territory to extractive projects. Cahuiya claimed the Waorani people no longer administered their ancestral lands, that these were in the hands of “people from another side” and that the peoples in voluntary isolation who live in the intangible zone, such as the Taromenane, are bi-national nomads (Ecuador -Peru). “The oil comes from where we live, and we disagree,” Cahuiya asserted, after denouncing that the “Waorani’s and Taromenane’s lives were in danger, (and that) we (the Indigenous People) have to be consulted.”

Oil activity, and all the infrastructure that it implies, also endangers their existence and their way of life. According to data provided by the environmental group ‘Yasunidos‘, 22 oils spills occurred between 2016 and 2022, making it difficult to believe that pumping oil does not affect the health of those living in, and adjacent to the Yasuní National Park? “Less than 1% of the total area of the park will be affected,” ex-president Rafael Correa assured, as if oil extraction could be clean and free of accidents.

José Proaño, Latin America Program Director for Land is Life, is clear about the dangers for Indigenous Peoples.

“’Civilizing’ activities transmit and disperse new diseases, he says, which are lethal because the PIACI do not have immunological defenses to protect them against the new threats. But that is not all. They also are at risk from extraction, forest fires, deforestation, the continuous advance of infrastructure works, while national governments have little interest in protecting them”, adding that the Ecuadorian State is presently facing legal action in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), for not having complied with the precautionary measures established by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights designed to protect peoples in voluntary isolation from “projects that affect their territories, natural resources and way of life,”. Says Proaño, “It’s precisely this extractive pressure that was transformed into a fight for territory between the Tagaere and the Taromenane, and was one of the causes of the massacres of 2003, 2006 and 2013.”

Proaño adds that the north and west sides of the Intangible Zone are surrounded by oil installations and highways. To the south, on the Curaray River, the Zone adjoins other indigenous territories where conflict and threats are lesser. Towards the eastern side of the Park, in the border zone, illegal activities have intensified in recent years, while at the same time we have evidence that shows the enormous mobility of the PIACI outside the limits of the Intangible Zone, which in his opinion “confirm their use of territory”.

Some Amazonian Indigenous Peoples, such as the one represented by Cahuiya, have expressed their distrust of Western proposals. Others, such as the PIACI are not in a position to advocate for their rights. “This reality makes ensuring respect for their rights of particular importance. Given the impossibility of defending their own rights, States, international organizations, members of civil society, and other actors in the defense of human rights, are the ones who must ensure their human rights are respected.”, stipulates the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), in the 2013 document ‘Recommendations for full respect for the PIACI’.

When the disappearance of other worldviews, cultures and languages does not affect us, it is often said lightly that it is time for these isolated peoples to integrate. However, as the IACHR itself explains: “Contact with strangers and non-indigenous people is above all an affront to their worldview, to their way of understanding and interpreting the world that surrounds them. When contact is made, an entire system of beliefs, traditions and assumptions that have been taken for granted, and on which a way of life and culture has been based for hundreds of years, collapses irreversibly. If the contact occurs in a context of violence, as is often the case, their entire world becomes meaningless. As explained later, (…) this causes these beliefs and traditions to be lost as they are no longer transmitted to the younger generations, which may imply the disappearance of an entire human culture”.

A false dilemma?

Those who advocate continuing with the exploitation of Block 43, maintain that the country cannot be placed in position of the ‘false dilemma’ of having to choose between oil and nature, and instead highlight the substantial income that will be lost. “This represents 1.2 billion dollars a year for the national budget,” said a report from the national television channel Ecuavisa,  prior to a debate on the Yasuní consultation. But the figure is disputed. For example, economist and former presidential candidate, Alberto Acosta, affirms that in reality the losses would amount to US$440 million a year, , which represents only 1% of the National Budget. It’s worth noting, however, that in any discussion about profits or losses related to crude oil, the values are always speculative, as they depend on the volatile international market.

Which brings us to another point: i.e. whether the issue of leaving the Block 43 oil in the ground is simply about economics. Surely it is not. While income is clearly important in general terms, to place the main emphasis on the fact that losses would be minimal if the Yes were to win, is to suggest that if the price of oil were higher and the loss consequently greater, then perhaps there would be nothing much to debate. So full steam ahead.  What is at stake here is not only the profit or loss column, but the need to protect the lives of isolated Indigenous Peoples, and equally important, to plan for a post oil future.

It should be added that the ‘black gold’ that has become the life raft of the national economy, has never solved the country’s economic problems (according to the World Bank, the country’s poverty rate at the end of 2022 was almost 30%.), not even those of its own making. In mid-July 2023, the Amazonian provinces drivers’ unions went on strike in protest against the deplorable state of the roads that connect the region’s cities to the major mountain cities, including the capital Quito. Currently, given their desperate condition there are routes they prefer to avoid.

As for those who believe the entire country will starve if the Block 43 oil fields stop producing, it is important to remind them that oil from the area represents a meager 1% of the total State budget. And, as has been shown during the last five decades, that the country has lost more in tax exemptions for large economic groups, repairs to damaged or obsolete infrastructure, and environmental remediation, than what would be lost if pumping oil comes to an end.

Meanwhile, even within the most recalcitrant political right there are sectors that are aware that oil reserves are declining, and that it is necessary to look for alternatives to fossil fuels. But their short-term attitude is typified by Guillermo Lasso, the current President of the country, who asserted on May 24, 2022, that “now that the global trend is to abandon fossil fuels, the time has come to extract every last drop profit from our oil.”

It is consequently legitimate to ask whether, given the ever closer obsolescence of the oil market, rather insisting on business as usual, whether the most logical thing would not be to seek a change in the productive matrix, and the sooner the better?

In the panel “Exploring new opportunities for development”, organized by the Simón Bolívar Andean University, Adrián Martínez, from the Ruta del Clima organization in Costa Rica, – a country that a few years ago bet on ecotourism and tourism – explained something that may be obvious: “The situation in Latin America is critical, we are exposed to a capitalism that does not respond to our needs, we need a transition process that is fair and planned. It is imperative that State policy reflect these needs, especially when the current economic model does not work”.

A NO victory would have dire consequences

In the end, and in a context in which national politicians have not proposed a clear and considered option for exiting the primary oil-export model, the popular consultation on Yasuní Block 43 offers the public an opportunity to tell the authorities that it no longer wants ‘business as usual’. What is needed, despite the difficulties involved – and the fact that a YES victory will clearly not ‘save Yasuní’, as the most optimistic claim – is to move quickly towards a post-oil future, with social and ecological justice. Nothing else will do. And as if it needs mentioning, a victory for NO will have truly dire consequences, opening the door to more exploration and extraction in the most sensitive areas of the Ecuadorian Amazon.

Photos: Land is Life

El cargo ECUADOR’S YASUNÍ REFERENDUM: between business as usual and the urgent need for a post oil strategy apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Claro que, quizás de manera sorpresiva, el problema no es solamente de oferta. Según los pronósticos de la Agencia Internacional de la Energía (AIE), a nivel global llegaremos muy pronto al punto más alto de la demanda, el llamado ‘Peak Oil’, sin duda debido a los cambios forzosos en Europa por la guerra en Ucrania.

Por fin, la largamente anhelada transición energética, necesaria debido a la apremiante necesidad de reducir la emisión de dióxido de carbono (CO2) y evitar un incremento en la temperatura del planeta, ahora está tocando a nuestra puerta. Un cambio climático que, vale mencionar, pondría en riesgo a mucha gente, principalmente a los sectores más empobrecidos y marginados. El dilema para el Ecuador es cómo manejar esa transición energética dentro del territorio nacional, en el contexto mencionado, sin plan de contingencia a la vista.

La situación es delicada, porque al otro lado de la moneda está un país donde la tasa de empleo formal apenas llega a 3 de cada 10 personas en edad laboral; y donde, según el Banco Mundial, el PIB per cápita alcanzó sólo a US$5,590 en 2022. Es decir: los ingresos petroleros forman un porcentaje sustancial del presupuesto. Es obvio, por tanto, que dejar de producir petróleo no es una opción en lo inmediato, pero al mismo tiempo resulta imprescindible diseñar e implementar una política pospetrolera a mediano plazo. La pregunta del millón es si existe la voluntad política para hacerlo.

La Consulta sobre el Parque Yasuní y el petróleo.

La respuesta a la pregunta es no, al menos por ahora. Pero el país hoy se encuentra ante un posible punto de inflexión en su historia de dependencia petrolera, con la consulta popular convocada para el 20 de agosto de 2023. La interrogante actual es la misma que la planteada en el frustrado plebiscito de 2013: si se debe mantener bajo tierra, o no, el crudo del Bloque 43, situado al noreste del Parque Nacional Yasuní, una de las áreas con mayor biodiversidad del planeta. Un Yasuní, clasificado como “refugio del pleistoceno” y declarado por la Unesco como Reserva Mundial de la Biósfera, que es también hogar de Pueblos Indígenas en aislamiento voluntario: los Tagaere, Taromenane y Dugakaere.

La consulta es –y siempre fue- concebida como un punto de giro para el futuro pospetrolero del Ecuador. Y se realizará casi 10 años después del primer intento de evitar la explotación de petróleo en el sitio mencionado, que fue desviado de manera claramente ilegítima por la Corte Constitucional de ese entonces. Sólo una campaña sostenida, ante la politizada institucionalidad nacional y en medio de enfrentamientos con varios gobiernos de turno, pudo lograr que la Corte Constitucional actual emitiera, el pasado 9 de mayo, un dictamen favorable para la segunda versión de la consulta.

Pero más allá de que la pregunta sea idéntica, las condiciones políticas y económicas en que se realizará esta vez la consulta son muy distintas de las originales. Los pozos petroleros del bloque están en operación desde el 2016, incluso llegando a metros del área de amortiguamiento de la llamada Zona Intangible del Parque, donde viven los pueblos aislados. Por ende, dejar de extraer el petróleo del Bloque 43 no sólo tendrá sus costos en términos de ingresos perdidos, sino también en lo relacionado con el retiro de la infraestructura; uno de los puntos más álgidos del debate. Pero estos costos son fijos, y tendrán que pagarse ahora o más tarde.

En el Parque Nacional Yasuní, por tanto, hoy se ven con mayor claridad las opciones que tiene el país. Por un lado, la ya tradicional política de vivir del petróleo, que implica participar activamente en la crisis climática global y que, si bien ofrecería la posibilidad de sostener programas de seguridad social para el grueso de la población, no los ha garantizado más que esporádica y coyunturalmente. Por otro lado, tenemos la necesidad de diseñar una política pospetrolera enfocada en buscar formas más sanas de vivir sin el crudo, en la necesidad de preservar la biodiversidad, reducir los impactos del cambio climático – que, cabe destacar, afectarán con mayor fuerza a las franjas más desprotegidas de la población – y en proteger a los Pueblos Indígenas nómadas que viven en aislamiento voluntario.

¿Se puede evitar el exterminio de los ‘pueblos libres’?

La ya mencionada Zona Intangible, ubicada a metros del bloque 43, es un espacio reservado, destinado a la protección y a garantizar las condiciones naturales para la sobrevivencia de los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento y Contacto Inicial (PIACI). El modelo de desarrollo extractivo y toda la infraestructura que demanda la obtención del ‘oro negro’, pone en peligro a los pueblos originarios y en aislamiento voluntario. La selva es su casa, desde mucho antes de que llegaran los colonos y sus proyectos extractivos.

Con más consciencia ecológica que en los tiempos actuales, el 26 de julio de 1979 ¬––con un triunvirato militar en el ejercicio del poder del Estado–, se declaró y se delimitaron los territorios del Parque Nacional Yasuní, lo que implica“proteger esta zona ecológica de uno o mas ecosistemas para las generaciones presentes y futuras; excluir la explotación u ocupación no ligadas a la protección del área; y proveer las bases para que los visitantes puedan hacer uso espiritual, científico (del espacio)”, , según señala el Ministerio de Ambiente en su página web.

No obstante, y siempre bajo la incumplida justificación de que “las reservas petroleras de ese territorio nos ayudarán a superar la pobreza”, se han autorizado, declarado de “interés nacional” y operan “por excepción”, los bloques 14, 16, 17, 31 y 43 (desde 2014). Así, la carita del Parque Nacional Yasuní se ha llenado de puntos negros.

“Déjanos vivir como (los) Waorani queremos”, les decía Alicia Cahuiya, de esa nacionalidad, al pleno de legisladores, previo al debate en la Asamblea Nacional cuando, con 108 votos, en la sesión No. 256 de octubre de 2013, se autorizó al gobierno de Rafael Correa la explotación del Yasuní ITT.

“Hay siete empresas en el territorio Waorani, no hay beneficios, hay más pobreza (…) Respete el territorio”, demandaba Cahuiya, frente a la legislatura que cedería otro pedacito más de territorio al extractivismo. Cahuiya les reclamaba que el pueblo Waorani ya no administra sus tierras ancestrales, que estas están en manos de “gente de otro lado” y que los pueblos en aislamiento voluntario como los Taromenane que habitan en la zona intangible, son nómadas, incluso binacionales (Ecuador-Perú). “De mi casa sale el petróleo y nosotros no estamos de acuerdo”, aseveraba Cahuiya, tras denunciar que “La vida de Waorani y la vida de Taromenane está en peligro, tenemos que ser consultados”.

Asímismo, la actividad petrolera, y toda la infraestructura que esto implica, pone en peligro su existencia y su forma de vida. De acuerdo con datos expuestos por colectivo ecologista ‘Yasunidos’ entre 2016 y 2022, se han producido 22 derrames. ¿Cómo creer que estos derrames no enferman a las vidas humanas asentadas y colindantes del Parque Nacional Yasuní? “Se afectará menos del 1% del área total del parque”, aseguraba el expresidente Rafael Correa, como si la extracción petrolera estuviera libre de accidentes y pudiera ser aséptica.

“Estas acciones ‘civilizatorias’ transmiten y dispersan nuevas enfermedades que resultan letales, debido a que los PIACI no han desarrollado defensas inmunológicas para estas amenazas. Estos pueblos están en riesgo debido a la extracción, incendios forestales, deforestación, el avance continuo de obras de infraestructura, y el poco interés de los Estados por protegerlos”, explicó José Proaño, director de programas de América Latina de Land is Life.

A esto se debe sumar que el Estado ecuatoriano ya enfrenta una demanda ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), por no haber cumplido con las medidas cautelares que estableció la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos para proteger a los pueblos en aislamiento voluntario, debido a “proyectos que afectan sus territorios, recursos naturales y modo de vida”, destacó Proaño. “La presión extractiva sobre sus territorios se traslada a la lucha por el territorio entre los Tagaere y los Taromenane por la misma razón, siendo una de las causas de las matanzas en el 2003, 2006 y 2013”, afirmó.

Proaño comenta que los lados norte y occidental de la zona intangible se encuentran rodeados por instalaciones petroleras y carreteras. Hacia el sur, sobre el río Curaray, colindan con otros territorios indígenas donde la conflictividad y amenazas son menores. Hacia el lado oriental del parque, en la zona fronteriza, las actividades ilegales se han intensificado durante los últimos años, al tiempo que se evidencia una enorme movilidad de los PIACI fuera de los límites de la Zona Intangible del Yasuní, que en opinión de Proaño “comprueba su uso del territorio”.

Hay Pueblos Indígenas amazónicos, como el representado por Cahuiya, que han expresado su desconfianza ante las propuestas occidentales. Otros no pueden abogar por sus derechos. “Esta realidad hace que asegurar el respeto a sus derechos cobre una importancia especial. Ante la imposibilidad de defender sus propios derechos, los Estados, organismos internacionales, integrantes de la sociedad civil, y otros actores en la defensa de los derechos humanos son quienes deben asegurar que sus derechos humanos sean respetados.”, especifica la Comisión Interamericana de los Derechos Humanos (CIDH), en el documento ‘Recomendaciones para el pleno respeto a los PIACI’, emitido en 2013.

Cuando la desaparición de otras cosmovisiones, culturas y lenguas no nos duele, suele decirse con ligereza que ya es hora de que estos pueblos aislados se integren. Sin embargo, como explica la misma CIDH: “El contacto con extraños y personas no indígenas supone ante todo una afrenta a su cosmovisión, a su manera de entender e interpretar el mundo que los rodea. Cuando se da el contacto, se derrumba de modo irreversible todo un sistema de creencias, tradiciones y supuestos que daban por sentados, y en los que han basado su modo de vida y su cultura por varios cientos de años. Si el contacto se da en un contexto violento, como es frecuente, su mundo entero deja de tener sentido. Como se explica más adelante, (…) esto ocasiona que dichas creencias y tradiciones se pierdan al ya no ser transmitidos a las generaciones más jóvenes, lo que puede implicar la desaparición de toda una cultura humana”.

¿El falso dilema?

Quienes apuestan por continuar con la explotación del Bloque 43, exponen que no se puede poner al país en el “falso dilema” de petróleo o naturaleza, y destacan en cambio las abultadas cifras que se perderán. “Son 1200 millones de dólares al año para el presupuesto nacional”, sostuvo un informe del canal nacional Ecuavisa, previo a un debate por la consulta sobre el Yasuní. Pero esa cifra es una verdad en disputa. Por caso, el economista y excandidato presidencial, Alberto Acosta, Alberto Acosta, afirma que en realidad son 440 millones de dólares anuales, que representan sólo el 1% del Presupuesto General del Estado. No obstante, hay que tomar en cuenta que cuando nos referimos al crudo, los valores son siempre especulativos, porque dependerán del volátil mercado internacional.

Además, el ‘oro negro’ convertido en boya de salvación de la economía nacional, nunca ha resuelto todos los problemas económicos del país, ni siquiera los que su propia extracción suele ocasionar: a mediados de julio de 2023, los sindicatos de choferes de las provincias amazónicas, de donde se extrae el petróleo, paralizaron sus servicios en reclamo por el pésimo estado de las carreteras que conectan a las ciudades Orientales entre ellas y con la Sierra. Actualmente, hay rutas que prefieren no transitar, dadas sus lamentables condiciones.

A quienes creen que todo el país morirá de hambre si se deja de explotar el Yasuní ITT, es importante recordarles que el petróleo de esa zona representa el 0.1% del presupuesto total del Estado. Y, que como se ha mostrado, durante las últimas cinco décadas el país ha perdido más en exenciones tributarias a los grandes grupos económicos, reparaciones de infraestructura dañada u obsoleta y remediaciones ambientales, que lo que podría echarse en falta si se deja de explotar esos recursos.

Mientras tanto, incluso en la derecha más recalcitrante, hay sectores conscientes de que las reservas petroleras van en declive y es preciso buscar alternativas a los combustibles fósiles. Pero su respuesta, cortoplacista, es tipificada por Guillermo Lasso, el actual Presidente del país, que aseveró el 24 de mayo de 2022, que “ahora que la tendencia mundial es el abandono de los combustibles fósiles llegó la hora de extraer hasta la última gota de provecho de nuestro petróleo”.

Resulta lícito preguntarse si, ante la cada vez más próxima obsolescencia del mercado petrolero, ¿lo más lógico sería no insistir en el mismo negocio, sino buscar un cambio de matriz productiva, y pronto?

En el panel virtual “Explorando nuevas oportunidades para el desarrollo”, organizado por la Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Adrián Martínez, de la organización Ruta del Clima en Costa Rica, – país que hace algunos años le apostó al ecoturismo y turismo – explicó algo que puede resultar obvio: “La situación en América Latina es crítica, nos vemos expuestos a un capitalismo que no responde a nuestras necesidades, precisamos de un proceso de transición que sea justo y planificado. Es imperativo que la política de Estado refleje esas necesidades, sobre todo cuando el modelo económico actual no sirve”.

Una victoria del NO tendría consecuencias nefastas

Al final, en un contexto en el que los políticos no planteen una opción clara y consensuada de salida al modelo primario exportador de petróleo, la consulta popular sobre el bloque 43 del Parque Yasuní, ofrece a la población la oportunidad de decir a las autoridades que ya no quiere ‘el camino de siempre’. Lo que hace falta, a pesar de las dificultades implicadas – y del hecho de que una victoria del SI claramente no ‘salvará al Yasuní’ como afirman los más optimistas – es movernos rápidamente hacia un futuro pospetrolero, con justicia social y justicia ecológica. Nada más queda. Una victoria para el NO tendrá consecuencias verdaderamente nefastas, abriendo la puerta a más exploración y extracción en las áreas más sensibles de la Amazonía ecuatoriana.

Fotos: Land is Life

El cargo CONSULTA PARQUE NACIONAL YASUNÍ: Entre el camino de siempre y la necesidad urgente de una política pospetrolera apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Latin America is a violent environment for Indigenous leaders who are defending their territories from extractivist industries. The spiral of violence that Indigenous peoples are facing has again claimed a new victim, this time in Ecuador over the past weekend.

Alba Bermeo Puin, a 24 year-old Indigenous defender and anti-mining activist, was murdered on the night of October 21st by people associated with illegal mining in the communities of Río Blanco, Cochapamba and Yumate. She was five months pregnant.

According to human rights organizations and local Indigenous associations, the murder is affiliated with an unprecedented escalation of threats and violent attacks against community leaders opposing mining activities in their territories. Throughout the past two weeks, at least three armed attacks by illegal miners have taken place in these communities. The authorities did not react to the complaints of the local people.

In 2018, the community of Río Blanco won a court case against the Chinese-Ecuadorian mining company, Ecuagoldmining, due to the violation of their rights to free, prior and informed consent. This court victory halted the mining activities of the company. However, since the court ruling, the State of Ecuador has failed in fulfilling its responsibility to protect the rights of people in this region. The failure to maintain public order and security has led to a profound expansion of illegal mining activities in the area. The situation constitutes a dual violation of rights; not only has the right to free, prior and informed consent been violated, but also the right to life and the right to territory is being systematically violated due to the inaction of the State towards criminal groups that illegally extract mineral resources in these territories.

Land is Life firmly stands in solidarity with the Ecuadorian communities facing this tragedy. We condemn the violence and the State’s failure to protect the right to life of its citizens, specifically Indigenous defenders. Land is Life demands that the State of Ecuador take urgent action to stop illegal mining, and to provide remedy to the family of Alba.

El cargo Land is Life Condemns the Murder of Alba Bermeo Puin, Indigenous Defender and Anti-Mining Activist in Ecuador apareció primero en Land Is Life.

This is the latest in a series of violent acts against the Indigenous peoples in Ecuador, which are now in their tenth day of protests, during the current deterioration of living conditions and the impoverishment of the local and peasant communities of the country.

According to the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, (CONAIE), there are already more than a hundred injured and more than 79 detainees during the protests. The actions of the State security forces have ignored basic human rights, standard state observation procedures, constitutional guarantees and international agreements.

We call on the Ecuadorian State to cease the repression against the demonstrators and to fully observe their human rights, guarantee collective rights and address the legitimate demands of the population. We express our solidarity with all the victims of this conflict.

El cargo Land is Life continues to condemn the State violence in Ecuador apareció primero en Land Is Life.