By: Binota Dhamai, Member EMRIP

Consent has long been a foundational practice within Indigenous communities, grounded in their inherent relationships to their lands and territories and governed by their own systems of law and decision-making. Long before the imposition of colonial borders and legal frameworks, Indigenous Peoples maintained sovereignty over their lands, upheld their own laws, and protected their territories. These governance systems are not relics of the past—they are dynamic, evolving, and vital structures that must be respected as legitimate expressions of Indigenous law, diplomacy, and self-governance.

The concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), as recognized under international human rights law, reflects these inherent rights. FPIC is a living expression of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination, self-government, and control over their lands, territories, resources, and ways of life. These rights are affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), ILO Convention No. 169, and other human rights instruments. However, in practice, States and corporations often misinterpret, minimize, or ignore FPIC. Too frequently, it is reduced to a mere consultation process, rather than acknowledged as a binding right to grant or withhold consent. In response, Indigenous-led FPIC protocols have emerged as mechanisms through which Indigenous communities assert authority over their own consent processes, rooted in their cultural, legal, and political traditions.

FPIC is grounded in the principle that Indigenous Peoples have the right to decide what happens on their lands and with their resources. According to the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP, 2018), the term “free” implies the absence of coercion or manipulation; “prior” requires that consent is obtained before project implementation; and “informed” demands that all relevant information be provided in a culturally appropriate and accessible format. Most importantly, “consent” means Indigenous Peoples hold the final authority to approve or reject any project. Indigenous-led FPIC protocols reinforce such principles by ensuring that these processes are directed by Indigenous communities themselves.

These protocols are community-developed frameworks that articulate how Indigenous Peoples engage with external actors on matters affecting their rights, lands, and governance. They are rooted in Indigenous laws, decision-making practices, and customary governance. These protocols define who holds the authority to give or withhold consent—whether traditional councils, community assemblies, or hereditary leaders—and outline the procedures for community-wide participation. They may also establish terms for negotiation, benefit-sharing, and long-term agreements in line with future generations’ interests. Above all, they require external actors to recognize and respect Indigenous governance and legal orders.

In conclusion, FPIC is not a privilege—it is a right. It must be respected not only in principle but also in practice. Development, conservation, and other interventions cannot proceed on Indigenous lands without their explicit consent. Indigenous-led FPIC protocols are not mere tools for consultation; they are powerful mechanisms for asserting Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, and self-governance. Through them, Indigenous Peoples define their own futures, protect their territories, and uphold their legal and cultural systems on their own terms.

El cargo Anchoring the power of consent in Indigenous FPIC protocols apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Land is Life stands in solidarity with the Indigenous Adi People of Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India, in their ongoing struggle to assert their rights, defend their ancestral land and protect the Siang River from the proposed 11000, MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project — set to become the largest dam in India.     

Land is Life expresses deep concern over the ongoing efforts by the Government of India and the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) to carry out a Pre-Feasibility Survey (PFR) for the project, despite a long-standing opposition of the affected Adi Indigenous People and failing to obtain their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The proposed Siang Dam will affect at least 27 villages in Arunachal and other villages in the downstream areas, displacing them from their ancestral land and undermining their traditional way of life, culture and food systems.

Over the past few week, the Adi people launched protests against the forceful pre-feasibility study for the project and the deployment of security forces to facilitate the PFR surveys, viewing it as a form of militarization and intimidation. Further, the government’s filing of legal charges against Ebo Milli, a prominent anti-dam activist, and other anti-dam protesters is undemocratic.

Land is Life supports the Adi People’s call for meaningful dialogue and for the Government of India to uphold the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), as  enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007. The ecological and human risks of constructing such a massive dam in this fragile region —marked by rich biodiversity and high seismicity activity in the Eastern Himalayas—are immense. The catastrophic breach of the 1200 MW Teesta III dam in Sikkim on 4 October 2023 due to climate change induced glacial lake outburst flood, as well as the damage to multiple dams during the 2011 earthquake in the region, serves as a reminder of the dangers associated with meg-dam projects in Northeast India.

Land is Life urge upon the Government of India to concede the demands of affected Adi People to stop the PFR surveys and ensure their right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent is upheld. We strongly support the communities’ call to end the militarization of their territories and to stop the use of threats, intimidation, and bribery that create division among Indigenous Peoples.

We further urge the Government of India to drop the legal charges against Ebo Milli and other members of the communities protesting the dam, and ensure the safety and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ leaders and human rights defenders advocating for just development and Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

Instead of pursuing destructive mega-dam projects, the Government should prioritize the real social and development needs of Indigenous Peoples of Arunachal Pradesh — such as access to quality healthcare, education, and livelihood opportunities — as demanded by the communities themselves. Any future energy solutions must be developed in genuine consultation with Indigenous Peoples, ensuring their full participation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent.   

El cargo Land is Life Statement of Solidarity with the Adi People in their Campaign to Protect the Siang River and Ancestral Lands from Mega Dam Construction in Arunachal Radesh, Northeast India 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.

Land is Life calls on the Government of India to reconsider the pursuit of the 11,000 MW Siang Hydroelectric Project and other large-scale dams in Arunachal Pradesh and across North East India. It is deeply concerning that the Government of India is pushing forward with the construction of the Siang Dam on the Siang River without securing the free, prior, and informed consent of the Adi and other affected Indigenous Peoples in Arunachal Pradesh. The Adi tribe has called for the recognition of their rights, urging consideration of the potential impacts of the dam on their land, livelihoods, culture, and identity, particularly regarding involuntary displacement, land grabbing, the influx of non-Indigenous populations, and militarization. They have further called for a halt to the dam’s construction on their ancestral lands and territories.

The Government of Arunachal Pradesh’s notification on December 6, 2024, to deploy Central Armed Police Forces in Siang District to facilitate the Pre-Feasibility Study of the Siang Dam has alarmed the Adi people. They view this notification as a direct attack on democratic decision-making processes in development and as an undemocratic resort to force. The Adi people are also deeply concerned about the potential for repressive actions and other human rights violations due to the militarization of their territory.

The proposed 11,000 MW Siang Dam would have severe social, environmental, and cultural consequences for the Adi Indigenous Peoples and their land. In addition to the local impacts, the dam would cause significant downstream effects, such as widespread flooding in Assam. The disaster risk posed by the dam is further heightened by the region’s high seismic activity and the effects of climate change, including glacier melting and deforestation in the Himalayan region.

Land is Life urges the Government of India to halt the 11,000 MW Siang Hydroelectric Project and to cease the militarization of Indigenous territories for dam construction. The demands of the Adi Indigenous Peoples must be fully respected, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007.

El cargo Stop the 11,000 MW Siang Dam: Honor Indigenous Rights In Arunachal Pradesh, India apareció primero en Land Is Life.

‘Voluntary trust’ legislation discussed in Senate.

While the Ayoreo Indigenous People have title to half their traditional territory, draft legislation introduced by a group of government senators would establish a Fideicomiso Voluntario or  ‘voluntary trust’ for the rest of their traditional territory.

The Ayoreo-Totobiegosode were never consulted about the Trust, as is their right, and have denounced it as a threat to the existence of isolated communities, stating that it could lead to the privatization of land where they are located.

In February 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued precautionary measures that required the government of Paraguay to put an end to the deforestation of the ancestral territory of the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode, located in the country’s Gran Chaco area. The measures also demanded that Indigenous Peoples in Isolation and Initial Contact be protected from unwanted contacts.

However, the IACHR measures did not have the hoped for effects; the Gran Chaco forests where the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode live, continue to suffer major levels of deforestation that show little signs of coming to an end.

And at present Paraguay is the South American country with the second highest level of deforestation in the last two decades, surpassed only by Brazil, and its Chaco dry forest is disappearing faster than any other on the planet.

As a result, in 2022 Indigenous organizations demanded action, warning that Ayoreo Totobiegosode communities, the only communities still in voluntary isolation outside the Amazon, were at serious risk of disappearing.

The Indigenous organizations also stated that “the absolute and deliberate absence of action by the Paraguayan State” to protect and return to this community the collective ownership of their territory, which they consider “theirs by right and on which they depend to survive.”

For the Ayoreo, not only has the Paraguayan state shown a total lack of interest in returning their remaining lands, the Senate is now considering a measure that could make that even more unlikely.

Land is Life urges the Paraguayan Senate not to proceed with the dangerous and oddly named ‘Fideicomiso Voluntario’; to act to restore traditional territories to which the Ayoreo People have a right; and to protect the remaining Ayoreo Totobiegosode living in Isolation and Initial Contact from further encroachments and deforestation, as required by the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. Not to do so would imply complicity in a genocide.

Background

The Ayoreo first came into contact with outsiders in the 1940s and 1950s, when Mennonites settlers established colonies on their land, leading to clashes and deaths on both sides. Arriving in the late 1970’s, American missionaries also showed little concern for the lives of the Ayoreo; the US based New Tribes Mission helped organize ‘manhunts’ whose purpose was to forcibly evict numerous Ayoreo Totobiegosode from the forest. Constant land invasions forced other Ayoreo groups to leave the forest in 1998 and 2004.

In recent years, agribusiness has replaced religion as the major threat to the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode, although the Mormons are a major force in Paraguayan agribusiness. A large part of the Ayoreo land, which is also home to groups living in Isolation and Initial Contact, is ‘owned’ by five companies responsible for much of the deforestation affecting the Indigenous People’s ability to survive. If their plans come to pass, most of the land will be stripped for cattle raising.

Paraguay’s 1992 constitution guarantees the right of indigenous communities to hold land communally, but that right is mainly words on paper. And in 2005 a twelve year court case to preserve Ayoreo traditional land came to an end when the country’s Congress voted against the expropriation of 114,000 hectares from Brazilian and Argentine landowners.

Paraguay, a country of a little more than 400 km2, has been the second most deforested country in South America in the last two decades, only surpassed  by Brazil, a country many times its size*. As a result, Chaco’s dry forest has been disappearing at a faster rate than any other forest on the planet. (Global Forest Watch, 2021)

In 1993 the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode submitted a formal land claim to their forest, and in 2013 they requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to intervene. Two years later, the Commission issued urgent protection measures for the Ayoreo territory while its land claim was being considered. As a consequence, the Paraguayan and the Indigenous People entered formal negotiations in 2016, with the objective of transferring titles to their lands. The Commission acted as mediator.

However, the Ayoreo pulled out of the discussions in 2021, stating they were little more than a delaying tactic that would permit the deforestation to continue; they subsequently requested the Commission to rule on their land rights case.

Photo: Andrés Unterladstaette  IWGIA. The forest and agrobusiness. Soybean and corn planting increase along deforestation, to the detriment of biodiversity in the Chaco region.

Further Information:

https://www.iwgia.org/en/news/4435-the-ayoreo-the-last-isolated-people-outside-the-amazon.htm l
https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-01-13/between-the-forest-and-death-in-paraguay.html
https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/ayoreo

Since its founding in 1992, Land is Life has played an important role in the struggles of Indigenous peoples around the world, working in partnership with them to advance their rights locally, nationally and internationally.

Please donate (see below) and help us continue supporting Indigenous Peoples such as the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode, and many others.

El cargo INDIGENOUS TERRITORY AND ISOLATED COMMUNITIES UNDER THREAT IN PARAGUAY 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.