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.

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.

How did it start?

The term “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” first emerged in international policy during the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. This terminology was included in the Convention on Biological Diversity, Agenda 21, and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

By the mid-2000s, this phrase became common in conservation spaces, including usage by the UN Programme of Work on Protected Areas.

During early discussions about drafting a UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations helped states understand why the term “Peoples” was more appropriate than “populations,” “tribals,” or “peasants.”

After the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted in 2007, an international consensus formed around the distinct nature of Indigenous Peoples. States began aligning their terminology with the Declaration’s recognition of Indigenous Peoples. This shift was reflected in changes to UN procedures, such as renaming the “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people” to the “Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Why Indigenous Peoples should not be conflated with the term “local communities”?

1. Indigenous Peoples have a unique status as distinct people in international law. They are right-holders of distinctive rights – individual and collective – recognized in the UN Declaration of the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
2. There are international instruments that recognize rights to specific social groups, such as peasants, afro-descendants, and minorities, but there is not one yet that recognizes rights to and defines the scope of local communities.
3. While conflating Indigenous Peoples with local communities or other social groups, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, status, rights and contributions are diminished.
4. When Indigenous Peoples are grouped into a single category with others, there is a risk that anyone could occupy their seat and speak on their behalf in decision-making processes at all levels.
5. The use of the acronym “IPLC” in formal and informal venues, conferences, meetings, as well as studies and publications, among others, is reductionist and disregards the historical struggle of Indigenous Peoples for their own recognition, making other social groups’ own demands invisible.
6. The conflation of the terms prevents accountability and transparency in the use of resources and financing directed to climate change and biodiversity. 
7. Some States do not recognize the existence of Indigenous Peoples. Instead, States refer to Indigenous Peoples as local communities or other social groups. This undermines the recognition of their individual and collective rights.
8. The conflation of terms creates confusion and reduces the accuracy of data on the unique contributions Indigenous Peoples in preserving biodiversity. Recently, some UN Entities, States and foundations mistakenly have attributed these contributions to local communities.
9. The conflation of terms is affecting the formulation, implementation, and monitoring of public policies at the national level due to a lack of specificity and differentiation.
10. The conflation of terms has increased confusion and normalization of assimilationist narratives and regressive practices that are detrimental to the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

What has been done?

The United Nations Mechanisms related to Indigenous Peoples: the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues -UNPFII-, Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples -EMRIP- and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples -UNSR- have issued recommendations according to their mandates requesting all UN entities to refrain from conflating or equating Indigenous Peoples with “local communities”.  

The three UN Mechanisms issued a joint statement made in Geneva in July 2023, urging “to cease the use of the term “local communities” alongside “Indigenous Peoples,” so that the term “Indigenous Peoples and local communities” is no longer used.”

In continuing the efforts, the three UN Mechanisms met in Rome on February 26-28, 2024 with United Nations entities and Indigenous Peoples’ representatives, providing recommendations to “avoid perpetuating violations of human rights and the challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples due to grouping and conflating them with the term “local communities” or other categories.”

El cargo 10 Reasons why indigenous peoples should not be conflated with the term local communities apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Sin embargo, los requerimientos de la CIDH no parecen haber surtido mucho efecto. Los bosques donde viven estos Pueblos Indígenas han sido sometidos a una deforestación extrema que da pocas señales de llegar a su fin. En consecuencia, las comunidades Ayoreo Totobiegosode en Aislamiento Voluntario y Contacto Inicial se encuentran en grave riesgo de desaparición.

Los Ayoreo sí cuentan con título de la mitad de su territorio tradicional, pero un proyecto de ley presentado por un grupo de senadores oficialistas establecería un “fideicomiso voluntario” para el resto de sus tierras. Sin embargo, los Ayoreo-totobiegosode nunca fueron consultados sobre la legislación, como es su derecho, y han denunciado que representa una amenaza a la existencia de comunidades aisladas, ya que en la práctica el ‘fideicomiso voluntario’ podría llevar a la privatización de las tierras donde estas se ubican.

Para los Ayoreo no sólo había una total falta de acción por parte del Estado paraguayo para devolverles las tierras restantes, sino que ahora está considerando una medida que podría privatizar esas tierras y ponerlos en mayor riesgo de desaparición.
La legislación se debatirá el lunes 4 de marzo cuando el Senado reanude sus sesiones.

El cargo TIERRAS AYOREO-TOTOBIEGOSODES Y COMUNIDADES AISLADAS AMENAZADAS POR PROPUESTA DE LEY EN PARAGUAY apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Puede que Bangladesh sea una estrella en ascenso, pero la voz de sus pueblos indígenas ha caído en oídos sordos.

Bangladesh es una estrella en ascenso en el escenario internacional. Las recientes visitas del presidente francés, Emmanuel Macrón y Sergei Lavrov, el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores ruso, son testimonio de la creciente importancia del país.

India, que rodea a Bangladesh, salvo una pequeña zona al sur donde el país limita con Myanmar, también mantiene un gran interés en el país desde que luchó a principios de los años 1970 por su independencia de Pakistán. Para completar el panorama, el presidente chino Xi Jinping, también pasó por Bangladesh, sin duda interesado en la suerte de las importantes inversiones hechas por China como parte de su ahora aparentemente estancada iniciativa de la Franja y Ruta; China es el principal prestamista del país, lo que sin duda hace que India esté pendiente de sus intenciones. Para Bangladesh y su gobernante Liga Awami, por otro lado, el sol brilla como nunca.

Sin entrar en detalle, parece justo decir que todo va bien para una nación que alguna vez fue considerada un “caso perdido”, y ahora es conocido como un milagro económico. Internamente, por otra parte, quedan importantes cuestiones por resolver. Uno es el destino de los Chittagong Hill Tracts, CHT, una zona en el centro del país tradicionalmente poblada por minorías indígenas. Muchos de estos pueblos, conocidos colectivamente como Jummas, todavía administran sus territorios de forma colectiva, pero en la actualidad sus tradiciones y culturas se encuentran amenazadas por el extractivismo y una industria de turismo en la que el ejército del país mantiene un fuerte interés.

En el pasado la Liga Awami estuvo preocupada por el CHT y el destino de los pueblos indígenas, firmando el Acuerdo Chittagong Hill Tracts después de 20 años de conflicto armado. El documento habría dado a los Pueblos Indígenas una gran medida de control sobre sus territorios y sistemas de gobierno, y fue ampliamente celebrado también por haber puesto fin a los combates. Eran tiempos optimistas en el CHT. Sin embargo, unos veintisiete años después, el acuerdo no se ha implementado. En algún momento, la Liga Awami cambió de opinión.

No está claro a qué se debe el cambio de opinión, pero cualesquiera que hayan sido los motivos, el destino de la CHT y sus Pueblos Indígenas sigue siendo frágil. Lo que está claro es que a medida que disminuye la posibilidad de que se implemente el Acuerdo, su inseguridad aumenta. Para ilustrar el problema, en un área que en el pasado fue casi enteramente poblada por pueblos indígenas, los bengalíes, que constituyen el 98% de la etnia principal del país, ahora forman aproximadamente la mitad de los habitantes.

Y, efectivamente, los militares del país han sido acusados durante mucho tiempo de diseñar cambios demográficos. Y durante las décadas de 1970 y 1980 hizo precisamente eso: instituyeron medidas que cambiarían la composición demográfica del CHT. Según el Grupo de Trabajo Internacional para Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA), más de 400.000 bengalíes sin tierras fueron asentados en la zona, mientras que miles de indígenas se vieron obligados a abandonar sus hogares. Quizás fueron los afortunados; miles más fueron asesinados por los propios militares.

Los abusos contra los derechos humanos continuaron hasta finales de los años ochenta y principios de los noventa y, como resultado, 70.000 jummas, aproximadamente el 10% de la población jumma total, se vieron obligados a huir y buscar refugio en el estado indio de Tripura.

La regulación de del país, instituida durante el período colonial británico, es ahora la única legislación que brinda protección a los pueblos indígenas de la zona. Pero ese Reglamento también está bajo ataque: impugnada ante los tribunales, según algunas fuentes a instancias de las fuerzas armadas. Y si logran invalidar la legislación, el camino quedará despejado para que personas ajenas compren legalmente tierras en Hill Tracts, las formas tradicionales de gestión de la tierra inevitablemente desaparecerán, y la batalla estará a punto de terminar.

¿A quién le interesa los Chittagong Hill Tracts?

A pocos parece. Puede que Bangladesh haya logrado enormes avances económicos desde su fundación en 1972, y ahora sea cortejado por las grandes potencias, pero el destino de los Pueblos Indígenas del país y de los propios Hill Tracts, no está en la lista de prioridades de nadie.

Esto queda claro en el caso de la Liga Awami y la Primera Ministra Sheik Hassina, que en enero regresó al poder por cuarto período consecutivo de cinco años. La victoria se anticipó, en parte porque el Partido Nacional de Bangladesh (BNP) boicoteó la votación, y en parte porque, incluso si no lo hubiera hecho, la victoria de la Liga Awami, sospechosa durante mucho tiempo de manipulación electoral, simplemente era “esperada”. De ahí el boicot y el encarcelamiento de miles de miembros del partido de oposición. El Gobierno, que se encargó de supervisar la votación, llegó incluso a condenar al Premio Nobel de la Paz Muhammad Yunus por violar leyes laborales. Yunus es el fundador del Banco Grameen, y uno de los principales defensores del microcrédito, un factor que para muchos fue clave en estimular la recuperación económica de Bangladesh.

Como gobierno de facto del país, es probable que los militares tampoco cambien su postura. Un breve análisis sugiere que sus intereses no son atendidos por un área con un potencial turístico importante, pero que no está cien por ciento bajo su control. Binota Doy Dhamai, ex Presidente-Relator del Mecanismo de Expertos de la ONU sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, bromea diciendo que lo que existe hoy en el CHT es un “Complejo Turístico Militar”. Y, vale añadir, la zona también sirve como campo de entrenamiento para el ejército. La experiencia adquirida allí puede servir cuando los soldados bangladesíes participen en las fuerzas de mantenimiento de la paz de la ONU; el país es el segundo mayor contribuyente de personal militar a estas iniciativas. Como beneficio adicional, las misiones aportan dinero, tanto para el país como para los propios soldados.

Entonces, aparte de los pueblos indígenas y aquellos con intereses en sus tierras, en Bangladesh nadie está muy interesado en el destino de la zona y, si lo están, generalmente guardan silencio por temor a represalias. En efecto, muchos críticos ya se han ido a la India y otros países más receptivos. Externamente, puede haber preocupación, principalmente en la oficina del Relator Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, y entre las ONG internacionales, pero éstas tienen poco poder en Bangladesh a pesar de la importante contribución que hicieron a la recuperación del país. Por su parte, es poco probable que las misiones diplomáticas anteriormente mencionadas sean tan indiscretas como para mencionar lo que se considera un asunto menor en una pequeña zona de un país de interés. La geopolítica lo supera todo.

Las aparentemente olvidadas Chittagong Hill Tracts y sus pueblos indígenas se enfrentan a un futuro extremadamente sombrío.

Texto: Gerard Coffey. Traducción: Mayly Torres, Foto: intercontinentalcry.org

El cargo BANGLADESH Y SUS PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Bangladesh may be a rising star, but the voice of its Indigenous Peoples has fallen on deaf ears.

Bangladesh is a rising star on the international stage. Recent visits by French President Macron and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, give testimony to the country’s growing importance. Neighboring India also maintains a keen interest in its neighbor, having taken Bangladesh’s side in its fight for independence from Pakistan in the early 1970’. Chinese President Xi Jinping, also stopped by; no doubt concerned about the fate of the major investments made in Bangladesh as part of its now seemingly stalled Belt and Road Initiative. China is also the country’s major lender, doubtless making India uneasy. For Bangladesh and its ruling Awamy League, however, the sun is shining.

Without getting into too much detail, it seems fair to say things are going well for this Asian nation once judged a ‘basket case’, but now considered something of an economic miracle. Internally, however, there are major issues to be resolved. One is the fate of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, (CHT), an area in the center of the country traditionally populated by Indigenous minorities. Many of these Peoples, collectively known as Jummas, still manage their lands collectively, but now find these traditional systems threatened by extractive projects and a tourism industry in which the military has major interests.

At one point, the Awami League appeared concerned about the CHT and the fate of its peoples, signing the Chittagong Hills Accord after 20 years of armed conflict. The document would have given Indigenous Peoples a large amount of control over their territories and systems of government, and was also widely celebrated for putting an end to the fighting. These were optimistic times in the CHT. However, some twenty-seven years later, the accord has not been implemented; somewhere along the line, the Awami League changed its mind.

What led to the change of heart is not clear, but whatever the motives might have been, the fate of the CHT and its Indigenous Peoples remains fragile. What is clear, is that as the possibility the Accord will be implemented diminishes, their insecurity increases.To illustrate the problem, in an area once almost entirely populated by Indigenous Peoples, Bengalis, who form 98% of the country’s principal ethnicity now form almost half the inhabitants.

The military has long been accused of engineering population change. And during the 1970s and 1980s it did just that, instituting measures that would change the demographic makeup of the CHT. According to the International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), more than 400,000 landless Bengalis were settled in the area, while thousands of Indigenous People were forced to leave their homes. They were perhaps the lucky ones; thousands more were killed by the military itself. 

The human rights abuses continued into the late eighties and early nineties, and as a result, 70,000 Jummas, about 10% of the total Jumma population, were forced to flee and seek shelter in the Indian state of Tripura.

The country’s 1900 regulation, instituted in 1900 during the British colonial period, is now the only legislation that affords protection to the area’s Indigenous Peoples. But that Regulation is also under attack; it is now being challenged in the courts, according to some sources at the behest of the armed forces. If the legislation is invalidated, traditional forms of land management will inevitably disappear, the way will be clear for outsiders to legally buy land in the Hill Tracts, and the battle will be almost over.

Who is interested in the Chittagong Hill Tracts?

Few it seems. Bangladesh may have made huge economic strides since its founding in 1972, and is now courted by the great powers, but the fate of the country’s Indigenous Peoples, and the Hill Tracts themselves, is on no one’s list of priorities.

This is certainly true of Prime Minister Sheik Hassina, and her Awami League, recently returned to power for a fourth consecutive five year period. The victory was anticipated, in part because the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) boycotted the vote, and in part because even if it hadn’t, the victory of the Awami League, long suspected of electoral manipulation, was simply ‘expected’. Hence the boycott, and the jailing of thousands of opposition party members.The Government, which charged itself with the supervision of the vote, even went as far as to convict Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, of violating labor laws. Yunus is the founder of the Grameen Bank, and one of the major advocates of microcredit, a factor many credit with stimulating Bangladesh’s economic turnaround.

As the country’s de facto government, the military is also unlikely to change its stance. A brief analysis suggests their interests are not served by an area that has important tourism potential, but is not entirely under their control. Binota Doy Dhamai, former Chair-Rapporteur of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, quipped that what exists in the CHT today is a ‘Military Touristic Complex’. The area is also serves as a training ground for the army. Experience gained there can be helpful when Bangladeshi soldiers take part in UN Peacekeeping forces; the country is the second largest contributor of military personnel to these initiatives. As a bonus, the missions bring in money, for both the country and the soldiers themselves.

So apart from the Indigenous Peoples and those with an interest in their lands, in Bangladesh no one is much interested in the fate of the area, and if they are, they generally keep quiet about it for fear of reprisals. Many critics have already left for India and other more amenable countries. Externally, there may be concern, mainly at the office of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and amongst International NGOs, but these have little power in Bangladesh despite the major contribution they made to the country’s dramatic recovery. For their part, diplomatic missions mentioned above are unlikely to be so indiscreet as to mention what is deemed a small matter in a small area of a sought after country. Geopolitics trumps all.

The seemingly forgotten Chittagong Hill Tracts and its Indigenous Peoples, are facing an extremely bleak future.

Text: Gerard Coffey

Foto: intercontinentalcry.org

El cargo BANGLADESH AND ITS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES apareció primero en Land Is Life.

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

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

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

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

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

Fotos: Land is Life

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

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

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

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

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

Voir ci-dessous la lettre de la communauté Batwa

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

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

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

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

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