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.

Jorge Basilago*

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

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

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

Impulsos para la autodeterminación

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

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

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

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

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

Litigar y construir para avanzar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecuador: la letra y la acción popular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La necesidad urgente de saldar cuentas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 15 2024

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

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

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

Impulses for self-determination

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

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

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

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

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

Litigate and construct in order to move forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecuador: words and popular action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The urgent need to solve existing problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UWA, conservation, and violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Joint Conservation Proposal

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

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

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

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

The first of these is carbon trading, with its generally poor results and control over large territories in the name of Conservation: in some cases for 90 years or more. Control that is a major problem for the Indigenous People who live in these areas.

A prime example is the deals signed by the United Arab Emirates based company Blue Carbon, and a number of African countries. According to the UK newspaper The Guardian, the company has signed deals that cover a fifth of Zimbabwe, 10% of Liberia, 10% of Zambia and 8% of Tanzania, a total of approximately 24.5 million Ha., together with a deal with the government of Kenya that involves an as yet unspecified area, but said to be millions of hectares.

Blue Carbon, operated by Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, has been in operation for only a year, and has no experience in managing carbon offset deals. As far as can be determined, the company has had no negotiations with the Indigenous Peoples who will be impacted by these deals, nor plans or policies in place to ensure the protection of their rights. 

The agreement with Kenya highlights the issues and contradictions of carbon trading. On the one hand, William Ruto, the President of the country, has been creating for himself a profile as a energetic African climate defender, championing private sector investment in the continent, even being cited by Time magazine as one of Africa’s climate leaders. At the Africa Climate Conference in June of this year Ruto claimed the continent’s carbon sinks were an “unparalleled economic goldmine”.

On the other hand, Ruto’s government has been displacing hundreds of Ogiek people from the Mau Forest Complex in Eastern Kenya, where they have lived for centuries, evictions that according to the Ogiek’s lawyers, are likely a result of the deal with Blue Carbon. The case is symptomatic. Not only were the Ogiek never consulted about the conservation deal with the UAE company, a violation of their fundamental right, but are now considered by Ruto’s government as an ‘inconvenience’, and being displaced with violence.

The fact that the Ogiek have found some support in the Judicial arm of the Kenyan State, is positive – a stay order has been issued by the Naroc Law Court  – but there is little guarantee the Kenyan government will respect the decision, and if it does, will not later find a way to interpret the ruling according to its own financial interests.

Respect for judicial rulings is one of the major problems facing Indigenous Peoples in their dealings with national governments and private sector partners. The problem is hardly restricted to Africa and more needs to be done on an international level to make sure that the rights of Indigenous Peoples are protected, and that legal judgements in their favor are respected.

Money is obviously key, and one major motive for the Kenyan government’s interest in private sector funding, is said to be the lack of follow through on past climate financing offered by richer countries. At the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit the figure of 100 billion USD a year by 2020, was pledged to poorer nations to help them cut emissions and adapt to climate change. The figure was reached, but only in 2022. And there is a caveat: in order to meet the goal, many already existing grants and loans have simply been reclassified. As one diplomat pointed out, direct financial aid has not reached 100 billion per year.

The problems with carbon offsetting have been more than well documented and the need for regulation is clear. After years of disagreement over possible rules, a UN climate change committee has now been charged with developing standards to be discussed at COP28. However, given the lack of meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples in the process, and the speed with which the private sector is signing long term carbon trading agreements, the likelihood of meaningful standards being established, however small, will depend on international pressure.

LAND IS LIFE therefore calls for strict rules to be put in place at COP 28 to ensure:
1. That carbon offset projects actually do reduce emissions;
2. That governments ensure adherence to the standard of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of any Indigenous Peoples that would be affected by these projects;
3. That a rigorous evaluation process be put into place for projects such as those of Blue Carbon and similar, together with a robust feedback and grievance mechanism that has the capacity to genuinely influence and shape carbon trading projects, fairly address any complaints arising during the terms of project agreements, and, when necessary, shut down harmful projects.  

Photo 1: Ogiek house burned to ashes during evictions in November 2023. Land is Life

El cargo CARBON TRADING IS NOT WORKING: strict regulation of offset projects is essential for affected Indigenous Peoples apareció primero en Land Is Life.

Share Tweet Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fotos @Coiabamazonia

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

Last month, we shared the struggle of Ngorongoro, Tanzania, which covers the Indigenous Maasai People’s continued resistance to government-led displacement of their people from their ancestral homelands. As mentioned, this case is by far not one of its kind. On June 10th, the Maasai pastoralists of Loliondo, on the northern side of Ngorongoro, faced dreadful violence by military troops who opened fire in order to evict the Indigenous people from their territory.

The government of Tanzania has violently started evicting the Maasai pastoralists of Loliondo from their lands to make way for trophy hunting and elite tourism. The tensions have been ongoing for more than a decade, as the Otterlo Business Corporation (OBC) that organizes hunting safaris for the royal family of Dubai, continues to lobby the Tanzanian government to turn the grazing lands and villages of the Maasai into a protected game area.

On June 7th, without informing the public, a massive paramilitary group of police, park rangers and military forces arrived in Loliondo. The following day, a fleet of police vehicles entered the town of Wasso, to demarcate a 1,500 km2 area as a game reserve. In response, the Maasai gathered in several locations to protest the police invasion. The state’s military forces responded to the protests with live bullets.

31 people were injured in the shootings, and several others have been arrested or detained. Maasai leaders and NGO staff are being hunted for and remain in hiding. Hundreds of people have crossed the border to Kenya, seeking security and medical care for the injured.

These horrendous events are taking place despite the ruling of the East African Court of Justice from 2018, which prohibited the Tanzanian government from evicting the Maasai from their lands, seizing their livestock, or destroying their property, in four villages. The ongoing Indigenous rights abuses in several parts of Africa are systemic and stem from colonial power structures and the affiliated ideology of fortress conservation.

“This is our territory, our life. We will stay, and die on our lands. We are not going anywhere even if the government has to kill all of us. We are also Tanzanians but lack the human rights of fellow citizens.” – Maasai man from Loliondo (name withheld for security reasons)

The cruel violence is ongoing in the villages of Loliondo. Land is Life has responded to several requests from Kenya with our Indigenous-Led Security Fund, to support the fleeing Maasai with medical costs, food and drinking water, as well as in finding safe spaces to stay. Land is Life joins in the demands on the Government of Tanzania to halt the violent evictions immediately, and calls on the international community to urgently intervene.

“Samia Suluhu, President of Tanzania, as a mother and woman, how can you let this happen? Young children are running in the bush, terrified, as they can’t go home. Women are hiding in the face of this horror. Loliondo should not be protected for the use of a luxury tourism corporation but for the Maasai who are the custodians of these lands and have the right to decide on their use. We are asking you, Samia Suluhu, to urgently end this nightmare and to recognize and respect the territorial rights of the Maasai. We demand justice for our sisters and brothers in Loliondo!” – Maasai woman from Kenya (name withheld for security reasons)

Your donation will go directly to Land is Life’s active efforts to provide food and medical supplies to the Maasai.

El cargo Land is Life condemns the ongoing violent evictions of the Maasai people in Loliondo, Tanzania apareció primero en Land Is Life.

The Indigenous Maasai of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in northern Tanzania keep resisting the government’s efforts to displace them from their ancestral lands. Until now, the Maasai herders who practice traditional livestock grazing, have been coexisting with the wildlife of the conservation area, which also is a designated UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Government of Tanzania claims that the rising Maasai population and their livestock are threatening wildlife protection. At the same time, Ngorongoro has become one of the most intensively visited conservation areas in Africa where tourism rates have exploded from 20,000 yearly visits to 650,000 visits in the past 30 years. It thus seems that the displacement of the Maasai is not about nature conservation but about expanding tourism revenues.

This is nothing new – in 2009, for example, thousands of Maasai families were evicted from Loliondo to allow a United Arab Emirates -based luxury tourism and trophy hunting company OBC to fully operate in the area. In addition, it was in 1959 when Maasai pastoralists were forcibly resettled from the Serengeti plains to Ngorongoro due to the establishment of the national park. It is now some of the very same Maasai who are facing threats to be evicted from home for the second time.

“Evicting the Maasai of Ngorongoro means violating their native rights of territory ownership. The women and children are the most suffering. Both the people of this community and their livestock are in great danger of losing their livelihoods.”
– Maasai woman (name withheld for security reasons)

Land is Life stands with the Maasai pastoralists of Ngorongoro and joins their demands on the Government of Tanzania to halt the eviction plans immediately. We also request the UNESCO – that claims to integrate the protection of cultural and natural heritage and to preserve the balance between nature and people – to intervene. We would like to ask them, what is the role of a World Heritage Site without its living cultural heritage? Land is Life joins the calls for the establishment of a Maasai-led steering committee to find the right balance between the pastoralists’ livelihoods, tourism, and biodiversity in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area.

El cargo Land is Life Stands in Solidarity with the Maasai who are Threatened by Eviction from their Ancestral Lands in Ngorongoro, Tanzania apareció primero en Land Is Life.