Category: Chapter 8

State Security Forces Open Fire on Q’eqchi’ Community in El Estor

Chapter 8 / Other Central American indigenous land disputes

Guatemala Human Rights Commission (ghrcusa)

9th December 2022

In the early morning of December 6, hundreds of Guatemalan police and military forces attacked the Q’eqchi’ community of Chapín Abajo in El Estor, Izabal. The group arrived via boat, working alongside what witnesses have reported as local paramilitary groups, and entered the community by force. These State security forces were acting on behalf of the major land holder and African palm oil company, Naturaceites that filed an eviction notice, accusing the community of “usurpation of land.”

Video evidence reveals excessive force was used against the community. The forces opened fire, launched teargas, and beat community members. So far, two have been reported injured, including one minor who has been hospitalized from gunshot wounds and remains in critical condition. Dozens of community members, including children, were exposed to unsafe levels of tear gas. Five have been detained, including two minors. Local Q’eqchi’ Ancestral Councils have asked for an official observation mission from the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office (PDH) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to visit the area to verify the situation.

Both national and international groups came forward, denouncing the attack. The Forum of International Organisations in Guatemala (FONGI) condemned the excessive use of force and called upon the State of Guatemala to “comply with its human rights obligations.” In an alert published on December 7, GHRC expressed concerns for “the safety and well-being of indigenous communities in El Estor and throughout Guatemala, as cases of violent evictions by state security forces in collaboration with paramilitary groups have increased this year.”

An earlier update from the GHRC (dated 1st September 2022) shows that the government and security forces’ eviction tactics on behalf of national and international companies is actually a fully-fledged government strategy in favour of the elites of the country and to the harm of Guatemala’s own people. A 1st September [2022] update follows.

 

Police Attempt to Evict Communities in Purulhá for the Third Time  

In the early hours of the morning, hundreds of agents of the National Civil Police moved into the communities of Pancoc, Los Encinos and Mojón in the municipality of Purulhá, Baja Verapaz, in an attempt to evict the inhabitants of the communities. Unknown armed actors also entered the community, resulting in one injury by firearm. Community members speculated that the armed actors were hired by large landowners of the San Rafael and San Luis farms who have claimed ownership over Maya Q’eqchi’ and Poqomchi’ territories in the area and have filed several requests for evictions of the communities this year. The eviction was suspended once more, but police forces reportedly stayed in the area.

This incident marks the third eviction attempt by police in Purulhá this year that has resulted in violence. The community received precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2017 after threats made to them by large landowners in the area.

Mayans call for international action to halt violations of their rights

Chapter 8 / Other Central American indigenous land disputes

By Last Real Indians   –  reproduced from ENCA 85, newsletter of the Environmental Network for Central America, July 2022.

Original article from Popular Resistance, May 25, 2022

Key words: Guatemala, Indigenous Culture, Indigenous Rights, Mayan Peoples

The Mayan Council Chilam B’alam of the K’iches, the Mayan Council Komon Ajq’ijab’, the National Coordinator of the Territories of Life Network (Coordinadora Nacional Red Territories de Vida), the National Ajq’ijab’ Council “Oxlajuj Ajpop,” and the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), inform the national and international communities that on May 4th, 2022 they presented a communication requesting urgent action by the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure.

The urgent communication was submitted in response to the first reading of Bill No. 5923, “Rescue of the Pre-Hispanic Heritage”, developed by the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala. Its provisions will cause the dispossession, privatization, and economic exploitation of two thousand seven hundred and fifty-four (2,754) ceremonial centres, sacred sites, and other elements of Mayan spiritual, religious, and cultural heritage. Ceremonial areas in 22 Guatemalan departments will be impacted, including those surrounding Lake Atitlán in the department of Sololá which is sacred to the Maya Kaqchiles.

The submitting organisations are calling for urgent action by these UN human rights mandate holders to address the promotion of this Bill by the Guatemala Ministry of Culture and Sports, the Cultural Commission of the Congress, and the Congress itself, which in their view represents serious human rights violations and fails to comply with Guatemala’s obligations under various international and regional instruments affirming the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Specifically, if adopted, the Bill would violate Guatemala’s obligation to carry out effective consultations for the purpose of obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the Mayan Peoples, and would maintain the pattern of racism and discrimination carried out against the Indigenous Peoples of Guatemala.

These Indigenous organisations call upon these thematic Rapporteurs and the CERD to take action in support of the Mayan Peoples’ rights in accordance with their mandates and provide strong recommendations to address and remedy this urgent situation currently faced by the Mayan People. 

For further information related to this note, please contact juanleon@treatycouncil.org or visit www.iitc.org.

Whаt dо Мауа сuѕtоmаrу lаnd rіghtѕ mеаn tо thе Мауа?

Chapter 8 / Land disputes and encroachments into indigenous territories in Central America / Other Central American indigenous land disputes

We are grateful to Aaron Humes of Breaking Belize News, an online news service covering Belize, the Caribbean and Central America, for permission to reproduce his short article on the struggle for Mayan land rights in Belize’s southern district of Toledo. The original article can be found at:

https://www.breakingbelizenews.com/2022/02/12/what-does-maya-customary-land-rights-mean-to-the-maya/

Ву Ааrоn Нumеѕ, Breaking Belize News

12 Fеbruаrу, 2022

Key words: Toledo; Mayan land rights; FPIC and ILO 169; land use in Indigenous villages.

 

Рrеѕеntеrѕ at a recent meeting in Belize hаvе frаmеd thе оngоіng ѕtrugglе fоr Мауа сuѕtоmаrу lаnd rіghtѕ іn thе Тоlеdо Dіѕtrісt [of Belize] аѕ lеѕѕ оf аn оffеnѕіvе аnd mоrе оf а dеfеnѕіvе rеасtіоn tо уеаrѕ оf dерrеdаtіоn.

Ассоrdіng tо hіѕtоrіаn Fіlіbеrtо Реnаdоѕ, thе Мауа раrtісulаrlу іn thе Тоlеdо Dіѕtrісt hаvе а lоng аnd nаturаl rеlаtіоnѕhір wіth lаnd аnd hоw іt іѕ uѕеd. Fоr thеm іt іѕ а реrѕоnаl, ѕріrіtuаl соnnесtіоn trаnѕсеndіng mеrе Wеѕtеrn іdеаѕ оf ‘оwnеrѕhір’.

Аѕ ѕuсh, соmmunаl lаnd tіtlе іѕ lеѕѕ аbоut whо оwnѕ thе lаnd аnd mоrе аbоut whаt іѕ dоnе wіth іt.

Мауа lеаdеrѕ tеll uѕ thаt thеу hаvе adapted аnd wіll соntіnuе tо аdарt tо mоdеrn tіmеѕ wіth rеfеrеnсе tо thеіr hіѕtоrу аѕ а реорlе. Тhuѕ, соmmunаl lаnd tіtlе еnсоmраѕѕеѕ rесоgnіtіоn оf fаmіlу іnhеrіtаnсе, оutѕіdеr іntеrvеntіоn аnd оthеr соnсерtѕ.

Whаt thе Мауа рrіmаrіlу аѕk fоr, ѕаіd ѕроkеѕреrѕоn Сhrіѕtіnа Сос, іѕ tо wоrk tоgеthеr wіth gоvеrnmеnt аnd thіrd раrtіеѕ іn gооd fаіth. Undеr thе FРІС рrоtосоl[1], соmmunіtіеѕ wіll lіѕtеn tо іnfоrmаtіоn gіvеn tо thеm аbоut рrороѕеd рrојесtѕ, аnd dесіdе fоr thеmѕеlvеѕ whеthеr ѕuсh рrојесtѕ wіll bе аllоwеd, оr dіѕаllоwеd.

Тhеrе іѕ аlѕо а rоlе fоr thе Тоlеdо Аlсаldеѕ Аѕѕосіаtіоn (ТАА) іn ѕіtuаtіоnѕ whеrе асtіvіtіеѕ іn оnе vіllаgе mау іmрасt оthеrѕ.[2]

Сос dеѕсrіbеd “соnсеntrіс сіrсlеѕ” оf lаnd uѕе іn vіllаgеѕ ѕuсh аѕ Ѕаn Веnіtо Роіtе, rаdіаtіng оutwаrd frоm thе сеntеr оf thе vіllаgе tо еnсоmраѕѕ іndіvіduаl hоuѕеѕ, fаrmіng, fіѕhіng, аnd huntіng grоundѕ. Тhе futurе роlісу оf thе gоvеrnmеnt аnd оf vіllаgеѕ wіll rесоgnіsе thіѕ аnd аdарt tо асtіvіtу оn thе grоund.

 

[1]  The FPIC protocol mentioned here refers to the International Labour Organisation’s Convention Number 169 – generally referred to as ILO 169 – which states that developments on Indigenous lands should not be carried out without Free, Prior and Informed Consultation (FPIC) with all those persons and communities potentially affected by such development. See Box 8.1 of the book ‘The Violence of Development’ and the first entry in this chapter of the website – ‘ILO Convention No. 169 On Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’.

[2] Aaron Humes subsequently informed us that the TAA and the Maya Leaders Alliance held their press briefing about this subject following a meeting in Belize City. The meeting was essentially about a lack of proper consultation with the TAA and other relevant entities. Aaron also cautioned us that the grievances are nowhere close to being resolved at this time.

 

Lenca Indigenous Journalist Pablo Hernández Is Gunned Down

Chapter 9 / Chapter 8 / The Lenca people of Honduras / Troublesome Journalists

It would have been too much to expect that the election of a new president, Xiomara Castro, would signal a reduction in violence and killings in Honduras, although it remains a hope. Three weeks before the inauguration of the new president, Lenca Indigenous journalist Pablo Hernández was assassinated. We reproduce here the initial report of the crime by TeleSur.

Published 10 January 2022, TeleSur

Journalist Pablo Hernández, Honduras.  Photo: Twitter/@Orlinmahn

Keywords: Pablo Hernández; Honduras; Indigenous peoples; Bertha Oliva; Juan Carlos Cerros; AMCH; political assassination; COFADEH.

For years now, Honduras has become one of the most dangerous places for human rights defenders, environmental activists, journalists, and social leaders.

On Sunday, Honduran human rights defender Pablo Hernández was murdered by several bullet shots in the back in the Tierra Colorada community, in the Lempira department.

Bertha Oliva, the coordinator of the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH), denounced that armed men ambushed Hernández on a dirt road.

“This murder is one more attack on freedom of expression and the defence of human rights,” The Association of Community Media in Honduras (AMCH) said, recalling that Hernández was director of the Tenan community radio station that broadcasts from San Marcos de Caiquín.

“Hernández was the second Lenca leader killed in less than a year. In March 2020, Lenca activist Juan Carlos Cerros was shot to death in the town of Nueva Granada,” news agency AP recalled, adding that they “belonged to the same indigenous community as Berta Cáceres, a prize-winning environmental and Indigenous rights defender who was murdered in 2016.”

The AMCH denounced that Hernández was threatened and harassed on several occasions for defending the rights of Indigenous peoples, for which he filed a complaint with the authorities.

Besides having been a promoter of the Indigenous University, Hernández was mayor of the Auxiliaría de La Vara Alta, coordinator of ecclesial base communities, and president of the Cacique Lempira Biosphere Agro-Ecologists Network.

The assassination of the Indigenous journalist was also condemned by former President Manuel Zelaya, whose wife, Xiomara Castro, will be inaugurated as president of Honduras January 27.

Indigenous developments in Nicaragua: The OAS and Nicaragua – again

Chapter 8 / Indigenous issues and development

With the last set of additions made to The Violence of Development website (December 2021), we included a letter from the Nicaraguan government to the Organisation of American States (OAS) terminating that country’s membership of the Organisation and setting out the reasoning behind the government’s decision.

Under the Directorship of Luis Almagro, the OAS has consistently undermined and reported against those countries in Latin America and the Caribbean which follow a strongly or even slightly socially directed political and economic policy line. The OAS was largely responsible for spreading the lies about the Bolivian election which resulted in a right-wing coup which unseated the democratically elected Evo Morales. It has consistently disseminated untruths and half-truths about the Chavez and Maduro governments in Venezuela; and it has been instrumental in persuading the mainstream western media that the November election in Nicaragua was illegitimate.[1]

Before the Nicaraguan election and before Nicaragua’s withdrawal from the OAS, however, Nicaragua’s Ambassador to the OAS, Luis Alvarado, spoke at the OAS Special Session on the occasion of Indigenous Peoples’ Day. He recalled that Nicaragua is a multi-ethnic and multicultural nation.

“We celebrate the legacy of our Caciques Diriangén and Nicarao and so many other Miskito, Mayangna, Ulwa and Rama leaders, who never surrendered to colonial oppression and whose strength and wisdom inspired national independence, anti-imperialist struggle, the Sandinista Popular Revolution and the autonomy of the peoples of the Caribbean Coast and the construction of a genuine Nicaraguan democracy,” he said. He said that the government of Nicaragua has implemented “important programmes such as the Mother Earth Programme, which has allowed the demarcation and titling of 23 territories of the native and Afro-descendant peoples between 2007 and 2021, incorporating 314 communities that cover a territorial extension of more than 37,859 sq. km., with more than 205,315 inhabitants, 31 per cent of the national territory, more than any other country in our hemisphere. Technical and higher education has been strengthened, which is free through the National Technological Institute (INATEC), the community and intercultural universities, BICU and URACCAN and the Open Online University of Nicaragua (UALN) of the National Council of Universities. In the area of health, the ancestral knowledge and practices of Indigenous peoples have been integrated into the Family and Community Health Model (MOSAFC), which guarantees greater investment in health infrastructure, professional training and comprehensive organisation of the health sector, encouraging participation of all actors (midwives, healers, traditional doctors, brigadistas, nurses, doctors, wise men, etc.) in the intercultural management of health in Indigenous communities.” [Nicaraguan Delegation to the OAS, as reported in Informe Pastrán, 12 August 2021.]

[1]   See ‘Ten Reasons Almagro Has To Go’: https://popularresistance.org/ten-reasons-almagro-has-to-go/

Siege and threats against the life of Miriam Miranda, OFRANEH coordinator and Garífuna defender

Chapter 8 / The Garífuna of Honduras

WHRD Alert Honduras

20 September 2023

In September this year [2023], Central America watchers received an alert from the Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRD) about attacks and threats against the Garífuna human rights defender Miriam Miranda. Below the photo of Miriam, WHRD explains the situation and its background.

In the early morning of September 19, at least four unknown and heavily armed men entered the community of Vallecito, Colón, surrounding the house of Miriam Miranda, Garífuna defender and OFRANEH Coordinator.

Members of Miriam’s security team demanded the strangers to identify themselves, but they fled the scene. However, the security forces were able to determine that the men were carrying assault rifles and that they did not belong to the Garifuna community. They also heard the men say that next time they would come to “finish the deal”.

It should be noted that this incident occurred during the visit to this territory by the Technical Committee of the Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders members and adds to the attacks, criminalization, persecution, harassment and murders that the Garifuna community has faced for decades.

In August 2022, after demonstrating for the defence and recovery of their territories and demanding the alive appearance of the four young Garifunas forcibly disappeared more than three years ago, Miriam Miranda was prosecuted for the crimes of illegal deprivation of liberty and disturbing the public order. In February of that same year, the Garífuna defender received text messages with threats against her life and that of her family. “You have been warned” they said, from an unknown telephone number.

Aggressions and violent incidents against the Garífuna community, as well as persecution and threats against the lives of their leaders for defending their territory, common goods and ancestral cultures, are on the rise. Last May, the Garifuna people commemorated 226 years of dispossession, resistance and struggle: however, assassinations against OFRANEH leaders continue, as well as attacks against Garifuna spirituality and cosmovision, such as the one that occurred in April 2023 with the burning of the Ancestral Health House of OFRANEH, located in the community of San Juan.

This has taken place in spite of the fact that the Garifuna communities have demanded at national and international levels the guarantee of their rights. Thanks to their struggle and in recognition of the multiple human rights violations against them, they have received sentences and provisional measures from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), the highest court in the Americas. The Court has repeatedly ordered the State of Honduras to adopt a series of measures to stop the violence against the communities and to protect their ancestral rights over their territory. The State, far from complying with its obligations, has contributed to the increase of violence in the communities.

The National Network of Women Human Rights Defenders in Honduras and IM-Defensoras denounce and condemn this new aggression against Miriam Miranda and OFRANEH.

We are concerned about the seriousness of this attack that puts at risk the physical and emotional integrity of Miriam Miranda, the Garifuna communities and members of OFRANEH. We urgently call on the National Protection Mechanism to guarantee the necessary measures to safeguard the physical and emotional integrity of Miriam and to allow her to continue her legitimate work as a defender of the Garífuna people.

In addition, we hold the State responsible for any act of violence that may occur against her, and we demand that the Honduran government take immediate, responsible and effective action in response to these events, as well as respect for the identity and autonomy of the Garífuna people.

Finally, we call on national and international organizations to be vigilant in the light of this situation of risk faced by those who defend the territories and ancestral rights of the Garífuna people and to speak out against these acts.

Indigenous groups rebut the statements of Carlos Alvarado at COP-26

Chapter 10 / Climate change, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and carbon credits / Chapter 8 / Conservation and indigenous peoples

Further to our round-up of Central America COP-26 related news and issues – see previous article uploaded in November 2021 – on 5th November the Costa Rican weekly newspaper Semanario Universidad included an article by Vinicio Chacón on the difference between Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado’s speech at the COP-26 conference and the reality experienced by Indigenous peoples in that country. We are grateful to Vinicio for his permission to include the article and its translation in The Violence of Development website.

By Vinicio Chacón   Vinicio.chacon@ucr.ac.cr | 5 November 2021,  Semanario Universidad, San José, Costa Rica

(English translation by Martin Mowforth)

 

Aggressions remembered, many assassinations and failures to implement land rights – after the leader’s speech at the global summit.

“The President says that he recognises that we look after the forests; there should be no killings of those who defend their land …”, said one activist identified as Lesner, a Bribri land recoverer of the Tuádiwak clan in the Salitre territory.

His striking words were repeated by the Coordinating Organisation of the South-South Struggle (CLSS by its Spanish initials) in a communication countering and examining the actual actions of President Carlos Alvarado against his words in Glasgow, Scotland, at the global summit on climate change, COP-26.

During one forum titled ‘Forests and Use of Soils’, Alvarado claimed that “the best guardians of the forests and the earth are the Indigenous Peoples”, at the same time he was projecting the Programme of Payment for Environmental Services (PSA by its Spanish initials) as a mechanism for forest conservation.

In this regard, the Indigenous and campesino organisations which make up the CLSS noted a mismatch between what Alvarado said, in the first place because the State “has not been able and has not had the political will to guarantee the life and personal integrity of the First Peoples” as witness “the 18th March 2019 assassination for political motives of Sergio Rojas Ortiz, a Uniwak of the Bribri People of Salitre and the 24th February 2020 assassination of Jerhy Rivera Rivera of the Brörán People of Térraba.” In effect, these were two assassinations in less than one year of “brothers who were assassinated for defending their lands and Peoples.”

At the same time, the CLSS published a report on the attacks against and violations of the human rights of the First Peoples in the Southern Zone of Costa Rica which denounced that during 2020 there were 14 death threats made against activists and human rights defenders of the First Peoples of the Southern Zone.

That is only one small element of the 86 incidents documented in the report and which remain in impunity.

 

Pending Debt

The CLSS emphasised that in the Indigenous territories of the Southern Zone an illegal occupation is maintained with 40 per cent of their territories held by non-Indigenous peoples, and in some cases this reaches 75 per cent.

With respect to the issue of land delineation, the CLSS noted that the Recovery Plan for Indigenous Territories (PRTI by its Spanish initials) initiated by the government in 2017 has not materialised with “not one single defined land area”, with the exception of two fincas [small farms] in Salitre which had already been recovered by the appropriate Indigenous Peoples but which “against the will of the People” were delivered to the Association of Indigenous Development.

It’s worth recalling that these development associations are organisations which were imposed on Indigenous Peoples by the State, but they do not correspond to their cultural or historic traditions, while the recognised organisation in Bribri territory is the Ditsö Itiria Ajkönuk Wakpa.

The CLSS also denounced that the State has been incapable of devolving the lands prioritized by the Original Peoples’ own organisations, specifically eight territories in Salitre, 13 in Cabagra and 17 in Térraba. Moreover, during 2020 and 2021 three judicial decisions ordered the eviction of Cabécar people from China Kichá and one decision relating to the eviction of the Brörán people of Térraba who appealed in time, but three of them are still under “the danger and threat of judicial eviction”.

The CLSS referred to the PSA and emphasised Alvarado’s omission that these payments are managed and administered by the above-mentioned Indigenous Development Associations, which as already mentioned are not considered as their own organisations but rather are seen as being imposed by the State on these communities. “Neither did Alvarado make note of the many denunciations and judicial procedures against the irregular management of funds from the PSA and the little real participation of the communities and owners of these forests in the decisions and economic benefits,” said the CLSS communication.

One unidentified woman, a land recoverer in the area of Crun Shurin in the Térraba territory of the Brörán People, observed that to be “a protector of the forests”, as Alvarado called them, “has cost us two assassinated First Peoples rights defenders, and many more of us cannot even sleep at peace at night along with our families because of the land owners’ threats. We are the forest protectors, but we face the powers of the State against our rights.”

Thus she asserted that “the world should not be listening to these lies by President Carlos Alvarado because our struggles are very unequal and as Indigenous women we suffer all manner of abuses for continuing to conserve our Mother Earth from the ravages of the transnational companies with their extractive projects.”

“Our struggle will continue to defend our lands which belong to all of us; Forests, Water, Air, Spirituality, Culture, and Autonomy; despite the threats we receive and despite the fact that President Alvarado lies in international summits,” she added.

For his part, Lesner also accused the President and said: “We are not protectors of our lands; we are part of the earth and we look after it in an intuitive and natural way. She looks after us and we look after her; for us the forest is a living being as are the other elements which make up the earth.”

He added that: “we don’t need money to look after our forests and our lands, because when we are offered money to look after the forest and the land, the sense of living in equilibrium is lost and we start looking after only money. Our cosmovision tells us how we must live with our forest and lands. Paying for it distorts this manner of living with it.”

An audio clip of a 2010 interview with Berta Cáceres

Chapter 8 / The Lenca people of Honduras

In 2010 Dominic McCann, Kerstin Hansen, the late Juliette Doman and Michael Farley conducted an interview with Berta Cáceres in her home town of La Esperanza in the department of Intibucá, Honduras. The interview was conducted on behalf of the Environmental Network for Central America (ENCA) which had recently supported a programme of cultivation of medicinal plants run by COPINH, the Honduran organisation of which Berta was the Director. To commemorate the 5th anniversary of Berta’s assassination, Dominic circulated an audio clip (of just under 5 minutes) of their interview with Berta. The clip is in Spanish only, and a link to it is given below the picture of Berta and the text following.

Berta Cáceres 

Interviewee: Berta Cáceres, leader of COPINH, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Peoples of Honduras
Interviewers: Dominic McCann, Kerstin Hansen, Juliette Doman and Michael Farley
Location: Intibucá, Honduras
Date: March 2010
Theme: COPINH; resistance; indigenous knowledge.
Notes: 

  1. The full interview with Berta can be found at: https://theviolenceofdevelopment.com/berta-caceres/
  2. The reader is referred to Chapter 4of this website for news of the award of the Goldman Environmental Prize to Berta Cáceresfor her leadership of COPINH’s struggle against hydro-electric power projects in Honduras, and in particular for a link to a video clip of her acceptance speech: https://theviolenceofdevelopment.com/berta-caceres-receives-the-goldman-environmental-prize-2015/
  3. Further below the link to the interview clip with Berta is another short recording made by Dominic of some community singing in San Francisco de Opalaca, Honduras, one of the communities with which COPINH worked.

From Dominic McCann:

For those who are interested this is part of an interview I recorded with Berta Caceres in 2010

Or listen here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0qmucj0uc33y96/STE-001%20Berta%201%20%2864kbs%29.mp3?dl=0

And if you want to hear some uplifting singing from Copinh community:

Garifuna community continue to suffer violence

Chapter 8 / The Garífuna of Honduras

By Martin Mowforth, March 2021

The organised crime and drug trafficking syndicate of Honduras (also known as the government of Honduras) continues to promote tourist developments and other extractive industries throughout the country and to favour foreign investors, especially Canadian and US, over Honduran people. A particularly disadvantaged and threatened group is the Garífuna community based largely on the northern coast of the country, as articles in Chapter 8 of The Violence of Development website expose.

Paddy

On 4th March this year two Garífuna rights defenders were assassinated in La Ceiba. They were Martin Abad Pandy and Víctor Martínez. Martin Pandy was President of the Garífuna community council, and both were members of the Corozal community. In February in the same area Fernando Padilla was also murdered by hired assassins. Two Garífuna environmental defenders, Jenifer Sarina and Marianela Mejía Solórzano, were also detained.

Pandy (shown here) was noted for his entrepreneurship through his small grocery store, his help for members of the community and for his work with Garífuna youths. Luther Castillo, a Garífuna rights activist, explained: “My Corozal village is once again a victim of organised crime, which has installed itself in sight of the security entities in the area. They cynically facilitate the criminality that murders our people, extorts our entrepreneurs, and plunders our resources.”

Naama Ávila, a lawyer and defender of the Garífuna people, also described the response of the security forces as cycnical. She described the communities as living in fear because the foreigners who come and impose themselves on the community are soon followed by daily acts of violence. Ávila knew Pandy and said, “I am a witness of his love for the people, his work, his humility, and his desire to see Corozal move forward.”

According to the Honduran Black Fraternal Organisation (OFRANEH), the two Garífuna environmental defenders were arrested on trumped-up charges of usurpation and damages to a real estate company whose origins are Canadian. Both of them are leaders of the community of Cristales whose land is under threat in the department of Colón and both are members of OFRANEH. In their initial hearing on 7th March, the judge denied access to national and international human rights organisations and the court was filled with army personnel and police which generated an atmosphere of hostility towards the community members who attended. This is and was a clear example of intimidatory criminalisation – see the article on SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in the final section of Chapter 9 of this website.

Jenifer Sarina and Marianela Mejía Solorzano, Garifuna land defenders illegally jailed by regime in land dispute related to “Residencias Las Conchas”, where NJOI Trujillo Beach Residences operates from. [Photo from Rights Action]

On March 18, it will be eight months since the forced disappearance of the Garifuna Five, leaders of Triunfo de la Cruz, forcibly removed by a squadron in military fatigues. Since then, defenders of life have demanded the government give an explanation for Alberth Snaider Centeno Tomás, as well as Milton Joel Martínez Álvarez, Suami Aparicio Mejía, Albert Sentana Thomas and Junior Rafael Juarez Mejía.

Many suspect government complicity in the crime: the administration of President Juan Orlando Hernández, which until recently has been strongly backed by US administrations, is accused by activists of being behind “a well-crafted plan to exterminate the Garífuna community.” Palm-lined and pristine, Garifuna territory has long been coveted by tourism developers and palm oil barons historically favoured by this government of organised crime.

In relation to these and many more crimes, OFRANEH urges the national and international community to come to the aid of the Garifuna community fighting for the defence of their ancestral territory and the protection of their rights as a distinct and at-risk people.

Sources

  • https://kaosenlared.net/honduras-tres-lideres-de-la-comunidad-afrodescendiente-garifuna-son-asesinados-por-sicarios-del-estado/
  • Telesur, 4 March 2021, ‘Gunmen Kill Garífuna Indigenous Leader in Honduras’
  • Rights Action, 8 March 2021, ‘Garífuna people between jail and grave – Two more killed’
  • http://www.web.ellibertador.hn/index.php/noticias/nacionales/2741-honduras-garifunas-entre-carcel-y-tumba-matan-otros-dos
  • Federación Internacional Por Los Derechos Humanos: ‘Honduras: Criminalización de las defensoras garífunas Marianela y Jennifer Mejía Solórzano’, available at: https://www.fidh.org/es/temas/defensores-de-derechos-humanos/honduras-criminalizacion-de-las-defensoras-garifunas-marianela-y
  • Vice World News, August 2020, ‘5 Black Men Kidnapped by ‘Police’ in Honduras Are Still Missing’, available at: 5 Black Men Kidnapped by ‘Police’ in Honduras Are Still Missing (vice.com)

Maya Communities Respond to Land Predation and FPIC Violation in Belize

Chapter 8 / Other Central American indigenous land disputes

Levi Gahman, Shelda-Jane Smith, and Filiberto Penados

December 15, 2020

We are grateful to the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) for permission to reproduce this article on The Violence of Development website. NACLA Report on the Americas is a progressive magazine covering Latin America and its relationship with the United States – nacla.org  More details on the authors, to whom we are also very grateful, are given at the end of the article. The original article can be found at: https://nacla.org/news/2020/12/13/maya-land-fpic-belize

Even after the Maya’s watershed 2015 Caribbean Court of Justice land rights victory, the Government of Belize continues to condone land grabs in Indigenous territory.

Survey workers in an unmarked vehicle place survey pegs without FPIC near Laguna, Belize. (Julian Cho Society)

Maya villages in Toledo District, Belize reported that during October [2020] speculators illegally opened survey lines in an attempted land grab.  The lines were established without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), cut through forests and corn and cacao fields, and the living spaces and homes of Maya families. The survey activity was reported in a press release issued by the Maya Leaders Alliance (MLA) and Toledo Alcaldes Association (TAA).

State-sanctioned FPIC violations against Qʼeqchiʼ and Mopan Maya communities have been going on for decades. But these most recent encroachments call into question the Government of Belize (GoB)’s commitment to recognizing Indigenous land rights. They occur five years after the Maya won an unprecedented legal victory in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) regarding the recognition of Indigenous land rights. The 2015 CCJ decision affirmed that communal land tenure of Maya communities is commensurate with property rights found in the Belizean constitution. Since the ruling, however, the GoB has not complied and refused to meaningfully engage in delimiting and protecting Maya lands, which are conditions of the CCJ order.

Maya Alcaldes (traditional leaders) led investigations into the recent unauthorized surveying and found that it involves foreign parties, non-Maya individuals from outside of Toledo District, and speculators from southern Belize. Surveyors were claiming between 30 and 400 acres of land, which contravenes the 2015 CCJ order, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), which the GoB adopted in 2007. Land predation of this nature, which violates FPIC, has historically facilitated dispossession, corporate extraction, and environmental damage to Maya lands.

Cease and Desist: The Maya Response

Qʼeqchiʼ and Mopan villages are located throughout the southernmost region of Belize, Toledo District. Within Toledo District, there are 39 Maya communities that comprise over 20,000 Maya people. Each community has two traditional leaders, called alcaldes, meaning 78 alcaldes constitute the TAA. The TAA is the main representative body and highest central authority of the Maya people in the region, which has historically had a complex relationship with the national government. The communities are also supported by an autonomous social movement, the MLA, which is made up of Maya land defenders.

Upon being alerted of the incursions by village leaders, the MLA and TAA issued a formal statement reminding the GoB that it is legally obligated to, “…cease and abstain from any acts, whether by the agents of the government itself or third parties… …that might adversely affect the value, use, or enjoyment of the lands that are used and occupied by the Maya villages, unless such acts are preceded by consultation with [Maya people] in order to obtain their informed consent.”

In an interview reproving the encroachments shortly after they were reported, Maya land defender and MLA spokesperson, Cristina Coc, pointed out that the increase in FPIC violations were coinciding with the run-up to the national election in Belize, which took place on November 11, stating, “…one has to ask the question whether or not it is politically motivated, and whether or not it is related to what we have seen historically in Belize, where around campaign time politicians offer land in exchange for votes.”

Upon denouncing the attempted land grabs at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR), the MLA and TAA submitted a request for precautionary measures against the GoB to halt all illegal activity. Rather than an isolated issue related to the ownership of private property, movement activists reiterated that grabbing communal Maya lands poses a grave threat to the material wellbeing and cultural survival of Qʼeqchiʼ and Mopan people who are experiencing the slow violence of dispossession and extractivism.

This is a story about Indigenous resistance to ongoing assertions of post-colonial power, capitalist logics, and Western worldviews. The GoB is based upon a Westminster model of governance imposed by British imperialists that has failed former colonies all over the world. Moreover, the GoB has a track record of abetting multinational corporations while repudiating Indigenous people’s claims to communal land ownership, notions of complex tenure, and right to self-determination. Coc, who has bore witness to decades of state-sponsored FPIC violations, summed up the GoB’s persistent penchant for land grabbing by stating, “there’s always been incursions on Mayan land; this is exactly why we went to the courts (CCJ) to seek affirmation of protection.”

 

Denial and Disavowal: The State Response

The GoB’s response to the Maya came on October 30. Patrick Faber, leader of the then ruling United Democratic Party, admitted that, in accordance with the CCJ decision, the presence of surveyors without the consent of the Maya would indeed be illegal. But he dismissed the allegations by the Maya and Coc by stating, “I listened very carefully as Miss Coc spoke and there is no evidence to that [surveying] happening… …She is only telling you what she saw and what people reported is happening but no concrete evidence of anything happening.”

Despite the Maya issuing written reports with photographs to both the Lands and Surveys Department and Attorney General, the GoB rejected the claims by suggesting there was no evidence. Incidentally, for nearly a year in 2015-2016, Coc, along with 12 other Maya activists, were detained, jailed, and dragged through the courts by the GoB after protecting a sacred heritage site against similar incursions. Despite the criminalization, all the charges levied against the Maya environmental defenders were eventually dismissed.

Similar to Faber’s response, Belize’s Attorney General, Michael Peyrefitte, implying the Maya were merely trying to make the government look bad, said to Coc, “…if you have a legal issue ma’am, go dah court. To me, you don’t really have a legal issue because if you had a real legal issue, you would go to court, you wouldn’t go to the media.” Peyrefitte then went on to suggest the Maya wanted a “separate country” and that Indigenous people’s self-determination was irrelevant in the face of state power, asserting, “they [the Maya] may not like to hear that… …nothing can stop the executive of the country to do what it feels like it needs to do for the betterment of the country.”

A survey line cut through a forest near the Maya community of Golden Stream. (Julian Cho Society)

The Attorney General’s response ignores the actual allegations of land grabbing being made against the GoB. Instead, Peyrefitte suggests the encroachment claims are irrelevant because “they want their own country,” which is a rhetorical attempt to undermine both Coc’s credibility and the validity of the reports issued by Maya Alcaldes. The state’s evasive response was a divisive disavowal of Maya land rights. And by prioritizing the desires of private capital over Indigenous people’s customary systems, relationships with the environment, and livelihood strategies, which the GoB has a history of, it is also  hostile and dehumanizing.

 

State Authoritarianism vs. Indigenous Autonomy

When we consider the GoB’s response alongside the ongoing struggle for Indigenous land rights in southern Belize, three issues require urgent attention.

Firstly, good faith leadership is lacking because the government refuses to investigate the claims of Maya Alcaldes. The GoB insists that because the Maya used the media to raise awareness about FPIC violations, they do not have a ‘real’ issue. This argument is nonsensical and contrived.

Secondly, when Indigenous people report violations to government agencies, agencies are slow to investigate––if they investigate at all. Moreover, arguing Indigenous people must always operate (i.e. “go to court”) and exist on the state’s terms is colonial. This is not an uncommon refrain from the state, though, as the GoB realizes that going to court for rural subsistence-based Maya communities is an expensive and protracted process. Certain government agents also realize that, even if the courts rule against the state, it can get away with violating decisions and rule of law, as it has done before.

Why, when under legal mandate to protect Maya land rights, are the claims discounted without investigation? Furthermore, in addition to photographs and reports, what would satisfy the state’s need for and definition of ‘concrete evidence’?

Lastly, the imperious tones of Faber and Peyrefitte’s responses are not only dismissive, but dangerous––and not only for the Maya. Peyrefitte says, “…nothing can stop the executive of the country to do what it feels like it needs to do for the betterment of the country.” This is authoritarian nationalism par excellence and should concern the whole of Belize.

The GoB’s lack of rights-based leadership and draconian posturing is nothing new. Back in 2015, when the CCJ ruling was passed in favour of the Maya, the GoB’s Attorney General was quick to diminish Maya customary tenure by stating Indigenous land rights “cannot trump the constitutional authority of the government.” Hence, the state appears only to be willing to take the lead on refuting the rights of Indigenous people and fettering Maya autonomy.

Maya leaders afforded the GoB the opportunity to demonstrate good faith adherence to consent processes and strengthen its relationship with Maya communities. It was also a chance for state officials to denounce FPIC violations, prevent deleterious land encroachments, and uphold its obligation to protect customary Maya land rights, as ordered by the CCJ. Instead, the GoB doubted the veracity of the Alcaldes’ reports, attacked the credibility of Maya people, attempted to turn the larger population against the Maya, and declared to all citizens of Belize it could impose upon them whatever it wanted, arbitrarily, for “the betterment of the country.”

 

The Reality of Land Grabs under Covid-19

These encroachments on Maya land during the pandemic threaten their livelihoods, says, MLA spokesperson Cristina Coc:

…not only are farms and milpas being affected, but even residential areas where we have our own villages living. This is concerning because it impacts our livelihood, and we have seen throughout the Covid pandemic how valuable land is, and how valuable the production of land is for the food security of Mayan communities and Belizeans alike.

We recognize that the government cannot feed our people, they cannot employ all of our people, they cannot rescue us from this economic spiral that we’re experiencing. But what we can do is provide full security for our people by protecting their tenure on the land…

…it is very alarming that the government would allow such actions–––the Maya communities have been informed and are aware that there is a standing consent order that affirms our rights and protects ancestral rights to lands and territories.

The authoritarian behaviour and contemptuous rhetoric of the GoB continues to disrupt Indigenous life and close avenues for Maya people to exercise their rights and have their voices heard. It is also signalling to all Belizean people that the state is more than willing to sacrifice the rights and wellbeing of the marginalized at the altar of ‘development.’

Filiberto Penados is Chair of the Julian Cho Society and technical advisor to the Toledo Alcaldes Association and Maya Leaders Alliance. His research focuses on Indigenous future-making.

Shelda-Jane Smith’s research focuses on the conceptual, social, and political dimensions of contemporary psychology and biomedical practice, with an emphasis on youth wellness.

Levi Gahman focuses on emancipatory praxis, environmental defence, and engaged movement research. He is author of Land, God, & Guns: Settler Colonialism & Masculinity (Zed Scholar).

This research was supported by a Heritage, Dignity, and Violence Programme Grant from the British Academy under the UK’s Global Challenges Research Fund (Award: HDV190078), for which all the authors are co-investigators and collaborators.

 

Corte Suprema de Panamá reconoce derechos territoriales de los pueblos indígenas y su rol como guardianes del ambiente

Chapter 8 / The Naso of Panamá

Sarah Dorman con Carla García Zendejas, Abogadas por CIEL

Publicado originalmente el 20 de enero de 2021 por el Centro para la Ley Ambiental Internacional (CIEL, ciel.org). Estamos agradecidos a CIEL por autorizar la reproducción de este artículo bajo su Licencia Creative Commons. El artículo originario se localiza a: https://www.ciel.org/panamas-supreme-court-recognizes-indigenous-peoples-land-rights-and-role-as-guardians-of-the-environment/

En la sentencia clave que allanó el camino para la creación de la esperada Comarca Naso Tjër Di, el máximo tribunal de Panamá confirmó la obligación del Estado de asegurar los derechos colectivos al territorio, enfatizando el papel crítico de los pueblos indígenas en la conservación de la biodiversidad, los recursos naturales y el clima. La sentencia hace parte de un coro creciente de casos similares dirigidos a la defensa de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas alrededor del mundo.

El pueblo indígena Naso —al igual que muchos otros pueblos indígenas alrededor del mundo— ha luchado durante generaciones para conservar el acceso y el control de sus territorios ancestrales, los cuales son fundamentales para proteger su identidad cultural, el ambiente y la relación espiritual con las tierras que han habitado por milenios. A fines del año pasado, el pueblo Naso logró una victoria clave cuando el máximo tribunal de Panamá decidió a su favor en la sentencia que protege su derecho colectivo a sus tierras ancestrales.

Siendo uno de los siete pueblos indígenas de Panamá, el pueblo Naso ha vivido a orillas del Río Teribe en el extremo noroeste del país por generaciones. Durante los últimos cincuenta años, ha buscado el reconocimiento oficial de sus tierras tradicionales de acuerdo al sistema Panameño de regiones indígenas semi-autónomas conocidas como comarcas. Esta lucha ha incluido una serie de iniciativas a nivel nacional e internacional por el pueblo Naso, incluyendo incidencia ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.

Las repetidas invasiones que las comunidades Naso han sufrido a través de los años ilustran la necesidad crítica del reconocimiento jurídico al reclamo del pueblo Naso por sus tierras ancestrales. En algunas instancias, las comunidades Naso han enfrentado hasta desalojos violentos y la destrucción de sus hogares y cultivos – véase otros artículos en esta sub-sección de este sitio web.

Un momento crucial para el pueblo Naso surge en el 2018, cuando su campaña de décadas finalmente logró que la legislatura de Panamá reconociera formalmente sus tierras tradicionales al aprobar una ley para establecer la Comarca Naso Tjër Di. Sin embargo, este triunfo legislativo fue objeto de un golpe cuando el entonces Presidente Varela vetó la ley, llamándola “inexequible” e “inconveniente”.

Al final, el destino del reclamo territorial del pueblo Naso llegó hasta el máximo tribunal de Panamá, la Corte Suprema de Justicia. El 28 de octubre de 2020, la Corte emitió su fallo en este caso, allanando el camino para la creación de la Comarca y ampliando el conjunto de precedentes jurídicos que las cortes han desarrollado en todo el mundo en defensa de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas.

 

Un fallo crítico sobre los derechos territoriales indígenas

Este fallo sobre los reclamos del pueblo Naso a sus tierras ancestrales en Panamá surge décadas después de que el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales (1989) y el Convenio 107 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo sobre Poblaciones Indígenas y Tribales (1957) establecieran un marco jurídico internacional claro sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, incluidos sus derechos de propiedad y posesión de sus tierras tradicionalmente ocupadas. En años posteriores, este marco jurídico fue ampliado aún más a través de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y la Declaración Americana sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Dichos instrumentos dejan en claro que los pueblos indígenas ejercen derechos colectivos sobre sus tierras, territorios y recursos de los cuales han tenido dominio, posesión y uso. Igualmente establecen que los Estados son responsables de asegurar el reconocimiento y protección jurídica de dichas tierras, territorios y recursos de los pueblos indígenas.

Al considerar si la ley que crea la Comarca Naso Tjër Di debiese surtir efecto, la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Panamá enfatizó que el Estado Panameño tiene el deber de asegurar los derechos territoriales indígenas. En forma específica, describe que la Constitución de Panamá ha establecido la obligatoriedad del Estado de garantizar a las comunidades indígenas la reserva de las tierras necesarias y la propiedad colectiva de las mismas para el logro de su bienestar económico y social.

Con este fallo, la suprema corte de Panamá se une a las filas de otros tribunales regionales y nacionales que han reconocido los derechos de propiedad de los pueblos indígenas sobre sus tierras ancestrales, tal y como fue en los casos emblemáticos: Yakye Axa vs. Paraguay y Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua, decididos por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos; Comunidad Endorois vs. Kenia y Comisión Africana de Derechos Humanos y de los Pueblos vs. Kenia (sobre la comunidad Ogiek del Bosque Mau), decididos por la Comisión Africana y por la Corte Africana de Derechos Humanos y de los Pueblos, respectivamente; y el caso de la Federación de la Nacionalidad Achuar del Perú, en el que la Corte Peruana reconoce a la Federación como entidad de autogobierno y representación del pueblo indígena Achuar y ordena el reconocimiento y la titulación de su territorio.

 

Un verdadero paso hacia adelante en el reconocimiento de los pueblos indígenas como guardianes del ambiente

En su fallo la suprema corte de Panamá dio otro paso importante al reconocer explícitamente el papel clave que juegan los pueblos indígenas en la protección de la biodiversidad y el mantenimiento de un ambiente sano. En sus propias palabras la Corte consideró que:

[S]in lugar a dudas, que ancestralmente la población indígena ha preservado el medio ambiente en los lugares en que se han establecido, esto debido a que son portadores de un conocimiento milenario sobre biodiversidad, plantas, animales, agua y clima que permiten la utilización sostenible de los recursos a su alcance.

Este reconocimiento explícito por parte de la suprema corte de Panamá hace eco a la establecida noción —expresada por expertos como Victoria Tauli-Corpuz durante su mandato como Relatora Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas— de que los pueblos indígenas son los mejores guardianes de la biodiversidad, los ecosistemas y los recursos naturales que conforman su ambiente. Esto es evidente en el área que es hogar del pueblo Naso, quienes han protegido y conservado el exuberante bosque tropical a lo largo del Río Teribe, impidiendo efectivamente la deforestación que ha ocurrido en áreas circundantes a niveles mucho más altos.

La Suprema Corte de Justicia de Panamá enfatizó además la importancia de la relación intrínseca entre los pueblos indígenas y el ambiente, agrego que:

De ahí, que se evidencie el vínculo entre la cultura y el medio ambiente en los pueblos indígenas, y es que, de un atento análisis de sus tradiciones se hace palpable que éstos comparten una relación espiritual, cultural, social y económica con sus tierras tradicionales. Así mismo, las leyes, costumbres y prácticas tradicionales reflejan tanto una adhesión a la tierra, como la responsabilidad por la conservación de ésta en aras del uso de sus futuras generaciones.

 

A futuro: Convertir los derechos territoriales indígenas en autoridad decisoria efectiva 

Después del fallo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Panamá el poder ejecutivo tenía la obligación constitucional de sancionar la ley que crea la comarca para el pueblo Naso. Esto ocurrió el 4 de diciembre de 2020, cuando el actual Presidente Cortizo Cohen viajó a Sieyik, la sede de gobierno del pueblo Naso a las orillas del Río Teribe, para firmar la ley que finalmente logra la creación de la Comarca Naso Tjër Di.

A futuro, los derechos territoriales de los pueblos indígenas deben ser reconocidos y protegidos de manera constante, como la corte suprema logró hacer en este caso para el pueblo Naso en Panamá. Al mismo tiempo, las experiencias de otras comunidades indígenas —desde los Yakye Axa en Paraguay hasta los Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni en Nicaragua— demuestran que aun cuando se reconocen los derechos a la tierra, se requiere de voluntad política para asegurar que estos derechos se respeten y se cumplan. Por ejemplo, en casos anteriores en Panamá, no se ha llevado a cabo la delimitación oficial de tierras indígenas incluso cuando las comarcas fueron creadas conforme a derecho. Esto ha dejado a comunidades indígenas, como las que han esperado por años la demarcación oficial de las áreas anexas de la Comarca Ngäbe, Buglé, y Campesinos en Bocas del Toro, en un estado jurídico incierto, lo cual socava sus esfuerzos por proteger sus territorios ancestrales frente a presiones externas que buscan acceder a sus tierras y explotar sus recursos.

Además, para que los pueblos indígenas puedan ejercer efectivamente su derecho a conservar, restaurar y proteger el ambiente en sus territorios tradicionales, el reconocimiento jurídico debe convertirse en la correspondiente autoridad decisoria efectiva sobre lo que ocurre en sus territorios en la práctica. Lamentablemente, en reiteradas ocasiones en Panamá el reconocimiento jurídico por sí solo no ha sido suficiente para proteger las tierras indígenas contra las incursiones de extraños, como sucede con empresas privadas de agricultura y turismo, así como mineros y madereros ilegales, tal y como lo resaltó James Anaya, otro ex Relator Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas.

A pesar de los desafíos que persisten, el reciente fallo en defensa los derechos territoriales del pueblo Naso allana el camino para la creación de la Comarca Naso Tjër Di y es muestra de un creciente coro de decisiones judiciales y políticas gubernamentales en defensa de los derechos territoriales indígenas en todo el mundo. A través de esta sentencia, la máxima corte de Panamá ha dado un nuevo impulso al trabajo en curso, liderado por los pueblos indígenas, para asegurar que sus derechos jurídicos sirvan en la práctica para permitirles proteger sus tierras y el ambiente natural para las generaciones venideras

Sarah Dorman con Carla García Zendejas, Abogadas para CIEL

 

Panama’s Supreme Court recognizes Indigenous Peoples’ land rights and role as guardians of the environment

Chapter 8 / The Naso of Panamá

By Sarah Dorman & Carla García Zendejas, Attorneys for CIEL

Originally posted on January 20, 2021 by the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL, ciel.org). We are grateful to CIEL for allowing reproduction of this article through their Creative Commons License. The original article can be found at: https://www.ciel.org/panamas-supreme-court-recognizes-indigenous-peoples-land-rights-and-role-as-guardians-of-the-environment. 

In a key decision paving the way for the creation of the long-awaited Naso Tjër Di Comarca, Panama’s highest court confirmed the State’s obligation to secure Indigenous collective rights to land and emphasized the critical role of Indigenous Peoples in protecting biodiversity, natural resources, and the climate. The decision joins a growing chorus of similar cases aimed at upholding Indigenous Peoples’ rights around the world.

The Indigenous Naso people — like many other Indigenous Peoples around the world — have struggled for generations to retain access to and control over their ancestral territories, which are central to preserving their cultural identities, surrounding environment, and spiritual relationship with the lands that they have inhabited for millennia. Late last year, the Naso people achieved a key victory when Panama’s highest court sided with them in a ruling to uphold their communal right to their ancestral land.

As one of Panama’s seven Indigenous Peoples, the Naso people have lived in the areas surrounding the Teribe River on the northwestern edge of Panama for generations. For the last fifty years, they have sought to have their traditional lands officially recognized under Panama’s system of semi-autonomous Indigenous regions, known as comarcas. This struggle has involved numerous initiatives undertaken by the Naso people both nationally and internationally, including advocacy before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The repeated encroachments that Naso communities have endured over the years illustrate the critical need for legal recognition of the Naso people’s claims to their ancestral lands. In some instances, Naso communities have even faced violent evictions and the destruction of their homes and crops – see articles in the sub-section on ‘The Naso of Panamá’ under the land disputes section of Chapter 8 of this website.

A turning point for the Naso people came in 2018, when their decades-long campaign finally succeeded in getting Panama’s legislature to formally recognize their traditional lands by passing legislation to establish the Naso Tjër Di Comarca. However, this legislative victory was soon delivered a blow when then-President Varela vetoed the law, calling it “unenforceable” and “inconvenient.”

Ultimately, the fate of the Naso people’s territorial claim made its way to Panama’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Justice. On October 28, 2020, the Court issued its ruling in this case, paving the way for the Comarca’s creation and expanding the set of legal precedents that courts are developing around the world to uphold Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

 

A critical decision for Indigenous land rights

This ruling regarding the Naso people’s claims to their ancestral lands in Panama comes decades after Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (1989) and Convention 107 of the International Labour Organisation on Indigenous and Tribal Populations (1957) had established a clear international legal framework on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including their rights of ownership and possession of their traditionally occupied lands. In the years since, this legal framework has been further developed through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These instruments make clear that Indigenous Peoples have collective rights to the lands, territories, and resources that they have traditionally owned, possessed, and used and that States are responsible for ensuring legal recognition and protection for Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories, and resources.

In considering whether the legislation creating the Naso Tjër Di Comarca should be allowed to take effect in this case, Panama’s Supreme Court of Justice emphasized that the Panamanian State has a duty to ensure Indigenous land rights. Specifically, the Court described how, according to the Panamanian Constitution, this obligation requires the Panamanian government to secure for Indigenous communities the necessary lands and collective property rights to these lands for the achievement of their economic and social well-being.

By adopting this decision, Panama’s highest court joined the ranks of other regional and national tribunals in acknowledging Indigenous Peoples’ property rights over ancestral lands, such as in the landmark cases: Yakye Axa v. Paraguay and Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua, decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Kenya (regarding the Ogiek Community of the Mau Forest), decided by the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, respectively; and the case of the Federación de la Nacionalidad Achuar del Perú, in which a Peruvian court recognized the Federación as a self-governing entity in representation of the Achuar Indigenous Peoples and ordered the recognition and titling of their territory.

 

A key step forward in recognition of Indigenous Peoples as guardians of the environment

In its ruling, Panama’s highest court took another important step by explicitly recognizing the key role that Indigenous Peoples play in protecting biodiversity and maintaining a healthy environment. In its own words, the Court considered:

[W]ithout a doubt, that ancestrally the Indigenous population has preserved the environment in the places where they have settled, because they are bearers of ancient knowledge about biodiversity, plants, animals, water, and climate that allows for the sustainable use of the resources available to them. [Translation by CIEL.]

This explicit recognition by Panama’s highest court echoes the well-established understanding — expressed by such experts as Victoria Tauli-Corpuz during her tenure as the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples — that Indigenous Peoples are among the best stewards of the biodiversity, ecosystems, and natural resources that make up their environment. This is demonstrably the case in the area that is home to the Naso people, who have protected and conserved the lush tropical forest along the Teribe River, effectively preventing the deforestation that has occurred at much higher levels in surrounding areas.

Panama’s Supreme Court of Justice further emphasized the significance of the intrinsic relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the environment, adding that: 

Hence, the link between culture and the environment among Indigenous Peoples is evident. That is, from a careful analysis of their traditions, it becomes apparent that they share a spiritual, cultural, social, and economic relationship with their traditional lands. Likewise, [their] laws, customs, and traditional practices reflect both an attachment to the land and the responsibility to conserve it for the use of future generations. [Translation by CIEL.]

 

Going forward: Translating Indigenous land rights into effective decision-making authority

Following the decision by Panama’s Supreme Court of Justice, the executive branch was constitutionally required to move forward with ratifying the legislation creating a comarca for the Naso people. This occurred on December 4, 2020, when current President Cortizo Cohen traveled to Sieyick, the seat of government of the Naso people on the banks of the Teribe River, in order to sign the law and finally bring the Naso Tjër Di Comarca into being.

Going forward, Indigenous Peoples’ land rights must be consistently recognized and protected, as Panama’s highest court did for the Naso people in this case. At the same time, the experiences of other Indigenous communities — from the Yakye Axa in Paraguay to the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni in Nicaragua — demonstrate that even after land rights receive recognition, political will is needed to ensure that these rights are respected and enforced. For example, in previous cases in Panama, official demarcation of Indigenous territories hasn’t been completed even after comarcas have been legally brought into being. This has left Indigenous communities — such as those who have long awaited official demarcation of the áreas anexas of the Ngäbe, Buglé, y Campesinos Comarca in Bocas del Toro — with uncertain legal status, which undermines their efforts to protect their ancestral territories in the face of outside pressures aimed at accessing their lands and exploiting their resources.

In addition, for Indigenous Peoples to be able to effectively exercise their right to conserve, restore, and protect the environment in their traditional lands, legal recognition of their rights must translate into corresponding decision-making authority over what happens in their territories in practice. Unfortunately, it has repeatedly been the case in Panama that legal recognition alone has not been sufficient to protect Indigenous lands against incursions by outsiders — such as private agriculture and tourism companies, as well as illegal miners and loggers — as has been emphasized by James Anaya, another former UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Despite the challenges that remain, the recent ruling that upheld the Naso people’s territorial rights and paved the way for the creation of the Naso Tjër Di Comarca is indicative of a growing chorus of judicial decisions and government policies upholding Indigenous land rights around the world. Through this decision, Panama’s highest court has given new momentum to the ongoing work, led by Indigenous Peoples, of ensuring that their legal rights serve in practice to allow them to protect their lands and natural environment for generations to come.

 

By Sarah Dorman & Carla García Zendejas, Attorneys for CIEL