Category: Chapter 8

Government cancels sales of communal lands

Chapter 8 / Conservation and indigenous peoples

Taken from the Nicaragua Network Hotline, 25th August 2009.

The Public Property Register of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) of Nicaragua, answering an order from the Attorney General’s office, last week annulled the titles issued in violation of the Law on Communal Property of Indigenous and Ethnic Communities (Law 445). According to that law, the land cannot be taxed, seized or sold but is to be used by the indigenous peoples in accord with their traditional uses of communal property. The sale of indigenous lands by leaders of the Caribbean Coast group YATAMA was reported the previous week in the Nicaraguan media. Government attorneys are investigating further the irregularities that were reported, including the sale to a timber company of over 12,000 hectares of land belonging to the community of Awas Tingni.

Attorney General Hernan Estrada also made a formal accusation in the Supreme Court against David Rodriguez Gaitán, Property Registrar in Bilwi, for acts of corruption. He accused Rodriguez of registering sale of communal property with full knowledge that it was illegal. Estrada also asked the Court not to recognize any transaction involving communal lands by foreign or national speculators.

However, some 400 ex-contra fighters, members of Yatama, blocked the two main roads leading to Bilwi (Puerto Cabezas) in protest over the government’s action saying that they would allow no traffic to pass and would burn any government vehicle that approached the roadblocks. At the roadblock located at Maniwatla, 120 men are led by Commander Cienfuegos and Perro Bravo and Tigre Suelto. Three hundred men, armed with firearms and machetes at the junction of the roads that link Bilwi with Waspam and Rosita, are led by Commanders León and Culumuco. The leaders read a communiqué in which they stated that, “The ex-combatants reject the attitude of the Attorney General and his delegate in the region who are trying to annul the registration of our ownership rights which represent the only way we can protect our rights as we confront the prejudicial refusal of the State to title indigenous land.” La Prensa reports that the leader of the protest is René Garcia Beker, former mayor of Prinzapolka and president of four collectives of former combatants of YATAMA.

Modesto Frank Wilson, who opposes the sale of indigenous lands, said that in recent months there has been an increase in the sale of communal land because of offers from rich timber companies which have tempted ambitious leaders of groups of former combatants. He said that the community of Awas Tingni could have lost almost 70% of its 73,000 hectares of communal land. Meanwhile, in Bilwi, the population is suffering because its links to the capital and other cities which provide it with goods have been cut. Men, women and children who were expecting to take public transportation from Bilwi to their villages are sleeping on the roadside waiting for the blockades to come down.

Indigenous statement on climate change

Chapter 8 / Indigenous issues and development

THE ANCHORAGE DECLARATION

http://www.indigenoussummit.com/servlet/content/declaration.html
Indigenous Peoples Global Summit on Climate Change, 24 April 2009

From 20-24 April, 2009, Indigenous representatives from the Arctic, North America, Asia, Pacific, Latin America, Africa, Caribbean and Russia met in Anchorage, Alaska for the Indigenous Peoples’ Global Summit on Climate Change. We thank the Ahtna and the Dena’ina Athabascan Peoples in whose lands we gathered.

Calls for Action

6. We challenge States to abandon false solutions to climate change that negatively impact Indigenous Peoples’ rights, lands, air, oceans, forests, territories and waters. These include nuclear energy, large-scale dams, geo-engineering techniques, “clean coal”, agro-fuels, plantations, and market based mechanisms such as carbon trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, and forest offsets. The human rights of Indigenous Peoples to protect our forests and forest livelihoods must be recognized, respected and ensured.

Selected international organisations which represent indigenous peoples

Chapter 8

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII)

This UN organisation was established in April 2000 during the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. The UNPFII is an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights.

Survival International

A worldwide organisation supporting tribal peoples. It stands for their right to decide their own future and helps them protect their lives, lands and human rights.

Cultural Survival

A US-based NGO which is dedicated to defending the human rights of indigenous peoples. Cultural Survival helps indigenous groups to acquire the knowledge, advocacy tools, and strategic partnerships necessary to protect their rights

Indian Council of South America (CISA)

An NGO that works in consultation with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, to promote respect for the right to life, justice, development, peace, and autonomy of indigenous peoples.

International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests (IAITPTF)

A worldwide network of organisations which represent indigenous and tribal peoples living in tropical forest regions like Central America. The Alliance fights for the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples.

International Indian Treaty Council (IITC)

An organisation of indigenous peoples from North, Central, South America and the Pacific working for the sovereignty and self-determination of indigenous peoples and the recognition and protection of indigenous rights, traditional cultures and sacred lands.

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)

IWGIA supports indigenous peoples’ struggle for human rights, self-determination, right to territory, control of land and resources, cultural integrity, and the right to development. In Central America, they work in Guatemala and Panama.

United World of Indigenous Peoples (UWIP)

A Czech organisation that disseminates information about the contemporary situations of indigenous peoples around the world. This organisation supports the advancement and protection of indigenous rights.

National indigenous populations, Central America

Chapter 8 / Indigenous territories in Central America

Notes taken from the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII): Desk Reviews of select MDG Reports as per Indigenous Issues: No. 2, 2007
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/MDGRs_2007.pdf

Costa Rica
CR has an indigenous population of 68,000 people (2% of the national population), comprising eight peoples that live on 24 territories: the Bri bri, Cabécare, Brunca, Ngöbe Buglé, Teribe, Maléku, Huetáre and Chorotega. Most of Costa Rica’s indigenous peoples live in rural communities in the south of the country. While Costa Rica’s legal framework on indigenous issues is quite strong, the practical application of laws and international conventions that Costa Rica has ratified (including ILO Convention 169) has been lacking in force. Costa Rica’s indigenous peoples are reportedly still subject to insecurity over their lands and are largely excluded from social and economic development.

El Salvador
There are three indigenous peoples in El Salvador, the Nahua/Pipil, Lenca and Cacaopera. Although there is no reliable population data on indigenous peoples in El Salvador, it is estimated that they make up 10-12% of El Salvador’s population of approximately 6.4 million. El Salvador’s indigenous peoples mostly live in rural communities and are disproportionately affected by poverty. There is very little in the way of targeted government policies for the development of indigenous peoples. Indigenous languages in El Salvador, with the exception of Nahuat have largely disappeared.

Honduras
There are seven indigenous peoples currently living in Honduras, the Garífuna, Tolupán, Pech, Misquito, Lenca, Tawahka, and Chortí. According to Honduras’ most recent census, carried out in 2001, there are 427,943 indigenous people in Honduras, making up approximately 7% of the country’s population.

Panama
Panama has an indigenous population of 285,231 people, making up approximately 10% of the country’s population.17 There are eight indigenous peoples in Panama, the Ngöbé, Buglé, Bri Bri, Naso, Kuna, Emberá and Wounaan. Panama has five indigenous comarcas, or regions, which have some degree of autonomy from the central government. Despite having achieved considerable inroads in terms of the recognition of their lands, indigenous peoples in Panama continue to be excluded from socio-economic development and display alarmingly high poverty levels.

Belize
Has an approximate population of 279.5 thousand people; of these an estimated 6% are from the Garifuna indigenous group while approximately 10% are from the Mopan Mayan or Ketchi Mayan indigenous groups.17 While the Maya are mainly rural dwellers, the Garifuna live primarily in the urban areas.18 Thus their problems are specific to their dwelling circumstances whereby the Maya peoples’ primary issue surrounds land rights and the Garifuna are concerned with increasingly crime-ridden, diseased, por neighborhoods.19 As yet, neither of these two indigenous peoples is recognized in the Belizean constitution, because most Belizeans disregard the special and historic needs of the indigenous peoples.20 Significantly, however, is that all three of these peoples were mentioned in the introductory context of the MDGR for Belize. Also within the context of the introduction, the MDGR purports that poverty in Belize disproportionately affects rural populations and within these rural populations the indigenous Mayan people suffer inordinately high poverty statistics.

Force used against the Naso

Chapter 8 / Land disputes and encroachments into indigenous territories in Central America / The Naso of Panamá
March 31st 2009 – opening the new Naso Cultural Centre

March 31st 2009 – opening the new Naso Cultural Centre

April 1st 2009 – Ganadera Bocas move in

April 1st 2009 – Ganadera Bocas move in

April 2nd 2009 – King Valentín surveying the wreckage

April 2nd 2009 – King Valentín surveying the wreckage

November 19th 2009 – Ganadera Bocas move into San San Druy again to destroy houses

November 19th 2009 – Ganadera Bocas move into San San Druy again to destroy houses

Protected by the police

Protected by the police

November 20th 2009 – homeless inhabitants of San San Druy

November 20th 2009 – homeless inhabitants of San San Druy

Testimony from the Naso, Panama

Chapter 8 / Land disputes and encroachments into indigenous territories in Central America / The Naso of Panamá

The following testimony was taken from members of the indigenous Naso people of the Bocas del Toro province of Panama on 15 September 2010 at their homes along the Bonyic River, a valley that will be affected by construction of the Bonyic dam and hydro-electric project.

Alicia Quintero
The Bonyic company came here four and a half years ago. They wanted to build a road and put up lights. My mother was born here and she died here. I was born here and I have to die here. … You could fish here, and now if you go fishing with a hook, you cannot catch anything. Many different kinds of fish were killed when they dried up the river.

I will not sell my land because the land gives me so much. They are not going to fool me with money; money runs out; my land will not run out. I will come to an end, but my land will not.

Eudulo Quintero
We used to live quietly in the area. … I was arrested with my wife and young daughter and were taken to the barracks. They also took my son to the barracks – he was unjustly detained for defending our rights, for defending our land. … We defend our rights, we defend our land; here we have everything, natural things like oranges, pifa [a palm fruit like yucca], plantain, bananas, chicken, pigs and cattle. This helps us to survive and to look after our children. I am 53 years old and until now I have never worked in any kind of business. I have everything I need to look after my children at home, they are not hungry. And any neighbour that does not have what he needs comes and buys from me, and I sell to him. I plant rice, corn, yucca, all kinds of products that we can eat.

Ernesto Jimenez
At the moment they are developing a hydro-electric project that passes through the territory of our community. I am one of the most badly affected and I look to the Government for help. I cannot go out or go to church alone, and I have young children, and when the law comes to take me, it is my children that will suffer. They accused me of kidnapping four of them; three female engineers and one male engineer. This is a false testimony from them, because how do you think I would be able to kidnap four people by myself. Can you believe that?

Hugo Sánchez
My name is Hugo Sánchez and I am a resident of the Bonyic community. I am one of the residents that have always been at the forefront of this struggle against one of the projects that goes against the protection of our nature, our culture, our traditions and above all, is in favour of deteriorating our ethnicity. We as Naso have been massacred by the Panamanian Government; they have violated our rights as an indigenous village.

I had the opportunity to train in taxonomy, with both freshwater and saltwater fish. This has served me well today because with the basis of this knowledge, we have been able to make a complaint against the company for an environmental crime against the aquatic species that were here. The river ran its course in that direction, but as the residents of the community have not wanted to sell their land, the company were forced to divert the river without a proper permit and without having the equipment to move an aquatic species from the natural river course to the other river course. They never thought that we would have somebody that could tell which of the species should be given a change of climate with caution. They brought the police and the police moved us out of the way while they diverted the river. …

After they managed to close off the river channel, all that was previously in the current was left on the beach bouncing around, fish of all kinds. … Immediately the company’s lawyer came, saying that the fish had died and that nothing had happened. … there was a big loss of fish life, so we have lodged a criminal lawsuit against the company for environmental crimes against the aquatic species, but we are still awaiting a response from the authority that has to decide if they will plead guilty or if they are going to be fined for this crime.

Costa Rica’s indigenous peoples

Chapter 8 / Indigenous territories in Central America

Bribri
The Bribri are the largest indigenous tribe in Costa Rica, comprising 35 per cent of the total indigenous population. The 2000 census stated that there were almost 10,000 indigenous Bribris, situated mainly in the Southern Pacific and Southern Atlantic zones on either side of the Cordillera de Talamanca in Costa Rica.[1] The Bribri have managed to conserve their native language in both written and spoken forms.

Cabécare
The Cabécare are the second largest indigenous group, making up 25 per cent of the indigenous population. The Cabécare have close ties with the Bribri group, as both sets of native lands lie in the Cordillera de Talamanca region in the province of Limón.

Brunca
The Brunca group live in the south of Costa Rica in the province of Puntarenas and represent 15 per cent of the total indigenous population. They closely follow their ancestral traditions, and are well-known for their Fiesta de los Diablitos in December, for which they craft intricate masks.

Guaymí
In the 1960s many of the Guaymí – or Ngöbe Buglé as they are known in Panamá – emigrated from Panamá to Costa Rica to settle. They now comprise 13 per cent of Costa Rica’s indigenous population.

Chorotega
The Chorotegas make up only 4 per cent of Costa Rica’s indigenous population. Although they no longer speak their native language, their ethnic identity and culture remains. Unlike many of the other groups, the Chorotega live in the northwest of Costa Rica, in the Nicoya province.

Huétare
Only a small community of the Huétare group remain in the San José province, representing only 3 per cent of Costa Rica’s indigenous people. Their native language and much of their cultural identity has been lost, although certain traditions such as the Fiesta del Maíz still remain.

Maléku
Although the Maléku only represent 3 per cent of the native population in Costa Rica, they still have their own language which is taught in local schools alongside Spanish. The Maléku are one of the groups with the least land property, and much of their reserve in the northern Alajuela province is inhabited by non-indigenous people.

Teribe
The Teribe are a small native tribe originally from Panamá, where they are also known as the Naso. They only comprise 3 per cent of the total indigenous population in Costa Rica; however they are much more prominent in Panamá. As with the Maléku, much of the Teribe’s territory is occupied by non-natives, which has resulted in a mixing of the indigenous and non-indigenous population.

[1] Carla Jara Murillo and Alí García Segura (2008) ‘Materiales y Ejercicios para el Curso de Bribri’, Universidad de Costa Rica, http://www.inil.ucr.ac.cr/cvjara-bribri1/cvjara-bribri1-introduccion.pdf (Accessed 24/09/2010)

Zooification

Chapter 8 / Diversity, assimilation, transculturation and zooification

The fabricated word ‘zooification’ is not as subtle as ‘othering’, ‘assimilation’ or ‘transculturation’, but it describes a rather extreme form of assimilation in which indigenous people are integrated with the dominant society purely as objects of curiosity for the tourism industry.

It is possible that tourism is just as extractive and just as exploitative as those economic activities whose object of interest is more clearly seen as tangible and physical. Tourism’s object of interest is the trophy snapshot of a culture and life of such great difference from that of the exploiter that they, the tourists, must take away with them some small part of it – a photograph, a trinket, or just the memory of an unforgettable experience. But it is debatable whether it leaves the culture and environment intact.[1]

In an earlier work with Ian Munt[2], I characterise the experience of tribal groups as hosts by use of the word zooification, which much like many other sociological terms, ‘isms’ and ‘isations’, are completely fabricated, despite which it is a term which very much speaks for itself. Essentially it captures the way in which the tourists and tour operators treat tribal groups as objects to be viewed in much the same way as “human museum exhibits”.[3] Indigenous peoples are commonly perceived by the tourism industry as natural and wild, an intrinsic part of the nature which many tourists visit Central American countries to see. And disappointment reigns if the visited groups show signs of adapting to western culture and economy and fail to confirm the stereotype that is expected of them. The importance of these expectations is noted by Alex Standish in his review of Jim Butcher’s book on ‘The Moralisation of Tourism’. Standish describes the New Moral Tourism as:

seeking to preserve these cultures in their traditional and past states. In doing so it presents culture as something static and unchanging denying hosts the creative potential to advance their culture. Ultimately, New Moral Tourism seeks to turn developing world destinations into a museum for westerners who reject their own way of life, instead searching for an elusive authenticity.[4]

And as Survival International has said, “All too often tour operators treat tribal peoples as exotic objects to be enjoyed as part of the scenery”.[5] As Rigoberta Menchú, a Guatemalan Quiché Indian and Nobel Peace Prize winner, has stated, “our costumes are considered beautiful, but it’s as if the person wearing it didn’t exist”.[6] It is difficult to square the colour, attraction and beauty to which Rigoberta Menchú refers with William Blum’s description of Guatemala’s Indian population:

It would be difficult to exaggerate the misery of the mainly Indian peasants and urban poor of Guatemala who make up three-quarters of the population of this beautiful land so favoured by American tourists. … In a climate where everything grows, very few escape the daily ache of hunger or the progressive malnutrition … Highly toxic pesticides sprayed indiscriminately by airplanes, at times directly onto the heads of peasants, leave a trail of poisoning and death … A few hundred families possess almost all the arable land … thousands of families without land, without work, … cardboard and tin houses, with no running water or electricity, … sharing their bathing and toilet with the animal kingdom. Men on coffee plantations … living in circumstances closely resembling concentration camps.[7]

The process of zooifying tribal peoples inevitably leads to a position of powerlessness for them as well as a complete loss of human dignity. The key to avoiding such situations is control of and participation in the tourism activity, which does not necessarily mean simply a greater share of the financial profits. It also implies control over all the conditions of development.

The situation of the Kuna Indians of Panama has already been briefly discussed in various texts above which mgave some recent examples of the lengths they have had to go to in order to retain their land, culture and autonomy. Their struggle against the power of the state and the unthinking arrogance and wealth of a few foreigners had early origins, and costs, during the history of European colonisation and piracy, which Bennett briefly summarises in the above text box entitled ‘The origins of Kuna militancy’.

It is of course too simplistic to demand a single-minded, blanket policy of total control to the indigenous groups involved in any development. There are dangers, as Colchester points out, in making “an assumption that once an area is under indigenous ownership and control the problem is solved … This is patently not the case”.[8] Notwithstanding these dangers, it can be argued that the community has to own and control the development if it is to avoid the pitfalls associated with external control.

[1] See for instance Valene Smith (1989) Hosts and Guests, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; Krippendorf, J. (1987) The holiday-makers: Understanding the impact of leisure and travel, London: Heinemann; de Kadt, E. (ed.) Tourism: Passport to Development?, Oxford: Oxford University Press; many issues of Cultural Survival Quarterly; a number of issues of the newsletters and reports of Survival International, the Tourism Investigation and Monitoring Team, Tourism Concern; Colchester, M. (1994) ‘Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation’, discussion paper, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development; and a host of other reports.
[2] Martin Mowforth and Ian Munt (2009) Tourism and Sustainability: Development, globalisation and new tourism in the Third World, Third Edition, London: Routledge, pp. 261-5.
[3] World Council of Churches (2002) ‘Statement of indigenous peoples interfaith dialogue on globalisation and tourism’, 14-18 January, Chiang Rai, Thailand.
[4] Alex Standish (2004) ‘The New Moral Tourism’, TIM-team Clearinghouse, Bangkok, Thailand, September. A review of Jim Butcher (2003) The Moralisation of Tourism: Sun, Sand and … Saving the World, London: Routledge.
[5] Survival International (1995) op.cit.
[6] Rigoberta Menchú, quoted in Survival International (1995) ‘Tourism and tribal peoples’, background sheet, London: Survival International.
[7] William Blum (2003) Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, London: Zed Books, p. 229.
[8] Marcus Colchester (1994) ‘Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation’, discussion paper, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development: p. 57.

Panama: Situation Turns Critical for the Naso

Chapter 8 / Land disputes and encroachments into indigenous territories in Central America / The Naso of Panamá

By Jennifer Kennedy* on August 27, 2013 | Intercontinental Cry Magazine | Reproduced by kind permission of Jennifer Kennedy

A critical situation is developing in Naso territory, Bocas del Toro province, Panama. Some 50 Naso protesters are blockading the access road to the Boynic hydroelectric project, preventing workers from entering the construction site of the 30 megawatt dam, which is scheduled for completion later this year.

Picture by Jennifer Kennedy

Picture by Jennifer Kennedy

The protesters are demanding the government ratify an agreement that was made two weeks ago, on Aug. 14, 2013. According to Panama’s national newspaper La Prensa, attendees at the meeting, held in the Naso capital, Sieiyik, discussed issues such as the right to a comarca (a semi-autonomous region), future hydroelectric projects in the area, and current projects the king has negotiated without community consultation.

A resolution came out of the meeting, calling for King Alexis Santana to renounce the throne, new elections to be held, and the revocation of compensation agreements made with Empresas Públicas de Medellín (EPM), the Colombian company constructing the project.

The King was told he had 48 hours to leave the royal palace in Sieiyik, and the meeting turned violent when one of the attendees, Luis Gamarra, was attacked by the spokesman of the board of the king, Adolfo Peterson.

Although notified, neither national nor local government officials attended the meeting.

The road closure is indefinite say protesters, who insist that the agreement must be ratified by the government. They are now waiting for the Minister of Government, Jorge Ricardo Fabrega, to meet with them.

In a statement announced over the weekend, EPM said the blockade is affecting 3 thousand families who benefit from the project. Elizabeth Sanchez, a local leader, told La Prensa she is unhappy that a small group of people are threatening a workforce of some 600 Naso.

The project has been controversial since its inception.

In 2005, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) decided against funding the project after considering the environmental and social impacts.

A year later, the Naso made international news when the former king, Tito Santana, made a deal with EPM to build the dam on the Bon River in the heart of Naso territory. Tito divided the nation of some 3000 people when he failed to consult with them. Tito was exiled to the nearby town of El Silencio and his uncle, Valetin, replaced him as king. The government refused to recognize the staunchly anti-dam Valetin and in 2011, another election took place and Alexis Santana, who also opposed hydroelectric projects, was voted in.

In September 2012, protests erupted and the road closed. Several Naso were dismayed at the destructive way in which EPM was proceeding. Others were fed up of waiting for promised compensations. Faith in the new king began to wane.

Talking to the US-based NGO Big River Foundation in July, Edwin Sanchez, and a leader with the Organization for the Development of Sustainable Eco-tourism for the Naso (ODESEN), said “Promises are not being kept and the company is expanding in our territory. What our ancestors left us is going to be lost. They left us this land for us to care for. We expect our King to give us the support we deserve.”

The Naso are one of the few indigenous groups in the Americas that continue to have a monarchy, and this small nation, which is spread across 11 riverside communities, has relied upon and protected the surrounding rainforest and its rivers for generations. Cultural traditions include fishing, hunting, traditional medicine, and bush craft, but their culture, like their land, is under threat.

Bordering the UNESCO World Heritage Site, La Amistad International Park (PILA), which Panama co-manages with Costa Rica, Naso territory is also of ecological importance.

PILA was deemed to have ‘outstanding universal values’ because of its high biodiversity. But ongoing hydroelectric development is threatening the park. In UNESCO’s 37th World Heritage Committee in July, it regretted that Bonyic’s construction continued without considering the results of the on-going Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). UNESCO also noted with concern the permanent damage to fresh water biodiversity in the Bonyic watershed and “the absence of adequate measures to mitigate for biodiversity loss…”

In January, UNESCO sent a monitoring mission to PILA to assess various threats to the park, such as ongoing dam development and potential hydroelectric projects. One of the comments in the mission report focused on the immense social impact that dams are having upon communities like the Naso.

“The social conflicts related to the hydropower construction (and even before, in the feasibility stage) have changed many parts of the traditional lifestyle, damaged internal relationships and threatened the interaction of men with the environment (through displacement and new immigrations).”

The Naso are particularly vulnerable. Unlike many other Indigenous Peoples in Panama, their territory has never received official status as a comarca. James Anaya, the Special Rapporteur for Indigenous People, visited Panama in July and in his concluding declaration on the rights of indigenous people in Panama he stated that “of particular concern is the territorial insecurity of the Bribri and Naso whose territories do not have comarcal recognition.”

Promises of a comarca have been made often but never fulfilled.

Luis Gamarra, a community leader, told the Big River Foundation in July that according to the Commission of Indigenous Affairs in Panama, “no authority has ever submitted any petition for the region for the law creating the Naso County 19.” Adolfo Villagra, an ODESEN leader who runs the Naso eco-lodge, WEKSO, also told Big River Foundation that the government was refusing to give the Naso their land for political reasons. He said they will not rest “until the Naso community has a comarca…”

* Jennifer is a freelance journalist writing about human rights, hydroelectric development, the extractive industries and corporate malfeasance in Latin America, Africa and the UK.
jenniferjkennedy.com