Thank you to all the Conversation Leaders for their time and commitment to taking part in this important conversation. Please take a moment to learn about the conversation leaders by clicking on their profile photos.
Below is a list of questions to serve as a starting framework for the discussion in this thread:
- How do we best protect land rights along with sub-soil resource rights, air rights, and others?
- In the tension between indigenous territories and natural protection of lands, how should people-centered conservation be emphasized?
- Share tactics, tools and resources for successfully defending indigenous land rights in the face of competing interests?
Additional talking points in this thread: Natural resource extraction, logging concessions, carbon markets, protection from mining, bio rights, green tech, green energy.
CONSERVATION:
Indigenous peoples’ intimate relationship with the land that they have occupied and used for long periods of time, and their dependence on it for food, shelter, identity and survival has ensured that this relationship has been rooted in respect for that land and the need to conserve it - whether it is savannah or forest.
Indigenous peoples traditionally develop a set of conservation measures that are passed down from one generation to the next, and as a result should be seen as the best people to conserve that land. However, governments and international investors usually only view conservation of ecosystems as possible if there human habitation is limited– or at least, use it as a reason to evict them. This inevitably creates tension.
The role of indigenous peoples in the conservation of land and natural resources has been recognised by a number of international bodies. This has included the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”) and international conservation policy initiatives,[1] and by conservation organisations themselves, such as the International Union for Nature Conservation (IUCN). The Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”)’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas, adopted in 2004, has set various targets for States parties which reflect the conservationist role played by indigenous peoples such as the Ogiek. Goal 2.1.3 in particular recognises the consistency between “the goals of conserving both biodiversity and the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities”.[2]
The common finding is that where local communities and indigenous peoples can receive a share in the long-term benefits of the land, in particular through community land tenure (as was the case for the Ogiek prior to colonisation and independence), there is an incentive for conservation and sustainable use. Arguably, therefore, indigenous peoples can and should play a role in conserving their ancestral land, and this is issue was argued in the Ogiek case before the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights in November 2014 (judgment anticipated soon).
[1]For example see: Durban Action Plan and Recommendations as developed at the 5th IUCN World Parks Conference (2003), and the 2004 Programme of Work on Protected Areas (POWPA) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
[2] Convention on Biological Diversity, Programme of Work on Protected Areas, Goal 2.1.3, see further <https://www.cbd.int/protected/pow/?prog=p2> accessed 19 November 2013.
The two major ethnic groups in Rwanda became worldwide known during the tragic genocide in 1994. What very few people know, however, is about the other group living in the country, the Twa (Batwas), representing around 0.4% of the total population in the country. The indigenous Batwa are largely sidelined from participating in local decision-making procedures and have consistently been pushed off their land, leaving most of them homeless and depriving them of their environmentally safe and sustainable traditional lifestyle.
Evicted from their homes and unable to sustain their livelihoods and culture, many Batwa now live in abject poverty and thus suffer in terms of poor health and nutrition. International programmes that provide social welfare services and economic development related to housing, food, agriculture, health and the access to clean and safe drinking water rarely reach the Batwa and, despite the establishment of government guidelines, an institutional framework and support of non-governmental donors, water supply and hygiene sanitation in the rural districts remain poor.
The Batwa have a distinct culture and used to live mainly from hunting and gathering. As a result of the creation of national parks and economic development, a part of the community was displaced from the forest without compensation, making it the poorest and most marginalized section of Rwandan society. Some Batwa, referring to themselves as ‘Impunyu’, still follow this lifestyle.
However, most of them lack regular access to forests and are often described as squatters or tenants on their ancestral lands that was turned into farmland. Many Batwa turned to pottery to sustain themselves, leading to a new lifestyle and culture. However, this is today threatened again because of land policies and decreased demand for pottery products, which causes many Batwa to turn to begging to survive.
What makes the situation of the Batwa particularly dire is that they themselves with neither a viable traditional lifestyle nor access to the benefits of modern society. Post-independence Rwandan governments evicted thousands of Twa from their forest homes during the 1970 and 1980s for conservation and commercial projects and gave them little or no compensation.
Following the 1994 genocide, Rwanda embarked on a nation-building programme designed, inter alia, to create unity by resisting the attribution of minority or ethnic categories within Rwanda. For the Batwa, the effect is to render their claims as indigenous mute. UNPO finds the Rwandan authorities’ decision to dissuade the use of ethnic terms from official documents has been conflated at times with the outright denial that different ethnic groups such as the Batwa exist.
What do you think about this situation?
In most countries, there is a considerable overlap between indigenous peoples’ lands and territories and areas of high biological diversity. This is the case in the Philippines, which shows a high degree of overlap between forest areas, biodiversity hot spots, and ancestral domains of indigenous peoples. The latter by far exceed state protected areas, but the value of indigenous peoples’ community-based governance is still not recognised by governments. There seems to be a growing momentum around the recognition of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs), which is based on the recognition that a considerable part of the Earth’s biodiversity survives on territories under the ownership, control, or management of indigenous peoples and local (including mobile) communities. However, the fact that such peoples and communities are actively or passively conserving many of these sites through traditional or modern means has hitherto been neglected in formal conservation circles.
ICCAs are defined as: natural and modified ecosystems including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values voluntarily conserved by indigenous and local communities through customary laws or other effective means the total area covered by protected areas under this type of governance is not currently clear and as a result is likely to be severely underestimated. Further, while the conservation practice of ICCAs is potentially the oldest on earth, it is under-recognized and not well understood, thus leaving it in jeopardy of lacking political and financial support and increasingly vulnerable to external threats.
More info:
http://www.iccaconsortium.org/
http://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Asia-Regional-Phili...
Lucy and David,
interesting posts. Indeed, indigenous peoples share an integral association with their natural environments, both economically and culturally. As such, any exploitation of natural resources found in their lands not only poses a threat to their natural environments, but it is also an affront to their culture and livelihoods. In this regard, the Awá tribe of Brazil is one of the most threatened communities in the world. Since the construction of a railway in 1982, that cut through the tribe's land and opened the way for illegal loggers into their territory, the Awá have had their lives dramatically altered. Following considerable international pressure, the Brazilian government has finally recognised the urgent need to protect this indigenous community. Nonetheless, agribusiness, mining and energy lobbies continue to advance and a recently proposed controversial constitutional amendment, the so-called PEC 215, threatens to weaken even further indigenous rights in Brazil, putting the Awá and the country’s ca 300 other indigenous peoples at significant risk.
Many times this problem goes unaddressed due to a lack of awareness from the part of the affected communities of their human and indigenous rights as outlined in national, regional and international law, and/or due to a lack of knowledge on how to use various legal instruments to successfully claim these rights.
I have followed with interest the case of the Sápara indigenous people, in Equador. The Ecuadorian government has announced imminent plans to sign contracts for two controversial Amazonian oil blocks which overlap with the territory of the Sápara indigenous people, a small threatened group of only 300. Despite opposition from local indigenous people residing in the area, it seems that the project is going ahead.
The Ecuadorian government claim that they consulted the Sápara in accordance with Article 57 of the constitution, which requires Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation (FPIC). Apparently, this is not true and instead of obtaining the consent of the communities, as both Ecuador's constitution and international law require, the government waged a relentless campaign to divide the Sápara. Despite the government's false claims of community approval and attempts to create its own Sápara federation, the only legitimate federation of the Sápara does not recognize any agreement for access to Sápara territory.
Amazon Watch is following this case closely. Perhaps the conversation leader Andrew E. Miller, from Amazon Watch, has some updates about the situation in Equador?
Thank you for raising this case, Fernando. The Sápara are one of various excellent case studies from the Ecuadorian Amazon in multi-pronged campaigns for territorial defense. Several of the strategies they have used include:
* Denouncing their situation before the United Nations (most recently, at the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues.)
* Denouncing their situation before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC (attached photo)
* Participating in mass actions within Ecuador, e.g. March 8th women's indigenous protest in Puyo that attracted 500 women
* Generating international media coverage: Fusion.net article Small tribe with a big voice vows to stop Chinese oil drilling in the Amazon.
Unfortunately, one of the high profile women leaders, Gloria Ushigua, has been subject to a number of threats as of late. Here is some information provided by Frontline Defenders.
Overall, as you indicated, it's a tough situation in Ecuador where the government has amassed significant debt from China, a certain amount of it to be paid back in oil. So we have seen a concerted effort to carry out pro-forma consultation processes that certainly do not meet international indigenous rights standards (e.g. those laid out in the Sarayaku decision at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights) and to divide and conquer indigenous federations, often times creating or favoring pro-oil splinter groups of indigenous leaders.
I would note the challenge in recent years that indigenous peoples have had dealing with nominally progressive governments in the region (Correa, Dilma in Brazil, Evo in Bolivia). There have been many bitter fights (Belo Monte in Brazil, TIPNIS road in Bolivia) and indigenous people have not been able to depend on the full support of progressive civil society movements that would normally have their backs but feel caught between them and their political allegiances. Of course, a lot of that is going to change as we see right-ward political shifts in Peru and Brazil, where initial signs related to indigenous rights are not good. Perhaps material for another post!
Thank you for sharing with us the strategies that the Sáparas have been using in their campaign. It is interesting what you said about the challenge in recent years that indigenous peoples have had dealing with nominally progressive governments in the region (Correa, Dilma in Brazil, Evo in Bolivia).
In Brazil, where I know the situation with more details, Dilma’s administration was a major frustration concerning indigenous rights. Contrary to what many expected, she didn’t stood up for the indigenous communities, land demarcation were frozen and the Belo Monte mega-dam simply disregarded the communities residing in the area, as well as the environment – despite the official position of the former government. As things are never so bad they can’t be made worse, the current government will certainly impose a harsher throwback to the indigenous peoples in Brazil.
There is little doubt that many Indigenous communities worldwide have played a pivotal role in conservation efforts and this role has been recognised both internationally and domestically.
However, political, economic, social and other pressures have led some Indigenous communities to use their customary lands in a manner not necessarily aligned with the conservation agenda. An example from Malaysia (where I currently research Indigenous rights and engage in pro bono Indigenous land rights litigation) is the logging and development of Indigenous inhabited lands for cash crop cultivation such as palm oil. While there are many instances where the affected Indigenous communities have not been adequately consulted (or not given their free, prior and informed consent) for such development, there are situations where the Indigenous community itself wishes to develop parts of its customary land whether for personal or communal gain.
In such a scenario, is there necessarily a conflict or inconsistency between the ideal of Indigenous peoples possessing rights to determine their own land use priorities and the concept of environmental conservation? How would one allay concerns, whether unfounded or not, that Indigenous autonomy over large tracts of land does not automatically translate to a better conservation outcome?
I would like to know more on how Indigenous communties from outside Malaysia have negotiated this potential issue.
The Engine Room's new primer, developed in partnership with Rainforest Foundation Norway, shows ways in which technology can help protect indigenous land rights.
It highlights available tools, ways that they can be used, and guides making a choice.
Read the online version here or download the full primer (1.6MB pdf).
This tool developed by the Engine Room's is really interesting!
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for sharing the Engine Room's approach, which brings a new thread of thinking into the conversation about the proactive role of technology.
In the last few years many communities have engaged in mapping their own territory, using diffrent type of technologies from 3D mapping to more advance GPS trackings. These maps are powerfull tools for advocacy, community cohesion and for marking the diffrent cultural and customary elements of territorial usage.
On that front the Rainforets Foundation UK has embarked into a very large programme entitled 'mapping for rights' covering the whole congo basin.
See: http://www.mappingforrights.org/
This is only one example of such initative as mapping is taking place across the globe.
On that front I was wondering if anyone would have illustrations of situations where mapping was used sucesfully to be able to gain land rights victories? As I have highlighted mapping is certainly a great tool for advocacy and for community empowerment, but outside these aspects I wonder if these maps have been used into more fomal legal or political settings as 'evidence' of indigenous land rights? Have these ever been used as legal evidence to win legal battles either in courts or into national policy demarcation processes? if so, how did it work in practice, were states authorities accepting the community mapping as such or calling for changes/expertises, etc?
Thanks for Sharing Engine Room's initiatitive.
Indigenous community maps using GPS technology and sketch maps drawn by Indigenous communities have been employed with some success in the Malaysian courts. By way of background, the law of evidence in Malaysia for civil and criminal cases is largely founded upon English common law rules of evidence.
Despite objections that these maps are "inaccurate" and not prepared by a licensed surveyor, the Malaysian courts have utilised these maps as a visual guide to the specific geographical space claimed by the Indigenous community. The maps do not only demarcate boundaries of the areas claimed but at times constitute a detailed portrayal of the community's traditional and current occupation, use and enjoyment of the area claimed.
However, the evidentiary value or relevance placed on such maps is to support the testimonies of the Inidgenous claimants and other supporting evidence. In other words, these maps are indicative of the area claimed but are not conclusive. There have been instances where the Courts have allowed an Indigenous claim subject to a formal survey to be conducted in accordance with the indicative map adduced by the Indigenous claimants.
Here are a few citations for successful litigation claims based on common law rights (ala Mabo, Calder etc) where such indicative maps have been accepted:
(1) Abu Bakar Pangis v Tung Cheong Sawmill Sdn Bhd [2014] 5 Malayan Law Journal (MLJ) 384, 401-2 (Court of Appeal);
(2) Superintendent of Land and Surveys Department Sibu Division v Usang ak Labit [2014] 3 MLJ 519, 524-5 (Court of Appeal); and
(3) Sangka bin Chuka v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Mersing [2016] 8 MLJ 289, 328-9 (High Court).
Hi Jeremie,
I would like to share another important initiative, the Landmark global map, an online, interactive global platform to provide maps and other critical information on lands that are collectively held and used by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The global platform is designed to help Indigenous Peoples and communities protect their land rights and secure tenure over their lands. LandMark currently provides information at two scales–community level and national level—allowing users to compare the land tenure situation across countries and within countries.
This initiative is orinted to gather as much information from existing initiatives, as RF UK mapping for rights, in order to create a global map. More info at: http://www.landmarkmap.org/about/
Among the many members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, the indigenous peoples of Chittagong Hill Tracts in modern-day Bangladesh have a particularly interesting story. After enjoying a relative level of protection for their way of life under British rule, their situation deteriorated post-1947 Partition. Policies protecting their land and distinctive identity were repealed by Pakistan in the 1960s, paving the way for demographic shifts and exploitation of the CHT territory. Their situation did not improve with the establishment of the state of Bangladesh, where they were again viewed as traitors and mass migration and land confiscation accelerated. Today, CHT are still not recognised by Bangladesh as an indigenous people, and their peaceful struggle for survival continues.
The 1997 Accord between the Government of Bangladesh and the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS - United People’s Party of the CHT), the main political party representing the interests of the indigenous communities of the CHT, came after over two decades of conflict and negotiations, and was therefore welcomed as a great achievement. The Accord comprises a number of provisions that the Bangladeshi Government was to implement to better protect the rights of CHT’s numerous tribes collectively known as Jumma people (Highlanders) and amounting to approximately 850.000 individuals. Despite several attempts and the insistence of the indigenous community, almost 19 years later, many provision of the Accords still lie unimplemented while others have been only partially implemented.
The Jumma people have yet to be officially recognised as indigenous, while their distinctive cultures, languages and traditions are threatened by the settlement of a large number of Bengali people from other parts of the country, which in only 60 years have increased from 2% to 50% of the region's population. The indigenous populations faces dire human rights violations, including racial discrimination, land-grabbing, eviction, harassment, rape, abduction, and killings.
Their leadership has excellent advocacy skills and we support their engagement with international organisations. Anybody in this conversation has experience with the people of the CHT?
Bagua-Peru
The power of international companies in Peru and developing countries is unimaginable. Indigenous people are more vulnerable because this situation. In 2009, at least 41 indigenous people were killed as a result of opposition against to the development of oil company in the Peruvian Amazon, it was a tragic two days of bloody confrontations. They were in protest because the Peruvian government with a new regulation put at risk the safety of their natural resources and this new regulation would able foreign companies to exploit them. The indigenous protesters vowed to continue until the decrees were replaced and not just suspended. Two weeks after the bloody confrontation, on the 18th June, the congress repealed two of the decrees.
Cajamarca-Peru
22 years of mining in this Province and is considered one of the poorest in Peru. No potable water, no electricity, and education centers in bad conditions. 5 people were killed because they protested against to a mining company. No was responsible for them, and no is in prison, but their families still suffering because they will not see them anymore.
How many indigenous people more need to be killed before we achieved a real regulation that can protect them? and put into practice in real life
It's the 21st century and we still killing each other.
It's is an ongoing process, but we will get there.
Alcides, you raise two high-profile cases of violent repression against indigenous land defenders in the Peruvian scenario. Unfortunately, there are many other examples that I'm sure you are very familiar with: the assassination of four Asháninka leaders in 2014, most priminently Edwin Chota, likely for their outspoken efforts for land titling and against illegal logging within their forests. Global Witness has done an excellent job in recent years documenting the global epidemic of killings of environmental and land defenders, many of them indigenous leaders. In late 2014 they published Peru's Deadly Environment, as a way of highlighting this issue in the lead-up to the COP20 UN climate summit hosted in Lima in December of that year. Just last month they published On Dangerous Ground, which documented 185 killings of environmental activists in 2015, some 12 of whom were in Peru. A report just released in Peru documents some 50 people killed and 750 wounded as a result of socio-environmental conflicts in Peru over the course of the Humala administration.
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to see this situation changing much with the new Kuczynski administration. The incoming Minister of Economy and Finance, Alfredo Thorne, suggested that community land titles should be transformed into individual titles around key extractive sites. Such a proposal is reminiscent of Legislative Decree 1015, which sparked indigenous protests in August of 2008 until the Congress repealed it. One of two Vice Presidents is Mercedes Araóz, known as Miss Bagua, for her role in claiming in 2009 that a repeal of certain other Legislative Decrees would spell the end of the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and helping create the political environment in which violent repression was preferable to good-faith negotiation and compromise.
How the new Peruvian government will handle what they call socio-environmental conflict remains to be seen. Certainly indigenous peoples (and others) will continue to fight for their collective and territorial rights, as the foundation of their culture and existence. Support from national and international allies will continue to be very important to increasing likelihood of their rights being realised and, in some cases, decreasing likelihood of violent repression.
In the case of pressures and threats against specific indigenous leaders and activists, there are some steps that can be taken to either strengthen their position or help them leave the 'hot zone' on a temporary basis. Strategies for defending their political space include strengthening communications with allies, grassroots urgent actions, high-level letters of support, media coverage, protests at embassies, short-term visits from international allies, and international protective accompaniment, as carried out by groups like Peace Brigades International. When the situation is deemed too risky, activists can travel nationally or even internationally if necessary. There are various funds established to help human rights defenders in emergency situations, like Frontline Defenders Protection Grants and the Urgent Action Fund for Women's Human Rights Evacuation Grants.
In short, defending indigenous land rights against corporate interests, government economic plans, and illegal actors like loggers and drug traffickers is always going to be risky. We must continue to push governments, corporations and others to create an environment in which land rights can be strengthened while enforcing zero tolerance for violence against the people who are claiming those rights.
PS: A coalition of organizations launched a campaign yesterday targeting the World Bank and other international financial institutions, in terms of their role in not exacerbating these social conflicts on the ground. Here's a press release, from the Human Rights Watch website.
A region where UNPO is quite strong is in South East Asia. Across the region, indigenous peoples and minorities are often seen by governments as threats to social cohesion. States such as Indonesia, Myanmar and Vietnam have traditionally suppressed indigenous communities and national movements through violent counter-insurgency campaigns, forcibly incorporating distinct peoples within a homogeneous nation-state project. These practices are often accompanied by widespread cases of sexual violence, torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
The economic situation of these marginalized communities is likewise critical. Often excluded from markets and government services, such as health care, agricultural assistance and education, minorities and indigenous people are severely impacted by development projects and resource exploitation. The Hmong in the North of Laos, whose lands have been classified by the government as “specific economic zones”, is an example of large-scale construction without prior consultation of the local population. In addition to enduring land expropriation and mass displacement, minorities and indigenous people often do not benefit from the region’s economic growth, as revenues from natural resource exploitation remain in the hands of foreign interests and the dominant local population.
Concerning religious issues, South East Asia’s minorities and indigenous people are targeted with systematic discrimination and violence for their spiritual practices. The cases of the Khmer Krom, Degar-Montagnards and Chin are only a few examples, which demonstrate the extent of harassment and persecution.
I think that the human rights agenda in South East Asia has gone through considerable development since political liberalization in the region in the late 1980s and 1990s when NGOs, Western donors and multilateral agencies initiated activities to alleviate poverty and underdevelopment. Despite the growing volume of external engagement with stakeholders at national, regional and international levels, development projects remain geographically confined and limited in scope of beneficiaries. Moreover, the impact of regional human rights organizations based in ASEAN member states is restricted in the most critical areas. In fact, UNPO considers that a fundamental step in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration would be to include minorities and indigenous peoples in its declaration.
Probably other people in this conversation have first-hand experience in that region, so please share your views!
Dear Fernando
I apologise for this 'out of time' post.
Thanks for your observations on Indigenous minority rights in Southeast Asia which I think cover a lot of ground. There is plenty that I would like to contribute but I have to limit myself to two quick comments at this stage.
In respect of the need for contextualised Indigenous rights in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), I am in full agrement with you. However, my practical experience from a civil society perspective during domestic dialogues preceding the AHRD in Malaysia suggest a relative lack of political will to explicitly recognise contextualised Indigenous rights on the part of member States (if compared to regional organisations in the American States and Africa). Often, civil society irepresentatives would hear rhetorical justifications for the non-inclusion of Indigenous rights from State representatives such as:
(1) Respect for the principle of non-interference and member State sovereignty as contained in the ASEAN Charter;
(2) State and perhaps 'majoritarian' views of who is 'Indigenous' at the expense of Indigenous minorities coupled with the selective employment of the concept of formal (rather than substantive) equality for all;
(3) The State's use of cultural relativism to deny the Indigenous strand of human rights; and
(4) The need for Indigenous peoples to 'get with the programme' and enjoy the fruits of economic progress (while land and resource 'grabs' continue to burgeon).
Academically, I published a short piece in the Australian Indigenous Law Bulletin ((2013) 8(4) Indigenous Law Bulletin 3) soon after the AHRD was signed. The article can be accessed for free from the Austlii website at www.austlii.edu.au. You may find it useful.
My second comment is on the understated effectiveness and/or consequences of policies and practices by some ASEAN states that are apparently designed to 'mainstream' and 'uplift' Indigenous communities economically. Equally however, these policies and practices can potentially contribute to the further loss of customary lands and resources, acculturation and the loss of identity for these Indigenous communities. For specific examples, please see refer to the article I published in respect of the Peninsular Malaysia Orang Asli peoples in the QUT Law Review last year. It can be viewed through the following link : https//lr.qut.edu.au/article/view/562/563. Again, you may find this useful.
The best way to protect the land rights of Indigenous People is to respect them and treat them as equal with other communities.For instance according to conversations with Sengwer community in Embobut forest, they are forest dwellers and not destroy trees , but non-Sengwer communities who have no cultural affiliation with trees and forest , ended up cutting down trees and now the Sengwer are suffering because of others’ mistakes.
In the coastal region land belonging to Indigenous Communties for instance in Marereni , Malindi have been taken away by the Salt Companies and the expansion of the salt lagoons continues to be an environmental threat to these communities .In addition, majority of them are farmers and due to toxicity brought about by the expanding salt lagoons , access to clean water is a challenge .
The bulk of the struggle of this community is land rights.Threats and intimidation are being meted on communities to deprive them of their land .Use of force is also apparent in these cases for instance through arrests when communties speak out.Majority of community members in the area have pending court cases where they visit Malindi Law Courts and the bulk of these cases involve land related issues.
In some instances the lack of title deeds is also a problem.In many Indigenous Peoples' territory land is communally owned.The individualization of land has brought about further exploitation and due to the fact that many may not have title deeds , their land is easily taken away from them as the person with a title is the one recognized as legitimate.
In many instances there is a lot of neglect of Indigenous Peoples , but when natural resources are discovered in their territories these localities become of interest to government.Case in point is Turkana region of Kenya , with the discovery of oil there is a lot of interest in the area .The local community has come up to demonstrate that they too need to be included in the sharing of benefits accrued from the discoveries.
Despite in many instances being neglected , deemed non-governable and unimportant, thus uncontrollable, Indigenous People have their own systems of governance which they have used to co-exist for many years.
Communities such as the Sengwer have community by laws but which are yet to be recognized.In the past , the forest dwelling community divided the forest into glades and each clan was responsible for a given section of the forest.Additionally they had laws to govern the use of forest resources.An example is that trees were not to be felled and in case they are looking for firewood, old barks and fallen trees were the ones to be used .
Ways of emphasizing people centered conservation include conducting community mapping to identify which resources exist within their territories , identification of watch groups at the community level who are responsible for ensuring effective conservation and who report to the community on regular basis.
Additionally systems of natural resource management should be put in such a way that they are incorruptible.A case in point is where communities in Cherangani have shared that they get evicted from the forest but millers get into the forest and cut down trees which have existed for over 100 years , sadly its the Indigenous People who get to be blamed and forcefully evicted.
Working closely with the councils of elders within Indigenous Communities is also very important.For instance , the Sengwer have a Supreme Council of Elders who are knowleadgeable on forest governance , these are focal point persons who can be incorporated into forest governance and thus protection of natural resources.
Working towards transgenerational transfer of indigenous knowledge and skills also goes a long way in ensuring that when the elderly people are nolonger alive, the younger generation can take up protection of these natural resources
Thanks for the feedback, Jeremie, Yogeswaran, and Fernando. We're always interested in talking more or adding new information, so feel free to get in touch if you think there are things that should be added. David, thanks for sharing the information on Landmark, too.
In response to Jeremie's question:
We came across a few isolated cases where participatory mapping has been used in formal legal or political settings (but would love to hear more). As well as the Malaysian case - thanks Yogeswaran for the details - there is some useful information in this report (p.9 onwards) about some successes the Wapichan community have had in Guyana (working with Digital Democracy and Forest People's Programme, among others) http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2015/10/where-they-standweb-spreads.pdf
Some legal issues are also set out in this report: http://www.reseaurrnrdc.org/documents/pdf/What%20can%20local%20communities%20teach%20us%20about%20forest%20management.pdf
Are any common barriers known to make data from participatory mapping less likely accepted in legal or formal political settings? It would be great to share those challenges and help inform preparations.