Indigenous Rights

Cultural Celebration or Economic Exploitation: Indigenous Identity in Peru

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/peru-indigenous-names-public-records

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/peru-indigenous-names-public-records

By: Clarice Benney*

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao'.

Peru’s geographical diversity is typically summarised in three words: sierra (mountainous Andean region), selva (the tropical Amazon rainforest), and costa (coastal cities, towns and villages). Travel companies often capitalise on this diversity, marketing it as an ideal holiday destination for the variety of environments, however this presentation often idealises the situation and fails to nuance how regionalisation can have a negative impact on individual experience. This article will explore how indigenous and Hispanic identities intersect to form Peru, with regard to economic generation, cultural exploitation, linguistic diversity and political representation.

Source: https://portal.andina.pe/edpespeciales/2018/diversidad/index.html

Source: https://portal.andina.pe/edpespeciales/2018/diversidad/index.html

The mountainous Andean region, home to the cities of Cusco and cultural site of Machu Picchu, is also home to many of Peru’s Quechua communities. 60% of land in Peru is in the Amazon basin, and when looking at the demographic makeup of the Amazonas and Loreto provinces, there are a combined 32 indigenous groups. The coastal area is where the majority of Peru’s cities are based, but when looking at Peru’s entire coastline, the presence of indigenous communities decreases, as shown in the map to the right, and aside from some Quechua communities in Ancash there is no presence at all within 50 kilometres of the coast.

Source: https://www.minem.gob.pe/_publicacion.php?idSector=1&idPublicacion=557

Source: https://www.minem.gob.pe/_publicacion.php?idSector=1&idPublicacion=557

Peru’s three largest industries are mining, fishing, and tourism. When considering how these industries ‘map out’, as shown in the map to the left, mining is being undertaken and explored in areas that seem to follow the spread of Quechua communities: in the Andean region from Arequipa to Ancash. For tourism, I would argue that it is more useful to understand why tourists come to Peru than where tourists go. In 2017, a survey found that the top four motives for visiting Per were to see the nature and natural landscape (60.7%), to see Machu Picchu (60.4%), for the Peruvian cuisine (59%), and to visit Cusco (55%). Machu Picchu is an archaeological site of an Incan settlement, built into the mountains and so remote that it survived the destruction of the Spanish conquistadores, and Cusco is its nearest city, and a popular destination for hiking and its impressive landscape. When visiting for gastronomy, the capital city of Lima is home to many good restaurants, but not the only place to take advantage of Peru’s rich culinary culture.

In terms of the residential population distribution in Peru, about 40% lives in the costa, 36% live in the sierra and 12% in the selva. Almost one third of the population lives in the Lima and Callao Metropolitan area. With this in mind, it does make sense that there would be a centralisation of resources in the Lima area, however the extent of the centralisation of resources appears somewhat exploitative, given that the industries which finance it are linked to the sierra and indigenous culture. However, it is not just about economic resources and recognition; when considering the importance of indigenous culture to tourism, Peru’s institutions often exclude and disadvantage indigenous communities.

In 2002, the cultural and linguistic diversity in Peru led to a law being passed that is commonly referred to as Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (EIB), which aims to promote indigenous languages and cultures, keeping the languages ‘alive’ by creating bilingual schools that teach in indigenous languages. In practice, this has led to the development of some schools that offer bilingual primary education. For example, in the Cusco region some primary schools give education in Quechua, the indigenous language in this area, but almost all secondary education is taught in Castilian Spanish. Whilst the motive behind EIB was good, it has created issues. For one, the ‘othering’ of non-Castilian speaking children, as EIB schools are seen as different and separate from non-EIB schools, which make up the majority. Additionally, EIB aside, there is a higher rate of leaving education between primary and secondary in indigenous communities due in part to the increased expense of accessing schools that are further away. This disproportionately affects girls, who are less likely to be given the opportunity if a family can only afford to send one child, and is choosing between a son and a daughter. What EIB can do is to heighten the risk of dropping out of education if a child is uncomfortable or unable to speak Castilian. To improve this situation would either require the development of EIB secondary schools or the inclusion of indigenous language and culture in the mainstream national curriculum in order to address the issue of marginalisation.

With regard to political representation of indigenous culture in Peru, until 1979 voting was only possible for those who could speak and write Castilian, and there have been a number of cultural conflicts in recent years. For example, in 2006, María Sumire had to repeat her ‘swearing-in’ three times, as she insisted on doing it in Quechua, her native language. In 2009, in what is now referred to as el Baguazo, Congress suspended 7 elected members, three of whom identified as indigenous, for supporting protests in favour of demands being made by indigenous communities. The demands came in response to a government move to loosen legislation regarding extraction of resources in the Amazon. The protests came to a head in a confrontation which saw both police and protestor casualties, but only the prosecution of protestors. The significance of removing these members of Congress cannot be overlooked, given that from 2001-2016 only 7 members of Congress identified as indigenous.

Peru’s diversity is part of its identity, and yet sadly this diversity has not yet led to the social equity necessary to avoid economic exploitation of indigenous people. The seeds are there in the form of the EIB and perception of Peru to outsiders, however in their current forms, neither of these potential factors for change are doing their jobs properly. As such, work to help restore this balance falls to individuals offering community services. I would like to highlight the work of three organisations operating in the Cusco area: Casa Mantay, Sacred Valley Project and Mosqoy


Casa Mantay provides a home for teenage mothers and their children and gives them the necessary support (both material and psychological) to continue their education, as well as giving them the opportunity to develop skills by working in their social enterprise, Taller Mantay, which produces artisan leather goods. Mantay has recently started having ‘Jueves de Quechua’ (Thursdays in Quechuan) for staff and girls, to recognise the importance of self-expression for those who speak Quechua as their native tongue, and to encourage non-native speakers to learn it. 

Sacred Valley Project provides dormitories in Cusco for girls from indigenous backgrounds to come during term time and receive support and community when they attend secondary school. Similarly, Mosqoy has dormitories for secondary students and they also work with mostly female-run weaving cooperatives in the Sacred Valley as part of the Q’ente Society Textile Revitalization Programme, to give them an outlet to sell to international markets. This connects women’s often unacknowledged labour with a fair income source, fostering financial independence in their families, greater provision for their children, and a central, respected place in the rural economy.

Clarice is a student studying Spanish at Cambridge University. She is currently on her ‘year abroad’ and working with the NGO Latin American Foundation for the Future (LAFF) as Communications Coordinator. LAFF operates in Cusco, Peru and so Clarice is particularly interested in Peruvian current affairs, as well as protest culture in Latin American and grassroots activism. 

*About LAFF:

Latin American Foundation for the Future (LAFF) is a UK registered charity operating in Cusco, Peru to increase access to quality education and personal development opportunities. LAFF believes that one of the best ways to create positive long term change is to support local grassroots organisations so that community leaders drive the change. To find out more about what we do, check out our website.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/laffcharity/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/latin-american-foundation-for-the-future

The Aftermath of the Escazú Agreement: a Failure, or the Path to Environmental Awareness and the Protection of Environmental Activists in Latin America?

Source: Photo by Isabella Jusková on Unsplash

Source: Photo by Isabella Jusková on Unsplash

By: Mathilde Aupetit

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao.

Introduction

Indigenous communities are essential actors against climate change, the disappearance of species, increasing desertification and the decline of ecosystems. They represent 5% of the world's population and protect 80% of the planet's biodiversity in their daily life (Raygorodetsky 2018), yet indigenous communities and their lands have been under threat for centuries (Sierra Praeli 2019). In recent decades, increasing rates of deforestation, infrastructure development and resource extraction have destroyed their lands, threatening the stability of the planet at large.


When community activists try to oppose these tendencies, they are often arrested, attacked, or even killed. The non-profit NGO, Global Witness, documented more than 200 killings of environmental defenders in 2019 (Global Witness 2019), the majority of which took place in Latin America. It is in this context that the Escazú agreement, an innovative treaty on human rights in environmental matters, was signed by 22 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.


Context of the Agreement’s signature

September 2020 marked the second anniversary of the opening for signature of the Escazú Agreement at the United Nations. This little-known regional treaty, adopted in 2018 in Costa Rica, aims to strengthen the rights of those in Latin America and the Caribbean who defend the environment (CEPAL 2018). This international treaty is the object of a real campaign of disinformation, which aims to ensure that it is neither signed nor ratified. Indeed, it is since September 2018 that this important regional agreement, adopted in Costa Rica in March of the same year, was officially opened for signature by thirty-three States from the Latin America and the Caribbean (Wilson 2018).


What is the Escazú Agreement?

The Escazú Agreement is the first regional environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the first in the world to include specific provisions on environmental defenders. It aims to guarantee the full and effective implementation of the rights of access to environmental information, of public participation in environmental decision-making processes and of access to justice in environmental matters (Amnesty International 2018). In addition, it seeks international cooperation to protect the right to live in a healthy environment, which is especially important in the Latin American region as, according to the FAO, 49% of the total area of Latin America and the Caribbean is covered by forest, which corresponds to around 20% of the world’s forest area (FAO 2020). This agreement is also important because, as mentioned earlier, Latin America is one of the most dangerous regions for environmental activists, accounting for two thirds of the world assassinations of environmentalists (Greenfield and Watts 2020). The Escazú Accord was developed over a six-year period, with input from civil society and community groups. Based on Principle No. 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the treaty has three main objectives: to provide citizens with full and transparent information on activities affecting the environment; to allow citizens to have more say in how land and marine resources are used; and to ensure full legal rights and protection for environmental defenders (World Resources Institute 2018).


What are the main debates about it today?

Two years after its inception, the treaty has yet to be ratified. September 26th, 2020 was the deadline for at least eleven countries ratifying the agreement, the amount required for it to enter into force, but only ten had done so. Indeed, although negotiations were led by Chile and Costa Rica, neither country ratified the agreement, which is one of the major paradoxes and topics of debate surrounding the Escazú Agreement (Guzmán 2020). Even Chile, who currently holds the presidency of the UN summit on climate change, the COP25, has not even signed the agreement, which calls into question the country's commitment to the environment (Aguilar Córdoba 2020).

The reasons given by the Chilean government are that the text, which Chile assisted in drafting, is too ambiguous and that it would give rise to possible international requests, on the parts of European governments especially, regarding Latin American progress, and reinforce the dependency of the Latin American region to its European counterpart (Aguilar Córdoba 2020). On the other hand, and just a few hours before the ratification deadline, Chile’s president, Sebastián Piñera, assured that Chile is "totally committed" to climate change before the United Nations General Assembly (Ibidem). However, there is no legal reason, from the point of view of international law, not to sign the agreement. Rather, one could point to possible economic interests behind Chile's refusal to sign the Escazú Agreement (Gandara 2020). The treaty therefore remains open for ratification by countries that have not yet signed or ratified it, but it will be necessary to wait for this eleventh signature for it to enter into force.

The failure to ratify the treaty: a reflection about the lack of environmental preoccupations from the Latin American region

The decision from the Chilean government not to ratify the agreement drew harsh criticism from the opposition and environmental organizations. According to Amnesty International, this long waiting time before the ratification of the treaty shows a lack of interest and willingness to put in effort on the part of the governments in the region (Amnesty International 2020). Matías Asun, national director of the Greenpeace organization in Chile, criticized the government's management, accusing it of carrying out "misleading advertising" for making people believe that environmental policies are at the centre of its agenda (AFP and the Tico Times 2020).


Conclusion

Although it is a necessary step to protect environmental leaders and promote sustainable development in the region, the Escazú Agreement is not a magical remedy against environmental damages. Even in the countries that have signed and ratified the agreement, environmental decision-making remains contradictory. In Mexico, for example, the Senate that ratified the treaty also eliminated the funds for the protection mechanism for environmental defenders, which in practice leaves them even less protected (Mexico News Daily 2020). Besides, in Antigua and Barbuda, and many Central American countries, the destruction of natural barriers due to the construction of large infrastructure projects leaves them even more exposed to natural events such as the recent storms Eta and Iota (Sanders 2020).


For now, the double discourse of Latin American governments seems to show that it takes more than eleven signatures for this unprecedented instrument to really work; this change should also operate through a change of mindset and perception about a conception of development in which economic growth should not be opposed to environmental preservation and life, in all its meanings.

Originally from France, Mathilde is currently a MPhil Student in Latin American Studies at Cambridge University. Before her MPhil, she completed a BA in International Relations at King’s College London, with a focus in Latin America, which sharpened her interest in the region. She is especially interested in Latin American identity politics and minorities integration

Bibliography

AFP and the Tico Times. 2020. ‘Chile Rejects Escazú Agreement, Environmental Pact Supported by Costa Rica’. Chile Rejects Escazú Agreement, Environmental Pact Supported by Costa Rica. 23 September 2020. https://theworldnews.net/cr-news/chile-rejects-escazu-agreement-environmental-pact-supported-by-costa-rica.

Aguilar Cordoba, Andrea. 2020. ‘Why Won’t Chile Ratify Escazu Environmental Agreement?’ 25 September 2020. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/environment/why-wont-chile-ratify-escazu-environmental-agreement/1985943.

Amnesty International. 2018. ‘Americas: 12 Countries Sign Historic Environmental and Human Rights Treaty’. 27 September 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/09/americas-12-countries-sign-historic-environmental-treaty/.

———. 2020. ‘The Americas Must Not Miss Opportunity to Lead on Environmental Protection’. 26 September 2020. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/americas-oportunidad-para-proteccion-medio-ambiente/.

CEPAL, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 2018. ‘El Acuerdo de Escazú: un hito ambiental para América Latina y el Caribe’. Text. CEPAL. 2018. https://www.cepal.org/es/articulos/2018-acuerdo-escazu-un-hito-ambiental-america-latina-caribe.

FAO. 2020. ‘Forest Loss Slows in South America, Protected Areas Rise  | FAO’. 7 May 2020. http://www.fao.org/americas/noticias/ver/en/c/1274254/.

Gandara, Fernanda. 2020. ‘Escazú Treaty: “Human Rights Cannot Be Enjoyed Without a Healthy Environment”’. Chile Today (blog). 24 September 2020. https://chiletoday.cl/chile-rejects-the-escazu-agreement-that-it-originally-spearheaded/.

Global Witness. 2019. ‘Land and Environmental Defenders: Annual Report Archive’. Global Witness. 2019. https:///en/campaigns/environmental-activists/land-and-environmental-defenders-annual-report-archive/.

Greenfield, Patrick, and Jonathan Watts. 2020. ‘Record 212 Land and Environment Activists Killed Last Year’. The Guardian, 29 July 2020, sec. Environment. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/record-212-land-and-environment-activists-killed-last-year.

Guzmán, Lorena. 2020. ‘Why Chile Promoted the Escazú Agreement Then Rejected It’. Dialogo Chino (blog). 26 November 2020. https://dialogochino.net/en/climate-energy/38525-why-chile-promoted-the-escazu-agreement-then-rejected-it/.

Mexico News Daily. 2020. ‘Mexico Ratifies Treaty That Protects Rights of Environmental Activists’. Mexico News Daily (blog). 14 November 2020. https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/treaty-protects-rights-of-environmental-activists/.

Raygorodetsky, Gleb. 2018. ‘Indigenous Peoples Defend Earth’s Biodiversity—but They’re in Danger’. 16 November 2018. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/can-indigenous-land-stewardship-protect-biodiversity-/.

Sanders, Sir Ronald. 2020. ‘WORLD VIEW: We’re in a New Reality and Those Who Control the Purse Strings Need to Realise That - and Help’. 23 November 2020. http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/nov/23/world-view-were-new-reality-and-those-who-control-/.

Sierra Praeli, Yvette. 2019. ‘Latin America Saw Most Murdered Environmental Defenders in 2018’. Mongabay Environmental News. 29 August 2019. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/latin-america-saw-most-murdered-environmental-defenders-in-2018/.

Wilson, Kate. 2018. ‘The Escazu Agreement: A Case for Signature’. 27 August 2018. https://pressroom.oecs.org/the-escazu-agreement-a-case-for-signature.

World Ressources Institute. 2018. ‘RELEASE: 12 Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean Sign Historic Agreement to Protect Environmental Defenders’. World Resources Institute. 27 September 2018. https://www.wri.org/news/2018/09/release-12-countries-latin-america-and-caribbean-sign-historic-agreement-protect.

Looting of Indigenous Lands: The Impact on the Sawré Muybu

575A95C9-E9AA-4916-B3B1-2458E0B94336.png

Source: https://assets.survivalinternational.org/pictures/14551/df-img-1246_article_column@2x.jpg

By: Victoria Bujok

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao

The Munduruku people are facing yet another challenge after years of resistance and struggle for their land in the state of Pará in northern Brazil. The area of Tapajos, which is home to most of the Munduruku population, is one of the most heavily invaded territories, with illegal gold miners currently occupying the area. The mining conflict brings “violence, prostitution, destruction, pollution, deforestation, death threats and conflict,” as stated in a letter of condemnation sent to the public prosecutor’s office, in addition to causing an uncontrolled malaria outbreak. Nevertheless, the prospects of taking care of the illegal actions and eradicating mining in the region all together is extremely unlikely under the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro. 


The root of the issue is the demarcation of the land, something which has never been done, and of which there is no intention to do in the near future. As a result of illegal action and lack of border clarity, the Sawré Muybu’s 178,000 hectares have been prevented from being recognised as indigenous land, and lack the normal legal protections associated with indigenous reserves. Mining has not been the only threat to the land, livelihoods, health and traditions; back in 2016 the Munduruku people were facing the prospect of 43 hydraulic plants being built on their territory. Luckily for the indigenous population, after years of protests, government meetings and drawing international attention, they were able to defeat the mega projects, which would have had a detrimental effect on the reserve and on its sacred sites. However, the efforts to build the hydroelectric plants in the Tapajos river basin still exist.


When looking further into the cause of these issues, we are drawn to Brazil's far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro. Not only are the hydraulic plants on the government’s agenda, but also another series of projects such as agribusiness expansion and railroads, all of which are all linked to the interests of the miners. In a democracy, just like in other countries with indigenous lands, minorities should be included in the decision making; however, the government is simply making it look like the indigenous people are supporting the projects, and implying that they are going to hugely benefit from those. For example, on August 5, environment minister, Ricardo Salles, refused to confirm his position on mining in indigenous territories, despite having met with half a dozen indigenous residents who happened to be in favour of these projects. The result of this publicity stunt is that the views of these specific indigenous people could be interpreted as representing the general views of all 140,000 Munduruku people. This, however, is not the representation of the majority of the Sawré Muybu’s population, and their views have been wrongly portrayed in order to push the government’s agenda, a move which has been heavily criticised by the Munduruku leaders. Another example of these falsely represented ideas comes from the vice president, Hamilton Mourão, who seeks to legalise gold mining on protected land. He claims that licensing gold extraction will save the rainforest by enabling the government to enforce eco-friendly regulations. This is a fear that Luísa Molina, an anthropologist working in the area, had about the government intention, and which has finally been confirmed. 


But, could legalising mining in those territories be the answer? The belief behind Mourão’s intention to save the rainforest is that whenever there is gold, men will extract it. In an interview with the Financial Times, he said, “there is a lot of land that is rich in gold, and if companies had the permission to extract it, they would have to comply with environmental laws.” He also mentioned the benefit of taxing gold mining, saying that “today, if there is gold, they extract it, destroy the environment and don’t pay taxes—everybody loses.” This is, however, an unlikely stance from a man who says that his intentions are to save the rainforest, but has failed to focus his efforts instead on stamping out illegal gold mining which, alongside other illegal industries, has had a hugely negative environmental impact. In addition, agencies such as the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), whose work has been crucial in protecting the Amazon from damaging illegal activities, have seen their budgets cut since Jair Bolsonaro assumed the presidency in January 2019.


The Munduruku people need the recognition of their land in order to protect it from future projects like this one. The government itself needs to reroute its principles regarding the environment and to move to a cleaner energy than mining. It is vital that the Brazilian government acts promptly to protect not only the lives of the indigenous people of Brazil, but also their traditions who have been under threat even before the pandemic.

Victoria is a fourth-year SPLAS student at King’s College London with a passion for making indigeneous voices heard.