Home > Archives for Indigenous Stewardship

Holiday Fundraiser for the Huaorani of Bameno

December 8, 2011 By Leave a Comment
Project Owner, Luminita's Photo
Project Organizer:
Luminita
BENEFITING: Village Earth
EVENT DATE: Dec 04, 2011
DEADLINE TO GIVE: Dec 31, 2011

HERE’S THE STORY:
This holiday season Maloca* and friends are organizing a fundraiser to support the Huaorani of Bameno. We are aiming to raise 2,000$, please read below what the money is for.

Who are the Huaorani?

The Huaorani are legendary warriors who live deep in the Ecuadorian Amazon, protecting their territory, their culture, and their way of life. By supporting the Huaorani, you contribute directly to the conservation of the Amazon and Yasuni Biosphere Reserve – a place of incredible biodiversity and beauty, designated by Ecuador’s government as a conservation area off-limits to oil extraction, mining and logging since 1999.This area is very special because it overlaps with the Intangible Zone, a spectacular refuge of carbon-rich, biologically-diverse rainforest that spans nearly 3,000 square miles of ancestral Huaorani lands. Here, two uncontacted groups, the Tagaeri and Taromenane, still live, along four communities of contacted Huaorani. Despite the protection on paper, The Intangible Zone and the Huaorani who live there continue to be threatened by encroaching oil companies, settlers and illegal loggers. Read more about Yasuni and the Intangible Zone here: http://huaoraniintangiblezone.wordpress.com/

In the past, the Huaorani defended their territory with spears. Now they understand they must defend it with documents and by traveling far from home, like Penti, Huaorani leader from Bameno community, explained: “MY FATHER IS AHUA. HE IS A GREAT WARRIOR. HE DEFENDED OUR HUAORANI TERRITORY WITH HARDWOOD SPEARS. NOW I MUST DEFEND OUR TERRITORY AND OMEDE, THE RAINFOREST, WITH DOCUMENTS AND LAW, SPEAKING SPANISH, AND TRAVELLING FAR AWAY LIKE THE HARPY EAGLE.” The Huaorani of Yasuni have organized themselves to work together, as communities, to protect The Intangible Zone and the right of their “uncontacted” neighbors to be left alone.  They call themselves Ome Gompote Kiwigimoni Huaorani, which means “We Defend Our Huaorani Territory.”

To see pictures from the Huaorani community Bameno, go here: http://nosotras.smugmug.com/Indigenous-Amazon/Communities/Bameno/7938495_vrjvLR#677804684_zqE2S

What are we raising money for?

-      A “minga”(a work meeting for the benefit of the whole community) – In mid-January 2012 the Huaorani of Bameno will invite its neighbors to a meeting. The Huaorani of Yasuni will come together in a forum in which community leaders will take coordinated action to protect their human rights and land. The meeting will also keep members informed on external events that affect them and their territory and they will decide what kind of actions to take together.

These mingas (gatherings/working meetings) are an ongoing process where the Huaorani exchange ideas and information, reflect and decide how to continue to move forward together to protect their territory and rights. The Huaorani leaders of Bameno posted a video on youtube containing messages from the last minga in August 2011. Now they want to do an online petition to support the Huaorani and their rights. The Huaorani also want to take a trip in 2012 to the US to speak for themselves in the international forum. They will discuss and plan this trip at the minga as well.

-      Investigating a troubling reportthat the colonists have moved into Huaorani territory, right in the frontier area where the two uncontacted groups Tagaeri and Taromenane live. This is very serious, as penetration by outsiders of the Intangible Zone can lead to conflict and this will endanger the uncontacted people which Penti and the Huaorani of Yasuni are protecting. Penti and his community need to travel at the location and investigate and document the facts. If the Huaorani do not say anything, more colonists will settle into their territory, invading it, creating deforestation and conflict. This will also be discussed at the minga.

-      Start an Emergency Health Fund for the community of Bameno (which will cover basic medicine, doctor visits for the more serious cases)

-      A printerfor Penti. Sadly printer Penti was using was stolen (along with his computer, camera, and important documents). Penti is using the printer, computer and cameras to defend his territory and also to set a community tourism initiative that brings much needed income in the community.

Why is protecting the Huaorani territory so important?

“Land rights, access to land and control over it and its resources are central to indigenous peoples throughout the world, and they depend on such rights and access for their material and cultural survival. In order to survive as distinct people, indigenous peoples and their communities need to be able to own, conserve and manage their territories, lands and resources.” (United Nations Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues, 2007)

 

* MALOCA is an affiliate of Village Earth, a nonprofit charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and which is not a private foundation because it is described in Sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(a)(vi).

Filed Under: Maloca Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Peru Readiness Preparation Plan (R-PP) for REDD

March 24, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Reposted from: Bank Information Center

Peru Ready to Approve R-PP but Issues Continue Unresolved

23 March 2011

Peru submitted its 4th version of the R-PP today in Da Lat, Vietnam, without addressing many of the issues that stakeholders, including civil society and indigenous communities, wanted to see resolved. These issues are critical to ensure sustainable environmental and social development under the REDD+ strategy.

The fourth version of the R-PP Peru will be reviewed at the eighth meeting of the FCPF Participant Committee from March 23rd to the 25th, 2011, in Da Lat, Vietnam. Some of the main concerns about the R-PP that have emerged include safeguard harmonization, the representation of civil society at the highest level of decision-making, the strengths and weaknesses of the government’s analysis of drivers of deforestation and related implications for the mitigation of harm, gaps in knowledge , the urgency to promote land security, forest governance, the quality of SESA, coherency between different actors, as well as the process of consultation and participation, especially of civil society and indigenous groups. Certain changes have been made to the latest version of the R-PP that address resolutions to the indigenous territories as well as the obligations of Peru to the international law, especially the ILO C169.

However, according to reviews by various stakeholders at the national and internatioanl levels, some of the most concerning issues continue unresolved. Some of the most salient issues with the R-PP are indigenous territories and land tenure, forest governance, as well as the process of consultations and participation of civil society. AIDESEP, an organization that represents many indigenous groups in Peru has addressed a letter to Peru’s government to express their concerns. They ask for the demarcation and titling of hundreds of unrecognized territories, the consolidation and reorganization of territory, for safeguards for the right to decide and control the process of development, for the opportunity for indigenous groups to manage forests, and naturally, that their requests be incorporated into the plan.

Other organizations like DAR (Rights, Environment, and Natural Resources), Grupo REDD, Global Witness, and the Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN), made several of the same observations as AIDESEP, asking for the improvement of the laws that protect indigenous territory, the improvement of forest management, for a credible system to implement the recommendations resulting from the participation and consultations to stakeholders, and to ensure the free prior and informed consent of the affected communities. Other recommendations these non-indigenous organizations had in common were to improve the management of funds in terms of the roles and relationships between donors and managers, to give more attention to the benefits and impacts of deforestation and degradation that are not carbon, among others. The FCPF Participant Committee had already brought many of these matters to the attention of the Peruvian government, but many of them continue unresolved in the latest version of the R-PP that it is currently in the process of reviewing.

More Info:  Peru

Forest Issues

22 March 2011

 

Update

Peru will submit the fourth version of its Readiness Preparation Plan (R-PP4) for REDD+ at the eighth meeting of the FCPF Participant Committee (PC8) which will take place March 23rd-25th, 2011.

Key issues that have emerged in the review of the Peru R-PP:

  • Safeguard harmonization in the context of multiple delivery partners
  • Participation and consent of Indigenous Peoples over key aspects of future REDD projects
  • The representation of civil society at the highest decision-making levels of FCPF/REDD
  • Strengths and weaknesses in the Government’s analysis of the drivers of deforestation and related implications for mitigation or avoidance of harm
  • Gaps in knowledge about deforestation trends, REDD pilots and institutional performance
  • The urgency of investments and reforms to promote land security in the Amazon
  • Full integration and process guarantees for quality of SESA
  • Need to strengthen forest governance outcomes in the results framework
  • Coherence between FCPF, FIP, and various other bilateral and government forest governance investment strategies

Overview

Sixty per cent of Peru is populated by forests, covering almost 72 million hectares, making it the second largest forest ecosystem in Latin America, and the fourth largest tropical forest surface in the world. According to the Government of Peru, the main source of GHG emissions in this country is deforestation for agriculture, cattle ranching, and informal mining. There are many other causes of deforestation and degradation of forests; Wikileaks confirmed that Peru has exported massive amounts of an illegally felled endangered species of timber from the Amazon. For fifteen years, Peru lost 150,000 has of forests per year, up to the year 2000. However, the current deforestation rate is not known, one of the main knowledge gaps facing Peru. Indigenous leaders argue that commitment to address massive unresolved land demarcation, legalization, and titling problems, is an urgent prerequisite for REDD effectiveness. Difficulty in mitigating and managing forest ecosystem impacts from major infrastructure investments, such as the Southern Interoceanic Highway, have called attention to the lack of adequate planning in the Peruvian Amazon. [1]

 

[1] See “Peruvian Amazon in 2021: Infrastructure and the Exploitation of Natural Resources: What is happening and what does it mean for the future?” by Marc Dourojeanni; Alberto Barandiaran y Diego Dourojeanni (2009)

Readiness Preparation Plan (R-PP)

The latest version of the R-PP has been reviewed by stakeholders including national and international non-governmental organizations, indigenous organizations, Grupo REDD, and the FCPF Participant Committee. Most of them note that the R-PP needs improvement in its elaboration process, especially in terms of the consultation and participation of stakeholders, including compliance with the Law of Previous Consultation and with special concern over the stakes of indigenous groups; that the plan needs improvement in issues of land tenure; that it needs to properly identify the drivers of deforestation and to ensure the transparency of the monitoring process; and lastly, that it does give enough attention and value to the benefits and impacts of deforestation other than carbon.

The Government of Peru made changes to the 4th draft of the R-PP to accommodate critical observations made by AIDESEP in a letter.  In meetings prior to the Da Lat PC8, the Peruvian government addressed some of the concerns of AIDESEP and agreed to certain adjustments to the R-PP that are to be presented at the PC8, including;

1. Adjustment to the norms governing indigenous lands consistent with the concept of collective rights of indigenous peoples in ILO 169, with indirect references to collective territory.

2.  Rapid startup of the legalization and titling of land, beginning in the region of Loreto, with an estimated inicial Budget of $US 1 million in addition to the $200,000 budgeted within the FCPF R-PP (leaving clear the balance of $20 million that is required to complete the legalization process based on an estimate of $US 1 per hectare for 20,000 hectares under claim).

3.  Inclusion of the content describing “Indigenous REDD” within the R-PP as proponed by AIDESEP

4.  Inclusion of a self-organizing Indigenous MESA REDD within the R-PP

5.  Safeguards based on ILO 169 and UNDRIP, no only the UNFCCC or World Bank

6. Inclusion of a paragragh addressing the regulatory oversight capacity of MINAM to avoid pressures and protect invasions of local communities against a REDD speculative bubble.

Ultimately, the position of AIDESEP and several other allied organizations will rest on the presentation of the Peruvian Government, to incorporate these and other stated recommendations and the approval of the goverments on the FCPF PC.

forest investment program (FIP)

From January 17th – 20th, a Forest Investment Program scoping mission was carried out in Peru, one of the FIP’s eight pilot countries. The mission including staff from the World Bank, the IFC, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and Peru’s Environmental Ministry. The IDB participated having been proposed as the “delivery partner” for FCPF and FIP programs in Peru.

Civil society interaction during the scoping mission was significantly improved over those carried out in 2010. The Indonesia scoping mission report, for example, notes that only two NGOs were able to attend the civil society information meeting, “because of the short notice for the meeting.” In Peru’s case, the scoping mission met with Grupo REDD Peru, in addition to bi-lateral meetings with two umbrella indigenous federations, covering communities in the Peruvian Amazon.

On January 19th, the scoping mission team visited the offices of AIDESEP, the Inter-Ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon. In recent years, AIDESEP has been engaging within the REDD discussions, for example sending their climate change focal point, Daysi Zapata, to deliver statements at the FCPF participant committee meetings in Guyana (June 2010) and Washington, DC (November 2010).

During the scoping mission visit to their offices, the AIDESEP team outlined a number of concerns and proposals related to REDD implementation in Peru. These ideas have been further fleshed out in AIDESEP’s recent letter to the World Bank regarding the latest version of Peru’s “readiness preparation proposal” to be discussed at the FCPF’s upcoming meeting in Da Lat, Vietnam. Key aspects include:

(1) Territory: Prior demarcation of hundreds of un-recognized or un-titled indigenous communities, expansion of some existing titles, and formalization of proposed communal reserves and other reserves created for the protection of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. They also demand that laws regulating titling of indigenous territories be modernized in accordance with Peru’s obligations under international law such as ILO Convention 169.

    In the R-PP3: 

    The document reassures that Peru’s Political Constitution “stipulates that the State guarantees the right of land ownership”, and that the “Law of Native Communities and Agrarian Development of the Selva and Ceja de Selva stipulates that the State shall guarantee the integrity of the lands of indigenous peoples, conduct the corresponding cadastre, and grant them property rights”. The R-PP also claims that the issue of land titles and assignations to indigenous groups is of key importance to REDD+.

    In terms of the demarcation of communities, the R-PP states that it will be the responsibility of the respective regional governments to issue the demarcation of these lands, and therefore the assignation of agricultural lands and lands suitable for forestry, will be stipulated in accordance to the Regulation on the Classification of Lands by their Capacity for Greater Use.

    Likewise, for the the formalization of proposed communal reserves, the R-PP says that both the Forest and Wildlife Law and the National Forestry Policy have been proposed to be the national forest authority. They claim that these laws were prepared by the State with the participation of various sectors nationally, regionally and locally. The draft Forestry Law states that the assignment for use constitutes a real, exclusive, perpetual, non-transferable right, the objective of which is to ensure the traditional uses and life systems of native communities and grants to exclusive ownership, access, use, enjoyment, and recovery of lands for forest production and protection, as well as of forest and wildlife resources found within them.

    For land titling, the R-PP states that it will not grant authorizing titles of land that, as of the date of the Law’s publication, are still in the process of titling or the expansion of native communities; no project or activity will be authorized in such areas.

    The R-PP claims that there are current discussions at the national level concerning AIDESEP’s petition for the completion of land title clearing in areas occupied by indigenous communities, not just those with an ongoing process, and that forest authorization titles exclude the areas of passage of people in voluntary isolation. The R-PP also claims that they are discussing how all laws in regard to land tenure, forest governance and indigenous groups will meet the obligations under ILO C169.

    However, it states that it is hard to title these lands due to the lack of information such as an official study that determines the number of indigenous people’s existing in the territory and the status of the process of their recognition or expansion of communal lands, and also the lack of economic resources for demarcation and titling. They understand the social conflicts resulting from this problem, as well as the need to update the official registries in order to avoid them.

    Therefore, one of the main problems with demarcation and titling of communal reserves and indigenous territories is the lack of information and proper record-keeping. The R-PP3 proposes an allocation of funds to several aspects of a process that will help improve that situation. The funds come from FCPC and MOORE and will go to the analysis of land use in terms of: an overall diagnosis, an analysis of overlapping, a diagnosis of ownership, title clearing, and the governance and intervention on lands traditionally occupied by indigenous communities and their use. It also includes the preparation of a specific program to identify uncategorized lands, designing specific actions to resolve land titling, and analyzing a way to put together a unified cadastre for land titling. The funds total.

    To prepare the political, legal and institutional framework for the REDD+ strategy that addresses land tenure issues, a REDD+ Coordination Agency will be formed (OCBR). During the first two years of R-PP implementation, the OCBR will be financed by projects that co-finance the Readiness phase and the FIP, and in the third phase, it is expected to be self-sufficient.

    The R-PP also states that SESA will help Peru to ensure the proper development of society within REDD, including the development and implementation of an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF).

    Peru has made some advances to address the issue of land tenure and indigenous communities. Land titling, however, is a grave issue and it should be given more attention by the government as well as the international community. The IDB, for example, has dedicated smaller-scale funding projects to address issues with titling, such as the Multiphase Sustainable Forest Development Program (Pro-Bosque) for Honduras that provided $6 million to finance cadastre and land titling. Such projects would greatly support the REDD+ strategy initiative in Peru.

(2) “REDD Indigena”: AIDESEP is proposing an alternate model for REDD, which would include (amongst other characteristics): Considering the holistic value of forests, not just value as carbon sinks, indigenous management of forests, no third-party control of forests within indigenous territories, the primacy of ILO 169 and UNDRIPs within REDD contracts, and maintaining indigenous territories outside of the carbon market.

 

(3) National legal norms: AIDESEP has repeated the need to approve the Prior Consultation Law, as it was originally passed by the Peruvian Congress in April of 2010. They have also made suggestions for crucial improvements to the Forestry Law and the Environmental Services Law, which have not been incorporated.

Read the Scoping Mission Aide Memoire

The reviews:

FCPF Participants Committee

The FCPF PC7 evaluated how the R-PP3 complies with the standards for the plan. The PC7 suggests that the plan of management needs clarification in terms of the roles, relationships and responsibilities of the managers. They also have concerns over ensuring the participation of stakeholders, including indigenous groups, so that consultations are not dominated by technical experts. They also mention that the private sector needs to be considered in order to apply appropriate methodologies and technologies to REDD+. Also, the group suggested that the R-PP needs to clarify how the results and feedback of consultations will be evaluated, in order to ensure an appropriate plan of implementing information. PC7 also says that Peru must make sure that it complies with its obligations with the ILO C169 in terms of the “Law of Previous Consultation”; to ensure the consultation and participation of indigenous groups in both the R-PP and REDD+ strategy.

They had concerns about land use, and forest policy and governance. They suggest strengthening the legal framework of indigenous land and territories by evaluating the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM) as there could be a contradiction in forest governance policy; this ministry is both in charge of authorizing megaprojects and a member of the REDD+’s Coordination Agency(OCBR). Their comments give a lot of attention to the management of funds, suggesting the need for more clarity in regards to the roles and relationships between the donors and fund managers, as well as the role of different organizations in FIP,which is in charge of financially supporting the REDD+ strategy.

Read the report


Grupo REDD

Grupo REDD has been very important in the R-PP process, especially in regards to their consultations.  The government has requested their opinions and statements on the R-PP’s content and process of elaboration. MINAM has agreed with Grupo REDD that the group’s participation is imperative in the R-PP’s elaboration. Grupo REDD will also be involved in the REDD preparation process; they are planning changes to their organization in order to do so. Grupo REDD is composed of many organizations and they have agreed on the need for indigenous organizations to participate, and planning on asking AIDESEP about how they feel about this participation in the group.

Read the meeting report

The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP)

AIDESEP prepared a report of its analysis and suggestions about the R-PP3. Their analysis concentrates mostly on land tenure, the R-PP’s consultation process, and the participation of indigenous groups in a way that is fully consistent with ILO 169 and UNDRIP. In terms of territory, they want the demarcation and titling of hundreds of unrecognized territories as they believe that this is a historical social debt on the part of the state to indigenous peoples. They also believe that such action would prevent the increase of social conflicts that result over these territories. They also want to see this happen through the regional and local governments so that they titling process does not depend on state authorities that did not perform adequately. They also ask for safeguards by the consolidation and reorganization of territory with the same objective, to prevent social conflict over the land. This organization which represents many indigenous groups also asks that safeguards be implemented that defends their right to decide and control the process of culturally appropriate development.

Their concern with land tenure leads into their point about consultation. They ask that their requests be taken into account and incorporated into the plan so that meetings with indigenous groups are not be simply decorative. They also argue that indigenous communities be given the opportunity to manage the forests because they have the knowledge for doing so holistically and sustainably, using fewer resources and causing minimal impact. They want an improvement of the law of environmental services which they believe could use the inputs of different communities. . They constantly mention that they still feel that their inputs are not being properly incorporated into this important document.

AIDESEP will participate in a Panel Discussion on March 22, 2011 in Da Lat, Vietnam, speaking about how to safeguard the rights and participation of indigenous people and civil society in REDD.

Read the Report


Rights, Environment, and Natural Resources (DAR)

DAR suggests that the R-PP is deficient in three main areas which are consultation and participation of indigenous groups, the treatment of the drivers of deforestation, and the implementation of SESA (Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment), stating that both the process of elaboration and the contect of the R-PP are important.

DAR at PC7

DAR commented on second version of the R-PP at PC7 in Washington, DC. They commended MINAM for incorporating Grupo REDD’s suggestions into the R-PP, which were based on the opinions by TAP (FCPF Technical Advisory Panel), the World Bank, the Participants Committee, indigenous organizations, and different national and international NGOs. However, they stressed that there is still room for improvement of the plan, especially on the activities needed for the R-PP’s implementation phase. They also pointed out the deficiencies of the elaboration process on incorporating the opinions of the public and private sectors at the regional and local levels, focusing especially on the participation of indigenous communities. They mentioned that it is not clear how the economic benefits reach local and indigenous communities.


Global Witness

Global Witness expressed similar concerns about R-PP3, saying the document is still weak in its production process, stating that the consultation of stakeholders has been no more than an information provision. They mention that civil society had already communicated their concern over the matter last year, but no changes have been made. They also say that it should easier to track the changes made on the latest version of the R-PP so that NGOs and other organizations do not have to spend valuable time and resources finding the differences. In regards to consultations, they asked to clarify the participatory role of Grupo REDD, in terms of having a vote in the process, and how much their inputs are being incorporated into the R-PP. This organization is also concerned that the R-PP3 is not clear about ensuring “free, prior, and informed consent” from the necessary parties, especially indigenous groups and their territory. Global Witness also notes that the section about drivers of deforestation and degradation needs to be consolidated as it can be confusing. Also, they say the R-PP needs to properly explicate the monitoring of the benefits and impacts of forests other than carbon, and that it needs to include monitoring by independent Peruvian society in order to ensure integrity and transparency in the system. Finally, they say that the length of the document can make it confusing; that is needs to avoid too much repetitiveness.


Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN)

The Rainforest Foundation Norway said that the R-PP process in Peru was fundamentally flawed and lacked transparency and credibility. They suggested the need to improve the lack of communication and trust between the government and indigenous groups and civil society in order to correct those problems. They also concentrate their criticisms on territory; they say that territorial legislation does not sufficiently take into account the government’s obligations with the ILO C169; that such weak handling of these issues only feeds into the lack of trust from their counterparts. Their comments also suggest that Peru needs to develop a credible plan with clearer guarantees for the proper consultation to indigenous peoples’ representatives and wider society. They also say that the current law of consultation is also not consistent with the ILO C169. They say that that Peru’s forest law needs to improve in regards to indigenous peoples, corruption, and other forest governance issues; it is still too weak and negative to be the foundation for the R-PP.  Another concern is the difficulty behind tracking the changes made to the document which can be so subtle yet so important, making it hard to be reviewed.

Read the report

Important Documents

overview

EarthTrends Peru Report 2003, World Resources Institute (PDF, 116KB)

Partners

DAR (Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)

AIDESEP (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana)

COICA (Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica)

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

AIDESEP’s analysis of RPP, February 2011 (English)

AIDESEP’s analysis of RPP, February 2011 (Spanish)

Peru R-PP for PC-8 (March 2011)

Peru R-PP (English)

Peru Draft R-PP for PC-7 (November 2010)

Peru Draft R-PP (Español)

AIDESEP-Recomendaciones sobre R-PP (Sept. 2010)

AIDESEP Letter on R-PP

Peru Draft R-PP (September 2010)

TAP Synthesis Review

Peru Draft R-PP (April 2010)

Peru Draft R-PP (PDF, 4.2MB) and Presentation (PDF, 430KB)

TAP Synthesis Review (PDF, 535KB) and Presentation (PDF, 292KB)

PC Synthesis Review and Presentation (PDF, 57 KB)

Carta de AIDESEP / Letter from AIDESEP (June 22, 2010) (Español) (PDF, 1.5MB)

Respuesta del Banco Mundial a AIDESEP / World Bank Response to AIDESEP (Español, English) (PDF, 68KB)

Comentarios de la Sociedad Civil sobre el R-PP de Perú / Civil Society Comments on Peru’s R-PP (June 2010) (Español, English) (PDF, 1.5MB)

Peru R-PIN (June 2008)

R-PIN (PDF, 644KB)

TAP Synthesis Review (Word Document, 178KB)

Forest Investment Program

Peru: Scoping Mission/FIP (January 2011)

Pilot Country – Peru (FIP Website)

REDD+ Partnership

Partner Country – Peru (REDD+ Partnership Framework Document)

Filed Under: Peruvian Amazon Indigenous Support Network Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Agricultural Resources Planning & Management Meeting on Pine Ridge

March 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Oglala Sioux Tribe Land Office is hosting an Agricultural Resources Planning & Management Meeting March 30th and 31st at the Prairie Wind Casino on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. For more information contact 605-867-5305.

Filed Under: Lakota Lands Recovery Project Tagged With: , , ,

The Fate of the Badlands South Unit and a Forgotten History

October 14, 2010 By 2 Comments

By Jamie Way

The future of the land that now comprises the Southern Unit of Badlands National Park is once again uncertain. Today, the dispute over this land is somewhat more relaxed as the tension of war is no longer looming, but the stakes may be just as high as ever. In the fall of 2008, the National Park Service (NPS) began receiving public input on the creation of a new general management plan for the Badlands National Monument’s Southern Unit, (the Northern portion of the Pine Ridge Oglala Sioux reservation in South Dakota). The NPS is accepting public input on their proposed options until November 1st, whereupon the fate of this land will once more be determined by someone other than the Lakota.
The Southern Unit has a long history, riddled with controversy and violence. Originally, this land belonged to the Lakota. In 1890, after the Lakota along with their Cheyenne and Arapahoe allies, were massacred by the 7th Cavalry in the battle of Wounded Knee, the survivors fled to what is now the Southern Unit. They took shelter in the natural fortress formed by a butte surrounded by cliffs. The area served as a refuge for those who escaped the cavalry. For this reason, and because Lakota Ghost Dancers were buried in this location, the land came to be considered sacred.
The land could not serve as a refuge forever. Throughout time, the reservation was created and the Oglala inhabited the Southern Unit. Unfortunately, however, right before World War II began, things changed drastically yet again for the inhabitants of the Southern Unit. On July 20, 1942 the War Department advised the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that they would be taking over an area of 40×15 miles across the northern portion of the reservation. While a small portion of this land lay within what was then Badlands National Monument (337 acres), the vast majority of the land was located within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation (nps.gov). The dispossession would impact some 125 Oglala families. And while the dispossessed families were to be supplied with some relocation compensation, assistance and supplies, actual accounts vary as to how much the families received if any at all.
The displacement was messy and created a major crisis on the reservation. While officially, the families would have had 40 days to leave if they were given notice on the same day as the Bureau of Indian affairs (which seems not to be the case most of the time), most believed that they needed to evacuate almost immediately. In fact, archival data reveals that Mr. McDowell, an employee of the land acquisition division of the War Department, had stated that the War Department was taking possession of the land and shooting was to start on August 1st (Roberts 7/7/42).This is even more shocking when you take into account that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs was only officially notified of the dispossession twelve days prior. Myrtle Gross, who was displaced during the event, reported that “the Farmer Office” sent a man to tell her to “[g]et out now because the Japs aren’t going to wait!” She said they were then given 30 days to leave, (Archives Search Report 1999, Interview 5). Similarly, Ida Bullman recalls finding out about the evacuation after reading a poster that was displayed at the local store. The store owner told her, “Pack up and leave. They’re going to start shooting at you.” Thus, by the time the information reached the population the impression was given that they were to have well under two weeks (approximately ten days) to evacuate their land.
Until 1958, the land was utilized for bombing and gunnery practice by what was then the Army Air Force. Even past this date, the South Dakota National Guard retained a small portion of the land for training purposes. When they left, the land’s future was far from resolved. Moreover, they left behind them dangerous ordnance and never fully lived up to their responsibility of cleaning the land. To this day, unexploded ordnance can be found on the site.
Due to many families’ attachment to the land, Ellen Janis represented her neighbors’ interests and fought for reparations or the return of their land in a series of trips to D.C. to see public officials. During this time, Congressman Francis Case, who had lobbied for the bombing range, acknowledged that the evacuation had created an incredibly difficult situation for many of his constituents, admitting that “[t]he injustice that was done to the people of Pine Ridge is almost beyond comprehension” (Francis Case as represented in Nichols 1960). In 1968, Public Law 90-468 was finally passed, and lands declared excess by the Air Force were to be transferred to the Department of Interior. The law afforded those displaced (whether their land was held in trust or in fee) the possibility of repurchasing the land that had been taken from them if they filed an application with the Secretary of Interior to purchase the tract. This application needed to be filed within a one year window from the date a notice was published in the Federal Register that the tract had been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Needless to say, the displaced were not properly notified of this option in many cases, in part due to their geographical dispersion. The law also stated that the original inhabitants that wished to repurchase their land were to pay the price the U.S. government had paid for the land, plus interest. Thus, those that decided to repurchase their land explained that they paid much higher prices for the land than they had originally been paid for it when the government confiscated it.
According to Jim Igoe’s BRIDGE report, “By the end of the early 1960s it was clear that Department of the Interior bureaucrats intended that the area should be taken over by a Department of the Interior Agency, and not returned to the Tribe.” The Park Service promised the tribe that by creating the park, they would invigorate the reservation economy through tourism, while the a Senate committee simultaneously strong-armed the tribe threatening to “dispose of the land in question under surplus property agreements if the Tribe refused to lease land,” (Igoe 2004).
The topic was controversial on the reservation, as traditionalists refused to turn over the land. In 1976, the Tribal Council under Chairman Dick Wilson, whose questionable leadership during the AIM struggle on Pine Ridge has solidified his legacy as a harsh and corrupt leader, signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the National Park Service. The Stronghold District of the Badlands National Park, which includes 133,300 acres of land, from this point on has been held by the National Park Service in conjunction with the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
New Roman”,serif;” _mce_style=”font-family: Georgia,”Times<br /> New Roman”,serif;”>Over the next 25 years, the relationship between the NPS and some tribal members remained strained. In 2002, relations between the NPS and some tribal members degenerated to the point where a grassroots movement of Lakota defending the burial place of Ghost Dancers, called the Keepers of the Stronghold Dream, felt it necessary to physically occupy the land, guarding it from the invasion of hikers, park visitors and fossil poachers in an attempt to reclaim it (Igoe 2002). Unfortunately, this confrontation settled nothing and the issue remains unresolved to this day.
Currently, the NPS and the tribe both have complaints about how the area is being managed. The NPS complains that they have not been given proper access to manage the site as needed. The tribe feels as though the NPS has not lived up to its promises in the 1976 MOA including filling NPS jobs at the site with tribal members and reintroducing buffalo into the area. Moreover, they are still concerned with fossil poaching and environmental destruction of the region by outsiders. For this reason, many would like to see the land pulled out of the park system entirely.
As is evident in this history, the land was never properly returned to its original owners. While none of the NPS options include returning land to those that were displaced prior to WWII nor giving the land back to the tribe with no obligations, the options do include giving the tribe more control over this portion of their land. Option 2, considered the “preferred option” by the NPS, would have the NPS and the tribe create a “National Tribal Park.” Option 7 would give even greater control (but may create financial issues or have other drawbacks) to the tribe. It would allow the tribe to create and operate an Oglala Sioux Tribal Park. The NPS claims that both Option 2 and Option 7 would require Congressional approval. The reasoning behind this, however, remains unclear. In the original 1976 MOA (which has since been modified), section 21 states that “Any part or parts of this Agreement, including any appendix, may be amended or modified by mutual written consent (between the NPS and tribe) at any time.”
The NPS is currently in the final phase of public meetings and accepting comments. The comment period for this topic will close on November 1, 2010. Please consider this history while attending meetings on this topic or giving your feedback. You can read more about the options at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=117&projectID;=17543&documentID;=35882 and comment at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=117&projectID;=17543&documentID;=35882
www.villageearth.org
Filed Under: Lakota Lands Recovery Project Tagged With: , , , , ,

Support this Appeal for the Creation of the First Ever Tribal Park in the United States!

September 14, 2010 By Leave a Comment
The message below was sent to Village Earth by Oglala Lakota Tribal Member, Doris Respect Nothing.
“Dear my friends and family, 

The Badlands National Park has developed a 20-year general management plan (GNP) for the South Unit. Within the GNP, there are seven alternative plans currently proposed. The comment period is now open until October 19th to the public. It is important for the public to review the alternatives and pick one which will help the Lakota people with the current status.

The South Unit is located in our reservation and has been a part of Oglala Lakota history. However, This area was leased to the war department during the WWII for the bombing practice. After the land was turned over to the National Park Service after the war in 1968. Since then, the National Park Service has given permits for the fossil excavation without a proper consultation with the tribal government.
In my opinion, the best alternative is Option 7: Oglala Sioux Tribal Park. This option allows us to protect our cultural and natural resources and restore our relationship with the buffalo nation on our own. With this option, it will guarantee protection of the South Unit from becoming the public lands (Option 1 to 5) as well as possible uranium mining and other threats of development by the tribe (Option 6: deauthorization). 

Please help us establish our own tribal park by making a comment today. If you agree with the Option 7, you could use the sample comment below. Simply copy and paste tin the comment page.

Thank you so much for your support on this matter. Please spread the word by forwarding this email to your friends and family.

Sincerely,
Doris
Sample comment here:  you can copy and paste this sentence to the comment page at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=35882.  Feel free to personalize the comment if you would like.
Dear Badlands National Park,
I would like to support Option 7: Oglala Sioux Tribal Park from the proposed alternatives of the park general management plan. This option allows Oglala Lakota nation to protect their cultural and natural resources and restore their relationship with the buffalo nation. With this option, it will guarantee protection of the South Unit from becoming public lands, which help the nation to fully regain their access to the South Unit. This option also prevents the possible uranium mining and other threats of development in the South Unit. I like to support Lakota nation’s sovereign right to manage the South Unit as a tribal park. This will create many opportunities for the Oglala Lakota people within park management, business and all other aspects of a tribal park. It is important to create a hope for the Oglala Lakota people, especially for the youth who deserve to regain their own identity as Oglala Lakota. Option 7 will serve the best to these purposes, in my opinion.
Thank you.



www.villageearth.org
Filed Under: Lakota Lands Recovery Project Tagged With: , , , , ,

Lakota Buffalo Caretakers: A New Paradigm of Agriculture?

July 21, 2009 By Leave a Comment

It is not difficult to argue the case that modern agriculture has reached a crisis stage. We have reached a point where must accept that change must occur, where common-place practices must abandoned, where long established institutions collapse, and ultimately, a new paradigm emerges. It could also be argued that the crisis we are experiencing in modern agriculture is part of a larger crisis evidenced by global warming, the burgeoning divisions between rich and poor, and most recently, the collapse of global capital markets. This can be a disquieting time indeed since, while its clear that change must occur, nobody is quite sure what that change will look like. Speaking about the broader global transition taking place, Colombian born Anthropologist, Arturo Escobar has argued that “Epistemologically this move entails a transition from the dominance of modern science to a plural landscape of knowledge forms. Socially, the transition is between global capitalism and emergent forms of which we only have glimpses in today’s social movements.” Rather, he argues that the emerging social movements, like the growing indigenous rights movement, represents the best hope for reworking many of the problems faced by global capitalism.

In a small way, with our work on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, we are seeing how this “reworking” can manifest. In particular, some of the challenges we have faced in developing a market and supply chain for meat from buffalo raised by a cooperative of Lakota Producers. While, Village Earth has been working to support Lakota buffalo caretakers on Pine Ridge since early 2003, it wasn’t until 2006 when they started talking about forming a cooperative. Over the next few years we had numerous meetings, did our homework, drafted bylaws and articles of incorporation, and by August of 2008 the coop was officially recognized in the State of South Dakota. Less than four months later, the cooperative filled the first order under its label “Lakota Buffalo Caretakers Cooperative (LBCC).” To facilitate distribution in northern Colorado (where the best market exists) we helped establish a independently managed L.L.C. Called “Allied Natural Meats.” While it has been less than a year where the coop has been selling its products on the market, we have already learned a great deal where the points of conflict exist between the old paradigm of raising and selling meat, and possibly a new paradigm emerging from the LBCC but informed at a deeper level by the Lakota worldview.

In the dominant paradigm, most livestock, spend only the first six months of their lives in open pastures. After that time they are moved to feedlots where they often have less than 13 square-feet of space per animal, fed a mixture of high-fat grain and ground-up poultry waste until the age of 14 months where they are trucked-off to slaughter houses for processing. While we all may be familiar with this process for cattle, these same practices are bleeding into the buffalo industry, as evidenced by the buffalo feedlot that is being built soon Weld county Colorado, just a few miles from Village Earth’s offices. In fact, most buffalo sold in stores (even health food stores), often spend the last 90 days in a feedlot and then trucked to a slaughter facility, even when they say “grass fed” on the label.

In the Lakota worldview, Buffalo are sacred, and killing one is comparable to killing a human. In fact, one elder explained this to me once by pointing to group of people talking around a fire and asked, “what do you think would happen to the social order of that group over there if we killed three of them?” It is this worldview that makes the notion of sending one to a feedlot an abomination. The Lakota alternative to this is raising buffalo their entire lives on open pastures and respectfully ending their lives in the field. In fact, some families have made this into a sort of right of passage for young men on the reservation, preparing them in ceremony to take the life of the buffalo in a respectful manner. It is said that when this honored, that the animals, within that particular family, are much calmer during the harvest. However, with current USDA regulation, this is a costly way of harvesting animals since it requires the use of a mobile-processing truck to drive out to the pasture so the animals can be gutted and cleaned within 45 minutes of the kill. Yet, despite the fact that the families could be saving approximately $180 per animal by trucking live animals directly to a slaughter facility, and despite the fact that scheduling the truck is very unpredictable, considering it is not able to drive onto their pastures if they are wet or covered in snow, which just this spring caused a 6 week delay in harvesting, despite all this, they have chosen to do it this way.

Another practice that many buffalo ranchers are adopting from the industrial cattle industry is manually weaning calves from their mothers just a few months after they’re born. The advantage that these producers find from doing this is that the calves will start on grain more readily and fatten quicker. However, by doing this you break down the natural clan structure of the buffalo. Bison are herd animals but within each herd there may exist several smaller sub-clans or families. According to legend, the Lakota derived their social structure of the Tiwahe (family) and Tiyospaye (community) from the buffalo. Furthermore, traditional production methods drive producers to harvest their animals at approximately 30 months, the time needed for optimal weight gain. Weaning and always harvesting at the same age destroys the natural social structure of buffalo. According to Ed Iron Cloud from the Knife Chief Buffalo Nation (a member of the LBCC), “it’s like having a bunch of adolescents running around, you NEED the older bulls to protect the herd and you need to elders to keep the social order.” A social principle mirrored in the Lakota culture.

While these are just a few anecdotes, I think they illustrate some of the conflicts that exist between the old paradigm and possibly a new one emerging. One thing that I have really learned from these experiences is that the connecting tissue in this entire system is the consumer. As its name implies, Allied Natural Meats is committed to working with the LBCC to find ways around these conflicts – to “rework” things as Escobar would say. A large part of this has been educating retailers and consumers about why the meat costs more than typical buffalo meat or why things may be delayed a few weeks. This has allowed the LBCC to raise the buffalo in a way that is consistent with their worldview. If in some way this represents a small transference of worldviews that might contribute to the broader social transformation that Escobar has theorized is unclear. What is clear to me is that we can not rely solely on science and the market to solve the problems we face today. Many these problems were already worked-out centuries ago, the answers have just been suppressed, erroneously delegitimized and/or taken for granted. The best way for us to uncover these answers is to work as allies, and rework these lines of conflict.

For more information about the LBCC visit their website at: http://www.lakotabuffalocaretakers.org/

To learn more about Village Earth’s work on the Pine Ridge Reservation visit: http://www.villageearth.org/pages/Projects/Pine_Ridge/index.php

www.villageearth.org
Filed Under: Lakota Lands Recovery Project Tagged With: , , ,