Week 6: The Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Case study: Isoceño people’s claims related to extractive industries The main point to take away from this is that all 4 actors (Govt, indigenous, corporation and NGO) all had their incentives met because of good communication. The Govt have their claims legitimized on the international scale as upholding the indigenous peoples land rights conforms to the signing of the ILO. the indigenous people keep their land and dignity by having a voice at the table. The corps get to capitalise on the knowledge of the indigenous population regarding eco-system knowledge etc. the NGO gets the cooperation of the indigenous people and gets to uphold the protection of the eco-systems which is their final goal. The most important point is the NGO advocating for the indigenous people as it is usually such a barrier for indigenous people to work around the capitalistic rhetoric set up by Govts and corps regarding resource utilization. Overall this system based on communication is a better system because it underpins compromise by all parties rather than the usual system of corps and govt coming in and screwing over indigenous populations. (holy shit i wrote down the stuff i said) - Bart. • Bolivia landlocked nation • The group has to get their voices heard by the government • A lot of resources – companies, especially gas companies, want them o Put in gas lines • History of colonisation by Spanish – subjugation of those working in mines • ILO has helped address their rights to having safety • It would be extremely complicated for the Global South to carry • First minority indigenous group to set up large area of land to govern themselves • Wildlife Conservation Society (NGO) – local community-based organisation o Livelihood and culture (indigenous people) working with environment (NGO) • ILO organisation – 169 o UNDRIP – Declaration for Rights of Indigenous People – wider and more recent o These are the two legal documents that give them legitimate claims o How could they work with this other NGO? In order to make it mutually beneficial o 169 legal form of land tenure o Only 22 countries have ratified the convention o At this rate, it will be another 170 years before every country has ratified the Convention. • Venezuela - biggest reserves of oil in the world - bankrupt because they didn’t have the skills or language in a highly capitalistic world o Unable to set up economic structures • Gold, zinc, tin, natural gas, lead - all resources • International NGO - know how to ‘do the development speak’ o Able to add their input o Compromise? o Partner with community-based organisations  How can we partner with you to give you more power? o Duty of government is to make rhetoric understandable at local level  But government is corrupt o Compared to Naxals who are being removed to exploit resources o Managed to put in a proposal to protect that land o Have to get legal titles o Haven’t been able to stop the gas pipeline, but temporarily stopped it because they’ve been the custodians of the land  Small gain, but better what the Naxalites have o Won their dignity through having the wildlife organisation recognise they had the local knowledge, know the plants/land, so they’re partnering with them as very valuable resources as to how to do a conservation plan for that area  Their traditional knowledge is being valued  Just presents itself in different ways o Wildlife organisation gained conservation, Isoceno gained their lives, government showed the world they’re leaders in decentralisation, that democracy is working - handing out power to the vulnerable group, saving money - civil society, corporations wanted the gas, what did they get out of the agreement? Gave 1 million dollars toward conservation, seen as the ‘good guys’. Didn’t want the people to block them, wanted to work with the Isoceno  Communication very important, as well as mutual respect - key  Workshops to train Isoceno • Compromise, but better than authoritarian dictating what will happen • Role of NGO and civil society to do research, learning from other case studies • Relatively new countries have not ratified ILO 169 - New Zealand, Australia, Canada, US