Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Rights-Holders in Natural Resource Regimes: A Critical Assessment of the Peruvian Protected Areas Legislation

  • Article
  • Published:
Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One way of improving natural resource regimes would be through a more careful and consistent identification of rights-holders, with more explicit attention for the relationship between the rights of indigenous peoples and other local non-indigenous communities. This argument is illustrated with a critical analysis of the protected areas legislation in Peru, focusing on the right to consultation prior to the establishment of a protected area, and the rights to use and sustainably manage natural resources within protected areas. On the basis of both international human rights law and empirical data, it is suggested that limiting subsistence-related rights in protected areas to indigenous peoples could endanger the enjoyment of the right to food of the local non-indigenous population. Moreover, the extension of certain human rights that are currently only or mostly granted to indigenous peoples to the broader local population affected by a protected area, should be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Workshop on the Rule of Law, Governance and Natural Resources, University of Amsterdam, 22–23 January 2015. The author thanks the participants to this workshop as well as the reviewers of this journal for their valuable comments. This research has been funded by the Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme initiated by the Belgian Science Policy Office, more specifically the IAP ‘The Global Challenge of Human Rights Integration: Towards a Users’ Perspective’ (http://www.hrintegration.be).

  2. For more background on the methodological approach and challenges encountered, see Desmet (2011), pp. 35–38; 359–363; 538–546.

  3. von Benda-Beckmann (1997a), p. 1.

  4. See Rights and Resources Initiative and Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (2013); Sawyer and Gomez (2012); UN General Assembly (2013) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya: Extractive industries and indigenous peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/41.

  5. Admittedly, for doctrinal legal scholarship, it results difficult to engage with any change in the real world, given that such scholarship evaluates legislation and judgments on the basis of a closed system of legal reasoning, referring to authoritative texts and focusing on matters of legal coherence (see McCrudden (2006)). In reaction to such an ‘internal approach’ (ibid.), various interdisciplinary approaches emerged, such as socio-legal studies. When doing research on natural resource regimes, a socio-legal approach does not suffice though.

  6. As a Peruvian indigenous leader formulated it: ‘If you look where the national parks are, there are the hydrocarbon blocks. […] As long as you are not going to exploit oil, gas, or mineral resources, [the parks] can still be guaranteed. But for me [the establishment of national parks] is a form of guaranteeing the interests of the transnationals. It is not a national interest’.

  7. IACtHR, Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, 24 August 2010.

  8. Ibid., para. 169.

  9. See e.g. Dowie (2006), p. 38, referring to the impact of global conservation on indigenous peoples as a ‘good guy vs. good guy story’.

  10. See Conklin and Graham (1995).

  11. See von Benda-Beckmann (1997b).

  12. See Conklin and Graham (1995), p. 696.

  13. See e.g. Kemf (1993); Stevens (1997).

  14. ILO Convention No. 169, Arts. 13–15; UNDRIP, Art. 26.

  15. ILO Convention No. 169, Art. 6; UNDRIP, Art. 19.

  16. Sawyer and Gomez (2012), p. 2. This argument is made in the context of resource extraction, but seems more widely relevant.

  17. See Brechin et al. (2003), p. 268; Brockington et al. (2006), p. 251. Beyond the conservation context, Li has similarly observed that ‘one of the risks that stems from the attention given to indigenous people is that some sites and situations in the countryside are privileged while others are overlooked, thus unnecessarily limiting the field within which coalitions could be formed and local agendas identified and supported’. Li (2000), p. 151.

  18. Igoe (2005), pp. 384–385.

  19. Rouland et al. speak of an ‘effet de mode’. Rouland et al. (1996), p. 34.

  20. Lustig and Kingsbury (2006), p. 409.

  21. von Benda-Beckmann (1997a), p. 5.

  22. See ILO Convention No. 169, Art. 1(2); UNDRIP, Art. 33(1).

  23. Original emphasis. Li (2000), p. 151.

  24. See Finer et al. (2008); Finer and Orta-Martínez (2010).

  25. See AIDESEP and Forest Peoples Programme (2014).

  26. Ley de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Law No. 26834, 30 June 1997 [Protected Natural Areas (PNA) Law].

  27. Aprueban el Reglamento de la Ley de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Supreme Decree No. 38-2001-AG, 22 June 2001 [PNA Regulations].

  28. Constitution 1993, Art. 89.

  29. Ballón has pleaded to reverse the fragmentation of indigenous territories through the reunification of communal titles. Ballón Aguirre (2004), p. 64.

  30. See e.g. Ley que Establece el Régimen de Protección de los Conocimientos Colectivos de los Pueblos Indígenas vinculados a los Recursos Biológicos, Law No. 27811, 24 July 2002; Ley General del Ambiente, Law No. 28611, 13 October 2005; Ley del Derecho a la Consulta Previa a los Pueblos Indígenas u Originarios, reconocido en el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT), Law No. 29785, 31 August 2011.

  31. See Smith and Salazar (2014), p. 19.

  32. See Brechin et al. (2003), p. 268.

  33. Camino (2000), p. 3.

  34. Aprueban Reglamento de la Ley General de Comunidades Campesinas, Supreme Decree No. 008-91-TR, 12 February 1991, First Special Provision.

  35. Smith and Salazar (2014), p. 19.

  36. See Confederación General de Trabajadores del Perú—CGTP, Informe Alternativo 2008 sobre el cumplimiento del Convenio 169 de la OIT en Perú, p. 7, referring to Memoria del Estado peruano del cumplimiento del Convenio 169 de la OIT, 2004.

  37. See Plant and Hvalkof (2001), p. 22.

  38. See Vickers (1989).

  39. The majority of the Huitoto people lives in Colombia and the Lower Putumayo region.

  40. Declaran como Zona Reservada de Güeppí área territorial del Departamento de Loreto, destinada a la conservación de la diversidad biológica, Supreme Decree No. 003-97-AG, 7 April 1997.

  41. PNA Law 1997, Art. 13.

  42. For more background on this categorization process, see Desmet (2011), pp. 600–612.

  43. Decreto Supremo que aprueba la categorización definitiva de la Zona Reservada Güeppí como Parque Nacional Güeppí-Sekime, asi como de la Reserva Comunal Huimeki y la Reserva Comunal Airo Pai, Decreto Supremo 006-2012-MINAM, 25 October 2012 [Supreme Decree of Categorization of the GRZ]. See Desmet (2014), pp. 145–147.

  44. Ley del Derecho a la Consulta Previa a los Pueblos Indígenas u Originarios, reconocido en el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT), Law No. 29785, 31 August 2011; Reglamento de la Ley N° 29785, Ley del Derecho a la Consulta Previa a los Pueblos Indígenas u Originarios, reconocido en el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT), Supreme Decree N° 001-2012-MC, 2 April 2012. The Law and its Regulations have been criticized by both civil society and indigenous organizations, as not living up to international human rights standards. See e.g. A. Schilling-Vacaflor and R. Flemmer, ‘Why Is Prior Consultation Not Yet an Effective Tool for Conflict Resolution? The Case of Peru'. GIGA Working Paper No. 220, 2013.

  45. Aprueban el Plan Director de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Supreme Decree No. 010-99-AG, 17 April 1999 [Directorial Plan]. The revised version of the Directorial Plan of 2009 elaborates on mechanisms of citizen participation in the management of the protected area (see Section 2.3.8.5(a)) and on the right to consultation of indigenous peoples (see Section 2.3.8.5(b)). The Plan does not specifically develop the right of the local population to be consulted when the creation of a protected area or categorization of a reserved zone are envisaged.  See Aprueban actualización del Plan Director de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Supreme Decree No. 016-2009-MINAM, 2 September 2009.

  46. Emphasis added. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 43.1.

  47. Ibid.

  48. ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (76th session, 2006) Individual Direct Request concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) Peru (ratification: 1994), para. 3.

  49. The Tribunal stated: ‘Thus, Convention No. 169 being approved by Legislative Resolution No. 26253, published on 5 December 1993, its content becomes part of national Law, as Article 55 of the Constitution clearly states, its application moreover being compulsory for all state entities.’ Emphasis added. Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, No. 03343-2007-PA/TC, 19 February 2009, para. 31.

  50. These are only mentioned here insofar as they are relevant for the analytical purposes of the paper.

  51. In this sense, the principle of free, prior and informed consent for the definitive categorization of a protected area on communal property (i.e. of native and peasant communities) was respected. See PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 43.2.

  52. In the categorization process of the Sierra del Divisor Reserved Zone, a similar process took place. During the consultation workshops with the local population, it became clear that there were colonist settlements as well as two native communities in the buffer zones of the Reserved Zone. Therefore, a ‘re-dimensioning’ took place based on ‘the agreements with the local population and the native communities concerned’. Decreto Supremo que aprueba la categorización de la Zona Reservada Sierra del Divisor en Parque Nacional Sierra del Divisor, Supreme Decree No. 014-2015-MINAM, 8 November 2015, preamble. See also Monteferri et al. (2009), p. 11.

  53. Supreme Decree of Categorization of the GRZ 2012, preamble. But see Art. 6: ‘The general objective of the Huimeki Communal Reserve consists in conserving the biological diversity of the area and the sustainable management of its resources, to the benefit of the Kichwa, Huitoto and mestizo populations of the Peruvian-Colombian border region.’ Emphasis added.

  54. See Camino (2000), p. 24. The staff of a protected area is usually composed of the Chief of the area (PNA Law 1997, Art. 14), ‘professionals’ (e.g. biologists) and park guards. The Chief is responsible for leading and supervising the management of the protected area (PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 24.1). The overall staff size may considerably vary, depending on whether the protected area enjoys additional resources, for instance from international conservation projects, in addition to the basic funding of the Peruvian state. In the case of the GRZ, the area had a large staff during the implementation of the project ‘Participation of Native Communities in the Management of Protected Natural Areas in the Peruvian Amazon’ (PIMA, 2001-2006), financed by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). At the end of this project, the staff of the GRZ was reduced to the Chief, one professional and two park guards, all paid by the Peruvian state.

  55. See Newing and Wahl (2004).

  56. See Monteferri (2008).

  57. The Coordination Council consists of nine members, representing various governmental sectors (environment, tourism), the regional governments, the Management Committees, research institutions, non-governmental organizations and the private sector (PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 10.1). If the Council addresses matters in protected areas with a presence of ‘peasant and native populations’, a representative from the governmental department dealing with indigenous issues is added as a full member to the Council (PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 10.2(a)).

  58. Emphasis added. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 11(f).

  59. Emphasis added.

  60. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 45.3.

  61. In any case, it is forbidden to establish new human settlements in protected areas after their creation. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 46.2.

  62. See Smith and Salazar (2014).

  63. Emphasis added.

  64. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 11.

  65. UN General Assembly (2010) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, UN Doc. A/65/281, para. 2.

  66. PNA Regulations 2001, Arts. 89.2. and 89.3.

  67. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 89.2.

  68. Comisión Especial Multisectorial para las Comunidades Nativas, Mesa de Diálogo y Cooperación para las Comunidades Nativas: Plan de Acción para los Asuntos Prioritarios, Lima (2001), p. 52. This Commission had been established in 2001 under the transitional government of Paniagua. However, as an expert who was involved in this process observed: ‘[W]hen the government of Toledo began, they forgot about [the Action Plan] completely’.

  69. See Gamboa Balbín and Santillán Bartra (2006).

  70. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 104.1. See also Art. 106.2 regarding the exceptional use of timber forest products by ‘local populations previously settled’.

  71. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 107.1.

  72. Ibid.

  73. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 112.3.

  74. PNA Regulations 2001, Art. 110. This subsistence hunting must be practiced ‘according to traditional methods’. Such ‘enforced primitivism’, whereby natural resource use is only respected as long as traditional practices are upheld and no modern lifestyle is adopted (see Colchester (2003), p. 4), should be abolished.

  75. Li (2000).

  76. See Lustig and Kingsbury (2006).

  77. See also, as regards the right to communal property, UN General Assembly (2010) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, UN Doc. A/65/281, para. 13.

  78. There may also be inspiration in the reverse direction. For instance, in the draft Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, adopted by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee in 2013, the right to biodiversity and the right to preserve the environment go beyond what is currently recognised for indigenous peoples. UN Human Rights Council (2013) Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.15/1/2.

References

  • AIDESEP and Forest Peoples Programme (2014) Haciendo visible lo invisible. Perspectivas indígenas sobre la deforestación en la Amazonía peruana: causas y alternativas. AIDESEP and Forest Peoples Programme, Lima

  • Ballón Aguirre F (2004) Manual del derecho de los pueblos indígenas: doctrina, principios y normas. Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo

    Google Scholar 

  • Brechin SR, Wilshusen PR, Fortwangler CL, West PC (eds) (2003) Contested nature: promoting international biodiversity and social justice in the twenty-first century. State University of New York Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockington D, Igoe J, Schmidt-Soltau K (2006) Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conserv Biol 20(1):250–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camino A (2000) Población indígena y áreas protegidas: patrimonios resguardados, intereses en conflicto. Defensoría del Pueblo, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Colchester M (2003) Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation. World Rainforest Movement and Forest Peoples Programme

  • Comisión Especial Multisectorial para las Comunidades Nativas (2001). Mesa de diálogo y cooperación para las comunidades nativas, plan de acción para los asuntos prioritarios. Lima

  • Conklin BA, Graham LR (1995) The shifting middle ground: Amazonian indians and eco-politics. Am Anthropol 97(4):695–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet E (2011) Indigenous rights entwined with nature conservation. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmet E (2014) Conservación y pueblos indígenas: un análisis socio-jurídico. Cuadernos deusto de derechos humanos, vol 75. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao

  • Dowie M (2006) The hidden cost of paradise. Indigenous people are being displaced to create wilderness areas, to the detriment of all. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring, vol 38

  • Finer M, Orta-Martínez M (2010) A second hydrocarbon boom threatens the Peruvian Amazon: trends, projections, and policy implications. Environ Res Lett 5:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finer M, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, Keane B, Ross C (2008) Oil and gas projects in the western Amazon: threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples. PLoS One 3(8):e2932. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamboa Balbín C, Santillán Bartra A (2006) Régimen especial transectorial de protección a favor de pueblos indígenas en aislamiento y en contacto inicial. la relación entre los pueblos indígenas aislados y los recursos naturales a la luz de la ley n° 28736. Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales–DAR, Lima

  • Igoe J (2005) Global indigenism and spaceship earth: convergence, space, and re-entry friction. Globalizations 2(3):377–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemf E (ed) (1993) The law of the mother. Protecting indigenous peoples in protected areas. Earthscan, London

  • Li TM (2000) Articulating indigenous identity in Indonesia: resource politics and the tribal slot. Comp Stud Soc Hist 42(1):149–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lustig D, Kingsbury B (2006) Displacement and relocation from protected areas: international law perspectives on rights, risks and resistance. Conserv Soc 4(3):404–418

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden C (2006) Legal research and the social sciences. Law Q Rev 122:632–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteferri B (2008) Áreas naturales protegidas: los efectos jurídicos de su establecimiento sobre predios de propiedad privada. Revista de Derecho Administrativo 6:338–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteferri B, Canziani E, Dammert JL, Silva JC (2009) Conservación, industrias extractivas y reservas indígenas. El proceso de categorización de la zona reservada Sierra del Divisor. SPDA–ACSC, Lima

  • Newing H, Wahl L (2004) Benefiting local populations? Communal reserves in Peru. Cult Surviv Q 28(1):38–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant R, Hvalkof S (2001) Land titling and indigenous peoples. Inter-American Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rights and Resources Initiative and Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (2013) Impacto de la industria extractiva en los derechos colectivos sobre territorios y bosques de los pueblos y las comunidades. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouland N, Pierré-Caps S, Poumarède J (1996) Droit des minorités et des peuples autochtones. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer S, Gomez ET (eds) (2012) The politics of resource extraction. Indigenous peoples, multinational corporations and the state. Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Smith RC, Salazar M (2014) La seguridad territorial en el limbo. El estado de las comunidades indígenas en el Perú: Informe 2014. Instituto del Bien Común, Lima

  • Stevens S (ed) (1997) Conservation through cultural survival: indigenous peoples and protected areas. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers WT (1989) Los siona y los secoya. Su adaptación al medio ambiente. Abya-Yala, Quito

    Google Scholar 

  • von Benda-Beckmann F (1997a) Citizens, strangers and indigenous peoples: conceptual politics and legal pluralism. In: Kuppe R, Potz R (eds) Law & anthropology: international yearbook for legal anthropology, vol 9. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • von Benda-Beckmann K (1997b) The environmental protection and human rights of indigenous peoples: a tricky alliance. Law Anthropol 9:302–323

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law and Development Research Group, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 23, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium

    Ellen Desmet (Post-doctoral fellow, Law)

  2. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Ellen Desmet (Post-doctoral fellow, Law)

Authors
  1. Ellen Desmet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen Desmet.

Additional information

Ellen Desmet: Post-doctoral Fellow

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Desmet, E. Identifying Rights-Holders in Natural Resource Regimes: A Critical Assessment of the Peruvian Protected Areas Legislation. Hague J Rule Law 8, 135–154 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-016-0027-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-016-0027-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation