'better early than late'

In Chile we heard of a case brought by indigenous communities against a geothermal energy investigation to take place on indigenous territories. The third chamber of the Court of Appeal of Santiago received three applications filed by three different communities: Huenchullán; Consejo de Pueblos Atacameños; and comunidad Manquilef Hueche regarding an exploration permit granted by Ministry of Energy in the regions of Araucanía and Antofagasta.

 The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the lawsuits on the grounds of extemporaneousness in the filing of this constitutional action. Moreover, the Court explained that “there has been no illegal or arbitrary action by the Minister of Energy” because the said permit meets a legal and duly founded procedure. In regards of the action been extemporaneous the Court of Appeal noted that at this stage of the geothermal examination, the permit will only allows the party involve to recognize, inquire or ascertain the existence of energy if any, in the subsoil. Therefore, it is not possible to know if the project will affect communities or individuals. However the Court extended to say that a ‘consultation and participation’ of indigenous communities that may be affected by the project is necessary at a later stage - in compliance with Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the ILO Convention No 169.

Haven’t you heard of the expression ‘better early than late’? This is what did cross my mind while I was reading the case. You may also think of ‘the early bird catches the worm’ ie avoid losing time and recognize now that anything that happens in indigenous lands they need/must be consulted...full stop.

Chile is not strange to this type of cases -- conflicts over indigenous lands and the exploration and exploitation of their natural resources and moreover, referring to consultation and participation of indigenous peoples in decisions relating to this issue (see previous posts here and here). What is of curiosity is the fact that the Ministry of Energy is a body of the State and it should know better. The government should be an example of responsibilities and obligations pursuant ILO Convention No 169. Also Chile is a member of the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) and although it is a non- binding resolution, it is a reaffirming piece that Chile has opted to follow.

Sources: Poder Judicial and Indigenous News.

Indigenous land FOR SALE!

Back in 1993 the Chilean law 19.253 (here in Spanish) on ‘protection, promotion and development’ of indigenous peoples created the National Indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI) and which also established key policies providing resources and protection for native ethnic groups. As in every other legislation some flaws were noted; one of them being Article 13 which prohibits disposing of, seizing, or acquiring by prescription Indigenous lands, unless it is between Indigenous communities and/or indigenous people. This lands whose owners are Indigenous Communities cannot be leased, given on loan; cannot be transferred to third parties to use, benefit from or administer.

For this reason a new proposal, headed by Mr René Manuel García and backed on by several MPs, has been made in the ‘Camara de Diputados’ (Chamber of Deputies) to “add a subsection to Law 19.253, in order to allow the Indians to sell their land” but only if used exclusively for the construction of social housing and associated infrastructure.

Mr García noticed the constraints to indigenous ownership which prevent the landowners to generate resources by way of lease or sale of property, forcing owners land to stay with the same piece of land, unable to have another option that may mean an economic benefit.

I wonder if the Indigenous Communities have participated in this project. It comes to mind the ILO Convention 169, to be more specific:

Article 6

§  1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:

  (a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly;

Article 7

§  1. The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly.

But more importantly is:

Article 17

1. Procedures established by the peoples concerned for the transmission of land rights among members of these peoples shall be respected.

2. The peoples concerned shall be consulted whenever consideration is being given to their capacity to alienate their lands or otherwise transmit their rights outside their own community.

I guess that when Law 19.253 was proposed these matters were considered (?). 

Finally, if this proposal is accepted how the following would be stop from happening:

§  3. Persons not belonging to these peoples shall be prevented from taking advantage of their customs or of lack of understanding of the laws on the part of their members to secure the ownership, possession or use of land belonging to them.

The right of... to be NOT consulted (?)

Back in 2011 the Chilean government passed a regulation (Decreto Supremo N° 50),that lays out a process by which state-protected areas can be opened up for tourism and hence, tourism concessions are to be granted – this regulation was published in April 2012. The Council of the Atacameño People (an organization that has leaders from many different Atacameño communities) argues that such regulation affects their interests and requests that they, as well as any other indigenous communities, shall be consulted -- grounds founded under article 6 of the ILO Convention 169.

"1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:

(a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly"

However, the Santiago Court of Appeals ( hearing the case) unanimously rejected such grounds on the basis that the said regulation “has caused no harm nor affected indigenous peoples to an extent that it requires consultation.” Yet, the Court went on to establish at numeral 10 that “any concessions that affected indigenous communities were to be held to the strict standards of consultation laid out in Articles 6,7 and 8 of ILO Convention 169, especially the reference to the participation of these communities in making decisions that affect the territories where they live.”

Source Indigenous News here.

The decision can be read here.

28 days and counting...

In Chile, representatives from one political party have expressed the “lack of solutions and insensitivity of the government" by the recent situation at UNICEF. Since Thursday 26 July, the office of UNICEF in Santiago de Chile was peacefully occupied by members of the Mapuche Territorial Alliance. Today the only people that remain are Sandra del Rosario Meza Huencho and her two year old daughter Kimwn. The other members, mainly mothers, have gradually left the building.

Why this extreme measure? The Mapuche community is asking the government to withdraw police forces in the Araucanía Region. It is reported that police violence against Mapuche communities has now been extended to children who have been injured by bullets when police carried out their procedures.

UNICEF While the body restates that the office is not the place to address the needs of welfare of a minor, both physical and psychological, UNICEF rejects to evict the occupants of the place.

Finally, the delegate Accorsi said that the government has not yet publicly repudiated what happened in La Araucanía with minors, given that it is the responsibility of States to assume special obligations in this area due to International Conventions on Human Rights and the Rights of the Child signed by Chile. He also referred to the ILO Convention 169, specifically Article 3 (2), which states “No form of force or coercion shall be used in violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the peoples concerned, including the rights contained in this Convention”.

Sources UNICEF (here)and Camara de Diputados de Chile (Chamber of Deputies) (here).

Chile on Indigenous land

In March, the Chilean Supreme Court had unanimously rejected arguments made by a family of Rapa Nui people (case No 9431-2011), regarding the return of ancestral lands on Easter Island. The action for restitution was filed by the Hito clan against the current owners of the Hotel Hanga Roa. For years the Hito clan has tried to regain control over land that was traditionally in their possession. However, the Supreme Court stated that: 1) 1888, all inhabitants on Easter Island became illegal squatters; 2) the land in question was legally transferred from ancestors of the Hito clan to non-indigenous people; and 3) the land in question no longer qualifies as “indigenous land” within the meaning of the law, and so, special protection is not needed.

The following facts were established in the case:

a) the plaintiff is an ethnic Rapa Nui – the indigenous people of Rapa Nui from the Polynesian island of Te Pito o Te Henua (Easter Island) has been legally recognised in Chile according to Indigenous Law No. 19,253 of 1993.
b) the State of Chile became owner of all Easter Island due to taken possession of it by the Chilean navy Policarpo Toro Hurtado on September 9, 1888, and since then, the Republic of Chile has full acts of sovereignty over the island. Because of this the people living there came to have the status of land squatters. c) Law No. 3220 of 1917 gave to the Minister of Maritime the care of the population of Easter Island -- the Directorate of Maritime Territory of Chile decided to put in charge of the Island to a Maritime subdelegation. d) in 1928 the above subdelegation gave a temporary assignment to Mary Anne Tepihe and their children, Richard and Stephen, a land of 9.8 hectares, to be fenced in a year awaiting the Supreme Government to arrange for the final possession, thus recognizing the persons named the domain in the land, becoming thus mere holders of the property.
e) in 1933, by judgment of the First Civil Court of Valparaiso, the Real Estate of said city proceeded to register the possession of the State of Chile on Easter Island land, and establishing that the mode of acquiring ownership was the one established in Article 590 of the Civil Code.
f) in 1970, Mrs. Veronica Atamu, widow of Don Ricardo Milestone, Corfo yielded to any rights it may have on land plot No. 40 of Hanga Roa, where he established the sequence of it, appearing before Don Pedro Villagra, Chief of the Land Office of Easter Island, with his son Isidro Landmark.
g) on 31 October 1970, the State of Chile, donated to the Corporation for Economic Development Agency public lands where is located the Hotel Hanga Roa, registration was fulfilled before the Real Estate of the island that year.
h) in 1979, was released on Decree Law No. 2885, which established standards for the granting of titles of ownership and administration of public lands in Easter Island, legal text that started the process of regulating land to its inhabitants.
i) on 2 January 1981, CORFO sold the Hanga Roa Hotel to Hugo Salas Roman.
j) in 1991, Hugo Salas Roman became a partner at the Hotel Inter-American Society (Chile SA) and granted the land domain and the hotel above-- signing this in the Property Register of the Real Estate Easter Island in 1991.
k) on October 5, 1993, Law No. 19.253 established rules for the protection, promotion and development of indigenous people and the National indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI) was created, with general rules for all ethnic groups and special rules for the Rapa Nui.
l) the defendant company owns the land on which they built the Hotel Hanga Roa. m) CONADI certified that there is no evidence that the land occupied by the defendant is Indigenous land, in accordance with Article 15 of Law N ° 19,253. 

The case appears to be straightforward since the applicant failed to established dominion over the land. Moreover, the matter raised the issue that the lands are not indigenous and therefore not subject to special protection. However I wonder: what does make a territory to be indigenous land? Additionally, when does a territory that has been occupied by indigenous peoples no longer qualifies as “indigenous land”?

Plenty to be serious about...

Having a look at Art 15 of Law N ° 19,253 it establishes that “The Corporation shall open and maintain a Public Register of Indigenous Land. In the Register it shall be entered all lands referred to in Article 12 of this law. The registration credits the status of Indian land.” That said, to register there is the need to have entitlement, right? So I went to read Art 12 of the said Law which establishes the following: “Indian lands are: 1 ° Those that people or indigenous communities currently occupy on property or possession from the following titles: a) Securities Commissioner under the law of 10 June 1823. b) Titles of mercy in accordance with the laws of 4 December 1866 to August 4, 1874, and 20 January 1883...” and so forth. Yet in section 2 ° the law establishes that Indigenous land are “those that have historically been occupied and have been in possession of people or communities Mapuche, Aymara, Rapa Nui or Easter Island, Atacama, Quechua, Colla, Kawashkar and Yamana, provided that their rights are registered in the Indigenous Land Registry created by this law, by application of the respective communities or indigenous property owners. The answer to my first question is: an indigenous land is the one that is registered as such! [no very helpful I would say]

To consult or not to consult (?)

In light of the news that the Chilean Supreme Court nulls once again (this year) an environmental assessment due to irregularities including consult with the Indigenous Peoples, I therefore, question: shall we consider to consult or not to consult?

The answer is pretty simple, it is not a question, it is a fact! Indigenous peoples have a right to consultation when development projects are taking place on their lands – as stated in the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169 (ILO 169).


Background of the case
The case involves the 'Comunidad Agrícola los Huasco Altinos' and the “El Morro” mining project, owned by Sociedad Contractual Minera El Morro, represented by Golport, based in Vancouver, Canada. In order to exploit the mine and continue with the project, Golport needed an environmental assessment, which was granted by the Regional Environmental Evaluation Commission back in March 2011. However, according to ILC news, the case presented a ‘twist’ since the community called the Diaguita people, was not technically recognized as an ‘indigenous people’ until 2006. Therefore, the land that the project affects, and which are titled to the community, are not technically recognized as 'indigenous lands' because it predates the said year.

Nevertheless the community succeed bringing the case claiming that “when environmental impact studies were conducted for the El Morro project, and when the government assessed those studies, both the company and the Chilean government failed to apply legal protections that relate specifically to indigenous peoples.” It refers to Chile’s 1993 Indigenous Law and ILO Convention 169 both of which include:

• protection for indigenous lands, and natural resources;
• and consultations.

None of these were applied when the project evaluation took place.

In due course, the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Diaguita Huascoaltinos Indigenous and Agricultural Community and ordered that the environmental assessment be repeated taking into consideration indigenous legislation and rights.


Some unprofessional conduct
Mr Campusano, Community’s president, together with Nancy Yáñez, attorney who is representing the Community refer to certain practices that they have encountered:
1.- Denial of Indian status being used just to make possible this type of project .
2.- The company in charge of the project has approached individuals in the community, offering cars and money (a lump sum per year per family)in order to override the resistance to this mining project.

More info here and here.

And another one...

No 1 drill we hate!

March appears to be ‘the’ month for Chile’s indigenous peoples. The issue surrounds indigenous peoples’ right to consultation when development projects are taking place on their lands – as stated in the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169 (ILO 169). That said, on the 30th of March the Chilean Supreme Court ordered - its second time in a month, consultation with Indigenous peoples (see previous blog here).

The case was brought by Aymara communities against Compañía Paguanta S.A. and in regards of drilling occurring on their territories. The Supreme Court unanimously held to stop the drilling until an environmental impact study is performed and the Aymara people are consulted. It stated that “the project started before proper consultation had taken place and ordered that the rights outlined in Convention 169 must be respected before the project can move forward.”

The ILC News published an interesting report regarding the issue of consultation. The article is written by two US attorneys who are working in International and Indigenous Rights law and whose residence is in Santiago de Chile for the moment. They noted that these cases of ‘development projects’ and the matter of consultation have been truly been “... in the context of applying environmental protection laws, which require citizen participation for certain types of invasive projects that present negative impacts.” For this reason, they observed that the Court ordered such consultation when it finds those impacts that involve environmental laws and then it combines environmental law with ILO 169 consultation rights.

The note continues to explain that they are two different things and emphasise that “the circumstances that trigger consultation are broader than the environmental legislation” since regardless of whether the prject can have a positive or negative impact, the aim of consultation “is to give indigenous peoples a voice in all decisions that affect them.”

Finally, they stated that putting together ‘citizen participation’ (as required by environmental law) and ‘indigenous consultation’ (required by ILO 169) is problematic since the latter has “very specific requirements, most of which are not present in the established citizen participation laws that exist on Chile’s books.”

"Another one bites the dust And another one gone and another one gone"

Last week the Chilean Supreme Court held a verdict in favor of a Huilliche-Mapuche community . The community was trying to stop the company Ecopower from building 56 wind turbines on the island of Chiloé under the grounds (inter allia) that they were never effectively consulted about the project. Moreover, they argued that the said project would have a negative effect on Mapuche ceremonial sites and burial grounds.

The Supreme Court agreed that consultation had not occurred and ordered the company to stop the project until consultation has been done.

Here we can notice several arguments based on the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169 (ILO 169). Firstly, the right that indigenous peoples be consulted about development projects that directly affect them (Art 6). Secondly, according to the Mapuche community the project will affect their cultures and spiritual values – a violation on Art 13.

Chile ratified ILO 169 in 2008 and recently we posted a similar decision hold by Temuco Appeals Court regarding the same situation: indigenous peoples no being consulted in projects that may affect them.

Yet, the defendants argued that COREMA (the Regional Environmental Commission) approved the environmental impact study and so allowing the wind farm project to move forward. Moreover, it is also argued that COREMA held meetings and invited citizen participation to occur before reaching its final decision. However, the Huilliche community argued that because such consultation did not occur when it was supposed to. The Supreme Court agrees with the Mapuche community establishing that “COREMA’s actions did not amount to meaningful consultation with the Huilliche community, in part because even if the community had fully participated in such meetings they still lacked any meaningful opportunity to influence how the project would ultimately move forward.”

The title today comes from the song 'another one bites the dust' written by John Deacon and sung by Freddie Mercury...that was the feeling I got. The message that the Chilean courts are sending is pretty clear: listen and learn (but mostly consult with the right people!)

Chilean national attire: complementing two cultures

Last week the Chilean ‘Camara de Diputados’ (MPs) unanimously approved Agreement No. 522 and so declaring the DOÑIHUE ‘Chamanto’ an Intangible Heritage.

Chamanto is a traditional attire and it is one of the most distinctive pieces wear by ‘huasos’ (huaso is the name given to countryman – i.e. cowboy). The piece is poncho-like made of woven with threads of silk and wool double-face. It is said that all chamantos are work of art and in Doñihue there are only 45 weavers that work in this trade who are very protective and reluctant to share their knowledge (TK is shared from mother to daughter).

The report given by the MPs explained that this piece is ‘unique and distinctive’ and encloses a primitive “relationship between man and land, keeping its symbols of belonging and tradition".

Finally, there is a statement made by the MPs that relates to what a nation is – rather than trying to divide what a native or non-indigenous is or what cultural aspect we need to be looking at. The assertion is as follows:

“...to exalt the cultural values of the homeland is a need for the community, since it implies recognition of national identity from elements that bind the whole society, identifying common values and principles belonging to the nation”.

I remember the movie ‘My big fat Greek wedding’ where a very traditional Greek young lady married a non-Greek and struggles to get her family to accept him. In the wedding speech her father tries to explain the roots of the young couple respective surnames saying that one is ‘apple’ and the other one is ‘orange’ – different, but in the end, they are fruits.
Today we have a fine example of that. Reading the Agreement I noticed that the MPs observed that ‘chamantos’ are complementing two cultures: the indigenous and the Hispanic, and while they are different, they harmonize and represent (beautifully) the whole nation.

Agreement No 522 can be found at this link (in Spanish)

Chilean Indigenous Peoples have a say – will they be listening to?

A few weeks back there was a ‘celebration day’ that was launched by UNESCO since 2000: February 21st “International Mother Language Day.” The purpose is to promote native languages around the globe and Chile took this day to promote not only their own indigenous languages but also their cultures. Accordingly, Chile celebrated the day by marches and public statements.

In Santiago, Chile, there is an organization dedicated to Indigenous languages: Red por los Derechos Educativos y Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas de Chile (Red EIB). On the date, they released a public statement “summarizing the current state of Indigenous languages in the country and calling on the government to take concrete steps to preserve those same languages. Red EIB indicated that Chile originally had eight spoken Indigenous languages, but now numbers have dropped to four, and none of those four languages are spoken by more than one-third of their respective populations.”

RED suggests the following:

· the national curriculum should reinstate the Indigenous education units that used to be found in history, geography and social science classes;

· strengthening Indigenous language rights under Chilean law, which might include the creation of a “National Institute on Indigenous Languages”; and

· intercultural education throughout the country.

Another event took place in the Araucanía Region of Chile, where the community requested the government to make Mapuzungun (the language of the Mapuche people, and the most-spoken language in Chile outside of Spanish) to be along with Spanish an official language. In other Chilean Regions there were also requests made to local government leaders to add the names of certain landmarks in Mapuzungun.

Source Indigenous News.

Time to play: is this a proper match?

A long-running case involving NBA player Manu Ginobili and the Argentinean Mapuche community named ‘Paichil Antriao’ is again a hot debate.

Background:In 2004, Ginobili bought a piece of land (more than a piece though, it is 27 acres) for US$10 million in the region of Villa La Angostura, Argentina. It seemed that the intention of the NBA celebrity was to build a house and a five star hotel but nothing has been constructed as yet. However, the land has been in a legal battle shortly after its purchase. The reason: the Mapuche community of Paichil Antriao lives and has been present on that land since 1902. Accordingly, it is said that it is recognized by the Argentine state's own documents. Nonetheless, the Paichil Antriao community explains that over the years such title has been disrespected and they have been forced to move further and further to the border of the land.

In 2007, Ginobili filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that his title was legitimate and no one else had any claims to the land. The suit however brought an outrage to the indigenous peoples because Ginobili’s lawyers used the argument that the Mapuche people never existed in Argentina (only in Chile) and, thus they did not have status as Indigenous Peoples at all. Therefore the lawyers argued that the Paichil Antriao Community could not claim the lands to be their own because they did not exist in Argentina; in other words they did not have any legal standing.

In 2011, an appellate court in actual fact ordered that the Mapuche community of Paichil Antriao to be added to the lawsuit, This was followed by a statement given by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States granting precautionary measures to the community and instructing Argentina to “take steps to allow the Mapuche people to reach sacred sites on the land and to protect the lives of those in the community who had been displaced due to the conflict.”

It is good to note that ILO Convention 169, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 was ratified by Argentina on 2000. Having a look at Article 16 it clearly prohibits the eviction of indigenous peoples:

Article 16
1. Subject to the following paragraphs of this Article, the peoples concerned shall not be removed from the lands which they occupy.

Also it is also noticeable

Article 17
1. Procedures established by the peoples concerned for the transmission of land rights among members of these peoples shall be respected.

wish you were here (me too!)

In 2012, the human rights organization, Observatorio de Derechos Humanos de Pueblos Indígenas (ODHPI), announced that it will assist in the defense of the Mapuche community against the lawsuit filed by Ginobili. In fact, last week, ODHPI’s lawyer, Emma Cabeza, said that a presentation was made ​​in court answering the position of the community that claims to have possession of the land.

This story continues…hopefully there will be a happy ending for all parts involved.I said so because Mr Ginobili also appears to be a victim. He asserts that when he bought the land he did not know about any community leaving in the land. Moreover, ODHPI’s director, Juan Manuel Salgado, mentions that Mr Ginóbili bought the land from Joseph Salamida, a local official appointed by the dictatorship, who in the past had seized various lots of land. Thus, we could say that in a way Mr Ginobili is suffering from legally buying an illegally obtained land by a third party.

Sources here, here and here.

Transmission line pole types: destruction or improvement

On a recent Chilean court decision a judge accepted an appeal regarding the protection of indigenous rights, to be more precise protecting Mapuches communities and their lands. On 25th January, the Temuco Appeals Court cancelled a project called “Línea de Transmisión en Poste de Hormigón 110Kv Melipeuco-Freire”. This was a project for a transmission line of 110kv and 98.9 km long that passed through several Mapuche communities and land . The aim of the transmission line was to send out energy power generated by several hydro electrical centres. The project was approved on October 4, 2011 and the decision was notified to the community on October 18th.

Transmission lines as hunting perches.
Is the Environmental Commission the eagle or the pole?

On November the Mapuche community’s president sought invalidation of the project on the grounds that the community was not consulted on this as required by International Labour Organization Convention (ILO 169) - ratified by Chile.

The Chilean Environmental Evaluation Commission signed off on the project and stated that the environmental impacts of the power lines were minimal and required no environmental impact study. Yet, the Court of Appeal held that an environmental impact study was required and must be carried out before the project can move forward. Moreover, the Court stated that the Mapuche communities were entitled to consultation under ILO 169.




The right to be consulted
While I could not find the extract of the case we could speculate that the Court was referring to either ILO 169 Article 6 or Article 7 or both:

Article 6
1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:
(a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly;
(b) establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least the same extent as other sectors of the population, at all levels of decision-making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes which concern them;
Article 7
1. The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly.[looking at the last sentence we can argue that a transmission line (energy power) may bring development to some regions and so, the Mapuche community and land been implicated in this project, they should have a say]

Also Sarah rightly addressed me to other Articles that should be relevant in the Mapuches cause of action i.e. Art 13 and Article 15 both referring to the right of land as follows:

Article 13
1. In applying the provisions of this Part of the Convention governments shall respect the special importance for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned of their relationship with the lands or territories, or both as applicable, which they occupy or otherwise use, and in particular the collective aspects of this relationship.[ to pass a transmission line through Mapuches Ancestral land may disturb spiritual values for example]
Article 15
1. The rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded. These rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources. [the judge indentified that there was the need to have a environmental study before the project commence – this clearly oversees that the environment may be affected]

Referring to today's title 'Transmission line pole types: destruction or improvement', I will say that for some  a transmission line can bring development and improvement of life but for others it could mean the destruction of their lands and culture, and thus their life.

Sources here, here and here.
The project can be found here (in Spanish).

The Inca Route as heritage: keeping an eye on the prize

News recently came out that Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru are ready to submit their joint application for adding the Inca Route – Qhapaq Ñan – to the World Heritage List.

What is so special about it?

Well, for one, it is the most multinational nomination to ever be presented to UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee. Secondly, and most importantly, it is a testament to the achievements of the Inca civilization, which pre-dated European conquest in the Americas, and, even though they were ultimately defeated by the Spaniards, mainly via warfare and disease-spreading , their culture still finds resonance amongst indigenous peoples in these countries.

The nomination, with the assistance of UNESCO, is being prepared for some 10 years and is now about to see the light of day. The Qhapaq Ñan is likely to be nominated as a cultural landscape, due to the connections between nature and man-made elements throughout its six thousand kilometres. A cultural route such as Qhapaq Ñan (a prominent European example being the Camino de Santiago de Compostela) is but a succession of landscapes, and, there lacking a specific category for cultural routes in the World Heritage List, it is appropriate that it be nominated as a cultural landscape.

Another reason why it is appropriate that it be nominated as a cultural landscape is that this category is the one through which intangible cultural heritage elements seep most strongly into the World Heritage System. Given the surviving connections between the Qhapaq Ñan and indigenous peoples in these countries, it is important that the living culture (that is, the intangible) aspects of this heritage also be acknowledged, even if it is very unlikely that communities along the route will have much of a say in the nomination process, let alone the actual management of the route.

It is cause for concern that communities be excluded from international heritage processes, seen as they are the ones who will most likely be impacted by the elevation of their heritage to “international status”, and the ones to whom any economic benefits arising from the exploitation of this heritage should return. But the World Heritage system is not the only one to exclude communities – all UNESCO regimes for the protection of heritage do so. One exception on paper is the system of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), which has language on community involvement, and even specific programs for that purpose now in its implementation phase. However, these are little more than lip service as they stand, seen as communities are not given a voice directly before UNESCO, only at the national level, which means states are the only ones who still get to speak before the international community about heritage and its importance, getting to ultimately decide what heritage is for international safeguarding purposes.

While an overhaul of the UNESCO system, while much desired, would be unlikely to come before the Qhapaq Ñan is added to the World Heritage List, it is essential that communities, national authorities and (most importantly for the purposes of inscription on the List and subsequent management) UNESCO and the international community keep their eyes set on what really matters: that the living heritage of the Incan Route be preserved and enhanced, and not replaced by a folklorized version of the Inca culture that caters to European tourists, or that favors the monumentality of the route as opposed to the rich multiplicity of the many small nuances and textures of the cultural fabrics that compose this amazing route, and make it a true testament to mankind.

Written by Lucas Lixinski.