Peru Deputy Minister Steps Down to Protest Consultation Law

[ardilla]

http://elcomercio.pe/actualidad/1571905 ... a-al-cargo

http://www.peruviantimes.com/07/peru-de ... law/18994/

[alan]

It´s a good question. Who qualifies to be defined as "indigenous" to an area?

From the Peruvian Times article quoted above:

Lanegra had pushed for indigenous groups to be defined based on their language and connection to the land, two criteria that are controversial. Some anthropologists say it is superficial to define a group’s ethnicity based on those criteria, while international law experts say that nowhere in Convention 169 does it say these criteria are to be used to define indigenous people. The ILO instead says indigenous people should be identified as descendents of people who lived before the Conquest and who have maintained some of their own, unique social, economic, cultural and political identity. Many of Lanegra’s criteria do overlap with these, however.
Local indigenous organizations have called for self-identification in order to determine who is indigenous

[ardilla]

I think the question is also, who gets to define this and how did they get (or give themselves) that right? why is the definition of who is "in" the box to be consulted, versus who is "out" so important in these types of cases? What, ultimately, is at stake, and what does identity and the power to define others' identities have to do with the power to use resources?


http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/ ... blications)/5DD2D68B93A7B609C12579B3004C49BC

International institutions, including the United Nations and World Bank, and numerous multinational companies (MNCs) have voiced concern over the adverse impact of resource extraction activities on the livelihood of indigenous communities. Yet the scale and scope of problems confronting indigenous peoples caused by mineral extraction projects endorsed by governments, international agencies and MNCs is monumental. This raises a paradox: Despite the burgeoning number of international charters and national laws asserting the rights of indigenous peoples, they find themselves subjected to discrimination, dispossession and racism. The authors explore this paradox by examining mega resource extraction projects in Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Chad and Cameroon, India, Nigeria, Peru and the Philippines.

[falconagain]

Humala mentioned the following in regards to the coast and the mountain communities.

On the Coast "basically no native communities (...) in the mountains, most farming communities are the product of the agricultural reform. Most of all they give native communities in the jungle, who were called not contacted "said the president.

Which coincides with the book paragraphs that I posted a few months back on these forum.
Humala is trying to limit the amount of benefits by properly classifying the communities in the
jungle and the mountains. The mountain area already had a sizable benefit during the agrarian
reform and they actually moved from the area where they lived to take possession on the 70s.

Meanwhile the jungle communities never moved or were moved from their place of origin and
they remained there. Humala is making a very accurate description in order to avoid the excess
of benefits that the people from the mountains could get if they got the consultation right.

While I do not agree with a Government that provides benefits to non productive communities,
I agree less with providing double benefits to certain communities (mountains), meanwhile the
jungle natives only get half.

[ardilla]

Here is an account of this dispute, published by Reuters. This article suggests that the corporate mining sector has a major stake in this. This sector stands to be the real benefactor in how "indigenous" identities are decided (and who gets to claim this identity). The law of prior consultation (consulta previa) is actually about ensuring that major decisions about land use involve those who will be most impacted by these decisions: the people who use the water and the land, and live near potential industrial polluters. In this case, the numerous quechua speaking populations of these Andean regions would be the impacted communities.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... CG20130501

"Quechua - the language of the Incan empire - is spoken by an estimated 3 million to 5 million people in Peru. The Quechua are the most numerous and widespread of about 50 indigenous groups in Peru."

[falconagain]

Here is an account of this dispute, published by Reuters. This article suggests that the corporate mining sector has a major stake in this. This sector stands to be the real benefactor in how "indigenous" identities are decided (and who gets to claim this identity). The law of prior consultation (consulta previa) is actually about ensuring that major decisions about land use involve those who will be most impacted by these decisions: the people who use the water and the land, and live near potential industrial polluters. In this case, the numerous quechua speaking populations of these Andean regions would be the impacted communities.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... CG20130501

"Quechua - the language of the Incan empire - is spoken by an estimated 3 million to 5 million people in Peru. The Quechua are the most numerous and widespread of about 50 indigenous groups in Peru."

But they are not native as the president specified, they all moved considerable distances to receive the
benefit of the agrarian reform. In conclusion they should not participate because they are not part of the
definition and that they abandoned the definition willfully in order to obtain a benefit. Otherwise if they
would like to be a part of the definition, they would be required to share evenly the wealth with the
people of the jungle (By evenly means, the amount of money adjusted through inflation that would have
corresponded to the jungle communities in case that they had participated in the reform). At least,
that is what Humala states.