Course:CONS370/Projects/Land conflicts experienced by the Sarayaku Indigenous People of Ecuador and the link to the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

From UBC Wiki

The Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku (or Sarayaku People) are a small community of indigenous people living in the rainforests of eastern Ecuador. The traditional subsistence practices of the Sarayaku People make them reliant on their natural environment for food production and sustenance of their cultural values[1].

A big share of Sarayaku land was commissioned to the Argentinian fuel company Compañía General de Combustibles (CGC) by the state of Ecuador in 1996 for the exploration and extraction of crude oil[2]. After CGC started to intrude into Sarayaku territory in 2002 for seismic tests, the Sarayaku People started to resist and protest the proceedings which happened without consent and prior consultation[3]. Despite halting the destructive proceedings, the Sarayaku People brought forward a legal case against the state of Ecuador and CGC at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) in 2010.

In 2012, IACHR ruled in favor of the Sarayaku People stating that the state of Ecuador had failed to inform and get permission from the Sarayaku People on the CGC project[2]. The landmark decision of this case affirmed the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which requires governments and organizations to consult and obtain consent from indigenous communities for projects affecting their territory. This decision was rooted in the ILO Convention 169 which was ratified by the Ecuadorian government. The victory of the Sarayaku People has national and international implications, as it set standards on FPIC, a precedent on how international law can be applied in similar cases worldwide. Another breakthrough for indigenous rights was the deployment of a court delegation that visited the Sarayaku People to obtain first hand information on what had happened from the victims[4].

The Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku

The Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku are a community of around 1,400 individuals living across the 7 villages in the Pastaza province, eastern Ecuador[5]. These remote settlements within the Amazon basin are situated in old-growth tropical rainforest that can be accessed exclusively by air or boat via the Bobonaza river[6]. The access to the community is furthermore restricted to tourists and a permission needs to be granted by the community before an outsider can enter[1].

The boundaries of the Sarayaku territory are somewhat fuzzy and overlapping with other tribes, but the inhabitants claim their land to be about 140 square kilometers in size[6]. 95% of this area is still primary rainforest, which has been found to be a species diversity hotspot[1]. The settlements of the Sarayaku people are located on the banks of Bobonaza river and its tributaries.

Culture & Livelihood

In Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku ontology, all beings are inhabited by the energy of kausak sacha (living forest)[1]. This leads to an ecocentric worldview and life of all kinds is treated with mutual respect and diligence.

The Sarayaku people have lived self-sufficiently off their land for many generations. Nowadays, they still follow a traditional lifestyle and most work goes into procuring food and handicrafts such as building houses, canoes or tools[6]. They recognize three usage zones of their land: chakra, the orchard and agricultural land; sacha, the jungle used for hunting and gathering; and yaku, which are inland waters used for fishing[1]. Swidden agriculture is practiced on the banks of the Bobonaza river for cassava (Manihot esculenta) and plantain (Musa spp.) production[6]. For this type of agriculture, vegetation is cleared by burning to allow for the planting of crops. Today, most of the land cleared for agriculture is covered by secondary forests. While agriculture is mainly a female task, men are primarily responsible for fishing, hunting and construction work.

Many different mammal and fish species are hunted. Overall, a decrease in large game and fish had been recorded in previous decades[6]. This was thought to have been caused in part by increasing hunting rates of the community, which records a growing population. In addition, there are commercial fishing activities and river pollution from industrial sources upstream that might play a role in reducing fish abundance. In recent years, there have been efforts to effectively manage the use of natural resources in accordance with the national adoption of sumak kawsay ("good living") principles[1]. Sumak kawsay is a worldview regarding the harmony between nature and humanity which emphasizes the importance of sustainability over economic growth[1]. This concept has been officially recognized and incorporated into Ecuadorian law in 2008, providing legal recognition of the indigenous way of living[7]. For example, each Sarayaku household has a chakra (see above) in which families practice a "balance among production, conservation, and ancestral knowledge"[1].

Houses are built out of materials found in the forest: long poles in the center of the construction support the roofs made of palm leaves. Floors and walls are traditionally made of palm trunks or bamboo. These days, wooden planks made with chainsaws replace some traditional materials.[6] Following a new marriage, young couples will move into their parents household (from either side of the family) until they are able to construct their own household[6]. Most members of the community marry within the community. however, occasionally a non-Sarakayu person will marry into the nation

The language of the Sarayaku people is Kichwa, which is spoken by over a million indigenous peoples in Latin America.

Social & Political Organization

The Sarayaku people have multiple governance structures responsible for various aspects of life. The highest form of authority is a communal governance structure known as TAYJASARUTA, which is an acronym of Kichwa words highlighting the cultural identity and values of the Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku[8]. Any community member over the age of 14 may participate in the monthly assembly, which is responsible for electing members of the Government Council of TAJASARUTA[6]. This council was started in 1976 and legally recognized in 1979 by the Ecuadorian Government[8] as an authority running alongside traditional Sarakayu forms of governance, but is now fully incorporated into and modified to suit the needs of the community[6].

The President (known as the Tayak Apu) presides over approximately 20 other elected officials who govern over areas such as health, education, economic development, and more. While these officials all hold the position for 2 years before another election is held, an older authority known as the varayuks are elected on a yearly basis. The varayuks are male members of the community who govern over their respective village; each year new varayuks are elected to maintain peace in the community, with their authority being signified by a staff made of palm wood. The authority of the varayuks predates the Government Council it is now a part of, stemming from the late 19th century.[6]

Tenure and administrative arrangements

The revised 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution included five categories of land tenure: public, private, communal, state, and associative. Indigenous land tenure is comprised of three different models[9]. Within indigenous reserves, land title is held communally by multiple communities[9]. Communities can also be granted communal tenure that ensures their legal title to the land[9]. In areas that are protected, the government maintains legal title of the region, but indigenous nations continue to use the land under legal use rights[9]. In regions in which an indigenous nation's collective rights have been acknowledged, companies that seek land tenure can have it awarded by the INDA (National Institute for Agrarian Development) following a written agreement between the indigenous nation and the INDA[9]. However, this process is not always respected. So far, 10% of Ecuador's land area has been assigned to Indigenous communities[10]. All natural resources are legal property of the state, constituted in Art. 408 of the constitution of Ecuador [11]. The government can award 20-year-long land tenures to private developers over designated geographical regions if it is claimed to be in the public interest.

The ancestral title of the Sarayaku people to their territory was legally affirmed by the Ecuadorian government in 1992[4]. This land title is held by the community, but does not denote clear boundaries between other indigenous nations and the Sarayaku peoples[6]. Use of the land and its resources is an ancestral right of the Sarayaku, who govern land ownership within their community. Individual families have rights to certain areas of land for resource production[6]. Old-growth forest is considered a collective property of the community until it is cleared for agricultural use, at which point it is under the control of the household who cleared the land[6].

Both the executive and judicial branches of the Ecuadorian government are responsible for administering land tenures to corporations in areas that are communally held by an indigenous nation. The INDA functions within the executive branch and has the direct power to award land title, and the Notary Public and Municipal office under the judicial branch which protects property rights on a smaller, county level basis. Both institutions lack resources, and have been criticized for possible corruption[9].

It is the responsibility of the INDA, and therefore the federal government, to ensure proposed extraction projects follow an environmental assessment and consultation with the ancestral indigenous nations of the territory. However, Ecuador has been repeatedly criticized for inadequate assessment and consultation, or a disregard for their results. This can be exemplified in the case of the Sarayaku v. Ecuador, where the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) was disregarded by the state of Ecuador.[12]

The Kichwa People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador

A concession for the exploration of hydrocarbons to block No. 23 was issued to the Argentinean fuel company CGC by the Ecuadorian government in 1996[4]. 65% of this block were within the land of the Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku. Without consultation and consent of the Kichwa people of Sarayaku, CGC advanced into Sarayaku territory in 2002 to conduct seismic tests[3]. In the process 1,433 kg of explosives were buried on Sarayaku land and 29% of Sarayaku territory within block No. 23 were disturbed[4]. To protect the kausak sacha and their livelihood, the Sarayaku People went into a state of emergency for several months, starting in November 2002[2]. In this time, the Sarayaku People erected and manned six camps in the rainforest along the edge of their territory, which led to abandoned crop fields and a subsequent shortage in food supply.

Prior to their exploration, CGC was required to obtain the consent of the Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku[3]. With increasing resistance to the environmental destruction, CGC tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with the Kichwa People. Ultimately, a medical van was brought by the company into the Sarayaku territory and signatures were collected from everyone that wanted to be treated. Allegedly, these documents were then turned into letters of consent[3].

On behalf of the Kichwa People, the NGO Centro de Derechos Económicos y Sociales (CDES) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) filed a petition at the Inter-American Commission ("the Commission") on Human Rights against the CGC and the Ecuadorian government on December 13, 2003[2][13]. The Commission, as well as the Inter-American Court had issued several measures between 2003 and 2005 to protect the leaders, rights and territory of the Sarayaku. Although these measures were ignored by the State of Ecuador in the beginning, the exploration by CGC came to a halt due to the ongoing protests in 2004 and the contract between the CGC and the State of Ecuador was ultimately terminated on November 19, 2010[2].

The Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku refused a friendly settlement process with the State of Ecuador, offered in 2006[2]. After the animosity they experienced from the State, this process was unacceptable to the community. In a report by the Commission issued on December 18, 2009, the protection of Sarayaku territory, removal of explosives, right to consultation, compensation and other measures were recommended. These recommendations were disregarded, so that a case was filed by the Commission on behalf of the Kichwa People at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) on April 26, 2010[3][2]. The case was internationally recognized and backed by multiple prestigious law outlets[2].

On April 12, 2012, the court made history be sending a delegation to the Sarayaku People. The delegation interviewed members of the community and engaged in cultural practices.[2] This initiative is unprecedented and has been viewed as a new standard set for legal cases concerning indigenous peoples[13][4].

On July 25, 2012, the court ruled in favor of the Kichwa Native People of Sarayaku and ordered the State of Ecuador to begin reparation measures, including monetary and non-monetary compensation and the removal of the explosives from Sarayaku territory[2]. The court also mandated the right of the Sarayaku People to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) on any future issues and projects that would directly or indirectly effect Sarayaku territory[12][2].

The court assessed the implementation of their ruling on June 22, 2016, and found that the monetary and non-monetary compensations had been fulfilled[2]. Of the explosives, only a marginal share was effectively recovered and removed and more than 1,400 kg still remain on Sarayaku territory today[3].

Affected Stakeholders

The primary stakeholder are the Sarayaku People whose territory was and will be further jeopardized by the actions of CGC. As mentioned above, the Sarayaku People rely heavily on the land for subsistence, and the impacts of the CGC project would impede the customary food and supply chain. A fundamental value of the nation is sustainability and respecting the natural world. therefore the Sarayaku would not simply be threatened physically, but also culturally[1]. Unfortunately, the Sarayaku do not hold substantial political power within Ecuador when compared to the other stakeholders, and were consistently marginalized by the state government.

The state of Ecuador has a significant stake in the case as they are a party being brought to court over their decision to approve CGC construction in the territory. They have an economic and political interest in the CGC project, as oil production in the region financially benefits the nation and legal acknowledgement of the Sarayaku people's authority over their territory threatens the sovereignty of Ecuador.

CGC has an obvious financial stake in the completion of the project. Not only would the project being blocked impact their current financial state, but it also set a precedent for future projects in indigenous territories. A fifth of Ecuador is indigenous territory, therefore changing standards regarding consultation and consent around energy projects could change business as usual for companies such as CGC.

Interested Outside Stakeholders

Sarayaku v. Ecuador has implications for indigenous nations globally. The success of the Sarayaku peoples to govern their traditional territory sets an international standard for other nation-states to follow, as well as a model for indigenous nations who are threatened by projects on their land. Therefore, indigenous nations are stakeholders in the case, even if they are not currently aware of the situation in question. Likewise, state governments and companies similar to CGC who are operating in other countries are unintentional stakeholders in the results of the case.

Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Background and History of Indigenous rights

Indigenous People account for approximately 5% of the world population, but make up about one third of the world's extremely poor rural people[14].

Indigenous People belong to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, due to colonization in the past and the associated imposition of the western economic system, and the expropriation of their traditional and ancestral lands. The legal protection of their rights was almost non-existent before things started to slowly change after the implementation of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 107 (1957)[15]. Decisions regarding their livelihood and management of the natural resources were likely to be made without their consultation and consent.

The relationship of Indigenous Peoples with companies has often faced challenges, especially if companies operate on or near traditional Indigenous lands or territories[16]. As a result of Indigenous Peoples' struggles because of the intrusions on their land, and as part of the global raising awareness and movement towards more Indigenous rights, the Duty to Consult became relevant.

The origins of the Duty to Consult stem from International Law, from the right to self-determination in Common Article 1 of the Human Rights Covenants in 1976[17]. With the ILO Convention No. 169 in 1989, Indigenous Peoples had further confirmation of their rights and ownership of the lands, as well as the establishment of the state's duty to consult prior to decisions affecting their land and resources[18].

What is FPIC?

With the ratification of ILO No. 169 - Ecuador ratified it on May 15th 1998 -, the consultation with Indigenous communities for development projects and resettlement is legally binding. Even in countries, where ILO No. 169 wasn't ratified, the convention is the new legal standard also recognized by courts[16].

The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (2007) states that governments desirous of carrying out development projects on Indigenous territories first need to obtain FPIC from Indigenous Peoples[19]. FPIC is short for Free, Prior and Informed Consent. No governments oppose UNDRIP currently, since it is a declaration and not legally justiciable. Its application would indicate a global shift for the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Other rights clarified in UNDRIP include the right to self-determination, right to property, right to cultural life, right to health, and right to a decent living[16].

FPIC is enshrined in international customary law. National regulations often lag in comparison to international standards and companies are often caught in between[16].

Correct implementation

As stated by the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in its Advice No. 2, there are three elements to consider for a correct implementation of FPIC. Free equals no coercion or manipulation, prior means that consent was given in advance, and informed implies the understandable provision of objective and accurate information[20]. After this process, the Indigenous People approve of the matter by giving their consent or withholding consent.

The U.N. Global Compact Human Rights and Labour Working Group states the current good practice as following:[16]

  • A company should develop a policy on how and when it will engage and seek consent with Indigenous Peoples
  • A company should conduct Due Diligence and Impact Assessments
    • They should assess the government's international commitments and the national legal requirements regarding Indigenous Peoples including national laws relating to land title and the legal owner
    • Additionally, they should research the structure and decision-making processes of the affected communities
    • Conclude Impact Assessment of the following topics: environmental, social, human rights, and cultural heritage
  • A company should undertake the Consent Process, which will vary due to different assessed decision-making structures of Indigenous communities and due to different complexities of projects

Advantages and Challenges

From a company's perspective, the following points are advantageous when applying FPIC[16]:

  • Gaining a social license to operate
  • Avoiding damage to reputation
  • Avoiding legal case risk
  • Opportunities for future development projects

Challenges include failure to obtain consent and the consequent inability to move forward, government tensions, and the inclusion and engagement of marginalized groups[16].


Standards set by Sarayaku v. Ecuador

Sarayaku v. Ecuador affected both national and international standards surrounding the necessity for Free, Prior and Informed Consent from indigenous nations. On a national level, the state government was held accountable for their failure to consent with the Sarayaku peoples prior to approving the CGC project. This sets a precedent for further interactions between indigenous nations and the Ecuadorian government, in which indigenous rights to their lands are formally acknowledged. On an international level, Sarayaku v. Ecuador provides a template for indigenous nations who are legally struggling for the right to govern their territory. The case also demonstrated how international conventions such as ILO 169 can be applied to conflicts similar to Sarayaku v. Ecuador.

National Implications

After over 14 years of struggle, the Indigenous People of Sarayaku won the case against the State of Ecuador and this victory had numerous implications on their lives. There were two never before seen, and thus special breakthroughs of this case. For the first time, members of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights visited an area of interest for the case. The entire community of Sarayaku participated in a hearing on Sarayaku territory. They spoke in their own native language, which subsequently got translated. The Sarayaku case will in the future be used as a precedent to promote more in situ visits with multilingual approaches, since it represents a major advance in access to justice. Furthermore, the court acknowledged, for the first time, the protection of the interests of collective groups, which, for future references, makes the Sarayaku case an example for the protection of collective rights of Indigenous Peoples[21].

The Inter-American Court on Human Rights ruled, that the State of Ecuador had to provide reparation for the damage the Indigenous People of Sarayaku endured. Restitution included the removal of explosives and reforestation of the damaged area, within three years. Additionally, PETROECUADOR and CGC terminated oil exploitation on Sarayaku lands by 2010[22].

Another implication for Ecuador was the Court's rule to adopt Article 2 of the American Convention by implementing the right to prior consultation into Ecuador's Constitution. The Court determined the failure to guarantee rights to prior consultation of the Sarayaku Indigenous People by different officials and institutions. Therefore the Court determined that the Ecuadorian state must include mandatory programs or courses on the domestic and international standards of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples for better training of military, police, and judicial officials[22].

The Association of the Sarayaku People got US$90,000 as a compensation for pecuniary damage and US$1,250,000 for non-pecuniary damage[22].

International Implications

The ratification of the ILO 169 Convention into Ecuadorian law was integral to the decision ultimately made by the Inter-American Court[4]. It was determined that the contents of the Convention include a legal obligation for states to obtain free, prior and informed consent by indigenous nations before projects that could be harmful take place in their territory. Currently, 22 states have ratified ILO 169, and therefore the decision reached in Sarayaku v. Ecuador holds implications for how ILO 169 is legally expressed internationally[23].

The victory of the Sarayaku is also indicative of a shifting international standard regarding indigenous land rights. There is an increasing awareness surrounding the marginalization and continued colonization of indigenous nations within settler-colonial states, increasing the accountability of states to properly attain FPIC from indigenous nations regarding projects which take place in their territory. The Sarayaku case prompted international backlash over the Ecuadorian government's treatment of their indigenous citizens. As this international standard changes with regard to the significance of FPIC, the lack of indigenous consultation that many states do not receive backlash for will also change[4].

While many of the international implications of Sarayaku v. Ecuador surround the role of state governments in obtaining FPIC and acknowledging indigenous land rights, multinational corporations such as CGC are also faced with a new precedent regarding how they operate in indigenous territories. Not only are these corporations being held to a new standard over what consent is needed before they can move forward with energy projects, the possible ensuing litigation if they fail to obtain FPIC is expensive and time consuming, providing a practical incentive to follow proper protocol in obtaining FPIC prior to any construction[4].

Finally, institutions similar to the Inter-American Court of human rights are impacted by the Sarayaku v. Ecuador case, as it contributes to a changing field for international law. The necessity for FPIC and how it is supported by ILO 169 is clarified through Sarayaku v. Ecuador, and similar courts can refer to the case to demonstrate precedent when ruling over similar disputes in other states[4].

Situation today

Despite the promising ruling in favour of the Sarayaku People, the State of Ecuador has not complied with all the demanded reparations. The compensation payment was paid, but the more complex endeavour - the removal of the explosives - has not yet been undertaken[2][3]. The 1400 kg of pentolite that remain on and underneath Sarayaku's land to this day lead to a significant part of Sarayaku's territory being inaccessible and pose a health hazard. This interactive map, which has been shown in court, shows Sarayaku territory, the overlapping of new oil concessions and the pentolite quarantine zone[24].

The struggles of the Sarayaku to maintain their territorial rights do not seem to be over yet. The government has again held auctions for new oil blocks, which compromise 68% of Sarayaku territory[24]. Although a precedent in court has now been set in court for the protection of territory and the rights to FPIC of Indigenous Peoples, the ecocentric worldview of subsistence communities that inhabit land with natural resources will collide with corporate interests.

Assessment

In many FPIC cases, there is an uneven distribution of resources and relative power between Indigenous Peoples and corporations or governments that have an interest in their territory. Many indigenous communities such as the Sarayaku People are small, have very little means and not the overall necessary tools and capacity to take on big players legally. One way for these communities to defend their territories against unwanted outside interference is using blockades (guerrilla tactics), as has been done by the Sarayaku People when CGC entered their territory without consent.

After the Sarayaku were able to halt the adverse activities on their land, they were determined enough and received the necessary institutional support to bring their case forward to a regional court. The decision of the court secures the territorial rights of the Sarayaku People not only by setting precedent but it also required Ecuador to put forward legislation securing the right to FPIC[2]. This turned the tide to recognition of the Indigenous sovereignty in Sarayaku, Ecuador. The ruling might help discourage and dismantle future attempts to exploit natural resources on the land of Indigenous Peoples without consent.


References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Ramírez-Cendrero, J., García, S., Santillan, A. (2017). "Sumak kawsay in Ecuador: The role of communitarian economy and the experience of the rural communities in Sarayaku (Ecuadorian Amazonia)". Journal of Rural Studies. 53: 111-121.
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 Kelly, J. (2017). "Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador" (PDF). Inter-American Court of Human Rights Project Journal. 40(3).
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Verbeek, C. (2013). "Free, prior, informed consent: the key to self-determination: an analysis of "The Kichwa People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador"". American Indian Law Review. 37(1): 263–282.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Brunner, L.; Quintana, K. (2012). "The Duty to Consult in the Inter-American System: Legal Standards after Sarayaku". American Society of International Law. 16(35).
  5. ↑ "Pueblo Originario Kichwa de Sarayaku". 2019.
  6. ↑ 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 Sirén, A. (2004). Changing interactions between humans and nature in Sarayaku, Ecuadorian Amazon. Dept. of Rural Development and Agroecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
  7. ↑ Altmann, P. (2017). "Sumak Kawsay as an Element of Local Decolonization in Ecuador". Latin American Research Review. 52(5): 749–759.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 "Samaruta". 2019.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 "Ecuador LandLinks". July 2011.
  10. ↑ Cabrera, C. (2004). "El acceso legal a la tierra y el desarrollo de las comunidades indígenas y afroecuatorianas: la experiencia del PRODEPINE en el Ecuador". In: Groppo, P. (Eds), Land Reform: Land Settlements and Cooperatives. FAO.
  11. ↑ "Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador". Georgetown University. January 31, 2011.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Rombouts, S.S. (2017). "The evolution of indigenous peoples' consultation rights under the ILO and U.N. regimes". Stanford Journal of International Law, 53(2):169-224.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Bordignon, Marta. (2013). "The state duty to consult and the right to consent of indigenous peoples: the Sarayaku case in Ecuador". Seville, Spain. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4098.6884.
  14. ↑ United Nations. State of the worlds indigenous peoples: implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/publications/state-of-the-worlds-indigenous-peoples.html.
  15. ↑ Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous Populations and other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in the Independent Countries. June 2, 1959, 107 I.L.O. 1957.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 United Nations, Global Compact Human Rights and Labour working Group. Indigenous Peoples Rights and the Role of Free, Prior and Informed Consent: A Good Practice Note. Feb. 20, 2014, Retrieved from https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/931.
  17. ↑ G.A. Res. 1803 (XVII), U.N. Doc. A/5217 (Dec. 14, 1962); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 1, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 I.L.M. 368 (1967); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art. 1, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 6 I.L.M. 368 (1967).
  18. ↑ Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ILO Official Bull. 59, 28 I.L.M. 1382 (1989).
  19. ↑ United Nations, U.N. General Assembly, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (October 2, 2007). A/RES/61/295, Articles 32 (2), available at www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.
  20. ↑ United Nations, Expert Mechanism Advice No. 2. Indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making. (2011). Retrieved fromhttps://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/Advice2_Oct2011.pdf.
  21. ↑ Carrasco, S. (2015). "Public Interest Litigation in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Protection of Indigenous Peoples and the Gap between Legal Victories and Social Change". Revue Québécoise de droit international, pp. 199-220. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2441536.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 The Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, 2012 IACtHR 12,465
  23. ↑ Cooper, J. (March 2015). "25 YEARS OF ILO CONVENTION 169". Cultural Survival.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Sarayaku: In defense of territory. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.amazonteam.org/maps/sarayaku-en/


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
 This conservation resource was created by Anna Everett, Martina Stoop & Philipp Hansen. It has been viewed over {{#googleanalyticsmetrics: metric=pageviews|page=Course:CONS370/Projects/Land conflicts experienced by the Sarayaku Indigenous People of Ecuador and the link to the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)|startDate=2006-01-01|endDate=2020-08-21}} times.It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS370/Projects/Land_conflicts_experienced_by_the_Sarayaku_Indigenous_People_of_Ecuador_and_the_link_to_the_principle_of_Free,_Prior_and_Informed_Consent_(FPIC)&oldid=597656"