Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
In this Discussion
8. Consultation: Divide and Conquer or Resistance Strategy?
Watch: "Children of the Jaguar” 
Sawyer, Suzana. 2004. “2. Crude Excesses” in Crude Chronicles.
Figueroa, Isabela. 2006. “Indigenous Peoples versus Oil Companies: Constitutional Control Within Resistance.” Sur: International Journal on Human Rights 3(4):51-79.
“Waroani People win Landmark Legal Victory” https://www.amazonfrontlines.org/chronicles/waorani-victory/
Schilling-Vacaflor, Almut and Jessika Eichler. 2017 “The Shady Side of Consultation and Compensation: ‘Divide-and-Rule’ Tactics in Bolivia’s Extraction Sector.” Development and Change 48(6):1-25.
(optional) Torres Wong, Marcela. 2019. Natural Resources, Extraction and Indigenous Rights in Latin America: Exploring the Boundaries of Environmental and State-Corporate Crime in Bolivia, Peru and Mexico. (excerpts: “Introduction” and “Chapter 1” are one file, “Chapter 4” is another file)
The right to Free Prior Informed Consent has been a powerful tool for indigenous peoples throughout South America to repel extractive industries from their territory. The famous Sarayaku case (from the video and referenced in Sawyer’s chapter and Figueroa’s article) took the Ecuadorian government before the Inter-American Court and won protection for their lands. The importance of this legal mechanism can’t be understated.
But as Sawyer, Schilling-Vacaflor, and (the optional) Torres Wong illustrate, “consent” is very complex and highly manipulated. Wong, if you read her, notes that governments choose to consult those who are likely to say yes anyway, and avoid consulting those who they think will say no. She goes as far as to say that consolation itself is a mechanism for manipulating indigenous groups who might otherwise oppose resource extraction. I disagree with her on this. Sawyer has a much closer-to-the ground perspective, and outlines how when one group says “no”, petroleum companies create smaller and smaller groups until they find someone they can buy off.
It is safe to say, for those whose environments are still intact and are still able to hunt, gather and subsistence farm, the impacts of colonial resource extraction are utterly devastating—but not all communities are aware of what will happen, and not all communities have their livelihood systems intact (for them, they might need a source of income to survive). While recognizing the way in which the consent process is manipulated is important, automatically presuming an anti-extractivist stance certainly violates indigenous autonomy.
I’d suggest that the consent is an important tool for the arsenals of groups who want to oppose extractive activities and should be celebrated as such. While some indigenous groups might chose extractivism, there are plenty of groups who are opposed but do not have the political power or media profile to protect themselves. They would benefit greatly from an alliance with environmental organizations and/or social movements. What do you believe are the best practices for engagement?
Comments
I firmly believe that assumption of an anti-extractivist stance is demeaning of indigenous autonomy as you mentioned but more so insulting as a simplification of the issue. By subsuming indigenous peoples into one group or viewpoint, you (as in 'people') are being disrespectful and almost negligent of the intertwining factors that make both the situation of extraction and tribal identity, so complicated. I think that this is a significant problem in terms of the government and companies consulting with indigenous groups. From the reading, I gathered that they either: 1) try and create internal divisions within indigenous groups (divide-and-conquer strategy) through who they choose to consult with by assuming one representative speaks for all tribes or 2) go into the consultation recognizing the complexities within indigenous groups AND knowingly exploit that by only consulting pro-extraction leaders. Both situations are egregious. I do not know what to suggest, as it is proven that consultation is essential and, in my opinion, the just thing to do, yet it continues to be manipulated by non-indigenous powers to create a hierarchy or greenwash their image.
I> @a_hipp said:
I actually have to disagree with you on the issue of consultation. While I agree that it is a very important tool, I do not believe it is essential. Especially in the case of Ecuadorian constitution and judicial law, consultation is only as strong as the government's will to uphold it, as it's legal definition is not strong enough for it to stand for itself. As Figueroa discussed, an equally powerful tool can be the refusal to consult. While this is only effective if there are Indigenous organizations that can present a resolute and unified no, I think it has the potential to be more powerful than consultation, as consultation can be manipulated and misconstrued, whereas there is no ambiguity with a lack of consultation.
I must say, today's readings were very disheartening. Especially reading Figueroa learning that even in a country with a constitution as aspirational as Ecuador's, Indigenous groups only have a certain degree of success protecting their lands and that the government invariably ends up as the advocate for extractive interests. Furthermore, we've already seen in Two Worlds Collide what happens when Indigenous groups feel that engaging within the legal system is a pitched battle and attempt to defend their rights and their land physically. Nevertheless, I'd say that the best practice in Peru may still be insurrection of you are an Indigenous group willing to sacrifice that much. In Ecuador such sacrifice is probably not worthwhile, but I find it difficult to answer the question as every strategy we've seen so far has been successfully circumvented by oil companies conspiring with governments.
Not entirely, Spencer. Sarayaku (in the video and in Sawyers reading) was successful in using FPIC to keep petroleum companies out.
In “The Shady Side of Consultation and Compensation: ‘Divide-and-Rule,’ the authors explain consultation and compensation have been used as a strategy to inform indigenous communities but have often been implemented in a deceptive manner to continue extractive agendas with the illusion of consent. While it is clear there are deceptive elementals to informed consent and the practice is not necessarily always fair or effective, it is an important prerequisite of extractive practices and is in fact better than no consent at all. Although indigenous communities are sometimes divided on whether or not to allow extraction, it is better to have the ability to internally decide than to have a fate be imposed on your community with no internal deliberation or input at all.
The nexus of globalization and neoliberal policies has left indigenous communities to defend their land from privatization and extraction by outsiders. This intersection is referred to by Sawyer throughout Crude Chronicles. I agree that globalization and neoliberal policies are perpetuating environmental degradation and human rights abuses, particularly of indigenous communities who live on resource rich land (as perceived by industry). Informed consent is important even though it has been executed in a dubious or divisive manner. However, dismantling neoliberalism and globalized dependencies would quell extraction agendas and leave more space for internal autonomy over indigenous lands. That transition would make informed consent a more effective engagement strategy.
Spencer, I agree with what you're saying about refusing to consult. However, in terms of the important/essential conflict on consultation don't really have a strong opinion towards either mentality. I will say though, I think the viewpoint that consultation is "only as strong as the governments will to uphold it" can be widely applicable, as this could be said about any government legislation. I see how it is particularly the case when it comes to consultation, but nonetheless it seems slightly simplistic.
I agree with you. It is and should be at least a prerequisite, regardless of what they do with it later. Even if I believe that these communities should have full autonomy over their land, within the current situation, I find this to be at least the minimum they can do. That said, there should be in place more guidelines of what consultation should be like and with who in which areas. Even for communities that are not based in the land where the extraction will happen, if they share water resources, they can be highly or even more affected by it. If there are going to take consultations as a way to go, they should be more transparent and take into consideration everyone possibly affected. Nevertheless, I do know that is quite naive and it will never happen, since they do not care about the health and economic situation of these people but the resources itself. But at least, the Waorani and Sarayaku cases can show how these lack of cosultation can have a succefull case at court. And this is where I believe that international organiations can be key agents.
I agree with what both of you are saying here, especially about consultation as a bare minimum prerequisite. To add on to what Julieta is saying about guidelines, one of things I found most disturbing in the Schilling- Vacaflor and Eichler piece was about the carrot and stick method: how some corporations will seek out people who are more likely to side with them and essentially force them to become dependent for economic reasons preventing criticism. I think those kinds of practices are the ones that have the potential to be regulated and ultimately stopped. I feel like some consultation is better than none at all, and to some extent coercive consent (which isn't really consent at all) can be more harshly regulated as well to prevent those sorts of bribes or other forms of "bending the rules." I know it's not super probable, but with more support from orgs and advocacy groups with $$$ backing them, could be a possibility.
I agree, an essential part of informed consent moving forward should be instituting more guidelines to define what informed consent will look like in the future. Thats a really critical point - we cannot restrict indigenous communities to the land they physically live on. Because of the interconnectedness of ecology, especially experienced by those who practice foraging or substance agriculture which is so delicately infused with neighboring land, land and resources which are not in the immediate vicinity should be included in informed consent and indigenous groups should in fact be included in conversation about lands they do not officially occupy.
Valid viewpoint. I am biased on the subject of upholding consultation with my background as an archaeology major and personal morals. In archaeology, there has been a strong colonial legacy, especially in the Southwest. All of my training has been to learn the background of the discipline and to research and learn current viewpoints on where to take it next. Tribal consultation like that now legally required by CRM firms conducting reports for companies wanting to do public or private development projects in the Southwest has been a huge step forward. I agree that consultation has its flaws in terms of there still being a hierarchical framework but I do think it is a stepping stone that has resulted in justice restoring legislation like NAGPRA.
I also found the carrot and stick method to be disturbing. Even the name offends me as it conjures up the image (by the person who created the term unknowingly/knowingly?) of a donkey with a carrot in front of it to make it walk further. I am assuming that is why it is called that? Because it is leading somebody on with false promises? I looked up the traditional saying and that is what it refers to. I could go on and on about the disgusting (un)intended implications made by comparing a donkey with someone willing to entertain the extraction industries... or just a person in general. However, I wanted to point out that I have had trouble with this concept for a while. The whole question of 'who speaks for the people?'. In a democratic society, the elected person does, but when the authority of that representative is negated by the companies in favor of a different community member who could be seen as others as equally representative of their group. If anyone has opinions on this or also grapples with this question, I would be interested to know your input.
I just finished up an archaeology class last block, and we also talked a lot about the power of consultation. One thing we discussed was the differentiation between consultation and collaboration. There was quite a bit of critique of a consultation model, due to its high ability to fail. Even when a consultation occurs, there's no requirement for anything said to be followed up on. For that reason, in comparison to a collaboration, I have a hard time supporting consultations. However, if it's consultation or nothing, for sure consultation is necessary.
It was really fascinating to read about how oil and gas companies divide indigenous groups into those that oppose and those the see benefit in exploiting their lands. I do think that it's important for all groups to be consulted on issues before they happen and be given the opportunity to oppose. It's crazy to me that the groups aren't even warned before helicopters start flying in. I also thought it was really interesting that many indigenous people will work for the oil and gas companies which makes sense but not something I previously considered. I think the Sawyer piece did a good job of making sure to address multiple narratives in the native communities which helped me understand how complex the issue is. I do think it could be powerful for the groups who are fighting to protect their land to try and link that to environmental organizations or social movements. This could help expand the resources and the media given to these issues.
I'm really glad you brought this up. I think there's a tendency not only to group all different indigenous groups together but to expect that within one community there will be consensus. It's crazy that there's no consultation at times because the presumption that there will consensus against extraction is in of itself based on a stereotype. As you're alluding to, this is where the dangerous categorizing of indigenous people as having environmentalist tendencies can come into play. Consultation has to get a sense of the differing opinions not just the ones govs and corporations want to hear, letting them assume the ones they don't.
on> @caroline22 said:
I mentally 'spaced' on collaboration as an option, and I think I surrendered the word cooperation in its place, not thinking of the later. I am for sure with you on favoring collaboration overall. I hope that clarifies my earlier comment. Embarrassing, Professor Ingram would be disappointed in me for sure. Thanks for the reminder!
There's a big part of me that wants to answer this question with saying that engagement in how to go about this kind of resource extraction shouldn't be an engagement that's taking place at all but I understand we're past that point. As others have said, I think consultation is important and it's equally important to hold corporations accountable for the ways that can be manipulative and coercive. Sawyer's reading actually made me more hopeful about legal avenues as a means of accountability in that sense. This is where huge environmental organizations can use their money to advocate for others, rather than setting their own agendas. I also think at times, it can be helpful to have a name backing a cause or legal fight to build up the kind of public profile and media attention that leads to political action based on demands or fear of negative image.
I was also thinking about consultation and what exactly that means. I agree that consulting with the groups is the bare minimum they can do to take them into account. I wonder what they have to share when consulting with indigenous groups and if there are things they can not share. I also think you bring up a good point about who is included in the discussion regarding are all possible groups consulted on things like pipelines or is it just the groups who's land the pipeline is on.
In response to Josh's question about the best practices for engagement, I have a couple thoughts. I believe that as long as any indigenous people are forced to be financially dependent of extractivism, there is no correct decision. It is not anyone on the outsides job to decide what choices are best for or right/wrong in response to indigenous groups deciding to support extractivism or not. Even asking those questions, with our without indigenous input, is unjust. It's not a fair playing field, and as long as groups are manipulated from the oil companies/government to be put in these situations, no level of collaboration or consultation will be enough.
I like what you said about consultation "only being as strong as the governments will to uphold it". I think we can see in many examples we have read in the class so far. This is not only present in the Amazon but also in the United States, we have treaties that are supposed to protect Native rights but our government has little regard for them. Unfortunately it seems like governments only follow their own rules while they are convenient.
Another point of view is that that states will always will colonial extraction. The deciding factor has to do with the political power of the indigenous groups in question-- Wong's (optional) piece comparing various sites argues that the political power of the indigenous group in question is by far the greatest predictor of whether their efforts will succeed or not. In that sense a "weaker" government can provide more opportunities for plurinational autonomy necessary to protect indigenous rights so long as the indigenous community is organized and has the right alliances throughout an active civil society.
I agree that none of us have the right to talk for them, but I think that we do have a responsibility to see what mixed race and white popualtions have done to come to this point and what we can do to attempt to repair that. In a lot of cases indegenous people are or were already forced to be financially dependent on the market, even without extractivism. Through wage work, implemented taxes and loans which were only payed in cash, by limiting their land and resources, tourism, etc. They were already excluded from a lot of the decission making, and I see why sometimes they might see extractivism as an outlet for at least some economic stability. The question is wheather they are taking this decission under full agency and autonomy or because their situation, and the promises (which colonization created) are pushing them to do so, as it happened before. Increasing the political power or media profile of the communities to protect themselves seems to be a key aspect on how they can make their own wishes heard. Good internal relations and structures is an aspect of it, but also working with other grassroots movements collectively and international organizations can make a critical difference. In the Sarayaku video one of the leaders expressed that sometimes they felt that the gihts was useless because they were going against really powerfull people, but the union made them more powerful too. Both, the Sarayaku and Waroani cases are examples of this, and I find that it is sad tht they need to go through all of that to be heard, but the only way in which organizations (and we) could help is through making their voices more powerful.
@Julieta I completely agree with you on the point that having a more structured discourse is really important, creating standards for what "consultation" must entail to be lawful. Seeing the court process through an international system gave me some hope for the future of these proceedings. However, the idea that many of you are bringing up still overpowers any ruling made in international court, that these rulings are "only as strong as the government's will to uphold it". For that reason I think that allocating more power to these international organizations to hold extraction companies accountable for the way they consult could be one avenue towards ensuring fair and just consultation. Perhaps if companies were required to complete thorough impact statements, including any indigenous communities that may be affected by extraction efforts or water contamination, and then these communities were invited to a hearing by these third party international organizations, in order to ensure that all members of the communities are equally informed on the subject. Once there these international organizations could monitor the communication on the side of the extraction companies to ensure that everything is transparent and comprehensible allowing indigenous communities to make determine the use of the land with full understanding of potential impacts. I realize that this is probable an unlikely solution, as it would take a lot of international cooperation and participation, but this issue was posed in one of the readings about how there is simply no organization outside of each nation's government with the power to halt extraction, and maybe awarding organizations such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights this power could be a start.
@Charlotte I agree with you that advocating for the rights of indigenous people in these respects would be a far more valuable use of environmental organizations time and resources. Especially when United States industry involvement is such a large player in these conflicts. Perhaps the small amount of political leverage that environmental organizations have could be targeted at gathering the support of political figures to combat US industry involvement, or hold companies accountable for the way they conduct consultation with indigenous communities. Or, as you suggesting, simply allocating funds to aid in legal representation of these communities when consultation proceedings do take place. I believe that there is a lot of room for environmental organizations' involvement to be positive in these conflicts. But again, as Josh mentioned, its crucial for environmental organizations to respect the wishes of indigenous communities if they choose to allow extraction of resources as well.
I agree that there should be much more consultation for communities that are not based on the extractive land. It seems like a lot of extractive corporations will end up doing so very close to indigenous people's land and damage resources. Also, they can often pollute water and damage the land so extremely that it can impact areas all around where they are mining/drilling. There should be impact studies that take into account everything, I agree. And while I think that it is unrealistic, legislatively it's easier to pass an impact report requirement than it is to protect individual communities.
That did give me hope, but I based my overall characterization on the fact that the Sarayaku's battle had the most hopeful outcome, and even then the end of the video acknowledged that there will still be battles ahead just getting the Ecuadorian government to respect and uphold the court's decision.
My concern with giving that power or agency to international organizations is that there is a lot of cultural differences, priorities, etc. that can be lost in the process, and also the corruption, interest, and bureaucracy that can happen and which affects the outcomes. I believe that we should start to think of giving more power to communities and grass-root movements to take agency of this procesess since it is their land and they are the affected. I do see how it is more likely that International organizations fulfil this role since they are more powerful next to corporations than an indegenous community. But I feel like we shoulc be asking how can we then help to increase their political power or media profile for them to defend themselves in their own terms and priorities?
Yeah this is a really good point. Big international organization may have more financial backing but they are how ever many more degrees of separation from the issue at hand. Especially in regards to indigenous communities, large international organization are ignorant to a lot of the cultural or lifestyle differences which could be a huge problem to indigenous autonomy. I agree, as much deliberation, consultation an indigenous autonomy as possible is a necessary consonant to change. These large organizations may be able to evoke change more quickly, but it won't necessarily be positive unless the communities in question are at the forefront of any decision making.
I will say, I think theres two main issues I can generally identify. 1) The environmental issues associated with indigenous and vulnerable populations 2) The environmental issues caused by the western world (most of the pollution). I think that when it comes to the first side of things, I completely agree that big organizations are way too far removed from the issues at hand. The strategy of supporting the increase of power and voice in indigenous communities is very important for that. But I think when it comes to the second side of things, the big corporations aren't too far removed. Big corporations are the forefront of those problems the green economy approach (and other sort of capitalistic concepts) feels very important in discussions about solutions to that for me.
I think that you all pose very important concerns and potential solutions. @Julieta I completely agree that the power should be in the hands of the grassroots organizations, and that indigenous communities should be leading the conversation on what activity occurs on their land. However, I think that @caroline22 proposes this dichotomy between two issues very well, and that larger international organizations simply mediating conversations, to ensure that the voices of communities that have been historically ignored are given rightful power in conflict against mega-corporations. I believe that their voices should be at the forefront of the conversation, but I see larger international organizations as a transitionary step towards indigenous communities being recognized by all corporations as the rightful power over these lands. These conferences could also be a hub for media coverage, where international news outlets can cover stories and ensure that the global public is informed, and able to contribute by holding corporations accountable. I just worry that if these international steps aren't taken that there will continue to be many mega corporations that ignore the rights of indigenous communities, and that these conferences could be a means for accountability during this shift from elitist power. But, remembering the hold of corruption is really essential, and I guess I'm creating this vision under the hopes that the UN, or some other international organization, is above the grasp of money, which is wildly idealistic.