Source: https://propertibazar.com/article/the-camisea-gas-project-and-indigenous-peoples-in-voluntary-isolation_5cb521fbd64ab2a0a5e29be5.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:55:06+00:00

Document:
Executive Summary This report highlights the existing impacts of the Camisea gas project in the south-east Peruvian Amazon on indigenous peoples living in ‘voluntary isolation’ (‘isolated peoples ’) in the Kugapakori-Nahua-Nanti and Others’ Reserve (the ‘reserve’). It also summarises the evidence documenting the occupation and use of the Reserve by isolated peoples and describes how the project’s current planned expansion risks causing further negative impacts for isolated groups and threatens to violate their fundamental rights to life and a healthy environment, territorial and cultural integrity and self-determination. In sum, the report finds that this project threatens their very existence and survival as indigenous peoples. The document draws on a variety of published and previously unpublished sources of information including from Peru’s Health Ministry and other state institutions, the United Nations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Development Bank, anthropologists, multiple NGOs and the Camisea gas project website. Information has also been obtained from Pluspetrol, the company leading the consortium which operates the project and also draws on fieldwork carried out by the Forest Peoples Programme (FPP).
for another part of the reserve also occupied by ‘isolated’ peoples, or the 2D seismic tests, or the wells. Pluspetrol’s responses to the 37 ‘observations’ must be further evaluated by the VMI before they, and then MINCU, can give the company its approval.* Recommendations In line with the Peruvian government’s human rights obligations and the UN-CERD’s recommendation made in March 2013, the Forest Peoples Programme recommends that the Peruvian government immediately takes the following steps to: • Withdraw personnel and installations from the new well platform San Martin Este in the reserve. • Abandon plans to build a 10.5 km flowline to connect San Martin Este to San Martin 3, to build 18 wells at San Martin Norte (Maniro), Kimaro Oeste (Kentsori), Kimaro Norte (Kimaro), Kimaro Centro (Sentini), Armihuari Norte (Kemari) and Armihuari Sur (Maniti), and to conduct 2D and 3D seismic tests across 100s kms squared of the reserve.
Box 1: The vulnerability of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact Indigenous peoples in ‘voluntary isolation’ or initial contact are extremely vulnerable to any form of contact with ‘outsiders’ and their survival is gravely threatened by incursions into their territories. This is for three principal reasons. First, their lack of experience with and knowledge of the outside world puts them particularly at risk of exploitation. They are also much less likely to be able to meaningfully participate in decisions that affect them due to lack of understanding about the modalities and implications of resource extraction or infrastructure projects and of the workings of government and the private sector more generally. In the case of peoples in ‘voluntary isolation’, they are not in a position to participate at all. Second, their lack of immunity to viruses and other contagious diseases not present in their societies renders them especially susceptible to disease transmission and the rapid spread of epidemics, making it common for large numbers of them to die.13 ‘First ‘face-to-face’ contacts are estimated to lead to the death of between a third and half of the population within the first five years, sometimes more,’ according to anthropologists.14 One tragic example is the Nahua, one of the indigenous peoples today living in the ‘Reserve’. In May 1984 they were living in ‘voluntary isolation’ when they experienced first direct and sustained contact with national society after a small group of them were captured by loggers who were attempting to access the valuable timber in their territory, and within only a few months the Nahua population had been reduced by almost fifty percent due to outbreaks of respiratory infections to which they had no immunity.15 This particular case was documented in an ILO report on Peru which ‘notes that, in expanding their operations, the timber companies have come into contact with isolated groups, frequently resulting in epidemics and the extinction of these groups. According to sources cited in the study, between 50 and 60 per cent of the Nahuas have died.’16 Indeed, the Commission itself made similar observations in its 1997 Ecuador Report, which states that it had ‘received reports that the introduction of previously unencountered diseases has resulted in numerous deaths over time.’17 Third, indigenous peoples in ‘voluntary isolation’ or initial contact maintain an almost exclusively subsistence economy based on hunting, fishing and gathering of materials for food, medicine and shelter, and they enjoy a special relationship with their territories which are also the foundation for their identities, unique cultures and spirituality. This makes the invasion and/or destruction of their land by ‘outsiders’ particularly serious and puts their very ability to survive as distinct peoples at major risk. As the UN has stressed, ‘Gas and oil companies, loggers, miners and entrepreneurs are viewed by indigenous groups as “ghosts of death” for the toxic legacy they can leave behind and which can poison rivers and forests considered as a source of life for these communities.’18 Groups in initial contact Although this report focuses on those groups living in ‘voluntary isolation’ it is important to highlight that the peoples in ‘initial contact’ within the reserve share similarly characteristics to those living in ‘voluntary isolation’ especially with regard to their vulnerability to introduced diseases, exploitation and loss of cultural integrity. While their vulnerability to diseases may have diminished in some cases, it remains acute in others. For example, the Nanti living along the Upper River Camisea who are classified as a group in ‘initial contact’ were, as recently as November 2013, reported to be suffering from a severe diarrhea epidemic that had led to at least one fatality.19 In addition, their recent integration into the market economy combined with their comparative lack of knowledge and experience of the outside world including a lack of literacy and largely subsistence economies makes them perhaps even more vulnerable, particularly to large-scale developments such as the Camisea project. Indeed, the July report by the Vice-Minister of Inter-Culturality on Pluspetrol’s EIA states that the planned expansion could ‘devastate’ the Nahua people in particular, and that in general the health of indigenous peoples in ‘initial contact’ makes them vulnerable to ‘extinction.’20 For more details, see Annex 1.
Gas in the Camisea region was discovered by Shell after seismic tests and exploratory drilling in the 1980s which, among other things, indirectly led to first sustained contact with the Nahua which killed at least 42% of them within a few months.28 In 2000, after Shell’s departure and 10 years after the reserve was created, the Peruvian government established a concession called Lot 88 and awarded the contract to a consortium run by Pluspetrol and including Hunt Oil and Repsol.29 Despite the creation of the reserve in 1990, its legal upgrade in 2003, and its occupation by ‘isolated’ peoples, 23% of it is overlapped by Lot 88. Subsequently, Pluspetrol conducted its own seismic tests and exploratory drilling and built well platforms, while another group led by Transportadora de gas del Peru (TGP) built pipelines. Gas has been produced and transported out of the region since 2004. The gas fields currently exploited by the Pluspetrol-led consortium are called San Martin and Cashiriari, to the north and south of the River Camisea, a tributary of the River Urubamba.
The expansion of the Camisea gas project within the reserve The Pluspetrol-led consortium is now planning to expand its operations within ‘the reserve’. In 2012 it received permission from Peru’s Ministry of Energy and Mines to build three wells at a location called San Martin Este,34 and it is currently waiting for permission from the Ministry to build a 10.5 km flowline to connect San Martin Este to a well platform called San Martin 3, to drill 18 wells at six locations called San Martin Norte (also known as Maniro), Kimaro Oeste (Kentsori), Kimaro Norte (Kimaro), Kimaro Centro (Sentini), Armihuari Norte (Kemari) and Armihuari Sur (Maniti), and to conduct 2D seismic tests for approximately 113 kilometres and 3D seismic tests across approximately 354 kilometres squared of the reserve.35 These expansion plans are illustrated in the map below, which was presented in April 2013 by the Energy Ministry to the Peruvian Congress’s Commission on the Environment, Ecology and Andean, Amazonian and Afro-Peruvian Peoples. The six white blocks are the planned locations for the 18 wells, and the purple line from San Martin 3 to San Martin Este is the planned route for the flowline. The blue lines are the planned 2D seismic lines, and the area marked in red is where the planned 3D seismic tests would take place.
Box 4: The expansion plans of the Camisea gas project within the reserve The plans involve a massive expansion of operations within the Reserve including 2D seismic testing on 121.6km of lines and 3D seismic testing in an area of over 360km2, construction and drilling of 18 exploratory wells in 6 dif ferent locations and the construction and operation of an approximated 10.5km pipeline (‘flow line’) that will cross 16 rivers. These projects will involve, among other elements the deployment of 1200 workers for the seismic testing; detonation of 46 tons of explosives, helicopter flights, use and maintenance of vehicles, equipment and heavy machinery; generation of hazardous waste including effluent disposal in rivers, use of water from the streams, as well as clearings and deforestation for wells, seismic lines, the pipeline, ‘base camps’ for between 150-200 people, 80 heliports and almost 4000 helicopter ‘discharge zones’.
Occupation of the ‘Kugapakori, Nahua, Nanti and ‘Others’ Reserve by isolated peoples and contact with the Camisea gas project operators Since 2000, multiple encounters with, or sightings of, or physical evidence belonging to ‘isolated’ peoples in the ‘August 18, 1:00pm: “Meeting reserve have been recorded. This evidence illustrates some of the use and occupation of the Reserve by isolated and contact with three naked indigenous groups. As the selected timeline below illustrates, natives without paintings these encounters, sightings and physical evidence have on their bodies.’ (Camisea been recorded, or subsequently acknowledged, by a very wide variety of organizations, institutions and individuals project) as recently as January 2014. These include Machiguenga, Nahua and Nanti indigenous peoples who live in the Camisea region, Peru’s Health Ministry, Peru’s state ombudsman, a Work Group of the Peruvian Congress’s Commission on the Environment, Ecology and Andean, Amazonian and Afroperuvian Peoples, the former Peruvian state institution responsible for indigenous peoples (CONAPA), the state institution established to coordinate oversight of the Camisea project (GTCI), the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, anthropologists, NGOs, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Camisea gas project website, and Pluspetrol itself.
* The timeline names the source of each piece of evidence, explains who or what the source is, and gives the date the evidence was recorded. Wherever possible, the source is quoted directly, but each piece of evidence is preceded by a summary of the evidence. References are provided in the endnotes.
Defensoria de Pueblo, Peru’s human rights ombudsman 2006 Encounters between Camisea gas project workers and ‘isolated’ people ‘In the area of Lot 88 that overlaps with the Territorial Reserve, meetings between indigenous groups in isolation and Veritas workers (a sub contractor of the Pluspetrol Corporation) have occurred…According to testimonies collected by the Human Rights Ombudsman in the indigenous communities of Cashiriari, Marankeato, Montetoni and Santa Rosa de Serjali.’54 Contact with ‘isolated’ people facilitated by members of the Camisea consortium ‘In addition, as set out in the Analysis of the Health Situation of Extremely Vulnerable Indigenous Peoples: The Case of the Nanti of the Nahua-Kugapakori Territorial Reserve, Camisea River, Cusco produced by the Ministry of Health’s Department of Epidemiology, there have been contacts in the Timpia with the participation of TGP.’55 ‘Isolated’ people killed by diseases reportedly on the increase since the initiation of the Camisea gas project ‘An increase of illnesses such as syphilis, respiratory diseases and influenza has been reported, which in some cases have resulted in deaths in native communities and amongst indigneous people in isolation and initial contact’.56 Anthropologist Kacper Swierk, 2006 Contact between ‘isolated’ people and Camisea gas project workers ‘The testimonies [of the existence of ‘isolated’ people] were recently confirmed by representatives of the Camisea Project, who met Matsigenka families in the area where the Rivers Serjali and Bobinsana meet.’57 14 ‘isolated’ people forced to relocate†as a result of the Camisea gas project and threats ‘Oil exploration in the territories of the Matsigenka of the river Paquiria poses potential threats to their well-being. Already in 2002, 14 residents of the Shiateni area (in the Camisea river basin) had to move to the Paquiria river basin as a consequence of the disturburance caused by oil exploration activities, the presence of many outsiders , and in the case of one family group, threats from other Matsigenka community members who worked as guides for the oil company.’ 58 Contact between ‘isolated’ people and Camisea gas project workers ‘Since 2002, with regard to the expanision of Camisea project activities, contact between isolated people and representatives of oil company Pluspetrol and its sub contractor Veritas intensifed in some areas. This occured mainly in the Shiateni area (where, as a consequence, residents abandoned their settlements) and the Upper Serjali area.’59 Inter-American Development Bank, 2004 Contact between ‘isolated’ people and Camisea gas project workers ‘Seismic activities ended in October 2002 and the Contingency Plan proved effective in the † In 2011 UNESCO also referred to the possible relocation of inhabitants of the Reserve into Manu National Park: ‘There are also reports of indigenous people moving into the property from the Camisea River in the northwest of the property [Manu National Park], possibly as a result of the decimation of wildlife in the Camisea River Basin. . . Whilst these different changes are not yet a critical issue, the mission notes the importance of a proactive policy by the State Party to consider their implications and develop appropriate action. . . The impacts of the nearby Camisea gas field, including reported movements of indigenous peoples into the property as a result of the decimation of wildlife in the Camisea River Basin, could not be conclusively analyzed through the monitoring mission and are not referred to in the State Party report.’ UNESCO. WHC-11/35.COM/7B.Add, 27 May 2011, p.83-84.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation ‘Isolated’ people forced to relocate as a result of Camisea gas project seismic testing ‘Antropologist Kacper Swierk’s report...which includes testimonies from Fernando, Noé, Juan and Segundo, members of the Nanty village of Shiateni, which had 13 inhabitants and is situated at the headwaters of the River Shiateni, a tributary of the River Camisea, where before only the logger, ‘Pancho’ (from Segakiato) had reached. In March or at the beginning of April, workers arrived to build two roads that surrounded the community. There was alot of fear and so they escaped to the forest to sleep. But later they returned and they were calm as they had left them gifts; biscuits, clothes and machetes. However, in June they changed their minds and they left due to noise from helicopters and the comings and goings of lots of people. They couldn’t farm and live peacefully and according to Noé the Veritas intepreters, Reinaldo from Chokoriari and Aquilino from Camanà, Alto Quichá, told them that ‘they should go to Segakiato because they will die of sickness or be arrested for terrorism’. They didn’t go there because they were scared that their women would be taken away. So two adult men and three adult women went to where their relatives were, passing through the Paquiría and ending up in Quipatsiari near the Pongo de Maynique. 77 Anthropologist Beatriz Huertas Castillo, 2003 Sightings by Camisea gas project workers of ‘isolated’ people and physical evidence belonging to them ‘Company workers and other Matsigenka indigenous peoples reported repeated sightings of ‘naked’ isolated indigenous people and finding footprints, arrows, achiote and other remains, apparently abandoned by indigenous peoples who detected the approach of outsiders. They also reported the leaving of machetes, knifes, matresses and used clothes on seismic lines, expecting that these objects would attract isolated indigenous peoples to ‘civilization’, without taking into account that having contact with these objects makes them potential carriers of diseases that could be transmitted to indigenous peoples in isolation of Matsigenka indigenous peoples from the Segakiato community, December 2002.’ 78 Contact between ‘isolated’ people and Camisea gas project workers exposes the former to increased ‘inter-ethnic’ conflict Interventions by the consortium to contact indigenous peoples in isolation and initial contact, whether through forced contact or through displacement from their territories, not only violates a series of fundamental rights such as life and health, but also, considering that the area is culturally diverse, exposes them to inter-ethnic conflicts caused by their search for a space to live which ensures their physical and cultural survival.’ 79 NGO Amazon Watch, 2003 Camisea gas project workers force contact with ‘isolated’ people ‘Forced Contact Outlined by Veritas Consultant Anthropologist. On August 10, 2002, the International NGO Delegation and Mr. Rivas visited the Veritas Energy Services Camp – Peruanita – the main base for seismic testing operations. The following is part of a transcript of an interview with Michel Saenz, anthropologist and consultant to Veritas. Saenz: There is a flux, a movement that has always gone on (of native peoples inside the Reserve), we are taking good care of this....For example, there’s a Kugapakori (person) who lives in the upper part that’s uncontacted. Here there are Nanti, but they are not uncontacted but they are isolated, very isolated. There is the Shangoveni family group that are very isolated and don’t want to know anything about national society. They don’t want to know anything. Janet Lloyd, Amazon Watch: What are your methodologies, how have you got in contact with these people, how have you gone around the area? Saenz: ...When we advance with our forest group and Machiguenga guides, we see if we speak today. I speak a bit of Ashaninka. I speak Machiguenga with them. They laugh and we become friends and we start to have a relationship with these people... This Shangoveni man he tells me that my brother lives up the Shiateni gully and my father lives there too, I’m married to such and such a person. Because my job as an anthropologist is to do a kinship plan.
Camisea project barge on the River Urubamba ©Forest Peoples Programme The planned expansion of the Camisea gas project in Lot 88 has generated enormous concern about the likely impacts on ‘isolated’ peoples in the reserve. As the selected extracts from several documents below illustrate, this concern has been expressed by a wide variety of organizations and institutions including Peru’s Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality, the National Institute for the Development of Andean, Amazonian and Afroperuvian Peoples (INDEPA), the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Peruvian indigenous federations, multiple international environmental and human rights organizations, and even Pluspetrol itself. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation The expansion of hydrocarbon activities within Lot 88 ….threatens all the indigenous inhabitants of the Reserve with irreparable harm increasing amongst others the possibility of undesired contacts with external actors, the transmission of epidemics of potentially lethal diseases and processes of territorial relocation of the indigenous peoples of the reserve to other areas giving rise to inter ethnic conflicts with neighbouring groups......In conclusion, the prospect of expansion of hydrocarbon exploitation in the interior of the reserve places the existence of these peoples at grave risk and threatens to violate their fundamental rights to life…health, self determination…and cultural identity…’164 58 international human rights and environmental organizations, 2013 Threats to ‘isolated’ peoples’ economies and survival from ‘lethal’ diseases and exploitation of their territories ‘Some of Peru’s most vulnerable indigenous peoples who are living in voluntary isolation and initial stages of contact and whose lives, livelihoods and physical and cultural survival are threatened by the imminent expansion of the Camisea gas project in the Kugapakori-Nahua-Nanti Reserve (KNNR) in south-east Peru. . . Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation are particularly vulnerable to any kind of contact with other, especially non-indigenous, people, and to the colonization and exploitation of their territories. . . for two central reasons. First, their economies are almost entirely subsistence-based, meaning that the land they live on is the source of their food, medicine and shelter, as well as being fundamental to their identities, culture and spirituality. Second, their lack of immunity to viruses and other contagious diseases unknown to their societies can turn a common cold into a lethal disease and makes it common for many of them to die once initial contact has been made.’165 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2013 Threats to the identity, health, ‘life’, ‘integrity’ and ‘survival’ of isolated people ‘The Commission received troubling information concerning the situation of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation in Peru, whose ancestral territories are reportedly being threatened by the granting and implementation of concessions for the extraction of natural resources, primarily hydrocarbons. . . Such activities constitute a threat to the life and integrity of these peoples, as they can give rise to contact with the outside world, with all the consequences this implies for their health and physical and cultural survival. Because peoples in voluntary isolation lack immunological defenses against common illnesses, contact may lead not only to the loss of their worldview and cultural identity, but also to epidemics that can cause entire peoples to disappear.’166 UN Special Report on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples167 Expansion plan should not proceed if the human rights of these ‘extremely vulnerable’ groups cannot be guaranteed The Camisea project operator has proposed an expansion of its operations within Lot 88 which will mean new intesnive exploratory activity and construction of new installations within the Lot. In its evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment, elaborated by the company for the proposed expansion of its operations, the Vice Ministry of Interculturality has highlighted various concerns surrounding the potential impact of the project expansion on the health and well being of uncontacted indigenous groups and those in intial contact both within and outside of Lot 88.It is evident that these groups are extremely vulnerable and so the Government and company must act with the utmost precaution and not proceed with the proposed expansion without first ensuring and in a conclusive manner that their human rights will not be violated.
Illegality of planned expansion of the Camisea gas project The preceding section described the likely impact of the expansion plans on the lives of isolated inhabitants of the RTKNN. This section summarizes how both the existing operations, and the projected expansion, have violated and now threaten the rights of the Reserve’s inhabitants which as indigenous peoples’ are protected by both the Peruvian constitution and international human rights law. This section reviews in brief some of these rights that have been, or are likely to be violated by the Camisea project and/or its planned expansion. It describes in turn how each right will or has been violated, and provides one or two key examples from the international human rights conventions ratified by Peru or by the expert bodies authorized to interpret them where these rights are safeguarded. It is not intended to be exhaustive.
Community control post at the boundary of the Reserve © Forest Peoples Programme International human rights law It is crucial to highlight that the international human rights treaties ratified by Peru and discussed below are incorporated into Peruvian domestic law via the Constitution and therefore enjoy constitutional status. This includes for example treaties such as ILO 169 and the American Convention on Human Rights as well as their authoritative interpretation by bodies such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This means that these treaties are not only binding on Peru but they stand above Peru’s national laws such as the Supreme Decree 0282003-AG that recategorised the Reserve in 2003 or Law 28736 that specifically addresses the rights of isolated peoples. International human rights law has clarified on multiple occasions that a States freedom to use the resources within its territory are limited by their international human rights obligations which include the rights of indigenous peoples. For further information see Annex 3.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation manage, distribute and control their territory, in accordance with their customary law and system of communal property” 172 • International Labour Organization’s Convention 169: ‘The rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognised. In addition, measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities. . . Governments shall take steps as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession.’173 b) The right to own, control and use natural resources: As section 2 described, the expansion of operations within the Reserve including seismic testing across hundreds of kilometres squared, the drilling of 18 wells, and the construction of an approximately 10.5km flow line and other infrastructure will reduce the availability of natural resources within ‘isolated’ peoples’ territories and severely limit their access to them by inter alia: frightening away game, modification of traditional patterns of mobility, drawing water from and dumping effluents in rivers, reduction of fish stocks, and deforestation to make tracks and clearings. These impacts constitute an imminent threat to the right of indigenous peoples to the natural resources in their territories which in turn constitute the basis of their means of subsistence (Eg arts. 7.1, 15.1 y 23.1 of ILO 169, CERD General Recommendations XXIII). • Inter-American Court of Human Rights: ‘. . . this Court has previously held that the cultural and economic survival of indigenous and tribal peoples, and their members, depend on their access and use of the natural resources in their territory “that are related to their culture and are found there in”, and that Article 21 protects their right to such natural resources. . . In accordance with this Court’s jurisprudence as stated in the Yakye Axa and Sawhoyamaxa cases, members of tribal and indigenous communities have the right to own the natural resources they have traditionally used within their territory for the same reasons that they have a right to own the land they have traditionally used and occupied for centuries.’174 • International Labour Organization’s Convention 169: ‘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.
Within hours of its submission however the status of the report became uncertain as it was withdrawn from the public domain and within days senior figures within the Ministry had resigned including the Vice Minister himself. Subsequently the ex Vice Minister confirmed that political pressures had led to his resignation affirming that: “My resignation was due to a disagreement over the way in which the Executive is proceeding with the evaluation of the environmental licenses for these kinds of projects”207. The turnaround was finally confirmed on the 6th August 2013 when the news was announced by the Prime Minister, Juan Jimenez Mayor who issued a public statement declaring that the Vice Ministry had withdrawn the report itself after a last minute submission had been received by consortium operators. In his message he sought to calm investors assuring them that ‘investment will continue in Peru’.208 In subsequent statements the Minister of Energy and Mines, Jorge Merino claimed that in the area projected for expansion ‘there are no contacted peoples and where there are none there is no need to conduct prior consultation’.209 He further argued that the operations do not consist of an expansion as they will take place within the borders of an existing concession and that in the 11 years of operations to date ‘there have been no social or environmental problems in the area’.
These echo the repeated arguments of the Camisea consortium and its backers that the expansion plans are legal, will not threaten the lives and rights of the peoples living within the Reserve and that any risks are mitigated by their so called ‘anthropological contingency programmes’.
• Withdraw personnel and installations from the new well platform San Martin Este in the reserve. • Abandon plans to build a 10.5 km flowline to connect San Martin Este to San Martin 3, to build 18 wells at San Martin Norte (Maniro), Kimaro Oeste (Kentsori), Kimaro Norte (Kimaro), Kimaro Centro (Sentini), Armihuari Norte (Kemari) and Armihuari Sur (Maniti), and to conduct 2D and 3D seismic tests across 100s kms squared of the reserve.
End Notes 1. Pluspetrol & ERM. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental para la Ampliación del Programa de Exploración y Desarrollo en el Lote 88, November 2012. 2.
Ministry of Energy & Mines. Resolución Directoral 102-2012-MEM-AAE, 13 April 2012.
Pluspetrol Camisea S.A. Estados Financieros 31 de Marzo de 2013 y 31 de Diciembre de 2012, p.19.
5. El Comercio, 28 February, 2013, quoted by www.huffingtonpost.com/david-hill/how-can-we-trustanything_b_3455089.html 6. Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Resolución Vice-Ministerial 005-2013-VMI-MC, 12 July 2013; Informe 0042013-DGPI/VMI/MC, 11 July 2013; and Informe 001-2013-LPA-LFTE-NPG-RRG-VDG-DGPI/VMI/MC, 11 July 2013, ‘Observation 46-A1’ p.26, ‘Observation’ 48-A, p.74, and p.158. 7.
Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Resolución Vice-Ministerial 007-2013-VMI-MC, 19 July 2013.
9. Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Resolución Vice-Ministerial 009-2013-VMI-MC, 29 November 2013; Informe 030-2013-DGPI-VMI/MC, 28 November 2013; Informe 0001-2013-INDEPA-UT-PIACI/SGW/LPC/MMG/MQO, 27 November 2013. 10. Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Informe 0001-2013-INDEPA-UT-PIACI/SGW/LPC/MMG/MQO, 27 November 2013, ‘Observation’ no. 9, p.22. 11. OHCHR. Directrices de Protección para los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento y Contacto Inicial de la Región Amazónica, el Gran Chaco y la Región Oriental de Paraguay, February 2012, para. 8. 12.
13. The Commission has previously acknowledged this threat in its 1997 Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ecuador, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev. 1, at Ch. IX, which states that ‘One consequence of the influx of non-native peoples into traditional indigenous territory is the exposure of indigenous inhabitants to previously unknown diseases and epidemics, to which they have developed no resistance. The encroachment of colonists, speculators and non-native company workers into previously isolated areas introduced such illnesses as the "common cold" and influenza. Viral diseases have taken a harsh toll, and continue to do so in the case of the individuals and communities who have had less contact with outsiders, such as the Huaorani. Oil company workers with colds enter such areas and infect local inhabitants, who can easily develop pneumonia and die. In other cases, men from indigenous communities work for the oil companies, contract unintroduced illnesses, and import them back into their communities when they return home.’ http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/ecuador-eng/chaper-9.htm 14. Napolitano and Ryan, 2007, ‘The dilemma of contact: voluntary isolation and the impacts of gas exploitation on health and rights in the KugapakoriNahua Reserve, Peruvian Amazon’, Environmental Research Letters, citing Kim Hill and Magdalena Hurtado, 1996, ‘Ache Life History: the Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People.’ 15. Glenn Shepard Jr, 1999, ‘Pharmacognosy and the Senses in Two Amazonian Societies’, Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Berkeley, California. 16.
17. 1997 Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ecuador, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev. 1, at Ch. IX. http://www. cidh.org/countryrep/ecuador-eng/chaper-9.htm 18.
20. Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Informe 001-2013-LPA-LFTE-NPG-RRG-VDG-DGPI/VMI/MC, 11 July 2013, ‘Observation’ 51-A1, p.100-101, and ‘Observation’ 48-A, p.76.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation 21.
Ministerial Resolution N° 00046-90-AG/DGRAAR, 14 February 1990.
22. Supreme Decree, N° 028-2003-AG, 26 July 2003. Although the boundaries of the reserve were left unmodified from its initial description, the updated map revealed that its actual extension was 456,672 hectares. 23.
The spelling of this name varies, depending on the source.
Shinai. Aqui vivimos bien, 2004, p.11, p.50, p.53 and p.75.
27. AIDESEP, FENAMAD, National Coordinator for Human Rights and DAR. Audiencia CIDH: Situación de los Pueblos en Aislamiento y en Contacto Inicial en Perú, 1 November 2013. 28. G. Shepard Jr., ‘Pharmacognosy and the Senses in Two Amazonian Societies’, Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Berkeley, California, 1999:38 29. The contract between the Peruvian government and the consortium was officially approved by Supreme Decree N° 0212-2000-EM, 9 December 2000. 30. Tom Griffiths, 2007, ‘Holding the IDB and IFC to account on Camisea II: A review of applicable international standards, due diligence and compliance issues.’http://amazonwatch.org/news/2007/0919-holding-the-idb-and-ifcto-account-on-camisea-ii 31. General Office of Epidemiology, Ministry of Health, 2003, ‘Pueblos en situación de extrema vulnerabilidad: El caso de los Nanti de la Reserva Territorial Kugapakori Nahua, Río Camisea, Cusco.’ P 198 32. Dora Napolitano, 2007, ‘Towards Understanding the Health Vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples Living in Voluntary Isolation in the Amazon Rainforest: Experiences from the Kugapakori Nahua Reserve, Peru.’ http://link.springer. com/article/10.1007%2Fs10393-007-0145-x?LI=true 33.
35. Pluspetrol & ERM. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental para la Ampliación del Programa de Exploración y Desarrollo en el Lote 88, November 2012. 36.
45. There is a ‘Communal Environmental Monitoring Program’ in both the Lower and Upper River Urubamba, but 1) this does not focus on ‘isolated’ peoples and 2) it is financed by Pluspetrol and Transportadora de Gas del Perú (TGP). The latter is a Peruvian-registered consortium which operates pipelines transporting the gas and natural gas liquids from the Camisea region to the Peruvian coast. According to TGP’s website, it is currently made up of TECGAS NV, Hunt Pipeline, Sonatrach, Pluspetrol, SK Corporation, Suez-Tractebel, and Graña y Montero. http://www.tgp.com.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation pe/ 46.
Member of the Nueva Luz indigenous community to Forest Peoples Programme, November 2013.
47. Pluspetrol & ERM, Environmental Impact Assessment for the Expansion, Exploration and Development of Lot 88, November 2012, Chapter 4, p.39. 48. Congresswoman Veronika Mendoza Frisch. Draft final report of the Work Group of the Peruvian Congress’s Commission on the Environment, Ecology and Andean, Amazonian and Afroperuvian Peoples on the KugapakoriNahua-Nanti Territorial Reserve, 6 June 2012, p.8. 49.
52. Matrix Solutions. Informe de Supervisión Ambiental y Social del Proyecto Camisea, primer semester, 2011, p.240, written for the Inter-American Development Bank. These sightings were reported under Pluspetrol’s Anthropological Contingency Plan, which Matrix describes as intended to ‘prevent and manage contact with populations in isolation or initial contact.’ However, in this report Matrix does not state whether the sightings were of people in ‘voluntary isolation’ or ‘initial contact.’ 53.
Pluspetrol. Environmental and Social Sustainability Report, 2010, p.74.
54. Defensoría del Pueblo. El Proyecto Camisea y sus efectos en los derechos de las personas, Informe Defensorial 103, 2006, p.37. 55.
57. Kacper Swierk. El territorio de los Matsigenka Paquirianos: Informe sobre el uso de recursos y el territorio de un grupo regional / territorial de la etnia Matsigenka, Cuencas del Paquiría y de unos ríos adyacentes, Sur de la Amazonía Peruana, February 2006, p.9. 58.
60. Letter from the IDB’s Robert Montgomery to the president of AIDESEP, Antonio Iviche Quique, 26 August 2004. 61.
Aqui vivimos bien, Shinai, 2004, p.89.
64. APRODEH. Camisea. . . pero no como sea: Evaluación Social del Proyecto y Defensa de los Pueblos Indigenas Auto Aislados, 2003, p.17. 65.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation 72.
78. Beatriz Huertas Castillo. ‘El Proyecto Camisea y los Derechos de los Pueblos Indigenas,’ in Asuntos Indígenas, International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs, 2003, p.26. 79.
80. Amazon Watch. Record of Forced Contact By Camisea Project Companies in Nahua-Kugapakori Reserve, 2003. http://amazonwatch.org/news/2003/0201-record-of-forced-contact-by-camisea-project-companies-in-nahuakugapakori-reserve 81.
85. Peru’s Health Ministry. Pueblos en Situación de extrema vulnerabilidad: El caso de los Nanti de la Reserva territorial Kugapakori Nahua- Rio Camisea, Cusco, 2003, p.83. 86. The Inter-American Development Bank. Peru: Camisea Project: Environmental and Social Impact Report, 2003, p.64. 87. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Informe del Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, 2003, United Nations’ Social and Economic Council, 21 January 2003, p.13-14. 88. Robert Goodland. Peru: Camisea Natural Gas Project: Independent Assessment of the Environmental and Social Priorities, 2003, ‘prepared for the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and the Smithsonian Institution’, p. 27. 89.
91. Juan Ossio, Virginia Montoya y Carolina Loo for CONAPA/GTCI, Estudio Antropológico de la Reserva territorial del Estado a favor de los pueblos Nahua y Kugapakori, 2003, p.35. 92.
94. Juan Ossio, Virginia Montoya y Carolina Loo. CONAPA/GTCI, Resumen Ejecutivo del Informe Preliminar: Estudio Antropológico de la Reserva Nahua-Kugapakori, 2003, p.3. 95. Juan Ossio, Virginia Montoya. Informe de la Visita a Locaciones y Comunidades del Area del Proyecto Camisea relativas a la Reserva Nahua Kugapakori, 2 June 2003, sent by Juan Ossio to the president of AIDESEP, 9 July 2003, p.1. 96.
Ibid., p.2, p.3 and p.5.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation 98. Lets say to verify that you are working in an area of influence of natives in self-isolation or not.’ The second statement quoted here, again from ‘PP’, was in response to this comment from EcoNews: ‘The people from Santa Rosa de Serjali (ie the Nahua) say that they have seen them (isolated people) but it is impossible to have contact with them, because as soon as they see them, they run away.’ 99.
100. Informe de la Delegación Internacional de ONGs sobre el Proyecto de Gas de Camisea, Septiembre 2002, p.5. The delegation was made up of representatives of Amazon Watch, the Institute of Policy Studies in the USA, Shinai, and CEADES and OICH in Bolivia, accompanied by a representative of regional indigenous organization COMARU. 101. Ibid., p.5. 102.
Kacper Swierk. Informe del estudio de campo entre los Matsigenka del Paquiría en 2002, p. 5.
106. This website is no longer accessible. See Annex 2 for a scan of a print-out of the website. The information quoted here was all under a heading, ‘Information Exchange with Stakeholders’ and reports the evidence documented by the International NGO delegation, Informe de la Delegación Internacional de ONGs sobre el Proyecto de Gas de Camisea, Septiembre 2002. 107. This, along with the following 8 pieces of evidence in this section, are the Camisea gas project’s ‘responses’ to what was said in the preceding paragraph. 108.
117. Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Informe No. 001-2013-LPA-LFTE-NPG-RRG-VDG-DGPI/VMI/MC, 11 July 2013, p.26. 118.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation 126.
133. Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Informe 0001-2013-INDEPA-UT-PIACI/SGW/LPC/MMG/MQO, 27 November 2013, p. 23-24. 134.
137. INDEPA. Informe No. 001-2012-INDEPA-OT-PIACI/FVS/VAV/JIM, 10 May 2012, p.8. This is a report on Pluspetrol’s ‘Terminos de Referencia’ (TDR) of its planned expansion, which, according to Peruvian law, it must present to, and have approved by, the Energy Ministry before preparing the EIA. The TDR describes what the project consists of. Like the Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality, INDEPA is situated within the Ministry of Culture. 138.
A Peruvian Spanish word referring to the paths used to cross between watersheds. Varadero is used hereafter.
INDEPA. Informe No. 001-2012-INDEPA-OT-PIACI/FVS/VAV/JIM, 10 May 2012, p.7-8.
142. Pluspetrol & ERM, Environmental Impact Assessment for the Expansion, Exploration and Development of Lot 88, November 2012, Chapter 4, p.23. 143.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation 156.
SERNANP. Opinion Técnica No.044-2013-SERNANP-DGANP, 6 February 2013, p.9.
163. United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to Peru’s ambassador to the United Nations, 1 March 2013. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/early_warning/Peru1March2013.pdf 164. AIDESESP, ORAU, FENAMAD, COMARU and ORPIO letter to UN Special Rapporteurs (Indigenous peoples, ,adequate housing and food), August 2012 165. Letter to Peru’s president Ollanta Humala Tasso, 19 February 2013. www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/ news/2013/03/CivilSocietyLetterHumalaCamisea_Eng_Feb2013.pdf 166. The Inter-American Commission’s statement does not refer to Camisea, Lot 88 and the Kugapakori-NahuaNanti reserve specifically, but it was issued, on 8 November 2013, one week after a hearing at the Commission on ‘isolated’ peoples during which AIDESEP, affiliated indigenous organization FENAMAD, Peruvian NGO DAR and Peru’s National Coordinator for Human Rights gave a presentation in which the planned expansion of the Camisea gas project, Lot 88 and the reserve were highlighted. www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2013/083A.asp 167. Declaración del Relator Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, James Anaya, al concluir su visita al Perú, 13/12/2013 168. Anaya J 2011 Testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 9th June 2011.Available at http:// unsr.jamesanaya.org/docs/ presentations/2011-06-senate-ind-affairs-undriptestimony.pdf 169. Indigenous peoples and their relationship to land, id, at para. 20. 170. Report of the Special Rapporteur, supra note 2, paras. 39-40. See, also, Indigenous people and their relationship to land, supra note 3. 171.
Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, supra note 5, at 106.
Pueblo Saramaka vs. Suriname, parra. 96, 102 & 194(c).
International Labour Organization’s Convention 169, Article 14.
174. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname Judgment of November 28, 2007, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs), paras 120 and 121. 175.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and to consider enlarging the intangible zone.’ http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ECU.CO.2022_sp.pdf 178.
179. On 10 May 2006 the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of the Tagaeri and Taromenani indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. http://www.cidh.org/medidas/2006.eng.htm. 180. On March 22, 2007, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of the Mashco Piro, Yora and Amahuaca indigenous peoples in ‘voluntary isolation’ in Madre de Dios, Peru. http://www.cidh.org/medidas/2007.eng. htm. 181. ‘Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador’, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev. 1, chapter IX. http:// www.cidh.org/countryrep/ecuador-eng/chaper-9.htm 182.
183. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Caso Comunidad indígena Yakye Axa Vs. Paraguay, sentencia de 17 de junio de 2005, (Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas), para 147. 184. Case “ Juvenile Education Institute”. Sentence of 2 September 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 156; Case of the brothers Gómez Paquiyauri, Sentence 8th July 2004. Series C No 110, para. 128; Case Myrna Mack Chang, Sentence of 25th November 2003. Series C. No. 101, para. 152, y Case of ”the Street Children” (Villagrán Morales and others), Sentence of 19th November 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144.. 185. In this regard, the State has the duty to take postitive, concrete measures geared toward fulfillment of the right to a decent life, especially in the case of persons who are vulnerable and at risk, whose care becomes a high priority. (Emphasis added). Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, para 162. 186.
Political Constitution of Peru, Article 2.1.
187. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Caso de los “Niños de la Calle” (Villagrán Morales y otros) Vs. Guatemala, sentencia de 19 de noviembre 1999 (Fondo), para 144. 188. In 2003, a report by Peru's Ministry of Health concluded that an outbreak of diarrhoea that killed several Nanti indigenous people in the heart of the KNNR was directly related to an outbreak of an epidemic in a Camisea work camp. General Office of Epidemiology, Ministry of Health, 2003, ‘Pueblos en situación de extrema vulnerabilidad: El caso de los Nanti de la Reserva Territorial Kugapakori Nahua, Río Camisea, Cusco.’ 189.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12.1 and 12.2c.
191. In its various concluding observations, the UN Human Rights Committee has interpreted Article 27 (the right of minorities to their own culture) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the context of indigenous Peoples to protect the use of their lands, resources and territories due to the inextricable connection between their culture and way of life particularly in the practice of traditional activities such as hunting or fishing and other subsistence activities and those related to the practice of their religion. In this way the Committee has confirmed that when it involves indigenous groups, the traditional tenure of their lands is an expression of their culture protected by article 27 of the Convention. See Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Communication No. 167/1984 , CCPR/ C/38/D/167/1984, paras. 3.5 y 33 (10th of May 1990) (granting provisional measures to avoid harm to the indigenous Lubicon Cree due to the exploitation of natural resources and finally concluding that Canada violated article 27 of the Covenant through granting logging and oil and gas concessions in the ancestral territories of the indigenous Lubicon Lake Band “ that threaten the way of life and culture of the Lubicon Lake Band” particularly the traditional hunting activities of the members of this community. 192.
Political Constitution of Peru, Article 2.19 and Article 89.
193. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights) Sentence 19th November 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 85; Case Awas Tingni, para. 149. 194.
International Labour Organization’s Convention 169, Article, Article 5 (a) and Article 23.1.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation 195.
International Labour Organization’s Convention 169, Article 7.4.
Political Constitution of Peru, Article 2.22.
197. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 56/09, 30 December 2009, para. 232.. 198. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname Judgment of November 28, 2007, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs), para 121. 199. Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 28 November 2007 para. 129-134. 200. This has been noted by the IDB’s own indigenous peoples policy ‘….as well as their special vulnerability and the impossibility of applying prior consultation and good faith negotiation mechanisms…’ Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples, IDB, 9: 2006 201. In fact, their decision to remain in ‘voluntary isolation’ should be deemed tantamount to a decision to refuse to participate in or agree to activities in their territories, and thus no resource exploitation or other activities should be permitted on this basis. 202. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 1.1 and 1.3, 1966. 203.
205. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname Judgment of November 28, 2007, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs), para 134. 206.
International Labour Organization’s Convention 169, Article 7.1.
207. “My resignation was due to a disagreement over the way in which the Executive is proceeding with the evaluation of the environmental licenses for these kinds of projects” http://servindi.org/actualidad/97875 208. http://peru21.pe/politica/gobierno-desecha-informe-sobre-efectos-pueblos-indigenas-ampliacion-camisea-2143774 209.
210. Saramaka People v. Suriname, Ser. C No. 172, para. 129 and; Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Ser. C No. 245, para. 156. In Saramaka, the Court explained that the term ‘survival’ is understood to mean their ‘ability to “preserve, protect and guarantee the special relationship that they have with their territory’, so that ‘they may continue living their traditional way of life, and that their distinct cultural identity, social structure, economic system, customs, beliefs and traditions are respected, guaranteed and protected”. 211. For instance, the UN’s Human Rights Committee held in 2009 in a case against Peru that, in the case of indigenous peoples, states ‘must respect the principle of proportionality so as not to endanger the very survival of the community and its members.’Angela Poma Poma v. Peru, CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006, 24 April 2009, at para. 7.6. 212.
213. OHCHR, 2012, ‘Directrices de protección para los pueblos indígenas en aislamiento y en Contacto Inicial de La región Amazónica, el Gran Chaco y la región oriental de Paraguay’, para. 40. 214. Peru’s Health Ministry. Pueblos en Situación de extrema vulnerabilidad: El caso de los Nanti de la Reserva territorial Kugapakori Nahua- Rio Camisea, Cusco, 2003, p.13. 215.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation 218.
222. D. Napolitano. Towards Understanding the Health Vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples Living in Voluntary Isolation in the Amazon Rainforest: Experiences from the Kugapakori Nahua Reserve, Peru, 2007, from the Abstract. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10393-007-0145-x?LI=true. 223. Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Informe 001-2013-LPA-LFTE-NPG-RRG-VDG-DGPI/VMI/MC, 11 July 2013, ‘Observation’ 46-B1, p.35. 224.
Ibid., ‘Observation’ 51-A1, p. 100-101.
227. Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality. Informe 001-2013-LPA-LFTE-NPG-RRG-VDG-DGPI/VMI/MC, 11 July 2013 ‘Observation’ 48-B, p.76. 228.
230. Pluspetrol & ERM, Environmental Impact Assessment for the Expansion, Exploration and Development of Lot 88, November 2012, Chapter 5, p.160. 231. OHCHR. Directrices de Protección para los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento y Contacto Inicial de la Región Amazónica, el Gran Chaco y la Región Oriental de Paraguay, February 2012, para 14a. 232.
Shinai. Aquí vivimos bien, 2004, p.52.
237. AIDESEP, COMARU, FENAMAD and ORAU. Request for Precautionary Measures on behalf of indigenous peoples living in ‘voluntary isolation’ and initial contact in the Kugapakori-Nahua-Nanti Reserve in south-east Peru, 25 January 2013, para 27. 238. OHCHR. Directrices de Protección para los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento y Contacto Inicial de la Región Amazónica, el Gran Chaco y la Región Oriental de Paraguay, February 2012, para 14b. 239. N. Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties. Cambridge Studies in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1997), 391. 240.
I. Lansman et al. vs. Finland (Communication No. 511/1992), CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, 10.
Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev. 1 1997, 89.
Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation that they have with their territory’, so that ‘they may continue living their traditional way of life, and that their distinct cultural identity, social structure, economic system, customs, beliefs and traditions are respected, guaranteed and protected”.’ 244. See Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 56/09, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 30 December 2009, at para. 232 (summarizing international jurisprudence and stating that “The State may not grant a concession or approve a development or investment plan or project that could affect the survival of the corresponding indigenous or tribal people, in accordance with its ancestral ways of life”). 245.
246. Among others, see, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. 1) (1992); Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc. UN Doc. A/CONF. 166/9 (1995); G.A. Res. 42/115, 11 February 1988, The Impact of Property on the Enjoyment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Commission on Human Rights Resolutions 1987/18 and 1988/19; Principles relating to the human rights conduct of companies. Working paper prepared by Mr. David Weissbrodt. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/WG.2/WP.1, 25 May 2000; M. Addo (ed.), Human Rights Standards and the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations. The Hague: Kluwer Law International (1999); J.R. Paul, Holding Multinational Corporations Responsible Under International Law 24 Hastings Int’l. and Comp. Law Rev. 285 (2001); Patrick Macklem, Indigenous Rights and Multinational Corporations at International Law, 24 Hastings Int’l. and Comp. Law Rev. 475 (2001); and, B. Frey, The Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations in the Protections of International Human Rights, 6 Minn. J. Global Trade 153 (1996) 247. UN 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Introduction 26 framework. UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31. Available at http://www.ohchr. org/Documents/Publications/ GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf 248. Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of 29 July 1988, Ser. C No. 4, para. 172 – “An illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State (for example, because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the Convention;” - Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 7615 (Brazil). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, doc 10 rev 1 (1985), 33; UN Human Rights Committee, Communication Nos. 161/1983, Annual Rep. Of the HRC 1988, 197 and 181/1984, Annual Rep. of the HRC 1990 (Vol. II), 37; Ogoni Case, at para. 58 and; European Court of Human Rights, Sunday Times Case, Judgment of 26 April 1979, E.C.H.R., Ser. A, (Vol. 30), 318.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.