Large Scale Infrastructure Projects, Indigenous Land and Conflicts The Case of Inambari Hydroelectric Dam Project in the Southern Peruvian Amazon of Madre de Dios

Introduction The economic growth held by Peru in the last decades has gone together with an upsurge in land conflicts that have no historic precedent. This country currently has 159 socio-environmental active conflicts over land and natural resources use between indigenous people and the National government or private investors. Only in the Amazon area, in the last 2 years there has been 52 major conflicts that stand out as being due to mega dam’s projects on indigenous land. This has led the country to a remarkably low score and deteriorating trend in political stability. While there have been attempts to address the indigenous people claims over large investments, these have not been enough. Conflicts continue to increase and intensify and there are no institutionalized meaningful procedures to deal with them or to avoid them. This study identified the real reasons behind the conflicts on indigenous land and the position of the parties involved, especially in the case of projects that somehow will support economic activities and expand the access to public services, which in many cases are seen as progress.

The Inambari Hydroelectric Dam Project The hydroelectric plant of Inambari would be Peru's largest Dam and fifth biggest Dam in Latin America, with an estimated cost of 4000 million. Would have an estimated capacity of this plant would of 2,000 MW (almost double than the Mantaro Hydroelectric, so far the largest of Peru). The energy flow to Rio Branco (Acre, Brazil) is more than 600 km away. To produce the energy about 460 km2 of mountain forests would be flooded. Also 100 kilometers of the newly built South Inter-Oceanic Highway will be flooded. It is also worth notice that the Inambari River in considered an important area for cocaleros and alluvial gold mining, that is, a subject to the accelerated erosion on the basin and the mobilization mercury. Although the project covers a larger this case study focused on the Madre de Dios whose actors were heavily involved in the events of the Dam construction.

Conclusion The opposition to the project, evolved in a context of mistrust and miscommunication between indigenous and government, which characterized the national development plan pro-investors. The current scenario of conflicts should be considered as a window of opportunities and challenges for the government to establish a new relationship with the indigenous.

Master‘s Thesis by Pastor, Giannina (Peru)

Objectives of the study •  Critically analyze the state/status of large scale infrastructure on

indigenous land in Peru. •  Examine the characteristics of the scenario between the government

and the indigenous due to large scale infrastructure. (in the result a conflict)

•  Suggest possible measures to overcome and avoid situations of conflicts between indigenous people and the government.

Methodology The research adopted a qualitative case study approach. The data collection contained both primary and secondary sources. The collected data was analyzed using Atlas-ti. Data was gathered from: •  Ethnographic Observation. •  In depth structured and semi structured interviews •  Life stories •  Focus groups •  Personal observation •  Documents and records from Public and private institutions

Map 1: Concessions overlaps on indigenous lands.

Source: Regional Government of Madre de Dios

Key findings §  The different concessions given by the National Government without any

participation mechanism overlap different economic activities on indigenous lands. This is compounded by illegal activities such as illegal logging and illegal gold mining activities that threaten the indigenous land and that the government has failed to control. These activities are not recorded by any institution and therefore are not in the Map 1.

§  National Government is seen as week and enable to protect indigenous land rights.

§  Indigenous rejection of the Dam is held by the past disappointments with the national government and the fear of losing control over their identity (land and natural resources) and to suffer impoverishment and marginalization that usually indigenous go through.

§  The Inambari conflict proves that there is no single cause for a conflict. It is a context-specific, multi-causal and multi-dimensional and is the result from a combination of several factors.

§  The National Government do not attempts to discuss, dialogue or encourage negotiations with indigenous.

§  The isolated character of the new projects and investments is an obstacle to understand the economic or social justifications.

§  There are no countrywide meaningful participative mechanisms for indigenous. The new prior Consent law was approved it still hasn’t been implemented. This poses many challenges for the government.

Figure 1: Conflict mapping of actors relationship in the Inambari Dam Conflict

Recommendations §  Strengthening capacities for dialogue, conflict prevention, and negotiation. Moreover,

there is a broader challenge of changing the “culture of violence”. §  Access to land and natural resources under the indigenous control areas must be

carefully and objectively guided by the government, prioritizing the welfare of citizens, in this case of indigenous before the capital and investment.

§  Land Use Planning with indigenous participation. §  Creation of a Land Conflict Resolution

•  Land Conflicts •  Participation •  Conflict analysis tools •  Land governance and good governance •  Indigenous land rights

Theoretical Framework