“Just like the light from the lamp can be put off anytime by the wind, we too will be driven out of this forest, which we call home...”
Since 1955 in Karnataka State, India, the area in and around Nagarhole has received different designations in the name of protecting the wildlife species which reside in the area. It has been given status as a national park, designated a tiger reserve, and then in 2007 it was declared an independent tiger reserve. Starting in 1985 however, the Jenu Kuruba, Betta Kuruba, Thimma, and Yerava (among others) communities in the area, those who have been on the land prior to the enactment of these laws, were criminalized for residing on the land and forcibly evicted to make room for ecotourism development by private companies in Nagarhole. In response, these communities have successfully fought to return to their traditional lands through public interest litigation in India. However despite their successes, they continue to be targets of forced evictions and human rights violations in the name of “conservation” contrary to Indian law..
Meanwhile in Kenya, the Ogiek and Sengwer communities face similar challenges. These communities are regularly subjected to forcible evictions from their ancestral homelands in the Mau and Embobut forests. Media reports allege in detail the homes of communities being burnt down and people being beaten to increase “conservation” of the forest areas. The Ogiek, like the communities in Nagarhole, have had their cultural heritage practices eliminated because of the confiscation of their traditional homelands. In 2022, in what was considered to be an unprecedented judgment, the African Court of Human Rights ruled that Kenya must pay reparations for “decades of illegal evictions from their ancestral lands…” Whether the judgment will be enforced in Kenya remains to be seen.
In South America, environmental protection, conservation, and forced evictions have been litigated and heard in the highest courts throughout the land. For instance, the Naso received a favorable judgment from the Panama Supreme Court in 2021, giving them authority to co-manage government-designated forest areas, which were their traditional homelands. Further cases have been heard in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning similar issues in other traditional homelands. While these recent judgments indicate a positive trend, what should not be lost on the reader is that many of these issues have been ongoing and even ignored since the 1980s, and are only now reaching some kind of resolution.
While governments around the world attempt to balance a growing international interest in protecting the environment and promoting responses to climate change, minority communities are being punished in the name of “conservation.” They are forcibly evicted from their territories, and even when they have been displaced into newer areas, they are further barred from entering their territories for access to critical and key food sources, as well as their sacred sites. To ensure that these evictions are enforced, law enforcement engages in gross human rights violations to ensure permanent removal from areas. The former Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples noted that extrajudicial killing was increasing as a means to achieving conservation efforts, thus creating the “militarization of conservation.”
Conservation as a response to wildlife and environmental protection has its roots in the colonial era and can have devastating consequences for Indigenous cultures. Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) adopted by the ABA House of Delegates (Resolution 107D), Article 8 precludes forced assimilation and destruction of culture, and particularly calls attention to actions which dispossess Peoples from their “lands, territories, or resources.” Article 10 is more specific; Indigenous Peoples shall not be “forcibly removed from their lands.”
These two particular acts, dispossession of lands and forced removal, may also be considered violations of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, specifically as crimes against humanity. Further, these acts arguably constitute genocide, as Rafael Lemkin who coined of the term genocide noted, “Genocide is effected through a synchronized attack on different aspects of life of the captive peoples.” While many within the international criminal legal community continue to debate whether the current elements of genocide under the Genocide Convention also incorporate cultural genocide, it is clear that the removal of Peoples from their ancestral territories not only leads to the degradation of their lives but the annihilation of their culture.
In March 2022, Arizona Representative Raul Grijalva introduced the bill, “Advancing Human Rights- Centered International Conservation Act of 2022.” The bill aims to prevent international financial assistance to foreign entities that are committing violations of human rights and requires certification by those entities receiving funds that they will not violate human rights. HR 7025 has already passed the House. While the bill does not cover corporations specifically, it is worth noting that the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPBHR) (ABA Resolution 109) reiterates that businesses should respect human rights (para 11) and businesses should prevent or mitigate human rights violations or “impacts” (para 13). It is clear that corporations must also be held accountable for perpetuating violence in order to achieve monetary gains as a result of forced evictions.
The United States is poised to lead by example and prevent further human rights violations from happening and prevent the commission of crimes against humanity and genocide. One step towards that is the passage of HR 7025. Indigenous Peoples must be seen as key environmental stewards and in the best position to promote environmental stewardship. A great model of environmental stewardship is the Soliga of India. The community was once forcibly evicted under Indian law so that the area could be turned into a tiger reserve. However, the Soliga litigated the matter and were able to regain their rights to utilize the land. The Soliga, who revere the tiger, have done more to protect and the surrounding areas then any government scheme could, because of their extensive knowledge. Conservation must be re-evaluated to strike a balance between human rights and the environment. Otherwise, the aims of the international community in protecting the environment and promoting human rights will be lost.
