IP Evaluation Synthesis April 2013 Final Draft

Evaluation of the Indigenous Rights and Interculturality Program Oxfam America's South America Regional Office 2010 – 2012

Submitted by Daniel Moss April 2013 FINAL DRAFT

1

Executive Summary This report outlines important achievements and learning from the Indigenous Rights and Interculturality Program over the past three years. The recent program builds upon 30 years of Oxfam America’s (OA) continual accompaniment of partners working to secure indigenous peoples’ rights in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. The decades of funding and assistance have not been without difficulties, but the evaluation finds irrefutable evidence of direct empowerment of the people at the center of the program over time, at enormous scale, with OA uniquely involved through the duration. A powerful indigenous movement, whose key organizations are longtime OA partners, has been the force behind fundamental constitutional change in Ecuador (2008), Bolivia (2009), and in passing a law on free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in Peru (2011)1. Indigenous communities are gradually gaining significant decision-making power over their territories and natural resources. This was not the case 20 or even 10 years ago. Although this evaluation only covers the past three years, it is clear that during this period, seeds planted decades ago have begun to bear fruit.

It has also been a time of great threat to indigenous organizations, and a daunting political context regionally.

There has been infighting within indigenous organizations as the stakes grow higher and powerful interests have stepped up divide-and-conquer tactics to counter the momentum of indigenous groups. Current governments have drastically increased petroleum and mining concessions, without considering the long term consequences for people and the environment. By 2010, 75% of the Peruvian Amazon had been opened up to oil leases, including areas with uncontacted people, often in conjunction with Peru’s national oil company.

Congressional Decrees in line with the Peru and US free trade agreement gave rise to massive national protests by indigenous peoples, with longtime OA partner AIDESEP at the forefront. The Bagua massacre that followed and its repercussions opened up new spaces for dialogue that proved to be the turning point in political processes that lead to the new 2011 law. Those interviewed believe the next three years are critical to consolidate the positive direction of change, and Oxfam America’s own 30 year investment.

Findings and Recommendations 1. Over the past three years, OA partners and staff have contributed to developing and supporting structural changes in constitutions, laws, and administrative procedures, locally, nationally and internationally, sometimes fundamentally influencing the outcome. Internationally, OA-trained “indigenous diplomats” influenced the global debate on climate change to consider collective land rights as a pre-condition for indigenous involvement in mitigation programs. At the national level there were a number of achievements, including the successful registration of collective land titles that consolidated over 98,000 hectares of Shuar, Shiwiar and Achuar territory in Ecuador, the updating of municipal bylaws in Bolivia to create a foundation for new legally recognized territories, and in Peru, the groundswell Bagua protest that lead ultimately to the prime minister stepping down, Congressional Decrees repealed, and a new constitutional law on prior consultation2.

Prior to the approval of the Consultation Law, the IP program promoted a regional pilot in San Martin to apply FPIC through a regional ordinance. Recommendation: Maintain support to partners especially to put into operational practice principles of territorial autonomy, interculturality and indigenous REDD+, among others.

2. The program has recently supported several models of territorial governance and collective land law across three countries, and is now in a unique position to inform policy implementation more widely. There are important lessons to be gleaned from local experiences in Lomerio, Monte Verde and San Martin, with 1 2

Only the advocacy efforts in Peru fall within this evaluation period.

Although indigenous support for this law broke down in the negotiations around regulatory frameworks, OA considered this a significant advance.

2

respect to governance mechanisms. The key lessons from these experiences are well-positioned to be scaled up. Recommendation: Continue to provide support for these complex, instructive processes, document and socialize learning and support scaling up opportunities.

3. OA has strengthened institutional relationships across IP organizations and NGOs since 2010. It has also played a strong brokering relationship with government agencies. During this period, the Amazonian and Andean indigenous organizations achieved new levels of coordination, with exchange and convening promoted

by OA. At the national level, OA partners worked with the Ministry of Culture in Peru to develop a training module for public officials to reduce discrimination against indigenous peoples, which is now being scaled up by the Ministry of Culture with USAID funding. There was less success in Bolivia due to complexity of procedures and wavering political will, where a number of events were held with the Ministry of Autonomy to make administrative requirements for indigenous autonomies more transparent. Recommendation: Continue to deploy OA staff to play an active role in bridging and building relationships between government, NGOs, and indigenous organizations.

4. Oxfam Ameria’s trust-based relationships meant that it could encourage gender work where other funders have failed. Recognizing that dispersed local women’s rights efforts require broader support to succeed, OA made inroads in establishing a regional alliance of women, not only among countries but by bringing Amazonian and Andean women together. In Bolivia, work to strengthen women’s leadership and advocacy was apparent in the leading role played by women in the march against government plans to build a road through the Isiboro-Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park (TIPNIS). Nonetheless, progress program-wide was less than initially hoped. Recommendation: Build on this work through ongoing support for regional women’s organizing. Create and monitor specific indicators for gender work to measure advances.

5. Ongoing challenges for OA and their partners: (1) The complexity of land and administrative law in a context of weighty political change leads to confusion and inevitable tension. Program partners will need to focus their advocacy targets, messages and strategies and reduce infighting to consolidate wins; (2) Conflict within representative organizations can disproportionately affect women’s voice; (3) Strategic planning requires more clarity about the role of OA and how OA’s actions coordinate with wider support for national and international indigenous organizations; (4) Indigenous organizations need more focused support on technical policy and legal advocacy, in order to translate a tremendous body of learning into focused recommendations and channels for consensus within their membership. With funding for indigenous organizations diminishing from EU governments, American foundations and international NGOs, OA’s voice and historical relationship is well positioned to leverage indigenous advocacy strategies at this critical moment.

6. The strategic objectives sought far-reaching changes without articulating near term and medium term outcomes, making monitoring and evaluation unnecessarily challenging. The partners themselves requested more support in monitoring their own programs. Recommendation: Plan more carefully in shorter-term sequences, linked clearly to a theory for longer-term change.

7. There is ample room for greater, more productive synergies between OA’s Extractive Industries global program and the GROW campaign. Indigenous people regionally are a major proportion of the targeted primary change agents of both the Extractive Industries program and the GROW campaign. Recommendation: OA’s complementary campaigns and programs should articulate theories of change that acknowledge and build upon the IP Program’s proven support for movement building, territorial autonomy and decentralized control over natural resources– preconditions to defend against extractive industries and land-grabbing and to guarantee rights to food for indigenous peoples.

8. The indigenous movement’s success in advancing indigenous rights and demanding decentralized decisionmaking over land and resources is a direct threat to Andean governments’ development models based on 3

extractive activities. The shrinking of national policy change spaces and criminalization and repression of indigenous activism – made plain in the 2009 Bagua massacre and the 2011 TIPNIS march – show no signs of abating. Recommendation: Continue support for indigenous diplomacy to generate human rights pressures on national governments. The worst reaction from global actors would be to treat indigenous rights issues as a passing fad at the moment when the battle has clearly come to a crescendo – a reaction that powerful actors are in fact banking upon.

4

Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2 I. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 6 II. Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................................................ 6 III. Program Background ................................................................................................................ 6 SAMRO’s Partners – A Summary Table ........................................................................................... 7 Strategic Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 9 IV. Regional Context ..................................................................................................................... 10 V. Findings .................................................................................................................................. 11 Bolivia ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Territorial and Natural Resource Management ............................................................................ 11 Empowering Indigenous Women in Bolivia .................................................................................. 14 Peru ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Free and Prior Consent Consultation laws at national and regional levels ................................... 15 Work with Civil Servants to Confront Discrimination .................................................................... 15 Secure Communities Campaign .................................................................................................. 16 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation .................................................................................. 18 Salwan Journalism Prize ............................................................................................................. 19 Ecuador .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Territorial Reconstitution, Titling and Defense ............................................................................. 20 Plurinationality and Interculturality ............................................................................................... 20 Work on Regional Targets with Regional Partners .......................................................................... 21 VI. Cross-cutting areas ................................................................................................................. 24 Alliance Building and Network Strengthening.................................................................................. 24 Communications, Media and Research .......................................................................................... 26 Gender ........................................................................................................................................... 27 SAMRO’S relationship with its partners .......................................................................................... 27 Limitations of actor and power analysis .......................................................................................... 29 Additional Program Challenges....................................................................................................... 30 Program Planning ........................................................................................................................ 30 Program Execution ...................................................................................................................... 31 Integration with Oxfam America ................................................................................................... 32 Recommendations: ......................................................................................................................... 32 VII. Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 33 VIII. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 36 IX. Glossary .................................................................................................................................. 37

5

I.

Introduction

The Indigenous Rights and Interculturality3 Program (hereafter “IP” Program) of the South America Regional Office (SAMRO) was part of Oxfam America’s 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, designed for a ten-year period (2010 – 2019). The program has evolved and grown from decades of work with indigenous people in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.

This evaluation covers the first triennial of the IP Program and was undertaken to learn from achievements and challenges as well as to inform strategy adjustments going forward. This document summarizes and condenses findings from four lengthy field research evaluation documents – one each for Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and a further regional document on efforts to support indigenous diplomacy in regional and global forums.

II.

Evaluation Methodology

This synthesis is based on a meta-review of four evaluations conducted in 2012 and 2013, as well as a number of supporting and clarifying interviews. The field evaluations were carried out through individual and group interviews with informants who provided perceptions, opinions and information relevant to the context, results, execution and sustainability of the program. In each country, the contracted evaluation teams performed the following:  Document review  Investigation of secondary sources to explain the context for the project and project design.  Individual and group interviews with partners, government actors, allies and analysts.  Validation workshops with all program partners and other key stakeholders

III.

Program Background

The Program Strategy Paper (PSP), published in 2010, describes the IP Program scope and purpose. The Program is based on the understanding that indigenous peoples in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru have been historically marginalized but are key to the region’s development. Program goals are: Laws and state institutions in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru foster the exercise of indigenous people’s rights, especially the right to participate and contribute to public decisions; eliminate political factors that impede free access to and management of indigenous territories; and reduce discriminatory practices that block indigenous peoples from accessing essential services.

Working with existing regional, national and supra-national organizations, the Program supported three strategic lines of action important to indigenous partner organizations: 1) furthering intercultural democracies that enhance participation of indigenous peoples in decision making; 2) Recognizing and exercising indigenous people’s rights to land, territory and natural resources; and, 3) Fighting against discrimination based on ethnicity. Given the high priority to SAMRO of gender, communications and media work, these became crosscutting lines of action. Activities in these areas were common in most projects, with some grants focused 3

Interculturality refers to the interaction and exchange between cultures, where the individual recognizes and accepts the other’s culture through dialogue and pacifism. The goal is transformation of historic economic, political, and social asymmetries and inequalities that have marked our societies, subordinating above all indigenous populations.

6

almost exclusively on these areas.4 The Program Strategy Paper articulated the following theory of change to guide the program strategies and objectives: To bring about these changes it will be necessary to modify government policies and practices so that they foster respect for indigenous rights and change ideas and beliefs in favor of plural societies that recognize diversity. An essential condition is transforming current power relations so that they strengthen the voices of indigenous peoples within the state’s decision-making spheres. Strengthening and recognizing the voices of indigenous peoples will be achieved by empowering indigenous organizations and their capacity for advocacy...

In its role as a political actor, OA will aim to strengthen the voices of indigenous peoples through research, communication strategies, campaigns (always in coordination with allies in the Global South), and facilitating bridges for dialogue and the search for synergies between stakeholders. Internally, it will work to build bridges between the program and the regional and global campaigns led by OA and OI...In addition to the expected changes at the national level, the program will also work to strengthen the voices and advocacy efforts of key movements and institutions at the regional and global levels....

The desired change processes are not necessarily linear, which means that there needs to be continual feedback between the strategies for strengthening civil society, state-level advocacy, and monitoring compliance. It is important to remember that the theory of change is framed in the context of disputes of parties in favor and against the existing power structure.

SAMRO’s Partners – A Summary Table5 Below is a reference table of SAMRO’s partners for the 2010-2012 period.

4

For example, projects that specifically targeted women’s empowerment such as strengthening women’s committees of AIDESEP and CONAMAQ. 5 Table developed by Eloisa Devietti, Program Policy Advisor, Oxfam America.

7

Transnational indigenous organizations

COICA

CAOI

Amazon region

Andean region

PERU

BOLIVIA

ECUADOR

Sub-national indigenous organizations

AIDESEP

CIDOB, CONAMAQ

CONAIE

National indigenous organizations

CONACAMI

COAC

ECUARUNARI

International NGOs

PRACTICAL ACTION

National NGOs

Community Based organizations

SEPAR, IBC, Asociacion Proyeccion, Paz y Esperanza, CEPES, DAR CooperAccion

CAJ

FUNDACION TIERRA, CEJIS

FUNDACION LIANAS. CDES

CEADESC (regional level)

*AIDESEP and CIDOB are members of COICA

Oxfam America, through its office in South America, has worked with indigenous organizations from the Amazon since their foundation: CONFENAIE (1984), COICA (1984), AIDESEP (1985) and CONAIE (1986). Globally these are considered the first four pan-ethnic indigenous organizations to be formally constituted in the world (MacArthur 2010), and OA was the main funder. Oxfam America has supported the Andean organizations since the late 1990s, except ECUARUNARI (late 1980s). OA began to support the Bolivian highland organization CONAMAQ in 1997, including prior to their formation, and COPPIP starting in1998. SAMRO helped establish CONACAMI in 1999. CAOI was founded in 2006, after a group of exchanges between indigenous organizations promoted by OA.

8

Strategic Objectives The Program Strategy Paper described three strategic objectives: SO1: Indigenous men and women in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, in coordination with their organizations, are able to transform the legal and institutional frameworks of their states, as well as influence multilateral organizations, exercising the right to participate in decisions that affect their destiny.

Over the past three years, the program worked towards this objective by supporting the legal framework and implementation of nation-to-nation negotiations6 in Ecuador through grants to partners such as CONAIE and ECUARUNARI, both representative organizations of indigenous peoples. In Peru, the program funded Paz y Esperanza to support the proper functioning of an indigenous body within the regional government of San Martin. At the regional level, SAMRO worked with CAOI and COICA to create a shared agenda for indigenous rights and to understand lobbying mechanisms for diverse international forums to make positions heard. This indigenous diplomacy was particularly focused on climate change issues.7 SO2: The Bolivian, Ecuadorian and Peruvian states recognize the right of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories and access to the natural resources these hold in accordance with their concept of development for their management.

This objective was addressed by exploring the legal requirements needed to implement new forms of territorial management as recognized by the constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador. In Bolivia, support to autonomous territories was carried out by partner CEJIS in two TCOs (Communal Lands of Origin) in the lowland Chiquitania region. A number of events were held with the new Ministry of Autonomy, to support the Chiquitano communities in understanding and complying with administrative and legal requirements. OA also supported Fundación Tierra to support indigenous territories in the highlands. In Ecuador, OA supported the Liana Project’s land titling work in Shuar and Achuar territories. In Peru, OA supported advocacy and implementation of a regional ordinance for consultation in San Martin, as a mechanism to encourage local implementation of Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC). The IP program also worked in collaboration with the SAMRO Extractive Industries program to build a civil society coalition to advocate for the national FPIC law, that was passed in August 2011.

SO3: Discriminatory practices against indigenous peoples in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru have been reduced, contributing to a change in the ideas and beliefs that maintain them.

Oxfam America developed a pilot experience in Peru to increase the sensitivity of public officials to indigenous rights through a diagnostic study in Junín and San Martin that identified the areas where indigenous peoples suffer greatest discrimination. OA partner, CAJ, developed a series of training modules for the Ministry of Culture to overcome discrimination in public services. OA funded a journalism prize, the Salwan Prize, for published articles on indigenous life in the Amazon to raise awareness amongst the general public. These initiatives were piloted solely in Peru with view to scale out in Bolivia and Ecuador in the following period.

6 7

This type of framework is well known to the US where federally recognized tribes are legally treated as nation-states.

This aspect of indigenous diplomacy was largely funded by the MacArthur Grant.

9

IV.

Regional Context

In recent years, the Bolivian and Ecuadorian governments have made constitutional and legal changes, which included adopting indigenous peoples’ proposals for plurinational states, living well (buen vivir8) and rights of nature. By defining their countries as “plurinational”, the Bolivian (2009) and Ecuadorian constitutions (2008) now formally recognize the right to territorial title by indigenous people. Economically, the Bolivian and Ecuadorian governments have undertaken reforms to introduce pro-poor social programs that redistribute economic wealth to the most vulnerable groups, although these programs have received criticism by advocates for the poor for being clientelistic. To fund these social programs, basic services and infrastructure, the governments are largely dependent on revenues from mineral, gas, oil and logging wealth.9 In Ecuador, a new mining law (2009) opening up the country to intensive industrial mining has been questioned by indigenous organizations. Ecuador does not have a tradition of mining as a key economic driver and currently there are no mechanisms to support community consultation. In Bolivia, the government development policies are highly dependent on extractive revenues, and have led to national protests but also generated tensions among indigenous peoples, as well as division and cooptation of their organizations by outside interests. Tensions reached boiling point when the government announced a highway across the Isiboro-Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park (TIPNIS)10.

The situation in Peru is both similar and different. The 1993 constitution recognizes and protects the nation’s ethnic and cultural plurality. Nevertheless, indigenous peoples are not explicitly recognized as subjects and their guarantees to territory are reduced to accommodate gas and mineral concessions. President Alan García’s government promoted privatization, deregulation and the transnationalization of the economy, primarily focusing on extracting raw materials. The new president, Ollanta Humala, campaigned on different policies but has mostly maintained the priorities of the Garcia administration. In particular since the signing of the 2009 Free Trade Agreement between Peru and the U.S. Indigenous territories have been encroached upon at an accelerating pace, with the government awarding concessions for extractive industries without consultation.

Peru has grown economically, with little redistribution. The majority of indigenous peoples have very little access to health care and good quality schools.

The economic need to accommodate extractive industries may explain, in part, why barriers to full indigenous participation have not been eliminated. 84% of Amazonian lands have been carved into petroleum concessions and enormous swaths of indigenous territories in the Andes sit upon mining concessions. In each Andean country, extractive revenues are used to finance social programs for vulnerable populations without addressing the root causes of poverty and promoting a development model based on indigenous aspirations and autonomy.

The Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA) is accelerating the building of interconnected power grids and at least four east-west highways connecting Brazil with various ports on the Pacific shore. All these take a considerable toll on indigenous territories and the Amazon rainforest, which is unnecessarily high in the opinion of indigenous organizations and many academics. Environmental threats are 8

Living well (buen vivir) means living life to the fullest, knowing how to live in harmony and equilibrium with the cycles of mother earth and history; in a state of mutual and permanent respect.

9 World Bank Oil, Mining and Gas Unit. Website accessed April 11, 2013.

10 th Plans to build a road through the indigenous terriorty of TIPNIS Territorio Indígena Parque Nacional Isiboro-Sécure generated the 8 indigenous march in 2011, resulted in the signing of the TIPNIS short law which rejected the construction of the road. This law later th superseded by the consultation law, which opened the decision up to a consultation process leading to a 9 March demanding the repeal of the consultation law, causing serious divisions in the indigenous movement

10

large and growing. Ecologically, the destruction of the Amazon is converting it from being a crucial global sink into a net producer of greenhouse gas emissions and a driver for additional weather extremes. The agricultural frontier continues to expand into the Amazon. Indigenous communities and livelihoods are vulnerable and economic development prospects limited. Uncertainty about how carbon markets and REDD mechanisms will unfold adds uncertainty and fans conflict.

Very troubling is that government response to indigenous actions to retain the integrity and biodiversity of their territories – with large benefits for the planet – are increasingly criminalized. Protests against TIPNIS in Bolivia, led by indigenous groups and NGO partners working with OA, led to open repression and criminalization of indigenous organizations as well as unprecedented public support for the indigenous movement. 2009 saw the Bagua massacre in Peru of 34 indigenous people who protested Congressional Decrees opening up the Amazon in line with the Peru-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

At the same time, scientific consensus is that indigenous lands and other protected areas reduce rates of deforestation11. The role of indigenous communities and organizations in protecting biodiversity is increasingly acknowledged by academics, some national governments and international organizations including the International Labor Organization (ILO), UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Affairs12.

V.

Findings

This section analyzes the evolution of the program over the past three years, with a particular focus on achievements, challenges and recommendations relative to the three strategic objectives. Due to the enormous political transformations during the period of the evaluation (2010 to 2012), Oxfam America's partner organizations and the indigenous movement had to adapt quickly, and the indicators that were initially articulated in the 2010 PSP were deemed by the SAMRO team to be too static and no longer adequate to measure program outcomes and impacts. The country evaluation teams were instructed not to limit their evaluation to tracking those indicators but rather were asked to undertake a broader inquiry to understand the social change processes supported by the program, the efficacy of program strategies and programmatic achievements and challenges. This section also summarizes recommendations from the country teams.

Bolivia Strategic Lines  Territorial and Natural Resource Management and Indigenous Autonomy13  Women's Empowerment

Territorial and Natural Resource Management OA partners and allies were crucial – and successful - actors in advocating with the Evo Morales government to approve a new constitution in 2009. The new constitution opened the way to new models of autonomous 11

Ricketts TH, Soares-Filho B, da Fonseca GAB, Nepstad D, Pfaff A, et al. (2010) Indigenous Lands, Protected Areas, and Slowing Climate Change. PLoS Biol 8(3): e1000331.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000331 12 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted in 2007. The declaration recently th celebrated its 5 anniversary. SAMRO partners were active in its passage.

13 This section is drawn from Kathy Ogle's draft Bolivia Territory evaluation, March 2013, with this author's minor edits.

11

territorial governance and management introduced starting in 2010, consistent with OA’s pioneering work around ILO 169 in the 1980s14.. Prior to this evaluation period, many indigenous communities had fought for, negotiated, and acquired collective titles to large extensions of communal land - “Indigenous Communal Territories” or TCOs by their Spanish acronym.

Now the central demand is the defense and reconstitution of indigenous territories in the form of “territorial autonomies”. Territorial autonomies contrast with previous TCOs, which allowed for titling of collective ancestral lands that could trigger consultation and compensation requirements. Territorial autonomies begun in 2010 and go another step further by invoking local governance and local management.

Today Bolivia’s political map is complex; it is a mosaic of autonomous political structures, or “decentralized units” that represent a constitutional commitment to plurinationalism and interculturality. Fully 33% of the country’s land sits inside TCOs today, a direct indicator of the empowerment of the indigenous movement, and a spectacular result to which OA’s support of indigenous organizations has contributed. The 2009 constitution recognizes diverse levels of autonomy - indigenous, municipal, departmental - but the implementation of indigenous autonomy is particularly complex as indigenous territories often cross municipal borders, which sows confusion and conflict. Powerful interests seek to capitalize upon this confusion. Given the scale of TCOs, piloting new practices of territorial governance and resource management has a high potential for scale up, and is very timely given the need for clarity and leadership in these early years of experimentation.

Oxfam America has supported decentralized territorial governance work in both lowland and highland regions.15 There has been a great deal of “making the road by walking” in Bolivia during these years. There is a relatively new and young ministry, the Ministry of Autonomy, in charge of indigenous territorial autonomy.

Procedures were unclear, however, and some municipal laws were out of date. In the lowlands OA has invested significantly in the work of CEJIS to work with the TCOs of Lomerío and Monte Verde on their journey to comply with the legal requirements of becoming autonomous territories. Monteverde finally gained its land title in 2010 after ten years of legal wrangling, providing a solid foundation to seek autonomy. OA partners worked with the Ministry to update municipal laws to create a firm foundation for legal territories. Bylaws drawn up through community assemblies needed to be presented to a constitutional court. Resource management plans had to be created. These were necessary steps to obtain legal autonomy designation. OA partners completed this process, and now final determination is in the hands of the state. This is a true test case with lessons that are relevant across Bolivia.

In the Bolivian altiplano the traditional form of indigenous organization is the Ayllu (the reconstitution of which was a central element of Oxfam America´s support during the late 80s and early 90s). OA partner Fundación Tierra researched different experiences of autonomy to understand the divergences and distinct requirements between Municipal and Indigenous Autonomies. Both are new forms of democracy, achieved through traditional community forms of governance working in coordination with state institutions and law. To generate political momentum for the process, Fundación Tierra convened a platform to discuss the implications of these findings and create a bridge between the newly created Ministry of Autonomy and potential indigenous autonomies. It is complex work and conflicts have emerged with the Ministry of Autonomy regarding a referendum process to approve autonomies. But despite setbacks and complications, OA is significantly contributing to defining a new legal framework with new procedures under the new constitution with concrete experiences with working Ayllus in La Paz, Oruro and Chuquisaca. These Ayllus received training 14

Oxfam America is credited with providing impetus to advocacy efforts beginning in the 1980s to ground Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in Bolivian laws and procedures.

15 In 2010, OGB terminated their indigenous program; prior to that time there was considerable collaboration between SAMRO and OGB, for example on CIDOB’s work in the lowlands, especially with women, and CEADESC’s work in indigenous diplomacy. In the highlands, SAMRO is the only Oxfam with a program.

12

and support to comply with the necessary steps and legal requirements to create indigenous autonomies. OA also maintained a non-financial relationship with its historic partner, CONAMAQ, which is a federation of Ayllus.

OA funding has increased indigenous partners’ abilities to govern their newly recognized territory, in the face of little support in autonomous governance from the government. Through OA-supported exchanges and trainings of technical experts and TCO leaders, there is greater awareness of the need for territorial management plans that emphasize TCOs as much more than territory and seek greater legitimacy of TCOs, selfgovernance and decentralization of resource management. During the past three years, encouraged by OA, there have been better synergies between indigenous groups in the highlands and the lowlands on themes of autonomy and territorial management. The training and exchange program encourages relationships among TCOs, the participation of women in territorial management, and directly supported regional organizations of Ayllus.

Increasingly indigenous peoples are going from a state of invisibility to becoming major players nationally and regionally. Indigenous advocacy and marches have been closely related in time to legislative achievements including the harmonization of national laws with international conventions on indigenous rights, new land reform laws, natural resource laws, and the new constitution.

OA’s cooperation has been part of all of this. We think we have achieved a large part of what we have proposed… To be able to consolidate our own organization, which has been functioning now for 29 years... And also we have indigenous technical experts... former leaders who are now at other levels of leadership, like the Council of Elders, technical workers like Don Miguel Ipamo who is mayor now and Don Miguel and Don Juan who are former leaders, now on the Council. I think we have accumulated the experience and the capacity necessary to hold public office and run our private matters in CICOL… We have gotten a title to the TCO which is not complete yet.” (First Cacique, CICOL, 2012) This is not to say that there do not continue to be significant challenges to achieve authentic autonomy. As mentioned, legislative and policy frameworks for autonomy are confusing and cumbersome and the examples of the Lomerío and Monte Verde TCOs illustrate myriad threats, both internal and external, to the integrity of the TCOs and the natural resources they contain. OA partners continue to request assistance in acquiring the skills and support to successfully manage their territories and administer productive projects on them. Internal divisions in indigenous communities also impede progress towards clear rules of territorial management and governance. Moreover, conflicts exist between traditional Ayllus and peasant unions, which contest the boundaries and uses of indigenous territories. Yet, communities like Lomerío express optimism: If we have been able to petition for our TCOs when it used to be that there were no government laws or regulations about TCOs and we’ve consolidated them anyway, why shouldn’t we be able to consolidate our autonomy?” (Focus Group, Lomerio, 2012) Miguel Ipamo, Mayor of Lomerio, shared his views on the autonomy process in OA Exchange: CIDOB grassroots (base) is clear why they wanted indigenous autonomy, which was autonomy throughout their territories and they were asking for governance over the territory, its natural resources, everything, the form of government itself. Workshops were held in order to explain what the autonomy was for indigenous peoples; they thought that it was just a theory. However, autonomy is the administration itself: government, resource management, and the social component as well … It was very well understood and a plan for territorial management was prepared based on the territorial management tools… We have explained many times that territorial management is an ant, the head is the organization, the body is the territory, the feet are the tools.

13

Empowering Indigenous Women in Bolivia Oxfam America supported CNAMIB in the lowlands (the women’s organization previously part of CIDOB, now independent). In the highlands, OA’s work with indigenous women is through six regional organizations affiliated with CONAMAQ. The work includes fortifying women’s leadership and their organizations. OA supported advocacy skills to lift women’s voices to be decision-makers in their own organization (50% of the CIDOB leadership is now mandated to be women due to a change in by laws). In the highlands, resistance continues to women having their independent organizational space but there is now a constituted National Council of Mama Th’allas (women authorities). The key achievement of the program was increased coordination between highland and lowland groups which was clearly apparent in the struggle against TIPNIS, when Andes and Amazonian women achieved unprecedented national press visibility and formed new alliances with unions and other sectors.

These are impressive achievements. To build women’s leadership skills and encourage their advocacy actions, Oxfam America supported:   

Workshops with women (Mama Th'alla) on climate change and autonomous territories Women's leadership within the concept of Man-Woman (Chacha-Warmi), seeking autonomous decision-making for women Strengthening alliances between indigenous women's organizations in the Andes and the Amazon

With OA support, the first Summit of Indigenous Women of Abya Yala took place in Puno, Peru in 2009, bringing together over 2000 indigenous women. Plans are now underway for a second meeting in Colombia. The summit afforded the chance to draw up joint actions for lowland and highland women. Following the Summit, women leaders from both the Amazon and Andes became spokespeople for indigenous women, and continue to fight for public recognition of their independent women’s organizations. There are now women leaders, who, however few, have influence in their organizations and beyond. At the local level, many women have responsibilities in their communities and municipalities, although still require ongoing training.

“For us, this project is important because it has permitted us to reach our bases and support women at the grassroots level, who, because of distance and machismo, can't get out. So we are here to conduct workshops, be present in assemblies, because they call us to inform them. So we are there, together with the women.“ Interview CNAMIB, 2012 The project has supported a reflection among indigenous women and within their families, communities and organizations. “Women now demand to the male authority that their voice is listened to, they demand participation. Inside CONAMAQ, there is now a Gender Commission that enables the women to participate in deliberations.” (Interview, CNAMIB, 2012).

Some ongoing challenges for OA and its partners in this area include: 1) for CNAMIB, obtaining legal status to access independent financial resources; 2) resolving ongoing divisions inside CIDOB that negatively affect the women's organizations; 3) in the Andean region, women's leadership is set back by annual rotation of leaders which doesn't allow for adequate consolidation of learning; 4) the women’s organizations are often heavily reliant on technical teams from NGOs; 5) work is lacking on women's individual rights such as preventing and addressing violence against women; 6) training in indigenous diplomacy, sustainable resource management, and women-led economic enterprises needs strengthening.

Peru Priority work areas: 14

    

Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) Consultation laws at national and regional levels Work with Civil Servants to Confront Discrimination Secure Communities campaign Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Salwan Journalism Prize

Free and Prior Consent Consultation laws at national and regional levels Much program support was devoted to advocacy around consultation for free and prior consent, both nationally and regionally. A collaboration between the Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Industries programs, and the communications team in with OA in South America supported advocacy work for a national consultation law. Although there were setbacks – the approved law fell short of all of the indigenous organizations’ interests – it was considered an important victory. OA convened and financed a platform of NGOs and indigenous organizations16 to debate and monitor the issue and advocate for consultation laws, through direct lobby work, technical support to enrich proposed laws, and promoting the subject in the media.

At the time of lobbying around the national law, partners and allies formed a unity pact of “minimum, nonnegotiable principles”. This posture proved to be somewhat inflexible in the face of ongoing negotiations. At the same time, this stance is understandable; there has been a long history of co-optation of indigenous agendas by governments, resulting in divisions within indigenous organizations. One crude counter-strategy is to assume non-negotiable positions; indigenous organizations are of course still learning nuances of advocacy.

Other remaining challenges are in the area of monitoring public commitments won in advocacy campaigns.

Prior to the approval of the national Consultation Law, a key focus of the IP program was to promote a regional pilot in San Martin to apply ILO 169 and create a regional ordinance. When the national Consultation Law was not approved in 2010, indigenous organizations and their allies in San Martin initiated an intense campaign to promote a regional ordinance for consultation in the defense of their territories. The IP program supported a dialogue process with indigenous organizations, local NGOs and the regional government to develop a proposal for the regional ordinance, empowering indigenous leaders and developing their advocacy skills in the process.

“The process of advocacy to construct a regional ordinance on consultation generated a dialogue about consultation as a right. The process of creating this ordinance was the opposite of what usually happens because it's been the indigenous organizations that have actively participated.” Ching Castañeda, lawyer for Paz y Esperanza The advocacy increased the visibility of a number of emblematic cases of violation of property rights such as the cases of Cerro Escalera and EcoAmerica, which threatened the territorial hegemony and claim to land titles of Kichwa and Shawit communities. The creation and strengthening of ORDEPISAM (discussed below) was a critical element in supporting dialogue between indigenous organizations and the regional government to approve the ordinance. Moreover program support was offered to enable collective political participation of local indigenous organizations, strengthen their capacity to develop and agree on proposals, engage public officials in dialogue and conduct successful advocacy and media campaigns in collaboration with diverse civil society groups.

Work with Civil Servants to Confront Discrimination

16

The platform included Oxfam allies and partners Paz y Esperanza, CAAAP, IDL, AIDESEP, CONACAMI, FEDEPAZ, DAR, APRODEH

15

The regional consultation work was closely connected to an innovative capacity-building strategy training civil servants in indigenous rights. This was a way for OA to facilitate bridge building and working relationships between indigenous organizations and public agencies. An OA partner, the Commission of Jurists (CAJ), conducted a study in Junín and San Martin to establish a baseline of Indigenous Peoples’ access to public services. The study pinpointed where discrimination exists and was shared with indigenous organizations, NGOs and government offices. Following the study, CAJ provided training and technical support to public service providers. This was one of the factors that led to the creation of the Regional Office of Development for Indigenous Peoples of San Martin – ORDEPISAM, with simultaneous work on the aforementioned regional Ordinance as well as lobbying by the indigenous initiative “Fuerza de los Pueblos Indigenas”17 This was an innovative strategy, the work targeted civil servants to overcome discrimination and abide by human rights directives, going beyond more traditional strategies of working with marginalized communities to strengthen advocacy for rights protection. This strategy was tied to strengthening this regional government office’s role in crafting the FPIC ordinance as well as participating in a campaign to stop illegal encroachments in indigenous communities in the region, e.g., Cerro Escalera and Ecoamérica. CAJ opened up a productive dialogue with the Ministry of Culture about which Mirva Aranda, Project Coordinator at CAJ said, “Oxfam[America]'s role was decisive in the relationship between CAJ and MINCU.” “Working with indigenous organizations and NGOs has changed my paradigms about indigenous people because before I thought they were lazy and just sought handouts. Now I know they have proposals and that there are Awajun y Shawit peoples in San Martín and I feel proud of that.” Aurora Torrejón, Manager of Social Development of ORDEPISAM. “The authorities from the regional government never attended to our needs but now that is starting to change,” said Walter Sangama, FEPIKRESAM leader. His colleague,” William Guerra, Vice President FEPIKRESAM, said “Before, we looked at authorities and government workers as enemies and traitors, even when they were indigenous. No longer because we know to seek dialogue. The authorities have been changing and are listening to us.”

Reversing long-standing discrimination by public agencies requires a long time frame. Not surprisingly, the work with the government workers was not sufficient to change the perceptions and beliefs that undergird discrimination against indigenous people. Fewer government workers than desired changed their relationships with indigenous communities. However, despite much more work that could be done in this area –OA support has encouraged new positive working relationships between indigenous organizations and government agencies. The training modules for public officials developed with CAJ are currently being scaled up by the Ministry of Culture using funding from USAID to implement this approach in Ucayali.

Secure Communities Campaign Between 2006 and 2008 in Peru, there were only 8 land titles conceded to native communities and zero between 2009 and 2012. More than 4000 native communities lack title nationally. The campaign “Secure Communities” highlighted the importance of land security for Indigenous groups´ subsistence as well as their close relationship to the urban population, much of which is made up of indigenous migrants from rural areas.

The campaign focused on recognizing and valuing the indigenous communities’ social, cultural, economic and environmental contributions to Peruvian society. The campaign had three objectives: 17

La Fuerza de los Pueblos Indígenas", or Power of the People is an initiative of indigenous organizations in the San Martin región that emerged as as political instrument to influence regional and national authorities and oversee proposals as a response to territorial conflicts in cases such as Cerro Escalera and EcoAmerica.

16

  

Greater recognition of the contribution of indigenous communities to Peru.

A legal framework for communal property to meet international rights standards.

State commitment to reactivate titling, creation of a national agency for titling and a rural land registry, and strengthening the capacity of regional governments.

In spite of limited resources, the campaign reached a broad public, via a web page, and press coverage.

Documents published included one on the deterioration of the legal security of Amazonian and Andean communities18. A second was a map of Amazonian deforestation. Presentations of both enjoyed good press coverage. A third product was a Directory of Native Communities19 to jumpstart the rural land registry. The directory was distributed principally to civil servants and municipal authorities. Videos, including animation, were used during the campaign as publicity and education tools.

The awareness campaign on collective land property in Peru attempts to broaden the debate on access to natural resources in the Amazon beyond courts and demonstrations. The basic idea was to nuance mainstream public opinion that currently thinks individual land titles are the single solution to land disputes in the Amazon.

In a modern state, collective titles may seem outdated (and Peru is home to one of the greatest proponents of individual title, Hernando De Soto). The campaign sought to overcome the stigma against collective property, arguing that territories are more than property and make a great deal of sense for indigenous communities.

While many urban dwellers are from the indigenous countryside, their memory is short and they are often detached from their indigenous roots except on festival days. The campaign sought to raise awareness and was conducted by a platform of grassroots organizations and NGOs, including AIDESEP, DAR, IBC and Oxfam Peru.20 The Salwan Journalism Prize (more below) was an important part of the campaign’s media strategy.

Impacts were seen in both awareness raising and advocacy, the first measured in press attention and the second in contacts with relevant public offices. The campaign had a comprehensive list of influential supporters. The direct work with high-level managers in government agencies was hugely successful, including with SUNARP, Congress, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Culture and the Ombudsman for Public Services and Indigenous Peoples. The IP program was a funder and advisor to Secure Communities.

“OA signified not only financial support to the campaign but active participation within the collective. Santiago and Giovanna Vasquez significantly contributed ideas, proposals and contacts. At the same time, OA’s communications department helped disseminate information about all the campaigns activities.”21 Through Secure Communities, good potential exists for greater alignment and collaboration with OA’s GROW campaign. The global GROW campaign22 focuses on the right to food for all persons and echoes the message of the Secure Communities campaign23 that secure land title is a precondition for food security and that collective territory is critical to IPs’ food security. Land-grabbing is another issue of overlapping interest, increasingly common in the Andes and a huge threat to rights to food. SAMRO partner, Paz y Esperanza, conducted a study of land-grabbing in the region which may point to areas in which the IP program could participate more actively 18

This also captured changed relationships between Amazonian actors, e.g. indigenous communities and “ribereño” communities of mestizo settlers who moved beyond historic tensions and formed new alliances against a perceived common threat, i.e. the entrance of large-scale biofuel and timber companies.

19 This was not a SAMRO project but rather funded by the Avina Foundation 20 Oxfam Peru is the alliance of Oxfam America, Intermon Oxfam, and Oxfam Quebec under a Single Management System (SMS) to improve coordination of Oxfam affiliates at the national level. Both the IP program and GROW campaign teams represented Oxfam Peru on the steering committee of The Secure Communities campaign.

21 IBC report to Oxfam America, 2012.

22 http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/what-is-grow 23 http://www.comunidadesdelperu.org/

17

in the GROW campaign. Although cutbacks at SAMRO in recent years, has led to a diminished focus on livelihoods and small-scale agriculture, there remain ripe opportunities to effectively integrate key issues for the IP program in GROW .

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation The work on climate change had both a mitigation and adaptation focus. At the beginning strengthening capacities was critical and OA supported indigenous women inside AIDESEP and CONACAMI to understand the technical aspects of climate change. Related to mitigation issues, the program worked with AIDESEP to advance advocacy around Indigenous REDD+24, in coordination with COICA, as an alternative to the mainstream REDD+ program.

“AIDESEP conducted an intense struggle and advocacy on forest issues and REDD+. We made important advances in territorial and collective rights of indigenous peoples.” Daysi Zapata and Roberto Espinoza, AIDESEP Report.

OA supported the NGO, DAR, which specializes in indigenous rights and environmental issues, to provide technical advice to AIDESEP on the various REDD processes, deepen its relationship with the Ministry of the Environment and enhance its participation in international forums. At the beginning of 2011, MINAM (Ministry of Environment) and AIDESEP reached agreements regarding the conditions needed for REDD. AIDESEP also conducted a mapping of private sector initiatives related to climate change mitigation, forest management, reforestation, and carbon credit markets, which local indigenous federations considered as having critical implications for native Amazonian communities in Peru. The initial inventory identified 50 cases of carbon pirating, which were subsequently analyzed and re-categorized, into ten cases. AIDESEP is currently in the process of documenting these ten cases, to be followed by specific advocacy strategies for each.

To address issues of adaptation side, the program also focused on women as they were identified as experiencing a heavier burden from climate change and are key to implementing adaptation plans. The IP program focused on both Andean and Amazonian regions. In the Amazon, SAMRO worked with partners in Lamas to develop local pilots of traditional crops to test whether these would be more resilient to climate change than more prominent cash crops. The women collected species, recovered seeds and reproduced varieties to distribute. Women exhibited harvests of traditional crops at regional fairs. Scientific confirmation as to whether these crops are in fact more climate adaptive than other crops is still pending. In the Andean region with funding from Janet McKinley, the Q´emikuspa project was implemented by two organizations to complement with two important components: community-level work and research. This project worked with 22 communities in the southern Andes of Peru, in Cusco region, at altitudes of 3,500m and 5,000m. At this altitude the only livelihood activities possible are raising livestock and alpaca, supplemented with small scale agriculture for household consumption.

24

The Indigenous REDD+ proposal is based on a holistic view of ecosystem services in forests and indigenous territories. It proposes the prioritization of public financing and the avoidance or blocking of non-regulated or voluntary markets for carbon credits. There are two basic elements in Indigenous REDD: issuance of land ownership titles, and consultation or free, prior and informed consent. The indigenous federations composing COICA demand that ownership titles for their territory be issued prior to implementing any REDD mechanism. They also request that they be consulted in accordance with ILO’s Convention 169 and the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples. In a side event organized by COICA, the proposal of Amazon Indigenous REDD +, an evolution of Indigenous REDD, was presented to official delegations and observers. The official COP delegations of Denmark, Finland and Norway adhered to COICA’s proposal and committed to voice it in subsequent governmental negotiations.

18

Q’emikuspa was based on previous pilot initiatives and worked with demonstrative units in 22 communities to address a variety of issues: recovery of overgrazed highland wetlands; sowing and silage of frost-resilient varieties of fodder barley and oats; reconstruction of ancient canals that reduce percolation losses of ever scarcer irrigation water; a sprinkler irrigation system; early warning systems that help families in deciding whether to keep their livestock close to the homestead or, rather, to herd them to remote pasturelands; and Trombe25 walls to keep inside house temperatures above 9°C, protecting families from respiratory diseases.

Demonstrative units were run by community members selected in assembly, supported by labour from other community members. Civil defense committees were established at the community level to support prevention and response actions, and coordinate with existing civil defense committees at regional, provincial and district levels. Moreover the project established formal agreements with local authorities at the Provincial and District Level and technical and education institutions (e.g. Meteorology, Agriculture and Education) as well as supporting students to organize brigades on climate change and emergency simulation exercises. The project specifically focused on improving women’s position in their households and communities through exclusive training programs on animal health, forage conservation and proper management of water resources; workshops on self-esteem and leadership, conflict management and women’s rights; and strengthening women´s organizations to increase capacity to present quality development proposals within the participatory budgeting process of municipal governments.

The advocacy component of the project focused on generating awareness amongst public officials and the public of the disproportionate burden of climate change on indigenous and extremely poor communities. Due to the increasing impacts of climate variability in the area, research is ongoing to explore the feasibility of replicating the pilot experience in a wider geographical area. Research areas included cost-benefit analysis of adaptation technologies; identification of climate related vulnerability for Andean communities; and construction of climate change scenarios to identify guidelines for communities, NGOs and policy makers on adaptation technologies.

Salwan Journalism Prize The Salwan Award to Journalistic Reporting on Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon Region, organized by Oxfam America’s partner, IBC, was created to recognize the work of journalists that contribute to increasing the visibility of conditions of indigenous peoples in the Amazon and strengthen journalist interest and knowledge on the issues and problems of the Amazon region and its indigenous residents. The Award has now run for two consecutive years (2011 and 2012).

Both years, 25 journalist reports were considered in competition, covering different problems such as the impact of illegal mining on the Indigenous Peoples of Madre de Dios, a road project in Alto Purus, the Maijunas fight to recover their lineage, and the situation of the Ashaninkas in Tambo River. In 2012 the contest was mentioned 15 times in radio programs, newspapers, television, and web pages, including interviews with Oxfam staff on prime time television.

“I believe that the Salwan Award plays an important role by encouraging us, journalists, to continue promoting topics that are usually not in the agenda, let us call it the standard agenda of the media. It focuses on the work of those journalists who may even have to do internal advocacy with their editors and chiefs, who are not 25

A Trombe wall is a sun-facing wall developed by the French engineer Félix Trombe in1956. It is built from material that can act as a thermal mass (such as stone, metal, concrete, adobe, or water tanks), combined with an air space, insulated glazing, and vents to form a large solar thermal collector.

19

necessarily interested in reporting on those issues, that is, who do not have an inclusive point of view regarding the minorities who do not appear in the mass media, nor consume the mass media. In addition, the Award is playing a role in the dissemination of information on climate change and the way in which it affects indigenous peoples… Part of the potential of the Award lies in making journalists advocate for the fact that in the everyday life, everything influences the planet and its survival.” Patricia Del Río, opinion leader in Peru, columnist, and host of radio and TV journalistic programs.

Ecuador Priority work areas:  Territorial Reconstitution, Titling and Defense  Implementation of Plurinational State

Territorial Reconstitution, Titling and Defense Working with Centro Lianas in the Amazon, OA supported titling of the Shuar, Shiwiar and Achuar lands.

Originally, the strategy had been to title small extensions of land at the community level; the goal here was to title entire nations with many communities renouncing smaller titles to form one encompassing one. Titling is the first step in the process, with the objective of obtaining legal recognition over to the property of the ancestral territories of indigenous nationalities and peoples. This is followed by a process of self-definition and exercise of self-determination to define the steps for territorial reconstitution and defense. The final step is consolidation and strengthening of representative organizations and governing councils. The outstanding accomplishment was titling 98% of the territory belonging to 72 Achuar communities in the Pastaza and Morona Santiago provinces26. Across the Shuar, Achuar and Shiwiar nationalities over 98,000 ha were titled with support from Oxfam America. This was an example of establishing collective rights in practice.

The work that unfolded around the titling, according to the Centro Lianas, had the extra benefit strengthening indigenous organizations from the center-south Amazon to gain expertise over concepts nationality, governance and self-determination.27 This work also brought into public view the plight communities, not only indigenous, living on or near areas of extractive activity whose fundamental rights water and territory are threatened.

of of of to

Supporting territorial reconstitution in a complementary way was the research, documentation and monitoring work of CDES’ Collective Rights Observatory. The Observatory sought to inform the public about risks and threats occurring to collective rights. Oxfam America worked with CDES to develop the Observatory.

“The Observatory has had a good following. There are about 30,000 visits a month. Currently, we're working so the tool is more user-friendly and so the information gets out to different media, not just from the web site but through social media. This is an area in which CDES hadn't worked before.” Evaluator’s interview with CDES

Plurinationality and Interculturality Historically, the principal struggle of the Ecuadoran indigenous movement was to gain recognition of a 26 27

Centro Lianas is also funded by Fundación Pachamama, Ecociencia and Selva Tropical.

Interview with Bolívar Beltrán, Centro Lianas.

20

plurinational28 state, one, which acknowledged the multitude of nations within the country. OA’s historical support for academics and grassroots organizations, over decades, opened spaces of reflection, debate, training, and exchange on plurinationalism within Ecuador’s indigenous organizations and with other indigenous movements. This was partially accomplished through the reform of the Ecuadoran constitution in 2008.

Based on that successful constitutional reform work, the goal for this period was to put into practice the concept of plurinationality, to set it concretely and specifically in public policies and laws. OA supported indigenous organizations´ debate and discussions with the government on how key issues should be addressed within a plurinational state and craft alternative proposals for laws to implement this concept with respect to water, food sovereignty and mining and the concept of indigenous nations.

It was not an easy period in which to advance and the majority of the proposals did not manage to gather momentum and influence government officials who took rigid positions, meaning advocacy efforts did not have the desired impact. The only semi-successful case was related to water where a counter proposal developed by ECUARUNARI with Oxfam support blocked approval of the government´s original proposal, which had been opposed by Indigenous groups.

“The issue of the water law motivates us and we've turned to the National Assembly, the Executive, ministries and other spaces. In spite of this, they didn't approve our law, although neither did they pass the law that they wanted, which would concentrate and monopolize (power). That hasn't passed.” Delfín Tenasaca, President ECUARUNARI Given the closed political spaces, ECUARUNARI later sought relationships with new allies, some of whom came together for the massive march, “For Water, Life and Dignity,” that took place in March, 2012. The march was an important opportunity to make public indigenous concerns about the impacts of extractive activities on water resources and forge new alliances for example, between urban youth and other sectors. This support from other sectors validated the importance of the indigenous proposal for a water law and demonstrates its relevance for broader sectors of civil society.“We've established new alliances with diverse social sectors such as students, women, workers, “mestizos” and teachers and others in defense of nature. It's interesting that as a product of these dialogues, FETRALPI (Federation of Workers of Pichicha) has incorporated the idea of Sumak Kawsay (living well) and demands for interculturality in their new statutes.” 29

Work on Regional Targets with Regional Partners Priority work areas:  Create alliances between COICA and CAOI at both the national and supranational level  Support CAOI and COICA to gain accreditation to participate in formal UN spaces  Train Indigenous experts on international diplomatic mechanisms  Support construction of an indigenous position on Climate Change and participation at relevant international events  Create a regional space for women to develop and discuss their own agenda

28

“Plurinationality permits the equality and access to rights as much for indigenous peoples as “modern subjects”. It's considered an indigenous concern but it's really a national issue,” Mónica Chuji, CDES 29 Narrative Final Report of the Conferederation of the Peoples of Kchwa Nationality of Ecuador – ECUARUNARI, September 2011.

21

Indigenous diplomacy is a new area of work for OA although it is built on accumulated experience in national advocacy and the lengthy process leading to the UN’s adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous diplomacy emerged as a strategy as advocacy opportunities opened up, especially in the UN, on urgent issues such as climate change and biodiversity. From 2010 – 2012, OA extended support to indigenous organizations to encourage their advocacy in official international channels. Oxfam supported regional indigenous organizations to gain consultative status to participate in emerging diplomatic spaces. CAOI received advice to complete the registration process, while COICA, with active support from Oxfam-funded indigenous diplomat Carlos Mamani, was able to fulfill the requisites and provide the necessary paperwork and reports to achieve full participation.

Indigenous diplomacy in international spaces also became necessary as the indigenous movement experienced difficulties in advancing at the national level; recalcitrant governments became increasingly closed to indigenous positions and indigenous activism was repeatedly criminalized. It became strategic to generate pressure from international bodies towards the national governments to open up political space for indigenous rights. For example, in the TIPNIS case, indigenous organizations won UN recommendations to the Bolivian government to respect the integrity of TIPNIS. In Peru, the indigenous movement advocated with the World Bank on the Camisea gas concession to oblige the government to respect environmental and human rights standards. International avenues were also employed by Peruvian activists to force a thorough investigation the Bagua massacre.

Positive results are clearly demonstrated in: 1) numbers of trained indigenous “diplomats”; 2) reaching consensus on national and international indigenous proposals; 3) active indigenous advocacy at international events; and, 4) press coverage. The organizational base for this work was through the regional partners COICA (Amazon) and CAOI (Andes). A key support has been OA partner, CEADESC, which conducted action research and accompanied regional organizations in advocating within UN system to present demands and follow up.

This work included capacity strengthening in developing a global strategy and improved institutional management, including project management, good governance practices, and leadership development and renewal.

Indigenous organizations advocated in national and international arenas on issues of climate change and in particular regarding FPIC in numerous international forums such as the 9th session of the UN Permanent Forum, the Second Latin American Indigenous Forum on Climate Change, Rights and Resources Initiative Dialogue on Forests, the third session of the Mechanism of Experts (Geneva), World Bank Workshop 3, Rio +20, and others. These actions raised the visibility of the problems that indigenous people face and their proposed solutions. It's too early to say what impact indigenous diplomacy has had, for example on climate talks; however, OA partners’ positions and proposals have received excellent press coverage and have had resonance with some national governments30.

“In CAOI, we'd already learned about going to these international forums prepared with proposals. It doesn't make sense if you just go unprepared on the day of the conference. That would just be tourism.” Luis Vittor, Coordinator CAOI It has become clear, however, that involvement in these complex international processes requires specialized knowledge and the ability to debate the issues inside indigenous organizations and at the international forums.

There are few indigenous professionals with these skills and so organizations are often obliged to contract out to develop proposals and access funds from the state and international organizations. Support from the IP program has gone towards building in-house capacities and facilitating discussion among indigenous 30

Interview with Frank Boeren

22

organizations for joint proposals. A major outcome is the forging of a joint proposal on Indigenous REDD +, as commented earlier in the Peru section. There are still huge challenges.

“We train leaders in different topics but we don't have specialized leaders with full dominion on specific matters.

That's important for advocacy or to prepare proposals. It requires preparation.” Carlos Mamani, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Affairs “Well, there are some sectors that say to get into REDD+ is to lose your lands. In other words, there is a message from the NGOs that is a little confusing. Some peoples say yes, others no to REDD. What COICA has proposed is a third way; that people are more informed. That's why COICA is developing Indigenous REDD+, which is closer to our cultural reality.” Juan Reátegui, Technical Coordinator for COICA. Advocacy opportunities also exist around governments’ obligations to report compliance with ILO 169; civil society organizations can file independent reports. With support from Paz y Esperanza and DAR, civil society groups in Peru filed alternative reports between 2006 and 2011. In its infancy this process was supported solely

by Oxfam but over the years support has grown to include other NGOs31.

Importantly, indigenous diplomacy included women, for example in Rio+20 where two women leaders from CAOI presented a proposal on Food Security. Women´s groups also created the National Agenda of the Andean and Amazonian Women, the publication and dissemination of which advanced women's advocacy. With OXFAM AMERICA support, women from national partner organizations participated in international forums such as the Continental Summit of Andean and Amazonian Women and the Fourth Continental Summit of Indigenous Peoples. These were venues in which mechanisms to increase women’s political participation was discussed.

Key to this work has been affirmative action steps for women, helping to increase their skill level, their independent agendas and their position in international debates. Affirmative action has helped to close the gap between the training of men and women leaders. One specific action has been exchanges with women leaders from Argentina and Ecuador to gain knowledge and dialogue skills.

“The most important lessons we learned is how women's capacities can develop. For example, I'm from a community. I couldn't express myself in public and now with this exchange, these apprenticeships and training, I can respond to what they ask me. I know things from other women, so I say to myself, I also want to be like that.

So one creates expectations and others have expectations of us about how to become stronger.” Magdalena Aysabucha, Coordinadora de Secretaria Mujer – ECUARUNARI Interviewees especially valued the following indigenous diplomacy training processes:  The role as representatives of Indigenous Peopless and effectiveness of international advocacy strategies  Negotiation skills and content on climate change for Rio +20 and COPs The training and technical assistance in advocacy led to important accomplishments:  Coordination of proposals (among organizations) on climate change and el Buen Vivir.  Advocacy for the implementation of indigenous rights laws  Presentation of proposals in international forums like Rio +20 and the UN  Strengthening the Judicial Observatory of Indigenous Rights and Indigenous Diplomacy  Creating an indigenous women’s coordination body for a stronger decision-making role.

31

As well as Paz y Esperanza and Oxfam, the most recent report was also supported by CAAAP, Coordinador Nacional de Derechos Humanos, DAR, IBC, and Servindi.

23

These advocacy advances have generally been closely related to the strengthened capacities of indigenous organizations in formulating proposals and negotiating with government actors. Organizational strengthening was particularly useful to COICA whose presence had diminished regionally. For CAOI, the work has encouraged a young organization to be more active in regional spaces. These strengthened organizations have coordinated actions and better positioned indigenous rights in the UN and regionally in the Andean Community (CAN).

Challenges remain. The training strategy has prioritized training regional level leaders. That has been positive and contributed to consolidating organizations. However, this focus didn't resolve transferring learning to the national level and local levels. Not supporting the closer collaboration of leaders with their grassroots base could end up being a weakness. In addition, because the number of leaders trained has been relatively few, there is a risk of leadership attrition, given the high turnover and rotation of roles in indigenous organizations.

This issue is particularly pertinent regarding youth who have not been sufficiently involved in these activities.

Luis Vittor, Coordinador of CAOI, said, “With youth, we're way behind, because we don't even have a program.”

“The Amazonian agenda is giant and there are no areas in which we have to strengthen ourselves more. It's important to work on youth issues, on gender, on leadership renewal, with those that will come after us.” Juan Carlos Jintiach, Coordinator of International Cooperation – COICA There remain other hurdles as well:  A monitoring system to measure the results of the advocacy work is lacking, particularly to follow how trainees apply skills learned and share knowledge with other members of their organizations.  Better connecting OA’s regional advocacy work in South America to OA’s global Extractive Industries program.  States tend to be recognized as the sole representatives of their entire populations; Indigenous Peoples’ organizations may not be perceived as legitimate counterparts or interlocutors.

Looking forward, the program aims to support partners in preparing for the World Summit of Indigenous Peoples, planned for 2014. The goal will be to create joint proposals from among indigenous peoples on the first evaluation of the implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples.

VI.

Cross-cutting areas   

Alliance Building and network strengthening Gender Communications, Media and Research

Alliance Building and Network Strengthening An Oxfam America priority in South America, which undergirds its theory of change and approach to movement building, is to actively support alliance building, especially where relationships have been absent or strained.

The IP program supported stronger links between Andes and Amazon indigenous organizations at both regional and national level as well as between national indigenous organization and NGOs. The former was manifest through support to women’s collaboration between CIDOB and CONAMAQ (particularly evident from their joint advocacy in the defense of TIPNIS), between AIDESEP and CONACAMI on consultation laws in Peru and 24

regionally, between COICA and CAOI. A notable example of the latter was the platform for the national consultation law in Peru convened and financed by Oxfam and involving both NGO partners (Paz y Esperanza, CAAAP, IDL, Fedepaz, DAR, APRODEH) and indigenous organizations (CONACAMI and AIDESEP).

For many of the indigenous organizations with which OA works, its NGO partners are key allies. They share objectives, principles and commitments. These alliances are very important to ensure the viability of the IP program. OA has chosen its NGO partners well. They are NGOs with experience, knowledge of the problems facing Indigenous Peoples and that have an appreciation for their representative organizations. The work of Paz y Esperanza in San Martín is a noteworthy example that provides accompaniment and technical assistance to indigenous organizations for territorial autonomy and rights to consultation. However this is not just a bilateral relationship to provide technical support but part of a concerted effort to create a dialogue space for indigenous organizations and other civil society actors to interact with the regional government and influence local development issues.

“Allying ourselves with institutions such as Paz y Esperanza that helps us find solutions is very good for us. Most important is that we haven't become subordinate to them. Their support has helped us open our eyes to how to defend ourselves and make proposals. If someday they have to leave us, we'll remain grateful and try to continue on.” Juan de Dios Sangama, Presidente FEPIKRESAM With OA's support, NGOs, such as Centro Lianas and CDES have strengthened horizontal links to indigenous organizations in Ecuador. These relationships are generally characterized by mutual respect, with no accounts of paternalism.. Of course, coordination is not always smooth between NGOs and indigenous organizations. IBC's work on collective territories included other allied NGOs, but despite showing initial interest, it wasn’t possible to count on the active participation of AIDESEP.32 “We are disappointed with AIDESEP because at the beginning there was a commitment to the campaign but afterwards they told us that they are struggling for their ancestral territories and that collective lands were not among their priorities.” Richard Smith, Director IBC Through the IP program, coordination between the national indigenous organizations of Bolivia, Ecuador and Perú has improved, primarily occurring at international gatherings and resulting in increasingly unified messages and positions about how to defend indigenous rights. OA support was helpful to a 2012 agreement among three indigenous umbrella organizations – CAOI, COICA and CICA33. The organizations agreed that COICA act as the sole voice of the Latin American indigenous movement regarding REDD. Consequently, COICA assumed coordination of the Latin American Indigenous Forum, and participated actively in the Indigenous Caucus of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Affairs. Consolidation of this alliance is impressive because earlier attempts to unify positions among Andean, Amazonian and Central American popular movements had proven difficult. The alliance is founded on common positions regarding climate change and indigenous rights.

In these spaces Oxfam America has also participated as an actor in its own right and not just a donor to indigenous organizations and national NGOs. One example is the side event in which SAMRO staff participated alongside COICA and CAOI at the UN Permanent Council in May 2012.

32

SAMRO works in a context of intense political intricacies. For example, there has also been criticism within AIDESEP due to the third consecutive reelection of Alberto Pizango as president and the majority of the board of directors. Most of the criticism was raised when it was made public that Alberto Pizango, who had been critical of extractive industries and REDD, signed an agreement with PETROBRAS, which implies direct financing to AIDESEP in exchange for silence. This weakens the voice and unity of Peruvian Amazon organizations and have generated distrust among their allies.

33 Consejo Indigena de Centro America

25

Communications, Media and Research In this period, four research studies, two case studies, and one pilot on mitigation and adaptation to climate change were conducted in Bolivia34 and Peru. Findings from these studies support partners’ advocacy strategies and will also be used as input in global events such as the COP18. In collaboration with DAR in Peru, two documents were prepared as inputs to promote compliance by the Peruvian State with its obligations regarding ILO 169 and the REDD National Strategy. With COICA, two case studies on climate change mitigation and adaptation been conducted in Bolivia and Peru as inputs for COICA’s preparation and participation in COP 18.

Media and communications work was successful at the regional level, especially in the San Martin region where it supported the advocacy strategy on FPIC and territorial defense in Cerro Escalera and Ecoamerica. Similar positive results were found, on a smaller scale, in the districts of Coporaque, Suykutambo y Caylloma in Espinar, Cusco in making known the impacts of climate change in the altiplano and local initiatives to mitigate them.

Through the media, local and regional government authorities had more information and perspective to make decisions favorable to indigenous peoples. More importantly, indigenous peoples gained awareness and skills to interact with the media on their terms thanks to training leaders to use the media to explain and broadcast positions and proposals.

“Now we know how to deliver our messages better, give interviews, and make our proposals clear in interviews and press conferences.” Walter Sangama, FEPIKRESAM “At the beginning, we went with the (indigenous) leaders to the press and we did most of the speaking. Now they seek out (press) contacts and speak for themselves. With time, they've learned to better explain their demands and proposals. Sometimes it's no longer necessary for us to seek out (press) contacts for them.” Carlos Ching Castañeda, lawyer for Paz y Esperanza “Whenever there is some type of conflict, there is a reaction from the organizations to bring them to the attention of the media. It has been effective in the sense that the problems have been communicated at national and international levels.” Juan Auz, Fundación Pachamama Media work was also conducted at the national level, through campaigns such as “Secure Territories for the Communities of Peru”. This media work, partly due to the Salwan Journalism Prize, proved useful to make visible issues facing indigenous people. This communications work tapped collaboration with allies and experts to open public debate and facilitate dialogue with public officials.

Challenges remain. Organizations struggle to craft a media strategy at the regional and national levels that is systematic, sustained and on target with themes of territory, FPIC and climate change. There is still some way to go to present a positive imagine of indigenous people in the media. Partners are self-critical that presswork could have been more robust. On occasions, the dissemination of information was limited to close-in actors, without significant echo in the rest of society. The work has not yet led to the desired visibility of indigenous issues – a more robust strategy is needed, including use of social media, especially blogs, Twitter and Facebook now that indigenous leaders are using these tools.

34

Examples of studies undertaken by CEJIS in Bolivia: 1) “Systematization of studies on the environmental status of the Monte Verde TCO” – a synthesis of the degree of deforestation, vulnerability to forest fires and burning of fields, expansion of the agricultural frontier, biodiversity, presence of extraction industries, etc and 2) “Map of rights granted for the access to lands and use of renewable and non-renewable natural resources within the Monte Verde TCO” - useful to draft the Integrated Management Plan of the neighboring Lomerio TCO, a legal requirement to establish autonomy.

26

“We have to strengthen the area of communications. It's hugely important. It doesn't do anything to have so much information if we keep it in a drawer. The information has to circulate.“ Juan Reátegui, Technical Coordinator COICA.

Gender At the end of the 80's, Dick Smith said, “Within communities and families, indigenous women suffer a profound marginalization, directly affected by negative changes in communities and the deterioration of social and economic conditions.... (they) suffer triple oppression, as workers, as women and as indigenous people.35” In 2004, Oxfam documents reaffirmed that indigenous and rural people, particularly indigenous women, “experience the highest levels of economic, political, social and cultural exclusion.” (Strategic Plan 2004) The IP PIP (Program Implementation Plan) proposed that in three years, 1) indigenous women of the Andes would have a documented position on gender; 2) the Second Continental Summit of Indigenous Women would be organized by OA partners in South America; and, 3) women would occupy a larger number of leadership roles in their organizations. The theory of change established by the IP program set out that, “A gender focus will be crucial to assure that the voices and proposals of indigenous women would be gathered together to strengthen social change processes.” (OA 2010) During this period, OA’s gender work cut across most program activities. The intent was to develop more women leaders, strengthen capacities and shrink the leadership gap between men and women. There were important advances, noted throughout this evaluation. Women are more aware, prepared and fighting for spaces and quotas within their organizations and international forums. The Second Continental Summit for indigenous women has been postponed until next year but planning for the event is underway.

Despite gains, planning documents, for example, partners’ proposals, did not adequately detail how to operationalize gender specific work and OA’s own grant application documents did not necessarily offer a specific budget for gender-related activities or give specific programmatic orientations on mechanisms to foster gender equity. In general, changed power relations have not been well measured and in any case, there is some debate as to whether quantitative or qualitative measures are more appropriate: “As long as you only quantify the participation of women and men and not how power is constructed within the indigenous organizations, gender equity will remain a very general focus, without the ability to provoke real changes.” Interview with CDES In spite of these important concerns, more headway was made on gender than in previous periods and OA’s long relationships of trust were key to initiating gender work with resistant partner organizations.

Oxfam America’s relationship with its partners in South America Nationally and regionally, partners tend to perceive the IP program as a strategic ally and value OA's technical assistance and accompaniment. This goes beyond general capacity building and organizational strengthening to specifically improving project implementation and building a more representative and far-reaching leadership.

OA’s support to build alliances is also particularly valued. Partners cite help in establishing relationships with 35

OXFAM AMERICA. Indigenous People and Interculturality Program. Review of Impact and Learning. History of Theory of Change 19842010.

27

regional and central government offices, particularly when governments are reluctant to recognize indigenous rights. Likewise, they feel that OA offers them opportunities to disseminate proposals and position themselves internationally, including with international journalists.

“Oxfam [America] accepts our proposals, our demands. Our concerns are welcomed and OA follows up. It's true accompaniment.... They haven't left us out on our own, rather there have been constant visits - that's important so that we do what we said we were going to do.” Delfín Tenasaca, President ECUARUNARI Partners consider that OA has maintained a fluid communication with them, especially through Igidio Naveda and Santiago Alfaro. An important element in this communication is OA’s ability to listen; partners express that they feel supported. Oxfam America is one of the few institutions that are fully trusted by indigenous organizations – a result of decades of partnering and solidarity. This shows up particularly in OA’s strategic support to forging Amazon-Andes collaborations and to gaining agreement from indigenous organizations to work on gender issues, something which few funders have been able to do.

“Oxfam [America] is an almost unconditional ally in this process. It's true that their contribution is sometimes small, but it's an ally that has given support in key foundational moments. It has strengthened some new areas that later translate into mature processes.” Luis Vittor, Coordinator CAOI The indigenous partner organizations expressed that OA sponsored projects respond to their agenda and interests – they feel no donor imposition. In this sense, OA is an ally to a process whose rhythm and contents are in the hands of the social actors that it supports. One partner described OA support to the indigenous movement as particularly important because it “generates discussion, links us to international debates. OA was a pioneer in political formation, exchange of leaders between Ecuador and Bolivia...OA doesn't back away from supporting organizational structure.”

In the midst of the many challenges that the indigenous movement faces – climate change impacts, accelerating extractive activities and criminalization of indigenous rights activists - the IP program´s support helps formulate proposals, pursue alliances, restructure organizations, train leaders, and communicate to the world the situation and aspirations of the indigenous peoples.

While partners expressed concern about diminishing amounts of financial support, especially for organizational strengthening, and wished for closer program accompaniment by Oxfam staff, they made the following positive observations about OA:  Strong political commitment with indigenous people and their organizations. “The agencies and embassies are scared, but Oxfam no.”  There has been a resurgence over the past decades of the indigenous movement through the formation of CAOI and the strengthening of CONAMAQ, especially the reconstitution of the Ayllus – initiatives which Oxfam America strongly supported.  Oxfam America's work has generated a dialogue space among indigenous activists, leaders, and intellectuals.  Oxfam America demands compliance with their projects, including accountability in the administration of financial resources.  OA is transparent in its own management of resources.

“The relationship with Oxfam [America] is definitely different than relationships with other donors. With other donors, we don't even know them and the only thing that interests them is the reports and nothing more….

With Oxfam [America], the relationship is more daily and we know that for any needs, we can seek out Oxfam [America]. Maybe they don't have the budget to help but they recommend where we can look. Or they propose, 'we're interested in this idea. Let's see where we might look for funding together.' One of the less tangible 28

contributions of OA is that it doesn't support isolated projects, rather how they work together.... In fact, the organizing principle for our work now is the Collective Rights Observatory (for which OA was the first funder).�36 There were also suggestions from informants as to how to improve OA’s support. Partners don't necessarily understand OA's monitoring system to measure advances and impacts. They express difficulty with the reports, not understanding how to fill them out - some questions are too complicated and others repetitive. They weren’t sure how much of their work could be attributable to the IP program because other funding organizations were also contributing to the work. And finally, some projects of short- and medium-term duration and which received relatively small grants, treat complex and broad ranging themes, making their fulfillment and measurement difficult. It was suggested to narrow some projects' focus, seek more tangible results and provide more guidance to indigenous partners as to how to better comply with reporting requirements.

The rapport between OA and its partners is a two-way flow and there are also reflections from the IP program team regarding these relationships. All of the indigenous organizations face some degree of internal weakness and accountability and representation are on-going challenges. The high degree of rotation among leaders creates difficulties in building capacity and consolidating technical and advocacy experience. It is usually the case that two or three members of the partner organization's governing body will participate actively in training or advocacy activities but there is simply not the ability to engage the organizations' wider membership or influence the overall internal and political agendas. This is a critique which is valid to the IP program itself but provides an important point of reflection for the indigenous movement as a whole as it attempts to address the diverse development needs of its members but often fall short as leaders are simply unable to attend to so many issues simultaneously. The IP program has taken a significant step away from supporting organizational strengthening in the period of the PSP evaluation and while accompaniment still involves guidance and mentorship to develop the institutional framework of these organizations, there were limited opportunities to fund activities to address these weaknesses.

Limitations of actor and power analysis More robust strategies are needed to effect change in the new social and political context in the region. The indigenous movement has for decades operated in opposition to the government and has not been able to revise and refresh its strategies now that many of the rights they have demanded for so long are recognized by the constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia or an improved legal framework in Peru. The indigenous movement has failed to define its new political position faced with apparently progressive, but in reality increasingly aggressive governments in order to find its way forward. The governments of Bolivia and Ecuador have coopted many of the key messages of the indigenous movement as its own, with many technical advisors and academics sympathetic to the indigenous cause now working within government leaving the indigenous movement an intellectual orphan at a time when it is desperately in need of innovative and strategic thinking and support.

Paternalist policies such as social bonds in Ecuador and Bolivia are extremely effective at reaching the most remote corners of the nation and are undermining incentives to protest for structural change and access to political spaces37. Divisions in the indigenous movement are increasingly apparent, the most extreme case is the state intervention to divide and delegitimize CIDOB by creating a parallel directorate and forcibly removing leaders from their posts and offices.

36 Interview with CDES. 37

Or even as is the case of the indigenous fund from hydrocarbon revenues in Bolivia come with an implicit gagging order against any acts of civil disobedience which is punished by immediate loss of eligibility for the fund.

29

The private sector is now a significant player and neither the IP program nor the indigenous movement has been sufficiently adept to develop a cohesive and comprehensive strategy to respond to the complexity of private sector incursions on indigenous territories. Much work has been done in San Martin to identify business interests that threaten indigenous territories but a much more nuanced analysis and focus on negotiation skills are essential for indigenous organizations to engage with the private sector, as demonstrated by the agreement signed between AIDESEP and PetroBras in 2012. As the indigenous movement has grown in strength and awareness of its rights, so private sector interests have learned how to negotiate around collective rights, often using family or community level compensation negotiations to undermine collective positions and further increase tensions and divisions within organizations.

Additional Program Challenges There were a number of additional issues that surfaced in the evaluation that underscore ongoing challenges for OA in South America in three areas: program planning, program execution and integration with Oxfam America organization-wide.

Program Planning A series of challenges were identified in OA’s program planning and monitoring. For example, the program's strategic directions and transversal foci were quite broad, without programmatic detail. More specific lines of action and sub-strategies would have made partners' programs easier to monitor and produced clearer progress reports on outcomes. Weaknesses in defining more specific nearer and intermediate term indicators at the outset – and more importantly adjusting them as political conditions and partner organizations' strengths and weaknesses evolved – meant that the program was difficult to monitor. That also meant that it was challenging to determine a cause-effect relationship between OA's support and the advances of the indigenous movement.

In any case, it is necessary to identify mechanisms to adjust target outcomes to reflect diminishing grant amounts, which according to interviews, has generally trended downwards38. Program ambitions were high at the time of developing the PSP due to a grant from the MacArthur foundation but no further restricted funding sources were accessed during this evaluation period. The increasing dependence on reducing restricted funds led to smaller grants which logically had implications for what might be accomplished, but these changes were not registered in adjusted outcomes and indicators. The same interviewees were concerned that reductions in support were occurring at a moment of tension and opportunity when they seek OA’s support more than ever.

That is, there has been some weakening of CONAIE, ECUARUNARI and CONFENIAE in Ecuador, as well as CIDOB in Bolivia due at least in part to political cooptation to undercut opposition to State-led projects that threaten indigenous territories.

In the case of the IP program, the rapid evolution of social and political changes in the region, original objectives and indicators listed in partner grant proposals to OA, and three-year benchmark objectives for 2012 listed by the South America Office for the program, all became less relevant. This made it more difficult for evaluators to gauge progress against intended results. In the case of movement support that involves highly political issues of territorial governance, OA may need to rethink evaluation and contribution analysis.

Concrete examples from the IP PSP are the focus on autonomous forms of indigenous governance which was identified as a key strategic focus in 2010. By 2012, however, it was apparent that the prerequisite institutional

38 Interview with CDES

30

mechanisms and government goodwill to support these processes were not in place. Similarly climate change which was a peripheral thematic area in 2010 gained increasing prominence in program thinking by 2012 but was never clearly updated within the three-year Program Implementation Plan (PIP), creating some confusion amongst evaluation consultants, particularly the Bolivian team who focused on evaluating adherence to the overarching ten-year PSP document rather than the activities of the program on the ground (i.e., the PIP).

Program Execution Interviewees asked whether OA could have been more agile in responding to shifting political sands. For example, the Ecuadoran government has not only played down the impacts of extractive activities but stigmatizes and persecutes those opposing the government's extractive strategy. In the absence of openness to indigenous participation and the kind of collective governance model supported by the IP program, it has not always been possible to advance stakeholder dialogues between the indigenous movement and the government. The IP program could have made adjustments to its objectives and strategies to accommodate these hardened positions. Note however that this is only one point of view; other informants expressed the opposite view – that OA is a particularly adaptive funder.

Leaders interviewed were concerned about the financial sustainability of their organizations. Indigenous leaders of course hope that NGOs and allies will continue to support them, but see contributions diminishing.

OA funds alone are insufficient and increasingly limited. The organizations lamented that they don't have the skills to access national and international funding for their initiatives. The question of next steps for the indigenous movement was a constant theme across the evaluation validation workshops in all three countries.

Aware that the golden age of aid agencies is in the past, indigenous organizations are increasingly concerned with identifying their own mechanisms for financial solvency and after many years of legal battles to gain title to their lands are questioning how they can generate an income from sustainable use of the natural resources in their territories. Strong demands for more focus on economic development and not just political projects to address the issue of financial sustainability emerged along with recognition of the need to increase legitimacy and representation at the grassroots level to breathe new life into indigenous organizations and build new dynamism from the bottom up. However, given the dramatic reduction in availability of donor funding for the indigenous movement it is not clear how viable such strategies are and how they could be funded. Traditional allies of Oxfam America such as IBIS or Danida have withdrawn support or focused their resources on other thematic priorities. New donor actors such as GIZ and SAL39 are moving into this space but many relationships of trust and learning with donor organizations built over several decades have been lost. Oxfam America is viewed by many of the indigenous leaders interviewed as a long standing ally. New funding sources are urgently needed and the reduction in aid funding to Latin America mirrors a period of sustained economic growth in the region and huge increase in levels of public funding at all levels of government. Access to these funds is not necessarily straightforward (as in the example of the indigenous fund in Bolivia) but the IP program could have done more to support indigenous organizations to analyze the pros, cons and requirements of these emerging opportunities.

Not all of the reduction in OA’s support is due to budget limitations. Some of it is in response to partners' failures to comply with administrative requirements and another portion is simply weaning partners away from decades-long support40. DelfínTenesaca, president of ECUANARI is self-critical, aware of the difficulties his organization has had in complying with commitments made to OA. At the same time, he is concerned about the organization losing political ground as it loses resources. After many years, the organization has not found 39

Swedish aid Support to Latin America Solidaridad Suecia-América Latina - SAL The UN has recently opened a new funding mechanism for indigenous organizations. Oxfam could conceivably help the UN link to its local partners.

40

31

alternative ways to cover basic expenses.

That observation begs the question of how best to withdraw support and design exit strategies. Reductions in support are understandable after more than 20 years. But exit plans with partners are generally not in place, nor is alternative financing. The case of CDES is one exception in which sustainability was directly written into the grant. “CDES could [temporarily] maintain the Observatory with its own resources, as it is an organizational priority that after a year of financing by OA (2010-2011).”41 But this would not be easy for CDES, and a smooth transition via a gradual phase-out of financial support to permit search for alternative funding mechanisms should still be a priority.

Integration with Oxfam America The complexity of the issues and the structural changes that the IP program seeks requires a lengthy time horizon. Outcomes are challenging to achieve in the short and medium term. In spite of the fact that many of the far-reaching outcomes sought by the IP program were attained during 2010-12, there seems to have been a mismatch between OA’s long term accompaniment of the indigenous movement in a solidarity model of programming, and OA management expectations for visible learning and impact coming regularly from partners. This is a perennial tension for foundations and donors that fund grassroots movements often in the midst of taxing advocacy actions and without the support staff to do sophisticated MEL reporting or even medium-term planning. Especially with indigenous actors, new kinds of MEL need to be explored that are not entirely dependent on written documents uploaded to the internet. Oxfam America staff should be documenting first hand learning with and on behalf of movements, but with enough objectivity to be critical.

Certainly, one would have hoped for maximum synergy between OA South America Office’s work with partners and OA’s global Extractive Industries program and the GROW campaign. In both instances, that work is built on the shoulders of OA’s long-standing relationships with partners in South America. Nevertheless, it was clear that there exists room for more coordinated action to elevate indigenous peoples´ voices for change and win policies in their favor.

Recommendations: 1.

Oxfam America has played a key brokering role to strong effect. Continue to deploy OA staff to play an active role in bridging and building relationships between government, NGOs, and indigenous organizations. Increase emphasis on negotiations with private sector as an increasingly prominent player in regional political and economic development

2. Program partners will need to focus their advocacy targets, messages and strategies and reduce infighting to consolidate wins. Indigenous organizations need more focused support on technical policy and legal advocacy, in order to translate a tremendous body of learning into focused recommendations.

3. Improve channels for consensus and communication within their membership to ensure transparency of decision-making processes and information flows between regional, national and sub-national organizations.

41 Interview with CDES

32

4.

Ensure that both Oxfam America and partners have operational gender strategies with detailed activities and budget. This strategy would outline specific ideas to allies and partners on overcoming the asymmetries in the participation of women in decision-making spaces both public and private.

5. Provide more support for indigenous diplomacy. The number of potential venues for indigenous diplomacy extends far beyond the number in which indigenous “diplomats” have been deployed. It is necessary to improve documentation of indigenous engagement in supra-national spaces to highlight the impacts of indigenous advocacy efforts in negotiation processes.

6. Maintain support that puts into operational practice principles of territorial management, titling, FPIC and climate change adaptation and mitigation via Indigenous REDD+.

7. Continue to provide support for complex, instructive processes around implementing territorial governance and collective land management by documenting and socializing learning, convening spaces to share experiences and supporting scaling up opportunities.

8. Increase focus on supporting indigenous organizations to generate revenue based on sustainable territorial management in the face of reduced funding from international aid agencies to support, practical, feasible and innovative solutions to the increasing threats to their territorial hegemony.

VII.

Conclusions

OA’s South America Office was lauded in each country evaluation for steadfast and occasionally tough accompaniment. OA staff - many named specifically in the evaluations – offered timely and consistent support to partners. Projects were designed around partners' perceived needs, although at times OA was also entrepreneurial and nudged partners in new directions. Most critically, OA continued to support leadership development, skill building, democratization of organizations, and alliance-building. This attention to fortifying the foundations of the South American indigenous movement while creating key skill sets, such as the technicalities of territorial management, was key to reaping gains during this three year period. The IP program demonstrates the power and effectiveness of a long time horizon and close working relationships between foundation staff and grantees, based on political sophistication and hard-won trust.

Good innovation and agility was demonstrated during this period in SAMRO’s decision to work more intensively at the sub-national level. With constitutional reforms and important national legislation won in recent years, it was a strategic time to put “teeth” into these broad policies by pushing for their implementation at the regional level. This shift demonstrated smart strategic thinking, purposefully refocusing new strategies to build on past accomplishments. An example of this was SAMRO digging in and getting hands dirty in the practical and pain-staking support to legalize indigenous autonomies in Lomerío and Monteverde, Bolivia. This work is a major contribution to taking broad concepts like autonomy and operationalizing the details, to give meaning to the new constitution. Similarly, significant land titling advances in the Ecuadoran Amazon are crucial in grounding plurinationalism in practice.

There were weaknesses in SAMRO's work with partners as well. Some of SAMRO's support was directed towards strengthening capacities without clear measures for progress that could have been discussed and assessed with organizations themselves. As political, organizational and budgetary conditions changed, new desired outcomes and indicators should have been crafted and applied.

33

There have been important synergies between OA’s South America Office and OA's global Extractive Industries (EI) program. The EI program, for example, brought indigenous leaders working with OA in South America to World Bank deliberations on indigenous policy. According to Keith Slack, Global EI Program Manager for OA, the extractive industries program has its roots in the South America indigenous rights program. In the successful advocacy campaign for prior and informed consent legislation in Peru42, both IP and the Extractive Industries program supported indigenous counterparts in their public education and advocacy work, making Oxfam America the main supporter of advocacy for this law in Peru. As OA’s extractive industries work picks up in coming years to engage in global debates about climate change, corporate responsibility and consent of impacted communities, more intentional planning between OA programs will result in even greater impact.

The gender work received mixed reviews. It is an uphill battle, to say the least, to reverse long-standing marginalization of indigenous women, including within their own organizations. But OA was able to make inroads to encourage gender work in recalcitrant organizations. Many women received leadership training and some became effective indigenous “diplomats”. Some mixed organizations previously opposed to women’s independent organizing softened and allowed it. Aspects of OA’s approach to this work were very innovative.

Recognizing the unlikelihood of isolated pockets of women achieving change in their dispersed organizations and communities, OA worked with partners on a strategy to build a powerful and visible support for all indigenous women. This included the first Summit of Indigenous Women of Abya Yala. It remains to be seen how this regional initiative might spur needed change at the local level. Partners and observers requested more clarity about how OA plans to achieve its gender goals in South America.

OA experimented with the balance of investment among local, regional, national and international efforts –an almost universal quandary for social justice funders. Measuring impacts between interventions at different levels is highly complicated to assess with precision, for example, whether indigenous diplomacy in UN agencies supports a more conducive policy environment for women's leadership in local natural resource management. Concerns were expressed in the evaluations that the national and international work was at times too far removed from the local work. Leaders trained in national and international advocacy did not necessarily bring those lessons home to their grassroots bases. At the same time, interviewees recognized that national and international campaigns for indigenous rights “softened” the terrain, opening the way for local gains and instructive pilots. Such was the case in the FPIC regional campaign in San Martin. Although work on territorial governance and management differed in each country context, opportunities to share lessons across the region were useful to shape national and sub-national efforts.

The indigenous diplomacy work overall demonstrated promising results. Indigenous proposals, for example, on REDD+, were important in international debates. Clearly, this is a huge area of work, with myriad possibilities for intervention. OA and its partners will need to be strategic in deciding which issues and venues offer the greatest prospects for success. Indigenous diplomacy also proved to be a smart way to get around closed and repressive governments. International pressure was useful in moving national indigenous rights issues forward.

The IP's program goals were ambitious. In fact, some informant comments hinted that they were too ambitious, too difficult to monitor, achieve and tease out Oxfam’s contribution. Some criticism is certainly justified; OA should have applied more interim outcomes and indicators to track progress, and updated the implementation plan as adjustments were made. But despite shortcomings in program management, the actual programmatic results have been quite impressive. It is clear that during this period, seeds planted 20 years ago reached maturity. The investment in organizations over these decades, marked at moments by 42

The approved version included language that caused many indigenous organizations to reject it. Oxfam America's Extractive Industries program perceived it as an incremental gain with much critical work required to ensure its proper implementation. No friction was reported between Oxfam and its partners over their differing perceptions 34

setbacks, taxing relationships and failed projects, have in balance yielded extraordinary gains for the indigenous movement – and for demonstrating OA's impact as a unique type of funder.

CAOI, only established in 2006, flourished; COICA experienced a resurgence. Oxfam America very clearly nurtured an indigenous movement that drove constitutional and legal frameworks in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador and forged new international agreements that protect indigenous rights. These gains were accomplished through the support of local, national and regional actors – both representative organizations and NGOs, quite consistent with Oxfam America’s long term rights based approach43. These observations are in no way to understate the volume of work that remains to be done for true plurinaltionalism and territorial autonomy to take root; informants were unanimous that effective support remains vital at this time.

43

Per Oxfam’s document ROPE – Rights Oriented Programming for Effectiveness 35

VIII.

Bibliography

Fundación Tierra. Report to SAMRO. July, 2012.

IBC. Final Report to SAMRO. October 2012.

Melo, Mario and Martha Moncada. Ecuador Evaluation. March 2013.

Oxfam America. “From Process to Change: Oxfam America’s Advocacy in the Bolivian Indigenous Movement,” Oxfam America, 2011.

Oxfam America. “We Can't Ignore Who We Are,” Oxfam Exchange, Spring 2012. Oxfam America, 2012.

Oxfam America. MacArthur Proposal Submission to Proposal Submission to Conservation and Sustainable Development, April 9, 2010.

Oxfam America. MacArthur Year Two Report. September 30, 2012.

Quispe, Maria Eugenia Choque. Bolivia Evaluation. March 2013.

Vega, Ismael, Gabriela Mejía and Leslie Villapolo. Peru Evaluation, March 2013.

Vega, Ismael, Gabriela Mejía and Leslie Villapolo. Regional SAM Evaluation. March 2013.

Interviews: Santiago Alfaro, IP Program Officer Frank Boeren, Oxfam Peru, Country Director Louise Clark, MEL Coordinator, SAMRO Igidio Naveda, IP Program Director Keith Slack, Senior Policy Advisor, Oxfam America

36

IX.

Glossary

AIDESEP:

The Interethnic Association of Development of the Peruvian Jungle (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana)

CAJ:

Andean Commission of Lawyers (Comisión Andina de Juristas)

CAF:

Andean Corporation for Development (Corporación Andina de Fomento)

CAOI:

Andean Coordinating Body for Indigenous Organizations (Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones indígenas (Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, Bolivia, Chile y Argentina)

CEADECS:

The Center for Applied Studies in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (El Centro de Estudios Aplicados a los Derechos Económicos Sociales y Culturales)

CEJIS:

The Center for Legal Studies and Social Investigation (El Centro de Estudios Jurídicos e Investigación Social)

COMCAMI:

The National Federation of Communities Affected by Mining (Confederación Nacional de Comunidades del Perú Afectadas por la Minería)

CONAMAQ:

National Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu)

CNAMIB:

National Federation of Indigenous Women of Bolivia (La Confederación Nacional de Mujeres Indígenas de Bolivia)

COICA:

Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (Coordinadora de las Organización Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica)

CONAP:

Federation of Amazonian Nationalities of Peru (Confederación de Nacionalidades Amazónicas del Perú)

CPE:

Political Constitution of the State (Constitución Política del Estado)

DAR:

Environmental Rights and Natural Resources (Derechos Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)

ECUARUNARI:

Federation of the Kichwa of Ecuador (Confederación Kichwa del Ecuador)

FEPIKRESAM:

Federation of the Indigenous Kechwa People of the San Martin Region (Federación de Pueblos Indígenas Kechwa de la Región San Martín)

IBC:

Institute for the Common Good (Instituto del Bien Común)

IIRSA:

Regional South American Integration (Integración Regional Sudamericana)

MINAM:

Ministry of the Environment (Ministerio del Ambiente)

MINCU:

Ministry of Culture (Ministerio de Cultura) 37

ONU:

United Nations (Organización de Naciones Unidas)

ORDEPISAM:

Regional Development Organization for the Indigenous Peoples of San Martin (Organización Regional de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de San Martín)

PSP:

Program Strategy Paper

REDD+:

Reduction in Emissions by Deforestation and Degradation – Plus (Reducción de emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación-Plus)

SAMRO:

South American Regional Office of Oxfam America

TCOs:

Native Communal Lands (Tierras Comunitarias de Origen)

TIPNIS:

Indigenous Territory and National Park Isiboro Sécure (Territorio Indígena y Parque Isiboro Sécure)

38