The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has granted land rights to an indigenous people in Guatemala. The verdict could have a signal effect for all of Latin America.
The needs of states, companies and the population are often contradictory. If ideas about the use of land differ greatly, in Latin America the population is rarely right.
Things have now turned out differently in Guatemala. After a lengthy legal battle, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has granted the Q’eqchi’ people of the Izabal region of northern Guatemala rights to the land they have inhabited and cultivated since the 19th century.
Guatemala has always made money from the mine
Particularly tricky: Over the past 50 years, the land has been used one after the other by three private companies that operate a nickel mine on it. The state holds shares in the mine.
First, in 1965, a Canadian company signed a lease with the Guatemalan government to conduct open-pit mining on a 385 square kilometer site for 40 years. Farmers living there were forcibly relocated so that the mine could go into operation in 1970.
In 2011 the mine was sold to the initially Russian and later Swiss company Solway Group, which still operates it today. The lucrative deals failed to include the people living there – even though, according to the court, they enjoy an ancestral right to the land.
It’s about more than 1,300 hectares of land
The verdict now says:
The State of Guatemala is responsible for the violation of the rights to recognition of legal personality, personal integrity, access to information, property and the exercise of political rights.
Inadequacies in Guatemalan law meant that there was insufficient consultation with the indigenous population and no recognition of their collective ownership rights before mining activities began.
Now the court has granted extensive rights to around 400 people over the 1,353 hectare area. The verdict is likely to have a lasting impact on more than just the life of their community.
Court decision is binding
It will influence ongoing or future disputes among other indigenous communities across Latin America. The verdict is binding, cannot be appealed and, according to the lawyers involved, has a groundbreaking character for the entire subcontinent.
Attorney Leo Crippa of the Indian Law Resource Center in Washington represented the Q’eqchi’ at the trial in Costa Rica. For him, the decision in favor of the indigenous people represents a milestone in the recognition of their rights.
“This decision lays the foundation not only for a new, fairer legal framework for indigenous land and natural resource rights, but also for public policy towards indigenous peoples,” said the lawyer. “The International Court of Justice has, for the first time, ordered Guatemala to create a new legal framework that safeguards the collective rights of indigenous peoples as distinct legal, social and political entities within the nation-state.”
New president must act quickly
The new president of Guatemala will be inaugurated on January 14th. Bernardo Arévalo, known as an anti-corruption fighter, has already campaigned for more indigenous rights during the election campaign.
Now he has the opportunity to implement his campaign themes sooner than expected. According to the written text of the judgment, the new government has six months to “take all necessary measures to grant a new title recognizing the full collective land ownership of the municipality of Agua Caliente in Izabal and delimiting the community’s land.”
She must also ensure that third parties – such as mine owners – do not undermine the rights of indigenous people. And new laws would have to be passed that recognize indigenous peoples as such, grant them collective land ownership rights and give them the right to use the country’s natural resources.
The mine owner is still calm
The latter passage is likely to cause the biggest problems. Because it is not the mine owner who decides what happens next with the mine, but the Q’eqchi’ who do it. The court stated in this regard:
Guatemala must, within a reasonable period of time, conduct a consultation process with the community of Agua Caliente to determine whether or not the community consents to mining activities on community lands.
Solway only reacted to the verdict after a few days of delay and made it clear that it would not give up its claim without a fight. However, the mine operator seems to assess the scope of the judgment very differently than the other side. The company reports:
We will support the Guatemalan government’s efforts to hold discussions with the municipality of Agua Caliente, as required by the court ruling. Solway would also like to emphasize that the decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights does not affect the company’s right to conduct mining activities in areas outside of Agua Caliente’s community lands.
But this is only true if the Q’eqchi’ Solway allow such mining activities in the future.
Many allegations related to the mine
Given allegations of environmental pollution, displacement, bribery and even a death in connection with protests against the mine, such accommodation from the indigenous people is unlikely. Their relationship to land is characterized less by the need to exploit resources and more spiritually and by the reverence of the land as a sacred place.
Although the court clearly identified the human rights violations in its ruling, Solway wants to investigate the allegations itself and has “established a complaints mechanism to properly investigate complaints from affected stakeholders about human rights or other adverse impacts.”
Operator points to the benefits of nickel mining
Faced with looming economic losses, Solway warns of the broader benefits of his work: “An operational mine will not only be a source of stability and economic growth for the region, but also an important source of nickel for the US and European battery materials markets serve, eliminating the need to source them from Chinese and Russian mines.”
However, for indigenous lawyer Crippa, this view of things ignores the court’s intent: “No one is above the law. Both public and private actors must abide by the ruling. They should all follow the peace-loving example of the Q’eqchi’ in Izabal itself .”